Forum: General F-35 Forum

Military experts including Pierre Sprey the founder and designer of the F-16, A-10 Warthog airplanes Explains why the f-35 will not cut it on the modern battlefield. Sort of eye-opening to me.

Part 1

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kssZua8 ... re=related

Part 2

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kssZua8 ... re=related

Part 3

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS7O14nz ... re=related

F-16.net Sponsor

ROTFLMAO....

Sorry, old info from old pathetic people.

This guy is funny, "Not proven BVR capability", I think the last few wars proved it was very useful don't you think?

Not worth the effort to click on the link re this "expert"

SpudmanWP wrote:

ROTFLMAO....

Sorry, old info from old pathetic people.

They may not be completely correct....but they aren't wrong.

I kinda gagged at the word 'Sprey'. Rolling Eyes

Sprey never liked the F-15 or the F-22 either. He also thought the multimode functions of the F-16, specifically the radar and A2G functions, are a waste.

If he does not think the F-35 can win in a BVR fight, what chance did his dream F-16 (with only IR sensors and IR missiles) have at BVR?

of course pierre sprey will criticise the f-35,
after all the f-35 is replacing his babies!!!!

twintwinsingle wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

ROTFLMAO....

Sorry, old info from old pathetic people.

They may not be completely correct....but they aren't wrong.

According to whom??

The people who designed it, built it, are flying it, and are studying the results all say it's good to go.

OTOH, some people (like Sprey) who have no connection to the program , have a bias against it, and can only look at inexact public data say there is a problem.

Hummmm who should I believe?

SpudmanWP wrote:

twintwinsingle wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

ROTFLMAO....

Sorry, old info from old pathetic people.

They may not be completely correct....but they aren't wrong.

According to whom??

The people who designed it, built it, are flying it, and are studying the results all say it's good to go.

OTOH, some people (like Sprey) who have no connection to the program , have a bias against it, and can only look at inexact public data say there is a problem.

Hummmm who should I believe?

Ummmmm, I don't know, Spudman. I suppose you think the designers and manufacturer AND LM test pilots are going to call their meal-ticket for the next 40 years a piece of junk? Really? Really? I'd wager that no matter how bad the jet was, those people would call it a world-beater. So, disregarding the opinion of those folks, who exactly is saying this jet is the best thing since sliced bread? I also suppose that this will be the first multi-role jet ever to NOT be a jack of all trades, master of none? Again, I'm doubtful. I don't think Sprey and his cronies are on the money, but I also don't believe the hype. This jet will be great at some things, but it will be sub-par at CAS and average at air-to-air (best case).

t3h_pr3t3nd3r wrote:

Military experts including Pierre Sprey

That's as far as I got.

Fine, don't believe the manufacturer who has a demonstrated track record of delivering superb combat aircraft and who BEAT other outstanding manufacturers to win this competition in the first place, don't believe the test pilots most of whom are serving military pilots and who are the only real people to have operated this yet and don't believe the customers who universally say that it is great.

Believe somebody who in effect knows NOTHING more than you or I about it and someone who has a demonstrated history of leveling the EXACT same criticisms against two other outstanding combat aircraft, namely the F-15 and F-22A...

That's who you'd put your money on. For sure...

twintwinsingle wrote:

Ummmmm, I don't know, Spudman. I suppose you think the designers and manufacturer AND LM test pilots are going to call their meal-ticket for the next 40 years a piece of junk?

What they would do is design and build a jet that meets the spec.

twintwinsingle wrote:

I'd wager that no matter how bad the jet was, those people would call it a world-beater.

They would have canceled it long before it got tho this point like they did for the A-12 Avenger II.

twintwinsingle wrote:

So, disregarding the opinion of those folks, who exactly is saying this jet is the best thing since sliced bread?

You mean like all the decision makers, in all the partner countries that have seen the raw, unedited performance data. The same partner nations that all have representatives inserted into every stage of design, development, and testing?

I would not say the best since slice bread. Best multirole fighter, sure.. but not sliced bread.

twintwinsingle wrote:

I also suppose that this will be the first multi-role jet ever to NOT be a jack of all trades, master of none?

Well Duh.. The F-22 is the best at A2A (with the F-35 @ #2) and the A-10 the best at CAS (which is changing due to the proliferation of cheap PGMs. The A-10 does not have nearly the sensor sponge that the F-35 will have.

twintwinsingle wrote:

Again, I'm doubtful. I don't think Sprey and his cronies are on the money, but I also don't believe the hype. This jet will be great at some things, but it will be sub-par at CAS and average at air-to-air (best case).

Average at A2A? Really. Do you honestly think that against the F-35, the exchange rate with a Raf, EF, F-15C, F-16 Blk60, any SU or Mig, etc will be 1:1?

t3h_pr3t3nd3r wrote:

Military experts including Pierre Sprey the founder and designer of the F-16....

If he were still livin', I think Harry Hillaker might have somethin' to say 'bout that.

http://www.wingsoverkansas.com/history/article.asp?id=658

Conan, my point is not that I believe Sprey or his collegues. I just think that they do have some valid points about multi role jets. Do you really think that a jet built in completely different variants for different operating environments (ship, land, STOVL) AND to do just about every mission under the sun for each of the services is going to be great at any of those missions? Sorry Bro, but I don't think so. A specialty jet will always do better. Also, LM has their butt in a crack with the F-35 schedule/cost issues. You really think they'd say,"Hey, our bad, this thing really isn't very good. If I were the DoD, I'd can this thing.". Yeah Dude, they'd totally say that. I'm not saying it IS a bad jet, just that it is crazy to think you're getting objective, impartial info from the manufacturer. The same goes for the LM engineers/pilots. I'm not saying they're bad guys, or even that what they're saying is incorrect, just that if there was something wrong with the F-35, you sure as heck wouldn't hear it from someone whose livelihood depended on the jet going into full-rate production. There are hundreds of billions at stake here!!

BTW, none of the LM test pilots(I specifically said LM test pilots in my earlier post) are active military...those would be the military test pilots. All I'm saying is that Sprey et. al. can't say that the F-35 is worthless any more than you can say it's the second coming of the P-51. The program is young and, trust me, if it WAS performing badly, none of us on F-16.net would know anything about it at this point.

I can't recall Lockheed ever delivering an aircraft that has disappointed us yet. I also can't see that happening in this case either. It really wouldn't have gotten this far in development if it was a dud. We shall see soon enough...

Forum: General F-35 Forum

F-35 Lightning II Documentary (Criticisms)