Sprey has zero idea about F15s,F22's, F35s and the Abrams tank. All of which he said were useless. He also DID NOT design the F16. Despite what he tells everyone. Hilary Hillaker, the real designer of the F16 said Sprey and others helped with concepts. That is all. Cartivelli designed the P47 and others as well as the A10. Sprey was not an aero nautical engineer. He was an analyst. He did not design the A10,F16 or F15.
@@michaelidarecis Actually no he didn't put himself in the ignorance category. In fact, Michael is giving Sprey more credibility than Sprey realistically deserves. Sprey didn't even contribute concepts. Sprey was hired to be a number cruncher for John Boyd and the fighter mafia. That's all. John and Thomas Christie would come up with the ideas and concepts. They ask Sprey to crunch the numbers on it when needed. Everything you hear Sprey spout is parroted from John Boyd without any experience. Heck, even Boyd went back on some of his earlier criticism that Sprey still spouts. By the way, I have never found a sound bite or video of John Boyd that verifies Sprey's claims that John Boyd or Thomas Christie got sick of the F-15 and walked away from it. They trashed the F-111 but no audio or video source I have found that they trashed the F-15. Even so, that bird has the best kill record of any fighter and the F-16 became very successful will all the added capabilities Sprey criticizes.
What on Earth is he going on about? Sprey has officially lost his marbles. FYI, the F-22 Raptor, F-16C Falcon, A/V-8B Harrier and F-18A/C/E Hornet are all single seat and they all have nuclear capability. "Small and precise" (tactical nuclear weapons is the correct name) nuclear weapons have been around since at least the 1950's if not earlier. The B-61 nuclear bomb has been in use since 1963 and the B-83 nuclear bomb has been in use since 1983. He's just making shit up at this point.
F22, F16, F18, all have regular mission as fighters and nuclear capability as a bonus. F35 has not any quality as a fighter. Nuclear missoin is the only mission it is capable to do and something tells me F35 was made as a stealth 1st strike nuclear bomber from the beginning. This is the difference. Eat it.
This is the guy who slagged off the the F15 /F16 for having 'all kinds of unnecessary crap on it' the same 'crap' AKA advanced radars etc that help these fighters become some of the most successful aircraft in history. Anything he says now is suspect.
Nope, because you have to balance that up against cost and numbers. The F-16 would wax the F-15 completely because it is designed specifically for air combat and because it is cheaper there are more of them. They simply have overwhelming numbers.
@@elta6241 The F-16 does not have the range, altitude, power or lift capacity of the F-15. Unless the F-16 can get into a close WVR matchup, the F-15 will own it. -And that is also dependent on the pilot. The F-15 can stay in the fight much longer before the F-16 has to run off to get fuel. Can't fight if you don't have fuel. You have a lot to learn
TheJTcreate It doesn’t need any of those things and you will always get into close combat. It’s way cheaper and there are a lot more of them. In any hot war they would completely overwhelm bigger, bulkier, more expensive aircraft with less numbers. There are other variables here than just the aircraft, which is why people get very confused about what Sprey says.
Due diligence. Did you know Mr Spreys "expertise" is jazz music and not aircraft design? No he did not design the F15 or F16 or A10. He was an advisor to an advisor to an assistant secretary of defense.
@@maximilliancunningham6091 You mean like this....media.defense.gov/2012/May/16/2001330012/-1/-1/0/AFD-120516-036.pdf Sucks to be so wrong about a person you want to believe so bad. Sprey was such a bad character he lied in John Boyds biography about being part of the A10 program.... and yes HE IS the source of that info in the book.
The title of this video should be “Pierre Sprey: True Idiocy.” His ridiculous claims are making him look more and more like an equine derrière over time. On the other hand, Rep. Chris Taylor is looking more and more like every bachelor’s dream -- a nice-looking woman who’s gullible enough to believe almost anything.
I am a life long military aviation "enthusiast" who used to believe all the published hype, about US military aviation. Then I met Pierre, and he opened my eyes. And don't tell me, "insiders" know better, they are paid to embrace their equipment. Another way of saying, they all drink the Koolaide.
This guy is a poor commentator because he makes generalizations but doesn’t provide data for what he claims. He says the data is in publicly available reports. If he were any good he would backup his statements with fact and not tell me to go find the data. Does he want me to stop listen g to the video so I can go look up the data? Tell me where to find the data, or give me the data yourself like a good commentator.
Lmax is the maximum sound level. The Air Force Environmental Impact Statement in Vermont and data from the Air Force from multiple other locations show the F-35 to be documented as four times as loud as the F-16.
Ah yes the no logarithmic scale for loudness. Just for reference a jet is ca. 10 million times louder than normal talking. For people that know dB that's +6 dB. So ~136dB instead of ~ 130dB
The current FAA noise standard of 65 dBA DNL is being updated.. This standard is over 50 years old and doesn’t address the myriad of impacts of noise exposure on the health and well-being of surrounding residents.
Most of the 60,000 people that live within three miles of the Dane county airport will receive no noise abatement funding. The people who do may take a decade or more. This insulating does not allow kids to play outside or even be in certain rooms of a home. It's a joke and a distraction from the harm.
Keep in mind Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the same mindset to show The Soviet Union. It was not about saving lives at all. This is the same thing from the past.
Nonsense. The U.S. bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war without a land invasion that probably would have killed millions, and without conceding Japan to Soviet control.
@@laynegraham1258 James F. Byrnes does not agree with you and he was about to be secretary of state before the bombing. Byrnes scuttled a petition that Leo Slizard had given to him to hand to TRUMAN. Byrnes had the ear of Truman. Byrnes said "we are doing this to show the Russians". The fable is saving those "million". It is what they told the soldiers to justify the crime. Truman even lied saying the targets were military however instead of killing a man with a gun the bombs killed women and children. Lastly it would be prudent for you to find out what "atomic soldiers" are. They are US soldiers INTENTIONALLY put in harms way of Nuclear testing. There have been well over 200,000 americans intentionally infected by radiation. Key word intentionally! The saving millions just with the atomic soldiers proves it was a farce telling the public... Nonsense is what they feed the masses. Praise Jesus, Michael Idarecis
@@michaelidarecis To correct a factual error in your post, James F. Byrnes was not “about to be” the Secretary of State. He WAS the Secretary of State when he advised President Truman on June 1, 1945 and told him, “Mr. President, what will you tell the American people at your impeachment in 1946 when they find out you had a weapon that could have ended the war, and saved American lives, and you decided not to use it?” No mention of the Russians here, and this is thought to be the advice that persuaded President Truman to drop the atomic bomb on a city. It’s true that if the U.S. didn’t use the bomb, the Russians would have eventually defeated Japan and ended the war, in which case Japan would have become a Soviet satellite. Ironically, the Japanese were probably better off the way things played out. The use of the bomb will always be one of the most controversial parts of U.S. history, and we can agree to disagree on whether it was necessary. Also, I don’t know what you feel “atomic soldiers” have to do with this discussion, but I don’t think they were “intentionally” put in harm's way. We know a lot of things about radiation now that we didn’t know at the time.
@@laynegraham1258 James F. Byrnes was "about to be" when Leo Slizard gave him the petition. My statement about the Russians was when Leo Slizard presented the petition of scientists to Byrnes and that was Byrnes that had said that. Your additional information even demonstrates more proof that Byrnes scuttled the petition. Byrnes led Truman by the nose. Because the second bomb was dropped so quickly (3 days later) it is apparent the US wanted a quick answer before the Russians arrive. The Japanese were not better off for losing hundreds of thousands of people in the span of 3 days and lingering radiation... The Atomic soldiers destroys the myth "dropping the bomb to save american lives". The atomic soldiers were placed in harms way well after the first three bombs were exploded as well. The scientists knew exactly what they were doing. That is why Hiroshima was not bombed conventionally because they were the lab rats just as the atomic soldiers who under the penalty of prison had to be silent about their involvement. If there was no penalty of prison then you could say the scientists and military were ignorant however that is not the case once you implement such harsh penalties for participation as an atomic soldier that was intentionally infected. Praise Jesus, Michael Idarecis
@@michaelidarecis wrote: "James F. Byrnes was 'about to be' when Leo Slizard gave him the petition. Nope, wrong again. Szilárd drafted and circulated his petition in July 1945, when Byrnes was already Secretary of State. And what do you feel any of this has to do with the F-35?
And who is going to help research, design and manufacture it? In case you don't know your history, no one screws up better and throws more money down the toilet than the government, especially when they try to do everything themselves. NASA is a classic example vs Space X.
Well the way I see it, he was definitely involved with those projects (F-15, F-16, A-10). He actually did work with Boyd, Hillaker, Riccioni, Avery Kay, Dr. William Curtis III, not you. He is the guy talking about them in all the documentaries. Again, not you. He is well within his right to criticize in my opinion. I think people are just butthurt because he destroys people's personal biases.
This guy lies about his credentials. He plays on publicly known tropes of fighter jets to criticize anything new American and technologically-advanced. He criticizes US equipment and then once it proves itself on the field of battle suddenly he starts claiming that she designed or had heavy influence over it’s development. Spreys current criticism of the F-22 and F-35 is the exact same he had of the at f16 f15. Originally spray thought that the F-15 F-16 and a 10 were too technologically-advanced, and expensive to be effective and that their missiles would not fare well against the more maneuverable Soviet aircraft. However once these aircraft proved themselves against the Soviets in wars in Iraq Sprey started claiming to be their designers. He did not design the f16 or the a10. The only plane he was involved with was the f15 and even then all of his suggestions were thrown out (look up project redbird although it's pretty hard to find info on it. It would basically be a short range, slower, highly maneuverable fighter that could not carry missiles, radar or very many electronic systems at all, and could only operate during the daytime and clear weather.) Sprey's pals would say this plane became the f16 although I don't know if this is true (I don't think so, the dates don't line up) In any case the if the f16 was originally based on the redbird than it had changed so much that by the time it became operational it was a completely unrecognizable IE:(good range, all weather, multirole, missiles, radar, electronics, the works) As for the A-10 Sprey had nothing to do with it and actually hated it wanted to replace it with his own fighter, the blitzfighter which would be a tiny aircraft armed only with a cannon with very little electronics to speak of. It was only once the A10 proved itself in 1991 that Sprey started claiming he built it. He was able to do this because by this time the a10's real designer, Alexander Karteveli, had died. Ultimately Pierre Sprey can be summed up in this. Pierre sprey understands a lot about the world of fighter jets and is an expert on its subject matter, if we were talking about fighter jets in the 40s and 50s. What Pierre Spray fails or refuses to understand is that the air battles of tomorrow and indeed the air battles since Vietnam have been dominated by long range missiles One does not need to look very deep to realize this. Just look at the iran-iraq war where Iranian f-14s armed with long-ranged aim-54 Phoenix missiles absolutely wiped the floor with more maneuverable Soviet aircraft. Just look at the Gulf War where f-16s, f-18s, f-14s, and most of all f-15s dominated Iraqi opposition with their Superior Radar and long-range missiles. I won't even get started on stealth which is a whole other can of worms but if you believe nothing else that I've said believe this: applying theories about air combat from the 40s and 50s to modern warfare does not work. Contrary to what sprey thinks, the world has changed since then.
@@petertrebilcock719 Hmm I believe some of the info you gave appears to be incorrect. Again, Sprey was definitely involved with the projects. He's in books and there's also a video that has John Boyd talking about the F-15. Maybe you've seen it. Again, Sprey is in a few documentaries on the A-10. Laying out how he and his team got it done along with Dr. William Curtis. And there's another short documentary with Sprey detailing on how he initially got involved with the project with Avery Kay. Again I don't know if you've seen it. It's on here.
@@petertrebilcock719 Your statements seems like you are getting a check from Lockheed Martin. Pierre Sprey is a Hero and when an A10 pilot was shot up and landed his plane his first call was to Pierre Sprey to thank him. People like you are responsible for deaths of infantry when the F35 or other inferior platform is used. You are responsible!
@@Jrod3338 Sprey had nothing to do with the development of the A10. if you find official design documents for that he has not mentioned once. As for the F-15 I mentioned his limited involvement in that program above with his proposal being tossed out by the air force and I stand by that. As for Boyd he was involved very heavily at the F-15 program and helped shape its basic design requirements. I'm probably oversimplifying a lot here but Boyd's input took the F-15 concept from being a heavyweight Interceptor in the class of the mig-25 and made it into the air superiority medium-weight fighter that it is today. I've linked the official Air Force history of the program. Boyd's contribution is on page 18 under the section energy maneuverability and Spreys contribution is on page 64 under the section f-xx. media.defense.gov/2012/May/16/2001330012/-1/-1/0/AFD-120516-036.pdf
“The F-35 project is an example of commercial greed at its most indefensible. It has no place in Madison or anywhere else in Wisconsin.” - John Nichols
It really seems like he's losing it. I understand the policy critique but to somehow tie that in to the F- 35 seems like a stretch. Professional F 35 hater lol
I can't believe this skunk still parades himself as the co-designer of the F-16. What amazes me is that people still pay this guy to make these appearances and they never carefully research him. The guy has never designed anything with Wings in his life. He played a small bit role in the fighter Mafia helping John Boyd crunch numbers on Boyd's E-M theory in ACM combat. He uses that association to claim credit for things he personally did not do. The man has no military training, no military weapons experience and has never been a pilot. When he first met John Boyd, he was a civilian analyst who paraded himself as a military weapon's expert (even though he had not even a shred of experience in any military field). Although John Boyd and Thomas Christie did play a considerable role role in helping to shape the LWF program requirements that eventually led to the F-16, there were other players who were also shaping those requirements outside of the fighter mafia. The point is, Sprey is a scam artist with the tongue of a swift used car salesman, who is out to say and claim what ever he can to gain a paycheck. His "Mapleshade" audio company is known by some Audio installation professionals as "MapleShady". When it comes to hardware, He sells a bunch audio concept BS that any audio engineer will tell you is bullshit. Most of Sprey's criticism on the F-35 has been debunked and the guy doesn't know D!ck about air warfare. This idea about a single seat pilot carrying a Nuclear device hasn't been done since 1970s (and these were extremely low yield weapons). If a nuclear device needs deployment to a ground target, its either a B-2 or a B-52 that will do it (even with flexible yield). There are only very extreme case a single seated strike fighter will ever carry such a device and if that case ever comes about, we are in WW3 and you got bigger things to worry about. Btw, if his claim were true. then USAF already has F-16s and F-15s stationed ready to go! They are there whether the F-35 is stationed there or not. So what does this have to do with the damn F-35 being station there??!
@@darrel7589 ----> _"If he's so wrong, why have both the F-22 and F-35 had delays and few combat missions?"_ *All fighters have experienced delays including the F-15 and F-16. In fact, you want to know how many accidents the F-16 had the first 5 years after it enter IOC? It wasn't labelled the lawn dart for no reason. How many accidents have the F-35 and F22 had so far? The F-16 is surely not as complex as a 5th generation plane.* ----> _"And they aren't used as much because they need more maintenance and therefore less missions/training."_ *First of all, the F-22s maintenance requirements has dropped significantly since 2008. So, your criticism is severely dated. All previous platforms go through the same development cycles and costs drop over the lifecycle of the program. Second, the F-22 is limited in combat sorties because only one service flies it. However, its constantly deployed around the world and is constantly used in war games worldwide with combat experienced pilots. So to claim there is limited training is laughable. Pilots win battles, not planes.* *The F-35B (IOC 2015) followed by the F-35A (IOC 2017) only recently entered service. Its flown by multiple branches and is sold to other countries. The Israeli's were the first to take it into combat. So its at the beginning of its 55 year life-cycle.* ----> _"The guy knows what he's talking about. Why does he need to be a pilot or whatever to speak his mind? "_ *Speak his mind? More like speak to people's money. As I said, go research him instead of parroting him. -----> _"Fighter pilots call the F-35 Fat Amy."_ *So what! Irrelevant! How something looks and what it can do are two different things. Are you that petty of a person?* ----> _"I doubt they even like the plane."_ *Baseless conjecture! -And yes they do. I've know some of them personally. You have every professional aviation combat expert from every armed forced of every western country trying to get their hands on this aircraft. India is trying to get their hands on this aircraft. But you and Sprey know better? Wake up kid!* ----> _"And these fighters are so expensive/undependable that every loss is a huge blow to the fleet of whatever air force or navy that's using them." _ *You know what is more expensive? F-15 and F-16 pilots getting shot down and killed because they can't evade new IAD threats. Pilots are worth more than planes. That's the point of Stealth. You know what is more expensive? Logistically supporting all these different unique aircraft for the different armed forces over the next 55 years. The F-35A has dropped in price close to a Superhornet and we're talking a naked plane with no added features. With the F-35 you get more bang for your buck in fire power, range and less over-all costs in logistical support. The price keeps dropping too as more planes are bought and sold. Greater Dependability comes with time.*
To all the Pierre Sprey haters. Pierre Sprey is an American Hero! He isn't selling an overpriced piece of hardware that endangers the safety of Americans. Pierre Sprey is the hand that stops corruption! Praise Jesus, Michael Idarecis
I might add that Mr Sprey thought the F15 was a piece of shit until the last few years of his life. so he really knows his stuff doesnt he?
Sprey has zero idea about F15s,F22's, F35s and the Abrams tank. All of which he said were useless. He also DID NOT design the F16. Despite what he tells everyone. Hilary Hillaker, the real designer of the F16 said Sprey and others helped with concepts. That is all. Cartivelli designed the P47 and others as well as the A10. Sprey was not an aero nautical engineer. He was an analyst. He did not design the A10,F16 or F15.
By saying "zero" you just put yourself into the ignorance category...
You do not even believe what you just wrote right?
@@michaelidarecis Actually no he didn't put himself in the ignorance category. In fact, Michael is giving Sprey more credibility than Sprey realistically deserves. Sprey didn't even contribute concepts. Sprey was hired to be a number cruncher for John Boyd and the fighter mafia. That's all. John and Thomas Christie would come up with the ideas and concepts. They ask Sprey to crunch the numbers on it when needed. Everything you hear Sprey spout is parroted from John Boyd without any experience. Heck, even Boyd went back on some of his earlier criticism that Sprey still spouts. By the way, I have never found a sound bite or video of John Boyd that verifies Sprey's claims that John Boyd or Thomas Christie got sick of the F-15 and walked away from it. They trashed the F-111 but no audio or video source I have found that they trashed the F-15. Even so, that bird has the best kill record of any fighter and the F-16 became very successful will all the added capabilities Sprey criticizes.
Sprey didn't help with the design. he was just in the same room as one of the designers. he should stick to music.
@@684W13yes complete facts
Makes it up as he goes
What on Earth is he going on about? Sprey has officially lost his marbles. FYI, the F-22 Raptor, F-16C Falcon, A/V-8B Harrier and F-18A/C/E Hornet are all single seat and they all have nuclear capability. "Small and precise" (tactical nuclear weapons is the correct name) nuclear weapons have been around since at least the 1950's if not earlier. The B-61 nuclear bomb has been in use since 1963 and the B-83 nuclear bomb has been in use since 1983. He's just making shit up at this point.
He's lost it, point in case: the hungover neo nazi pilots scenario.
F22, F16, F18, all have regular mission as fighters and nuclear capability as a bonus.
F35 has not any quality as a fighter. Nuclear missoin is the only mission it is capable to do and something tells me F35 was made as a stealth 1st strike nuclear bomber from the beginning. This is the difference. Eat it.
They're also all multi-role too.
This is the guy who slagged off the the F15 /F16 for having 'all kinds of unnecessary crap on it' the same 'crap' AKA advanced radars etc that help these fighters become some of the most successful aircraft in history. Anything he says now is suspect.
Thank you! Someone here knows their history.
Nope, because you have to balance that up against cost and numbers. The F-16 would wax the F-15 completely because it is designed specifically for air combat and because it is cheaper there are more of them. They simply have overwhelming numbers.
@@elta6241 The F-16 does not have the range, altitude, power or lift capacity of the F-15. Unless the F-16 can get into a close WVR matchup, the F-15 will own it. -And that is also dependent on the pilot. The F-15 can stay in the fight much longer before the F-16 has to run off to get fuel. Can't fight if you don't have fuel. You have a lot to learn
Oh I forgot, Sprey slagged off the F-14 too. He's slagged off everything that didn't involve him.
TheJTcreate It doesn’t need any of those things and you will always get into close combat. It’s way cheaper and there are a lot more of them. In any hot war they would completely overwhelm bigger, bulkier, more expensive aircraft with less numbers. There are other variables here than just the aircraft, which is why people get very confused about what Sprey says.
Due diligence. Did you know Mr Spreys "expertise" is jazz music and not aircraft design? No he did not design the F15 or F16 or A10. He was an advisor to an advisor to an assistant secretary of defense.
Read a book ~!
@@maximilliancunningham6091 You mean like this....media.defense.gov/2012/May/16/2001330012/-1/-1/0/AFD-120516-036.pdf Sucks to be so wrong about a person you want to believe so bad. Sprey was such a bad character he lied in John Boyds biography about being part of the A10 program.... and yes HE IS the source of that info in the book.
@@maximilliancunningham6091read a document instead of fantasy novels
Pierre Michel Sprey (November 22, 1937 - August 4, 2021)
Rest in piss.
The biggest liar in the history of humankind.
He was a good friend, to many.
The title of this video should be “Pierre Sprey: True Idiocy.” His ridiculous claims are making him look more and more like an equine derrière over time. On the other hand, Rep. Chris Taylor is looking more and more like every bachelor’s dream -- a nice-looking woman who’s gullible enough to believe almost anything.
I am a life long military aviation "enthusiast" who used to believe all the published hype, about US military aviation. Then I met Pierre, and he opened my eyes. And don't tell me, "insiders" know better, they are paid to embrace their equipment.
Another way of saying, they all drink the Koolaide.
11:29 Here he predicts war in Ukraine, something like 2 years before it happened :)
This guy is a poor commentator because he makes generalizations but doesn’t provide data for what he claims. He says the data is in publicly available reports. If he were any good he would backup his statements with fact and not tell me to go find the data. Does he want me to stop listen g to the video so I can go look up the data? Tell me where to find the data, or give me the data yourself like a good commentator.
RIP, but time has proven him to be a fool.
Lmax is the maximum sound level. The Air Force Environmental Impact Statement in Vermont and data from the Air Force from multiple other locations show the F-35 to be documented as four times as loud as the F-16.
Ah yes the no logarithmic scale for loudness. Just for reference a jet is ca. 10 million times louder than normal talking. For people that know dB that's +6 dB. So ~136dB instead of ~ 130dB
The current FAA noise standard of 65 dBA DNL is being updated.. This standard is over 50 years old and doesn’t address the myriad of impacts of noise exposure on the health and well-being of surrounding residents.
Most of the 60,000 people that live within three miles of the Dane county airport will receive no noise abatement funding. The people who do may take a decade or more. This insulating does not allow kids to play outside or even be in certain rooms of a home. It's a joke and a distraction from the harm.
Keep in mind Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the same mindset to show The Soviet Union. It was not about saving lives at all. This is the same thing from the past.
Nonsense. The U.S. bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war without a land invasion that probably would have killed millions, and without conceding Japan to Soviet control.
@@laynegraham1258 James F. Byrnes does not agree with you and he was about to be secretary of state before the bombing. Byrnes scuttled a petition that Leo Slizard had given to him to hand to TRUMAN. Byrnes had the ear of Truman. Byrnes said "we are doing this to show the Russians".
The fable is saving those "million". It is what they told the soldiers to justify the crime. Truman even lied saying the targets were military however instead of killing a man with a gun the bombs killed women and children.
Lastly it would be prudent for you to find out what "atomic soldiers" are. They are US soldiers INTENTIONALLY put in harms way of Nuclear testing. There have been well over 200,000 americans intentionally infected by radiation. Key word intentionally! The saving millions just with the atomic soldiers proves it was a farce telling the public...
Nonsense is what they feed the masses.
Praise Jesus,
Michael Idarecis
@@michaelidarecis To correct a factual error in your post, James F. Byrnes was not “about to be” the Secretary of State. He WAS the Secretary of State when he advised President Truman on June 1, 1945 and told him, “Mr. President, what will you tell the American people at your impeachment in 1946 when they find out you had a weapon that could have ended the war, and saved American lives, and you decided not to use it?” No mention of the Russians here, and this is thought to be the advice that persuaded President Truman to drop the atomic bomb on a city. It’s true that if the U.S. didn’t use the bomb, the Russians would have eventually defeated Japan and ended the war, in which case Japan would have become a Soviet satellite. Ironically, the Japanese were probably better off the way things played out.
The use of the bomb will always be one of the most controversial parts of U.S. history, and we can agree to disagree on whether it was necessary.
Also, I don’t know what you feel “atomic soldiers” have to do with this discussion, but I don’t think they were “intentionally” put in harm's way. We know a lot of things about radiation now that we didn’t know at the time.
@@laynegraham1258 James F. Byrnes was "about to be" when Leo Slizard gave him the petition.
My statement about the Russians was when Leo Slizard presented the petition of scientists to Byrnes and that was Byrnes that had said that. Your additional information even demonstrates more proof that Byrnes scuttled the petition. Byrnes led Truman by the nose.
Because the second bomb was dropped so quickly (3 days later) it is apparent the US wanted a quick answer before the Russians arrive.
The Japanese were not better off for losing hundreds of thousands of people in the span of 3 days and lingering radiation...
The Atomic soldiers destroys the myth "dropping the bomb to save american lives". The atomic soldiers were placed in harms way well after the first three bombs were exploded as well. The scientists knew exactly what they were doing. That is why Hiroshima was not bombed conventionally because they were the lab rats just as the atomic soldiers who under the penalty of prison had to be silent about their involvement. If there was no penalty of prison then you could say the scientists and military were ignorant however that is not the case once you implement such harsh penalties for participation as an atomic soldier that was intentionally infected.
Praise Jesus,
Michael Idarecis
@@michaelidarecis wrote: "James F. Byrnes was 'about to be' when Leo Slizard gave him the petition.
Nope, wrong again. Szilárd drafted and circulated his petition in July 1945, when Byrnes was already Secretary of State. And what do you feel any of this has to do with the F-35?
The quote attributed to Mark Twain should have been to Bismark instead.
Purely unwise. No one agrees with him
Military stuffs should not be on private company hands...
And who is going to help research, design and manufacture it? In case you don't know your history, no one screws up better and throws more money down the toilet than the government, especially when they try to do everything themselves. NASA is a classic example vs Space X.
Giggle….
Well the way I see it, he was definitely involved with those projects (F-15, F-16, A-10). He actually did work with Boyd, Hillaker, Riccioni, Avery Kay, Dr. William Curtis III, not you. He is the guy talking about them in all the documentaries. Again, not you. He is well within his right to criticize in my opinion. I think people are just butthurt because he destroys people's personal biases.
This guy lies about his credentials. He plays on publicly known tropes of fighter jets to criticize anything new American and technologically-advanced. He criticizes US equipment and then once it proves itself on the field of battle suddenly he starts claiming that she designed or had heavy influence over it’s development. Spreys current criticism of the F-22 and F-35 is the exact same he had of the at f16 f15. Originally spray thought that the F-15 F-16 and a 10 were too technologically-advanced, and expensive to be effective and that their missiles would not fare well against the more maneuverable Soviet aircraft. However once these aircraft proved themselves against the Soviets in wars in Iraq Sprey started claiming to be their designers.
He did not design the f16 or the a10. The only plane he was involved with was the f15 and even then all of his suggestions were thrown out (look up project redbird although it's pretty hard to find info on it. It would basically be a short range, slower, highly maneuverable fighter that could not carry missiles, radar or very many electronic systems at all, and could only operate during the daytime and clear weather.)
Sprey's pals would say this plane became the f16 although I don't know if this is true (I don't think so, the dates don't line up) In any case the if the f16 was originally based on the redbird than it had changed so much that by the time it became operational it was a completely unrecognizable IE:(good range, all weather, multirole, missiles, radar, electronics, the works)
As for the A-10 Sprey had nothing to do with it and actually hated it wanted to replace it with his own fighter, the blitzfighter which would be a tiny aircraft armed only with a cannon with very little electronics to speak of. It was only once the A10 proved itself in 1991 that Sprey started claiming he built it. He was able to do this because by this time the a10's real designer, Alexander Karteveli, had died.
Ultimately Pierre Sprey can be summed up in this. Pierre sprey understands a lot about the world of fighter jets and is an expert on its subject matter, if we were talking about fighter jets in the 40s and 50s. What Pierre Spray fails or refuses to understand is that the air battles of tomorrow and indeed the air battles since Vietnam have been dominated by long range missiles One does not need to look very deep to realize this. Just look at the iran-iraq war where Iranian f-14s armed with long-ranged aim-54 Phoenix missiles absolutely wiped the floor with more maneuverable Soviet aircraft. Just look at the Gulf War where f-16s, f-18s, f-14s, and most of all f-15s dominated Iraqi opposition with their Superior Radar and long-range missiles.
I won't even get started on stealth which is a whole other can of worms but if you believe nothing else that I've said believe this: applying theories about air combat from the 40s and 50s to modern warfare does not work. Contrary to what sprey thinks, the world has changed since then.
@@petertrebilcock719 Hmm I believe some of the info you gave appears to be incorrect. Again, Sprey was definitely involved with the projects. He's in books and there's also a video that has John Boyd talking about the F-15. Maybe you've seen it. Again, Sprey is in a few documentaries on the A-10. Laying out how he and his team got it done along with Dr. William Curtis. And there's another short documentary with Sprey detailing on how he initially got involved with the project with Avery Kay. Again I don't know if you've seen it. It's on here.
@@petertrebilcock719 Your statements seems like you are getting a check from Lockheed Martin.
Pierre Sprey is a Hero and when an A10 pilot was shot up and landed his plane his first call was to Pierre Sprey to thank him. People like you are responsible for deaths of infantry when the F35 or other inferior platform is used. You are responsible!
@@Jrod3338
Sprey had nothing to do with the development of the A10. if you find official design documents for that he has not mentioned once. As for the F-15 I mentioned his limited involvement in that program above with his proposal being tossed out by the air force and I stand by that. As for Boyd he was involved very heavily at the F-15 program and helped shape its basic design requirements. I'm probably oversimplifying a lot here but Boyd's input took the F-15 concept from being a heavyweight Interceptor in the class of the mig-25 and made it into the air superiority medium-weight fighter that it is today. I've linked the official Air Force history of the program. Boyd's contribution is on page 18 under the section energy maneuverability and Spreys contribution is on page 64 under the section f-xx.
media.defense.gov/2012/May/16/2001330012/-1/-1/0/AFD-120516-036.pdf
@@petertrebilcock719 th-cam.com/video/rEdy84YGf1k/w-d-xo.html
Here ya go! Since you gave me that, I'll give you this! Hope this helps!
“The F-35 project is an example of commercial greed at its most indefensible. It has no place in Madison or anywhere else in Wisconsin.” - John Nichols
Eat a Missile going at you at Mach 4.
It really seems like he's losing it.
I understand the policy critique but to somehow tie that in to the F- 35 seems like a stretch.
Professional F 35 hater lol
I can't believe this skunk still parades himself as the co-designer of the F-16. What amazes me is that people still pay this guy to make these appearances and they never carefully research him. The guy has never designed anything with Wings in his life. He played a small bit role in the fighter Mafia helping John Boyd crunch numbers on Boyd's E-M theory in ACM combat. He uses that association to claim credit for things he personally did not do. The man has no military training, no military weapons experience and has never been a pilot. When he first met John Boyd, he was a civilian analyst who paraded himself as a military weapon's expert (even though he had not even a shred of experience in any military field). Although John Boyd and Thomas Christie did play a considerable role role in helping to shape the LWF program requirements that eventually led to the F-16, there were other players who were also shaping those requirements outside of the fighter mafia. The point is, Sprey is a scam artist with the tongue of a swift used car salesman, who is out to say and claim what ever he can to gain a paycheck. His "Mapleshade" audio company is known by some Audio installation professionals as "MapleShady". When it comes to hardware, He sells a bunch audio concept BS that any audio engineer will tell you is bullshit.
Most of Sprey's criticism on the F-35 has been debunked and the guy doesn't know D!ck about air warfare. This idea about a single seat pilot carrying a Nuclear device hasn't been done since 1970s (and these were extremely low yield weapons). If a nuclear device needs deployment to a ground target, its either a B-2 or a B-52 that will do it (even with flexible yield). There are only very extreme case a single seated strike fighter will ever carry such a device and if that case ever comes about, we are in WW3 and you got bigger things to worry about. Btw, if his claim were true. then USAF already has F-16s and F-15s stationed ready to go! They are there whether the F-35 is stationed there or not. So what does this have to do with the damn F-35 being station there??!
@@darrel7589 ----> _"If he's so wrong, why have both the F-22 and F-35 had delays and few combat missions?"_
*All fighters have experienced delays including the F-15 and F-16. In fact, you want to know how many accidents the F-16 had the first 5 years after it enter IOC? It wasn't labelled the lawn dart for no reason. How many accidents have the F-35 and F22 had so far? The F-16 is surely not as complex as a 5th generation plane.*
----> _"And they aren't used as much because they need more maintenance and therefore less missions/training."_
*First of all, the F-22s maintenance requirements has dropped significantly since 2008. So, your criticism is severely dated. All previous platforms go through the same development cycles and costs drop over the lifecycle of the program. Second, the F-22 is limited in combat sorties because only one service flies it. However, its constantly deployed around the world and is constantly used in war games worldwide with combat experienced pilots. So to claim there is limited training is laughable. Pilots win battles, not planes.*
*The F-35B (IOC 2015) followed by the F-35A (IOC 2017) only recently entered service. Its flown by multiple branches and is sold to other countries. The Israeli's were the first to take it into combat. So its at the beginning of its 55 year life-cycle.*
----> _"The guy knows what he's talking about. Why does he need to be a pilot or whatever to speak his mind? "_
*Speak his mind? More like speak to people's money. As I said, go research him instead of parroting him.
-----> _"Fighter pilots call the F-35 Fat Amy."_
*So what! Irrelevant! How something looks and what it can do are two different things. Are you that petty of a person?*
----> _"I doubt they even like the plane."_
*Baseless conjecture! -And yes they do. I've know some of them personally. You have every professional aviation combat expert from every armed forced of every western country trying to get their hands on this aircraft. India is trying to get their hands on this aircraft. But you and Sprey know better? Wake up kid!*
----> _"And these fighters are so expensive/undependable that every loss is a huge blow to the fleet of whatever air force or navy that's using them."
_
*You know what is more expensive? F-15 and F-16 pilots getting shot down and killed because they can't evade new IAD threats. Pilots are worth more than planes. That's the point of Stealth. You know what is more expensive? Logistically supporting all these different unique aircraft for the different armed forces over the next 55 years. The F-35A has dropped in price close to a Superhornet and we're talking a naked plane with no added features. With the F-35 you get more bang for your buck in fire power, range and less over-all costs in logistical support. The price keeps dropping too as more planes are bought and sold. Greater Dependability comes with time.*
@@TheJTcreate su 57 can fly circles around the F-35.
@@default123default2 If it can see it in time. Sorry but agility is not everything.
@@default123default2
Anything containing vodka goes in circles.
Plastic toxic very expensive turkey that is the greatest rip off of the century.
Oops
To all the Pierre Sprey haters. Pierre Sprey is an American Hero! He isn't selling an overpriced piece of hardware that endangers the safety of Americans. Pierre Sprey is the hand that stops corruption!
Praise Jesus,
Michael Idarecis