3 ms·

Pierre Sprey didn't design the F-16 and really doesn't know that much about the F-35. A large amount of his comments on the F-35 are factually incorrect. Fuel

Pierre Sprey didn't design the F-16 and really doesn't know that much about the F-35. A large amount of his comments on the F-35 are factually incorrect. Fuel temperature is an important parameter for an aircraft because excessive vapors in the tanks can be problematic. Other jet fighters have fuel temperature warnings (eg. F/A-18 is triggered above 65 degrees Celsius.) so your claim of "over engineered" F-35 is misguided. Remember TWA 800? The fuel in the center tank vaporized and the jet exploded. The Luke AFB crews are being appropriately cautious and implementing an appropriate temporary solution.

andrewfelix 12y ago
From cursory reading about the aircraft, there seems to be a lot of criticism of it. Can you summarise specifically what was factually incorrect and misguided? The f-35 Looks like a jack of all trades, but a master of none.
- neurotech1 12y ago
  I haven't watched the video recently, but I'm familiar with Peirre Spey. Spey championed the Light Weight Fighter concept (which became the F-16) but derided the very things that made the F-16 a success; AIM-7 Sparrow BVR missiles, multi-role strike capability. The big factual error is comparing the F-35 turning performance to an airshow F-16. An F-16 with external tanks and combat loads (missiles and bombs) doesn't turn as well an F-35. The other big factual error is that Perre Spey seems to confuse program unit cost or total lifecycle cost with flyaway unit cost when comparing alternatives. The Pentagon demanded an analysis of the F-35 lifecycle cost, but without comparing it to contemporary aircraft like the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. An F/A-18E costs around $72m Unit Flyaway Cost, and an F-35A is about $95m in full rate production. The F-35 has considerable advantages like 360 degree EODAS, which enables off-boresight missile shots, while avoiding hostile fire. It might not be a classic Mach 2+ interceptor like the F-15 or F-22, but it'll do fine in a dogfight.
  - andrewfelix 12y ago
    Appreciate the detailed response.

andrewfelix 12y ago

From cursory reading about the aircraft, there seems to be a lot of criticism of it. Can you summarise specifically what was factually incorrect and misguided? The f-35 Looks like a jack of all trades, but a master of none.

neurotech1 12y ago
I haven't watched the video recently, but I'm familiar with Peirre Spey. Spey championed the Light Weight Fighter concept (which became the F-16) but derided the very things that made the F-16 a success; AIM-7 Sparrow BVR missiles, multi-role strike capability. The big factual error is comparing the F-35 turning performance to an airshow F-16. An F-16 with external tanks and combat loads (missiles and bombs) doesn't turn as well an F-35. The other big factual error is that Perre Spey seems to confuse program unit cost or total lifecycle cost with flyaway unit cost when comparing alternatives. The Pentagon demanded an analysis of the F-35 lifecycle cost, but without comparing it to contemporary aircraft like the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. An F/A-18E costs around $72m Unit Flyaway Cost, and an F-35A is about $95m in full rate production. The F-35 has considerable advantages like 360 degree EODAS, which enables off-boresight missile shots, while avoiding hostile fire. It might not be a classic Mach 2+ interceptor like the F-15 or F-22, but it'll do fine in a dogfight.
- andrewfelix 12y ago
  Appreciate the detailed response.