Comments by "WALTERBROADDUS" (@WALTERBROADDUS) on "USS United States (CVA-58) - Guide 394 (NB)" video.

 @nedimar5696 There are both technical as well as political considerations. There is still a great deal of human history prior to 1950.
16
 @jetdriver One thing everyone agrees on, is that the Korean War saved the Marine Corps.
7
 @tonymanero5544 the better way to look at it is that weapons had downsized by the time of the A5. And by this time, the Polaris program was in full scale. Thus the aircraft became a Recon bird.
5
@John.0z It was a time of technological Mouse versus mouse trap. Both sides kind of went down different rat holes. The Air Force played around with escort Fighters, parasite Fighters, and finally in-flight refueling. Then they thought if they can't beat them, they'll try and outrun them. And that lasted, until someone came up with the surface-to-air missile.
4
@hektor6766 Hmmmmm......🙇🏽‍♂️ "ne-far-i-ous"[Adverb]. flagrantly Wicked or impious:EVIL. Per Merriam-Webster. Who do you cast as wicked or evil?👿
3
Getting rid of the USS United States is the best thing that could have happened to the Navy. And Thankfully, Hyman Rickover and the Submarine Service were the better Idea. Rather than concentrating on air delivery, the birth of the ballistic missile submarine began. And the US Navy remains in the nuclear game. There were a few other minor detours to get there however. The Martin Seamaster most notably. The money spent on the USS United States would have been a waste......
2
@michaelkovacic2608 theoretically? They could have hit Moscow from the 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean. Based on the ranges of the AJ Savage.
2
 @JefferyP.Indorf Stupid is a bad word choice....
2
That's probably a little bit out of the scope of the channel? But the Truman administration had a lot of bad ideas. That was just one of them.
1
The bigger favor is that it led to Hyman Rickover and Polaris.
1
 @WarrantOfficerWill22 It would have been a one-off design. And developments Would Have Made It obsolete almost immediately.
1
 @laminat0996 Are you talking about air to ground or surface to surface?
1
 @bkjeong4302 I think it's more based on the experience on the Langley?
1
 @Niels_Larsen That makes no sense? As you need to commit a mutiny against a agency run by the government.
1
@SPF-82 The A4 and A6 were better aircraft. The A1's long use is due to change in Mission. Reliance on Essex class carriers. Hi load capability and loiter time. Size of the Essex class Made them better suited. They also found themselves with a very long land-based role.
1
@johnshepherd9676 And over time, It did replace the Skyraider. And it was Replaced by the A-7. So.... what do we disagree about?
1
@Wannes_ just a shade outside of normal Channel scope. Construction did not begin until mid 1952.
1
@johnshepherd9676 Clearly the life of both the A-1 And A-4 are closely linked to Service on Essex class Carriers. As the ships began to retire, the need for or missions for both changed. The size of the aircraft made them uniquely adaptable from operating with them. Had the war not begun, you probably would have seen a more rapid replacement of the SkyRaider. It would hang on for a few more years other missions and being a land-based aircraft. I believe it's last carrier strike mission was in February of 1968 per Naval Command.
1
@imprisongroverfurr5252 🙇🏽‍♂️Hmmmmmmmm....... USA still caught flat footed. Still would take time organizing the supply chain of the Alaskan Highway and such. The Fleet repairs of the Pearl Harbor survivors like USS Pennsylvania might go up a notch? The biggest offhand problem in that alternative? Do you take away resources to the Guadalcanal campaign? While the Aleutians are a Army problem. Do you have the shipping and combat forces to do both? Being Alaska, it might seem like the more priority Threat? But, so is a finished Guadalcanal for the Japanese.
1