Saving the A-10

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Warthog is a workhorse.
Just curious what you would like to happen.

Save the A 10?
~ Okay, but if that is your position, than ask at what cost?

The 35 is here to stay. There are too many countries involved...11 I believe.... UK, Australia, Skorea, Japan, Israel, Turkey, Netherlands, etc.

OBTW that is on top the fact the AF, Navy and Marines are all in.

As a voter, all I want from my elected officials to do is to stop wasting my tax dollars! Oh, and leave your personal issues at the door.
~ Everytime they fight this, means more manpower hours, more tax dollars spent on reports for them to argue and table the discussion until the next report, while we as taxpayers continue to pay for the 35 with more and more coming on line
~~ Hill will go Operational in the next few months.
~~~ The horse is not only out of the gate, but coming down the home stretch.
~ I don't get the argument. I get the principal, but from a business perspective, and contracts that the DoD has signed with Lockheed, I don't get the fight.

Step back and look at this from a Fortune 500 company expense.

The 35 might not be the best option for CAS, but if you keep the 10, than from a bottom line dollar, what do you keep?
~ They are on the hook and backing out is not only about us, but because we sold it to 11 countries. it is about air superiority/image too.
~~ If our NATO friends buy this airframe, anytime they want to upgrade it, we control it. It is a much bigger picture for air superiority than the average person understands.
~~~ Don't behave Japan, your 35s will not get replacement parts. Can you say Iran and Pakistan for the F16?

Do we save the A 10, and is it worth defaulting on our contract?

How many jobs are tied directly or indirectly to the 35?
~ Do you know what companies make the engines, the computer chips, heck the cockpit seats?
~~ Have you thought about the subcontractors that produce the paint for the 3K+ 35s. US contract only? How about the companies that make the tires? the A10 is not in production like the 35. It trickles down.

There is a need for the A10.
~ The 10 proves they are worthy, but to what extent when we are still talking sequestration, and a 2-3% raise with a commitment for the 35?

I just wonder why our elected officials that want to keep them, can't agree to transition them into Guard units. The F4 was transitioned when the 15E came on board.

Naive, I know!

Flame on me. Yes, Bullet works on the 35, but this is not a job security issue. This is A Scream all you want, but politically we are down in the rabbit hole because 11 other countries bought the 35.
~ Bullet will be fine job security wise.

OBTW, I am a cynic. I wonder if Martha McSally from AZ, did this because John McCain is against the 35.
~ Just wondering since they are from the same state, and the cynic in me believes politics were also a factor.
~~ I voted for McCain in 08.

The 10 is great, but the 35 will be here to stay until 2050 even if you kill it now.
 
Last edited:
Pima,

It would have been a reasonabl post if stopped after "Save the A 10? ~ Okay, but if that is your position, than ask at what cost?"

Based on the posting, Wishful's intention appears to be just sharing information, nothing more. Several other posters, including myself, have posted our displeasure with the F35 program, but I don't recall Wishful ever posting anything about F35.

You spent 90% of your posting defending F35 and mostly based on the political reasons not becuase it will be the best aircraft or will save lives of soldiers.

If you also read the article, Representative McSally doesn't mention F35 by name at all, it is mentioned as "newer planes." She was calling out AF leadership - "they claim that other, newer planes can do the same job, that it’s too slow and vulnerable and that it’s too expensive." She than lays out argument why AF rational to cancel A10 are faulty.

As a taxpayer, all I want is "my elected officials [and government contractors] to stop wasting my dollars."
 
MedB said:
Mods may want to move this thread to the other forum.

That being said, any article that not only quotes, but pictures Dr Evil just has to be good...

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-usafs-rationale-for-retiring-the-a-10-warthog-is-bu-1562789528
Click to expand...

from the article "I don't want this piece to be hijacked by the F-35, but the F-35 program effects almost every other weapon system in the USAF at this point, and the A-10 is not immune in any way to its budget crushing weight. The realities surrounding the Pentagon's obsession with this controversial aircraft are alarming. Think about it in perspective, we are talking about cutting the A-10 entirely here, another three hundred combat aircraft gone from the USAF's dwindling inventory, and these are the most cost effetive out of the entire lot. All for the equivalent of buying just 30 F-35s."
 
Pima said:
OBTW, I am a cynic. I wonder if Martha McSally from AZ, did this because John McCain is against the 35.
~ Just wondering since they are from the same state, and the cynic in me believes politics were also a factor.
~~ I voted for McCain in 08.
Click to expand...

Not sure why the slam on McSally?
'88 USAFA Grad
retired AF Colonel
flew the A-10

She has her biases just like McCain. She also knows the A-10 better than most. I'm interested in her opinions.

Believe me, living in AZ, I get to hear a lot of McCain's opinions. I would like to hear the counter-arguments. As a tax-payer, I'm entitled to that, too.
 
I am a cynic.

I know she flew the 10. She knows the ins and outs of that airframe. Every 16 pilot will say it is better than the 15E and should be saved. Every F15E will say they should be saved. Heck every F4/111 believed they should not have been boneyarded
~ Somebody has to be boneyarded. The 16 will go buh bye too.

I respect that fact, BUT...I believe this is more about politics.

Just me, but kill the 35 already if you believe that the 10 needs to be saved. Otherwise, let us move on and accept that the AF budget needs to be addressed and the DoD is putting the 10 on the firing line.
~ MOCs distictd hat build the engines will fight for the 35. AF Guard units that will get the 35 will have MOCs fight for it.

This is bigger than any of us, because this is not just AF. This is Navy, Marines and 11 countries.

I am naive and not well versed. Just my opinion that all I hear is save the 10, yet nothing regarding how to pay for the commitment for the 35 and keep the 10.

How do you in the political arena tell those 11 countries that are committed to buying the 35, that the A10 (a 40 yr old airframe) is better and save face?

Just asking for an explanation. Want to save it, than expect the flip side if they cut numbers for the 35. An airframe that will be in the inventory for 40 more years. The A10 will be how old come 2020 when the 35 is truly operational, How old in 2030? 60 years old?
~ Can we build new A 10s now? If not, than what is this argument about?
~ I know CAS.

If we walk away do we lose air superiority? Part of air superiority is having control of the next gen airframes. Again, Japan, Skorea, Israel, etc, Lockheed can't sell ONE part for the 35 to your country if our government says NO. AIR SUPERIORITY because of politics
~ You can't say that about the 10, and China/Russia are moving forward for 6th gen.
 
Last edited:
Oh, good, we're back to the shrieking matches over the A-10 and the F-35. Good lord.

I'ma grab some popcorn while y'all spin up the same tired arguments. Nobody take my seat.
 
Haha! Of course the A-10 pilot will think its the best aircraft! I'll never forget the F-22 pilot who called the F-35 "the ugly little sister."

I don't want to kill the F-35. Frankly, I like the F-22 ... in my driveway, but I don't think I'll get that wish. :(

However, I personally believe that the F-35 can't do what the A-10 can do best. Just a silly civilian with an opinion. And yes, I think we can cut in other areas (non-military) to pay for this. I won't get into this because that can open another can of wasteful worms.

I read an article a month or so ago that stated the Army would like the AF to retain the A-10 because it saves lives. Again, we'll let the military/Congress figure it out, but I'd hope that money isn't going to get in the way (again) of saving lives. I'm an Army brat who married an AF guy, but I have a special place in my heart for those soldiers on the ground.

I think asking questions & challenging opinions, whether here or in Congress, needs to happen. It's our right as citizens of this country and what are kids are fighting for.
 
scoutpilot said:
Oh, good, we're back to the shrieking matches over the A-10 and the F-35. Good lord.

I'ma grab some popcorn while y'all spin up the same tired arguments. Nobody take my seat.
Click to expand...

Nope. No shrieking here. Just saying that we shouldn't shut down the discourse until all is said and done.
 
Pima,

It is not F35 or nothing. Have to ask you if you read the article. The article mentions how AF is not concerned about the age of B52s we have.

It seems like you have the same obession as "the Pentagon's obsession with this controversial aircraft . . . ." I guess I have obession on pointing out that you have an obession about F35:rolleyes:

Are you saying keeping the A10s will kill the F35 program? Did we promise other countries that they will have F35s at certain price or do they have to eat the cost overrun just like US AF has to eat the cost overrun by the contractors? As the article suggests, how much damage will done to the F35 program if we buy 20, 30, or 40 less F35s?
 
Sorry for my rant, but I just do not get what we accomplish or our MoCs accomplish arguing over this.

The 35 is over budget and behind schedule. However, it is here.

Accept it.

Instead of defending why we should keep the 10, why don't we argue about how the DoD should pay our military members more?
 
Member,

My obsession is that 11 other countries also purchased this airframe.
They will be getting them too.

How do we back out?

When you get back to me on how we believe that the 35 is not the be all, and sell that to the other countries, I will get on board.

It has never been an A10 or 35 fact for me. It has been more about how do you do both with sequestration?

SHOW me the money! Or SHOW me you can have both.
 
Pima said:
Instead of defending why we should keep the 10, why don't we argue about how the DoD should pay our military members more?
Click to expand...

False choice fallacy aside, we shouldn't argue over that because it's a dumb idea. Our compensation is already probably too cushy when all benefits and advantages are considered.
 
(Officer pay is comfortable, but it's equivalent value depends very much on what industry you want to compare to...contracting officers have different comparisons from helicopter pilots.)

I say keep the A-10 until you have replacement capability. I think it is dumb to boneyard a fleet before its replacement shows up. Sure, that can save money, but it comes at a huge capability cost.
 
Pima said:
Member,

My obsession is that 11 other countries also purchased this airframe.
They will be getting them too.

How do we back out?

When you get back to me on how we believe that the 35 is not the be all, and sell that to the other countries, I will get on board.

It has never been an A10 or 35 fact for me. It has been more about how do you do both with sequestration?

SHOW me the money! Or SHOW me you can have both.
Click to expand...

Back out from what? I have not crunched the numbers, but a suggestion from the article was buy less F35s. Didn't the original plan talked about fielding over two thousand F35 and now it's less than 2000. So my simple mind tells me the number of F35s we need changes based on the politics and per unit cost increasing to Allies is a cost of doing business.
 
One more thing, I doing think I argued for keeping A10s . . .

My beef with the F35 is that it's more about politics than giving the best fighters for US.
 
As you can tell from my avatar, I am a big fan of the A-10, and would like to see it saved for all the reasons previously stated. Having watched Gen. Welsh's argument for the 35 on YouTube, I know that the 35 is here to stay. I see the economic side, but when you try to get 1 thing to do 3 jobs, none of those jobs will be able to be performed well. Raimius' post makes sense. I did not intend to pick a fight with anyone on this forum.
 
raimius said:
(Officer pay is comfortable, but it's equivalent value depends very much on what industry you want to compare to...contracting officers have different comparisons from helicopter pilots.)

I say keep the A-10 until you have replacement capability. I think it is dumb to boneyard a fleet before its replacement shows up. Sure, that can save money, but it comes at a huge capability cost.
Click to expand...

Contracting officers also aren't nearly as competitive for those jobs outside the military as they are inside. That's always one of the great comparison fallacies that officers use on their favor. "I could do so much better on the outside." You could, if you could be hired at the top tier of pay for your field.

Nobody who wants to make real money tries to get hired on the outside doing what they did in the service.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top