Article

2015-01-20 -Land of the Free

USAF General: Praising the A-10 to lawmakers is treason.

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Besoeker 2015-01-20 00:00|| || Front Page|| [10 views ] Top

#1 Fuck you Q-ball.

Eat a dick and shut up, or go out on the ground with the infantry before you say something so idiotic and deadly to our forces again.

Posted by DarthVader 2015-01-20 00:10|| 2015-01-20 00:10|| Front Page Top

#2 He never personally saw them work?

This is bullshit. The A-10 is here to stay. Do you understand?

Posted by newc 2015-01-20 00:17|| 2015-01-20 00:17|| Front Page Top

#3 Hey General - grunts have 2 words for you: FUCK YOU.

His record starts with F4, goes to F16, and thats it. 1983-2008 all fighter and fighter wing assignments, all pretty much air defense stuff. Seems to have gotten his higher commands after a 25 year career - they started in the Obama years

Another USAF Fighter Mafia a-hole with a stick up his butt.

Posted by OldSpook 2015-01-20 01:03|| 2015-01-20 01:03|| Front Page Top

#4 And given he prefaced his statement with a denial that he would ever admit to saying it, and basically suborning fellow officers to lie (via omission) to Congress... I'd say he should get his retirement papers in order if Congress is paying attention.

Posted by OldSpook 2015-01-20 01:09|| 2015-01-20 01:09|| Front Page Top

#5 I'll bet that 'stick up his butt' twitches erratically when he views this site.

Just a wild 'contractor job-after retirement' guess......

Posted by Besoeker 2015-01-20 01:14|| 2015-01-20 01:14|| Front Page Top

#6 Side note: Given the repeated cheating and other scandals at the USAF academy, the mess with complete disobedience by USAF officers with the whole ULA mess, the Nuclear Strategic Forces fiasco a few years ago, the mess with the F35, and far too few of the F22, refusing to let Enlisted/Warrants to fly drones, and now this jackass...

The US Air Force is a failing institution.

Posted by OldSpook 2015-01-20 01:18|| 2015-01-20 01:18|| Front Page Top

#7 The CINC is failing every institution.

Shame.

Posted by newc 2015-01-20 01:25|| 2015-01-20 01:25|| Front Page Top

#8 The 'fail' began in 1947. The U.S. Army is now only a couple of meters behind, and closing fast. They'll likely cross the fail line.... grinning and winking, hand-in-hand.

Posted by Besoeker 2015-01-20 01:26|| 2015-01-20 01:26|| Front Page Top

#9 Why have we had to defend this so obvious success project for more than 30 years? It is not high cost, it is political.

The F-35 is a clusterf**k and will never make standard.

The A-10 is what happens to win wars while politicians discuss them.

Lawyers are not warriors. "Defense contractors" got away with way too much.

This F-35 is a disaster in a disaster with bank accounts of rich, traitorous, a-holes that got paid for shit none delivered.

Do not take what we have for what you say we will have, and do not remove our arsenal with what has been hacked by every major power.

Back to drawing board. F-35 was a political plane.

In the meantime, let US keep our CAS.

Posted by newc 2015-01-20 02:06|| 2015-01-20 02:06|| Front Page Top

#10 A-10 has no future. Widespread manpads will kill it, unless USAF fails and the medium altitude is even dangerous. But then A-10 is the least of the problems.

British Tornados with 12 Brimstones and drones make the work from medium altitude with much more safety.

Posted by Lionel Thoth9784 2015-01-20 03:15|| 2015-01-20 03:15|| Front Page Top

#11 The discussion has devolved Lionel. The article and rant is more about a perfidious, self-serving general than the merits of an airframe. The good or bad of a particular piece of kit should be argued without reference to treason.

Posted by Besoeker 2015-01-20 05:15|| 2015-01-20 05:15|| Front Page Top

#12 newc says It is not high cost, it is political.

Of course it's not high cost! If anything it's LOW cost.

There's no room for major graft and pocketfilling if you've got a successful platform with a proven record.

And while I don't blame him for this because it's been going on for a long time, it fits perfectly into Obola's MO. Success is irrelevant, the only thing that counts is power and graft....it's the Chicago way.

Posted by AlanC 2015-01-20 08:29|| 2015-01-20 08:29|| Front Page Top

#13 Relatively to its number of aircraft WWII's USAAF had a far lesser imact on the front than the Luftwaffe or the Red Air Force. That is because ven in those times were the USAAF was for formally subordinated to the Army it dereamed of winning the war all by itself through strategic bombing and shunned close support to the ground forces. It was not only due to aleger share of planes being B-17s and B-24s ill suited for the role of assault planes but because of a lack of interest in developping doctrine and trainingg for it.

Things have not changed at all.

PS: How do yo tell stalinian purge in US Air Forcesque?

BTW

Posted by JFM 2015-01-20 08:35|| 2015-01-20 08:35|| Front Page Top

#14 Follow the Soviet model. Cut out and name separately the Strategic Forces [to include ABM forces] and return the rest to the Army Air Corps.

Posted by Procopius2k 2015-01-20 09:03|| 2015-01-20 09:03|| Front Page Top

#15 Praising the A-10 to lawmakers is treason

Probably Racist®, too.

Posted by Mullah Richard 2015-01-20 09:15|| 2015-01-20 09:15|| Front Page Top

#16 Fine, retire them. Get them out of the Air Farce inventory. The Army will be happy to pick them up and provide their own close air support.

Posted by 49 Pan 2015-01-20 13:41|| 2015-01-20 13:41|| Front Page Top

#17 49 Pan, the Marines could probably use a few too.

Posted by Rambler in Virginia 2015-01-20 13:54|| 2015-01-20 13:54|| Front Page Top

#18 Remember it's not just a A-10 vs F-35 issue. It's also an issue of the next generation attack helo vs an A-10. Both air based platform. Look at both in mission profile, susceptibility to counter measures, and cost. At a certain trade off level (there is no perfect), better to simply move the A-10 to the Army as a alternative to that next generation attack helo. (insert attack helo special interest howl here - of course they'll never be held accountable for the cost overruns let alone budget killing decision in the future either).

Posted by Procopius2k 2015-01-20 16:37|| 2015-01-20 16:37|| Front Page Top

#19 This Chart Shows The Staggering Hourly Cost Of Operating US Military Aircraft

Note the $/flight hr of the 'hog versus the more sexy products.

Posted by Hupineger Glomomp7490 2015-01-20 18:54|| 2015-01-20 18:54|| Front Page Top

#20 The issue here isnt the A-10. Its the officer calling a legally required honest answer to Congressional inquiry "treason". Thats quite simply wrong - and may in fact be criminal under the UCMJ.

This general should NEVER have gotten his star with that sort of attitude - he's using it for a corner office at Lockheed apparently.

Posted by OldSpook 2015-01-20 22:58|| 2015-01-20 22:58|| Front Page Top

#21 Cost per flight hour within DOD is very misleading. Not something to hold as gospel. Way over blown so the military units can get higher funding.

Posted by 49 Pan 2015-01-20 23:59|| 2015-01-20 23:59|| Front Page Top

23:59 49 Pan
23:04 chris
23:02 Procopius2k
22:58 OldSpook
22:55 OldSpook
22:48 newc
22:45 JosephMendiola
22:33 JosephMendiola
22:27 JosephMendiola
22:25 newc
22:16 JosephMendiola
22:13 JosephMendiola
22:03 JosephMendiola
21:56 JosephMendiola
21:38 Airandee
21:20 SteveS
21:13 DLR
21:11 badanov
21:08 SteveS
21:08 rammer
21:02 Mugsy Glink
20:59 Canuckistan sniper
20:55 JosephMendiola
20:48 JosephMendiola