Comments by "Pogo" (@pogo1140) on "Sandboxx" channel.

  1. In one exercise an F-22 pilot saw a flight of C-130's down in the weeds. The F-22 pilot dove to get the easy kill. He did not see the A-10 that was trailing the C-130, who promptly killed it
    128
  2. A recent simulation involving a USAF AI controlled drone, the drone Identified it's target, when the operator denied the drone permission to kill the target, the drone proceeded to kill the operation and then the target. When the program was modified to prevent the drone from killing the operator, it proceeded to kill the communications tower that the operator used to give it instructions before killing what it had designated as the target. So still want AI controlled drones?
    35
  3. ​@bbaker3510 yes. Especially when one of those places has been aching to settle blood debts against the Russians.
    34
  4. It's how an A-10 driver got a Raptor kill. His squadron noticed a pattern in the F-22's fight. So they sent an lone A-10 out and he flew in the radar shadow of a C-130. The F-22's seeing the intruding C-130, ignored it while they continued killing F-16's and F-15's. At some point one F-22 went low to make another kill and soon the Raptor pilot heard "Guns, Guns, Guns on F-22" and looked around to see a lone A-10.
    21
  5.  @1224chrisng  I wish it were true. But it actually runs on commercial jet fuel.
    16
  6. India decided to by French I think
    14
  7. @Armor Cast  the USAF was in a worse shape than the Navy. It was dominated by strategic bomber generals and often had tanker and bomber pilots in F-4's. Institutionally it no longer taught a2a combat. It was not uncommon that the only BFM training pilots got were informal ones that happened on the way back to base after a bombing or intercept practice.
    12
  8.  @danielc9312  In particular, the Poles. When the Russians crossed the border on 2/24/2022, the Poles were the first to go to their warehouses grab everything that could be used quickly and without training and put them on trucks to Ukraine. They were among the first to show up to volunteer to fight
    12
  9. Not tactics. Training
    10
  10. US fighter pilots currently struggle to get 150hrs per yer. The current Air Combat Command this spring seems to be more concerned about uniforms grooming standards than getting the pilots trained to fight
    9
  11.  @xero6774  Mach 10 means your warhead is a glowing torch, most modern IR seeker heads are fairly immune to decoys.
    8
  12.  @Ariccio123  Maybe he wanted a clean kill, the volume of chaff and flares a C-130 can pump out is insane.
    8
  13. The Soviets were not the only one's flying MiG's with a red star
    8
  14. How many aircraft carriers are you going to risk landing a C-130 on a Ford Class Carrier knowing that if you make a mistake, the carrier and every it's entire air wing are going up in flames? When they tried this, they had to get 40 knots over the deck, and you could only land 1 because there was not room to land anything on the deck once one C-130 was on the deck. No, you'd be better off using a C-2 or an Osprey.
    7
  15.  @RobertHollander  You don't, you end up giving waivers. It's also not even. You have pilots in high demand units that fly a lot, 2-3 times a day 5 days a week. They rack up 700-1000hrs a year. The front line units from 2018-21 hovered between 81.6-130.8 hrs/yr. It got better in 2022 at 128hr/yr. The Alaska based 18's Fighter Interceptor Squadron is a former Aggressor squadron and acts as both interceptor and aggressor squadron for the 2 F-35 and 2 F-22 squadrons and Red Flag Alaska. Their F-16 are flying 2 time a day when they are not intercepting aircraft. And based on that and the number of F-22's F-35, the 5th gen pilots are probably flying maybe 2-3 times a week
    7
  16. Well they could call them Cylon Raiders
    7
  17.  @Xenomorphine  what's the blast radius of the JDAM (knowing full well that a JDAM is just the guidance kit and not the thing that goes boom)?
    6
  18. @xavierwilmerng6317  I watched the full video, I also watched the video of the original test flights. It's impressive but pointless. It would be less dangerous, faster to fly the C-130 out of Guam or the Philippines.
    6
  19. Also they expect to spend more time in the simulator instead of actually flying the F-35A.
    6
  20. There are limits. It's easier to adapt a carrier plane for Air Force use than it is to adapt an Air Force plane for carrier operation. You can for example take an F-35C and fly it to an Air Force base and the USAF pilots can be flying it without any modifications. You can't take the USAF's F-35A and land it on a carrier, not without building a new plane.
    5
  21.  @xero6774  All that changes is the intercept angle and the how soon you launch the SAM. The defender does not have to chase the missile, it's coming towards you. You just has to put a bunch of shrapnel in front of it.
    5
  22. It's 82m for the flyaway cost. Then you add in the 20 year maintenance contract because only LM is authorized to do to all but the most basic maintenance. If the computer goes down, LM will fix it, if the helmet goes down, off to the manufacturer it goes.
    5
  23.  @Jeff-mv2vm  no harm no foul :)
    5
  24. ​@islahinckley4746 it pentrated Iraqi IFV, BTR's BMP's and Iraqi tanks
    5
  25. It's the aggressor camo
    5
  26. The US has pointed out that they will not be providing any support for an Israeli strike against Iran. Iraq is a no. Will the Saudi's help 50/50?? Either way, they would have to fly via Saudi air space and use tankers. They have 7 tankers, this limits the size of the attack force.
    4
  27. ​​ @ThatGuyKazz  F-15 and F-16 7 an 5 seconds.
    4
  28.  @rogerwilco5918  some nation led by a charlie chaplin cosplayer?
    4
  29.  @thehoogard  the f-35 cost analyst works in peacetime. It does not work in wartime when from d0 your airbase is being attacked with missiles and an Airborne regiment landing to within artillery and mortar range of your runway and a armor brigade pushing up to support the Airborne troops ti capture the base
    4
  30.  @Florkl  The reason the F-16 is what it is is because of the folks who opposed it had run out of options. The F-16 program manager knew that to keep his program alive, he needed to play the political game and accept the edicts from the bomber and eagle mafia and integrate enough of their demands into the platform while preserving as much of the design as possible.
    4
  31. Maverick and Rooster are stealing the F-14 to escape. Su-57 will be one of the planes sent to stop them. Oh, and the F-14 is capable of out turning the Su-57, for one, repeat one turn. I've seen the F-14 do a 9g turn with it's wings folded back and at 500 knots is said to be capable of 10g without damaging the airframe. A pilot once pulled 13g in one then limped home and landed the thing. It's power on stall speed appears to be slower than the Su-57's so at speeds below 250 knots it will have more available g and turn rate than the Su-57 though the 57's trust vectoring might be able to compensate at the cost of forward velocity and lift. So a viable counter to the Su-57's low speed thrust vector turn could be to for the F-14 to merge below 350 knots, entice the 57 to vector thrust and when it does, go vertical force the 57 to vector thrust even more and stall it's wings, then drop the 14's nose back down and gun the 57. (it's an F-15 tactic used against Indian Su-30 pilots who tried to use that plane's vector thrust in a dogfight)
    4
  32. ​@bryonslatten3147 laserpig ignored the incident where 2 a-10's got 2 gun kills for every 7-8 tanks they killed
    4
  33.  @bryonslatten3147  it means they destroyed 7-8 tanks during one sortie, 5-6 using missiles 2 using their 30mm cannons
    4
  34. @bryonslatten3147  Re F-111. Flying at night means they were attacking immobile targets. As a rule, the Iraqis did not like to fight at night. So the F-111's were attacking static targets. The A-10's in question attacked 3 different Iraqi units in 3 different locations as they were moving to engage US mechanized infantry. They only counted the ones that brewed up, they did not count the ones that were just smoking. T-55's T-62's don't have the armor of later models, not the roof, back to top of the hills. This is because the protection is expected to resist an attack from the same height more or less as the tank.
    4
  35. What is the power on stall speed of the F-35? Asking because it does not matter what the pilot claims are, at some point that wing will stall and the available g at any given speed and load will be determined by it.
    4
  36.  @colejones594  Now last I checked, the beaten area of the A-10's gun is smaller than the lethal blast radius of a 500lb bomb. Note this is not with the APDU round but rather for the explosive 30mm round which are like supersonic 30mm grenades
    3
  37. ​@ADB1979 there are more nazis in Russia then there are in Ukraine. Some work for putins youth groups, RT the Russian backed militias and PMC's
    3
  38. @markwood4555  those non Nimitz class can't generate the speed needed to keep 40 knots of wind over the deck. And none can carry more than 1 c-130 but they can handle 5 - 8 v-22's. So no, better to use something that is already capable of and is built to land and operate out of existing carriers and has the required lift capability, hence C-2 or V-22
    3
  39.  @xavierwilmerng6317  Because the USN can't afford to not be using the Nimitz and Ford class for the purpose they are currently used for. They can't sideline their air wing in order to accommodate a single C-130
    3
  40.  @natehammar7353  Why would you need the carrier when it's easier and safer to use a tanker? If you use a carrier, from the time it lands to the time it leaves the deck, the carrier's entire air wing, can't use the flight deck. Planes that are in the air, that need to be re-fueled can't because tankers can't take off or land. Fresh fighters can't be launched and the ones that are in the air can't land.
    3
  41.  @bricefleckenstein9666  We have access to storage facilities and the runways that service them. So we can forward deploy the munitions and refuel aircraft there
    3
  42. @Jeff  Jeff read what I posted. I did not say that the US lost a carrier much less 2.
    3
  43.  @piotrd.4850  So was the F-35. It currently costs more than a 30 year old F-15E to to keep an F-35A in the air, and that's with the F-15E flying more hours than the F-35A.
    3
  44. 6,000 Shaheed drones cost less than $200k less than a single AIM-9X
    3
  45. Also in 1999 2 F-14's and 2 F-15's lunched 6 BVR missiles (AIM-120,AIM-54, and AIM-7's) were launched at 4 MIG-25. All 6 missiles missed.
    3
  46.  @slider292  detection does not mean positive id either. Ir can be blocked by smoke, clouds, fog, a mountain or hill.
    3
  47.  @scottyius  Not sure. The original plan was to build new M1A2's with tungsten armor, I think the Ukrainians howled at the extended timeline which meant that the M1's would not be able to get into the fight until 2024, by which time the US would be delivering them to the Russian backed government in Ukraine. So the new plan is to take M1A1's that had already been upgraded from storage and send those to Ukraine
    3
  48. @T51B1  the maverick usually worked, and so did the gun. They counted the score via results from the gun cam and the pilots checking each other's work.
    3
  49. @Skinflaps_Meatslapper  the A-10 was expected to attack armor columns that were being defended by radar guided Mobile SA-5's and ZSU's and MANPADS. They expected to lose a lot or all of them. In the same vein, the USAF expected to lose every single European based F-15, F-16, and F-111 in the 1st 1-2 months of fighting. And they expected to lose the replacements nearly as quickly. Got that from the various reports and analysis during the 80's when the Warsaw pact was still a threat.
    3
  50.  @truisticprince  OK, that places its at about the same performance as the F/A-18.
    3