I saw other people bring this topic up but it’s really sad that the real designer of the A-10: Alexander Kartveli, gets little to no credit for his contribution to the Warthog. For those who don’t know, Kartveli was a Georgian immigrant who became a designer for what was Seversky, then Republic, and finally Fairchild-Republic. Some famous Aircraft he worked on was the Jug, the Thunderjet, and the Thud. The A-10 was his last project before he died in 1974.
I'm not entirely sure about all these claims about Pierre Sprey. If you read into his claims and views, many of them proved wrong and he seems to heavily overplay his role in the design of multiple aircraft
There is a lot of hearsay around Pierre Sprey. I would say among aircraft nerds hes definitely a polarizing figure. But I think this kid's very passionate about aircraft and I cannot fault him for that! He's obviously done some research even if he is a Sprey camp fanboy. I honestly could care less but there's enough back and forth about him that I take both sides with a grain of salt. Either way A-10 was made and this is a good thing to this day. I think that's something we can all agree on pilot analyst fanboy maintainer. The A-10 is still the king of close air support in my humble opinion. It's not a do-all but I also think it's 100% done just as much as it's worldwide counterparts.
@@mastathrash5609 the A10C II is certainly up to speed in many lower intensity settings and the gun in surely awesome in both senses. But it was designed by Fairchild and differs in meaningful ways from what Sprey advocated for, i.e. not integrating any weapons but the gun. Personally love the A10 as well and love to fly it in DCS but in my opinion it is way overhyped in pop culture for the capability it has in modern near peer conflicts.
@@Kommentareable agreed, and having no FAA style SIM myself since back in the X-Plane days. And only flown a Light Plane a couple times under instruction, I can't speak to it either. I will say any good close air support is only as good as Its air cover, preferably light/uncontested airspace. And it can definitely take beating from ground fire. It'll always have a place for me despite its age.
Pierre Sprey didn't design as much as a fastener for any combat aircraft. He did a lot to hurt public and government opinions on the JSF program, especially in Canada, which was used to support Justin Trudeau's rise to power. Trudeau ran on a platform to cancel Canada's commitment to the F-35, even though dozens of Canadian companies were already making F-35 parts and RCAF already knew the F-35A would be their next fighter.
I first wanna start by saying, I have the upmost respect for the fighter pilot podcast, have been following them since day one. But this was enraging, I cannot believe more Spotlight has been given to arguably the greatest fraud in aviation. Pierre spray was not the designer of the A10, the reformers were not some enlightened, misunderstood geniuses. If we had followed their ideas, we would’ve ended up like the Russian military today. They saidthe F15 was a turkey would never beat anything out of Russia. Then the F15 turned out to be the greatest fighter aircraft in history so they moved their focus onto the Abrams, saying it would never survive an encounter with Russian rugged equipment, then Desert storm happened, so they focused on the F35 and so on. They also hated the A10 Boyd original design was only armed with two cannons no missiles. Pierre spray is the biggest contributor to Russian propaganda as as many appearances on their state media proves, and it’s infuriating to see that once again the work of Alexander Kartveli gets attributed to Spray and Kartveli doesn’t even get mentioned. I know this is turned into a rant but peddling the reformers point of view, is a disservice to the great minds that actually contributed to todays aviation
Pierre Sprey consistently exaggerated his role in the field of aircraft design, he was a statistician not an engineer. He hated the F-15, the claims he made about the F-35 were the same as he first made about the Eagle. It was too expensive, too big, to complicated etc. He did not want the F-16 to even have a radar. He wanted it armed with only a cannon and short range IR missiles. The modern F-16 is the very antithesis of what he wanted and it is a highly successful aircraft in spite of Sprey, not because of Sprey. His ideas on the capabilities of medium and long range radar guided missiles were at least 30 years out of date. He seemed to think we were still using Vietnam era AIM-7's. It is worthy to note that he moved to the music recording business because his opinion on aircraft design was not considered worthwhile by anyone who knew anything about modern combat aircraft. Oh, one more. Back before the USAF determined the cause of the issue with the F-22's OBOGs Sprey claimed the cause was a result of adhesive fumes coming from the fuselage heating up at or above Mach 1.6. He was wrong about everything he claimed in the last 30 years. I kinda hate talking about him now that he is gone but the truth should come out. May he rest in peace.
The irony of people talking about Pierre Sprague as a reformer who challenged people who wanted to defend their legacy & ego when he did same thing with his negative attitude about the F-16 being developed into a multi-role aircraft & his bias against the F-35 being able to replace the A-10.
Eh, Pierre Spray may have been a smart man, but he was very wrong about a lot of things. The F-15, the F-15E, and F-16C have all been extraordinary successes despite the complaining about “gold plating”. There are some great videos out there about Boyd, Spray and the fighter mafia and how they are given far, far too much credit for ideas, and how their objections to many things have been proven completely wrong in real combat.
You are just proving that their skeptical thinking ruffels feathers to this day.That is how great these people were. You´re also admitting that they were right and that these planes would be even better without the "goldplating".
@@stevehislop The likes of Piere Sprey never showed 'sceptical thinking', though. Channels like Lazerpig's have documented his selfish idiocy for a while.
You made me curious and I watched some of his video´s and I have never seen such an amassment of garbage and misinformation in my life. He is exactly like one of the Moon-landing-hoaxers, which are always using one piece of "evidence" (which is either out of context or plainly made up) and built their story upon it.He has the same motivation as well: Moon-hoaxers can´t stand it that there are people who really achived what most think can´t be doone. While they themselve crave for attention in their mediocre life.They don´t care how their TH-cam money is made, as long as they get it. Truth or no truth does not matter to these people.@@Xenomorphine
@@stevehislop aside from the over the top style, the information is excellently sourced. And honestly, if you can't stand his style, which is fine. You can check the primary sources listed in the wikipedia article about Sprey. There's really interesting rundown off some of this stuff in the talk section of the article, where historians and editors go over this stuff. Essentially, some people called/mailed/e-mailed the whole airforce and got people to scour through the archives. Long story short, Pierre Sprey worked in the A-10 project during the early phases as a statistician, he essentially had nothing to do with the design. Do the same with A-10 article.
Sorry but Mr. Sundt does not come across as credible in any way. Pierre Sprey was not credible either and falesly claimed to be an aircraft designer when in reality he was a Pentagon analyst. Analysts don’t design planes, and it would be incredible to design both the F-16 and A-10 at the same time even though both projects were at two different aerospace companies.
@@everythingman987Eh, I think 47 is close enough to 50 to give a pass here. This feels a bit pedantic. I agree with you about the Spray hero worship, but I hold most of my criticism for Spray himself. He not only overinflated his own contributions a lot, he was just flat wrong in many cases. And his incorrectness has been proven by real combat.
@@pdxholmes All his public analysis and predictions have turned out to be false. He definitely worked in the Pentagon and was definitely on committees that formulated program requirements for what would eventually become the A-X and LWF programs. He did not however manage any of these program offices, he did not decide the winners of these programs (leaving the Pentagon in '71, the YA-10 did not win the A-X contract until 1973 and the YF-16 did not win the LWF contract until 1975) and he sure as hell didn't design any of these aircraft as he claimed. His role was one of thousands and not in any kind of leadership or management. There were teams of actual aerospace engineers at Northrop, Fairchild Republic and General Dynamics that designed these platforms. Him claiming to have designed any aircraft isn't just false but disrespectful to the real teams of engineers that designed these jets.
@@FighterPilotPodcast Mr. Sundt seems to only have Mr. Sprey and A-10 pilots as his sources of information without referring to any actual US Military studies, actual Fairchild Republic engineers, a wider pool of Air Force pilots and personnel working in the pentagon at the time, or archive documents. It's a selection bias of information. Mr. Sprey himself has been proven repeatedly to have lied about the scale of his involvement with the Air Forces programs that resulted in the A-10 and the F-16. Many claims Mr. Sundt made in this podcast are pretty easily refutable, and even pilots having gone through their respective B Courses sometimes carry false information about the program history of their platforms. For example, F-15A-D pilots have learned for a LONG time that the F-15 is a pure air to air fighter with "not a pound for air to ground". However, as far back as 1978 or so with the very first F-15C model prototype, McDonnell Douglas and the USAF did indeed give it air to ground capability. The Air Force has never actually used F-15C's to carry bombs in operational service but they are very much certified to carry them. Another example from the single seat Eagle community they learn in the B-Course is that the F-15 was the first fighter since the F-86 to be designed purely for air superiority which is again not true. The F-104 Starfighter was designed for air superiority after the F-86, not as an interceptor! So even talking to the pilots of these jets isn't the best way to learn about the history of said jet.
I hope the author expressed himself more accurately in his book because the A-16 did not participate in Desert Storm the data about the F-16's sub-par CAS performance was based on comparing regular F-16's to A-10's. The standout feature of the A-16 was the 30 mm GAU-13/A four-barrel derivative of the seven-barrel GAU-8/A used by the A-10 not bombs.
The A-10 will always have a special place in my heart. Being prior 13Fox, one of my jobs was calling in CAS with TACPS. I never got the chance to call in CAS in combat but have done CALFEXs. Also, many live fire and dry fire training missions to stay proficient. To myself, the A-10 is a diamond in the rough. She is one ugly platform in my eyes, but what she brings to the battlefield for those of us on the ground is a Masterpiece. To me, there will be nothing more poetic than hearing the whine of those Two General Electric TF34-GE-100 turbofans as the Warthog flies overhead after making a pop up behind you and heading down range to strike at targets. In July of 95 I was stationed at Ft. Sill, OK. I was on a hill doing a live fire exercise with 2 A-10s. Turned out to be a bad day. The A-10s picked up the source of the Laser instead of the target. The A-10 dropped a 500-pound MK-82 on the hill, not the target down range. It was a bad mishap. So, I can say I know what it is like to be on the receiving end of an A-10 run. It was a very sad day. But to this day I hold no one at fault. Something happened to cause the A-10 to pick up the source of the laser and not the target. We all did what we were trained to do, and due to unseen circumstances, it went bad. But even after that, I will always have a soft spot for the platform and those that drive her. She is a beautiful bird in her own way and will be missed when the day comes that she no longer flies.
Big fan of this channel. "Jell-o" is excellent host/moderator. Probably because I flew the "Hawg" for 20 years, I really enjoyed this interview. I just wish I had a 2-seat to take Hal for a flight...! Attack!
I live in Arkansas and in the 80s, A-10s did low altitude training in my area, a rural county. They flew so low I could see the pilot. Never tired of seeing them.
Most likely, those were A-10s out of England AFB (Alexandria, LA). I wasn't stationed there, but flew many "temporary duty" sorties from England AFB often. I also had the opportunity to make a specific 'run', wing-rocking over my family in southeast AR once. Thankfully, the statue of limitations have passed.
@@gahawg767 Thanks for the reply. There was a gentleman from our community that was a radar navigator on a B52s back in the 60s. His plane did a unauthorized low level flyby over our town once. In 1972, his plane took off from Andersen Air Force Base, Guam and crashed en route to a mission over Vietnam. His parachute failed to open, and his body was lost at sea for 42 days and was recovered 450 miles away on Yap Western Carolina Island. For the longest time I thought they had failed to put his name on the Vietnam Memorial. But I checked today and he is now on the "Wall".
Pierre Sprey was an analyst. Nothing more. He did not design the F16 either. Harry Hillaker was the designer. In Hillakers own words about who influenced him in his own concept and design of the F16 he said "To sum up, design approaches - Widmer and Heineman. Working relationships - Bill Dietz. Fundamental concepts and approaches for aircraft and their use - John Boyd and Pierre Sprey." Thats it. Pierre Sprey was happy to be called the designer of the F16. In truth No he didnt. In fact the fighter became exactly the opposite of Boyds and Spreys idea of a light weight fighter. Hillaker too but he said he would have designed it differently to become a multi purpose fighter. Thats because he was an aircraft designer. There's the big difference between him and Sprey. One a designer, the other an analyst.
My favorite aircraft as a kid up until maybe 10 years ago, was lucky enough to have 2 A-10 units (103rd & 104th FW's) in New England and they'd stop by my local base (KPSM) often. Missed the sound of the A models when climbing out or diving in. Like the C-5A, it sounded so much better than now.
The late 1980s F/A-16 (or A-16) gets mention in the interview but not much explanation. It’s not really the anti-A-10 villain it’s portrayed to be. At the time, the Army and Air Force were working really closely on the AirLand Battle doctrine to defeat the Warsaw Pact in Europe. The Army desperately needed the Air Force to strike War Pac second echelon forces deep inside East Germany and beyond. The Air Force was happy to oblige, but knew it couldn’t do it with the A-10. It would have been shredded to pieces going that deep into bad guy country. Hence, the idea of the A-16 which, with its speed, tech and manoeuvrability had a much better chance of surviving deep while also being able to provide CAS up close, when needed. As part of AirLand Battle, the Army was also feeling more confident that it could handle the close battle by itself with the help of new systems like M1 Abrams, Apache, Bradley, etc., and was willing to go without the A-10. People often forget this, but the late 1980s Army actually supported the Air Force’s decision to retire the A-10 and purchase A-16s. It was a bargain the Army was willing to make to get the Air Force to strike those second echelons. Of course, the Ending of the Cold War and the Gulf War changed everything.
I haven't tuned into TFPP for a while, I rather preferred the old format. I first saw the A10 at the Farnborough airshow in 1980 and I have loved it ever since. It just looks like it built for war. Jell-O looking great rocking the beard there! Keep up the good work dude!
Thanks, Robert. Audio versions of the show are still available in all the usual places but there is less banter before and after the interview than in years past.
I don't mind the studio/video set up I enjoyed the pod more when it was (mainly) a deep dive on a specific plane. But hey, you guys know what you're doing and things don't stay the same 😊
As a young airman in 1979 stationed at Dover AFB there was a time that every Friday we would have these two black funky looking planes with these two engines hanging off the back of them flying down the runway a few times (never landing) they would make a few passes then leave. I found out years later they were A-10’s but I could never understand why they were painted black?
I always thought the pilots from A10's were a "side tier" half pilot, half soldier, that boggles my mind, I'm grateful that these people saved so many soldiers, big respects to those that fly the A10. And I will buy the book, I hope they have an e-book from it, because I'm also kind of an environmental nerd. I'll buy it because I'm always a military aviation nerd. Great podcast, thanks. I also bought the book from Hassard Lee from precious podcasts, also a great book.
Conceptual theorists and aircraft designers are two different things. I design aircraft concepts based on philosophy of use, price, propulsion and performance criteria. This is easy with a basic background in aerodynamics and structures. This is FAR from actually designing an aircraft. It's just a wishlist of things you want, and why. Then calculate the weight, size, find the engines that will provide the t/w ratio. And fuel consumption. The A-10 was one of over half a dozen design proposals from every major military aircraft company. There were literally hundreds, if not thousands of people competing to demonstrate the best design proposal "paper airplane" and there are several reports to back this up.
People who don't have the inclination to think in terms of theory with the basic concept in mind are often also quick to abandon alltogether the philosophy behind some concepts based on limitations of one or another case in the category and in a very spesific circumstance. Some of these legacy ideas came from a time when specialization seemed to be the future for big militaries. Today the mentality looks like to be the opposite, where one solution is supposed to be the answer to all problems. There may be merits in both approaches.
Turn radius is always proportional to true airspeed squared so you get more out of reducing that than pulling gs which R is inversely proportional to the the first power, but there's a lot more too it than that in actual energy-maneuverability theory.
I think as a writer who's not usually interviewed ,he did really well 👌 Thank you for your hard work putting the podcast together ,both entertaining and informative 👌👍🙏
Dunno. If anything I suspect he hated that it became "gold plated" with extra systems (and thus weight). Still, you can't argue with the Eagle's 104-0 record...
The A 10 is like a flying tank ( more expensive of course) and with the right nighttime and low level use the platform would be cheaper, just as or more effective as Ukraine`s idea about F 16`s.They would need pilots that could fly with night vision to avoid portable anti air but they would clear out a lot of trenches and armor in Ukraine.
lol that this was the second episode I listened to. I guess it's better to find out early than late. I get that you think this is some sort of split opinions both sides nonsense, but when you platform lies without pushback you lend it credibility.
Why the Army can't have an organic fixed wing close support role? That would be the rule that governs 'toys in the nursery'. "You can never play with my toys. Even if it is broken, if I don't like it, and especially if I throw it away. PERIOD."
Hey, I listened to it and forgot to make a note, what were some of the books mentioned? I got the John Boyd one, was there another? I found Dan Hampton following one of these episodes, he has some excellent books.
Jello, send a big "Thanks" to Mr. Sundt for a really great story about the A-10 and Pierre Sprey. As an F-16, F-22, and F-35 engineer (and loved them all), the Hog has always had, and always will have, a vital job. What takes it's place? The 50 year old question. Early in my career I was in a double-wide "temporary" office space about 1/4 mile from the gun butt where General Dynamics would occasionally test the 20mm cannon. They also tested the 30mm under-belly gun pod, and while all conversation stopped when the 20mm wound up, when the 30mm fired stuff vibrated on the desks!
As a Canadian, seeing A-10s isn’t really an option for us, but I was at a conference in Tucson a couple years ago hosted by the Pima Air and Space Museum (he’s right, it is an amazing place) and and there were A-10s flying around from Davis-Monthan like it was no big deal (which, of course, it wasn’t to them). I have some fantastically terrible photos just to prove it, but I was pretty excited. Really enjoyed this interview.
I don't understand why anyone would think the A-10 is too big. It was designed to carry and built around "the gun". I don't see how it could be much smaller and still carry it effectively. They tried a smaller scaled down podded version on the F-16 with terrible results. On the other hand what would the A-10 be without the gun? Nothing special is my thought. The gun is so versatile and effective. It can do things and be used where other ordnance just can't. But you need the A-10 to carry and get it there. To my mind the A-10 and "the gun" are one and inseparable. They were truly made for each other.
@@FighterPilotPodcast I've seen many sources that state they were designed in parallel. or even the proposal for the gun came first and the A-10 designed to carry it. It's true the aircraft was ready and flew before the gun was ready to be flown. History The GAU-8 was created as a parallel program with the A-X (or Attack Experimental) competition that produced the A-10. The specification for the cannon was laid out in 1970,[4] with General Electric and Philco-Ford offering competing designs. Both of the A-X prototypes, the YA-10 and the Northrop YA-9, were designed to incorporate the weapon, although it was not available during the initial competition; the M61 Vulcan was used as a temporary replacement. I've ordered Hal's book so I'll be curious to read his view and sources/citations.
@@terryboyer1342 The YA-10 flew with the 20mm Vulcan before the GAU-8 even existed. A-10’s primary weapons were the AGM-65, CBUs, Mk.82s, and Mk.83s. The gun was a back-up to the primary weapons.
@@LRRPFco52 It flew with the Vulcan because the GAU-8 wasn't ready yet. The gun was not a "back up" to the "primary weapons". I'm reading Hal Sundt's book Warplane right now. I suggest you do the same.
@@terryboyer1342 No need to read misinformation from millennials who are clueless about any of these programs. We were at Edwards AFB when they were doing the early testing of the YA-10A and early Block A-10As in the 1970s. I have called in A-10s for CAS personally, and have tracked the program from its infancy to the current A-10C. The gun was not, is not, nor was it ever the primary weapon system for the A-10 in operational squadrons. Listen to the interviews with Desert Storm A-10A and OA-10A pilots. Hal Sundt is not a credible author when it comes to military aerospace and I would recommend avoiding anything he has to say on the topic.
Incredible figure being used to describe the late Mr Sprey... yeah no. This is the problem. There has been so much information out there present in debunking all of Mr Sprey's claims and yet somehow to many he is held in high regard. That pisses me off. The man road on the coat tails of people far greater and he takes the credit
@@kilianklaiber6367 I never said it couldn't use smart bombs. The problem is that to lase a target or designate a coordinate through a targeting pod, you need to fly high. In Ukraine, you come in at high speed, pitch up, shoot rockets in a ballistic arc and then turn back and dive back down because your RWR will be blaring. There's too many SAMs and MANPADS present. You don't have time to spot targets and designate them.
There was only a small window of time where the A-10 would've been usefull during the first few days of the invasion where russian sams were disorganized and there were miles long convoys.
A great episode and really thought provoking. But I also think it did a great service in restoring the reputation of Pierre Sprey that very sadly the F-35 enterprise and it's more odious advocates have done a wonderful job of trashing. Was Pierre perfect absolutely not and he did have some funny ideas. But to ignore the contribution of him, John Boyd and Avery Kay is short sighted to put it politely and Hal Sundt has done a great job of addressing this.
Pierre Sprey was a FRAUD. Aleksander Kartiveli designed the A-10. Pierre had absolutely NOTHING a to do with the A10, F16, F15,F22 or the F35. He was the biggest fraud in aviation. The F35 is greatest most advanced airframe ever made, but Sprey took every chance to bash the jet on Russian state propaganda. He was literally wrong on so many levels
Pierre was brilliant until the invention of the accurate air to surface missile. Im a fan of the A-10 but its only useful in a non contested air space environment. Sa-2 will wreck it… thats a missile from the early 60’s…
I saw other people bring this topic up but it’s really sad that the real designer of the A-10: Alexander Kartveli, gets little to no credit for his contribution to the Warthog. For those who don’t know, Kartveli was a Georgian immigrant who became a designer for what was Seversky, then Republic, and finally Fairchild-Republic. Some famous Aircraft he worked on was the Jug, the Thunderjet, and the Thud. The A-10 was his last project before he died in 1974.
There were half a dozen designs submitted by every aircraft company of the era. The best design proposal won.
@@TheJustinJ this provide very little context
Somehow Pierre Sprey gets all the credit
@@LuqmanHMthe squeaky wheel gets the credit…
I'm not entirely sure about all these claims about Pierre Sprey. If you read into his claims and views, many of them proved wrong and he seems to heavily overplay his role in the design of multiple aircraft
There is a lot of hearsay around Pierre Sprey. I would say among aircraft nerds hes definitely a polarizing figure. But I think this kid's very passionate about aircraft and I cannot fault him for that! He's obviously done some research even if he is a Sprey camp fanboy. I honestly could care less but there's enough back and forth about him that I take both sides with a grain of salt. Either way A-10 was made and this is a good thing to this day. I think that's something we can all agree on pilot analyst fanboy maintainer. The A-10 is still the king of close air support in my humble opinion. It's not a do-all but I also think it's 100% done just as much as it's worldwide counterparts.
@@mastathrash5609 the A10C II is certainly up to speed in many lower intensity settings and the gun in surely awesome in both senses. But it was designed by Fairchild and differs in meaningful ways from what Sprey advocated for, i.e. not integrating any weapons but the gun. Personally love the A10 as well and love to fly it in DCS but in my opinion it is way overhyped in pop culture for the capability it has in modern near peer conflicts.
@@Kommentareable agreed, and having no FAA style SIM myself since back in the X-Plane days. And only flown a Light Plane a couple times under instruction, I can't speak to it either. I will say any good close air support is only as good as Its air cover, preferably light/uncontested airspace. And it can definitely take beating from ground fire. It'll always have a place for me despite its age.
Pierre Sprey didn't design as much as a fastener for any combat aircraft.
He did a lot to hurt public and government opinions on the JSF program, especially in Canada, which was used to support Justin Trudeau's rise to power.
Trudeau ran on a platform to cancel Canada's commitment to the F-35, even though dozens of Canadian companies were already making F-35 parts and RCAF already knew the F-35A would be their next fighter.
Sorry please no Pierre Sprey. Please give credit to the actual designers of the A10
I first wanna start by saying, I have the upmost respect for the fighter pilot podcast, have been following them since day one. But this was enraging, I cannot believe more Spotlight has been given to arguably the greatest fraud in aviation. Pierre spray was not the designer of the A10, the reformers were not some enlightened, misunderstood geniuses. If we had followed their ideas, we would’ve ended up like the Russian military today. They saidthe F15 was a turkey would never beat anything out of Russia. Then the F15 turned out to be the greatest fighter aircraft in history so they moved their focus onto the Abrams, saying it would never survive an encounter with Russian rugged equipment, then Desert storm happened, so they focused on the F35 and so on. They also hated the A10 Boyd original design was only armed with two cannons no missiles. Pierre spray is the biggest contributor to Russian propaganda as as many appearances on their state media proves, and it’s infuriating to see that once again the work of Alexander Kartveli gets attributed to Spray and Kartveli doesn’t even get mentioned. I know this is turned into a rant but peddling the reformers point of view, is a disservice to the great minds that actually contributed to todays aviation
100% agreed on all points.
Yup. Once I saw "reformers" on the cover I got wary, and once this guy mentioned Spray I paused and came to the comments. :/
Pierre Sprey consistently exaggerated his role in the field of aircraft design, he was a statistician not an engineer.
He hated the F-15, the claims he made about the F-35 were the same as he first made about the Eagle. It was too expensive, too big, to complicated etc.
He did not want the F-16 to even have a radar. He wanted it armed with only a cannon and short range IR missiles. The modern F-16 is the very antithesis of what he wanted and it is a highly successful aircraft in spite of Sprey, not because of Sprey.
His ideas on the capabilities of medium and long range radar guided missiles were at least 30 years out of date. He seemed to think we were still using Vietnam era AIM-7's.
It is worthy to note that he moved to the music recording business because his opinion on aircraft design was not considered worthwhile by anyone who knew anything about modern combat aircraft.
Oh, one more. Back before the USAF determined the cause of the issue with the F-22's OBOGs Sprey claimed the cause was a result of adhesive fumes coming from the fuselage heating up at or above Mach 1.6. He was wrong about everything he claimed in the last 30 years.
I kinda hate talking about him now that he is gone but the truth should come out. May he rest in peace.
The irony of people talking about Pierre Sprague as a reformer who challenged people who wanted to defend their legacy & ego when he did same thing with his negative attitude about the F-16 being developed into a multi-role aircraft & his bias against the F-35 being able to replace the A-10.
Eh, Pierre Spray may have been a smart man, but he was very wrong about a lot of things. The F-15, the F-15E, and F-16C have all been extraordinary successes despite the complaining about “gold plating”. There are some great videos out there about Boyd, Spray and the fighter mafia and how they are given far, far too much credit for ideas, and how their objections to many things have been proven completely wrong in real combat.
You are just proving that their skeptical thinking ruffels feathers to this day.That is how great these people were.
You´re also admitting that they were right and that these planes would be even better without the "goldplating".
Are you thinking of a certain pig? 🐖
@@stevehislop The likes of Piere Sprey never showed 'sceptical thinking', though.
Channels like Lazerpig's have documented his selfish idiocy for a while.
You made me curious and I watched some of his video´s and I have never seen such an amassment of garbage and misinformation in my life.
He is exactly like one of the Moon-landing-hoaxers, which are always using one piece of "evidence" (which is either out of context or plainly made up) and built their story upon it.He has the same motivation as well: Moon-hoaxers can´t stand it that there are people who really achived what most think can´t be doone. While they themselve crave for attention in their mediocre life.They don´t care how their TH-cam money is made, as long as they get it. Truth or no truth does not matter to these people.@@Xenomorphine
@@stevehislop aside from the over the top style, the information is excellently sourced. And honestly, if you can't stand his style, which is fine. You can check the primary sources listed in the wikipedia article about Sprey. There's really interesting rundown off some of this stuff in the talk section of the article, where historians and editors go over this stuff. Essentially, some people called/mailed/e-mailed the whole airforce and got people to scour through the archives. Long story short, Pierre Sprey worked in the A-10 project during the early phases as a statistician, he essentially had nothing to do with the design. Do the same with A-10 article.
Sorry but Mr. Sundt does not come across as credible in any way. Pierre Sprey was not credible either and falesly claimed to be an aircraft designer when in reality he was a Pentagon analyst. Analysts don’t design planes, and it would be incredible to design both the F-16 and A-10 at the same time even though both projects were at two different aerospace companies.
Also the A-10 didn’t enter service until 1977, 47 years ago. Hardly the “50 or 60 years” it has been doing its job.
No need to apologize, we are all free to share our opinions
@@everythingman987Eh, I think 47 is close enough to 50 to give a pass here. This feels a bit pedantic. I agree with you about the Spray hero worship, but I hold most of my criticism for Spray himself. He not only overinflated his own contributions a lot, he was just flat wrong in many cases. And his incorrectness has been proven by real combat.
@@pdxholmes All his public analysis and predictions have turned out to be false.
He definitely worked in the Pentagon and was definitely on committees that formulated program requirements for what would eventually become the A-X and LWF programs. He did not however manage any of these program offices, he did not decide the winners of these programs (leaving the Pentagon in '71, the YA-10 did not win the A-X contract until 1973 and the YF-16 did not win the LWF contract until 1975) and he sure as hell didn't design any of these aircraft as he claimed. His role was one of thousands and not in any kind of leadership or management.
There were teams of actual aerospace engineers at Northrop, Fairchild Republic and General Dynamics that designed these platforms. Him claiming to have designed any aircraft isn't just false but disrespectful to the real teams of engineers that designed these jets.
@@FighterPilotPodcast Mr. Sundt seems to only have Mr. Sprey and A-10 pilots as his sources of information without referring to any actual US Military studies, actual Fairchild Republic engineers, a wider pool of Air Force pilots and personnel working in the pentagon at the time, or archive documents. It's a selection bias of information.
Mr. Sprey himself has been proven repeatedly to have lied about the scale of his involvement with the Air Forces programs that resulted in the A-10 and the F-16.
Many claims Mr. Sundt made in this podcast are pretty easily refutable, and even pilots having gone through their respective B Courses sometimes carry false information about the program history of their platforms. For example, F-15A-D pilots have learned for a LONG time that the F-15 is a pure air to air fighter with "not a pound for air to ground". However, as far back as 1978 or so with the very first F-15C model prototype, McDonnell Douglas and the USAF did indeed give it air to ground capability. The Air Force has never actually used F-15C's to carry bombs in operational service but they are very much certified to carry them. Another example from the single seat Eagle community they learn in the B-Course is that the F-15 was the first fighter since the F-86 to be designed purely for air superiority which is again not true. The F-104 Starfighter was designed for air superiority after the F-86, not as an interceptor!
So even talking to the pilots of these jets isn't the best way to learn about the history of said jet.
Wow. Some pretty rosy glasses. Spray was not that smart. And said many many things that he got wrong.
Pure Pierre Sprey propaganda. I am amazed that no critical questions where asked. Sprey was jazz producer and professional liar, nothing more.
If anything, A-10 propaganda. Pierre Sprey was simply one of many characters involved in the story.
Have to dislike this video due to the guest (author of a book) crediting Sprey for things that shouldn't be credited
😭
I hope the author expressed himself more accurately in his book because the A-16 did not participate in Desert Storm the data about the F-16's sub-par CAS performance was based on comparing regular F-16's to A-10's. The standout feature of the A-16 was the 30 mm GAU-13/A four-barrel derivative of the seven-barrel GAU-8/A used by the A-10 not bombs.
The A-10 will always have a special place in my heart. Being prior 13Fox, one of my jobs was calling in CAS with TACPS. I never got the chance to call in CAS in combat but have done CALFEXs. Also, many live fire and dry fire training missions to stay proficient. To myself, the A-10 is a diamond in the rough. She is one ugly platform in my eyes, but what she brings to the battlefield for those of us on the ground is a Masterpiece. To me, there will be nothing more poetic than hearing the whine of those Two General Electric TF34-GE-100 turbofans as the Warthog flies overhead after making a pop up behind you and heading down range to strike at targets. In July of 95 I was stationed at Ft. Sill, OK. I was on a hill doing a live fire exercise with 2 A-10s. Turned out to be a bad day. The A-10s picked up the source of the Laser instead of the target. The A-10 dropped a 500-pound MK-82 on the hill, not the target down range. It was a bad mishap. So, I can say I know what it is like to be on the receiving end of an A-10 run. It was a very sad day. But to this day I hold no one at fault. Something happened to cause the A-10 to pick up the source of the laser and not the target. We all did what we were trained to do, and due to unseen circumstances, it went bad. But even after that, I will always have a soft spot for the platform and those that drive her. She is a beautiful bird in her own way and will be missed when the day comes that she no longer flies.
Say Pierre Spray one more time!!!
“Pierre Sprey.”
very close @@FighterPilotPodcast its spelled F-R-A-U-D. seriously man look him up its kind of funny. bro is the ancient aliens guy of aircraft design.
@@Lochaby I don't have an agenda or know anything more about the man than what I have read in books like Hal's and Robert Coram's on John Boyd.
Big fan of this channel. "Jell-o" is excellent host/moderator. Probably because I flew the "Hawg" for 20 years, I really enjoyed this interview. I just wish I had a 2-seat to take Hal for a flight...! Attack!
I live in Arkansas and in the 80s, A-10s did low altitude training in my area, a rural county. They flew so low I could see the pilot. Never tired of seeing them.
Most likely, those were A-10s out of England AFB (Alexandria, LA). I wasn't stationed there, but flew many "temporary duty" sorties from England AFB often. I also had the opportunity to make a specific 'run', wing-rocking over my family in southeast AR once. Thankfully, the statue of limitations have passed.
@@gahawg767 Thanks for the reply. There was a gentleman from our community that was a radar navigator on a B52s back in the 60s. His plane did a unauthorized low level flyby over our town once.
In 1972, his plane took off from Andersen Air Force Base, Guam and crashed en route to a mission over Vietnam. His parachute failed to open, and his body was lost at sea for 42 days and was recovered 450 miles away on Yap Western Carolina Island. For the longest time I thought they had failed to put his name on the Vietnam Memorial. But I checked today and he is now on the "Wall".
Pierre Sprey was an analyst. Nothing more. He did not design the F16 either. Harry Hillaker was the designer. In Hillakers own words about who influenced him in his own concept and design of the F16 he said "To sum up, design approaches - Widmer and Heineman. Working relationships - Bill Dietz. Fundamental concepts and approaches for aircraft and their use - John Boyd and Pierre Sprey." Thats it. Pierre Sprey was happy to be called the designer of the F16. In truth No he didnt. In fact the fighter became exactly the opposite of Boyds and Spreys idea of a light weight fighter. Hillaker too but he said he would have designed it differently to become a multi purpose fighter. Thats because he was an aircraft designer. There's the big difference between him and Sprey. One a designer, the other an analyst.
My favorite aircraft as a kid up until maybe 10 years ago, was lucky enough to have 2 A-10 units (103rd & 104th FW's) in New England and they'd stop by my local base (KPSM) often. Missed the sound of the A models when climbing out or diving in. Like the C-5A, it sounded so much better than now.
A-10s should sound the same. Their engines haven't changed. C-5 engines are very different however. I can't believe how quiet they are.
Ya lost me at McNamara … but I love the A-10 !
I hate it when authors make it all about the people and what they reported.
The late 1980s F/A-16 (or A-16) gets mention in the interview but not much explanation. It’s not really the anti-A-10 villain it’s portrayed to be. At the time, the Army and Air Force were working really closely on the AirLand Battle doctrine to defeat the Warsaw Pact in Europe. The Army desperately needed the Air Force to strike War Pac second echelon forces deep inside East Germany and beyond. The Air Force was happy to oblige, but knew it couldn’t do it with the A-10. It would have been shredded to pieces going that deep into bad guy country. Hence, the idea of the A-16 which, with its speed, tech and manoeuvrability had a much better chance of surviving deep while also being able to provide CAS up close, when needed. As part of AirLand Battle, the Army was also feeling more confident that it could handle the close battle by itself with the help of new systems like M1 Abrams, Apache, Bradley, etc., and was willing to go without the A-10. People often forget this, but the late 1980s Army actually supported the Air Force’s decision to retire the A-10 and purchase A-16s. It was a bargain the Army was willing to make to get the Air Force to strike those second echelons. Of course, the Ending of the Cold War and the Gulf War changed everything.
I haven't tuned into TFPP for a while, I rather preferred the old format.
I first saw the A10 at the Farnborough airshow in 1980 and I have loved it ever since. It just looks like it built for war.
Jell-O looking great rocking the beard there! Keep up the good work dude!
Thanks, Robert. Audio versions of the show are still available in all the usual places but there is less banter before and after the interview than in years past.
I don't mind the studio/video set up I enjoyed the pod more when it was (mainly) a deep dive on a specific plane. But hey, you guys know what you're doing and things don't stay the same 😊
@@robertdownie6135 I get it, but after so many years of doing the same thing I had to shake it up a bit.
As a young airman in 1979 stationed at Dover AFB there was a time that every Friday we would have these two black funky looking planes with these two engines hanging off the back of them flying down the runway a few times (never landing) they would make a few passes then leave. I found out years later they were A-10’s but I could never understand why they were painted black?
I always thought the pilots from A10's were a "side tier" half pilot, half soldier, that boggles my mind, I'm grateful that these people saved so many soldiers, big respects to those that fly the A10. And I will buy the book, I hope they have an e-book from it, because I'm also kind of an environmental nerd. I'll buy it because I'm always a military aviation nerd. Great podcast, thanks. I also bought the book from Hassard Lee from precious podcasts, also a great book.
I named my pilot Jello back when I used to play Jane's U.S. Navy Fighters '97 😎
🤔
Served in a Reconnaissance role in the Navy/Marine family. We always asked for Army air when inserting into difficult situations.
After reading the comments, I think I’ll pass this episode. But thanks
Conceptual theorists and aircraft designers are two different things.
I design aircraft concepts based on philosophy of use, price, propulsion and performance criteria. This is easy with a basic background in aerodynamics and structures. This is FAR from actually designing an aircraft. It's just a wishlist of things you want, and why. Then calculate the weight, size, find the engines that will provide the t/w ratio. And fuel consumption.
The A-10 was one of over half a dozen design proposals from every major military aircraft company.
There were literally hundreds, if not thousands of people competing to demonstrate the best design proposal "paper airplane" and there are several reports to back this up.
That makes sense.
People who don't have the inclination to think in terms of theory with the basic concept in mind are often also quick to abandon alltogether the philosophy behind some concepts based on limitations of one or another case in the category and in a very spesific circumstance.
Some of these legacy ideas came from a time when specialization seemed to be the future for big militaries. Today the mentality looks like to be the opposite, where one solution is supposed to be the answer to all problems. There may be merits in both approaches.
Turn radius is always proportional to true airspeed squared so you get more out of reducing that than pulling gs which R is inversely proportional to the the first power, but there's a lot more too it than that in actual energy-maneuverability theory.
I think as a writer who's not usually interviewed ,he did really well 👌
Thank you for your hard work putting the podcast together ,both entertaining and informative 👌👍🙏
Don’t forget the WW2 aviators contribution to the Hog including Hans Ulrich Rudel.
We discussed Avery Kay, a WW2 aviator. The book mentions Rudel but I chose not to bring him up to keep the interview close to an hour.
@@FighterPilotPodcast excellent. Sorry I missed that mention. Keep doing what you’re doing!
Rudel was only brought in to sell the aircraft to West Germany. That's the only contribution.
didnt sprey hate the f15?
Dunno. If anything I suspect he hated that it became "gold plated" with extra systems (and thus weight). Still, you can't argue with the Eagle's 104-0 record...
The A 10 is like a flying tank ( more expensive of course) and with the right nighttime and low level use the platform would be cheaper, just as or more effective as Ukraine`s idea about F 16`s.They would need pilots that could fly with night vision to avoid portable anti air but they would clear out a lot of trenches and armor in Ukraine.
Zero words about Alexander Kartveli. What a shame.
Who’s he?
lol that this was the second episode I listened to. I guess it's better to find out early than late.
I get that you think this is some sort of split opinions both sides nonsense, but when you platform lies without pushback you lend it credibility.
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Why the Army can't have an organic fixed wing close support role? That would be the rule that governs 'toys in the nursery'.
"You can never play with my toys. Even if it is broken, if I don't like it, and especially if I throw it away. PERIOD."
Hey, I listened to it and forgot to make a note, what were some of the books mentioned? I got the John Boyd one, was there another? I found Dan Hampton following one of these episodes, he has some excellent books.
The author's book: amzn.to/3SpvzmY
Jello, send a big "Thanks" to Mr. Sundt for a really great story about the A-10 and Pierre Sprey. As an F-16, F-22, and F-35 engineer (and loved them all), the Hog has always had, and always will have, a vital job. What takes it's place? The 50 year old question.
Early in my career I was in a double-wide "temporary" office space about 1/4 mile from the gun butt where General Dynamics would occasionally test the 20mm cannon. They also tested the 30mm under-belly gun pod, and while all conversation stopped when the 20mm wound up, when the 30mm fired stuff vibrated on the desks!
Good stuff, Mike!
Oh no, not Pierre Sprey. Welp, I can't wait to see how this topic is navigated, once this goes live.
I'm about to cutoff the use of youtube for $14 per month.
...is that something this channel needs to know?
As a Canadian, seeing A-10s isn’t really an option for us, but I was at a conference in Tucson a couple years ago hosted by the Pima Air and Space Museum (he’s right, it is an amazing place) and and there were A-10s flying around from Davis-Monthan like it was no big deal (which, of course, it wasn’t to them). I have some fantastically terrible photos just to prove it, but I was pretty excited. Really enjoyed this interview.
I don't understand why anyone would think the A-10 is too big. It was designed to carry and built around "the gun". I don't see how it could be much smaller and still carry it effectively. They tried a smaller scaled down podded version on the F-16 with terrible results. On the other hand what would the A-10 be without the gun? Nothing special is my thought. The gun is so versatile and effective. It can do things and be used where other ordnance just can't. But you need the A-10 to carry and get it there. To my mind the A-10 and "the gun" are one and inseparable. They were truly made for each other.
According to Hal's book, the basic A-10 design already existed before the gun was designed.
@@FighterPilotPodcast I've seen many sources that state they were designed in parallel. or even the proposal for the gun came first and the A-10 designed to carry it. It's true the aircraft was ready and flew before the gun was ready to be flown.
History
The GAU-8 was created as a parallel program with the A-X (or Attack Experimental) competition that produced the A-10. The specification for the cannon was laid out in 1970,[4] with General Electric and Philco-Ford offering competing designs. Both of the A-X prototypes, the YA-10 and the Northrop YA-9, were designed to incorporate the weapon, although it was not available during the initial competition; the M61 Vulcan was used as a temporary replacement. I've ordered Hal's book so I'll be curious to read his view and sources/citations.
@@terryboyer1342 The YA-10 flew with the 20mm Vulcan before the GAU-8 even existed. A-10’s primary weapons were the AGM-65, CBUs, Mk.82s, and Mk.83s. The gun was a back-up to the primary weapons.
@@LRRPFco52 It flew with the Vulcan because the GAU-8 wasn't ready yet. The gun was not a "back up" to the "primary weapons". I'm reading Hal Sundt's book Warplane right now. I suggest you do the same.
@@terryboyer1342 No need to read misinformation from millennials who are clueless about any of these programs. We were at Edwards AFB when they were doing the early testing of the YA-10A and early Block A-10As in the 1970s. I have called in A-10s for CAS personally, and have tracked the program from its infancy to the current A-10C. The gun was not, is not, nor was it ever the primary weapon system for the A-10 in operational squadrons. Listen to the interviews with Desert Storm A-10A and OA-10A pilots.
Hal Sundt is not a credible author when it comes to military aerospace and I would recommend avoiding anything he has to say on the topic.
Incredible figure being used to describe the late Mr Sprey... yeah no.
This is the problem. There has been so much information out there present in debunking all of Mr Sprey's claims and yet somehow to many he is held in high regard. That pisses me off. The man road on the coat tails of people far greater and he takes the credit
Thank the both of you.
If the Air Force will not let the Army fly the A-10, how about letting the Army use the A-29 Tucanos??
🤔
but its 50 cals and no brrt... so less morale boost
Opinions are opinions. I liked the interview. Keep up the good work! Beers to you...🍺🍺🍻 and Fly Navy! ⚓✈️⚓💪
Brrrrrrrtttttt
Great video and wonderful presentation. I think the A-10 is a great design and I think it will eventually be used in Ukraine.
Slower than the Su-25. It wouldn't be able to fly high enough to use targeting pods.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD The A-10 cannot use smart bombs? What is your proof?
@@kilianklaiber6367 I never said it couldn't use smart bombs. The problem is that to lase a target or designate a coordinate through a targeting pod, you need to fly high.
In Ukraine, you come in at high speed, pitch up, shoot rockets in a ballistic arc and then turn back and dive back down because your RWR will be blaring.
There's too many SAMs and MANPADS present. You don't have time to spot targets and designate them.
The A-10 is incapable of operating within 150 miles of the Ukrainian frontline due to something called an S-400.
😊Good interview😊 the best podcast. Can we pls upgrade beard to 😎Wolverine style (X-Men 2000) & make 🤠America great again. Thx
No.
The Ukrainians want this aircraft. You'd think that Tank Plinking would be a viable role there. What are your views on this in Ukraine?
There was only a small window of time where the A-10 would've been usefull during the first few days of the invasion where russian sams were disorganized and there were miles long convoys.
A great episode and really thought provoking. But I also think it did a great service in restoring the reputation of Pierre Sprey that very sadly the F-35 enterprise and it's more odious advocates have done a wonderful job of trashing. Was Pierre perfect absolutely not and he did have some funny ideas. But to ignore the contribution of him, John Boyd and Avery Kay is short sighted to put it politely and Hal Sundt has done a great job of addressing this.
Pierre Sprey was a FRAUD. Aleksander Kartiveli designed the A-10. Pierre had absolutely NOTHING a to do with the A10, F16, F15,F22 or the F35. He was the biggest fraud in aviation.
The F35 is greatest most advanced airframe ever made, but Sprey took every chance to bash the jet on Russian state propaganda. He was literally wrong on so many levels
Pierre was brilliant until the invention of the accurate air to surface missile. Im a fan of the A-10 but its only useful in a non contested air space environment. Sa-2 will wreck it… thats a missile from the early 60’s…