Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Not What You Think" channel.

  1.  @commodorezero  There was nothing suicidal about what he did. he did what was necessary, with every intention of surviving if possible. By your logic, every soldier does the same exact thing when they make contact with the enemy. According to you, only those who run away like cowards are "heroes". Willingness to engage in self sacrifice to protect others is the whole idea of warfare.
    75
  2. Perfect example of how not every new technology is "better". sometimes old school is good enough, or downright Superior.
    71
  3. Also, they kept the nose down, didn't force it to climb before it was ready, used every inch of altitude to regain airspeed, and retracted the landing gear Quick.
    53
  4.  @PhoenixT70  We should name the entire next class of Destroyers after him, as well as the first ship.
    26
  5. I like how you do pros and cons of both, and the number of factors considered. not just assuming one is better than the other.
    26
  6. kept the nose down, didn't force it to climb before it was ready, used every inch of altitude to regain airspeed, and retracted the landing gear Quick.
    16
  7. @BloxyHD Not really. I'm not a fan of ritual suicide, and am steadfastly opposed to not letting leaders learn from mistakes. but to be effective in battle, you must be willing to charge the enemy. You have to act like you're too tough for them to kill, too tough for them to beat. You fight like you're life depends on it, because it does. Ideally, you only fight in favorable conditions, but that doesn't always happen. When you get caught unprepared and unaware, you have to fight like hell to survive with the odds stacked against you. simply running away isn't going t o work. Evans knew this, and so tried to slow the enemy advance long enough for the carriers to get to safety. One ship versus the entire task force was worth it. and he achieved his objective and slowed the japanese. He even fought so hard, the japanese thought they were facing the main fleet and ended up retreating. Japan followed Bushido, and they lost. Us didn't follow bushido, and they won.
    11
  8.  @terraoftime  yes, US has the most successful submarine fleet in history, and has the most history using submarines by a long shot. Turtle in the US Revolution, first sumbarine. Hunley and others in the US Civil War Holland, first true submarine WW1 WW2 Cold War
    4
  9. multiple people have lived to tell the tale, just not many.
    4
  10. The US didn't operate a SINGLE P-8 Poseidon when the Typhoon was developed.
    4
  11. the shark mouth is Only on the 23rd, Flying Tigers. Others have a warthog face, or viper face....
    3
  12.  @theEWDSDS  yes, just implying that Evans deserves more than just a single ship named for him. The fact he used a ship in his and his crews' heroic action requires an entire class of ships.
    3
  13. US military has dreamed of sinking more carriers. now they will likely get a chance once again.
    2
  14. using S300s for ground attack
    2
  15. it's not that they CAN'T land non-VTOL fixed wing aircraft on an LHD or LHA, it's that they stopped trying. LHDs and LHAs are actually bigger than WW2 Essex class carriers, but with the advent of bigger and faster jet aircraft, they removed the arrestor gear and catapults and used them for support as they built bigger carriers. But the French carrier and the Essex/Midway carriers prove you could make them capable of launching and landing more fixed wing aircraft. Thy could install 1-2 catapults and arrestor gear if they so desired, and angle the deck slightly.
    2
  16.  @Raptor747  At the very minimum they needed multiple cameras, full color, filters, and paired that with a VR headset. Perhaps some CGI overlay to help the operators see the exact position of the boom at all times. What they made looks like something I'd expect from a high school science competition. The fact they failed to consider depth perception, color, and washout due to light contrast tells me everyone involved in this was incompetent. I would fire the Chief Engineer of this failure, as well as anyone who signed off on it for delivery to the customer if I were in charge at Boeing.
    2
  17. @@KittyCat-mp3rm one incident, or a few, doesn't make the US Navy no longer the best. The bigger a navy, the more likely they are statistically to have incidents. what matters is overall results and effect.
    2
  18. the paint scheme is Not a tribute. Target drones have been painted those colors all the way back to WW2.
    2
  19.  @JSIIC  China can't get its navy past the Philippines in a real war.
    2
  20. 3:37 saying it doesn't make it true. Safety has never been a priority for Russia. Look at their military in Ukraine decades later if you don't believe me. 7:28 proving my point.
    2
  21. The crazy thing, the US operated something like 26-28 F-35 from an LHA. This means even it's LHD/LHA can be more powerful than most other carriers on earth.
    2
  22.  @S_K_J  nope, you end up with massive inflation and tank your economy. If only the Democrats understood that....
    2
  23.  @vicr.7001  if it gets through the defenses. But the same can be claimed of China's harbors and airfields. one nuke and it's all gone. But you must be pretty bad at warfare if you have to resort to nukes to win, and for a first strike no less. Why would you waste first strike capability on the reserve assets? they are no use without command and control to organize them, or people to fly them, etc.
    2
  24.  @NotWhatYouThink  would have been better to just talk about the P-3 Orion in the video. avoid any confusion. I love the P-8 though. Just wasn't the right aircraft for this topic.
    2
  25. correct, not a tribute in ANY way. wrong color, wrong scheme, and these markings and similar go back to WW2 target drones as well, before the Tuskegee Airmen were known or made famous.
    2
  26. "holding it in is not possible on a 9hour flight" 100% lie we did far longer daily on missions overseas.
    2
  27.  @PomaReign  "Except that is false," "Good luck finding an electrician or plumber for cheap." omg you're dumb
    1
  28. MOAB is also delivered by cargo plane, such as the one dropped in Afghanistan.
    1
  29. kept the nose down, didn't force it to climb before it was ready, used every inch of altitude to regain airspeed, and retracted the landing gear Quick.
    1
  30. aluminum does burn. number of famous navy accidents around the world prove this.
    1
  31.  @andreworiez8920  CAN. Many aircraft in history launched from carriers with no catapults, and some even without arrester gear. U-2 C-130 OV-10 B-25 A-26 Bird Dogs and more
    1
  32.  @andreworiez8920  B-25/A-26 launched off of US carriers about 6 different times, including multiple times in WW2. U-2 was used operationally from carriers for the CIA for many years. Multiple different variants of U-2 landed and launched from carriers in that time. OV-10 is in active service, as is the A-29. C-130 was deemed a viable option, and is being discussed again in context of China and Rapid Dragon. Though that would launch from nuclear carriers. But the simple fact is, AV-8B and F-35 are fixed wing aircraft, and all helicopters are also aircraft. And thus they are 100% carriers. Not all carriers in WW2 were used as carriers. some were used as repair depots, others were used to transport land-based fixed-wing aircraft, and more.
    1
  33.  @andreworiez8920  C-130s, literally made 10s of landings and takeoffs, unassisted, including with heavy loads. OV-10 was brought back into service in the 2000s, along with the A-29 and Air Warden. But that's not the point. They are capable of launching a full complement of fixed wing fighters as a normal carrier. One carrier can launch and recover, over 20 F-35 stealth fighters. That's an aircraft carrier. By your definition only the US and France have aircraft carriers.
    1
  34.  @andreworiez8920  Not one of those light carriers you mention can launch as many fighter jets from a single ship as a US LHA or LHD. One US light carrier can launch over 26 F-35. And not one of those other light carriers launches anything other than AV-8 and F-35B either. Nice failed attempt to cherry pick. F-35A can’t fly off regular carriers either. B-25 flew off carriers in 1942, 1944, 1992, 2000. So less than 6 times. But more than you claim. U-2 flew off carriers with nothing more than a Tailhook, and they did it for decades. “After the test program the C-130 NEVER landed on a carrier again, and the US Navy developed the C-2 Greyhound.” but it was a success, and not deemed impossible, and under consideration once again. And it’s wing was no less tight to the island than the U-2. U-2 is even harder to land, let alone on a carrier, but they did that for decades none the less. OV-10 CAN and HAS flown from carriers. You claim it can’t be done, it can. And I notice how you cherry pick only the OV-10 and ignore the A-29 and Air Warden, because you know they can do it too. Lame. “FYI I grew up in a US Navy household.” No one cares. Doesn’t make you right. I’m a combat veteran, professional airplane and helicopter pilot and an Aerospace engineer. So what? Doesn’t make you any less of an ignorant moron. “I have been onboard multiple active duty carriers....” and I stayed in a Hotel 8 once. If that’s the best you can do, you’re pathetic. Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy, and you're not even an authority. So lame.
    1
  35.  @andreworiez8920  And don't forget that multiple OV-10 operated from the USS Saipan at once, and light carrier. OV-10 are listed in active service from 2015 to the present.
    1
  36. the burnt tanks with intact ERA are Fake ERA. Any good remaining ERA was stripped.
    1
  37. US uses a lot of autoloaders, but in unmanned turrets.
    1
  38. fighter jets are needed to defend Ukrainian territory and soldiers/citizens.
    1
  39. been saying this for over 15yr. everyone always got mad at me. now i have proof in Ukraine.
    1
  40.  @wiredelectrosphere  totally agree.
    1
  41. @Chris agreed
    1
  42. the point of hypersonics is........Propaganda
    1
  43. you talk alot, and take forever to get to the point.
    1
  44. @@KittyCat-mp3rm and yet the US navy remains the best in the world. Most capable, largest, most skilled, most advanced, most experienced, etc. I bet you still wear a mask to this day, and got all your vax boosters too.
    1
  45.  @Aromatize  Moskva sunk pretty easy
    1
  46. US scramjets hold speed records around mach 10, not mach 6.
    1
  47. scramjets don't have to carry their oxidizer on board like a rocket does. less onboard fuel/weight to carry, or burn longer for the same total fuel weight.
    1
  48. when you resort to using S300 SAM missiles to strike ground targets of no value, when you haven't yet achieved air superiority, you know you're in trouble.
    1
  49. Russia just lost 2 such aircraft in Ukraine.....
    1
  50.  @JSIIC  South Korea is building up their navy, so is Japan, and the Philippines is getting foreign assets again. China has no chance of winning if war breaks out.
    1