Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It was interesting stuff but to be honest most of the slide presentation was nonsensical. To call the F14 a short legged aircraft, just assume that you could shave 20% off the weight of an F5 and that 6 x 0.5M3 were the most effective guns ever, says it all.
It was interesting stuff but to be honest most of the slide presentation was nonsensical. To call the F14 a short legged aircraft, just assume that you could shave 20% off the weight of an F5 and that 6 x 0.5M3 were the most effective guns ever, says it all.
Which concepts do they contradict?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.
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.Which concepts do they contradict?
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.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.
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.
And with that document, you have the current F-22 fleet EXACTLY what Sprey said it should be in several 2009 papers written on the aircraft this year that eventually led to the current production halt. It funny though, Spey was part of the "Fighter Mafia" that brought about the F-15, 16 and A-10. How he defended his concept then and now out of "the loop" is condemning new aircraft based on his own design philosophies.
Bottom line Butters, the F-22 is bought and paid for and the reduced numbers reflect the current need and future planning. At the same time the same Pierre Sprey also said that we should build "4,000 smaller and more agile A-10s" and he thinks it will cost $60 billion, the same for 1,100 "smaller, faster F-16s for $44 billion. Now you do the math and if you anything about re-starting a production line, re-tooling for reconfigured design, and the sustainment engineering to go along with it, your first comment about dividing $65B by 187 will make a lot more sense.
BTW Sprey has also mentioned in some of his other recent papers that his 2009 "dream team" - "electronics will be cutting edge, all-passive with 360 degree infrared and radar warning," in other words no radar.
Sprey was brilliant in his day but I think not being a "player has effected his judgement.
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)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'...
Then why even post his gibberish?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.
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.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...).
Are they? Again what are you basing your comments on?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.
Hated it? Over 30 years (and still going) of hatred is a long time, don't you think.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...
OK - agreeThe 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.
And again, that's your opinion, present some evidence to support your position......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 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.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
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.Hated it? Over 30 years (and still going) of hatred is a long time, don't you think.
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.
Name one.....What you mean dismal failure Flyboy? I can think of some USA jets that didn't fill the full spec...
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.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.
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.
The convair 880 was a passenger plane.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...
Fairey Battle, Bread 88, Vought F7U Cutlass...Tell me your understanding of a dismal failure and I can give an example...
No - it had its problems but in the end served wellWas the SB2C Helldiver a dismal failure....
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 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.
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.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 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.