Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Not A Pound For Air To Ground"
channel.
-
49
-
22
-
14
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1