Comments by "Gort" (@gort8203) on "Ed Nash's Military Matters" channel.

  1. Like the Hurricane it was a prewar aircraft that was already marginal at the beginning of the war. They had roughly comparable performance, although the Hurricane was a bit faster early on. (Perhaps due to achieving its maximum speed at a higher altitude due to a better blower?) They both contributed a great deal to the allied war effort, yet on the internet the P-40 seems to get far less respect than than Hurricane. If the Hurricane had not earned fame in the Battle of Britain it would probably hold a place in the firmament closer to the P-40, which doesn't get talked about much in proportion to its contributions.
    132
  2. I would just like to note that the Me-262 is not the best example of early swept wing aircraft because its wings were not swept to increase its critical Mach number, but rather to change the distance between the center of lift and center of gravity. The original design had straight wings but the engine nacelles turned out to be heavier than anticipated, so the wings were adjusted to move them aft. It was simpler to change the wing angle than to redesign the fuselage and rearrange the structure and internal components. The wings ended up at the same slight sweep angle as the earlier DC-3 transport, which had slightly swept wings for the same reason.
    77
  3. It's not the placement of the engine closer to the center of gravity that made it handle more like a jet, it's is the reduction in propeller induced yaw due to the ducted fan. That and the fuselage as a flow splitter must have all but eliminated the spiral slipstream effect on the vertical stabilizer.
    47
  4. The real reason this bomber was not produced in larger numbers must be that it failed to fully meet the air ministry requirement to present an awkward and ungainly appearance.
    46
  5. Just wait until they begin to employ Screamers. . .
    30
  6. Don't confuse Lend-Lease with the postwar loan the U.S. made to help Britain recover. That was the 2% interest loan mentioned in the video. That loan was eventually repaid, but Lend-Lease was never intended to be repaid -- it was a cost the U.S. was able and willing to bear in support of the allied war effort.
    14
  7. Except aircraft developers actual don't say those things. Every aircraft is a compromise, with its attributes chosen for what looks to be the best compromise for the needs expected when it goes into service. Nobody says always or forever about such choices, they are making their best guess about the near future.
    13
  8. This video implies that the F-5 was conceived by the USAF as an alternative to its existing more sophisticated fighters. That's not really the case, and USAF never planned to acquire the F-5 for its own use. The F-5 was designed as a low-cost fighter for allied air forces, not for USAF service. It was a spectacular success in that role, but it was never seriously considered for mainline service by USAF. Also, the F-5 was not developed from the T-38, it was developed from the Northrop N-165. The contract for the T-38 came first, but both jets were developed from the N-156..
    13
  9. I don't think this is really delta canard, and calling it a tandem wing might even be a stretch. One might call it a delta tailplane and be more accurate. Look at the position of the front wing in relation to mass of the engine. The center of gravity has to be nearer the front wing than the back, which makes it the front wing the main wing rather than a canard used as a pitch control surface. If anybody has more info on location of center of gravity and center of pressure please share.
    13
  10.  @ibex485  And the equipment they wanted to keep, which was minimal, was discounted at 10% of cost. It was expected that most of the equipment and supplies would be consumed by the war and would never need to be returned. Lend-lease was a huge transfer of wealth from the U.S. to Britain and Russia.
    12
  11. Ukraine doesn't want them. They need planes that will win, not die. "Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov has asked the United States and international partners for Western combat jets and the training to fly them. U.S. officials have weighed in, but they may not be suggesting the right aircraft, a Ukrainian defense official told Air Force Magazine. To target Russian positions in Ukrainian territory, Ukraine needs “fast and versatile” combat aircraft such as the F-16—not slow-moving ground defense platforms such as the retiring fleet of U.S. A-10s, a proposition Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall entertained in comments July 20."
    11
  12. @Aqua Fyre They were not "too scared to fly low", they were flying the mission under existing doctrine that the B-29 had in fact been designed for, which was high altitude daylight precision bombing. That profile had nothing to do with being scared, as the British could attest to because they were "too scared" to operate that way themselves, and advised the 8th Air Force to also bomb in the dark because it was safer. Lemay did not show the B-29 crews "how it was done", Lemay threw away existing USAAF doctrine on how it was done and created a new way of doing it. The new way was driven by analysis of the targets and the atmospheric conditions extant over them.
    11
  13. "they will need a dedicated CAS aircraft" No, they will not. If you think that you need to catch up to the reality of CAS in the 21st century.
    11
  14. "They considered the two-seat dive bomber too cumbersome, slow, and quite frankly a bit of a one trick pony." And they were right. I'm glad they came to this conclusion soon enough to not expend a lot of resources on these aircraft.
    10
  15. All famous aircraft are overrated, and many are underrated. This is because there is no objective rating system, and these "ratings" are arrived at through repetition of the subjective feelings of aircraft fans. Professionals that operate aircraft know them as tools, and always endeavor to use these tools to the best of their abilities without the effects of subjective emotions.
    10
  16. RE: the lecture by the F-14 designer at 3:05. Any airplane can "take" another in the right circumstances. However under most circumstances the F-15 had superior maneuverability. This is only natural, as the F-14 was handicapped by the weight and wing needed for the fleet defense role the F-15 did not have to perform.
    10
  17. Okay. In comparison the Globemaster flew 5 years earlier and could lift more weight with significantly higher performance. One possible area of advantage for the Beverly might be an ability to swallow pieces of outsize cargo, but it's hard to judge just by looking at photos.
    9
  18. Yes, the B-47 was much more innovative than this uncompetitive design, and the engine pods on pylons were the biggest part of it. I can't understand what Martin was thinking with their engine installation, which probably slowed the airplane so much that it didn't even need swept wings.
    9
  19. It's way past time to retire this outdated airplane. Keeping it is a drain on readiness. BTW, Ukraine has stated they don't want the A-10, they need faster multirole aircraft like the F-16.
    9
  20. If they built another dedicated CAS from the ground up it would look just like the A-10. The problem is not the aircraft, it is the outdated CAS tactic of low and slow strafing and dropping dumb munitions. The A-10 has already been replaced. It's called the F-16/F-15E/B-1/B-52. If they run out of those, they will have a more serious problem than needing the F-35 do CAS.
    8
  21. Morale is not priceless, and is actually very costly when serving it at the expense of actual combat effectiveness leads to more casualties and defeat.
    8
  22. Good points that are all true. Plus, Ukraine has already said they don't want the A-10, they need something faster and more versatile like the F-16.
    7
  23.  @GoSlash27  It seems you didn't read my comments and want to stick to your own narrative. Of course the side-by-side seating was not a deal breaker for the Navy; they had insisted on it over the objections of the Air Force in the first place. The fact is that F-111B was not designed to dogfight at all. Too big for carrier operations? The A-3 could fit on the elevators but the F-111B could not? The F-111 had worse visibility during landing than the F-4 or A-5? From Smithsonian Magazine: "In the summer of 1968, when the fifth F-111B prototype flew its carrier trials, Pete Pettigrew [of Topgun and F-14 fame] was aboard the USS Coral Sea. To the surprise of many, the big interceptor completed its evaluations without major problems. “It flew a nice approach, wasn’t too fast, and performed well on the ball,” says Pettigrew. “They were pretty happy about it.” The Navy pushed negative narratives about the F-111B after 'internal reconsideration' led to the desire for a combination air superiority / fleet defense fighter rather than a dedicated fleet defense aircraft. That was the right decision, but blaming the Air Force and McNamara for the switch was just politics aimed at Congress.
    6
  24. Good points.
    6
  25. That does not solve the problem, which you are ignoring, because the aircraft would be no more survivable if flown by the Army. The Army is not stupid. It is not the Army that cares about the A-10, it is politicians. “The only thing I care about is the effect on the target, I don’t give a rat’s ass what platform brings it in,” Army chief of staff Gen. Mark Milley told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., on June 23. “I could care less if it’s a B-52, if it’s a B-1 bomber, if it’s an F-16, an F-15, an A-10. I don’t care if the thing was delivered by carrier pigeon. I want the enemy taken care of.”
    6
  26.  @SoloRenegade  Especially during an era of rapid evolution in both technology and warfighting doctrine.
    6
  27. The USAAF certainly did exist. The U.S. Army Air Corps was the Army's aviation service from 1926 to 20 June 1941. The Air Corps became a subordinate element of the newly created U.S. Army Air Forces on 20 June 1941, and was abolished as an administrative organization on 9 March 1942. USAAF then remained in place until the U.S. Air Force was created as a separate service in Sept 1947.
    5
  28. Another smart choice by the Navy was cancellation of this program. The thinking that almost brought us the light sea control carriers and these silly fighters seems to have returned years later to spawn the littoral combat ship, which my Navy friends consider the worst Navy shipbuilding program ever.
    5
  29. The failure of the F-111B has become a mythical narrative on the internet. The reality is that the Navy changed its mind about the roles its next fighter needed to perform. The lessons of the TFX program are commonly misinterpreted, but if you repeat a narrative for decades it becomes "truth". The idea that one basic airframe could fulfill two different roles was not a dumb idea at all. History is full of examples of aircraft that were versatile enough to fly for different services and even perform different missions. The original requirements presented by the Navy and USAF were not incompatible, but the requirements changed. Initially the TFX program was reasonable because USAF and USN were both asking for a large aircraft that could lift a heavy load of fuel and weapons, with long range or long loiter, plus high-speed dash or intercept. Twin engines and an innovative variable geometry wing were called for, and DOD logically assessed that it would be wasteful to develop two very expensive advanced airframes when a single one with some variations could do both jobs. The reason one basic airframe could do both jobs was because the original USN specification was for a fleet defense fighter, not an air superiority fighter. It was not originally intended to be what later became the F-14, but to perform the role meant for the Douglas F6D Missileer, with the addition of supersonic dash capability. I was never meant to be a dogfighter. The biggest difference between the airframe requirements of the two services was that USAF wanted a tandem cockpit and USN want side by side seating. Boeing tried to make both services happy, but MacNamara’s DOD thought USAF could suck it up and have the crew sit side by side. This is ironic considering that when the Navy cancelled its version USAF was stuck with the cockpit it didn’t want, which also ironically contributed to the airplane being too ungainly for a dogfighter. But if the Navy had expected the F-111 to be a dogfighter it would not have insisted on the side-by-side cockpit over the objection of the Air Force. The F-111 cockpit was suitable for a radar interceptor, but not for an air superiority fighter. The original idea wasn’t dumb -- what happened was that needs changed. USN revised its needs as result of combat experience in Vietnam, and realized they also needed an air superiority fighter to replace the F-8 and F-4, but couldn’t afford that in addition to a dedicated fleet defense aircraft. Thus, the TFX would now have to be able to dogfight as well as be a missile interceptor. The F-111B could have worked as a missileer, but it was too fat and underpowered to compete as an air superiority fighter. It was proper of the Navy to recognize that its needs had evolved. This was perhaps the beginning of the Navy realizing that budgets and hangar decks did not have room for so many specialized aircraft. USAF desperately needed the F-111 to replace the F-105, so they sucked it up and accepted the heavy airframe caused by the loveseat cockpit they never wanted.
    5
  30. The fact that the wing of the follow-on F-5 more closely resembled that of the F-104 than it did that of either the MiG-21 or Mirage might be indicative of how exaggerated the "widow maker" narrative has become.
    5
  31.  @Verminator4  You are correct, sir. USAF knows what it is trying to do, and the guy who did a dissertation on CAS should already understand that low and slow manned CAS is the way of the past, not for the future or even the present.
    5
  32. They did. HH-60G Pave Hawk.
    5
  33.  @30AndHatingIt  You should read more carefully. No one ever said an F-14 could never beat an F-15, only that the F-15 is overall the more maneuverable aircraft. As it should be, having been optimized for that attribute, while the F-14 had to meet more varied requirements. They don’t call them the laws of physics for no reason. BTW, there are all sorts of accounts online about everything, including visits by flying saucers. There is actually a web page by an experienced F-14 pilot who claims the airplane was not really that good at dogfighting because it wasn’t designed for that. He’s wrong, of course, but that extreme example illustrates the validity of internet accounts. My statement was based on face-to-face discussions with multiple F-14 and F-15 pilots about dogfighting in these aircraft. But F-14 fanboys will remain fanboys.
    5
  34.  @ibex485  The equipment delivered after the the war was paid for at the 10% rate because the British government wanted to keep it for post-war use and did not intend to return it. I'm sure most of the equipment shipped out during the war was 'destroyed' in one way or another. The cost of shipping it to back likely exceeded its value. We've all heard the story of why there were so many U.S. jeeps left behind in the Philippines after the war. The distributor caps were removed from the engines so they could be logged as disabled.
    5
  35. Other aircraft have already taken over the role. The have already done more CAS than the A-10 over Afghanistan. They can do everything the A-10 can do except shoot 30mm, and that tactic is not survivable on a modern battlefield. These other aircraft can also do lots of other things the A-10 cannot do. The A-10 has to be retired to make room for more versatile and effective aircraft.
    5
  36. These terms really mean nothing and are used interchangeably by so many people. The real problem emerges when attaching strict meaning to the letters "F" or "P" when part of an aircraft designation. Both letters have been used by the US to designate fighters, which started out being called scouts in the first world war. But they are fungible today. The F-105, F-111, and F-117 were really tactical bombers, and were labelled with an "F" mostly for political reasons rather than to describe the primary function of the aircraft. Another issue is that while the Navy had separate communities of fighter and attack pilots, USAF tactical air forces called all their pilots fighter pilots even if they flew an attack type aircraft, because being a fighter pilot was more a state of mind than an air to air mission, and pilots could transition between both types of aircraft. There has never been a letter to designate "interceptors" because all fighters can perform the interception role. There were a few dedicated all-weather bomber interceptors, but they all had the F-designation. For example, the F-89, 92, 102, and 106 were all designed to intercept and destroy incoming bombers, and had unique equipment not then used for air superiority fighter. That dedicated bomber interceptor era is pretty much over now.
    4
  37. Wasn't the Boston the Douglas A-20, rather than a Martin product?
    4
  38. And yours is the thanks they get for a 2% interest long-term loan to keep the country afloat. And let's just forget lend-lease, which was not a loan but a gift. The naval bases were traded for destroyers. Where do you think Britain would be without all this assistance.
    4
  39.  @emaheiwa8174  Every high performance single-engine fighter of that era had high mishap rates compared to today, and every country flying them lost pilots. The F-104 mishap rate was not that different overall, but was much higher in service with Germany than it was in countries such as the U.S., Canada, and Italy. To repeat myself, his was not due to the design of the airplane, but to the way it was operated. You can read up on it if you are really interested.
    4
  40.  @mahbriggs  LOL, that didn't take long. All I can say is you need to read more regarding current and future operations. The B-52 has already provided close air support. The A-10 cannot operate in hostile airspace any more than the B-52 can. Any fighter or bomber in the inventory can now provide CAS, and most have, including the B-1 and B-52, with greater survivability than an A-10 flying low and slow over the target. Your vision of CAS is very outdated. You need to keep up with the times.
    4
  41.  @mahbriggs  "if all the B52 can do is operate from over the horizon in a hostile environment, fail to see what it can do that a cargo plane can't!? Yes, you do fail to see that a B-52 can drop every dumb and precision guided weapon in the inventory, including the coming hypersonic weapons, in a number of different operational circumstances. All the short-range slow-moving C-130 could launch is Rapid Dragon. There is no comparison in combat versatility.
    4
  42. Thank you, United Kingdom.
    4
  43.  @kittyhawk9707  Most F-105s were downed by AAA. I think the 105 had a positive exchange rate with the MiGs. It also shot down more Vietnamese MiGs with its gun than all other US fighters combined.
    4
  44.  @thelandofnod123  Not just the F-35, but the F-16/18/15E/B-1 and B-52. People talk about replacing the A-10 with the F-35 but that is misnomer. The A-10 has already been replaced on the modern battlefield. It needs to be retired to make room in the budget for more F-35s and other more useful aircraft.
    4
  45.  @GoSlash27  The Navy drove the design of the TFX as much as USAF did, if not more. The F-111B was not meant to be an air superiority fighter, it was meant to be a Phoenix missile fleet defense interceptor, which is what drove the swing wing and the side by side cockpit seating. I put more detail in a separate comment if you want to read it.
    4
  46.  @duncanhamilton5841  Yes, that is one of the atmospheric conditions that weighed against high altitude precision bombing. Lemay was not afraid to abandon established doctrine that was not producing results, and took the difficult decision to switch to the low altitude night area bombing that was so effective against Japan. He also had free thinkers like Robert S McNamara on his staff.
    4
  47.  @johnruddick686  Yes
    4
  48. Israeli is probably self-centered, but perhaps they haven't really been given much choice. You might consider Israel is surrounded by enemies and has frequently had to use everything it could scrounge up to defend itself. And when was the last time New Zealand had to repel an invasion.
    4
  49. We need to be careful not to mis-categorize aircraft. The U.S. did not convert medium bombers into fighters, they converted them into ground attack aircraft. A B-25 with a bunch of guns in it nose was great for attacking ground targets, but not not air to air combat. The heavy fighter category was originally about bomber interception or bomber escort. The concept was a fighter with more armament and range than a single-engine fighter. Since any fighter could do ground attack obviously a heavy fighter could do that even better.
    4
  50. What has actually been crippling are the policies of the current office holder. Worse than crippling, they have been enabling of the hot conflicts now underway.
    4