Comments by "Be Kind To Birds" (@BeKindToBirds) on "Curious Droid" channel.

  1.  @aletheia6672  I have been telling people this for YEARS. Air combat has been defined by murder drones for decades already! So few people seem to understand that manned aircraft are drone launch platforms far more than dogfighters and that the addition of a human controller at the launch platform is an advantage that isn't going anywhere soon. Which is also why drones have only proliferated to loitering air to ground roles and are only now beginning to be used as sacrificial wingmen.
    114
  2. 41 MW on the gas generator alone is incredible.
    82
  3. Translation: we got paid to cancel this project
    15
  4.  @randomuser5443  forget about that, ...it's your phone. The camera and sensors and transmitter in your phone.
    15
  5.  @kyle857  ...you really need to pick up a history book
    14
  6. Really amazing we live in a time we can hear it from the side of the Serbian's
    13
  7.  @ivanlagrossemoule  how is it propaganda, it is an accurate accounting of the coordination of multiple systems to identify and shoot down the aircraft. Which is now what ALL air defense systems do electronically by design. Seriously... How do you find it in any way 'propaganda' when it is a bare accounting. What about it is intentionally misleading? What about the account is meant to push a political narrative. I have a feeling your accusation of propaganda is projection and bias. The aircraft was shot down and now we know how the commander did it. It is FACTUAL
    9
  8.  @jaxastro3072  The "scary drones" aren't actually that scary. Even old air defense is actually quite competent against them. Modern tanks have very often been upgraded to include detection and hard kill systems. Lasers and already existing anti air platforms with rapid fire and radar are actually brutally effective against the "swarm". Many of these systems are literally just modern iterations of the exact same air defense weapons built in ww2 like the bofors. The problem with swarm drones is that their only advantage is slow movement and numbers, that makes them absolute lunch for so many existing anti aircraft weapons. Their small size means they need many to hit to kill or they have to be even bigger and more cumbersome. The solution is speed and payload and then you are back to missiles. For infantry the swarm drone is terrifying, much less so for aircraft and tanks as they just require only slightly better anti missile systems to compensate. The US hasn't developed them for that reason, it took very little to adapt things like the Oerlikons and CIWS to the challenge of downing slow moving small targets. Better radar and fire tracking. Same defense against hypersonics. Eventually I'm sure we'll see weapons systems designed to move lots of sub munitions quickly to a target that can then disperse and attack from angles but that threat is also just less significant than sci fi would lead you to believe. That kind of thing would have to be built to counter the one specific system it's attacking and you are back to square one. Which is how much do you have where and how well trained are the operators. The US mastery of these things has cost a lot but no one but chinese and Russians can deny that we have what it takes. And our future proofing with lasers and rail guns is far, far, advanced of our competitors. Our supercarrier fleet is disgusting in how much we outclass our rival nations. That's why things have been pretty boring while the whole world panics over drones, hypersonic missiles, swarms.. they aren't really that much of a game changer as much as an evolution of what already existed. One big fast missile vs many small slow ones. Not really that dramatic of a leap. Loitering air cover is the place it's most changed air combat and no one even cares about that anymore because it's already old news.
    9
  9.  @MyKharli  It is a nice thought but there is a point where no amount of reason will prevent a conflict. And there is a point where no amount of money or effort will stop two people from hating each other.
    9
  10. Yeah this just shows he was worrying about us when he had cancer. ...generous man.
    9
  11.  SubtoPolecat324  Wonder why, fascist
    8
  12. Drones are the future but consider that modern aircraft are more like drone launching platforms than anything else. Missiles are kamikaze drones.
    7
  13.  SubtoPolecat324  Brand new account spreading political crap. Hello bot
    7
  14.  SubtoPolecat324  Youtube is a private company and no one is falling for the garbage you guys peddle.
    7
  15.  @TrashwareArt  That is a present iteration of one aspect of political and economic war, the future of war is the same as it always was and has been. You act as though espionage has never existed. You don't seem to realize that physical conflict, physical dominance, has no substitute. No internet, no cyberwar. Physical infrastructure. No opposition, no opposing propaganda. Physical dominance is always the foundation of all warfare and however every aspect becomes mutated the basic principles of force do not change. The "big dogs" have less advantage in a non physical conflict. It is entirely the inverse of what you've said.
    6
  16.  SubtoPolecat324  when every right wing bot talks the same and everyone can clearly see how long it takes after an event for right wingers to decide what to all say ...it makes it less effective to call your opponents sheep.
    6
  17.  @ivanlagrossemoule  but that is exactly what they did, "tweak" existing systems and coordinate them with high level tactics. And if you shot down the most feared stealth aircraft of the world's most powerful superpower ... wouldn't you use it for propaganda too? Morale is extremely important, the fact so many neighboring countries were forever at the mercy of invincible American stealth aircraft and they shot one down by fighting fiercely is something to be rightly proud of. I am not saying there were not many other instances of propaganda or that the serbians are somehow more trustworthy than any other nation but can't you consider that they accomplished something great that forever after changed the perception and use of stealth and that just maybe it is YOUR viewpoint that is more propagandized. After all, the us had a lot of reputation from all the way back in the SR71 AND U2 days. They had a lot of reason to downplay the effort. And the serbians have the wreckage as proof. Consider your perspective may be the one more propagandized here and look at the stark facts. The aircraft was shot down and the serbians did it with the tech they had available.
    4
  18.  @barrycooper9451  That is a completely separate discussion. "Protecting" is not what super carriers do regardless. They are offensive, not defensive, their purpose is to project power. But yes, it is a pity. Aircraft carriers are not why our country is failing it's people. Not even close to the reasons. They make far, far, more money for our country and create much more trade opportunities than they cost by several orders of magnitude. You are on youtube, maybe using an iphone. Maybe you even have a Facebook? Maybe you have a disney or netflix subscription. I am certain you must use google. THOSE are costing the US people a lot more liberty than our navy. And probably your country too.
    4
  19.  @mrnickbig1  You are embarrassing yourself man. You are wrong and belligerent and it's really showing in this comment chain
    3
  20. Many of the very old planes of the US fleet can be summed up with this: The design fills a fundamental requirement, it takes less effort to maintain the old airframe and update it than to completely start from scratch and begin again. If we were to throw them ALL away, A-10, B-52, etc.. and try to build an aircraft that does the same thing they would end up looking almost exactly the same. They would have their systems in almost the exact same places. Eventually time will force them to be replaced but without a large change in technology they really will be nearly identical. Clearly stealth and remote operation or independent operation isn't yet mature enough to dictate the cost. Lots of things evolve into crabs for a reason. It's a good design.
    3
  21. Flew on one of these around the world. Great plane, always broke down in all the most beautiful tropical layovers.
    3
  22. Or there could be another rea$on....
    3
  23. POOWAHHH!! Paul, you and I would have been great mates as ten year olds, thank you so much for putting in the work to share your interest in all these topics so people like me can learn more or scratch the itch for someone else to appreciate the engineering and history of some of these amazing machines. I hope you know that my children will be watching your videos when their old enough. I intend to indoctrinate them into the realm of engineering and human limits and your passion for it is more than infectious. Which may seem odd because you are a relatively dispassionate narrator in style of dictation but the way you let the facts speak for themselves, the editing you do, and the speed in which you delve into each new subject and sus it out makes it absolutely clear you have a great deal of passion for these subjects. Thank you so very much. I truly will be grateful for my children to have half your passion for engineering in their time.
    3
  24.  @jimurrata6785  and smart tv
    3
  25. The odds are a lot higher when you don't cut corners, overwork employees, lie to regulators, and don't care of the costs in environmental damage, destroying a town, or lowering the standards of pay and treatment for an entire industry in the process! And to the PR bots that will inevitably be here from space x very soon, hello! Your argument that because it was unsafe and difficult in the beginning it is okay that it's unsafe and difficult now is trash. If Toyota started making cars without air bags and seatbelts today they would be a bad company cutting corners. When people die on a submarine because of cutting corners and believing in billionaire exceptionalism it's because the CEO was a blind and selfish person. And when space x cuts corners and makes the mistakes the industry fixed over half a century ago because of your ceo's cult of billionaire exceptionalism worship it's because space x is a bad company that cuts corners. That's why the landing pad threw chunks of rocks into endangered animal habitats! Until space x evicts musk from all interaction with the company and financial interest it is going to carry the cancer forever and it's going to waste all the effort by an extremely dedicated and experienced team of engineers. And don't send the pr line about Elon being an engineer okay, we know it's a lie. And to Paul, I do apologize for having this conversation in your comments rather than focusing on the information presented rather than this argument. And to any readers, I wish you could see my screen here in the first minutes of the video being able to be watched and the comments full of users with name name random numbers formats all astroturfing about space x
    3
  26. And a great working bird too. Dragon Lady
    3
  27.  @jerrymarshall2095  You think that there are only 50 people in the Chinese government? I guess I shouldn't have expected more from someone ranting about modern china because it's achievements a thousand years ago threatened him.
    2
  28.  @mrnickbig1  the common denominator here is you dude, take my advice and take a break
    2
  29.  @mrnickbig1  Mate, your just not seeing it and several people have tried. How does that not make you realize your perspective is wrong here. Being argumentative and insulting doesn't do anything to physics and all you are doing is seeming immature. We all know how the engines work, you are the only one seeing an argument and being rude here. Grow up, be less emotionally attached to your point and then you can see the opposing argument. You are blind because all you care about is being right when your core concept is tangential to the point of the people you are arguing with. Here is a summary: you are being rude and argumentative and are missing the reasons why your absolute statement is flawed.
    2
  30. Is this a marketing campaign or something
    2
  31.  @CheapSushi  To PEOPLE. Not to divisions and battalions and squadrons. They are scary only to people in small enough numbers to not have anti air emplacement. A truck with a laser is even a company level asset. That's why no military in the world is really scared of them or fielding them in great numbers, because they effectively are less effective than land mines to larger military units
    2
  32. The corruption that destroyed NASA and canceled the X-33 only got more pervasive.
    2
  33. Something you neglected to mention was how this aircraft has been optimized logistically. Maintaining this aircraft and operating it in the field is drastically easier than other aircraft. And, it is truly better to work on as a mechanic, it is much more ergonomic than older aircraft. This means more sorties.
    2
  34. We don't really know if that's a great achievement or an insult really though. It isn't like we have any other species to compare it with.
    1
  35.  @jerrymarshall2095  There is no "we" here dude. You are a three year old propaganda account and I am not associated with you in any way. There is no way you, the human with the script, are old enough to understand any of this. How is St Petersburg this time of year anyway?
    1
  36. But they are building more of them
    1
  37. Wait to you hear what they used to do with those engines.
    1
  38.  @horstebreedow8608  you didn't counter any of his points.
    1
  39. Sure it is bot or account with the default name and number username gently suggesting that space x is safe outside of nasa control. I don't feel astroturfed at all!
    1
  40.  @harryvlogs7833  it is only safe on those missions that have a higher authority of greater experience in control. That is one way you can tell the problem is with space x management, not the engineers or workers
    1
  41.  @karlbrundage7472  politics is exactly why the bird existed the form it did in the first place mate. Politics was why the challenger flew when it shouldn't have as well.
    1
  42. You have no idea how things work at all. This is like saying the army should have had a tank in the road to stop a guy who robbed a bank 50 miles away and 5 minutes ago.
    1
  43.  @Laotzu.Goldbug  church
    1
  44.  @mat5267  Or the developments are so diverse and the world so noisy that you can't easily see the developments like when looking back at a specific period of history.
    1
  45.  @puma.will.pounce7590  Malaysia is a huge county with an extremely powerful airforce made of F-18's and Su-30's and the US airforce trains with the royal Malaysian air force frequently. The Su-30sm and the F-18 can both fly over twice as fast as a 777 and also MUCH higher. The Royal Malaysian Air Force stated they didn't send out interceptors because the aircraft didn't present a threat. Interceptors are to stop things from coming to you, not away from you. If this plane had flown into the air defense region of any nation while off course it would have been intercepted. So besides underestimating the size and strength of the Royal Malaysian Air Force (one of the best equipped and trained in the world, one of the largest also especially considering the wealth of the country) you have also underestimated the capabilities of the Su-30 and F-18 (two of the most modern and powerful jet fighters in the world) quite drastically. It wasn't intercepted because aircraft weren't sent because it wasn't coming toward them and that's what jet fighters are for.
    1
  46. Corruption
    1
  47. GE is now working on an "open fan" design as a furthering of the high bypass turbofan. Though afaik only computer models exist or have been released. And it is also interesting to see some major differences between how the US and UK support (or supported in the past) the development for these companies. It is oft criticized as fat cat and pork belly contracting (for good reason) but you cannot deny that the US does a lot to prevent the companies from existential risk when developing new technologies. I'm sure the events of this very video were used by US lobbies to argue for those protected development contracts. Even today with the new vertical lift program the US foots the majority of the bill for Bell and for Sikorsky-Boeing to ensure that in 5 years Bell will be able to put their best design into practice and Sikorsky-Boeing will have all the resources they need to perfect their designs. The language used in these contracts are quite telling "Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator" contracts, prior to the contract to compete to win the contract to build. I am certain that the near failure of RR are contributing to this kind of nurturing contract here in the states. Perhaps even more so why they persist in the modern era than WW2 and the Apollo program! Thank you for the video and presentation.
    1
  48. NASA should have absolutely chosen the F-1b for the SLS.
    1
  49. I would love to see this engine continue to be developed through to the modern electric valves/camless with a modern turbine. Or rather, an engine like it.
    1
  50. 1960 is BEFORE the dates in the source you posted. 10-20 years before...
    1