Comments by "Retrosicotte" (@Retrosicotte) on "Real Engineering" channel.

@bowez9 How can the A-10 have "more survivability" when it can't even operate unless the skies are completely under control. A-10 takes hits and maybe stays ni the air from guns. F-35 just kills you without you even knowing its there. THAT is survivability.
11
@verdigo1482 "and deteriorates the morale of enemy soldiers. The F-35 can do none of this" Totally incorrect. Having every vehicle, artilelry piece, infantry group you have getting evaporated from something you can't do a damn thing about is crushing to morale, far more than a plane you can just shoot down if you're anything more than a rebel with an AK. "Granite the B variant could stick around in Hover mode" Now I know you don't know a damn thing about planes. This is not a thing, it never has been. This is literal hollywood nonsense. "The F-22 is a far superior version of the f-35a (better stealth better maneuvering and more power power = speed, speed is life in air-to-air" I ntradition combat yes, but the F-22 isn't hooked up to the info-cloud the F-35 is. Its essentially blind by comparison to the F-35. Also ridiculously expensive to fly, impractical for a full fleet. Hence F-35A. "The A-10 will still very useful" Not against an enemy who can actually fight back. " the F-22 is better in every way" Unless you actually want to do something other than shoot planes. Its A2G capabilities are atrocious.
9
@bowez9 "in CAS air superiority is almost always already achieved" So your belief rests in a plane that requires everything else to protect it protecting things, instead of one that just does the job first time...right. "Also let's see how F35 does after taking a AIM-9 to right wing. A10 flew back to base with only..." Again, this belief in "it took a hit and survived means its more survivable" is nonsense. A-10 is cripplingly vulnerable because anything anti-air swats it and drives them off, making their use unsuitable and dangerous for the pilots. They have ONLY been used in controlled air. F-35 meanwhile has no such worries and can oeprate in denied or contested airspace. A-10 relies on a chance it might survive. F-35 is happy just not getting into trouble at all while accomplishing the same mission. "Plus the A10 sound is enough to change a battle--without even firing a shot. " So is dropping an SDB from no-where and entirely removing what is causing the issue at all. The "sound" means little when your opponent is already dead. "In a era were we are fighting against Guerrillas why use a million dollar missile to do a job a hundred dollar round can do--and the survivors know what hit them." Because the A-10 is becoming outrageously expensive to maintain, and its presence bringing a whole new logistics line and need to upgrade a different aircraft for every weapon costs far more than it saves to do an inferior job. (Note most CAS isn't done by A-10 any more) "A Mutlitool is much less adapt at doing the job than a purpose built tool. Ask any tradesman." Except the F-35 both does more roles, and does it objectively better than the A-10. It's like trying to argue running into battle with only a knife is better than going in with an assault rifle.
6
@davidwestwater1914 Iraq. A-10s were not permitted to engage during the period in which the Iraq air force and air defences were not contained and destroyed. Also see Libya, and almost every CAS mission in Syria/Iraq. A-10 is hardly used any more due to its highly limited skillset, and not even being that great at the only job it can do vs other things any more.
5
@Jrlomay Yeah people have a lot of ways to kill an infantryman too, hasn't made them obsolete either. The "OMG DRONE SWARM" thing is much further out. Not to mention they need something to operate and control them from forward positions then engage with actual muntions, thats where F-35 comes in.
4