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

  1. It already has modern electronics. The thing is three decades past its expiration date. It's like putting a young man's brain on a 70 year old.
    9
  2. ​​ @Metoobie  The enemy disengaging is a false economy. You burned a lot of fuel just to make the enemy fight you again next week. He wears out the soles of his sneakers/boots, you wear out airframes and burn JP-4/8.
    4
  3. Close only refers to munitions landing near troops in close contact with the enemy. Not where the aircraft is.
    4
  4. The F-16 performed 3x more CAS than the A-10 in the second half of the GWOT.
    4
  5. The Su-25 usage is beyond pathetic. They get within a couple miles of the frontline, pitch up, launch unguided rockets in a ballistic arc and turn back to avoid flying over the enemy. They're expensive airborne artillery. If Ukraine had the choice they'd probably trade the Su-25s for more fighters, but we didn't have that many former Soviet aircraft in flying condition in NATO.
    4
  6. Swing wing? Maintenance nightmare.
    4
  7. Numbers wise, the A-10 has puny engines so flying around with the full load described on the technical specs is not happening. The F-4 didn't need a gun. It had like 90 missile kills in USAF service and a handful of E variant nose cannon kills. The Navy Phantoms had no guns and scored 40.
    3
  8. What always gets to me is that I always remember KC Campbell's name but not the pilot who died trying to bring in a damaged A-10. Her story always gets told because she made it. So the name is always on my memory bank. But to remember the guy who died trying to land that A-10 I have to look it up.
    3
  9.  @phatboizbackyardkustomz9006  But the A-10C uses targeting pods. Going low level to look at things not only is antiquated, but it also leads to friendly fire. A-10 pilots make mistakes when using visual alone.
    3
  10. The Phantom didn't need guns.
    3
  11. Which kind of hints at the fact that it's an evolutionary dead end.
    3
  12. Boeing made 2 BILLION off the replacement wings. The entire reason the A-10 was not retired was because of careers in Arizona.
    3
  13. They're worn beyond belief. All their use now should be sunbathing in the dry desert. No human should risk his life inside museum pieces.
    2
  14. I want an aircraft that makes the enemy feel nothing. Because he doesn't exist anymore. If you're feared, it just means you kept failing at your job.
    2
  15. Particularly bloodthirsty today? Have your coffee before commenting.
    2
  16. Spot on? This video claims that bullets aren't affected by wind or bullet drop, and that somehow A-10s are EMP proof? This is chock full of mistakes and misconceptions.
    2
  17. You forget that a lot of exercises have restricted RoE to purposefully force scenarios and then analyze them. The A-10s won because pilots were to try and do BFM in the A-10s domain. In "real life rules" they'd fire a Slammer and wipe the sky out of A-10s like fish in a barrel. Similar to the tales of F-5s beating F-14s. Reformers love to cite those exercises, as if the rules weren't constantly changing to keep F-14 pilots out of their element, and once they figured out how to outsmart the rule set, the rules would be changed again.
    2
  18. Both the doctor in an office setting and the first responder are human. They start out unable to perform either duty but their education and training steers them towards that job.
    2
  19. Why would you want to go slow? Also, you only hover to land. Why would you hover over a target? You'd get shot at. The A-10 compromises itself by flying, hell you will read comments of people praising the A-10 because it is seen. No, it can't loiter quietly because it flies lower than most jets. F-16s can go higher and remain unseen from the ground. Nobody shoots at noises. It's not hunting with Dick Cheney.
    2
  20. ​ @El_Tigre6246  ECM and radar guidance is precisely why in the 80s or so SHORAD started to go for laser grid/beamrider ir electro-optical tracking.
    2
  21. The A-10 was meant to be retired 30 years ago. The A-10 staying in service was political BS. Normalcy bias is strong with this one.
    2
  22. ​ @yodaisgod2  How are Marines going to shoot it off their amphibious assault ships? They use AV8Bs and now F-35Bs for that. And USMC F/A-18s fly off Navy carriers. The A-10 can't follow Marines along.
    1
  23.  @yodaisgod2  Average A-10 fanboy intelligence
    1
  24. Forget the gun. Does nothing other weapons can't do. The pilot is the only thing that matters as A-10 pilots are taught in the A-10 school how to do CAS. You can shove them in a different plane.
    1
  25. The B-52s up to the G variant were all retired.
    1
  26. ​ @soonerfrac4611  How does the A-10 do its job? By ripping the stuff from the speedy boys and bolting it to the A-10. Seriously, take an A-10A as it rolled off the factory. It's antiquated garbage. The A-10s today have MFDs and even a F-16 flight stick for HOTAS control. The only issue is that fast jet pilots are required to focus on more demanding skills while A-10 pilots have the majority of their training dedicated to CAS. But that's an issue with how multiroles are issued to squadrons and their tasks split up. Same happened with the F-4G being retired for the F-16CJ. The reality is that 4Gs were flown by Wild Weasels, 16CJs were flown by a mix of prior Wild Weasels and multirole pilots.
    1
  27.  @WxWaterFire  And nobody called out outright falsehoods. I'm not taking advice from people who say the sky is purple.
    1
  28.  @411bvRGiskard  Nope. These pristine hangar queens went in to face the music and came out dancing, while A-10s had to be grounded because the Iraqi Republican Guard was too hot to handle. A-10s would be stationed in the same place fighters are. The USAF isn't going to send mechanics, pilots and piles of ordnance into the middle of the brush. Bringing A-10s across water is the worst case scenario for it.
    1
  29. And then immediately retire it after billions spent because they're 30 years past the expiration date. They're old. Aircraft can't fly forever unless you Ship of Theseus them.
    1
  30. Can't land on a USMC helicopter carrier deck, can't be catapult launched off a Navy boat.
    1
  31. Why would the Army spend billions transfering an aircraft to their branch when the aircraft are old and lacking parts?
    1
  32. ​ @FLMKane the F-16 did 3x the CAS the A-10 was doing in the later half of the GWOT. That's not failing duties.
    1
  33.  @dougmate2378  "Why not?" - It's a dead end design nearing its ultimate retirement age. The A-10 was meant to be retired in the 90s and spent 30 years in lift support. It's aged out, the company that made it went out of business two decades ago, there's lack of parts. It's like asking "why not have an entire taxi fleet of 1967 Mustangs?". Yeah, classic muscle cars are cool. But a car with no manufacturer support? The Army spending a decade changing the entire A-10 infrastructure from the USAF to Army and then immediately have to retire it because the parts and airframes are toast would be a waste of billions. That's why. "It's reputation for CAS, the gun" - So? Reputation is often based in fantasy rather than fact, and the gun isn't doing anything other guns aren't. "The army was trying to get them in the last 15 years when the AF tried to kill off the A10." - Didn't happen. That's a lie spread online. "The A10 just got a new wing also." - The '67 Mustang just got a new suspension. Jesus you're gonna lose so much money on that taxi business.
    1
  34.  @dougmate2378  Yeah, and? Fairchild doesn't exist. Bought by M7 Aerospace, which was then bought by Elbit. Elbit doesn't make A-10s. The A-10 has already been replaced. F-16s provide triple the CAS, with the Strike Eagle also filling in the gap. Nobody is making replacements for A-10s. Russia isn't making a Su-25 replacement. Nobody is making these aircraft. It's a dead end.
    1
  35. The Su-25 though has a nuance. Moscow had more influence beyond the iron curtain than the Lockheed bribery department had in the First World. Many countries bought the Su-25 because they were Warsaw Pact/Soviet Union, and you bought what Moscow told you to buy.
    1
  36. ​ @172ndairwing4  Pure reformist nonsense. The A-10 was a jobs program for Arizona and Boeing scored a two billion contract to make wings. Keeping an aircraft past its prime in life support and bleeding money was not the affordable and effective weapon that made politicians and weapons manufacturers angry. Weapons manufacturers will take every billion you want to spend keeping museum pieces flying. "Waaaaa my old aircraft is as good as a new one for cheaper!" yes it is, Congressman, as long as we use flawed methodology to report on those costs and ignore the opportunity costs being caused by manpower being diverted away into a dead end platform.
    1
  37. Safety precaution - there is a system that pumps inert gas into the fuel tanks to prevent fires. There's a fear that the one in a million lighting strike will cause an explosion. The piping has cracks so until further notice there's restrictions.
    1
  38. Imagine I posted the .gif of Indiana Jones pulling his gun on the guy trying to knife fight.
    1
  39.  @ypw510  It was a really weird time. The Navy had foreseen the issues with Sidewinders and had their upgraded variants perform better than USAF ones. However, their Sparrows had the maintenance neglected so carrier landings and exposure to sea spray on the deck caused a lot of duds while the USAF had better luck. If the Navy had taken better care of Sparrows and the USAF had used Navy Sidewinders, the Phantom would have never earned the infamy it did.
    1
  40. Why would you choose to be slower?
    1
  41.  @bryanbishop2377  That's not a response. Why would you chose to be more vulnerable and less able to get out of harm's way?
    1
  42. The Frogfoot can use PGMs. They're mostly loaded with dumb munitions because the Ruskies either load them on higher performance aircraft or they flat out couldn't afford a large stockpile of them pre-war.
    1
  43.  @PlugInRides  The Su-25 employed laser-guided weapons in Afghanistan in the 80s and laser-guided/optically tracked bombs in the Chechen wars. I don't care how "advanced" the A-10C is. You claimed the Su-25 doesn't employ guided munitions. Without any distinction between base model or upgrades.
    1
  44.  @capella95  uhhhh correcting a mistake? I don't think so nerd B)
    1
  45. What happens to American troops when they see an A-10 go down? Then they will be in fear. You forget psychological effects go both ways.
    1
  46.  @W1ckedRcL  A continuous rod warhead can split an aircraft in half. It's not the 1960s anymore. You're thinking of small arms. Buddy, 20 years fighting guys in sandals spoiled you.
    1
  47. The titanium tub is only so that the pilot can pull the ejection handle. If the aircraft is ripped from nose to tail with Shilka/Tunguska/Pantsir cannon fire the tub protects the pilot from getting KIA by a cannon round, but it's not a lucky charm that defies aerodynamics and loss of power.
    1
  48.  @36w3s.talbot4  The damage on her aircraft was on the tail. She did fly her Hog to base and land. Lieutenant Patrick Olson flew to base and got killed trying to land the damaged A-10. Everyone remembers Kim Campbell. Everyone forgets Patrick Olson. People praise the A-10 because Campbell lived but never say a peep about Olson.
    1
  49. The AC-130 is even more handicapped than the A-10. The Spirit 03 crew was killed in its entirety by a single Iraqi MANPADS.
    1
  50.  @TheLimeIsALie  No AC-130 was shot down since because any MANPADS left in Afghanistan ran out of battery and coolant gas before 2001. A "combat zone" where you're firing at guys with AKs is as much of a combat zone as helicopter hog hunting in Texas. The hogs won't be able to fight back, dude.
    1
  51. SDBs too big, APKWS insufficient. There is such a thing as too picky. And what does the A-10 have in between?
    1
  52. ​ @petrairene  Fly by wire is safer. Airliners use fly by wire.
    1
  53.  @petrairene  Actually, they do. Why do you think the 737 MAX nosedived without the pilots wanting it to?
    1
  54. ​ @Triple_J.1  Better, the F-35 pilot can use his targeting pod and see threats the guys on the ground can't see.
    1
  55. The F-16 did 3x the CAS missions the A-10 did during the second half of the GWOT. The A-10 barely does CAS anymore
    1
  56. The F-35 has been used in combat. And so has the F-22, dropped JDAMs in Syria.
    1
  57. The problem is that your car can sit on the garage/driveway as long as you give it a spin once in a while. The A-10 needs hundreds of pilots and mechanics to keep in service. You can't just forget it like an old car. You have to baby it even if you're not using it. Imagine you had to pay for a chauffeur and a resident mechanic to keep your shitbox. You'd get rid of it, pronto.
    1