Pentagon will send more than 50 F-35s to Europe to deter Russia

Well yes, unleash that temp in a millisecond, at 1500 feet, which makes it more effective.
20 million degrees or so.
A 5 miles radius just vanishes evaporated, highly contaminated and than gets sucked into the atmosphere and spread out by the blast wave over 10 to 15 km on the ground.

 

You are so ill informed it's funny seing you trying to argue with your betters. Must be another german character flaws.

 

Yeah, Europeans tend to significantly underestimate the size of this country.
You go drive from Chicago to Minneapolis and you will go through 6 hours of pretty much empty country.

 

And that's a short drive in America.

 

Sometimes I wonder if those who tend to significantly overestimate the power of a nuclear bomb (especially in conversations about Russia) are Russian trolls.

 

Exactly!
You can cross most of the European countries in less than 6 hour drive. To them a few hundred nukes would be devastating. To the US, Russia and China a few thousand nukes wouldn’t be end. Obviously, millions would die, but the countries would survive as a whole and have the ability to wage conventional war.
Back in the 60s and 70s things were different - with each country possessing 40,000 warheads, you could have a real conversation about MAD.

 

Go to this site:

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
Pick any city (Moscow is my favorite).
Enter 150 kt.
Pick airbus, for most damage (which also result in low fallout).
Hit button detonate.
Fireball radius - 450M. That’s not even a km.
Radiation radius - 1km.
Air last radius strong enough to collapse buildings - 3.7km, or just 2 miles.
I live in Chicago suburb and such detonation over downtown wouldn’t even get my windows to shake.
I wouldn’t even need to go to the basement.

Also, consider this - during nuclear attack you want to prevent your enemy from striking back. So, most of those 1,700 nukes would go towards military bases all over the world (including Germany). I bet in case of nuclear exchange with Russia Chicago wouldn’t even be hit.
Current amount of nukes is just not enough for real MAD.

 

That assumes all nuclear weapons launched even work (detonate successfully within lethal range of targets) as planned. I've heard that to this day the estimates of the number of weapons failures ranges from at least 10% to as high as 30%.

I've read about a good way to compare how much damage would be caused by nuclear warheads is to look at the effect of the same weapon on different targets.

The most advanced U.S. weapon is the W88 warhead. About 400 of them are mounted on Trident II D-5 sea launched ballistic missiles.

They have a yield of 475 kilotons.

If one of these warheads was airburst over London, United Kingdom it would kill about 675,000 people.

If the same warhead was airburst over Minot, North Dakota (a certain target in a nuclear war given it is a storage facility for nuclear weapons)….it would kill little more than 3,000 people.

 

you sir are totally debunked and so is my Sprays his opinions,, that's his Indian name..

 

That's top down governance. I'm sure the same folks that can't maintain an efficient system for defense procurement have a flawless system in place for collecting their paychecks.

 

You have no clue what you are talking about. You get proven wrong time and time again .. yet you still persist.

 

Hmmm. That reminds me of you...

 

Sure but if we are talking some planned nasty deed - that's would be done. Of course this is an absurd paradigm .. China/Russia are the last folks that are going to do this .. India - same.

The one country I worry about is Pakistan... get some crazy radical zealots in power - have conditions in the world get bad - some nasty feud.

That is the kind of mindset that would consider doing such a thing. .. .Which is why Pence should never be President.

 

Not sure what your deal is Robert - 1) state what claim you think has been debunked 2) state where in the video (time) it debunks this claim ..

What part of (1), (2) ... or both do you not understand ?

 

Give one example. Y

You are terrible for making naked claims - claims without support (assumed premise fallacy).

Read your post if you want an example.

 

yeah. On paper. Like USA would defend Poland when Russia attacks.

 

I agree

 

You say Pakistan and North Koreas nuclear weapons dont exist. ok

 

I think nobody with technology knowledge overestimates nuclear weapons.

Hiroshima for example was pretty weak. If it would detonate in the center of my town, i would not be affected if would just be 2 km away from Ground Zero. Also radiation levels went back to normal within minutes.

The thing is, nuclear weapons have no upper limit and can be upscaled to any power level (theoretical)

To show something of scale...humanity roughly has 10.000 active nuclear weapons.

The Chicxulub impact was equal to 2.000.000 tsar bombas...

 

Thats self serving.. the worlds problems with tyrants and rogue leaders is a world problem. Thankgully my country Australia walks side by side our allies to share the load. Shame on your attitude.

 

Maybe your country should start to treat its natives like actual people before walking side by side with others. What i saw in Alice Springs was same level as Madagascar and unworthy of a industrial nation.

 

LOL.... you posted one video of a has been aircraft analyst who has an axe to grind against aircraft that are better than the eagle and the viper, you post it over and over again.
I post video after video of multiple different people who have first hand knowledge of the plane in question who have experienced it's capabilities first hand. Here are a few rake aways.

1. You misrepresent what stealth technology is. Stealth means low observable that means it takes enemies longer to detect it's presence and makes it difficult to impossible to direct defenses.
The fact that stealth works was proven during the first gulf war with f117's flying over Baghdad with impunity. Iraqis couldn't see them with any of their defense systems on the ground or in their planes.
2. Yes you may be able to detect it's presence with a ww2 radar, however ww2 radars. Have a very low frequency and is not capable of detecting an f 35 with any accuracy of either location or altitude and is incapable of guiding defences towards it, it cannot guide missiles or airplanes. Even if it could guide another fighter thr f 35 is going to see it's interceptor long before the other plane detects it and can either engage or evade with ease.

All of this can be learned from the videos I posted. You either want to learn or you don't. I've done all the spoon feeding i am going to do with you. You aren't a baby.

My guess however you have an axe to grind, probably against the whole military and military contractors and you object to the high cost of the f-35. You likely do not care how the aircraft actually performs, you just want to badmouth it. You probably think that the f35 is just the product of corruption in the Pentagon and greedy evil Lockheed Martin.

Throughout history military airmen have suffered the highest attrition rates higher than storming the beach at Normandy or Iwo Jima. Higher rates than marines Hue in 1968.
Anyone who balks at the price of a plane that saves fighter pilots lives doesn't have an opinion worth listening to.
Better a life saving f -35 than any progressive crap you want.

 

Our experts say different.

The F-35 has only one engine, which is inexcusable. It lacks acceleration and power. Its totally worthless for our mission profile to protect german airspace.

Its too slow. Our passive radar systems can detect it. We assume that russians are able to detect it as well. Once detected, its easy prey. It cant escape fast, it cant evade. It needs protection from others. This means if we operate F-35 we would also need our Eurofighters to guard them. You said yourself you need your F-22 to protect them. Their cargo hold is small, because they are all designed as VTL aircrafts even so just version of them can do this. Which limits their payload.

Add small issues like the ridicolous helmet that costs almost a million € and can only be worn by a specific pilot. In an emergency you need that pilot present or cant lift off.


Another factor that played into risk calculations was your erratic, anti german president Trump. He wanted very much that we buy F-35. Our secret service BND said, that it is possible Trump would shut down our air defence if he wants force us into a trade deal.

If you would be responsible for german national security, would you place the keys of your air force into a foreign nations hands? A nation ruled by a man who hates Germany, insults us nonstop and his known for his erratic behavior?

 

In perfect conditions your passive system can detect it. with the plane not in stealth mode and knowing it's location already and it's flight plan.

in no conditions can a Eurofighter detect it on it's own before it has already been engaged and put on the defensive or destroyed.. even without the f 22.

The f -35 is cheaper over the life of the project than the Eurofighter.
the Eurofighter is already obsolete.

The Eurofighter will never see and f 35

Germany needs to get on the ball and develop a plane worth having in 2045
I agree the f 35 is not a great choice for what Germany wants to do, neither is the Typhoon..

you are overestimating your passive system and VASTLY underestimating the f-35