Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Found And Explained" channel.

  1. It's the render of a redesign with horizontal tail. The actual X-32 with just delta wing was ugly.
    57
  2. You do realize that tanks can be moved by civilian trailers, right? Military hardware uses civilian railroads and bridges. A civilian Antonov transport brought F-16 airframe from the US to Ukraine. The attack was carried out by drones. The civilian vehicles were used to carry the hardware into position, but did NOT take part in the attack.
    46
  3. The US was using air mobility a lot in Afghanistan. Neither Russia or Ukraine are. Completely different cases, as the US was using helicopters as battle taxis. If Russia was using helicopters like that, they'd have no more in inventory.
    25
  4. ​ @8492nd  Apaches went in first into Iraq before SEAD/DEAD. Along with the F-117 they have the honor of meeting the enemy alone and unafraid before the air defence was degraded.
    16
  5. ​ @magnusgreel275  No, they won against the ANA after the US left as part of the peace deal signed during the Trump administration.
    16
  6. ​ @kureed79  Russia literally had their defenses breached recently.
    15
  7. ​ @xylven5918  The Apache was one of the first aircraft flying into Iraq in 1991. They had no air superiority. They flew under the radar to target military installations.
    13
  8. ​ @mikemontgomery2654  bruh the F-16A was based on the lightweight fighter program, it was an air to air fighter for point defense. Guns and heaters. The ground attack mission was secondary.
    13
  9. ​ @kureed79  Iraq had both Western and Soviet equipment. Not only Russian defenses but also Roland missiles and MIM-23 Hawk batteries captured from Kuwait.
    10
  10.  @topkitena  Uh flat desert is absolutely the worst terrain to fly helicopters in as you don't have terrain masking.
    9
  11. The Concorde lost relevance after the 1970s oil crisis and Britain/France kept them flying for pride rather than profit.
    8
  12. Apache flew into Iraq in 1991. SAs from single to double digit, French Rolands and MIM-23 Hawks.
    8
  13.  @rauldelvillar374  Combat losses are relevant metrics because that's what military equipment has to avoid to remain competitive. The Tornado attack jet had its entire low level attack doctrine changed because of just 6 losses in Desert Storm. The Harrier was kind of seen as obsolete with just 7 losses in Desert Storm. Here's something about aircraft design - design the freaking thing to carry weapons if you're going to sell it to the military, to avoid the winglet flutter issue in the Ka-52. Embarrassing.
    8
  14. The F-22 is going to be retired soon and the Su-57 isn't even in serial production.
    6
  15. @@thondyhalomoan889 Right. So it's not impressive that it can fly without it. That's like saying it's impressive someone is a boxing champion after having the appendix removed after appendicitis. Uh, yeah? You don't need it to punch.
    6
  16. ​ @noideas-l7q  the point of using unguided rockets is NOT having to fly over MANPADS threat
    6
  17. That doesn't make any sense. The tail rotor is a critical component in conventional rotary wing aircraft. A true statement wouldn't be a damaged tail, but a direct blow to the main rotor that caused one of them to come loose.
    5
  18.  @viktoriyaserebryakov2755  How was the goalpost shifted? A helicopter with a tail rotor needs it to be operational to remain in controlled flight. A conventional helicopter getting the tail damaged but surviving IS impressive because it needs it. Like a fixed wing aircraft needs both wings to remain in level flight. When the Ka-52 loses its tail and remains in control, that is by definition NOT impressive because it didn't need the tail like a conventional helicopter does. It's like a lizard losing a tail fleeing a predator. It happens.
    5
  19. Nice cope!
    5
  20. Supermaneuverability makes no difference as it requires entering a stall to achieve post-stall maneuverability. You essentially make yourself a sitting duck by wasting all your energy.
    5
  21. ​ @PetrusJosephus-z6c  Iraq was a conventional war.
    5
  22.  @swedhgemoni8092  It's a drone. A pilot inside wouldn't be fooled by spoofing.
    5
  23. ​@@thypeasantslayer3621 From an aeronautical standpoint the design is wonderful. The issue is that it is let down by everything else. During the 2000s several MiGs pancaked themselves as engine failures started to increase. The "roughness" of the design everyone praises leads to short service lives in engine parts.
    4
  24. ​ @estebanpacheco7102  What does that have to do with anything? Lack of air mobility to prevent losses means that each loss is more relevant to the discussion. The helicopters are being babied and coddled to avoid vulnerabilities, and yet they still are taking losses both from combat and attrition from just heavy use running the clock on airframes and engines.
    4
  25. ​ @yspear_  Ka-52s laser guided missile outrange the MANPADS by severak km. Using MANPADS as an excuse is copium.
    4
  26. ​ @milosmilictrob2046  Not how it works. A HMD slaves the seeker to the helmet. If you look too far off the boresight you hit gimbal limits. Even if the gimbal had to limits, the seeker would look at its own rocket body and get its vision blocked, preventing lock.
    3
  27. ​ @Ben-jr6vl  recorded by whom?
    3
  28. ​ @guaporeturns9472  MiGs gave Phantoms a hard time because they caught Phantoms escorting bombing runs in ambushes. When US Phantoms started flying in bomber formation to surprise the MiGs with fighters, the Phantoms won.
    3
  29. ​ @shawnmiller4781  The MiG-21 turning performance isn't that hot. It's a rocket with stubby wings. It beats the Phantom clearly at high altitude, but start turning in thick air and you lose airspeed quick. Turning hard in a MiG-21 makes it an airbrake.
    3
  30. ​@@mitchellcouchman6589 3 to 1 for North Vietnam ahahah now that's delusional
    3
  31.  @guaporeturns9472  Well the Phantom is the world's biggest distributor of MiG parts... I'd say they won.
    3
  32. ​ @worldoftancraft  Have we seen the ejection system working? Either way, pilots are like knights. More valuable than peasants.
    3
  33. Cope. So it takes British and American agents to assemble AliExpress drones?
    3
  34.  @cdgncgn  They participate in the war? By doing what? Parades? Sniping from above? What are they sniping? The Russian army is reduced to elderly men with rusty AKs. The Su-57 did not protect the Russian soldiers. They didn't snipe anything. Cowardice.
    3
  35.  @viktoriyaserebryakov2755  Cry about it. Now brag about the boat that doesn't need to run on land.
    3
  36.  @santiagoperez2094  The hell does that have to do with anything? Passive radar does not depend on movement. Who said anything about active seekers on missiles? You have no proof of the Horten being designed for stealth.
    3
  37. Iraq had better defenses than Vietnam's SA-2.
    3
  38.  @kureed79  lmao this is pure delusion. What happens when the "winning team" fails and everyone else just comes down from the fence?
    3
  39. ​ @lordsqueak  That's a marketing trick. Any aircraft can have a quick turnaround to refuel and rearm. After a certain number of hours you can't do turnarounds, you have to ground the aircraft. Saab pretends the Gripen doesn't need depot level maintenancd to wow netizens.
    3
  40. The F-14s were essentially replaced by Super Hornets. F-35s replaced legacy Hornets. Super Hornets will be replaced by the F/A-XX program. The decision to retire F-14s was logical. It was a pretty expensive aircraft to maintain.
    3
  41. ​ @anshulsingh8326  Nope. The US wanted to let Ukraine fall, and they fought alone with minimal donations from the UK. It was only after Ukraine proved they could fight Russia that they got NATO aid.
    3
  42. The A-10 has redundant hydraulics, but if the control is damaged it's damaged. Meanwhile digital control is more reliable because it can be split across different bus cables and thus stay in control even if one cable is damaged.
    3
  43. Russia left that treaty in 2023. And the US has kept B2 bombers in hangars because the RAM coating wears out in the open. If that treaty prevented covering planes why does Russia paint the bomber outlines in the asphalt? Trying to fool analysts would violate the spirit of such an agreement.
    3
  44.  @mikemontgomery2654  The F-16 was designed for air to air. It was meant to be a cheaper alternative to the F-15 because the US couldn't afford a full F-15 fleet. Please stop trying to change history - you can literally go back and read how the lightweight fighter program was meant for a FIGHTER not attack aircraft, and the ground attack role came later.
    3
  45.  @malekmoqaddam5806  The B-1A concept was abandoned and the B-1B had high altitude speed reduced to 1.25 Mach. A strategic bomber flies at the speeds it needs to. In ye ole days speed was the way to get in and out alive. Not anymore. Now you get in and out alive by not broadcasting your position. You can do a leisurely pace if nobody is coming over to stop you.
    2
  46. Replacing old Air National Guard aircraft.
    2
  47. Does Russia count as Europe? Su-25.
    2
  48. Russia only makes 1-2 Tu-160s per year so they NEED those old planes.
    2
  49. Continually sidelined from reliability issues, constantly triggering the magnetic sensors in the oil system.
    2
  50. Not true. The Ho 229 was not stealth and the F-117 has nothing to do with the flying wing design. You meant the B-2.
    2
  51.  @Milvus_In_Excelsis  Flying under the radar was the Tornado's game in 1991. After 7 got shot down, they gave up and started doing mid altitude strikes. Flying under the radar is extremely risky.
    2
  52. ​ @chaosXP3RT  Egypt bought some
    2
  53.  @ni9274  Because they were flying into MANPADS range. They switched tactics and hovered inside Russian held terrain to fire missiles from relative safety. Now the situation is changing again.
    2
  54.  @googleplex1589  The Apache requires the tail to fly. If it loses a tail and flies... that's incredible. It shouldn't be able to do that. The Ka-52 uses a rotor on top of the main rotor to counter torque, which means that losing the tail does not affect the counter torque.
    2
  55.  @vaskedagame880  Yeah, genius. The Ka-52 was shot in a non-critical part so it survived. If you shoot a Blackhawk's landing gear instead of the tail, it will fly too.
    2
  56.  @vaskedagame880  A non-critical part being shot off is not impressive. You're adding importance to a tail when in a conventional helicopter it is important because it houses a rotor. Without the rotor, it's just less impressive. It's not even Russophobia, if the US made a helicopter that didn't need a tail, and it got a tail shot off, that wouldn't be impressive. Why the hell would I be impressed? That's like being impressed at someone being alive after they had their appendix removed. Want to impress me? Show me someone alive without a heart. Now that's astonishing.
    2
  57.  @santiagoperez2094  Germany was doomed from the start, what do you mean almost defeated? Nuclear reactors?
    2
  58.  @santiagoperez2094  RCS reductions depend on the inverse square law. A proximity fuze is meant to set off a shell in near misses. Not only was the Horten not made with RCS reduction in mind, but RCS reduction doesn't have any effect when the radar emitter is inches away.
    2
  59.  @santiagoperez2094  If you don't know, you could look it up. What a concept. Yes of course the shells were active, but even if they weren't the receiver unit is on the fuze itself. Stealth doesn't mean anything when the proximity fuze is inches away. That's why missiles can still take out stealth aircraft. It was mentioned after the technology was known. Big whoop. If they really had a stealth aircraft they'd have mentioned it right away.
    2
  60.  @GreenBlueWalkthrough  A-10 cruise speed is like 330 knots, not anywhere close to transonic. You don't want to fly in the transonic regime anyway, fuel consumption is higher than past 1.2M.
    2
  61. Not on the same class. The FC-31 is more akin to the F-35.
    2
  62. "Tu" short for Tupolev, like MiG is short for Mikoyan-Gurevich. Who says Emm-Eye-Gee?
    2
  63. ​ @calvinnickel9995  Either 0 or just 1 A-10 has been shot down by MANPADS, most shootdowns were SAMs.
    2
  64.  @Stormyy6310  Now you're talking. Thanks for correcting the record.
    2
  65.  @shlug  Most of it went towards outdated Western equipment. Fun fact, the Stinger was declared obsolete in 2022 and a replacement was supposed to be selected in 2023. The war put a wrench in those plans. The Bradleys being sent aren't modern ones.
    2
  66.  @shlug  In the particular case of the Stinger, we actually have no latest and greatest because we never got to plan for the replacement before the war started. Stingers are both outdated but also the best we have, we don't have a better MANPADS.
    2
  67. Nonsense. How do you defend yourself when your fighters are sitting ducks?
    2
  68. WRONG. The US keeps B2s in hangars to protect the RAM coating. You're parroting Russia's disinfo ops.
    2
  69. So a normal day?
    2
  70. ​ @CuriosityNudge  wrong lol Gripens have participated in evaluations and scored below other fighters. It's not politics.
    2
  71. That is not true. Both Army and USAF chiefs of staff agreed to not step on each others' toes. The Cheyenne was plagued with problems that caused delays and eventually had Lockheed chasing a mechanical solution for a problem that was being solved with digital controls.
    2
  72. WRONG. The US keeps B2s in hangars to protect the RAM coating. Russia has left the START agreement. Why do you lie?
    2
  73.  @rauldelvillar374  Not much to go wrong with a Tornado. It was a performance beast. It was not handicapped to fly low. It just performed well enough to even have an air defense variant. So by making it fly mid-level it was spared from further losses. If you design your stuff to die, you're already planning for failure. I don't know what the Russian expectations are. But if their expectations were losing enough helicopters to the point that the Ka-52 is entering endangered species status, they've bet on the wrong horse. Drones exist precisely because the humans are valuable, so you save tremendously by sending a drone. Helicopters are several times more expensive than drones and carry pilots.
    2
  74. And the MiG-35 is a massive failure. How many produced?
    2
  75. 1. It wasn't that cheap. 2. Focusing on handling this late in the Cold War is nonsense. 3. I disagree because the F-16 has a computer with flight director, the MiG-29 requires constant re-trimming because speeding up and slowing down causes lift characteristics to change.
    2
  76.  @JamesOMalley-hb4tf  It's not cheap. There's a reason the Su-27 dominated. The MiG-29 wasn't cheap enough to justify the purchase.
    2
  77.  @JamesOMalley-hb4tf  New MiGs? But MiG was absorbed into Sukhoi to make the UAC. MiG went down precisely due to the MiG-29 failing and the MiG-35 not gathering enough interest. The MiG-29 was bought in very small numbers, with the Indians being the biggest export customers. And even they had to get French/Israeli tech into them to improve upon the base model.
    2
  78. Funding was secured in 2013, what are you talking about?
    2
  79. ​ @michaeld.uchiha9084  the F-35 has a gap in the nozzle for cold air to mix into the exhaust.
    2
  80.  @yspear_  Link a single video of Ukrainians deploying MANPADS behind Russian lines before the breach.
    2
  81.  @Killdozer-do4mc  The Vikhr missile has around 10-12km range. The Stinger 4.8 km. The most modern Stinger variant has a 7.6 km range but Ukraine probably didn't get that one. Either way, even the latest Stinger would require a man to take a 16kg system, arrive in the frontline, start sprinting for 2.4 kilometers, wait for the Ka-52 to pop out of the horizon to fire at incoming armored vehicles and then shoot. Obviously sprinting across trenches with over 20kg of equipment on your back while people shoot at you is NOT SERIOUS DOCTRINE for shooting down helicopters. They are not static. They are not games. But if men can just move 2.4 kilometers without getting shot at, they could just bypass the trenches, clear them, then let the armored vehicles through by taking out ATGM teams and artillery observers.
    2
  82. The problem for S-400s is that the brochure stats are optimistic. HARM will get it, cruise missiles will get it, glide bombs will get it and HIMARS firing Prsm will be able to drive forward and create a path where no semi-static defense can be emplaced. And the S-500 is an anti-ballistic missile system, not a S-400 upgrade.
    2
  83. You can get compressor stalls in engines. The compressor and stator blades are airfoils and airflow can detach, resulting in a stall. That's why in older engines certain maneuvers or aggressive throttle movements could cause engines to stall. Nowadays the stator blades can move in angle of attack to prevent stall.
    2
  84.  @StevePlegge  You said it doesn't happen in engines.
    2
  85. Yeah and you think his generals will nuke the Western cities where their own kids live? Even Putin complained about it in a speech, all the oligarchs put their kids in Western universities and buy them houses in London, NYC, etc. Maybe the button will work to get him a Diet Coke.
    1
  86. 60% of the time, it works 9 times out of 10.
    1
  87.  @adammilosdubovsky6607  Nope. The AK is known for the reliability. Everything else is known for breaking down. Please look up Rimon 20. Soviets said "ah it's the Arabs that keep losing wars". Then the Soviets got spanked by the Israelis. Turns out, Soviets loved to claim others were inferior to them but when the rubber met the road they couldn't perform any better. Look at 2022. They're Russian. Not Egyptians or Syrians. And yet Russian equipment keeps breaking down. The Ukrainians even noticed how a lot of Western equipment breaks down less often. Ivan in T-55 gets smoked by FPV drone with RPOG-7 warhead. I'm not concerned.
    1
  88. Heavy [citation needed] on that entire comment. Supermaneuverability is about retaining control after stall (loss of airflow over the wings). Thrust vectoring is not a requirement.
    1
  89. The Wagner nazis bagged a couple of them Kamovs.
    1
  90. ​ @destroyerarmor  "no one can defend against drones" Gepards eat drones for lunch.
    1
  91. Nah, the EX will only be produced in a 80-something run. Enough for a stopgap, too few for expensive upgrades.
    1
  92. Huh, what? The US has used stealth aircraft against advanced air defenses, but not farmers and fishermen. It's cheaper to use F-16s for that.
    1
  93. Why should it do Mach 2? What's the advantage of ruining your fuel economy and lighting up like a Christmas tree on IR?
    1
  94.  @juliuszkocinski7478  the airframes need to be thrown away, they're racking up too many hours.
    1
  95. The Apache faced top of the line Soviet defenses in 1991.
    1
  96. The C had bombing capabilities snuck into it. The Israeli air force used F-15Cs and Ds to bomb the PLO headquarters.
    1
  97. Ukrainian HIMARS and Aliexpress drones slipped past S-400s. S-500s are anti-ICBM.
    1
  98.  @strategic4124  S-400s couldn't protect Engels. The Iranian drones are easily shot down by Gepards.
    1
  99.  @strategic4124  Yeah and Russia's army is being slaughtered in the battlefield. I guess Russia is busy trying to win a soccer game by how long they can hold a hand stand while Ukraine scores goals, but whatever,
    1
  100.  @hellothere1656  Capturing a stealth aircraft doesn't mean understanding the underlying principles. Even Russia has issues developing stealth and they invented the maths to calculate radar cross sections.
    1
  101. Sounds optimistic. A ton of Chinese-Russiam cooperation never leaves the paper.
    1
  102. We produce more than enough food to feed everyone, most famine is due to events that make it impossible to bring food to where it's needed. Food charity is so effective that it was at some points too effective and prolonged food insecurity by bankrupting local farmers. Cancer is rogue cells refusing to die. Killing them often kills healthy cells too. You have any bright ideas on how to solve that?
    1
  103. "Super old anti air" yeah a 60s SAM shot down 70s tech. In 1999 Have Blue was 22 years old, and the SAM that claimed it around the mid 30s. Always mind how a narrative is presented.
    1
  104. It's only "difficult" because Congress made it impossible. The OA-X program proves that the military was willing to acquire a cheap solution but without an A-10 retirement they will not spend money on aircraft that won't be used against peer threats.
    1
  105.  @klown463  How is it my problem that Iraq didn't have their MANPADS ready?
    1
  106.  @klown463  And the US planned for Iraq to be a major threat, which is why the war was so lopsided. Russia had their war plans leaked, including the rough date of invasion, of course Ukrainians had MANPADS at the ready.
    1
  107. So the guys who used the F-117 to great effect thought "nah this stealth stuff doesn't work... let's buy another stealth aircraft". Plus low altitude flight undoes a lot of stealth - closer range means radars can pick up the faint returns, it means the flight path can be tracked by reports of audible flights, and thermal sensors will pick up the aircraft at low altitude while high altitude flying would cause all the IR emissions to get fully absorbed by the atmosphere.
    1
  108. The Ka-50 looked better. The Ka-52 looks terrible.
    1
  109. Not true plus the Ka-52 outranges MANPADS with the Vikhr missiles.
    1
  110. That was the A-50 Mainstay, not the Su-57.
    1
  111. And then the head of Roscosmos had to get in twitter fights with Elon Musk because his company lost business.
    1
  112.  @ChoCoMoCo69  Yeah and India has lost fighters to Pakistan. Is the Pakistan air force better than the USAF? No.
    1
  113. The real deterrence was nuclear. Non-nuclear nations with MiG-29s were invaded.
    1
  114. Saab marketing at it again.
    1
  115. ​ @debrajroy5170  It's not a steal when people take a deal to escape the trials
    1
  116.  @merafirewing6591  And an airplane can fly with a missing seat.
    1
  117.  @X9xredgkoa  The only ones coping are the ones who lost a bunch of Alligators to a 1996 missile ahahaha
    1
  118.  @ntf5211  How about that Ka-52 hitting the Russian MT-LB?
    1
  119.  @sosig6445  So it's an engineering feat. Not an outstandingly tough aircraft. See how it pays to just say the truth?
    1
  120.  @vaskedagame880  Humans are designed to have limbs. A snake living without limbs isn't impressive. Because it evolved to not need them. Aircraft from WWII landed shot full of holes, even with entire sections of skin blown off. The very first helicopters had no fuselage. They were just structures of tubes with a person exposed to the open air. Awe of what? You want awe? The F-15 has an example of landing with an entire wing missing, and a F-16 has an example of landing with half a wing missing. Aircraft need two, typically. Not 1.5. Not 1. The Ka-52 has two rotors. Fly with just one. Then I'll be in awe.
    1
  121.  @vaskedagame880  But the wing is critical. The F-15 cannot sustain itself on a single wing. It was skilled flying from the pilot and thrust that allowed him to balance the lift and land. The aircraft could have not kept flying and landed somewhere else, it was an emergency. If an aircraft lands without engine power, that doesn't mean the engines aren't critical. Without engines, aircraft can't take off. The reason the F-15 being recovered was remarkable is precisely because it shouldn't be possible. There was no redundancy. The aircraft was on the razor's edge of spinning out of control. The problem is that you're seeing a fallacy where there is none. Surviving without an appendix or wisdom teeth isn't impressive, because we know those are body parts that can be removed.
    1
  122.  @vaskedagame880  But that's not the point you are making. The rotors on a helicopter work like wings. Instead of using forward velocity to drive air over the airfoil, they spin the airfoil around to generate lift. Then you either need to use counter-rotating rotors or a tail rotor to counteract the fact that a rotor alone will cause yaw. The tail on a helicopter is there to prevent loss of control. If you pick counter-rotating rotors, you no longer need the tail rotor. If an aircraft has wings and thrusters to remain airborne like some kind of sci-fi craft, then getting hit in a wing but using thrusters to remain airborne isn't impressive. If you only have wings, then losing half of one is serious. Russophobia is a made up term by crybullies. They invade, kill and torture and then have the gall to say others are -phobic. Like a steet gang that cries racism when people ask for police to protect them from the shootings and drugs.
    1
  123. They have loitering missiles for air defense.
    1
  124. Jack Northrop. The Horten Ho 229 could never be stealth with those exposed engines.
    1
  125. Not true lmao
    1
  126. China built the J-20 knowing it would re-engine them, and the F-35 will have an engine upgrade down the line. It's just the reality of the aircraft business, might as well have airframes to re-engine than no airframes at all.
    1
  127.  @hootsmin  Completely insane. There's no profits to be had. The stuff sent to Ukraine was old so contracts to replace them would happen in the next couple decades, and the boost in procurement is a one time thing triggered by the start of the war. If anything the sooner the war ends the more we profit.
    1
  128. The wars are won. The politics are lost.
    1
  129.  @hootsmin  Nope. Stockpiles exist precisely so that you can use stock that doesn't require immediate replacement. Stockpiles eventually age and need to be disposed of, either by dismantling or by using in training. You need to understand that from a psychological aspect, you need to consider stockpiles as munitions that are already "spent". You either fire them in war, in training exercises or you have to destroy them and truly waste them. The money is gone and you'll have to pay again to replace them. A short confrontation would increase orders without massive expenses. A long war increases expenses without the added orders to make up for it.
    1
  130. Doesn't matter. There's 14 of them, while therexs 170 or so flying F-22s and a thousand F-35s. The Su-57 loses on numbers alone.
    1
  131. Useless expenditure, Canada needs to sort itself out politically.
    1
  132. ​ @Belkan88  Look up Rimon 20. Soviets always blamed Arab incompetence. Then they get slaughtered.
    1
  133. ​ @isn0t42  False. The US left Afghanistan as part of the peace deal. It was the ANA which was unable to fight.
    1
  134.  @revolverswitch  longer loiter time and lower fuel consumption.
    1
  135. False. In dogfight training humans overstress aircraft sometimes. The human is fine, the aircraft is grounded until an inspection determines it's safe to fly. A human can pull hard enough on a stick to scrap an aircraft and not think twice about it. At most a human can black out, the metal bends and composite cracks.
    1
  136. The F-22 is being retired early because the program was shut down prematurely, making long term upgrades less viable.
    1
  137. By that logic, you use aircraft that are less likely to get hit. Simple as.
    1
  138.  @Icspiders247  Why? Fast fliers do CAS all the time.
    1
  139.  @Wustenfuchs109  It was estimated it could be detected at 80% of the range of a Bf-109. It didn't make a difference.
    1
  140.  @bocahdongo7769  It wasn't forgotten for 20 years. The USAF translated Ufimtsev's paper in 1971. The CIA authorized Skunk Works to read it in 1974.
    1
  141. The US govt spends more on healthcare per capita than most countries. The military isn't taking money away from healthcare.
    1
  142. Jack Northrop. His work was more advanced than the Hortens.
    1
  143. So you want a light fighter as interceptor? How are Gripens better?
    1
  144. MANPADS are very limited in range and warhead. Apaches flew into Iraq in 1991 against telephone pole SAMs with greater range, greater speed, and massive warheads.
    1
  145. ​ @marko1263  Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff are incompetent commies. People will accuse me of being a Bolsonaro fanboy but that's not it, the Gripen choice makes sense once you realize the Partido Trabalhista (Labour Party) will consistently make the worst decisions for their country.
    1
  146. The funni
    1
  147. It's virtually impossible to differentiate between "unhindered" and "limping back to base". An aircraft can be shredded and losing fluids but you won't see it on a handheld camera.
    1
  148. Do their bananas have seeds? Humans have manipulated the genetics of all food since we started agriculture. True organic foods taste horribly. We used genetic selection to have things like seedless bananas you buy at the supermarket.
    1
  149. No, it isn't. The Yak 141 used the three bearing swivel nozzle from the Convair Model 200.
    1
  150.  @shlug  I was talking about the Stinger because it's a glaring example of the latest and greatest being also outdated. If all I have is a Pentium 4, that's my latest and greatest. Simply because I bought nothing new.
    1
  151. Can we see them? What are the tail numbers?
    1
  152. ​ @b-17gflyingfortress6  Satellite photos are seen by humans. AI ia good to scan large areas, because that's too many photos to look at. Air bases are always where you expect them to be.
    1
  153. Iraq had to of the line Soviet equipment in 1991. So what?
    1
  154. There's like 14 Su-57 and a thousand F-35s.
    1
  155. Japan greatly benefitted from a focus on quality. Chinese engine development was plagued with issues that are only being solved now.
    1
  156. @@markaspen Great marketing - 12 HIMARS lifted the Russian army above its head, and made it fall down on its knee to break Russia's spine like Bane did to Batman. 12 vehicles with rockets in the back stopped the world's second army. Best marketing in the world.
    1
  157. Their domestic missiles, drones and loitering munitions obviously have no manual controls as they lack pilots. Seems weird to trust missiles to not suffer from EW and then fear that electronic shielding is insufficient.
    1
  158. Bruh the Apaches flew into Iraq before the SEAD campaign in 1991.
    1
  159.  @kubadanecki8573  The Apaches went in to destroy radar installations. They specifically flew in the conditions you asked for and now you're trying to come up with excuses.
    1
  160. @jmutevedzi3708 Iraq had the 4th or 5th biggest army in the world at the time, and equipped with Soviet and Western equipment.
    1
  161. We'll never know. Maybe it could have been plagued with even more problems and ended up more expensive due to redesigns.
    1
  162. Yet stealthy cruise missiles have arrived at Sevastopol.
    1
  163. Three different aircraft programs would have been a nightmare.
    1
  164. The Avro Arrow would be obsolete by the date it entered service.
    1
  165. AI is made by human hands.
    1
  166. Because jet fighters are not piloted remotely. Drones are hacked typically by spoofing GPS and telling the drone that it is landing in friendly territory. A pilot inside the aircraft that controls the aircraft will not land simply because the control logic tells him to.
    1
  167. ​ @ravs6726  I don't blindly follow anything. I was fooled by Russian propagnda. I lost friends because they believe all the RT, Tim Pool nonsense. I listened to Russians themselves say "from Lisbon to Vladivostok". I don't need to follow - I just need to pay attention.
    1
  168. No they didn't.
    1
  169. The US spends more on medicaid and medicare than the military. The military isn't taking away money from healthcare.
    1
  170. PGMs can be deployed the same fashion.
    1
  171.  @Argentvs  They're not useless. GPS delivery is incredibly common because for a FAC it's so much easier to punch in coordinates for the pilot. Targets have to be static for dumb drops too. When you want to drop on moving small units, you bracket them. Most people don't run hundreds of meters back and forth in a battle. Not only they'd get tired quickly, they're also often taking cover and may spend minutes to hours in positions to avoid getting shot. To deliver a GPS munition you pick their average position or put one bomb "short" and one bomb "long" and the blast radius will take care of them even if they move. Laser designation can be done by FAC on the ground or drones. Unguided ammo gives you all the problems of GPS munitions without the accuracy and precision. If you "identify on the fly", the enemy already saw you.
    1
  172. They didn't but you seethe anyway.
    1
  173. ​ @Globalscanningeyes  The Russians are facing Cold War MANPADS.
    1
  174. No, they're hitting civilian infrastructure because Russia cannot win in the battlefield.
    1
  175. You cannot nullify physics. All the anti-stealth shills who praised China and Russia for not wasting money on useless stealth have come to terms with the fact that even they realized stealth won't be beat.
    1
  176. Countries who bet on stuff "cheap enough to lose" got curbstomped and lost the stuff. The cost ended up being much greater.
    1
  177.  @chahineyalla4838  When was the last time a F-117, B-2, F-22 or F-35 were sabotaged? Sure, their capabilities won't matter. But intelligence and proper base security protocols will.
    1
  178. ​ @lexxisful  that's called EW and more planes have it
    1
  179. The S-400 ate sh!t in Ukraine so we're not impressed. The S-500 is anti-ICBM.
    1
  180. The Arrow wouldn't have made sense after the introduction of ICBMs.
    1
  181. Because if both sides kept everything secret they would be suspicious of each other trying to amass nuclear forces for a first strike. So treaties were signed to prevent accidental escalation.
    1
  182. Marines can't fly it off short deck carriers. They can fly F-35Bs though.
    1
  183.  @Sanctus-Susanin  How is that logical? By the way, 1996 expired ATACMS shredded the Alligators. Endangered species now. Instead of destroying themselves with words, Russia destroys itself with actions.
    1
  184. The pilot isn't the limiting factor in maneuverability. If you have a 20,000lb payload and you pull 9Gs, you're carrying a 180,000lbs. Either the weapons will rip themselves off the pylons, or the wings get ripped off at the root. In fighter aircraft human pilots occasionally over-G their aircraft during training. The human is fine. The aircraft has to be grounded and deep inspected to make sure there are no stress cracks. Where this myth of the pilot restricting maneuverability comes from I'll never know
    1
  185.  @JamesOMalley-hb4tf  But 4,600 F-16s were built compared to 1,600 MiG-29s. It's not cheap. It's not even successful. The F-16 outsold it by over 3x.
    1
  186. What treaty?
    1
  187. Sure. Meanwhile Aliexpress drones bought by Ukraine attacked the Sevastopol naval base HQ twice.
    1
  188. How is the fan any more of a liability than the ducting?
    1
  189. And yet Bradleys are still assaulting Russian trenches.
    1
  190. Why does anyone need an army? Is everyone inventing wars? Brazil? South Africa? Australia? Who are they planning to fight with their army? I demand everyone to disband their armed forces before we disband ours. Very reasonable request. The US pays back debt, that's precisely why new debt can be issued. Otherwise nobody would trust the US economy. You're way out if your depth in that topic.
    1
  191. What? The Nighthawk saw combat and entered production first. It's not glazing to state the facts.
    1
  192. How is it racist to point out this aircraft has never flown?
    1
  193. Fragments from missiles are smaller than the autocannon rounds in AAA.
    1
  194. The radar doesn't have the necessary number of transmitters to scan for targets. It's a comms/datalink system.
    1
  195. ​ @guaporeturns9472  Prevention of attacks comes down to the nuclear arsenal and air defenses, not MiGs.
    1
  196.  @BlyGuy  How would hacking work? Fighters don't have a trailing ethernet cable while flying.
    1
  197.  @hphp31416  Flight controls are not connected to anything outside in the case of digital control either. Airliners are fly by wire and not once was an aircraft hacked and controlled remotely.
    1
  198.  @vinrico6704  kinda hard to hack something that's not connected to anything
    1
  199.  @yspear_  The MANPADS is not stationary, but if you're going to assault minefields and trench lines you can't just put your MANPADS guys forward of the enemy positions. JuSt GeT cLoSeR are you out of your mind? Hide in some bushes? Do the trench lines have bushes to conveniently hide approaching troops like a freaking cartoon?
    1
  200.  @voidtempering8700  There's no obstacles. Just hover inside the safety of your own territory and lob missiles at incoming columns. They don't have to find a target. The advancing column has to get close to the trench lines to breach. They don't fly over MANPADS. They fly inside Russian territory.
    1
  201.  @Killdozer-do4mc  Explain why it isn't logical. It's perfectly logical. The Ka-52 suffered losses as the attacker, but in a defensive stance the missiles it fires can get to the enemy before the enemy can bring MANPADS close.
    1
  202. German radars can't beat physics. You can't make a black tshirt appear white no matter the kind of flashlight you point at it.
    1
  203. There's what, 8 MiG-35s in flying condition?
    1
  204. Building in Canada would be even more expensive. The Brazil contract was 215 million per plane because of the tech transfer cost.
    1
  205. It wasn't stealth, that's a myth. It had exposed turbines. The Doppler returns from spinning blades is impossible to mask, stealth aircraft push the engines deep into the airframe to make sure they don't get illuminated by radar.
    1
  206.  @outlawking4106  A flying Ho 229 would bounce the spinning compressor blade returns. It would light up like a Christmas tree if it were actually working.
    1
  207. "Waaa we just want to be left alone" "lol we invaded Ukraine and started comitting war crimes" jesus you're gullible enough to believe the stuff that murderers say on parole hearings
    1
  208.  @archsimpson4511  It wasn't illegal and it wasn't a coup. The parliament showed up and voted. That's it. Happens a lot in Europe. Spamming buzzwords only flags you as a Russian shill.
    1
  209.  @archsimpson4511  That's a protest. Not a coup. The protesters didn't remove the president, the government did.
    1
  210. Copium. Not even once.
    1
  211. ​ @carlosdeleon8527  Mike Pietrucha has been invited to podcasts to talk about being a backseater in F-4Gs and F-15Es. I'd think the pilot who was a Strike Eagle WSO knows more about that.
    1
  212. SAMs cannot seize air superiority. The definition of air superiority is the ability to conduct air operations with little regard for the opposing air force.
    1
  213.  @4dbullshitpatroll6  Nope. The US routinely has flown into SAM coverage to contest air superiority. Air superiority means your opposing fighter force is either depleted or not taking off due to risks. If you fly into enemy air space just to deal with SAMs or avoiding them, not concerned with the enemy air force, you have air superiority. Doesn't matter if your enemy has a thousand SAM batteries.
    1
  214.  @4dbullshitpatroll6  lel you have no argument so you resort to nonsense. Google Desert Storm.
    1
  215. And how much power is allocated to those "long antennas"? If you just think about stuff for a second you avoid falling for these pitfalls. A nose mounted radar antenna on a fighter jet is powerful enough that it accidently broadcasting while on the ground is dangerous for nearby crew. Do these "long antennas" have that sort of broadcast power, or higher considering the presumed threat has reduced reflections?
    1
  216.  @StrangerHappened  "how an ancient Soviet S-125 air defence system was able to down a "stealth" bomber back in the 1990s" - A 1960s air defense system brought down 1970s stealth tech in the 90s thanks to all the stars aligning. Big whoop. Did not change the outcome of the war and F-117s kept being used to bomb Serbia. The missile was fired at almost point blank range (8km). The first true attempt at stealth hindered by 1970s computers is able to degrade SAM tracking to the point that they need to be within 8km of the flight path of a stealth aircraft? Sounds great to me. The SAM site lost the lock twice and the commander only attempted a third lock because he knew there was no SEAD support at the time. A two missile volley was fired, the first missile lost track. Seems to me that stealth worked perfectly, and it required tremendous luck and skill from the operators to bag that Nighthawk. The wavelength explanation is BS. SAM warheads are typically large because they need to handle misses. Radar resolution isn't great at the edge of the range and maneuvering targets can easily slip past missiles so a large warhead is required to ensure a kill when the proximity fuze is activated.
    1