Air Force Fires ACC Vice Commander for A-10 'Treason' Comment

[RV_]

Excerpt:

 

"The two-star Air Force general who called it "treason" for airmen to tell Congress about their support for the A-10 Thunderbolt has been relieved of his command and reprimanded, the Air Force said Friday.

 

Maj. Gen. James Post, the vice commander of Air Combat Command (ACC), lost his job and received a letter of reprimand from Gen. Herbert J. "Hawk" Carlisle, the ACC commander. It was not immediately clear whether Post would receive another assignment or he would retire.

 

"Gen. Post understands the impact of his actions and has expressed his sincere regret to me, a regret he extends to all Airmen," Carlisle said in an ACC statement.

 

In January, Post, an F-16 pilot and 32-year Air Force veteran, told officers at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., that they would be "committing treason" if they advocated to Congress on behalf of the A-10.

 

The Air Force has recommended retiring the A-10 because of budgeting restraints although Congress has not signed off on the proposal. Air Force leaders have said the service cannot afford to fund single mission aircraft like the A-10 and need to direct funding and resources to the development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

 

A subsequent Air Force Inspector General's report found that Post's "choice of words had the effect of attempting to prevent some members from lawfully communicating with Congress, which is a violation of the U.S. Code and DoD Directives, whether that was his intention or not."

 

An airman notified the Air Force Inspector General about Post's comments after reading them in a Jan. 16 article in DoDBuzz, according to the report.

 

In a statement that was part of the ACC release, Post said: "The objective of my comment was simply meant to focus the attention of the audience on working within the command's constraints."

 

Yeah, right General. The rest of the article is here: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/04/10/general-who-called-protesting-a10-decision-treason-removed-post.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl

[Mark and Dale Bruss]

Just give the A-10 to the Army. The Air Force was never good at ground support.

[RV_]

Army or Air Force, both come out of the DOD budget. I can't believe they don't fight to have them. The Army has some pretty capable attack choppers that are pretty awesome for ground combat air support too. The cost of transferring the parts and training adds cost too. Lots of folks don't realize closing bases and eliminating weapon systems sometimes cost more than having them go from five to 20 years before ROI.

 

But yeah Mark, that would make more sense.

[bigjim]

The hell with the costs IF it truly helps the troops. I am more concerned with that than saveing jobs or electing some ___ (one) or what ever. Less people damaged less expenses taking care of them later.

 

I understand what you said RV and my issue is not with you.

[Mark and Dale Bruss]

If the decision was only money, maybe, but the Air Force brass just doesn't like the A-10 which has the elegance of a sledgehammer. They would prefer the elegance of the F-35, if it worked. We already cut production on the F-22, true elegance, just when the second production run would have been half price.

 

Congress has a pretty big hand in screwing up acquisitions and then we have military brass preserving their ego trip new projects. The guy never asked is the one who life depends on them.

[RV_]

No offense taken Jim, I hear ya!

 

Yep, right on Mark. I have issues with how senior leadership in the AF is so detached from the troops, and doesn't act like they know it.

[Cyberdave]

The Army doesn't want them either.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/02/25/army-not-interested-in-taking-a10-warthogs-from-air-force.html

 

Like I said before Zoomies want to go mach with their hair on fire. Ever notice how few bomber or cattle haulers get to be generals?

 

The funny thing is if you are a pilot you love the airplane.. So it's a love - hate thing. Love the plane, lessen your career path. What the AF doesn't want john Q public to know is that the A-10 can have a much longer service life. With the spares in the bone yard, readily available engines which are basically off the shelf items The wing boxes are all upgraded, etc, etc. The A-10 has a much longer service life left than the F-15 which has forward fuselage failures where the fuselage is fracturing at the leading edge of the wing.

This would not be a good day to fly

 

I think we've gotten lost in the gee-whiz Buck Rogers thing. Instead of designing more capable, survivable AC we go for the total High tech solution.

 

Derek, I think you are absolutely right. Their is a huge disconnect and it is all about greasing their future not leading.

[Mark and Dale Bruss]

The ARMY Chinooks from Viet Nam (figure the years) are being retrofitted for another 50 years of use. Didn't need a new design because this one worked.

[SIBERNUT]

I have nothing against the A-10 airplane. But live under the base they fly from (ANG) and you learn to hate the pilots and brass. Round, round, round before they land-for what? Checking for bomb craters since they left? You don't see people paying for their own fuel doing that.

Of course, civilian pilots don't have to show off for the troops.................................

They could be a LOT better neighbors.

 

Ok guys, lemme' have it.

[Al F]

I have nothing against the A-10 airplane. But live under the base they fly from (ANG) and you learn to hate the pilots and brass. Round, round, round before they land-for what? Checking for bomb craters since they left? You don't see people paying for their own fuel doing that.

Of course, civilian pilots don't have to show off for the troops.................................

They could be a LOT better neighbors.

 

Ok guys, lemme' have it.

I don't know about "lemme' have it", but would you tell us if the base and airplanes were there before you started living there or perhaps before the place you live at was there?

 

I see a lot of people complaining about noise from airports and military bases, but the airports and bases were there before the houses were built. If they moved into a house near an existing noise source, then they shouldn't be complaining about what was there before they moved there.

[bigjim]

gotta have that training.

[Cyberdave]

Al is spot on.

 

There is a multitude of reasons why you do circuits with touch and go or low passes before doing a full stop, First, pattern work is essential in a high volume environment, combat approach / departure, engine out or short damaged field approaches and yes, the a absolute joy of flying. You think civilian pilots don't do circuits? Hell, I've flown hours just doing touch and goes. Flying takes practice and I'd much rather have well trained, current pilots overhead than budget thinned low monthly hours flying around,

 

Now, if those planes leave and it's nice and quiet do you think you're community will miss the millions in income and loss of jobs?

 

After all, it's not jet noise, it's the sound of freedom and it is sweet music.

 

Hey! I just realized why!! Those Dolphins!! Running around in that nice cushioned silent world..... Just kidding you guys get my out most respect. It takes a special type to do your job. Thanks.

[Retiredin1993]

SIBERNUT, what you hear is the price of freedom. Right now I am at Patrick AFB, Cocoa Beach, FL and campground is right next to the flight line/runways. All day long you hear planes, choppers and Chinooks. Love the sounds, just love it.

 

 

. It was not immediately clear whether Post would receive another assignment or he would retire. I will wager retirement in the immediate future. With a new job working on a new plane project.

[wa_desert_rat]

gotta have that training.

Not to mention the flight pay...

 

WDR

[SIBERNUT]

THEY were here first, and pls notice I say I have NO problem with that. But Pax river is just south of here, and Aberdeen north. If they want to play, go THERE. Or out over the Chesapeake Bay.

After the Stealth crashed 300 ft from my house, I have a low tolerance for them standing it on it's butt & going straight up directly over me, less than 100 yds off the end of the runway. Do that stuff somewhere else, OK?

Martin State Airport, MD

[RV_]

Sell and move to a place not in any flight pattern. you should try being under slanting B-52 all day every day like some of the houses here. We had A-10s, they were little mosquitoes buzzing around here that were only noticed because they were so relatively quiet. I would stop hearing them in a few days of exposure. They sound like sewing machines to me.

[skp51443]

Slightly related to this topic I found this today:

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/16/drone_alone_us_navy_secretary_gives_up_on_manned_fighters/

 

US Navy secretary gives up on manned fighters

 

 

The secretary of the US Navy has said the F-35 Lightning II, the product of the Joint Strike Fighter program, “should be, and almost certainly will be, the last manned strike fighter aircraft the Department of the Navy will ever buy or fly.”

Speaking at the Sea-Air-Space 2015 conference on Wednesday, secretary Ray Mabus said (and blogged) he will “appoint a new Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Unmanned Systems” and “a new office for unmanned in the N-9, the N-Code for Warfare Systems, so that all aspects of unmanned – in all domains – over, on and under the sea and coming from the sea to operate on land – will be coordinated and championed.”

 

The thinking behind the drone love is simple: Mabus said “with unmanned technology, removing a human from the machine can open up room to experiment with more risk, improve systems faster and get them to the fleet quicker.”

 

That isn't gonna sit well with the fighter jock community!

[Mtn.Mike]

I live in the mountains of Pa. and it's always a thrill to see the "warthogs" flying through the valleys and always lower that the surrounding mountains. I say keep them flying.

 

 

Mike

[Ronbo]

The sound of freedom. I started at Castle AFB. B52 and KC 135. Love the sound

[skp51443]

More on the A-10 story:

 

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/20160331.aspx

 

 

A U.S. Air Force is facing some serious credibility, political, legal and morale problems with its repeated attempts to get rid of its most popular combat aircraft; the A-10. This is a special Cold War era design that was optimized for operating close to troops on the ground. Despite the success and popularity (especially with ground troops) of the A-10 the air force leadership refuses to allocate money to keep existing A-10s flying or developing an acceptable replacement.

 

The need was made clear (again) with the recent revelation that a survey of Marine, Army, and Air Force JTACs (Joint Terminal Attack Controllers and JFOs (Joint Fires Observers) showed an overwhelming preference for the A-10. JTAC and JFO teams are trained to call in air strikes and most of these teams contain a combat aircraft pilot. At the same time these teams work directly with ground forces and are well aware of what kind of air support the ground troops find most useful.

 

Ground controllers mostly (48 percent) preferred the A-10. The next most popular aircraft (which 13 percent preferred) was the AC-130 gunships. While the AC-130 is in no danger of elimination (it is an armed C-130 transport) the A-10 is. Yet the air force leaders insist jet fighters (like the F-16, F-15 and F-18) can replace the A-10 but these three fighters are preferred by 14 percent. The AV-8B vertical takeoff jet is preferred by only four percent. Armed helicopters are preferred by 11 percent and armed UAVs by nine percent.

 

 

 

While the air force leadership officially denounced the “supporting the A-10 is treason” remarks it was recently revealed that while those apologies were being made those same air force generals were trying to sabotage the A-10 by quietly cutting major maintenance programs 40 percent. This meant that a growing number of A-10s would not be available for service because of “maintenance issues.” It is believed that such excuses would not include the fact that the maintenance problems were self-inflicted by the air force leadership and it would instead be implied that the age of the A-10s was a factor.

 

A bit on just what the A-10 is for folks that don't know.

 

 

The A-10 is a 23 ton, twin engine, single seat aircraft whose primary weapon is a multi-barrel 30mm cannon originally designed to fire armored piercing shells through the thinner top armor of Russian (or any other) tanks. These days the 1,174 30mm rounds are mostly high explosive. The 30mm cannon fires 363 gram (12.7 ounce) rounds at the rate of about 65 a second. The cannon usually fires in one or two second bursts.

 

In addition, the A-10 can carry seven tons of bombs and missiles. These days the A-10 goes out with smart bombs (GPS and laser guided) and Maverick missiles. It can also carry a targeting pod, enabling the pilot to use high magnification day/night cameras to scour the area for enemy activity.

 

Cruising speed is 560 kilometers an hour and the A-10 can slow down to about 230 kilometers an hour. In Afghanistan two drop tanks were usually carried to give the aircraft more fuel and maximum time over the battlefield.

 

Lots more detail in the linked article that makes it pretty clear that the folks on the ground don't think the other options are going to keep them alive as well as the A-10. The A-10 isn't rocket science, more of a brick with wings and a big gun that can carry a pile of other ordinance, a replacement would be easy to design and cheap to build at some point but what we have now is good enough if the political officers don't kill it off with dirty tricks.

[remoandiris]

Rep McSally (R-AZ) will probably fight long and hard to keep the A-10.

[Ray,IN]

I don't know about "lemme' have it", but would you tell us if the base and airplanes were there before you started living there or perhaps before the place you live at was there?

 

I see a lot of people complaining about noise from airports and military bases, but the airports and bases were there before the houses were built. If they moved into a house near an existing noise source, then they shouldn't be complaining about what was there before they moved there.

Here Here!!!

[RV_]

X2! Locally we had a subdivision built near an existing 50years prior Shreveport outdoor impact shooting range and make some legal moves to shut it down. Despicable, and they failed. Here we have Barksdale AFB with B-52s and tankers. No one raises any fuss and I'm under the alternate holding pattern so get them weekly or so. Right in town there are subdivisions all around the Base that get some window shaking continuous take offs and landings during readiness inspections and deployments.

 

Ahhh the sound of freedom.

[skp51443]

Looks like there are still jobs for the A-10

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/04/27/why-the-pugnacious-a-10-is-flying-maritime-patrols-over-the-south-china-sea/

 

 

The situation in the South China Sea has grown even more complex over the past week, with A-10 attack planes flying maritime patrols over a coral reef chain known as Scarborough Shoal. It’s less than 150 miles to the west of the Philippines, and considered a site where Beijing may carry out “land reclamation” and continue its military expansion in the region this year, prompting concern from the United States and its partners in the region.

The A-10 might seem like an unlikely plane for the mission, though. The heavily armored twin-engine “Warthog” has been in service since the 1970s, and was designed for close-air support, in which combat aircraft assist ground troops by attacking enemy tanks, vehicles and positions. There is none of that around Scarborough Shoal, and the plane is considered more vulnerable than other American military planes against surface-to-air missiles.

[bigjim]

I don't keep up with a lot of stuff like what our possible opponents are flying but I kind of wonder if Russia, China or others have or use anything comprable to the A-10.