Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Ukraine to Take Back Kherson This Summer" video.

It's Arizona lawmakers who keep it alive.
3
I think most were converted to QF-4s to serve as targets for missiles.
2
@war1980 the USAF does not fail at close air support. They dedicate half their fleet to it. A-10s don't even perform most of CAS. F-16s and Strike Eagles are used more often.
2
And Su-25s from both sides have been easily shot down. I don't Ukrainian pilots to risk their lives when we could give them something better.
2
The APKWS precision rockets only have a 5-6 mile range which is not enough to escape SAM threats.
2
Russia is advancing into Ukraine's punches.
2
Speed is life.
1
How are A-10s going to take off from short deck carriers? There's a reason Marines got Harriers and then F-35Bs. They need short take off and vertical landing.
1
They already had Su-25s for that. The Soviets (and thus Ukrainians and Russians) already had their tankbuster too. The Su-25 even looks a little like the YA-9 which competed with the YA-10 for the role in the US. The Su-25 could have been sent there. It wasn't. They knew it would be suicide.
1
@nicholasconder4703 American pilots on other aircraft don't have the same issue.
1
This is observer bias. The A-10 can only wipe out enemy forces when they're unable to shoot back.
1
Why would the A-10 force anything when Ukraine already has Su-25s?
1
HARMs will not lock onto defenses that use IR or electro optical seekers. You can sweep an area with HARMs, send in the A-10s and they get shot down anyway.
1
The A-10 has no radar to look for ships.
1
Why? Ukraine gas Su-25s. Why would they be forced to react to the A-10, but not the already existing tank buster?
1
@kirgan1000 They're flying low, pitching up and releasing rockets. Essentially the same thing Russia is doing. Both sides cannot use those assets to their full extent as they fear flying near/over the enemy.
1
The Ukrainians had Su-25s. If that mission had any chance of success, they'd have the Su-25. It would be suicide, so they used artillery and drones.
1
That Scud analysis has been questioned.
1
@USER351 Again, the claim that no Scuds were shot down came from a very dubious source who changed his arguments multiple times and relied on false assumptions. You don't get to accept one kill. You get to work from the 90% intercept rate and then criticize how many of those intercepts were not good enough.
1
@USER351 Yes, it was. The guy who was the source for that claim was a complete fraud who tried to use TV tapes to make claims about the Patriot, not understanding that the frame rate of tape recording would not capture the high closure speed of missiles. Then when he was contradicted, he started claiming that the Patriot fireball was 100 meters wide (the size of a nuke) to claim that the Patriot interceptors missed by hundreds of meters. That was a complete and total lie. He massively overstated the size of the explosion to make it seem like the missiles couldn't get anywhere near the object.
1
@USER351 But there's photographic evidence of Scuds shot down. Even the Israelis, the biggest source of critique for the Scuds, said there were Scuds shot down by Patriot.
1
@USER351 lol absolute cope.
1
@USER351 Scuds were shot down by Israelis, they were only disappointed with the fact that falling debris still caused damages. But broken windows is better than dead people.
1
Su-25s have also been shot down frequently by both sides.
1
Both sides gave shot down Su-25s. These types of aircraft are very vulnerable.
1
Su-25s have been shot down on both sides. Interdiction is just an expected life span shortener. Close air support is being provided by pitching up and lofting rockets in a ballistic arc to prevent overflying enemy units.
1
Trump said Germany needed to stop buying Russian gas. Some buddy...
1