Even pro Russian media use him as a source…

Absolutely!

Hiya, How are you doing today and where are you from?

Russia can't gain air sup in Ukrain yet all of Europe... ridiculous

@@debbiemilka2251 Hi girl

Good post - we need to order replacement Typhoons to replace Tranche 1, 3 or 4 more Wedgetails, Sentinel replacements, more F35 to replace the Harriers that could operate off unconventional runways (as in Germany) , more A400M / Hercs and missiles. Thats just the list for the RAF.

@@AnthonySpringall Agree on all counts but I would like to see a bunch of F35As as well. Latest tranche Typhoons, agree on the Wedgetails, a bunch more A400Ms, another squadron of Poseidon's. Then there is the laundry list for the RN, Marines and Army...

I have the same thoughts, the UK spends much more on gimmegrants than it does on defence. The politicians are shameful.

How about the vaunted W. Germans. They, up until the collapse of the wall, used to flex a big, fat muscle.

Not so great brittain is doomed, man, in a few years it does only exist as an bunch of isles, an archipel, because the russian will throw a Poseidon bomb near the Faroer Islands, and then its over, England & co. That means, not only the Brits will nearly dissappear because of the high Tsunamis caused, but also Denmark, the Netherlands and North Germany. That's not my prediction, but the concrete prophecies of more than 10 prophecies for the near future.

Lead times are a far bigger issue than cost It takes ages to build airplanes, or tanks

​@Johan Van Hoof and the only way to avoid lead times when you need the stuff the most is to spend a lot of money when it's not popular to.

@@chickenfishhybrid44 Keeping the old stuff around and in fair nick, would be a good start. Ukraine shows you don't need the latest & greatest. They're using WW2 howitsers, and (thru UK) our Belgian M109s that had been sold off for next-to-nothing. When the $h!t really hits the fan, you'd still have Dad's Army around to use them after a short retraining

Expense can be monetary, material, or even time cost. Something expensive can be costly in one or more of these factors. Often it is monetarily because currency is used as a measure of work hours in an economy. Which allows manufacturers and sellers to best deal with a supply and demand curve of an item. Obviously war creates unusual demands on certain good, but that is why costs go up during war for certain goods. The needs of the state military take precedence so it costs more to produce for civilians. Every state needs a functioning economy, otherwise anarchy will reign. People need to eat, they need shelter, if those needs are not met you will start to lose control. So yes the term "Expensive" is still very much applicable. We also have to take into account whether having a mass quantity of something is a good idea, over a smaller but much more capable force. Obviously the losses you take are harder to replace, but the goal of a war is not always to out attrition your foe. Indeed that just leads to more deaths for your people, which some nations simply cannot afford. So if that option is unacceptable, then you must go with a higher quality force that can win decisively. Which means usually shedding older equipment for new cutting edge gear and training. At least that is the idea on paper, we all know that isn't what always goes down in practice.

@@Wannes_ I agree. That's exactly why we need to be building and storing them now. We can make the storage as best as possible to avoid any major damage or rot over time. They should literally just need the fluids changed, get everything greased up, and be ready to be used.

If just ukraine can keep the Russian airforce at bay how could Europe not??

@@REDVETTExxx I suggest you watch the interview and pay attention

@@MrRobertX70 Im still watching but yeah my comment wad during the vid. Really just me thiinking out loud. But thx for the advice 🤣

@@MrRobertX70 That was too kind wasnt it? I suggest u eat a dick. Good day

Hands down

Nuclear weapons will be used to knock out all space assets and the energy grids. EMP effect etc. I doubt highly that Any Peer of the usa (CHINA, Russia) Not sure if Russia can be called a peer.. Considering how incompetant their military is. But that said.. Any war involving these three will be nuclear. There is NO question about that. Anyone who thinks it won't be.. is naive

Agreed. Space Warfare will be critical. (Space, Cyber, etc.)

Good thing the USA has space force 🦅🇺🇲💥

@@johntthurmon Space assets, maybe, not so much in the way of force. Unless they've got the equivalent of the Stealth fighter, undisclosed, waiting in the wings

@@BeechComer I bet we have moon lasers or something cool

🤟🏻

Yes, it was a big deal for Australia and Canada to get the AIM-120D.

Welcome to the club! We're glad to have you. As the AMRAAM program ages (it started in the late-Cold War), the older versions (A and B) inevitably become available to more allied militaries because the technology becomes outdated compared to the latest and greatest versions. The same has happened to the older versions of the Javelin, Stinger, and the ATACMS. Even if adversaries get a hold of one of these older versions intact, the intelligence value is not as great as the newest version.

We’re graduating to AIM 260, and the Russians will probably have a difficult time reverse engineering the AIM 120D, which is the previous generation missile. ATST, the Europeans like to use the Meteor AA Missile.

Hear hear! Welcome from Canada!

And busy in ukarine

But they're not idiots. And war is a hard teacher. I think the Russian Air force will be better in 5 years, regardless. Now whether they are bigger will depend on a lot. Can't predict. They're not losing planes right now. But if they actually commit their air force we don't know what will happen. They still outnumber Ukraine 100:1, they can afford to lose more. Given 5 years to fix their supply and training pipeline, will Europe be any more capable than they are today? Now Russia might grind down their budget so much they can't but look at North Korea, you can do a lot when your citizens are no longer a concern. I expect Russia to be much more mobilized in a few years. And also I expect within 10 years U.S. will simply have to tell Europe "Russia is your problem, we're busy. You can have some army to make sure our nuclear deterrence is taken seriously. But our Navy and Air force is needed out East.

@@doomedwit1010 They’re idiots, the US military is not going to leave Europe, Russia will be far weaker militarily on 5 years. 🤡

@@doomedwit1010Russia can’t afford shit.

@@doomedwit1010 Russia cannot fix their supply and training pipeline in 5 years, or historically speaking probably not even 10 years.

Prime Beef was still a thing when I was in in 2014 until I left Hurlburt Field.

Prime BEEF as in Base Engineer Emergency Force and Prime RIBS Readiness in Base Service and RED HORSE Rapid Engineer Deployable, Heavy Operational Repair Squadron, Engineer?

@hoghogwild I was told when I was their functions got combined and they kept the red horse name.

Yes he is, Justin is impressively smart

My thoughts are that Ward should interview you about Laos. What were you flying?

Yup. F-16CM even will have a hard time in the MiG-31BM and Su-35SM with R-37M WEZ. It will struggle to employ SEAD mission profile weapons under the S-300/S-400 umbrella interlocked with MiG-31s and Super Flankers with the new long sticks. It really is a mission for F-35s, and Ukraine isn’t getting F-35s. F-35s would humiliate the MiG-31BM and any Sukhois due to the unfair NEZ and WEZ profiles it can cover, without being targeted themselves. Multi-ship JSF could attrit the air and surface threats in coordination with surface-to-surface long range fires to press the attack on nodes in Crimea, Yeysk, and Primorko-Akhtarsk. Execute those simultaneously with heavy weapons employment on the Kerch bridge at multiple points, and it’s game-over for Crimean control by Russia. Even with F-16s, I don’t think this mission profile is possible due to the F-16’s RCS value.

Does the Adder still beat the current AMRAAM? Though probably not disclosed if that’s flipped….never got into DCS after F4.0, so my mental threat library is dusty.

I nearly said, 'The short answer is - You're right'. *In fact that is the WHOLE answer* ..... You summarise the technicl/tactical situation succinctly Politically its an unlikely scenario unless Putin or his minnions go nuclear.

@@Dafnessific R-77 variants are decades behind AIM-120C and D series. AIM-120 has 41 years of live-fire testing, combat employment, and refinement across multipole increments with the A/B/C/D models. Chinese and Indians say the RVV-AE missiles they were sold are fault-prone just in storage, have limited WEZ, and suck overall.

We cannot. We go to extraordinary means to ensure no mistakes are made when building infrastructure, and likely cannot do it quickly anymore. Just telling the lawyers and bureaucrats to sit will not let the people who actually do things spin up from a year plus to build something to doing it in the couple months we used to.

@Mitchell Couchman Fuel would not be an issue at all. Fuel in this country can be made by Texans without outside help and likely in spite of outside interference. This is part of why the Left doesn’t worry about attacking oil companies shamelessly. Just like they they abuse their own black voters, they know the fuel will show up as will the black vote.

We put so much faith in precision weapons when its unguided munitions which perform roles such as area denial and suppression. Human beings are tricky to defeat and having an opponent waste expensive guided munitions is absolutely an objective that planning staffs have in mind.

If Russia is your enemy, then thats not much of a concern lol. We got more production than they any day of the week. China is more complicated.

The Baltic countries could perhaps just arm themselves to teeth with layered SAM systems since the geographic area they are responsible for defending is so small. In their case the high-end fighter aircraft fleets would not produce as high utility for cost as for geographically larger areas of operation.

You’ve seen enough of that one!

Agreed, horrifically corrupt governments claiming they have doomsday weapons that are far beyond the arsenal of any NATO country is a joke. China has not actually fought any modern war, they've had several leaps in technology eras in which they have had no experience with and will be terribly ineffective at operating them in the field.

You nailed it. Russian hardware rarely lives up to spec or even close. Chinese hardware is generally copies of Russian junk do you think it will perform well? It’s all nonsense the American military is far and away better than Russia and China.

Everything you just stated is simply wrong mate.... did you realise russia has launched 3 new military satellites in the last month? What do you think that is all about..

Are you kidding, or what? You think that they don't have the ability to see what you're doing?

@@BaronEvola123 russia does not have the technology to let them see through cloud cover with their satellites, Ukraine has.

🇦🇺cardboard drones from Australia! Genius.

If the Russian military wasn't so incompetent with their Logistics they could have made it to the capital in a week or two but instead they ran out of supplies and walk back out of fuel flat tires no command you name it

@@thebosscatman7 I don’t think that was incompetence, rather the result of corruption and the long starving of the military funding in the era of post Soviet oligarchs rule. Typified by the replacement of the energetic fill used on tank armor by inert cardboard…

​@@alanaspurling6469 AKA incompetence by the pen and suit rather than boots and bullets.

Hiya, pretty! where you from? I'm from Madrid Spain raised in Ca

If Justin put a little more meat on his bones, he could be the next Bond. Get the Broccolis on the horn!!

Obviously we need to maintain those capabilities... but they aren't cheap. Military assets that spend 30 years doing nothing but sit in storage is a waste of money since that money could have went into infrastructure, healthcare, education, law enforcement, and more. This is a problem as old as warfare. The main problem with war is that fighting them require drastically more resource than during peace time. If the cost was stable, then it would be easier to justify and maintain that level of spending. For centuries armies have tried to find ways to minimize costs while being able to quickly mobilize. Yet every time someone tries, it turns out it just breaks the bank. The closest armies got to this level of readiness was WW1 and even then it didn't come cheap maintaining such military reserves and mobilization system. The armies of WW1 still saw significant material shortages when war broke out despite the economically crippling pre-war arms race that preceded it. You can never prepare enough for war, its a black hole draining all your resource. You can only be MORE prepared than the enemy but never enough.

@@neurofiedyamato8763 …Finland made a good job in preparing a strong army in peace time without compromizing its economic development… South Korea also as done the same, which means that with some discipline and focus its possible

F-35B is incredibly maintenance intensive. It’s readiness rate is appalling.

Wow you learned a new word Slava corrupt Ukraine worth you and your families life

😄 I wouldn't bet on it?

When have F-35s been in combat vs. Russian 4th gen fighters?

@@ericpederson7613 I'm curious to know about that too. John sounds like one of those guys who'd talk smack about the Japanese right before Dec 7th 1941 only to get "Pearl Harbored" in the face.

Russian fighters were not at Red Flag. Although I'd wager the kill ratios would be even more lopsided.

They've been up against very good F16 pilots from Europe and US at the Red Flag Alaska op, but I believe that kill ratio was 15:1.

None of that has been tested in real combat, it's all theoretical. And in war if you stake your life on theories you won't live long.

No.

MiG-29 are not "abundant," and what are available are 30 years old with 30 year old missiles. And because of the MiG-29's inferior radar, the Russian Flankers can see them and launch missiles at them long before the Ukrainians can even get them on their radar, never mind launch a missile at the Russians. No, the Ukrainians need something that can carry a meteor.

There's no abundant stocks.

Likely cost related. The Tom Cat was retired for cost reasons, and the military was looking to make as much stuff share components as possible for best efficiency. Which is partly why the AMRAAM became the de-facto standard. The Phoenix by comparison is much larger, heavier, more costly to manufacture, and was becoming obsolete. The seeker head was not as good as the AIM-120. Which didn't hurt it's role for taking out bombers at max range, but makes it less appealing against other air threats. Plus the US wasn't worried about peer or near-peer threats at the time, so again a lower cost missile that does fine was more appealing. Also consider that the AIM-54 was paired with the AN/AWG-9 radar to start in the failed F-111 naval variant. Which was ported over to the F-14 once that situation was resolved. It would likely cost more to update the seeker head, and then pair that missile with another radar (purely speculative here, I'm not an expert but I'm sure it's not free).

AIM-54 retired in 2004 whilst Tomcat retired in 2006. Each missile weighed approx 1000 pounds and the launchers carried them. While the -54C and its variants were much improved over the A version, it was a massive old missile.

The AIM-120 upgrades somewhat closed the gap so it wasn't seen as necessary to retain a big missile.

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD I wonder how many AMRAAM the F14 could have carried? There's a big weight advantage to the AMRAAM over the Phoenix. I'm guessing 8 would have been possible if they doubled up on the glove vane pylons....

Appreciate it gents. The AA-13 is pretty hefty too…but, I guess given rivalries and procurement competition it would make sense that the AF of time wouldn’t volunteer to strap the Phoenix onto Eagles. Or Aardvarks, for that matter. Presumably taking on the responsibility to update it, too.

How do we know Justin ISN’T MI-6? MI-5 is UK Domestic Intel, no? Like our NSA. Hiding in plain sight.

Not true at all lol

As Justin describes it, the concern isn't the ability of NATO to win air-to-air combat, but rather: 1. SAM air space denial. Russia has much more advanced systems than that Western air forces have faced in Iraq, Yugoslavia, or Libya and these have caused a high rate of attrition for Ukrainian Air Force. 2. Vulnerability of NATO airbases to surface-to-surface (and possibly long-range air-to-surface) missiles. These bases have been operated primarily with peacetime efficiency for three decades so are few in number and inadequately hardened. 3. Logistical issues related to peacetime operations vs. active military operations, especially if attrition from air defenses is a a problem.

@@jliller 1. ah yes the very effective SAMs that Russia has used which have shot down many of their own planes and yet can’t keep the Ukrainians from flying sorties in antique Soviet planes let alone advanced fifth gen fighters with advanced SEAD weapons. 2. Yea Russia knows where Ukraine airbases are too and yet they are still able to fly sorties and that’s without long range standoff from extensive use of aerial refueling to launch sorties from much farther away. Not to mention advanced anti missile defenses the west has and leverages to defend airbases. 3. Logistics is literally the US greatest strength. Russia has proven they can’t even supply their army as it invades a neighboring country with limited to no deep strike capabilities. The US has built its military around its logistics capabilities.

@@brandonl8039 Go back to Ace Combat.

@@Hornet135 haha, cute

@@brandonl8039 you're wrong. The situation in Ukraine is due to both sides having IADS and neither of them having anti-iads assets that the USA has. Europe does not have any of the anti-IADS assets the USA does that made Iraq and Yugoslavia smooth for everyone. Also remember that all western European fourth generation fighters are even much worse and older in avionics than Russia's Su-35s.