F-35 according to F-16 co-designer.

[Julien]

Interesting point of view.

Julien

[Mike]

Only one man's POV, but he does make some good points

[HOUSTON]

Very Interesting view indeed.

[Parabat]

TBH, I wouldn't pay too much mind to this guy's spoutings. It appears he has some strange viewpoints that have been discredited more than a few times.

He's been discussed here - (1/4 down the page) http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=209836&st=4160

[Alan P]

Hmm. Somewhat like Thomas Edison berating the iPod because it means you can't have a record collection.

[PhantomBigStu]

Hmm. Somewhat like Thomas Edison berating the iPod because it means you can't have a record collection.

more like him criticizing it because an ipod is not usable when swimming, his criticism are right in that he points to things that would be problems if reality was different, but his idea of reality doesn't match the actual truth so things aren't problems

Edited December 18, 2014 by PhantomBigStu

[Procopius]

It's worth noting that virtually none of his original ideas for what became the F-16 have been retained as it was developed; he wanted an aircraft with no air-to-ground capability, optimized to serve as a day fighter, and with minimal or no radar, and which would rely on its gun. He was trying to get in essence, an American MiG-17 or MiG-19.

[Driver66]

Sounds like he is not a fan of the F-15 ( star of desert storm ) or the Harrier.

If stealth is a scam why are the Russians and Chinese both developing their own stealth aircraft?

However if he's correct the Western air arms will be in serious trouble very soon.

[DAG058]

The man who designed a budget fighter is going to say that about the most expensive and effective fighter.

[Procopius]

Sounds like he is not a fan of the F-15 ( star of desert storm ) or the Harrier.

If stealth is a scam why are the Russians and Chinese both developing their own stealth aircraft?

However if he's correct the Western air arms will be in serious trouble very soon.

Happily, as every major power is developing complex stealth aircraft along similar lines, if they fail, everyone will be in the same boat, and the next major air war will be a slap fight between kids with short arms.

[LeVi Tophatter]

Some interesting points but it just becomes another anti-F-35 rant, part of the political drama that constantly halts progress... No, I am not an F-35 fanboy, just an observation that the world is very different from Mr Sprey's rose tinted nostalgia/progressive vision.

Anyway, would liked to have heard his defined solution to the perceived problems, without reverting back to the era of light weight 'Hot Rods' or multitudes of mission specific aircraft. Advanced F-16's perhaps, the kind overloaded with useless technology?...

A laypersons POV!

[magwitch]

It's worth noting that virtually none of his original ideas for what became the F-16 have been retained as it was developed; he wanted an aircraft with no air-to-ground capability, optimized to serve as a day fighter, and with minimal or no radar, and which would rely on its gun. He was trying to get in essence, an American MiG-17 or MiG-19.

If he had had his way the F-16 would not have been the massive global success story that it is. A ruthlessly air-to-air focussed F-16 would have just been another relatively short lived single role aircraft with zero export potential like the F-102 and F-106.

[John Laidlaw]

He was known by those he worked with on the light-weight fighter project as a Luddite. His views on the F-4 are, frankly, laughable, and he misses the point of so many successful and brilliant aircraft it's really rather sad. There are many far better-qualified commentators in the field of current aviation with a much firmer grasp of reality, all of whom could come up up with many solid reasons for not having the F-35, ever. And this guy gets airtime? Crikey .

p.s. For the record, I believe the F-35 programme to be a staggering waste of money, and un-needed.

[Learstang]

I don't know; Mr. Sprey makes a lot of sense to me. The F-35 is a dog.

Regards,

Jason

[LeVi Tophatter]

He was known by those he worked with on the light-weight fighter project as a Luddite. His views on the F-4 are, frankly, laughable, and he misses the point of so many successful and brilliant aircraft it's really rather sad. There are many far better-qualified commentators in the field of current aviation with a much firmer grasp of reality, all of whom could come up up with many solid reasons for not having the F-35, ever. And this guy gets airtime? Crikey .

p.s. For the record, I believe the F-35 programme to be a staggering waste of money, and un-needed.

Well, polarised popular politics makes for 'great' TV/reporting, hence why Question Time is more popular than Horizon or The Sky at Night...

The money involved is unbelievable and why some nations are committing purchases, Japan for example, I cannot understand. Call me a dreamer, I'd be more committed to forming better relations in the region than buying the latest jack of all trades 'deterrent'.

[Truro Model Builder]

With South Korea and Indonesia co-operating on a future combat aircraft, I'm surprised that Japan has not joined the project.

[Giorgio N]

This is a character that is well known, his opinions are well known and 99% of his views on air combat have been proven wrong.

To be honest, if I were one of the F-35 designers, I'd be glad to hear Sprey's saying the aircraft is a lemon. He said the same of the F-15 and then look at what the Eagle has achieved....

I always liked the part when he says that electronics is junk that has nothing to do with air combat, wonder if he's ever had the chance to speak to a fighter pilot

Edited December 19, 2014 by Giorgio N

[Nobby57]

"King 'Conductor' is ma name, for thy Lightning shall ne'er strike a soul or mooses' brain! It's all mine, I'll ha' ye know! We're all doomed I tell ye; we're all doomed!!!"

"Where's Pike when you need him?""

He is a bit 'Dad's' isn't he?

NB - Apologies to any of you who don't know of 'Dad's Army'. A popular BBC comedy about the early war years exploits of the British Home Guard.

[Paul J]

I don't know. But I agree with the comments MR. Sprey says. Money would be better spent on better aircraft rather than a brick with wings. Its said hes wrong but he may be very much right in this instance! How can anyone be sure that that F-35 junkheap is going to be as gopod as the brochures say. NAh, its a waste of money. Full stop!

[Giorgio N]

One other point is worth making: Mr. Sprey is NOT a co-designer of the F-16 ! He had no input in the design of the General Dynamics fighter. He was not even an aircraft designer actually but was an analyst part of the group that laid down the LWF concept for the USAF.

[Alan P]

I like this commentator's summary as it covers most of the main points.

The industry commentators who berate it as rubbish, useless, impractical, a failure, and a waste of money etc, need to be more carefully examined for integrity and intellectual rigour, as there is no credible basis for such denigration even of the current iteration of the airframe.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Brokenedge

[Mark Turk]

Here's what the Chief Designer of the F-16, Henry Hillaker, had to say about designing an aircraft for the mission from day 1.

"The F-16XL had a better balance of air-to-air and air-to-ground capability. In fact, when I first started going to the Air Force with plans for the F-16XL, some of the Air Force people were so enthusiastic about it that they accused me of holding the design back so that we could sell the airplane twice. If you know anything about the history of the lightweight fighter, you know that this was not the case.

With the F-16XL, we reduced the drag of the weapon carriage by sixty-three percent. The drag of the XL with the same fuel and twice as many bombs is a little over thirty percent less than today’s F-16 when you load it up. This points up a fallacy that has existed for thirty years, and I’m concerned that it may still exist. Our designs assume clean airplanes. Bombs and all the other crap are added on as an afterthought. These add-ons not only increase drag but they also ruin the handling qualities. They should be considered from the beginning.

We ought to start with the weapon. That’s really the final product. We ought to determine what the weapon is and what it will take to deliver it and then do the airplane. Now, we design the airplane and smash the weapon on it." http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=37

Comparisons of the F-35 to the F-16 are misplaced in my view. The aircraft were designed for very different missions.

The F-16 fighter was originally designed as an inexpensive, lightweight, highly maneuverable platform that would be used only as a daytime fighter. http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/outrageous-adolescence-f-16-180949491/#ixzz3NV57a8wL. It was the ultimate expression of a pure air-to-air "fighter." Although it was not designed with the air-to-ground mission in mind, the F-16 has been used extensively in that role. Famously, on June 7, 1981, the Israeli's used eight F-16A models armed with MK-84 bombs to destroy the Iraqi "Osirak nuclear reactor. Ever since, the F-16 has been used as a bomb truck while the F-15s are used to clear the sky of enemy fighters.

The F-35 was designed with the air-to-ground mission in mind from start. This necessitated the use of Stealth or low-observable technology to defeat enemy air defense systems. (My understanding of the state-of-the art in air defense systems is that aircraft that do not use Stealth have a short life expectancy in well defended airspace.) The air-to-ground mission requires more fuel, and Stealth necessitates that the weapons and fuel be carried internally to minimize the radar signature of the aircraft. The F-35 is designed to perform the same mission as the F-117. It was not designed to the requirements of a "Lightweight Fighter" like the F-16.

With that background, it is not surprising that the F-16 in a clean configuration will perform better in a close in visual range dogfight. That is the mission the F-16 was designed to perform and it does it very, very well. However, Stealth gives the F-35 a significant advantage in both beyond visual range (BVR) engagements and in air-to-ground attack missions. In a BVR engagement, the F-35 will be able to fire an AMRAAM at an F-16 before the F-16 knows that there is an F-35 in the neighborhood. Likewise, on a strike mission the enemy will not know that there is an F-35 overhead until bombs come falling from the sky. On any strike mission, the F-16 is a SAM magnet.

For the close air support mission, the A-10 appears to be the best aircraft for the job hands down. That's the mission the A-10 was designed for and it performs it's mission exceedingly well. I just can't see using an F-35 in an environment where small arms and shoulder launched heat seeking missiles are significant threats.

Edited December 31, 2014 by Mark Turk

[bentwaters81tfw]

We ought to start with the weapon. That’s really the final product. We ought to determine what the weapon is and what it will take to deliver it and then do the airplane. Now, we design the airplane and smash the weapon on it.

This is what they did with the A-10. It delivers! It's just not high tech enough for those who want to climb the greasy pole, rather than deliver the goods on target. It lacks the glamour and the buzzwords.

In time of war, reality forces commanders back to what is cost effective. Invader, Skyraider and Scooter come to mind. Cheap, simple, effective. All this stealth and high tech is all very well, but at a cost that makes numbers prohibitive.

Look at the MiG 21 family, or the AK-47. Does the job, cheap and plentiful.

To quote Stalin 'Quantity has a quality all it's own'

[SleeperService]

It seems as if UK PLC isn't the only place where the needs of the military are seconded to the wishes of the defence industry and the High Command.

I have no doubt the F-35 will be built but not as many as were first predicted and that as soon as it's reliable it will be withdrawn from service. The F-16XL will be a 'What Might have Been' topic for a while just like 'What if Senna hadn't got killed when he did? How many Schumacher world titles?'

Ideally there should be an aircraft that can perform any mission without that need compromising any other. The primary requirement would be to consider what the plane does when maximum loaded and treat any gains from a lighter load as a bonus. In reality this is some way off so multiple types are needed to cover all the missions. A-10 as an air superiority fighter? Eurofighter typhoon as a CAS?

To my mind FWIW the US has a great fighter and now a good all-rounder. Add in an airframe to operate in the airspace thus cleared for ground support and that's pretty good. F-22, F-15 then F-35, Harrier then F-35 again. For the RAF Typhoon and F-35. In both cases drones can be used where suitable for long endurance surveillance and high risk strikes.

[Giorgio N]

Here's what the Chief Designer of the F-16 had to say about designing an aircraft for the mission from day 1

The F-16XL had a better balance of air-to-air and air-to-ground capability. In fact, when I first started going to the Air Force with plans for the F-16XL, some of the Air Force people were so enthusiastic about it that they accused me of holding the design back so that we could sell the airplane twice. If you know anything about the history of the lightweight fighter, you know that this was not the case.

With the F-16XL, we reduced the drag of the weapon carriage by sixty-three percent. The drag of the XL with the same fuel and twice as many bombs is a little over thirty percent less than today’s F-16 when you load it up. This points up a fallacy that has existed for thirty years, and I’m concerned that it may still exist. Our designs assume clean airplanes. Bombs and all the other crap are added on as an afterthought. These add-ons not only increase drag but they also ruin the handling qualities. They should be considered from the beginning.

We ought to start with the weapon. That’s really the final product. We ought to determine what the weapon is and what it will take to deliver it and then do the airplane. Now, we design the airplane and smash the weapon on it.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=37

The problem with the XL however is that the load considered would have been something nobody would use today ! The weapon carriage of the XL was optimised for Mk.82 bombs and weapons of similar size, of which a large number could be carried with very small drag penalty. larger weapons and GBUs still required conventional pylons... and here's a problem: can we say today what load will be required tomorrow ? Had the F-16XL been selected instead of the F-15E, today all the studies into low drag weapon loads would have been wasted as the aircraft would have carried GBUs on the same pylons used on the standard F-16s

The same problem afflicted a number of aircrafts in the past as they were found not able to keep up with the development of the weapons available. A good sound design on the other hand incorporates potential for growth in this and other aspects. The F-16 itself is a clear example of this: the original early F-16As could only be armed with sidewinders and dumb bombs, today's variants can probably carry and use 99% of the weaponry designed in what we call the western world.

This is what they did with the A-10. It delivers! It's just not high tech enough for those who want to climb the greasy pole, rather than deliver the goods on target. It lacks the glamour and the buzzwords.

In time of war, reality forces commanders back to what is cost effective. Invader, Skyraider and Scooter come to mind. Cheap, simple, effective. All this stealth and high tech is all very well, but at a cost that makes numbers prohibitive.

Look at the MiG 21 family, or the AK-47. Does the job, cheap and plentiful.

To quote Stalin 'Quantity has a quality all it's own'

Actually the A-10 is an example of something designed for a weapon and a mission that were proven to be wrongly formulated !

Weapon: the A-10 was designed around its gun. This is the weapon less used in action by the Hog, particularly today when CAS is done using guided weapons. While the gun is still used, it's not considered particularly accurate so much that Army analysts consider the use of the AC-130s as a better way to hit enemies compared to the A-10. Everybody agrees on the psychological effect of the big GAU-8, but now we have an aircraft designed around a weapon with mainly psychological effects... something is not right here

Mission: the A-10 was initially designed for a mission and then converted to another mission even before it flew. Originally it was supposed to fight guerillas in the jungles of south east Asia and then became a tank killer for the central European theatre. Problem is that by the time the A-10 was operational there were weapons capable of breaking a Hog in two with a single hit and the aircraft could simply not survive in such a theatre. It found a new niche with the "war on terror", where it could bring two advantages: good loading capabilities and decent loiter time.

Numbers: the cost of modern weapons is a very small concern for the Air Forces today ! The true problem is the cost of personnel and of the related infrastructures. If a country can only afford to have 100 pilots, what's the point of having 500 cheap aircrafts ? Better give them the very best that money can buy.

Besides, the history of postwar conflicts has shown what usually happens to the cheap and simple aircrafts, as witnessed by the MiG-21s been wiped out of the sky every time they met more sophisticated aircrafts...

Edited December 31, 2014 by Giorgio N