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

  1.  @minus21334  They didnt just use the Burke they took elements from the Ticonderoga as well
    1
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4.  @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
  5. 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
  6. Space and balance
    1
  7. The E-7 makes zero sense What USAF should have down revive the E-10 MC2A but based on KC-46 airframe
    1
  8. Nope Man portable missiles are going to rule
    1
  9.  @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
  10.  @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
  11.  @scottwhitley3392  As much as EU argues not likely
    1
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14.  @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
  15. 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
  16.  @coriespringer9785  No it has to be search and destroy
    1
  17.  @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
  18.  @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
  19.  @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
  20. 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
  21. Ukraine is losing cities while Russian bases are blowing up weird right
    1
  22.  @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
  23.  @the13xiii52  In order to hold a city moron, you need supply and logistics from your base No base, no ability to hold city
    1
  24.  @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
  25.  @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
  26.  @the13xiii52  I love it when the only come back your idiots got is decades old crap this 2022 not 1940s
    1
  27.  @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
  28.  @everlastzyt5895  Its still a carrier with no planes
    1
  29.  @kevinlang9533  Not likely
    1
  30.  @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
  31.  @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
  32. 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
  33.  @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
  34.  @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
  35.  @BorntoYeet  The Zircon has level low flight profile however as you started, its not as fast as the high level
    1
  36.  @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
  37.  @BorntoYeet  Not if you use a double tap or combine it with other assets
    1
  38.  @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
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41.  @xiaogangdasha  The J-20 is another failure Sec Def statement the B-21 can hold any target at risk is chilling
    1
  42.  @xiaogangdasha  Lets see J-20 has no gun limited payload and in 10 year time, has got through at least 5 engines
    1
  43.  @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
  44.  @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
  45.  @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
  46. 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
  47.  @boikanyoonneng9170  Thats missiles failing not whole system get destroyed cope harder
    1
  48. 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
  49. ​ @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
  50. 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