Rhetorical Analysis of Project 3

As I just start my third project, developing into a quick reference guide for the F35 Joint Strike Fighter program, I will have to discuss the public argument that is going on about the program. Fully understanding every aspect of the project will definitely assist me in guiding my project as I move forward, and this is what I intended to do with the following rhetorical analysis of my third project.

Author: My work on project three will fall completely within a few of my fields of interest. Looking to do a project on the F35 Joint Strike Fighter program, this is already linked to my current major, aerospace engineering, as it is a major development project for the aerospace community, specifically Lockheed Martin.

               Another major interest of mine is the planes in general, as I volunteer at the Pima Air and Space Museum, and am specifically interested in military aircraft, a large section of the planes at the museum. Military history is another one of my topic, and this will surely be a large part of history as the largest military weapons project in history.

               As part of the career I am pursuing, it would be great to work in one of these large companies, especially ones who work for the military, as it would involve with working with planes that I am interested in, and also following the career path I have followed. This type of work though, large companies working for the government has drawn a lot of attention for creating huge programs that suck up public funding and also feeding an overactive military supported by U.S. politics.

               This also leads to a lot of potential biases, as I do enjoy this field of aerospace, and I have immense respect for the military and love learning a lot about it. My dad instilled this in me as he was in the Air Force and my brother is also very similarly interested in military history. Also, considering the location of my home, Tucson, home of the A-10 squadrons, a type of plane the F-35 will replace, this could also leave a bias in the opposite direction, in opposition to the program. 

Audience: I imagine the large part of the audience that will be actively looking for this type of article would be other people interested in the aerospace field, interested in the military, economics, and in government issues, people similar to myself. People interested in the military and the aerospace field probably support the F35 program, and see its benefit and also the reason for many of its downfalls. People in the field of economics and interested in the government, and also people outside of this audience, such as people who might stumble across the article, would most likely side on the view of seeing the F35 as a bad program, one which wastes money and has been a large blunder, focusing on the costs and government issues, or the downfalls which are often highlighted.

               I would relate and connect with the intended audience by offering them in depth facts, with explanations, and also a view that would use logic to convince people of the intended purpose, one that views the program from a bad light. The aerospace and military audience would see these facts as a logic argument, and the other side of the audience would see this as support of their ideas.

               My friend Loc, a fellow volunteer at the Pima Air and Space Museum and fellow aerospace engineer in his junior year would see this project as a knife to the F35 program, which he does enjoy, but this type of audience enjoys logical arguments and understands the necessity of seeing every side of an argument, so as long as I include graphs, numbers, and other scientific data, this type of argument will go over just fine. 

Purpose: I want my intended audience to know a lot more facts about the F35 Joint Strike Fighter program, and to understand that the program is going horrible. While I personally approve of the program, I want to avoid bias and sway people that are similar to me, to think of the program from a new light, with the true story revealed. I also want people with no interest in this area gain some interest in the aerospace field as that is important to me, and consider it in the future, whether it be through politics, funding ideas, or even potential careers. I want my audience to believe that while the program is the future of our nation, it could have been handled much better.

               As a very specific program within the military, a few details need to be explained to the audience, such as how this affects other planes, which this will cost us, and why this program is so important to this country. Also, the audience will not know about the history behind fighters of this type, and won’t know the alternatives to this program.

               People arguing for this program also need to consider that no matter what happens, this program is going to happen, as the funding has already been set aside and a few planes have taken to the air, therefore any arguments will help how we deal with the program in its final stages, and also how to approach similar programs in the future.

               There is still the perspective of the side that brings positive views of the program to light, such as improved stealth capability and a brand new weapons system that will last much longer, that might need to be heard from within the guide. There is also the view of the engineers who are working on the program and what they believe in, that needs to be considered, as they would know the technical aspects of the plane the best, and know a bit more about the complications that have hit the project.

Genre: For this project, I chose to write a quick reference guide for the F35 Joint Strike Fighter program. In this genre, it is expected to receive lots of facts, graphs, and quick data that will lead to a logical argument that can be skimmed through rapidly. I have never worked in this genre formally, but I have used this type of arrangement unconsciously in the past, as I have read many quick reference guides, which generally are immensely helpful when trying to learn sides or facts of an argument. Also, I have created fact based lists and graphs for classes or presentations that are very similar to quick reference guides.

               Therefore, without the experience of working in the genre, I am slightly nervous that I won’t incorporate enough of the conventions of the genre into my work. I am confident though that I understand quite a few of the genre and can assemble a project that demonstrate I know the quick reference guide well, not great, but well. Two of the best conventions I see in quick reference guides that I know I will include are extremely specific sub-titles that move the guide along, and help answers questions the audience hasn’t asked yet, and pictures or graphs, which provide a huge amount of data without taking up much boring space or text. 

When: There are a few important events included in the media, such as the replacement of Defense Secretary Robert Gates in 2011, by Leon Panetta, in an effect to quell the rising costs of the military, and the budget approvals that go on every year, where the military must ask for money for projects such as the F35.

Other media stories have surface on different media outlets, such as the following:

CNN

New York Times

Los Angeles Times

Business Insider

               These media stories bring up excellent points that may counter an argument made against the fighter program. One of the main arguments is that it has capabilities beyond what our modern 4^th generation aircraft have, pointed out by the CNN article previously mentioned, the F35 can communicate plane to plane, fly through radar, and give a 360 degree view to pilots.

               It also is a continued development of the stealth arsenal, which, as seen in this Business Insider Article, will give the U.S. and its allies potential advantages for years to come.

               Then there is also the primary reason the plane was chosen to replace so many of the previous generation aircraft, it was suppose to be cheaper to maintain, creating an easy path of logistics, sharing up to 70% of its part with its fellow types of planes in different branches of the military, as talked about in this Vanity Fair article.

               All of these argument I must address within my quick response guide, and therefore I have plenty of research to continue with as I go.