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

  1. If you're gonna tool up, might as well be for something new. Nobody is building A-10 equivalents. Nobody. The A-10 and Su-25 are Cold War relics. Why tool up for A-10 production when everyone else is focusing on stealth and drones?
    3
  2. Troops aren't hired for their knowledge in aviation, though.
    3
  3. Nice try, but the F-35 never replaced the F-22. They were brothers born to serve alongside each other, like the F-15 and F-16. It was the F-15C that took the F-22s job.
    3
  4. The F-35 did not cost 1.7 trillion. That was the estimated cost of running a fleet of F-35s, including training, maintenance, parts, fueling, etc until 2070. Stop spreading this misinformation.
    3
  5. Is border patrol gonna revive Fairchild? The manufacturer of the A-10 went out of business two decades ago, how is border patrol going to afford parts and maintenance on a 40 year old aircraft?
    3
  6. ​ @Caseytify  a B-52 would be in peril if it faced a crafty enemy. Like someone willing to pair a S-200 missile and modern tech to bring down a fat target from afar.
    2
  7. It was nevet meant to. The F-15C is what fits the F-22s role until the NGAD enters service.
    2
  8. 62 bil, and how much of it has been paid for? A lot of the "billions" sent to Ukraine is stuff locked in warehouses and the accountants just say "yeah this is worth X billion, send it". Your grandfather probably paid the taxes that purchased those items, but the way things are accounted for it seems it's you paying for it now. Even if it's decades old.
    2
  9. A kitchen can be used to make any dish. It's generic. A manufacturing production line can only make a plane. If that plane is not being made, the manufacturer has to somehow cart off all that stuff so they can make some other plane and remain in business.
    2
  10. Because a bunch of politicians were whining that it was too expensive and to be fair the US was spending a lot in Afghanistan and Iraq so the F-22 was the nail that was sticking out. It got the hammer.
    2
  11. ​ @rixtrix11  We went to the moon. People stopped caring about the moon. Satellites and space stations became the focus, hence the shuttle.
    2
  12. The Super Hornet is an entirely new aircraft, ironically. The F-15EX takes advantage of the production line set up for F-15 export sales. A significant number was sold to the Arab oil states.
    2
  13. The F-16 and F-15 have active production lines and upgrade programs. Nations send their aircraft to get upgraded to new Blocks. The F-22 is a niche aircraft that nobody does work on. It's like comparing getting service from Honda and a custom built car. You can get service for your Honda because there's parts and trained mechanics.
    2
  14. The Army can't afford it. Aging aircraft from defunct manufacturers are an expensive bish to run. They're meant for air shows.
    2
  15. ​ @esashaik1372  The US has more F-35s than China has J-20s.
    2
  16. ​ @minthouse6338  That's not how it works. Aviation computers work on different architectures and code. If your facebook tab crashes no biggie. If an aircraft has a software or hardware crash in the air, oh boy. Same reason banks don't have their backend ran on Windows. We don't trust the commercial laptop with financial transactions, why should we trust it to handle a demanding flight regime?
    2
  17. ​ @trollmastermike52845  The problem is that others protecting their own shipping has twofold problems - everyone will be "protecting" shipping as they see fit (such as demanding massive fees or outright taking part in privateering) or just trade stopping altogether. You'll feel a lot more in your wallet once costs of goods rocket past inflation estimates and jobs get wiped out.
    1
  18. The JSF was NEVER the replacement for the F-22. The F-35 is like the F-16, the F-22 is like the F-15. The single engine multirole and the twin engine air superiority fighter. The F-22 production was cut because it would replace the F-15, and the F-15 was good enough. The JSF was never sold as a F-15C replacement.
    1
  19. The MiG-29 was divested a long time ago. Only K variants (naval, which is ironic since the Russian carrier is in dry-dock) and training squadron MiG-29s remain. Vectored thrust is also a joke.
    1
  20. Stop the nonsense. The eggs were put on the F-15 basket. The F-35 was never meant to replace the F-15C as the primary air superiority fighter. When F-22 production was cut, the F-15C was deemed sufficient for air superiority work and airspace defense. You people are making up a narrative in your heads that never existed. The US went F-15C -> F-22 -> back to F-15C.
    1
  21. No. The F-15C would do that. Twin engine air superiority fighter. The high in the high/low mix. The F-35 is a low plane, like the F-16.
    1
  22. Can't hold political stances while in uniform.
    1
  23. Because hundreds of F-15s and F-18s were built. The USAF said in the early 2000s they would need at least ~330 F-22s for sustainment reasons but the order was capped at 189. The Eagle and Hornet have the numbers for sustainment, the F-22 was intentionally crippled.
    1
  24. They never went "all in" on the F-35. The argument was ALWAYS to let the F-15C remain as the primary air superiority fighter. The F-35 was NEVER sold as an air superiority fighter. It's the low in the high/low mix. Like the F-16 is to the F-15.
    1
  25. ​ @lepermessiyah5823  the F-15 can use targeting pods as a makeshift IRST. The F-22 can't bolt pods outside without sacrificing its RCS reduction.
    1
  26. They've done deep strikes since Day 1. They burned through their missile stockpile and became more gun shy to let production catch up.
    1
  27. Of course the F-35 isn't a F-15 peer. You're comparing the low to the high in the high/low mix. Small single engine multirole: F-16, F-35. Large twin engine air superiority fighter: F-15, F-22
    1
  28. They retired all B-52s up to the what, G variant (?) when the Cold War ended. There were no old variants of F-22 to send to the boneyard to let the "youngest" keep flying.
    1
  29. Not what was said.
    1
  30. No, it's not. All it takes is a flaw on a 3d printed part to lose an airframe or possibly a pilot. You need tons of testing and validation. It's not the same thing as printing a new door handle for your beater car. If aerospace engineering was easy anyone would do it.
    1
  31. ​ @pistonburner6448  The estimated cost for a renewed F-22 program was over 200 million per unit. It was unfeasible to restart production. Nothing is impossible, as long as you throw practicality out the window. It's like Rocketdyne F1 engines. We can't remake the Saturn V rocket engines. In fact, we could, but why throw good money after bad?
    1
  32. ​ @josephobrien942  Obama wasn't the only one, from Gates to McCain a lot of people demanded the end of the F-22. Obama just takes the heat because he was president. But republicans were calling for the F-22 shutdown since the early 2000s.
    1
  33. That's not true. The F-22 was cut because a ton of stuff was needed for the GWOT. From MRAPs to uparmoring Humvees, there was a pressing need to divert budget to things that helped in a counter-insurgency and trim the fat on peer warfare. It should have tipped you off that the main air superiority fighter and interceptor is still the F-15C, and not the F-35. The room was taken by the F-15C fleet, which already existed at the time while the X-35 had not even beat the X-32 yet.
    1
  34. Actually more than 58% are combat capable. The clickbait is just manipulating data.
    1