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

  1. ​ @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
  2. The question is: why have A-10s and Su-25s never got aircraft in the same class built? The answer is that they're dead end designs. You can't loiter in a real war. Anywhere you can loiter is a place where a Super Tucano is gonna do fine.
    4
  3. ​ @bl8danjil  How do you keep an A-10 up to date in survivability? You put a single engine with actual power in the centerline of the aircraft, you crank back the wings and remove the dead weight (gun). Congratulations, it's looking like a fighter. You can't do anything about the A-10 without making it fly higher and faster.
    4
  4. It was perfect for Vietnam. The Fulda Gap mission came with the knowledge that the A-10 pilots in Germany would trade their lives for time so that ships could cross the Atlantic with renforcements.
    4
  5. Did you miss how 12 HIMARS vehicles broke the back of the "world's second army"?
    3
  6. Enhanced how? You can't fix its lack of speed and thrust woes without starting from scratch. Almost nobody has A-10 equivalents. The US has the A-10. Former Soviet clients have Su-25s. Nobody else makes this kind of aircraft or buys them. It's for a reason. If they wanted to, they could easily have them.
    2
  7. ​ @Cramblit  You misunderstand what's going on in Ukraine. You don't go over the tree canopy over there. The A-10s modernity is based around sensors, things that require you to go medium-high altitude and loiter to get a line of sight to the ground. In Ukraine, that doesn't matter because line of sight gets you shot at. You use speed. And the Su-25 is faster.
    2
  8. SEAD/DEAD isn't a card you play like in a game that automatically wins. You can do all the SEAD you want, and the enemy keeps radars off. When the A-10s show up, they turn on for 30 seconds, fire missiles, track, and shut down again. Plus, passive sensors like EO/thermal allow SHORAD to escape SEAD.
    2
  9. It's already starved for thrust and you're gonna pull more power from the driveshaft to run a generator.
    2
  10. It was ineffective against... T-48 tanks used to mimic Soviet T-54/55s. That 1979 test used woefully outdated tanks.
    2
  11. ​ @jameshodgson3656  Not true. It's called Fire Support or "I Can't Believe It's Not CAS". Provided by rotary wing.
    2
  12.  @timoteiafanasie4894  What do you man sure? Russia went from a big boy army doing multi-pronged mechanized offensives, to crawling in the mud in waves until the defenders can't sustain the assault anymore.
    2
  13. The dedicaded CAS platforms are coming in at high speed, pitch up, release rockets and run like hell. They "survive" by spending seconds in combat and leaving immediately.
    2
  14. Because the Army already has helicopters for independent air support and the Key West agreements prevent them from fielding combat fixed wing aircraft. They'd spend billions transferring aircraft which are worn and lacking parts. They're museum pieces kept in flight status.
    2
  15. Flying slow is bad and loitering is a deathwish in the modern battlefield. The A-10 is a massive jobs program. Boeing scored 2 BILLION just to make parts for the A-10.
    1
  16. ​ @frankdamsy9715  Cost per flight hour is a flawed metric because the purchase of A-10s, upgrading of A-10s, maintenance of A-10s past their prime (older aircraft cost more to upkeep), the fact that man hours have to be diverted into A-10s, etc are all opportunity costs that had to be incurred. In the end, you could easily afford more than enough F-16 flight hours if the A-10 budget had not gone down the drain. Boeing scored two 1 billion contracts to make wings for the A-10. 2 billion is a lot of flight hours.
    1
  17. The A-10s best weapon is the AGM-65 Maverick missile. Love it or hate it, the A-10's existence hinges on the guided missile. Without it, ut would have been canned in the 80s.
    1
  18. ​ @pogo1140  Speaking of hot and thin air, the A-10s had to take off with light loadouts from Bagram or else it wouldn't clear the base perimeter fence.
    1
  19. ​ @themigratingcoconut562  incredibly short sighted. MANPADS will be unseen by SEAD, and even radar SAMs can turn off their radars to protect themselves. And nowadays electro-optical/thermal tracking allows a SAM to hit aircraft with passive sensors alone.
    1
  20. Russia doesn't have mass anymore, and artillery/cluster munitions deal with mass just fine.
    1
  21. Now consider the infantryman's ASVAB score. If they could decide ground warfare they wouldn't be infantrymen.
    1
  22. ​ @dankoz6340  considering the F-16 has done more CAS than the A-10, we already replaced the A-10. It's just not official.
    1
  23.  @dankoz6340  Sorry, but they did fly alone when the situation required. For example F/A-18s were the first combat jet in US service to fly to a strike mission and shoot down an enemy aircraft on the way in. There's many instances of aircraft having to fly alone due to necessity, from F-105s to F-4s. I'd suggest you look up Package Q. F-16s were supposed to have F-15C escorts and F-4G SEAD. The problem when you mix different engines, different fuel tanks and different drag profiles is that the SEAD and air escorts ran out of fuel and had to turn back, leaving the F-16s to fly by themselves. The A-10 flying with SEAD would require the SEAD aircraft to somehow mimic the A-10 in terms of endurance, speed, etc. Otherwise the SEAD aircraft will have to leave early. SHORAD doesn't make SEAD obsolete. It makes aircraft like the A-10 obsolete. SEAD can ignore a lot of the short range solutions found in SHORAD as they and the strikes they protect can just fly above and fast to escape those short range weapons. But if your aircraft is flying low and slow, SEAD can't react in time.
    1
  24.  @dankoz6340  The A-10 as a platform was meant to be retired starting in the mid 90s. It has received a 30 year grace period thanks to Congress. As a platform, it's worn, it's tired, and it needs to go.
    1
  25. All B-52s prior the H variant have been retired after the Cold War.
    1
  26. ​ @michaelfrank2266  If there are tanks which can just jump over the mines, then tanks that roll over them are outdated.
    1
  27. Spirit 02 and its crew met their demise for staying too long over a battlefield. The AC-130 is not fit for combat with near pear adversaries.
    1
  28. Can't fly off a short deck carrier. The F-35B and Harrier can fly off an amphibious assault ship.
    1
  29. He logicall protected it because it brought jobs to Arizona. It was all about money and votes.
    1
  30. It's already been replaced by the Strike Eagle and F-16. Since 2014 that the F-16 does 33% of CAS while the A-10 does 11%. And the B-1B is a CAS powerhouse. The USAF knew what they were saying, and McCain was ignorant. He had the mic bully skills, but I wish a panel of troops was there to tell McCain they saw combat and the B-1B was there to save them. While McCain did not see combat in Iraq/Afghanistan and was blinded by his Vietnam bias. He was also defending Arizona jobs the A-10 brings in, it was McCain's job to shill for the A-10 and wow the audience. If you care about the facts, the USAF was right. Just not focused on being a WWE mic hog.
    1
  31. Close Air Support means ordnance is falling near friendly troops in close contact with the enemy. Not that the aircraft is close.
    1
  32. That's a lie. There was no budgetary issue, the USAF used the A-7F upgrade program budget to buy the A-10 instead. They didn't take the Army's money, no money would be given to the Army, the USAF just used their own money. Just stop lying. And the GAO slammed the USAF for buying 700 A-10s saying there was no reason for such an excessive purchase. Turns out they loved the A-10 too much back then, that was the criticism. Now they hated it all along. All people do is criticize.
    1
  33. ​ @posthumecaver  Russian breakthroughs are meat wave attacks and Chinese golf carts. Have you watched the Ukraine footage? You'd swear it's an impoverished African country fighting, not Russia.
    1
  34. The Stuka quickly lost psychological effect and started taking massive losses.
    1
  35.  @Tyrfingr  But it isn't. The troops on the ground started ignoring the Stuka and the pilots asked for the sound generators to be removed. Stuff stops being scary after the first couple of times.
    1
  36. Cope. They're proven right every time - only Congress can save the A-10 from the chopping block. The entire fabric of the universe is against the A-10, but Congress uses its God hand to save it Deus Ex Machina style. Only politics, and corrupt ones at that, kept the A-10 in service.
    1