Comments by "Jim Mcneal" (@jimmcneal5292) on "Sandboxx"
channel.
-
9
-
9
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1