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

@Spearhead45 The way you write is dead give away that English is a second language to you
16
@Spearhead45 yeah no, you have been exposed, Case in point, the PLAN only has 3 carriers and barely enough planes to fill them while the USN has 10 CVNs plus 9 LHA/D with ample aircraft F-18s and F-35 The USMC has enough F-35B to put 10 planes each on the 9 LHA/Ds while the USN has 30 fully equipped F-18E/F squadrons for its 11 carriers and thats not counting F-35Cs units, its called numbers and China doesnt have any.
8
@Spearhead45 No you are not , the fact that you give out that info so quickly again dead give away
7
@Spearhead45 Second the head of the US MDA has long stated the SM-6 is the US answer all Russian ad Chinese threats both aircraft and missiles
5
@Spearhead45 ’s missiles? The PL 15 is far better than the Amramn Again dead give away you are chinese The PL-15 has zero combat while the AIM-120 has 16 confirmed kills so how the quote PL-15 magically better when it has zero combat experience
5
And thats why the USAF and USN are confident in beating both Russian and Chinese air force They have more stealth aircraft for Dissimilar air combat training (DACT) than Russia and China The F-22 can practice against the F-35 for WVR and BVR combat It use the B-2 and F-117 for BVR All 4 can be used by the E-3 and E-2D to practice on spotting threats at long range as well as the EA-18G, EC-130 and EA-37 to simulate jamming
4
@Spearhead45 The only quote delay with US shipbuilding with the new Constellation class which is moot considering the USN steadily pumping out far more capable and newer Arleigh Burke-class destroyers with ease
4
@Spearhead45 The USN has the SM-6 IB in final testing as well the newly revealed AIM-174. Both of which plus the CEC, C2BMC program have effectively negated any threats from hypersonic weapon both Russian and Chinese,
3
@Spearhead45 And that matters because, oh wait it doesnt. In potential engagement in the Pacific, its USN carrier based aircraft salvoing LRASM against Russia or Chinese surface ships There is no going ship to ship. In the Atlantic , there USAF land based bombers have an easier time striking targets , again no ship vs ship so ship yards being behind is literally moot.
3
@area51z63 Wrong on all counts, stealing plans doesnt give you anything Chinese quote anti stealth capabilities are based on stolen data, and the limited testing that they can do with the J-20 , FC-31 and J-35 The US anti stealth capabilities is based on data from several projects as well testing they can do with the B-2, F-117, F-22 and F-35 The key point is the availability of much more aircraft that incorporates different designs and capabilities allows for more effective Dissimilar air combat training (DACT) than China . Having data is moot. The F-35 supposed downtime is literally moot. In potential engagement against Russia or China, JASSM , LRASM and uncle TLAM will be doing the most work. Only second to EA-18G, EC-130 , Rivet Joint and Combat Sent
3
Frankly if an adversary gets that close, then F-35 and F-22 havent done their job correctly.
2
DRFM are a good reactive measure but the best proactive measure is still destroying the SAMs and enemy aircraft before they can get a chance to fire on the F-35 That SiAW , MAKO and HACM programs that need to expedited Ideally they should revisit the JSOW-ER program and focus on keeping its 300 range and various payload options but increasing its speed The EA-18G is great but its still very much an easy target, they should work on two seat F-35 variant or two FA/XX that can take over the role of the EA-18G
2
@Spearhead45 Wrong The point of the AIM-174B is allowing to USN to engage targets well outside the fleet defenses
2
@Spearhead45 Again with the nonsense They are having with even basic battleships like the Arleigh Burke- Burkes are destroyers not battleships you lack of factual information is hilarious
2
The simple fact its modern warfare and more efficient for the B-2 to carry the heavy load while F-22s knock out the enemy's fighters. The EA-18G and F-16CJ against their defenses and the F-15E launching JASSM against their bunkers and command posts The F-35s role is using SiAW or MAKO against land based jammers, mobile launchers and other high mobile targets that pose a possible threat to the B-2s Combined with other assets, you dont need a large strike package of F-35s A few armed with SiAW, MAKO, GBU-53s and JSOW with BROACH and BLU-97s for target suppression to allow the B-2 to get range and deliver the KO out blows mojothemigo
2
@area51z63 Incorrect, The B-52 was loaded with the Harpoon and AGM-142 HAVE NAP in 80s and 90s as means to give the B-52 stand off strike capability against conventional targets The B-52 primary weapons were the AGM-86 and AGM-129 which were both nuclear tipped. They didnt get conventional warhead to much later The USAF could have kept conventional AGM-86 and 129 but they were only usable on the bombers The JASSM was designed to be usable on both bombers and strike fighters The CALCM had a beefy 3000lbs warhead with 700 mile range. Improved variants had increased range but carried a smaller 1200lbs warhead The point of the JASSM-XR is for the USAF to regain that range and heavy hitting power and as its JASSM variant, the cost is relatively cheap
2
@area51z63 If they perform correctly, the first strike will weaken an enemy severely however a war with China or Russia wouldnt be over in the first strike,
1
@Rob_F8F The F-18E/F yes but they havent committed to a EA-18G variant yet
1
@Rob_F8F that is the hope but we need an actually plan
1
Heat seekers are countered by Directional Infrared Counter Measures (DIRCM) which instead wide band jamming ,they used a focus beam to essentially fry the seeker DIRCMs are getting stronger emitters but ultimately its still a battle between measure and counter measure MAWS and RWRS work by detecting the missile and radar emission , AESA emissions are extremely hard to spot and missile are using more composites to make them stealthier Ultimately, in place of of flares, they need an active protection system (APS) similar to tanks that can launch small missile with payload similar the 35mm AHEAD round that releases a lethal spray of small fragments to destroy the missile
1
So you basically have no idea what you are talking about, more the point, you are a chinese troll First one, we dont say " we have four shipbuilders in the United States of America People from the US say, the country only has 4 shipbuilders or in the US , there are only 4, The way you write is dead give away that English is a second language to you Secondly, the countering Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM), has already been done, The head of the US Missile Defense Agency has long stated that the SM-6 is capable of intercepting ASBM in terminal phase. The goal of the SM-6 Block IB program is increasing the SM-6s range so it can perform longer range interception of hypersonic weapons allow for mid course interception in addition to terminal phase. Additionally, the point of the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) is reducing the time it takes for ships and aircraft to to engage incoming threats. Lastly, the USN revealed the AIM-174B which is air launched variant of the SM-6 The AIM-174 gives the USN the ability to down Chinese tankers, AWACS and other C4ISTAR assets from over 250 mile away. The F-18E/F can carry 4 Combined with the SM-6 block IB, ASBM as well Chinese aircraft are not a threat to the USN and thats counting the host of improvement like that C2BMC program which allows USN ships to fire missiles and hand them off to off ship assets like the THAAD and Patriot sites The point of C2BMC is even if J-16D or 15D jammer managed to build USN ship radar, they can use someone else sensors to fire with @Spearhead45
1
So you basically have no idea what you are talking about, more the point, you are a chinese troll First one, we dont say " we have four shipbuilders in the United States of America People from the US say, the country only has 4 shipbuilders or in the US , there are only 4, The way you write is dead give away that English is a second language to you Secondly, the countering Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM), has already been done, The head of the US Missile Defense Agency has long stated that the SM-6 is capable of intercepting ASBM in terminal phase. The goal of the SM-6 Block IB program is increasing the SM-6s range so it can perform longer range interception of hypersonic weapons allow for mid course interception in addition to terminal phase. Additionally, the point of the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) is reducing the time it takes for ships and aircraft to to engage incoming threats. Lastly, the USN revealed the AIM-174B which is air launched variant of the SM-6 The AIM-174 gives the USN the ability to down Chinese tankers, AWACS and other C4ISTAR assets from over 250 mile away. The F-18E/F can carry 4 Combined with the SM-6 block IB, ASBM as well Chinese aircraft are not a threat to the USN and thats counting the host of improvement like that C2BMC program which allows USN ships to fire missiles and hand them off to off ship assets like the THAAD and Patriot sites The point of C2BMC is even if J-16D or 15D jammer managed to build USN ship radar, they can use someone else sensors to fire with @Spearhead45
1
@Spearhead45 So you basically have no idea what you are talking about, more the point, you are a chinese First one, we dont say " we have four shipbuilders in the United States of America People from the US say, the country only has 4 shipbuilders or in the US , there are only 4, The way you write is dead give away that English is a second language to you Secondly, the countering Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM), has already been done, The head of the US Missile Defense Agency has long stated that the SM-6 is capable of intercepting ASBM in terminal phase. The goal of the SM-6 Block IB program is increasing the SM-6s range so it can perform longer range interception of hypersonic weapons allow for mid course interception in addition to terminal phase. Additionally, the point of the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) is reducing the time it takes for ships and aircraft to to engage incoming threats. Lastly, the USN revealed the AIM-174B which is air launched variant of the SM-6 The AIM-174 gives the USN the ability to down Chinese tankers, AWACS and other C4ISTAR assets from over 250 mile away. The F-18E/F can carry 4 Combined with the SM-6 block IB, ASBM as well Chinese aircraft are not a threat to the USN and thats counting the host of improvement like that C2BMC program which allows USN ships to fire missiles and hand them off to off ship assets like the THAAD and Patriot sites The point of C2BMC is even if J-16D or 15D jammer managed to build USN ship radar, they can use someone else sensors to fire with @Spearhead45
1
So you basically have no idea what you are talking about, more the point, you are a chinese t First one, we dont say " we have four shipbuilders in the United States of America People from the US say, the country only has 4 shipbuilders or in the US , there are only 4, The way you write is dead give away that English is a second language to you
1
@Spearhead45 there’s no arguing that the United States Air Force in the Navy is the largest in the world in China Again with the giveways There is no United States Air Force in the Navy there clueless one, its called Naval Aviation
1
@MostlyPennyCat The focus is trying to negate Chinese forces in air as they lack the numbers to face off against the USN The focus on weapons like the SiAW, MAKO and HACM as well the AIM-174 , AIM-120D FR3 and AIM-260 to negate Chinese capabilities Chinese's strategy relies solely on DF-21s against the USN fleet and DF-26s against Guam Guam has ample defenses to deal with the DF-26s but USN needs SiAW , MAKO and HACM to negate the DF-21s, radar site and SAM sites The F-35 uses its stealth and EW to locate the DF-21s and forward back to F-18s with HACM to engage while using the SiAW or MAKO its carrying knock out radar sites PLA cant shoot who they cant see The AIM-174, AIM-120DFR3 and AIM-260 take out Chinese tankers, AWACS and other C4ISTAR assets The PLA and PLAN will attempt to do the same with their missiles against US tankers, AWACS and other C4ISTAR assets But again its numbers and China doesnt have them
1
@mojothemigo The simple fact its modern warfare and more efficient for the B-2 to carry the heavy load while F-22s knock out the enemy's fighters. The EA-18G and F-16CJ against their defenses and the F-15E launching JASSM against their bunkers and command posts The F-35s role is using SiAW or MAKO against land based jammers, mobile launchers and other high mobile targets that pose a possible threat to the B-2s Combined with other assets, you dont need a large strike package of F-35s A few armed with SiAW, MAKO, GBU-53s and JSOW with BROACH and BLU-97s for target suppression to allow the B-2 to get range and deliver the KO out blows
1
@area51z63 Very true Any conflict with Russia or China is start off with massive stand off attacks again vital to targets with both sides trying to gain traction before the other
1
@area51z63 Its called modern warfare The F-35 can neutralize the enemy's defenses allow the B-52s to either come over heard strike from long range 1 B-52 can carry up 20 cruise missiles while the F-35 can only carry 2 missiles while in stealth so why bother with waves of F-35s when its move efficient to use combined arms
1
@area51z63 No, they are making the F-15EX to fill the void with the F-22 and F-15C not the F-35. The USAF has too few F-22s and the F-15C obsolescence has been known for a long time Even if the NGAD is delayed, the USAF can still retire its entire F-15Cs fleet in favor the F-15EX The F-35s can fill the void temporary along side the F-22s till the NGAD is operational Its clear that the USAF and USN need to work together with the respective programs NGAD and FA/XX to get a common design approved and built
1
@Spearhead45 The F-35B principal advantage for the USMC and US military as while is the fact is can perform force dispersal. The USMC did a training exercise where as F-35B landed on austere landing strip. A CH-53 carrying tactical bulk fuel delivery system (tbfds) refueled it while crew pulled weapons from a second CH-53 effectively demonstrating the F-35B ability to be land any were and be refueled and rearmed So in potential conflict , anywhere for the F-35B is a potential FARP site but please continue how its the worst , the only issue that the USMC needs for the F-35B is internal cruise missile with 300 mile range and 500lbs warhead
1
War games do not mean anything Case in point, The USMC has fired HIMARS from the decks of LPDs You combine that with the newer PrSM and that makes any LPD into missile carrier Additionally the USMC has both the NMESIS and ROGUEFIRES mobile launchers which use the Naval strike missile and Tomahawk cruise missile You combine these 3 plus the Rapid Dragon which turns any C-130 and C-17 into a cruise missile carrier multiples China problems in potential conflict with the US Lastly, the Guam recently tested the Aegis Ashore with the SM-3 validating Guams ability to defend itself against Chinese DF strikes
1
@Spearhead45 Again wrong The USN would never lose multiple carriers.The whole point of the of Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) with the SM-6, F-18 and F-35 engaging the enemy before they get the chance.Kinda hard for the enemy to launch a saturation attack when you are destroying their ability to do so in the first place instead trying to vainly fight off their attack Why wait for the bombers to get airborne with missiles when you can easily destroy its base Why wait for the enemy ships to put to sea when you can again attack them in port why allow the DF launchers to get in position Simpe , they wont
1
@Spearhead45 The point is that you keep posting 100 nonsense A CVN is crewed by 5000 plus A nominal aircraft load out 90 planes It literally takes 5 years to build and 2 more to become operational and you are posting that USN is magically going to accept quote losing "multiple carriers" The principle reason the USN is heavily invested in long range weapons so its aircraft can strike effectively without any risk to carrier, The whole point of giving the F-18E the AIM-174 so say they can knock out the enemy's assets before they have the chance to strike
1
And you dont understand what modern warfare is Why do I need a dedicated air superiority fighter when tactics, planning and weapons allow me to easily destroy the enemy's air power on the ground Surface to air missiles are still a threat as they mobile and can be sent anywhere Aircraft need an airfield which fixed and easily targeted The Army has tested the 1700 mile Dark Eagle twice and the Zumwalt in back in the water after completing its mods to carry the Dark Eagle These two critical steps makes the F-35s job all that much easier @Spearhead45
1
@Spearhead45 Wrong The JATM is listed at as least 120 plus not 120 miles Raytheon developed two longer variants of the AIM-120 , the D-3 and AXE The D-3 is range is over 110 miles which make it impossible to justify the JATM program if it range was only 10 miles more Quote One improvement is extended range and time of flight. “It’s almost double in the range of what AMRAAM flew before,
1
@Spearhead45 And you dont understand what modern warfare is Why do I need a dedicated air superiority fighter when tactics, planning and weapons allow me to easily destroy the enemy's air power on the ground Surface to air missiles are still a threat as they mobile and can be sent anywhere Aircraft need an airfield which fixed and easily targeted The Army has tested the 1700 mile Dark Eagle twice and the Zumwalt in back in the water after completing its mods to carry the Dark Eagle These two critical steps makes the F-35s job all that much easier
1
@Spearhead45 As yes the typical clueless remarks Ukraine using US made weapons have engaged the Russian S-300 and S-400 and destroyed both several times , There is thing called intelligence ,try it sometime For example The USAF routinely sends RC-135 Rivet Joint and Combat Sent to study the so called advanced surface-to-air missile systems from long The info that it gathered from those flights is handed over to companies such as Raytheon and Northrop who make the AGM-88s Using that data, they make the adjustments to the missiles seekers. The MIG-29 and Su-27 as well as several other captured pieces of Russia equipment has ended up in the US several times Most notably from Ukraine to the US, Krasukha EWS, recovered pieces of the Khibiny as well Pantsir missile systems The US got one export variant from Libya and several captured examples from Ukraine So your so called advanced surface-to-air missile systems are have been severely compromised by the US Engaging terrorists in mountainous terrain is a far cry from battling a legitimate military force-WRONG lol Engaging those terrorists give the US ability Russia only wishes it had The KA-52 has suffered staggering losses due its lack of precision weapons, Only when they started using the LMUR missile, did its losses drop off The US learned its lesson in those mountainous terrain and adapted the AH-64 capabilities so to strike precision from range without getting in range of the enemy weapons but most importantly, AH-64 complained about finding enemy forces but unable to effectively engage them with the Hellfire so newer variants of the Hellfire were developed for anti personnel and other thin skinned targets The MQ-9 can orbit for 10 hours with a load of missiles and bombs Russia has not such capability and has to heavily rely on getting lucky with Lancelet drones Russia so called attempt with the S-70 failed miserably
1
Here's new flash kiddo The US has no peer The USAF has nearly 150 strategic bombers backed by over 100 tankers but most importantly they are modernized and the USAF has demonstrated its ability to send the anywhere. The Russian air force has just 129 strategic bombers backed by only 20 Il-78s tanker. of its bomber forces, they only very very few Tu-22M3, Tu-160M2 and Tu-95MSMs The Chinese air forces operates 250 plus Xian H-6 bombers which are barely considered bombers due to their limited range and payload and like Russia, Chinese very few tankers able to send its bomber force on long range intercontinental strike The USAF has its next gen B-21 already built and in flight testing Chinese Xi'an H-20 and Russia's PAK DA are still being built The USN has been steadily building Virginia class subs while Russia's Yasen is so expensive they had to cap production at 12 boats and China has very few SSNs And thats just a fraction of things
1
@Spearhead45 Here's another Christmas present for you The USAF has 600 transports for strategic air lift and thats not counting USMC and USN assets The Russia air force has 250 and Chinese air force 120 The short comings of Russia's strategic air lift capability have been painfully obvious in Ukraine For heavy strategic air lift , the USAF has 50 plus C-5M active to Russia's 12 AN-124 active and the rest in storage The PLAAF only asset is the Xian 20 and its not true heavy lifter In peer level engagement, the ability to move heavy equipment to any point is vital to combat operations The USAF has ample transports to support rapid movements whereas Russia and China have very little Here's another tidbit, KC-135, KC-46 and the retired KC-10s are designed with split cargo holds allow them to carry cargo in addition to fuel or being used as cargo hauler as needed Again capabilities neither Russia or China has
1