Pierre Sprey & Lt. Col David Berke debate

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

And I am sure there are just as many that would stand up for Spey if you bothered to look but that' s not the focus of this thread now is it? The focus is to pile on an old man who is "out of touch".

I guarantee you if you studied the background of all those military individuals they probably all work for the industry now most likely LM or the other big two.

No one likes a squeaky wheel shining the spotlight on their baby.

So what you are saying is your 2nd and 3rd hand knowledge qualifies you to dismiss my statements

With all due respect. If it is only my statements vs your statement then fair enough, i will pretty much believe that your statements as correct. However, in this case.

It is your statements Vs statements of a SAM operators + F-16 pilots statements + J/S ratio equation+ pretty much all books about jamming and RCS that i have seen. The SAM operator obviously have his first-hand experience as well, so are those F-16 pilots. So why should i take your words over their words and all theories I ever read if you dont even care to explain why your point is correct and others aren't. (.Just to clarify your point is that lower RCS doesn't benefit jamming, correct?). Shouldn't you at least elaborate it given that extraordinary claims should have extraordinary evidence?

For example: let talk about something we generally accepted as truth, such as a car with engine can go faster than a bicycle, all car drivers and bike rider you ever talked to all accepted that . It also makes sense for you logically. One day, you meet a person claimed to be expert in bike riding, he told you " actually, a bike can go faster " .Do you immediately accept that or will you remain skeptical and demand some explanation?. Or do you suggest that i just take your words for it and don't question because professional people can't be wrong? Where is the skepticism, where are the critical thinking you mentioned earlier. What if opinions of one professional contradict with another? Sprey is someone you would consider to be a professional, correct? Yet he is wrong many times before.

Engineers working on F-35 are without a doubt very professional,yet we are discussing the practical of their design here

So why should your opinion be the exception to criticism?

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

But how does your first-hand knowledge benefit the discussion in any way if it is not actually shared?. All you said is about how you was in the Naval school and flew the F-18, but not really the information to back up your points

I guarantee you if you studied the background of all those military individuals they probably all work for the industry now most likely LM or the other big two

Most of them are quite old and retired, while you can argue that they are secretly bought by some big companies, how would we know if you yourself aren't bought by the opposition company? See my point?. Those kind of arguments can go both ways

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?

 

 

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?

Remember, the F14's initial mission was to be the Navy's interceptor/air superiority fighter which was a very specific role. The Hornet mission first and foremost was to be the attack aircraft of the Navy to replace the A7. As a bonus it could defend itself and support the tomcat with medium-close AA combat.

Some like Spey say the multi-role philosophy is a mistake and I tend to agree with him.

The old engineering saying of keeping it simple, really applies here.

As time went on the decision was made to make the Tomcat drop bombs as an excuse to keep funding/upgrading the platform. The tomcat basically assisted the hornet much like the hornet did the tomcat.

As you noted both these platforms had shortcomings once they went on to full production and were rectified within a few years.

Those older planes had no where near the amount of issues that the F35 has (and the F22 for that matter). We are talking orders of magnitude amounts of issues that are causing headaches in congress and the services. Just look at the DOD 2016 assessment doc that is floating around now. After reading it, I couldn't believe how many things it has wrong still and it's been in initial production now for at least 2 years. This is disturbing.

Had we stayed with the single role design mindset of the 50-70s I think we would have really good performing and very capable platforms and in large numbers today because 1: we wouldn't have the headaches of a massively complex platform and two: the costs would be exceptionally low compared to today's debacles (see F16).

Remember the F16 initially as Spey and his cohorts designed it was an air superiority day fighter, and it evolved into a successful all-weather multirole aircraft. This evolving was an excuse to keep the program funded with a new stream of cash much to Spey's dismay no doubt. I am sure he would have preferred to see the need for an attack aircraft be a new program up for competition vice the modified F16.

I know no pilot wants to hear this but the F35 and F22 are making the strongest case for advanced drones that specialize in specific roles. Dont' worry, in the end I still think we will have at least two squadrons per coast of manned a/c for specialized missions (a version of an air seal team if you will). They would use whatever remains of the F35/F22 inventory.

I can't tell you how uncomfortable I feel knowing that the F35 is suppose to be it when it comes to air superiority for the Navy. This is very disappointing. I can live with the F35 being the bomber(escort fighter) of the Navy.

Hopefully there could be drones we don't know about that will save the day when that day comes :smilewink:

...For example: let talk about something we generally accepted as truth, such as a car with engine can go faster than a bicycle, all car drivers and bike rider you ever talked to all accepted that . It also makes sense for you logically. One day, you meet a person claimed to be expert in bike riding, he told you " actually, a bike can go faster " .Do you immediately accept that or will you question that and demand some explanation?. Should i just take your words for it and don't question because professional can't be wrong? Where is the skepticism, where are the critical thinking you mentioned earlier. Sprey is someone you would consider to be a professional, correct? Yet he is wrong many times before.

Everyone get's it wrong from time to time but I would take his best guess over anyone on this board.

Your analogy is off...

One day you meet a person who is an expert in designing simple straight forward cars, he states my designed car can go to point A then back home without a problem. Compared to that one that just came out. Do you believe him?

He states don't take my word for it just look at the two side by side.

The new car has 3 times more "stuff" in it, but half the stuff isn't working. Furthermore, it only has half a speedometer because the other half is on your iphone. The tires don't have rubber just metal rims because it isn't needed anymore since it has rocket assist for braking and turning and the rims will do just fine, but you will need to replace them alot. He goes on to say the steering wheel is a knob because the onboard computer which isn't working is suppose to do the turning. Oh and remember that iphone that is needed? There is no room in the cabin so he will have to store it in the trunk but that doesn't get installed for another year.

Now look at my simple straight foward car based on proven old fashion off the shelf tech with modern day refinements.

He reiterates his car will go to pt A and back while this new car is still trying to start.

Do you believe him?

Everyone get's it wrong from time to time

Yes, but when a person being wrong many time, he will start to lose his credibility regardless of who he is

For example, take this video

"1:10- The F-15 Is Loaded Up With A Bunch Of Junk... A Bunch Of Electronic Stuff That Has No Relevance To Combat" => We all know how successful the F-15 is as a fighter

"3:10- 'The Marines Have This Mindless Passion Now, Recently, For Vertical Takeoff Airplanes" => USMC introduced the AV-8A Harrier since 1971 and it has been a mainstay of their air arm ever since. It wouldn't call a period of over 40 years recently

"3:55- 'The Airplane Is Astonishingly Unmaneuverable... In Dog-fighting It's Hopeless. You Can Guarantee That A 1950's design MiG-21 Or French Mirage Would Hopelessly Whip The F-35"

=> According to pilots recent testimony from several exercises F-35 can be in equal footing against F-16, F-15 thanks to its high nose pointing capability and superb subsonic acceleration ( even better than F-16). But you will think those pilots are bought by contractors, so instead i will copy an analysis made by an aero engineer based on what we known about the KPP (at the time KPP sustained G threshold was reduced from 5.3G to 4.6G at Mach 0.8, 15K feet.). Later F-35A 240-3 achieved 4.95G at Mach 0.8, 15k feet. People can be bias but numbers are fair.

As a numbers guy, I am really curious about WHY F-35 is called bad, F-15/16 good, and F-22 phenomenal.. All F-22 lovers may trash my post all they want but;

 

Comparing F-15E vs F-22 and F-16C vs F-35A;

 

F-35 has 146,2% empty weight of F-16C.

F-22 has 138,1% empty weight of F-15E.

 

Wing area linearly contributes to drag, and Thrust directly counters the drag.

 

F-35 has 153% wing area of F-16C. It also has 146% Thrust.

F-22 has 138% wing area of F-15E. It also has 121% Thrust.

 

In thrust/drag department, all else being the equal (I am not saying it is, just making a point), F-35 is 4% inferior to F-16, and F-22 is 12% inferior to F-15E.

 

At their empty weights;

F-35 has 99,8% T/W of F-16C.

F-22 has 87,8% T/W of F-15E.

 

F-35 has 95,4% Wing Loading of F-16C

F-22 has 99,7% Wing Loading of F-15E.

 

Now I generated a term equalised fuel, based on aircraft's SFC and Cd are all the same, wing area alone will dictate thrust is required to move the aircraft, and this thrust will be directly proportional to range. ie, if F-16C carries 27,87*X amount of fuel, F-35 will need 42,7*X, because its more draggy. Taking X=50, at this equalised weight;

 

F-35 has 99,1% T/W of F-16C

F-22 has 87,7% T/W of F-15E.

 

F-35 has 96% Wing Loading of F-16C.

F-22 has 99,8 Wing Loading of F-15E.

 

*I assumed F-22's engine thrust to be 156kN. If anyone has better value I can input that, but I must say, F-22 needs 177,8 kN thrust from each engine to match F-15E's T/W.

 

Heres the table

Now according to these values, F-35 is much more closer to F-16 than F-22 is to F-15. Any assumption due to advances in technology (improved aerodynamics, improved SFC) that may benefit F-22 would benefit F-35 even more because its newer.

 

Its true that F-35 looks ugly as sh!t, and F-22 is cool and looks more aerodynamic, but on numbers alone, it doesn't give one reason WHY F-35 is underpowered, (it fares just as well as F-16), or unmaneuverable

 

On the contrary, F-22 looks clearly underpowered when compared to F-15E. Though addition of several aerodynamic features (negative stability, LE flaps etc) would offset this disadvantage, its important to remember F-35 has them too.

 

My point? Every claim about F-35 cannot dogfight (based on its heavy, or underpowered or have small wings) must also apply to F-22; either that or this claim is wrong.

F-35 5,3G KPP threshold figures, and relaxed 4,6G "achieved" performance figure, is slightly better than Block 50 F-16's flight manual data at same flight conditions. As proof of burden about this is on me:

 

Lets talk about F-16 with following equipped with 2 AIM-120s and 2 empty pylons to match F-35:

 

2xAIM-120s + 2xLAU-129 on stations 1 and 9 instead of 16S210 included in basic aircraft weight, 2xLAU-129 on stations 2 and 8 for previously spent A-A missiles, + 8 racks of chaff-flare + gun ammo; weigh 599kg in total.

 

Drag index = 21; (+1 for each LAU-129 at wingtips, +6 for each LAU-127 at stations 2 and 8, and +7 for F-16C basic airframe drag index)

 

F-16C Block 50, Drag indexAltittude = 15000 feet, Speed = M0,8:

 

22000lbs = 218 kg fuel (6% of total internal fuel capacity) == 6,3Gs @ Drag index = 0.

26000lbs = 2032 kg fuel (63%) == 5,3Gs @ DI=0, 5,1Gs @ DI=0, 5,2Gs @ Drag index = 21.

28500lbs = 3227 kg fuel (100%) == 4,8Gs @ DI =0, 4,4Gs @ DI=50, 4,6Gs @ Drag index = 21.

 

Now, I don't know exact KPP details of F-35; but logically,

1- It will definately include two AAMs (as B variant has no gun, there is no point in giving it a "key performance figure" unarmed. Quite possibly, it will include 4 AAMs.

2- Logically, KPP of F-35 will at least involve 50% fuel, and judging how other KPP is given to other aircraft, it is quite possibly 60%, to include reserve fuel into equation.

 

I assume F-35's specific range is consistent with its wing area and thrust increase, ballpark around 50%. Then, there are 4 possibilities;

 

Possibility #1: F-35 achieved 4,6Gs with 60% fuel and 2 AAMs. This translates to same maneuverability, but fuel for longer range than F-16 with full internal fuel. For same range, F-35 needs less fuel, less weight. This translates to better maneuverability.

Possibility #2: F-35 achieved 4,6Gs with 50% fuel and 2 AAMs. With this fuel, F-35 can match range of F-16 with only 88% internal fuel. This means, F-35 is slightly inferior to F-16 (by 0,1Gs).

Possibility #3: F-35 achieved 4,6Gs with 50% fuel and 4 AAMs. Then you would have to subtract some 304 kg from fuel of F-16 , and add 8 to drag index, to compare it with equal grounds to F-35's KPP. Then F-35 will have better maneuverability for same range.

Possibility #4: F-35 achieved 4,6Gs with 60% fuel and 4 AAMs. Then, this translates to better maneuverability with fuel for better range. Translates to A LOT better maneuverability when fueled for same range.

 

This comparison actually favours F-16;

 

a) You cannot guarantee an F-16 to enter BFM with 2 AAMs and only 2 empty pylons; typically, it would almost certainly carry 2 additional LAU-129s at 3 and 7, plus MAYBE additional missiles on those pylons, non-jetisson fuel tank pylons on 4 and 6, centerline pylon on 5.

b) you cannot guarantee F-35's 4,6G achieved performance years ago is not improved even by 0,1Gs. Maybe (just maybe) F-35 today is close to its KPP threshold of 5,3Gs?

 

Even if we take worst case scenario in this comparison, how on earth that justifies "F-35 can't dogfight" idea?

 

At sea level, M0,66, clean with 50% fuel, an F-16 block 30 can sustain 9Gs. An F-16 block 50 can sustain 8,1Gs. An Su-27 can sustain 8,7Gs. An F-15C can sustain 7,8Gs. That is up to 15% difference in performance, yet all these aircraft can easily "dogfight" with each other. If worse comes to worst, F-35's unclassified sustained turn performance at 15k feet M0,8 is just 3% inferior to F-16s. If F-35 cannot dogfight with F-16, then nothing in 4th generation, be it late F-16C, F-15C, MiG-29 or M2k, can dogfight with an Su-27 or an early F-16C block.

"5:30- 'It's A Terrible Bomber... You can put two bombs inside this thing, which is a ridiculous payload"

=>

F-16 with enough fuel to reach similar combat radius as F-35, targeting pod to designate targets like EOTS and big bombs will look like this:

he also ignored small bombs like SDB I/II, Spice250 that allows F-35 carry 8 bombs internally

6:05- "Stealth Is A Scam, It Simply Doesn't Work" => Stealth was used in the last 25 years of air combat activities including Desert Storm, Allied Force, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Neptune Spear and Operation Odyssey Dawn. In its histories of thousand sorties, F-117 was only shot down once, hardly a proof that stealth doesn't work. There are low frequency since forever, they still have their disadvantages such as lower accuracy, less mobile..etc. There are new advance RAM that has much wider bandwidth as well. Before you say that i don't know it because i don't have first hand experiences or classified information. Fine but how about these thousands, even millions engineers, scientists working on these new stealth programs. Do none of them have access to classified information as much as Sprey?. In other words, if stealth truly a scam then how come China, Russia, Japan, Korea, India, USA all pursuing it? They all have their own stealth fighters programs, how come?

but I would take his best guess over anyone on this board

Fair enough, that is your choice and you are entitled to it. On the other hand, why is it wrong for people on this board to take David Berke and various others pilots, expert best guess over Sprey?

You analogy is off

.I think there is a miscommunication here. I didn't make an analogy about Sprey and F-35 development, i was making an analogy about why i wanted you to explain your point about how " jamming doesn't benefit from low RCS" , hence the reason i mentioned J/S ratio and what not

Fair enough, that is your choice and you are entitled to it. On the other hand, why is it wrong for people on this board to take David Berke and various others pilots, expert best guess over Sprey?

 

 

.I think there is a miscommunication here. I didn't make an analogy about Sprey and F-35 development, i was making an analogy about why i wanted you to explain your point about how " jamming doesn't benefit from low RCS" , hence the reason i mentioned J/S ratio and what not

Where did I ever say jamming doesn't benefit from low RCS? Show me my words where I said this specifically and I will apologize. Remember how you started that conversation, you were arguing against a guesstimate from a 3rd party video that I said was a reasonable guess. You then proceed to attack that video to try to prove that you know better than me somehow.

At no point did I ever say low RCS does not make jamming easier.

Everyone has their guesstimates about how low RCS works with regards to jamming.

I never said it was wrong to side with Berke, go look at my original post, I said both sides of the debate had good points. What was wrong was attacking Sprey like he was some idiot who didn't know what he was talking about and taking Berke's word as gospel.

I know from my own experience as a fighter pilot the intrinsic bias one builds with one's own aircraft this is why I don't take Berke's word as the end all be all. That plus I have been on the other side of the fence as part of the operational test and evaluation force and know full well the bias that lies with groups associated with developmental testing which Berke identified with.

You keep spitting out these numbers and references like it's some hidden knowledge that clearly spey would never know about when in fact I am pretty confident he has been privy to all the classified numbers for the F16,A10, F15 and F117 back when he was active in the industry.

Sprey's remarks (I can't see the video) about the Marine's obsession with short take off probably takes into account the Osprey which at one point had some serious safety concerns and at least one commandant that didn't want to continue funding the program. Marines had a choice of picking a modern helo or large bladed plane. They picked the plane which is what Sprey is getting at. It had an ugly development history that thankfully sorted itself out.

You keep trying to compare the F16 as a bomber when Sprey would be the first to tell you it's a terrible bomber. The team he was a part of originally designed the F16 as a day-only air superiority fighter so of course it's a terrible bomber and to compare it to the F35 just makes the F35 look just as bad.

A great bomber is the B52, a great bomber is the B2 and a great in-close ground support aircraft is the A10, and an adequate maritime bomber is the F/A18. The F35 is none of these (still needs development to match the f18 bomber role) nor is the F16 multi-role variant. This is where Sprey is coming from.

So basically you are spinning your wheels trying to prove you know better than sprey when in fact you are not even close. Stop fooling yourself with those numbers.

And to end this "but Berke and the red flag pilots say the F35 is amaaaazing and Sprey is an idiot...." diatribe:

Do yourself a favor and go read the details of the unclassified DOD document that someone else posted on this thread here.

" In August, an F-35 OT pilot from Edwards AFB, California, briefed the results of an OT community assessment of F-35 mission capability with Block 3FR5.03, based on observing developmental flight test missions and results to date. This OT assessment rated all IOT&E mission areas as “red,” including CAS, SEAD/DEAD, Offensive Counter Air (OCA) and Defensive Counter Air (DCA), AI, and Surface Warfare (SuW). Several DT Integrated Product Team representatives also briefed the status of different F-35 mission systems capabilities, most of which were rated “red,” and not meeting the entrance criteria to enter the “graduation level” mission effectiveness testing. Trend items from both the OT and IPT briefings were limitations and problems with multiple Block 3F system modes and capabilities, including Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS), Distributed Aperture System (DAS), radar, electronic warfare, avionics fusion, identification capabilities, navigation accuracy, GPS, datalinks, weapons integration and mission planning."

This is what I mean by the op test guys are the honest brokers that keep the dev test guys honest as well. And you can bet Sprey and his supporters also had access to this info as well.

And yes all these shortfalls can and will be fixed in due time and at great cost but this should be a wake-up call for all those swallowing the kool-aid from Lockheed Martin and Co.

Meet the F35's competition:

The mighty T-50!:pilotfly:

You are however entitled to your negative uninformed opinions.

:music_whistling:

Not an uninformed opinion at all - you have been told why - the fact you choose to ignore it is telling.

Sprey makes the claim - not much more maneuverable than an F-104 - obviously Berke pretty much has to restrain himself in the reply at something so retarded.

The only authority on the F-104 is the pilots that flew them - that doesn't include you and doesn't include Sprey. Their testaments are backed up with reams of flight test data and Technical Orders.

On the other hand to suggest Sprey has access to any useful data on the F-35A is still irrelevant because his entire claim is blown out of the water at the PAS without any argument what so ever.

Can you ensure you also drop the attitude where you know everything and the rest of the world are total idiots - you are really showing yourself up - and yes it was there before you jumped onto this thread as you put it!

Meet the F35's competition:

The mighty T-50!:pilotfly:

Its designation is now Su-57 apparently - looks like another easy target for an F-35C :thumbup:

 

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?

I missed this last question: It is my educated guess that the designers are counting on the adv. software sensor suite and BVR weapons to ensure the F35 never engages in-close.

This is why I strongly believe the internal gun was the lowest priority for development as an AA option, hence the reason why the Navy went with the gun pod (for CAS etc). Frankly, I don't think the internal gun was ever meant for AA just AG.

If the designers initial goal is to ensure success in the BVR realm, then the priority for maneuver design is greatly reduced to compensate for stealth (smaller control surfaces etc).

As Sprey has stated in the past, the original concept for the F35 was to be the support to the F22. F22 would be air superority and the F35 would fill the strike role. But unlike the F15/F16 relationship the F35 falls behind in maneuverability (due to BVR/stealth design priority) especially in-close. Sure it might match the F16 but let's face it the F16 design is 40+years old.

So now the onus is on BVR engagements hence the downplaying of in-close engagements by the pilots that have gone public.

For the Air Force they might be able to afford this thanks to the limited inventory of F22s.

But for the Navy, we will have a serious problem when the E/Fs finally phase out due to metal fatigue and maintenance costs. Although I don't think the E was ever a true replacement for the Tomcat, my gut feeling is it would fair better overall since it's better rounded as a fighter than the F35.

I mean just run a video comparison of the recent air demos of the F35, Su35 and now T50 (look at my earlier post with the link), it doesn't take a genius to see who is winning in maneuverability. I could care less if they are all slick with 5% fuel in the tanks, there is clearly a difference among the planes.

This is why Boeing is getting excited because they anticipate Navy knocking on their door to extend or perhaps order a new F18 variant.

The wildcard will be Grumman. I find it hard to believe that Grumman is sitting on their hands with their very successful drone prototypes. Let's not forget that Grumman was an original competitor for JSF program back in the 90s. So some forward thinkers at that company decided to think outside the box after they lost the bid and focused on drone development along with General Atomics (predator maker) both interestingly enough are HQd in San Diego.

These are interesting times we are in, I feel an unannounced game changer is about to happen in the next 10-15 years.

Its designation is now Su-57 apparently - looks like another easy target for an F-35C :thumbup:

Troll all you like I ain't biting :megalol:

Troll all you like I ain't biting :megalol:

Two can play these childish games my friend.

:music_whistling:

 

Can you ensure you also drop the attitude where you know everything and the rest of the world are total idiots - you are really showing yourself up - and yes it was there before you jumped onto this thread as you put it!

The rest of the world? Nah, just the armchair experts with 0 flying experience, 0 training, 0 industry schooling and who are quick to dismiss an industry veteran as an idiot because they don't agree with him and who feel they know just as much as a career military pilot/acquisitions officer.

"All I know is that I know nothing."

 

"All I know is that I know nothing."

That just about sums up a lot of your posts nicely - especially the F-35/Su-35 video that you are now trying to save face on :megalol:

That just about sums up a lot of your posts nicely - especially the F-35/Su-35 video that you are now trying to save face on :megalol:

yup, that qoute just flew right over your head like an SU-57. Go ahead look it up on Google.

yup, that qoute just flew right over your head like an SU-57. Go ahead look it up on Google.

God help us!

:music_whistling:

 

Not an uninformed opinion at all - you have been told why - the fact you choose to ignore it is telling.

 

Sprey makes the claim - not much more maneuverable than an F-104 - obviously Berke pretty much has to restrain himself in the reply at something so retarded.

 

The only authority on the F-104 is the pilots that flew them - that doesn't include you and doesn't include Sprey. Their testaments are backed up with reams of flight test data and Technical Orders.

 

There is this old saying, "read between the lines"

Sprey knows exactly what he is talking about.

"The F-104 set numerous world records, including both airspeed and altitude records. Its success was marred by the Lockheed bribery scandals, in which Lockheed had given bribes to a considerable number of political and military figures in various nations in order to influence their judgment and secure several purchase contracts; this caused considerable political controversy in Europe and Japan." -wiki

 

This is why I strongly believe the internal gun was the lowest priority for development as an AA option, hence the reason why the Navy went with the gun pod (for CAS etc). Frankly, I don't think the internal gun was ever meant for AA just AG.

Conclusions

“The gun” has a long and storied history within the annuals of military aviation and, in one form or another, has been present since military pilots first took to the air. From simply using their own handguns to shoot at enemy aircraft, to today’s modern Gatlin gun systems, the gun has proven to be an effective, efficient, and dependable airto-air and air-to-ground weapons system.

Within an air-to-air environment, the F-35 may find itself within a myriad of situations. Although the USAF has spent a significant amount of money ensuring the F-35 will have a signature which provides it with the “first look, first launch” opportunity, there are undoubtedly situations in which the aircraft will find itself fighting within the visual arena. Within the visual arena, the aircrafts low RCS is largely mitigated and the aircraft will find itself on much more even footing with older or less technologically advanced aircraft. Although the AMRAAM and Aim-9X have significant WVR capabilities, the number of missiles the aircraft can carry and their inability to ensure success within the extremely close quarters expected to be present during future dog fights, makes an permanent, internal gun system more of a necessity than an option.

Furthermore, a F-35 gun system will be even more important within the air-to-ground arena. Although the development of laser guided bombs and GPS aided munitions have significantly increased the accuracy of air-to-ground munitions, there is still a significant limit on the number of weapons a stealthy aircraft can carry. Additionally, there will always be situations in which the F-35 needs a fast acting, precise and low collateral damage weapon that only a gun system offers. Furthermore, in both the BVR and WVR environments, a gun system offers an offensive weapon that will be available regardless of the status of other aircraft systems. In short, the gun offers the F-35 an extremely reliable and simple to use “point and shoot weapon” that is always available to the fighter pilots of the future.

Recommendations

Historically, the USAF concentrates on the development of advanced or future weaponry when it develops advanced/next generation aircraft. However, some legacy weapons, such as an internal gun system, continue to prove they are still viable and are absolutely necessary if we want our future aircraft to have the flexibility necessary for the wide range of missions we expect them to perform.

When writing the F-35’s Operational Requirements Document (ORD), the USAF went to great pains to specify all the capabilities the aircraft would require in order to perform in the future battle space. As of this writing, the Joint Program Office acknowledges it faces significant challenges in order to meet the requirements specified by the Service’s in the ORD. Although many argue these challenges will be too costly or difficult to overcome, most within the Air Force’s requirements community understand the importance of preserving the internal gun system on the F-35.

In order for this to happen the USAF should take the following steps:

1) “Hold the line” on the gun requirements currently outlined in the F-35 ORD. Regardless of the opinions of the USMC, USN or Joint Program Office, the USAF must not become dismayed or discouraged by the difficulties in achieving the capabilities it has determined it requires. Within the air-to-air and air-to-ground environments, the gun has proven to be a reliable and irreplaceable weapon. Even if Lockheed officially declares it will not be able to fully meet the requirements and specifications the USAF desires, disallowing

requirement relief sends a strong message that the capabilities offered by the gun are not

negotiable.

2) Direct the Joint Program Office to invest in the development of a 25mm FRAP round. Although the USAF will most likely have to accept a conventional round when the F-35 achieves Initial Operating Capability (IOC), the advantages offered by the FRAP round can not be overlooked. Additionally, the FRAP round enables Lockheed to come much closer to achieving the requirements defined by the USAF and will make the gun system a much more capable weapon. The bottom line is that FRAP ammunition is a proven technology, is currently available, and should be utilized for the F-35.

3) Continue to fund Research and Development (R & D) for new forms of ammunition. Even when utilizing the FRAP round, the limited number of rounds the F-35 will be able to carry is undoubtedly a major weakness for the gun system. Although many of the advanced avionics capabilities the F-35 will possess will help mitigate the problems associated with carrying such a limited amount of ammunition, there are still other options available to the Air Force. For example, there is little doubt that future technologies, such as telescopic ammunition, will offer the F-35 the ability to carry many

more rounds within the limited space it can currently attribute to ammunition storage. Improvements such as these will only make the F-35 an even more formable threat and must be investigated. Finally, the USAF must not be timid or reluctant to continue to make its case for including an internal gun system on the F-35. Historical precedent, as well as careful analysis of the F-35’s CONOPS, makes it abundantly clear that a gun system is not only required weapon, but also an absolutely necessary if the aircraft is reign supreme on the battlefield of the future. Without a doubt, any and all of the negative attributes discussed is this paper are overcome by the tactical flexibility and indemnity that a permanent internal gun system offers. Furthermore, there is no uncertainty that an internal gun offers a reliable, low cost, difficult to defeat, fast acting, small logistical footprint system

that provides tactical effects that are unachievable by other weapons. It would be completely imprudent for the USAF to pass up the opportunity to field such a weapon on the aircraft that will ultimately represent the backbone of the United States’ combat Air Force.

from Case for a gun on JSF - (Colonel Charles Moore 2007)

Neofightr,

I think you are giving sprey much more credit than he is due, if he is the engineer he claims to be, an awful lot of his ideas were ignored.

Like his ideas on the F-15 and F-16 (I think he even wanted the f-16 to have no radar?!?)

This is not about choosing one expert over another, sprey has slowly whittled down his credibility over the years by making many ludicrous statements.

It is not so much him being critical of his own work as it is him denouncing literally ANY other work on American fighters that he wasn't involved in. (Which happens to be a lot of the aircraft he "worked on") In other words, if it doesn't square with his idea, it's wrong. For being an influence on the f-16 or f-15, it seems like all of his ideas never made it in............

He seems to promote the idea that no fighter can ever be multirole successfully without some sort of horrible compromise. As if you simply can't take bombs off of an airplane, and as if the engine upgrades made to F-16s an F-18 would not cancel out upgraded radar and IFF equipment.

What I'm saying is, what you have seen here is just the tip of the iceberg of ridiculous over the top statements this guy has made.

The F-35 is part of a trend that will probably reverse.

I'm sure that money will fix it, but the main points are:

* One aircraft for all services idea might be not been a good one

* Jack of all trades trend will probably be rolled back somewhat

* Project management issues (Scandals?) are a really big issue.

Other than that, I expect the F-35 will turn out just fine simply because it needs to, the funds for accomplishing this will pour in.

The People that Genuinely hate the F-35 only do so based solely off Media Portrayal of the Aircraft.

I've seen it, felt it, touched it, kissed it, (but I didnt french kiss it).

The F-35 is Crazy and it's not even at Full Software Capability yet.

The People that Genuinely hate the F-35 only do so based solely off Media Portrayal of the Aircraft.

Nonsense, there are plenty of valid arguments to be brought against the F-35 program.

"Is it a relevant aircraft?" is the most important one, one that has been doubted since before the program even started. THAT was the reason why the aircraft needed to be a jack of all trades in the first place.

That the question still stands 25 years later says a lot. That the answers only concentrate on the capabilities of the aircraft and the amount of jobs it generates, says even more.

"Is it a relevant aircraft?" is the most important one, one that has been doubted since before the program even started.

Yes it is.

THAT was the reason why the aircraft needed to be a jack of all trades in the first place.

It had more to do with an attempt at economies of scale.

That the question still stands 25 years later says a lot. That the answers only concentrate on the capabilities of the aircraft and the amount of jobs it generates, says even more.

The question lingers because politics. There's no expensive new aircraft that didn't have to go through such issues AFAIK. Skunkworks projects aside.

Yes it is.

Ok, and why is that? "Just because" isnt an argument

It had more to do with an attempt at economies of scale.

It had more to do with the relevance of four different 5th gen fighter programmes being doubted after the end of the cold war.

The question lingers because politics. There's no expensive new aircraft that didn't have to go through such issues AFAIK. Skunkworks projects aside.

P-80, XB-70, F-14, F-15, F-16 F-22, B-2, Eurofighter, Avro Arrow, and those are just a couple of them.

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.

Ok guy. UCMJ articles are just opinions now? :megalol: Yea, ok sure, gonna lump your responses now into the TL;DR category. Also, I never said blindly follow any order. An unlawful order is an unlawful order, no matter what. No matter what your mindset is or what academies and schools you claim or the number of subordinates. That's like day one UCMJ training for the most basic recruits at E-1 paygrade. Have a good one.