Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Military Aviation History" channel.

  1. It was 99.9% the mines. The Ka-52 needed the mines to pin the armored columns in place, otherwise they'd have closed in the distance.
    40
  2.  @GreenBlueWalkthrough  This goes beyond datalink. No, it wouldn't lose to a first gen. Dogfighting in a F-16 doesn't work like it did in a F-4 and in a F-4 it didn't work like it did in a F-86. Dogfighting with a F-35 is obviously different.
    31
  3.  @riskinhos  You can't really pull Ace Combat maneuvers when carrying weapons on pylons.
    20
  4.  @kingghidorah8106  The Phantoms shot down were being ambushed in areas with very poor ground radar coverage, which allowed MiGs to cross the border and come from behind. Since these Phantoms were often escorting bombers, they were shot down in single passes at high speed. Phantoms in combat air patrols had a 5.5 to 1 kill rate. The USAF then started faking bombing runs with full Phantom flights that were prepared to counter ambush and that was a successful tactic. In the short period between the introduction of Teaball radar and intelligence station and the end of the air operations, the USAF kill ratio shot up. The USN kill ratio after TOPGUN was also 8.7 I believe.
    18
  5.  @ArtemKo___  the US aircraft also have bomb drop calculators, it's still unguided as it's still subject to bad drops, wind drift or the target moving away
    16
  6. Russia resorted to S-300s and Iranian drones to keep up the attacks. If I say you will run out of fuel, and then you start asking restaurants for used frying oil to make biodiesel at home, I was still right in my prediction. You just made the same prediction as I have, and adjusted accordingly by seeking an alternate source of fuel.
    15
  7.  @virtualinfinity6280  The F-22 was built as a successor to the F-15. The total number of orders was envisioned to be 750, reduced to around 370-350 and finally to 187. There's not enough F-22s to take over the F-15's job. Mind that American force projection is arguably more of a big deal than national defense. The F-22s successor is very likely to also be tasked with the defense of Europe, South Korea, Japan, etc.
    15
  8. Pretty sure it was enforced in Serbia, where SAM coverage was never truly degraded by destruction, just suppressed.
    14
  9. A-10s have greater blue-on-blue rates.
    13
  10.  @kingghidorah8106  the F-4 could keep up and even beat the MiG-21 in terms of maneuverability at certain altitude ranges. If I'm not mistaken it was only 30k ft and up that the MiG-21 had the advantage.
    12
  11. Which means the 20mm Vulcan is sufficient.
    12
  12.  @Siempre1978  Impressive. How come there is no evidence of this?
    12
  13. ​ @willw8011 The Brits had IFF markings on their vehicles and pilots got confused.
    12
  14. The problem is that such events did not change the outcome. Meanwhile "tank busters" in WW2 had the biggest impact in the war by strafing supply trucks and trains. Same as the A-10 - it did more damage against light armor and unarmored vehicles, while the F-111 with laser guided bombs claimed more tanks.
    12
  15. Russia is whining.
    12
  16. ​ @NothingIsKnown00  According to the Finnish trials, the F-16 was cheaper to fly than the Gripen C. In no way is the Gripen E cheap to fly. Fun fact, South Africa couldn't afford to fly their Gripen fleet so they put half of it in storage.
    11
  17.  @woosix1  Civilian bombardments are being acomplished by shelling and rocket artillery, so enforcing a no fly zone would not impact that activity.
    11
  18.  @bogdanbogdanoff5164  If the F-22's stealth coating had been eclipsed by enemy detection systems they wouldn't have been risked over Syria. But yes, it's technically two generations behind the F-35's coating.
    10
  19. But you should have watched the video. Most tanks destroyed by A-10s in the Gulf War were by Maverick missile.
    10
  20.  @numagok  Forget airspace, you can control the airspace but the A-10 is vulnerable against the ground. The threat comes from below.
    9
  21. It's the A-10 all over again.
    9
  22. ​ @elta6241 Aircraft used to crash by the dozen and kill pilots left and right until the kinks and training issues were figured out. The classic aircraft everyone loves were death traps compared to the F-35.
    9
  23. Which is why Gepards and even heavy machine guns with spotlights are used.
    9
  24.  @gtv6chuck  Consider that a loaded GAU-8 is 4,000lbs. You can do similar damage with 25mm-27mm guns. If you have the chance to dump a gun on the rear of tanks, having to haul 4,000lbs one way and 2,200lbs of empty gun back and the only aircraft that carries it is already a thrust-limited aircraft... it's kinda obsolete.
    9
  25. There's always more infantrymen in need than airframes or pilots.
    8
  26. A-10s are known for friendly fire. There's a reason ground controllers direct CAS, not the pilot.
    8
  27. ​ @cptclemgmail  Ka-52s have to use nose mounted sensors. The Apache has the Longbow radar, which is mounted on the mast. They're essentially worlds apart. Did you see the aftermath pictures of the gun shooting the Ka-52s own nose because the gun wobbles excessively in its mount?
    8
  28. But it was meant to be used in tandem with the F-22. But the F-22 program was killed. Come on people, this information has been around for a couple decades.
    8
  29. ​ @AtlantiansGaming he became an audio engineer after leaving the DoD. His field of education was maths and he left the aeronautical field for his passion, music. The fraud was in the made up narrative regarding the fighter mafia and never correcting anyone who says he designed aircraft, because he was an analyst for the military. One who stopped being relevant the day he left and never worked in the design teams of aircraft manufacturers.
    8
  30. Lord Gronor WT did something right with an arcade mode which takes into account energy states, damage and flight model rather than being Ace Combat/WofWarplanes
    7
  31. ​ @Jens-Viper-Nobel  There's a reason Gripen was turned down in so many bids. It's not a mistake.
    7
  32.  @robertwilliamson2609  And yet the Iraqis still brought 6 of them down in 1991.
    7
  33. So you're gonna bolt the data sharing capabilities to older aircraft that will not be able to get close and gather data. Anything that detects stealth will detect regular aircraft better. If you make a flashlight to help you see people wearing dark clothes at night, people wearing white clothes will shine like the sun.
    7
  34.  @tylerclayton6081  The issue is that the USAF asked for around 300. They knew that they wouldn't get 700, but they also knew that 187 would mean that they would become expensive to upgrade and maintain. Only having around ~170 usable for combat is an issue.
    7
  35.  @technokicksyourass  the age of the tank has been declared over for almost a century.
    7
  36. ​ @Asfandyar_  The Maoists are separatists. The Taiwanese state is the descendant of the government in exile of the Republic of China.
    7
  37. The A-10 upgrades started way before the F-35 was operational. Do not twist facts to weave a narrative. The A-29 Super Tucano performs the same job the A-10 does for a tenth of the operational cost. The Tucano just shows how bad of a value proposal the A-10 is, and should have been retired much earlier.
    7
  38. ​ @RustedCroaker  It was confirmed. It was the 332 marked Buk launcher from the 53rd missile defense brigade, Kursk.
    7
  39. ​ @user-pq4by2rq9y It didn't cost a trillion. That's the cost to purchase, maintain, repair, refuel a +2000 strong fleet until 2070.
    7
  40. They're the ones doing those things and it's the US that is at fault...? What?
    6
  41. The corrupt pseudo state known as Russia?
    6
  42.  @numagok  This is kind of survivorship bias. Not only it discards the A-10s that didn't come back, but it also overstates the damage suffered. In a lot of pictures of damaged A-10s you see that they got frag shower and not direct hits, with one famous case of the A-10 that came back with a missing wing tip and a destroyed engine. People think all A-10s are that tough, but that was also an outlier.
    6
  43. Guns smaller than the GAU-8 can do that. A single-barrel revolver cannon would be much lighter. Like the Mauser BK-27.
    6
  44. Costs the same as other 4th gen. There's no actual "bang for the buck" advantage. There's a reason Saab struggles to make sales.
    6
  45.  @mik1984  That is cope. Why buy the components from Iran and build them in Russia, if they could be bought from Iran directly? That's pride over economics.
    6
  46. ​​ @pogo1140 You can't keep Gripens operating that way either. 1 mechanic and 5 conscripts is the basic turn around. When that airplane comes down after seveal hours of sorties and the maintenance has to start... it's not going to be the conscripts working on it.
    6
  47. "you have to go slow enough to actually see whats going on because allied ground forces are in close proximity to the targets" - And yet F-16s perform 33% of CAS. Also Strike Eagles, F/A-18s, B-52s and B-1s.
    6
  48.  @geodkyt  Okay. My point was that F-16s can do the job despite you saying it couldn't. Not how many airframes existed. The No True Scotsman regarding close air support is just that, a fallacy. Yes, the definition of close air support does not determine which distance is considered "close". B-52s provided CAS using JDAMs. So what? Coordinates were punched in for that one, and the coordinates are provided by ground controllers. VID from the air is actually terrible, and A-10s are infamous for their blue on blue incidents. The whole reason detailed integration/deconfliction is even needed in the first place to perform CAS is because even A-10 pilots are not trusted with weapons release authority. No matter how low and slow, it's the ground controllers that authorize the engagement. Situations where mistakes allowed A-10 pilots to have free reign over certain areas lead to them firing on friendlies because they can't VID. If VID was good enough, your "true CAS" wouldn't need qualified tactical controllers to hold the pilot's hand.
    6
  49. That's FULL mission readiness. Mission readiness is almost 70%. You people are either ignorant or malicious.
    6
  50. ​ @92HazelMocha  They're not autonomous, at least the ones used in Ukraine. They're blind and fly towards GPS coordinates.
    6