Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "A-10 Warthog Retired By 2029" video.

  1. Helicopters with sensors mounted in the mast can still use terrain for cover and fire from behind concealment.
    4
  2.  @tomlobos2871  Helicopters with the sensors mounted on the mast can locate targets and fire over the horizon. The ability to hover allows that, while fixed wing aircraft will still need to pop up and expose themselves. Unless something else lases the target.
    4
  3. The A-10 has been mostly replaced by F-16s and Strike Eagles.
    4
  4. ​ @bullpupgaming708  the A-10 isn't cheap once you add the cost of maintaining ageing airframes. Boeing made two billion dollars from the wing program alone.
    3
  5.  @bullpupgaming708  But it's not cheaper. Every dollar put into the A-10 is a dollar taken from other airframes. Streamlining the fleet would have major logistical benefits. Why wouldn't they send combat drones? Cheap, no pilot to be lost. It's not some major hurdle, especially as the use of drones escalates. You know what's cheap? Having a proper force structure rather than dragging old aircraft past their retirement age. You wouldn't have to make those choices by just having a sensible fleet instead of a mix of airframes.
    3
  6. The early B-52s were all retired decades ago.
    3
  7. Most CAS is provided by F-15s and F-16s.
    2
  8. ​ @Knight6831  Doesn't matter. B-52s were used for CAS the first time in Vietnam. During the GWOT they were useful to haul bombs and stay in the air for long hours and make the drop when troops needed them.
    2
  9. False. In fact the GAO slammed the USAF for buying too many A-10s without justification.
    2
  10. Those arguments have been debunked a long time ago. Stop believing Pierre Sprey.
    2
  11. Ground attackers like the Su-25 aren't "feared" any more than the Su-25 fears the troops it targets. Fire rockets into the air, turn back and run away home to avoid eating a missile.
    2
  12. The USMC can't take off or land them from amphibious assault ships, the Army isn't going to spend a billion dollars acquiring an aircraft that's going to need retirement anyway due to airframe hours and lack of spare parts.
    2
  13. That's a lie.
    2
  14. What they have been using for two decades. F-15s and F-16s.
    2
  15. Why would they spend billions acquiring an aircraft that is one foot in the grave?
    2
  16. Those are decade old arguments proposed by Pierre Sprey and Russia Today.
    2
  17. No, because lack of spare parts will prevent it. The company that made it went out of business two decades ago.
    2
  18. That's a lie. Everyone in the USAF loves doing ground attack and support. Listen to any interview. You live in the information age, pilot podcasts are dime a dozen. Listen to them saying they love it.
    2
  19. The USAF isn't lacking jets that could be used for training. The A-10 is worn out and lacking spare parts. No point. Removing the gun would cause it to become tail heavy.
    1
  20. ​ @metricstormtrooper  I say give them to the navy first, push them off the carrier deck to make artificial reefs.
    1
  21. Why would the US Army want an ancient aircraft that doesn't have enough spare parts?
    1
  22. ​ @Chuck_Hooks  AGM-88 needs altitude and speed for standoff. A-10s are too weak in the engine department.
    1
  23. ​ @Chuck_Hooks  Using brains? Okay, remember middle school physics: what gives projectiles range? Altitude, speed and angle of throw/firing. Assuming angle to be the same, the A-10 is bad at gaining speed and altitude. Standoff weapons hate being released at slow speeds.
    1
  24. It's already been upgraded with modern avionics. Standoff weapons benefit from altitude and speed. The A-10 struggles to go over 15k feet and over 300 knots.
    1
  25. ​ @uflux  The 70 year old B-52s aren't flying. B-52s started getting retired in the 60s and 70s. B-52Gs were destroyed after the fall of the Soviet Union. Only B-52Hs remain.
    1
  26. ​ @uflux  What heavy weapons load? A F-35 could deploy more payload because of safety. Meanwhile non stealth aircraft pitch up, fire two rocket pods and turn back to run away and fly home. That's dismal. An F-35 could drop JDAMs or SDBs.
    1
  27. ​ @Rampant16  The airframes are okay because they were found to be defective from factory and had a strengthening fix applied to them a long time ago. The wings are what was going to break first so Boeing manufactured new ones for the A-10.
    1
  28. They already said they don't want them.
    1
  29. ​ @SoloRenegade  So you're going to waste money refurbishing an aircraft that is too aged to fly? Airframes have limits. After a point they either need to be rebuilt or scrapped as they become unsafe to fly. Put them in reserve, refurbish them... now you need to rebuild them anyway! What was the point? Aircraft are not cars or tanks. Every hour in the air, every take off and landing cycle, it leaves a microscopic defect in the structure. After thousands of hours, they're unsafe.
    1
  30.  @SoloRenegade  They don't deteriorate in the desert. They deteriorate by being flown. Take an aircraft that was flown until the end of life, put in in the desert, when you come back for it it's still at the end of life. You don't understand. The A-10 has flown 30 years past its original retirement date. When parts wear out you replace them. Sure. The airframe itself is a part. It's a structure. If you're going to rebuild the entire thing, you're buying a new aircraft. Yeah, they got new wings. A total waste of money because everyone knew this would happen. A car's monocoque chassis lasts millions and millions of miles without appreciable wear as long as it doesn't crash or rust. Aircraft are built to be lightweight so they flex and strain with flight hours, depressurization and landing/take off cycles. Your Cessna's never exceed speed is what, 170 knots? Make it pull 7-8 Gs at 280 knots like an A-10 and see what happens.
    1
  31. Company that made them hasn't existed in two decades, the factory that made them stopped A-10 production in 1984.
    1
  32. I'm sure the Army is going to spend billions to accept an aircraft with a thousand hours or so left before it snaps mid air.
    1
  33. All the early B-52s were retired. B-52Gs were destroyed to comply with START after the fall of the Soviet Union and only B-52Hs remain.
    1
  34. Most drones do not have 40 years of stress and strain in their airframes.
    1
  35. They don't want it. It's a death trap.
    1
  36. It's not cost effective, people just refuse to account for the costs of maintaining old aircraft by contracting small batches of replacement parts.
    1
  37. Upgrades? You mean essentially remaking that thing from scratch to replace all the aged parts?
    1
  38. They already said they don't want them.
    1