Comments by "GH1618" (@GH-oi2jf) on "Matsimus" channel.

  1. It would be nice to know how these systems have performed in actual attack scenarios, not merely tests. The USS Stark had Phalanx, but, oddly, it was in standby mode when the ship was attacked.
    8
  2. One thing that happened is that the USAF got overconfident and flew on the same route repeatedly, giving the defense more time to target them.
    2
  3. With Argentina starting to act belligerent again, one of these carriers should be based nearer the Falklands than Great Britain.
    1
  4. Nicholas Collins — It is mainly the lack of a catapult which limits the types of aircraft which can be launched.
    1
  5. Jack — Refueling and Complex Overhaul of a Nimitz-class nuclear powered carrier takes three years.
    1
  6. Thauã Aguirre — You are thinking of density. The video did not say Uranium was the densest element. It is the element with the greatest atomic mass among the first 92 “natural” elements.
    1
  7. swansealoaf1999 — Phalanx came out only two years before the Falklands war. HMS Sheffield certainly could have used one.
    1
  8. This seems like a puff piece to me, ignoring the obvious weaknesses of a carrier without a catapult. For example, I heard nothing here about support for an AWACS aircraft such as the Hawkeye. The lack of airborne radar (other than in fighters) was a significant weakness of British forces in the Falklands war. It is better to detect and intercept hostile aircraft at a great distance from the carrier group rather than depend entirely on close-in defenses.
    1
  9. Tristram Randall — The problem is that you can’t launch a Hawkeye or similar aircraft. I expect that the F-35Bs, together with land-based Typhoons, will be able to deal with the Argentine air force, but they are shopping for better fighters. It is better never to underestimate one’s adversary and to be as prepared as one can be.
    1
  10. Biden is not a socialist. He’s a centrist. He’s as mainstream as any Democrat you can find.
    1