🇬🇧BRIT Reacts To OPERATION DESERT STORM - THE DESTRUCTION OF THE IRAQI NAVY!

Подписаться 94 тыс.

Просмотров 6 тыс.

50% 1

🇬🇧BRIT Reacts To OPERATION DESERT STORM - THE DESTRUCTION OF THE IRAQI NAVY!
If You Would Like To Support The Channel: www.paypal.me/kabsayofe
/ kabirconsiders
• Desert Storm - The Ann...
Hi everyone, I’m Kabir and welcome to another episode of Kabir Considers! In this video I’m going React To OPERATION DESERT STORM - THE DESTRUCTION OF THE IRAQI NAVY!
Follow me on social media:
Instagram: @kabirayofe
Twitter: @kabirconsiders
Email me for business inquiries:
kabirconsiders@yahoo.com
If you would like to send me anything, my PO Box address is;
Kabir Considers
PO Box 5026
Hornchurch
RM12 9JG
United Kingdom
___________________________________________________________________________
COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER
FAIR USE ACT
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.
ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS

Опубликовано:

8 сен 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 69

@brianjones8751 Год назад

250k does seem expensive. However when used for it's intended purpose, shooting down a multi-million dollar aircraft, it's a good trade off

@cheeseninja1115 Год назад

yeah, its one of the best air to air missiles in the world. The gung-ho Canadian just wasted it by attempting to fire it at a ship after getting a single radar lock.

@george217 Год назад

When shooting down a kid's toy balloon, not so much...

@protonneutron9046 Год назад

@@george217 Hey, why didn't that fighter use its cannon on that balloon? I thought that weird.

@oco8783 Год назад

@@protonneutron9046 20mm canon is actually kinda crap for shooting balloons

@protonneutron9046 Год назад

@@oco8783 Is it because the weather type balloons are low pressure? I know the missile is proximity fused so explodes even if no contact.

@protonneutron9046 Год назад

No, the US uses cluster bombs today. As well as land mines. Which are programmable so they don't pose a hazard to civilians after the conflict is over.

@goatitisful Год назад

The missile we shot down that Chinese balloon with cost half a million bucks... for a BALLOON!!! Lol

@keithcharboneau3331 Год назад

Cluster bombs ARE NOT banned, the U.S. has at least 6 variations of cluster munitions that i am aware of. as far as resisting attacks from the air, the Iraqi navy only had ships to fight in littoral combat, (close to land, or shallow waters) these ships are little more than targets for aircraft or for a global deep water navy, and an an American super carrier, taking on a navy such as Iraq had would not even constitute as much as a good practice exercise. you are right, Desert Storm did in fact go only one way, we decided how the combat was to progress, Iraq was not even close to being ready for an overwhelming high tempo, round the clock lightning war.

@JPMadden Год назад

According to the "Cluster munition" Wikipedia page, they are prohibited for the 123 countries that have joined the "Convention on Cluster Munitions." Russia, China, and the U.S. are among those who have not joined and still have stockpiles. The U.S. suspended the use of cluster munitions in 2003. They apparently have not used them since then, but reserve the right to use them in the future until safer versions are developed. "Safer" appears to mean that there will be no unexploded munitions left after a battle that might kill civilians.

@scotthill1600 Год назад

@@JPMadden I was gonna say at least US, China, Russia, UK all experiment & have weapons that are banned from treaties they signed but hold them in reserve just in case they ever need them. Like the US, signed the treaty but “reserves the right to use them” Basically if shit hits the fan & we need them? Fuck the treaty, were using them & will deal with any potential consequences for breaking the treaty later

@oco8783 Год назад

@@JPMadden SDBs have sorta taken up that role.

@JPMadden Год назад

@@scotthill1600 The UK has signed and ratified the treaty. The U.S., Russia, and China have done neither, nor have they signed and ratified the "Ottawa Treaty," which prohibits anti-personnel mines. The only current American usage of mines is in minefields along the South Korean border of the De-Militarized Zone. The U.S. military also reserves the right to use self-deactivating mines in "exceptional" circumstances, whatever that means.

@JPMadden Год назад

@@oco8783 I had to look up what an "SDB" is. I believe you're referring to the "GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb." It's a small precision-guided munition (285 pounds/129 kg). It allows a small plane to carry several bombs instead of one large one. Sounds good, except for one thing: much of the higher cost of these "smart bombs" is for computer guidance. The SDB version 1 cost $40,000 each in 2005, and version 2 an astonishing $250,000! The U.S. military and their defense contractors are developing high-tech weapons that even this country will soon struggle to afford.

@rockymcallister4258 Год назад

United States still uses cluster bombs. The U.S. doesn't sign treaties like for cluster bombs or mines.

@randygagliano4929 Год назад

in the beginning what you called a nice looking ship is actually a piece of armor, an AMTRAC to be specific. It's used by the U.S. Marines for amphibious assaults.

@DennisDA Год назад

When I was in the USAF, we were told that they pay the original cost for each missile, whether the first or the 100th one made.

@kokomo9764 Год назад

Small boats do not usually carry anti-aircraft weapons.

@tmayofour Год назад

We have actual footage of the attack if you're interested

@JPMadden Год назад

Calling that collection of Iraqi boats and lightly-armed cargo ships a "navy" stretches the definition of the word. The U.S. Coast Guard could have easily won the battle. According to the "Cluster munition" Wikipedia page, they are prohibited for the 123 countries (the UK is one) that have joined the "Convention on Cluster Munitions." Russia, China, and the U.S. are among those who have not joined and still have stockpiles. The U.S. suspended the use of cluster munitions in 2003. They apparently have not used them since then, but reserve the right to use them in the future until safer versions are developed. "Safer" appears to mean that there will be no unexploded munitions left after a battle that might kill civilians.

@milthopper6780 Год назад

The distance that coalition forces fired from was out of range from the ships' defensive armament.

@SilvanaDil Год назад

Related Suggestion: YT channel -- Not What You Think; Video -- "The Bomb That Ended a Wat" It's not the only reason Saddam gave up, but the story of the quickly invented bunker buster is great.

@Kenneth_James Год назад

Watch the interview with General Schwarzkopf. The quintessential idea of an American General. It's on youtube

@starman6280 Год назад

The U.S. did not take part in the negotiations for or sign the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the U.S. clings to its cluster munitions, but the last time it used them was in Iraq in 2003, with the exception of a single attack with cruise missiles equipped with cluster munition warheads in Yemen in 2009. As yet, there is no evidence to indicate the U.S. has restarted production or new transfers of cluster munitions. The US maintains these weapons despite the fact that many allies did indeed sign (NATO) the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

@kidm0bius190 Год назад

IF Canada is like the US, All aircraft munitions are assembled/made on board the carrier. That is probably why the cost is so high.

@theylied1776 Год назад

Cluster bombs are banned in proximity to a civilian population. As in Ukraine. mainly because you drop them and they go everywhere.

@kokomo9764 Год назад

The US and Russia never signed the cluster munitions ban.

@ultraman5168 Год назад

In regards to the low success rate of Sea Skua missiles; it's a fairly simple design that uses semi-active radar guidance. This means that the launcher needs to illuminate the target with its own radar, with the missile only capable of picking up the reflected signal. It has no ability to find its target if anything goes wrong with this process, and helicopters don't have very good radar performance. This kind of missile has been almost completely phased out by more modern designs that have multiple redundant sensors and navigation gear on the missile, like Penguin, Brimstone, and others. Naval combat takes place over huge distances that are mostly empty waves with no landmarks, but which can also be full of surface clutter, advanced countermeasures, and potential false targets. It's a challenging environment even for modern technology.

@Kenneth_James Год назад

The missiles are only produced in the several thousand range if that. Very expensive to produce

@kokomo9764 Год назад

Haha, many missiles cost more than $1 million. Yes, a large portion of the cost is R&D.

@christopherking4932 Год назад

Awesome video.

@TreyM1609 Год назад

Ya missiles are expensive. The one we shot down the Chinese ballon with last month was 400,000$ it almost all to do with the sensors in the front.

@George-ux6zz Год назад

The helicopters were probably out of range and so were the fighter jets.

@g-urts5518 Год назад

Remember this was 30 years ago. "Guided" missiles would have been a better way of saying it

@robertanderson6929 Год назад

The Sea Skua guided missile travels at better than MACH 1 and has an effective range of 25km. While the Iraqi boats might have 30mm cannons or 50mm machine guns these only have an effective range of perhaps 5000-7000m. So, it is doubtful they were ever in range to shoot one of the British Lynx helicopters. It is doubtful they ever saw or even heard the British aircraft before their missiles impacted.

@sammurphy3343 Год назад

Yea the 250k missile is very cheap nowadays but I wonder how it was able to radar lock a boat with it to begin with.

@oco8783 Год назад

The missile just follows whatever the radar on the aircraft illuminates. With more modern radars you can lock onto ground/sea targets.

@sammurphy3343 Год назад

More coalition naval assets were lost to friendly fire than Iraqi navy ships.

@mynameisnobody8597 Год назад

Yeah, it’s a waste of expenditure if it misses. Just like a $50 toaster that doesn’t toast bread.

@hardtackbeans9790 Год назад

Quarter of a million is about standard, Kabir. A Javelin shoulder launch missile it about half that amount. A hypersonic Kinzhal missile is worth (better sit down) $200 million dollars. And that is the discounted price the Kremlin attaches to these. A rocket is really expensive to make efficient & very effective. They may have been firing back at the aircraft. It is just damned hard to hit an airborne target. You need a lot of practice.

@t.j.payeur5331 Год назад

Lasers don't work in the fog...

@robertprice6830 Год назад

I worked for a major Aerospace company for many years. The cost is always because it has to be built according to Military specs. The recipe for Fruit cake in the U S Army is 30 pages long. Think of the Mil spec. One of the spec requirements for a toilet seat on a Government plane is that it withstand a crash of 30,000 feet. Anything can be made to any spec. But, it's going to cost.

@BlueDebut Год назад

Military spec doesn't always mean better though. It just met requirements at a cost they liked and they probably also liked the company who makes it.

@robertprice6830 Год назад

@@BlueDebut I am merely explaining why it costs what it does. And yes. It is better simply by all the quality requirements contained within the spec. And, all final products are inspected by a Government DCAS inspector. Let alone shipping costs. Documentation of procedures. Has nothing to do with liking the manufacturer. All contracts are bid award. Fixed firm pricing. Manufacturer is only allowed to make 10% profit. Trust me my ex negotiated hundreds of these contracts.

@SnowmanTF2 Год назад

Are they expecting someone to be sitting on it when it crashes, it seems like any crash where the lavatory is sustaining damage the entire airframe would be a write off.

@robertprice6830 Год назад

@@SnowmanTF2 when I saw that spec I thought. Yeah plane is going down ,fight breaks out over who is getting the toilet seat. Hell, the Army's recipe for Fruit cake is 14 pages.

@indra8188 Год назад

missiles are expensive, but think about what the target is. if it hits its a hugely effective trade in resources. god forbid one of those 250,000$ missiles managed to strike down a f 35, that costs upward of 100 million each. the javelin missiles in Ukraine cost about 200k each but each hit can eliminate an entire tank, its very cost effective.

@cheeseninja1115 Год назад

Due to the amount of orders coming in from the US and abroad, the F-35s cost has actually come down dramatically since its initial production because of Economies of Scale. A F-35 cost around the same as a new F/A-18 now, around $70 million a unit. With the most expensive variant, the F-35B, Being $90 million.

@morbiouslenoir Год назад

This is why other countries don't have a huge military. Too costly.

@richardmead5969 Год назад

well it was an air to air missile so

@nikitasmekhov2420 Год назад

Can you please react to some kings and generals videos on the battle of Kyiv I think you will find them interesting

@Bill_pierre Год назад

Yep, spendy.. now imagine being from north korea or something, and being told to go fight these death dealers with your AK47.

@theblackbear211 Год назад

Can't these vessels fire back? only if they have anti-aircraft weaponry that outranges the missiles/ bombs being fired launched at them... this is what having a "stand-off" capability means.