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