Air Force to Delay A-10 Retirement, Thanks to ISIS

[Sedalia Dave]

Air Force to Delay A-10 Retirement, Thanks to ISIS

 

 

Air Force officials say they still need to retire the A-10 to make room for newer warplanes, but that the calculus for its sunsetting has been thrown off by commanders’ demands for the Warthog now.

........................

The venerable attack plane, often championed by Army and Marine Corps ground forces, was built to fly low and slow, close to the battlefield to work in tandem with ground troops.

Top Air Force officials acknowledged that the A-10 flies these so-called close air support missions better than any other plane in the arsenal. But officials said other aircraft could fly these missions, albeit not as well as the Warthog. Retirement, they said, would free up money to pay for newer planes, like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a more expensive warplane intended to replace the A-10 and F-16 fighter.

.....................................

Wonder if those top Air Force officials would settle for a distant second best if their derriere was the one that needed to be saved by CAS.

I would bet not.

 

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

When the bullets are directed at someone else,

it is much easier to make such decisions.

[Trailrider #896]

I doubt the A-10 pilots would like it, but I would turn the A-10's over to the Army. That thing ain't an airplane...it's a flying tank! With a few exceptions (one retired AF Chief of Staff being one...he regarded himself as a "snake eater" and most of his time was in C-130's with various sorts of ordnance on board), most of the high-ranking AF brass spent most of their cockpit time "in the wild blue", and didn't have to "get down in the weeds". Of course, their main argument against the A-10 is the cost of keeping them in the inventory, and the (mistaken?) idea that the F-35 can fill the same role. With the announcement they are extending the A-10's service life, the "explanation", aside from the Congressional mandate, is that the F-35 is "taking longer to become operational" than originally expected.

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

One can only hope that it lives up to the expectations. (F-35)

[Doc Flimshaw Sass# 73310]

One can only hope that it lives up to the expectations. (F-35)

F-35 will turn out to be another example of what you get when you try to get one tool to do too many jobs. Germans tried it in WW2 and it didn't work then either.

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

My belief is that anything manufactured to serve two or more purposes,

is a compromise to all of them.

 

I also find it disconcerting to compromise the defense of our country.

[Phantom Falcon, SASS # 46139]

It's been my experience that most of the "top officials" in the US Air Farce don't much care for close air support nor the birds that do it. They mostly are fighter jocks (which I are also) and they prefer the high end state of the art next generation fighter. Makes little difference if it works so long as they keep getting the new "toys".

 

The F4 was the exception to the general rule in that it could do close air support real well and although it wasn't built as a fighter, we improvised, adapted and overcame and made it into a half-ass decent fighter. Generally multi-purpose aircraft don't do either purpose real well. The Fort Worth Edsel (F-111), championed by mcnamara and his whiz kids is a perfect example.

 

From what I've seen and heard by some folks who should know these things, I wouldn't stake my reputation NOR my life on the F-35.

 

PF

[Big Sage, SASS #49891 Life]

Worked on the A-10 back in the 70's and it is a tank for sure. Designed & built to do a specific job, ground support, and does it like no other. I also did some work on the F-35 in the early 2000's and there is no way the AF is going to risk that expensive airplane on ground support!

[DocWard]

Hmmm... Seems like Air Force brass trying to figure out a way to save a little face. Was there ever a question outside of the brass that the A-10 is the superior platform?

[Chili Ron]

Howdy,

If they retire it, can I have one?

I even have a friend who has a stepson who flies em.

So I would just need a mechanic.

Should be legal , second amendment you know?

HNY

CR

[DocWard]

Another where I doubt an F-35 would fare as well:

 

[FriscoCounty]

I doubt the A-10 pilots would like it, but I would turn the A-10's over to the Army. That thing ain't an airplane...it's a flying tank! With a few exceptions (one retired AF Chief of Staff being one...he regarded himself as a "snake eater" and most of his time was in C-130's with various sorts of ordnance on board), most of the high-ranking AF brass spent most of their cockpit time "in the wild blue", and didn't have to "get down in the weeds". Of course, their main argument against the A-10 is the cost of keeping them in the inventory, and the (mistaken?) idea that the F-35 can fill the same role. With the announcement they are extending the A-10's service life, the "explanation", aside from the Congressional mandate, is that the F-35 is "taking longer to become operational" than originally expected.

 

The cost of keeping them in inventory is only a problem because it prevents the AF brass from buying more F-35s - no more unlimited budget. Whether the F-35 can really replace the A-10 (it can't) is irrelevant. They have a bright, shiny, over-the-horizon, toy that they really, really, really want. Unfortunately, the F-35 is just another SNAFU in a long line of poor judgement calls by AF brass going back to the 60s. The missile only F4 and the multi-service F111, being early examples.

 

It is sort of like wanting to sell the family van so you can buy a Ferrari when the wife is about to have your third child.

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

Smells of politics, doesn't it.

[Colt B.A. Blastn Johnson]

Cant wait to buy one at one of those military surplus stores when it gets retired!.......I would take the gun off the dang thing and put it on my car (make a nice hood ornament) Now I can get around town alot quicker, no more traffic blocking me!! BOOM!

[DocWard]

Cant wait to buy one at one of those military surplus stores when it gets retired!.......I would take the gun off the dang thing and put it on my car (make a nice hood ornament) Now I can get around town alot quicker, no more traffic blocking me!! BOOM!

 

 

You must have a hood the size of a house!

[Cyrus Cassidy #45437]

Set-up: I'm an Army Lieutenant Colonel with a diverse background. I was enlisted infantry, commissioned in the ordnance branch, branch transferred to military police (a combat MOS), and 3 years ago was assessed into space operations. I've commanded at the tactical level (platoon and company), and have been a staff officer at the operational and strategic levels, including the pentagon, Space and Missile Defense Command, EUCOM (TDY only), and CENTCOM headquarters. I'm a graduate of the Command and General Staff College, as well as the US Army War College's Defense Strategy Course. I currently work in a "joint" environment, meaning all service branches together. Multi-star headquarters tend to be joint.

 

In other words, I'm pretty confident I know what I'm talking about.

 

Since coming to space, I've been working side-by-side with the Air Force everyday. I have to say I'm grossly underwhelmed. Putting service pride aside and looking at the force objectively, I can say the entire Air Force is in desperate need of a massive culture shift. Here are my examples:

 

- The Air Force has very little professional education for their officers. What little they have is grotesquely short and treated as a joke. They are the only service to do it this way, whereas all the other services have robust education AT EVERY RANK through Colonel.

 

- Air Force officers are not put into significant leadership roles until they reach Lieutenant Colonel. Army and Marine Corps officers step in as 2LTs (I have very little contact with the Navy proper, so I cannot speak to them). Yes, 2LTs fall on their faces, but by they time they are company commanders at Captain, they generally know what they are doing. As a 2LT, I had 47 personnel. As a Captain in command, I had 136 and UCMJ authority. Air Force officers tend to command only 30-40 people as Lieutenant Colonels! Air Force officers at the rank of Major and below are not considered experienced enough to take charge of anything.

 

- Air Force discipline stinks. It's so bad it barely qualifies as a military service. I have to say it like it is: I'm ASHAMED of many of the people around me right now. Why? They have no concept of "military bearing." They wear their uniforms all wonky, never adhering to standards, putting their velcro patches anywhere they darn well please (I even saw our "backwards" US flag on the LEFT shoulder once and almost pooped my pants. It's "backwards" for a reason, and it *ONLY* goes on the right!). They address higher ranks by last name without preceding it by rank (e.g. "Hey, Cassidy" --- ummm....NO. It's LTC Cassidy, thank you very much). I had an E7 address me as, "Dude." We had a professional discussion. Their officers are so undertrained and never given any authority that enlisted personnel treat them like they deserve -- they disrespect them overtly, to their faces, and behind their backs.

 

- When an Air Force unit is unable to perform its mission or cannot deploy, no one cares. They literally cannot deploy to combat -- the purpose for their existence -- but address the situation by making excuses and doing NOTHING to rectify the shortfall. That would get any officer in the Army, Marine Corps, or Navy fired on the spot. Having shortfalls is a fact of life. Being a leader means anticipating them, planning for them, preventing them, and fixing them. As of yet, I've never seen the Air Force fix its own problems; they just make excuses and shift the mission to a similar unit in another service (the Marines and Navy have fighter aircraft, etc.), while continuing to work Monday through Friday, 9-5 and surfing the internet instead of fixing the problem.

 

- Air Force structure is ridiculous. In space operations, it's common for a Captain to be seated at a computer terminal next to an E4. Both of them are doing the exact same job, and the Captain is not in charge of anything besides his computer. He's just an overpaid Private. There are entire rooms FULL of Captains and Airmen doing the same job, with one Captain in charge. So if an Airman can do the job, why are we paying Captains to do it??? Every other service would fill the room with Airmen and have ONE Captain in charge of the room.

 

- Their senior leaders, as someone mentioned, tend to be fighter jocks. Since the Air Force's mission is inherently at the strategic level, the fighter-jocks-in-charge have completely lost sight of the importance of the tactical and operational levels of warfare. In their view, anything lower than strategic is beneath them, and therefore unimportant. It's seen as a problem for the Army and the Marine Corps to solve (as the ground fighting forces of the DoD, these two tend to be the most similar). They simply don't CARE about the guys on the ground eating sand and taking bullets. We are not their problem. They've lost sight of the fact that success at the tactical level is what makes operational and strategic success possible, and the tactical level success is predicated upon close air support. Hence, their seemingly never ending effort to remove the A-10, which is inherently a tactical level aircraft.

 

Someone above mentioned giving the A-10 to the Army. During one of the recent political fights over this aircraft, the Army's leadership told Congress to give the Air Force what they want: Take away the A-10 and give it to the Army. Of course, our leadership reminded them, doing so would necessitate shifting the personnel, training facilities, and budgeting necessary to support it. The bottom line, that platform is NEEDED in today's fight, and any asymmetric fights we may face in the future, regardless of the color of the uniform in the driver's seat. After hearing that, the Air Force balked at losing personnel and budget, because that means they would lose political clout. So they pulled back their request to retire the platform.

 

RANT OVER

Edited January 16, 2016 by Cyrus Cassidy #45437

[Smoken D]

Thanks CC for the info. This past fall I had to opportunity to visit Ft. Leonard Wood and a bit of inspection on modern troops. (I'm from the 60's-70's Army so's the wife) All I could say, what a disgrace! With a lower than equal force I believe our military could be run over in days. Then the ole farts could put up a fight for 6 months, after that a resistance. America wil probably be over. Just thank goodness we owe the Chinese so much this may not happen.

 

RANT OVER

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

I think I best not post anything of my personal opinions here. It would burn the firewall.

Thanks for posting LTC Cassidy, sir.

[Cyrus Cassidy #45437]

Thanks CC for the info. This past fall I had to opportunity to visit Ft. Leonard Wood and a bit of inspection on modern troops. (I'm from the 60's-70's Army so's the wife) All I could say, what a disgrace! With a lower than equal force I believe our military could be run over in days. Then the ole farts could put up a fight for 6 months, after that a resistance. America wil probably be over. Just thank goodness we owe the Chinese so much this may not happen.

 

RANT OVER

 

SD, if the Army sees fit, I'm hoping to be blessed with the opportunity to command a battalion beginning sometime between 2017-2019. If I am so blessed, I guarantee my unit will not meet your description.

[DocWard]

- Air Force officers are not put into significant leadership roles until they reach Lieutenant Colonel. Army and Marine Corps officers step in as 2LTs (I have very little contact with the Navy proper, so I cannot speak to them). Yes, 2LTs fall on their faces, but by they time they are company commanders at Captain, they generally know what they are doing. As a 2LT, I had 47 personnel. As a Captain in command, I had 136 and UCMJ authority. Air Force officers tend to command only 30-40 people as Lieutenant Colonels! Air Force officers at the rank of Major and below are not considered experienced enough to take charge of anything.

 

- Their senior leaders, as someone mentioned, tend to be fighter jocks. Since the Air Force's mission is inherently at the strategic level, the fighter-jocks-in-charge have completely lost sight of the importance of the tactical and operational levels of warfare. In their view, anything lower than strategic is beneath them, and therefore unimportant. It's seen as a problem for the Army and the Marine Corps to solve (as the ground fighting forces of the DoD, these two tend to be the most similar). They simply don't CARE about the guys on the ground eating sand and taking bullets. We are not their problem. They've lost sight of the fact that success at the tactical level is what makes operational and strategic success possible, and the tactical level success is predicated upon close air support. Hence, their seemingly never ending effort to remove the A-10, which is inherently a tactical level aircraft.

 

Someone above mentioned giving the A-10 to the Army. During one of the recent political fights over this aircraft, the Army's leadership told Congress to give the Air Force what they want: Take away the A-10 and give it to the Army. Of course, our leadership reminded them, doing so would necessitate shifting the personnel, training facilities, and budgeting necessary to support it. The bottom line, that platform is NEEDED in today's fight, and any asymmetric fights we may face in the future, regardless of the color of the uniform in the driver's seat. After hearing that, the Air Force balked at losing personnel and budget, because that means they would lose political clout. So they pulled back their request to retire the platform.

 

RANT OVER

 

We always joke about 2LTs, and often rightfully so, but it has always been my understanding that the expectation has been they will fall on their faces as 2LTs, where they can be picked up, dusted off and given insight by senior NCOs in place to guide them. This was also my experience as well, even in the National Guard. Being in the Headquarters Battery of a Field Artillery Bn for most of my career, I saw many officers move through in just that way.

 

Even though it has been 25 years (!) since Desert Storm, I recall the Air Force not wanting to take A-10s to theatre way back then, and the Army essentially saying "give them to us, and we'll take 'em!" Seems nothing has changed.

 

Thanks for the insight.

 

Thanks CC for the info. This past fall I had to opportunity to visit Ft. Leonard Wood and a bit of inspection on modern troops. (I'm from the 60's-70's Army so's the wife) All I could say, what a disgrace! With a lower than equal force I believe our military could be run over in days. Then the ole farts could put up a fight for 6 months, after that a resistance. America wil probably be over. Just thank goodness we owe the Chinese so much this may not happen.

 

RANT OVER

 

While you don't indicate why you thought things were a "disgrace," I'm just going to beg to differ a little. This doesn't sound like the military I left nearly four years ago now. Nothing against Ft. Leonard Wood, but perhaps a visit to Ft. Benning, Bragg, Stewart, or one of many others might give you a different notion.

[Cyrus Cassidy #45437]

 

We always joke about 2LTs, and often rightfully so, but it has always been my understanding that the expectation has been they will fall on their faces as 2LTs, where they can be picked up, dusted off and given insight by senior NCOs in place to guide them. This was also my experience as well, even in the National Guard. Being in the Headquarters Battery of a Field Artillery Bn for most of my career, I saw many officers move through in just that way.

 

Yes, in fact, this is the whole point of thrusting 2LTs into a leadership role as soon as they are minted. I, for one, am mightily thankful for my experiences as a 2LT, and for some of the NCOs I had along the way (although my first platoon sergeant was a DUD!).

[Guest Hoss Carpenter, SASS Life 7843]

Cyrus,

 

I retired from the USAF in 88, and I know a lot has changed and much of it for the worst, as you point out, When I was a Captain, I had a 300 man Bomber Branch (B-52s at Castle AFB) with a great E9 and wonderful other Non Coms to work with. I can tell you I had a ton of responsibility. As a Major at Zweibrucken AB, Germany during the Cold War, I was Maintenance Control Officer for two Recce Sqds of RF-4s --more responsibility, as a Senior Major, I was Sqd CC of a 320 man AGS supporting the same RFs.

 

As the Air Force has been at War for 25 straight years, and has flown thousands of combat sorties, I can guarantee you there are some young Captains and Majors that supervise the well being (maintenance) of their Aircraft. The important jobs on the flight line do not start with Lt Cols. This is not to mention all the young officers and NCOs flying the aircraft.

 

I cannot speak for Space Command and think you are right on about your observations there.

 

Hoss Carpenter

[Sedalia Dave]

From my Navy days I can state with certainty that different commands can seem like a whole different service. Naval Avaition is as different from the Surface Navy as the Air Force is from the Marines. The Submariners are a class all to themselves. Other smaller groups that supported across the Surface, Sub-surface and Avaition branches were also pretty unique.

 

Within Naval Avaition there were sometimes huge differences between the East and West coast squadrons even within the same community.

 

I always thought that when the Airforce wanted to give up A-10 they should have went to the Marine Corps. From the cheap seats it always seemed that the Avaition and Ground communities of the Marine Corps were the most in touch with each other.

 

I also know that the reason they didn't was because the AF wanted the money to use for more lawn darts. If they could keep even 1/2 the A10 budget and people while giving up the A-10 they would do so in a minute.

 

On an unrelated note when a squadron in the Navy had to give an enlisted person to another command for tempoary duty they tended to send less than stellar performers. However when USMC squadrons set people to asssist the us (the Navy) repairing their gear at I-Level we ALWAYS got top notch people. While I was was at AIMD in Fallon. We always were glad when the Marines deployed for workups because it ment my shop would get 1 or 2 extra techs that we could count on. From the Navy squadrons it was a crap shoot as to the quality of the technician and most of the times the dice came up snake eyes.

[Sedalia Dave]

- Air Force officers are not put into significant leadership roles until they reach Lieutenant Colonel. Army and Marine Corps officers step in as 2LTs (I have very little contact with the Navy proper, so I cannot speak to them).

Navy expects their officers to hit the ground running in leadership roles. By the time you are a Lt. Commander you are expected to be the XO of a Ship, Squadron, or Sub perparing to become the CO in a couple of years when you advance to Commander.

 

About the only exception are Aircraft Carriers where the CO is a Captain. But then again he is responsible for 5000 or so sailors, 75 aircraft, and 100 thousand tons of warfighting machine capable of speeds in excess of 30 knots that is equally capable of unleashing death and destruction on our enemies or providing humanitarian aid to those in need.

[Smoken D]

 

While you don't indicate why you thought things were a "disgrace," I'm just going to beg to differ a little. This doesn't sound like the military I left nearly four years ago now. Nothing against Ft. Leonard Wood, but perhaps a visit to Ft. Benning, Bragg, Stewart, or one of many others might give you a different notion.

 

Was with a D.I. and was rainning that day. Turns out recruits don't have to do obstacle course because of rain. Any type of ouch and off to the hospital and excused from physical trainning. They only clean the floors once a week if someone will do it. Most of the bunks were not made and the ones that were my D.I. would have torn it appart. Trash all over the floor. The D.I. was scared of having any complaint against him. If a recruit don't like the way things are going, quit and leave, so pamper them. No more K.P. or any kind of work like that. Once they complete basic they then live in a VERY MODERN housing where 2 persons to a home. The place was far more luxurious than what I lived in for many a years after military. A lot of outside activities were not being done because of the rain. They were being treated like Lindsay Lohan and all them other spoiled brats. Lockers, oh brother, clothing, good grief. All the modern toys to play with in the lounge room. Enough, get my blood pressure up.

[Trailrider #896]

Col. Cassidy, sir! I've been trying to form a reply to your statements about the Air Force in general. Obviously, your personal experiences and observations are valid. But I must take strong exception to your statement that the Air Force "doesn't care about the guys on the ground, eating sand and taking bullets!" For the last 25 years Air Force aircrews have been deploying as needed and risking, and in many cases losing their lives to support the grunts on the ground in the Middle East and Southwest Asia! Forward Air Controllers are on the ground right next to their Army, Navy and Marine comrades-in-arms, eating the same dirt and getting shot at and shot! Without them, and the aircrews you wouldn't have any close air support, whether from a C-130 Spooky, a B-1B "Bone", or a B-2 "Spirit" (flown on LONNG duration missions directly from Whiteman AFB). Without the two legs of the nuclear Triad, strategic bombers and ICBM's who knows what potential adversary might be tempted to dominate the world in a nuclear strike?

 

One reason that the "fighter jocks" or "bomber jocks" are in the command positions is because regs require "rated" officers to command flying units! You need to understand the things unique to flying in order to command those who fly!

 

If there is a laxity in discipline, it is, most certainly due to failures of senior commanders in leadership. Part of this is a holdover from 'Nam. Part of it is due to the neglect of our nuclear deterrent force when the Cold War ended. That has resulted in some unique problems, especially in the 20th AF (ICBM's), in terms of morale and leadership. That is being rectified throughout Air Force Global Strike Command. It started with upgrading of the AFGSC commander from a 3-star to 4-star, and firing of COL's and LTC's who were not leading properly. Whether this will spread to other commands or not, only time will tell. When the present commander of GSC was given command, he was told, "Go be Curtis Lemay!" We shall see. But please don't paint the entire USAF with so broad a brush.

 

Maybe, if you have a few discussions with your Air Force counterparts and the senior NCO's, you might make some impression. (You also may just get a reputation as a Charlie Sierra SOB. But, nothing ventured, nothing gained!) Thank you for your service!

[DocWard]

Yes, in fact, this is the whole point of thrusting 2LTs into a leadership role as soon as they are minted. I, for one, am mightily thankful for my experiences as a 2LT, and for some of the NCOs I had along the way (although my first platoon sergeant was a DUD!).

 

I have to brag just a bit. I had an E-3 who became an E-4 while I was in charge of the medical section. He went on to ROTC and came back as a 2LT in charge of the medical section right before I got out. When he found out I was retiring, and not going on deployment, he was a bit bummed. He said something to the effect of I brought him along as enlisted, and he thought I could do the same for him as an officer. I was very appreciative, but confident in his ability to do just fine.

 

 

Was with a D.I. and was rainning that day. Turns out recruits don't have to do obstacle course because of rain. Any type of ouch and off to the hospital and excused from physical trainning. They only clean the floors once a week if someone will do it. Most of the bunks were not made and the ones that were my D.I. would have torn it appart. Trash all over the floor. The D.I. was scared of having any complaint against him. If a recruit don't like the way things are going, quit and leave, so pamper them. No more K.P. or any kind of work like that. Once they complete basic they then live in a VERY MODERN housing where 2 persons to a home. The place was far more luxurious than what I lived in for many a years after military. A lot of outside activities were not being done because of the rain. They were being treated like Lindsay Lohan and all them other spoiled brats. Lockers, oh brother, clothing, good grief. All the modern toys to play with in the lounge room. Enough, get my blood pressure up.

 

Basic Training? MOS school? Much of what you describe sounds nothing like I ever experienced. You saw it, and I didn't, and much of what you describe leaves me at a loss. For example, we still had KP in the Guard for Annual Training and even weekend drill, and our senior NCOs demanded we be up to a military standard in our personal AO, even during deployment. Now, I can see not doing an obstacle course in the rain. It is a matter of cost vs. benefit. Is an increased possibility of broken bones or major injuries worth the benefit of doing something that can be done in better weather? This doesn't mean don't train in the rain, heat or snow. If you might fight in it, train in it, but there is a big difference between doing a ruck march or digging a fox hole in a rain storm and trying to run over a slippery log. Training up for my last deployment, we trained in all kinds of weather at Ft. Hood. From snow to heat and humidity. My unit's train up for deployment the year I retired was brutal at Camp Shelby, and done rain or shine. And again, we were National Guard! Like I said, a visit to a different post might render a lower blood pressure.

 

I should also say I have no problem with a well equipped day room, or more modern living facilities. Living in a more modern environment does not diminish from the ability to fight effectively. It simply allows off duty time to be spent more pleasantly. The military receives lower pay than they should, less benefits, and have put their lives up for the Constitution. I don't see enjoying down time as much as possible as a negative.

[DocWard]

But I must take strong exception to your statement that the Air Force "doesn't care about the guys on the ground, eating sand and taking bullets!" For the last 25 years Air Force aircrews have been deploying as needed and risking, and in many cases losing their lives to support the grunts on the ground in the Middle East and Southwest Asia! Forward Air Controllers are on the ground right next to their Army, Navy and Marine comrades-in-arms, eating the same dirt and getting shot at and shot! Without them, and the aircrews you wouldn't have any close air support, whether from a C-130 Spooky, a B-1B "Bone", or a B-2 "Spirit" (flown on LONNG duration missions directly from Whiteman AFB).

 

One reason that the "fighter jocks" or "bomber jocks" are in the command positions is because regs require "rated" officers to command flying units! You need to understand the things unique to flying in order to command those who fly!

 

I should probably let him speak for himself, but I didn't read his statement regarding not caring about the guys on the ground as an indictment against the Air Force as a whole, just those at the top who have lost sight of the tactical trees due to the forest of strategy. This explanation is no different than what many are offering as to why the brass want to do away with the A-10 in favor of the F-35. Actually, it is more generous than many of the arguments, which tend to paint Air Force brass as narcissistic, greedy, and lacking competence and vision.

[Cyrus Cassidy #45437]

Trailrider,

 

Keep in mind my experiences with the AF have been with their space forces. My contact with pilots is limited (although I have a story or two about their lack of military bearing, such as a large auditorium of pilots booing an O6 who told them to stop making sexual jokes and to stop sexually harassing the female service members...geez, that would get me court martialled!). Their space forces are the worst, because they are NOT on the ground, and consider Qatar to be "deployed" (I know, because I'm "deployed" there right now, and they all act tough and think they know what it means to be in war!). Yes, missing our families stinks. Yes, we are doing things *in support of* combat operations, but we are not *in* combat operations. In fact, we wear civilian clothes off duty and are allowed to go into town for recreational purposes!

I had another story typed out, but to make my point I had to reveal a little too much about what I do. So I'm not posting it. Suffice it to say, their space forces have lost all sense of reality when it comes to fighting a war.

[Cyrus Cassidy #45437]

 

I should probably let him speak for himself, but I didn't read his statement regarding not caring about the guys on the ground as an indictment against the Air Force as a whole, just those at the top who have lost sight of the tactical trees due to the forest of strategy. This explanation is no different than what many are offering as to why the brass want to do away with the A-10 in favor of the F-35. Actually, it is more generous than many of the arguments, which tend to paint Air Force brass as narcissistic, greedy, and lacking competence and vision.

^^^ This.

 

Plus their space guys are tactically clueless.

[rusty barrels]

Just like other proven aircraft, they get retired while the new ones don't get used because they are too expensive to risk loosing. Remember the Sandys, A lot of soldiers felt a little more comfortable when they were around.