Boyd was TACTICALLY right about the F-16. As designed, it was a great day, point defense fighter.
But STRATEGICALLY, the USAF doesn't do day, point defense. The F-16 was a fighter without a mission. So fattening it up was the only way to make it useful. Even in the 90s, Boyd's disciples were arguing to take the radar out of the F-16 & make it an AIM-9 VFR fighter.
That would have been a disaster. We have no use for the ultimate dogfighter - particularly since 'manuever to the rear' dogfighting was on its last legs when I was a youngster in F-4s. Success in modern 'dogfighting' has more to do with datalink, AMRAAM and radars than in 9 G turns up your own arse.
Personally, I prefer 2 engine jets with big radars. So sue me! - I grew up in the F-4 before my career when steadily downhill in tactical bombers, etc.
I am biased here,
my brother is an F-16 pilot....I am in favor of ANYTHING that keeps him safer....
Really? I thought it depended on those nice scarfs you zoomies wore. Navy turtlenecks just couldn't compare, you know?
2 big engines and a big radar can make a TopGun out of an accountant.