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

  1. The idea is a lighter option that easier to support logistically
    3
  2. HIMARS and ATACMS have entered the chat
    3
  3. Outselling how about no even close The F-35 massively outsells the Rafale at every turn
    3
  4.  @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
  5.  @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
  6. What we know is that the B-21 is the real deal
    3
  7.  @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
  8. 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
  9. Yet Iran is threatening its citizens with prison if they reveal the scale of the attack
    3
  10.  @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
  11. @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
  12.  @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
  13.  @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
  14. Javelin all the way longer range multi use better optics
    3
  15. The Constellation key feature is the MK-41 which makes it a potent asset
    3
  16.  @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
  17. 20 plus KA-52s have been confirmed destroyed via open source intel
    3
  18. 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
  19.  @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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. @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
  23.  @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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. @ 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
  28. @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
  29. @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
  30. @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
  31. 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
  32.  @branned  logistics only make in protracted engagements Ukraine doesnt have the 190 mile range ATACMS which will allow them effective cut Russian logistics
    2
  33. This coping is strong with you The facts speak for themselves, it was luck not skill
    2
  34. @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
  35. Things are not looking good for Russia at the end of the day The amount of equipment that they lost is humiliation enough
    2
  36.  @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
  37.  @zvonkoprosen4096  It been flying circles around the Rafale since 2006
    2
  38.  @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
  39.  @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
  40.  @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
  41.  @rogerk6180  Yet the S-400 is getting shredded by ATACMS
    2
  42.  @missk1697  Sure it was Russian forces blame drones for their short comings
    2
  43.  @redaerf2b414  Ah yes, the copium claim that it was destroyed easily yet here we with two Bradely wearing a T-90s ass out
    2
  44.  @miriamweller812  Lay off the potato juice Your math is hilarious
    2
  45.  @miriamweller812  Again you prove that you are just a troll Never even heard of that channel but trolls know trolls
    2
  46.  @miriamweller812  The fact you cant write a single paragraph is hilarous and yes an IFV taking on tank is very much a success
    2
  47.  @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
  48.  @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
  49. 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
  50. Yet they are getting shredded in Ukraine
    2