Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Viewer Questions #2 - A-10s and M60s and T-72's." video.

F-16s are extremely common, Gripens were not an export success. Old Saabs were cars made by engineers for engineers, GM was the beginning of the end for their automotive division.
3
Ten Percent True podcast has several episodes on F-4G Wild Weasels.
3
If there's a fighter covering it, the A-10 is redundant. The fighter can do the mission.
2
Antiradiation missiles are exclusively radar weapons. The AIM-9 isn't anti-radiation because it seeks IR, and explodes near the target which makes it glow even more. There's more radiation than before. Anti-radiation missiles are meant to shut down radars, killing the source of radiation.
1
 @nevisstkitts8264 if you spend 30 seconds searching it on youtube you'll see F-16s doing off airfield in Taiwan.
1
The only missile it could employ would be the AGM-122 Sidearm, which is no longer in inventory.
1
It's not an oversight, the A-10 began as a A-1 Skyraider replacement for COIN where only 14.5mm and occasional 23mm guns were the threat. The project requirements eventually changed but since it had never been expected to operate inside air defenses the low flying would protect it from Shilkas and the tail would mask the engines while flying over MANPADS. Integrated air defenses came after the A-10 had already been designed.
1
They're being fired in pre-programmed mode. The missiles get close to the known position of the radar by themselves, which makes detection easier. The only limit on range are the fact that they have to shoot from relatively low altitude rather than a neat straight line supersonic flight at high altitude to boost the missile further.
1
@tomlobos2871 I'm going to try to be brief. The A-10 was made to be a A-1 Skyraider replacement. Like Lionel Mandrake posted, it was originally meant for Vietnam. The A-7 was an excellent CAS aircraft but too fast to escort helicopters, and too fuel hungry to stay on station. The A-X program was even originally a turboprop engine aircraft because turbojets were inefficient at low speed, and halfway through the program the requirements were changed and turbofan engines allowed them to be reasonably fuel efficient at low speeds. In the Fulda Gap, the A-10 pilots would be estimated to be all dead or captured by two weeks. They were merely a delaying action, not expected to survive the onslaught. In a war against insurgents, the A-10 does fine. In a full scale war, you want the F-16. One pass, haul ass. There's no loiter time. You drop hate on target, turn back to base to bolt more under your wings and take off again. The Su-25 is forced to perform the "cowardly" role of firing unguided rockets from friendly territory and turning back. Their losses are proving exactly the opposite of what you think. They're easily shot down, and aircraft are complex enough that it's preferable to strip them of usable parts than trying to repair damaged aircraft. "Add A-10" so an airframe that's been flown beyond the original retirement timeline, has lack of parts because the company that made it went out of business two decades ago, and is even slower than the Su-25 is going to be an "addition"? I think it would be a subtraction. The A-10 as a bomb truck? It's extremely slow and thrust limited. It's not very survivable because a modern missile can slice it in half, negating all the fancy shmancy armor. When the nose is physically detached from the tail, it doesn't matter how much armor the pilot or the engines have. Fighter jets are survivable by kinetically outrunning the threat. You can't loiter in Ukraine. You arrive, fire rockets into the air, turn back or else you die. You have 30 seconds to get in and out or else a missile gets you.
1
@tomlobos2871 "UA needs numbers as well, any airframe that is available, modernised" - The A-10 is lacking in parts because the company that made it went out of business two decades ago. Half the fleet is still up for wing renewal under Boeing contract since 2019. "reasonable strike capabilities" - The A-10 is at most a battlefield interdiction aircraft, not a strike one. "airframe itself is second here" - But it's not. Airframe shapes capabilities. And the A-10 is hindered by its morphology. "we see that in use as a main asset on both sides" - With unnecessary losses. They don't use Su-25s because they're good, they use them because that's what they have. "if you're offered a western ground attacker, would you say no and prefer not having it?" - If the aircraft is even slower than the Su-25, they can keep it. Furthermore, the lack of spares and the fact that the USAF has divested from the A-10 really make it unable to survive the high op tempo.
1
A convicted sex offender and a former RT contributor.
1
But Saab never sold many Gripens while F-16s sold like hot cakes. The Gripen's support requirements being lower is undone by the fact that there's less support available. Saab is focusing on E/F models as C/D models age. What about spare parts? Is Saab going to open a factory just for legacy Gripens?
1
Bombs don't do SEAD. Only DEAD. If you're laying hate on a SAM site, it's because it's already suppressed and you just want to trash the radar, generators, launchers, command trailer and make the trained crew go into forever sleepy time.
1
The HARM seeker would get more information than the pilot does from RWR. The slow speed wold still limit the HARM. And the only ARM it could comcievably fire without modifications would be the AGM-122 Sidearm which is no longer in inventory. The unguided rocket volleys at least keep the aircraft safe. Laser or optical PGMs require an aircraft to orbit the target to acquire or lase, exposing it.
1
@NorthernPrincessProductions Let's just say I wouldn't want to be MANPADS bait no matter how well a Maverick can handle a Pantsir.
1
@NorthernPrincessProductions Not if you can stand outside MANPADS range, unlike the A-10.
1
@NorthernPrincessProductions At that point just loft release JDAMs. How is a HARM (small, fast, ballistic trajectory) easy to engage but a fat A-10 trying to fire short range missiles isn't?
1
Because it was never made to or meant to. Sure, MiG-29s were never made to fire HARMs either so an adapter was built, but the employment is suboptimal and at least the MiG-29 has the performance. The faster you go, the more range the HARM gets. The A-10 is a slow aircraft. It's actually sillier to bolt HARMs to an A-10. It's an exercise in futility.
1
The problem is, then the A-10 becomes redundant and a F-16 can drop the bomb. If an IR missile is fired at an A-10, there's nothing a SEAD F-16 can do to save it.
1
@jimfarmer7811 That makes no sense, because the A-10s mission profile makes it vulnerable to IR and electro-optical tracking. Defenses could essentially hide themselves from suppression and wait for the A-10s. The fact is that multi-airframe missions are a mess. Look up Package Q. F-4Gs and F-15Cs supposed to protect strike F-16s had to turn back and leave. The F-16s went in alone. Different engines, different payloads, different fuel tanks, different speeds. The complexity of the mission just scales exponentially. You don't have infinite F-16s or infinite A-10s. Sending pilots in A-10s is suicide. The F-16s would multitask. You can provide support and switch to suppression once a contact appears.
1
@jimfarmer7811 Do you think ATGMs teams will just stand by while infantry and IFVs take out the anti-tank missileer crews? Every weapon in warfare has its counter. The best option is operating where there's no enemy radar presence at all. Second best is destroying the radar. Third best is suppressing it. If you know there are radar contacts in the area, SEAD cover will lob HARM missiles which are automatically programmed to pitch up and use their rocket burn to gain altitude. As they tip over, the seeker is on. At the moment of firing, SEAD flight will announce a "Magnum!" call on radio. SAM operators will both see the HARM in flight and hear the radio call, prompting them to shut down the emitter. If they're skilled. If they're not, they'll just hear a large bang outside and the radar goes offline. This gives a minute or two of radar suppression. When the radar turns back on, SEAD flight will again fire another HARM and announce the firing on radio to make sure he is heard. Another minute or two of radar suppression. Just like that, the SEAD flight gave the aircraft doing the attack run 2-4 minutes to take care of the job. "You have to use combined arms to win a war." "You need to use the A-10s as ground support" - That's like saying you have to use M60s or else it's not combined arms. You have infantry, IFVs, artillery, air support and Abrams, but because there's no M60s it's not combined arms. "The A-10s can orbit" - They can't. Aircraft don't orbit in Ukraine. They fly in, drop payload, fly back out. The clock is ticking and you have SECONDS to make it out alive. Those who don't... we have the video of them either ejecting or losing their lives. The footage is widely distributed and you're denying it. "They would sweep in with fire and forget weapons" - They can't. The fire and forget weapons require line of sight, which means flying above the horizon to scout and acquire targets. They would sweep in, spend several minutes using the pod to look for enemies, and then not get to launch or return because a missile brought them down. They would need to spent time over the enemy to look for their positions on a 8 inch screen. It is suicide. I'd rather give them the weapons that put them in the least risk.
1
Copium overdose.
1