File photo. (REUTERS/Staff Sgt. Jason Robertson/U.S. Air Force/Handout via Reuters)
FOX News/Military.com: Air Force mulls mothballing F-16s if Congress blocks A-10 retirement
The House Armed Services Committee inserted $683 million into the 2016 defense bill to stop the Air Force from retiring the A-10 Warthog.
However, Air Force leaders said the service will have to mothball F-16s and delay the deployment of the F-35 in response to the move by the committee.
Service leaders have said for years the Air Force can no longer afford the A-10. The service said it needs to dedicate resources and manning toward the F-35. Congress has since pushed back saying the service must keep the close-air-support aircraft.
U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, explained that the aircraft's historic and recent combat performances require that it serve a longer life span.
WNU Editor: There is no real substitute for the A-10 .... and that is the heart of the problem. The U.S. Air Force may want planes in the air but the soldiers on the ground do need air to ground air support, and an F-35 flying at 10,000 feet in the air is not going to provide it as well as someone who is closer to the ground.
5 comments:
WNU Editor,
It's not like there are F-35's flying 10,000 feet above the ground, that won't be happening for another decade,
And of course, the Air Force never threatens to ground and take out of service, all their Generals,......
At some point in time, somebody in power is going to call the A/F on their bs. Hate for the A-10.
There needs to be a purge of Generals.
give the aircraft to the army now
Sure, That's why the f-35 deployment would be delayed, riiigghht
When deciding what needs to be "mothballed" and what needs to be kept, at least two basic questions need to be asked. 1.) What are the greatest threats to American national security? 2.) Of the greatest threats to American national security which of these are the most likely to occur?
In answer to question 1, the greatest threats to American national security are as follows: 1.) an all out nuclear attack against the American mainland by Russia. 2.) An Islamic terrorist attack against a major US metropolitan area or more likely multiple US metropolitan areas simultaneously involving the US of suitcase nuclear weapons, "dirty bombs", or some combination of these resulting in the deaths of 10s of millions of Americans instantly and many more over the following weeks to months. 3.) An invasion of the American mainland by Russia, China, Russia and China, or Russia, China, and some combination of the BRICS.
In answer to question 2, scenarios 1 and 2 should be reversed. Essentially the Islamic terrorist attack, while not as devastating as the all out Russian nuclear attack is more likely. Essentially ensuring we have some type of defense against a Russian nuclear attack and ensuring we have an adequate second strike capability to ensure they would find such an attack to costly to seriously contemplate should be our top national defense priority.
With that said A-10, F-16, or F-35? First of all we are going to be dealing with the loss of the US dollar as world reserve currency in the very near future. There is nothing that can be done to prevent this. This was set in motion before Barack Obama came to office and he could not have prevented it but it does seem he has accelerated the process.
As such the F-35 is out of the question. We cannot afford it and it has no benefit when defending against threat scenarios 1 or 2 among the greatest threats to America.
A bit off topic but the people who put resources into this are a bit like gamblers who somehow think if they stick to a failed bet at the casino it will somehow turn around. It won't. Treat these people with dignity while sending them to gamblers anonymous or whatever therapy they need. In any event, cancel the program forthwith as it has negative utility for the threats we face as it does not help thwart any of them and it can only serve to divert valuable resources away from thing that can help.
We are left with the A-10 or the F-16. Either of these have no utility in threat scenario 1 or 2. It seems unlikely the F-16 can help combat scenario 3. Combat soldiers may need close air support in seeking to counter threat 3. As such, I'd suggest mothballing the F-16 and keeping the A-10.
While it may be true that many generals need to be "taken out of service", I'm appalled at the callousness directed towards these men. These men have given their lives and their honor to try and defend America and to follow the civilian leadership. Such an axing needs to be done with honor and dignity towards these men, if it needs to be done.
Post a Comment