Talk:John Boyd (military strategist)

message: The following showed-up under page changes:
Line 46:  	Line 46:
				
In a letter to the editor of Inside the Pentagon, former Commandant of the Marine Corps General Charles C. Krulak is quoted as saying "The Iraqi army collapsed morally and intellectually under the onslaught of American and Coalition forces. John Boyd was an architect of that victory as surely as if he'd commanded a fighter wing or a maneuver division in the desert."
Don't know how to do a citation, but both "needs citations" above are in "http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed/dp/0316881465" and "Mind of War."
	 	
==The OODA Loop==
I do not have access to these sources, and neither source is viewable on Google Books.  I think, however, it should be noted that a Wikipedian has pointed towards citations for these "Citation needed" tags, and with someone else's help we might resolve them...or at least postpone deletion indefinitely waiting resolution. TeamZissou (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: A paragraph of the Incest article leads the reader to this John Boyd Article..
Sometimes the word "incestuous" is also used metaphorically to describe other inappropriately close relationships, for example between an authority figure and a subordinate, or between people in the same profession or creative field. The term "incest group" is also common in high school, and denotes a group of friends that only date others within their group. Institutions such as churches, colleges, and sometimes whole nations can be described as incestuous when inappropriately close relationships, corrupt conflicts of interest and secret collusions occur inside the institution and especially within the institution's top echelons such as in cases John Boyd exposed in the Pentagon.
Please verify. 69.196.4.153 15:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * That's a very astute and likely accurate observation.  The Incest article currently does not have the link; nor does it include any obvious content on metaphorical use of the term.  Given the typical scope of wiki article, probably best left here on the discussion page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.126.100 (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incest? 

message: My recollection from reading a biography on Boyd was that he served in Vietnam, but not as a pilot like he was in the Korean War. In fact he intentionally got himself sent to Vietnam and ran a small base if not mistaken, just so he could be recognized for that service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whidbey (talk • contribs) 08:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No source material supplied for that recollection. --Born2flie (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Time as a base commander in Vietnam is in the Coram Biography referenced at the bottom of the article.  Not to mention available in Air Force Service records.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.126.100 (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wars 

message: To all who made comments about Boyd's lack of knowledge about Heisenburg and Goedel's theory, read his essay entitled Destruction & Creation first, and then disagree with his use of these theories if you still think it wrong.Stanleywinthrop 19:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Read any of his material and understand it, and then try again. Boyd was a genius on the order of Sun Tzu, both as an engineer and a military strategist. Not to mention the best damn fighter pilot that ever lived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.144.226 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Boyd may have been all that but he was proven wrong in one thing; that F-4's cannot compete, much less survive against MiG-17's, 19's and 21's in dogfights! His re-education was courtesy of instructors from TOPGUN. Read the book "A Scream Of Eagles". WikiphyteMk1 (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to second on that – the F4 comment doesn't make sense.  But to clarify – The F4 was well known to all as unable to turn in a dog fight, and initially lacked guns – having a distinct disadvantage given 1960's era AAM's.  Boyd's F4 and MIG EM profiles for the Air Force show that.  The F4 can compete against MIGs using decades old Dick Bong P38 tactics – use superior speed and altitude and stay out of a turning fight you can't win.  Given appropriate tactics Navy, Marine, and Air Force crews were all successful engaging F4's against a variety of Vietnam era MIGs, even ones flown by Soviet Pilots.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.126.100 (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Read and study more, assume less

message: Unfortunately, Chet Richards's website has been abandoned. I have fixed the general link to Boyd's briefings & monographs by changing the url to Air Power Australia, an online magazine that mirrored this material before the Richards website ceased to exist. Alas, the Oz site does not seem to have picked up the Cowan thesis upon which so much of this article is based. I'll look further for it. Absent that, equivalent references must be found in the two existing Boyd biographies (probably where Cowan got his material anyhow!). Eschatologicalguy (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Link broken

message: First, well done everyone for such a good article on a richly-deserved subject. But the article calls him a strategist – was he not a military thinker at all levels? He certainly did a lot to influence the tactics of air combat and ground attack, as well as trying to reform military procurement. In my book that makes him an all-round military thinker, not just a strategist. --Wally Tharg (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Strategist or ''thinker?''

message: This article still reads like John Boyd wrote it himself - and he was a notorious self-promoter. Boyd flew less than a full tour in Korea, reportedly never even fired his guns, and definitely never got a kill. He then avoided Vietnam, almost uniquely among Vietnam-era American pilots. Boyd never flew a contemporary fighter jet in combat: his short tour in Korea was in P-80 Shooting Stars, the first jet fighter the USAF had, not even in the later F-86 Saber. He never flew planes like the F-100, F-105, or F-4 against planes like MiG-21s or even MiG-19s: the plane he flew in combat was more alike to WWII fighters than even the Century series, let alone the Teen series..
After Vietnam the US Navy and US Air Force independently concluded they needed large twin-engine fighters mounting large radars for beyond visual range combat, based on their combat data. Boyd and his group insisted that instead the USN and USAF should be developing larger numbers of light, cheap planes, with limited avionics, exclusively intended for air to air combat. The F-5 Freedom Fighter is probably the closest thing to what Boyd recommended that ever entered service. The LWF program did lead to the F-16 and F/A-18 by way of YF-17, but neither plane became what Boyd was pushing for. Both are mult-role planes for air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. Both carry radar and complex avionics suites. Contrary to the article here, Boyd actually disagreed so strongly with what eventuated from the LWF program that he advocated the F-20 Tigershark over the F-16 - yet even he had made a concession in that the F-20 mounted radar, something he was originally opposed to. Even the A-10, simple as it is, was given complex avionics and high tech weapons like the AGM-65 Maverick. 
Boyd's ideas on aircraft design were wrong. Sophisticated avionics are now at the heart of a plane's performance, whereas Boyd considered them useless: unnecessary weight and drag, expensive, and unreliable. He thought a plane should rely on the eyeball for detection and heat-seeking missiles and cannon for killing enemy aircraft. Radar guided missiles like the AMRAAM or Russian AA-71 "Adder" are now the primary weaponry of modern fighter planes, followed by heat-seekers like the Sidewinder, and cannon as last resort, not the primary armament. Moreover, credit is given here for things he had no responsibility for. The F-4 Phantom II omitted cannon on the basis that missiles were the wave of the future, while the F-106 Delta Dart, F-105 Thunderchief, F-104 Starfighter, and F-100 Super Saber all had cannon prior to that; the F-101 Voodoo and F-102 Delta Dagger both omitted cannon since they were intended to destroy bombers at long range using radar guided missiles, not engage in combat with fighters. Vietnam experience proved that the Phantom's lack of cannon was a liability, and the USAF F-4E reintroduced cannon. The F-14 and F-15 also had cannon. The re-adoption of cannon had absolutely nothing to do with Boyd. 
The best that can be said for Boyd's ideas about aircraft is that "lighter" and "cheaper" aircraft than the F-14 and F-15 were adopted. But these were not as light (25,000lb loaded) nor as cheap as Boyd envisioned, and carry avionics suites with capabilities like laser guidance for bombs, radar guided missiles, night vision, infra-red sensors, terrain following radar, et cetera. Even modern heat-seekers are best fired when the target is being tracked by radar. His belief in the primacy of maneuverability was foolish even before he ever articulated it. The average armchair wing commander is familiar with the fact that the Japanese Zero had superb maneuverability, but was trounced by less agile planes like the F6F Hellcat that had the power to engage and disengage at will. The power that designs like the F-14 and particularly F-15 have allows them to dictate the terms of engagement. 
Whatever Boyd's merits, this article entirely glosses over his shortcomings.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.140.116 (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's your chance. FWiW FWiW  (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

text: You said it FWiW.  And you, 124.148.140.116, have you actually read any of the books on Boyd? Provide some citations for the things you claim. 132.3.61.82 (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

text: The two Boyd biographies both report that Boyd exclusively flew the F-86 in Korea.  His brief time there was also towards the end of that conflict, after the P-80 had been replaced by F-86.  Thus, your statement above that Boyd flew the P-80 in Korea would seem to be incorrect.  PhaseAcer (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Additionally, the meaning of "neutrality" with respect with Wikipedia articles is that the article truthfully reports what the REFERENCES say.  If the references are highly positive on a point or person, as is the case with Boyd, then "neutral" writing is to report that without trying to insert unsubstantiated negative bias.  To insert negative bias where the references do not report it is highly non-neutral.  The only negative point any references make about Boyd is that he did not suffer incompetence even when displayed by general officers, and as a result he was sometimes personally abrasive.  The references are in close to 100% agreement on his professional brilliance. PhaseAcer (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Yep. Boyd was a fraud. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZDfdCj61dY . 202.63.77.23 (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced 

message: In a recent newsgroup discussion, someone referred to a man named Boyd unofficially using computer time to design the F-16, and someone from the company that made the F-15 (presumably McDonnell Douglas) trying to have him put away for life.
After looking up the matter, and finding this web page, I presumed the poster had the story garbled and was really referring to the computer time used to prove the Energy-Maneuverability Theory. Presumably on the 7090 they had at Elgin AFB at the time.
However, after I noted this in the relevant discussion, someone else joined in, and said that he was present at a lecture by the person who helped Boyd get access to computer resources for designing the F16, long after the E-M Theory work had already taken place.
This makes me wonder if, just possibly, Wikipedia has the garbled story. Not that lightning can't strike twice. Quadibloc (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serial Computer Crook? 

message: Robert Coram, author of, "Boyd," stated in an interview about his book that, 
* CORAM: "...the only dark side to Boyd that I could find other than some personality quirks was his family, and frankly I cut out several hundred pages after the book was finished because the real situation is far more bleak than is portrayed in the book. It`s just beyond description."
* LAMB: "In what way?"
* CORAM: "In ways that were so bad I didn`t want to put them in the book because it would be disconcerting from what his life was all about."
* LAMB: "Are you talking about the family part of this?"
* CORAM: "Yes. Yes."
http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/158365-1/Robert+Coram.aspx
I haven't been able to find too much about the specifics of his family life, however.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silavite (talk • contribs) 23:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family/Personal Life 

message: Since Boyd was neither involved in military planning (his role in Desert Storm is apocryphal and limited at best) nor was his major work on Strategy, isn't it about time the title of the article is changed from Military Strategist to Military Theorist? SetSenet (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military Theorist