F35 cost goes up.

Chad Irby wrote:

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: You've claimed several different provenances for your numbers. The
: only explicit one was FAS.
:
: Is English your second language? Are you part of that generation that
: never actually learned how to read? Those are the only two excuses I
: can find for your preceding statement.
:
:Funny you should mention this.
:
:In what part of English is "twice" the same as "50% higher?"
:
:That's what *you* claimed to have read off of that FAS site.

Ah, my apologies. I did misread that one. Now, funny how you still
avoid any self-commentary on all YOUR misread (and, apparently,
outright made up) numbers.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Ah, my apologies. I did misread that one. Now, funny how you still
avoid any self-commentary on all YOUR misread (and, apparently,
outright made up) numbers.

Because most of what you've been calling "misread" is due to very
selective reading on your part, or a refusal to actually look at the
numbers.

What it comes down to is that you think the F-35 will miss its
performance targets by a huge amount, and that you haven't got a reason
for it other than pure paranoia.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote:

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Ah, my apologies. I did misread that one. Now, funny how you still
: avoid any self-commentary on all YOUR misread (and, apparently,
: outright made up) numbers.
:
:Because most of what you've been calling "misread" is due to very
:selective reading on your part, or a refusal to actually look at the
:numbers.

No, most of what I've been calling 'misread' is due to you not reading
what is written to you. Have you answered ANY questions put to you
with regard to your claims? Sources for your 'official' numbers?
Source for claimed 'bring back' of the F-35C? Of course not. That
would require actually being responsive rather than just flaming over
this imaginary strawman you keep attributing to me.

:What it comes down to is that you think the F-35 will miss its
erformance targets by a huge amount, and that you haven't got a reason
:for it other than pure paranoia.

No, what it comes down to is you've selected your strawman argument to
get impassioned about and are simply disregarding anything that is
said to you.

I'm sure you'll understand if I return the favour. So, which part of
LockMart marketing do you work for, by the way?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

No, most of what I've been calling 'misread' is due to you not reading
what is written to you. Have you answered ANY questions put to you
with regard to your claims? Sources for your 'official' numbers?

Your big complaint was that the F-35's numbers were estimated and would
be horribly wrong, but then you took the same source's estimates for the
F-18 as gospel. You tried to claim that the estimated range for the
F-35 was going to be massively off, with no proof other than your own
suspicions, you suggested that someone in the Navy was covering up some
sort of huge miss on the specs.

Why should I bother?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote:

:In article ,
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: No, most of what I've been calling 'misread' is due to you not reading
: what is written to you. Have you answered ANY questions put to you
: with regard to your claims? Sources for your 'official' numbers?
:
:Your big complaint was that the F-35's numbers were estimated and would
:be horribly wrong, but then you took the same source's estimates for the
:F-18 as gospel. You tried to claim that the estimated range for the
:F-35 was going to be massively off, with no proof other than your own
:suspicions, you suggested that someone in the Navy was covering up some
:sort of huge miss on the specs.
:
:Why should I bother?

You shouldn't, until you learn to read and actually take part in a
discussion. Until then, you're just wasting everyone's time.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn