Basically reformers are like someone in the 1950s arguing that the navy has to go back to building battleships because carriers can't take hits from 18 inch guns and have no big guns of their own. Well the best reformers are like that, the worst are arguing that carriers suck because they don't have a good broadside.
That's actually a very good comparison. Average man back in the day would have also though put bigger guns on boats and you win. The idea that couple of flights of torpedo bombers could body slam a super heavy BB would have seemed completely nuts.
I gotta go grab a shovel and head over to the meme cemetery real quick because the idea of Really High Guy saying, "You know what the M1 Abrams shoulda had? Sponsons." Is hilarious to me.
The death of the battleship was more of an issue to do with the cost of running the damn thing. Like, Battleships are incredibly difficult to sink if you are unable to hit the ammo storage, a good example would be the Bismark, which was never actually sunk. An investigation of the wreckage found that not a single shot from either the British Battleships or torpedoes managed to get through Bismarks armor, instead the ship had actually been scuttled by the crew
The torpedoes didn't work on the Bismark due to detonating early in rough seas not because they couldn't pen her armor belt. Bismark isn't really a great choice for this argument considering she was rendered unable to maneuver by one of the worst carrier planes of the war. Battleships didn't become obsolete by being too pricey to operate, they went obsolete because carriers could kill them long before the battleship could get into range to return fire. The Yamato class was a lot tougher than the Bismark and that didn't save them from being destroyed by carrier squadrons
@Miklis It kind of reminds me of the "arsenal ship" concept. Back in the 90s the US Navy wanted massive semi-remotely guided ships armed with 500 VLS (vertical launch systems). Although it turned out, it's just more economical to split that amount of missles across multiple destroyers. Thus making the project pretty much pointless.
29:39 The datalink and all its passive sensors allows each F-35 to function as essentially a small AWACS. They can use their stealth and sensors to locate and identify enemy aircraft, then direct fighters, namely F-22s, to the point where the fighter's own sensors can take over.
The data link only works for f-35 and f-22s and even that is limited for the f-22 since it can only receive not transmit,the fighter pilot podcast did an interview with f-35 pilot about it.
Except that theer are specalty awacs for doing that. They do it better so that is pointless and useless. Not to mention that it degrades the f-35s stealth.
Yeah, funiest thing is that during the dogfight tests the Airforce tied the F35s hands behind it's back, same when the F22 does dogfights with other European Jets. The software wasn't allowed to push the airframe to it's limit and the stealth capability was reduced to non, cause engagement distance was very short by rules of "combat". But in reality the software has changed and now the airframe is allowed to push to it's limits and obviously the F35 would shoot the F16 out of the air, before the F16 could even spot the F35.
I love how Ukraine has proven that smart weapons are so absolutely, insanely, vastly superior to conventional older weapons, and these people still exist. Ukraine got 2 dozen modern GLMRS and absolutely pantsed Russia's thousands of guns and and rocket systems at doing anything other than redecorating empty fields or killing civilians
16 HIMARS made the entire russian artillery army a freaking joke xD that's why I believe that China having "the biggest naval fleet in the world" is another bad joke, yes, they have over 1000 ships, will be really funny in case they go into war when those ships got promoted to 'unintended submarines' and all of them rest at the bottom of the sea :P
It's not only Himars itself. It's that they have a digital battlefield control system that can spew out the appropriate guns to allocate and the firing settings for them. The Russians take alot longer to coordinate fires.
@@elduquecaradura1468 China has been putting large numbers of very modern and capable ships to sea over the past 15 year though. Sure, they are still mostly a brown water navy in terms of numbers, but their modern blue water frigate and destroyer force has over 60 hulls now. They have even started their next frigate production run which will likely produce an additional 20-30 more modern 054 class ships and they are building even more 052DL destroyers. China certainly can't match the Pacific fleet today, especially when factoring in key allies such as Japan, South Korea and Australia, but their build rate is nothing short of staggering. In short, the PLAN surface fleet today and tomorrow is nothing like the brown water PLAN fleet from 20+ years ago. Underestimating where they are and where they are going is nothing short of foolish imo.
16 himars is a pathetic number, yet look at how slow the russians are at "winning" their supposed well planned "SMO" 16 trucks stopped the russian army of 2022 in their tracks, 16 this is literally "oh nato airforces dont even need to try they can just send 20 F35s to end russia" energy except its true
@@steamedcream7671Nothing you said is incorrect - as far as I’m aware - and you are definitely right about not underestimating the PLAN. But the USN didn’t just realize that China is near-peer-closing-in-on-peer opponent, shrug, and mutter “guess I’ll die now.”
Me: *Smugly* But can it dogfight, The F35, firing a missiles backwards and sideways because it can lock onto enemies in any direction without turning: Hehehe future tech go brrrrr
@@MostlyPennyCat when the AWAC plane giving them targets can tell the navy and army where targets are on the the battlefield and still be 600 clicks away I think the nature of war is no longer in the 50’s
As much as I like Lazerpig, and I admit he’s probably right about it, I will cling to my love of the A-10 with the same determination as an Ork clinging to his favorite choppa. Irrational, yes, but I don’t care.
@@TrinityCore60 ot of the 5-6 big wars they fought in the 20th century they won 1 (and it was with the help of Britain, the US and the list goes on and on). The Russia of today is most similar to Sparta in the 300's BC, they have a myth about their battlefield prowess that is convenient for the US and wider NATO militaries as they can build their budget around a much more powerful enemy.
In a way it contributed to Germany defeat because hitler thought the war would end before winter,russia was simply too big for Germany to defeat,much like the people's crusade created an illusion that the actual crusader armies were weak,when it was actually a professional force.
28:46 "Jack-of-all-trades, master of none" is still better than "master of one". Because the JoAT can be the 2nd best at everything, and will therefore berat any other in a given category, except for the master of said category. And even then, the JoAT will be able to hold its own.
JoAT could still win if it brings its other skulls to the fight, since the master will suck at those. After all you don't breat the chess computer by playing chess, you pull out a deck of cards and shout "go fish"!
@@TheMaleRei Or instead of playing on a table you instead play on the tiles at the bottom of a swimming pool...while it’s full of water and you’ve got a scuba suit but they don’t
That's why in a military you have multiple airframes. There is a reason the US airforce has Bombers, Stealth Multi-role fighters and is replacing the F22 with a new Air-Dominance Fighter. Those airframes complement each other. Same reason why we haven't replaced our artillery with tanks, which in theory could also function as artillery pieces, but it makes sense to design stuff to be good at one job and have another vehicle be good at stuff the other things aren't as good at.
Headlines were always clickbait. The internet just made it worse, because now the media isn’t competing with that day’s issues of the newspaper, but all information ever recorded across all of history that has been uploaded.
yep, look for titles of newspapers from 30' and 40'. You could call them "buybaits" since those titles were to enforce people into buying their newspaper xD
Here’s the only thing Joe Public can know for sure about the F-35: a dozen countries that weren’t in the initial F-35 program have run their own procurement trials and decided that the F-35 is a better value proposition than every other option. Like 4 out of every 5 militaries looking for a new jet who are able to buy the F-35, do. You can yell ‘corruption!’ from the rooftops all you want, but every new F-35 acquisition makes you look more and more like a fool. F-35 acquisitions have only ever failed because of political pressure from Joe Public who don’t know anything about it, and countries consistently order more after recieving their initial batch.
Of course they are. I have issues with the F35 that have little to nothing to do with the fighter mafia types but the bottom line is, what can they buy that's better? Nothing. Even if you think Russia has something better (they do not but some might think it) they can't actually build any for you without all the western components they can no longer get. France or Britain? No again. Powerhouses once but lagging far behind now. Japan is doing some interesting things but still has a ways to go. Now China is interesting. A country on not so good terms with the US might be able to strike a good deal with them. But does anyone really think their stuff is up to par yet? Maybe in another decade or so but I'm not betting my county's future on it today unless I have no other choice.
it gets better because Canada cancelled their orders to re run a selection competition and the F-35 still won a second time, despite the Prime Minister (basicly the President for my American friends) promising and swearing from one end of the country to the other, that they would not select it again/ buy it.
@@jgw9990 Why, is a complex answer of domestic federal politics and the price of buying them. The Liberal party leader (and current Prime Minister) promised to cancel the purchase if he got elected. As for what they would buy instead? They didn't seem to think that far ahead. Canada is infamous for not spending on the military but demanding that it be ready for whatever is needed of it. For example they sent the first 2 rotations of the deployment to Afghanistan in green forest camo because they still had not finalized and produced a desert camo.
Finland's procurement of the F35 is an interesting one. Fairly open, pitted the pitches for F35, Super Hornet/Growler, Gripen, Rafale and Eurofighter against each other. F35 won. By a good margin. There was a good amount of "But the Gripen is designed for the Nordic environment and it's cheaper!", until the numbers came out and per plane the F35 turned out to be cheaper. And some of the capabilities Saab advertised weren't functional yet, so the FAF said "Well we'll consider them not to exist at all then in our evaluation."
You know a person is ignorant if they call the F-35 a "fighter". The F-35 is NOT a fighter jet. That is not it's mission. The F-35 is more akin to the Strike Eagle. It is a strike aircraft, that is also capable of air-to-air combat if needed.
@@hypershock0storm479 Oh, it absolutely is. Being multi-role is effectively the norm today. We no longer have dedicated fighters, dedicated strike aircraft etc. Fighter jets today are capable of almost any mission you can give them. The only difference is that modern fighter jets will tend to lean slightly more towards one kind of mission. For example, the F-22 Raptor can nor carry Small Diameter Bombs (SDBs), allowing it to perform ground attack missions, though it is mostly geared towards air-to-air. Similarly, the F-35 can carry air-to-air missiles etc, but is mostly geared towards ground attack.
@@anzaca1 so, if I'm getting you, assuming a combat situation where the F35 is engaged by a better air to air fighter or fighters that the pilot thinks they can't safely engage, they'll just call up an F22. Sounds smart imo, and it justifies the "jack of all trades, master of none" shtick, when it's own capabilities in a specific field are exceeded it'll call upon help from more specialised aircraft.
@@edwardbrown3721 happily for the F-35 it doesn’t need to worry about facing a better fighter in real world combat. Because the only fighter better then the F-35 is a F-22. And they are on the same side
@@rnukesI'd say generally most carrier aircraft can probably use non optimal runways due to how rugged the landing gear needs to be for carrier operation. That said most aircraft could land on a highway in a pinch. Whether they would remain operational however is another story
@@Viper607706Yeah, carrier aircraft-while the F-15 isn’t one-are generally also effective on short or poorly maintained runways, hence why countries that have never had an aircraft carrier still buy planes designed to take off from carriers. I’m pretty sure the F-15’s “soft-field landing” capability is primarily intended to be so a pilot can do that instead of bailing, so the requirement isn’t that it can do it without DAMAGE, just that it can do it and still be in close to one piece so it can be towed to a better airfield for repairs. hence no mention of soft field TAKEOFF.
Oh my god, how did I miss this? I'm about to dive into this but I hope you enjoyed it, LP is one of my favorite history-comedy channels. I can't recommend him enough. Ironically I've been rewatching his stuff, but haven't gotten around to this one, so this is perfect!
Lazerpig really missed a career in advertising. I've been seeing Raid: Shadow Legends ads for years, and the one time they sponsored him was the only time I thought about getting it. And yes he got me to subscribe to Ground News.
25:35 - 26:02 About the carpet bombing campaigns in Europe, I believe there was a theory implemented by the USAAF and the RAF bomber squadrons which implemented an ability to make people homeless, which in turn reduces the effectiveness of German war production. You could look at Vietnam when you are looking for an example carpet bombing, but when one argues so and so happened with X smart weapon and it equaled Y amount of civilian casualties, one could also ask “but what if a dumb bomb was used..?” That should be the main counterpoint against the disproving of smart weapons.
remember kids, its not slander / lying if the title is technically true despite being drastically different from what its implying compared to the actual story.
I got 2 examples of new developments for modern warfare in ground vehicles for the interested. The new KF51 Tank and the Infantry vehicle Lynx. But be advised most videos are based on the Manufacturers information and media, so take it with a grain of salt. Lel "old man" I think we are in the same age range, because I remember the time without internet and computers being the new stuff noone could afford xD.
One thing that I think that is absolutely groundbreaking about the f35 is the HUD system developed with the headset that the Pilots use that allows them to see through the fuselage of their fighter jet and what's even better is that their weapons are connected to their headset essentially allowing them to lock on to any enemy fighter jet near them as long as they're looking at their direction even if the plane isn't pointing towards them which leads to a situation where if an f35 is in a dogfight and there's a fighter jet behind them he can lock onto them by looking behind him. Experienced F-35 pilots would be able to score a weapons-grade lock on any enemy fighter even if the enemy fighters are more maneuverable than them because all they have to do is look at them and it's over. The enemy fighter could be behind you and you could just look behind you and still lock onto them so you can literally shoot the missile forward and it will turn around and take out the target that is on your 6.
@Druid of Scosglen And what's even crazier is that every single F35 can function as a miniature AWACS in the event that the US lost all of their airborne radars. Meaning the enemy would never be able to take out the entire airborne radar systems the US have. Even if they take all the big ones they would have to deal with all the small ones aswell because the US has like 500 of them not to mention that the B21 raiders that are being developed can also become a pseudo AWACS.
@@dominiksoukal yeah thats a pretty funny thing about it, its not designed to dominate every single field, yet its so far ahead of anything else that it still does
4:13 by that point, humanity would ither be extinct or be an interstellar (or atleast interplanetary) species. And at the minimum be able to destory or deflect it
I not only remember the days of the 28.8k and 65k modems, I actively collect and restore those computers as a hobby, the way classic car enthusiasts collect and restore their cars. And as much as I remember these machines fondly, I would not use them for modern day productivity. There's a reason we've moved on.
Exactly! Newer and better stuff is always made. Just because you can have something old doesn’t mean it’s gong to be better then present day counterparts.
As a Fan of the A 10 cuz yeah It goes Brrrt and single Mothers I stand corrected and loves the A 10 cuz well Brrrrt and A 10 is the Iron warriors of Planes
keep it simple works in simple situations. need something to take trucks over a different road so they dont have to cross traffic and waste everyones time? big concrete thing rigid enough to hold 40 some odd tons per ft² but flexible enough to not crumble when that load is uneven. keep it simple dosent work with things like war, where a hundred thousand people fight another hundred thousand people with guns, main battle tanks, infantry tanks, troop transports, troop transports with anti armor weaponry, infantry fighting vehicles, precision guided artillery crews, heavy artillery crews, rocket artillery crews, machine gunners, handheld anti armor weaponry, mobile air defense, static air defense. i could go on and on and on about all the different things you need to be able to have in a modern war. i dont think i need to for you to get the point.
Yeah, the clickbait is so bad that I “spoil” various clickbait headlines soley out of spite to deny those sites any ad revenue and clicks. Case in point, if you see any headlines about how Warhammer 40k is “moving away from facism and nazi culture” or “becoming more woke” or other similar BS, it’s about the squats returning. Yeah. Bunch of “”””journalists”””” all writing articles outlining how the 40k fan base is full of nazi’s, conservatives, and facist iconography, and at the VERY end of the article, the “evidence” they use to support that 40k is becoming less conservative is that the squats are coming back. With very, VERY little information on what the squats actually ARE. There. I’ve prevented you from contributing to shitty “””news””” sites ad revenue. You’re welcome.
Well compare to a certain fighter jet that says by a certain country will destroy F-35, F-35 is way advance when it comes to quality including the pilots them selves. F-35 is the best if you ask me I also wish US will bring back and redeveloping F-22 because that aircraft have a lots of potential.
The F-22 is just too old now. It was designed in the 90s, about 30 years ago. It lacks some seriously significant features that exist in the F-35. The fact that the F-22's production lines were cannibalized for the F-35 means that it would be the same price to create an entirely new program, as it would to make more F-22s. That's why the Airforce is moving to the NGAD program.
As unqualified as I am to say this, you might want to start adding your own perspectives and opinions (or jokes) to your reactions, because as it is you’re just playing a video and occasionally laughing at the jokes without adding terribly much to it. I love LazerPig as much as the next guy but if I wanted to watch his video then I’d go watch his video, not a watchalong with minimal interaction. Sorry for being an asshole but I feel this has to be said :/
When I actually know about a subject, I talk a good deal more, but something like this I do not know much about. You're not an asshole friend. What I watch is community based, and this was specifically requested.
Heyo person from a city which was "accidentally" Firebombed by the Allies. He can look up Würzburg Germany, no clue why we were bombed tbh. We had Universities and Hospitals and that's it, does not sound to me like a high value military target xD. We still find bombs in the ground when doing construction :/ Edit: Did remove the accidental part because I'm not 100% sure and do not want to spread misinformation.
@@JCDFlex Well, maybe Germany shouldn't have mercilessly bombed civilians before then. As Bomber Harris said himself "they have sown the wind, and now they shall reap the whirlwind." Bear in mind that major cities like Wurzberg and Cologne were transport hubs, and thus were legitimate military targets. The Allied bombers did not specifically target civilians. And if you look at the stats, the deaths from the bombings are quite low. In Wurzberg for example, only 3,000 people out of roughly 108,000 died due to bombing.
@@PiratePawsLive The reasons I can think of is either faulty intel (some SIS agent may have gotten the idea that, there was important stuff in your town), or a cockup in navigation (bombers lost their way, and found a place to bomb).
to be fair, I was really on board moking the F-35 because you know, rush program, new technologies, politics doing nothing good and because, well the fucking gun just say "YEEEEEEET" and snatching from the plane BUT, well new techs, of course it will be inwieldy or unreliable, this plane just need time
The problem is he's right... Is the F-35 stupidly expensive, well yeah, so was the F-15 and I would argue that the F-15 was the greatest fighter of its generation. When you compare the cost of the development of the F-15 to the cost of the development of the f-35, in inflation adjusted dollars it doesn't look quite so insane as it did before does it. The game has changed (the fighter game) In the 21st century it's not the most maneuverable or the fastest plane that wins anymore. In the modern era the plane that wins is the one that is able to detect the enemy first, at the longest range, establish a weapons grade track first and get the first shot... and what do you need to so this, the best sensors target and track and yes, stealth, to delay your own detection so its you that gets the first shot... The game has changed... as awesome as the F-15 is if you put it up against an F-35 in any kinda vaguely realistic scenario its gunna lose, because it's never going to detect the F-35 before the F-35 detects it. Dreadnought changed Naval warfare forever, so did the F-117... There are now 2 kinda of warplanes, stealth and targets. (don't try and bring up long band radar, no long band radar currently in development can give a weapons grade track on a modern stealth platform at anything approaching a useful combat range including the S-400)
@@Toksyuryel Your correct we all think it's an ugly aircraft . But the current generation is effective at it's job. Provided F35s , F-22s and F-15E and F-16s etc have taken air superiority. The A-10 has one job . Blowing up large collums of tanks. Which is also why current load out includes guided missiles .
@@John2r1 i think youre forgetting about the part where the low flying, and slow a 10 is highly suseptable to manpads and small arms, and something like, say... an armoured vehicle capable of putting out a precise high volume of fire in an aa role...
@Druid of Scosglen Ukraine shows that Russia's military leaders are corrupt and incompetent morons. Also shows that Asymmetrical Warfare works very well. Now what the Ukrainians are doing is the best they can with what they have available. Should be interesting to see how the tanks they just got preform. And no man portable anti tank weapons can not replace aircraft in an attack role. Oh and as to long range missiles sure they can hit targets that are pre programed but take away the ability to reliably target the enemy at long range and what do you have ? Answer you need aircraft. And the A-10 is so good at it's ground support role that the US Army offered to buy them.
@@26th_Primarch It took a long time because they were developing a completely new type of aircraft. It's the first supersonic stealth S/VTOL multi-role aircraft ever created.
The A-10C is actually a capable aircraft for its Job. Which is ground attack after other fighters have cleared the skies . So it doesn't get shot by a fighter. Or a missile from the ground. The A-10C has radar, and everything else that current aircraft have. This is why it works at it's job today. Just because the original A-10 had issues doesn't mean the upgrades didn't fix most if not all of the major issues. Btw I would love to see Lazerpig try to spot a modern tank or armored vehicles attempting to camouflage themselves from something like 5,000 feet at 340 mph with binoculars while the aircraft is maneuvering. Bet he couldn't do it. And thats why the A-10C has electronic systems including guidance systems for the various missile systems that are used by the aircraft. The F-35 series isn't as good as the A-10C at ground attack. But it's not intended to just be a ground attack aircraft. It's a multi role stealth fighter. It's capable of doing the job to an extent but it's not perfect at ground attack. At least not close in ground support. It does all the stand off ground attacks with missiles. The F-35 clears the way for close support aircraft like the A-10C and the AC-130. Neither of which would survive without fighter support.
its still highly suseptable to manpads and small arms, which is a huge problem. a plane that doesnt get shot will always be superior than one that does and maybe comes back
@@Helperbot-2000 You should see how much damage an A-10 can take. As to the Manpat sure it could take out an engine. But the A-10 is designed to continue flying without one engine and with half its tail destroyed oh and full of holes from AA guns. Besides that I would love to see anyone stand out in the open and fire a manpat at an A-10 .. Oh wait the Afghans did that right before the A-10 turned them from insurgent to chunky sauce and splatters of red mist on the battlefield. Oh and the A-10s job is ground support . This means there's at least a squad of pissed off Grunts or Marines laying down suppressive fire on the enemy. You raise up out of cover with a manpat infront of the Infantry especially a machine gunner and your going to become more holy than the Pope. Your death certificate is going to say some assembly required. Because your a big target and that weapon takes a minute to lock on. And in that time those Grunts or Marines are going to mow you down with lead. See the US isn't as unskilled as Russian Conscripts. And don't let their aircraft go out alone on missions very often. Oh and as to being susptable to small arms . The stick operator is surrounded by a Titanium bath tub of armor capable of shrugging off 25mm rounds. Your AK-47 isn't going to do shit but pissoff the guy or girl flying the A-10 and get you an express ticket to the afterlife. There is a reason why every military and terrorist group that has ever fought against the US since the A-10 was introduced. Is terrified of the A-10. As much as Lazer Pig doesn't like the old ugly bastard. I'm willing to bet he rather not ever be on the receiving end of fire from the A-10. Neither would anyone else with a brain. And sense of self preservation.
@@John2r1 its blatantly obvious you dont know what youre talking about. The gau 8 has a difficult time penetrating the armour of the tanks it was designed against in IDEAL conditions, against modern armour its useless, its also inaccurate and VERY easy to miss with, a tiny change of the stick is enough to throw you completely off target. Its not able to take hits after hits, yes it can get back to base with one engine and has extra redundant systems for if it gets hit, but its simply not able to take anywhere near as much damage as you think it can, and a plane that flies fast and high and doesnt get hit is always 10 times out of 10 superior. Its not a problem to """"stand in the open"""" and fire a manpads at an a 10 because the plane has a difficult time seeing enemies and an even harder time seeing friend from foe because of its lack of electronic systems to help it with that. I like how you pretend fighting poorly equiped guerilla soldiers somehow proves its worth against an actual military. Its called close air support, shitweed. Again its obvious you have no idea what youre talking about. The a 10 does close air support and ground attack, ground attack is when the area is cleared of friendlies and is what youll see videos of on youtube, its a completely different experience to have the thing fire with its inaccurate gun at targets right in your face. Why do you think it has more friendly fire than literally every single fucking US plane combined? Titanium isnt magic, cunt. The a 10 simply cant survive as much as you think it can, and even when it does survive its completely pointless, because while it was designed to be cheap to repair, because modern warfare requires you to have alot of complex technology it becomes expensive anyways, and an airplane that doesnt get hit at all doesnt need to be repaired, may i remind you the f111 was far better at close air support in the gulf war than the a 10? And it killed more tanks on top of that. People were terrified of the stuka aswell even tho its shown it was largely ineffective in its role, people fear the a 10 because of its percieved danger, the loud gun would be terrifyingto anyone, but that doesnt mean its any good or should be continued to be used. It was never effective to begin with, and the fact that it has such a huge problem with blue on blue ALONE is enough of a reason for it to not be used.
@@Helperbot-2000 Sure because a gun that currently fires Depleted Uranium rounds which is the same material used in anti-tank rounds used by the M1A2 Abrams currently. That anti tank rounds fired from almost directly above the Tanks where the armoron said tanks is the weakest. And firing at 1,036 m/s or 2317.466 miles per hour. And at a rate of 3,900 rounds per minute. Has difficulty chewing through the top of a tank . Which in the case of the the tanks it was designed to kill . 10mm thick armor or 0.3 inches of armor. Are you mentally incapable of realizing just how stupid you sound at this point. The A-10 is an Aircraft it doesn't have to hit the side or frontal armor of a tank. It's designed to dive on the target from the top. Aka one of the two weakest points on a tanks armor. And it's obviously proven effective in combat. Or the military wouldn't still operate the aircraft.
@@Helperbot-2000 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9lD5QqsVofg.html. Seems pretty damn effective to me at shooting tanks from above. Just saying. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kcgWXetv_dc.html Yeah it's been upgraded since the first test that was quoted from. Testing is how you figure out what needs to be fixed or adjusted on a piece of equipment.
I disagree with very few of what LazerPig says in his videos, however in this case I have to disagree with one thing. I'm not gonna call F35 inefficient, failure or anything like that (even though I admit I did in the past, foolishly, but hey it happens to everyone). In fact I won't even say much about F35 as a plane, but instead I'll say something about F35 as a concept/military endeavour. It's needless as of now. The F35 and other such projects are being developed for ''modern war'' for a confrontation of USA/NATO with its' enemies who are also developing their own tech. However from the past experience in recent years, and the war in Ukraine... this modern war probably won't be as modern as USA thinks. USA/NATO's primary enemy at this point is Russia, secondary, pre-invasion maybe even primary, enemy would be China, terciary enemy would be Pakistan, Iran, etc. Countries like Iran can't match USA in technological advancement in any field I can think of. China does equal USA when it comes to planes, however its' 5th generation fighter exists mostly because China managed to get to F22 or F35 technology and/or plans. Because of that it can be argued that if F35 wouldn't exist, China would probably still not have their 5th generation fighters either. And that's only assuming that their fighter isn't paper dragon. Speaking of paper dragons, since the war in Ukraine we see that the primary enemy, Russia, is exactly that. Its' fighter development is not in good shape, it doesn't have good pilots, access to proper high-end electronics, etc. not to mention that their AA guns and missiles also are not as hot as they used to and even air force that has Russia/soviet-based planes can stand up to them. Imagine what would happen if Russia was forced to fight similar country equipped with as little as F16s. And it's not like we can expect Russia to get their shit together in few years, the problems we see there are severe and will take decades to fix, if they'll ever even fix them. So we have a primary enemy who USA alone could beat with probably third of its' fleet of planes from the 90s or maybe even 80s, then we have enemy who's capabilities we ASSUME can equal USA and who only got those capabilities through espionage of USA's own development, and then we have enemy who doesn't equal USA at all. F35 is a plane that would dominate the sky against such enemies even in 80 years. Right now, it's expensive overkill. Currently that plane is useful only if you can afford to pay any price to kill your enemy tenfold with zero losses for the next few decades... apart from accidents like slipping of of aircraft carrier, but nevermind that, or if you plan on making your enemy someone who's more advanced in the next few years.
If you allow all your developments in warfare be reactive you risk being flat footed in future engagements. It should be noted that the 5th generation fighters that have been coming out of China and Russia only very recently are answers primarily to the f-22; a jet that's been in service for almost 20 years and if analysis is accurate they are largely still inferior to the F-22 in what a stealth plane is meant to do. While yes, they may have only been made because of the F-22 & F-35, that's just the nature of being in an arms race. And while they rush out answers to your existing kit, you can aleady work on counters. Not investing in development because 'its the best right now, why bother?' is in my opinion short sighted.
@@werwolfnate I'm not saying that research should be stopped. What I'm saying is that we don't need to spend so much to develop something that gives use edge in warfare, as we have the edge even with 20 year old tech. In other words: make new stuff, advance the capabilities further, but only by a moderate amount. There's no need to make such drastic leaps forward considering the cost.
@@anzaca1 Apart from being expensive way to gain even more supremacy in the air... which is needless against those I listed, it has pretty much no other purpouse... maybe except for creating profit to the company that sells them, in which case it's extremelly useful and of utmost importance for said company.
@@fanta4897 China is actually a near peer and could quickly gain superiority if military developments are allowed to lag. Its infinitely better to win wars decisively than hope to scrape by. Overwhelming superiority also defuses potential conflicts before they start. A pen is worthless without a big sword to back it up.
if you think this is funny try ""Reacting to "Experts" in my Comments"" by ConeOfArc , he is also a military vehicles guy (and a fairly good one when it comes to research and compressing information and not going on prolonged spiels ). Also while the F-35 doesn't suck (for the most part) a lot of what lazer pig says also has no basis in fact and he likes to make up shit for sake of videos so you should always take what he says with a grain of salt and verify it yourself as he is sometimes no better then the people he goes up against.
Pretty much everything LazerPig said in this video and all of his others I can think of are based on facts Care to provide some examples of things that have no basis in fact or that he made up
