STARFIRE: America's First Afterburning Fighter was a Strategic Success but a Tactical Failure

In the late 1940s SAC and the Air Defence Command conducted a series of tests of US continental air defence. The results were shocking. SAC's obsolete B-29 bombers easily penetrated the USA's fighter shield and were able to drop simulated nuclear weapons on multiple US cities.
The USAF desperately needed a jet interceptor that could operate in all weathers and carried enough firepower to down a heavy bomber. They got the F-94 Starfire, a hot mess of late-1940s technological reality and 1950s technological ambition. It is often overlooked and forgotten because it was unreliable, underperforming and generally because it found multiple ways to kill its pilots.
And yet the Starfire also took the fight to the Communist forces in Korea, protecting B-29 crews and scoring four kills of its own. One even managed beat a MiG-15 in a dogfight. When the US mainland was vulnerable to nuclear-armed Soviet bombers the Starfire was the only counter available for nearly five years.
In short, although not a good aeroplane in the tactical sense, the F-94 was both an essential strategic asset and a pioneer for technologies that would arm and direct the ADC interceptor fleet for the remainder of the Cold War. The F-94 was the first US fighter with an afterburner. It was the first to make a jet-on-jet kill at night. It deserves to be remembered in a more balanced way and I hope this video starts to set the record straight...
...and I hope you enjoy it! I'm aware that these technical reviews are a bit less popular than the stories, however I enjoy the voyage of discovery!
Final comment is that I'm suffering from bad hay fever at the moment so the voiceover isn't perfect. Hopefully you can enjoy regardless.

[@lancesteele9719]

Thanks for the detailed analysis of the F-94 series. This video has more meaning to me than to many who will watch it. My father was a back seater in an F-94B during the Korean War. I am named after his best friend who was killed in a landing accident on his last mission before he was due to ship out back to the U.S.

[@notapound]

I'm really glad you thought it was interesting. There are so many heart-wrenching stories of people who 'nearly' make it out of these conflicts alive but are got by fate at the last minute :(.

[@yvonneperry5924]

yes Sir, never new anything more advacnced than F-86 flew.

[@s.marcus3669]

Wow, Lance! What a legacy to live up to! Did your dad ever keep in touch with his friend's widow and her family? That would make you almost a part of their family because of you being the namesake....

[@petesheppard1709]

Next, the Sabre Dog? 😎 THANKS for bringing these old aircraft and times to light. People were trying to drive new, unproven concepts and technology to meet pressing needs. I was born in '56, so these planes and times form some of my earliest memories.

[@notapound]

I’m getting the sense that I need to speed up on my production of that one!! Thanks so much for the positive comment - I’m glad you’re enjoying these… and it’s great that there are others that share my niche aircraft interests!!

[@petesheppard1709]

@@notapound Take your time and do it right! 😎

[@AbnEngrDan]

My granddad flew all versions of this aircraft. He loved it BECAUSE of the technology. Sure, it had its issues. But as he said, the first 15 years of transition into jet aircraft was problems on ALL aircraft. The industry didn't truly find its feet until the early 60s.

[@seeingeyegod]

Great video, I've always found this era of fighter aircraft, where they went from guns to unguided missiles before guided missiles existed to be really fascinating.

[@robertcanup4473]

My dad flew back seat on an F-94A in 1950. He had to take a blanket with him to throw over his head to block the sunlight so he could see the radar screen, because it was too dim to be seen during the day. Considering what a flying coffin that plane was, the big mystery to me is how he and the pilot could fit their giant brass balls into the tiny space of that cockpit.

[@GeorgeWilloughbyZ]

The analysis of the strategic context, and how it affected the design, is excellent. This is much more than a "it goes x mph" video. I love "improvised" design stories (like the Harrier and the Sten gun), and this a great one told well. Many thanks for sharing this 😊.

[@Farweasel]

Saved me a job saying pretty much that too ! *Good, mature analytic video* .

[@briancavanagh7048]

I concur, Excellent video!

[@fakshen1973]

The older I get the more sense these decisions make. Estimating what you'll need 3-5 years down the road based on emerging technologies and emerging threats is rolling the Magic 8-Ball. There will be lots of dead-ends simply because making no decision is the worst decision.

[@keithsimpson2685]

IDK not spending any money on most of this bullshit and instead building massive civilian infrastructure seems like a way better decision that everyone constantly mentioned, even Eisenhower. All this did was force Soviets into trying to match making them go more evil as well. The military industrial complex needs to be questioned at every juncture.

[@shawnmiller4781]

Yup, look at some of the concepts that people had of what the next war would be like in the mid 1930’s. Or the whole middle vs guns argument in the 1950’s

[@wacojones8062]

I got buzzed by a pair of F-94C when I was fishing in the middle of a lake in the upper Peninsula of Michigan. They almost pancaked on top of me and the lead plane took three feet off the top of a tree trying to pull out. There had been many reports of UFO in that period. Most seem to have been from miscalibrated radar getting echos off the moon.

[@riograndedosulball248]

My grandparents were almost fucking scared to death once by two C-130s who were seemingly on a bet of who could fly the lowest. They flew not 10 meters above them, scattered the horse pulling their wagon, and missed an eucalyptus by less than two meters. Awesome.

[@robertcombs55]

Saw 2 F-94Cs using Afterburners to take off in 1956; My Dad was a USAF Line Chief....always loved the appearance of the f-94; it was a winner...

[@loganpe427]

By three minutes in I had to stop and subscribe and tell you that I truly appreciate your style and cadence of presenting the information. Also and more important, of the general information about this subject the time period and many detail I already think we share, especially it seems about deeper details and even minutia of military aviation it's obvious your knowledge and research is spot on, I can trust you about the things I don't already know! Thank you and I'm eagerly looking forward to your channel!

[@Easy-Eight]

There was a test done of outfitting the F-94C with the GAR-1, later called the AIM-4 Falcon air-to-air missile. In theory the F-94C models could have received an upgrade for a better radar system, deletion of the rocket battery, and addition of two underwing pylons in place of the wing rocket pods. However, the F-86D was a fair air-to-air interceptor, at least 60 MPH faster, and it largely replaced the F-94 until the advent of the F-102.

[@JohnnyWishbone85]

One interesting footnote to all this is that this exercise must have been some kind of coming-out party for the Air Force. It was a brilliant political move because it highlighted a present threat to the nation that was on everyone's minds, simulated it with their own bombers, showing off that capability, and defended with fighters/interceptors, the other major capability of the Air Force and one that presented a solution to everyone's worry.

[@JamesPhieffer]

You should do an episode on the Avro CF-100 Canuck. It was a contemporary of the F-94, but seems to have had a better reputation and service life. Interesting videos. Keep up the good work!

[@notapound]

Thanks for the comment and the kind words. It is on my list! I’m somewhat starting from scratch on it because it was an aircraft I’d heard of but essentially knew nothing about. It’ll make the process fun, but takes a while. In doing so I’m also trying to get my head around how Canada and the US worked together on continental defence… lots to do :)

[@Andrew-13579]

I know a former RCAF CF-100 pilot. He might be able to give some insight and comment at least by email. Also, which Soviet bombers could actually reach the lower 48 US states, and at which time periods? Was the threat actual? Or did we have a scramble to deploy interceptors with nothing to really ever intercept, at least for the US?

[@Andrew-13579]

Oh, your “Aerial Attack Study: F-100 Super Sabre” video answers my bomber threat question, pretty much.

[@marktuffield6519]

I like the "cover artwork", sums up the image of the F-94 in my head as a "Dan Dare" futuristic aircraft. Another type for consideration along with the F-86D mentioned by a number of people, would be the Douglas F3D Skyknight - which had a good record in Korea as a nightfighter.

[@garylawson5381]

My mother's first husband flew the trainer variant in the early fifties at Webb AFB, TX. Later in the fifties he lost his life in a night training mission in Africa while flying the F86 Saber.

[@rileyernst9086]

The scenario you set up at the start is actually frighteningly similar to a real occurance. Of January 23 1961, where a pair of B52s where in the air over Carolina as at the time they were expecting a nuclear exchange at any moment, met in climate weather and were forced to drop their loads to be able to ride out a storm. When the bombs were recovered from a field outside the Goldsboro North Carolina it was found that one of the bombs was actually armed and a single low voltage switched had prevented the hydrogen bomb from detonating.

[@Frankie5Angels150]

The “almost detonation” part is not true. For classified reasons I cannot say why here, but a lot is involved in detonating an American nuclear device. Those criteria were not engaged for The Goldsboro Incident.

[@rileyernst9086]

Some documentation indicates that on the recovery of the bomb it was found that 5 out of 6 steps taken to detonate the bomb were initiated, with the final step, a small low voltage switch(which was never intended to stop the bomb detonating without the other measures in place)being the only thing not engaged on the bomb. So I'd be inclined to say that 'nearly detonated' is a good enough description, as 6/6 safeties should have been engaged when that bomb fell out of the sky over Northern Carolina.

[@rileyernst9086]

Also, LOL, try not to cut yourself on your own edginess mate. Those bombs have been out of service for like 60 years and have no doubt all been decommissioned by this point, there is nothing really classified about the steps that were required before they could detonate. The incident has been declassified and the documentation about it publicly avaliable.

[@webpa]

@@rileyernst9086 Frankie is correct. You are not.

[@webpa]

@@rileyernst9086 Yes, quite a lot of the safety and command and control systems in use at that time are still classified, and will probably remain so forever ... for reasons you probably cannot understand.

[@larrymiller465]

I learned a lot from this video! My dad flew the "C" for a little while, but I don't remember any stories about that.

[@atempestrages5059]

These are brilliant, learning a lot about aircraft that rarely come up.

[@rice5668]

Big fan of your aircraft analysis, huge fan of your global, strategic, and political analysis that tied everything together. Great work as usual!

[@johnross8273]

Great vid. A well balanced and easy to watch appraisal of an overlooked aircraft, and indeed an under documented facet of air warfare history. You've earned a sub based solely on this, cheers ,👍🏻

[@SENSO1966]

Your work is brilliant! No one has provided such detail about an aircraft that has been so easily forgotten as the war it fought in. My father flew in the B model during the war with the 68th FIS. Looking forward to watching all of your other videos.

[@danpatterson8009]

A time of rapid technical advancement and fundamental changes in strategy when the possibility of nuclear war with the Soviet Union was very much on everyone's mind. When it wasn't clear which way the technology would go or what would be needed, the only safe thing to do was to try everything. The fifties must have been a great time to be an engineer.

[@marbleman52]

@danpatterson8009...Yes, and I imagine that there was never dull moment with everything advancing and changing so quickly, not only for engineers but the maintenance crews and of course the pilots. It took all of these incremental steps and gap filling planes to acquire the technology and know-how to develop the modern fighters & bombers. The other part of the 50's military development was the R & D of rockets. That was another field that was constantly changing & improving, and led to NASA and to the Moon.

[@user-uv1fp9ho1j]

I enjoy your details on radars and fire control systems used in various aircraft. Excellent technical prowess. You didn't mention it, but, years ago I had been told that use of the nose rockets was eventually discontinued due to their tendency to induce a flameout.

[@ashestodust2313]

always good videos. never even knew what a starfire is

[@Chilly_Billy]

This is another excellent video. It is well presented with non-generic imagery, which is all-too-common in other videos. Your channel has very quickly become a personal favorite. As an aside, your narration reminds me of the late, great Luke Swann.

[@notapound]

Thanks so much for the comment! I’m glad you enjoyed it! I’m trying hard to put in at least some original diagrams and charts into the videos. Definitely pushing my limited Procreate skills… my ambition is to make more ‘combat manoeuvring’ animations in the future, alongside technical diagrams adapted from various contemporary manuals.

[@romulus7412]

An early cold war scenerio you may be interested in is the Cathay Pacific VR-HEU incident, or more specifically the aftermath where two A-1 skyraiders shot down a pair of PLAAF LA-7s.

[@notapound]

Thanks for the lead - I’ve got a couple of Cold War piston engine videos on the go so I will definitely look at this! Appreciate the comment!

[@jonathanhudak2059]

That Sounds like a cool story! I never knew that! That easily could have gone the other way too since the La-7 was like the pinnacle (well maybe La-9 was the top of the series) of the La-5/7 series. But still very cool! 👍

[@mk14m0]

A very insightful and informative video. This is rapidly becoming one of my favorite youtube channels for military aviation history.

[@Triggatra4258]

Dark Footage is a good one too

[@Kyoptic]

​@@Triggatra4258this channel blows all of dark footage out the water. The narration, script and research quality here is outstanding.

[@mikedrop4421]

Damn you're knocking it out of the park!

[@notapound]

Thanks for the comment - I'm really glad you enjoyed this one. I was a bit worried that I'd gone too niche! Perhaps I need to try harder!!

[@mikedrop4421]

​​@@notapoundo no no, niche is YOUR niche. There's a million Spitfire vs BF109, Spit or Mustang?, how the Me262 could have changed everything videos and so on. You're like the Allied version of channel "Paper Skies". I mean that as high praise because that's my favorite vintage military aviation channel but you're hot on his heels.

[@bcluett1697]

@@notapound It's more about creating a catalogue of good listening. I don't think there's such a thing as niche for aviation nuts. Especially when one aircraft contributes to the others like you mention in this video. It's great to learn about how they mostly all benefit from each predecessors successes or failures.

[@mikedrop4421]

​@@bcluett1697I meant to say that youtube is loaded with videos about all the famous planes like Spit or Mustang, The Merlin engine, did Adolf have secret Stealth tech, the secret nazi rocket plane that dissolved it's pilots and so on. They are great to get people in to historical military aviation but covering the period just after WWII on through the cold war is really the golden years of aviation. It's nice having a channel like this which forgoes the famous planes unless it's a little know story. That's all

[@extramild1]

Thanks for that - it was the kind of balanced, nuanced approach to a subject that has no place in the echo chamber that is the internet 🙂

[@geeeeeee3]

One of the most informative video I have seen. Never heard of the operation. I appreciated the acknowledgement of how good the P40 was

[@sabrekai8706]

They weren't kidding about the awkward getting in and out of the aircraft. The radar operator had to be a contortionist to get in there.

[@enscroggs]

A clear-headed and profound history with analysis. ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

[@ReviveHF]

If the Starfire is successful in strategic viewpoint, then the MIG-21 is arguably the most successful interceptor ever built from tactical standpoint in human history, while the F-5 is one the most successful dedicated fighter ever made from both strategic and tactical standpoint.

[@marcelofolcia2561]

Se entiende la ironía...pero voy a citar lo que lei dicho por sus propios pilotos;"podemos agarrar a los Rusos a menos que...este lloviendo o sea de noche"....

[@aaronquak2139]

Both are arguably true.

[@Frankie5Angels150]

The F-15 Eagle had an Infinite kill ratio. Some 300+ A/A kills with no combat losses from any means. No other fighter even comes close.

[@steveperreira5850]

@@marcelofolcia2561So Funny!

[@steveperreira5850]

@@Frankie5Angels150: The eagle is a great fighter but it has never gone against a pure adversary, not once! Infinite means nothing when you’re adversaries is trash

[@steveanderson9290]

Excellent video, subscribed. My earliest memories of aircraft were Starfires practicing dogfighting over my house in the early 50s. By the time I was old enough to really appreciate them, the model had faded into obscurity.

[@thewatcher5271]

Good Video. I Know This Is Not Relevant But 55 Years Ago I Remember Walking To Burt's Five & Dime & Buying This Model. Some Memories Never Fade. Thank You.

[@steveturner3999]

Local Five and Dime for me as well. The Aurora models had a tinted canopy.

[@thewatcher5271]

@@steveturner3999 You Know, I Was Trying To Remember If It Was Aurora Or Not. I Remember When The Law Changed & I Couldn't Buy The Glue Anymore & My Dad Bought A Tube For Me At Pak-A-Sak!

[@robertcampbell6349]

Thank you for this video of a forgotten cold war aircraft.

[@marioserafimov7254]

Oh what a jem this channel is! Subbed and on the binge-watch.

[@marioacevedo5077]

Excellent video. Appreciate you giving the context of the plane and details about its service.

[@jts0221]

Just stumbled across this video. Amazing quality and work. Earned a subscriber and you deserve many more

[@sergioleone3583]

Really interesting video on a plane I've been interested in but haven't looked into much. I appreciated your conclusion as well. Looking forward to your F-89 vid next!

[@handy335]

Excellent! Thank you!

[@Roddy556]

Another great video. I have noticed that the audio volume is much higher than your earlier videos. Not exactly sure how that happened but it is much appreciated!

[@stage6fan475]

Just found you. Thanks for this information on an era that there isn't usually a lot of information about.

[@bertg.6056]

An excellent and highly detailed anaysis. I'm a new subscriber now.

[@notapound]

Thank you! Really glad you enjoyed it!

[@wilsonj4705]

Minor nitpick: The photo shown at 05:13 is of a F7F Tigercat not a Black Widow.

[@johnlovett8341]

also, the city Spokane in Eastern Washington is (usually) pronounced Spo-can (long O, but a short A). Awesome video. Those are the only nit-picks I can find & neither greatly affects the quality.

[@Triggatra4258]

Man shut up. Nitpick THESE 🌰🌰

[@timcvetic5054]

At 9:02 the cockpit shown is of an F-84 thunder jet.

[@daszieher]

Next nitpick: the P-61 had a service ceiling way beyond the 10kft shown in your graph

[@terryboehler5752]

Great presentation

[@lwilde]

Excellent presentation.

[@shadovanish7435]

The nose gun arrangement on the Lockheed P-80 (later, F-80) was quite similar to the nose gun arrangement on the Lockheed P-38 (no surprise, given the rapid development of the P-80, that existing designs would be employed in the aircraft to save time, cost & effort).

[@jonathanhudak2059]

Good point!

[@i-love-space390]

You make a really good point. Many aircraft that people deem to be a "failure" or a "waste of money" serve the valuable purpose of developing technology that makes a future fighter invaluable. Just like people wonder why we have to keep making new aircraft. It is obvious that if we don't, we will forget how. And I always ask these people, would you want to go into combat in a car that is 15-20 years old? Most people that don't face the problems of other people just never think about it. This also shows how many problems the military has with every fighter they ever made. None ever live up to the hype. There are always problems to be solved. And they usually get solved when the manufacturers are allowed to keep working on it. The difference today is that if a system is not perfect from the beginning, the press and public is simply breathless about how catastrophic it is, and are so ready to pull the plug. Thank goodness our military leaders are more practical and adult about it.

[@notapound]

There’s a kind of industrial memory about how to design and produce these technologies, and an organisational one to introduce and refine them. Generational capabilities that can’t be fast tracked.

[@NoahSpurrier]

Excellent video.

[@colinwilson5635]

Very good video and commentary!

[@notapound]

Thanks!

[@jwaustinmunguy]

There were nearly 200 CF-100 "Clunks" assigned to NORAD in the late 1950s to early 1960s. They were there to protect SAC bases, not Canadian cities.

[@1ambrose100]

Absolutely stunning video. Hope you'll make a video on the history of DEW up to the emerging North Radar project between the U.S. and Canada.

[@krasp28]

Hey! I live in Spokane, WA. Fun to hear my home town mentioned in a video!

[@richarddumont5389]

Very interesting thank you

[@Kyoptic]

Great video once again. Couple of voice bloopers you could have re-recorded but nothing too serious! You could have maybe also have used some outro music for the final black screen. Otherwise, really great stuff! Your script and narration are excellent, with excellent composition and am avoidance of cliches that are all to common on KZbin. Keep it up!

[@mnoliberal7335]

Grateful to hear a voice over that is a human, raspy or not.

[@jamieobrien7754]

See also the CF100 Cannuck.

[@notapound]

On my list as it’s essential to understand North American air defence in the period. I’m struggling to resist my urge to make a dozen interceptor deep dives… Canuck, Sabre Dog, Javelin, Twin Mustang, Fishpot, Flagon… Good for the soul, but probably not for the health of the channel! Thanks for the comment!

[@jwaustinmunguy]

Merricans never want to hear that their allies know how to build good systems.

[@ARCMASTER1130]

Good information on these early jets.The P 40 early versions were designated Tomahawks.These were easily identified by the 2 50 cals firing thru the propeller.2 30 cal on each wing.This was the model flying Dec. 7th.Next version known as the Kitty hawk had 6 50s,3 per wing.Warhawk was applied to later versions.Info from the book The Flying Tigers.

[@timengineman2nd714]

BTW: The Tu4 (Bull) was a rivet for rivet copy of the B-29 since 3 damaged B-29s had landed in the USSR during the last few months of WW2 in the Pacific. The only big differences was the use of Soviet engines and the use of 23mm machine cannons in larger turrets .vs. the B-29's .50 machineguns.... The use of 23mm machine cannons was one of the reasons that the use of rockets to shoot down the Tu-4. Plus the fact that the Tu-4 would be carrying nukes meant that they wanted to shoot down the "Bull" on the first pass! Hence a rocket that would hit like a 75mm HE shell. Finally the Tu-4 had 5 turrets, including the Tail Turret!!

[@xn0gaming]

4:25 Love the corks (!) in the machineguns.

[@jim2lane]

Wow, you can really see the speed reduction induced on the C model after the rockets were fired 16:25 You definitely wouldn't want to do that close to stall speed

[@notapound]

Until I started researching it, I didn’t appreciate how heavy a volley of rockets was.

[@Farweasel]

@@notapound There was an early Soviet jet (I'm thinking a fighter but surely it must have been anti-tank?) which had a cannon so powerful it damn near stalled when it fired. That said the RAF had a couple of similar problems mounting relatively bloody enormous very slow firing canon for anti-shipping attempts circa 1941 / 42 I've very vague recollection they may have tried resurfacing the idea with some of their 'Tsetse' Mosquitoes after the war too.

[@AndrewGivens]

@17:52 "I pressed the fire control, and ahead of me rockets blazed through the sky..."

[@bombfog1]

Subscribed.

[@notapound]

Thank you! Appreciate your support and hope you enjoy future videos.

[@paoloviti6156]

Thanks for this very interesting video on,the F-94, probably the best i saw on this airplane as i know next to nothing. It did had it's ugly share of serious problems but slowly but surely it became a reliable aircraft. Good job 👏 👍 8

[@jacobdill4499]

The F-94 series are really nice looking planes.

[@jeffthompson9622]

When I ws a child, annual birthday parties for a great grandfather were held at a recreation center that had what looked like one of these on display. I could squeeze into its vacant engine compartment through one of the air intakes, or more easily through its exhaust opening.

[@raymondclark1785]

The F94 was out of service by the time i became an Intercept Control Tech in 1962 But there were still F-89's in ANG units and using them to defend the US against TU-95's would be a nightmare

[@jonathanhudak2059]

Always have had kind of a soft spot for the F-94. My favorite version is the B version. Have to get around to building my Heller 1/72 scale kit one of these days! But anyway excellent job on this one, going to watch the F-89 Scorpion one next! 👏

[@thesnazzycomet]

Love the Starfire, fantastic machine from the golden age of jet aircraft

[@hertzair1186]

20:01 actually the aircraft that was captured by aliens was the F-89 Scorpion piloted by Felix Moncla (pictured)and Wilson in the Kinross Incident

[@Frankie5Angels150]

Can you explain this?

[@Ni999]

​@@Frankie5Angels150He crashed into Lake Superior and UFO nuts claimed it was something else.

[@raymondclark1785]

Flying from space to capture an F-89 seems like a step backwards

[@hertzair1186]

@@raymondclark1785 the story is….the UFO was tracked on radar and was deemed an unknown, so Kinross AFB launched the F-89 to investigate….the UFO was likely defending itself.

[@comentedonakeyboard]

Aliens love the charm of early jet fighters 😂

[@vasilis23456]

Having the only confirmed kill with an E series weapons controls system is wild, it shows how unreliable all the rocket guidance systems were, and how great of an all weather aircraft the F-94 is. Maybe in the numbers the F-94 is bad, but it was probably more effective than any of the pre-century series interceptors considering the F86D and F89 rocket targeting systems never worked, and arguably more effective than the F-102 considering that the AIM-4 sucked and the F-102 couldn't maneuver (it wasn't designed to maneuver but the F-102 ended up in dogfighting situations in Vietnam anyway).

[@WAL_DC-6B]

Judging from many of your thumbnails such as here borrowed from the box art of the original issue of the Lindberg, Lockheed F-94C "Starfire," plastic kit, do you collect these vintage models? Anyway, outstanding story on this lesser known, cold war, USAF fighter. Thanks for sharing!

[@redr1150r]

Love your intro model aircraft box art. Aurora ?

[@duncanstone8758]

Lindberg. Their kit represents the prototype F-94C with a rounded radome. Production F-94C's had a more pointed radome.

[@king_br0k]

I wonder how much replying the 50 cal with cannons would have helped the A and B

[@notapound]

Thanks for the comment. I also wondered about this. The possibility isn’t mentioned anywhere. My conclusion is that speed of development meant that the ‘A’ just continued with the Shooting Star armament. There was general disappointment that the rockets weren’t available for the ‘B’, so I imagine they were expected and therefore an alternative wasn’t developed. In the F-89 video I did a size comparison between the Scorpion and the P-80. The former is much bigger, which gives the additional space one needs for the cannons, ammunition and the case collection system. Perhaps it just wasn’t possible to package cannons in the F-94?airframe alongside radar etc?

[@king_br0k]

@@notapound the expectation of the rockets was probably why the development wasn't put into making 20mm work But then again if you are rushing an interim system don't change something that doesn't need to be

[@IsaacKuo]

The big problem with autocannon available at the time was that they were lacking in rate of fire and muzzle velocity, while being a lot heavier than the 50 cal. That extra weight meant that you weren't really looking at a 1-to-1 replacement. It might be closer to replacing 2 50 cal with 1 autocannon. So overall, they might be a little more effective against bombers in a high speed pass, but even that wasn't so clear. Rockets seemed to be the most promising alternative, combining heavy firepower with light weight.

[@jonaspistre2078]

18.24 graph is bizarre, P61 service ceiling is way more than 11000 feet, and F82 service ceiling is at least, the same as a regular Mustant, so 35000 feet minimum

[@mouser485]

What fell off that pilots flight suit @11:45 and landed on the ground ? Flashlight ?

[@burtbacarach5034]

What amazes me is how fast the USSR went from "allies" to "enemy". Aimost like it was planned or something.

[@mako88sb]

I read Field Marshall Alanbrooke's war diaries a few years ago. The Soviets certainly didn't have much trust about the western allies. Allanbrooke mentioned numerous times how Churchill made it clear he felt the same towards them. After Hiroshima, Allanbrooke was a bit shocked with how Churchill behaved. According to him, Churchill was going on and on about how the Soviets will learn to behave themselves or their cities will be nuked until they did. Starting with Moscow! Of course this would have required cooperation from the Americans. I don't know if Churchill actually said anything like this to Truman?

[@kdrapertrucker]

The Russians were always hostile to the west, had Germany not attacked russia Stalin would have waited for WWII to wind down before attacking the victor. But Germany attacked and destroyed Russia's ability to produce weaponry. So the soviets had to play nice with the U.S. and great Briton.

[@scotttait2197]

Twin mustang was designated F82 by 1947

[@bobclifton8021]

In your timeline of early interceptors, you neglected to mention the F86D.

[@notapound]

True. My understanding was that it wasn’t used for Continental air defence though? It was for theatre use… I’ve been thinking about a video on it and the ‘K’ as they’re pretty interesting aircraft. Thanks for the comment!

[@viski2528]

From 2.75k when I fist saw one of your videos a week ago to 4.57k.

[@notapound]

It is a little bit crazy to be honest. I’m glad… and amazed… that other people are as into niche Cold War aviation as much as I am!

[@viski2528]

​@@notapound I like your channel. Something to watch while I wait for Ed Nash's Military Matters to upload a new video. I also find it funny that you leave in long pauses to read what you are going to say next.

[@johnwatson3948]

As Soviet B-29s could only reach parts of the US on one-way missions the tests were more about possible future bomber threats. It was more a contest of perceptions - the Soviets would claim to have an effective Strategic bomber force (they didn’t) and the US would make a show of having an interceptor force.

[@mpetersen6]

In 1948 the Soviets had yet test their first atomic device.

[@greenhills7305]

From Kelly Johnson P-80 to T-33 then F-94

[@williamjohnmyers9442]

The aircraft required was available north of the border where the Avro CF-100 Canuck was coming into service. Good enough to perform the northern long-range patrol function and intercept Russian Bombers for the next 30 years. Unfortunately, the American MIC would never consider allowing congress to make a foreign purchase regardless its superiority.

[@notapound]

Thanks for the comment. The Canuck is on my list for a video - an aircraft I want to learn more about.

[@phayzyre1052]

That P 61 black widow might have looked sleek and like it could’ve taken care of business if called on to do so but once you stripped back the veneer it was a piece of Northrop junk! It flew so-so but it was a pain in the neck to maintain and the radar on it constantly broke down, giving maintenance crews one hell of a headache.

[@donadams8345]

You need to look at it in the time that it it first became operational. Its first flight was in 1942 and it became operational in 1944. It was obsolete in the late 40's because technical matters had moved way beyond what it was capable of so rapidly.

[@phayzyre1052]

@@donadams8345 You’re 100% correct. However, even in World War II when it did work it was a plagued with mechanical and avionics related problems. Aside from what all I have read about that airplane I met a man who was in the US Army Air Corps back then and actually worked on P-61s. As he put it “of all aircraft I worked on the one that was the biggest maintenance pig was the black widow.“ He added “every time we saw one of those airplanes being towed our way we all thought to ourselves oh great…what broke this time!?“

[@briancavanagh7048]

When summing up if this aircraft was essentially worth it, a interesting point is the volume of bomber aircraft project and the number of aircraft produced in this time period by the US. Only the US could afford this many projects at once.

[@philliplopez8745]

Frankensteins monster !

[@sergeipohkerova7211]

I think the rocket armed F-94 was really cool but if actually forced to rely on the rockets to shoot down Russian bombers, the rockets would fail, and spectacularly so, even moreso against fighters. Until real guided missiles, just putting cannon on it would be smarter. An F-94 with four sidewinder missiles and good radar plus 2 20mm cannon as backup would probably be a great aircraft.

[@raymondclark1785]

The Battle of Palmdale showed how ineffective those rockets were when 2 F-89's tried to shoot down an old Navy fighter

[@meanstavrakas1044]

It was the best that could be done at it's time.

[@davefellhoelter1343]

Love the so hight tech "Aliens Obducted one of them" and on as if never said?

[@manuwilson4695]

Things are things!...🤷‍♂️

[@notapound]

Ha. Yes. I’m not sure where that piece of robust historical analysis came from! Sorry!

[@Archie2c]

Would have been interesting for ground attack with all these Rocket Armed Fighters

[@notapound]

Maybe that was what Palmdale was all about??

[@Otokichi786]

Cartoons: 15:57 Slow use of throttle or flame-out! 16:00 "Hot Rod Weekly" quote. 19:00 Foggy inside the cockpit.

[@censorthis-uu6cc]

at 2:56 - are those 3 radars in New Mexico the same ones that came online shortly before the Roswell incident in 1947? The first of a new generation of high powered radars that allegedly downed a UFO, with the object crashing right in the middle of the three installations?

[@IsaacCarmichael]

Strategically it sounds like it did it's job in Korea. Being able to patrol in bad weather I'm sure is a deterrent for the enemy. Sneaking in under the cover of bad weather isn't really an option.

[@levischittlord6558]

The Soviets might have looked at it as we looked at the mig-25 in it's time, a useful deterrent.

[@notapound]

Yes - we have the benefit of hindsight over the true capabilities of these weapon systems. At the time neither side could be sure just how effective systems would be and, I believe, that may have somewhat stayed people's hands.

[@rotorheadv8]

The avionics (radar) was still pretty primitive as they had not had time to reverse engineer the stuff from the Roswell crash.

[@Skyfighter64]

I like to imagine a world where the USAF realized that speed and high-speed dogfights were going to be the future, and had instead invested more heavily into the F-86 program, since it had so much greater performance than the P-80, and as a side result, the YF-95 program (Later renamed F-86D) the basis of this program. Add in success of the M39 cannon, and the USAF AIM-4 Falcon program copying some of the better aspects of the Navy's Aim-9 Sidewinder (In my little fantasy world). That the radar gunsight and Radar automated targeting solution could result in pilots not even needing to pull the trigger in maneuvering engagements (Particularly dead of night). So yeah, very fantastical, but maybe not too incredibly far out there.

[@Easy-Eight]

I was a USAF weapons tech and they had the AIM-4 system until the 1980s. There were upgrade kits done to the infrared and radar guided versions of the AIM-4 Falcons. The USAF found out it was cheaper to upgrade the AIM-4 to be a cruddy AIM-9 or AIM-7 than upgrading the F-106 fleet to carry the excellent AIM-9L or the much improved later versions of the AIM-7, the F-106 was out-of-the-inventory at the end of the Cold War and the gawd-awful F-102 was gone by the mid-1970s era. The F-86D was a very good aircraft. They were given a battery of 20mm guns and made into the very effective F-86K. The biggest problems with the USAF interceptors of the 1950s was they were pokey and slow climbing. Things got so bad that the USN had a squadron of F4D Skyrays detailed to the USAF air defense command. The F4D had the the J57 engine, AIM-9 missiles. and 20mm cannons. It was much better for air intercept. Few aircraft could match a Skyray in a climb until the later F-104 and F-4. Last, the absolute best mid-1950s US military jet fighters were the F-86H and FJ-3 Fury. Both were equal to a MiG-17. The F-86H had the J73 engine, which was later redesigned & evolved into the excellent J79. The FJ-3 used the J65 engine.

[@Skyfighter64]

@@Easy-Eight The USAF really did get the short end of the stick a lot, it seems like. Most of the best stuff the Air Force got up until the 70's were all Navy developments, Aim-9, F-4 Phantom, etc. Of course, the mission of the USAF at the time was specific, if poorly designed in terms of actual doctrine. USN aviation had a much more realistic set of goals and missions, which of course helped shape weapons development. In my fantasy, the F-86D never got the rocket armament, instead using the 4x20mm setup from the F-86F-2 program, but did get an upgraded engine capable of using reheat (Afterburner) to become the F-86K all weather interceptor, completely eliminating the Starfire and Scorpion programs.

[@Easy-Eight]

@@Skyfighter64 The USAF did not get the short end of the stick for funding. They built the B-36, B-47, and B-52 bombers. The USAF constructed the Atlas, Titan, and Minuteman ballistic missile systems. The USAF had the F-107 and B-70 programs; both were extremely expensive. I do know the AIM-9. The USN just took an infrared seeker and bolted it to the tip of a 5" bombardment rocket. The thing worked better than it should, a larger warhead and proximity fuze was the ace in the hole. The AIM-7 family isn't what it seems. The Sparrow I and II were abject failures. The Sparrow III (AIM-7) was marginal up to the "E" models. The AIM-7 didn't get "good" until it was retrofitted with avionics and software from the AIM-120 AMRAAM. By that time the Sparrow was obsolete. I was in the military during the 3rd generation to 4th generation aircraft. The game changer was the MiG-25. The Soviets were doing regular fly overs of Israel in the late 1960s. The MiG-25 was seen as mythical. So, the USAF went on a "crash" program to come up with the F-15 and a low cost fighter. The low cost fighter was the F-16 & F-17. The F-17 was evolved into the F-18A/B. I don't even consider a 2020+ model of an F-16C block 60+ to be in the same league as F-16A from the 1978 production block. The F-16C Block 60+ is 4th Generation +. Drones and the jets of the 2030s will be 6th Generation.

[@Skyfighter64]

@@Easy-Eight you are right, my mind goes weird places and comes up with weird conclusions sometimes. Part of this silliness if focusing on the aspect of jet fighters/interceptor tech, and losing focus on some of the actual major achievements the USAF had made in the other fields.

[@raymondyee2008]

The F-94 has a small appearance in the pc game “Sabre Ace”.