Pierre Sprey's Ideal fighter

[Wizard_03]

Ok I am thoroughly upset, I'm excited about the possibility of an F-5E on the horizon, So I've been reading up on it. It's a mean little fighter, I hope we get it.

 

BUT I was reading about failed F-20 which apparently was marketed as an alternative to F-16 and lost obviously, but from what I understand it was a relatively cheep lightweight fighter with a the bells as whistles of a modern fighter (Mulit-mode Radar full range of A2G and A2A weapons at the time) and at 1/3 the cost and 1/2 the maintenance, which sounds pretty awesome, you wonder why no one went for it and then I found this non-sense...

 

"We wanted hot, light airplanes that were just as stripped-down as possible... They took an austere, stripped-down F-5 and ruined it by loading crap on it. Adding Sparrow missiles required huge complexity on the airplane. Adding air-to-ground capability ruined the F-20A."

 

 

-Pierre Sprey

 

 

That quote is all over every page I find about the F-20 and It made wonder what fighter would make this guy happy??

 

 

 

So the F-5E was ruined by the F-20s ability to carry bombs and the ability to engage air targets at BVR ranges...So what the heck does he want the F-5 used for?? Furthermore what is his ideal fighter?? He hates the F-35, so I thought he'd be all over a modern super lightweight like the F-20A but I guess not...

 

 

Why was this guy consulted for anything? It sounds like he was around for WW2 and since then hasn't payed any attention to developments in aviation.

 

edit sorry for rant, I'm mad I like the F-20!!

 

 

[Darkwolf]

He probably wans a time machkne and get back to ww2 where his theory would eventually be ok

[King_Hrothgar]

I think what he prefers are single purpose aircraft that are fully optimized for their task. The F-35 is most definitely not that. I don't understand his complaints on the F-20 though, it was just an updated F-5 when all is said and done. And yeah, I think it would have made a very good fighter around the world.

[wilky510]

Ok I am thoroughly upset, I'm excited about the possibility of an F-5E on the horizon, So I've been reading up on it. It's a mean little fighter, I hope we get it.

 

BUT I was reading about failed F-20 which apparently was marketed as an alternative to F-16 and lost obviously, but from what I understand it was a relatively cheep lightweight fighter with a the bells as whistles of a modern fighter (Mulit-mode Radar full range of A2G and A2A weapons at the time) and at 1/3 the cost and 1/2 the maintenance, which sounds pretty awesome, you wonder why no one went for it and then I found this non-sense...

 

"We wanted hot, light airplanes that were just as stripped-down as possible... They took an austere, stripped-down F-5 and ruined it by loading crap on it. Adding Sparrow missiles required huge complexity on the airplane. Adding air-to-ground capability ruined the F-20A."

 

 

-Pierre Sprey

 

 

That quote is all over every page I find about the F-20 and It made wonder what fighter would make this guy happy??

 

 

 

So the F-5E was ruined by the F-20s ability to carry bombs and the ability to engage air targets at BVR ranges...So what the heck does he want the F-5 used for?? Furthermore what is his ideal fighter?? He hates the F-35, so I thought he'd be all over a modern super lightweight like the F-20A but I guess not...

 

 

Why was this guy consulted for anything? It sounds like he was around for WW2 and since then hasn't payed any attention to developments in aviation.

 

edit sorry for rant, I'm mad I like the F-20!!

 

 

He thinks BVR is a waste of time. He wants an aircraft loaded with all IR missiles. He wanted the F-16 to have no radar and carry 6 sidewinders. He wants a small lightweight cheap fighter that will be expendable in combat (by the way, the F-16 was all this in the beginning, it lacked BVR missiles, and could only use sidewinders). Once the f-16 started getting all the bells and whistles it has today to make it such a great aircraft, he dropped his "support" for the F-16. He considered the F-15 a 'failure' too, was too big, had a big radar, and was specifically made to carry BVR missiles.

 

He goes by mythical "Vietnam" Statistics on missiles "failing" (when in reality, if you actually take the time to look at stats, missiles still dominated Vietnam even after the US trained for dogfights/guns again). He thinks BVR will never happen in the future, based on Vietnam data, and some data from other conflicts (Israeli conflicts). He doesn't understand technology can move forward.

Edited October 9, 2015 by wilky510

[kontiuka]

I think the guy's anti-missile as well. I heard him remark that if you're close enough to go for a sidewinder kill, you might as well use guns. Enh. You lost me right there.

Edited October 10, 2015 by kontiuka

[Tirak]

He probably wans a time machkne and get back to ww2 where his theory would eventually be ok

 

His theory didn't work then either. Zero vs Hellcat.

[PiedDroit]

:lol::megalol:

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Sprey is oftentimes lampooned in my usual Teamspeak.

 

He is a man that makes big claims. Very big claims. Like "My Uncle works for Nintendo" level of claims. He goes so far to even outright lie. Like claiming he designed the A-10 and the F-16, both claims being ridiculous.

 

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/07.pdf

 

Here he makes some amazing assertions. His comparison of M48 vs. M1A1 is especially jawdropping.

Edited October 10, 2015 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Eihort]

If you want to understand Pierre better, understand his mentor.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-The-Fighter-Pilot-Changed/dp/0316796883

 

While he didn't sit down at a drawing board or early CAD station and physically design the A-10 or the F-16, you have to realize that those are both planes the Air Force patently did not want at the time. There had to be studies on the various aspects that would dictate the performance of the aircraft and those are what he worked on. He was also navigating the Byzantine bureaucracy of the Pentagon to help get the F-16 done, and also was the prime mover pushing the A-10 through.

 

For their time, they were revolutionary designs to fight the USSR, who was going to come screaming through the Fulda Gap with more tanks than God, covered by enough cheap MiG-21s and 23s to blot out the sun. In that environment, those planes are perfect. In a modern environment with highly lethal point-air defense, and even better long-range area SAM coverage, they're in deep trouble.

 

Dat slide show tho. AR-15 has more stopping power than M-14... wut? (Okay, maybe with the wound ballistics, but even then, that's a stretch.)

[Basher54321]

Sprey was labelled a Luddite and gadfly even in the 60s when he was a Civvie at the Pentagon - no military experience.

 

Just because he hung around Boyd shouldn't mean he should be considered in the same light. The Coram is an interesting book but by no means the whole story.

 

Every paper Sprey has written since the late 70s displays lack of understanding in the basics of Aero / or what's important in combat and has a distinct whiff of agenda - a lot of it goes against Boyds theories.

 

:thumbup:

 

Comparing the effectiveness of Air to Air Fighters: F-86 to F-18 (Sprey , M, Pierre, 1982)

[Emu]

Sprey was labelled a Luddite and gadfly even in the 60s when he was a Civvie at the Pentagon - no military experience.

 

Just because he hung around Boyd shouldn't mean he should be considered in the same light. The Coram is an interesting book but by no means the whole story.

 

Every paper Sprey has written since the late 70s displays lack of understanding in the basics of Aero / or what's important in combat and has a distinct whiff of agenda - a lot of it goes against Boyds theories.

 

:thumbup:

 

Comparing the effectiveness of Air to Air Fighters: F-86 to F-18 (Sprey , M, Pierre, 1982)

Those Pks are wrong anyway. Even the AIM-7E2 was up to 0.13 by the end of the Vietnam War. The AIM-9D was also at 0.25 and he's failed to grasp the trend.

[Hummingbird]

10 or 13 out of a hundred is basically no difference and well within analytical error margins.

 

That missiles were extremely ineffective pr. trigger squeeze during the Vietnam war is an undeniable fact, with on average only 1 in 10 finding their mark. By comparison the gun was a lot more effective. So why wasn't it used more? Doctrine...

[Emu]

He probably wans a time machkne and get back to ww2 where his theory would eventually be ok

Actually energy fighters would have worked better in WWII. Vietnam, or maybe Vietnam minus 5-10 years is where his theories would hold true. Poor guy is stuck in 1960.

[Emu]

10 or 13 out of a hundred is basically no difference and well within analytical error margins.

 

That missiles were extremely ineffective pr. trigger squeeze during the Vietnam war is an undeniable fact, with on average only 1 in 10 finding their mark. By comparison the gun was a lot more effective. So why wasn't it used more? Doctrine...

Many misses were pilot error. If you actually took someone who knew how to use AIM-7s, the results were significantly better. E.g. Steve Ritchie. 13 shots, 5 hits, 2 out of parameter, one with no target. Actual missile Pk ~50%.

 

[Hummingbird]

It is easy to find examples of the missile systems working as intended, but the truth lies in the big picture and fact is that these early missile systems didn't work very well, esp. from a user standpoint, which resulted in a 1 to 10 hit/launch ratio. The systems themselves didn't malfunction often AFAIK, but it was operating them within their limits which was the real challenge - esp. against an evasive target. Missile technology had at the time not fully matured and as such had a lot of limitations in regards to tracking the target under various conditions, relying heavily on the pilot to make up for these.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Hummingbird

[Emu]

It is easy to find examples of the missile systems working as intended, but the truth lies in the big picture and fact is that these early missile systems didn't work very well, esp. from a user standpoint, which resulted in a 1 to 10 hit/launch ratio. The systems themselves didn't malfunction often AFAIK, but it was operating them within their limits which was the real challenge - esp. against an evasive target. Missile technology had at the time not fully matured and as such had a lot of limitations in regards to tracking the target under various conditions, relying heavily on the pilot to make up for these.

It was knowing how to use the weapon mainly in the case of the AIM-7 and knowing about launch parameters. By and large it may have been a training issue. Ritchie actually spoke with the designers and found out the true operating limits of the AIM-7.

 

The AIM-9 had known tracking issues above a certain g, which made it unsuitable for dog-fighting. The AIM-4 was just all kinds of crap, maybe the worst AAM ever.

 

Today's missiles have operating parameters too but they're much less restrictive and the pilots much more aware of them.

[Tirak]

It was knowing how to use the weapon mainly in the case of the AIM-7 and knowing about launch parameters. By and large it may have been a training issue. Ritchie actually spoke with the designers and found out the true operating limits of the AIM-7.

 

The AIM-9 had known tracking issues above a certain g, which made it unsuitable for dog-fighting. The AIM-4 was just all kinds of crap, maybe the worst AAM ever.

 

Today's missiles have operating parameters too but they're much less restrictive and the pilots much more aware of them.

 

To piggyback on this, the aircraft now are designed to give the pilot the most awareness of his missile's limitations as well. Old F-4s just had an "In Range" light. Now we have all kinds of instrumentation to let the pilot know when the missile is actually in a good position to fire.

[Hummingbird]

Anyway the point is that Pierre Sprey's analysis of Vietnam war missile systems effectiveness really isn't off as they were infact pretty horrible statistically speaking. However he completely falls off the wagon when he assumes that the same statistics are in any way indicative of the performance of todays systems.

 

He seems oblivious to the major leaps forward that have occured in sensor technology since the 1970's. I mean we're talking some 40 years of development here.

 

With that said I do share some of his negativity towards the F-35 and I agree that it seems abit "fat" in terms of weight & dimensions, which no doubt is the result of wanting to suit too many roles at the same time.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Hummingbird

[Emu]

His counterpoint is that ECM has also improved. But even a single BVR missile kill in a fair 4vs4 (say) fight turns a fair fight into an unfair fight. And even the pretty crappy AIM-7s in Vietnam polished off a significant number of MiGs pre-dogfight.

 

And furthermore, all the planes Sprey hated, turned out successful. F-15, F-14. Even the F-4, which he described as a terrible plane was about 3:1 in the hands of the USAF and USMC and 6:1 in the hands of the USN. With a gun it would have been more successful though.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20121031043534/http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?180731-Modern-fighter-combat-records

Edited November 7, 2015 by Emu

[Hummingbird]

His counterpoint is that ECM has also improved. But even a single BVR missile kill in a fair 4vs4 (say) fight turns a fair fight into an unfair fight. And even the pretty crappy AIM-7s in Vietnam polished off a significant number of MiGs pre-dogfight.

 

And furthermore, all the planes Sprey hated, turned out successful. F-15, F-14. Even the F-4, which he described as a terrible plane was about 3:1 in the hands of the USAF and USMC and 6:1 in the hands of the USN. With a gun it would have been more successful though.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20121031043534/http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?180731-Modern-fighter-combat-records

 

True, and countermeasures have indeed improved, but the operating limits of the missile systems have improved tenfold - you can basically launch them at any attitude at this point, which was the big hurdle back in the 70's.

 

As for Sprey hating the F-15 & F-14, he didn't hate them because he thought they weren't deadly combat machines, he hated them cause he considered them inefficient. What Sprey is all about is cost efficient tailored single role aircraft. He's a purist to the extreme.

[Bullfrog_]

Many misses were pilot error. If you actually took someone who knew how to use AIM-7s, the results were significantly better. E.g. Steve Ritchie. 13 shots, 5 hits, 2 out of parameter, one with no target. Actual missile Pk ~50%.

 

 

 

A lot of pilots had little training on how to properly launch AAMs daring Vietnam. You can see the difference in pk between the Navy and Airforce going in favor of the Navy after Top Gun opened up, while the AF just slap the cannon on the Phantom and called it.

 

It's a shame no one decided to do both.

[Bushmanni]

I haven't really understood why anyone uses missile P_k as any kind of measure. It would make sense if the missiles flight to target would mostly depend on stochastic (random) processes but that doesn't seems to be the case. The stochastic processes involved are missile reliability, sensor signal-to-noise ratio which is only concern when the target is hard to detect (range, jamming and decoys, clutter) and guidance accuracy which is not a concern with modern missiles though. Rest is up to the actions of the pilot to launch the missile within parameters and the target to do effective evasive maneuvers. Unless either one makes a mistake, you can make a pretty good guess if the missile is going to hit or miss.

 

Even if the previously mentioned stochastic processes would play a major role regarding the properties of the missile the actions of the launcher and the target are still going to play a major role in overall P_k, ie. the P_k is still also a measure of the pilots of the attacking and the target planes than just the ability of the missile to hit its target. In this regard calculating P_k from combat data is useless to determine how well a missile is able to hit it's target in "real world environment" as there can be major factors involved that are not related to the ability of the missile itself.

 

Using combat record to measure the success of an airplane is similarly flawed as it doesn't depend on just how great the plane is. Good pilot can have good k/d against less skilled opponents even with inferior plane. And there can be other factors involved like command & control systems, numerical imbalance, ROE, maintenance level, etc.

 

Combat record is always a measure of the overall kill chain. For more detailed analysis you need more detailed information to isolate the performance of the particular system.

[Hummingbird]

I haven't really understood why anyone uses missile P_k as any kind of measure. It would make sense if the missiles flight to target would mostly depend on stochastic (random) processes but that doesn't seems to be the case. The stochastic processes involved are missile reliability, sensor signal-to-noise ratio which is only concern when the target is hard to detect (range, jamming and decoys, clutter) and guidance accuracy which is not a concern with modern missiles though. Rest is up to the actions of the pilot to launch the missile within parameters and the target to do effective evasive maneuvers. Unless either one makes a mistake, you can make a pretty good guess if the missile is going to hit or miss.

 

Yes and the point is that these parameters were much narrower back during the Vietnam war, i.e. the pilot had his work cut out for him to fulfill them in a dogfight.

 

Today is a completely different story though as you can launch at pretty much any load or attitude, and it doesn't even matter wether the target is directly infront of or behind you either. Today it's mostly about how effective the target's countermeasures are, cause if he has none he's going to be toast 99% of the time.

[Basher54321]

A lot of pilots had little training on how to properly launch AAMs daring Vietnam.

 

Yes that's a big factor - some of those pilots (F-4CD) when interviewed actually said they thought having a gun would put them in more perilous situations - kinda see what they mean.

 

I would add the old school hardware was vastly affected by vibration and the weather - quite a few failed.

[Flogger23m]

He doesn't understand much about modern aircraft or technology. He praises the F-15 for being a purely air to air fighter despite becoming a superb strike aircraft in later variants. He didn't want the F-16 to even have a radar however it has become an exceptionally good performer in both air to air and air to ground combat. And he thinks a MIG-21 will win the F-35 in a dog fight. :lol:

 

Like many others on this forum, the only reason he and the general media hold the A-10 in high regard is for its ineffective 30mm cannon. The sheer weight and size can be utilized for more important things.

 

Now the one point I do slightly agree with is why does the F-35A have the smaller wings of the B and not the larger wing size of the C? I suppose the wings are the same between the A and C and they wanted to only manufacture two wings instead of three.