Canada

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

From your cited source;

Losing connectivity to ALIS would be a pain, but hardly fatal, the JPO contends. If jets are unable to use ALIS — a ground-based system that provides sustainment and support, but not combat capabilities for the jet — the F-35 is still a usable plane. In fact, the worst case scenario would be that operators would have to track maintenance and manage daily squadron operations manually, just as older jets do.

...

Yes, the F-35 can take off and land without connecting to ALIS; yes, operators can make repairs without the logistics system, Pawlikowski said. But at some point users need to feed that information up to the central ALIS hub, she stressed.

"I don't need ALIS to put fuel in the plane and fly it, [I can] take a part and replace it if I have the spares there," Pawlikowski said. "But somewhere along the line I've got to tell ALIS that I did it so that the supply chain will now know that that part has got to be replaced."

(emphasis mine)

In short, the article you're citing directly refutes your claim.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

the article you’re citing directly refutes your claim.

My claim was never a kill switch or remote control/detonation switch. That is what scum denies to distract from the point that the advanced electronics systems ((ALIS) requires permission every time they are turned on. I am not denying that you can still make a sporty trip to Epstein's Island with the plane, if Canada were to resell it to you.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

the advanced electronics systems ((ALIS) requires permission every time they are turned on

No. It doesn't. The article that you cited directly disproves that claim. I pulled several relevant quotes, in the comment you literally just replied to, which you apparently either didn't read, or lacked the capacity to understand.

I'm happy to have someone disagree with me and show their arguments for why they think I'm wrong, but if you're going to throw out sources you haven't read, then refuse to read the relevant parts of those sources when I spoonfeed them to you, we're past the point of "discussion" or "argument" and well into "I could literally have a more enlightening conversation with my dog."

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

This shouldn't be hard. ALIS is core weapons targeting, and other maintenance/health analysis tool. The jet being able to take off or refuel is only part of its value.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

You're right. It shouldn't be hard. I shouldn't be having to repeat myself. But here we are. There's no point in my saying anything more on this, because I've already pulled quotes from the article you cited, as your only source, that directly disprove every single claim you've made.

parent

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

you are not reading your own quotes.

[I can] take a part and replace it ...if I have the spares there

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago

This is the claim I responded to:

It is fully 100% confirmed that every single time you turn the plane on, your plane talks with Lockheed Martin in order to obtain permission to turn on.

That claim is, according to every source I have seen, entirely false. Humanspiral offered an article as a source to back up the claim, and I pulled out several quotes from the article that, rather than supporting the claim, directly refuted it. That's what we're discussing in this particular comment chain. Not whatever you're bringing up.