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

  1. Yes you are The F-18 was still the right decision Just as the F-14 went as far as it could, the F-18 has reached its peak and its time for it to be replaced
    4
  2.  @Fng_1975  False The F-14 weight issues was never addressed in any of the projected variants The F-18 E/F empty weight was 10,000lbs less then F-14 and even at MTOW, the F-18E/F was still considerably lighter The F-14 variants would have had to shred 10,000lbs to 20,000lbs of weight in order to be real option Quote ". The ST21's gross weight would have also increased, " What it boils down was Grumman was not address the F-14 weight issues
    3
  3. That would be false The Chinese program relies on massive DF launchers which the US military can easily target with their hypersonic weapons The ARRW for example design speed is Mach 20 with range of 1000 miles Even from 800 miles , away , once located, the DF launcher would only have 3 mins to move The Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) is Mach 17 with 1700 mile range even at 1000 miles, the DF would have 5 mins So how far can 17 ton 35 foot long launcher travel in 3 to 5 mins , 4 miles at most So Chinese either has move them inland which reduces their at sea or range or build up defense around which paints giant bullseye on them The Type-055s has the YJ-21 but Mk-48s from SSNs can easily deal with PLAN Type-055 Which just leaves the PLAAF Xian H-6 carrying a 1 single DF each again not problem Russia's Tu-22M3M and MIG-31 carry the Kinzhal they can launch from long range but that only works in the USN favor From 1200 miles , that gives the USN 10 mins of reaction time for its defenses To avoid USN aircraft, they would have stay over 800 miles away Again still 6 mins The only weapon that is potential problem is the Zircon as its submarine launched and from 100 miles away, the USN would only 52 seconds While hypersonic under certain conditions are nearly impossible, the emphasis is they nearly but not unstoppable
    3
  4.  @Fng_1975  No you did not The Navy admiralty never liked the F-14 because they argued that it took money away from their budget for more ships- False First ships, subs and, aircraft all have completely different pots of money that they draw from and second most importantly, aircraft considerably cheaper than ships Boeing received a $4 billion contract to deliver 78 Block III Super Hornets Under the defense funding bill, the US plans to spend $4.9 billion for three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in 2022 $3.45 billion per unit w/ VPM for Block V Virginia class sub There are no figures on the exact cost of the Spruance class but Burke was 778mil- 1.8b early estimate F-14D was estimated at 74 mil per copy 37 were built new which is 2.7B How many ships could the USN build for 2.7B in late 80s dollars, Depending on class, in some cases 1 ship hence why they completely different pots of money Now the USN problems with its aircraft in the 80s was clutter They F-4s, A-7Es ,A-6E, KA-6D, EA-6Bs, RA-5Cs, S-3s, RF-8s, F-18s, EA-3B an F-14 and even some cases A-4s The money problem had nothing to do with ships but rather simple too many types of aircraft in service overlapping They didn't resolve that problem till the Super Hornet program in the 90s if they had necked down say 1981 to 1983 Its likely that F-14 would have been updated as much as the F-15 was
    2
  5.  @HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle  No targeting the launchers themselves before they can launch
    2
  6.  @HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle  Thats combined arms are for The F-22 ALR-94 is capable to detect targets by emission from over 250 miles away The F-35 has evolved version of the ALR-94 called the ASQ-239 The F-35C uses to its ASQ-239 track the DF by their signal emission , then uses its Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) to ID the DF from long range once located, the F-35C transmits the data back to the B-1B and lets the good times roll
    2
  7.  @Fng_1975  Fall from Glory: The Men Who Sank the U.S. Navy, Well that explains the source of your misinformation Lets gets the simple one out of the way First what is the author's credentials , he has none. Did he ever serve a day in military, no one, He's nothing more than investigative journalist making false assumptions. Randy Duke Cunningham who advocated for the Sup Bug over the Sup 21 Tomcat. Btw, he went to jail for receiving bribes from defense contractors. Vietnam War ace and Congressman Duke Cunningham criticized the Super Hornet as an unproven design that compromised air superiority. So why did the Duke change his mind Not because he was bribed Retired U.S. Navy pilot and Vietnam Ace, U.S. Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.), took the throttle of the U.S. Navy's new F/A-18E/F Super Hornet on Saturday, Feb.7, flying the strike fighter for 1.3 hours. On the ramp immediately following the flight, Rep. Cunningham said, "I loved it! It's a great airplane!" He went to jail for receiving bribes from defense contractors which has nothing to with Boeing as if you actually read allegations not reading someone made up story He criticized the F-18E/F so Boeing allowed him to actually fly it. So once he got behind the controls and actually handled it, his perception changed as he actually handled the aircraft and found to be better than expected no one has come out against the book or it’s author since it was published in the late 90s and has been praised for its blunt honesty." You confusing the fact no one gave a shit about his book. The book was released Feb 26 1997,the F-18E/F entered low-rate production began in March 1997 with full production beginning in September 1997. So despite the book release and alleged acclaim for its ts blunt honesty, the plans for the F-18E/F went forward as no one gave a shit about it Quote "Grumman proposed substantial improvements to the F-14 beyond Quick Strike, but Congress rejected them as too costly and reaffirmed its commitment to the less expensive F/A-18E/F" The Secretary of Defense can make requests but its still up to Congress to decide. Cheney tried to defund the MV-22 ,however was overruled by Congress both times So solely saying that Cheney did it even close to reality. Next, here’s your DOD budget 101 class. Navy requests money and when they receive -WRONG instead of making asinine assumptions try actually reading it , you might actually something Department of the Navy Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Materials Provides for a deployable battle force of 285 ships in FY 2023. Procures 9 battle force ships in FY 2023 (2 SSN 774, 2 DDG 51, 1 FFG, 1 LHA-6, 1 LPD-17, 1 T-AO 205, and 1 T-ATS-6) and 51 over the FYDP. Funds 4 other construction efforts (2 LCAC SLEPS and 2 ship-to-shore connectors). Aircraft procurement funds 96 fixed-wing, rotary-wing, and unmanned aircraft in FY 2023 (13 F-35C, 15 F-35B, 5 E-2D, 10 METS, 5 KC-130J, 10 CH-53K, 26 TH-73A, 3 MQ-4C, 4 MQ-25, 5 MQ-9A) and 420 over the FYDP. As I stated before, its completely different pots The USN didnt' choose wrong What conflict has the USN been in where the F-14 capabilities were needed , not one
    1
  8.  @johnsilver9338  The USN working on options for the FA/XX and F-35C. One such is the HALO which gives them carrier based hypersonic weapon but ultimately its going to be the AGM-183 ARRW on B-1Bs backed by FA/XX , F-35C and EA-18G with NGJ pods going after the Chinese DFs As long as the ARRW meets its designed speed of Mach 20 ,range of 1000 miles and carries at least 1000lbs warhead, The Chinese A2/AD would be moot As for Chinese SAMs, no much of a threat The HQ-9s are SARH guided and they are most definitely having buyers remorse after buying the S-400
    1
  9.  @johnsilver9338  The need the ARRW subsonic weapons don't have time sensitive strike capability At 900 miles away, an ARRW still only need 3 mins 36 secs How far can a massive DF travel in that time, may 2 miles A TLAM from that distance 1 hour 41 mins A TLAM would have to be 100 miles away but even than its 10 ish minutes and being that close is risky The ARRW's high speed and long range means that DF is screwed once its found
    1
  10.  @Clean97GTI  The F-14's weight problems are established facts
    1
  11.  @Clean97GTI  Again incorrect The F-18 was designed as a multi-role asset and can do considerable than the F-14 ever could For Anti-ship missions, the F-18 carries up 4x Harpoons whereas the F-14??? For SEAD, the F-18 carries AGM-88 or ADM-141 whereas the F-14 For Long range precision strike, the F-18 carried 1x AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER For Medium range precision strike , the F-18 carries 4X AGM-65 The F-18 was certified for the B-61 nuclear weapons as well could use both Zuni and Hydra rockets Whereas the F-14?? The F-14 abilities for air to ground were limited solely bombs The only thing that F-14 had over the F-18 was the AWG-9, AIM-54, TARPS and LANTRIN The AWG-9 and AIM-54 allowed the F-14 intercept both missiles and bombers While the APG-79 outclasses the AWG-9, the AIM-120D won't fully replace the AIM-54 till the AIM-120D-3 is fielded TARPS and LANTRIN won't be replaced till the USN fields the Litening pod to replace the ATFLIR The F-18 Block III increases differences massive The F-14 speed and range was not enough to keep. USN has performed well without it
    1
  12.  @Clean97GTI  That would be false The BRU still required the corresponding LAU unit for mounting. Second, the APG-71 has nothing to do with AGM-88 and or AGM-84 Weapons require interface via MIL-STD data bus and stores management system. Proposed is exactly that ,proposed not proven The USN lack of interest is why the F-14 was shelved. The F-15 for example by 1990 had enjoyed several upgrades whereas F-14 was still relatively behind The Bombcat was too little to late There is this thing called aerial refueling, only been around since the 50s Yes the Harpoon's 170mm range was shortcoming, the LRASM range is over 310 miles so much for that theory The MIG-29K couldnt touch the Hornet on its best day lets break all reasons this is the best joke you wrong First the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov has no AWACS able to spot the F-18 Their AWACS is the KA-31 helicopter and the newer KA-35. I will give you 3 guess on how well that radar works and its range here's a hint, its under 100 miles Secondly Russian ships with the S-300F system can only spot targets up 50 miles away The Kirovs with S-400 range again just 160 miles While AESA radar is common in the West, AESA is not common in the Russian military The MIG-29K Zhuk-ME is PESA and its range against aerial targets is 75 miles It par with APG-73 but outclassed by APG-79 Additional without EA-18G support, the APG-79 can simultaneously jam and target the MIG-29K The F-18 can carry 10 AIM-120s to the MIG-29K 6 R-77 Lastly the F-18 has been upgraded to Super Hornet whereas the MiG-29K is still very much junk FYI, thats not counting fact that F-18 has , E-2D and F-35 to back it up whereas the MIG-29K back up is the even more worthless Su-33
    1
  13. Its simple , the F-18 has gone as far as it can go and its time to be replaced
    1
  14. Even better way is to smoke them with ARRW
    1
  15.  @HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle  The DF-21 and DF-26 are massive launchers that are very easy to target with high speed weapon
    1
  16. Carrier aircraft principal advantage is they are already there The FA/XX like the F-18 should have to flexible design to where an EA model can be built or the USN settles adapting the pods to the F-35C The USN does not need the ARRW but they are working at hypersonic weapon that the F-35 and FA/XX can use The HIMARS success is literally due to Russian incompetence and arrogance The simple is that they claimed that their KAB-series , SVP-24 Gefest and missiles were just as good as the US but at 1/4 cost as they claimed that Syria proved that Ukraine proved that to be 100 percent false HIMARS is functioning as poor man's strike aircraft , true but it still does not compare with aircraft if Ukraine forces had F-16s with its full range of weapons, things would be considerably worst for Russian forces
    1
  17.  @Chuck_Hooks  The C-130 and C-17 are way too valuable in their as transports.Carrying few cruise missiles does not replace bombers The USN tried using F-18s in place of dedicated tankers and look how well that worked out, they ended up burning up nearly 30 percent of their hornets The Rafale claims that its SPECTRA allow the Rafale to operate without dedicated EW aircraft. again no quite working out The value of dedicated assets can't be understated As far as unimaginable at this point that bombers will ever fly over a target Again incorrect, the whole point of SEAD/DEAD and CAD is to ensure air superiority As long as they are needed Its not about range or persistence , China's A2/AD depends solely on the DFs keeping the USN at bay The USN and USAF plan is the USN locates with F-35C and EA-18G while the USAF attacks the DFs with ARRW With them acting, the DFs have to relocated further inland which reduces their range at sea and allow the USN get closer The PLAN/PLAAF will send fighters which again goes back to carrier aircraft As their carrier is only 1000 mile away , a nominal speed its 2 hours in and out Land based aircraft can only come from SK,, Japan or AU There are plenty of advantages to carrier planes
    1