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.
“Just give it to the Army, and or perhaps the Marines.”
They can’t, because their budgets are being drastically cut the same as the budget for the Air Force. The Obama Administration proposed a budget to 2025 which in adjusted dollars by population would result in about a one-third cut in funding for all of the armed forces. This means the A-10 squadrons are neither the first nor the last of the life-saving air squadrons which the Air Force and the Navy are going to be forced to retire whether they want to or not.
“This is all part of the A-10 v. F-35 debate. Speaking positively about the A-10 is the same as bad-mouthing the F-35.”
No, it is not. The problem is the policy decision about which of the squadrons are going to be retired to satisfy the decision by Congress to cut the funding of the armed services, which includes the Air Force.
“The moron general is a fighter pilot and AF fighter pilots don’t consider the A-10 to be a fighter. It’s too slow and runs too close to the live fire for them so they want to get rid of it so as to promote what they consider to be “real” fighters.”
Your comments are a load of BS. The Air Force Chief of Staff who is responsible for retiring the A-10 is a former A-10 pilot with 1,000 hours logged in the A-10. He loves the A-10 and considers it to be the finest and most capable aircraft for the A-10 mission. He also has the sad duty of being responsible for deciding which of the Air Force squadrons has to be retired to satisfy the budget cuts Congress is ordering the Air Force to make in the next ten years, which is about one trillion dollars in cuts.
“This battle has been ongoing for years. The fighter jocks have long wanted to be rid of the Hog.”
That comment is a defamatory lie. The reason the A-10 has been at risk of retirement throughout much of its career has been the downsizing of the Air Force by the Democrats ever since the Vietnam War.
good news !
It was 50% of the A models. I was talking with a harrier guy who quoted a shipboard mishap rate more than 10 times an average TACAIR mishap rate. At some point the people in charge need to say ‘stop’.
“How many Americans ground combat troops will die if perhaps the most effective GROUND TROOP SUPPORT AIRCRAFT is taken out of service?”
if you don’t retire the A-10 squadrons, which squadrons will you retire instead? Is it to be the B-1 strategic bomber fleet being used as a nuclear deterrent and as a strategic bomber in many of the recent air campaigns to save many lives? is it to be F-15 or F-16 squadrons used for air superiority, air interdiction, and close air support in many recent military campaigns to save lives? Is it to be the air refueling squadrons which made it possible for the A-10, F-15, F-16-, F-18, and hundreds of other aircraft to stay airborne and perform their life saving sorties? Perhaps you want to cut the AWACs aircraft instead, so there won’t be enough support to control those life saving sorties? Just which squadrons are you going to retire instead of the A-10 squadrons in this round of budget cutting, and which squadrons are you going to cut in the next round of budget cuts to meet the Obama and Congressional cuts of one trillion dollars for the Air force during the next ten years?
Prayers...
U.S. Marines vow tough review of F-35 combat readiness
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/08/us-lockheed-martin-fighter-marines-idUSKBN0MZ2C220150408
Marines will fight even when they are broken, so why expect anything less from their pilots? (oy vey, says this former Marine mom)
I think a lot is in the smile.
I loved it.
Trolling homosexuals make their connections via eye contact........While I always expected it, my theory was verified a bunch of years ago when I was searching the internet for any comments on the racquetball and fitness center I belonged to. Now keep in mind this was after my club was on the downswing, racquetball players were no longer playing and the fitness center membership had dropped off dramatically.
I came across an internet forum that was inhabited by homosexuals in my area and they classified my club and its bar and grill as a good place to meet other homosexuals. The advice given by the forum participant that has remained in my memory was "...remember, make eye contact".
I've experienced that "eye probe" many times. At my local English Gardens, the managing plant scholar (for lack of a better word) is an older guy and is clearly a homosexual. Well one day I was walking into a plant and flower greenhouse as this guy was walking out with a younger guy. As I approached them the younger boyfriend was staring right at me, trying to make eye contact. I purposely stared him down and he apparently got the message since he turned his eyes away and continued on. That creeped me out..........
I know, this probably sounds a little weird and paranoid but that's just the way it was.........and that's what they do.
We CAN'T.
The tooling was destroyed at the end of the contract.
It is not like the Marine Corps isn’t used to hand-me-downs, and since the A-10 is as subtile as a punch in the chops, it would be right at home.
Grunts, snipers, and A-10 drivers....... salt o the earth!
KYPD
100% agree.
.
Are you confused?
.
Not true. Live in Hollywood for a couple years and even you will develop gaydar out of self defense, if nothing else.
Maybe I shot from the hip.... maybe not..
If still a General under the Obama regime theres room for suspicion..
And if he’s a democrat he’s already a traitor..
Just being a democrat is unfaithful.. and not all republicans are republicans..
The Jarheads need to see what kind of trade they can make. How many A-10’s can they get for a F-35? If they can get 6 to 1 take the deal, maybe hold out for 8 to 1.
“I loved it.”
So did my son. He has now transitioned to a UH-1Y, but still talks very fondly of flying the Phrog.
Read on a previous A-10 thread here that it is because the A-10 can’t land on a carrier that the Marines can’t use it.
“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.”
We’re never acquiring any new A-10 aircraft again, because the tooling for the production line has already been destroyed some years ago.
The A-10 is not a substitute for the F-35. The F-35 is built as a multi-role replacement for a variety of aircraft such as the F-16 and F-18 aircraft which have reached end-of-life serviceability or are being retired for other reasons. Whether or not the F-35 will ever prove to be adequate for its intended multi-role purpose, it is all that the armed forces has available due to the insistence from Congress and the DoD to attempt to save money with an all purpose, fifth generation, stealth, and joint services strike fighter. The Air Force has no present hope of acquiring any alternative, so it must make this aircraft work until Congress and a future administration sees fit to fund and replace the F-35. In the past, the Air Force and Navy spent a lot of money on competitive aircraft designs, which allowed the best designs to replace those designs which failed to measure up to the tasks they were assigned. Now, each design is not allowed to have a competitor and becomes too important to allow failure.
“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.”
The other aircraft and squadrons which are not yet being retired because the A-10 is being retired are also an “absolutely critical piece of the puzzle,” so which other aircraft and squadrons would you retire instead of the A-10? Would you retire the B-1 strategic bomber fleet which has been used as a nuclear weapons deterrent and a bomber in recent military campaigns? Would you retire the rest of the B-52 bombers instead of the A-10? Would you retire the air refueling aircraft which save lives and keep numerous other aircraft flying where there are no airfields to refuel? Perhaps you propose to retire the air transport aircraft being used at full capacity to keep everyone supplied to save lives? Perhaps you dislike the F-16 and/or F-15 fighters and fighter-bombers and are willing to retire one-third of their aircraft? Exactly which aircraft and squadrons are you going to advise the Air Force Chief of Staff to retire so the A-10 aircraft and squadrons do not have to be retired?
The Air Force has been ordered to cut one trillion dollars from its budget in the next ten years. If other aircraft and squadrons are retired to save the A-10 from being retired now, which of those other aircraft and squadrons are you going to retire instead of the A-10 in the next round of cuts in a few years? Do you intend to retire the A-10 in the next round of cuts or yet another of those other aircraft and squadrons?
“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.”
If you don’t use the F-35 as the replacement for the F-15, F-16, and F18 aircraft reaching their end-of-life service, then what will you use? The A-10 is certainly not going to fulfill those roles, so what do you propose to use as their replacements?
Not doubting you in any way X but why would the A-10’s tooling be destroyed rather than saved? Strictly a costs, due to various reasons, issues or something elase?
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.