I forgot to mention. A video on the F-3 Demon would be fantastic, she's another forgotten bird that deserves more attention. In fact, a video on the progresion of McDonnell aircraft would be awesome. Title "From Phantom to Phantom".

Contact Shane at Buffalo Naval Park as he has a Vodoo and a Fury😅 there.

Is there a quick list of what aircraft he’s covered? The F4D-1 Skyray, F3D Skynight, A3D Skywarrior and AD Skyraider are some more. But maybe he’s already done some of them?

Some of them was launched after WW2 ended (ex. Oriskany), but most of them did get commissioned in time, and I imagined that Imperial Japan would sweat a lot, to put it mildly

The Japanese hope was to end the war before the US could unleash its full industrial might. Mostly based on the US's isolationist stance prior to the war the country was seen as weak around the world and unwilling to engage, therefore the Japanese war cabinet concluded that a single decapitation strike against the US Pacific fleet would deter the US from entering the conflict fully, rather leave them just complain about the injustice and look the other way. Admiral Yamamoto and some others warned that this wasn't likely to be the result but they were ignored. Basically the same attitude that's emboldening North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran today.

My favorite factoid is German intelligence got their hands on the real US aircraft and tank production numbers and wrote it off as absurd propaganda……😅

@@zacharyolson1297 lolol

@@jwenting thanks for taking the time for such a thorough reply.

Its enough to get you to the end of the day.

Yes indeed, I have always thought it is one of the most beautiful jets period.

My acquaintance said it remind him of a sci-fi spaceship, that also sound cool for the F9F

I agree...I have seen it from inside the left air duct while adjusting the fuel control with engine running.

They don't, I have only just heard of them. 😮

Hornet is the most complete looking of all the preserved Essex's.

Wait a second... are you actually allowed to call it a 'fun fact' when it's actually fun?

Um, no. The USS Kearsarge of 1898 (and any other ship named Kearsarge) was named after the Civil War sloop that defeated the CSS Alabama not the mountain.

It was the only one (at least among those that got BB designations) not to be named after a state.

I wonder if it's intentionally to generate what KZfaq may track as "audience interactions" ? No shame there in playing their game...😉

@@user-qk6qn5sk6yohhhhhhhhhhh they do that huh? 🤔

Not only the above, but producing supplies, equipment, food, for troops overseas & training troops in the US

And developing the B-29 (costing MORE than the Manhattan Project), the backup B-32, & other projects.

You are right. That was because the British hangar was closed and too small to get more aircraft in, plus US carriers carried much of the air wing on deck. The Royal Navy didn't have the aircraft either, although I am sure they wish they had!

@@DavidMartin-ym2te The RN did not have enough deck spots for economic rate production. With the exception of the Supermarine Sea Hawk, for which they had foreign sales, FAA production was not enough to justify development costs. Most of the aircraft were mediocre at best, the exception being the Buccaneer. The FAA's last indigenous fleet defense fighter, the Sea Vixen, was a reversion to the Skua/Fulmar/Firefly philosophy. Admittedly the US Navy caught the disease too but the Sea Vixen had all the Phantom'd deficiencies but none of its strong points. The RN would have better of producing US aircraft under license. Something they eventually learned.

It’s crazy to think of how that capability developed all the way back in WW2, the sheer absurdity of imagining swarms of Swordfish flying and landing in pitch darkness is just so crazy to me. Almost as nuts as realizing that one of the strikes against Bismarck was in the dead of night. Crazy world

@@chamberlane2899 Yeah, the other thought I had during the video was that the United States did not want to have a big military or get involved internationally. It took being attacked to change all that, FOREVER.

@@brianrmc1963 admittedly, they’ve been a bit back and forth on that particular issue. I think about the American interventions in North Africa during the Jefferson administration, the Spanish American war, and that episode featuring Mathew Perry

@@chamberlane2899 I meant at that moment in history, but your point is spot on

I'll vote for any candidate promising to bring it back!

Yes, I like getting some Cold War era info which Drach doesn't really ever get into.

I wish Drach did Cold War stuff too. This channel and Ed Nash's Forgotten Aircraft are my two favorite "aircraft centric" channels as of late.

The Essex-class as CVS operated A-4s as light fighters, the Northrup light fighter that became the T-38 and F-5, originally for these light carriers, the later showing influrnce on the F-18 such that I imagine an Essex would take F-18s, the problem would be the S-3, E-3, and building a true all purpose air group. That likely killed it as much as cost compsred to just building another CVN.

He's somehow transposed it with the CSS Alabama which WAS built by the scousers.

That what he said

USS Intrepid was designated CVS, too, even though that ship was equipped with steam catapults. Not all the angled-deck Essex class conversions received steam catapults. About half the angled-deck modernizations of the Essex-class stayed with hydraulic catapults; I think the reasons they weren't all re-equipped with steam catapults were budget limits and the Navy's realizations they wouldn't stay in service past the late 1960s/early 1970s. Those ships were redesignated CVS by the early 1960s and replaced the Essex-class carriers that hadn't been modernized much if at all -- ie, all the remaining straight deck Essex class carriers. What confused things was when a modernized steam catapult carrier like the Intrepid was redesignated CVS. A few other steam catapult Essex-class ships were also redesignated CVS. (Before its conversion to the training carrier, USS Lexington/CVA-16 was also redesignated CVS-16 despite having steam catapults.) Still other Essex-class ships never lost their CVA designation like Oriskany and Hancock; both these ships were upgraded with steam catapults. Oriskany remained in service long enough to become a "CV" designation once again! All Essex-class carriers commissioned during WW2 had CV-designations; they changed to CVA (attack carrier) during the 1950s. CVA was the mainline carrier designation (for remaining multipurpose Essex, Midway, and supercarriers) until 1975 when they changed carrier classifications back to CV. Count on the Navy to complicate designation schemes! The Intrepid despite the CVS reclassification never operated that way during Vietnam. It remained functionally a CVA ship through that conflict. Despite the fact these ships were not large enough to operate F-4 Phantoms -- they already had twice as many accidents as the supercarriers because of cramped design and suboptimal flight deck layout --, the Intrepid was the test ship for F-4 suitability aboard modernized Essex-class ships. I imagine the "carrier qualifications" aboard Intrepid DISQUALIFIED the F-4 from regular F-4 operations aboard the Essex-class. There was at least one incident where an F-4 recovered aboard the Bon Homme Richard/CVA-31 during Vietnam (by mistake). The steam catapult-equipped Essex-class carriers could launch and recover F-4s. The single British carrier (Ark Royal/R09 I think it was) that deployed with highly-modified British F-4s was around the same size as an Essex-class carrier. That British ship had its problems with deck-warping because of the high angle of attack required to launch the F-4 from its deck. The afterburner absolutely scorched the deck. They couldn't use conventional jet blast deflectors and had to pump sea water to keep the deck plates from buckling! When the USS Saratoga hosted British F-4s in the mid-1970s, its deck was damaged by afterburner blast from the British F-4Ks (FG.1 RN designation)!

Leroy Gordon “Gordo” Cooper. Was popularly called Gordon Cooper or “Gordo” Cooper. Walter Marty Schirra Jr. was called Wally Schirra (pronounced sheer-rah’, I think).

If they put as much effort into creating as they did complaining they’d have their own channel for people to complain about.

Is that a straightforward question, or are you protesting this channel’s discussion of ships? Assuming you really don’t know… I first heard this phrase in regard to the F-15A Eagle fighter jet in the 1970’s. I believe the Air Force insisted on a design for a pure air superiority fighter. They didn’t want a single pounds worth of the aircraft’s weight utilized for the carriage and delivery of air-to-ground munitions.

It was equipped with hydraulic catapults.

the Vought F8U operated from Essex class carriers

@@BaikalTii thank you.

And the less supersonic Grumman F11F-1 Tiger, I believe.

Then do them yourself

That may have been the Cutlass’s final purpose, but I don’t think the supersonic part came to fruition. Maybe just transonic. Originally, I think it was just a carrier-based day fighter. And in that early roll it was part of the Blue Angels flight display for a short time as the two opposing solos.

@CathodeRayNipplez 'fighter mafia' used to say this when designer F 15, 16