Youtube comments of Be Kind To Birds (@BeKindToBirds).

  1. 255
  2. 114
  3. 82
  4. 71
  5. 65
  6. 63
  7. 60
  8. 59
  9. 57
  10. 51
  11. 48
  12. 42
  13. 39
  14. 39
  15. 35
  16. 33
  17. 33
  18. 30
  19. 29
  20. 29
  21. 28
  22. 27
  23. 26
  24. 25
  25. 25
  26. 24
  27. 23
  28. 23
  29. 23
  30. 23
  31. 21
  32. 20
  33. 20
  34. 20
  35. 20
  36. 19
  37. 19
  38. 18
  39. 17
  40. 17
  41. 17
  42.  @808bigisland  The suppressors are 3D printed and far advanced of any other kind of suppressor. Traditional suppressors have already been proven in mass US military adoption so going cheaper and more durable is a major step which is why the Army is going 100% suppressed. Also because of the payouts to folks like me who got issued bad ear protection, further adding to the cost savings. Additionally, it's the US, not a smaller country. Throwing away the can after a few years is something the US can afford easily, you would be shocked at some of the other things we do. Money burning lol. But this is actually designed from the start to mitigate these issues. This isn't try #1, the Army has been at this a very very long time. They don't change ammo lightly at all but this is a very long time coming. The optic is much much more bold, dramatic, and risky but that also is proven. I can't speak on its comparison to the round you mentioned, I haven't shot it or this. I know that the Army Futures command is absolutely on the cutting edge though so if this performs slightly worse than another round at penetrating green wood then I am positive the round has loads of advantage elsewhere to more than make up for it. Accuracy and range no doubt, the lighter high velocity is always the choice taken va slightly heavier and slower. I do find it very interesting how we have moved back to those cartridges that were initially turned down for the intermediate ones though. Physics is clearly showing the bias here in terms of similarities. It is a saying in the US military: "Nothing ten years and then billion dollars can't fix."
    17
  43. 17
  44. 16
  45. 16
  46. 16
  47. 16
  48. 16
  49. 15
  50. 15
  51. 15
  52. 15
  53. 15
  54. 15
  55.  @floydvaughn836  Not really actually. Not only because of different local food sources and national interests but also different colonial food sources, preservation methods, and voyage lengths. Salt meat and hard tack is a bit of the common denominator, true. But when you are a swedish or russian sailor you have cold to preserve things yeah? And then there are different methods of getting the nutrition themselves. Russian sailors working in california were said to eat mainly beef tallow for example. Something that the american and british sailors seemed to think was pure lunacy. Scandinavian sailors had more fish, sailors of south america had a lot more fruit and a lot less beef as well. It's actually something that is a bit difficult to research in English but you can find some information in other languages. Irish sailors adopted use of the potato long before the english thought it worthy of a ships company, wine was a staple on french ships and extremely unlikely on a British ship. Rice was an absolute luxury reserved for captains in american sailing ships but it was the common food in chinese ships. And many nations didn't have nearly the need for long voyage as england did and so their rations didn't need to be preserved the same way. Or they did, like the french, but used different methods. The french used vinegar and boiling to keep water but the british didn't seem to adopt this as regularly. Ships beer was a better option for british sailors but for the french it would be wine. For English sailors fresh beef was a luxury but for american sailors in california it was so common it was nearly all they ate for months at a time, the flour for ships bread being the extreme luxury at times. So there is actually a very great deal of variety and difference in diet among the different nations and their ships throughout history as well as variety based on where the ship was going and for how long.
    14
  56. 14
  57. 14
  58. 14
  59. 14
  60. 13
  61. 13
  62. 13
  63. 13
  64. 13
  65. 13
  66. 13
  67. 12
  68.  @bertrandbarbe245  No, I'm not. Believe it or not the F-16 can still be absolutely deadly to things like the J-20 and su-57. As a platform it is still highly competitive and US radar and missiles are more than a match for the job. But the game isn't "good enough to maintain a decent kill/death ratio should war break out" it is "utterly dominate the battle space." We don't want want wildcats, we want corsairs. We don't want close ratios or even ratios like korea and we won't even settle for very favorable ones like on vietnam. The us standard of air dominance is to be a grossly uneven fight. Even though it is like .4 losses per 1000 sorties in vietnam vs 2 per 1000 in korea, and 9.7 per 1000 on WW2 everyone know that the Vietnamese fought a tough air battle. We want zero losses, we want something very far from parity. So we can't ever be content with "good enough to come out on top" And to that end, our own military and media machines work hard to drum up financial backing for the continued costs by dramatizing. "Our enemies are catching up!" Has been shouted since WW2. But the factual order of battle says otherwise. No other nation has a super carrier. Only britain, former ruler of the seas in past centuries, has carriers that are projected to finally reach that 100000 ton displacement figure by the end of their decades long lives. We have 11 of them. No other nation has a stealth bomber, we have 21 and are already replacing them. Russia and china are struggling to adopt low observable technology, either failing outright or being unable to produce them in significant numbers. (Or both, or being simply inferior) And we have had like 180 interceptor F-22's on service for decades and our busy outfitting the rest of our air fleet with low observables, we've built nearly 700 F-35's so far. We are in a whole other realm of capability and our main rival is maintaining the budget to stay on top and at the cutting edge. To that end, it is very important to always be deadly serious and overly dramatic about the "catching up" of our enemies.
    12
  69. 12
  70. 12
  71. 12
  72. 11
  73. 11
  74. 11
  75. 11
  76. 11
  77. 11
  78. 11
  79. 10
  80. 10
  81. 10
  82. 10
  83. 10
  84. 10
  85. 10
  86. 10
  87. 10
  88. 9
  89. 9
  90. 9
  91. 9
  92.  @ricardokowalski1579  Not even remotely comparable. Battleships role was supplanted the A-10's has NOT BEEN. To put it bluntly, battleships were replaced (with the possible exception of inexpensive heavy shore bombardment) and as yet there hasn't been a fast mover that can actually replace the mission of the A-10, only suggestions that pretend it's role doesn't exist! Until drones are able to fit in the CAS niche as armoured gunships the A-10 is irreplaceable. Until helicopters are able to hit as hard and be hit as hard (which is likely to be even later than an armoured UAV gunship) it won't be replaced. What you and every other commenter seems to fail to understand is exactly what role in combat you are replacing by deleting the A-10. You cannot replace it without replacing it, shouldn't that be obvious? You can't just say "ground troops don't need that kind of fire support" and take it out of the inventory! Something that can loiter in the area, provide heavy fire support, and take enemy fire, and provide mission critical intelligence to the same degree just does not exist! 130 gunships, Apaches, Tanks, IFV's, Artillery, and UAV's all have differing areas of usefulness and different areas of exclusion And the A-10 fits in the middle of that venn diagram. No fast mover can come close to replacing the A-10 and helicopters have to get tougher and beefier before they can finally supplant it. (Which is on the way but not here yet.) And when it does get replaced ...it will have straight wings, a big cannon, and high bypass jets mounted above the fuselage ...see why the A-10 is sticking around? You can't replace a specialized piece of equipment without it ending up looking a lot like that piece of equipment. Even if they start from absolute scratch to replace it ...it will still look almost exactly the same! It will still have redundant hydraulics, it will still have engines designed to sit on either side ...it will have almost all the exact same features that we already have! You can't replace a bee without making a hummingbird and I really don't think you understand how the mission, the requirements, and the physics dictate that the A-10 is going to be around for a long time.
    9
  93. 9
  94. 9
  95. 9
  96.  @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
  97. 9
  98. 9
  99. 9
  100. 9
  101. 9
  102. 9
  103. 9
  104. 9
  105. 9
  106. 8
  107. 8
  108. 8
  109. 8
  110. 8
  111. 8
  112. 8
  113. 8
  114. 8
  115. 8
  116. 8
  117. 8
  118. 8
  119. 8
  120. 8
  121. 8
  122. 7
  123. 7
  124. 7
  125. 7
  126. 7
  127. 7
  128. 7
  129. 7
  130. 7
  131. 7
  132. 7
  133. 7
  134. 7
  135. 7
  136. 7
  137. 7
  138. 7
  139. 7
  140. 7
  141. 7
  142. 7
  143. 7
  144. 7
  145. 7
  146. 7
  147. 6
  148. 6
  149. 6
  150. 6
  151. 6
  152. 6
  153. 6
  154. 6
  155. 6
  156. 6
  157. 6
  158. 6
  159. 6
  160. 6
  161. 6
  162. 6
  163. 6
  164. 6
  165. 6
  166. 6
  167. 6
  168. 6
  169. 6
  170. 6
  171. 6
  172. 6
  173. 6
  174. 6
  175. 6
  176. 5
  177. 5
  178. 5
  179. 5
  180. 5
  181. 5
  182. 5
  183. 5
  184. 5
  185. 5
  186. 5
  187. 5
  188. 5
  189. 5
  190. 5
  191. 5
  192. 5
  193. 5
  194. 5
  195. 5
  196. 5
  197. 5
  198. 5
  199. 5
  200. 5
  201. 5
  202. 4
  203. 4
  204. 4
  205. 4
  206. 4
  207. 4
  208. 4
  209. 4
  210. 4
  211. 4
  212. 4
  213. 4
  214. 4
  215. 4
  216. 4
  217. 4
  218. 4
  219. 4
  220. 4
  221. 4
  222. 4
  223. 4
  224. 4
  225. 4
  226. 4
  227. 4
  228. 4
  229. 4
  230. 4
  231. 4
  232. 4
  233. 4
  234. 4
  235. 4
  236. 4
  237. 4
  238. 4
  239. 4
  240. 4
  241.  @jb76489  And you, living in the 80's and 90's, clearly did not. Automated turrets have decades of history behind them, the west, including the US has considered them seriously more than once. The new US tank has a strong contender for automated turrets. The only real reason they were not adopted many years ago (rightfully) is because the west believes having 4 crewmen makes maintaining and operating a tank much better. For things like track repair, standing guard, etc. Automated turrets do not have mechanical drawbacks, even the round swapping was solved decades ago and has decades of reliable service. Striker turret is unmanned. Crows systems have been unmanned. Literally dozens of platforms have been running unmanned turrets for a very long time. On ships as well. All the cockerill turrets and guns... Seriously there are so many you are ignorant of. It's 2021 dude. And your idea that it "was tried and failed" is not only correct, it oozes video game mentality. "This one has three stars so it's best forever" Welcome to the future, unmanned turrets have been here a long time and they are more likely to the norm than manned turrets in the future. In fact, more than one of the Army's Abrams design replacement concepts is virtually identical in layout to the Armata. Because it's a good and very modern design. And there shouldn't be so much resistance to accepting that fact. Again, this isn't a video game and this isn't a propaganda battle. You sound like someone from the 70's saying unmanned aircraft will never work, unaware they had been flying for well over a decade ago at that point and trying only to convince yourself the match of the future wasn't inexorable.
    4
  242.  @jb76489  A single driver being unable to drive doesn't detract from the tank design. The armata is the first unmanned turret on a tank, this is due to technologies and cost. As you can see with the expensive development of the armata, many technologies had to come to fruition to make the idea work and it comes with additional cost. It hasn't been done before because of said cost and the cost of building a new tank. Like I said, now many other nations are developing their own in similar design. Unmanned turrets require autoloaders and have smaller crews, I am not sure what your point there was. The citation is from publications as well as General Bassett, the man in charge of the program to get us a new tank. Honestly what is your argument, that unmanned turrets don't exist? that they are not the future? Unfortunately for your argument, they do and they are. No amount of you posting is going to change the fact that this is what is happening in tank development in six (probably more) countries. No amount of your indignation and insisting that they hadn't been done in the past detracts from the advantages given by removing the crew from the most vulnerable part of an armoured vehicle. What exactly is your point here and what exactly is your plan I wonder? Because it sounds to me like you are very insecure and NEED to believe the Russian T-14 is inferior and stupid to feel safe. You really don't my friend, the Abrams is an absolute monster and we are not in danger. This is not a video game and you are not good to see russian land vehicles here, again, reality is very different from fiction and fantasy. The Russians have developed the most advanced tank in the world, incorporating many new technologies and lessons learned. They have prompted the west to advance their own designs into the modern era and the foundations for those new designs is already layed down. I know at the minimum the US already has planned exactly how long the Abrams will be upgraded for while the new designs mature. So either you are ignorant on the subject of armored vehicles, you lack confidence that your own nation can build a new competent main battle tank, or you have some other fear or insecurity that requires you to lie to yourself about factual reality. I suspect all three. But with new programs like the FVL and the continuing rollout of an all stealth air force, and our overwhelming naval domination I honestly wonder why you aren't more confident in your own country. We are still the strongest nation in the history of the earth, you can afford to admit to yourself that you don't really know much about this subject and that the Russians have built a good new tank.
    4
  243. 4
  244. 4
  245. 4
  246. 4
  247. 4
  248. 4
  249. 4
  250. 4
  251. 4
  252. 4
  253. 4
  254. 4
  255. 3
  256. 3
  257. 3
  258. 3
  259. 3
  260. 3
  261. 3
  262. 3
  263. 3
  264. 3
  265. 3
  266. 3
  267. 3
  268. 3
  269. 3
  270. 3
  271. 3
  272. 3
  273. 3
  274. 3
  275. 3
  276. 3
  277. 3
  278. 3
  279. 3
  280. 3
  281. 3
  282. 3
  283. 3
  284. 3
  285.  @Deathmastertx first, IT IS THE CHEAPEST AIRCRAFT TO FLY AND MAINTAIN BY FAR. Second and more, it has a high bypass ratio making it much cooler, it's engines are positioned to minimize infared signature. It is literally easier to hit a hot fast moved with an infared shoulder missile than it is to hit a nice cool and calm hog. And the largest mechanized army in history was taken down, twenty years passed and seven of these beasts is all that fell? All you stupid kids probably think the Sherman sucked too. Guess what, planes are going to get shot down. How many missiles are going to get to the front lines to shoot them down tactical recliner operator? The A-10 isn't designed to win in a stupid video game, this isn't a playground. This is a weapon of war and we will build these beasts and they will win the war. Just like they have been proven to over fifty years. Are you fifty? Some may die but they will take a lot more with them, they are tough, they are deadly, they are going to be bastards to any nation who ever tries to win the sky from the United States of America. We flew first, and we will be flying last. Don't buy it? Well maybe you need to look at the last 200 something years of American history. Maybe you need to take a second look at the history of air warfare. Maybe you need to stop playing idiotic video games where you unlock the best armour and are in God mode. These planes will win. They will keep winning when they are hurt. They will keep winning long after other planes fail. You don't respect them? You will should you ever face them. Stupid children arguing about the use of a rock in war. Hold one in your fist and open your eyes. Fear God and pray you don't ever learn why ease of manufacture, armour, and loiter time matter. Pray your missile kills the hog because the avenger damn sure will kill you. Moronic children. You better hope some moron in the White House cancels them. You better hope we forget how to build them. You better hope your idiotic words convince those who have seen them at war that their eyes were lying to them. Keep trying comrade, if ignorance and lies fail you'll have to rely on the infared sensor spotting the 6:1 between the tail feathers while nice juicy flares tested in decades of war tempt it like the devil. Trying to convince someone who was on missions what aircraft we fly and why ...God forgive these fools.
    3
  286. 3
  287. 3
  288. 3
  289. 3
  290. 3
  291. 3
  292. 3
  293. 3
  294. 3
  295. 3
  296. 3
  297. 3
  298. 3
  299. 3
  300. 3
  301. 3
  302. 3
  303. 3
  304. 3
  305. 3
  306. 3
  307. 3
  308. 3
  309. 3
  310. 3
  311. 3
  312. 3
  313.  @junkookbts1273  Dude the Russians aren't claiming it hovers and detect an F-35 from space lol. Anyone can see inside the damn thing and see it has three seats side by side. It's using things that are on family cars and have been on tank systems for decades. It doesn't have any new technology or anything about it that is unbelievable. It's got a diesel engine and a remote gun turret. Both of those things have existed a long time. Cameras and radar and countermeasures have existed for a long time lol. The difference is that it's a clean slate design built like that from the very start, that's what makes it advanced. It's a good design and there's nothing wrong with it and nothing mysterious about it. I honestly don't know why it is so important for you and others to not recognize a cleverly designed and advanced tank when you see it unless it's just insecurity. I can tell you that you don't have to be afraid of it, its reality, not fantasy. This isn't a video game where it automatically beats everything else because it has clever design features lol. Like relax man. Lots of tanks use cameras and radar and countermeasures. But they are retrofitted, this has them built around it. It's a good idea and other countries will start to follow the same thing over time. It's like when thermal vision came out, the first tanks had them retrofitted, now we have tanks built around the thermal optics and independent commander sights. That's all this is man, just an advancement in tank design. It seriously is okay to accept it. I can tell you literally aren't even able to think here because you said I called it the best tank in the world when I spent an extra amount of time making it clear that best and most advanced are NOT the same thing. And what is wrong with what the Russians have said about it? ...there are no similar vehicles in the world. No one has made a tank like it before lol. That doesn't mean it is going to beat every other tank dude, it means that no one has made a separate armoured crew compartment and remote operated turret like this. It's not meaning it's a new brilliant russian idea, it means it's a good idea and hasn't been done before. Honestly man I really just think you have a lot of emotional reason to argue and don't know hardly anything about the tank or about armored vehicles. At a certain point you have to respect good ideas, if you can't respect them then it means you are invested in not respecting them for some reason. So I'm guessing it's because you are afraid that if the Russians came up with a good, advanced design for a tank built around modern technology that it means we are going to all die. We are fine dude. Nothing is going to happen. We aren't at war and you don't need to be in constant fear of attack.
    3
  314. 3
  315. 3
  316. 3
  317. 3
  318. 3
  319. 3
  320. 3
  321. 3
  322. 3
  323. 3
  324. 3
  325. 3
  326. 3
  327. 3
  328. 3
  329. 3
  330. 3
  331. 3
  332. 3
  333. 3
  334. 3
  335. 3
  336. 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
  337. 3
  338. 3
  339. 2
  340. 2
  341. 2
  342. 2
  343. 2
  344. 2
  345. 2
  346. 2
  347. 2
  348. 2
  349. 2
  350. 2
  351. 2
  352. 2
  353. 2
  354. 2
  355. 2
  356. 2
  357. 2
  358. 2
  359. 2
  360. 2
  361. 2
  362. 2
  363. 2
  364. 2
  365. 2
  366.  @johnmoore8599  They have continually done those kinds of missions already is the point. They have done fire missions and seal deployments for decades, even in syria they have had more experience than in Ukraine Ukraine is not a submarine war, submarines are not engaging except as surveillance vessels which is also a typical mission that won't give them any new information. Literally everything you mentioned is a mission that the submarine fleet has already been doing and barely has any link to the invasion of ukraine. It is poor logic to claim the submarine force will be able to innovate based on this land conflict. The only ways they can affect the conflict are all old news. Combined arms warfare is advancing rapidly in Ukraine, naval warfare is not at anywhere near the same rate or way. Even the difference between a deployed force in the black sea now and deployed forces 10 years ago is only the difference between practice and training. Being forced to adhere to standards can be eye opening for ragged militaries and navies but there are almost no chances for russia to innovate. Naval blockades aren't very different from how they were centuries ago even. And this all still applies to the surface fleets mainly and even less to the submarine force. Any spywork, seal work, surveillance, or fire mission, is all old news and been naval tactics and doctrine for literally decades now. Ukraine doesn't have a peer force to test the theories against, you can't really see how well you perform in combat if the only difference in your day go day is "now the danger and targets aren't simulated" And history simply does not support the idea that a less used aspect of the military is going to innovate or advance after the conflict. There will undoubtedly be major changes to the ground forces of Russia but I will eat my hat if in ten years the Russian navy isn't almost identical to now. If not in ships than in intent and design. It isn't like Russia is going to suddenly decide they don't need belgorod or suddenly decide to not make their new little cruiser. The navy has to do its job to contribute to victory, so the conflict can make them a more competent force. But they have zero reason to innovate, zero requirements that their subsurface navy hasn't already had decades of experience in and is already designed for. Logically it just does not track in any way to assume that a more dangerous submarine force (for russia) will be the 10 year result of this conflict. Ukraine's navy absolutely. Russia's ground forces absolutely. But russia's subsurface navy is "not broke" and so there isn't any reason to "fix" it (aside from the trends they already have identified and have been working to for decades. Those shortcomings may accelerate the trends by necessity but much the navy was always further ahead than the land force in how far along it has been in that endless modernization slog.) Ukraine isn't a shipping nation, there aren't any naval areas to protect from attack, there is no reason to deploy naval special units or fire missions when you own a land border and an artillery army. It just does not track whatsoever to predict a more dangerous submarine force. There is no reason to believe the Russian navy is going to make any big changes at all from the last decade(s)
    2
  367. 2
  368. 2
  369. 2
  370.  @marywebb9127  body positivity is about your self worth, not your health. It was Co opted by unhealthy people. It was supposed to help people out of depression and help people get healthy and be happy as themselves but it became what it is now thanks to a few extremists who seriously believe obesity isn't real. However, the stuff going on in these videos is directly what came before now this evolved into the magazine and photo shop era which moved into the "positivity and diversity" (which was about not seeing the same exact stick model in every single magazine.) And then that degraded into "obesity isn't bad" (what you are talking about) But it didn't stop there my friend. Now a days it is NOT accepted to thing obesity is "ok" and much much more diverse people are in modeling. So now we have men and women of a lot more normal shapes and the supermodel died off for the most part. To be replaced as sex symbols by the e girl And now culture is shifting to be critical of plastic people lying for money. So it's really all a part of a ongoing battle between decency, kindness, instinct and people marketing sex and lust. As the marketing people try to sell the next thing and make it into an extreme the culture mellows it out. People who literally believed obesity was a good thing aren't what is going on anymore. You are years behind the cultural change there. Now it's about real people vs plastic people. The real ones around you vs the plastic ones rich people sell. Real personalities and fake ones are as much a part of it as appearance. But again, this is all just back and forth as marketers try to use base instincts to sell things. What is in this video is an early stage and we are very much so at a late stage now
    2
  371. 2
  372. 2
  373. 2
  374. 2
  375. 2
  376. 2
  377. 2
  378. 2
  379. 2
  380. 2
  381. 2
  382. 2
  383. 2
  384. 2
  385. 2
  386. 2
  387. 2
  388. 2
  389. 2
  390. 2
  391. 2
  392. 2
  393. 2
  394. 2
  395. 2
  396. 2
  397. 2
  398. 2
  399. 2
  400. 2
  401. 2
  402. 2
  403. 2
  404. 2
  405. 2
  406. 2
  407. 2
  408. 2
  409. 2
  410. 2
  411. 2
  412. 2
  413. 2
  414. 2
  415. 2
  416. 2
  417. 2
  418. 2
  419. 2
  420. 2
  421. 2
  422. 2
  423. 2
  424. 2
  425. 2
  426. 2
  427. 2
  428. 2
  429. 2
  430. 2
  431. 2
  432. 2
  433. 2
  434. 2
  435. 2
  436. 2
  437. 2
  438. 2
  439. 2
  440. 2
  441.  @fulcrum2951  Recon aircraft need to loiter as long as possible, CAS aircraft need to loiter as long as the engagement lasts, they are both important for either aircraft and that is why each has its different design considerations. Tell me what takes longer to get to your troops in contact, a Helicopter gunship that has to leave soon and cat take much fire, a tank or IFV that has to travel through terrain, or an aircraft? And idk where you are getting that I am saying the A-10 is a reconnaissance aircraft but A-10 pilots are very good at talking to ground troops, reading the terrain, and acting as an excellent fire support asset. Again, another thing I didn't say was that strike missions can't support troops. The difference is a strike mission you see the plane for a very short time, it drops it's munitions at the pre determined place and then leaves. The CAS role as exemplified by the A-10, the 130 gunship variants, and Helicopter gunships is where the aircraft arrives and stays on station like a tank or IFV could, providing continuous fire support over time and continuing the engagement independently of spotters . Each has their job and level of enemy ground fire it can take, you can't fly a 130 in the same airspace as an interceptor but its very safe from the ground, it has the best selection of artillery and munitions, the best loiter time, and the best fire control. A helicopter gunship is the most maneuverable and surgical but can take the least amount of ground fire, has the fewest munitions and often doesn't have great loiter time. The A-10 occupies the same role in a fight that an IFV or infantry support tank can, while it is in the air it can occupy the sky in much the same way as the gunships but it has the advantage of being the toughest aircraft in the sky. It has a lot of hurt, it is a constant presence and threat in a way that the 130 can't always be and is second only to a helicopter. It isn't a replacement for armour and it isn't a replacement for a strike aircraft but neither of them can really replace it either. That's the point, the US has such overwhelming air power that we have a bruiser in the sky that makes the sky a lot more dangerous for enemy ground troops than any other nation's aircraft with the sole exception of the extremely similar russian CAS aircraft the su-25. But tougher and better designed from the start to be tougher and a more serious combatant. Which oddly enough doesn't seem to have the same zeitgeist following it as the A-10 and gee I wonder why. But I guess you know more than anyone actually involved with combat operations or aircraft? I guess you should tell people to stop buying super Tucanos and that the air force wasted their money when they just finished the wing refurbishing of all the A-10s. Honestly I really don't know it's it's gamers or just russian propaganda having seeped into this generation over time or whatever but I am honestly constantly shocked by how abundantly ignorant of anything the people who deride the A-10 are. It is a beast in its job, it was very well designed and very well built and we still need them. That's why they are still here and are going to be here for a long time still.
    2
  442.  @fulcrum2951  I have the version based on my experience in Afghanistan dude. My first hand experience I got from literally having all of these aircraft I've mentioned flying around me (well not the tucano) including ones I haven't mentioned like kiowas, little birds, and the gunships blackhawks. That version meshes a lot better with the dod definition than yours does lmao. My version is based on factual and practical use of these aircraft in operations, discussions with pilots, mission planners, and the ongoing development of these aircraft as well. This is what I did, ...that's why I'm here. Literally dozens of countries have similar versions I have mentioned the Super Tucano multiple times now just to start but I'll leave you to guess why two of the most bellicose and well armed nations in the world who are long time rivals are the ones with such specialized aircraft in their arsenals today while other nations who have reduced their militaries and don't take action in foreign countries have retired them and endlessly speculate about when they will develop replacement. (Cough, UK cough) Honestly dude I'm just wasting my time here. You clearly are unreachable and I'm not going to sit around all night while you pretend I have to prove something to you. The fact is that the A-10 is a good aircraft that does its job well and it is going to be around a while. Nothing you say or believe has any effect on ... anything. So stay mad at the A-10 it's going to be around for a long time so you'll have to learn to live with that frustration and occasionally people like me who actually know what they are talking about who all universally defend it. And to answer the question in the video, I want an aircraft that can take a hit and bring the pilot home and be field repaired to return to action ...yes. why he thought that was a gotcha I have absolutely no idea except that he is disconnected from reality. Being able to repair equipment in the field and get it back into action is extremely important in war. (Which is about logistics more than video games might portray) If you want single use aircraft ...use a missile.
    2
  443.  @fulcrum2951  I'm not in congress and believe it or not, not everyone who makes an analysis of the role of a cannon in an anti tank mission using decades old conflicts and video games has something to contribute about the overall effectiveness of the aircraft best used and most used over the decades for blowing up enemy infantry and light vehicles. Thank you for revealing that you can flip flop your arguments about speed and loiter time to support the tucano, admit it's not going to be effective in non-aysymetric war. That wraps this all up nicely with a bow of your mercurial ignorance. And then topping it with the cherry of cost which is just beautiful considering it is by far the cheapest to maintain and produce of the combat jets. And yes I know what coin is, I was taught a lot about it before I went to Afghanistan and actually believe it or not, might have had something to do with actually countering an insurgency. ...with the A-10 ...and Reapers, and fast movers, and gunships, and helicopters, and artillery, and mechanized support. The absolute desperation of you goal shifting and struggling for some gotcha or point of authority to prop up your will to keep arguing is just sad dude. Like, tanks and ballistic missile submarines aren't exactly the cheese in counterterrorism either but this wasn't an discussion of their effectiveness in asymmetric conflicts but their effectiveness overall. Just stick to gaming and youtube man, it's as close as you're getting to reality. Good night
    2
  444. 2
  445. 2
  446. 2
  447. 2
  448. 2
  449. 2
  450. 2
  451. 2
  452. 2
  453. 2
  454. 2
  455. 2
  456. 2
  457. 2
  458. 2
  459. 2
  460. 2
  461. 2
  462. 2
  463. 2
  464. 2
  465. 2
  466. 2
  467. 2
  468. 2
  469. 2
  470. 2
  471. 2
  472. 2
  473. 2
  474. 2
  475. 2
  476. 2
  477. 2
  478. 2
  479. 2
  480. 2
  481.  @steveperreira5850  I used to be an operational intelligent analyst and now my career is in aerospace. Whatever articles you think I read, I didn't. The dominance of machines in the air has existed for decades already, they are extremely intelligent, streamlined, maneuverable, waste absolutely nothing, can do things no manned aircraft can dream of, and are cheap and plentiful. They are called missiles. And it is a lot easier to make a long range missile than replace human operated missile launch platforms. Which is why air combat has moved beyond the horizon. The US and all developed nations are always and constantly running exercises with each other, we "face off" literally every day and there are constant experiments and many, many, experts addressing the task. Your perception is not only decades old, it is hollywood produced. Don't worry, things are very well under control and very well understood. To address your concern of aircraft being killed on the ground: detection and air defenses have been between airfields and then enemy since military aircraft have existed. Armoured hangars are not uncommon. I'm sorry but your perspective on this is akin to someone saying in 1300 that the time of the foot soldier is over and clockwork cannon and crossbow will defend any wall and can kill a solder before his like can reach his enemy. Very late to the game and quite a bit off mate. Missiles and detection is how it works, drone wingmen are functional and being pursued because they can die first for their "squadron leader" and not lose a valuable pilot, not because they can pull more G's.
    2
  482. 2
  483. 2
  484. 2
  485. 2
  486. 2
  487. 2
  488. 2
  489. 2
  490. 2
  491. 2
  492. 2
  493. 2
  494. 2
  495. 2
  496. 2
  497. 2
  498. 2
  499. 2
  500. 2
  501. 2
  502. 2
  503. 2
  504. 2
  505. 2
  506. 2
  507. 2
  508. 2
  509. 2
  510. 2
  511. 2
  512. 2
  513. 2
  514. 2
  515. 2
  516. 2
  517. 2
  518. 2
  519. 2
  520. 2
  521. 2
  522. 2
  523. 2
  524. 2
  525. 2
  526. 2
  527. 2
  528. 2
  529. 2
  530. 2
  531. 2
  532. 2
  533. 2
  534. 2
  535. 2
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542.  @The_PaleHorseman  How do you think a tail rotor gets power mr twenty years ago? Do you think that you are the only person in the whole world that can learn anything or do you just think the air force and navy just write down lists of complaints and do the opposite of them? This was specifically designed with the experiences do people like you in mind and is more stealthy and is the transport helicopter. It's the newest best design and your only complaint is to whine and call it stupid with absolutely zero chance you will ever put your hands on it or have listened to a single engineer explain how they are improving the maintenance cycle over previous generations. It is literally a requirement on the FVL. And how do you think tail rotors get their power guy? Do you have some stunning revelation about why turning the tail rotor 90° is somehow going to be harder to maintain when you REMOVE a transfer case from the design? In your mind it is stupid because it is a ... simpler linkage?? "tHe dESiGN iZ sTuPid bEcAuSe oSpRey" ... It's literally the fastest, most maneuverable, and stealthiest helicopter yet built, you haven't done anything with it's engineering or maintenance and you have no clue what you are talking about other than old complaints about a completely different aircraft that is also going to be replaced. If there is anything you can actually refute me on other than your resume kindly do so or shut up. Or better yet learn about what you are talking about and tell the Russian and chinese propaganda accounts all over every youtube video about american equipment exactly where they can shove their idiotic propaganda. They don't need former maintenance crew of different aircraft to quote and you don't need to be running your mouth.
    1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. I am surprised at you for this video, it really seems like you have completely missed the reason for it being held up reverently and for its continued use. It isn't because the A-10 can wipe out tank formations, if isn't because it doesn't need to worry about interceptors, those are both just ...strange myths. It is because if you are in combat and in contact with enemy formations there is virtually nothing better than having a human being flying a tank on your side. It can absolutely win a battle for you and is a force multiplier unlike any other aircraft for troops on the ground. Fast movers, drones, bombers, and helicopters are all limited in different ways that the A-10 is not. The A-10 can stay in a hot area for a very long time and has a lot of hurt on it that the pilots are very good at placing where they are needed. Really disappointed that you are here playing a video game talking about warfare ideas of decades ago which haven't manifested. It is held up and protected now because if you are on the ground there is virtually nothing you can possibly have on your side that is more of an asset. Artillery won't see something you didn't, a tank cannot fly, a fighter cannot hang around, a UAV doesn't carry a cannon, and a helicopter just isn't as tough and hard to take down. Everyone seems to misunderstand that the A-10 is a CAS aircraft, not a strike aircraft It's entire point of love is because it supports ground troops better than virtually any other single machine or form of support. Perhaps you will understand when you think of it when examining what close air support means and where it overlaps and does not overlap with strike missions, fire support missions or any other form of infantry support. A strike mission, an infantry support vehicle, a tank, artillery support, and every other form of fire support that a troop formation can rely on for support all pale in comparison when compared to the effectiveness of the A-10. Because there are combat situations that are too hot for other kinds of gunships. (130, 64) I am honestly just shocked at how much you miss this point. It is beloved and cherished because of its ability to provide fire support in situations no other aircraft or vehicle can. Not because people are expecting it to take out formations of tanks.... But because if you are being shot at by an enemy there are few situations where you are better supported and have a better chance of completely dominating the battle than if you have a low and slow flying tank on your side that can hunt out and kill who is shooting you and isn't afraid of getting rough. Honestly as one of those soldiers who vehemently defends the A-10 I am surprised how utterly you missed the point we make! And by playing a video game shooting vehicles on an airfield no less ... The gun still works pretty well against virtually anything enemy infantry have! And as an infantry support vehicle is can do things no other form of fire support can! You just flat out are not well informed about why ground troops love the A-10 or what it's even used for in the last decades and it's shocking to hear you perpetuate these myths. If you had titled this video "why the A-10's mission has changed from strike to CAS and it's reduced effectiveness in its original role" I would have had no issue with anything you said but because you framed it the way you did I just flat out have to disagree with your conclusions about the aircraft itself and hope that when you do more digging into those subjects listed at the end of the video you start to learn why it is an unbelievably effective and beloved aircraft. Because this video is like if you were to explain that mopeds are a poor form of transportation by comparing them in efficiency to trains and cars over long distances! That's not whey people use them mate!
    1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756.  @ChucksSEADnDEAD  300mm is a typo and you know it nerd. There are videos of laser guided munitions blowing up the building next to it too and you know it. You don't care about factual reality, all you care about is moving the goalposts to be correct. The cannon is incredibly precise and accurate and any person who has ever asked for fire support from an A-10 can attest it is much more precise and accurate than almost any other kind of air support with few exceptions. Whether you like it or not it is at the more trusted and accurate end and none of your idiotic arguments and jumping around the point will change that. How many targeting missions have you participated in ever. How many CAS missions. You are utterly wrong and ignorant and doing everything you can to remain so. Your entire argument is based on bs. A single foolish argument from USA today vs the entire weight and experience of every single person involved with A-10 missions. It's "failure rate" is 3 thousands of a percent genius, it tops the list at 10 soldiers killed, and 35 IN TWENTY YEARS because it has been used so incredibly much Now compare it with a drone lmao. Or a helicopter. Or hell, compare it's rate of accuracy and precision to other fire support like artillery and tanks. Or maybe compare it to the platforms that don't have to publish their numbers like the AC-130. Go back in time and compare it to WW2 aircraft. Literally find me any CAS aircraft in the world with a record of 10 friendly fire kills in 140,000+ close air support missions in places like afghanistan and iraq It's rate is obscenely low, it's one of the most precise and accurate CAS platforms ever built. That's why i Seriously, sit down and stop to think for five seconds. 45 mistakes out of 140,000 missions. And you are arguing it's not the best of the best.
    1
  757. 1
  758.  @ChucksSEADnDEAD  You are absolutely perfect for congress the way you have convinced yourself that your switch from "the A-10" isn't trusted or accurate to "a rotary cannon is less precise than a single cannon" And your complete lack of knowing or experience also makes you suited, congress is the one who keeps trying to shut down the program while the military fights to keep it. I don't know how old you are, I am assuming video game age based on your moronic analysis and narcissistic refusal to see reality. I'm sure you are younger than me all in all. So two out of three days you are perfect for congress. You can consider me with the "nostalgic" people in the military who actually have had anything at all to do with the A-10, ever spoken to a pilot, called down its fire, or heard it's gun in a warzone. Like the others who actually rely on it to kill the enemy and stay alive, I and the people who support it, the people actually related to it, understand it a lot better than you and you are nothing less than consistently a clown as you have made your multiple failing and I'll informed arguments. You mis quote numbers and statistics, you don't understand what all new wings for every bird means for an aircraft, you move goalposts to support your argument, and you haven't got a single frame of reference on how accurate its support fire is, how the avenger compares to any other weapon of its type or class (I'd like to see an F-16 do a gun run lmao) and you fundamentally are wrong in every aspect. "It's an outdated form of CAS" what a bloody joke you are. Have you ever had anything to do with a reaper either? Who do you think you are spouting off your mouth about things you know nothing about? It's not going anywhere soon and you are exactly the same kind of idiot that has tried to cancel it a dozen times now. Join congress so we can see your face and everyone else who knows can laugh at your words. I am inviting you, stay on the side of the Russian propaganda accounts and the armchair ignorant legislators who never served a day. Don't change your opinion. Don't look up all the videos of soldiers on the ground cheering when an A-10 is overhead, don't look at how hard it is to kill with all it's sorties all flying low and slow. Keep arguing apples to oranges and your 3 thousandths of a percent as proof. You have that luxury, you are a gamer. You don't have to rely on it, just the people out there fighting your wars. I've had to rely on it, and I have absolute trust in its design being the best of its type, without rival.
    1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782. 1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. 1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800. 1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. 1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. 1
  865. 1
  866.  @Pg4141laika  It isn't bad planning, there are so many airfields and highways that can be used in the us you would have to destroy the entire country to stop aircraft from taking off. And I don't mean the developed areas, I mean literally thousands and thousands of miles of roads in every single state and thousands of city airports. In order to destroy that network of highways and interstates and every single municipal airfield, AND do it for long enough to overcome the millions of construction workers who every single year create and repair and repave thousands of miles of that same network you would need more "precision" ordinance than the entirety of the world has. And carpet bombers outnumbering the fleets of ww2. Russia does not have enough aircraft or missiles to do anything remotely like that. It is not poor planning, it has enabled us to build a fleet of lighter and much more sophisticated aircraft with composites far ahead of other nations. We don't need to have heavy metal airframes to take the beating except on specific aircraft that are suited to it. And you completely forget that all of our aircraft will be in the air if an attack should come. The idea of hiding aircraft all over in forests came about before satellites could find them anywhere, before you could rely on communications and early warning systems to coordinate your aircraft. It is an outdated idea even for russia at this point. Which is why your aircraft are at military airfields and not out in the woods! It is outdated like the idea that your fighter interceptors would also be carrying heavy bomb loads, another key aspect of the ruggedized design. It makes them heavy and in the air, you don't want to be heavy. This is why the west built a small amount of light interceptors to easily defend against those same heavy fighters. But you are just arguing for russian superiority ineffectually all over. We know what kind of account you have and what you are being paid for. I love the Su-27 family of aircraft, but you are just living in a fantasy world of 40 years ago.
    1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. 1
  871. 1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. 1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903. 1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911. 1
  912. 1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. 1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. 1
  940. FYI there is a huge amount of russian propaganda accounts in here being all friendly and talking about how carriers are obsolete because of missiles: the Russian party propaganda line which favors, ...who do you think. The people in the West who build carriers are smarter than youtube gives credit and aircraft and aircraft carriers are not ever going away. Because believe it or not the main thing airplanes carry is missiles. And in fact, carriers are pretty well equipped to fight missiles. And missiles have actually existed a long time. Getting smarter and faster doesn't mean the end of the ship as we know it or the complete removal of capital ships. Like the Russian propaganda is pushing in every single place. (Along with the obsoleteness of the A-10.) both easily verified propaganda focuses of russian intelligence at the internet research agency in st Petersburg. Watch the hours they post and learn to recognize the type of accounts and the blocks of dates they were made around. Again, don't take my word for it, take your government's intelligence agencies word Listen to the people who advise your government and not the opinions of magazines and military variety networks. Or rather, temper the latter with the former more. But yes, Russia will build more carriers. I doubt they will go through with their new carrier/expansion of the Kuznetsov at this point but who knows. They do seem interested in continuing to work on her. I think a lot more likely is for them to start building smaller amphibious carriers like the French thunder ship or what have you. They are moving to a lighter and smaller naval aircraft and moved their attack helicopter as well. I think smaller carrier's are the more likely future but Russian Tsars always build as they go mad so there really is no telling until unless you are watching the pallets of steel or whatever.
    1
  941. 1
  942. 1
  943. 1
  944. 1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. 1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957. 1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. 1
  963. 1
  964. 1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1
  968. 1
  969. 1
  970. 1
  971. 1
  972. 1
  973. 1
  974. 1
  975. 1
  976. 1
  977. 1
  978. 1
  979. 1
  980. 1
  981. 1
  982. 1
  983. 1
  984. 1
  985. 1
  986. 1
  987. 1
  988. 1
  989. 1
  990. 1
  991. 1
  992. 1
  993. 1
  994. 1
  995. 1
  996. 1
  997. 1
  998. 1
  999. 1
  1000. 1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. 1
  1004. 1
  1005. 1
  1006. 1
  1007. 1
  1008. 1
  1009. 1
  1010. 1
  1011. 1
  1012. 1
  1013. 1
  1014. 1
  1015. 1
  1016. 1
  1017. 1
  1018. 1
  1019. 1
  1020. 1
  1021. 1
  1022.  Shoegaze Based Genre  Hard disagree, helicopter crashes in air taxis are extremely common. Given his flight path, the weather conditions, and the aircraft he was using it is not unlikely. It's like saying something was assassinated while trekking solo across antarctica, it is just much less likely than the reality of aviation. Like when the fast and furious guy died while in a fast speeding car, it's just risky behavior. Not on kobe but on the pilot, the pilot was absolutely negligent. If you want to think the pilot was purposefully killing himself to take down kobe then ok but the facts all point to the pilot. How you can convince a man to take stupid risks and cut corners regularly and risk his life just for the chance to do it with the right cargo (which he carried many times before) is just up to you I guess. Seriously, watch some aviation channels from pilots. AVweb is a great example and has a fantastic video about the crash with kobe bryant. I know that it's difficult to take these things and people want answers. I know that aviation is a complex subject that is difficult to get into but if you know anything about air taxis you can easily see the pilot was just flat out cutting corners and taking unnecessary risks. If I die during a crash where the driver is speeding and whipping around corners then I really don't think people are going to cry murder. Seriously, all evidence points to pilot being a fool and there is absolutely zero indication whatsoever of any outside influence, the helicopter worked perfectly, it crashed exactly as you would expect from someone flying loose. Please, look into it from an aviation side. Go past the articles that don't give details and examine the actual flight, pilot, and helicopter. Pilot error and unnecessary risk taking is why kobe and his daughter died. Not that anyone should be after the pilot because after all, he paid the ultimate price for his actions too. Someone dies doing flips on a diet bike down the mountain I'm not calling murder and looking at how the helicopter was flown and what went on there is every single piece of the puzzle pointing straight at the pilot being a fool and taking risks he didn't need to at all. If you want to believe the man decided that day to kill himself (and not any of the other times he flew kobe) then go ahead.
    1
  1023. 1
  1024.  @Pincer88   You mentioned the su-22 which is in service in those countries, that is why I mention them when telling you how silly your conclusion is in your fictional scenario. And Russian radar getting a look is, like I said, greatly exaggerated in terms of effect. It's not "invisible, then visible" it's "visible from 100km and then visible from 110km. Russians aren't going to be transmitting radar data from those old platforms worth anything because they wouldn't ever see the F-35. It's like you are saying "don't send your undercover agent to take out the blind criminal inside the police station." What you are talking about is reason to not do air interceptions in Russian airspace against russian interceptors in the path of russian air defense radar to intercept them on a strike mission is exactly what the F-35 is designed to excell at. Would you also not deploy your tanks and soldiers to the border because it would be "unwise" to get them muddy and wet requiring more maintenance? This is what they are for. And I am guessing that in your limited armchair knowledge you missed the fact that there are already several F-35's in europe's QRA. The reason the netherlands did not was because they only had two in test squadron for some time. Now they have operating F-35's, russia would be very unwise to send it's crews to their deaths long before they reach a hope of hitting their targets. Not exposing your aircraft to enemy radar is a reason to not cowboy an F-22 around and test their air defense. Not a reason that you know more than the several countries that operate the F-35. I assure you, the Russians have already had plenty of good looks at the aircraft going back a lot longer than your fictionalized strike scenario, that is why they are breaking their backs trying to upgrade their capabilities. I promise you, if enemy aircraft are on a strike mission to europe the F-35 will be at the front line. Your image of some secret weapon you hide under a blanket and only deploy when absolutely necessary is unbelievably outdated and completely ignorant of operations. The F-35 is not a secret weapon, it is a front line fighter. It is intended to replace the F-16 everywhere ...it was designed to serve for decades. Literally 60 years. It is designed to be effective in times of war, designed to be effective long after the first one was lost to enemy action. It is not the old sports car in the shed carefully kept so it will grow in value, it is a weapon of war and has been used as such already. Your lack of operational experience and distance from the reality of aviation and air combat has lead you to conflate "don't showboat the F-22 needlessly over the baltic" with "you must hide stealth aircraft even from attacking enemy bombers to protect their delicate cross sections." The F-35 is the perfect aircraft to be in the air to intercept and direct the aircraft you mentioned. It would see them long before others, it can coordinate and send targeting information to other interceptors and air defense systems, it can monitor the air space for enemy interceptors from outside the range of enemy air defense radar. You could not be more wrong. It isn't the Dutch that are being unwise, you know for a fact you are making assumptions based on 4th tier information fed to you and don't know what you are talking about. You made an assumption and it was incorrect.
    1
  1025.  @Pincer88  I didn't say elint didn't exist or that it was worthless, those are words in my mouth. I said it isn't as important as you are making it out to be, evidenced by the fact you have been proven wrong and F-22's and F-35's are literally doing exactly what you say they should not. And you can't blame me for your typo, I discuss things with what people say, not what I wish or think they are saying. Your entire mindset is based on a false fear, what you advise against has already happened and will continue to happen. And it won't be the end of stealth cloaking field disabled like you portray it, it will be a fractional increase of effectiveness in some weather conditions with some types of early warning and tracking systems. Which is worth killing their bomber fleet for. These are WarPlanes, not decorations. That doesn't mean I don't understand electronic intelligence's use on the battlefield. I think that considering I used to collect, produce, and disseminate, electronic intelligence information I have a pretty solid handle on what it can and can't do. And what it CANNOT and is not doing is being so scary as to ground every stealth aircraft and act as stealth repellant for every cold war era plane who switches on a radar set. What it is not capable of is stopping us using the hundreds of aircraft we built for the next 50+ years of intercepts and border protection. As evidenced by the number of aircraft F-22's and F-35's which are currently in use today, ignoring your advice.
    1
  1026. 1
  1027. 1
  1028. 1
  1029. 1
  1030.  @lamwen03  Quoting a man who wrote history to suit his own narrative as he talks about something he saw from the lowest level is not going to get you anywhere. From the very beginning of time the role of infantry was understood and it wasn't a sudden realization or 'forgetfullness' as to why soldiers weren't on the ground at the start. Or maybe we forgot again in the gulf, and in syria, and in iraq, and in ww2, and in the war of 1812... He was a narrative builder and trying to re write history and his quote is garbage. Every single person knew we might have to have "boots on the ground" but they tried to avoid it as much as possible by simply supporting the koreans. The policy was to provide support for the Koreans on the ground. The army and navy and air force didn't suddenly go "oh crap we forgot about infantry." The quote is absolute dog dung and the narrative the man was trying to sell was garbage. "Ever since the last war, americans have been trying to keep as little investment of mass soldier deployments as possible while still supporting our geopolitical goals and our allies, often we are forced to invest significant manpower regardless" ...Is a far more accurate quote. Or maybe he forgot how ww2 started. And how ww1 started. And *every single war in human history. The man was trying to sound smart and criticize the American public for not wanting to deploy troops just 5 years after the end of the worst war in human history. He was an idiot who made his money re writing history to suit the narratives he wanted to push. But maybe you don't remember how every single war since for every single nation on earth has started with air raids and naval action before the mass commitment of men. Or maybe the entire world just keeps "forgetting" about infantry 🙄 Ask yourself if it's more likely that all the allied militaries just forgot that infantry are needed (as they have been since the dawn of mankind) or that a mass troop deployment five years after a war would possibly be something to avoid? Is it more likely that America "forgot" five years after deploying troops to every corner of the world what the role of troops are or is it more likely that *every single conflict abroad since the invention of aircraft and ships has begun with the investment of ships and airplanes before the investment of men. Garbage quote trying to build a narrative from a man who was a hack. No one forgot anything and his whining about the US not commiting troops at the first sign of trouble is stupid. Our goal was to support the troops already there and it didn't take five years for American to forget the principles of warfare that has held true for thousands of years. Everyone knew troops were needed, were were trying to avoid using our troops and instead provide support to the Korean troops who were already there fighting for their own homeland. It's accurate to the man who said it, that doesn't make it accurate to life AT ALL. ... Because we had troops on the ground from the start. We invested more men than any other country and that decision was made one month and two days after the conflict began. And oh yeah, we didn't want to commit more ground troops to fight the soviets and possibly restart a global conflict. And oh yeah we couldn't deploy troops because we weren't prepared to do so in korea, our strategic planning hadn't accounted for such. And oh right we couldn't because we had to physically fight for a place to land them! Garbage quote that sounds pretty if you don't know about the korean war. Makes you feel fluffy about infantry but it is vapid nonsense on examination. Or maybe, just maybe ...he was bitter that more troops didn't get there earlier. Maybe just maybe, he was bitter the US didn't want to commit a land army to fight the soviets just 5 years after the end of ww2. Or maybe, we forgot in the five years... Which is why we had land armies and troops stationed around the world at that very time holding territory including in Korea But sure, believe one guy who famously wrote history to suit his narratives and not the contemporary and public accounts from the actual decision makers. Again, you have to be 100% ignorant of the korean war to think this man has a point about forgetting. Hyperbolic crap covered by flowery language is all the quote is.
    1
  1031. 1
  1032. 1
  1033. 1
  1034. 1
  1035. 1
  1036. 1
  1037. 1
  1038. 1
  1039. 1
  1040. 1
  1041. 1
  1042. 1
  1043. 1
  1044. 1
  1045. 1
  1046. 1
  1047. 1
  1048. 1
  1049. 1
  1050. 1
  1051. 1
  1052. 1
  1053. 1
  1054. 1
  1055. 1
  1056. 1
  1057. 1
  1058. 1
  1059. 1
  1060. 1
  1061. 1
  1062. 1
  1063. 1
  1064. 1
  1065. 1
  1066. 1
  1067. 1
  1068. 1
  1069. 1
  1070. 1
  1071. 1
  1072. 1
  1073. 1
  1074. 1
  1075. 1
  1076. 1
  1077. 1
  1078. 1
  1079. 1
  1080. 1
  1081. 1
  1082. 1
  1083. 1
  1084. 1
  1085. 1
  1086. 1
  1087. 1
  1088. 1
  1089. 1
  1090. 1
  1091. 1
  1092. 1
  1093. 1
  1094. 1
  1095. 1
  1096. 1
  1097. 1
  1098. 1
  1099. 1
  1100. 1
  1101. 1
  1102. 1
  1103. 1
  1104. 1
  1105. 1
  1106. 1
  1107. 1
  1108. 1
  1109. 1
  1110. 1
  1111. 1
  1112. 1
  1113. 1
  1114. 1
  1115. 1
  1116. 1
  1117. 1
  1118. 1
  1119. 1
  1120.  @wolfcrewe7474  I call myself a military analyst because I graduated from the Army intelligence school and was an operational intelligence analyst for CJ101 in Afghanistan and in fact, it's still my career though now I'm rounding out my education in physics and military history. The standard missile was designed to intercept supersonic missiles, any cruise missile that approaches at hypersonic speed will be extremely visible, be forced to fly at very specific altitudes, and will have to slow to supersonic or subsonic speeds to make its attack run. Therefore, western cruise missiles defense has not changed. Hypersonic maneuvering re-entry vehicles ARE something that is new, typically hypersonic re entry vehicles followed a ballistic path and so were easy to predict. And so that had to be adapted to but is already well underway as per the US missile defense chief. The united States doesn't need hypersonic cruise missiles because our missiles are subsonic and stealthy, there is some interest in a hypersonic delivery system for those missiles but when it is deployed I think you will find that china and Russia won't actually need to adjust much as they have always been planning to shoot down subsonic stealthy missiles in the same way we have always been prepared for supersonic loud ones. I really don't think you understand how hypersonics work at all, how missiles work, or how current missile strategy has come about or the direction it's going in. But of you need to pretend for yourself that I must be lying because I disagree with you then fine. I'll see you in five years and we can judge who was correct in hindsight. If you don't believe me, go find other experts and see who they agree with. And I don't mean youtube variety channels and gamer military enthusiasts. I mean the people who are actively in charge of US missile defense. Hypersonic misinformation is the new "but it can't dogfight" you clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
    1
  1121. 1
  1122. 1
  1123. 1
  1124. 1
  1125. 1
  1126. 1
  1127. 1
  1128. 1
  1129. 1
  1130. 1
  1131. 1
  1132. 1
  1133. 1
  1134. 1
  1135. 1
  1136. 1
  1137. 1
  1138. 1
  1139. 1
  1140. 1
  1141. 1
  1142. 1
  1143. 1
  1144. 1
  1145. 1
  1146. 1
  1147. 1
  1148. 1
  1149. 1
  1150. 1
  1151. 1
  1152. 1
  1153. 1
  1154. 1
  1155. 1
  1156. 1
  1157. 1
  1158. 1
  1159. 1
  1160. 1
  1161. 1
  1162. 1
  1163. 1
  1164. 1
  1165. 1
  1166.  @chrissmith-rv5ro    I volunteered during a war when I was 17 so idk why you are accusing me of serving for benefits or talking about exclusive patriotism. It isn't a contest of who served more it's the fact you keep running your mouth. I am on this blog, right here, because people like you run their mouths, get bumped by russian and chinese propaganda accounts and then stupid video game playing kids believe it. Our country is producing the best aircraft in the world, drastically outclassing every single thing else and yet all everyone does is whine about it. Whatever goalposts you want to move the fact is you are wrong. We have built an absolutely massive amount of F-35's, in numbers and of quality that every other country can only dream about, and it isn't just on paper in 25 years, it's all flying right now. So whatever you want to nitpick your posts to actually mean it doesn't change the fact you are here badmouthing something that is blowing the absolute socks off of everything else competing and doing so in public where the Russians and Chinese accounts can jerk you off to convince less and less young kids that the us military isn't a group of incompetent bafoons. Your certificate doesn't mean anything, you were wrong, spread garbage, and are trying to pretend you weren't caught out doing just that. This isn't your private facebook or words between your buddies, this is a public forum and public declaration that will last for ten years + Some kid could read your ignorant garbage and decide maybe he doesn't want to go work in aerospace or be a pilot after all because of your whining. Imagine how you would feel if you heard all this kind of whining about the P-51, or the F-14, or whatever else. Would you have though planes are cool or would you have thought they were a big waste of money just like the Russians and chinese twitter accounts say? Stop running your mouth and we won't have any problems. You should know better.
    1
  1167. 1
  1168. 1
  1169. 1
  1170. 1
  1171. 1
  1172. 1
  1173. 1
  1174. 1
  1175. 1
  1176. 1
  1177.  @timf2279  Mate, I already have had my TS/SCisecurity clearance, served in afghanistan and been out for a decade before I went to school for physics to further my career. What kind of crap are you being force fed if you think LEARNING MORE THINGS makes you dumber. Pick up a history book dude. Welcome to America, you and I would have been dead in factory at 16 if everyone listened to the money lies like you do. I don't know who you're leg'in, I have my wings. Are you just a clever bot or is there an actual american behind that screen that can think? Do you really think God who said "love the foreigner as yourself" and "sell your possessions to give to the poor." Is really on the side of the same corporate news who pumps out oil and mining baron lies? Do you REALLY think being a rockefeller man in this day and age is American? I would much rather be on the side of people and community and all equal opportunity than the "I have money so I am king" crap your fascist friends are selling. The fact you are concerned about my clearance and trying to talk down to me like we met as soldiers is comical. You are a confederate and fascist out here in my america and I took an oath to make sure your buddies don't win on the next Jan 6 So maybe you need to re-evaluate your position. Especially if you aren't over the age of 40. At least then your kind of ignorance is understandable as you've been in the propaganda since birth but if you are in your twenties or thirties and still buying the crap you are sharing our here then you are going to one day hit the concrete wall of realization just what side you are on. Wolves get the rod when the Shepard is around, y'all ain't nothing but bread. So either figure it out quick or keep trying and find out.
    1
  1178. 1
  1179. 1
  1180. 1
  1181.  @thereelaccountant9246  They are much more competent, they are a formal military, not a insurgent group. Your point about the mujahideen is misleading, we taught the mujahideen like 50 years ago and that knowledge passed to the taliban as much as it can but we trained the ANA for two decades and recently. There is a big difference between training a handful of fighters secretly over days and weeks and telling them to share their information and training thousands formally over years. Despite being one of the least competent militaries and the taliban being one of the oldest insurgent groups there is still a very large gulf of ability. Which is why the taliban are regularly trying to get their hands on ANA equipment and trained soldiers. A small handful of trained fighters are supporting a few housand hardly organized, radicalized, peasants don't equal a military. I have first hand experience too mate, I've seen ANA and ANP incompetence plenty of times. But I think you have let the enemy get far too big in your head mate, there is a lot less actual taliban competency than even the competency you get an an average trap shoot event. And that's before we spent twenty years butchering their organization, leadership, and key knowledge holders while building up that of the ANA. The ANA are incompetent compared to the greatest professional army in the world but you are absolutely wrong if you think that the taliban are more competent. The enemy is bigger in your head than in reality.
    1
  1182. 1
  1183. 1
  1184. 1
  1185. Why exactly isn't the Gloire the first ironclad? This seems like the British stretch again.... Like that documentary about the warrior where an interview subject goes on and on about how the warrior was the first ironclad even though it was quickly made obsolete... While ignoring completely that it was the Gloire first clad in iron. Not that it's the first time you've been puffing up the royal navy and smudging over other nations naval accomplishments tbh mate but it's just silly when it's so obvious as to completely omit the actual ship that changed things because of an arbitrary attribute you have arbitrarily decided disqualifies the previous. Or is this really about iron-frames and not iron cladding lol. I mean really you should be back in korean turtle ship if this is about historical accuracy and not just the same as many other historians through history: summerizing well documented facts about their own nation, adding only the nationalist slant of diminishing foreign accomplishments. Makes you popular at the time mate but eventually history judges the non-impartial. First "true" what a crock. How about first ever not first true smh... This is worse than when you had to talk about the american frigates! It's almost as bad as the bloody wikipedia article talking about "the french invented it, narrowly pre-empting the british" Bloody narrowly pre-empting? Why is it that when I start working on something only after someone else has finished do I get called second but british say "narrowly pre-empted" I guess the british ethnocentric mindset to history that set our understanding back about the ancient world centuries didn't die easily whatsoever. I suppose it is entirely based on how you are educated. Patriotically I assume. Because Americans aren't taught about our age of sail, clippers and windjammers, and schooners, and super frigates and all of it. But we are taught equally patriotically to our cousins across the pond about ww2 and just look what such patriotic education has done for the understanding of ww2. Anyway there's my rant. Shouldn't be looking gift horses in the mouth and all but mate your british bias is even worse than usual when it comes to specific blind spots.
    1
  1186. 1
  1187. 1
  1188. 1
  1189. 1
  1190. 1
  1191. 1
  1192. 1
  1193. 1
  1194. 1
  1195. 1
  1196. 1
  1197. 1
  1198. 1
  1199. 1
  1200. 1