PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Berke]

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 22 Jul 2017, 19:51

Anyone up for a Whitehouse petition on drafting Berke to be the next head of the DOT&E?

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 22 Jul 2017, 22:19

I think Berke continues being an effective advocate for 5Gen aviation in his new career in the private sector. He's served his country honorably and it's time feather his nest for himself and his family. :salute:

jjk · by **jjk** » 22 Jul 2017, 23:01

SpudmanWP wrote:Anyone up for a Whitehouse petition on drafting Berke to be the next head of the DOT&E?

Sean Spicer has some time on hands...

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 22 Jul 2017, 23:13

Dear God NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Gums · by **Gums** » 23 Jul 2017, 22:57

Salute!

Thanks, Grab-a$$. Keep on keeping on.[grab's post is gone?]

Back when we were developing the SON for the A-X and later phase ROC's for the F-X, I was a yute just finishing my first combat tour ( Dragonfly 1967 and 1968) and was an IP for USAF and VNAF folks checking out in the Dragonfly. The F-X debate was hot, and Sprey plus Boyd and others were still on the mass quantity idea for the F-X. Gotta admit that we were jaded after seeing p!sspoor results from the early years using the Double Ugly.

I wrote my first "op-ed" point paper at Air University in 1970 while at SOS ( the junior school). It was obvious we needed something better than the F-4, and it was also obvious we needed better missiles and better training. I advocated the "high end" F-X versus the F-5 clone or even the F-14 designs being submitted. Little did I realize how sophisticated the avionics would be in another year or two, but I fondly remembered the systems in the VooDoo. The first reports from the A-7D folks were coming in and we all thot good avionics would be part and parcel of an A-X plane. HAH! Little did we suspect what would happen a year or two later.

We got a great plane with mucho capability in the Eagle, much to the chagrin of Sprey and Boyd. The two-seat Mafia also had to bite the bullet, 'cause the new avionics and such made it easier for a single seat dude to do the misison. I flew 400 hours in the VooDoo with a RIO, and that guy was necessary due to the systems we had. My 80 hours in the Deuce were great, but I was much more capable in the VooDoo due to limits of the avionics and the pilot-vehicle-interface. That all changed with the Sluf and the Eagle.

So I first noticed Sprey due to his publications in professional journals. He provided super venues for discussion and consideration of platforms, tactics and so forth. So those "thot-provoking" articles were his claim to be on the ground floor of the F-16 and A-10.

He was an operations research academic!!! That's all. Even Riccioni had no combat time and Boyd's was limited.

Sprey co-authored a good article in the early 70's and I am not sure if it was just after Yom Kippur or not. "Quality, quantity or training". Could have been in FIghter Weapns Review or maybe Air University's professional journal. He had many good points, but I did not know about his involvement with developing the concepts for the Eagle , Viper and Hawg.

That was last I heard of the guy, but ran into Riccioni at Hill when he was advocating the F-20 ( another war story because I almost got to fly that sucker in early 1985).

Up to me I would broadcast on every frequency what a blowhard and camp-follower and name-dropper Sprey is. The point is not whether he had combat time, but how much time he spent working with the "users" of the time, and Boyd was not one, Nor Riccioni. Others such as Moody were more current. And then a few of my classmates who were Mig killers.

Oh well, too long. The moving finger, having writ, moves on.

Gums sends...

blindpilot · by **blindpilot** » 24 Jul 2017, 02:19

Gums wrote:Salute!

Thanks,..

Back when we were developing the SON for the A-X and later phase ROC's for the F-X, ... just finishing my first combat tour ( Dragonfly 1967 and 1968) ... ... in early 1985).

Up to me I would broadcast on every frequency what a blowhard and camp-follower and name-dropper Sprey is. The point is not whether he had combat time, but how much time he spent working with the "users" of the time,...
Gums sends...

Thanks Gums. That's what I was looking for ... so moving then from Gum's '80s up to 1997 ish when Berke's experience is just starting. My reports are second hand, but the source is "late 70's F-15A, Pentagon etc., and circa 2000ish Group Commander of F-16/A-10/F-117 squadrons." Little changed in the debate world, but post Yom Kippur, and especially after the success in Beka Valley, things in the real world changed big time. Avionics and SEAD became king, ... and you didn't do that in cheap day fighters with a gun sight. Lots of theories got literally shot out of the sky in Yom Kippur, and early Desert Storm sorties and even after. Again when Sprey spoke, he was wrong, wrong, and wrong again every time.

so that gets us to 1997-2000 and Berke is in the fast lane of his career and his expertise stands on its own. His witness to the last 25 years is unimpeachable.

So don't ask me why Av Week brings Sprey in as an expert. I have no clue. His "50 years" is full of worthless conclusions on lessons never learned. When Sprey blows smoke about his fifty years before Berke .... the sweet young reporter lady might get fooled,and Berke may have been in diapers back then .... but we were there .... and Berke in diapers still knew more about fighters than Sprey did, and the reporter needs to do some homework.

just saying, ...MHO
BP

PS I do not diminish the value of such things as the EM theory and such that came from the would be reformers, but that wasn't Sprey. He steals from the others when he lets RT and reporters claim it. He should stick to jazz and sound equipment. I hear he is pretty sharp and is an expert there ...

durahawk · by **durahawk** » 24 Jul 2017, 02:49

Ya know, come to think of it... it actually speaks pretty highly of the F-35 that Sprey is the most "qualified expert" that AvWeek could find to present an opposing viewpoint. :mrgreen:

Dragon029 · by **Dragon029** » 24 Jul 2017, 03:01

Took me a few days to make, but here's a single-piece, video version of the interview (there's no footage of the interview, just relevant videos, text from documents / reports, etc - I have things like charts that show the concurrency cost per jet on the screen when Sprey is saying that no such figures exist, etc):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pgiq-TlmSo

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 24 Jul 2017, 04:54

Many thanks for the video 'Dragon029'. :applause:

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 24 Jul 2017, 05:37

Dragon029 wrote:Took me a few days to make, but here's a single-piece, video version of the interview

Now we just need a CC track for live "Fact Checking" :mrgreen:

tincansailor · by **tincansailor** » 24 Jul 2017, 06:42

Very interesting PODcast. Since Sprey always accuses people of lying to advance their careers someone should point out he makes a living by being a professional critic. Why don't they point out that he didn't design the F-16, A-10, or any other aircraft. Does he ever wonder why the Russian Government puts him on air to attack the F-22, and F-35? Does he think Russia is tying to save the American tax payer money?

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 24 Jul 2017, 06:43

Dragon029 wrote:Took me a few days to make, but here's a single-piece, video version of the interview (there's no footage of the interview, just relevant videos, text from documents / reports, etc - I have things like charts that show the concurrency cost per jet on the screen when Sprey is saying that no such figures exist, etc):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pgiq-TlmSo

I'll check this out ASAP. Could be pure gold, thanks man!

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 24 Jul 2017, 16:59

Thanks Dragon029 for the "video"!

arrow-nautics · by **arrow-nautics** » 24 Jul 2017, 23:07

: 1t0der.jpg (92.39 KiB) Viewed 8016 times

1,200 lbs of fuel is what it takes for a CF-18 to start, taxi, and take off. Three ounces of gas is the equivalent of 15 Bic lighters.

Three ounces (IIRC) typically will start an automobile roughly 4 times.

arrow-nautics · by **arrow-nautics** » 24 Jul 2017, 23:16

Yes yes Pierre. We are all very aware that "3 ounces of gas" was total hyperbole on your part. Employed with such exaggeration that we "get" it's meant to ridiculously over emphasize the amount of fuel used. But you're a SUPPOSED expert. You're either too lazy to quote a proper load amount OR YOU DON'T KNOW! Why are you even employing hyperbole? Experts are meant to educate the uninformed. An expert should be professional enough to A) Know & B) To be accurate

IMO: This is comparable to a self proclaimed Star Wars fanatic/expert referring to the fantastic great feats of "The Aluminum Falcon"