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

  1. glad to see that other people understand many of the realities of hypersonics.
    47
  2. Guns only, lightweight, super maneuverable, unarmored aircraft were already proven obsolete in WW2 with the Japanese designs. And the Japanese designs were built to a doctrine that was already obsolete in the 1930s. the fact they saw no value in missiles, shows how ignorant they were. Not to mention how important range has been in a design since WW2 (Zero, P-51, B-21, F-35, extended range F-16/F-18/F-15, etc.). In fact, Sparrow missiles scored a large portion of air to air victories in vietnam, as well as Sidewinders.
    32
  3.  @sakasaruuni101  the Mig 15 was a German design with a british engine..... Tu-4 was a B-29 copy Buran shuttle was a copy of US Shuttle Tu-144 was a copy of Concorde Mig 141 used a US lift fan patent idea. Russia copied the channelwing Mig 105 was a response to a myriad of US lifting body designs ... And CCP copies the US and Russian designs so bad it's ridiculous. the list is long.
    31
  4. they lacked radar though
    28
  5.  @713Tankbuster  DEI absolutely existed in the Military, and partially contributed to recruiting issues.
    19
  6. and don't forget the last time Russia invaded Finland, the kill/loss ratios the Finnish scored, and the losses Russia suffered. Finland was winning even with inferior aircraft. Now if Russia tries again, they won't have inferior aircraft to Russia.
    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.  @DefaultProphet  then the F-22 and F-35 are doing the air superiority mission, not the B-21. Even the B-1 or B-52 can be a missile truck.
    15
  9. and test and find flaws in our weapons systems. and then fix them. or find ways to make them more effective and more affordable.
    14
  10. the AI simulation had an unfair advantage having perfect knowledge of the state of both aircraft. In real life the AI lacks such information.
    14
  11.  @BurntOrangeHorn78  it's a completely valid argument. you wouldn't risk prized expensive bombers doing a high risk mission cheaper aircraft can do.
    14
  12.  @TheXanUser  they could also get 4 door crew cab, 4wd, with 4cyl diesel engine, Toyotas Tacomas and Ford Rangers overseas. Illegal in the US for some stupid reason. Many of us wanted to bring them to the US for our personal vehicles. I just bought a 2wd, 5spd, truck with an 8ft bed a few months ago with no rust, and no stupid electronics, so I'm happy.
    13
  13.  @CreepyFungus29  it's never going to get redesignated, no matter what role/s it fills. Just as the F-117 was never redesignated to B-117. Point is, the USAF already has a 6th gen capable platform, which is potentially capable of the air superiority role (so long as it remains BVR). Now, if enemy fighters tried running down the B-21 they might well succeed if it ran out of missiles before taking out all enemy fighters, and unless it had supporting fighters to defend it against faster fighters. Point is, worrying about which branch was/is first, is pointless. what matters is capabilities and effectiveness at fulfilling their missions.
    12
  14. missiles have eliminated the need for speed dominance in fighters. they have also reduced the need for maximum maneuverability. the missiles fly fast instead, cover the distance, and maneuver instead of the fighter itself that carries and launches them.
    12
  15. Russia is an extremely poor nation. they live in abject poverty like 3rd world nations if you get outside the big cities.
    12
  16. and due to higher accuracy, we don't need as much explosive, and thus we get teh Small Diameter Bomb. And most bombing missions are now flown by Fighters rather than dedicated bombers.
    12
  17. @snsproduc to ruggedize them for carriers and add folding wings would require the effort of a clean sheet purpose built design.
    10
  18. actually started with the SR-71, it incorporated stealth features to reduce its cross section.
    10
  19.  @phoenixrising4573  Mig15 is based on the Ta-183, which is also strangely similar to the FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II designed by the same person as the Ta-183, and used a British jet engine. Just as the US took German designs and engineers back to the US, so too did the Soviets capture German designs and engineers.
    10
  20. and converted F-105s followed by F-4G and then the F-16 and F-35. don't forget the Navy EA-6B, and EA-18G
    9
  21. it's a tank in every sense of the word. role, design, application.
    8
  22.  @granatmof Yes, most skilled and experienced fighter pilots already understood this fundamental of speed and altitude by WW2. Now, the Fighter Mafia guys did Formalize it into an engineering framework, which is of value. To me that is their one true contribution, the research paper they published on energy maneuverability.
    8
  23.  @honkhonk8009  I work with Chinese engineers in my job. I'm not impressed at all, and they have fundamental societal issues that prevent them from being innovative and we deal with it all the time.
    7
  24. China's hypersonic glide missile missed its target (an known stationary target) but what, 25 miles?
    7
  25. the Proximity rounds never went away.
    7
  26. 5th gen at most.
    7
  27. Boeing also built the Bird of Prey stealth. But given Boeing's recent myriad of problems and mismanagement, i doubt they will be a serious contender.
    6
  28. Mig 1.44 seemed more a response to the Eurofighter Typhoon, X-31, British Aerospace EAP, Mirage 4000 and Rafale, and others.
    6
  29. yes, Vietnam proved that training was critical, and was being neglected after WW2. they were no longer training pilots in basic dogfighting skills, and they weren't teaching them proper weapons employment knowledge. Top Gun and other efforts during Vietnam reversed this trend.
    6
  30. many nations have trained for road-based ops during the cold war. it was the reason jets like the Harrier and Gripen existed at all as well.
    6
  31. there is no evidence the second aircraft is a drone. In fact, if you look carefully in many images from the right angles, you can see evidence of a cockpit.
    5
  32.  @edmundscycles1  the YB-35 was not a stealth, nor was it designed to be one. A huge metal plane like that can easily be detected. Intakes, propellers, fins, etc. Tons of reflecting features and surfaces.
    5
  33. agreed
    5
  34. US civilian Commercial pilots need 250hrs just to get their license.
    5
  35.  @713Tankbuster  and then begged those 8000 to come back. and reduced physical fitness standards, and emphasis on trans and other BS initiatives that don't help combat lethality, piss poor leadership, and more drove people away. When was the las combat MOS you had? how many combat deployments did you go on? I've seen first hand in combat what DEI does to combat effectiveness, and it wasn't even as bad back then as it is now.
    5
  36. "the enemy's intelligence services will have gotten a look at the plane" who? how?
    5
  37. and you didn't even go into their copies of the UH-60, C-17, E-2, and more.
    5
  38. the Sidewinder lineage goes back to at least 1946, which is roughly when the tech development/testing started. But the AIM-9X is still one of the best missiles available today.
    4
  39. The Su-57 is a Su-35 in a Halloween costume pretending to be a 5th gen fighter.
    4
  40.  @YaMomsOyster  it's called logical reasoning and actually paying attention in Physics. Also helps to have a degree in STEM...
    4
  41. Exactly, it all depends on how they anticipate using them. Definitely gives them more options with all these capabilities and tradeoffs to choose from.
    4
  42.  @jimdigitalvideo  The F-4 never "got rid of the gun". the F-4 was designed to be an Interceptor, not a fighter. The only interceptor built with a gun back then was the F-104. The F-4 was then found to be a good fighter and multirole aircraft, and so got used for roles it wasn't Designed for, and was later given an integrated gun as a result. But yes, the lesson was learned that dogfighting still mattered none the less.
    4
  43. Don't forget that slower sea skimming missiles get FAR closer to their target before being detected.
    4
  44. 16hrs of maintenance means 8 guys worked on it for 2hrs. Or 16 for 1hr. Or 4 for 4hrs. And some maintenance doesn't magically take longer because it flew a 10hr mission instead of a 1hr mission.
    4
  45.  @713Tankbuster  I served, and you have no clue. COVID and forced vaccinations played a part, but the hemorrhaging had already started before that, and continued to this day, years after COVID.
    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. which is what a tank is. a rolling pillbox.
    3
  48. near peer? who is near pear to the US? Russia? China?
    3
  49. B-21...........
    3
  50. when you skip all the misc BS training not related to flying and air combat, and you compress the training due to teh time not spent BS'ing, and you start with experienced pilots, some fighter pilots, who already have the basics down, you can train people a lot faster. And with so few jets, you take only the top performers, while keeping the rest in reserve and give them additional training over additional time, until aircraft become available for them as well. Not hard at all. My first time in combat, my entire unit was thrown into combat with experimental vehicles, experimental weapons, doing a mission for which no tactics nor techniques existed, and we figured it all out as we went. We excelled and thrived on that battlefield. We were also all volunteers, there by choice, motivated, and wanted to be the best. And we became the best, all on our own, with no formal training.
    3
  51. towed decoys were used in 1991, meaning they existed in the 1980s.
    3
  52.  @jukeseyable Wright flyer to the X-15, SR-71, and the Moon in far less than 1 century....
    3
  53. it's called the MQ-20 Avenger.....look it up
    3
  54. Censorship or not, the CCP is suffering the same sort of corruption as Russia.
    3
  55. 5th gen at best
    3
  56.  @9HighFlyer9  The SR-71 had stealth features built into it's airframe, such as the leading edges, and some materials used. I don't count paint as I've never heard of paint alone reducing RCS in any meaningful fashion. When you play with radar, and notice some things don't send back as strong a signal as others, it didn't take a genius for people to start experimenting. The first official paper written on radar stealth was actually by a Russian scientist, but was ignored in Russia, but the US didn't ignore his work.
    3
  57.  @edmundscycles1  a flying wing will always reduce the RCS over a radiational layout. But it doesn't count as the first aircraft with intentional/deliberate stealth features designed into it.
    3
  58.  @lucasreiss1390  But if attacked by a 5th gen, you would Not defend yourself with 4th gen becasue it would be a slaughter, you'd Have to send your 5th gen to deal with it. Not every fight will be in your favor, and you still have to fight anyways. Or you can surrender.
    3
  59.  @lucasreiss1390  Absolutely, I totally agree. stack the deck in your favor as best you can, and try to limit the risk to high value assets, especially limited numbers or long lead times to replace such as F-22, Carriers, DDG-1000... But sometimes you don't get the luxury of making that choice and then you just have to fight with what you have in the quantities you have and try to use smarts to make it work anyways.
    3
  60. low level AAA. Flak hits targets are FAR higher altitudes.
    3
  61. yup, and it's been around for a long time already
    3
  62. NATO maintained a parts pipeline for Mig29 when almost no one in NATO was flying them. F-16 parts is the easy task.
    3
  63.  @dammy  and after launch, the target moved, missile misses. size <-> mass Size and mass matter 100%, it's called Physics. China's current glide missile test missed a preplanned fixed target by miles. good luck hitting a moving target that doesn't want you to know where it is. Hypersonic speeds cannot be maintained all the way to target due to air densities. you have to fly at high altitudes to achieve such speeds. this means that by the time you impact the target, the speed has bled off.
    3
  64. Interceptor missiles can lead their target same as an air to air missile maneuvers in relation to their evasive target. Missiles are not simply flying to a predetermined intercept point, they are actively adjusting to remain on intercept as best they can.
    3
  65. exactly. The enigma, and cracking the japanese code in WW2 was kept a secret until the 1970s. Many cold war missions and such weren't declassified until a few years ago, and even then a lot is still classified. And then there is newer stuff, some of which i've come into contact with, that remains unavailable to the public. Aircraft like the SR-71 and F-117 were used in active service before being announced to the public. Heck the US Orca submarine has been public knowledge for years and yet almost no one is aware of it.
    3
  66. Russia has never once denied airspace access to US or NATO forces using air defense (not in Vietnam, not in Iraq, not in Syria, not in Ukraine, not over Russia itself, etc.). And if Russia can't deny airspace, and can't operate their own jets in that airspace, they don't have air dominance nor supremacy.
    3
  67. lets not forget the failed intercept of the Ukrainian missiles against the Moskva.
    3
  68. and the F-100
    2
  69.  @Pastor_Rich  the F-100 was also the Fast FAC of Vietnam.
    2
  70. why? the single seat hangs back with fly by wire control and autopilot to minimize teh pilot workload, while he designates targets for the drones with his own normal targeting controls. Instead of assigning his own ordnance, he assigns a loyal wingman's ordnance to teh target and the drone executes the strike on command.
    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.  @dabo5078  "Hmm why build a F35 aggressor squadron around the J20 color scheme than?" you really don't understand the how or why of aggressor squadrons do you? "Once again no such thing as US hypersonic missiles exist currently in physical form. " believe what you will. I can't make you agree or beleive. but ignorance makes an opponent easier to defeat in teh end as well, so it's better they be ignorant of the truth.
    2
  73.  @hphp31416  "Near peer now looks like nation that is capable of inflicting loses upon US armed forces while defending itself" I'm going to have to disagree. Any nation is capable of inflicting casualties on the US. Name a war where the US hasn't lost people and equipment. I'd agree with you if you were a bit more discriminating in your criteria. Perhaps something like, a nation capable of sinking US warships in combat, or ability to shoot down 100+ US airplanes in a war, etc. The closest near peer is China, and not becasue the yare any good, they simply have enough numbers to cause problems. But other nations like France, UK, Israel, South Korea, etc. could be troublesome in a very brief conflict due to their higher levels of tech and training, but they lack numbers to really be a challenge. Thankfully most such nations are allies of the US.
    2
  74.  @ftboomer1  nobody forced finland to do anything they didn't want to do.
    2
  75. 8:00 russian defenses have not matured much since then. S400 getting destroyed regularly by Ukraine, even without F-16.
    2
  76.  @Pathfinder1932-t5d  exactly. until we have an F-22 replacement, retiring the F-22 would be ridiculously irresponsible.
    2
  77. One accident in a fighter jet kills one person. One accident in an osprey kills tens of people.
    2
  78. Russia is also relying upon Su-27 family of aircraft for SEAD, and they suck at it.
    2
  79.  @patclark2186  F-105 was the "Thud", F-100 was the "Hun" Hun is short for Hundred. Thud is from the character "Chief Thunderthud" from the Howdy Doody television series.
    2
  80.  @Jerryberry172  wrong. They first flew F-100, then the F-105, then the F-4, then the F-16, and now the F-35
    2
  81. the J-20 is probably still more archaic than a 1991 Desert Storm F-16 in terms of datalink and other electronic capabilities in the cockpit. Compare that to an F-35s capabilities that all pilots describe as being as transformative as the smartphone was to society.
    2
  82.  @9HighFlyer9  Stealth coatings are not mere paint.
    2
  83.  @9HighFlyer9  There is always common ground between any two people, just have to be willing to find it ;)
    2
  84.  @scottabshire21  pure luck? like how all dogfighting was prior to radar?
    2
  85.  @adamb8317  not really. In war you are securing objectives or covering friendlies. the enemy is doing the same. Thus aircraft are bound to be flying over teh same "targets" at teh same time. Just as in WW1 and WW2, they will find each other. And as they close on each other, they CAN detect each other on radar and with IR sensors. They will absolutely find and engage each other in a peer conflict if everyone is using only stealth.
    2
  86.  @TorToroPorco  Just becasue you lack the expertise, knowledge, comprehension, and /or experience to understand and anticipate such matters, does not mean no one else can. you literally have no idea the backgrounds of the people in these comments and so cannot make such a statement. Some of us have tons of relevant experience and Can make informed analysis of such things as a result.
    2
  87. the US detected and tracked the Chinese glide missile test no problem.
    2
  88. neither the Mig 1.44 nor Su-47 were stealth fighters
    2
  89.  @generationkilled  Flak in WW2 was longer ranged than short range low altitude AAA. Flak is specific to exploding shells at higher altitudes. Flak is an Allied term, not a german one. Allies shortened the German term and used it to describe a very specific type of aintiaircraft weapon.
    2
  90. and consider that even though 13% of fighters are already 5th gen, consider how many of those are not US or Chinese design.
    2
  91.  @haakonsteinsvaag  because aircraft that never flew are pure speculation. The Super Tomcat is probably the last speculative in that category however. But the A-12 Dorrito for example is ridiculously speculative.
    2
  92.  @wisenber  Defeating China involves numerous battles in these scenarios. pay attention next time.
    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. you underestimate the power of modern software to manage this stuff.
    2
  95.  @elta6241  US wasn't facing a peer adversary in vietnam, their losses were entirely a training and doctrine failure, nothing more. And the US scored favorably over vietnam. There was nothing equal about it.
    2
  96.  @SCP-POOL  Every aircraft has it's mission. Do you also ask why we don't arm the U-2? As the RQ-4 is just the U-2 replacement. the U-2 and RQ-4 fly very high, and adding weight is undesirable. The MQ-9 and MQ-20 are not outdated. The Byraktar TB-2 is a discount MQ-1 Predator, but it still works. Every aircraft has its mission. the MQ-9 has its uses and at those missions it is not obsolete.
    2
  97. The F-8 Crusader was essentially an older F-16. Similar landing gear and single engine. It's possible.
    2
  98. the US DOD is pushing to get NGAD operational immediately, so it's going to be seen by teh public very soon anyways.
    2
  99. US and most European nations have practiced road runways since WW2. The Harrier jump jets were designed for this sort of thing as well.
    2
  100.  @phoenixrising4573  You love you're logical fallacies. you're STG44 views have no relevance here. "The Buran was also not a copy of the US shuttle, it was actually an improvement that was abandoned because shuttles on that scale sucks" The Buran was absolutely a copy. they made some changes, but they were not all improvements. The Aerodynamics and dimensions were basically identical. The Buran also moved the engines onto the Energia, making them nonreusable, which was the point of the US shuttle.
    2
  101.  @川建国-h5r  that's the best you got? a single invention from years ago? FYI, we now use smokeless powder, not gunpowder. what about the threshing machine, steam power, nuclear power, gasoline engine, airplane, submarine, iron hull ships, transistor, electricity, printing press, rifles, tanks, cars, trains, automatic loom, spinning jenny, AC power, radio, compass, internet, telescope, telephone, light bulb, smartphone, helicopter, penicillin, radar, computers, sonar, microwave, GPS, MRI, X-ray, camera, calculus, space travel, and on and on and on. China has contributed little to the world overall. and the few significant things they did happened hundreds or thousands of years ago.
    2
  102.  @川建国-h5r  "So some of them were invented by your country" I know, and......? I think you forgot to make your point here. What has china done for the world in the last 100yrs?
    2
  103. the tiny conventional warhead isn't enough to sink a super carrier. And explain how a hypersonic missile is detecting and tracking a ship beyond the horizon in real time?
    2
  104. there is only one valid explanation for the 3rd engine thus far. Lack of engine thrust from 1-2 engines to meet performance goals. The penalties in weight, cost, maintenance, maneuverability, and more is not justified for any other explanation.
    2
  105. 10:58 that's a French Mirage. for someone who reports on aviation stuff, I'd think you could spot stuff like that better. I've stopped watching other channels that made mistakes like this too often.
    2
  106. also the Navy EA-6B and EA-18G
    2
  107. why are you blurring the cockpits?
    2
  108. no, you just lacked radar.
    2
  109.  @mackenlyjones  "My guess would be they simulated what the two planes could see via sensors if they were real and gave both the human and AI the same data." the AI had FAR more data on the position and state of the Human jet, than the human had data on the AI jet. in computer simulations software jets have defeated human players for many decades. In real life, this has yet to be proven out. The difference is that in a simulation the data is far better, and uninterrupted for the "AI". And it's not really an "AI", yet. It's still just an optimization algorithm given a very specific set of parameters to optimize.
    2
  110. lot of computer bots online these days too
    2
  111. he did mention the growlers. EA-6B has been retired
    2
  112. Part of the anger also stems from claims such as "Boyd designed the F-16", or all the things Pierre Sprey said that you listed. people get annoyed at that.
    2
  113. i know for a fact, from personal experience, there are tons of weapons and technology the US gov was developing and testing 10, 20, 30+ yrs ago that people aren't even aware exist yet. Many failed, but lessons were learned. But some do work, and will be incorporated into future tech. And yet some of the ones I know of have NEVER been discussed publicly yet (every few years I check to see if anything came out).
    2
  114. exactly right
    2
  115.  @DefaultProphet  it could, but with only 100, they won't.
    2
  116. Proof the J-20 is over rated. US flew alongside them over the ocean and got radar data, and the Pentagon wasn't worried. China has a far smaller budget than the US, yet has a larger military. This means that they aren't spending as much on each jet, which means it's not nearly as advanced. China lacks certain technological capabilities and has serious quality control issues. If they can afford to field and maintain thousands of J-20, they are not as advanced as the F-22. J-20 was developed in FAR less time. China has FAR less experience in stealth design and technologies. China has as much corruption as Russia.
    1
  117. Aircraft carriers have many more uses than just wars against ICBMs, and no nation has yet demonstrated the ability to kill a carrier with either an ICBM or other hypersonic anti-ship missile. The aircraft carrier is not dead.
    1
  118. V-22 has a bad reputation due to its accidents, including in recent years.
    1
  119. 6th gen aircraft are optionally manned, meaning DARPA is focused on getting the pilot out of the cockpit.
    1
  120. you mentioned the F-15 record, but should have also included the prolific F-16
    1
  121. no, as more things become stealthy, the ranges of engagement get smaller again.
    1
  122. 3:32 WRONG! the Su-57 is so bad, Russia only uses it when escorted by 3+ 4th gen fighters. It's no stealthier than US 4th gen fighters, and has less avionics capabilities than Western 4th gen fighters. Unless the SU-57 is facing off against other Russian and Chinese 4th gen fighters, it's at a Severe disadvantage against Western 4th gen fighters. And consider that the Su-57 was detected on radar, flying over Crimea, outside missile range.......Consider what that means. That means that the Su-57 was detected at a distance so large, that it couldn't even be engaged by long range missiles like the AIM120 or Patriot. And yet in order to detect other 5th gen fighters, you almost have to be within Fox2 or visual range. It will be detected and shot down before it ever gets a chance to detect an enemy stealth. Or it could be detected and fired upon at max range by the likes of an F-15. Thus the Su-57 is so unstealthily, as to confer no advantage to the Su-57 in combat. It hasn't reduced the ability for enemy missiles to engage it until it gets in much closer. If the enemy can see you Beyond their maximum weapons engagement zone, you are objectively NOT a "stealth" by any sense of the word.
    1
  123.  @Lucas-o6b3v  right? literally no evidence at all it has 6th gen capabilities.
    1
  124.  @hughmungus2760  china lacks the technology to achieve 6th gen. they are only just now figuring out datalink that the US used in Desert Storm.
    1
  125.  @hughmungus2760  creating a drone swarm for light shows is not useful in warfare. Controlling drones =/= Datalink
    1
  126.  @hughmungus2760  "Oh and don't forget china is also a generation ahead of the US in telecoms, with the world's first 6G satellite." no, they are not. 6G means nothing. Meanwhile, US has starlink and a far better GPS and Internet system. Meanwhile china is engaging in acts of war with Russia and cutting global internet cables. "So if its a bandwidth thing, thats got it covered too." I have personally worked on teh highest performing communications tech in outer space, and set world records. records china cannot match. they lack teh computer technologies and chips to pull it off.
    1
  127. that was my first reaction to this title. i assumed they would do this.
    1
  128.  @Leon1Aust wrong. the seeker head was developed in 1946, and the missiles was designed shortly after. been slowly upgraded ever since. feel free to try to disprove that.
    1
  129. there are things from 10-20yrs ago or more that I personally know of that still aren't public knowledge. I can only imagine what else I don't know about or the public doesn't know about.
    1
  130.  @Mr.Dodo-  yes. very few aircraft can claim to be 4.5gen in my opinion, and not one Russian design qualifies.
    1
  131. imagine a B-21 200-300mi away from the target, flying at 60k ft, slinging 10 AIM-174 missiles at enemy aircraft....
    1
  132.  @shenmisheshou7002  Eagles and Vipers scored air kills with their guns in combat less than a year ago.
    1
  133. this is bringing back failed technologies and ideas from as far back as WW1......drones, autopilots, JATO launched fighters, etc. and packing them all into a small and cheap aircraft that can finally do all of these things in a practical way.
    1
  134. it's just CGI, don't read into it too much.
    1
  135.  @luigimrlgaming9484  "why have 6 aircraft when you can have 7" This argument makes no sense. If you have 6 aircraft, you can't will yourself a 7th out of thin air. You work with what you have and stop making excuses. Just because the human pilot/aircraft is commanding the drones, does not mean they are no longer in the fight. They are not manually piloting teh drones. they are assigning them commands and then continuing to fly their own aircraft. The computers/AI enables this to be possible. And drones will have default modes for self defense. Keep in mind an AI fighter plane can out maneuver any human pilot. And how drones are employed will matter as well. Some acting as bait or decoys, others acting as strikers, others as ambushers, etc. They don't have to all fly in tight formation either. They can split up and disperse, attack from multiple directions.
    1
  136.  @luigimrlgaming9484  I've multitasked like that many times in actual combat. And with AI assisting, it would have been far easier (I now work in the AI/supercomputing industry as an engineer after leaving the military and after being a professional airplane/helicopter pilot for a time). The "second seat" in the manned fighter is occupied by another AI, that flies the jet while he commands the drones, and that is actually what the F-35 essentially already does.
    1
  137.  @luigimrlgaming9484  then don't. You're not a fighter pilot anyways, so what difference does it make. AI in a fighter jet is FAR better than your TV. TV's are actually the dumbest and worst "smart" devices on teh market, and they aren't even "smart" to begin with.
    1
  138.  @luigimrlgaming9484  then don't. But the military, pilots, and engineers don't care what you think.
    1
  139.  @luigimrlgaming9484  why not talk to you? A person need not be an engineer to know or learn things. Being an engineer doesn't make me better than you. It given me access to information that helps inform my opinion on the subject, but most of that knowledge is possible to learn on your own for anyone sufficiently motivated or interested in teh right subjects.
    1
  140.  @Blackreaper95  NGAD is single seat, optionally manned.
    1
  141. "Russia" and "integrated air defense" do not exist together. Russia has no such coordinated capabilities, as we are seeing in Ukraine.
    1
  142.  @dabo5078  "You have never worked with any Chinese engineer that is for sure." based upon what evidence? "why did America have to ask a Chinese company to design, engineer and build their new subways? " They didn't have to, but I'm sure it was to save money, and nothing more than that. "Why is American HSR non existent despite billions spent. " becasue those billions spent were in CA, a world leader in waste and corruption. the US is much larger than places that build high speed rail, making it far more costly than most places to build a network given the distances needing to be covered. plus the auto industry got rid of the US network of trollies and trains many decades ago. Corporations don't like their profits being impacted and they bribe politicians to maintain the status quo. "Why do American ships have hull cracks in them after 5 years of use?" never heard of this, unless you are referring to the LCS ships everyone tried to tell the Navy not to build becasue they knew what was going to happen. Seems the true experts and engineers were ignored by politicians and high minded military leaders. That is not proof of any sort of incompetence except at the highest levels of politics. When have politicians ever designed something that worked? It costs the US gov $100mil just to create a garbage website when a high school kid could have done it better for $20/hr over teh weekend.
    1
  143.  @dabo5078  bad leadership ruins everything. and in a culture that kills a person who makes mistakes, no one wants to take risks in design to achieve great things, for fear that if they screw up they'll be held responsible and fired or killed. so they play it safe. and this playing out over many decades results in a severe degradation of individual creativity and thinking. The CCP tries very hard to stamp out individual thinking to prevent them from questioning the CCP. Russia is similar in that they are afraid to give local control to their military personnel, for fear of a smart soldier thinking for themselves.
    1
  144.  @dabo5078  Chinese engineers achieve what exactly? Patents because they steal tech and just file for any little thing. Patents aren't worth as much anymore, thanks to china. Papers? you know most published research these days is a load of hot garbage right? Volume of anything means nothing. quality and content is what matters. You also realize China currently has a population many times the size of the US and most other countries combined right? ""in a culture that kills a person who makes mistake" are you talking about Japan?" lamest retort ever. You're clearly a CCP communist shill, just repeating what your communist overloads want you to say and believe. trying to spread propaganda about how great the CCP is, just like USSR tried for decades. But in the end it was all hot air and lies.
    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.  @dabo5078  J-20 is not 5th gen. USAF isn't even worried about them once they got some data on them. “However, China has operated two exascale systems for over a year - it has just kept them relatively secret, and not submitted them to the Top500” exactly, they don't count as the claims are unsubstantiated propaganda. failure to submit to independent verification = fraud. "Last time I checked which is a few minutes ago there are NO working hypersonic missile in the US. " well, that's because you didn't try very hard.
    1
  148.  @oot007  describing yourself I see
    1
  149.  @oot007  that's a lot of babbling you did there, with no substance to back up your babbling. Ad hominem is not a valid argument. Try using facts next time.
    1
  150.  @oot007  you love trolling don't you? Probably the only thing you're good at.
    1
  151.  @borrago  that's not what defines a tank at all. most takes can't take a hit from another tank, including every Russian tank. Tanks were not in fact designed to duel one another. do you even know what the primary function of ANY tank is?
    1
  152.  @generalrendar7290  Yes, they can put up a symmetrical fight, for a little while. But if the SU were to take on Russia, at the start of the Ukraine war, head to head, the US would have curb stomped Russia within a month. China is a little harder, but not much. Opening moves are to secure the island blockade of China, sink any and all Chinese warships as fast as possible with submarines and air power while keeping bulk of US primary naval assets east of Philippines, and missile strikes on Chinese harbors, command and control, airbases, major supply lines, manufacturing, power plants to critical military facilities, etc. Just pound them from the air for a few weeks nonstop. Then play the long game of espionage, fostering revolt, blockade, and starve them out.
    1
  153.  @xkavarsmith9322  .....but in every movie and TV show, the puny humans always magically and inexplicably prevail somehow, usually by giving the aliens water.... Didn't you see Battle for Los Angeles? the US Marines kicked alien butt last time they were here. 😆
    1
  154. I'll take a Patriot battery over an S-400
    1
  155. sikorsky raider feels like the better approach for many missions
    1
  156. go figure, the JATO launched V-1 and F-100 from the 1940s-1960s are making a comeback.......
    1
  157. 200 aircraft and a few ships is a small price to pay for defeating China
    1
  158. how many AIM-174 can it carry?
    1
  159. nope, this mounts on literally ANY vehicle.
    1
  160. US lost minimal tanks in its wars since Vietnam, even when using them in ways they are not designed for, and for types of combat they aren't suited for. The tank is not dead.
    1
  161. USAF pilots have since said they can beat the F-16. Though the F-16 can still win in a merge, as it's still THE dogfighting beast. But F-22 pilots have also admitted that a skilled F-16 pilot can also beat an F-22 in a merge. The F-16 is just that good of a close range dogfighter.
    1
  162. there is no such thing as a symbolic act of war. it's simply an act of war.
    1
  163. f-36 Kingsnake?
    1
  164. "highly capable missile systems" Based upon what? when have we seen them demonstrated in actual combat? stop making claims you can't backup without relying solely upon CCP propaganda.
    1
  165. Sunk cost fallacy doesn't apply to the F-22, it already exists and is operational.
    1
  166.  @jonathanbowen3640  keeping the F-22 on has NOTHING to do with "sunk cost". Sunk cost does not apply here. we have to keep the F-22 since we have no suitable replacement yet. Cost has nothing to do with it. It's about loss of capabilities when teh world is on the edge of war.
    1
  167.  @jonathanbowen3640  wrong again. the upgrades were delayed thinking it would get retired earlier. when they realized they couldn't retire it yet, then they approved upgrades to keep it viable. "You're getting too bogged down into the specifics the f22s. " Liar. I haven't mentioned a specific yet. " The sunk cost is obvious the question is how will the sunk cost fallacy work out moving fwd. " this is the dumbest nothing burger you've spewed yet. "I hope you understand more clearly now. " fortunately I'm not retarded like you. You need to learn what the Sunk Cost Fallacy even is, as you have no clue what you're spouting off about. Sunk Cost Fallacy "The sunk cost fallacy means that we are making irrational decisions that lead to suboptimal outcomes. " Upgrading the F-22 is not a suboptimal outcome, it's an optimal outcome. Upgrading the F-22 is a rational and practical decision. it was the right decision as well.
    1
  168. the MQ-20 Avenger isn't new either.....look it up
    1
  169.  @4DCResinSmoker  served with it, in locations.....unless you were involved in its testing, I doubt it. don't BS a vet.
    1
  170.  @4DCResinSmoker  irrelevant. proves nothing.
    1
  171.  @4DCResinSmoker  what's your point? I don't care that you don't care. You made a huge claim, but didn't back it up with evidence. You care enough to make a worthless comment though.
    1
  172.  @4DCResinSmoker  "armchair champion"........ says the guy citing his service as if that is evidence enough his BS is true. But if you want to play that game.... I served multiple years in combat with a multitude of USAF and Army drones. I'm also an airplane and helicopter pilot, and aerospace engineer. I know a thing or two about these things. But I guess you think "arguing" is you making up crap and then not providing any evidence of any kind to back it up.
    1
  173.  @4DCResinSmoker  sore loser
    1
  174. you need to compile a list as I have in the past, of all the former US stealth prototypes, and a list of all operational stealth aircraft the US has ever fielded to date. They are both very long lists. you get things like, Have Blue Tacit Blue Bird of Prey Reaper drone X-32 YF-23 A-12 RAH-66 FB-22 F-X F-XX X-36 Boeing's 1960 stealth prototype X-45 X-47 ... F-117A B-2 B-21 RQ-170 RQ-180 F-22 F-35 MQ-25 Stealth Blackhawk .... variety of Loyal wingman prototypes NGAD F/A-XX .... and don't forget the SR-71/A-12/YF-12 were intentionally designed to be stealthy with canted tails, chines, and materials to reduce radar detection.
    1
  175. uh, we've known this for a long time already. years ago in fact.
    1
  176.  @voidtempering8700  Wrong. SAMs destroyed =/= Su-27 Family success at SEAD. most of those were not destroyed by Su-27type aircraft. Su aircraft have a habit of eating SAMs to destroy them. Russia's air doctrine is DEFENSIVE, not Offensive like the US. They lack the capabilities that the US has for SEAD.
    1
  177. Guns only, lightweight, super maneuverable, unarmored aircraft were already proven obsolete in WW2 with the Japanese designs. And the Japanese designs were built to a doctrine that was already obsolete in the 1930s. the fact they saw no value in missiles, shows how ignorant they were. Not to mention how important range has been in a design since WW2 (Zero, P-51, B-21, F-35, extended range F-16/F-18/F-15, etc.). In fact, Sparrow missiles scored a large portion of air to air victories in vietnam, as well as Sidewinders.
    1
  178. 6:30 "Feats of Russian Engineer" = finally developing technology Western nations have had for 50yrs already.
    1
  179. air breathing cruise missiles? do you not know what a cruise missile is, nor how it works? Many drones are electric powered, still calling them "air breathing"?
    1
  180. I was thinking of that. could get much closer using that.
    1
  181. it doesn't even EXIST!!!!! This is a concept on paper, maybe a mockup has been built.
    1
  182.  @elmohead  you clearly have no comprehension of these things.
    1
  183. Fighter Aircraft Eras (simplified) WW1 Era Inter-war designs WW2 Era Korean Era Vietnam Era Desert Storm Era Post-Cold War Era
    1
  184. China is so "advanced" they're still trying to copy the US's decades old homework.
    1
  185.  @Robert-ff9wf  fair, you are correct.
    1
  186.  @9HighFlyer9  "...the CIA applied paints...", you also mentioned materials, but I was discounting mere paint. RAM is not merely paint.
    1
  187.  @9HighFlyer9  I was focusing on RCS reduction, so the paint for optical doesn't factor for me. We've been using paint for optical camo since WW1. And The U-2 was never stealthy enough to evade IR nor Radar. And Black isn't visually stealthy when something has closed to within visual range.
    1
  188.  @bleachorange  Well said. I think this is an excellent way to summarize it.
    1
  189. this is why they are snatching washing machines and TVs. they need the chips
    1
  190. we already know what loyal wingman looks like. google it. it's not a secret.
    1
  191. china still hasn't challenged US stealth export monopoly.
    1
  192. AI victories against human pilots in virtual reality don't count. Until they defeat a human in real aircraft in a real dogfight, don't claim victory. It's far harder for an AI with incomplete and imperfect info about the world outside to fight, compared to a simulation with perfect data awareness.
    1
  193.  @scottabshire21  total strawman argument right there. try again gomer.
    1
  194.  @scottabshire21  Standoff weapons to hit moving targets beyond line of sight? how are you going to observe and target those targets? please share with me your combat qualifications? I have years of recent modern combat experience using modern weaponry and equipment. Equipment most countries like China and Russia don't have, or at least their troops don't have. I developed and tested tactics in actual combat. I'm also a professional Airplane and Helicopter pilot and a Mechanical engineer with numerous patents and world records, and have even developed ground breaking technology for NASA. I tested all sorts of prototype equipment and weapons in combat as well.
    1
  195. what happened to her? maybe she succeeded and blasted herself into outer space?
    1
  196. USAF hasn't yet met and air defense network they couldn't obliterate in a matter of weeks. the Fighter isn't dead.
    1
  197. F-15 has never lost in actual combat, yet can be beaten in training easily. And I think that's where this idea of an invincible fighter comes from is the perfect kill ratio of the F-15. But it's just hype. But consider that if in teh 4th gen environment, teh F-15 has been able to do so well, imagine how much better the F-22 can be in the same environment. But none of that changes the fact that both the F-15 and F-22 can be beaten. but the key is to remain focused on the bigger picture, not on single combats. And when looking at the bigger picture, the F-22 is scary good.
    1
  198.  @dextermorgan1  yes, but the clip in the video and people claim an advantage of these is avoiding detection, which is a load of crap. And you don't have to hit them to defeat them. They are not at orbital velocity, and we can and have intercepted faster missiles and targets multiple times with multiple weapon systems over teh decades. But even if the missile fails to intercept, it can still work. every time the Hypersonic missile changes course it bleads energy, and gets harder to get back on target, and becomes easier to hit, or just eventually becomes incapable of reaching its target. Don't have to hit it to kill it.
    1
  199. anyone who uses "China is not the Taliban" when discussing serious military matters, doesn't know what they are talking about. As they are trying to dismiss legit criticisms of whatever the proposed, or are about to propose. I dealt with this same sort of nonsense during my time in combat from people who never studied the history nor fundamentals of warfare. Same when discussing Ukraine/Russia instead of China.
    1
  200. 2:25 In 1991 Iraq had the, 6th largest Army 3rd largest tank Army #1 most heavily defended airspace on Earth US 4th gen aircraft with technology and weapons 33yrs older than today's current state of the art, kicked down the door like it was nothing.
    1
  201. US doesn't have to match CCP fighter for fighter. When you have tech superiority, training superiority, and such, you can achieve something like a 10:1 ratio, or even better. Even in Vietnam the US was able to achieve an 11:1 ratio. P-51, F4U, B-29 and more achieved kill ratios in the 11:1 range in WW2. And those conflicts involved peer forces. US does not face a peer force anywhere on earth.
    1
  202. F-15EX is 4th gen, no thrust vectoring, and still as maneuverable as the F-22
    1
  203. drop them from very high altitude and give them glide wings and those 80 bombs can glide something like 40mi from the drop point, giving the bomber a very spread out target zone.
    1
  204. the V-22 had very real engineering issues resulting in numerous accidents during its development. V-22 accidents seem to be fatal more often than not. lots of helicopter accidents can still be survived.
    1
  205.  @alanOHALAN  "Chengdu engineers are truly great engineers." time will tell. But I work with Chinese engineers in my job, and they are Not innovative at all. It's a cultural issue that prevents them from being innovative. And I've even had fellow Chinese engineers back me up on this. they see the same problems I do. But if you don't think China copies from Russia, US, and others, you clearly know nothing about aviation. the list of CCP knock offs is ridiculously long. Russia even wont sell certain things to CCP because they Know they only want to buy a few to copy them. the CCP makes no attempts to hide the fact they are copying.
    1
  206.  @alanOHALAN  I can generalize in this case because the reason their engineers aren't good or innovative is not due to lack of individual ability, but due to societal pressures. China is catching up so fast because the world economic groups are still favoring china and giving them every unfair advantage. also, the CCP implemented Capitalism, which it is now trying to roll back. "Once they are done catching up, then they will be doing more of the inventions." it doesn't work like that. "This current generation of engineers born after 1980s have proper education, unlike those before then who had only basic education due to culture revolution and just poverty in general." that has nothing to do with why they suck at engineering. the lesser educated people are actually better engineers. I'll hire a farm boy with no college degree over a modern day engineering graduate.
    1
  207.  @alanOHALAN  " CCP is a party like Democrat party, the party doesn't run the country's industries." What!?!? the CCP 100% runs Everything in China. They control the corporations, nationalize any business getting too wealthy or influential, the PLA military belongs 100% to the CCP not the country of China. "Most of the engineers are not into politics." that doesn't matter. You have no clue how China works, nor how communism works.
    1
  208. the V-22 are maintenance pigs compared to teh aircraft they are replacing
    1
  209. Don't forget that Bell is biased in favor of their aircraft, and their charts are a Sales Pitch.
    1
  210. 7:40 getting better? than what? not performing very well in Ukraine right now.
    1
  211. 7th Gen: SSTO space fighters Basically never gonna happen
    1
  212. nope. VT fuses and proximity fuses don't have altimeters. some might, most do not. Most explosive rounds are armed by rotation or shock of being fired.
    1
  213.  @ImpendingJoker  Flak was an Allied term, a shorthand of the german term, and the Allies used Flak to describe a very specific set/category of antiaircraft weapons.
    1
  214.  @generationkilled  the term "Flak" is an allied term, not German. And so those who come up with the term get to define it.
    1
  215. bunch of made up nonsense. it was an act of war no matter how you try to be politically correct and give Iran a pass. stop justifying acts of war.
    1
  216. aircraft that never flew don't count, like the A-12 dorrito
    1
  217. you can mount this on nearly any vehicle too.
    1
  218. 200 aircraft losses and a handful of ships is a small price to pay to defeat China.
    1
  219.  @wisenber  Germany was defeated in WW2, but still stands. Japan likewise was defeated. Russia is being defeated in Ukraine but still exists. Defeat of China is winning the war.
    1
  220.  @richardparker1338  you defend Taiwan by defeating China. that's how it works. China is the warmonger threatening Tawain. US only has to act to defend them if China starts the war. Defeating china is in the entire world's best interest.
    1
  221.  @Bk6346  seems you're disproving the US are warmongers.....
    1
  222. I don't disagree with the questions about generations. 5th gen is generally stealth capability, and advanced avionics/sensors. 6th gen is stealth, optionally manned. But I'd argue my own definitions. 1st gen jets are from WW2 (Meteor, Me262, P-80...), and peaking with the likes of the F-86, Mig17, A-4, etc. They are subsonic early fighters. 2nd gen would be mach 1 capable, after burning engines. Radar and Missile capable. F-4, Mig21, F-100, etc. 3rd gen would be energy maneuverability multirole fighters (F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, Mig29, Su-27, etc.). 4th gen would be stealth capable, super cruising, etc. There are of course execptions to these, and those could be described as their lowest most applicable category. Electric Lighnting was supercruise, but not 4th gen. F-4 was multirole, but not 3rd gen. Mig17 was afterburning, but not 2nd gen, etc.
    1
  223.  @SCP-POOL  doesn't matter. it exists, and existed many years ago. a simple swipe of a pen brings it back.
    1
  224.  @cluelessracer328  it's not as though the US is selling tons of MQ-9 either. But yes, it didn't offer enough for the role the US wanted.
    1
  225. some months ago the F-117 was operating out of Duluth MN and flying all over northern WI in support of training exercises. People at the public airports got photos and video of them.
    1
  226. wow, you're just figuring all this out now? this has been know for years.
    1
  227. whenever talking about prototype vs production, show pictures comparing the X-35 and F-35, and the YF-22 and F-22, side by side. they are very different airplanes.
    1
  228. in a fighter design competition...one wins, the other loses. More often than not the technologically superior aircraft loses. If too advanced and complex, it doesn't make a good combat aircraft and becomes difficult to support & maintain in the field.
    1
  229. US 6th gen will use easier to maintain, lower cost stealth features (smaller size to begin with, slower speeds for lower cost aerodynamic solutions, less fussy radar materials, more composites, etc.), favoring quantity production over pure technological superiority. this means they may give up some degree of stealth capability in order to prioritize keeping costs down and production quantities up. Especially if many of the 6th gen are unmanned drones, that are made to be expendable. Who cares if they aren't super stealthy if you designed them to take losses? You care about being stealthy enough to be a serious threat, and then make them as cheap as you can to overwhelm the enemy with them.
    1
  230.  @sergiom9958  yes, that's basically what I said
    1
  231. when you study the commonality of parts in the US military during WW2, it's actually rather impressive considering the variety.
    1
  232. F-16s have used stealth canopies too
    1
  233.  @phoenixrising4573  continuing to use logical fallacies to make your case.
    1
  234.  @timehammer4352  then why doesn't CCP have plans for the B-21, NGAD, and much much more?
    1
  235.  @川建国-h5r  yes, china copies, and without copies, they'd be nowhere. no one perfectly guards state secrets, you'd know that if you studied history.
    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.  @dammy  and the US can sink those carriers at any time with cruise missiles, submarines, etc. the hypersonic glide missile is not powered and loses speed after launch. it does not maintain that speed all the way to target. you keep citing a random number like a broken record that doesn't prove anything. There are many different speeds it flies depending upon a number of variables. But as it descends into lower altitudes and thicker air, it slows down to avoid burning up. And if it's going fast enough to develop a plasma boundary it cannot detect anything nor communicate to get updated guidance. and without guidance the odds of hitting anything that is moving is very slim.
    1
  238.  @johnsullivan8673  do you even know what a turbojet engine is? A variable cycle engine is not a valid excuse to have engines. You claim I'm wrong, yet fail to prove anything I said wrong, and have not listed a single alternative use for the engine that has a valid explanation.
    1
  239.  @johnsullivan8673  blah, blah, blah.....when are you going to say something that actually matters? All modern jet fighters use turbojet type engines. that doesn't explain the need for a third engine. Adaptive cycle engines for higher efficiency is a new concept, and few such engines exist yet. And even adaptive cycle engines doesn't explain the third engine. make an actual argument instead of asking stupid pointless questions. At this point you're just proving my statement correct. The reason for the third engine is a lack of thrust, and one or two engines alone isn't sufficiently powerful enough to achieve performance targets. And thus far you have no argument to the contrary.
    1
  240.  @johnsullivan8673  "WRONG. The standard for combat aircrafts is low bypass turboFAN. You literally don’t know what you’re talking about." which is just a turbojet with a little bit of bypass air. still a turbojet. "A turbofan thus can be thought of as a turbojet being used to drive a ducted fan", but being low-bypass, it is more turbojet than turbofan. But you're Still missing the WHOLE point. NONE of this explains the third engine. Lack of thrust from crap Chinese engines does. You are the one who has no clue what you're talking about. You can't even stay on topic nor address the core challenge.
    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. A race to develop 5th gen fighter engines? when? US: develops advanced engines Russia: pretends it too is developing something that will actually make it off the drawing board. China: still trying to catch up to Russian engine technology.
    1
  243. it's called the MQ-20 Avenger.....look it up
    1
  244.  @PrograError  irrelevant. prop planes are far less stealthy though.
    1
  245. 13:30 "russian forces operated well beyond the reach of their supply lines..." The Russians were tens of miles from Russian territory............ rarely more than 100mi from friendly territory...... The fact Russia couldn't supply its forces beyond its own borders tells you a lot about the Russian military.
    1
  246. US has the B-21, B-2, F-35, F-22, NGAD, etc. Even as other nations like Russia, China, South Korea, UK, and others seek to field their own stealth aircraft, the US's most obsolete stealth aircraft from the 1980s are still stealthier than anything these other nations have yet been able to produce....says a lot about just how far behind everyone else is. Tacit Blue, Have Blue, Bird of Prey, YF-23, YF-32, F-117, SR-71, various stealth drones, Loyal Wingman, Ghost Bat, AH-66, stealth UH-60, DDG-1000, Sea Shadow, etc. US has a long history of stealth aircraft and stealth technology, both in research as well as operationally.
    1
  247. an Army officer claiming a "comprehensive analysis" was done means that no one who will actually have to use it in combat had a say in it.
    1
  248. My picks (and the aircraft it competed against) F8U-3 Crusader III (F-4, also good choice) F-20 Tiger Shark (F-16, also good choice) F-16XL (F-15E, also good choice) F-23 Black Widow (F-22, also good choice) F11F-1F Super Tiger (F-104, bad/wrong choice)
    1
  249. comparing accident rates of the V-22 to harriers, F-35, F/A-18 is out of line. compare it to CH-47, CH-53, UH-60, UH-1, CH-46, or not at all. If you're not comparing like to like then you're trying to hide inconvenient truths.
    1
  250. thrust vectoring won't win a rate fight against an F-16. and if it's not close enough for that, then thrust vectoring doesn't matter at all. basically, thrust vectoring is not that useful in modern air combat.
    1
  251. AI are not as advanced as people think. There are still a LOT of critical skills and tasks AIs can't do. And sensor information in the real world is not even remotely as clear cut as in a simulation. And AI struggle to maintain visual recognition of a target. What sensors will these drones be fitted with to recognize a NATO Su27 from a Chinese J11? How will the aircraft track the other aircraft throughout the dogfight? Tesla AI still struggles to drive a car in 2D at short distances. How will an AI in jet fighter track faster and more distant objects in 3D while maneuvering, and while determining who is friendly, and who is not?
    1
  252.  @nedkelly9688  Detecting the presence of a missile and having enough info to maneuver against it are not the same thing. often time s the missile is transmitting, broadcasting it's presence. What if an enemy fighter is not doing that? Flying in close formation is one thing, maneuvering in relation to an unknown bandit within 1-2miles is another. not all friendly/allied air forces have the transponder tech or latest fighters we have. Are you going to shoot down allies? "How does one determine a Chinese destroyer from their copied Western designs also." ships are a bit easier, as they are larger and have distinct shapes and radar signatures, the CCP does not possess Arleigh Burke destroyers for example. But still an issue with positive ID, yes. But you must have radar data on them, and have radars capable of that level of detail. Your radar ranges of small jets is ridiculous. Where are you getting such values. You're talking about over-the-horizon detection with radars that can't bend like that. "Military officials talk up the AI in these newest drones and can't be all lies." I work in the AI industry. AI is misunderstood by most people, especially those not working on it, and even some who are working on it. AI is not yet to the level people think it is. You thought you'd just ask, and someone would simply fork over to you Top Secret info on a very sensitive piece of military tech? wow, you're dumb. Why not just ask for specs on the B-21 while you're at it?
    1
  253.  @nedkelly9688  "Said's it has no controls like a Reaper or anything else they give the AI a command of a mission and it does it all itself with just a human custodian watching over it.." not the first drone they've tested this on. But nothing here proves how capable it is or is not. Stating it does something, does not state how well it can do it, nor what parameter limitations are programmed into it. "Saids it thinks for itself the entire mission." same can be said for your cellphone, or laptop. Proves nothing. A software program executing its code autonomously is "thinking for itself" the whole time. But you have to be Very specific here about what that means.
    1
  254.  @nedkelly9688  "Maybe your AI company is garbage at it then lol." Ah yes, insults. The inevitable ad hominem fallacy from those who have no clue what they are talking about. "We may never know but USA was impressed with it and brought one to test and only time will tell." Without the help, expertise, and gov approval from teh US, the Ghost Bat would not even exist. It is a US project, being done for Australia. "But the AI was so good they built AI submarine now also using it and wouldn't if was rubbish. " yes, but what does that submarine have to do? Navigate, not run into things, observe, report, etc. Rather simple by comparison.
    1
  255. ​ @nedkelly9688  My argument isn't contingent on insults. wow, you can copy and paste. congratulations. The US defense contractors worked on teh drone, as they did on fighters for a few other countries like japan. Those companies cannot share such knowledge, expertise, technology, etc. with foreign nations without the US DOD's express permission. The US greenlit these projects, provided funding, resources, personnel, etc. to make them happen. Go ahead and cherry pick aspects of the project specific to Australia, that's to be expected on such projects, just like the projects in Japan and other countries where they are doing a lot of the heavy lifting. Do you know how many countries funded, manufacture, or worked on the F-35? It's a US design/project though. But none of this has any bearing on the efficacy and capabilities of a particular AI. Nor does it prove what the capabilities and limitations of that AI are, and what restrictions have been placed upon it, such as weapons firing, target selection, friend or foe ID, etc.
    1
  256.  @nedkelly9688  There you go again, copy and pasting. None of this is relevant to the original argument. But go ahead and keep throwing a temper tantrum...
    1
  257. ​ @nedkelly9688  The airframe design and stealth is Lockheed Martin. The DOD has AI F-16, X-45, X-47, X-47A, Global Hawk, MQ-25, X-37, X-37B, and much more for decades. Did you know the US used kamikaze drones in combat in WW2 against Japan? Interstate TDR-1. "the best parts of it of the AI and the detachable nose that no other country has ever done" US has created swappable payload bays for decades in a variety of aircraft. Heck, one could argue the P-38 was an early form of this. Australia has almost no experience designing aircraft. They had some good designs in WW2. Whereas the US has been fielding unmanned unpiloted (and by that i'm not including remotely piloted, but fully unmanned) airframes for longer than I've been alive. US has been at the forefront of AI development both in the military and the civilian world. "even the resin injection of the frame is Australian as are the only country in the world who can do it." perhaps, but not significant and depends on the Exact details that makes it special, but it could be easily replicated. Resin injection and composites I can even do in my house. Most likely it's merely that no factory currently has the special tool used, which can easily be remedied by buying the tooling. Keep trying though, maybe you're pathetic attempts to make an unrelated argument might workout, but probably not in my lifetime.
    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.  @nedkelly9688  yup, wondered how long it would take for the insults to start. here they come, floodgates are open. Remind me how Australia won WW2? Those CCP agents really did infiltrate Australia after all. "Until you can tell me what USA designed on it " if you actually read my comments you'd know I already did, quite explicitly. Cope harder. "All the drones you mention are not combat fighter like drones." neither is the Fox Bat. Fox Bat merely carrier standoff munitions. it's not going to dogfight enemy fighters. But the US F-16 drone is the first dogfighting drone. And many of the aircraft I listed, and more, were the testbeds of the software going into the F-16 and Fox Bat drones. The X-47 was a weapons employment test drone. The US has fielded armed drones since WW2. But I know I'm wasting my breath arguing with a CCP communist living in Australia acting like Australia is the best and most powerful nation on earth......according to no history book ever.
    1
  260.  @nedkelly9688  IQ counts for nothing if not put to good use. Belarus? have you seen the sate of that place? Japan is talking about mass suicide. Hong Kong is not a country anymore. But if you want to play these stupid games. Lets take all of the US citizens with IQs over 100 and put them on one side fo the country together. I bet the US has more people with IQs over 100 than most of the countries on that list have citizens total (including children). Try again, cope harder. Also, notice how Australia isn't on that list? The top 5 biggest US cities or so alone have as many people as Australia has, not even counting the suburbs. "but no one can deny it has developed a lot of good tech" list examples. I can't think of a single thing that came from Australia that has greatly impacted the world. Transistors? Submarines? Airplanes? engines? Computers? Internet? GPS? electricity? Steel ships? Steam engine? Printing Press? Cellphones? Automobile? Trains? nothing comes to mind. "OOH i must be a comunists chinese." well if I copied the crap you say, but replace every time you said Australia with "China" or "Russia", you sound just like one of their 50cent army.
    1
  261.  @nedkelly9688  "lol now IQ by population damn Australia 4th and has a tiny tiny population lol.. hmm means are smart. Top 10 Countries with the Highest Intelligence Capital Index - 2017: United States - 74.88 (A+)" But you proved my point, the US is the smartest, and Australia is not. way to put your foot in your mouth, once again.
    1
  262.  @nedkelly9688  I never said no one helps the US develop weapons. In fact it was me who pointed out to you teh F-35 was a joint venture, and the work with Japan and other nations as well. Lots of collaboration with the UK in WW2, etc. But Australia is not some world leader in tech development. the have the population of Long Island New York.
    1
  263.  @nedkelly9688  Australia is not the world leader in AI. Actually AI can appear seemingly out of nowhere. People create AI programs from scratch all the time and talk about it on YouTube. The reason is that much of the algorithms are self-generated, just have to get the basics down. then it's about feeding it data and having good parameters. But Australia is not the world leader in it just because they helped make software for a drone. Clearly I struck a nerve. You can't stop. I slept soundly while you kept responding in long form. Nice to know I occupy so much of your mind that you think of me constantly.
    1
  264.  @nedkelly9688  "Allies won WW2 with help from other's but again you have no idea as the ground forces in Pacific by Australia and America were about even." wow, you just keep digging like a good CCP 50cent army soldier. YEs, the allies won WW2. But take away the UK, Australia, and such and we still would have won. Who provided fighters to Australia? Ammo? Food? Did you know the US brought so many people to Australia in WW2, it changed the Australian population and culture forever? The US fought in the Atlantic, Pacific, Pacific Island, Alaska, India/China, Med, North Africa, Italy, Western Front in Europe, did strategic bombing, and provided lend lease to the USSR, UK, France, Australia, and many more. We provided the ships, airplanes, rifles, ammo, medicine, food, tanks, trucks, fuel, and more. Australia would have fallen to Japan if not for the US. You had few aircraft and pilots and were outclassed. But go ahead, be a good Communist shill and claim the Australians and USSR single handedly won WW2 all by themselves.
    1
  265. new about all of them, and many more
    1
  266. and EA-6B and EA-18G of the Navy
    1
  267.  @dejbreadloaf538  no doubt.
    1
  268. 1 resourceful & motivated F-16 Ukrainian pilot vs 2 low experience Su-30 Russian pilots... My bet is on the Ukrainian pilot.
    1
  269. many variants of the U-2 over many years performed Carrier TO/L. And I've heard from a source that the CIA did in fact use carriers to support U-2 operations for real.
    1
  270. the very first production Su-57 crashed on its initial flight. giving something like a 10% loss rate and it still hasn't seen operational service. teh F-35 has already seen combat.
    1
  271. MQ-20 Avenger
    1
  272.  @Thelastyou-l7k  technically, never. But they fought the US in Korea (and were beaten badly), in Vietnam their SAMs and such again failed to stop US forces. In Iraq the Russian systems again failed to stop NATO forces. And now in Ukraine NATO systems are devastating Russian forces.
    1
  273.  @alexcraig8543  the bombs are held on the CG to begin with
    1
  274. on par......you mean that rusting russian fleet? what drugs are you on?
    1
  275. we already saw it a few years ago on a trailer.
    1
  276. F-16 are Wild Weasels F-16 dodging 6 SAMs with no countermeasures F-16 are air superiority fighters F-16 are mutli-role CAS fighters .............. F-16 can survive contested airspace.
    1
  277. i thought the goal of NGAD was to be a low-cost high-volume production stealth fighter that used largely existing technology?
    1
  278. Talked to V-22 pilots, who said replacing the greyhound with it in the USN was a mistake. Due to maintenance, readiness, and payload issues.
    1
  279.  @bernadmanny  V-22 has a LOT of moving parts, it will Never be easier to maintain than a greyhound. Standard carrier ops are also disrupted by the V-22. It takes 3 V-22 to do what 2 Greyhounds could do. this and more coming from USN V-22 pilots. V-22 has some advantages, but overall it's worse.
    1
  280. I was hoping you'd do this follow up video after your last video. I knew EXACTLY what was coming and knew a video addressing it would be in order.
    1
  281. 1:20 such as climate change doom and gloom lies about CO2
    1
  282. second best military in Ukraine. Not even top ten best militaries in the World. Ukraine has a better military, and Ukraine isn't even close to being top ten.
    1
  283.  @martinedwards2004  "How much does it cost to build a hanger?" Not much relatively speaking. Especially considering the wear and tear on aircraft left out in the elements. "How much does it cost to replace the plane?" A Lot. "Is this a hard business decision?" It is for Russians
    1
  284. whatever teh USN is buying, the USAF will buy more.
    1
  285.  @matchesburn  yes
    1
  286.  @LaughingOrange  Ukraine proves otherwise. but that's not the question. it's one of quantity. If the USN buys 200 6th gen fighters. the USAF will likely purchase at least 3x that many. How many F-4 did the USN have at a given time vs the USAF? How many F-35 does the USN have at a given time vs the USAF? How many F-14 did the USN have at a given time vs F-15 in the USAF? How many F-18 does the USN have at a given time vs F-15 the USAF? How many F-18 does the USN have at a given time vs F-16 the USAF? How many F-22 does the USN have?
    1
  287.  @matchesburn  F-4 Phantom (countless countries and the USAF), F-18 (Switzerland, Canada, Australia...), A-4 Skyhawk (Argentina, Israel...), F4U, F4F, TBM, SBD, F-111 (Australia, USAF...), Super Étendard, etc. Then you have the variant aircraft like the F-35, F-86, F-15, Mig29, Su27, Spitfire, Mosquito, and more, where the naval and land based versions add or remove the features. Then you have the land-based aircraft that need no carrier modifications at all. B-25, C-130, V-22, OV-10, AV-8B, etc. And even still, the F-15 and many others still have tail hooks, though not quite as robust if used daily, but could be upgraded to be tougher. And the F-16 landing gear is very much like that of the F-8, meaning it could be navalized, and was considered for navalization. And let's not forget the need for operating from damaged or unimproved runways. Something we used to plan for in teh Cold War, and that Ukraine is proving was/is a valid concern. Aircraft like the Gripen, F-5, A-10, AV-8B, OV-10, Mig29, Su27, and more were specifically designed for this purpose. While others like the F-18, F-35, and such could be used in this manner.
    1
  288.  @matchesburn  Way to ignore the entire argument due to invalid cherry picked criteria that doesn't prove you right. Notice I also listed many US aircraft examples. Mostly US in fact. F-4, AV-8B, OV-10, C-130, U-2, B-25, F4U, F4F, SBD, TBM, F-18, F-111, A-4, F-86, V-22, F-15, F-35, and more. But in truth, you can't provide a valid counter argument to mine, and so rather than admit defeat, you falsely try to claim my arguments are invalid while trying to change the rules of the debate like a child trying to change the rules of a game of Monopoly whenever they are losing. My argument is 100% valid and intact. You have no argument at all. "Carrier aircraft have their own special requirements to meet CATOBAR standards. Requirements which lessen performance and... I shouldn't have to point this out... but aren't necessary to the USAF." this claim is not specific to only US aircraft, and the USN and USAF has historically flown aircraft of other nations as well, so they count, and other nations have used USAF and other naval aircraft as well, both for carrier and land based uses.
    1
  289.  @MotoroidARFC  Wrong. Landing is the toughest and most dangerous part. The catapults can be adjusted, and rather fragile aircraft have been catapult launched throughout history, and there are many types of catapults, many which don't attach to the landing gear at all. The first ever AV-8B uses no catapult, nor did the C-130, B-25, U-2, OV-10, etc. F-35 can launch with or without a catapult. Aircraft like the FJ-1, FJ-4, F6F, A-4, F-4, F-8, F4D, F11F, P-51 Sea Horse, F4U, and Super Etendard, and many more didn't attach the catapult to the landing gear at all. Aircraft like the B-25, P-40, J-3, P-47, Mosquito, and many more also launched from carriers both with and without catapults. Catapults put very little stress on teh airframe and landing gear the way a crash down arrested landing does. Want to see weak landing gear on a carrier? look at the Spitfire and Seafire. Hurricanes were even catapult launched off of transports in the Atlantic to ward off air attacks. All of Langley's attempts at powered flight used a catapult launch of his fragile aircraft, the last attempt on Oct 7, 1903. He died never knowing the Wrights had flown. The first ever ship launch and landings were done with Curtiss aircraft, very fragile in nature. Seaplanes were catapult launched from battleships, cruisers, seaplane tenders and such for many decades without issue.
    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.  @MotoroidARFC  not presently, but the F-35C has the same engine, and a 50% bigger wing. This mans the F-35C can takeoff and land slower than the F-35B. You lighten the load of an F-35C and it surely can do a ski jump takeoff. How do you figure a Su27 or Mig29 do a ski jump takeoff? Try a again. And none of this proves your assertion that the USAF won't purchase more than 200 6th gen fighters, if the navy were to purchase 200 6th gen fighters. You can try to stray off topic and try to drag this into the weeds, but I'm going to keep bringing us back on track as necessary.
    1
  293.  @matchesburn  "You specified in your post the United States Navy and United States Air Force. By name. " Correct, but only in response to how the USAF will be purchasing More 6th gen fighters than the USN. Maybe you should learn reading comprehension skills. Most people start to pick this up as a small child. The aircraft of various nations, most of which were USAF and USN aircraft by the way, was in response to the false claim that land based fighters can't have naval features like having landing gear or arrester gear. In fact, such features are even desired for land based fighters in situations like the war Ukraine finds itself in right now. And I showed that there are many combinations of aircraft that both do and don't have naval landing/launching features, that have all been used both on carriers as well as primarily or exclusively land based operations. Maybe you should sit down before you fall down. I doubt your brain can do 2 tasks at once while attempting to think. It's probably past your bed time anyways.
    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.  @MotoroidARFC  "the French don't use cables to launch their aircraft from their carrier. The aircraft that launched that way were retired. Their carrier aircraft use nose gear CATOBAR." doesn't matter. they did, can, could, and so can the US. And you still haven't proven that takeoffs are more damaging to aircraft than landing. you're now just trying to derail the argument in a pathetic attempt to avoid looking like you lost. But the sad thing is you're losing the side bar argument as well.
    1
  296.  @MotoroidARFC  "so you agree that landing aircraft are going to be lighter than at launch?" in general, yes, but not always. A plane could have launched light for training or some other reason, then topped off on a tanker before landing, assuming it is still below landing weight. but this doesn't prove you right, it proves me right. if takeoffs were harder on it, it would need to be lighter on every takeoff done with a catapult compared to unassisted takeoffs, and this simply is not true.
    1
  297.  @matchesburn  ""Correct." So you just admitted you were wrong. Nice. Thanks." Wow, you are such a childish troll. How about we put that pathetic attempt at lying into context, shall we? ""You specified in your post the United States Navy and United States Air Force. By name. " Correct, but only in response to how the USAF will be purchasing More 6th gen fighters than the USN. Maybe you should learn reading comprehension skills. Most people start to pick this up as a small child." Saying "correct" doesn't mean everything you're trying to claim was ceded, and you were only fractionally right at best.
    1
  298.  @MotoroidARFC  "why do you keep bringing up aircraft that don't operate from aircraft carriers?" Wow, you're a dumb one. This is you original statement, seeing as you don't remember your own arguments. "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." And my arguments are all 100% relevant to explaining why you are wrong. "And bring up aircraft that could but don't have crews that know how?" I never brought that up, nor is your assertion correct about people not knowing how to land aircraft. keep trying though, you might grow a brain before this is all over.
    1
  299.  @MotoroidARFC  "I said they were heavier and endured more stress than landing when they are lighter than at launch." Wrong, you said, "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." And this statement is FALSE. The forces at launch are completely different than at landing. the forces during launch are rather mild and benign, other than the local stresses felt by a nose wheel launch due to the stresses being applied to it specifically in a sub optimal way. the ONLY thing feeling such stress on takeoffs is the nosewheel strut. On landing, the ENTIRE aircraft is getting a beating. the Wings, fuselage, tail, landing gear (mains and nosewheel), pylons, etc. and all being subjected to very large forces compared to takeoff.
    1
  300.  @MotoroidARFC  "yes it does matter when equipment isn't available to do so and when the people who are experienced in such launches aren't around and such launches are unnecessary." it takes a few hours to train people. all the training manuals, training videos, etc. still exists, as do the blueprints for the parts. "There are more modern aircraft that can do far more than the aircraft that use the obsolete method." more capable in terms of what? avionics? an F-14 or F-4 could have ben upgraded with ALL of the latest sensors, avionics, targeting pods, etc. Just like the F-15EX, and F-16 block 70. An F-4 and F-14 in many ways are far more capable than many modern carrier fighters, in things such as payload, speed, range, maneuverability, etc. And imagine if they were given newer engines, fly by wire, and such they'd be even better. But even still, saying, "There are more modern aircraft that can do far more than the aircraft that use the obsolete method.", does NOT prove that aircraft experience far greater forces on launch than landing. If you want to compare launch and landing fairly, then consider a single jet (F-4D?) at 50% of its internal fuel weight, and no weapons. then explain how launch stresses it more than landing at the same weight.
    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.  @MotoroidARFC  "doing all that to an F-4 when doing that to an F-15, F-16 and F-18 is more worthwhile oh wait they already did." that doesn't answer my question. I never said they should do it, only that if they HAD, what capability would it lack. Again, you know I'm right, so you try to change the question. very time I ask you a simple question, you change the subject to avoid answering. you're racking up losses. "At the least the B-52s have been upgraded constantly and remain operational.' so was the F-4, until it was retired. "They were not completely taken out of service and then completely brought back into service years later because we don't have anything else. " again, no one said to do that. But the F-4s were brought back into service, as target drones. "As if an enemy will sit back and watch as obsolete aircraft are practically rebuilt and crews are trained." you're a clueless fool
    1
  303.  @MotoroidARFC  Yes, those old F-15C and F-16A/C are so young....not. You completely lack the understanding for this conversation. or, you knowingly are playing the fool thinking it saves you from being wrong.
    1
  304.  @MotoroidARFC  "and what aircraft in the US inventory uses cables to launch off carriers?" changing the question, yet again I see, while completely missing the point, yet again.
    1
  305. after beginning a huge upgrade program, they wont be immediately retire the F-22
    1
  306. still an act of war
    1
  307. It's not that the J-20 never loses. it's that even if it did lose, teh CCP will never admit it and claim it was victorious. they are playing the same propaganda game USSR did that led the West to falsely beleive the Russian army was far more capable than it actually was. Convinced people the Mig25, T-90, Su-34, and S400 were some sort of super weapons, when in fact they are rather bad.
    1
  308. yup, MQ-20
    1
  309. that was my first thought too
    1
  310. and the F11F-1F
    1
  311. lets see how safe it is as the airframes and engines age out.... like the worn out aircraft you're comparing them to.
    1
  312. the V-22 problems go all the way back to the development of the concept
    1
  313.  @zidniafifamani2378  once you account for all the money pocketed by Generals and contractors with each sale, the real price is much lower.
    1
  314.  @sulljason  Yes, they are surprisingly similar.
    1
  315. V-1: unmanned Cruise Missile Baku: manned Cruise Missile
    1
  316. US designing missiles: Air to ground missile: "Put katanas on it!" Air to air missile: "Put a gatling gun on it!"
    1
  317.  @Justanotherconsumer  wtf are you going on about?
    1
  318.  @713Tankbuster  guys I served with are still in, and guess what, we talk about it.....shocker. It hasn't been THAT long since I got out. If anyone is disconnected it's recruiters. I don't watch Fox news, I don't watch MSM news at all. but this response you made is a canned DEI Leftist brainwashed response. GI Joe? for asking legit questions? So that's a no for you on combat experience and seeing what DEI does on the battlefield. Does this attitude work for you recruiting others?
    1
  319. it's called the MQ-20 Avenger.....look it up
    1
  320. yet a single Patriot battery can intercept targets, with real world case examples.
    1
  321. wood and fabric aircraft are rather stealthy.
    1
  322.  @peekaboopeekaboo1165  the E-2 is the most blatant copy China has made today. they literally changed nothing other than maybe the radar disk. you clearly don't know what it measn to copy something from an engineering perspective. the Chinese cargo planes copy the US C-17 a LOT. and the E-2 copy they have is as close as a copy gets without having plans or an original aircraft to use.
    1
  323. NGAD will be high volume production, that is a requirement of the program.
    1
  324.  @Elthenar  I personally received Danger Close air support from a B-1 in Afghanistan. 38x 500lb bombs dropped within 200-500yds of our position one night. I'll never forget that. I also received CAS from the A-10s of the 23rd Flying Tigers. Close up gun attacks. Nothing like seeing an A-10 attack, and it truly does put the enemy on notice. The enemy never sees the B-1 coming, but they see the A-10,a nd that is more effective than people realize at pushing back enemy attacks. Some times a show of force is required. "The sensors and electronics on an F-35 would let it drop an SDB extremely close to friendlies relatively safely." same for the F-15E and F-15EX, which can theoretically carry up to 50-60 SDBs at once. and SDBs have a potential glide range after drop of up to 50miles to target, allowing significant standoff from the targets. The F-15E would orbit overhead in Afghanistan and just wait for calls for air support. You could spot them if you looked hard enough, just flying circles overhead, waiting. In Iraq my unit got CAS mostly from AV-8B, F-18, AH-1, UH-1, AH-64....(with the Marines) In Afghanistan my unit got it mostly from Kiowa, AH-64, A-10, B-1, and F-15E... (with the Navy Seabees)
    1
  325.  @recoil53  And an SDB can kill a heavily armored tank. heavy industry is not made of hardened armor, nor reactive armor. Name an example of a piece of equipment in a factory in any industry critical to a war effort that a well placed SDB cannot destroy or damage?
    1
  326.  @recoil53  "A factory can be a big place. Taiwan already has the machinery, so stopping them from getting it is out. " yes, but that machinery Taiwan uses is EXTREMELY delicate. ridiculously high precision and delicate. Even when working perfectly today it produces defects in chips. It is EASILY damaged, destroyed, and can even be disrupted by the mere shockwave from a complete miss. A few well placed bombs will destroy their chip capabilities. And factories have a process and layout to them. If you know the manufacturing process, it's very easy to know which parts of the building to target. Nowadays, our intel often includes copies of the floor plan and equipment inside which rooms, so we know exactly what to hit and where inside the building to strike. And once you hit the machines, they can't get anymore in the middle of a battlefield, let alone install them and get them working.
    1
  327.  @dallasyap3064  exactly
    1
  328.  @hoghogwild  "C'mon dude SDB wouldnt be used to destroy a heavy factory." it would be used to damage, disrupt, and put out of commission. also, define "heavy factory"? What makes something a "heavy factory"? Name an example of a "heavy factory"? Give an example of how an SDB wouldn't be able to take that factory offline?
    1
  329. F11F-1F
    1
  330. yes, there aren't many 5th gen fighter designs. However, the SU-57 is not 5th gen. It's as stealthy as a 4th gen fighter, less avionics capabilities than most 4th gen western aircraft..... It has not of the core prerequisites for claiming to be 5th gen. You have to be at least Better than a 4th gen to claim to be 5th gen.
    1
  331.  @rainman6080  it's also the EPA bans. look it up.
    1
  332.  @datadavis  I've been shot at by technicals. they weren't terribly accurate. they get lucky sometimes. but they are more accurate in video games than in real life.
    1
  333. @ you seem confused about what is being discussed.
    1
  334.  @nedkelly9688  "you crying as you been called out for not knowing what cars are in other countries.." never happened. you seem to be responding to the wrong person in the wrong thread. "Australia has had this defense system for years already built to be put on the back of Toyoata pickup trucks.." so? what's your point? how is it relevant?
    1
  335.  @nedkelly9688  not relevant to the discussion. But since you want to go there, "technicals", trucks with guns mounted to them were used by the US in Mexico before entering into WW1. but nothing you've said so far contributes to teh discussion at hand.
    1
  336.  @BurntOrangeHorn78  no, the F-22 and F-35 will be ahead of the B-21 targeting the enemy fighters. B-21 would just be the bus bringing the missiles.
    1
  337.  @DefaultProphet  definitely
    1
  338.  @PitFriend1  the US does highway takeoff practice every couple years.
    1
  339.  @gow1044  war never changes
    1
  340.  @gow1044  War is about using force to get what you want from your opposition. You fight until one of you is either dead or gives up. Give me an example of how you think war has changed?
    1