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

russias economy is 9 times larger than that of ukraine so it should have more options. ukraine are stuck with their own planes they have. but despite having more modern planes do russia fail to take ukraine
13
This aircraft carrier would have been useless by 1945 as jet fighters were beginning to enter service. Many American aircraft carriers was scrapped after the war. Why? - Because those ships were too short. They could launch old propeller aircrafts only and not modern jet fighters that was superior in performance. So the navy therefore saw no need in keeping them so they were scrapped. And I think that Graf Zeppelin would have faced a similiar fate. It was not a large carrier.
5
Nitro Zeus
2
Well Europe is also after USA in that regard - there are no Apples, Amazons, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook here. Nor are we on top of the food chain when it comes to jet engines either. USA is no1, and that gives them enormous economic benefits and probably also a big military advantage over Europe if EU would go to war with USA. The biggest downside with this plane is probably its weak engines. A 4 tonnes bombload for a two engined plane? Seriously? Rafale can carry 9.5 tonnes as a comparison. Even single engine planes like Gripen can carry 50% more bombload. Furthermore is MIG29 a hangar queen.
2
An attack aircraft without a stuka siren pfff
1
its on fire, do you want the other plane to also burn down?
1
@hacke_d_ This plane will have to crash somewhere. And dumping it over a desert or over antartica would be the best options. After that is dumping it over the ocean a good option since there is a very low risk that the plane will fall down on someones home and kill people. And the plane will probably become a fish habitat
1
MIG29 was an okay plane. But it was never best. It have been so much hype about this plane on both sides of the Berlin wall and MIG29 cannot live up to its expectations. Its no where near them. It lookslike a F14 or F15... but it is much crappier. Indeed su35 is much better and is much better.
1
Its Norway that gives out the peace prize and not Sweden. All other Nobel prizes are given out by Sweden, including the fake Nobel prize in economics. Sweden-Norway was almost considered as one and the same country back in the 1800's when Alfred Nobel was born, so for that reason do also Norway give out a Nobel prize.
1
An interesting concept, but there is still a long way to go I guess. I think it could be useful to rescue planes that are running low on fuel. But if there is some serious failure on an aircraft then I think their plane would be hard to manouver and then would this plane not be that useful at all. One might just put two planes at risk instead of one as the risk of mid air collision is high, and this might be even more difficult than mid air refueling on an aircraft - especially since it is impossible for the aircraft to see anything below it, and the rescue aircraft will have a difficult time looking behind it and above. It would have been cool if a plane like this could have rescued Alaska airlines or that tokyo jumbo jet that crashed. But I guess it would have been difficult to achieve any rescue on so badly damaged aircrafts that are hard to manouver. And then there is this problem of landing a big top heavy aircraft like this. Its weight would be massive even if the damaged plane would dump all of its fuel. And with such a heavy weight would this plane need a very very very long landing strip. And its airframe needs to be strong as hell so the plane just don't crack into pieces and explode as soon as the landing gear hits the ground.
1
I also think the usefulness of this plane is very limited. Many of the crashes happens just after take off. Or the plane gets into a sudden problem mid air and I don't a rescue plane would get there in just a few minutes. However if it could rescue just a few planes I guess some would argue that it is worth having those planes. But then I believe this plane would rather be an unmanned drone to not put even more lives at risk.
1
I guess he meant best of its time period, and that is almost correct. I would however rank F-4 Phantom as an overall better plane and plus with better armaments. I guess it would get the silver medal as the best plane in the world after that. It was clearly superior to the overhyped junk known as MIG-21, and would have been a much more feared opponent to the Phantom had the Vietnamese had some Draken at their hands. However making a Mach 2 aircraft in 1955 just 10 years after World war 2 which was a war fought with propeller aircrafts I think that this plane is extremely impressive. Especially for a small country like Sweden to build it. It became and export success and remained in service with many air forces for many decades up til the late 1990s.
1
I guess that dependends on a lot things. If you fly at high altitude and have much control over your aircraft, then you can steer the plane and probably make somewhat controlled soft landing. But if you get a problem just after start when you still fly low and have not got much speed then it will likely lead to disaster. Your plane is extra heavy from the start with all passangers, cargo and fuel so it will be harder for the plane to lift with just one engine. Its easier when you don't have much fuel left and the plane is not so heavy and then you can glide many kilometers from high altitude. Another problem with just one engine is that the it becomes difficult to balance the plane, as the plane wants to tilt over when you have an engine pulling the plane forwards on one side but not the other. The safest solution would probably be to have many engines. But that would mean much work on the ground with taking care of twice as many engines - and what would cost money and make the airline company less profitable and the price of a plane ticket would have to go up... so thats why such planes are becoming more rare nowadays.
1
@iansneddon2956 USS Enterprise - the WWII warship that partipated in every battle in the pacific war would have been an honor to keep. But she was scrapped after the war because she was too short and tiny to carry jets. And I don't think the Germans would have bothered developing special jet fighters for this ship like the Harrier or Skyhawk - and thus making this thing obsolete.
1
Why not make this plane capable of pumping out water to put out some flames?
1
@davout5775 The lack of advanced industrial robots from USA, Europe and Japan will make it impossible for russia to make advanced military equipment. I mean industrial robots like these https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnIvhlKT7SY&t=69s that can carve a metal piece down to a hundreth of a millimeter in precision - something which is for example is useful when you make advanced radar screens. And microships from refridgerators will not be as good as those microchips made for a specific airplane. And much knowledge have also been lost since the fall of the USSR and all closed down factories and the decades since when workers have forgotten their past skills - so making new AWACS planes would for example be impossible for russia today. They cannot replace combat losses of such systems anymore. And I think that is a bit telling how technologically backwards russia is. Even Sweden with its smaller GDP kicks Russias ass. Gripen E is better than the crap russia have. And SAAB globaleye is a better spyplane than anything in the russian arsenal. SU57 is not any more stealthy than Gripen E. Their RCS is the same (if we are to believe official russian statistics - which I distrust). But Gripen is more stealthy in other way its electronic warfare capabilities are masterful. And it is hard to observe the plane visually or its small heat signature from its tiny engine. While SU57 is bigger, lacks the same advanced EW, and have two big unstealthy engines. If a plane with two F15 Eagle engines with a bolted hull flies around would you consider it to be a stealth plane? - If your answer is no, then you do not consider SU57 to be stealthy. Furthermore do Gripen have a powerful radar capable of detecting stealth fighters, and its meteor missiles are better and have longer range than any russian missile. So I am not afraid of the russian air force. Especially not with its poorly trained pilots. And yes I consider F22, F15 Silent eagle, Rafale, Eurofighter and even the crappy F35 to be better than everything that russia have. And older planes like F16 Viper and Super Hornet are also still competative.
1
I was expecting the MIG29 to be an equal to F15 and F14 due to their shared looks, but it turns out that MIG29 is quite crappy by comparison. And its engines are very weak, its range is pathethically short, and despite having two engines can it only carry a pathethically small bombload of 4 tonnes and only got 9 hardpoints - and even the smaller one-engined Gripen E have more hardpoints and can carry a 50% bigger bombload. Its successor is one of the most beautiful planes ever built by its looks, but it is still clearly not the best plane in the world. It is in fact not even close in performance to the best western planes. Indeed it is by far not even the best plane in Russia, as SU-35 is better in almost every way. So in my view is the MIG29 an enormously overrated plane. And its weak performance on the battlefields have made my belief even stronger.
1
@JamesOMalley-hb4tf " It's less than half the size of the f15" MIG29 gets its ass kicked by Gripen E that is even smaller. "Mig 29 is faster than f 16" Speed is unimportant in air combat. How many air combats were fought in Mach 2 during the Vietnam war? - The answer is none. And for that reason is top speed no longer a priority in aircraft design. There is a reason why F4 Phantom is no longer the fighter of the US Navy despite it is the fastest plane to ever have served on an US aircraft carrier. Flying superfast just increases fuel consumtion, harms the airframe and possibly makes your plane easier to spot on IR sensors. "You should be disappointed in your own ignorance" Says you who thinks that a marginally higher top speed of MIG29 over F16 somehow makes it a better plane 🙄 "kill ratio advantage" In most real wars it have fought it have had a negative kill ratio. "Germany after unification" You forgot to mention that the Germans liked their MIG29s so much that they gave them away for free to Poland in 2004. I doubt they would have done that if this plane still had ranked as one of the best 4th generation fighters in the world by then. I mean most western countries did choose to keep their old F16 fighters for another decade. And notice that we are now talking about the Bundeswehr. An organisation that does not like modernisation and do (altough to a lesser degree) share russias obsessive hoarding behaviour and refusal to scrap junk that have past its experation date. Museum pieces like Raketenjagdpanzer 1 and marder kept in service for decades despite old age. And I am surprised that they still have hundreds of old Leopard1 tanks they can dust off. When you have to lay out money to upkeep so much old expensive crap, then of course its hard to find money to buy modern weapons for the military. But even Germany, a country so hostile change and modernization did dump the MIG29. They even choose to keep their old F4 Phantoms til ten years later, and their stone age Tornados for more than 15 years after MIG29 left the German air force.
1
@JamesOMalley-hb4tf You are a russian who you just cannot admit that the things your country create are sh*t. USA have not had any problems with Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Romania and others using Soviet weapons. And your argument is also stupid and completly ignorant because Germany air force does not even rely only on american weapons. Tornado and Eurofighter are examples of this.
1