General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Chef Chaudard
Ed Nash's Military Matters
comments

Comments by "Chef Chaudard" (@chefchaudard3580) on "Ed Nash's Military Matters" channel.

I hope that Europe will do what France is advocating for 50 years : take their defense seriously and stop counting on the USA.
179
At a time when more powerful engines were unavalaible, push-pull configuration looked like a good idea, compared to the traditional 2 engines configuration, where, as per the old joke "one engine pulls the aircraft, while the second compensates for the extra drag".😃
29
⁠ @Atreid3s no. And Russia is the one that broke the Budapest agreement.
25
1:40 fun fact: the Bell X5 was derived from the Messerschmitt P.1101 project, captured at the end of WWII, except that wings sweep could be change during the flight. It was already obsolete when it flew and there was no attempt to correct its flaws and try to make an actual fighter from it. It ended up as a test bench for swept wings, though jets improved so fast it was almost useless.
23
Russian tanks used some mattresses to copes with Panzerfaust in Berlin. It actually worked: british tests test conducted at the end of the war concluded that a double layer of mesh was the most effective protection against Panzerfaust: it cushioned the projectile, which did not detonate. Not effective enough to see widespread use, though. Modern projectiles are faster, i suspect that 'cushioning' is no more an option. About psychological effect on crews: at the end of WW2, many US tank crews tried to improve protection by hanging all they can put their hands on around the tank, from spare wheels and tracks, to steel sheets canibalized from dead tanks, and pouring concrete on it. This was proven completely ineffective against antitank weapons, overloading the tank for no purpose. They did it nonetheless.
16
And use four lawnmowers engines... no put four much heavier engines with the same power.
15
@ defense budget is 2% of GDP in France on last year. And the UK plans for 2.5%… in 2027. And France, like every country in Europe, underfunded their military because nobody wanted to ear about an European defense and was happy with the US umbrella.
13
In French army, we were teached about FOMEC, the french acronym for: - shape - shadow - movement - glitter - colour A good camouflage is supposed to cover these areas.
13
@pierauspitz there ARE SEM : it is in fact 5 aircrafts that were sold to Argentina in 2018. They could not use them because they lacked the ejection seats (Martin Baker, British embargo)
12
The US Leaving Europe is not an issue as such. France advocates for an European defense for years. But giving Ukraine to Russia is. This is an obvious betrayal. And Trump is talking of « reciprocity » in tariffs, but tariffs in Canada and Mexico were never 25%. Tariffs on cars in the EU are 10%, while Orange Man said he will slap 25% on imports. This is a clear attack from the us, not « reciprocity ».
10
@Aqua Fyre except it is not their "sea" nor their "sky"... So, pointless remark.
10
No. It shows that the Russians did not take it properly in account. The first phase of the battle according to NATO doctrine is SEAD, Suppression of Ennemy Air Defense, something the russians never did in Ukraine. And they pay the price now.
8
There is no way this design can be made stealthy. Adding a bomb bay would have dramatically change aerodynamics, leading to a very different aircraft, to start with. Then, engine lips would have required an extensive redesign. And many parts would have had to be replaced by composite or radar absorbent materials. This aircraft is not even a demonstrator, in that respect.
8
Thé SE is subsonic only…
8
France was the military power in the interwar. Germany was out of the game, both UK and the USA did not want to spend money on military stuff. France was doing what the US do since the end of WW2: explore every technical possibility to make sure you retain your technical advantage and don't leave some important sector unexplored to your potential ennemies.
6
Russian pilot missed the beginning of the movie, where it is written ' these stunts are performed by trained professionals, don't try this at home' 😁
6
... and the suffering of russians... who may decide that ukraine is not worth the price and give up. This is a small chance for ukraine... but better than being a slave.
5
No. There are very different.
5
Because of the weight, first: these engines were heavier. It would have required an extensive redesign of the wings to accommodate them. And more power for what? Heavier loads? It would have required an enlarge fuselage and new larger wings. A new aircraft, in short. And the speed would have been only marginally better, at the expense of a higher consumption. The Lincoln was an improved Lancaster, not a new design, unlike the B-29. There was only so much that could be done with the Manchester airframe.
5
In fact, the SEM is not older than the F-16 and Mirage 2000-5 Ukraine is supposed to receive. It first flew in 1974 and was modernized in the 90s. That’s comparable to the F-16 block 50/52.
5
Thé Su 30 is a beefed up version of the Su 27 which first flew in 1977. The Mirage 2000-5 is the beefed up version of the Mirage 2000C that first flew in 1978. So…
5
My numbers are correct. I’ve checked. Nobody really knows what will change. It seems, however, that economical analysts are not very optimistic about the impact on US arms manufacturers : Lockheed Martin stock is falling down, while Rheinmetall is going up.
4
@WALTERBROADDUS yes, there are a better fit. Both can supercruise, are stealthier, and have 2 engines for better safety. Both are multirole and fulfill different types of missions, including air superiority, with an AESA radar and the best BVR missile available, the Meteor.
4
Good point!. But there are only five of them…
4
Greg's airplanes and automobile channel has done videos about the Wright brothers. He shows that the brothers had a good understanding of flight mechanics for the time and that it was key to their success. Many others only had a partial view and that explains their failures.
4
Canada has no aircraft carrier, to my knowledge. Why would they buy B or Cs? There are more expensive, with a much shorter airframe lifetime, with lower payload than the A.
4
I've seen on the Internet that it was undergoing some maintenance and was not airworthy. The ukrainians left a welcome message in it, something along the lines of 'F... off'.
3
@funnybike1740 what are you talking about? The misinformed one is you! France and Britain attacked Egypt in 1956 because Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. The French president was Rene Coty, and he had no actual power. The government was led by the president du conseil (prime minister) Guy Mollet.
3
@samuelchan699 I suspect that "IrishMan" is as Irish as me, unless he calls people born in Russia "Irish"...😁 He's a Russian troll.
3
Yes, both the Eurofighter and Rafale were better options.
3
CAESAR howitzers. That's probably more useful in the context 😉
3
@AndrewTubbiolo now, a strike aircraft does not need to be supersonic : most aircrafts, even modern multi role ones, are not when used in that role. That’s the reason why the SE was not. But we talk of 5 aircraft’s only…
3
Wow! A russian pilot, I imagine. They fly their planes like russians drive their Ladas. You can imagine what it is with 30 000 killed on the roads every year! And they are happy with that, congratulating each other! Just, Wow!
3
Pussycat?
3
NATO is about defense of Europe, not some island in the atlantic. What should concerns NATO?
2
@SoloRenegade I fully agree. A software is just a tool, and all designers use them for a long time now. 3D softwares were not a thing when some older aircrafts, like the F-15/16, were designed, though. That's maybe the point here.
2
The MoD already issued a contract for the modernization of 800 T-62s over several years, few month ago. Meaning they had already planned to reuse all available T-72 hulls, either as is, or refurbished. Next in the line is the T-55. I agree with you that moving these tanks does not mean they head for the war, though. They can be modified as tank recovery vehicles, bridge layers or other specialized tanks, APCs... We'll see.
2
@funnybike1740 tariffs on imported cars in the eu is 10%. Not 25%. US tariff is 2.5%. Except for trucks (4x4) where it is around 20% in both cases. There are no tariffs in Canada for cars made in the USA or Mexico.
2
Money making? The US can reduce their F-35 order down one or two units. It will save enough money to equip the whole ukrainian army with ATGMs. Remember we are talking here of old soviet gear, that cost almost nothing, or small arms. They can even buy a bunch of updated soviet tanks from china for the price of a single M1 Abrams.
2
@andrewtadd4373 France was always a nato member. We just refused us troops in our country.
2
You not understanding my point is irrelevant. The fact is that Ukrainian people is willing to fight back, or the Russians would already have taken major cities. The more, the longer they fight, the better their position in the negotiations with Russia will be. They are certainly not 'happy' with that, nobody is ever 'happy' with war except for blood thirsty dictators like Vlad, but it is their best option. If NATO can help them reaching their goal, and ridicule Putin, we have to do it. It is a pity we can't do more.
2
@shcomptech stop building strawmen, you troll. Nobody is content with the suffering of innocent people. You were not 'saddend by innocent people dying in a war', you hypocrit, you were questioning the righteousness of supplying weapons to ukrainians for a fallacious reason. It seems that for Ukrainians, suffering fighting Putin's army is better than living under his tyranny. If he had not attacked in the first place, there would hqve been no suffering. And there is an easy way to stop the suffering: he just has to recall his troups.
2
Autoloaders save weight. They are used on the french Leclerc or Korean K2, which are considered as very good tanks, the last one being designed recently. Those also use a separate ammo rack in the bustle for better crew protection.
2
Think of it as a strike aircraft. Even modern day multi role fighters are subsonic, when carrying ground pounding gear, drop tanks, air to ground, air to sea missiles and bombs, and they mostly fly low. There are supersonic only in the air to air role.
2
@jamesdalton2014 my point is that we need a strong Ukraine. If they can’t join NATO, we will need some equivalent. Some alliance that protects them from an attack. EU membership, some European troops on the ground, or be part of some European defense alliance. NATO is dying. It can be the core of some new alliance, but we must understand that the US are no longer a reliable ally.
2
Not really an issue : France being a member of NATO, the aircraft’s are compatible with most NATO standards. It can launch Mk82 bombs, for example. For the rest, Missiles will be supplied with the aircraft’s.
2
The next one is called « Ludicrous Étendard »😂
2
05:20 Russia aknowledged indirectly that they were controlling the Ukrainian Russian terrorist. A NGO French member was arrested as a retaliation in Moscow.
2
The aircraft industry was impressed when they discovered the Fokker D.XXIII at the Salon de Paris. Sleek design, powerful, fast, well armed, it was seen to be a promising heavy fighter. Compared to many designs of the time, it looked very advanced.
2
@mikearmstrong8483 The G.1 was impressive, but the D.XXIII, its successor, was also considered by many countries as a potentially good aircraft, the push-pull configuration being seen as a good way to reduce drag.
2
@soulsphere9242 quick correction. The F-22 is not the only fighter with supercruise capability. All 'eurocanards' can supercruise (Eurofighter, Grippen and Rafale). And the very definition of supercruise supposes that they can do it with a combat load, for an extended time. And supercruise is useful in two ways, it lowers IR signature, and lowers fuel consumption compared to reheat. A supercruise capable interceptor will have a better loiter time, for example.
2
The issue is that the cost of the airfame is only a small part of the overall owning cost of an aircraft. Avionics makes a large part of it. And pilot training and salaries. If you want a true multirole fighter, you need a lot of electronics and well trained pilots. Using an old airframe will save you only so much money. And because of the cost of modern aircrafts, few countries can afford dedicated attack and air superiority aircrafts, as you have to pay for more aircrafts for the same missions, more pilots and mechanics. And the savings on pilot training do not compensate for the extra costs.
2
Push pull configuration was the best way to pack more power without increasing drag, when more powerful engines were not available, in order to increase speed. . So it is not surprising that several designers went for it. The issue was the poor cooling of the back engine and the weight of the aircraft. Weight reduces maneuverability. It was not so important for an interceptor, supposed to shoot down bombers , but was for a fighter supposed to fight other fighters.
2
Reasonable? How could somebody think that this slow aircraft could intercept anything? A Zeppelin would be back home, its crew enjoying some schnapps, before this whale reaches the location where it was detected.
2
The irony is that many use Dassault design software...
1
'Better (performance, i suppose?)' means nothing. As long as the aircraft can fulfill the missions it is designed for, it is good enough. And Tejas strong point is that it is 'make in india'. There may be 'better' cars than mine on the market, but my car fulfills my requirements... and it is available in my garage when i need it.
1
@badlt5897 what are you talking about? Tejas is not a carrier based aircraft, it is a replacement for older light fighters like the Mig-21. The carrier based variant was dropped. And, even if the engine is not made in india, most of the rest is. This is the same thing with the Gripen. Or du you suggest that Saab should drop it entirely because of that?
1
@badlt5897 well, as far as I know, the aircraft carrier version was dropped and a Request for Proposal issued. the Rafale and the F/A -18 are the contenders. The Tejas Mk1 and 1A are currently in service.
1
@venator5 i disagree. The russians have probably lost much more tanks than "1950" . Oryx has almost reached that number, and it does not include the ones that were towed and cannot be repaired, those lost on the russian side we have no picture of, and the worn out ones after a year of war. I would say they lost 100% of the tanks they had before the war (2600 acccording to some sites). Specially since most of the losses are the "best" they had, T72M, the workhorse of the russian army, and T-80BM and BVM. The fact they had to pull out T-62s from the graveyards shows they could not make the number with more advanced T-80 and T-72s. I estimate Russian forces has about 2000 tanks in its inventory. They must keep some on the borders, let say 1000, 500 in front of NATO, 500 in the East. And that is a minimum for a credible force (China or Poland alone would outnumber that easily). There are about 1000 tanks in Ukraine at the moment, about the same number than the Ukrainians have. And they loose about 10 tanks a day...
1
@venator5 We agree that Oryx is not accurate. But I still think that many tanks are not in the database, for the reasons I gave. And some errors in the counting cannot make up for that. We agree to disagree. for your various points Everything shows that the Russians rely more and more on old tanks. They still have more or less the same number of tanks (I think that, so far, they basically replaced tanks lost by the ones taken from storage), but they are scrapping the bottom of the barrel. So, they still have tanks. For the moment 1 - I highly doubt they have enough mobile troups to exploit any breakthrough. Their army is now down to conscripts armed with old armour. They were never good at combined arms even with trained soldiers. Now with conscripts and obsolete stuff... 2 - Maybe they did ask to China and N. Korea. And both refused (N. Korea is a chinese satellite BTW, they have to ask to their big brother for the go ahead... And if China refused to supply tanks...). Europe and the USA, China's major customers, would retaliate if tanks were supplied. I don't think China is ready for an economic war to sustain Russia, after the COVID and real estate crisis. 3 - Some pictures of Indian T-90S tanks with Russian markings let think that some of the tanks India sent to Russia for refurbishment were taken over by Russian army. So, it contradicts what you say... 4 - They are. Many tanks destroyed on Oryx are old crap. The "best" ones are T-90Ms, but there are few of them, and a bunch of T-72Ms and T-80s, which are not particularly good nor recent. Add to that many T-72B of all variants, T-62M that were retired in 2013 after being retained for second line duties, everything shows they are using everything they can put their hand on. Some propaganda pictures or promises do not represent what is actually on the battlefield. 5 - They do! According to the new composition of the BTG that leaked on the Internet, the number of tanks in a BTG has gone down from 10... to 3! As I mentioned, they put old crap from storage to make up for the numbers, but it seems they are short anyway. An explanation would be that tanks are useless, but why use obsolete tanks if tanks are of no use? The best explanation is that if they had enough tanks, they would have retained them in the BTGs.
1
@seanlander9321 Australia, like Canada, NZ and the UK are members of the « five eyes ». They share the same information. Unless Trump wants to stop that, all members will have the same data than Australia.
1
An attack on any NATO member would lead to retaliation. Conventional bombing, probably. Even if the missiles were to be british, or US, or from whatever NATO country is not enough reason to bomb these countries. During vietnam war, the US never bombed the USSR despite it supplying heavy weapons to the vietcong. Even in korean war, China was never bombed or attacked, even if it was directly involved in the fighting.
1
A time when aerodynamics was not considered as important...
1
@F40PH-2CAT you have no say in the matter. USA signed a treaty with security guarantees for Ukraine. Now, they betray that country. Nobody will « pay your bills », traitors!
1
@ Trump shows he is not trustworthy. I doubt anyone will consider the USA as an « ally and partner » in Europe from now on. Some power you have to take in account, sure, but not an ally.
1
@ i don’t know where you live, but if it is the US or UK, your government has given guarantees to Ukraine (like for many other countries). So, they give a sh.. on your behalf. (Or should, in the case of the US)
1
@UCbXS3oejyvFVpEvg-VlFQxw long answer, so: - Both EF and Rafale are more advanced than F-15 and F/A-18. They can supercruise and are stealthier. Both US fighters are also at the end of their development life. Future updates will be limited. Boeing is considering closing the SH production line if no orders are received in the near future. - compared to the F-35, they can supercruise, carry fuel tanks to extent range, are Meteor compatible and have 2 engines. - compared to the Gripen, they are heavier, with a higher payload and 2 engines. - the Rafale is selling well. Dassault received today an order for 80 Rafales for the UAE. They will open a second production line. Germany will order more EF, Spain may also. So, not too bad. Is it clear, now?
1
@Albertkallal your figure is for internal tanks only. both EF and Rafale can carry external tanks. The F-35 cannot. Both Eurocanards have more fuel, so a better range. Which is important for a country like Canada. Costs are just estimated. The F-35 flight cost per hour is $33600, FY 2020 figures. Expected to be $30000 in 2023.
1
@Albertkallal thank you for your information about external tanks. So basically, the F-35 can have optional wing tanks, like any other fighter. Good. Your costs are just estimates you can find on the internet, and likely to be biased. The figure I used is the US govt. Not a bad source, I think. As it is a highly sensitive subject every manufacturer keeps secret, I'll let potential customers decide for themselve. Anyway, what I pointed out is still valid: i think both the EF and Rafale are more suited to Canada requirements. Edit: the swiss selected the F-35 as it was cheaper. Cost was revised recently, however, and cost increased of 20%.
1
@WALTERBROADDUS Troll!
1
@WALTERBROADDUS so, still no argument. You just confirm you are a troll.
1
@WALTERBROADDUS is that your argument? We know they are not under consideration, everybody knows that. We also know the alledge reasons why Dassault and Airbus pulled out of the competition. What do you mean by 'they have not won many deals?' Porsche sells less cars than Toyota. Does it mean there are worst?
1
He was lucky not to crash a several million $ plane and get killed... I would not call that "good work"
1
According to the aviation militaire website, 167F were equipped with Wright cyclones and Browning .303 build under licence by FN in Belgium.
1
I suspect that, as you mention Ed, Ukrainians airforce was dispersed and is waiting for opportunities to be used. I also suspect that the US supplied some communication systems, maybe down to the division level, and some advisors. USA undoubtedly currently supplies intelligence, from satellites, AWACS and drones. I cannot think that the Ukrainians were completely unprepared and waited complacently for the attack the USA was screaming was coming.
1
Ukraine is a central piece in European defense. It is the strongest army in Europe and it’s eastern border. We need to integrate it in our defense system, which means help Ukraine winning the war and tie a strong alliance.
1
If for interception over the sea, range is of upmost importance. Like reliability. Meaning a somewhat heavy fighter. Single engine aircraft, like the Gripen or F-16 are out. Rafale and EF2000 have relatively short legs. Though Rafale can has a « buddy to buddy » refueling capacity Training aircraft’s are not an option either : single engine, short legs. I would go with F-15, even if only a handful. Or F/A-18 if the US Navy is retiring some (which there is no sign of). Or Rafale with refueling capacity.
1
@ I suppose combat radius is not the same, depending if we talk about brand new F-16V and second hand F-16s. I don’t know if 300 or 400 miles is good enough However, depending on the requirements, the F-16 is probably not the best choice in that respect. Added to the fact it is a single engine aircraft, There are better suited aircraft’s on the market. Now, it will boil down to what Ireland can afford, and their requirements.
1
@Art-is-craft agreed, but the primary use will be interception : intercepting unidentified aircraft’s, mainly Russian long range aircraft’s and escorting them. You need long range and air to air missiles for that. Another role would be anti shipping . I don’t know which range would be acceptable for that. This is up to the Irish army to set that. Secondary role would be air to ground operations, if, for example, Ireland joins NATO or an EU military alliance. I don’t mean that the F-16 will not be good enough, but there are some other aircraft’s that are better suited.
1
Regarding russian losses, à leak on russian news Readovka gave 13414 dead, 7000 MIA (rougly between 40 to 60 thousand out of action using a ratio of 3). 116 sailors were killed on the Moskva, 100 missing. The article was quickly removed...
1
Europe has to stop the war in Ukraine and the threat of Russia first. That’s the top priority. Asia is not a concern until everything is settled in Europe. European Investments in the military will go to defense, not forces projection around the globe.
1
British engines would probably have been an improvement, indeed.
1
Greg's airplanes and automobiles site has a very good video about the P-39 https://youtu.be/l_pziH3tI9o
1
I suspect the reason why it was not adopted was because it was better to settle on biplanes or monoplanes once for all. What could be the use on an aircraft carrier of a biplane, if the monoplane can take off and land on it anyway, while offering better performance in speed? Why use a monoplane if what you are looking for is short take off, agility and high lift? It does not offer the best of both worlds, it offers one or the other.
1
@ that’s my point : at the time, if a fighter was needed, a monoplane was the answer, unless it’s take off and landing speeds are deemed too high. If a biplane is better suited for some other role, go for it! That’s exactly what they did. No need of a biplane you can’t cram 2 or 3 guys in for reconnaissance or torpedo bombing. If a fighter is needed, go for a monoplane. They had both.
1
Why not some French aircraft’s, like the VB10 or VG33, for Elbonia? After the war, the aircraft’s, mostly based on prewar designs, are obsolete and the industry is lacking everything, from raw materials to machine tools. Delivery would have taken ages, and, with French engines, the aircraft’s would have required to be re-engined later with more reliable British or US engines, adding delays and cost.😊
1
What I’ve heard is that exercises tend to Favour the F-35 : the F-16 is considered as « shot down » as soon as the missile is « launched » (virtually) by the F-35. In reality, a F-35 with its bay open is not stealthy anymore. Meaning that a F-16 can, in theory, detect it, launch its own missile and try to evade the incoming one. Stealth is probably a big advantage, but fights would not be as single sided in real life.
1
@joshpetersen5968 good point. what I meant is that aircraft’s are rarely flying alone, except for exercises for safety reasons. If a F-35 is discovered, even briefly, even if the targeted aircraft does not shoot back, another one can, if the cover is well organized. It is possible that F-35s will draw the first blood, but the battle can turn into a mess if the F-35s are known to be around. Specially if they have to manœuvre and present another aspect ratio, less stealthy than their front. My point is that this will boil down to tactics and will not be as single sided as exercises show.
1
@joshpetersen5968 I agree, drones are probably the way to go. But how old will be the F-16s when they are fielded? There is so much you can do with an airframe designed 60 years ago (it is already 50 years old). Maybe it will be (once more) updated nonetheless, with a better radar, an optical sensor, better jammers, missiles, ECM… The major advantages of the F-35 against the F-16 is that it is stealthy and it is bigger, with more onboard power, leaving more room for improvements. I don’t think, however, that the F-16 would be a sitting duck in an actual fight against the F-35, nor that some improvements would not make the gap between them even thinner for a time. It is true, however, that the F-16 is at the end of its development curve : if some improvements are maybe possible, it is true only for a time.
1
That's the Russians... they are stupid.
1
Gun lifetime is a few hundred shells. Meaning that it is worn out after a few days if used as an artillery piece. I doubt that moving that many tanks around, repair them, to have them back in the warehouse within a few days for a gun replacement makes sense.
1
@matthiuskoenig3378 agreed! and a tank is, by definition, a very complex system. If we push the logic of the 4th member, why not embed some electronic engineer, in case some system fails, mechanics to repair any issue with the engine, and a spare crewmember in case one is wounded or sick? In the same logic, if a loader is more reliable than an autoloader, why not get rid of lasers, night vision, fire control systems that are much less reliable than a simple coincidence scopeor bulletproof glass vision ports? Having as few crewmembers as possible saves weight. It can be used to fit a better protection, a bigger gun or lighten the tank.
1
@jimtaylor294 the french tested the concept of an "empty " turret in the 70s, as far as I remember. And it was never adopted for the reasons you list. The autoloader, on the other hand, was retained and is now common in new designs, like the Korean K2 which uses a licenced version of the Leclerc one.
1
@FinsburyPhil one less crew member must be compensated by automating some tasks, adapting the procedures and eventually reinforcing support teams. A tank is designed primerly to fight. The main purpose of a loader is to load the gun. There is nothing in his other tasks that is necessary during the battle. Outside the battle itself, it is a teamwork with C&C, logistics, support and service units.
1