Originally Posted by A1B
This is really nit picking of you in my view.
No, you deliberately changed the order of statements made, which significantly altered their meaning and significance. Your "summary" represented the briefing in a significantly different light to the way it appeared from the transcript you took it from. Highlighting that is not nit picking.
Do you now understand the sensitivity of simulation to data inaccuracies or do you still insist on believing and then stating results from trials conducted with certain assumed data, some of which has since been degraded?
The Air Force's standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also
used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance, pitted the 5th
generation F-35 against all advanced 4th generation fighters in a variety
of simulated scenarios.
That statement does not reflect the methodology for operational effectiveness trials, which makes me doubt its credibility. It sounds to me like it was made by someone that either hasn't been involved in the trials, doesn't understand them or is trying to maximise the perceived capability of the F-35. Under examination, he then hid behind security and refused to state what aircraft it had been trialled against. What would be so insecure about listing all the advanced 4th generation fighters. Inconsistencies make me doubt.
It is stuff like that that starts to make me doubt