When the airforce has unlimited budget... they made this - Republic Ap 100 

what is the name of this ship you have in mind

@@RedComet777-sl8psi think hes talking about the KMS Bismarck?

​@@Pgb622 im not so sure, the Bismarck actually performed pretty well

@@RedComet777-sl8ps She's never given a name.

@@maxmachac9756 cough cough getting torpedoes easily cough cough (lol what am i doing)

When the people in charge won't let pilots actually use their war aircraft, it doesn't matter what aircraft you have, results will be the same.

The "Thud" was a good plane for it's time and purpose, it was NOT an F4 which "supposedly" replaced the F105 (but didn't, and was never (originally) intended to)... All the the F105 needed was air support and guidance, which sadly for many came too late... Note: The F105 dropped more bombs on target in the Vietnam war than any other plane, clearly not a failure, it also had the highest "availability time" of any US plane during that conflict. "Availability time" is literally the time in a 24h period in which a plane is "available" to fly, the F105 topped the charts during the Vietnam war, i.e. they had high reliability, and low maintenance.!!! the F105 is an excellent, and IMHO highly underrated plane.

Yeah they needed the a10 not an unarmored paper airplane.

@@ADB-zf5zr I dont thinkg it was reliable, didnt the F-105 als had a pretty bad accident rate, IIRC it was one of the least reliable american jets? Thats part of why its got cancelled early. The F-4 Phantom was a US Navy program, it just turned to be way better than anything the USAF could put up. Ironically enough including its weapons (Sidewinders+Sparrows).

​@@scottmoore6131 the A-10 didn't have the range or speed for that. What was needed was the F-111.

fun fact, he worked at Ford

Yeah it's only because he spelled it with two M's: "McNammara" so I understand the mistake.

The thing is, he really struggled to mispronounce his name.

His CG ability is far greater than his command of the English language; he has weird pronounce in every video. I suppose we can't have everything, can we?

I see enough mispronunciation I think maybe it’s just a cheap trick to get comments and engagement numbers up.

And to make in trailmakers.

Make it in the game called “flyout” it’s a very good aviation game

What's KSP?

​@@qsfrankfurt9513Kerbal Space Program, look it up :)

@@gonuhi if we could even play lol

Great comments. Too bad you support that nation you have in your profile picture. You have been lied to by our media.

Tbf these kind of bombers with single bomb loadouts were usually made to carry nukes at supersonic speeds. Same as an F-105 for example, it had an internal bay for a single nuclear bomb. IIRC in Vietnam they just put a fuel tank into the internal bay and carried a ton of bombs on pylons instead.

6x the maintenance costs of an F16 or F35 because it has 6x the engines. And you can only fly it around when all six engines are working at the same time. So assume about 6x as much time in "mission unavailable" state in the maintenance queue. What good is a super fighter if it won't be ready to fly until the day after the war?

@@guaposneeze Those engines are really small- they’re actually the same as the original Learjet engines (J85 military/CJ-610 civilian). In general, Jet engines are actually fairly low maintenance items- it’s the rest of the airframe that keeps you busy. Here’s the real problem- The weight of this aircraft would have been about 38,000 lb (17,237 kg) with its engines generating 14,400 lb (6,532 kg) of thrust. For a VTOL aircraft, that’s not good numbers. Harrier’s and F-35B’s (STOVL) use single engines. Even back then, there were already engines in use that were more powerful than all 6 of these J85’s combined but their approach was to use many smaller engines instead of one big engine. The Bell D-188 would have used EIGHT of these J85 engines. You can look it up- that thing had engines all over the place… Early Harriers had A LOT of mishaps- it has taken a long while and many $ and £ to make this concept usable for combat aircraft. The Harrier jet is one of the most accident-prone aircraft in aviation history. By 2002, the Marine Corps lost more than one-third of its Harriers (and 45 pilots) to accidents… earning it the nickname “The Widow-Maker.” The LA Times called it the most dangerous aircraft to operate in the US military. The French had a design (the Dassault Balzac V) that killed 2 test pilots in a row… they gave up on it. It had NINE engines… Most people have no idea how dangerous and expensive VTOL flight has been for fighter jets. They make helicopters look really,really safe.

For roll control in the hover it would likely have used bleed air jets on the wingtips a la the Harrier, which has proven to work well. I assume the lift fans are driven by bleed air from the engine compressors as well? Or my mechanical linkage like the F-35B? Either way that would be a huge engineering challenge. One thing we've learned from decades of Harrier experience is that when things fail in a hover you have no time to decide what to do: you eject immediately and write off a very expensive aircraft, possibly loaded with a nuke. And with 6 early 60s technology jet engines, you're going to experience a lot of flameouts in day to day ops.

​@@termitreter6545well, in that case it would've been dead in the water anyways as the preferred mode of nuclear delivery switched to icbms.

"Ex-Russian Aircraft designers" Honestly, unless your name is Igor Sikorsky, I'd rather live than die in one of your contraptions.

Would make for a great cold war super plane.

​@@mill2712 Would have been perfect for the C&C Red Alert series

Mobius one just crashed!

Freaking ThunderBird design

According to F-105 pilots and crews, the "Thud" nickname was inspired by the character "Chief Thunderthud" from the Howdy Doody television series.

naval operations is not even the real reason, it’s due to the supersonic flight stability: swept wings fly faster and more stable than straight wing

Glad you like them!

From the size, it's more likely it's like a large electric fan, doesn't even look like they considered driving these fans though a shaft like the F-35 did. Soviets stick small jet engines for Yak-38 and Yak-141 instead

Tbf the F-35 isnt a VTOL aircraft, not even the B-version. STOVL, so needs to take off with short runway, and can only land when fuel is near zero and no payload. I dont think there was ever a viable "VTOL" jet driven aircraft. A harrier can technically VTOL, but also only with very light load, so vertical takeoff is useless in combat. Tilt-rotors/helicopters are the only things who ever could lift off verticaly with combat loads.

I suppose a directed energy weapon would be good. (X-ray) for example. A bomb pumped laser for example.

Yeah, but crews would be "toast" - literally!

He would never let us down

@@5RoastedPotatoes He would never run around and desert you

capt. Rick rolland would never let you down

He would never blow us up or explode us

I think at that point we would see diminishing returns. The speed would be more limited by the wing and lifting body geometry regardless of thrust.

Yea, it makes no sense having that tiny engine. Why not have 2 normal size engines in steed.

Lack of thrust becomes a problem only due to aircraft weight, with 26k lbs assuming a Turbojet engine configuration and very light aircraft it's possible to reach mach 2, the F-5e did it with only two The 35 won't reach mach 2 not cause of lack of thrust, but cause it uses a Turbofan which has very bad efficiency and incures in huge power losses when approaching speeds higher that those it was designed for

@@hideakibanno7540 that is not really true. The weight of a aircraft matters mostly at relativly low speed, when speed increase parasitic drag become more of a problem than induced drag. There is also a scale effect. A larger aircraft with everything the else the same will have longer range. That is why concorde is pretty much the only aircraft that can cross the Atlantic supersonic. The top speed is not directly effected by the bypass ratio. For example J37 viggen have a bypass ratio of almost 1:1, still the top speed is over mach 2. The reason F35 have a lower top speed is due to much higher compression pressure. This increases fuel efficency but make to top speed lower. But that is also what allows F35 to super cruise and have a fairly long supersonic range

​@@matsv201 You literally agreed with me with all of what i said though?