Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "USS Gerald R Ford Vs HMS Queen Elizabeth - Nuclear vs Non-nuclear" video.

  1.  keith moore  the F-5 doesn't have the thrust to keep up with the F-4.
    2
  2.  keith moore  "the problem with the F35 is they're asking too much from one design it's going to be the Swiss army knife of planes being barely capable of all missions and master of none! there's too much compromise! and the damn cost!" - that doesn't make any sense. Both the F-16 and the F/A-18 are excellent aircraft and they're capable of all missions, master of all. The cost of the F-35 is very similar to 4th gen aircraft.
    2
  3.  keith moore  "titanium rain thrust don't mean shit in a turning fight!!" - that's not how it works. All planes are subject to lift, gravity, thrust and drag. When you turn, you use lift to pull your airplane into the turn at the cost of drag. If you have no thrust, you bleed speed and drop like a rock. If you have thrust, you can continue turning. Saying that thrust doesn't mean anything in a turning fight is completely asinine because otherwise we could be using gliders as dogfighters. "and F 5 regularly beat F4's at red flag!!" - and the F-35 shreds F-16s and F-15s at Red Flag and yet you critique it. I'm not saying the F-5 doesn't have its advantages, but you have to consider the historical context. The F-4 did fight a dissimilar enemy in the MiG 17, 19, 21 series, but TOPGUN instructed pilots knew how to use thrust to bring the fight to the vertical (you can tire yourself turning in circles, it doesn't do anything versus an enemy diving on you) or even take advantage of turn rate. Even though MiGs had a lower turn radius the F-4 pilot could simply ease on the stick and use the turn rate to keep up. Because Soviet equipped fighters had worse G-suits than Western fighters the F-4 pilot could simply pull comfortable 3-4 Gs while the MiG pilot pulled heavy Gs and quickly fatigued himself trying to turn.
    2
  4.  @TheMarineGamerIGGHQ  "Logistical support doesn't require much brain. Just money" uuuhhhhhhhhhh.... what? No brains just money is piss poor logistics because you'll keep buying the wrong things. Logistical support requires a lot of brains.
    1
  5.  @TheMarineGamerIGGHQ  stop strawmanning. You literally claimed that logistics doesn't take brains when it's one of the most crucial aspects of strategy so you have no right to claim anyone else is coming off a desperate.
    1
  6.  @TheMarineGamerIGGHQ  my dude you're so buttmad arguing with Americans you had to resort to calling logistics something that can be done with money and no brain. I think that it's important for outsiders to point out when you're lashing out rather than actually debating the point at hand.
    1
  7.  @TheMarineGamerIGGHQ  no, you didn't. You pointed out that logistics can be solved with money and no brains as a way to mock Americans.
    1
  8.  @TheMarineGamerIGGHQ  amazing lol you're the one making wrong assumptions about people's nationalities and it's me who has to change his behaviour.
    1