Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "" video.

@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
@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
"They should just admit that the F35 was a failure." - So, lie?
3
@virtualinfinity6280 The wikipedia page on the F-22 claims it was meant to replace the F-15 and F-16 but then uses as a source the factsheet on the air force's own page that claims it would make the F-15 and F-16 obsolete. Not the same thing, the source was misinterpreted. The big twin engine air superiority fighter is the "high" and the single-engine multirole fighter is the "low" in the "Hi/Lo" mix. The Advanced Tactical Fighter program was explicitly for a F-15 replacement. The Air Force had the Multi Role Fighter program for the F-16 replacement and the A/F-X program with the Navy for a A-6 and F-117 replacement, which were canceled and combined with the CALF program that also involved the Marines (which needed an AV-8 Harrier replacement) and resulted in the JAST program (later the Joint Strike Fighter program). There were plans for dedicated strike aircraft to go along with the F-22 and they were straight up bomber versions of the F-22. The F-35 is a true successor to the F-16 because although a strike aircraft it is built as a fighter.
2
@bogdanbogdanoff5164 "Rusiian and Chinese intelligence already has a full technical package and evaluation of how useful that coating is" - Okay. The F-35 coating is more recent than the F-22. Why are the Israelis flying it over Syria then?
2
@bogdanbogdanoff5164 "Israelis don't care about the intelligence risks" - So they don't care that the stealth aircraft they have may have stealth compromised? You're reaching.
2
@bogdanbogdanoff5164 Yes, I addressed the part that mattered. You came up with a narrative and I brought up several issues with said narrative.
2
For 500 aircraft already produced the F-35 sounds like the worst grift ever. Meanwhile, the F-22 can't fill the shoes it was made to fit because orders were cut leaving the F-15 with the hot potato of air superiority.
1
@gbladewarrior6884 "I'd say it failed epically in its original intent." - Why?
1
@gbladewarrior6884 "it's cost spiralled out of control" - Welcome to every government program, ever. "Its production was spread to many States so it wont get cancelled." - That's a failure of the political system, not the actual plane.
1
The F/A-18 is in service with the Navy... Bruh.
1
@SuperDeadzombeh Can, may, perhaps, ifs, buts. Is there a workable counter? Perhaps. Is it going to be so costly and ad hoc that it won't even be worth deploying? The "passive radar" idea that's being thrown around sounds like a complete joke, extremely easy to interfere with.
1
@jujenho What recent radar developments? Stealth lost charisma? If radar improved, stealth is a minimum requirement - the airspace became too deadly for ordinary aircraft.
1
@jujenho VHF/UHF radars are larger and easier to target. Stealth aircraft take thermal emissions into account, again normal aircraft are more vulnerable to anti-stealth tech than stealth ones. Even in the F-117 shootdown one of the missiles broke lock on its own.
1
What boondoggle? All military projects are over budget and behind schedule. You just had the privilege of getting instant updates about every tiny issue through the internet, while in the old days new aircraft straight up KILLED pilots. The aircraft itself is fine. The project is a mess but so are all government projects.
1
@Aaron-wq3jz The A-10 has already been replaced by F-16s and F-15Es. It gets less and less CAS missions.
1
@Aaron-wq3jz What does it matter if it's cheap if you can't buy one? The company that made it went out of business. The last one made dates from 1984. Niche? Its job is performed by F-16s, 15Es, 18s and Harriers. The army doesn't want it. Do you know how much trouble it would give them to set up their own flight training, maintenance training, etc for a +30 year old aircraft? Waste of time and money.
1
@Aaron-wq3jz "really just a morale booster" - Amazing, we teach people to kill but we have to worry about their feelings. How about treat them like intelligent people that don't need a good luck trinket flying in the sky? "a lucky shot wont cost you 100 million" - A "lucky" shootdown of an A-10 will cost you an aircraft that literally cannot be replaced and potentially the pilot (which is a lot more valuable). However, the shootdown wouldn't even be lucky, it would just be common occurrence. The A-10 had to be pulled back in 1991 due to excessive losses.
1
@Aaron-wq3jz Then don't increase morale by lying to troops and claiming air shows are the most effective CAS available. Increase morale by telling them that fast flying jets can point a laser at someone's dick from 15,000 feet AGL and drop a bomb on it. "We do need worry about their feelings, that's one of the main things they teach you to control in the military." - You know what I meant. It was a rub on the whole "facts don't care about your feelings" meme. Do we talk about combat by pointing out what's effective? Or what "feels" effective? "The plane is built with a titanium bathtub to protect the pilot" - Because it was designed at a time 14.5mm was seen as the biggest threat. The world has moved on. Now, if your plan A is expecting to get hit, you've already failed. The pilot will still go down if the rest of the aircraft is shot full of holes. Integrated air defense systems are a death sentence to A-10s, MANPADs are a threat and the 23mm ZSU-23-4 is more than capable of bringing A-10s down. The 2K22 Tunguska is even worse, as it fires ammunition almost as large as the GAU-8. If you slap enough armor on an airplane to survive the modern battlefield, it won't even make it out the runway. "the A10s niche is low intensity warfare again a poorly equipped enemy" - A niche better served by turboprops that fly almost as fast but can take off from FOBs much close to the action, loiter for longer, guzzle less gas, cost less to maintain, etc. "Even if you are in combat against a well equipped enemy you just load stand off weapons" - standoff weapons gain effectiveness by being launched by aircraft flying faster and higher. "on a cheap platform" - The A-10 is not "cheap", it's straight up an aircraft that you can't buy more. The price may as well be "infinite", it doesn't matter how cheap it was in the 1970s if you can't replace it. That makes a greater case for armed drones because they're replaceable, don't risk the pilot, etc.
1