Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "CNBC" channel.

  1. +Ethan Hekim I'm European and I am here posting supportive comments for guns.
    6
  2.  @erebostd  >unregulated Anything related to healthcare is regulated out the ass in the US.
    3
  3.  @AscendedSaiyan3  my point here isn't to find reasons to "not count" places, I don't even have time to look over the full dataset provided by the website. It's just that not all of those cities are known industry powerhouses, and those cities in Iceland and Brazil... I'm sure that Iceland gets a boost from geothermal and Brazil from ethanol. I'm not interested in saying that those cities don't count, my problem is my doubts that those situations can be replicated elsewhere or if the energy levels are enough to sustain industry in the countryside.
    3
  4.  @the33rdguy  "both are very new technologie" - they actually predate our current nuclear designs but didn't get researched because the reactors we have now can be used to breed weapons grade material. Nuclear warfare delayed the technology.
    3
  5.  @somewhereelse1235  The reserve is made up of former conscripts. They had shoddy training before, and they'll have a seven day refresher course (if not cut short to two days). They'll fix the manpower problem, but at great cost to Russian society.
    2
  6.  @bademoxy  How was it designed for to many roles? Multiroles rule the skies.
    2
  7.  @AscendedSaiyan3  "There are places living on 100% renewable energy" - name a few and what their major industries are.
    2
  8. That won't change anything because you're still at the mercy of the manufacturer. What you probably meant is full nationalization of the industry.
    2
  9. Please, let's give them more. Russia buys launchers they can't use, impoverishing themselves in the process.
    1
  10. Forbes, that well respected aviation news outlet.
    1
  11.  @Internetbutthurt  The well connected journo is David Axe, who is a know liar and a person OBSESSED with the F-35.
    1
  12. Funny, because one of the most successful military jets ever is the master of all trades F-16. Seems like common sense isn't that sensible.
    1
  13.  @alfaeco15  The F-16 development was a mess. It actually killed people in the early days. And it started as a lightweight fighter program that got bloated. But turned out great.
    1
  14. No. The F-35 uses extensive body lift design in the airframe. The entire fuselage is a wing already so wing loading calculations don't reflect its true capability. However, increasing wing area creates a drag penalty.
    1
  15.  @somewhereelse1235  A country with manpower issues would have double the troops? "putting down any protest against the Ukrainian war with brutal switfness." - Their riot troops showed up with riot shields. Territorial defense showed up with guns and rocket launchers.
    1
  16. It's not limited by the pilot.
    1
  17. How? Multiroles are beating specialized aircraft at their own game.
    1
  18.  @_gungrave_6802  They've slowed down artillery and transport to Kherson.
    1
  19. The video just said regulations caused this...
    1
  20.  @spacecadet35  Modern block F-16s cost over 100 million. And A-10s haven't been produced since 1984, the company that made them went out of business. They also required TWO contracts for a billion each so that Boeing could remake the wings. Just the wings for the damned thing cost two billion for a whole fleet. I'm confident than the A-10C cost per unit if produced "a couple of years ago" with all the modern avionics would be north of 50 million for aircraft.
    1
  21.  @FalconWing1813  It's already been replaced. The F-16 does 3x the CAS the A-10 does.
    1
  22.  @FalconWing1813  "if I'm going to get shot at by a tank ,I'd much rather be in a dual engine A-10, than a F-16. Lol lol" - But the F-16 won't get shot at in the first place because it can destroy the target from much higher and further away.
    1
  23. Lives are being saved by slowing down artillery.
    1
  24.  @brasilianloser  If you track money invested into education vs student testing scores there's actually no return on investment. Sad but true. Also, schooling is literally designed to make people stop asking questions and obey authority. If you look at what's going on in schools you'd realize what's causing the lack of common sense.
    1
  25.  @441meatloaf  We live in the master of all trades age. The most successful contemporary fighter design is arguably the F-16, which is so good at dogfighting it plays the role of the MiG-29 in adversarial training, is the workhorse of close air support and has done deep strike missions in Desert Storm or for example Operation Opera.
    1
  26.  @441meatloaf  "you dont see any F18s going strafing runs" - But they do strafing runs. "its always the A10" - Not always. As of 2014 the A-10 only did around 11% of CAS missions. Even Strike Eagle pilots set up simulators so they could spend months training night time gun runs, which was a maneuver thought to be suicidal but they eventually developed the technique to the point pilots said they used it on a daily basis in the real conflict.
    1
  27.  @441meatloaf  Doesn't change the fact that fighters are usually built as multiroles. Many countries do have one aircraft that does everything. For example, countries have F-16s to patrol their skies and provide CAS during NATO deployments.
    1
  28. But it is low cost. At 79 million a piece, it's cheaper than modern block F-16s that can go for 120-140 million depending on contract.
    1
  29.  @AscendedSaiyan3  it's easy to run on 100% renewables when you don't have to power anything that consumes real power. That's my point. You can't overuse hydro because of the damage to the hydrography/ecosystem, you can't overuse wind as it whacks birds to death and does take energy from the wind which means areas downwind will suffer unusual climate as they get less wind. Solar's great for deserted areas between the tropics because of the better sunlight and the fact that you're building on less habitable land. But looking at previously green hills covered with the dull blue and grey of solar panels is depressing.
    1
  30.  @AscendedSaiyan3  " That is the WORST argument in the world. You are using an argument that makes zero sense." - How? If a city is 100% green energy but only consumes (pulling the number out of my ass) 100 MW, how does that mean you'll be able to power an industrial sector that consumes 1000 MW? "The U.K. AND Germany have already reached that point" - false, Germany is dependent on brown coal.
    1
  31.  @AscendedSaiyan3  "It's not like highly explosive jet fuel is kept in a gigantic metal tank (that spans the wings) called a fuselage or anything!" - the fuselage is made out of composites and aluminum. The actual fuel tanks are lightweight. Hydrogen requires a heavy duty tank to be pressurized in, plus insulation.
    1
  32.  @AscendedSaiyan3  the aluminum is THIN skin. Hydrogen requires THICK pressure tanks. "Also, do you believe these commercial plane fuselages aren't pressurized? Think about it." - THEY ARE PRESSURIZED AT ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE, HYDROGEN TANKS REQUIRE PRESSURE TO TURN HYDROGEN GAS INTO LIQUID
    1
  33. The Army cannot operate the A-10 per the Key West accords, plus why would the branch suddenly take on the responsibility to build runways, schools, train pilots and mechanics for an aircraft that hasn't been produced since 1984?
    1
  34.  @gregparrott  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement#Consequences There's really not much else to it. The branches have an agreement in place to not step on each others' toes. An example that is brought up frequently is the Cheyenne, A-10 and Harrier, which could potentially be considered redundant. The government hearings determined that each had unique capabilities and was different enough that the Army, Air Force and Marines could proceed with their projects. But they're willing to handle CAS. They have pretty much not done much else other than CAS for the past 20 years. The troops will also probably want a bottle of jack and two strippers included in the air support, but that's not happening. It's an ageing platform that should have been replaced in 1993 as originally intended. It cost around two billion just to make new wings to keep them in the air. That money would have paid for new aircraft. The issue isn't just changing the accords. Helicopter training isn't fixed wing training. But sure, the Army has fixed wing training schools too because they operate transport and recon aircraft. The problem is, you need an A-10 school. You need pilots who know the A-10 inside and out, not transport aircraft. You need all the institutional knowledge to be dismantled in the Air Force structure and reassemble it in the Army. You need the supply of weapons that are in USAF inventory that now have to be delivered to the Army. Manuals. Those will pretty much have to be re-written too. Mechanics. Again another personnel that will need to be trained, and you can't just pull mechanics from somewhere else and expect them to know how to be proficient at fixing a new aircraft they've never worked on. You'll need Air Force mechanics to teach them all about the A-10. By the time this process is finished, the A-10 will be even older and less capable.
    1
  35.  @evaristo6832  "The Russians are developing a completely new way of going into air combat" - So exercises where fights are "simulated" by actually doing them for real while burning real fuel in the air and simply not actually firing the weapons don't count, but Russia's purely theoretical new way of war is the gamechanger. I'm actually baffled.
    1