Jump to content

Pierre Sprey & Lt. Col David Berke debate


Hummingbird

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The situation they were afraid of was getting into a subsonic dogfight with a plane that had mediocre at best turn rates.

 

The assumption was the Phantom would do all it's engagements in BVR and at supersonic speeds so there was no need to train for slow dog fights.

 

Then they found out the hard way in Vietnam that BVR-only scenario they trained to was a pipe dream. The rest is history (startup of top gun, gun pods, etc etc)

 

History repeats itself with the F35. The F35 pilots are super confident that they will always win in BVR so there is no need to worry about slow dog fights after the winders are spent after that first turn at the merge.

 

So it's a safe bet that LM didn't bother to push the envelope with regard to turn-rate performance. No need, Aim9x is all that is required.

 

This is folly, murphy's law and the gremlins will be in full force when a real engagement happens.

 

They were afraid of getting themselves in close because they had not been trained properly for A-A - it wouldn't have mattered if they were in F-15s if they didn't know how to use the thing in close.

 

Programs like Top Gun gave the Navy these close in skills to utilise the F-4 and it was fairly good in the right hands.

 

You are welcome to make your assumptions that seem to suggest that every air force around the world stuck with F-35 is totally clueless of course. :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were afraid of getting themselves in close because they had not been trained properly for A-A - it wouldn't have mattered if they were in F-15s if they didn't know how to use the thing in close.

 

Programs like Top Gun gave the Navy these close in skills to utilise the F-4 and it was fairly good in the right hands.

 

You are welcome to make your assumptions that seem to suggest that every air force around the world stuck with F-35 is totally clueless of course. :thumbup:

 

Exactly and the reason they were not trained properly is because there were bad assumptions being made about BVR-only missions. And again history is repeating itself with the F35.

 

You are welcome to your assumptions as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And we all know about the F15 and it's reputation don't we.

 

He and the people that worked alongside him have a lot to be proud of.

 

Okay - and would you perhaps agree that Sprey is proud of the F-15 :)

 

I say this because I am astounded you could be so oblivious to the messages that have been spreyed (pun intended ) out publically all these years - not just in articles and videos but even books like "Boyd" by Coram that Sprey contributed to.


Edited by Basher54321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the video I cited was a reasonable guess.

I wouldn't call the video reasonable, while the true performance of military systems are classified, things like "jamming synergy with lower radar cross section" is simply physics, things like "apart from DAS F-35 is also equipped with EOTS" or "F-35 will be equipped with Meteor" or "F-35 has measures to reduce its infrared signature" are fact. If the video doesn't get those basic facts right, it is hard to take any other information from it as serious. For example: if there is a video comparing F-16 vs F-18 and they started right off the bat by saying:" Both aircraft have twins engine" or "F-16 can carry FLIR pod while F-18 cannot" then the rest of the video will lose all its credibility

 

BTW my head explodes just thinking of where they will cram six AA missiles inside that airframe.

For AIM-120

1 on the bay door

2 inside the A-G side of the bay, but not on the same horizontal plane

Some what like F-22 configuration

file.php?id=17513&mode=view

 

Maybe these are cutting edge mini-missiles no one has seen before

There is an on going program for missiles on F-35, F-22 called SACM-T, one of the candidates is CUDA, once it becomes reality F-35 will be able to carry 12 AAM internally. It has similar diameter as AIM-120 but half as long

Cuda-460x250.jpg

qSchBRE_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=high

 

talking about the future the aircraft has others tricks as well,

file.php?id=20408&mode=view

file.php?id=20407&mode=view


Edited by garrya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call the video reasonable, while the true performance of military systems are classified, things like "jamming synergy with lower radar cross section" is simply physics, things like "apart from DAS F-35 is also equipped with EOTS" or "F-35 will be equipped with Meteor" or "F-35 has measures to reduce its infrared signature" are fact. If the video doesn't get those basic facts right, it is hard to take any other information from it as serious. For example: if there is a video comparing F-16 vs F-18 and they started right off the bat by saying:" Both aircraft have twins engine" or "F-16 can carry FLIR pod while F-18 cannot" then the rest of the video will lose all its credibility

 

 

100% well said :thumbup:

 

 

A similar problem occurs with the Sprey V Berke video - even though as neofightr suggests Sprey might be making some good points in places - what is the point of him doing this if it is surrounded by a layer of Horse**** that is 100% false. People get to the horse**** layer think its the same old Sprey and discard everything else he has to say!


Edited by Basher54321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<Jaw hits the ground>, not only does RCS jump and negates stealth

the third missile is also internal so stealth characteristics will not be affected

 

 

And we all know about the F15 and it's reputation don't we.

 

He and the people that worked alongside him have a lot to be proud of.

:huh: Sprey didn't help design the F-15, in fact he said that F-15 is too heavy, too expensive and loaded with too much junk.. etc


Edited by garrya
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:huh: Sprey didn't help design the F-15, in fact he said that F-15 is too heavy, too expensive and loaded with too much junk.. etc

 

He said the same about the F-16 and A-10.

 

From the Book Boyd, About the A-X, page 236

He wanted a single-engine airplane, while the AF insisted on two. And he wanted a small maneuvering aircraft, while the AF wanted a mush bigger airplane. In the end the airplane was bigger than necessary and its maneuvering performance was degraded by the insistence on carrying too many bombs

Edited by mvsgas

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole reason that a commander of a battlefield makes the big bucks and has absolute authority is because an effective fighting unit cannot have soldiers questioning orders, it simply does not work that way. There is no time for a soldier to sit there and evaluate a given order and a soldier will not have the full picture during the fog of war of battle. They simply are not high enough up the chain to see the whole picture. If a given order is illegal then the commander will be punished in due time and process.

 

This is different from having the local tactical picture that is a must have for the soldier and would keep a soldier alive and effective at the mission. Not the same thing.

 

I wanted to just hone in on this point, though a little behind on the discussion at hand. Note that this is not a personal attack; however, this is flawed. Now I am not sure whether it is the time or gap of service (I totally understand since it has been years since I served) or perhaps a more officer-oriented thinking. But, this is legally wrong, and I guarantee you most combat veterans, especially those in low-intensity or COIN operations as of late, are keenly aware.

 

As per the UCMJ:

Section 16c(1)©:

"Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it."

Section 14c(2)(a)(i):

"Inference of lawfulness. A order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime."

 

So, to say that somehow an effective combat unit can't have orders questioned is ridiculous, it trounces upon the hallmark of initiative, individual ethics, and understanding of applicable law (especially of junior leadership, both officer and NCO). I say that from personal experience in a combat zone (and in combat), where one does question at peril, but no matter what, I don't know of any other combat veterans (or active) who would willfully obey an unlawful order regardless if "the commander will be punished in due time and process."

 

Yes, no matter what level (tactical, operational, or strategic) of authority, what grade/rank/rating/experience might say in an order; if the service member is given an unlawful order or even questionable order, it can and should be evaluated. Now, if it happens that the tactical picture or fog of war debilitated a view that made the order lawful, it is disobeyed at his peril. From what I have seen and experienced, this is exceedingly rare. More often than not, it is blatantly unlawful. (Of course there are cases of unlawful orders being followed, but mere cases out of potentially hundreds of thousands of hours of operations without fault.)

 

So bottom line, to think that orders are always obeyed contingent upon responsibility of a commander, without question, is wrong. To think that somehow a commander has full authority to give orders without question or evaluation, is also wrong. For any subordinates, who do not question or evaluate the lawfulness of an order, is also wrong.

 

I understand this post went a bit OT, but I honestly think that this misunderstanding has a good point from the perspective of drones/humans in the loop, etc. I also think that some clarification is needed on the original post. I do not fault neofightr, nor do I wish to argue, just simply state the applicable law governed by UCMJ. Upon reading this point, I felt a bit compelled to correct it, since I have personally seen this happen.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

100% well said :thumbup:

 

 

A similar problem occurs with the Sprey V Berke video - even though as neofightr suggests Sprey might be making some good points in places - what is the point of him doing this if it is surrounded by a layer of Horse**** that is 100% false. People get to the horse**** layer think its the same old Sprey and discard everything else he has to say!

 

I agree, credibility is hard to earn but easy to lose

 

He said the same about the F-16 and A-10.

 

From the Book Boyd, About the A-X, page 236

That interesting, i didn't know he bash the A-10 as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much every aircraft is to heavy, to many hard points, to much electronics, etc.

He has additionally stated (link here) the A-10 would be better if it was 55% smaller, yet some how it has to be more lethal and more survivable. Not sure how. Maybe use Burt Rutan ARES.

I would have to look in the book, but IIRC, he also complain about the capabilities of the F-16. On the same video he also mentions an Air Superiority would be "super-agile" 30% smaller, all-passive electronics and weapons.

So I guess if we take an YF-16 (no radar, no jammer, no laser range finder, no A/G weapons), put two AIM-9 or R-27ET and a M61A1 or a GAU-22A and installed a F110-GE-132 we would have a perfect fighter.

 

On another forums, someone posted a document supposedly written by Sprey, what I got from it was that he believes the M48A5 Patton is more effective than the M1A Abrams, AIm-9 is better than AIM-7, A-10 is more effective than F-15E on CAS and so on.

 

Also, "Drone importance enormously exaggerated"


Edited by mvsgas

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to just hone in on this point, though a little behind on the discussion at hand. Note that this is not a personal attack; however, this is flawed. Now I am not sure whether it is the time or gap of service (I totally understand since it has been years since I served) or perhaps a more officer-oriented thinking. But, this is legally wrong, and I guarantee you most combat veterans, especially those in low-intensity or COIN operations as of late, are keenly aware.

 

As per the UCMJ:

Section 16c(1)©:

"Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it."

Section 14c(2)(a)(i):

"Inference of lawfulness. A order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime."

 

So, to say that somehow an effective combat unit can't have orders questioned is ridiculous, it trounces upon the hallmark of initiative, individual ethics, and understanding of applicable law (especially of junior leadership, both officer and NCO). I say that from personal experience in a combat zone (and in combat), where one does question at peril, but no matter what, I don't know of any other combat veterans (or active) who would willfully obey an unlawful order regardless if "the commander will be punished in due time and process."

 

Yes, no matter what level (tactical, operational, or strategic) of authority, what grade/rank/rating/experience might say in an order; if the service member is given an unlawful order or even questionable order, it can and should be evaluated. Now, if it happens that the tactical picture or fog of war debilitated a view that made the order lawful, it is disobeyed at his peril. From what I have seen and experienced, this is exceedingly rare. More often than not, it is blatantly unlawful. (Of course there are cases of unlawful orders being followed, but mere cases out of potentially hundreds of thousands of hours of operations without fault.)

 

So bottom line, to think that orders are always obeyed contingent upon responsibility of a commander, without question, is wrong. To think that somehow a commander has full authority to give orders without question or evaluation, is also wrong. For any subordinates, who do not question or evaluate the lawfulness of an order, is also wrong.

 

I understand this post went a bit OT, but I honestly think that this misunderstanding has a good point from the perspective of drones/humans in the loop, etc. I also think that some clarification is needed on the original post. I do not fault neofightr, nor do I wish to argue, just simply state the applicable law governed by UCMJ. Upon reading this point, I felt a bit compelled to correct it, since I have personally seen this happen.

 

Like I said, we are all entitled to opinions no matter how informed or uninformed, my time at the Naval Academy, Naval post graduate school and the Naval War college have informed my opinions and I still stand by my original statement, if orders are questioned during the heat of battle then that unit will not be as successful as it should be and may be eliminated depending on the situation.. There will be time enough to hold the commander accountable after the battle.

 

You assume I am talking about blindly following orders and that is not the case. Everyone has the option to say no but it better make sense (i.e. ordered to attack innocent civilians, clearly an attack on blue forces etc etc). Both human and drone(with the right sensors) will know this. So logically no one is expected to execute unlawful orders like genocide(nazi examples) or burning down an innocent village (the officers and NCOs were held accountable in Vietnam).

 

This is clearly the purpose of UCMJ and the process of law.

 

I truly didn't appreciate this mindset until I became a leader of many. It was always fascinating to see the impact when one of my subordinates decided to question a lawful decision only to find out how wrong he was when he finally got all the facts at a later time. Thankfully this was never during combat only in training.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the third missile is also internal so stealth characteristics will not be affected

 

 

 

:huh: Sprey didn't help design the F-15, in fact he said that F-15 is too heavy, too expensive and loaded with too much junk.. etc

 

I clearly read the statement as external which would be silly.

 

So if it's internal then yeah not an impact to stealth. Interesting to see if this shoe-horning will happen. I doubt it will and we won't know for at least a decade.

 

Clearly Spey got it wrong with the F15. Obviously the F15 is a resounding success with all it's mig and Su tallies over the past 40 years.


Edited by neofightr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

100% well said :thumbup:

 

 

A similar problem occurs with the Sprey V Berke video - even though as neofightr suggests Sprey might be making some good points in places - what is the point of him doing this if it is surrounded by a layer of Horse**** that is 100% false. People get to the horse**** layer think its the same old Sprey and discard everything else he has to say!

 

How on god's green earth do you know this?

 

How can anyone here be so quick to attack him and know any better than him?

 

Have you designed aircraft platforms in real-life like he did?

Did you spend an entire career in designing and engineering complex systems like he did?

 

You are however entitled to your negative uninformed opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call the video reasonable, while the true performance of military systems are classified, things like "jamming synergy with lower radar cross section" is simply physics...

 

Ok, so you are entitled to your opinion.

 

Just don't attempt to disqualify mine.

 

My thousands of hours of working the Hornet radar and my advanced master's course in radar thoery and operation tell me I know something about what I am talking about.

 

The article is a reasonable guess just as reasonable as your counter-guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, credibility is hard to earn but easy to lose

 

 

That interesting, i didn't know he bash the A-10 as well

 

Of course he did, anyone with a high-level of integrity and a critical mind will always be ready to criticize one's own work as well as others. This is why I get him.

 

I am always critical of my own work, that's the only way you will get better.

 

His mindset has always been about efficiency judging by all the comments I have seen from him.

Even though I don't agree with a single engine design vs. dual-engine (especially for the Navy), I get where he is coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Also, "Drone importance enormously exaggerated"

 

Great video. On point of the dangers of collateral damage.

 

Nailed it when it came to his assessment of the predator.

 

Anyone who read my drone write-ups know I am not talking about predators.

 

I am glad I saw this video because I now have even more respect for the man, clearly he is not shooting from the hip like you guys like to portray him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There is an on going program for missiles on F-35, F-22 called SACM-T, one of the candidates is CUDA, once it becomes reality F-35 will be able to carry 12 AAM internally. It has similar diameter as AIM-120 but half as long"

 

Cool, so my educated guess on future drone weapons scaling down was on the mark. Didn't know about this slide factoid. Nice find.

By the way I know all about power-point warrior tactics employed by contractors so I will take this with a grain of salt.

 

"Sprey didn't help design the F-15, in fact he said that F-15 is too heavy, too expensive and loaded with too much junk.. etc"

 

Looks like he was a proponent of advanced drone design whether he knows it or not. :)


Edited by neofightr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay - and would you perhaps agree that Sprey is proud of the F-15 :)

 

I say this because I am astounded you could be so oblivious to the messages that have been spreyed (pun intended ) out publically all these years - not just in articles and videos but even books like "Boyd" by Coram that Sprey contributed to.

 

I assumed he had a hand in providing feedback to the early designs but who knows. Just because he was critical of it doesn't mean he didn't contribute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just don't attempt to disqualify mine.

 

My thousands of hours of working the Hornet radar and my advanced master's course in radar thoery and operation tell me I know something about what I am talking about.

 

The article is a reasonable guess just as reasonable as your counter-guess.

Iam not an F-18 pilot so without any doubt your assessment of you about F-18 would be ways more accurate than mine. With that being said, since we live in the digital age, almost everything are available on the internet, thus, while iam not a naval academy undergraduate student, I still have access to many of their books and lecture slides. I also have seen optical simulated radar scattering charts of many aircraft (obviously nowhere as good as an anechoic chamber but it gives a general idea). Thus, i believe that understand the basics of radar well enough( atleast the general physics and the formula).

Just in case you think iam lying, iamnot:

screenshot.png

 

Moreover, iam fortunate enough to have the opportunities to chat with an ex SAM operator and several F-16 pilots on usual basis. We discussed the benefit of low RCS for jamming many times, but never once they stated that i was wrong when i commented: " low RCS will make jamming more effective".In fact, the SAM operator even said this:

it's very easy. When RCS is reduced to 1/10th the original value, also required jamming power is reduced to 1/10th the original value (to have the same effect). If the jamming power is kept constant, then the jamming will have 3 times better effective range. This means radar will burn through the jamming from 3 times shorter range. So a fighter with 1/10th the RCS can get 3 times closer to threat radar before jamming will become ineffective.

 

If we assume VLO fighter has RCS of -40 dB or 0.0001 m^2 and has similar jamming power than a fighter with +10 dB or 10 m^2 RCS. The VLO fighter will get about 316 times closer to threat radar than the 10 m^2 conventional fighter aircraft before jamming is made ineffective. So if radar can burn through fighter self protection jamming from 100 km away against 10 m^2 fighter, it will only be able to burn through VLO fighter jamming from about 300 meters away!

 

Jamming effectiveness is affected by RCS, jammer power, radar power, jammer antenna gain and radar antenna gain. Antenna gains are restricted by the physical size of the antennas and power can be increased only so much. RCS seems to be the easiest to reduce significantly.

And as far as i understand it, jamming efficiency and burn through distance both determined by jamming to signal ratio, lower RCS will result in lower power in the signal part. Hence, easier jamming and shorter burn through distance. Seem very logical to me. There is also an equation to calculate how these will be varied with each other. While the exact performance of radars system are classified, their general physics aren't. So if you find that iam wrong in what i said, please do state where and educate me on why. With all due respect, just stating your occupation doesn't really benefit the discussion in any way. For example: if there is another pilot coming here and have completely opposite opinion with you. Whose words should we take if neither explains their point?


Edited by garrya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How on god's green earth do you know this?

 

How can anyone here be so quick to attack him and know any better than him?

 

Have you designed aircraft platforms in real-life like he did?

Did you spend an entire career in designing and engineering complex systems like he did?

 

You are however entitled to your negative uninformed opinions.

 

I would assume that Basher didn't design or fly aircraft, however, i had the opportunities to talk with many informed people who still have very negative opinions about Sprey. And i don't mean young pilots flying the F-35 just now but rather old people who of similar generation with Sprey.

For example:

Lt. Col. Pat "Gums" McAdoo (F-102, F-101B, A-37, A-7, F-16 pilot)

John William (retired structure engineer worked on YF-16 ,F-16A and F-16XL)

SMSgt Mac (a retired Air Force Senior NCO, maintained and tested airborne precision guided weapons such as AIMVAL/ACEVAL, TASVAL79, AIM-9L FOT&E the first half of his Air Force career and flight tested RPVs, Drones and Cruise Missiles such as XBQM-106A, Pave Tiger/Panther, CALCM, ACM and others for the second half).

There are also some others pilots and aero engineer who also don't like Sprey such as 35_aoa, Spurts, Snake handler, Andraxxus ..etc but i only know their account name.

 

Nevertheless, i don't care that much about pilots or aero engineers generic statement. What important are actual numbers. If someone said something and then able to prove it by equation and calculation or some test data (such as flight manual) then i will believe him regardless of how old he is or what is his occupation. On the other hand, if a famous guy said something, but then the maths or the test data contradict him then i would take these test data over his words any day in the week and twice on sunday


Edited by garrya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spey's point was back in his day, you had specific mission designs for the F18/F14 and the F15/F16 and all aircraft that preceded it.

Mission specific design for the F/A-18? While it is true that the F-16 had a mandate as a lightweight air defense fighter in line with Boyd's (Sprey's) thinking, the F/A-18 may be considered the first true multi-role fighter. It fell neither solely within the fleet air defense nor attack roles, and was produced with compromises made to perform its multiple roles. Do you not feel the multi-role concept (and compromises required) has been validated by the Hornet and subsequently by the Viper?

 

for the F14 and F18 there were little in compromises that occurred from design to production with possibly range being one for the F18

But that's huge! It also was fielded with the intentionally heavily de-rated F404 and could not originally carry a missile larger than Sparrow with which to perform its FADF role. (Which I imagine was one of the reasons every Tomcat guy was lining up to take a shot at your jet.)

 

I read all of your comments with some fascination and I'm interested to know more about your thoughts on the multi-role concept as it relates to design compromise. Is it not reasonable to say that the same hard choices were made on the F-35? It indicates the trend of the strike aviation platform toward active ISR, battle management, and precision deep strike. This, to me, reflects the progress of technology and the killing business. Follow-up question: do you think the fog of war is inevitable for strike aviation? Can the F-35's touted SA and information-gathering capabilities offset its shortcomings in maneuver?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iam not an F-18 pilot so without any doubt your assessment of you about F-18 would be ways more accurate than mine. With that being said,............

 

.... With all due respect, just stating your occupation doesn't really benefit the discussion in any way. For example: if there is another pilot coming here and have completely opposite opinion with you. Whose words should we take if neither explains their point?

 

So what you are saying is your 2nd and 3rd hand knowledge qualifies you to dismiss my statements and add the proclamation that my past occupational experience doesn't benefit this thread. I see.

 

IMHO: My occupation does benefit the discussion since I have 1st hand knowledge vs. your 2nd and 3rd hand knowledge.

 

Still it is my professional opinion and just that an opinion. Just like Spey's opinions.

 

I will re-emphasize the operative word here, *guess*, when I cited the article I threw it out there as a reasonable guesstimate nothing more.

 

It is very easy to tear it up with academic theory. But I promise you, neither you nor anyone else on these boards are qualified to talk about real world classified numbers nor will I of course.

 

So you are free to claim your theoretical prowess all you like.

 

And I will be happy to talk about guesses all day long.

 

I will leave you with one real-world example. During my time in the hornet I noticed some odd radar behavior from time to time that no one, no techs, no pilots, no contractors could explain.

The assumption was that the radar was down and needed some calibration and diagnostics conducted. But every time afterwards the radar checked out 4.0 after calibration. I felt bad because the plane was unavailable for training for that duration.

 

It wasn't until several years later after studying advanced radar theory in my master's curriculum that I realize what was going on with the radar behavior I witness years before.

I told my prof. at the time that it's a real shame that most pilots will never have a radar course like this because it opened my eyes and really gave me the big picture on radar performance.

Had I known this back in the day I would have never said anything was wrong with the radar.

 

My point is that sometimes it takes theoretical study combined with the applied experience to see the big picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...