Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Why is the US Navy almost skipping the F-35?" video.

  1. The USN doesn't see operational use of Super Hornets past 2050 while the F-35 is scheduled to operate past 2070.
    2
  2.  @Valorius  M1 Abrams won't push anything back to the sea, if you can just send enemy troops to be bottom of the sea. Are you seriously arguing for M1 Abrams lined up at the beach when a double tap with anti-ship missiles sunk the Mockba?
    2
  3. Over 625 "expensive" and "impossible to mass produce" F-35s delivered as of 2021.
    2
  4. One went overboard and another crashed due to pilot disorientation. Not engine failure.
    2
  5. The USN already asked to halt Super Hornet production last year as they think it's a waste to purchase aircraft that will become obsolete by 2050.
    1
  6. The C variant isn't STOVL...
    1
  7.  @Valorius  1. You won't have the ability to operate the M1 effectively in Pacific islands. 2. Which also means the "heavy armor" force opposing will also be operating in terrible conditions if they actually deploy. 3. Abrams can't swim. If the enemy has armor waiting for you, you won't be able to use it until you've already landed the troops.
    1
  8.  @spartenkiller456  It also has nothing to do with the subject. The OP seemed to imply the sea accidents involving F-35s were due to engine failures but they weren't.
    1
  9.  SubtoPolecat324  Jets have been asked to do anything since the F-4 days. Naval interceptor, air superiority, close air support and SEAD. No problem. F/A-18s wrote history by shooting down Su-22 and proceeding with a bombing mission. No problem. The F-16 is both the fighter that mimicks the MiG-29 in aggressor squadrons, and was chosen for the strike missiom Operation Opera. No problem. Suddenly the F-35 is the issue?
    1
  10.  SubtoPolecat324  Jets have been asked to do anything since the F-4 days. Naval interceptor, air superiority, close air support and SEAD. No problem. F/A-18s wrote history by shooting down Su-22 and proceeding with a bombing mission. No problem. The F-16 is both the fighter that mimicks the MiG-29 in aggressor squadrons, and was chosen for the strike missiom Operation Opera. No problem. Suddenly the F-35 is the issue?
    1
  11.  @teemuvesala9575  the F4 is still the world's greatest distributor of MiG parts
    1
  12.  @teemuvesala9575  False. USAF F-4s scored 3.8 to 1. This was due to F-4s conducting escorts for bombers falling into ambushes. USAF F-4s performing combat air patrols killed MiGs at a 5.5 to 1 ratio. After Teaball radar and listening station was introduced, the USAF enjoyed a 15 to 1 kill ratio from 1972 to 1973. The USN scored 4.7 to 1 ratios, and CAP F-4s scored 6.4 to 1 ratios. After TOPGUN was introduced they scored 8.7 to 1. Even by the worst metrics the average is 4.25 kills for every lost by USAF and USN. The American pilots were also very inexperienced in air combat as their training was mostly about shooting down bombers. Once training increased and better tactics introduced, the Phantoms beat the MiGs senseless.
    1
  13.  @teemuvesala9575  Oh, so now you question the statistics. Moving the goalposts. Never heard of a Phantom flyer who didn't know how to fly it. "so bad lol" is that your military analysis or a text sent by a 16 year old?
    1
  14.  @teemuvesala9575  The 12º degree angle on the wing tips is a stability augmenter. It wasn't a "design choice", it was a fix for a problem found in testing. Amazing how such a badly designed aircraft was so successful both in Vietnam and the Middle East. By the way, the proposed IAI Super Phantom would be able to super cruise and the RF-4X capable of reaching Mach 3 despite having conformal water thanks for the pre-compressor injection. Not bad for an aircraft that is "horrible aerodynamically".
    1
  15.  @teemuvesala9575  American analysis like David Axe, who have no actual credentials except being a war journalist almost 20 years ago.
    1