Both the B1 and Tu160 are stunning even today. The B1’s first prototype flight was in 1974… 50 years ago!!! Amazing. They were using slide rulers then and hand drawn drawings.
i'm always a bit confused by these comments. You can do maths with slide rulers and even without! You REALLY can. It's not magic or something. And drawings are even less surprising and also not fully outdated even today. You need more time and people but there is no reason why math should not be possible without computers. Hence somebody building the early computers without computers.
The BoneR and White Swan are almost like flying SAM sites!! 😂 It's funny that the speed and power of the B-1R is a revisit of the B-1A. It would be interesting to see this with F-22s, F-15EXs, Su-35s, and Su-57s as escorts.
I have to wonder how the XB-70 Valkyrie would have done in this kind of role... a supersonic strategic bomber capable of keeping up with the Blackbird, firing hordes of AIM-260s...
That's what the F-108 and it's nuclear tipped phoenixes were for, although the B-70 would have had little rocket powered drones to intercept missiles fired at it called the Pye Wacket.
@@MarkoDashthat sounds like one of those ambitious concepts they wouldn’t have been able to execute at the time. Look at the D-21, it was Mach 3 and 90000 feet capable but was cancelled because they couldn’t reliably control them. The airframes were awesome but the computer systems were not. Even missile guidance was pretty rubbish in the 70s.
Cap: "I don't know why I keep dying" Cap: "Ever time I fly over this glacier I get shot down" Cap: proceeds to fly around glacier for the next 30 minutes
Thanks for the video. I think I'd love to see a video where Grump is playing on the US side and then pops up on comms as Grumpnik (sleeper cell). Unplanned and random of course.
I've seen one suggestion for the 6th-Gen fighter concept that coordinates stealthy drones spotting targets for a 4th-Gen fighter "long-range missile truck" staged at rear areas. That often refers to the F15 for that role but imagine if something like the B1R existed for that role... Also, I love Grump's commitment to the Ruski accent.
Sounds cool CAP! Thanks for the video, I was having a little with drawl's yesterday cause you had the Tutorial Video. I can't stand when you post Tutorials , but I do understand! You do so much work as it is so I 100% understand! Thanks CAP, TEAM GR!
@@grimreapers Absolutely! It is your channel my friend you are the Boss! I don't know but I assumed that is why everyone calls you CAP! Cause you are The Captain, Boss, Leader, etc. As long as you keep creating Great Videos I will always support you and the Team. Cause I do like your Content/Channel more than any other channel on YT! I don't Pay anyone else on YT other than my Ukraine Teams. But I do that cause all the $ plus part of what the channel owner gets from YT is then Donated in Many different ways in Ukraine. You can buy your own FPV Armed Drone Armed and we get them to the frontlines where we then put the Names of the people on the Drone that will eventually get used. And we send that person a Video with their name on the drone with the Drone Operator. Sometimes we even get the footage of the Drone. So we have a setup where someone can buy two different sizes, A Big One for $600 and a Smaller one about half the size for $300. We have a whole Website setup to shop at where you can buy Body Armor Multiple types, Scopes, Drones, Gear (Pads, Cammo, Helmets, etc.), Night Vision, All different types of Medical Gear, you can buy almost everything but a Gun. But you can buy Armed Drones! It's amazing the amount of people that Volunteer or Spend tons of money on Supporting Ukraine. I think we did about $120,000 in sales the first 3 hours of the Link Setup and Account setup. It's amazing! A lot from the U.K. especially along with the U.S. Ok I will shut up now with my damn rambling on. Thanks Guys!
I was thinking that they would just be better for defense. With tracers you b could walk in your fire...did the .50s use tracers? In B17 footage it never stands out, but imagine the psychological affect on attacking pilots seeing those snakes of tracers geading your way. Also...I know the mini gun is a smaller caliber...but the weight savings on the m2s and all that 50 cal ammo would allow you to carry thousands more rounds for the same weight. I just think it would be an awesome visual too...6 or 7 mini guns sending hate from every angle of the fortress. Not accurate or practical...but cool.
Reminds me of the first transformers movie, where in the Dessert fight (Beeing chased by a skorpion-decepticon) The B1 dropped all its bombs, f*ing stunning scene when the bombs explode and the whole village gets destroyed
@@grimreapers yeah my bad, I realized about halfway in. For some reason my brain heard R77. While I’m on the topic though, would a mixed loadout of half and half of each do better?
Amazing battle. So interesting to see bombers dogfighting. Some say that the NGAD will be closer to a bomber than a small fighter, so this might be a sneak peek into the future.
@downix Sorry dude but you got your facts very wrong. The Tu-160 was in response to the Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft (AMSA) which later became the B-1 project in late 1969. This proposal was after the USAF/NASA decided to cancel the XB-70 program in February 1969 just 9 months prior. The Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft (AMSA) started in mid-1964 and lasted after studies were done in 1965. The AMSA lagged for years because Secretary of Defense McNamara decided to delay further development in 1966. The Soviets were looking into a new supersonic bomber and started a competition in 1967 in part because of the AMSA and the XB-70. Sukhoi won beating out Tupolev but decided the design specifications for a mach 3 bomber was unfeasible. So a second competition in 1972 began but Sukhoi dropped out so Tupolev 's design for a swing-wing supersonic heavy bomber won out. The first design of the Tu-160 was in 1973 based on Tupolev's M-18 swing wing proposal. Production for three prototypes didn't begin until 1977, three years after the first B-1A prototype. The Tu-160's maiden flight was in Dec 1981, 7 years after the B-1A's first flight in Dec 1974. The B-1B's first flight was in March 1983 and the first production unit in service was in Sep 1984. That is 2.5 years before the Tu-160 which entered service in April 1987. Just 1 year after this, the 100th and final B-1B rolled off the assembly line. 104 total if the four B-1As are included. 67 B-1B's are in current service today. Now compare to the total of 36 Tu-160s ever built but only 15-17 are in current service.
@@BagoPorkRinds The '72 recompetition used design work from the '67, and was considered a continuation of it is what I am referring to. I have had the good fortune to have met a few of the engineers from the program and they viewed the two competitions as the same program, with the latter being a reevaluation of the requirements after issues were found with the target. The US has done similar as well, such as with the JSF program which led to the F-35.
+GrimReapersAtomic *This battle reminds me of a proposal for the USN / North American Rockwell PB-1 Charlie and USAF / North American Rockwell FB-1 Delta.* Both would pack four General Electric F120-GE-100 turbines; a 30x173mm Gatling cannon of fewer barrels than the GE (now General Dynamics) GAU-10/A wherearound the USAF / Fairchild A-10 was engineered; an AESA nose radar; and AESA ECCM panels. The PB-1C would pack a retractable magnetic anomaly detector; the FB-1D an AESA tail radar.
If you had used F15's against the Su-27's it would be been more of a fair fight. Basically the Russian group had more missiles period, as SU-27's carry a lot more missiles than F-16's, the F-18 can get closer in missile amount but it's still not as good as the F-15. I'd like to see that in the future to see how that makes a difference. It also came down a mix of some poor flying with the F-16's and F-18's when in close combat and just not having as many missiles for long combat. Love the video though! thanks for making it!
Didn't notice how many missiles were fired by the Boner, but if they left any arrows in the quiver that was a big mistake, I think. They are carrying, what, 40 Peregrines?
The amount of Perignons was impressive however completely pointless... should have been loaded with JATM's, what was up with J-11 lol surely think it should have been The MIG-29!
Would like to have seen more modern escorts-- Blues F-16V Block 72's and sure keep The F-18 however F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet's, and both with AIM-120C-7's! Reds MIG-29KR's and Keep The SU-27 with R-77-1's👍
Hey Cap, Ukraine has shot down a Russian A-50 AEW&C aircraft and an IL-22 over the Sea of Azov with their Patriot system. Could you please try and recreate that (maybe as a part of a larger, more interesting mission)? I think CH’s Patriot will need some tweaking to match the real one’s range, as well as the Mach 5+ speeds of both PAC-2 GEM-T and PAC-3 MSE missiles, as reported by Raytheon, but it seems doable enough…
Except it was friendly fire, and the IL-22 is photographed back at base with tail damage. A-50 wasn't even confirmed in area, and no Patriot missiles were picked up on radar, which is impossible to avoid when flying over hundreds of kilometers of Russian territory littered with some of the most sophisticated layered defense known to man.
Seems like Dark had way better tracking even tho he is not facing the enemy, vs Grump , Simba even called it saying no warning then got killed maybe the radar models not working??
I really don't get why you are surprised the Flanker does so well in DCS. Eagle Dynamics first game was the Su-27 Flanker flight simulator. Everything ED has done since is based on that code so the farther you get down the line from the original code the worst things get. I'm guessing since it was done by Russian programmers they made everything Russian superior. Time and again I see this demonstrated in DCS.
@@grimreapers If you want accurate predictions you need to leave real world performance (ala wikipedia) out of the equation and stick with how it is modeled in DCS. The US tends to under-report system capabilities as they do not want potential adversaries to be able to prepare. Soviet/Russia felt the need to propagandize their systems so they would never need to be tested. F22 is a great example. USAF pilots were not allowed to perform certain maneuvers in air shows as they wanted to never demonstrate the full capability of the aircraft. One other bit of DCS weirdness I find really annoying. You could fly the wings off of Soviet aircraft, so that is modeled in the sim, but US aircraft since the at least the F4 have been designed so that there is no way a pilot could fly the wings off an undamaged aircraft. I can't speak for the others, but the F16A would handled in excess of 15g in a jet clean configuration. The 9g limit is there for the pilots sake. Oh, and the F16 roll rate in game is stupid slow compared to the real F16. (at least for the F16A)
Love all content cap, even when my side loses. I justify losses to pilot error and the cia disinformation program, since with pilots like Simba we are actually invisible and undefeatable!😂 Peace!!
In this case it would be unfair for the small fighters. I'd have to upgrade them to modern fighter variants with 2020's missiles also. Which I could do I guess.
The B-1 is a piece of shit. I know because my piece of shit dad was the head of the circuit design department. You can't send the thing in unless the skies are safe enough for a hot air balloon, and even then, it might crash.
@@grimreapers It was a pork project at the very beginning of Reagan's first term. New York wouldn't vote for it unless part of the plane was built there. The avionics package contract was given to a company there that had made music equipment. They never, at any point had any idea what they were doing. Pilots say the B-52 is far more modern. Reagan ended up ordering a hundred of them. Their greatest function was to cause Russia to dump money into an equally useless clone, helping to bankrupt the Soviet Union.
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Missing Everything [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dTYeMZGzOzw/mqdefault.jpg)
Both the B1 and Tu160 are stunning even today. The B1’s first prototype flight was in 1974… 50 years ago!!! Amazing. They were using slide rulers then and hand drawn drawings.
i'm always a bit confused by these comments. You can do maths with slide rulers and even without! You REALLY can. It's not magic or something. And drawings are even less surprising and also not fully outdated even today.
You need more time and people but there is no reason why math should not be possible without computers.
Hence somebody building the early computers without computers.
In my world of AI and big data science, slide rulers and hand technical drawings seem so far and away.
If I had a B-One-R, I would play with it all the time. I would never get rid of it. No one could ever get me to let go of my B-One-R.
So you’d edge it?
The BoneR and White Swan are almost like flying SAM sites!! 😂 It's funny that the speed and power of the B-1R is a revisit of the B-1A. It would be interesting to see this with F-22s, F-15EXs, Su-35s, and Su-57s as escorts.
This was fun to watch!
Love the pretty terrain going by at 500 mph.
I have to wonder how the XB-70 Valkyrie would have done in this kind of role... a supersonic strategic bomber capable of keeping up with the Blackbird, firing hordes of AIM-260s...
That's what the F-108 and it's nuclear tipped phoenixes were for, although the B-70 would have had little rocket powered drones to intercept missiles fired at it called the Pye Wacket.
@@MarkoDashthat sounds like one of those ambitious concepts they wouldn’t have been able to execute at the time.
Look at the D-21, it was Mach 3 and 90000 feet capable but was cancelled because they couldn’t reliably control them.
The airframes were awesome but the computer systems were not. Even missile guidance was pretty rubbish in the 70s.
@@matthewkern3619 yes, it's control systems malfunctioned.
Cap: "I don't know why I keep dying"
Cap: "Ever time I fly over this glacier I get shot down"
Cap: proceeds to fly around glacier for the next 30 minutes
Welcome to my brain?
Sometimes I tune in just to be considered valued
I've always found the tu160 so beautiful
Agreed
we love you Cap
@@grimreapers
"What you don't want on your butt....is that" shows a Bone-R.
Great work as always. I love these type of battles. The sci if fun battles are my favorite.
B1R is gorgeous.
It looks like the lovechild of a F14 tomcat and a Concord.
The TU-160 looks even more so like the product of those two jets
That was some intense fights. ❤ love the vids
This... But with bombers only.
kinda want to see 3v3 B-1R vs Tu-160M2 without fighters now
Thanks for the video. I think I'd love to see a video where Grump is playing on the US side and then pops up on comms as Grumpnik (sleeper cell). Unplanned and random of course.
I've seen one suggestion for the 6th-Gen fighter concept that coordinates stealthy drones spotting targets for a 4th-Gen fighter "long-range missile truck" staged at rear areas. That often refers to the F15 for that role but imagine if something like the B1R existed for that role...
Also, I love Grump's commitment to the Ruski accent.
Sounds cool CAP! Thanks for the video, I was having a little with drawl's yesterday cause you had the Tutorial Video. I can't stand when you post Tutorials , but I do understand! You do so much work as it is so I 100% understand! Thanks CAP, TEAM GR!
Roger, I went through a period of 18 months without doing the tutorials, and I really want to catch up now so that I'm back up to date.
@@grimreapers Absolutely! It is your channel my friend you are the Boss! I don't know but I assumed that is why everyone calls you CAP! Cause you are The Captain, Boss, Leader, etc. As long as you keep creating Great Videos I will always support you and the Team. Cause I do like your Content/Channel more than any other channel on YT! I don't Pay anyone else on YT other than my Ukraine Teams. But I do that cause all the $ plus part of what the channel owner gets from YT is then Donated in Many different ways in Ukraine. You can buy your own FPV Armed Drone Armed and we get them to the frontlines where we then put the Names of the people on the Drone that will eventually get used. And we send that person a Video with their name on the drone with the Drone Operator. Sometimes we even get the footage of the Drone. So we have a setup where someone can buy two different sizes, A Big One for $600 and a Smaller one about half the size for $300. We have a whole Website setup to shop at where you can buy Body Armor Multiple types, Scopes, Drones, Gear (Pads, Cammo, Helmets, etc.), Night Vision, All different types of Medical Gear, you can buy almost everything but a Gun. But you can buy Armed Drones! It's amazing the amount of people that Volunteer or Spend tons of money on Supporting Ukraine. I think we did about $120,000 in sales the first 3 hours of the Link Setup and Account setup. It's amazing! A lot from the U.K. especially along with the U.S. Ok I will shut up now with my damn rambling on. Thanks Guys!
B1 & FA-18 have much smaller RCS/Radar & should get a lock first. DCS model notwithstanding. Did that Russian bomber turn inside of an FA18?
this map is sooo beautiful!
Could you do a B17 mission but replace the .50s with mini guns?
Nice.
I was thinking that they would just be better for defense. With tracers you b could walk in your fire...did the .50s use tracers? In B17 footage it never stands out, but imagine the psychological affect on attacking pilots seeing those snakes of tracers geading your way. Also...I know the mini gun is a smaller caliber...but the weight savings on the m2s and all that 50 cal ammo would allow you to carry thousands more rounds for the same weight.
I just think it would be an awesome visual too...6 or 7 mini guns sending hate from every angle of the fortress.
Not accurate or practical...but cool.
"... if swans even have nostrils". GR : Where Top Gun meets Men Behaving Badly.
Oh where did MBB go? Such a nice series.
El Calafate, was just hiking there a few week ago!
B1-R and AIM-174B would be a really interesting combination.
Reminds me of the first transformers movie, where in the Dessert fight (Beeing chased by a skorpion-decepticon) The B1 dropped all its bombs, f*ing stunning scene when the bombs explode and the whole village gets destroyed
I find dessert fights a trifle boring.
I saw that while deployed. Was working on one of the jets featured in that movie.
@@freedomfalcon No way, but the bombs where probs right? Because the explosions look like explosives on the ground, still impressive
I would like to see it redone, but with F15s instead of F16s. Keep up the great work!!!
Seeing those beautiful snow capped mountains makes me wonder ....is Antarctica in DCS?????
Can you give the TU160 R37Ms? It would give it some crazy standoff capability
In this battle the Tu-160 had 24 x R37M missiles.
@@grimreapers yeah my bad, I realized about halfway in. For some reason my brain heard R77. While I’m on the topic though, would a mixed loadout of half and half of each do better?
Can we get a video on the Russian AWACS being shot down. If the Patriot could have done it or was it a secret F16 attack
Lago General Carrera, Patagonia, Chile... Beautiful, even on DCS
Amazing battle. So interesting to see bombers dogfighting.
Some say that the NGAD will be closer to a bomber than a small fighter, so this might be a sneak peek into the future.
Wonderfully well!
What amazes me here is that the Tu-160 development program began *before* the B-1's, and was a response to the XB-70 program.
Cool
@downix Sorry dude but you got your facts very wrong. The Tu-160 was in response to the Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft (AMSA) which later became the B-1 project in late 1969. This proposal was after the USAF/NASA decided to cancel the XB-70 program in February 1969 just 9 months prior. The Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft (AMSA) started in mid-1964 and lasted after studies were done in 1965. The AMSA lagged for years because Secretary of Defense McNamara decided to delay further development in 1966.
The Soviets were looking into a new supersonic bomber and started a competition in 1967 in part because of the AMSA and the XB-70. Sukhoi won beating out Tupolev but decided the design specifications for a mach 3 bomber was unfeasible. So a second competition in 1972 began but Sukhoi dropped out so Tupolev 's design for a swing-wing supersonic heavy bomber won out. The first design of the Tu-160 was in 1973 based on Tupolev's M-18 swing wing proposal. Production for three prototypes didn't begin until 1977, three years after the first B-1A prototype.
The Tu-160's maiden flight was in Dec 1981, 7 years after the B-1A's first flight in Dec 1974. The B-1B's first flight was in March 1983 and the first production unit in service was in Sep 1984. That is 2.5 years before the Tu-160 which entered service in April 1987. Just 1 year after this, the 100th and final B-1B rolled off the assembly line. 104 total if the four B-1As are included. 67 B-1B's are in current service today. Now compare to the total of 36 Tu-160s ever built but only 15-17 are in current service.
@@BagoPorkRinds The '72 recompetition used design work from the '67, and was considered a continuation of it is what I am referring to. I have had the good fortune to have met a few of the engineers from the program and they viewed the two competitions as the same program, with the latter being a reevaluation of the requirements after issues were found with the target. The US has done similar as well, such as with the JSF program which led to the F-35.
matter of fact... maybe you guys should try doing one of the "Old Dog" versions of the Buff from the Flight of the Old Dog books...
+GrimReapersAtomic *This battle reminds me of a proposal for the USN / North American Rockwell PB-1 Charlie and USAF / North American Rockwell FB-1 Delta.* Both would pack four General Electric F120-GE-100 turbines; a 30x173mm Gatling cannon of fewer barrels than the GE (now General Dynamics) GAU-10/A wherearound the USAF / Fairchild A-10 was engineered; an AESA nose radar; and AESA ECCM panels. The PB-1C would pack a retractable magnetic anomaly detector; the FB-1D an AESA tail radar.
Thanks Grim Reapers!
If you had used F15's against the Su-27's it would be been more of a fair fight. Basically the Russian group had more missiles period, as SU-27's carry a lot more missiles than F-16's, the F-18 can get closer in missile amount but it's still not as good as the F-15.
I'd like to see that in the future to see how that makes a difference.
It also came down a mix of some poor flying with the F-16's and F-18's when in close combat and just not having as many missiles for long combat.
Love the video though! thanks for making it!
Didn't notice how many missiles were fired by the Boner, but if they left any arrows in the quiver that was a big mistake, I think. They are carrying, what, 40 Peregrines?
Cap, nice Inbetweeners reference 😂
Oooooo friend 👍
special friend!
The amount of Perignons was impressive however completely pointless... should have been loaded with JATM's, what was up with J-11 lol surely think it should have been The MIG-29!
Would like to have seen more modern escorts-- Blues F-16V Block 72's and sure keep The F-18 however F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet's, and both with AIM-120C-7's! Reds MIG-29KR's and Keep The SU-27 with R-77-1's👍
Hey Cap, Ukraine has shot down a Russian A-50 AEW&C aircraft and an IL-22 over the Sea of Azov with their Patriot system. Could you please try and recreate that (maybe as a part of a larger, more interesting mission)? I think CH’s Patriot will need some tweaking to match the real one’s range, as well as the Mach 5+ speeds of both PAC-2 GEM-T and PAC-3 MSE missiles, as reported by Raytheon, but it seems doable enough…
For more details about the A-50’s position, route, etc., I highly recommend watching the video “A-50 confirmed shot down […]” by Suchomimus.
Except it was friendly fire, and the IL-22 is photographed back at base with tail damage. A-50 wasn't even confirmed in area, and no Patriot missiles were picked up on radar, which is impossible to avoid when flying over hundreds of kilometers of Russian territory littered with some of the most sophisticated layered defense known to man.
It’s a GREAT DAY!
has there been a firefox model made ?
Don't think so.
this had the Chilenians probably pretty confused.
this one plane carrying Russia's entire missile inventory
Could you have mald on each of the fighters and use them as decoys/lures, it seems that would be a great asset in a bvr engagement.
Is the ECM system of the B1 modeled in DCS?
No
Aren't peregrines supposed to be hit-to-kill? thats probably why they didnt fuse. theres no warhead.
We've given it a very small warhead(have to in DCS), but it's causing problems obviously.
The BONE is a sexy aircraft
Stiff headwind???
TU-160 absolutely beautiful 😍
If it was by the book, it wouldn’t be GR.😊
Wow… poosh your fired
Славная европейская победа и заслуженная
Are the Sus kinematicly better than the 16s...or is this advantage based on a better load-out?
Seems like Dark had way better tracking even tho he is not facing the enemy, vs Grump , Simba even called it saying no warning then got killed
maybe the radar models not working??
STAND CLEAR ! THE B-ONE-R IS HERE ! ! !
Grumpnik FTW!
Fun!
When Tu 160 tailing your F-15 and suddenly a health bar pop out with latin music playing in the background now you know the shit is real....
The B-1 is a really cool plane
Do more of Cap V. Everyone else please???????
Just had a question pop in my head..how much does an f22 weigh fully loaded vs a 747 per say??
Fully loaded F-22 about 70,000lbs 747 heavy about 1,000,000lbs.
Watching this it makes it really bad Ukraine had te sell the tu 160's back to Russia. 😢
Could you imagine if the B-1R was powered by the GE F136 or the PW F135.
It wouldn't be as good as it is now because the engines that it has already are much larger.
America, fuck yeah.
Hello
Hi
@@grimreapers can you make a video showing what aircraft can best do a long range high altitude unguided bomb drop?
B-ONER!!!!
I really don't get why you are surprised the Flanker does so well in DCS. Eagle Dynamics first game was the Su-27 Flanker flight simulator. Everything ED has done since is based on that code so the farther you get down the line from the original code the worst things get. I'm guessing since it was done by Russian programmers they made everything Russian superior. Time and again I see this demonstrated in DCS.
It just always performs better than I predict it will.
@@grimreapers If you want accurate predictions you need to leave real world performance (ala wikipedia) out of the equation and stick with how it is modeled in DCS. The US tends to under-report system capabilities as they do not want potential adversaries to be able to prepare. Soviet/Russia felt the need to propagandize their systems so they would never need to be tested.
F22 is a great example. USAF pilots were not allowed to perform certain maneuvers in air shows as they wanted to never demonstrate the full capability of the aircraft.
One other bit of DCS weirdness I find really annoying. You could fly the wings off of Soviet aircraft, so that is modeled in the sim, but US aircraft since the at least the F4 have been designed so that there is no way a pilot could fly the wings off an undamaged aircraft. I can't speak for the others, but the F16A would handled in excess of 15g in a jet clean configuration. The 9g limit is there for the pilots sake.
Oh, and the F16 roll rate in game is stupid slow compared to the real F16. (at least for the F16A)
Love all content cap, even when my side loses. I justify losses to pilot error and the cia disinformation program, since with pilots like Simba we are actually invisible and undefeatable!😂 Peace!!
Willing to pay a premium to filter Grumps terrible accent.
I dislike the Russian nose cones.
Not aesthetically pleasing.
Probably due to crap radars.
I’m second
RUSKIS POWEEER HEHEEHEHEHEH
Can we stop doing fights with terrain. Just have these fights squarely over the ocean or something.
In this case it would be unfair for the small fighters. I'd have to upgrade them to modern fighter variants with 2020's missiles also. Which I could do I guess.
The B-1 is a piece of shit. I know because my piece of shit dad was the head of the circuit design department. You can't send the thing in unless the skies are safe enough for a hot air balloon, and even then, it might crash.
Yeh I've heard a lot of bad things about the state of the Bones.
@@grimreapers It was a pork project at the very beginning of Reagan's first term. New York wouldn't vote for it unless part of the plane was built there. The avionics package contract was given to a company there that had made music equipment. They never, at any point had any idea what they were doing. Pilots say the B-52 is far more modern. Reagan ended up ordering a hundred of them. Their greatest function was to cause Russia to dump money into an equally useless clone, helping to bankrupt the Soviet Union.
Mother Russia will always prevail victorious.
Bro shutup.win in Ukraine?😂
lol
Only in a biased fantasy game
Not in real life.
Where’s Father Russia?
ALSO STOP CURSING "CAP"
You sound STUPID!!! STUPID!!
Well that was exciting. ⚪🦢> 🐓🦴. Keep on making insightful content that leaves an inedible mark 🧠🌸