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.
Previous
1
Next
...
All
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
Previous
1
Next
...
All