Love how the video just pivots after listing countless issues, to essentially just send these bad boys over there so they can get to work!
I feel like we're just beating a dead horse at this point, and everyone here is on the same page. The NATO equipment kind of assumes air superiority (and seemingly never planned much for the sheer amount of artillery being utilized). The video mentions the issues as challenges as if they can be overcome, but there's just no way it's possible at this point. We could send over 500 Abrams tanks and I don't think it makes a difference at all.
Also, now that the leopard 2s have been confirmed destroyed. It ruins the "un-killable" reputation there. Abrams and Challenger 2 I'm sure will struggle as well. Are there any Leclerc's donated yet? Maybe we have have all the major MBTs tarnished a bit reputation wise through this?
I have friends who insist that patriot missiles can intercept hypersonic glide vehicles with terminal maneuverability, but I have also seen patriot missiles join the houthi cause mid-launch and martyr themselves to strike at Riyadh so who knows :shrug-outta-hecks:
Also, I'm pretty sure we're sending stripped down export abrahms without the fancy DU composite armor. They're just steel armor, so they're going to get toasted just like the T-70s and T-62s
Remember when the war enjoyers were calling slat armor, a defensive technology invented shortly after the shaped charge warhgads it is intended to defeat, cope cages?
Yeah, part of me wonders if American's just assume the stuff has to absolutely be invincible/ infallible because there's so much money spent on this. I still remember those popular mechanics articles from when I was a kid talking about the F-22, F-35, Future Warrior Program, etc and how this stuff is just so amazing nothing can touch it. I also don't think people realize when like the vast majority of US armament entered service and that it's been just being upgraded over and over. Like literally all the new stuff is either garbage, or in too few of a number (or both) to really matter.
Yeah. Most of our stuff dates from the late cold war. The US has never made a successful radar guided SPAAG successfully and relies on jury-rigging Stinger MANPADS for
everything. All of our APCs suck. Neither the Army nor the Marines want Abrahms but congress keeps buying them to keep the factories open. The F-35 is supposed to control a bunch of drones that afaik don't exist. It supposedly has the radar signature of a honeybee but who knows what that's worth in a near-peer combat environment. The F114 or whatever stealth fighter was sneaky as hell, except it took the same path every night so the Serbs(?) Just waited along it's route and shoved a cheap anti-aircraft missile up it's jet exhaust. And my understanding is that the F-35s supply chain is a dysfunctional bureaucratic mess, so each one is functionally irreplacable due to parts shortage even ignoring the up front cost.
If the F-35 isn't as invisible as advertised the US's is going to have real trouble in any remotely conventional war. War nerds also seem unreasonably confident in the US's ability to shoot down every single hypersonic anti-ship missile 100% of the time without letting a single one get through to kill or disable an aircraft carrier.
The US has never made a successful radar guided SPAAG successfully and relies on jury-rigging Stinger MANPADS for everything.
Explains why their SPAAG options suck in Wargame: Red Dragon. Makes me wonder about the CIWS on naval ships.
If the F-35 isn’t as invisible as advertised the US’s is going to have real trouble in any remotely conventional war.
Yeah, pretty sure it was Venezuela that used a Chinese Radar to spot and yell at an F-35 violating their airspace. There's probably other instances as well, but that leads me to believe on top of its myriad of other issues like the auto ordering spare part supply chain issue its DOA.
CIWS seems to work great on low and slow stuff like mortar rounds and various cheap rockets but that's a very different thing from stopping hypersonic missiles that can maneuver right up until impact.
If it turns out that th F-35 isn't invisible to the radar wavelengths used by our designated enemies i will give up and admit we're living in a Peter Sellers dark comedy.
Didn't China and Russia both design their most recent radar systems specifically around avoiding using the wavelengths that stealth planes operate within?
If it turns out that th F-35 isn’t invisible to the radar wavelengths used by our designated enemies i will give up and admit we’re living in a Peter Sellers dark comedy.
Funny how you correctly diagnose all the insanities of American propaganda in your posts above and then imply that the F-35 will be "invisible" in any way. At best, it's "low-ovservable" in a few scenarios and wavelengths, like when going up against 70s radar technology, but of course that such a rare scenario these days and the F-35 is just such a piece of dog shit in general that I wouldn't really quote any favorable quality of this MIC abomination.
But yeah, I liked your comment about American SPAAG - makes me want to read up the insane testing antics they employed with the Sergeant York SPAAG (M247 I believe?)
The Abrams they send over are export models without the special armour and turbine engines, so western military nerds can say that the US spec is Abrams is still invincible or some other bullshit
I didn't know they removed the turbine engine for export. I was fully expecting fancy electronics and armor to be stripped off. That's also a good point, the military nerds will probably not shut up about how its not the absolute specimen the US Army/ Marines use.
The turbine engine have to be removed because no supply lines can maintain the fuel needed.
They won't remove the turbine engine. This would be a MAJOR redesign of the whole drivetrain that would take years to do, if even possible given space constraints from the current drivetrain. We're talking about a completely different and much larger engine, quite a different gear, and then of course all the ratchets and sprockets down stream that are now subjected to different loads and torque and whatnot.
No, the Abrams that are going to the Ukrainian Nazis sometime newxt year (lol) will have a turbine engine, and they will suck ass.
Love how the video just pivots after listing countless issues, to essentially just send these bad boys over there so they can get to work!
I feel like we're just beating a dead horse at this point, and everyone here is on the same page. The NATO equipment kind of assumes air superiority (and seemingly never planned much for the sheer amount of artillery being utilized). The video mentions the issues as challenges as if they can be overcome, but there's just no way it's possible at this point. We could send over 500 Abrams tanks and I don't think it makes a difference at all.
Also, now that the leopard 2s have been confirmed destroyed. It ruins the "un-killable" reputation there. Abrams and Challenger 2 I'm sure will struggle as well. Are there any Leclerc's donated yet? Maybe we have have all the major MBTs tarnished a bit reputation wise through this?
Love the excessive logistics animations. Makes it very obvious why we're fucking sending it there, we want to print money and corpses
I have friends who insist that patriot missiles can intercept hypersonic glide vehicles with terminal maneuverability, but I have also seen patriot missiles join the houthi cause mid-launch and martyr themselves to strike at Riyadh so who knows :shrug-outta-hecks:
Also, I'm pretty sure we're sending stripped down export abrahms without the fancy DU composite armor. They're just steel armor, so they're going to get toasted just like the T-70s and T-62s
Remember when the war enjoyers were calling slat armor, a defensive technology invented shortly after the shaped charge warhgads it is intended to defeat, cope cages?
Yeah, part of me wonders if American's just assume the stuff has to absolutely be invincible/ infallible because there's so much money spent on this. I still remember those popular mechanics articles from when I was a kid talking about the F-22, F-35, Future Warrior Program, etc and how this stuff is just so amazing nothing can touch it. I also don't think people realize when like the vast majority of US armament entered service and that it's been just being upgraded over and over. Like literally all the new stuff is either garbage, or in too few of a number (or both) to really matter.
Yeah. Most of our stuff dates from the late cold war. The US has never made a successful radar guided SPAAG successfully and relies on jury-rigging Stinger MANPADS for everything. All of our APCs suck. Neither the Army nor the Marines want Abrahms but congress keeps buying them to keep the factories open. The F-35 is supposed to control a bunch of drones that afaik don't exist. It supposedly has the radar signature of a honeybee but who knows what that's worth in a near-peer combat environment. The F114 or whatever stealth fighter was sneaky as hell, except it took the same path every night so the Serbs(?) Just waited along it's route and shoved a cheap anti-aircraft missile up it's jet exhaust. And my understanding is that the F-35s supply chain is a dysfunctional bureaucratic mess, so each one is functionally irreplacable due to parts shortage even ignoring the up front cost.
If the F-35 isn't as invisible as advertised the US's is going to have real trouble in any remotely conventional war. War nerds also seem unreasonably confident in the US's ability to shoot down every single hypersonic anti-ship missile 100% of the time without letting a single one get through to kill or disable an aircraft carrier.
Explains why their SPAAG options suck in Wargame: Red Dragon. Makes me wonder about the CIWS on naval ships.
Yeah, pretty sure it was Venezuela that used a Chinese Radar to spot and yell at an F-35 violating their airspace. There's probably other instances as well, but that leads me to believe on top of its myriad of other issues like the auto ordering spare part supply chain issue its DOA.
CIWS seems to work great on low and slow stuff like mortar rounds and various cheap rockets but that's a very different thing from stopping hypersonic missiles that can maneuver right up until impact.
If it turns out that th F-35 isn't invisible to the radar wavelengths used by our designated enemies i will give up and admit we're living in a Peter Sellers dark comedy.
Didn't China and Russia both design their most recent radar systems specifically around avoiding using the wavelengths that stealth planes operate within?
I know Russia and China have been working on it, and in an article I found on the Venezuelan thing I saw this comment:
Apparently it was the F-22 actually, which is apparently supposed to be stealthier than the F-35.
Funny how you correctly diagnose all the insanities of American propaganda in your posts above and then imply that the F-35 will be "invisible" in any way. At best, it's "low-ovservable" in a few scenarios and wavelengths, like when going up against 70s radar technology, but of course that such a rare scenario these days and the F-35 is just such a piece of dog shit in general that I wouldn't really quote any favorable quality of this MIC abomination.
But yeah, I liked your comment about American SPAAG - makes me want to read up the insane testing antics they employed with the Sergeant York SPAAG (M247 I believe?)
deleted by creator
The Abrams they send over are export models without the special armour and turbine engines, so western military nerds can say that the US spec is Abrams is still invincible or some other bullshit
I didn't know they removed the turbine engine for export. I was fully expecting fancy electronics and armor to be stripped off. That's also a good point, the military nerds will probably not shut up about how its not the absolute specimen the US Army/ Marines use.
The turbine engine have to be removed because no supply lines can maintain the fuel needed. The Abrams is designed with US superiority in mind.
They won't remove the turbine engine. This would be a MAJOR redesign of the whole drivetrain that would take years to do, if even possible given space constraints from the current drivetrain. We're talking about a completely different and much larger engine, quite a different gear, and then of course all the ratchets and sprockets down stream that are now subjected to different loads and torque and whatnot.
No, the Abrams that are going to the Ukrainian Nazis sometime newxt year (lol) will have a turbine engine, and they will suck ass.