Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Russian Vice-President Admits Russia is Losing" video.

  1. They are "extremely effective" against insurgents with no AA capability. They're even slower than the Su-25, which has suffered great losses on both sides. Simply put, dedicated support fixed-wing aircraft are obsolete with multiroles can do the same job while also dodging SAMs on the way out.
    2
  2. They cost about the same, and there's less of them. Meanwhile F-16s are incredibly common.
    1
  3. Many chemical weapons degrade on contact with the humidity in the air. They have very low permanence to allow areas to be shelled, and then friendly troops walk over the area without protection. Russian shills often point to the fact that in Syria doctors would touch gas attack victims without protection, so it didn't happen. By the time medical air arrived, the chemical weapons had been neutralized.
    1
  4. No. The Su-25s have proven that kind of aircraft to just take losses without doing much.
    1