Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "Task & Purpose" channel.

  1.  @southbrazosbass244  Again its their lack of weapons Specifically capable weapons
    1
  2. Yes and no
    1
  3.  @MrNigzy23  What I stated is facts You are just painfully in denial The underground fuel tanks were empty when the Task Force turned up in mid-April 1982,” recalls Major General Julian Thompson, then commanding the main Royal Marines assault force. The leading assault ship, HMS Fearless, did not have enough fuel to dock when it arrived off Ascension. The Americans diverted a supertanker to fill up the Navy’s tanks. There are several articles both US and UK that detail the US supplying the UK with millions of gallons of fuel British Military has had the use of its milcomsat-FALSE LOL Again several US and UK that detail the US allowing the UK of its SATCOM denial much
    1
  4.  @bhaskarmukherjee8170  We can safely say not happening China's lack of tankers means they can't project while the USN and USAF If China had ample tankers , they could easily create an A2/D2 with aircraft up to 1000 away With tankers, they are basically stuck
    1
  5.  @aaronleverton4221  Wow, more people in denial And where exactly did the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships get the fuel.? Once again The UK had no assets able to deliver the fuel needed to support their operations, the US diverting a supertanker allows them to refuel both ships and aircraft allowing the UK to conduct sustained operations without having to worry about fuel." Extremely poorly-worded and You failed to specify is beyond pitiful First what is the fuel capacity of said ships Thats right, Tidespring and Appleleaf combined was 55,000 tonnes of fuel Wanna take a guess on how much fuel the Hermes and Invincible alone required not counting the Fearless and Interpid But please continue this is hilarious
    1
  6.  @aaronleverton4221  For starters, you have no point Trying to rewrite history to make seem that the UK didn't need anyone help with Falklands is pitiful The UK didn't need US to supply them with fuel or SATCOM nor them prohibit arms sales to Argentina Nor France's embargo on French arms The UK magically did on their own sad
    1
  7.  @aaronleverton4221  Ah yes, the famous strawman claims LOL That would be you not me Everything I stated is established facts ,however like I stated, you trying to rewrite history claiming that UK did all alone LMAO what you call defensiveness, just your hilarious self-disillusions
    1
  8.  @MrNigzy23  Right anything saying that the UK had massive help in the Falklands is obscure Sad how you are trying to rewrite history now
    1
  9.  @aaronleverton4221  For not buying the your revisionist crap LMAO UK didnt do it alone in the Fallkands get over it
    1
  10. ​ @frabe81118  Even you spotted the tanker, you still have to guess what target they are coming after The only option is putting up a wall of fighters which can problematic for a dozen reasons namely you are showing your end and letting the enemy know what bases are scrambling fighters They can targeted by sub or ship launched missiles With the newer generation of hypersonic weapons missiles can be on target in under 5 mins depend on the range which can be fatal because they can knock out your assets before they can be used
    1
  11.  @aaronleverton4221  Yawn!!!
    1
  12.  @rewinderon707  He's constantly attacked Ukraine inhumanely this would be a helluva of reality check
    1
  13.  @GreenLeafUponTheSky  Number 2 Russia is less likely to use the full force of its weapons on its own soil. You honestly think Putin or his general would even consider use nukes on Russian soil
    1
  14.  @M16_Akula-III  China has few SSNs Without tenders or forward operating bases, that trip is miserable Then consider that destroyers have towed sonar and ASW helicopter. Once those subs fire their missile, the US will back track to the grid and have P-8s overheard Say you fired from 1000 miles A P-8 would be overheard in 2 hours How far can SSN travel in 2 hours at 30 knots , 65 miles A P-8 would find them in no time and drop MK-54 And thats assuming thats there is Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) MQ-4C nearby if there is The P-8 is just coming in to drop Mk-54s
    1
  15.  @M16_Akula-III  The US is only buying 2 because thats all they really need
    1
  16.  @M16_Akula-III  Simple The VL-ASROC requires the destroyer to be in range and its range is only 12 miles A Sub is not going to fire if there is nearby surface ship ASW Helo has fraction of the capability of the P-8
    1
  17.  @M16_Akula-III  Thats why they do buoys instead Unless is ship is nearby , The P-8 is the only option
    1
  18.  @johnronellequinones4819  No, Iraq was the one converted a lear jet to carry 2 Exocet missiles. The issue with flight 655 was that it came from the same airport as Iranian military aircraft and the crew misidentified the aircraft flight profile as well several other factors The biggest is that the ship was unable to communicate with the aircraft
    1
  19.  @johnronellequinones4819  misidentification happens and there is very little that can be done about it. One of the reason why the US military pushed the advancement targeting pods and other Electro-Optical Targeting technology is to reduce misidentification Wiki leaks leaked July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike claiming it to be cover up however the poor quality of the video showed the Apache Target Acquisition and Designation Sights (TADS) did not have resolution to clearly see the situation and pilots made their best guess. The result of the incident lead to the Army speeding up the fielding of the Arrowhead and even now, the Army signed another contract for increased higher-resolution color imaging with longer ranges and a wider field of view but even with the best tech accidents can and will happen
    1
  20. @@JimCarner Electronc warfare is going to make passive systems like TERCOM ,DSMAC and Automatic Target Recognition Unit (ATRU) top priority as means able to drop bombs and the enemy has no way to soft kill them with jamming
    1
  21. The Rapid Dragon is an interesting twist but as the C-17s is no longer in production, I would think they would focus more expanding capabilities on the C-130 or throw Airbus a bone and buy A-400Ms
    1
  22. The fact is that with the rapid advance of light but lethal weapon on ground and air asks the question is armor of any use any more?
    1
  23. Its not uncommon for old programs to be recycled
    1
  24. The fact is that with the rapid advance of light but lethal weapon on ground and air asks the question is armor of any use any more ?
    1
  25. Having them is one thing but can they use them Not really
    1
  26. What happened was stupidity The USN told Congress repeatedly that Naval gunfire was no relevant in large scale engagements but Congress in their infinite stupidity knew better and the USN ended wasting the Zumwalt design
    1
  27.  @paghilumdihauy  Functional is pushing it The Su-57 more wrong than right
    1
  28.  @menzbercedes8962  No Ukraine doesnt have time for training to use the F-35 And they had crash course with the Abrams whats Russia's excuse
    1
  29. If Ukraine gets enough to create an integrated air defence system (IADS) it will make a major difference
    1
  30. True but it would have made more sense to make an MGS variant from ACV or make one based off the LAV-25 or its replacment The Japanese Type-16 MCV would have been a good design to use
    1
  31. China is smart but also bone dead dumb at the same time. As you stated, their actions are driving the Philippines back to the US For while , the Philippines wanted nothing to do with the US but thanks to China's overzealous actions they have gone back
    1
  32.  @didyoumissedmegobareatersk2204  Apparently you can't read F-22s in top cover ding ding
    1
  33.  @catadoxas  You are clueless
    1
  34.  @MrZlocktar  Blah blah bah The US and NATO are already doing plenty by supplying Ukraine forces off hand. As long as those supplies are flowing, all Russia is going to do is count their dead in Ukraine as the over hyped S-500, 400 and 300 LMAO Russia can't use none of above First Ukraine is over 233,00 sqaures miles ding, dong, you would need close to 500 plus units for complete coverage Russia has ample S-300s however they have considerably shorter range Russia is not pulling S-400 or S-500 as Ukraine borders several NATO countries which would allow NATO intel gathering to gleam valuable data So how about nope
    1
  35.  @Rocketsong  Exactly
    1
  36. Only years late
    1
  37. Same thing that happened to every other piece of Russian armor that was sent to Ukraine It under performed badly
    1
  38.  @Mortablunt  Combat in Afghan and Iraq exposed the problems with 5.56 and 7.62 The 5.56 was outranged and lacked stopping power. The 7.62 was simply outranged. The 50 cal is simply too heavy 338 offers both range and power. Granted, its heavier but not as heavy as big 50
    1
  39.  @Mortablunt  The 7.62 is outrange The 338 isnt as heavy as the 50 they are taking what ever saving they can
    1
  40. Different times
    1
  41. Zumwalt and Littoral Combat Ship are just wasted potential If the USN had been smart, they wouldnt be in this mess Conestellation class can avoid being a mess if the USN equip its with the same swappable VLS mod as the DDG-X One of the problems with VLS is the time needed to reload The swappable will greatly cut down time in port for reload
    1
  42.  @protorhinocerator142  The idea of the Arsenal ship died out because reload arming that type of ship even with swappable mod would be a massive chore Huntington Ingalls Industries showed a BMD concept of the a LPD 17 with MK-41 288 VLS capacity or 144 MK-57 The USN response was they didnt need that many VLS cells They showed Future Surface Combatant based LPD-17 with 96 cell So yes cargo ship ,ideally an LPD-17 would be best for not that reason The electromagnetic railgun (EMRG) had two issue, Ships able to generate enough power and barrel life Mount on LPD-17, it could be fitted with a system to automatic exchange barrels Secondly hypervelocity projectile (HVP) can be fired from the standard 5 inch Last the Laser weapons The 5 inch gun would stay mounted in bow with Laser weapons on both sides The Future Surface Combatant design had a reared mounted 57mm which would replace by the EMRG Retain the MK-57s on the sides but add the swappable VLS and advanced payload module The LPD-17 is big enough to accommodate everything as well as can fitted with 3 MT-30s in an Integrated Power System (IPS) set up The benefit of the LPD17 is already built and USN plans to close 30 ships so reduces cost The MT-30 and IPS proven technology and would the only differences between the LPD-17s designs With ample power from its IPS, Laser weapons can tuned for 150kW drone, 600kW for missile and 1MW shots for large targets
    1
  43.  @protorhinocerator142  The LPD-17 is easier and faster than a barge. Secondly a flat badge is not survivable in modern warfare. Thats literally a massive target and very easy target for submarine But most importantly you get more utility out of an LPD-17 vs a missile barge
    1
  44.  @Birdylockso  Which is kinda strange Since Ukraine ,the industrial military complex has had to ramp up to meet countries needs who sent Ukraine weapons and need to replace orders from other countries who want to beef up their defenses and countries wanting new weapons developed because the lessons from Ukraine Yet politicians in DC are fighting over aid thats putting money in their pockets simply because the orange jackass said something ??
    1
  45. Trump isnt the POTUS He's detail doesnt have all the bells and whistles but yes Law enforcement was supposed to secure that building especially given its locaton
    1
  46. Well the problem with Armor is that it can be defeated. High grade 50 rounds like the SLAP and MK-211 can easily shred body armor. Even if the armor does stop the round the shear amount of kinetic energy from the impact will kill the wearer. In order for it to be useful, it will have to be protect the wearer from penetration as well as the KE from the impact. So that layers of armor potential. Secondly rounds impact on limbs is another problem as 50 can easy rip off limbs So any suit would need all around protection. Its possible but when dealing with heavy weapons, protection is simply not going to happen Power is another problem. While Iron man has fictional a power supply, we live in reality and dont have compact power supplies Honestly we dont have technology yet Now if you are building a 10 ft plus tall system, then yes we have the technology to do so but a suit as ultra compact as the TAOS Iron man is not available with our current level of technology
    1
  47. North Korea isnt exactly a ASW powerhouse so its very likely that the US already sent the USS Jimmy Carter to record the subs acoustics as well as test its capabilities The crew probably was crying with laughter from the amount of noise it made
    1
  48. Not short sighted It happens when you have asses with zero military experience in the wrong positions
    1
  49. Its Russian vaporware
    1
  50. Ultimately in order to drive Russia out of Ukraine, Ukraine need 3 pieces The first is knocking out the remaining surface combatants and 4 Kilo class subs of the Black Sea fleet Why that matters, without those ships, Russia's ability to strike from the sea neutralized, Russia's ability to blockade Ukraine also done Russian forces resupplying from ships , again gone. Taking out the Black Sea assets would be massive blow to Russian operations in Ukraine For this they need long range precision strike capability. While the HIMARS missiles have 200lbs warhead,, the Harpoon 487lbs does more destruction per missile Why the Harpoon The newer blocks of the Harpoon have both land and sea attack capability and range between 75 to 150 miles. Besides have 3 times the range of the HIMARS M31s but slightly shorter than the ATACMS, the key advantage to Harpoon is that launchers on trucks are quad packed. With ATACMS its 1 on HIMARS and 2 on the M270 The Harpoon coastal units carry 4 missiles. , So with the Harpoon , you more missiles per launcher The Harpoon's ability to attack both land and sea targets give Ukraine the ability to neutralize the black sea fleet as well strike other high value targets on land As the Harpoon's warhead is like dropping GBU-12 The next piece is integrated air defence system (IADS) With IADS, It puts the already strained Russian aviation assets in difficult position as well provides protection against cruise missile attacks The last piece is their aviation assets Missiles are good but aircraft are better The only plane for this job is the F-16 and its amazing simple The F-16 has the CART CFT which allows to use drogue instead of boom which means that Ukrainian air force cause Su-27s as tankers The Ukrainian air force only need 5 weapons, AIM-9Rs and AIM-120C-5 which are both late 90s tech so even if they ended up in Russian hands they are still decades out dated, AGM-65s and GBU-10/12/16 and AGM-84 again , the US has plenty of older models from the late 90s that wouldnt betray anything to Russia if they got their hands on it. Same goes for the 20mm gun. The F-16 is also LANTRIN capable which is still in use and again old tech If Ukraine gets all of these its game over for Russian forces
    1