Comments by "Spring Bloom" (@springbloom5940) on "Covert Cabal" channel.

  1. 65
  2. 41
  3. 18
  4. 10
  5. 9
  6. 6
  7. 5
  8. 5
  9. 5
  10. 5
  11. 4
  12. 4
  13. 4
  14. 4
  15. 4
  16. 3
  17. Ill add that BVR is largely wargaming fantasy. With a handful of exceptions under very specific circumstances, every air to air engagement, since advent of BVR capability, has required visual ID of targets, per ROE. That is, you cant just shoot at shadows in the doorway. Any freefire zone will, as you noted, likely be occupied by real threats, not 3rd World operators of 2 generation obsolete export models. The main problem with BVR combat in practice, is that it gives the target a LOT of time to respond. In the case of F35, youre talking about firing a very limited number of weapons, all of which have a poor reliability factor, giving away your presence and then getting chased down and shot in the back, by interceptors. The reality is, no one has any idea if stealth even works, because no stealth aircraft has prosecuted a mission in airspace denied to conventional aircraft, neither has a stealth aircraft attacked an unsuppressed airspace. In fact, by measure of miles flown, ordnance on target and targets destroyed per unit lost/grounded, stealth has a miserably poor record. The F35 could've been a genuine gamechanger, had it been developed modestly, as a direct replacement for the F117. But, it became an investment paradox, where as the price increases, it becomes harder to drop and progressively less tolerable to potentially lose a plane. Now, we are committed to building an invincible, invisible superhero, instead of a cheap, short range incursion aircraft, thats back on its own side of the fence, before the bombs hit.
    3
  18. 3
  19. 3
  20. This is highly inaccurate. 1) They have air dominance in the active theatre(listen to some foreign fighter interviews about constantly being bombed and rocketed by su24s and gunships). They're just not venturing beyond the front. 2) They're not risking it, because they a) have no necessity to at this time and b) are saving it for operations over the winter, when Ukrainian forces are fixed by environmental conditions. Everyone habitually projects their own motives and doctrine onto Russia; both of which are fundamentally different from the West. Russia is in no hurry whatsoever, they have come to stay and are already planning for next winter's operations. They do not need to risk air assets to speed up an artillery war, because their doctrine dictates withdrawal and bounding defensive action upon significant contact and permits loss rates that Western militaries would consider unacceptable. This allows them to play whack-a-mole with enemy forces and let them punch themselves out. Then, they relaunch from a foothold, retake any ceded objectives and push a little further each time; theyve been repeating this cycle since March. Interventions are a lot faster paced, because you don't have to worry about sustainment; you just blow up everything and go home. Everyone continues to badly misinterpret and overestimate out successes in Iraq (I was there, the bottom line is Iraq never recovered from Desert Storm and they were an empty shell in DS). Whatever happens today, tomorrow, or next week, Russia intends to be there defending that territory, 20 years from now. They're on glacier time, while Ukraine and NATO are playing speed checkers.
    3
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2