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

  1.  @ZOV24-2-22  How about no FPV drones are working in Ukraine because both sides are ill equipped to deal with tme There are a few solutions to the FPV issue however one that is gaining traction is upgrading active protection system (APS) with additional launchers with programmable airburst round either low velocity HEDP 40mm rounds or high velocity 30mm AHEAD rounds so adding the new features to the existing assets allow them to test options for counter drones Second, the US wouldnt have Ukraine problems in a conflict Russian forces are caught unaware 90 percent of the time US forces have Joint Battle Command-Platform (PM JBC-P) which is carried by all forces and can be equipped even to HMWVVs For battle management and airborne ground surveillance . the USAF used the E-8 JSTARS giving forces on ground real time info on enemy movement Even though the USAF retired it, the US Army has been allowed to buy a replacement for it While Russia doesnt take SEAD/DEAD seriously The US has EA-18G, F-16CJ, EC-130H ,Rivet Joint and Combat Sent as well as E/A-37 in RD and the bulk of US aircraft can use the AGM-88., ADM-141 and ADM-160s The US has a whole arsenal devoted to destruction of enemy defenses and also thanks to Iraq and Afghn, Electronic warfare sensors are far more precise Lastly, the US wrote the book on drone warfare with the MQ-1 and MQ-9 As the US takes SEAD/DEAD seriously, Ukraine wouldnt have SAMs to target aircraft and the US would have its airborne ground surveillance , AWACS and other C4ISTAR aircraft opening with impunity
    1
  2.  @tk03_85  The M10 is only 2 tons heavier
    1
  3. On a scale of 1 to 10 about 6
    1
  4.  @JD96893  Sorry but no The F-117 is not viable for modern warfare. The F-35 makes upgrading the F-117 moot The F-35 weapons bay was designed from the start to accommodate various weapons whereas the F-117 was only designed for bombs And thats the biggest problem was that F-117 payload limits its use
    1
  5. Thats an impressive increase but bullpup rifles are no good for infantry. Maybe for snipers and thats about it It takes too much effort with mag changes
    1
  6. It been exported to a few countries so its not surprising, just hilarious that Russian forces are also relying on western tech
    1
  7. Ukraine is simply exposing how badly Russian forces conventional capabilities are lacking if the US was in Ukraine, it would have been over a long time ago What Ukraine has show is that Russian lacks Persistent Air Support (PAS) , SEAD, and intel For SEAD, the US has EA-18Gs, F-16CJ, and EC-130s for dealing with air defense So far ,Russia has been able to neutralize Ukraine's Soviet Era SAMs but not the newer Western systems The US would be actively hunting and destroying SAMSs With SAMS out of the picture, PAS with MQ-9s would actively hunting MLRS and artillery unlike loitering munitions, the MQ-9s carries Hellfires ,and JDAMs which will 100 percent destroy would they hit If Russia made drones like the MQ-9, HIMARS launchers and other SPAs would have been destroyed long ago Lastly Russian intel Ukraine's president has been traveling back and forth with ease The US would have been had F-22s or MQ- waiting Others areas that Russia is lacking is aircraft capabilities All US aircraft have targeting pods for precision strike Russian aircraft dont have pods and that is why so many of their strike aircraft have been lost they are getting within MANPAD range and getting smoked 22 Su-34s lost The F-15E across 7 conflicts is fraction of that its possible for carriers to come under attack but impossible for that to be destroy as easily as others claim Lockheed has developed 500kW DEW for the Army and the DDGX is planned to have 600kW if the USN commits to SM-6s launched by F-18s, 500-600Kw laser weapons to DDG and CVNs, PAC-3s along SM-6s from VLS and Hyper Velocity Projectile (HVP) from Mk-45 guns and an working Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo (CAT) system with Anti-Torpedo Torpedo Good luck with that
    1
  8.  @RobFomenko  You can still use paratroopers without complete control of the air but you would have to carve a hole for them to get in Ideally , you wanna air drop them with Humvees with ATGM like the Spike NLOS for anti armor and Stingers for air defense Air dropping Humvee Hawkete with 105mm would also needed The combo all 3 would allow paratroopers to hold out as well be mobile increasing their survival Without vehicle support, they are easy targets
    1
  9.  @RobFomenko  Hence why SEAD is needed to carve out that hole
    1
  10.  @Alex-o4j4t  How about no There are images of the CM-32 side by side with other models and the height difference is only a few inches at most The CM-32 with 30mm side by side with 105mm shows there is no height difference
    1
  11.  @Alex-o4j4t  There is no height between the CM-32 equipped with 30mm and the 105mm variant Nor is there certain tunnel issue thats just made up The CM-32 baseline is height 7 ft while tanks and self-propelled howitzers height is 11 ft Thats M109, CM-11 and M-60s all over 10ft The CM-32 turret at most puts it at 8 and half feet, 9 ft at most For ample clearance, tunnels would have be at least 13 ft The key requirement for force dispersal is commonality so any asset can take shelter in any location by saying on certain location can house certain assets, you have basically told the enemy where critical are stored
    1
  12.  @Alex-o4j4t  Again wrong with made up nonsense The bulk of modern IFV/APC height averages between 7-9 ft Even the Japanse Type-16 , US Stryker MGS and German boxer is are 9ft So literally no Tawian would slow project for a few inches
    1
  13.  @Alex-o4j4t  Again there are images that show them side by side with other and there is no magic height difference
    1
  14. At the end of the day The US military pioneered tank plinking Pretty sure they can do it again
    1
  15. Tanks normal range 200-300 miles These tanks are likely diesel so they can handle being idle for that long Now US tanks with is tasty gas turbine engine not so much
    1
  16.  @somedudeonline-i3t  Again ivan lay off the potato juice The US has 11 CVNs plus LHA/D class as light carriers for total of 20 ships , thats plenty Lets break it down for you as you are slow In fight with Iran, the USN will have EA-18Gs jamming with USAF F-22s hunting for the Iranian air force. 1 Ohio-class SSGN from 500 miles , well outside Iran's defense capability will lay waste to Iran's defense As long as the EA-18Gs are jamming, Iran defenses will be degraded so they have to no choice but to go after EA-18Gs and F-22s will be waiting The US will target Iran's defenses ,command and control air fields and MRBM sites What can Iran do, literally nothing B-1s can carry up 24 JASSMs with 600 mile range which again make every part of Iran easily targets Fun fact, is that Israel will welcome US forces operating as Iran to Israel is only 1100 miles or come from Diego Garica Russia and China pound for pound can't match the USN The backbone of the USN is Burke class with its 90 cell VLS, China has VLS ships but only 20 ish Russia has only frigates Key part of VLS is that ships can carry anything what is Russian strongest surface combat, only 2 Kirovs which are easily matched by Ticos and Burke China's 8 Type-55 again matched by the Burkes and Ticos
    1
  17.  @hyokkim7726  Very much so
    1
  18.  @Mrwizard-ck7oe  lets see US based in Iraq and Afghan were attacked by insurgents using VIED and mortars What can insurgents do against a CVN, nada. Due the USS Cole bombing, All naval ships were upgraded with Mk-38 to counter threats from small boats The CVN can attack at will and insurgents cant do anything about it
    1
  19.  @logicomega7  Its called reality there ding ding The USN knew the threat of H-6 with YJ-12 was real one H-6 carries 4 missiles and multiple H-6s can attack from various directions thats was a real threat DFs on the other hand are not For starters there is no hiding when one is launched point blank
    1
  20.  @newsieboys1171  How about no Ballistic missile have long range however they are one use items. The DF-21 ASBM claims 900 miles however CVN can destroy DF-21s with ease while the DF-21 cannot While the CVN current level of capabilities makes this process very resource intensive but impossible, future weapons make the DFs moot A carrier based hypersonic weapon will F-18s to service DF- sites from as far 1000 miles away
    1
  21.  @kabbythedog9409  Russia's supposed weapons aint doing shit in Ukraine
    1
  22. Ukraine getting Patriot, NASAMS and IRIS-T is why you dont see the Su-57 trying its luck
    1
  23. Its made in china nuff said
    1
  24.  @Mrdardas99  Talking logistics The US made Stryker only weighs 19 tons , the ACV , 24 tons and the LAV-25 13 tons Basically similar vehicles are 12-25 tons at most which logistically is easier to move
    1
  25.  @harveywallbanger3123  If you need to rapid deploy 60 tones is major issue whereas 12-25 is not if the vehicle is damaged against moving 60 tonnes requires specialized movers or other Namers or tanks moving 12-25 ton is very easy to do
    1
  26.  @Mrdardas99  You can haul them on trucks but lighter options are easier
    1
  27.  @harveywallbanger3123  The Namer armor too many trade offs its high grade protection but at also at a cost
    1
  28. Its not a tank its armored fighting vehicle My only gripe is that it seems that the Army is wasting the 50mm cannon as the MPF carries a 105mm
    1
  29. Simple H and K
    1
  30. Just going to stop you right there Russian jamming is working in Ukraine because Ukraine has not means of effectively dealing with it Secondly, the US military has several other munitions that can do the job The JDAM is normally the simple route but not the only GBU-53s are immune to jamming for example
    1
  31. True diesel are quiet when they are battery power however its highly unlikely that this sub would achieve that even with help from Russia Diesel weakness is that they have to be refueled The odds of this sub getting far is highly unlikely unless it went on a one way trip or they arranged a clandestine civilian ship tanker to act as refueling ship The latter seems more likely but still difficult to arrange without outside help
    1
  32. If Ukraine gets enough to create an integrated air defence system (IADS) it will make a major difference
    1
  33. C-UAS for modern armor is simple 25mm or 30mm cannon with programmable air burst munitions and EW As for trying to counter mines thats iffy you can design the hull better and improve sensors but mines are not easily dealt with
    1
  34. There is a lot bad information here so lets clear that up First the Kiowa role became moot due to increase use of drones and advances in technology. Small drones like RQ-5 and RQ-7 which could loiter for 6 plus hours. The newer MQ-1C can loiter for over 24 hours The OH-58 could only loiter for 2 hours. The AH-64E has the capability to control UAV. This allows them receive information as the UAV sees The OH-58 had no data link capability nor could it share imagery. It had to radio back to command post. Secondly drone units can be deploy much faster and easier than OH-58 They can be packed up in C-130 and flown to where ever they are needed. The AH-64D/E long bow radar was also another factor as it can target further than the OH-58 can see The AH-64D/E received a number upgrades that moot the OH-58 moot The greatness irony was the RAH-66 was the perfect replacement for the OH-58 The Bell 360 is waste of time if they are serious about it, then need to develop an EO/IR/AESA mast for it
    1
  35.  @andreisouzabento7506  Lets recap you claim propaganda yet Russia warns United States against sending more arms to Ukraine funny how that works
    1
  36. Massive security failure against the board
    1
  37. Thats really a moot point the US didnt leave anything that show stopping
    1
  38. Actually you can keep all 12 out They just rarely do it
    1
  39. If the USMC adopts 105mm variant as well make the LAV-25 I would say the ACV would be huge success
    1
  40.  @williamzk9083  The Spike is most modern missile
    1
  41. Try more like 3 hundred problems
    1
  42. They can do it if given the right weapons
    1
  43. Well here the rub its called cost The AT-4 is $1500 wheres a Javelin is 175K per missile and the Carl Gustaf is $500 to $3000 per missile The AT-4 is simply cheaper While Carl Gustaf and Javelin gives Special forces options , your rank and file boots dont need the Carl Gustaf and Javelin keep it simple and give em AT-4s The only thing they need to do is extend the range of the AT-4 to at least 1500 m The Carl Gustaf has long range round but pretty sure that expensive as hell
    1
  44. Interesting to see if this makes to NATO standard
    1
  45. Sorry but you are not going to find a major defense company without a degree of corruption Its literally how they work most of the time Back in the day, it was the wild wild west Today, they are more under the radar with it but they still get exposed from time to time
    1
  46.  @xxxlonewolf49  It was not the DShK, it was the PKM and yes both are why regulars forces are getting the Carl Gustaf replace M72 and AT4 as it can match both the DShK and PKM range The 338 does allow them to equal range but still needed some to resolve the issue in one shot
    1
  47.  @xxxlonewolf49  That would be wrong The PKM not the DhSk was most common used by insurgent forces Special forces use the MK-48 Mod 0/1 not the M240 Mk-48 range is 875 yards as it has the shorter barrel vs the PKM range of 1094
    1
  48.  @jaypee389  The problem with 20mm is that there were doubts that it could produce lethal enough fragmentation per round 25mm on up no issue about producing lethal enough fragmentation
    1
  49.  @jaypee389  its not about rpm its doing max damage with just one round
    1
  50. Its more like , sorry fellas nothing personal but its the new administration
    1