Comments by "Caseytify" (@Caseytify) on "Ed Nash's Military Matters" channel.

  1. I yield to no one in my love for the F-104, the "missile with a man in it," but I also know it had limited range, had many coffin corners to learn about, and ultimately a poor all-weather aircraft. The German Air Force, at least, had a terrible safety record with the Starfighter. Both the 104 and the 100 were comparatively dangerous machines to learn how to fly. The Super Tiger was safer, more reliable, and just as fast. Again, I love Lockheed, but bribery seems to have played a very large role.
    48
  2. The Superfortress project was one of the few examples where the power plant gave the production staff fits for a very long time.
    47
  3. The 24 could carry more, and had longer range, but it wasn't superior to the 17. The Liberator took a lot more effort to fly in formation compared to the Fortress (apparently the twin tail had something to do with that) and the Forts could take far more battle damage. To my mind this is like arguing if the P-51 was better than the P-47. They were different designs with different strengths & weaknesses. Both served very well in many theaters.
    18
  4. Hogs are great, as long as they have a permissive environment. That's the whole point.
    10
  5. The difference is that the war in Ukraine is the result of foreign aggression, where the conflict in Burma is not. This may seem nit picky, but that's the truth. One could argue that the no fly zones grew out of the need to enforce peace terms on Hussein, which was also the result of foreign aggression. The US has been the world's policeman for over 70 years. Perhaps it's time for Europe to carry their own weight, instead of allowing the US to do all the dirty work.
    8
  6. A valid point.
    8
  7.  @jptata3161  supposedly Seversky commented that the P-47 would be a dinosaur, but a dinosaur with elegant proportions. 😏 Truly the Cadillac of fighters.
    6
  8.  @sisyphusvasilias3943  Because helping Ukraine defend itself is just silly... Support Ukraine & clamp down, hard, on Russian economy with sanctions. Also keep an eye out for EU companies who have, ah, "unwritten" agreements with Russia, under the table.
    5
  9. Except instead of three new airframes, we have one (the F-35) proving problematic in certain versions. We need aircraft added to the fleet to maintain numbers. If my understanding is correct, the F-15x is oriented towards new air frames.
    4
  10. Next time factor in inflation. 😏
    4
  11. This is parallel in certain ways to the Buffalo's story. Most air forces considered it a dog, but the Finns loved the tubby little bastiche. Apparently it had terrific cold weather performance.
    4
  12.  @KB4QAA  Not unlike the situation with the P-38.
    4
  13.  @Easy-Eight  I was surprised to find out the F-86 started out life as the F3 Fury.
    4
  14. Yes, an obsolete by 1940s design would have changed history, if mass produced.😜
    4
  15. Another reason why the topic is really arguing about angels on pin heads. By 1945, jet fighters made the argument pointless.
    4
  16. Except the Fw 190 had excellent high altitude performance as well, and was recognized as one of the best piston engined fighters of the war. The Marut, not so much.
    4
  17. That front gear was crazy complex. Compare to the main gear on a B-17 or front gear on an A-20.
    4
  18.  @andysweetland8645  I had no problems understanding what he said at all.
    4
  19.  @icewaterslim7260  The cheapness came from conscious design. Up until then a run of 200 was considered large. The Mustang was deliberately designed to be mass produced. That was one of the prime factors in selecting it as the primary escort fighter of the AAF. But, yes, the Jug is the way to go, although I have a crush on the Lightning. The later L models were incredible.
    3
  20. Looking forward to more detail on the F2F & F3F, especially the latter.
    3
  21.  @JustMe-g3e  Everybody has a favorite... 😆
    3
  22. Recall that effective resource management was one of the key reasons the Allies (and especially the US) had such great performance logistically. One good example is the prohibition of metal group insignia. The US saved several tons of paint & metal from that alone. In this case they had to allocate scarce resources for best results. The engines went to designs already in production and service. That's also why the Spitfire & 109 were in production the entire war. It was less about "control" than logistical efficiency.
    3
  23. Two key missions, well accomplished.
    3
  24. Look up the specs for the B-10, first flown in 1932. Also note the B-17 first flew in 1935. This design was horribly out of date compared to American & British designs of the time.
    3
  25.  @danieldickson4656  So the only example you have comes from 60 years ago. Marvelous.
    3
  26.  @petersouthernboy6327 And wrt convoys there weren't enough US Navy ships in existence, especially escort craft, thanks to the austere pre-war budgets.
    3
  27. For all the concern shown for agile fighters, US designs have historically been less maneuverable than their opponents, yet the Navy/USAF have been victorious in every war since WW2.
    3
  28. The B-29 cost more than the Manhatten Project. I doubt Germany could afford it.
    2
  29. At this point Russia must be thinking grim thoughts about why it was called the Warsaw Pact...
    2
  30. The design also resulted in an insane combat range for the A6M.
    2
  31. Naaah; Lightning had twin engines in the booms. This reminds me of the O-2 Skymaster.
    2
  32. Any radial, really. The US Navy went all radial in the 20s. Same for USAAF bombers. Eventually the last generation fighters were all radial as well. There were a few exceptions such as the Spit, but Britain couldn't afford the disruption converting to a new design. The Fw 190 and the Ta 152. All the later British designs were radial, such as the Fury. The USAAF stayed with the Mustang, but as has been pointed out, it enjoyed a massive advantage in cost of manufacture. I cite the P-61 Black Widow in evidence. Big, fast, and maneuverable.
    2
  33. Bwaaaaahahaha! Both Putin & Kim have been rattling sabers for years, causing weak bladders to void on a regular basis. 😂😂
    2
  34. Going by looks, I am reminded of Convair's Delta Dagger/Dart.
    2
  35. Call me when Russia has more than a dozen craft flying with actual squadrons, not smoke & mirrors. The J-20 is more problematic.
    2
  36. Compare to American bomber & attack designs of the same period.
    2
  37.  @jameswebb4593  Why was the Mustang the last in-line engine design used by the air force? Why did all American bomber designs from 1930 on feature radial engines? 🤫
    2
  38. Not only was the Mustang around in larger numbers, after WW2 it was kept around in large numbers as the F-51, while the P-47 was eliminated. The Corsair was a Navy plane also built in fewer numbers. That's why the Enforcer came about; there were just that many surplus Mustangs around in the 60s. They're still the most numerous flying iron bird today.
    2
  39. That was actually a 1930s design? Yoicks!
    2
  40. No, their mistake was not contracting for a decent engine from the beginning.
    2
  41.  @alan6832  Good question. Did the B-10 do much anti-sub work? Didn't the B-18 do the same?
    2
  42. I've seen that claim made for the Wildcat and the Lightning as well. It seems to be a very popular claim.
    2
  43. Ask the Israelis; they seem quite happy with their Lightnings.
    2
  44. The intro was perfect! ... Can someone explain to me the British obsession with .303 I'm machine guns on airplanes? The .50 caliber was far superior in every respect, and the obvious choice until 20 mm cannons became common.
    2
  45.  @englishpassport6590  Where did you get this crap from? The Lightning wasn't a "disaster," although I will admit the never put a decent heater in the plane. Odd omission for a high altitude interceptor. Compressibility was an issue, but was solved by the J model. It certainly didn't "finish" the plane. The Mustang didn't have superior performance, but it was cheaper to build & maintain than the Lighting. In fact the Mustang was designed with mass production in mind, whereas Lockheed was told the total number of P-38s needed was barely in three figures. In other words mass production wasn't on the to do list. There was also the fact that the USAAF had a terrible twin engine training program. For a long time Lightning pilots received very poor twin engine training. Note the P-38 was very popular in the Pacific, where its long range and twin engines were beneficial. Also note that the top two scoring American aces of WW2 both flew the "horrible" Lightning. Hmmm...
    2
  46. The historical record shows most USAF fighters to be less maneuverable than their opponents, but that never stopped the Air Force from obtaining air supremacy in every conflict. The only exception was Vietnam, where American aviators were under severe political & doctrinal restraint. In your example the F-22 and F-35 could simply employ zoom & boom tactics. Recall that biplanes were more maneuverable than monoplanes; that didn't prevent them from getting chewed up by their less maneuverable opponents.
    2
  47.  @donjones4719  The bloody engines were the worst problem, although the use of magnesium to save weight wasn't a good choice either.
    2
  48. Amazing how so many people know so little about what actually happened at Munich...
    2
  49. Please also note that Japanese designers favored agility over several other factors.
    2
  50. If you're facing an opponent who heavily relies on water traffic, as did Japan. Germany, not so much. They mostly relied on their rail system.
    2
  51. No, the Buffalo would still be a second rate aircraft, alas, with only its cold weather performance in Finland to redeem it. I would be hesitant to make claims about which plane was better, no matter which two you're comparing. AAF pilots, for the most part, didn't know how to fight the Zero effectively. A pity; the P-40 was always the bridesmaid, never the bride. It fought under the shadow of the P-38, P-47, and P-51, not to mention many excellent Navy designs. An unappreciated aircraft.
    2
  52. Proof positive that with enough thrust you can make a brick fly!
    2
  53. Reminds me of the Martin Maryland/Baltimore, while the top view looks like a Bf 110. The A-20 had a similar narrow fuselage. I still can't believe Handley Page produced, and the RAF paid for a biplane in 1934. That's just one year before the Boeing Model 299 flew!
    2
  54. Not the Italians & Americans. The SS.4 flew & crashed March 1939. The XP-55 didn't fly until July 1943. If they really were copying off the Italians it wouldn't have taken 4 years to create a working example.
    2
  55. The US already had an advanced fighter industry. Rocketry, not so much.
    2
  56. I was always confused as a kid between the A-26 (Invader) and the B-26 (Marauder) , especially when the Invader was later named the B-26 and the Marauder was dropped. The Invader can be seen as the follow on to the A-20 Havoc.
    2
  57. 😄😄😄😆😆😆😂😂😂
    2
  58. It's a pity they didn't keep one for the USAF Museum in Dayton.
    2
  59. The problem is that both the A-10 and the Su 25 have only been successful in permissive environments. The A-10 was designed to fight Soviet forces in Europe, but never did. In fact the USAF hasn't fought a near peer opponent since the Vietnam war. They've enjoyed air supremacy for over 40 years. The DoD has been trying to find CAS design that can survive a less permissive environment, but all the fans can do is pound their chests and chant "Warthog!! Warthog!!" I suspect drones will prove effective.
    2
  60. No, Germany has gone full wussy. The readiness rate of their armed forces laughable. The country has gone full pacifist and in effect has disarmed itself. That's not an ally, but a vassal state. The sad thing is Russian army is the smallest in over a century. They've probably massed their entire effective strength along the border. There's also questions as to how long they can conduct warfare without wrecking their economy, which is already in shambles.
    2
  61. The author ignores the attrition losses of Japanese aviators, especially naval fliers. At the start of the war the IJN had probably the finest set of aviators in the world. This was due to the intensive training & selection candidates underwent. To put it in context, Imperial Navy aviators went through the equivalent of US Navy SEAL training. The result are incomparable fighters, but the output is strictly limited. Around 1942 or 43 some lower level IJN officers suggested a greater pilot training program to produce up to 5,000 pilots a year. This was met with the same incredulity of FDR's call for 50,000 aircraft to be built. Many historians mention the crippling loss of veteran IJN pilots during Midway, but fewer discuss the equally crippling loss of veteran maintenance crews. Japan entered a vicious circle of self-destruction from which it never escaped. ... Nothing on the Mark VIII, but it faced a tremendously different Japanese set of aviators in terms of training & experience, not to mention ground crews.
    1
  62. Looks like a Gnat .
    1
  63. Variable sweep designs turned out to be complex, expensive, and eventually not used. The Americans developed the F-111 and the F-14, while Europe developed the Tornado. All of these are out of production and out of service, except for a few Iranian Tomcats. That's all you need to know about variable sweep fighters.
    1
  64. That is one weird airplane...
    1
  65. So good they discontinued it and never flew a variable sweep design again.
    1
  66. For every beautiful design like the Spitfire, Britain came up with a truly ugly one, like the S.B.3, or the Gannet.
    1
  67. Aaaand the two highest scoring American aces in WW2 both flew the Lighting. The P-38 was removed from Europe because it was much more expensive to make & maintain. It had nothing to do with performance. The P-38 dominated in the Pacific for the entire war. As for Galland's comment, does that reflect on the P-38, or on Galland's skill? The man had 104 victories. The P-38 had several issues, but your comment touches on none of them.
    1
  68. That's ok. You take the 109; I'll take a P-38L or P-47D. 😄
    1
  69. Never knew about the B-24N, and that's saying something! I've read a fair number of histories that say the Forts were easier to fly in formation in terms of physical effort on the part of the pilots. Sounds like the twin tail had something to do with that. I would suggest the Liberator didn't get as much publicity because more were sent to North Africa & the Pacific, just like the P-38. The ETO got most of the publicity, hence the Forts were better known. The Liberator had better load capacity, and greater range, which is one reason they were preferred in the Pacific, especially range. Did the production numbers quoted include tankers & cargo variants? I assume the Privateers were counted separately. It's a pity it took Consolidated took so long to develop the N. Probably didn't have resources, being dedicated to manufacturing Liberators & Catalinas. By 1945 even the N was obsolete; the Superforts were good enough, and we had the really big stick with the B-36.
    1
  70. To me the F-4 will always be associated with the P-38. Big, twin-engined, complex, and powerful. The Lightning pioneered many of the missions flown today. The main reason the P-38 was phased out of service was the cost of maintenance. The P-51 far less per hour to maintain & fly, even if the P-38L was a monster of an aircraft. I suspect that's one of the unspoken reasons the F-4 upgrade program died. Even after all the enhancements the Phantom II was an older airframe with higher maintenance costs, compared to the newer aircraft coming into service.
    1
  71. That's assuming these crates can actually hit the boats in the first place. Do you think the Navy was not adjusting to circumstances?
    1
  72.  @nunyabidniz2868  Blame everything on Hitler...
    1
  73.  @Lord.Kiltridge  The P-38 wasn't designed as a heavy fighter per se . It was designed as a high altitude interceptor & bomber killer. It had an unbelievable climb rate, and the armament concentrated in the nose was devastating. Thank God Germany didn't have something like the P-38.
    1
  74. It's worth noting that all modern US Navy designs used radial engines, as did all modern USAAF bombers. The P-51 was the last in-line design accepted by the AAF, and even the RAF was migrating to radial engines on later designs... Actually it's interesting how much the availability of a good engine, or lack thereof, had such a strong effect on airframe design. I've lost count of the designs Ed has talked about that eventually were discontinued due to the lack of a suitable power plant. That's one area Britain & the United States led the way. Britain produced what were arguably some of the finest in-line engines ever made, and were a world leader in jet engine design. The United States made the best radials in the world. That's a powerful advantage.
    1
  75. usually this type of balloon uses helium.
    1
  76. The P-38 Lightning flew faster & farther a couple months before that. By coincidence, it also crashed. Fortunately the USAAC had greater foresight.
    1
  77.  @hachwarwickshire292  LOL.
    1
  78.  @JosipRadnik1  fear the goatee!
    1
  79. The North African invasion diverted a large number of fighter & bomber groups from the 8th AF. That's where the Lightnings went. Also, the USAAF had terrible twin engine training. Compressibility was fixed with speed brakes (distinct from Fowler maneuvering flaps, thank you), as was the roll issue, when they added hydraulic boosting. Basically the J model was a beast, but by the time that had been developed, about half the P-38s made were pre-J models. Also by that time Mustang production was in full swing, so the P-38s went to North Africa & the Pacific, while the 8th AF got P-51s. 9th AF (IIRC) got the P-47. To paraphrase Martin Caidin, the German ace sees the Lightning as easy meat after he's shot down a half dozen of them. A Brit pilot sees the Bf 110 as an easy kill for the same reason. Is that the machine, or the man? A late model Lightning didn't have to worry about compressibility, roll rate, and had excellent maneuverability with intelligent use of the Fowler flaps. They never did put a decent heater in that plane, and the Allisons were a constant PITA.
    1
  80. Is it just me, or does that look like a German Mustang?
    1
  81. Yes, it's been my understanding that Bell removed the supercharger due to USAAC request.
    1
  82. I don't think so. Even twin 50s would chew these suckers up. 20 mm? Forget about it. That's assuming the newbie pilots could even get these crates off the ground without killing themselves.
    1
  83. It's most likely helium.
    1
  84. They lack the culture of diligence that is required when operating Western aircraft. The Russian stuff is more forgiving. This is mostly a huge PR stunt for the Taliban, to convince their Western supporters the struggle continues.
    1
  85.  @rob5944  {yawn} It's sad that someone feels the need to drag out a single statistic and proclaim superiority.
    1
  86.  @martijn9568  uhhh, no.
    1
  87. re: the first Scimitar fatality. The machine didn't have an ejection seat? I expected him to punch out when the cable broke. I've seen more than a few landing videos where just that happened.
    1
  88. The Tomcat was designed primarily as an interceptor.
    1
  89. I expect the Germans would have found this very useful during the Battle of Britain.
    1
  90. Excellent point about munition stocks. One wonders if NATO suppliers are ramping up production, and how long that would take.
    1
  91. The B-25 strafer and the A-1 Skyraider showed us how to do it right. ... I gotta admit the Soviets really liked the Airacobra & King Cobra.
    1
  92. One wonders how well these would fare against M48s or M60s? I hear the latter has a nice kit upgrade...
    1
  93. ... Aaaaand when did the last guns kill happen, again? Missiles did eventually become that deadly. It just took longer than expected. The Sidewinder origin story still cracks me up.
    1
  94. Germany didn't have an economy to build heavy bombers in addition to other forces. Also note that strategic bombing is by nature a long term process. Germany could not survive a long war. ... What people frequently ignore in "what if" scenarios (in this case, what if there were German heavy bombers for the Battle of Britain) is that Germany lacked adequate naval resources to successfully invade Great Britain. The invasion needed three solid legs to succeed: sea, air, and land. Germany lacked enough offensive naval units to defend & protect beachheads, effective naval transport, and nearly any logistical transport to feed an invading force landed in Britain. Given no opportunity for the heavy bomber force to gain proficiency (remember: short campaigns), the result in Britain would be many missed targets and a lack of useful bomb damage analysis.
    1
  95. The cockpit of the Demon reminds me of the Corsair.
    1
  96. It's still redundant given the Skyraider & Mauler. In fact I doubt the Mauler would have gone into production. Building a great variety of designs is inefficient.
    1
  97. They could have saved weight & complexity by doing something about that hideous landing gear!
    1
  98. I didn't know Harris was a mine fan. Interesting. Mines use in Europe was limited to riverine traffic. Most of the targets were on land. The strategic bomber offensive is still debated because everyone uses different metrics, and ignores important parts of history. I suspect King didn't spare much attention for mines since they were a very small part of global operations. In the Pacific the main thrust was multiple amphibious invasions & CAS. In the Atlantic it was convoy duty and (again) support for amphibious invasions. Mining was very effective on Japanese home water shipping. It's a good thing the Germans didn't have the same success against Great Britain. IIRC the US results were classified until the 1970s. If memory serves mining was also more successful than submarine operations against shipping.
    1
  99. "If the program had been properly managed from the start..." Welcome to the wonderful world of corruption & incompetence. India has run into these issues repeatedly, resulting in designs that were over budget & underperforming, if they were finished at all.
    1
  100. So it's like the kids who glue various bits of different Star Trek models together to create a new class?
    1
  101. Under-engined & slow even before the war. The D.520 held much greater promise.
    1
  102.  @johnassal5838  real world history disagrees with you.
    1
  103.  @dukecraig2402  what about the melting cylinder heads?
    1
  104.  @usernamesreprise4068  The 109 would laugh sarcastically, then shoot it down.
    1
  105. I like the suggestion of replacing Eastern European countries' Warsaw Pact stores with modern munitions, and sending the old stuff to Ukraine. While offering them older US systems may seem promising, as someone pointed out here there's the metric problem. Right now we should be funding increased production of stuff like Javelins & manpads, as well as funding transfer of Warsaw Pact munitions to Ukraine. Not sure a new Lend-Lease bill is a good idea. One of the motivators of that Act was that it was better to help the Allies with munitions while we became more prepared. Is Biden anticipating becoming a belligerent?
    1
  106. As much as I respect the F-35, I don't think it's an optimal choice for Canada. The F-18E or Gripen would be a much better choice. ... The USAF is buying the F-15 XL from Boeing after all? Interesting. An F-35 / F-15XL hi/lo mix might prove a good choice. The F-15XL sounds like a good option for Canada, but it appears there are political obstacles. ... On the other hand, certain cynical predictions may prove correct, in the government will just kick the problem down the road a few years and let someone else deals with it later.
    1
  107. Sounds like a very useful & versatile short field supply plane.
    1
  108. Weren't the engines less vulnerable to MANPADS as well?
    1
  109. More Pallywood. They've learned from their Iranian masters.
    1
  110. An excellent video! You covered many of the variables nicely. I would like to expand on some of them. A well maintained craft would perform better than one with a mediocre crew. A well waxed fighter would gain several MPH over the same model with a normal paint job. Also, a light pilot with a low fuel load could give a better performance than the same model with a large pilot and full fuel load. Finally, even given equivalent paint jobs, weight, and size of pilots, two planes that came one after the other from the factor could still show significant variation in performance. For those that take the argument seriously, this is all angels dancing on pins territory. P.S. I'm sure there are good reasons, but why no P-38? According to the sources you used, what was its highest rated speed?
    1
  111. First you have to understand & explain the IJN doctrine of air combat. Even experienced Hurricane pilots got chewed up by the Zeros when they tried to use the same tactics used (successfully) against the Luftwaffe. It wouldn't take a dedicated fighter, anyway. Besides maneuvers such as the Thach Weave, all the services in the Pacific developed similar rules. - Keep IAS over 300 mph. The Zero's controls stiffened up at that speed. - Avoid steep climbs where the Zero has the advantage. Stick to shallow high speed climbs. - Avoid turning combat. Thomas McGuire added a couple: - Avoid low altitude combat. - Never fight with your drop tanks still on. Basically the competitive strategy against the Zero was an example of the earliest use of energy concepts; "zoom & boom" was a preferred technique.
    1
  112. It's amazing how many "woulda coulda" designs we saw in WW2. Even today engines are a serious consideration for any fighter design. Both the Russians & China still lag far behind western development, and other countries can't even get started.
    1
  113.  @FranciscoPartidas  Ahhh, no.
    1
  114. The Streak Eagle hit 98,000 feet.
    1
  115. Further reports the balloon at 60,000 feet.
    1
  116. I was wondering by 1942 why they just didn't license build A-20s or Beaufighters.
    1
  117. I didn't know you could use the words "sleek" and "Gannet" in the same sentence. LOL.
    1
  118. Convergent evolution.
    1
  119.  @dnomyarnostaw  Yet no one was developing in-line designs by the end of the war; any internal combustion designs used radial engines.
    1
  120. The Army looked at this plane 10 or 15 years ago. They're finally procuring it? Back when they were doing a fly off between what became the T-6 Texan II and the Tucano, the Air Tractor was mentioned.
    1
  121. The idiot thought he could run the DoD like a business.
    1
  122. Definitely a three-bagger...
    1
  123. 🙂🙂😄😄😆😆😂😂🤣🤣🤣 Economics: do you speak it!?
    1
  124. Um, yeah. Try that against a real air force, like the RAF or USAF.
    1
  125. Not a crack on the plane but... It looks like it has the nose of a P-40, the canopy of a tempest, and the tail of a Corsair. 😏
    1
  126. They can get accurate data from Google Earth. No need for weather balloons or other frippery.
    1
  127. To pick a small nit, Model 299 crashed before the end of the competion, failing to complete the category "utility as a type." Hence it became ineligible. The B-18 won by default. The Fort did have its fans who insisted the B-17 was a better aircraft (which was obvious in those areas it did compete), but... That's when the relative cost reared its ugly head. Model 299 was ineligible, and the B-18 was cheaper. QED. Supporters talked the AAC into buying 13 Y models, but that was it until 1939.
    1
  128. Looks like a Corsair tail.
    1
  129. ​ @yes_head  smart munitions. Visualize an advanced Switchblade.
    1
  130. Frankly, by that time jet aircraft were rendering propeller driven fighters obsolete, and the British Fury and late model Spits were fast enough to defeat the buzz bombs. For some reason Republic aircraft always get derisive nicknames. Jug is one (some Brits thought it stood for Juggernaut); the F-84 was called a pig or a hog in Korea because it was in the mud all the time. The F-105 was called the Thud. ... And of course we have the famous Thunderbolt II, the Warthog. Another common factor was the ability to soak up massive amounts of damage. We what could have been when the Navy kept Corsairs on the roster as a CAS platform. It could be used on carriers too small to handle jets.
    1
  131.  @Inkling777  Did it even have armor in it? Not to mention the self-sealing fuel tanks. How would it hold up from 20 mm Cannon shells fired from a 109?
    1
  132. ... And here we are on the 17th with no invasion. Russia literally can't afford a full blown invasion. It's a tremendous drain on the economy to just mobilize such a large part of their military. That's not to mention the historical record is that Russians are shite at the start of any given war. That's not to say the Biden administration will spontaneously surrender without warning this weekend.
    1
  133.  @rob5944  Look at how Germany reacted to British and American daylight bomber offenses. Defenses could take a terrible toll of attacking bomber forces, and there were many ways to deceive attacking forces. That's not to mention that everyone overestimated the effect heavy bombers would have. It turns out that several hundred bombers per attack were required, and frequent re-visits necessary to keep the target inoperable. Germany just didn't have to infrastructure and economic power to build fighters and medium bombers and heavy bombers. Both their economy & doctrine were geared to a short war approach. Germany had the best short war army on the planet. Note that none of the German campaigns lasted more than 12 weeks until the invasion of the Soviet Union.
    1
  134.  @rob5944  How, exactly? By summer 1940, Germany didn't much of a navy left. Who would support the invasion forces?
    1
  135. The profile of a Spiteful reminds me of a late model Mustang. Odd. Don't see the point of further development. The Meteor had been in operation since 1943, and viable carrier designs include the Sea Fury, Corsair, Tigercat, and Bearcat.
    1
  136. Actually the DoD reported they had been tracking it for several days.
    1
  137.  @marclaplante5679  ... Are you saying the F-35 is obsolete? Even the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18E still have life in them.
    1
  138. An extremely unnecessary design. the Wasp Major was plagued with problems. The Navy already had the Avenger and the Skyraider, and the Air Force had the P-47; all reliable and in production. The A-41 would have been a waste of resources.
    1
  139. Um, no.
    1