Pierre Sprey is not an F-16 designer. He was part of a group in the air force in the 70's called the Fighter Mafia. They advocated the idea that analysis of fighter planes should be based on something called energy/maneuverability theory, which was developed by a mathematician named Major John Boyd. The basic idea is to attempt to quantitatively analyze aircraft based on their aircraft specific energy. They didn't see a lot of use in fancy avionics and air-to-air missiles. The Fighter Mafia, led by Col. Thomas P. Christie, pushed for a lightweight alternative to the F-15 platform. The result was the Lightweight Fighter Program that produced the YF-16 (Which became the F-16) and YF-17 (Which would later be navalized and become the F-18). Pierre Sprey's involvement in this was to help right the RFP that resulted in the LWFP and to consult on the program, he wasn't directly involved in design. He also objected to the 1982 F-16 C/D upgrade because he felt the heavy avionics were detrimental to the aircraft. The air combat of the 1980's and 1990's showed E/M theory to be wrong. While it may not have been terrible for predicting Vietnam-style engagements (In which US made F-4's based on an avionics/armament theory did not exchange efficiently against much cheaper MiG-17/19/21's), the introduction of long range pulse-doppler radars, all aspect missiles, electronic warfare, high-speed datalinks, and airborne warning and control craft caused a shift towards fancy avionics and air to air missiles. Pierre Sprey doesn't seem to like to accept the future. He made thispowerpoint in which he argues towed artillery is superior to self-propelled guns and that the M-48 Patton is a better tank than the M-1 Abrams. In the video, he represents BVR IFF as non-existent, even though NCTID and datalinks exist. He also bashes the idea of multirole aircraft performing CAS, even tough the F-16C has been doing so successfully for years. The fact of the matter is that the world has passed Pierre Sprey by, and his analysis may not have been entirely up to scratch in the first place. After all, he wanted the F-16 to have a range-only radar like the F-20 eventually would, and wanted the A-10 to use the Oerlikon 30mm instead of the GAU-8.
jonny clipper E/M theory isn't invalid; the belief in modern missile technology has taken a greater calling in the U.S. warfighter design - because its worth more to corporations to develope. With respect to the fancy avionics, which cost more, and are less dependable...the F-35's console looks like a giant set of Ipods...this can hardly be as effective as a combination of digital and analogue instruments. Dedicated instruments are faster, and less error-prone than multi-purpose instruments...to which the F-35's avionics have been known to crash; being a catastrophe waiting to happen...why do you think the F-35 program has been delayed for so long...it the avionics complexity fool....!Sprey was opposed to the use of heavy computers being developed at the time, which could be a serious impediment - this was before nowadays where advanced microprocessors were made lighter. Weight gain equals less maneuverability - another valid point for Sprey. And, today, the relevance of radar, and jamming has not fallin upon deaf ears; Sprey knows these concepts of today, better than most...plus he has knowledge of Vietnam era, and prior - something today's upstart aeronautical engineers are of less mental capability, or acuity. As per the M-48 vs. M-1...where's the youtube clip on that one? - that is such lunacy, its context must be brought into question. As for the Oerlikon comparison...do you know what Sprey's intentions were behind that belief? - I seriously doubt it...its context too would be questionable.
jonny clipper - Shooting the messenger does not change the fact that this is a BAD airplane, and can't do the job. You can try to discredit Pierre, but that doesn't change the fact that he is correct. Read the news.
@Marcus Aurelius Pakistan is a military rules country even though they say They have Democracy.First the denied airstrike by India in their terror camp and promised they will bring media persons where airstrike happened but nothing happened Reuters continuously denied permission for 3 weeks After one month clearing all evidence they provided entry to terror camp (they call religious institutions) even that visit was limited and controlled by military
Boney Kroy You actually believe this Indian BS propaganda? No proof of shooting down, no wreckage found, nothing what so ever and yet numb nuts like you believe this.
missiles are much more sophisticated and have a VERY low rate of failures now compared to his time. Small wingspan significantly lowers radar footprint; A small radar footprint will enable it to fire its missiles first before even being detected.
That guy was so full of shit. This is the same guy who claimed he secretly brought in a literal nazi to help him take a look at the A10 when it was being developed. He’s also happily taken credit for the BlitzFighter (a rejected A-10 replacement with no radar of any kind.) despite the fact that the blitzfigher was designed by Colonel James Burton. People like this guy have this strange mindset where they seem to think the world is perpetually stuck in WWII. They think radar has no place on a battle field. If people like this made all the decisions, American’s military technology would be BEHIND by decades
And top of that, the amount of American lives lost because of he and his buddies' bs would be far more horrific. Glad they didn't get taken seriously by anyone except the media
“Becaue the radar cannot identity friend or foe” And thats how the layman knows Pierre Sprey knows absolutely nothing. THE SYSTEM IS LITERALLY CALLED IFF IDENTIFY-FRIEND-FOE
The problem isn't that stealth doesn't work. It's that it's not needed and is a huge waste of money. The complexity of these fighter aircraft is ridiculous and won't mean anything in a war against a real opponent. Sorry Iraq doesn't count. A B52 can fire cruise missles far outside radar range and accomplish the same goal as a 40 million dollar fighter jet. You don't need stealth. On top of that in the battlefield if something goes wrong with say the F35 it will take time to fix. They are not reliable. The software alone breaks down constantly. They are over engineered garbage. Stealth works but it could be done so much cheaper and more effective for a tenth of the cost. Putting this much complexity into a fighter or the new bomber is just plain stupid and is designed to fill up the military Industrial complex coffers. It's a money making machine and doesn't make us any stronger. In fact it makes us weaker. We need numbers and simple reliable fighters and bombers and lots of them. Unfortunately this doesn't make any money so we get the F35 and the new B-21 bomber at a whopping 750 million a piece and believe me it will cost more that that when it's all done. We might get 50 built. That is not enough. We need hundreds of bombers. Russia and China are really big if you didn't notice. This is not a winning strategy and I want us to win.
modern missiles dont just rely on going fast and turning tight, they have far more advanced seekers, for instance the r77 is a radar guided missile but it also has an IR seeker, the amraam also rely's on gps, their also very difficult to decoy, the first amraam's had a kill probibility over 70%
@@pateagle7191 It kind of does. You need a plane with good sensors to be aware of your target, or be able to pair with an AWACS to find the target and then release the weapon. Even better is when you are able to fire before your target even sees you.
@@pateagle7191 didn't realize the Sopwith Camel had a powerful radar, datalink, off-bore HMS firing capabilities, and so on. The aircraft absolutely does matter.
This guy lies about his credentials. He plays on publicly known tropes of fighter jets to criticize anything new American and technologically-advanced. He criticizes US equipment and then once it proves itself on the field of battle suddenly he starts claiming that she designed or had heavy influence over it’s development. Spreys current criticism of the F-22 and F-35 is the exact same he had of the at f16 f15. Originally spray thought that the F-15 F-16 and a 10 were too technologically-advanced, and expensive to be effective and that their missiles would not fare well against the more maneuverable Soviet aircraft. However once these aircraft proved themselves against the Soviets in wars in Iraq Sprey started claiming to be their designers. He did not design the f16 or the a10. The only plane he was involved with was the f15 and even then all of his suggestions were thrown out (look up project redbird although it's pretty hard to find info on it. It would basically be a short range, slower, highly maneuverable fighter that could not carry missiles, radar or very many electronic systems at all, and could only operate during the daytime and clear weather.) Sprey's pals would say this plane became the f16 although I don't know if this is true (I don't think so, the dates don't line up) In any case the if the f16 was originally based on the redbird than it had changed so much that by the time it became operational it was a completely unrecognizable IE:(good range, all weather, multirole, missiles, radar, electronics, the works) As for the A-10 Sprey had nothing to do with it and actually hated it wanted to replace it with his own fighter, the blitzfighter which would be a tiny aircraft armed only with a cannon with very little electronics to speak of. It was only once the A10 proved itself in 1991 that Sprey started claiming he built it. He was able to do this because by this time the a10's real designer, Alexander Karteveli, had died. Ultimately Pierre Sprey can be summed up in this. Pierre sprey understands a lot about the world of fighter jets and is an expert on its subject matter, if we were talking about fighter jets in the 40s and 50s. What Pierre Spray fails or refuses to understand is that the air battles of tomorrow and indeed the air battles since Vietnam have been dominated by long range missiles One does not need to look very deep to realize this. Just look at the iran-iraq war where Iranian f-14s armed with long-ranged aim-54 Phoenix missiles absolutely wiped the floor with more maneuverable Soviet aircraft. Just look at the Gulf War where f-16s, f-18s, f-14s, and most of all f-15s dominated Iraqi opposition with their Superior Radar and long-range missiles. I won't even get started on stealth which is a whole other can of worms but if you believe nothing else that I've said believe this: applying theories about air combat from the 40s and 50s to modern warfare does not work. Contrary to what sprey thinks, the world has changed since then.
You are wrong. It sounds like you have been lied too and completely eating the lie. Pierre Sprey was an important part of the A-X(A-10) concept formation team. Major General Richard A. Yudkin have confirmed this, it was under his office that the program ran and Colonel Avery Kay which ran the program has also confirmed this. While it is true that Pierre Sprey would go on to argue for what he saw as the better A-10, the "Blitzfighter concept" he didn't hate the A-10 and he was an integral part of forming the concept for it. He has never claimed he designed the actual plane. I have yet to find a record of Alexander Karteveli personally being involved in the plane, Karteveli had retired in 1962 and was only working as a consultant for Fairchild in 1969-1970 when the RFP for the A-X program was released. The actual lead designer was a today unknown man, Vincent J. Tizio, his gravestone even has an A-10 on it. Fairchild men where protégés of Karteveli but whatever direct role Karteveli had was minor. You are also wrong about the F16, Sprey was working together with John Boyd and Harry Hillaker, Hillaker who designed the F-16, in forming the concept for the F-XX which had the performance characteristics of the F-16. He was part of the Figher Mafia that created the LWF which would become the F-16 and F/A-18, Hillaker disagreed with Sprey regarding Dopler radar for among other reasons that a multirole plane had better foreign sales prospects. Still the F-16A is within the performance spectrum of the F-XX.
Ive done three combat deployments with the lot 29 super hornet and i can tell you for 100% certainty that the latest AESA radars, both the APG79 (in the super hornet) and the APG81(in the JSF) are not only capable of positively id'ing MOST aircraft from their radar cross-section but when a foxtrot model is used it can also do the forward air control job of the older e2 hawkeyes. Not arguing for or against the f35 only clarifying that new generation radar CAN id a target on its own without iff.
@@pateagle7191 I wrote that comment 10 years ago when I was much younger in the navy and not nearly as concerned with OPSEC. So while I know, I will not disclose any specifics. Let’s just say it’s WELL BVR for MOST aircraft.
@@TurboNFRStwoK do you have an opinion on this video in regards to F-35? Compare to what the video claims and many media outlets repeat, they make F-35 to be a horrible aircraft with tons of issues. Yet when I look into it, turns out this guy hasn’t a clue, the media repeats what this guy says in interviews and with the latest war in Ukraine it seems the media has done a 180 on the F-35.
@@ComradeTomatoTurtle I’m not going to re watch this video but to put it in terms people today understand the F35 is a lot like a Tesla. Every new software change adds new capabilities. The reason the aircraft performed so poorly in flight testing and even upon first delivery was completely due to software limitations that were in place to limit the Gs the aircraft could pull. As they got more data about how the airframe was performing they released new software to increase the limits to which a pilot could take the aircraft. I know a ton of previous F18 pilots who are now flying F35 and there isn’t a single one who prefers the capability of the F18 over the F35. The F35 may be a jack of all trades master of none but as a total package in what it brings to the fight it’s one of the most capable aircraft we currently have in service.
@@TurboNFRStwoKI don't think the issue of the F 35 is with it's computers,radars and so on. The issue is with radar absorbing material and the angles to deflect radar waves which make it less aerodynamic. You can put computers and sensors of the F 35 to F 16 or F 18. I believe the F 35 can't fly as often as those airplanes because it needs much more ground maintenance. Plus Russian and European jets as well as the latest F 18 variant have IRST which can passively detect and track any stealth aircraft. My personal opinion is that the F 35 is not worth it however I'm not a pilot so it's not an opinion of a professional.
Really : Feb 24 2021 : "US admits F-35 failed to replace F-16 as planned, needs new fighter jet The United States Air Force announced the need for a new multi-use fighter jet to replace its aging F-16 fleet, while stressing that it would not feature the same high-price tag and technological prowess of the F-35. The announcement, made by Air Force Chief of Staff General Charles Brown came as a surprise to defence analysts, given that the F-35 was pegged as the modern fifth generation aircraft that would replace the F-16. Instead, Air Force Chief Brown suggested they would develop a “fifth-generation-minus” fighter jet"
I say that the U.S. needs to build 1000 brand new A-10 aircraft, and quickly too. Don't change or modify the design one bit, they are good as they were designed back then, only add improved avionics and maybe improved missile launch detection & jamming / protection capabilities, that's it.
this jsf is a disaster. Our country the Netherlands also bought it to replace the f-16. Michael Gilmore, chief test operations, also wrote the same things about this plane in a letter to american parliament. Every country ore political leader could know about Pierre Sprey warnings but all put them in the wind...
Ron Valencia Not true. Firstly, the Rafale is S300 proven since they fought them in Lybia. Plus, the S400 is not a very good system. The Rafale could pass over them in numerous circumstances without being found. Sorry to say that, the S400 is not an exceptional system. And a F-35, will not be found by a S400, but certainly by a low frequency radar. It changes nothing. That's why the french decided to build a "not so stealthy" aircraft.
testertaster The Chinese do make a version of it that doesn't take into account the Marine's stupid insistence on STOVL, which has proven historically a total waste and makes the non-STOVL versions have to have the same fat fuselage.. Their version is slimmer and actually performs.
ironically the Chinese J-31, which appears to be similar to the f35 is a slim twin engined medium stealth fighter. if the marines would stop nagging for a STOVL then f35 would look like J-31, which would make it a much better aircraft. so basically China made a better, cheaper version of f35.
testertaster whats funny is, just like he said, there are people who get dazzled by "stealth" and the beauty of computers they don't know the realities. Computers break down. Complexity kills. It's not hard to understand the realities, in fact it's common sense: most of the practical features, of the most celebrated and competant airframes, are all baked into inherent design. That's why the A-10 is a masterclass in ground support
The F-35 is the Mall Ranger of fighter planes. It's designers tried to cram so much stuff into it, that it has become too fat and heavy to be useful tactically.
Yeah the media kind of misrepresented him, but he did write up initial design ideas for the AX which became the A10 and some of the features like the titanium bathtub, self sealing fueltanks, backup manual control cables if hydraulics are shot out and the placement of the engines, are probably all things he suggested. He was part of the "Fighter Mafia" afterall and all you have to do is watch a history on the F16 to know what they did
He was a part of the fighter mafia but even John Boyd said that he was a loudmouth who often inserted his opinion in military matters despite having no military experience whatsoever. And there is no proof that he designed a single nut or bolt of any of those planes. The F-15 is also a product of the Fighter Mafia. Why doesn't he claim that he helped design that too?
Billy Slo "He was a part of the fighter mafia but even John Boyd said that he was a loudmouth who often inserted his opinion in military matters despite having no military experience whatsoever." I don't remember Col Boyd ever saying that... please provide reference. "And there is no proof that he designed a single nut or bolt of any of those planes." Actually, Harry Hillaker does the accreditation... If you need me to find the articles, I can do that. "The F-15 is also a product of the Fighter Mafia. Why doesn't he claim that he helped design that too?" Somewhat, and not entirely. The 'fighter mafia' did they best they could against the wishes of the larger chairforce bureaucracy. Who wanted a larger, F-14 type missile boat. The 'fighter mafia' (including Sprey), was instrumental in getting rid of the swing-wing concepts from the TFX program (later the F-111) and evolved to the F-X program (that became the beloved F-15). Maybe the reason he doesn't brag is that the 'fighter mafia' had to constantly fight to scale down the F-15, whereas the F-16 was designed from day one to be a great dogfighter, using concepts developed from Col Boyd's E-M studies.
Mindburner ...... you did succeed. Your mind did burn. Pierre Sprey never claimed he did design of F16. He was actually one within a small group of people advocating aircrafts focused on single role in stubborn military environment, .......... which did eventually lead into creation of 2 most combat worthly aircrafts US military had in past half of century.
he has claimed he was on the design team or at least agreed when he was introduced as this. Also since about 2005, he has been on many programs and has been announced as designer / co-designer of the F16 (and the A10 for that matter) If this was incorrect, he never corrected the interviewer or added any sort of caveat or correction. He was basically an economist, but is apparently happy to be seen as more. He has zero military experience, parroting John Boyd and Everest Riccione. also WTF the about the mindburner joke? are you some sort of nut job ? give it a fucking rest
I don't know why, but I really enjoy hearing this guy trash talk the f-35. He's definitely right about one thing: the F-35 is one fat, stubby plane. That doesn't bode well for its speed or maneuverability. Those top-secret weapons we're assured it has had better kick some serious ass.
Pierre is 100% right about the subject PILOTS and maneuverability and communication are the prima factors as well as price. The stealth does not work either the RAM, missiles guided by radar are not accurate as claimed by any player. Besides we are not in the 70's when USA had the domain on electronics. Also i predict that opto-electrical system will play a big role, it is very hard to jam them. So the concept of good pilot in a good plane are more important.
I wish the F-14 and A-10 were still around and they just basically would update them for the 21st century. Instead of making F-35s, design the next gen F-14 tomcat.
I have read a lot of the comments. I flew for roughly 30 years but just small, slow civilian planes. I know significant military history. We had to go through lots of planes in major wars to find planes that dominated and some planes that dominated in one set of circumstances didn't in different circumstances. Planes that dominated in year 1 didn't dominate in year 2. Putting too many eggs in one basket is just stupid. We should have continuous new planes and we should experiment with a wide variety of ideas. We should be able to create new planes quickly. That doesn't mean good ideas and components can't be reused. But, one plane isn't the future and never will be
In 2019, the Israelis have proved him wrong. Being declared once or twice as a genius in your lifetime does not mean you always will remain a genius, especially when there are major paradigm shifts.
@@vemundr9263 playing word and mind games is worthless when your worldview is predicated on the past criteria. Just because you dismiss the actual accomplishments and tactical use the Israelis have achieved with their F-35s is totally meaningless to those who operate on the point of the spear. The F-22s and F-35s have exposed the the Russians' inability to obtain an accurate read or lock. The new air missions paradigms have far surpassed the various mission limitations of the past. Dogfights? You mean to box by the rules against Krav Maga combat fighters who adhere to no rules? Your post may have run somewhat true decades ago, but now has no role in properly deployed integrated assets fulfilling their combat roles.
He is not "everybody". Do your research before writing an utter nonsense. He is not just an ordinary aeronautic engineer either. He is a Yale university graduate, with decades of experience in the U.S. military. He was one of the designers of F15 and A10, and then later, part of the first secret team to design F16. So that makes him one of the very few people on the planet qualified to critique such projects. We Britons have a saying: nobody knows how stupid you are until you open your mouth. Certainly relevant in your case. You want your tax money to be spent on subsidising arms industries and building killing machines? You sad person, go ahead. I prefer my tax money to be spent at home in order to improve our infrastructure, healthcare, research projects (such as on European Space Agency, Aids, Alzheimer etc) and support those in need of humanitarian assistance. Very sad to know we share this wonderful planet with people like you whom we have nothing in common with.
Most of the kills of F8 crusader also known as the last gunfighter where with missiles, 7 missile kills to 1 gun kill, the f8 crusader also had a kill ratio of 6 to 1 which is pretty good but the navy version of the f4 phantom that didn’t have a gun had a kill ratio of 13 to 1.
Indeed ???!!! It's official, bro : Feb24 2021 : "US admits F-35 failed to replace F-16 as planned, needs new fighter jet The United States Air Force announced the need for a new multi-use fighter jet to replace its aging F-16 fleet, while stressing that it would not feature the same high-price tag and technological prowess of the F-35. The announcement, made by Air Force Chief of Staff General Charles Brown came as a surprise to defence analysts, given that the F-35 was pegged as the modern fifth generation aircraft that would replace the F-16. Instead, Air Force Chief Brown suggested they would develop a “fifth-generation-minus” fighter jet"
@@alainprimates1017 sensational article from trtworld and this site is a joke. The real arcticle is here www.airforcemag.com/brown-launching-major-tacair-study-with-cape-considering-5th-gen-minus/ and it's quite different. And that they need not only F-35 was known for years.
@@Archivvve And what about the Washington Post ? Is it also a joke ? March 3 2021 : Washington Post "Powerful lawmaker calls F-35 fighter jet a ‘rathole,’ suggests Pentagon should cut its losses. The Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee called the Lockheed Martin-produced F-35 Joint Strike Fighter a “rathole” in a virtual event with the Brookings Institution on Friday, and suggested the U.S. should consider whether to “cut its losses” by investing in a range of competing fighter jets. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) characterized the F-35 as an overly expensive defense platform with disappointing capabilities. He criticized the jet’s sustainment costs as “brutal,” and said he was skeptical they would ever go down. The solution, he said, is to invest in other fighter jets so the Defense Department has a range of options at its fingertips. What I’m going to try to do is figure out how we can get a mix of fighter attack aircraft that’s the most cost-effective. A big part of that is finding something that doesn’t make us have to rely on the F-35 for the next 35 years,” Smith said. Internet clowns...
@14ALL41OK Pierre Sprey is not a fucking engineer. He's more of an adviser, except too fucking out of touch with modern warfare so the "fighters" he suggests are just glorified target practice
But people said the same with computers. The public was not smart enough to use them. So, they made them easier to use. Pilots have stated the JSF as being much easier to operate as the computers handle everything.
I could create a a lot of highly plausible "what if" scenarios that would be unfavorable for any aircraft. F-35s are not made to fly solo into enemy controlled airspace. It is not an air superiority fighter so that situation is very unlikely. If the F-35 is used for its design mission, it would be more than or just as effective as any fighter in the U.S. fleet
Mikelh thank you for your expertise in your reply to my comment. I agree, very high Mach numbers are not the real measure of an air-to-air combat aircraft any more. I was referring to the role an upgraded Arrow would be filling in Canada's north: INTERCEPTOR. The Arrow was never intended to be a dogfighter. The Arrow's high speed, long range, (and therefore large fuel capacity) were the major requirements in the interception role over the vast Canadian north. The J35 cannot fill that role.
The A10 is a great ground attack jet, the only problem is that it doesn't get a chance very often to attack the targets it was meant to destroy. The A10 was a plane made to attack soviet armored vehicles. The problem is that most of the violent conflicts we see today are civil wars and terrorist attacks. Both types of war don't pose a lot of armored vehicles. They tend to just use cheap cars and trucks. Now, and A10 can easily take out cars and trucks, but do we really need that much firepower just to take out a commercial pick-up truck?
@@faragar1791 Look for A10 efectiveness tests, it was obsolete when it came out and most of it kills in the gulf war were with missiles. The cannon couldnt even kill most m47s that were standing in multiple passes in clear weather.
@@novkorova2774 Even more bad is because a lot of its systems were bare-bones at the time, it resulted in A-10 pilots having to use _binoculars_ to confirm their targets and even resulted in that friendly fire incident involving British troops. Sure there were upgrades but they still aren't really enough for the aging airframe. The Air Force has good reasons to want to retire the A-10, but Congress and a misinformed populace always ensures that it stays unfortunately...
That's a great criticism of the F-35 as a fighter. That's like saying a hammer is terrible as a steak knife. The purpose of the F-35 is to drop payloads on ground targets with F-22s clearing the sky. I do agree that the JSF is not going to replace the A-10 effectively; but drones will. The Global Hawk can fly for 35 hours. Drones are the new close support aircraft. They killed the Comanche project, they're going to put the A-10 to bed as well. Loitering in a hot area = drone aircraft.
He has no idea what an IFF is? What the hell? Also, *there were no friendly-fire BVR engagements between the F-4's from the US.* There were never any blue-on-blues _involving_ F-4's to begin with!
Somarik Green _"I would guess that he does know about IFF, being a bit of an expert on aircraft design."_ Logical fallacies: Wishful thinking and argument from authority, in that order. _"However, he is right on the point about criticising the belief that the era of the dogfight is over and that guns are not required and missiles will do the job. That was claimed prior to the Vietnam War and the error of that belief is shown by guns being incorporated into fighter designs afterwards."_ It's 2016. Technologies gave evolved. Missiles back then were not only using 1960's technology, and were barely out of the prototype phase. Missiles today are ridiculously advanced, incorporating active electronically scanned array radars into their seeker heads, and in case you don't know, all of the most modern infrared-guided air to air missiles are BVR-capable, like the Raytheon AIM-9X Block III, Vympel R-74, MBDA ASRAAM, IRIS-T, AAM-5, MBDA MICA, PL-8, and Rafael Python 5. For a pilot to use the cannon for an A2A kill nowadays, he or she would have to be damn skilled to weave into the mess of fighters frantically and ferociously trying to lock up and destroy enemy aircraft from a few kilometers or more away. Chances are, WVR engagements look absolutely nothing like you think they do. Aircraft are very far away, and attaining a firing solution in the enemy's 6 is a by-gone phenomena. Aircraft nowadays simply look at the aircraft in a WVR fight, and fire, thanks to helmet-mounted cueing systems pioneered by the South African Air Force in the 1970's with Mirage F1's, and not MiG-29's as the Russian fanboys would have you believe. F-4's were the only US aircraft capable of BVR at the time, so we can deduce that only F-4's could've done this, and please provide a citation for your claim of F-4 blue-on-blue, as I myself cannot find anything after more than "thirty seconds on google;" it's standing as a phantom claim. (No pun intended, lol) This is what I have from April 9, 1965. aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=94364 And oh my christ, if I see another person that honestly thinks he designed a single nut or bolt on either the A-10 or F-16... He didn't design *anything.* _He was friends_ with the designers of the F-16 *( a.k.a. General Dynamics aeronautical engineers, you know, like ***_*Robert H. Widmer_**)* and a proponent of the concept of a lightweight, single-turbine, relatively inexpensive air superiority day fighter, and he outlined program requirements for the A-10, saying, "we need an aircraft that will tear into all the T-64's the USSR will send at us though the Fulda Gap in the coming years, and trade lunches with ZSU-23-4's and the flare-addicted SA-7's that will indubitably accompany them. These aircraft will return to base, or a field or road somewhere, refuel and rearm, and head back. Is the plane too trashed to stay in the fight? Leave it; it'd cheap and well buy two more." He was never an aircraft designer, and he never will be. That is a myth propagated by himself and the media, calling him anywhere from the co-designer to even the designers of the airframes. _"Whether he is right or not on the F35 being a bad aircraft time will tell."_ I concur The F-35 will have to prove itself in combat; the F-16 was called shit until it wrecked havoc while being used by the Israelis.
Somarik Green You implied when you said he's an expert on aircraft design. That's how I interpreted your text. Yeah, an F-4 could've downed an F-8, A-7, F-101, F-106, F-4, or F-5 for all we cared; that was my strawman. That's literally the same source I sent you. The friendly kill was WVR, nullifying the anti-BVR argument. He says that BVR leads to fratricide.
For the Netherlands, their air force will have eventually to 37 F-35 Lightning II to replace the 213 F-16 purchased in the 1980s. And this number will be even only 32 units since 5 remain based in the United States "permanently" for training and pilot training ... which only 29 will be fully operational in the Netherlands. This is a regression of their enormous military capacity! The F-35 will be a good plane, but their prices led to a military suicide for small countries that have more money.
Mr. Sprey was only a government analyst involved with military appropriation, und had "NOTHING" to do with the design or engineering of the A-10 Warthog or the F-16 aircraft. Mr. Sprey also criticized the Abrams Tank und the F-15 aircraft in their beginning, just as he did to the F-35. It ist so extremely obvious now that the F-35 shows incredible ability to become the most successful multi-role combat aircraft in history. Mr. Sprey's conclusions show his past analysis ability NOT very accurate or useful...smiles
From what I've heard the F-35 isn't supposed to be used for dogfights. It's was supposed to be something like a swiss pocket knife, multi-purpose. That is why it was so expensive.
No modern fighters are supposed to be used for dogfights... dogfights are what happens if you fuck up the other 90% of air combat, so at best being highly maneuverable is a back-up weapon much like a pistol is to a soldier. The F-35 doesn't do anything more than the F-16, but the F-35 does everything the F-16 can do with much higher success rates. It's expensive because fighters in general are expensive.
because of that, he and group hate jack of all trade he wants air superiority as Fokker Dr.I "Red Baron" but jets on and he wants CAS as bullet sponge armed tank cannon (not really just hard punch gun) and speed as fast car also no technology, just GUN
outdated and this person promotes russian airplanes , everyone is looking at lockhead but not this (questionable) guy posting this vid ? way to go Kremlin!
This guy was on the design team for the A-10 and the F-16 which are excellent aircraft! The F-35 has been a $1 Trillion + fucking disaster; that is just a fact! Seriously get a fucking clue you clown.
i first didn't call anyone names so i expect the same from you. and second he did work on it and money wise it was a disaster but not a waste. the quallity is above everything else what is around right now. simply looking at statistics of where this type of aircraft is capable of.
the f4 came out when missiles were still in their infancy and untested in war, pilots in vietnam were also not allowed to engage beyond visual range and awacs was also just came into being,
Dude has a lot of random exegesis and in theory would be correct about much of it... if the figures were accurate. From what I understand and what many have been able to cite, he’s referring to papers on F-35 performance before it was completed. The whole thing about it not reaching max speed of other fighters with payload is no longer a problem, for instance.
@@FLMKane On the F17 vs F35 numbers specifically. Not that I’m trying to obfuscate but of course the complexity of a fighter is so vast that almost anyone can pick out a figure and say it changed post-dev. Either pro or anti F35. But in the Sprey vs Berke debate on RUclips you can see that Sprey doesn’t have the right payload figures, for instance. It’s a good debate where you can see regardless of complexity, Sprey is just kind of winging it. I.e. the claim it’s numbers against the F14 maneuverability are wrong because of weapons payload on exterior - it’s on the interior of the F35 and was a major selling point, so idk why Sprey would argue as if the systems are exterior. Very strange. But of course even if it’s not a perfect fighter, or one is critical of NATO, it’s clear much of this comes from pressures against the JSF program because even with an average fighter unifying NATO, JSF is still a unified threat to many interests. So the criticism is expected.
Lets look at some figures against some proven and supposedly superior platforms, lets compare them and see. If you really know something about planes you would know that you basically need 3 essentials to be maneuverable: 1. Lots of Lift 2. Lots of thrust 3. Little Drag Lets discuss lift: I know you probably heard Pierre Spray said that the F-35 is a dog because it has little wings. and has to carry 110lbs of airplane for every square foot of wing. Pierre Spray was involved in the aircraft industry at around the 1960s where fighters were basically tubes with wings. At that time all of the lift came from the wings. small wings = small lift. But at around that time Martin Marietta (now Lockheed Martin) was experimenting with Lifting Body designs, they wanted to produce fuselages that can assist the wings in producing lift instead of being dead weight. Read more here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin-Marietta_X-24 That?s why at around the 1970s we began to see fighters with wide flat fuselage sections and smaller wings. So lets compare the wing loading of the F-4 against Pierre Spray's favorite F-16 variant the F-16A. F-4 Empty: 30,328lbs Load:8000 lbs Comabt Weight: 38,328 Wing Area: 530 feet Wing Loading: 72 lbs/ sq feet F-16A Empty: 16,300 Load:8000 lbs Comabt Weight: 24,300 Wing Area: 300 feet Wing Loading: 81 lbs/ sq feet So by Pierre Spray's own argument the horribly turning F-4 should fly circles around his hotrod F-16? What?s happening here? Well the F-16 does not rely on just wings to produce lift, it has a blended body and wing design, plus LERX that produce vortices above the airplane (if you remember you physics, high pressure below + low pressure above creates lift) around 40% of the F-16s total lift does not come from the wings at all. So in reality the F-16's actual wing loading when loaded with 8,000lbs is closer to 49 lbs per square feet not 81 lbs. The F-35 is the same. to get the F-35 to have 110lbs / sq ft of wing loading as Pierre Spray said it needs to carry 21,300 lbs of load. The f-16 can never do that, but the F-35 can! that?s what?s great about this plane, it gives you options, if you need to go to a long range mission then sure, the F-35 CAN carry 18,000lbs of fuel and 18,000lbs of weapons. But if your going to a CAP mission where a dogfight is possible, then why load it with 21K? Most likely an F-35 would take off with 18,000lbs, And when it gets to combat it would probably have 10,000lbs depending on the range to the target. So lets pit the F-35 against some really good aircraft, Wing Loading calculation. All loaded with 8,000 lbs, perfect for dogfighting: Wing Loading: Mig-29 M/M2: 91 F-16C (block 50): 90 F-35A: 81 F/A-18C: 77 Su-30MKI: 72 So as you can see at dogfighting weights, the F-35 is not bad at all, its not the best but really not all that bad. Now consider this, the F-35 probably has the most efficient body lifting surface of all these aircraft due to the fact that its fuselage has the smoothest flatest surface of all these planes, not a lot of disturbance for the wind to flow around on. So lets give all these aircraft a Body lifting coefficient of 40% but to be conservative lets give the F-35 45%, the truth is probably much larger but hey lets keep it down. Wing loading plus body lift: Mig-29 (M/M2): 54.6 F-16C (block 50): 54 F/A-18C: 46 F-35A: 44 Su-30MKI: 43 The F-16s wing loading is similar to the Mig-29s which is why it replicates the Mig-29 in RedFlag. But Notice how the F-35's wing loading is so close to the F/A-18 and just 1 pound above the Su-30, which is why when you ask pilots they will say that the F-35 maneuvers like an F/A-18 with better acceleration. And really acceleration is the only thing Hornet pilots dont like about it. www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... -tactical/ Lt Col Matt Kelly wrote: Operational pilots should be thrilled with the F-35's performance, Kelly said. The F-35 Energy-[Maneuverability] diagrams, which display an aircraft?s energy and maneuvering performance within its airspeed range and for different load factors, are similar to the F/A-18 but the F-35 offers better acceleration at certain points of the flight envelope. So do you still think they are lying? Now lets talk thrust. This is a no brainer, the F-35's engine is rated at 43,000lbs the most powerful in the world. So lets cut to the chase and compare. Thrust to weight at max thrust: (All loaded with 8,000 lbs) Mig-29 (M/M2): 1.05 F-16C (block 50): 1.05 Su-30MKI: 1.13 F/A-18C: 1.14 F-35A: 1.15 Surprise Surprise, the F-35 has the best Thrust to weight ratio of all of the planes involved, and really in a dogfight Thrust to weight can be more valuable than Wing loading. Now Drag: All these planes will carry weapons externally adding lots of drag. with a full centerline tank the F-16 is reduced to 7Gs max and the Mig-29 is reduced to an appalling 4Gs, the F-35 will carry most if not all its missiles internally, very little drag. So to conclude, even without Stealth, even without all its advanced sensors and ECM suits, the F-35 will (in the words of Pierre Spray) wax the competition every single time, then if the F-35 is a dog the rest should be compared to kittens. This was written in assn. with Stormsquad.
DrSQUIRRELBOY12 silly argument, you compared the F-4 to the F-16. The F-4 weighs considerably more than the F-16. The F-16 is more nimble than the either the F-4 or the F-15. Even if the F-16 has a higher wing loading, which it does (design fault), the F-4 or F-15 will still cannot out turn the F-16, because of their greater momentum/mass. Weight gain, in optimum fighter design is too often forgotten; so you get a slug of an aircraft oftentimes.
***** I have proven nothing of the sort, Just because I don't "fight back" doesn't mean I agree with him. As I said before by the time the F-35 has as many opperational jets as the F-16 the price would have steadied out. Your arguments have no backing, you say the F-35 is on par with a SU-30MKI (which it is, it is also on par with a PAK FA). What do you have to back that up? Second, just saying Pierre Sprey's name makes me think you are completely sold on his idea of the plane he didnt work on. Third, The F-35 has 3 different variants so your bike analogy falls apart. Instead of one bike to do it all think of it as 2 bikes with the same frame but different gears and wheels (or whatever differentiates mountain bikes from racing bikes). The core structure remains the same and most of the parts are interchangeable. In the end this will save money. instead of having 3 different parts to do the same thing on 3 different planes you get one part that works for all 3 planes.
***** Take an F-.35 fully loaded with internal bombs it will go Mach 1.5. Take any top of the line fighter with its external bomb racks loaded how fast it can go for an extended time?
DrSQUIRRELBOY12 - You could not be more wrong. Read the news. Your numbers are bogus as well. Bottom line is that in the air, the F-35 loses to F-16s every time. It simply cannot dogfight, as many pilots have already stated and proven. Even LM said that it depends entirely upon "tech" to survive. Well that's great unless you get in close and personal. Then you're toast.
@@LuizSMatos-dr9tz oh yea that philosophy work for tanks, or did it, introducing the main battle tank, developed by the us in ww2 (the sherman was the first mbt, change my mind) this not-new doctrine is 70+ years old
What we do know now is that the F35 has the longest AESA radar range with 360 strike capabilities which means it can hit aircraft from behind and map radar behind it as well as under it. Personally I prefer the SU35 or F15 silent eagle what they're reaching for is more realistic.
Amusingly enough - some of what he said is true. Read about the recently released report of the mock dogfight between the F35 and a F16. F16 owned the F35 at distances from 10k to 30k.
draug2009 My god! Why do people follow David Axe like his words are facts? You should read that actual pilot report. That wasn't an actual dogfight. The F-35 was kept in a constant high AOA as part of testing the existing flight control laws. Any plane in a high AOA is going to have energy management issues. Geez people are laughing at the new kid on the block because he got beaten up by a girl. The part everyone is missing is that the boy was strapped to a chair and the test objective was for him to try and escape while the girl is attacking him. If the military wanted to do a capability match up, it wouldn't be with the model AF-02.
The mission of the A-10 doesn't call for high speed and has no need. It's mission needs were ability to loiter for a long time on station, high maneuverability (which it definitely has), the ability to pack a hell of a punch (which it definitely does), and the ability to take abuse (which it definitely can). It's a brutally tough, simple, effective, and terrifying (which alone counts for a great deal) close air support platform. The F-35 sucks! It's the modern day Brewster Buffalo.
ironically the Chinese J-31, which appears to be similar to the f35 is a slim twin engined medium stealth fighter. if the marines would stop nagging for a STOVL then f35 would look like J-31, which would make it a much better aircraft. so basically China made a better, cheaper version of f35.
The Marines are being told they have to take it as a Harrier replacement, the Marines originally wanted the AV-8D Harrier with the FA-18 radar and improved engine. It was canceled in favor of the F-35 project that the Marines did not want because they could not originally hang bombs from it. 1
obsidianstatue No they didn't. China still has yet to make an aircraft with powerful enough engines to take off the aircraft carrier that they bought from Ukraine. The J-31 is no exception. Right now it has 33,000 lbf and the F-35's single engine has 49,000 lbf. China does say that when it reaches full production it will have 44,000 lbf but either way it is underpowered. And then if you want to compare it to the twin engine F-22 it is left in the dust. While the J-31 is supposed to have 44,000 lbf in it's production aircraft, the F-22 had 70,000 out of it's twin engines. The J-31 is an underpowered rip off.
Billy Slo the WS-10A engine is already being used on the J15, and has already proven to be able to take off from a ski jump carrier, which requires high trust to weight ratio and reliability.
obsidianstatue The point is that while China tries to make knockoff planes even their knockoffs are bad. I mean if they can't get more thrust out of their twin engine aircraft than a single engine from the US then they have a long way to go.
In a glorious twist of fate. The chinese knockoff of a plane that was overbudget, underperforming and behind schedule is ironically overbudget, underperforming and behind schedule.
Wrong wrong wrong. Red flag 2 years ago: F22/ F35 combo kill ratio over legacy fighter combo; 20:1. F35 pairs vs legacy fighter pairs: 17:1. Stealth wins. You can't fight what you can't see.
@hotpocketpoison the numbering. The F-22 require a 100 hour of maintenance per flight hour Pierre Sprey already mention it in an interview on MSNBC. Just because the plane is more susceptible to scratches doesn't mean the it require less maintenance hour. Plane is the most safest form of travel because maintenance are done thoroughly & regularly. The Price tag on F-35 is so expensive you can buy 2 PAKFA for the same price & the PAKFA is more or less equal to the JSF.
well with the f 105 thunder chief it was actually a limited stock of spare prats that did it in , the air national guard flew them till about 1983 , it wasnt the only plane that suffered attrition problems during nam there was the A 26 , the canberra , the sandys , the f 100 super saber and the f 101 voodoo to name a few
Better off creating a more stealthy F 18 with upgrades in all areas vs using this mess that's planned to fail ,we learned this lesson in Vietnam with the Thunder chief .
I hear people say air to air combat isn't that common.. Well if we start tossing out billion dollar air to ground F-35s and any opponent realizes that they cannot fight fourth or even third gen fighters in turns, that's what they will face. Pure air to air dogfights. Any strategist would pump money into fighters rather than ground forces upon that realization.
Oddly enough, it was the opposite of this that drove the F-35 into production. It was the realization by the Soviet Union that they couldn't produce enough high tech fighters to defeat NATO air forces and so they began to invest and produce some of the best surface to air missiles. That and they had a vast ground army that could move fairly quickly and needed more consistent coverage.
The IFF can only tell you if it's an ally, but it can't tell you for sure if it's an enemy, because maybe an allied pilot just put the wrong encryption-key in or the key is already expired or the IFF-module is faulty and so on . And every time your own IFF sends a request, the requested foe hears a warningsound and also know immediately from where you are comming. So the IFF is like normal Radar, a double edged sword.
Give the F-35 a new nickname "the Flying Turd". I know a USMC LtCol who was a Delta Hornet Test Pilot that now works with the F-35 program and he is considering quitting due to blatant mismanagement.
What next? *The F-35 Can't Run On Warm Gas From A Fuel Truck That Sat In The Sun* foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-run-on-warm-gas-from-a-fuel-truck-that-sa-1668120726
This guy lies about his credentials. He plays on publicly known tropes of fighter jets to criticize anything new American and technologically-advanced. He criticizes US equipment and then once it proves itself on the field of battle suddenly he starts claiming that she designed or had heavy influence over it’s development. Spreys current criticism of the F-22 and F-35 is the exact same he had of the at f16 f15. Originally spray thought that the F-15 F-16 and a 10 were too technologically-advanced, and expensive to be effective and that their missiles would not fare well against the more maneuverable Soviet aircraft. However once these aircraft proved themselves against the Soviets in wars in Iraq Sprey started claiming to be their designers. He did not design the f16 or the a10. The only plane he was involved with was the f15 and even then all of his suggestions were thrown out (look up project redbird although it's pretty hard to find info on it. It would basically be a short range, slower, highly maneuverable fighter that could not carry missiles, radar or very many electronic systems at all, and could only operate during the daytime and clear weather.) Sprey's pals would say this plane became the f16 although I don't know if this is true (I don't think so, the dates don't line up) In any case the if the f16 was originally based on the redbird than it had changed so much that by the time it became operational it was a completely unrecognizable IE:(good range, all weather, multirole, missiles, radar, electronics, the works) As for the A-10 Sprey had nothing to do with it and actually hated it wanted to replace it with his own fighter, the blitzfighter which would be a tiny aircraft armed only with a cannon with very little electronics to speak of. It was only once the A10 proved itself in 1991 that Sprey started claiming he built it. He was able to do this because by this time the a10's real designer, Alexander Karteveli, had died. Ultimately Pierre Sprey can be summed up in this. Pierre sprey understands a lot about the world of fighter jets and is an expert on its subject matter, if we were talking about fighter jets in the 40s and 50s. What Pierre Spray fails or refuses to understand is that the air battles of tomorrow and indeed the air battles since Vietnam have been dominated by long range missiles One does not need to look very deep to realize this. Just look at the iran-iraq war where Iranian f-14s armed with long-ranged aim-54 Phoenix missiles absolutely wiped the floor with more maneuverable Soviet aircraft. Just look at the Gulf War where f-16s, f-18s, f-14s, and most of all f-15s dominated Iraqi opposition with their Superior Radar and long-range missiles. I won't even get started on stealth which is a whole other can of worms but if you believe nothing else that I've said believe this: applying theories about air combat from the 40s and 50s to modern warfare does not work. Contrary to what sprey thinks, the world has changed since then.
@@antwango Despite Sprey’s assertion that he “designed” the F16 and A10, this claim is quite a stretch of the facts. He was actually involved as a defense analyst as part of the self-titled group “Fighter Mafia” led by retired fighter pilot Colonel John Boyd. They came up with a list of requirements that would focus each fighter jets’ properties towards their specific roles. The lightweight fighter resulted in the F16 and the close air support became the A10. While (imo) this group’s input and ideas were/are based on sound principles, they never “designed” either plane. Rather, of Sprey’s (the group’s) proposed requirements, the actual engineers who designed the aircrafts excluded many portions from this list. In fact, Sprey was quite disproving of the F16’s end result because of it’s increased weight due to “unnecessary” instrumentation (which increased the daylight fighter to all-weather, added bombing capabilities, and included a vastly improved multifunctional radar, etc.). Ironically, these added features which were so vehemently disliked by Sprey, have contributed to the F16 becoming the most widely produced fighter in the western world. Touché Sprey. 🤫
I am 100% with that guy, the damn F-35 is a lemon. Or for that matter more a rotten lemon... But the same counts for any other 'stealth' aircraft, they all are lemons and thus useless.
And then upgrade the F-15 Silent Eagles with F-15 ACTIVE thrust vectoring and F-35 tech. Also develop new F-16's with full stealth and using upgraded features and avionics from the F-16 VISTA and X-31 rockwell test projects (mainly thrust vectoring). Two versions of this new F-16 should be made; a regular Air Force variant, and a naval version with fold-able wings and able to take off and land from aircraft carriers. The leftover F/A-18's can be used in airshows and flyby's at sports games ;)
dude his ideas were thankfully not implemented. he was a huge critic of the f15 because it used BVR capability and advanced avionics instead of being a gun dogfighter. the f15 is also the most successful fighter in the history of warfare and is undefeated in combat. Even his f16 turned into a hugely successful multirole fighter which he was against. this guys ideas were proven wrong by war and also by wargames. its like saying swordfighting is better even though the rifled barrel was invented.
Quantikk f-16 a multi-role? the 16 wasnt desgin to bomb and doesnt have the capability to do CAS, it was desgin to be a dogfighter, and nothing would toucht the 16 if the air force didnt put alot of junk just to make it a bomber, even a boing A310 can bomb if you put bombs under its wings, and if you going to put ACMs on the tabel them f-15 was axed many times.
José Gomes If any one has doubts what an F-16 is capable of look at what Israel have done with the platform. www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f-16i/ this aircraft is a multi role platform at its best.
Billy Smith for the love of god the f-16 is not CAS aircraft, even a boing a 310 can be a bomber, 3.bp.blogspot.com/-l--yrGOaPXE/U1lmSgYI27I/AAAAAAAA8ac/vUfICsVkGMo/s1600/883867_10152092695820665_7413064826804702956_o.png
VERY smart man. He did a double degree at Yale at age 15 and was one of McNamara's "Whiz Kids''. Pretty good track record - ie. the key designer of the F16 AND the A10. The man knows his stuff. For more on Sprey, I highly recommend people check out the book - ''Boyd, the fighter pilor who changed the art of war". AWESOME book.
This guy lies about his credentials. He plays on publicly known tropes of fighter jets to criticize anything new American and technologically-advanced. He criticizes US equipment and then once it proves itself on the field of battle suddenly he starts claiming that she designed or had heavy influence over it’s development. Spreys current criticism of the F-22 and F-35 is the exact same he had of the at f16 f15. Originally spray thought that the F-15 F-16 and a 10 were too technologically-advanced, and expensive to be effective and that their missiles would not fare well against the more maneuverable Soviet aircraft. However once these aircraft proved themselves against the Soviets in wars in Iraq Sprey started claiming to be their designers. He did not design the f16 or the a10. The only plane he was involved with was the f15 and even then all of his suggestions were thrown out (look up project redbird although it's pretty hard to find info on it. It would basically be a short range, slower, highly maneuverable fighter that could not carry missiles, radar or very many electronic systems at all, and could only operate during the daytime and clear weather.) Sprey's pals would say this plane became the f16 although I don't know if this is true (I don't think so, the dates don't line up) In any case the if the f16 was originally based on the redbird than it had changed so much that by the time it became operational it was a completely unrecognizable IE:(good range, all weather, multirole, missiles, radar, electronics, the works) As for the A-10 Sprey had nothing to do with it and actually hated it wanted to replace it with his own fighter, the blitzfighter which would be a tiny aircraft armed only with a cannon with very little electronics to speak of. It was only once the A10 proved itself in 1991 that Sprey started claiming he built it. He was able to do this because by this time the a10's real designer, Alexander Karteveli, had died. Ultimately Pierre Sprey can be summed up in this. Pierre Sprey understands a lot about the world of fighter jets and is an expert on its subject matter, if we were talking about fighter jets in the 40s and 50s. What Pierre Spray fails or refuses to understand is that the air battles of tomorrow and indeed the air battles since Vietnam have been dominated by long range missiles One does not need to look very deep to realize this. Just look at the iran-iraq war where Iranian f-14s armed with long-ranged aim-54 Phoenix missiles absolutely wiped the floor with more maneuverable Soviet aircraft. Just look at the Gulf War where f-16s, f-18s, f-14s, and most of all f-15s dominated Iraqi opposition with their Superior Radar and long-range missiles. I won't even get started on stealth which is a whole other can of worms but if you believe nothing else that I've said believe this: applying theories about air combat from the 40s and 50s to modern warfare does not work. Contrary to what sprey thinks, the world has changed since then.
This guy has been proven wrong, time and time again. His thinking is sound for 60s-70s era air fights, but completely absurd for the F-35. FWIW, this guy hated the F-15 too... and we see how that worked out.
@@bkr68rc That never happened. India only claimed to have done so then provided fake evidence, trying to pass off their own MiG-21 wreckage as the F-16 they supposedly shot down. You can find videos of the MiG-21 wreckage, and clearly see which angles were used as evidence. So if your argument is literally a made up event, sure, go for it.
@@ivanlagrossemoule f16 twin seater block 52 was the one crashed into have seen clear electronic Radar signature.More over Pakistani mobs killed one of their f16 pilot thinking that he is Indian pilot.P Pakistanis never accept anything that's their behavior first they said they captured 3 Indian pilots later realising mistake changed to one pilot!!!!!
If production were restarted the cost for another 75 aircraft was estimated in 2009 to be an extra $70 million per unit, the f-22 cost 142.6 million on its first fly before got upgrades that incressed the cost to 361 million per plane.
the F35 project started in 1992, over all is was a total failure, the F35 A, which had many revisions done to it by none other the IAF , the Israeli air force, the cost of manufacturing the first F35 was huge and also had many flaws in its design , after more then 10 years of straggling of manufacturing of the ultimate jet fighter made by Lockheed Martin. the project failed , then IAF turned to the US administration ( where so much money was invested into that project ) with lousy results and the contract was turned to 2 contractors , one was Boeing and the other was the Israeli air force IAF, they were the ones who reengineered the F35A, which is now called F-35A Lightning II )or the F35A so don't be so stiff neck to think that EVERYTHING is engineered in the US, without the help of the IAF, that project would have been the biggest lose in US history (that comes from someone who worked on that project )
This guy lies about his credentials. He plays on publicly known tropes of fighter jets to criticize anything new American and technologically-advanced. He criticizes US equipment and then once it proves itself on the field of battle suddenly he starts claiming that she designed or had heavy influence over it’s development. Spreys current criticism of the F-22 and F-35 is the exact same he had of the at f16 f15. Originally spray thought that the F-15 F-16 and a 10 were too technologically-advanced, and expensive to be effective and that their missiles would not fare well against the more maneuverable Soviet aircraft. However once these aircraft proved themselves against the Soviets in wars in Iraq Sprey started claiming to be their designers. He did not design the f16 or the a10. The only plane he was involved with was the f15 and even then all of his suggestions were thrown out (look up project redbird although it's pretty hard to find info on it. It would basically be a short range, slower, highly maneuverable fighter that could not carry missiles, radar or very many electronic systems at all, and could only operate during the daytime and clear weather.) Sprey's pals would say this plane became the f16 although I don't know if this is true (I don't think so, the dates don't line up) In any case the if the f16 was originally based on the redbird than it had changed so much that by the time it became operational it was a completely unrecognizable IE:(good range, all weather, multirole, missiles, radar, electronics, the works) As for the A-10 Sprey had nothing to do with it and actually hated it wanted to replace it with his own fighter, the blitzfighter which would be a tiny aircraft armed only with a cannon with very little electronics to speak of. It was only once the A10 proved itself in 1991 that Sprey started claiming he built it. He was able to do this because by this time the a10's real designer, Alexander Karteveli, had died. Ultimately Pierre Sprey can be summed up in this. Pierre sprey understands a lot about the world of fighter jets and is an expert on its subject matter, if we were talking about fighter jets in the 40s and 50s. What Pierre Spray fails or refuses to understand is that the air battles of tomorrow and indeed the air battles since Vietnam have been dominated by long range missiles One does not need to look very deep to realize this. Just look at the iran-iraq war where Iranian f-14s armed with long-ranged aim-54 Phoenix missiles absolutely wiped the floor with more maneuverable Soviet aircraft. Just look at the Gulf War where f-16s, f-18s, f-14s, and most of all f-15s dominated Iraqi opposition with their Superior Radar and long-range missiles. I won't even get started on stealth which is a whole other can of worms but if you believe nothing else that I've said believe this: applying theories about air combat from the 40s and 50s to modern warfare does not work. Contrary to what sprey thinks, the world has changed since then.
Also, as an Aerospace and Astronautical engineer in school, I find half of what that interviewee saying is not true. "small wings are not good for maneuverability do to the amount of lift." I laughed really hard at this.
Piere Sprey did NOT work in the aerospace industry as a engineer, but a statistican the a10 was designed by Alexander Kartveli and Pierre sprey did not work on the f16, he was asked an opinion, whined about the price, and then cane up with the FXX or something like that (basically a list of important bits like the gps system he wanted removed fron the f16)
It has wing loading of 526 kilos per square meter when loaded, and its Thrust to Weight ratio is barely above 1 when at 50% fuel (0,91 to 1,07, depending on version). F16s wing loading is 431 kg/m2 and thrust-to-weight ratio is 1,095. F16 is also smaller plane, meaning that it would tear F35 apart in dogfight.
9 years late byt w/e. Thrust to weight and wing loading not the only metrics for a good dogfighting aircraft. The other aspects you need to consider are turn radius and angle of attack. The F-16 has an angle of attack limit of the F-16 is 25 degrees. the F-35's is 50 degrees. If the F-16 is able to force the 2 circle (nose to tail) fight then he will most likely win. If the F-35 pilot is able to force a 1 circle fight (nose to nose) then the F-35 is going to win.
The F-35 and F-22 are intend to be used in tandem. The F-22 would be the more front-line air-superiority fighter and the F-35 is more of a multi-role fighter. The F-22 is supposed to replace the F-15 and the F-35 is supposed to replace the F-16.
The current LRIP prototypes of the F-35 are more expensive than the last F-22's, but the F-35's that'll actually go into service in 2016 will be about $50m cheaper than the F-22.
This guy is spot on. He is able to see through the sales bullshit for this flying lemon because he is able to see the ESSENTIAL failures of this scrap heap. Nothing but nothing can alleviate its basic design flaws. No matter how advanced electronics have become over the years, the basic flaws of this plane remain, They are innnate and cannot be remedied. Imagine a person born with just one eye. No matter what electronic gadgets you invent to help that person he or she will never be a pilot or a race car driver. It just doesn't work. Same for the F35 - born as a lemon, always a lemon. And this open secret is also the reason why the F35 will never ever be sent to Ukraine to fight in the conflict there. Because the Russians would blow this lead duck out of the sky (If it ever actually reached the sky there) and reveal for all to see its basic uselessness.
This man is called Pierre Sprey, he is a famous lier and what we call a reformer. He has lied about being involved in programs such as the A-10 warhog and F-15 and refuses to admit modern equipment works and would rather see our pilots flying in gun only fighters and forget missile technology. He an idiot and spreads dangerous information based on opinion not fact, and before he died received payments from the Russian government to make videos like this to try and make the American public push for the F-35 program to be cancelled, be careful what you hear.
This guy makes a hell of a lot of sense, think of how much wing a bird has compared to its' body and think how maneuverable a bird is (although a bird's wings aren't fixed). So although the F-35 could fire on its' adversary from 160km away, with both going Mach ~2.5 the enemy will have the F-35 in weapons range in seconds and be on top of it soon after, then it's a dog fight and apparently the F-35 is toast.
+WILDWEST CHILD You're not an expert but you got it 100% right. Exactly as Marcel Dassault, founder of Dassault Aviation (Mirage, Raffale) once said: "only a good looking aircraft flies well!" One glance at this F-35 Lemon is enough to immediately understand why this cannot function.
Wow people really believed anything anyone says, this so called defence analyst, designer of f-15 (f-16, a-10, blitzstriker, x-1…) and member of the fighter jet mafia
Yeah? Thats interesting... do you have a link or remember where you saw this. I'd be interested to check it out. Haven't heard him comment on it before. :-)
The F-35 is an embarrassment. If you want maneuverbility then governments should buy the SU-37. They would wipe the floor with all current aircraft in WVR combat.
For some reason my comment got removed, I dunno why, I never said anything offensive. Anyway, back to your comment - The Gripen is also on the "what to buy" list on Denmarks shopping list.
Really? The F-35 is a lemon? Not sure how much I should believe this guy, even if he is an aircraft designer. The F-35A is the only fifth generation attack aircraft available for naval and air forces of the United States, Great Britain, Japan, Canada, the Netherlands, Italy, Israel, Norway, Turkey and South Korea. Only Australia, the other original participant, decided to opt out and buy Boeing's F/A-E/F Super Hornets instead. This despite the ridiculously long procurement process and cost overruns which resulted from Lockheed-Martins decision to use concurrency. The F-35A, the conventional takeoff and landing option (CTOL), is designed to do a 9G level turn at corner airspeed, very similar in turn capability to the agile F-16. The VSTOL B model was designed to replace the AV8B Harrier for the USMC. The VSTOL and CV (carrier variant) are designed to fly a 7.5 G turn at corner airspeed, entirely comparable with the USN's and Marine Corp's existing fleet of F/A-18 C-D models which have 7.5-8 G turn capability. The CV has folding wings and longer range, to pack as many F-35's into carriers' hangar decks and give the CV as much combat radius as possible; a nice feature when you're operating over water almost all the time. The thick fuselage of the F-35 was designed that way to max-out internal volume for fuel tanks and munitions while simultaneously minimizing the aircraft's radar cross-section, better known as stealth capability. Of course the various models of the F-35 can also carry considerable external stores as well , everything from smart bombs to heat-seeking to laser or GPS-guided missiles, electronic countermeasures pod, external fuel tanks etc., for those missions which the armed services determine will not necessitate stealth capability. In fact, the F-35A can lift well beyond 100% of its empty weight, making it a terrific bomb truck, a stealth plane that can electronically see, intercept and fire on gen 4 aircraft before they even knows its there AND successfully compete at combat maneuvering with the best gen 4 fighters in the world inside missile range. Or it can carry just internal stores for missions requiring maximum stealth. You'd think a jet fighter aircraft designer would know those things about the F-35A before flapping his gums in public and looking pretty silly. All he had to do was go toLockheed-Martin's website.
+Douglas McIntyre You do not believe yourself what you are saying do you? Or are you listing what the Propaganda and Marketing department of Lockheed Martin distills? F-35 is al Lemon is a F-35 is a Lemon -what else?
If the F-35 is such a lemon, why are there now over 120 aircraft, all three variants, at air force bases in America, Britain and more countries' bases to come, where instructors are learning to teach in the F-35, or in the case of the STOVL and CV at naval bases and/or doing carrier trials? If it is such a lemon, why haven't the US government or the other countries who are partners in the airplane's manufacturing process pulled out of the project? If it is such a lemon, why did it have a kill ratio of 112 to 0 in the latest simulated war games? Get your facts straight, dumbass.
+Douglas McIntyre One has to put one thing right: It is not to the critics to proof that the F35 is a lemon, but to Lockheed-Martin and the myriads of irresponsible american politicians to deliver what they are promising for years. Know one Thing Douglas, this whole scandal will one day explose in the face of the free world, latest when the first young pilots will have been killed by EVERY enemy faced, in what was designed from the beginning as a Money-make-machine for Lockheed-Martin and their associates in politics and the Pentagon!!!
Well, Alphons, Lockheed-Martin now have about 120 of them out in the squadrons where instructors are learning to teach in the F-35 or at naval bases and doing carrier trials. The so-called lemon has a 112 to zero kill rate at the lest simulated war games. Each traunch of planes has cost less than the one before it, good new for legislators whose job is to pay for it when the planes go rolling out of the factories a accelerated rates in a fe years, perhaps as early as 2018.. I understand that the procurement process has been ridiculously long, but we are talking about developing three distinct F-35 models with distinctly different missions and requirements. Plus the most formidable technology in any fighter, in the form of sensor and camera arrays which provide extremely intuitive cockpit displays giving F-35 pilots unheard of situational and targeting awareness. The F-35's helmet face shield projects a HUD display that also allows the F-35 pilot to "virtually" see through the aircraft's surfaces, even look straight down through the floor of the aircraft. That gives the F-35 another significant tactical advantage over any fighter in the world in the rare event it might be forced to engage in an air combat manoeuvring situation. Plus the ability to go Mach 1.6 carrying an impressive 4 tons of internal ordinance for missions requiring stealth, and WAY more than that carried externally (missiles, JDAMS, ECM pod, additional fuel etc) when carrying out missions where low observables are not required. By the way, if theF-35 is such a lemon, why are the Chinese and Russians desperately attempting to develop their fifth generation, F-35-like stealth fighters? You see Alphons, it takes more than just saying the F-35 is a lemon. Any fol can do that. You have to prove it, something you have failed miserably to do so far.
+Douglas McIntyre War games...? Organized by whom? Not by any Chance by the Lockheed-Martin and their friends and allies in Pentagon and Air Force? One can only hope, that one day the main responsables for this scandal of epic size will be judged by a Independent US-Court!!!!
The Pentagon waived bans on the use of Chinese-built components on US weapons systems in an effort to keep the colossal F-35 joint strike fighter program on track in 2012 and 2013. Pentagon documents show its top arms buyer, Frank Kendall, granted waivers to two main F-35 suppliers, Northrop Grumman and Honeywell International, for the use of Chinese magnets in the fighter plane’s radar system, landing gear and other hardware. Both companies - top military contracting powers working for its peer Lockheed Martin to complete the US$392 billion (and counting) F-35 fighter jet system - would have faced sanctions for breaking US law, thus subjecting the program to further delays. The program is years behind schedule as it is. It is estimated to now stand at 70 percent over initial cost projections.
Yep! The A-10 is the best, or at least, the second best ground attack aircraft in the world. The pilots love it, the ground troops love it, but the brass hates it because it is not "fancy" enough for their liking.
@hotpocketpoison oh i forgot those rugged Stealth coating doesn't mean it's doesn't need less of a maintenance than the F-22/F-117 now with the USAF decided to replace 90% of it's air fleet with this new "5th gen" more than half of it's maintenance will be polishing the exterior till it's flawless.
The F-35 is not made for primarily air-to-air combat. It will fly like a bomber-/ground attack jet supported by the actual air superiority fighters like the F-22 (for U.S.). The outstanding thing about the F-35 is how much payload it can deliver due to its powerful engine and very light weight.
*I am glad the F-35 is replacing the A-10 and F-16* much to Pierre's dismay. I can already see how easy it was for a Syrian S-200 to down an Israeli F35
Pierre Sprey is not an F-16 designer. He was part of a group in the air force in the 70's called the Fighter Mafia. They advocated the idea that analysis of fighter planes should be based on something called energy/maneuverability theory, which was developed by a mathematician named Major John Boyd. The basic idea is to attempt to quantitatively analyze aircraft based on their aircraft specific energy. They didn't see a lot of use in fancy avionics and air-to-air missiles. The Fighter Mafia, led by Col. Thomas P. Christie, pushed for a lightweight alternative to the F-15 platform. The result was the Lightweight Fighter Program that produced the YF-16 (Which became the F-16) and YF-17 (Which would later be navalized and become the F-18).
Pierre Sprey's involvement in this was to help right the RFP that resulted in the LWFP and to consult on the program, he wasn't directly involved in design. He also objected to the 1982 F-16 C/D upgrade because he felt the heavy avionics were detrimental to the aircraft.
The air combat of the 1980's and 1990's showed E/M theory to be wrong. While it may not have been terrible for predicting Vietnam-style engagements (In which US made F-4's based on an avionics/armament theory did not exchange efficiently against much cheaper MiG-17/19/21's), the introduction of long range pulse-doppler radars, all aspect missiles, electronic warfare, high-speed datalinks, and airborne warning and control craft caused a shift towards fancy avionics and air to air missiles.
Pierre Sprey doesn't seem to like to accept the future. He made thispowerpoint in which he argues towed artillery is superior to self-propelled guns and that the M-48 Patton is a better tank than the M-1 Abrams. In the video, he represents BVR IFF as non-existent, even though NCTID and datalinks exist. He also bashes the idea of multirole aircraft performing CAS, even tough the F-16C has been doing so successfully for years.
The fact of the matter is that the world has passed Pierre Sprey by, and his analysis may not have been entirely up to scratch in the first place. After all, he wanted the F-16 to have a range-only radar like the F-20 eventually would, and wanted the A-10 to use the Oerlikon 30mm instead of the GAU-8.
jonny clipper E/M theory isn't invalid; the belief in modern missile technology has taken a greater calling in the U.S. warfighter design - because its worth more to corporations to develope. With respect to the fancy avionics, which cost more, and are less dependable...the F-35's console looks like a giant set of Ipods...this can hardly be as effective as a combination of digital and analogue instruments. Dedicated instruments are faster, and less error-prone than multi-purpose instruments...to which the F-35's avionics have been known to crash; being a catastrophe waiting to happen...why do you think the F-35 program has been delayed for so long...it the avionics complexity fool....!Sprey was opposed to the use of heavy computers being developed at the time, which could be a serious impediment - this was before nowadays where advanced microprocessors were made lighter. Weight gain equals less maneuverability - another valid point for Sprey. And, today, the relevance of radar, and jamming has not fallin upon deaf ears; Sprey knows these concepts of today, better than most...plus he has knowledge of Vietnam era, and prior - something today's upstart aeronautical engineers are of less mental capability, or acuity. As per the M-48 vs. M-1...where's the youtube clip on that one? - that is such lunacy, its context must be brought into question. As for the Oerlikon comparison...do you know what Sprey's intentions were behind that belief? - I seriously doubt it...its context too would be questionable.
jonny clipper - Shooting the messenger does not change the fact that this is a BAD airplane, and can't do the job. You can try to discredit Pierre, but that doesn't change the fact that he is correct. Read the news.
I repeat, shooting the messenger does not change the fact that this is a BAD airplane.
KEEP the F-16, its still the best and W/O the troubles of modern jets. Forget stealth, its an illusion.
I don't need to discredit Sprey. He did it himself when he claimed to be a designer.
F-22 not for sale outside the USA
F-35 flogged to any clown who wants one...
Indian mig 21 fighter drowned Pakistan f16 on feb 27 still not convinced????
@Marcus Aurelius Pakistan is a military rules country even though they say They have Democracy.First the denied airstrike by India in their terror camp and promised they will bring media persons where airstrike happened but nothing happened Reuters continuously denied permission for 3 weeks After one month clearing all evidence they provided entry to terror camp (they call religious institutions) even that visit was limited and controlled by military
@Marcus Aurelius ??? Which part
Boney Kroy You actually believe this Indian BS propaganda? No proof of shooting down, no wreckage found, nothing what so ever and yet numb nuts like you believe this.
Boney Kroy I call BS
This dude stills lives in the 70'.....
@Houston Helicopter Tours Inc. he was a defense analyst, not an aircraft engineer
Doesn’t live anymore, he died a few years ago
Just commenting from 2024 to let you know that Pierre was right and you're a fucking idiot. The F-35 is a complete failure.
missiles are much more sophisticated and have a VERY low rate of failures now compared to his time.
Small wingspan significantly lowers radar footprint; A small radar footprint will enable it to fire its missiles first before even being detected.
It's not the missiles stupid, it's their guidance systems. Aircraft has nothing to do with it.
Nonsense, everyone knows that electronics haven't gotten any better since the 1970s.
@@chrisdoe2659 So true!!!111!
That guy was so full of shit. This is the same guy who claimed he secretly brought in a literal nazi to help him take a look at the A10 when it was being developed. He’s also happily taken credit for the BlitzFighter (a rejected A-10 replacement with no radar of any kind.) despite the fact that the blitzfigher was designed by Colonel James Burton.
People like this guy have this strange mindset where they seem to think the world is perpetually stuck in WWII. They think radar has no place on a battle field.
If people like this made all the decisions, American’s military technology would be BEHIND by decades
And top of that, the amount of American lives lost because of he and his buddies' bs would be far more horrific. Glad they didn't get taken seriously by anyone except the media
@@kingsnakke6888 amen
“Becaue the radar cannot identity friend or foe”
And thats how the layman knows Pierre Sprey knows absolutely nothing.
THE SYSTEM IS LITERALLY CALLED IFF IDENTIFY-FRIEND-FOE
The problem isn't that stealth doesn't work. It's that it's not needed and is a huge waste of money. The complexity of these fighter aircraft is ridiculous and won't mean anything in a war against a real opponent. Sorry Iraq doesn't count. A B52 can fire cruise missles far outside radar range and accomplish the same goal as a 40 million dollar fighter jet. You don't need stealth. On top of that in the battlefield if something goes wrong with say the F35 it will take time to fix. They are not reliable. The software alone breaks down constantly. They are over engineered garbage. Stealth works but it could be done so much cheaper and more effective for a tenth of the cost. Putting this much complexity into a fighter or the new bomber is just plain stupid and is designed to fill up the military Industrial complex coffers. It's a money making machine and doesn't make us any stronger. In fact it makes us weaker. We need numbers and simple reliable fighters and bombers and lots of them. Unfortunately this doesn't make any money so we get the F35 and the new B-21 bomber at a whopping 750 million a piece and believe me it will cost more that that when it's all done. We might get 50 built. That is not enough. We need hundreds of bombers. Russia and China are really big if you didn't notice. This is not a winning strategy and I want us to win.
@@cmontes7961 Do you know what a paragraph is?
VERY ANGRY LAZERPIG NOISES.
modern missiles dont just rely on going fast and turning tight, they have far more advanced seekers, for instance the r77 is a radar guided missile but it also has an IR seeker, the amraam also rely's on gps, their also very difficult to decoy, the first amraam's had a kill probibility over 70%
And has nothing to do with the airplane. Mount it on a Sopwith Camel.
@@pateagle7191 It kind of does. You need a plane with good sensors to be aware of your target, or be able to pair with an AWACS to find the target and then release the weapon. Even better is when you are able to fire before your target even sees you.
Would still get blown off it if the sky.. it’s a flying joke that needs the right weather conditions for it to be able to fly and bird damage.
@@jamesmcintyre1675 Dude, that goes for every single other airplane in the world.
@@pateagle7191 didn't realize the Sopwith Camel had a powerful radar, datalink, off-bore HMS firing capabilities, and so on. The aircraft absolutely does matter.
This guy lies about his credentials. He plays on publicly known tropes of fighter jets to criticize anything new American and technologically-advanced. He criticizes US equipment and then once it proves itself on the field of battle suddenly he starts claiming that she designed or had heavy influence over it’s development. Spreys current criticism of the F-22 and F-35 is the exact same he had of the at f16 f15. Originally spray thought that the F-15 F-16 and a 10 were too technologically-advanced, and expensive to be effective and that their missiles would not fare well against the more maneuverable Soviet aircraft. However once these aircraft proved themselves against the Soviets in wars in Iraq Sprey started claiming to be their designers.
He did not design the f16 or the a10. The only plane he was involved with was the f15 and even then all of his suggestions were thrown out (look up project redbird although it's pretty hard to find info on it. It would basically be a short range, slower, highly maneuverable fighter that could not carry missiles, radar or very many electronic systems at all, and could only operate during the daytime and clear weather.)
Sprey's pals would say this plane became the f16 although I don't know if this is true (I don't think so, the dates don't line up) In any case the if the f16 was originally based on the redbird than it had changed so much that by the time it became operational it was a completely unrecognizable IE:(good range, all weather, multirole, missiles, radar, electronics, the works)
As for the A-10 Sprey had nothing to do with it and actually hated it wanted to replace it with his own fighter, the blitzfighter which would be a tiny aircraft armed only with a cannon with very little electronics to speak of. It was only once the A10 proved itself in 1991 that Sprey started claiming he built it. He was able to do this because by this time the a10's real designer, Alexander Karteveli, had died.
Ultimately Pierre Sprey can be summed up in this. Pierre sprey understands a lot about the world of fighter jets and is an expert on its subject matter, if we were talking about fighter jets in the 40s and 50s. What Pierre Spray fails or refuses to understand is that the air battles of tomorrow and indeed the air battles since Vietnam have been dominated by long range missiles One does not need to look very deep to realize this. Just look at the iran-iraq war where Iranian f-14s armed with long-ranged aim-54 Phoenix missiles absolutely wiped the floor with more maneuverable Soviet aircraft. Just look at the Gulf War where f-16s, f-18s, f-14s, and most of all f-15s dominated Iraqi opposition with their Superior Radar and long-range missiles.
I won't even get started on stealth which is a whole other can of worms but if you believe nothing else that I've said believe this: applying theories about air combat from the 40s and 50s to modern warfare does not work. Contrary to what sprey thinks, the world has changed since then.
You are wrong. It sounds like you have been lied too and completely eating the lie. Pierre Sprey was an important part of the A-X(A-10) concept formation team. Major General Richard A. Yudkin have confirmed this, it was under his office that the program ran and Colonel Avery Kay which ran the program has also confirmed this.
While it is true that Pierre Sprey would go on to argue for what he saw as the better A-10, the "Blitzfighter concept" he didn't hate the A-10 and he was an integral part of forming the concept for it. He has never claimed he designed the actual plane. I have yet to find a record of Alexander Karteveli personally being involved in the plane, Karteveli had retired in 1962 and was only working as a consultant for Fairchild in 1969-1970 when the RFP for the A-X program was released. The actual lead designer was a today unknown man, Vincent J. Tizio, his gravestone even has an A-10 on it. Fairchild men where protégés of Karteveli but whatever direct role Karteveli had was minor.
You are also wrong about the F16, Sprey was working together with John Boyd and Harry Hillaker, Hillaker who designed the F-16, in forming the concept for the F-XX which had the performance characteristics of the F-16. He was part of the Figher Mafia that created the LWF which would become the F-16 and F/A-18, Hillaker disagreed with Sprey regarding Dopler radar for among other reasons that a multirole plane had better foreign sales prospects. Still the F-16A is within the performance spectrum of the F-XX.
Ive done three combat deployments with the lot 29 super hornet and i can tell you for 100% certainty that the latest AESA radars, both the APG79 (in the super hornet) and the APG81(in the JSF) are not only capable of positively id'ing MOST aircraft from their radar cross-section but when a foxtrot model is used it can also do the forward air control job of the older e2 hawkeyes. Not arguing for or against the f35 only clarifying that new generation radar CAN id a target on its own without iff.
What range is it's radar effictive?
@@pateagle7191 I wrote that comment 10 years ago when I was much younger in the navy and not nearly as concerned with OPSEC. So while I know, I will not disclose any specifics. Let’s just say it’s WELL BVR for MOST aircraft.
@@TurboNFRStwoK do you have an opinion on this video in regards to F-35? Compare to what the video claims and many media outlets repeat, they make F-35 to be a horrible aircraft with tons of issues. Yet when I look into it, turns out this guy hasn’t a clue, the media repeats what this guy says in interviews and with the latest war in Ukraine it seems the media has done a 180 on the F-35.
@@ComradeTomatoTurtle I’m not going to re watch this video but to put it in terms people today understand the F35 is a lot like a Tesla. Every new software change adds new capabilities. The reason the aircraft performed so poorly in flight testing and even upon first delivery was completely due to software limitations that were in place to limit the Gs the aircraft could pull. As they got more data about how the airframe was performing they released new software to increase the limits to which a pilot could take the aircraft. I know a ton of previous F18 pilots who are now flying F35 and there isn’t a single one who prefers the capability of the F18 over the F35.
The F35 may be a jack of all trades master of none but as a total package in what it brings to the fight it’s one of the most capable aircraft we currently have in service.
@@TurboNFRStwoKI don't think the issue of the F 35 is with it's computers,radars and so on. The issue is with radar absorbing material and the angles to deflect radar waves which make it less aerodynamic. You can put computers and sensors of the F 35 to F 16 or F 18. I believe the F 35 can't fly as often as those airplanes because it needs much more ground maintenance. Plus Russian and European jets as well as the latest F 18 variant have IRST which can passively detect and track any stealth aircraft. My personal opinion is that the F 35 is not worth it however I'm not a pilot so it's not an opinion of a professional.
This guy is actually a jazz musician,
which explains why he's never heard of IFF.
this man and his arguments have not aged well...
Really : Feb 24 2021 :
"US admits F-35 failed to replace F-16 as planned, needs new fighter jet
The United States Air Force announced the need for a new multi-use fighter jet to replace its aging F-16 fleet, while stressing that it would not feature the same high-price tag and technological prowess of the F-35.
The announcement, made by Air Force Chief of Staff General Charles Brown came as a surprise to defence analysts, given that the F-35 was pegged as the modern fifth generation aircraft that would replace the F-16.
Instead, Air Force Chief Brown suggested they would develop a “fifth-generation-minus” fighter jet"
It aged like fine wine
@@alainprimates1017 And that's not even close to what Sprey is saying?
@14ALL41OK ...That Sprey is dead? Why else do you want us to waste our time with you?
I was gonna say the same.
I say that the U.S. needs to build 1000 brand new A-10 aircraft, and quickly too. Don't change or modify the design one bit, they are good as they were designed back then, only add improved avionics and maybe improved missile launch detection & jamming / protection capabilities, that's it.
Sprey being Sprey
this jsf is a disaster. Our country the Netherlands also bought it to replace the f-16. Michael Gilmore, chief test operations, also wrote the same things about this plane in a letter to american parliament. Every country ore political leader could know about Pierre Sprey warnings but all put them in the wind...
+vintage stereo Too bad your leaders got fooled by American sales talk. hahaha
ddt _krag yes we have very stupid leaders
+vintage stereo The Netherlands should accept the french Rafale. It's a dream jet fighter!
Ron Valencia Not true. Firstly, the Rafale is S300 proven since they fought them in Lybia. Plus, the S400 is not a very good system. The Rafale could pass over them in numerous circumstances without being found. Sorry to say that, the S400 is not an exceptional system. And a F-35, will not be found by a S400, but certainly by a low frequency radar. It changes nothing. That's why the french decided to build a "not so stealthy" aircraft.
Ron Valencia Now they don't have it. But they had it... If you have no information about that, please don't speak.
I wonder if we asked the Chinese nicely, if they'd make us a cheaper version?
testertaster The Chinese do make a version of it that doesn't take into account the Marine's stupid insistence on STOVL, which has proven historically a total waste and makes the non-STOVL versions have to have the same fat fuselage.. Their version is slimmer and actually performs.
+testertaster Hahahaha
ironically the Chinese J-31, which appears to be similar to the f35 is a slim twin engined medium stealth fighter. if the marines would stop nagging for a STOVL then f35 would look like J-31, which would make it a much better aircraft.
so basically China made a better, cheaper version of f35.
Yah its a shame they had to make the f35 with a small wing, would have made an alright fighter if it had the wing to maneuver
testertaster whats funny is, just like he said, there are people who get dazzled by "stealth" and the beauty of computers they don't know the realities. Computers break down. Complexity kills. It's not hard to understand the realities, in fact it's common sense: most of the practical features, of the most celebrated and competant airframes, are all baked into inherent design. That's why the A-10 is a masterclass in ground support
What!? He said the A-10 is the best plane, and I agree with him, and that plane is not light, or quick; but it is a beast.
True, true, true. In 1965. Not now.
The F-35 is the Mall Ranger of fighter planes. It's designers tried to cram so much stuff into it, that it has become too fat and heavy to be useful tactically.
This comment didn't age well...
Aged like milk. Zero clue, zero knowledge.
he didn't fucking design the F16 or A10! he was an analyst. And only 'upgraded' himself once he got on the media.
Yeah the media kind of misrepresented him, but he did write up initial design ideas for the AX which became the A10 and some of the features like the titanium bathtub, self sealing fueltanks, backup manual control cables if hydraulics are shot out and the placement of the engines, are probably all things he suggested. He was part of the "Fighter Mafia" afterall and all you have to do is watch a history on the F16 to know what they did
He was a part of the fighter mafia but even John Boyd said that he was a loudmouth who often inserted his opinion in military matters despite having no military experience whatsoever. And there is no proof that he designed a single nut or bolt of any of those planes. The F-15 is also a product of the Fighter Mafia. Why doesn't he claim that he helped design that too?
Billy Slo
"He was a part of the fighter mafia but even John Boyd said that he was a loudmouth who often inserted his opinion in military matters despite having no military experience whatsoever."
I don't remember Col Boyd ever saying that... please provide reference.
"And there is no proof that he designed a single nut or bolt of any of those planes."
Actually, Harry Hillaker does the accreditation... If you need me to find the articles, I can do that.
"The F-15 is also a product of the Fighter Mafia. Why doesn't he claim that he helped design that too?"
Somewhat, and not entirely. The 'fighter mafia' did they best they could against the wishes of the larger chairforce bureaucracy. Who wanted a larger, F-14 type missile boat. The 'fighter mafia' (including Sprey), was instrumental in getting rid of the swing-wing concepts from the TFX program (later the F-111) and evolved to the F-X program (that became the beloved F-15).
Maybe the reason he doesn't brag is that the 'fighter mafia' had to constantly fight to scale down the F-15, whereas the F-16 was designed from day one to be a great dogfighter, using concepts developed from Col Boyd's E-M studies.
Mindburner ...... you did succeed. Your mind did burn. Pierre Sprey never claimed he did design of F16.
He was actually one within a small group of people advocating aircrafts focused on single role in stubborn military environment, .......... which did eventually lead into creation of 2 most combat worthly aircrafts US military had in past half of century.
he has claimed he was on the design team or at least agreed when he was introduced as this. Also since about 2005, he has been on many programs and has been announced as designer / co-designer of the F16 (and the A10 for that matter) If this was incorrect, he never corrected the interviewer or added any sort of caveat or correction. He was basically an economist, but is apparently happy to be seen as more. He has zero military experience, parroting John Boyd and Everest Riccione.
also WTF the about the mindburner joke? are you some sort of nut job ? give it a fucking rest
I don't know why, but I really enjoy hearing this guy trash talk the f-35. He's definitely right about one thing: the F-35 is one fat, stubby plane. That doesn't bode well for its speed or maneuverability. Those top-secret weapons we're assured it has had better kick some serious ass.
the wings have to be small to achieve VTOL, and also the faster you go, the smaller the wings are going to be
Not even ten seconds in and this man is already lying🤣
I agree 100% that each plane should have one role it plays. Not one plane that does it all that makes no sense....
Rebuttal: Main Battles Tanks are the norm
Pierre is 100% right about the subject PILOTS and maneuverability and communication are the prima factors as well as price. The stealth does not work either the RAM, missiles guided by radar are not accurate as claimed by any player. Besides we are not in the 70's when USA had the domain on electronics. Also i predict that opto-electrical system will play a big role, it is very hard to jam them. So the concept of good pilot in a good plane are more important.
I wish the F-14 and A-10 were still around and they just basically would update them for the 21st century. Instead of making F-35s, design the next gen F-14 tomcat.
which was shitty until D version because of engines.
The reformers and the fighter mafia are retarded, it is sad to see their ideas repeated.
They tried to do that with the f16 and it costs more than the f35
An f-35's wings are actually bigger than an f-16's wings
Houston Helicopter Tours Inc. yes it did. F35s murder his beloved F16 daily
@@bjjace1 LOL the F-35 is trash and has never shot down an F-16
I have read a lot of the comments. I flew for roughly 30 years but just small, slow civilian planes. I know significant military history. We had to go through lots of planes in major wars to find planes that dominated and some planes that dominated in one set of circumstances didn't in different circumstances. Planes that dominated in year 1 didn't dominate in year 2. Putting too many eggs in one basket is just stupid. We should have continuous new planes and we should experiment with a wide variety of ideas. We should be able to create new planes quickly. That doesn't mean good ideas and components can't be reused. But, one plane isn't the future and never will be
+David Sibley I agree you wise ass nerd
+David Sibley Thanks David. Simply right!
+David Sibley Best comment on the issue, thank you!
In 2019, the Israelis have proved him wrong. Being declared once or twice as a genius in your lifetime does not mean you always will remain a genius, especially when there are major paradigm shifts.
@@vemundr9263 playing word and mind games is worthless when your worldview is predicated on the past criteria. Just because you dismiss the actual accomplishments and tactical use the Israelis have achieved with their F-35s is totally meaningless to those who operate on the point of the spear. The F-22s and F-35s have exposed the the Russians' inability to obtain an accurate read or lock. The new air missions paradigms have far surpassed the various mission limitations of the past. Dogfights? You mean to box by the rules against Krav Maga combat fighters who adhere to no rules? Your post may have run somewhat true decades ago, but now has no role in properly deployed integrated assets fulfilling their combat roles.
The latest videos of his air shows reveal that he is as manageable as the F16 and beter in AOA as well as more powerfull.
I know you're dead, Sprey, but just to put the word out, air to air combat these days is more like submarine combat now.
all of a sudden, everybody are ex-pilots and military analysts and experts LOL
He is not "everybody". Do your research before writing an utter nonsense. He is not just an ordinary aeronautic engineer either. He is a Yale university graduate, with decades of experience in the U.S. military. He was one of the designers of F15 and A10, and then later, part of the first secret team to design F16. So that makes him one of the very few people on the planet qualified to critique such projects. We Britons have a saying: nobody knows how stupid you are until you open your mouth. Certainly relevant in your case. You want your tax money to be spent on subsidising arms industries and building killing machines? You sad person, go ahead. I prefer my tax money to be spent at home in order to improve our infrastructure, healthcare, research projects (such as on European Space Agency, Aids, Alzheimer etc) and support those in need of humanitarian assistance. Very sad to know we share this wonderful planet with people like you whom we have nothing in common with.
@@ashbabakhani7496 He did not design the F15.
Don’t need to be to see that the jet is not battle worthy.
Most of the kills of F8 crusader also known as the last gunfighter where with missiles, 7 missile kills to 1 gun kill, the f8 crusader also had a kill ratio of 6 to 1 which is pretty good but the navy version of the f4 phantom that didn’t have a gun had a kill ratio of 13 to 1.
And after 10 years we know that his words are worth shit.
Indeed ???!!! It's official, bro :
Feb24 2021 :
"US admits F-35 failed to replace F-16 as planned, needs new fighter jet
The United States Air Force announced the need for a new multi-use fighter jet to replace its aging F-16 fleet, while stressing that it would not feature the same high-price tag and technological prowess of the F-35.
The announcement, made by Air Force Chief of Staff General Charles Brown came as a surprise to defence analysts, given that the F-35 was pegged as the modern fifth generation aircraft that would replace the F-16.
Instead, Air Force Chief Brown suggested they would develop a “fifth-generation-minus” fighter jet"
@@alainprimates1017 sensational article from trtworld and this site is a joke. The real arcticle is here www.airforcemag.com/brown-launching-major-tacair-study-with-cape-considering-5th-gen-minus/ and it's quite different. And that they need not only F-35 was known for years.
Lol the air force literally called it a trillion dollar failure today. It's all over the news.
@@Archivvve And what about the Washington Post ? Is it also a joke ?
March 3 2021 : Washington Post
"Powerful lawmaker calls F-35 fighter jet a ‘rathole,’ suggests Pentagon should cut its losses.
The Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee called the Lockheed Martin-produced F-35 Joint Strike Fighter a “rathole” in a virtual event with the Brookings Institution on Friday, and suggested the U.S. should consider whether to “cut its losses” by investing in a range of competing fighter jets.
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) characterized the F-35 as an overly expensive defense platform with disappointing capabilities. He criticized the jet’s sustainment costs as “brutal,” and said he was skeptical they would ever go down. The solution, he said, is to invest in other fighter jets so the Defense Department has a range of options at its fingertips.
What I’m going to try to do is figure out how we can get a mix of fighter attack aircraft that’s the most cost-effective. A big part of that is finding something that doesn’t make us have to rely on the F-35 for the next 35 years,” Smith said.
Internet clowns...
@14ALL41OK Pierre Sprey is not a fucking engineer. He's more of an adviser, except too fucking out of touch with modern warfare so the "fighters" he suggests are just glorified target practice
The issue of the complexity and pilots shortcomings as it pertains to this aircraft is what makes sense to me.
But people said the same with computers. The public was not smart enough to use them. So, they made them easier to use. Pilots have stated the JSF as being much easier to operate as the computers handle everything.
I could create a a lot of highly plausible "what if" scenarios that would be unfavorable for any aircraft. F-35s are not made to fly solo into enemy controlled airspace. It is not an air superiority fighter so that situation is very unlikely. If the F-35 is used for its design mission, it would be more than or just as effective as any fighter in the U.S. fleet
it can do it's job as air superiority fighter if all the threat were dealt with before hand (Sam's and AA battery being eliminated)
Mikelh thank you for your expertise in your reply to my comment. I agree, very high Mach numbers are not the real measure of an air-to-air combat aircraft any more. I was referring to the role an upgraded Arrow would be filling in Canada's north: INTERCEPTOR. The Arrow was never intended to be a dogfighter. The Arrow's high speed, long range, (and therefore large fuel capacity) were the major requirements in the interception role over the vast Canadian north. The J35 cannot fill that role.
Oops
You Canadians and your ARROW company. Lol
the a 10 is a masterpiece
The A10 is a great ground attack jet, the only problem is that it doesn't get a chance very often to attack the targets it was meant to destroy.
The A10 was a plane made to attack soviet armored vehicles. The problem is that most of the violent conflicts we see today are civil wars and terrorist attacks. Both types of war don't pose a lot of armored vehicles. They tend to just use cheap cars and trucks. Now, and A10 can easily take out cars and trucks, but do we really need that much firepower just to take out a commercial pick-up truck?
@@faragar1791 Look for A10 efectiveness tests, it was obsolete when it came out and most of it kills in the gulf war were with missiles. The cannon couldnt even kill most m47s that were standing in multiple passes in clear weather.
@@novkorova2774 Even more bad is because a lot of its systems were bare-bones at the time, it resulted in A-10 pilots having to use _binoculars_ to confirm their targets and even resulted in that friendly fire incident involving British troops. Sure there were upgrades but they still aren't really enough for the aging airframe.
The Air Force has good reasons to want to retire the A-10, but Congress and a misinformed populace always ensures that it stays unfortunately...
No, and he had absolutely nothing, zero, no input whatsoever into it. It is a bald faced lie on his part.
That's a great criticism of the F-35 as a fighter. That's like saying a hammer is terrible as a steak knife. The purpose of the F-35 is to drop payloads on ground targets with F-22s clearing the sky.
I do agree that the JSF is not going to replace the A-10 effectively; but drones will. The Global Hawk can fly for 35 hours. Drones are the new close support aircraft. They killed the Comanche project, they're going to put the A-10 to bed as well. Loitering in a hot area = drone aircraft.
He has no idea what an IFF is? What the hell? Also, *there were no friendly-fire BVR engagements between the F-4's from the US.* There were never any blue-on-blues _involving_ F-4's to begin with!
Somarik Green
_"I would guess that he does know about IFF, being a bit of an expert on aircraft design."_
Logical fallacies: Wishful thinking and argument from authority, in that order.
_"However, he is right on the point about criticising the belief that the era of the dogfight is over and that guns are not required and missiles will do the job. That was claimed prior to the Vietnam War and the error of that belief is shown by guns being incorporated into fighter designs afterwards."_
It's 2016. Technologies gave evolved. Missiles back then were not only using 1960's technology, and were barely out of the prototype phase. Missiles today are ridiculously advanced, incorporating active electronically scanned array radars into their seeker heads, and in case you don't know, all of the most modern infrared-guided air to air missiles are BVR-capable, like the Raytheon AIM-9X Block III, Vympel R-74, MBDA ASRAAM, IRIS-T, AAM-5, MBDA MICA, PL-8, and Rafael Python 5.
For a pilot to use the cannon for an A2A kill nowadays, he or she would have to be damn skilled to weave into the mess of fighters frantically and ferociously trying to lock up and destroy enemy aircraft from a few kilometers or more away.
Chances are, WVR engagements look absolutely nothing like you think they do. Aircraft are very far away, and attaining a firing solution in the enemy's 6 is a by-gone phenomena. Aircraft nowadays simply look at the aircraft in a WVR fight, and fire, thanks to helmet-mounted cueing systems pioneered by the South African Air Force in the 1970's with Mirage F1's, and not MiG-29's as the Russian fanboys would have you believe.
F-4's were the only US aircraft capable of BVR at the time, so we can deduce that only F-4's could've done this, and please provide a citation for your claim of F-4 blue-on-blue, as I myself cannot find anything after more than "thirty seconds on google;" it's standing as a phantom claim. (No pun intended, lol)
This is what I have from April 9, 1965.
aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=94364
And oh my christ, if I see another person that honestly thinks he designed a single nut or bolt on either the A-10 or F-16... He didn't design *anything.* _He was friends_ with the designers of the F-16 *( a.k.a. General Dynamics aeronautical engineers, you know, like ***_*Robert H. Widmer_**)* and a proponent of the concept of a lightweight, single-turbine, relatively inexpensive air superiority day fighter, and he outlined program requirements for the A-10, saying, "we need an aircraft that will tear into all the T-64's the USSR will send at us though the Fulda Gap in the coming years, and trade lunches with ZSU-23-4's and the flare-addicted SA-7's that will indubitably accompany them. These aircraft will return to base, or a field or road somewhere, refuel and rearm, and head back. Is the plane too trashed to stay in the fight? Leave it; it'd cheap and well buy two more."
He was never an aircraft designer, and he never will be. That is a myth propagated by himself and the media, calling him anywhere from the co-designer to even the designers of the airframes.
_"Whether he is right or not on the F35 being a bad aircraft time will tell."_
I concur
The F-35 will have to prove itself in combat; the F-16 was called shit until it wrecked havoc while being used by the Israelis.
Somarik Green You implied when you said he's an expert on aircraft design. That's how I interpreted your text.
Yeah, an F-4 could've downed an F-8, A-7, F-101, F-106, F-4, or F-5 for all we cared; that was my strawman.
That's literally the same source I sent you. The friendly kill was WVR, nullifying the anti-BVR argument. He says that BVR leads to fratricide.
For the Netherlands, their air force will have eventually to 37 F-35 Lightning II to replace the 213 F-16 purchased in the 1980s. And this number will be even only 32 units since 5 remain based in the United States "permanently" for training and pilot training ... which only 29 will be fully operational in the Netherlands. This is a regression of their enormous military capacity!
The F-35 will be a good plane, but their prices led to a military suicide for small countries that have more money.
they will still have the f16's
Mr. Sprey was only a government analyst involved with military appropriation, und had "NOTHING" to do with the design or engineering of the A-10 Warthog or the F-16 aircraft.
Mr. Sprey also criticized the Abrams Tank und the F-15 aircraft in their beginning, just as he did to the F-35. It ist so extremely obvious now that the F-35 shows incredible ability to become the most successful multi-role combat aircraft in history.
Mr. Sprey's conclusions show his past analysis ability NOT very accurate or useful...smiles
Right!
We will see. It seems to me a project designed to get as much money as possible out of the pockets of americans and people from other countries too.
From what I've heard the F-35 isn't supposed to be used for dogfights. It's was supposed to be something like a swiss pocket knife, multi-purpose. That is why it was so expensive.
No modern fighters are supposed to be used for dogfights... dogfights are what happens if you fuck up the other 90% of air combat, so at best being highly maneuverable is a back-up weapon much like a pistol is to a soldier.
The F-35 doesn't do anything more than the F-16, but the F-35 does everything the F-16 can do with much higher success rates. It's expensive because fighters in general are expensive.
@@dumdumbinks274wrong 99.9999999999 percent
because of that, he and group hate jack of all trade
he wants air superiority as Fokker Dr.I "Red Baron" but jets on
and he wants CAS as bullet sponge armed tank cannon (not really just hard punch gun) and speed as fast car
also no technology, just GUN
outdated and this person promotes russian airplanes , everyone is looking at lockhead but not this (questionable) guy posting this vid ? way to go Kremlin!
This guy was on the design team for the A-10 and the F-16 which are excellent aircraft! The F-35 has been a $1 Trillion + fucking disaster; that is just a fact! Seriously get a fucking clue you clown.
i first didn't call anyone names so i expect the same from you. and second he did work on it and money wise it was a disaster but not a waste. the quallity is above everything else what is around right now. simply looking at statistics of where this type of aircraft is capable of.
the f4 came out when missiles were still in their infancy and untested in war, pilots in vietnam were also not allowed to engage beyond visual range and awacs was also just came into being,
Dude has a lot of random exegesis and in theory would be correct about much of it... if the figures were accurate. From what I understand and what many have been able to cite, he’s referring to papers on F-35 performance before it was completed. The whole thing about it not reaching max speed of other fighters with payload is no longer a problem, for instance.
What? The actual performance is LESS than the early predictions. Mainly because of energy retention in maneuvers.
@@FLMKane On the F17 vs F35 numbers specifically. Not that I’m trying to obfuscate but of course the complexity of a fighter is so vast that almost anyone can pick out a figure and say it changed post-dev. Either pro or anti F35. But in the Sprey vs Berke debate on RUclips you can see that Sprey doesn’t have the right payload figures, for instance. It’s a good debate where you can see regardless of complexity, Sprey is just kind of winging it. I.e. the claim it’s numbers against the F14 maneuverability are wrong because of weapons payload on exterior - it’s on the interior of the F35 and was a major selling point, so idk why Sprey would argue as if the systems are exterior. Very strange. But of course even if it’s not a perfect fighter, or one is critical of NATO, it’s clear much of this comes from pressures against the JSF program because even with an average fighter unifying NATO, JSF is still a unified threat to many interests. So the criticism is expected.
Nonsense.
Lets look at some figures against some proven and supposedly superior platforms, lets compare them and see.
If you really know something about planes you would know that you basically need 3 essentials to be maneuverable:
1. Lots of Lift
2. Lots of thrust
3. Little Drag
Lets discuss lift:
I know you probably heard Pierre Spray said that the F-35 is a dog because it has little wings. and has to carry 110lbs of airplane for every square foot of wing.
Pierre Spray was involved in the aircraft industry at around the 1960s where fighters were basically tubes with wings.
At that time all of the lift came from the wings. small wings = small lift.
But at around that time Martin Marietta (now Lockheed Martin) was experimenting with Lifting Body designs, they wanted to produce fuselages that can assist the wings in producing lift instead of being dead weight.
Read more here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin-Marietta_X-24
That?s why at around the 1970s we began to see fighters with wide flat fuselage sections and smaller wings. So lets compare the wing loading of the F-4 against Pierre Spray's favorite F-16 variant the F-16A.
F-4
Empty: 30,328lbs
Load:8000 lbs
Comabt Weight: 38,328
Wing Area: 530 feet
Wing Loading: 72 lbs/ sq feet
F-16A
Empty: 16,300
Load:8000 lbs
Comabt Weight: 24,300
Wing Area: 300 feet
Wing Loading: 81 lbs/ sq feet
So by Pierre Spray's own argument the horribly turning F-4 should fly circles around his hotrod F-16? What?s happening here?
Well the F-16 does not rely on just wings to produce lift, it has a blended body and wing design, plus LERX that produce vortices above the airplane (if you remember you physics, high pressure below + low pressure above creates lift)
around 40% of the F-16s total lift does not come from the wings at all. So in reality the F-16's actual wing loading when loaded with 8,000lbs is closer to 49 lbs per square feet not 81 lbs.
The F-35 is the same. to get the F-35 to have 110lbs / sq ft of wing loading as Pierre Spray said it needs to carry 21,300 lbs of load.
The f-16 can never do that, but the F-35 can! that?s what?s great about this plane, it gives you options, if you need to go to a long range mission then sure, the F-35 CAN carry 18,000lbs of fuel and 18,000lbs of weapons.
But if your going to a CAP mission where a dogfight is possible, then why load it with 21K? Most likely an F-35 would take off with 18,000lbs, And when it gets to combat it would probably have 10,000lbs depending on the range to the target.
So lets pit the F-35 against some really good aircraft, Wing Loading calculation.
All loaded with 8,000 lbs, perfect for dogfighting:
Wing Loading:
Mig-29 M/M2: 91
F-16C (block 50): 90
F-35A: 81
F/A-18C: 77
Su-30MKI: 72
So as you can see at dogfighting weights, the F-35 is not bad at all, its not the best but really not all that bad.
Now consider this, the F-35 probably has the most efficient body lifting surface of all these aircraft due to the fact that its fuselage has the smoothest flatest surface of all these planes, not a lot of disturbance for the wind to flow around on.
So lets give all these aircraft a Body lifting coefficient of 40% but to be conservative lets give the F-35 45%, the truth is probably much larger but hey lets keep it down.
Wing loading plus body lift:
Mig-29 (M/M2): 54.6
F-16C (block 50): 54
F/A-18C: 46
F-35A: 44
Su-30MKI: 43
The F-16s wing loading is similar to the Mig-29s which is why it replicates the Mig-29 in RedFlag.
But Notice how the F-35's wing loading is so close to the F/A-18 and just 1 pound above the Su-30, which is why when you ask pilots they will say that the F-35 maneuvers like an F/A-18 with better acceleration.
And really acceleration is the only thing Hornet pilots dont like about it.
www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... -tactical/
Lt Col Matt Kelly wrote:
Operational pilots should be thrilled with the F-35's performance, Kelly said. The F-35 Energy-[Maneuverability] diagrams, which display an aircraft?s energy and maneuvering performance within its airspeed range and for different load factors, are similar to the F/A-18 but the F-35 offers better acceleration at certain points of the flight envelope.
So do you still think they are lying?
Now lets talk thrust. This is a no brainer, the F-35's engine is rated at 43,000lbs the most powerful in the world. So lets cut to the chase and compare.
Thrust to weight at max thrust:
(All loaded with 8,000 lbs)
Mig-29 (M/M2): 1.05
F-16C (block 50): 1.05
Su-30MKI: 1.13
F/A-18C: 1.14
F-35A: 1.15
Surprise Surprise, the F-35 has the best Thrust to weight ratio of all of the planes involved, and really in a dogfight Thrust to weight can be more valuable than Wing loading.
Now Drag:
All these planes will carry weapons externally adding lots of drag. with a full centerline tank the F-16 is reduced to 7Gs max and the Mig-29 is reduced to an appalling 4Gs, the F-35 will carry most if not all its missiles internally, very little drag.
So to conclude, even without Stealth, even without all its advanced sensors and ECM suits, the F-35 will (in the words of Pierre Spray) wax the competition every single time, then if the F-35 is a dog the rest should be compared to kittens.
This was written in assn. with Stormsquad.
DrSQUIRRELBOY12 silly argument, you compared the F-4 to the F-16. The F-4 weighs considerably more than the F-16. The F-16 is more nimble than the either the F-4 or the F-15. Even if the F-16 has a higher wing loading, which it does (design fault), the F-4 or F-15 will still cannot out turn the F-16, because of their greater momentum/mass. Weight gain, in optimum fighter design is too often forgotten; so you get a slug of an aircraft oftentimes.
Jason Smith I know the F-4 cannot turn as well as the F-16. My point is that that the F-4 cannot turn as well as the F-16...
*****
I have proven nothing of the sort, Just because I don't "fight back" doesn't mean I agree with him. As I said before by the time the F-35 has as many opperational jets as the F-16 the price would have steadied out. Your arguments have no backing, you say the F-35 is on par with a SU-30MKI (which it is, it is also on par with a PAK FA). What do you have to back that up? Second, just saying Pierre Sprey's name makes me think you are completely sold on his idea of the plane he didnt work on. Third, The F-35 has 3 different variants so your bike analogy falls apart. Instead of one bike to do it all think of it as 2 bikes with the same frame but different gears and wheels (or whatever differentiates mountain bikes from racing bikes). The core structure remains the same and most of the parts are interchangeable. In the end this will save money. instead of having 3 different parts to do the same thing on 3 different planes you get one part that works for all 3 planes.
*****
Take an F-.35 fully loaded
with internal bombs it will go Mach 1.5. Take any top of the line fighter with
its external bomb racks loaded how fast it can go for an extended time?
DrSQUIRRELBOY12 - You could not be more wrong. Read the news. Your numbers are bogus as well. Bottom line is that in the air, the F-35 loses to F-16s every time. It simply cannot dogfight, as many pilots have already stated and proven. Even LM said that it depends entirely upon "tech" to survive. Well that's great unless you get in close and personal. Then you're toast.
In other words "Jack-of-all-trades master of none"
Yes, like the F-16, Su-27, Eurofighter, Rafale... All garbage am I right?
Tes. Looks like. It does not take much to realize he is right.
I think it's not even a jack of all trades....
Even if that’s the case it’s still better than a master of one.
Pierre Sprey was a liar and a fraud.
@@LuizSMatos-dr9tz oh yea that philosophy work for tanks, or did it, introducing the main battle tank, developed by the us in ww2 (the sherman was the first mbt, change my mind) this not-new doctrine is 70+ years old
What we do know now is that the F35 has the longest AESA radar range with 360 strike capabilities which means it can hit aircraft from behind and map radar behind it as well as under it. Personally I prefer the SU35 or F15 silent eagle what they're reaching for is more realistic.
They did it, the f35 is fully functioning and in service with 13+ countires
Amusingly enough - some of what he said is true. Read about the recently released report of the mock dogfight between the F35 and a F16. F16 owned the F35 at distances from 10k to 30k.
draug2009 he is right
draug2009 especially what he said about stealth technology, backward serb army downed stealth fighters.
draug2009 My god! Why do people follow David Axe like his words are facts? You should read that actual pilot report. That wasn't an actual dogfight. The F-35 was kept in a constant high AOA as part of testing the existing flight control laws. Any plane in a high AOA is going to have energy management issues. Geez people are laughing at the new kid on the block because he got beaten up by a girl. The part everyone is missing is that the boy was strapped to a chair and the test objective was for him to try and escape while the girl is attacking him. If the military wanted to do a capability match up, it wouldn't be with the model AF-02.
Adriana K. yeah! Back in 1971 he was right. Today is a completely different world and Sprey knows little about it.
norseman43211 SPrey doesn't know anything about Stealth technology and VHF radar is not the reason the Serbs down the F-117.
The mission of the A-10 doesn't call for high speed and has no need. It's mission needs were ability to loiter for a long time on station, high maneuverability (which it definitely has), the ability to pack a hell of a punch (which it definitely does), and the ability to take abuse (which it definitely can).
It's a brutally tough, simple, effective, and terrifying (which alone counts for a great deal) close air support platform.
The F-35 sucks! It's the modern day Brewster Buffalo.
ironically the Chinese J-31, which appears to be similar to the f35 is a slim twin engined medium stealth fighter. if the marines would stop nagging for a STOVL then f35 would look like J-31, which would make it a much better aircraft.
so basically China made a better, cheaper version of f35.
The Marines are being told they have to take it as a Harrier replacement, the Marines originally wanted the AV-8D Harrier with the FA-18 radar and improved engine. It was canceled in favor of the F-35 project that the Marines did not want because they could not originally hang bombs from it. 1
obsidianstatue No they didn't. China still has yet to make an aircraft with powerful enough engines to take off the aircraft carrier that they bought from Ukraine. The J-31 is no exception. Right now it has 33,000 lbf and the F-35's single engine has 49,000 lbf. China does say that when it reaches full production it will have 44,000 lbf but either way it is underpowered. And then if you want to compare it to the twin engine F-22 it is left in the dust. While the J-31 is supposed to have 44,000 lbf in it's production aircraft, the F-22 had 70,000 out of it's twin engines. The J-31 is an underpowered rip off.
Billy Slo the WS-10A engine is already being used on the J15, and has already proven to be able to take off from a ski jump carrier, which requires high trust to weight ratio and reliability.
obsidianstatue The point is that while China tries to make knockoff planes even their knockoffs are bad. I mean if they can't get more thrust out of their twin engine aircraft than a single engine from the US then they have a long way to go.
In a glorious twist of fate. The chinese knockoff of a plane that was overbudget, underperforming and behind schedule is ironically overbudget, underperforming and behind schedule.
Totally agree his point. Excellent!
Wrong wrong wrong. Red flag 2 years ago: F22/ F35 combo kill ratio over legacy fighter combo; 20:1.
F35 pairs vs legacy fighter pairs: 17:1.
Stealth wins.
You can't fight what you can't see.
Indian mig 21 fighter drowned Pakistan f16 on feb 27 still not convinced????
@@bkr68rcnever confirmed and neither is a stealth fighter
@hotpocketpoison the numbering.
The F-22 require a 100 hour of maintenance per flight hour Pierre Sprey already mention it in an interview on MSNBC. Just because the plane is more susceptible to scratches doesn't mean the it require less maintenance hour. Plane is the most safest form of travel because maintenance are done thoroughly & regularly.
The Price tag on F-35 is so expensive you can buy 2 PAKFA for the same price & the PAKFA is more or less equal to the JSF.
I now understand, according to Mr. Sprey, the only air to air weapon, that a fighter jet should carry is gun.
becuse a 33% kill ratio by missels is great no?
José Gomes Kill ratios are irrelevant when you cannot even positively distinguish friend from foe.
José Gomes which missiles? What kind? From what era? Spare is your banalities and demonstrably false numbers.
well with the f 105 thunder chief it was actually a limited stock of spare prats that did it in , the air national guard flew them till about 1983 , it wasnt the only plane that suffered attrition problems during nam there was the A 26 , the canberra , the sandys , the f 100 super saber and the f 101 voodoo to name a few
Better off creating a more stealthy F 18 with upgrades in all areas vs using this mess that's planned to fail ,we learned this lesson in Vietnam with the Thunder chief .
Man can you believe 8:32 when he hears that the f-35 is supposed to replace the A-10, he sounds like hes almost ready to cry! LONG LIVE THE A-10!
Peirre sprey hated the a10 until it did good and he stole credit for it
I hear people say air to air combat isn't that common..
Well if we start tossing out billion dollar air to ground F-35s and any opponent realizes that they cannot fight fourth or even third gen fighters in turns, that's what they will face. Pure air to air dogfights. Any strategist would pump money into fighters rather than ground forces upon that realization.
Oddly enough, it was the opposite of this that drove the F-35 into production. It was the realization by the Soviet Union that they couldn't produce enough high tech fighters to defeat NATO air forces and so they began to invest and produce some of the best surface to air missiles. That and they had a vast ground army that could move fairly quickly and needed more consistent coverage.
The f35 has air to air missiles which can be fires in a 360° range, and is stealth
@@West_Coast_Mainline Propaganda, propaganda, propaganda. We'll see.
The IFF can only tell you if it's an ally, but it can't tell you for sure if it's an enemy, because maybe an allied pilot just put the wrong encryption-key in or the key is already expired or the IFF-module is faulty and so on . And every time your own IFF sends a request, the requested foe hears a warningsound and also know immediately from where you are comming. So the IFF is like normal Radar, a double edged sword.
Give the F-35 a new nickname "the Flying Turd". I know a USMC LtCol who was a Delta Hornet Test Pilot that now works with the F-35 program and he is considering quitting due to blatant mismanagement.
THE PILOTS NOT THE PROBLEM. IT IS THE GENERALS, BERUACRATS AND POLITICIANS. HOW CAN HE SAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS?
What next?
*The F-35 Can't Run On Warm Gas From A Fuel Truck That Sat In The Sun*
foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-run-on-warm-gas-from-a-fuel-truck-that-sa-1668120726
@YTBYlover Actually it was originally built to replace the F-14 Tomcat. Then Congress wanted it to replace the F-18, F-16 and A-10.
Unfortunately for the f35...this man KNOWS exactly what he is talking about!!!
No, he doesn't.
The reality proved him wrong, or?
@@reneegiese6315
???? R u kidding me ?????
This guy lies about his credentials. He plays on publicly known tropes of fighter jets to criticize anything new American and technologically-advanced. He criticizes US equipment and then once it proves itself on the field of battle suddenly he starts claiming that she designed or had heavy influence over it’s development. Spreys current criticism of the F-22 and F-35 is the exact same he had of the at f16 f15. Originally spray thought that the F-15 F-16 and a 10 were too technologically-advanced, and expensive to be effective and that their missiles would not fare well against the more maneuverable Soviet aircraft. However once these aircraft proved themselves against the Soviets in wars in Iraq Sprey started claiming to be their designers.
He did not design the f16 or the a10. The only plane he was involved with was the f15 and even then all of his suggestions were thrown out (look up project redbird although it's pretty hard to find info on it. It would basically be a short range, slower, highly maneuverable fighter that could not carry missiles, radar or very many electronic systems at all, and could only operate during the daytime and clear weather.)
Sprey's pals would say this plane became the f16 although I don't know if this is true (I don't think so, the dates don't line up) In any case the if the f16 was originally based on the redbird than it had changed so much that by the time it became operational it was a completely unrecognizable IE:(good range, all weather, multirole, missiles, radar, electronics, the works)
As for the A-10 Sprey had nothing to do with it and actually hated it wanted to replace it with his own fighter, the blitzfighter which would be a tiny aircraft armed only with a cannon with very little electronics to speak of. It was only once the A10 proved itself in 1991 that Sprey started claiming he built it. He was able to do this because by this time the a10's real designer, Alexander Karteveli, had died.
Ultimately Pierre Sprey can be summed up in this. Pierre sprey understands a lot about the world of fighter jets and is an expert on its subject matter, if we were talking about fighter jets in the 40s and 50s. What Pierre Spray fails or refuses to understand is that the air battles of tomorrow and indeed the air battles since Vietnam have been dominated by long range missiles One does not need to look very deep to realize this. Just look at the iran-iraq war where Iranian f-14s armed with long-ranged aim-54 Phoenix missiles absolutely wiped the floor with more maneuverable Soviet aircraft. Just look at the Gulf War where f-16s, f-18s, f-14s, and most of all f-15s dominated Iraqi opposition with their Superior Radar and long-range missiles.
I won't even get started on stealth which is a whole other can of worms but if you believe nothing else that I've said believe this: applying theories about air combat from the 40s and 50s to modern warfare does not work. Contrary to what sprey thinks, the world has changed since then.
Yeah, the "SU-57" will make mincemeat out of the F-35
Quite some fighter planes in history started as a big flop but with a few modifications became outstanding fighters!
One thing bothers me about this story, that guy never actually flew in that plane...
why does he need to fly in it? he designed the a10 and the f16 he understands what makes planes fly
@@antwango Despite Sprey’s assertion that he “designed” the F16 and A10, this claim is quite a stretch of the facts. He was actually involved as a defense analyst as part of the self-titled group “Fighter Mafia” led by retired fighter pilot Colonel John Boyd. They came up with a list of requirements that would focus each fighter jets’ properties towards their specific roles. The lightweight fighter resulted in the F16 and the close air support became the A10. While (imo) this group’s input and ideas were/are based on sound principles, they never “designed” either plane. Rather, of Sprey’s (the group’s) proposed requirements, the actual engineers who designed the aircrafts excluded many portions from this list. In fact, Sprey was quite disproving of the F16’s end result because of it’s increased weight due to “unnecessary” instrumentation (which increased the daylight fighter to all-weather, added bombing capabilities, and included a vastly improved multifunctional radar, etc.). Ironically, these added features which were so vehemently disliked by Sprey, have contributed to the F16 becoming the most widely produced fighter in the western world. Touché Sprey. 🤫
F35 all specs are public and the plane is available for sale to the world.
F22 specs are classified. Not for sale.
I am 100% with that guy, the damn F-35 is a lemon. Or for that matter more a rotten lemon... But the same counts for any other 'stealth' aircraft, they all are lemons and thus useless.
+SIG442 right you are. The so-called 5th generation marketing selling myth is the most ridicolous of all assumptions
SIG442 Is that why Russia AND China are struggling to build them? Go back to sleep you tired old fuck.
And then upgrade the F-15 Silent Eagles with F-15 ACTIVE thrust vectoring and F-35 tech.
Also develop new F-16's with full stealth and using upgraded features and avionics from the F-16 VISTA and X-31 rockwell test projects (mainly thrust vectoring).
Two versions of this new F-16 should be made; a regular Air Force variant, and a naval version with fold-able wings and able to take off and land from aircraft carriers.
The leftover F/A-18's can be used in airshows and flyby's at sports games ;)
This man was instrumental in creating a great fighter, his words should be taken into consideration.
Wikipedia says the same under the "wing loading page" whoever says 'oooh that's fake, boo f35 is the best' are just bragging out with no knowledge.
dude his ideas were thankfully not implemented. he was a huge critic of the f15 because it used BVR capability and advanced avionics instead of being a gun dogfighter. the f15 is also the most successful fighter in the history of warfare and is undefeated in combat. Even his f16 turned into a hugely successful multirole fighter which he was against. this guys ideas were proven wrong by war and also by wargames. its like saying swordfighting is better even though the rifled barrel was invented.
Quantikk f-16 a multi-role? the 16 wasnt desgin to bomb and doesnt have the capability to do CAS, it was desgin to be a dogfighter, and nothing would toucht the 16 if the air force didnt put alot of junk just to make it a bomber, even a boing A310 can bomb if you put bombs under its wings, and if you going to put ACMs on the tabel them f-15 was axed many times.
José Gomes If any one has doubts what an F-16 is capable of look at what Israel have done with the platform.
www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f-16i/
this aircraft is a multi role platform at its best.
Billy Smith for the love of god the f-16 is not CAS aircraft, even a boing a 310 can be a bomber, 3.bp.blogspot.com/-l--yrGOaPXE/U1lmSgYI27I/AAAAAAAA8ac/vUfICsVkGMo/s1600/883867_10152092695820665_7413064826804702956_o.png
VERY smart man. He did a double degree at Yale at age 15 and was one of McNamara's "Whiz Kids''. Pretty good track record - ie. the key designer of the F16 AND the A10. The man knows his stuff.
For more on Sprey, I highly recommend people check out the book - ''Boyd, the fighter pilor who changed the art of war". AWESOME book.
This guy lies about his credentials. He plays on publicly known tropes of fighter jets to criticize anything new American and technologically-advanced. He criticizes US equipment and then once it proves itself on the field of battle suddenly he starts claiming that she designed or had heavy influence over it’s development. Spreys current criticism of the F-22 and F-35 is the exact same he had of the at f16 f15. Originally spray thought that the F-15 F-16 and a 10 were too technologically-advanced, and expensive to be effective and that their missiles would not fare well against the more maneuverable Soviet aircraft. However once these aircraft proved themselves against the Soviets in wars in Iraq Sprey started claiming to be their designers.
He did not design the f16 or the a10. The only plane he was involved with was the f15 and even then all of his suggestions were thrown out (look up project redbird although it's pretty hard to find info on it. It would basically be a short range, slower, highly maneuverable fighter that could not carry missiles, radar or very many electronic systems at all, and could only operate during the daytime and clear weather.)
Sprey's pals would say this plane became the f16 although I don't know if this is true (I don't think so, the dates don't line up) In any case the if the f16 was originally based on the redbird than it had changed so much that by the time it became operational it was a completely unrecognizable IE:(good range, all weather, multirole, missiles, radar, electronics, the works)
As for the A-10 Sprey had nothing to do with it and actually hated it wanted to replace it with his own fighter, the blitzfighter which would be a tiny aircraft armed only with a cannon with very little electronics to speak of. It was only once the A10 proved itself in 1991 that Sprey started claiming he built it. He was able to do this because by this time the a10's real designer, Alexander Karteveli, had died.
Ultimately Pierre Sprey can be summed up in this. Pierre Sprey understands a lot about the world of fighter jets and is an expert on its subject matter, if we were talking about fighter jets in the 40s and 50s. What Pierre Spray fails or refuses to understand is that the air battles of tomorrow and indeed the air battles since Vietnam have been dominated by long range missiles One does not need to look very deep to realize this. Just look at the iran-iraq war where Iranian f-14s armed with long-ranged aim-54 Phoenix missiles absolutely wiped the floor with more maneuverable Soviet aircraft. Just look at the Gulf War where f-16s, f-18s, f-14s, and most of all f-15s dominated Iraqi opposition with their Superior Radar and long-range missiles.
I won't even get started on stealth which is a whole other can of worms but if you believe nothing else that I've said believe this: applying theories about air combat from the 40s and 50s to modern warfare does not work. Contrary to what sprey thinks, the world has changed since then.
This guy has been proven wrong, time and time again. His thinking is sound for 60s-70s era air fights, but completely absurd for the F-35.
FWIW, this guy hated the F-15 too... and we see how that worked out.
Indian mig 21 fighter drowned Pakistan f16 on feb 27 still not convinced????
Boney Kroy the F-16 shot down was 30-35 years old, and poorly maintained.
@@bkr68rc That never happened. India only claimed to have done so then provided fake evidence, trying to pass off their own MiG-21 wreckage as the F-16 they supposedly shot down. You can find videos of the MiG-21 wreckage, and clearly see which angles were used as evidence.
So if your argument is literally a made up event, sure, go for it.
@@ivanlagrossemoule f16 twin seater block 52 was the one crashed into have seen clear electronic Radar signature.More over Pakistani mobs killed one of their f16 pilot thinking that he is Indian pilot.P Pakistanis never accept anything that's their behavior first they said they captured 3 Indian pilots later realising mistake changed to one pilot!!!!!
If production were restarted the cost for another 75 aircraft was estimated in 2009 to be an extra $70 million per unit, the f-22 cost 142.6 million on its first fly before got upgrades that incressed the cost to 361 million per plane.
the F35 project started in 1992, over all is was a total failure,
the F35 A, which had many revisions done to it by none other the IAF , the Israeli air force, the cost of manufacturing the first F35 was huge and also had many flaws in its design , after more then 10 years of straggling of manufacturing of the ultimate jet fighter made by Lockheed Martin. the project failed , then IAF turned to the US administration ( where so much money was invested into that project ) with lousy results and the contract was turned to 2 contractors , one was Boeing and the other was the Israeli air force IAF, they were the ones who reengineered the F35A, which is now called F-35A Lightning II )or the F35A
so don't be so stiff neck to think that EVERYTHING is engineered in the US,
without the help of the IAF, that project would have been the biggest lose in US history
(that comes from someone who worked on that project )
This guy lies about his credentials. He plays on publicly known tropes of fighter jets to criticize anything new American and technologically-advanced. He criticizes US equipment and then once it proves itself on the field of battle suddenly he starts claiming that she designed or had heavy influence over it’s development. Spreys current criticism of the F-22 and F-35 is the exact same he had of the at f16 f15. Originally spray thought that the F-15 F-16 and a 10 were too technologically-advanced, and expensive to be effective and that their missiles would not fare well against the more maneuverable Soviet aircraft. However once these aircraft proved themselves against the Soviets in wars in Iraq Sprey started claiming to be their designers.
He did not design the f16 or the a10. The only plane he was involved with was the f15 and even then all of his suggestions were thrown out (look up project redbird although it's pretty hard to find info on it. It would basically be a short range, slower, highly maneuverable fighter that could not carry missiles, radar or very many electronic systems at all, and could only operate during the daytime and clear weather.)
Sprey's pals would say this plane became the f16 although I don't know if this is true (I don't think so, the dates don't line up) In any case the if the f16 was originally based on the redbird than it had changed so much that by the time it became operational it was a completely unrecognizable IE:(good range, all weather, multirole, missiles, radar, electronics, the works)
As for the A-10 Sprey had nothing to do with it and actually hated it wanted to replace it with his own fighter, the blitzfighter which would be a tiny aircraft armed only with a cannon with very little electronics to speak of. It was only once the A10 proved itself in 1991 that Sprey started claiming he built it. He was able to do this because by this time the a10's real designer, Alexander Karteveli, had died.
Ultimately Pierre Sprey can be summed up in this. Pierre sprey understands a lot about the world of fighter jets and is an expert on its subject matter, if we were talking about fighter jets in the 40s and 50s. What Pierre Spray fails or refuses to understand is that the air battles of tomorrow and indeed the air battles since Vietnam have been dominated by long range missiles One does not need to look very deep to realize this. Just look at the iran-iraq war where Iranian f-14s armed with long-ranged aim-54 Phoenix missiles absolutely wiped the floor with more maneuverable Soviet aircraft. Just look at the Gulf War where f-16s, f-18s, f-14s, and most of all f-15s dominated Iraqi opposition with their Superior Radar and long-range missiles.
I won't even get started on stealth which is a whole other can of worms but if you believe nothing else that I've said believe this: applying theories about air combat from the 40s and 50s to modern warfare does not work. Contrary to what sprey thinks, the world has changed since then.
Also, as an Aerospace and Astronautical engineer in school, I find half of what that interviewee saying is not true. "small wings are not good for maneuverability do to the amount of lift." I laughed really hard at this.
Dude designed the F-16 and A-10!. Respect. Seems to really know what he's talking about.
He didn't and he doesn't.
Sprey designed jack shit
Piere Sprey did NOT work in the aerospace industry as a engineer, but a statistican the a10 was designed by Alexander Kartveli and Pierre sprey did not work on the f16, he was asked an opinion, whined about the price, and then cane up with the FXX or something like that (basically a list of important bits like the gps system he wanted removed fron the f16)
It has wing loading of 526 kilos per square meter when loaded, and its Thrust to Weight ratio is barely above 1 when at 50% fuel (0,91 to 1,07, depending on version). F16s wing loading is 431 kg/m2 and thrust-to-weight ratio is 1,095. F16 is also smaller plane, meaning that it would tear F35 apart in dogfight.
9 years late byt w/e. Thrust to weight and wing loading not the only metrics for a good dogfighting aircraft. The other aspects you need to consider are turn radius and angle of attack. The F-16 has an angle of attack limit of the F-16 is 25 degrees. the F-35's is 50 degrees. If the F-16 is able to force the 2 circle (nose to tail) fight then he will most likely win. If the F-35 pilot is able to force a 1 circle fight (nose to nose) then the F-35 is going to win.
>muh titanium bathtub
The F-35 and F-22 are intend to be used in tandem. The F-22 would be the more front-line air-superiority fighter and the F-35 is more of a multi-role fighter. The F-22 is supposed to replace the F-15 and the F-35 is supposed to replace the F-16.
The F-35 is like a 3rd gen fighter. I'm sad to have my flag on that "aircraft". By far the worst 5th gen fighter.
@tron You don't have to reply a 6 year old comment
The current LRIP prototypes of the F-35 are more expensive than the last F-22's, but the F-35's that'll actually go into service in 2016 will be about $50m cheaper than the F-22.
This guy is spot on. He is able to see through the sales bullshit for this flying lemon because he is able to see the ESSENTIAL failures of this scrap heap. Nothing but nothing can alleviate its basic design flaws. No matter how advanced electronics have become over the years, the basic flaws of this plane remain, They are innnate and cannot be remedied. Imagine a person born with just one eye. No matter what electronic gadgets you invent to help that person he or she will never be a pilot or a race car driver. It just doesn't work. Same for the F35 - born as a lemon, always a lemon. And this open secret is also the reason why the F35 will never ever be sent to Ukraine to fight in the conflict there. Because the Russians would blow this lead duck out of the sky (If it ever actually reached the sky there) and reveal for all to see its basic uselessness.
This man is called Pierre Sprey, he is a famous lier and what we call a reformer. He has lied about being involved in programs such as the A-10 warhog and F-15 and refuses to admit modern equipment works and would rather see our pilots flying in gun only fighters and forget missile technology. He an idiot and spreads dangerous information based on opinion not fact, and before he died received payments from the Russian government to make videos like this to try and make the American public push for the F-35 program to be cancelled, be careful what you hear.
sir you're commenting on a modern computer because you and Spray are wrong.
The only lemon here is you
This guy makes a hell of a lot of sense, think of how much wing a bird has compared to its' body and think how maneuverable a bird is (although a bird's wings aren't fixed). So although the F-35 could fire on its' adversary from 160km away, with both going Mach ~2.5 the enemy will have the F-35 in weapons range in seconds and be on top of it soon after, then it's a dog fight and apparently the F-35 is toast.
The f35 is made to shoot down planes before they see it, thats why its s atealth fighter with 360 missioe range and advanced radar
I'm not an expert but when I see the F35 in the air it look like a plane who doesn't fly well compare to f16, rafale or eurofighter.
+WILDWEST CHILD You're not an expert but you got it 100% right. Exactly as Marcel Dassault, founder of Dassault Aviation (Mirage, Raffale) once said: "only a good looking aircraft flies well!" One glance at this F-35 Lemon is enough to immediately understand why this cannot function.
+Alphons Vorderwühlbecke pound for pound the f16 is the best dogfighter in the world.
+SINESTERSERPENTSIXXX Nope, Su-35 is far better dogfighter. It is the most advanced supermaneuvrable fighter aircraft.
That's because you are no expert.
Wow people really believed anything anyone says, this so called defence analyst, designer of f-15 (f-16, a-10, blitzstriker, x-1…) and member of the fighter jet mafia
If we had the F-XX instead of the f15, everyone would be speaking democracy by now
"Military expert" Pierre Sprey lies for ten minutes and eight seconds.
Cry about it more dumbass. The F-35 now is estimated it won’t be ready for until 2035 😂
Such as?
Yeah? Thats interesting... do you have a link or remember where you saw this. I'd be interested to check it out. Haven't heard him comment on it before. :-)
And he was right. Feb. 2021.
The AF Chief of Staff saying the F-35 is the cornerstone of their fighter capability doesn't really sound like a failure, to be honest.
This guy knows WTF he's talking about. It's sad that Washington just doesn't pay attention or care about anything that doesn't help their lobbyists.
The F-35 is an embarrassment. If you want maneuverbility then governments should buy the SU-37. They would wipe the floor with all current aircraft in WVR combat.
Why would the US buy Defense capabilities from the Russians? Did you miss your history class?
Djong Yi Loong I mean a country like Norway or Singapore who is buying the F-35 could easily buy the better su-35
manzilla48
Tell me why, in detail, the SU-35 is better.
dont even need to f-15 is better than su-37
yep
For some reason my comment got removed, I dunno why, I never said anything offensive.
Anyway, back to your comment - The Gripen is also on the "what to buy" list on Denmarks shopping list.
The U.S. gvt does not like the truth.
Really? The F-35 is a lemon? Not sure how much I should believe this guy, even if he is an aircraft designer.
The F-35A is the only fifth generation attack aircraft available for naval and air forces of the United States, Great Britain, Japan, Canada, the Netherlands, Italy, Israel, Norway, Turkey and South Korea. Only Australia, the other original participant, decided to opt out and buy Boeing's F/A-E/F Super Hornets instead. This despite the ridiculously long procurement process and cost overruns which resulted from Lockheed-Martins decision to use concurrency.
The F-35A, the conventional takeoff and landing option (CTOL), is designed to do a 9G level turn at corner airspeed, very similar in turn capability to the agile F-16. The VSTOL B model was designed to replace the AV8B Harrier for the USMC. The VSTOL and CV (carrier variant) are designed to fly a 7.5 G turn at corner airspeed, entirely comparable with the USN's and Marine Corp's existing fleet of F/A-18 C-D models which have 7.5-8 G turn capability. The CV has folding wings and longer range, to pack as many F-35's into carriers' hangar decks and give the CV as much combat radius as possible; a nice feature when you're operating over water almost all the time.
The thick fuselage of the F-35 was designed that way to max-out internal volume for fuel tanks and munitions while simultaneously minimizing the aircraft's radar cross-section, better known as stealth capability. Of course the various models of the F-35 can also carry considerable external stores as well , everything from smart bombs to heat-seeking to laser or GPS-guided missiles, electronic countermeasures pod, external fuel tanks etc., for those missions which the armed services determine will not necessitate stealth capability.
In fact, the F-35A can lift well beyond 100% of its empty weight, making it a terrific bomb truck, a stealth plane that can electronically see, intercept and fire on gen 4 aircraft before they even knows its there AND successfully compete at combat maneuvering with the best gen 4 fighters in the world inside missile range. Or it can carry just internal stores for missions requiring maximum stealth.
You'd think a jet fighter aircraft designer would know those things about the F-35A before flapping his gums in public and looking pretty silly. All he had to do was go toLockheed-Martin's website.
+Douglas McIntyre You do not believe yourself what you are saying do you? Or are you listing what the Propaganda and Marketing department of Lockheed Martin distills? F-35 is al Lemon is a F-35 is a Lemon -what else?
If the F-35 is such a lemon, why are there now over 120 aircraft, all three variants, at air force bases in America, Britain and more countries' bases to come, where instructors are learning to teach in the F-35, or in the case of the STOVL and CV at naval bases and/or doing carrier trials? If it is such a lemon, why haven't the US government or the other countries who are partners in the airplane's manufacturing process pulled out of the project? If it is such a lemon, why did it have a kill ratio of 112 to 0 in the latest simulated war games?
Get your facts straight, dumbass.
+Douglas McIntyre One has to put one thing right: It is not to the critics to proof that the F35 is a lemon, but to Lockheed-Martin and the myriads of irresponsible american politicians to deliver what they are promising for years. Know one Thing Douglas, this whole scandal will one day explose in the face of the free world, latest when the first young pilots will have been killed by EVERY enemy faced, in what was designed from the beginning as a Money-make-machine for Lockheed-Martin and their associates in politics and the Pentagon!!!
Well, Alphons, Lockheed-Martin now have about 120 of them out in the squadrons where instructors are learning to teach in the F-35 or at naval bases and doing carrier trials. The so-called lemon has a 112 to zero kill rate at the lest simulated war games. Each traunch of planes has cost less than the one before it, good new for legislators whose job is to pay for it when the planes go rolling out of the factories a accelerated rates in a fe years, perhaps as early as 2018..
I understand that the procurement process has been ridiculously long, but we are talking about developing three distinct F-35 models with distinctly different missions and requirements. Plus the most formidable technology in any fighter, in the form of sensor and camera arrays which provide extremely intuitive cockpit displays giving F-35 pilots unheard of situational and targeting awareness.
The F-35's helmet face shield projects a HUD display that also allows the F-35 pilot to "virtually" see through the aircraft's surfaces, even look straight down through the floor of the aircraft. That gives the F-35 another significant tactical advantage over any fighter in the world in the rare event it might be forced to engage in an air combat manoeuvring situation.
Plus the ability to go Mach 1.6 carrying an impressive 4 tons of internal ordinance for missions requiring stealth, and WAY more than that carried externally (missiles, JDAMS, ECM pod, additional fuel etc) when carrying out missions where low observables are not required.
By the way, if theF-35 is such a lemon, why are the Chinese and Russians desperately attempting to develop their fifth generation, F-35-like stealth fighters?
You see Alphons, it takes more than just saying the F-35 is a lemon. Any fol can do that. You have to prove it, something you have failed miserably to do so far.
+Douglas McIntyre War games...? Organized by whom? Not by any Chance by the Lockheed-Martin and their friends and allies in Pentagon and Air Force? One can only hope, that one day the main responsables for this scandal of epic size will be judged by a Independent US-Court!!!!
Pilots don't need to visually identify their targets before shooting... The 1960s are over and have been for some time...
Aged like milk.
The Pentagon waived bans on the use of Chinese-built components on US weapons systems in an effort to keep the colossal F-35 joint strike fighter program on track in 2012 and 2013.
Pentagon documents show its top arms buyer, Frank Kendall, granted waivers to two main F-35 suppliers, Northrop Grumman and Honeywell International, for the use of Chinese magnets in the fighter plane’s radar system, landing gear and other hardware.
Both companies - top military contracting powers working for its peer Lockheed Martin to complete the US$392 billion (and counting) F-35 fighter jet system - would have faced sanctions for breaking US law, thus subjecting the program to further delays. The program is years behind schedule as it is. It is estimated to now stand at 70 percent over initial cost projections.
The guy is a pinhead.
Yep! The A-10 is the best, or at least, the second best ground attack aircraft in the world. The pilots love it, the ground troops love it, but the brass hates it because it is not "fancy" enough for their liking.
No they hate it cause it's expensive, slow, and does a better job killing friendlies than it does enemies...
@hotpocketpoison oh i forgot those rugged Stealth coating doesn't mean it's doesn't need less of a maintenance than the F-22/F-117 now with the USAF decided to replace 90% of it's air fleet with this new "5th gen" more than half of it's maintenance will be polishing the exterior till it's flawless.
The F-35 is not made for primarily air-to-air combat. It will fly like a bomber-/ground attack jet supported by the actual air superiority fighters like the F-22 (for U.S.). The outstanding thing about the F-35 is how much payload it can deliver due to its powerful engine and very light weight.
It can di air to air with a 360° range
*I am glad the F-35 is replacing the A-10 and F-16* much to Pierre's dismay. I can already see how easy it was for a Syrian S-200 to down an Israeli F35
@walt charamba well you cant shoot down something that didnt do a real mission
@walt charamba He's trolling. Just spouts nonsense in every comment.
Wow something that didn’t happen