Pierre Sprey, a few facts about him: Despite internet claims to the contrary, he didn't design the F-16 nor the A-10 or any other aircraft. He has consistently exaggerated his role in the field of aircraft design, he is a statistician not an engineer. He hated the F-15, the claims he now makes about the F-35 are the same ones he made about the F-15 Eagle. It was too expensive, too big, to complicated etc. It has a 100-0 kill ratio, proving how wrong he was. He did not want the F-16 to even have a radar. He wanted it armed with only a cannon and short range IR missiles. The modern F-16 is the antithesis of what he wanted and it is a highly successful aircraft in spite of Sprey not because of Sprey. His ideas on the capabilities of medium and long range radar guided missiles are at least 30 years out of date. He seems to think we're still using Vietnam era AIM-7's. He keeps spouting his outdated disinformation and people keep buying it. It is worthy to note that he is now in the music recording business because his opinion on aircraft design is not considered worthwhile by anyone who knows anything about modern combat aircraft. Oh, one more. Back before the USAF determined the cause of the issue with the F-22's pilot oxygen system Sprey said that it was because of adhesive fumes coming from the fuselage heating up at or above Mach 1.6. Just more proof that he's been wrong about everything he's claimed in the last 30 years.
@14ALL41OK LOL. No, he's still wrong, he's still not an aircraft designer and the people who buy into his nonsense are still foolish. The USAF wanting to purchase some lower tier F-16 replacements is not the same thing as "the F-35 sux" that ignorant people think, it's just the simple truth that there are different aircraft for different roles. USAF hasn't cut any planned F-35 purchases, and have specifically stated that they have no plans to do so.
Even if anything you wrote held a candle of truth, it still wouldn't validate the practical existence of the f35. It doesn't take a genius to understand the concept of lift and drag on maneuverability and on loitering time. Or the fact that an accurate machine gun is still nessessary for CAS. Or the fact stealth doesn't effect long wave early warning systems, and has limited effect against radar-based weapon guidance systems (of course there are other tracking methods besides radar) that use multistatic detection. Not to mention the careful design, extensive testing, exotic materials, high maintenance costs and reduced payload. Or the fact that a service life of ~2,000 hours is dogshit compared to the operational standard. Or the fact that equipping an aircraft with IEEE based avionics using Windows is probably a bad idea for such a wireless, tech-heavy specification. Or the fact that the "first look first kill" doctrine is complete lockheed PR garbage because looking first doesn't assure a kill against multiple simultaneous targets, or that you have the missile capacity to engage multiple targets before getting overwhelmed. Or that VTOL conveys more overall benefits than costs when compared to STOL, particularly when it comes to the safety tolerances of using one large jet engine, compared to the redundancy of two. Or the utter failure of ALIS, including the inability to produce any high fidelity simulation facility to supposedly beat those nifty enemy AA systems. And the 871 (10 of which are Cat I) other problems of this 1.7 trillion dollar travesty. For a trillion dollars this plane had better be flying everywhere around the world at full production yesterday.
@14ALL41OK Utter nonsense. It's really amazing how people will take the ignorance spread by the media so seriously. The people writing these articles by and large wouldn't know and F16 from an A10 without a cheat sheet.
He said the same things about the F-15. A supposed big plane with lots of "junk". It only has a 100+:1 kill ratio, and has never been shot down by an enemy. Yep... "junk".
Against who and what Jet fighters? USA only attack countries with little or no defense (poor countries) , so the f15 got to fight with outdated fighters that were 20years behind!!!
@Luis The Polish wanted F-15's to offset the latest Su-27's in Russia. Because their Air Force is so much smaller, they decided to spend the extra, money and go for the F-35, which will pretty much dominate anything Russia has right now. That said, the latest F-15's are pretty much at peer with the best version of Su-27.
Pierre was a big blowhard that liked to hear himself talk. He is a perfect example of the saying it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.
The F35 is not a fighter. That is a misnomer. Everyone is judging the F35 based on outdated definitions of an effective fighter. What's ironic about this interview is that, in combat trials, a 4-ship of F35s has defeated a rival 4-ship of F16s prior to the merge. Every. Single. Time. This is why the funding is so high for JSF. Campaign-level utility is not measured in a ship-to-ship merged close combat scenario. It is measured in combat effectiveness of a unit operating in a theater-sized 3-d space. A 3-d space the F35 understands very well. It doesn't matter that an F16 can out turn and out gun an F35. The F16 never even reaches that stage of combat before it's a smoldering heap.
What we've seen in the Russia-Ukraine war contradicts this entirely. Even older surface to air systems like the Buk and S300 have proven to be more effective than anyone had expected, leading to the SU-25 (basically a better A10) being used the most.
@@connorbranscombe6819 They don't need to. It comes down to how well the F35 can conduct SEAD/DEAD sorties against Russian air defence. It's an educated guess but my prediction is not very well.
@@connorbranscombe6819 It's Bayraktar not Bakyatar, and no, they've been completely underwhelming in Ukraine to the point where their viability is now seriously in question.
Platinum Swords I too think you are right here. USA is, at the moment, so powerful nation that she actually does not need to win a war she engages to (indeed not so with basically any other nation). In this light it is very sufficient to simply trample on all over the place with all that power, to turn the place into a bloody pulp, then just pick up something to talk about and then just leave when done with it.
Roger Clemons You show an incredible amount of stupidity in your statement. First you dismiss the Taliban as rag tag fighters. The Mujahadeen has existed for centuries and Afghanistan has never been conquered. Not by the Russians, Americans, Napoleon or Alexander the Great. Much of what you just mentioned is moot. You are fighting in the mountains and terrain where most of the weapons you mentioned were not of much use. If you think you can judge the quality of the US Military based on their actions in Afghanistan - you would be incredibly ignorant to do so. The Taliban are no rag tag army. They received plenty of support from Pakistan and Iran as well.
I flew fighters for 20 years. After retiring I worked in Electronic Warfare development for the USAF. I do not have current data on the F-35, but here is the theory. Long wavelength radars can detect, but are not precise enough to guide missiles. Stealth is effective against the short wavelengths which are used by fighters and are needed to guide missiles. The F-35 stealth will be effective against those short wavelengths. Most fighters shot down did not know they were under attack. BVR (beyond visual range) firing requires that you have a system to tell if the target is friendly or hostile. MiGs in Vietnam were shot down by their own anti-aircraft. American multi-sensor technology is far ahead of the Russians in this area, partly because we did not have it in Vietnam and had to develop it. This is part of "situational awareness", at which the F-35 will be far superior, using multiple systems. The more I learn about the F-35, the better I like it!
+Bruce Gordon Well, that is fine when the F-35 is located remotely to use their missiles because it is supposedly "invisible" to radar and is not detectable but when the F-35 is left without missiles (I think it can only carry 4 in their cellars) as it is to defener against Su35 supermaniobrable face to face when you left your gun only to defend ?.I Guess I'll have to turn around.
I know something that can kill any 5th generation or 4.5 generation aircraft. It's the most revolutionary system to date and has a 100% kill rate when used effectively. It's called a Bird in the engine......
Redditor here and ex-F-35 pilot *confirmed*. I used to drive these magnificent bastards all over the western hemisphere (the F35 would seize up in Eastern hemisphere climates so we couldn't drive them there). I remember the dogfights me and boys got into "Red 1 to Red 5... Stay on target.... stay on target!!" they used to say, during the middle east crisis raids. I met a lot of good Redditors on those escapades. And here we are once again "le redditors united" (as we used to say), on /r/atheism and /r/politics reminiscing in these euphoric days. Well... for old times sake, LE REDDITORS UNITE !!!!!!! *tip of the hat* to my euphoric F35 crew mates (you know who I mean Redditors!)
+Outamyhead just remember that some who knows what they are talking about can still lie based on their own personal agenda. For example don't you just love the way he trashes the F-15? I mean it only has the greatest air-air combat record ever, over 100 air-air kills and zero air-air losses, much better than the F-16 which he claims is better I also love the way he says that multirole aircraft are terrible, yet the F-16 he boasts about is famous for being one of the best multirole aircraft in history, and it was designed that way while the F-15 was designed solely for air-superiority and he says its terrible. He claims the F-35 is a poor aircraft for troop support. Yet its the only aircraft i know of which has a system able to detect and automatically mark locations of muzzle flashes on the ground anywhere around the aircraft. Thanks to the DAS. He says stealth doesn't work against long wave radar's, well duh, but long wave radars are huge and inaccurate by their very nature. Stealth is designed to work against short wave length fighter and active missile radars, and it does work against these radars. So again he is only telling the half of the story which favors his argument. Of course he is going to talk shit about the aircraft which is going to end up replacing 2 of his aircraft
+Jamenator1 "He says stealth doesn't work against long wave radars, well duh, but long wave radars are huge and inaccurate by their very nature. Stealth is designed to work against short wave length fighter and active missile radars, and it does work against these radars. So again he is only telling the half of the story which favors his argument." Well, whoever America ends up fighting will be capable of building computer networks just as well as anybody. How long until someone develops a system that can integrate information from low frequency radar with modern active scanned doppler systems with all the bells and whistles? Without even bothering with something that sophisticated the Serbians did manage to shoot down an F-117. He might be stretching the truth for an agenda but that doesn't mean he didn't also make some good points.
Ebin Menes :D:D It does: with a few tweaks to some old radar technology they had lying around, all they had to do was perform surgery on an AA missile and they were in business. As they say in the information security business, security through obscurity is no security at all. If your enemy learns your secret, you're SOL. If your secret is so openly known that it can be discussed on a youtube comment thread, I'd be hesitant to design my entire military around it.
Ebin Menes :D:D "Not really. It was detected because the radar signature increased when it opened its bomb bay." Perhaps, but that's in no way necessary. That L-band radar can detect stealth airplanes is a matter of public record. "The missiles were most likely even manually guided." Speculation, which while possibly true does not affect the main conclusion that even a relatively low-technology enemy was capable of defeating so-called stealth technology with a little ingenuity. What we do know is that Zoltán claimed that radar systems and SAMs were modified to detect the F-117. Could he be bullshitting? I guess, but there's ample physical basis to think he's not. "Yes, so they voluntarily makes it seem like a bad plane so everyone knows it's a bad plane. And still the US decides to fund this bad plane...yes" It's not "the US". "The US" is an abstraction. It does not exist in reality. What exists are many many people with many different interests that can be roughly grouped together under this abstract "US" banner. They had to work under a bureaucracy, itself also an abstraction, trying to game it and find ways to make their own interests prevail above everybody else's. Each branch of service has their own desiderata for an airplane design. That's true even within each branch. Congress wants votes. Lockheed wants money. This is a perfect storm of incompetence waiting to happen: as they say, the mean IQ of a group is the IQ of the stupidest person divided by the number of people. Regardless, I wasn't talking about the F-35 specifically in this last analogy with security; I was talking about stealth in general. Simple ways to defeat it are known. It'd be silly to assume that enemies this technology might be used against haven't tailored their detection equipment to take advantage of this weakness. If a crude jury-rigged system could do it, imagine what the Russians could do given 20 years.
Ebin Menes :D:D "Which is among the low frequency radars, which has already been stated to have critical flaws." Irrelevant. It's a tool which works and does the job. "The problem with them is that they have limited range where they can accurately detect objects, " Over the horizon radar systems operate frequencies of the order of 10 MHz without a problem, and as I state accuracy is not necessary: all that such systems need to do is discriminate among possible targets so that conventional radar systems can know which small targets are real aircraft. "A plane that is already out of service. " There's a fundamental physical fact which you are not acknowledging here: that L-band radars can detect stealth planes, no matter what fancy coating you put on them. It doesn't matter what the RCS is for modern radar systems because as far as low frequencies are concerned it is the same. "When an F-117 was infamously shot down in Serbia, it was shot down not because the low frequency radar detected it at long range, but rather, because the F 117 had flown the same route many times, had come within a few tens of kilometers of the radar, had it's bomb bay doors open increasing it's signature," According to you. We may never know the real facts. "But as mentioned, it wasn't an accurately tracking of the Nighthawk. It was more to determine its approximate position." Clearly it was enough, and you seem to be missing the point that this wasn't a system built from the ground up to detect stealthy planes but rather something cobbled together from decades old equipment, duct tape and twigs. "The part of your comment seem to be more like just some personal opinion." No, it's fact. Physical laws are not opinions. Whether he told the truth is arguable but what he claimed was done is clearly physically possible. "Stealth is not a dead end. If Russians or Chinese happen to develop a more efficient countermeasure to stealth technology, the US for sure will be able to develop something to counter that." They can't counter physics. " then these aircraft will still hold an advantage over un-stealthy aircraft, " If it's not a binary feature then you have to demonstrate that the gains obtained from using stealthy planes outweigh the design compromises involved in making them so. This has not been done. Stealth technology has been developed almost exclusively based on Rule of Cool™, and the videogamey assumption that the enemy won't adjust their strategy to fight another enemy. That assumption was a large part of America's initial failure in air combat in Vietnam. " such as radar-wave bending metamaterials," Physics. You can't make metamaterials that bend radar waves unless the metamaterial structures are approximately the same size as the wavelength being countered. Unless you want your plane to be shaped more like a blimp than a fighter jet, metamaterials can do precious little against L-band radar systems. "and electronic active cancellation" Again, physics dictates that will never be put on an aircraft because such a system would have to be comparable in size to the radar wavelength being countered. "the US clearly has the advantage in stealth technology." Undoubtedly, but there's no demonstration that stealth technology is all that useful.
Neville6000 No you didn't. You started to build the Arrow program but failed to complete development phase. You rolled out some production models and did set some mile-stones which was good. But too many different political fingers in the mix, a shift in Canada's military doctrine to the NORAD defense agreement and the arrow just got too expensive. Also, would the arrow ever fully meet its design promises is up for another serious debate (A little fact your liberal news media conveniently leaves out when they love to brag about the arrow). We'll never know since the plane never made it through development. Developing a plane is a WAY harder and more expensive than you think. Even the best aviation designers can't guarantee their design performances will make it in the real world. Bringing up the Arrow only re-enforces my point. Too much endless political committee crap in Canada prevents you from building a decent plane and it wrecks practically every military procurement deal your country seeks. Debate! Debate! Debate! Debate! Endlessly! Your industry is better of partnering with other contractors then relying on Canada's political machine to get anything done competently and putting out the high amounts of money to pay for it. Geez I wonder what all that endless waste of time debating ends up costing the Canadian tax payers?
I flew 132 fighter combat missions in Vietnam, and taught Electronic Warfare at Wright-Patterson AFB, so I write with experience. I reject Pierre Sprey's great love of the F-16, which was seldom used as an air-to-air fighter because the F-15, though larger and more expensive, was better. The F-16 was used as a fighter-bomber, but the A-10 was better in that role. The F-35 does suffer because of the Marine STOVL requirements made the plane fat and the wings too short, but its electronic and electro-optical capabilities, combined with off-boresignt missiles, will make it the dominant fighter of the next generation. It will not have to outmaneuver enemy fighters, but can fire missiles before the enemy fighter knows the F-35 is there. Yes, the F-35 can be detected by long-wavelength radars, but such radars have low resolution and cannot kill you. Kill radars are all short-wavelength to get high resolution. The ability to positively identify enemy aircraft at long range is critical, because most fighters are shot down when they do not even know they are under attack. The key to the F-35's success will be in electronics, computers, and EO sensors, which have not yet completed testing. While the cost growth of the F-35 is a major concern, anyone with knowledge of our past aircraft development should not be surprised. Almost everything is late and over-budget. I like the A-10 for close support, though, and want to keep the A-10 operational.
+simonking195 The Russians claimed that their ECM disabled an American frigate in the Black Sea. US sailors on the ship said that nothing happened at all. From my extensive experience in ECM, I cannot think of any ECM system which could do what the Russians claim. I conclude that the Russian claims are propaganda.
+simonking195 Agreed with Bruce. I find it VERY hard to believe that a Russia MIG in the black sea carried an ECM unit strong enough to knock out the a heavily shielded Ageis system on a US destroyers and did not fall victim from the effects. Nope instead it was making attack runs. COME ON!!!! First of all, a jamming pod doesn't knock out a system causing screens to go black (As the Russians described it). It just fills radio frequencies with a lot of noise and even directional Jammers create a lot of residual EM energy that pilots can feel the effects (especially with the older F-111s). What anti-ship missile is going to work with a massive Jammer going off? A possible way to physically knock out Ageis (as what the described experience on the COOK by the Russians) would be a massive EMP pulse. Since the Cooks systems are heavily EMP shielded from Nuclear blasts, how is a lonely MIG going to carry enough sufficient EMP shielding and generate enough energy to survive releasing an EMP pulse strong enough to knock out Ageis? Not going to happen. 2nd point, if the COOK was compromised in such a way, the destroyer would have been ordered home for investigation and inspection. Ever looked up the Cook's manifest during that tour? After that incident, the Cook made its scheduled port four more times in the Mediterranean before heading home. A rather casual tour for a war ship (designed for combat and providing regional security) just becoming compromised. And, as Bruce already said, non of the sailors reported it. 3rd. the Russian sure knew a lot about what was going on onboard the Cook during the incident. The details they describe are very rich and colorful. What did they have hidden Camera's and Microphones on the Cook? This has been the constant mistake of Russian state controlled Propaganda getting carried away with their fiction. Too many holes in the story. Why? Because fictional stories have holes.
+DigitalMedia JamesT Very good analysis, DigitalMedia! Yes, the only thing which could have caused the complete failure on the COOK was with electro magnetic pulse (EMP) which requires huge amounts of power. EMP was first noted as a result of nuclear explosions. A huge antenna system was built at Kirkland AFB to create an EMP for test purposes. The antenna size and power requirements are impossible for an aircraft to carry, but I have considered that an EMP might have been generated by a shore installation on the Crimea. It did not come from the fighter.
Bruce Gordon If we are talking an EMP from a Nuclear blast, the Cooks systems are going to be a formidable obstacle. An EMP charge of such magnitude to defeat the COOKs shielded systems is going be very disruptive (in some form) to anything else in the region. Its not going to go unnoticed by other NATO ships. Especially the Russian plane which is making attack passes inside the proximity of the target zone. Its is going to be seriously affected (highly not going to survive). And there is still the fact that COOK did not sail for home and continued on its tour. The Sailors did not report it. And the details of what happened on the Cook Bridge are too rich. In other words, one had to be there in order to know that much detail or its just a fictional tale.
To be fair about the Harrier, it was a USMC pilot that invented the VIF (Vector In Flight) maneuver, which allowed the jumpjet to turn far sharper than normal.
according to you but, reality sucks, people like you keep the faith in the hollywood movies were the USA always win, but, in real life the USA army Sucks dicks big time.
He was wrong in '79, in '81 and '82 in Israel. He was wrong in '91, and all the engagements from then on. Hell, he was wrong for the full 8 years of the Iran-Iraq war. Last time Sprey was right was Vietnam, and even than never dropped below 2:1 in favor of the US. What exactly is it that he is "right" about?
This man is a no bs engineer. He knows. The F35 is a corruption money pit. God help our guys if they face a Sukhoi 35, 37, 51 in air to air. And they should hope that on a BVR scenerio, that our missles and radar don't get disabled as the USS Donald Coik did in the Black Sea TWICE! by the Russians. Fucking sanctioned Washington corrupt was the breeding ground for this national disgrace. Hopefully someone will being Trump up to speed on the reality of this pathetic effort.
His prediction was not quite right about a few thing, price in particular the F-35A, the Air Force's version of the jet, costs $78 million in 2021. Also detection by log wave radars although true does not mean that the radar can lock in for guidance of a missile, as to flying performances they are quite good, comparable to F-16 maybe just slightly lower.
The F-35 will be will be easily intercepted for the following reasons: 1. Completely visible to AESA long wave radars. 2. Stealthy only in the *front* quadrant. Sides & rear visible to short wave radar. 3. Has a very large IR signature that will show up easily in IR detectors. 4. Poor transonic acceleration due to high wave drag makes it easy meat for supersonic interceptors. 5. In "stealth mode" carries just two AIM-120's (50% kill probability on non-manuvering targets). 6. High wing loading compromises ability to evade missiles through manoeuvring. The F-35 pilot will see the threat coming but won't be able to do much about it.
+wiskadjak 1. All stealth aircraft are visible to all radars--the real question is at what range. VHF radars can utilize Rayleigh scattering to partially bypass stealth shaping, but require gigantic antennas for decently long range. Significantly smaller antennas can be used, but then range will be significantly reduced. The end result in practical applications (with mobile units) is increased detection range against stealth aircraft, but still not that great and with insufficient resolution for targeting--stealth aircraft still have the advantage in range and situational awareness, although it is compromised. Stealth aircraft cannot defeat physics, but neither can radar. 2. How do you know that? 3. How do you know that? 4. Supersonic interceptors will still need to detect and target the F-35 first--good luck with that. 5. This is true when it's carrying air-to-ground ordnance, but it will be able to carry 4 and eventually 6 air-to-air missiles internally for air superiority missions. 6. The F-35 will be able to potentially defeat missiles in the same ways as other fighters, except not as well as some in terms of raw agility and kinematics. But that's not all there is to it.
Your not taking into account modern missles. The Low frequency radars and or RTD emitter triangulation techniques are adequate enough to place a missle with its onboard radar and IRST close enough to home in for the kill. Stealth or not. Especially if that stealth plane goes active jamming to counter it. Follow on missle easily follow suit. Look. Stealth is HEAVILY overstated
+Disappointed by Humanity Once spotted stealth still makes it hard for a missile to track you, it also makes ECM more effective, and by the time you have been spotted you are at an advantage, your missiles may already be in the air while you are just now popping up on the radar screen of the enemy who is working to ID the threat.
Jamenator1 Sorry you'll have to elaborate on that one. How exactly does stealth make it harder for a missile to track the aircraft? Especially interesting claim if IR or laser guidance is included. Reduction in workload to a degree yes. However the stealth would probably have to rely on it's own ECM unless it's operating in safe airspace for it's ECM assets. Which then negates the advantage of stealth and the need for heavy ECM. It's a possible scenario but as soon as you fire you give them no doubt and given the reliance, of the F-35 at least, on BVR the ability to fire first isn't really worth much. This of course assumes the stealth will fire without proper ID. And sticks to the narrow scenario of a long range air to air engagement. Many if not most scenarios do not give the stealth this capability.
Lol.. anyone saying this old guy has no idea what he's talking about... he was one of the developers for the F-16. The F-16 just beat the F-35 recently in a dogfight.
+Varuna Heart Then again the F-35 airframe used was one designed for maneuverability testing, it lacked weapon systems, because it wasn't a dogfight, it was a maneuverability test. And it's not like dogfighting capabilites matter anyway. Air to air combat is fought by long range missiles and stealth capabilities nowadays. Close range missiles and Cannons is like the 5 inch guns on an Arleigh Burke destroyer. They will never be used against an opponent with the same technology.
Andersng1 Sorry, I'd like to believe that but history has shown over and over and over again that dogfighting is important. They tried the whole missile with no equipped guns or cannons in Vietnam and guess what? It was a catastrophe. American Jets were losing to older Soviet Jets piloted by inexperienced Vietnamese pilots. That makes absolutely no sense. Now you may say, well... missile tech has improved significantly, but that's still a pretty piss poor argument. That's the argument management has been making for decades. There's a reason the F-16 whooped the F-35 in combat. And I know people who work on the F-18 systems. They also believe the F-35 is a failure.
+Varuna Heart He also said the M68 Patton Tank is better than the M1 Abrams. Pierre Sprey is a charlatan who did not design anything, he was just on the concept team. Even his buddies in the Fighter Mafia called him a loudmouth who liked injecting his (sometimes uninformed) opinion into discussions. It's clear he has some kind of vendetta against the F-35 and technology. The F-16 did not beat the F-35 in a dogfight. They were conducting a test on its flight control laws, in which the F-35 had its maneuverability reduced with intentional limitations in its flight software. To put it simply, the flight software used during the test prevented the F-35 from carrying out maneuvers it otherwise could. If you think that indicates that the F-35 is objectively worse than the F-16, that's ignoring the fact that the F-35 is still in development. _In fact_, the F-35 has repeatedly *beaten the F-16* in explicit 4-ship vs 4-ship combat tests. So to put it simply; *the F-16 did not whoop the F-35 in combat.* The F-35 was undergoing a test to expand and reconfigure its flight control laws, and that involved temporary software limitations as part of the process. *FUTHERMORE,* I'll just copy and paste this official Lockheed response to the article about the F-16 "whooping": Joint Program Office Response to “War is Boring” Blog July 01, 2015 The media report on the F-35 and F-16 flight does not tell the entire story. The F-35 involved was AF-2, which is an F-35 designed for flight sciences testing, or flying qualities, of the aircraft. It is not equipped with a number of items that make today's production F-35s 5th Generation fighters. Aircraft AF-2 did not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area. Second, AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. And third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target. The tests cited in the article were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers to stress the system, and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to maneuver against. While the dogfighting scenario was successful in showing the ability of the F-35 to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them, and handle in a positive and predictable manner, the interpretation of the scenario results could be misleading. The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual "dogfighting" situations. There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship of F-35s has engaged a four-ship of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology. The release of this FOUO report is being investigated. The candid feedback provided by our test community is welcomed because it makes what we do better. The disclosure of this report should not discourage our warfighters and test community from providing the Program Office and Lockheed Martin with honest assessments of the F-35's capabilities.
edawg792 No shit Lockheed is going to try to defend themselves lol, why are you even posting that junk? I personally KNOW people who program fighter jet software and they all say the same thing. F-35 is a friggin disaster. You can't refute that when these people are the ones who work on the jets.
The suseptible to ww2 era radars is in relation to low frequency radars which can datact stealth aircraft, however that argument is pointless, are here's why: Low frequency radars are large, and can't pinpoint a target very well, and are NOT the same radars aircraft use to lock on or detect others. Its like saying good tires are useless because you could use anything to make you car have SOME traction, but not a lot. He's didn't point out the fact that those radars have no effect on air to air combat other than knowing the general area of an aircraft, he just used the straw man argument to make it seem like stealth was useless because of low frequency radars. He can be the lead designer at Boeing and Lockheed or wherever, he's still just trying to make it look bad.
rifleman1002 Not necessarily, even if enemy fighters get in the air, by that time the air base is already destroyed or at long range the stealth gives the aircraft a targeting advantage.
David Hager We wouldn't send fighters to attack an Air Base. That's a Heavy Bomber's job. The only thing I could see that would defeat it is Air Burst Missiles or old fashion Flak. Anti-Missile systems are the dangerous ones because they are designed to take out small cruse missiles. BUKs are old fashioned, but they are the same idea as our Patriot missiles, and those things are insanely precise. And I would never believe this thing would be used as an attack jet. It's only going to be used as an interceptor at best and never will be used in a dogfight.
Considering it's stealth I would hope it would be used as a precise bomber more than other aircraft we have now, this is all considering the advent of smaller more accurate bombs rather than more dumb bombs to take out specific targets. 3 F-35's with precision bombs could take out a runway and a few buildings easily.
David Hager Considering the age of Conventional Warfare is over, this thing will never do that. All the nations we built this thing for have nuclear weapons, so the endeavor is useless. The jet, nor the tank is the future of warfare. It is space. America quit her space programs, now other nations like Russia and China will attempt to militarize it. If space is dominated by someone else, the game is up.
Yes we are. We are just delaying the decision. There are no alternatives. The Eurofighter is almost as expensive and would need extensive refitting to fly in Canada. The Sabb Griffin is not even an option. The Mirage would actually have to be physically altered to carry NATO weapons.
The Super Hornet would be almost 30 years younger than our CF-18A; easy to convert to for our techs and Pilots and much cheaper ! + Twin Engines... If the Australians are thinking of dumping it...! We should to ! Did I mentioned we were buying ours without ENGINES ??? its like you buying a brand new car without an engine? The dealership would look at you funny ??
I think Australia is reviewing their decision... After all the new US Jets lost during an Evaluation... / exercise.. They are not too happy with the results... Hope for the best...
@@ryanhuang6838Sound decision by them. They love them. Should do more research in the future than just grandpa here who had no idea what he was talking about.
His F-16 could "wax" the F-15? The F-16 has lost many air-to-air fights and has been shot down in several wars and conflicts. The F-15 has never lost an air-to-air fight in real world combat. Sounds to me like the real world disproved his theoretical world.
F-16 isn't even his lol. He wasn't a part of the F-16 design crew. He didn't even work for the company that designed the F-16. He worked for Grumman as a statistician.
+Ebin Menes :D:D on what do u base it. the words of lock head martin? they say its the best air plane. but the top speed is 1.63 mach WITH AFTER BURNER! and lock head martin said it could go 2 mach. this man is totaly right
Fernando Brinkers Pierre Sprey deliberately ignores information and only keeps what's convenient to his argument. Yes, the F-35 doesn't have a great top speed, but it's the only multi role aircraft that can reach that speed in full combat configuration. Add missiles to the F-16 and it doesn't even get close to mach 2.
Ebin Menes :D:D Yep, it's clear Sprey has no idea what he's talking about. No wonder his concepts and ideas never were built as he wanted them to be. That's probably why he shits all over them too, because he can't accept that his "super amazing ideas" weren't used.
When I lived in Ft Worth Tex where the F-16's were built, there would be a weekly 'airshow' by the pilots who were demonstrating its abilities, It IS the only airframe i have ever witnessed that had the abilities of a bat flying around overhead. I was in the USAF for 25 years and seen a lot of demos, the F-16 was just over the top and a trained pilot could wipe out the opposition in a air to air dogfight with relative ease. It may be old but the Falcon can still give any airplane a helluva fight and its small profile and sneaky paint scheme make that sucker hard as hell to see.
For that gentleman's information, the Harrier has a single engine with four gimballed exhausts, not a dedicated lift fan like the F-35. And it carries a huge and versatile war load. THAT's why the US Marine Corps loves it so. I just wish the RAF and RN in the UK (my home) had not been so quick to dump it. The USMC, not exactly cash-strapped, aren't hot to dump the Harrier 2.
The USMC are dedicated to replacing the AV-8B with the F-35B. They even skipped on replacing the F/A-18 with the Super Hornet in order to buy the F-35B. In reality the AV-8B is a maintenance nightmare and it has no loiter time It has to carry external fuel tanks just to reach the combat zone with maybe 3 500lb bombs, oftentimes only 1 bomb and an AGM-65E.
This interview should be played in the background for every F-35 flight demo as it smokes F-16 and Hornet performance in front of audiences just so you can see what an outright imbecile Pierre Sprey was for stating such a lengthy diatribe of lies.
ONLY because of its low observability and its excellent radar. And those are not features that can't be added to other aircraft. Note that the AF doesn't say anything about how well it does against legacy aircraft in a visual rules combat arena.
@@Turboy65 combat doctrine literally dictates planes are supposed to fight BVR? Iranian F-14s dominated the skies during the Iran-Iraq war so bad the Iraqi airforce had to intentionally avoid any airspace where the F-14 was spotted. The modern dogfight is more akin to a sniper duel than the old flying circuses.
So to sum it up,,, Against high end fighters like SU-30, F-15 and SU-35/MKI, this piece of shit can't turn, can't climb, can't hide, can't run, can't fight, Australia is fucked.
The problem with this guy is that he is basing his hypothesis on thinking that is based on 1970. Technology, computer, weapons systems, support, and maintenance, and last but not least the spread and coverage increase of hot spots being global now change a lot of the things he is basing his assumptions on. Whether he likes it or not combat has changed and threats have changed. Interdiction has moved up on the scale of importance over dogfighting. He also doesn't understand how the latest tech is used in modern warfare now and in the future. The things needed then (1970) are different now in the 21st century. Because his and his group's thinking wasn't accepted he now is throwing a fit like a two-year-old. These guys have an ego ten times worse than a fighter pilot and can't stand to lose. This is from someone that has worked from the inside.
This guy was in the design teams of widely popular F-16 and A-10 combat aircrafts. Having said that, It is very worthwhile listening to someone who knows great deal about aircraft's and also has the technical expertise and experience in hugely successful projects. Thank you.
No, he's a liar. He worked as an advisor to the advisor of an advisor. He was never a mechanical engineer. Every design he ever proposed was soundly rejected for being useless. All he does is claim the successes of other successful projects.
No he wasnt on ANY design team....ever. He is a music producer who one time was a consultant to a consultant at the Pentagon. Look up the term woozel to see about his credentials.
I generally warn people to not fall in love with techno war hype itself. Remember how badly techno war worked in Vietnam (if we are not suggesting that the idea was to put taxpayers money to pockets of American war industry).
Technology was at its infancy during the Vietnam Era. The air to air missiles were far from accurate because they were designed for intercepting and destroying bombers. The missed a lot against slick smaller targets such as fighters. Relying on missiles and not having a cannon on the Phantom was more of a human mistake than tech per say. Technology today is carefully developed with scientific data. We are far more advance than 50 years ago. Our platforms take many years in developing in comparison to the rush we had because we were at war and in need to remedy our military disadvantages.
that is the eastern way of war. drain your opponent resources, small surprise attacks to instill fear, brainwash the people into doing anything to win. every war after ww2 has been like this
and THAT is what we are struggling against right now, with traitors like we have in the WH and congress and senate. Its a game by the elitists [1%ers] to keep as many brush wars and threats of terrorism from radicals and the sabotaging agents in our own political parties and govt departments along with the marxist media talking parrot heads.
this is why countries like Greece went bankrupt, (besides corruption) and the U.S. is always running on financial deficit; the country is being run by morons, and politicians are voted into office by morons...and morons like rjdnunes think they're smarter, but are actually dumber than the rest...but get an equal, if not sometimes greater voice than the truly intellectual vis their words of scorn;...as a result the dumb out weight the smart, and the country goes into the can, by virtue of democracy, and a freedom of the stupid to express themselves.
Hello, I'm from the future and this guy was right in this 2012 interview. In 2021 the pentagon ultimately admitted the plane is a failure after spending a trillion dollars on it. Now it wants more money to create a whole new plane.
No, they absolutely did not. The Chief of Staff of The Airforce did an interview and was taken out of context, he had to later go on and make a video correcting the dishonest reporting that had been going on. What he said is that they need a replacement for the F-16. The JSF was never supposed to fully replace the F-16, only around half. The problem with the F-16 is that it's old and its systems don't talk to each other, making data fusion difficult, it's important that as fighters the US uses can contribute to a battlefield network as possible. The 4th Gen fighters don't do that, which is why the F-15c is getting replaced by the F-15EX, and the navy is upgrading all its Super Hornets to block III. General Brown went on to add that they're doing a study of what capabilities they need for a replacement for the F-16. which could take years. The Idea is that they want an inexpensive airplane that utilizes data fusion. It probably won't be a stealth aircraft. He said that he wanted to moderate the use of the F-35, as a matter of readiness. He never said the F-35 failed, he never said they were getting rid of it, or that they were buying less of them. The F-35 is an incredible aircraft, since the aircraft has been unlocked the past several years it's been dominating at Red Flag, with a roughly 20-1 win/loss ratio. It has a really powerful engine with outstanding transonic acceleration, it's capable of view high AoA and has nose authority similar to the Hornet, with the Aim-9x it makes it a very dangerous aircraft to merge with. People always complain about new aircraft, they did the same thing with the F-5, 14, 15, 16, and 18. All of which proved themselves to be incredible aircraft in their own right. This is exactly the same thing.
In the first dog fight between the F16 and the F35 the F16 won. The pentagon and the manufacture responded that the F35 didn't have its "electronics" and that it was designed to shoot down enemy planes at "long distance". It reminded me of the early F4 Phantom that didn't have a gun because the pentagon and the Air Force thought that dogfighting was a thing of the past and the F4 would shoot down enemies at a "long distance" using "electronics"... That didn't turn out to well...Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
+Steve Savage To be fair 200 rounds is a decent ammo load for a fighter. And given the thin skin of the F-35 I doubt it'll be making gun runs. They'll just stick to what they do now against ISIL. Dropping $20,000 bombs on $1,000 trucks from 40,000ft. Hopefully they'll run out of trucks and cheap AA guns before we run out of money.
This is one man's assessment of an aeroplane of which he does not approve. His opinions would certainly be biased as they have been in the past. BTW, the anti-Abbott folk on this thread need to take a history lesson before they bag him.
I would take credit for that, too. He has proven to be spot on with his 'idea's'. A man with grate insight on how to design and develop a plane for a specific combat role.
Free Thought u want to know why the f-35 is a piece of shit, cuz it cost 400 billions and still have engine failure (the usaf fear that the plane can explode in flight) and a bunch of nasty problem. it is in developpement since 1996 and still no truly amazing result exceptoon made of the engine failure and blablabla...
ragasdapper The Typhoon broke even with the F-22 in dog fighting exercises. What it doesn't say is how badly an F-22 would absolutely ass rape it in modern combat. Hell the F-22 has more than triple the Typhoons radar and infrared range with 25k + on its missile range.
F15 loaded up with junk?!?!?! I guess thats why it has over 150 kills with 0 ZERO loses. This guy isnt even a has been, hes a nobody. I like how Boyd isn't alive to speak for his self. So the Turkey himself will speak for him.
It's sad really. Sprey just takes the achievements of Boyd and Hillaker for himself and tries to convince everybody he did something other than convince politicians to get early funding for the YF-16.
Sprey is a clown. He was wrong about the F-14. He was wrong about the F-15. He was wrong about the F-16. He was wrong about the F-18. He was wrong about the A-10. He was wrong about the F-22. And he is wrong about the F-35.
I think the premise is that the F-35's ability to detect and shoot down the enemy before they could detect you would end the fight before a dogfight could take place. Of course, they said the same thing about the F-4 during the Vietnam war, and even went so far as not fitting it with a internal cannon. History repeating itself.
Sometimes relying solely on technology alone to win a war has been proven under certain circumstances to backfire. This happened to the US in Vietnam and to the former Soviet Union while they were in Afghanistan during the old Soviet/Afghan conflict. However,Big Brother sort of cheated doing it's part to help those Afghan fighters fight back against the Soviets by having the CIA sneak in the man portable sized shoulder mounted surface to air Stinger missiles to help them take down their numerous MI-24 Hinds. This was because the RPG's were not exactly well suited for being anti air weapons as their design was originally for light to moderately armored ground vehicles like jeeps,trucks and small lighter weight tanks. Still,even I have been convinced that the F-35 was a scam ever since the program was only perhaps a few years old. It's true that Pierre Sprey is perhaps somewhat biased,about this plane but so am I and countless others who see this POS for what it really is. It's a well known fact that you can only make a singular fighter/attacker or multirole based air frame do so much,as there's no such thing as one air frame that can ever be the perfect jack of all trades type of plane that can replace every well proven fighter and attacker plane within an entire military's fleet within all three services,and that alone should speak volumes to anyone who even knows at least few things about how modern fighter/attacker jets work.
yes and Mr Spreys core point really is that the swiss army knife concept does not work . And the fact he and the fighter mafia worked within the military industrial complex they know how that system interacts with the wants of generals and the rules of procurement be it 40 years ago or now. they've seen the mistakes, and seen humans repeat them, seems the system hasn't improved.
Then the problem turns out to be obsolete US missiles, and the fact that the F-35s weapon bays are too small to fit the brand new European ramjet missile Meteor.
At least the F-4 had two engines for survivability, and mach 2 and 1/4 speed if it needed to turn and run. How on earth do F-35 pilots plan on bugging out? Mach 1.6+ is garbage, 5th gen fighters can SUPERCRUISE at that speed.
This guy has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. He's a die hard WW2 larper, with no idea how modern combat and modern armour works. His explanation of what a "ground support vehicle" should be are about 50 years out of date (from the time of the interview)... Go figure... He's just another money for hire "expert," just like they guys that go on American television and downplay Russian/Soviet equipment.
Our beloved President Dwight Eisenhower warned the American people in his farewell address to the American public "of the growing military and industrial complex" in 1960. How true were his words
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...
Yeah - what does he know? Oh wait - he designed the F-16 and A-10 - nuff said. Good thing I'll have my great grandchildren playing the debt for this turkey. Gobble - gobble.
F-15 turned out pretty well. After over 40 years in service, it's almost universally recognized to be one of the most successful fighters flying today. F-22 may be overpriced, but it's also incredibly capable at air superiority. It's truly stealthy to aircraft radar, supermaneuverable, high-supercruise capable, and has one of the lowest wing loadings and highest thrust-to-weight's of any plane. It has an excellent AESA radar and good BVR missiles, and in the end, doesn't cost much more than the F-35.
+Bill Kong F-22 project cost is what.. 66 billion? F-35 is 1,5 trillion? It's hilarious. I mean 66 billion is like an annual budget of a small nation, but 1,5 trillion is beyond belief. And one of them is actually a very capable plane. There's a reason why they're trying to sell F-35's to other nations but keeping F-22 for their own use :p Can't fix shit by throwing money at it. Can't understand who makes the decisions to spend such ludicrous sums on a plane-project.
***** Maybe. It obviously depends a lot upon mission configuration and amount of remaining fuel. If we take both aircraft with a full A2A load and 10k lb of fuel, then the F-22A gets 1.24 T:W with A/B. The F-15C gets about 1.16. More impressively, the F-22A with 8 missiles and 5k lb of fuel can get 1.01 T:W on only military thrust!
The late F-15C's started getting F-100-229's which make ~6000 lbf more thrust per engine than the -100. I'd call that an upgrade. I guess that's true. Unfortunately, the F-14B never did have F-119's installed, and there are other planes with higher T:W anyways. In the end, it's not a terribly useful comparison.
+Bill KongYou do realize that you are comparing air superiority aircraft to multirole aircraft right? If an F-35 went toe to toe with an F-22 it would be shot down in less than a heartbeat. There would be no competition. However, compared to any 4th gen aircraft the F-35 beats them alone on its stealth capabilities alone. There is no doubt that the F-15 and F-22 are fabulous planes but their roles are completely different. The F-15 is the only aircraft with it's length of service that has never been shot down in air to air combat and that alone is impressive. However. the F-15 wouldn't even see the F-35 coming and the F-35 is arguably the best BVR combat aircraft out there. It has the farthest ranged air radar in the world that has a range of 250 km and that is 30 more than the next one that is the Eurofighter.
They said the same thing about the 117. It flew like crap but look what it could do. Low frequency radar takes forever he's so out of date they actually use phased array radar to find stealth and circumvent ECM. Even with phased array radar you need to actively scan in order to find stealth airplanes (which makes you a huge target). but now they also use decoys and missles that have built in ECM the stealth air raft operate outside the fringes of detection. It's purpose to get the ordnance even closer. Think about it and look at the newest munitions standoff capacities. This guy is a aerospace engineer and not too savy when it comes to modern computerized warfare. You could say all the same things about each drone. And another thing if his principle about designing a plane for a special purpose is true then he needs to be brought up to speed on warfare using stealth aircraft ....it's not about being completely I invisible everywhere, it's about reducing the range of the radars being used about 3 to 4 times or more of what it is normally which is enough to at least get antiradiation missles within range of the radars. But the 60mile+ range of the newest generation of glide bombs is more than adequate plus alot more bang for buck
its no mach for the Russian Sukhoi Su-30MKK which is cheaper and design to be a dog fighter first and foremost and I am an American and i believe this i am not a Russian troll like you usually see on here
Ronnie Fairley The su30 is not a 35 or the experimental 37 which will never be mass produced however I havent heard of any flaws on this plane care to enlighten me? The customers love it and it should mince meat 70/80's vintage USAF aircraft (there whole inventory give or take).
Super Flankers don't even survive against the Gripen C or J-10C. China already figured that out during the past 6 years. Gripen C and J-10C are several magnitudes lesser than F-35 in every important metric. F-35 easiy has first-look/first-shoot against Gripen/J-10/any 4.5 Gen fighter. It also has first opportunity to employ networked ECM in ways fighters have never even been able to do. There's a reason China is building J-20s as fast as they can, while upgrading the J-10C standard, combined with producing the PL-15 BVRAAM missile.
@@Choros22 Su-30MK series have had all sorts of maintenance issues with the AL-31 motors, the Bars PESA radar, anything electronic, hydromechanical, missile interface, etc. Indian Air Force has years of complaints and bad experiences with it. There's a reason they're buying Rafales.
Dude, they're all the same - "stealth" is a fucking marketing gimmick that makes the aircraft stupidly expensive and impractical to the point that pilots can't even get the air time they need to fly it. Doesn't matter if it's American, Russian, Chinese, or fucking Namibian...if anything the Russians and Chinese are worse because they're literally just copying the idea with a child-like MINEZ GUNNA BETERRERRRRR mentality which seems to just permeate people's thinking nowadays.
The Su-50 has 3 on board radar systems. One short wavelength X-Band radar in the nose, a smaller version of the same X-Band radar in the tail for looking backwards and a third, long wavelength L-Band radar in the wings, like the ones Mr. Spray mentioned in the video, especially for detecting stealth aircraft. Long wavelength L-Band radar is also used as weather radar. The problem with it is that it doesn't pierce through clouds. If it would pierce through clouds, it wouldn't be useful as a weather radar of course. That is why usually fighter jets only use low wavelength X-Band radar and that is why US American stealth technology as we know it today is specialized on being as invisible as possible to those X-Band radar systems, but are basically useless against L-Band radar. A stealth fighter could still hide from L-Band radar behind or within clouds, but that is something every aircraft can do. Also the problem with hiding from any kind of radar is that you only know where it is and how to hide from it once your radar warning system has picked up its pulses and once that has happened, of course it has detected you too. If the F-22 or the F-35 would ever engage in strike missions against an opponent with real anti air capabilities, they would probably have to operate in the exact same way non-stealth aircraft did it in Operation Desert Storm or the campaign against Serbia. They would have to resort to flying under the radar (to which they are less well equipped than older, more maneuverable jets) or engage their targets with long range standoff weapons that can be launched from outside the range of enemy SAM. With other words, with the exception of the super cruise ability of the F-22 and some improvements in the pilot interface (like voice control and stuff like that), both stealth fighters can't really do anything the F-16 and F-15 can't already do.
Spjungen Yes, the stealth fad didn't just take hold of the international military nerd scene but did infect politicians and even generals in charge of military procurement. Because those things look so science fiction-ish and cool, people just believe they must be better than anything else without really asking questions. It is actually quite funny that even the Russians and Chinese felt themselves pressured into the fad, because they ought to know how useless it is due to the fact that they still use military L-Band radar and have been working on perfecting it for decades, while western militaries dismissed it and subsequently western engineers all but forgot about it. Coming back to the military nerd scene, I must admit it is quite satisfying to see how the "stealth religion" is slowly collapsing on itself recently, after reading and listening to all this smug bullshit that was spewed over the supposed superiority of the F-22 and F-35 for almost 2 decades now. I had given up on fighting people on their religion-like believe in stealth technology and the oh so great F-22/F-35 and had resorted to saying stuff like: "Yeah, yeah, the Raptor/Lightning is the best, but that other thing is good too because...." People even refused to call the Eurofighter Typhoon a 5th generation fighter because it doesn't look science fiction-ish enough and I told them: "Even a retarded child is still part of its generation.", while being fully aware that the Typhoon is not a retarded child and is actually the better aircraft, but nothing I said about the shortcomings of the F-22 and F-35 and nothing I explained about the advantages of the Typhoon or other aircraft ever was able to pierce through that stubborn, childlike believe in Northrop's/Lockheed"s marketing propaganda. After over a decade of this it is so satisfying to see the F-22 and F-35 proverbially tumbling out of the skies. I am not an anti-American who revels in American failure. It really is a emotional reaction to all the bullshit that was thrown at me for so long and all the angry backlash and FLAK I got for simply defending facts and reality, what makes me feel shadenfreude over the stealth fighter debacle now.
TrangleC Stealth does have a role, it just can not be the only thing you bring to the party. This goes for land, sea and air. One thing to consider is that stealth can be more than just radar, take the gripen yeah the radar cross section of the F35 is smaller but the IR signuter of the gripen is smaller. In a dog fight my money is on the gripen. And that the cheap option there are better fighters out there
The whole thing smacks of "back in my day..." sour grapes. And "back in your day" we had thinks like Vietnam, which weren't exactly super terrific fun times when the government was making awesome decisions every day, either.
How do you know our enemies fear any of our weapons? Do you have spies in their military? No. You only have the propaganda spewed by our military, defense contractors and their lobbyists, and the congressmen their lobbyists bribe.
I'm not the biggest fan of the f35, and I agree that the Grippen or eurofighter would have been a better plane for Canada, but ya boy Pierre here, has never designed a single aircraft, in his opening statement of this clip claims that the airforce's high/low principle doesn't work, yet it has been proven to be a more than capable system for going on 50 years now, see the F15/F16 combo, by the way both of those aircraft Sprey claims to have designed
I believe that everything this guy says is correct. The F-35 is not capable of holding up to the current needs of any of the aircraft it is going to replace.
Of course, the irony here is that one of the primary benefits touted of the F-35 program was that a single airframe to do all these tasks would save money.
It's getting really boring listening to people comparing the F-35 with things like the Su-35 and the F-16. It's like comparing a DH Mosquito and a Spitfire; designed with totally different objectives, and it's not at all surprising that they perform differently.
+sean n Imagine how many condoms you could buy for the people who can't afford to feed their kids who shouldn't be having them in the first place... I hate government waste but I also hate that fucking argument. Any program like this employs and puts food on the table for thousands of employees and their familes... That aside yes I'm extremely skeptical of the entire F-35 program. I think a better statement would be how many BETTER aircraft could be developed and bought for what this program has cost.
sean n not only kids, this money can be spent on health care or any other field which can be a boon for the common people. The vast sum should be used for the public.
F-35's vertical takeoff predecessor the Harrier had many of the same alleged "disadvantages". But let's not speculate. In actual Falklands era combat Harriers shot down: 9 IAI Daggers (Mirage V equivalent), 7 A-4 Skyhawks, 1 Mirage III. No Harriers were lost in air-to-air combat
La única razón por la que fueron útil en Malvinas fue porque EEUU les dio los que en ese momento eran los misiles más modernos . Si Argentina tendría los mismos misiles la historia sería lo contrario a lo que ocurrió. Porque los Harrier no tenían ninguna ventaja sobre otros aviones por ser lentos .
The woman interviewer had a hard time reconciling his responses. Or digesting his displeasure for the F-35. She is seriously trying to find something affective about the F-35, but is shown no mercy from Pierre.
We shoot down 1-f117 1-B2 7-F16 3-F15 and lot off done... our modern airplane is only a 8 MiG-29 from 1982y in bad conditions and SAM Neva from 1972y, we Serbian have 10 mil inhabitant and us attack 1999y NATO 19 country....but we are brave, an we are still alive!
***** Sure,sure,sure that is why your government lies to their own people. it was supposed to be invisible, but a very old missile system shot it down Hahahahaha Looser.
@@SeanP7195 Tell me what you get for 90 million, do they send entire jet or is it in parts, lacking weapons? I'm asking because every time our deers buy weapons, we get like half of the package for the price before money falls under the table and they forget about it.
So the F-35 can't maneuver, it could only carry two bombs internally, and it can't dogfight. If that's the case, we should simply bring back the F-117 and upgrade it.
+Megalodon64 The F-117 is one of the worst airplaines ever made in terms of maneuverability and flying power; the only purpose of that "plain" is stealth, anything else is worse it even has no weapon for air-to-air fight, if another plain can see it, it shoot down the f-117
The F-15 WAS a great fighter. The Sukhoi-27 completed after the Eagle broke all the Eagle's records. Its maneuverability is superior. It has rear facing radar. Higher angle of attack ability. Higher turning ability.
Steps to making a great multirole airplane (it's been done = P-47, F-4, F-15, F-16). 1. Make an awesome air superiority fighter - great radar/guns, greater than 1 thrust to weight, high speed, etc. 2. Strap a LANTIRN pod to it and/or mod the radar. 3. Add bombs, cameras, anti-ship missiles, etc. Since you have a good airframe, it can carry the stuff at high speed. 4. Argue on YT about it being the best all around fighter of all time.
@Laz N The F-35 went 144-1 at Red Flag. That means that out of 145 engagements it lost once. Sprey is a charlatan that makes stuff up and he calls anything he doesn’t like a Turkey. He even hates the F-15 and the F-15 has not ever been shot down in air to air combat. So why would I listen to him?
I agree with Sprey about the F-35 being a lemon. It's a very expensive piece of junk. However, there is no reality where the f-16 would compete with the F-15.
The F-15 has always been excellent, but Boyd and Sprey knew they could do better. The result, the YF-16. It rang rings around the F-15. Pity was the F-15 was what the Air Force really wanted so they deliberately sabotaged the YF-16 so it couldn't out perform the F-15 anymore. They added 2 tons of weight, multi roled it, effectively turning the best dogfighter in the world into a bombtruck. They wouldn't even increase the size of the wings to minimize all the lost maneuverability. The F-16's still great, but its no YF-16.
@@incar95678 That 2 tons of weight and multiroling is what made the F-16 good. The YF-16 was only good and dogfighting and that is it. You need far more then that to make a good aircraft
+Fons negentienachtenvijftig Yes, in a very irrelevant simulation, where the F-35's test software was limiting the rate of pitch that its elevators could produce, inherently limiting its sustained and instantaneous turn rates. The F-35 was also not in BVR, where it is extremely potent, but in WVR. Now the F-35 can dominate WVR, but it was placed in a turning fight, nowadays an irrelevant competition cited in discussions by those to push an agenda. The turn fight is not the end-all, be-all of dogfights, or we might be flying T-38s instead of F-22As. Many will talk about thrust-to-weight ratios, wing loading, drag-to-weight ratio, aircraft wing design, and fuselage design, all leading to discussion and a penis-measuring competition between turn radii of combat craft. Have I got news for you! Turning radius is not the end all of who wins in a dogfight. Let's continue to talk about how this affects, and relates to, the F-35. Let me introduce you to the AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS). I’ll spare you the details, but the succinct version is that Northrop Grumman has quite literally put eyes on the back of the F-35′s head. 360-degree IRST, you read that correctly omni-fricking-directional IRST, plus immediate weapon launch detection and tracking means not only will he or she see any fighters close enough to see him on IRST, he’s going to know the moment they shoot as well, giving him plenty of time to take evasive action. It’ll also give him time to send an AIM-9X Block 2 after the enemy, since the DAS provides 360-degree missile targeting for the new Sidewinders too (which makes the dogfighting issue even less relevant - *getting a rear-aspect shot on the enemy doesn’t matter much when you can literally shoot at a guy your plane isn’t even turned towards).*
knupder *I am an 18-year old college student. That's all.* I am not a paid expert from any defense department/ministry, company, aerospace/aeronautical engineer, miltary official, or fighter pilot. Happy? I do, however, have a lot of skepticism and am very discerning. I enjoy the machines and equipment of aerospace defense. When I'm not doing schoolwork, or doing physical activity, I research defense. It is truly a passion of mine; I approach things with an unbiased view and recognize potency where it can be verified by reputable sources, and refute inconsistencies where evident and also verifiable by sources.
The F35 was designed to to be Jack of all trades. An NFL team will NEVER recruit one football player to be both their agile wide receiver and the massive defensive line center. But that is how the requirements were written for the F35. The F35 will NEVER be good at anything. Same as a 300 pound wide receiver or a 150 pound center. And a team that does this will lose the game regardless of the other capable players, even Tom Brady can’t save them. Sadly, without air superiority, every player on the battlefield will suffer. Many will not survive.
he worked with fighet jets in the 60s...... As an consulting statistician .... he currently makes jazz music and own is own label company "mapleshade", and also sells stereo equipment...... he also sings in Kanye West's song "Jesus walks". I mean, what the fu** people!!!! Why do ANYONE care what this person thinks or says??? Did any one ask Britney Spears what SHE thinks of the F35?? Lets ask her, and make a big story out of her "insightful" response
Jester hundreds of people works in the design of the F16 . and as you said, the f16 was extremely successful. Lookheed Martin made a very good plane. But when F16 first arrived in the 70's, it had many skeptics, and many (well educated people) who believed it should be "scrapped" as a project. it also had alot of problems, with pretty much every system. But instead of screaming "lemons" and cancelling what you refer to as the "most successful modern plane to date", Lockheed pushed on, fixed problems, inovated solutions, and revolutionized the way be build fighter planes NOW a new project begun, to build a multirole stealth fighter (wich in all essence is a bomber, hence the multirole) to change the way we do warfare, to change "few large bomber planes, easy to shoot down" into a "brigade of hard to detect mini-bombers" who can maneuver away from attacks, and who can even engage a incoming fighter jet, with a fair chance to actual make a kill -no other bomber planes have these abilities, THIS is the future of air to ground warfare and it will face alot of problems, just like the f16 before its finished www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/outrageous-adolescence-f-16-180949491/?no-ist
jan Laady He designed the F-16 and the A-10, two of the most successful military airplanes of the 1970s. The trouble is, he still thinks that the only good fighter is a sporty little plane with one engine like the F-16, when the F-15 and F-22 have already proven him wrong. He does make a good point about the F-35 being a mediocre airplane, thanks to its jack-of-all trades design. It's stealthy and has good electronics, but it doesn't have the speed, climb rate, or payload to be a proper fighter - the V/STOL requirement just forced too many compromises. The Air Force had a real winner with the F-22, which can do everything the F-15 can AND it's stealthy.
+CountArtha "he designed" Dude, he didn't design jack shit. He and some other old people said "THE F-16 SHOULDNT HAVE RADAR" and now everyone gives him credit for the LWF program.
This is the guy who, along with others (Boyd), helped create the most successful generation of aircraft to date in the "Teen Series" and the A-10. Those "ideas on fighter design"(you mean E-M theory?) changed the nature of aircraft design. Every fighter (except the F-35) has been designed according to some aspect of Boyd's E-M Theory including the F-22. So give credit where do. He may be cynical with old age and a little extreme, but the man has contributed a lot, you can't fault him for that.
Pierre Sprey, a few facts about him:
Despite internet claims to the contrary, he didn't design the F-16 nor the A-10 or any other aircraft. He has consistently exaggerated his role in the field of aircraft design, he is a statistician not an engineer.
He hated the F-15, the claims he now makes about the F-35 are the same ones he made about the F-15 Eagle. It was too expensive, too big, to complicated etc. It has a 100-0 kill ratio, proving how wrong he was.
He did not want the F-16 to even have a radar. He wanted it armed with only a cannon and short range IR missiles. The modern F-16 is the antithesis of what he wanted and it is a highly successful aircraft in spite of Sprey not because of Sprey.
His ideas on the capabilities of medium and long range radar guided missiles are at least 30 years out of date. He seems to think we're still using Vietnam era AIM-7's.
He keeps spouting his outdated disinformation and people keep buying it. It is worthy to note that he is now in the music recording business because his opinion on aircraft design is not considered worthwhile by anyone who knows anything about modern combat aircraft.
Oh, one more. Back before the USAF determined the cause of the issue with the F-22's pilot oxygen system Sprey said that it was because of adhesive fumes coming from the fuselage heating up at or above Mach 1.6. Just more proof that he's been wrong about everything he's claimed in the last 30 years.
US military force just admitted F35 is a failure
@@kimidas2610 No, they didn't.
@14ALL41OK LOL. No, he's still wrong, he's still not an aircraft designer and the people who buy into his nonsense are still foolish. The USAF wanting to purchase some lower tier F-16 replacements is not the same thing as "the F-35 sux" that ignorant people think, it's just the simple truth that there are different aircraft for different roles. USAF hasn't cut any planned F-35 purchases, and have specifically stated that they have no plans to do so.
Even if anything you wrote held a candle of truth, it still wouldn't validate the practical existence of the f35. It doesn't take a genius to understand the concept of lift and drag on maneuverability and on loitering time.
Or the fact that an accurate machine gun is still nessessary for CAS. Or the fact stealth doesn't effect long wave early warning systems, and has limited effect against radar-based weapon guidance systems (of course there are other tracking methods besides radar) that use multistatic detection. Not to mention the careful design, extensive testing, exotic materials, high maintenance costs and reduced payload.
Or the fact that a service life of ~2,000 hours is dogshit compared to the operational standard.
Or the fact that equipping an aircraft with IEEE based avionics using Windows is probably a bad idea for such a wireless, tech-heavy specification.
Or the fact that the "first look first kill" doctrine is complete lockheed PR garbage because looking first doesn't assure a kill against multiple simultaneous targets, or that you have the missile capacity to engage multiple targets before getting overwhelmed.
Or that VTOL conveys more overall benefits than costs when compared to STOL, particularly when it comes to the safety tolerances of using one large jet engine, compared to the redundancy of two.
Or the utter failure of ALIS, including the inability to produce any high fidelity simulation facility to supposedly beat those nifty enemy AA systems.
And the 871 (10 of which are Cat I) other problems of this 1.7 trillion dollar travesty. For a trillion dollars this plane had better be flying everywhere around the world at full production yesterday.
@14ALL41OK Utter nonsense. It's really amazing how people will take the ignorance spread by the media so seriously. The people writing these articles by and large wouldn't know and F16 from an A10 without a cheat sheet.
He said the same things about the F-15. A supposed big plane with lots of "junk". It only has a 100+:1 kill ratio, and has never been shot down by an enemy. Yep... "junk".
Against who and what Jet fighters? USA only attack countries with little or no defense (poor countries) , so the f15 got to fight with outdated fighters that were 20years behind!!!
@@georgeyoung4292 yep
@@georgeyoung4292 F-14 tomcat
@@georgeyoung4292 Israel used the F15 against peer level opponents. Each and every time they dominate the skies.
@Luis The Polish wanted F-15's to offset the latest Su-27's in Russia. Because their Air Force is so much smaller, they decided to spend the extra, money and go for the F-35, which will pretty much dominate anything Russia has right now. That said, the latest F-15's are pretty much at peer with the best version of Su-27.
This is the most horribly uninformed comment section.
Pierre was a big blowhard that liked to hear himself talk. He is a perfect example of the saying it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.
"Not they're very good, just not as bad as the F35" ouch
This guy is a jazz musician, not an expert
The F35 is not a fighter. That is a misnomer. Everyone is judging the F35 based on outdated definitions of an effective fighter. What's ironic about this interview is that, in combat trials, a 4-ship of F35s has defeated a rival 4-ship of F16s prior to the merge. Every. Single. Time. This is why the funding is so high for JSF. Campaign-level utility is not measured in a ship-to-ship merged close combat scenario. It is measured in combat effectiveness of a unit operating in a theater-sized 3-d space. A 3-d space the F35 understands very well. It doesn't matter that an F16 can out turn and out gun an F35. The F16 never even reaches that stage of combat before it's a smoldering heap.
What we've seen in the Russia-Ukraine war contradicts this entirely. Even older surface to air systems like the Buk and S300 have proven to be more effective than anyone had expected, leading to the SU-25 (basically a better A10) being used the most.
@@ibtarnine that’s not a good comparison st all though, Russia would be using fifth gen aircraft if they had them, but they only have like 5-6 Su57s.
@@connorbranscombe6819 They don't need to. It comes down to how well the F35 can conduct SEAD/DEAD sorties against Russian air defence. It's an educated guess but my prediction is not very well.
@@MrGunwitch Why? Little Bakyatar drones have been coducting SEAD in Ukraine lmao, a fifth gen stealth aircraft would mop the floor with em.
@@connorbranscombe6819 It's Bayraktar not Bakyatar, and no, they've been completely underwhelming in Ukraine to the point where their viability is now seriously in question.
Sounds like my grandpa telling me how bad cell phones are.
Not to mention MS Word on your PC. As our 90 year old uncle once said "Why don't they just use pencils?!?!?"
This video is older than the upload date and what's funny is that everything he said came out to be true!
Roger Clemons It was never about winning a war. It was about creating instability in a region and that mission was accomplished.
Platinum Swords
I too think you are right here. USA is, at the moment, so powerful nation that she actually does not need to win a war she engages to (indeed not so with basically any other nation). In this light it is very sufficient to simply trample on all over the place with all that power, to turn the place into a bloody pulp, then just pick up something to talk about and then just leave when done with it.
MrNotadream Harold Macmillan: ‘My dear boy, you’ll be fine as long as you don’t invade Afghanistan.’
Roger Clemons You show an incredible amount of stupidity in your statement. First you dismiss the Taliban as rag tag fighters. The Mujahadeen has existed for centuries and Afghanistan has never been conquered. Not by the Russians, Americans, Napoleon or Alexander the Great.
Much of what you just mentioned is moot. You are fighting in the mountains and terrain where most of the weapons you mentioned were not of much use. If you think you can judge the quality of the US Military based on their actions in Afghanistan - you would be incredibly ignorant to do so. The Taliban are no rag tag army. They received plenty of support from Pakistan and Iran as well.
Roger Clemons You do understand and know that the taliban was made and supported by US back in 1970s right?
I flew fighters for 20 years. After retiring I worked in Electronic Warfare development for the USAF. I do not have current data on the F-35, but here is the theory. Long wavelength radars can detect, but are not precise enough to guide missiles. Stealth is effective against the short wavelengths which are used by fighters and are needed to guide missiles. The F-35 stealth will be effective against those short wavelengths. Most fighters shot down did not know they were under attack.
BVR (beyond visual range) firing requires that you have a system to tell if the target is friendly or hostile. MiGs in Vietnam were shot down by their own anti-aircraft. American multi-sensor technology is far ahead of the Russians in this area, partly because we did not have it in Vietnam and had to develop it. This is part of "situational awareness", at which the F-35 will be far superior, using multiple systems. The more I learn about the F-35, the better I like it!
+Bruce Gordon yea sure. LOL
+Bruce Gordon You are the pilot of 20 years and do not know that for many years there is a system on the aircraft to determine friend or foe?
+Bruce Gordon Your an idiot.
+Fons negentienachtenvijftig I don't know you, but I know fighters and radar and think that this Pierre Sprey is completely wrong.
+Bruce Gordon Well, that is fine when the F-35 is located remotely to use their missiles because it is supposedly "invisible" to radar and is not detectable but when the F-35 is left without missiles (I think it can only carry 4 in their cellars) as it is to defener against Su35 supermaniobrable face to face when you left your gun only to defend ?.I Guess I'll have to turn around.
this guy is doing a brah moment the 35 is the best fighter ever made dude sounds like a reformer
This guy is literally one of the poster children for the reformers lol
He is the worst of the reformers. He literally steals ideas from other reformers and passes it off as his own.
God damn reformers
I know something that can kill any 5th generation or 4.5 generation aircraft. It's the most revolutionary system to date and has a 100% kill rate when used effectively. It's called a Bird in the engine......
Alecxace no, it's called 1970's designed fighter against F35.
MrJohnbatist
PSHH please birds kill those too. F-16 or not shove a turkey in that engine!
+Alecxace
Shh, we cannot let the terrorists know our weakness or else they will start a turkey recruitment drive.
An effective countermeasure against bird strike is to place several Hudson rivers on the earth and recruit Sullies. Piece of cake!
Tiger, there's a time when you'll have to choose between "being someone" and "doing something".
Redditor here and ex-F-35 pilot *confirmed*. I used to drive these magnificent bastards all over the western hemisphere (the F35 would seize up in Eastern hemisphere climates so we couldn't drive them there). I remember the dogfights me and boys got into "Red 1 to Red 5... Stay on target.... stay on target!!" they used to say, during the middle east crisis raids. I met a lot of good Redditors on those escapades. And here we are once again "le redditors united" (as we used to say), on /r/atheism and /r/politics reminiscing in these euphoric days. Well... for old times sake, LE REDDITORS UNITE !!!!!!! *tip of the hat* to my euphoric F35 crew mates (you know who I mean Redditors!)
fuck off shill
I flew in your squat. My callsign was Euphoric. Remember me?
Cool story bro! (old meme, you youtube kids might not remember it)
" to drive" that's the wrong verb for pilot to use; you drive a car not a plane.
lmfao @ "Red 1 to Red 5 stay on target" lmaooo
The guy knows what he is talking about, he helped design two planes that have some of the longest active service lives to date (F-16, and A-10).
+Outamyhead just remember that some who knows what they are talking about can still lie based on their own personal agenda. For example don't you just love the way he trashes the F-15? I mean it only has the greatest air-air combat record ever, over 100 air-air kills and zero air-air losses, much better than the F-16 which he claims is better
I also love the way he says that multirole aircraft are terrible, yet the F-16 he boasts about is famous for being one of the best multirole aircraft in history, and it was designed that way while the F-15 was designed solely for air-superiority and he says its terrible.
He claims the F-35 is a poor aircraft for troop support. Yet its the only aircraft i know of which has a system able to detect and automatically mark locations of muzzle flashes on the ground anywhere around the aircraft. Thanks to the DAS.
He says stealth doesn't work against long wave radar's, well duh, but long wave radars are huge and inaccurate by their very nature. Stealth is designed to work against short wave length fighter and active missile radars, and it does work against these radars. So again he is only telling the half of the story which favors his argument.
Of course he is going to talk shit about the aircraft which is going to end up replacing 2 of his aircraft
+Jamenator1 "He says stealth doesn't work against long wave radars, well duh, but long wave radars are huge and inaccurate by their very nature. Stealth is designed to work against short wave length fighter and active missile radars, and it does work against these radars. So again he is only telling the half of the story which favors his argument."
Well, whoever America ends up fighting will be capable of building computer networks just as well as anybody. How long until someone develops a system that can integrate information from low frequency radar with modern active scanned doppler systems with all the bells and whistles? Without even bothering with something that sophisticated the Serbians did manage to shoot down an F-117.
He might be stretching the truth for an agenda but that doesn't mean he didn't also make some good points.
Ebin Menes :D:D It does: with a few tweaks to some old radar technology they had lying around, all they had to do was perform surgery on an AA missile and they were in business.
As they say in the information security business, security through obscurity is no security at all. If your enemy learns your secret, you're SOL. If your secret is so openly known that it can be discussed on a youtube comment thread, I'd be hesitant to design my entire military around it.
Ebin Menes :D:D
"Not really.
It was detected because the radar signature increased when it opened its bomb bay."
Perhaps, but that's in no way necessary. That L-band radar can detect stealth airplanes is a matter of public record.
"The missiles were most likely even manually guided."
Speculation, which while possibly true does not affect the main conclusion that even a relatively low-technology enemy was capable of defeating so-called stealth technology with a little ingenuity.
What we do know is that Zoltán claimed that radar systems and SAMs were modified to detect the F-117. Could he be bullshitting? I guess, but there's ample physical basis to think he's not.
"Yes, so they voluntarily makes it seem like a bad plane so everyone knows it's a bad plane. And still the US decides to fund this bad plane...yes"
It's not "the US". "The US" is an abstraction. It does not exist in reality. What exists are many many people with many different interests that can be roughly grouped together under this abstract "US" banner. They had to work under a bureaucracy, itself also an abstraction, trying to game it and find ways to make their own interests prevail above everybody else's.
Each branch of service has their own desiderata for an airplane design. That's true even within each branch. Congress wants votes. Lockheed wants money. This is a perfect storm of incompetence waiting to happen: as they say, the mean IQ of a group is the IQ of the stupidest person divided by the number of people.
Regardless, I wasn't talking about the F-35 specifically in this last analogy with security; I was talking about stealth in general. Simple ways to defeat it are known. It'd be silly to assume that enemies this technology might be used against haven't tailored their detection equipment to take advantage of this weakness. If a crude jury-rigged system could do it, imagine what the Russians could do given 20 years.
Ebin Menes :D:D "Which is among the low frequency radars, which has already been stated to have critical flaws."
Irrelevant. It's a tool which works and does the job.
"The problem with them is that they have limited range where they can accurately detect objects, "
Over the horizon radar systems operate frequencies of the order of 10 MHz without a problem, and as I state accuracy is not necessary: all that such systems need to do is discriminate among possible targets so that conventional radar systems can know which small targets are real aircraft.
"A plane that is already out of service. "
There's a fundamental physical fact which you are not acknowledging here: that L-band radars can detect stealth planes, no matter what fancy coating you put on them. It doesn't matter what the RCS is for modern radar systems because as far as low frequencies are concerned it is the same.
"When an F-117 was infamously shot down in Serbia, it was shot down not because the low frequency radar detected it at long range, but rather, because the F 117 had flown the same route many times, had come within a few tens of kilometers of the radar, had it's bomb bay doors open increasing it's signature,"
According to you. We may never know the real facts.
"But as mentioned, it wasn't an accurately tracking of the Nighthawk. It was more to determine its approximate position."
Clearly it was enough, and you seem to be missing the point that this wasn't a system built from the ground up to detect stealthy planes but rather something cobbled together from decades old equipment, duct tape and twigs.
"The part of your comment seem to be more like just some personal opinion."
No, it's fact. Physical laws are not opinions. Whether he told the truth is arguable but what he claimed was done is clearly physically possible.
"Stealth is not a dead end. If Russians or Chinese happen to develop a more efficient countermeasure to stealth technology, the US for sure will be able to develop something to counter that."
They can't counter physics.
" then these aircraft will still hold an advantage over un-stealthy aircraft, "
If it's not a binary feature then you have to demonstrate that the gains obtained from using stealthy planes outweigh the design compromises involved in making them so. This has not been done. Stealth technology has been developed almost exclusively based on Rule of Cool™, and the videogamey assumption that the enemy won't adjust their strategy to fight another enemy. That assumption was a large part of America's initial failure in air combat in Vietnam.
" such as radar-wave bending metamaterials,"
Physics. You can't make metamaterials that bend radar waves unless the metamaterial structures are approximately the same size as the wavelength being countered. Unless you want your plane to be shaped more like a blimp than a fighter jet, metamaterials can do precious little against L-band radar systems.
"and electronic active cancellation"
Again, physics dictates that will never be put on an aircraft because such a system would have to be comparable in size to the radar wavelength being countered.
"the US clearly has the advantage in stealth technology."
Undoubtedly, but there's no demonstration that stealth technology is all that useful.
Canada should have built its own fighter instead o buying this lemon.
+Neville6000 Canada can't even get their shit together on procuring anything let alone be able to build a fighter.
DigitalMedia JamesT; Bullshit-we built the Avro Arrow, didn't we?
Neville6000 No you didn't. You started to build the Arrow program but failed to complete development phase. You rolled out some production models and did set some mile-stones which was good. But too many different political fingers in the mix, a shift in Canada's military doctrine to the NORAD defense agreement and the arrow just got too expensive. Also, would the arrow ever fully meet its design promises is up for another serious debate (A little fact your liberal news media conveniently leaves out when they love to brag about the arrow). We'll never know since the plane never made it through development. Developing a plane is a WAY harder and more expensive than you think. Even the best aviation designers can't guarantee their design performances will make it in the real world.
Bringing up the Arrow only re-enforces my point. Too much endless political committee crap in Canada prevents you from building a decent plane and it wrecks practically every military procurement deal your country seeks. Debate! Debate! Debate! Debate! Endlessly! Your industry is better of partnering with other contractors then relying on Canada's political machine to get anything done competently and putting out the high amounts of money to pay for it.
Geez I wonder what all that endless waste of time debating ends up costing the Canadian tax payers?
DigitalMedia JamesT: What the fuck do you know about our country, you neocon asswipe? Stick to believing bullshit from Faux Noise and Brietbart.
+DigitalMedia JamesT We already make components for your fighter jets so its not that far fetched. Yeah great surprise. Its not ALL made in USA.
Taxpayers money----> laundering
I flew 132 fighter combat missions in Vietnam, and taught Electronic Warfare at Wright-Patterson AFB, so I write with experience. I reject Pierre Sprey's great love of the F-16, which was seldom used as an air-to-air fighter because the F-15, though larger and more expensive, was better. The F-16 was used as a fighter-bomber, but the A-10 was better in that role. The F-35 does suffer because of the Marine STOVL requirements made the plane fat and the wings too short, but its electronic and electro-optical capabilities, combined with off-boresignt missiles, will make it the dominant fighter of the next generation. It will not have to outmaneuver enemy fighters, but can fire missiles before the enemy fighter knows the F-35 is there. Yes, the F-35 can be detected by long-wavelength radars, but such radars have low resolution and cannot kill you. Kill radars are all short-wavelength to get high resolution. The ability to positively identify enemy aircraft at long range is critical, because most fighters are shot down when they do not even know they are under attack. The key to the F-35's success will be in electronics, computers, and EO sensors, which have not yet completed testing. While the cost growth of the F-35 is a major concern, anyone with knowledge of our past aircraft development should not be surprised. Almost everything is late and over-budget. I like the A-10 for close support, though, and want to keep the A-10 operational.
+Bruce Gordon Russian Electronic countermeasures will make the F35 drop out of the sky like a rock.
+simonking195 The Russians claimed that their ECM disabled an American frigate in the Black Sea. US sailors on the ship said that nothing happened at all. From my extensive experience in ECM, I cannot think of any ECM system which could do what the Russians claim. I conclude that the Russian claims are propaganda.
+simonking195 Agreed with Bruce. I find it VERY hard to believe that a Russia MIG in the black sea carried an ECM unit strong enough to knock out the a heavily shielded Ageis system on a US destroyers and did not fall victim from the effects. Nope instead it was making attack runs. COME ON!!!! First of all, a jamming pod doesn't knock out a system causing screens to go black (As the Russians described it). It just fills radio frequencies with a lot of noise and even directional Jammers create a lot of residual EM energy that pilots can feel the effects (especially with the older F-111s). What anti-ship missile is going to work with a massive Jammer going off? A possible way to physically knock out Ageis (as what the described experience on the COOK by the Russians) would be a massive EMP pulse. Since the Cooks systems are heavily EMP shielded from Nuclear blasts, how is a lonely MIG going to carry enough sufficient EMP shielding and generate enough energy to survive releasing an EMP pulse strong enough to knock out Ageis? Not going to happen.
2nd point, if the COOK was compromised in such a way, the destroyer would have been ordered home for investigation and inspection. Ever looked up the Cook's manifest during that tour? After that incident, the Cook made its scheduled port four more times in the Mediterranean before heading home. A rather casual tour for a war ship (designed for combat and providing regional security) just becoming compromised. And, as Bruce already said, non of the sailors reported it.
3rd. the Russian sure knew a lot about what was going on onboard the Cook during the incident. The details they describe are very rich and colorful. What did they have hidden Camera's and Microphones on the Cook? This has been the constant mistake of Russian state controlled Propaganda getting carried away with their fiction.
Too many holes in the story. Why? Because fictional stories have holes.
+DigitalMedia JamesT Very good analysis, DigitalMedia! Yes, the only thing which could have caused the complete failure on the COOK was with electro magnetic pulse (EMP) which requires huge amounts of power. EMP was first noted as a result of nuclear explosions. A huge antenna system was built at Kirkland AFB to create an EMP for test purposes. The antenna size and power requirements are impossible for an aircraft to carry, but I have considered that an EMP might have been generated by a shore installation on the Crimea. It did not come from the fighter.
Bruce Gordon If we are talking an EMP from a Nuclear blast, the Cooks systems are going to be a formidable obstacle. An EMP charge of such magnitude to defeat the COOKs shielded systems is going be very disruptive (in some form) to anything else in the region. Its not going to go unnoticed by other NATO ships. Especially the Russian plane which is making attack passes inside the proximity of the target zone. Its is going to be seriously affected (highly not going to survive).
And there is still the fact that COOK did not sail for home and continued on its tour. The Sailors did not report it. And the details of what happened on the Cook Bridge are too rich. In other words, one had to be there in order to know that much detail or its just a fictional tale.
To be fair about the Harrier, it was a USMC pilot that invented the VIF (Vector In Flight) maneuver, which allowed the jumpjet to turn far sharper than normal.
Three years later, an the man STILL is right.
He wasn't right in the first place.
according to you but, reality sucks, people like you keep the faith in the hollywood movies were the USA always win, but, in real life the USA army Sucks dicks big time.
ABBAOPAXO
He was wrong in '79, in '81 and '82 in Israel. He was wrong in '91, and all the engagements from then on. Hell, he was wrong for the full 8 years of the Iran-Iraq war. Last time Sprey was right was Vietnam, and even than never dropped below 2:1 in favor of the US.
What exactly is it that he is "right" about?
This man is a no bs engineer. He knows. The F35 is a corruption money pit. God help our guys if they face a Sukhoi 35, 37, 51 in air to air. And they should hope that on a BVR scenerio, that our missles and radar don't get disabled as the USS Donald Coik did in the Black Sea TWICE! by the Russians.
Fucking sanctioned Washington corrupt was the breeding ground for this national disgrace. Hopefully someone will being Trump up to speed on the reality of this pathetic effort.
His prediction was not quite right about a few thing, price in particular the F-35A, the Air Force's version of the jet, costs $78 million in 2021. Also detection by log wave radars although true does not mean that the radar can lock in for guidance of a missile, as to flying performances they are quite good, comparable to F-16 maybe just slightly lower.
The F-35 will be will be easily intercepted for the following reasons:
1. Completely visible to AESA long wave radars.
2. Stealthy only in the *front* quadrant. Sides & rear visible to short wave radar.
3. Has a very large IR signature that will show up easily in IR detectors.
4. Poor transonic acceleration due to high wave drag makes it easy meat for supersonic interceptors.
5. In "stealth mode" carries just two AIM-120's (50% kill probability on non-manuvering targets).
6. High wing loading compromises ability to evade missiles through manoeuvring.
The F-35 pilot will see the threat coming but won't be able to do much about it.
+wiskadjak 1. All stealth aircraft are visible to all radars--the real question is at what range. VHF radars can utilize Rayleigh scattering to partially bypass stealth shaping, but require gigantic antennas for decently long range. Significantly smaller antennas can be used, but then range will be significantly reduced. The end result in practical applications (with mobile units) is increased detection range against stealth aircraft, but still not that great and with insufficient resolution for targeting--stealth aircraft still have the advantage in range and situational awareness, although it is compromised. Stealth aircraft cannot defeat physics, but neither can radar.
2. How do you know that?
3. How do you know that?
4. Supersonic interceptors will still need to detect and target the F-35 first--good luck with that.
5. This is true when it's carrying air-to-ground ordnance, but it will be able to carry 4 and eventually 6 air-to-air missiles internally for air superiority missions.
6. The F-35 will be able to potentially defeat missiles in the same ways as other fighters, except not as well as some in terms of raw agility and kinematics. But that's not all there is to it.
Your not taking into account modern missles. The Low frequency radars and or RTD emitter triangulation techniques are adequate enough to place a missle with its onboard radar and IRST close enough to home in for the kill. Stealth or not. Especially if that stealth plane goes active jamming to counter it. Follow on missle easily follow suit. Look. Stealth is HEAVILY overstated
Thats why it sent 20-1 Against the F16 and 24-0 For the Marines
How does it feel to not know what you’re talking about?
no one ever claimed stealth equalled invisibility
+Lars Agerbæk The problem is once you are spotted your ability to survive the retaliation is not as good as a conventional plane.
Disappointed by Humanity
because you lack the manoeuvrability of a conventional plane?
Lars Agerbæk Larger fuselage, thin skin, poorer slow speed maneuvering and fewer weapons.
+Disappointed by Humanity Once spotted stealth still makes it hard for a missile to track you, it also makes ECM more effective, and by the time you have been spotted you are at an advantage, your missiles may already be in the air while you are just now popping up on the radar screen of the enemy who is working to ID the threat.
Jamenator1 Sorry you'll have to elaborate on that one. How exactly does stealth make it harder for a missile to track the aircraft? Especially interesting claim if IR or laser guidance is included.
Reduction in workload to a degree yes. However the stealth would probably have to rely on it's own ECM unless it's operating in safe airspace for it's ECM assets. Which then negates the advantage of stealth and the need for heavy ECM.
It's a possible scenario but as soon as you fire you give them no doubt and given the reliance, of the F-35 at least, on BVR the ability to fire first isn't really worth much. This of course assumes the stealth will fire without proper ID. And sticks to the narrow scenario of a long range air to air engagement. Many if not most scenarios do not give the stealth this capability.
Remember the F18 was called the flying turkey
You have to see f35 now
F22's were pretty good and didn't have too many problems. They were retired due to an air leakage.
Corrosion.
Lol.. anyone saying this old guy has no idea what he's talking about... he was one of the developers for the F-16.
The F-16 just beat the F-35 recently in a dogfight.
+Varuna Heart Then again the F-35 airframe used was one designed for maneuverability testing, it lacked weapon systems, because it wasn't a dogfight, it was a maneuverability test.
And it's not like dogfighting capabilites matter anyway. Air to air combat is fought by long range missiles and stealth capabilities nowadays. Close range missiles and Cannons is like the 5 inch guns on an Arleigh Burke destroyer. They will never be used against an opponent with the same technology.
Andersng1 Sorry, I'd like to believe that but history has shown over and over and over again that dogfighting is important. They tried the whole missile with no equipped guns or cannons in Vietnam and guess what? It was a catastrophe.
American Jets were losing to older Soviet Jets piloted by inexperienced Vietnamese pilots. That makes absolutely no sense.
Now you may say, well... missile tech has improved significantly, but that's still a pretty piss poor argument. That's the argument management has been making for decades. There's a reason the F-16 whooped the F-35 in combat.
And I know people who work on the F-18 systems. They also believe the F-35 is a failure.
+Varuna Heart He also said the M68 Patton Tank is better than the M1 Abrams. Pierre Sprey is a charlatan who did not design anything, he was just on the concept team. Even his buddies in the Fighter Mafia called him a loudmouth who liked injecting his (sometimes uninformed) opinion into discussions. It's clear he has some kind of vendetta against the F-35 and technology.
The F-16 did not beat the F-35 in a dogfight. They were conducting a test on its flight control laws, in which the F-35 had its maneuverability reduced with intentional limitations in its flight software. To put it simply, the flight software used during the test prevented the F-35 from carrying out maneuvers it otherwise could. If you think that indicates that the F-35 is objectively worse than the F-16, that's ignoring the fact that the F-35 is still in development. _In fact_, the F-35 has repeatedly *beaten the F-16* in explicit 4-ship vs 4-ship combat tests.
So to put it simply; *the F-16 did not whoop the F-35 in combat.* The F-35 was undergoing a test to expand and reconfigure its flight control laws, and that involved temporary software limitations as part of the process. *FUTHERMORE,* I'll just copy and paste this official Lockheed response to the article about the F-16 "whooping":
Joint Program Office Response to “War is Boring” Blog
July 01, 2015
The media report on the F-35 and F-16 flight does not tell the entire story. The F-35 involved was AF-2, which is an F-35 designed for flight sciences testing, or flying qualities, of the aircraft. It is not equipped with a number of items that make today's production F-35s 5th Generation fighters.
Aircraft AF-2 did not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area. Second, AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. And third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.
The tests cited in the article were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers to stress the system, and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to maneuver against. While the dogfighting scenario was successful in showing the ability of the F-35 to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them, and handle in a positive and predictable manner, the interpretation of the scenario results could be misleading. The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual "dogfighting" situations. There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship of F-35s has engaged a four-ship of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology.
The release of this FOUO report is being investigated. The candid feedback provided by our test community is welcomed because it makes what we do better.
The disclosure of this report should not discourage our warfighters and test community from providing the Program Office and Lockheed Martin with honest assessments of the F-35's capabilities.
edawg792 No shit Lockheed is going to try to defend themselves lol, why are you even posting that junk? I personally KNOW people who program fighter jet software and they all say the same thing. F-35 is a friggin disaster. You can't refute that when these people are the ones who work on the jets.
Varuna Heart
You dismiss an official statement from Lockheed yet you expect us to believe some bullshit a random dumbass said on the internet
The suseptible to ww2 era radars is in relation to low frequency radars which can datact stealth aircraft, however that argument is pointless, are here's why: Low frequency radars are large, and can't pinpoint a target very well, and are NOT the same radars aircraft use to lock on or detect others. Its like saying good tires are useless because you could use anything to make you car have SOME traction, but not a lot. He's didn't point out the fact that those radars have no effect on air to air combat other than knowing the general area of an aircraft, he just used the straw man argument to make it seem like stealth was useless because of low frequency radars. He can be the lead designer at Boeing and Lockheed or wherever, he's still just trying to make it look bad.
Detection defeats the purpose of stealth. Not because of targeting, because a good radar technician can track it and scramble fighters.
rifleman1002 Not necessarily, even if enemy fighters get in the air, by that time the air base is already destroyed or at long range the stealth gives the aircraft a targeting advantage.
David Hager We wouldn't send fighters to attack an Air Base. That's a Heavy Bomber's job. The only thing I could see that would defeat it is Air Burst Missiles or old fashion Flak. Anti-Missile systems are the dangerous ones because they are designed to take out small cruse missiles. BUKs are old fashioned, but they are the same idea as our Patriot missiles, and those things are insanely precise. And I would never believe this thing would be used as an attack jet. It's only going to be used as an interceptor at best and never will be used in a dogfight.
Considering it's stealth I would hope it would be used as a precise bomber more than other aircraft we have now, this is all considering the advent of smaller more accurate bombs rather than more dumb bombs to take out specific targets. 3 F-35's with precision bombs could take out a runway and a few buildings easily.
David Hager Considering the age of Conventional Warfare is over, this thing will never do that. All the nations we built this thing for have nuclear weapons, so the endeavor is useless. The jet, nor the tank is the future of warfare. It is space. America quit her space programs, now other nations like Russia and China will attempt to militarize it. If space is dominated by someone else, the game is up.
So Glad we are no longer buying this thing....
Yes we are. We are just delaying the decision. There are no alternatives. The Eurofighter is almost as expensive and would need extensive refitting to fly in Canada. The Sabb Griffin is not even an option. The Mirage would actually have to be physically altered to carry NATO weapons.
The Super Hornet would be almost 30 years younger than our CF-18A; easy to convert to for our techs and Pilots and much cheaper ! + Twin Engines... If the Australians are thinking of dumping it...! We should to !
Did I mentioned we were buying ours without ENGINES ??? its like you buying a brand new car without an engine? The dealership would look at you funny ??
God, australia is buying 100+ of those shits. As if we taxpayers don't have enough on our plates
I think Australia is reviewing their decision...
After all the new US Jets lost during an Evaluation... / exercise.. They are not too happy with the results... Hope for the best...
@@ryanhuang6838Sound decision by them. They love them. Should do more research in the future than just grandpa here who had no idea what he was talking about.
J-20 is better than the F-35. Debate started! Let the butthurt begin!
No debate. You were wrong.
I love this guy.
ok buddy. dont bother with any form of rebuttal then or any type of argument whatsoever. useless idiot.
+tbone Pierre Sprey is use*ful* idiot.
His F-16 could "wax" the F-15? The F-16 has lost many air-to-air fights and has been shot down in several wars and conflicts. The F-15 has never lost an air-to-air fight in real world combat. Sounds to me like the real world disproved his theoretical world.
F-16 isn't even his lol. He wasn't a part of the F-16 design crew. He didn't even work for the company that designed the F-16. He worked for Grumman as a statistician.
this is a guy that would design a lightweight, quick sword
in the age of rifles
2.5 years later and every word this man said is still 100% true.
+Kamran Mogharabi There are still idiots believing this garbage ?
+Ebin Menes :D:D on what do u base it.
the words of lock head martin?
they say its the best air plane. but the top speed is 1.63 mach WITH AFTER BURNER! and lock head martin said it could go 2 mach.
this man is totaly right
Fernando Brinkers Pierre Sprey deliberately ignores information and only keeps what's convenient to his argument. Yes, the F-35 doesn't have a great top speed, but it's the only multi role aircraft that can reach that speed in full combat configuration. Add missiles to the F-16 and it doesn't even get close to mach 2.
Ebin Menes :D:D Yep, it's clear Sprey has no idea what he's talking about. No wonder his concepts and ideas never were built as he wanted them to be. That's probably why he shits all over them too, because he can't accept that his "super amazing ideas" weren't used.
When I lived in Ft Worth Tex where the F-16's were built, there would be a weekly 'airshow' by the pilots who were demonstrating its abilities, It IS the only airframe i have ever witnessed that had the abilities of a bat flying around overhead. I was in the USAF for 25 years and seen a lot of demos, the F-16 was just over the top and a trained pilot could wipe out the opposition in a air to air dogfight with relative ease. It may be old but the Falcon can still give any airplane a helluva fight and its small profile and sneaky paint scheme make that sucker hard as hell to see.
This could have been shortened to him saying hi the F-35 is a fucking pos. Have a good night.
For that gentleman's information, the Harrier has a single engine with four gimballed exhausts, not a dedicated lift fan like the F-35. And it carries a huge and versatile war load. THAT's why the US Marine Corps loves it so. I just wish the RAF and RN in the UK (my home) had not been so quick to dump it. The USMC, not exactly cash-strapped, aren't hot to dump the Harrier 2.
The USMC are dedicated to replacing the AV-8B with the F-35B. They even skipped on replacing the F/A-18 with the Super Hornet in order to buy the F-35B. In reality the AV-8B is a maintenance nightmare and it has no loiter time It has to carry external fuel tanks just to reach the combat zone with maybe 3 500lb bombs, oftentimes only 1 bomb and an AGM-65E.
Its performing superbly in combat ,so just goes to show what he knew
And why should i listen to you?
@@trollintrollsbot2186 Because unlike you i read. It has already been used in numerous Israeli combat missions over Iran and non have been shot down.
@@trollintrollsbot2186 because Sprey is a liar. He never designed the F-16. He steals other people's work and claims it as his.
This interview should be played in the background for every F-35 flight demo as it smokes F-16 and Hornet performance in front of audiences just so you can see what an outright imbecile Pierre Sprey was for stating such a lengthy diatribe of lies.
With respect, the F35 is clipping all 4th generation aircrafts with significant margin in redflag, northern edge and top gun
ONLY because of its low observability and its excellent radar. And those are not features that can't be added to other aircraft. Note that the AF doesn't say anything about how well it does against legacy aircraft in a visual rules combat arena.
@@Turboy65 combat doctrine literally dictates planes are supposed to fight BVR? Iranian F-14s dominated the skies during the Iran-Iraq war so bad the Iraqi airforce had to intentionally avoid any airspace where the F-14 was spotted. The modern dogfight is more akin to a sniper duel than the old flying circuses.
So to sum it up,,,
Against high end fighters like SU-30, F-15 and SU-35/MKI, this piece of shit can't turn, can't climb, can't hide, can't run, can't fight, Australia is fucked.
I agree, screw Lockheed for knowing about this failure in the sky's but a success in everyone's pocket.
The problem with this guy is that he is basing his hypothesis on thinking that is based on 1970. Technology, computer, weapons systems, support, and maintenance, and last but not least the spread and coverage increase of hot spots being global now change a lot of the things he is basing his assumptions on. Whether he likes it or not combat has changed and threats have changed. Interdiction has moved up on the scale of importance over dogfighting. He also doesn't understand how the latest tech is used in modern warfare now and in the future. The things needed then (1970) are different now in the 21st century. Because his and his group's thinking wasn't accepted he now is throwing a fit like a two-year-old. These guys have an ego ten times worse than a fighter pilot and can't stand to lose. This is from someone that has worked from the inside.
This guy was in the design teams of widely popular F-16 and A-10 combat aircrafts. Having said that, It is very worthwhile listening to someone who knows great deal about aircraft's and also has the technical expertise and experience in hugely successful projects. Thank you.
No he wasnt. He is however a prolific liar. He was an analyst for the F-15 during its development but he has nothing to do with any other aircraft.
@@ag3nt_green And I recall that the A-10 was designed and Created by Alexander Kartveli.
No, he's a liar. He worked as an advisor to the advisor of an advisor. He was never a mechanical engineer. Every design he ever proposed was soundly rejected for being useless. All he does is claim the successes of other successful projects.
He's an audio engineer who lies on rival state propoganda outlets for cash.
No he wasnt on ANY design team....ever. He is a music producer who one time was a consultant to a consultant at the Pentagon. Look up the term woozel to see about his credentials.
I generally warn people to not fall in love with techno war hype itself. Remember how badly techno war worked in Vietnam (if we are not suggesting that the idea was to put taxpayers money to pockets of American war industry).
Technology was at its infancy during the Vietnam Era. The air to air missiles were far from accurate because they were designed for intercepting and destroying bombers. The missed a lot against slick smaller targets such as fighters. Relying on missiles and not having a cannon on the Phantom was more of a human mistake than tech per say.
Technology today is carefully developed with scientific data. We are far more advance than 50 years ago. Our platforms take many years in developing in comparison to the rush we had because we were at war and in need to remedy our military disadvantages.
that is the eastern way of war. drain your opponent resources, small surprise attacks to instill fear, brainwash the people into doing anything to win. every war after ww2 has been like this
and THAT is what we are struggling against right now, with traitors like we have in the WH and congress and senate. Its a game by the elitists [1%ers] to keep as many brush wars and threats of terrorism from radicals and the sabotaging agents in our own political parties and govt departments along with the marxist media talking parrot heads.
the F4 was hopeless in a dog fight but was one of the best aircraft in combat
With all due respect, I believe that this video's title should be:
"PIERRE SPREY IS A LEMON"
this is why countries like Greece went bankrupt, (besides corruption) and the U.S. is always running on financial deficit; the country is being run by morons, and politicians are voted into office by morons...and morons like
rjdnunes think they're smarter, but are actually dumber than the rest...but get an equal, if not sometimes greater voice than the truly intellectual vis their words of scorn;...as a result the dumb out weight the smart, and the country goes into the can, by virtue of democracy, and a freedom of the stupid to express themselves.
Mr Sprey knows...period.
Knows jack shit.
If we did it the way he wants the US would just have cheap cobras with no radar
Hello, I'm from the future and this guy was right in this 2012 interview. In 2021 the pentagon ultimately admitted the plane is a failure after spending a trillion dollars on it. Now it wants more money to create a whole new plane.
No, they absolutely did not. The Chief of Staff of The Airforce did an interview and was taken out of context, he had to later go on and make a video correcting the dishonest reporting that had been going on.
What he said is that they need a replacement for the F-16. The JSF was never supposed to fully replace the F-16, only around half. The problem with the F-16 is that it's old and its systems don't talk to each other, making data fusion difficult, it's important that as fighters the US uses can contribute to a battlefield network as possible. The 4th Gen fighters don't do that, which is why the F-15c is getting replaced by the F-15EX, and the navy is upgrading all its Super Hornets to block III.
General Brown went on to add that they're doing a study of what capabilities they need for a replacement for the F-16. which could take years. The Idea is that they want an inexpensive airplane that utilizes data fusion. It probably won't be a stealth aircraft.
He said that he wanted to moderate the use of the F-35, as a matter of readiness. He never said the F-35 failed, he never said they were getting rid of it, or that they were buying less of them.
The F-35 is an incredible aircraft, since the aircraft has been unlocked the past several years it's been dominating at Red Flag, with a roughly 20-1 win/loss ratio. It has a really powerful engine with outstanding transonic acceleration, it's capable of view high AoA and has nose authority similar to the Hornet, with the Aim-9x it makes it a very dangerous aircraft to merge with.
People always complain about new aircraft, they did the same thing with the F-5, 14, 15, 16, and 18. All of which proved themselves to be incredible aircraft in their own right. This is exactly the same thing.
No, of course not
The military never acknowledged that the F35 was a failure.
ruclips.net/video/-e2WydjQuWA/видео.html
maybe, pentagon disinform us about capability of f-35 to encourage enemy to engage in f-35
This is the most uninformed comment I’ve ever seen.
Hi, I’m from the future. The F-35 is now the most sought after jet in the world and countries are lining up to buy it.
In the first dog fight between the F16 and the F35 the F16 won. The pentagon and the manufacture responded that the F35 didn't have its "electronics" and that it was designed to shoot down enemy planes at "long distance". It reminded me of the early F4 Phantom that didn't have a gun because the pentagon and the Air Force thought that dogfighting was a thing of the past and the F4 would shoot down enemies at a "long distance" using "electronics"... That didn't turn out to well...Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
+Steve Savage To be fair 200 rounds is a decent ammo load for a fighter. And given the thin skin of the F-35 I doubt it'll be making gun runs. They'll just stick to what they do now against ISIL. Dropping $20,000 bombs on $1,000 trucks from 40,000ft. Hopefully they'll run out of trucks and cheap AA guns before we run out of money.
This is one man's assessment of an aeroplane of which he does not approve. His opinions would certainly be biased as they have been in the past. BTW, the anti-Abbott folk on this thread need to take a history lesson before they bag him.
This man developed the F16 and A10 tank killer. You sir are dumb.
I would take credit for that, too. He has proven to be spot on with his 'idea's'. A man with grate insight on how to design and develop a plane for a specific combat role.
2 trillion dollars guys! He was 100% correct.
Gripen, Rafale and Eurofighter are all better than this Lemon. The Russian fighters are even better. The US needs to do some soul searching.
They consider it revolutionary yes. Revolutionarily stupid.
Free Thought u want to know why the f-35 is a piece of shit, cuz it cost 400 billions and still have engine failure (the usaf fear that the plane can explode in flight) and a bunch of nasty problem. it is in developpement since 1996 and still no truly amazing result exceptoon made of the engine failure and blablabla...
Free Thought oh realy?
And you need to do some researching.
The concept of the gripen being better than the f35 is quite humourous
I learned more about the F35 from this video than anything I´ve seen in the news for the last ten years. Which has been mostly uninteresting.
Only problem is that everything he stated is false. The guy is out to lunch.
RAF Typhoon would eat F22 and F35 for breakfast
Bill Tran Google YESTERDAY WE HAD RAPTOR SALAD FOR LUNCH
ragasdapper "RAF Typhoon would eat F22 and F35 for breakfast" that's laughable
Ammoking Not really
ragasdapper The Typhoon broke even with the F-22 in dog fighting exercises. What it doesn't say is how badly an F-22 would absolutely ass rape it in modern combat. Hell the F-22 has more than triple the Typhoons radar and infrared range with 25k + on its missile range.
sirrloin in a dog fight there's only one winner the Typhoon stop talking out of ya ass
F15 loaded up with junk?!?!?! I guess thats why it has over 150 kills with 0 ZERO loses. This guy isnt even a has been, hes a nobody. I like how Boyd isn't alive to speak for his self. So the Turkey himself will speak for him.
It's sad really. Sprey just takes the achievements of Boyd and Hillaker for himself and tries to convince everybody he did something other than convince politicians to get early funding for the YF-16.
Looks like President Trump has put an end to this foolishness. Merry Christmas!
Sprey is a clown. He was wrong about the F-14. He was wrong about the F-15. He was wrong about the F-16. He was wrong about the F-18. He was wrong about the A-10. He was wrong about the F-22. And he is wrong about the F-35.
I think the premise is that the F-35's ability to detect and shoot down the enemy before they could detect you would end the fight before a dogfight could take place. Of course, they said the same thing about the F-4 during the Vietnam war, and even went so far as not fitting it with a internal cannon. History repeating itself.
Sometimes relying solely on technology alone to win a war has been proven under certain circumstances to backfire. This happened to the US in Vietnam and to the former Soviet Union while they were in Afghanistan during the old Soviet/Afghan conflict. However,Big Brother sort of cheated doing it's part to help those Afghan fighters fight back against the Soviets by having the CIA sneak in the man portable sized shoulder mounted surface to air Stinger missiles to help them take down their numerous MI-24 Hinds. This was because the RPG's were not exactly well suited for being anti air weapons as their design was originally for light to moderately armored ground vehicles like jeeps,trucks and small lighter weight tanks. Still,even I have been convinced that the F-35 was a scam ever since the program was only perhaps a few years old. It's true that Pierre Sprey is perhaps somewhat biased,about this plane but so am I and countless others who see this POS for what it really is. It's a well known fact that you can only make a singular fighter/attacker or multirole based air frame do so much,as there's no such thing as one air frame that can ever be the perfect jack of all trades type of plane that can replace every well proven fighter and attacker plane within an entire military's fleet within all three services,and that alone should speak volumes to anyone who even knows at least few things about how modern fighter/attacker jets work.
yes and Mr Spreys core point really is that the swiss army knife concept does not work . And the fact he and the fighter mafia worked within the military industrial complex they know how that system interacts with the wants of generals and the rules of procurement be it 40 years ago or now. they've seen the mistakes, and seen humans repeat them, seems the system hasn't improved.
Then the problem turns out to be obsolete US missiles, and the fact that the F-35s weapon bays are too small to fit the brand new European ramjet missile Meteor.
Merecir
I think... the UK is working on a shortened meteor. It will loose burn, of course.
At least the F-4 had two engines for survivability, and mach 2 and 1/4 speed if it needed to turn and run. How on earth do F-35 pilots plan on bugging out? Mach 1.6+ is garbage, 5th gen fighters can SUPERCRUISE at that speed.
This guy has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. He's a die hard WW2 larper, with no idea how modern combat and modern armour works. His explanation of what a "ground support vehicle" should be are about 50 years out of date (from the time of the interview)... Go figure...
He's just another money for hire "expert," just like they guys that go on American television and downplay Russian/Soviet equipment.
Our beloved President Dwight Eisenhower warned the American people in his farewell address to the American public "of the growing military and industrial complex" in 1960. How true were his words
That's probably why the military is steadily performing test exercises with it on carriers and so forth
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...
The same happened in Denmark.
lockheed martin has its greasy fingers in lots of cakes
vintage stereo paranoia paranoia
Yeah - what does he know? Oh wait - he designed the F-16 and A-10 - nuff said. Good thing I'll have my great grandchildren playing the debt for this turkey. Gobble - gobble.
just because hes a well informed man does not mean hes lying he has a huge irrational hatred for the f-35
He designed nothing and did not work on either project.
F-15 turned out pretty well. After over 40 years in service, it's almost universally recognized to be one of the most successful fighters flying today.
F-22 may be overpriced, but it's also incredibly capable at air superiority. It's truly stealthy to aircraft radar, supermaneuverable, high-supercruise capable, and has one of the lowest wing loadings and highest thrust-to-weight's of any plane. It has an excellent AESA radar and good BVR missiles, and in the end, doesn't cost much more than the F-35.
+Bill Kong Agreed, F-22 is an amazing plane.
+Bill Kong F-22 project cost is what.. 66 billion? F-35 is 1,5 trillion? It's hilarious.
I mean 66 billion is like an annual budget of a small nation, but 1,5 trillion is beyond belief.
And one of them is actually a very capable plane. There's a reason why they're trying to sell F-35's to other nations but keeping F-22 for their own use :p
Can't fix shit by throwing money at it. Can't understand who makes the decisions to spend such ludicrous sums on a plane-project.
***** Maybe. It obviously depends a lot upon mission configuration and amount of remaining fuel. If we take both aircraft with a full A2A load and 10k lb of fuel, then the F-22A gets 1.24 T:W with A/B. The F-15C gets about 1.16. More impressively, the F-22A with 8 missiles and 5k lb of fuel can get 1.01 T:W on only military thrust!
The late F-15C's started getting F-100-229's which make ~6000 lbf more thrust per engine than the -100. I'd call that an upgrade.
I guess that's true. Unfortunately, the F-14B never did have F-119's installed, and there are other planes with higher T:W anyways. In the end, it's not a terribly useful comparison.
+Bill KongYou do realize that you are comparing air superiority aircraft to multirole aircraft right? If an F-35 went toe to toe with an F-22 it would be shot down in less than a heartbeat. There would be no competition. However, compared to any 4th gen aircraft the F-35 beats them alone on its stealth capabilities alone. There is no doubt that the F-15 and F-22 are fabulous planes but their roles are completely different. The F-15 is the only aircraft with it's length of service that has never been shot down in air to air combat and that alone is impressive. However. the F-15 wouldn't even see the F-35 coming and the F-35 is arguably the best BVR combat aircraft out there. It has the farthest ranged air radar in the world that has a range of 250 km and that is 30 more than the next one that is the Eurofighter.
They said the same thing about the 117. It flew like crap but look what it could do. Low frequency radar takes forever he's so out of date they actually use phased array radar to find stealth and circumvent ECM.
Even with phased array radar you need to actively scan in order to find stealth airplanes (which makes you a huge target).
but now they also use decoys and missles that have built in ECM the stealth air raft operate outside the fringes of detection. It's purpose to get the ordnance even closer. Think about it and look at the newest munitions standoff capacities.
This guy is a aerospace engineer and not too savy when it comes to modern computerized warfare. You could say all the same things about each drone. And another thing if his principle about designing a plane for a special purpose is true then he needs to be brought up to speed on warfare using stealth aircraft ....it's not about being completely I invisible everywhere, it's about reducing the range of the radars being used about 3 to 4 times or more of what it is normally which is enough to at least get antiradiation missles within range of the radars. But the 60mile+ range of the newest generation of glide bombs is more than adequate plus alot more bang for buck
totally blew my mind!!!
With BS
its no mach for the Russian Sukhoi Su-30MKK which is cheaper and design to be a dog fighter first and foremost and I am an American and i believe this i am not a Russian troll like you usually see on here
I love the Su serious but that plan has more flaws than a flew it is not a 35S or BM and damn sure not a 37
Ronnie Fairley The su30 is not a 35 or the experimental 37 which will never be mass produced however I havent heard of any flaws on this plane care to enlighten me? The customers love it and it should mince meat 70/80's vintage USAF aircraft (there whole inventory give or take).
Super Flankers don't even survive against the Gripen C or J-10C. China already figured that out during the past 6 years.
Gripen C and J-10C are several magnitudes lesser than F-35 in every important metric.
F-35 easiy has first-look/first-shoot against Gripen/J-10/any 4.5 Gen fighter. It also has first opportunity to employ networked ECM in ways fighters have never even been able to do.
There's a reason China is building J-20s as fast as they can, while upgrading the J-10C standard, combined with producing the PL-15 BVRAAM missile.
@@Choros22 Su-30MK series have had all sorts of maintenance issues with the AL-31 motors, the Bars PESA radar, anything electronic, hydromechanical, missile interface, etc.
Indian Air Force has years of complaints and bad experiences with it. There's a reason they're buying Rafales.
Oops
I wonder what this old lemon thinks of the PAK-FA? :)
Dude, they're all the same - "stealth" is a fucking marketing gimmick that makes the aircraft stupidly expensive and impractical to the point that pilots can't even get the air time they need to fly it.
Doesn't matter if it's American, Russian, Chinese, or fucking Namibian...if anything the Russians and Chinese are worse because they're literally just copying the idea with a child-like MINEZ GUNNA BETERRERRRRR mentality which seems to just permeate people's thinking nowadays.
The Su-50 has 3 on board radar systems. One short wavelength X-Band radar in the nose, a smaller version of the same X-Band radar in the tail for looking backwards and a third, long wavelength L-Band radar in the wings, like the ones Mr. Spray mentioned in the video, especially for detecting stealth aircraft.
Long wavelength L-Band radar is also used as weather radar. The problem with it is that it doesn't pierce through clouds. If it would pierce through clouds, it wouldn't be useful as a weather radar of course.
That is why usually fighter jets only use low wavelength X-Band radar and that is why US American stealth technology as we know it today is specialized on being as invisible as possible to those X-Band radar systems, but are basically useless against L-Band radar. A stealth fighter could still hide from L-Band radar behind or within clouds, but that is something every aircraft can do. Also the problem with hiding from any kind of radar is that you only know where it is and how to hide from it once your radar warning system has picked up its pulses and once that has happened, of course it has detected you too.
If the F-22 or the F-35 would ever engage in strike missions against an opponent with real anti air capabilities, they would probably have to operate in the exact same way non-stealth aircraft did it in Operation Desert Storm or the campaign against Serbia. They would have to resort to flying under the radar (to which they are less well equipped than older, more maneuverable jets) or engage their targets with long range standoff weapons that can be launched from outside the range of enemy SAM.
With other words, with the exception of the super cruise ability of the F-22 and some improvements in the pilot interface (like voice control and stuff like that), both stealth fighters can't really do anything the F-16 and F-15 can't already do.
Spjungen
Yes, the stealth fad didn't just take hold of the international military nerd scene but did infect politicians and even generals in charge of military procurement.
Because those things look so science fiction-ish and cool, people just believe they must be better than anything else without really asking questions.
It is actually quite funny that even the Russians and Chinese felt themselves pressured into the fad, because they ought to know how useless it is due to the fact that they still use military L-Band radar and have been working on perfecting it for decades, while western militaries dismissed it and subsequently western engineers all but forgot about it.
Coming back to the military nerd scene, I must admit it is quite satisfying to see how the "stealth religion" is slowly collapsing on itself recently, after reading and listening to all this smug bullshit that was spewed over the supposed superiority of the F-22 and F-35 for almost 2 decades now.
I had given up on fighting people on their religion-like believe in stealth technology and the oh so great F-22/F-35 and had resorted to saying stuff like: "Yeah, yeah, the Raptor/Lightning is the best, but that other thing is good too because...."
People even refused to call the Eurofighter Typhoon a 5th generation fighter because it doesn't look science fiction-ish enough and I told them: "Even a retarded child is still part of its generation.", while being fully aware that the Typhoon is not a retarded child and is actually the better aircraft, but nothing I said about the shortcomings of the F-22 and F-35 and nothing I explained about the advantages of the Typhoon or other aircraft ever was able to pierce through that stubborn, childlike believe in Northrop's/Lockheed"s marketing propaganda.
After over a decade of this it is so satisfying to see the F-22 and F-35 proverbially tumbling out of the skies. I am not an anti-American who revels in American failure. It really is a emotional reaction to all the bullshit that was thrown at me for so long and all the angry backlash and FLAK I got for simply defending facts and reality, what makes me feel shadenfreude over the stealth fighter debacle now.
TrangleC Stealth is rear the Pak Fa is a beast stealth plays a major part when locking on espically from distances
TrangleC
Stealth does have a role, it just can not be the only thing you bring to the party. This goes for land, sea and air.
One thing to consider is that stealth can be more than just radar, take the gripen yeah the radar cross section of the F35 is smaller but the IR signuter of the gripen is smaller. In a dog fight my money is on the gripen. And that the cheap option there are better fighters out there
Pierre Sprey 😂😂😂
The whole thing smacks of "back in my day..." sour grapes. And "back in your day" we had thinks like Vietnam, which weren't exactly super terrific fun times when the government was making awesome decisions every day, either.
This guy says everything is a "lemon" or a "turkey", no matter how much our enemies fear it. Need we keep valuing his opinion?
How do you know our enemies fear any of our weapons? Do you have spies in their military? No. You only have the propaganda spewed by our military, defense contractors and their lobbyists, and the congressmen their lobbyists bribe.
I'm not the biggest fan of the f35, and I agree that the Grippen or eurofighter would have been a better plane for Canada, but ya boy Pierre here, has never designed a single aircraft, in his opening statement of this clip claims that the airforce's high/low principle doesn't work, yet it has been proven to be a more than capable system for going on 50 years now, see the F15/F16 combo, by the way both of those aircraft Sprey claims to have designed
I believe that everything this guy says is correct. The F-35 is not capable of holding up to the current needs of any of the aircraft it is going to replace.
Of course, the irony here is that one of the primary benefits touted of the F-35 program was that a single airframe to do all these tasks would save money.
It's getting really boring listening to people comparing the F-35 with things like the Su-35 and the F-16. It's like comparing a DH Mosquito and a Spitfire; designed with totally different objectives, and it's not at all surprising that they perform differently.
This guy hates anything with wing!🤯🔫💣
Smart and honest, what a legend!
Not a legend, a notorious pathological liar.
He was a misguided old man not understanding how tactics have changed. By his logic, he won't be satisfied until we revert back to using biplanes.
Just imagine how many kids you can feed with the money you pay for one of these lemon.
sean n how much war could you stop by fixing the ills of the world
+sean n Imagine how many condoms you could buy for the people who can't afford to feed their kids who shouldn't be having them in the first place... I hate government waste but I also hate that fucking argument. Any program like this employs and puts food on the table for thousands of employees and their familes... That aside yes I'm extremely skeptical of the entire F-35 program. I think a better statement would be how many BETTER aircraft could be developed and bought for what this program has cost.
sean n not only kids, this money can be spent on health care or any other field which can be a boon for the common people. The vast sum should be used for the public.
F-35's vertical takeoff predecessor the Harrier had many of the same alleged "disadvantages". But let's not speculate. In actual Falklands era combat Harriers shot down: 9 IAI Daggers (Mirage V equivalent), 7 A-4 Skyhawks, 1 Mirage III. No Harriers were lost in air-to-air combat
La única razón por la que fueron útil en Malvinas fue porque EEUU les dio los que en ese momento eran los misiles más modernos . Si Argentina tendría los mismos misiles la historia sería lo contrario a lo que ocurrió. Porque los Harrier no tenían ninguna ventaja sobre otros aviones por ser lentos .
@@martes1277 speak a real language
@@georgethompson1460 el idiomas lindo del mundo es el español .
The woman interviewer had a hard time reconciling his responses. Or digesting his displeasure for the F-35. She is seriously trying to find something affective about the F-35, but is shown no mercy from Pierre.
Lazerpig gang here
The F-18 Hornet started the same way when it first came to production,and look it it now.
So many lies in this interview.
We shoot down 1-f117 1-B2 7-F16 3-F15 and lot off done... our modern airplane is only a 8 MiG-29 from 1982y in bad conditions and SAM Neva from 1972y, we Serbian have 10 mil inhabitant and us attack 1999y NATO 19 country....but we are brave, an we are still alive!
LONG LIVE TO SERBIA!!!, My respects to Serbia.
***** Sure,sure,sure that is why your government lies to their own people. it was supposed to be invisible, but a very old missile system shot it down Hahahahaha Looser.
f117 was retired in 08 glad people hate a plane no longer being used
You know that's a lie, yet you still said it.
Србадија Бар
F-117 was shouted down by one SA-3 GOA (1960 system)
Platinum Swords, it's actually worse than what he said in this vid. You right, it's amazing how he predicted how the F-35 would perform.
He was correct about the price, if my math is correct Germany was offered them at 240 millions each + additional costs in 2022...
No, that’s the lifetime of the jet. The actual costs was around 90 million each. A bargain.
@@SeanP7195 Tell me what you get for 90 million, do they send entire jet or is it in parts, lacking weapons? I'm asking because every time our deers buy weapons, we get like half of the package for the price before money falls under the table and they forget about it.
@@codaalive5076 I don’t know. You’ll have to email your representative
Pierre Sprey has been proven wrong again and again. He has a tremendous ego that won't let him admit he's wrong.
So the F-35 can't maneuver, it could only carry two bombs internally, and it can't dogfight. If that's the case, we should simply bring back the F-117 and upgrade it.
+Megalodon64 F-117?...Is that a real thing or did you accidentally make a Halo reference?
+GoodGuy Dominik how have you not heard of the F-117. Nighthawk??
+Megalodon64
The F-117 is one of the worst airplaines ever made in terms of maneuverability and flying power; the only purpose of that "plain" is stealth, anything else is worse
it even has no weapon for air-to-air fight, if another plain can see it, it shoot down the f-117
Sampson Liao
I've seen it but i was never aware of the name. I just called it a stealth bomber.
+Megalodon64 Or just scrap stealth plane ideas until the manufacturers can possibly get them right - at their own expense.
The whole concept of a multi-role fighter these days quite frankly is silly it really is...
People used to be smarter.
The F-15 WAS a great fighter. The Sukhoi-27 completed after the Eagle broke all the Eagle's records. Its maneuverability is superior. It has rear facing radar. Higher angle of attack ability. Higher turning ability.
Steps to making a great multirole airplane (it's been done = P-47, F-4, F-15, F-16).
1. Make an awesome air superiority fighter - great radar/guns, greater than 1 thrust to weight, high speed, etc.
2. Strap a LANTIRN pod to it and/or mod the radar.
3. Add bombs, cameras, anti-ship missiles, etc. Since you have a good airframe, it can carry the stuff at high speed.
4. Argue on YT about it being the best all around fighter of all time.
Thankfully Sprey officially went to hell in August 2021
scary stuff.Has Sprey ever sat opposite anyone with competent qualified counter-arguments?
The point is to spend money. That's the REAL mission of the airplane.
05:26 - best summary of last 20 years of US engineering.
Seriously though, he's 100% correct. Basically the F-35 is nothing more than a modern long range interceptor.
And the F-35 is proving him wrong every day.
@Laz N The F-35 went 144-1 at Red Flag. That means that out of 145 engagements it lost once. Sprey is a charlatan that makes stuff up and he calls anything he doesn’t like a Turkey. He even hates the F-15 and the F-15 has not ever been shot down in air to air combat. So why would I listen to him?
I agree with Sprey about the F-35 being a lemon. It's a very expensive piece of junk. However, there is no reality where the f-16 would compete with the F-15.
The F-15 has always been excellent, but Boyd and Sprey knew they could do better. The result, the YF-16. It rang rings around the F-15. Pity was the F-15 was what the Air Force really wanted so they deliberately sabotaged the YF-16 so it couldn't out perform the F-15 anymore. They added 2 tons of weight, multi roled it, effectively turning the best dogfighter in the world into a bombtruck. They wouldn't even increase the size of the wings to minimize all the lost maneuverability. The F-16's still great, but its no YF-16.
@@incar95678 That 2 tons of weight and multiroling is what made the F-16 good. The YF-16 was only good and dogfighting and that is it. You need far more then that to make a good aircraft
New F-35 fighter jet beaten by F-16 from 1970s
+Fons negentienachtenvijftig Yes, in a very irrelevant simulation, where the F-35's test software was limiting the rate of pitch that its elevators could produce, inherently limiting its sustained and instantaneous turn rates. The F-35 was also not in BVR, where it is extremely potent, but in WVR. Now the F-35 can dominate WVR, but it was placed in a turning fight, nowadays an irrelevant competition cited in discussions by those to push an agenda.
The turn fight is not the end-all, be-all of dogfights, or we might be flying T-38s instead of F-22As.
Many will talk about thrust-to-weight ratios, wing loading, drag-to-weight ratio, aircraft wing design, and fuselage design, all leading to discussion and a penis-measuring competition between turn radii of combat craft. Have I got news for you!
Turning radius is not the end all of who wins in a dogfight.
Let's continue to talk about how this affects, and relates to, the F-35.
Let me introduce you to the AN/AAQ-37
Distributed Aperture System (DAS). I’ll spare you the details, but the succinct version is that Northrop Grumman has quite literally put eyes on the back of the F-35′s head. 360-degree IRST, you read that correctly omni-fricking-directional IRST, plus immediate weapon launch detection and tracking means not only will he or she see any fighters close enough to see him on IRST, he’s going to know the moment they shoot as well, giving him plenty of time to take evasive action. It’ll also give him time to send an AIM-9X Block 2 after the enemy, since the DAS provides 360-degree missile targeting for the new Sidewinders too (which makes the dogfighting issue even less relevant - *getting a rear-aspect shot on the enemy doesn’t matter much when you can
literally shoot at a guy your plane isn’t even turned towards).*
+Aviation Analyst
And what are your credentials, where you feel justified telling people what is and isn't relevant in air combat?
knupder *I am an 18-year old college student. That's all.*
I am not a paid expert from any defense department/ministry, company, aerospace/aeronautical engineer, miltary official, or fighter pilot.
Happy?
I do, however, have a lot of skepticism and am very discerning. I enjoy the machines and equipment of aerospace defense. When I'm not doing schoolwork, or doing physical activity, I research defense. It is truly a passion of mine; I approach things with an unbiased view and recognize potency where it can be verified by reputable sources, and refute inconsistencies where evident and also verifiable by sources.
Well then that makes you and your opinion completely irrelevant as well. : )
Oh Lawd EXACTLY 😂😂😂😂😉😃
there's only one thing that matters the real mission
the mission is to spend money
The F35 was designed to to be Jack of all trades. An NFL team will NEVER recruit one football player to be both their agile wide receiver and the massive defensive line center. But that is how the requirements were written for the F35. The F35 will NEVER be good at anything. Same as a 300 pound wide receiver or a 150 pound center. And a team that does this will lose the game regardless of the other capable players, even Tom Brady can’t save them. Sadly, without air superiority, every player on the battlefield will suffer. Many will not survive.
Spot on!
Football isn't BVR ranged combat.
he worked with fighet jets in the 60s...... As an consulting statistician ....
he currently makes jazz music and own is own label company "mapleshade", and also sells stereo equipment......
he also sings in Kanye West's song "Jesus walks".
I mean, what the fu** people!!!! Why do ANYONE care what this person thinks or says???
Did any one ask Britney Spears what SHE thinks of the F35??
Lets ask her, and make a big story out of her "insightful" response
jan Laady He worked with Widmer in designing the F-16, arguably the most successful modern aircraft to date.
Jester hundreds of people works in the design of the F16 .
and as you said, the f16 was extremely successful. Lookheed Martin made a very good plane. But when F16 first arrived in the 70's, it had many skeptics, and many (well educated people) who believed it should be "scrapped" as a project.
it also had alot of problems, with pretty much every system. But instead of screaming "lemons" and cancelling what you refer to as the "most successful modern plane to date", Lockheed pushed on, fixed problems, inovated solutions, and revolutionized the way be build fighter planes
NOW a new project begun, to build a multirole stealth fighter (wich in all essence is a bomber, hence the multirole) to change the way we do warfare, to change "few large bomber planes, easy to shoot down" into a "brigade of hard to detect mini-bombers" who can maneuver away from attacks, and who can even engage a incoming fighter jet, with a fair chance to actual make a kill
-no other bomber planes have these abilities, THIS is the future of air to ground warfare
and it will face alot of problems, just like the f16 before its finished
www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/outrageous-adolescence-f-16-180949491/?no-ist
jan Laady He designed the F-16 and the A-10, two of the most successful military airplanes of the 1970s. The trouble is, he still thinks that the only good fighter is a sporty little plane with one engine like the F-16, when the F-15 and F-22 have already proven him wrong. He does make a good point about the F-35 being a mediocre airplane, thanks to its jack-of-all trades design. It's stealthy and has good electronics, but it doesn't have the speed, climb rate, or payload to be a proper fighter - the V/STOL requirement just forced too many compromises. The Air Force had a real winner with the F-22, which can do everything the F-15 can AND it's stealthy.
+CountArtha "he designed"
Dude, he didn't design jack shit. He and some other old people said "THE F-16 SHOULDNT HAVE RADAR" and now everyone gives him credit for the LWF program.
This is the guy who, along with others (Boyd), helped create the most successful generation of aircraft to date in the "Teen Series" and the A-10. Those "ideas on fighter design"(you mean E-M theory?) changed the nature of aircraft design. Every fighter (except the F-35) has been designed according to some aspect of Boyd's E-M Theory including the F-22. So give credit where do. He may be cynical with old age and a little extreme, but the man has contributed a lot, you can't fault him for that.