What does pierre sprey actually want in a fighter?

Does he want the US to ditch the F-35 and just use cannon-only F-5s as their frontline fighter?

>>30591893
>ITT: We list things that Pierre Sprey was actually right about.

Well he was right about outfitting every French fighter with a white flag, just in case...

>>30592060
He actually said that ?

>>30591911
Pretty much; I think he's accepting of things like radar guided missiles, etc, but his idea of an ideal fighter in general is one that maximises kinematic performance and low-cost above all else.

Actually his ideal plane would probably be something akin to a Gripen, but with a more powerful engine and morel lightweight avionics - perhaps whatever the cheapest fixed AESA is on the market.

>>30591911
>1911
checked

>>30593773
Sprey was fully against putting radar on planes

Short range IR missiles & guns

>>30593795
I know, but the 2 main reasons he was opposed against them was due to their extra weight and because radar guided missiles were more unreliable than heatseekers.

I think if he was thrown into an actual project lead role today, it wouldn't be hard to make him accept something like a small AESA for things like range-finding, short-medium range jamming and AMRAAM integration. I'm sure he'd be sceptical of AMRAAMs, but I think he'd be accepting of throwing ~2 on to help get his wunderfighter keep the enemy distracted until his fighter gets WVR.

Today with the F-22 and F-35 (as well as the F-15, F/A-18 and modern F-16) he primarily hates how heavy and expensive they are, with a lot of that weight coming from "untested" or "impractical" gear like internal weapon bays, large radars, EW and ESM systems, etc. I feel that if those things weighed nothing and cost nothing, he'd be happy to include them, he does have a desire to "give the boys nothing but the best", but he's just deluded about what "the best" is.

>>30591893
>not 1.5
>not 1.7

>>30591911
Nice digits

>>30593902
In Vietnam only 1 jet ever went above Mach 1.6 and only for a few seconds before running out of fuel.

>>30593875

the fact that he discounts all those things as "impractical" shows how foolish he is.

>>30591911
Pierre Sprey is Sparky's guru, that's all you need to know but in case you don't know said autistic faggot well - his idea of fighter is the one that has minimalists weight and systems to achieve the greatest aerodynamics and reliability(here resulting in sortie rate) possible while still being relatively cheap.

Sparky applies the same idea to everything. From tanks through firearms to warships. Battleships are great because they can deliver explosives at the enemy at much, much cheaper cost than carriers(through fighters) and any kind of missile-armed warships. M113 is better than Bradley because it's never had much problems with reliability, M48/60 is better than Abrams because the advantage in protection and firepower of Abrams is(in his opinion) negligible when you take in account worse deployability(due to greater weight) and being higher logistical/maintenance strain, while all of those are also cheaper than their current alternatives.

It's overall interesting stance if some person who's right in the head would try to research and actually support it with some facts, but the reality is that the most visible "proponents" of it are:
>Old guy who is hostile to some ideas and features just because few decades ago they weren't too great
>Autistic furfag making shit tier youtube presentations with spelling errors everywhere

>>30591911
He doesn't care. He lives to be contrarian, and therefore, nothing will ever be good enough for his arbitrary, conflicting, retarded, and constantly changing standards.

>>30595867
He's a fucking genius desu, that's why we still keep talking about him and I'm sure he's making lots of shekels in the process too.

>>30596308
>Reminder that the only real money he's ever made was licensing off a sample in a Kanye song