Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "The Flying Cannon" video.

@FullyCharged22 The problem isn't air cover. The A-10's biggest predator is its former prey. The danger isn't in the air but in the ground. Fighter escorts don't mean a thing when SAMs and AAA are on wheeled/tracked vehicles and ready to punish CAS aircraft. Fighter escorts can't do anything about men on the ground with shoulder launched missiles. No, it can't easily rain hell on vehicles or infantry, because vehicles or infantry are prepared to fight against CAS fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. It's not even a good platform. It was outdated the day it left the factory and meant for a world that didn't exist anymore. The F-15 is multirole and so what? The F-15E Strike Eagle is an excellent ground attack aircraft that's not as vulnerable as the A-10.
2
@piisfun Minimum airspeed of 500 knots? That's over 900km per hour, almost supersonic at that point. Double check your numbers.
2
@FullyCharged22 No, your argument is flawed. The multirole fighters are the primary ground attack aircraft of the modern world. No, they don't have different capabilities, they have the same and better ones. The video is just entertainment. Not serious discussion.
2
@FullyCharged22 You're literally sourcing an entertainment video as a serious argument. No, it's you who should research the topic. The A-10 is completely outdated and even suffered embarrassment in the first gulf war, where it had to be pulled back due to heavy losses and the F-16 had to take over its mission. The fact that other aircraft do the A-10s job and do it better does negate the usage of the A-10. The GAU-8 Avenger being unique is not an argument, because it no longer can take out targets that a 20mm round can't. Plus the DU round has been retired due to the heavy metal toxicity it leaves behind, and rounds like the 25mm APEX round are showing that they're a promising replacement. If your argument for keeping the A-10 is the GAU-8, that's a losing argument because it's no longer relevant. The A-10 has a long service record because it enjoyed almost 20 years of not being used, then it got splashed by Iraqi National Guard units, and when it was meant to be replaced Congress dragged its feet and insisted on keeping it around for more 30 years. The long service record isn't explained by outstanding performance, but by how Congress will force the military to drag a corpse Weekend at Bernie's style.
2
@FullyCharged22 He is more knowledgeable than you and he defended his points. It's you who's refusing to look at the facts and data, while sourcing an entertainment video to back up your arguments.
2
The radiation is negligible but it's still a heavy metal and thus the dust is dangerous to inhale.
2
@michaeld.uchiha9084 Not due to radiation, but heavy metal toxicity.
2
@arcanondrum6543 I'm not marketing for anyone. You're just being what we call "a hater", and you assume your position is neutral. It isn't. The F-22 was indeed meant to replace the F-15. But the government needed money for other projects and to pay for the wars so they decided to pull the plug on the F-22, and build insufficient numbers. The F-22 did what it was meant to do. The government got cold feet and said the F-22 wasn't necessary. Their words, not mine. Your information about the F-35 is outdated and based on a David Axe article from almost 6 years ago. Outmaneuvering missiles? Missiles can pull a lot more Gs then aircraft. You can outrun them by forcing them to waste energy, which isn't some great feat of maneuverability but simply having speed and altitude to spend. Your first video was removed, and the second video shows a clean F-16. The F-16 can't do that in combat either because it carries weapons.
2
@arcanondrum6543 My comment has been deleted. Outstanding. I linked multiple videos so my comment was flagged as spam. Tight turn radiuses don't defeat missiles. The aircraft does not leave the seeker FOV or the maneuvering envelope. Missile avoidance is done before the missile is even close to try and enter a turn radius competition. That's a last resort, desperate move because a missile flying past will still trigger the proximity fuse.
2
@JC839 Doesn't have anything to do with Congress being wrong as usual, but okay.
2
Yes there is a reason to retire it. It's absolutely a slog to keep airworthy, Boeing's re-winging program already cost 2 billion. It's not safe at all, as it's involved in many friendly fire incidents.
1
@rajatdani619 Air defenses are never clear.
1
@arcanondrum6543 They didn't fail. The government asks for something and then gets cold feet. Also, funny how you now have to resort to unrelated claims when people shot down your arguments.
1
@arcanondrum6543 What videogame? Also, no I won't go away. You go.
1
Nope. Wrong decision as usual.
1
@markderham9949 The Vulcan is the 20mm cannon in use in the F-16, F-15, F/A-18, etc by the way.
1
@markderham9949 Yeah the rest is correct.
1
Light attack aircraft or turboprops would be even cheaper. The A-10 required 2x 1 billion dollar re-winging programs. For a ~200 plane fleet plus spares it's almost 10 million dollars per A-10 just to keep in airworthy. For 10 million you can get a Super Tucano that is 10x cheaper to operate.
1
And yet it got splashed by the Iraqi National Guard to the point it had to be pulled back.
1
@Predator42ID Completely incorrect. Visual identification is extremely unreliable and the A-10 has been involved in multiple friendly fire incidents. There's a reason why close air support is managed by forward air controllers, they guide the pilot's attacks and they're the ones who give final authority for a strike. When A-10 pilots are given free reign over an area, they'll fire on friendlies too because you can't see anything specific from inside the cockpit. You can be dead certain of the coordinates, because the troops on the ground dictate them to the pilot. Mistakes have happened and a forward air controller once gave his own position as the strike coordinates to a B-1B, but that could have happened to an A-10 as well as evidenced by how pilots can't tell friend from foe with the naked eye when left to do their thing on their own.
1