Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "The Dassault Mirage IV; Elegantly Lethal" video.

@wbertie2604 so did the B-17, B-36, B-29, F-86, F-100, F8F, F7F, etc. Service life means nothing.
9
@wbertie2604 the B-17 was not in service for 30years in a meaningful way. It's primary service life was 1936-1945, 9yrs, after which it was RAPIDLY phased out of service in favor of the B-29, B-50, B-36, B-58, B-45, B-47, B-57, etc. Some B-17 were used longer simply due to massive surplus of parts, airframes, and pilots. But they were not used as bombers, but rather target drones, engine testbeds, and special missions. Research, not operational bombers after 1945. B-58 was 1960-1970, 10yrs Curious you conveniently left of the F8F with a service life of only 7yrs. Keep in mind that WW2 ended in 1945, and in the 20 years afterwards we got things like the B-52, U-2, C-130, A-12, F-86, A-4, F-8, F-106, F-4, F8U-3, etc. A lot of airframes came and went in those years due to the rapid pace of development, and the changes in tactics as a result. There was a lot of tactical theory flying around that was found to be wrong in light of actual conflicts, and doctrines and designs had to change to adapt to those realities, as you stated.
4
@wbertie2604 Yet I gave you tons of examples of US bombers that saw US service, never exported, and were often within one year of the B-58 service life. Doesn't get more objective than that. Note that the B-52 was introduced years earlier, and far outlasted the B-58, your criteria doesn't explain why.
2
@wbertie2604 A-20 served 8yrs
2
@wbertie2604 F4D Skyray only served 8yrs and never exported.
2
@wbertie2604 I'm only counting US service.
1
@wbertie2604 I am discounting other air services, otherwise you end up with things like P-51 and F4U serving into the 1980s, and other ridiculous stuff. Certain aircraft weren't sold to other nations as other nations couldn't afford them, had no mission for them (who needs a B-58 first strike nuclear bomber if they have no nukes?), or the sensitive technology was not allowed for export. All these factors skew the comparison and make your claims arbitrary and subjective.
1
@wbertie2604 In what way is it limiting? it ensures apples to apples objective comparisons. I know you new age woke people value feelings over logic, but I wont tolerate it.
1
@wbertie2604 "I'm including other air services as to me they are a valid part of the service life of an aircraft." Not with respect to US service, as I already explained. Many aircraft were never exported, many foreign airforces NEVER had need for certain aircraft, could never operate, support, or equip certain aircraft, even if they had wanted to. To judge why a B-58 or other US design had a long or short service life one must compare it to its competition in US service alone, as that is where the technological and doctrinal changes occurred that led to its replacement. If you can't handle objective analysis, then you're a waste of my time, and no longer worth debating.
1
@wbertie2604 "if you consider overall service life, the B-58 is unique." in what way is it unique? you once again fail to use conditions to explain your reasoning. Once again, the B-58 was a Nuclear first strike bomber. And very expensive to own and operate. How many nations at that time had need of a nuclear bomber? Not many as most countries had no nuclear bombs. And even if they'd had nukes, they probably couldn't have afforded the B-58, and some nations like Russia the US would not sell to regardless. So there is nothing unusual about this at all. Many short-lived US bombers never saw export service. B-50 Service life was short and never exported. B-47 served 12yrs and never exported. B1, B-2, B-52, and B-21 were all never exported. B-36 served 11years and was never exported. B-45 served 11years and was only exported to the UK.
1
@wbertie2604 "I just don't agree with your definition of service as it is a narrow one relating to service only in one country, not entire service life." but you offer no objective criteria as an alternative, that encompasses the myriad of non exported aircraft, that accounts for things like doctrine, access to nukes, cost, technological security, etc. You make apples to oranges comparisons, offer no specific criteria, and claim to be objective.
1
@wbertie2604 B-26 served 6 yrs
1
@wbertie2604 why didn't the UK export their V-bombers?
1
@wbertie2604 Why didn't the Soviets export the Tu-95, Tu-160, and Tu-22?
1
@wbertie2604 Why was the F-111 only exported to Australia?
1
@wbertie2604 Why didn't the US export the A-6 or EA-6B?
1
@wbertie2604 Grumman F-11 operational service was only 5yrs, despite the F11F-1 being a better airplane the the F-104 and other airframes.
1
@wbertie2604 B-50, that's your best critique? one of the least comparative examples provided. Still waiting for you to explain your objective criteria that you feel is better than mine
1
@wbertie2604 "as I've explained multiple times, restricting things purely to USA service is one particular view of service life" you haven't explained anything. Explain how the myriad of examples I gave are explained. What is your criteria? I don't think you have any. You're just being a petulant child and don't want to be wrong. "You are using a definition that is not the typical definition of service life of a type." because i'm comparing the designs in context, you are not. "You are trying to argue that service life in the USA is equivalent to total service life when that is not the case." if you want to understand/explain the B-58 then you have to do it that way. Service life in foreign service has no bearing on why the B-58 was phased out after so little time. Still waiting for you to explain your criteria and how it's an objective measure........
1
@allenhill5698 Tu95 and Tu22 were operated by russia and Ukraine. Ukraine was basically gifted them by default when they split from the soviet union. Soviets basically said, "keep the ones you were using as soviets". That's not export, as Ukraine were soviets and already using them as soviets. "India and Libya, perhaps, Egypt were users." got any proof of that? I can't find any don't spout of guesses. Why would India, Libya, and Egypt need strategic bombers? To this day they have none. Only The US, Russia, and China have strategic bombers at all. The UK used to have strategic bombers as well.
1