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

  1.  @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
  2. ​ @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
  3.  @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
  4. Stealth isnt cheap
    1
  5.  @rylandavis2976  The F-35 is cheaper at the end of the day
    1
  6. Its happens, that just the fact of military aviation
    1
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9.  @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
  10.  @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
  11.  @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
  12.  kokilius  cope
    1
  13. ​ @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
  14. ​ @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
  15. Piss poor upgrades and even crappier weapons
    1
  16.  @rebelliousfew  yes because wiki said so
    1
  17. Its called having quality over quantity
    1
  18.  @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
  19.  @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
  20.  @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
  21.  @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
  22. They are trying to downplay what satellites have already confirmed That Israel struck effectively
    1
  23.  @DRKILLIE  Why are they liking the Zumwalt design go to west
    1
  24. @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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27.  @sedenion7679  If they could do so , then explain why the Rafale has that eye sore while its competition does not
    1
  28.  @maloflory  Again If they could do so, explain why their competition has fully retractable systems while they have a massive eye sore
    1
  29.  @pinkunicorn3373  Even SAAB has full retractable systems
    1
  30.  @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
  31.  @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
  32.  @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
  33.  @sedenion7679  No, the fact that since 2001 Dassault has struggled with Rafale orders says it all
    1
  34.  @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
  35.  @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
  36.  @j.celgoog3275  The main draw back to retractable was system failure which again has been negated by the advancement of technology
    1
  37.  @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
  38.  @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
  39.  @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
  40.  @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
  41.  @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
  42. The image that everyone is jumping on its a conceptual not a finalized design
    1
  43.  @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
  44.  @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
  45. 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
  46.  @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
  47. 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
  48.  @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
  49.  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
  50. 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