I've seen this stuff before. While the dude is pretty radical, some of stuff makes one wonder. Plus it makes Grippen, F-20 and that Pakistani new fighter look like awesome machines, even if those are to 'techy' for some of the views of the presentation.
Fixing the Fighter Gap
- Thread starter Amsel
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I've seen this stuff before. While the dude is pretty radical, some of stuff makes one wonder. Plus it makes Grippen, F-20 and that Pakistani new fighter look like awesome machines, even if those are to 'techy' for some of the views of the presentation.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Point taken and agree. These guys are quick to be critical as the F-22 and F-35 are just entering service and are expected to have bugs, just like the F-15, F-16 and A-10 did. If read some of their thoughts and criticisms, it contradicts some of their own concepts. I think its a matter of being on the "outside looking in" and no longer being a "player" in the fighter game.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
Which concepts do they contradict?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Having a "long legged" superior air to air fighter to handle anything confronted with (back in the cold war days). A smaller nimble single seat fighter with a multi mission capability. Both concepts led to the F-15 and 16 and Sprey was part of the team that developed that concept. The F-22 and F-35 are bringing the same thing to the table with the F-35 taking up part of the A-10's mission. I think Sprey doesn't fully understand aircraft field maintenance and some aspects of production and is prematurely casting judgement against both aircraft.
Glider
Captain
They complained that the F16 added a fair amount of weight and cost to the original design and say that they wanted flexible multi role aircraft. The initial reason for the weight and cost gain was to make it a more capable GA aircraft.
If you just kept the F16A you would save a lot of money and keep missing the ground targets, a small but not insignificant hole in his argument.
If you just kept the F16A you would save a lot of money and keep missing the ground targets, a small but not insignificant hole in his argument.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
I think he may be wrong about the F-35, but right about the F-22.The guys around Lackland AFB love both, but the radar-seeking missile problem sounds pretty damning. He's certainly shaken my confidence in its actual stealth ability. I wonder if an unfriendly-territory confrontation with MiG-29s (assuming good pilots) would really go our way with these new birds.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Not really - that has been a bit of a quagmire for a few years. I would rather not go into it because I'd be relaying 3rd hand info and for OpSec considerations, but that issue has been addressed...
I think the F-22 would eat MiG-29s alive regardless, unless an F-22 driver is suckered into doing something stupid. Just look at what F-15s have done to the MiG-29 over the years when they have met in combat. Mind you a lot of that is based on pilot skill, but if you have the right equipment you'll never be that close in to show your skills, and I think the MiG-29 is basically "fully grown."
Butters
Senior Airman
Indeed, the F-22 is a fait accompli. The US has too much invested not to continue throwing money at it in the hopes that it may someday be a reliable and effective weapon system. That still doesn't make it any less a 'white elephant'...
And where did I say that I agree with everything Sprey says? As far as Sprey goes- for one, his views on how the USAF should be equipped, are irrelevant in regards to the validity of his argument, re: F-22. That argument stands or falls on its own merits.
Second, I am not aware that Sprey was influential in regards to the design of the F-15. It is my understanding that the F-15 was a response to the increasing sophistication and performance of Soviet a/c, esp the MiG-25, the utter failure of the ill-conceived USAF air combat doctrine of the early '60's (Brutally falsified by the horrendous losses incurred during the Viet Nam air campaign) and the conceptually flawed TFX program (now being repeated with the equally flawed and outrageously expensive JSF program...).
Your claim that Sprey, by attacking the F-22/F-35, is contradicting his own position vis the F-16 and A-10, is somewhat baffling, given that the LWF concept that led to the F-16, and the A-X program that led to the A-10, are the very antithesis of the pie-in-the-sky, Buck Rogers fantasies driving the current programs.
The A-X concept was for a simple, rugged, and inexpensive dedicated CAS/anti-armour aircraft. A modernized Skraider, if you will... IOW, an aircraft whose raison d'etre is not to boost the egos of the white scarf set, but to perform a vital, if unglamorous, mission in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Which it has accomplished in spades. No wonder the USAF has always hated it...
The F-16 was also designed to fill a very clearly defined and singular role. That of an inexpensive, no-frills, hi-performance dogfighter. The fact that it has evolved into a very capable multi-role combat a/c is simply a testament to the clear and coherent thinking of the philosophy behind its basic design.
Neither of these a/c, nor the core philosophy behind their designs, are at all similar to that of either the F-22, or the JSF program. Both of these programs are a reversion to the fantasies promulgated by USAF theorists in the '60's. Central to that dogma is the absurd belief that advanced technology is an end in itself, and that if you ask for it, Santa the US taxpayer will pay for it. I'll bet they all have well-thumbed copies of 'The Secret', in their desks...
The F-22 could not be killed, as Sprey well knows. And again, whether his opposition to both it and the JSF are the result of personal pique, is irrelevant. His arguments against both a/c deserve serious consideration, esp given how little bang for the buck these a/c have delivered. Or even 'promise' to.
Hi-tech hype and promises will not win air battles against well-equipped and competently-trained adversaries.
JL
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And although you're entitled to your opinions, you have not demonstred any real evidence that the F-22 is headed down a "White Elephant" path - and as we speak its MC rate improves almost weekly (well over 70% at this point)
Then why even post his gibberish?
He was part of the Fighter Mafia as pointed out - just go through some of his work and he was right there front and center. The doctrine behind the F-15 was being planned well before Vietnam by Albert Boyd and company.
BTW - horrendous losses during Vietnam? Are we talking air to air or all encompassing?
Are they? Again what are you basing your comments on?
Hated it? Over 30 years (and still going) of hatred is a long time, don't you think.
OK - agree
And again, that's your opinion, present some evidence to support your position......
The only time his argument deserves consideration is if - 1. The aircraft doesn't perform, 2. The contractor can't produce the aircraft for what it was contracted for in terms of $, 3. The aircraft cannot be supported logistically, and 4. The aircraft fails miseribly on the battle field.
And I agree, and with the F-22 and F-35 the USAF will have the pinnacle of "well equipped and well trained." Based on what we've seen so far both aircraft are going to meet their design expectations. If the F-22 has a combat record half as good as the F-15 and last 35 yours or more, it will be more than worth the price (same goes for the F-35). Bottom line, until either program falls flat on its face, detractors have no real argument, do they? And with that said, you show me the last time the USAF or the US Aviation Industry produced a dismal failure?!?!
Last edited:
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
I've heard for years that the USAF has been trying to get rid of the A-10 and it has always been the Army that has been behind keeping it. These are rumors only but I've heard the Army has never been happy with all land based fixed wing airgraft being given to the Air Force, who don't care as much about close air support as the army would like them to.
I admit this is coming from random military guys from Lackland AFB and Fort Hood, but oddly the Air Force guys and Army guys repeat the same rumors.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
The true reality of the Raptor and F-35 is not known to us so this thread dont make much.
Is the Raptor good or bad? Dunno...dont have the data.
So pure speculation.
What you mean dismal failure Flyboy? I can think of some USA jets that didn't fill the full spec...
F-102....was that a dismal failure?...nope....the MiG-23 was dreadful but they still pumped em out...depends how willing someone is willing to fund a project.
Is the Raptor good or bad? Dunno...dont have the data.
So pure speculation.
What you mean dismal failure Flyboy? I can think of some USA jets that didn't fill the full spec...
F-102....was that a dismal failure?...nope....the MiG-23 was dreadful but they still pumped em out...depends how willing someone is willing to fund a project.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
In some cases you're correct and a lot of the "speculation" is based on what's coming out of the press and from people like Pierre Sprey. There are many who build on the negative of such news.
Name one.....
MiG-23 dreadful? Not really. it was just bested by other aircraft it came across, and a lot of that had to do with tactics and pilot training.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
It depends on your point of view...
The convair 880 was not exactly successful...althought it was a good machine...
The Flogger was a dog and had to be constantly updated to make it fly right...
Tell me your understanding of a dismal failure and I can give an example...
Was the SB2C Helldiver a dismal failure....
The major issue is that a fighter is a huge cost machine which becomes a political football...a classic case is the F-111...which good or bad cannot be allowed to fail due to politcal fall-out....and so throw money at it until it works.
The convair 880 was not exactly successful...althought it was a good machine...
The Flogger was a dog and had to be constantly updated to make it fly right...
Tell me your understanding of a dismal failure and I can give an example...
Was the SB2C Helldiver a dismal failure....
The major issue is that a fighter is a huge cost machine which becomes a political football...a classic case is the F-111...which good or bad cannot be allowed to fail due to politcal fall-out....and so throw money at it until it works.
Glider
Captain
I would certainly disagree that the Flogger was a dog. We were always told that he Mig23 was roughtly equal to an early F4 in ability. Did this make it the best fighter in the world? no, did it make it a serious threat to the majority of NATO most of whom were equipped with F104 or earlier aircraft?, yes a serious threat.
Had the Soviet forces received better training then it would have been a bigger threat.
I understand that the USA had a small number for evaluation, wouldn't it be nice if those pilots could say what they thought about it.
Had the Soviet forces received better training then it would have been a bigger threat.
I understand that the USA had a small number for evaluation, wouldn't it be nice if those pilots could say what they thought about it.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
The MiG-23 did not have that problem, as it was designed for speed—but it was unstable and difficult to fly.
Constant Peg pilots would typically fly MiG-23s only after they had acquired extensive experience on the other Soviet models. "The guys really didn't like flying the 23,"...."They were scared of them."
Read other comments that the Flogger was the worst aircraft they had flown and only the absolute most experienced pilots got near them.
Constant Peg pilots would typically fly MiG-23s only after they had acquired extensive experience on the other Soviet models. "The guys really didn't like flying the 23,"...."They were scared of them."
Read other comments that the Flogger was the worst aircraft they had flown and only the absolute most experienced pilots got near them.
Glider
Captain
I am sorry but I have difficulty believing that. Too many aircraft were sold to too many third world nations which in turn were often flown by other nations on millitery aid (eg Pakistan) without this being mentioned to any degree.
Have you got anything that I look at to support this view.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The convair 880 was a passenger plane.
Again - specifics? I know someone who operates one and although it has its limitations, it is no different operationally than a MiG-21, of course offering better performance.
MiG-23
Fairey Battle, Bread 88, Vought F7U Cutlass...
No - it had its problems but in the end served well
That was the case 40 years ago. Today manufacturers are compelled to get it right the first time and keep it on schedule. The F-22 had its share of problems but I no one is "throwing money at it" to make it work. If it doesn't work, it comes out of Lockheed Martin's pocket.
The A-11 and P-7 were two programs that didn't deliver and they were cancelled in recent years to prove my point.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Hogwash - I work with former A-10 drivers and they love their machine and know that the aircraft and its mission is necessary and appreciated.
As far as the Army? Ask an Army aviator what some in the Army's higher command think of aviation. I was at Aberdeen 2 weeks ago and heard the term "bastard stepchild" a few times.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Constant Peg
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=92244&page=2
Interesting forum...about the MiG-23 in USAF hands...
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=92244&page=2
Interesting forum...about the MiG-23 in USAF hands...
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Go to the link I posted and see the two being operated by civilians. One of the guys who flies the aircraft was never in the military and managed to master the aircraft. Its a fast aircraft and could be a handful, but its no more difficult than any other Soviet and in many cases, western fighters of the period.
