So, on page 82 of The Revolt of the Majors, it talks about how Pierre Sprey had issues with the F-15, one of them being that he didn't think an a2a fighter needed to go faster than Mach 1.6, on account of the fact that dogfighting didn't need faster speeds than that, and that making a plane that could go faster resulted in compromises in cost and complication.
Nowadays, when he gets his recess at the retirement home, he bitches about the F-35 not being fast enough because it has a max speed of Mach 1.6
Is there any greater faggot?
Also, itt the greatest most magnificent Sprey quotes
he's one of the main reasons why faggots hate the F-35, and he's one of the reasons why countries like muh home and maple land are hesitating on getting the F-35
glorious. Also extremely interesting.
Except the arguments which he has been using for decades are the same ones used by demagogues to persuade non-technical politicians in deliberately hamstringing military procurement.
His influence is very alive and very much a nuisance
Boyd was responsible for none of those. Least of all the F-15. He hated the aircraft. His arguments for an an alternative platform were listened to be certain members of Congress who wanted to reduce military expenditures. A small dogfighter was what he wanted. However, the military decided this was a good thing. At the time, the Air National Guard and Reserve were using pretty shit aircraft that badly needed to be replaced. If they were replaced with a decent multirole craft, the USAF's tactical airpower would be at least three times as effective as it had previously been. Further, Richard Nixon wanted to sell a lot of gear to allies, so the US would have less troop commitments, and thus less money spent on personnel. Thus, the US could sell a cheap, decent fighter to all its allies. Thus, the LWF program was born. It is important to note that the US had noticed that all good multiroles up to that point had started as dogfighters first.
But Boyd and Sprey were both part of the same group of folks. The fighter mafia, they called themselves.
>Implying that simple, inexpensive, proven tech isn't always better than pie-in-the sky hi-tech boondoggles when it is time to actually get stuff done.
none of those guys were responsible for shit. They were an independent team made up of a guy with zero actual combat experience or flying experience, a chickenshit who avoided combat tours flying in Vietnam to take desk jobs in the pentagon and korea, and a blowhard wannabe fighter ace who flew a handful of missions in korea and never accomplished much
They wrote some papers, made some presentations and studies, and tried to get the airforce to make a lightweight fighter that was armed with only guns and IR missiles, no radar or longer range missiles, no fancy avionics, and shorter range. They hated the F-15, and when the airforce took the LWF project and added all the things that make the F-16 awesome (fbw, avionics, radar, multirole) they shat on it and complained that it was ruined. They take credit for the A-10, meanwhile their vision was for a plane with just a gun, they shat on the maverick missile, and then when in the gulf war, the A-10 had most of its success because of the maverick, they took credit and claimed to be the heroes who designed the A-10. They learned in the 70's that talking to military experts got them nowhere and only got them laughed at and rejected, so they started talking to the media. The media, eager to embrace the "big inefficient stupid military industrial complex" trope ate it up, and whenever these guys are quoted or interviewed, they're labelled as "defense expert" or "designer of the A-10" or "the men behind the F-15, F-16, and A-10"
Daily reminder that Pierre Sprey
>only worked in the Pentagon for a handful of years
>was only one of McNamara's many hated "Whiz Kids" - the same folks that pushed and pushed the F-111, which took 20 years of service to figure out and get right,
>was working in a water treatment plant for the late 70's and 80's (when all these aircraft he supposedly designed were being finished and put into IOC)
>before eventually starting a record company
>all while continuing to pretend as if he had inside information and an aeronautical engineering background on Pentagon procurement projects
>and finally, he was laughed out of the building whenever he presented his procurement ideas to actual military and defense contracting engineers
He is a sad, sad man.
Tell it to Fallows, who, in 1979, used Sprey, Boyd, Spinney and Riccioni in a game of "circular experts" to pawn off a campaign of cutting defense spending even further through constant media attacks. He dressed this up as a need to be "fiscally responsible and clean up the corruption and incompetence" in military leadership. And it spawned a big movement, because the message that the military is dumb, corrupt and incompetent will always sell to the US public after 1968. Look up the Military Reform Caucus/Council. They're still fucking active and liberal journalists still use them as "experts" every damn day.
Boyd was responsible for none of those. He hated the final Blue Bird (F-15) proposal, turned around and proposed Red Bird (the LWF concept) which became the F-16, but only after the USAF added the FBW, avionics, sensors and fuel to make it useful. Boyd, now calling for both the F-15 and F-16 to be cancelled in favor of the F-5E and later F-20, argued to his dying day that radar was useless on a fighter and they only needed heat seeking missiles and guns. No foul weather or BVR capability.
fuck, I vaguely remember seeing Sprey's shitface on tv once in some canadian news channel report on the F-35 and "scandal over whether it's right for Canada"
If that cunt prevents me from seeing an F-35 in airshows in my city I will rape his corpse
So, clearly an A-7, F-111 or A-6 (or, shit, even a B-17) would have performed just as well as the F-117 did on the first night of the air campaign over Baghdad and the most heavily defended targets in Desert Storm, right?
He would strip the radar and air to ground capability from it. Then he would be happy. Two external fuel tanks just for a 300nmi combat radius sounds like it's right up his alley.
Depends at what point in his life you asked him at. Today, he probably would say yes. Even he has to admit that much after this many years of evidence to the contrary. This is somewhat debatable, however. Back when it was being introduced, he was vehemently against it. He was more of a base F-5 kind of guy. He might STILL hate it.
You know, I almost want to contact Sprey, sell him on the concept of an AMA on Reddit or something (educate the next generation of thinkers! get your ideas out to a younger crowd!). Then feed him several softball questions about how air combat should work and why the F-35 sucks. Then hit him with question after question using direct quotes of some of the stupidest shit he's said over the years about the F-15, F-16, Desert Storm and direct quotes from actual experts responding to his theories and proposals.
It'd almost be worth the work just to watch him have an anuerism.
>good design being superior
>sufficient production and decent quality in essential components being necessary to accomplish the mission
This is a false argument. You're going to pretend that anyone who disagrees with you is arguing against the basic design virtues of simplicity and low cost, when that's not what the issue is and you know it.
Doesn't the F-20's limited radar capability count for anything?
Why strip anti-ground? I can see cutting missiles (from the perspective of 'keep the thing as simple as possible'), but dumb bombs can't add that much complexity, can they?
>He was more of a base F-5 kind of guy
Did he actively like the F-5, or just begrudgingly accept it as the closest example available?
From /k/ I've already inferred he's often wrong, I just want to know if he's wrong in a way I can support because it aligns with my own preferences. (I have a thing for small, cheap, simple fighters, although I recognize the role of more complex aircraft in forces like the USAF, I'd argue most smaller nations could get by with F-20s, especially with efficiencies of scale.)
I like the F-5 too, but my understanding of things is that the F-20 was superior in nearly every way while remaining small and simple, so from a practical standpoint it wins out.
>Why strip anti-ground? I can see cutting missiles (from the perspective of 'keep the thing as simple as possible'), but dumb bombs can't add that much complexity, can they?
It's not about complexity. Sprey wants simple, cheap day fighters and thousands and thousands of them, and wants them trained only in air to air combat. Strike packages would be carried by bare bones dumb bomb trucks like a modern A-1 or something similar. Of course, the lives of the pilots are irrelevant as they die by the thousands or get blown up in their airfields at night or in foul weather because, lol, no all-weather or night capability. The cost to train those pilots is also irrelevant.
>Did he actively like the F-5, or just begrudgingly accept it as the closest example available?
Riccioni, one of the other Critics of the "fighter mafia", spent his last years before retirement working for Northrup shilling the F-20. Sprey and Boyd actively assisted him in his work and held consulting contracts with Northrup as well.
>I just want to know if he's wrong in a way I can support because it aligns with my own preferences. (I have a thing for small, cheap, simple fighters, although I recognize the role of more complex aircraft in forces like the USAF, I'd argue most smaller nations could get by with F-20s, especially with efficiencies of scale.)
Capability is the thing. If you don't have the baseline capability to match the threat environments you're going to be asking your pilots to fly in, you'd better have a shit ton of coffins ready.
>Did he actively like the F-5, or just begrudgingly accept it as the closest example available?
The F-5 matched up with what he said was good in a fighter EXACTLY, so he BETTER have liked it.
>Top speed of Mach 1.6
In order to carry bombs, you need a heavier plane. Sprey wanted the lightest plane you could possibly get.
>Riccioni, one of the other Critics of the "fighter mafia", spent his last years before retirement working for Northrup shilling the F-20. Sprey and Boyd actively assisted him in his work and held consulting contracts with Northrup as well.
How ironic that while they scream about MIC corruption in the military, they turned around and did the same revolving door bullshit.
Well arguably today, you only need the few miles ahead. Most modern opponents don't even have aircraft and anything they could get would be shit. The F5 would work fine as long as you could use a decent missile on it.
Pierre wouldn't even be in the news if it wasn't for the cost of using modern weapons on sand people and spending more in a single attack run than the enemy uses in a month of manuveurs, training and offensives.
>Why strip anti-ground? I can see cutting missiles (from the perspective of 'keep the thing as simple as possible'), but dumb bombs can't add that much complexity, can they?
In order to carry heavy munition, you need to strengthen the plane. Strengthening the plane means adding more weight. More weight means less maneuverability. If something added maneuverability, it was gone.
I'm about 90% certain the E had a shitty radar.
Canada is hesitating because they don't need the F-35. They need a new air platform but they don't NEED to get the F-35 when any 4th gen, let alone 4th++ gen would fill out their requirements perfectly.
Give it a month and I wouldn't be shocked if suddenly they bought out a shitton of those chinese $10 million jets and claimed it a tactical and financial advantage so they could spend the excess on whatever shitty surface vessels they settle on.
The yf-17 was based on the F-15 100%. Take the F-5, make it bigger, you have yourself a YF-17. Make that bigger and you've got a Hornet. Make that bigger and you've got a super Hornet.
but was it actually physically based on it (as in, common parts, i guess?) or just in terms of the ideas behind them?
at a glance they don't look similar enough to be a direct development (like the f20 does)
Entitlements are wrong, unless they are to defense companies.
I vote limited government, unless they want to take money away from the defense industry.
Welfare queens gonna beg for welfare. It's like when you go to costco or sams and the black people are the only ones walking around waiting for free samples. Lockheed is the black people waiting for handouts from the pentagon's free sample stands.
Except that now the Canadian PM has actually been briefed on the F-35, he's gone back on his promise to absolutely rule it out. No one who's actually been fully briefed on the F-35s real capabilities has so far declined it. We'll see what Canada eventually decides, but I've got 4 to one odds its the F-35.
Also, no 4th gen Chinese export jet costs 10m.
Come on, tell me this doesn't look like a scaled-up F-5?
>M1 much more flammable
Except the M1 can actually have crew members survive if it goes down in flames.
Seriously how did he write this AFTER the Abrams had already been proven as extremely effective in real-life combat?
Pierre seems to have based all his ideas primarily on the USAF's experience in Vietnam. He probably thought that because the USAF and the MiGs at a 1:1 kill ratio, then you'd obviously be better off with a larger number of MiG-21-tier fighters rather than a smaller number of phantoms, because if you're going to have a 1:1 kill ratio anyway then you might as well go for raw numbers and try to win through attrition.
The idea was that getting rid of radar would make the airplane smaller & cheaper, so you would be able to field it in larger numbers, and pilots would be forced to go "back to the fundamentals" rather than relying on radar-guided missiles. This line of thinking was based entirely' on the USAF's experiences in Vietnam where radar-guided missiles were unreliable and often failed to lock on to smaller, fighter-sized targets.
The problem with this idea is that radar-guided missiles quickly got a lot better than they were in Vietnam. And even in Vietnam, the missiles weren't as much the problem as the dismal training of USAF pilots at the time. The US navy pilots did a lot better against the MiGs because they had superior training, even though they were using the exact same planes and missiles as the USAF at the time. Pierre blamed the Phantom when the real problem was the USAF's poor training standards. If Pierre had taken to advocating for better training rather than just trying to change the aircraft, he would have a lot more credibility nowadays.
God I hate Pierre, good thing we don't let his dumbass make decisions, otherwise we would have lost the gulf war.
Not to mention that a huge portion of the USAF's missile problems in Vietnam revolved around poorly trained air combat pilots (main of whom were multi-engine bomber pilots given 6 weeks training on fighters) who often fired the missiles outside of their performance envelope.
Note that the USN's missile pK rates went up dramatically after Top Gun and better training.
Literally all of them are wrong.
M1 has superior speed, the latter bit isn't true.
First of all, when in combat, the M1 had an EXTREMELY high readiness rate. Second, the cost of the tank doesn't matter to how many are employed. The units they're in will be engaged regardless of what tank is there. Not to mention there's more than enough M1s to go around to cover all units that use them and then some. You simply can't do any better than that.
The MGs can sweep ditches, and they're more accurate because FCS, bitches.
The M1 is more maneuverable in combat, straight up.
While the M48 does have slightly faster loading times, the M1 is far more accurate and more likely to kill a target it hits. Further, it's no slouch in the ROF department. A good loader can load REALLY quickly. If you're going for speed, you could feasibly fire 3 rounds in 12 seconds.
And of course we all know the M1 is flat out more survivable.
Fucking Sprey. How? I literally do not understand how he can make this powerpoint.
You walk into a military base, and you run into a Gavin. You try and sidle around it, but you run into another Gavin. You try and go the other way around, but run into the nosegear of an F-5. Before you know, you're lost in a maze of Gavin's and F-5s.
I guess I just don't know enough about tanks to get the full effect. I usually hang out in the aviation threads. I do know that a 90mm gun isn't going to penetrate the Abrams, though.
>In 1975, visionary reformer Pierre Sprey succeeds in convincing congress to accept his vision for "a cheaper, more effective" military culminating in the passing the Sprey-Boyd Procurement Reform bill
>Zoom forward to 1990
>Russia invades Western Europe
>Many pilots flying lightweight, low-cost fighters heroically give their lives to stop the Russian advance but they are quickly shot down by Flankers using BVR missiles.
>A massive fleet of A-10s is sent to blunt the Russian advance
>Their guns (their only weapons) are no match for T-72 armor, and they are quickly rendered useless as nightfall approaches
>Now only a line of 90mm Pattons and upgunned Gavins stand between Russia and the Rhine
The only reason the M48 would even have a faster loading time (in premise) is because it has a 90mm gun instead of a 120mm.
My personal favorite is how he ignores that Abrams have self cleaning air filters.
>They need a new air platform but they don't NEED to get the F-35 when any 4th gen, let alone 4th++ gen would fill out their requirements perfectly.
>Canadian think tank looks at available aircraft
>determines they are all roughly equal
>except if Canada was in a shooting war
90mm gun wouldn't be effective against any MBT fielded today that isn't the T-54 or 55, because the M48 was its western competitor. It's so obsolete as to not even be worthy of fighting fucking hajiis with their decades old RPG-7s and Chinese rip offs.
It's almost as old as Pierre for fucks sake. No rational man who knew anything at all about armor would ever make the argument that the army should procure the M48 post ~1960. That's why none were produced post 1959.
And yes, they stayed in service until the 90s, but even they were up gunned and modernized to something that could actually be somewhat usable.
Well he said he was going to ditch it for some cheap shit to pay for their decomposing navy.
Their whole fucking military is falling apart and it's really sad.
To be somewhat fair, his ideal 90mm T-72 killer was some special snowflake high velocity gun. The M48A5s were upgunned with 105mms (which were still getting a bit long in the tooth and would've had trouble with T-72Bs and T-80Bs).
>His recording with the ARC Choir singing "Walk With Me" appears in Kanye West's hit "Jesus Walks."
Y'all niggas can't fuck with sprey Y'all niggas can't fuck with sprey Y'all niggas can't fuck with sprey Y'all niggas can't fuck with sprey Y'all niggas can't fuck with sprey Y'all niggas can't fuck with sprey Y'all niggas can't fuck with sprey Y'all niggas can't fuck with sprey
And did this special snowflake gun exist? Was it even feasible? What if the Soviets you know..up armored their tanks? Because that's exactly what happened. And you what happened to the 105? It became obsolete. I'm pretty sure Pierre already knew this by the time he made that PowerPoint, because it was history. If the 105 couldn't be kept in service, what the hell would make anyone think a 90mm gun could?
Pierre is just fucking insane, completely insane.
So nothing can penetrate from the front except perhaps an anti-tank missile, but you can get it from the sides, but you still need something at least as powerful as 120mm. That's about what I thought.
I can believe that. I usually just hang out in plane threads. I don't know much about tanks except simplistic truisms such as "The Abrams is immune to anything less powerful than 120mm" or "The Sherman was the best tank of WW2 even though it has a bad reputation because of some book a mechanic wrote."
It's a nickname for the M113 that is completely made up. Nobody in the military calls it that. The one person that uses it incessantly is Mike Sparks and his Combat Reform crowd.
So we know what Pierre Sprey thinks about planes:
>The F-5 and A-10 are all you need.
And we know what he thinks about tanks:
>90mm is enough for a modern tank gun.
So what's the ideal Pierre Sprey Navy? Does it allow for stealth destroyers armed with railguns and lasers?
The only one I could think of was some smoothbore prototype for the T95. The best part he apparently thought 76mm was a viable lower end.
It all depends on what point in time we're talking about here. Ammunition and protection have leapfrogged over the years. In Desert Storm, Abrams took several 120mm shots to the face in FF incidents. They were fine.
Hilariously enough, if it was not what the military was pushing, he'd be all over the LCS. More accurately, he'd be all over Streetfighter, the LCS's predecessor. Missile boats would be king in his mind. Big gun is necessary.
He'd be for missile boats like the Osa or Komar for sure. They're cheap, spammable platforms. Does require decent missile tech, but he'd probably swallow the bullet for this case.
This definitely looks like something Pierre Sprey would support:
>Uses relatively simple tech
>Cheap & spammable
This actually convinces me that the M48 is better. I know the M1 would win, but why does it have so many problems ?
>need to change this and that
>high failure of ammo
So did Pierre actually push for the Enforcer? Could it have something to do with this?
He pulled those '''''facts''''' out of his ass, none of the comparisons in his presentation >>28852055 are even sourced. He even mistakes a Stryker MGS for an M107 SPG at one point.
As hard as he tries to downplay American high tech, he clearly heavily underestimated Russians as well. He seemed to be under the impression all they had was low-tech quantity and that America should be trying to outdo them there.
Honestly I'm quite interested in what modern 'off the shelf' single role aircraft would look like.
I doubt they'd be more effective than what's coming into service, but they might be cute or cool which is nice too.
Perhaps the F-5 had radar, but it was an extremely barebones radar no good before BVR. And that's the main thing we want here: no BVR. You can have radar, but it can't be powerful enough to reach out to BVR distances.
>you will never have real life ace combat as combat aircraft branch out into WVR dogfighters, propeller CAS attackers, bomb trucks, and overcomplicated superplanes advocated by those crazy people in favor of more complex platforms.
why didn't we listen to pierre?
it would be a disaster from day 1. If the abrams program was cancelled in favor of horrifically outdated m60 would get 24 hour outrage on CNN FOX MSNBASDFBC for weeks. Which is incredibly ironic and hypocritical of them, but hey thats journalism.
Yes, although the way that it's designed to work is that for 90% of the trip, it's running silent / blind, with the jet that launched it, or another jet, providing updates to it, telling it to turn a bit more to the left, keep going a bit further, etc. It guides itself via inertial guidance and (in the newer versions) GPS, and then when it gets close to where the enemy is meant to be, it switches on its radar.
If it doesn't see anything after initially turning on its radar, but a friendly jet tells it that pulling a (eg) 45 degree turn will put that jet in it's sights, it'll do that. The radar on the missile will then get it the last ten miles or so, bringing it either directly onto the enemy or close enough that the fragmentation from the warhead hits their jet.
>simple and reliable
come on man. dat meme? Also, when did it "defeat" the M-14??? You talking Vietnam???
>T-34 vs PzIV
how did the T-34 "defeat" the PzIV?
You claimed that simple reliable stuff is always better than the high tech. If that's the case, why did the mass-production-capable and sloped armor T-34 perform better than the craftsman-engineered boxy PzIV?
>implying the T-34 wasn't an advanced tank using the most modern design
we have 4th gen CF-18's right now. Any other 4th gen plane is going to be old and hardly withstand becoming obsolete over the next decades. I mean, Canada doesn't buy planes the way the US does. We've had these un-super hornets for decades now, and that's it. What 4th gen plane would be a good replacement that isn't as old as the Hornet is?
and 4++ gen like the Typhoon, Rafale, etc are A) just as expensive as the F-35 will be and B) too short range to be useful for Canada
yeah, he was campaigning on "gonna cancel muh expensive F-35, Canada don't need dat" and then within a month of being elected, it changed to "well, we're not ruling anything out yet".
yeah the M48 would get BTFO by even dirty haji with an ancient rusty RPGs
that guy is wrong. The AK-47 doesn't "defeat" an M-14 because how the fuck do you compare that? What, just because the infantry on one side of a war used one gun and the other side used the other, and whichever side won counts as "best gun"?????? that's retarded.
The powerpoint that's from actually said the M16 beat the M14 which is really surprising to me, I figured Sprey would have gone full
>muh real fucking nato
>muh plastic mattel guns
But yeah, that powerpoint is full of terrible comparisons (japanese destroyers were better than american cruisers, muh long lance).
>In Desert Storm, Abrams took several 120mm shots to the face in FF incidents. They were fine.
None of the FF BDA released http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/ included frontal hits against Abrams tank. Either this didn't happen or censored out.
Simple, cheap and reliable are all basic engineering virtues. There's no engineer or procurement officer in the world that would argue against them on principle. It's like arguing that air conditioning is good and then acting like people that don't want the SPECIFIC air conditioner you want are saying air conditioning is bad.
Where Sprey's argument falls apart is the capability side of things. He handwaves away the need for basic capabilities on a modern battlefield. For instance, he completely ignores the fact that during Korea and Vietnam, the Chinese, Soviets and Vietnamese moved much/most of their supplies at night and in foul weather due to a very anemic US night attack and night air superiority capability. Soviet battle plans in Europe in the 70's and 80's called for a preference for a winter offensive (20 out of 24 hours would be foul weather or night) with as much fighting, movement and resupply as possible going on at night and in bad weather. Sprey's day-attack strike and CAP fighters would have been all but worthless in that scenario, and he still INSISTS that he was correct.
>And did this special snowflake gun exist?
There was the autofiring 75mm ARES gun for the RDF light tank program that was supposed to perform very well, but it relied on a burst fire mode to defeat heavy armor and was only expected to be able to deal with T-72s reliably, there were provisons to have it be able to carry a box launcher on either side of the turret for either Stingers or TOWs though which would do the heavy armor duty.
All in all, he's a retard though.
He was told no such thing. He and Boyd got assblasted that the Blue Bird (F-15) proposal wasn't exactly what they wanted, so they started pushing for their preferred Red Bird gimmick, which took 5 years to eventually be issued as the LWF requirement (which they never touched), and was completely reworked into a usable multi-role by the time the F-16A started rolling off the production lines.
This storyline that the DoD came to Boyd and Sprey and said, "dude, guize, ya gotta help us we can't figure this out duuuurrrrrrr" has to die.