Pierre Sprey 1982 report on fighter effectiveness

[Bruno Anthony]

Found this on pogo: http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/08.pdf
Contradicted by Marshall L. Michel's thesis and Steven Fino's article in Vulcan.

What do you think?

 

[Triton]

I know how much love there is for Pierre Spey here on the Secret Projects forum, I hope that you have your fire suit on.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Sprey and the F-86 forever crowd are crap with me so I will be ok if he gets hammered. I am curious about supportive arguments.

 

[TomS]

I've not read the whole thing, but just skimming along, the assertion toward the end that IR flares are almost 100% effective against IR missiles up to and including AIM-9L looks pretty questionable to me.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Footnote: the report is from 1982. But these guys NEVER change their views so I think it still is a relevant discussion point.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Repeat post. Deleted.

 

[lastdingo]

Sprey and the F-86 forever crowd are crap with me so I will be ok if he gets hammered. I am curious about supportive arguments.

They actually had good points, but their concept was best for the Central European theatre during the Cold War and bound to lack in range for strike package CAP.
Them largely ignoring the F-5/F-20 was always strange, since it was "invented here", available, and probably the best choice for small air forces or small air force detachments due to its versatility.


Their stance wasn't "F-86 forever", it was "YF-16 with IRST instead of radar forever", and nowadays an up-engined Gripen would come the most close to their idea.
Keep in mind they began stemming a tide at a time when the F-111 was considered a possible airframe for the air superiority fighter role!