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

  1.  @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
  2.  @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
  3.  @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
  4. I'll take a Patriot battery over an S-400
    1
  5. sikorsky raider feels like the better approach for many missions
    1
  6. go figure, the JATO launched V-1 and F-100 from the 1940s-1960s are making a comeback.......
    1
  7. 200 aircraft and a few ships is a small price to pay for defeating China
    1
  8. how many AIM-174 can it carry?
    1
  9. nope, this mounts on literally ANY vehicle.
    1
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. there is no such thing as a symbolic act of war. it's simply an act of war.
    1
  13. f-36 Kingsnake?
    1
  14. "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
  15. Sunk cost fallacy doesn't apply to the F-22, it already exists and is operational.
    1
  16.  @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
  17.  @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
  18. the MQ-20 Avenger isn't new either.....look it up
    1
  19.  @4DCResinSmoker  served with it, in locations.....unless you were involved in its testing, I doubt it. don't BS a vet.
    1
  20.  @4DCResinSmoker  irrelevant. proves nothing.
    1
  21.  @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
  22.  @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
  23.  @4DCResinSmoker  sore loser
    1
  24. 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
  25. uh, we've known this for a long time already. years ago in fact.
    1
  26.  @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
  27. 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
  28. 6:30 "Feats of Russian Engineer" = finally developing technology Western nations have had for 50yrs already.
    1
  29. 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
  30. I was thinking of that. could get much closer using that.
    1
  31. it doesn't even EXIST!!!!! This is a concept on paper, maybe a mockup has been built.
    1
  32.  @elmohead  you clearly have no comprehension of these things.
    1
  33. Fighter Aircraft Eras (simplified) WW1 Era Inter-war designs WW2 Era Korean Era Vietnam Era Desert Storm Era Post-Cold War Era
    1
  34. China is so "advanced" they're still trying to copy the US's decades old homework.
    1
  35.  @Robert-ff9wf  fair, you are correct.
    1
  36.  @9HighFlyer9  "...the CIA applied paints...", you also mentioned materials, but I was discounting mere paint. RAM is not merely paint.
    1
  37.  @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
  38.  @bleachorange  Well said. I think this is an excellent way to summarize it.
    1
  39. this is why they are snatching washing machines and TVs. they need the chips
    1
  40. we already know what loyal wingman looks like. google it. it's not a secret.
    1
  41. china still hasn't challenged US stealth export monopoly.
    1
  42. 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
  43.  @scottabshire21  total strawman argument right there. try again gomer.
    1
  44.  @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
  45. what happened to her? maybe she succeeded and blasted herself into outer space?
    1
  46. USAF hasn't yet met and air defense network they couldn't obliterate in a matter of weeks. the Fighter isn't dead.
    1
  47. 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
  48.  @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
  49. 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
  50. 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