[Arkie2]

Too bad the F-16 is really ineffective. It proved to be a poor bomber, it's primary role, in the Gulf War and received one of the lowest ratings of any weapons systems after that war. It seems from this article that Col Boyds largest contribution was the F-16 and if that's so, his legacy won't be that of a great innovater. I think there must be more to his story though, just not brought forth in this article.

[Valin]

The F-16 of today is not what Boyd had in mind and pushed for. What he wanted, and what it started out as was a small simple fighter. Not the multi-role plane we have today.

[Leisler]

Duh! A fighter doesn't make the best bomber? Who would of thought? The F-16 was thought of and needed by the mid 60’s; it only took Pentagon 15 years to get it built. Not the idea of the aircraft, the aircraft itself or those that fought for it's fault. Anyways, I wouldn't want to be a ground target in an area with roaming F-16's around.

Lastly, Boyd wasn't about any particular weapon, or system, he was about thinking, reacting, speedy decisions made quicker then the enemy. He was about acting faster than the enemies ability to react, thus making the enemies combined arms ineffective as a operating whole, that is, turning an enemy’s army into separate little units that can no longer work in unison.

[saminfl]

Too bad the F-16 is really ineffective. It proved to be a poor bomber, it's primary role, in the Gulf War and received one of the lowest ratings of any weapons systems after that war. It seems from this article that Col Boyds largest contribution was the F-16 and if that's so, his legacy won't be that of a great innovater. I think there must be more to his story though, just not brought forth in this article.

You are correct on this one. The F-16 was probably the least effective aircraft used during Desert Storm.

This article reminds me of what the media was doing in the early 80's. They had a bunch of ex-Carter flacks (particularly one under sec of defense whose name I have forgotten) complaining that our weapons were too complex. The guy I mentioned didn't even want radar in the F-16. As it turns out, the smarter our weapons get, the easier our wins become and the fewer casualties we suffer.

[Imal]

I think there must be more to his story though, just not brought forth in this article.

How right you are! When I first saw this article, I had never heard of the man. So I've been poking around the 'Net and finding out more about Col. Boyd. As I have done so, my estimation of this remarkable American has grown exponentially.

I strongly recommend that you find out more about Col. John R. Boyd. Among other things, you'll discover that his "Energy-Maneuverability Theory" was used not only in the design of the F-16 (which rightly or wrongly you disparage) but also the F-15, which you so rightly praise.

But I am coming to believe that his greatest contributions to America have much less to do with aircraft design or air combat tactics per se than military strategy as a whole.

It has only taken me a few hours of study to conclude with confidence that Colonel John R. Boyd was, beyond all doubt, a military genius of tremendous historical significance.

[Hobo anonymous]

As you recall, the F-16 could not be armed with laser guided munitions "back in the day". Thus it had to drop the vintage "dumb bombs". Thats changed now. The F-16 has been modified to drop both XAGM laser guided weapons and JDAM. The F-16 will be the backbone of any air campaign into Iraq.

Plus, the Israelis prefer the F-16 as their air combat craft of choice. They have some of the best pilots in the world, greater or on par to our Naval aviators.

What you say is true, and you know as well as I do that the F-16 will seriously clear some house when we introduce it back into Iraq.