Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "BFBS Forces News"
channel.
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@canihazburgers @ Compare to US ships , UK are relatively weak. For starters, the US takes carrier defense very seriously. US CVN and LHD/A are layered with RIM-7s, RIM-116s , RIM-162 and CIWS. The UK carriers only have CIWS and thats it. They are completely reliant on the type 45 for protection. The benefit of CATOBAR is that CVNs can launch heavier planes. This allows CVNS to operate planes like the E-2 for AWACS whereas the UK uses the Merlin crownest. The E-2 large size allows it to pack a far more advanced sensor suite than the Merlin. Now the F-35B has huge advances on CATOBAR but in the end still lags behind in payload. The Type-45 destroyers are advanced floating sam sites. The claim was made that Sea viper is more advanced than US AEGIS. The problem is that they are apples and oranges. The US aegis is designed for full spectrum combat, air,land, sea, underwater and space whereas Sea Viper is strictly anti air. The Aegis can engage targets on land with TLAM, subs with ASROC, aircraft with SM2/3 ,pace targets with SM-3s and ships with Harpoons. The newly minted Cooperative Engagement Capability allows both ship and planes to act as spotter and shooter. The Type 45 use the Aster missile which tops at 120km. The US SM-6 is rated excess of 240km. side note , the SM-6 is anti air, ship, land and ballistic all rolled into one missile.
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@yellowtunes2756
Again wrong
When you have true air superiority , you have complete control of the battlespace. In essence, the enemy is unable to act freely
That Gulf War is example of true superiority as west had complete control of the battlespace
Vietnam again is irrelevant to modern warfare. Secondly wars are not fought with similar levels of equipment as Ukraine has shown. War are fought with advantages
The Pzh-2000 were out of action due the high-intensity of Ukraine firing. That problem is simply due to low number of Pzh-2000. Ukraine doesn't have enough western SPA yet
Russia's lack of camera's also makes no sense. The US has high resolution optics on everything so commanders can view situations as well confirm target movement and destruction.
Incorrect
The M777 needs 20 min per mission and range is just 25 miles. It has to set up, communicate/fire ,then break down and leave which normally takes 20 miles
The Pzh-2000 needs 6s min per mission. Set up, communicate/fire and displace ,its range 40 miles
The HIMARS only needs 3 mins and its range 50 miles. The missile are preloaded while its on the move so all it has to do set up, fire and displace
A KA-52 can cover 25 miles in 9 minutes which means it can easily engage M777s
Even at max speed, the KA-52 covers 40 miles in 12 minutes , 15 mins for 50 miles
By the time a KA-52 gets over head, Pzh-2000 and HIMARS are over 4 miles away. HIMARS as much as 10 miles away
This goes back to Russia's lack of air superiority
The US maintains air superiority by having aircraft 24/7 patrolling kill boxes
The principle benefit is that aircraft can react within minutes. a supersonic Su-35 or MiG-35 can cover 50 miles under 3 minutes but more importantly
if they had advanced western targeting pods and Brimstone missiles, they could precisely target and fire while en route without having to get overhead
yet factor why Russias's air superiority is farce
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
How about no
The F-35 single engine still produces more power than both the J-35s WS-21s combined
The notion that KAAN, , KF-21 and J-35 addresses the F-35 shortcoming is hilarious
First that F-35 design was heavily dependent on model able to do STOVL. A twin engine design cant do STOVL
Secondly the F-35A was designed for the USAF and export, the F-35B USMC and export and the F-35C for USMC and USN
There is no export for the F-35C yet no one else uses CATOBAR. I honestly though Canada was getting F-35C variant
As for the J-35 trying to defeat the F-35. not in 100 or 1000 years
As mentioned before the F-35 engine has more power but most importantly, the US doesnt have China's problems with engines. The J-20 is been through at least 5 engine variants thus far. The F-135 has planned growth options which increase thrust and the fuel efficiency. The Engine Core Upgrade (ECU) is planned upgrade engine with tech from the Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP, PW still ironing out the details of changing the F-135 to the XA101 ADVENT engine
The newer F-35s are getting the APG-85 radar which can installed on all 3 F-35 models with little effort
When you compare those stats ,teh KAAN, KF-21 and J-35 ,they are all way behind the F-35
The biggest boon the J-35 , more the point the Chinese aircraft is the USN revealing the AIM-174
The AIM-174 allows non stealth F-18s to launch from long range and be handed over F-35 which can terminally guide to target
Allowing the USN to target PLAAF/PLAN assets like tankers, AWACS and the J-15EW
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@lidlb1tch282
You would be wrong
What you are describing as well what 90 percent people get wrong is called modes of engagement
When you are behind the missile, thats called tail chase engagement. In that type of engagement, yes you are "chasing after the missile and the missile you launch has to enough speed to overtake the target
that is where people confused, not every engagement is tail chase
When I am the target and you are shooting at me, that called head engagement
The missile is coming at me ,so speed is irrelevant. What I have to do is calculate a point at the incoming missile path to intercept it
so if I know in 30 seconds, the incoming missile reach point x, then I will time my interceptor launch so it simultaneously arrives at X
Now maneuvering missile claim to be able to avoid interceptors ,however that's why larger warheads with enhanced fragmentation and proximity fuzes are making a come back They don't need to be hit-to-kill, they just detonate close enough so fragmentation shreds the missile or causes enough damage
Now if the missile in front and I am shooting at it from the side, same principle applies, I am shooting ahead of the missile not at the missile
Speed is needed here but not as important
Now the reason why interceptors have higher speeds and range is so they can get off more shoots at longer ranges
At close range, you may only a get 1 or 2 shoots at most but at longer range, you get in more shots
3