Battles in cyberspace

For me, some of these sites are must reads – Flightglobal’s various blogs such as Flightblogger, Dew Line and Asian Skies, Aviation Week’s Ares and Things With Wings blogs, Danger Room, the Lowy Institute’s The Interpreter, War Is Boring, and many others – not just for intel or leads for my own stories, but also to gauge the prevailing mood among the wider readership about various programs, whether they be failures, successes, or in limbo.

But the internet can be a very cruel place, with few of those who comment on these blogs being what you could call ‘fence sitters’. News items or blogs about the F-35 JSF seem to come in for particular attention, with many detractors and few supporters of Lockheed Martin’s much-delayed wonder jet residing in cyberspace.

Those who comment on JSF pieces tend to fall into one of four categories. Category A is the group commonly known as ‘fan boys’. This category generally (but worryingly, not always!) comprises teenagers or young adults who seem to have little or no real knowledge about the aircraft itself, and base their usually strong opinions of what is the best fighter flying today, either along their own national lines or what looks the best.

Next up is the Category B self-styled ‘expert’, who is generally pretty well read and therefore has some knowledge of, but little or no primary source insight into, the program.

Comments from this category can also be polarising and often quite harsh, and like talkback radio listeners, they often end up subscribing just to those websites which tend to reflect their own views.

The next category is the one I and most trade media probably belong in. That is, someone with knowledge of the history and recent status of the program, and who has spoken to and read primary sources, but with little or no real insight into the technical and engineering issues. Although (and despite my better judgement) I have been known to comment on some of the better blogs and forums, Category C members aren’t prolific posters, and often view these forums sometimes with interest, but more often with either humour and/or incredulity.

And then there is the category of those with an extensive base of knowledge and experience, often in other programs, but from which parallels can sometimes be drawn. Like the previous group, Category D people rarely post on these forums, except perhaps to occasionally correct obvious errors. The old saying, ‘those who know don’t talk, and those who talk don’t know’ often applies here. But within this category and without mentioning any names, there are a few who break this mould and maintain a raging presence on a number of blogs and news sites. These few often post on different sites under various and different pseudonyms, but the astute reader can often determine they are the same poster, and occasionally work out their true identity.

So, what’s all this got to do with what’s really happening in the program, I hear you ask? Actually, quite a lot. During a briefing given by JSF program officials to about 100 specialist media at the recent Paris Airshow, the JSF program office deputy, MAJGEN Moore, was asked about reports which had appeared in an Australian blog that international customers of the F-35 would not receive the same level of low observable (ie stealth) performance as the US services would get.

The General danced around the question and didn’t really answer it, saying only that the aircraft would meet the key performance parameters laid out in the original operational requirements document (ORD) and the various MoUs signed since with partner countries. Lockheed Martin’s JSF program head, Tom Burbage, was also unable to directly answer the question.

This prompted an immediate follow up by leading defence journalist, Amy Butler from Aviation Week, who bluntly pointed out to the General and to Mr Burbage that neither of them had answered the question, but even she was unable to elicit a definitive response.

The two program leaders’ discomfort wasn’t eased by a presentation given by a senior Norwegian defence official who, despite confirming that Norway had allocated funding for their first two jets, also linked Norway’s continued participation in the program with the Norwegian designed Joint Strike Missile ( JSM) being integrated to the JSF’s baseline weapons offering for all partners and US services.

The next day, Aviation Week’s Ares blog carried a story by Bill Sweetman which focused more on the uncomfortable question and answer exchange rather than the actual content of the question, but this ignited a veritable flame war of comments which went on for more than 24 hours. The storm continued despite Amy Butler publishing a blog later that day with a written response from Lockheed Martin and the JPO, essentially confirming that all partner nations would receive the same low observable specification.

But the damage was done – the program was painted as being evasive, cries of “what have they got to hide?” echoed from one end of the blogosphere to the other, and the fan boys lined up across the globe to have their say.