5 ms·

I'd be interested to know what other people think of http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-diatribe-is-half-brilliant-and-1592445665 http://f

I'd be interested to know what other people think of http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-diatribe-is-half-brilliant-and-1592445665 http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-dia... , after watching that video. I am no expert on planes but, but the counter arguments made to Mr. Sprey's rant seem quite strong to me, and frankly quite viable, as a lot of what Mr. Sprey says suggests he is indeed stuck in a past age of avionics.

astrodust 12y ago
Stuck in the past? Or stuck in reality where magical planes that do everything better than specialized planes can manage don't exist?
- dmurdoch 12y ago
  I honestly don't know. I don't see it as being that far fetched to have a single plane that can do what 2-3 30 yr-old planes were made to do, but again I don't know anything. It's probably just me being crazy but I feel like for Mr. Sprey has ulterior motives and reasons beyond the ones he says for hating the F-35, like the fact that he seems to exclusively compare it to planes that he had a hand in creating, and like most people would, claims that his products are exclusively better. I'd say he is quite biased.
  - astrodust 12y ago
    Planes aren't like computers where they can improve exponentially each year. There's hard limitations like how much energy you can extract from fuel, how much force you can get with air moving over a given control surface. The F-35 will never come close to the ground-support capability of the A-10. It will never have the aerobatic ability of a plane a fraction of its weight like a MiG. It will never, ever have the ridiculous durability of an F-15. At best it will be "adequate" in all roles, never excel. There's a lot of reason for outrage against the recent developments, and Mr. Sprey, like it or not, was responsible for some of the best planes in the world at the time they were released. Now there's the F-22, which is ambitious but unremarkable, the F-117, basically useless, and now the F-35, a giant turkey of a plane that is possibly a decade away from being ready for combat. For an example of programs gone awry, look at the Osprey. It's a "helicopter plane" which is not very good in either role.
  - mplewis 12y ago
    It can't hold enough fuel to maintain a position above a ground battle to support troops effectively. Its heavy jump jets make it slow and unmaneuverable, making it a terrible fighter. They also destroy asphalt roads with their heat. It's a terrible bomber because a) stealth dictates that it can't hold bombs on the underside of the wing and b) the payload space in the center of the aircraft is taken up by a massive jump jet. This plane is the definition of "jack of all trades, master of none". https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-allies-got-stuck-with-the-worlds-worst-new-warplane-5c95d45f86a5 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-alli...
seanflyon 12y ago
While I find Mr. Sprey hyperbolic, I think that article is not entirely valid. For example the claim "by and large most everyone agrees that the F-35 is as maneuverable as an F-16" is not remotely true. If you want an opinion that seem better informed and is favorable to the f35 read this: http://manglermuldoon.blogspot.com/2012/05/f-35-development-and-performance.html http://manglermuldoon.blogspot.com/2012/05/f-35-development-...

astrodust 12y ago

Stuck in the past? Or stuck in reality where magical planes that do everything better than specialized planes can manage don't exist?

dmurdoch 12y ago
I honestly don't know. I don't see it as being that far fetched to have a single plane that can do what 2-3 30 yr-old planes were made to do, but again I don't know anything. It's probably just me being crazy but I feel like for Mr. Sprey has ulterior motives and reasons beyond the ones he says for hating the F-35, like the fact that he seems to exclusively compare it to planes that he had a hand in creating, and like most people would, claims that his products are exclusively better. I'd say he is quite biased.
- astrodust 12y ago
  Planes aren't like computers where they can improve exponentially each year. There's hard limitations like how much energy you can extract from fuel, how much force you can get with air moving over a given control surface. The F-35 will never come close to the ground-support capability of the A-10. It will never have the aerobatic ability of a plane a fraction of its weight like a MiG. It will never, ever have the ridiculous durability of an F-15. At best it will be "adequate" in all roles, never excel. There's a lot of reason for outrage against the recent developments, and Mr. Sprey, like it or not, was responsible for some of the best planes in the world at the time they were released. Now there's the F-22, which is ambitious but unremarkable, the F-117, basically useless, and now the F-35, a giant turkey of a plane that is possibly a decade away from being ready for combat. For an example of programs gone awry, look at the Osprey. It's a "helicopter plane" which is not very good in either role.
- mplewis 12y ago
  It can't hold enough fuel to maintain a position above a ground battle to support troops effectively. Its heavy jump jets make it slow and unmaneuverable, making it a terrible fighter. They also destroy asphalt roads with their heat. It's a terrible bomber because a) stealth dictates that it can't hold bombs on the underside of the wing and b) the payload space in the center of the aircraft is taken up by a massive jump jet. This plane is the definition of "jack of all trades, master of none". https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-allies-got-stuck-with-the-worlds-worst-new-warplane-5c95d45f86a5 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-alli...

seanflyon 12y ago

While I find Mr. Sprey hyperbolic, I think that article is not entirely valid. For example the claim "by and large most everyone agrees that the F-35 is as maneuverable as an F-16" is not remotely true. If you want an opinion that seem better informed and is favorable to the f35 read this: http://manglermuldoon.blogspot.com/2012/05/f-35-development-and-performance.html http://manglermuldoon.blogspot.com/2012/05/f-35-development-...