Must have been thinking of another story. Battleship New Jersey had a pair of gun mounts the Captain had painted light blue inside and turned into little swimming pools when they removed the guns. Russkies were wondering what was up with the "eyes" you could see from above were
In the fall of 1974, I was working as an engineering intern "co-op student" at McDonnell Douglas in St. Louis. I was assigned to a structural engineering group studying metal fatigue in the newly developed F-15, when the partnership with Northrop to develop a Navy version of the YF-17 was announced. Immediately, about half the engineers (on the order of 100) from our department (and a similar proportion from almost every other engineering department), were reassigned to this project, and moved to another building where they were sequestered working 12-14 hour days, 7 days a week. Although the project was being developed in extreme secrecy, that didn't keep then remaining engineers in our department from expressing their skepticism that such a feat could be carried off, given the significantly greater dynamic loads generated by, and slower speeds required for arrested carrier landings and catapult assisted takeoffs. Somehow the "Mac Air" engineers managed to successfully pull off the first conversion of an Air Force jet aircraft for carrier use by the Navy, despite the ridiculously short amount of time they were given to develop/validate the concept of design. This was done 1 year after the first handheld scientific calculator hit the market (HP-35 costing $400 in 1973 dollars), and company developed structural/stress analysis programs were being run on mainframe computers using programs compiled on tens of thousands of IBM punch cards. Heck, most of the engineers I was working with were still using slide rules. Their efforts have withstood the test of time: 49 years later, the Super Hornet variant of this aircraft is still in production.
Impressive what some folks could do with a slide rule and some trig and log tables. Nash Roberts, a meteorologist for WDSU, New Orleans, couldn't tell you if it was going to rain or shine, but when Betsy, Camille, and Georges hit the Big Easy, Nash (a WWII veteran and Naval Officer under Adm. C. W. Nimitz) got out his charts and slide rule, and predicted with 100% accuracy just where the big blow was gonna go, and was more accurate than the computer models. Nash is no longer with us, but what he did for the City of New Orleans is remembered by the locals to this day.
I'm more of a YF-23 fan myself. I always feel kind of bad for the engineers who build a design for years that loses in a close competition. But oh well, somebody has to lose, just the way it goes.
I was flying century series aircraft in the 70s and 80s when we transitioned to the F18. It was an amazing upgrade in ground attack and air superiority. Truly a great design that has lasted 40 years with updates.
All the lessons from the Vietnam war had been learned and that’s what gave rise to aircraft like the falcon and the hornet. My grandfather worked on F-105s and fortunately lived long enough to see the F-16 and F-18 take to the skies. I recall him saying “why couldn’t we had fighters like that back then?” Of course it was a different way of thinking back then as aerial dogfighting was going to be a thing of the past. All that changed when we took jets like the F-105 and F-4 phantom to Vietnam.
Hello Larry, we might some mutually enlightening BS to sling about our old rides. For me it's a love the good ole' haug, followed by three birds of prey but when it comes the F-18 I'm just a cowgirl that fit to be tied because I just can't plum figure where you Navy's hid the ashtray, glovebox and cooler. If I'm right my bets they're suggled right up near huggin' the 8-track and durn near in the F18's privy with the Brew 102 and Wild Turkey. So
@@Major_Tamre_Colby Hi Tamre I am Canadian. I did 5 years on the 104 in Germany and helped start the F18 OTU in Cold Lake. I always wished I could have done some Carrier stuff. We worked a lot with the our American cousins and I have maximum respect for all. They were good times. The 104 went in a straight line really well. The F18 was a hell of a machine in its day. Quite a transition. Unfortunately we taught our cousins how to play crud and typical Americans they were competive in no time often delivering us a beating. But they had to work hard to do it. The Beer coolers were kept in the Herc.
Sorry but I disagree. It had limited range and speed. Now the newer super hornets are better, but they still need a lot of assist. But the Navy decided to go total idiot, and think that a single aircraft can do everything.
@@rlstafford4359 well clearly you know next to nothing about fighter aviation. Perhaps you are just trolling. Please explain the importance of speed above mach 1.8
I was stationed at Pt Mugu NAS from 1979 until 1981 being assigned to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Four (VX-4) In 1979 during the annual air show, one of the YF-17 prototypes flew in and parked themselves on our ramp. I remember the leading edges of the wings and stabilators were almost knife thin. Overall it was a small aircraft. A year later we received a couple of brand new F/A-18's for eval and testing.
How did it compare to the f-20 tigershark? I have a copy of Chuck Yeagers autobiography, in which there is a photo of him endorsing the aircraft as the right one... this re-iterated in the text. I understand the yf-17 was pretty much a twin engined version of the F-20.... or perhaps an earlier iteration.
I was a young child watching the formation introduction to NAS Lemoore in the early 80s for the F/A-18. 20 years later I was stationed at Mugu doing RDT&E with MAD.
The Navy needed an aircraft to replace the F-4 Phantom on their smaller carriers like the Midway class carriers that the F-14 was too big to operate from, but the navy needed surface attack capability.
The only two small decks were the Midway and Coral Sea and altho the Midway got Hornets, the Phantom was already gone from all the other decks. In addition, the Hornet replaced the A-7 as well. And that’s why it went to airwings that also had Turkeys. -VF-151, F-4J/S, 1980-1983 -VF-31: F-14A, 1985-1988 -VF-126, Various A-4s, F-16N, 1989-1992
I knew about the YF-17, being the aviation geek I am, so imagine my surprise when I go visit the USS Alabama in 2014, and what do I see inside the hanger there but one of the two YF-17 prototypes. I had no idea it was there, and I was very excited to see in person that which I had only read about up until then. I felt much the same way when I visited the USAF museum at Wright Patterson, and got to see the X3, XB-70, XF-107, and YF-23.
The USS Alabama Battleship Memorial Park also has, among other aircraft, an A-12 Blackbird plus, I think uniquely, the whole teen fighter series - F-14A, F-15A, F-16A, YF-17 & F/A-18A.
The YF-17 Cobra has an interesting family tree, based on the F-5E Tiger II, used as the basis for a larger different aircraft in the F/A-18 Hornet, that was itself used as the basis for a larger different aircraft in the F/A-18 Super Hornet.
Former Boeing Everett... I spent quality time in St Louis helping iron out production problems. Commercial Aircraft was implementing Lean Manufacturing. We could build a 747 Jumbo in a week. F/A-18 was taking a year. Navy 2nd contract required prices to drop. We fixed problems, decreased price, increased profit, and reduced production time significantly. I may have even seen your mom there. Loved the plant, people very friendly and helpful. I'm retired now myself.
What down there for Family Day, my dad talked a pilot into letting me sit in the cockpit of the first Suoer Hornet. I'll never forget the look of horror in the eyes of the engineers running towards us shouting for us to get out of the thing. Turns out those missles were real and she was being readied for transfer to Nevada for testing
WHO was your mother? I might have been her inspector if she worked structures and systems. I was there from Oct 1987 till July 1999. BTW.....my memory isn't what it use to be!!! :(
The Northrop F5 was so trim and beautiful (and comparatively cheap) that I wish it had more time for refinement and development. I know that the US made it a great "trainer" and an all purpose supper sonic capable for the Airforce and NASA; I' glad that there were some decent overseas sales but I wish it had been given more opportunities
It was great, but when it was first introduced, it was up against the prototypes for what would become the F16 and F/A18. All three were highly competitive and the US did a lot of uhm'ing and ahh'ing over which to choose. Ultimately the F/A18 ended up with the navy, and the Air Force went with the F16, leaving the F5 slightly overlooked, and perhaps underrated. It was still sold to other nations around the world, and is also used as an advanced trainer, although this is arguably not what it was originally intended for.
@@bigballzmcdrawz2921 Northrup wanted to sell the F-20 to foreign markets (and believed they could make a bunch of money doing so) but the military refused to let them do it (because the military wanted those foreign buyers to buy aircraft like the F-16 instead which would in turn bring down the cost to the US for operating those planes)
Were the Fighter Mafia the people that said that the USAF needed a plane that had Cannons, no Radar, Radios you could buy in a shop and only enough fuel to get to and fight in a combat (but no fuel to get home)?
Living/Working at Wright-Patterson AFB during those trials I remember the Navy's observers was interested in the YF-17 from the very start. The Navy like's aircraft with 2 engines over single engine varieties if possible, losing an engine on a carrier is double deadly. Their F-14 was getting long in the tooth and maintenance/upgrades were getting quite costly and they needed an aircraft to supplement/replace the F-14 and old F-4 squadrons.
The F-14 only entered Navy service in 1974. These trials happened almost exactly as the F-14A was only just reaching carriers. They weren't long in the tooth. The cockpits still had that New Car smell. The long in the tooth airframe they were looking to replace was the F-4, which had about 10 years on it by then. And the A-4 Skyhawk which had well past 20. They were watching the LWF program with interest because they needed something for the remaining smaller deck Carriers such as the Midways and the last few Essex's that they planned to keep around a few more years like the Oriskany and Hancock.
Yeah, he gets some things wrong on occasion, but all & all, I thoroughly enjoy 99.83% of the fellas Dark based videos. Good on you Sir for correcting his error with factual data, & 0.0% attitude!
I remember when the Air Force picked the YF-16 over the YF-17 which left Northrup with a big investment but no buyers for the Y-17. 60 Minutes did a story on the plane and Northrup ran adds on TV featuring Chuck Yeager singing the YF-17's praises and recommending to: "Strap your fanny into a YF-17". A key reason that the Navy chose the YF-17 (F-18) over the F-16 was that the F-16 had one engine and the YF-17 had two and the Navy which flys over the ocean wanted a plane with two engines for redundancy.
Been a lot of questions about Boyd’s actual involvement in the project and whether he was essentially good at promoting himself and taking credit for the ideas of others. As always, take history with a grain of salt - it’s told by the people who wrote the story and they sometimes edit things…
Boyd’s EM briefing to Gen Sweeney was credited with effectively shelving the F111, which was a total dud when it came to being a fighter. If anything, I think his contribution is undersold.
@@johnnyhernandez8619Yuuup.... as a fighter, the Aardvark is, not special. But as high speed interceptor and low level supersonic bomber, it has no equals. It's real value however, was Supersonic Diplomacy, with tin-pot dictators through SE Asia from the '70's through the '90's knowing full well there was a force of F-111's to thier south that could arrive faster then they could react, and put a missile of bomb through a window and on to a board room table in any government office building they chose to. Used as a fighter, EM Thoery showed it wouldn't be good, and it wasn't. Used properly, it was a damn fine aircraft. And that's part of the point of the theory, it shows clearly that those in power at the time, did not know anything about the hardware they were comissioning - they were making decisions based on 'saving the taxpayer dollars', while pocketing plenty themselves through the lobbyist 'incentives' that shifted jobs building and servicing to places profits could be made.
The US military for all practical purposes had a fighter in the form of the already available Northrop F-5. That tiny airplane could turn on a dime and I later heard or read somewhere captured South Vietnamese F-5 fighters that were sent back to the USSR could easily outmaneuver everything the Russians had, even in the hands of an average pilot. Why they did not use the F-5 more extensively as a dogfighter in Vietnam to me is a mystery.
I think it's because the airframe could not carry the heavier systems and missiles that the US predicted would be commonplace down the line. If I'm right, the most modern F-5s, the E II variant, were bigger than the A variants of the time. Also, Northrop was not as politically powerful as the bigger defense companies of the time.
@@AMNG1994 I thought about that before. Also adding to your comment the F-5 wasn’t as fast as the F-105 or F-4 either and I don’t think it had quite the range. However, even with its nose mounted 20 mm guns it still would have been better than nothing. Also, you are correct about Northrop not being as politically powerful like other aerospace companies were. Lockheed, Boeing, and McDonnell Douglas were all heavyweights and had a lot of political influence but as for Northrop, it did not have quite the political power like those other three did.
@@phayzyre1052 I guess the F-5 E’s slower speed worked in its favor lol because fighters in general eventually became even slower as missiles and computing power became determining factors. The F-5 Es are such good planes they remain fighters to this day while what little F-4s remain were mostly trainers and modified ground attack platforms.
@@AMNG1994 True that and in the ground attack roll the F-5 also did well. Of course, speed is important but no dogfight ever took place with fighter jets flying at Mach 1.
The F5 was just too small. With such limited real estate, and the large size of electronics at the time, could not carry the latest electronics. While a capable design, and its low cost, ease of maintenance and production would have been a benefit in wartime, there were more capable options available. This is a time when advanced radars and missiles are coming available, all of which take space to incorporate. The F5 is by no means a bad aircraft, just not as good as other aircraft of the era.
Actually the YF-17 at Battleship memorial park belongs to the Naval Aviation museum at Pensacola but it’s been on loan to us for a looooooong time because they don’t really have space to display it
Every navy/marine static display that exists probably (because with the government the word ‘always’ doesn’t fit) belongs to the navy museum and is on ‘loan’ to where it permanently exists.
My uncle worked on the Hornet redesign for the Navy at MCD. He came up with the formula for the leading edge that starts under the cockpit to the wingroot. Northrup simply used a straight line wing root extension. Unfortunately, this extension wasn't 100% effective for the Navy's needs. The design argument came down to 2 groups, one espoused canards to improve low speed handling, the other taking on a more delta approach (like Northrup did) to achieve high mach but weighed more. The "compromise" formula was based on a mathmatical calculation, where you consider the most lift, with the least drag, with the lowest possible weight penalty. The Navy was willing to give up some of the high mach that USAF wanted vs the F-16 to gain some superior lower speed handling. If you look at the leading edge of the MCD based F-18A, you will see it is much different than the YF-17 that Northrup produced. When MCD redesigned the F-18 to the Super Hornet, this requirement changed and the complex leading edge design was changed once again. If you watch any of the videos showing the F-18-A or C models in action you will see the differences in that leading wing extension.
As a fan of military aircraft history I know a lot of the info in these videos but always enjoy the way it is presented by Dark Skies and usually learn at least a thing or two I was not aware of. Keep up the great work!!!
Given the depth to which the Soviets “read our mail” through highly effective KGB and GRU operations during the Cold War, it’s doubtful that the Soviets were ever really “surprised” by anything. The exception would be the extent to which we “read their mail” through NSA and US Naval Cryptographic operations.
Yup. They had moles in high places throughout the CIA, the White House, State Department, DoD, major aerospace contractors, universities, access to the classified US Patent and Trade Office, Senators working for them, House of Reps, Governors, CIA Directors, DARPA senior program managers, chief scientists, Generals, Admirals, you name it. We used to do technical analysis of their systems and were frequently surprised ourselves when we saw bolt-for-bolt copies of systems most in the US defense sector didn’t even know about. “Weird, this Helmet-Cueing System Helmet tracker looks just like the Honeywell VTAS we put in the F-4J/N for the AIM-9G SEAM program. It even has the box curvature to fit in the F-4’s position for that piece of avionics.” Or, “Weird. They copied the F-4’s barricade cutters between the intake splitter plates when they built the MiG-23 splitter plate geometry."
I saw my first F16 at Torrejon AFB in SPain in 1974. There was a large weapons testing range there and they were also testing to develop deployment processes from CONUS. It was a pretty cool plane and suddenly having a buddy who could get out to the range to watch it fly became the hottest barter item on base
Not sure how that was possible. In 1974 the YFs were engaged at Edwards in the flight test evaluation program. The first preproduction F-16 rolled off the line in Ft. Worth in December of 1976. I was lucky enough to be there. At the time David S. Lewis was the CEO and I got to work right beside his son Andy in F-16 Advanced Versions. I have great respect for the YF-17. It lost the flyoff primarily due to the GE engines being about 10% deficient in thrust. And all that lost thrust directly equated to loss of maneuverability. The Navy liked one design feature in particular - two engines. Over land a single engine airplane has some options - over water not so much. That second engine could save the airframe.
@@dougball328 I just know what I saw. A red white and blue aircraft no one had seen before but word quickly spread around base that it was the new F16. I was there TDY to install a new GCA so I got to see it from 75 feet off the runway at least twice a dayEvaluation of ALL aircraft back then included evaluation of the aircraft's ability to get to Europe in one hell of a hurry along with evaluating the logistic tail/ToE required to deploy into active theaters of war and be immediately operational. SO, a flight to Torrejon makes perfect sense. It was the only base in Europe at the time with a fully functional flight test and weapons range.
@@HobbitHomes263 While I can find no record of the number 1 YF-16 (red/white/blue) going to Europe in '74, given the interest in the airplane by the four Euro governments that eventually (next year) ordered the airplane I can't rule out a 'sales' flight as well as a ferry demo (US to Europe). It is a pretty airplane, is it not?
@@dougball328 We were all floored by it. I always liked the looks of the F4 just because it looked really muscular. Right about that same time the F 15 was showing up at airbases in Germany. They did a drag race with and F4. They would line uo, rev up, then start to roll. the f15 was fully off the ground about 300 yards before the F4 began to rotate, When the F4 started to rotate the F 15 went nose up and disappeared about the time the F4 was retracting its gear. it was amazing and the noise was a physical experience. I think that was either at Bitberg or Spangdahlam. We were doing the same projects at the towers of both bases at the time and they aren't very far apart
As someone who is relatively familiar with LWF program, Ault report and the fighter Mafia. I feel like regular people will find the narration confusing at the beginning. It says that future combat trends will rely on long range shots and that dogfights were over, then it says the defense department wanted an aircraft that will adhere to Boyd’s energy maneuverability Then it says, Vietnam proved that long range engagements were the way to go, No it didn’t it was the opposite, majority of air engagements in Vietnam were dogfights Then it says the defense department wanted an aircraft with the latest systems and radar then cuts to the fighter mafia that wanted a Light weight fighter.
@@TheHannukahZombie Regardless of whether his content is factual or not, at the end of the day it’s The internet. Take everything with a grain of salt. He puts his time and effort in to provide content that I personally find interesting. Each to their own, if you have content regarding this subject I’d happily give your channel a go too.
One of my fondest memories was watching this plane taking off at Edwards Air Force base in 1975 when I was eleven years old (my dad worked on base and had me wait in the car for a few minutes when he had to take care of some business).
Former Boeing... been up close and personal with the F/A-18 Super Hornet, starting with a pile of expensive parts through Certification and Acceptance by US Navy. Never knew it's Grandfather was the YF-17. YF-17 ===> F/A-18C Hornet ===> F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The Super Hornet weighs 7,000 pounds more and has a 50 percent greater range. The Super Hornet is also designed with a reduced radar signature, the most obvious redesign being the air intakes under the cockpit. The F/A-18 Super Hornet is pretty stealthy for this generation of aircraft. Unfortunately, hanging external fuel tanks and bombs on external hard points increases it's radar signature significantly.
FORMER BOEING........was that the WASHINGTON based Boeing or the one that took over McDonnell-Douglas in 1997?(YES...I know they are the same- or at least use to be) I was at McDonnell-Douglas St. Louis from Oct 87 till July 99 and was knee deep in the F/A18 that was re-named just F-18 and also the SDD F-18 Super Hornets. Since I was in HS I knew of the YF-16/ YF17 competition as I joined the USAF after graduation in 1977. ( F-15 was coming online then too)
@@randyhager2054 Thanks for comment. Yes, same Boeing. They merged in 1997 and MD became part of Boeing. I was in St Louis in 2000 as part of a team from Commercial in Everett to help streamline production of Military. All are part of Boeing Corporate that relocated from Seattle to Chicago in 2001. Now they are moving to DC.
@@SJR_Media_Group Some would argue that it was McDonnell Douglas who bought Boeing with Boeing's money! Former MD execs ended up taking over the top spots in Boeing and ruefully for some their way of doing business corrupted Boeing.
The way this design came back from the dead and became the F18 Hornet and Super Hornet, maybe the same thing could happen to the design that lost to the F22 Raptor. When the requirements for an Advanced Tactical Fighter came out, Lockheed, Boeing, and General Dynamics partnered to create what would become the F22 Raptor, while Northrop teamed with McDonald Douglas to build the the YF23 prototype which was unofficially named the Black Widow after the WWII night fighter of the same name. I’ve heard rumors about the YF23 making a comeback as a new Air Force fighter or ? That would be the second time a new fighter design that came in second during a design competition to come back as a different type than when it was first designed….
Its best chance was to come back as a Japanese sixth-gen fighter when they were pursuing a partnership with Northrop-Grumman, but Japan ultimately joined the UK's Tempest project.
The NGAD should be a clean sheet design. With the amount of electronics - more networking than the F-35 plus the computing needed for AI to communicate with companion drones, the extra space for future upgrades, and the greater awareness of the need for larger internal bays to stay stealthy, old designs are out.
Sources indicate that the YF23 was more stealthy than the YF22 design. But the USAF wanted dogfighting capability more than stealth. Design mockups of possible NGAD look similar to the YF23. But after several decades a wholly clransheet design, taking direction from the YF23 will be the end result. (Minimal canted/no rear fins, ducted engines, digital architecture to allows upgrades, etc)
I have wanted Dark Skies to do a documentary on this particular aircraft for a very long time. The F-18 is one of my all-time favorite aircraft and especially considering how it started out as the Northrop YF-17 Cobra, failed, reconsidered for Naval/Marine Aviation, and then completely pulled apart, redesigned, and rebuilt by a different company with God knows how many changes to become what we know as "The Hornet" and used by a different branch of the miliary than what was originally intended for. Just for me personally, the YF-17 started life when I did, in 1973/1974 and is still around to this day. I was lucky enough to see the Blue Angels fly both the A-4 Skyhawk in their last couple of years and then right after with the F-18 Hornet in the late 80's. Sorry for the ramble people. There are only so many things in this life that has been so much more than just a short-term novelty and for this long (more than 35 years at this point) and that can be considered a true love. This particular aircraft along with the F-16, which it originally competed are two of my all-time favorites. They just have something.
@@Frankie5Angels150 I don't know why you say that. I know pilots who have flown the F-4, F-14 and F/A-18 including the E/F, and not a one of them would trade a Super Hornet for a Tomcat or a Phantom if they had to go to war. Not one. There are good reasons but they are not in the public realm.
I was on the USS Constellation WestPac 84’/85’ and I believe we were the first west coast carrier to deploy with F-18’s. Was pretty cool seeing a new aircraft onboard.
The F-4 handled the Mig 21 easily when the F-4 was flown correctly. I know. I have done it. The problem in Vietnam was poor air to air training. Once that was handled, the F-4 had a 10:1 kill ratio. The Mig 25 was even less maneuverable than the Phantom. The Mig 29 was the first Soviet aircraft that could outfly the F-4. The F-18 is a superb aircraft. Early models were on par with the F-16.
The problem was the F-4 wasn't built for air to air. It didn't even come with guns. Yeah, yeah, dogfights,thing of the past, but still...it shows the intentions. Don't get me wrong;loved that thing...over mach 2 and over 80,000 ft. rocks, but she was a bit of a brick....and our heavy duty front line. (except for the 104's going in to take out SAMS)
@@michaeld53um no the best fighter the North Vietnamese air force possessed was the mig 21 which is a much smaller aircraft than an f4 phantom. The 21 had a very limited range but could be very dangerous foe in the rights conditions. The earlier mig 17 's and 19's were also substantially smaller than all but the f5 that the United States flew. I edited this because l mistakenly called the Mig 21 a mig 23
Seemed there were a number of problems including the AIM-7 and AIM-9 initially had success rates of 10-15% It's hard to win when you have limited shots and a 1 in 6 to as bad as a 1 in 10 chance of hitting the target. But that's just from an armchair historian who was born at the beginning of US involvement in Vietnam. So take my comments with the appropriate grain of salt.
@@buffuniballerSteve Ritchie’s AIM7E missiles were checked over carefully after he got some kills. This meant that he did not have a high ‘dud’ rate. He was a very technically oriented pilot who completely understood how to let his radar settle before firing and then had great firing discipline, taking shots only within parameters. In his day, the total settling time with all the firing interlocks “in” was 4 seconds, an eternity. His WSO (DeBellevue) was likewise very good at getting contacts, taking locks, and setting up the merge. The two of them were unusual in that they knew how to use the AWACS EC-121 to help them set up intercept geometry, They got cleared on some targets BVR, which was rare. Bottom line, the F-4 was rarely operated by crew that really could employ the AIM7 during Vietnam. I have a lot of respect for Ritchie/DeBellevue because the mastered their weapon system . Some of their shots were spectacular. The AIM9 of that era required the shooter to be within 30 degrees of the enemy’s tail for the missile to track. Good pilots could get into parameters for an AIM9 shot in Vietnam. You had to fly good BFM, maintain energy, and not get greedy (slow). Around 1988, the F-4 got AIM9Ms which were all aspect and they were lethal. We also had the AIM7M which was twice the range (at least) of the very older AIM7E.
Either way, both prototypes of YF-16 and YF-17 (which became F/A-18) ended successfully adapted by both services and were serving the Air Forces around the world
Did those pilots in the 1960s know nothing of history? The Me109, Fw190 and A6M when compared with the P-47, F4U and F6F they were much smaller but were overcome. The air force thought air battle was going to be long range missile fights, but they put guns back on their planes when dealing with reality. In the design of the F-16 the engineers at Locheed asked Kelly Johnson why he was desiging a plane much heavier than the air force requests. He said that the air force did not know what they wanted and a plane as light as they wanted would lack too much capability and versitility. (paraphrased from the book Skunk Works?)
I was in high school when the competition between the YF16 & YF17 was taking place. Read about it in news magazines, as there was no publicly available internet at the time. Plus who could afford a mini mainframe computer !?
I always enjoy your posts. But please turn the music down if you have to have it. Keep it in the background, lower it down and that way we will both enjoy the video and you get to see the great work that you put into the video. Thank you.😊😊
It's funny having an experience with that composite material that makes them light too. Accidentally walked into one on tie-downs, because I didn't duck low enough while wearing the command ballcap in the hangar bay. (Pretty much all divisions muster there on a carrier.) Definitely felt that and it didn't leave a mark on the aircraft - it's plenty hard with no give, but knocking on the wing it sounds just as hollow as something made of cardboard or really light plywood. Also the way the development was extended from the prototype of an earlier competition, my understanding is the Navy got a good deal because more bugs were worked out than there would be otherwise given the usual development schedules. Hornets were still short of some of the performance parameters of the Tomcats (which the Super-hornets replaced), but in terms of maintenance and upkeep they were a lot better on turn-around and more reliable to begin with.
@@brady3474 I think it was top speed, range, payload, and some weapons that the Hornet still didn't support like the Phoenix missile. Tomcat needed a lot of work done vs. flight hours though, so that was the main reason for the Navy dropping it.
@@pauljs75 at the risk of sounding nickpicke the word “performance“ to me applies to turn rate/radius, speed acceleration and maybe range, and weapons carried is more accurately described with “capability.” The tom kitten is the only plane to carry the phoenix, other than that the hornet carried the same air to air weapons. The range issue was sort of real, but tomcats like hornets were provided tankers on every mission. Both planes had 8 weapons stations so on air to air missions a typical f14 load was 4 phx, 2 aim 7, 2aim 9. The Hornet carried either one or two drop tanks and that was driven by deck space more than aircraft needs, deck space was a big part in whether the ship did 1:45 or 1:30 cycles. So a Hornet either carried 7 or 5 air to air missiles. Every plane needed tanker support or was severely limited. The reality was the phoenix was probably good against large non maneuvering bombers long range but ranges against maneuvering targets (fighters) was greatly exaggerated. The phoenix and AIM 7 were better ACM missiles then they got credit for. The Hornet couldn’t out run any plane but it didn’t matter because after a merge it had a better chance of killing every fighter that existed, at the time the F/A18 entered service.
As a Hornet Handler here in Canada I'm very proud if this A/C and it truly is a testament to its design. I always wondered how the F18L would have stacked against the other A/C of the time and in present day. it would have been a better option given that the other Handlers of the world do not use them for naval aviation.
I was stationed at Hahn AB Germany from 1990-1992. It was an F-16 base. But we used to see Canadian CF-18s scooting around the area semi-regularly. I don't remember what base they were operating out of.
ex RAAF hornet maintainer here, you may well be working on the same airframes that I worked on. do you know why both our countries elected to go for the F/A-18 rather than the F-18L? Northrop, who was the primary contractor for the proposed F-18L had not built a single F-18L by the time of Canada's NFA program and Australia's TFRP, Northrop were waiting on signed contracts before doing so, strange logic, lets not build a demonstrator until we get orders! Northrop happened to offer the best industrial offset package of all the short listed aircraft for both countries, something very important to both Australia and Canada's political situation, but it would only deliver these offset packages if they received more than one contract, and that ended up something Canada and Australia were not willing to bet on. Because there was no guarantee there were other countries willing to order it both countries went for the MD Hornet instead, which incidentally offered a reasonable industrial offset package, unlike the big NO for an industrial offset package from General Dynamics for the F-16. So, in summary, the decision was influenced by politics rather than capability or suitability
You can see in minute 00:26 a curious flaw of the Mig-25 design. When launching a hughe R-40 (AA-6) missile, the plane enters in a roll that is compensated automatically because if not, the plane enter in a continuous and uncontrolled spin roll.
A very interesting story....!!! Very interesting.....!!! It is a testament...that a timeless design in all of its aspects, furthermore, an aircraft design....can withstand 50+ years of development at ease!!! It is absolutely remarcable that the F16 and F18 desingns remaind not only contemporary but still cutting edge aircraft fighters for the future....!!! When a base idea is so perfect and elaborated,....that time,....adds up to its exelence . Trully unadulterated exelence!!!
superb again..! Thank you... Love the story behind the YF-16/YF-17 fly off. Both ended up having very long careers, very much not the normal outcome . Cheers
Boyd with his below average measured IQ of just 90 claims to be the best pilot there ever was yet had zero kills during Korea. Then goes ahead and plagerizes the works of Professor Ulric Neisser renaming it the OODA loop, and stealing work form Professor Edward Rutowiski renaming the work to energy menuverability. Shame on Boyd. Shame on the Aviation community to promote him.
Which YF-17 was it that crashed in sept 1976 following the SBAC show in Farnborough in the UK? I remember it being in NAVY colours. It was displayed with an early F-15 painted in bicentenial colours, and a YC=14 and YC 15 prototypes.
This video gets much of the story backwards and incorrect. The Vietnam War proved that long range missiles were not capable at that time and that the dogfight was absolutely not dead. The US jumped through hoops to add a gun to the F-4 Phantom and to teach dogfight tactics to pilots (ie: Top Gun). In parallel, Boyd and the fighter mafia were advocating and specifying maneuverability in the design of new aircraft, especially what became the F-15 and F-16. Both were evaluated and improved based on modeling from E-M Theory.
Yes and no. No, long range missiles were not ineffective, the problem was that we were shooting down our own aircraft. So the brilliant suggestion was to visually identify the target before deploying the missile that has a range of 10 miles. Brilliant, right? So THAT is why our pilots were forced to learn BFMs and the aircraft were then equipped with a gun. (That's another layer of irony: "we're going to expect you to perform air combat using an aircraft designed for speed... oh, btw, we added a 1000 lb gun to it.) The Fighter Mafia was born for good reason. A war between India and Pakistan pitted American fighters operated by Pakistan against trainer jets operated by India and India shredded the Pakistanis. This was a wake up call to the US that the air combat theories we built our planes to might not be correct. It's just like the Ukraine war showing all manor of battlefield innovation and I guarantee you that the Pentagon is paying very close attention. So the bottom line is that the FM championed a lightweight maneuverable fighter because of lessons learned in another war and they succeeded in fielding the Viper and Hornet. Epilogue: many were disappointed when these aircraft weren't even in IOC but their mission was expanded to ground attack, SEAD, and they were given more expensive but more capable radars. I am not one of those who were disappointed. If need be in the future, we can always send the aircraft on sorties configured clean except for two AIM9s on the wingtips.
Absolutely. Let's start from the fact that Vietnam war made Usaf rethink it's reliance on air-air missiles and installed a gun on F-4E Phantom II that previous F-4D lacked. Misiles are first choince weapon, but if you can't get a lock, your radar is jammed or mulfuction you still have a simple reliable cannon burst to stay in fight.
Yes, they said Top Gun was created to improve gun dog fight, proceeding to use only missiles. Weirdly making sense with reality as the canon successes have been anecdotal at best for 40 years in a missile "shoot behind the horizon" environment.
The F-18 was actually the fist aircraft, designed from the ground up, to fulfill the 2 primary design roles of fighter aircraft with needing to build separate models. Fighter and light attack roles could be done with the same airframe and avionics set. Prior to that you needed a "B" or "C" model with different electronics to perform the 2 roles. By designing a plane to carry a heavy ordnance load, it ensured a plane would have the power for the "energy maneuver" concept as well. In fighter loadouts an f-18 could carry 6000 lbs of missiles and around 17000 pounds of bombs in ground attack load out, the weight difference ensured it would have plenty of "energy maneuver" room.
You need to go to the Nation Museum of the U.S. Air Force near Dayton, Ohio. You will be mind blown and everything on display there (and those not on display), has a story. Oh P.S.- It's absolutely FREE. It should be a destination on every aircraft buff's bucket list.
They have so much stuff there, set aside at least a few hours. I went there for the second time about 10 years ago and spent 5 hours taking lots of pictures and trying to see everything. You had to take a shuttle over to a seperate hanger where the X craft such as the XB-70 Valkerie was kept.
@@Snake-ms7sj I spent two full days there and didn't get to see everything. I loved how they posed wartime opponents nose to nose, P-51 and BF-108, F-86 and MiG-15, F-16 and MiG-29, etc. I was also impressed with the combat histories of some of the aircraft on display including a C-130 that really should not have come home. They got shot up badly, rolled a pallet of burning ordnance out the ramp and the ordnance exploded in the air just behind the Herc, the co-pilot was shot, three engines were out but there is sits looking factory fresh. If you have never seen a B-36 in person, they have one and you can see why it was nicknamed Aluminum Overcast. There is an early cruise missile called Snark that is as big as an F/A-18C. And then there is the hanger with all the X planes including a stunning XB-70 towering over everything else.
Energy maneuverability came out of John Boyd’s realization that dog fighting was NOT a thing of the past and that most of the soviet aircraft were superior in that regard. The missile reliability was just not there. In fact the first f4 phantoms showed in Vietnam WITHOUT a gun and were at a substantial disadvantage. This is also why they started up the topgun school, to regain air superiority in terms of dog fighting skills.
Sorry to be a stickler BUT SERIOUSLY @ 7.50 >>>> "Length of 55 feet, WIDTH OF 114 FEET & HEIGHT OF 16 FEET"... Something is off with your figures there i have to say.
dude, I started to watch ur video, but r u really using Boyd as a reference?? I would suggest u to research a bit more, because u r entering a common mistake loop. Boyd had few influence on the F16, and wanted a fighter almost naked
Also, Boyd was not known as the "Mad Mayor" he was given the title of "Mad Major" by the secretarial support staff at Eglin Air Force Base. Also at Eglin the Air Force threatened a court-martial John Boyd for unauthorized use of computer assets. But because of advanced design attributes of EM, the Air Force relented and decided in the end not court-martial John Boyd.
Many words with a "j" in them are pronounced with a "y", rather than a guttural "g" sound. The voice synthesizer probably just guessed wrong on how to say "Major'. Think 'Jorge' ('HOR-'hey) or 'Maijer' (MY-'her) Supermarket.
What I had heard is that Canada when purchasing the Hornet, asked if they could instead have the Cobra. I heard they could only purchase the Hornet as the Cobra would not go into production. So Canada ended up buying about 140 Hornets. I have not heard any thing other about this, and do wonder if it is true.
Canada and Australia were interested in the land version of the hornet, the F-18L, which was being marketed by Northrop not McDonnell Douglas the primary maker of the F/A-18. note there is no A in the F-18L, ie as in F/A-18. It was simplified lightweight version of the hornet, no wing fold, no heavy duty undercarriage and was far more suited to A-A but had only rudimentary A-G capability, much like the original F-16A. Northrop, who was the primary contractor for the F-18L version, had not built a single F-18L by the time of Canada's NFA program and Australia's TFRP, Northrop was waiting on successful contracts before doing so, strange logic, lets not build a demonstrator until we get orders. Northrop also offered the best industrial offset package of all the short list aircraft for both countries, something important to both Australia and Canada's requirements, but it would only deliver these offset packages if they received more than one contract, something Canada and Australia was not willing to bet on. And because there was no guarantee there were other countries willing to order it both countries went for the MD Hornet instead, which incidentally also offered a very good industrial offset package, unlike the big NO for an industrial offset package from General Dynamics
Canada was interested in both versions and the F-16. The RCAF wanted BVR capability and a design which they saw with more potential, which had two engine's they went with the safe choice and less risk at cost
Even the Eagle followed the EM specks having a throst/weight ratio higher than 1 so that it can "tail sit" in a vertical attitude in a stationary position. This simply upweights the numbers, but it still keeps the model
That’s not really what thrust to weight ratio greater that 1:1 is used for but I haven’t got time to explain basic fighter maneuvering to a landlubber, so whatever.
Anyone calling you landlubber is a Salty Dog and doesn't know the better aircraft capabilities. The Navy has different requirements than light weight. F/A18 is evidence of that for sure as it's far less capable of fighting combat than the F16. USAF knows what they're doing. It's the one thing they do best! Super Hornet is even MORE evidence. Bigger, slower. Missle Truck!
I saw one stand on it's tail and disappear one time. Was taking a taxi out to the ship, and the road crossed the runway, signal turned red if runway was in use, driver tells me stay in the car. His wheels lifted off the ground right in front of us, folded up his landing gear and was gone. Honestly, it was almost like a cartoon, roadrunner turning into a puff of smoke and old Wile E standing there with his jaw on the ground
@@tobingallawa3322 And they tell us this plane is obsolete with the exception of Strike Eagle. I think this airframe has some life left in it, I take it there is an "F-15X" which may be ultimately fitted out for Mach 3 flight (1980 mph) Given one of the premises of the Fighter Mafia, I forsee a new level of Air Superiority. The "heavy interceptor". This is a arge, relativel slow aircraft just bristling with AIM's. It may lead to the refurbishing and repurposing of the B-1, which can carry 24 cruise missles; six under the wings and the rest in the bays. When it was buiot it could out-maneuver many of the fighters and it was, in the early 80's, 'stealthified" and could overfly Nellis AFB undetected at low altitude. Now, it is not a speedster but if based properly, in need not be, I don't know its altitude but that is almost irrelevent since modern guided missles, you are best looking up at your target and we even have over-the-horizon targetting and the Raptor can see 800 miles ahead. Being a fairly large plane, it could probably house C3I assets for a flotilla of accompanying drones
According to Tom Clancy's non-fiction book Carrier, the F/A-18 had no prototype stage, as a result the Hornet had "short legs" aka small internal fuel capacity, that wasn't resolved until the Super Hornet design was approved.
When the RAAF first got their F/A-18s they were dismayed MD's claimed effective combat range was not deliverable without at least one external tank. It was very rare to see a 'clean' RAAF hornet except for airshows
Not exactly. The YF-17 design included a fuel fraction sufficient for good range. The US Navy insisted on adding Sparrow missile capability and the larger radar drastically increased drag, destroying the range. The fuel fraction was never corrected and the Hornet built with that birth defect. Check out “Pentagon Paradox” by James Stephenson
In less than 20 years we went from prop planes and dog fights to crazy fast jets and long range missiles. Plane technology advanced so fast from ww2 - Vietnam.
Got to stop showing the wrong planes. Script said MiG 25, video was a MiG 23. If it ain't right, it's wrong. People who watch these channels know the difference and it hurts your credibility. Don't guess and do your research. Othwise, enjoyed the video.
Missiles the didn't work well.... No internal gun(s).... Pilots that had NOT been taught hard to Dogfight = Sub Par Performance against North Vietnam (and some Russian Pilots) = Fighter Weapons School at Miramar NAS (Top Gun) & (Red Flag) at Nellis AFB Nevada.
Gun pods wiggle on the hard point meaning you are spraying around in a huge arc when firing. You can see this in video footage of F-4's using gun pods on ground strikes
I have been to the USS Alabama Memorial Park in Mobile, AL, and the prototype YF-17 is on display there (safely indoors). I wonder if the prototype sent to California was exhibited outside? BTW, if you are ever in the area, the USS Alabama Memorial Park in chock-full of fascinating military hardware, including the US fleet submarine (WWII era) the USS Drum, the USS Alabama battleship (BB-60), a B-52, an SR-71, and much, much more. Well worth the trip!
The Californis prototype is outside. Parked alongside an F14 and one of only 2 YF23s. You can see it on Google Earth, at the very western end of the runway.
There's no SR-71 at Battleship Park. That's a Lockheed A-12, the SR-71 predecessor that was planned as a nuclear strike bomber and CONUS interceptor. The Blackbird at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville is also an A-12.
The primary purpose of the Lightweight fighter program was economics. The F-15 and F-14 were both fine dogfighters, but expensive and more than needed for most missions. They called it a high/low mix.
114' wide? (7m56s). Also I noticed a fair bit of confusion on what was USAF v USN. Also the Fighter Mafia urged very long range, and this video ignores that,
I kept waiting for the explanation of how the Soviets were taken by surprise.
Me too!
SURPRISE!
Same.
Soviet surprise: in 1991😂
Must have been thinking of another story. Battleship New Jersey had a pair of gun mounts the Captain had painted light blue inside and turned into little swimming pools when they removed the guns. Russkies were wondering what was up with the "eyes" you could see from above were
In the fall of 1974, I was working as an engineering intern "co-op student" at McDonnell Douglas in St. Louis. I was assigned to a structural engineering group studying metal fatigue in the newly developed F-15, when the partnership with Northrop to develop a Navy version of the YF-17 was announced. Immediately, about half the engineers (on the order of 100) from our department (and a similar proportion from almost every other engineering department), were reassigned to this project, and moved to another building where they were sequestered working 12-14 hour days, 7 days a week. Although the project was being developed in extreme secrecy, that didn't keep then remaining engineers in our department from expressing their skepticism that such a feat could be carried off, given the significantly greater dynamic loads generated by, and slower speeds required for arrested carrier landings and catapult assisted takeoffs. Somehow the "Mac Air" engineers managed to successfully pull off the first conversion of an Air Force jet aircraft for carrier use by the Navy, despite the ridiculously short amount of time they were given to develop/validate the concept of design. This was done 1 year after the first handheld scientific calculator hit the market (HP-35 costing $400 in 1973 dollars), and company developed structural/stress analysis programs were being run on mainframe computers using programs compiled on tens of thousands of IBM punch cards. Heck, most of the engineers I was working with were still using slide rules. Their efforts have withstood the test of time: 49 years later, the Super Hornet variant of this aircraft is still in production.
This is so interesting to hear from the POV of an engineer. Let’s hope the F35 has the same longevity.
Impressive what some folks could do with a slide rule and some trig and log tables. Nash Roberts, a meteorologist for WDSU, New Orleans, couldn't tell you if it was going to rain or shine, but when Betsy, Camille, and Georges hit the Big Easy, Nash (a WWII veteran and Naval Officer under Adm. C. W. Nimitz) got out his charts and slide rule, and predicted with 100% accuracy just where the big blow was gonna go, and was more accurate than the computer models. Nash is no longer with us, but what he did for the City of New Orleans is remembered by the locals to this day.
Except the Super Hornet is basically a whole new Airplane and they could have bult the Super Tomcat for a similar costs.
For some reason the design of the YF-17 has always been my favorite fighter design ever. The proportions just look right and i love the canted tails.
Why did the canted tails go away? They would have reduced radar cross section
I'm more of a YF-23 fan myself. I always feel kind of bad for the engineers who build a design for years that loses in a close competition. But oh well, somebody has to lose, just the way it goes.
@@nunyabusiness5075I'm personally curious if the NGAD will end up being akin to a redesigned yf-23.
@@JinKeeThey didn’t. The F-18 still has them.
@JinKee F-18, F-35, F-22 all have them.
F16 and F18 still flying and still deadly with recent upgrades
More than just deadly and the new radars make these planes as dangerous as ever
Just shows how far behind oyher countries are
I was flying century series aircraft in the 70s and 80s when we transitioned to the F18.
It was an amazing upgrade in ground attack and air superiority.
Truly a great design that has lasted 40 years with updates.
All the lessons from the Vietnam war had been learned and that’s what gave rise to aircraft like the falcon and the hornet. My grandfather worked on F-105s and fortunately lived long enough to see the F-16 and F-18 take to the skies. I recall him saying “why couldn’t we had fighters like that back then?” Of course it was a different way of thinking back then as aerial dogfighting was going to be a thing of the past. All that changed when we took jets like the F-105 and F-4 phantom to Vietnam.
Hello Larry, we might some mutually enlightening BS to sling about our old rides. For me it's a love the good ole' haug, followed by three birds of prey but when it comes the F-18 I'm just a cowgirl that fit to be tied because I just can't plum figure where you Navy's hid the ashtray, glovebox and cooler. If I'm right my bets they're suggled right up near huggin' the 8-track and durn near in the F18's privy with the Brew 102 and Wild Turkey. So
@@Major_Tamre_Colby Hi Tamre
I am Canadian. I did 5 years on the 104 in Germany and helped start the F18 OTU in Cold Lake.
I always wished I could have done some Carrier stuff.
We worked a lot with the our American cousins and I have maximum respect for all.
They were good times.
The 104 went in a straight line really well.
The F18 was a hell of a machine in its day. Quite a transition.
Unfortunately we taught our cousins how to play crud and typical Americans they were competive in no time often delivering us a beating. But they had to work hard to do it.
The Beer coolers were kept in the Herc.
Sorry but I disagree. It had limited range and speed. Now the newer super hornets are better, but they still need a lot of assist. But the Navy decided to go total idiot, and think that a single aircraft can do everything.
@@rlstafford4359 well clearly you know next to nothing about fighter aviation. Perhaps you are just trolling.
Please explain the importance of speed above mach 1.8
I was stationed at Pt Mugu NAS from 1979 until 1981 being assigned to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Four (VX-4) In 1979 during the annual air show, one of the YF-17 prototypes flew in and parked themselves on our ramp.
I remember the leading edges of the wings and stabilators were almost knife thin. Overall it was a small aircraft.
A year later we received a couple of brand new F/A-18's for eval and testing.
PEAK USA 🇺🇸
How did it compare to the f-20 tigershark? I have a copy of Chuck Yeagers autobiography, in which there is a photo of him endorsing the aircraft as the right one... this re-iterated in the text. I understand the yf-17 was pretty much a twin engined version of the F-20.... or perhaps an earlier iteration.
I was a "stash Ensign" at VX-4 in early 1983 when they received their first F/A-18s. The pilots were quite impressed with its performance.
I was a young child watching the formation introduction to NAS Lemoore in the early 80s for the F/A-18. 20 years later I was stationed at Mugu doing RDT&E with MAD.
Knife thin edges due to his F5 origine, extra short wings too. Looking from above F5 is among best lookimg planes of all time for me.
The Navy needed an aircraft to replace the F-4 Phantom on their smaller carriers like the Midway class carriers that the F-14 was too big to operate from, but the navy needed surface attack capability.
The only two small decks were the Midway and Coral Sea and altho the Midway got Hornets, the Phantom was already gone from all the other decks. In addition, the Hornet replaced the A-7 as well. And that’s why it went to airwings that also had Turkeys.
-VF-151, F-4J/S, 1980-1983
-VF-31: F-14A, 1985-1988
-VF-126, Various A-4s, F-16N, 1989-1992
@@Blovi-qd4lhyou seem to know your shit.
@Eric Nelson On a visit to Midway it is explained that the hanger height was a touch too low for the F-14 so they were never deployed aboard her.
EVERYBODY needs an F-4 Phantom !! One of the baddest-assed looking aircraft ever. The A-10 too.
A solar conexs Drones 200 together that never lands.
I knew about the YF-17, being the aviation geek I am, so imagine my surprise when I go visit the USS Alabama in 2014, and what do I see inside the hanger there but one of the two YF-17 prototypes. I had no idea it was there, and I was very excited to see in person that which I had only read about up until then. I felt much the same way when I visited the USAF museum at Wright Patterson, and got to see the X3, XB-70, XF-107, and YF-23.
The other prototype is in Torrance, CA, at the Western Museum of Flight (alongside 1 of 2 YF-23s!!!)
The USS Alabama Battleship Memorial Park also has, among other aircraft, an A-12 Blackbird plus, I think uniquely, the whole teen fighter series - F-14A, F-15A, F-16A, YF-17 & F/A-18A.
@@Mugdorna There is a YF-17 on a pedestal in front of the Jethawks Stadium in Lancaster CA.
inside the hangar* (= aircraft shelter, hanger = device to put a coat on)
My dad flew F 18s in the Marines, so seeing the history of its conception was really cool!
The F18 has always been my favorite modern fighter. Just looks freaking cool.
The YF-17 Cobra has an interesting family tree, based on the F-5E Tiger II, used as the basis for a larger different aircraft in the F/A-18 Hornet, that was itself used as the basis for a larger different aircraft in the F/A-18 Super Hornet.
Don't forget the F5G.....aka F-20 TigerShark.
F/A-18 Hornet is YF-17 Cobra that went to the Navy Gym.
F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet is Hornet on steroids.
So did I miss the explanation of why the aircraft “took the soviets by surprise”, or was it just missed out?
Yep, you missed it... so did I, and the rest of the viewers...😂😢
Pretty obvious why they were surprise. They had nothing similar lmao
Yeah but I thought it was the F15 Eagle maybe he needs rest
@@michaelc754 were suprised*
Hornet has always been one of my favorite fighters. My Mom retired from MD she spent most of her career working on this aircraft.
Former Boeing Everett... I spent quality time in St Louis helping iron out production problems. Commercial Aircraft was implementing Lean Manufacturing. We could build a 747 Jumbo in a week. F/A-18 was taking a year. Navy 2nd contract required prices to drop. We fixed problems, decreased price, increased profit, and reduced production time significantly.
I may have even seen your mom there. Loved the plant, people very friendly and helpful. I'm retired now myself.
Tell her I said thanks for her service. 🇺🇸
What down there for Family Day, my dad talked a pilot into letting me sit in the cockpit of the first Suoer Hornet. I'll never forget the look of horror in the eyes of the engineers running towards us shouting for us to get out of the thing. Turns out those missles were real and she was being readied for transfer to Nevada for testing
@@studlyfox6969 Lmao would've been a great experience
WHO was your mother? I might have been her inspector if she worked structures and systems. I was there from Oct 1987 till July 1999. BTW.....my memory isn't what it use to be!!! :(
F/A-18 Super Hornet is one of my favorite jet aircraft. Nice to know its legacy.
The Northrop F5 was so trim and beautiful (and comparatively cheap) that I wish it had more time for refinement and development. I know that the US made it a great "trainer" and an all purpose supper sonic capable for the Airforce and NASA; I' glad that there were some decent overseas sales but I wish it had been given more opportunities
Would've loved to see the F-20 Tiger shark enter service.
You mean the Mig-28 surely?
It was great, but when it was first introduced, it was up against the prototypes for what would become the F16 and F/A18. All three were highly competitive and the US did a lot of uhm'ing and ahh'ing over which to choose. Ultimately the F/A18 ended up with the navy, and the Air Force went with the F16, leaving the F5 slightly overlooked, and perhaps underrated. It was still sold to other nations around the world, and is also used as an advanced trainer, although this is arguably not what it was originally intended for.
@@bigballzmcdrawz2921 Northrup wanted to sell the F-20 to foreign markets (and believed they could make a bunch of money doing so) but the military refused to let them do it (because the military wanted those foreign buyers to buy aircraft like the F-16 instead which would in turn bring down the cost to the US for operating those planes)
@@F4GRAPHICS The F5 had no radar and was inferior by design for a age of rockets.
Were the Fighter Mafia the people that said that the USAF needed a plane that had Cannons, no Radar, Radios you could buy in a shop and only enough fuel to get to and fight in a combat (but no fuel to get home)?
And no ejection seat!
7:53 - That width of 114 feet has to be some kind of typo.
😁... Just a little..
Scrolled down to this comment to make sure I wasn’t hearing things 😂
Written by a bot? Read by one.
Lazerpig does a very well presented view on the Fighter Mafia
Was searching for this one
@@pinkyandbrain123 same bro 😂
He sure does "love" those guys.
None of this has to do with the Soviet Union's reaction to the F/A 18's creation.
Was wondering that too.
Surprise, surprise, surprise
Only if they are surprised by click bait!
This channel’s videos not addressing the title “issue” is pretty on-point.
Living/Working at Wright-Patterson AFB during those trials I remember the Navy's observers was interested in the YF-17 from the very start. The Navy like's aircraft with 2 engines over single engine varieties if possible, losing an engine on a carrier is double deadly. Their F-14 was getting long in the tooth and maintenance/upgrades were getting quite costly and they needed an aircraft to supplement/replace the F-14 and old F-4 squadrons.
The F-14 only entered Navy service in 1974. These trials happened almost exactly as the F-14A was only just reaching carriers. They weren't long in the tooth. The cockpits still had that New Car smell. The long in the tooth airframe they were looking to replace was the F-4, which had about 10 years on it by then. And the A-4 Skyhawk which had well past 20. They were watching the LWF program with interest because they needed something for the remaining smaller deck Carriers such as the Midways and the last few Essex's that they planned to keep around a few more years like the Oriskany and Hancock.
The TFX became the F-111, not the F-15. F-111 had the swing wing and way too much weight, F-15 makes enough power to accelerate while vertical.
Yeah, he gets some things wrong on occasion, but all & all, I thoroughly enjoy 99.83% of the fellas Dark based videos.
Good on you Sir for correcting his error with factual data, & 0.0% attitude!
He said the F-X design became the F15, not the TFX. It was two different projects.
I remember when the Air Force picked the YF-16 over the YF-17 which left Northrup with a big investment but no buyers for the Y-17. 60 Minutes did a story on the plane and Northrup ran adds on TV featuring Chuck Yeager singing the YF-17's praises and recommending to: "Strap your fanny into a YF-17". A key reason that the Navy chose the YF-17 (F-18) over the F-16 was that the F-16 had one engine and the YF-17 had two and the Navy which flys over the ocean wanted a plane with two engines for redundancy.
Been a lot of questions about Boyd’s actual involvement in the project and whether he was essentially good at promoting himself and taking credit for the ideas of others.
As always, take history with a grain of salt - it’s told by the people who wrote the story and they sometimes edit things…
ITS BULLSHIT.
Also consider Boyd‘s claims and viewpoints nowadays, which seem to adhere to the „all talk no show“ sentiment
Boyd’s EM briefing to Gen Sweeney was credited with effectively shelving the F111, which was a total dud when it came to being a fighter. If anything, I think his contribution is undersold.
@@johnnyhernandez8619Yuuup.... as a fighter, the Aardvark is, not special. But as high speed interceptor and low level supersonic bomber, it has no equals.
It's real value however, was Supersonic Diplomacy, with tin-pot dictators through SE Asia from the '70's through the '90's knowing full well there was a force of F-111's to thier south that could arrive faster then they could react, and put a missile of bomb through a window and on to a board room table in any government office building they chose to.
Used as a fighter, EM Thoery showed it wouldn't be good, and it wasn't. Used properly, it was a damn fine aircraft. And that's part of the point of the theory, it shows clearly that those in power at the time, did not know anything about the hardware they were comissioning - they were making decisions based on 'saving the taxpayer dollars', while pocketing plenty themselves through the lobbyist 'incentives' that shifted jobs building and servicing to places profits could be made.
@Justanotherconsumer - Yup, history is written by the victor, and then revised by politicians to further thier own aims. A lot like religion actually.
The US military for all practical purposes had a fighter in the form of the already available Northrop F-5. That tiny airplane could turn on a dime and I later heard or read somewhere captured South Vietnamese F-5 fighters that were sent back to the USSR could easily outmaneuver everything the Russians had, even in the hands of an average pilot. Why they did not use the F-5 more extensively as a dogfighter in Vietnam to me is a mystery.
I think it's because the airframe could not carry the heavier systems and missiles that the US predicted would be commonplace down the line. If I'm right, the most modern F-5s, the E II variant, were bigger than the A variants of the time. Also, Northrop was not as politically powerful as the bigger defense companies of the time.
@@AMNG1994 I thought about that before. Also adding to your comment the F-5 wasn’t as fast as the F-105 or F-4 either and I don’t think it had quite the range. However, even with its nose mounted 20 mm guns it still would have been better than nothing. Also, you are correct about Northrop not being as politically powerful like other aerospace companies were. Lockheed, Boeing, and McDonnell Douglas were all heavyweights and had a lot of political influence but as for Northrop, it did not have quite the political power like those other three did.
@@phayzyre1052 I guess the F-5 E’s slower speed worked in its favor lol because fighters in general eventually became even slower as missiles and computing power became determining factors. The F-5 Es are such good planes they remain fighters to this day while what little F-4s remain were mostly trainers and modified ground attack platforms.
@@AMNG1994 True that and in the ground attack roll the F-5 also did well. Of course, speed is important but no dogfight ever took place with fighter jets flying at Mach 1.
The F5 was just too small. With such limited real estate, and the large size of electronics at the time, could not carry the latest electronics. While a capable design, and its low cost, ease of maintenance and production would have been a benefit in wartime, there were more capable options available. This is a time when advanced radars and missiles are coming available, all of which take space to incorporate. The F5 is by no means a bad aircraft, just not as good as other aircraft of the era.
Actually the YF-17 at Battleship memorial park belongs to the Naval Aviation museum at Pensacola but it’s been on loan to us for a looooooong time because they don’t really have space to display it
Every navy/marine static display that exists probably (because with the government the word ‘always’ doesn’t fit) belongs to the navy museum and is on ‘loan’ to where it permanently exists.
My uncle worked on the Hornet redesign for the Navy at MCD. He came up with the formula for the leading edge that starts under the cockpit to the wingroot. Northrup simply used a straight line wing root extension. Unfortunately, this extension wasn't 100% effective for the Navy's needs. The design argument came down to 2 groups, one espoused canards to improve low speed handling, the other taking on a more delta approach (like Northrup did) to achieve high mach but weighed more. The "compromise" formula was based on a mathmatical calculation, where you consider the most lift, with the least drag, with the lowest possible weight penalty. The Navy was willing to give up some of the high mach that USAF wanted vs the F-16 to gain some superior lower speed handling. If you look at the leading edge of the MCD based F-18A, you will see it is much different than the YF-17 that Northrup produced. When MCD redesigned the F-18 to the Super Hornet, this requirement changed and the complex leading edge design was changed once again. If you watch any of the videos showing the F-18-A or C models in action you will see the differences in that leading wing extension.
*Northrop
*Northrop
*Northrop
*Northrop
I had forgot about the YF-17! I remember there was a plane running against the F-16, but I did not remember what it was. Thank You for reminding me.
As a fan of military aircraft history I know a lot of the info in these videos but always enjoy the way it is presented by Dark Skies and usually learn at least a thing or two I was not aware of. Keep up the great work!!!
Given the depth to which the Soviets “read our mail” through highly effective KGB and GRU operations during the Cold War, it’s doubtful that the Soviets were ever really “surprised” by anything.
The exception would be the extent to which we “read their mail” through NSA and US Naval Cryptographic operations.
The surprise is that you think the KGB was intelligence meanwhile they were the Soviet version of the CIA. Mainly used to overthrow governments.
Yup. They had moles in high places throughout the CIA, the White House, State Department, DoD, major aerospace contractors, universities, access to the classified US Patent and Trade Office, Senators working for them, House of Reps, Governors, CIA Directors, DARPA senior program managers, chief scientists, Generals, Admirals, you name it. We used to do technical analysis of their systems and were frequently surprised ourselves when we saw bolt-for-bolt copies of systems most in the US defense sector didn’t even know about. “Weird, this Helmet-Cueing System Helmet tracker looks just like the Honeywell VTAS we put in the F-4J/N for the AIM-9G SEAM program. It even has the box curvature to fit in the F-4’s position for that piece of avionics.”
Or, “Weird. They copied the F-4’s barricade cutters between the intake splitter plates when they built the MiG-23 splitter plate geometry."
I saw my first F16 at Torrejon AFB in SPain in 1974. There was a large weapons testing range there and they were also testing to develop deployment processes from CONUS. It was a pretty cool plane and suddenly having a buddy who could get out to the range to watch it fly became the hottest barter item on base
😮i
Not sure how that was possible. In 1974 the YFs were engaged at Edwards in the flight test evaluation program. The first preproduction F-16 rolled off the line in Ft. Worth in December of 1976. I was lucky enough to be there. At the time David S. Lewis was the CEO and I got to work right beside his son Andy in F-16 Advanced Versions. I have great respect for the YF-17. It lost the flyoff primarily due to the GE engines being about 10% deficient in thrust. And all that lost thrust directly equated to loss of maneuverability. The Navy liked one design feature in particular - two engines. Over land a single engine airplane has some options - over water not so much. That second engine could save the airframe.
@@dougball328 I just know what I saw. A red white and blue aircraft no one had seen before but word quickly spread around base that it was the new F16. I was there TDY to install a new GCA so I got to see it from 75 feet off the runway at least twice a dayEvaluation of ALL aircraft back then included evaluation of the aircraft's ability to get to Europe in one hell of a hurry along with evaluating the logistic tail/ToE required to deploy into active theaters of war and be immediately operational. SO, a flight to Torrejon makes perfect sense. It was the only base in Europe at the time with a fully functional flight test and weapons range.
@@HobbitHomes263 While I can find no record of the number 1 YF-16 (red/white/blue) going to Europe in '74, given the interest in the airplane by the four Euro governments that eventually (next year) ordered the airplane I can't rule out a 'sales' flight as well as a ferry demo (US to Europe). It is a pretty airplane, is it not?
@@dougball328 We were all floored by it. I always liked the looks of the F4 just because it looked really muscular. Right about that same time the F 15 was showing up at airbases in Germany. They did a drag race with and F4. They would line uo, rev up, then start to roll. the f15 was fully off the ground about 300 yards before the F4 began to rotate, When the F4 started to rotate the F 15 went nose up and disappeared about the time the F4 was retracting its gear. it was amazing and the noise was a physical experience. I think that was either at Bitberg or Spangdahlam. We were doing the same projects at the towers of both bases at the time and they aren't very far apart
As someone who is relatively familiar with LWF program, Ault report and the fighter Mafia. I feel like regular people will find the narration confusing at the beginning.
It says that future combat trends will rely on long range shots and that dogfights were over, then it says the defense department wanted an aircraft that will adhere to Boyd’s energy maneuverability
Then it says, Vietnam proved that long range engagements were the way to go, No it didn’t it was the opposite, majority of air engagements in Vietnam were dogfights
Then it says the defense department wanted an aircraft with the latest systems and radar then cuts to the fighter mafia that wanted a Light weight fighter.
You’re like the fighter jet encyclopedia I wish I had when I was a kid, got me revisiting my childhood dreams of being a fighter pilot. Thanks man!
The guy just repeats Wikipedia articles across all of his channels. He's not at all intelligent nor does any real research.
@@TheHannukahZombieand yet, here you are…haha
@@TheHannukahZombie Regardless of whether his content is factual or not, at the end of the day it’s The internet. Take everything with a grain of salt. He puts his time and effort in to provide content that I personally find interesting. Each to their own, if you have content regarding this subject I’d happily give your channel a go too.
One of my fondest memories was watching this plane taking off at Edwards Air Force base in 1975 when I was eleven years old (my dad worked on base and had me wait in the car for a few minutes when he had to take care of some business).
Former Boeing... been up close and personal with the F/A-18 Super Hornet, starting with a pile of expensive parts through Certification and Acceptance by US Navy. Never knew it's Grandfather was the YF-17.
YF-17 ===> F/A-18C Hornet ===> F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The Super Hornet weighs 7,000 pounds more and has a 50 percent greater range. The Super Hornet is also designed with a reduced radar signature, the most obvious redesign being the air intakes under the cockpit. The F/A-18 Super Hornet is pretty stealthy for this generation of aircraft. Unfortunately, hanging external fuel tanks and bombs on external hard points increases it's radar signature significantly.
FORMER BOEING........was that the WASHINGTON based Boeing or the one that took over McDonnell-Douglas in 1997?(YES...I know they are the same- or at least use to be) I was at McDonnell-Douglas St. Louis from Oct 87 till July 99 and was knee deep in the F/A18 that was re-named just F-18 and also the SDD F-18 Super Hornets. Since I was in HS I knew of the YF-16/ YF17 competition as I joined the USAF after graduation in 1977. ( F-15 was coming online then too)
@@randyhager2054 Thanks for comment. Yes, same Boeing. They merged in 1997 and MD became part of Boeing. I was in St Louis in 2000 as part of a team from Commercial in Everett to help streamline production of Military. All are part of Boeing Corporate that relocated from Seattle to Chicago in 2001. Now they are moving to DC.
@@SJR_Media_Group Some would argue that it was McDonnell Douglas who bought Boeing with Boeing's money! Former MD execs ended up taking over the top spots in Boeing and ruefully for some their way of doing business corrupted Boeing.
The way this design came back from the dead and became the F18 Hornet and Super Hornet, maybe the same thing could happen to the design that lost to the F22 Raptor.
When the requirements for an Advanced Tactical Fighter came out, Lockheed, Boeing, and General Dynamics partnered to create what would become the F22 Raptor, while Northrop teamed with McDonald Douglas to build the the YF23 prototype which was unofficially named the Black Widow after the WWII night fighter of the same name.
I’ve heard rumors about the YF23 making a comeback as a new Air Force fighter or ?
That would be the second time a new fighter design that came in second during a design competition to come back as a different type than when it was first designed….
Its best chance was to come back as a Japanese sixth-gen fighter when they were pursuing a partnership with Northrop-Grumman, but Japan ultimately joined the UK's Tempest project.
@@VisibilityFoggy
Well, that sucks
The NGAD should be a clean sheet design.
With the amount of electronics - more networking than the F-35 plus the computing needed for AI to communicate with companion drones, the extra space for future upgrades, and the greater awareness of the need for larger internal bays to stay stealthy, old designs are out.
@@recoil53 Oh, absolutely. NGAD and F/A-XX are both clean-sheet projects.
Sources indicate that the YF23 was more stealthy than the YF22 design. But the USAF wanted dogfighting capability more than stealth.
Design mockups of possible NGAD look similar to the YF23.
But after several decades a wholly clransheet design, taking direction from the YF23 will be the end result.
(Minimal canted/no rear fins, ducted engines, digital architecture to allows upgrades, etc)
45degree cant vertical stabilizers ? Uh...no. you can LOOK at them and see they are not
My favourite fighter is the F/A18, I just love the design created from the Cobra
I have wanted Dark Skies to do a documentary on this particular aircraft for a very long time. The F-18 is one of my all-time favorite aircraft and especially considering how it started out as the Northrop YF-17 Cobra, failed, reconsidered for Naval/Marine Aviation, and then completely pulled apart, redesigned, and rebuilt by a different company with God knows how many changes to become what we know as "The Hornet" and used by a different branch of the miliary than what was originally intended for.
Just for me personally, the YF-17 started life when I did, in 1973/1974 and is still around to this day. I was lucky enough to see the Blue Angels fly both the A-4 Skyhawk in their last couple of years and then right after with the F-18 Hornet in the late 80's. Sorry for the ramble people. There are only so many things in this life that has been so much more than just a short-term novelty and for this long (more than 35 years at this point) and that can be considered a true love. This particular aircraft along with the F-16, which it originally competed are two of my all-time favorites. They just have something.
Yup. The YF-17 Cobra is definitely the early version of the F-18 Super Hornet.
Noting that the Super Hornet came along decades after the Hornet. Picky wee detail there.
@@jacquesblaque7728
Nobody said the navy is very smart!
It should be called the Northrop F-18, just like it should be the Hughes AH-64!
It's interesting how the LEX design eventually was adapted after all, on the rhino.
@@Frankie5Angels150 I don't know why you say that. I know pilots who have flown the F-4, F-14 and F/A-18 including the E/F, and not a one of them would trade a Super Hornet for a Tomcat or a Phantom if they had to go to war. Not one. There are good reasons but they are not in the public realm.
I was on the USS Constellation WestPac 84’/85’ and I believe we were the first west coast carrier to deploy with F-18’s. Was pretty cool seeing a new aircraft onboard.
Whenver you went to sea, your wife and I hooked up at the Top 4 club at Lemore NAS.
@@illuminaughty2929 Your name Jody? Lol.
“…and a width of 114 feet.” That’s … wide.
Yeah….someone didn’t proofread the script.
Totally caught the Russians by complete surprise!
The image of YF-17 is the first thing that pops up into the average human's mind when you ask them to imagine a fighter jet. So sleek and charismatic.
The F-4 handled the Mig 21 easily when the F-4 was flown correctly. I know. I have done it. The problem in Vietnam was poor air to air training. Once that was handled, the F-4 had a 10:1 kill ratio. The Mig 25 was even less maneuverable than the Phantom. The Mig 29 was the first Soviet aircraft that could outfly the F-4. The F-18 is a superb aircraft. Early models were on par with the F-16.
The problem was the F-4 wasn't built for air to air. It didn't even come with guns. Yeah, yeah, dogfights,thing of the past, but still...it shows the intentions. Don't get me wrong;loved that thing...over mach 2 and over 80,000 ft. rocks, but she was a bit of a brick....and our heavy duty front line. (except for the 104's going in to take out SAMS)
MiGs were extremely heavier than most American fighters.
@@michaeld53um no the best fighter the North Vietnamese air force possessed was the mig 21 which is a much smaller aircraft than an f4 phantom. The 21 had a very limited range but could be very dangerous foe in the rights conditions. The earlier mig 17 's and 19's were also substantially smaller than all but the f5 that the United States flew. I edited this because l mistakenly called the Mig 21 a mig 23
Seemed there were a number of problems including the AIM-7 and AIM-9 initially had success rates of 10-15%
It's hard to win when you have limited shots and a 1 in 6 to as bad as a 1 in 10 chance of hitting the target.
But that's just from an armchair historian who was born at the beginning of US involvement in Vietnam. So take my comments with the appropriate grain of salt.
@@buffuniballerSteve Ritchie’s AIM7E missiles were checked over carefully after he got some kills. This meant that he did not have a high ‘dud’ rate. He was a very technically oriented pilot who completely understood how to let his radar settle before firing and then had great firing discipline, taking shots only within parameters. In his day, the total settling time with all the firing interlocks “in” was 4 seconds, an eternity. His WSO (DeBellevue) was likewise very good at getting contacts, taking locks, and setting up the merge. The two of them were unusual in that they knew how to use the AWACS EC-121 to help them set up intercept geometry, They got cleared on some targets BVR, which was rare. Bottom line, the F-4 was rarely operated by crew that really could employ the AIM7 during Vietnam. I have a lot of respect for Ritchie/DeBellevue because the mastered their weapon system . Some of their shots were spectacular. The AIM9 of that era required the shooter to be within 30 degrees of the enemy’s tail for the missile to track. Good pilots could get into parameters for an AIM9 shot in Vietnam. You had to fly good BFM, maintain energy, and not get greedy (slow). Around 1988, the F-4 got AIM9Ms which were all aspect and they were lethal. We also had the AIM7M which was twice the range (at least) of the very older AIM7E.
@7:26 the vertical stabilizer pitch is NOT 45 degrees, it's 20 degrees.
Either way, both prototypes of YF-16 and YF-17 (which became F/A-18) ended successfully adapted by both services and were serving the Air Forces around the world
The jet with the better radar and missiles wins today's BVR battles.
Love our CFA-18 Hornets
You do know that putting a C in front of everything doesn’t fool anyone into believing it is Canadian, right?
@@Frankie5Angels150 You do know I don't care what you think right?
The jet you’re describing isn’t the CF-18A. It had its day. Bring on the CF-35!
Did those pilots in the 1960s know nothing of history? The Me109, Fw190 and A6M when compared with the P-47, F4U and F6F they were much smaller but were overcome. The air force thought air battle was going to be long range missile fights, but they put guns back on their planes when dealing with reality.
In the design of the F-16 the engineers at Locheed asked Kelly Johnson why he was desiging a plane much heavier than the air force requests. He said that the air force did not know what they wanted and a plane as light as they wanted would lack too much capability and versitility.
(paraphrased from the book Skunk Works?)
Kelly Johnson and Lockheed had absolutely nothing to do with the design of the General Dynamics F-16.
I was in high school when the competition between the YF16 & YF17 was taking place. Read about it in news magazines, as there was no publicly available internet at the time. Plus who could afford a mini mainframe computer !?
I always enjoy your posts. But please turn the music down if you have to have it. Keep it in the background, lower it down and that way we will both enjoy the video and you get to see the great work that you put into the video. Thank you.😊😊
It's funny having an experience with that composite material that makes them light too. Accidentally walked into one on tie-downs, because I didn't duck low enough while wearing the command ballcap in the hangar bay. (Pretty much all divisions muster there on a carrier.) Definitely felt that and it didn't leave a mark on the aircraft - it's plenty hard with no give, but knocking on the wing it sounds just as hollow as something made of cardboard or really light plywood.
Also the way the development was extended from the prototype of an earlier competition, my understanding is the Navy got a good deal because more bugs were worked out than there would be otherwise given the usual development schedules. Hornets were still short of some of the performance parameters of the Tomcats (which the Super-hornets replaced), but in terms of maintenance and upkeep they were a lot better on turn-around and more reliable to begin with.
What performance parameters did the tomcat have over the hornet besides top speed and internal fuel capacity?
@@brady3474 I think it was top speed, range, payload, and some weapons that the Hornet still didn't support like the Phoenix missile. Tomcat needed a lot of work done vs. flight hours though, so that was the main reason for the Navy dropping it.
@@pauljs75 at the risk of sounding nickpicke the word “performance“ to me applies to turn rate/radius, speed acceleration and maybe range, and weapons carried is more accurately described with “capability.” The tom kitten is the only plane to carry the phoenix, other than that the hornet carried the same air to air weapons. The range issue was sort of real, but tomcats like hornets were provided tankers on every mission. Both planes had 8 weapons stations so on air to air missions a typical f14 load was 4 phx, 2 aim 7, 2aim 9. The Hornet carried either one or two drop tanks and that was driven by deck space more than aircraft needs, deck space was a big part in whether the ship did 1:45 or 1:30 cycles. So a Hornet either carried 7 or 5 air to air missiles. Every plane needed tanker support or was severely limited. The reality was the phoenix was probably good against large non maneuvering bombers long range but ranges against maneuvering targets (fighters) was greatly exaggerated. The phoenix and AIM 7 were better ACM missiles then they got credit for. The Hornet couldn’t out run any plane but it didn’t matter because after a merge it had a better chance of killing every fighter that existed, at the time the F/A18 entered service.
you should do a part 2 where you cover the F/A-18 being scaled up again into the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
As a Hornet Handler here in Canada I'm very proud if this A/C and it truly is a testament to its design.
I always wondered how the F18L would have stacked against the other A/C of the time and in present day. it would have been a better option given that the other Handlers of the world do not use them for naval aviation.
I was stationed at Hahn AB Germany from 1990-1992. It was an F-16 base. But we used to see Canadian CF-18s scooting around the area semi-regularly. I don't remember what base they were operating out of.
@@randallkelley3600 if memory serves me correctly it was CFB Baden-Soellingen & CFB Lahr
What should toy be proud of something your country just bought, Lock, stick, and barrel from the US?
I never got that about Canada.
ex RAAF hornet maintainer here, you may well be working on the same airframes that I worked on. do you know why both our countries elected to go for the F/A-18 rather than the F-18L? Northrop, who was the primary contractor for the proposed F-18L had not built a single F-18L by the time of Canada's NFA program and Australia's TFRP, Northrop were waiting on signed contracts before doing so, strange logic, lets not build a demonstrator until we get orders! Northrop happened to offer the best industrial offset package of all the short listed aircraft for both countries, something very important to both Australia and Canada's political situation, but it would only deliver these offset packages if they received more than one contract, and that ended up something Canada and Australia were not willing to bet on. Because there was no guarantee there were other countries willing to order it both countries went for the MD Hornet instead, which incidentally offered a reasonable industrial offset package, unlike the big NO for an industrial offset package from General Dynamics for the F-16. So, in summary, the decision was influenced by politics rather than capability or suitability
@@Frankie5Angels150 because our maintenance practices and modifications that canada does specifically is the reason why we are still able to fly them
You can see in minute 00:26 a curious flaw of the Mig-25 design. When launching a hughe R-40 (AA-6) missile, the plane enters in a roll that is compensated automatically because if not, the plane enter in a continuous and uncontrolled spin roll.
Nice little developmental history of the YF-17/FA-18...but where's the part about its design taking the Soviets by surprise?
Good point
You got click baited boy
A very interesting story....!!! Very interesting.....!!! It is a testament...that a timeless design in all of its aspects, furthermore, an aircraft design....can withstand 50+ years of development at ease!!! It is absolutely remarcable that the F16 and F18 desingns remaind not only contemporary but still cutting edge aircraft fighters for the future....!!! When a base idea is so perfect and elaborated,....that time,....adds up to its exelence . Trully unadulterated exelence!!!
Northrop innovations tend to become cornerstones for other contractors. Not sure why this happens.
superb again..! Thank you... Love the story behind the YF-16/YF-17 fly off. Both ended up having very long careers, very much not the normal outcome . Cheers
Where is @Lazerpig?
Boyd with his below average measured IQ of just 90 claims to be the best pilot there ever was yet had zero kills during Korea. Then goes ahead and plagerizes the works of Professor Ulric Neisser renaming it the OODA loop, and stealing work form Professor Edward Rutowiski renaming the work to energy menuverability. Shame on Boyd. Shame on the Aviation community to promote him.
I will watch ALL the hornet content you make. Loved the HARV video as well. Thanks. Super hornet soon?
I never knew the 15 16 and 18 were so closely related
Which YF-17 was it that crashed in sept 1976 following the SBAC show in Farnborough in the UK?
I remember it being in NAVY colours. It was displayed with an early F-15 painted in bicentenial colours, and a YC=14 and YC 15 prototypes.
This video gets much of the story backwards and incorrect. The Vietnam War proved that long range missiles were not capable at that time and that the dogfight was absolutely not dead. The US jumped through hoops to add a gun to the F-4 Phantom and to teach dogfight tactics to pilots (ie: Top Gun). In parallel, Boyd and the fighter mafia were advocating and specifying maneuverability in the design of new aircraft, especially what became the F-15 and F-16. Both were evaluated and improved based on modeling from E-M Theory.
Yes and no.
No, long range missiles were not ineffective, the problem was that we were shooting down our own aircraft. So the brilliant suggestion was to visually identify the target before deploying the missile that has a range of 10 miles. Brilliant, right? So THAT is why our pilots were forced to learn BFMs and the aircraft were then equipped with a gun.
(That's another layer of irony: "we're going to expect you to perform air combat using an aircraft designed for speed... oh, btw, we added a 1000 lb gun to it.)
The Fighter Mafia was born for good reason. A war between India and Pakistan pitted American fighters operated by Pakistan against trainer jets operated by India and India shredded the Pakistanis. This was a wake up call to the US that the air combat theories we built our planes to might not be correct. It's just like the Ukraine war showing all manor of battlefield innovation and I guarantee you that the Pentagon is paying very close attention.
So the bottom line is that the FM championed a lightweight maneuverable fighter because of lessons learned in another war and they succeeded in fielding the Viper and Hornet.
Epilogue: many were disappointed when these aircraft weren't even in IOC but their mission was expanded to ground attack, SEAD, and they were given more expensive but more capable radars. I am not one of those who were disappointed. If need be in the future, we can always send the aircraft on sorties configured clean except for two AIM9s on the wingtips.
I think I saw where Boyd hated the F-15 said it was too big. He definitely helped with the f-18 and f-16
Absolutely. Let's start from the fact that Vietnam war made Usaf rethink it's reliance on air-air missiles and installed a gun on F-4E Phantom II that previous F-4D lacked. Misiles are first choince weapon, but if you can't get a lock, your radar is jammed or mulfuction you still have a simple reliable cannon burst to stay in fight.
The narrator has the perfect voice for these topics.
2:49 this is definitely shown in the original Top Gun movie.
Yes, they said Top Gun was created to improve gun dog fight, proceeding to use only missiles. Weirdly making sense with reality as the canon successes have been anecdotal at best for 40 years in a missile "shoot behind the horizon" environment.
The F-18 was actually the fist aircraft, designed from the ground up, to fulfill the 2 primary design roles of fighter aircraft with needing to build separate models. Fighter and light attack roles could be done with the same airframe and avionics set. Prior to that you needed a "B" or "C" model with different electronics to perform the 2 roles. By designing a plane to carry a heavy ordnance load, it ensured a plane would have the power for the "energy maneuver" concept as well. In fighter loadouts an f-18 could carry 6000 lbs of missiles and around 17000 pounds of bombs in ground attack load out, the weight difference ensured it would have plenty of "energy maneuver" room.
You need to go to the Nation Museum of the U.S. Air Force near Dayton, Ohio. You will be mind blown and everything on display there (and those not on display), has a story. Oh P.S.- It's absolutely FREE. It should be a destination on every aircraft buff's bucket list.
They have so much stuff there, set aside at least a few hours. I went there for the second time about 10 years ago and spent 5 hours taking lots of pictures and trying to see everything. You had to take a shuttle over to a seperate hanger where the X craft such as the XB-70 Valkerie was kept.
We delivered a oversize load to the place once and afterwards toured the place. And yes definitely a good one.
@@Snake-ms7sj I spent two full days there and didn't get to see everything. I loved how they posed wartime opponents nose to nose, P-51 and BF-108, F-86 and MiG-15, F-16 and MiG-29, etc. I was also impressed with the combat histories of some of the aircraft on display including a C-130 that really should not have come home. They got shot up badly, rolled a pallet of burning ordnance out the ramp and the ordnance exploded in the air just behind the Herc, the co-pilot was shot, three engines were out but there is sits looking factory fresh. If you have never seen a B-36 in person, they have one and you can see why it was nicknamed Aluminum Overcast. There is an early cruise missile called Snark that is as big as an F/A-18C. And then there is the hanger with all the X planes including a stunning XB-70 towering over everything else.
A very interesting insight into the evolution of today’s planes. Thank you.
YF-17 had 2 engines... a requirement for the Navy at the time
Energy maneuverability came out of John Boyd’s realization that dog fighting was NOT a thing of the past and that most of the soviet aircraft were superior in that regard. The missile reliability was just not there. In fact the first f4 phantoms showed in Vietnam WITHOUT a gun and were at a substantial disadvantage. This is also why they started up the topgun school, to regain air superiority in terms of dog fighting skills.
Sorry to be a stickler BUT SERIOUSLY @ 7.50 >>>>
"Length of 55 feet, WIDTH OF 114 FEET & HEIGHT OF 16 FEET"... Something is off with your figures there i have to say.
I think both the Soviets and myself were surprised. Surprised that there wasnt a surprise.
dude, I started to watch ur video, but r u really using Boyd as a reference?? I would suggest u to research a bit more, because u r entering a common mistake loop. Boyd had few influence on the F16, and wanted a fighter almost naked
Boyd had an IQ of 90 with zero kills in Korea. OODA loop was plagerized, and Energy Meanuverability was also plagerized.
The YF-17 would've been an awesome fighter if allowed to continue.
The YF-17 design was to light for Navy requirements. The airframe and landing gear was beefed up for carrier operations.
YF-17 Cobra,the link between F-5 and FA-18
Been waiting for this.
It looks like an early version of the F-18 super hornet.
That's because it is. 👍
YF-17 was developed into the F-18 series of aircraft.
@@rmcdudmk212 you beat me to it. Lol
@@Turkeythigh420 it's all good. 😁
It's also very similar to F-5E TIger.
your background music is too high in this video!
Boyd's nickname (or one of them, anyway) was "the Mad Major" - not "the Mad Mayor". Others were "Genghis John" and "Forty-Second Boyd"
Also the Ghetto Colonel.
The whole point of the E-M diagram is to make jets better at dogfighting, not long range missile fights.
Soooo the title was BS!!
Welcome to the internet!
F-18 checked all the boxes for a great multi-purpose carrier fighter, including price and maintenance costs
Also, Boyd was not known as the "Mad Mayor" he was given the title of "Mad Major" by the secretarial support staff at Eglin Air Force Base. Also at Eglin the Air Force threatened a court-martial John Boyd for unauthorized use of computer assets. But because of advanced design attributes of EM, the Air Force relented and decided in the end not court-martial John Boyd.
Many words with a "j" in them are pronounced with a "y", rather than a guttural "g" sound. The voice synthesizer probably just guessed wrong on how to say "Major'. Think 'Jorge' ('HOR-'hey) or 'Maijer' (MY-'her) Supermarket.
What I had heard is that Canada when purchasing the Hornet, asked if they could instead have the Cobra. I heard they could only purchase the Hornet as the Cobra would not go into production. So Canada ended up buying about 140 Hornets. I have not heard any thing other about this, and do wonder if it is true.
Canada and Australia were interested in the land version of the hornet, the F-18L, which was being marketed by Northrop not McDonnell Douglas the primary maker of the F/A-18. note there is no A in the F-18L, ie as in F/A-18. It was simplified lightweight version of the hornet, no wing fold, no heavy duty undercarriage and was far more suited to A-A but had only rudimentary A-G capability, much like the original F-16A. Northrop, who was the primary contractor for the F-18L version, had not built a single F-18L by the time of Canada's NFA program and Australia's TFRP, Northrop was waiting on successful contracts before doing so, strange logic, lets not build a demonstrator until we get orders. Northrop also offered the best industrial offset package of all the short list aircraft for both countries, something important to both Australia and Canada's requirements, but it would only deliver these offset packages if they received more than one contract, something Canada and Australia was not willing to bet on. And because there was no guarantee there were other countries willing to order it both countries went for the MD Hornet instead, which incidentally also offered a very good industrial offset package, unlike the big NO for an industrial offset package from General Dynamics
Canada was interested in both versions and the F-16. The RCAF wanted BVR capability and a design which they saw with more potential, which had two engine's they went with the safe choice and less risk at cost
The YF-17 is sitting next to YF-23 here in Torrance.
Even the Eagle followed the EM specks having a throst/weight ratio higher than 1 so that it can "tail sit" in a vertical attitude in a stationary position. This simply upweights the numbers, but it still keeps the model
That’s not really what thrust to weight ratio greater that 1:1 is used for but I haven’t got time to explain basic fighter maneuvering to a landlubber, so whatever.
Anyone calling you landlubber is a Salty Dog and doesn't know the better aircraft capabilities. The Navy has different requirements than light weight. F/A18 is evidence of that for sure as it's far less capable of fighting combat than the F16. USAF knows what they're doing. It's the one thing they do best! Super Hornet is even MORE evidence. Bigger, slower. Missle Truck!
I saw one stand on it's tail and disappear one time. Was taking a taxi out to the ship, and the road crossed the runway, signal turned red if runway was in use, driver tells me stay in the car. His wheels lifted off the ground right in front of us, folded up his landing gear and was gone. Honestly, it was almost like a cartoon, roadrunner turning into a puff of smoke and old Wile E standing there with his jaw on the ground
@@tobingallawa3322 And they tell us this plane is obsolete with the exception of Strike Eagle. I think this airframe has some life left in it, I take it there is an "F-15X" which may be ultimately fitted out for Mach 3 flight (1980 mph)
Given one of the premises of the Fighter Mafia, I forsee a new level of Air Superiority. The "heavy interceptor". This is a arge, relativel slow aircraft just bristling with AIM's. It may lead to the refurbishing and repurposing of the B-1, which can carry 24 cruise missles; six under the wings and the rest in the bays. When it was buiot it could out-maneuver many of the fighters and it was, in the early 80's, 'stealthified" and could overfly Nellis AFB undetected at low altitude. Now, it is not a speedster but if based properly, in need not be, I don't know its altitude but that is almost irrelevent since modern guided missles, you are best looking up at your target and we even have over-the-horizon targetting and the Raptor can see 800 miles ahead. Being a fairly large plane, it could probably house C3I assets for a flotilla of accompanying drones
Provably why the NGAD is going to be bigger than most fighters now, because it might do those
According to Tom Clancy's non-fiction book Carrier, the F/A-18 had no prototype stage, as a result the Hornet had "short legs" aka small internal fuel capacity, that wasn't resolved until the Super Hornet design was approved.
When the RAAF first got their F/A-18s they were dismayed MD's claimed effective combat range was not deliverable without at least one external tank. It was very rare to see a 'clean' RAAF hornet except for airshows
Not exactly. The YF-17 design included a fuel fraction sufficient for good range. The US Navy insisted on adding Sparrow missile capability and the larger radar drastically increased drag, destroying the range. The fuel fraction was never corrected and the Hornet built with that birth defect. Check out “Pentagon Paradox” by James Stephenson
your a cool kid if you are here before it blows up
I guess I'm a cool kid now🙄
In less than 20 years we went from prop planes and dog fights to crazy fast jets and long range missiles. Plane technology advanced so fast from ww2 - Vietnam.
Got to stop showing the wrong planes. Script said MiG 25, video was a MiG 23. If it ain't right, it's wrong. People who watch these channels know the difference and it hurts your credibility. Don't guess and do your research. Othwise, enjoyed the video.
That was very interesting. Thanks.
Er Vietnam showed missiles weren't ready for primetime - F-4 with gun pods, or internal guns...
Missiles the didn't work well.... No internal gun(s).... Pilots that had NOT been taught hard to Dogfight = Sub Par Performance against North Vietnam (and some Russian Pilots) = Fighter Weapons School at Miramar NAS (Top Gun) & (Red Flag) at Nellis AFB Nevada.
Gun pods wiggle on the hard point meaning you are spraying around in a huge arc when firing. You can see this in video footage of F-4's using gun pods on ground strikes
I have been to the USS Alabama Memorial Park in Mobile, AL, and the prototype YF-17 is on display there (safely indoors). I wonder if the prototype sent to California was exhibited outside? BTW, if you are ever in the area, the USS Alabama Memorial Park in chock-full of fascinating military hardware, including the US fleet submarine (WWII era) the USS Drum, the USS Alabama battleship (BB-60), a B-52, an SR-71, and much, much more. Well worth the trip!
The Californis prototype is outside. Parked alongside an F14 and one of only 2 YF23s.
You can see it on Google Earth, at the very western end of the runway.
@@Mugdorna Thanks, that's what I figured.
There's no SR-71 at Battleship Park. That's a Lockheed A-12, the SR-71 predecessor that was planned as a nuclear strike bomber and CONUS interceptor. The Blackbird at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville is also an A-12.
How can you talk about this aircraft and not talk about its design lineage from the Northrop F-5?
Tweaking the jet powered dart so it could land safely was the fun part.
No notice from screw tube again because screw tube SUX.
Great video I loved it
The primary purpose of the Lightweight fighter program was economics. The F-15 and F-14 were both fine dogfighters, but expensive and more than needed for most missions. They called it a high/low mix.
Thank you for the video speedy
114' wide? (7m56s). Also I noticed a fair bit of confusion on what was USAF v USN. Also the Fighter Mafia urged very long range, and this video ignores that,
10:35 That dude was straight living in the future. Was that a CAD and touchscreen ? What year is that?