Copied and pasted but you get the idea.
Here we go again (first I'll address Sprey, then his arguments)...
Alright; so first up, I would like to acknowledge that Pierre Sprey did help to guide the development of the F-16, F-15 and A-10.
However, Sprey was not the only voice in the development of these aircraft and represents an extreme in the varying opinions on how these aircraft were to fight.
For those unaware, there was / is a group of analysts and generals called the "Fighter Mafia"; who believe that that John Boyd's / Thomas Christie's Energy-Maneuverability theory should be the defining tool in the design of a fighter aircraft. This theory basically was a method of comparing aircraft based on thrust, weight, drag, wing area, etc, into a model that can provide a numeric value of how fighters would compare against one another.
However, one thing that the E-M theory (note E-M, not EM [electromagnetic]) did not consider at all however was technology such as radar, stealth, missile performance, etc. It was basically a method that took the means of comparing WW2 aircraft and applied it to 1970's jet fighters.
Naturally though, these guys weren't stupid; the group as a whole did support putting a radar in the nose and providing aircraft like the F-15 the ability to use missiles. Pierre Sprey however, while he would accept the use of basic technologies, was a "true luddite" (person who doesn't believe in the use of technology), even according to retired General Mike Loh who was another member of the fighter mafia.
Due to his beliefs and flaws in character, Sprey doesn't really keep up with technology or care to hear what it has to offer.
So, as for his arguments:
- He doesn't believe in multi-mission aircraft; he believes that you should have an an air-supremacy fighter with no A2G, etc. In the modern world, that's not something that can be afforded or easily managed logistically.
- "It's fat"; "it has tiny wings" - it's convenient then that there exists such a concept as the lifting body; the F-35 is draggy no doubt, but you can't say it's wide and then say it has no lifting surfaces. The F-15 for example has been able to make it home ripping off a wing, thanks to the same phenomenon.
- "Astonishingly unmaneuverable" - despite it being depicted as being roughly equal to the F-16 and F/A-18. Sprey has no more access to the F-35's performance data as the vast majority of anyone here. At the time of that interview, even less-so.
- "108lb/ft2" - I would like to point out here that "wing loading" is misconceiving. If you want to see / read why, I've done an analysis here: http://pastebin.com/k0AsgH6A
- There is no way in hell that a Mig-21 with a sustained turn rate of 12.9 deg/s is going to be able to compare with the sustained turn rate the F-35; what that value is, is currently unknown or classified, but considering that an F-16 does 23 deg/s and even the F-4; a pretty terrible dogfighter, does 13.7 means that the statement is laughable.
- Ground support; Pierre says you need to be able to turn slowly, have a large gun and be on station for 4-6 hours. First up; if you can see through your aircraft, using 360 degree thermal (IR) imagery, as well as receive realtime footage of the fight from UAVs, friendly air and ground assets, why do you need to have the pilot flying slowly over the dangerous target area, gawking through through his canopy?
And as for the gun; when the A-10's GAU-8 fires; 80% of it's rounds will land within a 12m diameter circle. That assumes that you're not trying to hit a moving target and are firing from 1.2km away. With a SDB II (GBU-53), an F-35 or other fighter with the right sensors, can hit within 1m of a target from up to 72km away and will will destroy or disable vehicles within a 10m radius. It's kill radius will naturally differ based on environment, but you could easily expect soldiers to be incapacitated or killed at twice that.
Furthermore, on the topic of CAS; one issue that soldiers face when ordering air support is that when they order it, they need to retire or take cover. In Afghanistan, the Taliban have learned to recognise this, and in response, will go into hiding / take cover, only to strike again later. By being able to have CAS available at least 3 times faster (even more so considering how the F-35 is going to saturate future airspace), you can cut down or eliminate the problem. If you need endurance or overwatch, get a UCAV and have it supply CAS for a couple of days at a time.
- "A tank is not visible from even maybe a quarter mile or less" - really? Well at least SAR & 360 degree EO/IR will help out pilots with poor vision.
- "The first thing to know about stealth is that it's a scam!" - I bet all those Iraqi AAA & SAM operators totally thought it was a scam when F-117's wrecked havoc too. All those pilots that go up against F-22's and get decimated time after time too.
- "Radars that were built in 1942 could detect every stealth aircraft today" - sure; hence why we've lost so many stealth aircraft to SAMs. He references low-frequency radar, but the issue is, while you might perhaps see stealth aircraft coming into the country, that doesn't particularly help when that target is jittering among background noise and is a single 'pixel'. There's a reason that all terminal radar guidance systems use higher frequencies.
- "If Canada is still buying it, it'll cost $200 million+" - we'll see in the next few weeks, but it looks like Lockheed and Canada are going to be proving Sprey dead wrong pretty soon.
- "I'm predicting that in the US, we'll never buy more than 500 airplanes" - considering more than 100 have been made, his prediction is running out of time. Considering that the US has no real alternatives too, I highly doubt they're going to let the order drop below 2000; in the mean time, orders have increased, with Congress approving extra aircraft for 2015 and new nations like Singapore and Japan jumping aboard the JSF program.
- "[If there had been a proper competition for Canada, the Gripen or Eurofighter would have won, as they have in other countries]" - except the Gripen would have been worse in every way, and the Eurofighter is significantly more expensive than the F-35 or pretty much any other option.
Quite honestly you are repeating every F-35 bingo card point out there.
View attachment 16542
How the fuck would Sprey know what the Russian radar can and cannot spot?
First of all he doesn't know any more about the F-35 than you or I do, and he certainly doesn't know what the Russian radars can or cannot do.
Stealth is not overrated, that is an asinine statement given that literally every new plane is trying to incorporate stealth characteristics.
Also note this video was produced in 2013. Most of his criticisms aren't valid anymore.
There were 4/4.5 gen aircrafts which flew alongside the F22 into the same airspace on escort role against the same air Defence you quote. That alone defeats the point of your entire post.
