Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Not A Pound For Air To Ground" channel.

  1. the F-18 came about from an entirely separate set of requirements. F-16 vs F-17. F-14 was in direct response to the failure of the F-111 as a naval fighter..
    49
  2.  @wbertie2604  If Tank had gone to Russia, it wouldn't have been a copy....... the fact you can't see the obvious resemblance to the Mig15, a dramatic departure from all previous Soviet designs... Soviets are legendary for copying. Even the Mig15 engine was British. It's not a 1-to-1 copy of teh Ta183, but things rarely are that close of a copy anyways, especially when the Ta183 never flew, thus the final form would have been different for Germany as well had they finished it.
    22
  3.  @kilianortmann9979  doesn't change the fact the F-18 has nothing to do with the F-111. Also, the F-18 was Not the F-14's direct replacement. The F-14 and F-18 served side by side. The F-18 ended up more a replacement of aircraft like the A-7 and EA-6B, etc. The F-18 Hornet and Super Hornet served alongside the F-14 for decades performing different roles. And only a few years after the F-14 retirement (2006), the F-18 are already being replaced by the F-35 (2015). The first flight of the F-18 was 1983, 23yrs before the F-14 was finally retired.
    14
  4. X-29, shaped sonic boom F-5E
    9
  5. Mig15 = Ta183 copy with a British engine
    9
  6.  @2ndavenuesw481  1) it wouldn't have made a difference. 2) the US chose to keep the P-80 out of WW2, as did the UK choose to keep the Meteor out of the war. They were winning the war, and didn't want to risk allied jets falling into German hands. Also, the logistics of changing fuel, pilot training, mechanic training, and supplying spare parts for jets. Had there been a legit threat, then the Allies would have put their jets into frontline combat. Allied jets in WW2: P-80 P-59 Meteor Vampire FH Phantom XP-83 XP-79 XF15C XP-81 XBTD-2 Ryan FR
    9
  7.  @Eric-kn4yn  many planes swept the tail (P-40, P-47...). more about aerodynamic efficiency and weight savings.
    6
  8. F-20 with AESA...
    5
  9. 1988? that is 11yrs after the E-3 Sentry entered service. Not many A-50 left, especially after Ukraine destroyed a few.
    5
  10.  @Wallyworld30  it's a copy. stop being a politician.
    4
  11. I get teh argument you make for it at the end. but it feels like a bit of a stretch to me. I don't get the sense thi aircraft was really all that important or influential for aircraft like teh Hart to come along.
    3
  12. the Soviets have a long history of drawing pictures of carriers
    3
  13.  @gotanon9659  just like the F-16 then. What's your point?
    3
  14.  @gort8203  P-80 was better, but only flew over Italy, not Germany. but had it flown over germany.....
    3
  15. 36:15 Robin Olds is said to have scored 7 kills in Vietnam, but gave away credit for the last 3 to avoid being sent home. Also, multiple RIOs achieved ace status in Vietnam Other USAF aces of Vietnam War: Capt Charles "Chuck" DeBellevue Capt Richard "Steve" Ritchie Capt Jeffrey Feinstein
    3
  16.  @Locktab1201  the R73 missile didn't enter soviet service until the mid 1980s, but the AIM9 was in US service in the 1950s 30ys earlier, and captured by soviets more than 20yrs before the R73. E-3 Sentry entered active military service in 1977 A-50 entered active military service in 1985 not one thing you've claimed is true.
    3
  17.  @Locktab1201  "You honestly sound like a bot to me." becasue you're losing. and so you turn to ad hominems. They underestimated its capabilities. but without copying the AIM9 originally, they never would have gotten that far to begin with. And now they are outmatched once again without the R73 ever winning an air war.
    3
  18. exactly, an early failure, one of countless examples of failures in the post-WW2 era in the transition from props to jets and Mach1+ flight. They were trying to figure out how to do things no one had figured out yet.
    3
  19. it's telling that so few nations operate the Mig29 today.
    3
  20. Mig15 = Ta183 copy with a British engine
    3
  21. F-8 or the F11F-1F were far superior as dogfighters than the F-104.
    2
  22.  @danieltynan5301  Wrong, the F-14 is a beast and superior to the F-4. Simply updating engines doesn't address the F-4 maneuverability limitations. You clearly know little about aircraft design.
    2
  23.  @tedarcher9120  "interceptors are not fighters." 100% wrong. "Mig-31 is a long range interceptor. F-106 was an interceptor. They are not fighters, they don't need to be." they are both fighters, just not great in the merge. "Even then, f-111 was a better fighter than f-14 until mid-1990 because f-14a engines didn't work in a dogfight while f-111 did" pilots were able to dogfight in the F-14A just fine. And the F-111 wasn't beating anything in maneuver.
    2
  24.  @tedarcher9120  " F-111B was supposed to be used together with F4, with f-111 taking longer range missions. " That I agree with. "But with f-14 Navy wanted their cake and eat it too, they wanted it to do anything that f-4 could and anything that f-111 could and it ended up with nothing. " Wrong, they ended up with a BEAST of a dogfighter and interceptor, and a Powerful missile that is still having its legacy felt today. " It couldn't dogfight like f-4 " 100% wrong, the F-14 is stupid good compared to the F-4. F-4 literally doesn't stand a chance if the F-14 pilot has any clue how to fight. " it couldn't do long range strikes or interceptions like f-111." neither could the F-4. so what? "Yes, f-111 was retired, five years later than f-14, " False. F-111 retired in 1998. F-14 retired in 2006, 8yrs after the F-111 F-111 introduced into service in 1967. F-14 Introduced to service in 1974, 7yrs later. The F-14 served 32yrs. The F-111 served 31yrs.
    2
  25.  @gort8203  Very true, early jets didn't have much for range, but the P-80 had an 825mi range (410mi combat radius), which is comparable to a P-47 with drop tanks, so it could have performed most of the P-47 escort missions both in Europe and the Pacific. The T-33 variant had a 1275mi range (630mi radius, better than most P-47s in WW2). But by the time the P-80 would have been introduced, it would have been operating from forward airfields in France and Italy, just like the other fighters were doing. This would have enabled it to reach further into Germany, by starting closer to Germany.
    2
  26. ​ @Eric-kn4yn  "who says better P80 v.262" Service life of P-80/T33 and the meteor proves it. Also, performance speaks for itself. Not hard to compare the specs of two aircraft. Top Speed P80: 594mph Me262: 560mh Service Ceiling P80: 46,800ft Me262: 37,600ft Range (combat radius) P80: 825mi (410mi) Me262: 650mi (325mi) Thrust to Weight P80: 0.364-0.435 Me262: 0.28 Rate of Climb P80: 6,870 ft/min Me262: 3,900 ft/min Bomb Load: P80: 2,000lb Me262: 2,200lb
    2
  27.  @phunkracy  The US Shuttle plans were easily accessible, and the shape and size is nearly identical. So much so that when I ask people what aircraft the Buran is, they always think it's the US shuttle. Problem is, the Russians changed the bits that mattered most, such as the engines. the whole point of a spaceplane is to reuse the engines. The Tu-160 is a blatant ripoff of the B-1 bomber as well, and even had an originally stated mission identical to the B-1. Russia was copying everything the US did, tit for tat. They were trying to keep up, trying to maintain the propaganda façade that they ever stood a chance.
    2
  28. how many Mig29 do teh Russians operate today?
    2
  29.  @thepolishnz  yet we don't see them in frontline operations like Syria, Ukraine, etc. and most nations who operate/d the Mig29 are getting rid of them as soon as they get the chance. for an airplane many claim is really good (in a Fox 2 fight close to the airport they took off from anyways, but not much else), not many people use them in actual combat anymore. But aircraft like the F-18, F-16, F-15, etc. are still selling and still competitive among the top aircraft in the world. When was the last time someone bought a Mig29? Who was it and how many did they buy? I see russia listed as having somewhere between 87-240 total mig29s left in service, and 24 naval Mig29s.
    2
  30. Can the F-104 launch from aircraft carriers? that's what the F-4 was designed to do. Was the F-104 a versatile multirole fighter bomber? no. the F-4 was designed to do this. Was the F-104 a better dogfighter than the F-8? NO!
    2
  31.  @enhancedutility266  but russia always prioritized defense over offense. they prioritized ground controlled fighters, SAMs, and railway logistics. They aren't good at operating aircraft in enemy airspace, only at defending friendly airspace like Germany did in WW1. So it makes sense they don't value AWACs. US prioritizes offense, hence we put less effort in air defense (though the Patriot and support systems are very good).
    2
  32.  @enhancedutility266  you're saying that thinking Russia knows how to fight. They have never been that good at warfare, even prior to WW2. they never had good leadership, never had good equipment, never had forward thinking, etc. and they always fought defensive minded, and using volume attacks of men and material to overwhelm an enemy. they don't know how to do anything else. And they've never had a strong and wealthy economy to support the things they aspire to. and they lacked an electronics industry. To give you a general sense of how bad their aircraft are, no one buys their civilian aircraft, and only poor nations and belligerent nations the Western powers refuse to sell too buy their military aircraft. Russia built its A-50 AWACs 20yrs after the US already had theirs operational, and the A-50 had issues and was not comfortable for the crew. It took the Soviets 20yrs to reverse engineer the AIM9 and create their own properly functioning and operational equivalent. And Russia probably doesn't know how to build a new A-50now even if they wanted to. And even then likely lack the necessary electronics components. Russia is, and never was, the threat people always believed.
    2
  33. 12:25 this was a Very good idea, as it increased the odds of survival of Western pilots. It's all a matter of perspective.
    2
  34. Mig15 = Ta183 copy with a British engine
    2
  35. innovative, sure. Using surface ships as submarines for example.
    1
  36. Olds wasn't wrong, and even with early missiles, the missiles dominated air kills in Vietnam, and it's only gotten more so ever since.
    1
  37. it's telling that so few nations operate the Mig29 today.
    1
  38. F2H Phantom is one of those WW2 jet fighters no one wants to acknowledge existed in WW2.
    1
  39. OCNO Intel report: lists the Liberty ship as the "hero ship"
    1
  40. it served as a teaching point for the engineers at North American during the difficult transition from Propeller fighters to transonic/supersonic fighters. They learned what didn't work, and what ideas and design features did matter. Most aviation companies had such an aircraft like Chance Vought F6U Pirate. Learning through failure is very important, particularly in engineering, especially when transonic and supersonic aerodynamics were still in their infancy and everyone was still trying to figure out the mysteries of how to do it properly.
    1
  41.  @justforever96  and NAA learned and made teh FJ Fury carrier airplane. How many successful straight wing jets did NAA crate again?
    1
  42.  @justforever96  I don't care what his point is, I was making my Own point.
    1
  43.  @danieltynan5301  nice strawman..... Too bad it couldn't do many of the things the F-14 could do like carry and fire Phoenix missiles, etc. It didn't use the F-14 design elements nor avionics.
    1
  44.  @nightshade7745  you're just proving my point, it wasn't designed as a replacement for the F-14.
    1
  45.  @scullystie4389  again, the F-18 wasn't designed as a replacement for the F-14, and the F-18 did not evolve from the F-111 as teh original commenter originally posted (before they edited their post).
    1
  46.  @tedarcher9120  it was a multirole do everything. it was designed as an interceptor for the Navy (fighter), same as the F-4. Interceptors are fighters. Spitfire was designed as an interceptor for example, as was the F-106, F-104, F-4, and F-14.
    1
  47.  @tedarcher9120  what mistake and liability was that?
    1
  48.  @tedarcher9120  wrong. the USN had the F-4 interceptor the whole time. "Second, it was stupendously expensive to buy and more expensive to maintain. More expensive than f-22. " but it was stupid good too. so the cost is justified. teh early purchase cost was high becasue it was a technological marvel fro its time. We've benefited a LOT from what we learned from teh F-14, making the cost worth it. But the maintenance costs are no joke and the reason it is pretty much the only 4th gen US fighter fromthe 1970s and 1980s retired thus far, while F-15, F-16, A-10, and F-18 all got life extension programs. "Third, Navy lied and f-14 wasn't even a fighter and didn't have any multirole capability until the 1990s." it was a fighter in every sense of the word, and would be a dominant fighter even today. " F-111 could dogfight and was more robust," no, it could not dogfight, it was a pig. it couldn't win a fight with ANY contemporary fighters of its day. "US Navy could have had a functioning aircraft already in 1960s" They did, F-8, F-4, F11F-1F, etc.
    1
  49.  @tedarcher9120  you know literally nothing. everything you say is utter BS nonsense and ignores what actually happened in reality. "It could never replace f-4 because it was 10 times more expensive. And it didn't achieve multirole even in 1990s, it had appalling land attack capability. F-111 was better than f-14 in every single respect until the mid 1990s." and yet every F-111 is retired and F-4 are still in service. F-111 never performed half of the roles the F-4 did. F-4 performed far more land attack in its history than F-111 ever did. F-111was used as a highly specialized strike aircraft and EW support aircraft.
    1
  50.  @tedarcher9120  "great in the merge is a definition and purpose of a fighter." Not true at all. In WW2, Boom and Zoom made the best fighter plane, not Turn and Burn (post-Merge dogfighting). And after WW2 and up until the F-18 and F-35, speed and more speed mattered more and more than maneuverability, until the F-15 and F-16 came along. And now due to better missiles, speed matters less and maneuver doesn't really matter either (e.g. F-35) as modern missiles and tactics prevent fighters making it to the merge in reality. "They didn't need to as they outranged and outran any fighter" which is what ALL fighters strove to do in WW2 and in the jet age.
    1