Jump to content

Pierre Sprey & Lt. Col David Berke debate


Hummingbird

Recommended Posts

 

I am glad to see you agree on some points.

 

I am no expert on metal fatigue but I know how it affects fighter planes pulling constant g's over the lifetime of the aircraft because I flew them.

 

The F15s have been in constant production so those planes you cite in '75 are not the ones of today. Another example are F18As made in the eighties, no longer used by the Navy.

Reason for both cases: metal fatigue.

F14s retired due to metal fatigue and upkeep cost.

 

B52s are truly an amazing story but you need to research it to understand how they are flying today. First off, they don't pull serious Gs so metal fatigue takes longer. Second the B52s keep flying because some forward thinking people preserved the bulk of the fleet a long time ago and placed them in the boneyard and now selectively use them for parts and use.

This method can't be as easily done with fighters.

 

The ratio I state is simply a blind guess to illustrate there is an order of magnitude difference in cost between an F35 and a modularized/miniaturized drone.

I have no idea what the cost difference would actually be but I guarantee it would be eye popping when compared to capabilities.

 

Ask yourself did you think just 10 years ago that a full-sized 4500 pound car would be traveling on our highways with no need for a driver? It happened and it's already 2 yr old news.

Still needs refinement of course but our government along with others are buying off on it and are allowing it. And already there is talk about full-size autonmous 18-wheelers.

 

One more thing about drones and cost, the smaller the unit the lesser the cost in the long run.

If you can make a mini-hornet then why not a mini-xb47

 

And no, the ordnance of today will not be the ordnance of tomorrow when it comes to drones.

Think smaller and more powerful :smilewink:

 

We have soo many AI efforts going on in the world it's not even funny, remember AI is not a physical property and yes it will cost money but not at the level you think it will be.

 

I never said complete take-over, it will be gradually phased-in over the decades with a small cadre of elite human pilots remaining.

 

The F15 reference was a reference to the article you sent me about how todays raptor technology will be outdated 30 years from now, well of course it well. Technology across every platform gets upgraded. I was not doubting the service life on those aircraft. I am aware of the role that AI has is increasing, and no doubt it amd drones will be important. But when you said 15 years maximum you were pretty confident. Though yes over the decades I see more and more drones coming in, but we still got some more time. You refer to a small cadre, but what is small? The Fighter Community is a drop in a lake compared to the military. We disagree and we probably will always disagree, when I see this happen I will believe it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

----

 

So this one of many articles out there citing the initial reason for a lack of gun software was

because the F35 is not expected to dogfight and does not have a priority for CAS gun support is somehow some made up lie from loser pilots?

 

Is this suppose to be some fake news article?

 

"The lack of a gun is not likely to be a major problem for close-in air-to-air dogfights against other jets. Part of the problem is that the F-35—which is less maneuverable than contemporary enemy fighters like the Russian Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker—is not likely to survive such a close-in skirmish. “The jet can’t really turn anyway, so that is a bit of a moot point,” said one Air Force fighter pilot."

 

I did a search and did not see any lawsuits suing this website for the fake news article.

 

Sure sure, it's superior missile loadout of aim9x and amraams negate any need for dogfights, riiiiiight. :lol: History repeats itself yet again (see initial phantom designs circa 1960s).

 

 

 

I am not going to Drone on about Drones (bit OT) - afraid you will have to wait and see like the rest of us.

 

Fred Clifton is also long retired and he was using his experience in his judgment - but he decided to speak to those in the know about it which gave him a different impression.

 

Worryingly you on the other hand seem to be basing your opinions on a few clickbait tabloid news articles - Dave Majumdar has been around for while but the man has to earn his living.

 

We can clearly see with our own eyes the F-35 is anything but a rock!!

 

Lockheed officially have released statements down playing its turn performance and as you can see its original requirements were literally F-16 & FA-18 like performance - the thing was built primarily with more priority on A-G - but it looks like they hit the requirements.

 

JSF Case Study 2008

 

 

 

There are several USN F-4 pilot comments even back in the late 60s and 70s (Red Baron) that clearly state they did not need a gun because the missiles were adequate - right or wrong they were actual combat veterans and not everyone in the know shares your view points.

 

 

https://fightersweep.com/2698/f-35-worst-fighter-ever/

 

https://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-16-article-garbage/

 

https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

 

 

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/update-norwegian-pilot-counters-leaked-f-35-dogfi-422552/


Edited by Basher54321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not going to Drone on about Drones (bit OT) - afraid you will have to wait and see like the rest of us.

 

Fred Clifton is also long retired and he was using his experience in his judgment - but he decided to speak to those in the know about it which gave him a different impression.

 

Worryingly you on the other hand seem to be basing your opinions on a few clickbait tabloid news articles - Dave Majumdar has been around for while but the man has to earn his living.

 

We can clearly see with our own eyes the F-35 is anything but a rock!!

 

Lockheed officially have released statements down playing its turn performance and as you can see its original requirements were literally F-16 & FA-18 like performance - the thing was built primarily with more priority on A-G - but it looks like they hit the requirements.

 

JSF Case Study 2008

 

 

 

There are several USN F-4 pilot comments even back in the late 60s and 70s (Red Baron) that clearly state they did not need a gun because the missiles were adequate - right or wrong they were actual combat veterans and not everyone in the know shares your view points.

 

 

https://fightersweep.com/2698/f-35-worst-fighter-ever/

 

https://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-16-article-garbage/

 

https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

 

 

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/update-norwegian-pilot-counters-leaked-f-35-dogfi-422552/

 

Everybody is entitled to their opinions but no, mine are not based on click-bait articles.

 

They are based on being in the know, working at commander operational and test evaluation force, being on the USS Wasp when the first marine variant F35 successfully landed onboard years ago, chatting with the test pilot who I use to fly with back in my flying days.

 

Going through an extensive master's degree curriculum in systems engineering and acquisitions at one of the most prestigious schools in the country.

 

I know all about major contractors and their methods to promote their products thanks to my time in acquisitions.

 

The F14 which was the direct successor to the Navy's gunless F4 and was designed based on lessons learned from the F4's shortcomings.

 

Guess what was requested by the Navy (based on pilot's feedback of course) and implemented from the start for that aircraft, yeah that's right a gun. A gun was requested along with cutting-edge, long (phoenix), medium(newest sparrow) and close range (latest aim9) missiles.

 

Those F4 pilots that stated they didn't have need for a gun because the superior missiles are all they would ever need had the same mindset of today's F35 pilots saying that this plane is so advanced that there is no need for a gun.

 

It was this every same overconfidence/bias that proved to be wrong over time.

Now LM is playing catch-up with trying to make the internal gun work and have a band-aid in place called the gun-pod for the Navy's variant.

 

History once again repeats itself.

 

You need to ask yourself why LM did not by default have the internal cannon full up and ready in it's initial design. There is a clear reason for that that has already been stated in many articles that are out there.

 

And as I clearly stated in my earlier posts, I am confident the F35 will hold it's own against the existing inventory of 4th gen aircraft that were designed back in the 70-90s timeframe. How it will do against any aircraft designed after 2000 is anyone's guess.

 

Now how about setting realistic expectations, look at this video starting at 1:25. (

)

 

Notice those pylons? Sure they are testing the plane to make sure it can launch/land with pylons but how much do you want to bet that will be the standard configuration just like it is with the hornets?

Recall Berke's response to Sprey's remarks on performance, Berke was adamant that the F35 would have a radically different internal configuration that will make it do circles around the competition in combat. Now let's just see what happens in a few short years when we see fleet standard F35Cs launching during ops. Will they or won't they have pylons, that will be the question.

 

And if they have pylons carrying missiles, well then, need I go on? And sure in the attack role, pylons with bombs are expected, just like they are with Hornets but the question remains, what will be the standard missile configuration for the fleet.

This is why I jumped on this thread when everyone decided to attack Sprey's reputation because of his critical remarks on the F35. The man has been around long enough and in enough circles in the industry to know what he is talking about.

 

And finally here is a great click-bait video that will give you a good idea at a realistic picture.


Edited by neofightr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is great to hear your insight and opinions - but up till the last post I thought you were someone who had been out of the loop for 20 years trying to feed me information from a site I wouldn't go to for the weather.

 

Anyway the technical issues I cannot comment on - the guns have been there from the start but not going to get into a debate over the history of aircraft development problems - done to death.

 

Guns on F-4s - to see where other forum members might be coming from is the fact that putting a gun on the F-4E didn't just magically change the Vietnam air war - it was just not black and white. A lot of the USAF pilots didn't want a gun because they knew it would put them in situations they were not trained for (which is another issue entirely).

 

It was totally right to put guns on the 4 gen fighters and is clearly still important to have a gun as the USAF have put on the A and the F-22. If you feel the Gun pods on the B/C are not adequate then that is an argument you have against those in the Navy that feel they are.

 

As I said in my first post here - we know that Sprey knows what he is talking about - he gets attacked because of the blatent lies and misinformation he feeds to the public - this isn't the first Sprey video - we have had years and years of this ****.

F-16_F15_Designer-LOL.JPG.fe5eee6ca13f267761e9789c2161063c.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So this one of many articles out there citing the initial reason for a lack of gun software was

because the F35 is not expected to dogfight and does not have a priority for CAS gun support is somehow some made up lie from loser pilots?

 

Is this suppose to be some fake news article?

 

"The lack of a gun is not likely to be a major problem for close-in air-to-air dogfights against other jets. Part of the problem is that the F-35—which is less maneuverable than contemporary enemy fighters like the Russian Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker—is not likely to survive such a close-in skirmish. “The jet can’t really turn anyway, so that is a bit of a moot point,” said one Air Force fighter pilot."

 

I did a search and did not see any lawsuits suing this website for the fake news article.

Gun software for sure not a priority for F-35, there are others much more important stuff like the radar, ESM, DAS, integration of SDB... etc. And to be honest if you sue all fake news channels then you will be doing it all day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now LM is playing catch-up with trying to make the internal gun work and have a band-aid in place called the gun-pod for the Navy's variant. You need to ask yourself why LM did not by default have the internal cannon full up and ready in it's initial design. There is a clear reason for that that has already been stated in many articles that are out there.

AFAIK, The internal gun has always been there for the A version , the B version didn't have it because they wanted to reduce weight as much as possible for STOVL capability, C version could have got the gun but NAVY think longer combat is more useful (TBH, it does make sense, since shorter combat radius mean the carrier are more vulnerable to attack). Nevertheless, the gun is not a priority ,because a stealth aircraft can choose to avoid conflict if necessary

 

Notice those pylons? Sure they are testing the plane to make sure it can launch/land with pylons but how much do you want to bet that will be the standard configuration just like it is with the hornets?

IMHO, this is an apple to orange comparison, the hornet need external pylon for weapons, F-35 doesn't, and the main selling point of F-35 is stealth which would be a waste in extrernal configuration

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And finally here is a great click-bait video that will give you a good idea at a realistic picture.

 

I don't think you are serious when posting that video, however to stop any potential confusion of others reader, i will point out these extreme bias points in the video

 

a) F-35 was stated to have RCS of a golf ball or 0.001m2 at X band but the video stated that number to be 0.1 m2

 

b) Video basically copied the stealth performance vs radar band from APA, but both don't have access to F-35 radar scattering test data and they sure as hell don't have access to test data of CNT RAM which has very wide effective bandwidth

https://www.google.com/patents/US20100271253#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

c) he fail to mention the synergy between jamming and radar cross section, which should be a massive advantage of F-35 against Su-35

 

 

jamming-burn-throgh311.png

 

 

 

 

d) Author mentioned that neither F-35 or Su-35 have IR reduction measure. That is actually wrong. Both F-35 and F-22 was stated to have a top coat that help reduce IR signature in long IR wavelength. From the frontal arcs the nozzle is hidden from sight by the horizontal stabilizers, and the serrated pattern of the nozzle will not only reduce radar reflection but also cut down plumes length

 

nozzles.png?w=1024&h=758

 

 

 

 

Another IR reduction measure on F-35 are 2 massive scopes to cool the nacelle bay and engine nozzles

 

 

untitled.png?w=1024

iwakuni-019.jpg?w=1024&h=768

 

 

 

 

 

e) Then the comparison between DAS and OLS-35, claimed that OLS-35 is better while completely ignored EOTS. Then also forget to mention that LFR of OLS-35 is merely 20 km, so firing solutions is around that distance

 

 

ols-35.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

f) he stated that F-35 will detect Su-35 from 150 km, this is from the assumption that Su-35 will have RCS =1m2 (quite unreasonable for a fully loaded Su-35) and an old estimate from APA when they thought APG-81 had 1200 T/R elements, real numbers was later shown to be 1625 T/R elements.

 

 

AESA-_Aperture-6.png

Screenshot_20170813-004130.png

 

 

 

 

g) video mentioned various long range missiles for Sukhoi aircraft while intentionally ignored Meteor for F-35

 

 

Screen_Shot_2016-07-13_at_6.02.26_AM.png

 

 

 

 

h) Video also ignored others features that will available at block 4 of F-35 such as DIRCM, 6 internal air to air missiles and so on


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

IMHO, this is an apple to orange comparison, the hornet need external pylon for weapons, F-35 doesn't, and the main selling point of F-35 is stealth which would be a waste in extrernal configuration

 

My point exactly, let's see what we will see in a few years when the planes stand up in squadrons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you are serious when posting that video, however to stop any potential confusion of others reader, i will point out these extreme bias points in the video....

 

That was a great collection of data but all I will say is we don't know the actual picture because that is classified.

 

What I will tell you from my experience is public perception is always waaaay off from the actual picture both in positive and negative directions.

 

I thought the video I cited was a reasonable guess. But anyone can take numbers in hardware and paint any picture they want.

 

So time will tell.

 

BTW my head explodes just thinking of where they will cram six AA missiles inside that airframe. Maybe these are cutting edge mini-missiles no one has seen before in that case we will be one step closer to arming drones with formidable capabilities.

 

If they are not some radical new mini-missile designs, then the airframe will have to be changed in which case, just watch that price tag fly to the moon.


Edited by neofightr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where the A model has the gun, what is taking its place on the B and C?? Software for naval and vstol operations or some stuff like that? Fuel?

 

Fairly certain it is fuel in the C and either fuel or just literally the lift fan in the B - trouble is you got me searching for the diagrams that you can never find when you need them!

 

 

Searching for some history on the B/C guns - GarryA not far off :thumbup:

 

Initially, the F-35 ORD had a specific “objective” requiring the Carrier Variant (CV) to have an internal or missionized gun and the United States Marine Corps (USMC) Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant to have an internal gun that is easily removed/installed and doesn’t impact aircraft handling qualities/vertical landing performance when removed and doesn’t impact internal/external weapons employment when installed.

 

------

 

Although the USAF lists an internal gun system as a threshold requirement, the US Navy and USMC listed their gun system as an objective requirement. From the beginning, the US Navy and Marine Corps seem to have attributed significantly less significance to an internal gun system that the USAF had listed as an objective requirement.

In any case, issues that appeared during System Development and Demonstration (SDD) led the Navy and Marine Corps to change their requirements. SDD for the STOVL variant were plagued with issues surrounding the weight of the aircraft.

For any STOVL type of aircraft weight is a driving factor in the aircraft’s ability to perform the short takeoff and vertical landing maneuvers that give it its name. In fact, in 2004 weight issues with the STOVL became so severe that there was a real threat that the variant might be cancelled.2 During several extensive weight reduction efforts the USMC agreed to modify its objective requirement and instead settle for a podded system that could be carried externally and removed or added depending upon mission requirements. Simply put, the USMC had to make significant capability trade offs in order to save the STOVL variant of the F-35.

 

--------

 

The US Navy, on the other hand, has mostly given up on the F-35 gun system for the CV. Although the gun system was originally only an objective requirement, issues with weight and space have largely caused the gun system to be abandoned. The US Navy’s current plan is to utilize the gun system the USMC will use on the STOVL variant.

 

The Need for a Permanent Gun System On the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter April 2007 (Colonel Charles Moore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fairly certain it is fuel in the C and either fuel or just literally the lift fan in the B - trouble is you got me searching for the diagrams that you can never find when you need them!

 

 

Searching for some history on the B/C guns - GarryA not far off :thumbup:

 

Initially, the F-35 ORD had a specific “objective” requiring the Carrier Variant (CV) to have an internal or missionized gun and the United States Marine Corps (USMC) Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant to have an internal gun that is easily removed/installed and doesn’t impact aircraft handling qualities/vertical landing performance when removed and doesn’t impact internal/external weapons employment when installed.

 

------

 

Although the USAF lists an internal gun system as a threshold requirement, the US Navy and USMC listed their gun system as an objective requirement. From the beginning, the US Navy and Marine Corps seem to have attributed significantly less significance to an internal gun system that the USAF had listed as an objective requirement.

In any case, issues that appeared during System Development and Demonstration (SDD) led the Navy and Marine Corps to change their requirements. SDD for the STOVL variant were plagued with issues surrounding the weight of the aircraft.

For any STOVL type of aircraft weight is a driving factor in the aircraft’s ability to perform the short takeoff and vertical landing maneuvers that give it its name. In fact, in 2004 weight issues with the STOVL became so severe that there was a real threat that the variant might be cancelled.2 During several extensive weight reduction efforts the USMC agreed to modify its objective requirement and instead settle for a podded system that could be carried externally and removed or added depending upon mission requirements. Simply put, the USMC had to make significant capability trade offs in order to save the STOVL variant of the F-35.

 

--------

 

The US Navy, on the other hand, has mostly given up on the F-35 gun system for the CV. Although the gun system was originally only an objective requirement, issues with weight and space have largely caused the gun system to be abandoned. The US Navy’s current plan is to utilize the gun system the USMC will use on the STOVL variant.

 

The Need for a Permanent Gun System On the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter April 2007 (Colonel Charles Moore)

 

This info are good examples of what went wrong with the F35 program early on.

This is what Spey has been banging the drum about and for me it just confirms what I have known and seen over the years.

 

Another aspect that will be studied as a failure was the initial requirement for a two engine design for reliability and survivability, that went out the window early on as well.

 

These along with massive cost overruns got the program director fired back in 2010.

 

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.

 

I am not sure what compromises occurred for the F15 but for the F14 and F18 there were little in compromises that occurred from design to production with possibly range being one for the F18 and engine performance for the F14 being the other.

 

This is a far cry to the massive amount of compromises that have occurred to the F35.

 

When you compare overall costs of the program there are two a/c that stand out as fiascos (F35/F22) and a third would have happened if the A12 had been allowed to go forward.


Edited by neofightr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

BTW my head explodes just thinking of where they will cram six AA missiles inside that airframe. Maybe these are cutting edge mini-missiles no one has seen before in that case we will be one step closer to arming drones with formidable capabilities.

 

If they are not some radical new mini-missile designs, then the airframe will have to be changed in which case, just watch that price tag fly to the moon.

 

 

 

The F-35 program office is looking at adding capacity for another AIM-120 AMRAAM radar-guided air-to-air missile in each of the jet’s two weapons bays, increasing internal—and thus stealthy—missile loadout by 50 percent, program director Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said March 22. Speaking with reporters after his speech at a McAleese/Credit Suisse conference in Washington, D.C., Bogdan said, “There is potential … to add a third missile on each side.” The upgrade would likely be part of the Block IV program of F-35 enhancements, but “that’s something I know the services and all the partners” are interested in. Bogdan said this would not require some special version of AMRAAM, but “the same AMRAAM missiles that we carry today, just an extra one; probably on the weapons bay door.” The F-35 can carry two AMRAAMs in each bay now, or a mix of AMRAAMs and Joint Direct Attack Munitions internally. “There’s a lot of engineering work to go with that,” Bogdan cautioned, and he did not speculate on when such a change could be made.

 

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2017/March%202017/March%2028%202017/Let%E2%80%99s-Do-More-Shots.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Great find. Keep in mind this mission based gun pod implies air-to-ground missions because trying to use a gun pod in a dogfight ain't going to happen.

 

What everyone assumes here is that this gun pod is what the Navy really wanted, I can assure you it was not, this was a compromise early on when they were designing (shoe-horning ) the established/finalized air force design into meeting the Navy's unique requirements (i.e. dramatically stronger and heavier landing gear, matching FA18 requirements, twin engines, etc etc).

 

Again this is what Spey's point was when he said it was a bad idea to have one a/c meet 3 branches needs. It was a recipe for disaster he and others like him called it years ago.

 

You guys keep trying to dismiss him but he knew what he was talking about from his extensive background with the F15 and F16 programs.


Edited by neofightr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-35 program office is looking at adding capacity for another AIM-120 AMRAAM radar-guided air-to-air missile in each of the jet’s two weapons bays, increasing internal—and thus stealthy—missile loadout by 50 percent, program director Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said March 22. Speaking with reporters after his speech at a McAleese/Credit Suisse conference in Washington, D.C., Bogdan said, “There is potential … to add a third missile on each side.” The upgrade would likely be part of the Block IV program of F-35 enhancements, but “that’s something I know the services and all the partners” are interested in. Bogdan said this would not require some special version of AMRAAM, but “the same AMRAAM missiles that we carry today, just an extra one; probably on the weapons bay door.” The F-35 can carry two AMRAAMs in each bay now, or a mix of AMRAAMs and Joint Direct Attack Munitions internally. “There’s a lot of engineering work to go with that,” Bogdan cautioned, and he did not speculate on when such a change could be made.

 

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2017/March%202017/March%2028%202017/Let%E2%80%99s-Do-More-Shots.aspx

 

<Jaw hits the ground>, not only does RCS jump and negates stealth but the price will skyrocket when that "engineering work" is factored in. This is not going to happen.

 

I will say that having 4 internal amraam is pretty respectable and should negate any need for pylons with missiles. But if you have to slap on the winders on the wingtips then I question the stealth assumptions.

 

But let's not forget the typical adversary will have at least a 2 to 1 ratio in engagement numbers so yeah the F35 better better have as many missiles as it can have.

 

And god help you if the adversary have developed advanced A-A drones. :music_whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Sprey is so knowledgeable and influential, how many time has he gone to congress, the Senate Armed Service Committee or other government hearing to testify against it? Surely the many F-35 program critics would have bring him to testify against it.

 

How many companies creating aircraft for the CAS mission or OA-X have Sprey on the pay roll as an adviser or mention him as a member of the design team?

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

On the Gun pod,

The AV-8B has carried the gun on a pod for over 20 years, AFAIK, without major problems. It has performed the CAS mission as well without a internal gun.

Why would the F-35 not be able to perform the same missions for the USMC?

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

F-15, F-16 and A-10 where design over 40 years ago. What other aircraft has Sprey "help design" since then?

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

 

....Guns on F-4s - to see where other forum members might be coming from is the fact that putting a gun on the F-4E didn't just magically change the Vietnam air war - it was just not black and white. A lot of the USAF pilots didn't want a gun because they knew it would put them in situations they were not trained for (which is another issue entirely).....

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

F-15, F-16 and A-10 where design over 40 years ago. What other aircraft has Sprey "help design" since then?

 

Probably none, the last thing that today's vendor like Lockheed Martin wants is a critical thinker determined to make a really good product with no compromises.

 

Sprey is part of the old-school of engineers that prided themselves on quality work and had the mindset of keeping it simple for efficiency/cost sake.

 

That mindset is gone in today's aircraft maker. All they want to do is cram as much as they technically can to make their product stand out and look sexy during competition (if there is any) then after getting the contract start charging exorbitant amounts of money due to the complexity and the issues that will occur.

 

The F16 is one of the best planes ever built, not because of it's terrific performance and profile but because it was insanely cheap to produce both in yesterday's and today's dollars.

 

Why do you think the A10 continued to stay in service will past it's due date? It was a cost effective solution that met mission requirements, it's as simple as that.

 

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.


Edited by neofightr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not even Burt Rutan ask Sprey to help design aircraft?

Not even on this?

zG9LlHcX8lg

 

Northrop, Boeing, Beech, no aircraft company has had Sprey?

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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