![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Fighter Mafia be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Sprey has become an often-cited critic of the F-35, including using comparisons of the accident rates of the early F-16 design that most strongly felt his design influence to argue that the F-35 ought to be equally unsafe.
Does "ought to be equally unsafe" mean is, regrettably, likely to be equally unsafe or does it mean should be deliberately designed to be equally unsafe?
129.55.200.20 ( talk) 14:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not know much about fighters. The following part of the current (as of 2013-12-05) does not make much sense. "and the Air Force F-X proposal was quietly rewritten to reflect his findings, dropping a heavy swing-wing from the design, lowering the gross weight from 60,000+ pounds to slightly below 40,000, and increasing the top speed to Mach 2.3, from 2.5. "
If you go from Mach 2.5 to 2.3, you are not increasing your top speed. 212.85.89.254 ( talk) 19:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Fighter Mafia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fighter Mafia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
This article should be reduced to a stub. I is clearly a politically motivated polemic, an opinion piece and not appropriate for Wikipedia. There is a character assassination of Pierre Sprey, poorly referenced, and equally so for the A10. There is no balance. The writer should take this to a press outlet and try and get it published. Pesky Varmint ( talk) 02:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Removed now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.42.214 ( talk) 12:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I tried to rework the legacy section, splitting off the criticism / controversy stuff. Though I'm not really happy with that section. Now I must admit that I am biased in favour of the Fighter Mafia's ideas. I haven't seen a lot of good arguments against them. "THE REVOLT OF THE MAJORS" by Marshall Michel is hot trash... if you read some of the footnotes, you see that the footnotes do not always support his points. One of his footnotes on p354 points out that the Israelis' standard operating procedure was to fire 2 AIM-7 missiles at each target... which says a lot about the missiles' lack of reliability. Overall, the empirical data suggests that many of the mafia's ideas are correct. e.g. while the F16 is really just a lightweight version of the F15, it does prove that you can do the same thing cheaper. Perhaps some things that the mafia got wrong are... underestimating the TOW missile (Sprey hated it), thermal imaging (for ground vehicles and infantry). Glennchan ( talk) 10:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I see a problematic sentence: "For example, the Fighter Mafia argued that the ground attack mission should be handled by more appropriate, dedicated aircraft such as the A-10, which has had an initially arguable record in that area, seeing disproportionately high losses during Operation Desert Storm while attempting low-altitude strikes as designed in high SAM threat/high AAA threat environments". I have read elsewhere that A-10 was extremely durable, and although planes were lost, any other could not have survived better than A-10. Strong references are needed. –– Nikolas Ojala ( talk) 10:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I added a citation to "The revolt of the majors" and another to a GAO report that refutes it. Honestly a lot of the critics just make stuff up and don't have good arguments. Glennchan ( talk) 10:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so the article says that the Gun is superior because it doesn't expose the plane to enemy AA fire like Missiles do. The Gun is Superior, because it doesn't...expose the plane...to gunfire.
Isn't this crazytalk? Like, the ZSU-23-4 beat the A-10 into production, and the 'armored bathtub' is just for the pilot, it can't protect the entire plane. You still need to line up your attack on that soviet armor column, and they can in fact shoot back at you. The design range of the Gau-8 is 1200 meters, but the ZSU has a deign range almost twice as long. The gun has to expose the plane to gunfire, there's no way around it. It's a good tool to have, but if it is the only tool you have, it is not a good tool at all, because it is so easily countered by it's natural enemy-the Russian sewing machine.
Removing all the bomb and missile hardpoints alone won't shrink the plane to 1/5th the empty weight either, not unless you also shrink it to the point where it's hardly any bigger than a Cessna. The Blitzfighter pictures I've seen depict a 2-engine plane, and if those are the same engines as on the A-10, then we're looking at a plane that's about 3000 pounds engine by mass and another 600 pounds of gun! On a plane which is, according to this page, only 5000 pounds. (1/5th the weight of an A-10 [1]) This leaves about 1400 pounds for all the skin, structure, fuel tanks and controls. I won't pretend there's enough mass left over for an ejection seat, let alone any armor. So either the Blitzfighter was a deathtrap, or it was not 1/5th the weight of the A-10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.204.138 ( talk) 00:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)