Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Found And Explained" channel.

  1. It's the render of a redesign with horizontal tail. The actual X-32 with just delta wing was ugly.
    57
  2. You do realize that tanks can be moved by civilian trailers, right? Military hardware uses civilian railroads and bridges. A civilian Antonov transport brought F-16 airframe from the US to Ukraine. The attack was carried out by drones. The civilian vehicles were used to carry the hardware into position, but did NOT take part in the attack.
    46
  3. The US was using air mobility a lot in Afghanistan. Neither Russia or Ukraine are. Completely different cases, as the US was using helicopters as battle taxis. If Russia was using helicopters like that, they'd have no more in inventory.
    25
  4. ​ @8492nd  Apaches went in first into Iraq before SEAD/DEAD. Along with the F-117 they have the honor of meeting the enemy alone and unafraid before the air defence was degraded.
    16
  5. ​ @magnusgreel275  No, they won against the ANA after the US left as part of the peace deal signed during the Trump administration.
    16
  6. ​ @kureed79  Russia literally had their defenses breached recently.
    15
  7. ​ @xylven5918  The Apache was one of the first aircraft flying into Iraq in 1991. They had no air superiority. They flew under the radar to target military installations.
    13
  8. ​ @mikemontgomery2654  bruh the F-16A was based on the lightweight fighter program, it was an air to air fighter for point defense. Guns and heaters. The ground attack mission was secondary.
    13
  9. ​ @kureed79  Iraq had both Western and Soviet equipment. Not only Russian defenses but also Roland missiles and MIM-23 Hawk batteries captured from Kuwait.
    10
  10.  @topkitena  Uh flat desert is absolutely the worst terrain to fly helicopters in as you don't have terrain masking.
    9
  11. The Concorde lost relevance after the 1970s oil crisis and Britain/France kept them flying for pride rather than profit.
    8
  12. Apache flew into Iraq in 1991. SAs from single to double digit, French Rolands and MIM-23 Hawks.
    8
  13.  @rauldelvillar374  Combat losses are relevant metrics because that's what military equipment has to avoid to remain competitive. The Tornado attack jet had its entire low level attack doctrine changed because of just 6 losses in Desert Storm. The Harrier was kind of seen as obsolete with just 7 losses in Desert Storm. Here's something about aircraft design - design the freaking thing to carry weapons if you're going to sell it to the military, to avoid the winglet flutter issue in the Ka-52. Embarrassing.
    8
  14. The F-22 is going to be retired soon and the Su-57 isn't even in serial production.
    6
  15. @@thondyhalomoan889 Right. So it's not impressive that it can fly without it. That's like saying it's impressive someone is a boxing champion after having the appendix removed after appendicitis. Uh, yeah? You don't need it to punch.
    6
  16. ​ @noideas-l7q  the point of using unguided rockets is NOT having to fly over MANPADS threat
    6
  17. That doesn't make any sense. The tail rotor is a critical component in conventional rotary wing aircraft. A true statement wouldn't be a damaged tail, but a direct blow to the main rotor that caused one of them to come loose.
    5
  18.  @viktoriyaserebryakov2755  How was the goalpost shifted? A helicopter with a tail rotor needs it to be operational to remain in controlled flight. A conventional helicopter getting the tail damaged but surviving IS impressive because it needs it. Like a fixed wing aircraft needs both wings to remain in level flight. When the Ka-52 loses its tail and remains in control, that is by definition NOT impressive because it didn't need the tail like a conventional helicopter does. It's like a lizard losing a tail fleeing a predator. It happens.
    5
  19. Nice cope!
    5
  20. Supermaneuverability makes no difference as it requires entering a stall to achieve post-stall maneuverability. You essentially make yourself a sitting duck by wasting all your energy.
    5
  21. ​ @PetrusJosephus-z6c  Iraq was a conventional war.
    5
  22.  @swedhgemoni8092  It's a drone. A pilot inside wouldn't be fooled by spoofing.
    5
  23. ​@@thypeasantslayer3621 From an aeronautical standpoint the design is wonderful. The issue is that it is let down by everything else. During the 2000s several MiGs pancaked themselves as engine failures started to increase. The "roughness" of the design everyone praises leads to short service lives in engine parts.
    4
  24. ​ @estebanpacheco7102  What does that have to do with anything? Lack of air mobility to prevent losses means that each loss is more relevant to the discussion. The helicopters are being babied and coddled to avoid vulnerabilities, and yet they still are taking losses both from combat and attrition from just heavy use running the clock on airframes and engines.
    4
  25. ​ @yspear_  Ka-52s laser guided missile outrange the MANPADS by severak km. Using MANPADS as an excuse is copium.
    4
  26. ​ @milosmilictrob2046  Not how it works. A HMD slaves the seeker to the helmet. If you look too far off the boresight you hit gimbal limits. Even if the gimbal had to limits, the seeker would look at its own rocket body and get its vision blocked, preventing lock.
    3
  27. ​ @Ben-jr6vl  recorded by whom?
    3
  28. ​ @guaporeturns9472  MiGs gave Phantoms a hard time because they caught Phantoms escorting bombing runs in ambushes. When US Phantoms started flying in bomber formation to surprise the MiGs with fighters, the Phantoms won.
    3
  29. ​ @shawnmiller4781  The MiG-21 turning performance isn't that hot. It's a rocket with stubby wings. It beats the Phantom clearly at high altitude, but start turning in thick air and you lose airspeed quick. Turning hard in a MiG-21 makes it an airbrake.
    3
  30. ​@@mitchellcouchman6589 3 to 1 for North Vietnam ahahah now that's delusional
    3
  31.  @guaporeturns9472  Well the Phantom is the world's biggest distributor of MiG parts... I'd say they won.
    3
  32. ​ @worldoftancraft  Have we seen the ejection system working? Either way, pilots are like knights. More valuable than peasants.
    3
  33. Cope. So it takes British and American agents to assemble AliExpress drones?
    3
  34.  @cdgncgn  They participate in the war? By doing what? Parades? Sniping from above? What are they sniping? The Russian army is reduced to elderly men with rusty AKs. The Su-57 did not protect the Russian soldiers. They didn't snipe anything. Cowardice.
    3
  35.  @viktoriyaserebryakov2755  Cry about it. Now brag about the boat that doesn't need to run on land.
    3
  36.  @santiagoperez2094  The hell does that have to do with anything? Passive radar does not depend on movement. Who said anything about active seekers on missiles? You have no proof of the Horten being designed for stealth.
    3
  37. Iraq had better defenses than Vietnam's SA-2.
    3
  38.  @kureed79  lmao this is pure delusion. What happens when the "winning team" fails and everyone else just comes down from the fence?
    3
  39. ​ @lordsqueak  That's a marketing trick. Any aircraft can have a quick turnaround to refuel and rearm. After a certain number of hours you can't do turnarounds, you have to ground the aircraft. Saab pretends the Gripen doesn't need depot level maintenancd to wow netizens.
    3
  40. The F-14s were essentially replaced by Super Hornets. F-35s replaced legacy Hornets. Super Hornets will be replaced by the F/A-XX program. The decision to retire F-14s was logical. It was a pretty expensive aircraft to maintain.
    3
  41. ​ @anshulsingh8326  Nope. The US wanted to let Ukraine fall, and they fought alone with minimal donations from the UK. It was only after Ukraine proved they could fight Russia that they got NATO aid.
    3
  42. The A-10 has redundant hydraulics, but if the control is damaged it's damaged. Meanwhile digital control is more reliable because it can be split across different bus cables and thus stay in control even if one cable is damaged.
    3
  43. Russia left that treaty in 2023. And the US has kept B2 bombers in hangars because the RAM coating wears out in the open. If that treaty prevented covering planes why does Russia paint the bomber outlines in the asphalt? Trying to fool analysts would violate the spirit of such an agreement.
    3
  44.  @mikemontgomery2654  The F-16 was designed for air to air. It was meant to be a cheaper alternative to the F-15 because the US couldn't afford a full F-15 fleet. Please stop trying to change history - you can literally go back and read how the lightweight fighter program was meant for a FIGHTER not attack aircraft, and the ground attack role came later.
    3
  45.  @malekmoqaddam5806  The B-1A concept was abandoned and the B-1B had high altitude speed reduced to 1.25 Mach. A strategic bomber flies at the speeds it needs to. In ye ole days speed was the way to get in and out alive. Not anymore. Now you get in and out alive by not broadcasting your position. You can do a leisurely pace if nobody is coming over to stop you.
    2
  46. Replacing old Air National Guard aircraft.
    2
  47. Does Russia count as Europe? Su-25.
    2
  48. Russia only makes 1-2 Tu-160s per year so they NEED those old planes.
    2
  49. Continually sidelined from reliability issues, constantly triggering the magnetic sensors in the oil system.
    2
  50. Not true. The Ho 229 was not stealth and the F-117 has nothing to do with the flying wing design. You meant the B-2.
    2