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

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2017, 23:02
by spazsinbad
Part I: F-35 in the Crossfire
20 Jul 2017 Lara Seligman

"Pentagon Editor Lara Seligman leads a debate about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with two seasoned experts – retired Marine Lt. Col. David Berke, a former F-35B and F-22 pilot and Pierre Sprey, who helped conceptualize the design of the F-16 and A-10 fighters. In this episode, they discuss whether the F-35 can fight in combat as advertised."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft ... -crossfire

Re: PODcast - Part I: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Berke]

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2017, 23:26
by SpudmanWP
OMFG.....

The BS from Lara & Sprey started to roll from the very first sentence.

I wish they did this as a Video so I could see the Lt. Col.'s face as Sprey droned on... :doh:

Re: PODcast - Part I: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Berke]

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2017, 23:45
by spazsinbad
Part II: F-35 in the Crossfire
20 Jul 2017 Lara Seligman

"Pentagon Editor Lara Seligman leads a debate about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with two seasoned experts – retired Marine Lt. Col. David Berke, a former F-35B and F-22 pilot and Pierre Sprey, who helped conceptualize the design of the F-16 and A-10 fighters. Among the topics in this second part of the series is whether the cost of the $400 billion program is worth the capability of the aircraft."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft ... -crossfire

Re: PODcast - Part I: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Berke]

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 00:04
by SpudmanWP
Lol.. The Lt. Col ripped them a new one for insinuating that a pilot would hide issues or not tell the truth in fear of "losing his job".

Damn I want to see that video.

Re: PODcast - Part I: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Berke]

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 00:07
by juretrn
To me this is a great opportunity to make Sprey look silly even more.

Re: PODcast - Part I: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Berke]

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 00:16
by SpudmanWP
Damn he's an idiot. I would love to debate him but I've been told not to beat up the mentally handicap.

Lol.. He still wants to buy "basic" F-16s (with no BVR or multirole stuff).

I keep hearing the Lt. Col. Laughing at Sprey in the background.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 00:42
by juretrn
Paraphrasing here:
Russian fighters are great for airshows, but I wouldn't take one into combat. -Pierre Sprey, 2017

For the next time you encounter a Russian troll that wants to use Sprey's arguments.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 01:57
by blindpilot
Interesting interview, thnx.

I do believe we need to get Berke immediate medical attention for his tongue. It has to be bitten clear through. Amazing level of patience, which we probably should expect from a Marine.

What he could do ... with his 22 plus years of actual real world experience in subjects, Sprey can't even comprehend, ... he did very well. I'm just going to address the thing he couldn't do. He couldn't say he "had fifty years" watching military procurement. He is simply too young .... so let's attack that question here and now.

Some .... many of us here have FIFTY plus years and WERE there when Boyd/fighter mafia etc. etc. was happening. (some one nudge Gums and wake him up).

So Berke addressed the reality of 25 years of history, up to the present and visions of the future, better than anyone. I'm going to speak of the time between 50 and 25 years ago.

Sprey is a freaking liar, idiot, and his very credentials are distorted from what actually happened in the fighter mafia days. His greatest contribution, (which was minimal to non existent technically, and marginal in theory) was for a cheap day fighter vision of the F-16A, and the total trashing of what the F-15 would be.

Well. He was wrong! The F-15 was, and probably is one of the greatest air superiority fighters in history IN WAR The F-16 was quickly changed into a multi-role F-16C and beyond fighter, with lots of expensive gadget avionics, radars, and pods. If it hadn't, the "day fighter" would have been way outclassed by the threats Israel and others faced (see F-4s in Yom Kipur war). Israel would not exist if Sprey was even close to knowing anything right. Sprey was totally wrong fifty years ago! He is full of sh@t. That's what Berke kept wanting to say, but was being polite to the old man.

Well we were there, old man !!!! when the first F-15A went operational, and when the F-16A was matured into the top fighter it has become. We were there, when the Air Force tried to plan what the A-10 contribution to stopping the Russian tank invasion wave might or could not be, cringing at the reality.

Sprey basically in this video slandered airmen, officers, and professionals with impunity. His entire argument is the generals are liars, the pilots are liars, the workers in the industry are liars. Well I will gladly trash him and I'll be telling the truth.

So you will hear on this board some blunt statements. Here's one. Sprey couldn't design a paper air plane that would go past his own feet. AND he never did design anything. His credentials are a fraud, stealing from the work of others. He's a washed up technocrat, a bureaucracy facilitator, trying to sound relevant. It's a shame he has gotten the ear of AvWeek and others in this debate, with a label he never earned. Berke should have just called him what he was... but he is a gentleman and an officer. I'm not sure I would have bit my tongue as hard.

Just MHO,
BP

PS We'll have to go offline for me to tell you what I really think ... :D :D

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 02:00
by bring_it_on
juretrn wrote:Paraphrasing here:
Russian fighters are great for airshows, but I wouldn't take one into combat. -Pierre Sprey, 2017

For the next time you encounter a Russian troll that wants to use Sprey's arguments.


For all the time he's spent on RT, he probably has never said that to their face.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 10:34
by kimjongnumbaun
I snickered when they said this was a discussion between two "experts" knowing that Sprey was on one side.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 13:30
by mk82
F*ck Sprey......he got owned HARD!!!! :mrgreen: Marines do lead the way!

" So you will hear on this board some blunt statements. Here's one. Sprey couldn't design a paper air plane that would go past his own feet. AND he never did design anything. His credentials are a fraud, stealing from the work of others. He's a washed up technocrat, a bureaucracy facilitator, trying to sound relevant. It's a shame he has gotten the ear of AvWeek and others in this debate, with a label he never earned. Berke should have just called him what he was... but he is a gentleman and an officer. I'm not sure I would have bit my tongue as hard"

This!

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 13:33
by mk82
This is an awesome song for Sprey.....Wrong wrong wrong wrong.....wrong wrong wrong wrong! Suits him well don't you think.

I believe Lt Col John Boyd actually hated that pr*ck as well.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 15:36
by XanderCrews
Lol at the comments.

When your eye can just tell aerodynamics and all the pilots are just wrong

LMAO

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 18:40
by grab6303
Blind Pilot...
Thanks for having faith in "us." I was one of those guys calling the baby ugly as we were working on it in the early LRIP days. The pilots were over on their side calling the baby ugly. Once a lot of the old heads from both sides got to Hill and received our later LRIPs the baby had grown into a pretty fine looking young lady. That only happened because none of us were ever "zippered" by a General or a Senator (we talked to plenty of both over the years). Keep fighting the good fight for us. Grab

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 21:11
by kimjongnumbaun
He's just a pawn of the Russian disinformation campaign. The sad part is he doesn't even realize it or that he's working their agenda. Anything for a buck these days I guess. But that's the difference between a slime ball like him vs a military member like Berke. We wouldn't sell out our own country for Russian scraps after we have spent a lifetime defending it.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 22:06
by XanderCrews
kimjongnumbaun wrote:He's just a pawn of the Russian disinformation campaign. The sad part is he doesn't even realize it or that he's working their agenda. Anything for a buck these days I guess. But that's the difference between a slime ball like him vs a military member like Berke. We wouldn't sell out our own country for Russian scraps after we have spent a lifetime defending it.


I guess a theif thinks everyone steals...

Sprey is a pawn, so everyone else is too in his mind

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2017, 22:27
by SpudmanWP
XanderCrews wrote:I guess a theif thinks everyone steals...


Well... That explains Antifa :roll:

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 02:10
by Gums
Salute!

I am compelled to comment in answer to Blind's gauntlet ( BP, Gums and Steve still trying to RDVS in a few weeks up here in Colorado, but family stuff in the way).

Not only did we just have the "Crossfire" debacle, but the discussion over on AvWeek bout not replacing the Hawg right now is a classic example of the armchair vets commenting ( and we have some here, but not as clueless, heh heh). I cannot make myself respond to those clueless aviation enthusiasts.

So I restrict comments to mudbeating.

1) As BP stated, I was there in the actual mudbeater community when the "statement of need", the "required operational capability" and then the "request for proposal" phase of the Hawg, the Eagle and the Viper. Good timing. Then I flew actual combat mudbeating missions in the Dragonfly and the Sluf. Outta my 400 missions, less than 100 were "enemy at the fence" situations, maybe only 50 or 60. OTOH, many missions were LZ prep and "hanging around" to help the grunts after their airborne assault.

2) I can tell you that the original "SON" for the AX was not focused upon killing tanks at Fulda Gap with a big gun. USAF wanted a big A-37 or jet-powered A-1. The Viet Nam mentality was evident.

3) The Sluf was not nearly as capable as the Viper for a "multi-role" platform. It was useless for A2A. For mudbeating it was as accurate and had better nav gear than the Viper until maybe Block 30 or so. I would have had no problems flying the Sluf in early ETO scenarios with good Weasel support.

The Sluf did a decent job for CSAR after USAF gave all the A-1 planes to the Vee. I flew two CSAR missions, and only one of those was "hairy", with a wounded Jolly and then the exciting escort of him outta dodge. We had trouble with low ceilings due to a big turn radius. OTOH, our strafe with the computed sight was outstanding, as was our rockets and light bombs. Only the A-37 had as good an accuracy according to the FAC reports in the Corona Harvest files.

And now we have the Stubby! Outstanding mudbeating and it has a surprising A2A maneuver capability most have not thot of. The Viper started A2A, so its capability in that regard was no surprise.

4) I flew the mini-Warthog in combat and dropped many dumb bombs, napalm cans and such within 50 meters of the good guys. No computers. Big deal. We didn't see MANPADS until 1972. I only got shot up real bad on one mission.

I then did it again 4 years later in the Sluf, to the same rave reviews by the grunts.

What the folks living in the past do not realize is we do not have to press the attack until seeing the "whites of their eyes". On the other end of the spectrum are the high tech armchair folks that ascribe super capabilities to the new equipment. The reality is in between, ya think.

5) Finally, we have to look at the threat, the likely scenarios, the location of the battle, and so forth.

I shall not further comment upon the political aspects of the possible scenarios other than to opine that we U.S. folks cannot cure all the ills of the world.

Gums sends....

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 04:09
by rheonomic
How the f**k does anyone still take Pierre Sprey seriously?

Blind/Gums -- thanks for those comments, very interesting!

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 04:11
by blindpilot
Good stuff gums. I'm still in the mountains once or twice a week. Had a great fireworks show on the 5th. Had to take the dog up there, because the city was driving her crazy. Nice 15 minutes show and then all was quiet again in the mountains. Denver meanwhile starts non stop illegal fireworks a week before until a week after. Dog couldn't handle it.

Here on this thread, I was remembering the Boyd/Fighter mafia, and Pierre Sprey's place in it. My comment was Sprey was NOT a designer, fighter pilot, congressman, talk show host, or anything other than a ... I call them bureaucracy facilitators. This new expert label as "Designer of the F-16 and A-10" just kind of rubs me wrong. He steals honor from those who actually did/do the work. Especially when he was at most a statistician when actually working, but later from the bench calls the actual design engineers, lying blood sucking contractors. He never tested anything, and he calls the actual development testers who put their lives at risk, lying, self interested wusses. He never wore a uniform, but calls genuine war heroes dishonest. His expertise is .... questionable ... :D :D :D His calling them liars as his sole argument in his case, is laughable. His insulting men whose trash he isn't worthy of hauling is obscene.

I was impressed at Lt. Col Berke's ability to avoid clocking him in the nose, during the discussion. (verbally or literally)

MHO
BP

PS Every honorable man or woman I know, would interrupt, and correct immediately, if a reporter called them something they were not. Sprey is pathologically incapable of such a thing. I think he has become to believe it himself.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 05:06
by XanderCrews
rheonomic wrote:How the f**k does anyone still take Pierre Sprey seriously?

!


That's the million dollar question isn't it?

Is avaition week about airplanes and the people and crew and fix and design them, or is it about letting in a loud mouth critic who's only qualification is working at the Pentagon he despises 50 years ago?

If I was going to teach people about airplanes the Last person I would recommend would be Sprey, even amongst the "reformers" he's dead last. Boyd was at least a pilot

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 05:12
by rheonomic
XanderCrews wrote:Is avaition week about airplanes and the people and crew and fix and design them, or is it about letting in a loud mouth critic who's only qualification is working at the Pentagon he despises?


I guess sensationalism sells more magazines? Not to mention that >90% of defense reporters seem to be technologically incompetent.

--

Just finished listening to the podcasts, I think my blood pressure has doubled from listening to that moron blather on about sh*t he knows nothing about.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 05:13
by SpudmanWP
rheonomic wrote:How the f**k does anyone still take Pierre Sprey seriously?


Because idiot, non fact-checking "reporters" keep referring to him as "a", if not "the" designer of the F-16 & A-10. They also completely miss how the entire concept of a "light weight fighter" was a failure which was abandoned soon after the F-16 started development.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 05:17
by rheonomic
SpudmanWP wrote:Because idiot, non fact-checking "reporters" keep referring to him as "a", if not "the" designer of the F-16 & A-10. They also completely miss how the entire concept of a "light weight fighter" was a failure which was abandoned soon after the F-16 started development.


I also wonder how much the Coram "Boyd cheerleading" book had to do with the (seeming?) resurgence of Sprey et al.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 05:35
by XanderCrews
SpudmanWP wrote:
rheonomic wrote:How the f**k does anyone still take Pierre Sprey seriously?


Because idiot, non fact-checking "reporters" keep referring to him as "a", if not "the" designer of the F-16 & A-10. They also completely miss how the entire concept of a "light weight fighter" was a failure which was abandoned soon after the F-16 started development.


The ave weak description of sprey on the F-16 was very "tactful"

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 08:11
by amamilaviationspotter
Honestly that was one of the more one-sided and brutal exchanges/"debates" I have heard haha. One was a expert, military pilot, and well rounded individual on the subject. The other was a loud gasbag who lives off of false fame and the work of others and is a major pretender. It was pretty comical to say the least. I would have loved to hear the thoughts going through Berke's head during parts of that.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 08:53
by kimjongnumbaun
I thought the reported was quite knowledgeable and clearly she had done time with the service members. She was clearly putting Prey in his place without directly making the debate between him and her.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 12:36
by ricnunes
I fully subscribe what rheonomic said with "How the f**k does anyone still take Pierre Sprey seriously?"

Honestly I wasn't able to hear the entire Podcast due to Mr. Sprey "babbling rant". For starters his speech is always the same and secondly wasn't the guy (Sprey) drunk or something like that? Really, he dragged his voice so hard that in my opinion it really looked like a drunk man. :doh:

Well, what I did for the most part was advancing the Podcast to where Lt. Col Berke started to speak and yes, Lt. Col Berke basically "smashed" the opposition (Mr. Sprey and shamefully the Journalist herself).

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 14:58
by smsgtmac
Sprey was working in the all of the POGO faux military reform talking points, especially as it applies to the DOT&E side of the Reformer-DOT&E SLICC. By the way he hit his stride on that topic suddenly in one of his ramblings I think he was 'prepped' on that angle in particular by the usual suspects. To protect their philosophical foothold inside government it is an imperative that the Faux Reform Industry beat the drum and keep decreeing ONLY DOT&E are pure of heart and have honorable intentions while EVERYONE else has ulterior motives. DOT&E was created by a mixed bag of POGO fellow travelers and bandwagon reformers in the Newt Gingrich era and is about the most NVA organ in DoD.
My take on the Berke vs. Sprey show: https://twitter.com/SMSgt_Mac/status/888414838304776192

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 18:10
by blindpilot
smsgtmac wrote:Sprey was working in the all of the POGO faux military reform talking points, especially as it applies to the DOT&E side of the Reformer-DOT&E SLICC....


EVEN HERE, he claims more than he owns. For those who lived through the stuff, he was a tag along puppy to the real forces. Thomas Christie was(still is) twice the mathematician, and driving force for DOT&E ... even to eventually becoming DOT&E (2001-2005 under Rumsfeld) Sprey was a "me too" tag along. I'm not necessarily a Christie fan (in DOT&E theory), but he is genuine, and especially with EM stuff, has contributed real value. I respect him .... as for Sprey .... well ...

Like I said, Berke did great addressing the last 25 years, on which he is "an" if not "the" expert. I just didn't want to let the 25-50 years ago bluster from Sprey go unchallenged, that's garbage BS as well.

MHO
BP

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 19:51
by SpudmanWP
Anyone up for a Whitehouse petition on drafting Berke to be the next head of the DOT&E?

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 22:19
by popcorn
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:

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 23:01
by jjk
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...

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2017, 23:13
by SpudmanWP
Dear God NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2017, 22:57
by Gums
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...

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 02:19
by blindpilot
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 ...

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 02:49
by durahawk
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:

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 03:01
by Dragon029
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

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 04:54
by spazsinbad
:applause: Many thanks for the video 'Dragon029'. :applause:

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 05:37
by SpudmanWP
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:

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 06:42
by tincansailor
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?

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 06:43
by XanderCrews
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!

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 16:59
by ricnunes
Thanks Dragon029 for the "video"!

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 23:07
by arrow-nautics
1t0der.jpg


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.

1t0gy8.jpg


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

Image

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2017, 23:16
by arrow-nautics
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"

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 03:00
by XanderCrews
3 oz of gas? I'm impressed!!

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 04:39
by Dragon029
XanderCrews wrote:3 oz of gas? I'm impressed!!

Must have an incredible loiter time!

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 04:44
by arrow-nautics
Indeed. This is all you need:

999999-41689300494.jpg


:doh:

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 22:03
by usnvo
arrow-nautics wrote:Indeed. This is all you need:

999999-41689300494.jpg


:doh:


I am not sure how the aircraft was loaded for the flight demo, but even if it was a light fuel load it wouldn't matter because every other flight demo aircraft does exactly the same thing! And since the F-35 already has the internal fuel tanks, weapons racks, and targeting systems where other aircraft will need external pylons, tanks, pods, and weapon racks, the F-35 will have significantly less total weight added as well as less form drag to get to mission weight. So if it can perform with the other flight demo aircraft, it can outperform them loaded for combat.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 22:49
by ricnunes
usnvo wrote:
I am not sure how the aircraft was loaded for the flight demo, but even if it was a light fuel load it wouldn't matter because every other flight demo aircraft does exactly the same thing! And since the F-35 already has the internal fuel tanks, weapons racks, and targeting systems where other aircraft will need external pylons, tanks, pods, and weapon racks, the F-35 will have significantly less total weight added as well as less form drag to get to mission weight. So if it can perform with the other flight demo aircraft, it can outperform them loaded for combat.


Precisely! Pierre Sprey is such a double standards douchebag :doh:

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 22:51
by hythelday
XanderCrews wrote:3 oz of gas? I'm impressed!!


And they want to re-engine B-52s and dump another gazillion $$$ into Raider?! If F-35A can do five minutes worth of airshow on 3 oz of gas, it should be able to circumnavigate the globe several times over on 18k lb internal!!!! Mujamdar has to aler the publiv before it's too late!!!!

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2017, 14:29
by grab6303
arrow-nautics wrote:Indeed. This is all you need:

999999-41689300494.jpg


:doh:

How did you get a picture of my Super Top Secret Hot Pit Kit? That can was all we needed when we developed F-35 combat generation TTPs.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2017, 08:42
by magitsu
Everyone should read this story about Berke. Highly recommended!

It's about discipline vs. motivation in the course of his career.

http://www.businessinsider.com/top-gun- ... &IR=T&IR=T

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2017, 09:57
by spazsinbad
'Chip' Berke was selected especially to undergo F-22 training then F-35 by the then USAF Secretary(?) - story on SLDinfo from a few years ago with many references there about him and his lectures world wide. So I guess he is a good communicator, having seen a few of the Berke lectures on video. Anyway he just tells it like it was for him - such as:
"...All told, over the next four years I completed more than 120 nighttime carrier landings, often following combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hated each and every one of them. No amount of motivation, visualization, or familiarization made me comfortable as I descended towards a faint string of lights in a sea of black. Night landings remained an unrewarding, unfulfilling, and constant misery. But they were necessary, so I did them....

...At Top Gun, the pilots most likely to be invited back as instructors were the ones with the most discipline. They were the ones who did the tedious research to prepare for a brief. They were the ones who never cut short a debrief until every learning point had been identified. They were the ones who outperformed their more talented peers because they worked harder and longer....

...If you want someone who will never lie, cheat, or steal, find someone who is disciplined...."

8) DISCIPLINE (as he makes clear in the article above) allowed him do it. :shock:

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2017, 11:09
by hornetfinn
magitsu wrote:Everyone should read this story about Berke. Highly recommended!

It's about discipline vs. motivation in the course of his career.

http://www.businessinsider.com/top-gun- ... &IR=T&IR=T


Thank you a lot! That was one of the best and most candid interviews I've ever read. I would recommend that for anybody in any field to read, be it a soldier, company CEO, athlete, a medical doctor, engineer or waste collector. I wholeheartedly agree that discipline is the most important quality for any person to succeed well in their jobs or life in general. All the other articles by Berke there seem to be highly interesting and very well thought out.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2017, 11:24
by hornetfinn
I think Berke needed every ounce of that discipline against Pierre Sprey... :D Actually that video was very interesting since Berke gave so interesting insight into where air combat and fighters are today.

I think criticism and alternative views are very needed, but only if it's intelligent and honest. Pierre Sprey's criticism is neither and he fails to accept all the development made during the last 50 years or so. Yeah, landline phones and mechanical calculators have some good qualities, but they are not coming back in the era of smart phones and computers.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2017, 21:29
by XanderCrews
hornetfinn wrote:I think criticism and alternative views are very needed, but only if it's intelligent and honest. Pierre Sprey's criticism is neither and he fails to accept all the development made during the last 50 years or so.


Its his tradition:

In May 1969, Lieutenant Colonel John Boyd and Pierre Sprey were joined in the
Pentagon by another advocate of a lightweight fighter, Colonel Everest Riccioni, assigned to the Tactical Fighter Requirements Division of Air Force Headquarters. Riccioni, like Boyd, had not flown in Vietnam and he was, like Boyd, an engineer. Hehad flown fighters for a brief period (he taught at the Air Force Academy for longer than
he flew) and claimed to have written a manual on jet aircraft tactics while flying F-100s
in Germany.21 When Boyd and Sprey learned that Riccioni was not only concerned about
the size and expense of the F-15 but also about several of its new systems, they
welcomed him to the group. Riccioni grandly designated the group ìthe Fighter Mafiaî and himself as the ìthe Godfather.î
22 The three began to brainstorm ways to make the Air
Force and the Department of Defense accept their theories. They gave the ìRed Birdî a
new name, the ìVF-XX /F-XX,î but it remained a small, single-engine fighter that would
have a loaded weight of 25,000 pounds, no radar or sophisticated avionics, and armed
with only cannon and heat-seeking missiles.

In mid-1969, Sprey mounted a formal challenge to the F-14/F-X. In the name of the
OSD/SA staff, he drafted a ìDraft Presidential Memorandum [DPM] on Tactical Air,î
suggesting both the Air Force and the Navy adopt the VF-XX/F-XX concept, claiming it
would allow the services to double the size of their future fighter force.24 The DPM
circulated around the Pentagon for coordination and, coming after Laird had seemingly
gutted OSD/SA, dismayed both the Air Force and the Navy because it threatened both the
F-14 and F-X programs. The Navy was especially unhappy because Lairdís reduction in
the number of F-14s left the Navy short of the number of new fighters required for its
carriers, but it wanted more F-14s, not a less capable lightweight fighter. The Navy took
the lead in the counterattack, and in an informal but devastating response circulated
around the Pentagon, George Spangenberg, the Director of the Naval Air Systems
Commandís (NAVAIRSYSCOM) Evaluation Division, and Fred Gloeckler of the
Systems Evaluation Division, wrote a scathing analysis of Spreyís work. The Navy
engineers said the lightweight claimed for the VF-XX was ìunachievableî and the
proposed thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading could only be achieved by a larger
airplane. They added it was obvious that Sprey was not an aeronautical engineer and
that:

[Spreyís] basic concepts have been considered in detail by the Services
during the formative stages of the F-14 and F-15, have been reviewed by
DDR&E [Deputy Director of Research and Evaluation], and rejected in all
decisions to date...the reconsideration of the concept [VF-XX/F-XX] as a
viable alternative should have been turned down before submission to the
services...

In common with past papers by the same author, this study contains
many fallacious assumptions, half-truths, distortions, and erroneous
extrapolations. Unsubstantiated opinions are presented as facts. Any
rebuttals give the appearance of arguments against the rudimentary virtues
of simplicity, high performance, and low cost.


This response, while delivered with feeling, was factual and analytical and effectively
blunted Spreyís attempt to forward the DPM. It also showed that Sprey was out of his
class when confronted with knowledgeable aeronautical engineers, but it was a valuable
lesson for Sprey, Boyd, Riccioni, and other Critics ñ do not make arguments in front of
experts. Their arguments would only achieve traction when they could present them to
non-engineers unaware of the complexity and trade-offs of aircraft design. This meant
they would have to move out of the Pentagon and fight on a different field.



The "reformers" tradition really:

Top Gun innovation went beyond the ìbook knowledgeî of the strengths and
weaknesses of the F-4 and Soviet fighters and forced its students to put the principles into
practice in daily combat with small and very maneuverable A-4s. This appears to have
been the first time in history a military force trained regularly against equipment that
simulated the equipment they would be facing in combat. It was the birth of ìrealistic
training,î which was to become the great American military innovation of the post- Vietnam era.

The Top Gun training program had none of the restrictions the Air Force had on airto-air
combat and, in developing the training syllabus, the Top Gun instructor cadre
sought information from all quarters. At one point, they invited John Boyd, now an Air
Force Lieutenant Colonel, to brief the Top Gun instructors about his energy
maneuverability charts.

While energy maneuverability was by now a common buzzword
in the air-to-air community, Boydís briefing did not go well. Boyd, who had not flown
for over five years, insisted it was impossible for an F-4 to win a dogfight with the highly
maneuverable MiG-17. The Top Gun instructors disagreed (at least two had shot down
MiG-17s in dogfights), but Boyd was adamant in saying it was impossible.
The Top Gun
instructors left the briefing unimpressed by Boyd and his plethora of charts and graphs, and the unitís commander, Commander Ron ìMugsî McKeown, said later: "never trust
anyone who would rather kick your a$$ with a slide rule than with a jet."


The irony is these guys who accuse the military of being rigid and dogmatic with ideology that doesn't match up to the real world LOL

:mrgreen:

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2017, 01:05
by Gums
Salute!

Nice two articles, Crews, even if submitted in long snips. Attribution? Defense journals?

I wish I could get some of my classmates and contemporaries to join in here. I only personally know three front seat Mig killers that are still alive ( a few others on "The Wall"). Then a slew of Gibs. I met Cunningham several times, and I have met my classmate Ritchie many times. The first Zoomie to shoot down a Mig lives closeby and we see each other a lot during football season. My other source works with me in the Dragonfly association, and his shootdown is on F-16.net in all its glory.

They all would take issue with Sprey, and maybe Boyd. I was not impressed with Riccioni when I met him as he was selling the F-20 ( and BTW, that sucker had a pulse doppler radar and great ground map capability). Both Riccioni and Boyd gave presentations during the late 70's, and were pushing strange tactics besides the cheap, small interceptors.

I flew maybe 50 hours in the F-20 sim at Hawthorne, and about 4 or 5 in the Hornet sim at St Louis during my stint with the lawsuit back in '84 - '85. The F-20 was a perfect point defense jet, with a 2 minute RLG inertial alignment time and very nice climb performance. The A2G modes resembled the Viper's. The plane was not suitable for offensive A2G unless the enema was 50 miles away, heh heh.

OTOH, the Viper was awesome in A2A from the getgo, and the computer improvements during FSD made it great for beating mud. It had much better legs and loadout than the F-20 or the F-18 ( sorry, you Bug fans, but I flew with and versus them).

In closing, there is a complicated tradeoff between quantity and quality and training ( the Sprey article I read so many years ago). Sprey did not endure a full-blown scenario for most of his career where one side had overwhelming numbers and it was fight to the death. Viet Nam was educational WRT the effectiveness of interdiction and limited "strategic" bombing, and the U.S. had many Thuds and Phantoms. No real movement by the North Vee until they knew they were about to win and we bombed the helloutta Hanoi in December 1972. Sprey saw Yom Kippur, but moved on in the establishment quickly without analyzing the technology aspects of that fight, nor the eventual success of the IAF( the ground troops done rally good, too). The 1973 episode was a super learning experience for the IAF, and I was lucky to help a few of their vets checkout in the Viper.

I sat thru many presentations while at Air University before I got my Viper assignment. I endured the ground war doctrine emphasis on "maneuver" that Lind and others persented. Ditto with Boyd and OODA and "fast linear transits". GASP! Only guys I liked talked about the ground forces and Navy doctrine that was adapting to the new threat and such.

We need more guys like the Marine to be out front and praise or shame the new weapon systems. The armchair critics, as well as supporters of new stuff, must be branded as such and demonstrate impartial judgement usind experience and lottsa quotes from combat vets that have real world experience.

Gums sends...

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2017, 02:42
by lbk000
Gums wrote:Nice two articles, Crews, even if submitted in long snips. Attribution? Defense journals?

both excerpts are from a 2006 dissertation "Revolt of the Majors"
https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle ... III_55.pdf

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2017, 07:15
by XanderCrews
lbk000 wrote:
Gums wrote:Nice two articles, Crews, even if submitted in long snips. Attribution? Defense journals?

both excerpts are from a 2006 dissertation "Revolt of the Majors"
https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle ... III_55.pdf



Correct, thank you

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2017, 08:42
by tincansailor
In
closing, there is a complicated tradeoff between quantity and quality and training ( the Sprey article I read so many years ago). Sprey did not endure a full-blown scenario for most of his career where one side had overwhelming numbers and it was fight to the death. Viet Nam was educational WRT the effectiveness of interdiction and limited "strategic" bombing, and the U.S. had many Thuds and Phantoms. No real movement by the North Vee until they knew they were about to win and we bombed the helloutta Hanoi in December 1972. Sprey saw Yom Kippur, but moved on in the establishment quickly without analyzing the technology aspects of that fight, nor the eventual success of the IAF( the ground troops done rally good, too). The 1973 episode was a super learning experience for the IAF, and I was lucky to help a few of their vets checkout in the Viper.

Always interesting to read your insight gums. The Yon Kippur War was a traumatic experience for the Israeli's, North Vietnam was merely frustrating for The USAF. If the USAF had had an experience like that the argument for stealth would be irrefutable. Nothing concentrates the mind like a near death experience, both Israel, and the U.S. military did learn from 1973, and applied the lessons with new armor, air tactics, and EW Warfare. Sprey and many of the other professional critics seem to be fixated on the lessons of North Vietnam. You need more agile fighters, because you may have to go up against MIG-17's again.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2017, 09:31
by hornetfinn
tincansailor wrote:In
closing, there is a complicated tradeoff between quantity and quality and training ( the Sprey article I read so many years ago). Sprey did not endure a full-blown scenario for most of his career where one side had overwhelming numbers and it was fight to the death. Viet Nam was educational WRT the effectiveness of interdiction and limited "strategic" bombing, and the U.S. had many Thuds and Phantoms. No real movement by the North Vee until they knew they were about to win and we bombed the helloutta Hanoi in December 1972. Sprey saw Yom Kippur, but moved on in the establishment quickly without analyzing the technology aspects of that fight, nor the eventual success of the IAF( the ground troops done rally good, too). The 1973 episode was a super learning experience for the IAF, and I was lucky to help a few of their vets checkout in the Viper.

Always interesting to read your insight gums. The Yon Kippur War was a traumatic experience for the Israeli's, North Vietnam was merely frustrating for The USAF. If the USAF had had an experience like that the argument for stealth would be irrefutable. Nothing concentrates the mind like a near death experience, both Israel, and the U.S. military did learn from 1973, and applied the lessons with new armor, air tactics, and EW Warfare. Sprey and many of the other professional critics seem to be fixated on the lessons of North Vietnam. You need more agile fighters, because you may have to go up against MIG-17's again.


IMO the thing is also that they are fixated on the air-to-air combat part only for Vietnam war and it was only rather minor part of that war. By far the most US side losses were from surface to air weapons, especially AAA. Also accidents took far more US aircraft than enemy aircraft did (so reliability and ease of handling is important). So I really fail to see why Vietnam proved anything about superiority of light day fighters. I actually do think that if Vietnam war happened today, F-22 and especially F-35 would be perfect aircraft to take care of that. Simple light day fighters would get slaughtered on either side. Good luck going against S-400 battery defended by Su-35s in cheap light day fighter... :roll:

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2017, 09:50
by geforcerfx
hornetfinn wrote:IMO the thing is also that they are fixated on the air-to-air combat part only for Vietnam war and it was only rather minor part of that war.


We still see this today, look at how many people want us to drop 400 F-35's off from the Air force and buy more F-22s, what are you gonna do with the F-22s? I think people still imagine everyone having massive air forces of 5,000 fighters like back in the day. I doubt at any given point in time the Russian's or Chinese could get more than a 30 fighters into the air to defend air space at a single attack point.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2017, 13:55
by grab6303
geforcerfx wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:IMO the thing is also that they are fixated on the air-to-air combat part only for Vietnam war and it was only rather minor part of that war.


We still see this today, look at how many people want us to drop 400 F-35's off from the Air force and buy more F-22s, what are you gonna do with the F-22s? I think people still imagine everyone having massive air forces of 5,000 fighters like back in the day. I doubt at any given point in time the Russian's or Chinese could get more than a 30 fighters into the air to defend air space at a single attack point.


Concur. Both of those countries decided long ago that they would put their funds behind low cost (by comparison) missiles and RADAR. Nobody I know is concerned about the Chinese/Russian aircraft (both lack the capability to reliably regenerate/turn aircraft, therefore they lack persistence). All are concerned with Chinese and Russian missiles due to shear volume/range.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2017, 15:45
by XanderCrews
geforcerfx wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:IMO the thing is also that they are fixated on the air-to-air combat part only for Vietnam war and it was only rather minor part of that war.


We still see this today, look at how many people want us to drop 400 F-35's off from the Air force and buy more F-22s, what are you gonna do with the F-22s? I think people still imagine everyone having massive air forces of 5,000 fighters like back in the day. I doubt at any given point in time the Russian's or Chinese could get more than a 30 fighters into the air to defend air space at a single attack point.



A lot of these same people were calling for a halt of F-22 production since it would not deploy to the Stan too... they are short sighted useful idiots

The grass is greener where you water it

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2017, 02:32
by Gums
Salute!

I must clarify my points from previous post.

The article I read long ago that was co-authored by Sprey used several campaigns and battles that illustrated the value of "mass", training and the "quality" of the equipment. The "quality" of the personnel/warriors was part training and part motivation. In modern times it is hard to discuss the human factors due to political correctness. Having flown with and trained pilots from several nations, I cannot provide my personal opinion of them on such a forum as this. Sit with me at a bar with other vets with my experience and turn off the recorders. I can say that the "quality" of the warrior can overcome many deficiencies of the equipment - tactics and skill are force multipliers.

- Interdiction:
I flew armed recce over the Trail for 20 or 30 missions in early 1968. USAF tried to stop or slow the traffic bringing troops and supplies south. The physical structure of the Trail was unlike anything seen in WW2 or Korea. Further, the Vee were not moving squadrons of tanks and thousands of grunts in large convoys. Most of the Trail was invisible due to canopy cover. So we concentrated on a few areas that opened up and we could actually see the trails/roads.You can find pics of the famous "choke points", and they look like moonscape. Within an hour or two of hitting them the Vee had plowed the dirt and traffic resumed. The 'stan situation is not the same, and there are no well-traveled, obvious LOC's. I have a hard time getting hold of the situation there.

Interdiction seems to work best when the forces are dependent upon the movement of significant quantities of material and equipment, and maybe warriors. I can tellya that the most effective interdiction campaigns have been against naval forces. Blockades can really put hurt on the other guy. In SEA there was an obvious supply line to interdict - Haiphong Harbor. The rail lines from China were important, but not like an international harbor that made attacks politically risky. There was no movement of personnel. The enemy forces were all homegrown.

My conclusion? Interdiction in SEA did not accomplish much of anything due to the nature of the beast. Until 1972 or later, we were using a hammer to squash a fly. Secondly, the basic philosophy of the Vee did not value quick, immediate victory in the broad view.

- Strategic bombing:

We never flew any missions on the scale of WW2. Over the course of a half-dozen years we sent an entire species of jets to their grave - the Thuds. We did that by flyinf a few dozen jets, max, to bomb a bridge or worthless factory. They were up against the most highly-trained, experiences air defense folks any air force had ever seen, After all, they could have their noodle soup breakfast and wait for the 1100 strike by two dozen Thuds or F-4's. They got real good real fast.

Our effort to cripple infrastructure was not possible because the Vee were not building planes or tanks or boats or even explosives. Kinda reminds me of the 'stan, huh?

USAF and USN finally conducted a dozen days of serious bombing over Hanoi, but despite the sound and fury, the military effectiveness remains questionable. I was glad to fly on three of those days in December 1972, but it mainly made me feel like I had done something besides killing trees or blowing up a single truck on the Trail. My CAS and CSAR missions were in a different category, and results were immediate. Memories long-lasting.

Botomline is you ain't gonna win a low intensity conflict using WW2 strategic bombing and interdiction tactics. You have to target individuals and point targets.

- The fighter air war:

With realistic ROE, USAF and USN could have cleaned the skies any day it chose, even with the crappy Sparrow.

Sure, tactics at the outset were questionalble, but that changed. Folks learned and taught others the lessons.

I have to hand it to the Vee ( violating my rule about commenting on the other guys), they used very good tactics and exploited our ROE and lack of training for the type missions we flew day after day.

I do not think SEA is a good model for developing and training air superiority forces.
++++++++++++

Gotta go, noiw.

Gums sends...

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2017, 09:04
by tincansailor
Concur. Both of those countries decided long ago that they would put their funds behind low cost (by comparison) missiles and RADAR. Nobody I know is concerned about the Chinese/Russian aircraft (both lack the capability to reliably regenerate/turn aircraft, therefore they lack persistence). All are concerned with Chinese and Russian missiles due to shear volume/range.[/quote]

Your right. In Korea the Chinese sent up to 400 MIG-15's in the air a day. No SAMs in the Korean War. I guess only in a full blown Warsaw Pact attack on NATO would have seen hundreds of fights in the air. My guess is that a major attack on Taiwan would be more missiles then manned aircraft.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2017, 09:16
by tincansailor
Interdiction seems to work best when the forces are dependent upon the movement of significant quantities of material and equipment, and maybe warriors. I can tellya that the most effective interdiction campaigns have been against naval forces. Blockades can really put hurt on the other guy. In SEA there was an obvious supply line to interdict - Haiphong Harbor. The rail lines from China were important, but not like an international harbor that made attacks politically risky. There was no movement of personnel. The enemy forces were all homegrown.

My conclusion? Interdiction in SEA did not accomplish much of anything due to the nature of the beast. Until 1972 or later, we were using a hammer to squash a fly. Secondly, the basic philosophy of the Vee did not value quick, immediate victory in the broad view.

Your exactly right gums. The only way to win that war was a full scale ground offensive into Laos,to cut the trail overland. If we weren't prepared to do that we should never have made a major troop commitment. In a war of attrition our will vs. theirs they had to win. They live there, we weren't fighting for our homeland.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 01:46
by talkitron
Thanks Dragon for the video. Pierre Sprey claims that F-22s fighting over Iraq and Syria fly one sortie every five days or so. One sortie every five days is a small number. Does anyone have more data on F-22s sorties in Iraq and Syria or perspective on why the number of days per sortie might be so high?

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 04:26
by SpudmanWP
The only reason I can think of is that either the target does not justify F-22 flight hours or it's not a fixed or easily defined target (given the lack of A2G F-22 modes).

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 11:46
by hythelday
talkitron wrote:Thanks Dragon for the video. Pierre Sprey claims that F-22s fighting over Iraq and Syria fly one sortie every five days or so. One sortie every five days is a small number. Does anyone have more data on F-22s sorties in Iraq and Syria or perspective on why the number of days per sortie might be so high?


How about you ask Sprey where does he get his sortie numbers from? I betting he's making them up, because "F-22 is expensive over-engineered junk and is thus unreliable".

He's been making same BS arguments ever since they put radar on his cheap daytime dream fighter. I've just finished reading "Revolt of the Majors". What an outstanding work that is! Best of all, it has sources to varify presented data, unlike Sprey.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 14:50
by talkitron
SpudmanWP wrote:The only reason I can think of is that either the target does not justify F-22 flight hours or it's not a fixed or easily defined target (given the lack of A2G F-22 modes).


There are public data on the number of sorties in Iraq and Syria by aircraft model but not the number of sorties per individual air frame, from what I can tell. So there is no way to tell whether the F-22 has a maintenance issue. Here is an article from 2015 about F-22 use in Iraq and Syria it does not really answer my question.

http://www.standard.net/Military/2015/0 ... -and-Syria

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 14:56
by mk82
hythelday wrote:
talkitron wrote:Thanks Dragon for the video. Pierre Sprey claims that F-22s fighting over Iraq and Syria fly one sortie every five days or so. One sortie every five days is a small number. Does anyone have more data on F-22s sorties in Iraq and Syria or perspective on why the number of days per sortie might be so high?


How about you ask Sprey where does he get his sortie numbers from? I betting he's making them up, because "F-22 is expensive over-engineered junk and is thus unreliable".

He's been making same BS arguments ever since they put radar on his cheap daytime dream fighter. I've just finished reading "Revolt of the Majors". What an outstanding work that is! Best of all, it has sources to varify presented data, unlike Sprey.


Spot on!!

In fact Sprey never learned the real lessons from the Vietnam war (where the majority of USAF, USN and USMC aircraft losses were from ground based air defence systems), the 1973 Yom Kippur war or the Israeli Air Force's experience in Lebanon in 1982 (where IAF owned the Syrian IADS in Lebanon with devious tactics and technology, especially the ground based air defense systems). Good luck flying a cheap and unsophisticated daytime only fighter into a top notch IADS today. In fact, good luck flying a cheap and unsophisticated daytime only fighter over Hanoi in 1972.... where you are just as likely to be shot down!!!

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 23:32
by archeman
talkitron wrote:Thanks Dragon for the video. Pierre Sprey claims that F-22s fighting over Iraq and Syria fly one sortie every five days or so. One sortie every five days is a small number. Does anyone have more data on F-22s sorties in Iraq and Syria or perspective on why the number of days per sortie might be so high?


The F-22 would be useless as a Red Flag participant with that kind of '1/5 days' reliability.
Yet the F-22 shows up and performs it's role in Red Flag over and over again.

Something doesn't 'smell' right about that 1/5 information.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2017, 05:22
by spazsinbad
Good ole Lara - gotta get the most out of everyfing - just when you thought it was safe to cast your pods before swine eh.
Opposing Views: Debating The F-35’s Strengths And Weaknesses
08 Aug 2017 AvWEAK

"It is hard to find a more divisive topic in the aerospace world than the Lockheed Martin F-35. Aviation Week Pentagon Editor Lara Seligman sat down with two industry veterans who hold opposite views on the fighter: Marine Corps Lt. Col. (ret.) Dave Berke, a former Top Gun instructor, has flown [has kicked some butt dear girl] the F-35, F-22, F-16 and F-18; and Pierre Sprey, of “Fighter Mafia” fame, helped conceptualize designs for the A-10 and F-16. Excerpts follow....

:devil: ...[O Gawd I can't bring myself to excerpt or I'll SPREY everywhere] :doh: :drool:

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/opposin ... weaknesses

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2017, 07:39
by tincansailor
archeman wrote:
talkitron wrote:Thanks Dragon for the video. Pierre Sprey claims that F-22s fighting over Iraq and Syria fly one sortie every five days or so. One sortie every five days is a small number. Does anyone have more data on F-22s sorties in Iraq and Syria or perspective on why the number of days per sortie might be so high?


The F-22 would be useless as a Red Flag participant with that kind of '1/5 days' reliability.
Yet the F-22 shows up and performs it's role in Red Flag over and over again.

Something doesn't 'smell' right about that 1/5 information.



Your point about Red Flag makes perfect sense. F-22 Squadrons are clearly capable of sustained high tempo operations. The cost per flying hour may be high, but they clearly can do it. As they say the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and Red Flag is the eating. Or is it that the F-22 is the pudding, and Red Flag is the proof?

Sprey is one of those so called experts who is never held accountable for ether lying, or just being consistently wrong. It's strange to me that he passes himself off as an aircraft designer when any basic bio check would reveal he's not. Once you find that a person is lying about his credentials the rest of what they says should be suspect. Authors have their careers ruined over plagiarism, Doctors can go to jail for having fake degrees, brokers and layer's lose their licenses for lying to their clients, or the courts. It seems there are no ethical standards for defense critics.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 03:52
by garrya
I just had a discussion with neofightr in this topic https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=191547 .He said that he is a F-18 pilots. I don't know if he telling the truth or not but if he is It is the first time i talk to a combat pilot who pretty much agrees with all statements from Sprey so i thought it may worth sharing. :D What are your thoughts?
P/s: for anyone with little patient, i started to comment in page 6 that where our discussion started.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 04:32
by spazsinbad
I'm santa claws - talk to me or the reindeer - I forget all their names but DONNA und BLITZEN you talk on the INTERNET?

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 05:08
by garrya
spazsinbad wrote:I'm santa claws - talk to me or the reindeer - I forget all their names but DONNA und BLITZEN you talk on the INTERNET?

Iam sorry but i don't understand, what do you mean? :(

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 05:18
by spazsinbad
People typing on a keyboard on the internet can be anyone they claim to be & YOU have no idea of the truth, deal with it.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 05:34
by maus92
garrya wrote:I just had a discussion with neofightr in this topic https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=191547 .He said that he is a F-18 pilots. I don't know if he telling the truth or not but if he is It is the first time i talk to a combat pilot who pretty much agrees with all statements from Sprey so i thought it may worth sharing. :D What are your thoughts?
P/s: for anyone with little patient, i started to comment in page 6 that where our discussion started.


NF knows his sh*t.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 05:35
by lbk000
I don't think he's lying about being in the service, but being in the service doesn't make him a saint.

The people on EDF are just too cucked to call him out for ego farming.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 05:41
by spazsinbad
Hello 'maus92' - how are you today?

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 05:49
by eloise
You keep trying to compare the F16 as a bomber when Sprey would be the first to tell you it's a terrible bomber. The team he was a part of originally designed the F16 as a day-only air superiority fighter so of course it's a terrible bomber and to compare it to the F35 just makes the F35 look just as bad.
A great bomber is the B52, a great bomber is the B2 and a great in-close ground support aircraft is the A10, and an adequate maritime bomber is the F/A18. The F35 is none of these

What am i reading here? F-35 is a lousy bomber because it isn't as good as B-52 and B-2? :roll:

And we all know about the F15 and it's reputation don't we.

He and the people that worked alongside him have a lot to be proud of.

:roll: the heck?

s Although I don't think the E was ever a true replacement for the Tomcat, my gut feeling is it would fair better overall since it's better rounded as a fighter than the F35

An educated guess that he is a Boeing shill :mrgreen:

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 06:09
by blindpilot
lbk000 wrote:I don't think he's lying about being in the service, but being in the service doesn't make him a saint.

The people on EDF are just too cucked to call him out for ego farming.


Actually, there is no reason to doubt his stated background or opinion. What Berke knows that he doesn't know is the experience of dealing with the fifth gen paradigm. He did not fly training in F-22's with wet eared, low time lieutenants kicking his butt, because he was trapped in the "old way of thinking." Berke did. He doesn't understand the "iPhone" yet, and there's no reason he should. He still thinks its an "iPod, and a telephone, and an internet terminal."

The F-35 is not a "fighter jet," not a "telephone." It is a whole new way of thinking, that no one gets,.... until they do.

Berke's witness is spot on and very right.

Two things remain,
One, those that are closest to the Program, are impressed beyond just the F-35 being better. They are blown away by the new paradigm.
Two, even the pilots and units flying it are just learning what it all means. They have just started using "Their iPhone." More is yet to come.

It's just like any other paradigm shift. You don't get it, until you do.
"But Aircraft carriers only have 5 inch guns, and less armor than a battleship ... Yeah BUT!!!! It can operate a high tempo air base in the middle of the ocean... BUT it doesn't have the big guns ... Yeah BUT It can operate an air base in the middle of the ocean ... etc. etc. > WW II etc.

But those rapid fire rifles, and new artillery guns will not be able to be moved as fast as the cavalry can on horses... yeah but they fire a sheet of lead across the entire front ... But horses can run around their flanks ... yeah but they fire a sheet of lead across the entire front ... > WW I."

You don't get it, until you do.
MHO
BP

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 07:26
by Dragon029
garrya wrote:I just had a discussion with neofightr in this topic https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=191547 .He said that he is a F-18 pilots. I don't know if he telling the truth or not but if he is It is the first time i talk to a combat pilot who pretty much agrees with all statements from Sprey so i thought it may worth sharing. :D What are your thoughts?
P/s: for anyone with little patient, i started to comment in page 6 that where our discussion started.


Here's a Super Hornet pilot that has the opposite views:

https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/commen ... s/dbixlo6/

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 12:05
by garrya
Dragon029 wrote:
Here's a Super Hornet pilot that has the opposite views:

https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/commen ... s/dbixlo6/


I have seen that actually. It just that it is the first time i talk to a pilot who agreed with Sprey so I thought i should share

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 13:58
by botsing
eloise wrote:
s Although I don't think the E was ever a true replacement for the Tomcat, my gut feeling is it would fair better overall since it's better rounded as a fighter than the F35

An educated guess that he is a Boeing shill :mrgreen:

Maybe this F-18 guy might be Ricardo Traven?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing- ... -1.1320636

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 14:21
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:
garrya wrote:I just had a discussion with neofightr in this topic https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=191547 .He said that he is a F-18 pilots. I don't know if he telling the truth or not but if he is It is the first time i talk to a combat pilot who pretty much agrees with all statements from Sprey so i thought it may worth sharing. :D What are your thoughts?
P/s: for anyone with little patient, i started to comment in page 6 that where our discussion started.


NF knows his sh*t.


Not from what I can see. Most of those critiques are the same day 1 whining we hear before people actually get to know more on day 2. I literally loled when I heard "little compromise on the hornet" are you joking?

The Vietnam guns argument is so oversimplified and cliched and now 60 years old, that any professional who sites it raises red flags for me...

Hes white washing based on the current mood. The hornet (original and super) were both slayed as compromise designs. Hell the original notion was a freaking yf-17 an air force reject. It was bashed left right and center. Christ man. Slower than an F-4 and couldn't carry the bombs of an a-7, and the super hornet with its toed out pylons and slow a$$ everything was also crushed further as a compromise.

This guy might be a fine pilot, but he doesn't seem to understand sprey or history or most importantly, spreys history. (Why is he still carrying on the fabricated story that sprey "designed"the F-16?)

But maus says he knows his sh*t? Who was harry hilaker?


It reminds me of the marine (oh god an officer) on another forum who was determined the Us marines should operate only a-1 skyraiders. Nevermind the OV-10s that got wasted in 1991...

So probably a nice guy and great pilot, but one of the first things I learned In the military, putting on the military uniform doesn't make one an expert on military history.
it's compromised! So is everything. And sprey predicted a complicated military program would have issues, Damn knock me over with a feather! Even the super hornet has and continues to have issues, the Boeing tanker has issues. Is it compromised? What happened?

The F-14 was loaded with compromise if you read the history and was considered the king, only to be replaced by the too much compromise hornet. It's important to note, that just because the F-35 was not built exactly how the USN wanted it, does not make it hopelessly compromised. The second people bring up the "no two engine!" F-8, a-7, a-4... Just to name a few. The navy was operating a-7s into the early 1990s including combat.
It's not an alien concept to have a single engine jet on the boat, it's just new to the newbies

Sprey lost a lot of his credibility after 1991 and it's good to see "nf" acknowledge that at least. Ever since he's bashed every aircraft that is not the F-16 or A-10. It's hardly selective or intelligent. He's still got a hard on for the F-15. And it was NOT a bold prediction that the JSF program was going to run into trouble. I predicted 4 crashes and 2 dead on the STOVL in 2001. Happy to be wrong, but it was going to be a long climb. People knew that. Just like how the F-22 was a long climb and it was single mission, single service.

I wouldn't mind sprey and his apologists if the guy just admitted he was wrong every once in a while. Instead it's this ideology. Nothing will defeat the god of simplicity, and the devil of technology will be defeated. Ideology is a terrible thing because everything has to "fit" to make it work. The F-15 Is a bright shining example that the " too big, too complicated, too expensive" stuff does work. Contradciting the sprey narrative, their entire theory was toasted. He just doubled down. And if NF has actually had to meet and work with some of these guys he'd be far less impressed with them. Every military man I know that ran into the "reformers" was unimpressed with them, and they frequently took credit for things they did not do.

Try again maus

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 15:53
by SpudmanWP
I think I found a picture of that Hornet pilot in his fighter. It would explain the fascination with guns.

Image

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 17:32
by talkitron
Does anyone know why former Lt Col Berke retired from the Marines? Did Berke not make a promotion to full colonel? I am not saying it is easy to go from lieutenant colonel to colonel but it is a lot easier than from colonel to brigadier general. :D

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 18:22
by smsgtmac
He's still a Lt Col unless he resigned his commission when he retired, and you'd be surprised how many top meat servos retire instead of taking Colonel. I know two, and others who wish they had. If Burke decided he was going to retire earlier than when he could, he also could have set the stage for not making 0-6. I'm sure his reasons are many and complex, with one or two "primary'. If you asked him in person he'd probably say.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2017, 00:27
by Dragon029
Looking through his recent history, it seems to me like he just didn't want to be stuck behind a desk, not flying. After he finished being the CO of VMFAT-501 in Feb 2014, he did some study at John Hopkins for a year and then, while I can't find the source any more, I'm pretty sure he was in Washington for about a year, working in something to do with procurement or perhaps capability development. Then a few months ago he retired and joined some friends of his at Echelon Front, which is a company run by ex-mil guys who run training in leadership / team building, keynotes, etc for businesses.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2017, 01:25
by popcorn
Dragon029 wrote:Looking through his recent history, it seems to me like he just didn't want to be stuck behind a desk, not flying. After he finished being the CO of VMFAT-501 in Feb 2014, he did some study at John Hopkins for a year and then, while I can't find the source any more, I'm pretty sure he was in Washington for about a year, working in something to do with procurement or perhaps capability development. Then a few months ago he retired and joined some friends of his at Echelon Front, which is a company run by ex-mil guys who run training in leadership / team building, keynotes, etc for businesses.



Thanks for the tip on Echelon Front. Interesting outfit.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2017, 08:19
by lbk000
Have we arrived at the true agenda at last?
ta.png

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2017, 09:04
by mk82
XanderCrews wrote:
maus92 wrote:
garrya wrote:I just had a discussion with neofightr in this topic https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=191547 .He said that he is a F-18 pilots. I don't know if he telling the truth or not but if he is It is the first time i talk to a combat pilot who pretty much agrees with all statements from Sprey so i thought it may worth sharing. :D What are your thoughts?
P/s: for anyone with little patient, i started to comment in page 6 that where our discussion started.


NF knows his sh*t.


Not from what I can see. Most of those critiques are the same day 1 whining we hear before people actually get to know more on day 2. I literally loled when I heard "little compromise on the hornet" are you joking?

The Vietnam guns argument is so oversimplified and cliched and now 60 years old, that any professional who sites it raises red flags for me...

Hes white washing based on the current mood. The hornet (original and super) were both slayed as compromise designs. Hell the original notion was a freaking yf-17 an air force reject. It was bashed left right and center. Christ man. Slower than an F-4 and couldn't carry the bombs of an a-7, and the super hornet with its toed out pylons and slow a$$ everything was also crushed further as a compromise.

This guy might be a fine pilot, but he doesn't seem to understand sprey or history or most importantly, spreys history. (Why is he still carrying on the fabricated story that sprey "designed"the F-16?)

But maus says he knows his sh*t? Who was harry hilaker?


It reminds me of the marine (oh god an officer) on another forum who was determined the Us marines should operate only a-1 skyraiders. Nevermind the OV-10s that got wasted in 1991...

So probably a nice guy and great pilot, but one of the first things I learned In the military, putting on the military uniform doesn't make one an expert on military history.
it's compromised! So is everything. And sprey predicted a complicated military program would have issues, Damn knock me over with a feather! Even the super hornet has and continues to have issues, the Boeing tanker has issues. Is it compromised? What happened?

The F-14 was loaded with compromise if you read the history and was considered the king, only to be replaced by the too much compromise hornet. It's important to note, that just because the F-35 was not built exactly how the USN wanted it, does not make it hopelessly compromised. The second people bring up the "no two engine!" F-8, a-7, a-4... Just to name a few. The navy was operating a-7s into the early 1990s including combat.
It's not an alien concept to have a single engine jet on the boat, it's just new to the newbies

Sprey lost a lot of his credibility after 1991 and it's good to see "nf" acknowledge that at least. Ever since he's bashed every aircraft that is not the F-16 or A-10. It's hardly selective or intelligent. He's still got a hard on for the F-15. And it was NOT a bold prediction that the JSF program was going to run into trouble. I predicted 4 crashes and 2 dead on the STOVL in 2001. Happy to be wrong, but it was going to be a long climb. People knew that. Just like how the F-22 was a long climb and it was single mission, single service.

I wouldn't mind sprey and his apologists if the guy just admitted he was wrong every once in a while. Instead it's this ideology. Nothing will defeat the god of simplicity, and the devil of technology will be defeated. Ideology is a terrible thing because everything has to "fit" to make it work. The F-15 Is a bright shining example that the " too big, too complicated, too expensive" stuff does work. Contradciting the sprey narrative, their entire theory was toasted. He just doubled down. And if NF has actually had to meet and work with some of these guys he'd be far less impressed with them. Every military man I know that ran into the "reformers" was unimpressed with them, and they frequently took credit for things they did not do.

Try again maus


This!

It is pretty obvious that Neofightr is a f*ckwit troll who has never flown anything in his/her life much less a F/A 18. Funny that this Neofightr character didn't realize that the F/A 18 is a multirole fighter....full of technology....the antithesis of Sprey's ideas/ideology!

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2017, 09:06
by mk82
maus92 wrote:
garrya wrote:I just had a discussion with neofightr in this topic https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=191547 .He said that he is a F-18 pilots. I don't know if he telling the truth or not but if he is It is the first time i talk to a combat pilot who pretty much agrees with all statements from Sprey so i thought it may worth sharing. :D What are your thoughts?
P/s: for anyone with little patient, i started to comment in page 6 that where our discussion started.


NF knows his sh*t.


NF knows sh*t all....fixed it for ya!

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2017, 09:10
by mk82
lbk000 wrote:Have we arrived at the true agenda at last?
ta.png


Good catch! More evidence that Neofightr is a f*ckwit troll. No self respecting F/A 18 pilot would promote the Mig 35!

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2017, 09:45
by kimjongnumbaun
mk82 wrote:
maus92 wrote:
garrya wrote:I just had a discussion with neofightr in this topic https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=191547 .He said that he is a F-18 pilots. I don't know if he telling the truth or not but if he is It is the first time i talk to a combat pilot who pretty much agrees with all statements from Sprey so i thought it may worth sharing. :D What are your thoughts?
P/s: for anyone with little patient, i started to comment in page 6 that where our discussion started.


NF knows his sh*t.


NF knows sh*t all....fixed it for ya!


Agreed, no pilot worth their salt would ever agree with Sprey.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2017, 09:52
by mk82
Right on kimjongnumbaun!! 8)

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2017, 10:04
by kimjongnumbaun
To further my point, I'll just rip apart his post here.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=191547

"-pull inhuman Gs thereby surpassing all manned a/c in maneuverability and most missiles."

1) G limits are due to structure limits, not pilot limits. I remember my instructor for AEROMED was a former F-14 pilot and he would brag about how he would pull 11Gs in the aircraft without issue. I feel bad for his maintenance guys. Gs are directly related to the structural limits, not the pilot.

"-process and manage targets faster than humans."

2) Based on what? What autonomous system is there in place that will target and attack threats without human input? None. How many aircraft flying today will automatically classify and prioritize threats?

"-be virtually undetectable thanks to small radar footprint "

Certainly detectable since there are numerous drone intercepts over Syria.

"-require no training just software updates (performance constantly being improved through software updates unlike humans that have a natural limit)."

LOL, yet he just said that they can pull unimaginable Gs...I take is this is completely automated and requires no pilot behind it?

The guy hasn't even gone to flight school much less deployed and sat in a drone control room. Fakes are easy to spot when you've walked the path. I'll even caveat this with that I am a low time pilot, so I don't know jack sh*t. If I can see through his bullsh*t then that says a lot...

If you really want to vet that he is an F-18 pilot, ask him what a snowflake symbol means on the AN/ALR-67(V)3. That's not classified information. Ask him what what a snow flake in each quadrant means. I doubt he'll know the answer.

Or, ask him if he signed his name on an anti-US letter when he went through SERE school (everyone does but not for the reasons you think). It's not worth explaining (on this forum) and explaining it devalues the training opportunity for those who haven't gone through SERE, so I'll refrain from doing so. Or, ask him what bone did they break during interrogation?

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2017, 13:58
by XanderCrews
One of the JSF pilots I talked to was a former F-14 guy and said the F-35C was far better in a dogfight, and easier to handle as well (no surprise)

So color me shocked when this alleged F-18 pilot says an F-35 can't dogfight, but we should bring back the Tomcat... Lol ok.

He's clearly full of it. I don't know how maus or garya got sucked in so obviously, but gents you got sucked.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2017, 14:14
by XanderCrews
lbk000 wrote:Have we arrived at the true agenda at last?
ta.png



How was Maus so easily fooled? I'm shocked I tell you. Shocked.

Maybe maus can carefully explain himself and extricate himself from the rest of the mess whole trying to save face. I'm in for this

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2017, 14:31
by garrya
XanderCrews wrote:One of the JSF pilots I talked to was a former F-14 guy and said the F-35C was far better in a dogfight, and easier to handle as well (no surprise)

So color me shocked when this alleged F-18 pilot says an F-35 can't dogfight, but we should bring back the Tomcat... Lol ok.

He's clearly full of it. I don't know how maus or garya got sucked in so obviously, but gents you got sucked.

:? I don't get sucked in or anything, but like i said in the other thread. I give everyone benefit of the doubt. Moreover, Iam not saying that iam sure 100% that neofightr is a pilot or vice versa. I only said that what he told us. Nevertheless if his assessment is correct, it would be correct regardless of who he is (even if he is a kid) . If the assessment is incorrect then it would be incorrect regardless of who he is (even if he is a pilot). If you go to thread, you can see that arguing with him regardless

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2017, 16:29
by steve2267
XanderCrews wrote:One of the JSF pilots I talked to was a former F-14 guy and said the F-35C was far better in a dogfight, and easier to handle as well (no surprise)


XC, did the pilot expound at all on what made the Cee better than the Turkey?

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2017, 16:47
by spazsinbad
'garrya' said: "...I give everyone benefit of the doubt...." You may think that is a noble thing to do on the internet -however I think your experience will prove otherwise. I even doubt myself. Who am I? What is the meaning of LIF?

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2017, 17:15
by blindpilot
spazsinbad wrote:'garrya' said: "...I give everyone benefit of the doubt...." You may think that is a noble thing to do on the internet -however I think your experience will prove otherwise. I even doubt myself. Who am I? What is the meaning of LIF?


As I posted, it really doesn't matter. And absent concrete evidence one way or the other, is irrelevant. The fifth gen systems require actual people like Berke connected closely to the paradigm for any authority. In that regard. EVERYONE who knows agrees with Berke. All speculators, including us, do not yet understand, beyond some glimpses like the Red Flag results, and Persian Gulf F-4 intercepts etc.

F-15 pilots who have gone against them in exercises have universally reported that they felt like "Baby Seals." That's about all we know. And F-15's are the undefeated defending champions in actual combat. 'Nuf said.

MHO
BP

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2017, 17:53
by spazsinbad
My comment was more general than for just the ersatz Hornet pilot on the EAGLE forum (which I have not, nor will, read).

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2017, 23:40
by zerion
Av. Week podcast interview with Billie Flynn

http://m.aviationweek.com/podcast/podca ... ilots-view

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2017, 09:26
by kimjongnumbaun
Nice link! It's really eye opening, especially when they talk about the FCS which directly translates to why the F-35 hasn't had an accident in all the flight hours it's flown.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2017, 12:07
by spazsinbad
IIRC this 'neofrightener' chap gave a link to the MOST BORING LONG WINDED explanation of carrier landing technique (must admit I stopped watching after about two seconds - dog almighty) so here is my pick for an explanation - don't worry that it is for FSX Flight Simulator - the basics still apply and it is a well explained and illustrated video (FCLP also):

http://fsxproblueangels.com/videoscreen%20ok3.html

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2017, 18:37
by kimjongnumbaun
Dude was a fake anyways.

All the aircraft carrier landing is a regular traffic pattern and landing except it's on a moving airfield. That's all he needed to say.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2017, 19:14
by XanderCrews
steve2267 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:One of the JSF pilots I talked to was a former F-14 guy and said the F-35C was far better in a dogfight, and easier to handle as well (no surprise)


XC, did the pilot expound at all on what made the Cee better than the Turkey?



No. But i do know Its a great turner though. Best of all the variants with the big wings. Flight controls more responsive. You don't have to do the cross control stuff.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2017, 22:24
by spazsinbad
kimjongnumbaun wrote:Dude was a fake anyways.

All the aircraft carrier landing is a regular traffic pattern and landing except it's on a moving airfield. That's all he needed to say.

I do not know what to say in response. :doh: IF ONLY. :doh:

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2017, 23:50
by kimjongnumbaun
spazsinbad wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:Dude was a fake anyways.

All the aircraft carrier landing is a regular traffic pattern and landing except it's on a moving airfield. That's all he needed to say.

I do not know what to say in response. :doh: IF ONLY. :doh:


I fly a helo so we have the advantage of adjusting our slide slope and approach speed for a roll on, but the principle is exactly the same. The only major difference is that a Navy fixed wing guy has to hit on a specific spot for a moving target, but as long as the pilot follows the glide slope indicator they will be able to hit that spot.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2017, 00:01
by spazsinbad
Do you fly NAVY helos or civilian examples? IF ONLY carrier landings were this simple indeed: 'as long as' indeed
"... as long as the pilot follows the glide slope indicator they will be able to hit that spot...."

Anyway as pointed out today on the Canukian thread we should respect the thread and take this 'discussion' elsewhere....

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2017, 00:21
by kimjongnumbaun
I've done carrier landings. I botched my first one simply because I didn't take into account the height of the carrier and that it was moving. 2nd attempt shot for further ahead of the carrier and nailed it. Our unit does deck quals as part of our training to support DSCA.

And don't take this as me trying to take away things from Navy pilots. It's a difficult task, especially in rough seas. But it's not impossible and the principles are the same, with some adjustments in how you fly it. I draw parallels with how rotary wing pilots have to think differently from how they fly in the states when doing VFR vs flying in the desert with no visual reference points. You just need to take different things into account. It's more difficult, but not this monumental task. Thousands of others have trained to do it before you and have succeeded.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2017, 00:47
by spazsinbad
I see you do not read what I post - let us take this to another thread or start a new one -up to you- you started discussion.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2017, 07:10
by kimjongnumbaun
I'm curious what are the parameters needed for the F-35 to begin automatic self recovery procedures.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2017, 07:50
by spazsinbad

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2017, 09:52
by kimjongnumbaun
That isn't what I, or Billie Flynn, are talking about. In the podcast he specifically mentions Auto GCAS.

JPALS is just an automated landing system similar to CAT IIIC civilian approaches that can land 0-0. This isn't exactly related to what Billie Flynn is talking about here.

"It has a relatively simple algorithm that takes control of the airplane and flies it away from google earth when it sees the ground impact is going to happen." About 2/3rds of the way into the podcast.

Billie Flynn specifically states in the podcast that Auto GCAS is different from the Delta Flight Path that you quoted. I'm asking about these parameters where the FCS in the F-35 decides that the pilot screwed up and takes over. More importantly, is there an override where the pilot can choose to override the FCS for whatever reason. Although this isn't a current feature in the F-35, he talks about incorporating it.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2017, 10:32
by spazsinbad
Well I am not a mind reader - this is what you posted: "I'm curious what are the parameters needed for the F-35 to begin automatic self recovery procedures." 'self recovery' from what exactly? And we were just talking about 'carrier landings' but that is another thread worth. AFAIK we do not know autoGCAS for the F-35 but I'm willing to find out more if possible.


Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2017, 13:10
by rheonomic
Well, right now the parameters are "the pilot initiates it" since it's manual GCAS.

A-GCAS (possibly Auto ICAS) should arrive Block 4.something. Parameters for the auto-recovery should be similar to that for F-16; if you can find a copy of this I think it should be sufficient description for the A-GCAS theory of operation.

Basically there's a trajectory prediction algorithm and digital terrain elevation database, and if the TPA predicts hitting the ground within some threshold a roll to wings level, 5G avoidance maneuver is initiated.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2017, 17:05
by blindpilot
rheonomic wrote:Well, right now the parameters are "the pilot initiates it" since it's manual GCAS.

A-GCAS (possibly Auto ICAS) should arrive Block 4.something. Parameters for the auto-recovery should be similar to that for F-16; if you can find a copy of this I think it should be sufficient description for the A-GCAS theory of operation.

Basically there's a trajectory prediction algorithm and digital terrain elevation database, and if the TPA predicts hitting the ground within some threshold a roll to wings level, 5G avoidance maneuver is initiated.


With the qualifier that this is old man memory of second hand reports ... I'll relate a story that addresses the question of "Auto" in fighters.

When my brother was flying F-15A's he made a comment about G limits of his F-15 then (I think 7.33G's) and the "new" F-16's which would be able to pull 9G's. His comment was that the 7.33 limit was arbitrary and that he could pull 10+G's easily, since the augmentation system in the F-15 was an assist, and not computer limited by coding. The F-16 however with fly by wire literally "pulled the G's" through computer control. There is a point here, that has existed in the F-16 fly-by-wire engineering from the beginning.

If you are in a "save your life" dog-fight heading straight for the ground with a bogie/missile on your tail, auto computer limits can be deadly. In fighters of old, if you needed to pull 14 G's to save your butt, you pulled them and landed, and sent the airframe to the boneyard, assuming the wings hadn't fallen off. Auto fly by wire denies you that flexibility. If auto-GCAS calculates against a 5G pull out, you lose the 14Gs against a missile life saving option.

In general they have been generous with such limits on the F-16, after much testing, 9Gs is a lot of Gs. An auto-GCAS 5G pull is a pretty hefty pullout. However, there has been and will continue to be a discussion, with fighter aircraft, on at what point do you want the computer to limit your "Red Baron" options. The F-35 has a GCAS and is fly-by-wire. Implementing an Auto-GCAS is trivial. Deciding when and how to execute the Auto response in Block 4 is what is in discussion, and is not as trivial.

MHO
BP

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2017, 22:32
by johnwill
BP, I know you already know about what I'm going to post here, but this is for those who don't know. I was working YF-16 and F-16 back in the 70s when the decisions about g limiting were made. Lots of discussions between USAF and GD on the topic of course, with USAF making all the decisions, properly. The biggest controversy was within USAF, not between USAF and GD, who were perfectly willing to go either way, although GD pilots all had strong opinions of course. The negatives of limiting you point out were fully known, as were the positives. The positives were more than simply preventing exceedance of some arbitrary g limit. A limiter allows 100% of the airplane capability to be used without resulting in downtime for over-g inspections, so the airplane becomes more effective, since it was thought a pilot observed limit tends to inhibit approaching the limit aggressively. Without question, there are more over-g events with pilot observed limits.

In the end, USAF decided to go with limiting, and I believe most, if not all, subsequent fighters have g limiting. Some include over-ride capability, which seems the best solution to me.

As you know, all air to ground loadings and air to air loadings with EFT for the F-16 have pilot observed g limits. That might make for an interesting study, compare effects of auto limiting and manual limiting on the same airplane, positives and negatives.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2017, 23:22
by blindpilot
johnwill wrote:...
In the end, USAF decided to go with limiting, and I believe most, if not all, subsequent fighters have g limiting. Some include over-ride capability, which seems the best solution to me.

As you know, all air to ground loadings and air to air loadings with EFT for the F-16 have pilot observed g limits. That might make for an interesting study, compare effects of auto limiting and manual limiting on the same airplane, positives and negatives.


Well said, thanks for your feedback. I simply point out that going from Bitchin Betty yelling "the ground is gonna kill us!" to automatically pulling out is a not a difficult upgrade for the F-35 at this point. All the pieces are in place. I'm guessing they want some more flight time and experience in various profiles, before they make the decisions you well point out.

MHO
BP

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 00:51
by rheonomic
blindpilot wrote:If auto-GCAS calculates against a 5G pull out, you lose the 14Gs against a missile life saving option.


As I understand it, A-GCAS would not override the pilot in this case. Edit: also the pilot can override the automatic flyup with the paddle switch.

blindpilot wrote:The F-35 has a GCAS and is fly-by-wire. Implementing an Auto-GCAS is trivial. Deciding when and how to execute the Auto response in Block 4 is what is in discussion, and is not as trivial.


I wouldn't go so far as to say implementing it is trivial, but I agree with the overall sentiment.

johnwill wrote:That might make for an interesting study, compare effects of auto limiting and manual limiting on the same airplane, positives and negatives.


Maybe an opportunity for a TPS class project?

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 01:13
by quicksilver
As I understand it...

The 'A' in AGCAS involves monitoring of the FCS in some fashion such that the jet will make a 'declaration' that the pilot is incapacitated in some way and effect a pullout (e.g. GLOC). Manual GCAS is on all the time (at least by SOP) and, if flying around at low altitude (e.g. less than 1000' in steeply rolling terrain), indications of impending doom are fairly easy to routinely stimulate. The liability there is that one becomes desensitized to the indications and ends up busting ones **** in spite of the warnings.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 01:32
by rheonomic
quicksilver wrote:The 'A' in AGCAS involves monitoring of the FCS in some fashion such that the jet will make a 'declaration' that the pilot is incapacitated in some way and effect a pullout (e.g. GLOC).


This is an OK overview that's openly available, although a large part of it is the SUAS version. General principles still apply.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 01:45
by quicksilver
Have seen those before dating back many years; the question there is when do we allow FCS intervention (ref the nuisance pull-ups and my observation that I can manually stimulate a pull-up response almost at-will, which of course is counter-productive). OBTW, my belief was that the GR&A for 'pull-up' declaration was too conservative if the intent was to save someone's backside and jet.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 01:49
by rheonomic
quicksilver wrote:Have seen those before dating back many years; the question there is when do we allow FCS intervention (ref the nuisance pull-ups and my observation that I can manually stimulate a pull-up response almost at-will, which of course is counter-productive). OBTW, my belief was that the GR&A for 'pull-up' declaration was too conservative if the intent was to save someone's backside and jet.


Yeah, that's a tough issue; you kind of have to get it just right. I wonder if different profiles would help, e.g. lean more towards automated recovery during peacetime and less so in pilot so the pilot has more control/less nuisance. (Of course that present problems in and of itself with having more options/configurability...)

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 03:11
by blindpilot
quicksilver wrote:As I understand it...

... AGCAS involves monitoring of the FCS in some fashion such that the jet will make a 'declaration' that the pilot is incapacitated in some way and effect a pullout (e.g. GLOC). ....


I'm not sure the system needs to discern whether the pilot is passed out, confused, day dreaming, or just plain stupid. If the aircraft system finds itself in an imminent risk of "Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly," it should probably go ahead and Auto-execute, and folks can argue later if the pilot was just being stupid... I wouldn't waste code or design/sensor headaches trying to measure the health status of the pilot, for this purpose. But that's just me, and I don't know the GCAS logic.

Just Saying,
BP

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 04:01
by quicksilver
blindpilot wrote:
quicksilver wrote:As I understand it...

... AGCAS involves monitoring of the FCS in some fashion such that the jet will make a 'declaration' that the pilot is incapacitated in some way and effect a pullout (e.g. GLOC). ....


I'm not sure the system needs to discern whether the pilot is passed out, confused, day dreaming, or just plain stupid. If the aircraft system finds itself in an imminent risk of "Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly," it should probably go ahead and Auto-execute, and folks can argue later if the pilot was just being stupid... I wouldn't waste code or design/sensor headaches trying to measure the health status of the pilot, for this purpose. But that's just me, and I don't know the GCAS logic.

Just Saying,
BP


That is certainly a viscerally satisfying perspective. The reality is far more complex.

Think about the circumstantial cases around which you engineer an FCS intervention; laws of physics apply. What system reaction time do we assume? What 'G' onset rate do we assume? What peak 'G' loading do we assume, within what KIAS range and what altitude range, MSL? What lull in FCS inputs define an 'incapacitated' stick input computer?

When one can make a manual GCAS system 'declare' at will -- without ever really risking the jet -- some 're-think' needs to occur.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2017, 04:56
by nutshell
OT but...

"10G easily" ?

Knock it off, you can't sustain that load.

14? insta GLOC.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2017, 15:14
by blindpilot
nutshell wrote:OT but...

"10G easily" ?

Knock it off, you can't sustain that load.

14? insta GLOC.


Never said "sustained." Yank, release and go has its time and place also. Some of us have crawled sheepishly back to the crew chief after an over G, with a "my bad." There was no GLOC,

BP

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 02:42
by Gums
Salute!

We routinely pulled well above the limits in the Dragonfly. Then had to face the music after landing with the upper wing surface all "rippled". It was easy due to the straight wing and speeds we used to deliver ord. Snatch back and then ease off when realizing what you had done. Our eventual cracked spars came from taxiing with lottsa weight outboard of the gear - tension on the spar and not compression.

Our early opinions on the "help" mod to the Viper FLCS was "hell no". The question was what the criteria would be for Hal to takeover. I personally sat in the back seat for a G-loc by student studly, and the deal was "onset" and failure to clench at the beginning of the pull while looking over the shoulder. I still have reservations about too much "protection", but whatthehell.

I would prefer a system using actual radar and inertial flight path versus a database that may be corrupt or just plain wrong. But what would I know.

Gums sends...

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 05:35
by tincansailor
If you are in a "save your life" dog-fight heading straight for the ground with a bogie/missile on your tail, auto computer limits can be deadly. In fighters of old, if you needed to pull 14 G's to save your butt, you pulled them and landed, and sent the airframe to the boneyard, assuming the wings hadn't fallen off. Auto fly by wire denies you that flexibility. If auto-GCAS calculates against a 5G pull out, you lose the 14Gs against a missile life saving option.



Can a human being really take 14G's? You always hear 9G's is the human max, but can a pilot in top shape do 14G's for more then 2 or 3 seconds without blacking out? For a 175lbs guy that's like a compact sedan sitting on your chest. Amazing.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 06:57
by blindpilot
tincansailor wrote:...Can a human being really take 14G's? ....


In fairness that's a cobweb covered memory of a second hand account, but the number was 14, and I recall the aircraft did go to the boneyard IF I remember correctly. I'm sure it was an instantaneous pull for less than a second. Yank and release. not sure about the onset rate, But I'd imagine it came after being in a high G pull already underway, such as pressing at 7 and then yanked a bit more, said, "oops,"(or blacked/greyed out) and released. Again other than standard T-38 stuff, I never pulled anything near that high G range, certainly not in the KC-Q, although that airframe (707) was way overbuilt, (after the Electra crashes Boeing designers got very nervous with the jets) so it probably could have pulled a ton with a light load. My reports on fighters are second hand. (and ancient memories).

The point is, when to over G, or when to initiate ground avoidance, and how, and what options are available for such a thing is a fine art, and not a science lightly given to be imposed by "HAL." That's true of F-16's at 9Gs as much as anecdotal 14Gs. I don't expect them to whimsically impose A-GCAS in the F-35 without some serious testing and discussion.

But once that's done, I would assert that HAL can do whatever you ask him to do, and the F-35 systems have the ability to be so programmed today. (once the parameters are decided) Clearly the stories of the effort/success with the F-16s shows a strong desire to look at it by many.

BP

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 08:23
by Dragon029
tincansailor wrote:Can a human being really take 14G's? You always hear 9G's is the human max, but can a pilot in top shape do 14G's for more then 2 or 3 seconds without blacking out? For a 175lbs guy that's like a compact sedan sitting on your chest. Amazing.

Dunno about 14G, but here's a young USN Ensign holding 8Gs for 30 seconds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyzqxDbYbhQ

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 13:12
by rheonomic
tincansailor wrote:Can a human being really take 14G's? You always hear 9G's is the human max, but can a pilot in top shape do 14G's for more then 2 or 3 seconds without blacking out? For a 175lbs guy that's like a compact sedan sitting on your chest. Amazing.


Well, from a "can a human survive" point of view, a lot more than 14g...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stap ... celeration

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 14:40
by basher54321
Can every human survive it though - or is it practical or realistic in every situation? - someone thinks it isn't.

Can you fly, concentrate, or even look around at 9G or above??



The most experienced pilot on the Osirak raid in 82 (Spector) blacked out on the pull to the target (should have been well under 7G) - and he was the only pilot to miss the actual target. He stated it may have been due to some asthma drugs he had been taking (fit to fly?)

Apparently modern G suits are supposed to help more with 9G loads these days.

A G override on the F-35 seems a good idea for some emergency situations.

Here is some poor sod going for 12Gs - watch to the end :D .


Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 17:19
by blindpilot
tincansailor wrote:Can a human being really take 14G's? ...Amazing.


NASA lists 17Gs as tolerable by untrained persons for a short time (and measured onset?) without damage. I suspect that's not seated (at any angle) but on your back, as in rocket sled accelerations.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi ... 223621.pdf

I like that 12 G video though. And I do know that F-15 pilots have moved the needle to 10Gs if no other reason than to tweak the 9G F-16 guys. That's probably one reason, some of the older Eagles are starting to fall apart. :roll: :wink:
FWIW,
BP

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 19:17
by halloweene
blindpilot wrote:
tincansailor wrote:Can a human being really take 14G's? ...Amazing.


NASA lists 17Gs as tolerable by untrained persons for a short time (and measured onset?) without damage. I suspect that's not seated (at any angle) but on your back, as in rocket sled accelerations.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi ... 223621.pdf

I like that 12 G video though. And I do know that F-15 pilots have moved the needle to 10Gs if no other reason than to tweak the 9G F-16 guys. That's probably one reason, some of the older Eagles are starting to fall apart. :roll: :wink:
FWIW,
BP


Marty (Rafale Solo Display) claims to hit 10 or more Gs every presentation.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 22:09
by basher54321
blindpilot wrote:
I like that 12 G video though. And I do know that F-15 pilots have moved the needle to 10Gs if no other reason than to tweak the 9G F-16 guys. That's probably one reason, some of the older Eagles are starting to fall apart.
FWIW,
BP


Although the F-15 breaking apart looks impressive in the recreation - what is more impressive for me is the far less over G events on the F-16 that allows it to still provide value to the US tax payer and still kick the F-15s A :D

Is it known how many F-16s went in because of this? (out of 328 destroyed to FY15) - you would have to also be going some knots at SL to hit that level of G.

Re: PODcast - Parts I & II: F-35 in the Crossfire [Sprey/Ber

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 22:17
by blindpilot
basher54321 wrote:
blindpilot wrote:... That's probably one reason, some of the older Eagles are starting to fall apart.
FWIW,
BP


Although the F-15 breaking apart looks impressive in the recreation - what is more impressive for me is the far less over G events on the F-16 that allows it to still provide value to the US tax payer and still kick the F-15s A :D


And that's the discussion in a nutshell!

F-16's still flying and pulling 9Gs and at least 4 valuable pilots still alive. If well designed, Billy seems to think the cost (restriction) is minimal for that significant benefit.

MHO,
BP