> As I said previously. I think you should disclose your association with the defense/aerospace industry, and you should do that when you join a discussion. I w

> As I said previously. I think you should disclose your association with the defense/aerospace industry, and you should do that when you join a discussion. I would feel the same if you were employed in most any other industry, and commenting in a similar manner. You don't need to reveal your location or employer or anything like that; and frankly, you need to tolerate or at least expect some skepticism about your motives. Yes, I am an engineer in defense and aerospace. I haven't hidden that fact on HN (as you saw) but I didn't mention it explicitly in this thread because I didn't think it was necessarily relevant. I'm very conscious of "appeal to authority" and I don't want to make it seem as though I am saying that I must be right because of what I do for a living. And I thought I had been fairly tolerant. Edit: I should clarify "necessarily relevant with respect to the facts". I link to public sources where appropriate. Anyone can do so, no matter who they are. Strictly in this context, my affiliation doesn't matter. > The .mil may or may not [probably won't] release info that could damage the project, and they won't release full performance specs, either; under the naive notion/excuse that potential adversaries can't get that kind of information. Why make it easy for them? And yes, I'm very very aware that the F-35 is very controversial. But I see so much misinformation that sometimes I feel compelled to point out where/how the correct information can be found.