Posted on 04/10/2015 8:30:34 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Maj. Gen. James N. Post was speaking to a group of about 300 airmen at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada in January when he began to talk about the ongoing budget battle in Congress and how the Air Force would need to divest the A-10 in order to move forward on some of its other airframes. (U.S Air Force)
The Air Force commander who warned fellow airmen that speaking positively of the A-10s performance to members of Congress could be considered "treason" has been removed from office, the Air Force announced Friday.
Maj. Gen. James N. Post was speaking to a group of about 300 airmen at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada in January when he began to talk about the ongoing budget battle in Congress and how the Air Force would need to divest the A-10 in order to move forward on some of its other airframes.
"In the course of his remarks [Post] discussed the importance of loyalty to senior leader decisions [on the A-10] and used the word "treason" in describing his thoughts on communication by airmen counter to those decisions," the Air Force said in a statement released Friday.
In the prepared statement, Post offered his apologies for the incident.
"My impromptu remarks at the January Weapons and Tactics conference regarding the future of the A-10 have regrettably sparked a lot of controversy and attention. I hope my departure from ACC will enable the command to refocus on the mission as soon as possible."
After an investigation by the Air Force inspector general it was determined that Post's comments had a "chilling effect on some of the attendees and caused them to feel constrained from communicating with members of Congress," the Air Force said.
The Air Force has been criticized over the last few months in its handling of the A-10 in its quest to divest the close air support airframe, particularly in how it has previously reported the attack aircraft's role in combat compared to the Air Force's other bombers and attack planes.
Gen. Hawk Carlisle, commander of Air Combat Command where Post was assigned, issued a letter of reprimand and had Post moved from his position as vice commander at the command.
It was not immediately clear where Post was moved to.
How many Americans ground combat troops will die if perhaps the most effective GROUND TROOP SUPPORT AIRCRAFT is taken out of service?
The follow-up question is this: WHEN THE HELL WILL IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST OBOZO COMMENCE??
The A-10 is a proven warrior. The F-35 is a MONEY PIT; most recently it’s been discovered that the payload bays aren’t big enough to carry the bombs it should carry.
Hosepipe = IDIOT!!!
True.. I was a genius(like you) when I was 20......
Got dumber ever since... you didn’t..
There is absolutely nothing that tyrannical politicians and bureaucrats hate more than the truth.
Just give it to the Army, and or perhaps the Marines.
The bottom line problem with the A10 is not that it doesn’t work, but that it works too well. How is the military industrial complex supposed to make any money!?
Given who is in power, kind of surprised he wasn’t promoted. [/s]
"My impromptu remarks at the January Weapons and Tactics conference regarding the future of the A-10 have regrettably sparked a lot of controversy and attention. I hope my departure from ACC will enable the command to refocus on the mission as soon as possible."
Maybe an 11 on a scale of 0-10.
Even if the General is as straight as a mile-long ruler, I can't imagine Major Kong saying "impromptu".
Good Riddance. Another fighter jock out or contact with reality.
Former NAVY Attack 1981-1997
out “of” contact.. spelling Sheesh!
Yes, mine went off too...
From what I’ve read the F-35 is already a failure.
The A-10 is an example of, "yes, it really will buff out."
One of the F-35 test pilots stated a few days ago (accurately and honestly, IMHO) that the A-10, as a purpose-built aircraft, was superior to the F-35 at ground support. However, in every other way, the F-35 is superior (and what he didn't say was, "WAY superior").
We aren't acquiring new A-10s (though maybe we should be), so the cost of maintaining the existing fleet isn't that great in comparison to buying new F-35s and training pilots and air crews. Yet the A-10 has a CRITICAL mission - to support the tens/hundreds of thousands of live bodies on the ground against tanks and APCs. It seems to me that the A-10 is an absolutely critical piece of the puzzle for maintaining our deterrent and fighting wars, and it is both very effective and relatively cheap at the same time. AS SUCH, the only people who might possibly be considered as treasonous in this debate are (again, IMHO) those fanatical backers/beneficiaries of the F-35 who are trying to kill the A-10.
No, the A-10 isn't a sexy aircraft. No, the A-10 isn't new, so there are no giant contracts available for it. No, the A-10 isn't loved by the fighter jocks that basically run the Air Force. BUT IT IS CRITICAL TO OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE DESPITE THESE "SHORT-COMINGS." Let's keep it, and have all those who are trying to kill it STFU.
Full disclosure: I never flew an A-10 or knew anyone who did. I was never saved by an A-10 or knew anyone who was. I have never and will never derive any financial benefit from the A-10 program at all, and I don't know anyone who has, does or will. I'm just looking at the facts.
You do know that only gays have “gaydar” don’t you?
You do know that only gays have “gaydar” don’t you?
No worries, the F35 can do this mission...right? Maybe they will rely on drones?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
