I found the video interesting because it matched a statement made by the author of Clashes who was an RF-4 pilot, but clarified things a little better.
Indirectly as I explained: Though I guess the goal is that it extends at low speed where AoA is higher.
That's quite good
Well having actually flown in F-4s, i still find some of the comments in the movie a little over dramatic, but then again it was a training film made 50 years ago.
What model if I may ask?
Well I think they were to iron home the point of flying the plane right as if you got into a flat spin you were doomed.
Do you have any proof at all for this? Fighting is inherently dangerous but I can put forward a very good argument that proves the top aces in two world wars were cowards, "if it is a fair fight you have done something wrong", they were as much, if not more concerned with their own survival as they were with a "kill". If the USAF is in the position of losing football games by two goals to one they can try to score more or concede less, constructing strategies to concede less is not being "far too obsessed with safety" in fact the strategy worked.
There were numerous writings about the USAF during the 1950's and 1960's. If I recall it had to do with several things
Okay, we are thinking of two different forms of safety.
If you can't score a lot, make sure they can't score on you?
I asked for proof not musings, as a British national I have no great knowledge of the USA post war military, but your post was completely dismissive of the actions of people who had many lives in their hands. An "obsession with safety" with early jet aircraft may have stemmed from the number of early jet aircraft that crashed and even as far as the number of people in training who did not eject when they could have.
F-4D, F-4E. We had an RF-4E but I never got to fly in that one
Actually it was the opposite. There were many things being done during that period that were terribly unsafe. There was little room for discussion and safety mitigation because of the pace of the Vietnam War. Look at the accident rates of that period - they were horrendous by today's standards.
Zipper, that is one very ignorant statement. Unless you have some hands on experience or can quantify that statement, to put it bluntly, you're talking out of your ass, really!
When it reaches a point that it undermines effective training...
From the first world war where planes and pilots were treated as disposable the cost of an aircraft steadily increased, with post war jets the cost went up still further and the pilot is always a more valuable asset than the plane he flies. The B 29 could not suffer the loss rates that were accepted on B17 and B 24s not only because of the huge difference in cost but the similar difference in training for pilots and flight engineers. Disregarding safety was simply not affordable, the object is to down the enemy not yourself.
Smart move.
