# The Congressional Reduction of Military Pensions and Everything Thread



## Marauder06 (Jan 4, 2014)

Lots of good articles coming out on this subject.  Here is one of them:

http://www.jqpublic-blog.com/?p=616



> Led by Paul Ryan and Patty Murray but abetted by Barack Obama, Congress recently gambled with our nation’s future for an extremely modest short-term gain. In doing so, it was given aid and comfort by knowledge-starved pundits, axe-grinding editorial boards, and self-anointed armchair analysts everywhere, as it  left the military and veteran community standing with their jaws on the ground in despairing disbelief.





> Exploiting pressure to strike a budget compromise, Ryan and Murray entered into an unholy alliance to reduce veteran pensions – including those already vested under previous covenants – by an average of $84,000 to $120,000.  They obscured this act, as often happens when attempting to mislead, by employing complex-sounding budget doublespeak to minimize the magnitude of the associated moral breach as well as the consequences to veterans and families.





> In a way, this debacle can be seen as part of our nation’s continual inability to comprehend and bear the costs of being a global superpower with quasi-imperial interests secured by less than one-half of one percent of its population.  But the particulars in this case suggest something more disturbing lurking behind the standard wallet-grabbing Congressional milieu: a startling absence of strategic deliberation.  When such a deficit impairs elected leaders responsible for national security, potentially grave consequences attend.





> Good strategists always ask of any potential course of action two key questions.  First, what will this do *for *us?  And second, what will this do *to* us?  Given the dearth of statesmanly impulse at the national level in modern America, it is perhaps unsurprising that in crafting the recent budget, Paul Ryan and Patty Murray asked only the former question, leaving the latter for others to worry about.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 4, 2014)

I am (not) surprised at the number of (non-retired) Veterans who have told me to quit whining.  What I said in my e-mails to Elected Representatives is that the COLA does not include food costs, so it is artificially low. Include fod and medical costs in COLA and I am willing to go along with the cuts.  I'd also like to see pensions of disabled and lon-time retirees moved from the DoD to DHHS (along with all other Federal Retirements).   This paragraph also summed up how easy Retirees have it when they re-enter the civilian market (though I disagree with the last sentence): 

The shorthand employed by Ryan to sell his beloved pension cut envisions healthy, well-adjusted, fattened mercenaries stepping into corporate America to collect millions during the balance of their working years.  How he arrived at this vision boggles the imagination; *most retirees struggle to integrate into a new workplace with skills that don’t directly translate while trying to keep pace with competitors roughly half their age.  73% of retirees are noncommissioned officers whose pensions are barely sufficient to keep them above the poverty line. * As a rule of thumb, these people are figures of sympathy rather than valid targets of the socialistic “they don’t need it anyway” notion behind Ryan’s sales pitch.


----------



## Brill (Jan 4, 2014)

They should just ADD a 1% tax to contractors working OCONUS.  That $80k exception after 330 days overseas is BS.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 4, 2014)

I'm not as worried about that, a lot of those guys take the same risks we do, risks most of America isn't willing to take.

I am glad that the military got rid of that ridiculous, "if you're there for one day, you get the whole month tax-free" bs, that was fraud, waste, and abuse waiting to happen.


----------



## Brill (Jan 4, 2014)

Marauder06 said:


> I'm not as worried about that, a lot of those guys take the same risks we do, risks most of America isn't willing to take.



And they get very well compensated for taking those risks but their salaries are negotiable.

If Ryan's argument is truly rooted in numbers, closing that annual $80k tax free "hole" is a start but that would be a tax increase.

Just an idea but what about a set retirement % for military with an increase in months spent in a combat zone? (I realize the current issue is about COLA but I'm speaking to Hagel's overall idea that retirement reform is REQUIRED due to future legacy costs.)


----------



## Centermass (Jan 4, 2014)

Hopefully, Sen Shaheen, Graham and others in the senate will turn this around. It's already got enough headway in the house to make it happen.

Ryan and the rest will get their's come election day. What's always pissed me off is whenever we've received a COLA, yeah, our pay goes up....mine on average of 40.00 month. Then, just like clockwork, something else comes along and negates it completely....ie: Tricare fees, co pays etc.

As for Hagel, he's in Obama's pocket and up his ass. Regardless of what reasons and values are placed before him arguing the merits of leaving our pensions alone, he'll just blow it off,  like I did at my dinner table, with Brussels sprouts as a kid....


----------



## Brill (Jan 4, 2014)

@Centermass , you do realize Brussels sprouts help to cleanse the liver?


----------



## Centermass (Jan 4, 2014)

lindy said:


> @Centermass , you do realize Brussels sprouts help to cleanse the liver?




What liver????


----------



## AWP (Jan 4, 2014)

Several observations from different angles:

- I have to wonder if this will dissuade many from retiring. Not only those taking issue with the proposed cuts, but also those who know their 20+ years of sacrifice can be so readily nullified.

- How many will remember this betrayal during the next election cycle....and how many will STILL vote for these traitors (yes, that's kind of how I see it) because they aren't Party X or "they are better than the other guy" or whatever? Let's say none of this bears any fruit...who among you is willing to vote for a guy or gal who sponsored or supported this nonsense?

- Our country has budget problems? Not news. THIS as a solution? What's next? A tax on cancer patients? Of ALL of the possible means of generating additional revenue or cutting costs and this topic has traction? Smoking Jesus titty cinnamon, what has our country come to?

- What cuts to its benefits package are our lawmakers considering?

As we rightfully gnash our teeth over this (and I'm not a retiree), we need to look beyond the "simple" outrage of vets losing retirement pay.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 4, 2014)

lindy said:


> And they get very well compensated for taking those risks but their salaries are negotiable.
> 
> ...)



There's a guy on this site that was literally down the road from me at Bagram each of the four times I was sent to Afghanistan.  I think he has spent something like six straight years there.  Those rockets, mortars, and suicide bombers that attack the airbase didn't discriminate between .mil and .civ.  The assholes that take potshots at the helo he rides in to the outstations don't care that there's a contractor on board.  The civvies get a tax break on anything under $80K for taking care of the government's business in a combat zone, people like me, doing a similar job most likely doing it for similar reasons, get a break on anything over $0.  So yeah, I'm OK with that.

I think we need to focus on getting our stuff fixed, not on taking something away from people who stand shoulder to shoulder with us overseas.


----------



## reed11b (Jan 4, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> - How many will remember this betrayal during the next election cycle....and how many will STILL vote for these traitors (yes, that's kind of how I see it) because they aren't Party X or "they are better than the other guy" or whatever? Let's say none of this bears any fruit...who among you is willing to vote for a guy or gal who sponsored or supported this nonsense?
> 
> -


THIS. Already seeing this on many of the military FB pages I am on about Ryan. I.E. That people in his district are already commited to voting for him again, because he's better than a Democrat. Murray will not get my vote.
Reed


----------



## Brill (Jan 4, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> Several observations from different angles:
> 
> - How many will remember this betrayal during the next election cycle....and how many will STILL vote for these traitors (yes, that's kind of how I see it) because they aren't Party X or "they are better than the other guy" or whatever? Let's say none of this bears any fruit...who among you is willing to vote for a guy or gal who sponsored or supported this nonsense?



Hope this idea does gain traction:

http://host.madison.com/news/local/...cle_949f8840-32ab-5154-8490-9136102b876a.html


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 4, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> Several observations from different angles:
> 
> - How many will remember this betrayal during the next election cycle....and how many will STILL vote for these traitors (yes, that's kind of how I see it) because they aren't Party X or "they are better than the other guy" or whatever? Let's say none of this bears any fruit...who among you is willing to vote for a guy or gal who sponsored or supported this nonsense?



Lamar Smith voted for this, and in November I will not cast a ballot in the House of Reps race.  I will vote all the other races.  I am encouraging my local vets/retirees to do the same (blank on the HR race).

12,000 Retires leavig that part blank could eleiminate Lamar's usual victory margin, and keep the pundits from claiming the Dem was more popular.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 4, 2014)

This is an insult to men and women who have served. I suggest Congress take a pay cut first.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 4, 2014)

Everything I once believed in and held in high regard, has been systematically attacked and torn apart piece by piece since Obama came into office. The whole system is fucked and corrupted to its very corp. They will rob retirees while giving out raises and deals to anyone who helps their little agendas along. I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that anything promised or offered by the US Gov, should be viewed as outright lies.

I feel for the dudes that have 15+ years in as you are vested to the point of no turning back. For the guys with an enlistment or two, you better get use to an idea of a 401k type bullshit minimal retirement that will be probably bankrupted by the time you actually retire, if you ever get there.

This country has disgusted me beyond belief…


----------



## RetPara (Jan 9, 2014)

reed11b said:


> THIS. Already seeing this on many of the military FB pages I am on about Ryan. I.E. That people in his district are already commited to voting for him again, because he's better than a Democrat. Murray will not get my vote.
> Reed



The only reason that Ryan could even hope to survive this is that his district, as a whole, has no vested interest in Veterans.  Yet they are in the commuting range of Madison, which is one of the more liberal university towns on the map.  If someone runs against him in the Primary, I'll send money to the campaign fund.


----------



## AWP (Jan 13, 2014)

I saw this and laughed...that grim laugh you make when you don't know how to act when confronted by something stupefying.

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140113/BENEFITS05/301130026/



> Four retired general and flag officers with a collective 14 stars among them — including an outspoken advocate for military compensation reform — have expressed support for the 1 percent reductions in annual military retired pay increases approved by Congress.
> In a statement released by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, retired *Marines Gen. James L. Jones and Maj. Gen. Arnold Punaro, Air Force Gen. Chuck Wald and Navy Adm. Greg Johnson said the planned reduction to the annual cost-of-living adjustment for working-age military retirees is “an important first step in tackling” rising military personnel costs.*


----------



## Brill (Jan 13, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> I saw this and laughed...that grim laugh you make when you don't know how to act when confronted by something stupefying.
> 
> http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140113/BENEFITS05/301130026/



You should see the GO and CSM housing on Ft Meade near the parade field.  Very bourgeoisie to say the least.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 13, 2014)

Officer housing at Ft. benning is basically all mansions. CG's is palatial.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 13, 2014)

Wait the moron's who have been running the last few wars, developing the insanely high budget and running around getting their incompetent asses fired, are now offering advice on how to take more money away from the retirees, who are all making less than half of those morons who wear stars?

Yeah that's who we should be listening to.....FML!


----------



## pardus (Jan 13, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> I saw this and laughed...that grim laugh you make when you don't know how to act when confronted by something stupefying.
> 
> http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140113/BENEFITS05/301130026/



Just one more reason why I have disdain for General Officers. It's alright for those pricks with their fat bank accounts and General's retirement money to talk about the poor Enlisted retirees having their precious money cut. There's too many of those pricks in the military, cull them I say.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 14, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> I saw this and laughed...that grim laugh you make when you don't know how to act when confronted by something stupefying.
> 
> http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140113/BENEFITS05/301130026/


Look at 2nd and 3rd order effects.
Less money for Retirees (excluding GO's apparently) means more money for new gear (from the companies these GO's work for).


----------



## pardus (Jan 14, 2014)

SOWT said:


> Look at 2nd and 3rd order effects.
> Less money for Retirees (excluding GO's apparently) means more money for new gear (from the companies these GO's work for).



Corrupt scum.


----------



## Centermass (Jan 14, 2014)

Funny thing to all this talk is that it (The reduction of COLA) had garnered enough support to be overturned, and one of the key members who had enough support to do so, was Levin. So, once Levin is made aware of the fact that in order to give back retirees their 1%, the compensation to pay for it was Sen. Ayotte’s bill, that would repeal the military pension cuts and replace the savings by requiring tax filers to have a Social Security number —- as opposed to just an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number — in order to qualify for the ACTC.

He then flip flopped and withdrew his support. Go figure.....

Americas military gets thrown under the bus, instead for the exemption of illegals? What in the hell is wrong with this picture?

I feel like my head is going to explode any minute right about now.


----------



## Brill (Jan 18, 2014)

And you guys thought the cut in retiree COLA was an effort to reduce the deficit?  Suckers.  (spoiler: Fed judges received 5 figure pay increase due to increased COLA.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...hpModule_308f7142-9199-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239


----------



## Centermass (Jan 23, 2014)

*As of Wednesday, January 22, 2014:*

The Senate is poised to consider a massive veterans bill that not only would improve education, health and employment benefits for former troops, it would restore the cost-of-living adjustment reduction for military retirees set by the Bipartisan Budget Act.

The 352-page Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration bill, or S. 1950, encompasses many previously proposed legislative initiatives, from requiring public universities to extend in-state tuition to any veteran using their GI Bill benefit to authorizing fertility services for severely wounded service members.

But it also takes on the most contentious portion of the *budget deal forged by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Sen. Patty Murray, R-Wash.: the reduction of the cost of living adjustment to military retired pay by 1 percent for retirees under age 62.*

*The bill, sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., would repeal the provision.*

“These service members have paid a very, very high price for their service ... it’s my belief as chairman of the [Senate] Veterans Committee, we have to do everything possible to give back to them and their families,” Sanders said during a telephone conference with reporters Wednesday.

The COLA reduction is expected to save the federal government $6 billion over 10 years. Sanders estimates that his entire bill, including the COLA cut repeal, will cost $30 billion over the next decade.

http://www.navytimes.com/article/20...ould-restore-COLA-reduction-military-retirees


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 23, 2014)

Centermass said:


> *As of Wednesday, January 22, 2014:*
> 
> The Senate is poised to consider a massive veterans bill that not only would improve education, health and employment benefits for former troops, it would restore the cost-of-living adjustment reduction for military retirees set by the Bipartisan Budget Act.
> 
> ...


Funny, the Navy times lists Patty Murray as a Republican.
Fail.


----------



## pardus (Jan 23, 2014)

Centermass said:


> *As of Wednesday, January 22, 2014:*
> 
> The Senate is poised to consider a massive veterans bill that not only would improve education, health and employment benefits for former troops, it would restore the cost-of-living adjustment reduction for military retirees set by the Bipartisan Budget Act.
> 
> ...



I really hope this goes through. I'm not confident though...


----------



## Centermass (Feb 12, 2014)

About time. Now we wait and see what the man with the phone and a pen will do....



> Shortly after passing a suspension of the limit on federal borrowing *Wednesday, the Senate voted 95-3 to pass a bill restoring military retiree benefits *that were cut last year, choosing to adopt the House's solution of extending automatic cuts to Medicare to accompany the pension increase.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-wednesday-to-restore-military-cola-benefits/


----------



## pardus (Feb 12, 2014)

Good news for once!


----------



## Centermass (Feb 20, 2014)

Done. 

Bill signing it back into law, by the President 17 February 2014.


----------



## Brill (Feb 20, 2014)

Centermass said:


> Done.
> 
> Bill signing it back into law, by the President 17 February 2014.



I read that he authorized a 12-month delay in payment.  He has a pen and a phone you know!


----------



## Centermass (Feb 20, 2014)

lindy said:


> I read that he authorized a 12-month delay in payment.  He has a pen and a phone you know!



Well, that would coincide with Jan-Feb time frame when we normally see COLA increases, no matter how small.


----------



## AWP (Feb 22, 2014)

One step forward, two steps back.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...lan-to-cut-personnel-costs/?intcmp=latestnews



> Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is set Monday to recommend a limit on military pay raises, higher fees for health-care benefits and less generous housing allowances to prune billions of dollars in benefits from the defense budget, setting up an election-year confrontation with veterans groups and lawmakers.
> Faced with steadily increasing military personnel costs that threaten to overwhelm an ever-tighter budget, *Mr. Hagel is also expected to include a one-year freeze on raises for top military brass—a gesture meant to show that the best-compensated leaders also will make sacrifices*.


 
A one year freeze on pay for GO's is a "sacrifice" for them? Boo freaking hoo.... 

"Hey, PFC, we're going to cut your housing allowance and make you pay more for medical, but don't worry...we're also halting raises for GO's. See? Everyone hurts."


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 22, 2014)

If anyone ever had that wonder in the back of their mind what the elected and appointed shitbags in charge of you really think about you, it should be clear as day now.

Fucking sad.

Cut the already "doesn't cover shit" BAH. Never mind the astronomical inflation, you don't need any raises. Oh they can pay more for medical, no worries... oh and those generals, will cut their raises for a year, but only a year, b/c we all know the Army wouldn't be able to function without "leaders" like Gen Dempsey. 

Oh shit we have to cut the budget, well I guess we can pass that on to the Joe's, we wouldn't want to cut our special uniform testing programs... fucking assholes.

I don't know why anyone would serve more than an enlistment these days. I mean really, why?


----------



## AWP (Feb 24, 2014)

Service chiefs and Secretay Hagel, come on down! You're the next contestants on "What the hell are you thinking?"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...l-reportedly-shrink-army-to-pre-wwii-numbers/



> The New York Times first reported on the proposed cuts. The changes reportedly would leave the military capable of waging war, but unable to carry out protracted occupations of foreign territory, as in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> Officials told the Times that Hagel's plan has been endorsed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and protects funding for Special Operations forces and cyberwarfare. It also calls for the Navy to maintain all 11 of its aircraft carriers currently in operation. However, the budget proposal mandates the elimination of the entire fleet of Air Force A-10 attack aircraft, as well as the retiring of the U-2 spy plane, a stalwart of Cold War operations.


 
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/24/defense-department-to-cut-army-to-pre-ww-ii-size/?hpt=hp_t1



> The plan, backed by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, as first reported by The New York Times, positions the military to handle any enemy but will leave the armed forces with much fewer resources to take on lengthy missions abroad. The dwindled budget also reflects the current political climate, with a President who has pledged to pull back from extended and expensive wars abroad in an era of federal funding cutbacks.


 
Can't do an extended deployment? Don't like us "war profiteers?" Now what?


----------



## pardus (Feb 24, 2014)

> The changes reportedly would leave the military capable of waging war, but unable to carry out protracted occupations of foreign territory, as in Afghanistan and Iraq





> The plan, backed by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, as first reported by The New York Times, positions the military to handle any enemy but will leave the armed forces with much fewer resources to take on lengthy missions abroad.



So we'll be able to fight China no problem but not the Taliban...


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 24, 2014)

Its all good, if we're attacked by China for defaulting on our debts, we will just get DHS to arrest the Chinese Military, or AQ or whoever.  Its all good, we don't need a standing, competent and well compensated military. We should just make sure SOF and Carriers are good to go, between SOF the Navy, Cyberwarriors, and our DHS cops, we should able to handel any conflict that comes our way, just as long as it doesn't take very long...

Sounds like a plan, good luck to all involved!


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 24, 2014)

Grenada/Panama=GTG
Bosnia/Kosovo/Iraq = So sorry, please call the UN.

Whose policies are isolationist?


----------



## AWP (Feb 24, 2014)

World: Send lawyers, guns, and money, the shit has hit the fan.
US DoD: We're sorry, but your call cannot be complete as dialed. Please hang up and try again.

---

10 years' worth of those budget cuts will mean the only countries we're capable of beating are the likes of Panama and Grenada. I know I'm a pessimist, but many of us saw the military of the 90's and this is going to be worse. Is that really in our nation's best interests?


----------



## RetPara (Feb 24, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> 10 years' worth of those budget cuts will mean the only countries we're capable of beating are the likes of Panama and Grenada. I know I'm a pessimist, but many of us saw the military of the 90's and this is going to be worse. Is that really in our nation's best interests?



Sonny if you think the military of the 1990's was bad... you should of served during the 1970's.....   but then it was in the 1870's they let George get 5 troops of Cavalry wiped out and we had to turn in our Trapdoor Springfields...  It's all been down hill since....


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 24, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> World: Send lawyers, guns, and money, the shit has hit the fan.
> US DoD: We're sorry, but your call cannot be complete as dialed. Please hang up and try again.
> 
> ---
> ...



The left has long complained that the Military was/is too big, and we need to stop interfering in other countries affairs.

What they don't understand is that large standing force also allows us to execute Humanitarian Missions at a moments notice.

It will be interesting (in a somewhat sad way) to see what happens next time a Natural Disaster happens and it takes the navy two weeks to respond.


----------



## AWP (Feb 24, 2014)

RetPara said:


> Sonny if you think the military of the 1990's was bad... you should of served during the 1970's.....   but then it was in the 1870's they let George get 5 troops of Cavalry wiped out and we had to turn in our Trapdoor Springfields...  It's all been down hill since....


 
I have no doubt about that, I'm only trying to speak of what I know. I've read and been told it was much, much worse for you in the 70's, but I think our country's memory barely extends to the towers falling in Sep., much less "ancient" history like Reagan or Carter. 

ETA: What? No lecture on using a ramrod and pocket knife to extract soft brass from hot chambers after the lip of the cartridge was ripped off?


----------



## Centermass (Feb 24, 2014)

USS George Washington - Mothballed

Kiowas - Phased out

Increase in SOF by 10,000 across the board

GCV - Current Prototype program scrapped

A-10 - Flip flop: Entire fleet now scrapped

U-2 - Gone

KC-10 - On the chopping block

LCS - Halts production. New design to be submitted by FY end

Only hits to personnel I heard him mentioned were Marines (20-25000) Army (60-80,00) USAR / ARNG 40-60,00 combined, AF a couple of Squadrons with plans for more BRAC's

Commissaries stay in place

AD - Pay raises stay at 1%, frozen for Flag Officers

Tax Allowance for housing affected (Can't remember the exact numbers)

Renters Ins Compensation axed

Retirees - Increased Tri Care fees

There's more, but that's what I was able to extract from the last hour.

All pending Congressional approval......


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 24, 2014)

SOWT said:


> It will be interesting (in a somewhat sad way) to see what happens next time a Natural Disaster happens and it takes the navy two weeks to respond.



I know I will sound cruel, heartless, and calloused in saying this (which is a natural state for me, I know), but how many of those countries that we helped out after natural disasters were all about "F**K the USA, imperialist pigs that they are," in spite of our benevolent assistance?  How many of them have either implicitly or explicitly called for an end to American hegemony?  How many of them are practically break dancing in the streets at the thought of such a massive draw down?  Let them die.  Let them see just how big of a difference we made.  Let the grail of population reduction pour its poison on them.  No more sympathy to be had here.


----------



## CDG (Feb 24, 2014)

Centermass said:


> Post


 
Don't forget the plan to send all the Apaches to the AD Army, and all the Blackhawks to the Guard.  Disaster relief is great and all that, but now you make it that much harder for Guard units, like an ASOS, to train with attack helos and become familiar with their TTPs and vice versa.


----------



## AWP (Feb 24, 2014)

I just realized something wrong with the article. The Navy only has 10 aircraft carriers, assuming it doesn't mothball the GW as in Centermass' post. Enterprise is already being cut open, so she's done, and Gerald Ford won't be online for another 2 years. That makes for "11" aircraft carriers, but only 10 in service and possibly down to 9.


----------



## Centermass (Feb 24, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> I just realized something wrong with the article. The Navy only has 10 aircraft carriers, assuming it doesn't mothball the GW as in Centermass' post. Enterprise is already being cut open, so she's done, and Gerald Ford won't be online for another 2 years. That makes for "11" aircraft carriers, but only 10 in service and possibly down to 9.



Hagel said he was looking at a 10 Carrier based BG with no plans / funds for the GW over haul or upgrade.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 24, 2014)

Centermass said:


> USS George Washington - Mothballed
> 
> Kiowas - Phased out
> 
> ...


"Commissaries stay in place" with higher prices that will eliminate savings to the Military Population at large.

IMO Stateside Commissaries are gone in 5 years.  Ironic that younger enlistees don't see this as a bennie.


----------



## Brill (Feb 24, 2014)

Centermass said:


> USS George Washington - Mothballed
> 
> Kiowas - Phased out
> 
> ...



Does AQ know we're no longer at war with them? I think they didn't get the memo.


----------



## Locksteady (Feb 24, 2014)

Link below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/u...rink-army-to-pre-world-war-ii-level.html?_r=0


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 24, 2014)

SOWT said:


> "Commissaries stay in place" with higher prices that will eliminate savings to the Military Population at large.
> 
> IMO Stateside Commissaries are gone in 5 years.  Ironic that younger enlistees don't see this as a bennie.



Generally speaking, it isn't. It's another option for shopping, but the CA commissary had prices that were full retard compared to albertsons/safeway/nob hill/etc, the one near me in bumfuck nevada is only cheaper on 1/4 of the stuff than Walmart or Safeway. Even in Alaska, the commissary "winning" the price war only happens on half the stuff they stock.

Color me unimpressed on the AAFES/commissary system across the board for this, among many other reasons.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 24, 2014)

Centermass said:


> USS George Washington - Mothballed
> 
> Kiowas - Phased out
> 
> ...



Do you think Congress will consider any of this:whatever:, it will all be handled at the WH, level with a stroke of the pen @ 1600 Penn. Ave.

You can't have huge government, and a huge military at the same time, guess who wins this one .


----------



## goon175 (Feb 24, 2014)

I agree in cutting the total force down to 440-450k, but there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. If past draw downs are any evidence - they will do it the wrong way. I'm not completely sold on getting rid of the A-10's, they have saved A LOT of American lives. I guess if the F-35 is able to do the same job (I'm not well read on that platform) than I would be ok with it. Replacing the U-2 with drones makes sense, I have no issue with that. I'm not sure why the Navy needs two destroyers and two submarines per year... those aren't cheap. I would like to see the reasoning behind that one. Scratching the older helicopters are fine, but trading apaches for blackhawks doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I think i disagree with that move. The air force slowing the growth of their drone program is fine with me, as long as they are able to adequately support any possible increased work load from killing the U-2. I absolutely do not agree with cutting troop pay and benefits. Saying that they aren't cutting pay is a play on words, as it would be a cut in pay. Pay and benefits for active duty need to stay the same or increase, especially in light of how much they are cutting numbers to the over all force (more work for the guys who stay in). As far as base closings, it would depend on what bases they would be suggesting.


----------



## Blizzard (Feb 24, 2014)

Is that time again?


----------



## AWP (Feb 24, 2014)

Merged two threads, renamed this one.


----------



## CDG (Feb 24, 2014)

goon175 said:


> I'm not completely sold on getting rid of the A-10's, they have saved A LOT of American lives. I guess if the F-35 is able to do the same job (I'm not well read on that platform) than I would be ok with it.Replacing the U-2 with drones makes sense


 
The F-35 brings nothing even close to the capabilities of the A-10 when it comes to CAS.  And replacing the U-2 with drones makes a little sense, due to the small payload of the Pred and Reaper, but there's not really an advantage beyond that.


----------



## Centermass (Feb 24, 2014)

CDG said:


> The F-35 brings nothing even close to the capabilities of the A-10 when it comes to CAS.



Guess they never asked those who ever needed CAS, not that* they* ever needed it, otherwise, they would have scrapped the F-35 and continued funding the A-10. 

More proof that those on the ground are miles away from being heard by those at the top.....


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 25, 2014)

racing_kitty said:


> I know I will sound cruel, heartless, and calloused in saying this (which is a natural state for me, I know), but how many of those countries that we helped out after natural disasters were all about "F**K the USA, imperialist pigs that they are," in spite of our benevolent assistance?  How many of them have either implicitly or explicitly called for an end to American hegemony?  How many of them are practically break dancing in the streets at the thought of such a massive draw down?  Let them die.  Let them see just how big of a difference we made.  Let the grail of population reduction pour its poison on them.  No more sympathy to be had here.


Not doing anything has more repercussions than are immediately apparent.  If the situation is bad enough, neighboring countries will have to deal with refugees, disease, and possibly famine.  And it's totally preventable when we have a MEU on standby.

As for countries who were all "Death to America" after we bailed them out, the only one I can think of offhand is Pakistan.


----------



## talonlm (Feb 25, 2014)

CAS is great--so long as you own the airspace the CAS bird is operating in.  Keeping the skies clear of enemy air remains the primary job of the Air Force.  The F-35 is out there to replace the F-16s and F-18s.  While CAS has always been an important mission for the Air Force, it is not the only mission.  First and foremost has always been Air Superiority if not outright Air Dominance.  It's been sixty years since an enemy aircraft actually succeeded in killing US troops on the ground (not counting 9/11) and that was not a coordinated campaign against us.  And that's because the US made a concerted effort to destroy the enemy's air force before they could hit us.  You don't do that with a collection of aircraft dedicated to nothing but CAS. 

Most of the decisions made about weapons procurement are meant to be about future wars, not the ones we fight today.  The big concern nowadays is about China and the so-called "Pacific Pivot."  China's PLAAF is not the same air force it was just ten years ago, and they're growing their capabilities every day.  To underestimate their ability would be a big mistake.  We're not dealing with the Soviet Union, yet, but the potential is definitely there.  

While getting rid of the A-10 before the F-35 is fully tested is, in my mind, as huge mistake, the powers that be are counting dollars, not the lives it could well cost to mothball the platform.  And, to be honest, the idea to me smacks of the AF playing politics by using the AF Guard to get congress to do what they want.  "Give us more money or these fifteen states will lose this many jobs!"  Will the A-10 get sent to the Boneyard?  Sooner or later, sure.  But my money will be on "later."


----------



## Centermass (Feb 25, 2014)

talonlm said:


> CAS is great--so long as you own the airspace the CAS bird is operating in.  Keeping the skies clear of enemy air remains the primary job of the Air Force.  The F-35 is out there to replace the F-16s and F-18s.  While CAS has always been an important mission for the Air Force, it is not the only mission.  First and foremost has always been Air Superiority if not outright Air Dominance.  It's been sixty years since an enemy aircraft actually succeeded in killing US troops on the ground (not counting 9/11) and that was not a coordinated campaign against us.  And that's because the US made a concerted effort to destroy the enemy's air force before they could hit us.  You don't do that with a collection of aircraft dedicated to nothing but CAS.
> 
> Most of the decisions made about weapons procurement are meant to be about future wars, not the ones we fight today.  The big concern nowadays is about China and the so-called "Pacific Pivot."  China's PLAAF is not the same air force it was just ten years ago, and they're growing their capabilities every day.  To underestimate their ability would be a big mistake.  We're not dealing with the Soviet Union, yet, but the potential is definitely there.
> 
> While getting rid of the A-10 before the F-35 is fully tested is, in my mind, as huge mistake, the powers that be are counting dollars, not the lives it could well cost to mothball the platform.  And, to be honest, the idea to me smacks of the AF playing politics by using the AF Guard to get congress to do what they want.  "Give us more money or these fifteen states will lose this many jobs!"  Will the A-10 get sent to the Boneyard?  Sooner or later, sure.  But my money will be on "later."



I agree with most of what you posted. However, I for one, never said or suggested that CAS is the end all be all. I understand the need along with the difference between superiority and dominance and how one leads to another.

With that said, while the welcome of a PGM inbound is a warm fuzzy, something on station that has loiter capabilities to the extent of "What ya need boys?" vs "Here I come with my 180 million dollar platform" one minute and gone the next, I'll take the former over the latter any day, any minute, w/o question. 

The cost over runs for the 35 have cost not only the AF, but other services as well. My gut tells me we're too far into it to cut it loose.


----------



## CDG (Feb 25, 2014)

talonlm said:


> CAS is great--so long as you own the airspace the CAS bird is operating in. Agreed. But once you own the airspace, you need at least one platform that is CAS-centric.  If the A-10 goes away, we lose that.  The F-16s are taking the Wild Weasel role and many times tell us they don't do CAS anymore when we try and schedule training.  The F-22s, from my understanding, NEVER train CAS.  And good luck getting F-15s or F/A-18s to come out and play on an air-to-ground range. If you're a USMC JTAC you might see the Hornets, but it's rare on our side. So even if a platform has ordnance, and we have the airspace, what's the capability of the pilot to execute CAS?
> 
> Keeping the skies clear of enemy air remains the primary job of the Air Force.  The F-35 is out there to replace the F-16s and F-18s. What was the purpose of the F-22 then?  If the stated goal is to upgrade air-to-air capability, scrap an air-to-air platform.  The A-10 is really the only CAS-specific aircraft we have and nothing else can bring what it brings to the fight.
> 
> ...


----------



## RetPara (Feb 25, 2014)

Hagel has ACTUALLY made Robert McNamara look good as SecDef....   I do not say that lightly.  I rate McNamara on a par with Jane Fonda.

These proposals are put forth with mid-Terms coming up.  These cuts have to get past the House and Senate.  Maybe the Senate... but don't bet on it passing the House.


----------



## talonlm (Feb 25, 2014)

Centermass said:


> However, I for one, never said or suggested that CAS is the end all be all.



I didn't intend to infer you were stating that.  My mistake if I did.  The above postings were on CAS and everyone was throwing darts at the F-35.  As you noted in your response, there are other missions the Air Force has.  My intention was to point out the A-10s have the problem of only having the capability to do one of those missions while the Air Force wants a “do it all” airplane.  We’ve seen that song and dance before.

As for the rest, the last A-10 was built in 1984—the newest one is thirty years old.  Even with new wings and wing boxes (the A-10C mod), that’s a long time to be flying a high-G mission, especially firing a GAU-8.  The time to start looking for replacements has past, and the F-35 is what we ended up with.  I feel the F-35 has flaws (a single engine being high up on that list), but it’s the best thing we’ve got right now.  It is not dedicated CAS; that does not mean it is not CAS-capable.  CAS capability is more of an aircrew training issue than a platform issue.  In my mind, this is more a matter of mission focus more so than any particular platform. 



CDG said:


> Agreed. But once you own the airspace, you need at least one platform that is CAS-centric. If the A-10 goes away, we lose that. The F-16s are taking the Wild Weasel role and many times tell us they don't do CAS anymore when we try and schedule training. The F-22s, from my understanding, NEVER train CAS. And good luck getting F-15s or F/A-18s to come out and play on an air-to-ground range. If you're a USMC JTAC you might see the Hornets, but it's rare on our side. So even if a platform has ordnance, and we have the airspace, what's the capability of the pilot to execute CAS?



It’s a lack of focus on training for CAS, not the asset performing the mission.  That’s a leadership issue.  F-22s are pure air-to-air fighters.  And I know the Air Force screams “multi-mission.” The leadership actually tried out testing them for SDBs and what not, even changed the name to F/A-22 for a little while, but the fact is the Raptor is a one trick pony.  The F-22 is just one of many little contradictions out there for that claim.



CDG said:


> And when we've knocked each others satellites out of the sky, and the technology has cancelled itself out, it will again come down to dudes on the ground with platforms that can support that. We're not going to win a war without a platform that can effectively support ground maneuver elements.



Without the capability to clear away the PLAAF, mud movers won’t be able to operate.  Even with the PLAAF cleared from the skies, the AAA and missile threat is huge.  A-10s are tough enough to take a hit, but the F-35 is supposed to be able to avoid getting hit in the first place.  China’s not turning out junk anymore.  Worse, they’re beginning to seriously evaluate their capabilities against us.  They’re not on par with us but they’re trying very, very hard to get there.  And that’s the point behind the F-35s and other procurement projects—we’re trying to keep our edge.  Scrapping the F-35 would be just as much a mistake as scrapping the A-10 before we can replace it properly.



CDG said:


> If they were counting dollars, the F-35 program would not be where it is right now.



This is always the complaint against new generations of aircraft—“That thing isn’t cheap!  It costs four times as much as the last airplane we bought!”  Imagine how different the 80s and 90s would have gone if we had just upgraded the F-4s and canceled the teen series.  Is there waste?  Sure.  Corruption?  I’d be shocked if there wasn’t.  But is the F-35 wholly a waste of money?  I couldn’t tell you right now.  Ask me in twenty years.


----------



## CDG (Feb 25, 2014)

talonlm said:


> It’s a lack of focus on training for CAS, not the asset performing the mission.  That’s a leadership issue.  F-22s are pure air-to-air fighters.  And I know the Air Force screams “multi-mission.” The leadership actually tried out testing them for SDBs and what not, even changed the name to F/A-22 for a little while, but the fact is the Raptor is a one trick pony.  The F-22 is just one of many little contradictions out there for that claim.
> The F-35 is hardly a desirable CAS platform.  Extremely limited payload, no ability to effectively engage large armor formations, and I am guessing it's going to be damn near impossible to use in a TIC where a Type-1 control is needed. The A-10 is a vital platform, and we cannot afford to lose the best CAS platform out there because we want only air-to-air.  We need both.  I don't care what the Air Force leadership says, the combination of the F-35 and MQ-9 being billed as a replacement for the A-10 is laughable at best, and fatally naive at worst.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## talonlm (Feb 25, 2014)

CDG said:


> The F-35 is hardly a desirable CAS platform. Extremely limited payload, no ability to effectively engage large armor formations, and I am guessing it's going to be damn near impossible to use in a TIC where a Type-1 control is needed. The A-10 is a vital platform, and we cannot afford to lose the best CAS platform out there because we want only air-to-air. We need both. I don't care what the Air Force leadership says, the combination of the F-35 and MQ-9 being billed as a replacement for the A-10 is laughable at best, and fatally naïve at worst.



I don't disagree with you.  The capability the A-10 provides is vital to success on the ground.  No questions about that asked.  It boils down to money.  There isn't enough for everything being asked of the AF to do.  Replace an aging fighter fleet.  Improve strategic and tactical airlift capabilities.  Replace aging refueling aircraft.  Upgrade and improve the strategic nuclear forces.  Re-capitalize the entire AFSOC aircraft inventory.  Even something as important to aircrews as the CSAR replacement and KC-46 programs face cuts right now to pay for the F-35.  The KC-10s are on the chopping block, even though they're twenty years newer than the KC-135s they were meant to replace.   U-2s retired, no replacement.  F-117s retired, no replacement.  C-5As retired, no replacement.  C-130Es retired, about half the tails to eventually be replaced by C-130Js. MH-53, MC-130E and AC-130H programs closed down and aircraft retired--before the replacement aircraft have even begun testing, and , even then, only about two thirds of the aircraft retired will be replaced..  F-16A/Bs and F-15A/Bs all retired.  C-27J program cancelled.  Reserve units cancelling weekend training.  No budgets for anything other than minimal home station training, and then limiting that to the minimum necessary for deployments.  No OCS courses at all this year.  Personnel cuts across the board.  On and on.  Nothing in the AF is safe.  Even something as critical the A-10.  The leadership had to pick a priority, and that was the F-35.


----------



## CDG (Feb 25, 2014)

talonlm said:


> I don't disagree with you.  The capability the A-10 provides is vital to success on the ground.  No questions about that asked.  It boils down to money.  There isn't enough for everything being asked of the AF to do.  Replace an aging fighter fleet.  Improve strategic and tactical airlift capabilities.  Replace aging refueling aircraft.  Upgrade and improve the strategic nuclear forces.  Re-capitalize the entire AFSOC aircraft inventory.  Even something as important to aircrews as the CSAR replacement and KC-46 programs face cuts right now to pay for the F-35.  The KC-10s are on the chopping block, even though they're twenty years newer than the KC-135s they were meant to replace.   U-2s retired, no replacement.  F-117s retired, no replacement.  C-5As retired, no replacement.  C-130Es retired, about half the tails to eventually be replaced by C-130Js. MH-53, MC-130E and AC-130H programs closed down and aircraft retired--before the replacement aircraft have even begun testing, and , even then, only about two thirds of the aircraft retired will be replaced..  F-16A/Bs and F-15A/Bs all retired.  C-27J program cancelled.  Reserve units cancelling weekend training.  No budgets for anything other than minimal home station training, and then limiting that to the minimum necessary for deployments.  No OCS courses at all this year.  Personnel cuts across the board.  On and on.  Nothing in the AF is safe.  Even something as critical the A-10.  The leadership had to pick a priority, and that was the F-35.


 
Maybe at my level I'm just not seeing enough of the big picture.  I still firmly believe that CAS is crucial, and that the A-10 is not where the cuts should be made.  I see your point, and I realize the leadership had to pick, but they dropped the ball on this one, IMHO.  I enjoyed this little debate and you taught me some things I didn't know previously.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 25, 2014)

If we're going back to PRE-WW2 size military force, there are a few thing I think need to be at the front of the pack before we even get close to cutting back force structure.

1) What is the overall strategic plan for our global presence?
2) What capacity will our military play in UN conflicts/police actions.
3) What are we saying to our allies, and their security forces.
4) What is the back up plan if SHTF in a currently very unstable globe?
5) How will we project our defense/security to the world if we're protracted to a PRE-WW2 military, especially with a "not ganna use nukes" policy.

I think there is a much better way to go about this. If the Army & USAF are going to be cut back we need to boost the Army/Air NG. We will need a larger and stronger Navy and USMC, and most of all we are probably going to have an emergency conscription policy to build an Army when we need it. These are all areas that really should be addressed before getting all willy-nilly with cuts.

As for airframes and equipment changes, it will be what it will be. Sucks to see the A10 go, but this is not a new debate. What worries me is that the military leadership and mainly the civi side of it are not taking into account the second and third effects this will have on the global scale and more so our national security interest.

I'm all for keep our nose out of the worlds business and staying out of the military action/nation building. If that is what we are actually going to do. However, the world is not the same place.it was PRE-WW2 and we have.pissed in a few regions corn flakes for way to long to simply walk away and not receive some reactions.

My $.02


----------



## AWP (Feb 25, 2014)

The -22 and -35 programs were horribly mismanaged and those paying the ultimate price will be everyone except the ones responsible.

WWII was won because a lot of "good" things, but not the best things. We realized that "quantity has a quality all its own" while still building decent vehicles and very good aircraft. The key thing is we built a LOT of everything and even had enough industrial capacity to keep the USSR afloat during some terrible times. Their final drive into Germany was driven by the logistics capability of thousands of Studebaker trucks.

3 generations removed and our mentality is to have the best of everything. That's great if your small numbers can somehow dominate the entire globe. We spent the latter half of the Cold War justifying our defense expenditures on fighting a two front war, ostensibly in Europe and Korea. After 2003 we learned that we can't fight two wars in the same geographic region, not without serious compromises and a loss of capability.

Our country is delusional. We do not possess the power we believe we possess. We're admitting that we can't fight a prolonged war. We're slashing any and every program, but especially our aviation capabilities. The Navy wants Littoral Combat Ships, but then builds gazillion dollar behemoths.

Our pride is going to kill us. Everyone wants to be the best and have the best, but socially we know this isn't possible. Instead of an Air Force made up of all stealth, all the time, we'd be better served with CAS assets in the Guard and Reserve. Super Tucanos or similar. Let the AD side clear the skies and allow the RC to focus on delivering support. Maybe the Navy wouldn't have to mothball carriers if it were smarter about the LCS program. My scattered thoughts and point being, our leadership has made some bad, bad acquisition decisions and we're all going to pay for them. Hmmm...if the F-22 is so great maybe we'd be better off with twice their number to clear the skies, 1/3 of the F-35's for other tasks, and a bunch of "lesser" airframes for CAS or whatever. Wow, we might even have enough money leftover to replace our aging tanker and helo fleets. But hey, stealth is cool and that stuff wins wars, not those ugly and inefficient support airframes.

The only ways this doesn't bite us in the ass a decade or two from now is if A) mankind suddenly renounces war or B) the enemy operates according to our playbook. Otherwise, we'd better hope the sight of F-35's cresting the horizon is equivilent to opening the Ark of the Covenant.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 25, 2014)

Ranger Psych said:


> Generally speaking, it isn't. It's another option for shopping, but the CA commissary had prices that were full retard compared to albertsons/safeway/nob hill/etc, the one near me in bumfuck nevada is only cheaper on 1/4 of the stuff than Walmart or Safeway. Even in Alaska, the commissary "winning" the price war only happens on half the stuff they stock.
> 
> Color me unimpressed on the AAFES/commissary system across the board for this, among many other reasons.


Commissary by my house routinely beats HEB.
My wife says we save 10plus percent by going on-base.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 25, 2014)

SOWT said:


> Commissary by my house routinely beats HEB.
> My wife says we save 10plus percent by going on-base.



Hmmm. I guess it depends on what you're buying. Maybe 10% on a few items but normally our bills were pretty comparable to HEB. However, the close proximity of HEB and not having to Dick with getting on base and dealing with the non-stop BS on post, I'll take HEB every time. But if you really want to.save money, Casco and SAMs is the way to go. My wife and I knockout most of our monthly stuff there and just use HEB for "oops we forgot" and fresh veggies.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 25, 2014)

Long winded post, so apologies before hand.

The quality over quantity decision was made by Jimmy Carter (Sec Def Brown).  Politics ensured that decision was never reversed.

Killing the U-2 DOES NOT make sense, the Global Hawk is a single sensor aircraft, and the U-2 has multiple sensors, quality/quantity vs quality.  I'll take the U-2.
The AF tried to kill the Global hawk version designed to finally replace the U-2 because the software over runs are so bad, Congress intervened.

I love the A-10, but what makes it a better CAS aircraft? Payload (I'll buy that), Speed ? Gun?  

I'd rather see UH-60's in the Guard over AH-64's.  Disaster Relief is a mission the NG Leaders have long lobbied for (trying to reduce their committment in Iraq/Afghanistan).  This is the result of Senior Officer lobby efforts; great job gentlemen!  

For the record, I think DoD/Congress got it wrong in the 90's and should have kept Combat Arms in the Army Reserve, making the national Guard a support command.

Quote: Hmmm...if the F-22 is so great maybe we'd be better off with twice their number to clear the skies, 1/3 of the F-35's for other tasks, and a bunch of "lesser" airframes for CAS or whatever.

Gates killed the F-22 and sold the Air Force/Navy/Marine Corp Aviation Soul to Lockheed.  

IMO we need to bare base in Europe/Asia, war with China/Korea/Iran won't suddenly happen, and we can move assets into the AO while State tries to appease the unappeasable.

The left in Europe, Asia and this country want a weaker America; they are on the verge of getting their wish.  Watching CNN spin this a few years from now will be interesting (in a sad/ironic way).

More later, I am on my way to (once again) bring my Mother-in-Law over


----------



## CDG (Feb 25, 2014)

SOWT said:


> I love the A-10, but what makes it a better CAS aircraft? Payload (I'll buy that), Speed ? Gun?


 
Gun, survivability, versatility, FAC-A proficient, and CAS proficient,.  The institutional knowledge with regards to CAS and FAC-A duties that the A-10 community possesses is unmatched.  They've started talking about utilizing the MQ-9 "pilots" in a FAC-A role, which is absolutely insane IMO.  You can't just throw away the KSAs of the A-10 pilots.  Could they provide training to the pilots of other platforms?  Sure.  But they're still starting from scratch and there's nothing to fill the void in the years it will take to get the pilots of these new platforms spun-up.  And that's if the USAF is even willing to devote the time and money to train CAS to even a minimum standard with the F-35.


----------



## medicchick (Feb 25, 2014)

SOWT said:


> Commissary by my house routinely beats HEB.
> My wife says we save 10plus percent by going on-base.


It's hit and miss on what the commissary is cheaper on.  The local one has almost nothing in the way of fruits and veggies, no deli, no bakery, and if you go on the 2nd most shelves are wiped out (worse that others I've shopped at).  I do save some money but it's also the choice of driving (or walking if we just need one or two things) 1 mile to the close store or 10 miles to get to the NAS.  The savings were more evident in Alaska however.


----------



## moobob (Feb 25, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> Several observations from different angles:
> 
> - I have to wonder if this will dissuade many from retiring. Not only those taking issue with the proposed cuts, but also those who know their 20+ years of sacrifice can be so readily nullified.



People ask me why I'm going to ETS with 12 years in.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 25, 2014)

moobob said:


> People ask me why I'm going to ETS with 12 years in.



A good friend of mine who I went to OSUT with just ETS'ed as a SFC with 12 years... He says he is going to join the NG, but I doubt it. He's starting the police academy in May. I think he is making the best choice, especially due to the PD he is going to work for will allow him to buy his Army years in their retirement program.


----------



## Centermass (Feb 25, 2014)

CDG said:


> Gun, survivability, versatility, FAC-A proficient, and CAS proficient,.  The institutional knowledge with regards to CAS and FAC-A duties that the A-10 community possesses is unmatched.  They've started talking about utilizing the MQ-9 "pilots" in a FAC-A role, which is absolutely insane IMO.  You can't just throw away the KSAs of the A-10 pilots.  Could they provide training to the pilots of other platforms?  Sure.  But they're still starting from scratch and there's nothing to fill the void in the years it will take to get the pilots of these new platforms spun-up.  And that's if the USAF is even willing to devote the time and money to train CAS to even a minimum standard with the F-35.



The B-52 (Big Buff) has been kept around for a reason. Same with the 130. Fighter technology ever evolving I understand. I don't understand why the same logic hasn't been applied to the A-10. Funny how before DS, the AF was ready to write it off. After 1000's of sorties and its performance, someone had the clarity of reason to say "Hey, not so fast"

So, after 12 years this time, here we are, all over again. again.

24 million Lines Of Code - F-35

Big Ol Stick with a Rudder - A-10

This debate I liken with someone who knows a little something about BBQ

A-10: Low and Slow = Good eats, time tested and proven.

F-35:  Fast and Hot = Charred meat, waiting to get hacked by some computer nerd

I've been down this road before after VN and the introduction of the VOLAR. Then again, after DS/DS. I hate it for the men and women having to scrounge for so much as a #2 pencil, let alone, anything else, once everything is all said and done.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 25, 2014)

moobob said:


> People ask me why I'm going to ETS with 12 years in.


Go Guard, seriously, go find a Guard or Reserve unit and do the last 8.


----------



## MOTOMETO (Feb 25, 2014)

The Joint Chiefs of Staff should read this thread. They could learn a lot.


----------



## Centermass (Feb 25, 2014)

MOTOMETO said:


> The Joint Chiefs of Staff should read this thread. They could learn a lot.



They should, but they won't. They could but they don't. Once again, if anyone's learned anything from history, it's that they haven't learned a damn thing....


----------



## Lahti (Feb 27, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/25/chuck-hagel-pentagon-budget-troop-reduction

What rock is this author living under? Saying "Indeed, the most important difference between now and the period before the second world war is the existence of actual threats to global peace and stability. Seven and a half decades ago, the world was on the cusp of a global conflagration that would take the lives of an estimated 70 million people. The exact opposite is true in 2014. Today we are living in an era of historically unprecedented safety."


----------



## Centermass (Dec 3, 2014)

Some good news for a change. Maybe now, members of Congress (Along with military pencil pushers and bean counters) will re-evaluate its worth.



> US Air Force (USAF) Fairchild A-10C Thunderbolt II ground attacks jets have arrived in Kuwait to begin flying strike missions against Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria as part of Operation 'Inherent Resolve'.
> 
> The USAF public affairs office in Kuwait announced the deployment of the A-10C squadron on 24 November, saying the: "unit will work with coalition forces to support Operation 'Inherent Resolve' and other regional operations".
> 
> The USAF had already announced on 17 December that several A-10s from the 163rd Expeditionary Fighter Squadron had been deployed to an undisclosed location in Southwest Asia to support the reactivated 332nd Air Expeditionary Group.



Link




> Congress has drafted a measure that would block retirement of US Air Force (USAF) Fairchild-Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II close air support (CAS) aircraft in 2015, according to legislative aides familiar with the deal.
> 
> The 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would prohibit the air force from retiring the aircraft because lawmakers said they are needed in Iraq, a senior committee staffer told _IHS Jane's_ on 2 December. If approved before the congressional session concludes next week, the NDAA would provide USD350 million to "help the air force cover the cost of keeping the 100 A-10s they wanted to retire," the aide said.
> 
> Further, the measure permits the USAF to move up to 36 A-10s in the active component to 'backup flying status', a type of storage during which aircraft remain in a unit and are flown periodically to keep them in working order. This would allow the air force to move maintenance personnel from the A-10 programme to other career fields, according to a copy of the draft legislation viewed by _IHS Jane's_ .



Link


----------



## Gunz (Dec 3, 2014)

It didn't make sense to deprive that theatre of an aircraft perfectly suited to the immediate task just because the AF is phasing in an all-pupose replacement that's not fully operational yet. The F35 isn't doing anybody much good at the moment. Good for the Congresscritters this time.


----------

