Comments by "TheThirdMan" (@thethirdman225) on "Vox" channel.

  1. Look out, Syria just pulled up.
    530
  2. @Mickey Rana They had no vision for peace. You can't win the war if there's no incentive for the local people to want to be involved. That's why "the world's most powerful military" was defeated by a handful of farmers with AK-47s and exploding rubbish bins.
    108
  3. Eduardo Most of that had nothing to do with America.
    70
  4.  @opticalreticle  It’s worked everywhere it’s been tried. There’s nothing in the second amendment that says you can or can’t own AR-15s. Ergo, banning them is not against the second amendment.
    17
  5. Dark of the knight Go on then. Tell us how it should have been done.
    17
  6.  @i_like_chomp6382  69% of murders in the United States are committed with firearms. How many are committed with cars? Not that many. Yet to drive a car, you need licensing and registration. Who complains about that? Also, I can't remember the last time someone held up a convenience store with a car...
    13
  7. +SGTCrash Those figures are almost meaningless. They are for people who lack any understanding beyond technicalities. Nobody has yet provided a context, much less explained any tactical procedures. Without that information, you can draw no valid conclusions. To show how ridiculous this is, the F-15 has a real-life ratio of about 105:0 so the F-35 has a long way to go. Secondly, this year's Red Flag was set up for the sole purpose, not of integrating the F-35 but validating it. Believe me, it's happened before. So unless someone can come up with some specifics - i.e.: the tactical scenarios - then these spectacular figures are nothing more than fairy dust. I don't care how "brutal" you claim it is, you're right: it means nothing.
    10
  8. Tell me something: what will it be used for?
    10
  9.  @arroldterrace4553  That simply isn’t true.
    8
  10.  @i_like_chomp6382  "69% includes guns and accidental shootings to yourself or others. Wealthy places like the Uk, france, and Italy for example have extremely high knife crime and pickpocketing." Now you're guessing. No. Let's give an example which I can quote off the top of my head without having to look it up. In 2010 there were 16,256 murders in the United States. 11,078 were committed with guns. 68.15% That's just murders. If you want to include all gun deaths, the number is over 30,000. Look it up at the CDC website. The current gun stats at the CDC are 6.0/100K for all murders and 4.5/100K for gun murders. As for your claim that the UK, France and Italy have "extremely high knife crime and pickpocketing", I'm going to ask for a reference for that claim. And don't bother linking to some gun-humper page. Extremely high in relation to where? Show me the rates. You know, numbers per 100,000 people, as I showed you before. "Also Texas may have the highest rate of "gun" violence but its extremely well off compared to so many other states when it comes to general crime and thats the stat that matters not yours." Jesus. We're talking about gun crime. Texas has the highest rate of gun crime in the United States, which makes a complete mockery of your earlier claim that crime was low there because of "good guys with guns". The stats that matter are the ones that come from credible bodies that collect them, like the CDC. You haven't provided any stats, much less any backup, so you're in no position to says whose stats matter. Mine matter because I got them from a credible and relevant authority, not from gossip on the interwebs. When you can find an institution like the CDC that proves your claim I might start taking you seriously.
    7
  11. +TheReal Lifehacks "Which is why it has a great ability to maneuver due to Block 3i, giving it the ability to effectively counter the small and nimble F16" Nope. The F-35 bleeds too much energy: https://defenseissues.net/2015/07/16/f-35-reality-check/ To be fair to the F-35, it was never meant to be a dogfighter but it's really only got one good turn in it and it's done. That body lift is optimised for cruising with a payload and not for manoeuvre. The F-16s body lift is meant to destabilise, i.e.: increase manoeuvrability.
    6
  12. +imax digital "This video didn't even get into what the plane is actually capable of doing. Go look it up yourselves. it's not hard, and it's almost  science fiction-like." Yes: "fiction" being the operative word. The problem is that those with vested interests have saturated the internet with "information" passed off as fact. Anything from the air force or Lockheed-Martin should be regarded as not impartial. The only high threat air forces you might possibly face are also nuclear countries. Nobody is going to get into a high intensity conflict with them because it would end with an exchange of nuclear missiles and the F-35 would be irrelevant.
    6
  13. And two teachers. And the right’s response? Blame teachers and immigrants.
    5
  14.  @eljerc5894  Do you understand how the black market works?
    5
  15. Midnight club Los Angeles is dead Oh, okay.
    5
  16. +molnibalage83 Thus far, nobody who comments about such things on YouTube has shown any sign at all that they understand tactics.
    4
  17. +TheReal Lifehacks The software doesn't make any difference. Do you understand induced drag? The amount of energy it loses isn't related to how many G it puts but to its angle of attack. The article points out that the AoA tends to favour the F-35 because it has better post stall characteristics than the F-16. The trouble is that at high AoA, the F-35 pulls an awful lot of induced drag - definitely more than the F-16. That's a big problem because the F-35 airframe is big and fat and draggy already so its acceleration is marginal. The F-35s body lift is optimised for load carrying rather than manoeuvre. The F-16 is the other way. Like motorsport or sailing, it isn't how many G you pull or how many degrees per second you can pull. It matters how fast you come out of the manoeuvre. It's definitely not a software issue.
    4
  18. +TheReal Lifehacks I doubt that has anything to do with that software update. I agree, the early version would have left it in a disadvantageous position but if you read the test pilot's report, you will find it couldn't even get past 6G. Don't believe me though: look it up for yourself. The F-16 used in that mock combat was fitted with two fuel tanks, which was a neat way of nobbling its aerodynamic performance and simultaneously limiting its G potential. But the real issue is that in most dogfights - should it get that far - the longer it goes on, the slower it gets. The F-35 is already setting a pretty high bar at 370 KIAS for its corner speed. The corner speed for an F-16 will be between 330 and 440 KIAS. An F/A-18 will be at between 270 and 340 KIAS. Sounds to me like the max potential turn rate envelope for the F-35 is very small, so as soon as it goes outside that small range, it's losing. But again, a software fix isn't going to do anything to fix the amount of energy it bleeds. That is 100% an aerodynamic issue.
    4
  19. +Pagani Zonda No worse than people like you. At least he quoted an independent US government source. You want to ban people you don't agree with? So much for freedom of speech (ya know, that pesky First Amendment thing). You might as well be living in a communist state with an attitude like that. As far as Russian trolls are concerned, yeah, there are a few around but I come across many, many times more American trolls because there are so many more Americans on the internet.
    4
  20. +joshua manero  "we dominate them from air conditioned rooms with drones." Who's we? You don't dominate anyone. The US and its allies have been in Afghanistan for 14 years with very little progress to show for it. The "tech" you worship makes no difference.
    3
  21. +Tyler Douglas "Sure its over budget and late, but its the most sophisticated fighter ever! Its designed to takes down areal threats from hundreds of miles away without even being detected." Is this a capability anyone even needs in a fighter? Very impressive to tech heads but not very useful when what the Air Force needs is a competent SEAD and CAS aircraft.
    3
  22. Yeah and I know someone whose grandmother is the chief test pilot.
    3
  23. Have you thought about that? Because the black market doesn’t sell at the same price shops do. The black market isn’t like a gun show where you go and get a nice deal. It’s run by criminals and they offset their risks much with higher prices. An AR-15 costs $1,100-1,200 in the US, where it’s legal and $35,000 in Australia, where it is illegal. That’s going to cut a lot of low grade crims out of the market.
    3
  24.  @kap1526  Just saying "Ukraine" doesn't answer anything. Now will you kindly put this into context and stop wasting my time.
    3
  25.  @seinifaith9512  Good grief. You’re an American and America suits you. I’m not an American and, having been there, I can say it’s a nice place to visit but I think my country is better. We’re not here to debate whose country is better, so spare us the old, “Go live in Afghanistan if you think it’s so great” (which is not actually what that person said). Afghans are not Americans. America failed in Afghanistan because they did not listen to the locals. Their priorities are not your priorities. As one of your own military commanders said, their first priority is their family. Their second priority is their local tribe. Their third priority is Islam and their fourth priority (a very distant one) is Afghanistan. A political or economic system doesn’t even enter into it, much less one that is being forced on them by an invader. They may not like the Taliban but at least they speak the same language, socially, culturally and literally.
    3
  26. +Holy land. Not necessarily. You will find it is almost certainly a multi-fuel engine. Most Diesels can run on kerosene. Many jets can run on Diesel. As a concession to the realities of supply in warfare, it would be insane if it were not multi-fuel. I believe the T-80 was a turbine engine.
    3
  27.  @therealdestructicus  How would you know if you don’t do a background check and how are you going to do that with a private sale? You can’t.
    3
  28. +TheReal Lifehacks "Nope pilots reported the F22's weren't in the same areas as the F35" Source please. "The F35 win to loss ratio is for all of the F-35's not just one, that's not how a win to loss ratio works for an aircraft type" I'm pretty sure you don't have the slightest idea how W/L ratio works "for an aircraft type" (whatever that means). "Pretty sure people had the same argument for the F15 minus the stealth" Source please. "And you say it isn't good because the F117 was a hanger queen, the F117 was an early Gen stealth aircraft, of course it was a hanger queen it was the first of it's kind, but I'm pretty sure people called the F15 and the F22 hanger queens at first" Source please.
    3
  29.  Windy Calyx 7  Then why is there still such a level of support for the Taliban that they have an office in Kabul and the US is now forced to negotiate with them? And don't tell me it's all under pain of death either. American assumptions about Afghans and Afghanistan have been at the core of the Coalition failure in that war. Those same assumptions about the aftermath are likely to lead to further foreign policy failures. Do a search for an article called "TALKING TO THE TALIBAN WITH THE WRONG ASSUMPTIONS: THE CONUNDRUM OF AFGHAN PEACE" (their capitals, not mine). This lays out the difficulties of dealing with an extremist, inflexible group with does not conform to American presumptions.
    3
  30.  @unknownunknown7882  Wow. Scared to even talk about the carnage guns cause!
    3
  31. Midnight club Los Angeles is dead What?
    3
  32. +That Guy Very good point. Yes: it would have been worth including.
    2
  33. +Izno Iznogoud "Actually, F-22 was initially created as multirole as F/A-22 but soon was limited to air superiority due to sky-rocketing costs" No. The F-22 came from the ATF proposal which was originally conceived around a Cold War mission scenario where the US would be attacked by Soviet bomber and attack jets like the Su-24. After the Cold War ended the mission basically no longer existed but the USAF pushed ahead with the plan, despite the questions from government budgetary circles about the need for it. The F/A-22 and the tailless FB-22 were proposals by Lockheed-Martin to build at least the same total of air frames, which was originally to have been around 750. The F/A-22 and FB-22 were both cancelled and the number of air frames was continually reduced until it stopped at 187. It was this reduction which pushed up the air frame costs on a unit basis because the R&D costs were no longer being spread across a large fleet. "BTW, F-22 isn't even great at dogfight : it had its butt kicked by Rafale first, the T-38 Talon, Typhoon, Mirage-2000, F-16 and I'm ready to bet Flanker also beats it in dogfight since Indian Su-30MKI had serious edge over Typhoons, F-15 and F-16..." Source? I know there were some German pilots who engaged it in their Typhoons a few years ago but they said afterwards that none of them expected to get that close in the first place. It depends entirely on who controls the electronic spectrum. "As nowadays, everybody knows how to defeat US' 1st gen passive stealth, well, if US still can maintain air superiority, it's only by swarming effect, but surely not on technology..." What is "swarming effect"? Air forces don't operate that way due to the possibility of fratricide and targets are usually designated by C3 types before they are in range anyway. Technology probably wouldn't be a factor as long as the C3 types remain on station.
    2
  34. +S.A. B "The F35 is not needed because it is more advanced than Russian or Chinese jets? lol: that means it is useful." Are you planning on fighting the Russians or the Chinese?
    2
  35. +joshua manero "if you think tech makes NO difference, then there is no point discussing the topic with you." No difference as in making no difference to the end result. You're not winning. It's a stalemate. This war will be almost endless. "Tech" is only useful if it can be brought to bear on your opponent and if your opponent plays the same game. They don't.
    2
  36. +ZapCannon5 There are too many missions the F-22 can't do. Besides, it has limited data sharing by comparison with the F-35. Most importantly, it costs around $65,000/hour to run and can only operate from first class facilities. The F-22 is good at what it was designed to do but in a lot of other ways, it's a bit of a millstone around the neck of defence planners.
    2
  37. +TheReal Lifehacks I think you need to start referencing your claims about this. What do you mean "already managed to win against the F16"? When? Under what circumstances?
    2
  38. Bozhe moi! What you call "outdated" seems only to relate to which version of software is being used, which is a nice way of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As I have repeatedly said, most of the critics of the F-16 combat test claim the F-35 would have done better with new software but that cannot address T/W or aerodynamic issues at all and those were the biggest areas of concern. So while the new software might clear the jet to 9G at some point in the flight envelope, that doesn't mean it will always be able to pull 9G. The test pilot's report is very honest about this and if you haven't read it in full by now - it's only five pages - you should do so before you proceed any further because all that information is still valid, except where he says it's being addressed. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb But in answer to your question, I would have to say that the only data I trust comes from the DOT&E. But if you hang around fan sites like f-16.net, you will find dingbats over there calling the DOT&E reports "biased" because they don't conform to their personal prejudices. :face palm:
    2
  39. It's a failure because it is a jet designed for the wrong war: http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Volume-28_Issue-3/F-Pietrucha.pdf http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Volume-31_Issue-3/F-Wilkinson.pdf
    2
  40. +jeffery exposito "24 to 1 kill ratio. Enough said." Simplistic nonsense for the truly gullible. You.
    2
  41. +solus48 "So all criticism is real, no matter how old it is and new software and fixes can't have possibly fixed any of these problems," Software fixes won't solve the fact that it can't do CAS. Software fixes won't solve the fact that the results of its tests were deliberately doctored. "and all reports of the aircraft doing well are doctored and for PR only."  We don't know what parts of this program are doing well and what are not. If you know anything at all about the world's armed forces, you'd know that you do what you're told. Those pilot reports never address the majority of the problems because pilots stick to what they know: flying. And most people are dumb enough to believe that's all that matters. "This premise seems illogical, when the F-16 was being developed it had far more severe problems than the F-35 ever has had. The F-15 was ridiculed as being a inefficient flying computer and having too much junk in it, "the F-4 is plenty good enough" they said." I'm calling bullshit on that. People claim this all the time but nobody has ever shown any examples of a program so flawed and protracted as the F-35. The F-16 was developed in about 6 years, the F-15 slightly longer. The F-35 has been going for 25 years and still isn't combat ready. "The reality is that jets are complicated and even more so when other expensive developing systems are tied to the program but the payoff is worth it." Now, speaking of things illogical... by that measure the worse the jet's problems , the better it is. I think you'd have a hard time selling that to the DOT&E.
    2
  42.  @kap1526  Please elaborate.
    2
  43. Will the DOT&E report do?
    2
  44. +C R I P P L I N G D E P R E S S I O N All that is entirely theoretical. Do you know how modern air combat works?
    2
  45.  @deltafrost4876  "the right to bare arms means own a fire arm" No, it means the right to walk around without covering up your arms.🤣🤣🤣
    2
  46.  @HumbleLifts  in other words, there is a gun show loophole.
    2
  47. +raceandcrime "many of these killers are stoic with poker faces, no anger, no love, no hatred, just killing!" Dylann Roof did. Most others are very disturbed people. They sure aren't the cold, calculating killers you see in movies or that the gun lobby wants you to think they are (see the FBI's Active Shooter profile).
    2
  48. Yeah, one gun show…
    2
  49.  @Nanofuture87  That’s very true. There are militant gun owners but not many militant gun control advocates.
    2
  50. "The problem with gun violence in the US is mostly the blackmarket sales of firearms that are the result of poor control of existing firearms." There are many, many problems. But in the United States, the gun culture promotes a kind of tolerance that doesn't exist anywhere else and manufacturers market things like AR-15s to the "tactical" crowd, who are often angry, disaffected young men.
    2