Comments by "" (@obsidianjane4413) on "Ed Nash's Military Matters" channel.

  1. You can't really invade someone who invades you first. Its more like a special military visit.
    235
  2. That's what I thought too.
    6
  3. Odd that they didn't think that they could have swapped out the cannon tray for one with cameras and convert them into high-altitude photo recon aircraft. Or would that be too ironic?
    6
  4.  ReddoFreddo  Not if a big chunk of it is suddenly gone. It will make the Russians have to choose where to prioritize power distribution. Hard to convince the people you are winning when they are faced with blackouts.
    5
  5. The world's largest military museum with live fire exhibits.
    5
  6. It was done years (decades even) ago, to give NATO countries operating ex-WarPact aircraft commonality and enhanced capabilities.
    5
  7. Irony being that North Korea is no slouch about exporting weapons (when they can get away with it) either.
    4
  8. They used the most powerful Italy had available.
    3
  9.  @평양시1  2 years ago Russia's "special military operation" not invasion was supposed to take 2 weeks. And Ukraine wouldn't lose just like Chenya didn't? Nothing in your post is true BTW. No rubles for you.
    3
  10.  @평양시1  Your delusions do not make a compelling argument.
    3
  11. Its a well worn path by other ex-WarPact countries. But there usually wasn't quite the urgency as today.
    2
  12. Beating plowshares in to swords? Or just those Afghan Air Farce contracts were already inked and the MIC wants to get their lobby money's worth?
    2
  13. Am I the only one who when looking at pictures of the plane, can't tell if its been crashed or not?
    2
  14. When in doubt "Blame America"? There is really no correlation between US policy and the UK decision to sell the Nene. Nor was there in the balance of trade angle. It really was just abject stupidity. The British government made many such in the late forties and fifties especially when it came to defense.
    2
  15.  @mattheweagles5123  No this was developed by the HARM mfg. and whatever integrator they used for the NATO mods. It would not be a "field hack".
    2
  16. Like DDT, just because you can, doesn't mean you should use AI art.
    2
  17. And more specifically OIL...
    1
  18.  @aritakalo8011  The US (nor China for that matter) would bother with spy balloons (that is soooo 1950s). But they do routinely bust other people's national airspace with recon aircraft and drones. So yeah, they definitely do not want to encourage that norm. It would get very expensive.
    1
  19. Take your meds and stop watching Newsmax etc.
    1
  20. Balloon really can't "maintain their position", they are blown around by the jet stream. The US was one of the biggest "offenders" of sending balloons and aircraft over other countries uninvited, so we don't really have much to whine about. China has denied that it is theirs and why would they bother when they have plenty of EOS assets. More likely to be an aktual aliun ufo than a "Chinese spy balloon".
    1
  21.  @DrivermanO  But alt-right.
    1
  22. The B-54 (and even the B-50) is an excellent example of the wasteful beauricratic inertia of the MIC coming off of WWII and into the Cold War. Sadly it wasn't the only or last one.
    1
  23. The contemporary VPA's uniforms don't look very appropriate for a tropical climate.
    1
  24. I guess the drivers are just SOL... At least they aren't bedsprings.
    1
  25. They are all hoping for an aliun anal probe.
    1
  26. The B-24 was just ugly. It was a great aircraft that did yeoman service, but it wasn't as "pretty" as sleek models so became less popular post-war.
    1
  27. It would have looked good, if it were a passenger aircraft or that huge fuselage were full of gunners or otherwise had a useful purpose.
    1
  28.  @평양시1  Hey look its a Nork bot.
    1
  29.  @lnpsych1  You quoted Trump. lol
    1
  30.  @평양시1  Are you sure you are getting enough vitamins with your rice ration? You don't get much nutrition from rats.
    1
  31. Still waiting for this in War Thunder...
    1
  32. @8:07 "fewer suitable for naval conversion than the Spitfire." Goering: "Hold my bratwurst and watch this Me 109 I gave Raeder"
    1
  33. The integration was developed for NATO countries who used MiG-29s, Germany, Poland, etc. not specific for Ukraine. What's not known, or disclosed, yet, is if Ukranian MiGs have been plumbed for them, or if these are the donated MiGs from Poland etc. I don't think any other ex-USSR aircraft got this treatment.
    1
  34.  @iatsd  Because the AGM-88 was developed and built by a US company and would need US gov. munitions export control approval for not just the missiles, but also the information about how it works etc. And IIRC the US was a partner in its dev and it is almost surely paying for either the upgrade and/or new aircraft here.
    1
  35. No no and no.
    1
  36. Dessault Execs in 1988: "Oh no, we suck again!"
    1
  37. Weight. Primary culprit is that bulbous rounded fuselage, designed mostly to aesthetically match the radial engine fairings. Its at least twice as large as necessary (see Bf. 110) and was mostly empty space.
    1
  38. Yeah, this isn't just a "plug in an adapter" kind of mod.
    1
  39. You're an idiot. But at least you are idiot with a bad case of Dunning Krugers so you don't even know it.
    1
  40. @1:20 ... or... Goering.
    1
  41. The transfer of aircraft didn't get approved. Of course. And even if they did, it would take them so long to do the paper work that the war will be over by the time they got there.
    1