A sad day for the soldier/seaman/airman on the ground.... (A-10/CAS Discussion)

Over the past decade-plus of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, James said, "the A-10 has done a magnificent job, but so has the F-16 and the F-15E, and the B-1 bomber has been a contributor and there have been a number of aircraft that have contributed to the totality of close-air support. So to me, close-air support is not a plane, it's a mission."

This is such an unbelievably ignorant argument and shows just how little Ms. James knows about CAS. Yes, it is a mission. And what do you need for a mission? The best tool for the job! Just because other tools can and have worked in some circumstances does not mean they are the best choice. How hard is it to understand that? Contributions do not equal ability to handle the full workload. I cannot stand seeing senior USAF leadership repeat this misguided line over and over as a justification for retiring the A-10.
 
That's the equivalent of saying: "the 11B has done a magnificent job, but so has the 88M, and the 19D, and the 25A has been a contributor and there have been a number of Soldiers that have contributed to the totality of assaulting this house. So to me, assaulting this house is not an MOS-specific task, it's a mission."

Best tool for the job and all that like @CDG was saying...:-":wall:
 
pardus said:
That's what I was thinking, just buy some more Blackhawks to replace them.
Click to expand...
Nah, Just take the HH-60's that are being replaced by newer HH-60's and send them to the missile fields. Flying isn't as hard on the airframes as combat, and you don't have to run another acquisitions program.
CDG said:
I thought the Lakota was replacing the Huey?
Click to expand...
Primarily a Guard a/c. I think USAREUR bought some too, but the Lakota isn't suitable for missile field support.
SLEP the HH-60's and send them into the missile field, cuts down on parts, training, assignments, etc.
 
The current HH-60G's are basically worn out and the last one won't be retired until the second half of the 2020's. Long term it would be cheaper to just buy new mike models.
 
busdriver said:
The current HH-60G's are basically worn out and the last one won't be retired until the second half of the 2020's. Long term it would be cheaper to just buy new mike models.
Click to expand...
That's fine, but the Missile Support mission gets hand me downs until we can replace the H's with M's.
Those UH-1's have been at it for a long time, some of them have combat hours on them.
We kill ourselves by making this another acquisitions program. We can't afford what we already are trying to buy.
 
DA SWO said:
We kill ourselves by making this another acquisitions program. We can't afford what we already are trying to buy.
Click to expand...

Our acquisitions process is broken. The F-35 has a lot of visibility, but the Navy's new carrier and LCS has slid under the radar. Look at the tanker mess, the CSAR-X debacle, and on a lesser scale the Army's uniform adventure.

The Navy wants an Ohio class replacement, the AF a new bomber, and there's probably some I've forgotten or don't know about. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but we need to fix the system before we start something new. We've wasted billions upon billions, probably a trillion plus, because we can't manage new acquisitions. Insanity.
 
Freefalling said:
Our acquisitions process is broken. The F-35 has a lot of visibility, but the Navy's new carrier and LCS has slid under the radar. Look at the tanker mess, the CSAR-X debacle, and on a lesser scale the Army's uniform adventure.

The Navy wants an Ohio class replacement, the AF a new bomber, and there's probably some I've forgotten or don't know about. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but we need to fix the system before we start something new. We've wasted billions upon billions, probably a trillion plus, because we can't manage new acquisitions. Insanity.
Click to expand...

Lets see: F-35 (which sucks because of the V/STOL requirements)
KC-46 Tanker (1st flight just slipped again because of a sub-contractor)
HH-60M (have not heard any bad news on this one)
LRS-B, AKA New Bomber (they just got their knuckles slapped for a bad cost estimate)
C-5M (on-going with all the kinks worked out)
T-X just started
JSTARS Replacement (RFI Phase?)
The various C-130J Programs
CV-22's.
I understand the UH-1's are at the end of their service life, but they are not getting new helicopters until these other programs complete, get cancelled or somehow come under budget. IIRC the C-5 program should be finished (Apr 2018).

The Navy is also buying F-35's, the P-8 Pegasus, and may still be buying F/A-18's.

The Marines are buying F-35's and MV-22's.

Slipping/cancelling all those programs during the Clinton era is biting us in the ass.
 
DA SWO said:
Lets see: F-35 (which sucks because of the V/STOL requirements)
KC-46 Tanker (1st flight just slipped again because of a sub-contractor)
HH-60M (have not heard any bad news on this one)
LRS-B, AKA New Bomber (they just got their knuckles slapped for a bad cost estimate)
C-5M (on-going with all the kinks worked out)
T-X just started
JSTARS Replacement (RFI Phase?)
The various C-130J Programs
CV-22's.
I understand the UH-1's are at the end of their service life, but they are not getting new helicopters until these other programs complete, get cancelled or somehow come under budget. IIRC the C-5 program should be finished (Apr 2018).

The Navy is also buying F-35's, the P-8 Pegasus, and may still be buying F/A-18's.

The Marines are buying F-35's and MV-22's.

Slipping/cancelling all those programs during the Clinton era is biting us in the ass.
Click to expand...

The Navy plans to keep Super Hornets until 2035-ish. Let that sink in when you read about the -35.

Everything slips to the right, we get that, but the nonsense over the last decade or so is out of hand. Contractors deserve some heat, Lockheed and the -35 for example, but ignore the military's role in the debacles listed here. Even as a contractor I won't excuse a company's actions, but the military and our elected officials bear a huge amount of the blame...or should.
 
I don't work for a major systems acquisition command so I cannot comment on those large projects, but as a Contract Specialist working for the Navy's largest command in GLS, I can fully attest to the broken acquisition process. The blame falls equally on contractors and the Government on many of the debacles in acquisitions. I could give some pretty interesting stories from my short time here, but to protect both contractors and us I won't.
 

Similar threads

pardus
New Army Rules for Tattoos, Grooming On the Way
3 4 5
Replies
99
Views
18K
Brill
Brill
Ravage
NIGHT STALKER LEAD: From the Air, Delivering, Protecting and Extracting SOF Warriors
Replies
0
Views
8K
Ravage
Ravage
Back
Top