Comments by "Gort" (@gort8203) on "AERIAL ATTACK STUDY: F-100 Super Sabre Vs Bison, Bear And Badger, 1960" video.

  1.  @neilturner6749  I think the Aerial Attack Study is not as closely linked to interception of strategic bombers as one might gather from this video. The F-100 was certainly not one of the aircraft USAF procured for that role during this time frame, and it was not well suited for it even in a pinch. It was a day air superiority fighter upgraded to a fighter bomber in later versions. Like any fighter it could shoot down a bomber (if it could find it), and as you point out defense of the US from attack by enemy nuclear bombers was the purview of more suitable aircraft. I also think too much is made of Boyd in general, as if he was the inventor of these concepts.
    3
  2.  @MrArgus11111  Surprising, but then again this is YouTube, where anybody can post a video about anything no matter how little they really know about the subject. Boyd did a couple of good things such as sparking a mathematical analysis of energy maneuverability. Good pilots tacitly understood EM, but getting into an objective format that helped inform the development of the next generation of fighter planes. But he was an extremist rather than a genius, and luckily senior USAF leadership that had actual experience commanding combat operations did not fall for the extreme concept of the simple dogfighter. Boyd was wrong about what was needed to dominate in actual air combat, as opposed to friendly dogfights over the local air patch, and he and his acolytes were wrong about the need for modernization in general. What was really bizarre was that while they were trying to hobble the USAF with a fleet of simple dogfighters, the Soviets we working as hard as they could to modernize their own weapons systems. The Gulf War proved Boyd and the ‘reformers’ wrong, but they still had the nerve to insisting this war proved them right! There was no way to retreat from the position they had zealously established for themselves, so they tried to twist reality into their own story. To me the OODA loop is just common sense painted up to look like incisive insight. I’ve seen this sort of thing from consultants of all types, particularly in aviation safety. They make a bunch of graphics and charts to explain things you already know with bigger words, and then charge you $400K for it.
    3