Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "How Long Can the B-52 Continue in Service?" video.

@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
@libertarian4ever66 the A-10 has already been replaced by F-16, Strike Eagles and B-1s.
12
@exidy-yt it fought for dear life, back in 1991 it had to be pulled out due to excessive losses.
12
@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
@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
@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
@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
@TengrioftheCrimsonSky "it's easier to upgrade the A-10" - No, it isn't. Upgrading isn't the breeze you people think it is.
6
@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
@punishedmeridia "Its too fast to do the role effectively" - Why?
5
@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
@libertarian4ever66 A Cessna at least would have huge fuel savings compared to the A-10. Sorry, but a CAS platform that only got 20% of CAS missions since 2000 and only 11% since 2014 has effectively been replaced. You might not make a call for a B1 but if that's what's available that's what you'll get. Even the Army generals agree with me, they're not worried about the platform because CAS is a mission not a platform.
4
@libertarian4ever66 "I am the source, having actually called in for air support in the field" - What does this mean? B1s are called to provide CAS. In fact, if you wanted to argue your position, you could bring up how a B1 dropped bombs on friendlies by accident because they couldn't see strobes through the pod, and were too high to see strobes on NVG. Even though some of the blame is on the incorrect coordinates fed by the controller. So if you're your own source for the claim that B1s aren't called in for CAS, you're wrong. I also don't know who you are, and you could be lying.
4
@exidy-yt You know what's even lower on fuel consumption? Turboprops that are only like 20 knots slower than the A-10 at cruise speed. Cheap to maintain? Boeing got a fat check to build new wings because the damned thing was literally too old to fly. And not even the entire fleet got it.
3
@thepolishtech1552 Don't worry, we have kept the A-10. But keeping it doesn't mean using it.
3
@RickBoat Nope. 7 A-10s were lost in Desert Storm and another one in Iraqi Freedom. http://rjlee.org/air/ds-aaloss/ "NONE were lost in Enduring Freedom where it did 20% of them" - I wonder why that is. You want to explain to the rest of the class. Doesn't take a PhD to figure this one out. "And there have been no losses in operations agInt isil" - Buddy the USAF flew goddamn mothballed Broncos against ISIL without losses and then immediately shelved them because of how old they were, don't get excited. "Even after paying to replace the wings on all the operational planes, the A10 is still the cheapest, and cheapest to operate of a y usaf plane." - A Super Tucano would have been even cheaper so don't use this argument because it's simply taking the A-10 out to the back of the barn with the double-barrel in hand. "The A10 can be serviced a d repaired on unimproved fields... kinda important." - Same with the Tucano, buddy. "Probably, but the AF will never do it." - You do realize that there WAS a program to replace the A-10 with turboprops in the mid 2000s, right?
3
@libertarian4ever66 You didn't use sources, pretty rich you ask me for some when you won't apply the same standards to yourself. You'll have to wait until I can look for it.
3
@germanmilkman58 I love keyboard warriors calling people keyboard warriors for being right.
3
@libertarian4ever66 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer "On 14 July 2007, the Associated Press reported on the growing USAF presence in Iraq, including reintroduction of B-1Bs as a close-at-hand platform to support Coalition ground forces.[134] Since 2008, B-1s have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan in an "armed overwatch" role, loitering for surveillance purposes while ready to deliver guided bombs in support of ground troops if contacted.[135][136]" "In August 2012, the 9th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron returned from a six-month tour in Afghanistan. Its 9 B-1Bs flew 770 sorties, the most of any B-1B squadron on a single deployment. The squadron spent 9,500 hours airborne, keeping one of its bombers in the air at all times. They accounted for a quarter of all combat aircraft sorties over the country during that time and fulfilled an average of two to three air support requests per day.[145]" "Beginning in 2014, the B-1 was used by the U.S. against the Islamic State (IS) in the Syrian Civil War.[148] From August 2014 to January 2015, the B-1 accounted for eight percent of USAF sorties during Operation Inherent Resolve.[149] The 9th Bomb Squadron was deployed to Qatar in July 2014 to support missions in Afghanistan, but when the air campaign against IS began on 8 August, the aircraft were employed in Iraq. During the Battle of Kobane in Syria, the squadron's B-1s dropped 660 bombs over 5 months in support of Kurdish forces defending the city, one-third of all bombs used during OIR during the period, killing some 1,000 ISIL fighters. The 9th Bomb Squadron's B-1s went "Winchester", dropping all weapons on board, 31 times during their deployment. They dropped over 2,000 JDAMs during the 6-month rotation.[150] B-1s from the 28th Bomb Wing flew 490 sorties where they dropped 3,800 munitions on 3,700 targets during a six-month deployment." https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/01/14/b-1b-lancers-evolving-mission-take-more-close-air-support.html ""Twenty-five years ago, if you would have said the B-1 was going to do CAS, you would have been laughed out of the room," said Lt. Col. Dominic "Beaver" Ross, director of operations for the 337th Test and Evaluations Squadron." "Today, "the B-1 [has] dropped more weapons in CAS than any other platform. It's second to none," Ross said during an interview. Military.com sat down with Global Strike Command officials during a trip to the base and took a ride in the B-1B over training ranges in New Mexico last month. "Most ground commanders want a B-1 or an A-10 [Thunderbolt II]," Ross said of close mission support. But, unlike the A-10 -- reigning champion in the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria -- "we have the long loiter time," he said. "We have the sensors. We have the speed, the shows of force. We are so [forward-leaning] in this community. We try to think of ways for the crews and the airplane to do things you would have never thought of doing with it," Ross said. He continued, "If I'm talking to a guy on the ground and I have my sensor on him ... we can drop weapons seven miles away, or we can drop lower, drop them closer. We're not going to drop them as low as an A-10, but we are going to do shows of force where we're 500 feet overtop of their head."" ""Realize that all the platforms that drop these weapons [GBU-54s, GBU-31s] are seeing the exact same thing ," he said. "So a GBU-31 dropped off a B-1 is the same as a GBU-31 dropped off of an F-15, or an F-16, or an A-10. They all have launch acceptability regions, they all have air speeds and altitude restrictions, and they're all GPS-guided weapons." Kilchrist added, "An A-10 can drop those things just as well as we can. To put in the perspective of, 'Oh, a B-1 is not a CAS platform' [argument], remember that CAS is that mission set. And because of the payload that we have, the speed, the gas, we can stay there for long periods of time. And just unleash."" https://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/sen-mccain-b-1s-really-do-cas/ "Senator McCain stopped just short Tuesday of accusing the Air Force of walking away from the Close Air Support (CAS) mission if the service retires the A-10 Warthog fleet. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh and Secretary Deborah Lee James told the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing where McCain raised the issue that many other aircraft fill the CAS role, including the B-1B bomber. McCain clearly did not buy it: “You’re throwing in the B-1 bomber as a close air support weapon to replace the A-10. This is the reason why there is … such incredible skepticism here in the Congress.” The senator apparently didn’t know that the B-1 has been a CAS weapon since 2001. The B-52 has flown CAS missions since 1967. Joint Publication 3-09.3 defines Close Air Support (CAS) as “air action by fixed or rotary-winged aircraft against hostile targets that are close to friendly ground or naval forces, and which requires detailed integration of each air mission with fire and movement of these forces.” So, by definition, CAS is a joint mission and not the purview of any single service or platform." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJzyN_yiTZ4 "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..." No offense gramps, but it's not the 80s anymore.
3
@rodirby5952 why does an aircraft need to fly low and slow? You're just repeating what the Reformists say and they're military luddites.
3
@libertarian4ever66 "It's not being replaced" - considering that the majority of CAS missions are performed by aircraft other than the A-10, it is being replaced. "I've called in for a Cessna with wing mounted grenade launchers and guys dropping 20 pound bombs out the side door. "High tech" doesn't solve everything" - Good stuff. The A-10 is high tech. If your problem is technology and cost, the A-10 sits in a weird position where is has been crammed with every possible high tech gizmo, but the aircraft itself doesn't have any of the advantages of the more modern multirole airframes. It is cheaper to operate than a multirole, but much more expensive than a turboprop without having enough of a speed and altitude advantage to justify it.
3
@libertarian4ever66 Yes, it is indeed funny that in the early 2000's the A-10 only got 20% of CAS missions and since 2014 it only gets 11%.
2
@markrice41 How the hell is the A-10 going to take off and land from a short deck carrier? Get outta here with that nonsense.
2
@libertarian4ever66 They're being updated? You mean Boeing got a cool billion to keep an aircraft that barely gets any missions airworthy. Plus didn't the re-winging program already end last year, with a new Boeing contract for additional 112 wings that will only come 2022/2023? Leaving a third of the fleet at risk of being grounded?
2
@RickBoat You did. You talked about asking an inherently biased group of people with limited insight into air power, and I simply questioned what do they know. "but that has very little to do with current Close air support doctrine" - I will have everything to do with current CAS discussions because you people still pretend it's Vietnam. "I formed my opinions based on conversations with ground commanders and ground troops" - Again, an inherently biased group of people who only gets a small glimpse of what air power is, and wants to hold on to that glimpse for psychological reasons. Maybe we need to get the CIA on the case, give terrorists all over the world capable anti air means, and we make the ground people watch what happens to the beloved A-10 when the going gets tough. Obviously I'm being facetious, but we've reached a point where the obsession with the A-10 has boiled over and the only way to ever cure it is a reality check. "Little or nothing in my research on the subject has caused me to think about tank killing in the context of CAS" - Then don't bring up the Gun From Hell. The only modern use for the gun is close air support with a lower lethality radius. This can be accomplished by 20mm and 25mm guns, small diameter bombs and even the laser guided conversion kit for rockets. The only thing that set the 30mm apart was its ability to bust tanks, which has lost its effectiveness over time and we're not even issuing the DU penetrator ammo anymore because of the heavy metal dust it leaves in the area.
2
@markrice41 "We are using outdated aircraft because we have no modern aircraft." - Wait. So we actually stopped manufacturing aircraft in 1984? There's nothing newer than the A-10 in inventory? Because that's your argument.
2
@markrice41 Look, regarding the modern hardware, we're dealing with it. That's why recently the Army showed off how artillery can shoot down a cruise missile, and a F-16 did the same with a guided rocket. The A-10 is not gonna help in Asia and that was my point. If they're gambling everything on not even letting carriers get close to shore with missiles, taking care of the missiles is more important than making carrier capable A-10s.
2
@libertarian4ever66 "As a soldier, the only thing I care about is the effect on the target. I don't give a rat's ass what platform brings it in … I don't care if the thing was carried in by carrier pigeons. I want the enemy taken care of" - Gen Mark Malley, Army Chief of Staff https://youtu.be/eJzyN_yiTZ4?t=2821 Source on the claim that the Army generals agree that CAS is a mission, not platform.
2
@libertarian4ever66 "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. The F-16 alone had flown more CAS missions than the A-10." https://www.airforcemag.com/article/the-ups-and-downs-of-close-air-support/ Source on the claim that the A-10 got 20% of CAS missions since 2001.
2
@selfdo So did other aircraft.
2
@glenwaldrop8166 it's not that simple, it's never that simple
2
@RickBoat Uh, Yes.
1