Comments by "Orbital_Inclination" (@Orbital_Inclination) on "Sandboxx" channel.

  1. People forget that Iraq had one of the most well equipped militaries in the world before Desert Storm. The US and allies decimated it in a matter of days.
    5
  2. I don't think you understand what a fact check is. It's a chance to correct factual inaccuracy with verified information, not just spout your bs theories on global politics and defence procurement 😂
    3
  3. No, you wouldn't, because the US would never risk that tech falling into Russian hands if captured on the ground.
    3
  4. Always could, but water is conductive so flight in rain makes stealth coatings far less effective
    3
  5. Western industry could pivot in the long term and probably rely on US dominance in the medium term
    3
  6. The issue with using current HMCS in the F-22 is the canopy shape. It's far more restrictive than a typical bubble canopy. While helmet cueing isn't new, fitting it to the F-22 will be tricky with current systems
    2
  7. This again? If 3D thrust vectoring was worth the weight penalty, the F-22 would have it. Instead, it has 2D combined with a very clever flight control system, for the limited use cases where it actually ends up WVR. Even then, the need to get on the tail of an opponent is pretty redundant now, as missiles tend to be all aspect, and many are even off-boresight. In any of the far more likely WVR scenarios that stealth aircraft are designed to dominate, thrust vectoring is irrelevant dead weight.
    2
  8. There aren't, done.
    2
  9. One F-117 lost across hundreds of sorties is a very impressive survivability rate.
    2
  10. It shouldn't, but that doesn't mean it won't
    2
  11. Where are you getting this bs? 😂
    2
  12. Russia can't even achieve air superiority over Ukraine. Meanwhile, the US managed it over Iraq in a number of days.
    2
  13. Often = twice?
    2
  14. Same with any aircraft
    2
  15. 😂
    1
  16. Which ones are you referring to?
    1
  17. It isn't, and it would be pointless to do so as it's housed internally
    1
  18. It's superior to the Harrier in nearly every quantifiable way
    1
  19. I watched two F-35s dogfighting over the UK recently, and those things can really turn when they need to
    1
  20. Other nations with different requirements will probably take them
    1
  21. Unless there's clouds or poor visibility, or rain. Even then, IR sensors have nowhere near the range of radars.
    1
  22. Many modern AAA systems rely on fire control radars for targeting, so can be degraded significantly with jamming, if not entirely.
    1
  23. Triangulation has always existed since the dawn of radar. It's nothing new. A LO jet can still get far closer than a non-LO jet so it still has a significant advantage, especially if that means releasing stand-off weapons outside of enemy engagement range.
    1
  24. This sounds a lot like bs
    1
  25. No Russian aircraft ever fell out of the sky or got lost?
    1
  26. Unless you want to use it for ground attack, then it walks all over the F-22
    1
  27. One of them, across an air campaign involving hundreds of sorties. That's a frankly incredible attrition rate for an aircraft in war.
    1
  28. This is due to the shift to multirole aircraft, thanks to advances in technology which make that possible
    1
  29. The F-35 is far more capable at virtually every other role besides a2a than the F-22.
    1
  30. Stealth aircraft have never been undetectable. That's a common misconception. They can just get a lot closer than non-stealth aircraft to any given radar before being detected.
    1
  31. Global Hawk is not a LO platform.
    1
  32. No aircraft flies close to thunderstorms, because storm clouds destroy aircraft.
    1
  33. That's still a long way off
    1
  34.  @edwingan1988  not really, it is still overwhelmingly the most powerful air force in the world
    1