Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "USAF just said it will retire F-22 much earlier than planned (Newsflash video)" video.

  1.  @ameyas7726  First of all, it was used in battle so you're wrong. It was used overseas. Second, it served the role of national defense. Plenty of countries buy fighters and never get into wars. They did their job.
    29
  2.  @andrewscott8892  both Rumsfeld and McCain wanted the F-22 program shut down.
    23
  3.  @leafymarmot6348  an aircraft that can't take off from Navy carriers let alone short deck carriers?
    8
  4.  @andrewscott8892  But if Obama had lost in 2008 then McCain would have been president, and he was an anti-tech boomer who didn't like the F-22. It would have been canned anyway.
    6
  5. No? The F-22 was did its job.
    5
  6.  @susansullivan7292  "Too fast" - No such thing. Stop listening to Pierre Sprey. "different arms load" - It's mostly the same. "different mission (air superiority)" - The F-16 is not an air superiority fighter, it's a multirole. The F-15 is the pure-bred air superiority fighter. "less protection against ground attack." - Because it doesn't need it in the first place. It's not meant to get hit. "To my knowledge although there was talk about phasing out the A-10 for who knows what, this train of thought was reversed." - Because the USAF is literally chained to the A-10 by Congress as they can never get approval for the long deserved retirement. So they just stopped trying. "I totally get why A-10s cannot operate without the pre-existing air-superiority" - Forget air superiority. The A-10 is vulnerable against the ground. Even a country without an air force can wreck A-10s. "but the missions of the two designs are very different" - They're really not. The F-16 provides a higher percentage of close air support missions.
    3
  7.  @RadicalTek  Nope. Dropped JDAMs in Syria.
    3
  8.  @dylanwhite3383  it was used for shows of force and bomb drops in Syria.
    2
  9. That's wrong, and the A-10 has mostly been replaced by F-16s anyway.
    1
  10. Syria.
    1
  11.  @tylerissla7139  The Marines? Which is why they needed the F-35B as a Harrier replacement in the first place?
    1
  12. It delivered JDAMs in Syria.
    1
  13. Why?
    1
  14.  @patrickradcliffe3837  "you spent more then a trillion dollars on this weapons system" - That's not true. The trillion dollars is a projected cost of the entire fleet until retirement.
    1
  15.  @patrickradcliffe3837  That's government work for you. Either way the 500 cap makes no sense considering that the USAF will surpass 300 next year, and that's just in F-35As. Even the most drastic cut proposed was 800 units, but a more "realistic" proposal is 1,050 units.
    1
  16.  @patrickradcliffe3837  The US at the time was not involved in any conflict that would require the F-22.
    1
  17.  @patrickradcliffe3837  Why? The F-35 falls completely in line with modern needs.
    1
  18. A figurehead?
    1
  19. And the A-10 got killed. The USAF is forced to keep dragging it around but it gets less and less missions.
    1
  20.  @thegoldengoat2560  Exactly. Should have neen retired in 1993 as it was meant to.
    1
  21. They wouldn't have sent F-22s if the mission wasn't too dangerous for other aircraft.
    1
  22.  @dylanwhite3383  I guess starting WW3 by shooting down Russian jets is a measured response.
    1
  23.  @dylanwhite3383  What the hell are you talking about? Nobody mentioned war crimes, I'm just calling you out for defending a massive war. If you want war there's wars being fought right now, you're welcome to join. But don't rope millions of people into it.
    1
  24.  @dylanwhite3383  Why are you begging for that war to exist? I'm not afraid, I'm simply calling you out for extracting happiness out of war machines being used for killing rather than peacekeeping. Closer look? How old are you? Jesus.
    1
  25.  @dylanwhite3383  No, you don't have a heart because you're sad the F-22 isn't being used. Now you're just deflecting and coming up with a ridiculous narrative that nobody brought up about civilians, as if an enemy will simply allow you to get inside visual range. Grow up.
    1
  26.  @dylanwhite3383  I spelled SAD because that's what I meant to say. SAD. Not said. You not only don't have an argument and have to resort to correct people's spelling, you also got the spelling wrong.
    1
  27.  @alderwolf7687  Dead pilots and burning airframes cost even more. Stealth might be costly but it's the price of admission.
    1
  28.  @alderwolf7687  Again, pilots cost money. You'll need bottomless pockets to replace them. The reason there's ejection seats is because the government would rather lose an aircraft than a pilot.
    1
  29.  @alderwolf7687  That doesn't counter anything I said. The pilot is more valuable. You're not saving any money by sticking them in vulnerable machines that can and will be shot down over enemy territory. If you're worried about budgets mind how much it costs to train a proficient pilot.
    1