Pierre Sprey & Lt. Col David Berke debate

[Hummingbird]

Neo, did you just say Gaijin was good at simulations???! They never made a single sim Neo, just an arcade game by the name of War Thunder, a game I can sometimes have som casual fun in, but it is in no way a sim! Also if we were ever to talk about bias in a game, well War thunder would be it, Russian tanks and aircraft have magical abilities in that GAME.

[neofightr]

Neo, did you just say Gaijin was good at simulations???! They never made a single sim Neo, just an arcade game by the name of War Thunder, a game I can sometimes have som casual fun in, but it is in no way a sim! Also if we were ever to talk about bias in a game, well War thunder would be it, Russian tanks and aircraft have magical abilities in that GAME.

 

I knew I should have clarified my Gajin remarks. Yup, the simulation is no where near the grade of say ED/777 studios but the sheer variety of models and historical detail is amazing and worthy of praise.

 

I played around with their editor and was amazed at how good their AI was at certain tasks, for example the navy bombers actually executed diving runs for the apropriate aircraft vs. torpedo runs etc. Keep in mind that their primary focus is on multiplayer so I thought it was commendable what they attempted to do with the seldom used AI.

 

When you factor in the sheer variety of cockpits and varying flight models it's pretty damn amazing what they are doing. And it runs very well in VR. I have enjoyed that game off and on for 4 years now. But yes sadly, their user base is primarily made up of keyboard/mouse users.

[Hummingbird]

Let them have their excuse to attack, I prefer my privacy over answering to a bunch of doubters and hate mongers.

 

Where does it say I have to answer to them anyway.

You don't see me demanding full academic citation and validation to all their claims of bias.

 

And if I were to post my bio, I guarantee at least two individuals on this board would go out of their to try to attack my reputation, maybe claim I didn't get a medal, or they heard from so and so I failed flight school etc etc.

 

So far, all the documents I have seen attacking Sprey have been political (conservative vs. liberal mindset nonsense) that I want nothing to do with.

 

I have already had at least one Navy professional (who I take on face value to be legitimate) confirm their belief in my legitimacy in private so it'e clear those in the know can tell I am not full of it.

 

-fake F18 pilot

 

Neo, they have nothing to attack you with personally if you just post some of your credentials to confirm you were an F-18 pilot. I can assure you of that. On the contrary you'd save yourself a lot of pointless discussion and future doubt regarding your background.

 

Also I can't imagine they would start digging in your service record and attempt to disclose how many times you caught the fourth wire - that would merely present them as idiots.

 

So I say just post some, otherwise it will be kind of hard to believe you. Either way though I mean no disrespect, just giving you a PoV from a neutral position.

[Hummingbird]

I knew I should have clarified my Gajin remarks. Yup, the simulation is no where near the grade of say ED/777 studios but the sheer variety of models and historical detail is amazing and worthy of praise.

 

I played around with their editor and was amazed at how good their AI was at certain tasks, for example the navy bombers actually executed diving runs for the apropriate aircraft vs. torpedo runs etc. Keep in mind that their primary focus is on multiplayer so I thought it was commendable what they attempted to do with the seldom used AI.

 

When you factor in the sheer variety of cockpits and varying flight models it's pretty damn amazing what they are doing. And it runs very well in VR. I have enjoyed that game off and on for 4 years now. But yes sadly, their user base is primarily made up of keyboard/mouse users.

 

Sadly it's largely ruined by the fact that the "battle rating system" pits wartime vehicles against post war ones, and finally the fact that the bias is very real with Russian equipment.

 

Also the aerodynamics in the game are sh*t to put it mildly. Hence the comparative performance of aircraft is way off.

 

As a result I only play some tanks sometimes, but only up to the point where I actually face opposition from the same time period - which sadly is limited to the early war vehicles.

[Tirak]

(And stop with the all due respect nonsense since it's clear you don't have any).

 

 

Garrya has been exceedingly polite in all his interactions with you. He has not disparaged you in any way, in fact he has shown an immense amount of restraint given the attitude you've been giving him. I would suggest that you treat him with the same kindness and respect he has given you, as your constant thinly veiled insults towards him and his documentation make you look childish and non credible.

[The Black Swan]

I'm sorry guys but doubting his credibility as an f-18 pilot over his opinions of a jet that he hasn't flown is pretty over the top.

 

As for Sprey I don't think he has much credibility, and that's because of his statements on past projects that turned out great. IF Sprey were credible, then he would be using hyperbole WAY too much.

But to pretend that Sprey is the only detractor of the F-35 is also wrong.

 

Neo you don't HAVE to prove anything, I say innocent until proven guilty so I trust you.

If it were me PERSONALLY I would have no problem posting my name, etc. but that is your decision.

[neofightr]

Neo, they have nothing to attack you with personally if you just post some of your credentials to confirm you were an F-18 pilot. I can assure you of that. On the contrary you'd save yourself a lot of pointless discussion and future doubt regarding your background.

 

Also I can't imagine they would start digging in your service record and attempt to disclose how many times you caught the fourth wire - that would merely present them as idiots.

 

So I say just post some, otherwise it will be kind of hard to believe you. Either way though I mean no disrespect, just giving you a PoV from a neutral position.

 

Trust me, the way they have gone after Sprey, there is no way I am ever giving them (personal attackers) anything more to attack me with.

I mean they start digging up people by name that supposedly knew him just so they can disparage and ridicule him. So so sad.

 

It's as if I am expected to humbly submit my credentials for their seal of approval and consent of validation? Seriously?

 

It's like if a self identified lawyer came on here to make a point that contradicted another and then all of sudden that lawyer is expected to submit proof they passed the bar exam (location and date) and provide a history of all the law cases they participated in on said topic. All towards having his opinion accepted and validated on this gaming message board. Really?

 

It's one thing if I was going on national television like Sprey or making a presentation at an academic institution then yeah I better put up or shut up but here, uh no.

 

It's very easy to anonymously come on a website like this, throw a bunch of sales pitch slides, academic synthetic charts and heresay from another message board to attempt to invalidate another's opinion. No need to provide any personal professional record since there is none that applies.

 

But to expect others?

Utter nonsense!

 

Exceedingly polite? Did you not read between the lines with his posts? He has been questioning the validity of everything I said since the start and my only claim on him is that he has an academic point of view which apparently drives him nuts.

 

I already have had private feedback from fellow navy professionals as well as other open-minded adults who get where I am coming from and take my statements on face value without demanding proof. So I know my message is getting through.

Edited August 17, 2017 by neofightr

[Vatikus]

This topic, which had its promise went down quite rapidly, unfortunately... :)

 

I understand when you add passion and egos that it can turn like this... however, I get neofightr point of trying to show (while not in retorically best way) that picture is much bigger than what most of us, who are/were not in the loop, will never comprehend fully. It's a fact that, even if you have GBs of scanned manuals and phd, it will never tell you how it is to fly the given jet if you did not do it for real.

 

Anyways... I think F35 will be a very capable jet in the end, simply because its design milestone is beyond point of no return and thus there will be unlimited money pured into it untill it performs.

I also share view, that autonomous drones are the future. It is already amazing what anyone can build and program with off the shelf products in his free time hacking with some opensource drone. Drone swarm tests, etc. we have seen videos of military testings, are clear indication where is the focus in next decades.

 

p.s. one's privacy should be respected. There are crazy people out there. If someone doesn't believe who one is, it's his own problem.

[Exorcet]

I'm sorry guys but doubting his credibility as an f-18 pilot over his opinions of a jet that he hasn't flown is pretty over the top.

 

I don't want to get into the credibility thing, because it doesn't matter if no proof is given, but I don't think it's because of the opinion on the F-35. Ultimately it doesn't matter. One's privacy is their own business and no matter a person's background, arguments stand on their own merits.

 

As for Sprey I don't think he has much credibility, and that's because of his statements on past projects that turned out great. IF Sprey were credible, then he would be using hyperbole WAY too much.

But to pretend that Sprey is the only detractor of the F-35 is also wrong.

It's not that Sprey is the only detractor. It's that he says things that are basically imaginary (or at best very poorly explained). This is bad for all sides. It covers up good progress the F-35 makes and it also covers legitimate issues that have to fight with Sprey's nonsense for attention. No matter one's opinion on the F-35, I don't see much reason to support the bulk of Sprey's statements.

[Tirak]

Exceedingly polite? Did you not read between the lines with his posts? He has been questioning the validity of everything I said since the start and my only claim on him is that he has an academic point of view which apparently drives him nuts..

 

 

Yes, exceedingly polite. He has asked you to defend your points politely, he inquires for information, and at no point has he questioned your credibility. What you say is in direct conflict with what he has been told by other pilots and engineers that have been open about their credentials, as well as documented information, and so he is probing for details in hopes of gaining knowledge. Your responses have run the gauntlet from brusque to downright hostile. I would suggest that you self reflect and reset your attitude, you're the one turning this thread hostile, not Garrya.

[neofightr]

....It's not that Sprey is the only detractor. It's that he says things that are basically imaginary (or at best very poorly explained).....

 

I agree it is poorly explained because his audience (as he sees it anyway) is government officials and industry professionals.

 

I keep bringing up the F104 example because on face value it's ludicrous to compare the F104 performance against the F35. So why did he do it?

 

He did it to make a cryptic point about the controversy that surrounded that lockheed product involving multiple governments and individuals in the industry.

 

He knew it would go over the heads of those outside the industry but not to those that he is really talking to.

 

It got the "armchair experts" here to call him "retarded".

[neofightr]

I would suggest that you self reflect and reset your attitude, you're the one turning this thread hostile, not Garrya.

 

And with "all due reespect" I suggest you do the very same.

[Exorcet]

He did it to make a cryptic point about the controversy that surrounded that lockheed product involving multiple governments and individuals in the industry.

I'm of the opinion that cryptic points don't help. Say what must be said clearly. That seems to the standard for any industry that I've seen.

 

He knew it would go over the heads of those outside the industry but not to those that he is really talking to.

I wouldn't take that bet. Were I in his position, I'd just be clear. There is no need to jump over people's head, especially in a public, open debate.

[Hummingbird]

Neo,

 

My opinion is that if one is not prepared to provide any sort of credentials then one shouldn't mention or speak of his/her background in the first place. Otherwise it will just come across as a deceitful way of boosting ones own ethos.

 

In other words, and as Exorcet rightly points out, any argument should be assessed on its own merit. But the moment you attempt to improve the validity of an argument by bringing up your own background as proof, well at that point you also got to be prepared to provide proof.

Edited August 17, 2017 by Hummingbird

[RaceFuel85]

Well..this thread exploded didn't it.

[neofightr]

Yes, exceedingly polite. He has asked you to defend your points politely, he inquires for information, and at no point has he questioned your credibility. What you say is in direct conflict with what he has been told by other pilots and engineers that have been open about their credentials, as well as documented information, and so he is probing for details in hopes of gaining knowledge. Your responses have run the gauntlet from brusque to downright hostile. I would suggest that you self reflect and reset your attitude, you're the one turning this thread hostile, not Garrya.

 

If anyone still believes Garrya (and fellow attackers) stated unbias motivation look at this statement made by him talking about the private message from a professional F16 pilot.

 

By the way, I believe the F16 pilot to be the real deal since the pilot did what any professional would do and keep the discussion in private via inbox.

 

From the other board:

"Unread post16 Aug 2017, 03:52

I sent 35AoA the topic and he replied directly in my inbox,

so i thought i should put it here as well....."

 

In that private email the F16 pilot confirms the assumption presented by garrya, this idea that "reported pilot sounds sounds as described, fake"

 

The fact that Garrya decides to make this private conversation public shows the motivations that we are really dealing with here.

 

I have received many private emails on this forum subject that I would never post on this board to further my view/agenda.

 

This is what professionals do.

 

Let me remind you that I have not attacked any publicly identified professional, I have done the opposite by defending a professional who has been famously critical.

[neofightr]

Let me also remind the readers, that those that claim "Sprey attacks platforms that have proven successful programs which makes him a fool" need to be reminded that the last time the US took on a major adversary was Vietnam. Where N. Vietnam was the proxy, so training and numbers were a factor.

 

The so called successful proven track records of the past 45 years has been based on very limited and very few engagements. No where near enough data to assess the viability of the platforms.

 

We have no idea how well the US platforms will hold up against the platforms of major adversaries of today and let us hope we don't have to find out.

[Hummingbird]

Btw Neo, I don't approve of Garrya's discussion methods either, he attempted the same BS with me a while back: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=157416&page=18

 

I caught him early on running this seperate thread (http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=28783&sid=2c3141f1c613db2e2554b9d78b8432ca) pretty much spell checking him all the way though. Thus I knew what I was dealing with.

 

In short he has a backhanded way of conducting a debate, but ultimately it doesn't matter as long as you play with open cards the whole way - that way he just ends up running out of steam and looking rather silly in the end.

Edited August 17, 2017 by Hummingbird

[neofightr]

Neo,

 

My opinion is that if one is not prepared to provide any sort of credentials then one shouldn't mention or speak of his/her background in the first place. Otherwise it will just come across as a deceitful way of boosting ones own ethos.

 

In other words, and as Exorcet rightly points out, any argument should be assessed on its own merit. But the moment you attempt to improve the validity of an argument by bringing up your own background as proof, well at that point you also got to be prepared to provide proof.

 

Well good thing I don't agree with this line of thinking since I would be demanding Garrya verify the source and technical validity of all those slides, verify all those non-public manuals he screencapped are indeed the full digital manuals of all those platforms, request proof of all those experts he keeps citing etc etc.

 

I don't do that because it's silly and petty.

[Tirak]

If anyone still believes Garrya (and fellow attackers) stated unbias motivation look at this statement made by him talking about the private message from a professional F16 pilot.

 

By the way, I believe the F16 pilot to be the real deal since the pilot did what any professional would do and keep the discussion in private via inbox.

 

From the other board:

"Unread post16 Aug 2017, 03:52

I sent 35AoA the topic and he replied directly in my inbox,

so i thought i should put it here as well....."

 

In that private email the F16 pilot confirms the assumption presented by garrya, this idea that "reported pilot sounds sounds as described, fake"

 

The fact that Garrya decides to make this private conversation public shows the motivations that we are really dealing with here.

 

I have received many private emails on this forum subject that I would never post on this board to further my view/agenda.

 

This is what professionals do.

 

Let me remind you that I have not attacked any publicly identified professional, I have done the opposite by defending a professional who has been famously critical.

 

The threads where you are discussed are open for any and all to see. Garrya has stated on numerous occasions that he gives you the benefit of the doubt of your experience in the face of quite a bit of pressure to join in on the numerous individuals who have pointed out weaknesses in your credibility owing to your own statements. If anything, no one has been more supportive of your claims to be an F-18 pilot than him, so i find your constant rude behavior towards him to be remarkably telling.

[garrya]

If anyone still believes Garrya (and fellow attackers) stated unbias motivation look at this statement made by him talking about the private message from a professional F16 pilot.

In that private email the F16 pilot confirms the assumption presented by garrya, this idea that "reported pilot sounds sounds as described, fake"

What the ****?

Can't you read what i wrote in the quotes message?

My exact words are as following:

Hi 35AoA, can you share you insight for this thread

If you can point out to me what word in there giving the assumption that you are fake with others here agree then i will apologize!!!

I even go as far as saying that if your statement was correct it would be correct regardless of who you are. What else do you want me to say to them?. I didn't share that to attack you, i share the message to show others in forum that F-35 doesn't have pitch problems. Why? Because it is an aviation forum, where people discussing AIRCRAFT and their characteristics. As i said many times before, aviation field is my interest, physics is my interest. Radar is my interest. NOT YOUR OCCUPATION. I couldn't give 2**** about attacking someone on the internet

Edited August 17, 2017 by garrya

[garrya]

Yes, exceedingly polite. He has asked you to defend your points politely, he inquires for information, and at no point has he questioned your credibility. What you say is in direct conflict with what he has been told by other pilots and engineers that have been open about their credentials, as well as documented information, and so he is probing for details in hopes of gaining knowledge. Your responses have run the gauntlet from brusque to downright hostile. I would suggest that you self reflect and reset your attitude, you're the one turning this thread hostile, not Garrya.

 

Thank you, finally someone who put himself in my shoe. I having enough with these personal attack even though i did **** all

Edited August 17, 2017 by garrya

[neofightr]

What the ****?

Can't you read what i wrote in the quotes message?

Point out to me what word in there giving the assumption that you are fake then i apologize

I even go as far as saying that if your statement was correct it would be correct regardless of who you are. What else do you want me to say to them?.

 

Then I apologize because this

 

"Unread post16 Aug 2017, 03:52

I sent 35AoA the topic and he replied directly in my inbox,

so i thought i should put it here as well....."

 

Gave me the impression it started out as a private conversation and you went out of your way to post it here to make sure everyone saw his proclamation that I was fake.

[Fri13]

Thank you, finally someone who put himself in my shoe. I having enough with these personal attack even though i did **** all

 

Could you please, stop using the bold text for your own replies?

 

We all can read, and it is enough that you add quote blocks to the text you are replying.

Making your own text bold is just like shouting or making yourself sound more important and is a attack to people who are in the discussions.

 

If you have difficulties to find your own posts among others in the thread, it is better if you change your avatar to be such that you can easily spot it, but still be such that it doesn't insult or disturb others.

 

Thanks.

[RaceFuel85]

Let me also remind the readers, that those that claim "Sprey attacks platforms that have proven successful programs which makes him a fool" need to be reminded that the last time the US took on a major adversary was Vietnam. Where N. Vietnam was the proxy, so training and numbers were a factor.

 

The so called successful proven track records of the past 45 years has been based on very limited and very few engagements. No where near enough data to assess the viability of the platforms.

 

We have no idea how well the US platforms will hold up against the platforms of major adversaries of today and let us hope we don't have to find out.

 

I suggest you carefully rethink this post and revise it.