Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "The BAe SABA – Havoc for Havocs" video.

  1.  @bennuredjedi  The A-10 is not viable, and the USAF is actually starving it out of maintenance and supplies to make sure it gets retired. The AV8B is an extremely vulnerable airframe that was viable decades ago, but no more. Sure, other airframes are also from the Cold War, but they're modern and adapted to the 21st century. The Harrier is not adaptable. Yes, it does "take away" from the Air Force because the government doesn't want redundancy. If they're giving something to the Army, the Air Force can't have it or else they're wasting money on duplicates. The Air Force doesn't "focus" on air superiority. Air superiority is just a means to an end. The end and main objective of the Air Force is the support of ground forces. It doesn't free up money. It wastes money. The F-16 will eventually reach the end of the line. The A-10 wasn't even perfect for the 1980s. It was estimated that piloting an A-10 would be a suicide against Soviet armored units. It's 2022. Ukraine has shown the Su-25 gets easily shot down. There's no 21st century A-10. A 21st century aircraft needs survivability, which means stealth and speed. The A-10 has neither. There's no roles for the AV8B. They're getting retired. The STOVL is meant to land in short deck carriers. How does supporting ground forces require carrier landing? The USMC is amphibious so to them it made sense to bring Harriers on their carriers. Without that, STOVL isn't needed. Who are you going to export Harriers to when countries that would use a Harrier want F-35s instead? No, it doesn't have room for modernization. You'd have to start from scratch. The F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 are sleek, future proof designs. The Harrier is flawed as a 21st century aircraft, which is why so many were lost in Desert Storm. The F-15EX was purely corporate welfare to keep the St. Louis plant open. Without orders, Boeing would have to close it. Super Duper Hornet? The Navy asked to stop buying them. They know they won't be useful past 2050 and they don't want to spend billions on aircraft that will be retired too soon. The A-10s and AV8Bs can't be upgraded because they're locked into what they are by their airframes. The AV8B for example blasts the side of the aircraft with hot exhaust gasses, making the aircraft a beacon for IR missiles. You can't change the position of the engine. By design, the Harrier cannot be better. You cannot change it. Bringing back the Corps makes as much sense as putting the Navy under the Army. It's exactly the same.
    4
  2.  @bennuredjedi  They already exist. Most USAF CAS missions are done by Strike Eagle, F-16, B-52, B-1, etc. CAS is a mission, not a platform.
    4
  3. Harriers do not use hovering for combat. At most there's VIFF'ing but that's a high risk maneuver. They hover to land vertically. That's it. In combat they fly like fixed wing. There's no advantage in hovering because helicopter pilots can "dogfight" against other rotary wing craft. There's no point in trying to enter the realm where helicopters fight best.
    2
  4.  @nigelsmith7366  It's not strange at all. Same reason the Army doesn't operate cruisers and aircraft carriers. Combined arms will combine the different branches.
    2
  5.  @bennuredjedi  They can do it now. By ending the Air Force and making it the US Army Air Force. But who'd want that? Maintenance and logistics of the A-10? Brother, that aircraft was meant to be retired in the 90s and spent 30 years on life-support. They're old. AV8B? More of those were lost in Desert Storm than A-10s. It's a Cold War aircraft. Stop. AC-130s? They can't even operate during the day because they're so vulnerable. The crew of the Spirit 03 paid the price for saying on station longer than they should have to protect the guys on the ground. You're not doing the military any favors by making ground support so risky.
    2
  6.  @bennuredjedi  Vietnam was Vietnam. It's not Vietnam anymore. The Air National Guard retained the A-7s and with upgraded pods they could do what Vietnam-era A-7s couldn't. Vietnam was a question of technology not keeping up with jet performance. I think it's funny you mention the A-7 when it was one of the criticized fast jets that got the A-X program rolling. In fact, the proposed YA-7F would have afterburners and the ability to fly supersonic, but the program was killed to finance the A-10.
    2
  7.  @bennuredjedi  Yeah, those were Army pilots in WW2 because the Air Force was only created in 1947... Bruh...
    1