Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "F-16 Fighting Falcon vs. A-10 Thunderbolt II. What’s Better for Ukraine? Talking Tactics" video.

  1. Ukrainians and serious volunteers have complained about soldiers who fought insurgents and thought that they could just show up in Ukraine. The experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has no carry over.
    3
  2. ​ @waynesworldofsci-tech  Rough capabilities don't mean much when air defenses make it impossible to fly.
    3
  3. ​ @moniquemontero5442  electronic jamming does not counter IR seekers or electro-optical tracking.
    3
  4. It's going to be decomissioned because they're running out of parts. The company that made it went out of business.
    2
  5. ​ @jeff6633  There's thousands of F-16s manufactured. Only 200-something Gripens. There's not enough spares.
    2
  6. It would make no sense. Instead of wasting time training Ukrainian pilots and maintenance crew on a dead aircraft, they can just focus on the F-16s.
    2
  7. There's lack of ammo and parts. The Soviet Union fell in 1991. So Soviet inheritance aircraft aren't exactly getting new parts from Russia.
    1
  8. Tucanos are meant to fight Taliban and cartels. Not soldiers with AA cannons and missiles.
    1
  9. Because the F-16 is a huge export success story, while the Gripen is considered a sales underperformer. There's not enough of them made.
    1
  10. ​ @treegatorvet  Fund the Gripens? Okay, Ukraine will wait several years for them. Saab can't manufacture enough.
    1
  11. It takes years.
    1
  12. ​ @paulhare662  planes slaughtered Taliban without breaking a sweat, but that's not here nor there.
    1
  13. I agree, it's a stupid war. We need Ukraine to deliver a knockout blow and end this.
    1
  14. They're trying to phase them out because there's a lack of parts. It's an ancient aircraft. The manufacturer doesn't exist anymore. Helicopters can hover behind objects for safety. A-10s need to expose themselves to attack.
    1
  15. Saab would have them ready by what? 2030?
    1
  16.  @markjohnson1933  By the time Saab could fulfill the orders, they could have simply paved new runways.
    1
  17. ​ @marin_real_estate_photography  It would be, if Saab's marketing wasn't writing checks that their designers and manufacturers can't cash. There's too few Gripens to spare.
    1
  18. There's not enough Gripens, A-10s lack parts. It's easier to just pave a runway.
    1
  19. The A-10 is extremely hard to maintain - there's few parts available. The company that made it went out of business two decades ago.
    1
  20. It is, actually. France, the UK and the US promised Ukraine security in exchange for nukes. Budapest Memorandum, 1994.
    1
  21. Modern missiles would just shred the aircraft in half.
    1
  22. The F-16 does more CAS than the A-10.
    1
  23. They're "sitting there" because of no parts.
    1
  24. Because it's a waste of time and money.
    1
  25.  @KawaTony1964  It would be. Diversifying a force always costs more. You're having to split your training of pilots and maintenance crews, your logistics, etc. The A-10 is a museum piece. The reason it's being considered for retirement is literal lack of parts.
    1
  26. Because it takes time and money to train people. It's a waste when that time and money could be spent elsewhere.
    1
  27. This was attempted in the 90s, it's not feasible.
    1
  28. Gripen needs numbers. Saab never manufactured enough.
    1
  29. Those aircraft are meant to fight Taliban and cartels. Individuals with no AA or armor.
    1
  30.  @TheRealBobBasher  Blindly firing 50 cals into the air isn't a reliable way of bringing down aircraft. Russians have radar guided 23mm and 30mm AA guns that fire at high RPMs.
    1