General: Praising the A-10 to Lawmakers is ‘Treason’

A top U.S. Air Force general warned officers that praising the A-10 attack plane to lawmakers amounts to "treason," according to a news report.

A top U.S. Air Force general warned officers that praising the A-10 attack plane to lawmakers amounts to “treason,” according to a news report.

Maj. Gen. James Post, vice commander of Air Combat Command, was quoted as saying, “If anyone accuses me of saying this, I will deny it … anyone who is passing information to Congress about A-10 capabilities is committing treason,” in a report published Thursday on The Arizona Daily Independent.

In a response to the news outlet, a spokesman at the command, based at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia, described the comments to attendees of a recent Tactics Review Board at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada as “hyperbole.”

In an e-mail to, spokeswoman Maj. Genieve David said, “The intent of his comments were to communicate the Air Force’s position and decision on recommended actions and strategic choices faced for the current constrained fiscal environment.”

She added, “Our role as individual military members is not to engage in public debate or advocacy for policy.”

The Air Force is seeking to retire its fleet of almost 300 of the Cold War-era gunships, known as the Thunderbolt II and nicknamed the Warthog, even as pilots fly the aircraft — whose snub-nose packs a 30mm cannon — in the Middle East to attack targets affiliated with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Congress rejected the service’s requests to begin the process of divesting the low, slow-flying aircraft this year and included about $337 million in the budget to keep it in the inventory. While they did allow the Air Force to move as many as 36 of the planes to back-up status, they blocked the service from sending any of them to the bone yard.

Air Force officials say they’ll renew the effort as part of the fiscal 2016 budget request, which is expected to be released in a couple of weeks.

In a briefing Thursday at the Pentagon, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said the service’s use of A-10 in U.S.-led air strikes against ISIS isn’t inconsistent with its strategy to eventually retire the plane.

“There are a number of strike platforms that are engaged” in the operation against ISIS, including the F-15 and F-16, she said. The A-10 is “a great contributor, but so are the other aircraft,” she said.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh, himself a former Warthog pilot, said the proposed retirement of the gunship is “an emotional issue inside the Air Force.” Pilots “love their airplane — they should love their airplane,” he said.

“For the Air Force … it’s a sequestration-driven decision,” Welsh said, referring to automatic, across-the-board budget cuts Congress and the White House agreed to in 2011 as part of deficit-reduction legislation. The cuts are slated to return with greater effect in fiscal 2016 unless lawmakers agree on an alternative plan.

“We don’t have enough money to fund all the things that we currently have in our force structure,” Welsh said.

Even if the service’s request to retire the A-10 was approved as part of the fiscal 2015 budget, he added, the aircraft would have remained in service until 2019.

Sen. John McCain, the longtime Republican from Arizona and new chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was part of a group of lawmakers who worked to preserve funding for the A-10.

““We are going to do away with the finest close-air-support weapon in history?” he questioned during a press conference last year on Capitol Hill.

The senator, a longtime critic of the F-35 fighter jet – the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons acquisition program designed to replace the A-10 and other aircraft – questioned why the Air Force would begin to get rid of the Warthog before it has started operational flights of the stealthy, radar-evading jet. The F-35A is scheduled to reach initial operating capability, or IOC, in 2016 but only by employing a less lethal version of software.

“And we are then going to have some kind of nebulous idea of a replacement with an airplane that costs at least 10 times as much — and the cost is still growing — with the F-35?” McCain said at the news conference. “That’s ridiculous.”

About the Author

Brendan McGarry
Brendan McGarry is the managing editor of He can be reached at Follow him on Twitter at @Brendan_McGarry.
  • Lance

    The same crap is what to expect from the same brass who waste billions for a inferior JSF. Glad every one out side of the Pentagon rejects the JSF crap.

    • William_C1

      What are you talking about? You are talking about different types of aircraft. Would you compare the F-15 to the A-10? Or the B-1?

      • oblatt22

        The f-35 is a strike fighter – but you dot wan to be comparing it to the f-15E strike fighter. No that comparison looks very bad for the f-35.

        But to be fair any way you look at it the F-35 looks like shiit.

      • William_C1

        Ever wonder why we have something around six F-16s for every one F-15E? Because it's an even more expensive aircraft than the F-35.

      • Woodcutter

        -C1: That's the problem though, the AF brass IS comparing it to other aircraft, especially in this case the A-10, and stating the F-35 will be able to perform a satisfactory CAS role. Grudgingly admitting it won't be AS good as an A-10, but stating firmly that it will perform just fine.

        The aircraft comparison question isn't an issue with armchair pilots & generals wrongly comparing air assets and spinning stats to support their argument. The problem is AF & Pentagon brass making the comparisons themselves, publicly, and then fighting to convince the audience that their position is correct, in spite of data/experience that demonstrates otherwise. Only very recently have AF officials acknowledged that the F-35 gun isn't as good as the A-10 (beside the fact it can't shoot it yet), but even then, with acknowledging inferiority in firepower and available ammo, and in the aiming method, they still stand firm and say that with all those items that might appear to be shortcomings, it will do just fine. This denial of the reality in aircraft differences makes the whole thing even more laughable.

      • stpaulchuck

        and more deadly woodcutter. Stray rounds hitting friendly forces is a definite danger – always assuming the F35 actually does mount a gun that can actually shoot.

      • R. K. Otto

        The USMC and NAVY went through this with the A-6 program. The pentagon asked if the USAF could do the same job as the A-6 and they got an answer that got rid of the A-6. It was THE ONLY aircraft capable of close air support bombing in ANY type of weather. The USAF still has nothing to compare to the A-6. Ask why they took all control away from the Marines and Navy in Vietnam of the A-6 and the answer back then and still today is that they didn't have ANY type of comparable aircraft.

    • flachsbarth

      "Treason". Really? No third star for you!

      • Calisknkworks

        Maybe no 3rd star but a C-level position w/ LMCO fer sure!

      • blight_asdsf

        Advisory or board position awaits!

    • Nick Donofrio

      This is one of the best close air support aircraft I have ever seen! That 30mm gun is awesome and the aircraft itself is, somewhat stealthy on the enemy. I have seen them in action many time (Desert Storm) and the best thing about them is . You DO NOT HEAR them coming when they are on an attack run. The enemy is already dead by the time they hear they (LOL) and 2. They require little ground support. Yeah ammunition loads but each engine has an internal APU, so none are needed on the ground to start the engines up. basically they can be started like a car!!

      • Will L

        I havent served, so take this for what its worth, but I camp in areas that the guard trains with the A-10, and in the right terrain, you simply do not here them coming. There’s silence, roar and shadow, and then nothing. You’re lucky if you actually have enough time to look up and see one.

    • 11ACR63

      This is the kind of mindless crap being turned out by the Air Farce. It's time to give the planes to the army, restart the air corp, and send this guy to work at Taco Bell where it sounds like he belongs.

      • JTrue67

        Even Taco Bell deserves better!

      • Agreed.

    • JasonWright

      Her is a solution…..give them tothe Marines! They will know how to use them!

      Or do away with this NO ARMED Fixed wings for the ARMY bullshit and give them to them. If the Air Force only wants to fly shiny fun toys give the down in the dirt A-10s to someone who will appreciate them!!!!!

    • T Ganzel

      Look up treason in the dictionary General …. no mention of the A-10 there. Politics from the other side …. how nice.

    • Gator

      But we still rebuild and upgrade the B52 that is an ancient and effective platform. Once again a military man using policy decision to maybe make the next rank. Another dumb ladder climber.

    • docsmith

      I would guess that the general and those like him, Have never needed and had the A-10 Warthog overhead. It is way more comfortable to hear the whine of the warthog and know he or she is right there when you need it. Saved our butts several times. Nothing against the other platforms butt you can see the A-10 and so can the enemy. Its a huge moral advantage
      Doc Smith

    • KevinPB13

      I agree with you, the Air Force doesn't need a Gen 5 multi-roll fighter. The costs per plane are enough to fund and upgrade the A-10 for years to come. I just wish the ding dongs in the pentagon would get their heads out and really do some serious thinking about the actual NEED for the F-35.

    • Michael.palella

      This guy made general ???? Idiot ! He insulted every A-10 pilot and Air Force officer . Maybe he needs a tour in Iraq and Afghanistan and see who covers his butt .

      • john steffen

        And just maybe you should know what your are talking about before you dump with a pen.

      • ejoy

        agree. with John..these guys that make comments about a outstanding office and fighter pilot without knowing him are just as much an idiot. keep your comments to your self..

    • masseur1950

      The best airframe to attack ISIS on the ground and they want to retire it. This is shameful. This is PURE TREASON on the part of the commander in chief to have taken all personnel out of Iraq, out of Afghanistan, to allow taliban and ISIS to flourish. All the soldiers who have lost limbs, life and have come back with PTSD have done their work FOR NOTHING. The capture of KILLERS jailed in Guantanamo and freed just for the ability to say a promise was fulfilled when so many others were not is flabbergasting. Then, that the jailed combattants would go back to the front to kill and destabilize the countries is again shameful.

    • mike

      The main problem with the A-10 is that it is too cheap! You can almost have a squadron of 'Hogs' for the price of the F-35. It is also too easy to work on in the field. I have always advocated that the Hog be assigned to the Armored Air Cav of the Army and to the Marines. The Air Force Weanies only want dedicated fighters. That's why they designated the Attack 117 as the F as in Fighter.

      Of course I'm old. I was a mechanic on the world famous A-4 Skyhawk.

    • guest

      how did such a stupid dipshit get so high in our military

      • James

        He's in the Air Force. I'm not sure he's in the military.

    • robert bryant

      the A-10 is in same category as the B-52 they keep it around because they cant replace its performance and
      durability . you want to drop a lot of ordinance you call the BUFF. you want a ground attack support you call the Warthog. maybe they should restart production and update the systems of the A-10 then you can get
      5 for the price of one F-35. WHAT A MONEY PIT!!

    • BlueEagleOne

      Garbage! General Post's comments are truly characteristic of a "pointy nose" fighter pilot–no rational thought at all. The Wart Hog is the best CAS ever. The veritable "takes a licking and keeps on ticking." But, oh, if it gets scrapped, then there will be more money for ….. more pointy nose airplanes that fly fast but can't carry a decent payload … like the F-35. Hmmm. And if the Wart Hog should be put in the bone yard since it's an "old" Cold War aircraft … how about those Buffs? They take a licking and keep on ticking, too. Quit scrapping good aircraft not to mention PEOPLE to scape up the big bucks to buy new expensive designer jets.

      • Joe

        As a pointy nosed fighter guy I resent that comment. I thing General Post's comments are idiotic as well.

    • Reform School

      How much outlay could be recovered grounding a fleet of Air Force Ones and Twos for two years?

    • mogul264

      It was the same in the Viet Nam war. There was a rugged old WWII prop-driven carrier aircraft, which the military wanted to scrap, Navy called them an AD-5, and they could carry nearly anything you could cram inside a spacious, hot fuselage, or hang from the wings. They were TANKS, great for slow, close-air support, and could land nearly anywhere. They were called "Spads", from the name of an old WWI aircraft. There were several other older model a/c which were used, sometimes heavily modified. The McDonnell F4D (again Navy) Phantom, of post N. Korean action, for instance, was converted into what was called "Wild Weasels", electronic countermeasure and anti-air-missile support. Managed to sucker many MiGs to their destruction!

    • Netdude1

      Perhaps the General is in Conspiracy with the rest of the crew to take over the United States government. To take out All who oppose their way of Thinking, Like the up rising of the KKK in Georgia. God knows i was attacked when i went to Ohio And Penn to visit my Wife who was rapped by crooked NSA and Sheriff deputies, because i knew too much. The cops from the other agencies were planning to Arrest me on various charges, and a couple wanted to shoot me, but some How i was able to walk away…You Can Take That To The Bank…

  • Charles

    A top U.S. Air Force general warned officers that praising the A-10 attack plane to lawmakers amounts to “treason,” according to a news report.
    Hmmm. I think the general has it wrong: anyone who thinks its a good idea to kill the most effective CAS solution in history – only to replace it with a 5th-generation-priced platform that operates at a 3rd generation level while carrying a tiny fraction of the weapons capabilities at several times the operating costs MUST be working for an adversary of the United States.

    With friends like these – we don't need enemies.

    • Big-Dean

      the only person committing treason is the so called general himself

    • guest

      You can be sure he does not want these planes transferee to the Army, who would be glad to take them an use them for the next 20 years.

      • sw614

        Really? Then why is not the Army lobbying to do just that? And even if they did, where would money to operate the acft come from? In case you did not notice, the Army is short of funds too.

      • Badger130

        The Army doesn't want the A-10 as it is committed to helicopters such as the Apache to perform the Army's CAS mission due to their service's party line. BOTH services are wrong headed. The Marines are just about as bad thinking that their Harrier is the best CAS platform; and I have no idea how they can even begin to say that! Problem is that all the services senior commanders get caught up in their own service's parochial politics and become aggressively defensive. (Members of Congress in respective armed services committees are just as bad as they defend the interests of defense industries in their own states. TX and the A-7. Maryland and New York and the A-10, etc.) You talk to the guys that actually do the work and they have much different opinions than their senior leadership. Beyond the rank of major all officers tend to follow the party line to protect their careers in the face of empirical evidence and common sense.

      • Sean

        The Army isn't allowed to have fixed wing aircraft, because of some agreement with the Air Force and the Navy post WW2. The actual name of the agreement escapes me.

        The USMC has a requirement for their aircraft to be Carrier landing capable, which is why they technically can't have it.

        Both branches would love to have the A-10 platform, and I know I speak for other ground-pounders in that we are much more comfortable with Army and USMC pilots providing CAS than we are Navy and Air Force.

    • deane

      the Airedale general is just another of Barry's mouthpieces

      • ddeane

        AHi alpha hotel dont blame the president for a turd of a plane

      • blight_asdfasf

        Second Lieutenant June 1, 1983
        First Lieutenant June 1, 1985
        Captain June 1, 1987
        Major May 1, 1995
        Lieutenant Colonel Sept. 1, 1998
        Colonel June 1, 2004
        Brigadier General May 7, 2010
        Major General Aug. 9, 2013

        Worth noting that the general has to be selected by peers, go to the Executive, and then be confirmed by the Senate. Granted, the Senate was 58/2/40 D/I/R.

    • Will

      I think he doest protest too much!

    • nprev

      I would very much like to know if MG Post is retiring soon, and if so if he has been offered a position with Lockheed-Martin. This really has the stench of corruption about it.

    • David Richards

      The General has exhibited all of the characteristics of Air Force Flag Officers incredible intelligence without an once of common sens. The Air Force is not going to risk one of their precious aircraft (F-35) down low and in harm's way to support troops on the ground. Stealth makes very little difference on the battlefield during a fire fight on the ground. The F-35 cannot absorb any battle damage in the close-support role. The A-10 has proven that to be a capable weapons platform that can absorb punishment that would have downed other aircraft. Having one engine only does not provide comfort to the pilot who has to go into a AAA environment. tHow effective can the F-35 be when it will launch weapons only from distances designed to protect it not the troops on the ground. The F-35 is another A-12 project only more advanced and more expensive. This the same outdated thinking about ground support that the Air Force used in saying about air to air combat in that we do not need a gun, missiles will defeat our opponents beyond visual range.

      • BDR

        David, You (like most Army and Marines) completely ignore the fact that the Air Force does much more then cover ground troops. The A-10 can not even go in until they have air cover and that takes F-15, F-16's and F-35's. Hell, most ground cover air craft have problems with SAMs as well – even supersonic birds have trouble with those.
        With the smart weapons we currently have, troops are being covered by those "F" designated Air Craft as well as bombers. That makes both bombers (B) and fighters (F) multi-roll aircraft. Think about it, even cargo aircraft have multiple uses (some where used in the gulf war to drop fuel bombs, some are hospital evacs, some transport fuel, some are used by paratroops and some can be made into gun ships). Yet, the A-10 has one job and Yes, I get why ground pounders like it. But honestly, where would you cut? You can't cut the Cargo Aircraft or equipment and troops can't get where we need them. You can't cut the fighters because they are needed to clear the sky of enemy fighters. You can't cut the bombers, because many of those are used to take out AAA and SAM sights. So, why spend the extra $327 MILLION on a single roll aircraft?

      • dave J

        i wouldn't look to -35s for Air to Air. It'll be marginal for that as it'll be marginal for all of it's roles. For air to air the best out there today and in OUR near future is the -22.

    • M/Sgt Retired

      There is one point that jumps out at me. That being the fact that those wishing to decommission the weapon system have never been in in combat. The specture and warthog have saved countless American and allied lives. I wonder how much kickback some folks are receiving?

      • D.J.

        Super comment and right on target. But it seems that those having not served in combat are the ones quickest to tell combat personnel how to fight and what type of equipment they need to fulfill their mission. You will always find Eskimos ready and willing to give the Congolese tips on how to deal with the heat wave.

    • Will L

      What’s really worrying about his use of the word treason isn’t so much how it applies to the A-10 but how it points to a mindset where the AF isn’t expected to serve the nation, but where the highest loyalty is to the AF itself, more specifically the AF leadership. Bad things happen when organizations meant to serve the nation confuse what’s best for them as being the same as what’s best for the country.

    • Seagoing Chief

      He is not working for just any U.S. Adversary, He 's maybe working for the three Generals higher ranking than him: Electric, Atomics and Motors.

    • Gerald

      I agree with Charles. The A-10 is a fab CASer. The only thing I've ever heard pilots complain about is they wish they had more speed once their mission is complete.

    • walter dale

      where do we get these stupid people from do we draft them from our enemy. let this guy get his ass out on the line and and need help. when the A-10 rolls in and saves his sorry ass he may have a different opinion on retirement. no disrespect Sir but your head ant in the wild blue yonder.
      x-army ranger

    • Michael Neyland

      'Treason' is a harsh word to use – with all the explicit and implied threats to the safety and security of the United States. One would think that a senior officer would understand the difference between treason and fiscal discussions. Perhaps said officer should consider retirement.

    • George

      Right on Charles…unless of course the contractors for the "replacement aircraft" are contributing buddies with the administration, then it is all OK……

      • Charles

        Heh –

        The contractors for the "replacement aircraft" have been carefully chosen by LockMart, to ensure that F-35 work is distributed across all the lower 48 states. Hence – no matter how lousy the F-35 performs, its chances of being canceled as a project are all but nil – even at the expense of putting US national security at risk – let alone the lives of the pilots.

        It is the House of Representatives that provide the funds for defense outlays – the only authority the White House has is either to sign or veto the spending bill. And you'll find few in the HoR who are going to champion job losses in their districts.

    • Joe Sellers

      The A-10 can and will do the job it was designed to do if all the politicians and some Air Force brass will leave it alone. The Army wants it so give it to them. The F-35 can't even fly if the fuel gets warm. You could buy a lot of A-10s for one F-35, that can't fly. They remind me of a Harrier Jet.

    • Netdude1

      We the People agree with Lance and Charles; Moreover, Perhaps the General is Part of Grand Design to Over Throw the United States Government. We know that Spy Satellites are Corrupting peoples Neurological Net (Brain), And driving People Crazy..Perhaps not only he is Part of the Coup, But part of the New KKK that is Rising Up in state of Georgia… We have Evidence that Kigre Corporation equipment is being used Extensively. And Maybe this is why so many People have started fighting A Lot (Like Radical Groups ISIS). The Spy Satellites and other Surveillance Equipment is being Used by the Coup, attempting to take over the United States. Causing Kaos and discontent, So more Equipment can be sold to Law Enforcement by Kigre Corporation to promote their Bottom Line…I've been Targeted because i know too much about these Things.. Our Home was attacked by Corrupt Cops. Our home was broken into. i was drugged and my Wife was Raped by the Cops and a couple NSA agents who believe they can Do Anything in the name of Corrupt NSA Policy. That these same men and Women, some of whom used to work for NSA and Homeland Security, are part of this Coup to overthrow the United States Government. One thing for Sure, when i was pulled over many times in Ohio and Pennsylvania, to visit my Wife separated by South Carolina cops and Kigre Corp officials, with high government clearances in Aerospace and Aviation, the cops that pulled me over (several times), had Very Mean Demeanor, threatening me with Arrest, and even Shooting me. But Some how they were pulled off me at the last minute…You Can Take That To The Bank…

    • Jon Grigsby

      We kept the B-52's, why aren't we using them? The F-4's seemed to have done a fine job in Desert Storm, why aren't we using them. Is this a Technology War or a Budget War? I say we upgrade the Aircraft we are already using and continue to use them as they are still effective in accomplishing their goals. Having aircraft sitting idle on a Flightline isn't cost effective. Selling them to our allies could be cost effective and given the proper training, the allies could help in the fight to put an end to a battle that has no end! Blowing a bunch of Hot Air won't fill a balloon and damn sure won't get anything accomplished in the Nation's Capitol!

  • Badger130

    By depriving our ground forces of the near perfect CAS platform, the A-10, Gen. Post is providing aid and comfort to the enemy. I'm sure that canning the A-10 will embolden and gladden the black hearts of our adversaries. If anyone is guilty of treason it is Gen. Post.

    • oblatt22

      How can that be when he has the best interests of Lockheed at heart ?

    • J Ryan

      If Jim Post said that, it was certainly sarcasm.

      • Badger130

        'Treason' as sarcasm is a bit out of place for a general officer to offer on such an emotional filled topic, don't you think?

    • Old Airborne Grunt

      This General has obviously never spent one minute on the ground surrounded by bad guys praying for CAS. The AF thinks choppers can do this job. Not. Up your General sir.

      • Badger130

        Perhaps off topic but during the Vietnam war when guys were in close contact FACs prayed hard that the fast movers that would come to 'save the day' were not F-4s. Regardless what anyone might say CAS during the Vietnam War wasn't particularly CLOSE air support. Probably one of the few fixed winged acft that was good at CAS was the A-1.

      • William_C1

        Does the A-7 get no credit?

      • gilbertc

        Not at all, the A-10 has a bigger gun.

    • Ronald K Hixson

      Agree! Badger130 The A-10 is the most effective close air support we've ever had !

    • jimonthebeach

      I cannot imagine a more asinine decision. The A-10 is a superb close air support platform and has saved thousands of infantry warriors while killing thousands of enemy fighters. The Air Force should be fighting tooth and nail to keep in their arsenal.

    • Jere A. Martin

      Thats a big AFFIRMATIVE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Jere A. Martin

        An old F86 driver.

    • gilbertc

      I agree with you Badger 130. Sounds to me like he's one of Obama's hand picked jerkoffs, or what we have left after Obama's purge of good Generals over the last few years.

  • Retired Army

    Major David is correct in that individual servicemembers are not to engage in public debate, however we are required to answer congressional questions accurately and honestly.

    There's probably not a commander that has not had to answer to a congressional inquiory. Depending on your position, you may get several in a year.

    For the MG to feel he can make a statement like that, particularly in the open, shows his contempt for not only congress, but his fellow officers.

    • "For the MG to feel he can make a statement like that, particularly in the open, shows his contempt for not only congress, but his fellow officers."

      True it also places a glaring spotlight on how petty, disingenuous and deceptive the Air Force is when the issue is CAS.

    • Leon Suchorski

      For any person in the military, officer or enlisted, to make a statement out in the open, it is a violation of the UCMJ, but NOT TREASON. They are just speaking without approval of higher authority. And that is it. They may be punished by office hours or a court martial.

      • Sparapet

        It’s not. There is no such UCMJ requirement. Contact with by service members with members of Congress is explicitly protected by Title 10 US Code. Meaning, this general meant it was treason in the eyes of the USAF leadership which means if you talk you are ending your career.

    • Hugh Jardon

      Actually Retired Army – Title 32 National Guard members do not face the same restrictions on public debate that Title 10 Active Duty members do, so they can openly pass info to Congress in fact Sen Lindsey Graham is a military member who is in Congress.

    • retmsgt

      maybe playing politics is how he made General.

  • Retired Army

    And since officer promotions must be approved by the senate, I don't anticipate a promotion for him, to LTG, making it passed the people he holds in contempt.

    • Big-Dean

      he should be retired now, at a lower rank, perhaps only O-6, for conduct unbecoming, making threats, abuse of position, failure to follow orders, lack of confidence in ability to command, etc etc

      • guest

        Only takes one Senator to put a promotion on hold.

      • Big-Dean

        I have great faith that nothing will happen, in fact, he'll probably get promoted (just like that Navy ship commander that got promoted after she killed two pilots)

      • oblatt22

        We used to shoot people for treason, but hey yea sure retire him on full pension instead, it will serve as a fine lesson to the others

    • bbabbitt

      Better yet, give him one of those now popular pink slips. This guy needs to be canned and now!

  • Nicky

    I wonder how much that General likes his JOB. Maybe congress can get another look at this General's JOB and see if it's worth keeping.

    • bbabbitt

      It's not worth keeping him on.

    • Ernie

      Who's side is the PC General on anyway. We need the A-10's firepower for the battles that are comming.

  • deerbandit

    “We don’t have enough money to fund all the things that we currently have in our force structure,” Welsh said. Then get rid of the junk strike fighter or buy less of them dipstick. To get rid of what is probably the most advanced CAS aircraft ever with something that will never compare. Less survivabity, less armament, less loiter time, unproven, even you general officer idiots should get it. The JSF is no replacement for the A-10.

    • Guest

      If you listen to the Air Force, They have never had enough money to fund all the toys they want.

      • sw614

        Guess the other services having the same issue is lost on you

    • Dave K

      I wonder if the dear General ever was in a situation on the ground where he needed the CAS the A-10 is capable of? More desk drivers who never saw any combat except on TV or from a headquarters video screen.

  • Donnie corbin

    The A-10 should have been in the Army or the Marines in the first place. Why not give it to them now. They are the ones that need and want close air support and know best how to use it!

    • Marine64

      Can't do it since infrastructure from the Air Farce has to go with the platform – along with the money to support it. That is why the A-10 was not passed to Army in 1989 when it was first proposed. The other reason is that Congress would have to amend the Service Roles and Missions that formed the Air Force. To get all the fixed wing aircraft that was owned by the then Army Air Corps, the new AF had to agree to provide CAS to the Army ground forces as well as air lift for all US military Services. The Air Farce in 1989 saw the writing on the wall and withdrew their plan to get rid of the A-10. I was part of the process when assigned to the Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity (Quantico, VA). We were tasked by SecDef to Operational Test and Evaluate the operational concept of the Army operating the A-10 instead of the Air Force. The Marine Corps has been successfully since 1939 in the coordination of CAS requirements in support of our Ground Combat Element. Fortunately for us, the AF C/S withdrew his intent. We were already loaded with Marine Corps items that needed to be operationally tested.

      • You might be misremembering.

        The proposal was dated 20 July 1990, Senate Bill 2884, not '89. It wasn't infrastructure. That was covered in the bill. On page 245 of that document the Senate directed: “The Secretary of the Military department concerned shall notify the Secretary of the Air Force at the time each such aircraft (OV-1 and OV-10) is retired, and the Secretary of the Air Force shall upon notification, transfer one A-10 aircraft and all required support equipment to such military department.” It was Desert Shield/Storm which showcased how effective the A10 was. The Air Force couldn't give up the poster child that got it so much positive press.

        It also doesn't make sense to say the Army wasn't able to support the A10 (despite the fact that the law moved infrastructure with the plane). The Marines didn't get it either..

        It also seems strange that according to your memory the Army had no role in the decision.

        There's no need to amend the Air Force's roles and missions. It can still provide CAS using other aircraft when necessary and needed to support the ground forces..

        Finally, the Air Force didn't get ALL of the Army's fixed wing. The Army to this day actually owns some fixed wing and was less than a decade ago funded by Congress to field the C27J as a fixed wing intratheatre lift. That was until SecDef Gates and the DoD recommended to Congress (with the Army's approval) that the whole program be transferred to the Air Force that would fly it for the Army. After the Air Force got the plane they mothballed it. DoD obstructs the Army's ability to assume a fixed wing CAS mission not law. If DoD asked for it, Congress would consider it.

      • BW3

        And the AF is giving the Army all of its MC-12s while the Army retires all of its OH-58 Kiowas

    • Chuck

      Your suggestions makes sense, hence, it will most like not go anywhere.

    • bbabbitt

      Well gee, that would make too much sense. It might even save lives. Wouldn't want that no, would we?

    • Fordownr

      The AF has been trying to kill the A-10 for at least a decase (probably more). What SHOULD be done (IMO) is send the POS F35 back to EMD phase until it can do what itiis SUPPOSED to do. Then use the left over money ro upgrade the Warthog.

      • Fordownr

        Fat fingers, DECADE.

    • Bruce

      Last itme the AF was going to ditch the A10 the Army wanted and low and behold the AF kept it.

    • Mac

      Trust me, we(the USAF) know how to use the A-10.

  • B.A.Dilger

    Any service person who speaks I’ll of the A-10 should be charged with treason. I’m glad to hear that it is still in action against low-intensity targets.

    • Eugene Willard

      I agree with you. The A-10 is a fantastic and versatile aircraft. We should keep them.

    • Rhino


  • torquewrench

    Do away with the Key West Agreement.

    Allow the Army to operate their own rough-field, forward-based CAS as required, to include fixed-wing. Give them the -10 frames and spares.

    (Note that it may turn out much of such forward CAS is better suited to drones and rotary-wing assets, or to lighter cheaper turboprop fixed-wing. That's okay. It extends the lives of the A-10 frames for those missions which truly do require the Hog.)

    Don't wish to shortchange the USMC in this deal, but the Marines really require a navalized carrier-qual aircraft for their littoral missions, and retro-navalizing the A-10 is a nonstarter. It would require a new production line, pretty much.

    • guest

      Impossible. Anyway the Marines have had their CAS plane, the harrier, which has flown off amphib decks since in came into service

      • Marine64

        We also have the F/A-18 which has worked out well for CAS missions. USMC-Retired

      • blight_aasdf

        AV-8 and Hornet aren't CAS platforms. Like any other air force platform, they can perform gun runs and drop PGM's, and perform the CAS mission. How well this mission is performed is a function of equipment and training.

        I suspect the Air Force might point at the Marines and say "well, they can use Hornets for CAS, so we'll use some other fast-mover too"

      • Not impossible. We didn't have cyber capability until DoD said we needed it and Congress funded it. That's all that is required.

      • BW3

        Just not the greatest decision for the Army to pick up a new(ish) type weapon system. That was words from a WO

      • Yep, they said that about the tank also…

      • blight_asfsad

        The army also picked up those fangled aeroplanes too, deciding that aircraft flying from land were as relevant as navy efforts to fly them from ships or airships.

    • Woodcutter

      Check the list of air assets lost, from Desert Storm to present. Only count the battle losses and unexplained crashes, not lost on the ground (spoiler alert: A10 stats suffer from the exclusion of these losses, it does not benefit) and you'll note that there is approx 7:1 fast mover to A-10 loss ratio, and a double digit difference (20s) against rotary wing. The A-10 is very clearly the delivery and survivibility champion of CAS work. No slam to the Army or Marines in their use of rotary, those guys kick A. Just the simple fact that the A-10 goes in, delivers, and comes back, at a loss ratio that is indisputable.

      Looking at the loss records, between all the conflicts from Desert Storm to present, A-10 losses stay on one hand. The other assets do not. Or on two hands for that matter. To say it can't survive is ludicrous.

      • Woodcutter – true and your point is even more powerful when you look at sortie rates. The fast movers did no where near the CAS sorties that the A10 did and the A10 still outshines other aircraft in the CAS role in every measure..

      • balais

        This is pretty telling about how the AF deliberately tried placing the A10 in a less than favorable light by manipulating statistics.

        That, to me, is a smoking gun about their intentions.

      • blight_

        While I have brought up A-10 losses previously when people only focused on OIF and Kim Campbell, I will say many of those losses were to the heavier Strela (there is a a vehicle-portable heavy Strela, and a man-portable light Strela), or potentially some Rolands. The losses are against powerful short-range missiles, which is to be expected with its operating profile.

        I suspect the Air Force has a dream of having an air force like the F-117: capable of flying into Baghdad and dropping bombs with total impunity with very low loss rates. I can't comment on how viable that model is.

    • sw614

      A-10 was available to purchase by USMC when it was in production. The USMC is replacing the AV-8 with the F-35, but no one looks at that.

      The Army does not have the funds/manning to support 250-300 A-10s.

      • Give the planes to the Army and the Army will figure it out. The Army has an exponentially greater number of attack helicopters per capita compared to the Marines exactly because it cannot fly armed fixed wing.

        One would see less reliance on attack helos and their force structure because they have shorter range, less speed, loiter time and payload. There would also be a bloodbath among Army aviators to get into the A10's driver's seat.

      • BW3

        From an Army WO

        "As for the Army taking the A-10 there's no way. We are brought up as rotary wing pilots and the institutional knowledge just isn't there to incorporate a tactical jet into the mix. We could be trained to fly it but on the battle field we would perform like ate up dog shit. It would be a rough transition for sure. Then you have the budget, maintenance, facilities, etc. It's just not realistic at all."

        From a different WO leaving the Army

        "The Army is a huge, general-purpose ground force, and it's command focus is oriented toward that. This creates a huge lack of understanding on how to run an aviation organization. Sometimes you get really good aviation commanders like Gen. Cody who understand how to manage it, but most of the time you are under the command of a non-aviation commander. "

        Could the Army eventually get it done, sure, given a lot of time and money. Things they don't always have.

      • Since you are quoting anonymous anecdotes I figure I'd add.

        CW4 "You damn right the Army should take it!! It's a flying tank for goodness sake. There was a female Air Force Pilot that flew her A10 back to base during Desert Shield/Storm with half the vertical fin shot off and holes all over the aircraft. That was proof enough for me that this aircraft is BADASS!!!":

        Blackhawk pilot"The A-10 should never have been in the Air Force inventory. It is a closer air support aircraft. It has a better time on station than any helicopter owned by any country, can provided better support and take a hell of a lot of damage and still complete its mission. In 1990, the A-10 was to go to the Army but then Iraq invaded Kuwait. It's time to put it where it belongs."

        Here's a Navy Captain that makes the case for moving the plane to the Army

        A petition to move the A10 to the Army

      • BW3

        Those were words from senior CW4s that actually fly for officers such as yourself. One of which has decided to leave the Army for a fixed winged platform in the service you hate so much.

        Have you ever thought of actually putting in some effort to make the inter service relationship work instead of being so negative?

      • Those screen names don't state they are senior CWO's. Neither do they say they are leaving the service to fly fixed wing which would be doubtful for a senior warrant. Other services don't allow warrant officers to fly. He'd also likely be too old to get accepted, commissioned and complete flight training in another service. You're assuming a lot

        Over half a century of Air Force obstructionism is jading.

    • Fred Weems

      Many decades ago there was an initial attempt to navalize the Warthog, but the problem was that the big boats go too fast, and the Hog couldn't keep up. They toyed with the idea of a nose hook, but the speed differential between big boat and ugly fighter was too great for the cables to handle, so the idea was tossed, along with a fair number of landlubber cookies.

  • Floyd

    The Air Force has tried to get rid of the in the past. Just as this was about to happen a major conflict happened. Ever one was happy to have the A-10 in the fight. At one time congress had passed a law allowing the Army to take control of the A-10 for close air support of the troops. Just before this was to happen the major conflict took place and the transfer did not happen.

    • grandpabluewater

      A new production line producing a carrier landing and catapult capable CAS aircraft with all the virtues of the Restarting A10 production line is the best solution. Considerable design savings should be realizable by modifying the existing A10 design.

      Meantime the legacy Hawgs can find a loving home with the Corps, which does most of its operational flying from rough fields by design.

      The General's attitude demonstrates why Navy and Marine Corps aviation must always be independent and have only one permanent enemy…the USAF. Hawgs (updated as required) Forever.

  • Big-Dean

    It's time for the air force to be dis-established, broken up, and parts distributed to the other services
    -When they refuse to do their mission
    -When they out-in-the-open defy Congress
    -When they can't handle nuc weapons
    -When they keeping pushing the JSF that's going to bankrupt us when it all said and done

    • William_C1

      What are you smoking? Read something about the history about the USAAF and you will see WHY they were made a separate service. For all intents and purposes they had become one already because airpower performs so many different roles on both the strategic and tactical levels. They had all sorts of arguments over where resources should be directed even back then. It was every bit as complicated a relationship as it is now.

      Did you happen to forget how so many other nations have an air force as a separate branch from their army? There are good reasons for that. Army officers who've commanded airborne or airmobile units are going to have a better understanding of airpower than most others but even they can still lose track of the "big picture" when focusing on what their expertise is.

      When does the Air Force refuse to do their mission? Nuclear weapons handling was fine back in the days of Strategic Air Command and there is no excuse why we can't do the same now. Nor is the JSF going to magically bankrupt us. Of course it's important to them when it's going to be a huge element of their force structure just as the F-16 is now. What the hell do you expect them to do?

      • oblatt22

        Lockheed shill doesn't want the Air Force to go away. Not after they spent so much buying them.

      • William_C1

        Elaborate on the stupidity of this idea, how does the Lockheed own the Air Force?

      • blight_adsfjojasfd

        LM has fingers in Navy (LCS) and Army (helicopter maintenance) as well. That's the joy of a conglomerate.

      • Badger130

        Speaking of who is smoking what …
        In the days of SAC those that handled the AF nuclear arsenal clearly knew what they were about. But apparently that professionalism has fairly recently severely deteriorated. Flying nucs fm ND to LA seemingly unnoticed by the base commander, the airmen moving what they apparently didn't know were nuclear armed missiles and mounting those missiles on B-52 hard points, totally visible, and the aircrew not noticing the distinctively marked missiles during their pre-flight inspection. Then there are the missile launch crews that cheat on tests (there's professionalism for you!) and leave blast doors open, etc. No, the USAF seemingly cannot responsibly handle nuclear weapons.

        Refusing to carry out their various missions is too strong. A lack of desire by some to enthusiastically carry out some AF missions is more apt. A service cannot cherry pick the missions that they 'wish' to perform. They must perform all the missions that fall under their umbrella of responsibility to the very best of their abilities as they were trained to do. Seems like the only ones in the AF that are dedicated (!) to perform the CAS portion of the AF mission are those pilots and maintainers that fly and service the A-10. They are dedicated even when their A-10 assignments are acknowledged to be dead end assignments.

        This is not the AF that I served in in the 60's and early 70's.



    • Ronafretired

      There are friendly countries out there that are willing to pay double & triple for the JSF's. Build more & sell them & lower our deficit.

  • JohnD

    At least the gun on the A-10 works vs e F-35 boondoggle the Air Farce paid for! The Air Farce never wanted to do,CAS! They are convinced that Mach3 fighters and big bombers are the way to go! Unfortunately their o2 masks are not tight enought and their brains do not grasp,that terrorist do not have air forces!! You need to have a well rounded Air Force not just billion dollar boondoggles! How much did you get from Lockheed General?

    • Big-Dean

      oh no worries, he already has a offer letter in hand and a corner office picked out over at Lockheed

    • Woodcutter

      Apparently you didn't read the news releases, the jsf gun is GREAT! Not as good as the A-10 Avenger gun, but its good. It works on something else and does what it does just fine. It just doesn't do it on the jsf, not yet anyway. Once the software works so that it can be employed and aimed, it should hit the same basic NFL football stadium sized area that the target is currently in. This should get the enemy's attention and boost the ground troop's moral by knowing that there is at least something in the air shooting. Unless they were hit by the less accurate fire from the jsf, in which case moral will dip, but maybe the AF sends some beer to their unit later and all is good…

      • Joe

        Well, the good news is that JSF will only carry a paltry number of rounds, so the risk of friendly fire is thereby reduced.

      • EX AF

        Lets see which would I rather have, 402 rounds of 25mm in the F35 or 1350 rounds of 30mm in the A10?

      • tim

        what rather have an A-10 covering my six anyday

      • Ex AF – Not 402. It's 220 rounds on the B/C model. 182 on the A.

    • sw164

      You do understand that the USN and USMC are going to use the same platform for CAS, do you not?

      You do understand that the other services have long since done away with their dedicated ground attack acft and went solely with multi mission platforms?

      You do understand that many other airframes perform CAS besides the A-10?

      • Joe

        Well, yes and no – the USMC configuration will carry its gun in a pod, not internally (to make room for the jump jet).

        None of which changes the fact that the A-10 is cost-effective at doing exactly what we need for the foreseeable future, the best CAS available on the planet. Not some hand-me-down fast-mover solution, with its increased friendly-fire risks, if nothing else.

      • tim

        Yes they just don,t do it as Well

      • The Air Force used the same multirole aircraft approach before Vietnam. It was wrong then which is why it had to borrow A-1s from the Navy, eventually buy the A7 and drove the development of the A10.

        Making the same mistake again doesn't make anyone smarter.

    • Doc

      'Bout time we put the monkey on the Navy as they are the lead service in acquiring the JSF!! No wonder the CAS mission will be so limited since it's not a Navy issue, they've essentially given lip service to it with a very limited gun that won't be ready until 2019 or so (if ever). McCain never met an Air Force program he liked, and won't ever blame the Navy for anything.

  • midnight57

    As a former 11B Infrantryman, I will say without question that the A-10 was the one USAF aircraft other then the AC-130 that we loved to know was flying above us, destroying the enemy and saveing american lives is the name of the game.

    • oblatt22

      Nowhere in there do I see a benefit to Lockheed executives or shareholders.

    • JoeO

      It's a pity that similar organizational pathologies keep the AC-130 from being deployed alongside the A-10 as a matter of routine, with the special forces considering it 'their' aircraft, and no else caring.

      • GunshipWonk

        Not organizational pathologies JoeO, simple math. There simply were not enough AC-130's to routinely deploy them alongside A-10's.

      • Buffalo

        The AC-130 is primarily used in night operations. It is too slow to use in daytime. example: the only AC-130 lost in Desert Storm was flown during daylight to see if that was a probable mission profile. and it was shot down.

    • Crustyrusty

      Warthog. Making OpFor pee their pants for 39 years.

  • balais

    Who is accountable to who GENERAL!?

    You are a public servant, commanding an organization subordinate to CONGRESS, therefore, the people (not that they serve the people entirely, but thats another subject for another time).

    You DARE whine about costs, when your organization acquires Spartans and immediately scraps them after they're produced?

    There should be consequences for remarks like that. Unacceptable.

    • William_C1

      Considering what some of our Congressmen and Congresswomen get away with saying what do you honestly expect to happen?

      • Do you really want to apply the same standards our politicians operate under to our commissioned officers?

        Your efforts to defend the indefensible is what is destroying the Air Force. You just made mine and a lot of other people's point.

      • William_C1

        Have you ever thought that these symptoms are manifestations of a greater problem? That problem being the entire political culture of Washington DC and the Pentagon these days? Honestly what do you expect when advancement through the ranks has more to do with politics than merit.

      • blight_asdflasfj

        Political culture at the top of any organization inevitably requires putting ass-kissing before the mission. Learning to please superiors until you hit general, and then you have to please superiors and Congress. Most people have learned to bend like willows to the arbitrary whims of the people above them, until they realize that they have changed.

      • The culture of DC has always been a cesspool. The corruption of our military has come and gone.

        There are examples of Generals telling the truth and not what their bosses wanted to hear. An Army general called Shinseki comes to mind.

        There's a reason the Air Force had to call on Army generals to address the issues at Dover. Not saying all Army generals are the apexes of integrity just that the military doesn't and shouldn't base its standards on D.C. politicians as you are trying to do to excuse the Air Force's behavior in this case.

      • William_C1

        You're right, I shouldn't excuse him, the sad thing is that this sort of behavior has become way too common. It does become a lot harder to avoid that sort of corruption when the system encourages exactly what blight described.

        Which issue at Dover are you referring to? One of the many nuclear weapons handling incidents? Dismantling SAC was a huge mistake. They were real professionals.

      • Goggle Dover Mortuary Controversy. The USAF supervises the return of the dead and preparation of their bodies at Dover. Whistleblowers reported widespread desecration of the dead like lost body parts. They were silenced and punished by the Air Force chain of command that attempted to cover up the issue. Maybe that's where MG Post learned his intimidation techniques.

        In the end it resulted in widespread firings and reliefs of officers. Retired Army Generals were called in to do the investigation and recommend action to the Air Force.

        I'm not surprised you aren't familiar with this well publicized case of Air Force wrong doing. I'm sure you'll be able to explain how it was all understandable and reasonable behavior.

      • William_C1

        I had heard about that but didn't connect it to Dover immediately, and no I'm not going to explain away incompetence.

      • Coverups and punishing whistleblowers isn't incompetence. Incompetence is poor performance without malice.

        I knew I could count on your missing that. It's similar to your inability to recognize the Air Force's historical record of not doing its due diligence in the area of CAS.

      • William_C1

        Coverups and punishing whistleblowers is about officers trying to protect their ass. It's not acceptable but the root issue that needs to be fixed is whatever incompetence caused such a disaster in the first place.

        The Air Force has done due diligence in CAS. Even in the days of Vietnam you criticize they made all sorts of efforts to improve. This "anti-CAS" attitude or the hatred of flying a "Navy aircraft" didn't stop the A-1 from being adopted once Air Force pilots started using it. It didn't stop the Air Force from accepting and making the A-7 their own once prodded enough. Nor did it stop them from trying to work with the Army to improve planning and procedures for calling in air support. Something that the Army themselves had neglected.

      • Sure, fix root incompetence but if you don't address unethical behavior it'll happen again. Like shutting down the A10 for the F35…

        Saying, "The Air Force has done due diligence in CAS." doesn't make it true. The only myth is that the Air Force has done its due diligence and supported the role adequately. There's a cornucopia of evidence that the Air Force has not supported CAS as it should.

      • William_C1

        The cover-up was typical damage control BS. Some idiots trying to save their careers I’m sure. The root cause of the thing was incompetence unless you’ret suggesting that this disgrace was intentional. Those who tried to cover it up deserve whatever they get but of course I’m more concerned about correcting the root cause. You’re seeing whatever you want to see in what I write.

  • William_C1

    CAS is a mission, not a platform. The question is if the positive qualities of the A-10 justify the expense of operations despite the limitations of the aircraft.

    Based on the last several wars we have fought I would argue there is good reason to keep the A-10 around. But I am not the Air Force and they have come to the conclusion that it is not worth the cost and they have their reasons for that. If you want to make a valid argument for the A-10 it has to be something smarter than this "we don't need F-35s we'll just throw A-10s at the enemy until they run out of SAMs" mentality.

    What is John McCain's idea of what the A-10's eventual replacement should be? Beyond the possibility of further upgrades the sort of aircraft the A-10 represents is at the end of the line. At least that is the case barring some revolutionary new technology with a major impact on military aviation. Yet it is hard to plan around that sort of "what-if".

    • balais

      1.) I don't want to hear about the "expense" when it comes to the A10. That is not a credible argument at all. Firstly, it is one of the most cost effective aircraft in service today. Second, if the Air Force has no problems pondering Next Gen Bombers, scrapping Spartans, etc, then the paltry costs associated with maintaining the A10 can be allotted. End of story.

      2.) "CAS is a mission, not a platform"

      I've grown quite tired of this often repeated tripe of nonsense, common among those emotionally invested in their own personal interests; And I couldn't care less about the A10, but the fact stands that there are characteristics of aircraft that make them more ideal for certain types of CAS missions than others. No getting around this, or the laws of physics for that matter. Mission dictates equipment, and it is utterly stupid to lump in all CAS missions as being the same characteristically (which happens, and such stupid nonsense leads to things like B1s being used for CAS in Afghanistan. Derpalicious)

      You cannot have a drag racing, cement truck that has the handling characteristics of a porsche and carrying capacity of a F550.

      3.) "they have come to the conclusion that it is not worth the cost and they have their reasons for that"

      Nice appeal to authority logical fallacy.

      And Earth to william! certain members in the service are invested in the defense industry and certain products, despite the fact that the aforementioned product may not be ideal for US military needs or may be inferior; sometimes it isn't, but my point stands. Private political interests, nothing more. This is how we ended up with the Stryker for example, among many other things (and that veicle has its merits, but the acquisition history speaks for itself).

      4.) "What is John McCain's idea of what the A-10's eventual replacement should be?"

      That is the question you shuld be answering. What will replace the A10?

      And why are you trapped in the false dichotomy of "you either support the A10, without investing in its eventual successor, or you dont support the A10, and end up with a superior successor". Astounding (and not in a good way)

      5.) Last but not leasdt, dear god, are you kidding me!? the A10 is one of the most successful aircraft for its intended role in USAF history. Of course its positive qualities justify the expense of the Aircraft. That is a no brainer. Im sure if you ask a credible expert in the matter, such as someone from JTAC, he will certainly agree that the paltry cost of the aircraft is completey justified for having something that works.

      • William_C1

        1. Like it or not it costs money to keep any type of aircraft in service. This entire argument boils down to what funding goes where so don't pretend this isn't about the money. The Air Force needs to be convinced that they can get what they need without resorting to retiring the A-10 fleet yet.

        2. You want to talk about emotional arguments? Look at you denying that CAS is a mission and behaving like it it is a role that belongs solely to the A-10 and cannot be performed by any other aircraft. This has is obviously false. For all of the A-10's positives you also fail to see the negatives of the aircraft and fail to see how those multi-role fighters are useful.

        3. Don't talk about logical fallacies after a rant like that one, especially when you are guilty of the same thing. Oh and I NEVER said the Air Force was correct.

        Certain service members become invested for personal interests? Next you'll tell me that politics also has an impact on the world of military procurement. These things have always been true. Yet that doesn't change the necessity of the F-35. We created this situation ourselves but there is no turning back the clock. If you want to make a real argument for the A-10 attacking the Air Force's largest procurement program for the foreseeable future isn't the way to do it.

        4. How is that a question I should be answering? I'm asking what he expects from a "dedicated replacement"? How will it be made survivable in the face of modern integrated air defense system? Do we really design a new aircraft that is relatively incapable against such an enemy? In theory we could keep the A-10s flying out to 2028, so by then will we really need a similar aircraft?

        5. The A-10 has only been used in its "intended role" in 1991 against Iraq. It was designed as a tank-killer, an aircraft that would help counter all of the Soviet armor that would be on the attack if the Cold War went hot. What do you think its intended role was?

      • AF Staff Sargeant

        "The A-10 has only been used in its "intended role" in 1991 against Iraq." Being an ex-A-10 Mechanic I call complete and total bullshit on this. The Tank-Killer thing yes but guess what they called that was CAS. Close Air Support means they are low slow and kill shit on the ground that ground troops can't necessarily get to. The A-10 has flown these missions both in Afghanistan and Iraq in the most current Operations. Now as for the replacement of the A-10 Boeing has a brand new model sitting on their design tables that would cost roughly the same as what the old 70's airplanes did. They would be more modernized and Boeing would start mass producing parts for the Air Force for these jets.

      • AF SSGT – I know Boeing is keeping current A10's in the air. What's this new model you are referring to or are you just referring to current & pending A10 improvements as a new model?

      • balais

        You aren't paying attention, let me reiterate.

        1.) The Air Force has no credibility to demand anything, much less "be convinced". There are a multitude of examples of blatant waste with systems that never saw service, and you are braying about the costs associated with one of the most successful aircraft in USAF inventory?Especially if those costs, when compared to anything else, are paltry in dollar amounts?

        give me a effing break.

        2.) You are in denial that different aircraft are more suited for CAS than others. DENIAL.

        My emotion is "amazement". Amazement that somebody can be so obtuse.

        You really dont get it, so Ill repeat. Not all CAS missions are the same. Good luck dropping JDAMs on bad guys high and flying fast when your enemy is within typical infantry engagement ranges of within 100 meters.

        And yes, I am saying the job for supporting SF and infantry is best accomplished by the A10. What other aircraft has the characteristics of the A10, william? do pray tell, because im curious. If the F15, for example, was objectively the best because it had the best characteristics, I would be arguing in its favor.

        "For all of the A-10's positives you also fail to see the negatives of the aircraft and fail to see how those multi-role fighters are useful. "

        I haven't addressed the A10s negatives yet, because the discussion is about CAS, william. If this discussion was about deep strike for example, then yes, I would be mentioning the A10s negatives. /facepalm/

        3.) Ill talk about whatever I want, in a manner whatever I please, because it is the truth. There are interests that are trying to bin the A10 in favor of another aircraft. And the supporters of this unmentioned aircraft have proven themselves to be effective fraudmeisters, con-artists, liars, and wishful "thinkers". And that is just one barrel in the shooting gallery.

        4.) "These things have always been true."

        At what cost? and is it acceptable, especially if the loss of such an effective aircraft is the price to pay?

        "If you want to make a real argument for the A-10 attacking the Air Force's largest procurement program for the foreseeable future isn't the way to do it. "

        Heh, yeah well see how your sentiment changes after 2020. You will be calling myself and the skeptics prophets.

        4.) "How will it be made survivable in the face of modern integrated air defense system?"

        You still aren't getting it. If the A10 is vulnerable to modern air defense systems, then other aircraft are and will be as well. Simple.

        "Do we really design a new aircraft that is relatively incapable against such an enemy? In theory we could keep the A-10s flying out to 2028, so by then will we really need a similar aircraft? "

        Again, with the false dichotomy….

        5.) The A10 was designed as a CAS aircraft, not just "tank killer". It was intended to target BMPs, BTRs, fixed and self-propelled artillery and mortars, rocket launchers, ATGM emplacements, infantry in the open, etc etc.

        You know, things that would get utterly hammered by 30mm.

        And it was used for its "intended role" in ODS, Kosovo, OIF/OEF, and Odyssey Dawn, and recently, against ISIS.

        Nice try with trying to downplay its service record though. I expected nothing less from you.

    • oblatt22

      Yes throwing A10s against SAMs is stupid but much more stupid and immoral is throwing F-35s against SAMs just because Lockheed makes more money that way.

      • William_C1

        It's a lot harder for SAMs to hit a stealth aircraft with advanced EW suite. Especially if those SAMs are destroyed or suppressed through a variety of means.

      • The F35 isn't a stealth aircraft when it carries more than a third of the A10's payload or over 5000lbs. Something that should be a basic requirement for a CAS mission.

      • William_C1

        So the stealth option is useless? The enemy will wait kindly around until we've destroyed their air defense systems and fighters?

      • Again putting words in my mouth. Never said stealth is useless.

        Saying that the F35 has to give it up to carry more than the two or so bombs it can carry in its weapons bay. This is a deal breaker when it comes to a CAS role.

      • William_C1

        If there isn't the support to allow external stores to be carried without an unacceptable level of risk (a shot down aircraft doesn't accomplish much) then the some close air support from such "lightly loaded" aircraft is better than no close air support at all. Or would the A-10s be risked anyway despite the same lack of support?

      • Ah! That's a great tag line for the F35.

        The F35, "better than no close air support at all."

      • yankeefarmer

        William, lets give you a personal scenario: You're about to get jumped by 10 large men. That's a force 10x your unit size. You have two choices, one is a slow Andre the Giant sized man, who's going to get hit, and will keep knocking men out irrespective of incurred injury.
        The other option is a one-armed olympic-class sprinter. All 110 pounds of him.
        "Take THAT!" and he runs to the end of the block. "Take THAT!" and he runs to the end of the block. "Take THAT!" and he runs home to take a drink, and change shoes.
        Three KOs and he's out.
        Your slow heavy friend Andre, just sits there and issues punishment.
        Who ya gonna call??

      • blight_asfdoasdf

        In a fight with guns (surface to air missiles), Andre is going to get a lot of hits center of mass. Can only hope the olympic class sprinter is really "low observeable".

    • "they (the Air Force) have come to the conclusion that it (the A10) is not worth the cost and they have their reasons for that"

      The Air Force has tried to can the A10 three times before the current attempt ('70's after the AH56 was cancelled, early 90's right before desert storm because the Cold War was over and after DS to replace the A10 with the A16).

      They had their self serving, self centered and utterly wrong (as history has shown us) reasons then also. It's telling that it doesn't bother you in the least that the Air Force got it wrong three times before but THIS time, "they're right"…

      "The A-10 has only been used in its "intended role" in 1991 against Iraq. It was designed as a tank-killer, an aircraft that would help counter all of the Soviet armor that would be on the attack if the Cold War went hot. What do you think its intended role was?"

      Not true. It's intended role was not just a tank killer. If the A10 was solely a tank killer it wouldn't have different ammunition than armor piercing or DU rounds. Next, the gun isn't the only weapon on the A10. If it were solely a tank killer it wouldn't be capable of deploying ordnance not primarily meant to destroy tanks like good old dumb bombs back in the day let alone all the more modern munitions like CBU.

      Keep drinking the cool aide…

      • William_C1

        In the 1970s they wanted the A-10 and even argued for it before Congress when questioned over the recent purchase of the A-7D.

        In the late '80s the Air Force began to look into what would succeed the A-10, resulting in the A-7F, proposals for F-16 upgrades, and the "A-16". The end of the Cold War killed off the A-7F and the A-10's service in Desert Storm effectively killed the A-16. The Air Force still intended to retire the A-10 sooner or later for the reasons I've already explained, F-16s and later the JSF would pick up the slack. OIF and OEF gave the A-10 some new life with the A-10C upgrade but now yet another budget battle is occurring so the A-10 is again on the chopping block.

        Of course oddly enough all of the F-15s and F-16s cut in recent years don't get any mention. I suppose that would disrupt the whole "Air Force hates CAS" myth. The Air Force doesn't hate CAS. What's really going on is that for all sorts of reasons (including many of their own making) the Air Force is facing budgetary problems. A-10s are once again part of the sacrifice to the budget gods.

        I suppose the truth isn't as "attractive" or as simple as the notion that the Air Force only consists of fighter jocks who don't want anything to do with air-to-ground.

        Combat mix for the A-10 was 1 HEI to every 4 API. Why is the HEI there? Because the A-10 isn't only going to be gunning for tanks. The Soviets had all sorts of vehicles the A-10 would be shooting at, and infantry around them. Yes it carried bombs and rockets, just like the A-7. Another primary weapon was the AGM-65.

      • "In the 1970s they wanted the A-10 and even argued for it before Congress when questioned over the recent purchase of the A-7D. " True, the AH56 was alive and well and the A10 was repeatedly used as a hammer to make the case to cancel the AH56. When the Army cancelled the AH56 in the late 70's the tune changed.

        The Air Force's repeated proposals of replacing the A10 with primarily fighter aircraft is just further evidence for the deeply ingrained bias against CAS.

        The Air Force doesn't only exist of fighter jocks but the decision making positions are choked with them. That's why you can have an Air Force General call his own troops traitors for not supporting the fighter mafia position on the A10.

        "Because the A-10 isn't only going to be gunning for tanks." Thanks for making my point and contradicting your previous statement about the A10's "intended role".

      • William_C1

        I think you are mistaken about that. When the AH-56 cancelled in 1972 the YA-10 had only recently flown and had not been declared the winner over Northrop's YA-9. In 1973 Congress raised concerns about the A-10's production costs and "lack of versatility". There was a lot budgetary pressure at the time between all of the different fighter and attack aircraft programs the services had going. Both the F-14 and F-15 were moving towards production, the Marine's were continuing purchases of the AV-8 Harrier, and the Air Force's recently purchased A-7D had proven effective enough in Vietnam for Congress to question the need for the A-10.

        The Air Force could have walked away from the A-10 then but they didn't. Of course there would have been some in the Air Force who didn't want the A-10, who thought it would be smarter to invest in other aircraft. Yet those in favor of the A-10 were in charge and got their aircraft. Considering the decades of service the A-10 has given us it was certainly worth the investment.

        This sort of strong-arm behavior is nothing new. Multiple SecDefs have even done the same sort of thing in the past. The generals comments don't prove some inherent bias against CAS across the entire Air Force. It does show however that he wants to force the rest of the Air Force into his point of view. What I wonder is how much pull does this guy have? What other generals may condone or take part in this sort of behavior? Those supportive of the A-10 within the Air Force should be allowed the say, especially if they know when they know what they're talking about. Time will tell if his "off the record" comment spells the end of his career. I think most of his peers won't hesitate to throw him under the bus for something as moronic as this, even those who may agree but would never admit to it.

        Yes A-10 was never gunning for just tanks, I just said tanks because that's the most obvious thing. It would be gunning for every sort of vehicle the Warsaw Pact would be throwing against NATO, plus any other target of opportunity near the front lines.

        The A-10 is great at strafing insurgents in Afghanistan but this wasn't the scenario it was designed for. So to say it's "one of the most successful aircraft for its intended role in USAF history" is quite a stretch. Is it a successful aircraft? Yes. But lets not pretend that the A-10 fleet wouldn't have suffered crippling losses in return for the heavy damage they would inflicted if WWIII broke out in West Germany.

      • Congress hardly speaks with one voice and while there was concern for spending there was no initiative by Congress to shut down the A10. That was the Air Force. Congress forced the Air Force to continue the program by funding it. The Air Force could never "walk away" from the program. They had powerfully made the case for the airplane (like they did with the C27J) for years before the AH-56 was cancelled. Back thenm they just weren't as quick to sing a different tune as they are now. e.g. the C27J was once absolutely necessary, later after the Air Force had the program firmly in hand it "could be done with C130's". The exact same aircraft that couldn't do it before.

        ALL aircraft would have suffered tremendous losses if WWIII had broken out in Europe. It's illustrative that you are only concerned with the A10's to make a case thjat isn't unique to it. It's like when you made the case for how dangerous Russian air defense missiles are to the A10 ignoring they are just as dangerous (if not more so because it's not hardened) to the F35 that must give up it's stealth to carry more than 3500lbs or ordnance.

        (FWIW, the A10 can carry 18,000 pounds and when the F35 carries anything significantly over 3500 it loses it's stealth. Yet F35 CAS proponents say the F35 can adequately do the CAS mission…).

      • William_C1

        John McConnell was worried that the Army would seize the CAS mission from the Air Force so he fought hard for the A-X program that led to the A-10. Yet even after the AH-56 was cancelled his successors kept the A-10 moving forward despite those in the Air Force opposed to the aircraft. You say Congress "forced" the Air Force to continue the program but you said yourself Congress hardly speaks with one voice. The Air Force could have effectively forfeit the A-10 to the A-7 lobby but they didn't. There was no official attempt to kill the A-10 by the Air Force during this time period despite the many officers who disliked such a specialized aircraft.

        The C-27J is a different aircraft in a different time with a different outcome. Yes, the end result was nothing short of shameful due to the behavior of the Air Force. That overshadows whatever legitimate concerns they may have had.

        I don't mean to focus just on the A-10, you're right that all types of aircraft would be suffering heavy losses had WWIII broken out. I'm just trying to show the reality versus the near mythical reputation it has amongst some. There is no such thing as a "ultimate CAS aircraft" the A-10 is probably the best (once it arrives) in a permissive environment. Yet in a far deadlier environment it's not going to be a very good CAS aircraft because it is simply too vulnerable. If the A-10 is actually in an environment where it can use all of that 18,000 lbs of ordinance the F-35 won't be needing stealth and can carry external stores. (BTW the F-35A can carry about 5,500 lbs worth of munitions in the weapons bays versus 3,500 lbs.)

        This isn't to say that the F-35 is invulnerable by any means. But the F-35 has a much easier time staying out of the range of SHORAD and it's far less vulnerable to longer ranged SAMs thanks to stealth and ECM. This isn't even considering the prospect of enemy airpower.

        The A-10 is great to have for environments where its talents can be put to use. Considering the amount we spend on the Air Force I see no reason we shouldn't be able to afford to keep the A-10 around for some time longer. Of course apparently I am somehow opposed to the aircraft because I see the need for the F-35 and recognize that all of those multi-role fighters some treat with disdain are far more useful (CAS included) in a war against a modern enemy.

        Which brings me back to wondering what McCain thinks the Air Force should have as a "replacement" for the A-10. Ultimately it won't get a dedicated replacement so we might as well keep them around for as long as feasible. And yes there will still be those in the Air Force who want it retired so they can spend the money elsewhere. Not necessarily out of some financial interest but sometimes simply because they want the Air Force as well equipped for a "conventional war" as possible. Ultimately they should be kept in check by others who recognize that the A-10's uses in all of the "other wars" justify the expense.

      • You are as wrong a s $3 bill on every main point and many supporting ones.

        Quick civics and logic class. Congress "speaks with many voices" refers to it being the largest elected organ of government. You can find a loon to agree we should surrender to ISIS or that Guam might tip over if we put too many Marines on it (no joke). It's decisions are another matter as the majority directs action as in the case of the Air Force keeping the A10.

        The A7 wasn't a solution the USAF pursued freely. It was all but forced upon then when the couldn't borrow anymore A1s from the Navy and the multirole aircraft it had were not adequate for CAS. (There"s a LESSON There!!!).

        "If the A-10 is actually in an environment where it can use all of that 18,000 lbs of ordinance the F-35 won't be needing stealth and can carry external stores." No! Again tortured logic! How does the amount of ordnance required eliminate the need for stealth on the F35? Is the enemy going to put their missiles away because the job requires the F35 to carry more bombs but a similar laden A10 is no holds barred for the enemy? That's RIDICULOUS!

        "it's "the F35) far less vulnerable to longer ranged SAMs thanks to stealth and ECM." The F35 has stealth when it's carrying less than a third of the A10's payload and the pilot of the A10 fuses ECM tasks where the F35 does it automatically. "Far less vulnerable" nah, not so much.

        "the F-35 has a much easier time staying out of the range of SHORAD" For the hundredth time, NO! If the target has SHORAD both planes have to enter the envelop to deliver similar weapons. What, will SHORAD go away or stop protecting enemy troops because it's a, wait for it… F35! Heck no and again, tortured logic. Then there's the fact the A10 is better prepared to survive enemy action. FWIW, standoff weapons that keep the F35 out of the SHORAD envelop can also be employed on the A10. Something F35 enthusiasts consistently ignore when comparing the planes.

        The air to air capability is irrelevant to CAS. You're supposed to establish air superiority before you do CAS and if not the F35 has some pretty significant disadvantages in a dogfight with enemy aircraft when it's doing CAS like maneuverability and PAYLOAD!

        BTW on F35 internal payload, subtract the weight of air to air missiles from the max 5000lb payload. Doubtful we ever put planes in the air without a couple of air to air missiles for self defense

        "There was no official attempt to kill the A-10 by the Air Force during this time period despite the many officers who disliked such a specialized aircraft. "

        No, you can't claim the Air Force wasn't officially trying to shut down the A10 in the '70's. It was also much more organized than you attempt to portray. Google (again!) the National War College Paper, The Warthog: The Best Deal The Air Force Never Wanted" p4-5. The A-X program had to be done outside typical USAF Air Force procedures because resistance was so bad and senior USAF officers attempted to kill it when the AH56 died. Were Air Force officers not acting officially when they were resisting the A10? What, are they moonlighting?

        You use this tortured logic to excuse the USAF of its responsibility. All it does is further degrade Air Force stock in everyone's eyes. It's like me defending the Army's coverup of Tillman's death. Done for the right reasons MAYBE but actually much more wrong than any good it was trying to accomplish and very self serving. How is the Air Force being professional or ethical in these matters? Yet you defend the indefensible. You are not only hurting your credibility but the Air Force's especially if you have worn the uniform. Think about what you are saying and how you formulate your argument. It's very similar to the political positioning we see our worse Generals partake in.

      • William_C1

        Did the Air Force factor external pressure into their decision to procure new CAS aircraft? Of course. But to say they were "forced" into it is vastly oversimplifying the situation.

        Air Force A-1s weren't "stolen" from the Navy. Starting in the early '60s A-1s were being given to the South Vietnamese Air Force (VNAF) and soon enough USAF instructors were flying combat missions with it. It was found to be an ideal aircraft for escorting CSAR helicopters among other tasks so it was more-or-less officially adopted by the USAF for such use. During the early stages of the Vietnam there were few "fast jets" in theater and most USAF pilots (who were VNAF instructors in may cases) were instead flying aircraft like the A-1 and A/B-26.

        A-X had it's origins in a 1966 study by the Air Force which concluded that "the Air Force was fulfilling the close air support responsibilities levied on it to the apparent satisfaction of the Army" but also recommended procurement of a dedicated CAS aircraft.

        (Note General McConnell had recommended the development of a new low cost attack aircraft prior to this in 1965 based on a earlier study which recommended what was essentially a "high-low" with the F-4 and F-111 representing the "high" strike aircraft.)

        McNamara strongly urged the Air Force to reexamine purchase of an aircraft like the A-7 or F-5 and directed more money towards that effort. Ultimately the Air Force chose the A-7 which wasn't ideally what they wanted but they saw they could work with it. McConnell also saw it as "getting something" even if the A-X never became reality. McNamara also promised to. Generally speaking the USAF saw this as an opportunity to gain more tactical aircraft as they would need more fighters to escort these aircraft, that fighter being a new F-4 variant (with internal gun) they wanted.

        What tortured logic? If the A-10 can freely engage the enemy with guns, bombs and rockets it is clearly an environment where the AA threat is minimal. The sort of environment where the F-35 can carry external stores because it no longer needs to be stealthy. It's true that the F-35s will be at a greater risk in such configuration to those enemy air defense that may remain, but this is a choice for a commander to make based on the situation. I don't understand what you find so odd about this.

        Or are you saying that F-35s may not be carrying enough internal ordinance for whatever their mission? This can be true (as it can be for any aircraft) but good mission planning avoids that. What you actually hit and destroy is what matters, not the amount of weight you dropped from your aircraft. Precision guided weapons are the key factor here. Also please note that A-10s don't normally fly around with 18,000 lbs of stores. They and all other aircraft are often (relatively) lightly loaded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

        "NO! If the target has SHORAD both planes have to enter the envelop to deliver similar weapons". This is why you use weapons that keep you out of the range of that SHORAD! Meaning cannon and unguided munitions are useless unless that SHORAD is destroyed. So the A-10 have to try to pick off those systems with AGM-65 which can still be quite risky. In theory The A-10 could fly high enough to use JDAMs and WCMDs out of range but that exposes the aircraft to all of the long-range SAMs that may be out there. In a stealthy configuration the F-35 is at a far lesser risk to those and it can fly faster and higher (and thus lob munitions farther).

        Once the SHORAD is dealt with then the A-10s can go in and use their guns and whatever else they have. However MANPADS can still pose a threat at low altitudes and can be very hard to detect even for aircraft with targeting pods.

        So a flight of four F-35s can each lob eight SDB IIs at the enemy out of range from SHORAD while four A-10s would be trying to pick off the the enemy with Mavericks at low altitude which is a riskier task.

        In Desert Storm there was a point where A-10s were tasked off a Republican Guard division after a few losses and F-16s used to strike them instead. Why? Because those F-16s could operate in a manner that makes them less vulnerable despite the lesser payload. Same thing applies here.

        I'll respond to all of your other points when I get some more time. Understand I am not trying to excuse Air Force stupidity or incompetence when it happens, I just don't think you're giving them enough credit for when they get things right. I cannot excuse more recent events like the stunt with the C-27Js, the nuclear mishandling, or the improper burial and disposal of our soldiers remains. Nor should I excuse this general's comments. "Treason" isn't a word that should be tossed around like this and others in the Air Force must be allowed to voice their opinions even when they don't align with his own.

      • The USAF was “forced”. It had no other option as Congress was breathing down its neck motivated by Army Body bags. To not respond would have set the conditions for something “tragic” to happen as the Army was increasing its aviation presence.

        I never said the USAF "stole" A-1’s from the Navy. I said borrowed. Nice try at misstating fact.. The USAF did not procure A-1’s in quantity to instruct the S. Vietnamese. They could have flown Vietnamese planes. The USAF procured A-1’s to do CSAR and then to fill the hole they created in CAS capability. You don’t need over 200 “Spads” to do CSAR a small minority of the sorties the A-1E fulfilled.

        "the Air Force was fulfilling the close air support responsibilities levied on it to the apparent satisfaction of the Army" Source? I’ve never read the Army was satisfied with the way CAS was provided and silence is not “apparent satisfaction”. The seminal Rand Study on the subject, “Army-Air Force Relations: The Close Air Support Issue” cites numerous instances where the Army wasn’t satisfied but relieved whenever the Air Force did anything with CAS. Maybe you are confused with the CAS board of ’63 (on p 23) where the Army diverged from the Air Force position on quantity, operational control and aircraft characteristics in the area of CAS? The only 1966 joint document I could find was the agreement on helicopters and intratheatre lift (p29). I wouldn’t be surprised if you found some internal Air Force document that said the Army was happy with CAS in 1966. The Air Force made up all kinds of Army agreement” when it shut down the C27J also. More misstatement?

        “What tortured logic? If the A-10 can freely engage the enemy with guns, bombs and rockets it is clearly an environment where the AA threat is minimal. The sort of environment where the F-35 can carry external stores because it no longer needs to be stealthy.” The A10 doesn’t always engage “freely” in environments with guns, bombs and rockets e.g. Desert Storm or even early Iraq 2003 (let alone Bosnia). Those environments are not permissive. What's the F35 going top do? Not show up or be more vulnerable with those underwing stores?

        “This can be true (as it can be for any aircraft) but good mission planning avoids that. What you actually hit and destroy is what matters, not the amount of weight you dropped from your aircraft.” Bullsh!t! CAS target engagement isn’t something you can plan all the time. You don’t know how many targets you are going to hit when you take off or how many times you may have to re-engage. The enemy shows up often with whatever they have and aircraft may have to engage in more than one sector. This is where ordnance payload counts. A10’s may not fly in Afghanistan with full loads but they could easily be more than the paltry internal load the F35 carries and Afghanistan is hardly the be all end all for CAS requirements.

        “So the A-10 have to try to pick off those systems with AGM-65 which can still be quite risky. In theory The A-10 could fly high enough to use JDAMs and WCMDs out of range but that exposes the aircraft to all of the long-range SAMs that may be out there. In a stealthy configuration the F-35 is at a far lesser risk to those and it can fly faster and higher (and thus lob munitions farther).” Ridiculous! What possible scenario allows the F35 to fly with a paltry payload against an enemy that has stopped the ground offensive (which is why you typically call CAS) and can defend itself? If the enemy is strong enough to defend itself on the air & ground the F35 won’t be carrying minimum loads and won’t have the luxury of committing four aircraft to one mission. Talk about tortured logic. (BTW, THAT’s efficient where one A10, though the fly in two’s would suffice.) Do you think the enemy is just going to wait until the F35 can return after rearming? You’re demonstrating your lack of understanding of how a ground fight is waged or the demands on CAS in that environment.

        “In Desert Storm there was a point where A-10s were tasked off a Republican Guard division after a few losses and F-16s used to strike them instead. Why? Because those F-16s could operate in a manner that makes them less vulnerable despite the lesser payload.” Source? I can imagine many reasons for A10’s to be called off. Out of ammo and fuel are at the top of the list as well as the enemy is broken and the offense has resumed. Who said the F16's were less vulnerable? I fought against the Tawalkana in Desert Storm and watched A10’s and F16’s give my unit CAS. Our FAC, 1LT Mike Dolan told me the A10’s were “Winchester”. Who are you citing?

        You have a bad habit of not citing your sources and when I prove them wrong you “forget” to share where you got the incorrect info in the first place. Some call this lying. I guess in the Air Force that’s how they teach the fighter mafia to debate an issue. That and call their own airmen “traitors” when they present accurate data that disagrees with the party line. Don’t be confused. I’m not trying to convince you. I just don’t want someone to take your repetitive misstatement of facts as anything but a disingenuous façade of honest debate.

      • William_C1

        Congress was involved but to say they were "breathing down their neck" is an overstatement. Nor did they become involved due to this claim of yours that the Air Force was failing to provide close air support. They became involved in the greater argument over airpower that the Air Force and Army were involved in at the time with the AH-56 becoming a particular issue. As a result they became involved with A-X when the usual "fund us, not them" arguments started. Then starting in the early '70s there were reviews of many defense programs including the A-10. As usual you had various members of congress supporting different options based on what would best serve their own constituents. Ultimately the A-10 won and saw a production run of 715 aircraft from 1972 to 1984.

        You act as if the Air Force is guilty of some sort of crime of wrongdoing here. Why exactly? Because they improved upon their methods and means during the Vietnam war? All of the services learned lessons and incorporated them during the course of Vietnam and that is a good thing. Or is it because not everybody in the Air Force embraced the new CAS aircraft?

        The B-26s, T-28s and some of the other aircraft types that were being flown by the VNAF and USAF in the earlier years of the war were encountering structural failures and other problems. At the same time the Navy's A-1 was in the process of being phased out by the A-6 Intruder so it was a good fit. As a result the USAF officially adopted it in a sense. What's the problem here? You make a point about the number of A-1s used and the fact that the USAF would use them in other tasks (like the CAS they supposedly never did) and you wonder why? Because it was a solid aircraft well suited to the threat.

        You're also forget a key factor here. The USAF was heavily restricted in what they were permitted to do until February 1965! Yet you think there was some sort of CAS failure because some members of Congress criticized the Air Force less than a year later while they were still building up their capabilites in the region. They also had to work around the Army which could be every bit as stubborn as the Air Force and routinely DID NOT coordinate with their Air Force counterparts to support their airmobile operations? You've fallen for some myth interpretation of the war where the Army did everything right while the pig-headed Air Force was too stubborn to do anything different.

        Read the very document you are citing from! It's right on page 33. In the 1963 CAS board you refer to the Army actually disagreed with the recommendations and stated a preference for "high-performance multipurpose aircraft for the whole range of tactical air missions". It seems they weren't all that consistent.

        The Soviet air defense systems the Iraqis had were a generation behind and many units were poorly train and poorly led. The best system they had was actually a few Rolands sold to them by the French IIRC. Also SEAD operations were incredibly successful which certainly made things easier for the A-10. Of course SHORAD somebody missed could still cause a problem. The anecdote about the F-16s taking over from the A-10s comes from an interview Air Force magazine did with Gerneral Chuck Horner back in 1991. Unfortunately it seems a membership is now required to access the archived version.

        Take out most of the air defense network and A-10s can become quite effective, of course until that happens the fast-movers are a better choice. If the enemy was Russia or China the air defense network would be very difficult to deal with so yes the A-10 would be of less use than a multi-role fighter. There is no guarantee there will be time for air-superiority to be achieved and SEAD to take out most enemy air defenses. Don't underestimate modern MANPADS either. Unless your aircraft has DIRCM they are a serious threat if you are in range. An A-10 may survive a hit and return to base but it can't do anything sitting on the ramp waiting for repairs.

      • William_C1

        You don't seem understand that CAS is situational. A Taliban assault on a firebase is a far different scenario from a Russian armored regiment (and all of the support they'd have) up against NATO forces. In the first scenario the A-10 is indeed probably one of the best things to have once it arrives on station. In the second scenario the F-35s are going to be more useful because it is less vulnerable and can defend itself from enemy fighters far better than the A-10. With enough support (SEAD and CAP) the A-10 can still do some serious damage but that support can only be in one place at once. Not that F-35s won't need support sometimes but it won't need as much of it.

        You say I don't understand what I'm talking about? In a conventional war you're not sending individual tactical combat on a mission. You're always talking about a flight of at least two aircraft. If four aircraft is a luxury what do you call the escorts the A-10s would require? Do you think the enemy is going to wait for such a strike package to be coordinated?

        Honest debate? You just eat up all of this nonsense where you seriously think the Air Force only consists of fighter jocks who don't care about supporting ground forces. That's fun to joke around but if you seriously think that is the case you're a fool. Do you really think you can't find officers like General Post in the other branches of the armed services? At least you're not as crazy as those thinking we should disband the Air Force based on some mythical notion that there was complete harmony in the USAAF and there were no differing ideas on how airpower should be employed.

        The good points for keeping the A-10 are lost up in all of this "we don't need the F-35 or any of those fancy multi-role fighters" BS. People talk about a successor for the A-10 yet nobody seems to be able to envision what this successor should be.

      • You still haven't stated where you got the references you cite except for the half azzed attempt at one. Interviews have dates and you put quotes on the supposed statement but now can't find the details? Yeah, great scholarship.

        You are misreading the Rand study. At this point it's obviously on purpose. The Army did not agree that high performance aircraft were best for CAS in '63. Read the page I cited and the page before it, s l o w l y..

        On your other point about competition over funding… There are also multiple instances documented in the Rand study where DoD and Congress recognized rotary and fixed wing aircraft were complementary not competitive. This is why the AH56 AND the A-X didn't have funding issues except for when the Air Force argued the AH56 wasn't necessary. The A-X had funding issues with other fixed wing programs. Not Army ones. Again, classic fighter mafia misstatement of fact.

        Escort aircraft for the A10's? You mean the same requirement that exists for that flight of four F35's armed for air to ground in stealth mode. Seems you're back to your old double standard debate tricks.

        What the Air Force has done when it comes to CAS borders on the criminal. Conduct unbecoming comes to mind but it's hard to take an organization to trial especially when it has it's own internal court system that fails to address these issues. Again, see Dover and the C27J.

        Are there crappy officers in other branches? Sure,and it doesn't make a damn bit of difference to the professional concerned with ethical behavior among one's peers, branch or profession.. Do they not teach that in Air Force commissioning programs? You did the same thing trying to excuse Post's behavior until you corrected yourself. I guess you haven't inculcated that value yet as you repeat the argument?

        BTW, the others aren't working overtime to not support a fellow branch. That said you'll never see the Army saying we can't support safe air corridors for USAF aircraft to ingress/egress the FLOT or not equipping airmen accompanying the ground troops with the same protection afforded ground troops. Yet the Air Force finds all kinds of reasons to make CAS a secondary mission.

        There's obviously different standards at play here starting with what's fact. and what's fabricated.

      • William_C1

        It was in the same document you referenced. Army-Air Force Relations: the Close Air Support Issue.

        It says right there on page 24 that "In reviews of the Report, not only the Air Force, but the Army as well, disagreed and stated a preference for high-performance multipurpose aircraft for the whole range of tactical missions." This just goes to show that there was some disagreement within the Army itself about what they thought was best. Yet internal disagreements within the Air Force a few years later are instead some malicious bias against CAS? Nice double standard there.

        I can't link the reference about Desert Storm since there is now a membership requirement for it, but it was a June 1991 Air Force Magazine interview.

        Yes, after reviewing the A-X, AH-56, and the AV-8 Congress determined that these programs were justified and did not represent unnecessary duplication. Yet it's still the Air Forces fault when the program was eventually cancelled years later? All of the services battle over funding so why is this specific case so troublesome? It's not some scandal like the C-27J incident.

        No those F-35s in that configuration don't require the same number of assets in support. Do you think everything boil down to the amount of weapons an aircraft carries?

        "What the Air Force has done when it comes to CAS borders on the criminal."
        This is sheer BS. How is it that the Navy and Marine Corp get by without an A-10 of their own? Why do the Air Force's prior 40 years of A-10 operation count for nothing? Because the brass keeps putting it on the chopping block all of the use of those A-10s counts for nothing? If you want to talk about twisted logic start with explaining that!

        The Dover incident is nothing short of shameful and criminal, the C-27J issue was petty behavior on the Air Force's part and they should have not gotten away with it. Wanting to cut the A-10 is neither of these things. Unless you seriously think Lockheed is paying every single one of these generals they think they are doing the right thing. However their reasoning doesn't place enough value on the A-10's qualities in "minor wars" so it's instead probably the wrong thing.

        General Post's comments were wrong not because of his opinion but because he such remarks pressure everybody else in the USAF to go along with the "official" view.

        Of course you think all of the Air Force's mistakes are a result of malice, never simply bad reasoning or incompetence that the other services also suffer with on occasion.

        The fact that the Air Force doesn't always agree with the Army over how resources should be utilized doesn't mean CAS is a secondary mission. The fact is that a lot of aircraft including many F-16s and F-15s have been cut in recent years. The fact that the A-10 is again on the chopping block isn't some statement that they don't care about CAS. It's a bunch of generals trying to work with the budget they have to maintain a force that can fight whatever war is asked of it. They may underestimate the value of the A-10 but to claim they don't want anything to do with CAS is simply bias on your part.

        Tell me how does the Navy avoid this double standard? They don't have an A-10 of their own. Even the Marine's AV-8 is not very comparable in regards to payload and loiter time.

        I don't think we're going to agree on anything here. Maybe I do get too defensive about the Air Force but you seem to have a problem with the whole service.

      • No! It's NOT in the document I cited and that's not the reference you made earlier. You said, "A-X had it's origins in a 1966 study by the Air Force which concluded that "the Air Force was fulfilling the close air support responsibilities levied on it to the apparent satisfaction of the Army" but also recommended procurement of a dedicated CAS aircraft." Keep looking for what appears to be a quote you made up…

        I never debated findings of the '63 board. You're again desperate to create a strawman to knock down. To be technical the A10 is a multirole aircraft. It supports CAS, Interdiction and CSAR. Those are three different roles.

        The Horner reference is upon you to source. Context is important. Was he talking interdiction which is different than CAS? BTW, Horner is "that guy" that wanted the A16. Not a very good decision as history has shown. Thank God we didn't listen to him then. You keep citing him though, a broken clock…

        It's not the Air Force's fault when another service's program is cancelled. It is the Air Force's fault when they create a program to try to sabotage another service's program which is what was happening with the Air Force first trying to take over the AH56 program and later saying it was duplicating the A10's mission.

        After being beat senseless about the Air Force ill treatment of the A10 you want to distract attention over their malice by trying to throw the Navy & USMC under the bus? Wow! I see that personal responsibility isn't a forte of yours. I don't address the Navy & USMC for a simple reason. They aren't charged with providing CAS for the Army. Should I hold the Coast Guard responsible also for not fielding the A10? BTW, the A10 isn't compatible with shipboard ops.

        The Navy and USMC are making a mistake if they think the F35 is an adequate CAS provider. The difference is they will learn quickly from their mistake and buy something off the shelf if necessary. (The Harrier was British after all.) The Army is stuck with convincing the Air Force while it fills body bags.

        Do I have a problem with the Air Force? When it comes to CAS absolutely. As for the 40 years of begrudging A10 support, I hold the A10 community in the highest regard. They put up with a lot of bull**** and ill treatment from their service to try and do the right thing. I'd welcome them in the Army any day where they'd be appreciated and not be called traitors.

        As I mentioned before. I'm not looking for agreement with you. I'm not even interested in changing your mind. I just don't want anyone to make the fatal mistake and think your thoughts on the A10 and CAS are worth more than the electronic TP you have demonstrated them to be.

      • William_C1

        Well maybe it's not the same document (although it does go over the earlier 1963 CAS board) but I've still already linked you that 1971 RAND report in my previous post. Page 33 reviews the findings of that 1966 study which among other things recommended the procurement of a new CAS aircraft. Shortly after McConnell initiated the A-X program which led to the A-10.

        You never debated the findings? You had just denied the Army's response to the board's recommendations. I only brought up the point to show that the Army wasn't all that consistent. It's of course normal for there to be differing opinions within a service and for the "majority view" to change over time.

        General Chuck Horner was the commander of all coalition airpower in Desert Storm, I think the guy has earned some credibility for that despite the fact that the "A-16" was not a viable gun platform.

        I can't help find an online copy of that interview since a membership is now required, but here is the quote in question.

        A: "The other problem is that the A-10 is vulnerable to hits because its speed is limited. It's a function of thrust, it's not a function of anything else. We had a lot of A-10s take a lot of ground fire hits. Quite frankly, we pulled the A-10s back from going up around the Republican Guard and kept them on Iraq's [less formidable] front-line units. That's line [sic] if you have a force that allows you to do that. In this case, we had F-16s to go after the Republican Guard."

        Q: "At what point did you do that?"

        A: "I think I had fourteen airplanes sitting on the ramp having battle damage repaired, and I lost two A-10s in one day [February 15], and I said, "I've had enough of this."

        Except the A-X wasn't created for the purpose of killing the AH-56. McConnell did indeed fear a "turf war" in which the Army tried to seize the CAS mission from the Air Force. That was one of the factors leading to that study which recommended a new CAS aircraft which led to A-X. His successors kept it moving even after the end of America's involvement in Vietnam.

        Now I know all Air Force Generals in your mind are "fighter jocks" who don't care about anything else but at the end of the day he reviewed the information and agreed with the report's recommendations. Of course he factored what the Army was doing into the bigger picture, he'd be an idiot not to.

        The "Air Force's ill treatment about the A-10". Lets look at the history here. In case you forgot the officers who were against the aircraft lost out which is why the aircraft was in production for 12 years with 715 built. It was an important part of our forces deployed in Europe.

        Around the late '80s planners start to wonder about the aircraft's eventual replacement. There is significant concern about the A-10s low speed which leads to the evaluation of F-16 derivatives and the YA-7F. At the time the envisioned enemy is still the Soviets.

        Then the Cold War ends. The Soviet Union is no more. The A-7F is no longer considered a valid option and the Air Forces is facing heavy cuts all across the board. One of the cuts planned is the A-10 because the Air Forces knows they are going to have less aircraft to work with and would rather have those aircraft be multirole fighters like the F-16 which are more versatile.

        Then Desert Storm, A-10 does well and everybody is in love with it. This puts an effective end to any plan to retire the aircraft during the '90s.

        Then the War on Terror, another boost for the A-10's reputation because it's well suited for this sort of conflict. Most of the active A-10As are modernized to A-10C standards with new avionics. A re-winging process begins to extent the aircraft's service life and correct the unexpected fatigue issues discovered during the aircraft's career.

        Then sequestration, reduced involvement in Iraq (until ISIS) and Afghanistan, all of the talk about a "Pacific Pivot", and we are back where we were in the mid '90s.

        But nope instead of trying to understand the thinking of the Air Force brass here most people just revert to this "Air Force hates CAS" mythology. This is supposed to be constructive discussion? One can make valid points for keeping the A-10 without resorting to this "we don't need multi-role fighters kill the F-35, disband the Air Force, Lockheed is bribing everybody" stupidity. On that last point I wonder if people would treat Boeing any better if they X-32 had won the contest.

        Throwing the Navy and Marine Corp under the bus? No I am asking you why don't you apply your weird CAS logic to those services? According to you the F-16 and F-35 aren't capable of CAS, so why would the F/A-18 be by your logic? Is it because of the "A" in the designation? I'm not talking about literally flying an A-10 from a ship, I'm asking why they don't need an aircraft with similar capabilities?

      • William_C1

        "The Navy and USMC are making a mistake if they think the F35 is an adequate CAS provider." So what is this big difference you see between the F/A-18 and F-35 when it comes to CAS? The F/A-18 is still a "fast-mover". It still doesn't have a titanium bathtub around the pilot. It still has a 20mm cannon that doesn't compare to the firepower of the 30mm GAU-8/A.

        The AV-8B is slower (not A-10 slow however) and has a nice 25mm gun pod with 300 rounds of ammo. So if they gave the gun pod for the F-35B some 300 round of 25mm ammo would it now be a credible CAS aircraft by your logic?

        Clearly you were never looking for any sort of agreement from the start. You just want a soapbox to go on about how awful the Air Force is and how multi-role jets don't do anything better than the A-10.

      • balais

        I wont speak for majrod, but no, the Hornet and Harrier are not equivalent in terms of effective attributes for CAS as the A10.

        "how multi-role jets don't do anything better than the A-10."

        That is a irrefutable FACT, not a soapbox rant, when it comes to CAS in close proximity to friendly forces. The sooner you realize this, the better.

        It is also a irrefutable fact, just like gravity. "multipurpose" anything tends to become a jack of all trades and master of none, and while there are many situations where a jack is completely adequate to accomplish the task at hand, sometimes it is not. When it is not is when the rubber meets the road (or in the case of CAS, the difference between a successful engagement or committing fratricide or dropping bombs into empty rock).

      • You do understand the Navy's use of airpower is different than the Air Force's? It is an extension of SEA POWER and extending the nation's combat power. It has a requirement that planes land on a carrier. I know the Air Force thinks that everything that flies should belong to it but it doesn't work that way (as demonstrated with the rejection of the Air Force's attempt to steal proponency for all UAV's – bet you don't acknowledge that bit of subterfuge either).

        Whenever you compare general aircraft against Navy aircraft, it better land on a carrier or it's irrelevant to the discussion. As for CAS I'll restate what I said because it obviously went over your head. "They (the NAVY/USMC) aren't charged with providing CAS for the Army. Should I hold the Coast Guard responsible also for not fielding the A10?"

        As for guns, having one doesn't make a plane an automatic adequate CAS aircraft. There's a lot more to it. This obviously escapes you and is an indicator of your understanding of CAS.

        Reference Horner's comments. He stated Feb 15. We were not engaged with ground troops on Feb 15. By definition that's not CAS. Like I said, context is important and I was there.

        Horner makes a lot of claims which have proven to be inaccurate. Off the top of my head he claims a lot more damage to the Iraqis than was actually delivered. Check out Congressional Armed Service Committee Report of Intelligence Success and Failures in Operations Desert Shield/Storm… p18-21 for starters. Horner is not infallible or irrefutable no matter how many troops he's commanded.

        The AH56 predated the A-X program by a couple of years (AAFSS from '64). This served as the impetus for the Air Force to get off its azz and look at CAS specific aircraft because of a "truf" concern as you put it. You don't really expect the Air Force to officially say, we're going to look at a CAS solution because the Army is? Well maybe you do, Like you said before, it's only "official" if it's stated before Congress.

        "One can make valid points for keeping the A-10 without resorting to this "we don't need multi-role fighters kill the F-35, disband the Air Force, Lockheed is bribing everybody" stupidity." I never said any of those things. Strawman again (facepalm). Can't you debate without creating sandcastles to knock over?

        As for understanding the Air Force's multiple attempts & reasons for shuttering the A10. I do. You don't keep making the same mistake and history telling your your wrong unless you have a fundamentally inaccurate understanding of the environment (incompetence) and/or don't give a rip (malice). Others showing blind favoritism like yourself can't see or appreciate these issues and should be shunned from any decision making when it comes to making CAS decisions let alone debating them.

        "You just want a soapbox to go on about how awful the Air Force is and how multi-role jets don't do anything better than the A-10." Let's be specific. The Air Force is awful when it comes to obstructing CAS and intratheatre lift and "anything" applies to CAS. The A10 makes for a crappy air superiority platform, strategic bomber, logistic lefter etc. Otherwise you are getting it.

      • William_C1

        I'm well aware of the role of naval aviation in greater strategy, that doesn't change the fact that Navy aircraft also regularly get called in to provide close air support for ground forces.

        One of, if not the, primary mission of Marine aviation is to support Marine ground forces. Yet they don't have anything like the A-10 either.

        Of course the basic layout of the A-10 wouldn't be well suited to navalization. Yet in-theory nothing prevents the design of a naval attack aircraft that is also slow, armed with a GAU-8/A and heavy air-to-ground payload, and features a high degree of armor protection.

        So why isn't the Marine Corp (or Navy) guilty of having some imagined "we hate CAS" altitude?

        Basically it makes no damn sense that you accuse the only service that has an aircraft like the A-10 of "hating CAS" based on plans to retire it once budget cuts following the end of the Cold War started to hit.

        It makes even less sense to claim they hate CAS based on the fact that many of the Air Force brass have long been of the opinion that "high performance" multi-role jets are the best choice for ground support. Based not on the notion that they're all "fighter jocks" but rather the consideration of the funding they have to work with and all of the many potential conflicts they must be prepared for. I disagree with them about the A-10, but the idea that they don't have any valid reasoning behind them is simply false.

        I'm well aware of the fact the gun isn't the all-important factor here, so why don't you explain to me how the F/A-18 and AV-8 are somehow better CAS aircraft than the F-35 as you would suggest.

        And should those A-10s just have been sitting on the ramp until those friendly ground forces were in direct contact with the enemy? If anything that makes a point in favor of the F-16 or F-35 as the better investment.

        The report you reference doesn't seem to suggest that Horner was intentionally lying or anything of that nature. It rather seems to suggest the historical truth that pilots often over-claim in combat and that BDA is a challenging task. Horner would have just been stating the information he was getting at the time. Nobody is infallible but the fact remains that some Iraqi forces had enough air defense capability intact to make the use of "fast-movers" like the F-16 a better choice.

        AAFSS did come first and it certainly worried the Air Force enough (turf war) for them to take a closer look at what they could do better. It was only another step in a major expansion of Army aviation that had been occurring ever since they embraced air-mobility. Yet do you really think nobody in the Air Force wanted to do CAS better just for the sake of doing it better? Of course self-interest came into it, there is only so much of the budget pie to go around, but you act as if that invalidates every action taken. The Air Force is far from the only service that wants as much as possible to be under "their" control versus that of another service. The two services fundamentally disagree on just how centralized the control of airpower (generally speaking) should be and that will never change.

        I didn't mean to suggest that you in specific were making those points. That is however the sort of tripe that fills a lot of the comment section and part of why I wrote the initial comment that led to our endless argument here.

        Where is this same mistake they keep making? Trying to retire the A-10? I suppose you'll have to excuse them for not being able to see into the future. You're not the one who should be talking about blind favoritism. The Air Force simply cannot do right in your eyes. Even when something goes right they can't be given any credit for it because external factors were involved.

      • "I'm well aware of the role of naval aviation in greater strategy, that doesn't change the fact that Navy aircraft also regularly get called in to provide close air support for ground forces." That statement alone demonstrates you assuredly don't understand the role of naval aviation.

        On occasion Army assets have been called upon to conduct deep attacks and even blind enemy radar for a follow on fixed wing airstrike. According to your logic, since the Army has been called upon to fill that role it should acquire the best system to do that mission. Of course not, it's a secondary role. CAS is a primary Air Force mission. It blocks the Army from procuring fixed wing aircraft to do the mission because it says it has that role and then except for the A10, selects aircraft to do that role that have less than the best capabilities to do it. Also the Navy isn't blocking the Army's efforts to procure systems to do CAS.

        The Marines are in a unique position. First they are allowed to own aircraft, second they see CAS as a primary mission for their aircraft but also have to weigh that against the requirement to conduct air to air superiority missions in their immediate area so when selecting aircraft they accept trade offs like the Harrier and its vertical lift capability vs. other aircraft that could do CAS or air to air better but not both as well. In keeping with that approach they are fielding a VTOL version of the F35 that is less capable than the naval and air force variant. Again. the Marines do not have a history of obstructing the Army's desire to acquire fixed wing to do CAS while selecting (except for the A10) less capable aircraft to do that mission. They also make up for some of the shortcoming of their aircraft by increasing their responsiveness and making them directly responsible to the ground commander. The Air Force believes that's a mortal sin.

        Contrary to your latest strawman I believe there are airmen totally committed to providing the best CAS they can. They typically serve in the A10 field or are on the ground with the Army. Note: most of them are of the same opinion as I. E.G. the Air Force culture favors pointy nosed aircraft, CAS is a secondary mission and the A10 should be retained.

        "Basically it makes no damn sense that you accuse the only service that has an aircraft like the A-10 of "hating CAS" based on plans to retire it once budget cuts following the end of the Cold War started to hit." It actually makes all the sense in the world. The Air Force wanted to can the A10 before the Cold War was over, twice after and now. It's in their genes.

        If the Air Force really wanted to convince us on the ground of its "good will" stop obstructing the Army from obtaining its own fixed wing CAS assets. While you're at it let the Army replace it's small in theatre airlift capability as opposed to stealing the program and cancelling it to keep the Army from flying fixed wing.

        Unlike the other services the Air Force has insidiously tried to exercise a hegemony on aircraft. It was rebuffed from obstructing the Navy's acquisition of aircraft, stopped in it's attempts to keep the Air Force from fielding carriers or ballistic submarines )because missiles fly and they should belong to the Air Force). I've already .documented the USAF's attempts to block the Army from acquiring helicopters (again, they fly, they should be Air Force mentality) fixed wing CAS, rotary wing CAS, airlift and then there's the latest effort, UAV's.

        Has the Army blocked the Marines from obtaining tanks? Has the Army blocked the USAF's fielding of armored vehicles? Has the Navy blocked the Army from fielding deployment/amphib ships? Have the Marines ever rejected the Army's efforts to obtain amphibious vehicles. The answer is no in every case but yet you in your unrequited zealous support for all things Air Force refuse to see the blatant truth in half a dozen cases of the Air Force resisting commons sense employment of aircraft by other branches out of sheer branch partisanship..

        It's not that the Air Force can do nothing right in my eyes (again the strawman because it does an admirable job in air superiority, strategic lift, strategic bombing, nuclear missions). It's that it can do nothing wrong in yours…

      • William_C1

        Air-to-air is irrelevant for CAS? True in a sense but if there are air threats in the area you still may need it. You can't always wait until air-superiority has been obtained, the enemy can force your hand based on their actions. Two internal air-to-air missiles isn't much but it is something in case some MiG evades the CAP and tries to interfere. It also means those F-35s can provide some degree of support to the F-22s and F-15s going about their mission should the opportunity arise.

        The max internal payload (for the F-35A and F-35C) represents two 2000 pound JDAMs and two AIM-120 sized air-to-air missiles. Not a lot but it's comparable to strike capability the F-117A had with a self-defense capability. If the environment permits it then it can carry another 15,600 lbs worth of external stores.

        You act as if no other service ever has internal disagreements over what programs should be pursued and what shouldn't. The fact remains that despite the opposition some had to the A-10 within the Air Force nobody from the service ever went before Congress in an official capacity and suggest it be cancelled. I recall reading about some Colonel who tried to sabotage the program through his contacts in Congress but when McConnell learned of this he made an example out of the man.

        I am not trying to excuse General Post's actions. I doubt he is some sort of villain but he still attempted to frighten anybody who doesn't go along with the USAF's "official" stance on the issue. Maybe it would be understandable if he said "false information" or something like that but he didn't. At first I figured nothing would happen to him because of what everybody else seems to be able to get away with these days but rethinking the matter I'm guessing he may be thrown under the bus quite quickly.

      • "Two internal air-to-air missiles isn't much but it is something in case some MiG evades the CAP and tries to interfere." Yes, the A10 also carries air to air missiles and they don't take 50% of the hardpoints like the F35's internal stealth maintaining configuration does.

        The F-117 was a strike aircraft. Not an air to air or CAS platform. Why even bring it up in a CAS discussion?

        "The fact remains that despite the opposition some had to the A-10 within the Air Force nobody from the service ever went before Congress in an official capacity and suggest it be cancelled." Ah, so it only counts to you if an Air Force officer says so under oath in front of Congress. I guess Post's comments aren't important either. Situational ethics are not acceptable in a military officer.

        "I am not trying to excuse General Post's actions." You aren't? Why not? He didn't say them in front of Congress. They aren't "official". No fear. He'll get off without a scratch. This is the Air Force we're talking about and the issue is CAS.

      • BW3

        Those internal hardpoints were never meant for A-G munitions, so what are you trying to say? Stealth load out dictates 2 A-A missiles and an assortment of internal bay A-G munitions. C'mon, thought you taught school or something.

      • Read the thread. I'm not the one saying stealth will determine the loadout.

        I've actually taught in a couple of schools.

      • William_C1

        Those air-to-air missiles are currently AIM-9M Sidewinders. The F-35 can carry the medium range AIM-120 instead and eventually whatever replaces the AIM-120. The AESA radar also helps. There is an hardpoint in each weapons bay dedicated to an air-to-air missile. The other "main" hardpoint is what is carrying the air-to-ground ordinance. Using the air-to-air hardpoint doesn't subtract from what the main air-to-ground hard-point (rated for 2,500 lbs) can carry.

        The F-35 is also doing the strike mission. That's going to be it's primary job. Like the F-16 which also routinely does the strike mission these days it can still be used to provide close air support. There are certainly scenarios in which the A-10 is the better aircraft to have for CAS, but when the enemy has a lot of modern SHORAD around it really isn't.

        You seem to have a lot in common with General Post, like a tendency to say stupid things. General Post's comments are unethical not because of his views on the A-10 or F-16 or F-35. They are unethical because there is a message of "fall in line or I'll end your career" to anybody who doesn't support cutting the A-10. That is unacceptable. The sad thing is that such behavior happens way too often in all of the services and often over matters that have nothing to do with equipment.

        But your only interest in this seems to be the opportunity to point and the man and say "Look! He hates CAS! The Air Force hates CAS!"

      • "the A-10 is the better aircraft to have for CAS, but when the enemy has a lot of modern SHORAD around it really isn't." No plane is including the F35.

        If Gen Post and I had saying stupid things really in common you would be defending me like was your knee jerk reaction with Gen Post…

        As for "The Air Force hates CAS!" if the shoe fits…

      • William_C1

        It is if you're staying out of range of SHORAD, you can still do some good.

        I didn't defend him, I asked "what do you expect to happen" because I thought of him as I would a politician. Yet at the end of the day he isn't and their is an overabundance of generals these days, so he may well have just ended his career. Time will tell.

        Yet the shoe doesn't fit. For you however this is the Air Force's original sin of which they cannot be cleansed.

      • If the Air Force was really interested in addressing its "original sin", it will stop trying to can the A10 and obstructing the Army from obtaining its own fixed wing CAS assets. While you're at it let the Army replace it's small in theatre airlift capability as opposed to stealing the program and cancelling it to keep the Army from flying fixed wing.

      • William_C1

        When in recent years has the Army attempted to obtain their own fixed wing CAS assets other than UAVs? They haven't. I wouldn't be opposed to allowing Army aviation some manned fixed wing observation/light attack aircraft but the A-10 is quite a step above a turboprop.

        What happened with the C-27J was simply a scandal that also screwed over the Air National Guard of many states including my own. Congress should have given them all to the Army National Guard once the Air Force decided they had too many cargo aircraft.

      • The Army hasn't attempted to obtain fixed wing CAS lately? LOL, when you kick a dog every time it comes close don't be surprised it doesn't come close.

        Just give the Army the A10. It solves the funding issue. Why limit Army fixed wing to turboprop. It's the mission we are addressing.

        You betray yourself when you establish boundaries for no reason. You shouldn't wonder why there's no trust.

      • balais

        "The A-10 is great at strafing insurgents in Afghanistan but this wasn't the scenario it was designed for. "


        That is exactly what it was designed to do.

        What did you expect in a hypothetical WW3? for them to just ignore those "benign" ATGM emplacements? or infantry running around? or artillery and mortars?

        It was designed to squash infantry (or in the case of OIF/OEF, guerrillas) as much as it was intended to squash armor.

        The historical revisionism blows my mind away.

      • William_C1

        I doubt anybody in 1973 was thinking that "30 years from now we'll need this jet to fight fanatics in the Middle East". No, the concern was the Soviets. The Soviets and Warsaw Pact with all of their thousands of AFVs that would roll into West Germany if things went bad. Sure, the A-10 would hit any other targets of opportunity including infantry, it's main job was to be killing AFVs and halt the enemy's advance.

        It's origins in Vietnam were more or less about squashing infantry but once American involvement was ending it's envisioned role was fighting against highly mechanized Soviets in Western Europe. That doesn't mean it didn't have qualities that make it good at blowing up infantry however. Big guns have multiple roles like that.

      • wbryan06

        Everyone forgets about the Cheyenne Attack Helicopter. The USAF was violently opposed to it and fortunately for the Army, it was cancelled since it was already obsolete.

        The CAS debate is all about Roles, Missions, and MONEY. The USAF likes the money but hates the other two. Preforming CAS puts them in a subordinate role to the Army and they are paranoid about taking orders from guys in green suits. Just visit any Air Force base and notice that the word "Army" has been removed from all reference to their heritage. The only reference is to "The Air Corps". Hard to believe but just visit an Air Force base museum and you will see for yourself.

      • wbryan – very insightful points…

    • STemplar

      Yah, except they've come to that conclusion since I was in Gulf War 1 in the early 90s. They've been saying they just have to retire this aircraft since then. The problem is every time they have come to that conclusion we end up in another fight and the A-10 has ends up being the belle of the ball, leaving the general staff of the USAF looking like a bunch of clueless dullards.

    • Badger130

      Well said. Briefly the AF believes that interdiction has more bang for the buck than the CAS mission. Say that to the Soldiers and Marines in close contact and you may have a brawl on your hands. From the AF's point of view an acft dedicated solely to provide only the CAS mission and nothing else is not worth the money. However, thinking that the A-10 was a one trick pony during the first Iraq war in particular disproved this. The A-10 was fully capable of doing interdiction as well as CAS. In fact the A-10 did much more interdiction than it did CAS.

    • On time, On target

      There is not a A/C in inventory of any of the services today that is as well suited for CAS than the A-10! IT operates better in a hot, sandy environment than any of the fast movers. As far age goes look at the B-52, C-130 and others. It could be upgraded and maintained for years to come. If you doubt the capabilities of the A-10 just talk to some of the Iraq & Afganistan veterans. I wish we had had it back during the Vietnam era. Because none of the fast movers were good for CAS, as a rule. Hell, the gov't went back to the bone yard and pulled out old A(B)-26's and A1E Skyraiders hung new engines and sent them to Vietnam and they did a hell of a job along with the C-119 & T-6 (operated primarily out of Thiailand and Laos. I wonted even get into the A-10 vrs F-35, different missions and different capiblities but the F-35 will never be good for CAS!

  • retired462

    Cut back on the F-35 buy, and somehow open the A-10 assembly line. I think that the big problem is age, and maintenance costs (plus the zoomies don't like the words low and slow). Opening up the line again will still be cheaper than building a few JSF.

    The JSF won't even have a functioning gun 'til 2017. That should be more than sufficient justification to build new warthogs.

    If AF generals don't like it – – – – RETIRE (and stay the h*#* out of the defense industry!

    • d. kellogg

      But do we really a full-up production line?
      How many of the original A-10s built were mothballed as spares with very few hours even on the airframes?
      (Any Davis-Mothan folk here?)

      They already have the configuration for the new digital pilot-pit (A-10C), and there were new wing kits in the works.
      Surely we wouldn't need a from-the-ground-up production facility?
      How many companies out there over the years learned to refurb old airframes of various aircraft into next-to-new configuration, anything from F-4s, F-5s and T-38s, A-4s, F-16s, B-52s, C-130s, giving them at least several hundreds more flying hours before they become unserviceable or unairworthy?

      Unless there were some serious rough landings, those bathtubs aren't gonna wear out any worse than our B-52s have fared.

      • nprev

        Problem is twofold:

        1. None of the original production tooling was preserved, so that would have to be re-created and probably reverse-engineered quite a bit.

        2. Metal fatigue & corrosion. They've been cannibalizing wings off of the mothballed A-10s for years to keep the surviving fleet going. This is what eventually ends the career of ANY plane.

      • retired462

        You could be new A-10's with what would be saved by cutting back production of the JSF.

    • Another Guest


      Instead of cutting back the F-35 buy, how about cancelling it.

      If the defence acquisition was up to me, I'll be certainly to kill the F-35 and encourage the allies to cancel this lemon too, as a way to put it into the indoor fire and watch it burn for good. Instead take business else where. Lockheed Martin are bunch of crooks, outliers and I'll never do business with them again. They are certainly a bad bargain for any customer.

      It is time to put the F-35 into AMARC and to get them chopped into the recycle bin.

    • Another Guest


      The JSF won't even have a functioning gun until 2019. 2017 is a misleading statement by the Pentagon & Lockheed Martin.

      Here are the links for further information.

    • Rhino

      Too many "zoomies" that want their high tech toys. The A-10 was never an aircraft they wanted because it wasn't "sexy" Climb down off your high horse and get real

    • dale master

      if it ant broke don't fix it.

    • Germaine

      I worked Pave Penny at Davis Monthan AFB 1979- 1981.
      Maintenance costs is the problem- there aren't enough of them for Fairchild to make big bucks supplying spare parts. That's the problem. The A-10 has proved its serviceablility throughout the years. At low altitude, it can fly circles around the F-15 & F-16. It can be shot all to hell in combat, yet fly home because of redundant systems. That is what it was made for. Stupid people making stupid decisions- yes, I mean Congress.

    • retiredmilitary

      ALL high ranking general officers who retire to gain positions with the MIC should be barred from getting taxpayer funded retirement payments after retirement. We know they are just opportunists and don't really give a damn about our security nor about our men and women who die to protect us. They are the traitors.

  • charley kasper

    Hand them over to the Army- they'll make good use of them

  • oblatt22

    What we are seeing here are just the latest examples of the corruption of the military by the defense contractors. Programs like the JSF are obviously fraudulent and should really be investigated by the FBI.

    • William_C1

      So if an Air Force general supports an aircraft he is obviously being paid by the contractor which builds it? Any proof of this? Was the attempt to replace the A-10 with the F-16 also the fault of defense contractors (General Dynamics in that case)?

      How does going around bribing every single officer you can find result in the immediate high profits shareholders want? You said yourself shareholders only care about the short term so why would they invest in bribing everybody when they can have that money for themselves? Even your bizarre logic isn't consistent.

  • JimmyD

    You don't need 5th generation $100m aircraft to chase 4 dudes in a pick up truck.

    • mike otkins

      Love it….

    • theobserver

      Excellent comment.

    • Randall B

      Thank you…!!

    • mike mikolaitis

      Right On! A Silverado with the A10s 30 mm would work just as well.

      • truthzorro

        love it!

    • John Y 37yr vet

      Firing $10,000+ a piece rockets at a convoy of vehicles vs using an A!0 with 30mm cannon.rounds. Only DoD officials with their heads suck up some DoD contractors a** would think that it's the wave of the future along with a future BS job at the vendor. Bring back the $600 toilet seats, at least when they were ripping us off they were in our face about it!

    • Wildcat1

      JimmyD- you hit the target!

  • Jeff M

    Both the Army & Marine Corps would love to have the A10, especially if it is the only way to keep it from retirement. I agree with other posters, re-open the production line for this awesome platform & make more. It is combat proven in this role, and should not be retired until there is a viable replacement capable of fulfilling the mission.

    • d. kellogg

      Considering the Active component Army's tentative plans are to take away the Guard's Apaches and consolidate/standardize on the Apache E-model Guardian with all that drone integration capability,
      and give the Guard the role of transport jockeys,
      I'd wager there are plenty of Guard Apache crews who wouldn't mind the opportunity to convert over to Hog drivers if it were ever implemented.
      Any hangar that could house a Sherpa or Chinook could pretty much house an A-10 for maintenance, no question there.
      The biggest issue would be the cost of implementing ground support crews and armorers, but then again, I doubt everyone in the USAF who services A-10s has already committed to sticking around to retrain for the F-35.

      • Jim

        The AF took away the A-1o from most Air Guard units . The cost to retrain,re equip Ar NG units with the A-10 would be huge. It would be cheaper/easier to re-convert the Air Guard unit back to A-10's instead of drones/C-21/C-130 that the active duty AF stuck them with .

  • oblatt22

    Everyone should really look at the LCS video on this site about the big advantages it has…

    1) it can get into a lot of small ports to visit people
    2) its not as threatening to third world countries as a real warship.

    Since we are going to have 60 of these lightweight PR vessels we should at least start naming them after Miss America contestants.

    "I'm the captain of LCS Miss Alabama and I'd like to bring world harmony by visiting small Indonesian fishing villages in a non-threatening way. thankyou"

    • JoeO

      Made me laugh. Thank you, for that.

    • theobserver

      That's about all they are good for, PR and wasting taxpayers money.

  • Richard Burke

    Who's side is MG Post on? He should talk to all those ground folks who have had CAS from A10's.
    I wonder what is his outlook is for the B 52's that we still have and the C 130's. Perhaps it is time for the
    USAF to return to the US Army Air Forces. The type of warfare that US Forces are in engaged in is not going to go away, several writers suggest the US should reopen the A10 Production line and reduce the money spent on the JSF. It should be looked into.

    • jeffsaxton22

      I agree, if the Air Force is crying the "Sequester Blues", and is using that rationale to eliminate the A-10, I call upon the leaders in Congress and the Senate to allow the Army to operate THIS fixed wing airplane. Pilots, ground crew and other necessary staff, along with spare parts and maintaining these proud ship would be totally covered by the Army's budget. Yeah the AF gasbags will huff 'n puff, but if our political leaders LEAD for a change, this is very doable. And if the Army brass doesn't want to ante up for the Warthog, then they need to explain future casualties and failed missions.

      All this is so typical of the USAF…the F-15 was their new honey and numerous attempts were made be USAF brass to kill the F-16. AF brass love their big, new and COMPLICATED toys (which is essentially true for most senior brass in all the services). The F-16 was small and nimble and cost a lot less than the Strike Eagle.

      The F-35 JSF is a multibillion unproven money-pit that is drowning the USAF's budget, and stealing money out of the pockets of taxpayers. The Warthog is a bargain in comparison, and is the best Close Air Support weapon system in history.

      What every branch of the military needs are duplicates of Hyman G. Rickover, who vociferously and VERY publicly railed against the budget overruns of very powerful nuclear submarine contractors like the Electric Boat Company and Newport News Shipbuilding, who took advantage of the politician's largesse to soak our country. Rickover didn't give a damn that he wouldn't get a senior executive position with a military contractor upon retirement. The Pentagon is no better than the politicians in terms of their greed and avarice. The politicians and their staffs play the revolving door game with the lobbyists on K Street, while the generals go do-see-do with the contractors.

      Remember Rome, when its leaders became so corrupt that its society imploded, and was eventually devastated by its enemies?

    • ArmyVeteran

      I actually think MG Post does not care about the support to Soldiers on the ground. It is all about budgets and numbers, future career perks in his mind. It just goes to show, they would take the A10 away when it is being used in combat now with no replacement leaving the Soldiers vulnerable and exposed.

      That is not just wrong, that is dereliction of duty. This guy should be removed or put under investigation for conduct unbecoming. I personally like to see who he invests and owns stock in what corporations. We might have a "conflict of interest" going on with him or a nice job lined up in industry after he cements "his" agenda.

  • Allen "Bore 58"

    The A-10A is the best CAS Platform in the History of the United States. Not only for its lethality and combat capability but more importantly its survivability.
    Any Time an Air Force General states that the Army and Marine Corps no longer need the A-10A there is a major Problem. Any Air Force Officer that has seen Ground Combat knows that the A-10A is the best. We have nothing in the inventory that has comparable capability. The AC-130 Gunship has fantastic capability at altitude but when it comes to getting down and dirty in the mud the A-10 is the best.
    JSF is Worthless!!! Stealth is Dead e.g. (See the S-400)… General Welsh and all the other Lockheed Martin individuals that left the Pentagon and now "Work" on the 18th Hole at the LMCO Golf Course in Texas need to be FIRED. The Air Force has sold their Soul to Lockheed Martin. JSF will not IOC until 2022 following the 3i and 3F Software loads. Oh by the way they fail to mention the Marine Corps and Navy Version of JSF DOES NOT HAVE an internal GUN for Air-Air or Air-Ground Combat. They have to load a GUN POD on the Centerline and that will not be operational until 2019. The American People will pay an additional 1.5 Trillion Dollar in sustainment cost. We would be much better off to SCRAP this Program and purchase additional Battlespace Connectivity, Longer Range Air-Air Missiles and more TACTOMS and TLAMS instead. As an Air Force Officer myself any additional warfighting capability that enhances the Kill Chain and keeps our Ground Troops safe is a WIN. JSF is a completely worthless. JSF begin development in 1992 and will not IOC until 2022-2023, 30 Years is long enough and the Taxpayers are sick of this money making machine for Lockheed Martin.

    • Tim

      Nice response Al. Couldn't agree more. Ask the end user, the troop on the ground in harm's way, which weapons system he would prefer.

    • janl65

      Are you LISTENING, Congress? I am sick and tired of this hunk of junk clunker F-35 continuing to be funded and billions upon billions of our tax dollars going down this black hole!

  • R. Olds

    Toxic leadership that weakens our force. Gen Post's actions and words are closer to treason than the thousands of Airmen advocating for a strong CAS mission. I hope COMACC takes him out.

  • Brian B. Mulholland

    I'm disturbed by the casual use of "treason," both by the quoted General and by posters here. Fierce disagreements on policy are not treasonous, period. Sen. McCain's question does seem entirely fair to me; if the F-35's IOC, watered down as it has been, is still years away, how can we retire the A-10 now? Can an F-15, F-16, or F-18 really go as low and slow as an A-10 when having to eyeball combatants who are not in uniform?

    Neither the production line nor Republic Aviation exists, and I doubt there's money to start a new one. Even major system upgrades are out of reach under the sequester, and given the AF's manifest inability to manage its' contracts, I sympathize more with Congress on that problem.

    • HasBeen

      Over many years the military has been increasingly co-opted for social and political purposes. A lot of the top ranks get their job not because of blistering intellect and capability but for political reasons.

      Hell, nowadays you can get a combat ship named after you for getting shot up as a civilian. For that matter, you may have hated your Naval service and said so – and still get a ship named after you.

      In this kind of context, honoring your legal responsibility to tell the truth under oath is trivial compared to the expectation that you will spout the lines deemed acceptable by your command structure.

    • blight_

      Agreeing to turn over your post to an opposing force (e.g Benedict Arnold) is treason.

      Disagreements between politicians is not treason. Exercising free speech is not treason. Telling Mac the Knife that the M-16 and the F-111 are not great ideas is not treason. Insisting that LCS is broken is not treason.

      However, the word has stronger emotional connotations than "praising the A-10 to lawmakers is inconsistent with my mission statement that the air force of the future will be with one platform"

    • JimmyD

      No worries on Republic Aviation's retirement. They just finished re-winging them with the "C" model. Anything you want to hang on that bird is just a matter of vision, leadership, time and money.

      • William_C1

        The A-10C was an upgrade primarily for the aircraft's avionics. The re-winging program was a separate effort which had started but has been halted by this current budget battle.

      • JRT

        A-10 should not only get the new wing, but should also get the engine upgrade from the old TF-34GE-100A to the newer and very much improved TF34-GE-101. Below are excerpted from the article at the link further below.

        "…TF34-GE-101 doubles the hot day thrust … eliminating take-off gross weight limitations that preclude today's A-10 from delivering its most powerful mission punch. …significant reduction in takeoff distances during hot day conditions. Improved high altitude performance. 30% more acceleration capability and a 2X turn rate for improved maneuverability. An approximate 3X time-to-climb improvement at full combat weight. CONUS to European deployment in one-third the time – without tying up tanker assets and valuable manpower. A positive single engine rate of climb safety margin at maximum gross takeoff weight."

        "By leveraging a $400-million GE investment for commercial engine development and a solid production base, the TF34-GE-101 can be procured on an affordable Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) basis. Maintenance costs (including spares, labor and overhaul) are projected to be less than one-fourth the cost of maintaining current engines."


      • BW3

        One of the major issues against the engine upgrade is problems with fuselage fatigue

      • William_C1

        I'm aware of the fatigue issues with the wings, but what's this about the fuselage? As long as the g-limits remain the same would the increased thrust really cause that much more stress? Or is the worry that pilots would be using that thrust to do high-g turns more often?

      • BW3

        Both. It's physics really.

      • William_C1

        I thought the fatigue/structural problems the A-10 suffers from were limited to the wings however. I don't see the increased turn rate provided by such an upgrade as being necessary but all of the other stuff would be good to have.

      • BW3

        No, a lot of the 4th Gen fighters suffer from a lot of fatigue and cracking. It's not the turn rate that the jet needed, it's the energy sustainment during maneuvers, higher altitude operations, etc that is necessary. The upgrade can happen, but hope much do you spend on fixing everything else to go with it.

      • Mike

        I can remember sitting in a brief where the OT&E guys were telling us about how our A-10s had new engines "bought and paid for, and you should see them getting installed in the next 6 months." That was in 1999……..

    • BW3

      "Can an F-15, F-16, or F-18 really go as low and slow as an A-10 when having to eyeball combatants who are not in uniform?"

      Yes, though you don't have to go as slow as them. I know because I've done it

      • Brian B. Mulholland

        Thank you. Since you've BTDT, could current CAS activities in theater be performed just as well without the A-10 as with it?

      • BW3

        Depends. I would argue to keep the Hog. There is nothing quite like the gun on the hog to achieve the desired weapons effects on a lot of targets without the hassle off frag, assuming you overcome some of the deficiencies.

    • Jersey Dave

      Dear Brian – You are correct that the A-10 production line is not open, but the A-10s we have now are coming out of a massive reconditioning, and that line is still open. We could even add new A-10s from the Boneyard, brought out and put through that process, if we needed to. The plane is on the table and can serve for many years to come :)

  • ken

    Is the A-10 the best platform for CAS?

    • Tom

      Yes it is ken. There's nothing in the inventory that can match it. A friend of mine used to love A-7's for CAS but, that was before the A-10 came along. He later became an A-10 driver & loved it. The General is pushing another new "expensive toy" & the taxpayers will be footing the bill so he's not worried. It appears the General has not had much experience down low where you get eye-to-eye with your adversary. We still "need" the A-10, why doesn't the General just give up some B-52's or a couple B-2's, there should be plenty of money then for his next experiment.

      P.S.- Hey General, don't threaten the troops, their not robots & have valid concerns. They do one hell of a job for what they get paid.

  • ArmyVeteran

    A top U.S. Air Force general warned officers that praising the A-10 attack plane to lawmakers amounts to “treason,” according to a news report.

    And that General does not know what it is like to be on the ground and have guns hot A10's zapping the enemy in front of you and hitting them with hell fire misses. That General is in some cushy air conditioned office. The A10 is so good that we are using it now in Combat against the enemy and taking them out. What is more cost effective? An A10 at 20 Million or a F35 at 200 million to kill the bad guys in a pick up truck? This General is all about himself and ignores Congress and his Subordinates. I guess he is "God" in his mind. He is a caustic Leader by his own words. Give the A10 to the Army and Marines and let them provide their own Air Support CAS missions. The Airforce does not know how to do that cost effectively anymore. Then cut the AF budget to ween the Military Industrial Complex off the never ending money flow it thinks it will get saving Tax Payers Billions. The F22 can take the missions for now… the JTF F35 is a nightmare program of failure.

    • Robert Carothers

      You are absolutely correct about the F-22 over the crap F35. I know in Vietnam we had the A-6 but we also had recalled from storage older slower prop planes that could get down and dirty as every thing with a jet engine flew to fast to get all those that were advancing upon us. From what I have seen and read about the A-10 those grunts need it! All The Extra Generals, pay for a year would pay for the A-10 to be built new!
      We have to many chiefs (Generals) and not enough Indians (enlisted) to be paying for.

  • ArmyVeteran

    “The intent of his comments were to communicate the Air Force’s position and decision on recommended actions and strategic choices faced for the current constrained fiscal environment.”
    “Our role as individual military members is not to engage in public debate or advocacy for policy.”

    So, MG Post speaks his mind and creates policy and then has his staff member try and run damage control off him putting his foot in his mouth and backtrack. He doesn't even have the decency to say this himself but delegates a subordinate. It is time he is fired and removed from his position for caustic leadership and conduct unbecoming. When you say what he has and over stepped his rank / boundaries and then task subordinates for "damage control". You have lost trust, faith, vote of no confidence his his leadership. When you act like a tyrant and forget you Serve, you have exceeded your max potential and need removed before you create more harm and do more foolish acts. I can understand a O-3 rank make his statements. I can not condone an O-8 making them. This is the definition example of a caustic leader who needs removed immediately and replaced by someone who talks and listens to his subordinates / staff.

    • balais


      He's a spineless coward. These kind of people are what the AF and other branches are cutting good people for.

    • Alpaca Airship

      Yup! Greeks had a word for his comments: hubris. something took me a long time to understand. it's important to not take ones self too seriously, as NO ONE else does.
      Yes, we do rise to our level of incompetence.

  • Mad Dog – former NFO

    The AF has been trying to get rid of the A-10 since back in the earky 1980s. It does not have afterburners and swept wings and it flies where they can see the ground…besides, it does not look good with a silk scarf. Give it to the Marines or Army and let the AF keep everything but the Strike Eagle away from the real war.

  • Big-Dean

    we are fast becoming a third world country-where generalli's can threaten treason if someone doesn't agree with them

  • lshaft

    I hope Sen. John McCain rakes this general's azz over the coals!

  • Wharthogchief

    As a National Guard A-10 Dedicated Crew Chief. They can have my Hawg when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

    • weweedman

      I got your back chief! 2ID Doc, out

  • MG Post's comments put a glaring spotlight on how petty, disingenuous and deceptive the Air Force is when the issue is CAS.

    Keep talking General. It's good for the truth to see the light of day.

  • STemplar

    To me what is treasonous is allowing a tacair program to go so wildly over budget and behind schedule that it becomes a problem in the scope of the entire defense budget. $400 billion for a fighter? Even if the POS was actually performing to specs that is absurd. Against real adversaries it's unlikely we will be able to sustain bases within relevant range, and against the barbaric savages in the middle east what we have is more than capable. We have a strategic nuke force in decay, a navy that doesn't have enough money to build the ships we actually need, and bombers older than the people flying them, and we are going to flush $400 billion down the toilet on tacair. That's treason.

  • ken

    The great irony is there are sufficient reasons to use the A-10 now.

  • Chuck Keehne JR

    I have a great idea….a "Fly Off" like the good old days. F-35 vs F15, 16, 18, 22 and A-10 in each particular envirement of each older acft. Multiple consecutive goes, multiple missions ie ground support, immediate next missions back to back swap mission type air superiorty. Test to run 90 consecutive days. Congress or manufacturer has no input for results or buy ba ks (kick backs). Janes on acft rates ALL missions, aborts etc. NO special equipment to enhance mission. Aircraft must be as supported to current flightlines for special designed equipment for at least 1 year prior to flyoff. So there is no ringers in the game. If the F-35 doesn't haveit now…..oh well.
    Then and only then we will see, no excuses and cheaters are immediatly grounded for lets say 1 week showing missed missions etc.

    There you go. Thats how it was "FLY BEFORE YOU BUY"

    Mission commences in 90 days from TODAY!

    • Claude

      OK – Why didn't anyone else think of this??? Sounds too much like a great idea, THAT'S WHY!!! Besides – the A-10 would kick-butt (being nice here). Worked for over 20 in the A.F. & saw a lot of A/C returning from missions with damage, most never flew again. Only saw TWO A-10's that never flew again (one because an idiot loader rammed it during hot-loads, so that doesn't count!).

  • fred carrer

    The A10 is one of the best ground support aircraft built, this guy doesn't know what he is talking about

  • Anthony Abbott

    I understand the attitude. But I’m 81st. TFW. So, I already have an “Attitude Problem”.

  • Viper Driver

    Although the subject is about the mighty and combat proven Warthog, the greater issue is the comments made regarding Treason and his comments which appear to conflict with Title 10 law! How in good faith could the SECAF, CSAF, and ACC/CC not lose faith in MG Post and his ability to lead as a Flag Officer?


    JERRY GOSSELL'S LAWYER WHO CALLED ON 09/02/14 TO SAY ' Hey Keith Fxxx You'

    ' McCain '

    Because – Even Though Your Backing Col. Mark Anderson of the 188th Fighter Wing 'about' Threatening to Kill Me on My Porch – In Front of My House, As I Reported Earlier

    Regarding the A-10 : ' Your Full of Shit '

    And McCain is Right ON The Money – Especially About Deployment of an Un-Refined Platform with a Cost Factor of 10x

    Trust Me, The Entire Concept of a Deployment of F-35's is Based on the Principal of the DRONE Replacing Planes Like the A-10 in a Battlefield For Close In Air Support and That Concept Is:


    And This Case – My Son-In-Law's PROVES THAT THEORY

    AND I 'Just' Sent a Message to My Son-In-Law and My Daughter About 'His Security Force'

    About Secondary Motives

    SO – Kelsi, Bring The House on Jacob's Security Force, Because If 'an' A-10 Pilot

    Had – Been Sent to Do a Fly Over 'after' He Blew Up The Tank – He Would Of Been Picked Up

    Get It ?

    Keith Grant



    cc: Mrs. Kelsi Grant, Grant Kids, Jacob Tate, DOD, FBI Langley, CIA Langley, A-10 Pilot's in Afghanistan, USMC Snipers, Alan and Novice Jacob's Friends, Kelsi's Attorney

    • William_C1

      Wait, what?

      Are the black helicopters coming for you?

      • TRUTH_OF_CIA

        William C.

        NO Asshole, The Guy's Who Fly in Them Are Protecting Me in Encinitas, California 'while' They Prosecute Each and Every Son of a Bitch Associated with My Son-In-Law's Last Mission, And What Happened to My Son In Southern Oregon.

        Further – If Your Billy Coffman to Protect Little Bill Conlan's Good Name for Trying to Push My Son Colten 'away' from Me After My Divorce From His Daughter Who You Screwed. Let Me Give You a Key :

        Keith G: ' Remember When You Swung At Me In Front of Your House and 'grazed' My Right Side of My Head and Missed Me 3 Times ? What Did I Say To You ? '

        Here's The Answer Asshole: ' Is That All You've Got It ' ?

        And I Meant It

        SO And Further

        If You Want to Check Out Who I Am With The DOD

        Tell Them 'Gallatin' Sent You When You Talk to the F.B.I. About This Transmission

        And Make No Mistake Billy Coffman – I'm A Better Shot Then You With Any Weapon

        GALLATIN – (Figure It Out)




        cc: Mrs. Kelsi Grant, Grant Kids, Jacob Tate, DOD, FBI Langley, CIA Langley, Kelsi's Attorney

  • JimmyD

    Does anyone really think we need $100M aircraft to chase 4 guys in a pickup truck? It's called a "high / low" mix.

    • oblatt22

      you pay a high price you get low performance – its the new hi/lo mix

  • JimmyD

    Time to recognize that existing platforms are invaluable. Instead of replacing them at a cost of $100M to $0 why not just add new weapons systems and assign them missions that make sense based on their capabilities. Do we really need $100M F35's chasing pickup trucks in non-contested airspace?

    • Fordownr

      The cost of keeping the A-10s in the air is far from zero. They really do need some upgrades, but just like the C130 and B-52, what the hog needs is not impossible nor all that expensive compared to the aquisition cost of the F-35.

  • Max

    Trying to create an atmosphere of fear with this type of intimidation should result in this general seeing an immediate retirement briefing at possibly his previous rank. It is obvious the officer has somehow missed the concept of who is in control of the military. ANY military leader that forgets this concept is dangerous and needs to be removed from his or her position of authority without delay. My guess is he'd find himself in some cushy job as a lobbyist for some defense contractor as it seems he's already doing the job while in uniform.

    • blight_dfjsdflkj

      Flushing the cesspit moves the muck somewhere else.

      Unless you douse it in bleach and burn it.

  • conradswims

    Hey you stinking perfumed prince! Try and stop me from praising the A-10. I dare you!

  • ducaati

    I know- I had to read this to see if I somehow got it backwards! The General is full of crap! It's like saying the C-130 needs to go away! Pure absurdity! Retire the general, not the beautiful A-10 WARTHOG!

  • RKS

    I have an idea, embed these desk pilots with foot soldiers that need CAS and lets see what they want to call in. As a Ground Pounder nothing in the world puts a bigger smile on your face than looking up seeing an A-10 loitering above you. More even than an AH-64 or AH-1.

  • mugsymd

    It is TIME to TRY these Generals / Admirals that were HEN Pecked by the BIGGEST traitor there is, Mr BO and TRY them for Treason. I am no longer on Active Duty – so I can say what I want – it is about time and I earned my right to say that these people NOT those of us who were the Worker BEEs are putting up with this crap.

  • Alpaca Airship

    Army intell background. Served with infantry and artillery at batallion, brigade & division level. I will buy any Warthog driver a drink at any place or time the opportunity is presented. biggest problem I ever saw was coordination of CAS. MAYBE turning over Hawgs to land component would work..or..turn over air defense to air corps (oops Air Force). Any turnover in either direction will cause a turf battle between the entrenched bureucracies, which have their own demons to fight. bottom line: Keep the Hawgs for now and let the arguments continue. Hopefully, armed RPV 's, will end this squabble in the next decade. In the meantime, keep the University of Arkansas in mind: Soooooooeeee Pigs!

  • 6107466

    Make this argument the basis for carving up the USAF…leaving the AF with nukes, bombers and UAV's. In anticipation of the common JSF hull replacing the F15 & F16, give the USN and USMC all the JSF's and it will provide a shore-based tour for carrier polits to rotate too and keep flying.

  • TheDOTKU

    “Our role as individual military members is not to engage in public debate or advocacy for policy.” Maj. Genieve David. Wow, what an outright lie!! Whose military is she in? Every military member has the right to participate in public debate and advocacy!! They can't do it in uniform, but they sure as hell can do it as an individual while not claiming to represent the opinion of the military. If you don't know your rights, you aren't going to be an effective American OR military member!! Someone inform her please that she is WRONG to say that. I'm also curious about how it is treason to communicate with congress of all people?? More information please.

  • Doc 8404

    Having served in Marine infantry I wish we had the A10 in Vietnam flown by Marine pilots.

  • Harold Mendelson

    The Air Force has been trying to retire the A-10 since the first gulf war. The reason they can’t, is 20 years later there is no reolacement aircraft in the US inventory. The F-35 wil not have an operational gun platform until 2019. Even then, it will be able to carry less than 200 rounds of ammo. The 30mm gun on the A-10 has not found an equal. As a former Marine FAX and naval gunfire observer in the 1960s, I know first hand that a flying gun platform is very effective against troops and light armored vehicles. Why risk an expensive state of the art aircraft when the A-10 can do a better job and has a better chance of survival.


    General Post needs to retire as his mind had gone.

  • Frank Ch. Eigler


    … against whom exactly?

    • oblatt22

      Against Lockheed.

      Just say the F-35 should be cut to save the A-10 and watch the Lockheed shills try to label you as working for the Chinese, North Korea, Talabian, Terrorists etc.

    • balais

      Why, the holy altar of Lockheed Martin, of course!

      Chilling to me is the thought of military commander claiming the opposition to his benefactors' pet project is committing treason. For not agreeing lock step.

  • Jersey Dave

    Someone please remind this guy that his oath is to the Constitution and not the Defense Lobbyists. I am sure troops in Iraq (Yes, we have them there, whatever the media is saying or not because a President they happen to like is in office) would rather look up and see A-10s overhead than hear about more money thrown down the toilet on programs that aren't going anywhere and won't be ready on time to help them in the current situation.

  • SgtMike

    The General needs to spend time in the 'dirt', whilst under intense 'ground-fire' and incoming rocket and mortar fire. The Air Force NEVER liked the 'Hog' because it wasn't 'sexy' enough for their Jocks. "Real Top-Guns wouldn't be caught dead near a Hog". Dirt-Baggers(combat troops)loved the Hog. They knew it was a 'game-changer' when needed.

  • shooshanre

    The generals want brandy new toys. They always want new toys. The A-10 is a ground troops best friend when the defacation hits the fan. Once they get the new toys they want a conflict somewhere in order to use them. They probably want the B-52 in the bone yard also. Keep the A-10 and bolster the pay and benefits of the enlisted servicemen and women.

  • John

    I wish this knot head general was on the ground involved in a fire fight. I bet he would want an A-10 flying around covering his butt, and not one of those fancy F-35s

  • Robert Humphries

    Time to let this General out to pasture rather than a proven warrior like the A-10. As for treason, is he working for ISIS? Because would bet ISIS fears the A-10 much more than the F-22 or F-35.

  • SGT Wojo

    As a 13F F.I.S.T. SGT. in 1978 I had the privilege of calling an A-10 in on a training mission at Ft. Irwin, CA. The CAS platform worked as advertised making quick work of a T-72 tank. The gun penetrated the tank in nearly every place that it hit. I'm sure it went on to have an impressive war history. Just wish I was there to call in the strikes in Iraq and other combat theaters. My luck I didn't stay in long enough to see it :( ….

  • BTW

    “Our role as individual military members is not to engage in public debate or advocacy for policy.”

    Wait, what? Surely this is not really what Maj. David meant. While going VFR direct to congress certainly may be problematic (or may not, depending on how/why its done), simply engaging in public debate regarding policy is not only "our role", but our responsibility. When we cease to subject our policies and ideas to debate, they quickly become prejudices, or worse…

    A great example from the sea services of "engag[ing] in public debate or advocacy for policy" is the magazine Naval Institute Proceedings, which exists "to provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write in order to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to national defense…Proceedings exists to give voice to those with ideas or thoughts concerning the nation's defense, and the interest in sharing them in an open forum. No related subjects are off-limits, and the magazine is an honest broker, taking no position on issues or the ideas expressed, other than unrestricted support for those who serve, past and present."

    Surely the Air Force community has a similar publication, and does not consider submissions treason?

  • weakleyhollow

    "Git me some mo' fighters and a new boma." These guys keep preparing to go to downtown Beijing, where no manned aircraft will ever go, while their new toys wet their pants on CAS missions time after time, not because they can't do it, but because their culture makes them not really want to do it. Congress should propose retiring the A-10 right into the Army. That should cause the appropriate apoplectic response.

    • William_C1

      So F-16 and F-15E pilots never fly CAS? How do the Navy and Marines do CAS missions with their F/A-18s? Even B-1B pilots have done CAS on occasion in recent years, then people criticize that use of their aircraft as wasteful and then criticize it when it's not in use.

      CAS isn't the sole domain of A-10 pilots alone.

  • John

    The thing that gets me the most is when some say the A-10 won’t be able to survive strike missions whereas the JSF can. I find that amusing, because even back in the early 1970’s when the Air Force was deciding between the YA-9 attack jet (Soviets copied this US design for their Su-25 attack jets) and the YA-10 attack jet. Never was it envisioned that they would be performing strike missions in the enemies rear, they were meant to fly over the battlefield and support US and Allied units. The South Korean Air Force is going to be keeping their A-10’s, guess the see the use. Accepting the JSF as a primary CAS platform would be like being ok with getting D’s all through grade school, barley acceptable.

    • Mike

      The South Koreans fly A-10s?

    • Yes, the F35 is going to do deep strike missions well as long as it doesn't have to carry more than 5000lbs of ordnance (split between air to air missiles and ground attack munitions). This is why some of the scenarios take dozens of F35's to do something done with a fraction of aircraft today.

      • William_C1

        What scenarios are these?

      • It goes without saying that less bombs on the plane means more planes to do a mission requiring hitting multiple targets.

        Because of OPSEC there are limited official contingencies published but the Rand study where a 16 F35's and 10 F22's had their lunch ate by 72 Chinese fighters .

        Then there was your four ship CAS mission that today would be done with two A10's (really one but we always fly with two).

        There was an animated special on TV that plyed out a variety of scenarios. Granted, some of the aircraft don't exist (e.g. airline sized missile carrier).

        I'm sure Blackowl, the consummate F35 fan has them at his fingertips.

      • William_C1

        Oh do enlighten me how the A-10 would make the difference against 72 Chinese fighters? Will they kindly slow down and get in a turning fight with the A-10s?

        My four ship CAS mission wouldn't be done with two A-10s because both of them would have been shot down by all of the Russian air defenses in the area.

        BlackOwl is the resident F/A-18 Super Hornet fan. He'll fit a 30mm gun pod to it too.

      • I never said the A10 would make a difference. You were asking about what scenarios were out there. Did you forget? E.g. "What scenarios are these?"

        Try not to do to Blackowl what you repeatedly try to do with me. Putting ridiculous words in someone's mouth so you have a strawman to knock over.

  • Herb Wynans

    Methinks some of the Air Force brass are beholden to the JSF people in return for being wined and dined.


    The General is committing a violation against the Constitutional Rights in an attempt to use his position as a General to quell the qualified opinions of experts and others in their view of the capabilities and need for the A-10 to remain in existence as a Close Air Support aircraft that has saved and continued to save troops lives on the battlefield. Had the General ever served as a real Soldier in the field of battle then I am certain his opinion about the A-10 would be much different than it is now. His statement and his actions should be investigated and he should be asked to retire from office as soon as possible. He has become nothing more than a politician and a bureaucrat in uniform and is no longer capable of serving as a leader in the military!

  • blight_asfawe

    As usual, people are griping about generals.

    10 U.S. Code § 526 – Authorized strength: general and flag officers on active duty

    Current through Pub. L. 113-234. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

    (a) Limitations.— The number of general officers on active duty in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps, and the number of flag officers on active duty in the Navy, may not exceed the number specified for the armed force concerned as follows:
    (1) For the Army, 231.
    (2) For the Navy, 162.
    (3) For the Air Force, 198.
    (4) For the Marine Corps, 61.
    (b) Limited Exclusion for Joint Duty Requirements.—
    (1) The Secretary of Defense may designate up to 310 general officer and flag officer positions that are joint duty assignments for purposes of chapter 38 of this title for exclusion from the limitations in subsection (a). The Secretary of Defense shall allocate those exclusions to the armed forces based on the number of general or flag officers required from each armed force for assignment to these designated positions.
    (2) Unless the Secretary of Defense determines that a lower number is in the best interest of the Department, the minimum number of officers serving in positions designated under paragraph (1) for each armed force shall be as follows:
    (A) For the Army, 85.
    (B) For the Navy, 61.
    (C) For the Air Force, 73.
    (D) For the Marine Corps, 21.
    (3) The number excluded under paragraph (1) and serving in positions designated under that paragraph—
    (A) in the grade of general or admiral may not exceed 20;
    (B) in a grade above the grade of major general or rear admiral may not exceed 68; and
    (C) in the grade of major general or rear admiral may not exceed 144.

  • C4IRIO

    GO/FO's want the sexy new technology despite themselves and will deny the effectiveness of weapons systems in the field today. Ask a JTAC on the ground or troopers in contact who they would rather see overhead? Well general? CAS IS a mission and the technology coming on line misses the mark.

    Scrap the 1947 Defense Act that denies the Army a fixed wing air arm and give them the A-10 inventory AND the associated funding stream that come with it!

    And the use of the word treason? Disgusting that a leader in uniform would stoop to that …

  • Paul Darling

    The best CAS platform are AC’s. Kill the A-10 and procure Harvest HAWK kits (or similar) for the 400+ C-130s around the AF. Ground forces won’t be getting CAS as long as any integrated Air Defense remains. The one AC-130 shot down 25 years ago was attacking an Armored Corps not in support of ground forces. It was a stupid use of the platform and isn’t an excuse for only using them in completely safe airspace. The A-10 was designed, and is optimized, for killing T62s in Europe. That mission is gone. So too, should be the A-10. The A-10s effects against ground targets with its 30mm are horrible. Don’t believe the hype.

    • Uh yeah… I guess that titanium tub in the A10 and redundant systems were built only for permissive flight environments.

      • Mike

        Titanium catchers mitt if one takes a round through the canopy. Neat design, but has its pros and cons. Still a nice plane though. Though nowdays with its upgrades, it's become a slow F-16, just with a more lethal punch.

  • aristotelian214

    re: "Our role as individual military members is not to engage in public debate or advocacy for policy" It is if you are called before Congress or if a congressman ask for your opinion.

  • messdog

    All I know is in Desert Storm the Iraqi pow both feared & respected the A-10 !! I'll never forget them saying "A-10 Good Plane. A-10 flying noise, Tank- boom. A-10 good plane !!

  • wacker

    That General compromised his integrity twice in that statement. THAT'S my greatest concern, by openly admitting he would LIE if questioned. Integrity is the first of the Air Force Core Values, so I guess you're fired General!

    • Mike

      Air Force Core values. That crock of crap isn't taken seriously by the anyone in the AF; no surprise that the leadership is how they are.

  • Russ

    Extremely arrogant to accuse warriors of treason…sounds like Nazi Germany all over again with Joe Stalin thrown in for good measure.

  • patrick hough

    Yet another armchair general speaking about things he knows nothing about. Thousands of people, both civilians and US servicemen, are alive today because of the A-10 aircraft and its support team. This assclown needs to be reassigned to the department of floorwax and buffers.

  • B.A.Dilger

    did I hear that right? Drones replace the Warthog?

  • CalBM1

    The General needs to be forced out.

  • Dan

    Give the Warthog to the Army, we have excellent pilots that could very easily fly that pig….we love the close air support missions so let us have them all…..oh and don't forget the funding package :)

  • Jphn Scior

    It seems to pose the question in my mind, " Is the military there to serve the national defense or is it to serve military contractors who wish to capitalize on the opportunity to provide the latest and greatest expensive gadgets ?" Certainly every new weapons system goes through a costly R&D cycle but it seems that systematically we are engaging in a self defeating process that ensures a weak defense. Instead of developing a new weapons system, we should develop a new procurement process that enables new weapons systems to be built that are proven and capable of replacing the "older" system in place without bankrupting the military budget and leaving soldiers at risk. Current policies encourage the "death spiral" and newer systems over older ones despite having no logical demonstration that "new" equates to better.

    • oblatt22

      As John Boyd said the strategy is to keep the money flowing to the contractors by any means possible, even if that means selling out the USA.

  • Robert Garross

    The AF got the Army to hand over the their short field air craft and replaced the with C130's granted a great platform, but it's a big target. They seem to think they need 4 engines to do anything. The A-10 is arguably the best close support A/C since WWII it cost less to buy and fly, than the F-35 ever will. The client wants a low & slow A/C to support the grunt on the ground now this turkey is trying to scare off any support for that stand. Despicable you general, calling someone a traitor for not agreeing with you.

    Why don't you go scrap 27 more brand new C-29's for $600 total. Maybe those stars have made AF generals brains fall to your shoes..

  • Oldgamer56

    The Air Force wants to justify buying a Lamborghini to haul a trailer around the suburbs and go grocery shopping on the off chance they might get to take it racing someday.

    80% of the time, the F-35 will be carrying drop tanks and other external weapons, negating all the justification for stealth.

    The F-35 fuel temp problem points out there is no room for future expansion in the airframe. Time yo dump it now and start over.

    • oblatt22

      They ordered a Lamborghini but what was delivered was an Edsel with no wheels. When you complain about the wheels the contractors say what the big deal for alot more money you can get wheels. When you complain that's a rip off and even if we pay extra its still not a Lamborghini the contractors will claim well its your fault for ordering a Lamborghini in the first place.

  • msgtedret1

    One might wonder whose pocket he is in. Hmmm.

  • flires

    None of the aircraft in US inventory can replace the capabilities of the A-10 as it relates to sustained ground support at low altitude – which is needed to make a difference. Not only does the F-35 not have this capability but its ammo capability is ridiculously low if expected to replace the A-10… General Post is obviouly misinformed or doesn't care since he is pushing the "universal" aircraft dream …

  • Blank

    Personally… I would had liked to see continued production of the F-22 as the primary attack aircraft. And I think the Air force should continue using planes that aren't super sophisticated or expensive during missions that don't require air superiority. In bombing missions in Iraq and Syria, they should continue using these older planes, I think it's a waste for them to use stealth planes for these missions. I mean it's not like the older model planes don't have any defensive capabilities if they were attacked by anti-aircraft missiles

  • Old 391

    He must either be an Obama supporter or looking to work for Lockheed after he retires

  • theecmo

    Hyperbole my a$$ ! You were basically telling everyone there that if you find out they are talking up the A-10 then you are going to ruin their career in any way you can. That's how USAF Generals operate and anyone who has ever dealt with them understands that.
    But here's the REAL question general – what do you have in the arsenal TODAY that can do the job the A-10 is doing? Or are you planning to farm out that capability to someone else like you did with your stand off electronic warfare role?
    What is most aggravating to me is Services that keep arguing to dump this or that platform which provides them a specific capability while not having ANY replacement for that capability. There IS a reason that capability was developed and it is STILL a requirement in combat but in order to save money or score political points the Services are willing to write that capability off no matter how many lives it will cost in the future.


    If true he should resign, PERIOD.

  • Chris

    The General's statement is the kind of demented "hyperbole" that demonstrates why the USAF has no future: it's running out of missions which it can/will credibly perform. To sacrifice current CAS capability for the F-35 sinkhole is an amazing misjudgment, one for which current and future service members will pay the price.

    • d. kellogg

      Maybe the general doesn't like looking at "his service" as a support service of the other services:

      1) CAS/ground support: supports Army, Marines, often allies as well.
      2) transport: hauls stuff for everybody regardless of what wing in the Pentagon they occupy.
      3) tanker support, for Army MH-47s and HH-60s, USMC and Navy aircraft, even allies.
      4) drones and satellite support. All that useful ISR data being shared across the services.

      Maybe the general sees support missions as a conflict of interest to the "Aim High" cutting edge Air Force he believes in.
      Everyone else is beneath them, so why should they (USAF) be a "lowly" support service….?

      • Chris

        Regrettably, that a very good description of the USAF attitude, at least at the command level; I'm second to none in my respect for the flight and maintenance crews, but the attitude at the top had better change. The USAF is running out of friends.

  • oblat23

    When the first outpost is overrun and the report says they could have been saved by adaquate CAS support but only F35s were available. The shills will tell us that the soldiers had to die, there was never any alternative.

    • William_C1

      And when has this happened in Afghanistan or Iraq even when A-10s weren't available? It hasn't.

      First the fast-movers arrive, then the A-10s, then the UAVs and helos. Or do all flying things move at the same speed in your mind? BTW was Oblat22 banned?

  • Ron Long

    If you have to chose, do you chose to move to the new generation aircraft or sick to the old one.. Sometimes as a family we have to chose to get the new car. The old one is to small, and maintenance is cost prohibitive. I like the Warthog, , time to move to the next generation. Is the JSF the one? Doubt it, but the Warthog III is on the drawing board..

  • LaryB

    The Air Force has at least two missions, one offensive and one defensive. The defensive mission is to protect troops on the ground and the A-10 does that the best. This defensive role is one the Air Force has demanded is theirs over the years so to now reject the weapon that does that job the best is, itself, treason. The general's who belittle this plane apparently have their own toys they want to promote so the A-10 has to go.

  • jim

    People have.been trying to kill this plane since the era of the 'great Bonzo'. It is any extremely effective and (relatively) cheap aircraft. These people are shilling for the defense contractors. They want more expensive stuff; doesn't matter if its better or not, as long as its more expensive. Its all about the money!

  • Doug Dorman

    Step back and look at the topic! A 10 that has been doing a hell of a job and can continue for years versus an aircraft costing 10 times or more as time goes on and doesn't have the same capabilities as the slower close combat capabilities as the A 10. They always say money is the reason then why is this an issue. Keep the A10 for at least the next 7 – 10 years. It is doing what it is supposed to do against isis. And other groups saving our troops. Time to pull your heads out of your asses. Send McCain you always have my backing. You are an American hero and always have a our best interest at heart. You should run again for Commander and Chief!

  • Keith

    I worked on the A-10 at Davis-Monthan for 4 years in the USAF. It is a tough old bird and still as good as it was then. I don't know of any other aircraft with it's capabilities to kill a tank with a single round. The A-10 is still the Super Plane it always was and keeping it is OK in my old mind. Go Hogs!

  • mttyflynn

    This lizard-ast fool can kiss my ground-pounding fanny-pack!, when will theses degenerate desk jockeys learn that we cannot afford to lose or replace the A-10 and the little they would save wouldn't help the JSF anyway.
    Until we get to a place where drones can replace the A-10s we have to get these brassh0les to retire before they destroy what's left of our war fighting ability.

  • JME

    There is nothing that compares to the close combat and tactical support that an A-10 provides.
    The F-35 doesn't have the ability for close support and it's cost is prohibitive compared to a plane already in service.
    We need an administration and leaders who understand that war is fought by people and they need support that works!

  • David

    GAS support needs a low & slow (relatively speaking) platform. The A-10 replaced the Skyraider, which was also a good aircraft. All the newer jets go to fast and would have limited on target time due to fuel constraints.

  • KRS51

    The topic of these discussions should not be whether the A-10's retirement is called for, whether the Army or Marines could fly and fight the A-10 better, or any of the other arguments contained herein. The conversation should be why Generals like this one, Dempsey, Welch, or others as well as our elected leaders, don't have the character, integrity, or concern to fund our Armed Forces based on strategic and tactical considerations, rather then how do I rob Peter to fund Paul!

  • guest

    Only one thing I can say:


    If MG Post is worried about obsolescence and fatigue, maybe he can ditch the "Buff" and make us all happy. The only thing is THE BUFF STILL WORKS AND ACCOMPLISHES THE MISSION! The only reason to get rid of a proven weapon is to have something better.(crickets and frogs(?))

  • AFCENT Hero

    The things our senior officers will say to maintain political correctness to get that next star. You have to wonder what nordo was thinking when it came to picking whom to mentor. The AF will spend gazillions of dollars to by the hottest widget and forget that even if you have the greatest delivery platform in the world, it isn't worth anything if you can't strap a weapon to it. F-22 bust, F-35 bigger bust, sometimes the best technology is the simpler technology and a good pilot.

  • Madcat

    To built brand new Thunderbolt III would cost about $12.5 million. A single Air Force F-35A costs a whopping $148 million. Dollars and cents, you can build 10 Warthogs for the cost of a single F-35. The B-52 has been around since 1955 and its still going because if it ain't broken why fix it. This General is a horses Ass. They should have kept a few of the old A-1E Skyraiders or SPAD in service, they were venerable workhorses and excellent CAS and with 4 – 20mm cannons, it could blow a lot of bad guys away.

    • William_C1

      Fairchild Republic no longer exists. It's unlikely the production tooling still exists either. So how can you predict the cost, especially if you plan on putting new avionics and other systems in the thing? The A-10A (the last of which rolled off the production line in 1984) probably cost around that much when you factor in inflation.

      In reality the best we can do for the A-10C is re-wing the rest of them, maybe give it some improved engines too, some minor avionics upgrades here and there. If Northrop actually develops that DIRCM pod they were talking about some time ago that would be great to integrate. So would JAGM if that ever goes anywhere. That program keeps getting cut, reduced in scope, and renamed however.

    • Another Guest

      @ Madcat,

      The cost estimates in the NDAA for the cheapest version of the F-35, the Air Force's F-35A, are the following. (Note these costs as just for production and do not include R&D.)

      The 2014 procurement cost for 19 F-35As will be $2.989 billion. However, we need to add to that the "long lead" money for the 2014 buy that was appropriated in 2013; that was $293 million, making a total of $3.282 billion for 19 aircraft in 2014. The math for unit cost comes to $172.7 million for each aircraft.

      To be fully accurate, however, we should add the additional procurement money authorized for "modification of aircraft" for F-35As for 2014; that means $158 million more, bringing the total unit production cost to $181 million per copy or higher.

      None of that includes the 2014 R&D bill for the F-35A; that was $816 million; calculate that in if anyone wants to find out further costs.

      For sure develop the brand new A-10E Thunderbolt III or Super Warthog. The length of the fuselage can be stretched from 53ft 4in to around 56ft 4in to enable the aircraft to carry bigger ammo drum somewhere between 1,400 – 1,800 rounds of 30mm bullets. Also increase the combat range for e.g.

      CAS mission: 488 miles at 5,000 ft (1,500 m), 10 min combat.

      Anti-armour mission: 600 miles at sea-level penetration and exit, 30 min combat.

      Ferry range: 2,900 miles with 50 knot (55 mph, 90 km/h) headwinds, 20 minutes reserve.

    • Another Guest

      @ Madcat,

      That is my proposal as listed above. Has anybody else have their own RFP for the A-10E Super Warthog?

  • Wordell

    Let's put the Air Force Country Club general on the ground, having contact with enemy troops, and make sure there's no air to ground support in the form of death to the enemy from above…that occurs when an A-10 shows up. I bet he'd grow some hair.

  • Jerold Caldwell

    The F-35 has been at best an unproven highly unreliable fighter with serious pilot safety and aerodynamic concerns. In short the aircraft is dangerous to fly. The A10 is a proven platform for close air support still unmatched by any aircraft today. Until another proven platform which has similar capabilities is introduced as a viable solution, we should continue to use the A10 close air support aircraft.

  • weweedman

    Let me put a 100 lb. ruck on this d*psh*t MFer's back, hump 5 or 10 klicks then realize that on the other side on that hill is heavy weapons and/or armor. Then that fat & lazy SOB is going to pray that a warthog is flying over his oxygen thieving head and not some useless POS wannabe JSF… 2ID Doc, out.

  • Robert Adams

    The USAF brass had never wanted the A10.. It’s not pretty and it’s fast.But it is the soldiers and marines best friend on the battle field.. so if the USAF no longer wants to run CAS missions down low and slow, they should transfer the A10 to the army and marine Corp to fly.Both branches would love to fly their own CAS aircraft

  • T. Kelly

    Some buddy better help the General pull his head out of his' poster before he suffocates! We, former military personal are fed up with the ramblings of a few higher ups that make statements such as the good General has made. As far as the new platform they are bragging up; How come it is taking so long to get the guns operating on it. It seems to me, the new plane ought to come fully operational before delivery. And if not, why not!

  • Brian B. Mulholland

    I think it relevant to this discussion to note that, per this morning's Aviation Week site posting, the Marines are skipping a round of testing in order to meet their IOC schedule- and that there are, in the F-35B, 150+ "mission critical" deficiencies at this time.

    ye Gods. Welfare fraud, thy name is LM.

  • Vern Scheck

    As a former A-10 ammo troop, it makes little sense
    to get rid of one plane before the other is proven. As exciting as the new plane is if it fails there would be nothing to fall back on. Put together a unit and fly the heck out of it in theater.

  • RoyH

    Nothing has changed in the Air Farce since I left in the 1980s. Anyone with a brain gets out, and the rest of what's left floats to the top. The general officer corps of the USAF is, by and large, a shameful collection of egotist know-nothings.

  • dan prater

    Only a moron would eliminate the best ground pounder I’ve ever witnessed.
    Cheap and awsum describs the hog.

  • paulejb

    Would that be "treason" to the General's corporate sponsors?

  • Richard B.

    God help the Republic from its own!

  • john panoski


    I agree with the A-10 passed on to the Marines /Army and let the F-15/F-16"s drop barrels of pig s%^& on the
    rag heads !

  • R Garcia

    Another spender of money, the A10 should be kept for CAS of our most important asset, the ground trooper. Give it to the Army and the Marines, they will put it to good use. In fact you should think of reopening the assembly line for them. I'd bet money that the F35 can't do the job as well as the A10 even at ten times more cost per airframe. This guy has no common sense or does not know how to use it! The Air Force only exists to support the ground forces, with them we have nothing and can do very little. Next he will want a airplane for CAS capabilities on the moon. $$$

  • jimbeaux

    He must be an Obama appointee.

  • Outside Looking In

    I have always heard that to be a General you need to be short and stupid and if you are really stupid they waive the height requirement…It is amazing how short some of these Generals are :)

  • Lee Rogelstad

    It is impossible for me to understand why military brass elect to trash can proven weapon systems in favor of super expensive flash gordon projects like the B2 and F35. Maybe the COMINC's drive to oust so many military Generals is misdirected.

  • Bernie

    Obama has installed his puppets within the military hierarchy, example two, the commander of the Pacific fleet states man made global warming is the greatest threat facing the navy, example three, the Navy buys eco-friendly fuel at three times the price of normal fuel, and on and on

  • Celtlaw

    This has been ACC's attitude going back to TAC days. Those tall, skinny towel-snapping locker room jocks who flew F-16s always looked down on the A-10. The irony is that the shorter fatter pilots handled Gs better and now the empty flight suits are being replaced by geeks flying drones. Gen Post is a dinosaur, but illustrative of the dangerous thinking at the "O" club bar. The A-10 guys have the Army and Marine Corps folks' backs. If that's not a priority for you General, suggest that you retire.

  • ron flett

    Sounds like this general is just interested in earning his bonus from the new JSF manufacturer and any future kick-backs he may get by forcing the warthogs into retirement. I agree with the other posts that recommend replacing some of the older warthogs by building new warthogs. Give the warthogs to the Army and develop an aircraft carrier capable version for the Marine Corps. And also force General Post into retirement for his treasonous comments.

  • MIchael Kirtland

    Every time the fighter jocks want a new airplane, they claim it's going to be an "all purpose" fighter, and it never is. Then, when the shooting starts they carefully protect the "new" fighter (against whom we're not sure) and dig close air support aircraft out of the desert, literally.

  • NorsePurpleSuit

    Gen Post does not care that the A-10 supports the purple fighting forces on the ground. He appears to only care about his next job as a defense contractor. So many superb leaders have been forced out by the current administration that we get stuck with a loser like Gen Pope who doesn't understand warfare. I hope Congress gives him the earliest of opportunities to fulfill his next dream job.

  • CMSGT USAF Retired

    The brass says the A-10 is old and needs to retire. What about the B-52? It's the oldest in the USAF, but no one is saying, it's time to retire it. Why?

  • NRO

    Hey Maj. Gen Post. FU! Your spokeshole tried to roll back your comments when she said, "…role as individual military members is not to engage in public debate or advocacy for policy.” That's more crap also. It IS everyone's responsibility to engage in public debate. That the jobs of citizens and voters. It's all more important that military members start speaking up and debating the gutting of the military and the extreme onslaught and erosion of OUR pay and benefits. You to even suggest that we become like robots and stay quiet on the issues shows what you're made of. It's time for you to go pal. You don't deserve to be in USAF.
    SMSgt, USAF, Retired

  • Doug

    The general needs to get some combat time on the ground and have his ass saved by an A-10. Maybe then he will have a change of heart. Doubt it though.

  • Jettie E. Padgett

    This general should be invited to "Ritire ant the Earliest Possible Date". Just "WHERE IN THE HELL IS HIS LEADERSHIP? Only on his shoulders in the two stars he wears!"…..Jettie E. Padgett, Lt/Col Retired, USAF

  • Joe

    As a retired member of the Air Force, I can tell you that when the A-10 is in action, there is no escape for those on the ground. Congress needs not make the same mistake they did with the "Blackbird" spy plane. It was de-commissioned and then discovered that a replacement spy craft was economically not feasible. The F35 has been roundly denounced by all of the services. Last but not least Congress is pushing ahead with construction of ships the Navy says it doesn't need. Both projects are pushed by members of Congress who's state is involved with production of these obsolete before they are finished projects.

  • TrueBlue

    The JSF program is fiscally out of control! This aircraft started out costing $50M and it has climbed to over $140M and rising. This bone-head General needs to be sacked for comments he should have kept to himself and a few other like minded parties (Lockheed Martin). The USAF has tried and failed to replace the A-10 since I served in Desert Storm without success. I agree with everyone, that the Army or the Marine Corps should take over program management of this outstanding weapon system which really aligns better with their mission. It's time for Congress and the DoD to realize that the F-35 is a white elephant!

  • It all comes down to money and people. There odd a shortage of both. Both platforms require pilots and maintainers You can’t have it both ways



  • Some Guy

    Jim "Bull" Post continues to be an unabashed jackass by demanding others have the same opinion and threatening them if they don't. He is caustic.

  • Retired

    Suggest we all take a deep breath before executing Jim Post…I, like all of you, were not in the room when he said whatever he said…I can tell you first hand that sometimes comments tend to get turned around and upside down as soon as they leave the discussion where they happened…Frankly, I think the AF should keep the A-10. Regardless, Congress will decide that as they should through the funding process. But, as one who knew and worked with Jim Post while I was on AD, I can tell you first-hand he is a good man we can be proud of…Worse case, he made a mistake by giving very direct guidance which pilots are trained to do…If you played in the Pentagon at all, you know how the $$$ process works so his comments (if true) are just him supporting his Services position…Time to take a chill pill and get on to much more important issues…

  • DW 5000

    Sounds like the General needs to go back to OTS and get re-blued, or fired.

  • K9USAFRet

    The General needs to remember he lives in a republic that practices democracy and freedom of speech and STOP DRINKING THE PENTAGON'S KOOL-AID!!!!

  • Coach

    Want to save money, Shutdown the Dept of agriculture and get rid of food stamps, also education and energy
    The A-10 and AC-130 are great CAS aircraft
    As for all the comments about the Army getting the CAS aircraft, maybe they should read the 1948 Key West agreement
    By the way i'm retired Special ops

    • d. kellogg

      We'd save a lot more money by closing down the various Another Federal Department Who Exists Solely To Shore Up Foreign Economies By Funneling US Taxpayer Money Into Causes American Taxpayers Don't Need The Burden Of Financing In The First Place.

      Foreign Aid.
      End it unless there is worthwhile equivalent exchange (petro, raw materials, trade exclusivity, etc… you want our military "protecting" your sovreignity? Your nation can pay us for it.).

      What's real sad is, nations the world over like to fuss about the US acting as World Policemen, but those very same would be crying even worse if America just stopped funding and shoring up those umpteen dozen ungrateful nations' economies (and militaries)….

  • Frank

    Gen Post needs to work on getting the sequester removed rather than calling honest comments on the A-10 as treason. The CAS of the A-10 has been a live saver for our troops and a death nell for the enemy. As most folks know, you use the best tool for the job. The A-10 is that tool against today's enemy.

  • Jim

    If this feather merchant ever accused me of treason for backing the A10, he would be on the ground thinking he just got hit by a 30mm shell. Having been a maintainer on the A10 for 23 years (20 full time) with the Connecticut Air Guard nothing made me feel prouder than when Army and Marine troops in the middle east would thank us for giving them the best combat support from the air. The f-35 is a boondoggle and should have been scrapped years ago, along with this general (if you want to call him that) and this new secretary of the Air Force. Long live the A10, MSgt.Jim retired , A10 Tail number 707 Crewchief , Iraqi Freedom Vet

  • Tom

    How much is the good general going to make off the retirement of the A-10??


    The 'Treason" is to deny our ground troops of the option of such lethal support. These are the same brilliant tacticians who thought an A-16 variant was a good idea years ago. Mothball the F35, and put the A-10 back in production with modern avionics. We could blot out the Sun with lethal force for a fraction of the price!

  • TNPJ

    The A-10 is the only platform that can protect ground troops as effectively as it does, and no other platform in existence can match it. As a USAF Pararescue member (Retired), I've been on the ground picking up a pilot as enemy combatants were closing in and the A-10 protecting my two man team was so low we could see his face. Doubtful that the JSF would even be below 10000 feet much less low enough for us to see his face. At that point, any worries we had, were gone. JSF, F22, F15, F16 and even helo platform gunships cannot provide the same protection, time on station and survivability as of both the ground team(s), and the aircraft itself as the one and only A-10. It is old, so update it and you will SAVE American lives. However, I guess PROFITS are more important than American lives.

  • Jere A. Martin

    I have, with the superior brain of a OLD! fighter pilot, counseled with the Angels above that have looked after me for the last 84 years and we have come to an agreed conclusion, and that being that when the Gen. lost his hair, he also lost his BRAINS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    F86 A E F H (no dog)
    F100 A D E

  • H. A .McCright

    The Air Force has terminated the SR-71 program, which provided support for other entities than the Air Force, and now wants to terminate the A-10, which provides support for ground forces. It seems to me that the Air Force only wants missions in which it is the prime service – they don't want to do anything in which they are subordinate to other services. Pure turf protection.

  • Retired AF

    Another AF General once said about testifying before Congress- "Never lie,but don't blab the truth" . This clown should be busted back to O-5 and retired . Just another example of the fighter mafia who now runs the AF

  • Mike

    One General's comment is just that – from one person alone. Three stars on one's shoulder does not make him any different than you or I. He means nothing, he surely does not have the well being of our troops lives in his mind. Keep the Warthog and dismiss a General.

  • KLPittman

    I agree with Sen. McCain. Why would Air Force leadership want to scrap a system that really works before they have its successor in service? Will the F35 equal or exceed the capabilities of the A10? Will it do so during the gap between retiring the A10 and procuction of the F35? Can a new system that runs into the billions be more cost effective than a system that is already in production? Finally…if the Air Force has a replacement for the A10 (that is fully capable of performing CAS as well as the A10), would the Army and Marines be so upset at losing the A10? Sorry but until I have a new truck, I'd be very cautious about scrapping my old one.

  • Jim

    So how is the F-35 supposed to replace the A-10 at this period of time, when its gun isn't even supposed to be ready for it until sometime in 2017 or maybe later? Explain to us all again General WHY we really need the F-35 when we already have a fighter that is stealthy, fast, has a gun, has missiles, and is according to "all those in the know" in the USAF, better than anything the Russians, Chinese or whoever presently has or will have/ I refer to the F-22. WHY don't we tool up that line again and actually save us BILLIONS on an airframe that has NOT shown it will do what it is supposedly designed to do, that is fly and fight. (F-35). The F-22 has at least show it can and will when called upon. As a TAXPAYER, I would love to see my money being well spent rather than being used for someone's toy or pet project.

  • AMMO

    It is time for it to go..

    With the technology we have we don't need old and slow anymore.

    • d. kellogg

      You DO realize of course there isn't a Predator or Reaper drone out there (carrying anything useful) that even hits half the speed of an A-10 tooled up for a mission? So the argument "speed is life" has no merit here.

      An A-10 pilot can swivel his/her head and achieve greater situational awareness (including target recognition and response to threats) faster than any drone-box armchair "warrior" ever will.

      We ever fight anyone even remotely more capable than the third world rat-holes we bully now, those slow drones will be easy pickings, shot outa the sky like the slow clay pigeons they are.
      There isn't a drone built yet that can withstand even small arms fire.
      And the more expensive they're getting, we can't use the argument "we can make them faster than they can be shot down".
      Well, technically maybe we can. We just can't afford to buy 'em.

  • ed girouard

    don't fix something that ain't broke! love the warthog.

  • ANG

    Unlawful command influence???????


    As a previous A-10 maintenance tech, it is with sadness when I see the amount of dirt that many people throw to the Warthog. Still, it thrives in it, since it is a well proven, oiled, tuned, lethal, EFFECTIVE, low cost, high reliability, high performance, HIGH KILLING RATIO, sturdy piece of military equipment. Since the insertion of the A-10 into real/actual conflict, it proved to the taxpayers (and the DOD) what a well-planned and excellent aircraft it is… With the new upgrade, it enhanced its capabilities even more.

    No amount of bells and whistles can replace the dirty and sweaty task of getting close to the ground, and engage missions face to face, saving countless lives in the process. The latest in technology is not what counts every time in the battlefield. Having this fine piece or "aerial artillery" present, it is not only an advantage, but also a deterrent factor. Many ground troops will testify how their lives were saved at the sounds of the 30MM gun, and how they feel secure knowing that there is a Warthog providing CAS to their mission.

    High Level officials should not only rely on the suggestions coming from their advisors. They need to feel the pulse of their troops, coming down and talking directly to them about their needs. As the need to feel safe and to win their mission, and the A-10 has proven that they can do it repeatedly. Comments like this are because of political pressure mostly.

    Having the best military in the world, not only encompass the latest in technology. History has proven that in many times. If they are worried that the A-10 is an old and aging machine, they should spend some budget into plans to create a "new" A-10 variant. With the current technology and advancements in place, the DOD would be capable of helping design an aircraft just like an A-10, centered in the 30MM gun, with the same response, speed, and result. There is no need to be fast, fast does not mean that you will be better. It can give you an edge, but not necessarily, the edge you are looking for. A little bit more of speed would allow the Warthog to respond better to emergency calls, but it would never replace the slow speed required for CAS.

    As my parting words I will say, that the beloved A-10 will have a retirement date. Nothing last forever, but not before there is an actual worthy replacement that can do the same things that it does. Until that time arrives, The A-10 should stay in the service… The ground troops will thank you for that.

  • Praedor

    What he meant to say is, "…praising the A-10 is REASON", not "treason". The A-10 was, and remains an outstanding CAS platform that is well beyond vulnerable to likely future threats. I dont see ANY ragtag jihadi groups with an IADS beyond rifles and RPGs. The F-35, on the other hand, is the biggest boondoggle in US history. A nonfunctional, over-priced money pit with no mission. Scrap the F-35 and still save billions of dollars by maintaining the A-10. Hell, restart the assembly lines for that plane and add some pristine airframes to the inventory.

  • pavepusher

    Dear General Post,

    Is this your version of "Core Values"?

    "Integrity first, Service before self, and Excellence in all we do." Does that ring any bells for you?

    1. When a member of Congress asks a service member a question, they get as full and complete an answer as the member is capable of giving, within required security clearance boundaries. That's how it works, as they are part of our Civilian Leadership. Perhaps they didn't teach you that in OCS/USAFA, but they certainly teach it to the NCO Corps.

    2. "Treason" has a specific legal and colloquial meaning; you don't seem to know what that is. I'm sure you have access to a dictionary somewhere. Use it.

    3. “Our role as individual military members is not to engage in public debate or advocacy for policy.” The General should take this advice to heart.

    4. Your statement certainly appears, on the surface, to be a violation, in whole or in part, of UCMJ Art.'s 131-134. But we know that General officers don't get held to those standards. So I won't hold my breath.

    Thank the FSM I'm retired and no longer have to filter myself when addressing the lack of quality leadership this incident represents.

    General, I urge you to attempt aerial fornication with a rotationally transiting toroidal pastry.

    Retire, for the good of the service, immediately.

  • Eric

    Accusing the troops of "Treason" when they speak honestly and with full working knowledge of the aircraft (A-10) that has a proven war record, capability, much lower cost to produce and operate for a "new aircraft highly overpriced" without a working and fully operational capability.(F35)…..the General is COMPLETELY out of touch with reality and should be retired immediately by the Congress and the President as unfit for duty.

  • Brad

    Seriously, can someone explain to me why there is a dedicated push to retire the A-10? Is the F-35 that good or the A-10 that bad? Is there some uber-secret threat to the A-10 that the F-35 can overcome? Also why are they not focusing on the F-15 and F-16? If the F-15 F-16 can do the job of the A-10 then there would be a push to replace the A-10 with one of those platforms while the F-35 is in development. But they aren't. They want a direct replacement of the A-10 with the F-35. Why?

    • Bob

      F series aircraft are not gun platforms. The OV-10 and C-130 can be set up to be gun platforms. The Apache is a gun platform but dose not have the survivability of the A-10. Comparing F series aircraft to the A-10 is like comparing a passenger car to a truck using the passenger is a more comfortable ride and is faster.

      • Retired USAF CMSgt

        You are absolutely correct! However, if anyone checks the history of the attempts to "replace" the A-10, you would discover that the development of the F-16 was also supposed to have an A-10 replacement variant. Obviously that did not work out either as the test results proved. Another "Gun Platform" was included in the development of the F-111 series platforms, the F-111D, also in the "Boneyard" with the proposed Navy variant, the F-111B. By the way, it isn't that the Navy version, F-111B, didn't or wouldn't do what it was supposed to do, as we flew the USAF "Bomber version", FB-111A that was heavier, longer, and wider, on an off a Navy carrier during the required "Sea Trials". The problem was that the USAF was to be Prime on this proposed "Joint Services" aircraft, not Navy. For you history buffs, check the timing and specifications that became the development specs for the new US Navy F-14 Tomcat. Really sad that "we" refuse to be students of history and learn from it.

  • HavocDog

    The general was quoted as saying "If anyone accuses me of saying this, I will deny it", I ran into that mind set a time or two during my 25 year career. Anyone who says such a thing has absolutely NO HONOR. NO COURAGE. NO INTEGRITY. My father taught me growing up to NEVER SAY OR WRITE ANYTHING THAT I WOULDN'T BE WILLING TO SIGN MY NAME TO. I despise any and all who stoop to the "I'll deny it" tactic.

  • Jason Mitchell

    Many years ago an Army general stood up for his beliefs and ended up being court martialed for them. History eventually proved him right. That general's name was Billy Mitchell. Eighty years later this general is doing the same thing. Keeping the A-10 in service and in action will only SAVE the lives of american service men and women!!!!! All you have to do is look at how well the A-10 performed in Desert Storm to see that this aircraft should not only stay in service but be MODERNIZED and remain a deterrant to our current enemies as well as future ones too!

  • msgingram

    This is simply a matter of top grade officers pouting to let congress know they control the USAF. This a/c is possibly the best there has been for soldiers "boots on the ground" for much needed support. It could be the USAF is afraid of being so close to the combat and would like to get further away.

  • Jim Smith

    If praising the A-10 is treason, what does this say of the leadership that sends pilots to the battlefield in them?

  • deeoldguy

    IMHO the general needs to retire – or be retired. NOTHING as a part of l military service lessens our basic constitutional rights – including free speech. This clown has somehow forgotten an oath he took to defend that very constitution.

  • deeoldguy

    Grievances: Congressional Assistance ShareThis

    Every member of the military has the right to communicate individually with any member of Congress for any reason. Though servicemembers may be told otherwise, commands cannot limit this right or require prior notice or approval.
    – See more at:

  • What a moron. I don't care that he thinks we shouldn't keep the warthog, that's his opinion. But to claim it's treason for others to argue that we should keep it is simply absurd. We spend millions more on planes that don't work in the airforce (F35) and yet the ARMY has 1 good plane that is effective as hell and he claims it's treasonous to defend it. This is all politics. The Chair Force is simply trying to get congress to cut the ARMY's budget instead of its own.

  • Army SSG (Ret)

    Sounds like abuse of authority to me. Maybe it is time for MG James Post to retire; then he will be free to make any comments he wishes to anyone who will listen.

  • MAJ (Ret) JC Hull

    I think the general needs an attitude adjustment. Nor does his position make any sense.

  • WH Perry

    Brought to you by the same people who brought the Navy camo, the Army Velcro tactical uniform and replaced the 2 1/2 ton workhorse of a truck that has done everything asked of it since WWII. Next it will be the 50 cal. SMHID (shake my head in disgust).

  • MarkE8Ret

    " “Our role as individual military members is not to engage in public debate or advocacy for policy.”

    Yeh, you know, "Integrity First". Which means shut the hell up, salute smartly, go back to your corner, and color. When one mans opinion outweighs (outranks) yours, yours means nothing. Don't voice it.

    We better pray our The Few, The Proud in charge know what they are doing.

    Sad they are not taking the stand that we NEED the A10 but CONGRESS is forcing us to make choices. See the common link? Congress. They want their cake and to eat it to. Something has to give, and heaven forbid if congress give it.

  • Bill Baker

    The general has climbed too far out on a limb and now sawed the limb off between the tree trunk and where he foollishly is. It time for him to retire and it is time to shut down the railroad that runs back and forth between the Pentagon and the weapons designers/makers.

    Bill Baker, Lt. Col, USAF (retd)

  • AHock

    I think that general is probably involved in acquiring $500 toilet seats and $300 left handed hammers so he wants to protect his turf. Time for him to retire. The Warthog does more for less than anything flying.

  • David Daughdrill

    I seem to be missing something here. A-10's, F-16's, and F-15E's seem to be doing the majority of rounds on target and bombs in place. I am not aware of the "next generation" F-35's even having a gun capability until second or third runs. At the threat of treason I think we need these older working planes until we can stop shooting wars for 5+years to get the F-35 up to the job.

  • TonyD

    I’m getting tired of these politicians and people with financial interest in the success of the F-35 constantly trying to but the A-10 to sleep. The Warthog should stay for close air support. The F-16, which is like a bothersome fly, should be phased out and replaced with the 35 or 22. How do you compare an A-10 to an F-35? Their missions aren’t even equal ground. Someone with special interests has just found an airplane who they see as ugly and slow to get rid of. Fast and stealthy isn’t always the answer. Ask any soldier who has ever had their situation cleared by an A-10, Blackhawk or AC-130

  • Retired USAF CMSgt

    When will ":We the People" and our "Elected Leadership" demand the implication of "LEAN" to our U.S. Military? Why do we cling to the archaic "Separate Services" way of our military? There have been D.O.D. sponsored "Working Groups" trying to address the solution(s) to the ever increasing cost of maintaining our country's military for decades. All for naught due to the archaic issue of what branch was the real first U.S. Military, and most of you know where that comes from. "LEAN Practice(s)" are based on the elimination of multiple redundant and non productive operations and personnel. Why not "LEAN" our U.S. Military by calling it just that, "The United States Military". Get rid of the redundant layers created by the "Separate Branches System", and create the more efficient Ground Forces, Sea Forces, and Air forces within the new single U.S. Military that would be able to combine and operate all aspects of our military as required without the constant cost prohibitive inter service restrictions of the current system. For all you "Traditionalists", West Point would become the "Ground Forces" Academy, Annapolis would become the "Sea Forces" academy, and the Air Force Academy would train any and all of the "Air Forces" cadets (not just those bound to fly the current Air Force aircraft). The remaining "Academies" could be used to expand the capabilities and training of the "Needs" of the new U.S. Military. We the People / taxpayers are entitled to have the protection of a truly LEAN cost and capable U.S. Military; not a D.O.D. Military that is controlled by contractors, elected officials, and civil servants that are protecting their bankrolls and political aspirations.

    • blight_asdsf

      Many of the non-combat roles overlap between the services. For starters, the cyber-commands that each service stands up for its own needs because each branch knows it cannot trust the others with its survival. Big eyerolls. Unsure how to bring "team play" from the battlefield to stateside, where due to a lack of enemies the branches simply turn on each other.

  • W. Knight

    The military will sacrifice our dependable weapon systems for the newer toys, claiming it is too costly to maintain the A-10. They fail to explain how much more expensive it is to develop, procure, and maintain the a newer system such as the F-35. If we are facing more unsophisticated forces, such as ISIS, why do we require a newer more expensive system.

  • Bill Reid

    The USAF has served its purpose in past wars but is now nothing more than a very expensive flying club with political officers in command. Too bad, but this retired USAF CMSgt believes the service needs to be broken into a Strategic long range mission unit such as the old SAC with no more than a dozen Flag rank officers under the Department of the Army. Give the Tactical mission to the Army. That would get rid of the F-35 boondoggle waste, reduce the ego of the USAF Generals and maybe have some real Nuke Security. The Army would certainly keep the most effective war fighting airplane in history doing what the new stuff cannot do.

  • John Y 37yr vet

    Gen Post shows his true colors as a pimp for the Lockheed Martin F35. You can't push a product as a be all to everyone JSF if one of the roles it is suppose to take over and do is CAS if that role well covered by the A10. LM has probably already picked out a deserving spot and title for Gen. Post's future post military employment!

  • m1pat3006.

    I remember in Viet Nam, they realized the so called, "fast movers" ( F-4,F-100 etc.) were well, to fast for some missions they were tasks to perform. The solution? All they had was an aircraft with a prop on the front. The A1E Skyraider. Come on man! Do we have to keep running in circles

  • Carl

    So don't you dare talk and say good things about the A10, that is treason. Only follow blindly what I say, do not use your mind, do not adapt, you are a robot, you are lemmings. You are incapable of knowing what is good for you, what is right. You will never say what is the truth, never tell congress, when asked, what is reality.
    Boy Hitler and Stalin would have liked to have him as a general.

  • D. Massa

    Another General who has reached the heights of his incompetence!
    Retire or get Fired

  • Rome R. Hairston

    As a retired military person with 23 1/2 years of association with enlisted and officers that benefitted from the feats of the A-10, its devastating accuracy and total destruction to its target is worthy of its praise. The cost to maintain its readiness should not be the deciding factor. The primary mission here should be the protection and effectiveness of close air support of the forces on the ground. Back office pencil pushers should lend sway to those at the "Hands On" level of operations. Again, I say "keep what works."

    • Netdude1

      We the People agree with Hairston; Moreover, Perhaps the General is Part of Grand Design to Over Throw the United States Government. We know that Spy Satellites are Corrupting peoples Neurological Net (Brain), And driving People Crazy..Perhaps not only he is Part of the Coup, But part of the New KKK that is Rising Up in state of Georgia… We have Evidence that Kigre Corporation equipment is being used Extensively. And Maybe this is why so many People have started fighting A Lot (Like Radical Groups ISIS). The Spy Satellites and other Surveillance Equipment is being Used by the Coup, attempting to take over the United States. Causing Kaos and discontent, So more Equipment can be sold to Law Enforcement by Kigre Corporation to promote their Bottom Line…I've been Targeted because i know too much about these Things.. Our Home was attacked by Corrupt Cops. Our home was broken into. i was drugged and my Wife was Raped by the Cops and a couple NSA agents who believe they can Do Anything in the name of Corrupt NSA Policy. That these same men and Women, some of whom used to work for NSA and Homeland Security, are part of this Coup to overthrow the United States Government. One thing for Sure, when i was pulled over many times in Ohio and Pennsylvania, to visit my Wife separated by South Carolina cops and Kigre Corp officials, with high government clearances in Aerospace and Aviation, the cops that pulled me over (several times), had Very Mean Demeanor, threatening me with Arrest, and even Shooting me. But Some how they were pulled off me at the last minute…You Can Take That To The Bank…

  • atonymac

    It's very simple, General. YOU are the one committing treason. YOU are putting your careerist objectives above the good of the service and the nation, drinking the kool-aid, doing whatever and saying whatever your political handlers want, all to get that coveted fourth star, when you intellectually and morally did not deserve Captain's bars.

  • sadfacejack

    Sounds like someone forgot that you don't get rid of a wartime capability like CAS when you don't have a replacement. That would be one of many USAF missions. Another politically-oriented senior officer (and USAFA grad) speaks out of the wrong orifice. Go chair-force!

  • edree

    AF brass has never gotten it out of their heads that wars are not won by aircraft but by men with rifles holding land and denying it to the enemy. The Army AF tried to bomb Japan and Germany into submission but it was PROVEN to be not successful when used alone. The fire bombing of Dresden killed many times the number of Germans than Japanese killed in the a-bomb attacks on Japan, and that was still insufficient to cause Germany's surrender. Even after the a-bombs were used on Japan, they were preparing to defend against invasion by soldiers on the ground until the empower himself ordered otherwise.

    A-10's save soldiers' lives better than any other USAF aircraft, bar none, and in our constitutional democracy, the military is subordinate to the civilian congress and administration. So, screw you, general.

  • George

    A-10 needs to be configured as an all-purpose air to surface weapons platform — including state-of-the-art anti-shipping capabilities — and a good umber of A-10's deployed to the pacific theater and west coast.

  • RWK

    Don't forget our friend in the Kremlin and his military hardware.

  • Craig666

    I think the Air Force needs to thin down these top generals and colonels in the Air Force. There is to many Indian chiefs to force structure. Thus maybe if top brass was thinned down they could worry about doing their old fashion job duties. Instead causing harm and embarrassment to the US Air Force sergeants and airmen moral that do a days hard work protecting and surviving the conditions of war for foreign policies.