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

  1. I think advancements in ECM and ECCM are just as important to the success of stealth as the shape and coatings of the aircraft. I also expect slave drone decoys to be used by our bombers to distract and confuse air defenses. I think stealth is both more advanced and more complex than it was at first.
    13
  2. In high sea states, is it the crew or the ship that has the problem?? For a drone, it just needs to be well sealed. It can even capsize, as long as it is self-righting.
    11
  3.  @wayausofbounds9255  You mean "epitome". But, I agree. Amazing for a country smaller than the Chicago area in population.
    9
  4. Duh. Of course. The speed needed to need Titanium so the skin wouldn't melt it had to be a lot faster than Mach 3. The Soviet Union had a fighter that went Mach 3, and it used steel alloy for its skin, and it had NO PROBLEM going Mach 3. Therefore, the SR-71, had to be going Mach 4 or 5. I figured that out decades ago.
    5
  5.  @mattthemouse1  I think of the Vulcan bomber.
    4
  6. I bet they don't have crop dusters in Africa. So, that won't work.
    4
  7. This doesn't really surprise me. One thing we can predict is that unmanned drones (the loyal wingmen) will get more capable and CHEAPER with every year. The manned NGAD will get more expensive. PLUS -- engine tech is advancing fast - as shown by the Hermeus Chimera. So much is changing so fast that it may make sense to not commit right now.
    4
  8. Since you are in a position to know what is coming. Can you elaborate and tell me??? Don't worry, you can trust me. I won't tell a soul.
    3
  9.  @bricefleckenstein9666  Don't forget the B-58 Hustler, which actually served. It was delta wing in the 50's.
    3
  10. This is quite amazing. B U T -- Is Elon Musk and Trump going to mess with it?? Will Trump cancel it? or redefine it? Musk and his helper can do a lot of damage.
    3
  11. The dorsal intake is such an obvious solution to minimizing detection by ground based radar, that I wonder why it wasn't used in any of operational stealth craft??
    3
  12. The B-2 big bump is really a fuselage buried in a flying wing. The YB-49 was truly a flying wing. Their is no central bulge to act like a fuselage. So, the B-2's wings can be much thinner than the YB-49.
    3
  13. Frequency skipping radar? The spirit of Hedy Lamarr lives. She invented it. The ultimate in beauty and brains.
    3
  14. If he wanted a million+ subscribers, all he needs to do is put cute kittens in aircraft, on the ships, and in submarines.
    3
  15. Can stealth technology work with any of these engines?? Or, is stealth lost with the speed??
    2
  16. I find it interesting that chaff is still used. It was invented way back in WW2. It is VERY low tech. It was just strips of tin foil that spoiled radar signals. I presume it is the same today. So chaff has been good for 80+ years of use. Not bad for a low tech solution.
    2
  17. Agreed. BUT --- I would not use an F-35 for the A-10 job of close air support. I know it is supposed to replace the A-10. If anyone can explain why and how it could do that job well, please explain.
    2
  18. OK. I see the Air Force now has the EA-37B. How does the EA-18G compare to the EA-37B in capability?? How would they be used differently in tactics and strategy?? Also, is the Growler only used on our carriers, or are they ever used from land bases??
    2
  19.  @DumbledoreMcCracken  Oh yeah. You betcha. Winning both the F-22 and F-35 contracts proves that to me.
    2
  20. FYI -- it is C-Power, not Sea-Power.
    2
  21. Will Navy assets be able to network with Air Force assets, like the B-21 raider, its F-35A's, and with Army assets like Apaches, M1 tanks, etc.??? I would hope so. But, I have no idea.
    1
  22. Russia will be left behind. They won't have the resources to keep up with any of this. China has the money to keep up. I think they lack the R&D to keep up. Though, they might be able to steal it.
    1
  23. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dykzl9Kaf4&ab_channel=Hermeus
    1
  24.  @Cyrribrae  Yes. Lot of videos. I do find Hermeus to be very interesting.
    1
  25. Disagree. The US must NOT build the NGAD fighter UNTIL we know what we need. 1. The Ukraine War has shown that drones are critical, while at the same time pushing drone technology, design and usage. The doctrine for their use is also being developed. The future of drones is still in development. Their use with NGADs is not known now. 2. Combined cycle engines is developing fast. The Chimera engine from Hermeus shows that a future NGAD may need to be hypersonic driven by a Chimera type engine. These two reasons mean we should NOT design an NGAD yet. Not until we know the implications of these two techs.
    1
  26. The Raider seems to be light blue in color, going by the pics of it on the ground. I thought it was going to be black like the B-2.
    1
  27. I thought that solid fuel rockets could not be throttled. That alone is a major advancement, IMO.
    1
  28. I think stealth will always be important, if not critical. Stealth planes will become more detectible and targetable. BUT -- ECM will become more important, and more capable. ECM will keep the planes stealthy. However, they will still need stealth shape and coatings so the ECM systems won't have to work so hard at keeping the plane invisible. As long as the F-35 can accept new electronics, it can be kept relevant.
    1
  29. Not expanding the B-21 order makes most sense to me. Developments in materials, combined cycle hypersonic engines, radars, AI, and other systems is happening at a breakneck speed. I expect the B-21 to be obsolete to what can be designed in 2040, if not sooner.
    1
  30. I wish you had a video that goes into the Fighter and Attack roles. How are they different? How to F planes differ from A planes?? Seems to me there is a lot of overlap. Didn't P-47's P-51's, Corsairs, P-38's, and Hellcats all do both roles? For me only the A-10 Warthog is a dedicated Ground Attack plane. I would like to see a more detailed analysis and explanation. I feel I know just enough to get it all wrong.
    1
  31. Alex -- can our current missiles be fired from a hypersonic jet when we develop one?? With Hermeus, that seems likely. I wonder if we could use our current missiles, or do we need to develop all new weapons for hypersonic fighters???
    1
  32. Personally, I like talks about military logistics. I find it sexy. Hypersonics?? Stupid, mostly useless missiles. People who focus on them, don't know much.
    1
  33. Letters of marque is pronounced "mark", like in dark, 6 Not marquee, and not pronounced "marky"
    1
  34.  @bricefleckenstein9666  So you did.
    1
  35. @ Speaking seriously. That makes sense. Like much of Canada, no roads means airplane is the best, if not only way, to get around.
    1
  36. Are Electronic Counter Measures, and Electronic Counter Counter Measures (ECM, ECCM) part of EW?? I would like to see a discussion of ECM and ECCM and how it is being used in our aircraft and missiles. Thank you.
    1
  37.  @tyvernoverlord5363  Thanks. Makes sense.
    1
  38. The B-2 bomber was revolutionary. The B-21, as I see it, is merely a refinement of the B-2. They look similar. Their layouts are the same. If the B-21 replacement is already being planned --- will it be a further refinement of this type of bomber, OR will it be something very different??
    1
  39. US Air Force can NEVER defeat Godzilla. Not with Japanese script writers. We are doomed.
    1
  40. What about the Hermeus engine?
    1
  41. Building new F-22's would be monumentally stupid. It has been 30 years since it was designed. There have been huge advances in --- Materials, Engines, Avionics, Radars, Computers, Networking, Weapons, .... Basically every single technology has made huge advances. So, the US should build more F-22's. The US should build the replacement for F-22's.
    1
  42. Can the FA-18 be as good operating off of highways as the Swedish Gripen?? Seems to me that rapid fueling and rearming will increase the sortie rate. More sorties is like having more aircraft.
    1
  43. Nice paint job. Needs racing stripes.
    1
  44. You, and others, refer to the CSIS war game study of a Chinese attack on Taiwan, and point out the dire consequences for our military. I do not accept that interpretation. The CSIS study seems incompetent to me for two major reasons ---- 1). Taiwan is depected as punching bag that does not hit back. Taiwan is NOT a pinata , that China can hit freely. Taiwan has thousands of anti-ship missiles -- HF-2, HF-2e, and HF-3. Taiwan makes the most advanced chips, and there is NO REASON to believe that Taiwan has not used them to create world class sensors, avionics, and ECCM systems to make their missiles robust and hard to kill. If I am correct, the Taiwan will likely sink China's invasion fleet BEFORE the US has time to respond. 2) Now this point is the one that makes me see the CSIS study as incompetent --- CSIS claims that the US would lose FOUR (4) nuclear subs. Huh?? How is that??? As far as I know, China cannot locate ANY of our subs, let alone target and kill them. So unless our Navy plans on having our subs surface in Shanghai harbor, that stated outcome is ridiculous. Alex, it does give me pause that YOU credit the CSIS study as being valid. You MUST know something I don't. What do you know?? Does Taiwan not have anti-ship missiles? Can China find, track, target, and kill our nuclear subs?? You must think these are facts to accept the CSIS study. What is the truth??
    1
  45. They can see it. They can track it. BUT -- they CANNOT STOP it. They will see their doom coming. THAT is the power of the F-35.
    1
  46. These are great. BUT - they are easily seen by radar, therefore easily targeted and destroyed. Enemies, now, are not prepared for them, so they will be great for a few years. In time, though, all naval craft will have anti-drone systems. IMO, they will need to make these semi-submersible. Travelling just under the surface, with only a thin antenna above the surface. Instead of complicated submarine mechanics, I think a simple bladder can act as the submerging device. It only needs to go down 4 to 8 feet, I think. It could travel long distances fast above the water, and then go below the surface when needed.
    1
  47. Great. The B-52 keeps trucking along.
    1
  48. Seems to me that aeronautical performance of fighters is not as important now. The radars, ECM, networking, and missiles used means that dogfighting will not happen very often, if ever. Spoofing and ECM will protect planes, along with stealth. Vectoring will go away, as it will be unnecessary.
    1
  49. People have been talking about the SR-72 for a long long time now. I want to hear about the super secret SR-73.
    1
  50. Evolutionary -- NOT revolutionary. I believe the mix of 5th gen and 4th gen aircraft was the concept from the beginning. That is how it was used in Desert Storm, and I don't see a real change. America's advantage is not just in stealth. It is the fact that the US has a broad range of assets that work together presenting an enemy with a staggeringly complex assault, that is very hard to predict or counter.
    1