Joint Strike Fighter: The Latest Hotspot in the U.S. Defense Meltdown

Center For Defense Information (CDI) ^ | September 8, 2008 | Pierre M. Sprey and Winslow T. Wheeler

[Mr Rogers]

Boyd and the fighter mafia were right in the 60s. They were still right up thru about 1985, when radar missiles went from pieces of junk to very reliable. When AMRAAM hit, Boyd became a relic.

Radar and face-shooting heaters now have a higher probability of kill than a gun shot would. Data links make sneaking behind someone very difficult.

I ‘grew up’ with F-4s in the 80s. Before I left the USAF (officially retire 1 Oct...), I had a chance to work on testing some of the new equipment. Targeting pods, precision munitions, data links between multiple radars - there is a whole new world of fighter technology. The author of this piece doesn’t seem to understand that!

[WaterBoard]

Huh?

You said the USAF is arrogant and incompetent? Where do you get that?

[Islander7]

“...Every military system has problems. Usually they don’t work correctly until they are deployed....”

This is the same 60s style crap spewed by the press for every piece of military hardware developed in the last 40 years.

I have seen a couple specials on the Military Channel that give the F-35 high marks and high expectations. I will take a wait and see approach.

[wideminded]

"Ask the pilots of the two 'stealthy' F-117s that the Serbs successfully attacked with radar missiles in the 1999 Kosovo air war."

It calls into question the whole article.

The USAF only lost one F-117 -- not two.

They didn't say we lost another F-117, only that it was "successfully attacked".

"Some American sources acknowledge that a second F-117A was also damaged during a raid in the same campaign, and although it made it back to its base, it supposedly never flew again." - Wikipedia

I've seen Winslow Wheeler a number of times on C-SPAN and he appears to be very well informed.

[Mashood]

The variable vectoring was one reason the US military was looking to purchase the SU-30 frame and ergonomics. Slap in our engines and avionics packages and you’d have one hell of mission capable fighter.

[El Gato]

Pierre Spey was involved in the development of the F-16 & A-10.

In what capacity? Head shed strap hanger? Considering that they are from two different manufacturers, and had two different system program offices, (both at Wright-Patterson of course), and that they were in development at about the same time, it would have been pretty unusual for one person to be involved in both other than at a "policy" or "oversight" level.

[bmwcyle]

My statement is true. Please post my whole comment next time. You missed my point.

[Kevmo]

bmflr

[Always Independent]

I believe that F-111s carried out most of the precision bombing missions during the first gulf war.

[Tallguy]

Spey worked with John Boyd in the Pentagon developing Boyd's theories on Energy Management & attempting to guide aircraft development through them. Excerpt from the Wikki article on the Fighter Mafia:

"Boyd, defense analysts Tom Christie and Pierre Sprey, and test pilot Col. Everest Riccioni formed the core of the self-named "fighter mafia" which worked behind the scenes in the late 1960s to pursue a lightweight fighter as an alternative to the F-15. Riccioni coined the nickname, a joke on his Italian heritage, and dubbed himself the "godfather". In 1969, under the guise that the Navy was developing a small, high-performance Navy aircraft, Riccioni won $149,000 to fund the "Study to Validate the Integration of Advanced Energy-Maneuverability Theory with Trade-Off Analysis". This money was split between Northrop and General Dynamics to build the embodiment of Boyd's E-M theory - a small, low-draw, low-weight, pure fighter with no bomb racks. Northrop demanded and received $100,000 to design the YF-17; General Dynamics, eager to redeem its debacle with the F-111, received the remainder to develop the YF-16."[2]

"Defense Secretary Melvin Laird and Deputy Defense Secretary David Packard, who entered office with the Nixon administration in 1969, were interested in these studies and threw their support behind the notion. In May 1971, Congress issued a critical report of the F-14 and F-15 and advocated spending $50 million on developing an alternative lightweight fighter. This was followed by the assignment of $12 million in the 1972 fiscal year budget for the LWF. On January 6, 1971, an RFP was issued to industry for a 20,000 pound fighter to complement the F-15.[1] Sprey insisted on a fly-off between two prototypes, as he had earlier on the A-X program, pitting the planes against MiG-17s and MiG-21s secretly maintained in Nevada, as well as an F-4. Furthermore, the evaluating pilots would not be test pilots, and each would fly both airframes."

[Islander7]

You misunderstand. I was agreeing with you and referencing the article as 60s clap trap.

I was not clear in my comment, though. Sorry to cause confusion.

[El Gato]

And to assess it as more vulnerable and less maneuverable than an F-105? Insane. Back it up. Has this man ever heard of vectored thrust? To say that the F-111 failed, so this will too? It doesnt logically follow. The failure there was trying to make that behemoth into a carrier bomber, and not just to accept it as a magnificent aircraft for the USAF.

The F-111B was not a "carrier bomber", but rather a Fleet Air Defense interceptor, the same mission as the F-14, which benefited from "lessons learned" on the F-111B, and even inherited some of it's systems, like the radar and to some extent the Phoenix missile (which was actually started even earlier than the F-111B program, but was brought along for it) Also the engines which were inadequate for both the F-111B and F-14 (Until the D models which got variants of the engines from the F-15/F-16.

F-111B on the Coral Sea.

Short video at the link above.

[WaterBoard]

Yep. You got me. If it’s in Wiki its got to be the truth, right?

In my world, we go based on facts. The F-117A airframe lost on 03/27/99 in Serbia was serial number 82-806 out of Holloman AFB.

Plus, tell us the serial number of the other F117 damaged in Serbia and never be to flown again?

[sukhoi-30mki]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2080106/posts

[Vroomfondel]

ping

[El Gato]

was looking to purchase the SU-30 frame and ergonomics. Slap in our engines and avionics packages and you’d have one hell of mission capable fighter.

As long a no one was searching for you on radar, nor using radar guided weapons to shoot at you. Then it would, sooner rather than later, be so much scrap metal raining down out of the sky.

[wideminded]

If it’s in Wiki its got to be the truth, right? ...

The Wikipedia statement has two sources. As I said Winslow Wheeler struck me as someone who really knows what he is talking about. This event is also discussed in other places on the Internet such as in this paper from the Army War College. All this is enough for me to believe that it is quite possible that a second F-117 was damaged.

Plus, tell us the serial number of the other F117 damaged in Serbia and never be to flown again?

Obviously the Pentagon is not going to release that information.

[snowrip]

A good piece, albeit from a left-leaning organization.

Spey was part of the design/testing teams for the F-16 (and F-16XL) program, I believe. He also had a hand in the design of the A-10. While he leaves out a lot of detail on the cost overrun/procurement stats, I’m inclined to take his design analysis critique seriously.

I also think that the idea of a supersonic aircraft for close air support is ridiculous. I talked to a couple of A-10 pilots last summer; they call the F/A-18s in that role “lawn darts”, because they fly the same way when hit (into the ground) and are about as accurate (pray the pointy end goes where you want it to) when it comes to CAS missions.

[magslinger]

SONOBUOY PING!

Click on pic for past Navair pings.

Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.

[doorgunner69]

My first M-16 looked chrome it was so worn out. I had a WWII steel pot and a WWII .45. My tent was a WWI canvas shelter half. By todays standards, the training was utterly abysmal.

LOL! I remember going through ITR at Pendleton in 1965 with a M-1 so worn out it was a single shot.

And of course eating C-rats in VN that were made in WWII, while the army got all the good new stuff that mixed with hot water.

Lastly, I absolutely agree the training is far superior now than then. What I have seen of modern USMC bootcamp is lightyears ahead of the rudimentary training we got. The modern Marine is a much better trained warrior than we were from the get-go. We had to learn on the job, so to speak.