My dad was killed in a training accident in 2004 in a crash in a Canberra PR.9. I appreciate you highlighting how dangerous training is, as this is often overlooked.
@GunboatDiplomat = I remember the night your Dad's plane crashed "XH.168" was it's serial number & I saw that a/c very regularly near Marham Following year, in October, W.O Brown invited me to spend the day there "XH.134", "XH.135" & the Blue PRU carrying "VN.799" markings (spurious) I was drinking at the bar at a Norfolk Pub called "The Feathers" when it happened We'd been talking about the RAF when suddenly, the (then) Barman said... "One's gone in" - Obviously at that time, I didn't KNOW it was "XH.168" My most memorable sighting of her was over our local railway bridge We were teaching my Son how to use his "Sonic The Hedgehog" skateboard "XH.168" was SO low to the ground, it's underwing serial clearly visible A/c are cleared to fly as low as 250ft in our area.... "LFA.5" Was a very memorable sighting & it upset me, hearing it later crashed IIRC : Your Dad's plane was practising "Asymmetrical Approach"(es) I heard after a few, that one approach went awry & the PR.9 cartwheeled My sincere condolences
@@Rain-uc4ru It's important that these things are remembered. One engine failed to spool up on takeoff causing asymmetric thrust. Due to it being night, the visibility out of the T.4 being rubbish, and my dad being incredibly overconfident they tried to takeoff instead of aborting. The Nav ejected safely but broke his back, my dad and the other pilot ejected outside the envelope and the rest is history.
@@aaravtulsyan depends because we don't make our fucking stuff anymore because of a corrupt govt, our govt single handedly killed just about everyone of our major industries and infrastructures, 75 years ago we made the world's first jet passenger plane and now we just make the engines and systems for them
You say you are an “amateur” historian. Huh? You’re the BEST historian of your subject I have ever had the pleasure to listen to. Thank You Professor Napfatg !!!
Historians went in and reviewed the primary documents and wrote a book on the sum of their findings. This guy read those books and summarized the contents into a video. That doesn't make him a "historian", let alone the best one on the subject. He has access to some good resources and makes a good video out of it. An actual historian would more likely be a specialist on just "the history of the prewar RAF" or even "the history of the Hawker Company". He gets paid to do what he does. If your subject is just "the history of fighter aircraft" and all you do is read books that are available on the subject to learn what others have learned, you are an amateur historian. You can even be a very good historian and go review primary documents and even dig up artifacts, if you aren't doing it as your job you are an amateur historian. It has nothing to do with skill or ability. How can you be a "professional historian" when it's not your profession? It's your hobby. Some hobbyists are extremely talented, but it's still just a pastime for them. This guy may be a historian for all I know, I don't know what he does. But from the evidence of the videos I have seen he's more accurately a history enthusiast who is also good at making videos.
@justforever96 We don't know his identity so who knows, I do personally bristle when I see on TV the term "historian" thrown around. I did a research masters at Cambridge, two years and a dissertation on litigation by widows in 15th-century England. Even I wouldn't call myself a historian. But I did have quite a well read blog with articles that arose from my research and interesting cases I came across in researching for my dissertation. I suppose in that role I would consider myself a history "communicator", I'm not sure the right term but someone taking what is interesting and noteworthy to the general public, and then writing about that (for example a magazine article I wrote about a day in the life of a medieval barrister). I think there's an important role for history communicators and popularisers and this fellow clearly has found his niche and does great work communicating this history to the public (with great archival footage, a clear niche like I had, and an interested public). I tend to think historian is more something you do than are; I wouldn't lay claim to the title of historian without doing a PhD, but I have done original research at a top university (and also was published in ODNB).. But what happens when someone finishes their phd byt continues to write about history, from the fruits of their research, for a popular audience? We don't know what NAPFATG does in 'real' life, he could well be active in this area in research (and realistically, military historians tend to be much broader than what you have to do in avery crowded subject like medieval history). In short😊, let the people enjoy this history which is being communicated to us in a rigorous and entertaining manner
I am a War Thunder player and I love the Sea Hawk, especially the Mk.100 with two AIM-9Bs. It turns hard, holds it's energy very well, regains it's energy well, it has large flaps and a large air break which are also a big up side. All of it's weapons hit hard, the four Hispanos, the bombs, the RP-3s, and the 9Bs on the Mk.100. It can punch far above it's weight.
It's a decent plane for an 8.3 lineup but the scimitar is just too superior at 8.7 with better stand off with bullpups and crazy levels of thrust. But for 8.3 you won't find a better british plane.
@@TheOfficial007 Oh, I should have said than the Sea Hawk Mk.100 is an "Artificially rare" German premium. I do not have the British Sea Hawk FGA.6, but I assume it plays similar to the Mk.100 but not having 9Bs.
@RubyFox_YT pretty much, and I was just referring to ground battles mainly. The sea hawk mk 100 is really underestimated in air battles with sidewinders.
The fact the Sea Hawk flew from the former HMS Venerable shows how the "Light Fleet Carrier" designed to last for only a few years/till wars end was so well made it was capable of flying jet aircraft into the late 1960's.
More like they built the jets specifically to fly from that carrier. They flew jets off of escort carriers too. Is that somehow amazing and laudable? It's more indicative of the fact that he UK was totally broke and couldn't afford new carriers so they had to half ass it and fly jets off of what they had already. Not that what they had was very impressive honestly. Even during the war the FAA pilots who got a chance to land on US carriers were amazed at the size and comfort of the US ships, and the _Colossus_ class were even smaller and more cramped than the regular fleet carriers. Which only carried a handful of aircraft and couldn't even fit all of those into the hangar deck. They were also shockingly dangerous to operate from, with a loss rate of one plane per ten sorties overall, mostly from landing accidents (which I don't know how is even possible, how do you maintain a working air component with that kind of loss rate?) Even if the jets were specifically designed to operate under the restrictions of these carriers, it must have been terrifying. And the three year life isn't really meaningful, that was the guaranteed life span, lots of things exceed their design life, especially with lots of maintenance. Liberty ships were still in common use though the 20th century. But they also quickly became miserable places to work and live and maintenance nightmares with things constantly breaking down, especially as they got older. But props to Britain for making do with what they had, most nations couldn't even afford a carrier, so even a few pretty crappy ones was still something to be proud of.
Sweet the Drachinifel of early jets has another banger of a video. Your content is top tier and you deserve way more subscribers. Since you are doing videos on Soviet missiles and the such. A video on all the variants of the sidewinder would be cool. I only learn a month ago that there was a sidewinder that there was a radar guided one and a laser guided sidewinder.
I had the pleasure of working for Armstrong Whitworth in the early 1960s when Seahawks were being stripped down and modified. I always thought it was a most beautiful aircraft. Being a carrier based plane all the parts we made were very substantial in the fact the guages of metal were thicker than land based planes. Always nice to work on.
Thanks for. The acknowledgement of the pilots lost during "peace time" that was the Cold War. All are heroes and deserve to be remembered by more than just the families. The quiet man of the cold war getting on with the job whilst others came and went. A great aircraft if unspectacular but it's record speaks volumes. Thanks for a superb video.
'Elegant'; a great word for this beautiful fighter, especially in the classic RN livery--imagine F-35s so adorned... When I saw the image of the engine with its bifurcated exhaust, I immediately thought, 'Harrier'!
I enjoyed this one a lot. I grew up in Renfrew Scotland where we had the old airport literally in our back yard. The sound of Connies, Argonauts, Brittanias and Viscounts etc filled my young ears at night when I would hear them stacking in circuits and then on approach. A few miles away there was Abbotsinch RNAS. Which is now Glasgow Airport. They flew Sea Hawks, Gannets, Venoms and a few Wyverns and Sea Vixens too. I can only just remember it now. But the sound of those big propliners I shall never forget, nor the oarnge light of the sweeping radar that would light my bedroom on/off all night! Great show. You are a gifted orator and historian my man.
This is going to seems a daft question but ........ WHY, or rather HOW, would radar cause your bedroom to be repeatedly sept with light of any sort? Did it cause something to fluoresce? [If so lucky you weren't lightly keebabbed]
I've always liked the Hawker Sea Hawk and think it has nice clean lines and an elegant shape. Thank you for this fun and informative episode on this British classic! 👏
sweeet... Just went out to do some grocery shopping, grabbed some Vietnamese take away for dinner while i was out, got home, sat down, opened a beer and look what I see! NaPfAtG video... I'm set. Thanks.
Thanks. Best channel on fighter aircraft of the period. I found your pronunciation of the USS Antietam a hoot. Then again, in the U.S. I grew up hearing the name (mostly in context of the battle) quite frequently.
I'm impressed you quoted the Marineflieger Sea Hawk incident as I was quite prepared to mention it in the comments. Some sources list this Sea Hawk as either damaged by gunfire or even destroyed on landing. Also some sources claim it was a soviet MiG-21 not a MiG-17. In any case, the pilot, Kapitänleutnant Knut Winkler, was killed in 1966 in a midair collision in a Starfighter. Der Spiegel magazine from the time claims it was 1. a MiG-21 and that Winkler had to belly land his Sea Hawk after cannon hits
yeah!!!!!! I've been waiting for this one for a while, I love the videos and I've always wanted some good insight to an otherwise unassuming but pretty jet!
I was reading about the seahawk in Dutch naval service on Wikipedia and it did mention it was fitted to take the saiwan the missile but I didn't believe it because Wikipedia can be quite unreliable when it comes to accurate and legitimate information.. Keep up the good work...👍
Excellent video on the Sea Hawk especially side by side with its contemporaries! Looks like the U.S.S. Antietam CV-36 would make a great video on angled carriers. And to tackle the pronunciation a la “Kearsarge” 😅.
As built, an Essex class carrier was 30,800 tons, standard; and Illustrious class carrier was 23,000 tons, standard. The 1951-1955 recommissioned Essexes, post SCB-27 saw their displacement increase ~20%, i.e. to ~37,00 tons. Midway class carriers, as built, were 45,000 tons, standard, approximately double the displacement of an as-built Illustrious class carrier.
North American did not originate from nowhere. It was joint venture / merger of Fokker US & GM Aircraft. For various reasons they just eschewed publicity of the merger.
@@stevenhundley8244 According to those in the know, a “wire rope bridle” that connected the a/c to the launcher and was designed to fall to the deck on launch for repeated use, sometimes went in the sea. Today a different system is in use.
can you do a video on early F-14 adaption and usage ( 1975 evaluation of vietnam , gulf of sidra etc ) as its quite interesting as the jet from what I've read had a lot of teething issues the early tomcats had
One of my favourite transonic-era fighters. Just a sensible evolution of what had come before, unfortunately never seen one in the metal but such a neat & clean design hawker kept up its tradition of making really lovely looking aircraft.
The F-86 was transonic, this is well subsonic. Straight wing is generally subsonic although it may approach Mach in a dive, the first swept wings like F-86 and MiG-15 are transonic, possibly capable of supersonic in dive, but not safely, the MiG-17 is a bit better than either, really just a MiG-15 improved to get an edge over the F-86, and the F-100, F-102 and MiG-19 are supersonic . F-8 and F-101 and Su-7 are Mach 1.5-1.8, the MiG-21, Su-9/11, F-104, 106, 105 and F-4 and Mirage III are bisonic.
in the steel panthers game, there are a couple scenarios that cover the british/french invasion of egypt in 1956. now i shall have to go back and have a look at the specific british planes in use. one thing i remember is, if the planes approach port said too closely, half of them get shot down. not sure how realistic that is.
Pointing out the obvious, but Hawker really did make a lot of very good aircraft. The Seahawk really is a lovely looking aircraft. I have fond memories of an Airfix model that I had when I was a kid.
20:50 First I’ve heard about this difficulty Sir, I found it a wonderful filly who glided through all of my sorties , has someone been talking out of school or have you been reading one of those dreadful, hastily scribbled post War potboilers? God Bless and can I suggest a most interesting channel on here by a young chap named Thomas Robinson, seems like a decent sort.
India also operated the Seahawk from 1959-83. We acquired some 60 machines including some ex-Marineflieger aircraft. They were based on INS Vikrant and saw action in our 1971 war with Pakistan. Used in ground attack they together with the Breguet Alize sank around 15 enemy vessels and damaged many more.
@@RCAvhstape True. There's a very thick tome (but surprisingly readable) about the development of the Pegasus in which the branches of the split jetpipe are referred to by Bristol engineers as trouser legs. I wonder if the same termnology was used for the Seahawk.
I like to imagine that this guy just buys kits of various planes, and researches the hell out of them as part of building a model, and decided he might as well start making videos on the information he found. Maybe that's where the box art comes from? I do something similar. I find it's more appealing to read about a machine if i own a model of it that i can hold and look at. It makes it seem more relevant somehow.
WRT carrier hangar height, USN carriers' hangars allowed stowing spare aircraft above the aircraft parked on the hangar deck. That RN carriers didn't accommodate such stowage was a design artifact related to the expected operating environment, especially the flight rather than the hangar deck being armored. Having the flight deck higher above the hangar like in the Essex class would have created a stability problem.
I can't get over how much detail is available from this era. I had no idea Britain had so many Aircraft Carriers in the 1950's either. I think British pilots had a fearsome reputation after WWII and particularly the battle of Britain. The Egyptian Mig-15 pilots may have thought going home that night was a better option than engaging the Sea Hawk who's performance was unknown to them. I think the US Panther's shot down 7 Mig-15's even though they were outmatched and weren't even on CAP missions. They just fought their fight instead of the Migs fight. I think the Sea Hawks would have done OK.
Great video as always ... but let me help you with your pronounciation: "Antietam" is pronounced "an tee' tum" (or "an tee' dum" if you're local) ref: I live across the river from Sharpsburg, where the battle was fought.
I would like to see how the Seahawk went up against the Mets 15 in Korea because the original Panther had trouble and even the later cougar you know that wasn't really equal
Give me the USA turned on the UK over the Suez Canal incident because the USA was still mad about Rolls-Royce selling their engine to the USSR the mig-15
"Having emerged from the wreckage of Sopwith after the First World War,'' ... Good start. The war ended and TM Sopwith had a massive, successful company with no customer. Faced with this, he decared bankruptcy, renamed the company Hawker (after his chief test pilot Harry Hawker) and got back to work. The British government finally lad them low in the interests of ideology.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Survival, and sense. TOM Sopwith was a brilliant man. Hawkcr continued his legacy The shrinking pie was created by government policy as were the fewer companies. The British forced amalgamations in industry which brought about, poor work practices, management, design and marketing. The government severely damaged British industry in the post WW2 era, and are finishing their job today. Side note, Anthony Fokker's American team produced the North American P51
@53jed the government wanted fewer companies back before WW2 but didn't have the economic conditions to make it happen. When Air Ministry Specification F7/30 was issued not did Hawker submit a design but so did 2 of the other companies in the Hawker Siddley Group - Armstrong Whitworth and Gloster.
@53jed in the 1930s the Air Ministry issued Specification F7/30 to which IIRC 7 proposals were submitted. Three of them came from the subsidiary companies of the Hawker Siddeley Group - Hawker, Armstrong Whitworth and Gloster. This duplication of effort was expensive, as well as time wasting. Too many companies, chasing too few orders. The Hawker Siddeley Group wasn't efficient as each company was a stand-alone entity fighting for orders against its sister companies and as such costing the group money. The mergers of the 1950s and 1960s weren't the start of the problems, they were endemic in the system from day 1.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 That doesn't fit very well with your original question - ""The ideology of fewer companies getting a larger slice of an ever shrinking pie?" Competition promotes innovation.
This aircraft is a prime example of the shortsightedness of the RAF and the Air ministry/Ministry of Defence/War Departments, at the end of WWI the military were almost completely demobbed en masse, the need for research and development of anything bigger than a paper clip 🔖 was almost nonexistent until the war clouds started forming over Germany and we were forced to play catchup with virtually everyone else who had not been able to see what the future might bring, WWII begins and we were still playing catchup, and then in 1945 at wars end we did exactly the same thing again, shortsightedness was obviously a prerequisite for cabinet office and procurement officials, role onto the late 40s-50s and brushfire conflicts breaking out within the smouldering ruins of the Empire, Suez, Aden, Cyprus and the Korean War were all military situations that had to be dealt with, and still we expected more and more from less and less, it’s is no wonder we avoided the Vietnam war, even the Falklands war was touch and go as far as air power goes (thank goodness for the boots on the ground) and we go on and on buying technology that we could have designed and built ourselves if successive governments, including the current shower of Sh1t, had not sold our world class aviation industry out by buying from overseas, but thank goodness we still had some adequate military equipment and manpower to carry on keeping the home fires 🔥 burning so that the very same governments did not get embarrassed (to much) on the geopolitical stage, England (Great Britain 🇬🇧) might well expect every man and woman to do their duty, but at least the government SHOULD provide them with the best kit available to do it, especially if it has “made in Great Britain” on it. I realise I am ranting on, sorry for that, however, having been part of the RAF for most of my working life, just as my father,grandfather and son were, I have seen the slow but sure dismantling of all our service branches and tbh this country does not have the resources to fight our way out of a soggy paper bag, let alone a full scale war (even as part of NATO) and those people who don’t realise that then they must be told, told that this country can NOT defend itself, we pour billions of pounds down the drain every year by trying to stay relevant on the world stage and supporting every single waif and stray either arriving on our shores or needing support for the country they live in (usually ex Empire) because they can’t do it themselves, but we can’t afford to support and properly man our military, NHS, emergency services or support our own vulnerable people. Once again I apologise for the rant, I have put my soapbox away, vented my spleen and I am now going to watch the video, anyone who has got this far reading I just want to say that I am not joking, we are in deep poo 💩. @ 8:46 - 9:55 Mr NAPFATG has put more credence to my opinion about the issues that British military aviation faced, I readily admit that the state of British economic affairs was dire, but had the government’s supported the manufacturers by investing in them it would have helped put thousands, even tens of thousands, people back into direct work with them, overseas sales would have been greater and it would have made recovery of the economy a little easier, even a lot easier, once again shortsightedness ruined the industry.
North American didn't really come out of nowhere. For all intents and purpose is was a renamed Fokker aircraft corporation. That's how they managed to produce such wonderful designs with excellent manufacturing quality apparently right out of the box.
North American Aviation and McDonnell Aircraft were hardly "unheard of" newcomers. Both had roots into the late 1920s, were hit hard by the Great Depression, but were manufacturing aircraft and/or aircraft parts by the mid-late 1930s. McDonnell did benefit from companies such as Grumman not being allowed to divert resources from F6F and F8F production and development into jet R & D, but McDonnell didn't spring from nowhere. As for North American, their T-6, B-25, and P-51 were hardly minor products.
I was thinking it was just a whoopsie when you called HMS Bull "WARK" (pronounced WALK by the way) HMS Bull "WICK" !!!........until you did it again a few minutes later, tut tut lol.
The US and UK ignored the real lesson of Suez. "Those kind of wars" were still on the table and just maybe you ought to have some of the right kind of aircraft to fight them. What I get from this channel is that aircraft development reverted to "the bomber will always get through" this time with nukes reasoning. Had both US and UK planners understood this then perhaps they would have figured out that air superiority fighters can intercept bombers and fight effectively in traditional air-to-air combat. And it turns out, that air superiority fighters can deliver a lot of ordinance.
Maybe if you are working with unlimited funding, yeah, you just make both kinds of force, why not? If you are expected to have the most effective force to deal with a nuclear war, which was by far the greatest actual threat to the nation, but you spend half the budget making tactical planes just in case you get into a minor war, people might be pissed if the actual nuclear war happens and you lose because you don't have enough interceptors or bombers. They didn't _have_ to fight in Suez. In fact the US was very much opposed to them doing so and was most it the reason they withdrew. The US didn't _have_ to fight in Vietnam. The immediate survival of the US wasn't reliant on us going to war there. For that matter, none of the wars we have been in since the Civil War had anything to do with the nation surviving, and that one itself is debatable. And it's kind of awkward for the US to be telling the world that we need to look to the UN and avoid warfare and seek peace while also arming up to fight various wars around the world, while also explaining that the USSR is the greatest threat to the world, but we aren't going to spend _all_ of our money on countering that, because we might find side distractions that require military intervention. But none of you guys arm up, except to deal with the Soviets, we definitely don't want any wars going on! Although it's not like the US was only making interceptors and strategic bombers. They had the B-51, the F-100 was being used as a fighter bomber, the F-4 was designed from the start to be good at bombing as well as intercepting, the F-105 was a strike fighter that was capable of using nukes. They had the A-4 and the A-1, the B-45 and B-66, the A3D. Doesn't seem like they are totally unprepared to fight a conventional war, if some of the planes didn't work out as well as they hoped. What exactly is it that you think they were missing that they definitely found out they needed in Vietnam? They added the A-6 and F-111. They made the F-14, F-16 and F-15 because they found out that they needed better air to air fighters. But what does that have to do with what the British learned in Suez?
@@justforever96 What lesson? That there was a far greater chance that you would fight small conventional wars than a big nuclear one. The Russian strategy was to provoke small local wars that would not reach the nuclear threshold. That is why Vietnam. The Eisenhower doctrine of massive retaliation was a failure because the Russians found a way around it.
Sub- and trans-sonic jet aircraft of the 1950s were expanding the knowledge of aerodynamics while also expanding the capabilities of jet engines. Very! Risky! Naval aviators were doing it on air craft carriers duilt for aircraft of very different capabilities and weight. Even more risky! Sea Hawk and F9F Panther/Cougar and MiG-15 pilots were courageous men.
My dad was killed in a training accident in 2004 in a crash in a Canberra PR.9. I appreciate you highlighting how dangerous training is, as this is often overlooked.
So sorry for your loss. I know someone whose father was killed in a Canberra accident some years earlier. It was devastating for the family.
Respect to your dad.
@GunboatDiplomat = I remember the night your Dad's plane crashed
"XH.168" was it's serial number & I saw that a/c very regularly near Marham
Following year, in October, W.O Brown invited me to spend the day there
"XH.134", "XH.135" & the Blue PRU carrying "VN.799" markings (spurious)
I was drinking at the bar at a Norfolk Pub called "The Feathers" when it happened
We'd been talking about the RAF when suddenly, the (then) Barman said...
"One's gone in" - Obviously at that time, I didn't KNOW it was "XH.168"
My most memorable sighting of her was over our local railway bridge
We were teaching my Son how to use his "Sonic The Hedgehog" skateboard
"XH.168" was SO low to the ground, it's underwing serial clearly visible
A/c are cleared to fly as low as 250ft in our area.... "LFA.5"
Was a very memorable sighting & it upset me, hearing it later crashed
IIRC : Your Dad's plane was practising "Asymmetrical Approach"(es)
I heard after a few, that one approach went awry & the PR.9 cartwheeled
My sincere condolences
@@Rain-uc4ru It's important that these things are remembered.
One engine failed to spool up on takeoff causing asymmetric thrust. Due to it being night, the visibility out of the T.4 being rubbish, and my dad being incredibly overconfident they tried to takeoff instead of aborting. The Nav ejected safely but broke his back, my dad and the other pilot ejected outside the envelope and the rest is history.
I was on Aresstor cover at RAF Marham that night. R.I.P
Hawker is very beloved in india. In 1961 Goa and 1971 Bangladesh war Sea Hawks from Indian carrier INS Vikrant performed spectacularly
If you want quality kit, buy British
@@-lightningwill-6014 Alas not true anymore in this time
@@aaravtulsyan depends because we don't make our fucking stuff anymore because of a corrupt govt, our govt single handedly killed just about everyone of our major industries and infrastructures, 75 years ago we made the world's first jet passenger plane and now we just make the engines and systems for them
@@-lightningwill-6014sometimes
You say you are an “amateur” historian. Huh? You’re the BEST historian of your subject I have ever had the pleasure to listen to. Thank You Professor Napfatg !!!
try greg.
Well pay the man if he is a professional!
Historians went in and reviewed the primary documents and wrote a book on the sum of their findings. This guy read those books and summarized the contents into a video. That doesn't make him a "historian", let alone the best one on the subject. He has access to some good resources and makes a good video out of it. An actual historian would more likely be a specialist on just "the history of the prewar RAF" or even "the history of the Hawker Company". He gets paid to do what he does. If your subject is just "the history of fighter aircraft" and all you do is read books that are available on the subject to learn what others have learned, you are an amateur historian. You can even be a very good historian and go review primary documents and even dig up artifacts, if you aren't doing it as your job you are an amateur historian. It has nothing to do with skill or ability. How can you be a "professional historian" when it's not your profession? It's your hobby. Some hobbyists are extremely talented, but it's still just a pastime for them. This guy may be a historian for all I know, I don't know what he does. But from the evidence of the videos I have seen he's more accurately a history enthusiast who is also good at making videos.
I hold him in high regard along with hreg and rex
@justforever96 We don't know his identity so who knows, I do personally bristle when I see on TV the term "historian" thrown around. I did a research masters at Cambridge, two years and a dissertation on litigation by widows in 15th-century England. Even I wouldn't call myself a historian. But I did have quite a well read blog with articles that arose from my research and interesting cases I came across in researching for my dissertation. I suppose in that role I would consider myself a history "communicator", I'm not sure the right term but someone taking what is interesting and noteworthy to the general public, and then writing about that (for example a magazine article I wrote about a day in the life of a medieval barrister). I think there's an important role for history communicators and popularisers and this fellow clearly has found his niche and does great work communicating this history to the public (with great archival footage, a clear niche like I had, and an interested public). I tend to think historian is more something you do than are; I wouldn't lay claim to the title of historian without doing a PhD, but I have done original research at a top university (and also was published in ODNB).. But what happens when someone finishes their phd byt continues to write about history, from the fruits of their research, for a popular audience? We don't know what NAPFATG does in 'real' life, he could well be active in this area in research (and realistically, military historians tend to be much broader than what you have to do in avery crowded subject like medieval history).
In short😊, let the people enjoy this history which is being communicated to us in a rigorous and entertaining manner
I am a War Thunder player and I love the Sea Hawk, especially the Mk.100 with two AIM-9Bs. It turns hard, holds it's energy very well, regains it's energy well, it has large flaps and a large air break which are also a big up side. All of it's weapons hit hard, the four Hispanos, the bombs, the RP-3s, and the 9Bs on the Mk.100. It can punch far above it's weight.
One of the best early jets that I swear no one plays, only plans that I can average 3-4 kills a game.
It's a decent plane for an 8.3 lineup but the scimitar is just too superior at 8.7 with better stand off with bullpups and crazy levels of thrust. But for 8.3 you won't find a better british plane.
@@TheOfficial007 Oh, I should have said than the Sea Hawk Mk.100 is an "Artificially rare" German premium. I do not have the British Sea Hawk FGA.6, but I assume it plays similar to the Mk.100 but not having 9Bs.
@RubyFox_YT pretty much, and I was just referring to ground battles mainly. The sea hawk mk 100 is really underestimated in air battles with sidewinders.
Im still stuck at mid war fighters. I'm probably a bit below average skill at the game so unless I'm playing against idiots I don't much enjoy playing
The fact the Sea Hawk flew from the former HMS Venerable shows how the "Light Fleet Carrier" designed to last for only a few years/till wars end was so well made it was capable of flying jet aircraft into the late 1960's.
India had the Light Fleet Carrier and Sea Hawk till 1980s! When they were replaced by Hermes and Harrier
More like they built the jets specifically to fly from that carrier. They flew jets off of escort carriers too. Is that somehow amazing and laudable? It's more indicative of the fact that he UK was totally broke and couldn't afford new carriers so they had to half ass it and fly jets off of what they had already. Not that what they had was very impressive honestly. Even during the war the FAA pilots who got a chance to land on US carriers were amazed at the size and comfort of the US ships, and the _Colossus_ class were even smaller and more cramped than the regular fleet carriers. Which only carried a handful of aircraft and couldn't even fit all of those into the hangar deck. They were also shockingly dangerous to operate from, with a loss rate of one plane per ten sorties overall, mostly from landing accidents (which I don't know how is even possible, how do you maintain a working air component with that kind of loss rate?) Even if the jets were specifically designed to operate under the restrictions of these carriers, it must have been terrifying.
And the three year life isn't really meaningful, that was the guaranteed life span, lots of things exceed their design life, especially with lots of maintenance. Liberty ships were still in common use though the 20th century. But they also quickly became miserable places to work and live and maintenance nightmares with things constantly breaking down, especially as they got older.
But props to Britain for making do with what they had, most nations couldn't even afford a carrier, so even a few pretty crappy ones was still something to be proud of.
I believe that on of those little carriers has the sortie record certainly for Korea maby of all time I'll have to look it up
Sweet the Drachinifel of early jets has another banger of a video. Your content is top tier and you deserve way more subscribers. Since you are doing videos on Soviet missiles and the such. A video on all the variants of the sidewinder would be cool. I only learn a month ago that there was a sidewinder that there was a radar guided one and a laser guided sidewinder.
I had the pleasure of working for Armstrong Whitworth in the early 1960s when Seahawks were being stripped down and modified. I always thought it was a most beautiful aircraft. Being a carrier based plane all the parts we made were very substantial in the fact the guages of metal were thicker than land based planes. Always nice to work on.
Thanks for. The acknowledgement of the pilots lost during "peace time" that was the Cold War. All are heroes and deserve to be remembered by more than just the families.
The quiet man of the cold war getting on with the job whilst others came and went. A great aircraft if unspectacular but it's record speaks volumes. Thanks for a superb video.
A whole video could be done on Cold War fatalities in B-47s on training missions. The numbers I read on the Wikipedia page were staggering.
Look at US marines crashes with the Sea Harrier.
When I saw the Sea Hawk at the Fleet Air Arm Museum I was shocked at how small it was! But a lovely, neat design.
Thanks! I never knew the Seahawk was so capable & useful. It is a beautiful Friday evening with the Sea Hawk
.
'Elegant'; a great word for this beautiful fighter, especially in the classic RN livery--imagine F-35s so adorned...
When I saw the image of the engine with its bifurcated exhaust, I immediately thought, 'Harrier'!
The white walls on the tow tractor got me! LOL
I read this JUST as it drove by 😂
I enjoyed this one a lot. I grew up in Renfrew Scotland where we had the old airport literally in our back yard. The sound of Connies, Argonauts, Brittanias and Viscounts etc filled my young ears at night when I would hear them stacking in circuits and then on approach.
A few miles away there was Abbotsinch RNAS. Which is now Glasgow Airport. They flew Sea Hawks, Gannets, Venoms and a few Wyverns and Sea Vixens too. I can only just remember it now. But the sound of those big propliners I shall never forget, nor the oarnge light of the sweeping radar that would light my bedroom on/off all night!
Great show. You are a gifted orator and historian my man.
This is going to seems a daft question but ........
WHY, or rather HOW, would radar cause your bedroom to be repeatedly sept with light of any sort?
Did it cause something to fluoresce?
[If so lucky you weren't lightly keebabbed]
Good point, he has admitted to a hazy memory🤣. Seriously though, what memories they must be ! ThAnks for sharing
I've always liked the Hawker Sea Hawk and think it has nice clean lines and an elegant shape. Thank you for this fun and informative episode on this British classic! 👏
Well said
@JTA1961 thank you 😊
The daddy of the beautiful Hunter.
and what an aircraft that was, superb.
about 60 years ago I built the Airfix kit and it remains to my eye one of the better looking aircraft to take to the skies.
Very pretty little jet; super-clean design. Many thanks for another top tier video on this deeply fascinating period.
sweeet... Just went out to do some grocery shopping, grabbed some Vietnamese take away for dinner while i was out, got home, sat down, opened a beer and look what I see!
NaPfAtG video... I'm set. Thanks.
Thanks. Best channel on fighter aircraft of the period.
I found your pronunciation of the USS Antietam a hoot. Then again, in the U.S. I grew up hearing the name (mostly in context of the battle) quite frequently.
How did u pronounce Leicester, Yank? 😅😅😅
I'm impressed you quoted the Marineflieger Sea Hawk incident as I was quite prepared to mention it in the comments. Some sources list this Sea Hawk as either damaged by gunfire or even destroyed on landing. Also some sources claim it was a soviet MiG-21 not a MiG-17. In any case, the pilot, Kapitänleutnant Knut Winkler, was killed in 1966 in a midair collision in a Starfighter. Der Spiegel magazine from the time claims it was 1. a MiG-21 and that Winkler had to belly land his Sea Hawk after cannon hits
Pro tip: The Sea Hawk is an absolute menace in War Thunder SIM battles. Very easy to fly and the visibility from the cockpit is insanely good as well.
Loving the early jet videos!!!!
yeah!!!!!! I've been waiting for this one for a while, I love the videos and I've always wanted some good insight to an otherwise unassuming but pretty jet!
I was reading about the seahawk in Dutch naval service on Wikipedia and it did mention it was fitted to take the saiwan the missile but I didn't believe it because Wikipedia can be quite unreliable when it comes to accurate and legitimate information..
Keep up the good work...👍
Thank-you, that is my favourite content of yours so far
Thanks very much for another great video.
(Still have fingers crossed for the Javelin....)
Excellent video on the Sea Hawk especially side by side with its contemporaries! Looks like the U.S.S. Antietam CV-36 would make a great video on angled carriers. And to tackle the pronunciation a la “Kearsarge” 😅.
One of my favourites.....no crappy video game required ✌️
Excellent narrative, most informative. Many thanks. Rmb5*
Great storytelling, thank you.
Well presented and analysed. Thank you for an interesting and thoroughly researched video 👍
EXCELLENT presentation!
Great stuff, keep them coming.
Very enlightening indeed, very instructive 😊
Excellent, as always. Apologies for the pedantry, but Antietam is pronounced Ann-tee-tum, with slight emphasis on the tee. Anyway, I love your videos.
"An-TEE-tam," I believe. Different final vowel.
@@ethanmckinney203no, rpick was correct Ann-tee-tum.
Yeah, we Brits can't pronounce 'Merralund' properly either. 'Murrlin'? 'Mary-Land'? We haven't got a clue.
I always wondered how to pronounce it. Thanks.
At the 16:20 mark and elsewhere, we can see a Seahawk of 897 Squadron with its large seabird head (a roseate tern).
Excellent!! Thank you!
The first Sea HaWK I ever saw was at the gate of HMS SEAHAWK at Helston, Cornwall, back in the late 1950's a BOOTIFUL AIRPLANE !
Excellent video, thank you.
Nicely done.😎
Great video, Ed...👍
As built, an Essex class carrier was 30,800 tons, standard; and Illustrious class carrier was 23,000 tons, standard. The 1951-1955 recommissioned Essexes, post SCB-27 saw their displacement increase ~20%, i.e. to ~37,00 tons. Midway class carriers, as built, were 45,000 tons, standard, approximately double the displacement of an as-built Illustrious class carrier.
I have an original pilots notes book for this aircraft printed in September 1956! It sure is beautiful.
Possibly the most beautiful aircraft ever.. I can’t decide between the DeHavilland Hornet or the Sea Hawk
Love the videos 🎉
What a pretty aeroplane. It just looks right😍
Must build my Trumpeter 1/48 FGA.6.
Cracking video 👍
At 67 and modeling most of my life, I have built three 1/72 scale kits in the last several years. I need to do the 1/48 model.
Brilliant work 👍👍 thank you 🙏🤲💯😁
North American did not originate from nowhere. It was joint venture / merger of Fokker US & GM Aircraft. For various reasons they just eschewed publicity of the merger.
That’s something I didn’t know! Thanks for the fun fact!
Shifty Fokkers
I've learnt from this that the Navy preferred aircraft with the engines tight to the body to make deck operations safer.
May be my favorite jet age plane 😎
23:05. What fell in the sea, causing the splash below the a/c taking off?
I came here to ask the same question. Only thing I can think of is it’s some kind of disposable support piece for the catapult.
@@stevenhundley8244 According to those in the know, a “wire rope bridle” that connected the a/c to the launcher and was designed to fall to the deck on launch for repeated use, sometimes went in the sea. Today a different system is in use.
can you do a video on early F-14 adaption and usage ( 1975 evaluation of vietnam , gulf of sidra etc ) as its quite interesting as the jet from what I've read had a lot of teething issues the early tomcats had
Today is a good day, been waiting for this one since the naval theme started.
One of my favourite transonic-era fighters. Just a sensible evolution of what had come before, unfortunately never seen one in the metal but such a neat & clean design hawker kept up its tradition of making really lovely looking aircraft.
The F-86 was transonic, this is well subsonic. Straight wing is generally subsonic although it may approach Mach in a dive, the first swept wings like F-86 and MiG-15 are transonic, possibly capable of supersonic in dive, but not safely, the MiG-17 is a bit better than either, really just a MiG-15 improved to get an edge over the F-86, and the F-100, F-102 and MiG-19 are supersonic . F-8 and F-101 and Su-7 are Mach 1.5-1.8, the MiG-21, Su-9/11, F-104, 106, 105 and F-4 and Mirage III are bisonic.
Good job...I subscribed thanks for your efforts
in the steel panthers game, there are a couple scenarios that cover the british/french invasion of egypt in 1956.
now i shall have to go back and have a look at the specific british planes in use.
one thing i remember is, if the planes approach port said too closely, half of them get shot down. not sure how realistic that is.
I have plastic kit of sea hawk. Beautiful aircraft ❤❤
Pointing out the obvious, but Hawker really did make a lot of very good aircraft.
The Seahawk really is a lovely looking aircraft. I have fond memories of an Airfix model that I had when I was a kid.
20:50 First I’ve heard about this difficulty Sir, I found it a wonderful filly who glided through all of my sorties , has someone been talking out of school or have you been reading one of those dreadful, hastily scribbled post War potboilers? God Bless and can I suggest a most interesting channel on here by a young chap named Thomas Robinson, seems like a decent sort.
India also operated the Seahawk from 1959-83. We acquired some 60 machines including some ex-Marineflieger aircraft. They were based on INS Vikrant and saw action in our 1971 war with Pakistan. Used in ground attack they together with the Breguet Alize sank around 15 enemy vessels and damaged many more.
What is that forward bump in the tail fin for?
Written before he tells us at 3:43
Imo the Seahawk was the most elegant jet of the age.
I've been having a 🐳 of time savouring the Perfect Pounder 👌
Douglas Skywarrior.
S'il te plaît.
Split jetpipe became important for another Hawker product, the Harrier.
The Harrier was actually designed around the configuration of the Pegasus jet (itself designed by Bristol) so in fairness the engine came first.
@@simong9067 Fair enough. Family resemblance is there, though.
@@RCAvhstape True. There's a very thick tome (but surprisingly readable) about the development of the Pegasus in which the branches of the split jetpipe are referred to by Bristol engineers as trouser legs. I wonder if the same termnology was used for the Seahawk.
Looks similar to the Grumman A-6 intruder with side by side cockpit instead of in tandem without a swept wing .
Vought Cutlass next!
He already did that dude. I just watched it a couple days ago.
@@justforever96 aight thankss
I like to imagine that this guy just buys kits of various planes, and researches the hell out of them as part of building a model, and decided he might as well start making videos on the information he found. Maybe that's where the box art comes from? I do something similar. I find it's more appealing to read about a machine if i own a model of it that i can hold and look at. It makes it seem more relevant somehow.
Good video. Antietam is pronounced an-TEE-tum, named for the site of a very bloody battle in the US Civil War.
What a great video. Thank you.
WRT carrier hangar height, USN carriers' hangars allowed stowing spare aircraft above the aircraft parked on the hangar deck. That RN carriers didn't accommodate such stowage was a design artifact related to the expected operating environment, especially the flight rather than the hangar deck being armored. Having the flight deck higher above the hangar like in the Essex class would have created a stability problem.
Suez was Operation Musketeer not Trumpeter...
Could the wings of the Sea Hawk be folded while the aircraft was below deck?
I can't get over how much detail is available from this era. I had no idea Britain had so many Aircraft Carriers in the 1950's either. I think British pilots had a fearsome reputation after WWII and particularly the battle of Britain. The Egyptian Mig-15 pilots may have thought going home that night was a better option than engaging the Sea Hawk who's performance was unknown to them. I think the US Panther's shot down 7 Mig-15's even though they were outmatched and weren't even on CAP missions. They just fought their fight instead of the Migs fight. I think the Sea Hawks would have done OK.
Someone went home at the end, with nothing
The narration audio is quite muddy, difficult to understand in some places.
Cool plane do the Mig-19 next 👍😊.
I've always wondered why some cockpit are so far back.
28:00 Hear, hear!
23:09 That's a weird (at least from this angle) looking helicopter
Great video as always ... but let me help you with your pronounciation: "Antietam" is pronounced "an tee' tum" (or "an tee' dum" if you're local)
ref: I live across the river from Sharpsburg, where the battle was fought.
I would like to see how the Seahawk went up against the Mets 15 in Korea because the original Panther had trouble and even the later cougar you know that wasn't really equal
Give me the USA turned on the UK over the Suez Canal incident because the USA was still mad about Rolls-Royce selling their engine to the USSR the mig-15
The 8ft tail height is surely irrelevant in carrier stowage when the folded wings are at least twice the height.
"Having emerged from the wreckage of Sopwith after the First World War,'' ... Good start. The war ended and TM Sopwith had a massive, successful company with no customer. Faced with this, he decared bankruptcy, renamed the company Hawker (after his chief test pilot Harry Hawker) and got back to work.
The British government finally lad them low in the interests of ideology.
The ideology of fewer companies getting a larger slice of an ever shrinking pie?
@@neiloflongbeck5705 Survival, and sense.
TOM Sopwith was a brilliant man. Hawkcr continued his legacy The shrinking pie was created by government policy as were the fewer companies. The British forced amalgamations in industry which brought about, poor work practices, management, design and marketing.
The government severely damaged British industry in the post WW2 era, and are finishing their job today.
Side note, Anthony Fokker's American team produced the North American P51
@53jed the government wanted fewer companies back before WW2 but didn't have the economic conditions to make it happen. When Air Ministry Specification F7/30 was issued not did Hawker submit a design but so did 2 of the other companies in the Hawker Siddley Group - Armstrong Whitworth and Gloster.
@53jed in the 1930s the Air Ministry issued Specification F7/30 to which IIRC 7 proposals were submitted. Three of them came from the subsidiary companies of the Hawker Siddeley Group - Hawker, Armstrong Whitworth and Gloster. This duplication of effort was expensive, as well as time wasting. Too many companies, chasing too few orders. The Hawker Siddeley Group wasn't efficient as each company was a stand-alone entity fighting for orders against its sister companies and as such costing the group money. The mergers of the 1950s and 1960s weren't the start of the problems, they were endemic in the system from day 1.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 That doesn't fit very well with your original question - ""The ideology of fewer companies getting a larger slice of an ever shrinking pie?"
Competition promotes innovation.
Remember to do one for the Indian Navy and the 1971 War.
A like and comment for the almighty algorithm (praise be)
Strange that, Hawker and Grumman built the SeaFury and Bearcat, the last of the superprops, Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown rated them as near equals.
This aircraft is a prime example of the shortsightedness of the RAF and the Air ministry/Ministry of Defence/War Departments, at the end of WWI the military were almost completely demobbed en masse, the need for research and development of anything bigger than a paper clip 🔖 was almost nonexistent until the war clouds started forming over Germany and we were forced to play catchup with virtually everyone else who had not been able to see what the future might bring, WWII begins and we were still playing catchup, and then in 1945 at wars end we did exactly the same thing again, shortsightedness was obviously a prerequisite for cabinet office and procurement officials, role onto the late 40s-50s and brushfire conflicts breaking out within the smouldering ruins of the Empire, Suez, Aden, Cyprus and the Korean War were all military situations that had to be dealt with, and still we expected more and more from less and less, it’s is no wonder we avoided the Vietnam war, even the Falklands war was touch and go as far as air power goes (thank goodness for the boots on the ground) and we go on and on buying technology that we could have designed and built ourselves if successive governments, including the current shower of Sh1t, had not sold our world class aviation industry out by buying from overseas, but thank goodness we still had some adequate military equipment and manpower to carry on keeping the home fires 🔥 burning so that the very same governments did not get embarrassed (to much) on the geopolitical stage, England (Great Britain 🇬🇧) might well expect every man and woman to do their duty, but at least the government SHOULD provide them with the best kit available to do it, especially if it has “made in Great Britain” on it.
I realise I am ranting on, sorry for that, however, having been part of the RAF for most of my working life, just as my father,grandfather and son were, I have seen the slow but sure dismantling of all our service branches and tbh this country does not have the resources to fight our way out of a soggy paper bag, let alone a full scale war (even as part of NATO) and those people who don’t realise that then they must be told, told that this country can NOT defend itself, we pour billions of pounds down the drain every year by trying to stay relevant on the world stage and supporting every single waif and stray either arriving on our shores or needing support for the country they live in (usually ex Empire) because they can’t do it themselves, but we can’t afford to support and properly man our military, NHS, emergency services or support our own vulnerable people.
Once again I apologise for the rant, I have put my soapbox away, vented my spleen and I am now going to watch the video, anyone who has got this far reading I just want to say that I am not joking, we are in deep poo 💩.
@ 8:46 - 9:55 Mr NAPFATG has put more credence to my opinion about the issues that British military aviation faced, I readily admit that the state of British economic affairs was dire, but had the government’s supported the manufacturers by investing in them it would have helped put thousands, even tens of thousands, people back into direct work with them, overseas sales would have been greater and it would have made recovery of the economy a little easier, even a lot easier, once again shortsightedness ruined the industry.
Those Mig15s had derivatives of RR 'Avon' engines, gifted from a dozy UK government. That engine isn't mentioned for any British aeroplanes.
Nene engines.
North American didn't really come out of nowhere. For all intents and purpose is was a renamed Fokker aircraft corporation. That's how they managed to produce such wonderful designs with excellent manufacturing quality apparently right out of the box.
North American Aviation and McDonnell Aircraft were hardly "unheard of" newcomers. Both had roots into the late 1920s, were hit hard by the Great Depression, but were manufacturing aircraft and/or aircraft parts by the mid-late 1930s. McDonnell did benefit from companies such as Grumman not being allowed to divert resources from F6F and F8F production and development into jet R & D, but McDonnell didn't spring from nowhere. As for North American, their T-6, B-25, and P-51 were hardly minor products.
North American was basically the result of General Motors buying Focker's US company, so hardly 'from nowhere' either.
When mentioning other designs their images should be displayed at the same time on the screen.
I was thinking it was just a whoopsie when you called HMS Bull "WARK" (pronounced WALK by the way) HMS Bull "WICK" !!!........until you did it again a few minutes later, tut tut lol.
Also Lootenant....
It is still better looking than its contemporaries.
Wow
Surely, HMS Bulwark?
Butt pants @19:38! 😳
The US and UK ignored the real lesson of Suez. "Those kind of wars" were still on the table and just maybe you ought to have some of the right kind of aircraft to fight them. What I get from this channel is that aircraft development reverted to "the bomber will always get through" this time with nukes reasoning. Had both US and UK planners understood this then perhaps they would have figured out that air superiority fighters can intercept bombers and fight effectively in traditional air-to-air combat. And it turns out, that air superiority fighters can deliver a lot of ordinance.
Maybe if you are working with unlimited funding, yeah, you just make both kinds of force, why not? If you are expected to have the most effective force to deal with a nuclear war, which was by far the greatest actual threat to the nation, but you spend half the budget making tactical planes just in case you get into a minor war, people might be pissed if the actual nuclear war happens and you lose because you don't have enough interceptors or bombers. They didn't _have_ to fight in Suez. In fact the US was very much opposed to them doing so and was most it the reason they withdrew. The US didn't _have_ to fight in Vietnam. The immediate survival of the US wasn't reliant on us going to war there. For that matter, none of the wars we have been in since the Civil War had anything to do with the nation surviving, and that one itself is debatable. And it's kind of awkward for the US to be telling the world that we need to look to the UN and avoid warfare and seek peace while also arming up to fight various wars around the world, while also explaining that the USSR is the greatest threat to the world, but we aren't going to spend _all_ of our money on countering that, because we might find side distractions that require military intervention. But none of you guys arm up, except to deal with the Soviets, we definitely don't want any wars going on!
Although it's not like the US was only making interceptors and strategic bombers. They had the B-51, the F-100 was being used as a fighter bomber, the F-4 was designed from the start to be good at bombing as well as intercepting, the F-105 was a strike fighter that was capable of using nukes. They had the A-4 and the A-1, the B-45 and B-66, the A3D. Doesn't seem like they are totally unprepared to fight a conventional war, if some of the planes didn't work out as well as they hoped. What exactly is it that you think they were missing that they definitely found out they needed in Vietnam? They added the A-6 and F-111. They made the F-14, F-16 and F-15 because they found out that they needed better air to air fighters. But what does that have to do with what the British learned in Suez?
@@justforever96 What lesson? That there was a far greater chance that you would fight small conventional wars than a big nuclear one. The Russian strategy was to provoke small local wars that would not reach the nuclear threshold. That is why Vietnam. The Eisenhower doctrine of massive retaliation was a failure because the Russians found a way around it.
Sub- and trans-sonic jet aircraft of the 1950s were expanding the knowledge of aerodynamics while also expanding the capabilities of jet engines. Very! Risky! Naval aviators were doing it on air craft carriers duilt for aircraft of very different capabilities and weight. Even more risky! Sea Hawk and F9F Panther/Cougar and MiG-15 pilots were courageous men.
The USS Antietam is pronounced "An-tee-tum", just for reference
While certainly a capable platform I think generally the American F9 Panther had a better sortie rate