Comments by "That Car Guy" (@ThatCarGuy) on "BFBS Forces News"
channel.
-
114
-
62
-
60
-
52
-
51
-
46
-
39
-
37
-
32
-
31
-
30
-
27
-
26
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
"virtually undetectable" Jesus, guys at least get someone who knows what they are talking about when writing a script. Hypersonic missiles are covered in plasma, any IRST let alone AESA radar can track it. Shooting it down is where it is harder. Tracking it is easier then a subsonic sea skimming, under the radar horizon missile.
You literally stated hypersonic missiles fly below the radar horizon like a god damn sub sonic cruise missile which is hilarious. The radar horizon has to do with Earths curvature and not space... Hypersonic missiles are flying high not low... LOL. Hypersonic missiles are also not maneuverable in their terminal phase. They literally have to shut their engines off, can lose stability because they have no engine power, and even self destruct from the thicker air density all according to the Russians own patent. You literally got someone who had no idea what they are talking about to make stuff up. That's amazing to me. Say they could maneuver, using the mach 10 speed stated here that's 3.4km/s rounding down for ease say you wanted to move a single degree for 5 seconds at 3km/s you would be off course 15km. Math is math, patents are patents. Bad video.
"Russian patent number 2579409 relates to the field of rocket technology, and more specifically to hypersonic cruise missiles equipped with a hypersonic ramjet engine. The invention describes a method of application and device hypersonic cruise missile (CRPD), allowing to solve the problem of performing a combat mission to destroy ground and surface targets of such a missile. The described invention is designed to maximize the combat potential of the CMP with the scramjet.
The design mode for the scramjet are high-altitude cruise conditions while maintaining the estimated cruise speed, and the need to reduce the altitude and flight speed creates difficult technical problems due to the fact that:
an engine designed to perform a hypersonic mid-flight at high altitude is not able to continue to work at low-altitude trajectory sections associated with a decrease in the flight number M, hence, the rocket must approach the ground or surface target with an inactive engine;
characteristics of sustainability and controllability of CRPD with inactive scramjet significantly deteriorate, loss of stability becomes possible;
there is also a danger of destruction of the scramjet design due to the increase in pressure in the flow part of the engine while reducing the CMP from the march height before hitting the target."
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
@collinsmichael5015 Russian tanks are terrible. M1s destroyed so many T72s they had to rename them to T90.
"The T-72BU was officially accepted into service on 5 October 1992 by the Russian Ministry of Defence and simultaneously renamed as the T-90 for marketing and propaganda purposes aimed at distancing the new type from existing T-72 variants."
They did so bad that a stuck M1 took out three T72s as told by Tom Clancy in his nonfiction book.
"Well, in his 1994 non-fiction book, Armored Cav, Tom Clancy recounted a tale of how an M1A1 Abrams got stuck in the mud during the ground war of Desert Storm. It was then set upon by three tanks, Iraqi T-72s specifically. A round fired from roughly a thousand yards away bounced off, and the Abrams responded by blowing the T-72 that fired it to bits. A second round fired from 700 yards, bounced off, and the offending T-72 was blasted. The third T-72, at a range of roughly 400 yards, fired a round, which left a groove in the armor of the Abrams. It, too, was destroyed by a shot fired through a sand berm. These were, supposedly, Russia’s state-of-the-art tanks.
Then, when help arrived, and the tank couldn’t be freed from the mud, a platoon of Abrams tanks tried to destroy it. After several rounds, they detonated the onboard ammo, but the blow-out panels functioned as designed. Then, when the tank was retrieved from the mud, they discovered that it was still functional. The only issue? A sight was out of alignment."
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
Paratroopers in the US have a great song. It's called Blood Upon the Risers(Gory Gory What A Hell Of A Way To Die), posted below, im sure the UK has some good ones too.
[Verse 1]
He was just a rookie trooper and he surely shook with fright,
He checked off his equipment and made sure his pack was tight;
He had to sit and listen to those awful engines roar,
You ain't gonna jump no more
[Chorus]
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
He ain't gonna jump no more
[Verse 2]
"Is everybody happy?" cried the Sergeant looking up,
Our hero feebly answered, "yes" and then they stood him up;
He jumped into the icy blast, his static line unhooked,
And he ain't gonna jump no more
[Chorus]
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
He ain't gonna jump no more
[Verse 3]
He counted long, he counted loud, he waited for the shock,
He felt the wind, he felt the cold, he felt the awful drop,
The silk from his reserves spilled out, and wrapped around his legs,
And he ain't gonna jump no more
[Chorus]
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
He ain't gonna jump no more
[Verse 4]
The risers swung around his neck, connectors cracked his dome,
Suspension lines were tied in knots around his skinny bones;
The canopy became his shroud; he hurtled to the ground.
And he ain't gonna jump no more
[Chorus]
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
He ain't gonna jump no more
[Verse 5]
The days he'd lived and loved and laughed kept running through his mind,
He thought about the girl back home, the one he'd left behind;
He thought about the medic corps, and wondered what they'd find,
And he ain't gonna jump no more
[Chorus]
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
He ain't gonna jump no more
[Verse 6]
The ambulance was on the spot, the jeeps were running wild,
The medics jumped and screamed with glee, they rolled their sleeves and smiled,
For it had been a week or more since last a 'chute had failed,
And he ain't gonna jump no more
[Chorus]
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
He ain't gonna jump no more
[Verse 7]
He hit the ground, the sound was "SPLAT", his blood went spurting high;
His comrades, they were heard to say "a hell of a way to die!"
He lay there, rolling 'round in the welter of his gore,
And he ain't gonna jump no more
[Chorus]
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
He ain't gonna jump no more
[Verse 8]
There was blood upon the risers, there were brains upon the chute,
Intestines were a-dangling from his paratroopers suit,
He was a mess, they picked him up, and poured him from his boots,
And he ain't gonna jump no more
[Chorus]
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
Gory, gory, what a hell of a way to die,
He ain't gonna jump no more
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@philipcoffman4372 The S300 sucks, it sucks so bad they had to rename it the S400, as the S400 was literally called the S300 originally. It's been beaten many times sources below
"The S-400 Triumf NATO reporting name: SA-21 Growler), previously known as the S-300 PMU-3"
"Against S400 ? It has 600km radar , i dont think it can do anything agaist that"
It's radar can track large objects(10+ square meters), and objects up to 4 square meter up to around 400km.
"The anti-Stealth targeting range for the 91N6E panoramic radar has been declared to be 150 km. Maximum detection ranges (as determined by the radar's characteristics) are:
230 kilometers for ballistic targets
390 km for a target with an RCS of 4 square meters
570 km for a target of strategic bomber size"
The EA18 growler RCS is classified but the F/A18 has a 1m2 RCS so it's less then that.
"Remember donald cook and su24 with jamming system "khibini" turned donald cook off with aegis and every screen got black .....as soon as they came to romani an port several of sailors didnt want to serve anymore and signed the discharge papers."
Please troll someone else i block blatant trolls. The Su24 doesn't have khibiny... You can't just disable an entire ship they run off different systems... To openly attack a ship at sea would star a war. Lay off the Russian propaganda. I mean even the manufacture came out and said it was fake lol.
"According to no less than the manufacturer of the Russian EW system, known as the Concern of Radio-Electronic Technology, which is part of state enterprise Rostech, the system is only installed on Su-30, Su-34 and Su-35 aircraft."
S400 failing sources:
Youtube "Tomahawk Missile Remains, at Syrian Air Base - Close Up and Personal" to see Russias own ANNA news show off a tomahawk defeating the S300/400 and them showing off the damage. Can't link do to youtube censorship.
"Modern methods of warfare are different from those of the 90s. Unmanned aircraft is an important factor in our combat capability, especially in such fortified areas…. Both Turkish Israeli drones helped us a lot. We have destroyed at least 6 S-300 air defense systems using them,” Aliyev said during an interview with the General Director of the Interfax-Azerbaijan agency Anar Azizov."
"Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF) commander Brigadier General Farzad Ismaili, who had been in office since 2010, has been fired by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei after he kept secret that Israeli Air Force (IAF) F-35 stealth fighters had violated Iran’s airspace, the Kuwaiti daily Al Jarida reported on Saturday."
"Russia’s advanced air defense systems, the S-300s and S-400s, were ineffectual in detecting Israeli F-35 stealth fighters flying over Syrian capital Damascus, Israeli media reported.
Israeli media published the flight route of its planes, reportedly F-35 Adir jets, that showed the jets entering Syrian airspace and crossing over its capital city, evading hundreds of kilometres of area shielded by Russian-made air defense systems."
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@lewisallan9963 Always that one person trying to argue on a comment praising the UK.
The QE class can go on mission for 45 days, the Nimitz can go on missions for 90 days.
" Both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales will keep 45 days' worth of food in its stores."
"The ships normally carries enough food and supplies to operate for 90 days. Four distilling units enable NIMITZ-class engineers to make over 400,000 gallons of fresh water from seawater a day, for use by the propulsion plants, catapults and crew. The ship carries approximately 3 million gallons of fuel for her aircraft and escorts, and enough weapons and stores for extended operations without replenishment."
"And with some country's not allowing nuclear powered ships"
99 percent of the world allows nuclear powered ships.
Australia allows them.
"tourism Minister, Mark McGowan today welcomed more than 5,000 senior officers and crew aboard USS NIMITZ (CVN-68) to Western Australia."
Italy? They allow them...
"For years a dozen Italian seaports have been decrying the risks they run as bases for nuclear powered or nuclear armed U.S. warships (submarines, aircraft carriers): Augusta, Brindisi, Cagliari, Castellammare di Stabia, Gaeta, La Maddalena, La Spezia, Livorno, Napoli, Taranto, Trieste, Venezia."
Germany? The UK? France?
"Nimitz conducted her second abnormally dangerous navigational detail of the deployment as she transited the English Channel (with its high volume of shipping) en route from Wilhelmshaven, West Germany, to Brest, France."
Japan?
"Ronald Reagan made five deployments to the Pacific and Middle East between 2006 and 2011 while based at Naval Air Station North Island. In October 2015, Ronald Reagan replaced USS George Washington as the flagship of Carrier Strike Group Five, the only forward-based carrier strike group home-ported at Yokosuka, Japan, as part of the United States Seventh Fleet"
South Korea?
"U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Michael D. White, the commander of Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 11 and Rear Adm. William McQuilkin, the commander of U.S. Naval Forces Korea, pose with local dignitaries aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) in Busan, "
India?
"The carrier departed North Island for its thirteenth deployment on 2 April 2007 to the Arabian Sea, relieving USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in support of OIF. It anchored off Chennai, India on 2 July 2007 as part of efforts to expand bilateral defense cooperation between India and the United States."
25-29 May 1991: Nimitz anchored at Dubai
11-12 Mar 1993: Nimitz sailed through the Strait of Malacca
18 Jun 1993: Nimitz sailed outbound through the Strait of Hormuz into the Arabian Sea
13-14 Feb 1998: Nimitz anchored off Port Suez, Egypt, and passed through the Suez Canal
21-23 Apr 1985: Nimitz anchored in Augusta Bay, Sicily, to turn over to Dwight D. Eisenhower.
31 Dec 1988-6 Jan 1989: Nimitz anchored at Singapore , affording her crew their first port of call after 71 punishing days at sea.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
@lewisallan9963 "The carriers are operationaly limited by aviation fuel anyway, and by food, ext."
Nuclear carriers can go on missions twice as long. Nuclear carriers also keep enough fuel and food to resupply the entire CSG...
" Both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales will keep 45 days' worth of food in its stores."
"The ships normally carries enough food and supplies to operate for 90 days. Four distilling units enable NIMITZ-class engineers to make over 400,000 gallons of fresh water from seawater a day, for use by the propulsion plants, catapults and crew. The ship carries approximately 3 million gallons of fuel for her aircraft and escorts, and enough weapons and stores for extended operations without replenishment."
"And the often overlooked benefit of them being non nuclear is that they can enter port in countries with regulations against nuclear powered ships which helps them with there secondary responsibility of building relations."
Like where? Off the top of my head, the only ally we have that doesn't allow nuclear, is New Zealand... Even our adversaries, 99 percent of the world allows nuclear carriers.
Australia allows them.
"tourism Minister, Mark McGowan today welcomed more than 5,000 senior officers and crew aboard USS NIMITZ (CVN-68) to Western Australia."
Italy? They allow them...
"For years a dozen Italian seaports have been decrying the risks they run as bases for nuclear powered or nuclear armed U.S. warships (submarines, aircraft carriers): Augusta, Brindisi, Cagliari, Castellammare di Stabia, Gaeta, La Maddalena, La Spezia, Livorno, Napoli, Taranto, Trieste, Venezia."
Germany? The UK? France?
"Nimitz conducted her second abnormally dangerous navigational detail of the deployment as she transited the English Channel (with its high volume of shipping) en route from Wilhelmshaven, West Germany, to Brest, France."
Japan?
"Ronald Reagan made five deployments to the Pacific and Middle East between 2006 and 2011 while based at Naval Air Station North Island. In October 2015, Ronald Reagan replaced USS George Washington as the flagship of Carrier Strike Group Five, the only forward-based carrier strike group home-ported at Yokosuka, Japan, as part of the United States Seventh Fleet"
South Korea?
"U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Michael D. White, the commander of Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 11 and Rear Adm. William McQuilkin, the commander of U.S. Naval Forces Korea, pose with local dignitaries aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) in Busan, "
India?
"The carrier departed North Island for its thirteenth deployment on 2 April 2007 to the Arabian Sea, relieving USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in support of OIF. It anchored off Chennai, India on 2 July 2007 as part of efforts to expand bilateral defense cooperation between India and the United States."
25-29 May 1991: Nimitz anchored at Dubai
11-12 Mar 1993: Nimitz sailed through the Strait of Malacca
18 Jun 1993: Nimitz sailed outbound through the Strait of Hormuz into the Arabian Sea
13-14 Feb 1998: Nimitz anchored off Port Suez, Egypt, and passed through the Suez Canal
21-23 Apr 1985: Nimitz anchored in Augusta Bay, Sicily, to turn over to Dwight D. Eisenhower.
31 Dec 1988-6 Jan 1989: Nimitz anchored at Singapore , affording her crew their first port of call after 71 punishing days at sea."
PS why try to argue on a comment praising the UK?
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
Yes and no. So they originally didn't lie and they(USS Maddox) were attacked on August 2nd, then again on the 4th which wasn't really an attack but more of a charge/intercept, to which they claimed the second attack was greater then it was so the US could retaliate harsher then they would have. That's were they did lie, but only after being attacked on the 2nd which 100 percent was on North Vietnam. So while the US wasn't completely truthful, they didn't lie either.
"In August 1964, the USS Maddox destroyer was stationed in the Gulf of Tonkin off the coast of North Vietnam.
On August 2, it was attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats. And then, two days later, on August 4, the Johnson administration claimed that it had been attacked again. After the second attack, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution almost unanimously allowing the federal government to “take all necessary measures” to protect U.S. forces in Vietnam.
After decades of public skepticism and government secrecy, the truth finally came out: In the early 2000s, nearly 200 documents were declassified and released by the National Security Agency (NSA).
They showed that there was no attack on August 4. U.S. officials had distorted the truth about the Gulf of Tonkin incident for their own gains — and perhaps for Johnson’s own political prospects."
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
They aren't? The US alone killed 200-300 Russians in the Battle of Khasham in 2018. There is audio on youtube if anyone wants it. This almost caused WW3 as Putin lied about it happening causing the wives of the dead to speak out since they never got their bodies back(I can try to link the video if someone wants)
'According to the U.S. military's official statement, around 10 p.m. local time on the night of 7 February 2018, a force of 500 pro-government fighters consisting of local militiamen, government soldiers, Iranian-trained Afghan Shia fighters, and reportedly Russian contractors launched an assault on a Syrian Democratic Forces headquarters near the town of Khasham, located on the Euphrates River in Syria. Supported by T-72 and T-55 tanks, the pro-government troops first shelled the SDF base with artillery, mortars, and rockets in what U.S. military officials described as a "coordinated attack." Around 20–30 shells landed within 500 meters of the headquarters. According to the U.S. military, the presence of U.S. special operations personnel in the targeted base elicited a response by U.S.-led coalition aircraft, including AC-130 gunships, F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets, unmanned aerial vehicles (MQ-9), AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, B-52s, and F-22s"
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Yes they can handle mud, and even when stuck Russian tanks are no match. Tom Clancy wrote in his non fiction book about how a stuck M1 took out three T-72s then the US tried to remove it and couldn't and tried to blow it up, causing only a sight to go out of alignment. Amazing tank.
"Well, in his 1994 non-fiction book, Armored Cav, Tom Clancy recounted a tale of how an M1A1 Abrams got stuck in the mud during the ground war of Desert Storm. It was then set upon by three tanks, Iraqi T-72s specifically. A round fired from roughly a thousand yards away bounced off, and the Abrams responded by blowing the T-72 that fired it to bits. A second round fired from 700 yards, bounced off, and the offending T-72 was blasted. The third T-72, at a range of roughly 400 yards, fired a round, which left a groove in the armor of the Abrams. It, too, was destroyed by a shot fired through a sand berm. These were, supposedly, Russia’s state-of-the-art tanks.
Then, when help arrived, and the tank couldn’t be freed from the mud, a platoon of Abrams tanks tried to destroy it. After several rounds, they detonated the onboard ammo, but the blow-out panels functioned as designed. Then, when the tank was retrieved from the mud, they discovered that it was still functional. The only issue? A sight was out of alignment."
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Russian tanks are terrible. Send Ukraine some Abrams, they have a great record against Russian tanks. Heck Tom Clancy wrote in his non fiction book about how a stuck M1 took out three T-72s then the US tried to remove it and couldn't and tried to blow it up, causing only a sight to go out of alignment. Amazing tank.
"Well, in his 1994 non-fiction book, Armored Cav, Tom Clancy recounted a tale of how an M1A1 Abrams got stuck in the mud during the ground war of Desert Storm. It was then set upon by three tanks, Iraqi T-72s specifically. A round fired from roughly a thousand yards away bounced off, and the Abrams responded by blowing the T-72 that fired it to bits. A second round fired from 700 yards, bounced off, and the offending T-72 was blasted. The third T-72, at a range of roughly 400 yards, fired a round, which left a groove in the armor of the Abrams. It, too, was destroyed by a shot fired through a sand berm. These were, supposedly, Russia’s state-of-the-art tanks.
Then, when help arrived, and the tank couldn’t be freed from the mud, a platoon of Abrams tanks tried to destroy it. After several rounds, they detonated the onboard ammo, but the blow-out panels functioned as designed. Then, when the tank was retrieved from the mud, they discovered that it was still functional. The only issue? A sight was out of alignment."
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@ramatgan1 "Russia has the best air defence systems in the world"
That would be the US with THAAD with it's almost 5000km radar range which Russia and China accused South Korea of using theirs to spy on them and the Ground based missile defense, that fastest missile in the world capable of mach 33.
""The AN/TPY-2 Surveillance Transportable Radar, also called the Forward Based X-Band Transportable (FBX-T) is a long-range, very high-altitude active digital antenna array X band surveillance radar designed to add a tier to existing missile and air defence systems. It has a range of 2,900 mi (2,500 nmi; 4,700 km)""
"The GBI consists of a 3-stage solid rocket boost vehicle which can place it's payload of an Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle outside the earth's atmosphere. In order to do this the missile must reach an escape velocity of more than 6.9 miles per second. This hypersonic speed is several times what a 7.62mm bullet travels leaving the muzzle of a gun. To put it another way, it reaches a speed of approximately Mach 33."
"only country with genuine hypersonic capability."
As proven above the US has the fastest hypersonic missile, they have had hypersonic missiles since the 1970s. The AIM-54 flew on the F-14s.
"What's the use of a aircraft carrier when you have a hypersonic missile?!. It's becomes a sitting target!"
Hypersonic missiles wont be used against ships do to their lack of maneuverability, Russia patent below stating they can't maneuver, need to shut their engines off, can lose stability and even self destruct coming back down to it's target. But first lets do some math. Zircons top speed is mach 9 right? Converting to km/s that is about 3km/s. Say you wanted to move a single degree for 5 seconds at 3km/s you would be off course 15km... Almost as much as the Chinese test missed by.
"Russian patent number 2579409 relates to the field of rocket technology, and more specifically to hypersonic cruise missiles equipped with a hypersonic ramjet engine. The invention describes a method of application and device hypersonic cruise missile, allowing to solve the problem of performing a combat mission to destroy ground and surface targets of such a missile. The described invention is designed to maximize the combat potential of the combat module with the scramjet.
The design mode for the scramjet are high-altitude cruise conditions while maintaining the estimated cruise speed, and the need to reduce the altitude and flight speed creates difficult technical problems due to the fact that:
an engine designed to perform a hypersonic mid-flight at high altitude is not able to continue to work at low-altitude trajectory sections associated with a decrease in the flight number M, hence, the rocket must approach the ground or surface target with an inactive engine;
characteristics of sustainability and controllability of the combat module with inactive scramjet significantly deteriorate, loss of stability becomes possible;
there is also a danger of destruction of the scramjet design due to the increase in pressure in the flow part of the engine while reducing the Combat module from the march height before hitting the target."
"Where is the Himars, patriot, leopard or challenger tanks that there were game changes?! They proved to be complete failures and the world has seen this and taken note."
You have to be a Putin bot. HIMARs has pushed Russian troops back to the point Putin had to lie and say they were all destroyed to boost moral.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@truckerfromreno What? The US makes the best it's pretty common knowledge. Hence why it costs them so much. f22, b2, b1, f35, Seawolf class, nuclear carriers, apache, blackhawk, Ground base midcourse defense the fastest hypersonic missile in the world, Sm3 only other midcourse phase interceptor other then the GBMD, Abrams, Tomahawk, AGM158, AB class destroyer, lasers, the list goes on and on.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Ground based midcourse defense which is the fastest hypersonic missile in the world capable of mach 33 built by the US or the SM3 which is a midcourse phase ICBM interceptor. This video has a lot wrong though.
Hypersonic missiles are covered in plasma, any IRST let alone AESA radar can track it. Shooting it down is where it is harder. Tracking it is easier then a subsonic sea skimming, under the radar horizon missile.
They literally stated hypersonic missiles fly below the radar horizon like a god damn sub sonic cruise missile which is hilarious. The radar horizon has to do with Earths curvature and not space, where these missiles fly... LOL. Hypersonic missiles are also not maneuverable in their terminal phase. They literally have to shut their engines off, can lose stability because they have no engine power, and even self destruct from the thicker air density all according to the Russians own patent. They literally got someone who had no idea what they are talking about to make stuff up. That's amazing to me. Say they could maneuver, using the mach 10 speed stated here that's 3.4km/s rounding down for ease say you wanted to move a single degree for 5 seconds at 3km/s you would be off course 15km. Math is math, patents are patents. Bad video.
"Russian patent number 2579409 relates to the field of rocket technology, and more specifically to hypersonic cruise missiles equipped with a hypersonic ramjet engine. The invention describes a method of application and device hypersonic cruise missile (CRPD), allowing to solve the problem of performing a combat mission to destroy ground and surface targets of such a missile. The described invention is designed to maximize the combat potential of the CMP with the scramjet.
The design mode for the scramjet are high-altitude cruise conditions while maintaining the estimated cruise speed, and the need to reduce the altitude and flight speed creates difficult technical problems due to the fact that:
an engine designed to perform a hypersonic mid-flight at high altitude is not able to continue to work at low-altitude trajectory sections associated with a decrease in the flight number M, hence, the rocket must approach the ground or surface target with an inactive engine;
characteristics of sustainability and controllability of CRPD with inactive scramjet significantly deteriorate, loss of stability becomes possible;
there is also a danger of destruction of the scramjet design due to the increase in pressure in the flow part of the engine while reducing the CMP from the march height before hitting the target."
3
-
Hypersonic weapons have been made since the 70's the US had the Aim54 which flew on the F14s. Despite what this video says,it's honestly like 80 percent wrong, hypersonic missiles can not maneuver do to their speed, Russias own patent admitting so, they can even self destruct. Making them only good for first strike weapons.
"Russian patent number 2579409 relates to the field of rocket technology, and more specifically to hypersonic cruise missiles equipped with a hypersonic ramjet engine. The invention describes a method of application and device hypersonic cruise missile (CRPD), allowing to solve the problem of performing a combat mission to destroy ground and surface targets of such a missile. The described invention is designed to maximize the combat potential of the CMP with the scramjet.
The design mode for the scramjet are high-altitude cruise conditions while maintaining the estimated cruise speed, and the need to reduce the altitude and flight speed creates difficult technical problems due to the fact that:
an engine designed to perform a hypersonic mid-flight at high altitude is not able to continue to work at low-altitude trajectory sections associated with a decrease in the flight number M, hence, the rocket must approach the ground or surface target with an inactive engine;
characteristics of sustainability and controllability of CRPD with inactive scramjet significantly deteriorate, loss of stability becomes possible;
there is also a danger of destruction of the scramjet design due to the increase in pressure in the flow part of the engine while reducing the CMP from the march height before hitting the target."
3
-
What isn't good against it lol. It's just a renamed s300, like how Russia renamed the T72 to T90 since it did so bad. It's been beaten many times. "The S-400 Triumf NATO reporting name: SA-21 Growler, previously known as the S-300 PMU-3"
Some sources of it failing:
I can't link the first one youtube keeps deleting my comment with a link, so look up on youtube "Tomahawk Missile Remains, at Syrian Air Base - Close Up and Personal" to see Tomahawks beat the s300/400 and Russias own news talk about it.
"Modern methods of warfare are different from those of the 90s. Unmanned aircraft is an important factor in our combat capability, especially in such fortified areas…. Both Turkish Israeli drones helped us a lot. We have destroyed at least 6 S-300 air defense systems using them,” Aliyev said during an interview with the General Director of the Interfax-Azerbaijan agency Anar Azizov."
"Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF) commander Brigadier General Farzad Ismaili, who had been in office since 2010, has been fired by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei after he kept secret that Israeli Air Force (IAF) F-35 stealth fighters had violated Iran’s airspace, the Kuwaiti daily Al Jarida reported on Saturday."
"Russia’s advanced air defense systems, the S-300s and S-400s, were ineffectual in detecting Israeli F-35 stealth fighters flying over Syrian capital Damascus, Israeli media reported.
Israeli media published the flight route of its planes, reportedly F-35 Adir jets, that showed the jets entering Syrian airspace and crossing over its capital city, evading hundreds of kilometres of area shielded by Russian-made air defense systems."
3
-
@Andrew-is7rs The US classifies the French as a blue water navy... From before the QE class entered service...:
"There’s no doubt that the United States Navy counts as a “blue water” force. The French Navy also enjoys the distinction, although the Royal Navy may not; its lack of aircraft carriers in the wake of the retirement of the last of the Invincible class has resulted in a gap until HMS Queen Elizabeth enters service."
Im not sure you know anything about naval terminology, hence you resorting to insults. Nuclear carriers need less restocking do to them not needing fuel allowing them to carry more food and aircraft fuel and literally can refuel the CSG... They can go on longer mission times, for example the QE class vs the Nimitiz as I don't read French, so sources are a bit harder to find.
" Both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales will keep 45 days' worth of food in its stores."
"The ships normally carries enough food and supplies to operate for 90 days. Four distilling units enable NIMITZ-class engineers to make over 400,000 gallons of fresh water from seawater a day, for use by the propulsion plants, catapults and crew. The ship carries approximately 3 million gallons of fuel for her aircraft and escorts, and enough weapons and stores for extended operations without replenishment."
"USS Carl Vinson sets milestone, delivers over 1M gallons of fuel since January. The aircraft carrier has conducted 15 separate fuel at sea evolutions this year."
"They do not have the capability that the UK has, the bases, the experience, the signals. "
The French and English navies are both some of the oldest navies in the world... What are you talking about?
"CDG, when in dock, leaves France without any at sea airwing."
Using that logic you can say the same with the QE class since one is down do to damage, while multiple type 45s are down not allowing for full CSGs. Nuclear carriers are at dock less as they need less maintenance do to not having conventional engines. but do have longer down times when needing to be refueled. Nothing is perfect, each has their pros and cons.
"Add that with lack of os bases and a smaller FA you are left with a regional power, not a global one."
They have overseas bases.... As stated in Africa, Antarctica, Germany, the middle east, and south pacific...
"Sorry to burst your bubble"
"Just a fact i’m afraid"
You come off as a troll, or someone very young. Instead of having a discussion you resort to insults and trying to talk down on people.
3
-
3
-
@UCgZs1XK0FInWp15P64pRTqg The aster 30 is not meant for BMs, but as a last resort.
"The Type 45 does not have a formal theatre ballistic missile defence (TBMD) capability but its potential for such a role is being assessed"
"At the Defence Select Committee, it was highlighted that the Type 45’s lack of versatility had left Britain without a maritime ballistic missile defence capability - something the U.S. and Japan in particular were investing heavily in for their own AEGIS ships. Dr Sidharth Kaushal, a research Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, noted to this effect: “The Navy, however, will need to look at two key questions: first, the absence of a capability to counter anti-ship ballistic missiles on the Type 45 destroyer. That was discussed in the 2015 strategic defence and security review, as part of a wider ballistic missile defence capability for the vessel, but it was absent in this review, which I thought was noteworthy.” Rear Admiral Alex Burton, who also attended the meeting, concurred stating: “I would just reinforce Dr Sidharth’s view on the anti-ballistic missile defence, which I think was a wrong absence within the review… one of the gaping holes within the defence review is an anti-ballistic missile defence mechanism, both at sea and ashore.” When further questioned, the admiral reiterated: “There is a gaping hole in our ability to defend a carrier against a ballistic missile without the support of our allies, so there is mitigation there, but it is mitigation that is reliant on our allies… The Navy has been clear that there has been a national capability gap, for the last 10 years, at least, in an anti-ballistic missile defence capability. That can be mitigated by working alongside our allies, just like the Americans use our capabilities to mitigate their capability gaps. Firstly, this is known, and, secondly, it can be mitigated.”
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@arakami8547
"It's fat on radar and doesn't incorporate any design features or technology to substantially decrease its IR and radar signatures"
Yes it does, the MH-X black hawk does, which was one that crashed when the US got to Bin Laden.
"and is made of plain steel lacking the composites that modern helicopters field making it vulnerable to enemy gunfire."
It uses composite parts.
"Cockrell is proud of the lab's achievements. Its repair procedures are the first approved repair for primary composite structure on Army aircraft."
" It's an old design and thus an inefficient one,"
This is your opinion when most would say the opposite.
"frankly there isn't much room in its interior"
" the utility version of the BLACK HAWK helicopter transports 12 fully equipped, seated troops into the heat of battle."
"Many UH60Ms still lack fly-by-wire"
What? It's had it since 2008.
"UH-60M Upgrade Black Hawk: UH-60M with fly-by-wire system and Common Avionics Architecture System (CAAS) cockpit suite. Flight testing began in August 2008."
" lack MAWS, RWR, LWR, EOIR/FLIR gimble mount, and other luxuries present in other helicopters."
What?
"Northrop Grumman’s integrated missile warning system, Common Infrared Countermeasure (CIRCM), has been declared ready for full-rate production and operations by the Army, the company announced. "
"The CIRCM system will be used on rotary-wing, tilt-rotor, and small fixed-wing aircraft like the UH-60 Black Hawk, CH-47 Chinook, and the AH-64 Apache, Gough said.
“CIRCM protects these platforms so they can conduct air assaults, air movements, armed escort, reconnaissance, and security operations,” Gough said. “In addition, CIRCM allows rotary-wing aircraft to land and take off from just about anywhere which is essential to the role of medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) teams.”
The CIRCM system works autonomously and can protect against man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS), Gough said. "
"As seen in the photo at the top of this article, the HH-60M is equipped with the Degraded Visual Environment Pilotage System, or DVEPS, which is the uppermost, forward-facing sensor on the nose of the aircraft. A black gimbal below that houses a MEDEVAC Mission Sensor, which is a forward-looking infrared (FLIR) sensor turret."
It's the best aircraft listed here for the job.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Gunni1972 Australia allows them.
"tourism Minister, Mark McGowan today welcomed more than 5,000 senior officers and crew aboard USS NIMITZ (CVN-68) to Western Australia."
Italy? They allow them...
"For years a dozen Italian seaports have been decrying the risks they run as bases for nuclear powered or nuclear armed U.S. warships (submarines, aircraft carriers): Augusta, Brindisi, Cagliari, Castellammare di Stabia, Gaeta, La Maddalena, La Spezia, Livorno, Napoli, Taranto, Trieste, Venezia."
Germany? The UK? France?
"Nimitz conducted her second abnormally dangerous navigational detail of the deployment as she transited the English Channel (with its high volume of shipping) en route from Wilhelmshaven, West Germany, to Brest, France."
Japan?
"Ronald Reagan made five deployments to the Pacific and Middle East between 2006 and 2011 while based at Naval Air Station North Island. In October 2015, Ronald Reagan replaced USS George Washington as the flagship of Carrier Strike Group Five, the only forward-based carrier strike group home-ported at Yokosuka, Japan, as part of the United States Seventh Fleet"
South Korea?
"U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Michael D. White, the commander of Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 11 and Rear Adm. William McQuilkin, the commander of U.S. Naval Forces Korea, pose with local dignitaries aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) in Busan, "
India?
"The carrier departed North Island for its thirteenth deployment on 2 April 2007 to the Arabian Sea, relieving USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in support of OIF. It anchored off Chennai, India on 2 July 2007 as part of efforts to expand bilateral defense cooperation between India and the United States."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Agreed. It's not the worlds first, by any stretch. The US removes the fuel, the assemblies, and any other component with radiation, then seals up the reactor core It's like saying the UK is the worlds first ship recycler using only 10mm wrenches and working on Tuesdays(obvious sarcasm), or changing one process, when you need to add technicalities you aren't first. The US also removes many parts of the reactor but uses the compartments to use a high pressure keep the nuclear molecules at bay. Worlds first would be discovering how to not have any contamination when recycling.
"It’s a meticulous process. First, the defunct sub is towed to a secure de-fueling dock where its reactor compartment is drained of all liquids to expose its spent nuclear fuel assemblies. Each assembly is then removed and placed in spent nuclear fuel casks and put on secure trains for disposal at a long-term waste storage and reprocessing plant. In the US, this is the Naval Reactor Facility at the sprawling Idaho National Laboratory, and in Russia the Mayak plutonium production and reprocessing plant in Siberia is the final destination."
"Although the reactor machinery – steam generators, pumps, valves and piping – now contains no enriched uranium, the metals in it are rendered radioactive by decades of neutron bombardment shredding their atoms. So after fuel removal, the sub is towed into dry dock where cutting tools and blowtorches are used to sever the reactor compartment, plus an emptied compartment either side of it, from the submarine's hull. Then thick steel seals are welded to either end. So the canisters are not merely receptacles: they are giant high-pressure steel segments of the nuclear submarine itself – all that remains of it, in fact, as all nonradioactive submarine sections are then recycled."
3
-
Ro Herms Where to start with your comment...
"Ukraine cant afford tomahawks, let alone have the time to field them. "
They are getting all these weapons free... They even got harpoons which cost around the same price as tomahawks, less then 2 million each which is cheap.
"They have no naval ships that can launch it, nor aircraft that can launch what few air launched tomahawks that are in reserve, as the air force retired the air version decades ago."
The tomahawk was designed as a ground launched missile and only was stopped to do the INF, but since the US pulled out of the INF and already showed test launches of them being ground launched and unlocking their maritime strike capability, as it already had them both but were banned under the INF. It uses the BGM-109G Gryphon Transporter Erector Launcher. Which is how the US tested it so fast, they had them already. Now to devils advocate, how many do they have that we can give? That is a question only the army knows the answer too.
"Ukraine has domestic missiles that can reach deep into Russia, they just need the raw materials and time to make them in bulk."
No where near as accurate or with the same range, and as you stated they would need to build them, we have thousands of tomahawks ready to go to give them now. If we literally gave them 500, that is 1 billion dollars, that would change the course of the war in a day and would be nowhere the crazy 40 billion the US wants to give.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jamiegray6931 "Abrams is great and has received lots of upgrades that keep it relevant enough for modern war, same with Bradley. But they will be replaced down the line by new kit."
I agree everything you said here but also everything will be replaced down the line. But as of right now it would have been better for the UK to ditch the Ajax and use the Bradley or other option. They could have even used British optics, missiles, etc to have it to their standards.
"Britain has the option of buying new kit that will be leaps ahead of what we have currently, or buy something at the same level as what we have currently."
That's the issue, the Ajax isn't leaps ahead since it keeps having issues, and while cost overruns happen, the fact it is damaging crew members is something that can't be overlooked.
"We should have bought CV90 as well as Ajax, simply as they do very different roles, IFV, compared to a CVR(T). But unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) I'm not in charge."
The CV90 is an IFV, hence why I mentioned it yet it is also aged designed in the 80s, it is good and even has the 40mm the UK wants.
"The CV90 platform design has continuously evolved in steps from Mk0 to current MkIV with advances in technology and in response to changing battlefield requirements. The Swedish version of the main infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) is fitted with a turret from Bofors that is equipped with a 40 mm Bofors autocannon"
"Another good comparison is the F-35B replacing the Harrier in the Carrier Strike role and the Tornado in the SEAD/DEAD role. We could have bought new build Harriers from America years ago for our carriers, but instead we opted for F-35B simply because the design is better and is future proofed, while Harrier is an old design pushed to its limit."
It's not the design if pushed to it's limit, ie the F15ex for example, it's the airframes are old and tired and limited by flight hours. If my memory is correct it never even got an AESA radar upgrade which could have been done. If wanted, the US/UK could have created a newer version with newer frames with more modern systems like the US did with the F15ex. Newer radar, engines, etc.
"Same with the HARM missile, we could have bought them and used them, but we've gone in for a new design concept for SEAD/DEAD with the new SPEAR 3."
They didn't buy them since they don't have the EA-18s, which are dedicated EW aircraft. Could the UK have put them on Typhoons or F35s(while compromising stealth) sure, but the Spear 3 is also an anti-ship missile taking two roles up with one missile. This is where the UK and US standards differ, not about age of the missile this is also why the UK retired the ALARM missile. Why also not use the AGM-88? It's destroying Russian SAM radars right now. That's why age means very little. I mean the AB class destroyers are even getting lasers and look how long they have been around.
I would like to say though, despite our differences of opinions, i'm glad to see someone who can have a conversation on here without freaking out and name calling, you don't see that often, thank you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Patriot isn't tailored specifically to down just ballistic missiles. Every version of the PAC missiles can down aircraft and ballistic missiles. Each new variant has just been getting better at downing ballistic missiles. For example some of the aircraft the PAC missiles have downed.
"On August 31, 2014, a Syrian unmanned aerial vehicle was shot down by an Israeli Air Defense Command MIM-104D Patriot missile near Quneitra"
"n September 23, 2014, an Israeli Patriot battery shot down a Syrian Air Force Sukhoi Su-24 which had penetrated the airspace of the Golan Heights"
"On April 27, 2017, another Syrian UAV was shot down by an Israeli Patriot battery which fired two missiles against the target. On September 19, 2017, a Hezbollah intelligence drone was shot down as it tried infiltrating Israel through the Golan border."
"July 11, 2018, an Israeli Patriot missile shot down a drone which was approaching Israel from Syria."
With a third engagement in a few days, in the afternoon of July 13, 2018, an Israeli Patriot missile shot down a drone which was approaching Israel from Syria."
"On July 24, 2018, an Israeli Patriot missile shot down a Syrian Sukhoi Su-22 fighter which had crossed into Israeli airspace"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@@phillipbanes5484 "The F35 is better in numerous ways as the F22 is better in numerous ways. "
As I stated above with it's DAS allowing for better ground targeting and tracking ballistic missiles.
"The F35 is the more agile. Agile means how quickly something can change directions. Smaller aircraft are almost always more agile. For example, the F16 is far more agile than the F22. People get agile and maneuverable mixed up. The F22 is more of the latter. "
Agile and maneuverable are synonyms. Neither the F16 nor the F-35 are more maneuverable, hence why the F-22 was the US first supermaneuverable aircraft. While the F-35 is also supermaneuverable, it's worse then the F-22. The F-22 has a thrust to weight ratio of 1.25 while the F-35 has a 1.19 thrust to weight ratio. The F-16 has a thrust to weight ratio of about 1.1. The only fighter aircraft the US currently has that has a better thrust to weight ratio then the F-22 is the F15 but it lacks thrust vectoring, hence why it's not supermaneuverable. The F-35 also lacks thrust vectoring, other then the B model which only uses it for take off using it's lift fan.
"The radar on both are actually probably very similar in performance. The F35 has the newest type AESA radar, so it may even be more sophisticated."
The AN/APG-77 has a 400km range, it's much greater then the F-35 AN/APG-81 as the 81 is smaller and less powerful as it's in a small aircraft. Bigger radar+more power= more range.
"The APG-77v1 was installed on F-22 Raptors from Lot 5 and on with new modules and significantly longer detection range to 400 km against target with 1 m2 RCS."
" The F35 has much better range, since it carries slightly more fuel than the F22 in a much smaller and lighter aircraft."
Both the F-22 and F-35 have about the same range. The F-22 is larger allowing it to carry more fuel. I don't know why you think a smaller aircraft could carry more fuel, especially since the F-22 produces more thrust allowing it to carry more weight.
"With an operational ceiling of 50,000 feet and a range of almost 1,900 miles (with two external fuel tanks that would limit its stealth capabilities), the F-22 can fly at speeds above Mach 2."
"Another critical factor of the F-35 is its remarkable range. The jet can travel up to 1,900 miles when refueled in the air, with a total fuel capacity of 18,250 lbs."
" The F35 is also much easier to maintain its stealth, and no doubt in most every other way."
This I can agree with you on, the F-35 uses baked in ram coating which last longer, but the down side is, you have to replace panels when you need to replace the coating, so while it lasts longer, the down time is also longer.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There is no such thing as "climate change" like the far left wants you to believe. We live in what's called an "interglacial period" where like it's name sounds like, it warms up and freezes, hence some parts of the world are warming while others are cooling. Those old enough will remember global cooling from the 70-early 90's where they thought the world was cooling do to aerosols, hence the modern day ban on them. Straight from the NOAA though, the people whose job it is to study climate, the hottest, most CO2 filled time in Earths history was before humans were even a thought, and the temperature difference isn't even close, while most CO2 were coming from fossils naturally releasing, meaning there is nothing we can do about it, as it's natural.
"During the PETM, the global mean temperature appears to have risen by as much as 5-8°C (9-14°F) to an average temperature as high as 73°F. (Again, today’s global average is shy of 60°F.) At roughly the same time, paleoclimate data like fossilized phytoplankton and ocean sediments record a massive release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, at least doubling or possibly even quadrupling the background concentrations."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There is no such thing as "climate change" like the far left wants you to believe. We live in what's called an "interglacial period" where like it's name sounds like, it warms up and freezes, hence some parts of the world are warming while others are cooling. Those old enough will remember global cooling from the 70-early 90's where they thought the world was cooling do to aerosols, hence the modern day ban on them. Straight from the NOAA though, the people whose job it is to study climate, the hottest, most CO2 filled time in Earths history was before humans were even a thought, and the temperature difference isn't even close, while most CO2 were coming from fossils naturally releasing, meaning there is nothing we can do about it, as it's natural.
"During the PETM, the global mean temperature appears to have risen by as much as 5-8°C (9-14°F) to an average temperature as high as 73°F. (Again, today’s global average is shy of 60°F.) At roughly the same time, paleoclimate data like fossilized phytoplankton and ocean sediments record a massive release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, at least doubling or possibly even quadrupling the background concentrations."
2
-
2
-
2
-
I remember in 2018 in the Battle of Khasham that Putler tried to hide, 40 US soldiers took out 200-300 Russians... Audio is on youtube... Source below as well. Then to hear Russia say any missile strike on them they would consider nuclear since they were scared little school girls.
"MOSCOW — Russia will perceive any ballistic missile launched at its territory as a nuclear attack that warrants a nuclear retaliation, the military warned in an article published Friday.
The harsh warning in the official military newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star) is directed at the United States, which has worked to develop long-range non-nuclear weapons."
"According to the U.S. military's official statement, around 10 p.m. local time on the night of 7 February 2018, a force of 500 pro-government fighters consisting of local militiamen, government soldiers, Iranian-trained Afghan Shia fighters, and reportedly Russian contractors launched an assault on a Syrian Democratic Forces headquarters near the town of Khasham, located on the Euphrates River in Syria. Supported by T-72 and T-55 tanks, the pro-government troops first shelled the SDF base with artillery, mortars, and rockets in what U.S. military officials described as a "coordinated attack." Around 20–30 shells landed within 500 meters of the headquarters. According to the U.S. military, the presence of U.S. special operations personnel in the targeted base elicited a response by U.S.-led coalition aircraft, including AC-130 gunships, F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets, unmanned aerial vehicles (MQ-9), AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, B-52s, and F-22s"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@moosesnWoop yes, Afghan was worse as sand and water make mud, a tanks worse enemy. Even stuck m1s massacre t72s/t90s as Tom Clancy wrote I'm his nonfiction book.
"Well, in his 1994 non-fiction book, Armored Cav, Tom Clancy recounted a tale of how an M1A1 Abrams got stuck in the mud during the ground war of Desert Storm. It was then set upon by three tanks, Iraqi T-72s specifically. A round fired from roughly a thousand yards away bounced off, and the Abrams responded by blowing the T-72 that fired it to bits. A second round fired from 700 yards, bounced off, and the offending T-72 was blasted. The third T-72, at a range of roughly 400 yards, fired a round, which left a groove in the armor of the Abrams. It, too, was destroyed by a shot fired through a sand berm. These were, supposedly, Russia’s state-of-the-art tanks.
Then, when help arrived, and the tank couldn’t be freed from the mud, a platoon of Abrams tanks tried to destroy it. After several rounds, they detonated the onboard ammo, but the blow-out panels functioned as designed. Then, when the tank was retrieved from the mud, they discovered that it was still functional. The only issue? A sight was out of alignment."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Also name them after famous people who did great deeds in the military among others like Presidents, states, etc as well. There was a cool story in Vietnam of a US destroyer that was about to fire on a US Battleship since it didn't respond and was under radio silence for the mission. It went something like this as in US archives that even had a UK name in it as the captain liked the Dreadnought name :
"The USS Turner Joy, a destroyer with three 5"-38's spotted a target off the coast of North Vietnam.
Assuming it friendly, a radio call was put out:
"This is the USS Turner Joy, Please identify yourself."
No response.
Signal lights were used:
"This is the USS Turner Joy, identify yourself, friend or foe."
No response.
Signal lights again:
"This is the USS Turner Joy, identify yourself or we will commence firing"
Answer:
"This is the Battleship USS New Jersey, You may open fire when ready, fear naught dreadnought"
2
-
Agreed to a point. For the US for example they had to lower military standards to allow them. Over half couldn't even do 3 pull ups, so they don't even have to do them anymore, and only have to do a flexed arm hang. Would you really like your combat buddy to be someone who couldn't move you and get you to safety if you were wounded? I have no issues with women in the military if they can pass the same exact test as men. This also goes for men who can't pass, they shouldn't lower the standards. Sources:
"Starting Jan. 1, every woman in the Marines Corps was supposed to meet a new physical standard by performing three pullups. But that has been put off."
"The Marine Corps, for example, has always required that its male recruits successfully perform at least three pull-ups. Women, on the other hand, had traditionally been required to perform at least 15 seconds of flexed arm hangs. That changed in 2013, when the Marine Corps' announced that, the following year, women recruits' flexed arm hang requirement would be replaced with pull-ups; 55 percent of women failed the new test. As a result, in December of 2013, just before the new policy was to go into effect, the corps backtracked on its new requirement, reverting back to the flexed arm hang."
2
-
2
-
@samuel10125 Every single of our allies other then New Zealand allows nuclear carriers. 99 percent of nations in the world allow nuclear carriers.
Australia allows them.
"tourism Minister, Mark McGowan today welcomed more than 5,000 senior officers and crew aboard USS NIMITZ (CVN-68) to Western Australia."
Italy? They allow them...
"For years a dozen Italian seaports have been decrying the risks they run as bases for nuclear powered or nuclear armed U.S. warships (submarines, aircraft carriers): Augusta, Brindisi, Cagliari, Castellammare di Stabia, Gaeta, La Maddalena, La Spezia, Livorno, Napoli, Taranto, Trieste, Venezia."
Germany? The UK? France?
"Nimitz conducted her second abnormally dangerous navigational detail of the deployment as she transited the English Channel (with its high volume of shipping) en route from Wilhelmshaven, West Germany, to Brest, France."
Japan?
"Ronald Reagan made five deployments to the Pacific and Middle East between 2006 and 2011 while based at Naval Air Station North Island. In October 2015, Ronald Reagan replaced USS George Washington as the flagship of Carrier Strike Group Five, the only forward-based carrier strike group home-ported at Yokosuka, Japan, as part of the United States Seventh Fleet"
South Korea?
"U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Michael D. White, the commander of Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 11 and Rear Adm. William McQuilkin, the commander of U.S. Naval Forces Korea, pose with local dignitaries aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) in Busan, "
India?
"The carrier departed North Island for its thirteenth deployment on 2 April 2007 to the Arabian Sea, relieving USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in support of OIF. It anchored off Chennai, India on 2 July 2007 as part of efforts to expand bilateral defense cooperation between India and the United States."
25-29 May 1991: Nimitz anchored at Dubai
11-12 Mar 1993: Nimitz sailed through the Strait of Malacca
18 Jun 1993: Nimitz sailed outbound through the Strait of Hormuz into the Arabian Sea
13-14 Feb 1998: Nimitz anchored off Port Suez, Egypt, and passed through the Suez Canal
21-23 Apr 1985: Nimitz anchored in Augusta Bay, Sicily, to turn over to Dwight D. Eisenhower.
31 Dec 1988-6 Jan 1989: Nimitz anchored at Singapore , affording her crew their first port of call after 71 punishing days at sea.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tsubadaikhan6332 You can bury them in the ocean.... This is why sinking nuclear submarines isn't an issue as the cooling effect of water keeping the reactor from reaching high temperatures and melting down. Since the ocean is so vast, the water will not heat up. Now that doesn't mean there will be no radiation, just minimal.
For example USS Thresher, USS Scorpion, K-27,
K-8, K-219, K-141, K-159 and so on, all nuclear submarines that have been sunk. Russia did this on purpose, and even tested low levels with multiple reactors. Source IAEA:
"There is concern about radioactive contamination from nuclear waste the former Soviet Union dumped in the sea and the effect this will have on the marine environment. According to an official "White Paper" report compiled and released by the Russian government in March 1993, the Soviet Union dumped six nuclear submarine reactors and ten nuclear reactors into the Kara Sea between 1965–1988. Solid high- and low-level wastes unloaded from Northern Fleet nuclear submarines during reactor refuelings were dumped in the Kara Sea, mainly in the shallow fjords of Novaya Zemlya, where the depths of the dumping sites range from 12 to 135 meters, and in the Novaya Zemlya Trough at depths of up to 380 meters. Liquid low-level wastes were released in the open Barents and Kara Seas. A subsequent appraisal by the International Atomic Energy Agency showed that releases are low and localized from the 16 naval reactors (reported by the IAEA as having come from seven submarines and the icebreaker Lenin) which were dumped at five sites in the Kara Sea. Most of the dumped reactors had suffered an accident"
2
-
@GOGS-zg7rd It's not the world first, the US among many nations have been doing this for years. It's like saying the UK is the worlds first ship recycler using only 10mm wrenches and working on Tuesdays(obvious sarcasm), or changing one process, when you need to add technicalities you aren't first. The US also removes many parts of the reactor but uses the compartments to use a high pressure keep the nuclear molecules at bay. Worlds first would be discovering how to not have any contamination when recycling.
"It’s a meticulous process. First, the defunct sub is towed to a secure de-fueling dock where its reactor compartment is drained of all liquids to expose its spent nuclear fuel assemblies. Each assembly is then removed and placed in spent nuclear fuel casks and put on secure trains for disposal at a long-term waste storage and reprocessing plant. In the US, this is the Naval Reactor Facility at the sprawling Idaho National Laboratory, and in Russia the Mayak plutonium production and reprocessing plant in Siberia is the final destination."
"Although the reactor machinery – steam generators, pumps, valves and piping – now contains no enriched uranium, the metals in it are rendered radioactive by decades of neutron bombardment shredding their atoms. So after fuel removal, the sub is towed into dry dock where cutting tools and blowtorches are used to sever the reactor compartment, plus an emptied compartment either side of it, from the submarine's hull. Then thick steel seals are welded to either end. So the canisters are not merely receptacles: they are giant high-pressure steel segments of the nuclear submarine itself – all that remains of it, in fact, as all nonradioactive submarine sections are then recycled."
2
-
2
-
Ro Herms "1) They are getting some weapons free, SOME. "
They are getting everything for free... Ukraine has no way of paying back billions of dollars. Hell the US is trying to give them 40 billion free...
"You have it backwards. The Tomahawk was designed for and by the navy, and then adopted by the USAF. The army, not wanting to loose out on funding came up with the BGM-109G Ground launcher to base missiles on their installations and capture funding. As to BGM-109G's, show me where they are sitting in storage... Cause they are not. They were all destroyed in 1992. "
And now you are just making things up. The BGM-109 came out in 1983, like all other original tomahawk variants and was literally one of the main variants up until the INF.
"3) So again, the only Tomahawks in the inventory are naval, and require a mk41 launcher. While the navy has tested a ground based mk41, it has not been fielded, and it would require the full suite of controls, not something the DOD will want to just hand over to Ukraine, let alone Tomahawks of block III or later, which is what we have in inventory..."
Proven wrong above already.
"So again, No, Ukraine is not going to get Tomahawks. As to Harpoons, they have REQUESTED them, but have not been authorized them, or been sent them. Only the UK was considering giving some of their Harpoon supply to Ukraine, but the US has not approved the transferer. Again, even if they did, you still need the accompanying equipment for target accusation and the training required for the system. Ukraine has the ability to produce more Neptune's, if they can get secure manufacture facilities. "
You sound like a Russian bot at this point and im already to the point of blocking and muting you. UK has already sent them Harpoons. Please stop posting on my comment, you have no idea what you are talking about, thank you.
"According to information accessed by Republic TV, Britain's shipment of new weapons support is aimed to bog down the Russian Black Sea fleet blockading Ukraine's coasts. The announcement of the Harpoon missile systems to Ukraine comes after UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson met with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy in embattled Kyiv on Saturday (April 9). "Today I met my friend President @ZelenskyyUa in Kyiv as a show of our unwavering support for the people of Ukraine.
We're setting out a new package of financial & military aid which is a testament of our commitment to his country's struggle against Russia’s barbaric campaign."
2
-
@jimbob100-d3l And the troll is now claiming to be someone "who does the job." LOL. I at least seriously hope you are trolling and aren't this dumb. Please do not post again or I will just block you. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Straight from the US military website:
"
On Dec.11, 2020, Capt. Aaron “Brutus” Tindall, 390th Electronic Combat Squadron EA-18G Growler weapons officer, became the first Airman to graduate from the Navy Airborne Electronic Attack weapons school, making him a subject matter expert in Airborne Electronic Attack and the EA-18G.
According to Lt. Col. David Davidson, 390th Electronic Combat Squadron commander, Tindall’s success will have a positive impact on the U.S. Air Force. “The Air Force and Navy are dependent on each other in a modern fight,” Tindall said. “Through the 390th ECS, the Air Force gains great insight into how parts of naval aviation execute on a day-to-day basis. Our goal is to take that knowledge and expertise back to the Air Force to jointly execute with more lethality today, and plan more efficiently for tomorrow.”
The EA-18G weapons school ‘HAVOC’ is the Navy’s version of an Air Force weapons school for a specific platform. It is the highest level of training for pilots and electronic warfare officers in the EA-18G.
Until now, only naval aircrew had attended the course."
And the fact you can't read English and just glanced over this in the original source shows you are either trolling or have an IQ of 2. Heck it could be both since you love to like your own comments.
"Due to this fact, in 1995, the Office of the Secretary of Defense arranged an agreement with the Navy embedding USAF electronic warfare airmen in Navy EA-6B and now EA-18G squadrons. Currently, The 390th provides logistical expertise and personnel to operate the EA-18G Growler in support of the Joint Airborne Electronic Attack Program."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simonhool3073 99 percent of the worlds ports allow nuclear carriers, only New Zealand off the top of my head doesnt.
Australia allows them.
"tourism Minister, Mark McGowan today welcomed more than 5,000 senior officers and crew aboard USS NIMITZ (CVN-68) to Western Australia."
Italy? They allow them...
"For years a dozen Italian seaports have been decrying the risks they run as bases for nuclear powered or nuclear armed U.S. warships (submarines, aircraft carriers): Augusta, Brindisi, Cagliari, Castellammare di Stabia, Gaeta, La Maddalena, La Spezia, Livorno, Napoli, Taranto, Trieste, Venezia."
Germany? The UK? France?
"Nimitz conducted her second abnormally dangerous navigational detail of the deployment as she transited the English Channel (with its high volume of shipping) en route from Wilhelmshaven, West Germany, to Brest, France."
Japan?
"Ronald Reagan made five deployments to the Pacific and Middle East between 2006 and 2011 while based at Naval Air Station North Island. In October 2015, Ronald Reagan replaced USS George Washington as the flagship of Carrier Strike Group Five, the only forward-based carrier strike group home-ported at Yokosuka, Japan, as part of the United States Seventh Fleet"
South Korea?
"U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Michael D. White, the commander of Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 11 and Rear Adm. William McQuilkin, the commander of U.S. Naval Forces Korea, pose with local dignitaries aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) in Busan, "
India?
"The carrier departed North Island for its thirteenth deployment on 2 April 2007 to the Arabian Sea, relieving USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in support of OIF. It anchored off Chennai, India on 2 July 2007 as part of efforts to expand bilateral defense cooperation between India and the United States."
USS Nimitz transition Suez Canal.
25-29 May 1991: Nimitz anchored at Dubai
11-12 Mar 1993: Nimitz sailed through the Strait of Malacca
18 Jun 1993: Nimitz sailed outbound through the Strait of Hormuz into the Arabian Sea
13-14 Feb 1998: Nimitz anchored off Port Suez, Egypt, and passed through the Suez Canal
21-23 Apr 1985: Nimitz anchored in Augusta Bay, Sicily, to turn over to Dwight D. Eisenhower.
31 Dec 1988-6 Jan 1989: Nimitz anchored at Singapore , affording her crew their first port of call after 71 punishing days at sea.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Exactly. Good thing the US took out 200-300 of them in 2018 under the battle of Khasham. Putler tried to hide this until the wives spoke out since they never got the bodies back. There is audio of the battle of and videos of the wives speaking out. I can try to link them if anyone wants them, otherwise:
"According to the U.S. military's official statement, around 10 p.m. local time on the night of 7 February 2018, a force of 500 pro-government fighters consisting of local militiamen, government soldiers, Iranian-trained Afghan Shia fighters, and reportedly Russian contractors launched an assault on a Syrian Democratic Forces headquarters near the town of Khasham, located on the Euphrates River in Syria. Supported by T-72 and T-55 tanks, the pro-government troops first shelled the SDF base with artillery, mortars, and rockets in what U.S. military officials described as a "coordinated attack." Around 20–30 shells landed within 500 meters of the headquarters. According to the U.S. military, the presence of U.S. special operations personnel in the targeted base elicited a response by U.S.-led coalition aircraft, including AC-130 gunships, F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets, unmanned aerial vehicles (MQ-9), AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, B-52s, and F-22s"
1
-
Good thing the US took out 200-300 Russians in 2018 under the battle of Khasham. Putler tried to hide this until the wives spoke out. There is audio of the battle of and videos of the wives speaking out. I can try to link them if anyone wants them, otherwise:
"According to the U.S. military's official statement, around 10 p.m. local time on the night of 7 February 2018, a force of 500 pro-government fighters consisting of local militiamen, government soldiers, Iranian-trained Afghan Shia fighters, and reportedly Russian contractors launched an assault on a Syrian Democratic Forces headquarters near the town of Khasham, located on the Euphrates River in Syria. Supported by T-72 and T-55 tanks, the pro-government troops first shelled the SDF base with artillery, mortars, and rockets in what U.S. military officials described as a "coordinated attack." Around 20–30 shells landed within 500 meters of the headquarters. According to the U.S. military, the presence of U.S. special operations personnel in the targeted base elicited a response by U.S.-led coalition aircraft, including AC-130 gunships, F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets, unmanned aerial vehicles (MQ-9), AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, B-52s, and F-22s"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@B-A-L They are allowed in 99 percent of the worlds ports and can be cheaper.
Australia allows them.
"tourism Minister, Mark McGowan today welcomed more than 5,000 senior officers and crew aboard USS NIMITZ (CVN-68) to Western Australia."
Italy? They allow them...
"For years a dozen Italian seaports have been decrying the risks they run as bases for nuclear powered or nuclear armed U.S. warships (submarines, aircraft carriers): Augusta, Brindisi, Cagliari, Castellammare di Stabia, Gaeta, La Maddalena, La Spezia, Livorno, Napoli, Taranto, Trieste, Venezia."
Germany? The UK? France?
"Nimitz conducted her second abnormally dangerous navigational detail of the deployment as she transited the English Channel (with its high volume of shipping) en route from Wilhelmshaven, West Germany, to Brest, France."
Japan?
"Ronald Reagan made five deployments to the Pacific and Middle East between 2006 and 2011 while based at Naval Air Station North Island. In October 2015, Ronald Reagan replaced USS George Washington as the flagship of Carrier Strike Group Five, the only forward-based carrier strike group home-ported at Yokosuka, Japan, as part of the United States Seventh Fleet"
South Korea?
"U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Michael D. White, the commander of Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 11 and Rear Adm. William McQuilkin, the commander of U.S. Naval Forces Korea, pose with local dignitaries aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) in Busan, "
India?
"The carrier departed North Island for its thirteenth deployment on 2 April 2007 to the Arabian Sea, relieving USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in support of OIF. It anchored off Chennai, India on 2 July 2007 as part of efforts to expand bilateral defense cooperation between India and the United States."
25-29 May 1991: Nimitz anchored at Dubai
11-12 Mar 1993: Nimitz sailed through the Strait of Malacca
18 Jun 1993: Nimitz sailed outbound through the Strait of Hormuz into the Arabian Sea
13-14 Feb 1998: Nimitz anchored off Port Suez, Egypt, and passed through the Suez Canal
21-23 Apr 1985: Nimitz anchored in Augusta Bay, Sicily, to turn over to Dwight D. Eisenhower.
31 Dec 1988-6 Jan 1989: Nimitz anchored at Singapore , affording her crew their first port of call after 71 punishing days at sea.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dogsnads5634 "No they're not.
There is a Laser Guided JDAM version called the LJDAM."
Make up your mind, are they or are they not laser guided?
"Paveway IV was never developed for a US requirement, they haven't rejected it because it has never been offered to them...they would need UK permission to be sold it as some of the IP is UK owned..."
Blocked, you are trolling me at this point. I guess all my sources above are made up. It is made by the US, licensed to the UK so you can produce jobs instead of just buying from the US. Straight from Raytheon UKs own website.
"Raytheon UK is a technology company focused on Defence, Aerospace and Cyber & Intelligence with sites across the UK; in England, Scotland and Wales.
A fully-owned subsidiary of Raytheon Technologies (previously Raytheon Company) in the U.S., we've been in the UK, in one form or another, for more than 100 years. Raytheon UK's (including Raytheon Company, prior to the merger with United Technologies Corporation in 2019) contribution to the UK economy in 2019 stood at £762 million*, supporting 8,300 jobs in the UK supply chain."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mr_slidey "there are many reasons that the UK went with conventional carriers over nuclear such as being able to dock in more ports and go through more countries' territorial waters, "
There is such a minor difference. Off the top of my head only New Zealand doesn't allow them, the majority of the world allows them. Otherwise why not also make conventional submarines? Nuclear is better.
"having to have supply ships for the rest of the carrier group anyway so fuel isn't a huge additional concern, "
Nuclear carriers are the resupply ship in the CSG, so during war time, you need less ships to defend resupply ships if the carrier is doing it.
"USS Carl Vinson sets milestone, delivers over 1M gallons of fuel since January
The aircraft carrier has conducted 15 separate fuel at sea evolutions this year."
"astronomically more expensive for little gain."
It's not much more expensive for much more gain. All the fuel for a conventional carriers adds up while also needing to build more resupply ships and fuel those as well cuts the cost very close to each other as nuclear carriers need to be refuel once every 20-25 years. With nuclear propulsion you can have CATOBAR or EMALS, power future laser weapons, you have more fuel for your airwing, have a larger airwing, have better sortie rates, can refuel the CSG, can go on longer mission times(double) as you can hold more fuel, food and water and so on.
" Both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales will keep 45 days' worth of food in its stores."
"The ships normally carries enough food and supplies to operate for 90 days. Four distilling units enable NIMITZ-class engineers to make over 400,000 gallons of fresh water from seawater a day, for use by the propulsion plants, catapults and crew. The ship carries approximately 3 million gallons of fuel for her aircraft and escorts, and enough weapons and stores for extended operations without replenishment."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tanvirahmedsiddiquee127 Propaganda, lol. Facts hurt small minds. Source below quoted, would you also like videos? The us has had hypersonic missiles since the 70s, google AIM54, flew on the F14s. They stopped using them do to lack of maneuverability hypersonic missiles have, hence the US mainly preferring subsonic, not even supersonic, sea skimming, under the radar horizon missiles. Each have their pros and cons, none are perfect.
"The GBI consists of a 3-stage solid rocket boost vehicle which can place it's payload of an Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle outside the earth's atmosphere. In order to do this the missile must reach an escape velocity of more than 6.9 miles per second. This hypersonic speed is several times what a 7.62mm bullet travels leaving the muzzle of a gun. To put it another way, it reaches a speed of approximately Mach 33."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Carter was the most hated/worst president by polls. Biden is coming in though to seemingly take that lead from Carter. It's not surprising as Bidens admin is pro-woke, pro-green new deal, anti-oil, pro open borders, anti-gun, overspending, lifting sanctions on Russia/Germany pipeline originally while stopping our own, got Americans killed in the terrible withdrawal, bombed that innocent family, can't speak without the White house staff needing to clarify everything, and overall just anti-American and against American values.
I don't know what good honestly the 30-40 percent(depending on poll) think he has done to make the 30-40 percent still saying they approve of him. He has been downright horrible unless you are a socialist, they tend to be the ones still supporting him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Can only hope. This is exactly how we found out how the US beat Russia in 2018 in the battle of Khasham killing 200-300 Russians. So few know about this battle as Putler tried to hide it until the wives/mothers spoke out since they never got their husbands/sons bodies back. F22's were even used, this is why after Putler said any missile attack on Russia would be considered nuclear since Putler was scared. Source, I can try to post the videos of the wives speaking out and the audio of the battle from the Russian side claiming their losses:
"According to the U.S. military's official statement, around 10 p.m. local time on the night of 7 February 2018, a force of 500 pro-government fighters consisting of local militiamen, government soldiers, Iranian-trained Afghan Shia fighters, and reportedly Russian contractors launched an assault on a Syrian Democratic Forces headquarters near the town of Khasham, located on the Euphrates River in Syria. Supported by T-72 and T-55 tanks, the pro-government troops first shelled the SDF base with artillery, mortars, and rockets in what U.S. military officials described as a "coordinated attack." Around 20–30 shells landed within 500 meters of the headquarters. According to the U.S. military, the presence of U.S. special operations personnel in the targeted base elicited a response by coalition aircraft, including AC-130 gunships, F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets, unmanned aerial vehicles (MQ-9), AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, B-52s, and F-22s"
1
-
@Andrew-is7rs "Nicely copied and pasted from
Boot camp and military fitness chief."
Facts hurt feelings I see.
As proven they have a blue water navy. Heck I don't think there are many if any sources stating otherwise.
"RN, have fewer global bases, has less tonnage, nowhere near the experience, logistics, intelligence or signals. Have one, old, medium carrier that is often in port leaving them without any at sea air force and are regional. Most if their bases are located in Africa."
You really love to repeat yourself even with others state facts then ignore all the faults with the QE, type 45, etc.
"The UK have allies and bases across the globe"
I guess the French don't have allies or bases either.
"CDG leaks radiation again its back in dock and end of exercise."
It's amazing how you act like the QE hasn't almost flooded and sunk, or has had a faults of its own and one is now in dry dock and will be for some time do to the damaged occurred. Nor acting like the Type 45s weren't all hung up for repairs. You just seem to hate the French.
But otherwise I do seem to now think you are a troll who just doesn't like the French and this conversation will go nowhere. So this will be my last reply as you will just keep trolling and trying to insult me even though you literally have no idea what you are talking about and if I post facts/sources I will just get another trollish response of "Nicely copied and pasted" like posting facts and sources is bad. Enjoy the last word, we know you troll love it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@1IbramGaunt
"the US Navy themselves have admitted that in terms of anti-air and anti-missile capabilities the Type 45 is in fact by far and away the superior ship, look up the Aster missile and Samson radar platforms sometime"
The Sampson radar has a 400km range, the AN/Spy-1, the basic version from the 70's without any modern upgrades has a 310km range. Let alone bringing up the modern AN/Spy-6. The AB class can literally shoot down ICBMs in their midcourse phase, the hardest phase to shoot a missile down in. The type 45 can't even dream of doing this. Their are only two midcourse phase ICBM interceptors in the world, the SM3 and GBMD. Since it can track midcourse phase ICBMs in space, it's radar has a range of over 2000km.
The aster is literally a modified anti-air missile used to shoot down terminal phase ICBMs in a pinch, the type 45 has no BM defense otherwise and is working on it. The AB is also much cheaper, the UK did a study, showing they could have gotten 12 ABs instead of 6 type 45s.
So if the type 45 being worse at air defense is better to you, getting less ships is better, you live in a backwards world. Sources:
"The Type 45 does not have a formal theatre ballistic missile defence (TBMD) capability but its potential for such a role is being assessed"
"The SAMPSON multi function radar can detect all types of targets out to a distance of 400 km, and is capable of tracking hundreds of targets at any one time."
"The SPY-1 can maintain continuous radar surveillance while automatically tracking more than 100 targets at one time. Public numerical figures on the SPY-1 detection range claim that it can detect a golf ball-sized target at ranges in excess of 165 km. When applied to a ballistic missile-sized target, the SPY-1 radar is estimated to have a range of 310 km."
"Aegis BMD continues to demonstrate a capability to intercept non-separating, simple separating, and complex-separating ballistic missiles in the midcourse phase of flight with
SM-3 missiles."
"SM-3 Midcourse Interceptor
The SM-3 is designed to intercept ballistic missiles above the atmosphere (i.e., exo-atmospheric
intercept), in the midcourse phase of an enemy ballistic missile’s flight. It is equipped with a “hit to-kill” warhead, called a kinetic vehicle, that is designed to destroy a ballistic missile’s warhead
by colliding with it. The current versions of the SM-3 missile include the SM-3 Block IA, the
SM-3 Block IB, and the SM-3 Block IIA"
"Aegis BMD will be able to engage increasingly longer range, more sophisticated ballistic missiles with the deployment of the next Aegis BMD Weapon System upgrade and the SM-3 Block IB. In addition, Aegis BMD continues to improve its ability to fire or engage a threat using remotely supplied track information. As an example, in Flight Test Mission 15 (FTM-15), an AN/TPY-2 (Forward-Based Mode) radar located at Wake Island will detect the intermediate range ballistic missile target and transmit tracking data to an Aegis BMD ship over 2,000 km away. Based on TPY-2 radar data a firing solution will be calculated and an SM-3 missile will be launched. As the target continues its trajectory, the ship's SPY-1 radar will acquire the target and provide guidance commands to the missile to intercept the target. Such engagement coordination expands battlespace and depth of fire."
"The cost of the Destroyers is also indicative of another structural problem, the fact that the defence budget is also used as part of an industrial strategy. The destroyers like most of the UK’s equipment, are produced domestically and expensively in order to support the UK arms industry. Had the UK bought the equivalent American destroyers, the Arleigh Burke class, it could have done so at half the price getting twice the capability, 12, at the same cost."
1
-
@1IbramGaunt "so's the Daring-class in it's own separate way"
How so other then range? It has a great range, but otherwise, the AB class is a better ship.
"I'm pretty sure making our own ships is generally considered a cheaper option than buying someone else's lol"
Type 45 cost 1,050,000,000 pounds/1443435078 USD with the new upgrade which cost 500 million pounds/668 million USD bring it over 2 billion USD.
The AB class cost 1.85 billion USD, making it cheaper, also as it's produced in larger lots, the price goes way down, but to keep it fair, one vs one on production, the AB class is still cheaper. As of right now if you buy them in lots, they are under 1 billion USD each.
"In 2018, Ingalls was awarded a $5.1 billion fixed-price incentive, multiyear contract for construction of six Arleigh Burke-class Flight III destroyers for the U.S. Navy."
You could have 12 AB class destroyers for the cost of 6 type 45s. Your own nation admitted it.
"The cost of the Destroyers is also indicative of another structural problem, the fact that the defence budget is also used as part of an industrial strategy. The destroyers like most of the UK’s equipment, are produced domestically and expensively in order to support the UK arms industry. Had the UK bought the equivalent American destroyers, the Arleigh Burke class, it could have done so at half the price getting twice the capability, 12, at the same cost."
", and the AB is simply not sufficiently superior to warrant the extra expense"
The AB class literally is better at everything other then range, while being cheaper.
"extra expense, or the re-training or re-tooling or re-supplying for it."
It's welding, riveting, and steel working... You already do it. It's not like the AB class uses DU armor or something crazy like tanks use and they swapped the technology over. It's just steel working. You have ship yards large enough.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Skyguardian isn't the best. The RQ180 "White bat" is. Granted most of it is classified. Heck the RQ170 is better other then endurance. The US won't sell these to other nations though as they have an RCS similar to the F22.
"The RQ-180 is believed to be about the size of the Global Hawk, which weighs 32,250 lb (14,630 kg), and have similar capabilities of endurance (24 hours) and range (12,000 nmi (14,000 mi; 22,000 km)). This is much more than the RQ-170's endurance of 5–6 hours. It has superior all-aspect, broadband radar cross-section reduction features compared to previous stealth aircraft such as the F-117 Nighthawk, F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II.
The RQ-180 is believed to have a cranked-kite layout like the X-47B, but with a much longer wingspan, perhaps as much as 130 ft (40 m). Northrop Grumman claims the wing is more scalable and adaptable than the B-2 Spirit's flying wing shape"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mxtt30 "can your M1 hit a target in full motion at vmax in rough terrain? Don’t think so."
Pretty sure it can.
"A Greek trial found that moving Leopard 2s and Abrams hit a 2.3-meter target nineteen and twenty times out of twenty, respectively, while a Soviet T-80 scored only eleven hits."
"Also the M1 uses the 120mm Rheinmetall-Glattrohr Kanone so no bonus points for you."
They literally use the same gun just different versions... The l44 and l55... Each has their pros and cons. The L55 should get you longer range shots, but do to being longer has a worse turn radius for shorter turns in congested areas do to the barrel length.
"Although the Abrams is more battle tested, the Leo triumphs in speed, fire rate, more advanced electronics and optics and marching range."
The Leopard 2 is 1mph/1.6kph faster... That's like me trying to brag the M1A1 was 2mph/3.2kph faster, it's negligible when tanks hardly ever reach their max speed.
Faster rate of fire? First off do you even know what the rate of fire is for the Leopard 2 since it's not on any credible source online... It uses an autoloader meaning it would take longer to reload the auto-loader when its out...
Same with the Abrams as it's crew manually loads them and would be crew dependent. Which the only sources I can find for it claim 8-9 rounds per minute... So this is moot on either side since neither of us can post a credible source on it.
"more advanced electronics"
That's would be the Abrams as we have seen in battle.
"marching range"
The Abrams has better range as even though it uses more fuel, it also carries more fuel. The Abrams carries 504.4 US gallons/1,909L
while the Leopard 2 carries 1,200L/317 gallons. The leopard 2 max range is 340km/210mi while the Abrams is 265 mi/426km, which comes straight from Bundeswehr.
The Abrams is more quite, has better range, better armor, better optics, and doesn't have an autoloader. Heck I think we all have seen the video of the Leopard exploding like a nuclear bomb when kurds took one out(not to say Abrams can't be destroyed either) If you haven't seen the video look up "Direct ATGM hit: Kurdish female fighters destroy invading Turkish Leopard 2 tank in Afrin region" autoloaders are not a good thing to have.
Both are great tanks, but the Abrams is the best in the world right now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daming-houzhao "To learn about China's land-based conventional ballistic missiles, whose range covers almost all of Asia,"
You aren't going to use ballistic missiles against ships... Their CEP is to large for a moving target at their speed unless the slow down to supersonic or subsonic speeds. Cruise missiles is the main weapon against ships.
" What is the combat radius of his fighter?"
There something called in flight refueling... Like I also stated they aren't going to be going into China, but launching long range missiles like the AGM-158D with a 1200 mile/1900km range forcing Chinese fighters to intercept them. Like Russia is doing to Ukraine.
"Not to mention that China's latest shipborne version of YJ-21 has a range of 1500 kilometers and can be installed in 052D and 055!"
Hypersonic missiles wont be used against ships do to their lack of maneuverability, Russian patent below stating they can't maneuver, need to shut their engines off, can lose stability and even self destruct coming back down to it's target. But first lets do some math. Zircons top speed is mach 9 right? Converting to km/s that is about 3km/s. Say you wanted to move a single degree for 5 seconds at 3km/s you would be off course 15km... Almost as much as the Chinese test missed by on a stationary target...
"Russian patent number 2579409 relates to the field of rocket technology, and more specifically to hypersonic cruise missiles equipped with a hypersonic ramjet engine. The invention describes a method of application and device hypersonic cruise missile, allowing to solve the problem of performing a combat mission to destroy ground and surface targets of such a missile. The described invention is designed to maximize the combat potential of the combat module with the scramjet.
The design mode for the scramjet are high-altitude cruise conditions while maintaining the estimated cruise speed, and the need to reduce the altitude and flight speed creates difficult technical problems due to the fact that:
an engine designed to perform a hypersonic mid-flight at high altitude is not able to continue to work at low-altitude trajectory sections associated with a decrease in the flight number M, hence, the rocket must approach the ground or surface target with an inactive engine;
characteristics of sustainability and controllability of the combat module with inactive scramjet significantly deteriorate, loss of stability becomes possible;
there is also a danger of destruction of the scramjet design due to the increase in pressure in the flow part of the engine while reducing the Combat module from the march height before hitting the target."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheDrummingWarrior The US had the AIM54 in the 70's flying on the F14s. This isn't new tech. Hypersonic missiles can not maneuver and are only good for first strikes/nuclear strikes. Russian patent below as source stating they have to shut their engines off, can lose stability, and even self destruct coming back down to hit it's target. Also all hypersonic missiles are ballistic. Even "cruise" missiles as ram/scramjet engines do not function at low altitude and need thinner atmosphere and a rocket booster as they produce 0 thrust on their own. Without it the Zircon for example only can go a few hundred miles since it's running on it's booster alone if taking a low trajectory, but when it goes ballistic, it then has Russias stated range. This is also why it's average flight times wasn't even reaching hypersonic speeds. Sources:
"The missile was launched from the frigate “ADMIRAL OF THE FLEET OF THE SOVIET UNION GORSHKOV in the White Sea and the warhead mock-up successfully hit the target in the Barents Sea at a distance of 450 kilometres. Images released by the Russian MoD show a missile launch from the upper deck at the ship’s bow, with the missile performing a somersault like manoeuvre in the air before heading to the target.
The missile was moving at an average speed of 1.6 kilometres per second, or 5.7 thousand KM per hour (at the peak, the speed exceeded 9.5 thousand KM, or M=8). The maximum flight altitude was 28KM to make the flight time just 4.5 minutes."
"The missile's range is estimated to be 135 to 270 nautical miles (155 to 311 mi; 250 to 500 km) at low level, and up to 400 nmi (460 mi; 740 km) in a semi-ballistic trajectory"
Hypersonic glide weapons also are ballistic. They have an entry phase, a controlled climb, a ballistic skip/jump, then finally reentry as all those stages it goes ballistic.
"Boost-glide trajectories are a class of spacecraft guidance and reentry trajectories that extend the range of suborbital spaceplanes and reentry vehicles by employing aerodynamic lift in the high upper atmosphere. In most examples, boost-glide roughly doubles the range over the purely ballistic trajectory. In others, a series of skips allows range to be further extended, and leads to the alternate terms skip-glide and skip reentry."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joecater894 Australia allows them.
"tourism Minister, Mark McGowan today welcomed more than 5,000 senior officers and crew aboard USS NIMITZ (CVN-68) to Western Australia."
Italy? They allow them...
"For years a dozen Italian seaports have been decrying the risks they run as bases for nuclear powered or nuclear armed U.S. warships (submarines, aircraft carriers): Augusta, Brindisi, Cagliari, Castellammare di Stabia, Gaeta, La Maddalena, La Spezia, Livorno, Napoli, Taranto, Trieste, Venezia."
Germany? The UK? France?
"Nimitz conducted her second abnormally dangerous navigational detail of the deployment as she transited the English Channel (with its high volume of shipping) en route from Wilhelmshaven, West Germany, to Brest, France."
Japan?
"Ronald Reagan made five deployments to the Pacific and Middle East between 2006 and 2011 while based at Naval Air Station North Island. In October 2015, Ronald Reagan replaced USS George Washington as the flagship of Carrier Strike Group Five, the only forward-based carrier strike group home-ported at Yokosuka, Japan, as part of the United States Seventh Fleet"
South Korea?
"U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Michael D. White, the commander of Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 11 and Rear Adm. William McQuilkin, the commander of U.S. Naval Forces Korea, pose with local dignitaries aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) in Busan, "
India?
"The carrier departed North Island for its thirteenth deployment on 2 April 2007 to the Arabian Sea, relieving USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in support of OIF. It anchored off Chennai, India on 2 July 2007 as part of efforts to expand bilateral defense cooperation between India and the United States."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russian tanks are nothing compared to American. Tom Clancy has a non-fiction book about a Abrams that got stuck in the mud, then took out three T72s, then tried to free the tank from the mud and couldn't, then tried blowing up the tank and couldn't, leaving only a sight out of alignment.
"Well, in his 1994 non-fiction book, Armored Cav, Tom Clancy recounted a tale of how an M1A1 Abrams got stuck in the mud during the ground war of Desert Storm. It was then set upon by three tanks, Iraqi T-72s specifically. A round fired from roughly a thousand yards away bounced off, and the Abrams responded by blowing the T-72 that fired it to bits. A second round fired from 700 yards, bounced off, and the offending T-72 was blasted. The third T-72, at a range of roughly 400 yards, fired a round, which left a groove in the armor of the Abrams. It, too, was destroyed by a shot fired through a sand berm. These were, supposedly, Russia’s state-of-the-art tanks.
Then, when help arrived, and the tank couldn’t be freed from the mud, a platoon of Abrams tanks tried to destroy it. After several rounds, they detonated the onboard ammo, but the blow-out panels functioned as designed. Then, when the tank was retrieved from the mud, they discovered that it was still functional. The only issue? A sight was out of alignment."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@realburglazofficial2613 Always that one person trying to argue. It's literally how hulls are designed, they need inward pressure on the hull otherwise they start to peel away do to their shape design. This is how ships of all kinds handle so much pressure and movement. They thought they could get away with dry docking the HMS Warrior for example... Didn't go that way. Ships hulls deform out of water and need a lot of bracing. This is what they thought:
"In the event, it was decided to dry-dock her, it being felt that her composite construction, with sharp rise of floors, would allow her to remain out of the water for an indefinite period without the hull losing shape. It was also believed that very light bilge and breast shores would suffice to support the hull and yet allow the ship's lines to be appreciated (Click here for Illustration 10), and that with her unique construction of iron, teak and elm, and being permanently out of the water, there would never be a need for major repairs to the hull in general, nor to the keel in particular."
This is what actually happened...
"In the case of H.M.S. Warrior it was decided to keep the vessel afloat in Portsmouth Harbour."
Dry docking kills ships and is super expensive to keep them going, hence why we don't have many museum ships.
1
-
1
-
@adamatch9624 It's not the world first, the US among many nations have been doing this for years. It's like saying the UK is the worlds first ship recycler using only 10mm wrenches and working on Tuesdays(obvious sarcasm), or changing one process, when you need to add technicalities you aren't first. The US also removes many parts of the reactor but uses the compartments to use a high pressure keep the nuclear molecules at bay. Worlds first would be discovering how to not have any contamination when recycling.
"It’s a meticulous process. First, the defunct sub is towed to a secure de-fueling dock where its reactor compartment is drained of all liquids to expose its spent nuclear fuel assemblies. Each assembly is then removed and placed in spent nuclear fuel casks and put on secure trains for disposal at a long-term waste storage and reprocessing plant. In the US, this is the Naval Reactor Facility at the sprawling Idaho National Laboratory, and in Russia the Mayak plutonium production and reprocessing plant in Siberia is the final destination."
"Although the reactor machinery – steam generators, pumps, valves and piping – now contains no enriched uranium, the metals in it are rendered radioactive by decades of neutron bombardment shredding their atoms. So after fuel removal, the sub is towed into dry dock where cutting tools and blowtorches are used to sever the reactor compartment, plus an emptied compartment either side of it, from the submarine's hull. Then thick steel seals are welded to either end. So the canisters are not merely receptacles: they are giant high-pressure steel segments of the nuclear submarine itself – all that remains of it, in fact, as all nonradioactive submarine sections are then recycled."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Litany_of_Fury No... They aren't... Why do i get all the trolls... Aircraft carriers are in strike groups... This is an older 5th fleet group for example... If that's your logic all navies should be single small speed boats...
Whats in the 5th fleet, older example.
USS George Washington:
Crew: 5,500 – Carrier Air Wing 1:
SQUADRON TYPE AIRCRAFT No. (Approx.)
VF-102 Fighter F-14B 14
VFA-82 Strike Fighter F/A-18C 12
VFA-86 Strike Fighter F/A-18C 12
VMFA-251 Marine Strike Fighter F/A-18C 10
VAQ-137 Tactical Elec. Warfare EA-6B 4
VAW-123 Carrier Early Warning E-2C 4
HS-11 Helicopter SH-60F 4
HH-60H 2
VQ-6 Fleet Air Reconn. ES-3A 3
VS-32 Sea Control S-3B 8
USS Independence:
Crew: 5,000 – Carrier Air Wing 5:
SQUADRON TYPE AIRCRAFT No. (Approx.)
VF-154 Fighter F-14B 10
VFA-27 Strike Fighter F/A-18C 12
VFA-192 Strike Fighter F/A-18C 12
VFA-195 Strike Fighter F/A-18C 12
VAQ-136 Tactical Elec. Warfare EA-6B 5
VAW-115 Carrier Early Warning E-2C 4
HS-14 Helicopter SH-60F 4
HH-60H 2
VQ-5 Fleet Air Reconn. ES-3A 3
VS-21 Sea Control S-3B 8
VRC-30 Fleet Logistics Support C2-A 2
Note: The Navy reports that a carrier airwing is usually loaded with more than 4.6 million pounds of air launched missiles, laser-guided bombs, general purpose bombs and ammunition including: Harpoon, HARM, Maverick, Sidewinder, Sparrow, Walleye, AMRAAM, Shrike, SLAM, Phoenix, and Vulcan 20mm shells.
Accompanying vessels:
Cruisers:
USS Bunker Hill: Ship's company of 358; is Tomahawk-capable.
USS Normandy: Ship's company of 358; is Tomahawk-capable.
Destroyers:
USS Barry: Ship's company of 300; is Tomahawk-capable.
USS Carney: Ship's company of 300; is Tomahawk-capable.
USS Ingersoll: Ship's company of 339.
USS John S. McCain: Ship's company of 300; is Tomahawk-capable.
USS John Young: Ship's company of 339; is Tomahawk-capable.
Guided Missile Frigates:
USS Reuben James: Ship's company of 200.
USS Samuel B. Roberts: Ship's company of 200.
Attack Submarines:
USS Annapolis: Ship's company of 133; is Tomahawk-capable.
USS Charlotte: Ship's company of 133.
Fast Combat Support Ship:
USS Seattle: Ship's company of 600.
USS Samuel B. Roberts: Ship's company of 200.
Mine Countermeasures Ship:
USS Ardent: Ship's company of 81.
USS Dextrous: Ship's company of 81.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gazza7uk646 "The ships normally carries enough food and supplies to operate for 90 days. Four distilling units enable NIMITZ-class engineers to make over 400,000 gallons of fresh water from seawater a day, for use by the propulsion plants, catapults and crew. The ship carries approximately 3 million gallons of fuel for her aircraft and escorts, and enough weapons and stores for extended operations without replenishment."
Australia allows them.
"tourism Minister, Mark McGowan today welcomed more than 5,000 senior officers and crew aboard USS NIMITZ (CVN-68) to Western Australia."
Italy? They allow them...
"For years a dozen Italian seaports have been decrying the risks they run as bases for nuclear powered or nuclear armed U.S. warships (submarines, aircraft carriers): Augusta, Brindisi, Cagliari, Castellammare di Stabia, Gaeta, La Maddalena, La Spezia, Livorno, Napoli, Taranto, Trieste, Venezia."
Germany? The UK? France?
"Nimitz conducted her second abnormally dangerous navigational detail of the deployment as she transited the English Channel (with its high volume of shipping) en route from Wilhelmshaven, West Germany, to Brest, France."
Japan?
"Ronald Reagan made five deployments to the Pacific and Middle East between 2006 and 2011 while based at Naval Air Station North Island. In October 2015, Ronald Reagan replaced USS George Washington as the flagship of Carrier Strike Group Five, the only forward-based carrier strike group home-ported at Yokosuka, Japan, as part of the United States Seventh Fleet"
South Korea?
"U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Michael D. White, the commander of Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 11 and Rear Adm. William McQuilkin, the commander of U.S. Naval Forces Korea, pose with local dignitaries aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) in Busan, "
India?
"The carrier departed North Island for its thirteenth deployment on 2 April 2007 to the Arabian Sea, relieving USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in support of OIF. It anchored off Chennai, India on 2 July 2007 as part of efforts to expand bilateral defense cooperation between India and the United States."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1