Pierre Sprey vs retired F-35 Pilot Debate

>>34639425
why is he retired so young?

>>34639438
He didn't want to fly lemons for the rest of his career.

>>34639438

He didn't fly so good

>>34639425
ooh this gon be good. Finally time for that old jew to face his lies and BS.

>>34639438
I'm not certain, although in his final years he went from being the CO of an F-35B squadron to working in Washington DC.

I think he probably left because he was no longer flying and didn't want to get into politics; he's now working at a leadership development group run by ex-mil guys, so I get the feeling he'd rather be talking to audiences and doing his own thing than sitting behind a desk.

>>34639476
You don't become a Topgun instructor or the only US Marine to fly both the F-22 and F-35 by not flying good.

File: file.png (846KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

846KB, 1200x675px

>>34639425
>same argument as the Su-35S several day ago on /k/

this never get old

mean while at the Chink airforce

>Instructor: Why do you dogfight?
>Cadet: Because I have super-maneuverability
>I: No, because you're silly

>>34639425
Pierre sounds like he is desperately holding on to the past.

>>34639425
>retired pilot for a plane that's not even in service yet
That bad, huh?

>>34639822
Su-35 is the best airplane ever made.

>>34639517
That would probably do it. He had probably finished his last flying command, and didn't want to pilot a desk.

I wonder if he'll sign on with one of the contractor OPFOR companies. Anybody remember Neptunus Lex?

File: 14706170719280.jpg (591KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 1000x667px

>>34640129
>best Russian fighter ever made
yes
>best airplane ever made.
no

>>34639517
>You don't become a Topgun instructor or the only US Marine to fly both the F-22 and F-35 by not flying good.
For you.

>>34639517
>You don't become a Topgun instructor or the only US Marine to fly both the F-22 and F-35 by not flying good.
Those who can't do, teach.

>>34640115
It's been in service for 2 years now anon.

>>34640146
He'd be perfect for flying OPFOR I think (having flown 4th & both 5th gen platforms and still being relatively young), but AFAIK it's a very closed position (little hiring opportunity), so I wouldn't bet on him getting a role.

>>34640178
Dang, checkmated

>>34640178
you best be joking nigger

>>34640158
Where can I get a comfy convertible tank like that?

>>34640178
Thats not really how it works, especially for schools that actually matter.

>>34640197
>>34640224
If it wasn't true, then why would it be a meme? Come on now, use your head.

>>34640231
you are trying way to hard

>>34639438
I found his Linkedin page; he did 23 years, made it to LTC. COL would almost certainly have been a non-flying position, and he most likely had no interest in the political side of things, which you get into when you hit O-6 and start looking at the Congressional approval required to hit O-7.

Pierre is classic "fighting the last war" mindset. He probably still uses a flip phone.

>>34640246
Razor is the slimmest phone. Features weigh down smartphones and make them perform worse at the basics.

>>34640246

He's not fighting the last war, he's fighting WW2/Korea. He just can't accept that missiles fundamentally changed the requirements for a fighter plane. All his advice makes sense if you assume that guns are going to be the primary weapons in an engagement. The only problem is that we're well past the point where guns are going to be the primary weapons in an engagement.

>>34640218
you can buy a MTLB from online shop

>>34640246
Stealth phones are a meme.

>>34639822

What does it actually say?

>>34640353
>Instructor: Why do you dogfight?
>Cadet: Because I have super-maneuverability
>I: No, because you're silly

>>34640326
>Stealth phones
the old NOKIA phone are more stealth than any overrate Iphone

I've heard the retired pilot, Berke, speak in at least 2 separate videos. He's got a very good handle on what makes 5th Gen what it is.

>>34640381

That's actually really funny.

>>34640285
Can't imagine how much of a lemon the F-16 would have been if they had followed Sprey and the fighter mafia's advice.

>>34639822
is it from that their topgun clone about a commander who brings tampons to his female pilots

>>34640285
>He's not fighting the last war, he's fighting WW2/Korea. He just can't accept that missiles fundamentally changed the requirements for a fighter plane
i don't think he is that old, lol

>>34640504
Born 1937, he might remember WW2.

>>34640497
no

that is from one of their real briefing

>>34639425
I did not know that Sprey was on RT.
Can't say I'm surprised. He'd fit right alongside their pseudo-academic coterie of has-beens and cranks.

>>34640497
Are you so fucking stupid you don't realize that's not from a fucking film?

>>34639517

hownew.ru

>>34639425
>retired F-35 pilot
>plane has been in development that long
>original pilots from initial production aircraft are retiring
>still hasn't hit full production

>>34639425
Fucking hell one minute in and Sprey is already trying to claim the F-35 at the Paris Air show was stripped down to make it as light as possible.

>>34640285
Well, if your plane can spoof missiles and render them ineffective...

>>34640884
>NOOO SPREY IS MY HERO, STOP MAKING HIM LOOK LIKE A BUMBLING FOOL!!!

File: 4a697fda52322dbf75bf77232a127aea[1].jpg (129KB, 850x682px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 850x682px

>>34640884
i have read his interview, he compared it with iphone, didn't mention any real advantage except data sharing and some very vague "new tactics"

from what i gather it simply has data sharing like in muh world of tanks when the enemy tanks are spotted for the whole team by one allied tank as if you see them yourself, so they managed to do it irl with fighter planes and are very glad about this new iphone of the sky

>>34640884
He was flying Hornets, F-16, and F-22 long before the F-35.

>>34640912
Even better, he takes every opportunity available to make baseless implications that the DoD and Lockheed are lying about everything about the F-35.

File: if you prioritize the red box before the green box you are old behind late and gonna lose.jpg (115KB, 1276x709px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1276x709px

>>34640925
It is cute that you cannot actually refute what he said in the "interview that you read", so you are trying to poison the well.

>>34640912
It was. All flight shows are like that.

>>34640925

Even in ww2 most combat was dictated by who saw who first, and ability to communicate (ie good radio) made a huge difference

The same is still true today, and the data sharing allows a huge increase in effectiveness, ie major force multiplier.

File: 1480413483059.png (209KB, 1149x721px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1149x721px

>>34640613
RT was the main promoter of Sprey, it really was Russian propaganda shitting on the F-35.

Unfortunately Trump bought into it, initially.

>>34640959
by this pic the best fighter plane it's awacs :^)

>>34640965
There was nothing removed from the F-35 at the Paris Airshow.

>>34641084
Your reading comprehension is extremely poor.

>>34641085
Relative to which arbitrary configuration that you're about to cite to determine that you're not wrong?

>>34640102
I figured it was all a part of some kind of vendetta against multi-role aircraft in general.

The reason for it though, who knows.

>>34641138
How about instead of you doing the weasel word game why don't you just tell us what you think they removed from the F-35 at Paris.

>inb4 crickets

>>34639425
Why does Sprey always say multi-mission aircraft are shit then say the F16 is excellent?

>>34641172
Because he's talking out of his ass. Probably also something about him "designing" it.

>>34640959
>>34640925
yeah so it can guide missiles from a drone missile ship and attempt to stay stealthy, maybe.

>>34641099
you know i am not even against f-35, but that guy is really bad at explaining stuff why that jet is good, he didn't even give any specific examples how its new data sharing ability could be applied, didn't analyze, say, how a pack of f-35 would fight a pack of f-16 etc, the best what he could do it's to compare it to iphone

>~35 min
>Pilot goes off on Sprey for claiming that everyone who says good things about it are lying to save their jobs
fucking finally

>>34641163
No munitions, nor any weights simulating their impact on performance.

>>34641172
Because Sprey is a retard. Nearest I can figure, Sprey suffers from fanboy syndrome where he picks which plane he will like first, and then backfills his justification for his choice even if it makes no sense.

>>34641186
What is something he hammers home in both the presentation you are referring to and this interview.

>"It's really difficult for me to overstate what a massive advantage you have in decision making in the F-35."

>>34639425
>Sprey getting BTFO over and over again

Nice

>>34641232
That isn't an answer to the question, what did they strip out of the F-35 at Paris?

>>34641285
>It wasn't taken out because it wasn't there to begin with xd
Sophistry.

>>34641207
It was fucking great, sprey needs to fuck off

>>34641336
You could hear him actually getting a little angry with that rebuttal there.

>>34640504
You should see his report comparing the M48 and M1 abrams.

Where the M48 is a superior tank. One reason is because of the Large .50 cal up to that can be aimed down to clear out Ditches near the tank....

Also "105mm is more than adequate to kill Soviet tanks"

>>34641296
>get caught in a lie
>damage control

Sprey wasn't talking about munitions, what did they strip out of the F-35 at Paris?

>>34641347
>but i listen to pilots, t-theyre all lying

Well fucking listen to them sprey, and they all say its fucking great.

>>34641372
>"Could the F-35 go to war in that configuration?"
>Sprey: "Without weapons? You must be kidding!"
Swing and a miss.

>I would disagree with (what Sprey said) using as strong of language as I can on a radio show.

I have to give the F-35 pilot credit for keeping his cool listening to Sprey tell him what it's like to fly the F-35.

>>34641411
Yes that was Sprey's goalpost move, before then he claimed that all aircraft are stripped down and given a token amount of fuel.

What was stripped from the F-35 at Paris?

>>34641472
From what they were saying, it sounded like it was just an F-35 with no armament and 50% fuel. Not the guy you're replying to btw

>>34641495
Correct, nothing was actually removed from the plane for the airshow like you would see with legacy aircraft as Sprey implied.

>>34641428
It was especially infuriating listening to Sprey claim that everyone who's said anything good about the F-35 is just lying for the sake of their career.

>>34641525
His MO seems to be spouting bullshit that obviously implies something completely wrong but is vague enough that he can cover his tracks when called on it.

>Sprey literally thinks the Air Force takes hamfisted people to be fighter pilots

>>34641472
>Yes that was Sprey's goalpost move
>Well... he DID... but... he mentioned fuel first!
He's not the only one moving goalposts, apparently. He never relegated his contention of a stripped aircraft to fuel only (jokingly noting even map cases being removed), though you might prefer that he did, now that you've overstepped.
So now you too accept that Sprey referenced that munitions were missing (as they were), positively affecting performance of the aircraft, and hence was not fully representative of a combat load.

Strike two.

>>34640285
>>34640914

One day we will come full circle and go back to guns because guidance systems can't keep up with countermeasures. Just like naval mines are going back to the tried and true pressure sensor.

>>34641573
He claimed that the F-35 was stripped down "like all airshow performances" and then proceeded to describe how they tend to remove pretty much everything up to map cases for such performances. While he was corrected by the pilot and likely knew that all the "stripping down" entailed really was having empty weapons bays and 50% fuel, by mentioning all those things before he implied that the F-35 was stripped down of much of its vital equipment.

He does this several times during the video, and he tends to do this during discussions. It's vague enough so that apologists can claim he's not *technically* wrong when called on it, but it's intentionally giving the wrong impression, especially to uneducated listeners.

>>34639517
Perhaps he was wondering why you'd promote a man before throwing him out of an airplane

>>34641573
>acknowledge Sprey initially said everything possible was stripped from the F-35 and that it had a 'few ounces' of fuel
>acknowledge he changed his statement to munitions after being told nothing was stripped from the F-35 and it had 50% fuel
>insist Sprey didn't move goalposts

You dug your hole kneejerk supporting him and are now stuck trying to damage control.

File: image.jpg (330KB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 2100x1500px

>>34641573
The weight of the internal munitions really doesn't matter. with 10k lbs of fuel (half capacity that was claimed) could just as well be 8.5k lbs with 1.5k of munitions. They're internal and don't have any bearing on the aerodynamics of the aircraft during flight. Spray claimed that they went through and striped the aircraft down, implying that every nonessential item was pulled up to and and including map cases that aren't even in the aircraft. In reality, his claim was unfounded and hollow and as soon as his bullshit was called, he moved goalposts and by trying talking about the lack of munition on board.

Obviously a fully loaded and fully fueled aircraft would have different handling characteristics, but that wasn't the implication that was made.

File: 1393418479860.jpg (84KB, 850x572px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 850x572px

>that a lot of math for a Marine to keep up with
humh

>>34641627
>Everything possible is stripped from the F-35
>But he didn't mean munitions! When he mentioned it literally a minute later, it was an afterthought! I swear! He was thinking about everything BUT munitions prior to that moment!
A plain sense reading of his words doesn't suggest your interpretation, friend.

Strike three. Is it masochism that forces you to defend untenable positions, or rank idiocy?

>>34641691
>In reality, his claim was unfounded
His reference to the totality of the plane being stripped doesn't suggest he believed the plane had munitions from the very start. If you throw out map cases, you aren't carrying JDAM.
How much the munitions would affect the flight performance is another matter. I'm quite sure the F-35 wouldn't be substantively degraded if the munitions were internal. But it would be degraded. It's more weight for the frame and engine to carry. No way around it.
>Obviously a fully loaded and fully fueled aircraft would have different handling characteristics
That's exactly the point he was making. On the head.
I don't think it's reasonable to critique the fuel. By the time the plane reaches the battlespace, etc, some will be missing. But munitions is a fair critique. Even as a "flying node", the F-35 is still the JSF.

>>34640278
Whoa good form.

>you have to build an aircraft to fight past threats, any training against current or potential future threats is just intelligence guys creating things for a paycheck

Sprey is such a piece of work.

>>34640959
>speed/agility vs information/access
What the fuck? Why are those mutually eclusive? Why can't you put modern coms equipment in a fast and agile airplane?

>>34641955
i guess mostly because of stealth
possibly also that vtol crap

>>34641955
>Why are those mutually eclusive?

Where is it implied they are mutually exclusive?

>>34641970
But those have nothing to do with comms. If the tradeoff was
>speed/agility vs stealth
I could understand it.

>>34641984
That slidedeck is implying that speed and agility were traded for better comms.

>>34641955
You can.
And you'll pay for the privilege of putting unnecessary work into an aircraft that is roughly as effective without.
The Perfect Fighter costs (let's say,) 600 million, not counting exorbitant maintenance.
An F-35 can do 90% of what The Perfect Fighter can do, at 1/6th the cost.

>>34642001
>That slidedeck is implying that speed and agility were traded for better comms.
it's one of the reasons why i say that that berke guy and company don't really do a good work explaining why f-35 is that good

>>34642001
>That slidedeck is implying that speed and agility were traded for better comms.

The filename is the gist of what that part of the presentation was about, speed and agility are good to have but information is even better.

>>34639438
pentagon wars may be a comedy that exaggerates things, but if you want a picture of what the life of top brass in that building is like, you can watch that, and then guess why he would retire

>>34640925
You're thinking too narrowly - to give two examples of what it's been found to be surprisingly good at:

At CSAR it was found to be outright superior to the A-10, because it could detect incoming enemy land / air forces from further, keep tabs on them more consistently and have a better picture of (eg) whether a helo would be able to make an LZ in time.

After it runs out of missiles, it can be a mini-AWACS which can positively ID targets for 4th gens, share data across long distances / between separate flights better, etc.

Say an F-16 spots a ground threat and wants to pass that onto another incoming squadron - before anything happens (before he gets into danger or even into the air) he'll have keyed in the ID codes of his flight lead and other wingmen into his Link 16 console. When he finds a threat, he'd normally digitally mark it on his map (slew a TFLIR crosshair onto it, etc), select his other wingmen and flight lead using a keypad and then tell the computer to send that new marker to them. The flight leader will then see the mark and if he agrees that it's a real threat he'll select it, select another flight leader (already keyed in) and send it to him. That flight leader will then manually select it, select his own flight's pilots and send it to them.

In an F-35, the computer will typically find the threat first, it'll automatically identify it, mark it and it'll then automatically send it to all the other F-35s in the flight. Your map can end up populating itself with threats before you even take off. So when working with 4th and 5th gens, a flight of F-35s can split up and act as both long range sensors, but also as a sort of information highway between 4th gens that want to distribute that information to flights further away, or to more flights than they can have saved onto their Link 16 'address book'.

>>34642033
Why must it be "but"? Why not "and"?

Build a plane with both.

>>34641232
As is said in the video, they were flying with approximately 50% fuel, which is more than an F-16 carries internally.

An F-35A flying with 50% fuel weighs the same and has the same drag as an F-35A flying with 42% fuel and a full internal A2A payload.

>>34641775
>By the time the plane reaches the battlespace, etc, some will be missing. But munitions is a fair critique.

But how much will be missing when the plane reaches the battlespace and has to engage in a dogfight? Is a jet at 42% fuel but equipped with weapons not at a reasonable combat weight? What about at 60% fuel? What if the "50% fuel" was actually 55%, emulating an armed jet at 47% fuel?
The point Berke makes in the video is that there's about a 3-4% difference in weight and ~0% change in drag on the jet between an armed and unarmed F-35A at ~50% fuel.

>>34641955
Each aspect costs $$$; the F-22 is expensively precisely because it tries to have everything.

>>34640925
>>34642383
Future "apps" may include drone commanding, internal lasers, a more important cyber node, a Growler replacement, etc. It's not just about the software and what humans can do with it, it's the increased thermal and electrical capacity, the avionics modularity, extra fuel, big internal bays, empty / spare avionics bays, the already-present IR and active/passive radar sensors, etc.

>>34642429
>Each aspect costs $$$
Fire all the "muh benefits" niggers, build a better plane.

>>34642383
>At CSAR it was found to be outright superior to the A-10
Do you have a source for that claim? I'd honestly like to have it in my repertoire.

>>34639425
HOLD UP!
A F35 rep said the F35A used had fully weapons load and 50% fuel for that airshow.

>>34642473
This PDF: www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=22817

>>34641775
>That's exactly the point he was making. On the head.

There is no point to that statement. Its literally a universal rule for every aircraft in existence, so why bring it up in the first place?

only fucking valid point Sprey made was the F35's cost makes is harder to maintain.
then again, we have 2,400 F35s planned to be built
that's more than enough for his "more=better" argument.

File: 1488877038670.gif (899KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

899KB, 600x600px

>>34642709
>F35's cost makes is harder to maintain.

>>34642709

Even then, comparing combat aircraft on a one to one basis doesn't make much sense. Compared to the aircraft that it is replacing, the F-35 has; greater operational range/loiter so requires less tanker support, LO characteristics means less SEAD/EW support needed in restricted environments, far greater payload can be carried in permissive environments so fewer aircraft are needed for the same number of munitions. Also, there is no new aircraft being built anywhere in the world with anywhere near the same economies of scale.

>>34642858
>F35's cost makes is harder to maintain.
Aerospace welder here
The f35/22 parts are harder to make and are more expensive.
Sprey isn't wrong when he says maintenance costs are an issue.
Repairs are more expensive and harder.
But, with that logic, we would all being driving 80s Corollas because they are cheap and easy.

>>34642880
>Also, there is no new aircraft being built anywhere in the world with anywhere near the same economies of scale.
Ya I know, I'm part of an assembly line for f35 parts.
Shit is insane compared to older jets.
Lockheed said they wanted 1 f35 a day in 2020.

>>34642939
>1 f-35 a day
what will happen if we get into a conventional war?

>>34642956
>what will happen if we get into a conventional war?
More than 1 a day?
IDK man,
I seriously doubt we will get into a major conflict that would force the USA to go into panic production mode.

>>34643002
>china

>>34643003
>chyyna

>>34643018
>OPM breach

>>34642956

A lot of the components have a relatively long lead time (for example the engines) so you can't suddenly double the production due to these bottlenecks. Of course, previous major wars were preceded by several years of increased tensions so it would be absolutely possible to increase production rate further with enough notice.

>>34640178
I know exactly where you got that from and it's contradictory, simply because Top Gun exists. Massive difference between a FAIP and an aggressor.

>>34642956
They could ramp up production in a year if need be, but it will cost a lot and there is no need at present.

File: 55244798.jpg (25KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x281px

>>34639425

At this point it has become abbundantly clear that Sprey has elevated his opinions into dogma.
Nothing will ever make him change his positions on anything. He will take them to the grave.

>>34642398
You can build an aircraft with both (like the F-35), that doesn't change the value of information.

>>34643149
>>34643149
>>I know exactly where you got that from
You know its an ancient meme, right?

>>34639425
It was interesting to hear the contrast between Sprey's weak, contradictory, and baseless claims against someone who knows what they're talking about.

>>34639496
>jew
He's French, stop saying everyone you don't like is a Jew, /pol/.

>>34640102
As true in 1970 as it is today. Their arguments for Red Bird were just as outdated.

Also, can we please get press members to stop repeating the lie that he designed planes?

>>34640613
He's on there pretty regularly. An "expert" who constantly slams US military tech? That's a goldmine for them.

>>34641172
Because Sprey likes to take credit for shit he didn't do even if it's a successful project in spite of what he thinks.

Note that he tried to claim we could get 5 F-16s for every F-35.*

*if you only build them as F-16A Block 1 as he thinks is best

>>34641235
It must be noted that when the F-16 changes from the YF-16 were made he loathed how they turned a daylight dogfighter into a bigger, more capable multi-role.

File: PaFaBa.jpg (34KB, 1200x813px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 1200x813px

>>34639425

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/12757/check-out-all-these-blackbird-videos-nasa-just-released

>>34641621
>but it's intentionally giving the wrong impression, especially to uneducated listeners.
Which just kind of describes everything that band of assholes centered around Boyd did. They knew they couldn't get experts to agree with them, so they used the ignorance of the public as a weapon.

>>34641694
Especially since it was complete bullshit math.

>Actual, verifiable numbers say we've spent X
>Hurr tha secret costs make it really 1.5 or even 2x!

>>34642001
>That slidedeck is implying that speed and agility were traded for better comms.
No, just that what is important has changed.

>>34642709
It's not correct though, either. Since the F-35 was actually designed from the ground up to be easier to work on, once it has tri-service FOC CPFH may be even lower than the F-16's. As it is now an F-35A is only $5k more.

>>34644444

>>34643303
>no need at present
>super hornet fleet about to succumb to entropy

>>34639476
>>34639517
maybe he's good with politics that why he's there

>>34642134
But who will run the Ruminant Procurement Department? How could he abandon such a vital task? Sad!

Why did sprey try to claim 5th gens arnt tested alongside 4th gens?
Does he not know what red flag is?

F16s Currently are 57 million
You could get about 1.5 f16s per f35.
Hardly the 5:1 number he gave.

>>34645292
The F-16E/F block 60s most recently sold were closer to $100m+.

He also qualified it by saying five original config F-16s as if that were an acceptable configuration in even 1987. (C/D Block 25s came in 1984)

>>34645525
>five original config F-16s as if that were an acceptable configuration

Is he that delusional?
Tech from 1987 can somehow begin to match that of the current year

The f35 guy did mention a 1970s jet price is vastly different with inflation added.

>>34646061
>Is he that delusional?
Are you seriously asking that about Sprey in 2017?

what planes do the usaf use? I heard f22 doesn't see combat. y shift to the f35. are the super hornets you guys selling us any good

>>34646519
Already stationed in syria for a while.

File: 1402440400542.jpg (5KB, 253x199px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 253x199px

>>34639425
>we have a forward deployed, combat capable F-35 squadron in the pacific

>>34639425
>that moment 30 or so minutes in when he just blows up and completely stomps the retarded shit sprey said

>>34647061
I'm surprised that guy kept his cool for so long.
Having some old Bomer tell you how your jet preforms, but that Boomer hasn't been part of any aspect of the project.
I would have called him out watt sooner

>>34646519
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft#Air_Force