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

  1.  @just_jay7078  The USN prefers flexibility
    1
  2.  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
  3.  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
  4.  Dord Dord  What part of concept do you not understand
    1
  5. 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
  6.  @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
  7.  @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
  8. @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
  9. The QE is clearly superior here
    1
  10.  @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
  11.  @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
  12.  @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
  13.  @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
  14.  @doc0core  China has very very long road to travel but seems content with short cuts
    1
  15.  @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
  16.  @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
  17.  @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
  18. @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
  19.  @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
  20.  @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
  21.  @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
  22.  @drfelren  That really doesn't make any sense but you can't rationlize Russia's crazy
    1
  23.  @youtubeoppressivecensorshi8047  Not bad Just incredibly stupid given Russia' situation
    1
  24.  @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
  25. 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
  26. Yawn
    1
  27. ​ @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
  28. 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
  29.  @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
  30.  @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
  31.  @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
  32. ​ @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
  33.  @bitrage.  And problem with that would be ?
    1
  34.  @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
  35.  @bitrage.  There is no difference clown when you are wrong , you are wrong end of story
    1
  36.  @bitrage.  Yawn
    1
  37.  @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
  38.  @bitrage.  Again incorrect its called being practical why retain 59 F-117s when you have newer aircraft
    1
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. @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
  42.  @wolfgangjr74  No likely carriers have layers compared to surface ships
    1
  43.  @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
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46.  @sockaccount8116  Despite Russia claims of ironing out the Su-57s problems, no one buying it
    1
  47. The F-35 was operational, it just wasnt used due to plot
    1
  48. It good but ultimately with out the ATACMS or longer range Harpoon, it can only do so much
    1
  49. 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
  50. Guess no one told them that DDG(X) design right now is just notional right now
    1