Pentagon to retire the A10 Warthog?

[ATWizJr]

Huh?  Another step backwards.  Crash, care to opine?  Is there a better all purpose killing machine around?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Huh?  Another step backwards.  Crash, care to opine?  Is there a better all purpose killing machine around?

That would suck

[keefe]

Huh?  Another step backwards.  Crash, care to opine?  Is there a better all purpose killing machine around?

Tom,

Slammed with work of late but suffice it to say the USAF has been trying to kill the Hawg for decades. In a crazy twist recently, the USAF Chief of Staff told Congress that it needs more Raptors and Strike Fighters and is willing to retire the Hawg to make that happen. The Army Chief of Staff then went to the Hill and told Congress that our ground forces require the A 10. Service Chiefs always keep their sh1t fights behind the curtain so for Gen Odierno to call out the USAF shows how intense the Army appreciation for the A 10.

When ground pounders call for air support they always ask for A 10's by name - usually with the brevity code "Golf Uniform Echo" (Go Ugly Early.) When we are inside the wire and Gomers see our A 10 patches they will make a point of coming over and thanking us.  

The paradigm of air power being about shooting down the enemy one aircraft at a time has long since passed. F 22s cost $420 million each. Each F 35 costs the taxpayers $160 million. Both have had engineering problems and are still not yet fully operational.  More importantly, to the war fighter on the ground, these platforms cannot provide the precision, payload, and loiter time needed for close air support.

Meanwhile the USAF wants to acquire more air superiority assets and will trade the world's most effective fixed wing close air support platform to pay for it. A 10s cost about $10 million per platform and are far easier and cheaper to maintain. The maintenance cycle of the A 10 allows for faster turns and a much higher sortie rate than for any other tactical air asset.

Congress agreed with the Army and Marine Corps last November and passed a resolution forbidding the USAF to stand down the A 10 through 2015, citing the proven combat effectiveness of the Warthog and the complete absence any other similar fixed wing capability. Mother Air Force was directed to develop a plan that specifically addresses how it proposes to replace the A 10s CAS capabilities.

Then this month, Hagel introduces another plan to pay for Strike Fighters by grounding the A 10.  WTF?

[mu03eng]

Tom,

Slammed with work of late but suffice it to say the USAF has been trying to kill the Hawg for decades. In a crazy twist recently, the USAF Chief of Staff told Congress that it needs more Raptors and Strike Fighters and is willing to retire the Hawg to make that happen. The Army Chief of Staff then went to the Hill and told Congress that our ground forces require the A 10. Service Chiefs always keep their sh1t fights behind the curtain so for Gen Odierno to call out the USAF shows how intense the Army appreciation for the A 10.

When ground pounders call for air support they always ask for A 10's by name - usually with the brevity code "Golf Uniform Echo" (Go Ugly Early.) When we are inside the wire and Gomers see our A 10 patches they will make a point of coming over and thanking us.  

The paradigm of air power being about shooting down the enemy one aircraft at a time has long since passed. F 22s cost $420 million each. Each F 35 costs the taxpayers $160 million. Both have had engineering problems and are still not yet fully operational.  More importantly, to the war fighter on the ground, these platforms cannot provide the precision, payload, and loiter time needed for close air support.

Meanwhile the USAF wants to acquire more air superiority assets and will trade the world's most effective fixed wing close air support platform to pay for it. A 10s cost about $10 million per platform and are far easier and cheaper to maintain. The maintenance cycle of the A 10 allows for faster turns and a much higher sortie rate than for any other tactical air asset.

Congress agreed with the Army and Marine Corps last November and passed a resolution forbidding the USAF to stand down the A 10 through 2015, citing the proven combat effectiveness of the Warthog and the complete absence any other similar fixed wing capability. Mother Air Force was directed to develop a plan that specifically addresses how it proposes to replace the A 10s CAS capabilities.

Then this month, Hagel introduces another plan to pay for Strike Fighters by grounding the A 10.  WTF?

First JSF is the Aardvark re-incarnated just with a higher price tag.  Second, the Chuckster is doing exactly what he was hired to do by this admin, gut military spending so that can be used as a "fiscal" responsibility flag.  Watch, all the sexy programs will stay like F-22, JSF, CVX, and LRS-B but programs that are actually effective and needed like Stryker and modernization of the AFSOC inventory will be cut.  The military may be asymmetrical and JIT but Congress and the Adminstration sure as heck aren't.

Heard the other day someone said the Hogs could be back-stopped/replaced effectively with Spetre's.  Clearly they didn't know A) they are rapidly running out of those airframes too without replacement and B) never heard what happens to gunships in a high threat environment (Spirit 03)

Next 5 years are a dangerous time for the grunts as it looks like we are going to unlearn all the lessons of the Carter administration.

[ChicosBailBonds]

First JSF is the Aardvark re-incarnated just with a higher price tag.  Second, the Chuckster is doing exactly what he was hired to do by this admin, gut military spending so that can be used as a "fiscal" responsibility flag.  Watch, all the sexy programs will stay like F-22, JSF, CVX, and LRS-B but programs that are actually effective and needed like Stryker and modernization of the AFSOC inventory will be cut.  The military may be asymmetrical and JIT but Congress and the Adminstration sure as heck aren't.

Heard the other day someone said the Hogs could be back-stopped/replaced effectively with Spetre's.  Clearly they didn't know A) they are rapidly running out of those airframes too without replacement and B) never heard what happens to gunships in a high threat environment (Spirit 03)

Next 5 years are a dangerous time for the grunts as it looks like we are going to unlearn all the lessons of the Carter administration.

You said it...spot on. 

Have to build it all up again in 2020.

[ATWizJr]

If Hagel had a shred of self respect, he would resign before carrying Obama's water here.  Pretty clear that a this is just a device   to find funds to pay for more of Obama's social agenda.

[mu03eng]

If Hagel had a shred of self respect, he would resign before carrying Obama's water here.  Pretty clear that a this is just a device   to find funds to pay for more of Obama's social agenda.

I'll just leave this here for everybody.....clearly a coincidence between these two things

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/with-2015-budget-request-obama-will-call-for-an-end-to-era-of-austerity/2014/02/20/332808c2-9a6e-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html

[brandx]

You said it...spot on. 

Have to build it all up again in 2020.

Except that defense funding has gone up under Obama.

Just like he wants to take our guns away. More guns sold in Obama's 1st term than under any president ever.

Just like he is against big oil. Domestic production went down every year under Bush and up every year under Obama.

Sorry to disappoint you guys, but BO doesn't sit in his office striking down programs. Ending any programs are done by the Pentagon and the services themselves and even you, I don't think, would call them liberals.

[brandx]

And we do know that the only reduction to any military spending came from the repubs with their sequestration bill.

[mu03eng]

Except that defense funding has gone up under Obama.

Just like he wants to take our guns away. More guns sold in Obama's 1st term than under any president ever.

Just like he is against big oil. Domestic production went down every year under Bush and up every year under Obama.

Sorry to disappoint you guys, but BO doesn't sit in his office striking down programs. Ending any programs are done by the Pentagon and the services themselves and even you, I don't think, would call them liberals.

I don't think you know how appropriations work in DC.  The Pentagon provides a budget with priorities that the SecDef ultimately creates/approves/modifies and then walks over to the Hill to get Congress to buy off on. A lot of political folks with key contracts in their home district on the line then have their say and then vote to fund.

Additionally, you can't look at the total budget as that includes funding for actual warfighting as well as long term appropriations.  What we are talking about is infrastructure for the military over the next 10-20 years.  Yes the overall budget went up under BO, but the majority was for fighting in A Stan and Iraq with a decrease in most long term appropriations.

It's like looking at the road budget after this year and saying it went up because long term projects stayed level but there was a vast increase in short term spending to fix all the potholes.

[tower912]

I am not going to speak to the Warthog.   But any long term debt reduction simply has to include military reduction.   It is too large a percentage of the budget for anything else.   The ways, means and types of reductions can be debated endlessly, but the military industrial complex must be shrunk or it will consume everything else.  

[mu03eng]

I am not going to speak to the Warthog.   But any long term debt reduction simply has to include military reduction.   It is too large a percentage of the budget for anything else.   The ways, means and types of reductions can be debated endlessly, but the military industrial complex must be shrunk or it will consume everything else.  

I in no way disagree with this statement.  I also think smart budgeting would allow such things while retaining long term sustainability.  However, I would make the same argument about every other piece of non-discretionary spending which clearly seems off the table....in fact we're doubling down.

[tower912]

I agree. 

[brandx]

I in no way disagree with this statement.  I also think smart budgeting would allow such things while retaining long term sustainability.  However, I would make the same argument about every other piece of non-discretionary spending which clearly seems off the table....in fact we're doubling down.

It's always interesting when it comes to aircraft in the budget. the main problem is that besides having the biggest air force in the world, we also have the 2nd biggest air force in the world (Navy).

Between that and your point earlier on the congressional process (which encourages pork), we can see where there are going to be endless battles over a myriad of projects.

[reinko]

If Hagel had a shred of self respect, he would resign before carrying Obama's water here.  Pretty clear that a this is just a device   to find funds to pay for more of Obama's social agenda.

You sir sound like some kind military expert,  would love love here your credentials to speak so emphatically.  Please enlighten me with your extensive background,  so I can take these thoughts as fact.   

Thanks!

[jesmu84]

I am not going to speak to the Warthog.   But any long term debt reduction simply has to include military reduction.   It is too large a percentage of the budget for anything else.   The ways, means and types of reductions can be debated endlessly, but the military industrial complex must be shrunk or it will consume everything else.  

Just heard this morning on the radio that the military is being forced to cut solider wages, healthcare, etc to meet budget constraints. It just seems all so ridiculous to me, someone without the knowledge that keefe and others have. Maybe they can weigh in here. But I hear about tanks being manufactured that no one wants/asked for, aircraft that are beyond over budget and behind the timeline for development, excessive military research, etc. Yet we have the most expensive military in the world and we have to cut money from our troops? I'm one of the first to stand up and say we should reduce our international presence and we need to reign in military (non-discretionary bullcrap) spending, but I'm never for cutting money or benefits from the men who do the job.

[brandx]

You sir sound like some kind military expert,  would love love here your credentials to speak so emphatically.  Please enlighten me with your extensive background,  so I can take these thoughts as fact.   

Thanks!

They're just anxious to get rid of guys like Hagel and Kerry - guys who, you know, served their country when asked.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Just heard this morning on the radio that the military is being forced to cut solider wages, healthcare, etc to meet budget constraints. It just seems all so ridiculous to me, someone without the knowledge that keefe and others have. Maybe they can weigh in here. But I hear about tanks being manufactured that no one wants/asked for, aircraft that are beyond over budget and behind the timeline for development, excessive military research, etc. Yet we have the most expensive military in the world and we have to cut money from our troops? I'm one of the first to stand up and say we should reduce our international presence and we need to reign in military (non-discretionary bullcrap) spending, but I'm never for cutting money or benefits from the men who do the job.

I would much rather a large chunk of our expenditures go to the military than a number of other areas in the budget.  Here's the reason why.  The military expenditures often lead to innovations that lead to mainstream products and services that generate jobs, wealth, etc.   Yes, we spend a ton, we're also the world's cop.  I don't like it, many people don't, but someone has to do it.  If someone doesn't do it, the crapstorm that is created is just that..a crapstorm.  We've tried to deemphasize this in the past, and it bit us hard and cost us plenty to build back up.  When a vacuum is created, someone will try to fill it and it typically is someone that we don't want to fill it.  We're going down the same path again.  Some people just don't like the old history taught lessons I guess.

The defense budget is 19% of our total budget.  Big, but still far behind Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and other discretionary items which combined account for over 65% of the budget.

[keefe]

They're just anxious to get rid of guys like Hagel and Kerry - guys who, you know, served their country when asked.

x

ATWiz wore the uniform during wartime. He did so as a volunteer, too.

[jesmu84]

I would much rather a large chunk of our expenditures go to the military than a number of other areas in the budget.  Here's the reason why.  The military expenditures often lead to innovations that lead to mainstream products and services that generate jobs, wealth, etc.   Yes, we spend a ton, we're also the world's cop.  I don't like it, many people don't, but someone has to do it.  If someone doesn't do it, the crapstorm that is created is just that..a crapstorm.  We've tried to deemphasize this in the past, and it bit us hard and cost us plenty to build back up.  When a vacuum is created, someone will try to fill it and it typically is someone that we don't want to fill it.  We're going down the same path again.  Some people just don't like the old history taught lessons I guess.

The defense budget is 19% of our total budget.  Big, but still far behind Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and other discretionary items which combined account for over 65% of the budget.

I'm not trying to argue anything in your post. But as for the bolded, so did NASA, and that went in the tank, sadly.

Like you point out with regards to other topics, it's the wasteful spending, the inefficiencies, the obvious contracts/kickbacks, etc. that really irk me in regards to the military. And then to turn around and take money/benefits from the people doing the job. Terrible, IMO.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm not trying to argue anything in your post. But as for the bolded, so did NASA, and that went in the tank, sadly.

Like you point out with regards to other topics, it's the wasteful spending, the inefficiencies, the obvious contracts/kickbacks, etc. that really irk me in regards to the military. And then to turn around and take money/benefits from the people doing the job. Terrible, IMO.

On that we agree.  Wasteful spending, etc, drives me nuts.  

On the other hand, despite the expenditures I feel like I'm actually getting something as a taxpayer with the military far more than some of the other stuff that we spend on.  Whether it is defense of this country, defense of allies, new technology and new industries, a trained workforce that actually does something when they get out, a place where sometimes lost souls find themselves, etc.    I find that a lot more productive than some of the programs we have out there that pay people to do nothing.  Nothing infuriates me more.

[brandx]

x

ATWiz wore the uniform during wartime. He did so as a volunteer, too.

You know I'm just tweaking you on this - it's to be expected as we are about 180 degrees apart on politics.

I absolutely respect your opinions on this and am glad to read them, as well as ATWiz. You have every right to talk the talk since you already walked the walk. You have all the cred you need as far as I'm concerned.

[ATWizJr]

You sir sound like some kind military expert,  would love love here your credentials to speak so emphatically.  Please enlighten me with your extensive background,  so I can take these thoughts as fact.   

Thanks!

Just a simple enlisted man who served.  But you don't have to be a War College grad to realize a few basic things:

1.  Current proposal is to reduce our forces to below pre WW II levels.

2.  The world is not getting safer.

3. Current administration is proposing an end to "austerity" and new spending on social welfare programs.

I don't advocate for funding this new spending on the backs of the military.

Hope this helps.

[Hards Alumni]

just my 2c. 

-As a military, we need a robust Air Force and Navy. 
-Boots on ground is great, but it puts a lot of men in harms way. 
-Blow em up from hundreds of miles away, out of harms way. 
-Increase the reserves and decrease the enlisted men and give everyone a pay raise and the very best in equipment. 
-What is the point of the new planes if we have drones and cruise missles?
-Increase R&D budget
-Increase NASA budget to moon launch levels

and of course the unpopular one
-maintain social safety net programs (see I can call them biased names too!) but increase oversight and evolve the programs to incentivise participants to become contributors to the tax base.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

Didn't pass my Nam era physical so I didn't earn my stripes but I see the irony here:  military pay and benefits are to be cut while welfare payments increase.
Shoddy treatment for our lads and lassies in uniform.
While drug dealers are expanding well into the Pacific to avoid detection and expand  to Northern Cal, the Coast Guard has had to decrease the number of ships available for patrols.
Something is out of whack in Washington.