Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "BFBS Forces News" channel.

  1. The Abrams engine is multi fuel ,however it gets the best performance with jet fuel Diesel will work but just not as good
    2
  2. No, the basis for the CIWS was the sinking of the Israel destroyer Eilat by P-15 missiles It showed that existing defenses were not able to stop missiles The sinking of UK ships during the Falkands war only reinforced the need for CIWS
    2
  3.  @darreloutland4604  its the same thing they used Isklander as basis for the Kinzhal
    2
  4.  @bobsemple9341  Hope is what Russia is clinging to
    2
  5.  @bobsemple9341  Yeah no where is all the fighting taking place outside Kyiv nope near Kyiv nope All the fighting is taking place in the separatist regions Funny how Ukraine pushed Russian forces back to literally Russians doorstep
    2
  6. Canadian may lost the record but they are still the better shooters than Ukraine The US, UK and Canadian shooters all used standard weapons and rounds to achieve their shots 338 or 50 What they did is neck down 14.5 cases for 12.7mm to make for the HL rifle in other words, they took a cheap short cut
    2
  7. The KAAN just like clumsy No sharpness to it like other 5th gen
    2
  8. Factor in combat losses , and other factors the 271 Gripens built are not feasible for Ukraine The USAF allow operates 1200 F-16s out of 2300 in inventory The USAF could provide 200 F-16s considerably faster The other factor is that Poland , and Romania which borders Ukraine uses the F-16s More countries in the EU use the F-16 ,so getting Ukraine pilots training is extreme easy and dont have to travel far
    2
  9.  @Saxondog  Thats was WWII This modern warfare very very different weapons and technology
    2
  10.  @kenjifox4264  Combined with the fact that T-90s technology has been in western hands The T-14 is the only tank that Russia has that hasnt been compromised by the west So without large numbers of T-14s The T-90/80/72s are basically target practice and if the NATO does adopt the 130mm, then it force Russia to counter Many believe that Russia will adopt a 152mm round but how many rounds can that tank actually carry
    2
  11. Either way it would be great addition for Ukraine
    2
  12.  @1chish  The A330 was never in the cards. The USAF should have brought the KC-767A and avoided all that drama Boeing principal advantage they are built with up training, logistics and maintenance with the USAF AIrbus would had to do that all from scratch
    2
  13.  @plutoooooooooooooo  You obviously didnt The drama started when the USAF tried to wet lease the KC-767A instead buying them There was no need for request for proposal (RFP) or invitation to tender (ITT,) It should have been sole award direct contract
    2
  14.  @michaelmcnally2331  its called cost The KC-45A A330 MRTT' principal problem was Airbus has no presence in the US military training, logistics and maintenance with the USAF would all have to be built up from scratch Boeing's only mistake was not using the 767-400ER air frame Incidentally ,Airbus has the same issue as the A330-200 is out of production but there still demand for tankers
    2
  15. It keep with Trump's theme putting unqualified people in key positions
    2
  16. They actually can go 130mm. They tested a 130mm mounted on C2 hull which means that option is available once 130mm is complete
    2
  17. Spine no There is no way to impose a no fly zone without directly engaging Russian aircraft Its possible to have aircraft and AWACS defend targets away from the front but Russian aircraft are not going to stay at the front
    2
  18. China needs to give it rest. Airbus and Boeing duopoly is beyond solid, its damn near a force of nature The notion they think they can break into the market is beyond absurd especially with the notion of 100 percent Chinese made parts and engines
    2
  19.  ruoyulong5130  We can safely call that a lie
    2
  20.  @lukeallison3713  Expensive is relative if they were only buying for the RN, then yes but a buy for RN, RAF and possibly the British Army would drive cost down quite a bit
    2
  21.  @Whisk3yKnight  The SM-6 is designed for anti missile aircraft as well ballistic defense
    2
  22.  @mwtrolle  Wrong on all counts Its not quantity vs quality its called feasible How many Gripens are available right, estimates say just 271 examples Factoring in combat losses, the possibility of accidents and aircraft down time There is no way that the Gripen can meet the Ukraine's needs if Ukraine had 112 Gripens in place of its MiG-29, Su-24,25 and Su-27s and the current Gripens operator had at leas 80 planes each with the Swedish air force with 160 plus, then the Gripen would iffy as feasible goes , they would be able to source aircraft from operators as needed but again SAAB would still need to boost up its production line. The Gripen would be perfect but its not feasible The F-16 is feasible as the USAF alone has 1200 F-16s. They could earmark 200 F-16s for Ukraine as well replace losses with virtually no effort The F-16 does not have the Gripen's ruggedness but has the numbers and weapons to fight on a much wider scale Secondly Right now what needed is the F-16C/D Block 50/52 Plus and UPAZ-1A buddy refueling pod F-16s with AIM-9M/R and AIM-120C-5 gives Ukrainian decent WVR and BVR capability AGM-84 block II plus can strike both land and sea targets 77 to 120 miles away AGM-65 and GBU-12/16 plus the gun is all the weapons the Ukrainian air force needs There is enough older models in the US inventory that would prevent Russia from gleaming anything The block 52 supports Conformal Aerial Refueling Tank System (CARTS) which allows the F-16 to use drogue instead of boom The UPAZ-1A buddy refueling pod fitted the MIG-29s allow them to act as mission tankers Why this is important The Black sea fleet is Novorossiysk which 700 miles round trip. F-16s with CARTS and MiG-29s as mission tankers would be able to strike Novorossiysk with ease As well all targets in Crimea The additional benefit of the CFT has Israeli has done is EW Israel has added in additional EW in the empty spaces on the CFTs which Ukraine can take advantage off
    2
  23.  @bjjace1  They are getting planes , just not the F-16 or Gripen. As the MIG-29 has been successfully integrated with the AGM-88 and they working on the locally upgrading MiG-29MU2, More than likely, it will be more MiG-29 upgraded with western tech The route I would go would AIM-9M/R and AIM-120C-5 gives Ukrainian decent WVR and BVR capability AGM-84 block II plus land and sea targets. AGM-65 and GBU-12/16 for general purpose with second gen targeting pod UPAZ-1A buddy refueling pod so they could carry out extend range attacks
    2
  24. @Wolfmaster057 Hypersonic weapons are not overrated, the way China and Russia uses their hypersonic weapons is overrated China took a short cuts and its DFs are massive launchers that can be easily tracked and destroyed. The only ship with hypersonic weapons is their Type-055 again too few to matter. Even the CH-AS-X-13 on the Xian-H6 again too few to matter Russia's hypersonic are pretty much the same , too few to matter The MIG-31 can only carry 1 Kinzhal and they have to be specially modified to carry it Only the upgraded Tu-22M3M can carry the Kinzhal and even then, only carry 4 missiles The Zircon requires specially modified ships and subs which again too few to matter The US AGM-183 ARRW program alone is vastly to superior to Chinese and Russia programs in every way possible 1 B-1B can carry up 31 missiles. Even with the USAF inventory of just 62 planes 5 planes can carry up 155 missiles. The US can literally overwhelm both China and Russia with just 5 B-1Bs each The ARRW range is 1000 miles and claims Mach 20 as its designed speed From 1000 miles, away , at Mach 20, they can strike targets in 4 mins, 2 min at 500 miles The key factor is that B-1Bs with EA-18G jamming can attack both Russia and China defenses from over 500 miles away The current combination of ALQ-99 , AGM-88 and TLAMs gives Russian and China defense both on land and in air ample time to counter attack The EA-18G still has to get close but the high speed of the ARRW reduces the chances of interception by aircraft As for Russia's nuclear torpedo Just more hot air and incredible stupid idea
    2
  25. In this case, the ships in question won't be underarmed thanks to MK-41 universal capability As for the numbers Its quality over quantity The QE class has few F-35s but 1v1 against the Admiral Kuznetsov with its Su-33 and MIG-29K, the few F-35s would easily defeat all 3 Same with the China's carriers and the J-15s, no match Its not how much you have , its what you have Lastly As for tanks, You dont need that many any more One USAF F-15E can carrying up 28 GBU-53 storm breaker which 105lbs warhead can shred any armor regardless of APS and ERA The UK Eurofighter and F-35B will have similar capability with the SPEAR-3 You dont need a large amount of armor when your air force can kill several tanks whole sale per plane
    2
  26. Simple answer it doesn't The J-20 is literally a joke compared the F-22 and F-35
    2
  27.  @EpicThe112  And all we have seen so far is destroyed tanks
    2
  28.  @wilbur948ie  Yet Russian need drones from Iran and missile from NK Russia may be exporting but thats only to countries who dont have any other choice The S-400 Triumf and Pantsir missile system were once hyped up but so far in Ukraine, not living up to the hype Same with the T-90, KA-52, Su-34 and whole long list of Russian equipment getting shredded wholesale in Ukraine Hell the freaking M2 Bradley has been a super star even withstanding direct hits from missiles and tank main guns Taking a licky and keeps on ticking The same cant be said for Russian equipment
    2
  29. Ukraine needs to speed up the RIM-7 and Buk project so they can have effective defense again gunships at long range. The KA-52 is taking advantage of that gap Between MANPAD and SHORAD ironically the US Army had dropped the AIM-9X in favor of the hellfire and Stinger for the stryker SHORAD as well the USMC had also dropped its Avenger units The KA-52 has renewed the need for US forces to have SHORAD defenses able to engage gun ships like KA-52 before they get in range
    2
  30.  @Rio.Motel.84  Thats incorrect The Plasma does make getting a lock harder but infrared search and track (IRST) combined with Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) negate that problem
    2
  31.  @СерхиоБускетс-ф7я  And you point ? The USAF , USN and US Army all plan on declaring IOC this year
    2
  32.  @lidlb1tch282  Again incorrect The Cooperative Engagement Capability is network integrated fire control capability that shots to be taken from any direction More to point network-centric warfare allows targets to be engaged from any direction The quote plasma does not make the missile invisible to radar, Secondly the zircon irregular path actually makes it easier Every move it makes bleeds off kinetic energy In order for it to regain it, it has to commit to trajectory to build up KE during terminal phase if it not, it will impact with far less energy That why ASM pop up during terminal phase to try and build up KE
    2
  33. Thats a moot point A Russian T-14 cost 4.6 mil yet $27,000 precision guided 500lbs bomb will turn it to shreds Weapons costing less than their targets is fact of life in warfare
    2
  34. They need Typhoon EK for EW
    2
  35. Russian morale is in the crapper so everything is big deal to them
    2
  36.  @heisenberg906  The only thing that is known is that a IAF MiG-21 got smoked by the PAF plane Secondly the PAF does not fly MIG get your facts straight
    2
  37.  @heisenberg906  The IAF has claimed several times that they downed an F-16 but they have zero proof. All it is them trying to save face If the IAF had downed an F-16, where is the crash site? The IAF claimed its crashed on the PAF side but plane crashes produce considerable wreckage which is impossible to cover up Secondly commercial satellites would spotted it When the US attacked Syria, independent sources confirmed the strike from commercial satellites so the fact that the IAF has no actual wreckage says its all Lastly ,the IAF is buying new missiles because they admitted that the Russia R-77 were inferior
    2
  38. The drone issue moot The point is light weight easy to deploy system This only weighs 1.4 tons compared to a Foxhound 7.4 tons This can be carried by CH-47 internally while the Foxhound has to be sling loaded
    2
  39. Its not that they skimped on supplies, its the fact that Ukraine forces attack on their supply lines is starting to have a real effect Putin and Russia forces had brushed off the West supplying Ukraine with ATGMs and MANPADs which are the very thing that is creating major problems for them
    2
  40. The Gripen is the only real choice but getting to them is a problem
    2
  41. The only issue with Phalanx is its reloading and limited magazine
    2
  42. Its being rolled out to the whole army
    2
  43. If they don't run into the normal drama with European joint programs, this could be a very good plane
    2
  44. The simple answer it doesnt as far as Ukraine is concerned ,however Russian forces its desperately needed moral victory
    2
  45. The Mojave equipped with MQ-9s kits would solve a lot the QE class problems for organic of capabilities The MQ-9 can be fitted with the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) payload for ASuW /ASW The Skyguardian for AWACS Develop a 3rd kit for electronic warfare All that would be left is a platform for aerial refueling
    2
  46. @@JimCarner The Mojave can carry same kits as the MQ-9
    2
  47.  @lmaoroflcopter  E-3 and E-7 require a land base or hours via aerial refueling to get on station By having "organic capabilities on hand, they can be launched and recovered as needed Hence why the US Navy operates E-2Ds and rarely relies on USAF E-3s An MQ-9 with Skyguardian for AWACS would massive boost for the UK
    2
  48. Thats about right
    2
  49. A lot of new, untested equipment and inexperienced pilots which literally sums the Chinese air force The F-22 has deployed multiple times overseas and to real operations as has the F-35 whereas the J-20 has never left China Sending the F-22 and F-35 pays dividends for the USAF as they gain valuable data during their deployments as they are able to see how they perform as well as resolve any possible problems. More the point ,sending aircraft abroad how you get actually real world data China keeping its J-20s in tight box trying concealing its capabilities only backfires on them Hell Russia did the same with the Su-57. Sent into Syria for real world operations. The Russian air force was using the Su-57 on sly in Ukraine, however as the number of newer and more advanced systems like IRIS-T and NASAMS and other on the way, they will stop using the Su-57 as these systems far more capable Till the J-20 actually does real worlds operations far outside the box China keeps it in, it will never compare to the F-22, F-35 or even the Su-57
    2
  50. Yes the UK needs more Typhoons but not those models. The war in Ukraine has show that assets like EA-18G would be invaluable. Russia's EW has been a major show stopper as Ukraine lacks the means to deal with it effectively. EA-18Gs would have no problem locating and destroying Russian EW sites Additionally, the EA-18G primary of SEAD again invaluable. The newer variant of AGM-88, the AARGM-ER range is 160 miles That allows it to engage everything short of the S-400 and S-500 The UK should invest in the Typhoon EK with SPEAR-3 SPEAR-EW and SPEAR-5 capability A Typhoon EK backing both F-35B as well Tempest would keep both combat effective for decades to come
    2