Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "How is HIMARS used in Ukraine?" video.

@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
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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@drfelren That really doesn't make any sense but you can't rationlize Russia's crazy
1
@youtubeoppressivecensorshi8047 Not bad Just incredibly stupid given Russia' situation
1
@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
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
It good but ultimately with out the ATACMS or longer range Harpoon, it can only do so much
1