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

  1. And they'd spend billions and 10 years to acquire and transfer an aircraft that's out of parts and in need of overhauls? Yeah, just send them to the boneyard.
    4
  2. Can't fly the A-10 off a carrier.
    2
  3. The correct use of the A-10 is sending it to the boneyard.
    2
  4. The crop-duster is a purpose-driven tool to fit the requirements. The A-10 was made for a battle that doesn't exist anymore.
    2
  5. Congress refuses to allow its retirement. Don't worry, the USAF will continue to neglect it so that it can't fly anymore.
    2
  6. If you don't use A-10s on their own, then the other platform can perform the mission and the A-10 stay home.
    2
  7. It was designed to survive the conditions of Vietnam, where far too many A-1s were shot down. Taking hits is a bad idea in the age of missiles which split aircraft in half. You don't want to get hit at all.
    2
  8. They said they didn't want them, and he didn't really outline how it would be good.
    2
  9. The A-10 would be unbelievably expensive to produce today.
    2
  10. Doctrinal difference between SEAD and DEAD.
    1
  11. There's a big reason - company that made it doesn't exist anymore, parts are running out.
    1
  12.  @francisvantuyle  I sincerely doubt a C-17 ever took off from a carrier. The C-130 is a legendary plane. The A-10 would need to be designed for catapult take off and arrested hook landing. It would fare ever worse off a USMC ship. They're even smaller. There's a reason F-35Bs use the short take off and vertical landing.
    1
  13. Too bad, air space is contested anyway. Enemy gets a vote.
    1
  14. Forget air to air. It can't survive a fight with the ground. That's the problem. The air space will be contested by fighters but the ground units themselves.
    1
  15.  @roycavitt4544  Afraid of what?
    1
  16. Center of mass will be changed, though.
    1
  17. It's sensible when there's no parts and the airframes are close to needing major overhauls.
    1
  18. Cruise missiles don't have a pilot. Drones don't have a pilot. Helicopters hide behind terrain.
    1
  19.  @sammcbride2464  The point is that your arguments don't apply to the items you're enumerating. Cruise missiles are literally expendable, they're meant to blow up. Drones are considered less of a liability if lost. And the slower speed, smaller size and stealth shaping of drones makes them harder to detect. Helicopters can hit without getting hit by using the sensors in their mast to look over the horizon. They can for example target SPAA from behind the ridgeline and shoot a guided missile at the anti-air defenses without them being able to shoot the helicopter down. All the other piloted planes aren't as vulnerable as the A-10.
    1
  20. Can't fly A-10s off a Navy carrier.
    1