Comments by "Sedna063" (@Sedna063) on "Matsimus" channel.

  1.  @dogdog2257  German Eurofighter is not bad. Maintenance issues because the German MOD is just incapable.
    19
  2.  @gabilax2745  I would not call the Rafale a strategic bomber. It lacks the range and the payload to fly deep into enemy territory and deliver strategic strikes. Strategic bombers are B1-B, B52 and B2 - all have at least 30,000 kilos payload and ranges of above 10,000 kilometers. Rafale is a great tactical bomber. As to reconaissance, the current damocles pod limits it a bit.
    9
  3.  @terrywainman6050  I would not call the Rafale "french junk" because that would not just be an insult but wrong as well. And in terms of A2G, Rafale has an edge, because low flying missions and it can carry 1.5 tons of payload more. But sure, the Typhoon is great. But in some aspect it loses to the Rafale and vice versa.
    6
  4.  @thomasbessis2809  Laughs in German. Dude - Germany has been building fighters for decades. We were a partner nation for the Tornado and founding member of Airbus. Half of the engine in the EF was supplied by MTU
    6
  5. And they give lift, the canards of the Rafale. Much lower mininal speed which is advantageous for carrier based planes. This also gives them a very high payload and great handling at lower air speeds. EF is designed for unconditional dogfight. Anything else can be offset by it's strong engines. And great comment, you must be the only one ever to know of Damocles. I heard that they will get a new pod though, couldn't find something about it though.
    5
  6.  @spartan-ml7nk  What aircraft flies at 200,000 feet?
    4
  7.  @thomasbessis2809  I would not say routinely. All aircrafts mentioned have lost and won against each other. The Eurofighter was designed an air superiority fighter but then, so was the F15 and we know how capable it is in strike role. Principally, the Eurofighter can do the same as the French. Airframe is slightly different and the payload is worse but then, it can drop a bomb / PGM, shoot missiles and cruise missiles just fine.
    3
  8. 14 hardpoints give me a hardpoint
    3
  9. He did way more than sit in a hotel (and a lot of that time on British insistance). He was the first President of the 5th republic and had a large influence to rebuilt it. Plus, he never collaborated with the Germans during the war. He also served his country in WW1 and was a POW. Way more than Churchill.... Sincerely, A German.
    3
  10.  @DeNihility  I am not too sure that the Canadians will buy US. After all, they are still pretty pissed the way they treated Bombardier.
    2
  11.  @Vincou13  It is only strategic when they nuke with it. A real strategic bomber carries the fight deep into enemy territory without resorting to nuclear weapons.
    2
  12. Do you have any proof for that ridiculous allegation that the EU wants all countries to replace it immediately? Because I call BS.
    2
  13. Leih Tory similar to the Eurofighter Typhoon. RCS of both is perhaps 0.5 M*2 but then, radars can pick them up quite early nowadays with advances in tech
    2
  14.  @manassurya2019  They were far easier to maintain but also much less capable. Dassault had to because the Rafale M is a carrier plane - much harder requirements.
    2
  15. De Gaulle led a division in 1940. Eisenhower wasn't even with the war effort in 1941. Saying that De Gaulle did nothing is false.
    2
  16.  @Laspartam  And a baguette holder and a "Umweltplakette" (environmental friendly seal)
    2
  17. @Dan oz Napoleon would not a good name. Kinda like Germans don’t name anything after the Kaiser or Bismarck anymore.
    2
  18.  @mothdude4211  In 1940s..... Today is 2020 and it would not be feasable to call a new ship Bismarck anymore.
    2
  19.  @ENGLISHISBEST  He was the leader of the free France and re-established a strong republic, worked with Germany to became friends and then founded a lot of precursors to the EU. He is probably the most important Frenchman in the 21 century.
    2
  20. Ehm, Typhoon flies in Syria and Libya too.
    2
  21.  @pradhyumanchaudhary6495  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kptbU-57ALo You may want to Google Operation Ellamy.
    2
  22. T B6 And I would sit myself in an EF anyday for any mission (well, not SEAD against Kaliningrad).
    2
  23.  @stupidburp  Same number as Typhoon. One must say, our Eurocanards are fine pieces of machinery.
    2
  24. Its a Faraday cage, it has EMP protection
    2
  25. None of the Eurocanards use thrust vectoring.
    2
  26. Vector thrust is overrated
    2
  27. The French have a history of building delta-canards though - look at the Mirage series.
    2
  28.  @Fabio-om4kb  It is still quite a show of disrespect that you chose to communicate in a tongue that is not spoken by most users of this channel. English isn't my mother tongue either and I still use it for the sake of communications. Honestly, it really gives the French people a bad reputation with their regard to other people's languages et cetera. Feels disrespectful. Not even speaking to the loss of meaning through Google Translate. RCS reduction has been featured by the Typhoon's inlets as well - they bend so that the engine blades aren't exposed, similarly the way the Rafale's blend sideways. Equally, Typhoon uses carbon composites and Radar absorbing material in the front. None of the aircraft are particularly stealthy though, RCS figures for both are quite similar so we would be rather stupid to compare our jets in that area. Nonetheless, the air intakes of the Typhoon offer superior air flow into the engines.
    2
  29.  @lordtemplar9274  The air inlets of the EF are similarly curved to reduce RCS - the blades aren't visible to radar as well. As I said, any RCS speculation on both planes is just that, speculation. Similar situation with Spectra, we do not know the extend of the capabilities. As for usage - the RAF uses a much different doctrine and would never let pilots fly over SAM systems (even if they used Spectra....). Just a different approach to use soldiers and their life. Technically, it did not need Tomahawks.
    2
  30.  @marc9080  And another French person with a complete disregard for manners and respect. Are you taught to be rude at school? For the record, the Typhoon is not a copy. Otherwise, is every plane a copy because it does have wings? The requirements have been similar enough to employ a similar design yet there are substantial differences. Obviously 4 nations require way more coordination than one nation and plane maker all by itself.
    2
  31. Eurofighter dropped out likewise. Just politics game. Both jets were ideally suited for Canada's needs. Long range, high-speed, strong A2A and A2G. NATOs finest 4.5 gen jets.
    2
  32. It also is way more expensive to built and is built to pristine conditions - it cannot tolerate mud or sand or dust. (MG34 that is)
    2
  33.  @SaintMarneusCalgar  The MG34 had reliability problems when in daunting conditions. The MG42 was easier and faster to produce, cheaper as well and worked better, plus the enormous firepower gave it a tactical advantage. 1 Mg 42 could pump out more lead than 5 BARs
    2
  34. Hey man. Can you do a video on the Eurofighter? I know you did one two years ago but so you made 2 about Rafale and Gripen now so?
    1
  35. Yeah, that teaser couldn't be real. Why would you put your most valuable asset so close to the prime military power on the planet
    1
  36. And according to aerodynamics, Rafale's engine intakes on the side compromise air flow to some extend that it will not flow into the engine at some maneuvers. Basically, fighter jets are always a trade off. As for omnirole, it is more like marketing from Dassault than a real term. After all, a Typhoon can carry a pod too (Litening III which is actually superior to Damocles), bombs and missiles. Does seem like omnirole.
    1
  37. Well, reliability always comes in handy. And then look how much thrust it has with 2. 2 smaller engines are less technically challenging as one huge big one which has to work 100%
    1
  38. omine OL More to do with defense spending
    1
  39.  @lordtemplar9274  The Eurofighter managed to kill an F22 too in simulated dogfights, so what. Those are exercises and not real combat.
    1
  40. Actually, you are wrong. They have been found to be very reliable.
    1
  41. But with less payload et cetera than those competitors.
    1
  42.  @RedXlV  Oh absolutely, it's a masterpiece of fighter jet design.
    1
  43.  @viktorvlasov483  Well, a gatling tends to take a few moments to run to full speed. Shouldn't happen with that Mauser.
    1
  44. Well, the original Abrams gun is already a license of the German gun.
    1
  45.  @stupidburp  They are cheaper and India must look out for costs though. I think they will buy Rafales. Maybe some used ones from France to save some bucks. Others say they want a political alternative as well so that's why they consider Eurofighter too. I love the EF but it is a very long shot. They would rather not buy American because they doubt their commitment.
    1
  46.  @stupidburp  Most parts for the Rafale would still be sourced in France and other high-cost European / American countries. They obviously won't get the entire production line for parts, merely they will get the final assembly line. That might reduce the costs a little but a Snecma M88 will cost the same in France and India.
    1
  47.  @stupidburp  I doubt that the French would give away all their technology away so freely. We will see.
    1
  48.  @GemsOfIndianRight  F/A-18 isn't stealthy at all and the Indians had bad experience with American tech for a long time, given the US policy to interfere with theirs regarding Pakistan
    1
  49. Probably we don't know about anything.
    1
  50. There are some drawbacks to Canada which make it a little more unlikely for it to adopt Rafale. -Rafale uses almost exclusively French ammunition which would mean a complete new set of bombs and missiles, some of them dated. -Spare parts could not be used at all.
    1
  51.  @dickmelsonlupot7697  Ammunition is quite important as the Rafale almost exclusively relies on French-made weapons. If Canada were to use the Rafale, they would have to buy a lot of new stuff while making their old stuff obsolete. And those AASMs are expensive, more so than the normal Paveway series (the Rafale is limited with them). As for missiles, they don't use Sidewinders or Amraams, instead they rely on the MICA and the Magic, although they got the new Meteor. Ammo for guns is something completely different. We talk about high-tech stuff that costs millions a piece and not cents. Comparing a Mica and the 7.62 NATO and saying both are old but good is comparing apples and beans. One has to fight planes that come with new technology every year. The other just flies a ballistic path and has no further effect than penetrating. Actually, Airbus tries to design the spare parts for all of their planes to be similar / interchangeable so that they cost less. Known as communality. And often, the equipment to use the spare parts can be re-used.
    1
  52. There is no reason that reliability is not good. In fact, the engines are the most reliable engines in service up do date. The problem is again that our (German) MOD is not capable to order spare parts in advance.
    1
  53. lyxar777 60 billion is nothing for the US when they get a working design. Russia spend 1/6th of the development sum, their economy is 1/10th and they didn’t even get a working design
    1
  54.  @randomconnard8338  I would not really trust those. Orientation during a combat mission is quite difficult and they would rather be safe than downing a French jet.
    1
  55. No carrier can swim alone.
    1
  56. I would trust a French Army any day.
    1
  57. What will you do at night and when they destroy solar panels? Just get yourself a huge RTG
    1
  58. Perhaps. Could be Eurofighter as well but I guess most likely Gripen.
    1
  59. Manas Surya Maintenance is only as good as the army using it.
    1
  60. Drew Thompson can’t say. Probably not but we all know it takes a lot
    1
  61. True. Try flying an F16 without vertical control....
    1
  62. Sir, congratulations for this perfect youtube comment
    1
  63. They won't do much damage against a hardened bunker, that is what Storm Shadow and Taurus are for.
    1
  64. A Eurofighter can pull the same limits as well. Obviously a French pilot would destroy the EF. Similar how an RAF pilot would talk about anything else or an F22, F15 or Suchoi-35 pilot would talk about other planes that are not his. Hell, find an Audi driver and he will tell you his car is better than the neighbour's BMW
    1
  65. Steak Saignant Point is that a French pilot is arguably not an unbiased source
    1
  66.  @valegendre  They have been around since the MiG29 I think
    1
  67. Eurofighter was used and is in use currently.
    1
  68. Plus the F100 has a reputation to be fairly unreliable
    1
  69. He is French. They would always think that.
    1
  70. A typhoon is the asian name for a tropical storm - the american name is hurricane.
    1
  71.  @lordtemplar9274  So, may I say that it is quite tiring to hear the same stuff again and again. Spectra is not an iron man suite. We don't even know the extend of the capabilities because they are all classified. You say active cancellation, I say radiowave frequency chances - something most radars do. And if you don't hit the G-spot for the frequency and the phase, you are pretty much just a giant menu card blinking "here I am". As I read a lot of claims on that and nothing definitive, I am not regarding that. As for EW suite in general, Rafale is superior in that regard but a Tranche 4 would definitely be able to make a hell a lot of ground. They talk about a pure ECR version for Germany, something that will surpass Spectra as well. So, an exercise from 2009 is quite irrelevant nowadays. Bear in mind you beat a Typhoon of Tranche 1 standard, hardly any substantial capabilities. The amount of updates does not mean it is better! Typhoon got a completely new spectrum of missions added to it's list, that is not "just some ground capabilities". You will find that the Typhoon is quite capable. As to why the RAF waits to send pilots in, doctrine. Why would you send your 70 million pound machine and risk a pilot against a fixed site you know is there and can use a 1 million pound cruise missile you have in stock. Not a claim for superiority. Rather shows a different attitude to life lost. As for the RCS, nope, you are dead wrong about the intakes. The blades are not exposed because the inlets are curved in an S-shape upwards, obscuring the view on the blades. I already told you to look it up, a pity I can't add a picture. As for Spectra, I already talked about that. I don't know what planet you live on but on mine, the government of Germany and Spain have agreed to buy Captor E Mark I for all their jets to be implemented by 2022. Rafale has had AESA since 2014 (when the first squadron had it) and up to date, they produce 2 radars each month, meaning that not all French jet use the radar jet. As for the GaN - I highly doubt you get a new radar because they cost billions to develop. I have not heard anything in that direction and doubt you do. I have heard rumour though that the Captor E will use GaN, although I cannot confrm that. As it is larger than the Rafale's, it can use more T/R modules. Additionally, it is mechanically coupled to give a much wider search arch than pure AESA radars which remain fixed. I would definitely put any radar advantage to the Typhoon in the future. Given that the Rafale and the EF compete for the future Swiss fighter, one should take this into account and not the current radar status. As for Meteor, I think the Typhoon can enjoy a double-datalink whereas the Rafale can only have one link. And as for other capabilities, note that the Rafale has lacked a helmet mounted display since the F4 batch whereas Typhoon can use one. I can only recommend to read this article: https://hushkit.net/2015/12/18/typhoon-versus-rafale-the-final-word/ The website is quite good, only thing is they don'T have a search module.
    1
  72.  @a350fsx7  Please don't take too much on Lord Templar's opinion because it is just that. A lot of French people base the superiority of the Rafale on irrelevant things and supposed capabilities that are extremely classified and not accessible to rate to either of us. They tend to argue with past arguments when the future is what is deciding. You are right, the Typhoon makes greater use of RAM but the RCS for both is quite similar and I would actually rate the Rafale better for this because Spectra can offset a lot. He is right, the EW wing of the EF is not completely developed but nothing that can't be corrected. There are talks for a dedicated ECR variant for Germany, I think they can definitely make some EW elements into the normal model. As for the Radar, read the comment I did for Lord Templar (where I put a lot of stuff in context). Radar advantage goes to EF in the future. And the radar will also be fitted to Tranche 2 models. https://hushkit.net/2015/12/18/typhoon-versus-rafale-the-final-word/ Have a read, quite good assesment. And if you are from the German speaking part, you may try esut.de. Stands for "Europäische Sicherheit und Technik"; a magazine for military enthusiasts for technology.
    1
  73. Great comment. I love how you integrated all aspects into the equation.
    1
  74. Pakistanis and Indians both are absolutely ridiculous when it comes to defence videos.
    1
  75. 40,000 tons. It is enormously expensive to built a carrier.
    1
  76.  @markfischer3626  True. But they cost in the range of 13 billion each and need 6000 sailors and personnel in total to operate. That is prohibitively expensive. France wants to replace it with a new one though, 70,000 tons.
    1
  77.  @markfischer3626  True, but 4000 is still a huge number and a big expense. And the older carriers have 6000 and back in those days, CdG was designed.
    1
  78. The thing is, the F22 set a standard that is nowadays common for new designed jets - stealthy features for a maximum survivability, internal weapon storage. Typhoon has a far more conventional layout.
    1
  79.  @TrangleC  Just ignore the generation marketing, it is just that. Analysts do not deal in generations. I would probably give any future plane stealth features (because the advantages of computing allow stealth and maneuverability) but would put maneuverability first. To offset any disadvantage, I would field a very strong EW suit to the plane.
    1
  80. TrangleC No, did not get a comment. My last reply about marketing and EW suits, stealth and maneuverability were the last comments I sawapart from this commont from you
    1
  81.  @TrangleC  Rule number 1 on Youtube, have a thick skin. You have a lot of those comments, especially when we talk about a highly nationalist topic like military where no side can admit defeat. I have seen this countless times with the French and their Rafale. The thing is, ordnance can be carried externally too. Stealth would deffo give an advantage for SEAD though and once air superiority has been established, it should be possible to have internal and external storage. In this regard, the F35 is quite good. As for the tandem part, a jet without it's weapons at hand is a dead jet.
    1
  82. andy capp nope. It will prove to be the day Russia lost the competition in jet fighters for top tier
    1
  83.  @ggoddkkiller1342  When did the US loose 553 Abrams?
    1
  84. tricosteryl That is one of the biggest advantages over the Typhoon (which I love)
    1
  85. 75 with reheat.
    1
  86. The problem with French fighters is that they almost exclusively carry French ammo. Canada doesn't have French bombs and would have to buy new.
    1
  87.  @stupidburp  Find me a source please. Wikipedia English says: A2A: -Mica -Magic II -Meteor (planned) A2G: -MBDA Apache -Storm Shadow -ASSM -GBU series -Mark 82 -Exocet Only the Mark 82 and the GBU are currently with Canada.
    1
  88.  @qenyaithandrill7848  Germany may have built the last indigenous fighter in 1945 but that absolutely does not mean we can't! We never needed help from anyone, we decided that we want to reduce costs (which obviously failed).
    1
  89. They are similar because they come from the same development plan but differ a lot. It isn't copy of Typhoon, likewise Typhoon isn't a copy of Rafale.
    1
  90.  @spartan-ml7nk  You must live in 2010 because the EF can carry pretty much the entire NATO palate of Ammo. Which France cannot do. Low budget countries? The UK and Germany are not low budget countries.
    1
  91. Roland Rakotomalala Keep your BS - no pilot would ever refrain to train against another jet, especially if said jet is supposed to be superior.
    1
  92.  @johansmifthelry9307  Why would people in charge refrain from having their pilots trained against adversaries. The F22 still trains with the EF even after the EF defeated it in mock fights. I won't treat those comments seriously because it is nonsensical and nobody ever came up with proof. By the way, many more exercises took part between 2009 and now, guess what, Rafale ain't not superior.
    1
  93. Just getting updated for WW3
    1
  94. The UK needs the F35 for their new carriers. Eurofighters can't land on them. Italy needs to replace the Tornado.
    1
  95. 127mm ammo for a 155 mm gun?
    1
  96. Fabio 86 english please
    1
  97.  @Fabio-om4kb  First of all, it is quite impolite to write in French under an english speaking video. And secondly, the air inlets had to be spaced above for Rafale to have more reserves for their carriers. It ain't optimal for air flow into the engines, a belly inlet is far superior.
    1
  98.  @lordtemplar9274 Please inform yourself, the EF air inlets are not straight. Repeating it makes it no less false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#Airframe_overview As for Spectre, this is entirely a speculation and with a combat loadout, any gains would be nullified. Active cancellation is a claim they make, I doubt it that it could work satisfactory against modern radars that change frequencies every few milliseconds. The F35B is a SVTOL plane that the RAF wants to buy for their carriers - they are not intended to replace the Typhoon at all, solely the old Harriers and to give the new carriers a carrier wing. Please don't make up stuff. The EW capabilities are underdeveloped, the consortium has agreed to change that. For the Luftwaffe, the EF is poised to get a designated ECR variant (which would surpass anything the Rafale could do). As for the doctrine, you can google it. I currently cannot provide a link for it but I will look out for it, read it somewhere.
    1
  99. Most likely with Typhoons. Perhaps they will be able to carry a ton more payload.
    1
  100.  @maxchilla732  Ha, Sie sind nicht zufällig auch Kommentator auf Aerotelegraph.com? Flugzeugfreak1 hier. Ich denke nicht das der Tornado durch die F/A-18 ersetzt wird. Die Franzosen haben für den Fall schon angekündigt, sich FCAS noch einmal zu überlegen. Und nein, der Typhoon und die Rafale sind beide prima, aber in der Luft-Boden Rolle geb ich der Rafale einfach aus taktischer Hinsicht die Überlegenheit, während in der Luft-Luft Rolle der Typhoon einen Vorsprung hat. Aber die beiden Flugzeuge werden ja eh wohl miteinander und nicht gegeneinander fliegen. Im Verbund mit der F22 wäre dieses Trio quasi unschlagbar.
    1
  101.  @maxchilla732  Ja, da ist einer mit dem Namen unterwegs. Gute Kommentare. https://disqus.com/by/maxchilla/comments/ Ich muss da widersprechen. Die Tiefflugeigenschaften der Rafale sind konstruktionsbedingt besser. Außerdem liegen die Canards weiter hinten und erlauben so a) bessere Sicht auf den Boden und b) mehr Auftrieb. Die Rafale kann außerdem etwa 1.5 Tonnen mehr Zuladung tragen bzw. 2 zusätzliche Fuel tanks. Zwar soll der EF CFTs kriegen, aber die werden natürlich auch die Performance etwas verschlechtern und können im Notfall nicht abgeworfen werden. Die Luftwaffe wollte ja eigentlich die F35 aber die F/18 will so niemand haben. Sie entstammt der gleichen Epoche wie der Tornado und ist wohl nicht so leistungsstark wie ein getunter Eurofighter. Zumal ja aus industriepolitischen Gründen wohl kein Politiker amerikanische Jets kaufen will, gerade wenn man dann Donald Trump als Verkäufer hätte. Ich wär für einen Eurofighter Kauf, wenn man sicherstellen könnte dass das Triebwerk weiterentwickelt wird für mehr Schub und das man mit konstruktiven Maßnahmen die Waffenlast erhöhen könnte. Die Super Hornet trägt 8000 Kg, die Rafale 9500 (bei kleinerem Gewicht). Ich würde schauen dass man den Eurofighter der wohl bessere Performance liefern könnte, so umzurüsten, das er mindestens 8500 Kg trägt. Und eine ECR Variante soll es auch geben.
    1
  102.  @maxchilla732  Mh, generell muss man einfach was unter den Flügel packen. Ein Delta Wing ist aber sehr gut im transsonischen Bereich und entweder hat man dezidierte Bodenangriffsflugzeuge oder man baut ein Mehrzweckkampfflugzeug und geht Kompromisse ein. Allerdings wird das FCAS mit allergrößter Wahrscheinlichkeit kein Deltawing mit Canards werden, zu unstealthy. Eine Schubvektorsteuerung ist dann vonnöten. Das ist halt wirklich die Krux. Die B61. Ich denke, Deutschland sollte auf diese Fähigkeit für ein paar Jahre verzichten, taktische Atombomben sind momentan relativ out und es herrscht ja nicht kalter Krieg. Und die Amis können die ja auch selbst transportieren. Unter deren Schirm sind wir ja trotzdem noch. Allerhöchstens würde man vielleicht eine kleine Teilflotte anschaffen wollen mit 10-15 Stück, aber das macht halt von den Kosten keinen Sinn. Ein Kauf von 80 Super Hornets wäre allerdings der Bevölkerung schwer vermittelbar, wenn man auch hausgemachtes kaufen könnte.
    1
  103.  @damianm-nordhorn116  Generell hat Deutschland eine scheiß Einstellung was Militär betrifft. Böse und so. Man könnte meinen der zweite Weltkrieg wäre erst gestern gewesen. Sicherlich könnten wir ein eigenes Flugzeug kaufen, aber die Politiker würden es nicht wagen. Insbesondere Links der Mitte ist die Bundeswehr verpönt.
    1
  104.  @damianm-nordhorn116  Erst einmal Danke für den Dienst. Es mag platt sein, aber ganz ehrlich, man muss doch nur mal den Nachwuchs in der Grünen Jugend anschauen um zu sehen wie die ticken. Momentan ist unser Militär quasi nicht einsatzbereit um einen größeren Konflikt innerhalb weniger Tage entgegentreten zu können. Die halbe Eurofighter Flotte steht am Boden rum mit Problemen, wir haben 324 Kampfpanzer die trotz aller Bedrohungen der Neuzeit immer noch zu den stärksten Waffensystemen auf dem Schlachtfeld gehören. Eine vernünftige Luftabwehr ist quasi nicht mehr vorhanden und ob MEADS allen Bedrohungen gerecht wird ist fraglich da der Flugkörper doch limitiert erscheint. Im Wahlprogramm der Grünen ist die Ablehnung des 2% Zieles festgeschrieben. Dabei ist klar dass die Bundeswehr eine bessere Organisation braucht sowie auch als zweitgrößte Volkswirtschaft in der NATO dementsprechende Kapazitäten besitzen muss, die für die Bündnisverteidigung unerlässlich sind. Das erfordert halt eine Finanzierung, bei 2% bleiben immer noch 98% für alle anderen Aufgaben übrig. Man mag im internationalen Vergleich dann sehr hoch liegen, man muss aber schauen dass die Russen / Chinesen ein ganz anderes Preisniveau haben und dementsprechend sind die Etats nicht vergleichbar. Im Kalten Krieg waren wir mit 3% gut dabei als einer der stärksten Armeen im Verteidigungsfall. Auch würden wir uns mit den UN nur selber hindern, manchmal muss man eben Macht / Realpolitik betreiben statt Idealismus. Zum Beispiel wäre meiner Meinung nach ein Einsatz auch mit Luft-Boden Angriffen gegen den IS im Interesse Deutschlands gewesen, der ganze Einsatz wurde aber von B90/Die Grünen im Bundestag 2014 abgelehnt. Generell würde ich meine Optionen nicht nur anhand der UN abhandeln wie es die Grünen und leider auch andere Parteien fordern. Zumal die UN ja selbst undemokratisch und machtpolitisch von anderen Akteuren gesteuert werden. Man hat Assad nichts tun können mithilfe der UN, weil Russland ihn schützt. Daher sollte man sich nicht an die UN fesseln. Außerdem sehe ich in der Bundeswehr das Problem dass die Wehrpflicht abgeschafft wurde. Ich selber bin ein weißer Jahrgang aber wäre wohl eingezogen worden. Das in der Bundeswehr Rechte sind ist ja unbestritten. Aber das Feld kann man denen doch nicht kampflos überlassen. Es ist wichtig dass die gesamte Gesellschaft in der Bundeswehr Dienst tut, aber wie will man das erreichen? Quoten? Ein 6-Monatiger Wehrdienst würde vielen Menschen guttun, wäre auch gut für die soziale Vermischung. Beispielsweise hat das Deutsche Heer im Kaiserreich eine integrative Funktion gehabt, in dem die Katholiken wie Protestanten während des Dienstes alle gleich behandelt wurden. Ich bin mir sicher, der Wehrdienst kann das auch heutzutage schaffen. Man schaue sich Israel und deren Armee mal an. Hier dient jeder obgleich der politischen Position. Zum Thema innere Sicherheit, hier hab ich am wenigsten Vertrauen. Immer mehr Asylbewerber (2 Millionen seit 2012) und ein uneingeschränktes Recht auf Familiennachzug würde erstens die AfD weiter verstärken (und das ist in niemandes Interesse) und zweitens wohl auch die innere Sicherheit gefährden sowie die Akzeptanz der Bevölkerung auf die Probe stellen. Wie es um die Sicherheit in Berlin steht sieht man jeden Tag. Außerdem war mein Kommentar am meisten gegen die Linke gemünzt, die ja aus der NATO austreten will, ein völlig abstruses europäisches Sicherheitssystem unter Einbeziehung Russlands will (wie genau die die Osteuropäer zur Kooperation bewegen wollen ist fraglich) sowie die Bundeswehr abrüsten und abschaffen wollen. Zu den genannten Politikern; diese kenn ich zwar, stehen in der Öffentlichkeit hinter doch eher "interessanteren" Charakteren wie Roth (schön dass sie im Irak / Syrien war, macht sie aber für mich trotzdem nicht zu einer besseren Politikerin, auch nicht in Sicherheitsfragen, wo ich kompromisslos für Eigene Interessenverteidigung bin bis hin für aktive Eingriffe in unserem Interesse bin), Trittin und Habeck, die ich beide nicht so recht einschätzen kann. Eine Grüne Regierung wäre nicht in meinem Interesse, hab lange genug die Freuden Grüner Politik im Land erfahren können auch ohne Themen wie äußere und innere Sicherheit.
    1
  105. Ehm, I don't read French so obviously it is not a neutral source and b) I honestly don't see much. As for the Red Flag, I highly doubt that. This video is from 2013 and there are a multitude of other exercises, not just Red Flag. This article is from 2015, showing Rafales, Typhoons and F22s together. https://breakingdefense.com/2015/12/f-22-typhoon-rafale-lessons-from-the-trilateral-wargame/
    1
  106.  @spartan-ml7nk  That is just wrong.
    1
  107. I have read reports of war games F22 and EF did together. The F22 pilots loved them. The Typhoons are the only ones that can keep up with them at altitude and though not stealthy pack a lot of punch, especially against ground targets compared to the F22. And the radar works different and the IRST complements it nicely. I think there will be upgrades. Germany will not buy F35 and the British, Spanish, Italians also want upgrades in the future, not to speak of Saudi Arabia.
    1
  108. Skippy I will give you a detailed answer as soon as I have access to my laptop.
    1
  109. This was not an EU project. Britain wanted to share costs and did not do it out of a good heart.
    1
  110. I think they will make a renaissance with the appearance of swarm attack drones.
    1
  111. Павел Петрович Avionics: The F22 uses an AESA radar, an improved version over the previous model. Meanwhile Russia is still working on an AESA, but its likely they have to equip this thing with a PESA. F-22 uses full sensor fusion. They have radar warners that are advanced enough to find a jet without using their own radar. F-22 is fully stealthy. The Su-57 isn’t. Did you see the bolts on the wings? Huge RCS increase, especially because they are metal. There are edges all around the wing. The engines aren’t hidden but the fan is exposed. Likewise is the exhaust not boxy but round - huge RCS. Just a 90s low tech stealth design
    1
  112.  @ПавелПетрович-з5ы  First of all, the US have stealth fighters mainly in the X-Band region, hence the new Su-57 X-Band AESA will not be that efficient. We also do not have a TRM count and lets not forget that the US has now fielded a 3rd generation AESA whereas the Russians are now working to implement their first AESA on a yet. F-22 had one since the early 2000s. Currently the most advanced Russian radar in service is the Irbis-E, a PESA with technology from the 80s and comparable to the F-15 C from that time. I very much doubt that they can skip 2 decades and match parity with the US. A common misconception about stealth is that it only works in one frequency band. Fun fact, it doesn't. Those L-Band thingies aren't radars but so called passive radar warning receiver. They do not emit, they only detect. However, any adversary would be very smart not to emit frequencies, especially in L-Band if the enemy would use it. They cannot see something that does not emit. Quantum radar is currently a thing of the future, not of the present. There is no nation on the world close to develop a system like that, not for the next 20 years. Whether it would work is still a question. The Stealth Technology wasn't designed by a Russian :D. The earliest stealth programs originated in the 60s. Khibiny: Literally any other Defense suit does this. Be it EuroDASS, SPECTRA, The American defense suites. It is literally nothing out of the ordinary. Please read those answers from Quora: https://www.quora.com/Why-Su-57-uses-L-band-radar-only-for-FF-identification-given-its-effectiveness-against-stealth-fighters-as-a-search-radar/answer/Abhirup-Sengupta-5?ch=10&share=e05effaa&srid=m6SN https://www.quora.com/q/militaryaviation/State-of-Low-Frequency-Radars-against-Stealth-aircraft https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-flaws-with-Russias-Stealth-Su-57 https://www.quora.com/Why-do-F-35-fans-start-seething-when-there-is-praise-about-the-Su-57-while-Su-57-fans-dont-seem-to-care-or-pay-attention-to-the-F-35
    1
  113. But then it doesn't fire AP. If you are a decently armoured MBT, you should survive it.
    1
  114.  @BeneStarosta  I have seen the video. I still doubt that they could take out a modern MBT - the video showcased a Leopard 1 which has a weak armour profile. Against Leopard 2, a 155 HE shrapnel won't do that much
    1
  115. faron tilley like what? Sensors? Avionics? Su-57 isn’t even remotely in the same league
    1
  116.  @forzaisspeed  Nope. It isn't. 1. At 0:11, I see multiple portruding surfaces - RCS is already bigger. 2. There are other points in the video where you can see rivets made from metal on the bare surface - huge RCS increase. 3. The engines aren't hidden, fan blades are still accessible to see for radar. Huge RCS increase. Su-57 comes with an RCS in the league of an Eurofighter. The technology inside the Su-57 is already dated. 1) Radar: The current operational radar is the Irbis-E which is a dated 1980s design. The Russians claim to implement a new AESA but the US is already fielding a 3rd generation AESA and therefore have the edge here, with a large number of TRMs, software and great jamming resistance. 2) Missile warning system: Outdated, not good against modern BVR missiles. 3) L-Band antennas are by far more a waste of space than useful.
    1