Originally Posted by JSFfan
that's not a nice thing to say about your RAF
Of course, the RAF
PR portal (I'd be delighted if anyone would show me otherwise) is hardly likely to be a reliable, "warts and all" account of a multi-billion pound program that the tax payers are funding, is it?
I would say that's very much an online
PR brochure. You have reinforced my view.
For the record, AGAIN, I am not anti-JSF. I would love to see it work. My position here is that it isn't shaping up (or, maybe and hopefully hasn't YET shaped up) to be the all-singing, all-dancing master of all (FJ) trades. I know it does get slagged here occasionally, but I think some of the extremely pro lobby seem a little overly defensive, short on tolerance for any valid criticism of the program and failing to address fully the questions with anything other than the same old, somewhat unsubstantiated claims - claims that often read like a company, Government or Defence
PR release.
I would rather see acknowledgements of the failings and real evidence of fixes. Real evidence does not mean phrases like
Mitigation pathways for the issues facing the helmet have been developed and are being implemented.
Which basically means we want you to believe that it's all going to be fine so that people don't start pulling out.
Now, how can that excellent helmet picture make up for all the visual cues that a pilot might want in what should be visual combat? Control surface deflection for example. The picture is good (actually excellent info to have on a guy outside a HUD FOV), but not a complete alternative to (ideally "also") being able to see the other guy.