Boy you said a mouthful!!! I'm a pilot, and I can weld, but, I'm NOT a fighter pilot, and I'm NOT a certified pipe fitter!!! There's a HUGE difference!!! And this gentleman appears to be the real deal :-)

I served with this man from 1985 until 1988 in VF31. He was respected by the enlisted men for his pilot skills and we all thought he was arrogant. He was a terrible leader of people because he never treated people with respect. We had a great skipper in CDR Rick Ludwig who any of us would have followed to hell. LCDR Nance couldn’t get anyone to follow him off the ship after a six month deployment! Great pilot, terrible leader and person.

@@davidcollison8973 I wonder if that's why he seems bitter about the Navy.

@@davidcollison8973 I got that vibe too. I´m not a fighter pilot, but when I did my compulsory service in the (Norwegian) Army, I pretty much had the same experience as you described. Some guys were great at what they were doing, but terrible leaders with terrible personalities, some were average overall, and some were great at what they were doing as well as being great leaders (those were in the minority, haha!) .

@@davidcollison8973 I served with him and CDR Rick Ludwig in VF-51 both were outstanding pilot. You are right about CDR Ludwig he was a people person.

A new consultant for the F-14 module, perhaps?

Eno M go to heatblur.

His full interview will be out next Sunday.

@@Aircrewinterview Thanks. Looking forward to watching it. By popular demand, is he going to come back for another Q&A? I have a few very interesting questions to ask him that have never been asked before. Would be interesting to see what his take on it is. Hint: TF-030 related. :)

Yay!

His answer about the Russian 4th gen was 100% arrogant douche baggery. What was he even implying ? That Russian aircraft don't have digital nav or fly by wire ..

Question : How do you rate US 4th gen AIRCRAFT compared to Russian ? "Uhh the Russians are good at beating their chest" (we are supposed to be talking about aircraft.) "the only build 8-9-10 of them" (Umm the Q was about 4th gen aircraft. Russia has the 2nd biggest airforce in the world. So that's wrong too) "Our aircraft have been combat proven" (umm in Syria... there is Russian jets there... that turned the war over in weeks) "we have command and control systems that they do not have at all" ( he probably thinks that Russian jets have no digital displays or fly by where lol)

@@dsanalysis5013 I think he was referring to awacs and communication etc.. My brother flew in the AF and he got to see a MIG29 up close at Edwards. He said they could turn n burn a bit better than the F15 and 16 but literally everywhere else they lagged behind pretty far. The reliability was especially bad and their engine tech is at least 15 years behind.

​@@dsanalysis5013 It is true though in some senses. Firstly, NATO 4th Gen fighters like the F-15/F-16/F-18(F-14 to a lesser extent) have much better radar and radar warning receivers than anything like a Mig 29 or SU-27 (Fulcrum/Flanker). It's not even close. Our avionics systems were simply far and away better, no contest. Take equal pilots, and the pilot flying in the U.S 4th generation fighter is going to have far superior situational awareness. Like say between an F-15C and a Mig-29 Fulcrum. It's nothing to do with bias but simply the technological gap between the two aircraft.

The Mig 29's that the US got were 3rd rate periphery hand-downs that were bought with cash from places like Poland. Russia's modern jets had zero engine problems in Syria. They are not 15 years behind. Russia builds the best rocket engine in the world that the US or China still hasn't been able to replicate. You should have at least some passing respect for your adversary. Just like in sports. You never see one team completely belittle the competition. There is respect.

Thanks Roger. Hopefully one day :)

Great to hear you enjoyed it, Karl!

Glad you liked it Radu!

1:22:37

Probably a troll……but MAY have been a child…..so don’t be a dick. Okie handled it like the pro he is. If you’re gonna be a podcaster, you have to think this way. Also, remember! The Queen’s ain’t everyone’s first language and that influences written replies/comments.

Absolutely correct! Wow, dale was all that and then some way more!

Concur with assessment on Wigs. Great Naval Aviator and a good man. Made the 83-84 JFK deployment with him.

Air Medal. 1:41:40 airshow story is great.

@@benjaminperez7328 Oops, thanks - still, doesn’t seem indicative of the incident. I suppose the DFC involved direct conflict and the preservation or protection / defense of other combatants, so isn’t really as applicable. Still, one hell of a story to tell the kids or other aviation enthusiasts about!

I guess they figured they would find out real quick when the pilot slammed his head against the canopy pulling 10+ Gs, lol

It was the Rafale prototype running on F404s

Yup. Plus its first flight was in 94. Plus .. its a badass Aircraft for a Gen 4/ 4.5 . More thrust to weight than any F18/ F16 , even clean. 20% more thrust to weight than a clean F14-D with only 50% internal. Supercruise to m1.5 . Crazy AoA and tiny and manoeuvrable with incredible weaponry and the helmet mounted, look shoot system. Typhoons are exceptional air craft. But I can forgive Okie , legend.

He said the Brits are great pilots and he enjoyed working with them.

I have tried to find out............. don't know if he is flying now. Not sure.

I'd imagine it would help for calling out airspeed, altitude and fuel state, as well as timings for manoeuvres.

He was in VF-51 I was in this Command with him.

Using differential asymmetric throttle.

The Saturn V doesn't exist anymore, the R7 (the Soyuz rocket) does, and still brings people & equipment to the space station. It's been operating continuously since the 50s.

The Saturn V was designed by a former Nazi....probably not the best example to use.

that's his son

Having spoken to his other son on Discord about this video, he said Okie hates technology, so he needed help.

Don't take it out of context. Regarding "match" question, he says "it was". F-16N were no typical F-16. They were completely different from the USAF F-16 as they were intended only for aggressor squadron so they were clean all the time and had no external payloads. Also, he clearly says they were piloted by F-14 pilots who knew how to put the F-14 pilots into challenging situations. Navy F-16s had been stripped out of everything except ejection seat and had the block C/D GE-F110 engine making 28,000 lbsf of thust (with an empty weight below 16,000 lbs). He clearly says, he beat the crap out of the USAF F-16s all the time and could pull 12.5G in the F-14, which he could not in the F-16. He did say, F-15 was theoretically superior, but then he said he used to beat the USAF F-15C pilots all the time even in F-14A or B. Also, Phil "Filthy" Grandfield said, F-14 in his experience had superior maneuverability. You cannot ignore that either. His main point was, the pilot that can perform the best in its plane's fight envelope, wins the fight.

@@KLRGT500KR He's secure enough to say that the F-16 and F-15 were superior fighters, and then goes on to describe the tactics he used in the F-14 to make they best of a bad situation. Overall though, he said they F-16 and F-15 were better airplanes, which is common knowledge and not surprising considering it was an overweight naval interceptor, not an air superiority fighter.

@@taylorc2542 He talked about the Navy F-16N was superior, which it was for DACT because it was stripped to the bones with no external payload only for DACT training in the adversary squadron with a 1.3:1 thrust to weight. He also said, F-14 was very tough for anyone to beat in a vertical fight. The Grumman chief engineer Mike Ciminera himself says, F-14 was designed to be an air superiority fighter (as per Navy's performance/handling requirements and financial penalties for not meeting those), which is why it was designed to out-turn much smaller, lighter fighters and could pull 12.5G without stress damage on the airframe. Funny how you mention "overweight" when F-15 was not considered lightweight either. SU-27 is the best Naval Russian fighter and it had identical size, thrust and weight as F-14. F-14 especially B/D made far more thrust of 60,000 lbsf at mach 0.9 (combat weight of 53,000 lbs) and had much superior lift/drag ratio with the wide pancake and VGW. While he definitely said overall F-15 was superior, you will always conveniently ignore F-14 being more maneuverable than the F-15. You can go and see the turning demos and see which plane turns much faster and tighter. That is a fact.

​Taylor C: "Overweight interceptor and not air superiority"? LMAO! I should recite what you said in the past. It is just as ludicrous. Is that why Navy spent so much time training F-14 pilots in DACT at "Top Gun"? It is because air combat is a huge part of intercepting MIGs, SUs. I can put up Grumman/Navy contracts and requirements where clearly Navy wanted F-14 to be the best performing air-to-air fighter with heavy penalties if Grumman did not meet their design specifications (time-to-altitude, climb rate, turn rate. maximum G capabilities, payload, overall fighter weight). Weight wise, your beloved F-15C was bloated and heavy as well. F-14 B/D at least made 30,200 lbsf of thrust per engine. Even the F-14A despite its 0.88:1 thrust to weight with the TF-030 overcame the limitations with its very high lift fuselage (as Keith said), performed just as well as anything below 10,000 feet because of the dense air. That is why Keith said, F-14 both A and B did exceptionally well in a vertical fight (which requires very high ability to overcome vertical drag).

@@rogermahajan7586 Rodger, you're spitting out this verbal diarrhea of recited stats without understanding deeper concepts or using much analytical thought. No Navy fighter is going to out dog fight a land-based fighter, all things being equal, because just being navalized is a 10% weight penalty, and certainly not one designed for the F-14s interceptor mission. In addition, Air Force fighters have a purity of design that comes from more focus on dog fighting. Plus just use common sense; this F-14 guy with a million hours in F-16 aggressor squadrons literal just said that the F-15 and F-16 were better dogfighters. That's not to say that F-14's were incapable of winning against Air Force jets or that there aren't parts of the envelope were the F-14 had advantages, but holistically, with all things being as equal as possible, the Air Force fighters would eat up the big Tomcat more often that not.

Pete V You haven’t spent much time around fighter pilots huh?

@@recoverydog lots actually. Not a personality trait conductive to learning. Probably developed after retirement

Something makes me think he's earned every ounce of his self-confidence.