Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Not What You Think" channel.

  1.  @il400  Sure. But the point is that it puts things in perspective. It's more tangible to think it costs 100 gallons to move a mile, rather than 0.01 miles per gallon.
    15
  2. Because one airplane could take out the ammo supply for hundreds of guns at once.
    10
  3. The OBIGGS has been sort of an ordeal because after the system was redesigned, a maintenance check found that the tubing got damaged so they put the restriction back in place. The video did address it but it was easy to miss. The damage in the Japan incident was not fully explained but the implication was that because the F-35 isn't a huge metal cage like other aircraft, there was no "Faraday protection" so there was damage even though they were still good enough to land.
    8
  4. ​ @timothychung4811  Think. All those millions of engineers, and it took them two decades to develop a jet engine. Pushing people through college doesn't magically give you solutions. You have a bunch of people with degrees.
    7
  5. ​ @JAnx01  Nobody has fully functioning fleets of any fighter. All aircraft need to have maintenance.
    7
  6.  @laurentdrozin812  How can you handle the topic of defense without knowing what a fighter is? Even if the EU doesn't have its own army, overseeing the topic of defense means being aware of what warfare entails.
    7
  7.  @skislope4218  the Russian coverage is hilarious. Dimitry of wartranslated has a huge compilation of Russian accounts, Igor Girkin now calls the Kremlin the "planet of pink ponies".
    6
  8.  @justicehenrydamian475  I've seen the best SAMs in the world get clapped by Turkish drones.
    6
  9.  @akita2438  I don't know if the redesign had a problem because it seems the issue was somewhere else, in the tubing. I'm not up to speed with the investigation and what caused the tubing to get damaged. There's no "oversight" per se, if you have too much exposed metal skin it stops being a stealth aircraft. The fact is that when non-stealth aircraft are pitted against stealth in exercises they get the floor wiped with them. There's just too much at stake to prioritize lighting protection when the aircraft can be repaired if hit by lighting, but there's no repair if they get split in half by a missile.
    5
  10. Western GPS guidance is actually INS with GPS updates. Jamming only makes them use INS which is why you still see HIMARS makings good hits. Consumer grade drones do get jammed which forces recon to use landmarks for navigation but the weapons are jam resistant by ignoring the GPS system and defaulting to internal guidance.
    5
  11.  @hotstepper887  Bunch of cope and propaganda. The Harrier was not meant for VTOL operation either, as the max takeoff weight for vertical takeoff doesn't let you carry enough fuel and weapons.
    4
  12.  @TheBarracuda  the point isn't making anyone "stop spying". It's to avoid singling out any flight as different from the others.
    4
  13. ​ @coreytaylor5386  the USSR collapsed in 1991, how many nuclear terrorist strikes since?
    4
  14.  @bufordhighwater9872  the TDF fighting the initial assault was very Red Dawn. Anyone who tried to attack the armored columns got deadly return fire, so they focused on letting the initial assault pass by them, then attack the supply trucks.
    4
  15.  @saxreaper  Not really. Most aircraft take a beating from high G loading when carrying significant payload. High Gs strain the human in the cockpit, but a 2000lb bomb mounted to a wing at 9G... that's an insane bending moment on the wing. Replacing the pilot so you can do 12G will just cut the usable hours on that airframe, if not lead to outright crack formation.
    3
  16. Cope.
    3
  17.  @kalbing  I'm not saying it was a missile but they're not made to make a "hole". They either use fragmentation, in which cube and bowtie shaped pieces of metal are shot out like an omnidirectional shotgun blast, or continuous-rod warheads. The continuous rods are interesting because they're long rods of metal welded at the tips in a an alternating zig-zag, so when the warhead explodes the rods separate but remain joined at the tips, forming a circular "concertina". When the stretched circle impacts aircraft, it slices them through.
    3
  18. That's absolutely the wrong take. What was shown is that you need a resilient infrastructure and quality air defenses to operate aircraft, as cruise and medium range ballistic missiles can target airfields and fuel depots.
    3
  19.  @jawarakf  Fortunately.
    3
  20. On foot.
    3
  21. Testing old stuff?
    2
  22. The world witnessed what Assad did to Syrians, but Russians were there to help him. The world witnessed what Qadaffi did to Libyans, and he was removed but we kept hands off and the place turned to a hotbed of terrorism. We witnessed what Saddam did to Iraqis and were too cowardly to remove him in 1991, and we tried to liberate Afghans from the Taliban but it seems they're not ready for it.
    2
  23. Copium overdose lol
    2
  24.  @FullyCharged22  The problem isn't air cover. The A-10's biggest predator is its former prey. The danger isn't in the air but in the ground. Fighter escorts don't mean a thing when SAMs and AAA are on wheeled/tracked vehicles and ready to punish CAS aircraft. Fighter escorts can't do anything about men on the ground with shoulder launched missiles. No, it can't easily rain hell on vehicles or infantry, because vehicles or infantry are prepared to fight against CAS fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. It's not even a good platform. It was outdated the day it left the factory and meant for a world that didn't exist anymore. The F-15 is multirole and so what? The F-15E Strike Eagle is an excellent ground attack aircraft that's not as vulnerable as the A-10.
    2
  25.  @piisfun  Minimum airspeed of 500 knots? That's over 900km per hour, almost supersonic at that point. Double check your numbers.
    2
  26.  @FullyCharged22  No, your argument is flawed. The multirole fighters are the primary ground attack aircraft of the modern world. No, they don't have different capabilities, they have the same and better ones. The video is just entertainment. Not serious discussion.
    2
  27.  @FullyCharged22  You're literally sourcing an entertainment video as a serious argument. No, it's you who should research the topic. The A-10 is completely outdated and even suffered embarrassment in the first gulf war, where it had to be pulled back due to heavy losses and the F-16 had to take over its mission. The fact that other aircraft do the A-10s job and do it better does negate the usage of the A-10. The GAU-8 Avenger being unique is not an argument, because it no longer can take out targets that a 20mm round can't. Plus the DU round has been retired due to the heavy metal toxicity it leaves behind, and rounds like the 25mm APEX round are showing that they're a promising replacement. If your argument for keeping the A-10 is the GAU-8, that's a losing argument because it's no longer relevant. The A-10 has a long service record because it enjoyed almost 20 years of not being used, then it got splashed by Iraqi National Guard units, and when it was meant to be replaced Congress dragged its feet and insisted on keeping it around for more 30 years. The long service record isn't explained by outstanding performance, but by how Congress will force the military to drag a corpse Weekend at Bernie's style.
    2
  28.  @FullyCharged22  He is more knowledgeable than you and he defended his points. It's you who's refusing to look at the facts and data, while sourcing an entertainment video to back up your arguments.
    2
  29.  @Tomyironmane  The USMC variant will do shorter hops. Forget the gun. They'll be dropping bombs like artillery, and fly back to load more to drop where they're needed. They're not going to waste time trying to strafe anything, they'll be responding to calls for fire from the ground and taking out more important assets.
    2
  30. Nope. Britain got Lend Lease. Considering how much stuff was deferred and inflation, Britain got a crazy deal, and only finalized the payment in 2006 for a war that ended in 1945. Ukraine will get the same deal. They'll pay it back in 60 years for pennies on the dollar.
    2
  31. The actual evidence shows mobiks and Wagner convicts getting shredded by the dozens.
    2
  32. The radiation is negligible but it's still a heavy metal and thus the dust is dangerous to inhale.
    2
  33.  @michaeld.uchiha9084  Not due to radiation, but heavy metal toxicity.
    2
  34.  @3d1e00  The F-35A doesn't have that issue, it happened three times in total and they couldn't replicate it reliably in testing. The limit on speed in Bs and Cs is just a precaution for peacetime.
    2
  35.  @3d1e00  Sure. IRST doesn't have to be used in isolation because weapons and aircraft have their own sensors. This can mean firing a weapon with a rough intercept course to then turn its own radar own to obtain the tracking solution. BVR, if we're talking about human visual range, still includes optical means. The DAS/EOTS on the F-35 is an example of how an infrared search and track system can detect a contact, cue an electro-optical system to get visual on the target, cue a weapon so that it ends up close to the target sighted and then let it handle the terminal phase. If you have multiple F-35s in the air, as one should, sensor fusion should allow these systems to triangulate the position and get a passable track.
    2
  36.  @arcanondrum6543  I'm not marketing for anyone. You're just being what we call "a hater", and you assume your position is neutral. It isn't. The F-22 was indeed meant to replace the F-15. But the government needed money for other projects and to pay for the wars so they decided to pull the plug on the F-22, and build insufficient numbers. The F-22 did what it was meant to do. The government got cold feet and said the F-22 wasn't necessary. Their words, not mine. Your information about the F-35 is outdated and based on a David Axe article from almost 6 years ago. Outmaneuvering missiles? Missiles can pull a lot more Gs then aircraft. You can outrun them by forcing them to waste energy, which isn't some great feat of maneuverability but simply having speed and altitude to spend. Your first video was removed, and the second video shows a clean F-16. The F-16 can't do that in combat either because it carries weapons.
    2
  37.  @arcanondrum6543  My comment has been deleted. Outstanding. I linked multiple videos so my comment was flagged as spam. Tight turn radiuses don't defeat missiles. The aircraft does not leave the seeker FOV or the maneuvering envelope. Missile avoidance is done before the missile is even close to try and enter a turn radius competition. That's a last resort, desperate move because a missile flying past will still trigger the proximity fuse.
    2
  38.  @JC839  Doesn't have anything to do with Congress being wrong as usual, but okay.
    2
  39. Heat shielding like reentry capsules.
    2
  40. Not sure what the alternative is. You do realize that if you're going to call it a drive shaft, then all jet engines have drive shafts. The turbine stages are connected by shafts to the compressor stages. All that's happening here is a gearbox that takes that high RPM turbine power to a fan. Just like 21st century cutting edge airliners have turbofan engines where the fan is connected to the jet engine shaft.
    2
  41.  @wave1016  The purpose of the EX is keeping the Boeing St. Louis plant open. Without orders, the US loses a fighter manufacturing plant. So they created orders to avoid that. Simple as.
    2
  42.  @samoldfield5220  INS loses accuracy based on time. If an artillery shell or rocket/missile is moving at supersonic or near supersonic speeds, it will spend only seconds inside jamming range. INS usually has a drift of 650 meters over one hour. Shells do not spend an hour inside jammer range. They come down at lighting fast speeds. In 2012 the US military actually found a way to reduce INS drift by two thirds.
    2
  43. Since they have less shells, they have to make them count.
    2
  44.  @casematecardinal  That's riddiculous. Aircraft are not sent to 1v1 fights, chasing down a F-35 without AMRAAMs still means a few F-35s with a couple of them left are close by.
    1
  45. Nuclear winter was a scientific fraud pushed in the interest of peace.
    1
  46. There was no defeat. Taliban wouldn't move until the US was gone. Same as North Vietnam. Sign peace deal, move in after the US stops caring about the war. Afghanistan is littered with Taliban corpses. The Taliban now aren't the same Taliban that helped OBL. The US slaughtered them.
    1
  47. ​ @spy_balloon  Admitting what? The US is sending stuff that's beyond tested, combat proven, some of it about to retire.
    1
  48. Spetsnaz was shredded by ambushes. Spec ops are not frontline soldiers. Throw spec ops without backup, no rear security, no supply lines and no air support, and a nunch of 40 year old lawyers and 25 year old Aldi grocery baggers in dug up positions will just wipe them with mortars and machine guns. Look at Operation Red Wings - Navy SEALs took an operation that was meant for Marines, and they got overwhelmed. Russia suffered immense losses among the VDV, Naval Infantry, elite units with Guards designation, etc.
    1
  49.  @tomrogers4667  "where's the money going" shredding mobiks to pieces. The videos posted by Ukrainians are the best audit ever - you truly get to see what Western weapons do to cannon fodder.
    1
  50. The number grows larger the more I scroll down.
    1
  51. Yes there is a reason to retire it. It's absolutely a slog to keep airworthy, Boeing's re-winging program already cost 2 billion. It's not safe at all, as it's involved in many friendly fire incidents.
    1
  52.  @rajatdani619  Air defenses are never clear.
    1
  53. Russia was left alone, and look at what they did.
    1
  54. kek Russia is gloating about progressively smaller towns.
    1
  55. Armenia was attacked because they were the aggressors in the 90s. And the Armenian diaspora guilt trips the West a lot because we have concerns with the genocide and Turkey's refusal to recognize it. But both Azerbaijan and Armenia are hateful towards each other and it's difficult to see Armenia as a pure victim when they ethnically cleansed Nagorno-Karabagh.
    1
  56.  @yolkiandeji7649  They never loaded the full load of Phoenixes for operational use. They typically took 2 Phoenixes, 2 Sparrows and 2 Sidewinders so that they didn't have to dump anything.
    1
  57.  @davidmalkowski7850  Bringback weight limits are always a waste. In civilian aviation, sometimes aircraft have to dump fuel or circle around burning it before landing.
    1
  58.  @Tomyironmane  "without the kinda inconvenient collateral damage you get from 500lbs of BLAM" - Yes, that's why they made 250lb SDBs and APKWS guidance kits for the 2.75" rockets. The gun should be a weapon of last resort for the fixed wing aircraft, which has to put itself in much greater danger than a rotary wing asset to use it. "a lot of ROE the pencil pushers put in mean you have to have visual ID on targets, which is gunfight range" - You do know that aircraft carry pods, right? You have a gimbaled and stabilized video feed that lets you see things from miles away, so visual ID can be obtained from beyond what the human eye is capable of. Meanwhile A-10 pilots using visual ID strafed British and American troops because even at "gunfight range" they easily confuse friendlies for foes. That's why in close air support the attack is directed by the ground units, because pilots inevitably screw up even within visual range. EDIT: Either way, the use case for the USMC makes it clear that the F-35B will have to be directing its attention at much more critical targets. By taking care of those targets endangering troops, they'll be able to better self-protect against enemies that are too close for explosives. It makes no sense to be focusing on the close combat while you need to be covering a coastal assault. The USMC has rotary wing assets that could get closer and do that job if the F-35 is maintaining air superiority and destroying AAA threats to rotary wing.
    1
  59. ​ @oliverlaw02  the brain drain and sanctions ensure this doesn't happen
    1
  60. ​ @vickomen333 "Yugoslavia" you mean Serbia, which was fighting the rest of Yugoslavia.
    1
  61. ​ @donflamingo795  Russia knows nothing. They're losing against surplus.
    1
  62. Hindsight is 20/20. Let's face it, even today the procedure is considered barbaric because of the way it is done. If people only talked about the side effects and how it was prescribed way too often it would be on the level of other medical mistakes.
    1
  63. Cope.
    1
  64. Air to air missiles reach peak velocity when the motor is burning, and immediately start losing velocity when the motor is burnt out.
    1
  65. Cope. Ukraine has suffered under Russian rule before the US even existed.
    1
  66.  @brianmatthews4323  Who are you?
    1
  67. How would the homeless use armored cars and artillery shells?
    1
  68. Cope. "Ancient" radar systems are meant for early warning detection and not weapons grade tracking, and thus use bands that are less affected by stealth but do nothing to help you shoot them down. If Syrian defenses are locking Israeli F-35s how come none has been brought down?
    1
  69. China doesn't want to. Supporting the separatism of the LPR and DPR means also letting Xinjiang and Taiwan go.
    1
  70. It's basically free. Britain paid back lend lease in 2006. The war ended in 1945. At that point the inflation meant the US was taking back the payments based on a legal agreement, because there was no profit at all.
    1
  71. ​ @babecat2000  There's none, Russian trolls invented it.
    1
  72. The war ends today if Russia leaves.
    1
  73. They went full force in February and got kicked in the teeth.
    1
  74. That's not true at all. Most rocket motors in air to air missiles only have a few seconds of burn time. After they burn out, the missile can't gain any more energy. This means that if you turn, the missile will have to steer towards a new predictive impact point. This wastes energy. If you turn again, now the missile has been going in the wrong direction all along! It must steer towards a newer predictive impact point. Energy defeat of a missile is much simpler than maneuvering.
    1
  75.  @taraswertelecki3786  "Many"? There's the Meteor, and there could be a couple more but I don't remember. The Phoenix was designed to take out slow bombers flying in a straight line. Now you're correctly using the no escape zone. The issue is, in air combat you fire before the no escape zone because you want to force a defensive posture with a reasonably high Pk shot. Waiting to reach no escape zone means flying straight into a high Pk missile.
    1
  76. ​ @marcv2648  because I do. Russia tried to use gas as an economic weapon against me. They said I would freeze to death. Now I want karma to hit them back. They will feel the blowback of making me their enemy.
    1
  77.  @marcv2648  Russia wanted to use the gas as a leverage but it wasn't working. So they shot the hostage.
    1
  78.  @marcv2648  Great. India makes a profit and bends Russia over a barrel.
    1
  79. No. Only a few kilos of fissile materials with long half lives unlike the short lived fission byproducts. People have touched the cores of nuclear weapons with bare hands. It's fine as long as you don't breathe dust.
    1
  80. Because he owns a media production company.
    1
  81. Can't buy homes with artillery shells.
    1
  82.  @3d1e00  The faster you go, the greater your IR emissions. IR comes into play because IR Search & Track is a thing. There's also the fuel. Stealth aircraft want to keep the fuel internal and not have to carry external bags. The faster you go the more fuel is wasted, and thus your range is reduced.
    1
  83.  @arcanondrum6543  They didn't fail. The government asks for something and then gets cold feet. Also, funny how you now have to resort to unrelated claims when people shot down your arguments.
    1
  84.  @arcanondrum6543  What videogame? Also, no I won't go away. You go.
    1
  85. Russian weapons are not 10x cheaper. At most they're 75-60% cheaper.
    1
  86. Funny, crypto stores a ledger with all transfers but you can't point to the Ukrainian or DNC accounts. You just repeat fake news with no proof, even though crypto scams are the easiest to investigate. Connect the dots.
    1
  87. It's not spending, it's equipment gathering dust. And Russia is losing.
    1
  88. Nope. Wrong decision as usual.
    1
  89.  @markderham9949  The Vulcan is the 20mm cannon in use in the F-16, F-15, F/A-18, etc by the way.
    1
  90.  @markderham9949  Yeah the rest is correct.
    1
  91. That money was not to Ukraine you schizo
    1
  92. They took baxk the country, it was Kabul's responsability to hold together but they were too corrupt and weak.
    1
  93. ​ @Fierysaint1 Why would more than 20-24 be sent?
    1
  94. ​ @marcv2648 It's not money, it's metal. You can't pay groceries with Humvee doors or Bradley tracks.
    1
  95. ​ @marcv2648 There's a good reason. Without weapons, you'd live like in the 1900s. Global trade is secured by naval power
    1
  96. It's already been paid for decades ago. The equipment was gathering dust.
    1
  97. The other side continuously presents their side. They captured Pisky 9 times, Bakhmut 8 and Soledar 6, they destroyed 40 of the 24 HIMARS sent, 4 Bradleys before they arrived, the Ukrainian Air Force was destroyed 3x over, more TB-2s than Baykar ever made for all countries that bought it, they're fighting Polish and African-American mercenaries, and not to mention the combat mosquitos. So you see why you get "one side". The other just produces garbage. You're free to check what they're saying because it is funny.
    1
  98.  @zadeify9596  Patrick Lancaster is a full blown Russia shill and a criminal.
    1
  99.  @zadeify9596  Look up the faked roadside attack in the days prior to the war. A skeleton inside the car had a straight cut in the skull. That body was taken from a morgue and the skull sawed open during autopsy. That kind of injury isn't possible with explosives or bullets. He either stole a dead body to prop it inside a car, or paid a coroner/mortician to get the body which is a crime in any developed nation. And he rides around with the Russian army. He also rode around with the mercenaries who used the boxcutter to torture that Ukrainian POW.
    1
  100. Armchair Copelord: "Ukrainians are going to be encircled" Armchair Copelord two days later: "I'm going to leave twitter forever"
    1
  101.  @freezee7547  Additional jet engines are 20th century. That's the way it was done in the past. Jet engines are not very thrust efficient at low speeds. If you want to double the mass of gas used for thrust, you only need to double the energy input. If you want to double the speed of the jet exhaust, you need to quadruple the energy input - because velocity is squared in the kinetic energy equation. This means that jet engines are most efficient at cruise when velocity. When you have an hovering aircraft (moving slow) the jets are dumping supersonic airflow to keep it in the air, and so the energy use is very inefficient. A fan moves a larger amount of air mass with less energy, so you get great thrust with minimal fuel consumption because it's being driven by the turbine stage of the main engine.
    1
  102.  @freezee7547  "how about the reliable and maintenance when they are the keys for those in aviation?" - Jet engines are more maintenance intensive than a shaft and fan. "Or find the mechanics every time in war zone" - They'll be at the base waiting for the aircraft?
    1
  103. Russia gave crap to the middle east they needed to invade Ukraine. They shot themselves in the foot.
    1
  104. ​ @marcv2648 You didn't send 100 bil, you sent equipment that was written off as 100 bil in value. But your parents paid for that equipment decades ago and it would cost you more to dismantle it.
    1
  105. Ukrainians will pay it back in 2060 lol. Lend lease is extremely generous.
    1
  106. Their veteran pool is shrinking because of losses.
    1
  107. You're not forced into poverty, you just made bad choices in life.
    1
  108. A 300 year debt means the yearly paymemts are pennies lol
    1
  109. They're not checks, it's equipment.
    1
  110. Right. We've been doing that since the 2000s.
    1
  111. No such rule exists.
    1
  112. They could try. At that point more mass shootings in recruitment offices would happen.
    1
  113. This is insanity. No fighter in those conditions could "bug out". A multirole fighter coming in support of troops will be carrying fuel and bombs, which reduce performance anyway.
    1
  114. No. The UK paid back lend lease. In 2006. Extremely generous terms.
    1
  115. If they used their air power, Ukraine would be littered in Russian scrap.
    1
  116.  @Unknown124k  Could have? Then why didn't they?
    1
  117. Europe has MIC. Saab, Rheinmetal, Leonardo, Dassault, etc.
    1
  118. Light attack aircraft or turboprops would be even cheaper. The A-10 required 2x 1 billion dollar re-winging programs. For a ~200 plane fleet plus spares it's almost 10 million dollars per A-10 just to keep in airworthy. For 10 million you can get a Super Tucano that is 10x cheaper to operate.
    1
  119. Can't buy houses by paying them in Humvees and MRAPs.
    1
  120. Carrying modern weapons means a radar, and back then aircraft only had a small ranging radar in a bump in the nose above the intake for the gun sight lead compensation. Modern missiles are also a little big heavy. So you need a stronger engine and bigger wings for the extra weight. But that also means you need more fuel. Which is extra weight. Now you need to make the structure stronger. When you're done updating the F-86 to modern combat, you have a totally different aircraft that's expensive. Also, training pilots is difficult. If you're building cheap aircraft to have a larger force, that means inherently having to accept more pilot candidates. That's great for those who have dreams of flying, but it means lower quality pilots.
    1
  121. Right. Black market buyers for weapons they can't train, reload or repair without the US helping. If terrorists call Lockheed Martin they can buy GMLRS rockets?
    1
  122. 70 billion is equivalent to 200 billion USD thanks to purchasing power parity. So Russia spends 1/3rd of the US budget.
    1
  123. Heard that last March.
    1
  124. The Taliban were hunted like animals. The US got tired and signed a peace deal to get out. I guess you also claim the deer win every hunting season, because eventually hunters run out of tags or the season ends.
    1
  125. Oh no, the tax payer in 1980 who paid for stuff that wouldn't ever be used is really mad!
    1
  126.  @armyman-ig7qs  It's not a strawman. The billions are old vehicles. You're complaining about nothing.
    1
  127. India supports Russia by demanding low oil prices. India straight up scamming Russia and helping them go bankrupt for profit.
    1
  128. The US developed bombs that don't explode but release carbon fiber to cause shorts which allows a temporary blackout. The US does that to cover their advance and minimize casualties. Russia does it because they're angry. They're not bombing out of necessity, they bomb because they're children throwing a tantrum.
    1
  129. And yet it got splashed by the Iraqi National Guard to the point it had to be pulled back.
    1
  130. There's no such thing as depleted uranium bombs. The DU is used in penetrators and the dust is toxic. But the tungsten carbide in the ammunition used by other countries is also toxic.
    1
  131. Can we see those 200 T-90s?
    1
  132.  @coreytaylor5386  We'll negotiate the return of the weapons. Tons of generals want to retire and not face charges in Nuremberg 2.0.
    1
  133. @@renegade7056 There's never been such a nuke sold to any terror organization or rogue nation. The warlords would thank Ukraine for their new power.
    1
  134. Cope. Most of that money goes towards freeloaders like you. You don't pay taxes.
    1
  135. Whataboutism.
    1
  136. The sky is falling stories to get more budget, transparent as glass.
    1
  137. ​@Wishalloy They didn't. The Phantom scored kills with missile, only a handful were by gun.
    1
  138. @Wishalloy Not true. They were not screwed. They were just ambushed. MiGs would do high speed passes and run away, too fast to be chased and gunned down. The E variant got a gun, but later variants did not have them.
    1
  139.  @Predator42ID  Completely incorrect. Visual identification is extremely unreliable and the A-10 has been involved in multiple friendly fire incidents. There's a reason why close air support is managed by forward air controllers, they guide the pilot's attacks and they're the ones who give final authority for a strike. When A-10 pilots are given free reign over an area, they'll fire on friendlies too because you can't see anything specific from inside the cockpit. You can be dead certain of the coordinates, because the troops on the ground dictate them to the pilot. Mistakes have happened and a forward air controller once gave his own position as the strike coordinates to a B-1B, but that could have happened to an A-10 as well as evidenced by how pilots can't tell friend from foe with the naked eye when left to do their thing on their own.
    1
  140.  @JedisfuneralTM  And on average each drone destroyed more than their worth in equipment. And to take a dark turn, there's young men who won't come back to their families due to those drones. They did their job.
    1
  141.  @samoldfield5220  No, I am not talking about submarines. INS guidance inaccuracy comes from drift. That's why GPS guided munitions in the West are actually INS guided munitions with continuous GPS correction to account for drift. If you jam the GPS, the munition spends a grand total of a fraction of a second inside jammer range. The modern battlefield is full of GPS jammers because it hinders commercial quadcopter operation. It's simple as that.
    1
  142. The Mirage III and Daggers were not flying supersonic because the Falklands were far away enough that using the afterburner would mean not enough fuel to come back. Their average time on target was just a few minutes before they had to turn back. Also, Exocets were carried by the Super Etendard.
    1
  143. Nice cope. 40 out of 24 HIMARS destroyed, right comrade?
    1
  144.  @openlyracist  What are they losing? Russia has not provided evidence of a single HIMARS loss. A few Polish tanks were knocked out in Kherson. The outcome? Kherson city was liberated. You lose stuff even when you win. We're sending stuff, they win. I'm happy if metal gets destroyed if it saves human lives.
    1
  145. After the counter munition is expended to defeat the first AT rocket/missile, the anti tank team will get every cannon, rifle and machine gun unloading on their position. To make a single tank run out of hard kill APS you'll need increasingly complex ambushes that afford you the opportunity to fire that many weapons without getting killed.
    1
  146. ​ @ManiaMac1613  No, the theory isn't challenged. You don't run into a knife fight when everyone has guns.
    1
  147. ​ @somethingtojenga  You will disengage and your wingman takes the shot.
    1
  148. ​ @somethingtojenga  Because there's a squadron with you on their missile range while you try to get inside gun range. You will not get close.
    1
  149. @черныйтень05 Are you drunk? Look at the comment I replied to. France and Germany aren't the EU. EH? EH?
    1
  150.  @TheScandoman  Portuguese, Spanish, French, English.
    1
  151. ​ @MumboJumboZXC Nope, it's metal. Equipment isn't dollars.
    1