Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "The Insane Engineering of the A-10 Warthog" video.

  1. The wings contract with Boeing cost 2 billion. It's not cheap to keep such an old aircraft airborne.
    51
  2.  @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
  3. @Jacob Del Bene It's already been replaced. Most CAS is handled by F-16s and Strike Eagles.
    7
  4.  @VexingRaven  the toxicity of the heavy metal is the problem, not the radioactivity
    4
  5. @Jacob Del Bene A-10 does 11% of CAS (chuckle)
    3
  6.  @haliax8149  "why does it matter if the enemy is exposed to the dust? " - because your own troops will be exposed to it
    3
  7.  @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 "A-10 works and will continue working" - Since 2014 that the A-10 only performs 11% of CAS missions, having been replaced by the Strike Eagle, F/A-18, F-16, B1, etc.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
  8.  @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
  9.  @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
  10.  @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
  11.  @theseekerofancienttruth3873  "A-10s can usually dodge AAA fairly easily" - Someone remind the Iraqis. "are supported by Helicopters that can hit the AAA without being hit" - Wait, what? How is a helicopter less of a target than the A-10? "The Apache/Apache Longbow and Cobra can hit the AAA with Hellfire/TOW Missiles without being hit," - And the A-10 can hit AAA with Maverick missiles. The point is, the A-10 can defend itself against AAA, but the AAA is still a threat. Which is why the losses and battle damage suffered in 1991 proved that the A-10 was simply not capable enough to deal with near-peer enemies. "US Combined Tactics are incredibly hard to counter" - And yet the A-10 suffered the bloody nose it did, and had to be pulled back to prevent more embarrassing losses. It's amazing. People come up with this tall tale of the A-10 never being against the ropes because the US has perfect hard-counters to every threat, but in real life the A-10 was pushed against the ropes. Combined tactics may be hard to counter, but A-10s are easy to shoot down. "SPA is more than capable of taking the AAA down from well behind the Front Lines" - Might as well save the jet fuel and just have the SPA bombard the intended target in the first place, then.
    2
  12.  @Goz86  understandable, have a nice day
    2
  13.  @Sharklops  "Any residue left behind from a depleted uranium round would hardly pose a health risk even if you swallowed it." - It's an extremely toxic heavy metal. You might as well be breathing lead dust.
    2
  14. The A-10 was designed because the Air Force's best CAS aircraft was too fast to escort helicopters and the Army wanted the USAF to do it. It was politics from the start.
    2
  15. Why do you claim it's not survivable or not capable of CAS?
    2
  16. No. DU is very mildly radioactive. The real danger is that it's a heavy metal. Which is highly toxic. There was a proposition to replace DU with tungsten in munitions. Turns out that the toxicity was the same.
    2
  17. Yes. Most of CAS is done by precision bombing, not gun runs.
    2
  18. "Proper, accurate, and effective CAS cannot be done at jet fighter speed" - And yet, it is. The majority of CAS missions are performed by F-16s, F/A-18s, Strike Eagles, B-1s, etc. From 2006 to 2013, the A-10 only got 19% of CAS missions in Afghanistan. By 2014, it was only flying 11% of CAS missions. Seems to me that jet speed has nothing to do with performance. "You can’t always count on smart or laser guided weapons" - But we can, and we do. "We can make 1000 of these for the price of how many F-35’s" - You can't because Fairchild went out of business. Can't make new ones.
    2
  19. Buddy aircraft have limits.
    1
  20.  @joshuabower61  You think it's cheaper to maintain older aircraft? Billions? There isn't a single production fighter aircraft that costs a billion. Even the F-22 at its highest price was around 300 million.
    1
  21.  @joshuabower61  The problem is that you frame the A-10 replacement in a way that doesn't actually make sense. The A-10 only performed 20% of CAS since the early 2000s, and 11% since 2014. This means that the vast majority of CAS is already performed by other airframes, and thus the A-10 replacement already commenced. Aircraft already in inventory can replace the A-10 with no added cost. The A-10 "replacement" is just A-10 retirement in the end of the day.
    1
  22.  @roseanneroseannadanna9651  Not true. There was a 900 million contract for around ~100 aircraft, and another 1.1 billion contract for another 100-something. And that's just for wings. That's a TERRIBLE deal. It's not also 282 aircraft that are getting them. It's around 200 plus spares.
    1
  23. ​ @roseanneroseannadanna9651  The A-10 won't survive the first pass.
    1
  24.  @johngalt3969  No. It's not sturdy in a world where a single hit shreds aircraft to pieces. The updates do nothing to make it survivable or cheaper.
    1
  25.  @GarysBBQSupplies  It's expensive to keep in service due to age, it was proven ineffective in Desert Storm, it cannot operate on the level of austerity an actual COIN aircraft can.
    1
  26.  @credit__devin  It's not flawed because you're also not considering the costs beyond manufacturing. Old aircraft also require billions to keep them in flying condition. Stop blaming the USAF and puppets. Name any other country that's still building A-10 style aircraft. There's no successor to the hog because nobody in the world is interested in one. Otherwise they'd be making it.
    1
  27.  @pescatoralpursuit1726  That's funny, but doesn't make the A-10 any better.
    1
  28.  @joebenson528  But its "longevity" is built entirely on a 700+ fleet being reduced to around 200-something of them. And when parts ran out, new ones had to be made at a great cost. By your own logic you could have longevity in your PSA by simply replacing the parts that are giving you trouble. Even if you take a $500 PSA and spend $500 to keep it running longer, you'd still have saved $700. I don't even know what this comparison was meant to prove, because the A-10 is a $500 PSA that cost $1,700 to keep running, because you're too cheap to get a $1,200 AR. That's the best analogy for the A-10.
    1
  29. "The F16 and F35 are not well suited to this role" - The F-16 is the bespoke close air support aircraft of many nations. Aircraft like the Eurofighter, Rafale, etc are the same. "The A10 is the aircraft for the role." - Maybe in the 1970s but 1991 showed that they're too vulnerable.
    1
  30. There's no new or updated versions. It's just the same aircraft with the electronics changed.
    1
  31. Literally everything said on this video is publicly available.
    1
  32. Every country uses tungsten penetrators in munitions, which is just as toxic.
    1
  33. Because Congress simply refuses to authorize retirement. Meanwhile most of the world has consolidated their forces around multiroles, and multiroles have proven themselves many times over.
    1
  34.  @natthaphonhongcharoen  "You probably want to be in visual range to support ground unit in time rather than staying 50 miles away and wait to use missile, both bomb and missile are slower than bullet!!" - What? Visual range is useless compared to targeting pods, and speed comparisons are nonsensical.
    1
  35.  @jonboyd9186  "Once it was fielded real world guess what was retrofitted on..." - And how many gun kills did it get? Oh right, the USAF got like 12 gun kills versus 100 missile kills. Big whoop. USN F-4s did not need guns to perform well.
    1
  36.  @theseekerofancienttruth3873  "Infantry will also make sure to hit the SAM Sites First, as part of Standard Tactics." - you don't need a "SAM site" to bring down an A-10. A self-propelled AAA or a shoulder launched missile can be a threat to A-10s, without it being necessary to have a "site" dedicated to those. If your plan is sending infantry against SAM threats, but your plan is also have the A-10 to protect infantry... seems like something's got to give.
    1
  37.  @Allan_aka_RocKITEman  " F-4 Phantoms did NOT require guns...until #Vietnam. " - They didn't. US Navy didn't get guns for their F-4s and their pilots were deadly in the air.
    1
  38. @Pilot16H "There is no need to replace the A-10." - Already has been. Since 2014 that most CAS missions are given to F-16s, Strike Eagles, F/A-18, B-1s, etc. "Though it can certainly be upgraded and/or an improved design created." - Costs as much as a new plane.
    1
  39.  @Goz86  Why? Multirole fighters are better than the A-10 at it's own job. It was considered outdated by the 1980s and took a beating in 1991.
    1
  40. To be fair, the alternative is tungsten and the tungsten powder is just as bad. Every country uses tungsten carbide, the US has a ton of DU because it's essentially a byproduct of the nuclear power industry. They've stopped using DU on A-10s some years ago, though.
    1
  41. DU is only mildly radioactive. The fact that it's a heavy metal is much more dangerous to humans. There was a proposal to replace DU penetrators in munitions with tungsten, turns out that on impact the tungsten turns to dust and it's as cancerogenic as DU.
    1
  42. She was right and McCain was embarrassingly wrong. You think it's the only time you enjoyed McCain. Well, I guess you should have never actually enjoyed him, to rest assured that he was a bad guy all his life. It's actually pathetic to see an old man so wrong, so out of touch he can't understand why he's wrong, try to "verbally spank" someone. Absolutely embarrassing to nobody except the bully laughing at the people who think 2+2=4 because he thinks it's 5.
    1
  43. The Boeing contract for the new A-10 wings was 2 billion.
    1
  44.  @TheSkunkyMonk  Not really, when they were built the cost was for the entire aircraft, and more than 700 of them. Now there's only 200-something.
    1
  45. Yes. The A-10 has largely been replaced by multirole fighters and the B-1. It's outdated and other platforms perform more CAS missions.
    1
  46.  @jeffnelson2197  And in 2018 the USAF only sent 12 A-10s to Afghanistan. What do you mean by taking a hit? A F-16 has landed with half a wing missing after a mid-air collision, and an Israeli F-15 lost almost an entire wing in a collision too and managed to land. This is due to body lift. The F-35 has even more body lift. It also has each main control surface working on their own independent hydraulic system, meaning it can't be bled out of hydraulics. Meanwhile A-10s were splashed pretty good in 1991. The F-35 doesn't get hit in the first place. The A-10 has a titanium bathtub so that the pilot can survive long enough to eject when the rest gets shredded by 23mm/30mm AA guns. "It just isn’t “sexy” and the Air Force wants new sexy planes not flying tanks" - This is reformist nonsense. You're parroting a lie made up of whole cloth decades ago to sell books. You can stop now. Those books aren't selling. "show the world what “new multi roll modern aircraft” can do" - Most of the world uses multiroles for close air support. Almost no country runs A-10 style aircraft. Only Russia has the Su-25, and they won't even dare using it close to Ukrainian forces. The world uses F-16s, Rafales, etc for CAS when they're wealthy, light attack aircraft when they're not as wealthy.
    1
  47.  @rovethewolf9717  It's not a matter of superiority. Congress simply refuses to authorize the USAF to retire it. There's no "bet". The USAF sends F-16s and F-15Es to do CAS. Even B-1s and B-52s.
    1
  48.  @rovethewolf9717  A F-15E is not focused on air superiority considering it was designed to replace the F-4s and F-111s in service. Neither are the F-16s, and they're do-everything workhorses that spent the last 20 years delivering bombs. Even if they were, it still doesn't change the fact that they do more CAS than the A-10. Yes, B-1Bs and B-52s do perform Close Air Support. Funny that you call the B-1 a high altitude bomber when one of it's most important design requirements was high subsonic low altitude speed. Yes, of course Congress controls the budget. My point is that the A-10 isn't kept in service because of superiority. It's kept in service because Congress refuses to retire it.
    1
  49. DU shells are not in use anymore and have been replaced by high explosive. The 30mm DU round can't punch through tanks since the late 1970s so using it against foot soldiers and light-skinned vehicles makes no sense.
    1
  50.  Groove Crusader  Nothing he said was a falsehood but okay.
    1
  51.  @SeaJay_Oceans  Would cost as much as a new plane.
    1
  52. "When we were on the ground in Iraq hearing an A-10 overhead was a wonderful feeling" - Exactly. It's not about facts and logic. It's about feelings. The A-10 should have been retired in the 90s, no matter how many got their feelings hurt.
    1
  53.  @rooh5825  Exactly, no argument.
    1
  54. It's very maneuverable. You were told it isn't by barely literate bloggers who can't read a report.
    1
  55. Sadly the A-10 can't outsmart bullet either, which is why most tank kills were scored with Maverick missiles and they couldn't get close to armored columns without getting shot up.
    1
  56. "the more general the requirements the more compromises have to be made, so you end up with something that does not do anything well" - the F-16 is a multirole that has done everything from deep ground strikes against nuclear power plants to being so maneuverable the US uses them as surrogates for the MiG-29 in training. The F-16 does everything well. The F-35 is an F-16 on steroids.
    1
  57. And anyone who wants to keep it is brainless. (re-working of the Putin quote about USSR)
    1
  58.  @johnalogue9832  "I can't imagine anyone would prefer to have 3 F-35s supporting them to 6 A-10s." - Anyone who understands the topic would. The F-35 is gonna get to me faster and have an easier time getting a good picture of the battlespace.
    1
  59. By flying like a madman, popping out to fire a Maverick and dive back down before you start to see tracers.
    1
  60.  @CharlesUrban  It isn't.
    1
  61.  @philperry4699  Blatantly false. If anything, the USAF killed it's own baby for the sake of introducing the A-10 into inventory. The A-7 was the superior CAS aircraft with excellent survivability in Vietnam, but was pushed aside and denied an upgraded variant so that the USAF could get embarrassed by the Iraqis in 1991.
    1
  62. "This machine is my argument against those who believe owning guns will protect them from the US government" - The Taliban is my argument against those who believe million dollar weapons win wars. "An assault rifle isn't going to hack it." - It will against jack booted thugs. You don't win wars of oppression by flattening cities. You win by kicking and beating people in the streets. You win by preventing protests. You win by making sure people can't have secret meetings. You win wars of oppression by sending men made of meat and bone to enforce your will. Why does China send Han Chinese to take over Tibet, Mongolia or Uyghur land? China could slaughter them with nuclear fire and carpet bombing. But they send men and arrest the opposition. Not machines. "It's a lot easier and cheaper to vote." - Voting doesn't change anything. Remember when people voted for Obama to reverse the Bush policies? Then doubled-down on them? Voting is useless.
    1
  63.  Pete is never wrong  Turban clad wannabes took on the US government. Black pajama clad wannabes took on the US government.
    1
  64. Not really. In 1991 they were pulled back from the Iraqi Republican Guard due to losses and F-16s were sent in its place. The only reason it's not retired is because congress won't allow it.
    1
  65.  @rooh5825  False. It is not retired because Congress won't allow it. Forget the F-35, the F-16 and F-15 Strike Eagle already do the A-10s job. I don't see how green camo in a desert backing made it any easier for FLIR or ground radar. The A-10 scored most of its armor kills by slinging missiles from far away. Without the Maverick, A-10 losses would have been riddiculous.
    1
  66.  @rooh5825  "The A-10 is not retired because the Army and Marines both fight the Air Force at the highest levels" - And so they recruited Congressmen to do the job. It would be more honorable to hire actual hitmen. "perfectly functional platform" - It's not perfectly functional when it has to fly on entirely new wings. It would be falling apart if it wasn't being kept in life support. "a lower cost" - Just the wings cost more than replacing it with Super Tucanos. "this is the real thing, actual combat" - The thing the A-10 barely sees?
    1
  67.  @richardarceo6167  "If you think that the A10 is obsolete then that would include all attack helicopters also?" - Attack helicopters use terrain masking because they can hover in and out of cover. Aircraft like the Apache have sensors above the rotor so that they can target, pop out, fire, duck back into cover. The A-10 has to expose itself during the entire attack. You can't take a beating these days. A missile will cut the aircraft in half. An aircraft that can take that beating has to be extremely heavy.
    1
  68. F-16s and F-15Es provide close air support, though.
    1
  69.  @whogavehimafork  "If the Air Force expected enemies in the air during a ground attack operation they would send fighters alongside the A-10s to defend them" - You do realize how many ground attack operations are carried out by fighters, right?
    1
  70.  @robertg.2111  Most tank kills performed by A-10s were done through Maverick missiles and bombs, not the gun. So any aircraft that can use missiles and bombs can perform the same role.
    1
  71.  @edgerrr  "I'm just a jarhead but my opinion is that the A-10 will be a viable platform until an unmanned version is in production" - It wasn't a viable platform in 1991 when it was pulled out of action due to all the losses it suffered against the Iraqi Republican Guard. It isn't a viable platform now that it only performs roughly 10% of CAS missions.
    1
  72. A-10 Warthog: "No I'm not." Armed forces: "Okay boomer" - gives majority of CAS missions to F-16s, F/A-18s and Strike Eagles
    1
  73.  @seantaggart7382  Already been defeated. Only 11 percent of CAS missions as of 2014.
    1
  74.  @seantaggart7382  firing before the target is spotted, that's the A-10 alright. Probably killed friendlies, too.
    1
  75.  @jamesdunn9609  "It was not a failure of the A-10's design" - Yes, it was. The USAF had a great CAS aircraft in the A-7, which suffered low losses from AA despite being (if I remember correctly) ranked third for the aircraft that dropped the most ordnance in Hanoi. The problem was that it was too fast for the army, which wanted an escort for helicopters. We know CAS is a risk. If you know the risk is there, you don't send an aircraft with a purpose-built flaw: being slow.
    1
  76. The A-7 was almost as rugged and was much faster. But the Army demanded an aircraft slow enough to escort rotary wing aircraft.
    1
  77. No, it's slightly off center because the barrel that fires is on the "side" rather than the top or bottom. So the recoil aligns with the plane centerline. The forward landing gear is actually off center to allow for the gun to be in this position.
    1
  78.  @einarabelc5  Wasn't a one time event. Also happened to F-16s as well.
    1
  79. It was estimated that the entire A-10 force would be shot down within weeks if in 1980 the Cold War started at the Fulda Gap. You think 2020 China wouldn't handle the A-10 better than 1980 Russians? Even the 1991 Iraqi Republican Guard got the USAF to ground the A-10 due to 7 shootdowns and 13 battle damage losses.
    1
  80.  @MarloSoBalJr  "it's slow (which is a good thing)" - yeah because taking too long traveling to where you're needed is such a positive "Speed is not always the solution which is why the A-10 has lasted this long" - Literally the opposite. In the air, speed is life. The USAF had an excellent CAS aircraft in the A-7 but the Army requested a slower aircraft that could escort helicopters. Some politics and corruption later, the USAF passed up an upgraded A-7 variant for the A-10.
    1
  81.  @petertimmins6657  "This is indeed the correct hammer for CAS, not some fast mover that can’t loiter near as long" - But the A-7 is a fast mover compared tom the A-10 and it had an excellent track record in Vietnam. "nor carry the same types and quantity of ordinance guys like me need" - But many planes can carry the same ordnance as the A-10, and more of it. "F-16 and F-15 are great planes, when you place them in the role they were specifically designed for." - The F-16 was designed for everything. It's a great fighter and a great bomber. The F-16 and Strike Eagle get more CAS action than the A-10 itself.
    1
  82.  @elmgful  John McCain's brain tumor deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. There's multiple compelling reasons to retire the A-10, such as the fact that it was outdated in 1991 when it had to be grounded due to all the losses it suffered against the Iraqi Republican Guard.
    1
  83.  @einarabelc5  "no other plane has a gun like the A-10s" - Why is the gun needed? It hasn't been able to punch through tanks since the 80s, and against thin skinned vehicles and foot soldiers it doesn't do anything that 20mm or 25mm already won't do.
    1
  84.  @bartfoster1311  "the F-16 and the F-35 are less capable aircraft for close air support especially in mountainous areas like Afghanistan" - And yet the A-10 gets a minority of CAS missions, most being given to F-16s, Strike Eagles, F/A-18s and B-1s. So much for the mountainous areas of Afghanistan being a problem, seems like the fast jets are doing fine while the A-10 struggles.
    1
  85. The arms dealer Boeing made 2 billion from just making new wings for the A-10. Yeah, Boeing does a ton of military stuff, it's not just 767s.
    1
  86. They haven't been produced since 1984.
    1
  87. Should have been retired in 1991.
    1
  88. You really can't. It's an ageing aircraft, who would start an entire supply chain, training school, etc just to operate an aircraft that's going to cost so much money to keep around? Plus the Army cannot operate it by the Key West accords and the USMC can't make it take off from short deck carriers. The F-35B can.
    1
  89. And yet it has already been replaced by F-16s, F/A-18s, Strike Eagles and B-1s.
    1
  90. It is safe to handle, just like normal subcritical uranium is safe to handle. You just can't breathe the dust after impacts. Which you can't do either if they were using tungsten instead.
    1