3 ms·

Agreed...compromised designs will be compromised designs. The A-10 was made to work with the grunts in the mud. The F-35... Of note, I think it was Pierre S

by caycep 13y ago

Agreed...compromised designs will be compromised designs. The A-10 was made to work with the grunts in the mud. The F-35... Of note, I think it was Pierre Sprey's (quoted in this article) baby.

greedo 13y ago
Sprey was part of the fighter mafia pushing the LWF concept. I don't think he had any role in the A-10.
- masklinn 13y ago
  Pierre Sprey is the one who wrote the A-X detailed specifications. Saying that the A-10 was his baby is not wrong, if the A-10 has a father it's Sprey.
  - greedo 13y ago
    You're correct, I was confusing Sprey with Boyd.
- chiph 13y ago
  If you haven't read it yet, Robert Coram's book "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War" is good. He pissed off a lot of people, but he was right. Which is criminal behavior in the Pentagon. Speaking of which, watch "The Pentagon Wars" sometime. Has Cary Elwes and Kelsey Grammer in it. It's all about the M-2 Bradley. "What it needs is a turret on it!" Col. Burton sacrificed his career to make the Bradley less of a danger to the troops it was designed to protect.
  - hindsightbias 13y ago
    He was right? His lightweight fighter isn't so light and has been more utilized in an air-to-ground role than as a fighter. If he'd been right, the F-16 wouldn't have all those hardpoints or a radar (he believed air combat would be managed by ground controllers). You can say the F-16 evolved, but it sure as hell didn't evolve as he thought it should. The AF and Navy/USMC need a plane for dropping bombs. They keep hacking fighters to do that. But they're more right than Boyd was.
    - chiph 13y ago
      Compared to the F-111, the F-16 is very light (well, almost everything is lighter than an F-111...). He fought against the F-16 being certified in the nuclear role and lost. I hadn't heard he was opposed to a radar in the F-16 -- depending on ground control doesn't make sense for an offensive unit. He probably didn't anticipate how lightweight modern electronics have become.
      - greedo 13y ago
        Yes, he wanted the F-16 to be purely a daylight fighter, with simple avionics and a fast turnaround time.
    - nl 13y ago
      His lightweight fighter isn't so light The F16 is around 27,000 lbs (air-to-air loaded)[1], the F15 (which was developed around the same time)is 48,000 pounds[2] The F16 did develop a pretty decent ground attack capability but it does have a pretty good air-to-air record too: eg, the Israelis used it against the Syrians in the early 80s, the Turks and Greeks used them against each other in non-shooting dogfights[3]) The AF and Navy/USMC need a plane for dropping bombs. They keep hacking fighters to do that. But they're more right than Boyd was. Meh.. I'm not sure this is a simple right/wrong thing. There have been very limited wars where airforces have been reasonably closely matched since the F16 entered service. In the mid 70s (after Vietnam & the Yom Kippur war in the Middle East) no one predicted that at all. It was only the Yom Kippur war that made planners see what a threat SAMs were on the battlefield (they had been fairly ineffective against fighters during Vietnam) When one side has air supremacy, then yes - they will use that as much as possible. It's been that way since WW1 [1] http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article9.html http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article9.html [2] http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blF_15_Eagle.htm http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blF_15_Eagle.ht... [3] http://www.f-16.net/news_article1809.html http://www.f-16.net/news_article1809.html (there are other incidents too)
  - Mindless2112 13y ago
    I've only watched this one clip [1] from "The Pentagon Wars", but it's a good one. (It was referenced in a software engineering article I read once.) [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyakI9GeYRs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyakI9GeYRs

by caycep 13y ago

Agreed...compromised designs will be compromised designs. The A-10 was made to work with the grunts in the mud. The F-35... Of note, I think it was Pierre Sprey's (quoted in this article) baby.

greedo 13y ago

Sprey was part of the fighter mafia pushing the LWF concept. I don't think he had any role in the A-10.

masklinn 13y ago
Pierre Sprey is the one who wrote the A-X detailed specifications. Saying that the A-10 was his baby is not wrong, if the A-10 has a father it's Sprey.
- greedo 13y ago
  You're correct, I was confusing Sprey with Boyd.
chiph 13y ago
If you haven't read it yet, Robert Coram's book "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War" is good. He pissed off a lot of people, but he was right. Which is criminal behavior in the Pentagon. Speaking of which, watch "The Pentagon Wars" sometime. Has Cary Elwes and Kelsey Grammer in it. It's all about the M-2 Bradley. "What it needs is a turret on it!" Col. Burton sacrificed his career to make the Bradley less of a danger to the troops it was designed to protect.
- hindsightbias 13y ago
  He was right? His lightweight fighter isn't so light and has been more utilized in an air-to-ground role than as a fighter. If he'd been right, the F-16 wouldn't have all those hardpoints or a radar (he believed air combat would be managed by ground controllers). You can say the F-16 evolved, but it sure as hell didn't evolve as he thought it should. The AF and Navy/USMC need a plane for dropping bombs. They keep hacking fighters to do that. But they're more right than Boyd was.
  - chiph 13y ago
    Compared to the F-111, the F-16 is very light (well, almost everything is lighter than an F-111...). He fought against the F-16 being certified in the nuclear role and lost. I hadn't heard he was opposed to a radar in the F-16 -- depending on ground control doesn't make sense for an offensive unit. He probably didn't anticipate how lightweight modern electronics have become.
    - greedo 13y ago
      Yes, he wanted the F-16 to be purely a daylight fighter, with simple avionics and a fast turnaround time.
  - nl 13y ago
    His lightweight fighter isn't so light The F16 is around 27,000 lbs (air-to-air loaded)[1], the F15 (which was developed around the same time)is 48,000 pounds[2] The F16 did develop a pretty decent ground attack capability but it does have a pretty good air-to-air record too: eg, the Israelis used it against the Syrians in the early 80s, the Turks and Greeks used them against each other in non-shooting dogfights[3]) The AF and Navy/USMC need a plane for dropping bombs. They keep hacking fighters to do that. But they're more right than Boyd was. Meh.. I'm not sure this is a simple right/wrong thing. There have been very limited wars where airforces have been reasonably closely matched since the F16 entered service. In the mid 70s (after Vietnam & the Yom Kippur war in the Middle East) no one predicted that at all. It was only the Yom Kippur war that made planners see what a threat SAMs were on the battlefield (they had been fairly ineffective against fighters during Vietnam) When one side has air supremacy, then yes - they will use that as much as possible. It's been that way since WW1 [1] http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article9.html http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article9.html [2] http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blF_15_Eagle.htm http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blF_15_Eagle.ht... [3] http://www.f-16.net/news_article1809.html http://www.f-16.net/news_article1809.html (there are other incidents too)
- Mindless2112 13y ago
  I've only watched this one clip [1] from "The Pentagon Wars", but it's a good one. (It was referenced in a software engineering article I read once.) [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyakI9GeYRs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyakI9GeYRs