Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Curious Droid" channel.

  1.  @junaidisutara4577  But many aircraft can fire the AGM-65. The reason the cannon gave the A-10 extra life is because 30mm rounds have a much smaller danger close radius, you can hit enemies closer to your own friendlies than you could with a bomb.
    16
  2.  @DeliciousDeBlair  "it is ugly (marring the image many high-and-mighty elitist in the USAF tried to present with their other aircraft)" - This is complete rubbish. Air Force A-10 pilots love the plane. Anyone into aviation loves the looks of the A-10. "the aircraft has NOT ONLY indeed proven its self SUPER effective in combat," - To the point that in 1991 it had to be grounded due to all the losses and battle damaged A-10s. It was outdated by the 1980s and it suffered a bloody nose in the first Gulf War. "the best chances of survival [shown by how much of it can be shot off and it still flies] in low altitude situations" - Most modern aircraft can do what the A-10 does without resorting to low altitude. Low altitude is a Vietnam-era relic of the time the machine outpaced the human. Give the human a machine eye and the machine can be unleashed. "the A-10 has done its exact purpose built role in close air support, if not identical to a helicopter, far better than the F-35 they are trying to replace it with." - What? Multirole aircraft are better at CAS than the A-10. The F-35 is a next gen multirole. Why wouldn't it be better than the A-10?
    14
  3.  @RickBoat  "a close air support plane with an armored cockpit" - It keeps the people alive, but everything else can get destroyed. "a gun from hell" - The gun hasn't been able to penetrate tanks since the late 70s. "An f35 etc is too fast" - Why? "doesnt have enough ammo capacuty for the role" - Doesn't need it. "Also, the a10 is the cheapest plane per hour the air force has." - A Super Tucano would be even cheaper so don't bring money into this conversation. The A-10 is extremely overpriced for the role it performs. "Ask the army guys if its obsolete" - What do the army guys know about air power?
    13
  4. @libertarian4ever66 the A-10 has already been replaced by F-16, Strike Eagles and B-1s.
    12
  5.  @exidy-yt  it fought for dear life, back in 1991 it had to be pulled out due to excessive losses.
    12
  6.  @exidy-yt  It rocked the battlefield by what? Getting shot down and damaged so often that Chuck Horner pulled it out of missions against the Iraqi Republican guard? Very few losses? Six A-10s and one OA-10 was lost, meaning it suffered the same amount of losses as the Tornado, which was considered a debacle. "F16s cannot loiter near as long over the battlefield" - You don't need to loiter when you can do the job faster. Also, loitering is suicide anywhere that isn't an extremely permissive environment. "suck at close air support in comparison" - Because most of the CAS knowledge is stuck in A-10 schools. Had the A-10 been retired in 1993 as originally planned, all that knowledge would have gone to other aircraft. It's not an aircraft issue, it's a pilot and training issue. Strike Eagle crews did not like the possibility of performing gun runs at night. They spent months perfecting their skills in simulators to get the hang of how to do it without killing yourself. Now they say they did gun runs on an almost daily basis with the F-15E during the GWOT. It's all about being allowed to put in the work. "Even a Super Tucano would be better then an F-16 in CAS" - A super tucano would be better than the A-10. Almost as fast with a turboprop, which means huge fuel savings and long loiter times. Can take off from bases much closer to the action, so the slightly lower speed is more than made up for. "but not ideal for CAS" - Why? "B-1? a strategic bomber?" - Your incredulity isn't an argument. The B-1 does perform close air support. "F-15 Eagles?? an all-weather interceptor/dogfighter??" - You are aware of what a STRIKE EAGLE is, right? It's not an interceptor or dogfighter. "Are you high?" - I ask the same. Did you get high the day you were reading wikipedia pages on airplanes? Because if you weren't high maybe you would have noticed that the things you don't believe in are real. "Neither of those planes do CAS except in dire emergency!" - You might want to check the facts before continuously putting your foot in your mouth. "You really need to research" - You really, really need to do your research. Again, it's publicly available information.
    10
  7.  @TengrioftheCrimsonSky  Because starting from scratch eliminates the constraints. Upgrading means retaining old, ageing airframes that last rolled out the factory in 1984 and parts that need custom order because Fairchild went out of business in 2003. It means having to design modern systems to interface with the obsolete. It means being limited because you can't tweak the design without causing unforseen second and third order effects. Plus, we don't need to create anything new. All the A-10 does is accomplished by turboprops like the Super Tucano. You don't want a multi-billion CAS plane that only does COIN in a super permissive environment. You just buy what's available.
    10
  8.  @thedungeondelver  "After the Gulf War, the Air Force was going to retire the A10." - After 7 downed and 13 written off as battle losses, it should have been. "The Army lobbied to get the planes, then the Air Force did a 180', because there were clear indications that Congress was going to allow them to do it." - All I could find was that congress decreed that some A-10s and OA-10s should be put under the Army but in November 1990 the USAF was ordered to retain them.
    9
  9.  @TengrioftheCrimsonSky  "we could also bring back our old prop planes" - Old aircraft are expensive to maintain and need to be babied because of fatigue setting in the materials. The OV-10 Bronco was used to provide CAS in Syria and Iraq as part of a project for a possible return and the Air Force shelved them again because the costs to maintain them were too high.
    9
  10.  @impaugjuldivmax  You're the ones making claims so your credentials are in question, not the people asking you about them.
    9
  11.  @kineticdeath  the A-10 only gets 11% of CAS missions as of 2014. F-18s, F-16s, F-15s and B1s have replaced the A-10 in the CAS role.
    8
  12.  @punishedmeridia  Loitering will get you killed. The best CAS during Vietnam came from prop planes because technology did not allow the human in the loop to acquire targets by himself in a jet, being almost completely dependent on ground forces to direct the attacks. The only solution at the time was giving the human a plane with lower performance. We don't need to do that anymore.
    8
  13. Look up "Welcome to JSTARS: Morale Stops Here" patch.
    8
  14. ​ @lillyanneserrelio2187 Cancer unfortunately is our cells going rogue. It's not like polio where you can just gain immunity from a medical preparation, it's like a computer bug in your code and you can never know where it's going to show up.
    8
  15.  @tegunn  lumbering is death on the modern battlefield.
    7
  16.  @tegunn  Vietnam was the age where the machine was flying but the human eye had to look for targets when they were not provided. Trying to fight Vietnam in 2020 is a huge mistake. Aircraft performance had to be hindered to allow the human to stay in the loop. With modern pods, the pilot does not need to fly low and slow to see targets.
    7
  17.  @MrDarrylR  The A-10 can only operate in uncontested airspace, where the F-35 would have access to air refueling because there's no danger to tankers. The GAU-8 is not by any means cost effective when it should have been replaced by even more cost effective turboprop aircraft with lower caliber gunpods. "The F35 costs $67k per flight hour, the A10 $19k per flight hour" - In the modern battlefield, the F35 comes back home while the A-10 doesn't. In a counter insurgency, there's turboprops with even cheaper flight hours that can operate out of forward bases even closer to the action so they'll get there sooner than the slow A-10. "Each of those A10s can carry more air to ground munitions" - 16,000 pounds for the A-10 versus 18,000 pounds for the F-35. "The A10 perhaps isn't ideal for near peer warfare in a contested air environment." - It's worse than awful. The 1991 losses sealed the deal. "But we haven't fought a near peer in 75 years" - Excuse me? When Desert Storm happened the Iraqi military was one of the largest of the world at the time and it was battle hardened by the Iran-Iraq war. You fail to remember that before the counter insurgency phase normally you'll have to get through either modern Russian/Chinese weapons or at least a couple of decades old equipment. Even if you're not fighting near-pear you may have to face their weapons. And in that war 7 A-10s got shot down and another 13 were written off after landing with too much battle damage.
    7
  18.  @kineticdeath  they don't randomly grab anything, or at least in theory shouldn't. First of all it's a function of speed, range, airbase distance and payload. Second, the F/A-18 is Navy. If low maintenance and cost per flying hour is your deal, then the A-10 should have been replaced by the Super Tucano.
    6
  19.  @markinl.a.4954  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP0f1_f8nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqaYI5VWkgE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idVY2KumIcA "Feel free to explain why we should believe a word they say while you're at it." - That's the point. You're not meant to believe them. That's the thing I've been trying to tell you the whole time. You claim America's enemies want to replace the A-10 - actually they want it to stay in service. That's why they say the F-35 is shit, and call Pierre Sprey the designer behind the A-10 when he was a defense analyst.
    6
  20.  @JoaoSoares-rs6ec  "most aircraft at the time were built to either be fast our Cary lots of weapons" - The A-7 was faster than the A-10 and carried 15k pounds versus the A-10s 16k pounds. "but no one was built to take such a pounding" - The A-7 was armored. "if any they were very fragile" - No. "The A10 was built to go against soviet columns" - And it was discovered to have been a suicidal mission. The A-10 was really built for Vietnam. In 1991 it got shredded apart by Iraqis and had to be grounded.
    6
  21.  @terryboyer1342  "The A-10s used today are vastly superior to the ones used in the Gulf War" - So are air defenses. "Completely upgraded avionics and NVG capable now as well as employing all the PGMs available. Plus they are now outfitted with the Litening II targeting pod." - Oh wow so they can do what other jets do. Funny how that goes. "The Gulf War A-10s had none of this" - It wouldn't have helped. They'd still be getting shredded by AA and popped by missiles. "btw wasn't the F-111 retired about 20 yrs ago while the A-10 may still be flying 20 years from now?" - Precisely. The A-10 should have been retired with dignity but you people insist on dragging it's corpse. Since 2014 it gets what? 11% of CAS missions? What does it matter if it's still flying in 20 years if the fast jets are doing its job? "The A-10 had a lower loss to mission rate than the F-16" - the F-16 had more CAS missions than the A-10 in 1991 and got shot down 3 times, versus the A-10 which got shot down 7 times. "Here's a cool site that should piss you off for weeks to come." - You mean this one? http://rjlee.org/air/ds-aaloss/ first do ctlr+F "F-16" and then "A-10"
    6
  22.  @terryboyer1342  So you agree that CAS is a mission not a platform, and then you ridicule the use of aircraft capable of dropping warheads on foreheads? "In neither of these platforms can the person who designates targets and pushes the button to employ weapons even see outside the aircraft" - Are you seriously implying that that the Mark I Mod 0 Eyeball is better than a gimbaled, stabilized image that can see people scratching their nuts from ten thousand feet in the air and also IR strobes and laser designators? Having to see the fight from up in the air is an absolute clusterfuck and caused blue on blue because you can't see shit. Do we have to set up an airsoft event and you fly over with a Cessna and try to actually judge what's going on with your own two eyes while you're busy flying the plane? Good luck. First documentary features Pierre Sprey who is a charlatan and borderline "aviation stolen valor" by allowing himself to be introduced by Russia Today as the designer of the A-10 and F-16 when he was never anything more than a defense analyst who never worked for Fairchild or General Dynamics. Second documentary, you can argue that Marine Harrier pilots were also grunts in the sky considering that part of their officer training included being trained in forward air control with grunts. Hardly exclusive to the A-10. Again, it's a mission not a platform and pilots need training to perform it. If you listen to pilot interviews from other countries where the main fighter force is composed of multiroles you'll notice that they do rotate from time to time because they need their fighter pilots to also be proficient in bombing. You can make a multirole pilot a grunt of the sky.
    6
  23.  @JoaoSoares-rs6ec  The A-10 was designed for Vietnam where the main AAA threat was 14.5mm guns, not 23mm. The A-7 was just as armored as the A-10, just lacks the mythical titanium bathtub because it doesn't need it. Second ranking in the amount of ordnance dropped over Hanoi with only six USAF A-7s lost in the entire war. Sounds like a survivable aircraft to me. "those are still good numbers other aircraft like attack helicopters would not be able to survive" - But the F-16 flew more CAS missions than the A-10 in 1991 with only three shot down. That's less than half of the A-10 losses despite flying more.
    6
  24.  @TengrioftheCrimsonSky  "it's easier to upgrade the A-10" - No, it isn't. Upgrading isn't the breeze you people think it is.
    6
  25.  @RickBoat  I'm not saying I know best. I'm just asking you, what does a 19 year old kid trained in infantry know about providing close air support in a contested air space? "the army seems to do cas fine with the helecopters they're forced to use" - This is amazing revisionist history. It was the Army's own air mobility supremacists that pushed the air force out of the CAS business in vietnam because of their own smug sense of superiority. In fact, it wasn't until the air force chief of staff conducted a study that found that soldiers were satisfied with air force CAS but didn't understand why it didn't show up more often that the air force realized that the army was REFUSING to call in air force assets. This started the process of the A-X program, from which the A-10 was derived. The army thought they knew better so don't come complaining about maintenance and expenses. They wanted it. "I'm withdrawing from the conversation" - Yeah because you have realized you have no argument. You might think this is your fart as you leave the elevator but it's simply you tapping out while getting rear naked choked.
    6
  26.  @markinl.a.4954  Buddy did you drink before posting? Where did I say the Russians praise the F-35? They publish non-stop propaganda about how it's garbage. So why would the Russians want it to fail? If it's so shit, they want it to replace the A-10.
    5
  27.  @terryboyer1342  "Halfway through the campaign at a press conference Horner quietly stated " I take back every bad thing I've ever said about the A-10. I love them. They're saving our ass!"" - Then why were they grounded after 7 shot down and 13 coming back to be written off due to battle damage? The A-10 was grounded, prohibited from flying missions against the Iraq republican guard and it killed less tanks than the F-111.
    5
  28.  @earlwyss520  "The USAF has acquired several excellent CAS aircraft, yet gets rid of them at the first opportunity. Examples are A-7" - The A-7 was dropped because of the pressure to adopt the YA-10. The USAF sacrificed the A-7 to get the A-10. The A-7F variant should have been built, not the A-10.
    5
  29.  @JoaoSoares-rs6ec  "the program was for jet engine aircraft not propeler, drop th crap." - Again I will quote the A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog) SYSTEMS ENGINEERING CASE STUDY by David R. Jacques, PhD, LtCol USAF (Ret) and Dennis D. Strouble, PhD. "The A-X was to use an existing state-of-the-art engine in order to achieve an early Initial Operational Capability (IOC). The number and type of engines was not specified by the RAD; they would be determined by trade-space analysis considering performance, cost, survivability and maintainability." "On 19 April 1967, the F-X SPO forwarded a preliminary proposal22 to AFSC headquarters. The AFRDQ A-X Proposal contained the Air Force (ASD) configuration studies for two candidate vehicles. The first vehicle configuration used a single turbo-prop engine, while the second vehicle configuration used two wing-mounted turbofan engines. Neither of these configurations was considered optimal, but they were considered representative of aircraft available in the 1970 time period." "Each of four contractors awarded study contracts in May 1967 submitted design approaches in support of the Concept Formulation Package. These design studies considered a range of design choices in: 1) Airframe and Propulsion; 2) Avionics; 3) Armament; and 4) Survivability Provisions. The performance regime specified for the A-X posed no stringent requirements on the airframe, and conventional aluminum airframes were recommended by all contractors. There was more variation in propulsion options, but all contractors recommended either turboprop or turbofan engines, either in single or twin engine configurations. Engine availability investigations by the Air Force determined there were no suitable turbofan engines that could meet the required IOC, and even excursion investigations that removed the IOC constraint favored the use of turboprops. The reason for this conclusion was that the available thrust from the turboprop exceeded that of the turbofan at all speeds up to approximately 400 knots. The primary operating regime of the A-X existed below this value." The program never demanded a jet engine, in fact the Air Force was hesitant to deploy jet engines because turboprops were more efficient at the low speeds required of the A-X aircraft. How can you ask me to drop the crap when I'm speaking the truth? Here's drawings of the turboprop proposals for the A-X program - http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UsRRCo2Zho4/TipD1H4QzOI/AAAAAAAAAt8/_X_m0YNhWd0/s1600/GD-AX-Turboprop.jpg General Dynamics http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tGZXeRfc5yQ/TipETlz12jI/AAAAAAAAAuE/YplQYPYsR7g/s1600/Northrop-AX-Turboprop.jpg Northrop "armor doesn't have to protect every thing, just the essential" - if you destroy everything around the essential, the aircraft can't fly either because there will be no aircraft left. "i'm done wasting time whit you" - No, you're done getting proven wrong by actual facts.
    5
  30.  @terryboyer1342  What erroneous views? What facts and evidence? Video of gun runs? There's video of fighters doing gun runs on ground targets. "You earlier opined the A-10 was "unsurvivable" on the modern battlefield due to it's slow speed and lack of stealth. And now you propose a turbo prop as a replacement?" - The US is not fighting in a "modern" battlefield, it's fighting in a COIN role. Turboprops can deploy closer to the action, have lots of loiter time, the Super Tucano is just 20 knots slower in terms of cruise speed so if it can operate from closer it gets there faster. "Or that you could just "slap" a GAU 8 on them" - I'd suggest either paying attention, or not lying about what I said. Lying about things I said is one of the few things I cannot tolerate. Do you need 30mm to kill flesh and bone? There's miniguns, three barrel 50 caliber gatlings, if you want there's high caliber single barrel cannons. All of them will shred Toyotas and people. Do you want gun runs? Or do you want the BRRRT? Because I'd respect the honesty if this was about nostalgia. "Relatively simple and low cost compared to most anything else" - It's low cost compared to high performance jets. A Super Tucano costs less than half per hour than the A-10 so if your issue is cost the AF was looking into it through the OA-X. But the BRRRT cultists won, and despite the extra cost the A-10 will continue flying. So don't tell me it's about cost because y'all are willing to pay more to keep the A-10 flying like a ship of Theseus. "He stated the Army would take the A-10 in a heart beat if allowed to" - Again, this is a meme. In the memetic sense, not the internet joke sense. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/02/25/army-not-interested-in-taking-a10-warthogs-from-air-force.html "The service's top civilian, Army Secretary John McHugh, rejected the idea of accepting hand-me-down A-10 Warthogs from the Air Force. "No chance," he said during a breakfast meeting with reporters on Wednesday in Washington, D.C. "That's not even been a topic of casual conversation." "With our own aircraft fleet we're taking some pretty dramatic steps to reconfigure and become more affordable, and the A-10 mission is not something we considered. That's an Air Force mission as it should be and I'm sure the Air Force feels the same way," McHugh said." "I believe he's somewhat more qualified than you to weigh in on this" - I don't question qualifications, but even qualified people make mistakes. Exactly how did this CWO 5 arrive at the conclusion that it would be both affordable and reasonable to take an ageing aircraft, and then either train Army aviators and maintainers in a "new" aircraft or take Air Force personnel and take them under the Army? Did he even make some napkin calculations? Did he consult anyone else? Or what he just spitballing with his friends like one would with a beer in hand? "Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III has taken the brunt of the criticism, often directly. An A-10 driver during the latter days of the Cold War, he’s pushed back, arguing that CAS is a mission bigger than just the A-10. About 80 percent of all CAS sorties in Afghanistan since 2001 were flown by other aircraft, Welsh explained." - https://www.airforcemag.com/article/whats-next-for-cas/ the at the time Chief of Staff of the Air Force, a former A-10 pilot, said it's time to let go of the A-10. If we're comparing qualifications, wouldn't a former A-10 driver supersede said Chief Warrant Officer? “I don't give a rat's ass what platform brings it in. I could care less if it’s a B-52, if it’s a B-1 bomber, if it’s an F-16, an F-15, an A-10. I don’t care if the thing was delivered by carrier pigeon. I want the enemy taken care of.” - https://youtu.be/eJzyN_yiTZ4?t=2837 General Mark A. Milley, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army Maybe the Chief Warrant Officer should have consulted someone, because nobody with actual power to make the decision is in a hurry. "With that I rest my case." - Let's review your case: - Footage of gun run. - Lying about what others said. - Hypocritically dismissing cost after defending the A-10 on the basis of cost. - Quoting an individual who puts his emotional wants over objective needs and whose opinion isn't shared by the people with actual power. Just tell me you love the BRRT. Admit it. You say I'm triggered because of the BRRT, my only problem with the BRRT is it has become a cult but the cultists will not admit it. Just say you're nostalgic and not ready to let go. There's a lot of things I can't let go off. But at least I admit it. Don't come here and LIE about my posts so you can feel better. I'd prefer the truth.
    5
  31.  @punishedmeridia  "Its too fast to do the role effectively" - Why?
    5
  32. I've wrapped my head around this question for over a decade, and I've come to think not that many people are involved in the grand scheme of things, many genuinely enjoy the line of work and wouldn't be much use elsewhere, and peaceful research is aided by military research anyway.
    5
  33.  @JohnDoe-jp4em  the point is evading defenses. Once a HGV enters the defensive sphere for terminal attack it can't just turn a degree to evade interceptors. It will miss entirely. And while a 1 degree redirection means a huge offset at distance, it does little to make the interceptor miss the predicted flight path.
    4
  34.  @trollmcclure1884  well, they lay out the basic ideas but you'd need to perform your own research. Any rogue state could just go through scientific archives and find papers published in foreign countries, have their own universities use previous knowledge as stepping stones. It's probably easier than trying to develop concepts from loose descriptive information on a youtube video.
    4
  35.  @britishrocklovingyank3491  The trillion dollars is an estimate for total program cost until requirement.
    4
  36.  @tegunn  That's fiction.
    4
  37.  @markinl.a.4954  Then why does Russia spend so much time praising the A-10 and shitting on the F-35? Why does a strategic foe, and a country that sells weapons to America's enemies, want the A-10 to stay in service? Riddle me that.
    4
  38.  @JoaoSoares-rs6ec  "it's known for its survivability because it was built to take a pounding" - at the time other aircraft also had similar armor and redundancies built in. "the A10 was built to storm soviet tank columns" - And it was calculated that by the 1980s the A-10 would suffer unacceptable casualties trying to take on armroed columns.
    4
  39.  @NerfMaster000  "the Army is more than happy to take the A-10" - No, they aren't. It costs billions just to rebuild wings, and they'd have to train not just pilots but also ground crews for an aging aircraft that is begging for retirement since the 90s. https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2015/02/25/army-not-interested-in-taking-a-10-warthogs-from-air-force
    4
  40.  @JoaoSoares-rs6ec  "I have seen records of A7 being torn to peace by AAA" - So was the A-10. "but here it were you get wrong, only a few were lost" - 7 shot down an 13 suffered irrecoverable battle damage.
    4
  41.  @terryboyer1342  "Kinda stands to reason that the aircraft using weapons closest to troops in contact would be more likely to cause a friendly fire incident" - That doesn't make any sense. So how is a fast jet dropping a bomb from further away capable of more precise hits? "Myself I'm wondering why the hell the AF has the B-1 doing CAS in the first place?" - CAS is a mission not a platform. "An expensive 4 man 4 engine maintenance intensive strategic bomber doing CAS." - Again, CAS is a mission not a platform. It doesn't matter if it came from an alien ship or the ISS. "USAF chief Gen. Mark A. Welsh III—himself a former A-10 pilot—said that “CAS is a mission, not a platform,” that the Air Force was flying 20,000 close air support sorties a year, and that about 80 percent of those flown in Afghanistan since 2001 were by aircraft other than the A-10." - https://www.airforcemag.com/article/the-ups-and-downs-of-close-air-support/
    4
  42.  @terryboyer1342  "10 actual actual search and rescue missions for downed aircraft/ missing people" - Respect where it is due. My father was search and rescue. I won't debate that. "A B-1 was responsible for dropping a bomb on and killing 5 American soldiers on a night CAS mission in Afghanistan. The soldiers were using their IR strobes. The accident investigation revealed that while the A-10s Litening II pod could detect the strobes the B-1s Sniper pod cannot resulting in their being targeted and their deaths." - This is all I can link to about the subject: https://www.defencetalk.com/moody-afb-a-10s-to-receive-new-sniper-pods-20411/ “It’s the Air Force’s pod of choice and is already in use in combat as well as in several active-duty units who are equipped with both the A-10Cs and other aircraft including the B-1B Lancer, F-15E (Strike Eagles) and F-16 (Fighting Falcons),” the colonel said. “Aside from the new improvements, it’s important to focus on the basic abilities that any targeting pod gives to the A-10C.” https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/01/11/b-1-bomber-crews-defend-sniper-pod-after-friendly-fire-incident.html ""Yes, the B-1 can't do it [see IR strobes] because of the pod, but anybody else who has that pod has the same [limiting factors] that we do," said Lt. Col. Dominic "Beaver" Ross, director of operations for the 337th Test and Evaluations Squadron. "It wasn't B-1 specific. If it was an A-10, or an F-15 or F-16 in that situation, they would have had the same issue. I think it was just a misconception," he said." "You seem to have a persistent dislike of the A-10 for some reason" - I have a persistent dislike for myth becoming fact, a dislike for the BRRRRT meme. We get it, the A-10 has a big gun. This meme, and I use the term in the original meaning of the word which is an idea that replicates and mutates like a gene, has taken over aviation discourse and invalidated any argument. Because BRRRT. You can't replace the BRRRT.
    4
  43.  @JoaoSoares-rs6ec  Before there were any prototypes, General Dynamics and Northrop submitted concept aircraft to the program, both turboprop. "the purpose of the titanium bathtub is to protect the most important part of the plane the pilot" - So again, the rest of the aircraft is still vulnerable to 23mm fire. "the position of the engines is very simple avoing the gases from the firing og the gau8 cannon" - Which didn't work, and so the engine ignition sparks while the cannon is fired to prevent flame out. "as for the suposed quote" - It was not supposed, it's right there and you can read it. "actyualy you stated it first" - I didn't. "thye 23mm is a AAA caliber, not the 14.5, thats is why they would focuss on it, it makes no sense to focus on the 14.5" - "Survivability from ground fire was an essential characteristic for the A-X. Structural and system design would need to provide inherent survivability, to include self sealing fuel tanks and, if power flight controls were used, a manual backup system would be provided. The pilot and critical flight systems would be protected from 14.5mm projectiles (common Soviet AntiAircraft shells)." A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog) SYSTEMS ENGINEERING CASE STUDY - Air Force Center for Systems Engineering (AFIT/SY) - David R. Jacques, PhD, LtCol USAF (Ret)/Dennis D. Strouble, PhD "damaged by AAA but not shot down" - Again, a couple of A-10s were downed by AAA, and others were damaged, limped back to base and are still buried in Saudi Arabia. Even if you come back to base it's still a loss. It's not invulnerable and it can be killed. "the only ones shot down were whit missiles, i know that for a fact" - Your facts are wrong. Even pro-A-10 sources claims a few were shot down by AAA guns.
    4
  44.  @JoaoSoares-rs6ec  I provided data from the Air Force itself. You have nothing. I happened to come across your comments on another video and realized you're from the country my family is from, so I am going to depart with a firm handshake and stop myself from saying ugly things because if anything, I'd hope that you could at least show some mutual respect after the accusations you threw at me.
    4
  45.  @terryboyer1342  Do you understand what a myth is? If a narrative is generated from real facts but then the narrative outlives its objectiveness it becomes myth. Things become mythical with time to the point their history becomes revisionist. A link to a glorified blog is not going to change that. The relevance of the gun in modern combat is the much smaller danger radius created around the impact area. This is not something unique to the A-10. The BRRRRT meme is the quintessential myth because it pretends that the gun is more powerful than it is and is still able to be the tank killer - even though 1979 testing determined it could only kill a third of 1950s Patton tanks. The tank killer in the A-10 is the Maverick missile which is not in any way exclusive to the airframe. The meme is not parroted by people who understand why the gun still matters. The B-1 or B-52 would not accomplish the same because they wouldn't need to. The A-10 fights the way it fights because it's what it does. Different platforms achieve the same end result in different ways. The F-35, just like the F-15, F-18 or F-16 would be able to perform a gun run. Why would the F-35 be unable? What else can't do gun runs, the Harrier? If your focus is the gun run, we could have replaced the A-10 by turboprops as the OA-X project intended. Slap a gunpod on the belly and rocket pods in the wings, they're making laser guided rockets for use in pods now. Whoosh whoosh whoosh and job's done.
    4
  46.  @JoaoSoares-rs6ec  "Portugal doesn't use or ever used the A7" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTV_A-7_Corsair_II#Operators https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/Portuguese_A-7P_Corsair_II_in_flight_c1984.jpg/1280px-Portuguese_A-7P_Corsair_II_in_flight_c1984.jpg~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTV_A-7P_Corsair_II
    4
  47.  @terryboyer1342  Do you have anything to say or do you just wail and throw insults like tantrums? EDIT: And by the way, speaking of maturity I certainly would not like someone like you to be performing search and rescue. I don't care how well you can see from above, if your reaction to disagreement is this one you don't deserve to be on the air when lives are on the line.
    4
  48.  @jwadaow  The F-4 in USAF scored the vast majority of kills during Vietnam by missile, with the internal gun on the F-4E only scoring 5 kills. Sometimes perception is a b*tch.
    4
  49.  @patrickglaser1560  RPGs have a self-destruct fuse that detonates the warhead after travelling around 900 meters. Getting within 900 meters of one of these would be nuts.
    4
  50.  @markrice41  So your option is to use ancient hardware, that already got shot down at unacceptable rates almost 30 years ago? The Navy isn't the Marines. They need something that can take off from helicopter carriers.
    4