Comments by "LRRPFco52" (@LRRPFco52) on "Found And Explained" channel.

@aliceenfield Russians bribed key defense and political officials to acquire the single crystal high temp/high pressure fan blade technology, but they're still using crude tooling and technicians to make those 1980s-era US IPE type blades, and not achieving anywhere near the same reliability. The US has continued very aggressive development in that space, so the F119 and F135 have significant improvements over the F100-PW-229 by dropping the parts count, increasing performance, developing the FADEC into prognostic systems management, and incorporating VLO technologies into the structures of the motors. Pratt just won the contract to upgrade the F135 with a new core that increases thrust to 47,300lb, 7-10% increase in TSFC. It was already a beast of a motor at 43,000lbs in burner.
1
@simonm1447 B-2A has been upgraded with the JSF’s MADL data link/sensor suite interoperability, making it seamlessly-integrated with the JSF MADL web. They have already done joint USAF and Norwegian exercises using B-2As and NoAF F-35As working together.
1
@amanuelasele7799 So you’re saying the Chinese economy is doing well, their scientists are finally innovating solutions on their own (not stealing breakthroughs from their time in US and European universities), registering patents and publishing papers in scientific journals, and this is causing US politicians (many of whom are bought by China) to panic? Do you mind sharing with me where you get your information from? I track internal reports from observers in China outside of the corporate media, and their assessments are quite different about the Chinese economy. I also track PLAAF mishaps and things are not looking good for their engine performance in terms of reliability and safety. They’re basically where the US was with after burning turbofan development in the late 1960s-1970s with regard to engine failures, and that’s with the benefit of FADEC technology that was developed in the US in the 1980s-1990s installed on their unreliable/unsafe turbofan engines. Look at mishap rates for the J-10, J-11, Su-27SK, etc. Excrement performance. They are very guarded about anything in this space for the J-20, so we are to believe that it has suffered no mishaps. Russians have lost at least 2 Su-57s, one to a fire and the first production sample to a crash, and openly reported those mishaps. So far, if we believe China’s reporting, the J-20 is the epitome of 5th Gen aviation, the Mighty Dragon! It’s propaganda written for small children’s minds, and coming from an American, that’s saying a lot.
1
@off-roadelectricscooterser8718 US doesn't even need to approach China. We just cut off your energy from the Persian Gulf, game over. China has really stupid decision-making right now with one man in charge, nobody else. China needs the US in order to enjoy freedom of navigation, yet launched a total people's war on the US. What kind of stupid mongoloid piece of excrement attacks its biggest trade enabler? The same type of idiot who kills its own babies for 35 years as policy of the CCP, then wonders why it hit peak labor in 2015, with cascading demographic collapse already underway.
1
@off-roadelectricscooterser8718 If China launched an all-out theater ballistic missile attack on Taiwan, the global private company boycotts would collapse the already faltering Chinese economy, followed by global sanctions. China would then descend into multiple Civil wars between all the divided regions, rural vs cities, people vs security apparatus, and put out an extermination order for all members of the CCP.
1
@jason59k55 You need smaller than that for AI-intensive chips, and China isn’t developing anything. Let’s not kid ourselves that they steal everything as a normal function of their culture.
1
@stephenhood2948 Composite surfaces made of RF transparent materials don't interact with RF waveforms. Otherwise, Radomes would prevent Radars from working. The canards themselves can be RF transparent as long as you don't exceed Mach 1.8. If you want higher speeds, then Titanium is warranted like on the Typhoon. The actuators mounted to the airframe and the axles that attach the canards to the airframe are what spike the RCS values from different aspects. Some of the JAST and ASTOVL designs had canards, but the US is decades ahead of everyone else in that space when talking about making subcomponents under the mold line stealthy.
1
@jetli740 The US airspace sectors innovate solutions to very real problems. When DoD needs something, they don’t ask the intelligence services to go to another country to bribe their officials or steal the tech, because the tech doesn’t exist. The US creates it from scratch. China is opposite of that. Every single aspect of Chinese fighters, missiles, ships, vehicles, uniforms, and equipment are copied from Western or foreign designs. This dates back to the Type 56 technology sharing with the Soviets, where Russia wanted to ease tension between China and Russia, then China took everything and knocked it off with mass-produced copies. Same with J-20 and J-35. When you copy, you’re several steps behind the curve and subject to monkey-wrenching. This is especially true in electronics.
1
@jetli740 Most of the cutting edge technology you see developed in the US is kept under wraps, and only a fraction of it leaks out through the private sector or theft. Many programs die with the engineers who developed them under black budget funding, never see the light of day. The US and Germany were working on advanced propulsion systems in the 1930s far more capable than rockets, for example. That technology is still unacknowledged.
1
@orientspear Touch screen was developed for NASA, then incorporated on the AFTI F-16 program at Edwards in the 1980s. Voice assistant, DFLCS, and other technologies were integrated on the AFTI testbed, then used in ATF and JSF. Net Warrior/Land Warrior had an integrated wearable GPS, Radio, computer the size of an iPhone already by 1999-2000. Apple engineers combined the touch screen with the Land Warrior integrated systems device, getting rid of the Blackberry keyboard and replacing it with a touchscreen keyboard. Each of these technology paths has a very interesting history behind it.
1
Silent Eagle didn't exist. It was a silly mock-up demanded by inept Boeing leadership who didn't know anything about what it takes to design and build a stealth aircraft. It was a gimmick trying to be passed off as something with potential, and failed from the 1st bulkhead onward.
1
@extraacct478 Static, fixed RCS values are the things of a more amateur discussion of course, and can’t be corrected fully in the open. Senior sources have used physical representations before as references, without compromising any recorded values and spike locations. Things like small birds, golf balls, marbles, etc. have been mentioned. In practical terms, it’s ok to say that you won’t bee seen on any airborne threat Radar or ground-based Radar network until it’s far too late in the BVR or weapons separation timelines for A2A and A2S. F-22 test pilots have stated that they can orient the F-22 to cause a spike return as they offset, then turn back hot onto an airborne threat and disappear from their Radar as a tactic. It was also revealed that the F-117A went through 3 different generations of RAM, so VLO technologies don’t remain static even within a particular production design, even after it has been produced. I would not be surprised if the combat-coded F-22As have a new generation of RAM techniques applied to them, but this is speculation. It’s one of the most time-consuming aspects of the Raptor fleet maintenance, while not much of a contributing factor to MMHPFH on the F-35A. JSF uses much better VLO technologies that have hands-free maintainability/durability incorporated into the structures, rather than having to be applied all the time. F-35A MMHPFH are 3.5-4.5hrs, which is stunning. On the F-16 fleet, we have seen 11-14hrs, not including ancillary combat systems like the FLIR, ECM, and HTS pods.
1
@extraacct478 There are some very interesting stories where Kelly Johnson explored making a composite airframe U-2 back in the 1950s to try to deal with the RCS problem. They built a large scale model, complete with subsystems, fuel, all internals represented as best as they could. RCS values from all those internal components spiked left and right. Look at the whole design process evolutions from A-1 to A-12 for Oxcart. Before all they, they put German FORMAT-E RAM on a P-80 and flew it through a Radar test range outside of Wright-Patt to see if they could reduce the P-80’s RCS values. It worked but the airframe was barely viable in flight due to additional drag and weight of all the added RAM.
1
@irshadhussain2856 Even the F-35B requires less MMHPFH than the F-16. F-35A has the lowest MMHPFH of any fighter and O&M costs are the same as F-16 & F/A-18 (without their pods).
1
@dianapennepacker6854 The problem we faced even with F-22 production dispersed across most of the States was that traitors in DoD and the WH were able to kill it before we could put 200 in Europe, 200 in the Pacific, with 350 in the States. With F-35, production is dispersed across 48 US States, UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, Italy, Norway, etc. It's traitor-proof for production at least, and the foreign partners rely on it for their regional security.
1
@dianapennepacker6854 Senior politicians can order access to TS programs. They get the technical data and transfer in a number of ways to our enemies, who then deposit money into offshore bank accounts owned by the families. NSA was tracking those types of treason with their bank surveillance system, so threat nation foreign governments paid a lot to get the NSA System codes every time they were updated, to hide their transactions. Clintons were selling the codes to multiple foreign nations not authorized to have them. Neil Bush is the bag man for the Bush family, mainly selling out to the Chinese, Pakistanis, and who knows who else. Hard-working patriots in defense spend their lives developing advanced technology, only to have traitors in government sell it to our enemies.
1
 @molnibalage83 F-16C has 300% longer range, not 30%.
1
@molnibalage83 We did technical analysis of the MiG-29 back in the 1990s right after we were on the F-16 program, then on the F-15 Combined Test Force at the time. Russians brought MiG-29s to Edwards as part of a base exchange program through Nunn-Lugar. Very rarely will you ever have the chance to converse with someone who has "under-the-hood” experience with both fighter designs.
1
MOP is 20.5 feet long. B-2A weapons bays are approx 21.5” feet by my estimation from looking at diagrams and scaling the measurements. LTG Breedlove mentioned a Next Generation Penetrator that should be 1/3 the size of the MOP, which maybe refers to weight. That’s a 10,000lb class weapon. B-21A should have 2 large weapons bays that will be at least 85% of the B-2A’s bay volume, and possibly more than that since it only needs 2 engines and less fuel. B-2A can carry: 80 Mk.82s or 34 CBU-87s or 16 JDAMs or 8 GBU-37s or 16 JASSMs or 16 JSOWs or 16 B-61/B-83 nukes 2 MOPs You can mix and match half of each of the above with each other since there are 2 large bays splitting the above loads. B-21A should be able to carry at least 85% of the above loads.
1
MiG-29 looks great until you get up close. Then it looks like Slav dog excrement.
1
@YukkiYoshiko F-16s had BVR missile integration by 1987 and always had a better Radar, better TWS, better man-machine interface, better cockpit visibility, better missiles, 3x the combat radius, 9 weapon stations, multirole capability, and ease of maintenance with standardized parts. F-16 community had really good anti-BVR tactics that were used with great effect against F-15s even, so they could force a merge after AIM-7s were expended. This tactic is far more effective against the MiG-29 w/R27. F-16A even had NCTR that enabled BVR PID and only got better with F-16C/APG-68. MiG-29 was always several steps behind and there's nothing the Soviets or Russia can do to bridge the gap in capability.
1
@soulsphere9242 F-16A even had counter-BVR tactics that worked very well even against the F-15C/AIM-7M. They would vector head-on with F-16s flying in-trail of each other. As soon as missile launch warning was received from APG-63 CW illumination and AIM-7 seeker, they timed it and then split-S to remain outside of the WEZ. The trail F-16 then became lead and did the same technique until AIM-7s were depleted, then they would merge and crush the F-15s using their sustained turn advantage or face-shoot with AIM-9L and not even cross 3-9 line. Once we integrated AIM-120 into the F-16C and ADF F-16As in ANG by 1987, it became a formidable BVR platform. Once we got AIFF onboard, it became an extremely dangerous BVR platform. Russians aren't even at that level with the modern Su-35 and its IRBIS-E PESA, which does have some advantages in its ability to reposition. The 1990s-era F-16C Block 50 was still superior to any current MiG-29, and those 1990s birds have been through 3 major modernization phases since then with CCIP I, CCIP II, and now PoBIT with the AESA SABR.
1
@ottenstar4901Iraq had a lot of excellent systems from France and very capable ones from USSR, with 8 years of combat experience against Iran. Mirage F1EQ, MiG-29A, and MiG-25PD were very capable fighters/interceptors flown by professionals. Iraq is the only nation to have scored an Air-to-Air kill against a US fighter since Vietnam, and that was done in the MiG-25PD against an F/A-18. The US pilots were just better-trained than 8 year war veterans, flying better aircraft, with better weapons, and better electronic order of battle collection systems.
1