Oh well.. I didn't refresh the page as I was writing this. Feel free to delete it.
If I had confidential information not only would I never share it with you, but I would never even indicate that I
may be in possession of such information.
Anyone who has ever worked in fields bound by confidentiality rules would
never use such arguments in a discussion. B
Instead re-read the post to which you replied. There's a sentence in it with a
phrase written in bold font with words underlined. The key word in the phrase is "cost". The word "availability" isn't even included because the term "readiness" is not synonymous with "availability".
You don't know that cost item and if you don't know it then you have no argument to make.
Read on the history of development of F-100 and F-110 for F-16. It is likely the best case study of technological, economic and institutional constraints relevant tor the problem and it should explain why your argument is invalid despite being seemingly sound on the surface.
This suggests you don't understand how an aircraft is maintained or how cost factors into the process at all. The issue is very complex and can't be reduced to "parts break more often". I won't try to educate you. I am surprised that you did not seek that knowledge on your own. It is publicly available, especially now. Civilian aerospace industry is governed by the same general rules as military aerospace engineering. Once you know the rules in one area, their application elsewhere is relatively trivial.
Let's return to the main problem:
In my posts I tried to explain that
while there is no sufficient evidence for inevitable adoption of J-31 there is also no evidence sufficient for dismissal of J-31. I presented some arguments for the latter and assumed that my position would be understood.
I am not claiming J-31 will happen only that you can't claim that "it never will because there is no reason for it". Whether J-31 enters service or not is a complex problem that can't be easily reduced as you do it. Whatever the reason for it, you shouldn't be doing it.
And finally "insult part of reply". Sigh...
In chronological order:
Let's state some basic rules for reasoning and social interaction that should be well understood in any online space intended for discussion:
- Nobody is above criticism.
- A true statement is never an insult but it can be a criticism.
- No criticism can be dismissed as an insult simply because the recipient feels insulted by the act of being criticised.
- No criticism that is implicit in nature can be known with certainty unless an inquiry is made about the nature of it.
- If one assume to know the nature of implicit criticism without inquiring about it beforehand one indicates a sense of superiority over the person making the criticism.
- Any assertion made without providing evidence for it can be dismissed without providing evidence against it.
- If one makes an assertion without providing evidence for it, one can't demand that whoever dismisses that assertion provides evidence for their dismissal to be valid
- Refusing to engage with an argument and deflecting to other arguments as means of disproving the point is acting in bad faith.
I don't see how any well-intentioned person could dispute the above.
Also it should be fairly obvious that I targeted my criticism primarily at the very specific statement which I expressly cited.
There are so many reasons for needing a cheaper
manned aircraft that to make such a statement in such a dismissive manner indicates a lack of imagination, ability to analyse complex problems and basic self-awareness that should characterise a person being interviewed as an expert on
any matter, and especially if that person engages in criticism of others, largely under these same premises i.e. that they lack those essential traits.
You either:
- make uninformed statements, or
- publicly criticise others for making uniformed statements, or
- do both and are described by relevant sections of DSM and ICD
The reason why I chose to respond with an implicit criticism rater than by stating it outright was to trigger your self-reflection. I didn't want to simply correct you.
You are on the staff. You are responsible for setting the tone for the discussion. If you bring it down to the level of fanboy circlejerk informed by personal fantasies and imaginary knowledge then this is where it will
inevitably end up. The moderators set the tone.
Circumspice.
I said all I had to say on the matter. I shouldn't have to say it at all. That's your role to ensure that there is never a reason to say it. Being a moderator is not a self-serving privilege. It is a duty to public trust.
I have no interest in continuing this. There is no reason to continue this.
EOT.
This is so incoherent and unintelligent that I will simply ignore the rest of your comment.
One remark on your argument for lack of rationale for J-31 in the above post (not cited):
- F-18 was developed despite both F-15 and F-14 being in service with better performance. It was also developed with better performance compared to YF-17 i.e. lower capability gap vs F-14/15. Despite it the economic rationale was correct.
- MiG-29 was developed despite Su-27, MiG-31 or MiG-25 being in service and its sidelining in VKS service was political in nature. There are several indicators that suggest that failure to sustain both aircraft is at least partly responsible for VKS problems, and that despite the obvious shortcomings of both platforms.
There are more examples but these two should suffice. It also perfectly exemplifies the complexity of comparing economic factors between different engines, airframes etc. It's all there. Just read it. Don't write your own history. Read the one that happened.
EOT as well.
I think I'll take a break.
