Comments by "MikaelKKarlsson" (@MikaelKKarlsson) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

  1. When legislature wants to keep the costs down, it is often easier to get funding for upgrades over new models; even if the "upgrade" ends up replacing 80% of the vehicle with modern parts.
    237
  2. IFV's in development are becoming more and more tank-like in terms of size, weight, and firepower.
    7
  3. Something tells me NATO might not worry as much about escalation in the case of Taiwan compared to Ukraine.
    6
  4. China has improved over the last decade though, in contrast to Putinstan.
    5
  5. Exactly, using a couple of dozen F-16's as flying missile trucks and air defense with an ample amount of modern missiles would be good enough and don't require top level western training. Logistics will take the most time to scale up so in a prospected peace time 2025 we could talk about 100+ airframes, if the US cares to dust off their storages. Pilots won't be a problem.
    5
  6. Carriers are nice, but Japan also has a good number of sizeable islands right by the East China Sea. Big fancy runways might not be strictly necessary.
    5
  7. Forget about the laser crap and just make a Burke 2.0. Then come back around 2050 when the navy might have decided what new they really want. 🤔
    2
  8. Sock puppy tigers could be hiding anywhere.
    2
  9. It's more of a weapon system for hitting vessels that were almost defenseless to begin with. Is one such really needed?
    2
  10. The real world defense value after the initial days or week of modern warfare, is the question of how much devastation the country is ready to endure before surrendering. The terms becoming more favorable as the Chinese will to level the island in order to win it reaches its apex.
    2
  11. With so many carriers around there won't be any real need to have enough aircraft to fill them all up.
    2
  12.  @ajsdjkdasjksdakjdaskj  No but the fighters should be dead as well.
    1