3 ms·

I think Sprey's comments need to be taken with a huge grain of salt considering he thought the F-15 would be a huge failure. The F-15 is everything he didn't wa

by greedo 12y ago

I think Sprey's comments need to be taken with a huge grain of salt considering he thought the F-15 would be a huge failure. The F-15 is everything he didn't want in a fighter, yet it's probably the most successful jet fighter in history.

discardorama 12y ago
Nitpick: you mean a small grain of salt. "Take it with a grain of salt" basically means "take it in a very small quantity", i.e., don't buy much into it. If you say "large grain of salt", you're saying "take more of it", which has the opposite meaning from what you intended. Sorry. I'll crawl back into my hole now.
- dntrkv 12y ago
  I'm pretty the parent has the correct use here. "If you say "large grain of salt", you're saying "take more of it", which has the opposite meaning from what you intended." The claim here is not the salt, the salt is the skepticism. Well, that's how I understand it anyway. http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/take-with-a-grain-of-salt.html http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/take-with-a-grain-of-salt...
hga 12y ago
Although in all fairness it must be pointed out the Air Force put it's thumb on the scales, you might say. The original F-16 concept included a thrust to weight ratio > 1, like the F-15's, plus 20 minutes of supercruise (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise which we've only achieved lately with the F-22). Sufficiently strict requirements with the low weight and low(ish) cost that it e.g. sacrificed night and all-weather capability. The Air Force wasn't interested in such a bird, but they were interested in a fighter-bomber based on it, which e.g. required serious additions to the frame and cost it the super high performance. But in an AU perhaps the original F-16 would have turned out to be a magnificent fighter.
- greedo 12y ago
  Oh, the F-16 is a fantastic fighter. It's a great fighter-bomber as well, but it's been exceptional at dogfighting since day one. The USAF just doesn't use it for air supremacy since the F-15 is tasked for that. The USAF was really interested in a "cheap" aircraft that could replace the F-4/A7 in quantity, and function in a swing role as a bomber if it wasn't required for A2A work.
  - coldcode 12y ago
    Having worked on the F-16 in my first job (Jovial runtime libraries) I have a real affinity for it. Even today you can buy a whole boatload of F16s for the cost of 1 F35. I think the plane is too expensive to use as an everyday FB.
    - greedo 12y ago
      Not sure about a boatload. Current build (Block 60) Vipers are close to $100m depending on how you calculate the cost of spares etc. It'll be interesting to see how much the UAE pays for the Block 61s they requested this year.
- greedo 12y ago
  Also, Sprey was fundamentally wrong about some elements for the F-16. He didn't want it to have radar, and wanted it to be mostly a gunfighter (though Sidewinders were planned from the beginning). He wanted it to be a cheap as hell daylight fighter, yet it was intended to be used primarily in Europe where bad weather is more common than any pilot would like. If the F-16 had stuck to Sprey's core principles, it wouldn't have the longevity that it has.

by greedo 12y ago

discardorama 12y ago

Nitpick: you mean a small grain of salt. "Take it with a grain of salt" basically means "take it in a very small quantity", i.e., don't buy much into it. If you say "large grain of salt", you're saying "take more of it", which has the opposite meaning from what you intended. Sorry. I'll crawl back into my hole now.

dntrkv 12y ago
I'm pretty the parent has the correct use here. "If you say "large grain of salt", you're saying "take more of it", which has the opposite meaning from what you intended." The claim here is not the salt, the salt is the skepticism. Well, that's how I understand it anyway. http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/take-with-a-grain-of-salt.html http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/take-with-a-grain-of-salt...

hga 12y ago

Although in all fairness it must be pointed out the Air Force put it's thumb on the scales, you might say. The original F-16 concept included a thrust to weight ratio > 1, like the F-15's, plus 20 minutes of supercruise (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise which we've only achieved lately with the F-22). Sufficiently strict requirements with the low weight and low(ish) cost that it e.g. sacrificed night and all-weather capability. The Air Force wasn't interested in such a bird, but they were interested in a fighter-bomber based on it, which e.g. required serious additions to the frame and cost it the super high performance. But in an AU perhaps the original F-16 would have turned out to be a magnificent fighter.

greedo 12y ago
Oh, the F-16 is a fantastic fighter. It's a great fighter-bomber as well, but it's been exceptional at dogfighting since day one. The USAF just doesn't use it for air supremacy since the F-15 is tasked for that. The USAF was really interested in a "cheap" aircraft that could replace the F-4/A7 in quantity, and function in a swing role as a bomber if it wasn't required for A2A work.
- coldcode 12y ago
  Having worked on the F-16 in my first job (Jovial runtime libraries) I have a real affinity for it. Even today you can buy a whole boatload of F16s for the cost of 1 F35. I think the plane is too expensive to use as an everyday FB.
  - greedo 12y ago
    Not sure about a boatload. Current build (Block 60) Vipers are close to $100m depending on how you calculate the cost of spares etc. It'll be interesting to see how much the UAE pays for the Block 61s they requested this year.
greedo 12y ago
Also, Sprey was fundamentally wrong about some elements for the F-16. He didn't want it to have radar, and wanted it to be mostly a gunfighter (though Sidewinders were planned from the beginning). He wanted it to be a cheap as hell daylight fighter, yet it was intended to be used primarily in Europe where bad weather is more common than any pilot would like. If the F-16 had stuck to Sprey's core principles, it wouldn't have the longevity that it has.