Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Sandboxx"
channel.
-
47
-
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
-
31
-
28
-
19
-
17
-
@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
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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