Talk:Pierre Sprey

If you read Hillaker's interview on codeone it makes it sound like F-16's final design was not significantly influenced by Sprey but he did perform some analysis work prior to the design of the aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.33.163 (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Pierre Sprey hasn't even ever been employed by General Dynamics. The idea that he had any notable influence on the F-16's design is his own self promotion at work. 75.141.233.214 (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

This comment seems not to have a neutral point of view; it is subjective and unsubstantiated, regardless of what one might think of Sprey's opinions: "He also based his information of a leaked report. He is wrong about the F-35 program." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.137.155 (talk) 07:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Sprey

Some material critical of extent of Spray's contribution and expertise, and the fighter mafia in general, in Michel III, Marshall L. "The Revolt of the Majors: How the Air Force Changed After Vietnam" (Doctoral dissertation). Auburn University. any of it of use? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. While Sprey is sometimes credited with being the designer of some aircraft, I'm not sure he has ever claimed it himself. On top of that, those elements seem to have been included to discredit him in the light of his recent comments about the F-35. It should be noted just whom Sprey was working with in his time at the Pentagon: John Boyd is a notable example. The philosophies they established, which resulted in the F-16 and the A-10 are still relevant today. Who would argue with Boyd's writings on air warfare? Flanker235 (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I read some of the dissertation by Marshall L. Michel to find what he says about Sprey.

• Michel III, Marshall L. "The Revolt of the Majors: How the Air Force Changed After Vietnam" (Doctoral dissertation). Auburn University. p. 427. Retrieved 2017-05-04. Pierre Sprey moved from cleaning water to making compact disks as owner of Mapleshade Records, but still continues relentlessly to self-aggrandize his years in the Pentagon. In news stories in 2000 he claims to have been a "principal designer of the F-16 and A-10 fighter jets." In fact, Sprey had nothing to do with designing either, and today betrays an amazing ignorance of aircraft design. In 2005 he said that the radar reflecting shape of the high-tech "Stealth" aircraft would decrease stability and performance, when in fact the highest performing fighters in the world today, the American Lockheed F-22 and F-35, are both "stealthy," and their flight control system is basically the same one used on the F-16 Sprey "designed."

It is interesting that in his dissertation Marshall Michel backs that with two unscientific sources that really do not prove that Sprey had ever boasted himself as being a principal designer of either F-16 or A-10. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, not exactly a neutral point of view. This is starting to smack of astroturfing. Wikipedia exists to inform, not to discredit. Flanker235 (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

On this point specifically, I totally agree with Flanker235 on "neutral POV." I have not read the dissertation cited here, but just because we call it one doesn't mean that it is an authority. Especially without citation? Eyewitness? MUnderwood 16:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor 3833 (talk • contribs)

I'm concerned about needing the best WP:RS we can get regarding Pierre Sprey's precise qualifications to comment on the F-16 versus the F-35. The text introduction to Lara Seligman's podcast in Aviation Week and Space Technology of a debate between Sprey and Lt. Col. David Berke, US Marine Corps (ret.), a former combat pilot and instructor at the "TOPGUN" United States Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program says "Pentagon Editor Lara Seligman leads a debate about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with two seasoned experts – retired Marine Lt. Col. David Berke, a former F-35B and F-22 pilot and Pierre Sprey, who helped conceptualize the design of the F-16 and A-10 fighters."

Aviation Week and Space Technology is considered among the most authoritative wide-audience magazines reporting on military aviation in the world. It would be difficult to find a more definitive source of information in open-source journals on developments in military aviation. Aviation Week describes Sprey not as a "co-designer" of the F-16, but more accurately as having helped conceptualize that fighter's design and that of the A-10 close air support fighter.

I think we ought to replace the dissertation by Marshall Michel III with this less vituperative and more nearly accurate statement about Pierre Sprey. There are other articles dealing with Pierre Sprey which call him a "co-designer" of the F-16, which available evidence doesn't confirm (he helped design the concept of the F-16 and A-10, not the aircraft themselves) but also dispute his claims for the original F-16 (not the ones in US Air Force service at this time, which he considers too large and heavy) and his criticisms of the F-15 (which has won 105.5 air combats and lost none since attaining initial operational capacity in the 1970s) in strong terms such as "Pierre Sprey's Anti-F-35 Diatribe Is Half Brilliant And Half Bullshit". I only cite that last article as an example of some of the more critical assessments of Sprey's views in popular-audience aerospace blogs.

The issue is that neither the US military nor Lockheed Martin have much to gain by engaging Pierre Sprey in direct debate, so we don't see any published debate with Sprey from what would be the most authoritative sources. The Aviation Week podcast with its written description of Pierre Sprey's role in developing the F-16 is probably as good as it gets, unless someone here finds a better source. If we have a consensus on that, I'll make the necessary changes. loupgarous (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Re-reading the guidance in WP:BLP ("Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"), I took out the dissertation by Marshall Michel III and the statements it was cited to support, replacing them with material from a much more reliable and less contentious source, The text introduction to Lara Seligman's podcast in Aviation Week and Space Technology of a debate between Sprey and Lt. Col. David Berke, US Marine Corps (ret.), a former combat pilot and instructor at the "TOPGUN" United States Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program, which says "Pentagon Editor Lara Seligman leads a debate about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with two seasoned experts – retired Marine Lt. Col. David Berke, a former F-35B and F-22 pilot and Pierre Sprey, who helped conceptualize the design of the F-16 and A-10 fighters."

I also tried to correct the neutrality concerns in the tag above the article by balancing Sprey's claims with other material from reliable sources, and reporting in those sources on the F-35A's performance at the 2017 Paris Air Show which may contradict some of Sprey's claims. I think we now have an article which is free of WP:BLP concerns and is as balanced as possible on the matter of Sprey's criticism of the F-15 and F-35. I undertook to make these changes under WP:BOLD, and other editors are welcome to engage me in discussion on any or all of them. loupgarous (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. The only one of these articles I would question is the Rogaway article "Half Brilliant, Half BS". Having read it, there is very little about the supposedly-brilliant part of Sprey's argument. The article raises a lot of points about Sprey's comments but seems only to address the negatives. In that sense, it's not really what it purports to be. The actual points and the detail in them are beyond the scope of this article; the neutrality is the only issue I have with it. Flanker235 (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

NPOV

I have decided to raise this because the tone of this article seems to centre around the question of whether Pierre Sprey was involved in, contributed to or was responsible for the design of the F-16 and A-10 aircraft. Much of the article seems to be concerned with attempting to negate any claim that Sprey may or may not have made, yet the are seems to be scant information either way and a concerted effort to negate any claim whether he made it or not. Much opinion has been expressed in other forums, some of it quite vitriolic and again without citing many sources. In fact, the article now seems to centre around trying to prove that Sprey was not involved, which makes it rather pointless. Design is a multi-dimensional concept and is well expressed as "a substantive referring to a categorical abstraction of a created thing or things (the design of something), or a verb for the process of creation as is made clear by grammatical context. It is an act of creativity and innovation", which tends to broaden the possibilities re: Sprey's personal involvement. I would suggest that people who wish to contribute to this do so in an orderly manner and with a mind to the fact that Wikipedia does not exist to express or confirm anyone's comfortable world view. I would also remind people that moderate language and careful consideration be observed as this is a public forum and covered by the laws of defamation. Flanker235 (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

And under WP:BLP. there are correctives for defamatory remarks about living persons in one of our articles:

"Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article."

So far, the sources attesting to Sprey's not having contributed to the design of the F-16 and A-10 (the two most common military aircraft types Sprey is erroneously claimed in the mass media of having "designed") meet WP:RS. If less vituperative sources can be found to make the same point, well and good, but there's nothing provably false about what they say. They comply with WP:BLP in that they attack not Sprey himself as much as erroneous claims made about him to bolster criticism of the F-35.

Sprey's own comments about his contribution to the design of the F-16 (the most common remark attributed to him in support of his criticisms of the F-35) are themselves primary source material, and under WP:BLP we must weight them accordingly or not use them at all. The US Air Force personnel who drafted the request for bids on the contract which eventually was awarded to General Dynamics for the F-16 have an equal right to speak to the issue as does Sprey - perhaps more, as their paperwork had greater impact on the eventual design of the F-16.

Your comment "In fact, the article now seems to centre around trying to prove that Sprey was not involved, which makes it rather pointless. Design is a multi-dimensional concept and is well expressed as "a substantive referring to a categorical abstraction of a created thing or things (the design of something), or a verb for the process of creation as is made clear by grammatical context. It is an act of creativity and innovation", which tends to broaden the possibilities re: Sprey's personal involvement." is unsourced.

If you could not find a WP:RS compliant source to support your comment or similar statements about Sprey's involvement in F-16 design and put them in the article anyway, that would itself be a violation of WP:BLP, which "applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". Another editor would be obliged under WP:BLP to remove it immediately. loupgarous (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. My comment about the article's focus related to the fact that it is supposed to be a bio of the man, rather than trying to prove that did or did not design something. That was why I thought it pointless, as it stood. It might have been called "Pierre Sprey did not design the F-16!", if you see what I mean. I did not attempt to edit this because of the sourcing required and frankly, there doesn't seem to be all that much about him around. My concerns about the laws of libel and defamation really relate to the discussion which might or might not take place on this page. People are entitled to express opinions - indeed, the more the better - but my concern is that they be mindful of what can or cannot be said in a public forum. But it refers to the discussion page, rather than the article itself. I concur with the improvements you have made and thank you for your time and effort. Flanker235 (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing what was undoubtedly a WP:BLP issue in the making to our attention. Wikipedia has to be concerned about protecting the reputations of others (although the circumscription of this concern in the WP:BLP guidelines to living or recently deceased persons puzzles me - if character assassination is wrong, it's as wrong a century after someone's death as it is while the person still draws breath). Sprey's more extreme critics, by making personal (and erroneous, as far as the "no military experience" charge about someone who spent four years analyzing weapon systems for the US Department of Defense) attacks on him, seemed more vindictive than interested in the facts.

Several successful weapon systems have had horrible early press (e.g., the M1 Abrams tank, the M16 combat rifle, the AH-64 Apache helicopter gunship, and the F-16 itself). Several dismal or at least impractical weapon systems have also had poor press, such as the M247 Sergeant York antiaircraft gun (it would have paid us, while our relations with Russia were still reasonably good, to simply purchase rights to make the excellent Soviet-designed ZSU-23-4 anti-aircraft gun instead). Without those of us who are willing to criticize new weapons, we'll just get bad weapons. While I may not agree with everything Pierre Sprey says, he makes valid points and is entitled to make them without having wikipedia used to vilify him. I'm glad that consensus worked to make a troubling article reasonably good. Thanks, again. loupgarous (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Today, I deleted the comments that Flanker235 was concerned about (correctly so) and the reference that supported them, the dissertation at Auburn University by Marshall Michel III. I agree with Flanker235 that the comments were unduly contentious. A more accurate assessment of Sprey's involvement with the F-16 and A-10 design efforts appeared in the text introduction to a podcast debate between Sprey and Lt. Col. David Berke, US Marine Corps (ret.), a former combat pilot and instructor at the "TOPGUN" United States Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program on the merits of the F-35. Lara Seligman, the Pentagon editor of Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine said Sprey "helped conceptualize the design of the F-16 and A-10 fighters." That's as accurate a statement as we can find in media which routinely report on military aviation.

I also addressed other POV concerns in the article over Sprey's claims regarding the F-35 as compared to the YF-16 (which was altered to be the current F-16 multi-role fighter that Sprey also criticizes harshly, along with the F-15). I attempted to make all the competing claims and reporting available to the reader in concise form, along with criticism of Sprey in the media, even by a commentator who agrees with Sprey's remarks about multi-role aircraft in general.

I invite discussion regarding my changes and any new or remaining POV issues other editors may see in this article before removing the POV tag. loupgarous (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The Lara Seligman interview, which I have now watched in its entirety, was interesting from the point of view of the number of things the two men actually agreed upon. This article goes into detail about Sprey's criticisms of the F-35's performance at the Paris Airshow and starts getting into a lot of detail about the criticism of the F-35 and the defence points. It then quotes a "wired" article refuting Sprey's comments. I think these things need to be seriously limited in terms of the detail contained because 1) this is a bio of Pierre Sprey and not a debate about the merits or otherwise of the F-35 and 2) if we allow it to go down that path, the article could become a target for vandalism. If we simply outline Sprey's comments as his opinion and nothing more, it would no longer be necessary to go down the rabbit hole of a highly detailed and potentially acrimonious argument. Perhaps those issues should be confined to the article on the F-35. What do you think? I thank you again for the work you are doing. Flanker235 (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Sprey's notoriety results from his contention that the F-35 is incapable of performing the tasks it was designed to do. I suppose I intended to show those remarks in context of actual flight experience of the F-35, but you're probably right that we ought to distill that into a shorter paragraph pointing the reader to that actual flight experience, saying "recently the F-35 has demonstrated aerobatic capabilities at the 2017 Paris Air Show. Pilots from the US and Norway have publicly gone on record with statements contradicting Sprey's claims." How about that? And thanks for your feedback, we're making the article better because, in large part, of your insights and suggestions. loupgarous (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Flanker235 Your comments about the " the rabbit hole of a highly detailed and potentially acrimonious argument" were well-taken and very helpful regarding "Reaction to Sprey's Criticisms of the F-35" as it stood when you wrote that. I've trimmed the section to two short paragraphs, his press coverage in general, and his coverage in 2017 summarizing the Paris Air Show F-35A demo and the press coverage which contradicted Sprey's claims. In the podcast, there's not such a contrast between Lt. Col. Berke's comments and Sprey's because they're discussing the least capable dogfighter in the F-35 family, the STOVL F-35B, the only one Berke's flown as far as I know. In the interest of brevity and comparing apples to apples, I chose the published comparisons of the F-16 to the F-35A, the Air Force variant which has elicited the most informed comment in secondary sources regarding its dogfighting ability.

As far as Sprey's claims being solely his opinion, we don't have a secondary source for that - secondary sources in which he's been interviewed call him an authority on modern fighter aircraft. We do have sources for what he's said, and what other people have said which either confirms or contradicts it. You're right that we ought to do so with fewer words and less white space, which I've done:

Response to Sprey's Criticism of the F-35[edit]

Pierre Sprey gained wide public notability after having been interviewed on his views of the F-35 by the popular-audience press, [13] [14] by Russian state-owned media such as Russia Today and Sputnik News, [12] [15] on the politics and policy news network C-SPAN, [16] at a meeting of the activist group "Stop the F-35", [17] and during a podcast of a debate between Sprey and a retired US Marine Corps combat pilot and instructor at the "TOPGUN" United States Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program who has piloted both the F-35B STVOL variant and the F-22, on the website of Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine. [2]

2017 saw widespread questioning of Sprey's perspective on the the F-35. In the Paris Air Show that year, an F-35A demonstrated a range of complex aerobatic maneuvers that led commentators in the aviation and popular press to question Sprey's allegations that the F-35 was incapable of flying at low level, at low speeds, or with the agility of the F-16. [18] [19] In addition, defense-related blogs carried interviews with pilots who fly and train others to fly the F-35 who report that it has higher angle of attack and better close-in maneuverability than the F-16 during dogfighting - contradicting another notable claim of Sprey's. [20] [21]

Are we done with POV issues yet? Can we remove the tag? Flanker, Graeme, thanks for your contributions and comments. You and the other editors have made this a vastly better article. loupgarous (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I can probably live with it being removed now on the basis of the quality of the article, which is a vast improvement its previous iteration. I put it up about five weeks ago which, even in internet terms, is not all that long ago. However, if we agree to keep an eye on it in case anyone gets the urge to start polluting it again, the NPOV tag can probably go. Thanks for all your efforts loupgarous. It's been great to have you on board and it seriously couldn't have been done to this degree without your input. Thanks to Graeme for his suggestions. Flanker235 (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping us honest, Flanker. I moved toward a more neutral attitude toward Sprey and his claims in working toward NPOV on this article. I'm willing to believe his attitude may be seated in a desire for the West to have the best fighter possible - but his rhetoric and choice of fora are his own worst enemies. You don't argue for better weapons for the West in pacifist meetings and media controlled by military adversary nations who are mounting a massive disinformation campaign against the aircraft in mention. Just as the ad hominem arguments we removed from the article actually weakened the case against Sprey's attacks on the F-35. I agree to be vigilant for any unhelpful edits pro or con the article's subject, and will allow you to do the honors on the NPOV tag, as you placed it. loupgarous (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all your work. There is one point that I would like to raise which might be a bit controversial and I apologise for not bringing it up sooner. I had a look at the Wiki article on the engineering design process and it occurs to me that Sprey's input into the first stages would have been the main focus of his work at the Pentagon. Research, design requirements, feasibility and conceptualisation would all have been bread and butter for him. Hillaker says as much in that interview. While he didn't actually draw the lines or calculate drag coefficients, it occurs to me that his statistical work would have been just one part of his input. Certainly, he would have to have understood the design implications of what they were trying to do and what the data he had was suggesting. This is the difference that being an engineer makes over being a statistician and Sprey was both. One thing about engineering is that the design parameters - which would have been very significant part of his input - would tend to dictate what the jet would be like, even if the actual solutions were not exactly what he would have drawn himself. What I am suggesting is that if Sprey was part of the design team - and the wiki article on design process makes it pretty clear that he was - then I think the claim that even if he wasn't the designer per se, the claim that he took no part at all starts to look a bit shaky. In fact, I would disagree with it, especially if we are going to quote Marshall L. Michel III's thesis as a source (I thought we dropped him on the grounds of unsourced and NPOV...?). What do you think? Flanker235 (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Jumping in late here. I tried to rework the article to put stuff from Sprey's critics into the response section. Personally I think that the semantics argument over whether or not Pierre Sprey was a F-16/A-10 designer is a little silly (an ad hominem attack of little significance- who cares about his exact 'title'?), but I cleaned it up and left it in there. I didn't put in a source for critics that argue that Sprey inaccurately bills himself as a designer when he didn't actually design the F-16/A-10. Michel's thesis makes the argument, although his thesis heavily attacks the Fighter Mafia and defense reform movement ("critics") and doesn't talk about the F-35.

Regarding Sprey's critics:

- There are F-35 proponents.

- There are civilians who like expensive, high technology planes.

- There are USAF advocates for expensive, high technology planes. Some like Marshall Michel are against everything from the Fighter Mafia and reform movement... including ideas on the OODA loop, maneuver warfare, etc.

These debates spill over into the Wiki pages for Sprey and the Fighter Mafia, and sometimes cause neutrality issues. There has to be a better way to accommodate the... debates over the ideas of Sprey, the Fighter Mafia, and the defense reform movement. Sometimes I feel like the critics aren't interested in a debate and would like to spread misinformation, ad hominem attacks, or otherwise use their political leverage to silence and sideline memebers of the reform movement. Marshall Michel's thesis is a good example... some of his footnotes don't support his claims at all.

It might be easier if the debates over the reform movement were consolidated onto a single page. Glennchan (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Split "Defense Analyst" section Into More Readable and Coherent Sections

I split the section "Defense Analyst" into three sections:

"Defense Analyst, Criticism of F-15, F-16",

"Criticism of the F-35" and

"Press Response to Sprey's Criticism of the F-35",

to permit readers to find the material they're interested in more easily, and present the material in a more coherent manner.

"Defense Analyst, Criticism of F-15, F-16" covers Sprey's time as a systems analyst for the US Department of Defense, then the "Fighter Mafia".

I left the shortcut

Main article: Fighter Mafia

there for readers who wish to "drill down" into that topic.

"Criticism of the F-35" covers the concerns Sprey has voiced regarding the F-35 program.

"Press Response to Sprey's Criticism of the F-35" lists some of the press outlets which have interviewed Sprey and other fora in which he's either been interviewed or spoken as an invited guest or a panelist.

I think this allows readers to gain a sense of how Pierre Sprey became notable, what he says about the F-35, where he's said it, and where and when the press have reacted to it (following the 2017 Paris Air Show and other recent developments).

I am hoping we can reach a consensus on whether or not POV issues remain in this article, so we can either remove the tag or leave it up and keep trying. loupgarous (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

one thing I this k is missing at the moment is sense of time periods. For instance, when did he 'retire' as an an analyst, when did he take up record producer as a job, when did he come to notice in the media for opinions on F35. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@GraemeLeggett: The section "Defense Analyst, Criticisms of the F-15, F-16" describe in general terms when Sprey was actively working as a systems analyst for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Analysis, and says this is when Sprey joined the "Fighter Mafia" group of defense analysts (his prime claim to notability). Do you think we ought to mention the specific time span in which he worked for Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Analysis? That information is already in the article's second paragraph, last sentence. loupgarous (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@loupgarous: I think we're getting somewhere. It's certainly a vast improvement on what it was, thanks to your work. I think we should just let it sit for a bit and see what happens. Sprey is something of a lightning rod for a lot of people - controversial really only begins to describe him - and I'm a little concerned about the potential for vandalism. Flanker235 (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Flanker235: I share your concern about vandalism, but I believe we've done what we can - the best cure for bad information is to replace it with the best available information which is backed by WP:RS. I'm anticipating some criticism from both sides of the F-35/Sprey controversy. All we can do is try to present information properly weighted and balanced.

Sprey's concerns regarding the F-15, F-16 (as opposed to the version of that aircraft he says is ideal, the original YF-16) and F-35 are presented. Recent developments in the news regarding the same concerns Sprey has voiced with the F-35 are also presented, because it's relevant to the reader when people who fly the F-35 disagree with Sprey, and when the F-35 is reported in reliable sources to have done what Sprey said it couldn't do. So both points of view are presented to the reader, who gets to decide who to believe.

I removed the reference to the FoxtrotAlpha blog which says "Pierre Sprey's diatribe on the F-35 is half brilliant and half bullshit" because that statement was made in a blog which is part of the former Gawker family, which have been criticized and even sued before for various journalistic sins.

I am considering adding excerpts from

• David Axe's publication of a leaked test pilot report on the F-35 in his War is Boring blog, and from
• the first Norwegian F-35 pilot's remarks regarding the F-35's dogfighting characteristics (also in War is Boring and a Norwegian air force Web site).

Your thoughts? loupgarous (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

My understanding of Gawker was its journalistic sins were mostly publishing stuff it shouldn't rather than stuff that wasn't true. If a blog it would rest upon the credentials of the author more than the host, a question for the RS noticeboard if required. As to employment, we only know when he stopped working for that particular organization not when he stopped being an analyst or when he took up record production - eg it could be he left Defence in 1970, never worked again until 2000 when he took up records, or it could be he was employed in defence matters until 3 years ago but has been doing records since 1980. It's a big gap in the timeline. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@loupgarous There is a very interesting interview with Harry Hillaker - one man whom neither side denies was directly involved in the design of the F-16 - where he says directly: 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.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=135

An adendum to the David Axe article might be this one, which actually publishes the pilot report:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb

I'm also not sure we should be putting up anything with the word "haters" in the headline, like the Wired article. That would also call into question at least one of the more critical articles. When it gets that polarised, it inevitably gets more heated. The trouble is that, in talking about Sprey, it is very hard not to get dragged into these things and I think that as a bio of someone, it should be more of a sidebar, even though it's the main thing he's known for. In the meantime, the article is showing a reasonable level of balance, particularly in the light of the paucity and variable quality of the available information.

I also like Graeme's suggestion of a time frame but I'm not sure where we could find it. The fighter Mafia article contains a little bit of information but there really isn't very much around. Flanker235 (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Addressing time frame, Thomas Ricks's article "What Ever Happened to Pierre Sprey says Sprey quit the Pentagon (i.e., left the employ of the US Department of Defense) in 1986, but not the stuff that Graeme (and I, for that matter) was curious about. The Project on Government Oversight ("POGO") has more information on Sprey's work after 1970. I don't see the POGO article in our existing reflist, but we ought to cite it in filling out the timeline of Sprey's emploment in a few sentences like

"Pierre Sprey left the Pentagon in 1971, continuing to consult on the F-16, A-10, armor and anti-tank weapons. He also helped lead two consulting firms, one active in international defense planning and weapons analysis. At this time, Sprey continued to work in combat data-based cost effectiveness analysis of air and ground weapons. He and Colonel John Boyd worked with others in the Pentagon and Congress toward military reform, helping gain passage of military reform legislation in the early 1980s."

We can then pick up with our existing mention of Sprey's leaving defense work in 1986 to found the Mapleshade recording label and his work in the recording business since then.

Hillaker doesn't really say anything we don't about Sprey's involvement in conceptual design of the A-10 and F-16 in the body of the article. We've done a 180-degree turn from other editors' quests to deny Sprey's expertise in analysis of fighter aircraft performance and his contributions to the conceptual basis for the F-16 and A-10. What we haven't done is lend wikivoice to the "co-designer of the F-16" meme, and we shouldn't. No evidence exists he was actively involved in the actual implementation of his concepts in the YF-16. Conceptual design creates parameters that aeronautical engineers must use in designing aircraft. Hillaker credits Sprey and Col. Boyd with fundamental concepts and approaches for aircraft and their use, and that is accurate. It doesn't make Sprey any more a co-designer of the F-16 than, say, Reynolds, Whittle or Bernoulli.

As far as the Wired article not being used because of its headline being polarizing, Wired was commenting on where Sprey's notability came from - the polarizing nature of his comments. You can't go very far on his public comments on the F-35 without seeing, not a statistical approach, but a polemical approach.

Sprey's made some very specific statements about the F-35's shortcomings which have been flatly contradicted in reliable sources which show video of the aircraft performing in ways Sprey says it can't, and quoting not just pilots, but instructor pilots with experience flying the F-16 and flying the F-35 against the F-16 saying the F-35 can dogfight better than the F-16, which Sprey says it can't. WP:NPOV pretty much requires us to provide proper weight to statements Sprey has made, which means discussing how his ideas are received now, summarizing discussions by those who actually fly the aircraft of how it flies and how it dogfights, and the public performance at this year's Paris Air Show.

The War is Boring article "Norwegian Pilot: Yes, the F-35 Can Dogfight - Flier's experience argues against leaked test report (which also discusses the damning leaked test report), along with the Breaking Defense article "Pilots Say F-35 Superior Within Visual Range: Dogfight Criticisms Laid To Rest" lend needed balance to Sprey's criticisms of the aircraft and should be cited to support a summary of those sources. If we don't provide that balance, then what we have is a testimonial to someone who became notable for remarks which have been questioned lately - and not mentioning that they've been questioned, and on what basis. I'm amenable to paring down "Response to Sprey's Criticism of the F-35" to a summary of how, why and when he's been contradicted, for the reasons you state. However, we need to show readers he has been contradicted, just as we'd need to do the same thing for Trofim Lysenko. loupgarous (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I made the changes we discussed to give a more complete biographical time-line for Sprey, as well as paring down the detail on "Response to Sprey's Criticism of the F-35" and focusing it more directly on comparison and contrast of Sprey's statements, and statements in the press which contradict Sprey's statements. loupgarous (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

F-15 W/L ratio relevance?

This article is about Pierre Sprey and as such, while his criticism of the F-15 is valid, the oft-quoted "105:0" figure is not only not relevant but basically impossible to establish with any degree of reliability. That stuff is not reference-grade material and I think it should be removed for reasons of relevance. It may be accurate or it may not be. There are some, like Yefim Gordon, who openly question it. Rather than going down yet another irrelevant rabbit hole, I think it would be better if we could establish exactly what Sprey DID say. He called it a "turkey" and said it was stuffed "full of junk". Without going into original research, it would be far better if we found the relevant passages and see what he meant. There's also a question of timeliness. By today's standards, the F-15 is simple. By the standards of the late 1970s it was extremely complex. Taken in context of time, the comment could mean something very different. Flanker235 (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of the F-15's kill ratio has been removed for reasons of relevance. This is an article about Pierre Sprey and not the F-15 with which he has no association. Flanker235 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Pierre sprey might be dead.

twitter.com/bryandbender/status/1424054539859099650 Should we Update the Wikipedia page or should we wait for a more reliable source? JedOfTheJedidiahLands (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Here are few obituaries.

• https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2021-08-21/pierre-sprey-obituary-2621009.html
• https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2021/08/pogo-remembers-pierre-sprey-pentagon-provocateur-and-mentor
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/pierre-sprey-dead/2021/08/20/fe995430-ff6e-11eb-ba7e-2cf966e88e93_story.html

Some of these may be useful. ⸻Nikolas Ojala (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

What exactly did Pierre Sprey even reform?

"Pierre Sprey left the Pentagon in 1971. He and Colonel John Boyd worked with others in the Pentagon and Congress toward military reform, helping gain passage of military reform legislation in the early 1980s."

The word "reform" is incrediblely vague here, what did he reform? What is this mysterious reform legislation? None of this information is provided in the source. 2600:4041:6D:D700:895E:13C1:E143:4B48 (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism

This article has been a target for repeated vandalism. Well sourced information gets deleted again and again. ⸻Nikolas Ojala (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

If I have to take a wild guess, I would bet it has something to do with Lazerpig's numerous exposes on the guy, and how much of the 'well sourced information' is either sourced info looping back on itself traceable back to Sprey, or Sprey's own comments on other people's material. In short, the well sourced info may not in fact be good sources paulsd (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No need to guess anything. If someone can show what problems are in well sourced information, let him/her reveal them here. ⸻Nikolas Ojala (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe the issue is that there is a difference between information that is "well-sourced" versus information that is "contradictory". Pierre Sprey has been known to make statements that seem correct or credible yet contradict previous claims which are made worse because those within his circle either support him for his and their agendas or are already dead meaning that few are left to verify his claims.

It's just what I have been going off online in all honestly. I do not like Pierre Sprey myself, but I just wanted to describe the situation in a way that is understandable. AardvarkSleuth (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Gave primary source or just write it is false.

Sorry, but all information about A-10 development are now declassified and nearly all information about F-16A are declassified. And I did not found anyone on the internet who would find Sprey's name in them or any other Fighter mafia member. Sorry but it looks and probably is completely 100% made up. In the wiki article on A-10 there is not a single mention about Sprey, because there is no evidence that he worked on it.

It is kinda absurd that article on F-16 does not say's that Sprey worked on F-16, but article on Sprey say's that he maybe did? So I would propose that if there is no one who is capable to find any primary source (i. e. Pierre Sprey name in the documents on A-10 and F-16, or testimony of someone who is in these documents) to change the name of this part of the article to "False claims on development of US Fighter jets" where it can be written. 185.47.220.130 (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)