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

  1. No. The F-35 is equivalent to the F-16 and legacy Hornet. The NGAD and F/A-XX are equivalents to the F-15 and F-14/Super Hornet respectively.
    5
  2.  @beastywvu4523  Small wing is meaningless because the fuselage is a lifting body too. The entire aircraft is a wing. Even the nose is a wing, the edges on the sides generate lift.
    1
  3.  @linusa2996  the Marines can't fly a C off a helicopter carrier
    1
  4.  @linusa2996  Okay? And all of those were dependent on the Navy carriers. The whole point of a Harrier replacement is something that can fly off helicopter carrier decks. How does flying F-35s reduce close air support? Did you also complain about the Harrier? Either way, partner nations without catapult carriers can now also replace the Harrier with a 5th gen fighter. How is this not more important than whatever wacky idea to make Marines dependent on the Navy catapult carriers?
    1
  5. Sub hunting is a thing too, so they shouldn't get too cocky.
    1
  6.  @jamestimlin856  Nice catchphrase, but no. The NGAD and F/A-XX are different platforms from the JSF.
    1
  7.  @tmsmqwx  That has nothing to do with the NGAD or F/A-XX.
    1
  8. The USMC benefited greatly. They had a legendary but somewhat medioce attack jet, and got an overpowered 5th gen fighter.
    1
  9. Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, etc.
    1
  10. No. They wouldn't be more maneuverable because the structure wouldn't handle it. Humans can over-G the aircraft they ride on.
    1