Comments by "That Car Guy" (@ThatCarGuy) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

The F35 does not have a better RCS then the F22. The F22 has better shapes and uses the same newer RAM coating, so the F35 could never have a better RCS. F22 RCS is 0.0001m2, the size of a bumble bee. F35 RCS is 0.005m2. The size of a golf ball as stated. There is no way possible for the F35 to have a better RCS do to it's shape compared to the F22. As once again they both use the same RAM as it evolves. The F22 cost so much because it is the best fighter in the world. We also don't sell it for that very reason unlike the F35.
12
Hope to see them, the UK, and even Australia(if the US allows them to buy older Nimitz class carriers as they are phase out for the Ford class) get nuclear carriers to push back against China and Russia. Keep it up.
12
Troll elsewhere or be blocked, F35s have not been deployed in any combat situation yet. Do a simple google search.
11
Never? Hell it took the US a month to sink their own carrier. These things are hard to sink, if the US, carry the best planes ever,and are guarded by a missile fortress. Iran couldnt even sink that fake aircraft carrier made from an oil tanker. Ships that large are just flat out hard to sink. "The U.S. Navy knows this from experience. In 2005, the Navy itself targeted the decommissioned carrier America in order to determine just how much punishment the vessel could withstand before slipping beneath the waves. "The ship was pummeled by explosions both above and below the waterline," The War Zone reporter Tyler Rogoway explained in 2018. "After nearly four weeks of these activities, the carrier was scuttled. On May 14, 2005, the vessel's stern disappeared below the waterline and the ship began its voyage to the seafloor." "America stood up to four weeks of abuse and only succumbed to the sea after demolition teams scuttled the ship on purpose once and for all, it's clear that America was built to sustain heavy damage in combat and still stay afloat." Consider also the carrier-shaped pontoon ship that Iran built as a scale target for a 2015 war game. While small and flimsy compared to a real flattop, the pontoon vessel itself endured an intensive assault. "Iran struck the faux carrier with a barrage of anti-ship missiles, then swarmed it with small boats and then landed commandos on it," Rogoway reported. Still, the fake flattop apparently remained afloat."
11
The F35 has the an/apg-81 which is the widest, best, radar/tracker at 400km maximum cue but(targets at 250km- 300km at 1 meter square)
7
The US has longer range missiles then China. All they would have to do is launch missiles off the coast/out of Chinese range, thus not losing the blue water navy advantage. China would then have to come to us, and they do not have a blue water Navy, making them extremely vulnerable. They as you stated would not be able to ship product. There would be no need to invade, and if you did invade after the costal bombardment(remember the US launched 59 tomahawks alone just at a few bases in Syria, China would face hundred to the full couple thousand we have) It would be a war of attrition, and China would lose fast since it imports most it's food from the US, Brazil,etc. They have to many people.
7
@mickeyg7219 The US solely developed the F14,15,16, and so many other planes and sells to the world... Taiwan just bought 66 of the newest block 70 F16, making it now one of the most modern airforces. Building it solely has nothing to do with it. It's a better plane overall. The F22 is faster, better maneuverability, better stealth, etc the only thing the F35 does better is see and bomb ground targets do to its DAS system. Countries not even funding the project are allowed to buy... Japan for instance. It cost double the price for a reason, we don't sell it(along with also the B2) as they are the best stealth planes on the world. If we shared the tech making the F35s and they were better, wouldn't we just sell them F22's to then guard the F35s on their bombing runs? But it doesn't work like that since the reason the US doesn't sell the F22 and B2 are because they are our best aircraft and we keep those secrets close to the chest. The RCS above prove it and can be sourced from many different sources all which will be within that same range.
7
@Zifer What do you get out of trolling and liking your own comment?
7
Adeptus Mechanicus you do know the Russians are finally going stealth. Look up the Su 57/T-50 "Please, answer a question why F-35 is perfectly visible on the Russian radars?" How so? T the F35 has never been used in combat yet... Further more which radar and from what distance? All stealth planes will be seen at a certain distance,but if youve spotted it at 200ish KM or less you will be getting bombedas the F35 has the JSM missile which has a 310km range. Another example on a radar most planes show up as 2 meter squared+ the F35 comes in at 0.1- 0.5 meters squared on a radar cross hair. Stealth works, even the Russians are finally joining in.
6
Adeptus Mechanicus Yes It was flying a few miles from where it was shot down, because the Serbs deciphered US code. Everyone knows this. Its wasnt the missile it was finding the flight path that did it in. Good on them. A b2 bomber then came and bombed them..Is a B177 an F35 no... Not even close. Has a modern day B2 bomber been shot down? No.(granted the US only has 21 of these) Like I said Stealth works. Even the Russians are finally doing it, the Chinese already have, the US has, the Indians have, Europe has, any ally of the US etc. But by all means if you are happy about shooting 1 stealth plane down, you can live in your false laurels.
6
Not much as there is a literal missile fortress surrounding it. Destroyers carry ESSMs which can be quad packed. So say 20 cells have ESSMs, thats 80 missiles, say it has 30, that's 120 per ship with 5+ destroyers and 1-2 cruisers in a fleet during wartime, and Submarines depending on armament. thats around 1000 missiles alone defending the carrier... You can launch off 10 missiles per 1 enemy missile. Now add in all the offensive weaponry its strike group is firing off and launching aircraft will take out SAM systems firing off missiles giving their position away. Also remember the US took a month to destroy it's own carrier at point blank ranges and had to end up scuttling it. "On 25 February 2005, a ceremony to salute America and her crew was held at the ship's pier in Philadelphia, attended by former crew members and various dignitaries. She departed the Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility on 19 April 2005 to conduct the aforementioned tests. The experiments lasted approximately four weeks. The Navy tested America with underwater explosives, watching from afar and through monitoring devices placed on the vessel. These explosions were designed to simulate underwater attacks. After the completion of the tests, America was sunk in a controlled scuttling on 14 May 2005 at approximately 11:30, although the sinking was not publicized until six days later. At the time, no warship of that size had ever been sunk, and effects were closely monitored; theoretically the tests would reveal data about how supercarriers respond to battle damage"
6
Im pretty sure it would be Operation Praying Mantis all over again, where in a single day, without any US soldiers on the ground, half of Irans fleet was destroyed.
5
@mickeyg7219 "As Binkov stated earlier, the F-35's RCS figure is outdated." No it's not, how hard it is to look it up yourself? "Even if the F-22 is painted with a new RAM, the materials that made up its internal structure can't be changed. " The F22 is designed better for stealth on it's design alone then the F35... At this point im starting to think you are a troll... "The material that made up the F-35's airframe is pretty much stealth from inside out" .... The F35 uses a cheaper version of the F22 materials... Please just stop already. This is one of the reason the F35 is so much cheaper then the F22. "Structurally, the F-35 drew upon lessons from the F-22; composites comprise 35% of airframe weight, with the majority being bismaleimide and composite epoxy materials. Newer production lots include some structural nanocomposites, such as carbon nanotube-reinforced epoxy." "Most countries have a small air force, so they don't really need a specialized fighter," The F22 is an air superiority fighter... It's not specialized... Im talking to a troll at this point. Every fighter has a specific role. Like the F16 also a air superiority fighter... "The F-35 has a better range than the F-22, and is less maintenance-intensive. " You literally have no idea what you are talking about. The longest range F35 can fly 1,200 nmi (2,200 km) the F22 can fly 1600+ nmi.... "It may not be better than the F-22 in air-to-air role (and even that is arguable since in BVR, they should be about equal, but the F-35 has an edge due to the capability to cue target with helmet and its IR sensors are much more powerful)." The F22 uses the AN/APG-77 radar which the F35 uses the AN/APG-81 which is literally a smaller weaker version... Though because of the DAS on the F35 the AN/APG-77 got a huge software upgrade for bombing, which as stated is the only area the F35 does better. Please stop trolling now, i literally broke down your entire comment.
5
@jafr99999 The F22 also has electronic warfare built in the An/APG-77.... Stop trolling or ill just block you. "a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) capability to the fighter's Northrop Grumman APG-77 radar, plus electronic attack, better geo-location capabilities to find enemy radars and the ability to carry eight 113kg (250lb) small diameter bombs (SDBs), for use in pairs against four ground targets." Like stated above the only area the F35 is better is bombing do to the DAS which basically gives it a live feed of the ground.
5
True the F35 has the an/apg-81 which is the widest, best, radar/tracker at 400km maximum cue but(targets at 250km- 300km at 1 meter square)
5
Adeptus Mechanicus blocked bye troll.
4
@CH-zj7ku Please troll someone else. I block trolls. But just to break down your comment. "the range covers every spot on the planet," Earth is 196.9 million mi²/316.8 million km... No missile from any nation covers all of Earth. "the current technology is unable to intercept DF ballistic missiles" The US has the fastest hypersonic missile in the world... And guess what it's a defensive missile called Ground based mid course defense. "The GBI consists of a 3-stage solid rocket boost vehicle which can place it's payload of an Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle outside the earth's atmosphere. In order to do this the missile must reach an escape velocity of more than 6.9 miles per second. This hypersonic speed is several times what a 7.62mm bullet travels leaving the muzzle of a gun. To put it another way, it reaches a speed of approximately Mach 33." Without any side using nuclear arms and only conventional so MAD doesnt happen, the US would destroy China with a simple blockade.
4
@jafr99999 No it doesn't. Only the DAS is better as the F22 doesn't have one.
4
The F/A-XX program has been going on for some time now, since 2008. Im sure this was more then a tech demonstrator but more of a prototype mock up to see how it flies.
3
The Abrams is the best tank in the world and it has proved that time and time again.
2
Russia makes junk. Literally their only modern aircraft with an AESA radar is the SU57. Even the SU35 use 1950s tech PESA radars since Russia is poor and can't afford to mass produce AESA radars on jets.
1
Same with the B2 bomber. The only 2 planes we don't sell to any other nation. Boeing is already working on 6th gen fighters and concepts are already out on their website(id link it but youtube spam and all) Its called the F/A- XX. Google Boeing F/A-XX. Boeings link should be the 5th or 6th one, wiki one works well too though.
1
@stupidburp I dont speak opinions, i speak facts. What you say maybe true, but facts are facts and Boeing has a 6th gen fighter concept already. What they do with from there, I dont know.
1
@stupidburp blocked always someone looking to argue with people. Enjoy trolling/arguing with others. All I said was "Boeing has a 6th gen fighter concept already. " Not a fucking combat ready fighter. Like I said enjoy trolling others. blocked/muted.
1
Chris P Bacon Blocked, don't deal with blatant trolls, enjoy doing so elsewhere.
1
@DailyBeatings And another troll to block, don't deal with moronic trolls.
1
@William Wykoff Don't bother and just block the troll. It would be Operation Pray Mantis all over again which sucks as it led to the shoot down of Airbus 655 and killed hundreds who werent involved.
1
@Drew Peacock Each ship has a minimum of 10. So almost 700 SM-3 in the ocean floating waiting to m\be used. Ballistic missiles also wont be used on ships to do their lack of maneuverability. Missiles moving at hypersonic speeds aren't maneuverable. This is why ballistic missiles have such large CEPs. Even Russias own patent for hypersonic missiles admits they can't maneuver. Ballistic/hypersonic missiles literally detach from their engines and in the terminal phase are unpowered. Lets do some math then I'll show you my sources. Lets using the Zircon missile for example as it's a slower moving ballistic missile. It's top speed is mach 9 converting to KM/S that's about 3km/s. Now say you wanted to move a single degree for 5 seconds at 3km/s you would be off target 15km and keep in mind if somehow the ballistic/hypersonic missile still has it's engine in the terminal phase and could power itself, it would move more then a single degree sending it way off course as it's moving to fast, this is why every nation still uses sub-sonic missile, they can maneuver. "A ballistic missile follows a ballistic trajectory to deliver one or more warheads on a predetermined target. These weapons are guided only during relatively brief periods—most of the flight is unpowered" "Russian patent number 2579409 relates to the field of rocket technology, and more specifically to hypersonic cruise missiles equipped with a hypersonic ramjet engine. The invention describes a method of application and device hypersonic cruise missile (CRPD), allowing to solve the problem of performing a combat mission to destroy ground and surface targets of such a missile. The described invention is designed to maximize the combat potential of the CMP with the scramjet. The design mode for the scramjet are high-altitude cruise conditions while maintaining the estimated cruise speed, and the need to reduce the altitude and flight speed creates difficult technical problems due to the fact that: an engine designed to perform a hypersonic mid-flight at high altitude is not able to continue to work at low-altitude trajectory sections associated with a decrease in the flight number M, hence, the rocket must approach the ground or surface target with an inactive engine; characteristics of sustainability and controllability of CRPD with inactive scramjet significantly deteriorate, loss of stability becomes possible; there is also a danger of destruction of the scramjet design due to the increase in pressure in the flow part of the engine while reducing the CMP from the march height before hitting the target."
1
@Drew Peacock "You're not going on about ESSMs any more I notice. Good because they're totally irrelevant to NEW threats that carriers will face." Please troll someone else or I will just block you. ESSMs are meant for anti-ship cruise missiles. They work as intended. "Source re a minimum of 10?" https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1046487.pdf "And SM-3 needs to be 100% effective 100% of the time, which no missile is." No they do not as you send multiple interceptors. You are correct on one thing though no missile is 100 percent effective. "What? They have to be SOMEWHAT manoeuvrable because ships at sea aren't static targets. If they weren't manoeuvrable they couldn't hit their targets." The only time BMs can maneuver is in their boost phase and part of their midcourse phase before reaching it's highest trajectory then detaches from it's booster, sends out it's warhead/mirvs all of which are unpowered and meant to hit a stationary non moving target. "Some ballistic missiles have large CEPs, but ballistic ANTI-SHIP missiles use mid-course guidance correction from satellites. The missiles use their on-board guidance in their terminal phase." There is no such thing as an anti-ship ballistic missile as proven by math, patent, etc. They move to fast as proven with math. "What? What patent? What are you talking about?" I literally posted the patent... Please troll someone else im about ready to block you. Actually read this part of my response this time or next time I will just block you. "Lets using the Zircon missile for example as it's a slower moving ballistic missile. It's top speed is mach 9 converting to KM/S that's about 3km/s. Now say you wanted to move a single degree for 5 seconds at 3km/s you would be off target 15km and keep in mind if somehow the ballistic/hypersonic missile still has it's engine in the terminal phase and could power itself, it would move more then a single degree sending it way off course as it's moving to fast, this is why every nation still uses sub-sonic missile, they can maneuver. "A ballistic missile follows a ballistic trajectory to deliver one or more warheads on a predetermined target. These weapons are guided only during relatively brief periods—most of the flight is unpowered" "Russian patent number 2579409 relates to the field of rocket technology, and more specifically to hypersonic cruise missiles equipped with a hypersonic ramjet engine. The invention describes a method of application and device hypersonic cruise missile (CRPD), allowing to solve the problem of performing a combat mission to destroy ground and surface targets of such a missile. The described invention is designed to maximize the combat potential of the CMP with the scramjet. The design mode for the scramjet are high-altitude cruise conditions while maintaining the estimated cruise speed, and the need to reduce the altitude and flight speed creates difficult technical problems due to the fact that: an engine designed to perform a hypersonic mid-flight at high altitude is not able to continue to work at low-altitude trajectory sections associated with a decrease in the flight number M, hence, the rocket must approach the ground or surface target with an inactive engine; characteristics of sustainability and controllability of CRPD with inactive scramjet significantly deteriorate, loss of stability becomes possible; there is also a danger of destruction of the scramjet design due to the increase in pressure in the flow part of the engine while reducing the CMP from the march height before hitting the target." "Ballistic/hypersonic missiles literally detach from their engines and in the terminal phase are unpowered." What are you referring to? HGVs? I swear it's like im speaking another language to you. I don't know how to make it any more simple then requoting myself. "Ballistic/hypersonic missiles literally detach from their engines and in the terminal phase are unpowered." Wiki is a terrible source to use, as anyone can type whatever they want. Hence why I use military sources, patents, and math. But even though you seem to like wiki so much they even state ballistic missiles do no move. "A ballistic missile follows a ballistic trajectory to deliver one or more warheads on a predetermined target. These weapons are guided only during relatively brief periods—most of the flight is unpowered."
1
@jafr99999 "F-35 which is baked in permanently." Stopped reading there, you have no clue what you are talking about. You really think they don't have to re-coat RAM... It lasts forever. Blocked enjoy being a dumb troll elsewhere.
1
@jafr99999 F-35 which is baked in permanently." Stopped reading there, you have no clue what you are talking about. You really think they don't have to re-coat RAM... It lasts forever. Blocked enjoy being a dumb troll elsewhere. This is the issue with all stealth planes, their RAM coating degrades. The f35s extremely fast. "At extremely high altitudes, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps’ versions of the F-35 jet can only fly at supersonic speeds for short bursts of time before there is a risk of structural damage and loss of stealth capability, a problem that may make it impossible for the Navy’s F-35C to conduct supersonic intercepts. The Defense Department does not intend to field a fix for the problem, which influences not only the F-35’s airframe and the low-observable coating that keeps it stealthy"
1
Karl Marx did you mean to respond to someone else? My statement is about the F35....
1
Nowhere near the F22. The F22 is the best fighter aircraft ever designed by far. Even the trolls really wont try to troll you on that. Now is the F22 perfect? No, it doesn't even have an IRST, but when aircraft like the Su35 still use 1950's tech PESA radars, you are king of the Sky for a long time to come.
1
Sadly there is no need for the F22s right now since they cost so much. Look at Russia, their first modern jet with an AESA radar is the Su57... The Su35 is still using a 1950s tech PESA radar. our 4th gen fighters and F35 is more then enough to handle our adversaries.
1