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

  1.  Velocity Raptor TBC  Legends are just that. There's legendary boxers still alive, who don't belong in a ring.
    8
  2.  @haruruben  Both Russians and Ukrainians are flying it. The problem is, they can't fly over the battle. They come in at high speed, pitch up, fire rockets in a ballistic arc and turn away to head back to base. Giving them A-10s would mean tons of time wasted training pilots and ground crews for them to resort to using A-10s the same way.
    4
  3.  @robertrider1251  Su-25s have been shot down on both sides. Air superiority is irrelevant.
    4
  4. "I fail to see how the frogfoot is still an asset but the A-10 wouldn't be" - The Frogfoot isn't a very useful asset. It's being used to launch rockets in a ballistic arc and haul back to base. Standoff weapons require altitude to get the targeting pod pointed at the target. They're good at PR, and yet you didn't see the Frogfoot obliterate that convoy. There's a reason for it. It's suicidal.
    3
  5. Above MANPAD range you're in SAM range. Layered defense. High drag bombs wouldn't do, Ukrainians won't fly over enemy positions with the Frogfoot. Too dangerous.
    2
  6. The F-16 can kinetically defeat short range missiles the A-10s exhaust is shielded from. Taking out the gun would unbalance the aircraft. It would need to be reengineered and re-certified.
    2
  7. Not true. You're looking at late-2010s F-16 prices while comparing an inflation unadjusted A-10 in 1990s dollars. In 2022 dollars the A-10 is around 30 million (you can get used F-16s for 40-50 million) and that's not counting the upgrades to make it an A-10C variant. A modern A-10 is probably 50-60 million, but the costs amortized over time.
    2
  8. The F-16 can kinetically defeat SAMs. The A-10 is a sitting duck.
    2
  9. Ukraine has no means to cover A-10s. The Frogfoot is doing a desperate job by releasing rockets in a ballistic arc and fleeing back home. The F-16 can't stay on call? Neither can the Su-25 or the A-10. They'd arrive, release rockets, and turn back to head home.
    2
  10.  @edl653  " Su-25 are surviving the battlefield in UKR by flying very low, something that the A-10 can do better than F-16 and other US aircraft." - They're surviving because they release rockets and run back home. They barely do any fighting. The A-10 would be the same. Arrive, pitch up, release rockets, turn back and head home. "the A-10 has much armor and redunancy that make it more survivable than manpads" - If a MANPADS shreds the A-10, you can maybe fly it back home. It's gonna be written off. Worse, it's probably going to be severely damaged and crash land. Armor and redundancy doesn't mean much when the aircraft is physically mangled. The armor is overstated, it's just to keep the aircraft flying long enough and the pilot alive enough to pick a place to ditch. One pilot died trying to land a damaged A-10 in Desert Storm. The aircraft's reputation killed him. Should have ditched it in a safe zone.
    2
  11. You can dominate the skies, and still get brought down by a guy with a tube-launched missile on his back. You can can for fighters in the air, but not an entire country for guys with a tube.
    2
  12.  @konstantinshev1320  Lose the pilots, you lose the air battle. Period.
    2
  13. If you fly low, the AGM-65 seeker can't pick p the target.
    1
  14. "engaging artillery pieces" - Already being done with artillery and drone-dropped grenades. "The GAU-8 had kills on T62s and T-72s during the gulf war so I don't understand how you can spend 10 minutes arguing that it can't kill them now" - Pilots had to dump ammo on them and circle around until they saw fire. A missile and they exploded in one shot. Waste of ammo to strafe them. Su-25s are unable to loiter. They release rockets and turn back. The A-10 would suffer the same fate - rocket launching platform.
    1
  15. Long supply lines also means you have to go deep into enemy territory to get them.
    1
  16. Firing 1000 rounds at a single vehicle is a waste. The redundancy systems won't do much against modern missiles, which can cut aircraft in half. The Ukrainians had Su-25s to handle the convoy - didn't use them. They knew it was suicide. The F-16 does more ground support than the A-10. The Ukrainians don't have the multiple types of weapons to make the A-10 effective. So in the end, they aren't worthwhile. A-10s aren't "cold war" in systems. They have modern cockpits like multirole aircraft.
    1
  17. But the Frogfoot has been reduced to a ballistic rocket launcher. The "anti-everything" was solved with the F-16 and F/A-18. Not the 35. Even ignoring that, the A-10 is simply a slow sitting duck. With a F-16 you have a chance to "outrun" a SAM by depleting its energy. Using a Maverick requires climbing up, getting a visual on your targeting pod, and firing. The current use of Su-25 shows pilots are not willing to pop up and deploy guided weapons. Instead of arguing about "sortie rates" and "operational costs" they're slamming artillery and drone-dropped grenades on tanks. They don't need a tank-buster. They need true air support.
    1
  18.  @nekomakhea9440  Well, then please add the 2 billion spent on A-10 wings to the operational cost, because I think per hour costs should reflect the fact that ageing aircraft need expensive contracts to run. I think it's funny you claim to be talking about logistics while defending the "tank buster" concept (a tactic).
    1
  19.  @nekomakhea9440  CAS is a mission, not a platform. Also, I specifically referred to your "tankbusting" proposition, not CAS. "A dedicated platform can do a job cheaper than a jack of all trades" - But it's not cheap. It's stupid expensive to keep it in the air. It just doesn't get added to the CPFH. "extra capabilities cost money and maintenance" - This is an extremely poor argument, because the A-10s capabilities come from the fact that it uses many systems multiroles also use. The helmet mounted cueing system, the targeting pods, etc are added capabilities that cost money and maintenance. Without the capability upgrades, you'd have a A-10A. The A-10A is woefully inadequate compared to the C. "Even with the aging airframes, the A-10s are still way cheaper" - Because the costs are swept under the rug. Over the last 10 years Boeing was awarded two contracts valued at 1 billion each to manufacture wings. That's two billion, with a B. "USAF keeps flirting with the idea of bringing back propeller CAS, like a Super Tucano or similar, for the same reasons." - No. They had the OA-X program because a COIN aircraft for COIN was actually more productive than using the A-10 for COIN. But since the A-10 can't get retired the USAF will not purchase another aircraft that can't be used in a near-peer fight. "a supersonic airframe is swatting a fly with a sledgehammer, real militaries don't have unlimited budgets or maintenance manpower" - So basically the US is the only real military. Gotcha. The fact of the matter is that many nations have their "supersonic airframes" as their bespoke CAS platform. Dassault Rafales, F-16s, etc. The US and former Soviet states/clients are the exception with the A-10 and Su-25. Nobody else made equivalent aircraft. And this conflict has both sides proving how inadequate Su-25s are. "Germany lost because it was outproduced and outsupplied by the allies economic might" - Okay. You'd need to send the whole ~230-240 fleet in the USAF and Air National Guard to "outproduce" the VVs. "its too advanced for them to produce domestically" - Forget about domestic production - I think Arestovich said their military industry was targeted and almost taken out. "they have to fall back to using lower end platforms like attack helicopters and CAS and tube artillery for striking depos" - Striking a depot is not CAS. "That's why they have a mix of high and low end platforms, rather than all-or-nothing" - Okay but the "low end" aircraft are barely doing anything. They need the high end. Or else you're just sending pilots to keep doing ballistic rocket releases. They're not being helped by being given more of the same.
    1
  20.  @nekomakhea9440  There's no such thing as a CAS airframe. It can be performed by a MQ-9 drone, by a Cessna, by a B-52. "specialized platforms make sense" - They haven't made sense in decades. Package Q proves that it's a complete shitshow. And naval aviation imposes the limited deck space. "while disagreeing with the premise of the video that the A-10 is useless" - It would be, because it would be forced to just do lofting rocket releases. At that point just send them BAE Hawks or other cheap jet trainer and slap rocket pods on them.
    1
  21.  @inVINSONable1  "Detectable range" against radar. A MANPADS can still do the revenge shoot-down. MANPADS will have warning, it's called "having eyes and ears". They're on the hunt for small drones, you think they can't find an A-10 in the sky? You mean CCRP. With CCIP you have to be above the target and dive to put the pipper on target. The use of the Maverick requires popping up. It's like lying on the road and trying to look for coins in the sidewalk. If you're low, the Maverick seeker can't see anything but tree tops. You have to climb and expose yourself to SAMs. Mountains? Ukraine is very flat. You can't do that in Ukraine. Modern seekers have flare rejection algorithms and Doppler filtering allows chaff to be ignored. Jammers simply activate the Home-on-Jam seeker mode. If you call in Wild Weasel, SAMs will shut down and refuse to provide a radar signature to SEAD aircraft. When the A-10 comes they'll turn on and fire. Very basic SAM tactics, in use since Vietnam. The claim that no opposition has defeated this tactic is laughable considered that Iraqis sort of did it, and Serbian air defense units became famous for their "guerrilla" tactics.
    1
  22.  @alexincobra7379  The NLAW has a MASSIVE warhead. 30mm HEI is a firecracker.
    1
  23. The Ukrainians already had the Su-25. They had the "plus" in that situation. They didn't use it because they knew it was suicide.
    1
  24. And Stuka pilots (same as IL-2 pilots) massively overstated their own importance by overclaiming tank kills. It got so ridiculous they often claimed to have killed more tanks than were present in battle.
    1
  25.  @Chuck_Hooks  To get 50 miles out of a SDB, you have to lob them at high speed and high altitude. The A-10 can't do it.
    1
  26.  @whatdoesntkillyoumakesyous6707  "That depends on the range of detection and the radar horizon for the s300/400" - But there's Buks, Osas, Pantsirs, Strelas, Iglas... it's a nightmare for the A-10. There's SAMs big and small covering each other, not just S-300/400.
    1
  27. There's no CAP. There's no Hellfires. There's no fog of war. They have what they have. The A-10 would get shot down used like you propose.
    1
  28. They fly "low and smart" but also accomplish very little. American air power means flying over the enemy with impunity, picking targets at will and dishing out punishment. Ukrainians are desperately using unguided rockets in ballistic arcs.
    1
  29. The F-16 and A-10 mostly carry the same weapons, but the A-10 wouldn't be able to use them without getting shot down. The A-10 would have to put itself in the way of incoming damage. The F-16 hits without getting hit.
    1
  30. In fact the GAO slammed the USAF for buying over 700 A-10s without justification for why they needed that many of them. The claim that the USAF didn't want them doesn't even pass the smell test considering they were criticized for spending too much of them.
    1
  31. The Avenger was saved for IFV and trucks. Tanks in Iraq? Maverick. The missile blew them up in one shot. Losing an airplane also means losing an Ukrainian pilot. Why would we send "aid" that kills pilots?
    1
  32.  @haruruben  They're not flying it because of value, but because they have it. It's desperation. They are using it properly. That's the problem. They know better and know the Su-25 (or the A-10) can't survive. So they're releasing unguided rockets and go back home while men die under them.
    1
  33. You need to go behind enemy lines to do that. Every Ivan and Vladimir with a MANPADS would be salivating to bag an A-10 kill.
    1
  34. Even without S-300/400s there's still Buks, Osas, Pantsirs, Iglas, Strelas, etc.
    1
  35.  @butterwaffeln  In Iraq the US performed a very complex fight night operation involving stealth, decoys, cruise missiles, SEAD, jammers, etc. Does Ukraine have a bunch of Tomahawks, Prowlers/Growlers, F-117s, etc?
    1
  36.  @butterwaffeln  Highway of hell was caused by USMC A-6 intruders. They flew over the convoy and dropped Mk 20 Rockeyes. Each bomb contains 247 bomblets.
    1
  37. Then a Strela or Igla brings it down.
    1
  38. Showing up with 7 tons under your wings to a field full of guys with MANPADS is a deathwish.
    1
  39.  @GulNadar  Not unless you simply fly too high and too fast for MANPADS to catch up. The issue with MANPADS is that they have the be man-portable, as the name implies. This means a lackluster rocket motor. You said the A-10 has 11 pylons and load capacity of 7260 kg. What's the point of bringing up that performance metric if you're not going to use that much weight?
    1
  40.  @GulNadar  " ignores the rest of its ordinance abilities" - The ordnance isn't specific to the A-10, so something else can be used instead. The A-10 isn't bringing much to the table. "Also 25k feet up and fast doesn’t exactly make for quality close air support." - The word "close" refers to troops being in close contact with the enemy, not the aircraft having to be physically close. Doesn't matter is a bomb drops from 2,500 feet or 25k feet. It only matters that it lands where it's supposed to be.
    1
  41. The Budapest memorandum essentially gave security assurances to Ukraine in exchange for their nukes. Want to pull out? Give them back the nukes.
    1
  42. Don't you think Ukrainians seeing A-10s get shot down would have a massive (negative) psychological impact? Effectiveness is more important than psychological impact.
    1
  43.  @sirmingusdewiv8325  It was implied. What do you think the word "also" means?
    1
  44.  @FirstDagger  by asking if the F-16 would "also" have an impact, the "also" clearly refers to an alternative aircraft. The context makes it clear it would be the A-10. If the OP meant another aircraft he needed to specify.
    1
  45. To fire a AGM-65, you have to pop up (to be able to see over terrain) and lock on the target. This exposes you to a MANPADS operator.
    1
  46.  @tobiasfreitag2182  There's bigger SAMs than MANPADS. Climbing exposes the aircraft to them. In US service the aircraft doing SEAD, CAP and CAS can be the same. Flying 3 different aircraft with 3 different engines and 3 different fuel tanks is asking for disaster. Package Q had F-16s loaded for strike go into combat with no F-15 air cover or F-4G SEAD because they ran out of fuel and had to turn back.
    1
  47.  @tobiasfreitag2182  I did read. That's why I addressed your claims.
    1
  48.  @tobiasfreitag2182  If it doesn't do better, then we're not helping anyone by sending them. They need something that fights in the air to save the guys on the ground. By giving them A-10s we're just continuing the cycle of a powerless airforce unable to help the guys dying on the ground.
    1
  49.  @tobiasfreitag2182  It barely works within the US military. 20% of CAS since 2001, 11% of CAS since 2014. The F-16 does 33% of CAS.
    1
  50. Six A-10s were lost, and they were re-tasked. The F-111 killed more tanks.
    1
  51.  @youtubeurevil  The A-10 was "invented" for Vietnam (A-1 Skyraider replacement), then repurposed against the Soviet Union. It's old.
    1
  52.  @solarissv777  To fire a Maverick you have to climb over the horizon to get eyes on the target. You can't "rocket artillery" a guided missile. You have to have eyes on the sky.
    1
  53.  @solarissv777  A GPS one? No, there's the electro-optical, thermal seeker and laser. I guess you could provide lasing with a drone that has the compatible designator but those can be shot down more easily than the quadcopters spotting for artillery.
    1
  54. The Frogfoot is forced to fly at high speed, pitch up, release unguided rockets in a ballistic arc and turn back home. There's no difference - we'd send A-10s to do a pathetic job. Mobile ballistic rocket launcher. I'd be ashamed to claim that "help".
    1
  55. The problem is that the A-10 is also starved of spare parts, and we'd need to train ground crews for months for them to just use the A-10 as they currently use Su-25s anyway - ballistic rocket launchers.
    1