The link was there and I said "The link is a long page but this is my summary of it.." I posted the answers, I saw relevant and left out the stuff I thought wasn't. "No, it is not an excuse." isn't relevant. Jensen was on a roll with his APA stuff, demanding that LM disclose classified stuff.. as I said when I posted the link. "Jensen repeats APA for political points."
I was thinking of putting this in from on of jensen's questions "Lockheed Martin and USAF analysts put the loss-exchange ratio at 30:1 for the F22, 3:1 for the F35 and 1:1 or less for the F15, FA18 and F16. Is that Lockheed Martin's view? It says here that that was both analysis by Lockheed Martin analysts and the USAF" but went with (3:1) in an answer instead..
" Yes, and you can take that on notice. In terms of simulations and so on there was a report in Aviation Week and Space Technology called 'Raptor's edge', written by David Fulghum. It said the operational arguments focus on combat effectiveness against top foreign fighter aircraft such as the Russian Su27 and MiG29. Lockheed Martin and USAF analysts put the loss-exchange ratio at 30:1 for the F22, 3:1 for the F35 and 1:1 or less for the F15, FA18 and F16. Is that Lockheed Martin's view? It says here that that was both analysis by Lockheed Martin analysts and the USAF.
Mr Burbage : Time has moved on since 2008 and we know a lot more about this airplane now than we knew then."
"Mr Burbage : We do a lot of analysis at Lockheed Martin. We use validated and accepted air force detailed campaign-level tools. We also put loop in simulations and high-fidelity cockpit type simulations. I do not know where that data (3:1) came from—Gary may have a better feel for it—but that is not what the current assessment shows. Again, you are pulling information from before we had the full definition of what this airplane can do."
This is really nit picking of you in my view.
Last edited by a1bill; 18th Feb 2016 at 21:26.