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