Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Found And Explained"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pyronuke4768 yes, the early losses were about 1:1, but that was because they never even bothered to tell the pilots how the AIM9 and AIM7 even worked. It was not an aircraft issue, it was a pilot/training issue. and once that was resolved, the F-4 was kicking butt.
and no, the US did NOT have air superiority over Vietnam at any point during the war.
"The 31 is to the 25 what the Super Hornet is to the Legacy Hornet. "
yes.
Mig25 sucked
Mig31 still sucks
"In everything except maneuverability the MiG-31 was roughly the equivalent of the F-14A."
Meaning it wasn't as good as the F-14.
"it would smoke an F-4 in BVR long before it got to the merge."
you cannot guarantee that. US pilots are smarter and operate in teams. Also, US radar is superior. And there are multiple ways to dodge missiles, especially when BVR. How many missiles can the Mig31 carry? Only have to wait for them to run out.
"The reason it doesn't have the KD ratio of the Phantom II is because the Soviet Union didn't stick around long enough to put it to good use and the Russian Federation that replaced them are utterly incompetent."
same excuse why every Soviet/Russian fighter today sucks and has been shot down a ton. Mig29, Su-27, Su-3, Su-30, Su-35, Su-31, Su-25, etc. Even Su-57 have been destroyed in combat already.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Eye_of_Typhoon North Vietnam lost every single major military engagement and offensive. And claiming who won has no impact on aircraft kill ratios, meaning you know you're losing and so are introducing red herrings and changing hte goal posts.
It was only after two major US military offensives that North Vietnam agreed to an end, and the US left. the US won militarily the whole time, lost politically, largely becasue we never should have been there in the first place.
Also, communist records are not trustworthy at all, never have been, never will be. US keeps immaculate records and tracks ridiculous amounts of detail from every mission. Speaking as a combat veteran myself.
early in war the ratio is one-to-one, later in the war the ratio jumps to four-to-one, and later jumps to as high as eleven-to-one. But when you stupidly and moronically average them out like you keep doing, you get closer to two-to-one.
In the first few years of the war, teh US pilots weren't even taught how to dogfight at all. and when they were, they trained against large less agile aircraft and thus didn't even know how to digfight the smaller more agile fighters. And on top of that, the pilots were never even told how the missiles worked nor how to use them. They were never taugh tthe AIM9 needed a solid tone before firing, nor that AIM7 needed four seconds to send target info to seeker before firing. they were never taught about the G-limits of the missiles and tail end firing cones they needed to be within before firing.
They couldn't dogfight, nor use the missiles and kept firing them without any lock. This is not the fault of the missiles nor the Phantom, but of pilot training and knowledge. Once they were taught how to dogfight and fire the missiles properly, and they finally knew how to fly teh Phantoms properly to its potential. the Migs never stood a chance after that ever again.
Your ignorance and propagandist mindset prevents you from having an intelligent and nuanced discussion of the facts from an objective standpoint. you prefer to be brainwashed and to attempt to brainwash others instead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@defaultarab well, it makes no sense to be dependent upon your enemy for weapons, parts, technology, etc. now does it.
But look at Ukraine. They were "friendly" and "allied" with Russia until recently, and they had very obsolete equipment.
NATO allies are afforded access to higher tech weapons and systems, as well as a a wider range of options too. NATO nations also tend not to be attacked by NATO. the Same cannot be said for allies of Russia (Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine, China, Germany, etc.).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@piotrd.4850 F-16, F-15, and F-18 don't have that good of range either. There are tradeoffs with stealth, and that is why the 4thg gen fighters aren't dead and we're still buying more.
But the YF-23 had things like space shuttle-like heat tiles to maintain, and the range and engines situation is not 100%. Look how much the YF-22 changed between then and production. the YF-23 would have had to change some too, and we don't know exactly how. It's all just guessing and wild speculation. They were comparable designs with comparable performance, and the YF-23 had the same limitations on internal weapons carriage.
Sometimes a fighter competition gets two equally capable planes and it can be a tough decision (YF-16 vs YF-17), or you get a weird outcome (F-111 vs F-14, where teh F-111 was chosen but failed as a carrier aircraft so they had to build the F-14 to replace it).
People want the YF-23 to be the answer, I like the plane too, and it's an interesting what-if, but we'll never know for sure. The fact is logistics plays a huge part in these competitions, more so than people realize, and all indications I see are that the YF-23 was more logistically challenging and expensive due to certain technology they decided to use.
1
-
1