Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "" video.

  1. The simple fact is that media does not understand the complexities of fighter development and the F-35 is not a rare case Sukhoi was given the contract for the PAK FA in 2002 which become the Su-57 yet its 2024 and there barely 32 Su-57 due the massive delays with the project Chengdu built the J-20 as outgrowth of the JXX program. There are 300 built however in the 13 years its flown, its gone through over 5 engine changes as China continues to struggle with developing reliable engines for it aircraft. Also realize that China deleted the gun from the J-20 which cut development and design time Now note that with the Russian and Chinese programs, the sole users were just RuAF and PLAAF while the F-35 is built to meet the requirements of the export market Simple facts like this , the media glosses over
    19
  2.  @trunglequoc542  Lets see A Su-57 at best can pull 12G while modern AAMs can pull over 20G but most importantly Short range AAM equip TVC control kinetic performance
    4
  3. Why would the SecDef answer questions from someone he doesnt answer to He wouldnt as Cruz sets on no military related committee
    4
  4.  @petersmythe6462  Kinetic performance only matters up close
    3
  5. The Su-57 contract was awarded 1 year after the F35 yet there are barely 32 made
    2
  6.  @danahebdon6810  Exactly my point Despite all their claims, they barely have any built The links are gone but in 2007, they were claiming that by 2012, the Su-57 would over take the F-35 Iran was supposed to get Su-57 by 2022 as by then there would have been over 1500 Su-57 built Russia made several lofty claims about its program and it failed miserably
    2
  7.  @korana6308  Maneuvering is moot when the missile has a higher G load
    2
  8. of course Israel has no complaints The F-35 allows them control of the region
    2
  9.  @AgatBluvsky-ow9gp  All military matters are handled by HASC committees Cruz sits on none of those committees s why would the SecDef answer questions from someone he doesnt answer to Simple he wouldnt
    1
  10. All military matters are handled by HASC committees Cruz sits on none of those committees s why would the SecDef answer questions from someone he doesnt answer to Simple he wouldnt
    1
  11. All military matters are handled by HASC committees. Cruz sits on none of those committees why would the SecDef answer questions from someone he doesnt answer to Simple he wouldnt
    1
  12. Cruz sits on zero military committees
    1
  13.  @korana6308  Modern AAM have TVC allowing to effectively cope with aircraft equipped with TVC
    1
  14.  @3373just  Thats point, the F-35 problems are not unique. Russia is struggling to get the Su-57 fully operational
    1
  15.  @Nas12223  Great is not the word for it The F-35 software requires 8 million lines of code while the F-22 is 1.5 The Su-57 is 4 million lines The J-20 uses few weapons is its software is likely in 1-2.5 million range if you combine all the corners China has cut just to get this far The J-20 is not that great
    1
  16.  @korana6308  How about no The Su-57 was built with multi capabilities similar to the F-35 but failed miserably. The J-20 is simply a corner cutting project
    1
  17.  @korana6308  Wrong on all counts multirole capability is built into newer generation of aircraft The concept of single role aircraft is effectively dead. Secondly the Tu-22 and Tu-160 only wish they could do a fraction of the what the F-35 can do Lets recap . For SEAD, the F-35 carries AGM-88s , Tu-22s KH-15, the Tu-160 has no SEAD capability. For air to air, the F-35 can carry up 6 AIM-120s in stealth or 10 missiles in no stealth, the Tu-22 and Tu-160s carries nothing. The F-35s the JAGM, SPEAR-3 and SiAW Again the Tu-22 or Tu-160s carries nothing Heres a news flash kiddo, the Tu-22 and Tu-160s are nothing but oversized missile carriers that have very little use beyond using long range missiles The USAF upgraded all its strategic bombers with conventional weapons allow them to us 80 percent of same weapons as smaller strike fighters Russia didnt upgrade its bombers which is why they have been largely useless in Ukraine Lastly Air superiority/ air dominance fighters again a dead concept in modern warfare what could is your Air superiority/ air dominance fighters when I can easily smoke them on the ground Since the late 90s, destroying the enemy on the ground is far more effective than trying to fight them on in the air
    1
  18.  @M16_Akula-III  5th generation aircraft are software defined. They dont use federated system like 4th gen aircraft. Those lines of code define the aircraft capabilities Case in the point, the F-35 operate 6 different data links allowing to communicate in various ways without compromising its stealth The F-22 on the other hand has to use Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN). The Su-57 uses the S-111
    1
  19.  @korana6308  No, it didnt start with the 4th generation multirole capability goes back as far as WW2 however afters there was change to make aircraft for specific missions or single role however it died out as the cost of aircraft rose The F-35 is not a bomber , its multi role strike fighter. The word bomber implies that it like the B-52, B-1, Tu-22 or Tu-160, thoses are bombers, the F-35 is not The F-35 can perform SEAD, CAS, LAND ATTACK, ISR, CAP , ASUW and EW, Not a bomber. The Kinzhal has been a nothing burger The US plans for hypersonics are vastly superior to both China and Russia The Kinzhal is limited to just a few assets while the US planning for all assets to be able to use the same weapon across the USAF, USN and USMC whereas the Kinzhal usable on just MIG-31K and Tu22M3 which dont exist in great numbers They are oversize and useless
    1
  20.  @M16_Akula-III  Simple Your airfield is 400 miles from the coast I have my ISR monitor when take off, refuels in the air and cycles as well defenses and communication location When your aircraft hit the tanker to refuel, my EW starts jamming while hypersonic weapons approach A mach 10 hypersonic weapon covers 500 miles in roughly 4 mins The first missile strikes comms, followed second strike on radar, missiles 3 and 4 strike the taxi ways, while 5-6 strike the runways With holes in your runway , it buys time for stealth aircraft or subsonic cruise missiles to deliver the coup de grace and destroy your air force before they can get airborne The EA-18G w can suppress an S-400 however the subsonic TLAM needs little over an hour to reach its target and there is no way an for the EA-18G to jam that long thats ample time for defenses to counter and even more allow your entire air force to get airborne and even worst, plenty of time for defensive fighters refueling to top up and engage With Mach 10 hypersonic weapon, that hour becomes just 4 mins which EA-18G can easily suppress an S-400 for that long With comms and radar knocked out, the aircraft in the air have no idea whats is going on. Israel's Spike NLOS can strike targets up 30 miles away and they made special forces launcher that carries 8 missiles and can be internally carried by CH-47, CH-53s or MV-22 Same situation, they knock out comms and radar as well put holes in the runways and taxiways grounding your air force till the holes can be patched and allowing time for larger missiles like JASSM or TLAM to strike before aircraft can get airborne There are dozens of variations but by knocking radar, comms and cratering the runways and taxiway, you can keep the enemy's air force grounded
    1
  21.  @AgatBluvsky-ow9gp  Your facts of just plain disinformation For starters Questions regarding the military are handled by U.S. House Committee on Armed Services, commonly known as the House Armed Services Committee or HASC,which Cruz is not a part of Secondly that falls to the United States House Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces or United States House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness Again Cruz is not part of either So Cruz who holds no position on any of the committees regarding military affairs is confused why the SecDef basically ignored all his questions here's a hint Cruz you are not part of any committee that SecDef answers to
    1
  22. Your facts of just plain disinformation For starters Questions regarding the military are handled by U.S. House Committee on Armed Services, commonly known as the House Armed Services Committee or HASC,which Cruz is not a part of Secondly that falls to the United States House Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces or United States House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness Again Cruz is not part of either So Cruz who holds no position on any of the committees regarding military affairs is confused why the SecDef basically ignored all his questions here's a hint Cruz you are not part of any committee that SecDef answers to
    1
  23. Cruz isnt on any committee that SecDef answers to
    1
  24. @AgatBluvsky-ow9gp Your facts of just plain disinformation For starters Questions regarding the military are handled by U.S. House Committee on Armed Services, commonly known as the House Armed Services Committee or HASC,which Cruz is not a part of Secondly that falls to the United States House Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces or United States House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness Again Cruz is not part of either So Cruz who holds no position on any of the committees regarding military affairs is confused why the SecDef basically ignored all his questions here's a hint Cruz you are not part of any committee that SecDef answers to
    1