Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "Found And Explained" channel.

While subs would have to deal with bad weather on the surface, shear volume is their problem The Russian Typhoon class was theorized up 10,000 tonnes of cargo which isnt very much or even economical Container ships pretty much end that idea all together
10
@Красиваясоветскаядевушка Wrong The AIM-9X had zero technology from the R-73 The USAF had AIM-82 and the USN AIM-95 as well as Helmet Mounted Sight (HMS) technology Both of which pre-date R-73 Neither saw service as both agreed on the AIM-9L which addressed the shortcomings of previous AIM-9s and was cheaper and HMS was seen as unnecessary When the West saw the R-73 The only missiles that US military used for the AIM-9X was the Israeli made Python 3 and 4 For one, the Python was already integrated to the F-15 and F-16. and Rafael Advanced Defense Systems had already existing technology transfer agreements with Raytheon which is why the US was able to field the AIM-9X in such a short time. Notice that lead platform for the AIM-9X testing was none other than F-15
7
@westIsgay The KA-52 has lost more that Apache has in its entire life The worst part is the video where KA-52s are hovering in place and getting smoked by ATGMS
6
The US emphasis is high tech as well addressing the short comings of the F-22 and F-35
6
@danielsnook7362 The F-35 is 3 models, not one The F-35B that failed to take off not an F-35 problem. that fault was the engine ingesting something before take off Secondly unlike land based F-35, there as no room for error on carriers. Anything goes wrong and can be disastrous It only happen once, not quote a lot
6
No, the KA-52 is suffering heavily losses is because its a garbage helicopter One of the things that US learned very quickly was that Apache were equipped with Hellfire with anti-tank warhead which were inadequate for dealing with personnel They developed a variant of the Hellfire optimized for anti personnel and light armor allowing the Apache to carry a mix of missiles able to handle various targets The KA-52s weapon are still very much anti-tank and as a result, they have been forced to run and gun personnel which in turn is putting them in rage of MANPADS The Apache can launch Hellfire from 5 miles away and strike precisely without having to use run and gun tactics Secondly the Apache-E has built in comms for various datalinks. The KA-52M has to mount its AS-BPLA pod for communication with the LMUR on the stub wing ? There is a very long list of fails with the KA-52
4
@meilingsigma Funny how that works Sources claim that 100-200 Apache were lost yet the Apache continues be the best selling gunship on the market Right , because of the so called losses were aircraft that were repaired and return to combat
4
@alexnderrrthewoke4479 They sure Russian tanks dominated, taking the gold, silver and bronze in the turret toss competition
4
@thephoenix756 Incorrect Its not relatively, safer, its 100 percent safer, As ammo, Again smarter not harder From WW2 to up the 60s, Yes US tanks were similarly armed like Russian tanks carrying a variety of rounds AP, HEAT, WP, HE ,SMOKE. By 70s, it was AP, HEAT, HESH , HE, ANTI-personnel and WP Carrying all those rounds allows you have to rounds for every situation but at a cost of limited amounts of certain rounds Thats why the US developed the AMP round, The Abrams carries APFSDS, HEAT, plus M1028 Anti-personnel and M908 obstacle The AMP replaces HEAT , M1028 Anti-personnel and M908 obstacle rounds HEAT rounds are being replaced as NERA/ERA can stop them cold whereas stopping APFSDS is still very hard to do despite Russia's claim Instead of having so many rounds Just have 3 for the SABO, AMP and precision guided
4
@danielsnook7362 There are not enough F-22s which is the problem
4
It will be interesting to see what the final design is
3
@danielsnook7362 There are no reliability issues with the F-35
3
@Spicy_Italian_Sausage That was completely on crew getting careless because they were so close to home
3
@everythingmanny The Apache has had longbow capability since the 90s. Longbow is fire and forget The KA-52 didnt get that till the LMUR
2
@stupidburp Actually incorrect The reason why they chose the V-280 is because the MV-22 cruises at 305 mph. That speed has proven it be fast enough for MV-22 to be refueled by larger KC-10s and KC-46s The V-280 flies at 320 mph so add refuel probe and problem solved The Defiant never exceed 290 mph Lastly, the Pacific is the USMC playground not the Army
2
True but the X-32 hit every branch on the ugly tree
2
The problem is going boil down to Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) ability to meet supply and demand That has been a problem for Rafale and Gripen as buyers have questioned what SAAB and Dassault abilities
1
Emphasis on when its actually seen vice the typical Russia claims
1
Its just more paper from Russia
1
Its not if, its who is going to buy ? China and India are focused on their own programs Besides those two, most operators of MiGs and Sus can barely afford what they have let alone the Checkmate
1
They are but they shouldn't be I don't understand why the SOSUS hasnt be repurposed, A modernized SOSUS on both Coasts plus the Gulf of Mexico would effective put an end to Narco subs But personally MQ-9 SeaGuardian's with Broad Area Maritime Surveillance kits dropping Hellfire missiles instead of sonobuoys would deter Narco subs The USAF is retiring it's RQ-4s, Reequip them with Broad Area Maritime Surveillance kits and give them to Coast Guard There are several ways to end this problem permanently yet no seems to be taking the initiative to do You want drugs off the streets but don't want to pay for the tools to do so
1
The AC-130 mod wouldnt be feasible because of the A400M wing design but they can adopt the USMC Harvest Hawk Wing pylon launcher and ramp launcher with 30mm or 40mm cannon in the rear door The A400M can also use the Rapid dragon If Airbus was smart, they would trying to actively market the A400M variants as options to the EC, HC, KC and MC as well TACAMO as well as a harvest hawk variant
1
@zachdaniels5626 Thats why its called the golden bb ding dong
1
@1.Новости Lay off potato juice their ivan
1
@daemianbox If the Apache was in Ukraine, it wouldnt have the KA-52s losses The KA-52 finally achieved effectiveness with LMUR missile as it allowed it to attack targets from long range The Apache since the 1990s had the Longbow hellfire which one is fire and forget but most importantly, the Apache can fire it without unmasking Secondly thanks to Iraq and Afghan The Apache is equipped with real time interfaces that allow to view feed from UAVs which allows the Apache to survey the area before hand The KA-52M doesnt have that feature either You talk about goat keepers and sandals but fail to realize a lot of the Apaches advances come from lessons learned Example, the KA-52 was running and gunning due to fact they couldnt use Ataka or Vikhr The Apache had to same issue hence why AGM-114M/N were developed allowing the AGM-114 to used against personnel Why the AGM-114R has RE/H/X payload also personnel The AGM-114 is still expensive at 100K per missile so several kits costing 20K to 30K were developed turning Hydra 70 unguided rockets in precision munitions but at greatly reduced cost The KA-52 has no where near the Apaches capabilities hence why its getting its ass kicked
1
@daemianbox Laughing doesnt change reality The KA-52s is on its last leg
1
@daemianbox It shows there is no denying anything I said
1
That would be incorrect First the B-2 cost 2 billion because procurement was cut from 165 planes to just 21 plane which greatly drove up unit cost Secondly ,the the B-21 is designed to use commercial off-the-shelf, C4ISTAR, and radar technologies. So instead of spending money to develop tech solely for the B-21, they drew it from the existing programs The B-21 engines are an advanced derivative of the F-35 F-135 engines which saves a lot of money The B-2's AN/APQ-181 is unique to it while the B-1B and B-52 are fitted with derivatives radars from F-16s and F-18 Just as the B-1 and B-52 have derivatives of the radars from F-16s and F-18 Its likely the B-21 has a derivative of the F-35 APG-81s It likely has the Multifunction Advanced Data Link as well. Also remember that low probability of intercept tech like active electronically scanned array (AESA) is extremely mature and cheaper now than the 80s The B-2 had undergo a lot upgrading to carry conventional weapons whereas that B-21 already has the stores management system and MIL-STD data buses installed for conventional weapons They are using tech that was already developed Secondly remember weapons and tactics have evolved as well instead of only carrying one type of weapon Bombers have multiple purpose payload options that allow them to carry a variety of weapons per mission
1
@thephoenix756 The AMP is designed to multi purpose not dedicated. Dedicated rounds are not effective as multi purpose .so its trade off As long the T-90s on down store their ammo in the turret with the crew, its going to be jack in the box all day
1
@alexnderrrthewoke4479 Advancing where oh wait no where Russian forces have been running ever since the US give Ukraine dual-purpose improved conventional munition (DPICM) munitions for both 155mm and HIMARS DPICM has been allowing Ukraine to shred Russian forces wholesale
1
@DOSFS No they made a bad choice canx the program They dumped the OH-58 for drones but they realized the limits of drones and went with FARA but in typical Army stupidity canx the problem The rational was Ukraine which makes zero sense Ukraine success with cheap drones is that Russia lacks the means for dealing with them Both the Army and USMC have weapons in development and operation for countering drone swarms as Ukraine is doing The USMC has MADIS,L-MADIS and MRIC while the Army has IM-SHORAD Stryker The smart but unlikely thing for the Army to do is not waste the Bell 360 and S-97 Repurpose the Bell 360 design as replacement for the AH-64 Repurpose the S-97 to replace the MH-6
1
Drive shaft is not the correct term for the part. Its called an interconnecting transmission. In normal operations , both engine are operating independently however in case on emergency As the name implies, it can interconnect and allow one engine to power both props to safely land or fly till can reach safety The Valor likely uses an improved system but the fact we havent seen an MV-22C suggest they are trying to fix the issue There several improvements that an MV-22C could bring a wider cabin for increased cargo. The GE-38 which has 7500 SHP to the Rolls-Royce T406 6100 SHP. This would be attractive to the USMC because the GE-38 powers the CH-53K and a common engine would be substantially cheaper logistics ,maintenance and training Thats just for openers
1