Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "How many fighter jets does Ukraine need?" video.

  1. The theory is based on the assumption that all equipment could be unlocked at once. But the fact is that there's resource and time constraints on how much training you can provide, how much we can physically fit in the cargo aircraft and transport trucks, etc. There's an argument to be made that even if fighter jets were approved day one, the training would be ahead of schedule but the deliveries would still be delayed by more critical taking up time, money and space away from the jets because they provide more immediate results.
    4
  2. >mfw Japan has F-15s and the F-2 which is based on the F-16
    3
  3. Close air support can be done with standoff weapons.
    3
  4.  @skip123davis  The F-4 was designed for carrier ops and it did fine in USAF service. It's always easier to use a carrier fighter on land than a ground based fighter at sea.
    3
  5. ​​ @skip123davis  Finland, Switzerland, Canada and Australia use F-18s as land based fighters.
    2
  6. If you read what the Russian milbloggers are posting, it's not a failure. They're already saying it's going to be another Kherson.
    1
  7.  @ggergger8584  Just like Kherson was Russia forever, then after months of fighting they left in about a week.
    1
  8. F-16s were used in Operation Opera.
    1
  9. ​ bimmebeau  The A-10 is a flawed aircraft meant for Vietnam that had to be brute forced into a different role. Armor is losing relevancy as missiles simply slice aircraft in half instead of worrying about how well armored each half is, it's not cheap to buy as the original A-10 is severely outdated so a modern A-10C should be 50-60 million a piece, and it's tough to maintain as evidenced by the billion dollar Boeing contracts to make parts for it. Most of the anti-armor kills came from Maverick missile, which other aircraft also carry. It refuses to die because Arizona representatives make money off it. It would be near useless in Ukraine.
    1
  10. ​ @davidpax Oh they could be given computers loaded with Falcon BMS, it would have erased the Russian plane from their brains months ago.
    1
  11. ​ @stvrob6320  An airborne radar will track a helicopter from further away than a ground radar. Remember that the Earth is curved. The horizon physically blocks radar energy.
    1
  12. ​ @lethalfang  Nope. You can be inside your own SAM umbrella and get speared by an AMRAAM flung from outside SAM range. Your SAM umberella is centered around the launch vehicle, not the helicopter.
    1