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

  1. 47
  2. 32
  3. 31
  4. 28
  5. 19
  6. 17
  7.  @jordanledoux197  "Literally tens of thousands of people MUST be able to know what it looks like in order for it to actually be manufactured. " not even remotely true. most people are making parts and have no clue what it's ultimately being used on. Or they see a part, that tells them nothing about the final form. The core team of engineers and managers knows what it looks like in its entirety, but that team is likely 100 people or less. I've designed things for NASA that went into outer space and only a seven person team was involved in tis development. Vendors made parts, but only pieces of the puzzle. At the end of the day, there were only 3 people on the team who knew what the entire system looked like in its entirety and had actually worked on all parts of it physically (myself being one of them). We assembled all the constituent parts and pieces personally in our offices and labs, did testing, etc. And where I work, we also do work and design things for gov agencies, and the levels of secrecy and information control, lab access, etc. is pretty strict. And we aren't even working on tech like the NGAD fighter. The gov enforces all sorts of restrictions on the people who get to work on stuff, who has access to information. I've worked on projects where as a lead design engineer for the project, I was intentionally kept in the dark on certain aspects of the product, as I didn't need to know and only the very top managers were approved access to that information, and they basically oversaw the design to make sure the critical design goals were met by what we designed. Those who have access are restricted on when and where they are allowed to travel, who they can talk to, etc. And we deal with stuff like this for things far less secret than NGAD, the B-21, etc. Also, even just using my own knowledge and experiences, I can, and Have, easily deceived people about details of what I was working on. I give them rough/early concept models, or incorrect details, etc. to through them off and keep them guessing. or when discussing things, I'll mix up two ideas to explain something while ensuring they can never piece the details together correctly. they know too little, and they don't know which details I changed, and have no way of figuring it out. It's very easy to be intentionally vague. Things change alot over the course of a design, and even a functional prototype can look very different from the final product. and so you can easily share older work that has fatal flaws, is incomplete, is missing all of the finer details that come later in design, etc. It just depends upon what you are sharing, with whom, and for what reason. Very easy to wage a disinformation campaign on something you control the design and details of. You can give people false teasing details and let their imaginations run with it in the completely wrong direction. But yes, eventually people will find out what it looks like, just like the F-117A, B-21, and others. But if they managed the project properly, that will only occurred when they want to reveal the exterior design (B-21, B-2, F-117A, NGAD, AH-66, stealth blackhawk helicopter, etc.)
    15
  8. 15
  9. 14
  10. 14
  11. 14
  12. 13
  13. 12
  14. 12
  15. 12
  16. 12
  17. 10
  18. 10
  19. 10
  20. 9
  21. 8
  22. 8
  23. 7
  24. 7
  25. 7
  26. 7
  27. 6
  28. 6
  29. 6
  30. 6
  31. 5
  32. 5
  33. 5
  34. 5
  35. 5
  36. 5
  37. 5
  38. 4
  39. 4
  40. 4
  41. 4
  42. 4
  43. 4
  44. 4
  45. 4
  46.  @recoil53  not at all. most things like chip factories, have highly delicate machinery, and when teh roof and such collapses and fires break out, they are damaged even further. Even small bombs with high explosives do a lot of damage and throw a lot of shrapnel. Also, there are numerous other ways to stop a factory, even without striking the factory directly. can't make anything if the machines and resources never make it to the factory. And look at Russia, with their lack of circuits and chips, makes it difficult to finish aircraft and weapons. They import that stuff, and so with sanctions they can build the mechanical hulks, but less the critical electronics, making them useless. But the US has never had trouble taking out an enemy military in modern times. and we've rarely even gone after factories at all in modern conflicts. Modern weapons are too complex to build quickly, and so by the time the US lightning war is over in the first few weeks, there is so much destruction and chaos, that new production is the last thing on the enemy's mind. When we can destroy in 2weeks what it takes them 6-12months to produce, they'll never keep up. Precision strikes, with minimally sized weapons gives best results. A fully loaded F-15E could theoretically carry something like 50-60 Small Diameter Bombs! That's a LOT of targets for one fighter bomber. And if that F-15E orbits at 40k ft while striking, the bombs can glide something like 50miles to reach their targets. Being able to send One fighter to strike 50+ individual targets in a single sortie from 0-50miles away is CRAZY! And such a strike would be minimal in cost compared to sending 10x F-15Es with 4x 2000lb bombs each, and actually be more effective (40 targets while risking 10 aircraft at 0-2miles from target vs 50+ targets while risking 1 aircraft at 0-50miles from target). And by the way, I've received CAS from A-10, B-1, F-15E, and more in actual combat. Just so that you know where some of my opinions and understanding are coming from.
    4
  47. 3
  48. 3
  49. 3
  50. 3
  51. 3
  52. 3
  53. 3
  54. 3
  55. 3
  56. 3
  57. 3
  58. 3
  59. 3
  60. 3
  61. 3
  62. 3
  63. 3
  64. 3
  65. 3
  66. 3
  67. 3
  68. 2
  69. 2
  70. 2
  71.  @dabo5078  "So your research universities suck. " yes "Which means they wouldn't be producing any competent engineers, So how in the world your engineers be better than Chinese ones?" because skill and competence is also a result of self determination and individual responsibility. Americans rise to the occasion and overcome. they can recognize when something is corrupted and still learn what they need to regardless. You don't need a degree to become a great engineer. Many famous inventors are self taught, especially in teh US. Colleges don't produce high caliber engineers on the day of graduation. Great engineers are formed through years of practice, experience, intuition, etc. almost none of those things are taught/learned in college, but rather on teh job and at home in teh pursuit of personal projects and goals. "". Largest computers in the world" 30 years ago? " nope, literally right this very moment the top computer in the World is a US design/built, and many more on the top 500 list as well. And the top 3 should all soon be US designed and built. Cope harder. " And no there are no American hypersonic missiles that can hit targets, they barely even have a wokring missile(more like a unguided rocket) that goes hypersonic in atmosphere. " cope harder. chinese missile test missed a known stationary target by 25miles. US just tested a new missile a few weeks ago. US has been doing hypersonic research since the 1960s. How many manned hypersonic aircraft have the CCP built? ""no reusable US rocket ever used Russian engines" oh is that so? " yes, that is so. CCP must really be censoring your internet over there. "Tell elon musk that he does not need to invest any money in new engine development anymore... He should have not panick invested after the sanctions against Russia aftera all." WTF are you talking about? this is nonsense gibberish "well if we opened up more the many fundamental inventions of human civilizations are made by China. " like what? some math, black powder, silk? The best you can do is point to pre-CCP accomplishments from ancient history? Have to go into the ancient past and rest on laurels becasue you have nothing to point to currently? "Even if you cut off CPC achievements in this decade, they turned a country that could barley clobber together bolt action rifles in the 1940s into a nuclear power with ballistic missiles, jet aircraft, submarines, etc. in mere 20 years in the 1960s." You bought the Subs, carrier, and jets from Russia and then copied them. And not very good copies either. You know why CCP grew so fast? Cheap labor and exports, while implementing American Capitalism. Communism had china on teh brink of destruction, and only capitalism saved it. Now it is returning to Communism. But a lot of the CCP "growth" was faked too. tons of massive ghost cities, cheap construction leading to crumbling infrastructure, china cant even feed its own population without imports. Much of china is still a 3rd world country and live in abject poverty. you have concentration camps and ethnic genocide, china is the single most racist nation in teh modern world (just look how they treat africans). China has cheated, stolen, lied their way to where they are, and now it is all crumbling and Xi purges and consolidates power. Bad leadership ruins everything. "Only to get deported because of his skin color."" that is a lie, you actually beleive not only the CCP propaganda, but western propaganda. You clearly have no ability to discern truth from lies. What was this man's name exactly so I can inform you what really happened? "Even if you cut off CPC achievements in this decade," what achievements? you list none, becasue there are none. Nothing CCP does benefits mankind, only the CCP. "They started to dominate the integrated circuit board market for 20+ years ago. Their shipping industries' and industrial production of rare earth materials, concrete, and steel started dominating in the 90s and 2000s and continue to dominate this very moment." how so? China makes cheap chips, yes, but not the CPU, GPU, etc. Circuit Boards are easy, and in teh US people produce ICs and Circuit Boards in their homes for fun that are as high quality as china makes. Just becasue china mass produces low tech items and raw material doesn't make them a great nation. It just means they are good at cheap labor. But many companies are leaving china due to corruption, cost, low quality work, and more.
    2
  72. 2
  73. 2
  74. 2
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93.  @richardparker1338  "There are over 800 in total on the globe." that is counting Embassies and other administrative locations. It actually have more like 20-30 combat capable bases around the globe. But the US is a Superpower, China is not. "Until 2011 China was not wasting its money on war weapons." remind me which year china built nukes, J-11, J-20, JF-17, etc...... "Even if China said, ok, Taiwan can become independent, do you really think the US would back off?" US is backed off right now. it all depends upon how beligerent CCP is "What would happen is that the US would build a huge military base on Taiwan and continue to provoke China, one way or another." but the US is not doing that, and has no intention to do so. You're just making crap up to argue. "Unless the US stops escalating against China, and the two nations enter a discourse on how to live together without war, there is only one outcome. " US hasn't escalated. It was teh CCP that leaked a report stating intent to invade Tawain by 2027. "China will never let itself be defeated, nor will it allow itself to be collonised." Mongols did it, Japan did it, US did it. China has a long history of being defeated and colonized. China has a long history of being numerous fragmented nations as well. "All sovereign countries in SE Asia are against this belligerence by the US. Including Taiwan. Just ask them." except that Tawain is a US Ally and buying weapons and asking for help if CCP invades. Vietnam is now a US ally, as is all of ASEAN, as is South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc. China has been hostile to Philippines and other ASEAN nations and claims their territory. "China has explicitly stated that it wants a peaceful reunion. " an usurper always says that, but the fact is the CCP failed to completely overthrow the Republic of China in its coup. "Not a single Taiwanese wants a war." same for the US, but we will fight China as required just the same. "There are two million Taiwanese working on the mainland with huge investments." same for the US and other nations. But companies are decoupling from china and leaving too. Many vendors I work with are moving out, and we even ask them if they have facilities outside of china now too. China has become bad for business. Just look at the drop in outgoing shipping from China of late. "Those white American supremacist clowns in Washington should all go the Ukraine and fight on the front for six months. Maybe they wouldn't be so keen on wars after that." the white supremacist lie is communist propaganda. China is the single most racist nation on earth right now, just look at how they treat Africans, how they murder Tibetans, Uyghurs, and others. US fought in Afghanistan and Iraq for years, we know full well what war entails, US are professional warfighters, unlike most other nations who use amateur soldiers. We send those who WANT to fight, who are WILLING to fight. We don't like fighting without good cause though. So don't give us a reason. Many US politicians are combat vets or ex-military themselves. many US citizens have already gone to Ukraine to fight in the foreign Legion. Maybe CCP shouldn't pick fights when their people get trounced even by Indian army soldiers with rocks and sticks.
    2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. 2
  101. 2
  102. 2
  103. 2
  104. 2
  105. 2
  106. 2
  107. 2
  108. 2
  109. 2
  110. 2
  111. 2
  112. 2
  113. 2
  114. 2
  115. 2
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145.  @dabo5078  "China is largest in producing Paper being cited. Are you telling me every single North American research university is citing hot garbage for their stuff?" YES "Obviously, you are so brainwashed that you don't understand the global patent system or the concept of paper citation." I understand it perfectly. Citation does not equate to "correct" or "truth", usually ignorance. I read papers and love picking them apart for failure to use large enough sample sizes, lack of sample diversity, lack of placebo, lack of controlling for variables, lack of repeatability, lack of citing assumptions or identifying biases, etc. I also hold tens of patents, and could have had well over 100 patents to my name if not for the fact they cost money and chasing down worthless patents is a waste of time and money. Also, we file patents Defensively, rather than offensively. Do you know what that means? "Also, the fact that most shipping containers and ports in the world *yes including America is built by Chinese companies." you're proud of producing metal boxes? hahaha!!!! And no, the Chinese did not build Boston harbor, San Francisco, Ney York, Charlotte, New Orleans, Duluth, etc. What a stupid lie. It is literally illegal for chinese companies to produce things like US combat aircraft, nuclear carriers, nuclear submarines, and many other defense items. I'm involved in that world in more ways than one, and deal with it every day. "Just ask yourself what engineering feat did the US achieve in the past decade? The only thing remotely successful I can think of a is barley reusable rocket that currently can't take off anymore since the Russians cut off the engine supply." Are you talking about the Falcon 9, that never used russian engines? That has flown more than pretty much any rocket in history? You mean Starship, the largest and cheapest rocket per ton to ever fly? no reusable US rocket ever used russian engines. Largest computers in the world (CCP computers have never been independently verified and so do not count as they are likely lying). Curious how you focus on teh last decade only, becasue if we opened it up more you'd have to admit CCP has accomplished next to nothing. But yes, teh US and others have accomplished many things, but due to teh nature of high technology, teh impacts seem less significant with each advancement. But we can look at things like the Black hole images, James Webb, first aircraft on Mars, first space tourism, world's largest plane, breakthroughs in aerodynamics, hypersonic missiles that can actually hit a target, holding every single hypersonic record in history, etc. Now list the accomplishments of CCP in last decade, besides COVID. And things others have already done don't count.
    1
  146.  @dabo5078  " As far as I know American engineers are overcoming nothing" well, you don't know much, so that's not saying much. Fixating on the obvious things and ignoring all the things of consequence. The US public has been trying to defund Artemis and such for decades. But convenient how you ignore every single other rocket company and their successes in teh same time period. Meanwhile CCP is still dropping toxic fuel and rocket boosters on villages like a 3rd world nation. "Finally, you talk about the largest supercomputer yet none of them had been built." built, run, and independetly verified. Frontier system is a Cray computer. Cope harder. "Everyone talks, but talks mean nothing when no results are produced which is the current state of the American engineering community." as you literally ignore everything Elon Musk and others does. Literally refusing to accept facts and reality. Meanwhile US has a flying 5th gen fighter, hypersonic missiles that actually work, weapons that are destroying Russia like child's play in Ukraine even the legacy military systems, etc. "One thing I would get props to them is that they finally brought down the sky-high cost of the F35 after more than 10 years." it was never that expensive to begin with. the media reported lifetime costs including fuel, spare parts, ammo and weapons, maintenance personnel costs, etc. for 20yrs of service. the purchase price was never that high. And F-35s have cost less than 4th gen European jets for many years now. It was always going to be competitive long run due to production numbers. "Experience means very little in cutting-edge professions such as engineering" and this is why China sucks, they think experience doesn't matter. wow "(it only matters for the project management aspect, which once again the US is bad at)" project management is the least important part of engineering. the least competent engineers get those jobs. But I get how you'd have it backwards living in a communist society your whole life. "this is not a trade job, you need to constantly keep up with the newest development in theory and research community to not be left hopelessly behind." trade jobs are fundamental and require far more intelligence and problem solving skills than management. the fact you think so little of trades is part of your problem. that's why your buildings and dams collapse. garbage workmanship. There is a reason the world associates China with cheap low quality crap. "PS The guy did get kicked out for his skin color, otherwise, why would he leave his salary in America worth hundreds to thousands of times that of in China and better quality of life in the 50s? Also nuclear technology were achieved when the entire mainland was under strict western sanctions. Don't know how you got to the point where American capital helped in that regard." 1950s?!?! hahaha CCP was pathetic back then, no bearing on today. Also, why are you afraid to give me his name? Why would he leave his salary? maybe the CCP threatened him and his family if he didn't return? happens all the time. "Don't know how you got to the point where American capital helped in that regard." because you're not paying attention to what I actually said, and you're conflating things.
    1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236.  @dammy  "I'm talking about US program, not PLA's." then your argument is even WORSE. The US has no carriers to shoot hypersonics at. We can sink enemy ships with ease using a variety of other better weapons. The US is not investing heavily in hypersonic glide weapons as this video pointed out. the US is the world leader in all forms of hypersonic research, and they understood back in teh cold war the limitations and economics of hypersonics. everyone else is still playing catchup. So, since the US has no such weapons, as we have no need for them and they don't make sense strategically nor tactically, we are going to discuss the PLA's hypersonics as the use case you KEEP describing is that of China attacking a US carrier. and since china actually tested one of these for real, we have actual understanding of what it can and cannot do right now. The Chinese test missed a known stationary target by many miles. Two, as hypersonics descend into thicker air near the surface (where carriers are), they can no longer achieve hypersonic speeds due to air resistance. Look at the max speed of different aircraft at sea level vs at 40k ft. Many jet fighters can't even go supersonic at see level due to air density. Gliders have a fixed energy budget to use to reach their target. If you bleed off too much enroute, you wont have the same range as a missile that has nothing to dodge. Also, at mach 5 to mach 10, the exterior frictional heating will destroy sensors, antennae, etc. (look up the X-15 fastest flights if you don't beleive me). and so how do you plan to communicate with this thing in flight? The plasma build up during reentry of a space capsule can happen to these hypersonics too, blocking communications as well. How do they track moving targets after they've been fired? Keep in mind they are firing beyond line of sight, and so early the only way they can be guided is to be told by ground assets where the target is and where teh interceptor missiles are. These things can be detected and tracked from the point of launch, giving time for even a large ship to maneuver enough. And since the missile will be supersonic at best by the time it reaches the target, the majority of the damage will have to be done by it's rather small conventional warhead. Also, don't forget that the US has demonstrated multiple weapon systems capable of intercepting ICBMs, satellites, and objects moving at hypersonic velocities in live tests. These hypersonics may be fast, but they are still much slower than a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket.
    1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241.  @johnsullivan8673  " It's about efficiency at an expanded flight envelope. Having a turboJET that may or may not be able to operate as a ramjet ala J-58 means the flight optimization curve (really, fuel efficiency - which translates into speed<survivability>/combat radius/endurance) for this platform can be widened." false. you don't need three engines to do that. the Blackbird only needed two engines to do that. adding the fuel and weight of a third engines REDUCES the range and performance of teh aircraft. the fuel tanks and engine volume could have gone to fuel for the other two engines for extreme range. but clearly two engines couldn't provide sufficient thrust for that much weight alone. A low-bypass tubofan/turbojet is not going to act as a ramjet. the Blackbird had a turbojet engine with a HIGH bypass for the ramjet. you cannot use a ramjet with a turbofan as the fan blades block airflow to the ramjet. clearly you don't understand such things. this chinese prototype doesn't fly fast enough to be survivable by relying upon speed. adding a third engine KILLS efficiency due to reduced total fuel volume per engine and added weight. if they wanted high efficiency engines or ramjet engines, they could have done that using only two engines. but they lack the performance using only two. thus the third engine to make up for lack of thrust to achieve performance goals. China's engine as are crap, even Russia knows this to be true. China is still trying to copy Russia's jet engines, and Russia has no engine remotely comparable the F-35's engine. China has no engines REMOTELY comparable to what the F-35 has. they hope to get there someday, but they are decades from getting there. in the meantime, they have to use their garbage copies of crap russian engines instead. it's even well known that the J-20 has underpowered engines and suffers for it, and it's why the J-35 also has two engines instead of one.
    1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258.  @nedkelly9688  "most USA tech is designed and built by foreigners" no, it's not. It's actually illegal in the US for military contractors to hire foreign engineers for these types of projects. They have to be US citizens. And foreign involvement has to be approved. I'm an engineer working on the cutting edge of some of what you're blabbering about. "but hey USA did it lol." yes, the bomb was designed and built in entirely in the US. People just had to come to America to have their genius potential unleashed. Tesla, Einstein, Fermi, Sikorsky, and more came to great success after moving to the US. "Australian Mark Oliphant started the Manhatten project and had to convince USA to do it. he then helped refine the Uranium lol." wow, the level of coping and revisionist history you're trying to spin. "hey, look at us, we know how to do resin infused composites, we designed everything, we're the best!". Maybe you should focus more on not assaulting your fellow citizens over masks and lockdowns, and maybe if you actually had freedoms like free speech and gun rights you wouldn't have so many issues down under. "A lot of Australian and other friendly countries tech is in USA military equipment lol." exactly, it's all US designed and made. "If America could do the resin tech they would as costs more doing it in Australia and sending overseas. haha you no idea kid." US outsources things due to cheap labor on those countries..... Kid? now I know what kind of person I'm dealing with. What is your job, and how many years have you been doing it? "Don't kid yourself America is the smartest in the world. all you got is the money for R&D." yes, we are the smartest in the world, due to our societal values (that some people are trying to destroy), and that helped us become rich enough to afford such high tech. So if Australia lacks money for R&D, then clearly they aren't the ones doing the innovation, because they can't afford it. What kinds of aircraft are in the Australian military again? What kinds of weapons? Name companies and models.
    1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290.  @MotoroidARFC  "it isn't the landing, it's the launching. That's when the aircraft is at its heaviest and needs a strong structure to tolerate the catapult forces. " Wrong. the aircraft is at 1G on takeoff, and then is accelerated to speed laterally. the weight of the aircraft actually helps, as it's inertia slows the catapult. but the weight is not a multiplier on the catapult, as the forces are not acting in the same directions. And catapults are tuned to the weight/size of aircraft. But on landing, the jet can experience many G's and in ways that can break many parts of the aircraft, from wing spars, to landing gear, to the tail or fuselage, tail hook, and more. This is where weight is critical, as the weight is acting with the forces on landing. many aircraft can takeoff heavier than they can land, even civilian airplanes that don't fly off short airfields. They have to dump fuel or payload (bombs even) before landing to get below their max landing weight. Sometimes thy just have to fly in circles for a while to burn enough fuel. Also on landing, the bombs can be ripped clean from the aircraft and be sent across the deck. "Eagles weren't designed for that. " a naval version was drawn up, and it would have done just fine. Take a look at the gear of the FJ-1 and Fj-4, of the F4D and F-8. Heck, look at the F-4 nosewheel or the A-4. Even the F-16 was considered for a naval version. "Just look at how dinky the landing gear is compared to the Super Hornet landing gear; specifically the nose wheel vs nose wheels." the F-18 and such have beefy nose gear because they are pulled in a VERY bad angle on the nose strut by the catapult. But most aircraft in history had the catapult attach to teh fuselage and wing roots. F4F, F6F, F4U, A-4, F4D, F-8, F-4, Etendard, FJ-1, F11F-1, FJ-4, and many many more. the U-2, C-130, B-25, AV-8B, and many more also never used catapults at all. When you want to launch using the nosewheel, then yes, you need to beef it up, but also by adding a strut that moves backwards along the fuselage. Or you can just launch using the older time tested method of pulling on the airframe. "This channel has a video about the Sea Eagle." then you should know better...
    1
  291.  @MotoroidARFC  " It's also fact that CATOBAR aircraft can launch with heavier loads than ski jump users which is why the USN use CATOBAR F-35Cs off their big deck carriers." that has Nothing to do with structure of teh aircraft. that has everything to do with not being able to go fast enough to produce enough lift to carry more weight. a catapult can get it to a higher speed, producing more lift, thus carrying more weight. But an F-35C can catapult launch at full weight, and be weight restricted on the Queen Elizabeth due to the ski jump, even though it's tough enough for a catapult. This doesn't prove your point, debunks it in fact. "USN carriers have catapults that use the nose gear to connect to the catapult shuttle. They don't use any other catapult system for their CATOBAR aircraft." You can use an airframe strap on US carrier catapults if necessary. not a big deal. Argentine, French, and other foreign naval aircraft have launched and landed on US nuclear carriers. The Argentine Etendard for example, requires the airframe strap, and they were launched using it. US catapults can 100% launch such aircraft. Just because US aircraft presently don't use that launching method, in no way mans the catapults can't still do it. And the US carriers still launch foreign aircraft that way at times. "Also, when aircraft land they are lighter as they have burnt off or dumped their fuel and, if fighting or live fire training, have fired or dropped their munitions." not always. aircraft go on missions in combat and find themselves unable to fire all their weapons, and will jettison them before landing. Also, emergencies happen, and a jet might have to return to land immediately, and will have to dump weight in a hurry in order to land. "The USMC use the shorter range F-35B from the gator freighters. Also, why mention out of service and long obsolete aircraft which cannot operate from today's carriers? You're just vomiting word salad and proving you know nothing." The F-4 is still in service around the world, the last F-8 was retired in 2008 I believe, there are still Etendards in service, as well as A-4s. U-2s are still in service, as are C-130s, OV-10s, the Harriers were only recently retired, but other nations still fly them. The older aircraft are relevant in proving that structurally the takeoff is no big deal, and flimsy aircraft can launch using catapults fully loaded. But if you had any clue what you were talking about, I wouldn't have to explain such basics to you. I teach kids STEM (aerospace engineering STEM in fact), and they understand these concepts with ease, and most of them are still in middle school. Your childish attempt to invalidate my arguments by simply dismissing them is not going to work. Closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and shouting, "lalalalalala!" doesn't change reality. You're arguing with the wrong person. I'm a combat vet of OIF/OEF, a professional airplane and helicopter pilot, an Aerospace engineer who designs airplanes with tens of patents and I do record setting work for NASA, and military/aviation history is a favorite pastime of mine. So bring facts, logic, reason, and science if you wish to have a chance at winning here.
    1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294.  @MotoroidARFC  "they retired the Super Étendard and got rid of their carrier." irrelevant. doesn't change the catapults and their capabilities. "And who will keep throwing away the cables needed to launch them as bridle catchers don't exist on French or American carriers?" If we found ourselves in a war of attrition against China lets say in a WW3 scenario, and both sides were taking incredible losses of aircraft. Now let's say in order to recoup our losses quickly, we need to mass produce a fighter jet quickly and cheaply. The heavy nose landing gear results in a much heavier, more costly, and harder to mass produce aircraft. And it might make sense to resort to different launching methods to produce more aircraft faster. Having the option to do that can be critical in a war. The cost and space taken up by those cables is so small as to be laughable. It's annoying to rely on a consumable, but it is easily replenished as well. We fought all of WW2 using them, and we had FAR more carriers and FAR more carrier aircraft to launch every single day. It's not an issue. Also, bridle catchers could easily be added to the carriers if needed. "And why bring aboard such old aircraft when a modern one is more worthy of the limited space?" red herring. this argument was never made. But if you're referring to why bring older allied aircraft aboard? it's about international training and cooperation, in case aircraft have to land on another nation's carrier in a time of war for any of a number of reasons (aircraft damaged and can't reach its own carrier, it's carrier was sunk, etc.). "U2s operate from land bases. Sure, they did tests but that doesn't mean they will do it routinely and they never have. " wrong, they routinely operated U-2s from carriers for many decades. they tested it, but you can find pictures of numerous different models/generations of U-2s flying from carriers in multiple decades, as well as U-2 pilots talking about their experience using carriers in operations. Just down the road from me in a small farm town we have two U-2 pilots. One is retired, the other actively serving. I've also given a presentation on this a few months back. Wow, you finally got something right. Even a broken clock is right 2x a day. Yes, the C-130 was only tested, but it proved possible, and with surprising ease too. And in a pinch it could be done any time, so long as we have the large nuke carriers and C-130s. And a war in China could bring about the need to use C-130 to speed up resupply in desperation. You just never know.
    1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301.  @MotoroidARFC  "sending an F-4 up against something two generations more advanced is wasteful. It would be better for it to haul stuff for the newer ones. It would stay out of the fight and release weapons when the newer ones call for it. " red herring. you're off topic again. "Upgrades can only go so far before the basic design limits it." actually, that's not true. A fully upgraded F-4 would be just as effective at being a missile truck as an F-15EX or F-35, and just as effective at deploying standoff weapons for CAS. The maturity and proliferation of precision standoff weapons has changed the game, and speed is no longer the key. "And in some cases the time and money spent on that could have been spent on things more worthwhile." give an example. "In the Eagle II's case, other nations funded the upgrades which made it attractive to the USAF. It's telling they didn't fund the upgrades on their own and didn't even bother with their F-4s. So no, if it's too old, it's not worth it." The US gov needed stop gap fighters, and given that the F-15EX had all the upgrades, the gov bought those as they were available. You know what else is available that the USAF doesn't have much of? The F-16 Block 70. We could also buy those. But do you realize how old the F-15 and F-16 platforms are now? And yet short of the F-22/F-35, they are basically the best fighters on earth. By the time the F-15EX came along, all the US F-4 had already been long retired, and production lines no longer existed. You can't buy something no longer being produced, even if it could have been upgraded if still produced. You want to talk about age? try the A-4, C-130, B-52J, U-2, Mig21, Mig17, AH-1, UH-1, CH-47, UH-60, etc. Many aircraft in operation today are as old or older than the F-4. And many of the newer aircraft are going to far exceed the F-4's service life. If your assertions were true, none of those older aircraft would still be flying or combat effective. but many are still some of the best in the world at what they are doing. If I upgraded an F-4E with F-35 radar, F-35 avionics, new ejection seats, new bubble canopy with gold tint, stealth paint, composite airframe, new engines, new air intakes, new IRST and targeting sensors, and updated its flight controls to the latest in fly by wire, and gave it meteor missiles, AMRAAMs, AIM-9X, helmet mounted sight, HARM, small diameter bombs, Harpoon, and more. What role in modern air combat would the F-4 not be well suited for? "so a service is to train people in an obsolete method of launching aircraft and begin manufacturing the equipment to do that just so they bring back into service obsolete aircraft which would need upgrades themselves and trained crews to operate them? " no, they retain the ability to use alternatives, and retrain people when/as needed. the method of launching is not obsolete. In what way is it obsolete? just because it's not popular anymore, doesn't make it obsolete. it still works just fine and very effectively. It's just not preferred. A little common sense goes a long way, should look into getting some. "Fantasy. No one will wait around for all that to happen. They will work with what they have and in more effective ways." They will work with what they have, including th ability to bridle launch aircraft. When you're taking high losses, you will resort to putting into service anything you can get, even if it's not what you wanted/preferred. I've been in combat for years of my life, I have made do with what we had, fixed things, modified things, and I am telling you, when sh1t gets crazy, technology is not your friend. the ability and know-how to revert to low tech methods and still win is underappreciated these days. We had all the tech and gadgets overseas, and yet rarely used it. old fashioned methods still worked, were still more reliable and consistent, and could be used to surprise enemies expecting us to use the technology and weren't expecting us to attack them the way we did. And things break, and the more advanced and complex they ar, the harder it is to fix them, the more parts it takes, and the harder it is to support logistically in teh field. sometimes you'll have to wait MONTHS to get the parts you need, and in the meantime you have to make do with what you have. and so you resort to low-tech solutions, even grabbing civilian equipment to use. "And they're still lighter than at launch." So??????? you're like a broken record. this is what, teh 6th time you've repeated this? And still you have yet to make a valid point.
    1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1