Comments by "LRRPFco52" (@LRRPFco52) on "Curious Droid" channel.

  1. 24
  2. 17
  3. 9
  4. 8
  5. 8
  6. 6
  7. 5
  8. 4
  9. 4
  10.  @harb1911  Ha ha, a Russian trying to school a businessman in the US about economics. That's funny. Look up the definition of hyper-inflation. The US has had extremely low and flat inflation rates compared to the historical trends. We're in a position of more stable and low inflation than at any other time in US history. I'm seeing insane new residential construction in my State, and guess what? The foundations are some of the best concrete I've ever seen in my life. I've done foundation repair and construction when I was young, so I know what to look for. I've also lived in Russia and seen the construction standards there. Russian construction is best compared with construction in the US Northern States near the Great Lakes and Northeast, where winters are deep and very cold. Those places have higher standards for RE factor and insulation as a result, similar to how you would see homes in Scandinavia. Russian concrete on newly-built apartment complexes in Moscow were literally falling apart already, with kids vandalizing them before completion. I did find that walls are much thicker in Russia, as are the doors since temps get way down for much of the year, so you have to build thick or you will freeze. Every apartment complex I saw in Sainkt Petersburg, Moskva, and other cities was heated by a massive wood-burning furnace in the basement, fueled by manual labor, with water pipes running throughout the buildings heating the radiators. Single residences in the countryside had wood-burning stoves as well, and you go through wood like crap through a goose or you freeze. Water coming out of the pipes in apartments in all the cities I lived in looked like industrial un-off, not palatable or potable in many cases. It's like a huge society of country folk who don't know much about the modern world just trying to survive using infrastructure that hasn't been around in the US since the 1800s, maybe early 1900s at the latest. It's a huge mess of a place, and felt like stepping back in time. Think of all the domestic problems that could be solved without wasting $80 billion a year on crap military gear.
    2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17.  baggabliss  Buying power and the shear size and diversity of the US market is in a league of its own, not because the US is inherently better from an ideological or political standpoint (although both of those are true), but because the US is: * In an ideal temperate zone * Has complete physical isolation from historical powers with Atlantic & Pacific Oceans. * Can navigate the seas from its coasts as it wishes without any naval powers anywhere near to challenge it. * Has the largest arable farmland on the planet. * Has the most vast connected river network on the planet. * As a result of the river network, it has the most vast rail, highway, and airport network on the planet. * Instead of a central city governing the US, the US has distributed and connected cities all over the States, several States having 2-6 cities with massive economies into themselves that include significant intra-State, inter-State, and international industries. In contrast, Russia is effectively a vast wilderness of land-locked forest, arctic, and tundra, has huge rivers that aren't connected with each other in most examples, shares a border with 16 other rival nations with ongoing and historical territorial disputes, relies heavily on its food sources from Ukraine, relies economically on energy exports, and is isolated away from the high volume sea traffic routes for global trade. Russia also has its political, economic, and military power center in Moscow, with Sainkt Petersburg being Peter's attempt to shift Russian trade relationships to the Baltic and northern European economic powers of his era. By geographic location, Russia is depressed, even with her bounteous natural resources. The rest of the world does not value Russia that much as a result, since there is little or no reason to interact with her unless you want to buy some of her energy or mineral resources.
    1
  18. 1
  19.  Bradley Scott  CIA was penetrated and occupied by over 200 NKVD double agents before it even started, from the OSS days. NKVD turned General Reinhardt Gehlen's intelligence organization for a massive exploitation operation that brought more results than Moscow could have ever imagined, eventually landing them several CIA directors who were recruited by these doubles. If the CIA makes an assessment, it usually hypes the Russian capabilities in attempts to scare the US JCS, while over-estimating Russian systems capabilities. The MiG-25 was a perfect example of that, as was the MiG-29. Once we got our hands on those systems, they turned out to be nowhere near what they were advertised as by the CIA. If CIA is forecasting massive Russian economic boom, then consider the source. This is exactly opposite of all the real economic indictors surrounded by the continual collapse of the always lackluster Russian economy, especially with the compounding problems of Russian demographic shifts and loss of profitable energy exports. The US is the true long-term market for stability and growth, with no enemies at our borders, a temperate zone, a massive industrial base that is unparalleled in the world, unmolested coast lines filled with deep sea ports, which are connected to the most vast river network in the world, with the largest farmland of any place on earth by size and output by wide margins. If you want to put your money in a growing, stable place, there is no better environment than the US. Russia doesn't even compare well with Texas in economy.
    1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25.  baggabliss  I'll be astonished if Tempest sees anything beyond wood and Bondo mock-ups at the current 2 billion pound budget, which is 1/4 what the Russians put into the failing Su-57. It's going to take way more than 2 billion pounds to develop much beyond the Adaptive Cycle propulsion. Direct energy weapons (already in development in the US for decades-my family was on airborne laser in the 1990s), is going to take billions as well and breakthrough technology. Anything outside of a tech-sharing joint program with the US will simply never have the political will and industrial or economic capacity to move any such program forward. Partnering with Sweden and Italy can't overcome that industrial-techno-political barrier. The UK, Sweden, and Italy have the brains for most of it, but trying to get their respective parliaments to stay the course through such a massive undertaking is going to be less than a snowball's chance in hell. Only 3.4% of the UK's 43 billion pound/$56.1 B US defence budget is allocated to R&D, and that has to cover all services, not just aerospace. In order to have the speed, VLO, direct energy, propulsion, and next generation avionics concepts being thrown around, you're looking easily at a minimum of $40 billion US just for development, and likely more. F-22 was $38.8 Billion, and F-35 was close to $50 billion (3 variants including JSF-B). The F-35 is the "cheap" one too, since it doesn't have the requirement to exceed Mach 1.6, whereas the F-22 had to reach/exceed Mach 2. That adds a lot of cost to a program because of the thermodynamics associated with leading edge heating and heat transfer into subsystems. In order to just have a genuine Mach 2 capable fighter, each airframe cost goes up considerably just from an airfoil and structures perspective. 6th Gen fighters are supposed to have no-BS Mach 2.5+ speeds and extended range, with higher average causing speeds than any previous fighter outside of the YF-12A. To thermal-load a large fighter like this for extended duration mission profiles, you're looking at costs that can only be taken on by the US, and even that is under question at the moment because of the burgeoning increases in developmental costs seen on the ATF and JSF. We're not even talking about the non-existent AI and quantum computing technology. My forecast is that the UK, Italian, and Swedish parliaments are going to laugh in the faces of the defense ministers when they tell them what all this is going to cost, even as joint partners.
    1
  26. 1
  27.  baggabliss  I don't underestimate the capabilities of Europeans, especially since we were involved directly with EFA development on international exchange. My father speaks very highly of the German physicists and engineers he worked with on EFA in the early 1980s. The problem is in budget and parliamentary will power to push through some of these programs. Germany and France are already caught with their pants down with no 5th Gen answer to modern air power. The US never built the SST projects it had under development due to sonic boom noise encroachment over so many populated areas, whereas France and England relegated the Concorde to trans-oceanic flight. You're smoking crack if you think the EF can outmaneuver the F-22. The BFM set-ups they have done with each other resulted in wins for the F-22 every time, other than rear perch, which is about impossible with any super maneuverable fighter in offensive perch. Every single other set-up, whether butterfly, line abreast, neutral head-to-head (even with unfavorable altitude offsets), scissors, resulted in Raptors defeating Typhoon. Rates were 8:1 and 6:1 on 2 different days from the clickbait article entitled, "Typhoon has Raptor Salad", not that you would ever make it to a WVR merge with a Raptor. The truth is that these two friendly aircraft are more lethal working together, especially with Typhoons using Raptor as a dual-role AEW&C/Air Dominance Fighter while Typhoons can run EMCON and employ the Meteor. That is a brutal combination for any adversary, with the UK using F-35Bs and Typhoons this way.
    1
  28. 1
  29.  baggabliss  Every aircraft will bleed energy in a turn if it is unable to compensate with excess thrust, and instantaneous turn rate will bleed massive amounts of energy in a second. The F-22 has 70,000lb of thrust available to retain its energy during turns. This is more important for all of them at higher altitude at higher speeds. The F-16 has excellent STR at lower altitudes below FL200, but really starts to bleed energy in thinner air above that. This is a reflection of it's designed operating envelope to counter and defeat the MiG-21 in daytime WVR encounters. The Viper is AOA limited since flying it outside of the AOA limiter will make departure very probable, and limited AOA helps it retain its STR so well. The F-22 will match a Viper STR at low altitude by sheer excess thrust and lifting area, and smoke it as the altitude increases. The Typhoon also does better at altitude by design, since it was envisioned to counter the MiG-29 & Su-27 starting with the BVR fight, and still have low speed maneuverability in a degraded WVR fight, although snap-shooting HOBS missiles was and is a focus rather than rear quarter shots reminiscent of the Korean War. The Typhoon has excellent ITR but dumps airspeed quickly when it does it. The F-22 has a limiter for initial pitch rate as well, but still has superior nose-pointing authority with TV and a much wider yaw axis available. All of these visible performance metrics seen by air show audiences are simply leftovers of the true design parameters of each fighter, which can't be shown since they require much higher altitude and speed.
    1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37.  @SmotritelMayaka29  You need to learn how to make a coherent and supportable argument before posting. There are dozens of current conflicts in the world that the US is not participating in. It does not help your argument to use hyperbole that is easily proved false. Russia invaded Eastern Europe after WWII in order to position closer to the sea ports, at the expense of millions of people living there. Russia invaded the sovereign nation of Afghanistan, assassinated its President, and disrupted that region to the extent that it is still a major problem today. Afghanistan used to be more of a tourist destination, no fundamentalists running around telling women what to wear, and an agricultural haven for fruit, nuts, and dates along the ancient trade routes between Persia and India. US troop numbers dropped dramatically in Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union.  US Army in Europe shrank from 213,000 soldiers in 1990 to 122,000 in 1992.  Current US Army presence in Europe is at a 63 year low, with around 60,000 total Soldiers/Airmen/Marines/Navy. Eastern European nations begged to join NATO so that they would have protection from any future Russian threats of invasion, especially Poland and the Baltics, who suffered tremendously under Russian occupation, including genocide, execution of their intelligent classes, and forced migration from their homelands into Siberia or Russian slave camps. Departing Russian units openly robbed these nations on the way out. Russia has a history of raping and pillaging every neighbor it has, dating back centuries. I've travelled and lived in many of the places who suffered from Russian occupation, and the sentiment is universal among all of Russia's neighbors. I can't think of another nation that has that type of reputation in the world. Russia trained and supplied the PLO, airline hijackers, Yasser Arafat, and terrorist organizations since the 1960s, while promoting their actions with the international journalist association KGB information warfare front. The KGB's Middle East files have been opened for you to see this yourself.
    1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1