Why does pierre sprey think the F16 is the best jet ever made?

Because people who don't know anything about a subject realize they can still make money by being an "analyst" about said subject, because most people will know even less.

Because he had a role in it.

>>31068099
Because he's a luddite with a closed mind; he's been raving on about making aircraft as light and agile as possible at the expense of all else since the 1960s. Today he probably just has dementia.

>>31068099
Required /k/ reading...
https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf

Because he's an autistic old fuck

>>31068681
Christ did anyone proofread this?

>>31068749
What parts?

>>31069019
The introduction has a couple issues. The chapters I read were fascinating though.

>>31068099
He doesn't. Only the first blocks without useless junk like a radar are good according to him.

>>31068099
>Why does pierre sprey think the F16 is the best jet ever made?
The F-16 is technically the antithesis of everything that group of rejects wanted in the Red Bird. They wanted a tiny, low-tech daylight dogfighter. The F-16, for the time, was a small but not tiny high-tech all-weather fighter-bomber.

But since he has a new target to hate he tries to trumpet what little (near zero) involvement he had with the F-16 and A-10.

>>31069030
What? The F-16 had a state of the art Pulse-Doppler radar from the start.

IT'S A TURKEY

>muh price to performance ratio
>muh agility
>muh knifefight in a phonebooth

>>31069778
>>31069790
>turkey comes at you in the phonebooth
>reach for your gun or your f16?

>>31069695
F-15 is the antithesis of it. F-16 is the fighter in between the antithesis and the thing they wanted.

>>31068099
Do you ever wonder if it might be that Pierre Sprey, career-long defense industry insider and star combat aircraft designed, might know something that the inhabitants of a weeaboo containment website might not?

>>31069853
What they wanted was a daylight single-role dogfighter that only used guns and heaters, though.

>>31069894
Yes, but F-16 is still closer to this than F-15.

>>31069878

Which puts him to shame because there are anons where who know what they're talking about, opposed to Pierre Sprey.

>>31069878
>career-long defense industry insider
He worked in the most loathed office of the Pentagon for a few years before moving on to producing jazz records for the last 26 years.
>star combat aircraft designed
He designed nothing. He contributed to the program requirements on the Red Bird concept that was a minimal base for the Lightweight Fighter program and had a similar level of contribution on A-X. He was a minor Systems Analyst in the same era that his office, OSD/SA, pushed out planes like the F-111.

>>31069947
lolololololol

Harry Hillaker says Sprey was one of the 3 members of the group that designed the F16:

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=37

Try again weeb. That bullshit might work on most people here but I know better.

>>31069997
I see a lot of Fighter Mafia praise and confirmation of his role in Red Bird, but still nothing about either having worked at General Dynamics.

>>31069778
>IT'S A TURKEY

Try to imagine you are a spectator at an airshow, flying your own F-16. You get your first look at this "overweight turkey" as you look at it take off. He moves like a bomber, slowly climbing into the sky and banking lazily. You keep to his 6 o clock low because you think that maybe his IRST is based on current gen IR; he'll lose you if you don't stay in a 100 degree cone at his nose. But no, not the F-35. You stare at him…and he just stares right back, its EODAS system having perfect spherical 360 degree detection. And that's when the attack comes. Not from the front, but from the side. From the other two F-35's…you didn't even know were there due to stealth. Because F-35's a pack hunter, you see, he uses coordinated attack patterns that is sent, via stealth data link, to other F-35's using passive and active sensors to build a complete battle picture to every F-35 in the area. And he shoots at you with this: [produces a AIM-120] a beyond visual range missle, like a sniper. He doesn't bother to gun run you like a F-15, oh no…he fires at you here [Points at a place 100km, 9'oclock high] or here… [high from 6'oclock, 75km away] or maybe up close, with the AIM-9X. The point is, you have no idea what hit you, or why.

So, you know…try to show a little respect.

File: F35 Copypasta Reaction 1.jpg (587KB, 1915x1024px) Image search: [Google]

587KB, 1915x1024px

>>31070080

Goddamn, dude.

Here, have this.

File: 2015-06-221[1].jpg (459KB, 650x688px) Image search: [Google]

459KB, 650x688px

>>31070080
>>31070310
Still funny how bad JPark got Velociraptors wrong, though.

>>31069878
Not really, no.
http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/07.pdf

>>31070381
I think it'd have been amazing had the feathers thing been accepted at the time.

The size thing would have been fantastic. It would have made the "clever girl" attack even more hilarious and terrifying.

>>31070415
Though there's actually a theory that the whole reason they brought them to the park before it opened was to see if experts would balk at their fake engineered dinosaurs.

>>31070389
Literally the only thing he is right about is AR-15 vs M-14

I have seen Sprey speak well of the F-15 in a documentary.

>>31070491
>>31070415
In actuality Crichton just confused Velociraptors with Utah raptors.

>>31071362
I heard that at the time deinonychus was considered a type of velociraptor. Regardless, raptors that size existed.

>>31068681
Thanx

>>31068099

Pierre Sprey's entire thought process is summarized here:

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/08.pdf

Can you refute his detailed observations and math without resorting to memes?

File: how shitposts are born.png (91KB, 870x484px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 870x484px

>>31068099

>>31073307
And moments later this thread appeared
Coincidence isn't it

>>31073285
>F-86 vs F-18
Dude, if you post anything from POGO here for any purpose but to make fun of it you're gonna have a bad time.

Sprey literally completely fucking ignores actual combat history in favor of spewing his theory. Even though he has zero experience in aeronautical engineering. Even though he has zero knowledge of Air Combat except what John Boyd (who never saw any air to air combat himself) would tell him in their conspiring sessions.

In >>31070389 he claims without reservation that the M48A5 is a superior tank because we can buy a lot more of them.

File: for when pierre sprey calls f35 a turkey.png (32KB, 644x319px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 644x319px

>>31070080
Capped.

File: for when pierre sprey calls f35 a turkey 2.png (65KB, 640x467px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 640x467px

>>31070080
>>31070310
And the alternate with the reaction.

File: warcrimes pleasure.gif (2MB, 659x609px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 659x609px

>>31073285

I don't even know why people bother taking Pierre Sperg opinion over fighter design seriously.

The man thinks air combat should have stayed like it was in WWII.

>>31073834
It could be worse. He could be William Lind

File: Screenshot_54.png (150KB, 1072x803px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1072x803px

>>31070507

105mm howitzer vs 175mm field gun comparison is extremely valid. T-34 vs PzIV is also spot on. Same with P-38 vs P-51.

While he has become senile. Pic related is the very relevant part of said powerpoint torture device.

>>31073849

Who?

>>31073852
>105mm howitzer vs 175mm field gun comparison is extremely valid

No it isn't. They fulfilled two different doctrinal roles, and only when pressed into COIN operations did they do basically the same thing.

>T-34 vs PzIV is also spot on.

If you ignore that 80% of T-34 production ended up being total write-offs in one way or another, sure.

>>31073859
Imagine a /pol/tard who who takes Sprey's ideas at face values.

>>31073937
>>31073859

>William Lind
>Light Rail Enthusiast

>>31073852
>Pic related is the very relevant part of said powerpoint torture device.
It's his personal opinion with nothing to back the completely groundless and arbitrary chart.

>>31073852
Hmm really makes you think.
Not like all of those current first line weapons proved themselves to be rather effective after Sprey spent years insisting they would be complete failures or anything.

>>31074204
Note that the presentation that was from is dated 2007, AFTER Desert Storm and the invasion phases of Iraq and Afghanistan had already proven him wrong.

File: this is what pierre sprey actually believes.jpg (223KB, 696x1366px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 696x1366px

>>31074264
Yeah, it'd be one thing if he thought the original M1 from 1980 was inferior to the M48A5. He'd still be wrong, but it wouldn't be as bad. But no, he's deluded enough to think the M48 is superior to the M1A2, in combat effectiveness too, not just cost-effectiveness.

>>31073889
>No it isn't. They fulfilled two different doctrinal roles, and only when pressed into COIN operations did they do basically the same thing.

Why it was used in COIN operations?

>If you ignore that 80% of T-34 production ended up being total write-offs in one way or another, sure.

Source on that. For Soviets even recoverable loss was just loss if it had to be sent out of unit for repairs. T-34 had issues. Teething issues in early production, mid-production quality issues and even upgrades had their own complications, in /k/ all of those apply in every situation, early T-34's had handling issues caused by increased frontal armor of T-34-85.

>>31074144
>It's his personal opinion with nothing to back the completely groundless and arbitrary chart.

Cost of weapon systems and return of investment are completely irrelevant factors in defense planning. That must be why F-22 is the only fighter in USAF inventory and has been used extensively in conflicts of last decade...

>>31074333

The thing described in your picture isn't M48. Against goat fuckers M48 with modernized communications and thermal sight would be just as good.

>>31074605

>Why it was used in COIN operations?

Because it was already being fielded when the COIN scenario came into being.

>Cost of weapon systems and return of investment are completely irrelevant factors in defense planning. That must be why F-22 is the only fighter in USAF inventory and has been used extensively in conflicts of last decade...

Because the US hasn't fought any country with an airforce in the last decade. Pierre Sperg claimed the same for the F-15 and F-18 and he was proven wrong repeatedly.

>The thing described in your picture isn't M48. Against goat fuckers M48 with modernized communications and thermal sight would be just as good.

Tell that to the Russians in Chechnya and Afghanistan. The US has faced guerilla fighters in Iraq with RPGs and ATGMs that would turn M48's into Swiss Cheese but wouldn't be effective against M1A1s or A2s, specially when you account for IEDs or penetrating hits on the hull not resulting in the crew being killed.

File: this is what pierre sprey actually believes.png (674KB, 934x1976px) Image search: [Google]

674KB, 934x1976px

>>31074605
>The thing described in your picture isn't M48
I didn't say it was. I'd normally post pic related but the entire article has already been posted here.

>Against goat fuckers M48 with modernized communications and thermal sight would be just as good.
Because you should only equip your military to deal with the bare minimum, right? Ignoring that an M48 would get BTFO much more easily by antitank weapons than any M1 would.

>Cost of weapon systems and return of investment are completely irrelevant factors in defense planning. That must be why F-22 is the only fighter in USAF inventory and has been used extensively in conflicts of last decade...
Except he's not just saying that increased investment gets you diminishing returns. In fact he's saying that paradigm is wrong and that increased investment actually gives you negative returns.

>>31074743
The M1 can definitely sweep ditches. That famous push into Bagdad video shows them doing just that throughout it.

>>31074768
I'm pretty sure he just pulled most of that out of his ass. You already have to be pretty delusional to think that an M48 is just as accurate as an M1A2.

>>31074605
>For Soviets even recoverable loss was just loss if it had to be sent out of unit for repairs

I love how this meme has never been proven once.

>>31074729
>Because it was already being fielded when the COIN scenario came into being.

It's superior range was used only rarely in Vietnam, US military retired M107 in late 70's and lot of 'em were converted to m110's with 203mm guns.

>>31074743
>I didn't say it was

I have seen that posted a lot here in Sprey threads, occasionally it had been claimed to be M48.

That being said there were bunch ultra high muzzle velocity single purpose anti-tank gun projects in 70's and 80's.

>Ignoring that an M48 would get BTFO much more easily by antitank weapons than any M1 would.

It still would make minimal difference in casualties or combat results.

The thing Sprey ignores with M48 is that new built M48's wouldn't be 6th of cost of Abrams. M48's were built in huge numbers during coldest part of cold war for relatively short time. There was massive economies of scale there.

>Except he's not just saying that increased investment gets you diminishing returns. In fact he's saying that paradigm is wrong and that increased investment actually gives you negative returns.

Diminishing return becomes negative return of investment at the point when weapon system is too expensive and generally pointless to deploy due to being not needed.

File: YouDenseMotherFucker.gif (44KB, 491x324px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 491x324px

>>31075068

>It's superior range was used only rarely in Vietnam, US military retired M107 in late 70's and lot of 'em were converted to m110's with 203mm guns.

Nice reading comprehension, the M107 was being used because it was already there when the Vietcong became an issue, since the FoBs had the M107 batteries already deployed there and replacing them not being worth, there would be no real reason not to use them.

>>31075068

>It still would make minimal difference in casualties or combat results.

[citation needed]

Are you seriously implying if we replaced the M1A1 with M48A4 in the Desert Storm or the Iraq War the number of casualties would be the same?

>>31075068
>Diminishing return becomes negative return of investment at the point when weapon system is too expensive and generally pointless to deploy due to being not needed.
Except this hasn't been borne out by any of the listed 'current first-line' weapons.

>It still would make minimal difference in casualties or combat results.
How so? M1s in Iraq have taken damage that no M48 would be able to withstand. And the M48 because woefully inadequate once you put it into any situation where you're fighting anything more than a few goat herders with RPGs.

>>31075281
*M48 becomes woefully inadequate

File: F35 Clever AMRAAM.jpg (1MB, 1915x1788px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1915x1788px

>>31073699
>>31073715

Tried to balance it out a bit better.

>>31077391
If anyone here could do a good voice impersonation of Dr Grant I'd be interested in doing a video version of this (otherwise I might just do a comic-looking thing)

>>31074743
who the fuck wrote that? during the invasion of Iraq I can guarantee you it did not take an hour to refuel the tanks with us, and the crew sure as shit did not spend an hour clean their filterss every 2 hrs. they cleaned them once a day if time and ops permitted.

>>31073699
>>31073715
>>31077391
stop making me try to like something other than the helmet

>>31078817
It says it at the top; Pierre Sprey

>>31078817
Pierre Sprey.

Who, after graduating with an Engineering degree had a worthlessly short period working at Grumman, then 4 years in the most loathed office in the DoD at the time.

For the last 26 years he's been a jazz record producer.

>>31078935
>For the last 26 years he's been a jazz record producer.
And telling everyone who will listen that every piece of American military hardware procured after the F-86 and the M48 (with the exception of the A-10 and F-5) was a mistake.

>>31079158
Don't forget the F-20.

>>31081369
After it failed he decided that the reason it did was that they gave it a radar and air-to-ground capability at all. So to him the F-20 really should have just stayed as a souped-up F-5.

>>31073937
They do. I've seen their F35 threads. They're like Sprey if he blamed everything on the Jews.

>>31082207
Hmm... is Sprey Jewish?

>>31083794
French, born in Nice.

>>31078684

Just do a webm with subtitles

>>31072188
Deinonychus was about the size of a dog

>>31074605
>Why it was used in COIN operations?
Vietnam happened