Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "The Future Of The F-35 And The U.S. Air Force Fighter Fleet" video.

  1.  @bademoxy  How was it designed for to many roles? Multiroles rule the skies.
    2
  2. Forbes, that well respected aviation news outlet.
    1
  3.  @Internetbutthurt  The well connected journo is David Axe, who is a know liar and a person OBSESSED with the F-35.
    1
  4. 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
  5.  @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
  6. 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
  7. It's not limited by the pilot.
    1
  8. How? Multiroles are beating specialized aircraft at their own game.
    1
  9.  @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
  10.  @FalconWing1813  It's already been replaced. The F-16 does 3x the CAS the A-10 does.
    1
  11.  @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
  12.  @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
  13.  @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
  14.  @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
  15.  @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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18.  @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
  19.  @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