Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Is the USAF Fed Up With The F-35?" video.

  1.  @tonywilson4713  "It already has poor maneuverability from its small wings." - Not true. Airshow performances show its maneuverability. The size of the wings is not the way to calculate wing loading on aircraft with lifting bodies. "he A10 was NEVER meant to go against ANY fighter so that's a mute point" - It's a "moot" point, mute is when someone can't talk. It doesn't matter what you intend. The A-10 is extremely vulnerable and you cannot simply hope it won't get shot down because you don't "intend" it to be.
    2
  2.  @FairladyS130  Any tech advances that negate stealth, will be even more dangerous against non-stealth aircraft. Stealth won't become useless, it will become the price of admission.
    2
  3.  @tonywilson4713  The A-10 is vulnerable due to essentially being a 1960s design born into a 1970s-present world. There are other close support aircraft that prioritize keeping the aircraft safe over expecting it to get hit. "check what's happened when its been up against planes like F16s in open air combat trials" - I want to kick people in the nuts over this. You're referring to a 2015 article by David Axe that was picked up and quoted ad nauseam by other outlets without doing the basic legwork. Axe wrote an article based on a leaked report he misunderstood. He didn't read it properly. For six years that I've had to explain to other people that just because they read something on the internet doesn't make it true. If you had read the report, you'd have learned it was a software control laws test, not "open air combat trials". I swear people make up more details on this story every time it's told because this is the first time I see someone refer to the test as a "open air combat trial". The F-35 in question was AF-02 and it was loaded with limited software. If you read the report, the pilot asks for software fixes. Please, for the love of everything, READ the sources instead of relying on glorified bloggers acting as journalists. "look for the Pierre Sprey and Chip Berke discussion" - Watched it the day it came out. "What Pierre Sprey goes into is what happens when an F35 is located and then engaged" - Pierre Sprey had retired from the aviation industry decades prior. I'm sorry, but what he thought he knew was woefully outdated. "that has nothing to do with combat" - But it has everything to do with the performance claims being made.
    1
  4. Supermaneuverability is meaningless. It's post-stall maneuvering. You never stall an aircraft in combat unless the only other option is dying.
    1
  5.  @martythemartian99  "I simply think multi role aircraft are to expensive and riddled with problems that take too much time and money to fix" - F-16s and F/A-18s are some of the most successful fighters in service and they're multiroles. The F-15 is an excellent strike platform built on an air superiority airframe. "Multi role was easier back in the days of the propeller" - Why? "More modern multi role aircraft are less capable than specialized aircraft" - But they are more capable. That's why specialized aircraft are on the way out.
    1
  6. Name any other suitable Harrier replacement.
    1
  7. Any radar that make stealth obsolete, will work even better against non-stealth aircraft.
    1
  8. Not equivalent to the F-35.
    1
  9.  @ChairmanMo  Because it's falling apart from old age. It cost 2 billion to remake the wings.
    1
  10.  @ChairmanMo  Because the company went out of business in the early 2000s. It's essentially a 1960s design. No point in starting over.
    1
  11. 2017. A Super Hornet shot down a Su-22.
    1