Comments by "TheThirdMan" (@thethirdman225) on "Meet America’s New Attack Aircraft; The Sky Warden" video.

  1.  @startingbark0356  As one who has seen these things water bombing in bushfire zones, I’m not at all surprised, that huge fuselage section ahead of the cockpit is when the tank is for pesticides, water, etc..
    36
  2.  @ricardokowalski1579  That’s because true CAS is carried out only in conditions of air superiority. This aircraft is not intended to be able to fight pitched battles against other aircraft.
    21
  3.  @bronsonperich9430  This is no more limited than the A-10 in the anti-tank role.
    4
  4. If this came from the program I think it did, the Scorpion was the first to be eliminated. I believe the cost was something like $20 million per copy.
    4
  5.  @GregStachowski  Okay, gotcha. I thought this must have been a spin-off from the fly off a few years ago that involved the Tucano and the AT-6. Clearly not.
    4
  6. Props are more survivable too.
    3
  7.  @julianviefers6703  Almost everybody does - particularly the Air Force - but it’s true. This came from Col. Mike Pietrucha, who headed up the OA-X program. It’s in his article on the “War on the Rocks” website. The article is called “OAX Strikes Back: Eight Myths of Light Attack”. This competition pitted both jets like the Scorpion against turboprops like the A-29 Tucano. Pietrucha talks about the ground attack exercises that are the equivalent of Red Flag (green flag? I can’t remember). Basically, they pitted a bunch of turboprop Tucanos against a detachment of Marines armed with Stingers and offered a weekend pass to anyone who could score a theoretical kill. No one did. That’s difference between a hot jet exhaust and a turboprop. A jet will always have a hot exhaust for an IR seeker head to home in on. A turboprop mixes the exhaust with the prop wash, which, as it turns out, makes it much harder for an IR seeker to see. If some of the best trained people with a missile like the Stinger can’t do it, I’m not sure there’s anyone else out there who could either. He points out that the Afghan Air Force never lost an A-29 and neither did the Colombian Air Force.
    2
  8.  @jeffstrom164  Are you sure you don’t mean CAS?
    2
  9.  @ricardokowalski1579  Righto.
    2
  10.  @ChucksSEADnDEAD  I don’t even know what that means. Do you?
    2
  11.  @ChucksSEADnDEAD  I have no idea what relevance this has to the topic.
    2
  12.  @jimmoynahan9910  Really? Why do you say that? Look again. The Afghans used the A-29 very successfully and never lost one. Colombia used them for many years against the FARC without loss. It’s designed to be used in conditions of air superiority. When has America not had that in the last 50 years? This thing can used from 20,000 or 20 feet. It uses far less fuel than a jet or even a helicopter and it saves airframe hours on fast jets that cost ten times as much, while dropping the same ordnance. It will carry more than a helicopter too and loiter for hours. It can operate from austere strips that no jet can use.
    2
  13.  @jeffstrom164  Though so. No harm done.
    1
  14.  @bigtime9597  Show me a MANPADS with a 10-25 kg warhead.
    1
  15. Any CAS/COIN theatre.
    1