Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "New B-21 Stealth Bomber Combat Capabilities and Tactics" video.

  1. There is no doubt that USAF started working on the B-21 right after the B-2 was completed Commonly that how it goes, they keep rolling from program to program so when the contract becomes official they are already ahead of the game
    90
  2.  @luigimrlgaming9484  The B-52 continued service is due to massive cancellations with the B-1 and B-2 The B-1 original was supposed to be 240 planes, the B-1B ended up with only 100 The B-2 was supposed to be 165 planes , ended up with only 21 The USAF between 1954 and 1963 received 742 B-52s Because the B-1 and B-2 were never deployed in significant numbers The USAF had to successively upgrade the G and H to maintain a credible bomber force The B-52 low speed, hefty payload and long range has proven to be incredibly flexible for modern warfare Ironically, the B-1 is great for time sensitive missions, the B-2 against advanced defenses or mission whereas stealth is needed The B-52 is good for pretty much everything else The mix of the 3 have been very useful but still expensive
    7
  3. The B-21 does not sacrifice anything You forgetting what weapons have greatly advanced which reduces the need for bombers to carry massive payloads Air launched cruise missiles have gotten lighter and longer range The AGM-86C weighed 3150lbs carrying 1200lbs warhead 700 miles The AGM-158 weighs 2250 carrying 1000lbs warhead 600 miles Other weapons have also gotten lighter as well
    6
  4.  @marcopalazzo9349  The critical assets that US provided to the UK which was key in them retaking the Falklands was 2 million gallons of fuel and access to US SATCOM 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. Access to US SATCOM allowed the UK to better coordinate with their assets in the area allow the UK to have a much more effective battle plan Because they communicate were able their subs in real time, it allowed the HMS Conqueror to sink General Belgrano which in turn caused the Argentine Navy port their carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo. That allowed the UK have to complete naval supremacy Without those two assets UK would have never retook the Falklands
    5
  5. Tankers are relatively safe now The newer generations of to air to air missiles seekers are sensitive and accurate enough to target incoming missiles like the R-37, PL-15 and PL-21 When you have F-15EXs with CFTs and 22 AIM-120DFR3/AXE or AIM-260 paired with powerful radar and networked with AWACS The threat to tankers, AWACS and other C4ISTAR assets is greatly reduce Lockheed has also delivered laser weapon for aircraft With the advent of all that tech Protecting assets is much easier to do and harder for the enemy
    4
  6. As for as China and Russia catching up not likely The US has had a lot of experience thanks to Balkans, Middle Easy and Afghan to make the improvements for the B-21 Russia had limited operations and China zero
    3
  7.  @frabe81118  The B-21 has considerably lower RCS than any fighter
    2
  8. No likely The USAF learned a long time ago that operating stealth with electronic warfare (EW) and Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) With EW and SEAD engaging enemy defenses , they dont have time to look for stealth The loss of the F-117 showed that if you gave the enemy time, they can and will locate stealth so the trick is not to give them that time The TLAMs and JASSMs need 40 minutes to cover 350 miles That means EA-18Gs has suppress defenses for that long which is impossible. Also, a Su-35 or J-11 would get in weapons range in 8 mins The hypersonic weapons like the ARRW covers that distance in 1 min 24 sec The EA-18G can easily suppress defenses for that long and neither Su-35 or J-11 would have time to get in range With defense out of the way, stealth has free reign AWACS can upgrade B-21 with enemy positions so they can maintain a safe distance and risk possible detection
    2
  9. The US has been developing new material since the F-117 first flown Combat operations with the B-2, F-117s and F-22s gave them an idea of what they needed to make
    2
  10.  kittycat3015  China has no plane chinese bot
    2
  11.  @Matt-yg8ub  Lockheed was already part of the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (CALF) , Advanced Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (ASTOVL and Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) projects So yes they were ahead of the game
    2
  12.  @Matt-yg8ub  The Zumwalt is just much wasted potential, its irritating
    2
  13.  @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
  14.  @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
  15.  @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
  16.  @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
  17.  @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
  18.  @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
  19.  @aaronleverton4221  For not buying the your revisionist crap LMAO UK didnt do it alone in the Fallkands get over it
    1
  20. ​ @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
  21.  @aaronleverton4221  Yawn!!!
    1
  22. With newer weapons, the B-21 doesnt need a massive payload
    1
  23.  kittycat3015  Cry harder Chinese bot
    1
  24. ​ kittycat3015  "Here begs the question, why build such expensive plane? It is useless against Russia and China. For other opponents" Simple the idiot who wrote the question has literally no idea what he talking about because ​ kittycat3015 moronic ass never heard of SEAD , EW and Aerial decoys Apparently they dont exist
    1
  25.  kittycat3015  Cry harder its hilarous
    1
  26.  @benhudson4145  Don't with the bother He conveniently cant tell difference between his ass and a whole in wall
    1
  27.  @benhudson4145  I warned you he was clueless
    1
  28. @@sheldonfords9637 No it is, but IR tracking range is still short compared to radar
    1
  29.  @Swedester  The B-2 introduction was 1997 The USAF has been advocating a new bomber since 1999 , they released the Air Force White Paper on Long Range Bombers that year You are forgetting that the original plan for the B-2 was165 planes to completely replace both B-1s and B-52 Ironically while the USAF is committed to replacing the B-1 and B-2 , The B-52 retirement is still out of question The Buff simply can't be replaced yet
    1
  30.  @hamzamahmood9565  Considering that USAF has been asking since 1999
    1
  31.  @Matt-yg8ub  Not Lockheed's fault they were prepared Boeing's downfall was that their X-32 was literally crap
    1
  32.  @Matt-yg8ub  Which was silly to begin considering the nature of the JSF program That made sense for the F-22 and ATF program not for the JSF
    1
  33.  @Matt-yg8ub  That would incorrect The F-22 had nothing to do with F-35 The people in the positions at the time were incompetent jackasses Both SecDef and Pres never served a day in the military and were cancelling programs just to supposedly save money
    1
  34.  @Matt-yg8ub  No clowns with no experience canx the F-22 The reason why the F-22 cost was expensive because dropped procurement from 750 to 183 The USAF fought for 381 but clowns dropped it to 187 which greatly increased its cost if they had kept the 381 figure A lot problems wouldnt exist
    1
  35.  @Matt-yg8ub  The Zumwlat is another example congressional stupidity The USN told congress they didn't need naval gunfire however congress as usual thought they knew better and the USN ended up wasting the Zumwalt class
    1
  36.  @Matt-yg8ub  The AGS flaw was them not making it compatible with USMC and Army 155mm rounds naval gunfire capability died when missiles like the AGM-84E/H/K SLAM/ER were developed while the Maverick was precise, its range was still too short longer range missiles allow aircraft to strike targets at longer range with great precision GBU-39/54 are another stand off weapon that made naval gunfire capability moot The other factor is the increasing range of coastal defenses
    1