My first engineering job out of college (1974) was Alameda Naval Air Rework Facility (NARF) support of AIM-54 Phoenix Missile. We could disassemble, test ,repair the of the Phoenix. I also worked on all the ground support equipment (GSE) used in field test of the Missile. The F-14 Tomcat used AWG-9 (Radar Fire Control)/AIM-54 weapon system. I did lots of travel to Grumman (Bethpage, NY), Hughes (Canoga Park,CA) and Litton (Woodland Hills, CA). I watched many operational tests at Point Mugu Missile Test (PMTC) base. Beautiful Memories. Thanks
Hello, I have a question about the phoenix motors. I would like to know what the burn time of the mk-47 motors were and the mk-60 motors were. Was there a major difference in the burn times since the mk-60 motors were smokeless motors? Thank you.
Amazing, and you guys didn't even have half of the technology we have today. Thank you for creating the future that we have today! Had it not been for you guys, I couldn't be writing to you now over the internet....
I was a weapon system loader/maintenance in the Air Force in the early eighties on the f-111a at mountain home Air Force Base. I spent my whole time in the Air Force on that aircraft. In the early eighties the older A models were converted into EFs then we ended up getting the combat squadron's. We were the training squadron and then by the time I left about half of them had been converted over and I am guessing the rest of them had been converted. Quite an aircraft but at the time did not realize it because like most I wanted to work on the f-15s and f-16s.
I watched F-111s flying low altitude runs toward the bombing ranges in Florida. If you heard the sound before seeing them visually, it was already too late.
Very complex, very expensive tech that was prone to breakdown and failure. This made it both expensive and then hyped to legendary status. Really,six shoot downs in a combat scenario. The carriers would have been sunk in a real fight. Lesson don't believe arms companies marketing.
@@malcolmlewis5860 Fast forward to F-35. Same complaints. Razor edge of tech for it's time will always have teething issues. Everything you said could also apply to the F-14A.
A hybrid of analog and digital (8K x 24 bit words!), tubes and solid state. The they ported half the avionics over to the F-14 and threw ICs into the mix.
It goes to show that modern computers have just made things easier and faster, but in the end good old pencil and paper is all that is needed. Let's see what this new A.I. technology is going to bring to the table.....
As much as I have grown to hate and despise the military industrial complex, I still respect how smart all of these men were based on what they accomplished. These are some very complex systems and my dumb brain could never even comprehend a fraction of the math and physics that went into these design of these systems.
A necessary evil that thanks to it, has produced modern smart phones, tablets, laptops and all the other modern electronic technologies we use today. Yes it is amazing how it all began, and I too wish had been better at math and had a better understanding of what engineering was about.
Most people are unaware that the Navy insisted on the side-by-side seating over the objections of the Air Force. Ironic considering that this seating arrangement was the first feature eliminated by Grumman when they took over building the F-14 after the Navy cancelled the F-111B.
@@reneegudjon3204 That puts the cart before the horse. They didn't make the seating side-by-side because the plane was bigger, they made the plane bigger (wider) to accommodate the desired side-by-side seating. The Navy wanted this seating so the pilot and radar intercept officer could share the same radar display without having to duplicate it. The Air Force wanted the fastest possible bomber and didn't need the pilot to have full control of the bomb/nav systems because he was going to focus on not running into the ground rather than finding the target. The tandem seating of the B-58 and other multi-place fast jets set USAF preferences. The side-by-side seating of airplanes like the F6D and A-6 seems to have set Navy preferences. McNamara's DOD overruled the Air Force objection and forced them to accept the side-by-side seating. The irony is that this seating requirement contributed to the F-111’s unsuitability as a fighter. Not only was pilot visibility from such a cockpit unsuited to the fighter role, but the structure necessary for this wide cockpit and escape capsule made the airplane heavier than it need to be. If the Navy had originally wanted the F-111B to perform the superiority fighter role they would never have insisted on this type of seating. But combat experience in Vietnam caused the Navy to revise its needs to include air superiority, which made the F-111B unsuitable. The F-14 design, which was to combine both fleet defense and air superiority roles, had tandem seating at first draft because it was necessary both for pilot visibility and a more efficient structure.
@@reneegudjon3204 You have it backwards; the fuselage had to be bigger (wider) to accommodate side-by-side seating. Beyond the aerodynamic effects of the width, the larger cockpit opening required more supporting structure that made the fuselage heavier. Grumman's initial design studies abandoned the side-by-side seating the Navy originally wanted in order to avoid its weight penalty.
@@gort8203 It wasn't a fighter . Mostly attack and high speed low level. Hence ca25 % bigger , heavier. And having a bomb bay.and two radar. ( One for low flying in IFC..) O wander it could accommodate side by side for better coordination/cooperation between weapons officer and pilot.Especially during demanding low level flying raids
@@reneegudjon3204 I know it was not a fighter--that's my point about the Navy version as well. Nevertheless, and despite your personal ideas on its desirability, it is a fact that the USAF wanted tandem seating. Just like they had for the B-58 and the B-57. USAF even went so far as to dump the original side-by-side seating of the Canberra for the B-57B bomber, which had tandem seating under a fighter-type canopy, just like the B-47. So don't imagine for an instant that USAF favored side-by-side seating for any of its tactical aircraft. It was the Navy that wanted the side-by-side seating to facilitate coordination between pilot and radar intercept officer, as well as allowing them to share a single radar display.
I'd love to hear the story behind the USAF decision to never integrate the AIM-54 on any USAF aircraft despite it being designed with the F-111 in mind from the start.
@@sferrin2 I didn't differentiate. I said "any" meaning every USAF airplane from '66 to '2007. Not one carried the Pheonix, ever. Despite the USAF being responsible for the continental US and Europe interceptor role. It would seem at least one platform should have found a use for the additional range?
The Air Force did not want a fleet defense interceptor, they wanted a tactical bomber. The two planes had different missions. Different needs and operational doctrines.
@@gort8203 I don't know why you all want to be specific to the F-111. Between 1966 and 2007, USAF had many interceptors with the role being to intercept Soviet bombers. Those anticipated to attack a fleet would typically be the same attacking a continent. My point was that the Pheonix was initially designed for F-111 which the USAF adopted. Surely they must have considered it for not only the F-111 but also other platforms. Why did they insist on the much less capable AIM-4 and AIM-7 right up until they finally found the AIM-120?
@@slartybarfastb3648 They kicked around several ideas but could never justify them. One of them was an SR-71 with four Phoenix. Think Son Of YF-12. There was also the N-349. Vigilante with a 3rd J79 and six Phoenix missiles.
The important take away from films like this is less the specific subject matter and more that the film exists in the first place. This is not a public facing propaganda production. Films like this were produced as presentation materials and collaterally as archival footage, for classified briefings to policy makers ad procurement bureaucrats, i.e. the folks that controlled the monies. .Personally I find the test at less than 30 miles were touted as achievements. Yet early in the film, ranges of 80-100 miles were discussed.
Later in the AIM-54's life the C model was capable of engagements at 120+ miles. It had a bigger rocket motor and improved electronics than the earlier missiles. There are few engagement scenarios where you know what a target is at those ranges, so relatively few Phoenix intercepts were made in the end. The best reason for having it is when it deters the other side from attacking you, and F-14 plus AIM-54 was a fearsome combination provided that the systems were reliable.
That's because it was never designed to be a fighter. It was designed to be a fleet defense missile interceptor. The Navy then changed it's mind and decided they needed an airplane that could also be a fighter. So they blamed it on the F-111B to get Congress to let them cancel it and get funding to start the F-14.
@@jaybee9269 The F-11!A is what it was intended to be, a bomber. The F-111B was intended to be a fleet defense interceptor, basically a supersonic evolution of the F6D Missileer concept. The F-111B was not intended to be an air superiority fighter, which is why DOD determined the variable geometry airframe desired by the USAF would also work for the Navy's high speed Missileer. Combat experience in Vietnam made the Navy to realize it needed a new air superiority fighter as well as a fleet defense fighter. But they wouldn't couldn't get Congress to allow development of two new jets at the same time, so they had to kill the F-111B to get appropriations for a new fighter program that could perform both roles. As a fighter advocate Admiral Connolly was a big contributor to that change. It was the right thing to do, but the political expedient was to publicly portray the change in Navy procurement priorities as failure of the F-111B design, which was unfair to that program.
It's a travelling-wave tube, TWT. Klystrons use velocity modulation of an electron beam but are not much use at higher frequencies whereas a TWT allows both higher frequency operation and operates over greater bandwidth. Both are thermionic devices with heaters, electrodes and internal vacuum, not solid state.
They needed the phoenix specifically to intercept attacks on aircraft carriers, which required a delivery platform -- the tomcat. The tomcat required an aircraft carrier to get close to attackers, which made the carrier vulnerable, requiring the phoenix. Second and third world countries figured out that if they didn't send warships into their neighbor's waters, elaborate defense measures weren't necessary. The downside is, those countries didn't get to display cool skull and cross bone insignia.
The Phoenix was a Very Expensive program that never saw combat! The AIM 9 Sidewinder Family, was and is, the best System going! Bill McLean and his team at China Lake showed the world how to develop a successful missile system!
All this for efficiency and reduced costs? Funny how it never worked out and two different aircraft were built and only the Navy used the Phoenix system! Brilliant!
Those were some brilliant minds. What a shame they were so let down by politics 😞 I remember a couple of "tech reps" from General Dynamics Corp. when i was in the 474th TFW (F-111), at Nellis AFB in 72/73/. They were great guys and willing to teach you anything if you just asked them. 👍👍🇺🇸
This is pretty cool, can help a lot to design new dangerous radar long distance AA missiles with the new tech. will be incredible. Making it more modern, compact beautifull & replacing old big chunks for modern & lighter stuff improving incredibly overall power, distance, accuracy & maneuverability. Still the old ones should be used first to profit their power & techs until they're out of stock. Just search a powerfull safe & effective distance killing and go for it... maybe 50-70 nm? althoug the old missile reach up to outstanding 100nm distance but with less effectiveness. The new modern ones could easy, reach up to 200-250 nm or even more. (AWACS Killers)
We laugh about it now, but thanks to those early steps we are where we are right now. It is just amazing how they were able to create all of that before the invention of the microchip and modern computers.
Just to imagine that they had to come up with that first, so eventually we would get to the microchip and modern computers. Old technology still amazes me!.....
The fact this system no longer exists is rediculous!! A perfect example of our feckless system of weapons purchased for our military being swiss cheese. This unit should still be part of our military both Navy and Air Force. We spend billions on equipment that gets sold overseas for profit and like this example becomes a throw away by our military. The waste of resources is rediculous!!
It's obsolete 1960s technology. Pretty much all modern long-range AAMs have terminal active-homing like Phoenix, and modern AESAs are vastly in advance of the AWG-9.
@@SimonWallwork The AWG-9 still does, but I believe the Iranians have replaced their Phoenixes with a domestic developed air-to-air variant of the Hawk.
The equipment is procured knowing that it has a service life limitation, either because eventually parts are no longer made or because the aircraft exceed their structural life due to all the flying and particularly arrested carrier landings. Nothing lasts for ever.
➤➤ Watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories, and missions: www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes
➤➤ Join the channel: www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes/join
➤ IG ➤ instagram.com/dronescapesvideos
➤ FB ➤ facebook.com/Dronescapesvideos
➤ X/Twitter ➤ dronescapes.video/2p89vedj
➤ THREADS ➤ www.threads.net/@dronescapesvideos
My first engineering job out of college (1974) was Alameda Naval Air Rework Facility (NARF) support of AIM-54 Phoenix Missile. We could disassemble, test ,repair the of the Phoenix.
I also worked on all the ground support equipment (GSE) used in field test of the Missile. The F-14 Tomcat used AWG-9 (Radar Fire Control)/AIM-54 weapon system. I did lots of travel to Grumman (Bethpage, NY), Hughes (Canoga Park,CA) and Litton (Woodland Hills, CA). I watched many operational tests at Point Mugu Missile Test (PMTC) base. Beautiful Memories. Thanks
Thank you for your service, and for sharing your memories!
That must have been a real sight to see.
Hello, I have a question about the phoenix motors. I would like to know what the burn time of the mk-47 motors were and the mk-60 motors were. Was there a major difference in the burn times since the mk-60 motors were smokeless motors? Thank you.
Amazing, and you guys didn't even have half of the technology we have today. Thank you for creating the future that we have today!
Had it not been for you guys, I couldn't be writing to you now over the internet....
I was a weapon system loader/maintenance in the Air Force in the early eighties on the f-111a at mountain home Air Force Base. I spent my whole time in the Air Force on that aircraft. In the early eighties the older A models were converted into EFs then we ended up getting the combat squadron's. We were the training squadron and then by the time I left about half of them had been converted over and I am guessing the rest of them had been converted. Quite an aircraft but at the time did not realize it because like most I wanted to work on the f-15s and f-16s.
Thank you for your service David!
I watched F-111s flying low altitude runs toward the bombing ranges in Florida. If you heard the sound before seeing them visually, it was already too late.
Very complex, very expensive tech that was prone to breakdown and failure. This made it both expensive and then hyped to legendary status. Really,six shoot downs in a combat scenario. The carriers would have been sunk in a real fight. Lesson don't believe arms companies marketing.
@@malcolmlewis5860 Fast forward to F-35. Same complaints. Razor edge of tech for it's time will always have teething issues. Everything you said could also apply to the F-14A.
Slide rules and room sized processors . Amazing what they could do with sticks and stones in the mid sixtys .
A hybrid of analog and digital (8K x 24 bit words!), tubes and solid state.
The they ported half the avionics over to the F-14 and threw ICs into the mix.
The first microprocessor was used in the F-14.
and punch cards... man imagine having to debug that
@@RedTail1-1 Bit slice technology, still secret decades later although of course there was no need for that long a security cloak.
It goes to show that modern computers have just made things easier and faster, but in the end good old pencil and paper is all that is needed. Let's see what this new A.I. technology is going to bring to the table.....
This is truly RARE video. Out of McNamara’s office?
@@christopherneufelt8971nah, there are plenty of nerds like me studying engineering right now to keep the knowledge alive. This stuff is awesome!
I like that project logo a LOT
The Tomcat was outfitted with them also.
A great video and an interesting glimpse into old time technology. Gets a bit "turbo encabulator" in places, but pretty timeless.
As much as I have grown to hate and despise the military industrial complex, I still respect how smart all of these men were based on what they accomplished. These are some very complex systems and my dumb brain could never even comprehend a fraction of the math and physics that went into these design of these systems.
A necessary evil that thanks to it, has produced modern smart phones, tablets, laptops and all the other modern electronic technologies we use today.
Yes it is amazing how it all began, and I too wish had been better at math and had a better understanding of what engineering was about.
Most people are unaware that the Navy insisted on the side-by-side seating over the objections of the Air Force. Ironic considering that this seating arrangement was the first feature eliminated by Grumman when they took over building the F-14 after the Navy cancelled the F-111B.
F111 was bigger and more suited for side by side
@@reneegudjon3204
That puts the cart before the horse. They didn't make the seating side-by-side because the plane was bigger, they made the plane bigger (wider) to accommodate the desired side-by-side seating. The Navy wanted this seating so the pilot and radar intercept officer could share the same radar display without having to duplicate it. The Air Force wanted the fastest possible bomber and didn't need the pilot to have full control of the bomb/nav systems because he was going to focus on not running into the ground rather than finding the target. The tandem seating of the B-58 and other multi-place fast jets set USAF preferences. The side-by-side seating of airplanes like the F6D and A-6 seems to have set Navy preferences.
McNamara's DOD overruled the Air Force objection and forced them to accept the side-by-side seating. The irony is that this seating requirement contributed to the F-111’s unsuitability as a fighter. Not only was pilot visibility from such a cockpit unsuited to the fighter role, but the structure necessary for this wide cockpit and escape capsule made the airplane heavier than it need to be.
If the Navy had originally wanted the F-111B to perform the superiority fighter role they would never have insisted on this type of seating. But combat experience in Vietnam caused the Navy to revise its needs to include air superiority, which made the F-111B unsuitable. The F-14 design, which was to combine both fleet defense and air superiority roles, had tandem seating at first draft because it was necessary both for pilot visibility and a more efficient structure.
@@reneegudjon3204 You have it backwards; the fuselage had to be bigger (wider) to accommodate side-by-side seating. Beyond the aerodynamic effects of the width, the larger cockpit opening required more supporting structure that made the fuselage heavier. Grumman's initial design studies abandoned the side-by-side seating the Navy originally wanted in order to avoid its weight penalty.
@@gort8203 It wasn't a fighter . Mostly attack and high speed low level. Hence ca25 % bigger , heavier. And having a bomb bay.and two radar. ( One for low flying in IFC..) O wander it could accommodate side by side for better coordination/cooperation between weapons officer and pilot.Especially during demanding low level flying raids
@@reneegudjon3204 I know it was not a fighter--that's my point about the Navy version as well. Nevertheless, and despite your personal ideas on its desirability, it is a fact that the USAF wanted tandem seating. Just like they had for the B-58 and the B-57. USAF even went so far as to dump the original side-by-side seating of the Canberra for the B-57B bomber, which had tandem seating under a fighter-type canopy, just like the B-47. So don't imagine for an instant that USAF favored side-by-side seating for any of its tactical aircraft. It was the Navy that wanted the side-by-side seating to facilitate coordination between pilot and radar intercept officer, as well as allowing them to share a single radar display.
Great engineering : only thing i have to say my cousins ...
Kisses from France
I'd love to hear the story behind the USAF decision to never integrate the AIM-54 on any USAF aircraft despite it being designed with the F-111 in mind from the start.
F-111B for the navy. Not the F-111A.
@@sferrin2 I didn't differentiate. I said "any" meaning every USAF airplane from '66 to '2007. Not one carried the Pheonix, ever. Despite the USAF being responsible for the continental US and Europe interceptor role. It would seem at least one platform should have found a use for the additional range?
The Air Force did not want a fleet defense interceptor, they wanted a tactical bomber. The two planes had different missions. Different needs and operational doctrines.
@@gort8203 I don't know why you all want to be specific to the F-111. Between 1966 and 2007, USAF had many interceptors with the role being to intercept Soviet bombers. Those anticipated to attack a fleet would typically be the same attacking a continent.
My point was that the Pheonix was initially designed for F-111 which the USAF adopted. Surely they must have considered it for not only the F-111 but also other platforms. Why did they insist on the much less capable AIM-4 and AIM-7 right up until they finally found the AIM-120?
@@slartybarfastb3648 They kicked around several ideas but could never justify them. One of them was an SR-71 with four Phoenix. Think Son Of YF-12. There was also the N-349. Vigilante with a 3rd J79 and six Phoenix missiles.
One can only wonder what might have been.
The important take away from films like this is less the specific subject matter and more that the film exists in the first place. This is not a public facing propaganda production. Films like this were produced as presentation materials and collaterally as archival footage, for classified briefings to policy makers ad procurement bureaucrats, i.e. the folks that controlled the monies. .Personally I find the test at less than 30 miles were touted as achievements. Yet early in the film, ranges of 80-100 miles were discussed.
Later in the AIM-54's life the C model was capable of engagements at 120+ miles. It had a bigger rocket motor and improved electronics than the earlier missiles.
There are few engagement scenarios where you know what a target is at those ranges, so relatively few Phoenix intercepts were made in the end. The best reason for having it is when it deters the other side from attacking you, and F-14 plus AIM-54 was a fearsome combination provided that the systems were reliable.
@@BrianMorrison Also, do we even have reliable access to Iran-Iraq War data? The greatest sample size of AIM-54 launches?
Salesman : *slaps on the F111's wing.* "And that bad boy for only..."
“Gentlemen, all the thrust in Christendom couldn’t make a Navy fighter out of that airplane.”-Adm. Tom Connolly
That's because it was never designed to be a fighter. It was designed to be a fleet defense missile interceptor. The Navy then changed it's mind and decided they needed an airplane that could also be a fighter. So they blamed it on the F-111B to get Congress to let them cancel it and get funding to start the F-14.
And it was not originally intended to be a fighter.
@@gort8203 >> Indeed. It’s a medium bomber.
@@jaybee9269 The F-11!A is what it was intended to be, a bomber. The F-111B was intended to be a fleet defense interceptor, basically a supersonic evolution of the F6D Missileer concept. The F-111B was not intended to be an air superiority fighter, which is why DOD determined the variable geometry airframe desired by the USAF would also work for the Navy's high speed Missileer.
Combat experience in Vietnam made the Navy to realize it needed a new air superiority fighter as well as a fleet defense fighter. But they wouldn't couldn't get Congress to allow development of two new jets at the same time, so they had to kill the F-111B to get appropriations for a new fighter program that could perform both roles. As a fighter advocate Admiral Connolly was a big contributor to that change. It was the right thing to do, but the political expedient was to publicly portray the change in Navy procurement priorities as failure of the F-111B design, which was unfair to that program.
What was the "special equipment" shown at 1:29? Was it a klystron for the radar?
It's a travelling-wave tube, TWT. Klystrons use velocity modulation of an electron beam but are not much use at higher frequencies whereas a TWT allows both higher frequency operation and operates over greater bandwidth. Both are thermionic devices with heaters, electrodes and internal vacuum, not solid state.
Thanks.
Would be great to see a video on how the missile knows where it is
That's still classified....🤫
They needed the phoenix specifically to intercept attacks on aircraft carriers, which required a delivery platform -- the tomcat. The tomcat required an aircraft carrier to get close to attackers, which made the carrier vulnerable, requiring the phoenix. Second and third world countries figured out that if they didn't send warships into their neighbor's waters, elaborate defense measures weren't necessary. The downside is, those countries didn't get to display cool skull and cross bone insignia.
The Phoenix was a Very Expensive program that never saw combat! The AIM 9 Sidewinder Family, was and is, the best System going! Bill McLean and his team at China Lake showed the world how to develop a successful missile system!
What do you mean Phoenix never saw combat?
The USN shot a couple during no-fly operations after the Gulf War, but their only successful intercepts were by Iran.
All this for efficiency and reduced costs? Funny how it never worked out and two different aircraft were built and only the Navy used the Phoenix system! Brilliant!
18:42 you're welcome
Is there any data of the missile performance? Acceleration, Top Speed, drag, max G load ect?
If the F-111B had gone into production and service no doubt it would've been known as the "Turkey".
Those were some brilliant minds. What a shame they were so let down by politics 😞 I remember a couple of "tech reps" from General Dynamics Corp. when i was in the 474th TFW (F-111), at Nellis AFB in 72/73/. They were great guys and willing to teach you anything if you just asked them. 👍👍🇺🇸
This is pretty cool, can help a lot to design new dangerous radar long distance AA missiles with the new tech. will be incredible. Making it more modern, compact beautifull & replacing old big chunks for modern & lighter stuff improving incredibly overall power, distance, accuracy & maneuverability. Still the old ones should be used first to profit their power & techs until they're out of stock. Just search a powerfull safe & effective distance killing and go for it... maybe 50-70 nm? althoug the old missile reach up to outstanding 100nm distance but with less effectiveness. The new modern ones could easy, reach up to 200-250 nm or even more. (AWACS Killers)
I thought the tomcat was built specifically for the Phoenix
The F-14 took over from the F-111 which never came to light in its B variant which was meant to carry the Phoenix.
Were these the same guys who made rhe turbo encabulator?
We laugh about it now, but thanks to those early steps we are where we are right now.
It is just amazing how they were able to create all of that before the invention of the microchip and modern computers.
Information is "punched" on a magnetic tape lol
Just to imagine that they had to come up with that first, so eventually we would get to the microchip and modern computers.
Old technology still amazes me!.....
31:31 yup a nuke sure is a "special weapon"
지금은 돈 되는 것만 하다보니...뒤쳐짐....돈이 다가 아니다...돈이 않되 도 나라를 위해 해야 하는데...묵살해...지들이 머리야...
The plane they show half the time is not an F-111.
Douglas A-3 Skywarrior, I think it did some of the trials work for various aspects of the F-111B/AIM-54 development.
The fact this system no longer exists is rediculous!! A perfect example of our feckless system of weapons purchased for our military being swiss cheese. This unit should still be part of our military both Navy and Air Force. We spend billions on equipment that gets sold overseas for profit and like this example becomes a throw away by our military. The waste of resources is rediculous!!
It's obsolete 1960s technology. Pretty much all modern long-range AAMs have terminal active-homing like Phoenix, and modern AESAs are vastly in advance of the AWG-9.
It exists in Iran- where it achieved 100% of its real world kills.
@@SimonWallwork The AWG-9 still does, but I believe the Iranians have replaced their Phoenixes with a domestic developed air-to-air variant of the Hawk.
The equipment is procured knowing that it has a service life limitation, either because eventually parts are no longer made or because the aircraft exceed their structural life due to all the flying and particularly arrested carrier landings. Nothing lasts for ever.
Someone show this video to Gaijin.