No

Tesco vs Morrison’s

If the modern UK was teleported back to 1940 after the fall of France, Could it defeat Nazi Germany by itself?

Could you do 6 day war 2021 hypothetical war (Include Lebanon and Iraq as well.)

@@christopherhoffer6643 Maybe. France for sure couldn't.

Jesus. What fighter could even hope to carry that amount of missiles. Are the engines also missiles?

@@Marth667 Probably the jet itself is also a missile too, like WW2 Japanese Kamika-

@@senatorstevearmstrong3449 40mm Bofors: Imma stop you right there

@@Marth667 In-air missile rearming

Maybe they are even considering those front flaps that has f15 modification in Ace combat 7

i was wondering if my headphones aren't working correctly,or if there is some bug in my PC, lol

F-15EX - 5EX

I KNOW RIGHT!!! 😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣

Best intro ever. Straight and to the point.

Go forward, America! Long live the Nato! Long live freedom! Down with all dictatorships and terrorists all around the world! Best wishes from Germany!

SU-57 differs.

So one trillion usd gone onto the drain and wasted talent on F22 F35 for so many decades. Why!

@@choolikyoon9939 they have different roles, they aren't using them in the same way

Range, payload and power plays a vital role in air combet.

@@choolikyoon9939 F35 is multirole, F22 is Air Superiority

Yep, it’s a missile carrier for the more stealthy aircraft leading the way and designating targets.

f-22 is gonna be shacked. your logic is flawed.

@@riskinhos When the NGAD becomes operational the F-22's will go to the Air National Guard, but that's going to be awhile, I'm not going to hold my breath until they're "shacked", you can if you want.

Yep, the Israeli's know this. They ordered a whole bunch of F-15EX to compliment the F35s in their inventory.

@@riskinhos the Comanche program got "shacked" and then look what was left behind when Osama got "shacked" who knows what these guys have up their sleeves

He is a man of culture.

Yes, pure *sex*

mega lol

I feel like someone at a board meeting considered that. "So we plan to designate this variant the F-15X" "Did you ever notice that a 5 looks a bit like an S?" "Yeah, I guess, what of it?" "What if we designated it the F-15EX? Then it would look like it's called the F-1SEX" "You absolute madlad, I'll make some calls, this is gonna be hilarious."

@@hawawah8671 Well at this point the military seems desperate for recruits. Maybe this will get the incels on board lol.

I feel like this is the plan they’re going for. One f22 for every 2-4 eagles. F22 acts as point guard and strikes first

@@John_shepard Exactly, the F15 is still better than most. The F15x will cost less to maintain, developed via exports, and can still dog fight with the best. It’s really a super strike eagle. Navy will use the Super Hornets that same way with the F35.

This is actually insane, we didn't have this technology when the F15 was around now the F35-F22 can act as Point man feeding information to F15's that dont see the enemy yet but are able to unleash their payload becasuse the F35-F22's gave them targets well beyond their range. Meanwhile the F35-22 can stick to their own role where they excel at which is stealth and situational awareness on steroids XD Its like a spotter-sniper situation except in the air.

Totally agree F 22 F 35 forward planes and F 15 EX pack the punch the right tool for the right job.

Seems to cost similar money to the f35 without the stealth. Why not have the f35 for when you need stealth

Badass quote for a badass plane

one day we could see an f-22ex lol

@@anguswaterhouse9255 i doubt it, f-15 have numbers total in the thousands in US along, if u counted it ally numbers and those sold to other cuntry as well, there enough out there to give enough sells point to make upgraded version. f22 on the other hand number less then 200 total, ban for export, rather then it gettign upgrade version, they will just replace it with the next 6th gen fighter. rather then complete retire teh f22, if anything they will most likely be use as front line intercepter cause of it stealth and speed.

@@yia01 Yeah, i was wrong america has baout 500

@@anguswaterhouse9255 Nah, the USAF is already planning on retiring the f-22s by the 2030s to make way for the F/A-XX

The EX is based off of the Strike Eagle, not the air superiority version, the C/D Eagle. It's no contest between the C and E variants so far as ACM. The EX will see mostly NORAD Homeland Security missions. The Eagle has had its issues though. Stood down from securing North America in 2007 while the Canadian CF-18s assumed the missions for 2-3 weeks IIRC. The platform had to be stood down due to a wing failure requiring fleetwide inspections. Apparently the Strike Eagles wing is better designed, a plus to the EX's superlong service life. 25,000 hours or something like that. The Streak Eagle attained some amazing thrust/weight ratios during its record attempts. The holdback devices used hold the Eagle back while the engines throttled allowed for some wicked short takeoffs. The video of the Streak Eagles on youtube.

@@hoghogwild It;s main mission is literally ar superiority and to replace the C varieant

@@anguswaterhouse9255 Yes, never said it wasn't. The Charlie Eagles are a much better air sup. platform. The EX is a Strike Eagle variant built for air sup.

@@hoghogwild The Charlie Eagles were better in the 70's and 80's, nowadays manouverability matters far less compaired to payload mass and radar size

@@anguswaterhouse9255 The Charlies are still in service without an operational replacement until EX comes online. WVR/ACM are still major drivers for current training. The EX won't be survivable against modern air defenses much beyond 2028 but will be perfect to perform homeland/airbase defense/no-fly zone enforcement against limited or no air defense systems as well as deploying standoff munitions, similar to the Charlies current mission..

Binkov probably meant to say "The F15 EX is pure genuis. " Translation: 4th Gen trumping 5th Gen in lethality.

Bars.

@@tshavfengvang7831 4th gen ftw

Imagine a f16EX variety

If only the F-15EX had front canards and thrust vectoring nozzles....(as a literal ode to the F-15 S/MTD) it would have looked dope AF. (Which it may not even need).

And B52

And Tu-95

The AC130 lasted quite a while too lol

B 52 will last 100 years

Kc-135 first flew in 1956 as well

Sir John Napier Log Tables far more accurate than a Slide Rule!

Only problem is if the Chinese are further ahead than we think in missile/radar/ECM department. Fighters never operate in a vacuum either. There's always the possibility of assets on the ground or at sea either friendly or hostile that will add to the general mayhem and "fog of war"

It's a very powerful, versatile machine but without stealth it's only as good as its longest range missle and it will be forced to rely on stealthier units to help find its targets. Nothing wrong with a missle truck. But it doesn't work without more advanced assets in the field.

It turns out that anything more advanced becomes too expensive to outfit a whole air-force with.

@@alexanderbutler2989 Can you see a Big Whale jumping out of the Ocean = F-15EX.

@@jonofpdx A Lorry/Truck to carry Ordanace BUT the enemy KNOW the F22/F35 is 30 Miles ahead because of the HUGE Radar Signature.

Sometimes you need a 10mm pistol sometimes you need a fatman launcher

Sometimes you need stealth, sometimes you need 18 missiles.

More like a sledgehammer

When you need a really big brick...send in the buff.

LOL; Outstanding quote.

the f22 is just too expensive to get any use out of it. it probably has gotten to a point where they are afraid to use it because of the cost of losing one. idk im no expert

@@atif1538 The biggest problem is the factories/machines that produced the F-22 were shut down long ago. It's not so much the planes themselves, it's that starting production again would be a huge expense. The F-15 on the other hand has been in constant production, so it's just easier to upgrade.

@@khandimahn9687 sad, would have loved to see that machine use its utmost potential.

@Fred Garvin where did i say that?

@@atif1538 I agree. I've been saying for a while now that the F-22 & F-35 were both dead ends, due to budgetary issues. The USAF would NEVER have enough of either, or both for that matter, to effectively fight a war with a peer level adversary, and that they would both fall to aircraft designed decades before them.

Should bring back the Phantom II ?????

It's a missile truck or flying SAM site. If the aerial engagement becomes, too close and turns into a dogfight it's fucked...

You are forgetting SU 57

@@t.t7225 no.... No I'm not.

Tomcat will always be my favorite fighter

@@silvershelbygt5006 you are.

They are also some of the best,easily top 10 and maybe even top 5

you should've said "Yes."

@@republicofustio4381 No, I'm tiring of seeing that

@@republicofustio4381 Sorry

Yep. Another standard meme.

"So Jim, surely all those extra missiles were enough?" "No, I need more."

When it was introduced in the Israeli Air Force, the pilots even jokingly referred to the F-15s as Flying SAM Sites.

@@skybattler2624 u are right I mean it is loaded with AMRAAMS

Imagine how many a B-52 could carry!

@@gourmetbanana now that’s a lot

how many missiles will the F-15EX be able to carry?

I understand the CAF wanted the F15 but they got the F18 for political reasons.

"Nice, kid. I'm not stealthy, but..." (BOOM)

F-35 actually does stuff from a lot further away than nme can first see it. So if its a capable dogfighter too, I have no idea.

F-18: "Sure I'm tied to the carrier, but I can go Mach 1 F-22: "Beat it kid. I'm stealthy and flying over the Kremlin."

That's actually not how it works. At all. 😂

@@willbracken2367 how so? Prime me wrong. You can't.

good point

Best of both worlds.

The fear is stealth coating will be difficult to impossible to maintain in a prolong conflict. F35 has about a 50% readiness rate during peacetime. So sure if F35 destroys all air defense in a few weeks everything fine, however that’s probably not going to happen. It took 6 months to degrade Iraq air defense.

@@jaredyoung5353 how long did it take to take down iraq's air defense in gulf war 1? how long did it take in Vietnam? any of the Israeli conflicts? ww2? my point is that it's getting easier. So most likely the chinese know this and the tactics will be to spread out assets on a defensive level and only go for targets of opportunity. they have military industry so far inland that it makes it difficult to penetrate without losses/refueling. They are set for a prolonged war and they know we may create a corridor quickly. But if we don't get the decisive victory because of lack of battles it'll just be attritional. Which we absolutely wont and thus your point is right. But technologically we could have if tactics weren't changed. I really think if we do any war with china... less is more. We now more than ever need the chinese people on our side. But because of strategic realities this will be a cold war style proxy war instead. Which goes back to the idea that, yeah maybe stealth is good enough to beat underequipped PRC allies.

@@jaredyoung5353 F35 had the highest readiness out of fighters recently according to USAF.

Yo, dawg, I heard you like missiles, so we put missiles in your missiles!

How about a big ass 200 mi A2A missile that splits in to 4 submunitions a few kms out

I mean, you COULD use a missile like the JASSM, but instead of its own warhead and seeker add three or four AIM-9x, launch the package toward the enemy formation and have the missiles engage when in optimal range. Launch that boom-stick in TWS mode with semi-active guidance and the enemy might never know what hit them...

Sounds unrealistic to me. The four Sidewinders weigh more than one AMRAAM rocket. So AMRAAM would have a lot of parasite mass to carry. This would drastically decrease range. But nice idea.

@@---hm5yd Develop a nuclear engine for the missiles? 🤷‍♂️

F-15EX is going to the National Guard for CONUS air defense. It isnt a frontline fighter.

The f35 is a pretty heavy hitter in its own right in beast mode. Not as stealthy then though

@@EmperorLionflame It doesn't fly like a brick for a start and beast mode will be used in conjunction with other jets using stealth mode. One can detect other platforms without being detected at range or easily and the other can light it up from maximum range

@@EmperorLionflame Comparing the F35 to a spy plane is disingenuous at best. Most of the bad press the F35 has had has come from states who seek to undermine the F35 program. The F35 isn't designed to operate on its own and beast mode just adds in more flexibility. Having a platform undetectable to radar that is operating along side strike platforms is a huge advantage. It's how the UK nuked the US in war games, twice.

@@EmperorLionflame there totally different platforms with different roles. Nearly all of the info I've seen out of the US on the F35 rubbishes the scare stories about the platform. Exactly the same tactics will be used with the F35 as we're used on those Vulcan led excersises. The Vulcans had to go high to avoid radar, the F35 with go stealthy to do the same. In beast mode the F35 can carry up to 16 missiles. You have 1 jet that can forfil both roles in this kind of scenario. It's a struggle to put the meteor on it? It can either be done or it cannot and we both know it can. The F35 is also designed with the future in mind, it will operate along side armed drones, identify targets while remaining unseen and will allow it's drones to take the shot remaining hidden. The F35 can do an awful lot the F16 can't do as great a platform as it is.

It's a shame too, the F-22 would have replaced the F-15 had its production not been cut at 170/750 ordered fighters. But sadly there was no point in fielding a fighter that expensive when the military was focused on counter terrorism and counter insurgency.

@@HomelessCows There is an additional wrinkle, and this is at least in part why more Raptors weren't made (price being the big one though), and that is that the US doesn't want an F-22 falling into enemy hands. SO, fewer F-22s used only when the F-22 is particularly needed helps prevent the proliferation of its stealth and sensor fusion tech. But you still need all those missiles to hit whatever the F-22 (or F-35) finds - hence the F-15 EX. And if a few F-15 EXs get downed, well that's less of a big deal than losing an F-22. In reality, stealth drones are what will be killing the F-22 (and F-35) mostly, not other fighters.

👏👏👏👏

F22: I am here to replace you F15...ha ha ha!!! F15 to F16: Hold my beer ......

It's a Boeing subsidy, its as simple as that. It's illegal for the state to hand over billions in cash so they bought these crappy planes instead.

Being a janitor in the building doesn’t count dude

@@vgatorfl92 Don't be so hard on yourself!

Tell him good job overcoming stagnation (ask him to explain)

What were the ROE?

@@fordwk it doesn't matter what the ROEs are. The F-35 clubs 4 gen fighters like baby seals..... in every exercise.

F-14s could bust Mach 2 with 4 AIM-9 and AIM-7's and 2 bags of fuel, back in the 70's.

@@hoghogwild But not for very long. From full tanks to empty was usually less than 15 minutes in burner.

@@777Outrigger OK?

Coincidentally the Chad airforce has pretty much SU25s.

lmao

Actually, calling it the "F-1 SEX Eagle II"

F U C K I just made that comment and I scrolled down 😫

Also Hell Yeah Murica

Same here, thanks so much Binkov.

Wouldn't really say Binkov is the best in terms of detail, but his content is definitely the most approachable, require little advance knowledge to get the general idea, whilst not sacrificing too much in terms of accuracy.

Binkov is great! Good Intel and research they do here

he's not the best with alt history but with this stuff he seems to know his stuff

Because it’s very fact based without much room for weirdos to cry “muh bias!” Or “muh doesn’t know what he’s talking about!”

I always championed the f-15 for these and other reasons. It's cheaper, easier to maintain, bigger, faster and more deadly than the f-22 or f-35. What did the guy say? 16 AMRAMs? I would never load it like that unless I was fighting a pack of other 4th gen fighters but it shows what a monster it is. Pity no stealth. J-20s and j-24s with pr-15s or that other 6 meter beast would be a threat

Yeah, same here, but at the back of my mind floats the image of a gull winged, twin engined, tandem seat fighter with a funny looking tail and an M-61 20mm cannon directly in front of the nose gear. I'm not sure what this "Phantom" in the back of my mind is, but it's so ugly that it is pretty.

You are a chad

I usually get the Tomcat in head or the Mig21

@Adisura Same

With the MiG-21

With F-22 and F-35 providing targeting info via new network capability.

The B52 can carry a lot, has been for over 60 years

The Costco of munitions.

NOPE

I agree.

F-1"S"EX?😄😄 Like the Mitsubishi F-1 Super Extended?😄

@@chaovo7629 😂 doh...

The separating factor between 4th and 5th gen fighters is stealth. Unless its been given some form of stealth upgrade I would disagree as it being between the two. I wouldn't say Russia or China have any genuinely 5th gen fighters either. The only fighters that are genuinely above 4th gen are the f35 and f22 IMO

Carter canceled the B-1 which was supposed to replace B-52, so the USAF had no choice but to hang on to B-52s. USAF said that the B-52 would no longer be likely to enter contested airspace and survive by the mid 1980s. The solutions offered were to reverse the cancellation of B-1, wait on the B-2 and get some of those, or rely on more standoff weapons that can be used from the edge of defended airspace. In the end, all of these options were partially pursued but none in sufficient numbers to fully replace B-52. The treaty that banned B-1 from carrying nukes prevented it from replacing the nuclear mission of B-52. The very small numbers of B-2 prevented them from doing all nuclear missions. Thus despite being replaced by two new bombers that are both more effective than B-52s, they hung on in service because of political and budget decisions.

@Fred Garvin He was wrong. The B-1 is better than the B-52 in almost every way. Even the B-1A model that was less focused on reducing observabilty and more focused on speed. Building hundreds of B-1 could have meant earlier retirement of B-52. Half of the B-52s were chopped up at the end of the Cold War to comply with a treaty. All of the B-52s could have been destroyed instead if there were enough B-1 already built to replace them. This would also have eliminated the possibility of sacrificing nuclear fusing on the B-1 by treaty since the B-52 would be gone and the B-2 still secret and in small numbers. We could have had 200 B-1A plus 200 B-1B all with nuclear weapons capability retained. B-1B even now can carry more standoff weapons than B-52, with about the same cost to operate them. B-1B have are tiny on radar compared to B-52 and much easier to hide using electronic warfare. The speed of B-1B, even with much sacrificed for lower observability, is still much better than B-52 and allows them to respond faster to urgent target missions and get in and out faster. The only thing the B-52 does better is maximum unrefueled range but B-1B can still reach all the same targets because of pretty good range of thousands of miles and aerial refueling. If B-1kept the nuclear fusing and fully replaced B-52 it is likely we would now see a B-1C model that like the F-15EX would be better under the skin with easier maintenance and lower cost to operate in addition to some incremental capability enhancements.

@Fred Garvin B-2 were not built in enough numbers to do such missions on a large scale. They also arrived much later than the original B-1. Furthermore, the B-2 cost vastly more to operate than B-1 which is why B-1 has been the workhorse bomber for the last few decades while B-2 mostly sit in hangars.

@Fred Garvin We agree saving the BUF proved functional. But with over 1,462 days in office, getting 1 right is making contact once in a career of T-Ball

@@stupidburp when I think of all the money wasted these days by my government, 2 billion a pop for a B-2 seems like a bargain 👩‍🔧🇺🇲🛠️🇷🇺

I'll add Sub Brief, Bharat Shakti, Cybersurg and Lindybeige.

Sandboxx is awesome

The pics of F-15EXs I'm seeing have CFTs/FAST packs. That said, it depends on what mission they are intended for. From what I'm seeing F-15s intended to dogfight would not have CFTs because they can't be jettisoned to save weight. So if they have FAST packs then the USAF is probably intending them primarily as missile trucks - which is the ideal air superiority role for them, IMO.

@@j.f.fisher5318 as far as I know CFTs are put in low pressure areas to minimize the performance and considering they got new engines it should balance out. And those CFTs are hard to take off so not taking them off reduces maintenance

@@Aaron-wq3jz yeah, I meant more as a strategic choice the apparent decision to equip them with FAST packs/Conformal Fuel Tanks suggests that the F-15EX is primary intended to be a missile truck, not primarily a dogfighter. Whether it is a low pressure thing or not the FAST packs on F-15s are mounted und the wing roots along the sides of the intakes as can be seen comparing the F-15E with other varients.

The F-18 is cooler, though.

@@demun6065 it is true at Mach 1.8 the exterior of the F18 does not experience the rigorous temps experienced by the F15. So it is cooler. The F15 capable of Mach 2.5+ and able to accelerate in vertical climb and surpass Mach 1 along with weapons loading far beyond the F/A 18s capabilities. The F15 is the king of air combat until another platform surpasses its kill/loss ratio. Also I have great respect for the F/A 18.

@@chasefreedom5178 f16 better

@@richiejosephmazumder7632 In some aspects yes but not all. Both have weaknesses. But better? I disagree.

Russia is physically incapable of manufacturing Su-57's in large numbers. So probably yes, the 27-based platforms will prevail.

Possibly, although I watched a Russian made "documentary" (propaganda vid) that made blatant claims that the SU57 is superior to the F22 and F35. If they truly believe this they'll try to keep building as many of them as they can (which won't be many let's face it). They're likely to concentrate on their own 6th Gen research as other countries are skipping 5th gen and reaching for 6th. Either way, I think the F15EX will be a deadly complement to the F22s and F35s (and the F X(6th gen) successor to the F22....

@@Sajuuk they don't. We have access to older Soviet and NATO war exercises. Both sides overestimated each other immensely

@@hman8338 Better than underestimating each other, I suppose.

@@ildart8738 Please you don't make sense, Russia can build them in large numbers they just don't want to. This is because it goes against their strict operations guidelines. They are terrified of repeating the mistakes of the Soviet Union. That is their weakness, easy example is Afghanistan. They have a budget and are very tight to that. They are focus on having just enjoy military and the rest is on internal development of society (population growth included)

It has it. EPAWSS on the F-15EX performs multiple functions. Some of the hardware is also similar enough to Growlers that it could replace them in the EW role for the USAF instead of leaning on the Navy for that capability since the EF-111 were retired.

@@stupidburp That was my thought. Though that EW role is kind of becoming obsolete because of the sheer power and bandwidth of modern radars. For now it's still viable, but I wouldn't be surprised if that sort of jamming by small aircraft becomes useless in the next couple decades

and F22 for Airshows

@@Barracuda7 exactly

And the A-10 for when you need a job done right

Isnt the f22 better than the f35?

@@fernandoperez8587 air to air, yes, multi role, no

Pheonix missile is more like 150 miles and it dont turn great

Phoenix missile cant shoot down figther type targets at maximum range.

Pl15 Pl16 has ducted ramjet like meteor and range of 500km with high maneuver

@@aydincakiroglu1665 ]

L

The thing is, the F-15 has yet to meet a Flanker in combat, and has mostly shot down ground-attack planes or drones in its service history. The only key exception is 5 Fulcrums during Desert Storm, which is a small sample size.

@@rkr9861 actually the F-15 has several dozen MiG-23 and MiG-21 kills too.

@Fred Garvin the SU-27 has 6 kills I think. Ethiopian-Eritrean War.

and it's sad because the F-22 is the best of them all

I didn't think the A-10 would be around by the time I joined the military. That was the late 80s and they're still here so you never know.

@@Calzaghe83 as a National Defense weapon, yes

maybe not the viper/hornet, the F-35 was an actually good program and the F-35 is needed to continue service so J-20s and Su-57s don't start seal clubbing 4th gen jets, so when a J-20 is found by EWR F-35s can be scrambled, although there are tactics to beat 5th gen jets with 4th gen jets, they only work if there is only 1/2 5th generation jets to atleast 3 4th gen jets

We are developing the future long range AIM-260 for a reason and it isn't ISiS. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-260_JATM

How do you know the J-20 isn't very stealthy?? Lemme guess.. Eyeballing right??

How much you have access to classified information including classified information on how stealth works, I'm not sure how you're making your assessments. Now based on the angles used by stealth aircraft, I personally question how stealthy the J-20 is from any angle other than head on. But I'll be the first to admit that it's a relatively uninformed position, even if it's been backed up by the analysis of defense analysts and former pilots. Then again, how good is good enough? There are many who say that the YF-23 was stealthier than the YF-22, but lost out because of issues with its complicated missile bays

Modern long range missiles are becoming much more effective due to various improvements. They are more of a threat than previous generation missiles even when used against agile evasive aircraft.

@Fred Garvin what makes you think they're slow flying? And she only speaking, the more energy a missile has, I eat the more speed it has in the terminal phase, the more dangerous the missile is

I beat moo3 using this tatic LOL as humans. That game was awesome but had it flaws.

@@computernerd8157 name of game?

@@williamblazkowicz5587 Master of Orion 3. The least liked of the of the moo games.

It's a Boeing subsidy, its as simple as that. It's illegal for the state to hand over billions in cash so they bought these crappy planes instead.

@@tomx641 yes I am sure there is some aspect of that

@@tomx641 Not really, the Navy came to this conclusion years ago. The F-35 is a strike airplane, it was never designed to go toe to toe against fighters designed from the ground up for ACM. That is what the F-22 was designed for, but they bought less than half that they would need to replace the F-15C/D squadrons, and the Navy cancelled the NATF program (basically a Navy F-22). So the Navy bought modernized F-18s, and while unlike the USAF the squadrons are multi-role, they are the air group's interceptor force. Now the Air Force is basically doing the same thing with the F-15EX.

@@Teampegleg No. The F15 is a worse fighter than the F35. This contract is to keep Boeing in business, it has nothing to do with the aircraft's capabilities. The F15 is a crappy plane but having LM run a monopoly is even more expensive.

@@tomx641 The F-15 is one of the best fighters that the USAF has fielded in the jet age. Only the F-16 is better at ACM, but the Viper was designed for ACM from the ground up.

First time I ever saw one was climbing vertically over Lambert Field in St Louis. It was twinkling in the sun as it rolled in the vertical climb. Was in 1977. I thought it was a rocket.

I hated those movies, because they used F-16 FALCONs instead of F-15 EAGLEs. Not to mention the crummy plot.

That kind of also remind me of the Missile Boat from the old game Tie Fighter.