AERIAL ATTACK STUDY: F-100 Super Sabre Vs Bison, Bear And Badger, 1960

Moscow, 1954. The annual May Day parade is well underway. Ranks of soldiers and columns of tanks roll through Red Square past cheering crowds. Overhead come waves of jet fighters.
Then the skies clear. An ominous growl grows louder and louder. The crowd stills and looks to the heavens as ten giant four engined jet bombers howl overhead. Seemingly moments later another eight come past.
The Bisons had arrived and their impact on aerial combat would shape military doctrine for the rest of the Century. Countering them would cost the USA countless billions and shape the weapons systems and tactics they took into the air war in Vietnam.
This video explores the impact of the Bison on interceptor tactics. To do so, I'm using the primary pilot's guide to air combat manoeuvres in the period: John Boyd's Aerial Attack Study. It's a great piece of work that graphically illustrates the limitations of the most advanced weapons of the day, even against relatively simple targets like heavy bombers. I hope I've done it justice here.
As ever, if you have comments or thoughts on the subject or content, I'd love to hear them. In particular I've been working hard on the sound quality in the video. My last one only had one negative comment on that, so I feel things are improving... but only you can tell me that!
Finally, if you're enjoying these videos then please consider subscribing. It really helps keep me motivated.
Major sources:
A copy of John Boyd's Aerial Attack Study can be downloaded here: www.ausairpower.net/JRB/boyda...
Information on the Bison, including production numbers came from Soviet Strategic Bombers by John Nicholas Moore
You can read the contemporary CIA estimates of Bison production in this declassified document: www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/...
Jet production numbers, including the later Bison production can be found here: www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/...

[@brianrmc1963]

This is fascinating. I only flew with AIM-9Ms.

[@notapound]

As I got into it I really started to understand how narrow the operating window for the early Sidewinder was. It’s still a remarkable achievement though, if you think that it was developed in the 1950s!

[@brianrmc1963]

@@notapound It really was. The only thing limiting the AIM-9M was the seeker head. If I were Boyd, I would have advocated a different attack profile against the bomber: after the bomber is visually acquired I would have my wingman pitch up to provide vertical and horizontal separation from me, either to sweep or bracket the bomber. We practiced forward quarter gunnery frequently, so I would be quite comfortable having my section take turns shooting the bomber in the face. After the gun attack each fighter would yo-yo off, and then immediately dive down to set up for a low-to-high missile shot. A bracket would work best for this, but the initial intercept angle or weather conditions might necessitate a sweep.

[@NickThePilotUSA]

What did you fly?

[@wacojones8062]

Good research and presentation. Over years since the late 50's I have been buzzed by F-94C, P-51D Mustang, A37, A-7D watched 3 B-58 fly by under where I was standing on a granite peak in Michigan was buzzed by F-104G doing a LABS delivery practice run in Wyoming later a B52G flew by 30 feet off the ground in northern Wyoming also below where the hunting party was at the time. Last but not least I saw the last flight of the B-52D's landing through the thermal viewer on a TOW system when I was training students on M-901 ITV down at Fort Bliss.

[@cecilboatwright3555]

Another VERY NICELY DONE video!! With the information you provide here, you easily could have been a participant in an "air combat maneuvering" sortie brief in just about any 1970-90 training mission (I was an USN Strike Aviator in the 80s, and your discussion here, limited to the Hun notwithstanding, could have been a solid addition to any preflight ACM briefing)!

[@gabrielabate6020]

Excellent video, very informative. I didn't know about the accidental shoot down of the B-52.

[@notapound]

Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it. The Ciudad Juarez incident is absolutely tragic. It’s one of those in which no one is at fault but everyone has to live with the consequences.

[@gabrielabate6020]

@@notapound You are certainly right!

[@WarblesOnALot]

G'day, The ONLY Air Defence Fighter Kill of a B-52 In Real Life ? All the others being NVA SAMs...; Kinda thing... Have a good one... Stay safe, ;-p Ciao !

[@Roddy556]

​@WarblesOnALot NVNAF MiG-21 pilot Pham Tuan is said to have successfully downed a B-52 bomber on December 27, 1972 so it might have happened twice. If true I would give Tuam more credit since, you know, he shot down a bomber from an opposing force. I have a bit of flying experience and a bit of experience with weapons and I have to say messing around with live munitions like that it was probably only a matter of time before this happened.

[@seeingeyegod]

rather surprising to me that a sidewinder could knock the wing off, I always think of them as small missiles that wouldn't be able to single handedly shoot down a large bomber. Probably was a bit of a lucky shot, hitting right at a weak spot of the spar or something.

[@manuelkatsos5104]

The irony with the bison bomber was that during the Mayday parade 10 bison did a flypaper twice to give the illusion that it was in mass production. The United States then feared a bomber gap . This soviet trick convinced the Americans to build up their bomber force.

[@Inkling777]

In the 1930s the Germans used a similar technique to trick an all-too-willing-to-believe Charles Lindberg that it had more military aircraft than it did. He was driven between bases and the planes from one flown ahead to the next.

[@user-wv3lv1tc2m]

Переклеили бортовые номера самолётов прямо в воздухе, вы в своём уме 😱?

[@XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX981]

Again, an excellent video with ground-breaking theme and content. I have often wondered how fighter defence of the CONUS was theorised and what tactics would be employed in the late 50's and early 60's. Great work!

[@notapound]

Thank you! I’m really glad you enjoyed it. US air defence in this period was an amazing enterprise. It blended the absolute cutting edge of radar and computers with plotting rooms and telephones that were essentially straight out of the Battle Of Britain. My next video will get a bit deeper into ground control intercept and interceptor avionics in the 1950s. Niche… but I find it interesting!

[@XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX981]

@@notapound Any background to SAGE would be great!

[@RCAvhstape]

@@notapound I second the in-depth look at SAGE, I find it fascinating. Also, you might want to reach out to youtuber Bruce Gordon. He's an old F-106 pilot who flew continental defense missions in the 60s before heading to Vietnam to fly combat in the F-100 and he has experience with SAGE as well as the AIM-4 Falcon missile. His channel is pretty awesome.

[@ericvantassell6809]

A nice presentation to be sure but Boyd's contribution is well known.

[@pcarro11]

Great video. Never forget: Air Force regs are written in blood.

[@timengineman2nd714]

AIR-2 (Genie) was an unguided rocket with a 1.2 Kiloton warhead, range ~6 miles. In service starting in 1958. With a nuke, there was a bit of a fudge factor on accuracy! Earlier, before the Sidewinder, they tried the AIM-26 (Falcon) that "sort of worked" and 2.75" (70mm) unguided rocket pods, which used a shotgun like spread since they were fired in salvos.....

[@spingebill8551]

Also another notable bomber of the Soviets during WW2 was the Pe-2. From what I understand, the IL-2 played more of an attacker role, but the Pe-2 played more of a fast/dive-bomber role in addition to some attack duties.

[@BlacktailDefense]

There was also at least one B-52 shot-down by an enemy fighter in the Vietnam War. On December 27th 1972, B-52D #56-0674 was shot-down by a VPAF Mig-21 Fishbed flown by Vu Xuan Thieu, using a K-13 (code-named AA-2 "Atoll" by NATO) missile, which is a direct duplicate of the AIM-9B Sidewinder. Don't underestimate the Sidewinder's ability to splash just about anything that flies. The story about how the Soviets got the AIM-9B Sidewinder is rather interesting as well --- as is the story of how they were able to get a pristine AIM-9D Sidewinder a decade or so later

[@ReviveHF]

Because that AIM-9B didn't explode as intended, it was sent to USSR later on, where the Soviet Engineers said the AIM-9B served as a "university course" in missile design and substantially improved Soviet air-to-air capabilities..

[@theflyingfool]

Very impressive videos! Thank you very much for all your hard work and thorough research!

[@JamesKovacs]

Great quality friend! I noticed a weird difference right at the beginning with the audio, but man this video was great! I believe it had to do with the video audio combined with your voiceover.

[@notapound]

Ha! I thought I’d get away with that… I re-recorded the first little bit because I felt it sounded a bit flat and I wanted to try and get some more emotion into it. Thanks so much for the positive comment - I’m really glad you enjoyed it!

[@user-en9zo2ol4z]

Beautifully presented, as always.

[@okayestguitar66]

Excellent and very, very interesting videos, indeed. Being 57 years of age, I grew up on the tail end of all this and was a model builder as a kid, USAF and USN aircraft was a major subject of these models. Until the F16, the F100, F105, and the F4 were my favorite aircraft. Very well presented, thank you.

[@covertops19Z]

Another fabulous professional military staff level briefing!! BRAVO ZULU, well done!!

[@majorbloodnok6659]

Bravo, very informative and clear

[@jspriver]

You have high quality work. Thanks

[@gasmaskguys4965]

Thank you for this video!

[@tacitdionysus3220]

This is THE model for clips of this type - beautifully done. Thank you.

[@danpaolillo2636]

Thank you for sharing your knowledge!

[@colinsmith8584]

Love your description of your channel. I'm a bit older than you. But you took the words outta my mouth. I could only read books to gain my mil aviation knowledge though! By the time I was 18 I had probably 50-60 books on Mil aviation. Sadly lost in a flood in the mid 90's. Just great content your making Sir. I'm always very surprised when someone can tell me something I don't know about military aviation history. Kudos, I doff my cap and o7 Sir.

[@asksomeoneelsefirst]

The breath and scope of the information in this is so riveting. Thank you so much for making an incredible video.

[@lxfabi]

Very nice video. Some feedback: Around 9:40 i had noticed many cuts, "uhhs" and interruptions in your voiceover. That was a bit jarring, but it still really enjoyed it. ❤

[@notapound]

Thank you! I’m still working on achieving a steady flow with the voice over - really appreciate you taking time for feedback :)

[@Thorr97]

@@notapound Thank you for making this presentation and sharing it with us. For the voiceover, if you'd slow down a bit that help in some place. Some of your reading seemed a bit rushed and the words got fumbled. The visuals and content were excellent and much appreciate! I'm looking forward to more!

[@notapound]

@@Thorr97 thanks for that feedback - really helpful detail and good thinking re: slowing down. I might also experiment with doing the voice over in stages. I’m essentially doing one take at the moment and I get a bit tired after a while! All a good learning experience :). Thanks again for the comment!

[@justforever96]

​@@notapoundso that is actually you narrating? I have had trouble deciding if it's real or an AI, mostly because every now and then you give words a kind of unusual pronunciation. I noticed occasional slips of the tongue in places which suggested an actual human, but I honestly have no idea if AIs these days can actually mimmick things like that to seem more realistic. The fact that it's so hard to tell is really a great testament to your narration skills. I had to narrate a video once in school, and it was one of the hardest things I had ever done. I knew how it ought to sound in my head, but getting the recording to actually sound anything like that took me dozens of attempts. I had no idea how hard it is to make your voice sound steady and correctly intoned for a recording, as opposed to normal conversation. So I can really appreciate what you are doing, that's a special talent and I am glad you are making good use of it. There is a reason so many people rely on AI or computer generated voice overs.

[@sarkybugger5009]

Very interesting video. Thanks.

[@saiajin82]

Love your channel, thanks

[@DerUfo]

Ive Subscribed to your channel... Your content is WONDERFUL.. Great Work!!

[@jonathanhudak2059]

Excellent documentary! Thank you for making all these fascinating videos, love em! 🙂

[@notapound]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@marcbrasse747]

Excellent!

[@danpaolillo2636]

This is brilliant.

[@glenn4412]

Well done, keep it up!

[@silentone11111111]

Liking your channel. Obscure long form vids. Just my thing ❤

[@NigelDeForrest-Pearce-cv6ek]

Fascinating!!!!!!

[@user-xj6rr3yv8q]

fabulous!

[@guthhalf5484]

Thanks

[@stay_at_home_astronaut]

Good video

[@bbbcfitchburg2563]

Wonderful video. We learned a lot of hard lessons in Vietnam in relation to our tactics as well as our weaponry. Fortunately they were not lost on the next generation of airmen or aircraft design. Training through the 1970s through the 1980s both improved in quantity and spectrum to the extent that the last quarter if the 20th century saw our fighter squadrons superior to any other time in our history of combat aviation.

[@topiasr628]

Well well well... Im glad KZbin turned me onto your channel! This is excellent! I took a screenshot of your subscriber count bc I have a feeling it's about to explode

[@johnmoran8805]

Thank you! Good vid and professionally presented. Interesting to see that the CIA hasn't really improved over time.

[@Cornel1001]

Well said 1 May Parade ! Victory parade, 9 may, was "interupted" for 19 years ! 1946 - 1965 .

[@brinx8634]

I have just discovered your channel an I like what I see, therefore: subscribed.

[@notapound]

Thank you!

[@WAL_DC-6B]

Love your vintage, Revell box art thumbnail image of a Bison bomber! Actually, Revell called the bomber an IL-38 (as in Ilyushin) when the kit was released in the 1950s not knowing it was instead constructed by the Myasishchev design bureau (Perhaps they used a period Jane's "All the World's Aircraft" for reference). As far as I know that kit has never been re-issued since the early 1960s, so it remains quite the collector's item if you have one today.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

Surely Dicta Boelcke was the first attempt at a systematic approach for attacking and defending yourselves in aerial combat?

[@justforever96]

That's more like a Ten Commandments of air combat, kind of like comparing the actual Ten to the later legal systems. One definitely was related to the other but they arent exactly the same thing. In a general sense you can argue that yes, it could be "the first attempt to systematizing air combat" but that all depends on how you want to define things.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

@justforever96 then, by your definition, it is the first systematic approach. No two ways about it.

[@JulienGardner]

Very nice

[@notapound]

Thank you :)

[@gatorpika]

Watched this and the 102 video...really great work. With all the limitations of 50s tech and random assumptions about how to conduct an air war in the jet age, we are probably very lucks nothing ever happened till we worked it all out in a few proxy wars.

[@MrChainsawAardvark]

So far as I'm aware - the maximum speed statistics given in books tends to be for a clean configuration of the aircraft - no external missiles. Are there any studies that look into how much extra armament would impede an intercept? In a scenario like a Tu-22 (internal weapons) vs an F-100 or F-104 with external missiles that could matter.

[@jackboyd9280]

In the late '78, I was stationed in GMU-49 at NAS Point Mugu. I remember that the AIM-9L was having problems with the four metal guides at the outer edge of the wings. The guides were not unlocking at the correct time. So for a month, we testing hundreds of guides unlocking pressure.

[@sadwingsraging3044]

Knew about Boyd and the OODA loop but never heard of his book/papers nor have I heard of the accidental shoot down.😮😔

[@classy333]

17:20 love how you went on a 10 tangent without breathing

[@timengineman2nd714]

NATO Codenames start with: H (Helicopters), B (Bombers), C (Cargo), F (Fighters) the last 3 are either single syllable for Propeller Driven (Bear), are double syllable for jet (Foxtrot).

[@timengineman2nd714]

The 2 navy planes are the FH Phantom (McDonald Phantom 1) and the A3D (Douglas Skylight) the A3D is the one launching the missile.

[@RobertWilliams-us4kw]

In all due respect timegineman2, but I think the aircraf firing the missile is infact the Douglas F3D Skynight all-weather interceptor. Regards

[@timengineman2nd714]

@@RobertWilliams-us4kw LOL, I don't know why I type Light instead of Night!!!

[@thomasboyce1060]

would have been an excellent addition to include the use of the F-100 over South Vietnam as a air asset for front line troops who needed air cover during ground operations. I know they were used because they flew from Bein Hoa air base while I was stationed there in 1970, almost on a continuos basis, daily.

[@justforever96]

Consider doing a video all about early radar systems and how they worked, and how they were actually operated. It's surprisingly hard to find good info on that. Everyone knows that they had a radar scope, but what does that actually show them, what does it look like? What different modes were available in various sets. How did the operator control the various functions? Some of that is getting into kind of particular territory, but just covering A, B, C scopes, PPI scopes and the rest would be cool. No one else talks about it, it took me a while just to learn that much, and im still not sure how that changed over the years, or kf Soviets were any different. And some of it i still don't know. How does a radar tell a ground target from a big rock? What does a ground target look like on a radar screen? Clearly they could do it, and it was even automated by the 60s, with a little icon representing the target instead of the raw returns, but how it all worked is still mysterious to me. I wish there was a source that gave the radar type used in each aircraft, what scopes and modes it offered, ranges to typical targets, scan time, etc.

[@davidb6576]

Thanks, an interesting video. I'd heard the story of the B-52 shoot down before, but not the fault that led to it. Tragic...

[@andyf4292]

did you hear about the vulcan exercise against the USA?

[@notapound]

I certainly did! My rough idea is to do: F-102, then F-106 & SAGE and then Sky Shield… fascinating story! Thank you for the comment and the lead - really appreciate it!

[@maximilliancunningham6091]

You are among a few publishing on You Tube, who fully appreciate the genius on John Boyd, and his inner circle. Thank you.

[@BullittGT40]

Excellent video however remember, with John Boyd, when he wrote the Aerial Attack Study he was an instructor at the Weapon Fighter School at Nellis flying F-100's in the 50's. It was the front line TAC fighter for the USAF at the time and he didn't have the knowledge or experience to expand the study to other aircraft. Now the later in life the John Boyd in the 60's who developed EM Theory did expand his knowledge to pretty much anything that could fly but that really didn't influence aircraft design until the F-15 and F-16 in the late 60 & early 70's.

[@richarddufault]

at 19:13 that is the Canadian Velvet Glove missile, developed in partnership with the Sparrow missile team, it was abandoned in favour of the Sparrow.

[@notapound]

It is!

[@assessor1276]

Fascinating and I caught a glimpse a Canadian missile which I think was called the Velvet Glove.

[@peddler931]

It looks like a sparrow. Velvet glove had large square wings near the middle of the airframe. The velvet glove was one of the first aspects of the CF105 program that was cancelled, and replaced by AIM 7.

[@robert48044]

When I heard the bombers wing blew off first thing I thought was centrifugal force and the bomber crew being pinned against a wall on the way down

[@decimated550]

19:20 lol even the missiles wings have roundels on them. I've never seen that before. I'm sure that was discarded before long, simply because of the headache of having an insure every missile Finn had them

[@Flapjackbatter]

"Sidewinders motor burns for 18 seconds." Are you sure about that? 🙂

[@kanash8851]

This is a wersion from the 1950s, so only like a 70 year old version of the missile

[@newdefsys]

That story about the Ciudad Juarez is shocking and sad 😢

[@axeman3d]

I didn't know about the B52 accident. You have to wonder at the safety culture of the time, doing something one button press from disaster and hoping everything goes ok.

[@user-en9zo2ol4z]

Where the Soviets reverse engineered aircraft presented a major annoyance to the USAF, was that their development incurred double the cost of the entire Manhattan Program. Additionally, the Soviets were free to offer a clear threat to NATO.

[@chally2mbt12]

please do more videos about the F4 phantom

[@timpeterson2738]

Lance corporal Rolf Peterson with the canuck missle

[@AsbestosMuffins]

the missile knows where it is, because it knows where it isn't

[@Kabayoth]

The USAF was always more comfortable with interceptors over air superiority fighters. Send them up, launch some missiles, the enemy is driven off or killed, return to base, rinse, and repeat. And so the F-103, F-108, and F-12 arrive on drawing boards. It stands to reason none of these planes would have been effective. At no time in the 20th century was beyond visual range combat allowed for the simple reason that there were too many friendly aircraft up there.

[@neilturner6749]

Super-interesting if slightly baffling : I wasn’t aware late-fifties and early sixties units tasked with defending CONUS against Soviet bombers ever carried Sidewinders and had moved straight from unguided rockets to the Falcon missile. Can anyone shed some more light on this? Were F100s ever assigned to ADC - they didn’t carry radar and therefore couldn’t have been SAGE compatible…in fact the earlier models weren’t even wired for missiles - in which case why did Boyd write such a comprehensive essay based around the F100 if they were never tasked with bomber interception duties? I’m thinking maybe Boyd was writing a theoretical piece and not a practical guide? Hopefully someone out there has the actual answers…

[@notapound]

I think fighter vs bomber featured in Aerial Attack Study for two reasons. 1. F-100s were at the time the main fighter interceptor in Europe and Asia and would thus have been tasked with bomber interception. I did notice the wiring thing - my understanding is that the C and later F-100s were wired for AIM-9B from the factory and some earlier models were later retrofit 2. Reading ‘The Emerging Shield’ suggests that day fighters assigned to either regular airforce or National Guard were available to ADC if required. They participated in numerous exercises in the late ‘40s through ‘60s

[@neilturner6749]

@@notapound thanks - am not familiar with The Emerging Shield so will check it out.

[@neilturner6749]

@@notapound just another footnote - my understanding of F100 units in Europe was that by 1960 they were almost exclusively committed mud-movers and although theoretically still capable of bomber interception, they wouldn’t have specifically trained for that role - bomber defence being primarily the responsibility of each countries own interceptor force bolstered by RAF and RCAF dedicated interceptor units based near the “frontline”.

[@gort8203]

@@neilturner6749 I think the Aerial Attack Study is not as closely linked to interception of strategic bombers as one might gather from this video. The F-100 was certainly not one of the aircraft USAF procured for that role during this time frame, and it was not well suited for it even in a pinch. It was a day air superiority fighter upgraded to a fighter bomber in later versions. Like any fighter it could shoot down a bomber (if it could find it), and as you point out defense of the US from attack by enemy nuclear bombers was the purview of more suitable aircraft. I also think too much is made of Boyd in general, as if he was the inventor of these concepts.

[@MrArgus11111]

@@gort8203 Very surprising to see videos glorifying Boyd at this point in history. He was an egotistical strategy dead end.

[@adamwright9741]

Your narration and background output volume on your introduction is much louder than the volume in the rest of the video. I had to check my volume app to see if it kicked off on me again 🧐

[@iskandartaib]

1:27 - interesting photo. Pe-8 (?) being refueled by a US AAC gasoline truck - somewhere in Germany in 1945?

[@Anmeteor9663]

Tragically the B52 shoot down is yet another example of not pointing a gun/missile at anything you don't intend to shoot. How many times and how many lives? 😢

[@Ushio01]

The B-47 wasn't transcontinental even from Alaska it can't reach the small Russian cities in the Far Eastern District it had to be based in Europe to reach Soviet targets unless aerial refuelling was used which would add significant delays in a full nuclear war.

[@stevenwilgus8982]

The problem with the F 100 missile pylon was replicated throughout the entire US Air Force. It turns out that it was a manufacturing defect that allowed the moisture to collect, and this was an event that was in evitable going to occur, and it didn't matter on the pilot it mattered with the fact that the moisture was present in all of those pylons. eventually, of course they were all replaced as fast as could happen, but the farming practice did lots of the B-52, that occurred if not that day, it was going to happen sooner or later.

[@nerdymidgetkid]

Insufficient range for round trip attacks is often mentioned today as a limitation of Soviet bomber forces and is used to imply that concerns over Soviet air power were overblown at the time. In reality, it was a nearly irrelevant factor, firstly because there were more bombers than bombs in the Soviet arsenal during the 1950s (meaning that returning to base was pointless, because all bombs could be delivered in the first wave) and secondly because even if you did have more bombs than you could deliver in a single wave, the enemy could nullify these by destroying your bomber bases in his retaliatory strike. As such, while it is true that publicly available estimates overstated the production of the longest - range Soviet bombers, the 'real' figures given by critics seeking to refute the bomber gap 'hysteria' tend to be grossly misleading. They tend to exclude Badgers and Bulls, which were produced in very large quantities, and which could launch one - way strikes on North American targets; and two - way missions were largely pointless for LRA at that time.

[@wst8340]

What a puny missile 😮

[@ricardobufo]

Sidewinder, in all its versions, is the most successful AAM in history

[@dadequalcustody8350]

I’d be happy to help you request records from the government.

[@justforever96]

Been thinking about the statement that you keep making that the speed of the missile is "the maximum speed plus the speed of the launching aircraft". I get what you are saying and that's the easiest way to say it, but i don't think that's exactly true. If a missile will accelerate to 2,000 mph from a standstill, its not a given that it will end up at 2,600 from a plane at 600mph and 2,400 from one at 400mph. Because the energy imparted by rocket engine is a fixed amount, in theory, and each one is the same. But air resistance doubles as you go faster, it only takes like 25hp to cruise in your car at 40mph, but you need over 100hp to maintain 80mph. Thats why a 2,000hp plane isn't twice as fast as a 1,000hp plane, if all else is the same (it can be if you minimize drag and allow it to make that power at higher altitude, etc). Not sure how you would write that equation, but the actual top speed would be whatever Delta-V results in adding X amount of energy as acceleration on top of the existing air speed. A missile that it starting at a higher speed starts with much higher drag as well, which increases to a much higher level by the end, because the eventual top speed will be that much higher. I think it essentially extends the burn time by getting the missile to say, 1,500 with three seconds left of burn, instead of one, because it started already halfway to that speed. Unless I'm thinking this all wrong. Clearly higher launch speed adds energy, but it's not a fixed number. I think mathematically it would be the rated top speed of the missile, plus whatever additional speed would be imparted by an equal amount of energy that it took to attain the initial speed, which is going to be much less in knots. If it took 100 units of energy to accelerate the missile to 600 kts, and 10,000 to reach the rated Mach 4, after it reaches Mach 4 it will still accelerate whatever amount 100 units will impart at that speed and with that level of drag resisting it. Which isn't going to be very much, but it's still energy imparted to the missile, and since drag also _drops_ as the speed falls after burnout, the added energy will still substantially increase the range. Bullets are kind of similar, the faster the bullet or shell is fired, the greater the amount of power is needed to make it go faster. It's not hard to go from 500fps to 1,000fps, a small increase in capacity can do that. That same amount of energy will only take a round at 2,500fps up to maybe 2,600. But that extra 100fps has an outsized effect on the power of the bullet or shell.

[@uberbeeg]

The Bisons orbited to make it look like there was more than their actually was. The ' Bison ' was a failure in service.

[@pgvsmith1]

aim/val ace/val?!? would be a lot of work… but worth it

[@S300V]

When the soviets showed off the Bison its future as a conventional bomber was already dead. They wanted all their bombers to be armed by some sort of missile as soon as possible. The Badger recived the K10, the Bear the Kh20, however nothing could fit the Bison... So it became ASW. Btw before the soviets considered one way missions to US... Nuclear war is one way trip afterall.

[@richardvernon317]

BIson became a Bomber / Tanker to refuel the Bear Fleet (or itself). Quick way to ID a Nuclear Capable Russian Bomber. The Underside is anti flash white. Early Soviet Nuclear weapons were not very tolerant of being cold soaked so the Bomb Bays were air conditioned. Quite a large number of the Russian Bombers were also not used by the Air Force, but by the Soviet Navy Aviation forces as Anti Carrier Strike Aircraft to duke it out with US Navy Battle Groups using stand off weapons or Torpedo's. I think around half the TU-16 force belonged to the Soviet Navy, and of the rest, around 500 were nuclear capable, 150 odd were Tankers and another 150 odd were ECM / Recce Platforms. Bison fleet was around 100 if memory serves. Total of Free Fall Nuclear capable Bears was around 50, plus 150 odd missile carriers, Bear D and F were Soviet Naval Aircraft. Early Blinders was mostly used for Recce.

[@S300V]

@@richardvernon317 Missile carriers didnt need anti flash white underside and after a while they stopped using the non missile carriers. The ksr-2, ksr-5 missiles didnt even need that much modification (these were anti-ship). The missile Bears and Blinders and K10 Badgers could do land attack just the same because the INS on the missiles was accurate enough for nuclear strikes. Kh22 s were used recently perfectly well on ground targets... without a nuke.

[@icewaterslim7260]

Lots of Nike Hercules. I'd have to assume they functioned but I hope the Ordinance Bureau didn't. . . . S-75s obviously functioned.

[@Eric-kn4yn]

The TU 4 looked similar to B29 but would have lacked many sophisticted systems of the B29. The russian Concorski was very much inferior to the british French Concord

[@basilb4733]

08:50 - the AIM-9B did not fly on a collision course, did it?

[@davidrobertson5700]

What was at the moscow parade this year except for a car and spectators ?

[@ericbrammer2245]

Say what you will. but Boyd put Everyone who fights in the air, or plans to do so, On Notice. The F-16 (and, Imho, both the Saab J-35 & J37, perhaps the J-39?) seem to bear-out his theories, and, oddly, the YF-20 should have been the Star of such thoughts, even If based upon a much older F-5/T-38 airframe. In his Day, only the NAVY F-11 and F-8 came close to being 'doctrine', where the F-5 was just a tad too austere? Perhaps. In any case, the F-16 has held it's own for 5 decades, based upon Boyd's observations of how Fighting should occur.

[@jwenting]

The bomber gap fear was based on miscounting the Bisons and Badgers over Moscow on that fateful October parade. In order to impress the world Kruschev and his military bosses had their bombers fly long circles, so each bomber would overfly Red Square multiple times. Not realising this, the CIA and DIA counted each actual bomber multiple times, coming to an estimate of actual Soviet bomber strength that was several times higher than the actual numbers. It wasn't until the actual numbers were being verified accurately during the SALT negotiations that the truth became evident (and then the USA was still very suspicious that the Soviets were hiding hundreds of bombers somewhere).

[@mikepette4422]

So in 1960 what was the best interceptor in US service ? It probably wasn't the F-100. It probably wasn't the brand new F-106 Delta Dart with no guns and used the Falcon series of missiles notoriously unreliable against fighters but a little better vs bombers. So I'd say it was the Navy's F-8 crusader which had also just been introduced. Unless of course you're going to be using the Genie Nuclear rocket then it would be the F-101 Voodoo and back to the F-106. Am I missing anything ?

[@janwitts2688]

It's not necessary for s strategic bomber to return.. which was part of the problem

[@asherwiggin6456]

6:35 Boyd wrote the AAS as a guide for the FWS. Also, where can I find evidence that the 40-second legend is a myth?

[@notapound]

I’m not sure the 40 second legend is a myth per se. The criticism is that Boyd was an instructor fighting against students. It isn’t a surprise that he’s able to beat them relatively easily, particularly as he understood how to wring maximum performance out of the Hun, which was a tricky aircraft.

[@obsidianjane4413]

The audio is weirdly choppy.

[@kingdomofvinland8827]

Imo the bison looks better than the bear

[@michaeldenesyk3195]

FYI, The B-52 either used 4 x Cal .50 guns or a single M-61A 20mm Gatling gun. It did not carry twin 20mm guns, that was the B-47

[@notapound]

Yes! Of course… I’d been clearly been thinking about 20mm cannons too much! Thanks for the comment :)

[@allenhill5698]

Early model B-52B’s carried twin 20m guns.

[@mikearmstrong8483]

​@@allenhill5698 I believe that is incorrect. A through G models all had 4 x .50 cal, and the H introduced the Vulcan 20mm gatling.

[@mr.k7457]

you can do a second take for audio and not mushmouthedly jam a bunch of words together, otherwise neat

[@williambrasky3891]

Anybody else a bit thrown off with cultural traditions and genetic heritage being in that OODA loop? I mean, I get it was the 50s, but wtf does genetics have to do with a dogfight?

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

It doesn't mean what you think. Cultural tradition and genetic heritage are badly named but are there to show that having a team that is from many backgrounds will give a better decision making process.

[@williambrasky3891]

@@neiloflongbeck5705 Ah, ok. That makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification. With cultural traditions I figured that might have been the case, but seeing genetics & heritage in any military context always makes me a bit cagey.

[@Inkling777]

Culture and genetics shape responses. Fear will drive one nation (and its military) to be more aggressive. That same fear will cause another to pull back and become passive. During the Cold War I had some young Finn college students give me a tour of Helsinki. Their disgust at the passivity of their government was obvious. As engineering students they pointed at a HF antenna on top of their foreign office and noted it was aimed at Moscow "to get orders." They also told me that the only Finnish political party that denounced the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was the communist party. The rest were too fearful of offending. That brings up another point. Cultures and the accompanying attitudes can change. Today's Finland doesn't fret about offending Putin's Russia.

[@Inkling777]

Another poster claims that "having a team that is from many backgrounds will give a better decision making process." That's certainly the fad in many circles today, but the "many" is misplaced. Several different and carefully chosen backgrounds is certainly a benefit, but other backgrounds/attitudes can do harm. And their are some attitudes that are poison. Two that come readily to mind are those who're arrogant and won't admit mistakes and those who're thin-skinned and have a persecution complex. Both will wreck teamwork.

[@jonniez62]

The young lt who's missle let lose, later became the Deputy Commander for Maintenance.

[@andyf4292]

china is still using badger... and bison is a b29 copy

[@mikearmstrong8483]

Tu-4 Bull was a B-29 copy. The Bison was a completely different aircraft, much larger, swept wing, jet powered, designed from scratch in the USSR.

[@StalinLovsMsmZioglowfagz]

That’s China or Korea, fyi, not Moscow.

[@confusedson]

[2:33] "...greatest ever reverse-engineering job in history..." Have to disagree with that, and furthermore, I think I can convince you, too. The CCP didn't have too much trouble reverse-engineering the Tu-4, so that's a very strong case against this claim. I would say that the greatest piece of reverse-engineering in history would HAVE to be that of the Aim-9 Sidewinder missile to the AA-2 "Atol" in 1958 (an IR heat seeking missile was cutting edge technology at this time).

[@UmHmm328]

1 demerit for saying “US military industrial complex.”