Comments by "Gabor Rajnai" (@gaborrajnai6213) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

  1.  @WhatHappenedIn-vt3vq  You Americans even lost to Canada mate... Not Russian style, Canadians actually pillaged and burned down Washington DC.
    1
  2. We cant have a clear vision since we dont control the events in it. We cant tell the Ukrianians not to do some things, and although we can tell the russians to fck off, they just dont care. To be honest, its objectively not our war, we just give stuff to it.
    1
  3. Lol, and then what? Becoming an apartheid state with muslim majority with no voting rights?
    1
  4. Mainly the fact destroying US military industrial complex, that engineers are better payed in the civil sector in jobs, where they dont have to kill anyone.
    1
  5. If they run low, then SEAD missions will be feasible against them. Its way easier to take out a single AA battery than a bunched networked together.
    1
  6.  @johnnyspliff4421  That actually does mean, that you have exactly 0 cards what you didn't already played out to counter the Russians.
    1
  7. Since your patriots cant be at everywhere at once no matter how many jets Russia sends you pretty much need the same number of air defense.
    1
  8.  @stefthorman8548  The EU has a mutual defense pact, which is kinda stornger than NATO and involves neutral countries as well.
    1
  9.  @bobbinsgaming3028  Lol why?
    1
  10.  @DavidSmith-yi8ou  Yep, we can do it, and the Russians can use their tactical nukes. So then we spent billions to send them a tank bataillon, which will be wiped out by a 100.000 USD worth of warhead. It was always on the table, in the cold war, when NATO did not have the numbers they did have the Davey Crockett nuke launchers. Lets be realistic, Ukraine cant win this conflict, because Russia is way more devoted to win than we are. I think the only solution is to modify the NATO charter and explicitly state, that it can't go easwards, and in tandem get a promise form Putin, that he won't block Ukraine-s EU membership. That way it won't be NATO sphere of influence, but won't be Russian sphere of influence too, it will be a neutral middleground.
    1
  11. I dont think Taiwan is NATO's problem.
    1
  12. Yeah, well, no. Ukrainians were realitvely successful, which means that ther 1000 baterries could take out 200 Russian batteries out of the 7000. Overall Russia still has an overwhelming advantage. Meanwhile they tracked russian artillery positions they left their stormtroopers totally exposed, that was one reason why the counteroffensive failed.
    1
  13. Nope, those are the western numbers. Meanwhile the AFU completely put the blame of the loss of Avdiivka of the artillery disparity between them and the Russians.
    1
  14.  @aguynamedscott11  Yeah we get that you have the money, but from where will you get the weapons? Its not like a Wallmart that you go in for 100 patriot rockets, you have what you are able to produce. And your production is a meh. Seriously 60 Tomahawk yearly? 400 javelins? It will take 20 years just to resupply what you already gave to Ukraine.
    1
  15. Well, Brits didnt have to use radio navigation, because their pilots were better trained in stellar navigation and they could read their position that way. I never heared german pilots used sextants as frequently as the brits.
    1
  16. The main problem of the F35 is ts 50% reliability. You buy 100 of them you can send 50 of those into battle at any given time, the others will be in service. And its a horribly expensive plane to have surplusses. If I would be Finland I would still buy the Gripen, it has superior sensors, can land anywhere, not requiring a dedicated airfield you can change even its jetengines in 15 minutes if needed and send it back to combat. Its the airplane designed to be used in a high tech guerilla warfare against a numerically superior airforce. F35 is good if you already have the superior airforce. Also in a real war scenario I think the Moscow raid would be quite low amongst the priorities.
    1
  17.  @pekkoh75  Yeah an F35 can land at anywhere since it has a VTOL capability if you order with it, but you cant service an F35 anywhere, so the problem remains, meanwhile the Gripen comes with a road mobile service station. To preserve its capabilities it has to be recoated after pretty much every 10 sorties in a dedicated facility. So yeah, if you have to fly some specialized stealth missions in highly contested airspace, then the F35 rules, although even that is not a mission type which cant be done cheaper with a simple stealthy cruise missile. In a battle of attrition, it will fly its 10 sorties and stuck on ground, or will be as good as any regular jet would be. Its an excellent force multiplier, especially if you have the advantage to begin with, but I dont think its wise to be used as the backbone of any airforce, its simply a too needy jet to do that.
    1
  18. It just doesnt makes sense compared to a fix point defence. Chinese know where the islands are so I would rather focus on the protection of the site. It would be somehat more beneficial if a sub could fire them.  @leonfa259 
    1
  19. Well, he told, how could they win, if they would have everything what they asked for, and conquered everything which they didn't. I still feel, that even that picture is Rosy, because Russia has its navy at her disposal.
    1
  20. Lol, so what?
    1
  21. I dont want to sadden you, but handbuilding is exactly how western high tech weapons produced. Why do you think you build 100 tomahawks in a year and 200 Javelins, when Russia produces 3000 Kalibrs in the same time? That means it takes a factory more than a day to produce a single handheld rocket launcher, well it doesnt sound mass production to me. Ukes get 100 Leo2s a year, meanwhile Russians produce 800 T72/90. It takes 7 years to build a Patriot batterry 5 years to build a NASAMS battery, and these can be supplied by 500 missiles annually.
    1
  22. Greenland is already swarming with American prospectors, who fail, because its not easy to get resources out of a 2 miles deep icelayer.
    1
  23.  @thunderspark1536  Century? As far as I know they lost a total of 500.000 people killed or injured, and they have a 3 million pool. So with that consumption rate, it is enough for them for 6 years.
    1
  24. Lol what did you expect in an armchair general channel?
    1
  25.  @oze1999  Well, not exactly rather Ukraine learns now that Sun Tzu maxim about never underestimate thy enemy....
    1
  26.  @scottkrater2131  Well, the question is still the same, does one Leopard worth 4 T72? And the answer is that 4 T72 makes mincemeat out of the Leppie.
    1
  27. Its not that easy to use any electronics if the missile is covered in a plasma cloud.
    1
  28. Have you looked into the map recently Russia/China together have half the world as their coastline. Alaska to the Philippines is exactly 10% of that which the US can blockade. Not to mention, that Chinese fleet is indeed bigger, and they can use any antiship missile launched from the mainland.
    1
  29.  @mattBLACKpunk  You can search for old Vice news footage. They frequented Donbas quite a bit from 2014, so we know some of it is true.
    1
  30. You maybe just start to get why Americans dont send their F-16's there...
    1
  31. Where they will get their missiles, if ammo trains become prey to Russian military aviation?
    1
  32. The original concept of the MiG-31 interceptor was actually to outspeed the F15 escorts, and go straight for the AWACS. After the AWACS was shot down, it had its own multi targeting radar designating targets for other planes to hunt.
    1
  33. First of all Russian mobicks dont go to the frontline. They do the border patrol in other parts of Russia, and the professional army corps, who are relieved, go to Ukraine. So even if Putin makes a general mobilization, that wouldnt put thatmuch political pressure on him. Secondly those contract soldiers are not all Russian at all. Russia pretty much uses any kind of mercenary whom they can get their hands on.
    1
  34.  @christopherh2570  Of course they did. On the other hand Russia pays better...
    1
  35. Everybody with a right sense thinks that you have to dogfight with a near peer airforce. Gulf war and Vietnam seriously guys, so the Vietnamese airforce was near peer to the US airforce? Us could send anything unharmed into vietnamese airspace, it was a miracle if they ever seen an enemy airplane. Its easy when you fly your AWACS everywhere like theres no tomorrow to make a turkeyshoot 100 miles away, but a real adversary wouldnt let your AWACSes to just fly around. This is a big dream to shoot down enemy airplanes from a great distance, which a lot of military planners are falling into continuously.
    1
  36.  @rowaystarco  Yes they would be a legit target, but Norwegians only have the guts to blow up German pipelines, not to be cocky with Russian pilots.
    1
  37.  @matejbabjak9678  As a Mexican a US military agression is way more likely for them I guess. And the second think I guess is Poland would give as much about it, as when Americans used Polish bases to interrogate iraquis whom they found suspicious.
    1
  38.  @spartanonxy  Lol Chinese are commies. They can order anything they want about their population aims. If they could achieve the one children policy, they can achieve the many girls policy as well. They will never have population problems as the Japs or the west has.
    1
  39.  @Spectre4913  Yeah sure the country which ordered that one family can only have one children cant order that abortion is illegal, or any other thing to maintain its population. Problem is, that Americans are calculating with China as where there are liberal rules are at play, while they are a central planned government.
    1
  40.  @WhatHappenedIn-vt3vq  US is the only western nation who dont have it. But all the others do. In Europe, in Japan, in South Korea, you name it. And US population alone is a midget compared to China or India.
    1
  41. @Gary-by3vz Well, if the sub is moving under the thermocline its pretty much invisible on thermal, and unhearable on passive.
    1
  42. They throw out sonar buoys in numbers from helis, and hope those will catch the sub. Age old trick
    1
  43. You still dont get it. Any plane which is actively jamming or using its radar is by definition not stealthy. No matter the shape or form it gives its location just by emitting high frequency radio waves. And you cant make 100 km kills without some plane with a radar updating missile trajectory. Lets say your missile have the velocity of Mach 3, 100 km in mach 3 is approx 1.5 minutes, what do you think that the enemy fighter just sits where he is waiting for the incoming missile? He will just fly off course and the missiles own radar wont find him where he supposed to be. Missiles dont have 360 degree radar coverage and cant track a target that far away, if the target is not in front of them when those start to seek it, those will miss. This is all plain old BS, to rip off people.
    1
  44. Cute. You know how long was a waiting list for a NASAMS battery before the war? 9 years.
    1
  45.  @st-hf2ik  If they run out of missiles, they will let them.
    1
  46.  @CjqNslXUcM  Well, I guess, if Albanians didn't like in Kosovo, then they could move to Albania...
    1
  47. ​ @bobshelton37  It doesn't matter how they call it, no nation lets spyplanes or bombers cycling 10 miles off their borders. Next time they probably will shoot down the RAF plane.
    1
  48.  @valorz6064  That would be a definitive honeypot for any wild weasel missions with emission seeking missiles.
    1
  49.  @AndrewAustinFrustrated  So lets do the math. I will use SI units here instead of imperial for convenience. Lets say you have a carrier travelling at 30 kmh thats approx 8 m/s and its 300 m long 100 m wide, thats 30.000 m2. You have a hypersonic rocket launched from 300 km, the warhead is capable to destroy anything in a 50m radius. Lets say it travels at mach 6 thats 2058m/s. The travel time is 145 second During that time the carrier makes 1000 meters. A 1000 m diameter cicle has an area of 785000 m2 that means to have a certain direct hit on a 30.000 m2 carrier you need 26 hypersonic missile. Wit lets say 10 mil each that would cost 260 mils to destroy a 12 billion worth of ship without the jets.
    1
  50.  @ethanle8847  Yep, what we understand on hypersonic weapons is a maneuverable object on all of its trajectory. If the warhead or missile flies on a ballistic trajectory, then it is not a hypersonic weapon even if it reaches hypersonic speeds.
    1