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