Reflection on Project 3: The Joint Strike Fighter Program

With my project already submitted and turned in sealed in terms of grading, I can now take my time to think back and see how the reflection has gone so far. This will come in handy for the upcoming final project which encompasses a review of the three projects we have tackled so far. But this is only a secondary concerns. If I should learn anything from this course, it should be how to create and fill out projects, do research, and turn my research into a relevant piece of media. With this in mind, I'll be answering a few audience questions regarding my recently completed project, Why the F-35 is the Failure of the Joint Strike Fighter Program. 

 

1. What were some of the successes (or, things that went right) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.
   - One of the major things that went right for me during this week was asking one of my friends (who I think is better than me at English) to read over my project and leave some comments on how to make it a better project. Since she has no idea what the F-35 is, I believed this would help me get a perspective besides mine on how to cater to a more open audience. 
   This can clearly be seen in both my first and second editorial, where I changed both content and form in order to make the information either more detailed, such as in the introduction where I included dates and the three different versions of the aircraft, or in the second body, where I summed up the importance of stealth. These differences help introduce topics and let the QRG explain the topic better. 
2. What were some of the challenges (or, things that went wrong) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.
   - My main challenge for this entire course is to stop procrastinating, which of course didn't stop this week, seeing my spur of posts on Sunday. My habits of procrastinating only were worsened by the fact that I didn't get any effective commentary from peers and the fact that this is the second week of reviewing, which means that any ideas I really had before would have been finished in the first week, giving me little motivation to continue revising. While this week may have been focused on local revisions, in order to really accomplish this, I really did need outside support, which I found with a friend outside of this class. 
3. How do you think next week will go, based on your experiences this week?
   - Next week I believe will go fine, I am unsure of how a podcast will work with the final project, but I am sure I can make it work. The topic of reviewing all of my previous work seems deceptively easy, and I am sure I will find more challenges now, but at this moment I am just relieved to have another project completely and am in bliss to be free for a lot of this week. 
4. How are you feeling about the project overall at this point? - The project at this point is all finished which makes me feel relieved, but also a little bit worried, because i realize how much form can have an effect on your final grade. This project, being the most heavily weighted, worries me because I think my paragraph may be a bit too long for this genre, but I see many others doing the same type of lengths, so I think it is okay and I believe other aspects I included will alleviate this issue. The real test though is the grade, which is very subjective so I hope it errs on the side of positive news. 

Editorial Report for Second Body Paragraph

Looking back and review work you've revised will allow you effectively gauged how well your review process has been going. In the case of this project, it is vital to our revision process, as the majority of the time for this project has been dedicated to reviewing our rough and semi-revised drafts. Thankfully, this will result in an excellent product. What follows are my answers to audience questions regarding my most recent revision process regarding a section of my second body paragraph.

1. How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?
   - I did not add too much content but I rather reworded the ideas presented in the paragraphs. In one of the sections I am talking about why stealth is so important, but in my previous draft, I failed to summarize why it was so important in a strong sentence, so that sentence was included in my final version. In another section I am talking about the F-4 Phantom's failure to have a gun and how that effected dog fights in Vietnam, but the sentence was awkwardly worked, so I split it up into different sentences with more direct meaning. I believe these changed will allow a reader to more easily grasp the content being presented to them in this section, allowing them to see my point better without poor content wording getting in the way.
2. How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?
   - The one major change to form I had was the previous mentioned addition of added sentences to more fluently move through my content, but also the addition of a new section, designating the story of the F-4 Phantom as a separate subheading. I believe in this section before, the paragraph dragged on too long, and would benefit from being broken up into a separate section. I believe these change will allow a reader to more easily read through this content, making it fit into the idea of a QRG better and letting them receive the content quicker.
   
   
   Selection from Rough Draft
   
   
    
   Why is stealth so important?
   With many other countries around the world developing a modern air force and the spread of popular designs of aircraft, such as Mig or Su aircraft from Russia and China, or our own aircraft like the F-16 or F-15 being sold around the world, our Air Force’s only advantage at the moment is the quantity of craft we have and the quality of our pilots. In a one on one fight, even our best planes could be matched and shot down evenly by another country. Advanced stealth aircraft act as a “deterrent against near-peer threats.” But as with other planes before, stealth isn’t always perfect. Vega 31, the first and only stealth air craft to be shot down, was destroy during an operation over Serbia in 1999, destroy by a surface to air missile, a supposedly obsolete air defense system run by the Yugoslavian military. Other stealth aircraft, like the F-22 Raptor, the air-superiority brother of the F-35, cost so much to make, that they stopped making them altogether, purchasing only 187 at a cost of $412 million per plane for the whole program. Another stealth craft, the B-2 Spirit bomber, costs $1.15 billion per plane, an immense buy-in cost for any weapon system.
   
   
   But our aircraft will be the best right?

   "We see a very different F-35 program. Our top (Pentagon) leaders state the jet is performing well and it will change the way we'll fight future wars. . . “ -        Lockheed Spokesperson Michael Rein

   The F-35 still matches up very favorably against other aircraft, being a 5^th Generation fighter, and there is no doubt that many of these new technologies, stealth, sensor fusion, and communications, will culminate to make the fighter a better craft, but there is a danger in relying on technology. Huge leaps in technology have happened before in the Air Force, such as the jump from the F-86 Sabre, armed only with guns, to the F-4 Phantom, a jet fighter equipped to use brand new missiles. Fighting in combat in Vietnam, the F-4 proved to work, but was still being shot down at an alarming rate. Attributed to the lack of proper dog-fighting training because there were no guns, and no ability to shoot a plane at close range, the F-4 was later fitted with a gun pod, and further variants were built with a gun. A similar situation could happen with the F-35, where the pilots, already flying without the proper equipment, software, or conditions, might not be fully ready for combat, especially in a close in encounter with enemy aircraft, outside of its range of long-distance attack stealth and missile technology is suited for. 
   
   
   
    Selection from Re-edited Draft
   
   
    
   Why is stealth so important?
   Countries around the world are developing a modern air force and the gap between the U.S. air force and other groups is quickly closing.  Paired with the spread of popular designs of aircraft through shared intelligence, such as the Mig or Su aircraft from Russia and China, and sales like those of our own F-16s and F-15s, our Air Force’s only advantage at the moment is the quantity and quality of craft and pilots we have. In a one on one fight, even our best planes could be matched and shot down evenly by another country. Advanced stealth aircraft act as a “deterrent against near-peer threats.” Stealth allows a capable aircraft to penetrate air defenses and give pilots an upper-hand in dog fight. However, as with past planes, stealth isn’t always perfect. Vega 31, the first and only stealth air craft to be shot down, was destroyed during an operation over Serbia in 1999 by a surface to air missile, a supposedly obsolete air defense system run by the Yugoslavian military. Other stealth aircraft, like the F-22 Raptor, the air-superiority brother of the F-35, cost so much to make, that the Air Force stopped ordering them altogether, purchasing only 187 at a cost of $412 million per plane for the whole program. Another stealth craft, the B-2 Spirit bomber, costs $1.15 billion per plane, an immense buy-in cost for any weapon system.
   But our aircraft will be the best right?

   "We see a very different F-35 program. Our top (Pentagon) leaders state the jet is performing well and it will change the way we'll fight future wars. . . “ -        Lockheed Spokesperson Michael Rein

   Despite the aforementioned issues with production and sales, the F-35 still outdoes many of our other aircraft.  As a 5^th Generation fighter there is no doubt that these new technologies: stealth, sensor fusion, and communications, will culminate to make the fighter a better craft once it reaches the end of its production struggles.  However, there is a danger in relying so heavily on technology. 
   The story of the F-4 Phantom
   Previous leaps in technology within the Air Force include the jump from the F-86 Sabre, armed only with guns, to the F-4 Phantom, a jet fighter equipped to use brand new missiles, have caused numerous difficulties.  While in combat in Vietnam, the F-4 was proven to be a capable fighter craft, but was still being shot down at an alarming rate. This high loss rate was attributed to the lack of proper dog-fighting training, giving Vietnamese pilots an edge in close combat. Later, to combat this issue, F-4s were equipped with a gun pod, and later, an internal cannon. A similar situation could arise with the F-35, where the pilots - already flying without the proper equipment, software, or conditions - might not be fully ready for combat.  This could occur in an encounter with an enemy aircraft that is inside the range of the long-distance attack stealth and missile technology, leaving an a pilot on the wrong end of a bad fighter engagement.
   
   
    

Editorial Report Introduction

Looking back and review work you've revised will allow you effectively gauged how well your review process has been going. In the case of this project, it is vital to our revision process, as the majority of the time for this project has been dedicated to reviewing our rough and semi-revised drafts. Thankfully, this will result in an excellent product. What follows are my answers to audience questions regarding my most recent revision process regarding my introductory paragraph.

1. How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?
   - The content changed mainly in word choice and voice. In the first sentence, the voice was changed from passive to active voice, to start the essay off strong and say that the program is definitively problematic. Also, some other small things that will add to the reader experience are added, such as stating dates of production to say that the project is still ongoing, stating fighter craft instead of fighter to avoid confusion, and also stating from the beginning that there are 3 F-35's, to prevent confusion for the next section describing the F-35s. I believe all of these small things add up to the reader getting a more full experience when reading the introduction, and being able to gauge what they are reading about as they continue down the guide.
2. How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?
   - My introductory paragraph did not change immensely in form. Commenting on the form would entail commenting on the sentence structure, which was changed around slightly to make way for the active voice in the first sentence. Otherwise, the form of my essay as a whole benefited from me using more detailed information in the beginning paragraph because it allows a potential reader a more accurate glimpse of my essay before having many of the details thrown at them.
   
   
   Rough Draft Section - It is easier to just copy and paste into my blog even though it destroys some of my formatting.  
   
   
   
   
   Why the F-35 is the Failure of the Joint Strike Fighter Program
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
    1"CF-1 Flight Test", Andy Wolf via wikimedia, 2/11/11, Public Domain

   A Navy F-35 conducts flight tests over Chesapeake Bay

   
   
   Widely publicized as the most expensive weapons program in history, the Joint Strike Fighter program has been a troubled government project from its inception. The F-35 fighter, the Joint Strike Programs fighter of choice has faced many issues from the beginning, ranging from multiple technical and performance issues to immense budget overruns.
   Background on Joint Strike Fighter Program
   The original task of the program was to save money. Designed to replace a multitude of planes, the F-35 Lightning II will fill three different roles, for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corp. As part of a major acquisition project, the F-35 will also be sold to eleven different allies of the U.S. to complement their own air contingents. Taking on so many roles, the aircraft would make one common platform for replacement parts and upkeep for three major branches of the military. This plan, to share up to 80% of parts across the three major platform would decrease the cost of maintenance and achieve affordability when building and upgrading the planes down the line.

   2”F-35 US Joint Strike Fighter Profile”, Zachary Cohen via CNN. A comparison of the F-35A, F-35B, and F-35C Final Draft Why the F-35 is the Failure of the Joint Strike Fighter Program Written by Alexander McCarthy 1"CF-1 Flight Test", Andy Wolf via wikimedia, 2/11/11, Public Domain A Navy F-35 conducts flight tests over Chesapeake Bay The Joint Strike Fighter program has been a problematic government project from its inception, and is now widely publicized as the most expensive weapons program in history. All three versions of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightening II fighter, the Joint Strike Program’s fighters of choice, have faced many issues from the inception of the program in the late 1990s, ranging from multiple technical and performance issues to immense budget overruns discovered as the program began production in the late 2000s. Background on Joint Strike Fighter Program 2”F-35 US Joint Strike Fighter Profile”, Zachary Cohen via CNN. A comparison of the F-35A, F-35B, and F-35C The original task of the program was to save money by designing an aircraft to replace a multitude of planes. The F-35 Lightning II is designed to fill three different roles: for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corp. As part of a major acquisition project, the F-35 will also be sold to eleven different allies of the U.S. to complement their own air contingents. Taking on so many roles, the aircraft would make one common platform for replacement parts and upkeep for three major branches of the military. This plan, to share up to 80% of parts across the three major platforms would decrease the cost of maintenance and achieve affordability when building and upgrading the planes down the line.