Comments by "" (@obsidianjane4413) on "Not A Pound For Air To Ground" channel.

50-50% this vs. just Russian junk.
49
@2:00 Lets take a moment to contemplate how much "fun" it was to climb a ladder way up to the wing tip with a hose of avgas. On a pitching carrier. In rough seas. At night. In freezing cold. They really couldn't think of a better way to do that? lol
29
Early radar fire control systems were not anywhere nearly as precise as digital systems are today. Instead of showing individual contacts as discrete data objects, those analog systems just went with the strongest signal return and did its calculations on that. This is about good enough when the assumption is that anything the sensor is pointed at is an enemy, but as shown, can lead to tragedy when that is not the case.
19
@albow4oops5 Nah. That had been done since the 30s. Mostly to make finding (the pieces of) them easier to find after destruction or getting lost. It also would not help in this case because the test was of an instrument only engagement.
13
The audio is weirdly choppy.
11
@guaposneeze Well there is also the larger geopolitics of not wanting the escalate into WWIII... Even if successful, this wouldn't have been a "Lusitania moment" but it would have been a step towards it.
10
@20:38 "Why weren't Sabres sent to Vietnam" Because McNamara's Whiz Kids and the Generals would have to explain to Congress why the billions being spent on new aircraft when a plane from the 50s was good enough.
6
@jefclark It is often cited as a casus belli for the US entering WWI, because it (government anyway) was looking for one. In this case, the UK is not looking for one, I don't think. And this is still a military aircraft doing a military mission supporting a combatant.
4
The Israelis benefitted from the distilled knowledge and even equipment tuned to the American experience fighting Soviet equipment and tactics in N. Vietnam.
4
@10:11 dafuk? It was not code named from the shape of the sight. The US had a system of code naming called NICKA that used "HAVE" for aircraft and then a random word for the sub-project. ie: "Have Blue" etc.
2
@Jon.A.Scholt ...
2
It was very much an interim design and served at a time where there was rapid development in fighters. It also did not have very many notable incidents (baring accidents) and missed participation in any wars. So its understandable that it is overlooked. And its.... ugly. lol.
2
In the early years of thirsty jets, air superiority was point defense, as in GC had to direct the fighters to where they needed to go. They couldn't just wander around looking for trouble. Over the relatively small AO of N. Vietnam, it was possible of 104s to "escort" strike packages in and out of danger areas.
2
@justforever96 The code names for classified programs were computer generated. The people who assigned the code name would not have known/cared about what the gunsight looked like. This is purely a case of "retconning" or a tall-tale someone came up with to explain/BS it. NATO reporting names are not assigned the same way. IIRC its literally by committee. Technically the name, esp. in Europe would have been for a bundle of sticks in French, or a cigarette in British English. I'm sure the Americans giggled sophomorically and voted for the suggestion.
1
I don't think those are .50 cals, too thick. More like the remains of the vertical tail structure or a hoisting point or something. The Israelis never threw anything away like that.
1
First draft of the A6 Intruder...
1
They did have 104s in Vietnam on the air superiority mission from '65 to '67. F4s dominated in Vietnam not because it was better or worse, it was because McNamara was a Phantom Phanboi. He wanted standardized aircraft. He made the USAF buy Phantoms and gosh darn it they were gonna use it!
1
@Leon1Aust They did have their moments. Especially early before the MIC adapted to it.
1
I bet everyone checked their playback quality in the first 10 seconds of the video...
1