BattleRattle Posted February 1, 2015 Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) https://www.ayotte.senate.gov/?p=video&id=1740 ... because video above is no longer available. Edited February 1, 2015 by BattleRattle
Splash95 Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 That link doesn't work either. https://www.ayotte.senate.gov/?p=video&id=1740 ... because video above is no longer available.
rancormac Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 https://www.ayotte.senate.gov/?p=video&id=1745
Guest Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/defbudget/fy2016/fy2016_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf Overview – FY 2016 Defense Budget RequestThe current Air Force plans to recover full-spectrum readiness by 2023 will be severely hindered without congressional authority to divest the A-10 aircraft fleet. Without the divestment, many available readiness resources will be diverted towards retaining excessive force structure. [...] The PB 2016 program includes the planned divestiture of the A-10 aircraft, which will allow the Air Force to re-purpose A-10 maintenance personnel for use in F-35 aircraft maintenance units and in undermanned legacy fighter maintenance units. This will allow for an increase in sortie generation and aircraft availability, resulting in an improvement in absolute CAF full-spectrum readiness, which will, in turn, help enable the Air Force to remain on the glide path needed to attain its strategy-driven readiness goals by 2023. Should divestment of the A-10 fleet be further delayed, the Air Force has opted to preserve the readiness of existing legacy CAF units at the expense of F-35 aircraft beddown. Plans to cross-train legacy CAF maintenance personnel to support F-35 aircraft fielding are not currently being pursued as a viable course of action.
Bobby Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Can't the AF come up with a new BS argument for trying to park the Hog? The "we need the maintainers or the F-35 will fail" argument clearly didn't work last time.https://youtu.be/-Vw2CrY9Igs
busdriver Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I don't know why they don't just come out and say, we need that money to buy enough F-35s to keep the unit price down so the cost doesn't spiral out of control and get the program killed ala F-22. If I had whole hog bought into the F-35 being the only long term answer I'd be scared shit-less of run-away unit cost.
zrooster99 Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) To be fair he said passing info was akin to treason, he didn't say he was going to start prosecuting people for committing treason. I'm certainly not defending him but there is a difference. Disregard, someone beat me to it. Edited February 25, 2015 by zrooster99
McDonut Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 You forgot an arbitrary total on there, Huggy.
Clark Griswold Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 Dedicated 15/16 CAS units was interesting in the this article. Now the U.S. Air Force Wants to Replace A-10s With F-16s From JQP: A-10 Chronicles: McSally Urges Carter to Halt Air Force Shenanigans Just more smoke and mirrors from Big AF but maybe the ANG could take the idea and run with it.
HU&W Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 Dedicated 15/16 CAS units was interesting in the this article. Now the U.S. Air Force Wants to Replace A-10s With F-16s From JQP: A-10 Chronicles: McSally Urges Carter to Halt Air Force Shenanigans Just more smoke and mirrors from Big AF but maybe the ANG could take the idea and run with it. From the article... With a GPU-5 gun pod strapped on, Air Force officials believed the fast-moving F-16s could attack enemy troops just as well as A-10s — while avoiding enemy missiles. The GPU-5 contained a 30-millimeter Gatling gun derived from the Warthog’s monstrous main cannon. Both guns fired the same massive shells. I'm not sure the strap on gun will be enough. Will they also consider strap on wings to improve loiter times and maybe decrease turn radius?
Clark Griswold Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 From the article... I'm not sure the strap on gun will be enough. Will they also consider strap on wings to improve loiter times and maybe decrease turn radius? I don't think the pod 30 mm on a designated A-16 is coming back but focusing some 15 & 16 units on CAS maybe Without breaking the bank or putting too much money into older airframes, what could you do to to improve CAS on a 15/16? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
GrndPndr Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 The truth. Sure seems like many of those A-10 capes are something to be proud of!
DirkDiggler Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 I don't think the pod 30 mm on a designated A-16 is coming back but focusing some 15 & 16 units on CAS maybe Without breaking the bank or putting too much money into older airframes, what could you do to to improve CAS on a 15/16? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk When Hostage spoke to us he stated that ACC would like to have some -15E and Viper units focused on CAS as their primary mission as the A-10 retires. He did acknowledge that with the limited amount of Sqs in the AF they would probably only be able to focus 2 or 3 and maybe some Guard formations on the CAS mission.
Clark Griswold Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 When Hostage spoke to us he stated that ACC would like to have some -15E and Viper units focused on CAS as their primary mission as the A-10 retires. He did acknowledge that with the limited amount of Sqs in the AF they would probably only be able to focus 2 or 3 and maybe some Guard formations on the CAS mission. Copy that Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
TreeA10 Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 More from JQP. https://www.jqpublicblog.com/throwing-off-the-cas-yoke-part-i-shifting-the-rhetoric/
deaddebate Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/LaPlante_Holmes_Wolters_03-19-15.pdf March 19th, 2015 / SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2016 Air Force, Force Structure and Modernization Programs / STATEMENT OF: Dr. William LaPlante / Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition) Lt. Gen. James M. “Mike” Holmes, USAF / Deputy Chief of Staff (Strategic Plans and Requirements) Lt. Gen. Tod D. Wolters, USAF / Deputy Chief of Staff (Operations)[...] the A-10 is simply unaffordable in today’s fiscal environment. [...] Divesting the entire A-10 fleet frees up $4.7 billion across the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) [...] the A-10 cannot survive or operate effectively in a highly contested environment where there are more advanced aircraft or air defenses. Other weapon systems, from multi-role fighters to B-1 bombers to remotely piloted aircraft, demonstrated in Iraq and Afghanistan that they can provide effective Close Air Support (CAS). [...] we will continue to sustain the aircraft and keep it operationally viable until 2019.More of the same, just different people saying it.
SurelySerious Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/LaPlante_Holmes_Wolters_03-19-15.pdf March 19th, 2015 / SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2016 Air Force, Force Structure and Modernization Programs / STATEMENT OF: Dr. William LaPlante / Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition) Lt. Gen. James M. “Mike” Holmes, USAF / Deputy Chief of Staff (Strategic Plans and Requirements) Lt. Gen. Tod D. Wolters, USAF / Deputy Chief of Staff (Operations)More of the same, just different people saying it. Their logic about the A-10 not being survivable in contested CAS environments is pretty flawed if they're proposing that UAVs are (which is what I'm reading out of the fact that we should keep them instead).
di1630 Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 This whole argument in divesting the A-10 is beyond ridiculous. Either our top leaders are actually dumb and do not understand CAS, threats and the aircraft capabilities or they are compulsive liars. I'm really not sure but it's baffling. It's absolutely destroyed my faith in top leadership.
frog Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 This whole argument in divesting the A-10 is beyond ridiculous. Either our top leaders are actually dumb and do not understand CAS, threats and the aircraft capabilities or they are compulsive liars. I'm really not sure but it's baffling. It's absolutely destroyed my faith in top leadership. So what do you propose we cut? Something has to go. I am not against the A-10, but if you want to keep it you have to get rid of $4B somewhere else.
Napoleon_Tanerite Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 So what do you propose we cut? Something has to go. I am not against the A-10, but if you want to keep it you have to get rid of $4B somewhere else. F-15C, Tops in Blue, all bands but the HAF Band, and 96.9% of anciliary "training". I'll be expecting change with that by the way. The A-10 is dirt cheap compared to other areas where the AF hemorrhages cash. 2
Clark Griswold Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 Either our top leaders are actually dumb and do not understand CAS, threats and the aircraft capabilities or they are compulsive liars. All of the above. F-15C, Tops in Blue, all bands but the HAF Band, and 96.9% of anciliary "training". I'll be expecting change with that by the way. The A-10 is dirt cheap compared to other areas where the AF hemorrhages cash. How dare you insult these aerospace ninjas. They could jazz hands an ISIS position while high kicking a jihadi all in heels. Below you can see them in combat: You think a two ship of A-10's with 30mm and JDAMs brings aerospace power like the above mission critical war fighting system? Choke yourself.
di1630 Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 So what do you propose we cut? Something has to go. I am not against the A-10, but if you want to keep it you have to get rid of $4B somewhere else. Holy Fvck ygbsm....the F-35 was over budget by $4B last year alone. The USAF is like an obese person who takes the pickles off a Big Mac because they are watching calories. 5
deaddebate Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 So what do you propose we cut? Something has to go. I am not against the A-10, but if you want to keep it you have to get rid of $4B somewhere else. There is an unlimited supply of money for the F-35 due to political and industrial interests. There is very little money for existing weapons platforms only valuable to servicemembers because it doesn't significantly grow stock values. Cutting money from the boring A-10 does create money for some other boring stuff politicians and leaders do think we need, but can't leverage billions of dollars to support. We need that money for SARC briefings, suicide prevention, or cyber security CBT's. 5
Karl Hungus Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 Ultimately, it's one big jobs program. That's it and that's all. 3
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now