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

  1. 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
  2. F-15EX is 4th gen, no thrust vectoring, and still as maneuverable as the F-22
    1
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5.  @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
  6.  @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
  7.  @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
  8. the V-22 are maintenance pigs compared to teh aircraft they are replacing
    1
  9. Don't forget that Bell is biased in favor of their aircraft, and their charts are a Sales Pitch.
    1
  10. 7:40 getting better? than what? not performing very well in Ukraine right now.
    1
  11. 7th Gen: SSTO space fighters Basically never gonna happen
    1
  12. 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
  13.  @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
  14.  @generationkilled  the term "Flak" is an allied term, not German. And so those who come up with the term get to define it.
    1
  15. 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
  16. aircraft that never flew don't count, like the A-12 dorrito
    1
  17. you can mount this on nearly any vehicle too.
    1
  18. 200 aircraft losses and a handful of ships is a small price to pay to defeat China.
    1
  19.  @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
  20.  @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
  21.  @Bk6346  seems you're disproving the US are warmongers.....
    1
  22. 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
  23.  @SCP-POOL  doesn't matter. it exists, and existed many years ago. a simple swipe of a pen brings it back.
    1
  24.  @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
  25. 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
  26. wow, you're just figuring all this out now? this has been know for years.
    1
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30.  @sergiom9958  yes, that's basically what I said
    1
  31. when you study the commonality of parts in the US military during WW2, it's actually rather impressive considering the variety.
    1
  32. F-16s have used stealth canopies too
    1
  33.  @phoenixrising4573  continuing to use logical fallacies to make your case.
    1
  34.  @timehammer4352  then why doesn't CCP have plans for the B-21, NGAD, and much much more?
    1
  35.  @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
  36.  @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
  37.  @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
  38.  @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
  39.  @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
  40.  @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
  41.  @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
  42. 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
  43. it's called the MQ-20 Avenger.....look it up
    1
  44.  @PrograError  irrelevant. prop planes are far less stealthy though.
    1
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. 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