General’s A-10 treason comment

Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by bruno, Jan 25, 2015.

  1. bruno

    bruno Retired Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    3,001
    Likes Received:
    301
    http://www.stripes.com/news/general...parks-concerns-over-protected-speech-1.325471

    This seems like a remarkably stupid thing for a Major General to say to an audience whatever the circumstances. Not only is it inaccurate (it surely isn't in any definition of treason) but it sends the message that the Air Force wants the F35 at any cost and will squash anyone in its ranks who might disagree. But going to this extreme to muzzle their people also gives the appearance that there is information about abandoning the A10 in favor of the F35 that could undermine the message that it is worth $200 million/ copy. Calling Gen Post's comments hyperbole seems like an understatement- "really stupid" would be more accurate.

    "WASHINGTON — Maj. Gen. James Post raised eyebrows this month when he warned fellow airmen in Nevada that talking to Congress about the embattled A-10 Thunderbolt could qualify as treason.

    “If anyone accuses me of saying this, I will deny it … anyone who is passing information to Congress about A-10 capabilities is committing treason,” Post told an audience of officers at Nellis Air Force Base according to the military blog John Q. Public...."
     
    NorwichDad likes this.
  2. kinnem

    kinnem Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    7,547
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    Wow! Somebody went a little over the top.
     
  3. civic29

    civic29 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2014
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    111
    Treason to who exactly? The United States or the military? Congress needs to know the capabilities of the military, in all conventional aspects, as they will be the one'a to declare war if need be. If the major general is in fact right about the f-35 being better then he has nothing to worry about if congress sees it. If they f-35 is truly better than the a-10 then congress would decide as an outside source.


    Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
     
  4. AF6872

    AF6872 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,868
    Likes Received:
    237
    The A-10 will kill anything on the ground. Low and slow forward air support is great. Like the old A-1 E Skyraiders that did more damage per flight than any F-35 could possibly ( don't know the platform) and probably carry a better close air support payload. More orbit time and low and slow with close support capability. Sorry to see the Wart Hog go.
     
  5. -Bull-

    -Bull- Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,378
    Likes Received:
    338
    The primary issue with the story, in my opinion, isn't A-10 vs. The World (though that is a big issue right now), but the MG's comment on prohibiting service members from speaking directly to Congress, which is a right by law for service members. Prohibiting them from exercising that right would be against the law.
     
  6. raimius

    raimius USAFA Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,241
    Likes Received:
    274
    Yep. Prohibiting service members from talking to Congress or taking action against them for doing so is a violation of federal law.

    One would hope the general made an incredibly dumb comment rather than a serious threat, but it's sometimes hard to tell the difference.
     
  7. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,756
    Likes Received:
    1,005
    I can see the PAO and JAG in the corner hyperventilating in the corner. Apparently the 2-star never had the "assume ABC is in the back of the room, recording everything you say..." talk from his PAO.
     
  8. kinnem

    kinnem Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    7,547
    Likes Received:
    1,009
  9. bruno

    bruno Retired Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    3,001
    Likes Received:
    301
    That's exactly what you would have/ should have expected. This bonehead invited this response- and really should get this response because one of the reasons you would give this kind of idiotic guidance to your people is if you have something that you don't want to come out in front of Congress. It doesn't mean that there really is something to hide, but it certainly gives that impression and in politics- perception is reality. This was an arrogant and stupid comment and frankly- If I were the commander of ACC- I would be looking to put the knife in MG Post's career, because his foolish remarks gave some pretty potent ammunition to the people who are looking to kill/ curtail this program. In essence- with friends like him- who needs enemies?
     
    kinnem likes this.
  10. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,756
    Likes Received:
    1,005
    Yes, if I'm a Senator, and I hear a senior military leader tell his folks that telling me and my branch of the government is treason.... I'm going to want to know what's being hidden. I'm guessing Major General Ozymandius is coming back down to ground level.
     
  11. hawk

    hawk ButterBar Dad

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    65
    I have a hard time with this ongoing debate. The AF has apparently tried to kill the A-10 many times over the years. And continues to position that the mission can be done (better?) with current/future platforms. And I understand the issue with dealing with an aircraft that is out of production.

    At the same time, the F35 gun will not be functional for some time, and is much less capable. And the CAS capabilities of fast movers to me seems suspect, just based on loiter times, and pass times (time over target).

    Yes, the A-10 assumes US air superiority, but outside of a direct class with a major force like Russia or China, when would that be a major concern? Or put another way, if we are fighting with a force that can challenge US air superiority, then we have bigger problems than A-10 survivability. And may need it's tank killing expertise.

    No slight to rotary or jet drivers, just to me the A-10 is very well optimized for it's mission. Maybe the existing alternatives (F-16/18 strike/attack roles? Helo's?) can effectively replace it, I'll leave that to the experts.

    Not my field, no direct experience. Just very skeptical of the big push to kill a platform before it's replacement is deployed. And especially attempts to shut down input or debate.
     
  12. hawk

    hawk ButterBar Dad

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    65
    [​IMG]
    Don't know if it's the right decision for CAS, but feels right to me!
     
  13. civic29

    civic29 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2014
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    111
    Why don't they just improve the a-10s technology? Maybe even create an a-10 UAV? Not sure if that's possible


    Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
     
  14. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    I believe, AF never cared for CAS. Proponents of Air power think that we can bomb the enemy into submission and a token ground force can mop up. I believe there were discussions for the Army to have A-10. Like it or not Air Force got A-10s and CAS along with it. In time of limited resources while fielding F35s and a requirement to upgrade or replace its long range bombers, not enough $$$ to go around to divert resources for a dedicated CAS platform.
     
  15. civic29

    civic29 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2014
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    111
    I would like to see army fixed wing pilots for one.


    Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
     
  16. flieger83

    flieger83 Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    2,852
    Likes Received:
    343
    Jim isn't a bad guy folks...not sure what his point was, but I've known him for 36 years...

    Steve
    USAFA ALO
    USAFA '83
    Jim Post's classmate
     
    ChiTown likes this.
  17. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    There are army fixed wing pilots, although very few. Some of the Army Intelligence Platforms are fixed wings flown by pilots. I suspect their days are numbered. ARNG has a small fleet of small business jets flow by warrant officers.
     
  18. civic29

    civic29 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2014
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    111
    That's interesting, thought all the fixed wing were spread amongst the other branches.


    Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
     
  19. hawk

    hawk ButterBar Dad

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    65
    This is the core issue and has been for decades. Which makes me less inclined to trust USAF positioning on this.

    To me the F-35 has all the earmarks of Macnamara era "be all/do all" aircraft like the F-111. In trying to do all things it compromises core functionality, and ends up doing none or very few of them well.

    No slight to the F-111 or it's drivers, it was a groundbreaking aircraft for it's day in some aspects. But was highly oversold. And ended up being too heavy for naval usage, and although it was much improved over phantoms in Viet Nam, was quickly relegated to much narrower roles.

    Appears to me the USAF does not want an optimized CAS aircraft, much less divert funds to maintain a non-sexy, old platform. But does not want Army to fully take on the CAS role. Should not be able to have both. Fish or cut bait.

    Outside of tank busting roles, I do wonder how much of the classic CAS roles could be supplemented with properly equipped drones? Don't know if it would be workable, but it appears the main advantage of the A-10 (besides the big gun) is loiter time, time over target and survivability. The first two drones have, and without having to protect the driver could possibly be quite survivable. Would we ever trust "danger close" to drones?
     
  20. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    I think the question is exactly about the "tank busting" role. Drones, F-16, F-18, & F-35 could probly do all non "tank busting" CAS missions. However, I believe nothing will replicate A-10 "tank busting" capablilites other than AH-64.

    Assuming Wiki is reliable

    "The A-10 is exceptionally tough, being able to survive direct hits from armor-piercing and high-explosive projectiles up to 23 mm. It has double-redundant hydraulic flight systems, and a mechanical system as a back up if hydraulics are lost." Can any other air frame surive a hit from 23 mm?

    30 mm cannon - hold up to 1350 rounds
    11 hard points, capacity of 1600 to carry combination of rocket pods, Sidewinder, Marvick, conventional bombs, JDAM, and etc.
     

Share This Page