Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Ed Nash's Military Matters" channel.

  1. inline converted to radial example Ki-61 to Ki-100
    1
  2.  @raywhitehead730  Your father's past doesn't change my argument in any way. Nor does having a father who worked in lasers confer that knowledge nor expertise onto you by way of genetics nor osmosis. And just because lasers were in their infancy 60yrs ago, doesn't mean that is the current state of affairs, nor that it will remain the state of affairs. In less than ten years we went from basically no laser weapons, to many. New technologies always suck and cost a lot in their infancy. Guided weapons were in their infancy in the 1950s and how many times did they declare teh age of guns over, only to have the missiles fail? Yet now, the age of the missile is actually here for real. It takes time to develop tech and work out the issues. Everything I said stands.
    1
  3.  @raywhitehead730  In what way is anything I've said immature? You having to cite you dad for legitimacy is immature, if anything was. That's the type of thing I expect to here from college students, but not from people who can stand on their own merits. I've tested prototype weapons and equipment for the military on the battlefield, and designed technology for the gov/military, outside the military too, so what? Lots of people have been in/out of the military and work on military technologies. That doesn't make you right.
    1
  4. To be fair, $10 each launch is for a reusable rocket. High power rocketry converted to single-use is much more expensive. However, I agree it still would/should be far cheaper than what the military is paying.
    1
  5. paraphrasing, "It was soon proof that no bomber was going to outpace German fighters....." De Havilland Mosquito
    1
  6. for decades the US at large has tried to get Europe to contribute more to their own defense and stop relying on the US. Now we finally got what the US public wanted, and what the Europeans claimed they wanted. and everyone that claimed they wanted this is mad. ironic really.
    1
  7. juggernaut is the origin I've heard
    1
  8. I'm a fan of not throwing them away, giving them away, or scrapping them, and holding them in reserve storage in AZ as long as practical. in a large scale conflict, we just might need to bring them out of storage. Numbers may matter, and I like being prepared.
    1
  9.  @dashikashi4734  Costs nothing to maintain aircraft i a boneyard.
    1
  10.  @theotherohlourdespadua1131  "You still have to pay for the security and amenities of said security and get this" wrong, that cost is already being paid today, and will continue to be paid, regardless if A-10s end up there or not. "Don't conflate "boneyard" with "junkyard"" stop projecting your opinions onto me and attacking me for things I never said. I never once claimed the boneyard was a junkyard. Learn to read.
    1
  11.  @dashikashi4734  but if/when that time comes, we can worry about it. Hopefully it never comes. So not a problem. But to your point, boneyard aircraft are retrofitted and reflown all the time. Some sold to other nations, some turned into flying target drones, etc.
    1
  12.  @ChucksSEADnDEAD  Cars/aircraft don't deteriorate in teh AZ desert the way they do elsewhere. I used to live/fly there. Aircraft are reflown out of the boneyard plenty of times including the present day. US military reuses boneyard planes all the time. Just like the mothball fleet, you hold them in emergency reserve as long as you can, just incase a large scale war (China) errupts at just the wrong time and suddenly you find yourself short on aircraft due to early losses and wishing you hadn't thrown all those planes away. You can dip into older reserve aircraft short term while production catches up on newer designs. Better to have something old and used than nothing at all if that happened. If such an event doesn't occur in the next ten years, then go ahead and start scrapping them or selling them off. "After thousands of hours, they're unsafe." When parts wear out, you replace them. Did you know the entire A-10 fleet just got brand new wings? upgraded cockpits? They are newly refurbished and good for many decades to come now. All the old worn out parts were recently replaced completely. They are basically brand new aircraft. Do you throw your car away every time the tires need changed? I didn't replace my car when the shocks wore out, I replaced them. I didn't throw my 1960 Cessna 150 away when parts cracked, we replaced them. Still flying and getting performance numbers very close to factory new in the manual.
    1
  13.  @ChucksSEADnDEAD  "They don't deteriorate in the desert. They deteriorate by being flown" clearly you don't know what a "hangar queen" is. People in aviation do. The A-10s are not at end of life. they've been rebuilt and upgraded and are basically new again, many decades of service left in them. "If you're going to rebuild the entire thing, you're buying a new aircraft." and that's what they did, replaced all the old worn out items, brand new wings, new engines, new avionics. All the fatigued parts were replaced. clock has been reset. " A total waste of money because everyone knew this would happen." but the money has already been spent, so why scrap them? "Aircraft are built to be lightweight so they flex and strain with flight hours, depressurization and landing/take off cycles. Your Cessna's never exceed speed is what, 170 knots? Make it pull 7-8 Gs at 280 knots like an A-10 and see what happens." I'm a mechanical engineer. You're wrong. an airplane designed to withstand higher Gs has that factored into the design, to withstand that fatigue and stress accordingly. If the A-10 was designed to handle 7Gs, pulling 7Gs wont degrade its useful life. Pulling less will extend its life though. The Cessna was designed to withstand ~+3G/-1.5G, and so long as you stay within that, you're fine. But that's why they replaced the wings, not just on the a-10, but the f-15s as well. Exceeding limits can result in damage or premature failure later on. But when expecting to take higher loads, you design accordingly. You can even make high stress components with near infinite fatigue life if you us the right materials in critical places and size them correctly.
    1
  14.  @joshuarebennack68  I enjoy reading Barnaby's stuff, and learn what I can from him, but I've met him and talked to him. He seemed to me rather dismissive of new ideas not his own. He was quick to bash ideas which have been tested and verified by many people, as failures, and was opposed to seeing those ideas tested further, despite the data showing promise contrary to Barnaby's dismissive feelings on the matter. Basically, I came away from talking to him rather put off and not wanting his input where new ideas were concerned. Thanks for the link though. I was not aware of this report and am curious what he found.
    1
  15. meanwhile, for decades the US at large has tried to get Europe to contribute more to their own defense and stop relying on the US. Now we finally got what the US public wanted, and what the Europeans claimed they wanted. and everyone that claimed they wanted this is mad. ironic really.
    1
  16.  @Jusuff  sadly, that's my understanding as well, they bought them only to help boost international sales, and then used some for aggressors given their size and performance characteristics compared to things like the Mig21
    1
  17.  @fazole  Yes, the armaments of the Zero was in the requirements. So the weights and structural elements accounted for that. To pull off the combination of range, speed, agility, and firepower, it was necessary to factor it in from day one. The Raiden cowling looks nothing like the P-66 cowling. Rained has a fat sloping long nosed look to it. Both the P-66 and Raiden cowlings were designed to fit their airframes and engines. Most radial engine cowlings have the same basic form factor, there is no reason to copy another rather than fit your cowling to your specific airplane unless your goal is to sabotage your own design.
    1
  18. @Aqua Fyre Convergent Evolution is the term we use in engineering. Multiple engineers designing for the same set of goals, given a certain state of technologies, materials, understanding of aerodynamics, etc available at the time, tend to result in similar solutions to the same problem. Hundreds, even thousands, of airplanes were designed around the world in the 1930s and 1940s. It is inevitable that some would share similar solutions. But the Zero was revolutionary when it was designed and first made operational, and no one can prove, with actual evidence, that the design was in any way copied from any other specific aircraft other than superficially.
    1
  19. that airplane would fit right in in a Harry Potter movie.
    1
  20. @ agreed. US is tired of europeans freeloading. and if they don't want us butting in, then they can't complain when we follow their advice and butt out and tell them to develop and fund their own weapons.
    1
  21. it didn't change. go to an airshow and see late model mustangs in action. when the engine fires up and the pumps come on, the doors close.
    1
  22.  @danpatterson8009  people like action shots. Some photographs are actually stills from a motion camera even. People take pictures and video of planes taking off, landing, on mission, etc. Google "P-51 Parked" and you'll get a variety of images of mustangs with gear doors open and closed. Some are freshly parked. And others, after a fresh rebuild, might hold pressure for longer with tight seals and such. Takes longer for the pressure to bleed out.
    1
  23. continuing to find unique aircraft I've never heard of before
    1
  24. an official Russian document cited 48k killed and losing men at a rate of 8.3k dead per month on average. the vehicle losses you cited are low.
    1
  25.  @robertl6196  I know, I'm just thinking about how helicopters upgraded their unguided rockets to track laser designator beams to improve accuracy of the cheap rockets. And the laser guided 50cal. Why not incorporate such compact laser seekers into the warheads of rocket launchers and recoilless rifles like the Gustav and the LAW? Take cheap munitions, add simple seeker, and improve the existing weapons on the cheap.
    1
  26. this is not the exception that proves the rule. The Me 309 is ugly. It was ugly the first day I learned of it, and it is still ugly now.
    1
  27. NATO airpower could largely destroy most of the heavy equipment Russia has in Ukraine and render the remaining combat ineffective in a few days even, based on how the Russians have been fighting.
    1
  28.  @martijn9568  "Only some variants of the Allison engine produced 1700hp, and none were put in the P-40, the P-39 or the P-51 for that matter." not true. engines capable of 2200hp were in late model P-40s. After the war engines modified for racing reached 3300hp. Curious thing how engine stats are reported. they pick a single value, usually much derated, and then ignore the max horsepower possible. Greg has done a video on this as well, so it's not just me saying it.
    1
  29.  @IncogNito-gg6uh  Commanders and Generals begged to get more P-38s. The real issue with the P-38 was its cost, and consumption of resources. For 2x the money and engines (not to mention the extra maintenance), you got half as many fighters. in a war of logistics this wasn't going to continue, especially once better single engine fighters were plentiful. More likely the P-38s started to get neglected and run short of parts as they were phased out, and that's why you saw increasing issues as planes wore out from use and lack of support.
    1
  30.  @IncogNito-gg6uh  the Allison was tough and reliable. In fact, many restored or replica WW2 fighters today fly on Allisons (Yaks, FW190...). the issue was it's carburetor. it never received the attention it needed. Allison got shafted by the US gov during WW2. They never got the funding they needed to develop induction systems, and I don't understand why. The engine was lighter and more powerful than the RR Merlin. It just need a better carburetor first off, then a proper forced induction solution. the P-38 had a cold cockpit issue for sure though. I think part of the problem is that most pilots have a strong tendency to try to maneuver fight. the P-38 was not a maneuver fighter. it was a dive in fast, shoot, climb away, turn around and try again. Boom and Zoom. but this requires both patience and discipline. Low skill pilots always resort to turning when they get flustered or scared. and that just wasn't the right thing to do.
    1
  31.  @IncogNito-gg6uh  But the US gov never invested in developing a 2 stage supercharger for the Allison. And the US gov aborted development of the turbocharger that was supposed to go into the P-39 and other aircraft. Some of this was the result of RR lobbying. Rolls Royce successfully pulled strings to interfere with and even destroy engine manufacturers in the US and UK. Many engines with potential were sabotaged by RR political influence. Allison even had excess manufacturing capacity available, when other engine manufacturers were swapped, and the US gov never utilized that.
    1
  32. Nobody is going to be buying Russian hardware after this. The Russians were already struggling to sell their tanks, planes, and ships, compared to the past. Between western offerings and China, Russian equipment doesn't seem to be that popular lately.
    1
  33.  @scratchy996  Cherry picking huh? There is also the Leopard, Challenger, and other tanks besides the M1.
    1
  34.  @stephenjenkins7971  Many on the left in the US are self-professed Marxist Communists. The inevitable end result of socialist governments is a form of communism. CCP is communist in every way. They permitted limited Capitalism in order to progress somewhat. Now they are reverting back to full communism because capitalism was making their people independent thinkers who were questioning the CCP. The Russians were communists who called themselves socialists. Putin and all who seek to recreate the Soviet Union are Communists at heart. Fascism exists on both sides of the spectrum despite what people try to claim.
    1
  35. the EU banking and national disunity is rather unstable.
    1
  36. kills against aircraft on the ground don't count the same
    1
  37. @Aqua Fyre They count in a military value sense, but not in an "Ace" kill tally sense.
    1
  38. nothing dumb about a bag of hammers. a construction crew might be in need of those hammers.
    1
  39.  @bigblue6917  I'm not sure you're understanding what I said.
    1
  40. just because lot of something was made, doesn't make it great. IL-2 for example. The B-24 was weak (wings came off too easy, and started on fire too easy), couldn't fly high enough putting it at greater risk to Flak and fighters, and the US put the B-24 on easier missions overall as a result. WW2 US Bombers did a detailed analysis of this using primary sources.
    1
  41.  @jacksons1010  the IL-2 was a crap aircraft, when judged objectively against its contemporaries. It was simply built in massive numbers, and was the most shot down aircraft if combat history. Nope, the B-17 was the Sherman of US bombers. Tough, reliable. Sherman fought on the front lines, B-24 was largely relegated to secondary roles and targets while other bombers were given the tough and primary targets.
    1
  42.  @sergeychmelev5270  SBD, A-36A, Ju-87, Typhoon/Tempest, P-47, P-39, P-40, Hurricane, F4U, Mosquito, FW190, P-38, A-1, etc. IL-2 top speed was 250mph, service ceiling was 16k ft, rate of climb was 1000fpm, lacked maneuverability, was vulnerable from below (Hartmann's favorite way of shooting them down). Many post-WW2 civilian airplanes perform better than this, and on far less HP too.
    1
  43. An Army Deuce and a Half can do that too, and it doesn't have a turbine. Diesel engines and jet engines basically run on the same fuel. In aviation, there is no distinction between jet or diesel, all run Jet A. The US military already basically runs all its vehicles on the same exact fuels. Jets, helicopters, trucks, tanks, ships, even multi-fuel dirt bikes...
    1
  44. B-17, B-24 also, you shouldn't influence the answers of the viewers by showing them bombers BEFORE asking the question.
    1
  45. Budget OV-10
    1
  46.  @Niinsa62  interesting. I thought it could super cruise. Most modern fighters with newer engines are being designed to be able to supercruise. I just assumed the F-35 was the same. The engine is powerful though, so it makes sense it guzzles gas. But the spec for the F-35 was clear about not needing to go mach 2. Speed isn't as important these days as it used to be.
    1
  47. @GbbJunkie But it still happened, and it was done to improve performance by saving weight. I know not All Japanese aircraft (including fighters) didn't have them. I'll be more specific next time.
    1
  48.  @Thekilleroftanks  I am Generalizing. They took the radios out for various reasons, to improve performance by saving weight. Yes, the airframes could handle their Designed stresses, but once you shoot a few holes in them, they don't hold together so well anymore. Whereas Western airplanes weren't built as fragile and could withstand some pretty amazing damage to their airframe itself.
    1
  49. why can't Europe be expected to fund its own wars?
    1
  50. Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, etc. need legit competition to challenge their monopolies. As an American, this is Necessary. Capitalism doesn't work without competition nor with monopolies.
    1