General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Solo Renegade
Ryan McBeth
comments

Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Ryan McBeth" channel.

@Cheiff117 new F-16 and F-18 are still being produced today. Same for the F-15. And the retired F-16 older models/airframes are being slowly converted into AI dogfighting drones.
40
C-130? U-2? B-52? F-15?
33
and seeing as compatible weapons have already been sent to Ukraine, and used by Ukraine (HARM, Harpoon, etc.). And they'd definitely give them air to air missiles. And you're right. the Russian's have already proven incapable fo intercepting small missiles and drone attacks in Crimea, so hitting Sevastopol with Harpoon would be devastating.
19
Su-25 does NOT have a straight wing, a simple investigation will show this. it is a tapered and swept wing, and can go Mach 1 without external payload. Su-25s are tough, but they lack many of the redundancy design features of the A-10. A-10s have come back many times taking significant damage from MANPADs, telephone pole SAMs, and heavy AAA. A-10s are No more vulnerable than the helicopter, but NO ONE is claiming the Ah-1 and AH-64 is obsolete and should be retired. You clearly don't know much about this subject. the US has decades of experience dealing with all manner of antiaircraft weapons. Vietnam, 1991, Iraq and Afghanistan. There are good first-hand accounts of these conflicts describing how tactics evolved to deal with all of these threats. Just because Russia sucks at it, doesn't mean everyone does. F-16s were attacking down low and doing gun runs in 1991 while successfully fending off MANPAD attacks the whole time. We have at least 3 high tech countermeasure systems in the west that I am aware of, that have been battle tested and proven to work. Don't make the mistake of drawing bad conclusions from Ukraine. Just like how people are clamoring the "tank is obsolete" when it absolutely is not. We operated for decades in similar conditions of urban warfare with far fewer tank losses than other nations experienced in Syria and Ukraine, because we used them properly.
12
@Cheiff117 and the new F-16s are getting the F-35 radar. Existing US F-16s already were getting RAM paint and gold tinted canopies to improve stealth as well. Imagine if the F-15EX got the F-35 radars and sensors too? Pretty sure they are getting the stealth paint and canopies too, just to better reduce cross section.
12
@moldypizza__ but the War in Ukraine is causing the few remaining Mig29s to get used up. There wont be many good condition Mig29s left when the current war is finally over. Parts will be at a premium and most aircraft will be replaced with newer designs (F-16, Rafale, Gripen, F-35, etc.) after seeing the lack of available upgrades for the Mig29 causing it to be outclassed in almost every way.
11
the locals making new roads disagree with you.
10
except MANPAD type missiles have proliferated since Vietnam and Ukraine has shown how vulnerable helicopters can be behind enemy lines. There are far more types of MANPADs and they perform far better than they used to. Not to mention drones and lasers that could be developed into anti-helicopter weapons. But I 100% agree that tanks are returning to their WW1 original intent of supporting infantry advances.
9
@chrisstevenson4579 Exactly, Even the F-16s and other fast movers have to come in low to provide CAS at times. Sometimes you just can't kill it from high up for one reason or another, and sometimes the gun is the only weapon left. You don't abandon guys in contact on the ground if you have weapons you can use (at least in the US military).
8
@clacicle "Isn’t the F-16 sometimes referred to as a “law dart” by certain 2 engined pilots?" no. the early prototypes and A models were called lawn darts by ALL pilots, because the fly by wire system was new and would occasionally encounter glitches/bugs and crash. that was long ago resolved.
7
The Taliban and others definitely recognized and feared specific aircraft, just as Russians know to fear the TB2 in Ukraine. We had access to some real time intel overseas and I can tell you they were more afraid of certain aircraft than others, and we specifically used this to our advantage to thwart attacks. Also, when an A-10 shows up to provide close air support, the morale boost it gives friendly troops cannot be ignored (again, speaking from personal experience here). The Psychological warfare of the A-10 and other aircraft has very real value in a fight.
6
a tank could easily carry much more than 6 Javelins. but guns are simpler, cheaper, and hard to counter once fired (dumb ballistic munitions that can hit without fancy guidance systems).
6
they still are fired upon. In OIF/OEF they specifically targeted red crosses, and so our medics took them off and started carrying weapons and crewing turrets. one, to hide themselves within the patrol, and two to defend themselves.
6
@chrisparker2118 exactly. The US dealt with MANPADs daily in 1991. Even F-16s were attacking down low and surviving against MANPADs.
5
it 100% would be abused. 1) they would target the transponders. 2) they would place transponders on certain things to conceal them.
5
@charlesparr1611 To the point of WW1, the intention was Never for tanks to fight tanks. they were always intended to assist infantry in assaulting defended positions (pillboxes, machinegun nests, etc.) where teh attacking infantry were at a significant disadvantage due to not having machinegun nests and pillboxes of their own during the assault. Even in WW2, Chieftain has shown that the Shermans almost never engaged Tiger tanks and other large tanks, and that the tank served a supporting role very well. And the Pacific battles highlights this far better as Japan largely never had tanks (and when they did, they were crap). Technology changes, and so roles must change. but the tank never actually had a primary role as a tank hunter. and the few tank destroyers that were designed for that role, largely never actually got used in that role. But tanks were evolved over time to have the ability to take out another tank in addition to providing their primary supporting role, as the thing the infantry may need support dealing with could well be an enemy tank.
5
@clacicle I think it is funny too, even though I love the F-16. Helps that the very pointy profile of the F-16 looks very much like some sort of lawn dart too.
4
@gotanon9659 Same technology. Ukraine wont get the best, they'll get what some other nation has already had. But even older models will be better than what Ukraine has now.
4
@sammiller6631 sure, but what's the availability?
4
@michaelwittkopp3379 "But, MANPADs have one major problem; If you are 50...60 miles behind your lines, you don't have one ready, nor available. You have a very small window to shoot down even a slow helicopter. It'd have to be circling overhead. " wild baseless speculation devoid of any understanding of how real combat works. If there are enough targets 50-60mi behind the lines to justify sending helicopters, those units will also have their air defense assets with them or supporting them as well. you're literally making crap up, but it's pure fantasy on your part. "I expect future helicopters to be faster, stealthier, with more fire and forget type of weapons. Even ground sensing navigational aids. " you obviously don't know anything about helicopters. they have an inherent speed limit, which is why they don't already go faster. I am a professional helicopter pilot. And they already have ground sensing navaids, but that doesn't help avoid MANPADs nor destroy targets. Helicopters have also had firer and forget weapons for decades, but you can't shoot unless you have some sort of preliminary guidance or targeting data. "Ps. Think back to Ukraine's first raid on that Belgorod refinery. It was done with helicopters, and not even the KA-52 Alligators, only MI-17s. Even the present day AH-64 Apache is far superior than both, at such missions." yeah, try that again.....and what if you were fighting a competent military with actual air defenses?
4
@loganwolfram4216 the latest versions of the F-16 are as sophisticated, if not More sophisticated, than the Gripen. The F-16 has stealth canopies, stealth paint, powerful engines, F-35 radar and sensors, conformal fuel tanks, IRST, and much more. Still one of THE best 4th gen aircraft today, even capable of beating an F-22 in a visual range dogfight.
3
@chrisburke624 if the USMC needs tanks, they just call the Army. but they really don't need MBTs in the pacific islands. IFVs and ATGMs will get it done, plus some supporting airpower and artillery and ship launched munitions.
3
tunneling under the enemy is a time honored combat tradition. sappers blowing up castle walls this way.
2
but war also gave us most of modern technology too. Advances in food, medicine, computers, aircraft, rockets, ships, sensors, etc.
2
7:30 it's not that they lacked armor, it's that no matter how much armor you have, stuff can still get through. and soldiers will always come up with ways to add more armor to their vehicles if at all possible or practical.
2
@defenestrated23 "a hellfire R9X could take engineering equipment (turbines, coils, etc) out of commission with limited collateral." oh boy....no, a Hellfire missile CANNOT penetrate that much concrete. And even if it could, you'd compromise the integrity of the dam wall in doing so. "The reality is replacement parts in a war zone are extremely hard to come by." the place that built the turbines and its spares, is often not far from the dam itself in smaller countries. And NEVER underestimate the ability of desperate people to fix things, even if sub optimally, even in a warzone. "Even in the default world, engineered systems rely on parts with long lead times." only in places overrun with needless red tape and corruption. For the rest of us, we can build, and fix things so fast you're head would spin. I literally do it every single day at work as an engineer. I also did it a LOT in combat, even when we had no spare parts, didn't have proper tools, etc.
2
6:20 the Birdcage or Bar Armor we used in Iraq and Afghanistan weren't "cope cages" for a couple reasons. 1) they actually worked, really well. 2) they were built specifically to defeat the RPG-7. 3) they did not cover the roof from top attack as we weren't facing ATGMs in OEF/OIF. And they did not stop recoilless rifle rounds. 4) we did not have/use bar armor for the first few years in OIF/OEF. I joined in 2004, never used a vehicle quipped with bar armor until 2010. And OEF started in 2001, OIF started in 2003. Russian "cope cages" was an attempt to mimic what they saw us doing, without understanding how/why they worked. We covered our sides, as that's where RGP-7s hit from. The Russians were getting hit from above, so put them there, while not realizing that the warhead mechanisms of a top attack ATGM are not the same and so not defeated in the same manner as an RPG-7. And that is why; US birdcage/bar armor = legit armor Russian cage armor = cope cage
2
@JosephHenry-l5e a tank can EASILY carry more than 7 missiles. this is childish nonsense. but the cost and lack of flexibility in ammo types is a factor for sure.
2
@sammiller6631 what are you whining about now? I see nothing here relevant to discussions.
2
@sammiller6631 10min turnaround is wishful thinking in real world.
2
@johanj3674 I know this. But hypersonic missiles cost as much as 100 cruise missiles. The hypersonic missile would have the opposite Problem. It's easy to tell if something is hypersonic on radar, and well worth shooting it down with a cheaper missile even if you have to fire multiple to hit it. HIMARS is proving that 100 cruise missiles are better than 1 hypersonic missile.
2
it's still just a minefield
2
Excalibur and SDB artillery should make artillery firing on the move rather easy, especially if not firing at the extreme range limits.
2
@bootmii98 "Iraqi and Afghan medics" WTF are you smoking? they weren't even wearing uniforms at all, and many weren't even iraqis or afghans. Insurgents don't have "medics". "not the other way around." totally wrong, I was there, you were not.
2
@enricogattone432 Wrong. We did do CASEVAC and MEDIVAC as required. we just knew we were never safe from attack. The rules only work when fighting an honorable, respectable, foe. Russia is not such a foe, nor were the middle east insurgents, nor were the Vietnamese during that war, etc. The rules of war only work when fighting a nation willing to abide by them. But in reality, there are no rules in war. The only rule is winning, and might makes right. We hope the might than makes right and wins is honorable, and chooses to behave justly. But we can't guarantee that.
2
active defense systems don't increase the cost of the vehicle. they are expendable munitions taht are added to any vehicle. the base vehicle doesn't cost more, the expendable munitions cost money.
1
spam, duck tape, penicillin, blood plasma, plastics, o-rings, etc.
1
17:38 recoilless rifles were PROLIFIC in OEF. The Taliban used them daily to attack our armored vehicles and to shell our outposts. The US used them in Vietnam as well, and the Somalis had them in the Blackhawk Down incident. The US has the Carl Gustav now as well. Recoilless weapons are not some ancient archaic weapon anymore than the tank is, or the 1911 is, or the M2 is, or the helicopter is, or the drone is, or the shotgun is, or the submarine is, or the aircraft carrier is. All of these weapons have been used in combat since at least WW1 or WW2, but are all still produced new and used today as well. Don't forget the AT-4, LAW, bazooka, Panzerschreck, and RPG are all part of the recoilless family of weapons too.
1
5:40 there is a HUGE difference between the US having the confidence to sweep russia out of ukraine in 2-3wks once the "invasion" starts, and russia claiming they'll take Ukraine in 3 days. For one, Russia proved incapable of fighting more than a short distance from its rail lines. But then you have training, experience, leadership, equipment, etc. issues.
1
11:18 that's the difference between my unit and other units. We see enemy, we shoot. Then report the kill. As long as we have positive ID that it's not friendly, and we have the weapons to do it, we shoot. if you wait, your opportunity could slip away, surprise could be lost, etc. Too risky. Gotta act quickly and decisively.
1
one correction, the A-10 fires AIM-9 missiles, which are antiradiation missiles. They track and destroy IR radiation emission sources, same as the HARM tracks and destroys other radiation emission sources.
1
@ChucksSEADnDEAD that's the worst attempt at a retort ever, and you're not even using a fair nor consistent criteria to attempt to make your point. AIM9 passively homes on a radiation source, upon arriving it destroys the machine that is the source of the emission with an explosive charge. HARM passively homes on a radiation source, upon arriving it destroys the machine that is the source of the emission with an explosive charge. Thus they are equivalent. and that is how you make an Apples to Apples comparison.
1
@MrHarumakiSensei no, we would not. Nobody cares that much about the elites in charge enough to invest an entire nations economy into saving them. Many innovations of war come due to both time and MASSIVE repetition of using something before someone figures out a better way. working to solve a problem for one person is very limiting by comparison, astronomically limiting in fact. you vastly oversimplify reality in your mind.
1
Columbian light infantry some of the best in the world? I served with a Columbina who was in the light infantry, he was trying to earn his citizenship. the guy was worthless, and I'm pretty sure he got sent back to Columbia after an incident in Afghanistan. Maybe I'm wrong, but what I saw was not impressive at all.
1
look how many Allied aircraft got shot down in 1991 mistaken for SCUDs. it does happen. You're assuming the Russians are properly trained and competent, and that they are using proper tactics and procedures. Yet from day one we've seen even Russia's Best soldiers, Best units, Best ships, making constant mistakes, being manned by unskilled and untrained individuals, and having no sense of complex command and control. Their jets are using civilian GPS units (what state is their IFF equipment in?). They have lacked good coms, and lacked coordination.
1
the dambuster raids of WW2 and Korea... US also planned to take out dams in North Vietnam, but were not allowed to due to lack of formal declaration of war. i see dams as legit military targets. Nuclear power plants are a separate issue and should NOT be lumped into hydroelectric power. NO exclusion zone around power plants. the power plant itself is the exclusion zone. otherwise they can stuff things into the exclusion zone near the plant to shield them (SAM sites and such).
1
@gimmethegepgun name such a weapon.... Also, a damaged turbine can be replaced quickly, and easily. they do it every time one is serviced? Have you ever been inside a hydroelectric dam? Literally inside it? I was inside the dams in Iraq, we even had bases inside them. And as an engineer, we went to dams and learned how they are fixed, operated, etc. and they can fix a turbine or replace it rather easily. Damaging the dam wall itself is not so easy to fix. Not to mention that dam is not an act of nature. And dams collapse all by themselves all the time. Remember how close the 3 gorges dam came to collapsing?
1
7:40 YES, resounding yes. Literally no one else on earth has the equipment and technological capabilities of the US.
1
If Russia fired their nukes from Belarus into Ukraine, it would allow NATO to attack both Belarus and Russia.
1
3:22 wrong, Russia isn't using them because they keep getting shot down when they do. If they could, they would, but they can't.
1
Many countries and combatants SPECIFICALLY TARGET red cross personnel and equipment. Putting transponders on them will make it worse. Our medics stopped wearing the red cross and started carrying weapons to conceal themselves. Also, CASEVAC exists, and can be targeted..so..... None of it matters if no one enforces the convention. When is Russia going to be punished for the laundry list of war crimes it has committed in Ukraine alone in the past year?
1
anthrax is everywhere, no big deal. teh vax for anthrax is worse than anthrax as far as I'm concerned.
1
"Finish him off" is a term doesn't typically apply to our own wounded, it usually is in reference to making sure the enemy aircraft is dead, or the tank is destroyed, or the bunker is truly silenced, etc. Speaking as a US combat vet. Using it reference to killing our own wounded, we value life, Russians do not. But even in the US military, medical personnel have tons of stories about wounded US soldiers coming to and asking about their manhood, and asking to die if it was gone.
1
Update it? why? nobody follows it as is anyways. And nobody enforces it either.
1
25:00 US torpedoes aren't threaded, they use clips to connect them together
1
Russia attacks civilians because they have no clue how to win a war.
1
some have been sent to ukraine without a weapon, according to intercepted phone calls.
1
7:28 you absolutely CAN run a military when ignoring half your population. Humans have done it for nearly ALL of history. Deal with it. To win in war, you need your best, and that other half of the population is the lesser half in terms of combat potential. They are below average performers overall, depending upon the role.
1
Russia has violated most of the geneva conventions as it stands anyways. Murdering civilians, torture, targeting civilians, killing POWs, etc.
1
you give russian officers too much credit. Most Russians prior to the war served next to no time at all. their regulars were very inexperienced, and most of them died long ago. now they are grabbing anyone and everyone to send to Ukraine with literally no experience of any kind. the last thing on their minds is trash discipline. these are not professional soldiers.
1
@DanielsPolitics1 what consequences? Our medics stopped wearing the red cross and carried guns and manned the turrets? why? they were being TARGETED specifically. Who is holding Russian accountable for its war crimes in Ukraine? What about Iran's war crimes? What about China's crimes against humanity (genocide, slavery, etc.?)? Even in WW2 the germans hid ammo in red cross vehicles, and people have targeted US red cross vehicles and personnel in almost every war since WW2, without consequences. And lets not mention the use of mercenaries in war is a war crime.....and torture of POWs, executing POWs, etc. Conducting attacks out of a place of worship is a war crime too. And technically using it to stage attacks voids its protection, yet the US still didn't attack Mosques even when they did use them.
1
12:08 wrong, for the US at least. our overmatch is so ridiculous that we'll always have a degree of safe zones. it will never be on the front. mind you OIF and OEF mostly occurred as an occupation, not as a moving front line. We know exactly how to fight a war with an advancing front line. Did it in 1991, and 2003, and we can do it again. You need to study the appropriate periods of OIF to understand. you're never safe on the front line of an advance, nor outside a guarded FOB. Why were FOBs in OEF/OIF safe overall? Aerostats with radar, and counter battery fire. As well as counter artillery fire (intercepting the artillery midair). we made it very hard for them to shell us. Our artillery smashed theirs. Our airpower operated uncontested. Russia effectively has no airpower over Ukraine, they launch from within Russia proper. If the US faced this right now, it would be an unfair curb stomp of Russia's remaining airpower. their airfields in range of Ukraine would be wiped out in the first days. the US doesn't fight like Ukraine, nor like Russia. these problems in Ukraine would not exist for us the same way.
1
and almost every country ignores them anyways...why? Because no one enforces it.
1
F-16 use bombs to conduct SEAD/DEAD missions, and so can an A-10, just saying.
1
1:15 I actually used driving out in open terrain in Afghanistan as a tactic, with great success. Thwarted multiple attacks that way.
1
@moldypizza__ I completely agree. and the NATO nations have been trying to get other nations to free up any Mig29 and parts, by offering to replace their Mig29 with other jets, just to get more Mig29 to Ukraine ASAP. And it's a smart move. There are just so few nations left flying Mig29 that are friendly to western nations, and can afford to give them up (as in, many of the replacement jets will be good, but cost more to own and operate as well, making it hard for poorer nations to justify giving up their Mig29s unless given something like the Gripen).
1
@CieplinskiPawel LOL! I love the A-4, not many left in service though. But definitely simple, effective. Would be interesting to se some of these older jets upgraded with Fly by wire, modern avionics, modern radar, modern sensors, modern weapons, modern engines, modern airframe materials....and see how they would stack up.
1
@alexwalker2582 partially because it still is one of THE best dogfighters ever made. It can even best the F-22 in a visual maneuvering fight if the pilot is skilled with the F-16 (according to USAF pilots).
1
@CieplinskiPawel You may have meant F-4, but typed A-4. But you're point is valid with both as you say. Not many F-4s left though either. And the last F-8 weren't retired all that long ago either.
1
@trevorcrook5753 "Russia has or can destroy any airfield in Ukraine easily" then why haven't they? Russia has thus far failed to eliminate all of Ukraine's aircraft and infrastructure. blow up an airfield, repair it. Eventually Russia will run out of missiles. Also, Ukraine now has the means of defending those airfield and intercepting most of the incoming missiles. Russia hasn't stopped Ukraine from striking its airfields either. How does Russia plan to keep Crimea/Sevastopol safe from F-16s?
1
@p_serdiuk Quite possible, but never say never. But that's not the point. Most nations aren't facing wars with the US, they are facing wars with neighbors who lack any sort of stealth capability. And the F-16 is a great multirole dogfighter that can do it all. Air supremacy, SEAD, DEAD, anti-ship, CAS, anti-tank, interdiction, etc. All while being able to defeat literally almost any air threat. There are no F-22s in the skies over Ukraine (at least that we know of, and at least none Ukraine has to fight). But if an F-16 managed to close with an F-22 somehow (and it is entirely possible), it could score a kill. Imagine the embarrassment if Ukraine managed to shoot down a Su57 with an F-16?
1
@p_serdiuk "It would be exceptionally hard for an F-16 to close in on an F-22 that has AWACS support without being detected first, and that's a huge hurdle." I don't disagree at all, but it is still possible. Surprise attack, using terrain masking, managing to pretend to be civil airplane, attacking in overwhelming numbers with speed, preventing F-22/s from handling them all at the same time, etc. Also, the US military has technology that even they claim is a "stealth equalizer", making it possible for an F-16 to detect and fire on an F-22 from over 100mi away. And thus basically making it back into a normal 4th gen fight. For every new offensive weapon, a defense is invented. And for every new defense, a new offensive capability is developed. the wheel never stops turning.
1
@nicolepham3836 even better
1
@Omegatonboom " I don't get the point of your comment." complaining about a comment you don't understand.....while claiming the comment is wrong....even though you admitted not knowing what the comment is about.... Are you familiar with the word, "ironic"?
1
IEDs are extremely easy if you understand them properly. That's why my unit was so good at counter-IED overseas. But IEDs ar not ideally suited for the type of warfare in Ukraine.
1
25:18 rare? depends. They constantly used to give them to us on range days and we usually had no use for them, so we'd just pile them with leftover explosives at the end of the day and blow everything in one big daisy chain. We did play with them against wire and such at times though. But far more often we were given them and had nothing we could use them for.
1
@RyanMcBethProgramming I was in 2004-2012, we always had bangalores. We'd get multiple crates of them at a time. Sometimes we'd see how long a string of them we could make. I've used them at four different installations in 3 different states over those years. Never used them overseas as we had no use for them. We used MICLIC, APOBS, etc. overseas. We were shown how to make improvised torpedos, but never had to do it. We also used the shaped charges, cratering charges, satchel charges, CompB, LOTS of det cord, C4, improvised clearing and cutting charges, etc. Heck at times we even used the enemy's own IEDs for our own destructive ends a few times. We'd find/clear them, put them in the truck, then use them to blow up something else. But on the ranges they'd give us all sorts of stuff to play with. We'd bring in old cars, one guy brought in a boat, and we'd blow them up. One time we obliterated an M60 tank. We started with a whole tank initially. We just kept packing all our leftover demo on/under it and blowing up the pieces that were left until we ran out of explosives.
1
but, weren't hypersonic missiles supposed to be the real game changer? Russia can't even handle rocket artillery.
1
Speaking as a combat vet and as a professional pilot, there is "how it is supposed to sound", and then there is "how it actually sounds". Now, sometimes it's our local com channel where we are supper relaxed. This example of radio chatter wasn't really all that bad. there are some truly egregious examples out there however. Your version WAS better though. As a professional pilot, we get rather informal with ATC at times, and when not on with tower, coms can get more "normal" as well. As long as it is clear who is speaking and to whom, and the airways aren't being blocked by needless chatter. And you gotta know when to shut up. In combat we had our own made-up code words and lingo on internal coms for our unit, but switched back to proper coms when coordinating with other units or making reports.
1
that's illegal, it's 100% unconstitutional. FEMA has NO legal authority to do that. People own guns and do not have to give them up. homes are inside the area and are full of guns. you can't deny people help for exercising their freedoms.
1
@yannikoloff7659 Russia murdered POWs, targets civilians, raped, murdered, tortured, and kidnapped civilians in Ukraine, and no one cares.
1
@bootmii98 I don't have to justify anything. but collateral damage is part of war, get over it.
1
@bootmii98 Taliban, had medics? You realize they were not an organized military force, right? Yes, the Iraqis probably did, except the part where thy were defeated so fast, that most of the war was fought agaisnt insurgents, and most of those insurgents weren't even Iraqis.
1
this is a naive stance. if nobody abides by it in the first place, what's the point?
1
now do it without the Bradley...
1