Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Defense News" channel.

Because it's not always feasible to keep updating old aircraft forever.
2
@Skinflaps_Meatslapper The company that originally made it isn't even around anymore, it's part of Boeing now. So Boeing would have to take the blueprints from some dusty cabinet, see what doesn't even make sense anymore and needs to be replaced by modern manufacturing methods (easier said than done), then invest millions into a production line to make that aircraft... after spending so much time and money it would be literally easier to design a new one. "rather than spend a small fortune designing a new aircraft" - The other company already invested in designing the aircraft. "I don't understand the military's concept of "okay, build 300 of these planes, and once you're done throw away everything because we'll just cannibalize surplus planes and duct tape shit together for the next 50 years"" - Do you want a plane or a jobs program? You figure out how many planes you're gonna need, make an allowance for damaged/lost aircraft, have a contract for spare parts and then you give the company a certain number of years for the orders to keep coming as you introduce the aircraft into inventory and the earliest airframes start to need refurbishing to remain airworthy. You don't keep a company under contract forever.
2
@rafaelcarvalho7727 the A-10 is a safe space CAS aircraft. 7 downed and 13 written off due to battle damage in 1991, had to be grounded because it couldn't handle air defenses.
2
The Navy didn't need guns on their F-4 and wiped the floor with MiGs. Out of over a hundred kills by USAF F-4s only 12 were by gun.
1
They can take off from smaller bases closer to the action, less maintenance, acceptable speed and long loiter time because it doesn't guzzle like a turbofan engine.
1
Okay. You do the reengineering of the gun mount, ammo drum and the feed chute.
1
If you want to evade AA send in a jet that drops bombs from 10k ft to begin with.
1
@ddfwaj the B-52 is an aircraft where maintaining it in the air is more feasible than designing a replacement because there's no point in having a strategic bomber like it anymore. The A-10 has already been replaced for the most part as most CAS missions go to to Strike Eagles, F-16s, F/A-18s, B-1s, etc. The Harrier II is essentially an 80s aircraft and "only" ended production in 2003. The Bronco was reactivated to provide CAS in Iraq and Syria in 2015 but the Air Force cited the excessive overhead as a reason the comeback wasn't permanent. A newer aircraft is cheaper to fuel and maintain. Thanks, I plagiarized the name from an aviation blog lol.
1
@mainstreetcoinjewelrysanja5174 flying golf carts have done a number on insurgent forces.
1
@MichaelSmith-nd4rr low and slow was only part of the CAS deal when the human in the loop couldn't see squat and was dependent on forward air control. Now with gimbaled pods that let the pilot see enemies picking boogers off their nose from 10,000 ft low and slow isn't necessary. What they want is low maintenance, low consumption aircraft that can operate from small bases close to the action.
1
@michaelmckinnon1591 Heh, fair point. I've only got a glimpse of a modern gen screen on a cockpit and it was pretty insane how much detail could be seen in the foliage in a hillside miles away. Most pod footage uploaded to the internet is either old or severely compressed video files.
1
@earlwyss520 F-16 being overpriced garbage? One of the most succesful aircraft ever. The F-117 opened its bomb bays often over Baghdad. The F-22 dropped bombs over Syria.
1
@earlwyss520 The Iraqi military was said to be the 4th largest in the world in 1991 and Baghdad was the most defended city from the perspective of aerial defense. You can literally just look up the footage of desperate AAA fire lighting up the skies because the Iraqis couldn't see what was dropping bombs on them. Syria has modern Russian air defenses and even Russian operators manning some of their network. Nice special pleading. You really think the nationality of the pilot is going to save their bacon?
1
@earlwyss520 The Iraqis were also warned in advance that an attack would come. Also, none of what you mentioned contradicts the fact that bombs were raining over Iraq while panicking group defenses filled the air with AA because they couldn't see anything on radar. You're just fleeing from corner to corner whenever you get punched. You claim stealth doesn't work, and when faced with the reality that it does you start going off about nationality of the pilots, the air force fleeing (which doesn't mean anything because ground forces were still getting pummeled by stealth aircraft they couldn't see on radar) and the "parity" of a military when they get Russian weapons the Russians sell them precisely so they can test them against US forces. Give up. You were wrong and now you're making up excuses. Stealth works despite your denial. Ironically it was invented by Russians.
1
@earlwyss520 It doesn't prove anything. It was a single shoot down that required extreme skill and luck from the operators and has never been replicated since. Wasn't done in 1991. Wasn't repeated in 2003. "burning stealth aircraft will rain from the skies" - Anything that kills stealth aircraft will kill non-stealth. Are you seriously kidding me?
1
@earlwyss520 "I do realize that what kills stealth will also kill non stealth, but at a fraction of the price" - You do realize that the man inside the aircraft is worth more than the airframe itself, right? It costs millions to train a military pilot due to all the JP you have to burn to bring someone to reasonable proficiency and all the logistical backbone that needs to exist for these flights to occur. If your plan is sending cheap aircraft that are going to get pilots killed, captured or require hundreds of search and rescue missions that risk even more pilots and special operations, you've already failed. This is why amateurs discuss tactics while professionals discuss logistics. You think you have the perfect solution in your head but you lack the foresight to even understand why it's an absolute failure. The military is willing to give a man of meat and bone a rocket seat to ditch an 80-100 million dollar aircraft. Aircraft can be made at a factory and you have millions of taxpayers to buy new ones, good pilots can't be made in an assembly line.
1
@earlwyss520 "Everyone is expendable" - Sure. But you have a limited supply and a barrier to the training of new ones. Ration them carefully. "they were potentially going to get shot down in highly irradiated areas" - Getting irradiated is not a death sentence, you know? Literally any military survival guide will describe how to mitigate radiation poisoning by moving towards the wind, sheltering yourself, not drinking the water, etc. I'd rather eject and decide on not having kids than driving myself into the ground. "The smaller MiG-21s would hide in the larger MiG-25s radar signature" - What would this accomplish? The MiG-25 would get shot down and leave the MiG-21 exposed. Even if the Americans held their fire the F-35's DAS would literally see the formation through thermal imaging. "The expensive F-22s & F-35s are vulnerable to the oldest, and cheapest jets available." - Old and cheap jets are vulnerable to AIM-9X missiles.
1