F-35 test fleet has low readiness rate, may affect aircraft's testing phase

[TU Curmudgeon]

From United Press International

F-35 test fleet has low readiness rate, may affect aircraft's testing phase
​

Aug. 12 (UPI) -- F-35 fighter planes at California's Edwards Air Force Base have a very low readiness rate, a non-governmental watchdog said.

The Project on Government Oversight's Center for Defense Information reported last week that only 8.7 percent, of the 23 F-35s Joint Strike fighter planes in the Edwards AFB operational test fleet were "fully mission capable" in June 2019, when analysis of data from the Pentagon's Joint Program Office was begun.

"The revelation that the F-35 program is struggling to overcome the last hurdle before it can legally move into full-rate production follows numerous recent reports, including by POGO as well as the Government Accountability Office, indicating the most expensive weapon system in history is far from ready to face current or future threats," the POGO report said.

It noted that the planes' Distributed Aperture System, which generates imagery of incoming threats on $400,000 pilots' helmets, is a frequent source of failure. While the planes can still fly with certain non-functioning systems, the report said, "to fully test the program's capabilities, all systems must function properly."

COMMENT:-

Generally speaking "equipment under development and testing" has a BETTER record of being properly maintained than the same equipment does once it is actually put into service. This is because when you are dealing with "equipment under development and testing" the manufacturer wants to make it look as good as possible in order to boost future sales while equipment in service has already been paid for as a part of a long-term contract which the purchaser can't get out of (or, when the purchaser can, the manufacturer simply doesn't care because they will get all of the profits which they had expected to get [because of the "cancellation clause" in the contract {or as damages for breach of contract}]).

To put that 8.7% into perspective, if the US government were to purchase enough F-35s to actually have the number of aircraft needed to fulfill the tasks that the F-35 has to fulfill and at the readiness rate of 100%, then the US government would be paying the equivalent of $1,241,379,310.35 per flyable aircraft (and not the [averaged between the "A" model and the "B" model] $108,000,000 that it says that it is paying).
​

 

[dcsports]

From United Press International

F-35 test fleet has low readiness rate, may affect aircraft's testing phase
​

Aug. 12 (UPI) -- F-35 fighter planes at California's Edwards Air Force Base have a very low readiness rate, a non-governmental watchdog said.

The Project on Government Oversight's Center for Defense Information reported last week that only 8.7 percent, of the 23 F-35s Joint Strike fighter planes in the Edwards AFB operational test fleet were "fully mission capable" in June 2019, when analysis of data from the Pentagon's Joint Program Office was begun.

"The revelation that the F-35 program is struggling to overcome the last hurdle before it can legally move into full-rate production follows numerous recent reports, including by POGO as well as the Government Accountability Office, indicating the most expensive weapon system in history is far from ready to face current or future threats," the POGO report said.

It noted that the planes' Distributed Aperture System, which generates imagery of incoming threats on $400,000 pilots' helmets, is a frequent source of failure. While the planes can still fly with certain non-functioning systems, the report said, "to fully test the program's capabilities, all systems must function properly."

COMMENT:-

Generally speaking "equipment under development and testing" has a BETTER record of being properly maintained than the same equipment does once it is actually put into service. This is because when you are dealing with "equipment under development and testing" the manufacturer wants to make it look as good as possible in order to boost future sales while equipment in service has already been paid for as a part of a long-term contract which the purchaser can't get out of (or, when the purchaser can, the manufacturer simply doesn't care because they will get all of the profits which they had expected to get [because of the "cancellation clause" in the contract {or as damages for breach of contract}]).

To put that 8.7% into perspective, if the US government were to purchase enough F-35s to actually have the number of aircraft needed to fulfill the tasks that the F-35 has to fulfill and at the readiness rate of 100%, then the US government would be paying the equivalent of $1,241,379,310.35 per flyable aircraft (and not the [averaged between the "A" model and the "B" model] $108,000,000 that it says that it is paying).
​

So the naval model doesn't have an aircraft carrier it can fly off of, and the air force model can't fly. Awesome.

 

[Jredbaron96]

From United Press International

F-35 test fleet has low readiness rate, may affect aircraft's testing phase
​

Aug. 12 (UPI) -- F-35 fighter planes at California's Edwards Air Force Base have a very low readiness rate, a non-governmental watchdog said.

The Project on Government Oversight's Center for Defense Information reported last week that only 8.7 percent, of the 23 F-35s Joint Strike fighter planes in the Edwards AFB operational test fleet were "fully mission capable" in June 2019, when analysis of data from the Pentagon's Joint Program Office was begun.

"The revelation that the F-35 program is struggling to overcome the last hurdle before it can legally move into full-rate production follows numerous recent reports, including by POGO as well as the Government Accountability Office, indicating the most expensive weapon system in history is far from ready to face current or future threats," the POGO report said.

It noted that the planes' Distributed Aperture System, which generates imagery of incoming threats on $400,000 pilots' helmets, is a frequent source of failure. While the planes can still fly with certain non-functioning systems, the report said, "to fully test the program's capabilities, all systems must function properly."

COMMENT:-

Generally speaking "equipment under development and testing" has a BETTER record of being properly maintained than the same equipment does once it is actually put into service. This is because when you are dealing with "equipment under development and testing" the manufacturer wants to make it look as good as possible in order to boost future sales while equipment in service has already been paid for as a part of a long-term contract which the purchaser can't get out of (or, when the purchaser can, the manufacturer simply doesn't care because they will get all of the profits which they had expected to get [because of the "cancellation clause" in the contract {or as damages for breach of contract}]).

To put that 8.7% into perspective, if the US government were to purchase enough F-35s to actually have the number of aircraft needed to fulfill the tasks that the F-35 has to fulfill and at the readiness rate of 100%, then the US government would be paying the equivalent of $1,241,379,310.35 per flyable aircraft (and not the [averaged between the "A" model and the "B" model] $108,000,000 that it says that it is paying).
​

POGO is a **** source dude.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

So the naval model doesn't have an aircraft carrier it can fly off of, and the air force model can't fly. Awesome.

Yeah, but you look really cool sitting in the cockpit of one for a photo-op to use in your re-election campaign.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

POGO is a **** source dude.

Considering that the next line in the article is

"An April report by the government's General Accounting Office (emphasis added) reached similar, disparaging conclusion."
​

it would probably behoove you to actually read the linked articles BEFORE making a statement that makes you look foolish.

However, you do have your 1[sup]st[/sup] Amendment Right to say foolish things if you want to.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Considering that the next line in the article is...

And POGO is infamous for cherry picking snippets and showing only one side of the discussion. Dan Grazier has built his recent career on trying to shred the F-35 because he's a big fan of Pierre Sprey, who's thoughts on aircraft design had been found lacking for the past 40 years.

In 2017 Grazier published another article in which he also tried to bash the F-35 F-35 Continues to Stumble

Except his two arguments, the AMRAAM is bad for visual range combat, was proven completely false when a Syrian fighter was shot down using an AMRAAM, and his other claim rested on the idea that since an F-117 got shot down once, therefore all stealth is useless.

The dude's a hack.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

And POGO is infamous for cherry picking snippets and showing only one side of the discussion. Dan Grazier has built his recent career on trying to shred the F-35 because he's a big fan of Pierre Sprey, who's thoughts on aircraft design had been found lacking for the past 40 years.

In 2017 Grazier published another article in which he also tried to bash the F-35 F-35 Continues to Stumble

Except his two arguments, the AMRAAM is bad for visual range combat, was proven completely false when a Syrian fighter was shot down using an AMRAAM, and his other claim rested on the idea that since an F-117 got shot down once, therefore all stealth is useless.

The dude's a hack.

Is it, or is it not, a fact that only (roughly) 1 in 12 of the F-35s in the testing and development program (where they are highly likely to receive a higher level of more skilled maintenance than they would in the field) are "completely mission capable" on any given day?

The WORST that should be expected (of military gear in actual service) is that no less than 9 in 12 would be "completely mission capable" on any given day. [NOTE - That "worst" comes with the assumption that the piece of equipment under consideration is NOT all brand new and has had a higher than normal level of maintenance performed on it.] You may not like Mr. Grazier's opinions or political position (or even his "spin") but that does not mean that he doesn't have his facts straight and one of those facts is that far fewer than 9 in 12 of the F-35s involved in the testing and development program (where they DO receive a higher level of maintenance than they would "in service") are "completely mission capable" on any given day.

So, regardless of whether or not Mr. Grazier is a hack, how far off 9 in 12 would you say was "acceptable":

1. ____ 9 in 12;
2. ____ 8 in 12;
3. ____ 7 in 12;
4. ____ 6 in 12;
5. ____ 5 in 12;
6. ____ 4 in 12;
7. ____ 3 in 12;
8. ____ 2 in 12;
9. ____ 1 in 12;
10. ____ 0 in 12;
    [pick ONE only]

 

[dcsports]

Is it, or is it not, a fact that only (roughly) 1 in 12 of the F-35s in the testing and development program (where they are highly likely to receive a higher level of more skilled maintenance than they would in the field) are "completely mission capable" on any given day?

The WORST that should be expected (of military gear in actual service) is that no less than 9 in 12 would be "completely mission capable" on any given day. [NOTE - That "worst" comes with the assumption that the piece of equipment under consideration is NOT all brand new and has had a higher than normal level of maintenance performed on it.] You may not like Mr. Grazier's opinions or political position (or even his "spin") but that does not mean that he doesn't have his facts straight and one of those facts is that far fewer than 9 in 12 of the F-35s involved in the testing and development program (where they DO receive a higher level of maintenance than they would "in service") are "completely mission capable" on any given day.

So, regardless of whether or not Mr. Grazier is a hack, how far off 9 in 12 would you say was "acceptable":

1. ____ 9 in 12;
2. ____ 8 in 12;
3. ____ 7 in 12;
4. ____ 6 in 12;
5. ____ 5 in 12;
6. ____ 4 in 12;
7. ____ 3 in 12;
8. ____ 2 in 12;
9. ____ 1 in 12;
10. ____ 0 in 12;
    [pick ONE only]

You are on point with the maintenace issue. It should be easy during the evaluation stage, when you have one squadron out of one location with an handpicked support team, contractor onsite and spare parts on hand. They should be 100% operational.

It's an interesting contrast to how the army tests it's equipment. For firearms, they put as many rounds through the weapon as they can without cleaning it to see how long it will take to jam -- normally measured in the tens of thousands of rounds. Aircraft, of course, are much more complex, but it seems like they should be able to take off on a nice California morning, fly around, and land, without things breaking, most of the time.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Is it, or is it not, a fact that only (roughly) 1 in 12 of the F-35s in the testing and development program (where they are highly likely to receive a higher level of more skilled maintenance than they would in the field) are "completely mission capable" on any given day?

Part of testing and development is measuring the capabilities of individual components and parts to ensure reliability and durability. You're supposed to test things to the limit, to see what the breaking point is. It's not like low readiness is unique to the F-35. When I was stationed in Fort Hood at one point my company, who's normal strength was 8 CPN teams and 2 JNNs had 1 JNN and 2 CPN teams actually mission ready.

More to the point, some people have it set in their minds that the F-35 is the worst military machine made and are determined to do everything they can to disparage it. Most of the time it's because they have no idea what they're talking about, or are basing their positions on long discounted theories about aerial combat, like Pierre Sprey.

 

[beerftw]

From United Press International

F-35 test fleet has low readiness rate, may affect aircraft's testing phase
​

Aug. 12 (UPI) -- F-35 fighter planes at California's Edwards Air Force Base have a very low readiness rate, a non-governmental watchdog said.

The Project on Government Oversight's Center for Defense Information reported last week that only 8.7 percent, of the 23 F-35s Joint Strike fighter planes in the Edwards AFB operational test fleet were "fully mission capable" in June 2019, when analysis of data from the Pentagon's Joint Program Office was begun.

"The revelation that the F-35 program is struggling to overcome the last hurdle before it can legally move into full-rate production follows numerous recent reports, including by POGO as well as the Government Accountability Office, indicating the most expensive weapon system in history is far from ready to face current or future threats," the POGO report said.

It noted that the planes' Distributed Aperture System, which generates imagery of incoming threats on $400,000 pilots' helmets, is a frequent source of failure. While the planes can still fly with certain non-functioning systems, the report said, "to fully test the program's capabilities, all systems must function properly."

COMMENT:-

Generally speaking "equipment under development and testing" has a BETTER record of being properly maintained than the same equipment does once it is actually put into service. This is because when you are dealing with "equipment under development and testing" the manufacturer wants to make it look as good as possible in order to boost future sales while equipment in service has already been paid for as a part of a long-term contract which the purchaser can't get out of (or, when the purchaser can, the manufacturer simply doesn't care because they will get all of the profits which they had expected to get [because of the "cancellation clause" in the contract {or as damages for breach of contract}]).

To put that 8.7% into perspective, if the US government were to purchase enough F-35s to actually have the number of aircraft needed to fulfill the tasks that the F-35 has to fulfill and at the readiness rate of 100%, then the US government would be paying the equivalent of $1,241,379,310.35 per flyable aircraft (and not the [averaged between the "A" model and the "B" model] $108,000,000 that it says that it is paying).
​

Not surprising, they had issues with the marine versions frames failing at super low flight hours, the airforce version not hitting the broadside of a barn, and all versions incapable of supersonic speed for any period beyond breif due to lockheed cheaping out on the stealth coating. This is ontop of the massive readiness delays already pointed out earlier this year with spare parts being produced at an extremely slow rate, add to that the complexity of the aircraft means they are limited to more sophisticated facilities for repair rather than being capable of improvised repair.

Truthfully if I had a say I would scrap much of the program and especially can lockheed and start over with a more competent company, but since almost all left the industry I would shift it to the military rnd rather than a half assed contractor milking taxpayers dollars and not delivering.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Part of testing and development is measuring the capabilities of individual components and parts to ensure reliability and durability.

Indeed it is. And because you know that you are going to bend some of the toys, you ensure that you have the parts (and skills) to fix them quickly.

Both of those appear to be missing here.

You're supposed to test things to the limit, to see what the breaking point is.

Yep, and you are also supposed to be able to get the thing back in service so that you know how long it actually takes to fix it when it does break.

It's not like low readiness is unique to the F-35. When I was stationed in Fort Hood at one point my company, who's normal strength was 8 CPN teams and 2 JNNs had 1 JNN and 2 CPN teams actually mission ready.

But your sigs coy was NOT a "demonstration and testing" organization - was it?

More to the point, some people have it set in their minds that the F-35 is the worst military machine made and are determined to do everything they can to disparage it.

I wouldn't say that the F-35 was "the worst" (the Chauchat and the Ross have an almost permanent lock on that one).

Most of the time it's because they have no idea what they're talking about, or are basing their positions on long discounted theories about aerial combat, like Pierre Sprey.

Considering that the F-35 is intended to be the best of all possibly things in all possible roles under all possible conditions, I don't think that very many people have much actual experience with using "the most perfect aircraft ever built so far" so I do have to agree with you.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Indeed it is. And because you know that you are going to bend some of the toys, you ensure that you have the parts (and skills) to fix them quickly.

Both of those appear to be missing here.

Yep, and you are also supposed to be able to get the thing back in service so that you know how long it actually takes to fix it when it does break.

This entire article is basically trying to argue because one training squadron doesn't have all the spare parts it needs therefore the whole program is a failure. It's written by someone with a history of trying to slander the F-35 as much as possible. Apologies if I take their analysis with a grain of salt.

But your sigs coy was NOT a "demonstration and testing" organization - was it?

No, it was an actual line unit that regularly got deployed overseas, where people's lives depending on good communication.

I wouldn't say that the F-35 was "the worst" (the Chauchat and the Ross have an almost permanent lock on that one).

Considering that the F-35 is intended to be the best of all possibly things in all possible roles under all possible conditions, I don't think that very many people have much actual experience with using "the most perfect aircraft ever built so far" so I do have to agree with you.

Can you tell me where the F-35 was stated to be "the most perfect aircraft ever built so far" ?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

This entire article is basically trying to argue because one training squadron doesn't have all the spare parts it needs therefore the whole program is a failure. It's written by someone with a history of trying to slander the F-35 as much as possible. Apologies if I take their analysis with a grain of salt.





No, it was an actual line unit that regularly got deployed overseas, where people's lives depending on good communication.

I wouldn't say that the F-35 was "the worst" (the Chauchat and the Ross have an almost permanent lock on that one).





Can you tell me where the F-35 was stated to be "the most perfect aircraft ever built so far" ?

The F35 is being promoted as being better than the A10 at close air support, the F18 as an interceptor and strike aircraft. It is being promoted as being better at air superiority than the F15. The only one it is not being reported as being better in its role is the F22

 

[Jredbaron96]

The F35 is being promoted as being better than the A10 at close air support,

Experience has shown that modern CAS aircraft needs to either be fast enough or fly high enough to avoid modern IADS. The A-10 does neither. It's fine for opponents with hardly any anti-air, but against a peer opponent its very outmatched.

the F18 as an interceptor and strike aircraft. It is being promoted as being better at air superiority than the F15.

It's a better aircraft overall, namely in the area of situational awareness.

The only one it is not being reported as being better in its role is the F22

Because it's not.

 

[Godric1970]

nearly half a million bucks for a helmet ... is it gold plated ??

 

[Godric1970]

The F35 is being promoted as being better than the A10 at close air support, the F18 as an interceptor and strike aircraft. It is being promoted as being better at air superiority than the F15. The only one it is not being reported as being better in its role is the F22

for sheer flying manoeuvrability US pilots claim the F-14 was heads above every other US aircraft ... yet it was replaced by the less favourable F-18 ... the A-10 is loved by the pilots who fly it it gets the job done better than any other aircraft of it's type it has a massive payload for it's size ... you can't say the same for the F-35 ... if America ever decommissions the A-10 they will lose much of there effectiveness and hard hitting force projection on the battlefield

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

This entire article is basically trying to argue because one training squadron doesn't have all the spare parts it needs therefore the whole program is a failure.

If you are a raving fan of the F-35 and actually believe the manufacturer's sales brochures, you could well come to that conclusion.

It's written by someone with a history of trying to slander the F-35 as much as possible.

Equally it could be taken as an article which accurately reports the facts and then makes a logical leap that is somewhat exaggerated. However an 8.7% "readiness rate" doesn't fit anyone's rational assessment of "acceptable" - especially when that "readiness rate" is in a unit which (supposedly) is well supplied with personnel and materiel.

Apologies if I take their analysis with a grain of salt.

No apologies required.

No, it was an actual line unit that regularly got deployed overseas, where people's lives depending on good communication.

And you considered that its "readiness rate" was sufficient to accomplish ALL of the tasks that the ENTIRE company was (according to "the book") supposed to be able to perform at the same time?

Can you tell me where the F-35 was stated to be "the most perfect aircraft ever built so far" ?

Obviously you were absent the day that your school taught the FULL use of quotation marks.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The F35 is being promoted as being better than the A10 at close air support, the F18 as an interceptor and strike aircraft. It is being promoted as being better at air superiority than the F15. The only one it is not being reported as being better in its role is the F22

Your consideration for the feelings and sensitivities of others indicated by your omission of four "- but it isn't"s is noted and commended.

 

[Phys251]

The F-35 program was such a waste of taxpayers dollars. Never understood why congresspeople such as Bernie Sanders kept voting for it, when there were more efficient ways of spending government funds.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The F-35 program was such a waste of taxpayers dollars.

No it wasn't.

If not for the F-35 program, Lockheed would have faded out of existence and then the only source of new aircraft would have been Boeing so that would have meant that Boeing could charge whatever it felt like charging for producing whatever it felt like producing and the US government would be forced to buy it since it would never do to have the American military dependent on "foreign suppliers".

Never understood why congresspeople such as Bernie Sanders kept voting for it, when there were more efficient ways of spending government funds.

By including something that you want in a "must pass" piece of legislation (even if what is included has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the piece of legislation that is a "must pass" piece of legislation) you can get anything you feel like made legal, or made illegal, or paid for by the taxpayers.

As an example, if one were to include "Paragraph 13 of Section 3 of 68 Stat. 497 (July 22, 1954) is hereby repealed in its totality and no cognizance of (or credit for) its former existence shall be awarded by any portion of the government." as a "rider" to a piece of "must pass" legislation (say the one that authorizes the funding of the US military) do you think that anyone would actually notice until it was too late to do anything about it?

 

[Phys251]

No it wasn't.

If not for the F-35 program, Lockheed would have faded out of existence and then the only source of new aircraft would have been Boeing so that would have meant that Boeing could charge whatever it felt like charging for producing whatever it felt like producing and the US government would be forced to buy it since it would never do to have the American military dependent on "foreign suppliers".



By including something that you want in a "must pass" piece of legislation (even if what is included has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the piece of legislation that is a "must pass" piece of legislation) you can get anything you feel like made legal, or made illegal, or paid for by the taxpayers.

As an example, if one were to include "Paragraph 13 of Section 3 of 68 Stat. 497 (July 22, 1954) is hereby repealed in its totality and no cognizance of (or credit for) its former existence shall be awarded by any portion of the government." as a "rider" to a piece of "must pass" legislation (say the one that authorizes the funding of the US military) do you think that anyone would actually notice until it was too late to do anything about it?

Exactly what are we going to use the F-35s for? The Space Force?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Exactly what are we going to use the F-35s for? The Space Force?

That question has been asked before and I believe that the officially approved response is:

"The F-35 is an essential component of the integrated system of coordinated effort to protect the United States of America and its allies from the threat of international war that would devastate America and the rest of the world. As such it plays a vital role in keeping the United States of America and its allies free of the threat of international wars the would devastate America and the rest of the world. To prevent the devastation of America and the rest of the world it is necessary to have an integrated system of coordinated effort to protect the United States of America and its allies from international war and in to do that the F-35 is an essential component of that integrated system of coordinated effort. That, of course, is completely unrelated to the fact that manufacturing components for the F-35 provides hundreds, if not thousands, of well paid jobs to Americans who live in your electoral district and whose jobs - along with their contribution to the economic health of your electoral district - would be lost if we ceased manufacturing the F-35 while completely ignoring the fact that it is an essential component of the integrated system of coordinated effort to protect the United States of America and its allies from the threat of international war that would devastate America and the rest of the world.

Does that answer your question, Senator?"
​

or something like that.

 

[Phys251]

That question has been asked before and I believe that the officially approved response is:

"The F-35 is an essential component of the integrated system of coordinated effort to protect the United States of America and its allies from the threat of international war that would devastate America and the rest of the world. As such it plays a vital role in keeping the United States of America and its allies free of the threat of international wars the would devastate America and the rest of the world. To prevent the devastation of America and the rest of the world it is necessary to have an integrated system of coordinated effort to protect the United States of America and its allies from international war and in to do that the F-35 is an essential component of that integrated system of coordinated effort. That, of course, is completely unrelated to the fact that manufacturing components for the F-35 provides hundreds, if not thousands, of well paid jobs to Americans who live in your electoral district and whose jobs - along with their contribution to the economic health of your electoral district - would be lost if we ceased manufacturing the F-35 while completely ignoring the fact that it is an essential component of the integrated system of coordinated effort to protect the United States of America and its allies from the threat of international war that would devastate America and the rest of the world.

Does that answer your question, Senator?"
​

or something like that.

1. Jobs can be supplied by other industries, so that argument holds no water.
2. Whichever governmental official made that quote, of course they're going to stand by that comment.

It may be strategically tricky for the military to do more with less, but that is the standard that many voters hold for literally every other part of government. With the military, let's spend like there's no tomorrow. :doh

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

1. Jobs can be supplied by other industries, so that argument holds no water.
2. Whichever governmental official made that quote, of course they're going to stand by that comment.

It may be strategically tricky for the military to do more with less, but that is the standard that many voters hold for literally every other part of government. With the military, let's spend like there's no tomorrow. :doh

Did you happen to notice that the first paragraph consists of approximately 95.25% total bafflegab (the remaining 4.75% being a veiled threat to the economic welfare of the questioner)?

 

[Jredbaron96]

If you are a raving fan of the F-35 and actually believe the manufacturer's sales brochures, you could well come to that conclusion.

Lol, I'm not by any means an F-35 fanboy.

And you considered that its "readiness rate" was sufficient to accomplish ALL of the tasks that the ENTIRE company was (according to "the book") supposed to be able to perform at the same time?

No, I'm just recognizing that a temporary deficiency in readiness isn't a sign the entire program is a failure.

Obviously you were absent the day that your school taught the FULL use of quotation marks.

Your insults are as second rate as your arguments.