Youtube comments of Retrosicotte (@Retrosicotte).
-
2000
-
587
-
532
-
A good video, but a few mistakes in regards to the QE. Normally I wouldn't be the "ACHTHUALLY" sort, but the QE has so many misconceptions about it around the net and especially here in the UK from the public.
The speed is far above the one listed in video. She's already gone faster than 29 knots in British waters (look at her route on AIS when she passed the Isle of Wight), and the Assembly Director has stated she can go up to 32 knots, is the highest (publically released) figure. They turn off their AIS whenever they go faster, so he was certainly correct.
In addition, "more than" 36 is underselling it, the hangar alone can fit 24 (plus 2 Merlins) and the deck can easily take another 24, plus helos.
You state the F-35B cannot carry anti-ship missiles inside its bays, this is incorrect. It can fit 4x Spear Cap 3 missiles inside each bay, for a total of 8. The Spear 3 from MBDA is a multipurpose missile, one of those being "anti ship", capable of targeting specific critical systems like bridge, turrets, radars and VLS clusters.
No mention made of its superior radar (SMART-L and Artisan) over the Chinese one, that would give it much greater detection in this strange scenario where there's no escorts available. In addition, no mention made of sortie rate, in which the QE is generations ahead thanks to automated munitions handling and the F-35's inherently faster rearmament speed. Sortie rate over time matters ten times more than "who can launch more in ten seconds". Finally, no mention made of the QE's damage control, it's basically two ships in one, dual separated propulsion, dual separated bridges and air control, dual separated avionics, dual separated exhaust and electronics lines. That is not an insignificant aspect.
369
-
221
-
166
-
133
-
93
-
82
-
78
-
68
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
55
-
47
-
46
-
42
-
Absolutely excellent video, FTV. A lot of information a lot of people maybe don't know. I wish this could be seen by so many more people in this country to understand what the Armed Forces do for them and why their funding needs to be supported, especially as his was only the tip of the iceberg!
Could do hours on the full list, including foreign air policing of the allies who stand first in the path protecting us with their own land, protection of the Falkland Islands and our fellow citizens out there, counter-piracy to protect the things we all buy, mine-hunting within crucial trade lanes in the Gulf that brings the fuel we all use, counter-terrorism to protect us on home lands and abroad, natural disaster ready units to counter storms and flooding on our shores and riverlines, Search and Rescue support in Cyprus and the Falklands, foreign training to our allies to better prepare them and strengthen our global presence by being amongst other prepared nations, defence industries bringing money and work to the nation, Red Arrows carrying the UK's image to the entire world, a nuclear deterrent that has stood in the way of any aggression for decades crewed by men and women who give up years of their lives to live in a small tube, support training with the police to help counter significant events from as malicious as intense looting to something as simple as helping staff the Olympics, Highland protection response to help out small communities if the winter cuts them off...
39
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
"Securing that line was the only thing keeping Britain alive"
Uh, no. Thats not true at all. Thats not even VAGUELY true. The UK was never even once close to "starving out" as the myth goes. 99% of ships got to the UK just fine, even during the Bismark crisis.
"American supply convoys were the only thing keeping Britain in the fight"
They helped, but they most certainly were not the "only" thing and not nearly as "saved UK" as many American sources like to believe. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Egypt, Iceland and further afield were all sending supplies as well and forming major components of the fight and the logistics routes.
"that could sink anything the Royal Navy could throw at it"
The Bismark was big, but it was not the monster that post war mythos has tried to turn it into. Its importance in killing it was down to the positioning and wanting to prevent it getting loose amongst the convoys, not because it was some super ultra death god warship. In fact many elements of it were very outdated as far as warship design went at the time, only carried further due to an exceptionally lucky shot on HMS Hood.
Given how Extra Credits/History normally tries to be so understanding of other cultures, I'm rather shocked that it would make such a MURRICA approach to this story, especially regarding the supply situation. Although I guess it is appropriate that a video sponsered by Wargaming and their well known anti-British bias would carry that message...
35
-
35
-
35
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
The UK is one of the larger arms industries on the planet. They make Sniper Rifles, ATGMs, carriers, frigates, destroyers, logistics vessels, boats, nuclear submarines, fighter jets, jet engines, missiles of all sorts, MRAPs, various AFVs, refuelling pods, combat engineering modules, thermal sights, radars, pilot helmets, howitzers, bombs, helicopters, landing craft, SAM batteries, anti-air gun platforms, drones, loitering munitions, target drones, USVs, VIP Transports, vertical launch silos, sonar, nuclear warheads, nuclear reactors, gas turbine engines, tank armour, satellites, cyber-systems, radios, camouflage, body armour... the list goes on.
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
Great talk on the Typhoon, but if I may there were a few notable inaccurate statements, which I offer with respect to the fun show you guys put on, great to play AW while listening to:
"Typhoon is not stealth, it is loud and proud" - This is quite incorrect. There is no such thing as "stealth" and "not stealth". Every plane has some degree of stealth associated with it, even as far bad as the Mosquito or Vulcan. The Typhoon is the most stealthy 4.5th gen on the market right now, with only 15% non-composite external materials, 90% frontal arc RAM coverage, a tilted radar mount, S-ducts, recessed weapon hardpoints and a canard management system for RCS reduction, to name but a few features. From the front it has been speculated to have the RCS of a B-2 bomber, and when you look at the known specs of the T-50/PAK-FA, it's actually LESS stealthy than the Typhoon from some angles due to the exposed non-RAM metal materals on the T-50. It won't ever be AS stealthy as an F-22 or F-35, but to not mention that it is the best stealth out there that isn't a 5th gen fighter is a bit inaccurate. Stealth isn't an "on or off" switch, as Damien says. The greater (or lower, I suppose) the RCS, the close you can get before detection. The Typhoon absolutely has an RCS advantage over 95% of the planes out there.
"We'll be getting the Tranche 4 soon" - There's no such thing as a Tranche 4. Tranche 3 is the "final" Tranche, however after that it is the Phase Enhancement process. Currently the 2nd phase (P2E) has been implemented to the Tranche 2 and 3 fighters. P3E is due this or next year to bring (most notably among other things) the Storm Shadow cruise missile and the world beating Brimstone II missile.. What I believe you mean is the P4E upgrade that will be given to existing Tranche 3 aircraft.
"It is getting a bit outdated" - Not at all! They are still making new ones, and with its Tranche 3 and P4E upgrades it's amongst some of the best aircraft out there. Modern Typhoon models are amongst the most advanced in the world. When there are only 2 planes in service in existence that can outdo you in technology, that doesn't make you old! It's got an enormous future ahead of it in technological upgrades, and is only of only three planes in existence to have a two-way datalink for its A2A missiles. (Not even the F-22 has one of them yet.) It says a lot that many countries with Typhoons have chosen to retain them for upgrades and operate them beside F-35's, rather than universally replace them. In recent Red Air exercises from 2013, F-22's and Typhoons working in tandem achieved a 30-1 kill ratio against gen 4 and gen 4.5 aircraft. If the Typhoon was "outdated", then they wouldn't have been so mutually capable.
"The Advanced Super Hornet and its external weapons pod" - Stands a 90% chance of never being made, let alone being ordered, the base Super Hornet has enough trouble finding buyers in a world that's turning to already existing and in service models like F-35, Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen. External weapons pods might reduce RCS a bit, but there are other methods to do that such as the Typhoons recessed weapons hardpoints (notice how the BVRAAM stations are 'dipped' into the fuselage to lower their visual impact). In addition, the one thing that Boeing hasn't commented on is that such an enormous pod will create lots of drag and add extra weight on top of the munitions themselves, this would significantly affect aircraft range on a plane that is already not exactly one of the longer ranged ones around.
"The F-35 is meant more for air to ground" - The F-35 is meant for multi-mission. It is superior to the F-16 and Super Hornet for air to air, and no-one would dare say either of them are not meant for air to air. When it comes to beyond visual range, the F-35 is one of the best. Even up close, while it doesn't have the truly obscene turning of the Typhoon or the energy retention, it has numerous tricks that only it can do, like an absolutely outrageous angle of attack of 50+ degrees. (They can fly almost seemingly sideways when in a hard angle.) Typhoon has a "high and fast" approach which is better for some forms of air to air, but the F-35 has its own advantages. For air to air, the Typhoon and F-35 are COMPLIMENTARY, not rivals. They each bring a unique trait to the table and create an incredible joint capability.
"The Typhoon is more for air to air" - This is accurate, originally. It is before anything else an interceptor/air superiority hybrid. However it's a swingrole, and it will have several munitions for air to ground the F-35 won't have. The Brimstone II missile for example, is unique to the Typhoon until the Spear CAP 3 program arrives for F-35. Storm Shadow is also something that (in the RAF) only Typhoon will have. Although the F-35 does have comparitives such as the JASS-ER.
Loved the show, I look forward to future ones!
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
"Shoulder launched anti-air missiles"
Not a threat, the only ones the UK uses are Starstreak, which are useless in the hands of anyone not explicitly long term trained in it, since operator skill matters with it. A bunch of ragtag Scottish civvies wouldn't have a clue how to operate them.
"Mostly Scottish"
Not entirely. Huge quantities of the Scottish regiments are more UK favouring. This video assumed ALL Scottish people suddenly support an independent Scotland. Thats very untrue, more people in Scotland support UK than they do Indy Scotland, and among the forces its likely more like 90% support UK. The forces in Scottish regiments are overwhelmingly supportive of the UK as a whole. It would only be a very small percentage turned around to support the SNP.
"Civilian ships could be sunk"
That takes far longer to do than to just sail out a base, wouldn't happen.
"Will lead to dozens of British deaths per day"
UK managed 14 years in Afghanistan and Iraq, a much better organised, equipped and experienced insurgency than Scotland could ever manage, and didn't suffer dozens of deaths every day. What makes you think it'd suddenly happen here?
"Might lose thousands, and dozens of helos, jets, vehicles..."
LOL NO. From what? An unarmed Scottish populace with no air force aren't going to do squat.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
"Everything it has at Russia" I'm curious where your reality of F-22s, F-35s, Typhoons, Rafales, Gripens, Tomahawks, Taurus, ATACMS, B-2s, B-1s, B-52s etc all attacking Russia comes from then,cos I sure haven't seen them. Ukraine has only gotten NATO's older surplus stuff and is still kicking Russia's arse.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@JD96893 "Both of which if i remember right have major flaws" Neither have major flaws at all though.
"They aren't even the big aircraft carrier" Literally the 3rd largest in the world.
"they are the little ones with ramps, of which the US has 7 plus 2 on the way" Except no, the US has no carriers like QE on the way. The QE are literally 2 times the size of the ones you think of.
"(less than 200k troops vs Turkey with like 600k+" Quality over quantity.
"but their their weapons and tech aren't anything to really brag about either" Brimstone, NLAW, Starstreak, Martlet, Meteor, ASRAAM, Storm Shadow etc all say hello.
"They have a small weak navy" 4th largest in the world, almost a million tonnes
"The French defense budget is even smaller yet they somehow manage a modern airforce(indigenous)," Except the French air force is notably worse than the UK. They only have past gen aircraft.
"proper super carriers" France only has a single carrer, and it's not a 'super' atall, it's quite small.
"sub force(nuclear i believe)," So does the UK, a larger one with much better submarines at that.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Here's the usual "Things Binkov missed about Britain/France by not bothering to research them properly":
- It should be 12 nuclear submarines for the UK, as HMS Audacious is actually out and on sea trials at the moment, there's no way she wouldn't be called into it.
- Talks about the AESA count between the nations, but completely neglects to add in the 21 F-35s which all have better AESAs than the Rafale
- Mentions France have more carrier aircraft yes, but CdG cabn only fit 30 of them on board, and 21 F-35s will wipe the floor with 30 previous generation fighters.
- Why does Binkov keep mentioning the "3 F-35 are in the US for training"? This is the same for EVERY AIRCRAFT FLEET EVER. They ALL have some dedicated to training otherwise there wouldn't be any pilots! Why not count out the Rafales France uses for this too?
- "It lacks Aerial Early Warning Helicopters" - They entered service last week dude. Please. Research.
- And how, pray tell, would a Rafale even get by F-35s to launch a short range 70km Exocet at the carrier when each Rafale M can only carry a single one?
- "The Meteor has a greater reach" Maybe compared to AIM-120C, but the British F-35s use AIM-120D, which is about the same.
- The Rafale missile loadout is incorrect. They can carry 6 A2A missiles max. They have 4x A2A hardpoints on the wings (two can only fit MICA), and two on the belly for Meteor.
- "The British may not even carry (ASRAAM) to preserve stealth" The F-35 will outstealth the Rafales even with them, jesus christ...stealth is not an "on/off switch"
- "France operates 3 E-2" It operates 2 at most from the carrier as the third is always in deep maintainance. This leaves it with a deadzone where they have no AEW each day as two aircraft cannot run 24/7 ops. Why never mention this?
- "The Rafales could fire their Exocets near the edge of reach of the (T45)" Er, no. Rafale's Exocet is 70km maximum. The T45s Aster-30 missile goes out to over 120km...
- Why not mention that the Dauphion also relies on 3rd party sonar? Why only put it as a negative for the Wildcat?
- "The French Navy would eventually break out into the Atlantic" And you ever going to explain HOW? No navy is going to get through that chokepoint with SSNs sinking everything coming. Why just say this happens and not justify it?
- "Poseidon don't have anti-ship missiles" Er, yes they do. The UK has an agreement with the US to use ALL their munitions on the plane. They can fit anything from the US inventory on there ad hoc as required via contract.
- Also, there's 5 Poseidons, not 3. This is literally a five minute Google check, man.
- Why would the British need to sacrifice submarines? You are forgetting the British literally build the French Navy's main sonar for them. The UK knows every single detail of how the CAPTAS4 detects things. You think they won't abuse the hell out of that?
- Total Army Regulars ignores the 2,000 odd from the RAF Regiment. They may be maed fun of but they're still trained ground troops.
- "700+ Warrior 2" Er, no. The UK only has about 12 Warrior 2s. The rest are still Warrior 1s.
- Also why not count the 6-12 Ajax that entered service?
- Why not count the Griffins that entered service for the French Army? They already have a bunch of them.
- Why didn't you count the Army's Wildcats for scout helicopters? That is literally their primary role...
- "Though the rest of their fleet might fare a bit better than the British fleet overall" Again, how? When most of it would be sunk coming out of Gibraltar, and anything on the north coast docks will get Storm Shadowed to hell and back given the UK has eight times the number.
Ultimately, it would still be a stalemate, but there are a lot of errors in this...
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@jimmyb7479 You haven't a clue, lemme educate you:
Turkey has:
- 12 submarines (mostly old, all diesel)
- 16 small frigates using low end weaponry
- 10 corvettes (tiny ships, light armament)
- 19 FACs (known to serious navies as "target practice")
- A bunch of other patrol/minesweeper/landing craft of no relevance in a naval war on the open ocean.
France has:
- A bloody aircraft carrier with 36 jets, whic hare each worth more than an entire FAC on their own
- 3x large helo carriers carrying attack and maritime attack helos
- 9/10 nuclear submarines (VASTLY more capable than old diesel chuggers)
- 22 large escorts (many more than twice the displacement) with modern sensors and weaponry
- 7 lighter combatants
In effect Turkey has 57 main combatants, all of which are small, old, and using outdated technology.
France has 43 combatants, all of them larger and more individually powerful rising to 79 with naval fast jets, and every single one of them is far in excess in technology, experience, and modernity. And thats before you even account for Greece too.
At sea against the French, Turkey hasn't a hope.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Excellent positive video after all the moronic British press coverage, thank you!
Couple of little, but important, corrections, though!:
- Commissioning will be in 2017, not 2020's. It's 2020's for her first full service deployment. It's 2017 commission, 2018 flight trials, 2020 IOC, 2023 for full operating capability and operational deployment.
- It is not a 40 aircraft max, it's actually over 70, as confirmed by Captain Jerry Kyd himself. 40 is only the "standard" air combat wing specification of 36 F-35B and 4 Crowsnest Merlins. However the Royal Navy's primary wing also includes 10 extra Merlins, Wildcats and drones. The maximum capacity of it is around 48 F-35B's and about 14-16 Merlins, or more helos to the 70+ figure if they instead use smaller drones and Wildcats.
- The maximum speed is not 25 knots. It's 32 knots, as confirmed by the Assembly Director. If any proof is needed,
just go look at her on AIS tracking on approach to the Isle of Wight, where she hit 29.2 knots while AIS is turned on. Royal Navy never have AIS on if they reach their top speed, so she's proven it's well above 29.2 knots. The official line was "25+ knots", which is a deliberately vague statement for OPSEC.
- She carries 3 Phalanx CIWS, not 2. And there are no Aster missiles on the ship. If any missiles were to be
mounted, it would likely be CAMM due to the cold launch. The current intent is for the directed energy air defence on trial in 2018 to be set for the ship.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stefanm886 I think you are grossly underestimating the scale of the task ahead of the Luftwaffe's very few munitions available with such numbers. Around 2,000 bombs isn't all that. Even allowing for a 100% hit rate (which is unlikely) on such a small number of available aircraft, to be able to handle the entire RAF, the entire RN, the continual assault on the hundreds of supply ship escorts being made by both the UK and US, the entire British Army's defensive ability, the entire industrial capacity to not simply replace those losses faster than Germany can hurt them, and to continually keep up CAS. Oh, and ALSO hold up Germany's other commitments elsewhere too.
You can't do ALL of that on 2,000 odd bombs. No matter what they focus on, they fail to bring mass.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As usual every time the UK comes up, several big research fails on the British Armed Forces by Binkov:
- "But 3 F-35s are still in the US for training" This is the same for EVERY fleet of aircraft in EVERY country. Being in the US or not is irrelevant, every single fleet in the entire world has some earmarked purely for training or experimental purposes. Why single the UK only out and not India's for this?
- "Would have to come from the UK mainland" So we're ignoring that the UK has 2 large naval bases in Bahrain and Oman just next door that can support carriers?
- "Can only house X fighter in this place alone" Also ignoring RAF Al Udeid is in Qatar that could run interception and additional ISTAR.
- "No Crowsnest" Except Crowsnest is already prepped for IOC in CSG2021, so they should be included here and are FAR superior to the ancient Indian helo AEW.
- "3x P-8s" The RAF has 5 of them, not 3
- "Detecting Indian submarines would be almost impossible" Why? The UK is one of the best ASW nations on the planet, and regularly engages in ASW shenanigans with the much more capable Russian subs. India's are ancient or lower end for the most part, why would they be any trouble?
- Absolutely no mention of Storm Shadow on Typhoons to hit Indian ships while still in port, the UK already did this to Libya and it worked perfectly.
- MASSIVELY underestimates the potency of Astute class submarines, by implying they would shoot once then just die.
- "Most units lack good sensors" While showing Sampson equipped units, which are some of the best radars out there, and another whole fleet of Artisans, and then Sky Sabre using modern Giraffe...
- "The UK would lose several subs" Why? There is no reason to assume this. Modern SSNs are the most feared vessels in the world for good reason.
- "And half a dozen ships" Again, why? This is completely without explanation. How does India even locate the ships to fire at when their AWACS cannot survive in the air to locate for them?
- "Even if the RAF shoots down 2 planes for the loss of one of their own" It amuses me that you think old Russian Su's can go 1:2 odds against F-35s. Try 1:20 as proven in Red Flag, which was against MUCH more potent counter-air than India has.
- "The British don't have as much room for quick improvement" Why? They would have a second supercarrier by then, another SSN, would be building Typhoons much faster than India can its own planes, would have another 12 F-35s, and would have Sea Venom and the Interim-OTHM by then.
- Why is the Indian carrier still shown at the end? In what reality do you think an Astute wouldn't sink that thing within a month? The UK knows Russian design carrier acoustics better than any country in the world given how often they pass us by. Why not count in the loss of its entire air wing?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@johnpatz8395 Yes, it is all F-35s. The Carrier can hold 50+ aircraft total, of which around 48 can be F-35s, but normally would be around 36 to facilitate more helos.
The munitions would be very deadly, given Spear can explicitly target radars, guns, VLS silos, hangars, bridges etc. Even 1-2 of them gone can be months out of action. With modern pace of war, thats as good as a kill.
Meanwhile the Russians are relying on obsolete "single big shoot" killers that basically everyone knows how to counter at this point. Sheer mass of stealthy, sea-skimming missiles is not something any ship can properly fight off, hen it only takes 4 aircraft to launch 32 missiles at once, including 4 EW jammer munitions.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@reyvan3806 Incorrect. Iraq was both A) A very rare example and B) Conducted by scout vehicles (M3s), not IFVs carrying infantry. Again this idea of you wanting to attack armour with infantry would get you laughed out the brief faster than you even would believe. In reality, people know their job and they perform that job. If someone's coming at you with tanks, then you will be disembarked, and will have Javelins and NLAWs. The ONLY time you are embarked with infantry in a combat zone is in moving to engage (in which case why did you begin your MTT without an armour screen?) or at engaged in an advance to engage (in which case you will be following the tanks and your job is not to start playing call of duty).
The main reason most countries use it is most countries don't have the force capability to have attack helos, ATGM equipped drones, fast jets with Brimstones, coordinated DBF, mass ATGM infantry equipment, TES RWS with ATGMs if required. ATGMs on IFVs as your reliant method is the refuge of one of two people. 1) Those who don't have the ability to coordinate like we do, or 2) Those who have more money than sense and can just do whatever they want with their budget. The money is MUCH better spent on things whos job it is to hunt armour. Not tacking something to a vehicle that shouldn't be doing that anyway. You want us to fit them to artillery pieces next "just in case"? Or make every infantryman carry a sniper rifle "just in case there's no snipers around to help you?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Seriously, not a single mention of the Royal Air Force, French Air Force, Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal Australian Air Force, Royal New Zealand Air Force or South African Air Force who all flew a not insignificant amount of those flights too? It's just "The AMERICAN flights" and "the AMERICAN supplies", and "ONLY AMERICA".
This is like that hideously "America did everything" video you guys did that stated the US was the only country keeping the UK in supply in WW2, despite it not being, and the UK being quite decent off anyway, contray to myth.
Please stop making these videos so frantically AMERICA FUCK YEAH if you're aiming to do history, I thought Extra Credits was ABOUT recognising more peoples.
Also, only mentions how the Allied bombs destroyed Berlin? No mention of the giant Soviet army that raped, stole and burned just as much?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2. Recruitment was going up, it would have been solved in time. Especially post covid.
3. All the more reason to fund defence, Covid showed us what happens when you aren't prepared.
4. Absolutely doesn't, lets go one by one, you're doing it by just numbers, allow me to detail it.
Numbers - 10,000 from the intended (and being worked toward) goal is a huge cut. It's reduced to 4 deployable sections of the army, down from the higher amount before.
Tanks - Cutting from 227 to 148 is already bad as it removes the chance to have multiple armoured brigades, and leaves zero real reserve, the entire tank fleet is needed just to fulfill the frontline duties now.
Vehicles - "Expanding capability of" is not enough to replace 700+ vehicles. Unless they make a firm order for ANOTHER 700 Boxers, around 250 of them with CT40 turrets, then this is a major cut.
C-130s - Being retired without replacement. A400 is better but we had A400 and C-130, now we just have C-130. Cut.
Puma - Being retired before a confirmed replacement date, and no commitment to ensure all 27 we had are replaced one for one.
Sentry - It's being replaced with 3, not 5. The paper confiremd this. Means the UK only has a single (LOL) deployable AWACs. Only an idiot does this.
Typhoons - Yes, they are retired, but the point is he didn't order a replacement of Tranche 4s.
No matter how you slice it, Boris did the msot devastating paper to the forces since Cameron ruined it in 2010. There is no defending this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thefireisonfire So as I said, Turkey doesn't make any aircraft then. They just assemble ones under instruction. Brazil hasn't produced an AMX in a LONG time, and it was mostly an Italian design anyway. And no, you are COMPLETELY wrong about only engines and weapons. Good lord, look:
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4bf259053ce3fd360d206b0fcaba0876
Meanwhile the UK does the vast majority of the work on the Typhoon (other countries pretty much just make UK spec parts these days since none of them bothered to finance it) , a third of every Gripen, 15% of every F-35, is creating Tempest, created Taranis, creates Hawk, makes jet engines for basically everyone, wings for most large NATO aircraft in Europe, and has the 2nd largest aerospace industry in the world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@airhabairhab Except not.Ukraine is a war bereft of air superiority from either side, with very limited deep fires, no broad naval options, and both sides using mostly ancient equipment with only smatterings of occasionally more modern stuff. There's no truly modern fighters, heavy SEAD/DEAD, no mass launch of modern, substantial deep strike interdictions, no effective CAP, no SCALE of precision deep fires, nothing of all the stuff that actually makes Western nations as powerful as they are. Gulf War 1 from but a portion of NATO was beyond the scale of anything Russia has done, and that was only a fraction of NATO's power, 30 years ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1