Nice soundtrack. Ironically it was a song inspired by Glasnost, when the Soviet Union finally seemed to open up to the west and become more transparent and democratic ("Wind of Change").
These are brave people. What could possibly go wrong? If they do this often, there are bound to be casualties.
I find "loitering munitions" fine, people should just get used to correct non-sensationalist terminology. Or maybe sacrificial drones, or cruise missiles, although these traditionally have no loiter phase. But Kamikaze has the very strong implication of a human sacrifice, I find equating that with a single use or expendable drone to be in poor taste. Cruise missiles have been "smart" at least since the late 1980s, so that's nothing new, either. Just because this one can fly in circles for a while does not make it more sacrificial than faster, straight-flying ones.
Just my opinion.
Ja, oder das.
Wenn dieses Video authentisch ist, scheint mir ein Abschuss tatsächlich die wahrscheinlichste Erklärung. Flugzeuge fallen nicht einfach so vom Himmel. Einfach, gar nicht.
I think "loitering munitions" sounds pretty cool, personally.
Why do people keep calling these "Kamikaze"? The point of the Kamikaze was that there was a human pilot inside, who was going on a suicide mission. These are just inanimate things. Drones, cruise missiles, whatever, NOT kamikaze.
Or else I will start calling all bombs, artillery shells, all munitions that destroy themselves at the target, "kamikaze":
"Germany has agreed to send more kamikaze ammunition for the Gepard anti-aircraft systems, along with a number of IRIS-T kamikaze anti-aircraft missiles, and 50 Taurus kamikaze cruise missiles." "The US have announced that they would deliver 15,000 new kamikaze artillery shells to Ukraine."
See how silly that is? /rant
~~Mig~~Su-24 bombers
There's no such thing as a MiG-24. (MiG has only ever used odd-numbered model designations, though I don't know why. But it's one of the reasons why it was a safe bet for Top Gun to use "MiG-28", being sure not to refer to any real aircraft, past, present or (probably) future.
What's German about it? It isn't even a German Shepherd.
Probably "Interesting", but it wasn't very hard. Probably within limits for the airframe, although the right nacelle came too close to the ground for comfort. But this kind of inane commentary is why I stopped watching BigJetTV. I much prefer Simon Lowe, who is also a better videographer, with his first published videos predating youtube.
These models (1A5) were already old, and only used by heavy reconnaissance units when I was in the German army 32 years ago. The main tank brigades already had Leopard 2 back then. The main point of the Leopard 2 for Ukraine is that it has a longer range gun than the T-72 and whatever else Russia has, so that it can attack from a larger distance with relative safety. As far as I understand this is not the case for the Leopard 1. Probably better than nothing, though, and hopefully they'll still have better targeting electronics and night vision than their counterparts. Also, the Leopard 2 has more or less a standard NATO smoothbore gun, made by Rheinmetall, the same as the Abrams, and ammunition should be plentiful. That may be not be the case for the Leopard 1, which has a very different gun.
The Ukrainian version of the much-ridiculed Russian "cope cage"? Is it any better?