F-35 from a designers perspective
Thread Starter
F-35 from a designers perspective
Interesting summary of the F-35 by the guy who designed the A-10 and F-16>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kssZua8MVc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh2Gnxa_fTw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhGIglwmFB8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS7O14nzrzE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kssZua8MVc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh2Gnxa_fTw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhGIglwmFB8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS7O14nzrzE
That, my son, is Pierre Sprey.
Member of the fighter mafia.
See the `what would John Boyd have thought of the F-35' thread.
Presumably someone from Dutch TV has read their history books and decided to seek out those who really know.
Member of the fighter mafia.
See the `what would John Boyd have thought of the F-35' thread.
Presumably someone from Dutch TV has read their history books and decided to seek out those who really know.
Thread Starter
Interesting analogy comparing this machine to the F-105. One of my good friends flew two tours in Vietnam on the Thud and a year or so ago we discussed the new fighters and he described the JSF as a re-born Thud. The biggest difference is that the Thud is faster!
Some very interesting material there. Apart from a few bold, unsubstantiated claims, the vast majority of the opinions and facts quoted are on the mark. If nothing else, this is turning into a PR disaster at every level from Congress to the streets. Someone needs to get the programme's image in gear - a bit more than a Lockheed Martin Test Pilot addressing the question of agility with a statement about how "nice" she handles.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: beyond the hedge of reason
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steady on there Courtney me old mucker. Do a bit of research into the background of Mr Sprey and you might have pause in challenging him on his claims.
What he and the other Fighter Mafia people did was, IMHO, way beyond your run of the mill PhD level research. Vertical manouevring and energy management were being used from the earliest days and certainly in WW2. However, nobody had the sheer determination to explain in terms of maths and physics why it worked and was therefore able to use it as a basis for teaching tactics and designing fighters. At an advanced stage in their research, they were able to quantify such variables as pilot cockpit visibility into the combat effectivenes of an aeroplane. In other words, they developed scientifically valid codes rigorously to describe what fighter aviators learned from experience and from each other.
Sadly, 'great men' in and out of uniform have a marked reluctance to listen to science and maths that get in the way of their plans to prove just how great they are.
It has been my view from the first time I heard of the JSF with the dead weight fan system that lunatics were influential in the management of the asylum. F-35 will only be an effective platform in airspace which is dominated by other types on its own side, IMHO. Since Boyd, Sprey, Hillaker, Rasperry et al have been ignored by the 'great and good', we are condemend to repeat mistakes until military budgets match the inflated egos of the politicians in and out of uniform.
This will occur when the the cows come home via hell frozen over and all overflown by tight formations of airborne porkers.
What he and the other Fighter Mafia people did was, IMHO, way beyond your run of the mill PhD level research. Vertical manouevring and energy management were being used from the earliest days and certainly in WW2. However, nobody had the sheer determination to explain in terms of maths and physics why it worked and was therefore able to use it as a basis for teaching tactics and designing fighters. At an advanced stage in their research, they were able to quantify such variables as pilot cockpit visibility into the combat effectivenes of an aeroplane. In other words, they developed scientifically valid codes rigorously to describe what fighter aviators learned from experience and from each other.
Sadly, 'great men' in and out of uniform have a marked reluctance to listen to science and maths that get in the way of their plans to prove just how great they are.
It has been my view from the first time I heard of the JSF with the dead weight fan system that lunatics were influential in the management of the asylum. F-35 will only be an effective platform in airspace which is dominated by other types on its own side, IMHO. Since Boyd, Sprey, Hillaker, Rasperry et al have been ignored by the 'great and good', we are condemend to repeat mistakes until military budgets match the inflated egos of the politicians in and out of uniform.
This will occur when the the cows come home via hell frozen over and all overflown by tight formations of airborne porkers.
Eh? I am basically saying that most of what they were saying was "on the mark", but that just a couple of lines were rather bold. For example, the claim that F-16 could beat F-35 at any mission.
I do know exactly who these people are.
I do know exactly who these people are.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: beyond the hedge of reason
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies, Courtney, if I have offended! I know that a fighter pilot of your seniority and experience would know who the dudes are / were - especially with F15 background.
I was very struck when I read up on the work they had done and was astounded by the volume and quality of their work. I don't have the books to hand right now but I believe that Pierre Sprey entered Yale at the age of 15 and was appointed to a very senior post at the age of 22 after doing some pretty radical post grad research. He is reputed to have total recall of anything he ever read. I have met some Brits of similar standing - one watches what one says!
I imagine that Sprey's assertion re. F16 vs. F35 would require some qualification but I have felt for some time that the latter is a heavily gold plated solution to problems which are very unlikely to arise. And, it is so darned expensive that the thought of risking it in CAS ops, for example, seems ghastly.
However, as a simple fighter-gator, I always thought the best way to multiply your fighter force was to buy lots of cheap aeroplanes. So, what do I know?
I was very struck when I read up on the work they had done and was astounded by the volume and quality of their work. I don't have the books to hand right now but I believe that Pierre Sprey entered Yale at the age of 15 and was appointed to a very senior post at the age of 22 after doing some pretty radical post grad research. He is reputed to have total recall of anything he ever read. I have met some Brits of similar standing - one watches what one says!
I imagine that Sprey's assertion re. F16 vs. F35 would require some qualification but I have felt for some time that the latter is a heavily gold plated solution to problems which are very unlikely to arise. And, it is so darned expensive that the thought of risking it in CAS ops, for example, seems ghastly.
However, as a simple fighter-gator, I always thought the best way to multiply your fighter force was to buy lots of cheap aeroplanes. So, what do I know?
Not at all, ELW, I just didn't want my meaning to be unclear. 
Like you, I can see plenty of places I wouldn't want to put F-35 and CAS has to be the most obvious example. JSF is a bit of a gold-plated solution, but I still think its complexity could be a vulnerability. Not just for the development phase, as we're already seeing, but in service as well. And that is one reason so many people (some high up in the USN included) think that more F/A-18s might suit them better.
This is a small jet that LM are trying very hard to sell as the answer to everything, well, almost. That just makes it even more important that the bloody thing works properly and there is still lots of risk in that.
Like you, I can see plenty of places I wouldn't want to put F-35 and CAS has to be the most obvious example. JSF is a bit of a gold-plated solution, but I still think its complexity could be a vulnerability. Not just for the development phase, as we're already seeing, but in service as well. And that is one reason so many people (some high up in the USN included) think that more F/A-18s might suit them better.
This is a small jet that LM are trying very hard to sell as the answer to everything, well, almost. That just makes it even more important that the bloody thing works properly and there is still lots of risk in that.
