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

  1.  @hf117j  You're literally a demoralization agent. "This is why I don't read comments" who cares? Seems like you're the kind of person who serves as an example of what not to do.
    8
  2.  @bombomos  How is it going to be obsolete in 10? The F-16 is old and modern Blocks allow it to keep up. For it to be obsolete in 10 years, a more advanced enemy fighter would have to have started development 5 years ago.
    7
  3.  @dennisyoung7363  the entire F-35 body is a wing. The F-16 has a higher wing loading than a F-4 Phantom on paper, but it's more nimble due to body lift.
    7
  4.  @dennisyoung7363  "the Aussies said" which ones? The crackheads at the local park?
    7
  5. @Phillip Banes Tanks are not ejected until the fight progresses to a point where there's no turning back. You need fuel for ingress and egress so your speed is limited in most missions. You can engage from a position where ejecting the tanks is not necessary. Tanks do not grow on trees either so your commanding officers will want you to bring them back most of the time. External ordnance causes massive drag. Even in subsonic speeds aircraft use flush rivets because small dimples are enough to create tons of skin friction. Missiles hanging off the wings are like flat walls at supersonic speeds. All max speed figures you see are for unarmed and low fuel aircraft trying to score the highest value and get a fair comparison.
    5
  6.  @CrotchRocket78  False. 9Gs for the Air Force, 8Gs for the Navy and 7.5Gs for the USMC.
    5
  7. Not just limited on how hard it would pull, if you pulled hard the aircraft would be slow at pointing the nose - the longer it takes for the nose to move where you want to, the more speed you bleed trying to maneuver. The conclusions segment written by the test pilot shows he requested the software engineers to give him a faster response time to help with retaining energy in the fight.
    4
  8. The F-35 has nothing to do with the F-22. Even if 700 F-35s had been produced as originally intended, the F-35 would still ned to replace the F-16.
    2
  9.  @Madmaxxxx1984  prove it's a Turkey, prove it's not worth the money and prove it leaves lots to be desired.
    2
  10.  @-007-2  The A-10 needs the loiter time and durability to make up for its poor performance.
    2
  11. Only B and C variants, during peacetime.
    2
  12. Russia can't even beat the Ukrainian air force.
    1
  13. An F-16 with drop tanks wouldn't be able to chase down a F-35 until it got close enough.
    1
  14. @@phillipbanes5484 Yes. You're still not meant to jettison tanks until strictly necessary. A dogfight is already a dire situation. You already messed up.
    1
  15.  @saquist  4th gens with full internal fuel have limited range. They fly with bags. Couple of missiles? They need more for the BVR timeline.
    1
  16. The cannons weren't a decisive factor.
    1
  17. After it ran out if missiles, the enemy ran out of air force.
    1
  18.  @JohnRodriguesPhotographer  Read the report. Energy management was precisely the issue. Just read it. The pilot specifically said that changing the software would waste less energy.
    1
  19. It was a control law software test. It was part of developping the aircraft. A merge is suicidal - both pilots will fire their missiles and waste their aircraft in a jousting match.
    1
  20. No. Dogfights happen with missiles too.
    1
  21. But it's already great.
    1
  22. The 2015 report isn't valid because it was still a test airframe with old software. Jesus Christ would it kill to pay a little attention?
    1
  23.  @david834  Yes it is a software problem because the SOFTWARE CONTROLS THE AIRCRAFT. Read the report. Look at the pilot's own words. He asked for software improvements to address turning abilities.
    1
  24. The AIM-9X seeker is extremely hard to fool. The missile just failed, it happens. The 9X sees a thermal image. It can see the difference between a shape with wings and tail and cockpit and just glowing orbs that aren't aircraft shaped.
    1
  25. It has excellent range.
    1
  26. Everyone has a plan to dogfight until they get an AMRAAM through their canopy.
    1
  27.  @brushylake4606  Guns were a thing of the past. The "muh guns" narrative was pushed by a lot of documentaries but if you look at the statistics the Phantom with missiles only was excellent.
    1
  28.  @brushylake4606  The F-35 can carry 2000lbs more than a Warthog, and it doesn't taje punishment at all because unlike the Warthog it doesn't have such a pathetic performance that it needs to fly inside AAA range.
    1
  29. Missiles need to pull 60 Gs because the faster you go, the more angular acceleration you need to keep up with a maneuvering target. Fire at a subsonic aircraft pulling 9Gs, if you're at Mach 4 you're not going to hit by pulling 9Gs. You're gonna miss by a mile.
    1
  30. The body is a wing.
    1
  31. They aren't. It's the F-22 that will get a replacement.
    1
  32. No.
    1
  33. Electro optical systems give you visual beyond visual range. These were even installed in F-4s and made famous with the F-14. No need to merge to see stuff from far away.
    1
  34. How is it hype and nonsense? The report involved a test airframe woth old software. The original claim was disproven. Want to make another claim? Burden of proof is on you, not the channel.
    1
  35. If you're in that situation, it doesn't matter - the enemy is well within kill range.
    1
  36. Says who? I'd put money on a F-35 anyway. The report was debunked. It was an experimental test airframe loaded with outdated control software. A F-16 today still flies like a F-16 from 2015. A F-35 today is much more capable than a 2015 F-35. It's not a sluggish airplane.
    1
  37. The F-4 didn't need a gun. 90% of its kills were by missile.
    1
  38. The F-35 has a lot of tech more advanced than the F-22, which due to being a more dated program it still flues 80s and 90s tech. The F-22 was not produced in sufficient numbers so upgrades are avoided. Plus, we're moving to 6th gen so it's okay to export 5th gen.
    1
  39. But dogfighting will just lead to a jousting match where both aircraft claim each other due to all aspect missiles. Trying to get into close range for a dogfight will be a waste of an airframe and potentially pilot.
    1
  40. Over 600 F-35s delivered.
    1
  41. Accept it. Aircraft are flown by software. Refuse to believe in reality all you want, even your airline pilots are flying through software.
    1
  42.  @mSparks43  But they change drag characteristics of a maneuver. Read the report. The pilot himself wrote that the software was causing energy loss due to limiters. The more restrictive the software is, the more time an aircraft requires to pull a maneuver. The more time spent at high AoA, the more work done by drag and thus more energy loss. The software in a well designed airframe, if loaded with restrictive limiters for a testing and evaluation flight, will cause it to fly like a brick.
    1
  43. They'll see each other through other means such as early warning radar and AWACS. And they wouldn't have a dogfight, first one to shoot the missile would have a 99% chance of kill.
    1
  44. Germany invested in silly projects while the US had proximity fuzes, drones, a working nuclear project, etc. The US had the most advanced weaponry.
    1
  45.  @JohnRodriguesPhotographer  The F-4 Phantom scored 90% of its kills with missiles. You were sold a narrative.
    1
  46.  @rrp54q95  Being fast requires a lot of sacrifices. Dedicated interceptors went the way of the dodo when nuclear bombers were replaced by ICBMs.
    1
  47. The F-35 can defend itself. It can turn. It can climb. It can run. You're just parroting the late Pierre Sprey and Russia Today articles. The RAM issues are rare and only happened in the B and C variant.
    1
  48. It can't use them at speed.
    1
  49.  @TheDude50447  Electro-optical systems are a thing and the F-35 comes stock with one of the most advanced. We use telescopes, binoculars, etc on land and sea because our eyes are limited. We put them on airplanes and suddenly everyone thinks it's still the 60s.
    1
  50. When quantum radar comes out (donxt hold your breath) the F-16s will be prohibited from flying into combat. Stealth becomes the price of admission.
    1
  51. That makes no sense because the AIM-9X doesn't see bands of radiation like old seekers, it sees in thermal imaging. There's footage of a 9X being fired at a QF-4 target drone and it can clearly see the wings and even cockpit canopy glass. Instead of chasing heat exhaust the 9X is made to try and slam into the fuselage to ensure the kill.
    1
  52. Because they were writing the software for the aircraft and needed to perform tests and gather data? How exactly do you think stuff gets done?
    1
  53. If it had to haul the external tanks to get near the F-35, it would be too slow to catch up. If it jettisoned the tanks too early, it would run out of fuel before getting close.
    1
  54. It's not disappearing.
    1
  55. Good thing we made electric eyes which see better than humans.
    1
  56.  @Simobunjevac  the F-117 was essentially shot at point blank range. Stealth uses the inverse square law, radar reflections are very weak at a distance. Get the radar closer, you'll get returns.
    1
  57. No, it doesn't. Even the F-14 had electro optical systems that gave you visual on something beyond human visual range.
    1
  58.  @wahwahweewa  It wasn't a dogfighting trial. It was a control laws software test. You can go back and see power points refering to it as a CLAWS test and not a dogfight trial.
    1
  59. That's not a dogfight. You waste the missiles' energy, not yours.
    1
  60. Most Phantom kills were by missile.
    1
  61. Because it was being tested and developed. They weren't proving anything, they were developing the aircraft and gathering data.
    1
  62. Mostly true. The Navy noticed issues wth Sidewinders and requested an upgrade before the conflict. The USAF started Vietnam with poorly performing Sidewinders and had to request an upgrade to play catch up. On the other hand, Navy Sparrow missiles got banged hard during carrier landings and were exposed to salt water mist for months at a time. Many aircraft never had their Sparrows removed from the pylon for maintenance which lead to failures. USAF Sparrows weren't handled as roughly and were usually fired at higher altitudes so there was less ground clutter to confuse the seeker. So the Navy was smarter with their Sidewinders but neglected their Sparrows, the USAF started off with the infamous AIM-4s and the weaker Sidewinders. Both branches had to adapt after reports brought these issues to surface.
    1
  63. It wasn't a mistake. Guns were a distraction. Most Phantom kills were by missile.
    1
  64. I also heard the A-7 was kneecapped versus the YA-10 flyoff because the YA-7F money could be used to purchase A-10s instead.
    1
  65.  @JSFGuy  The YA-7F never entered production. The last variant was the E and the USAF gave their airframes to the air national guard. The choice was upgrading the A-7 or buying A-10s and the USAF preferred to get the A-10s and ditch the A-7s. The YA-7F would have been the ultimate version as the fuselage would have been lengthened and an afterburner installed.
    1
  66. More expensive and less capable
    1
  67. Lockheed Martin made a point to have a weapons release test even though it was not required, while the 23 had a questionable and unproven weapon bay.
    1
  68. The AIM-9X isn't a traditional heat seeker. It sees a picture like a camera, it can see the difference between an airplane with wings and other irelevant heat sources. It's more like the Javelin missile which locks onto the image of a tank rather than pure heat. But with aircraft.
    1
  69. The issue is that if a F-16 somehow managed to survive and close the distance it wouldn't be the airframe but the technology dictating the terms of the fight.
    1
  70. Then after the merge the laser is used to dazzle the optics/pilot. Seems like a bad idea to get close.
    1
  71. The US wrote the book on unravelling ground based air defenses.
    1
  72. The fuselage is driven by weapons and fuel requirements, not the B. There's a reason why the B has a slightly smaller weapons bay.
    1
  73. You can't be up in the air without technology. You can't get off the ground without technology or even aim and fire the gun without technology. F-117s served with distinction until around 2006-2007 and retired due to age.
    1
  74. The Navy already requested in 2021 to stop the Super Hornet purchases as they fear they'll be forced to fly them past an age where they're obsolete.
    1
  75. What an ignorant statement. Read the report yourself.
    1
  76. You can read the report. Skip to the conclusion page. It's essentially "I'm noticing flight regimes where I lose performance, please remove software restrictions and performance will improve".
    1
  77. Full missile loadout? The drag will prevent them from chasing down F-35s.
    1
  78. And yet they're better than everything else in the air.
    1
  79. The F-16 is a do everything multirole.
    1
  80. Ukraine has proven the US has no real peer, and the F-35 has been tested against Russian built defenses.
    1
  81. Missile trucks would be vulnerable and thus fire from further away, reducing range. Unless these missile trucks are orbiting at outrageous altitudes or strapping booster rockets to air to air missiles, they'll be very limited in usefulness.
    1
  82. It has excellent range. Estimated 600-700 combat range which matches 4th gen with three external fuel tanks.
    1
  83. How does the targeting computer know? Radar only points forward with a certain scan angle. But look at a target, and you can tell the targeting computer about an enemy the computer can't see.
    1
  84. The F-35 won't be in danger. The eagle and viper aren't abandoned.
    1
  85. Dozens of AMRAAMs are necessary when you are not stealth and you need to fire "spoiler" shots not intended to hit but force the enemy into the defensive. When you are stealth, you just take the shot and hit.
    1
  86. False. It will be more stealthy than the A-10. And it will have the performance to evade danger.
    1