Posted on 04/09/2015 10:24:33 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
It’s wrong to compare the F-35 with any other asset that was designed to perform a specific mission: this is, in simple words, what a U.S. F-35 pilot said in an interview he gave to the Danish website focusing on military topics Krigeren.
Interviewed at Luke Air Force Base, by Christian Sundsdal, Maj. John Wilson, an F-35 pilot with an F-16 background clearly explained something that is quite obvious to everyone: an A-10 Thunderbolt II will always be better in CAS than the F-35 because it was designed to perform that kind of mission. Similarly, an F-22 will always be better than the JSF in air-to-air combat, because it was designed for that role. However, the F-35 is better in all the other missions.
For sure, aircraft designed for a specific role are going to be more effective in that one than other multi-role platforms. The problem in this case is that the F-35 is going to replace these assets, even though many believe this is not cost-effective, and could even cost some human lives as far as CAS missions, with Troops in Contact is concerned.
Furthermore, according to Wilson, once all the limitations are removed and it can carry weapons, the F-35 will be as capable as the F-16 in the CAS role.
According to Wilson, the majority of CAS missions that have been flown in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, were flown by Predators, F-15E Strike Eagles, F-16s and F-18s.
“The A-10s make up a very small percentage [and the fact that] every JTAC or guy on the ground that has been saved, has been saved by an A-10, that’s just not true” Wilson says.
“If the guys on the ground are concerned about that…I’d say they shouldn’t be. They should only be concerned that the pilots of whatever aircraft it is, is properly trained and doing his job, dropping the right bomb, on the right target, at the right time.”
Wilson admits the aircraft is expensive, but he says that maintaining several different types in service is even more costly.
I spoke to an ANGLICO Marine about this very issue not long ago. He said the A-10 was vastly overrated as a CAS platform and that the AV-8B was much better. The A-10 lacks avionics and its cannon isn’t nearly as useful in the counterinsurgency mission as people claim.
“Apparently getting the budget straight means killing the cheap, effective A10 and lurching forward with the F35 boondoggle. But I guess that’s just empty talk, too.”
You are neglecting the fact that the early model F-15, F-16, and F-18 aircraft have to be replaced and their squadrons have to be re-equipped with another aircraft, regardless of whether or not the replacement aircraft is to be the F-35. The funding for the maintenance personnel has to be transferred away from some other aircraft to the F-35 or whatever other aircraft is to be used to replace the older model F-15 and F-16 aircraft. So, blaming the problems resulting from the retirement of the A-10 on the F-35 is not going to get you anywhere in such a debate. The only way of saving the A-10 is to fund it in addition to the other air squadrons and not instead of the other air squadrons.
You are also neglecting the fact that the A-10, OV-10, and a variety of other aircraft and their air squadrons would not need to be retired if the Executive Branch and the Congress chose to fund them. Because the Obama Administration and the Congress choose to cut the budgets of the Air Force and the Navy, their air forces are being forced into a retirement whether or not anyone else agrees with them. The Air Force generals and the Navy admirals have no choice but to fulfill those orders until such time as someone can prevail upon the Obama Administration and the Congress to reverse course and fund these air squadrons.
You think the retirement of the Air Force A-10 is a problem, wait until you see what the Obama Administration and the Congress have in store for the Navy and it remaining air squadrons in the next ten years. They’ve already stripped the F-14, AV-8, and a wide variety of other aircraft out of the naval air forces. What do you think is left for them to strip off of the Navy in the next ten years? The problem of funding the A-10 for the Air Force is only the tip of a very big iceberg headed for our air forces in the next ten years. The Democrats mean to eviscerate them.
The A10 Warthog is to the Mil-Industrial complex (and its revolving door generals and politicians) what aspirin is to big pharma. They despise effective solutions where they don’t profit with billions of our dollars.
Read the thread before you make yourself look petty and foolish bashing the reputations of people you don’t know and have made no effort to understand. Clue: the Air Force Chief of Staff who is compelled by Congress and the Obama Administration to retire the A-10 to avoid the retirement of the other aircraft who are also mission critical is a former A-10 pilot with 1,000 hours logged in the A-10. His decision to retire the A-10 is compelled by Congress who has ordered the Air Force to cut its budget by one trillion dollars in the next ten years. If he does not retire the A-10, he will have to retire something else, like the entire B-1 strategic bomber force, one-third of the F-16 fighter force, much of the F-15 force, or a number of other alternatives discussed earlier in this thread. If you don’t like the consequences of the cuts to the Air Force, Army, and Navy, you can take your complaints to Washington D.C. and bitch all day long about resuming funding for all of the air squadrons of the Air Force and not just the A-10 squadrons.
These things add up.
“These things add up.”
Yes they do, and they should be removed from the budget. However, the retirement of the A-10 is supposed to result in a reduction of $4.2 billion. You still need to find savings of more than $4 billion to justify retention of the A-10 or retire some of the other Air Force squadrons.
My comment was on the system not as a personal insult to anyone.. In a real world there is a need to make priorities even DOD and government.
That said the revolving door and accompanying financial and career rewards do impact generals and politicians making decisions on weapons systems. These decisions ultimately have an impact on best use of taxpayer dollars and mission objectives just as do budgets.
Politics has as much of an impact on military procurement decisions as meeting or determining functional requirements. The process is always give and take but often net back end driven or heavily biased by politicians rather than “users”.
True, but in this case there is a far larger issue with the budgets for all of the armed forces and their air forces being insufficient for their mission requirements. Even if the Air Force Chief of Staff could find a way to save about $5 billion without retiring any air squadrons and their aircraft, the future budget cuts are going to put the A-10 and/or one or more other aircraft fleets on the chopping block again during the next few years. I’m looking at an Obama proposed budget that shrinks future discretionary Defense spending by a third in the next ten years. See:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2016/assets/tables.pdf
If the USA political class was more concerned about defending our nation and borders literally and figuratively, instead of nation building and leaving footprints in every corner of the world, our military planners could create a coherent policy that would be effective and save us hundreds of billions a year.
The military - congressional- industrial - surveillance complex has grown dependent upon perpetual mission creep, just as the crony capitalists have grown dependent on government bailouts and handouts, and just as has a large segment of society.
We need a major change in our political leadership philosophy most of whom have grown highly dependent on handouts from interests that are mostly not in America’s interest.
“If the USA political class was more concerned about defending our nation and borders literally and figuratively, instead of nation building and leaving footprints in every corner of the world, our military planners could create a coherent policy that would be effective and save us hundreds of billions a year.”
“Nation building”, when used appropriately is a proper means of avoiding or drastically reducing the cost in lives and treasure necessary to suppress enemy threats. The Obama Administration is an example of how to do that and most everything else wrongly.
As for “leaving footprints in every corner of the world”, doing so is just as inevitable and necessary as the enemy threats who choose to attack us and our allies “ in every corner of the world”, the abuses of the Obama Administration notwithstanding.
“The military - congressional- industrial - surveillance complex has grown dependent upon perpetual mission creep, just as the crony capitalists have grown dependent on government bailouts and handouts, and just as has a large segment of society.”
The very real need to curb corruption in the military-industrial complex does nothing to relieve us as a nation from the responsibility to maintain and utilize an adequate military-industrial complex to sustain the defenses of the nation and our allies.
“We need a major change in our political leadership philosophy most of whom have grown highly dependent on handouts from interests that are mostly not in America’s interest.”
Such a need has existed ever since the George Washington Administration. President Thomas Jefferson tried isolationism and only succeeded in strongly encouraging a substantial increase in attacks upon the United States and its citizens. Domestic political reform respectful of the Constitution and its original purpose and a responsible participation in foreign affairs are both essential for the restoration and preservation of the Republicanism established by the Founding Fathers of the United States of America.
In regard to the funding or retirement of the A-10, the numbers and types of air squadrons funded for the Air Force, Navy, and Army have already been reduced well below proper mission requirements since 1972. The A-10 is only one of the most recent casualties of these DoD budget cuts, with another third of the air forces facing even more reductions in the next ten years. Citizen taxpayers have the ultimate responsibility for holding their elected representatives in Congress responsible for either continuing or discontinuing these further reductions in the number and types of air squadrons in these air forces.
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.