The Congressional Reduction of Military Pensions and Everything Thread

[Centermass]

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]

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.

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. Again, we're talking about the one and only aircraft dedicated to CAS. Hardly a collection.

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. 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.

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

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."

 

[RetPara]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.


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.
I agree with you here, to an extent. I'm not saying to completely scrap the F-35, but don't keep dumping money into an already over-budget aircraft at the expense of the A-10.


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.
It's not just that's it more expensive, it's that it's massively over-budget and behind the timeline.

 

[talonlm]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[mb]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Centermass]

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....