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

  1. COULD BE...
    1
  2. You could make your own video you know?
    1
  3. ​ @christophmahler The cruise missile takes the need for long air strikes into Russia away.
    1
  4.  @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
  5.  @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
  6.  @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
  7.  @christophmahler  Your last comment bought up a nuclear warhead for the Hughes missile....
    1
  8. People overrated F5 and f20.
    1
  9. Ditching looks dangerous with that intake.
    1
  10. 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
  11. ​ @t5ruxlee210 I wouldn't say obsolete technology. American jets used the same engine.
    1
  12. It's interesting that picture of marine aviators packing submachine guns in addition to their sidearms.
    1
  13. Define match?
    1
  14. Brits didn't have anything worthwhile to fight either.
    1
  15. @fryertuck6496  that doesn't mean they were good.
    1
  16. @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
  17. They did. It's known as the f9f cougar.
    1