North American A-5 Vigilante | Supersonic Carrier Based Nuclear Bomber And Reconnaissance Aircraft

the story of the supersonic nuclear bomber North American A-5 Vigilante, the carrier based U.S. reconnaissance aircraft.
The North American A-5 Vigilante was an American carrier-based supersonic bomber designed and built by North American Aviation (NAA) for the United States Navy. Before the 1962 unification of Navy and Air Force designations, it was designated A3J.
Join this channel to support it:
/ @dronescapes
Click the link to watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories, and missions: / @dronescapes
Development of the A-5 had started in 1954 as a private venture by NAA, who sought to produce a capable supersonic long-distance bomber as a successor to the abortive North American XA2J Super Savage. It was a large and complex aircraft that incorporated several innovative features, such as being the first bomber to feature a digital computer, while its ability to attain speeds of up to Mach 2 while carrying a nuclear strike payload was also relatively ambitious for the era. The US Navy saw the value of such a bomber, leading to a contract for its full development and production being issued to the firm on 29 August 1956. The type performed its first flight just over two years later, on 31 August 1958.
The Vigilante was introduced by the US Navy in June 1961; it succeeded the Douglas A-3 Skywarrior as the Navy's primary nuclear strike aircraft, but its service in this capacity was relatively brief due to the deemphasizing of manned bombers in American nuclear strategy. A far larger quantity of the RA-5C tactical strike reconnaissance variant was also procured by the service, which saw extensive service during the Vietnam War. It also established several world records in both long-distance speed and altitude categories. During the mid-1970s, the withdrawal of the type commenced after a relatively short service life, largely due to the aircraft being expensive and complex to operate, as well as being a victim of post-Vietnam military cutbacks.
The late 1940s and early 1950s were marked by a series of fast-paced advancements in the field of aviation. The aircraft manufacturer North American Aviation (NAA) was one of a large number of companies that sought to harness these recent innovations in developing a new generation of aircraft. In early 1954, the company embarked on a private study into a conceptual carrier-based, long-range, all-weather strike bomber, that would be capable of supersonic speeds while carrying a sizable payload. This aircraft was envisioned as a successor to the abortive North American XA2J Super Savage. Much of this early work was undertaken by NAA's recently acquired Columbus division, overseen by chief of preliminary design Frank G Compton.
A-5 Vigilante Specifications:
Orthographically projected diagram of the A-5A Vigilante.
Cockpit instrument panel
Data from North American Rockwell A3J (A-5) Vigilante, Aircraft engines of the World 1966/67, Jane's all the World's Aircraft 1964-65
General characteristics
Crew: 2
Length: 76 ft 6 in (23.32 m)
Wingspan: 53 ft 0 in (16.16 m)
Height: 19 ft 5 in (5.91 m)
Wing area: 701 sq ft (65.1 m2)
Empty weight: 32,783 lb (14,870 kg)
Gross weight: 47,631 lb (21,605 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 63,085 lb (28,615 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × General Electric J79-GE-8 after-burning turbojet engines, 10,900 lbf (48 kN) thrust each dry, 17,000 lbf (76 kN) with afterburner
Performance
Maximum speed: 1,149 kn (1,322 mph, 2,128 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,000 m)
Maximum speed: Mach 2
Combat range: 974 nmi (1,121 mi, 1,804 km) (to target and return)
Ferry range: 1,571 nmi (1,808 mi, 2,909 km)
Service ceiling: 52,100 ft (15,900 m)
Rate of climb: 8,000 ft/min (41 m/s)
Wing loading: 80.4 lb/sq ft (393 kg/m2)
Thrust/weight: 0.72
Armament
Bombs:
1× B27, B28 or B43 freefall nuclear bomb in internal weapons bay
2× B43, Mark 83, or Mark 84 bombs on two external hardpoints
Avionics
Systems carried by A-5 or RA-5C
AN/ASB-12 Bombing & Navigation Radar (A-5, RA-5C)
Westinghouse AN/APD-7 SLAR (RA-5C)
Sanders AN/ALQ-100 E/F/G/H-Band Radar Jammer (RA-5C)
Sanders AN/ALQ-41 X-Band Radar Jammer (A-5, RA-5C)
AIL AN/ALQ-61 Radio/Radar/IR ECM Receiver (RA-5C)
Litton ALR-45 "COMPASS TIE" 2-18 GHz Radar Warning Receiver (RA-5C)
Magnavox AN/APR-27 SAM Radar Warning Receiver (RA-5C)
Itek AN/APR-25 S/X/C-Band Radar Detection and Homing Set (RA-5C)
Motorola AN/APR-18 Electronic Reconnaissance System (A-5, RA-5C)
AN/AAS-21 IR Reconnaissance Camera (RA-5C)
#bomber #aircraft #nuclear

[@Dronescapes]

Join this channel to support it: kzbin.info/door/TTqBgYdkmFogITlPDM0M4Ajoin Click the link to watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories, and missions: www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes

[@todd3285]

The first model I put together as a child with alot of help from my father . It actually had a bomb in the tail that was spring loaded and would eject it with a push of button . It amazing the things you remember from 60 years ago .

[@EmperorofMu]

I've been looking for a plastic model kit of this present day and can't find one. Just wooden ones for 100$.

[@todd3285]

@@EmperorofMu Google it. They're available .

[@d.r.4453]

@@EmperorofMu Are you looking for any plastic model kit of the Vigilante or the vintage model kit the OP mentioned above? If its any plastic model kit, Trumpeter makes a Vigilante in 1/48 and 1/72 scale that are easy to find and are a nice kits (built two myself). Then there's the old Airfix and Hasegawa/Revell 1/72 Vigilante models that are easily found on eBay. Old kits but still o.k.

[@smartazz61]

I think the best part is that you have such a strong memory of dear old dad.

[@sirclarkmarz]

Do you remember the kits that came with battle damaged parts during the Vietnam era ?

[@seniorsurveyor]

I was a U.S. Navy Aviation Electronics Technician (AT) member of RVAH-6 attached to the USS Forrestall, CVA 59, on the 74-75 Med Cruise. By this time the RA-5C Vigilante had been converted to electronic warfare and reconnaissance. This was a beautiful, sleek, high powered bird. Flight operations were always the highlight of any day. I trained at NAS Memphis in Millington, Tenn, and later on at NAS Key West, FL, before shipping to the fleet. Those were some heady days for me. Thank you for this video!

[@wayneburch9840]

I remember it well. (retired CPO)

[@debbies3763]

MY TIME ON THE FORREST FIRE , F-14S S-3 VIKINGS, E6B PROWLERS, A-6 INTRUDERS, NIGHT OPPS WERE KOOL.I WORKED AT NIGHT G4 WEAPONS RED .

[@tombuchmann8248]

I was at nipstrafac in Key West for their decommission. What a great recon platform....

[@stricklandsports]

My dad was on that same Med Cruise. Five years later he would find himself on the USS Nimitz the same night they provided the helicopters supporting my unit in Iran, April 1980. RLTW~Operation Eagle Claw.

[@seniorsurveyor]

@@stricklandsports Wow. If I had re-upped I would of been right there with him. Glad you made it back home.

[@barrysmith9407]

When I was in the marines I was at the millington tenn. navy training command in 1982 and they had an A5 on permanent display in front of the mess hall. I couldnt believe such a gorgeous modern looking plane was already retired and mounted on a pole.

[@michaelmartinez1345]

I was in the Marines at Millington in the spring of '83... 'A' school... I was a 6142 (CH-46 metal-smith), and I still remember the C.O. of the Marines at that training base, Col. Clapp. ... It was a very exciting part of my life... Looking back, I feel that I should have stayed in for 20, but heard about the DOD cuts (Graham Rudman act) so I got out after my first EAS, Dec. Of '86... Great times..

[@RCAvhstape]

I remember that plane. In another video I had a conversation with someone else who was there. We both looked for the airplane on google maps and couldn't find it, and after some research I think the guy told me it was donated to a museum to be restored or something. The chow hall building is still there, I think, but it's now a private business or something.

[@randykelso4079]

Went through "A" school at Millington in 1963. Of course, the Viggie wasn't there at that time because it was still in the fleet active inventory. But one did trap aboard our ship in '64 when we were doing at-sea workups prior to a Nam combat cruise in '65. That was one big bird! I marveled at its size and beauty, then watched it being launched. Great memories.

[@mokanlines]

The "Viggie on a Stick" was still there when I was a student in 1990 and again as an instructor in1996. I heard that after NAATC moved to Pensacola is when it was removed.

[@RichA7CV41]

I remember that plane, I was there in 83 for Avionics "A" school. I remember saying to myself the same thing "That is one beautiful aircraft" and have loved the A-5 ever since.

[@jamesbarisitz4794]

The amount of research is terrific. The training films remain a favorite for me. Well organized video.

[@RCAvhstape]

What an absolute beauty of a machine. Looks 20 years ahead of its time. That training film at the end is some great stuff, too, pretty footage of it in flight.

[@proteusnz99]

Convair B-36 was the first true intercontinental bomber, Boeing made B-47, B-52. The North American AJ-1 Savage was mixed power plant because of poor fuel efficiency of early jet engines, not lack of reliability, you couldn’t get enough fuel into a carrier-compatible aircraft. Looking back, you get the feeling the real conflict was between U.S.A.F. And U.S.Navy for who would deliver nuclear weapons, the Russian were just justification. The RA-5C was a great looking craft, and the reconnaissance fit was state of the art. The nose gear always looked kind of flimsy for such a heavy beast, like the F3H gear. Apparently the RAN in the back seat was more tense during carrier landings than in combat. The proposed interceptor Retaliatory with a third J-79 until you try and work out where you put the radar (compare the volume of the RA-5C nose with the F-14 nose). The linear bomb bay was an imaginative and low drag solution, but never really worked. (There’s a photo of the fuel cans falling out the back of an RA-5C during a catapult launch.)

[@Dronescapes]

Click the link to watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories, and missions: www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes

[@hitorque2734]

Always worth watching the PLAT when an A-5 came aboard at night. You'd see some lights out in the groove then suddenly this huge thing would flash into view at the ramp. Amazing that something that size and approach speed could operate off a flight deck. Imagine being the back seat guy (RAN, I think they were called) Just a 6" porthole on each side back there, not a full clear canopy. I was on a school tour with the PCO of an A-5 detachment and he almost talked me into transitioning from F-4's to A-5's. We'd escort them on their run over the North. Both airplanes had the same J-79 engines but we had missile racks and an external tank whereas the A-5 was clean. When they amped up for their photo run, we'd have to play the inside of the turns or they'd walk away from us. Something about their intake configuration gave them a distinctive howl in the landing pattern. Beautiful and huge, they were.

[@Nghilifa]

I've heard that it wasn't uncommon for Phantom pilots to stroke the afterburners when escorting the Vigi on their post strike BDA missions due to the Vigi's fast speed down low.

[@Fl-Pride]

My father in law was a radar tech for the Vigilante, during Vietnam. Man he loved that plane.

[@cloudattack3279]

The Vigilante was static on the deck of the midway museum when i travelled from Australia back in 2012. I was in awe of it. A beautiful jet whilst looking nothing but imposing at the same time.

[@trespire]

That's the beauty of design, "Form Follows Function " , if it looks good it flies good. Hats off to the engineers and maintainers.

[@JustChuck]

The over the shoulder bomb drop sounds like fun.

[@mattjacomos2795]

Great to find this definitive A5 content online. Well done.

[@harryparsons2750]

Distrust of jet aircraft lol. That aged well.

[@TheJustinJ]

It has to be absolutely reliable over open ocean. The navy is/was conservative. An old jet also doesn't respond to go-around power it takes as much as 13 seconds to spool up, when missing a cable you don't have 1/4 of a minute to wait for thrust.

[@dougm2745]

You tell ‘em. The atomic bombs saved 100,000’s of American and Japanese lives.

[@keithbrown9198]

Fascinating. I'm almost 60 and grew up in aviation and USAF service and I barely remember the A-5, I didn't know any of this. Great video! Also ironic that the inter-service rivalry determined the Navy didn't have a strategic role, when our most effective nuclear deterrent are SSBNs (nuclear attack submarines). 🙅‍♀

[@keithbrown9198]

@@WALTERBROADDUS Well that would have been *really* expensive, not that us taxpayers aren't bleeding through the nose now. But the BUFF keeps flying, so I'd say that was a value proposition that succeeded. The B-1 and B-2 (and now the B-21)? Not so much. I hope we never find out.

[@keithbrown9198]

@@WALTERBROADDUS Oh wow! I had no knowledge of that either! Air Force guy 🙂. Thanks! Though my son-in-law did serve on a carrier (not gonna say which here in public) but got out a few years ago, and I did work with the Navy off and on as C-130 aircrew (enlisted).

[@holdingonforlife1]

Vigilante, what a great name for an attack plane.

[@SkyAIChannel]

The most beautiful navy jet ever

[@roblockhart6104]

Served as the blueprint for the mig25. Most think the f15 was a copy of the foxbat but they are incorrect. The na237 from the ws300 competition, that included a concept that looked strangely like a modern day sukhoi had already studied, designed, and conceptualized. Opting for just a single vertical tail instead of the original two its concept had, the a5 was born.

[@trevorhart545]

Beautiful looking aircraft. Revell did a model? Thanks for the history its lack of long term service now make sense. Big aircraft though, it does look like the predecessor to the FB-111 but without the swing wing. Think of all those aircraft manufacturers that no longer exist.

[@obi-ron]

Airfix made a 1/72nd scale version of this in the 70s. I had one and it was such a beautiful looking plane, I spent more time painting it accurately than I did on assembly.

[@Roddy556]

Could you please do a remake where you continuously compare speed to bullets, length to football fields, altitudes to Mount Everest and use the word amazing 87 times?

[@Ruckweiler73]

Leroy Heath was my college Algebra professor at Embry-Riddle in the early '80's and I saw the filmstrip made of the flight with his backseater Larry Monroe.

[@trespire]

There is a case to be made for real time tactical recon. As an Ex-Phantom maintainer, I still have a soft spot for the RF-4. But it IS a battle prooven Mach-2+ platform. If some company in the Defence Sector were to come up with a modernized digitalized real time camera package that would fit in the nose of an RF-4, that might be operationaly viable. Some RF-4s can fly high, and much faster than 5th gen at Mach-2+ (on par with a clean F-15).

[@martincalero7390]

Beautiful plane.

[@fawnlliebowitz1772]

We lost several Viggies aboard Saratoga in 72, Unlike the A6's and 7's not many came back with battle damage. The Viggie was the star of the show on a dependents day cruise. Simulated a Phantom got on the tail of a Viggie and "shot it down". The Viggie nosed up, dumped fuel and lit the AB's........ huge fireball trailed behind it. Pretty cool to watch. Stuff you won't see ashore. She had no rudder but the entire horizontal stabilizer moved! It also folded over 90 degrees for hangar bay storage! This was over 50 years ago but I still vividly remember it.

[@maurolimaok]

O documentário mais completo. Gostei!

[@raynus1160]

Not quite. Although they first flew only months apart, this aircraft was the first combat jet designed and flown with FBW: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow

[@awuma]

These were quite similar aircraft, big and fast, although the Arrow was meant to be an interceptor.

[@rbilleaud]

Inertial, not interial. You're welcome .

[@sewing1243]

The RAN was originally called a B/N (bombardier navigator). RAN didn't become used until the mission was changed to Recon.

[@olddog103]

Saw one of the A3 DEAD, CRASH INTO SUBIC BAY, JATO BOTTLES DID NOT IGNITE , HAD A FULL LOAD OF FUEL, INCLUDING TANKER STORES. NO BODY GOT OUT

[@WhiteIkiryo-yt2it]

Wow, this seems like an amazing versatile aircraft.

[@robwernet9609]

Put twin vertical stabilizers on it, it would closely resemble the f15

[@michaelayares3862]

I was stationed in Key West Florida in a vigilante squadron powerful plane ours took top secret photos

[@johnbarber4456]

outstanding video thank you very much

[@joeclaridy]

I swear the Air Force has an uncanny ability to kill systems that threaten their usefulness. Both the Vigilante and the Cheyenne would've greatly benefited our military.

[@keithpennock]

Air Force (Dad) & Army (Mom) brat here. Grandfather was a B-25 Mitchell Bombardier/Navigator & pilot during WWII in the Army Air Corps & later U.S. Air Force. Interservice rivalry flowed both ways. I agree with you about the pettiness however you can’t view it in a vacuum, the Navy in WW1 and prior absorbed the vast bulk of the U.S. defense budget. You need only read about the troubles Billy Mitchell had with getting the Brass both in the Army & Navy to listen to how airpower changed warfare post-WW1 (he was later proved right & he accurately predicted the Japanese would attack us at Pear Harbor years in advance) but neither the Navy nor the Army wanted to hear it, the Navy because they believed their warships were impervious to air attack with AA batteries and thought no aircraft borne bombs were big enough to sink them & the Army because they viewed the Air Corps as little more than scouts & artillery spotters as tanks & artillery were their priority. That was part of the reason the Air Force was created post-WW2 . When nuke fever dominated all three branches post-WW2 they all squabbled about who should have the nuclear role for budgetary reasons, Army was developing ballistic missiles through Redstone Arsenal, Air Force inherited its nuclear bomber role from WW2 & Navy wanted in on it as a mechanism to maintain their budget in the post-WW2 draw down. SSBMs were still a ways off, so a lot of interesting carrier borne bomber ideas were floated. How practical they were I think is up for debate but I do think the A-5 could have been good if given the time to iron-out its kinks like the train delivery system. The Cheyenne, a revolutionary compound helicopter, was a casualty of several factors: lobbying by Bell Helicopter, a bad live fire demonstration & a bad accident involving a half-P hop that killed the test pilot. The next factor was Lockheed’s poor finances following the Total Package Procurement debacle of the C-5 Galaxy that almost bankrupted Lockheed. Further down the list was the ridiculous squabbling about the Combat Air Patrol role that was at the center of the Key West Agreement. I think the Sikorsky SB-1 Defiant & other recent compounds-rotors show the Cheyenne was ahead of its time but the purchase price was too high especially after the twin-engine requirements of the competition were changed to single-engine thanks to lobbying by Bell making the AH-1 Cobra a more “economical” option. Unfortunate as it was the development of the Cheyenne avionics did not go to waste as much of that would find its way into the AH-64 Apache but I do think we’d be further along in compound rigid rotor helicopter development if they had allowed Lockheed to continue to develop the Cheyenne if only as a test project. The results of the cancellation were so bad though the Lockheed exited the rotor-space altogether, I don’t blame them their finances were in dire straights, what saved the company was the F-117 Nighthawk. Still we are just now coming back to rigid rotors after decades from when Lockheed developed them. The A-5 was a beautiful aircraft no doubt & record setting in zoom climbs. I think the SSBMs were the right approach though much as I think ICBMs were also the right approach even if they did damage tactical bomber development as they did for a time in both the U.S. & Britain. The real issue is doctrinaire attitudes that believed we would never again fight a conventional war that pervaded all three branches during the 50s despite how recent the Korean War was.

[@davidarmour4281]

I worked on A5s THROUGH 3 different squadrons 5hrough the 70s.

[@dsudikoff]

My favorite model airplane as a kid was the AJ5 Vigilante that I built with my Dad. Wonderful video with great historical footage. One quibble: narrator seems to have trouble with pronunciation of some of the script: for example, it's not interial navigation -- rather inertial navigation.

[@michaelmartinez1345]

An excellent documentary... I did not realize that NAA built these for the NAVY recon missions until.viewing this documentary... It is sad how many were knocked out from ground fire during the after attack recon missions... I'm now wondering if the 'Wild Weasels' reduced some of those ground attack placements into hunks of molten metal...

[@michaeljohn7405]

That design is still relevant.

[@Coyote27981]

Beautiful plane. Weird they didnt go for a twin tail instead of a single huge one. It looks way more modern than what it was.

[@frederickwise5238]

There were problems with the twin tails is why they went to one. Somehow (dont know) the air between the two sucked them in and "bound up the pivots". They wouldnt rotate easily enuf for rudder control. Somehow (??) they solved the problem in later platforms because the Hornet had twins. Go figure. I loved working on it with a GREAT crew but I needed to move into computers (see my comment about Minuteman ICBM I and II computer guidance).

[@O-cDxA]

Have a look at 7:08 in the videos at the early mock up version. It had twin tails, and looked even more like an F-14.

[@frederickwise5238]

@@O-cDxAProbably during wind tunnel testing was when they found the problem I mentioned in my answer to Coyote27981.

[@MrKentaroMotoPI]

​@@O-cDxAYes. North American proposed twin tails hoping to create opportunities for a fighter variant. The Navy wouldn't have it. They wanted to minimize weight and drag for the attack aircraft.

[@schabanow]

What a huge, tall tail. Why? Poor direction stability?

[@dummgelauft]

Men were men, women were women, merit was the determining factor, and none of the Americans hated their own country, like they do now.

[@adamrichardson6821]

Love this plane. First model I ever built.

[@andrewfeltz9445]

I believe that there was an A5 on display at subic in the Philippines 🇵🇭

[@posmoo9790]

looks like it would be great for the pacific even today

[@MagMan4x4]

I feel like I can see a lot of F15 DNA in the A5.

[@MrKentaroMotoPI]

A shameless copy, but far superior to McDonnell's previous aircraft.

[@jameseast7966]

I think you mean A5 dna in the F15. A5 came to be two decades prior.

[@MagMan4x4]

@@jameseast7966 no, I don’t. I specifically said A5. I’m only referring to things like the intakes. They are similar.

[@jameseast7966]

@@MagMan4x4 my error in typing, I did mean to type A5. I worked flight deck on 4 U.S. CVs, 59,60,66, and 67. We flew EA-6a and A-6e. A-5 took up as much deck space as an EA-3. Looked like MACH 2 sitting on the deck.

[@eddy5739]

We had 3 ra5cs on the Forrestal on the WestPac cruise. Heard they brought 3 aboard and used 1 for spare parts. Quite the airplane

[@villiamo3861]

Excellent. Thank you.

[@AntonQvarfordt]

1:07 I feel like clearly the Japanese had already pretty convincingly proven that a carrier was an effective platform for long-range bombing :P Also: The Dolittle raid really didn't accomplish anything tangible in terms of benefit to the war effort. Saying "psychological impact" is a neat trick to say for when there is no visible or measurable impact at all, since you can't see or measure that. The actual reason for the raid was PR. America wanted to be seen as hitting back and to an even larger extent Roosevelt wanted to make Americans feel like his administration were hitting back. It could be years before America was really ready to start bringing the war to Japan and if FDR hadn't really done anything in response to the attack or hit back in any way that could presumably seriously hurt his chances in his upcoming re-election campaign.

[@stijnvandamme76]

Not really, Jap carrier bombing was not long range.. They was launched from around 275 miles from Oahu for the Pearl Harbor attack with fighter type airplanes. the Doolittle raid, was launched from 700 miles out. Almost twice the distance (originally planned to launch from 500 miles but fear of discovery by fishing boat..) and well beyond the range of any land based recce or anti ship patrols That it was mostly a PR gig.. sure thing..But it also made the Japs think about the need for home land defence..Which was really a mind twister to them , Japan never having been attacked by external powers before , ever..

[@marbleman52]

@AntonQvarfordt....Yes, the raid was a psychological boost to the American people's moral after Pearl Harbor. But I disagree with your statement that the Doolittle Raid was just a "neat trick". It was a tremendous psychological blow to the Japanese government and the military. They thought that Japan's distance from America made it almost impossible to be attacked, at least for a long time. They were so wrong. They were also so wrong with their assessment of how the U.S. would react after Pear Harbor was bombed, They thought that the American people were weak and lazy and would have no stomach for war and would demand to sue for peace and leave Japan alone. So wrong..!! And then, only four months after Pearl....only four....our bombers bombed Tokyo and other Japanese cities. Absolutely, it dealt Japan a huge psychological blow. And then, just two months after that, in June 1942, a short six months after Pearl, the U.S. Navy dealt the Japanese navy a disastrous and crippling blow at the Battle of Midway that Japan never recovered from. Japan paid a costly price for completely misjudging America. Japan did, indeed, awaken the "sleeping giant'.

[@rgloria40]

How history repeats its self? For example, right now every jet the US NAVY has can not travel MACH 2.0. Therefore, the Navy is at a big disadvantage to countries like China were most of their Stealth fighter can achieve Mach 2.0+ at supercruise. I don't know the details on how the NAVY got into this position of weakness... It is just cycle and is needed. However, it appears to be US Army and US Air Force Officer supporting NAVY Officer without advance STEM degree as well as "greasing the palm" in contracts. Now we need to get stealth jet back up to Mach 2.0 +. PS Before the F14 was able to do MACH 2.34 and had no problem doing intercepts.... The Navy has problems doing hypersonic intercepts as well as ballistic, drone and etc...

[@TheJustinJ]

The Navy aircraft carry Mach-4 missiles that don't miss. And if they do miss, they have this enat trick where they make a 40G 180 degree turn and come back and smash the target it missed...

[@rgloria40]

@@TheJustinJ I pretty sure you pass out at 40G... However, if the US NAVY has to rely on US Air Force Mach 2.0 active duty jets it only means budget cuts for the NAVY.... Come ON Common Sense...

[@NothMeeh]

@@rgloria40the missiles doing high G turns are un manned.

[@michaelayares3862]

I was stationed in Key West Florida in a RVAH squadron in the 70's them RA5C were so loud l didn't sleep for a week when l first moved onto the base

[@RCAvhstape]

21:27 Inertial is pronounced "in NERSH all"

[@ronlackey2689]

I can't imagine what brass cojones it took for those pilots to fly a TWO engine bomber off that pitching, short flight deck. No catapults in those days boys!

[@JDEEZ6969]

this would be such a cool aircraft for war thunder

[@Able-Man]

¿¡¿¡How do ya like THEM APPLES!?!?

[@tron.44]

I don't, I prefer Granny Smith or Golden Delicious.

[@Able-Man]

@@tron.44 😁😅😂🤣!!!

[@gregkirchner1108]

Honey Crisp or Super Honey Crisp are the best! 😂😂😂

[@Able-Man]

@@gregkirchner1108 ¿They still make "Crispy Critters"?...

[@life_of_riley88]

Breaburn

[@Thunder_6278]

Even 60 years later, it's still a cool looking plane. I bet it could be useful in Ukraine for quick localized recon. Oh well.

[@bosuttlutt]

The brownest pants in the sky Are what you land in after setting the "open cockpit speed record"

[@nahornig]

INTERIAL Navigation- only on the A-5 ! ! ! It is a crucirial aircraft.

[@userjlj]

I always wondered what plane the A-5 was when I built a model scale of the lexington, this was one of the planes included together with the skyhawk and a texan trainer(i think).. now I know what that plane was, my mind can be at ease now.. 😁

[@johannbezuidenhout2976]

Imagine if someone just went, "why don't we try an Interceptor version?"

[@wolfman007zz]

Saw the RA-5C trap and cat many times when aboard the USS John F Kennedy CV-67 1985-1988. Such a beautiful aircraft!!! Loud as sh$t!!

[@dougtripp4161]

RA5C was retired in 1979

[@wolfman007zz]

@@dougtripp4161 Officially, yes. But it still flew as a test bed aircraft. I saw it!! They used it to test new reconnaissance cameras and sensors. I was there!!

[@KOZMOuvBORG]

31:55 the US retorted with showing the "unpowered reflective bugging device" hidden in a sculpture at the American embassy.

[@cg9952]

Interior Navigation??? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@jpotter2086]

Only plane that pooped nukes.

[@alexandergaus493]

Well- after/before all those broken arrows an ejection system like that for ejecting a nuke does seem a bit safer. Is that so or was that as safe/unsafe for delivering a bomb? I have no knowledge on that subject, obviously.

[@hadleymanmusic]

11:55 more like copy the threat

[@hadleymanmusic]

Aerobatic bomber

[@waynebrown3536]

Boeing B47 you mean

[@thegreyhound1073]

We could really use the A3D if only as tankers. Using the super hornets as to tankers is going to wear out aircraft well ahead of the designs expected to.

[@Poorexampeofhuman]

The b-47 was a not a convair. The b 58 was convair as was the b36 but not the b47. The b47 was the brethren of the B-52. You failed you need to edit your video

[@TheJustinJ]

Who cares

[@RogueVigilante]

That work wasn't done by Soviet designers on their own rofl they had stolen the design schematics and simply were trying to create their own...

[@fooman2108]

My dad, who is the carrier 🎉 for over 40 years. But not an attack jockey. Told me reason that the vigi-bird had a second seat was so the guy in front seat could TRY and get it in the deck, and the guy in back seat could PRAY THEY WALKED AWAY FROM IT!

[@rogerrinkavage]

21:30 "inertial measurement unit"

[@charlesdavis545]

Predecessor to the F14 Tomcat.

[@talon0863]

@4:15 cameras?

[@michaelparsons6833]

Heavy 7. U.S.S. Ranger.

[@newdefsys]

0:45 Iv'e let out farts that travel faster than that

[@bradmiller9507]

I have seen'em, In Person, about less than 500',& Haulin Ass!!! If you Lucky, you see'em Before ya Hears'em!

[@sharklegs]

FBW and HUD in the vigilante ? i would doubt that

[@Lost1inDetroit]

It had both. I worked on the HUD, bombing computer, Verdan, Inertial Nav, and radar. I was an AQB-2 1967-1970 RVAH-3 and RVAH-13.

[@sharklegs]

@@Lost1inDetroit interesting, what was the extent of the fly by wire systems ?

[@Lost1inDetroit]

I do not know the extent of the FBW system since I did not work on that system. I would assume the horizontal and vertical stabilizers at a minimum since they were so large. Also utilized a titanium frame structure. Also had terrain avoidance radar system that used the HUD display ground maping the route for the pilot. I used to calibrate that system which was very complex. There were so many electronic systems that looking back at the time it was a flying electronics laboratory. Then there were all the different cameras. @@sharklegs

[@artturretje423]

nice documentary, but the same mistake as usual that when mentioning an impressive Mach 2 speed, the most basic facts are not mentioned: at what height and for how long..... A dash speed is useless when on tree top height and you will not make it back when running out of gas, therefore each plane has certain attack profiles which address these limitations

[@richardnewkirk7324]

Blackbird and a10 unmatched so let's retire them

[@31topor]

See the Savage in Fat Boy Meets World.

[@daniellittle3117]

Jumpy footage very distracting

[@ianhobbs4984]

The greatest under the radar penetration was that carried out by the RAF using Vulcan bombers that flew the Atlantic and entered American airspace without detection until they climbed for height and allowed themselves to be identified.

[@huwzebediahthomas9193]

Using nuclear bombs was a cheap shot, an own goal, for the whole of humanity. The silent deadly pollution.

[@travistolbert2647]

I really wish folks doing documentary work would stop using AI to 'Upscale' old videos. You're not making it look any better and in my opinion making them look worse by softening details and making it run at frame rates that it was never intended for. I've watched the original video that this training film was 'upscaled' from and you could actually read the names on the canopy, the instrument placards, and make out the pilots face and details of his equipment as he climbed the ladder into the Vigilante now it's just a soft blob of non-descript color.

[@sidpierce1]

I completely agree - AI up-scaling in this case detracted from the presentation. I would have preferred the original video, it would have been less jarring. I kept focusing on the weird visual glitches that the AI processing created.

[@daniellittle3117]

TOO MANY COMMERCIALS 😮

[@Dronescapes]

If you get YT Premium you will not see a commercial ever again on the entire platform

[@sticklebrick2003]

FAR TOO MANY ADS!

[@Dronescapes]

Perhaps you are not aware, but all it takes is for you to have KZbin Premium, and you will never see an ad again! You might want to check it.

[@sticklebrick2003]

@@Dronescapes I just switched to watching via Brave Browser instead of this horrible Android app 👍

[@Dronescapes]

That's another way!

[@micahcastillo9113]

“The B-58 was not only supersonic, but it could also fly at Mach 2.” 😂😂

[@gregorymceaddy8884]

POINTED TOWARDS CHINA....XI XI GOTS TO GO....

[@williamkillingsworth2619]

Sweet... Now I know how to steal an A-5... Muh ha ha

[@cmarano]

Inertial navigation? It's IN-ersh-ial, not Intierial. Small mistakes like this demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the subject.

[@TheJustinJ]

No, it demonstrates a lack of pronunciation and/or mid-college level reading ability. A historian doesn't have know technical details or even technical terminology. P.S: I was trying to find your videos where you demonstrate your superior talent in comparison... There are doers and there are everyone else. And they don't matter. Otherwise useful green laws are littered with their mediocre tomb stones.

[@jimdavison4077]

Having delivered the final blow? Do you not know any history at all? First atomic bomb was dropped on the 6th of August, the second on the 9th of August and on the 13th and 14th the US launched some 1000+ B29 sorties against Japanese military targets which in fact ended the war not the rather unimpressive atomic bombs when compared to US firebombing of Japanese cities.

[@jimdavison4077]

And then you go on to say just three years later American bombers would again drop bombs on Japan. What about the 67 major Japanese cities bombed in between that time with an estimated 10 million people killed mostly civilains. Here is a list with a comparable US sized city and the destruction achieved. Keep in mind these cities were bombed with phosphorous and napalm among other incendiaries and high explosives all while the Empire of Japan never bombed a single US city. Yokahama, Japan / 58% destroyed U.S. equivalent: Cleveland, OH Tokyo, Japan / 51% destroyed U.S. equivalent: New York, NY Toyama, Japan / 99% destroyed U.S. equivalent: Chattanooga, TN Hamamatsu, Japan / 60.3% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Hartford, CT Nagoya, Japan / 40% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Los Angeles, CA Osaka, Japan / 35.1% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Chicago, IL Nishinomiya, Japan / 11.9% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Cambridge, MA Siumonoseki, Japan / 37.6% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: San Diego, CA Kure, Japan / 41.9% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Toledo, OH Kobe, Japan / 55.7% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Baltimore, MD Omuta, Japan / 35.8% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Miami, FL Wakayama, Japan / 50% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Salt Lake City, UT Kawasaki, Japan / 36.2% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Portland, OR Okayama, Japan / 68.9% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Long Beach, CA Yawata, Japan / 21.2% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: San Antonio, TX Kagoshima, Japan / 63.4% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Richmond, VA Amagasaki, Japan / 18.9% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Jacksonville, FL Sasebo, Japan / 41.4 % destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Nashville, TN Moh, Japan / 23.3% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Spokane, WA Miyakonoio, Japan / 26.5% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Greensboro, NC Nobeoka, Japan / 25.2% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Augusta, GA Miyazaki, Japan / 26.1% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Davenport, IA Hbe, Japan / 20.7% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Utica, NY Saga, Japan / 44.2% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Waterloo, IA Imabari, Japan / 63.9% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Stockton, CA Matsuyama, Japan / 64% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Duluth, MN Fukui, Japan / 86% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Evansville, IN Tokushima, Japan / 85.2% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Ft. Wayne, IN Sakai, Japan / 48.2% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Forth Worth, TX Hachioji, Japan / 65 % destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Galveston, TX Kumamoto, Japan / 31.2% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Grand Rapids, MI Isezaki, Japan / 56.7% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Sioux Falls, SD Takamatsu, Japan / 67.5% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Knoxville, TN Akashi, Japan / 50.2 % destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Lexington, KY Fukuyama, Japan / 80.9% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Macon, GA Aomori, Japan / 30% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Montgomery, AL Okazaki, Japan / 32.2% destroyed U.S. equivalent: Lincoln, NE Oita, Japan / 28.2% destroyed U.S. equivalent: Saint Joseph, MO Hiratsuka, Japan / 48.4% destroyed U.S. equivalent: Battle Creek, MI Tokuyama, Japan / 48.3% destroyed U.S. equivalent: Butte, MT Yokkichi, Japan / 33.6% destroyed U.S. equivalent: Charlotte, NC Uhyamada, Japan / 41.3% destroyed U.S. equivalent: Columbus, GA Ogaki, Japan / 39.5% destroyed U.S. equivalent: Corpus Christi, TX Gifu, Japan / 63.6% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Des Moines, IA Shizuoka, Japan / 66.1% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Oklahoma City, OK Himeji, Japan / 49.4% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Peoria, IL Fukuoka, Japan / 24.1% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Rochester, NY Kochi, Japan / 55.2% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Sacramento, CA Shimizu, Japan / 42% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: San Jose, CA Omura, Japan / 33.1% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Sante Fe, NM Chiba, Japan / 41% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Savannah, GA Ichinomiya, Japan / 56.3% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Springfield, OH Nara, Japan / 69.3% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Boston, MA Tsu, Japan / 69.3% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Topeka, KS Kuwana, Japan / 75 % destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Tucson, AZ Toyohashi, Japan / 61.9% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Tulsa, OK Numazu, Japan / 42.3% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Waco, TX Chosi, Japan / 44.2% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Wheeling, WV Kofu, Japan / 78.6% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: South Bend, IN Utsunomiya, Japan / 43.7% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Sioux City, IA Mito, Japan / 68.9% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Pontiac, MI Sendai, Japan / 21.9% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Omaha, NE Tsuruga, Japan / 65.1% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Middleton, OH Nagaoka, Japan / 64.9% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Madison, WI Hitachi, Japan / 72% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Little Rock, AK Kumagaya, Japan / 55.1% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Kenosha, WI Hamamatsu, Japan / 60.3% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Hartford, CT Maebashi, Japan / 64.2% destroyed. U.S. equivalent: Wilkes Barre, PA ________________________

[@GregoryHawkins-l9p]

Stop calling people by their last names. Call them, by their first names.

[@TheJustinJ]

Why? Are you on a First Name Basis with these famous individuals? Every man in the United States working or chilling with their bros uses their last names. Its a thing. Just look at sports jerseys.

[@salvagedb2470]

It was the first Jet Model I did the Airfix 1/72 Vigilante , I loved it then an now it was a gorgous looking Aircraft..

[@АндрейХаритонов-й7ь]

Non-toxic dipholiant?! Don't make me laugh.

[@AgricultureTechUS]

Vigilante, what a great name for an attack plane.

[@GoSlash27]

21:30: INS inertial navigation system "Inertial" is pronounced in-ERSH-ul". The root word is inertia, not interior.

[@blackberrymw]

I liked the content to much to nitpick.... but yeh lol inertial.

[@bobyoung1698]

Ww should charge the Soviets and the Chinese for all the development work we do for them, particularly in aircraft design.

[@sandgroper4044]

Maybe germany should charge for all the technology stolen by America