I heard John Boyd was an insufferable jerkoff as well.[/QUOTE]
Later in his career, that would kind of depended on what side of a crooked acquisition program you were involved with.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Why are you Leaving?
- Thread starter B.D. Drummond
- Start date
I heard John Boyd was an insufferable jerkoff as well.[/QUOTE]
Later in his career, that would kind of depended on what side of a crooked acquisition program you were involved with.
[/QUOTE]I heard John Boyd was an insufferable jerkoff as well.[/QUOTE]
Or was he just disagreeable? http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2013/09/17/malcolm-gladwell-disruptive-innovators-are-usually-disagreeable/
I'm an ENFP trapped in an ESTJ world (US Navy). Since I know that is the case and don't try to fight it, I often swallow my opinions until I am asked for them and otherwise do my best to blend in and add value the way my bosses expect. Somehow I arrived at the rank of O-5 and I feel damned lucky to have done so. But thanks to a little retooling (Thanks Post-911 GI Bill and Ross EMBA admissions) I think I am ready to sell out and wear a suit. So I think I can relate to those who are tossing grenades over their shoulder on their way out of the Navy. But I know a little better than to bite the hand which fed me so well and allowed me the great pleasure to have served.
Or was he just disagreeable? http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2013/09/17/malcolm-gladwell-disruptive-innovators-are-usually-disagreeable/
I'm an ENFP trapped in an ESTJ world (US Navy). Since I know that is the case and don't try to fight it, I often swallow my opinions until I am asked for them and otherwise do my best to blend in and add value the way my bosses expect. Somehow I arrived at the rank of O-5 and I feel damned lucky to have done so. But thanks to a little retooling (Thanks Post-911 GI Bill and Ross EMBA admissions) I think I am ready to sell out and wear a suit. So I think I can relate to those who are tossing grenades over their shoulder on their way out of the Navy. But I know a little better than to bite the hand which fed me so well and allowed me the great pleasure to have served.
Some of his acolytes who actually worked with him are morons, like Pierre Sprey, and don't reflect well on him. I think some of what he did is legend instead of fact now, I have a hard time figuring out which is which.
Aww, come on. Next, you're going to be spouting nonsense like "a day fighter with only IR missiles and no radar is a stupid idea."
Aww, come on. Next, you're going to be spouting nonsense like "a day fighter with only IR missiles and no radar is a stupid idea."
Between a fighter like that and the infallible A-10 we would have an invincible Air Force that would strike fear in the hearts of evildoers the world over!
So I went looking for more info on Colonel Boyd and found this PhD dissertation by Marshall L. Michell III, the author of two of the best books I have ever read (Clashes: Air Combat over Vietnam 1965-1972 and The Eleven Days of Christmas: America's Last Vietnam Battle). In it he evicerates Boyd as his acolytes calling them out as opportunistic liars who overemphasized their influence and misrepresented their theories and evidence. He calls Boyd out for barely having any combat experience, only a handful of missions at the end of the Korean War and no tour in Vietnam even though it was in the middle of his career, and overstating his skill as a dogfighter debunking his '40 Second Boyd' claim. He spends much of the dissertation tearing apart their advocacy for simple VFR only fighters with ample evidence. After reading it my opinion of Boyd, Sprey, Spinney and their ilk is pretty low.
Opinions are like.... everyone's got one. For another one, again - read this book. It's another opinion, and I'm kinda surprised that so many of our #innovative, #disruptive #super-cool and "talented" thinkers aren't "acolytes" themselves.
Did he? Boyd and the 'Fighter Mafia' certainly pushed for the Lightweight Fighter within the Air Force but it was General Dynamics that actually designed and made the jet, the Air Force then added on radar and other things the Fighter Mafia claimed would make the plane a goat.
So no, Colonel Boyd and Pierre Sprey didn't 'design' the F-16 as is often claimed. They certainly had a hand in drawing up the requirements and advocating for it but even then they didn't get what they really wanted. Many of their theories on what a fighter should and shouldn't have also have turned out to be incorrect, they thought VFR fighters with only good maneuverability, short range, a cannon and IR missiles were all that was needed in air combat. They abhorred radar, BVR missiles and LATIRN-type systems that give our air forces many of their current capabilities. Ironic or not the fighter they railed against for so long, the F-15, has an unequaled record in combat and got most of its kills with BVR missiles and I don't think single one with a gun.
It is certainly fun to root for the underdog but there seems to be a lot more myth than fact when it comes to the 'Fighter Mafia' and their impact.
If you actually read one of Mr. Michell's books you would see that he is rigorous with his facts and backs them up with numerous citations instead of legend and myth. His dissertation isn't nearly as good as his books, he definitely has strong opinions on the 'Critics' as he calls Boyd and his like, but it is still an excellent read with plenty of facts to back up his assertions and is a great perspective on the post-Vietnam USAF rebuilding efforts.
Sounds good Flash, but I still encourage you to read something that doesn't necessarily align with your existing opinions.
Who says that is all I read? I was a little wary but respectful of Boyd before reading the dissertation but came away with a very bad impression after, definitely did not align with what I thought of him and the Fighter Mafia before (I didn't have much of an opinion at all on most of them). I would suggest the same with you and the dissertation.
Also, I only have so much time to read stuff and that isn't anywhere near the top of a long list.
Right, so that's why I've suggested book offering another perspective (twice now). Give it a shot, it's a different perspective and probably provides the ying to the dissertation's yang, and as all know, the truth probably lives somewhere in the middle.
Really? I hadn't noticed....
There is the possibility that the F-16, while exceptionally limited if designed iac with the Boyd pack, would have been equally useless if designed as pitched and unrestrained by a vocal minority. The Devil's Advocate is an actual Vatican position that exists to argue against the canonization of a person considered for sainthood. A similar position would likely be useful during out acquisition process. Functional organizations cultivate dissenting voices and give their arguments consideration, if not always validation.
Why are we still talking about the F-16 as a reflection of John Boyd's worth? No matter what you believe about him, he didn't build the F-16, General Dynamics did (see what I did there?). The focus should be on the worth of something Boyd did create, namely the Patterns of Conflict presentation. Read it in slide form, then tell me what you think. After you pick your melted face off the floor.