Comments by "Comm0ut" (@Comm0ut) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

  1. Not nearly as effective at range as Ukraine demonstrates.
    13
  2. Because this war is a war between POOR countries who cannot afford to deploy Desert Storm-tier large armored forces. They didn't begin the war very competent at combined arms though Ukraine seems to be learning a bit quicker. Now they don't have the arms to combine in large numbers thanks to attrition. Massed armor is amazingly expensive. Russian money went to yachts and Ukraine didn't have it to begin with so our entertainment will be different.
    8
  3. Since when is 20,000 tons a "behemoth" by 2024 shipbuilding standards? A Panamax freighter can carry more than twice that in freight. Clickbait over vaporware.
    8
  4. Preventing a NeoSoviet respawn attempt with a bonus of (for a change from idiotic futile constabulary operations attempting to inflict secular democracy on permanently unwilling hosts) fighting for real secular democracy while spending couch money is a fantastic bargain. The idea the Cold War ever ended is as delusional as the idea Russia somehow became tradcon (Lenin's shrine and much more argue otherwise). Russia is the permanent Asiatic enemy of European civilization and secular democracy worldwide. It is desperately important to delude contrarian dimwits to believe otherwise, and simple people are easy to manipulate by affirmation. Russia is guilty of spawning the entire global Left (the real Left). Russia helped inflict nearly every US and NATO military casualty since WWII. Russian history is literally nothing but savage attacks on Europe of which it is not culturally part. This war is necessary, strategically wise, and dirt cheap especially compared to GWoT futile nonsense to which ignorants compare it. Russia will not fall, but its empire can further shrink and because the Kremlin is a violent toxic master it alienated every nation and people it invaded. Ask anwhere from Finland south if in doubt.
    6
  5. Were they civilian workers or exceptionally wetoddid Airmen? Normally the red line IS the red line and there is no "too close" so something or more than one was off if that went as described. SecFor can respond quicker from their usual ground locations so where were those troops?
    4
  6. Stugna has advantages over both especially remote launch capability. Javs are better mounted on vehicles due to size and awkwardness while NLAW is ideal for urban shoot and scoot. Horses for courses. Each is different.
    4
  7. Turtle tanks are a questionable way to transport troops riding desant since they ride between the predet shield and the tank hull. Instead of shooting at gaps, the first drones should hit where most troops ride desant. Infantry playing the role of rubber sheet in reactive armor may help save the hull by dying but die they will. What any success of turtle tanks indicates is lack of ATGW on the Ukrainian side.
    4
  8. The US Navy is simply too large and inert to reform. Remember every bad choice was made by senior leadership. EVERY choice had a human originating the idea and others refining it. The public over-trust the armed forces because military affairs are too complex for a single person to fully understand the system. Weight growth is a choice by senior uniformed leadership. They are not going to reform themselves. No possible SecDef could do it and no possible POTUS would have the decades of relevant experience.
    4
  9. The logistics train has existed for decades and Fedex/DHL/etc deliver globally. Supporting three or four squadrons worth in austere operating conditions is little different than supporting any of many prior deployments. Maintainers are not difficult to train at accelerated rates in existing tech schools and existing Field Training Detachments. The aircraft are designed to be easy to work on (which I did for over 20 years, the others spend on Phantom and Bronco) therefore high sortie rates are a breeze to maintain IF parts arrive on time. Life for "armorers" (load toads on the line, Ammo in their MSA) is pretty comfy even at high sortie rates. I was an engine troop later merged with crew chiefs (easy since most engine troops were already trained), Red X all systems yadda yadda. Viper maintenance processes are long refined, easy to teach and easy to learn.
    3
  10. Bolshevik drivel. Russia brutalized all Eastern Europe from Finland south. Feel free to ask any surviving victims why the Warsaw Pact evaporated.
    3
  11. There was nothing honorable about Russian policy and Western concepts like honor is not a concern to Russians even when dealing with each other. Russia is NOT EUROPEAN in culture nor was it ever.
    3
  12. Oh really? Did a long containment benefit the (now gone) Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact? You shills are working hard lately.
    2
  13. Where are all these fantasy Gripen supposed to come from?
    2
  14. F-16 needs a decent runway which are easily cleaned by common inexpensive FOD sweepers and the usual FOD walks. They can ingest considerably sand and all that does is clean the fan and compressor (I've borescoped many a Pratt and GE). F-16s have launched from roads and it's not rocket surgery. People lacking personal deployed experience constantly regurgitate memes.
    2
  15. WHAT? How did you miss out on WWII? The Soviet Union got vastly more. So did the Iraqi government and failed constabulary mission in A-stan (a vastly different war).
    2
  16. It bears reminding Ukraine is not a modern war, it's much more like the Iran-Iraq war with a sprinkling of modern equipment. Neither side has a decent air force by modern standards because both Ukraine and Russia are too poor to field them. War requires Carrying Heavy Stuff over awkward terrain including defensive systems like SHORAD and APS. That's why the APC (a terrible idea in the first place because their capabilities force their use as AFV out of necessity then they get smoked) era is ending with AFV offering far superior protection replacing them. AFV are fine for troop transport but tanks carry far more firepower.
    2
  17.  @freetolook3727  "Useless" and "increasingly obsolete given modern alternatives which are far more robust because losing one is a much smaller force-loss multiplier" mean different things.
    2
  18. NDI can easily intercept structural issues which can be addressed by airframe reinforcement as done in SLEP. Ukrainian and nearby Polish labor costs favor doing work as far east as practical.
    2
  19.  @lqr824  Training "ground crew" is old hat since long before F-16s were designed. It does not take long to learn F-16 maintenance and be effective because I've personally done that and I'm not special. The "huge inventory" of spare parts does not need to be onsite at Ukraine for the same reasons it is not onsite for US operations. Parts are sent where required other than basic unit bench stocks and deployment packages. Cannibalization to buffer Supply makes the military aviation world go round and the US-style rotating cann program switches cann birds to they are not taken down too far. Storage in Poland with delivery to Ukraine operating locations would be most logical.
    2
  20. Ask Ukrainians why they don't want Russian masters instead of spouting memes.
    2
  21. Career Phantom, Bronco and Viper maintainer here who disagrees strongly that it's much of a problem since it's been done constantly for decades with other client air forces in USAF technical schools. Of course training is complex but the any modern AF can take someone off the block and turn them into an effective maintainer in several months of tech school.The tech schools already exist so adding foreign students or teaching bespoke classes is business as usual. The Ukrainian air force will only need flightline maintainers plus some small back shops because LRUs can be quickly sent to NATO locations for repair while replacement parts can come from a wide variety of sources. They won't need a full engine back shop for example, just sufficient forward spares. Training maintainers isn't one large problem, it's many SMALL SOLVED problems which is very different.
    2
  22.  @KSCPMark6742  FOD walks are standard procedure in any air force. Remember multiple airframes use runway and taxiways and that FOD isn't just about intakes but protecting aircraft tires. Running a towed sweeper down runway prior to launch is not at all complex. I find FOD fears hilariously exaggerated.
    2
  23. America easily afforded containing Russia once already. I was stationed in West Germany at the time. The risk in the US is really not a matter of money since those opposing the war do NOT oppose the rest of the armed forces budget. It's very much a contrarian pissfight waged by clueless rustics who know nothing of history but would toss a toddler into a wood chipper to annoy their political opponents. If the Democratic party came out for Jesus much of the GOP would turn Satanist overnight. They're not capable of understanding the global Left they fear is a Soviet creation and that Russia is the reverse of tradcon Lenin's shrine is not maintained by accident nor is Soviet imagery and the WWII death cult.
    2
  24. Ukraine has nothing to do with that. Since history is not your strong suit I suggest asking Ukrainians online why they do not want Russian masters.
    2
  25.  @cagatayaydemir3556  Both engines are long debugged (I worked on both as a USAF engine mech and crew chief). Pratts can have their FTIT limit raised for war by adjusting the fuel control as we did during Desert Shield if extra thrust is wanted. We had nil maintenance issues with that (I borescoped many for 50-hour and other inspections.)
    2
  26. Because meatless aircraft have been landing on carrier decks for years and a pilot is a limfac bug not a feature. Meat in the seat is absurdly expensive, frequently lost to accidents, tires, limits mission endurance, is subject to emotions and required horrifically expensive and dangerous CSAR. Aircraft are nothing but missile and bomb range extenders so the sooner they're simplified AND (by improved missiles) the need for them is reduced the better. Consider that most of an aircraft carrier doesn't kill anything, it just supports ordnance delivery which can be done in many ways. Now imagine if the money and space and humans spent on aircraft went direct to self-delivering missiles fired from arsenal ships and submarines.
    2
  27. How do you fail to know about Ukrainian history? Your post reeks of either disinfo or ignorance. Ask real Ukrainians online why they object to Russian masters. This is not about corruption, it's about survival. Your post is a "false equivalence".
    1
  28. Why are you pro-Soviet?
    1
  29. What are ye on about? The Soviet Union had occupied Ukraine since the Russian civil war. Russia had starved it into submission in the 1930s but still had to fight partisans for years after WWII. Soviet forces completely controlled Ukraine in 1955.
    1
  30. Why would aircrew training be a bottleneck with so many nations flying them?
    1
  31.  @2IDSGT  Guessing based on precisely what relevant combat aviation experience?
    1
  32. ORLY? Where will those come from?
    1
  33. Helicopters aren't what you think they are, and you type in all caps, the sign of a tech illterate.
    1
  34. Post your relevant expertise.
    1
  35. Because not everyone is some teenage gamer who never flew nor worked on a real combat aircraft.
    1
  36. You're another Russian shillposter and not very good at it so if your supervisor reads this, give the lad a Moisin and a ride to the front.
    1
  37. What is your relevant personal military aviation expertise in maintenance and Supply on either aircraft? Why do you imagine they would somehow conflict when individual bases have supported multiple aircraft types since the dawn of aviation?
    1
  38. I can as I've worked on multiple airframes. The same maintainers don't have to work on all three (though that eventually makes better technicians). Translating tech data then proofreading it against the original isn't exotic. 16s don't break much and are easy to work on. Remember factory tech support is a phone call or email away. Also remember Ukraine only need manage the equivalent of a large mixed DEPLOYMENT. It need not duplicate existing Depot etc infrastructure. If maintainers are trained at least to US standards they'll be immediately capable of most tasks and can ask if they run into difficulty. They'll be replacing LRUs and fixing what they can in the field, not duplicating NATO back shops. Parts will as usual be overhauled, new or have service life remaining if cannibalized to buffer Supply. If they've any sense they'll duplicated the USAF cannibalization program which prevents hangar queens.
    1
  39. There are no airframes. Where do you imagine Gripens will come from?
    1
  40.  @robson668  F-16s can operate from austere conditions and that's been done often. How many years experience do you have maintaining aircraft in a combat environment or are you just repeating memes? Digging under the highway??? Tell us you know nothing about HAS without telling us you know nothing about HAS. Besides being blatantly obvious from space and requiring enormous effort, shelters beneath roads (which do not usefully resist bombs or missiles) will be prone to flooding during rasputitsa.
    1
  41. Where are these magical Gripen going to come from? Is everyone else here just a gamer?
    1
  42. Why hasn't it won the three day Special Military Operation yet? Glavset shills and tankies are hilarious.
    1
  43. Only to people who have no personal experience with either. One does not "split" logistics. Procurement is done far away from the battlefield and existing supply systems have no problem delivering to Europe of which Ukraine is part. Supply troops support multiple airframes on one base with little fuss because a stock number is a stock number. Given the few troops required for support why precisely would they be "split"? Jets are often much easier to work on than spectacularly annoying modern cars (I've thousands of hours on both). Combat aircraft are designed for ease of maintenance. Any real technician can learn multiple airframes but there is no mission-oriented immediate need to train the same techs on both. If that's desired it should be done much later after the techs are experienced on one airframe. Learn one aircraft then subsequent are easy. Weapons load crews can easily certify on multiple airframes as can Fuels (who mostly do their thing away from the flightline other than operating refuel and defuel trucks). Ground support equipment for multiple systems is standard. Generators, air compressors, air conditioning carts, air compressors, maintenance stands, jacks etc are simple and easy to manage.
    1
  44. One does not need a "separate" logistics system. One needs to PROCURE a variety of parts which is very different. The same Supply logistic system supports every US aircraft for example. There are not airframe-specific Supply clerks. Technicians who train on multiple airframes (I am one) make better more versatile maintainers. For example I worked Phantom, Bronco and F-16s in three different AFSC which made it easy to be versatile. One can take any engine troop and bring them up to speed on a different engine with a short FTD course. The US maintenance ecosystem easily supports different airframes on the same base. Pilots are not interchangeable but maintainers who can work on one system can work on others. Reading tech data and operating test equipment aren't difficult. Troops coming off old systems have the tactile understanding of machinery that makes learning newer systems a breeze. Been there, done that, have the proverbial t-shirts.
    1
  45. Most of logstics is easier than it looks if one copies the highly refined US system. PROCUREMENT is the hard part, not managing assets once available if proper tracking is maintained. That's why if a USAF jet breaks for a part while deployed one can be sourced from any base having it in stock.
    1
  46.  @ASpyNamedJames  Got empiric evidence for those assertions? "Logistics" very much includes commercial providers. Fedex, DHL etc deliver most spares. Why do you imagine "expertise" is somehow stretched? BE SPECIFIC. Supporting a few extra airframes in continental European locations leverages every available asset in NATO and supporting Vipers is not difficult nor is maintaining them. Only FOL tasks need be done in Ukraine while more demanding tasks could be done at any decently equipped NATO base. There just isn't much difficult work on F-16s.
    1
  47. Where will these Gripen come from?
    1
  48.  @fakecubed  People who do not maintain aircraft should not have opinions on the subject. Maintainers can be trained effectively in several months as I was in three specialties. Aircraft maintenance is tedious but that is NOT the same as difficult. I found it satisfying fun.
    1
  49. In what air force have you served maintaining F-16s in which war? I enjoy hearing from experts.
    1
  50. Where are these magical Gripen? Their fangurls forget one needs airframes not fantasies.
    1