F-35 news roundup

[Check Six]

when did everyone get the idea that you were owed pictures of classified stuff? I must have missed the memo.

It's a fascinating phenomenon when someone's ideology simply can't contain itself that they in-turn just blurt out their real underlining thoughts like an uncontrolled purge valve.

Some call it an 'Uncontrolled Freudian Slip'.

To 'be denied' this kind of 'evidence' that the F-35 program isn't working, just twist their panties to no end !

Hope that helps .

[11bee]

Grammatically challenged fanboy silliness aside, I found the following blub over on Defense Tech:

Bogdan said Pratt & Whitney officials have vowed to cover the cost of the engine fix, which will probably include redesigning that part of the propulsion system to create more space in the so-called trench area. He declined to specify how much it will cost until the program office completes a root-cause analysis, expected later this month.

A prototype part may be tested as early as mid-October, Bogdan said. Meanwhile, the program office is developing a new engine break-in procedure as a short-term fix to better analyze how it performs under increasing loads, he said. Even so, if the planes don’t resume regular flight testing later this month, the program could be delayed by a month or more, he said.

Questions -

If Pratt is being forced to redesign the part and the prototype won't even be in testing until mid-Oct, doesn't this indicate that we are looking at many more months of flight restrictions? As such, would this not mean additional impact to the testing schedule? To me at least, it wasn't made clear in the snippet above.

Does this blurb indicate that the entire F-135 inventory will need to be retrofitted?

Lastly, I'm curious as to why Pratt is being forced to cover the costs for the engine fix on their dime? I thought that in the past, when fixes were required (such as the tailhook redesign), the cost was passed on to the taxpayer. Maybe I'm mistaken on this last, if so disregard. I just wasn't aware that the cost for issues like this were on the contractor and not the government.

Finally, a disclaimer: I certainly don't want to upset our more sensitive members by these questions, I'm genuinely curious. Also, I guess it's necessary to state once again that I am 100% behind the JSF program. I'm not happy with many aspects of the overall management of the program but I recognize that it has to succeed. For the US military, there is no Plan B.

[Alan in Yorktown]

Does this blurb indicate that the entire F-135 inventory will need to be retrofitted?

**

One thing I have seen re retrofits - there are many layers of retrofits/upgrades, etc planned, esp for the early production aircraft. My understanding is that many of them are software related, but I suspect some hardware retrofits /upgrades, whatever are also planned. By their nature, some are more significant than other, so increasing the 'trench' may or may not be a big deal. I do know that the innards of this plane are crammed full to the brim with stuff.

And it is not lost on me that here we are, on the 100th anniversary of WW I, seeing the F-35 involved in 'trench warfare'.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Saw it trap on Wednesday afternoon...unfortunately didn't catch that on video...but I did get the bolter!

I'm pretty sure the bolter was planned as part of the test...

I forgot to thank you for that. So Thank you!!

Grammatically challenged fanboy silliness aside, I found the following blub over on Defense Tech:

Pre coffee, forgiveness please.

If Pratt is being forced to redesign the part and the prototype won't even be in testing until mid-Oct, doesn't this indicate that we are looking at many more months of flight restrictions? As such, would this not mean additional impact to the testing schedule? To me at least, it wasn't made clear in the snippet above.

Does this blurb indicate that the entire F-135 inventory will need to be retrofitted?

Too soon to tell, still questions that need to be answered

Lastly, I'm curious as to why Pratt is being forced to cover the costs for the engine fix on their dime? I thought that in the past, when fixes were required (such as the tailhook redesign), the cost was passed on to the taxpayer. Maybe I'm mistaken on this last, if so disregard. I just wasn't aware that the cost for issues like this were on the contractor and not the government.

Contract agreements which are always complex. Remember the Tail hook was bad dope from the Government that affected not just the F-35. I don't know how "forced" PW was to fix it, or knowing it was their mistake they took the hit. I think the odds of the F136 being resurrected is about zilch, but they know its been brought up since the fire...

[GreyGhost]

So is Pratt going to incur the costs of the entire programs delays due to the fire or just the fix itself?

-Gregg

[11bee]

So is Pratt going to incur the costs of the entire programs delays due to the fire or just the fix itself?

-Gregg

I can't imagine they have contractual flow-downs like that. I'm just guessing but I'd assume P&W just owns the cost of designing, producing and implementing the fix.

Unless there are penalty clauses in their contract....

[11bee]

Pre coffee, forgiveness please.

I think the odds of the F136 being resurrected is about zilch, but they know its been brought up since the fire...

My grammatically challenged comment wasn't aimed at you TT, just another member. In retrospect, I think maybe English wasn't his/her primary language, so I may have been overly harsh on him/her.

Lo siento por ser grosero para usted, Check 6!

Regarding the F136, I was one of the folks cheering when congress pulled the plug on that program. Mostly because I had the misfortune to get stuck working as a sub at a GE Aircraft Engines facility in MA for a few years and grew to hate GE with a passion. In retrospect, it may have clouded my judgement. The military now seems to be using competition as a means to get their contractors to toe the line (just look at the sudden improvement in the F-35 helmet situation once they brought in a second contractor to provide an alternative).

Maybe having the F136 around might have been a good idea after all. Alas, I think it is too late. It would take the better part of a decade to get the thing back into production and available in any significant numbers.

[MarkW]

There are multiple issues here. Starting with retrofitting the fleet, that likely won't be necessary as HCF failures tend to be part of engine wear in (I.e. Infant mortality). I'd imagine the bulk of higher time engines in the fleet may have had enough wear to now naturally avoid the problem. The F-16 had an HCF issue that only manifested itself in the first 300 hours, you either shot a turbine blade or you were good for life.

I'm more concerned about increasing the tolerances to avoid the rubbing. You will lose performance, as that stage will have less compressive effectiveness as more air slips around the rotating seals. But given that choice and Kentucky Fried F-35...

As for flight test, this should have little impact on the key areas they need to complete on 2B for Marine IOC. A lit of that fusion stuff occurs in pretty straight and level flight.

[TaiidanTomcat]

So is Pratt going to incur the costs of the entire programs delays due to the fire or just the fix itself?

-Gregg

Is there a precedent for that?

[TaiidanTomcat]

My grammatically challenged comment wasn't aimed at you TT, just another member. In retrospect, I think maybe English wasn't his/her primary language, so I may have been overly harsh on him/her.

Lo siento por ser grosero para usted, Check 6!

Regarding the F136, I was one of the folks cheering when congress pulled the plug on that program. Mostly because I had the misfortune to get stuck working as a sub at a GE Aircraft Engines facility in MA for a few years and grew to hate GE with a passion. In retrospect, it may have clouded my judgement. The military now seems to be using competition as a means to get their contractors to toe the line (just look at the sudden improvement in the F-35 helmet situation once they brought in a second contractor to provide an alternative).

Maybe having the F136 around might have been a good idea after all. Alas, I think it is too late. It would take the better part of a decade to get the thing back into production and available in any significant numbers.

I don't think competition is the answer to every problem with government contracts. In order to fund the F136, it would cost billions, the odds of making that back through "competition" is pretty slim because you are basically spending billions to save millions. The line between competition and redundancy can be a thin one.

Naturally there are people who have called for the resurrection of the F136, and I'm fine with that...

... but it will cost more, and add cost to the program.

[Check Six]

My grammatically challenged comment wasn't aimed at you TT, just another member. In retrospect, I think maybe English wasn't his/her primary language, so I may have been overly harsh on him/her.

Lo siento por ser grosero para usted, Check 6!

Specifically; What examples do you have that would possess you to call me grammatically challenged ?

And do I sense a racist tone to your post ???

[11bee]

redundant post

Edited September 7, 2014 by 11bee

[TaiidanTomcat]

[DutyCat]

This is a comparison without merit. The T-50 caught fire at a public showing with plenty of cameras about in front of the Indians in fact. Had this happened to the F-35 and the situation been reversed we would have plenty of pictures of a burnt F-35 and none with the T-50. Had the F-35 caught fire at say farnborough, there would be pics aplenty.

Pretty amazed Gil that in other threads you vehemently defend the US government violating privacy and civil rights of citizens for the good of national security, but demand the government release photos of an aircraft who's internals are highly classified, and then call it "PR Spin" How do you reconcile that? as a guy who is always saying that the American people should "take one for the team" and not ask questions all the time?

Again there is no government requirement to release pictures. Hell people, I have been into harrier hangers where we can't take pictures. ive been told no pictures of little birds and Chinooks with the 160th. They are serious about this stuff. If you want to pretend that is all for PR and not classified and even industrial secrecy then you are welcome to, but you would be wrong. Is it good that there is no picture of a cooked out F-35? yes. But the problem isn't the burned up jet, the problem is what caused the jet to burn up.

Do you have any how many pictures I would have LOVED to have taken but wasn't allowed to?

when did everyone get the idea that you were owed pictures of classified stuff? I must have missed the memo.

Fair enough about the conditions under which the fires took place. I did not realize that the T-50 was during a public event.

I am not in favor of disclosing classified material. I do not think my comments inferred that. However, as others have pointed out, they might have been able to photo shop out anything classified. If it is was not practical, the Air Force could have just said so. They knew this was a high interest event and to say nothing suggests it might be more about PR than secrecy. I don't know, though. I am not alleging any thing. Just wondering.

[GreyGhost]

They sure declassify the formation photos for PR purposes rather quickly though ...

-Gregg

Edited September 7, 2014 by GreyGhost

[Alvis 3.1]

I would imagine the negative PR from NOT releasing pictures of the damaged F-35 is far less than the negative PR of the actual pictures would be. The image of a smokin' hot F-35 would wind up being thrown back at them over and over.

That's why I don't post pics of my in-progress builds. It's easily an 80% disaster rate, and that would ruin the mystique!

:)

Alvis 3.1

[11bee]

They sure declassify the formation photos for PR purposes rather quickly though ...

-Gregg

As well as releasing beautiful 8x10 glossies of every other milestone such as: first group taxing event, first flight to a new base, first flight with clouds in the background, first emptying of an F-35 pilot's piddle pack, etc, etc.

Can't really make the case that this program is running in the dark like the F-117, I'd wager a guess that is might be the most highly visible and documented program ever (except of course when something goes wrong and then things revert to a "need to know" basis).

[TaiidanTomcat]

They sure declassify the formation photos for PR purposes rather quickly though ...

That picture was classified at one point?

There are things inside the airplane under the skin. If you have noticed there is also a really big bug a boo about taking pictures of the back of the airplane because of the engine, you will usually see a FOD cover on the exhaust in order to prevent looking down into it when the aircraft is at rest. F-22s were the same (though I think pics have leaked sense) cockpits of F-22s were also classified.

Can't really make the case that this program is running in the dark like the F-117, I'd wager a guess that is might be the most highly visible and documented program ever (except of course when something goes wrong and then things revert to a "need to know" basis).

There are a couple things with this that need to be straightened out.

1. There are tons of unclassified, warts and all reports that open to the public about the JSF program from a myriad of official government sources, and independent sources as well. So if they are trying to hide the bad, they suck at it.

2. If you are unhappy with the quality of the reporting, unhappy with the lack of details, I would suggest you let the aviation writers who are too busy grinding their axes and fighting grudge matches instead of attempting to accurately report what is going on. Lies are simple, the truth is always complex, and the aviation writers who cover the F-35 are so busy trying to inflate things to generate clicks for ad revenue along with being so nasty and biased that the JSF is about equal to a political election in terms of rhetoric at this point.

Bill Sweetman and co., have insured that every single problem large and small in a a complicated development and test program is grounds for failure and cancellation.

You want better reports? Demand better reporters. In the mean time there are tons of government reports that run into the hundreds of pages that explain where the program is and what it is struggling against.

The F-35 that burned up is the USAF's jet. Its government owned and operated, if you want it declassified write to your congressman or go through the FOIA and see what you get. If that matters that much to you, go crazy through the proper channels. Post the responses you get.

Lastly when it comes to the government and classified material, its just not all that creative, instead of saying "you can take pictures of A, B, C, D, but not W, X, Y, Z." then tend to just classify it all, under the notion that less is more secret. The government also breaks its own rules sometimes, Navy SEALs were complaining about the high level of OPSEC expected and enforced, until it was time to do a PR stunt, and suddenly it was all forgotten.

3. just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it does not exist. This is important to remember.

I would imagine the negative PR from NOT releasing pictures of the damaged F-35 is far less than the negative PR of the actual pictures would be. The image of a smokin' hot F-35 would wind up being thrown back at them over and over.

And it would be fair to do so too, because no aircraft ever crashed or had even a slight accident before in development before this.

If someone believes this is being held back purely for PR purposes, I would like to think it would be released if it wouldn't be used to flog the program but could be more of a reminder of the issues that happen when you are creating a new aircraft. But again, the JSF has become such a hot button issue, you can't expect even reporting, thus not an informed public.

PR purposes are a happy side effect, but its not the primary reason.

Edited September 7, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat

[Kei Lau]

Exclusive: Canada seen buying fighter jets from U.S., not Europe from Routers

The source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 stealth fighter and Boeing Co's F-18 E/F Super Hornet were deemed more suitable for the variety of tasks the military has laid out.

The source said that while the F-35 had scored well on the various tests laid out by the military, the Super Hornet was almost as capable and had the advantage of being cheaper.

If so, the choice would mean the widely expected elimination of Dassault Aviation SA's Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon, jointly made by BAE Systems PLC, Finmeccanica SpA and Airbus Group NV.

This prompted 2 blogs from Foxtrot Alpha:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/report-canada-narrows-its-fighter-choice-to-f-35-sup-1631508581

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-right-fighter-for-canada-is-the-super-hornet-not-t-1587492909

I find it a very hard sell that 65 F-35s will be a better solution for Canada that offers more flexibility and capability than 80 Advanced Super Hornets, 36 stealth UCAVs and a dozen Growlers. A total force of 128 aircraft in all. Seeing as the future of air combat is surely unmanned, hedging Canada's manned fighter buy, which is supposedly going to have to be relevant for the next 30-40 years, with some extremely stealthy UCAVs makes a ton of sense. It also provides a medium endurance, low-observable surveillance platform to provide everything from intelligence gathering to network connectivity functions for Canada's "total force."

These make the site sound more like advocacy than just reporting. Who is "foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com"? (Please, no personal attack if you disagree with this site. But free to report their connections and credibility.)

[TaiidanTomcat]

Exclusive: Canada seen buying fighter jets from U.S., not Europe from Routers

This prompted 2 blogs from Foxtrot Alpha:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/report-canada-narrows-its-fighter-choice-to-f-35-sup-1631508581

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-right-fighter-for-canada-is-the-super-hornet-not-t-1587492909

These make the site sound more like advocacy than just reporting. Who is "foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com"? (Please, no personal attack if you disagree with this site. But free to report their connections and credibility.)

He is just another douche bag with no military or industry experience holding court because the internet gave him a soap box to stand on.

Lets take this for example:

I find it a very hard sell

because he hasn't done even basic research.

that 65 F-35s will be a better solution for Canada that offers more flexibility and capability than 80 Advanced Super Hornets, 36 stealth UCAVs and a dozen Growlers. A total force of 128 aircraft in all.

So the solution to get more, is to buy more? In order for this to be a fair comparison, what does 65 Advanced Super Hornets look like in terms of "flexibility and capability"? if we want 128 aircraft why not go the RAAF route and go with 100 JSFs, and 24 Super Hornets/Growlers?

Now this is where basic research pays off and pay attention because this is important:

Canada has capped its fighter replacement at 9 billion dollars. If you can 128 aircraft, including Growlers with all the bells and whistles they need to be war ready, and Advanced Super Hornets that haven't been developed yet because it would cost billions, Then my hat is off to Canada, and thats before we even get into the cost of the UCAVs. the JSF purchase would come in at 8.9 billion BTW.

Next most important part:

The cost to maintian and operate those 128 aircraft over the next 42 years, including dual seat aircraft that require additional crew. KPMG did a whole report about what it would cost to operate F-35s over a 42 year span to include retirement. I assume Tyler there did something similar? you know to show that Canada would have the cash to keep up a 128 aircraft force?

In other words even if Canada could afford the 128 aircraft plan under 9 billion, they couldn't afford to keep them in operation and would quickly have to moth ball sections of the force, thus it would not be a versatile, it would not be as capable and it would cost more money.

Here the Austrailian order for 12 Super Hornets (NOT ADVANCED) and 12 Growlers along with associated equipment:

http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/australia-fa-18ef-super-hornet-and-ea-18g-growler-aircraft

24 aircraft, cost? $3.7 billion Keeping in mind Canada's 9 billion dollar cap and what are we realistically looking at? at that cap you won't even get 65 aircraft, and theres no UCAV cash to be had.

Seeing as the future of air combat is surely unmanned, hedging Canada's manned fighter buy, which is supposedly going to have to be relevant for the next 30-40 years, with some extremely stealthy UCAVs makes a ton of sense. It also provides a medium endurance, low-observable surveillance platform to provide everything from intelligence gathering to network connectivity functions for Canada's "total force."

A "total force" it can't afford. The entire concept is farcical It might as well be about how 1000 as of yet not developed Advanced Arrows are better. Its the same unaffordable fiction. You might as well swing for the fences.

And this is me being generous, those articles are so horrifically biased that it borders on deception. I have no idea why he would slam the Legacy hornet as being the wrong fighter for Canada all these years and then advocate a hornet growth as

the right solution either. do these kids have editors? check this out:

Canada has been flying the CF-18 Hornet, an aircraft that was really an ill-suited, one-size-fits-all fighter solution for Canada in the first place. is not that the Hornet isn't reliable, cost effective and a capable multi-role fighter, it is just that it has fairly dismal combat radius of a few hundred miles or so depending on the weapons and fuel tanks it lugs around and how fast it has to get somewhere. A relatively short-ranged fighter is not exactly ideal for patrolling the vast expanses of remote Canadian airspace, nor was the Hornet's original avionics suite focused on such a mission.

FROM THE SAME ARTICLE:

In the Super Hornet, Canada would not only get a newer aircraft that has commonality with their past mount and an economic aircraft that can fit easily within its budget, but it would also get an aircraft with some fantastic new capabilities. First off, the jet has more range than its predecessor, about 35% more to be exact. With additional tanks this figure increases dramatically, which is a good thing while patrolling the vast northern expanses of Canadian wilderness. In fact, the Super Hornet can carry five external 480 gallon tanks (over 30k lbs of fuel when combined with its internal fuel volume)

So the legacy hornet "lugs" fuel tanks but with the Super its a good thing. In fact, the more the better!! 5 wet baby!

A current Super Hornet flyaway is around 70 million, I have no clue how an advanced super hornet would be the 60 million he qoutes, he also confuses procurement cost for flyaway.

He is either extremely ignorant, or extremely biased. neither of which are good things

Edited September 7, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat

[Kei Lau]

Exclusive: Canada seen buying fighter jets from U.S., not Europe from Routers

The source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 stealth fighter and Boeing Co's F-18 E/F Super Hornet were deemed more suitable for the variety of tasks the military has laid out.

The source said that while the F-35 had scored well on the various tests laid out by the military, the Super Hornet was almost as capable and had the advantage of being cheaper.

If so, the choice would mean the widely expected elimination of Dassault Aviation SA's Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon, jointly made by BAE Systems PLC, Finmeccanica SpA and Airbus Group NV.

He is just another douche bag with no military or industry experience holding court because the internet gave him a soap box to stand on.

These make the site sound more like advocacy than just reporting. Who is "foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com"? (Please, no personal attack if you disagree with this site. But free to report their connections and credibility.)

Edited September 7, 2014 by Kei Lau

[TaiidanTomcat]

Exclusive: Canada seen buying fighter jets from U.S., not Europe from Routers

These make the site sound more like advocacy than just reporting. Who is "foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com"? (Please, no personal attack if you disagree with this site. But free to report their connections and credibility.)

Jalopnik is car webblog. Tyler Rogoway is a photographer from Oregon writing about airplanes on a car site. His little section is "foxtrot alpha" And apparently he doesn't know how to use google, or basic research. He has his own site called aviation intel.

The whole thing is a part of the gawker network which consists of:

Gawker.com, Deadspin, Lifehacker, Gizmodo, io9, Kotaku, Jalopnik, and Jezebel. Which is sports, life shortcuts, gizmoz, tech, video gaming, cars, and easily offended feminist angst respectively.

Also those stories you posted were delibrated written to produce the largest amount of google traffic. Its click bait

Edited September 7, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat

[Check Six]

He is just another douche bag with no military or industry experience holding court because the internet gave him a soap box to stand on.

Lets take this for example:

because he hasn't done even basic research.

So the solution to get more, is to buy more? In order for this to be a fair comparison, what does 65 Advanced Super Hornets look like in terms of "flexibility and capability"? if we want 128 aircraft why not go the RAAF route and go with 100 JSFs, and 24 Super Hornets/Growlers?

Now this is where basic research pays off and pay attention because this is important:

Canada has capped its fighter replacement at 9 billion dollars. If you can 128 aircraft, including Growlers with all the bells and whistles they need to be war ready, and Advanced Super Hornets that haven't been developed yet because it would cost billions, Then my hat is off to Canada, and thats before we even get into the cost of the UCAVs. the JSF purchase would come in at 8.9 billion BTW.

Next most important part:

The cost to maintian and operate those 128 aircraft over the next 42 years, including dual seat aircraft that require additional crew. KPMG did a whole report about what it would cost to operate F-35s over a 42 year span to include retirement. I assume Tyler there did something similar? you know to show that Canada would have the cash to keep up a 128 aircraft force?

In other words even if Canada could afford the 128 aircraft plan under 9 billion, they couldn't afford to keep them in operation and would quickly have to moth ball sections of the force, thus it would not be a versatile, it would not be as capable and it would cost more money.

Here the Austrailian order for 12 Super Hornets (NOT ADVANCED) and 12 Growlers along with associated equipment:

http://www.dsca.mil/...rowler-aircraft

24 aircraft, cost? $3.7 billion Keeping in mind Canada's 9 billion dollar cap and what are we realistically looking at? at that cap you won't even get 65 aircraft, and theres no UCAV cash to be had.

A "total force" it can't afford. The entire concept is farcical It might as well be about how 1000 as of yet not developed Advanced Arrows are better. Its the same unaffordable fiction. You might as well swing for the fences.

And this is me being generous, those articles are so horrifically biased that it borders on deception. I have no idea why he would slam the Legacy hornet as being the wrong fighter for Canada all these years and then advocate a hornet growth as

the right solution either. do these kids have editors? check this out:

FROM THE SAME ARTICLE:

So the legacy hornet "lugs" fuel tanks but with the Super its a good thing. In fact, the more the better!! 5 wet baby!

A current Super Hornet flyaway is around 70 million, I have no clue how an advanced super hornet would be the 60 million he qoutes, he also confuses procurement cost for flyaway.

He is either extremely ignorant, or extremely biased. neither of which are good things

I wonder if he has documented his thoughts about the Super Hornet, say, nine years ago?

I wonder if it's consistent with what he's writing about it currently?

[GreyGhost]

That picture was classified at one point?

<...>

Sure it was, at some point from when it was taken, it had to be approved for release to the public.

You miss understand TT. I don't think anyone here expects clear, detailed shots of the interior of the damaged jet, just overall shots to show the extent of the damage.

Hell, back in the early 90s, the USAF released video of the then new YF-22 that crashed at Edwards. I'm sure you'll come up with excuses as to why that was okay then but this different now though.

-Gregg

Edited September 7, 2014 by GreyGhost

[Don]

...I don't think anyone here expects clear, detailed shots of the interior of the damaged jet, just overall shots to show the extent of the damage....

Why? To what end? Is this fixation a couple folks have here with the F-35 damage similar to those wanting to view the carnage after a train wreck, car wreck, airliner crash, or natural disaster? Honestly, the vast majority of Americans have no idea what an F-35 even is and frankly they don't care. It doesn't matter what pictures were shown of the F-22...or F-16...or F-4...or (insert aircraft *HERE*)...the powers that be have decided (for now at least) to not produce photos of the extent of the damage for THIS aircraft. Why? I don't know...and based on what I read here neither does anyone else. Oh well. Move on. I completely agree with TT...the couple of folks here who won't let this go should go about contacting their elected officials for answers. Contact an appropriate media outlet for answers. But constantly harping on it here is obviously not slaking their thirst for dirt on the F-35 program.