Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "" video.

@Siempre1978 Impressive. How come there is no evidence of this?
12
@tylerclayton6081 The issue is that the USAF asked for around 300. They knew that they wouldn't get 700, but they also knew that 187 would mean that they would become expensive to upgrade and maintain. Only having around ~170 usable for combat is an issue.
7
Many of those friendly fire casualties are from bad artillery calls or combat engineers laying minefields without warning the combat units. Not just misidentification.
4
The differences between the AK and M-16 are minimal. People overstate the reliability of the AK and the accuracy advantage if the M-16 - the M-16 is much more reliable than people think and the AK is more accurate than what people claim.
3
@jamesrowlands8971 several cruise missiles fired at Ukrainian bases missed. The satellite photos show the craters that missed the runways.
3
@jamesrowlands8971 You claimed that European air bases are within range of Russian cruise missiles. I said that being in range of cruise missiles doesn't mean much when they'll miss. You got one shot to disable the runways, if the aircraft take off it's over.
3
How do you put an emphasis on BVR if stealth aircraft are extremely dangerous in BVR?
3
The F-22 was canceled over a decade ago. Of course they won't build more.
2
@matsv201 How did they back out of stealth? More than 100 F-35s are delivered per year, the NGAD will be stealth, and some 4th gen aircraft got a few stealth features added.
2
@eddietat95 Mikoyan has had problems getting sales for their upgraded MiG-29s. The Flankers are more capable and have longer range plus there's quite a few more upgraded airframes, so the savings they get from their Fulcrums are not very pronounced in an offensive war.
2
@eddietat95 It's pretty relevant. The Fulcrum is a lower range and less capable fighter which would have its weaknesses exploited in an offensive war rather than the original point defense role. Lack of sales means Russia also doesn't build enough upgraded models to make them capable enough for offensive use. The Fulcrum might be cheaper, but it's much less survivable than the Flanker. The Cold War F-16 isn't the F-16 of the 1990s and the F-16 of today. The reason modern Russia doesn't buy the Fulcrum is that they need export sales to pay off the cost. Same as the Su-57, they needed foreign sales to purchase their own fighters. If the MiG-35 was a sales success, they'd have a significant number of them in service. Modern Fulcrums would bring capability the numbers don't have. And obviously if Russia could deal with those factors you mentioned (better training and procurement chain with Mikoyan over Sukhoi) they'd be using more MiG-29s than Flankers. But since the issues are pretty consistent across the board, they are forced by the decline of Mikoyan to use more Sukhoi.
2
B-1 fired cruise missiles got through Syrian S-300 and Russian S-400.
2
@ReichLife Bayraktar footage was published during the Kherson offensive as well. They didn't disappear, they just kept doing missions that wouldn't require them to fly into SAM range.
2
Eh eh "bottom"
1
@vksasdgaming9472 B-52s aren't manufactured anymore, we just fly the old ones until the wheels fall off.
1
@matsv201 The "new" version of the F-15 is a Boeing jobs program and only 80 airframes will be purchased. Versus more than 2000 F-35s. Nothingburger. The Navy already requested to stop buying Super Hornets because they claim they will be useless in 30 years. It's not cheaper to use rare variants of 4th gen fighters. The F-15EX operating costs is roughly the same as the F-35. F-35s still have benefits. Detection isn't targeting. No issue has been solved.
1
@DimaShitov123 more expensive and fewer of them, more reliant on accurate satellite and aircraft recon.
1
@DimaShitov123 It's not "maybe" more expensive. It's always cheaper to manufacture a less capable missile. Hypersonics require special materials and design, more hardened components, etc. Planes do need intelligence. But if you can afford an airforce, you can afford intelligence. If you can afford an air force, you can afford good satellites. You're trying to have an airforce on a shoestring budget but the weapons are expensive and need the same support as an air force.
1
@ReichLife Yes, because Bayraktars cannot operate in close range. Glide bombs can only reach so far. Lack of footage doesn't suggest being wiped out. We know Bayraktars were received during periods where no footage was coming out. So there was a flyable fleet of them, just no footage. You're using absence of evidence as evidence of absence.
1
3d render
1
Zoomer Stasi if Ukrainians have no AA why are strategic bombers a no-show?
1
@hernerweisenberg7052 That's not air superiority. Assuming no SAM engagements can Russia fly ovet Kiev or Lviv without getting shot down? No. You can only achieve air superiority when you have the ability to fly uncontested by enemy fighters.
1