One big correction to this video - top-end speed. Though the Spey provided greater thrust for takeoffs, the GE J79 Phantoms still had higher top-end speed.
They modified the bottom fusolage in order to accommodate the Sprey engine that has greater thrust but different dimension. However the modification resulted in increased drag and therefore lower max speed despite bigger thrust
Friend of mine was a Marine F4 pilot. He said they landed on a USAF base’s asphalt runway and when they took off, they also melted the runway. He said fleet F4’s engines were angled downward vs Air Force F4’s…
I guess that would have been F-4J'S? Interestingly the Brit's also bought those too to make up the numbers following Phantom deployments to the South Atlantic in the wake of the Falklands
This came at a cost though The British F-4's had more drag resulting in lower top speed at altitude. And inferior engine performance as well. This resulted in an old joke from the Americans: "What happens when you Spey a bitch? She becomes fat and slow!"
@@adampolson6938does that negate the performance characteristics at altitude? “But muh video said🥴🥴” takeoff performance does not equal performance at altitude
@@adampolson6938 WhT was mentioned? The higher power, yes. The increased drag, no. Hence the fact that although more powerful, British Phantoms were slower than the standard J79 powered models and were less responsive at higher altitudes. Perhaps you should listen to RAF pilots who flew both types.
Was on the USS Independence 1971/2, cross decked with the Ark Royal, and saw the difference in J79 F4Js and British Navy Spey engined FG1s. Extreme nose gear extension for launch was also very noticeable. Only looks made them family😊
892NAS FG1's (or F-4JK's to use their American name) were first deployed on the USS Saratoga during her Mediterranean deployment in 1969 prior to the Ark's recommissioning
The British carriers were smaller which explains the extended nose landing gear. The RR Spey engines did incur a drag penalty and did not perform as well at high altitude but they had better fuel economy and low speed performance due to higher mass flow rate (being low bypass turbofans where as the j79s were pure turbojets). The Spey was also used on the Buccaneer so that helped reduce costs too. Pity the supersonic Harrier was cancelled as that would have been a truly great aircraft and changed air warfare for ever. The F35B with the lift fan is really a lemon compared to what a vectored thrust supersonic jet could achieve.
Why would the use of an American fighter be unthinkable? Britain has used aircraft from other countries from the beginning. The P-51 was originally developed for the RAF.
@@briancooper2112 wasn't Hortons, it just wasn't supercharged. On the deck it was a great performer, that's why the US used it for ground attack. But yes, at altitude it was gasping for breath.
During the trials, USN Phantom crews “zapped” the RN F-4’s that were on board the Saratoga. The Navy crews painted “Colonial Navy” on them and put WW2 style American roundels on them too.
You mentioned the RAF Phantom being the FGR.2, but in reality that one came even later. The earlier ones were the FGR.1 (*correction: FG.1 (thanks Keith)) that my father flew. That trend carried onwards in the family and led me to the Typhoon FGR.4. For anyone wishing to fly fast jets, work hard for it and you won’t regret it. They are devilishly fun. When it comes to young kids today, I truly hope such an opportunity will still be available to them and that everything won’t have shifted to one fighter manned from a virtual cockpit on the ground with a bunch of AI flown loyal wingmen. It’s understandable that such things will happen since it’s lower risk and training costs, but it would be a shame if kids of today don’t get to grow up to fly whatever awesome fighter jets there may be by that time. For those of you on that path, I wish you the best of luck.
@ Sorry, my phone auto-incorrect likes to assume I’m going to write FGR the minute I put the first two letters. I guess it did that here too. Recently it’s been making really odd corrections to other parts of the sentences as well. I really. Need to get into the habit of checking what it is that comes out rather than just staring at the keyboard as I write. I’d love to fly the Phantom just for the experience of it. There’s not too many left now though.
@@thegreyarea-WPP I was in two minds to post anyway, you know your stuff. I worked on the simulators for F4K and F4M before moving on to Tornado IDS. Have a great day ;)
I want to get with mcdonnell Douglas and design a third bent wing bird. This time with two stabilizers slanted away from each other front wings swept back but bent the same as the wings on the corsair and same color blue just like the corsair. It'll look like the child of the f4f phantom and sukoih su-57 and the corsair is the grandfather of it. Also just like the phantom the two smaller wings behind the front wings on the side will be pointing down diagonally but this time with two scram jet engines. I'll call it the f4c poltergeist.
I think you UK is mow a fourth rate force almost as much of a joke as the Belgian military after all the cutbacks in defence spending these last ten years. I would sooner have Poland at my back if I went to war , their military especially army and airforce is soon going to be larger and more modern than the British
Just a suggestion, maybe one regular size carrier would be a win win, save on r&d, on plane and ship, endless mods and bonus a real carrier 😊 Justin case u need it?
When all was done, the SPEY powered F-4's had a lower combat radius, lower top speed and higher fuel usage rates at combat ratings than the turbojet powered F-4's. Installations effects (inlet and exhaust throttle dependent aerodynamic effects and higher fuel flow rates at combat power were significant contributors. Some of this led to more focus on aircraft-engine integration engineering in the late 60's and early 70's.
When I was in High School, I had an aviation and technology class that actually would take us to Naval Air Station North Island to work on planes! I think it was in 1984 or 5 that I was there and worked on some Phantoms that where destined for the Royal Navy. They had been modified with the landing gear and some of the avionics there and I believe the rest was to be done in Britain.
No, the new fighters are too expensive. I know, lets order off the shelf fighters. Oh no they don't work on our carriers. lets modify the planes we bought. While we are modifying the planes lets completely re-build them. Oh no the cheaper planes cost more than the ones we cancelled. The UK government at work.
@ronkennedy213 Yep,your government came up with the ultimate shortsighted approach when they cancelled the magnificent,decades ahead of it's time, Avro Arrow.
There's a big energy and temperature difference between warping steel and actually melting it. The latter would take much more heat to accomplish. So the caption of this video should be The Fighter That WARPED An Aircraft Carrier DECK (but of course that sounds less intriguing than melt).
The Phantom was a bad MF to start with. I bet those rr engined planes were incredible. Not the prettiest plane but rugged and menacing looking for aure.
From other comments about performance at altitude being less with the British engines; makes me giggle. Just the opposite of what the Merlin did for the Mustang
The use of afterburners must have been an issue on U.S. carriers even with the U.S. variant of the F-4, let alone the more powerful F-18. Anything close (let alone touching) two 20 foot long supersonic flame fronts will be scorched Heck, even the STOVL F-35B, which does not use afterburners on takeoff, requires deck modifications to handle the heat from the downwards directed jet wash. P.S. Thumbs up for an interesting article. One request though .... please turn down the volume on the music. It's loud enough to be a distraction.
It's odd they would be surprised at the exhaust gas temperature. They should have known that when they designed the engine. They'd have known it again when they tested the engine. They couldn't ignore this at every day stage of the development cycle, and then get surprised when they flew it. Sounds like some departments aren't communicating to others.
If Range Rover and Jaguar are any indication of the finest of British engineering, then I wonder how much better the British F4 was over the American..
Immagine the Carnage the British Phantom would have done to American thinner decks, All British Carriers ahve armoured decks. Nimitz Decks are only 2.5 Inches thick, whilst the deck of the Ark Royal was 3.5 inches thick. Apparently it did happen in exercise Ocean safari in 1975, and melted the US carrier's deck as well. Thus there was only one instance ever of a British Phantom F4-K usng an American carrier. Too much damage was done!
So... the takeaway is that the F-4K was a superior aircraft for the Royal Navy and RAF's use but was an abject money-pit. But that money pit kept British aviation industry solvent. There is so much wrong with all of that. Just now, 40 years later, the Royal Navy is finally getting naval aviation back on its feet.
I was not a fan of the F-4 Phantom, trying to save money it was a Jack-of-all-trades while not being superior in any category except time to altitude. those variety of twist, bending & various funny looking notches in the Aircraft are all there to solve some kind of Problem, one of the F-4's more famous issues was during a battle it would occasionally swap ends, the Drogue chute was employed to help correct the wildly oscillating Jet
the Royal Navy should never have switched from CATOBAR aircraft carriers to STOVL carriers . . . inspite of knowing fully well that a STOVL carrier by design, has limited capabilities & unable to project power . . . guess the switch to STOVL was dictated by the type of carrier borne fighter the navy was planning to operate & low cost . . . and that new fighter jet was none other than the navalized carrier borne Hawker Sea Harrier VTOL FA.2 multi role all weather interceptor . . .
The sad thing was had Britain just bought US F-4 with J79. They would have saved a lot of money and could have bought more numbers or funded F-111K. But once again British Pride killed this and their military.
No. By that time the carriers which could field them had been scrapped. The aircraft carrier that went to the Falklands was HMS Hermes which carried Harriers. They did most of the aerial work. There was also one famous long-distance bombing run by Avro Vulcans from Ascension Island.
The Phantoms were sent down to guard the Falklands after the end of the conflict. 1435 flt took over QRA, initially from Stanley, then moving to the current RAF Mount Pleasant.
The British took the F-4 and made it their own just like the U.S. took the Harrier and made it their own. The 2 countries who were once fierce enemies working together to better each other. Great tech comes from the U.S. and great tech comes from British however more often the best tech comes when we have worked together.
@ Never compared them to anyone else. They were however still fierce enemies with a lot of unfortunate loss on both sides. It’s just more proof that two different countries or a divided country can come together to make each other better and stronger.
You are talking about problems with the phantoms in RAF service where as a lot of visions are in fact buccaneers.If you wish to give us interested persons an insight to history at least get the visual footage correct please.
As always Dark Skies makes a mountain out of a molehill and misrepresents what actually happened. It was HMS Eagle that had the problem with the Phantom FG1 overheating the deck. This was alleviated by bolting a plate over the location on the deck where the exhaust hit. The steel plates were kept abord Eagle just incase she needed to operate Phantoms in an emergency. HMS Ark Royal was fitted with water cooled Jet Blast Defectors as part of a planned refit to make her suitable to operate Phantoms. They were not rushed into service. This channel is full of shit.
I am grateful for channels like these ! I love this stuff ! Happy Thanksgiving to all !!!
!!!!!!🦃🦃🦃🦃💙💙💙
One big correction to this video - top-end speed. Though the Spey provided greater thrust for takeoffs, the GE J79 Phantoms still had higher top-end speed.
They modified the bottom fusolage in order to accommodate the Sprey engine that has greater thrust but different dimension. However the modification resulted in increased drag and therefore lower max speed despite bigger thrust
Phantastic plane... legend 👍✈️
It always seems as if any time a government or business tries to save Money, they just wind up $pending more....
Friend of mine was a Marine F4 pilot. He said they landed on a USAF base’s asphalt runway and when they took off, they also melted the runway. He said fleet F4’s engines were angled downward vs Air Force F4’s…
F3D Skynights were not very popular as their jet flow melted asphalt.
I was lucky enough to be a plane captain on a F4 aboard the USS Ranger CVA 61 69/70 in the Tonkin Gulf.
I guess that would have been F-4J'S? Interestingly the Brit's also bought those too to make up the numbers following Phantom deployments to the South Atlantic in the wake of the Falklands
This came at a cost though The British F-4's had more drag resulting in lower top speed at altitude. And inferior engine performance as well. This resulted in an old joke from the Americans: "What happens when you Spey a bitch? She becomes fat and slow!"
It was mentioned in the first minute that the Spey had 30% more power. Were you not paying attention?
@@adampolson6938does that negate the performance characteristics at altitude? “But muh video said🥴🥴” takeoff performance does not equal performance at altitude
@@adampolson6938 WhT was mentioned? The higher power, yes. The increased drag, no. Hence the fact that although more powerful, British Phantoms were slower than the standard J79 powered models and were less responsive at higher altitudes. Perhaps you should listen to RAF pilots who flew both types.
Was on the USS Independence 1971/2, cross decked with the Ark Royal, and saw the difference in J79 F4Js and British Navy Spey engined FG1s. Extreme nose gear extension for launch was also very noticeable. Only looks made them family😊
892NAS FG1's (or F-4JK's to use their American name) were first deployed on the USS Saratoga during her Mediterranean deployment in 1969 prior to the Ark's recommissioning
The British carriers were smaller which explains the extended nose landing gear. The RR Spey engines did incur a drag penalty and did not perform as well at high altitude but they had better fuel economy and low speed performance due to higher mass flow rate (being low bypass turbofans where as the j79s were pure turbojets). The Spey was also used on the Buccaneer so that helped reduce costs too. Pity the supersonic Harrier was cancelled as that would have been a truly great aircraft and changed air warfare for ever. The F35B with the lift fan is really a lemon compared to what a vectored thrust supersonic jet could achieve.
id never heard this story. way to go brits.
Why would the use of an American fighter be unthinkable? Britain has used aircraft from other countries from the beginning. The P-51 was originally developed for the RAF.
Yes. But the original engine was horrible.
The original P51 was designed as a medium altitude aircraft. It was developed into a high altitude fighter with the RR Merlin.@@briancooper2112
@@briancooper2112 wasn't Hortons, it just wasn't supercharged. On the deck it was a great performer, that's why the US used it for ground attack. But yes, at altitude it was gasping for breath.
Meant horrible, damn phone
The same attitude that hindered development of the Merlin/P51
It's like a race car: "It needs to be fast". How fast do you want to go? "How much will it cost"? Depends. "On what"? How fast you want to go.
During the trials, USN Phantom crews “zapped” the RN F-4’s that were on board the Saratoga. The Navy crews painted “Colonial Navy” on them and put WW2 style American roundels on them too.
That wasn't during the 69 trials but later in the 70's whilst 'cross decking'
@ ahh. Ok. Thanks for clarifying
Interservice rivalry has doomed more promising aviation projects than any enemy.
"Stop burning holes in my ship!"
You mentioned the RAF Phantom being the FGR.2, but in reality that one came even later. The earlier ones were the FGR.1 (*correction: FG.1 (thanks Keith)) that my father flew. That trend carried onwards in the family and led me to the Typhoon FGR.4.
For anyone wishing to fly fast jets, work hard for it and you won’t regret it. They are devilishly fun. When it comes to young kids today, I truly hope such an opportunity will still be available to them and that everything won’t have shifted to one fighter manned from a virtual cockpit on the ground with a bunch of AI flown loyal wingmen. It’s understandable that such things will happen since it’s lower risk and training costs, but it would be a shame if kids of today don’t get to grow up to fly whatever awesome fighter jets there may be by that time. For those of you on that path, I wish you the best of luck.
F4K, FG1
@ Sorry, my phone auto-incorrect likes to assume I’m going to write FGR the minute I put the first two letters. I guess it did that here too. Recently it’s been making really odd corrections to other parts of the sentences as well. I really. Need to get into the habit of checking what it is that comes out rather than just staring at the keyboard as I write. I’d love to fly the Phantom just for the experience of it. There’s not too many left now though.
@@thegreyarea-WPP I was in two minds to post anyway, you know your stuff. I worked on the simulators for F4K and F4M before moving on to Tornado IDS. Have a great day ;)
I want to get with mcdonnell Douglas and design a third bent wing bird. This time with two stabilizers slanted away from each other front wings swept back but bent the same as the wings on the corsair and same color blue just like the corsair. It'll look like the child of the f4f phantom and sukoih su-57 and the corsair is the grandfather of it. Also just like the phantom the two smaller wings behind the front wings on the side will be pointing down diagonally but this time with two scram jet engines. I'll call it the f4c poltergeist.
ANOTHER INFORMATIVE AND EXCELLENT VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Back when the US and UK were an unstoppable force.
I think you UK is mow a fourth rate force almost as much of a joke as the Belgian military after all the cutbacks in defence spending these last ten years. I would sooner have Poland at my back if I went to war , their military especially army and airforce is soon going to be larger and more modern than the British
Not the woke mess they be now in my humble opinion.
Oh that's cute
Do you not remember Vietnam?
Now the US military can be brought down just by telling them whoever moves first will be called pronouns they don’t want to be called lmao
It wasn't all plain sailing, though. One of the test pilots said that when they first installed the Spey, it was pushing flames out of both ends!
That must have been an eye-opener! Have a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year
very interesting video, i assumed the british pantom was a lightly modified variant of the US aircraft but it's clearly not. thanks!
Love the F4, beautiful birds
Just a suggestion, maybe one regular size carrier would be a win win, save on r&d, on plane and ship, endless mods and bonus a real carrier 😊 Justin case u need it?
Man, she was a gorgeous aircraft.
When all was done, the SPEY powered F-4's had a lower combat radius, lower top speed and higher fuel usage rates at combat ratings than the turbojet powered F-4's. Installations effects (inlet and exhaust throttle dependent aerodynamic effects and higher fuel flow rates at combat power were significant contributors. Some of this led to more focus on aircraft-engine integration engineering in the late 60's and early 70's.
I flew the Fokker 100, that had Spay engines, I never knew they were in a Phantom!
The F4 was a flying Brick 🧱!
What a fantastic aircraft!!
When I was in High School, I had an aviation and technology class that actually would take us to Naval Air Station North Island to work on planes! I think it was in 1984 or 5 that I was there and worked on some Phantoms that where destined for the Royal Navy. They had been modified with the landing gear and some of the avionics there and I believe the rest was to be done in Britain.
Those would be the F-4J's destined for the RAF as the RN had already retired her Phantoms by that point
No, the new fighters are too expensive.
I know, lets order off the shelf fighters.
Oh no they don't work on our carriers.
lets modify the planes we bought.
While we are modifying the planes lets completely re-build them.
Oh no the cheaper planes cost more than the ones we cancelled.
The UK government at work.
Canadian government. “Hold my beer, I can beat that”
@ronkennedy213 Yep,your government came up with the ultimate shortsighted approach when they cancelled the magnificent,decades ahead of it's time, Avro Arrow.
It's about about the Phantom, yet you show a Buccaneer taking off...
1:11 ?
@@Bakaat777 Yupp. That's a Buccaneer. And if you watch closely, you'll see that it's not the only occasion they appear...
@@CaptainQuark9 Ah! Spoiler Alert! LOL I haven't finished watching yet.
@@Bakaat777 Oooops! Sorry 😁
Any excuse to show a Bucc is fine by me 🙃
There's a big energy and temperature difference between warping steel and actually melting it. The latter would take much more heat to accomplish.
So the caption of this video should be The Fighter That WARPED An Aircraft Carrier DECK
(but of course that sounds less intriguing than melt).
There you go, full size in the Falklands probably would have made a HUGE difference so far from home 😔
The Phantom was a bad MF to start with. I bet those rr engined planes were incredible. Not the prettiest plane but rugged and menacing looking for aure.
From other comments about performance at altitude being less with the British engines; makes me giggle. Just the opposite of what the Merlin did for the Mustang
The use of afterburners must have been an issue on U.S. carriers even with the U.S. variant of the F-4, let alone the more powerful F-18. Anything close (let alone touching) two 20 foot long supersonic flame fronts will be scorched Heck, even the STOVL F-35B, which does not use afterburners on takeoff, requires deck modifications to handle the heat from the downwards directed jet wash.
P.S. Thumbs up for an interesting article. One request though .... please turn down the volume on the music. It's loud enough to be a distraction.
It's odd they would be surprised at the exhaust gas temperature. They should have known that when they designed the engine. They'd have known it again when they tested the engine. They couldn't ignore this at every day stage of the development cycle, and then get surprised when they flew it. Sounds like some departments aren't communicating to others.
If Range Rover and Jaguar are any indication of the finest of British engineering, then I wonder how much better the British F4 was over the American..
A marvel of engineering. Then there's the Harrier
As Ella Fitzgerald would say about the British Phantom - Too Darn Hot!
Immagine the Carnage the British Phantom would have done to American thinner decks, All British Carriers ahve armoured decks. Nimitz Decks are only 2.5 Inches thick, whilst the deck of the Ark Royal was 3.5 inches thick. Apparently it did happen in exercise Ocean safari in 1975, and melted the US carrier's deck as well. Thus there was only one instance ever of a British Phantom F4-K usng an American carrier. Too much damage was done!
Not true as 'cross decking' was a regular occurrence throughout the 70's
2:59 Damn I wonder if the RAF had any plans to replace the TF30’s on the F-111’s with Speys
Looks like a drag car. Wow
Sure does!!
Only 2 bot accounts in the comments before I made my comment.
😂 social media has more bots than it does actual humans im convinced
That BAC TSR2 looks suspiciously like the North American RA-5 Vigilante. Just sayin'
So... the takeaway is that the F-4K was a superior aircraft for the Royal Navy and RAF's use but was an abject money-pit. But that money pit kept British aviation industry solvent. There is so much wrong with all of that. Just now, 40 years later, the Royal Navy is finally getting naval aviation back on its feet.
Unfortunately no as the RAF gets the say-so on British F-35 deployments hence all the footage of empty decks (blame Cameron)
Didn't a F4K also blow away one of the older US carriers wooden decks when on trials?
I was not a fan of the F-4 Phantom, trying to save money it was a Jack-of-all-trades while not being superior in any category except time to altitude. those variety of twist, bending & various funny looking notches in the Aircraft are all there to solve some kind of Problem, one of the F-4's more famous issues was during a battle it would occasionally swap ends, the Drogue chute was employed to help correct the wildly oscillating Jet
Why not just build bigger aircraft carriers?
They were going to, but they were also cancelled.
the Royal Navy should never have switched from CATOBAR aircraft carriers to STOVL carriers . . . inspite of knowing fully well that a STOVL carrier by design, has limited capabilities & unable to project power . . . guess the switch to STOVL was dictated by the type of carrier borne fighter the navy was planning to operate & low cost . . . and that new fighter jet was none other than the navalized carrier borne Hawker Sea Harrier VTOL FA.2 multi role all weather interceptor . . .
The change was forced on the navy due to both the governments of the day not being willing to fund the replacement for Ark Royal and Eagle
TU95 German Bomber and Engine did in USSR by German engineer - speed less then 900KMH
Oh for the love of God *pls don't change the thumbnail*
The sad thing was had Britain just bought US F-4 with J79. They would have saved a lot of money and could have bought more numbers or funded F-111K. But once again British Pride killed this and their military.
Yes it was and they changed the p 51 as well
Any Phantoms @ Faulklands war?
No. By that time the carriers which could field them had been scrapped. The aircraft carrier that went to the Falklands was HMS Hermes which carried Harriers. They did most of the aerial work. There was also one famous long-distance bombing run by Avro Vulcans from Ascension Island.
@@zh84 - Not forgetting HMS Invincible, the other albeit smaller aircraft carrier deployed by the RN to the South Atlantic.
Just the Argentinian ones that sunk a ship?. (Something like that).
They had been scrapped in the late 70s defence review as they were astronomically expensive to run.
The Phantoms were sent down to guard the Falklands after the end of the conflict. 1435 flt took over QRA, initially from Stanley, then moving to the current RAF Mount Pleasant.
melting a deck isnt melting an entire aircraft carrier. civilians arent experts on military shit they READ
The British took the F-4 and made it their own just like the U.S. took the Harrier and made it their own. The 2 countries who were once fierce enemies working together to better each other. Great tech comes from the U.S. and great tech comes from British however more often the best tech comes when we have worked together.
They weren't as fierce enemies as the two sides in the homegrown civil war a century and a half earlier with that being fought between kin too
@ Never compared them to anyone else. They were however still fierce enemies with a lot of unfortunate loss on both sides. It’s just more proof that two different countries or a divided country can come together to make each other better and stronger.
The British F4 phantom had much less range than the US phantom you consume way more fuel with their engine you gotta feed the ponies
British dominance and air power? They weren’t even smart enough to use it in the only conflict they ever had. The falklands
Complimentary algorithm enhancement type of a comment!😊
❤❤❤
2:03 F4-afterburner (original audio)
Hey dark, you edited it out! Nobody knows but I do! Never forget!
You are talking about problems with the phantoms in RAF service where as a lot of visions are in fact buccaneers.If you wish to give us interested persons an insight to history at least get the visual footage correct please.
What happened to the British Tornado 🌪?!
It's been replaced by
Typhoon's and F-35's
They’ll regret that
@@budwhite9591 Why? Both are far more capable than the Tornado.
Dislike for clickbait titles.
What car @3:00
1967 Chevrolet Chevelles SS396 a real beaut
@@pwilson-bs1ec Thank You. Miss those cars of the 60's
@@lynnwood7205 no problem Chevelles have been obsession of mine since childhood
A beast to hot for its own nest .....luv it.
👀👍🇮🇪⚓
As always Dark Skies makes a mountain out of a molehill and misrepresents what actually happened. It was HMS Eagle that had the problem with the Phantom FG1 overheating the deck. This was alleviated by bolting a plate over the location on the deck where the exhaust hit. The steel plates were kept abord Eagle just incase she needed to operate Phantoms in an emergency. HMS Ark Royal was fitted with water cooled Jet Blast Defectors as part of a planned refit to make her suitable to operate Phantoms. They were not rushed into service.
This channel is full of shit.
its not unthinkable tho , has always been same ,- uk idea us manufacture uk improvement , harrier ,hovercraft ,atom bombs ,apache etcetcetc
Please please stop saying Can-Berra, it just sounds odd and jarring. Can-Bruh is how it's pronounced.
Fartoosh?
NnnnNNnnoo no no iz PHANTOM now
why did you give your f4 to your stupid friend?
Greatest ride I ever took!
Because I made a lot of money ~ government
So they basically took what was already a beast and turned it into a monster lol that's epic