You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Murphy's Law: The A-10 And The Plight Of The Generals
2015-11-06
[StrategyPage] The U.S. Air Force is at war with the United States Congress over how to handle the A-10 ground attack aircraft. This would seem to be a suicidal undertaking by the air force because Congress must also approve all promotions to general rank. Nevertheless the air force was recently caught trying to undermine a law Congress passed forbidding the air force from retiring the popular (with ground troops) A-10 ground attack aircraft. This hostile attitude by air force leadership is nothing new. Earlier in 2015 the general commanding the ACC (Air Combat Command) was fired (because of Congressional pressure) for giving a speech in which he declared that any air force personnel speaking out publicly in favor of the A-10 were guilty of treason. While ACC is in charge of most combat aircraft (fighters, bombers, recon and ground attack) ACC leadership has long believed that the A-10 has outlived its usefulness and that its ground support job could be done just as well by fighters like the F-16 and F-35. Experience in combat has shown that this is not true, but apparently to senior people in the air force backing the truth, at least when it comes to the A-10, is treasonous.

While the air force leadership officially denounced the "supporting the A-10 is treason" remarks it was recently revealed that while those apologies were being made those same air force generals were trying to sabotage the A-10 by quietly cutting major maintenance programs 40 percent during the last year. This meant that a growing number of A-10s would not be available for service because of "maintenance issues." It is believed that such excuses would not include the fact that the maintenance problems were self-inflicted by the air force leadership and it would instead be implied that the age of the A-10s was a factor.
Why are the generals doing this? My hypothesis is that they pegged their star[s] on the F-35 and don't want to face the consequences of that decision. More at the link.
Posted by:Sven the pelter

#7  Make the A10 drones piloted by the Army!

FIFEveryone!
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2015-11-06 12:53  

#6  After transferring close-air support to the Army, convict the generals pulling this crap of dereliction of duty.
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2015-11-06 12:05  

#5  The obvious solution to this quandary is an air-superiority variant of the A-10.

Sure, sounds crazy but consider:
It soothes the Fighter Mafia's disdain for all things terrestrial. The bean counters are happy because it fits their one-size-fits-all world view. The manufacturers get contracts and cash. And the people who actually need the A-10's unique services still get them.

Or you can do what Rambler said and just give the damn plane to the people who want it.
Posted by: SteveS   2015-11-06 11:52  

#4  I 2nd Rambler's motion.
Posted by: Sven the pelter   2015-11-06 09:40  

#3  Give the A-10 to the Army and Marines. Problem solved.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia    2015-11-06 09:24  

#2  Fighter jets are sexy. The A-10 is not.

A fighter assignment and command is a promotional ladder. The A-10 is not.

A simple fix would to change the ruling so fixed wing, air support aircraft now fell under the command of the Army.
Posted by: DarthVader   2015-11-06 08:48  

#1  Don't need A-10 if you just retreat from the battlefield and nuke it from orbit.
Posted by: Glenmore   2015-11-06 07:58  

00:00