Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "America's Invisible New Stealth Bomber - The B-21 Raider" video.

  1.  @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
  2.  @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
  3. Funding was secured in 2013, what are you talking about?
    2
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Ukrainian HIMARS and Aliexpress drones slipped past S-400s. S-500s are anti-ICBM.
    1
  9.  @strategic4124  S-400s couldn't protect Engels. The Iranian drones are easily shot down by Gepards.
    1
  10.  @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
  11. 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
  12. "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
  13. 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
  14. Jack Northrop. The Horten Ho 229 could never be stealth with those exposed engines.
    1
  15.  @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
  16. The wars are won. The politics are lost.
    1
  17.  @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
  18. 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
  19. The US govt spends more on healthcare per capita than most countries. The military isn't taking money away from healthcare.
    1
  20. Jack Northrop. His work was more advanced than the Hortens.
    1
  21. The funni
    1
  22. AI is made by human hands.
    1
  23. The US spends more on medicaid and medicare than the military. The military isn't taking away money from healthcare.
    1
  24. No, they're hitting civilian infrastructure because Russia cannot win in the battlefield.
    1
  25. Countries who bet on stuff "cheap enough to lose" got curbstomped and lost the stuff. The cost ended up being much greater.
    1
  26.  @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
  27. The S-400 ate sh!t in Ukraine so we're not impressed. The S-500 is anti-ICBM.
    1
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. Sure. Meanwhile Aliexpress drones bought by Ukraine attacked the Sevastopol naval base HQ twice.
    1
  31. 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
  32. "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
  33.  @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
  34.  @archsimpson4511  That's a protest. Not a coup. The protesters didn't remove the president, the government did.
    1
  35. Copium. Not even once.
    1
  36. 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
  37.  @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