Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Ryan McBeth"
channel.
-
40
-
33
-
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A-10s are No more vulnerable than the helicopter, but NO ONE is claiming the Ah-1 and AH-64 is obsolete and should be retired.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 Just like how people are clamoring the "tank is obsolete" when it absolutely is not.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
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1