As I got into it I really started to understand how narrow the operating window for the early Sidewinder was. It’s still a remarkable achievement though, if you think that it was developed in the 1950s!
@@notapound It really was. The only thing limiting the AIM-9M was the seeker head. If I were Boyd, I would have advocated a different attack profile against the bomber: after the bomber is visually acquired I would have my wingman pitch up to provide vertical and horizontal separation from me, either to sweep or bracket the bomber. We practiced forward quarter gunnery frequently, so I would be quite comfortable having my section take turns shooting the bomber in the face. After the gun attack each fighter would yo-yo off, and then immediately dive down to set up for a low-to-high missile shot. A bracket would work best for this, but the initial intercept angle or weather conditions might necessitate a sweep.
Good research and presentation. Over years since the late 50's I have been buzzed by F-94C, P-51D Mustang, A37, A-7D watched 3 B-58 fly by under where I was standing on a granite peak in Michigan was buzzed by F-104G doing a LABS delivery practice run in Wyoming later a B52G flew by 30 feet off the ground in northern Wyoming also below where the hunting party was at the time. Last but not least I saw the last flight of the B-52D's landing through the thermal viewer on a TOW system when I was training students on M-901 ITV down at Fort Bliss.
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it. The Ciudad Juarez incident is absolutely tragic. It’s one of those in which no one is at fault but everyone has to live with the consequences.
G'day, The ONLY Air Defence Fighter Kill of a B-52 In Real Life ? All the others being NVA SAMs...; Kinda thing... Have a good one... Stay safe, ;-p Ciao !
@WarblesOnALot NVNAF MiG-21 pilot Pham Tuan is said to have successfully downed a B-52 bomber on December 27, 1972 so it might have happened twice. If true I would give Tuam more credit since, you know, he shot down a bomber from an opposing force. I have a bit of flying experience and a bit of experience with weapons and I have to say messing around with live munitions like that it was probably only a matter of time before this happened.
rather surprising to me that a sidewinder could knock the wing off, I always think of them as small missiles that wouldn't be able to single handedly shoot down a large bomber. Probably was a bit of a lucky shot, hitting right at a weak spot of the spar or something.
Another VERY NICELY DONE video!! With the information you provide here, you easily could have been a participant in an "air combat maneuvering" sortie brief in just about any 1970-90 training mission (I was an USN Strike Aviator in the 80s, and your discussion here, limited to the Hun notwithstanding, could have been a solid addition to any preflight ACM briefing)!
AIR-2 (Genie) was an unguided rocket with a 1.2 Kiloton warhead, range ~6 miles. In service starting in 1958. With a nuke, there was a bit of a fudge factor on accuracy! Earlier, before the Sidewinder, they tried the AIM-26 (Falcon) that "sort of worked" and 2.75" (70mm) unguided rocket pods, which used a shotgun like spread since they were fired in salvos.....
The irony with the bison bomber was that during the Mayday parade 10 bison did a flypaper twice to give the illusion that it was in mass production. The United States then feared a bomber gap . This soviet trick convinced the Americans to build up their bomber force.
In the 1930s the Germans used a similar technique to trick an all-too-willing-to-believe Charles Lindberg that it had more military aircraft than it did. He was driven between bases and the planes from one flown ahead to the next.
@@charlyspor7594 "(...) the CIA was far from incompetent (...)" In case of the 'Bomber Gap' human intelligence was a completely and utter failure. The same would happen when the MiG-25 was to be mis-analysed as an air superiority fighter, prompting the over-engineering of the F-15A which would sap the defense budget. The only competent element of the organization was the KGB: defectors and infiltrators who fed God knows what misinformation. Yale recruited CIA isn't for gathering intelligence outside US borders - it is primarily granting unaccountable federal political rule within - from political assassinations to black budgets, to secret committees, to secret courts...
Also another notable bomber of the Soviets during WW2 was the Pe-2. From what I understand, the IL-2 played more of an attacker role, but the Pe-2 played more of a fast/dive-bomber role in addition to some attack duties.
Excellent and very, very interesting videos, indeed. Being 57 years of age, I grew up on the tail end of all this and was a model builder as a kid, USAF and USN aircraft was a major subject of these models. Until the F16, the F100, F105, and the F4 were my favorite aircraft. Very well presented, thank you.
Enjoy your videos VERY MUCH😊! The way you give us technical information and the explanation of the Times (Era of Development/Thinking of the Day) is so well done. 💯 The stories of different interesting events, what lead to them. EXCEPTIONAL !!👍👏
There was also at least one B-52 shot-down by an enemy fighter in the Vietnam War. On December 27th 1972, B-52D #56-0674 was shot-down by a VPAF Mig-21 Fishbed flown by Vu Xuan Thieu, using a K-13 (code-named AA-2 "Atoll" by NATO) missile, which is a direct duplicate of the AIM-9B Sidewinder. Don't underestimate the Sidewinder's ability to splash just about anything that flies. The story about how the Soviets got the AIM-9B Sidewinder is rather interesting as well --- as is the story of how they were able to get a pristine AIM-9D Sidewinder a decade or so later
Because that AIM-9B didn't explode as intended, it was sent to USSR later on, where the Soviet Engineers said the AIM-9B served as a "university course" in missile design and substantially improved Soviet air-to-air capabilities..
Again, an excellent video with ground-breaking theme and content. I have often wondered how fighter defence of the CONUS was theorised and what tactics would be employed in the late 50's and early 60's. Great work!
Thank you! I’m really glad you enjoyed it. US air defence in this period was an amazing enterprise. It blended the absolute cutting edge of radar and computers with plotting rooms and telephones that were essentially straight out of the Battle Of Britain. My next video will get a bit deeper into ground control intercept and interceptor avionics in the 1950s. Niche… but I find it interesting!
@@notapound I second the in-depth look at SAGE, I find it fascinating. Also, you might want to reach out to youtuber Bruce Gordon. He's an old F-106 pilot who flew continental defense missions in the 60s before heading to Vietnam to fly combat in the F-100 and he has experience with SAGE as well as the AIM-4 Falcon missile. His channel is pretty awesome.
Great quality friend! I noticed a weird difference right at the beginning with the audio, but man this video was great! I believe it had to do with the video audio combined with your voiceover.
Ha! I thought I’d get away with that… I re-recorded the first little bit because I felt it sounded a bit flat and I wanted to try and get some more emotion into it. Thanks so much for the positive comment - I’m really glad you enjoyed it!
Very nice video. Some feedback: Around 9:40 i had noticed many cuts, "uhhs" and interruptions in your voiceover. That was a bit jarring, but it still really enjoyed it. ❤
@@notapound Thank you for making this presentation and sharing it with us. For the voiceover, if you'd slow down a bit that help in some place. Some of your reading seemed a bit rushed and the words got fumbled. The visuals and content were excellent and much appreciate! I'm looking forward to more!
@@Thorr97 thanks for that feedback - really helpful detail and good thinking re: slowing down. I might also experiment with doing the voice over in stages. I’m essentially doing one take at the moment and I get a bit tired after a while! All a good learning experience :). Thanks again for the comment!
@@notapoundso that is actually you narrating? I have had trouble deciding if it's real or an AI, mostly because every now and then you give words a kind of unusual pronunciation. I noticed occasional slips of the tongue in places which suggested an actual human, but I honestly have no idea if AIs these days can actually mimmick things like that to seem more realistic. The fact that it's so hard to tell is really a great testament to your narration skills. I had to narrate a video once in school, and it was one of the hardest things I had ever done. I knew how it ought to sound in my head, but getting the recording to actually sound anything like that took me dozens of attempts. I had no idea how hard it is to make your voice sound steady and correctly intoned for a recording, as opposed to normal conversation. So I can really appreciate what you are doing, that's a special talent and I am glad you are making good use of it. There is a reason so many people rely on AI or computer generated voice overs.
Love your description of your channel. I'm a bit older than you. But you took the words outta my mouth. I could only read books to gain my mil aviation knowledge though! By the time I was 18 I had probably 50-60 books on Mil aviation. Sadly lost in a flood in the mid 90's. Just great content your making Sir. I'm always very surprised when someone can tell me something I don't know about military aviation history. Kudos, I doff my cap and o7 Sir.
Wonderful video. We learned a lot of hard lessons in Vietnam in relation to our tactics as well as our weaponry. Fortunately they were not lost on the next generation of airmen or aircraft design. Training through the 1970s through the 1980s both improved in quantity and spectrum to the extent that the last quarter if the 20th century saw our fighter squadrons superior to any other time in our history of combat aviation.
That's more like a Ten Commandments of air combat, kind of like comparing the actual Ten to the later legal systems. One definitely was related to the other but they arent exactly the same thing. In a general sense you can argue that yes, it could be "the first attempt to systematizing air combat" but that all depends on how you want to define things.
So far as I'm aware - the maximum speed statistics given in books tends to be for a clean configuration of the aircraft - no external missiles. Are there any studies that look into how much extra armament would impede an intercept? In a scenario like a Tu-22 (internal weapons) vs an F-100 or F-104 with external missiles that could matter.
Love your vintage, Revell box art thumbnail image of a Bison bomber! Actually, Revell called the bomber an IL-38 (as in Ilyushin) when the kit was released in the 1950s not knowing it was instead constructed by the Myasishchev design bureau (Perhaps they used a period Jane's "All the World's Aircraft" for reference). As far as I know that kit has never been re-issued since the early 1960s, so it remains quite the collector's item if you have one today.
In the late '78, I was stationed in GMU-49 at NAS Point Mugu. I remember that the AIM-9L was having problems with the four metal guides at the outer edge of the wings. The guides were not unlocking at the correct time. So for a month, we testing hundreds of guides unlocking pressure.
Watched this and the 102 video...really great work. With all the limitations of 50s tech and random assumptions about how to conduct an air war in the jet age, we are probably very lucks nothing ever happened till we worked it all out in a few proxy wars.
Well well well... Im glad TH-cam turned me onto your channel! This is excellent! I took a screenshot of your subscriber count bc I have a feeling it's about to explode
NATO Codenames start with: H (Helicopters), B (Bombers), C (Cargo), F (Fighters) the last 3 are either single syllable for Propeller Driven (Bear), are double syllable for jet (Foxtrot).
I certainly did! My rough idea is to do: F-102, then F-106 & SAGE and then Sky Shield… fascinating story! Thank you for the comment and the lead - really appreciate it!
would have been an excellent addition to include the use of the F-100 over South Vietnam as a air asset for front line troops who needed air cover during ground operations. I know they were used because they flew from Bein Hoa air base while I was stationed there in 1970, almost on a continuos basis, daily.
Consider doing a video all about early radar systems and how they worked, and how they were actually operated. It's surprisingly hard to find good info on that. Everyone knows that they had a radar scope, but what does that actually show them, what does it look like? What different modes were available in various sets. How did the operator control the various functions? Some of that is getting into kind of particular territory, but just covering A, B, C scopes, PPI scopes and the rest would be cool. No one else talks about it, it took me a while just to learn that much, and im still not sure how that changed over the years, or kf Soviets were any different. And some of it i still don't know. How does a radar tell a ground target from a big rock? What does a ground target look like on a radar screen? Clearly they could do it, and it was even automated by the 60s, with a little icon representing the target instead of the raw returns, but how it all worked is still mysterious to me. I wish there was a source that gave the radar type used in each aircraft, what scopes and modes it offered, ranges to typical targets, scan time, etc.
19:20 lol even the missiles wings have roundels on them. I've never seen that before. I'm sure that was discarded before long, simply because of the headache of having an insure every missile Finn had them
It looks like a sparrow. Velvet glove had large square wings near the middle of the airframe. The velvet glove was one of the first aspects of the CF105 program that was cancelled, and replaced by AIM 7.
Your narration and background output volume on your introduction is much louder than the volume in the rest of the video. I had to check my volume app to see if it kicked off on me again 🧐
Where the Soviets reverse engineered aircraft presented a major annoyance to the USAF, was that their development incurred double the cost of the entire Manhattan Program. Additionally, the Soviets were free to offer a clear threat to NATO.
I didn't know about the B52 accident. You have to wonder at the safety culture of the time, doing something one button press from disaster and hoping everything goes ok.
Super-interesting if slightly baffling : I wasn’t aware late-fifties and early sixties units tasked with defending CONUS against Soviet bombers ever carried Sidewinders and had moved straight from unguided rockets to the Falcon missile. Can anyone shed some more light on this? Were F100s ever assigned to ADC - they didn’t carry radar and therefore couldn’t have been SAGE compatible…in fact the earlier models weren’t even wired for missiles - in which case why did Boyd write such a comprehensive essay based around the F100 if they were never tasked with bomber interception duties? I’m thinking maybe Boyd was writing a theoretical piece and not a practical guide? Hopefully someone out there has the actual answers…
I think fighter vs bomber featured in Aerial Attack Study for two reasons. 1. F-100s were at the time the main fighter interceptor in Europe and Asia and would thus have been tasked with bomber interception. I did notice the wiring thing - my understanding is that the C and later F-100s were wired for AIM-9B from the factory and some earlier models were later retrofit 2. Reading ‘The Emerging Shield’ suggests that day fighters assigned to either regular airforce or National Guard were available to ADC if required. They participated in numerous exercises in the late ‘40s through ‘60s
@@notapound just another footnote - my understanding of F100 units in Europe was that by 1960 they were almost exclusively committed mud-movers and although theoretically still capable of bomber interception, they wouldn’t have specifically trained for that role - bomber defence being primarily the responsibility of each countries own interceptor force bolstered by RAF and RCAF dedicated interceptor units based near the “frontline”.
@@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.
I looks like a Soviet Pe-8, indeed. Apparently Molotov flew to the US in 1942 in a Pe-8. Can't tell for certain if the picture is from that event, but it is most plausible.
The B-47 wasn't transcontinental even from Alaska it can't reach the small Russian cities in the Far Eastern District it had to be based in Europe to reach Soviet targets unless aerial refuelling was used which would add significant delays in a full nuclear war.
The USAF was always more comfortable with interceptors over air superiority fighters. Send them up, launch some missiles, the enemy is driven off or killed, return to base, rinse, and repeat. And so the F-103, F-108, and F-12 arrive on drawing boards. It stands to reason none of these planes would have been effective. At no time in the 20th century was beyond visual range combat allowed for the simple reason that there were too many friendly aircraft up there.
Tragically the B52 shoot down is yet another example of not pointing a gun/missile at anything you don't intend to shoot. How many times and how many lives? 😢
To call the bomber force of the Soviet Union at the beginning of the Cold War 'a bit of a joke' is 'a bit misleading', considering the historical context that the Soviets - despite their initial neglect of the impressive Tsarist bomber force in WW I (the first 4 engine designs in 1912, Tupolev's ANT-4 in 1925 and the ANT-6, building toward the world's largest 800 bomber force in 1930 and the ANT-5 holding the record for endurance flight until the 1970s) during the Russian Civil War - had mastered intercontinental flight via the Arctic in the late 1930s (Tupolev's massive ANT-25 in 1937, the PE-8 bombed Berlin in 1941 before enabling Allied communications and conferences). Their geography, stretching for more than 10.000 km gave reason to become invested in front line aviation as a support of it's indispensable ground forces within a combined arms doctrine - with long range transport aviation recognized as a crucial element of air mobile maneuver within a vast, thinly developed territory, hence the large and separate units of paratrooper and air assault to this day. So there is a strong doctrinal aspect in Soviet aviation history - just as the West had put it's faith - rather blindly - in Douhet's concept of 'strategic bombing' (see the rise of a 'Bomber Mafia' within the US during WW II) which proved largely ineffective whenever armament remained conventional (Nazi Germany produced never more equipment and vehicles than in 1944, Vietnam was unwinnable for the US despite more ordnance deployed than in WW II - conflicts were decided by advances on the ground - like the German failure to gain the oil fields around the Caspian Sea, where ground attack aircraft could attrite armored advances, same as in Normandy during the Battle of the Bulge). The reason why Soviet doctrine shifted after the Cold War, pursuing offensive long range aviation was simply the introduction of the nuclear bomb, making strategic bombing finally a 'viable' military objective - that is on paper - for the devastating reason that became clear along the nuclear tests. As long as intercontinental ballistic missiles and submerged launch of nuclear missiles were unheard of (pushed by Admiral Gorshkov unto Chrushchev after STALIN's death in 1953), the Soviets tried to catch up by reverse engineering, mass producing (1949) and further developing stranded US B-29 eventually into the Tupolev Tu-95 (1955 - unlike the under-powered 'Bison', a successful design despite subsonic turboprop propulsion, able to match the jet powered US B-52 in intercontinental reach and thus turning the Arctic into a likely theater of war that demanded US air defense infrastructure, diverted from Europe), concluding the trajectory with the Tu-160 much later in 1987, despite engine technology industrial espionage, the most advanced strategic bomber even before the US B-1B of 1984 (a 'budget' downgrade of the original low level penetration, supersonic B-1 of 1974 that could have replaced the B-52)... Much had to be acquired in guided missile and RADAR early warning technology and organization, ground based, layered air defense networks (arguably further profiting from covert German pre-war collaboration as well as captured or recruited scientists and engineers - e.g. Junkers - but denying Vietnam airspace to more than 10.000 lost US aircraft) to built the Soviet military aviation, the Russian state had inherited and modernized along late Soviet postulates (a joint service 'Reconnaissance Strike Complex' with real time intelligence and automated command and control, delivering conventional precision guided stand-off weapons as effective as tactical nuclear arms - some by the Tu-95H of 1984, the T-95MS of 2015 and the Tu-95MSM of 2020...). That is about the military history behind the Soviet nuclear armed long range aviation force. The account of Boyd's aerial combat considerations is valuable as it reflects contemporary, early Cold War assumptions and practice - explaining the eventual political fall of the US 'Bomber Mafia' and the rise of the 'Fighter Mafia', originally stressing air superiority and maneuverability, but almost immediately taking on a strategic role in an increasingly multi-role design (reflected in a poor readiness of the B-1B bomber force, leading to recent accidents).
The problem with the F 100 missile pylon was replicated throughout the entire US Air Force. It turns out that it was a manufacturing defect that allowed the moisture to collect, and this was an event that was in evitable going to occur, and it didn't matter on the pilot it mattered with the fact that the moisture was present in all of those pylons. eventually, of course they were all replaced as fast as could happen, but the farming practice did lots of the B-52, that occurred if not that day, it was going to happen sooner or later.
Been thinking about the statement that you keep making that the speed of the missile is "the maximum speed plus the speed of the launching aircraft". I get what you are saying and that's the easiest way to say it, but i don't think that's exactly true. If a missile will accelerate to 2,000 mph from a standstill, its not a given that it will end up at 2,600 from a plane at 600mph and 2,400 from one at 400mph. Because the energy imparted by rocket engine is a fixed amount, in theory, and each one is the same. But air resistance doubles as you go faster, it only takes like 25hp to cruise in your car at 40mph, but you need over 100hp to maintain 80mph. Thats why a 2,000hp plane isn't twice as fast as a 1,000hp plane, if all else is the same (it can be if you minimize drag and allow it to make that power at higher altitude, etc). Not sure how you would write that equation, but the actual top speed would be whatever Delta-V results in adding X amount of energy as acceleration on top of the existing air speed. A missile that it starting at a higher speed starts with much higher drag as well, which increases to a much higher level by the end, because the eventual top speed will be that much higher. I think it essentially extends the burn time by getting the missile to say, 1,500 with three seconds left of burn, instead of one, because it started already halfway to that speed. Unless I'm thinking this all wrong. Clearly higher launch speed adds energy, but it's not a fixed number. I think mathematically it would be the rated top speed of the missile, plus whatever additional speed would be imparted by an equal amount of energy that it took to attain the initial speed, which is going to be much less in knots. If it took 100 units of energy to accelerate the missile to 600 kts, and 10,000 to reach the rated Mach 4, after it reaches Mach 4 it will still accelerate whatever amount 100 units will impart at that speed and with that level of drag resisting it. Which isn't going to be very much, but it's still energy imparted to the missile, and since drag also _drops_ as the speed falls after burnout, the added energy will still substantially increase the range. Bullets are kind of similar, the faster the bullet or shell is fired, the greater the amount of power is needed to make it go faster. It's not hard to go from 500fps to 1,000fps, a small increase in capacity can do that. That same amount of energy will only take a round at 2,500fps up to maybe 2,600. But that extra 100fps has an outsized effect on the power of the bullet or shell.
When the soviets showed off the Bison its future as a conventional bomber was already dead. They wanted all their bombers to be armed by some sort of missile as soon as possible. The Badger recived the K10, the Bear the Kh20, however nothing could fit the Bison... So it became ASW. Btw before the soviets considered one way missions to US... Nuclear war is one way trip afterall.
BIson became a Bomber / Tanker to refuel the Bear Fleet (or itself). Quick way to ID a Nuclear Capable Russian Bomber. The Underside is anti flash white. Early Soviet Nuclear weapons were not very tolerant of being cold soaked so the Bomb Bays were air conditioned. Quite a large number of the Russian Bombers were also not used by the Air Force, but by the Soviet Navy Aviation forces as Anti Carrier Strike Aircraft to duke it out with US Navy Battle Groups using stand off weapons or Torpedo's. I think around half the TU-16 force belonged to the Soviet Navy, and of the rest, around 500 were nuclear capable, 150 odd were Tankers and another 150 odd were ECM / Recce Platforms. Bison fleet was around 100 if memory serves. Total of Free Fall Nuclear capable Bears was around 50, plus 150 odd missile carriers, Bear D and F were Soviet Naval Aircraft. Early Blinders was mostly used for Recce.
@@richardvernon317 Missile carriers didnt need anti flash white underside and after a while they stopped using the non missile carriers. The ksr-2, ksr-5 missiles didnt even need that much modification (these were anti-ship). The missile Bears and Blinders and K10 Badgers could do land attack just the same because the INS on the missiles was accurate enough for nuclear strikes. Kh22 s were used recently perfectly well on ground targets... without a nuke.
Say what you will. but Boyd put Everyone who fights in the air, or plans to do so, On Notice. The F-16 (and, Imho, both the Saab J-35 & J37, perhaps the J-39?) seem to bear-out his theories, and, oddly, the YF-20 should have been the Star of such thoughts, even If based upon a much older F-5/T-38 airframe. In his Day, only the NAVY F-11 and F-8 came close to being 'doctrine', where the F-5 was just a tad too austere? Perhaps. In any case, the F-16 has held it's own for 5 decades, based upon Boyd's observations of how Fighting should occur.
"the YF-20 should have been the Star of such thoughts, even If based upon a much older F-5/T-38 airframe." Agreed - mostly because it could have been procured en masse due to lower production and maintenance costs, yet approximating performance (minus maneuverability, I suppose).
So in 1960 what was the best interceptor in US service ? It probably wasn't the F-100. It probably wasn't the brand new F-106 Delta Dart with no guns and used the Falcon series of missiles notoriously unreliable against fighters but a little better vs bombers. So I'd say it was the Navy's F-8 crusader which had also just been introduced. Unless of course you're going to be using the Genie Nuclear rocket then it would be the F-101 Voodoo and back to the F-106. Am I missing anything ?
I’m not sure the 40 second legend is a myth per se. The criticism is that Boyd was an instructor fighting against students. It isn’t a surprise that he’s able to beat them relatively easily, particularly as he understood how to wring maximum performance out of the Hun, which was a tricky aircraft.
The TU 4 looked similar to B29 but would have lacked many sophisticted systems of the B29. The russian Concorski was very much inferior to the british French Concord
The bomber gap fear was based on miscounting the Bisons and Badgers over Moscow on that fateful October parade. In order to impress the world Kruschev and his military bosses had their bombers fly long circles, so each bomber would overfly Red Square multiple times. Not realising this, the CIA and DIA counted each actual bomber multiple times, coming to an estimate of actual Soviet bomber strength that was several times higher than the actual numbers. It wasn't until the actual numbers were being verified accurately during the SALT negotiations that the truth became evident (and then the USA was still very suspicious that the Soviets were hiding hundreds of bombers somewhere).
Anybody else a bit thrown off with cultural traditions and genetic heritage being in that OODA loop? I mean, I get it was the 50s, but wtf does genetics have to do with a dogfight?
It doesn't mean what you think. Cultural tradition and genetic heritage are badly named but are there to show that having a team that is from many backgrounds will give a better decision making process.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Ah, ok. That makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification. With cultural traditions I figured that might have been the case, but seeing genetics & heritage in any military context always makes me a bit cagey.
Culture and genetics shape responses. Fear will drive one nation (and its military) to be more aggressive. That same fear will cause another to pull back and become passive. During the Cold War I had some young Finn college students give me a tour of Helsinki. Their disgust at the passivity of their government was obvious. As engineering students they pointed at a HF antenna on top of their foreign office and noted it was aimed at Moscow "to get orders." They also told me that the only Finnish political party that denounced the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was the communist party. The rest were too fearful of offending. That brings up another point. Cultures and the accompanying attitudes can change. Today's Finland doesn't fret about offending Putin's Russia.
Another poster claims that "having a team that is from many backgrounds will give a better decision making process." That's certainly the fad in many circles today, but the "many" is misplaced. Several different and carefully chosen backgrounds is certainly a benefit, but other backgrounds/attitudes can do harm. And their are some attitudes that are poison. Two that come readily to mind are those who're arrogant and won't admit mistakes and those who're thin-skinned and have a persecution complex. Both will wreck teamwork.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 "(...) having a team that is from many backgrounds will give a better decision making process" Nonsense. Military operations are not about 'workforce diversity' (fragmenting bonds of identity) - it's about guiding one's approach along a traditioned preference and about the physical fitness to stand the stress of the combat situation. These are factors on both sides of the conflict. Astrology, however may lead to similarly informed decisions...
[2:33] "...greatest ever reverse-engineering job in history..." Have to disagree with that, and furthermore, I think I can convince you, too. The CCP didn't have too much trouble reverse-engineering the Tu-4, so that's a very strong case against this claim. I would say that the greatest piece of reverse-engineering in history would HAVE to be that of the Aim-9 Sidewinder missile to the AA-2 "Atol" in 1958 (an IR heat seeking missile was cutting edge technology at this time).
the F-100 has one wing built stronger than the other, in case of running out of arms. It can take out a bomber by hitting it with the stronger wing. Of corse the pilot will have a tough time landing with one wing. It has been done, but not with an F-100, YET.
![โรงเรียนตอนตี 2 โคตรหลอน..!! [โรงเรียนไดเม่]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2MAEMwqVYh8/mqdefault.jpg)
This is fascinating. I only flew with AIM-9Ms.
As I got into it I really started to understand how narrow the operating window for the early Sidewinder was. It’s still a remarkable achievement though, if you think that it was developed in the 1950s!
@@notapound It really was. The only thing limiting the AIM-9M was the seeker head. If I were Boyd, I would have advocated a different attack profile against the bomber: after the bomber is visually acquired I would have my wingman pitch up to provide vertical and horizontal separation from me, either to sweep or bracket the bomber. We practiced forward quarter gunnery frequently, so I would be quite comfortable having my section take turns shooting the bomber in the face. After the gun attack each fighter would yo-yo off, and then immediately dive down to set up for a low-to-high missile shot. A bracket would work best for this, but the initial intercept angle or weather conditions might necessitate a sweep.
What did you fly?
Good research and presentation. Over years since the late 50's I have been buzzed by F-94C, P-51D Mustang, A37, A-7D watched 3 B-58 fly by under where I was standing on a granite peak in Michigan was buzzed by F-104G doing a LABS delivery practice run in Wyoming later a B52G flew by 30 feet off the ground in northern Wyoming also below where the hunting party was at the time. Last but not least I saw the last flight of the B-52D's landing through the thermal viewer on a TOW system when I was training students on M-901 ITV down at Fort Bliss.
Excellent video, very informative. I didn't know about the accidental shoot down of the B-52.
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it. The Ciudad Juarez incident is absolutely tragic. It’s one of those in which no one is at fault but everyone has to live with the consequences.
@@notapound You are certainly right!
G'day,
The
ONLY
Air Defence
Fighter
Kill of a
B-52
In
Real
Life ?
All the others being
NVA
SAMs...;
Kinda thing...
Have a good one...
Stay safe,
;-p
Ciao !
@WarblesOnALot NVNAF MiG-21 pilot Pham Tuan is said to have successfully downed a B-52 bomber on December 27, 1972 so it might have happened twice. If true I would give Tuam more credit since, you know, he shot down a bomber from an opposing force.
I have a bit of flying experience and a bit of experience with weapons and I have to say messing around with live munitions like that it was probably only a matter of time before this happened.
rather surprising to me that a sidewinder could knock the wing off, I always think of them as small missiles that wouldn't be able to single handedly shoot down a large bomber. Probably was a bit of a lucky shot, hitting right at a weak spot of the spar or something.
Another VERY NICELY DONE video!! With the information you provide here, you easily could have been a participant in an "air combat maneuvering" sortie brief in just about any 1970-90 training mission (I was an USN Strike Aviator in the 80s, and your discussion here, limited to the Hun notwithstanding, could have been a solid addition to any preflight ACM briefing)!
AIR-2 (Genie) was an unguided rocket with a 1.2 Kiloton warhead, range ~6 miles. In service starting in 1958. With a nuke, there was a bit of a fudge factor on accuracy!
Earlier, before the Sidewinder, they tried the AIM-26 (Falcon) that "sort of worked" and 2.75" (70mm) unguided rocket pods, which used a shotgun like spread since they were fired in salvos.....
The irony with the bison bomber was that during the Mayday parade 10 bison did a flypaper twice to give the illusion that it was in mass production. The United States then feared a bomber gap . This soviet trick convinced the Americans to build up their bomber force.
In the 1930s the Germans used a similar technique to trick an all-too-willing-to-believe Charles Lindberg that it had more military aircraft than it did. He was driven between bases and the planes from one flown ahead to the next.
Переклеили бортовые номера самолётов прямо в воздухе, вы в своём уме 😱?
"soviet trick"
Or CIA 'incompetence'...
@@christophmahlerthe CIA was far from incompetent, but credit where credit's due, the KGB was also exceedingly competent
@@charlyspor7594
"(...) the CIA was far from incompetent (...)"
In case of the 'Bomber Gap' human intelligence was a completely and utter failure.
The same would happen when the MiG-25 was to be mis-analysed as an air superiority fighter, prompting the over-engineering of the F-15A which would sap the defense budget.
The only competent element of the organization was the KGB: defectors and infiltrators who fed God knows what misinformation.
Yale recruited CIA isn't for gathering intelligence outside US borders - it is primarily granting unaccountable federal political rule within - from political assassinations to black budgets, to secret committees, to secret courts...
Also another notable bomber of the Soviets during WW2 was the Pe-2. From what I understand, the IL-2 played more of an attacker role, but the Pe-2 played more of a fast/dive-bomber role in addition to some attack duties.
Beautifully presented, as always.
Excellent and very, very interesting videos, indeed. Being 57 years of age, I grew up on the tail end of all this and was a model builder as a kid, USAF and USN aircraft was a major subject of these models. Until the F16, the F100, F105, and the F4 were my favorite aircraft. Very well presented, thank you.
Enjoy your videos VERY MUCH😊! The way you give us technical information and the explanation of the Times (Era of Development/Thinking of the Day) is so well done. 💯
The stories of different interesting events, what lead to them. EXCEPTIONAL !!👍👏
Very impressive videos! Thank you very much for all your hard work and thorough research!
There was also at least one B-52 shot-down by an enemy fighter in the Vietnam War. On December 27th 1972, B-52D #56-0674 was shot-down by a VPAF Mig-21 Fishbed flown by Vu Xuan Thieu, using a K-13 (code-named AA-2 "Atoll" by NATO) missile, which is a direct duplicate of the AIM-9B Sidewinder.
Don't underestimate the Sidewinder's ability to splash just about anything that flies.
The story about how the Soviets got the AIM-9B Sidewinder is rather interesting as well --- as is the story of how they were able to get a pristine AIM-9D Sidewinder a decade or so later
Because that AIM-9B didn't explode as intended, it was sent to USSR later on, where the Soviet Engineers said the AIM-9B served as a "university course" in missile design and substantially improved Soviet air-to-air capabilities..
Again, an excellent video with ground-breaking theme and content. I have often wondered how fighter defence of the CONUS was theorised and what tactics would be employed in the late 50's and early 60's. Great work!
Thank you! I’m really glad you enjoyed it. US air defence in this period was an amazing enterprise. It blended the absolute cutting edge of radar and computers with plotting rooms and telephones that were essentially straight out of the Battle Of Britain.
My next video will get a bit deeper into ground control intercept and interceptor avionics in the 1950s. Niche… but I find it interesting!
@@notapound Any background to SAGE would be great!
@@notapound I second the in-depth look at SAGE, I find it fascinating. Also, you might want to reach out to youtuber Bruce Gordon. He's an old F-106 pilot who flew continental defense missions in the 60s before heading to Vietnam to fly combat in the F-100 and he has experience with SAGE as well as the AIM-4 Falcon missile. His channel is pretty awesome.
A nice presentation to be sure but Boyd's contribution is well known.
Great quality friend! I noticed a weird difference right at the beginning with the audio, but man this video was great! I believe it had to do with the video audio combined with your voiceover.
Ha! I thought I’d get away with that… I re-recorded the first little bit because I felt it sounded a bit flat and I wanted to try and get some more emotion into it. Thanks so much for the positive comment - I’m really glad you enjoyed it!
Another fabulous professional military staff level briefing!! BRAVO ZULU, well done!!
This is THE model for clips of this type - beautifully done. Thank you.
Great video. Never forget: Air Force regs are written in blood.
Very nice video.
Some feedback: Around 9:40 i had noticed many cuts, "uhhs" and interruptions in your voiceover. That was a bit jarring, but it still really enjoyed it. ❤
Thank you! I’m still working on achieving a steady flow with the voice over - really appreciate you taking time for feedback :)
@@notapound Thank you for making this presentation and sharing it with us. For the voiceover, if you'd slow down a bit that help in some place. Some of your reading seemed a bit rushed and the words got fumbled. The visuals and content were excellent and much appreciate! I'm looking forward to more!
@@Thorr97 thanks for that feedback - really helpful detail and good thinking re: slowing down. I might also experiment with doing the voice over in stages. I’m essentially doing one take at the moment and I get a bit tired after a while! All a good learning experience :).
Thanks again for the comment!
@@notapoundso that is actually you narrating? I have had trouble deciding if it's real or an AI, mostly because every now and then you give words a kind of unusual pronunciation. I noticed occasional slips of the tongue in places which suggested an actual human, but I honestly have no idea if AIs these days can actually mimmick things like that to seem more realistic. The fact that it's so hard to tell is really a great testament to your narration skills. I had to narrate a video once in school, and it was one of the hardest things I had ever done. I knew how it ought to sound in my head, but getting the recording to actually sound anything like that took me dozens of attempts. I had no idea how hard it is to make your voice sound steady and correctly intoned for a recording, as opposed to normal conversation. So I can really appreciate what you are doing, that's a special talent and I am glad you are making good use of it. There is a reason so many people rely on AI or computer generated voice overs.
Love your description of your channel. I'm a bit older than you. But you took the words outta my mouth. I could only read books to gain my mil aviation knowledge though! By the time I was 18 I had probably 50-60 books on Mil aviation. Sadly lost in a flood in the mid 90's. Just great content your making Sir. I'm always very surprised when someone can tell me something I don't know about military aviation history. Kudos, I doff my cap and o7 Sir.
Bravo, very informative and clear
Thank you for sharing your knowledge!
The breath and scope of the information in this is so riveting. Thank you so much for making an incredible video.
You have high quality work. Thanks
Excellent documentary! Thank you for making all these fascinating videos, love em! 🙂
Glad you enjoyed it!
Ive Subscribed to your channel... Your content is WONDERFUL.. Great Work!!
fabulous!
Wonderful video. We learned a lot of hard lessons in Vietnam in relation to our tactics as well as our weaponry. Fortunately they were not lost on the next generation of airmen or aircraft design. Training through the 1970s through the 1980s both improved in quantity and spectrum to the extent that the last quarter if the 20th century saw our fighter squadrons superior to any other time in our history of combat aviation.
Surely Dicta Boelcke was the first attempt at a systematic approach for attacking and defending yourselves in aerial combat?
That's more like a Ten Commandments of air combat, kind of like comparing the actual Ten to the later legal systems. One definitely was related to the other but they arent exactly the same thing. In a general sense you can argue that yes, it could be "the first attempt to systematizing air combat" but that all depends on how you want to define things.
@justforever96 then, by your definition, it is the first systematic approach. No two ways about it.
You are among a few publishing on You Tube, who fully appreciate the genius on John Boyd, and his inner circle. Thank you.
I have just discovered your channel an I like what I see, therefore: subscribed.
Thank you!
So far as I'm aware - the maximum speed statistics given in books tends to be for a clean configuration of the aircraft - no external missiles. Are there any studies that look into how much extra armament would impede an intercept? In a scenario like a Tu-22 (internal weapons) vs an F-100 or F-104 with external missiles that could matter.
Good video
Love your vintage, Revell box art thumbnail image of a Bison bomber! Actually, Revell called the bomber an IL-38 (as in Ilyushin) when the kit was released in the 1950s not knowing it was instead constructed by the Myasishchev design bureau (Perhaps they used a period Jane's "All the World's Aircraft" for reference). As far as I know that kit has never been re-issued since the early 1960s, so it remains quite the collector's item if you have one today.
Thank you! Good vid and professionally presented. Interesting to see that the CIA hasn't really improved over time.
The 2 navy planes are the FH Phantom (McDonald Phantom 1) and the A3D (Douglas Skylight) the A3D is the one launching the missile.
In all due respect timegineman2, but I think the aircraf firing the missile is infact the Douglas F3D Skynight all-weather interceptor.
Regards
@@RobertWilliams-us4kw LOL, I don't know why I type Light instead of Night!!!
17:20 love how you went on a 10 tangent without breathing
Well said 1 May Parade ! Victory parade, 9 may, was "interupted" for 19 years ! 1946 - 1965 .
Very interesting video. Thanks.
Liking your channel. Obscure long form vids. Just my thing ❤
Thanks
In the late '78, I was stationed in GMU-49 at NAS Point Mugu. I remember that the AIM-9L was having problems with the four metal guides at the outer edge of the wings. The guides were not unlocking at the correct time. So for a month, we testing hundreds of guides unlocking pressure.
Watched this and the 102 video...really great work. With all the limitations of 50s tech and random assumptions about how to conduct an air war in the jet age, we are probably very lucks nothing ever happened till we worked it all out in a few proxy wars.
Thank you for this video!
Fascinating!!!!!!
Knew about Boyd and the OODA loop but never heard of his book/papers nor have I heard of the accidental shoot down.😮😔
This is brilliant.
at 19:13 that is the Canadian Velvet Glove missile, developed in partnership with the Sparrow missile team, it was abandoned in favour of the Sparrow.
It is!
Well well well... Im glad TH-cam turned me onto your channel! This is excellent! I took a screenshot of your subscriber count bc I have a feeling it's about to explode
Love your channel, thanks
Excellent!
NATO Codenames start with: H (Helicopters), B (Bombers), C (Cargo), F (Fighters) the last 3 are either single syllable for Propeller Driven (Bear), are double syllable for jet (Foxtrot).
Thanks, an interesting video. I'd heard the story of the B-52 shoot down before, but not the fault that led to it. Tragic...
did you hear about the vulcan exercise against the USA?
I certainly did! My rough idea is to do: F-102, then F-106 & SAGE and then Sky Shield… fascinating story! Thank you for the comment and the lead - really appreciate it!
would have been an excellent addition to include the use of the F-100 over South Vietnam as a air asset for front line troops who needed air cover during ground operations. I know they were used because they flew from Bein Hoa air base while I was stationed there in 1970, almost on a continuos basis, daily.
Well done, keep it up!
Very nice
Thank you :)
Consider doing a video all about early radar systems and how they worked, and how they were actually operated. It's surprisingly hard to find good info on that. Everyone knows that they had a radar scope, but what does that actually show them, what does it look like? What different modes were available in various sets. How did the operator control the various functions? Some of that is getting into kind of particular territory, but just covering A, B, C scopes, PPI scopes and the rest would be cool. No one else talks about it, it took me a while just to learn that much, and im still not sure how that changed over the years, or kf Soviets were any different. And some of it i still don't know. How does a radar tell a ground target from a big rock? What does a ground target look like on a radar screen? Clearly they could do it, and it was even automated by the 60s, with a little icon representing the target instead of the raw returns, but how it all worked is still mysterious to me.
I wish there was a source that gave the radar type used in each aircraft, what scopes and modes it offered, ranges to typical targets, scan time, etc.
19:20 lol even the missiles wings have roundels on them. I've never seen that before. I'm sure that was discarded before long, simply because of the headache of having an insure every missile Finn had them
Fascinating and I caught a glimpse a Canadian missile which I think was called the Velvet Glove.
It looks like a sparrow. Velvet glove had large square wings near the middle of the airframe. The velvet glove was one of the first aspects of the CF105 program that was cancelled, and replaced by AIM 7.
When I heard the bombers wing blew off first thing I thought was centrifugal force and the bomber crew being pinned against a wall on the way down
That story about the Ciudad Juarez is shocking and sad 😢
"Sidewinders motor burns for 18 seconds." Are you sure about that? 🙂
This is a wersion from the 1950s, so only like a 70 year old version of the missile
Your narration and background output volume on your introduction is much louder than the volume in the rest of the video. I had to check my volume app to see if it kicked off on me again 🧐
Where the Soviets reverse engineered aircraft presented a major annoyance to the USAF, was that their development incurred double the cost of the entire Manhattan Program. Additionally, the Soviets were free to offer a clear threat to NATO.
please do more videos about the F4 phantom
I didn't know about the B52 accident. You have to wonder at the safety culture of the time, doing something one button press from disaster and hoping everything goes ok.
Lance corporal Rolf Peterson with the canuck missle
Super-interesting if slightly baffling : I wasn’t aware late-fifties and early sixties units tasked with defending CONUS against Soviet bombers ever carried Sidewinders and had moved straight from unguided rockets to the Falcon missile. Can anyone shed some more light on this?
Were F100s ever assigned to ADC - they didn’t carry radar and therefore couldn’t have been SAGE compatible…in fact the earlier models weren’t even wired for missiles - in which case why did Boyd write such a comprehensive essay based around the F100 if they were never tasked with bomber interception duties? I’m thinking maybe Boyd was writing a theoretical piece and not a practical guide? Hopefully someone out there has the actual answers…
I think fighter vs bomber featured in Aerial Attack Study for two reasons.
1. F-100s were at the time the main fighter interceptor in Europe and Asia and would thus have been tasked with bomber interception. I did notice the wiring thing - my understanding is that the C and later F-100s were wired for AIM-9B from the factory and some earlier models were later retrofit
2. Reading ‘The Emerging Shield’ suggests that day fighters assigned to either regular airforce or National Guard were available to ADC if required. They participated in numerous exercises in the late ‘40s through ‘60s
@@notapound thanks - am not familiar with The Emerging Shield so will check it out.
@@notapound just another footnote - my understanding of F100 units in Europe was that by 1960 they were almost exclusively committed mud-movers and although theoretically still capable of bomber interception, they wouldn’t have specifically trained for that role - bomber defence being primarily the responsibility of each countries own interceptor force bolstered by RAF and RCAF dedicated interceptor units based near the “frontline”.
@@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.
@@gort8203 Very surprising to see videos glorifying Boyd at this point in history. He was an egotistical strategy dead end.
The audio is weirdly choppy.
B52s had quad 50 cal in that era. Not twin 20mm.
1:27 - interesting photo. Pe-8 (?) being refueled by a US AAC gasoline truck - somewhere in Germany in 1945?
I looks like a Soviet Pe-8, indeed.
Apparently Molotov flew to the US in 1942 in a Pe-8.
Can't tell for certain if the picture is from that event, but it is most plausible.
the missile knows where it is, because it knows where it isn't
08:50 - the AIM-9B did not fly on a collision course, did it?
What was at the moscow parade this year except for a car and spectators ?
I’d be happy to help you request records from the government.
The B-47 wasn't transcontinental even from Alaska it can't reach the small Russian cities in the Far Eastern District it had to be based in Europe to reach Soviet targets unless aerial refuelling was used which would add significant delays in a full nuclear war.
The USAF was always more comfortable with interceptors over air superiority fighters. Send them up, launch some missiles, the enemy is driven off or killed, return to base, rinse, and repeat.
And so the F-103, F-108, and F-12 arrive on drawing boards. It stands to reason none of these planes would have been effective. At no time in the 20th century was beyond visual range combat allowed for the simple reason that there were too many friendly aircraft up there.
Tragically the B52 shoot down is yet another example of not pointing a gun/missile at anything you don't intend to shoot. How many times and how many lives? 😢
It's not necessary for s strategic bomber to return.. which was part of the problem
To call the bomber force of the Soviet Union at the beginning of the Cold War 'a bit of a joke' is 'a bit misleading', considering the historical context that the Soviets - despite their initial neglect of the impressive Tsarist bomber force in WW I (the first 4 engine designs in 1912, Tupolev's ANT-4 in 1925 and the ANT-6, building toward the world's largest 800 bomber force in 1930 and the ANT-5 holding the record for endurance flight until the 1970s) during the Russian Civil War - had mastered intercontinental flight via the Arctic in the late 1930s (Tupolev's massive ANT-25 in 1937, the PE-8 bombed Berlin in 1941 before enabling Allied communications and conferences).
Their geography, stretching for more than 10.000 km gave reason to become invested in front line aviation as a support of it's indispensable ground forces within a combined arms doctrine - with long range transport aviation recognized as a crucial element of air mobile maneuver within a vast, thinly developed territory, hence the large and separate units of paratrooper and air assault to this day.
So there is a strong doctrinal aspect in Soviet aviation history - just as the West had put it's faith - rather blindly - in Douhet's concept of 'strategic bombing' (see the rise of a 'Bomber Mafia' within the US during WW II) which proved largely ineffective whenever armament remained conventional (Nazi Germany produced never more equipment and vehicles than in 1944, Vietnam was unwinnable for the US despite more ordnance deployed than in WW II - conflicts were decided by advances on the ground - like the German failure to gain the oil fields around the Caspian Sea, where ground attack aircraft could attrite armored advances, same as in Normandy during the Battle of the Bulge).
The reason why Soviet doctrine shifted after the Cold War, pursuing offensive long range aviation was simply the introduction of the nuclear bomb, making strategic bombing finally a 'viable' military objective - that is on paper - for the devastating reason that became clear along the nuclear tests.
As long as intercontinental ballistic missiles and submerged launch of nuclear missiles were unheard of (pushed by Admiral Gorshkov unto Chrushchev after STALIN's death in 1953), the Soviets tried to catch up by reverse engineering, mass producing (1949) and further developing stranded US B-29 eventually into the Tupolev Tu-95 (1955 - unlike the under-powered 'Bison', a successful design despite subsonic turboprop propulsion, able to match the jet powered US B-52 in intercontinental reach and thus turning the Arctic into a likely theater of war that demanded US air defense infrastructure, diverted from Europe), concluding the trajectory with the Tu-160 much later in 1987, despite engine technology industrial espionage, the most advanced strategic bomber even before the US B-1B of 1984 (a 'budget' downgrade of the original low level penetration, supersonic B-1 of 1974 that could have replaced the B-52)...
Much had to be acquired in guided missile and RADAR early warning technology and organization, ground based, layered air defense networks (arguably further profiting from covert German pre-war collaboration as well as captured or recruited scientists and engineers - e.g. Junkers - but denying Vietnam airspace to more than 10.000 lost US aircraft) to built the Soviet military aviation, the Russian state had inherited and modernized along late Soviet postulates (a joint service 'Reconnaissance Strike Complex' with real time intelligence and automated command and control, delivering conventional precision guided stand-off weapons as effective as tactical nuclear arms - some by the Tu-95H of 1984, the T-95MS of 2015 and the Tu-95MSM of 2020...).
That is about the military history behind the Soviet nuclear armed long range aviation force.
The account of Boyd's aerial combat considerations is valuable as it reflects contemporary, early Cold War assumptions and practice - explaining the eventual political fall of the US 'Bomber Mafia' and the rise of the 'Fighter Mafia', originally stressing air superiority and maneuverability, but almost immediately taking on a strategic role in an increasingly multi-role design (reflected in a poor readiness of the B-1B bomber force, leading to recent accidents).
What a puny missile 😮
Sidewinder, in all its versions, is the most successful AAM in history
Lots of Nike Hercules. I'd have to assume they functioned but I hope the Ordinance Bureau didn't. . . . S-75s obviously functioned.
The Bisons orbited to make it look like there was more than their actually was. The ' Bison ' was a failure in service.
The problem with the F 100 missile pylon was replicated throughout the entire US Air Force. It turns out that it was a manufacturing defect that allowed the moisture to collect, and this was an event that was in evitable going to occur, and it didn't matter on the pilot it mattered with the fact that the moisture was present in all of those pylons. eventually, of course they were all replaced as fast as could happen, but the farming practice did lots of the B-52, that occurred if not that day, it was going to happen sooner or later.
Been thinking about the statement that you keep making that the speed of the missile is "the maximum speed plus the speed of the launching aircraft". I get what you are saying and that's the easiest way to say it, but i don't think that's exactly true. If a missile will accelerate to 2,000 mph from a standstill, its not a given that it will end up at 2,600 from a plane at 600mph and 2,400 from one at 400mph. Because the energy imparted by rocket engine is a fixed amount, in theory, and each one is the same. But air resistance doubles as you go faster, it only takes like 25hp to cruise in your car at 40mph, but you need over 100hp to maintain 80mph. Thats why a 2,000hp plane isn't twice as fast as a 1,000hp plane, if all else is the same (it can be if you minimize drag and allow it to make that power at higher altitude, etc). Not sure how you would write that equation, but the actual top speed would be whatever Delta-V results in adding X amount of energy as acceleration on top of the existing air speed. A missile that it starting at a higher speed starts with much higher drag as well, which increases to a much higher level by the end, because the eventual top speed will be that much higher. I think it essentially extends the burn time by getting the missile to say, 1,500 with three seconds left of burn, instead of one, because it started already halfway to that speed.
Unless I'm thinking this all wrong. Clearly higher launch speed adds energy, but it's not a fixed number. I think mathematically it would be the rated top speed of the missile, plus whatever additional speed would be imparted by an equal amount of energy that it took to attain the initial speed, which is going to be much less in knots. If it took 100 units of energy to accelerate the missile to 600 kts, and 10,000 to reach the rated Mach 4, after it reaches Mach 4 it will still accelerate whatever amount 100 units will impart at that speed and with that level of drag resisting it. Which isn't going to be very much, but it's still energy imparted to the missile, and since drag also _drops_ as the speed falls after burnout, the added energy will still substantially increase the range.
Bullets are kind of similar, the faster the bullet or shell is fired, the greater the amount of power is needed to make it go faster. It's not hard to go from 500fps to 1,000fps, a small increase in capacity can do that. That same amount of energy will only take a round at 2,500fps up to maybe 2,600. But that extra 100fps has an outsized effect on the power of the bullet or shell.
When the soviets showed off the Bison its future as a conventional bomber was already dead. They wanted all their bombers to be armed by some sort of missile as soon as possible. The Badger recived the K10, the Bear the Kh20, however nothing could fit the Bison... So it became ASW. Btw before the soviets considered one way missions to US... Nuclear war is one way trip afterall.
BIson became a Bomber / Tanker to refuel the Bear Fleet (or itself). Quick way to ID a Nuclear Capable Russian Bomber. The Underside is anti flash white. Early Soviet Nuclear weapons were not very tolerant of being cold soaked so the Bomb Bays were air conditioned. Quite a large number of the Russian Bombers were also not used by the Air Force, but by the Soviet Navy Aviation forces as Anti Carrier Strike Aircraft to duke it out with US Navy Battle Groups using stand off weapons or Torpedo's. I think around half the TU-16 force belonged to the Soviet Navy, and of the rest, around 500 were nuclear capable, 150 odd were Tankers and another 150 odd were ECM / Recce Platforms. Bison fleet was around 100 if memory serves. Total of Free Fall Nuclear capable Bears was around 50, plus 150 odd missile carriers, Bear D and F were Soviet Naval Aircraft. Early Blinders was mostly used for Recce.
@@richardvernon317 Missile carriers didnt need anti flash white underside and after a while they stopped using the non missile carriers. The ksr-2, ksr-5 missiles didnt even need that much modification (these were anti-ship). The missile Bears and Blinders and K10 Badgers could do land attack just the same because the INS on the missiles was accurate enough for nuclear strikes. Kh22 s were used recently perfectly well on ground targets... without a nuke.
Say what you will. but Boyd put Everyone who fights in the air, or plans to do so, On Notice. The F-16 (and, Imho, both the Saab J-35 & J37, perhaps the J-39?) seem to bear-out his theories, and, oddly, the YF-20 should have been the Star of such thoughts, even If based upon a much older F-5/T-38 airframe. In his Day, only the NAVY F-11 and F-8 came close to being 'doctrine', where the F-5 was just a tad too austere? Perhaps. In any case, the F-16 has held it's own for 5 decades, based upon Boyd's observations of how Fighting should occur.
"the YF-20 should have been the Star of such thoughts, even If based upon a much older F-5/T-38 airframe."
Agreed - mostly because it could have been procured en masse due to lower production and maintenance costs, yet approximating performance (minus maneuverability, I suppose).
So in 1960 what was the best interceptor in US service ? It probably wasn't the F-100. It probably wasn't the brand new F-106 Delta Dart with no guns and used the Falcon series of missiles notoriously unreliable against fighters but a little better vs bombers. So I'd say it was the Navy's F-8 crusader which had also just been introduced. Unless of course you're going to be using the Genie Nuclear rocket then it would be the F-101 Voodoo and back to the F-106. Am I missing anything ?
aim/val ace/val?!? would be a lot of work… but worth it
6:35 Boyd wrote the AAS as a guide for the FWS. Also, where can I find evidence that the 40-second legend is a myth?
I’m not sure the 40 second legend is a myth per se. The criticism is that Boyd was an instructor fighting against students. It isn’t a surprise that he’s able to beat them relatively easily, particularly as he understood how to wring maximum performance out of the Hun, which was a tricky aircraft.
The TU 4 looked similar to B29 but would have lacked many sophisticted systems of the B29. The russian Concorski was very much inferior to the british French Concord
FYI, The B-52 either used 4 x Cal .50 guns or a single M-61A 20mm Gatling gun. It did not carry twin 20mm guns, that was the B-47
Yes! Of course… I’d been clearly been thinking about 20mm cannons too much! Thanks for the comment :)
Early model B-52B’s carried twin 20m guns.
@@allenhill5698
I believe that is incorrect. A through G models all had 4 x .50 cal, and the H introduced the Vulcan 20mm gatling.
you can do a second take for audio and not mushmouthedly jam a bunch of words together, otherwise neat
The young lt who's missle let lose, later became the Deputy Commander for Maintenance.
The bomber gap fear was based on miscounting the Bisons and Badgers over Moscow on that fateful October parade.
In order to impress the world Kruschev and his military bosses had their bombers fly long circles, so each bomber would overfly Red Square multiple times. Not realising this, the CIA and DIA counted each actual bomber multiple times, coming to an estimate of actual Soviet bomber strength that was several times higher than the actual numbers.
It wasn't until the actual numbers were being verified accurately during the SALT negotiations that the truth became evident (and then the USA was still very suspicious that the Soviets were hiding hundreds of bombers somewhere).
"Not realising this, the CIA and DIA counted each actual bomber multiple times (...)"
It's the dumbest excuse, ever.
Imo the bison looks better than the bear
Anybody else a bit thrown off with cultural traditions and genetic heritage being in that OODA loop? I mean, I get it was the 50s, but wtf does genetics have to do with a dogfight?
It doesn't mean what you think. Cultural tradition and genetic heritage are badly named but are there to show that having a team that is from many backgrounds will give a better decision making process.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Ah, ok. That makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification. With cultural traditions I figured that might have been the case, but seeing genetics & heritage in any military context always makes me a bit cagey.
Culture and genetics shape responses. Fear will drive one nation (and its military) to be more aggressive. That same fear will cause another to pull back and become passive. During the Cold War I had some young Finn college students give me a tour of Helsinki. Their disgust at the passivity of their government was obvious. As engineering students they pointed at a HF antenna on top of their foreign office and noted it was aimed at Moscow "to get orders." They also told me that the only Finnish political party that denounced the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was the communist party. The rest were too fearful of offending. That brings up another point. Cultures and the accompanying attitudes can change. Today's Finland doesn't fret about offending Putin's Russia.
Another poster claims that "having a team that is from many backgrounds will give a better decision making process." That's certainly the fad in many circles today, but the "many" is misplaced. Several different and carefully chosen backgrounds is certainly a benefit, but other backgrounds/attitudes can do harm. And their are some attitudes that are poison. Two that come readily to mind are those who're arrogant and won't admit mistakes and those who're thin-skinned and have a persecution complex. Both will wreck teamwork.
@@neiloflongbeck5705
"(...) having a team that is from many backgrounds will give a better decision making process"
Nonsense.
Military operations are not about 'workforce diversity' (fragmenting bonds of identity) - it's about guiding one's approach along a traditioned preference and about the physical fitness to stand the stress of the combat situation.
These are factors on both sides of the conflict.
Astrology, however may lead to similarly informed decisions...
[2:33] "...greatest ever reverse-engineering job in history..." Have to disagree with that, and furthermore, I think I can convince you, too. The CCP didn't have too much trouble reverse-engineering the Tu-4, so that's a very strong case against this claim. I would say that the greatest piece of reverse-engineering in history would HAVE to be that of the Aim-9 Sidewinder missile to the AA-2 "Atol" in 1958 (an IR heat seeking missile was cutting edge technology at this time).
the F-100 has one wing built stronger than the other, in case of running out of arms. It can take out a bomber by hitting it with the stronger wing. Of corse the pilot will have a tough time landing with one wing. It has been done, but not with an F-100, YET.
Boyd was a hack. stop using him