Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

It's a no brainer that Sprey is an ardent critic of the F-22. In a recent interview by ABC, when asked whether the F-22 was badly designed or badly produced, Sprey answered "both." Now, Sprey isn't stupid. Some of his assertions are so far from the truth that it's hard to believe that it came from him. The question is why would he make such criticisms that he probably knows aren't true?

Even broader question, why do so many intelligent and knowledgeable people make such blatantly ignorant comments on the F-22? Do they have an agenda?

F-16.net Sponsor

I think one of the problems with Sprey and the old Fighter Mafia guys is that the battlefield and technology has dramatically changed since the 70's, and they havent quite caught up. The F-16 was a triumph of engineering and those guys had a big role to play in its conception, but the F-16 we know today is not the airplane they advocated.

When they proposed the Lightweight Fighter competition, electronics were huge black boxes that weighed hundreds of pounds, and were seen as a luxury. Nowadays you simply cannot get away without a highly advanced avionics suite, and that fact is what I think Sprey and the like haven't figured out. You can't be a day VFR fighter with no radar, 2 AIM-9's and a gun anymore and expect to be effective.

So to answer your question, I dont think Sprey is stupid, just that he lacks the perspective to see what is needed in the future and today, rather than what was needed in the 70's and 80's...

My impression of Sprey is that he's a revolutionary who fails to realize that the circumstances that made his ideas brilliant are long-gone. If it were up to him and Wheeler, the F-16 would still be a day fighter. They didn't even want anything more complicated than a simple ranging radar for the F-16.

Basically, they're stuck in the mode that any remotely complex electronics are too unreliable for combat (which for fighters in the 60's might be more or less true), and that stripping them out and leaving a very light, very maneuverable aircraft is a better idea.

Damn that Sapo!

Pierre's ideal force structure as seen in his article on the CDI web site.

•4,000 smaller, more agile A-10s = $60 billion
•2,500 turboprops as forward air controllers = $3 billion
•100 new tankers = $28 billion
•1,000 dirt-strip C-123-like airlifters = $30 billion
•1,100 smaller, faster F-16s (RWR and Optical sensors only, no radar) = $44 billion
•183 F-22s already purchased
•200 F-35s redesignated as A-35s "to meet commitments to allies" = $50 billion

So only 383 aircraft in the entire fleet will be fitted with radar .... because you know .... BVR is a lie. I'll be blunt and say he's gone full nutcase.

You know what they say about great minds Prinz...

He wants to take a knife to a gunfight would be the best way to describe it.

Sirsapo and Prinz_Eugn have posted very good views.

Do I think Sprey is dumb / stupid because he holds some of his views? Hell NO! Although I disagree with some of his views, I also think that he and his colleagues are some of the most bold and forward thinking people around. Why? Because he and others had the guts to prove the USAF wrong and get them out of the TAC rut that was being experienced since the 60’s. The USAF may not have liked the way Sprey / Boyd etc. expressed their views, but the USAF knew they were right.

Now, regarding specifically his views on the F-22, I have to say Sprey is righton a point or two. However, what Sprey doesn’t have is direct knowledge of the F-22 program. Because of this, he can only comment of what he and everyone else hears on the news (which can be laced with inaccuracies, half-truths and just plain false info). If Sprey was involved with the F-22 program, was shown classified data and see firsthand what it can do, I’m certain his views about it will change. But because he isn’t (USAF won’t allow him to be in the first place because he burned his bridge many years ago) and his mindset could arguably be still in the “pre-advanced” technology age, is a possible indicator on why he may still hold his views.

Note: Keep this topic in relation to the F-22. I’ll tolerate a point or two on something else, but make it in relation to the F-22. If the discussion gets too far off the main subject (which should be about Sprey in relation to the F-22), it will be deleted.

You are forewarned.

Some of it is ego-driven. I think the guy was butt-hurt that his ideas were rejected and he hasn't been involved in depth with any fighter program since the 80s. There's a Youtube video of him claiming that BVR kills are a fiction. So he must think that the stats from the Gulf War and recent air engagements since the late 80s are false?

You get the impression that he's one of those old grandpas who just doesn't understand that times have changed.

http://etd.auburn.edu/etd/handle/10415/595
Anyone who wants to gain an insight into Sprey as well as his cohorts in the Fighter Mafia should check out the above link. It appears to be a well researched account of the transformation the USAF underwent after its VN experience.
To make it easy, John Boyd makes his appearance on P.77, Sprey on P.80 and Everest Riccioni on P.123.

Old guys rule and so do old airplanes! When you fan boys stop your Kool-Aid induced dreaming and figure out a solution to fix these so called 5th Gen Deloreans. I’ll stay with the F-16.

AND!!!!!!! What gets me angry about the whole situation is the fact that Fighter progression throughout history always slowly blended into the food chain. The F-117 skipped a few steps of natural progression, but how many were built, and how many hours were on them before they checked out? I thought Raptor blended in nicely until the maintainability issues with stealth started to surface (and that was identified early in the program). BUT NOOOO! Not only do we go out and stealth the whole bloody fleet of the future, but we buy all the whistles and bells to cram into a jet that came from someone’s pipe dream? Every time I see a new build Viper on the ramp heading abroad??????????????? WTF

VarkVet wrote:

I’ll stay with the F-16.

Would you be willing to part with your viper's radar altogether to gain a little maneuverability? That's what Sprey is advocating after all.

His whole argument against the F-22 is that BVR sensors (radar) and their countermeasures (stealth) are not required because engagement from BVR simply does not happen.

Is that true? no. Is the man way out of touch? yes.

VarkVet wrote:

Old guys rule and so do old airplanes! When you fan boys stop your Kool-Aid induced dreaming and figure out a solution to fix these so called 5th Gen Deloreans. I’ll stay with the F-16.

Which is exactly what a lot of pilots were saying about the F16 when it was being developed. What? Fly by who? You're sh*tting me, there's no mechanical *cable* attached to the stick?

Etc...

F35 has some problems in testing, but I think a spot of perspective might be in order in terms of just how advanced the F16 was for it's time.

Sounds kind of like the Navy officers that insisted on building bigger and heavier battleships instead of aircraft carriers in the '30s.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Why criticized by Sprey?