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

@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
@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
@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
@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
after beginning a huge upgrade program, they wont be immediately retire the F-22
1
still an act of war
1
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
yup, MQ-20
1
that was my first thought too
1
and the F11F-1F
1
lets see how safe it is as the airframes and engines age out.... like the worn out aircraft you're comparing them to.
1
the V-22 problems go all the way back to the development of the concept
1
@zidniafifamani2378 once you account for all the money pocketed by Generals and contractors with each sale, the real price is much lower.
1
@sulljason Yes, they are surprisingly similar.
1
V-1: unmanned Cruise Missile Baku: manned Cruise Missile
1
US designing missiles: Air to ground missile: "Put katanas on it!" Air to air missile: "Put a gatling gun on it!"
1
@Justanotherconsumer wtf are you going on about?
1
@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
it's called the MQ-20 Avenger.....look it up
1
yet a single Patriot battery can intercept targets, with real world case examples.
1
wood and fabric aircraft are rather stealthy.
1
@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
NGAD will be high volume production, that is a requirement of the program.
1
@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
@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
@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
@dallasyap3064 exactly
1
@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
F11F-1F
1
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
@rainman6080 it's also the EPA bans. look it up.
1
@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
@ you seem confused about what is being discussed.
1
@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
@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
@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
@DefaultProphet definitely
1
@PitFriend1 the US does highway takeoff practice every couple years.
1
@gow1044 war never changes
1
@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