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

  1. The 1950s were a very interesting technological time.
    36
  2. If they had export sales, they wouldn't have had to worry about Government money. By 1957, the World had caught and passed British Aviation. The Americans, French the Russians, even the Swedish were producing.
    14
  3. ​ @--Dani they didn't have the overseas sales to support that idea. It was only British government funding that was keeping them alive.
    12
  4. I definitely would prefer a Crusader over a F-104.
    12
  5.  @FallenPhoenix86  exactly, the Mirage III basically took up the Non US or non-Russian buying Market. When the Australians and Canadians went in a different direction, the UK industry was cooked. Only the Harrier saved them...
    8
  6. It's a rather interesting engineering challenge. Trying to build an ultralight float plane, that folds up. Useful.....
    8
  7.  @IgnoredAdviceProductions  too many folks still live in tactics of three wars ago. We have six generation aircraft on the drawing boards. But people on YouTube are still playing that it's 1986.
    7
  8. When were they not in the last hundred years?
    6
  9. While the range would be nice. Speed is not critical.
    5
  10. F8
    5
  11. No witness confirmation of kill.
    5
  12.  @FallenPhoenix86  I don't think the UK industry was going to win either way. Just like their car industry. The competition had risen and was passing them.
    4
  13. The race was over before it started. Spending money on interceptors did not make sense in an ICBM World.
    4
  14.  @FirstDagger  you forgot to carry out the rest of the family tree. It became a division of General Dynamics in 1953. Officially became defunct in 1996.
    4
  15. Same basic configuration but, different company and Design.
    4
  16.  @IgnoredAdviceProductions  speaking of f-35bs.... The Japanese carrier Kaga is sitting in San Diego. To begin training with USMC f-35bs.... Kind of a hard to believe moment 80 years later. 🇯🇵🇺🇸
    4
  17. You completely overlooked the Crusader?
    4
  18. They needed some basic ground controllers.
    4
  19. Either name is appropriate actually. Dakota is the RAF designation.
    3
  20. Technology changes were rapid.
    3
  21. Huge bird. Not great in all areas. Lead to something better than a missile truck.
    3
  22. Try and imagine a B-47 toss...
    3
  23. The B model F-111 was a Grumman project.
    3
  24. You are not even talking about the right War.
    3
  25. Rules of Engagement.
    3
  26. You're talking about 50 year old designs now.
    2
  27. Most got scrapped or used as targets.
    2
  28. You carry out the political policies your government wishes. You just don't get to make stuff up on the Fly.
    2
  29. It's basically the same design.
    2
  30. Actually the numbers not high at all. They actually made very few gun kills with or without pods. The whole gun thing is a bit overrated.
    2
  31. This is a very good video on Russian Naval aviation. I don't think I've seen such a deep dive before.
    2
  32. all the above never happened. And that is a good thing.
    2
  33.  @luciussatchell9709  Convair Tradewind.
    2
  34. What are you referring to?
    2
  35. I suppose being Jewish didn't help?
    2
  36. The biggest drawback is that we didn't need more interceptors.
    2
  37. ​ @neilturner6749 it wasn't beating anyone in the World. And was obsolete already.
    2
  38.  @Dicka899  they are still trying to pay off the debt of the Olympics from 20 years ago.
    2
  39.  @Nedski42YT  first of all, separate naming systems prior to 1962. Naval aviation and the Air Force have different code systems.
    2
  40. You are just going to skip over the whole fact that interceptors were obsolete?
    2
  41. For start it's an entirely different aircraft. It's not an f-86. It's an FJ fury.
    2
  42. You're living in a dream World. Fighting in tactics of two wars ago.
    2
  43. Replacement of the A6 is a stretch.
    2
  44.  @Idahoguy10157  not in this case.
    2
  45.  @christophmahler  the Navy doesn't realistically expect to be doing air strikes into Russia. And they've largely given the Nuclear Strike role to the sub force. Getting carriers into strike range; places you in danger of running into a Soviet navy based on submarines. A much bigger threat than marauding Soviet bombers.
    2
  46.  @christophmahler  Even the Air Force bomber forces are largely relying on air launch cruise missiles; rather than dropping gravity bombs for nuclear delivery.
    2
  47. There are some other channels that have done that topic.
    2
  48. ​ @RCAvhstape it's more 6° of Kevin Bacon, than ancestor.
    1
  49. Technology always runs ahead of tactics.
    1
  50.  @alondon6950  How?
    1
  51. Is every Canadian taught this sob story at Birth? It has almost turned into like a religion?
    1
  52.  @RCAvhstape  You could say the same thing about General Electric Space and RCA.
    1
  53. Why?
    1
  54.  @richardmartin8998  on the other hand, being as its main Armament was the Sparrow, that would be a major problem too. It had a high failure rate.
    1
  55.  @ndx6779  I think the better View is make comparisons to other modern conflicts. Such as the experience of the Israelis in their various conflicts and later. The gun has become a less relevant weapon. Tactics and strategy have evolved as weapon technology has matured. I don't think you'll find a greater percentage of gun kills in the Iran Iraq War or Falklands War either?
    1
  56.  @ndx6779  it's an additional tool in the toolbox. But, with Rules of Engagement and the reluctance of North Vietnamese planes to give battle. The chances of using it are not many. Therefore sending the f-104 would not have changed the equation much.
    1
  57. Expensive, unneeded, obsolete.
    1
  58.  @originalSPECTER  why not?
    1
  59. ​ @paulwoodman5131 https://youtu.be/8WOdS1FoL3M?si=P04l6HZCBw64guMD
    1
  60. A p-38 over Alaska must have been a very cold place to be?
    1
  61. The bomber threat was already dying.
    1
  62. What about it? Has nothing to do with this program or specification.
    1
  63. ​ @christophmahler F-5 was not Superior to anything.
    1
  64. Your point?
    1
  65. Oh, God you people are always complaining. There's nothing wrong with the voiceover.
    1
  66. Not really...
    1
  67. I don't see any North Korean flag south of the 38th parallel.
    1
  68. It's a victim of the reality that the ICBM had replaced the bomber. High flying, Mach 3 interceptors were obsolete already. And surface-to-air missiles could do much of the same job anyway.
    1
  69. Reality is, when you look at the statistics it really didn't make that much of a difference. I believe the f-105 actually has more gun kills than the F4. internal gun or not. And Navy and Marine Corps Pilots never had an internal gun.
    1
  70. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was in August of 1964. The Paris Peace treaty was 1973.
    1
  71. I think you mean to say drones or uavs? In either case, the technology was still in its infancy. Keep in mind the era of electronics we are talking about here. You wouldn't find the first real pocket calculator till about 1970. And that was bigger than most cell phones.
    1
  72. ​ @neilturner6749 New Jersey did a cruise in 1968 off Vietnam. It was scheduled to do a second tour but, it got canceled. Other destroyers and cruisers stayed on station doing gunfire support.
    1
  73. The Americans bought the same engine.
    1
  74. Rather than the F-100, did they consider using the Smaller A-37? Better vision with the side by side seating. Harder to hit. Lower IR and noise signature.
    1
  75.  @Ernest-jr  the xp-55 was a dead project.
    1
  76. ​ @andrewemery4272 Yeah, the great freedom of North Vietnam.😂
    1
  77. What are you talking about?
    1
  78.  @christophmahler  the F-14A has plenty of real kills.
    1
  79.  @christophmahler  https://youtu.be/M2_QHdijT7o?si=bXlciVFE1_sVzN1R
    1
  80. On the contrary, they forced the North Vietnamese to sign a peace treaty in 1973.
    1
  81. Seems like a half step to a hovercraft?
    1
  82. ​ @chriskortan1530 I think it's mandatory at Birth that all Canadians be taught to cry about the Arrow? How many generations are they going to keep this up?
    1
  83. It was money spent elsewhere on more useful things.
    1
  84. Why would we? There is a entire separate video on that topic.
    1
  85. @LRRPFco52  True. The generation jets had arrived by 1960.
    1
  86.  @bowencreer3922  I don't know what you are thinking? But, that naval fighter would kick the butt of most of the century series.
    1
  87. Icbms made interceptors in general obsolete.
    1
  88. @johnmoore8599  speed does not guarantee success anymore. And we have long range uavs that can do most of the same Mission now.
    1
  89. @johnmoore8599  I haven't seen anything more than a lot of rumor and speculation.
    1
  90. Where is Naval Aviation in all of this?
    1
  91.  @prowlus  they are contemporaries. To say advanced? Really doesn't apply.
    1
  92. Not at all. They don't look anything similar.
    1
  93. @ODST64  no more resemblance than every other SUV, looks like every other SUV.
    1
  94. Your reading comprehension is poor. There is nothing about the f-15 in the lightweight fighter competition.
    1
  95. @TyrannoJoris_Rex  don't think there's anything that says you have to go in numerical order?
    1
  96. Banshees went to Canada. Panthers went to Argentina.
    1
  97. The Navy and Marine Corps did.
    1
  98. NATO code name. All enemy fighter aircraft have a "f" name designation. Bombers use "b" names.
    1
  99. @Crash-yp7ll  The Fury and Sabre are different.
    1
  100. Sorry , I won't join the Fanboys in love for the F100. I think it's a bad airplane.
    1
  101. COULD BE...
    1
  102. You could make your own video you know?
    1
  103. ​ @christophmahler The cruise missile takes the need for long air strikes into Russia away.
    1
  104.  @christophmahler  We are really drifting far off topic. My comments are based on the Prime mission at the time of design the F-111b. The Strategic Mission of nuclear delivery When I'm referring to gravity bombs, I was referring to weapons Such as the B-83 and B-61 Nuclear bombs. It is hard to picture a mission where you would have carriers doing conventional tactical missions From the Mediterranean or Baltic. The cruise missile allows you to have standoff distance. And not have to penetrate air defenses. It also opened the delivery platform of strike to the surface force and submarine Force. Ships and Subs now have the ability to do Precision targeting well Inland of traditional gunfire. Thus reducing the need for the aircraft programs suggested. The Super Tomcat is going to be facing 5th and 6th generation opponents. As well as improved surface-to-air missile threats.
    1
  105.  @christophmahler  as far as Ukraine goes? Conventional Tactical Air power has largely been neutered on both sides. Both Ukraine and the Russians have depleted a large swath of their manned aircraft. A lot of the massive losses of the Army is due to a lack of air support. Drones have become increasingly more of the weapon of choice. It'll be interesting to see what good the F-16s being sent over will do?
    1
  106.  @christophmahler  You bought up the comment about gravity bombs. Which had nothing to do with Conventional Weapons. THE era is concerning the ERA of the design was planned. And we are not talking about use of air-to-air nuclear weapons.
    1
  107.  @christophmahler  Your last comment bought up a nuclear warhead for the Hughes missile....
    1
  108. People overrated F5 and f20.
    1
  109. Ditching looks dangerous with that intake.
    1
  110. Rather than buy American aircraft , you kept funding a myriad of British aircraft companies to keep them alive. None of them that was particularly great. And by the time they did buy something good? And when they decided to get good? They cut defense.
    1
  111. ​ @t5ruxlee210 I wouldn't say obsolete technology. American jets used the same engine.
    1
  112. It's interesting that picture of marine aviators packing submachine guns in addition to their sidearms.
    1
  113. Define match?
    1
  114. Brits didn't have anything worthwhile to fight either.
    1
  115. @fryertuck6496  that doesn't mean they were good.
    1
  116. @fryertuck6496  who said they were effective? There are no Fleet Air Arm aircraft of the 50s and 60s that outperform their American or Soviet counterparts.
    1
  117. They did. It's known as the f9f cougar.
    1