Reminds me of the fact that on multiple occasions Dougles A1 Skyraider CAS propplanes shot down mig 17 fighter jets

We learned a long time ago that tech is not an end all be all or a garanteed win. Enter top gun training.

​@@thekraken1173 I think this is the important part. We have high performance aircraft _voluntarily_ give up advantages in training, because _accidentally_ giving up advantages in combat has happened repeatedly in history. And when it happens again, we want OUR pilots to be the ones prepared to react best to it.

That's the entire point of every single joint exercise this or rolling boil that. The US Military puts on a blindfold, puts in the ear plugs, handcuffs itself to the toilet, and turns out the lights. Ring the bell.

@@AnimeSunglasses Not to mention we envision situations where the enemy is more capable than we give them credit for being (and likely more capable than they are in reality) because underestimating an opponent is always a bad idea. If you train to beat a heavyweight world champion in boxing and then your opponent is a middleweight amateur who has only trained to fight others like himself, which one is more likely to win?

F22 raptor to a-10 kid focus on your studies 😂😂😂

@@debasismohanty1952 What do you mean?

@@JZsBFF means f22 raptor can destroy a-10 without facing any problems

@@debasismohanty1952 Only if the missile works properly and hits the A-10. I once heard an A-10 Pilot say that if your missile misses that "you are now almost certainly mine - unless you run as fast as you can" He explained that he could outmaneuver any fighter jet out there and and have his nose on the other fighter faster than they could counter or evade if they persisted in the fight.

@@debasismohanty1952 If I was a betting pup then I would follow your lead, but as the video explains, the exercises cover all kinds of scenarios. - In the margin I have this interesting anekdote: during WW2 on the Eastern front a German Tiger panzer shot down an Russian ground attack aircraft. The point is: Imagine the impossible, account for the improbable and you'll be ready for the virtual certainty. - From the other perspective: Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups.

classified

🤣🤣🤣​@@SmoochyRoo

You tube censorship. Now be a good boy and accept it because they know what's good for you better than you do.🤬

It's not a glitch, he was name dropping something that isn't public and probably removed the sound on his own accord to avoid major problems.

That's all i have to say about the war in viet-naam

As a retired M1 crewmember. If an A10 pilot is on post. He drinks for free. He might regret it though, LOL.

And that's what Ive understood as A-10 air combat doctrine. Pull them into your briar patch so to speak and fight to the A-10's strengths. Use that armor, GAU-8 & your own A2A missiles. Last I checked A-10 was designed to fly after a direct missile hit to an engine so also designed to take more of a beating vs air superiority fighter

Why did he dive He was flying a missile truck

@@Ariccio123ROE might have required visual identification, or the f22 was Winchester, or perhaps it was a guns only exercise

@@cruisinguy6024 ah, well, one thing the f-35 has over everybody else, that kickass DAS can visually identify things from crazy far away

​@@Ariccio123an infrared image isn't going to cover the rules of engagement in most of anywhere. And if it did then IFF would certainly also be enough. Identifying just the type of aircraft isn't enough because multiple countries operate the same types.

@@cockatoofan This is one area where “drone wingmen” can be a big assistance. They can help make that visual identification and show the image to the pilot. That said, in early high intensity conflict roe will likely allow for engagement without visual identification, which is the military’s main planning target right now. Obviously the extended high intensity conflict in Vietnam’s provides a counter point. But in that type of environment drones can be a huge help. In desert storm RoE required two forms of electronic identification to not require visual identification, this could be something like a NCTR radar identifier and a thermal signature. It could also use various forms of IFF detection. (Having your detectors figure out how to abuse the enemies IFF to identify them has been a bit of a cat and mouse game.) The f35 and f22 are drowning in additional sensors that could do this.

The kid would be incredibly upset.

More accurately, no forward firing anti-aircraft munitions... But maybe a hot Viking pilot could take out an opposing aircraft with a Harpoon anti-ship missile.

​@@Hardball1Alpha swatting flies with bullets

Good analogy. In addition to that, F-22s are sometimes used in training dogfights without dropping their external fuel tanks. That is a real handicap.

Haven't seen much heavy plate armor, have you? I doubt you've ever fired a musket either. Even the famous Brown Bess would be lucky to hit a man-sized target at greater than 10 yards. (There's a reason people coined the term "can't hit the broad side of a barn") Many plate armor cuirasses exist that still show the armorer's proof mark, where he fired a musket or pistol into the plate a point-blank range to demonstrate his armor was of good quality and would stop a musket ball. Furthermore, chainmail would often stop a musket ball as well. However, while your example is flawed, your point is well taken! There are a great many very maneuverable jets and even turboprops that can defeat an F-22 IF the Raptor is put in a bad position. The likelihood of that situation ever happening in actual combat is so minutely greater than zero as to be undeterminable, IMHO.

@@trplankowner3323 Please take this in the spirit which it's offered but I'm thinking you may have got a bad source for some of your information;). Modern re-enactors using replica muskets are easily able to hit chest sized targets at 50-60 yards and man sized targets out to 100 yards. I'll link to just one video below. The portion about accuracy kicks in at around the 3 minute mark. The breastplates with the proof marks you mentioned were also being proofed against pistol fire not musket fire as they were meant for cavalry use. It's the reason breastplates fell out of favor but muskets survived for another hundred plus years. Of course, in the analogy I was using, the musketeers would still be using the old matchlock guns. Those were heavier caliber than the Brown Bess so they would unquestionably have been able to punch through a breastplate. Their accuracy and rate of fire wasn't that great though and, as it was before the bayonet was developed, the musketeers carried rapiers and arming swords for close combat or assaults into the forts of their time. Basically the era of the Vauban style star forts. In any case please don't take this as a criticism as you're repeating widely held views which you've probably been told by someone you trusted or a website that seemed credible. It's just best to look into some of these widely accepted truths as the first step is always going to be knowing enough to know how little you know;). kzfaq.info/get/bejne/iJiSgblqypebe6M.html

@@silverjohn6037 Those re-enactors are using weapons of a quality that could not be had during the Renaissance. That sort of quality couldn't be found until the second industrial revolution. By then most firearms had moved on from muzzle loading to cartridges. It wasn't the penetrating power of firearms that did away with the wearing of armor (today's combatants are beginning to use an ever increasing amount of body armor), it was the economics of weapons, armor and supply. Officers and other leaders often wore personal armor well into the Nineteenth Century. That armor had less use as the number of troops armed with firearms around them increased. Those economic factors are what lead to the Imjin War. Japan's inability to sustain that economic factor due to Korean naval superiority led to their eventual defeat / withdrawal from Korea. Muskets, whether matchlock or flintlock, were cheap compared to the cost of plate armor hand made by a master armorer. Just as longbows were cheap compared to a well made sword, ax or polearm only a century or two before.

Chainmail, stopping a musket ball? LOL I call bullshit on that! Even if the chainmail successfully stopped the ball, the kinetic energy from the ball would still cause immense internal damage. @@trplankowner3323

Interesting times. I remember Pop Mechanics covering the latest military hardware on their cover. There's hardware now that we could never dream about back then!

That and they can maneuver around in space of half a football field. It’s incredible.

Yep. Super maneuverbility plus longer gun range with a more destructive round. Mess with the Hawg, you get the tusks.

F-22: "I have you now" A-10: "no u"

@@Vagabondobiondo Yep. Even if the fast jet gets a missile off, the Hog would have time to get in a killing burst.

If you've ever heard the expression "Tofu-Dreg" then you'll understand why I'm not worried about *_"new"_* Chinese technology. Sure, on paper the jets are a formidable opponent. But once they are used in actual combat scenarios those "formidable" jets will turn out to be as solid a platform as Chinese skyscrapers, bridges, dams and everything else that they build. Just as we are seeing with russian equipment, the corruption that is so rampant and prevalent among all chinese endeavors has degraded all hopes of having reliable kit. What looks scary during a PowerPoint presentation is in reality just a way for select chinese officials to sequester large sums of money.

true but it's always good to train under the assumption that the tech is as good or better then what you're fielding

Be the innovator or be the copycat and make poor imitations. Lead or be led. Russia and China have a long history or just copying. But some of those copies are pretty good.

@@barryelverson9486 China has a reputation for copying, not so much Russia. They prefer to do things their way and mostly resort to copying when they can't think anything better. However, lately neither have done much in the way of innovation.

@@Benson_aka_devils_advocate_88 "on paper the jets are a formidable opponent", not really. If I were an F-22 or F-35 pilot I wouldn't be the slightest concerned with the J-20. It has subpar engines, stealth about as good as the B-1B and is armed with missiles equivalent to the Roman candles I buy from the fireworks shop.

It's that massive straight wing with high lift and slow speed. Such a cool plane

Slower planes generally turn better. Take warbirds, most of them will easily outturn modern aircraft. If you do flight sims, you can see for yourself how hard it is to fight a WW2 aircraft while flying a modern fighter, particularly with cannon.

First time I saw an A-10 it was BELOW me. We were on a terrain walk in West Germany, on several hundred feet of elevation.

A-10s can maneuver in the space above half a football field! Until you’re out of either fuel or ammunition.

@@CorePathway Probably close to Ramstein-Miesenbach I think...

American A-10 pilots are usually able to stay in the pilot's seat a lot longer than fighter pilots. The g-forces aren't as hard on the body long term and a lot of the A-10 squadrons are reserve units so the up or out promotion cycle for the reg force isn't as big a deal.

At least once in Vietnam, an A1 skyraider shot down a MIG with its cannons. Think it was a head-on closure situation where the MIG didn't respect the guns. On the mission where Leo Thorsness earned the MOH, a couple of A1s got bounced by MIG 15s. One got shot down, but the other stayed alive until Leo arrived to take the heat off by staying low and turning hard. If it had sidewinders, especially the ones we have today, it could have made the MIGs pay a price.

I prefer the phrase "If you find yourself in a fair fight you did... several things wrong."

The winner will know when to fight and when not to fight (paraphrase).

RAN sea fury killed a mig 15 in korea

I think that was a Redaction and not a glitch.

@@ARandomCustodian You're probably right, it did seem intentional. I figured I'd comment just in case it was something to do with my browser choice.

@@ARandomCustodian you're probably right, it did seem like an edited jump vs technical error.

From what I heard on another comment surrounding this, the replies of said comment said that it was something classified / non-public information and that Alex probably removed it of his own accord.

Didn't this happen IRL in one of the Gulf wars?

@@phasor50 there was a few in the Vietnam war and some in the Iraq Iran War.

@@antarashnia84wouldn’t u mean AH-1 Cobras in Vietnam? Vietnam was too early for Apaches to exist

@@Fieryconviction yes I was just referring to when helicopters have shot down jets

If he tells you....

Javelins and some other ATGMs can target aircraft but most are way too slow to hit anything faster than helicopters

I mean that's just obvious lol. Warthog isn't designed in any way to be in a BVR fight, and even the weakest jets in the skies would make mince meat out of it from BVR.

How about no The USAF didnt add the AIM-9X to the A-10, it can only use AIM-9M AIM-9M very low chances again an F-22

​@@verdebusterAPincorrect but it's ok. Aim 9 m can definitely tally ho any jet in the sky. It can track the heat off the F22 just fine especially from behind it's not even a question.

@@verdebusterAP you are forgetting about the 30mm in the nose. I've seen the A-10 with a F-22 kill painted on it. Granted it was an electronic kill, it did happen.

@@verdebusterAP another known fact now that I know it was the demo team A-10 that got the kill. The demo team setup is different than the other Hogs. When the Demo Hogs do max deflection with their ailerons their spoilers deploy giving them a higher roll rate. The part of the aileron that is in the airflow is up higher, the other side is flush with the wing.

Absolutely. Upgrade the A-10 too. It's too heavy as it is. It needs less wing pylons, scrap the titanium cockpit armour, ejection seat out. Targeting pod? What the fuck is a targeting pod???

F-22s are much more maneuverable and they can easily outrun the A-10.

Probably not that great, but the other fighter had better either win quick or escape quick, because the only modern fighter out-turning an A-10 is a hovering F-35 (and I'm not sure those can fire from a hover).

Aliens

He said something about the a10s capabilities that revealed an f22 weakness. Removed after further thought

They've been fitted with a new ballistics computer. Now they just need a new airframe with VTOL capabilities, and who knows what other nice toys that'll probably never get rolled out to an attack aircraft.