Youtube comments of Covert Cabal (@CovertCabal).
-
2000
-
471
-
466
-
353
-
350
-
285
-
254
-
233
-
217
-
211
-
205
-
181
-
180
-
166
-
164
-
154
-
150
-
149
-
141
-
141
-
125
-
125
-
123
-
121
-
119
-
117
-
115
-
111
-
106
-
102
-
97
-
I've already spent maybe 20 hours looking at North Korea recently... searching through Google Maps and declassified CIA documents for any hints on where North Korea hides their tanks/artillery/etc. So far, it's all been in vain, no luck. The mountainous terrain seems to have given them the ability to tunnel in and hide them, as you mentioned.
Same with Iran to an extent. I've found a few sites, but it's a tough country to observe from satellite imagery.
I've got an idea in my head to discuss ex-Soviet armored storage sites. I found a CIA document stating the 12 sites the Soviets had. 2 in Belarus (one is now just condos/apartments), 1 in Kazakhstan, 1 in Ukraine (in Bakhmut), and the rest in Russia. But I want to look and see what previous Soviet states might be able to provide Russia if it came to that.
The 2 sites are:
Belarus - 52°55`57 N, 27°54`49 E
Kazakhstan - 43°33`33 N, 75°11`45 E
If you're interested, there's some good imagery on Google of them
95
-
95
-
94
-
94
-
94
-
91
-
89
-
87
-
86
-
86
-
85
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
81
-
79
-
76
-
75
-
74
-
73
-
72
-
70
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
59
-
59
-
57
-
57
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
48
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
+TheSuperKnug If you're talking about large aircraft with low maneuverability like tankers, AEW, etc then yes it'd cover most the Baltic sea and half of Sweden. But it would stand very little chance shooting down fighters at that distance. Alot of people only talk about the range, but it's alot more complicated than that.
But I agree with the second part. The US and the West in general has fell behind in air defense (not counting ballistic missile defense). They have only the short range stinger and the bulky Patriot. The Patriot requires a whole bunch of hardware to work as well, they need the AMG (comms), ECS (control), EPP (power), MPQ-53 (radar), and launchers. Whereas the S-300/400 is just radars, control post, and launchers.
The US and western nations kinda fell behind after the cold war ended. The threats they faced didn't have any credible air threats they needed to deal with. They started a few programs like MEADS but ended up canceling them.
But to be fair, the US and also European nations have put alot of effort and funding into their navy's air defense with weapons like the SM-6, ESSM, Aster 15/30
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
+Gwyllym Suter Where did you get that China pronounced they would defend North Korea? I've read both that they'd help the US as North Korea is a major headache for them and doing so would allow them say in setting up a new government without having the US on their border, and I've also read they would defend North Korea. But I haven't read anything directly or officially from the Chinese Government where they publicly stated one or the other.
Personally, I do not believe China would go to war with the US over North Korea. China isn't the same isolated country as it was 65 years ago. They rely heavily on world trade to sustain their economy, and the US makes up almost 25% of all their exports, nearly half a trillion dollars. Not to mention the trillions in US debt the Chinese hold would become worthless. China cannot afford a war with the US, it'd devastate their economy. Same goes for the US. The world economy is too interconnected these days which make wars that much more expensive. That is my opinion on it though, I could be wrong.
And without China, that leaves the North Korean military by themselves. They have an absolutely enormous army, but South Korea does as well. In fact if you count reserve forces, which undoubtedly would be called up in the event of war, South Korea actually has a larger force. Then also you'd have to take into account the USA, Japan, and possibly other like the UK, Canada, etc.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
They wouldn't 'wait' an hour or two, nor did I said they would wait.
It takes time for any army, be it North Korea, the USA, Russia, anyone, to gather situational awareness, decide how to react, delegate orders to your commanders, have commanders delegate orders to their troops, and then mobilize and carry out those orders. It is called the OODA loop in the US. Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@tomlin9539 You don't need to hide silos. The location of every single last US missile silo is well known, even listed on Wikipedia. Detection doesn't matter. The goal is, and has always been to get your missiles off before they can be destroyed, hence countries like the US, Russia, and China put a lot of money into early warning systems.
Mobile launchers are much more expensive in the long run. You have to maintain the trucks constantly, along with support vehicles. Keep them on standby 24/7/365, always in perfect running order. It also requires more infrastructure (ie roads that can handle those trucks, storage locations, maintained yards, etc). Compare that to just a hole in the ground. Much cheaper. No moving parts.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@yidetao5623 haha
1. Just because it's famous for wind, doesn't automatically mean this is a wind farm. The location around Area 51 has been mined for over a century for silver chloride, but that doesn't mean Area 51 is just a big silver chloride mining site.
And yes, there is a wind farm to the east. This is where people have been getting confused. The labeled satellite image released in the news also labeled this wind farm to the east, and for some reason people think it was referring to this missile site. But, there is also a wind farm much further to the north and north west. Again, just like Area 51, where there are still silver mines.
2. No, the image I showed is not from months ago. If you want to be precise, it was taken 5th of July, 2021, at 04:37 UTC time by the Sentinel-2 (L2A) imaging satellite. At one point in the video I also showed a time-lapse of the area from Jan to July 2021. You can view these images yourself on Sentinel-Hub, please do so, so you don't have to keep repeating false information such as this.
3. The site is guarded because of this, really? Do they think Buddha is going to come attack these wind turbines? Or are you saying people visiting these caves might decide to go destroy wind turbines? If so, then explain why all other wind farms that are right next to cities and tourist sites do not have this extremely high level of security.
4. The DF-41 can be launched from truck or silo. This is no secret, it's been known for years now. We have watched and seen this occurring at the Chinese testing facility of Jilantai. Or, are you going to tell me Jilantai is also just a big wind farm?
I'm not sure why China would build more DF-3s, and I never said they were. This site is built to house DF-41s. And you can see that as the structures here are the exact same structure and layout of DF-41 testing areas at Jilantai.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
+Deplorable EJ Yes Google gives you lots of analytics! 3 views on F-35 vs S-400, 2 on Will China Defend North Korea, 2 on Can US Shoot down North Korean Missile, and 3 on Can North Korea Sink a US Aircraft Carrier.
I can even see that 6 of them were viewed from a computer, 2 on a mobile phone, and 2 on a tablet. They found my videos mostly through "Browse Features", the rest through "Suggested Videos". They didn't like, share, comment, or subscribe. And zero ads played, which isn't surprising as I doubt companies advertise in North Korea.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Thats a good explanation. Now I wish I would have gone more into the doctrines, and talked more about how Soviet/Russia would attack, how US sets up its defense utilizing its carrier aircraft including the Hawkeye, etc. Instead I just had a couple quick sentences about aircraft being able to see further than horizon, more mobile, etc.
Rifle vs shotgun is a good analogy. They definitely would try to sneak in as close as possible and launch nearly everything they have in a saturation attack, hoping to surprise and overwhelm defenses.
I like that you bring up difference of hot vs cold launch. Those old slanted tubes on Slava class cruisers really are beaten up after launches. VLS has kind of solved that. They are almost all hot launched, they still damage its canister, but they now just swap out individual canisters/cells with a new one with a missile already inside.
Unfortunately the US lost the ability to replenish VLS at sea. 3 of the cells use to contain a crane to transfer them at sea. Now those 3 cells are used to hold missiles, and they have to dock at port to reload. I read a long paper on it, I guess they were having a lot of issues so it was removed, and currently looking at ways to regain that ability.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Well, it's isn't a wind farm. Calling him 'amateur' would technically be wrong as well, as he was paid for the work. The people who paid him heard China was building a large number of silos. They knew these were being built, just not where. This 'amateur satellite' person just found out where.
There are many, many signs showing its a missile site and not a wind farm for turbines. For example, wind turbines aren't spaced so far apart. They also do not have extremely high security measures to protect them. Also, they don't use the exact same dome shelters that we know and have seen be used at Chinese training/testing facilities like at Jilantai. Nor do they have a large military base built in the center.
There is a wind farm, complete with wind turbines, 30km to the east of this site. That site is very clearly a wind farm, and doesn't have these atypical attributes that the missile site contains.
As far as them being 'concentrated', that's relative. I wouldn't say each one being 3km apart 'concentrated'. Warheads the US uses today on ICBMs are between 100-300kt. 3km apart is more than enough for the surrounding silos to survive a hit on another.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
This video is about the strike on Syria, nothing more, nothing less. It is not about the claimed chemical weapon attack a week earlier, or about what wars the US fought or didn't fight 241 years ago. So I am really confused why people keep insisting on bringing it up. I did not say it happened, I did not say it didn't, I did not say this strike was right, I did not say it was wrong. It seems a lot of people are getting real emotional and upset, and complaining about something I never talked about. My interest is in the effectiveness of the weapons and the strike as a whole. Not who is morally right or wrong.
With that said, I agree with some of the things you said. I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever proving there was any chemical weapons attack carried out by Assad. And on top of that, I see no motive. In fact, the opposite of a motive. The Syrian government is on the edge of finally winning the war, and the US had just announced their intention to withdraw from Syria in due time (something Assad would love). So it makes no sense to me that he would go and do literally the only thing that would ruin all of that for him.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+D-G-A-F Thanks. True they can be used offensive as well. Some SAMs though are also able to be fired at land based targets as well, but you're absolutely right, they have no where near the firepower and range as a strike aircraft.
I hadnt heard of the Boeing SHORAD, sounds interesting. Looks to be an improved and more capable system than the Chaparral which also used Sidewinders.
I thought about including Aegis Ashore. But first of all its not currently operational by the US. And second the SM-3 is an ABM, and for this video I did not include any ballistic missile defense systems like THAAD, GBI, A-135/235, etc. But I just looked it up, it looks like they may also use the SM-6 on Aegis Ashore in the future as well. That could turn out to be a formidable, yet expensive, surface to air missile system.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I talked about Kalibr, and some of the footage used was from submarines launching from that very strike. And no, they do not have 3-4 times the range of Tomahawk. That just isn't true. Official Russian sources don't even claim they have a range of 4,800 to 6,400km.
The strikes on targets in Syria were launched from the Caspian Sea, flew through northwest Iran, northern Iraq and into Syria. About 1,500km. Theres 2 reasons I didn't mention it. One is that it wasn't a major breakthrough in tech... the US has been launching strikes like that for 30 years. And second is I didnt mention any specific SLCM strike except the most recent, which was by the USS John Warner.
Kalibr is a great missile, but the land attack variant still has a way to go to catch up with Tomahawk. Russia itself acknowledged this when they claimed the Tomahawk missile they captured would be used to improve their own cruise missiles.
As far as US supporting Daesh, it seems you are getting your news from Russian propaganda outlets. I remember they claimed they had proof US was supporting Daesh and released a video. Then it turned out that video they showed as 'proof' was from a video game! Other footage they released was actually footage the US itself recorded and released publicly, and was not of them delivering supplies to Daesh, but to Syrian rebels that were fighting Daesh.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I dont know for sure, so it'd just be a guess, but I'd guess they are from real missiles (if that's what you're asking) showing off for propaganda value.
I do not believe they/Syria shot down anywhere near the number they claimed.
You will find some that failed, US has published the Tomahawk has a 92% mission reliability and 97% cruise reliability, so some do fail. It could be debris from them. You'll also find fragments from those that did successfully detonate, just like how the police are able to find pieces of a bomb, even finding fingerprints on some pieces. Or maybe some could have actually been shot down.
The US and others involved claimed there was only 3 targets. Russia says they fired at a bunch of targets, then claim that nearly all the ones fired at those other targets were shot down, and the ones fired at those 3 weren't. That doesn't seem to make sense, being that Damascus is one of the most heavily defended cities in the world in terms of air defense. So its weird to believe they succeeded in defending places there weren't well defended, but failed in an area highly defended.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
22nd BHiRVT - 250n - 250y - 500t 58°27'56.11"N, 41°30'54.30"E
1295th BHiRVT - 750n - 250y - 1000t 44° 7'39.33"N, 133°16'55.61"E
2544 BHiRVT - 350n - 250y - 600t 56°10'12.22"N, 91°27'4.46"E
1311th BHiRVT - 125n - 125y - 250t 56°58'41.31"N, 60°36'28.88"E
349th BHiRVT - 650n - 450y - 1100t 52°48'50.92"N, 83° 8'23.30"E
103rd BHiRVT - 500n - 300y - 800t 54°46'14.79"N, 82°30'50.93"E
7024th BHiRVT - 50n - 350y - 400t* 48°16'23.34"N, 40°15'44.08"E
227th BHiRVT - 300n - 700y - 1000t 51°53'21.43"N, 107°31'28.96"E
104th BHiRVT - 0n - 60y - 60t 52°30'29.83"N, 85°18'27.04"E
262nd BHiRVT - 50n - 100y - 150t 49°56'34.10"N, 40°29'7.54"E
187th BHiRVT - 0n - 50y - 50t 54°55'30.95"N, 99° 4'44.93"E
? BHiRVT Military Unit 75485 in Kamyshlov - 0n - 100y - 100t 56°50'40.34"N, 62°44'15.24"E
? BHiRVT Military Unit 14892 in Omsk - 100y - 100t 54°51'39.70"N, 73°23'57.97"E
*likely were active tanks for war in Ukraine, little to zero stored long term
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sorry for the late reply. But that's also a good question.
Ignoring all the wikipedia/typically repeated figures... Russia has 2 tank regiments, both in the 1st Guards Tank Army (the 2nd Guards Tank Army became the 2nd Guards Combined Arms Army, something not mentioned on wikipedia), each with roughly 100 tanks = 200 total. 3 tank brigades, each with ~94 tanks = 282. And then roughly 33 motor rifle divisions/brigades, each typically consisting of ~40 tanks +1 command tank = 1,353 total. That gives 1,835 tanks total to fully equip their formations. Note, Russia seems to be always reforming their military, so it's always changing. Again a real rough figure, but in BHiRVT level 1 storage, maybe another 460. Those would be for replacements, as it allows for ~25% of 'active' vehicles to be stored there. So 1,813ish total 'active'.
Almost certainly from the outset of the war, Russia has been further readying tanks stored in 'harsher' conditions. There's maybe 2,000 in level 2 storage (under canopy). From there it's anyone's guess. They can't build tanks quick enough (roughly 100 per year previously, and reportedly 0 due to sanctions), so as the war continues it will have to dip into further/less capable tanks being stored (levels 3 and 4), and those tend to be real old, and would take much longer to get into operational condition.
I'm extremely hesitant to underestimate (I'd want to research more), but according to Oryx, which has currently 871 tanks lost (although that number could be low as it's only verified pictures that have been found, but also could be high as it could double count tanks Ukraine has 'destroyed' twice), that'd mean Russia is beginning to run low on tanks.
2
-
22nd BHiRVT - 250n - 250y - 500t 58°27'56.11"N, 41°30'54.30"E
1295th BHiRVT - 750n - 250y - 1000t 44° 7'39.33"N, 133°16'55.61"E
2544 BHiRVT - 350n - 250y - 600t 56°10'12.22"N, 91°27'4.46"E
1311th BHiRVT - 125n - 125y - 250t 56°58'41.31"N, 60°36'28.88"E
349th BHiRVT - 650n - 450y - 1100t 52°48'50.92"N, 83° 8'23.30"E
103rd BHiRVT - 500n - 300y - 800t 54°46'14.79"N, 82°30'50.93"E
7024th BHiRVT - 50n - 350y - 400t* 48°16'23.34"N, 40°15'44.08"E
227th BHiRVT - 300n - 700y - 1000t 51°53'21.43"N, 107°31'28.96"E
104th BHiRVT - 0n - 60y - 60t 52°30'29.83"N, 85°18'27.04"E
262nd BHiRVT - 50n - 100y - 150t 49°56'34.10"N, 40°29'7.54"E
187th BHiRVT - 0n - 50y - 50t 54°55'30.95"N, 99° 4'44.93"E
? BHiRVT Military Unit 75485 in Kamyshlov - 0n - 100y - 100t 56°50'40.34"N, 62°44'15.24"E
? BHiRVT Military Unit 14892 in Omsk - 100y - 100t 54°51'39.70"N, 73°23'57.97"E
*likely were active tanks for war in Ukraine, little to zero stored long term
I'm working on mapping all the Storage sites, as I've found many with just APCs, trucks, artillery, etc. And now also started marking every Military site in Russia. I've finished the eastern district. If you're interested, I'll gave it posted on my discord server.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well thanks for the first sentence, it is what I aim for. If I got something wrong, I'm glad to hear it out!
What specific weapon did the US create that violated the INF treaty? I know of 3 claims Russia made:
First was that armed drones (predator, reaper, etc) violated the treaty. I guess that can be debated, but not technically banned by the treaty.
Second, that the Aegis Ashore sites in Europe violate the treaty, as the Mk41 VLS used could also carry Tomahawk. I do not see how that is in violation just because it "could" be used. There's no evidence any Tomahawks were loaded into them, nor does Russia suggest they were.
And third was that target missiles the US uses, which are used to train air defenses against, are a violation. This is clearly not true, and states right in part 3 of article 7 of the treaty that they are not banned.
In regards to US inspections, that comes down to who you chose to believe. Russia states they would have allowed inspectors while the US says they were repeatedly denied flight data, inspections, and answering questions the US had.
Either way, I havent heard Russia specifically identify which US weapon violated the INF treay. If you know of one, let me know. The US claimed 2 specific weapons Russia produced were in violation, the RS-26 and the 9M729.
The 9M729 is very suspicious, as its about a half meter longer than the 9M728 according to images and charts released by the Russian MoD, yet they claim it actually has a slightly shorter range than the 9M728. They said the extra space is for a new guidance system, but the data and images does not support that. The enlarged section is where the fuel tank is, which would give it a much longer range, into that banned by INF.
And finally, does the US lie? Absolutely! Every nation lies to further its agenda, including the US, Russia, and China. Thats why I'm not going to just believe Russias claims the US refused offers to inspect the weapons, and not going to just believe the US claim that Russia refused inspections, data, etc. Russia themselves did say later that they were "not obligated" to provide information about the missile.
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
-
Sorry for the real late reply, I sometimes miss notifications to replies with all the other comment notifications.
Ace Combat were great games! I use to play them all the time back in the PS2 days. I remember the Arkbird. I am by no means an expert on orbital mechanics, but I do not see how dipping into the atmosphere could change your inclination. And burning engines at the low point (perigee) of your orbit would be the most inefficient as your speed would be the greatest. The most efficient would be to do so at the highest point (apogee). If you lower your perigee into the atmosphere you would aerobrake, shortening the orbital period, but not change inclination. That could be more of a made up thing for gameplay reasons, or I may be completely wrong, maybe there is another force that comes into play that I do not know about.
I did make a video on the X-37, it does have plenty of extra fuel to change its inclination and its altitude. And yes it would be much more difficult to shoot down. You're absolutely right, in space, an interceptor missile has no atmosphere to use to maneuver. It'd have to have a real good vectoring engine or RCS. And having those make it much heavier meaning it needs a much larger rocket like you said.
And yea I agree, current drones like the Predator and even Global Hawk would be almost useless against any modern military. They are way too slow and have very little maneuverability. I think in the next 20-30 years we will see the use of recon aircraft that can take off and land on a runway, and fly out of the atmosphere on a suborbital trajectory, reentry the atmosphere and use an air-breathing engine to get home.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Total good tanks? I mention that at 9:03 in the video. About 3,911.
Total tanks including bad ones I didn't show, I should have. It's 6,314.
It's obviously impossible to know what is "good" and "bad", and that precise number of 3,911 seems like I'm saying exactly that many "good", but its the best possible estimate I could come up with. With 6,341 total, there's about 1,000 definitely bad missing turrets (hard to count as some show 1 hulls and 2 turret, others stacked turrets, hulls, etc). And I'd say reasonable to assume about 1,000 as well are good, based on garages and those connected to that humidity control system. That would give an ultimate min/max of "good" tanks at 1,000-5,341. But I tried to narrow that down further based on visual appearance, historical images if they moved, pics I found on VK and other Russian social media, etc
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
-
Nope, just wanted to focus in surface ships.
I wouldn't necessarily say Russian subs have more weapons, but definitely more types.
At this point US subs are just Mk48 torpedo and Tomahawk cruise missile. Whereas Russia has several different types of torpedoes... heavy weight, light weigh, wake homing, supercavitating, etc. Then different anti ship missiles like the P-700, KH-35, 3M54 Kalibr, then even land attack like 3M14 Kalibr. Also sometimes even MANPADS.
I can imagine it would be difficult and expensive to train crews on so many different weapon systems, maintain and have replacement parts for each, also logistics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've made no estimate of Ukraines vehicle arsenal. Partly because obviously they are hidden (since Russia can strike anywhere in Ukraine), and they've received so much aid from the west. So their vehicle count is really dependent on how much more the west is willing to supply, and also their own manpower available to man them.
I dont like most of the mainstream media's counts on missiles. Unlike tanks, these are normally not stored in the open and therefore easy to count. Some airbases do store KH-22s outside, and you can easily see them in Google Maps, but unless someone has some spy at the factories, it's impossible to know for sure.
Tanks are different. No one hides their tanks in storage, whether it's Russia, or Germany, or even the US. The only possible question mark is what might be inside garages, which I address in detail.
For the sake of my work, I don't care if Russia has the advantage or Ukraine does. It's honestly really liberating, with all the BS propaganda on both sides.
With 3,525 tanks that can still be 'more' easily restored from storage, and producing another 250 a year, that would imply Russia is still fine with tanks for ~3 more years.
The issue is they keep withdrawing old T-55 and T-62s from storage. That is readily apparent and obvious from satellite imagery, and no getting around that. If you chose not to look at the imagery, then that's your fault and wilful ignorance. Because they do not have an endless supply of these old tanks. There is no way around math, unless you willfully ignore it. If they keep up at this rate, then will run out of old tanks (which are easiest to restore) in ~1 year. There's just no other way to be honest when considering the math. At that point, they'd have to consider just quick minor upgrades to newer tanks they have (T-72s and T-80s) to keep active numbers at adequate numbers. If they do that, and the rate of losses continue, Russia will be in serious trouble in 2 years. No honest person can deny that.
But, that is obviously all based on Ukraine being able to continue inficting losses on Russia at the same rate they have been. If Ukraine beings to degrade and only inflict half, or even less... then that number for Russia (before they are in jeopardy of running out of tanks) increases to 4 years, or 6, or even more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1