Comments by "Jim Mcneal" (@jimmcneal5292) on "Sandboxx" channel.

  1. I think that most likely scenario is that the pilot who inspired the "Ghost of Kyiv" just shot down first Su-35(which is great achievement when flying on Mig-29), and that Ukrainian Air Forces shot down 7 planes during the first day. Btw, god bless Ukraine.
    9
  2. While Kinzhal is not "true" hypersonic missile, the only thing we know is that it can be shot down with PAC-3 Patriot(with roughly 1:1 ratio of AA missiles to Kinzhal ones). Would be interesting to see PAC-2 facing it. In general I think Kinzhal is a good weapon(really surprised it was not developed earlier, in 90s or so) that can be used against targets protected by older systems, it just obviously can't succeed in penetrating defense that consists of the most capable AA systems.
    9
  3. They made a huge jump in designing complex systems after F-35 problems
    7
  4.  @adam68756  F-22>>J20, it's not even a fair competition in 1v1 fight
    7
  5.  @laowantongchau  F-22 got its radar modernized several times
    7
  6. Russia having missiles carrying more warheads is not necessarily a good thing for them. It means that limited amount of strategic warheads is concentrated in fewer missiles/silos, so easier to destroy
    6
  7. What's the point in F-35C then?
    5
  8. @Wiegraf thanks to his war now western population is much less divided than before. What did he achieve by waging this war? I struggle to grasp anything.
    4
  9. We europeans need 6th gens too, just in case.
    4
  10. The only good argument against stealth that I heard is that it's too expensive. And it's better to have thousands of cheaper good jets than hundreds of excellent ones.
    4
  11.  @ChrisTurner-xj9wi  that's the whole point -- western countries need to make cost of life cheaper to become competitive again
    3
  12. ​ @Armour_CS  not with ceramic stealth coating
    3
  13. 1)Idk why they think that range of AA missiles would suddenly quadruple in just 25 years. 2)The soviet strategy during Cold war literally was to use nukes against NATO air bases. What was the strategy back then?
    3
  14. I mean even if Zircon missile flies at hypersonic speeds, can it hit anything? Especially without nuclear warhead. And how much of those can Russia build? We all know the story of Su-57, twelve prototypes with Su-35 engines, 2 serial planes with first crashing because of the new 5gen engine failure. I can believe China making hypersonic weapons, but I doubt Russia can. Would be nice if US developed its own hypersonic glide vehicle, though.
    3
  15.  @spartanonxy  F-35 isn't cheap though. And its flying performance lacks
    3
  16. Youtube bots is a russia and china thing
    3
  17.  @tomk3732  not just russia said 3 days, recently some documents were unveiled that actually estimated that first russian forces would enter kiev in the first day
    3
  18.  @LordMarksman14  typical russian bot, winter in Europe and Ukraine this year seems to be much warmer than in russia.
    3
  19.  @LordMarksman14  lol you even talk like a bot go get your 15 rubles
    3
  20. The idea that speed doesn't matter is absolutely false. The thing is, the more speed you have, the more kinetic energy you have, and this kinetic energy can be transferred to your missiles and maybe even guided bombs, adding range, which is one of the most important things on a battlefield. That's why it's good that US started production of F-15EXs instead of just more F-35s, J-20s won't defeat themselves. As for F-15EXs speed, am I the only viewer that remembers that on this exact channel archive footage was demostrated where F-15 characteristics were compared with Mig-25 during some military presentation, and the speed of F-15 was stated as Mach 3?
    3
  21. Few things should be noted: 1)As far as I understand, AIM-7 Sparrows largely performed poorly in Vietnam due to rules of engagement prohibiting BVR shots. I wonder how Mig-17s, 19s and 21s would fare against those missiles if american pilots attacked from distances at which they couldn't have been seen. 2)The whole notion that lighter fighter equates better maneuverability is not necessarily true, especially for one circle fights. 3)The high thrust-to-weight ratio is one of the most important characteristics for modern fighters, and all countries, be that US, Russia, China or european countries try to have at least one fighter with very high TWR. 4)F-35 is quite questionable aircraft to be fair. No wonder it is being criticized. And while it is not a problem that is a "terrible bomber"(it is), since it's not a bomber at all(it's a SEAD/strike aircraft), the problem that it definitely could have been designed to be better, if STOVL was not a requirement.
    2
  22.  @vitopannucci2001  why?
    2
  23.  @jwolf4948  do you have any REAL experience? Or do you make your assumptions based on military propaganda journalist articles made for general population?
    2
  24. sad to see this channel turning into cheap propaganda and F-35 glazing
    2
  25. F-35 is more of a strike aircraft than a fighter. No wonder it doesn't satisfy 5th gen fighter criteria
    2
  26. Hopefully he leaves, as he knows almost nothing about military aircrafts and tanks
    2
  27. ​ @chestergt7765  he actually makes them all the time, I debunked his video about A-10 in comments, lol
    2
  28. ​ @johnathanhughes4367 he's not "pretty good". A-10 videos —rubbish. F-35 video/videos — rubbish, T-14 video — rubbish
    2
  29. B-21 costs almost 700 million dollars per airframe, while F-35 cost 100 million. Better build 7 f-35s than 1 B-21 if we consider air combat(and even better build NGAD and dedicated supersonic drones for it). As for ground attacks, it may be a good idea, depending on how stealthy those drones are
    2
  30. Won't contractors just go bankrupt?
    2
  31. Absolutely mentally deficient comment. Instead of spending a 400k USD missile, make 10 drones and launch them at the enemy
    2
  32. It at least should be fast, otherwise it just gives upper hand to chinese.
    2
  33. That would probably work, maybe this is ironically the best option out of the realistic ones
    2
  34. And if Godzilla can survive those, US has megaton class nuclear warheads that can most likely kill Godzilla or at least buy time for US engineers to assemble something like tsar bomb analogue, but more powerful, probably well above 100Mt, which would just evaporate Godzilla together with everything in radius of few miles
    2
  35.  @ADobbin1  AA missile are quite ineffective EXACTLY because they are launched from stationary platform on the ground.
    2
  36. Depends on flight profile if I remember correctly
    2
  37. Isn't F-15 Mach 3? Or maybe it was artificially limited to mach 2.5?
    2
  38. Kinzhal IS a real hypersonic missile. Same as many other ballistic missiles. And yes, it can be intercepted without much trouble by Patriot PAC-3(or SM-3)
    2
  39.  @n3v3rforgott3n9  Kinzhal(and other ballistic missiles) can be hypersonic in the terminal phase, depending on the trajectory(for Kinzhal it decreases range though)
    2
  40.  @n3v3rforgott3n9  they literally don't. It's a false belief that "nothing" or "no modern missiles" can survive hypersonic terminal phase
    2
  41. Air force came and told him not to sh*t on their actual anti-air workhorse
    2
  42.  @LordMarksman14  I don't work for a wage like you do
    2
  43. There are two problems: 1)it wasn't very stealthy(5 m^2 RCS or so); 2)no internal space for missiles
    1
  44. Russians are losing, stop watching pro-russian copium
    1
  45. your first idea is why unqualified people should give advices
    1
  46. 12:00 You're wrong here. "Mutual assured destruction" won't happen. "Mutual" part is impossible because USA is much more capable than Russia and China combined. "Assured destruction" part is impossible because there are too few warheads to make a big difference. In case of Russia/China and USA launching even all of their ICBMs at each other and not single one being intercepted, that would lead only to several million casualties in Russia/US and maybe several tens million in China. That's not enough to stop a war, it'll just make both opponents much more aggressive, since there will be no fear of retribution anymore. There will be total destruction in the follow up war, which will be fought furiously both with conventional and tactical nuclear weapons, but all this destruction will happen in the homeland of the weaker party(China/Russia). But in real life it's impossible for Russia and China to launch all their ICBMs without interference. While it IS possible technically, it's impossible politically, even for Russia/China, because even they can't just start a war without preparation. Which bring us to the situation where US knows, that it will come under attack, and sends fleet close to enemy shores to engage opponents in case of further escalation. While there was a chance that soviet navy could have put up a fight to distract US fleet long enough for surface and submarine's ICBMs to be launched, Russian and Chinese fleets stand no chances and will probably be destroyed in one salvo of anti-ship missiles. This means that submarines with SLBMs, stationed in ports, will be destroyed faster than they will be able to launch their missiles. Those of them which will be in open waters will be disabled by attack submarines, also before they manage to launch their deadly payload. Russian and Chinese nuclear missile carrying planes won't be able to reach US not being destroyed too. That's where Chinese hypersonic missiles can be useful -- to create problems in destroying Chinese fleet and occupying US ship crews with repelling attacks of DF-21Ds and DF-17s winning time for submarines. That leaves only land-based ICBMs. Destroying them all before they are launched is impossible, yes. But it's not needed to. All that is required, is to gradually decrease swarm of warheads at each defense line, until their number will be in two(or maybe even one) digits gap. Not to be inhumane here, but from a cold strategical standpoint it actually would be beneficial for US to let few(less than 10-20 I guess) warheads achieve its targets, to enrage people and motivate men to join military. Russian "Avangard" can be used to penetrate or fly around those AA defense lines. It also should be noted that if US for example learns that it'll be attacked tomorrow, it can order preemptive strike with SLBMs from Ohio-class submarines and have a chance destroying sites that are close to the shore. Such strike will almost surely cause Russians/Chinese to shoot back almost instantly. Since their reputation is very bad and both are known to be very aggressive, their claims that it's US who started it will not be believed. That's where US may need its hypersonic cruise missiles, to make a quick strike from sea, destroying as many ICBM silos as possible, to ease up burden for AA systems which will have to deal with the rest of the warheads.
    1
  47. Honestly I don't see any benefit in subsonic drones, they would be easily crushed by even older supersonic jets as long as their radars and missiles are good
    1
  48. Much more realistic short-term solution before arrival of NGADs and F/A-XX is pumping out F-15EX fighters. They are not much less stealthiers than J-20s, but are faster and carry more missiles. While F-35 can use their avionics to for targeting
    1
  49.  @tavdy79  To be fair axis lost because they were fighting US and started militarizing economy LATER than both Soviet Union AND USA
    1
  50.  @MrDJAK777  Germany could have technological superiority if not for Hitler
    1
  51.  @DriveLaken  we definitely can. As long as amount of deployed warheads is equal, US will have an advantage
    1
  52. ​ @wulfgreyhame6857 it wouldn't be if F-16 had up to date missiles and radar with AWACS support
    1
  53. ​ @C0LL0SSUS f-22 and EF-2000 probably do, maybe Su-57 can(I know they don't in DCS)
    1
  54.  @anthonykaiser974  pretty sure this "shoot down bandit on its tail" is a myth and won't work in real life
    1
  55. then electronic warfare may become a problem
    1
  56. @ they just need to jam the receiver
    1
  57. Bruh you don't realize how air combat works
    1
  58.  @creepincreepy261  depends on what you mean by "kinetically dodging". If you mean by turning — no. But turning together with chaff/flares — yes. And if range is more than 15 miles or so just dive ASAP into the dense air away from the missile and you gonna be ok. As for 360 degree locking capability, pretty sure it won't really work effectively in air combat against a relatively modern jet
    1
  59.  @Typexviiib  it probably can lock, but not every lock is a kill automatically. Also, where "0.5 second" figure comes from?
    1
  60.  @creepincreepy261  so much military fans live in an imaginary world where simply saying that something works automatically means it does work and in 100% of cases lol
    1
  61.  @creepincreepy261  1)cite sources. 2)what's good about F-22 is that it generally does not rely on some questionable(and likely not working) concepts like "360° missile kill". Radar is based on AA radar concept first implemented in F-15, Maneuverability is just aeromechanics, stealth and internal carrying of weapons were tested rigorously(including in combat) on F-117.
    1
  62.  @Typexviiib  1)because missile has to make much bigger turn. Isn't it obvious? You literally think like a kid 2)14 seconds is not 0.5 second. "Any move you make puts you at disadvantageous position compared to a missile" Not really true, you don't understand physics and geometry. "Just turn and roll at the first beep won't save you" Lol, because you said so? Ahahaha
    1
  63.  @Typexviiib  1)180° is more than 7 or 30, you don't understand geometry. You thinking process is like of of an аutistiс сhiId, lol. 2)I never said about "outmaneuvering" the missile, but about kinetically dodging. The 10 second figure you just made up yourself, lol. But even then diving in the dense air lets to dodge, simply because of how fast the missile loses energy in dense air Ahahahha, looks who is talking about immaturity. You literally made up reality in your own head and your argument is "muh it is so because muh technology", without explaining anything. Your knowledge and understanding of air combat are miniscule and your intellectual capabilities are pathetic
    1
  64.  @jwolf4948  your "real experience" worth almost nothing if you were just some maintenance worker. Your ridiculous statement about Su-57 "dodging" missiles by maneuvers is absolutely ridiculous, it definitely not how it works. The fact that you claimed it is possible just shows how much of an idiоt you are. Missile can be evaded kinematically, can be chaffed/flared together with maneuvers, plane can use its supermaneuverability to remain close to enemy plane(in scissors or something) to not let enemy plane use missiles, but "dodging" missiles by high-AoA maneuvers is impossible(unless the missile is super old, from cold war era). Not to mention that those maneuvers bleed speed like crazy. Same goes for the 360° locking ability. If enemy plane flies straight, doesn't maneuver and doesn't use flares, then yes, there is probability that it can be shot down. But it's not how it is in an air combat. The sources I use(unlike you and other dumbasses in this comment section; honestly, even guys who make all of their comclusions based on DCS game are smarter than you) are not military propaganda, youtubers or some specific "experience" that has nothing to do with the topic. I basically use open sources and make extremely simple logic conclusions that lead me to the correct results
    1
  65. Not powerful enough
    1
  66. US probably will do it too when the war with china will happen
    1
  67. I'm really skeptical about getting rid of supermaneuverability and speed, especially on air dominance fighter. What will prevent enemy from making a huge missiles suited to kill such targets from long range? In my opinion such ideas can lead to same situation that happened in early years of Vietnam war, with US getting rid of the guns on fighters and having problems dealing with first generation fighters(Mig-17, Mig-19) despite having third generation ones(F-4 Phanthom 2) themselves.
    1
  68. it has too low thrust to weight
    1
  69. F-35 is only dangerous against surface targets. A-10 can be quite effective is AA is somewhat supressed(or if it flies close to the ground), same as Su-25 are in Russi-Ukrainian war. On top of that, A-10 is cheap
    1
  70.  @Registered_Simp  1)F-35 air-to-air capabilities are questionable and limited. Yes, they can probably defeat 4th gens with old radar and old missiles. But with a more or less modern avionics and missiles 4th gens can even out the odds. Something like Su-35 is even more dangerous and F-35 would most likely lose one v one. 5th gens are out of question. Even if Su-57 is unfinished and will remain in such state forever, J-20 is, and it will be a huge danger to F-35. 2)Not the same, for higher cost. And F-16 needs air superiority too, or it will suffer losses. 3)Firstly, Su-25 is not "much faster". Secondly, provide statistics about those "pilot losses when aircraft can still fly". Thirdly, if there's no all out war, one can pick the best aircraft for the mission(and there almost certainly is an air supremacy over the battlefield). If there is all out war, there most likely gonna courses to quickly acquire new moderately skilled pilots, so there wouldn't be lack of them for subsonic aircrafts
    1
  71. Should be noted that both Russia and China, as far as I am aware, do not possess effective anti-drone aa. So just a combination of Bairaktar and suicide drones will effectively destroy even multi-layered aa defense for much less cost than stealth aircrafts.
    1
  72.  @maleprincess62  which got cancelled
    1
  73. There will be no last war. Wars will always keep happenning
    1
  74. as F-16 replacement it's not excellent, but very good
    1
  75. F-22 definitely does worth it, you're delusional
    1
  76.  @mrvwbug4423  stop listening to propaganda, USAF has good fighters for air combat, but it's not F-35
    1
  77.  @AvocadoAfficionado  F-35 is bad for air engagements because it's slow. STOVL requirement ruined it
    1
  78.  @AvocadoAfficionado  because it directly affects the kinetic energy and therefore range of the missiles
    1
  79.  @Leon1Aust  1)We don't know the conditions of those exercises. When some older aircrafts defeated newer ones simps always talk about us not knowing circumstances, yet when the reverse happens somehow it's a fair victory. 2)"network centric" doesn't have to only be used in F-35 3)it doesn't work like that, firstly, both opponents are aware of each other because of AWACS; secondly, you overestimate the effectiveness of stealth against modern radars; thirdly, modern missiles have active seeker heads. J-20s and other modern aircrafts would struggle a bit with locking on F-35, but they WILL get a lock and launch the missile from decent distance.
    1
  80. Tbf Russia calls its Su-35 a "4++ gen fighter", despite it's just a 4+ at best, comparable to Rafale or Typhoon.
    1
  81.  @bluemarlin8138  Probably no, they gonna be replaced by boeing 747s as bombers(and those may unironically survive till warp age)
    1
  82. F-15EX would be a better option to accompany F-22s than F-35
    1
  83. ​ @MemesOfProduction69 examples of misinformation from Redeffect?
    1
  84. F-22 was almost perfect except for lack of open systems architecture
    1
  85.  @joshuabajao5767  we don't know before the war happens
    1
  86. 1)Wait, during Cold War USSR had huge amount of medium-range nuclear missiles. What was the NATO doctrine regarding those, i.e. they created the same problem of airbases being in huge risk 2)Satellites can be targets too, maybe it's better to shoot them down than tolerate them 3)1000 mile AA missiles would be extremely expensive, probably drones simulating tankers would be the best counters
    1
  87. It seems India only has Astra I missile that has quite low range compared to PL-15E, 110km vs 145km
    1
  88.  @mojothemigo  F-35 is somewhat a failure(as a replacement for F-16 and F-18). It however is amazing as STOVL, SEAD, battlefield-awacs, reconnaissance and anti-ship strike aircraft.
    1
  89. The prototype was already developed, but the thing is that mosquitoes and flies are a big problem only in two regions: Аfriса(because of malaria) and Siberia(because of sheer amount of gnat("гнус" in Russian), which can easily kill even big animals). Both however are not vаIuаbIе enough to justify the funding of such device
    1
  90.  @chuckandmax7313  guess that doesn't happen often enough to attract R&D funding, at least for now
    1
  91.  @Custodes1  do you have problems with reading and processing the information? The OP tried to justify shooting down cheap drones with missiles that cost 10 times more than the drone. To which I replied that instead shooting down those drones it's better to spend those money on building your own drones and use them against enemy. If you can afford to build the as many rockets as enemy can make drones, it means you can make 10 times more drones than the enemy. Unless you're VERY small country, building drones will be more effective strategy. P.S. applied to balloons, it means — instead of shooting them down if enemy starts sending a lot of them, build your own
    1
  92.  @ryanc9876  literally above yours is my comment in which I thoroughly explain, why that logic is incorrent. Or is it invisible?
    1
  93.  @pahtar7189  I understand your point, but the problem is that your point is just ridiculous. It's like trying to fight a war without casualties. It's impossible to intercept all missiles, and it's often impossible to even intercept most of them. It is much more cost effective to spend those money on offensive weapons instead of AA missiles which can't attack enemy forces.
    1
  94.  @aymonfoxc1442  absolutely brаin-dеаd соmmеnt. Fighter is cheaper than bomber and can easily shoot bomber. That's why it's being said that analogy is not an argument
    1
  95.  @ryanc9876  if enemy can launch drones at you, it means you can launch drones at enemy. There's no need to give drones too much capabilities, and the whole point is to make many cheap drones. You comment doesn't really address issues brought up by mine, you just say "muh building too good kamikaze drones is a bad idea". Yeah, ok, build them cheaper
    1
  96.  @aymonfoxc1442  factories are definitely indestructible if we are talking about very light drones. On top of that, cheaper systems like lasers or AA guns with proximity fuses can be used against heavier drones. Gladly people in charge of defense aren't idiоts(unIikе уоu) and because of that systems like Skynex and Iron Beam are being developed exactly to counter the threat of cheap drones.
    1
  97.  @trumanhw  1) anti-icbm defenses are not made to stop all missiles, if you knew something about how both of them work you'd never wrote something like that. 2)You're generally correct about A-10 and F-15/16, but A-10 maybe will be replaced by lighter strike aircrafts, F-15 will probably be replaced together with f-22 by NGAD, and as for F-16 also will eventually be replaced, but US will need something cheap to do it(like project F-36 Kingsnake), as F-16's job is to fill the skies and provide numerical advantage
    1
  98.  @aymonfoxc1442  1)learn how to write proper grammatic constructions. 2)No, we just should let the drones fly and hit "targets" if they can't be intercepted cheaply. But the best defenses are: a)relocation of production to distant regions; b)decentralization of production; c)protection of production facilities with cheap "armor"(for example something like metal nets would protect from lancet drones and cheap wooden constructions would help against shahed drones). 3)if you think AA guns can't intercept drones it shows you lack even basic knowledge about drone warfare and how for example Ukraine dealt with them
    1
  99. 12g is not that much
    1
  100. ​ @heinedenmark  china is a paper tiger
    1
  101. ​ @richardwillson101  russia is not "holding back new units", it uses all available ones, and even sends specialists(like air technicians and drone operators) into meat wave assault. And it did not run out of manpower because it had mobilization in donbass(at least 140k), then in russia(300k to 500k), then almost 500k signed contract in 2023, then around 450k signed it in 2024
    1
  102. ​ @MA-nl6js  chinese engineers are very meh, simple quantity doesn't matter
    1
  103. ​ @jmckittrick1  President elect is Donald Trump and it will be up to him. See how his position about Ukraine changed despite Musk
    1
  104. ​ @j4genius961  US innovates ahead of china
    1
  105. ​ @丝鱿鱼  USA is ahead of China economically, its GDP is higher
    1
  106. There's a rumor I heard many times that they somehow managed(or plan) to fit 6 mid-range missiles instead of 4 in its weapon bays. Haven't seen it in such configuration, so it may be a hoax to scare off china a bit
    1
  107. Woefully it is
    1
  108. > "air superiority fighter" > questionable maneuverability > relatively low thrust-to-weight ratio(lower than that of F-15EX) > limited amount of internal hardpoints(only 4) > max speed is only Mach 1.6(bruh) Just lol, unless Chinese screwed up when they designed J-20 they will have a solid advantage
    1
  109.  @QuantumAscension1  Have you watched Whatifalthist video about this?
    1
  110. Please cite sources about russia 'rapidly' loosing MiG-31s
    1
  111.  @SianaGearz  They don't get more expensive, you're wrong. As for "where we get more good pilots?", we may not need to. A lot of good jets with decent pilots is better than few excellent jets with amazing pilots, unless those amazing jets can kill less amazing ones with one shot(which may be true, though)
    1
  112. I hope they won't be sent to Russia as lend lease in a war with Ukraine/Europe
    1
  113.  @doomedwit1010  No, I'm pretty sure with some optimizations done by Trump administration US can make fast and good stealth fighter
    1
  114. F-117 is much more useful than SR-71
    1
  115. It is not entirely true. From 1943 US got ahead in naval aviation, and in 1944 when battle of Philippine Sea happened the advantage in quality was higher than in numbers. Plus Japan also suffered from faulty pilot training program
    1
  116. Big decentralized country with a lot of resources and economically right-wing policies, what did you expect?
    1
  117. supercruising is not its greatest problem, and large distances actually make this problem less important
    1
  118. Not a complete failure, but could have been definitely better
    1
  119.  @aidanwilliams9452  f-22 combat radius is 600 miles, F-35 is 590, so it's not "1.3 times higher", it's actually lower
    1
  120.  @aidanwilliams9452  sources?
    1
  121.  @aidanwilliams9452  F-22 is 600nm
    1
  122.  @aidanwilliams9452  what makes you think F-22 did not see any improvements, lol?
    1
  123.  @aidanwilliams9452  upgrade could have been marginal/secret. If you check the wiki article about f-22, you can see that thrust of it's engine is actually higher than it was initially(there is initial/nominal figure and a note about now thrust actually being higher). So there definitely were some upgrades to its engines
    1
  124.  @aidanwilliams9452  the fact that they do not immediately report everything doesn't mean it is not true(not to mention the aforementioned source cites other(albeit unspecified) sources). On top of that, it's actually much more likely that F-22 have seen some improvements to its engine rather than not. And while it does not automatically mean increase in range, it is quite likely. As for F-35 we don't even know to which of the variants the figures apply and are those actually practically true(for example this "max range" can be achieved on absurdly low speeds). And while I can believe that all variants can achieve max speed of mach 1.6(even though on russian wiki B and C variants' max speed is stated to be mach 1.2), I extremely strongly doubt it in case of range. Since there is a lot of simping and propaganda about F-35 now(kinda funny how internet quickly changed it's attitude to an almost polar opposite), I really prefer to lowball estimations of its characteristics, as good planes don't need to be fervently defended by brain-dead simps
    1
  125. Wait, what limitations?
    1
  126. ​ @Rob_F8F  Lazerpig is extremely biased and delusional(basically an F-35 fanboy)
    1
  127. Would definitely trigger me to escalation. I hate being threatened
    1
  128. Honestly with US and China being so big in terms of population Europe needs to unite(at least merge militaries) and jump into a competition rather than just rely on US
    1
  129. Ukraine needs A-10s but not in great numbers. What it needs in larger numbers are F-16s. But we don't need to think "how they will use them?", because there's already an answer -- the same way they use Su-25s and Mig-29s, respectively. Also it should be noted that firstly, a lot of newer Russian armor is already destroyed, and secondly, a now fighting is more of a combination of infantry and artillery fights. So A-10s would be quite effective against those types of targets.
    1
  130. No
    1
  131.  @foxglow6798  speed is probably one of the most important things(together with thrust-to-weight ratio) for air combat because it directly affects the range of missiles. The only one more important thing is radar/IRST
    1
  132.  @PrezVeto  by "true" hypersonic I meant the same thing as the author of the video
    1
  133. @ Isn't F/A-18E/F also multirole?
    1
  134. @ It would have been a good argument, but at least in terms of designation F/A-XX seem to also be multirole
    1
  135. @ your comment doesn't contain any logic, and analogy is not an argument
    1
  136. Well, seems to be that humans are better at adapting than AI
    1
  137.  @Registered_Simp  I don't think it will ever change. AI advantage is that it can have better precision and have more dogfights in certain time period. And I'm not sure that it will be feasible for AI to quickly adapt to an opponent after 1 or 2 dogfights in next several decades. And by then we will probably just augment human brains with microchips to surpass any AI
    1
  138. I would still put my money on F-15/16/18, provided they have full missile loadout, those missiles are new ones, planes have new engines and an up-to-date radar. There are 2 things to be noted, however. First, other countries(basically Russia and China) probably have less advanced radars and missiles heads, which gives F-35 better chances. Second, F-35 is basically a fifth-gen Harrier, the fact that it can contest jets that were made to dominate the skies is already incredible.
    1
  139.  @ChucksSEADnDEAD  Google says F-35 max speed is Mach 1.6, F-16 with full aa loadout is 1.55, F-15 is 1.8
    1
  140. Hope europe develops similar system
    1
  141. Raptor's engine has better thrust-to-weight ratio than F-35's
    1
  142. Hope GCAP and FCAS will be able to compete with F-47
    1
  143. It's kinda bad that US will retire B1B, because of it being a good compromise between stealthiness and striking capabilities.
    1
  144. ​ @meanman6992  Mach 3 clean means mach 2.5 with weapons. Speed adds energy(and therefore range) to weapons
    1
  145. I really doubt even clean F-18 has RCS in 0.1-1 m^2 range, F-16 has it around 5 m^2. But even if it was that low-observable, with weapons its RCS will be higher
    1
  146. Sort of, unless they can carry nuclear warheads.
    1
  147. ​ @wape1 to be fair that's largely because US doctrine is based on having air supremacy, with aircrafts being in the role of artillery
    1
  148.  @Typexviiib  F-15 is more survivable than F-35 for sure(but the latter is better at SEAD)
    1
  149. Russia fights like soviet union, that's why ukraine is winning. We don't know how china fights yet
    1
  150. The only potential targets for them are ships, I guess
    1
  151. The world won't be over, even the respective countries won't. Nuclear weapons are overrated by panicking people like you
    1
  152. 💁🏻‍♂️
    1
  153.  @aidanwilliams9452  source?
    1
  154. ​ @LeonardTavast ablative protection?
    1
  155. ​ @mathewvanostin7118 we don't need PhDs
    1
  156. ​ @Biden_has_dementia PAC-3 is confirmed to be able to shoot Kinzhal down
    1
  157. That's why for it to succeed they need to make it only as replacement for F-16/F-18(and F-35A/C)
    1