Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

  1. Exactly, the F-16 can carry air launched Harpoon and as the Moskva is now a submarine, they can easily close to 50 miles against the remaining Russian frigates While the JDAMs and HARM had to be jury rigged, the F-16 is able to use both to max potential. More the point, the US can equip the F-16 with the older LANTRIN or LITENING pods which allows them to use laser guided munitions Russian fan boys are quickly to say Su-35 and MiG-31 but fail to realize that unlike the MiG-29s and Su-27, the F-16 has far more modern MAWS, RWR and EW More the point, the F-16 can be intergrated with Storm Shadow and KEPD-350 with ease allowing the F-16 to leave and launch
    39
  2. @Excelerator Basically The PLAAF basically cut every corner they could to get the J-20 operational and Russia is struggling to build the Su-57 As the 6th gen the EU has both FCAS and Tempest program going but we all know how well joint programs work in the EU They are not even par for course
    35
  3. Simple The ATACMS isnt something that S-400 was designed for
    30
  4. Lay off the propaganda buddy
    29
  5.  @kevinshort3943  Yeah no Without the VTOL technology, there would still be the F-35A and F-35C Secondly without international effort , the US could still fund the F-35 by itself BAE systems provided the EW system and thats about it 85 percent of the F-35 is all US made technology Most everything is contracted with a US company.
    25
  6. Simple there is no need for Ukraine to commit its entire force to the frontline Ukraine problem is not numbers but offensive capability Their problem is not being able to inflict substantial damage continuously They have the occasional strike that gets lucky but nothing on consistent basis thats their problem
    16
  7. The fact of the matter is that Bradely has proven to be a bane to Russian forces
    15
  8. I dont see why, it seems to be a trend with France mega deals They got the MRCA contract and it turned into 5 year shit show that ended with 36 aircraft instead of 126 AU brought the Tigre however Airbus failed to upgrade it to keep it competitive. The Apache on the other hand was successively upgraded Hence why AU dumped the Tigre for the Apache E They tried to sell the Rafale to RCAF but the RCAF wouldnt accept it unless it was configured to use existing technology and weapons that RCAF had France can make it but upgrading and staying competitive is their problem
    14
  9.  @BERSERCŒUR  Nothing was stolen France acted like it was their only option instead trying to find away to smooth things over so that it could go forward Secondly they dont have any of the subs that they were offering operational
    10
  10. And that is hilarious that with only 30 percent of weapons, Ukraine forces kicking Russian forces asses just if you accept that nonsense, its still humiliating
    9
  11. Carriers will never be obsolete. Battleships became obsolete because their weapons limited their scope of operations. They can only attack targets with ranges of its guns. The power of their guns was too much for sensitive electronics. Carriers can perform a wide range of operations compared to BBs. Hypersonic weapons and ultra quiet subs are threats but they are threats that can be countered. https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/2014-archive-naval-exhibitons/sea-air-space-2014/1737-huntington-ingalls-industries-showcases-its-ballistic-missile-defense-ship-based-on-lpd-17-class.html HII proposed a BMD ship based on the LPD-17 288 missile capacity, plus provisions for LAWS and EMRG One the problems with the MK-41 vls is the size of VLS tube limits the size of the missile. An LPD-17 could carry normally MK-41 vls tube but plus larger ones to accommodate larger missiles. In theory, you could double the range of the SM-3 and SM-6 or even quad pack SM-6s. With space once used for cargo, generators for LAWS and EMRG so they can maintain high rates of fire even when used at max power. Hell, you could even upgrade CIWS from 20mm to 30mm. Newer programmable rounds like the XM813 or even an upgrade to 57mm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxVOclDHI9Y watch at 350 The size of the LPD-17 gives plenty of growth options. 20 ships total Hard kill anti torpedo defenses are starting to be fielded but false positives are still a problem. Once that wrinkle is fixed, Ships will have true defenses against Subs. As weapons evolves , defenses will too
    9
  12. The short answer is no The USN defenses are fully capable dealing with any missile that Yasen fires including the Zircon The only difference with the Zircon is that USN reaction time limited to seconds so they will likely only get off 1 missile shot per ship Torpedos are still very much a threat but the Yasen wont use them against carrier its called shear tonnage. CVNs are over 100,000 tons hence why the Russia Type-65 has abnormally large warhead of 1200lbs Carriers can shrug off 4 hits from weapons like the Type-53 and the newer Futlyar however 4 hits from Type-65s would likely cripple or sunk it The Yasen isnt carrying the Type-65. Even if it salvos 10 Futlyar , the amount of noise that it generates will make easy for ASW or other subs to destroy it
    9
  13. The UK banning Argentina is pushing them right to China and Russia hands The Gripen and FA-50 are decent aircraft but no real threat to the UK. They could at least control what weapons they got Argentina is likely going buy an aircraft with aerial refueling capability and buddy stores which is MIG-29 series or worst Su-30s The Chinese J-10 can also be real problem. Either why, the UK pressure is has backed Argentina into Russia and Chinese So whatever they end up with is going force the UK to deploy more Typhoons They have 4 as the FAF has no significant capabilities but Russia is offering 30 plus aircraft which is max of MIG-29s, Su-30s and Yak-130 combined The RAF would have place a full squadron of Typhoon so the UK better revisit policy or face real problems if Russia or China's deal go through
    9
  14. still no a problem , combat planes top off before entering the combat zone. The US has a large tanker whereas the problem with the Su-35 is that Russia has an extremely small tanker force compared to the US. Next , the spec you used for the AIM-120 is the A/B model , The AIM-120 is currently D model which maxes out at 180km so your math is wrong. the Su-35 can pull 9G turns which again does not help them with a missiles. Missiles like the R-77, AIM-120, Meteor and MICA are designed to pull 20 plus Gs. Remember we are sticking to the video, so no MiGs help for the Sus Actually No. first Su-35s will be cruising at 500-600 per hour , going any faster will burn up too much fuel. the F-35s dont have to worry about fuel in either case and easily dash behind the Su-35 and fire and forget, Since the F-35s are firing from behind, the Su-35s MAWS wont detect the shot right away. planes are generally blind in the rear and strong in the front. the problem with the video is that is assuming that both F-35 and Su-35 are using bombs. When planes use bombs in contested air space, they will have a larger escort force most planes today prefer to use long range cruise missiles which allow them to attack without having to deal with the enemies defense force. For example the F-35 can use to JSM in stealth and strike from 345 miles away. In non stealth, they can use the AGM-158 and strike from 600 miles. the Su-35 can use the KH-59 and strike from 150 miles so basically the style of combat that video is implying is vintage 80s
    8
  15. Lets recap how long did take for Russia to admit that Moskav was lost how about Saky Airbase in Novofedorivk Russian forces claimed an ammunition explosion yet open source images show very precise damage and craters indicative of missile strikes
    8
  16.  @fk4410  The F-16 block 40 and 50 still far more modern than what Ukraine has Second those older models have been upgraded and now the US confirmed that Ukraine is getting CBUs and DPCIMs Now the party is really going to get started
    8
  17. The US spent money and Russia didn't that simple
    8
  18. If they are modding HARMs, then the doors opens for a lot more capabilites
    8
  19. the moral of the story is that the video is garbage. combat tactics 101 , why the F-35 fire on the Su-35 head on ? when it can easily vector around and gain position. The Su-35's Radar can only see stealth at 50 km ,an F-35 firing head on would compromise its stealth ,thus negating its advantage. In real combat, the F-35 would go behind the Su-35s and fire, then change position. When the remaining Su-35s change position to track their attackers, the second set of F-35s would fire on the remaining Su-35s from behind. the video just says complete garbage for tactics
    7
  20. Nope, Ukraine just shows how bad tactics can ruin equipment
    7
  21. Russian fan boys triggered 3 21
    7
  22. In short , the F-16 with the right weapons would put Russian forces in the ringer
    7
  23. The simple answer is yes one F-15E with B-61 dialed to up to max yield could wipe out the Japan's strike force in one strike Since Japan sent 6 carriers, again 1 F-15 with 6 GBU-10 2000lbs PAVEWAY LGBs Since GBUs can be precisely targeted, one hit to water line and thats a wrap for Japan carriers F-15E can carry 8 JDAM or PAVEAWAY in 2000lbs range so in addition to carriers, the two remaining bombs could be used on the two battleships that Japan So yes, an F-15 would most definitely change the outcome
    7
  24. Russian ground forces are most definitely NOT handling the situation
    7
  25. Massive under performance in Ukraine
    7
  26. Never, carrier's ability to power project is essential for warfare
    6
  27.  @woodrowcall3158  And how long have we have been in this conflict oh thats right 18 months and counting funny how claims state those weapons dont matter but cant explain why its 18 months later
    6
  28. Why they did evolve the Zummwalt design instead ??
    6
  29.  @cstgraphpads2091  Sure it was
    6
  30. No shock NATO is giving Ukraine accurate info to use
    6
  31. The Su-35s are faster, true but does not help them. The F-35 can see the Su-35 at 200km plus and fire on them at 175km whereas the Su-35s can't see F-35s till 50km or if the F-35 does something to compromise itself. Getting behind the Su-35s puts the Su-35 in between two hostile forces ,not a place to be. Secondly by forcing the battle to long range , you force the attacking force to use up fuel. Lessons learned from past conflicts dictate that radars are the first to be taken out. Attacking targets but leaving the enemies radar sites functional is asking for trouble
    5
  32. The RAAF and RAF doesnt have the budget for it its simpler to procure the JASSM-ER/XR and the Rapid Dragon system for their C-130s and C-17s , maybe even for the A-400M Rapid Dragon is what US allies are going to be lining up So far ,its been trailed with various weapons showing that various weapons can be used in it RAAF can use its F-35 and EA-18G to cover the C-130 or C-17 The RAF has F-35 but not dedicated airborne jammer. they may want to consider upgrading their typhoon to be airborne jammer As long as have F-35s, an airborne jammer and the Rapid Dragon, you have non-traditional bomber capability More than likely, it would be C-130s and A400M as they are still in production while the C-17 is not
    5
  33. @Christian Patton The F-22s retirement is a done deal because its too hard upgrade its systems and does not have the F-35s flexibility. The only hope is that USAF one learned from the mistakes made with the F-22 and F-35 programs two and most important carried over the best features from F-22 and F-35 to the NGAD Right now they are testing the design of the aircraft before moving on to the next step but like the F-22 , the NGAD is done deal The USAF has had companies working on advance tech for its 6th gen aircraft since 2010 Most of its is complete ,they just need a working design to cram it all into RR, GE and PW were all contracted to build ADVENT engines which they have done The F-22 pioneered sensor fusion, the F-35 is advanced application so the NGAD is likely even more advanced The F-22 ALR-94 was 30 plus antenna blended into aircraft, the F-35 ASQ-39 is just 10. The reason why these system will carry over is because allows the F-22 and F-35 to passive id and track targets. The F-35 can visual ID targets with DAS which another system that will likely carry over Carrying over the best features from the F-22 and F-35 as well not repeating the pass mistakes will aid the NGAD and FAXX
    5
  34. If Belarus did join, it would open to door for the West to aid Ukraine further
    5
  35. The US military actual can. During the cold war, the US military had several survivable communication systems that allow the military to communicate seamlessly without the use of satellites. Looking Glass, Silk Purse, Scope Light, Blue Eagle , Night Watch and TACAMO. There were a bunch of aircraft make to handle the functions that satellites do. These aircraft programs can brought back The problem is that mil- star communication and GPS are positioned in high orbits that make interception and jamming pointless. Secondly there are so many in orbit that , even the destruction of 10 wouldnt affect the military. The aircraft systems can only stay aloft for so long even if you used a drone. An RQ-4 modified could do it as its endurance is 32 hours but you would need at least 20
    5
  36. And suddenly the shit hit fan The additional of storm shadows gives Ukraine true long range precision capabilities which allows them to strike Russian forces on the strategic scale
    5
  37.  @mark4371  Cry harder Russia's losses have been confirmed by both Ukraine and Russia
    5
  38. As long as they give Ukraine enough launchers and missiles it will be very effectiive
    5
  39. Capturing hundreds doesnt mean a time the R and D alone will take months developing a countermeasure even longer but the fact that US has FGM-148G which is a completely new missile Russia capturing missiles is literally irrelvant
    4
  40. The problem there is shear tonnage of the CVN. it takes a lot of firepower to do so Secondly you have remember the skill of the crew The HMS Sheffield was hit by single Exocet and sank days later The USS Stark by 2 Exocet but remained afloat. The difference was poor damage control by the Sheffield crew doomed the ship whereas excellent damage control by Stark crew saved the ship.
    4
  41. A carrier with no air wing
    4
  42. The US kept the F-117 program under wraps for a long time. They have Area 51 and Tonnpah
    4
  43.  @alexs983  Yet Iran threaten the public with prison if they showed the world the true scale of the attack
    4
  44. Germany is not stupid enough to by the Rafale Lets recap Rafale uses the MICA which the Germany air force does not use. They use the AIM-9 and IRIS-T which is fully capable with the F-35 so why buy the MICA when they dont have to More to the point, the F-35 uses the bulk weapons that Germany Air force uses so why would be stupid enough to buy the Rafale when it uses very few weapons The LJDAM costs fraction of the AASM So again countries with US weapons and EU weapons, buying the F-35 9 of 10 times, the F-35 uses what they already have the same can't be said for the Rafale
    4
  45. Yes, the US lost both a number of AH-64s and AH-1Ws in both Iraq and Afghan however those losses were spread out over years not months The key factor being is that US in both cases made sure to seal the borders which effectively limited enemy forces to handful of missiles and IED weapons Russia did not seal Ukraine's border. They tried to with the attack at Battle of Antonov Airport,however that and the siege of Kyiv both ended in massive failure which left Western Ukraine completely open allowing Ukraine to be supplied with more and more advanced tech if Russian forces had seized Antonov Airport, even without Kyiv Having forces operate out that air port would have allowed them to effectively cut Ukraine off from the West Russia's failure to do that is why they are currently getting shit kicked out of them
    4
  46. How about no All CGs and DDGs in the USN have the Mk-41 VLS or MK-57 whereas the PLAN only has it in Type-052D and Type-055 All CGs and DDGs except for the DDG-1000s can use the SM-2s/3s/6s , TLAM, ASROC, ESSM , Sea Sparrow and JSM whereas PLAN ? The PLAN is very much behind the USN The USN DDGs and CG have commonality with weapons, sensors ,and even engines are common whereas PLAN ships are a miss mash various tech The only ships outside are DDG-1000s, Even the planned Constellation-class frigate have weapons, sensor and engine commonality with the DDGs and CGs
    4
  47.  @tiagogomes3807  Problems with commonality? Commonality gives the USN massive tactically over China and Russia Here are actual facts With a LM-2500 series, the U.S. Navy has support worldwide whether onshore or at sea, and interoperability benefits with other U.S. and allied naval ships Most importantly, the newest model, LM2500+G4 is designed with advanced power generation as well Integrated electric propulsion support Since it so widely, used, it can be repaired at both US and non-US base with ease whereas Chinese ships ? The SM-3, SM-6, ESSM, and newer SM-2 Active have lock on after launch capability as their seekers have active radar homing They can be fired without the launch ship designating the target More the point, as part of the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) , they can be handled off to other assets The Chinese HQ-9 is semi-active radar homing (SARH) and can't function unless the launch ship designating is the target Additional the ESSM can be quad-packed 4 missiles in 1 VLS which gives the CGs and DDG substantially more missiles than PLAN ship Please name the Chinese ship borne missiles with LOAL , ARH or Quad pack capability Fun fact, since the USN made their own missile instead of copying like the Chinese did with HQ-9 and S-300, the USN has greater flexibility The SM-2 Active reuses SM-6 tech while the SM-6 block II use the SM-3 propulsion giving it a potential range over 500 miles and speed higher than Mach 8 Why that's possible , Commonality as the SM-2, SM-3 and SM-6 all share the same design but slight differences No the SM-2 will not be upgraded further as far as the USN goes . Last time I checked, the Russian navy lost its 11,000 ton Slava-class cruiser to two cheap knock off subsonic missiles Additional, the present of US Harpoon has caused the Russian' navy remaining frigates to retreat to out of range Strange how the Harpoon still strikes fear into the Russian navy despite being subsonic If the USN needs a ASM, they dont have to look far. The TLAM MST, SM-6, LRASM and JSM are available options that they can field on short notice The PLAN having supersonic missiles does not matter Cooperative Engagement Capability counters supersonic missiles The PLAN is no where near the level of the USN The Type-055 is still very much out gunned by the US Ticos in raw power
    4
  48. They already FAFO
    4
  49. Thats why defensively is better to engage the Su-35 at long range to make them use up precious fuel.
    3
  50. Simple, it wont happen EU and US are already ramped up to war time porduction
    3
  51. The idea is a lighter option that easier to support logistically
    3
  52. HIMARS and ATACMS have entered the chat
    3
  53. Outselling how about no even close The F-35 massively outsells the Rafale at every turn
    3
  54.  @jasonj3599  As far as the F-35s and accidents go its grand total 8 incidents Even if they lost an F-35 every month for the rest of the years, thats still a drop in the bucket In the F-14s first 15 years , it lost 45 planes. The F-15 a little over 80 and the F-16 over 200 Even if you count problems on the ground where aircraft were damaged. the F-14. F-15 and F-16 still numbers are still through the roof compared to the F-35
    3
  55.  @jasonj3599  Its called facts The Rafale is highly specialized to French needs and weapons and uses too few weapons. So unless you already have French aircraft and weapons buying the Rafale is expensive. Dassault has dragged out Rafale's procurement as well is offering it EX-FAF at deeply discounted prices The Eurofighter potential was killed by its politics. Tranche 4 is the most capable model but it can't complete with the F-15 advanced or EX if they made the tranche 4 back in 2007, it would have likely edged out the F-15E orders but due the EU constant bickering, it's upgrades arrived too little too late The Gripen is lightweight powerhouse ,despite Saab claims, its not a heavy lifter like the Rafale, Typhoon, F-18E/F, and F-15A/EX Saab like the Rafale, sells planes from the SWAF to make orders Its not that they don't have choices, its that choices dont offer the same as the F-35 By 2030, how many of those choices will be relevant The US can operate F-15s, F-16 and F-18 because they have ample air power with USAF, USN and USMC combined For countries with limited air power, the 5th F-35 is more sensible than 4.5 gen aircraft Also in 2030, most of the 6th gens will be in the prototype stage You honestly think that 4.5 gen can match a 6th ? What can a Rafale 4 or Tranche 4 Typhoon do against 6th gen 4.5 gen rely heavily of EW for protection. 6th aircraft will have highly advanced EW capabilites able to defeat such EW protection but most importantly they will have the newer generation of long range AAMs Egypt tested its Rafale against its Su-35 and Rafale's completely dominated So if you are an air forces that does heavy lifting, what senses does operatinng solely a 4.5 gen make
    3
  56. What we know is that the B-21 is the real deal
    3
  57.  @rylandavis2976  The NGAD will be substantially more expensive for several reasons Specifically, F-22 can't self laze and require external support for some air to ground weapons. The F-22s lacks multi-mission capability in a nutshell. It can carry bombs but not cruise missiles or air to surface missiles The NGAD should be able to carry at least 4 SIAW or 2 JSMs as well JAGMs for short to long range time sensitive precision strike I would expect the F-35 EOTS/DAS and HMD to carry over to the NGAD Ideally, the USAF can cut down costs by carrying over tech from the F-15EX and F-35 programs and get the USN on board with its engine program for the FA/XX which again can bring down cost While the originally F-22 had side radar which the Su-57 adopted An improved variant of the F-22s ALR-94 would be better
    3
  58. Build is relative term. Thes USN builds nuclear powered supercarriers which are far more complex that the Type-03 The Type 03 is conventional carrier not nuclear powered so its construction is simplier Secondly there is more to a carrier than just building it what about aircraft They have no AWACS, COD, EW, ASW or tanker capabilites and J-15 is complete bust ? So in the end building a ship quickly and having no aircraft for it is just silly
    3
  59. Yet Iran is threatening its citizens with prison if they reveal the scale of the attack
    3
  60.  @kaiserwilhelmi7532  And the US lacking Javelin is problem because ? If US military needs to kill armor, they literally have dozens of assets to use Example MQ-9s with Hellfire and JAGMs Apache gunships with Spike NLOS, Hellfire and JAGMs F-15Es with GBU-12/38/39/53 and thats just 3 assets The odds US forces on the ground needing Javelins to kill armor is nil sunshine
    3
  61. @johnpjones1775 That most definitely didnt happen First the Burkes are equipped with AEGIS , more the point the SM-6 can engage missiles up 150 miles away, 90 miles with SM-2 and 30 miles ESSM Secondly the Burkes have the TLAM MST which allows them to engage other ships up 900 miles away The LCS NSM only has 260lbs and Burkes would shrug that off with easy The TLAM MST 1000lbs warhead would shatter LCS like glass
    3
  62.  @yaz2928  That would be false Battleships limitation was the range of its guns and limited firepower Carriers are only limited by the range of their aircraft which with aerial refueling is well over 1000 miles Neither hypersonic weapons nor subs are threats to carriers Subs main weapon is their ability to silently torpedo targets Many countries are working on developing hard kill anti-torpedos Effectively torpedos capable of intercepting torpedos Many of the systems are still in R/D but they getting close to having an operational hard kill defense against torpedos Laser weapons are maturing faster than expected and megawatt class are expected by 2025 The current 150 kw is only useful against drone but once they go pass 500 kw, the countering missiles becomes a reality Lastly Hypersonic weapons like everything else is limited by its range The PLAN claims the DF-21 can hit target from nearly 1100 mile away but forget to mention that at the range , CVNs have nearly 8 minutes to work with Hypersonic weapons are only effective at 100 miles on down because at the range react time is seconds A normal subsonic cruise needs roughly 9 minutes to cover 100 miles while hypersonic missile at mach 10 does in 46 seconds CVNs will operate at 700 to 1000 miles away hell weapons like the JASSM-ER can be launched from 600 miles so again hypersonics are no real threat
    3
  63.  @yaz2928  DDG-51s generate 25MW while DDG-1000s generate 78MW. The USN plans for their successor to have at the minimal 58 MW in reserve which is ample for Laser weapons. As for hypersonic defenses, there is more to it then just shooting down. First , there is destroying the missile before hand by attacking where they are stored. .Secondly destroy the launching ship or aircraft before it has time. Subs can destroy ships without warning as can stealth aircraft. A F-35C sea skimiming is virtually impossible to spot till too late Third soft kill measures like electronic warfare can stop it in tracks. As the US pointed with China and Russia both their weapons require complicated kill chains that if disrupted, will cause the weapon to miss The seeker aboard the weapon can only resist so much jamming before it fails As for subs using ballistic missiles how about no CSG wont send ships after it , they will send aircraft which depending on the range can be on station in minutes and secondly how is the missile going to guide is no is giving it course up data and what happens when jamming starts so not happening
    3
  64. Javelin all the way longer range multi use better optics
    3
  65. The Constellation key feature is the MK-41 which makes it a potent asset
    3
  66.  @certaindeath7776  Wrong on all counts First lets put the swarm bullshit to rest. Neither Russia or China is going to swarm attack anything with hypersonic weapons So first , the shear of amount of material per missile says not going to happen The CVN has 11 CVNs plus the LHD-class ships so you are looking at 20 targets The SM-3 and SM-6 can deal with hypersonic weapons ,however they require a great of input from external sources. They can't accurately track and shoot like they do with supersonic and subsonic. The current SPY-1 on ships doesnt have the accuracy needed. The solution is the SPY-6 however that won't be fully fielded for a while The next problem is Electronic warfare. Hypersonic weapons rely on communication from launching platform to stay course and on active radar homing in the terminal phase. Jamming can effectively throw a wrench in that. Moving targets are problematic because they are moving The Chinese DF-21 claims 1100 mile range and a speed of Mach 10. It needs 8 min 38 seconds to reach its target when launched from 1100 miles a carrier can change its position by 5 miles in 8 mins. Jamming can effectively disrupt communications and blind seeker The USN EW aboard ship is limited in that area. Again the solution is the SPY-6. The Russia Zircon differs because its of its shorter range ,however it still relies on the active radar homing from its seeker to find its target which EW can jam Even if you launch from 100 miles away, EW can still throw a wrench in the missile guidance Secondly the whole point of the Cooperative Engagement Capability is counter swarm attacks
    3
  67. 20 plus KA-52s have been confirmed destroyed via open source intel
    3
  68. Lets see , when was the last time anyone brought anything from Russia years ago As far being self-sufficient, FYI, as their claim as world power, they are already supposed to be Second as far power lets recap Russia has lost yet a second A-50 to Ukrainian forces The lost of AWACS in modern warfare to surface to air defense is beyond embarrassing Russia's most modern equipment is all taking modern losses in Ukraine The KA-52 and Mi-28 are supposed be flying tanks per Russia yet 60 KA-52 lost so far as well 13 Mi-28 The T-90 is supposed to be the best protected tank yet over 100 and counting destroyed and thats not counting units captured and sent to West for study The Black Sea Fleet lost yet another to Ukrainian forces, that nearly 20 ships and 1 sub lost to a country with no navy S-400, S-300, Panstir S-1, Tor, Buk, and other SAM units, again getting destroyed wholesale Russia fighting a non tier peer opponents with limited capability has seen whole sale destruction of its best weapons Now imagine if Ukraine was tier Instead of a few aircraft able to use cruise missile, try entire squadrons worth Instead of FPV drones, try gunship with helicopter launched ATGM able to shred armor in one hit instead of drones catching ships at the shore, Actually naval ship to ship combat If Russia is taking a beating like this ,they have no chance against NATO let alone the US Russia borders Ukraine yet after 3 years, they can't seal the deal The US traveled 7000 miles to Iraq twice and Afghan and hand control in weeks FYI, Russian tactical blunder was staying the separatist in eastern Ukraine instead going western Ukraine which would have allowed them to completely cut of Ukranie from the West
    3
  69.  @boikanyoonneng9170  By all means lets discuss a conflict from 63 years ago I love it when you clowns cry Vietnam Your only come is a 63 years ago hilarious with completely different weapons and tactics
    3
  70. The F-35C gives the USN interim capabilites while the FA/XX will their main platform. For now the F-35C helps relieve the stress of out the maxed out F-18 fleet
    3
  71. Russia's losses in Ukraine beg to differ The lack of accurate glide bombs has been reason why Su-24, Su-30 and Su-34 are unacceptably high
    3
  72. @Kvas The simple answer is just more Russian propaganda like the Su-57. Russia hyped up 1000 Su-57s by 2020 back in 2010 Its 2021 and there just 12 built.
    3
  73.  @natureblank1401  Russia invented stealth yet no one is buying their so called stealth aircraft The Su-57 was offered for export in March of 2019 and to date has zero export orders. Strange how the country that supposed invented stealth can't export any of its so called stealth aircraft. India was part of the program and had invested in the FGFA and they have backed out. As for F-35 being brought from the Russia, nice fantasy but false The F-35 3BSW is based on the Convair 200 3BSN from 1969 Yak copied(stole) Convair design for the Yak-38 and 141 The basis of the F-35 claim from Russia is supposed comment printed in Airforce mag saying that Lockheed licensed the Yak system despite the fact that Lockheed has patents for all its F-35 tech which predated the YaK by decades The US has no trouble exporting the F-35 and if allowed, the F-22 would see the same export success Yet Russia with all its claims about stealth can't find any customers for their so called stealth aircraft
    3
  74. Incorrect The F-35s in that area don't operate in full stealth , they are generally wear radar enhancers so their interception wasn't due to them penertrating the F-35s stealth As for as the E-3, again incorrect The E-3 has the F-35, F-22, B-2, F-117 and various drones like the MQs and RQs to test its anti-stealth capabilities wheres the China just as J-20 and FC-31 The KJ500 again can only test its capabilities against the J-20 and FC-31 The E-3 problem is suffering significant obsolescence issues which is creating problems. Aircraft down for persistent maintenance issues as well persistent problems during operations E-3s age is showing
    3
  75. if its just NK vs SK , then NK loses within 3 weeks. NK has quantity not quality. Now SK has to take out NK nukes to minimize damage. Without nukes, NK can not inflict serious damage to NK
    2
  76. The F-22 being obsolete is because USAF didnt upgrade the F-22 full spec. Full spec is IRST. EOTS, side AESA,, the ability use to cruise missiles.
    2
  77. @ Stu never happen. The USAF/USN have spent billions ensuring air dominance. Dominance is not just about fighters , its the fighters and their support. Example, the US operates the largest tanker fleet in the world. KC-135, KC-130, MC-130,HH-130, KC-10 and the KC-46 on the horizion. These are how bombers are able to fly direct from the US to targets anywhere in the world. The USMCs KC-130 fleet is literally more than Russia and China's combined tanker fleet. So ability to strike globally check. New is AWACS/ECM support again the US leads that by miles. Ability to control the battlespace check. The last factor is weapons. you are correct, the fighters can be overcome but fighters can also be destroyed on the ground. One of the new lessons learned is destroy the enemies defensive capability fro the start. Knocking out air fields and sams makes it harder for the enemy to counter attack. Everyone still on the tactic of trying to fight fighter to fighter.
    2
  78. @Stu, the good thing about today is modern cruise missiles. Submarines can get point blank, say 50 miles off the coast line and fire a 1000 mile Tomahawk deep into enemy controlled space. Surface ships can also do the same. US SSGN like the Ohio can carry 154 cruise missiles. Subs can also carry special forces. Man portable weapons are deadlier than ever. a 6 man team can get within 2 miles of sam site and fire a 3 FGM-148s. That the radar, control truck and missiles destroyed. Send in 4 team and they attack at the same time, you can easily open up a massive gap in any defensive line. The same team carry other weapons and an attack an airfield. They can plant demo charges on fuel and weapon stowage with that destroyed, the enemy ability to counter attack is greatly reduced the base point, is that this modern warfare, control of the battle space can be achieved by air, land or sea.
    2
  79. @jim, excellent no, completely clueless yes. here is example, the F-35 is stealth , the Su-35 Irbis-E radar can only see the F-35 90km whereas the F-35 can easily it from over 200km in either case, the F-35 gains position on the Su-35 first
    2
  80. @Jawazh, you are confusing yourself. first the AIM-120C-7 range is 105km, the C-8 is 180. The Su-35s R-77 range varies however 110km is the accepted figure for most models. Only missiles like the R-73 and AIM-9 have short range. People see the range of the early AIM-120A/B /R77 models and mistake it for the range of the current models. the F-35 firing on the Su-35 without been detected is for certain. The problem with the video is that the maker does not use valid tactics. The USAF F-15s defeated MiG-29s 11 times because USAF planes had radar and combat control to vector them on target whereas the MiG-29 had neither. The Su-35 has very advanced radar and sensors in the front but like most planes is blind to the side and rear. The F-35 firing head on will betray its location which is why it would never do that against an advanced enemy plane.
    2
  81. Lay off the potato juice there buddy In a shooting war between Russia and NATO artillery is not even a foot note While Ukraine lacks capable air power, NATO has it in spades Russia is facing Ukraine with handful of Harpoon, ATACMS and Storm Shadow/SCALP Against NATO its TLAM, McND, KEPD-350, JASSM, JSOW ,JSM, SLAM-ER, LRASM plus Harpoon, ATACMS and Storm Shadow/SCALP and unlike Ukraine, NATO has very healthy stockpile and plenty of aircraft to use them
    2
  82.  @branned  logistics only make in protracted engagements Ukraine doesnt have the 190 mile range ATACMS which will allow them effective cut Russian logistics
    2
  83. This coping is strong with you The facts speak for themselves, it was luck not skill
    2
  84. @ftk2589 Doesnt matter because Ukraine can hold its head with pride for the cost Russia's victory The Black Sea Fleet lost their flagship, a kilo class sub and few other ships to country with no navy to speak off Nearly their KA-52s fleet destroyed , Several hundred T-90s destroyed as well captured and sent to the West Their prized S-400 is getting picked apart now How much equipment has been lost How much equipment has been sent to the West Russia's weapon against the west was GPS jamming and thanks to Ukraine they now how it works
    2
  85. Things are not looking good for Russia at the end of the day The amount of equipment that they lost is humiliation enough
    2
  86.  @hugoledouble1352  lets recap The Rafale carries 1 Exoct or 2 SCALPs whereas. The F-35 carries 2X JSM in stealth or 4x LRASM or JASSM or 6X JSM The Rafale is only wired for the MICA and Meteor whereas the F-35 is wired for virtually any weapon Thats just two areas for starters where the F-35 exceeds the Rafales that not mention the F-35 has block 4 and EPE options which again greatly exceed the Rafale by miles its called facts ,try it some time
    2
  87.  @zvonkoprosen4096  It been flying circles around the Rafale since 2006
    2
  88.  @lelarusnita5896  The JSM can be carried internally on the F-35A and F-35C. Only the F-35B has to carry externally. The F-18 does not need more than 4 ADM-160s. 2 are enough for a single ship Remember the EA-18G is jamming so the ships radar is already degraded, when ADM-160 switch to jammer mode, it further degrades the ships radar it takes 3 planes for a ship. When dealing with a large number of ships ,different tactics are required What country can provide top cover for their ships besides the US None Russia has one carrier with 30 planes max. CVNs over 80 China has two carriers and only 50 J-15s built Its a numbers and capabilities and neither China nor Russia has it
    2
  89.  @woodrowcall3158  Except the F-16 is that weapon Remember the Black Sea Fleet has operated with virtual impunity because Ukraine has no way to effective attack them Now F-16 with Harpoons would change that picture Ukrainian air force has a limited number of R-73 and R-27 and even fewer R-77s. What they do have are old and obsolete models F-16s once again, even AIM-9P and AIM-120C-5s would allow Ukraine pilots to carry out counter air operations There is nothing the West has that approaches the R-37s range but the downside for Russia is that R-37 is limited to Su-35 and MiG-31 Russia forces countered GPS munitions with GPS jammers however the F-16 with target pods can laze and blaze with PAVEWAYs So F-16 target Russian jammers allow GPS guided weapons to strike with deadly accuracy While the MIG-29 and Su-27 got the jury rigged HARM the F-16 can fully use HARM in all its modes Lastly, the F-16 is fully compatible with EU , French and Israeli weapons How you wanna beat that all 3 supply weapons to Ukraine to get real world performance data back
    2
  90.  @lape2002  You are confusing fiction with fact Massive lobbying, its called reality ding dong The Rafale does not live up to all its hype despite Dassaults boasting. It uses mainly french weapons are not common and very costly AASM costs 200K while a JDAM cost as much 57K The Eurofighter production line is closing. The last ditch order from Germany extended it to 2030 vice 2023 The Eurofighter problem has been its lack upgrades. Most users are doing their own programs vice having a common upgrade program. its 2021 and lacks of weapons is still problem for it SAAB's Gripen like the Rafale is all hype as it can't secure a contract SAAB problem is that they lack the industrial capability to deliver aircraft quickly Airbus , SAAB, Dassault are trying sell used aircraft much like how nations buy EX-us fighters with little success The USAF is committed to F-35 to 2070 while Rafale, Gripen and Eurofighter will be in boneyard by 2050 So bother with aircraft like Rafale, Gripen and Eurofighter that is in the process of being phased out As for 1500 its not 1500, its 1800 F-35 and yes its happening the USAF is neck downing to NGAD, F-35 and F-15EX. The F-22, F-15A/B/C/D/E, F-16 and A-10 are going to boneyard which makes room the newer F-35 blocks
    2
  91.  @rogerk6180  Yet the S-400 is getting shredded by ATACMS
    2
  92.  @missk1697  Sure it was Russian forces blame drones for their short comings
    2
  93.  @redaerf2b414  Ah yes, the copium claim that it was destroyed easily yet here we with two Bradely wearing a T-90s ass out
    2
  94.  @miriamweller812  Lay off the potato juice Your math is hilarious
    2
  95.  @miriamweller812  Again you prove that you are just a troll Never even heard of that channel but trolls know trolls
    2
  96.  @miriamweller812  The fact you cant write a single paragraph is hilarous and yes an IFV taking on tank is very much a success
    2
  97.  @mathewkelly9968  False RAAF has 24 F-35A as of Aug 2020 https://www.defence.gov.au/casg/Multimedia/JSF%20Fast%20Facts.pdf Secondly RAAF placed its firm order in 2009 for 14 planes at cost of 3.2 billion. https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/management-australias-air-combat-capability-f-35a-joint-strike-fighter
    2
  98.  @drfelren  They can launch them , but the US defenses are PAC-3s, GBI, and THAADs on land and SM-3 and SM-6s at sea So getting past US defenses is major problem
    2
  99. Why the USAF didnt revive the E-10 MC2A with the KC-46, the world with never know The KC-46 airframe as more room to grow than the E-7 Case in point On the KC-46 wing stores there are Cobham pods on potential E-46 AWACS, those pods could be replaced with Next Generation Jammers for self protection or Legion IRST pods There is so much potential with the KC-46 and so little with the E-7
    2
  100. Yet they are getting shredded in Ukraine
    2
  101. The idea is a lighter option that easier to support logistically
    2
  102. The copium is strong with this one
    2
  103. Ultimately the T-14 high cost and low procurement will doom it. As for it ruling the battefield not likely Man portable missile are getting deadlier every year but now, small vehicles are the threat https://www.army-technology.com/news/rafael-air-deployable-missile-launcher/ This buggy can be carried by helo and carries 8 SPIKE NLOS missiles which can be launched from 16 miles away and can easily destroy any MBT regardless of APS or ERA. Lightweight weapon likes this is what the future will look like.
    2
  104. The US needs its land based missiles but what they need to do is bring back the LGM-118 Peackeeper design and MIRV the LGM-35 with 12 warheads as well resort Tridents SLBM to 8 MIRVSs
    2
  105.  Dord Dord  Which literally means nothing The Constellation class was labeled FFG(X) numbers were assigned LHX was the America class , SSN(X) is the successor to the Virginia lcass CG(X) was the proposed Ticonderoga-class replacment The Zumwalt-class destroyer carried the DD(X) name before it was renamed The ship class and X is what the USN uses before the ship is assigned a name and number
    2
  106.  @Nordy941  Ukraine literally just cost them yet another A-50 You can't take those kinda of losses
    2
  107.  @Nordy941  So your just a propagandist FYI The A-50 wasnt a transport but AWACS The AWACS is critical part of modern integrated air defence system (IADS) The A-50 uses to communicate with S-400 sites as well MIG-31 and Su-35s equipped with R-37 With all 3 operating together, it allows for simultaneous engagement of multi targets at targets over 200 miles away That combination has been why the Ukrainian air force has been extremely limited on what they can do But most important, if Russia hopes to counter F-16s, they need A-50 flying The MIG-31 and Su-35s radar are limited in range, scope and detection and require support from the A-50 and S-400 sites With A-50s not flying and S-400 sites as well other air defense sites under constant attack Russia wont be able to keep the Ukrainian air force grounded MIG-31 and Su-35s can operate but without support, they wont last long
    2
  108.  @pgs1796  If that was true, the UK wouldnt be constantly blocking them at every corner
    2
  109.  @mark4371  No one has to provide you shit LMAO
    2
  110. No its time for Russia to admit that Ukraine with just hand ful of western weapons is kicking their ass
    2
  111.  @mcal27  Thats not progress Tactically speaking , Ukraine can draw line between them and the separatist areas and build up their forces What Ukraine needs is air power and longer range missiles with 500lbs warhead and 150 plus range weapons
    2
  112.  @mcal27  That's why need air power MIG-29s have the range to reach both Russian Black Sea fleet bases. if they could be equipped with long range missiles like the AGM-84 they could strike from 170 miles away, while outside of most Russian defenses attack both land and sea targets Secondly if Ukrainian forces did more combined arms tactics, Ground forces could neutralize air defenses and open up holes for Ukrainian air force to use
    2
  113.  @mcal27  Yeah how many kills has the S-400 got so far its just 2
    2
  114.  @mcal27  Right , last time I checked, the S-400 claims low level target ability as does several other russian systems Longest range doesn't explain just 2 kills
    2
  115.  @mcal27  Once again the S-400 and several Russian systems claim low level capabilities
    2
  116.  @mcal27  You the Panstir that has been destroyed over a dozen times and captured 3 times and counting Same with the Tunguskas
    2
  117.  @mcal27  Russia despite claiming air superiority is breaking even with Ukraine with aircraft losses
    2
  118.  @hansjorgkunde3772  And this is modern warfare The F-35 can carry 24 GBU-53s which can kill any MBT whereas the A-10 just carries 6 AGM-65 which also can kill any MBT The A-10 GAU-8 can kill MBTs but how passes does it take ? where GBU-53 is one hit and its all over The F-35 is capable to fighting planes like MIG-35 or Su-35 whereas the A-10 stands no chance The problem with the A-10 tank buster capabilities is that it requires air superiority as well SAM suppression A-10 cant fully operate in contested air space
    2
  119. Simple First the B-2 cost 2 billion because procurement was cut from 165 planes to just 21 plane which greatly drove up unit cost Secondly ,the the B-21 is designed too use commercial off-the-shelf, C4ISTAR, and radar technologies. So instead of spending money to develop tech solely for the B-21, they drew it from the existing programs The B-21 engines are an advanced derivative of the F-35 F-135 engines which saves a lot of money The B-2 AN/APQ-181 is unique to it while the B-1B and B-52 are fitted with radars from F-16s and F-18 Just as the B-1 and B-52 have derivatives of the radars from F-16s and F-18 Its likely the B-21 has a derivative of the F-35 APG-81s It likely has the Multifunction Advanced Data Link as well. The B-2 had undergo a lot upgrading to carry conventionally weapons so again, its likely that B-21 already has the stores management system and MIL-STD data buses installed for conventionally They have tech in place already is why and how they are saving
    2
  120. Its test flight is scheduled for 2023 so your point
    2
  121. The simple fact is that US spent money on their aircraft and Russia did not as its painfully obvious in Ukraine
    2
  122. The Tiger problem was simple lack of combat performance The Tiger wasnt intro till 2003 By then Israel and US had heavily used the Apache in combat and by 1998 , Longbow Apache was already in the works Lessons learned in Iraq drove AH-64E development Where the Tiger screwed up was first, its lack of longbow type radar The Osiris sight is good for passive targeting but the Longbow paired with AGM-114L allows for up 16 targets to be attacked simultaneously Simple, EU never kept pace with the Apaches upgrades
    2
  123.  @shawnmiller4781  The point is bad tactics can ruin the best of equipment
    2
  124. Lay off the propaganda buddy
    2
  125. The F-15E can carry up to 15 JDAMs in the 500lbs range , however for this The payload would be 8 GBUs in the 2000lbs range which would allow the F-15E to sink all 6 carriers and 2 battleships present at pearl harbor GBUs can be precisely targeted on key locations as well launched from 10 plus miles away so the ships would never know what hit them The 500lbs pounder could do potential sink more ships but the 2000lbs would guarantee all 8 targets would be sunk or out of commission You dont need to destroy the whole fleet, just destroy their most prized ships, the carriers and battleships
    2
  126. The whole point of getting the ASRAAM is to counter the helicopter threat
    2
  127. The US is not copying the Type-055 The DDGX image that you are jumping on is conceptual not the final design
    2
  128. A realistic answer is that NATO will easily remove Russia from Ukraine Here are real facts The Ukrainian air force has few aircraft able to use Storm/SCALP In fight with NATO, it will be Storm Shadow, KEPD-350, JASSM , SLAM-ER, RBS-15 coming from dozens of aircraft The Ukrainian army has no gunships whereas NATO has Apache, Cobra, Tigre and Mangusta for hunting Russian armor In addition , NATO has access ATACMS ,more the point, the max range variant and the US Army confimed PrSMs deliveries started in Dec 23 Lastly Russian air defense have benefited from the fact the Ukrainian air force can't fully use the AGM-88 whereas NATO aircraft can and has access to the newer models Additional Russian Sus and MIGs have benefited from the fact the Ukrainian air force has no radar or weapons to fight them with Again NATO aircraft would have no problems going toe to toe
    2
  129. cope harder
    2
  130. The most sacrificed a lot for the plot. It would have been more realistic if the Maverick was escorting the strike package and the Su-57s appeared from a hidden base Prompting him and Rooster working to together till help arrived in the form of F-22s
    2
  131. Race assumes that their the US has actually competition
    2
  132. @Ibrahim, Dealing with quantity is about having the right tools for the job. here are some examples The SK air force has 169 F-16s equipped with AESA which allows to use 6 AIM-120s to max potential the NK air force has 35 MiG-29s B and SE which are first gen Migs , state of the art early 90s as well 105 MiG-23s also state of the art early 90s. If NK loses its MiG 23 or 29, then it has nothing to challenge the SK F-16s. If SK loses its F-16s, they still have F-15K which easily outmatch most of the NK airforce NK has 585 planes to SK 518s The backbone of the NK air force is chinese copy, MiG 17/19/21 323 total 3rd gen plans wheres the SK has 4th gen and one 5th gen on order SK has air superiority right now despite NK numbers as 54 F-16s with 6 AIM-120s wipe out at least 300 NK planes in the first round
    1
  133. The F-14 could have been better if the Navy had taken the time to proper resolve its issues
    1
  134. exactly, The USN should have requested that grumman fix them ,mainly weight
    1
  135. The AIM-154 would only be useful if the weight and size reduced. The next model of the AIM-120 , needs the ability to target cruise missiles, engine like the Meteor , DRFM resistance. I would say guidance like the GBU-53. IIR, MMW
    1
  136. @ @ineednochannelyoutube5384  Thats why their different ship classes CVNs carry the planes, while LPDs /LHA/D carry troops and materiel So while the CVNs planes are bombing the enemy back to the stone age, the troops can land unopposed. The movie "Saving Private Run" Normandy landing scene is exactly why the military changed its tactics for landing troops.  The USMC/USN operates the complete package of planes, helicopters and troops on LHA/Ds but the jets and helicopters can't operate at the same time. Furthermore, the landing craft requires the ship to be a certain speed so they can depart. So with different ship class, everyone is working at the same time. CVNs planes are striking targets while LHA/D are launching helos. LPDs are launching landing craft Once the LHA/D has launched its aircraft , its own landing craft can leave Another factor is the MV-22 and F-18E/F Both are equipped for aerial refueling so that allows to keep the larger KC-10/46/130/135/ in reserve or have them orbit in locations that well protected In a conflict , tankers will be key in extending the striking or defending forces ability to conduct operations its much easier to have an F-18 tanker which can manuever better than KC-10/46/130/135/ and recover on nearby carrier or an MV-22 which can literally land anywhere versus a large KC that has travel hundreds of miles back and forth
    1
  137. @ @ineednochannelyoutube5384  Completely necessary Light carriers can function the same as CVN but they are still limited in capability CVN can operate E-2s AWACS, C-2 cargo, SH-60 Anti sub plus a mix F-18s /F-35 for multi role missile. MV-22 can be added as tankers or F-18E/F can buddy store ,either way, you have space for all the capabilities you need and space for if you need more Light carrier can't operate that mix , its much capability for their size Arsenal ships are only useful in the ballistic missile defense role An arsenal ship can carry 300 TLAM but those missiles are still limited in range and target. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/11355/this-syria-bound-super-hornet-is-carrying-a-uniquely-massive-bomb-load Super Hornet with ten 1000lbs JDAM Example, The USN fired 59 TLAMS at a Syria base. It would have taken 9 Planes to do the same the difference is the 6 planes would have been carrying bombs while 2 provided top cover and one EA-18G provide EW suppression one of 6 planes could have SHARP pod equipped so commanders could look at the best and see the damage in real time So if follow up strikes are needed TLAM can be used to precisely strike what the SH missed or vice versa
    1
  138.  @shgjjj2879  The system can currently use the JASSM, LRASM and JDAM-ER. The UK may consider adapting their Storm Shadows and the NSMs for it
    1
  139. The coping is strong with you The shoot down was luck not skill The F-117 was not retired from combat service till 2008 As for the shoot down, the Serbs literally handed the US military multi billion-dollar gift horse and they thank you for that First , Serb defenses exposed the massive short comings with US military SEAD The EA-6B could loiter for hours, however its pedestrian speed 500 mph meant that it could not deal with time sensitive targets The Serb defenses kept popping on and off , and the by the time EA-6B got near, they were long gone The EU Tornado ECR had the speed and weapons but not the sensors like the EA-6B hence why the EA-18G was developed. An aircraft with all 3 Speed, weapons and sensors able to deal with time sensitive targets as well as off and on tactics that Serbs were using. Another short coming was lack of communication , SEAD aircraft could not effectively communicate target info to other assets that were closer than them Hence why link 16 was rolled out to every aircraft . Second, the AGM-88 required radars to be active for targeting. Fast forward to the AGM-88G. The G model is literally a mini cruise able to target anything fixed or moving even if the radar is off, the G model can switch to Active radar homing and zero in. Second fun fact is data linked so the missile can updated with target info The Serb force had plenty of in forest and only F-15E and F-16s with LANTRIN pods could locate them, Now every strike aircraft has either SNIPER or LITENING pods which means there is no more hiding Lastly as for stealth, why do you think , stealth programs are still active, not because the shoot down was skill but countries understood the mechanics of the shoot down and it was literally dumb luck.
    1
  140.  @ljubomirculibrk4097  False the Alarm was scrapped in Favor of the AGM-88
    1
  141.  @RudyRankov  Sure it was Nice copium there except fail to mention that F-35 were flying with their transponder on Any one could have tracked them Secondly the method they used wouldnt work in actual combat as EW would prevent such tracking Lastly in actual combat, radar and other sensors are always target number one but by all means cope harder
    1
  142.  @RudyRankov  Only amazed by your copium
    1
  143.  @RudyRankov  Here's fact if Stealth wasnt effective, then explain why the major players are still invested in The mechanics of the F-117 was completely understood by everyone except you
    1
  144.  @zvonkoprosen4096  Canada just started the work for 88 F-35 Whereas the Rafale ?? The Rafale has been around since 2001 yet only barely 270 planes built The F-35 has 770 since 2006
    1
  145.  @jasonj3599  The F-14A TF-30s engines were notoriously unreliable and under powered
    1
  146. Except the Zumwalt wasnt a waste and that problem had nothing to with USN but rather the idiots in Congress The USN told repeatedly that naval gunfire support was no longer relevant to modern warfare due increase range of aircraft, accuracy of anti ship missiles well as modern mines and ever advancing torpedos but Congress decided they knew better and demanded that USN retain naval gunfire support The only mistakes that USN made was not using a common round for the AGS. They should retained commonality with USMC and US Army 155mm shells instead developing their own 155mm round and not making it compatible with AEGIS
    1
  147.  @ApothecaryTerry  Russia's problem is the denial and lies they tell themselves if they had air superiority, then why are Su-24,30s or 34s not flying 24/7 actively hunting Ukrainian Self-propelled artillery units They deny the effectiveness of the HIMARS yet its been erasing Russia targets wholesale
    1
  148.  @ApothecaryTerry  Ukraine requests make sense because MANPADS are the only weapon they have against Russian aircraft Without a functioning integrated air defence system (IADS) , they have to rely on MANPADS The problem is that MANPADs max out at 23,000 feet which Russian fixed wing aircraft can avoid Helicopters can't avoid them but Su-24,30s and 34 are more a problem than KA-52, Mi-24/28/35s We have seen the Mi-24 getting absolutely destroyed by Polish Piorun from a side hit and Mi-28 getting cut in half Those shots are when they can catch them off guard but most time ,helicopters are dumping flares like crazy Integrated air defence system (IADS) wouldnt be fooled by simple defense measures which is why Ukraine is asking for more if they had functioning. Russian attacks with missiles and aircraft would substantially drop
    1
  149.  @ApothecaryTerry  Catching tanks off guard is relatively easy to do and actually NLAW and Javelin can one shot a tank. In direct fire mode to the tank's tracks, it easy makes that T-90 in a to 50 ton road block. The factor you are forgetting is that tank is only traveling at 30 to 40 mph at most, whereas helicopter travel at 120 plus its takes more effort to nail helicopters unless you have them in nice open area and a weapon like Starstreak which can't be fooled by flares As far as the Russians not being incompetent Again wrong it goes back to my first statement if they had air superiority, then why are Su-24,30s or 34s not flying 24/7 actively hunting Ukrainian Self-propelled artillery units Those jets can fly high enough to avoid MANPADs, yet they are not being used to hunt Ukrainian Self-propelled artillery units Western Ukraine is where Ukraine is getting supplies from the West, yet despite Russia''s claim of long range high precision missiles they have yet to strike airports where supplies are coming in The US would have used TLAM to crater the runaways and destroy their ability to repair yet Russia is ? There is very very long list of Russian failures that shows they very much incompetent
    1
  150.  @ApothecaryTerry  Ukraine forces are not like the West They are still very much doing a lot of learning. The US provided them with Switchblade which they found too be advanced for most which is you see they using off the shelf drones more than purpose built. They haven't broken their bad habits yet and it shows. Not having air superiority very much incompetent. The Ukraine air force had 112 combat aircraft which is a mix of MIG-29, Su-24/25/27 with no capabilities to speak off. They had no R-77s for BVR ,No KAB-series PGM , no type of long range cruise. no anti ship missile nada No one of those aircraft received any sort upgrading till recently. if those aircraft were all top of the line with advance capabilites able to go blow for blow ,Russian's lack of air superiority would be understand as they are fighting a tier level opponent but they are not The claim that Ukraine spent 8 years building their forces is Russian propaganda. Its not that Russia should be doing better, its fact of what are not doing, With their claims of being tier level to the US, this should been over months ago
    1
  151.  @ApothecaryTerry  Ukraine forces still have haven't broken their bad habits yet and it shows. Lets use Kherson for example What the West would have done is use 4 Pzh-2000 with five rounds of Multiple Round Simultaneous Impact (MRSI) on the bridges While having HIMARS lay in wait. The Russian forces committed a number of advance air defense units The shelling would have lead Russian forces to believe they were only facing 155mm units and move their equipment closer Once they were in position, the Ukraine forces should have opened up with HIMARS and they wouldn't know what hit them They are attacking and doing a decent job but they are not attacking effectively With the attack on Crimea, that was finally excellent work. That is the type of asset denial attacks they should be doing No, bragging was fine Feb and March and bragging after 6 months has given way to shear incompetence that after 6 months Russia has gotten a reality check and the World has also seen Russia for what it really is all bark and no bite
    1
  152. ​ @ApothecaryTerry  When they sank the Moskava, what did Russian forces lose beside their flagship ? The Moskava had several far more powerful surveillance radars for both air and sea targets than the Admiral Grigorovich-class The weapon capability of the Moskava was also superior. In short, they lost their most capable asset How did that help Ukraine, without the Moskava capabilites , the Black Fleet capabilites as whole was greatly reduced With the Crimea attack, again what did Russia lose. 9 aircraft plus personnel and substantial damage Again how did that help Ukraine Thats 9 aircraft plus personnel that have to be replaced and base that needs repair Russian can lose armor and other equipment on the ground, that's expected but aircraft are extremely hard to replace Russian boasted it was flying hundreds of sorties, What happens when Ukraine forces have knocked out their airfields Without drones or recon aircraft providing intel on Ukraine forces movements, Russian forces are blinded Without aircraft attacking Ukrainian targets, When the West goes in , they go after the enemy's ability to defend and conduct offensive operations Specific assets are targeted, Airfields get smoked so the enemy can't put planes in the air. Air defense units are smoked so western strike fighters have free reign While the Ukrainian air forces does not have many weapons They do have KH-25s and KH-29s. Poland also have both those missiles Which goes to back to Kherson, Ukrainian grounds should have knocked out Russian defenses and had SU-24 strike the bridge The KH-29 has 705lbs warhead it would have easily destroyed key sections of the bridge The Ukraine forces lack of combined both air and ground is killing their progress Again if this was Feb or March, bragging or underperforming would be acceptable but its 6 months later and not only 6 months later Ukraine forces are actually counter attacking using low budget combo of weapons which Russian's forces can't stop? Compared to what the Russian military has access to , the use HIMARS, and other SPA is low budget
    1
  153.  @ApothecaryTerry  No "quote military analysts " would disagree. The destruction of major assets like aircraft and air fields is vastly more important than killing armor or depots Its why the aircraft carrier replaced the battleship as king of the sea The battleships gun were very effective when they got in range but easily negated by staying out of range Even ship traveling at 30 knots can't outrun aircraft, but most importantly, those aircraft can carry thousands of pounds of weapon and strike over and over and over again Neutralizing Russian airfields like the sinking Moskava would be a massive gain both tactically and strategically It called working smarter , not harder. Ukrainian forces are not quite there yet Russian forces are getting pounded by HIMARS, 155mm systems, a few AGM-88s and drone strikes. If the US was attacking, It would be raining 1.3 mil JASSMs and 2 mil TLAMs What we have seen is that Russian forces are incompentence , there is no getting around that
    1
  154. Stealth isnt cheap
    1
  155.  @rylandavis2976  The F-35 is cheaper at the end of the day
    1
  156. Its happens, that just the fact of military aviation
    1
  157. Its called tactics for a reason EA-18Gs jam the ships radar while F-35 and F-18 approach The F-18 launch ADM-160s aerial decoy to further confuse the ships sensors while the F-35s approach Once the F-35 reach optimal range, the ADM-160 switch from decoy to jammer mode while the F-35 launches a JSM. As the JSM can target precise locations, the missile targets the rear of the ship which knocks out power While the ship is trying to restore power is when the F-18s with JDAMs and finish it out
    1
  158. Lets recap The loss of the Moskava to country with no navy wasn't social media The attack in Crimea again not social media The fact that Russian leadership is constantly trying to downplay the HIMARS, again not social media
    1
  159.  @woodrowcall3158  Again wrong The Block 40 or 50 F-16s that Ukraine will likely get are very much modern and dont need anything extra There success come down to simply tactics. ECM is two way street, you are jamming but you are also telling the enemy where you are at as they now know which area to look at. The MIG-31 changing their deployment doctrine does not effect the F-16 from performing launch and leave , in order to engage F-16 with R-37, they have to be within 175 miles. Russian clowns say the R-37 range is 250 but fail to account how far the F-16 can change its position in the time it takes R-37 to reach Secondly the MIG-31 fire control radar is going light the F-16s MAWS and RWRs, again the F-16 will simply alter course and still launch and leave As for engage KA-52 and MI-28 ,thats a waste of time. Using cruise missiles to strike the KA-52 and MI-28 when they are on ground at their operating base is far more effective. 1 missile to the fuel depot, another to munition storage and 3 missiles targeting parked KA-52 and Mi-28 is enough damage or destroy In place of Storm Shadows CBU-87s would completely destroy any parked aircraft No need to cherry pick KA-52 or MI-28 when its far more effective to use US tactics and deal with the threat at the source The S-400 range is 250, the F-16 can carry missiles with far greater range S-300 under down become pointless after that As for the Su-35 and MIG-31 perfect time to lay some traps
    1
  160.  @woodrowcall3158  If there was time, Ukraine could mod their F-16 like the Israeli F-16i Sufa to be low cost variant of the EA-18G Israel uses the CFTs as EW pods for jamming and EW features There isnt time for that
    1
  161.  @woodrowcall3158  As long as they come with LANTRIN Targeting pod AGM-84F for anti-ship AGM-65 Mavericks for general use PAVEWAY LGBs Intergration with Storm Shadow or possible JASSM-A baseline Russia will feel an impact
    1
  162.  kokilius  cope
    1
  163. ​ @puellamservumaddominum6180  Yet the F-35 has no trouble finding buyers whereas Russia Su-57s has been available for export for how now with zero buyers Russia tech gained a reputation in Vietnam and the middle east against US 3rd aircraft. After Vietnam and introduction of US 4th gen aircraft, that reputation vanished over night F-15s and F-16s in Israeli hands decimated middle east in the air and on the ground Between the 70s and present, the superiority of US made technology over Russian has been clear where Russian tech has scored a handful of victories at best Besides Vietnam ,when was the last time Russia tech demonstrated its clear superiority over US. Clear not fan boy claims. The USAF is testing NGAD design right now as they have a lot tech to cram. The USN canx the railgun was because they don't have ship to trial it on The weapons requires a lot of power and few ships generate that much as well as lot of space Secondly Laser weapons are maturing faster than expected. They are smaller and more compact and dont require a lot of space Railgun needs magazine space for its ammunition plus power as well deck space for the weight of gun. Laser weight considerably less and only require power The USN may have canx for ships but its not dead because as land based defense , its has great potential Making land based does not have the constraints of ship borne. As for the USAF NGAD its likely 3D printing They used 3D printing and advanced robotics on a industrial scale and reduced overall construction time from years to weeks. Basically similar to how car are.
    1
  164. ​ @puellamservumaddominum6180  Yet the F-35 has no trouble finding buyers whereas Russia Su-57s has been available for export for how now with zero buyers Russia tech gained a reputation in Vietnam and the middle east against US 3rd aircraft. After Vietnam and introduction of US 4th gen aircraft, that reputation vanished over night F-15s and F-16s in Israeli hands decimated middle east in the air and on the ground Between the 70s and present, the superiority of US made technology over Russian has been clear where Russian tech has scored a handful of victories at best Besides Vietnam ,when was the last time Russia tech demonstrated its clear superiority over US. Clear not fan boy claims. The USAF is testing NGAD design right now as they have a lot tech to cram. The USN canx the railgun was because they don't have ship to trial it on The weapons requires a lot of power and few ships generate that much as well as lot of space Secondly Laser weapons are maturing faster than expected. They are smaller and more compact and dont require a lot of space Railgun needs magazine space for its ammunition plus power as well deck space for the weight of gun. Laser weight considerably less and only require power The USN may have canx for ships but its not dead because as land based defense , its has great potential Making land based does not have the constraints of ship borne. As for the USAF NGAD its likely 3D printing They used 3D printing and advanced robotics on a industrial scale and reduced overall construction time from years to weeks. Basically similar to how car are.
    1
  165. Piss poor upgrades and even crappier weapons
    1
  166.  @rebelliousfew  yes because wiki said so
    1
  167. Its called having quality over quantity
    1
  168.  @Flightman453  China has quantity not quality The J-20 for example is on engine number 5 in 15 years The F-22 has flow the same engine since the 90s
    1
  169.  @哈哈哈-d8b  Lets see the F-35 has the same engine since 2000s while the J-20 since 2012 has been through 5 engines and counting
    1
  170.  @TheBelrick  The F-15, F-16 and F-18s are not survivable against modern defenses Here's the math The EA-18G can jam radar and the F-15, F-16 and F-18s can use their ECM suites but they are still semi visible, the enemy simply cant lock on yet Even if you suppress the SAM, AWACS can still vector interceptors to the general location and those aircraft basically fighting their way to target The F-35 is only visible the few seconds it needs to drop its munitions You suppress the SAM however AWACS cant vector interceptors The F-35 remains unseen
    1
  171.  @TheBelrick  Actually we do USAF based on lessons learned from will operate F-35s in concert with EA-18Gs suppressing the enemy defenses The EA-18Gs are using the newer Next Generation Jammer pods which can jam even AESA radars Russia has continuously operated its air defense assets S-400, S-350, S-300, Pansitr S1, Tor Buk and Tunguska having been continuously operating in Ukraine and US surveillance and EW assets like EA-18G, EC-130s ,RC-135 Rivet Joint and Combat sent having gathering intel on their operation The fact the Ukraine is picking apart these sites clearly shows that the US has provided Ukraine with weakness of these systems which they are exploiting
    1
  172. They are trying to downplay what satellites have already confirmed That Israel struck effectively
    1
  173.  @DRKILLIE  Why are they liking the Zumwalt design go to west
    1
  174. @Juan C You dont need nukes. The F-15E can carry eight 2000lbs GBUs One 2000lbs bomb per ship. Thats takes out all 6 carriers and two battleships that Japanese sent Since GBU can be precisely targeted, they can attack the carriers and battleship at their weakest points
    1
  175. Lets see The US can build highly advanced JDAMs with long range and advanced at cost of 100,000 at the most. Since the JDAM is literally just a kit Boeing can build 100 JDAM kit per day All the US needs is MK-84 which cost 3,100 to make Want to take guess at the US millitary inventory of Mk-84, just a guess in but low millions The JDAM can be fitted to F-35, B-1Bs , F-15E and F-18 for example which allows the US to attack repeatedly Vs a hypersonic missile that loiters in space which puts it at risk from space borne collisions as well as cosmic radition in addition to dealing with potential countermeasure how material is required to just to make one hypersonic missile Also remind that JDAMs can target various type of targets whereas a space borne missile target set is very limited
    1
  176. Dassault lacks skill. The retractable systems can fail but they all have triple redundancy using combined electric and hydraulic systems Secondly, the maintenance crew thoroughly cycle the systems beforehand Dassaults claims simplicity but everyone calls its an eye sore
    1
  177.  @sedenion7679  If they could do so , then explain why the Rafale has that eye sore while its competition does not
    1
  178.  @maloflory  Again If they could do so, explain why their competition has fully retractable systems while they have a massive eye sore
    1
  179.  @pinkunicorn3373  Even SAAB has full retractable systems
    1
  180.  @sedenion7679  Also Dassault designed the Super-Étendard with retractable refueling probe in the 70 while US companies had retractable systems in the 50s Cobham had tech in late 40s. As far Lockheed using cobham , lets recap who makes the Rafale's ejection seat, it aint Dassault
    1
  181.  @sedenion7679  No its definitely lack of skill Reduce weight, you acting like like the probe weights thousands of pounds Probe barely weight 100-150lbs at most Reduce maintenance again incorrect, fixed systems require more work As its fixed, that means requires to be covered when in not use and has to be cleaned constantly to ensure there is no fuel contamination
    1
  182.  @maloflory  Cost, ease of construction and maintenance, durability/resilience which is all 100 percent false ease of maintenance again incorrect, fixed systems require more work As its fixed, that means requires to be covered when in not use and has to be cleaned constantly to ensure there is no fuel contamination Right because that exposed probe is magically immune to the effects of the elements, Sand , Dust and sea weather just magically avoids it cope much
    1
  183.  @sedenion7679  No, the fact that since 2001 Dassault has struggled with Rafale orders says it all
    1
  184.  @j.celgoog3275  There layeth the problem Aircraft are using more and more advanced composites that make them substantially lighter than previous aircraft Carbon fibre for example greatly reduces aircraft weight. Adding in a retractable system is not a massive weight issue or even technical problem
    1
  185.  @j.celgoog3275  Its fact Fixed probes were common to 3rd gen aircraft as the aerial refueling technology was still very new and reliable of aircraft systems at that time was extremely poor Air forces lost more aircraft to technical problems than combat operations By 4th gen most were retractable due to advances in technology. One of new features of 4th gen aircraft triple and quadruple redundancy systems and increase use of digital and electric systems which greatly improved reliable of aircraft systems Technology has gotten better and smaller 4.5 gen use software defined systems which has greatly simplified troubeshooting as well system testing The few countries that still use fixed probes on their fighters but can built their own are China, India and France Techincally Iran does not count as they are building copies not actual new aircraft however still that list is extremely small So with all these advancement everywhere else is very odd that France went that route Even China is switching to retractable systems on their later models J-10s
    1
  186.  @j.celgoog3275  The main draw back to retractable was system failure which again has been negated by the advancement of technology
    1
  187.  @j.celgoog3275  The whole point of digital systems is to reduce weight, cost and maintenance Weight is literally becoming moot manufacturers are getting better and better with the use of composites If you compare aircraft built in 70s to 2010 on up ,you will significant differences in weight Cost is relative. The F-35 costs less per unit maintenance is simplified by digital systems that make troubleshooting much easier
    1
  188.  @j.celgoog3275  Lets use the F-35 for example The F-35 has Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod built directly into air frame. Rafale users have purchase either AREOS ,TALIOS or Damocles separately which is separate cost and maintenance The Indian air force uses the Litening pod on all their strike aircraft Dassault pitched it but the IAF passed as made no sense for them to buy an additional pod solely for the Rafale This goes back to Dassault many problems There limited integration of EU and US weapons is another reason why their sales are so low
    1
  189.  @j.celgoog3275  The Swiss decision for the F-35 again practical The F-35 and F-18 use the same weapons while the Rafale does not Saab Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon, Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet uses the same weapons The F-35 fully integrated systems allows the Swiss air force to get all the advantages without having to pay the extra cost The bells and whistles come extra with 4.5 gen planes Boeing's advantage was that F-18E/F and F-18A/C have a great deal of commonality and the switch would have been considerably smoother but as the Swiss is not a high power air force, the transition will take less time
    1
  190.  @j.celgoog3275  Yes I know, the referendum got stopped cold which again is practical What people dont understand is that 4.5 production lines are reaching their end Most of those lines have been open for decades. The Typhoon, Gripen and Rafale both have 6th gen replacement in R/D The F-15. F-16 and F-18 the NGAD and F/A-XX Swiss can't go back and forth on this issue All those aircraft production lines won't be open for much longer Canada is the perfect example. Their canx the F-35 and the process was so drawn out that they ended right back at the F-35 Boeing fucked themselves Dassault and Airbus simply got tired of waiting Saab stuck it out but Lockheed has always had Canada in the mix Canada is asking for its F-35 by 2027, Lockheed stated they can do it by 2025
    1
  191.  @j.celgoog3275  While the F-35 is doing over 11 planes per month There is clear difference between being practical and democracy As you stated Rafale is only one with a production running high ,however the Rafale does not use the same weapons as the F-18 so they either have to buy additional weapons or pay the cost of intergration whereas the F-35 is already intergrated People dont understand how much goes into buying aircraft there very several consideration beyond simply the price of the plane
    1
  192. The image that everyone is jumping on its a conceptual not a finalized design
    1
  193.  @nggames1246  The Type-055 is a lot of things but superior to USN CGs and DDGs is not one them With the exception of the DDG-1000s, All USN CGs and DDGs use the LM-2500s whereas Type 055 uses the QC-280 which is only common to the Type-055 and Type-052 The commonality of engines makes supply, logistics and maintenance very simplified for the USN, the PLAN not so much With the exception of the DDG-1000s, All USN CGs and DDGs, SPY-1 and AEGIS whereas again with the PLAN, systems and sensors greatly vary between ships The commonality of systems makes supply, logistics and maintenance very simplified for the USN, the PLAN not so much With the exception of the DDG-1000s, All USN CGs and DDGs carry the MK-41s which can use SM-2/3/6 ESSM, TLAM, ASROC, Sea Sparrow, JSM. and LRASM Again weapons vary greatly with the PLAN ships The commonality of weapons makes supply, logistics and maintenance very simplified for the USN, the PLAN not so much The PLAN building a few ships does not make them superior to the US It does make them superior Russian as their Lider class is very much vaporware The miss mash of capabilites is why the PLAN is no match for the US as too much equipment varies between ships Now they trying to get commonality with Type-055 and Type-052D but have a very very long way to go
    1
  194.  @pooyasafaei2538  1 you are full of crap, 2 also full of 3 crap, 4, again full of crap and 5 infinitely full of crap (currently 6 type 052C, ~30 type 52D, 8 type 055)-False 6-18-and 5 again simple math The US however doesnt share same close spectrum of similar- Again false The RIM-162, SM-2 Active and SM-6 are designed to work with the USN Cooperative Engagement Capability which allows them to be control by other ship or aircraft Second the missiles are capable of the lock on after launch as they all have active radar homing which allows them to function without the launch ship designating the target The vastly inferior HQ-9 is semi-active radar homing which means it can't function without the ship designating the target The USN only needs the TLAM which vastly superior to any thing on the Type-55 both range and capabilites US cannot summon its all 60 arleigh burkes at once they dont need to ,the fact that the USN has stationed so few ships tells how much they think of China
    1
  195. No one is talking about that due to the fact Russia's it was super power yet after 10 months, Ukraine still heavily contested
    1
  196.  @redaerf2b414  Thats funny as the Ukrainian forces as saying the exact opposite Praising its vastly superior optics which allow them to attack effectively at night The fact videos have been shown of Bradley surviving direct hits missiles and from tanks main gun
    1
  197. That would be false China doesn't innovate, they only steal. lets recap on China history Chinese FILAT targeting pod was based on technology recovered from LANTIRN, TIALD and LITENING pods. Aircraft lost in combat in middle east. China has been searching and recovering equipment lost in combat in various locations Then there is the American Superconductor American Superconductor did business with a Chinese company called Sinovel who bribed an employee to provide them with AMSC proprietary wind turbine control software The J-15 is another example of Chinese copying. Rather than by Su-33s, China tried and failed miserable in reverse engineering the Su-33 into J-15 The FC-31 is copy of the F-35 and the J-20 looks a lot alike the Russian MIG 1.44 prototype Its hard to to see any quote"innovation" in China when everything is stolen
    1
  198.  @hawkychg3930  Steal is the right word. As far as them being a them a deadly competitor . no Taking the cheap and easy path, doesnt make you a deadly competitor, it just makes you a fool in the long run
    1
  199.  Dord Dord  Which literally means nothing The Constellation class was labeled FFG(X) numbers were assigned LHX was the America class , SSN(X) is the successor to the Virginia lcass CG(X) was the proposed Ticonderoga-class replacment The Zumwalt-class destroyer carried the DD(X) name before it was renamed The ship class and X is what the USN uses before the ship is assigned a name and number
    1
  200. Actually the USN needs more ships The Flight I and II plus the Ticos need to be replaced which the DDG-X will do As for purpose built thats a no go Russia's Slava cruiser and Oscar were purpose built ships and look how well that worked for them The Kursk blew up and the Moskava got KOed
    1
  201.  @just_jay7078  The USN prefers flexibility
    1
  202.  Dord Dord  Which literally means nothing The Constellation class was labeled FFG(X) numbers were assigned LHX was the America class , SSN(X) is the successor to the Virginia lcass CG(X) was the proposed Ticonderoga-class replacment The Zumwalt-class destroyer carried the DD(X) name before it was renamed The ship class and X is what the USN uses before the ship is assigned a name and number
    1
  203.  Dord Dord  There is nothing to get, you are just making shit up, the USN called its next gen destroyer DDGX is them literally doing the same they have done for decades
    1
  204.  Dord Dord  What part of concept do you not understand
    1
  205. Actually It would make more sense to retire the F-117s completely and keep 20 F-22s flying. The F-117 is uses for counter stealth development and other uses The F-22 would provide more as it can perform maneuvers similar to the Su-57 and has advanced electronics suite similar to whats found on the Su-57 and J-20s.
    1
  206.  @decentish8546  They will reduce the amount but decom the rest. Congress wont say shit as this is problem of their own creation. The USAF wanted at least 380 F-22s but Congress limited the USAF to just 187.By time they realize they fucked up, the F-22 production line was already closed and restarting would have beyond astronomical. The USAF has already reminded Congress about their fuck up with F-22s and reminded that NGAD will be cheap and because of their penny pinching Both China and Russia have caught up.
    1
  207.  @goran77ish  The F-117 was retired because its was 1st gen aircraft. It provided that stealth could work and the lessons from the F-117 were applied to latter stealth aircraft Secondly the F-117 payload was just 2x 2000bs bombs. While that made the F-117 an excellent first strike weapon,its had no use beyond that. The F-22 can carry SDBs which gives flexibility to strike a variety of targets. The F-22 electronic suite allows to perform ISR missions. The F-117 has no electronic suite nor ecm As for using the F-22s along There is not enough to do so The USAF out of 187 F-22, only 64 are combat coded for oversea operations Even if all 187 were combat coded NGAD, F-22 ,F-35s and F-15EX makes no sense NGAD-Air superiority. F-35-strike F-15EX-ANG makes sense
    1
  208. @Alexander Schmidt The USAFs NGAD/ADF/PCA program is develop a successor plane to the F-22. F-22 is the successor to the F-15 but too few were built and too few F-15s remain. The F-35 is an excellent plane but its no match for the Su-57 in WVR combat. The J-20 is designed to be high flying interceptor not a dogfighter The F-22 can easily take on the Su-57 or J-20 but USAF has too few of them. USAFs NGAD/ADF/PCA program changes that fact
    1
  209. The QE is clearly superior here
    1
  210.  @BSPBuilder  The Fujian air wing is currently MIA, its ship without planes. The PLAN is hoping that the J-15 adapted to CATOBAR would address its problems By western standards whereas is the AWACS, EW, Tanker, ASW, COD and HELO capabilities
    1
  211.  @doc0core  Again the QE Lets recap The J-15 has not been tested on the Type-003 nor does the J-35 exist. The QE has its F-35s already The UK's only problem is the lack of a internal cruise missile for the F-35B
    1
  212.  @doc0core  The Type-003 literally is relying on a mountain of IFs while the QE and PoW are actually factual The QE honesty has more potential than you realize AWACS, EW, Tanker, ASW, COD and HELO capabilities, UK can get it all from the US very quickly The MV-22 can provide Tanker, and COD for QE class The versatile MQ-9 has an ASW, AWACS and EW packages in develop for use with the STOL version to give USN LHA/Ds the same capabilties as CVNs It still retains the 8 pack hellfire capability for dealing with small crafts The UK can literally dip into the US arsenal for anything it needs while China is spending years trying to catch up As for Bear claw, the mighty Russian bear has been made a joke by Ukraine FYI, lay off the propaganda,
    1
  213.  @doc0core  Kinks that will decades for the Type-003 As for the QE being a mistake, you are confusing ships. The QE functioned as designed with zero problems. The only ship that had major problems during the deployment was the Type-45 destroyer which you are correct, Proven to be over-ambituous, and proven to be poorly planned As for the aircraft, the UK needs money for its Tempest so cutting F-35 is where they get the money The US can afford the CVN and LHD The UK has to do with one ship
    1
  214.  @doc0core  China has very very long road to travel but seems content with short cuts
    1
  215.  @doc0core  Instead of buying the Su-33, they copied it and made the J-15 which turned out to be mess The J-20 lacks a cannon and its currently on engine number 3. It weapons load is extremely limited compared to the Su-57, F-22 and F-35 The FC-31 also lacks a cannon , has more weapon options but like the J-20 engine problems The Fu is supposed have a Integrated electric propulsion but doesnt use the standard marine turbines which rises a lot of questions its power out is less than Kitty Hawk conventional carrier
    1
  216.  @doc0core  The J-15 has been described by Chinese and western media as the "Flopping fish" due it numerous problems Secondly Russia is upgrading its Su-33 to Su-30SM standard wheres the J-15 oh right, it has AESA radar ?
    1
  217.  @doc0core  If the PLAN was serious about the J-15, they would be Equipping it with the same WS-10A as the J-11, targeting pods , all the bells and whistles that the J-10 and J-11 have but they are not Specifically, they would be following the USN F-18 block III example
    1
  218. @YouTube oppressive censorship There is nothing stopping Ukraine from using its own weapons to attack military targets in Russia. The smart play would be to have special forces knock out the defense while Su-24 attack the targets with KH-29s. Ukraine can use its weapons but they haven't quite master combined arms tactics yet As providing weapons, we provided them with switchblades but they prefer off the shelf drones. They firing off Javelin precisely but still using too much The fact is we have to give them weapons a pace they can absorb.
    1
  219.  @drfelren  Does Russia have more nukes No Both the US and Russia abide by START which limits both sides to 3000 nukes each Even in their enduring stockpiles the US still has more Now Russia's problem that bulk of its SLBMs are older R-29 on older SSBNs The USN 14 SSBNs have the updated Trident which out of 177 launches failed just 11 times Russia' RSM-56s failed 10 of 31 times which does not inspire a lot confidence Secondly the USN over 32 ships equipped with AEGIS and SM-3 The SM-3 has irked both Russia and China as they both determined that it is capable of boost phase interception against SLBM and ICBM The SM-6 ability to intercept terminal phase has been another irk China and Russia Defensive speaking, NATO has ships able to intercept missiles plus the NATO defense system and plus each country own defenses Russia defenses are land based with no sea based element Nukes are not problem , getting them pass NATO extensive defenses
    1
  220.  @drfelren  The capabilities are questioned for several reasons The USN has used the Trident series since 1989 and its test record to date has been very impressive The RuAN use the R-29 and RSM-56 which as I said before doe not inspire a lot confidence The next problem is bombers Russia's bomber state is pretty abysmal right now. The Tu-95 with 8 missiles and Tu-160 with 6 missiles The USAF B-52 carries 20 AGM-86 and the B-2 16 gravity bombs The problem there is that USN has enough destroyers and cruisers with SM-6 to create a missile picket line can easily down them Thats further compounded by the newer SM-6 range which is likely 300-500 miles its uses the SM-3 propulsion On Russia's they have 2 Kirovs with the S-400 and 2 Slava with S-300s The US can easily defend itself in the Atlantic while the Pacific is only real way to strike at the US whereas Russian can't stop USAF bombers The last fact is what I mentioned first The US defenses are PAC-3s, GBI, and THAADs on land and SM-3 and SM-6s at sea whereas Russia's defenses are solely land based S-300/400/500 and the A235 People asked why Russian developed its 6 new strategic weapons, because they knew that getting through US defenses would cost them dearly Hence Status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System under water nuclear torpedo 9M730 Burevestnik nuclear cruise missile Avangard RS-28 Sarmat Kinzhal All weapons that they hope can keep parity with the US
    1
  221.  @drfelren  They screwed up when they played the hypersonic card The Kinzhal can only be carried in limited numbers while the ARRW can be carried in massive numbers
    1
  222.  @drfelren  That really doesn't make any sense but you can't rationlize Russia's crazy
    1
  223.  @youtubeoppressivecensorshi8047  Not bad Just incredibly stupid given Russia' situation
    1
  224.  @drfelren  The MiG-31 requires special conversion to carry the Kinzhal. All the hardware for the R-33s and R-37 as well associated power systems had to be removed. It can only carry 1 Kinzhal and It carries no weapons for self defense. Effectively its sitting duck if enemy fighters get in range. Lastly, one missile So unless you are going against a target with no defenses to speak off, 1 missile per plane is pretty insane not mention what lost of the aircraft would greatly effect you combat capabilities The Tu-22M3M carries 4 missiles. The USN trained in 80s to defend against waves of Tu-22s with 3 KH-22s as the Russian had close to 400 Tu-22s. Normally 8 bombers per wave which was 24 KH-22s The tactic was 3 waves of Tu-22s per USN carrier would only cost the Soviets 240 planes which for them was acceptable That was whole reason why they developed countermeasures for dealing with swarm attack Its 2022, Russia only has 63 Tu-22Ms and only 30 will be able to carry the Kinzhal While the odds were no the USN favor in the 80s The current widespread usage of AEGIS , MK-41 VLS , SM-6s and Cooperative Engagement Capability allows the USN to deal with high volume attacks with ease So insane that Russia actually believes that the US can't counter the Kinzhal But the biggest insanity is Russian's usage of it in Ukraine The West has intel aircaft all over and you are giving the US clean look at the missile performance, flight profile as well reading its EM and RF emissions ???? you can't rationlize Russia's crazy
    1
  225. Iran buying Su-35 doesnt matter , they are still no match for the Israeli air force or the USAF The US didnt prevent anything Egypt carried out a test with the SU-35 vs Rafale and the Su-35 got curb stomped by the Rafale Indonesia simply didnt have any money. The started in in 2017 and was delay after delay As for countries looking Russia's aircraft poor performance is likely sending them to China
    1
  226. Yawn
    1
  227. ​ @Kaiser Wilhelm I I can't tell if you are clueless or just stupid If Russia had captured the equipment, they wouldn't be threatening countries to stop supplying Ukraine Russia has gotten its hands on few weapons and thats about it if Russia can captured weapons as you so falsely claim, there losses would be significant lower Secondly its called the Kalibr not the mess you wrote third, those missiles are only supersonic and most importantly ,there is thing called range their range is only 410 miles ding dong
    1
  228. That would be incorrect Everything is pendulum it swings back and forth as technology advances Just as sensors get better as does weapons The S-400 key features is AESA radar and 250 mile range missile A hypersonic missile traveling at Mach 10 covers 275 miles in 2 min 9 secs That means that electronic warfare aircraft only have to jam the S-400 for 2 mins Versus 30 min for a subsonic TLAM additional defending aircraft like the MIG-31 with R-37 still don't have enough time to lock up electronic warfare aircraft as they can easily disrupt the MIG-31s radar The faster hypersonic weapons means less time for defenses to respond depend on the distance Once advanced electronic warfare systems and hypersonic weapons are fielded , aircraft have advantage as far ground targets go Even with the S-500, advance jamming and hypersonic can KO it In the air , again incorrect one of the key features of the R-77 is its ability to down other missiles That capability is also found some western missiles That latest generations of AAM can down missiles fired from other aircraft so even if they could fire, the missile can be intercepted so having sensors is only half the equation The USAF is working drones able to deploy aerial decoys which can confuse sensors Hence the reason why stealth is very prevalent
    1
  229.  @bitrage.  Again incorrect The F-117 was limited production aircraft solely used by the USAF with only 59 examples built The F-15 is mass production aircraft used by 7 nations with over 1600 examples built no comparison
    1
  230.  @bitrage.  Again incorrect With 4.5 gen aircraft, once they lost their EW protection, they have to rely solely on weapons and tactics to survive the situation With 5th gen, if they lost their stealth, they can fall back on EW. Its all about weapons ,tactics and technology and using them correctly in the right order
    1
  231.  @bitrage.  Again incorrect You can't compare F-117 and F-15 two aircraft built for different reasons The F-117 proved that stealth was operationally viable as well as it limitations There was no operational need to retain the F-117 with F-22s and F-35s built
    1
  232. ​ @bitrage.  Again incorrect its not figured out, its fact Everything is pendulum it swings back and forth as technology advances Each side has an advantage till the other side advances pass it Aircraft had the advantage till radar and missiles were developed That advantage lasted till SEAD weapons and tacts advanced Missile and radar advanced as did SEAD weapons and tactics The Iraqi air defenses were designed for high volume targets ,not Apaches and Pave lows flying NAP 10 feet of the ground For every advance, there is a way around it Counter stealth radars still have to deal with Electronic warfare ,decoys and cruise missiles Hell depending on the location, Apaches flying NAP or special forces with ATGMs can open up the door
    1
  233.  @bitrage.  And problem with that would be ?
    1
  234.  @bitrage.  Again incorrect The F-117 and F-15 are two completely different aircraft for completely different reasons with different production runs Your quoted fact is nothing but 100 percent bullshit If you were comparing the Panavia Tornado ADV to the F-15 which came out after the F-15 but was retired by 2011 only then you have point There was no operational need to retain F-117s with F-22s and F-35s built its called being practical Why retain 59 F-117s which 187 F-22s and hundreds of the F-35s do exactly the same mission The F-117 has limited speed and maneuverability whereas the F-22 and F-35 has very high speed and maneuverability facts
    1
  235.  @bitrage.  There is no difference clown when you are wrong , you are wrong end of story
    1
  236.  @bitrage.  Yawn
    1
  237.  @bitrage.  Again incorrect The M2 was designed in towards to end of WW1 yet newer rounds like the Mk211 make the M2 just as deadly
    1
  238.  @bitrage.  Again incorrect its called being practical why retain 59 F-117s when you have newer aircraft
    1
  239. The US tried that once before, it was called WW1 and WW2 Sitting back and letting the world go to shit is not the answer
    1
  240. its 16 units and yes they are changing the course of the war The M777 needs 20 minutes per mission The HIMARS only need 4 The Ukraine and US currently ironing the details of providing Ukraine with 200 ATACMS missiles Unfortunately for Russian , the PrSm program is in near production and the fact the M48 and M57 ATACMS are close to 20 years old Its easier for the US to give the Ukraine the older model ATACMS versus spend money to demil them
    1
  241. @John Grigg They do have quite a bit of kinetic energy but not that much Can they cripple, consider the fact that target is 100,000 tons and armored
    1
  242.  @wolfgangjr74  No likely carriers have layers compared to surface ships
    1
  243.  @井蛙坐井观天  Here are actual facts U.S. Navy has support worldwide whether onshore or at sea, and interoperability benefits with other U.S. and allied naval ships One example of this is the LM-2500 series which 80 percent of USN ships and also in use with several allies The use of a common engine greatly reduces operational cost. Very few USN ships dont use LM-2500s and upgrading the rest is only a matter of time The Chinese navy is miss mash of tech, only the Type-52D and 055 have a degree of commonality The SM-3, SM-6, ESSM, and newer SM-2 Active have lock on after launch capability as their seekers have active radar homing They can be fired without the launch ship designating the target The Chinese HQ-9 is semi-active radar homing (SARH) and can't function unless the launch ship designating is the target Additional the ESSM can be quad-packed 4 missiles in 1 VLS which gives the CGs and DDG substantially more missiles than PLAN ship PLAN lack both quad pack missile and lock on after launch Additional as part of the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) , the SM-3, SM-6, ESSM, and newer SM-2 Activce an be handled off to other assets Again, capability that PLAN does not have The PLAN has built ships but their capabilites are no where near the USN level
    1
  244. Its either tonopah test range or Area 51 or both. Considering that they started working on the technology back 2010 and declared most of it mature in 2017 This is not surprising.
    1
  245. The MiG-35 was already dead. Its been on the market since 2007. Ironic, interest has been in the older model MiG-29s not the MIG-35s As for the Su-75,Checkmate, its more junk. I say that because I am seeing the same hype Russia did on the Su-57 when they called it the PAK FA. Like the PAK FA, the Checkmate isnt built yet. The first flight is 2023. The PAK FA program was delayed by nearly 3 years due to engine problems They are planning on use the Iz-30 engine designed for the Su-57 program. Surprise Surprise, the IZ-30 is supposed to be equipped to Su-57M in 2022 whereas the first 76s will use the existing AL-41F. In a nutshell, they are still ironing out their problems with IZ-30s hence the delay to 2022-23 Now lets look at what we can see. They still have that big ass blister OLS system by the cockpit why ??
    1
  246.  @sockaccount8116  Despite Russia claims of ironing out the Su-57s problems, no one buying it
    1
  247. The F-35 was operational, it just wasnt used due to plot
    1
  248. It good but ultimately with out the ATACMS or longer range Harpoon, it can only do so much
    1
  249. First , there are no battleships in service secondly its called Close in Weapon system (CIWS) CIWS dont have infinite ammo The USAF can use ADM-160s to bypass the CIWS ADM-160 are aerial decoys that act as jammers which will blind the CIWS, since the decoys are half the size of JDAMS its even harder for the CIWS to target. Ships can't target ADM-160s with missiles either
    1
  250. Guess no one told them that DDG(X) design right now is just notional right now
    1
  251.  @minus21334  They didnt just use the Burke they took elements from the Ticonderoga as well
    1
  252. Unfortunately neither Japan nor Germany would be up for that fight The Luffwaffe performs Baltic Air Policing and trips to red flag andthats about it. They havent been in combat since well WW2 With the exception of the Germany army going to Iraq, Kosovo and Afghan as support Most of the Germany military hasnt seen any combat. Japan is pretty the same why ,besides relief missions ,they also lack combat experience Neither has significant offensive capabilities The Russia has zero qualms about using depleted-uranium munitions whereas both Japan and Germany can't use it because of opposition The T-14 is why Germany to rapid develop the 130mm as existing tungsten rounds won't penetrate the T-14s armor Ironically the EU opposition the cluster munitions is something that will bite them in ass in conflict cluster munitions are extremely good at thinning out large numbers of the enemy forces and Russia is all about numbers 2 CBU-87s can cover about 200 yards which means one plane can cover a whole a lot area per attack without cluster munitions the EU lacks the weapons to take out large numbers of enemy forces en masse
    1
  253. The problem with that is the it opens China's coast line to SEAD. The thing people forget about the F-35 is that it can operate effectively in stealth and non stealth. Example the F-35 is designed to use the JSM and JASSM. The J-20 would need to be 400 miles out to deny the F-35 the ability to use the JSM or JASSM, or at 800 miles to stop the F-35 from using the JASSM-ER. China problem is that they lack tankers. So luring the F-35 in close will not work out for them
    1
  254.  @Strangelove101 @ They have the H-6 but too few to make a difference. The Xian 20 would improve their ability but still not enough to compete with the US
    1
  255. Russia learning the weak points of the L2 is literally moot The whole point of the 130mm program is giving the Leopard a gun able to smoke the T-14 in one hit as Germany already knows that its 120mm will be ineffective against it Secondly the L2 replacement, the KF-51 is already in the prototype stage
    1
  256. Space and balance
    1
  257. The E-7 makes zero sense What USAF should have down revive the E-10 MC2A but based on KC-46 airframe
    1
  258. Nope Man portable missiles are going to rule
    1
  259.  @grahamstrouse1165  And your point The ESSM can quad packed per VLS Size is irrelevant Every generation of ships is larger the previous generation The Burk class started off at 8000 tons and grew 9500 The Planned DDG-X is 13,000 so again Size is matter not
    1
  260.  @justice9775  If the F-22 was built the full spec, the USAF likely wouldnt be bothering 6th gen aircraft right now. It would focusing one block 4 F-22 or F-22C The Eurofighter has features that the F-22 lacks. Most notably ,in WVR, the F-22 lack off boresight capabilities as well as IRST The Eurofighter with the ASRAAM has 90 degrees off boresight capability whereas the F-22 lacks off boresight capability.Even though the F-22 can out turn the Eurofighter, the Eurofighter still has over the shoulder capability The F-22 is just starting to field the AIM-9X but can't fully exploit it capabilities. Even though the USAF is fixing said problems, they are doing the least about of work as their focus is getting the 6th gen operational
    1
  261.  @scottwhitley3392  As much as EU argues not likely
    1
  262. Yeah no Are their programs that USAF needs to cancel, yes the NGAD and CCA is not one of them The point of the F-22 was maintaining superiority over China and Russia which did and would keep downing if short sighted people didnt cancel it What is needed is not 5th but 6th gen aircraft that utilizes the best features from the F-22, F-35 and F-15EX It would be prohibitively expensive as well as pointless trying to develop another 5th gen aircraft 800 not but at least 400-500 AI and drone technology absolutely not People may be drunk on the FPV kool aid from Ukraine but thats isolated situation When you start taking people out the cockpit prematurely that how problem start
    1
  263. The F-35 is a multi service program The NGAD is not The F-35 replaces F-16s for USAF, F-18s and AV-8s for the USMC and gives the USN stealth from the sea thats a simple or easy task to accomplish The NGAD is built solely for the USAF not USMC or USN When you have multi-service programs, its very long and complex To replace the F-14, the USN ordered F-18E/F in 1992 , it flew by 1995 , first units by 1999 and IOC by 2001 The F-15EX was ordered in 2018, flew by 2021 with first units by July of this year There are several cases when USMC, USAF and USN buy their own unique assets in considerably shorter times
    1
  264.  @militavia-air-defense-aircraft  Waterline is still the best area to target on carriers as the 2000lbs pounder could penetrate both sides of the ship with the blast Now the battleships, yes the rudder would be best target The carrier sides are designed to counter torpedeos not bombs
    1
  265. It honestly depends on the carrier and if it has the right weapons. As its WW2, there would be no GPS. Ironically, all they would need A-6 Intruders for attack and F-14 for CAP/escort , E-2 for AWACS and S-3 for ASW The A-6 could sunk any Japanese ship with either AGM-123 Skipper which had a 1000lbs warhead and could be launched from up 15 miles or with AGM-62 Walleye with 2000lbs warhead from 45. A-6 could also use the early versions of Paveway II. Most important the A-6 TRAM enabled it perform night attacks so A-6 carrying 5x 2000lbs LBG at night could easily sink carrier or battleship in 2 hits as laser guided weapons can be keyholed. F-14 with AIM-7 could easily BVR kill Japanese aircraft. The AIM-54 is overkill even if targeted against larger aircraft. The S-3 can carry 4 MK-46 aerial torpedos which are more than a match for a WW2 sub So with A-6 handling the attack, F-14 taking care of the fighters, E-2 being the eyes and S-3 on the hunt for subs Super carriers can operate up 90 days without resupply The IJN would last about 5 weeks. The IJN is spread out through the pacific so it will take time to hunt them down
    1
  266.  @coriespringer9785  No it has to be search and destroy
    1
  267.  @garethbull2226  First As its WW2, there would be no GPS The latest generation of weapons and technology heavily rely on GPS. JDAMs, JASSM, SLAMER, JSOW A-6 didnt rely on GPS nor did most of it weapons. How would a 2020 carrier in WW2 use GPS, it can't The F-18 has few weapons that dont rely on GPS. F-14 uses the earlier LANTRIN pod which had its own inertial measurement unit for generating targeting info and didnt rely to much on GPS S-3 could travel further and faster than the MH-60s and carry a heavier load
    1
  268.  @garethbull2226  A pre-GPS air wing would be better. Secondly the USN does not use the LITENING pods. They use the AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR pod. The ATFLIR is only used by the USN and RAAF. The USN is considering a replacement as the LITENING and SNIPER pods has been heavily upgraded with feature not found on the ATFLIR Now yes granted an all F-18 carrier is easily to operate than A-6, F-14 and S-3 but combat with the IJN will least at least 5 weeks max so maintenance wont be a problem Those weapons can operate without GPS but ones I mentioned never had GPS so it makes it simpler S-3 range and payload are much better. Yes WW2 subs operated on the surface which in theory means a long attack from with Harpoon would be possible Well the USN has been suffering a series of set back with the MH-60 as its not operating as effectively as they hoped. The USN lack of an ASW aircraft has become a issue
    1
  269.  @garethbull2226  The benefit of the S-3 was it that it was carrier based which allows it to be airborne as needed. The USN has the RQ-4 and P-8 which greatly increases it detection capabilities but they have to be on station The P-8 can fire on targets whereas the RQ-4 can just spot them. Now there is a MQ-9 navalized that can operated off a carrier and carry weapons and operate up to 49 hours Give it the ability the launch 2 Mk-54,JAGMs and sonobouys and aerial tankering problem solved. In case a sub is forced up to surface, carrying JAGM allows it to inflict damage while its on the surface
    1
  270. Actually they will If Ukrainian aircraft are being modded to carry western weapons, then Russia is screwed First the naval problems The Black Sea Fleet has 4 Frigates which don't have advanced air defense , their defenses max out 31 miles Even early model AGM-84 range is 120 miles , the remaining Corvettes also don't have advanced defenses So wiping them out won't take long Secondly MI-24 have been modded before to carry Mk-46s torpedoes and as the Kilo's are diesel again won't take long With their naval assets out of the pictures, Russia can't resupply via sea and things would take a turn for the worst for Russian forces if they lost their naval assets
    1
  271. Ukraine is losing cities while Russian bases are blowing up weird right
    1
  272.  @the13xiii52  Lets see look at the results of that training 1 Russian flagship sank over a dozen general killed Russia best equipment destroyed with amazing regularity Ka-52s and Mi-28 touted by Russian as flying tanks combined for 20 losses T-90s touted as best protected tank easily destroyed, Hell Ukrainian forces KOed a T-90 with recoiless rifle no less Now Ukraine special forces attacking targets in Crimea, seems that training is paying off
    1
  273.  @the13xiii52  In order to hold a city moron, you need supply and logistics from your base No base, no ability to hold city
    1
  274.  @the13xiii52  Yeah, thats called getting your ass kicked Russia has been at 6 months and gotten no where Ukraine has hold for 6 months and is fighting with a vengeance
    1
  275.  @madzihove  Well lets see, Russia has vastly more capabilities than Ukraine yet after 6 months , this situation is very much highly contested You are right, no one cares about Donbass, or luhansk as those are the separatist regions where they have a power base The Russian complaints about the West supplying Ukraine yet does nothing about it as HIMARS continues to erase Russian targets wholesale
    1
  276.  @the13xiii52  I love it when the only come back your idiots got is decades old crap this 2022 not 1940s
    1
  277.  @the13xiii52  6 months and all the so called losses they have inflicted on Ukraine they are still very much in this fight weird right
    1
  278.  @everlastzyt5895  Its still a carrier with no planes
    1
  279.  @kevinlang9533  Not likely
    1
  280.  @everlastzyt5895  That would be false The USN has 9 Carrier Air Wings (CVW) which rotate from carrier to carrier When a carrier undergoes Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH) which takes them out of service for 4 years, their air CVW is assigned to another carrier while they are in RCOH. When a carrier is not RCOH and doesn't have CVW yet, it is used to accommodate T-45 trainers for carrier qualifications Lastly a little common sense here The Ford replaced the Enterprise ? so what you did think happened to the Enterprise's planes when it was retired ?
    1
  281.  @everlastzyt5895  Again wrong The Ford class, with a planned total of ten ships, will replace the Navy's current carriers on a one-for-one basis, starting with the lead ship, Gerald R. Ford replacing Enterprise (CVN-65), and then eventually taking the place of the existing Nimitz-class carriers. So what , the USN retired the Enterprise for what ? Lay off the stupid so what you did think happened to the Enterprise's planes when it was retired ? moron The facts still stand the USN has 9 CVW to equipment it carriers whereas China has jack and shit As far the Ford just launched ? It was launched in 2013 and commissioned in 2017, so again math is not your strong suit Again the type 003 is carrier with no planes clown as the stated before, the USN has 9 CVW to chose from to equip the Ford
    1
  282. The idea is a lighter option that easier to support logistically The problem with MGS was that it was poorly designed Griffin has actually has a lot potential because the Army can use to replace the Bradley and have a common platform which would save major $$$ It can configured as a light tank and configured as Bradley replacement with the newer 50mm XM913 The only thing it would need would the Spike NLOS
    1
  283.  @Flamechr  Mission killing a carrier is waste time if the sub is destroyed in the process. Secondly unlike the Russia navy , the USN has plenty of dry docks that can hold a carrier so even with damage, all the USN to do is dock it pier side , crane off the aircraft and equipment ,then dry dock and repair the damage then put it back into service
    1
  284.  @quantum.decoherence  If the missile is hit, then shear force of its speed will completely destroy it , secondly the debris wont do any damage, its called the curvature of the earth. Unless the missile comes over the horizon, its going harmless hit the water
    1
  285.  @BorntoYeet  The Zircon has level low flight profile however as you started, its not as fast as the high level
    1
  286.  @certaindeath7776  That would be false You are aiming against a moving target. if the target location was fixed, then simple inertial navigation system would work, Secondly carriers are travel in battlegroups so there are multi ships present, in order to go after the right target someone has to guide the missile . Without that guidance,it will lock on to the nearest target. The anti ship missiles utilizes data links which allows the launching platform to keep them on target. Secondly due to speed the missile travels, it can't use Electro-Optical Targeting or e Digitized Scene-Mapping Area Correlator (DSMAC) The only thing that it can use is active radar , data linking and passive homing all of which can be defeated by EW passive homing tracks target by their RF emissions , Simple blip enhancement can counter that as stated before, EW Jamming can disrupt the seeker and communications There is no such thing as seeker than cant' be beat Its called countermeasures for a reason moron There is measure ,then countermeasure, then counter-countermeasures ,it goes back and forth And thats why the USN developed Cooperative Engagement Capability , the effective counter Chinese and Russia tacitcs as told you before, the advancement of technology makes swarms basically useless
    1
  287.  @BorntoYeet  Not if you use a double tap or combine it with other assets
    1
  288.  @lape2002  That would be false Airbus hasnt brought anything to the ground Airbus commercial may be reaping some rewards from the Boeing commercial problems but lets look at Boeing defense vs Airbus defense The JDAM series still massively outsells the French AASM AU dumped the Tigre in favor of the Apace E CH-47, E-7, P-8. MV-22, F-15EX, all have been doing relatively well Lets look at Airbus defense Despite its hype the C-130J still massively outsells the A400M The Typhoon is on its last leg The only product they have that is doing reasonably well is the A330 MRTT Boeing does not rely solely on its commerical side like Airbus does
    1
  289. The simple answer Russian incompetence Russian lost this conflict from day one At Battle of Antonov Airport Simple plan take the airport, land reinforcements and blitz Kyiv just 10 miles away and reinforce again with additional ground support If they had been successful, Kyiv would have fallen in 3 to 5 days instead they turned a simple plan into massive cluster fuck Instead of coming in at night as the US would have done, they come in broad daylight and got their asses kicked Instead of using Mi-26s to bring in additional forces, they used IL-76s and ended with 2 shot down and rest forced back to Russia when Russian forces failed to capture airport , the Mi-26 could have landed nearby at secondary LZ and allowed Russian forces to maintain pressure but instead they give Ukraine time to render the airport unusable. Without that airport, the convoy instead of pressing into Kyiv ended up grinding to a screeching halt That was the critical mistake that cost them The other critical mistake is lack of leadership In the US, all the generals in high level positions and most of the time, the SecDEF as well have vast military experience In Russia, most of the general in high level positions have very little combat experience or flew desk most of their careers Perhaps the biggest is that Sergei Shoigu, Russian Minister of Defense never served a day in the Russian army By all accounts, its literally a politician With combined that together Ukraine surviving this long kinda makes sense as the Russian leadership has literally no idea what they are doing
    1
  290. Sorry but it already is China's problem is engines They are still relying on Russian engines while they struggle with their locally made The USAF had 30 years of operating the B-2 to gain invaluable insight for the B-21 China has only operated the Xian H-6
    1
  291.  @xiaogangdasha  The J-20 is another failure Sec Def statement the B-21 can hold any target at risk is chilling
    1
  292.  @xiaogangdasha  Lets see J-20 has no gun limited payload and in 10 year time, has got through at least 5 engines
    1
  293.  @xiaogangdasha  Let see The J-20 has not left the box that China keeps it in while the F-22 and Su-57 have seen real world operations As the PLAAF keeps the J-20 in a tightly sealed box, it does not compare to the others Even at the air show where it was show cased, the routines was tightly choregraphed as the J-20 only did basic moves and rolls No minimum radius turns No slow speeding handle demo Nada even the Su-57 demos show a degree of performance
    1
  294.  @xiaogangdasha  How exactly is the J-20 supposed to compete with the F-22 or Su-57 when China keeps its in a tightly sealed box If China was serious about the J-20 , they would send overseas like they do with J-10s and J-11 but they wont as the J-20 is sub par at best
    1
  295.  @xiaogangdasha  India has top tier AWACS ,however their problem is that their missiles quality is piss poor The R-77s hasnt lived up and Astra is dragging ass In order to counter China in a potential engagement, they need a massive improvement with their air to air missiles
    1
  296. Yes all their weapons are British and American, Here's a hint why In potential conflict , Israel's industrial military capability could be crippled or destroyed effectively leaving them defenseless whereas by using weapons from the US and elsewhere, they wouldnt be defenseless if their own local stuff is destroyed Case in point In 2023 and 2024, the United States transferred over 14,000 Mark 84 bombs to Israel. The US also sent large numbers of Mk-83 and Mk-82s The US sent THAAD to Israel as again Israel uses a great deal of US tech and connecting the THAAD to their defense network was simple plug and play So you are arguing Israel using common sense lets look at Iran if all their local stuff get hits, they are boned and they know it
    1
  297.  @boikanyoonneng9170  Thats missiles failing not whole system get destroyed cope harder
    1
  298. Iran supports a number of terrorists groups with weapons and training, a conflict with the US would see that end' which is a massive strategic victory as those groups would no longer have a ready supply of weapons and training There would no strategic victory.for the US, only benefits
    1
  299. ​ @arandomcrusader-9355  First its only 2 active with 2 in testing/fitting. Secondly the cost of the Yasen is so high thats it being capped at 10 boats Third most importantly, the Zircon is not fully operational on any of the Yasen as they literally just started testing the beginning of October Lastly, how many Zircons will the Yasen carrying isnt known however as the Yasen is copying the US Virginia class Virginia Payload Module, it likely near the same. The Zircon like the Kinzhal can be defeated with simple EW Jamming can effectively disrupt communications and blind seeker Hypersonic weapons rely on communication from launching platform to stay course and on active radar homing in the terminal phase. Jamming can effectively throw a wrench in that. Moving targets are problematic because they are moving The Chinese DF-21 claims 1100 mile range and a speed of Mach 10. It needs 8 min 38 seconds to reach its target when launched from 1100 miles a carrier can change its position by 5 miles in 8 mins. The Russia Kinzhal claims a range 1240 miles from MiG-31 and 1860 from Tu-22M3 however the problem remains the same. When launched from over 1000 miles, a carrier can change its position by nearly 5 miles. So in order to stay on target they need info via datalink, without it, the seeker will lock on the nearest target. The Zircon can launched much closer but its seeker is still vulnerable to EW One of the advantages of subsonic missiles is that their low speed allows to carry electro-optical or imaging infrared seekers for target recognition and terminal homing EO/IR seekers can compare images stored on the missile onboard memory and allows the missile to find the right target without external input The speed of hypersonic weapons prevents the use of EO/IR seekers Even the seeker is pointed at the right target, the target can still barrage jam ,deploy blip enchanement and decoys Hypersonic weapons are excellent for land targets but not for ships Airfields, weapon storage sites,fuel depot, ports , factories, power plants. large radar sites are all targets that are perfect for hypersonic weapons as missiles would require no external input, they just drop and destroy but ships is like trying to tread a needle
    1
  300. Lay off the potato juice their ivan The F-16 will crush Russian forces Lets see Ukrainian forces can only send drones against the Black Sea Fleet while the F-16 can utilize the air launch Harpoon from as far as 170 miles against the Black Sea Fleet Ukrainian forces only have a few aircraft able to use Western weapons while the F-16 is already wired for US,EU , French and Israeli weapons Ukrainian forces have limited number of R-73s, R-27 and few R-77s ,most of all are outdated or obsolete models, whereas the F-16 once again is wired to use the latest models of AIM-9s and AIM-120 thats just a fraction of the F-16s brings
    1
  301. Ukraine is getting CBUs and DPCIMs Now the party is really going to get started
    1
  302.  @duceposting1831  " I've seen plenty of Bradley's with turrets tossed 15+m away " We can safely say you are full shit Jack in the box is unique to Russian tanks due to the way they store ammo and the amount they carry Brady don't Jack in the box as they carry fraction of the ammo TOW missiles carry 13lbs warhead and most Bradley has 7 plus 900 rounds of 25mm T-90s for example carry 43 125mm rounds and most those rounds have between 20-30lbs warheads which is what Jack in the box with Russia tanks are so violent No to mention that Bradley rear drops down allow the explosive to channeled out the back So literally not happen on a bradley
    1
  303. Getting shot down can happy to any aircraft
    1
  304. No, the Bradley's replacement need to learn from this engagement Using 25mm fire , it was luckily able to suppress the T-90 but the larger 50mm XM913 would have been able to inflict far more damage The Bradley's replacement needs a missile able to be fired even if the IFV is moving at high speed
    1
  305.  @pepperedash4424  Exactly, so the Su-75 is just more russian hype
    1
  306.  @pepperedash4424  Despite its hype, It won't be as successful As the MiG Their reputation went to shit hence why Sukhoi is now Russia's mainstay The MIG-21 had great success in the 1960s because the US military let idiots with do zero combat experience dictate how warfare should be conducted After that experience, There was a change in thinking. That change lead to the Teens series which completely dominated Russian MiGs F-15 killed both MiG-25s and MiG-29s F-16s killed MiG-23s and MIG-21s F-18 killed MiG-21s F-14 killed MiG-23s both in US and in Iranian hands The other side MIG-25 killed single F-18 Iran lost a few F-14s Ands thats about it MiGs rep after the 60s went down hill very quickly
    1
  307. Yes but hypersonic weapons can't be recalled once launched Secondly, its called flexibitiy
    1
  308.  @monitoni7901  What people get wrong about Serbia is that F-117 did not fail What USAF failed was the aircraft supporting the F-117 The EA-6B , F-16CJ and Tornado ECR failed to destroy Serbian defenses Those planes had severe limitations which allowed Serbian defenses to survive The EA-6B had sensors but not the speed. The F-16CJ and Tornado ECR relied on the EA-6B to provide data but they had to get info from AWACS not the EA-6B The AGM-88 could only target the site if it active. Other assets in the area also could not target the sites Now the reason why the US still betting on stealth tech is they learned from Serbia The EA-18G has both sensors and speed but most importantly far more advanced sensors Three Growlers networked together can generate targeting tracks for hostile radio-frequency sources in real time. They trilaterate a target from wide area to a very, very small area. The AGM-88 has been heavily reworked so it can target site even if its cold or moving The Growler has 3 data-links to which it can transmit targeting data direct to other assets without having to go through AWACS Targeting pods are now standard on all strike assets which can visual ID targets from significant ranges allowing to find target much easier Lastly, the F-117 was designed for maximum stealth so it lacked MAWS and RWRs Thanks to AESA low probability of intercept, the F-22 and F-35 has MAWS and RWR that doesnt betray their position The US is still betting on stealth as they understood where they went wrong as for betting on hypersonic weapons Again the US is vastly superior in that Russia's Kinzhal can only be carried by MIG-31 and Tu-22M3M, One missiles on MIG-31 and 4 on the Tu-22M3M China's missiles like Russian are limited 1 to 2 missiles plane The US ARRW is designed so one missile carried F-15E and up 31 missiles on B-1B Russia's Zircon's range is 640 miles while the China' YJ-21 range 300 miles. The LRHW range is over 1700 miles Unlike China and Russia, the US has several programs in work The Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM) USAF for tactical flexibility to employ fighters to hold high-value, time-sensitive targets at risk, The Hypersonic Air-launched OASuW. HALO as carrier based hypersonci asset for the USN for F-35, F-18 and FA/XX So the US is very much ahead of the game
    1
  309.  @jetli740  And the reason those low tech missiles sites were not destroyed was its not spinning, its fact. NATO SEAD failure to suppress Serbian defenses was major factor I am going to pretend you didnt just use google as source thats hilarous beyond anything
    1
  310.  @jetli740  Adding a recall system to missile is potential weakness that enemy could exploit
    1
  311.  @jetli740  The whole point of SEAD is to eliminate the enemy's defenses and the SEAD wasn't up to the task in Serbia That same is happening in Ukraine, Russia's failure to suppress HIMARS has cost them dearly Russia's failure to secure western Ukraine has allowed Ukraine to access to more and more advanced tech and weapons Without western supply, Ukraine would have folded by April Google is as good making up its
    1
  312.  @jasonj3599  Thats still a faction of what the US has to work with
    1
  313.  @jasonj3599  Again incorrect He stated that E-3 problem is that its suffering significant obsolescence issues which is creating problems. Aircraft down for persistent maintenance issues as well persistent problems during operations The E-3 fleet is becoming operationally unreliable which has nothing to do with the J-20 capabilities The E-3 can handle the J-20 but its persistent maintenance and operational issues means that they can't be relied upon That means that newer E-2D will have to quarterback till the E-3 is replaced
    1
  314. @IMAN7THRYLOS That very unlikely First the F-35 in stealth has variety options First is 8 GBU-39 or GBU-53s are lightweight weapons designed to be as flexible as the tried and true GBU-12 but with significant better capabilites For harden targets, the F-35 can carry the JSOW C1 with the same BROACH multi-stage warhead tat SCALP uses granted, the F-35 has to close to 70 miles whereas SCALP can launch from 350 miles Secondly the F-35 internal cruise missile currently is the JSM which has 300 mile range however Lockheed has been contracted to develop a variant of the JASSM-ER that the F-35 can carry internally The key factor you are missing is that F-35 has performance for missions that dont require stealth In non stealth, they can carry 4XLRASM or JASSM-ER or 6 JSM missile up to 3 triple the load of the Rafale with comparable range
    1
  315.  Xigap  The SCALP is advanced but not that advanced
    1
  316. Its called weapons and tactics for a reason EA-18G can jam the hips radar ADM-160 can be used additional decoys and jammers The F-35 can use the AARGM-ER against the ships radar while the F-15E approaches JDAMs and finishes it off Its game changer because depending the complexity of the target The US military would not have expend 3 million dollar LRASM. Instead they can use a 120,000 at most advanced JDAM Even with complex targets, the JDAM can still be used The AARGMER which is the newest model of the AGM-88 can used against the ships radar First by the design, its seeker can home in the radar emissions and secondly because of the problems the USAF had in Serbia the AGM-88 seeker was upgraded so it could strike any target. Without radar, its AA defense is useless Secondly CIWS systems radar are not that advance and can't overcome jamming
    1
  317. Adapting JDAMs for anti-ship is not that hard to do Both the French AASM and Israel SPICE have precision seekers for 2000lbs bombs so all the USAF need to do fit seeker and datalink to 2000lbs bomb which the USAF has ample technology to choose from
    1
  318. Sniping aircraft and missiles
    1
  319. Simple Russia's Su-34 was claimed as high performance flying tank aka Hell duck yet they are being downed regularly over Ukraine Same with Su-35 , lofty claims yet get smoked over Ukraine All of Russia so called advanced assets are getting torn apart in Ukraine
    1
  320. No the F-35 is replacing the F-16s for the USAF. Possibly the A-10 as well. The NGAD/ADF/PCA is the F-22s replacement. The F-15EX gives the Air National Guard a modernized aircraft.
    1
  321. Besides the fact that USMC is not a separate force from the US Army literally wrong on every count
    1
  322. @salilpanwar6922 There is thing called SEAD, Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses Now pay attention clueless While stealthy B-21 are penetrating SEAD aircraft are attacking the enemy's defenses preventing them from locating the B-21 Currently the EA-18G needs to suppress an S-400 for at least 40 minutes while cruise missiles are in enroute, it cant do that a defending Su-35 can be on it in as little as 2 mins and the AGM-88s doesn't have the range However thanks the China and Russia hypersonic race, the US has joined in and now has the means of destroying defenses in as little as 1 min 24 seconds The newer Next Generation Jammer pods allow the EA-18G to suppress the S-400 effortlessly. Additional, the AGM-183 can cover 350 miles in 1 min 24 seconds So the EA-18G only needs to suppress the S-400 for 1 min 20 seconds which makes impossible for defending Su-35s to intercept even with R-37s FYI, you dont leave the enemy's defenses intact
    1
  323.  @ex0duzz  It reveals that design which we can see is vastly improved over the B-2
    1
  324.  @vice4996  Neither program is ready
    1
  325. The aircraft that has been destroyed is the Su-30. Most of its losses were from base attacks ,however the KA-52 has been destroyed in combat 20 plus times and counting No cares that pilots survived. the fact they were hovering in position where ATGM was able to hit them is troubling
    1
  326.  @МихаилЧерников-п2т  The destroyed on the ground are mainly damaged units that couldn't make it back to base still a shoot down Russia bragged about Mi-28 and Ka-52 being flying tanks and that myth has been busted The Apache and AH-1W have a number battle damage but returned to base secondly I will give you 3 guess why its manpad rich environment (cough cough KA-52 failure at Battle of Antonov Airport,cough cough
    1
  327.  @МихаилЧерников-п2т  Not making it back to base is still shoot down Stop trying to twist the facts ,your desperation is showing Here is the simple facts if the KA-52 had made it back to base in its damaged condition, it could have been repaired and back into service or depending on the severity of damage sent back to Kamov which again could have repaired it ,depending the damage Since it landed and was later destroyed, its a total loss which means that Russian forces have to wait for new aircraft , and rely on Mi-28s and MI-24/35 in interim both are also in double digit losses Pilot survival is not relevant if the aircraft is a complete loss
    1
  328. flex what muscles
    1
  329.  @YaMomsOyster  Same applies with Russia, how many KA-52 pilots have they lost Its months to as much as year to built a KA-52 and pilot training is 2 years minimum
    1
  330. They not, Ukraine shows how bad tactics can ruin the best of equipment Remember there was video of an Abrams getting rocked by an ATGM The reason why was that crew instead of concealing the tank properly, left it clearly exposed which allowed an enemy ATGM team to get a clear shot at it Same with the T-90 in Syria, instead properly concealing tank, the crew again left it clearly exposed which allowed an enemy ATGM team to get a clear shot The best equipment doesn't matter if you use piss poor tactics
    1
  331.  @vendomnu  yawn troll
    1
  332.  @vendomnu  Lay off the propaganda troll
    1
  333. Lay off the potato their Ivan You are assuming the F-35 wont shoot back The S-400 max missile range is 250 miles The F-35 can launch JSM from 300 miles and just like that the S-300 and S-400 are useless
    1
  334. Jack of all trades is the standard now
    1
  335. over head satellites say other wise
    1
  336.  @doggunn  Exactly point Iran claims that there was no damage and intercepted the missiles yet sat footage clearly shows they are lying
    1
  337.  Dord Dord  Which literally means nothing The Constellation class was labeled FFG(X) numbers were assigned LHX was the America class , SSN(X) is the successor to the Virginia lcass CG(X) was the proposed Ticonderoga-class replacment The Zumwalt-class destroyer carried the DD(X) name before it was renamed The ship class and X is what the USN uses before the ship is assigned a name and number
    1
  338. Number really dont matter for the USAF
    1
  339. The B-21 is designed to overcome the mistakes by B-2, B-1 and B-52 The key difference is that B-21 uses use commercial off-the-shelf tech, C4ISTAR, and radar technologies Intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and aerial reconnaissance along with command and control gear from existing programs The B-2, B-1 and B-52 all uses tech that was specifically designed for it By reusing tech from existing programs, they substantially reduce its cost
    1
  340.  @Matrix-tz5yc  Lay off the copium, there buddy
    1
  341. Turtle tanks work against drones with light warhead not against ATGMs
    1
  342.  Dord Dord  Which literally means nothing The Constellation class was labeled FFG(X) numbers were assigned LHX was the America class , SSN(X) is the successor to the Virginia lcass CG(X) was the proposed Ticonderoga-class replacment The Zumwalt-class destroyer carried the DD(X) name before it was renamed The ship class and X is what the USN uses before the ship is assigned a name and number
    1
  343.  @baodongji5138  They are welcome to try
    1
  344.  @baodongji5138  Competing with China is literally moot
    1
  345.  @baodongji5138  Again moot it called quality over quantity are all those yards the same nope can they all build ships at the same speed again no having a lot of yards literally means nothing There are no exact figures the Chinese however the USN builds destroyers considerable faster than the Chinese but most important, the USN builds nuclear subs faster than China builds its non nuclear subs
    1
  346. Because its worthless
    1
  347. Several problems but the simplest is that anti tank missiles have to make direct contact or top attack to lethal which makes interception easy anti-air missiles don't have to be near to destroy helicopter anti-air missiles have proximity fuze which allows the missile to detonate a certain distance while still being lethal to the target Example the RIM-7 90lbs warhead has 27 ft kill radius continuous-rod warheads can break helicopter blades apart Helicopters with tail rotors is another point of vulnerable , Lastly speed Anti-tank weapons normally travel at Mach 1 ish speed, anti-air missiles Mach 2 plus The Uk Starstreak travels at Mach 4 Depending on distance ,they won't have time There is video of a Mi-24 getting smoked by a MANPAD in seconds
    1
  348.  @leon19736  Lasers are being developed but they don't help
    1
  349. yah troll
    1
  350. The J-20 has some tech but not enough to compete with the F-35
    1
  351. There is no corruption in the US military machine When you see the Apache in action, it strikes with precision, the KA-52 and Mi-28 have been doing more running and gunning than precision strike
    1