Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

+Johny Ricco Neither side are likely to want to keep a war going long enough for strategic bombing of anything not very close to the front to have any effect at all... Sure China could theoretically launch missiles at a city or some such, but what would they gain? No, the only use of strategic bombing would be locally in or near the Himalayas, distrupting supply lines etc.
1
@Bustermachine Including Belarus would complicate matters. His analysis of wars is always is based on a scenario without allies, moral etc.
1
A sound assessment. Norways assets would probably be focused on the Norwegian coast though to prevent a Soviet landing... Not that we'd have much of a chance of keeping them from taking Northern Norway anyway...
1
Fun but a little silly. :-P
1
Given Ukrains situation I'd actually say that the Gripen is a better option. If someone where to intervene from the outside however then the Rafael or F35 would do a great job. The Rafael has a bigger potential payload then the competitors, and the F35 has its stealth. Each of those has its advantages and drawbacks.
1
@karenrompis6989 With that many islands a plane like the Gripen wouldn't be suitable as you'll want more range to cover all that airspace over the sea. For Ukraine... If they had the Gripen prior to the war then the Gripen would probably have performed better. But as is giving them any Gripens would be wasted as they don't have anyone trained to utilize its advantages.
1
@devilish2136 Drones and drones are very different things.
1
@karenrompis6989 And my point is that if you are thinking about either a expensive fighter capable of defending your troops and civilians but that you might not be able to afford or just a drone that's mostly a offensive weapon/surveillance tool but that's cheap then the drone still isn't the solution and you need to look at third options, Gripen being one of the more capable budget options.
1
+ @rileyhawkins5577 Hum, that is indeed more then I was aware of.
1
+ @stepanfedun9122 The point there is that it would give Russia a foothold that the US and Canada would not be able to easily dislodge. A foothold that could potentially be used for further advances or at least as a bargaining chip down the road. It could also help get the support of other powers. For instance if China saw a proper foothold in northern Canada they might choose to move their own troops and ships over in secret to begin an invasion themselves. The west coast isn't really viable due to the rookies. Also, it's too close to the US. The east coast would involve going past too many European nations.
1
You're optimistic. Americans always tends to overestimate their own equipments capabilities...
1
@anchorread68 Jeah, I was also thinking about the JDAMs as that's fairly recent news. Running out of ammunition isn't necessarily a flaw, but it's one of many considerations you have to take when picking a weapon.
1
@ReMembrane Pretty much...
1
@Back2Lobby334 What do you mean?
1
@PG-3462 The Gripen E was designed recently and has new engines, sensors etc. Also the F35 started development in the late eighties early nineties. There's not nearly enough new knowledge that has been discovered since back then about materials or other tech to invalidate the Gripen design as being state of the art. It was designed using a forward thinking approach and with ease of upgrading.
1
@PG-3462 2) Okey fair. That said, Sweden was offering to start production of parts in Canada and had made deals with the local Canadian aircraft industry, a industry that used to be fairly advanced...
1
@PG-3462 3) Fair enough. Although I believe it's a bit more nuanced then that.
1
@PG-3462 That said, I suspect the biggest deciding factor was the range... Canada is big. And there's not that many roads or airstrips in certain parts. A longer range fighter might be useful.
1
@didierlemoine6771 Gripen has taken part in combat, just not against enemy planes. As for the F35. It hasn't faced any modern fighters yet. So if your definition of combat proven is combat with another fighter then it hasn't proven anything more than the Gripen. The two drones that the Israelites shot down with the F35 really doesn't qualify... If bombing ground targets is your definition, then the Gripen is just as battle proven as the F35. As far as I'm aware shooting down two drones and flying over outdated Soviet era air defenses in the middle east is the F35s only claim to fame. But the Gripen has taken part in operations in Libya etc too. And given how outdated those air defenses where it's not really much of a achievement for the F35. All it proved is that the stealth isn't entirely useless.
1
@TheGirard62 Yep, pretty much... That and minor things like lower range and lower payload that some countries consider as deal breakers.
1
@PG-3462 You're assuming that Canada would be the only western hemisphere nation with production of parts. And that Canada wouldn't be given the information needed to make the remaining parts themselves. And that the remaining parts where all made in Sweden (the Gripen isn't all made with Swedish parts, some are imported from the US).
1
It sounds like they're doing it for sensor accuracy primarily.
1
@CCCP-j3q That's not available in this app I'm afraid. And I don't have a computer available right now...
1
 @no-nonseplayer6612 The UKs military capabilities is somewhat limited...
1
Air forces that want something cheaper can go with the Gripen. While it's definitely outclassed in terms of number of hardpoints and sheer weight of payload by the Rafael it's more capable in certain other areas as well as far cheaper to both purchase and operate, and also cheaper and more capable than say a F16. Sweden does have some more strings attached, and there's more US components there, so anyone embargoed by the US might prefer (or have no other choice then) the Rafael even if they can't afford as many Rafael's as Gripens. There's also Russian and Chinese planes if you don't care about your relationship with the US. And yes, there's the drones you mentioned. But you still want some fighters even if you have drones. You want that capability in your toolbox. Otherwise you risk that an enemy gets a force multiplier that you can't counter.
1
Perun and Kraut for one... And Willy OEM.
1
Norway and Finland wouldn't remain under Germany in the case of a ceasfire and peace negotiations I think. Hostile population with a lot of resistance fighting, better supply lines for the Soviets and allies then the Germans, vulnerable to British attacks. France might be held, or at least portions of France would. Finland like Sweden would probably try to play the two sides against each other to the best of their ability. I'm not sure about the Baltics etc...
1
@michaelm1589 Probably, but not *necessarily*. Pasifism is a legitimate political view/opinion held by people on both the left and the right. In the US it's mostly certain christian denominations that's against taking part in war or killing in any way, shape or form. On the left like here in my country, Norway it's a combination of ethics (you shall not kill) and the sense that wars usually are decisions made by the upper classes while it's the lower classes, both civilians and in the military that usually ends up suffering the consequences while the objective rarely if ever are in the interests of working class people. The extreme left in my country also believes in conspiracy theories about NATO essentially setting this up to weaken Russia and that they want the carnage in Ukraine... And they're also worried about this turning into WW3 with nukes flying about... I'm far left but not extreme left, and our point of view essentially is that while the agressive wars started by NATO definitely are problematic this still remains a defensive war where a imperialist agressor is trying to take away the Ukrainian peoples right to self determination... So while we still have mixed feelings about the war we're supporting Ukraine. While his way of phrasing his views indicates that he doesn't mind actively seeking out conflict (trolling) it's not necessarily a Russian or Russian aligned individual and while the wording is definitely off the overall sentiment it's necessarily that far out there...
1
@jubasniper254ck3 May I ask what your objection is?
1
@ltfreeborn The maintenance of the Russian ones might be so-so. But the soviet union had good engineers and while having its issues it wasn't controlled by Putin and his cronies...
1
@saattlebrutaz Russia under Putin isn't what it once was. While there was cultural issues even during the cold war there's a reason why the west worried about Russia before the war. Russia had a lot of good engineers during the cold war and was actually ahead of the US in some areas back then, like I'm rocket engines. The US always had the edge in other areas like electronics though. When it comes to air defenses the two sides are pretty closely matched with each having some strengths and some weaknesses. In a country with a lot of anti-air assets I'd feel safer being protected by the US system though. But in Ukraines situation the S 300 might actually be better. Just like the Swedish Gripen would be better for them then a US F35 for Ukraines use (lack of safe runways, low budgets and technical staff, less air defense assets etc)
1
Exactly, this video underestimates the Scandinavian defenses. While it of course won't change the overall end result the assumptions in the process of getting there are just off... And the progress at the one year mark will probably be slightly lower.
1
@petergrandien1440 unny. But I do hope that engines capable of burning hydrogen might show up in vehicles like this with time. Gasoline and diesel is probably going to be the main fuel still due to the need for longer range etc, but you can produce hydrogen in the field even if you're surrounded or the enemy have fire control over your supply line. You just need electricity of some kind. The increased environmentalism is just a bonus. Also, multi fuel engines are just practical with regards to using resources you come by.
1
@alexanderbarkman7832 Rubber tracks reduce noise, increase comfort for the crew and reduce weight. And does less damage to roads etc. On the other hand it has less durability from what I understand... In other words, you can move them to the frontline on tarmack roads without ruining them, the crew won't be as exhausted when they arrive making them more combat effective, the lower weight may allow you to traverse more terrain and you have a okey chance at sneaking up on the enemy due to less noise. But you'll end up having to use more logistics capacity on replacing the tracks...
1
5:23 That might not be quite as true as you think as our doctrines, especially the Swedish ones assumes enemy air superiority and relies on large number of improvised airfields in the form of stretches of road and planes capable of making use of them. It's a bit hard to bomb a enemy fighter if you don't even know where its base is located. 6:35 Depends, like I said, it's a part of our doctrine, especially the Swedish one, so a high sortie rate might still be maintained. End of video: I agree with this assessment with the exception of the impact of Russian attacks on Scandinavian airfields, a effect that I think you're overestimating a bit.
1
Russian missiles might be faster and harder hitting, but NATO ones tend to be smarter, and even many of the good Russian ones often rely on at least some components from countries within NATO. Also, NATO has demonstrated anti-missile and anti-satellite capabilities that's superior to what Russia has demonstrated so far. That might of course change by the time of such a hypothetical war, but that's the case here and now as far as I can tell.
1
Hum... Would attacking through the stans be a option? They're south of Russia so they might be reluctant to help the US for that reason... But I've yet to see a proper analysis of that side of things...
1
The F35 has stealth reducing the risk when trying to penetrate enemy airspace. And it has longer range then the Gripen at least. And there's geopolitical reasons to buy American planes right now if you want to align with them.
1
End of the video. The overall end result is definitely correct in this video. We have no illusion about that. We're just too outnumbered, especially in terms of infantry... I think you underestimate Swedens airforce and Norways navy. And regarding the progress of the war... Why would Norway and Sweden try to defend the less mountainous areas near the border that's also almost without trees once Finland falls? Makes more sense to preserve the troops and withdraw towards the forests and mountains then counter attack from cover against the more exposed Russian troops etc... So the early parts of the push into Norway and Sweden would probably be faster but slower later on.
1