Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Real Engineering" channel.

  1. ​ @milosdenkovic1984  You can't unbomb Belgrade.
    54
  2. The wings contract with Boeing cost 2 billion. It's not cheap to keep such an old aircraft airborne.
    51
  3.  @Lt.Dan_23  When the cost to change the wings for the entire fleet is greater than just getting replacements, it's time to send them to the boneyard.
    26
  4.  @TransistorBased  The training wasn't terrible, the training was adequate for the 737 versions. And in fact Boeing concealed the fact that the MCAS system prevented pitch-up due to the structural changes made. After the first crash Boeing still did not come clean and tried to fix the issue in secret. The second crash happened because Boeing lied.
    26
  5. Correction. Two attempts was doctrine. Then the radar had to be shut down and relocated. They knew there was no SEAD in the air so they broke doctrine and attempted a third lock.
    25
  6.  @Nixontheman  What does NPR have to do with anything? What made the 737 max attractive was not requiring a new certification.
    14
  7. ​ @RealRedeemer  >"can't use nuclear it's unsafe" >burns coal and gas >"okay let's switch to nuclear because of CO2" >"we can't because the climate changed" I am beyond livid.
    12
  8.  @autohmae  so I need to whip out my NSA spying device, turn on the app that I had to consent to selling my data, and feed it my bank account details to even get anywhere. I'd rather just drive an 1980s car.
    10
  9.  @TransistorBased  Holy shit dude. Boeing knew MCAS was responsible for the first crash and issued a revised checklist rather than admitting the problem so they could try and fix it before anyone knew. Boeing did owe an explanation - the aircraft had to be grounded until the fix was done. They just didn't want to admit fault so they deflected while trying to secretly fix the issue.
    10
  10.  @Nixontheman  It's virtually impossible to achieve, yet Boeing settled for 2.5 bil. If Boeing was not at fault, tell me in what universe is it rational to settle for over to billion. I don't understand what you're referring to with the woke BS. Boeing tried to cover up, people died as a result, they settled. This isn't MSM, this isn't woke BS, this is real life. If Boeing was in the right, winning the lawsuit would have been cheaper than settling.
    8
  11. ​ @pyropulseIXXI  Basing temp scale around water is extremely useful considering how much stuff in real life is based around either the freezing or boiling point of water.
    8
  12. @Jacob Del Bene It's already been replaced. Most CAS is handled by F-16s and Strike Eagles.
    7
  13. ​ @theherk  Well, a rifled barrel has to start with an undersized bore so that it can engage into the driving bands. So the process has to be inherently different.
    7
  14. Funny how those bases "surrounding" countries are in countries in danger of invasion. The criminal whines about homeowners installing locks on their doors.
    7
  15. But the corporate sector would love to make bucks off nuclear. You say capitalism when you just mean scarcity.
    7
  16.  @autohmae  Again, this is the all-or-nothing approach. Previous mistakes do not justify committing to going down this path. I do own a house that's paid for, a car that's paid for, and even the goddamn appliances are paid for. You're talking about what should be a narrow period of your life where you need to make a deal to get on your feet and pretending this justifies even more control over your life. No shit I only own the media. That's what actually matters. I didn't pay for the copyright, I didn't want it.
    6
  17.  @Nixontheman  *Your What's inaccurate? What's anti-corporate about demanding accountability?
    6
  18.  @autohmae  My point is that we're running out of options, we're not fully trapped in the belly of the machine - yet. This scenario might seem cool and high tech, but I'd rather the car start even if there's a faulty sensor.
    5
  19. ITT: flagrant targeting of innocent civilians is excused by people who dismiss war crimes due to "context".
    5
  20. Underrated comment.
    5
  21.  @verdigo1482  "An A-10 can take hits from SAMs and keep on trucking the F-35 cannot" - maybe you're thinking of MANPADS. Typically when people talk about SAMs they're talking about something bigger. You ain't shrugging off a SAM hit.
    5
  22.  @spacecadet35  "the other side is not sitting still" - oh, so the other side is breaking the laws of physics now? The way radar emissions work have not changed in the last 15 billion years let alone the last 27. "they have radars specifically designed to detect and shoot down aircraft like the F35" - by that logic we should stop flying airplanes because if they can out F-35s, then every single aircraft in existence needs to be grounded due to the danger "Considering how much they have sacrificed for their stealth" - tell the rest of the class, what did they sacrifice?
    5
  23.  @VexingRaven  the toxicity of the heavy metal is the problem, not the radioactivity
    4
  24.  @Yaotzin86  No, you don't get to define markets. Everything is a market even if you don't want it to be. Trying to plead for a special definition is just a fallacy. ""Real money" is defined by the government" - Not really, it's defined by the central bank. In some cases the central bank is owned by the government. There's no actual reason a private bank cannot issue currency. In fact, things like bitcoin are validated by cryptography and do not require a central bank to be validated. ""Fraud" is defined by the government" - No, it isn't. It's theft by deception. "There is no such thing as legally owned property without government" - This is Marxist BS. Everyone except the most unreasonable people recognize that property exists independently of government. Only the deranged who buy nonsensical political ideologies actually try and argue that property is something we get from the government. Even animals mark their territory. Even animals can comprehend the notion of what is theirs.
    4
  25. They have a coastline
    4
  26.  @TransistorBased  You have no argument so you go straight for personal insults. Boeing settled. If they were so innocent as you claim they'd have won the lawsuit.
    4
  27.  @havoc3742  you do realize that the F-35 does have specially designed exhausts to cool the ejected gasses, right? This has already been done in the B-2, F-117 and F-22.
    4
  28. Horváth Benedek HEAT rounds do not burn through, they use superplasticity of materials under high pressure.
    3
  29. +Horváth Benedek it doesn't melt through, just like a high pressure water jet cutting metal doesn't melt it. The effect is mechanical, not thermal. Look at how casings are made, the metal is pressed into shape through swaging, where it behaves like a fluid without melting. The explosion is like an hydraulic press, forcing the metal cone into a shape and forming a stream that punches through armor. It doesn't melt it.
    3
  30. @Jacob Del Bene A-10 does 11% of CAS (chuckle)
    3
  31. Many airplanes have multiple variants.
    3
  32. ​ @weekiely1233  Most sub accidents are human error because bad designs were rejected during certification. Just like the bombers that didn't come back were shot in critical areas, the subs that would fail at sea failed the certification process.
    3
  33.  @haliax8149  "why does it matter if the enemy is exposed to the dust? " - because your own troops will be exposed to it
    3
  34. Hold up, did you just say that Ukraine being a sovereign nation is an incorrect fact?
    3
  35.  @HakanKoseoglu  "A-10 works and will continue working" - Since 2014 that the A-10 only performs 11% of CAS missions, having been replaced by the Strike Eagle, F/A-18, F-16, B1, etc. It won't continue working. "after an F-35 or F-16 runs out of fuel or falls off the sky full of holes" - You do realize that in 1991 the A-10 had to be pulled out of missions against the Iraqi Republican Guard because of the loss of 7 aircraft and many more receiving battle damage, right? The A-10 got shot full of holes against what was at the time a near-peer adversary. The F-111 ironically scored more tank kills during Desert Storm than the A-10.
    3
  36. The Soviet Union also lost Afghanistan.
    3
  37. For the split second in which impact occurs, the diesel is as flammable as water. Within containment, there's not enough oxygen to sustain a fire. The containment has to be breached or the fuel spilled. Diesel's flash point is generally above 52°C. So the fuel has to be heated. Since tanks have fire suppression built into them, surviving the hit is the most important thing. Once survived, you have time to deal with a possible fire. But until the conditions for fire to occur are met the fuel isn't going to be a problem. Do diesel fires occur? Yes, quite often. But what is the issue? A ruptured fuel line spilling into a hot surface? Electrical faults? A small fire that heats the fuel which causes it to become combustible?
    3
  38. They haven't been "bombing Donbas", they have been fighting Russia's hybrid war. Their own supposed people, lead by Russian operatives and armed by Russia's stockpiles. Compare the pictures of Donbas after "8 years of bombing" and cities like Mariupol after two months of Russian invasion.
    3
  39.  @daviddewald4540  the mistakes of the F-4? Please stop listening to History Channel boomer-tier propaganda. The Navy didn't need guns on their F-4s and they did fine. Even the F-4E only scored 5-6 kills with the gun, while in total the USAF scored over 100 kills.
    3
  40.  @Phrancis5  to be fair, I'd rather risk my life on the road than live in a world where the autonomous driving can be hacked or turned off by the car manufacturer because I said the n-word in 2010 or something.
    3
  41. Is this related to space flight?
    3
  42. ​ @brentwilbur  They started the fight. First, they have since the Russian empire tried to take over Ukraine. Before NATO. Second, the eastern thing was about GERMANY. And Ukraine was going to join EU, not NATO.
    3
  43. He changed his story multiple times. The fact is that the S-125 was in a site location presumed empty so planners put an egress route there. The F-117 basically nearly entered the S-125 minimum engagement distance. Point blank shot. There were no fancy tactics or trickery involved. Just physics. Stealth works with the inverse square law. Take out the distance, stealth aircraft become detectable.
    3
  44. They did redesign the swept wing on the me262 for a 35°, but it was never adopted.
    2
  45. Davi Lu Yes, the work of Adolf Busemann.
    2
  46. If they control the entire supply chain why did they allow politicians to use it as a jobs program? They could keep more money to themselves but there's hundreds of subcontractors involved.
    2
  47.  @THESLlCK  Okay, but my problem isn't the wings. It's the fact that in the Congress's infinite wisdom it's better to keep an ageing aircraft in the air than just get a dedicated COIN aircraft and let the USAF used the rest of the budget to modernize. If there was a reason to keep the A-10, something like the wing upgrade would be balanced by a complete upgrade package like the mid-life upgrades aircraft like the F-16 get. Many nations send their F-16s to go through the life extension program which through parts replacements and reinforcement of old ones can extend the life of the airframe from 8,000 to 12,000 hours along with give it more capabilities and better performance. If you just go and buy newly manufactured F-16 wings, you're going to pay a disproportionate amount for such a custom job. The issue is that not only the A-10 wings did not address any other performance issues with the A-10, it was also a program that went to an aircraft that will not be necessary in the future.
    2
  48.  @roseanneroseannadanna9651  For loiter time, drones are even more efficient. Fluid battlefield? The A-10 is very limited. What's the psychological cost of seeing A-10s crashing into the ground?
    2
  49.  @roseanneroseannadanna9651  The entire fleet is not getting the upgrade. And no, it's not a life time expense. It's a single expense, the Boeing contract. Cost per hour of a dedicated COIN aircraft is 1k. The A-10 it outrageously expensive for the job it does. It's a bad deal to toss good money after bad. Those aircraft are losing missions to multiroles and now Afghanistan is over. Those A-10s will not see much more combat and will be dead weight that the USAF is forced to carry until finally Congress wises up. The B-52 is much more upgradeable than the A-10. It's not the same type of aircraft. That's children's logic. The A-10 is extremely limited. Strong and durable airframe? Except for 1984 production A-10s, all of them had structural flaws from the factory and required expensive upgrades.
    2
  50. ​ @henreator  A newer generation reactor would still get the critical generators and switchboards flooded. The old design wasn't the source of failure.
    2