4 ms·

Umm, that is exactly what they are going They are bring forth the mission to decommission the A10, congress is saying no....

maxerickson 10y ago
In my comment, a mission would be something like "close air support", not the level of maintenance to do on a specific set of aircraft.
- the_ancient 10y ago
  So it is arbitrary definition you are making I fail to see how that is different than simply coming to congress with "We protect America now give us a trillion dollars of stolen money you pried from the citizens and do not dare ask us how we will spend it" I think every damn screw the military buys should be heavily scrutinized by someone outside the military, maybe congress is not the right venue but the idea that the military should just be allowed to spend money however they see fit is moronic on a level I can not even comprehend The military, above all other federal agencies, have proven they can not be trusted with the money they are given, they have simpley "lost" (literally unaccounted for) more money than most agencies have for their entire budget.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Because doing it in smaller pieces would enable more oversight than doing it in one chunk. I agree that it is subjective as to how detailed to get at the congressional level, but the person running my arbitrary close air support mission can go to congress and explain how much support they can provide at a certain funding level. Congress can clearly reason about that and base decisions about increasing or decreasing the budget on what sort of capability seems reasonable. In this case, Congress is mandating maintenance of the aircraft whether the military uses them or not. That's moronic.
    - the_ancient 10y ago
      What is moronic is the Airforce has spent over a Trillion Dollars on a plane that still does not work, and wants to decommission a proven air system so it divert that money into the failed F35 program, and wants to decommission a proven air system with out having a proven replacement. That is moronic....
  - Retric 10y ago
    Tools != goals. The A-10 is not useful to the modern US military. If congress wants to fund something better great, but as it stands the A-10 is simply wasting Money. It's like congress is funding muskets from the revolutionary war.
    - vinceguidry 10y ago
      As long as we're making comparisons to infantry weaponry, the M16 rifle is nine years older than the A-10 Warthog.
      - rangibaby 10y ago
        M16 has been replaced by the M4. Some designs are so good they continue to be used actively eg the 1911 or M2. Variants of the original AK-47 are still used, even in Russia(!) where it is considered a superior weapon in urban warfare because it can penetrate cover better than more modern, smaller bullets. I think the A-10's future potential is unclear. It is theoretically extremely vulnerable to modern anti-air missiles, but the same thing could be said about the Hind helicopter, which was deployed successfully by the RUAF in Syria.
        vinceguidry 10y ago
        > M16 has been replaced by the M4. This isn't a case of replacing old tech with new tech, it's a case of the changing realities of war making a short-barreled carbine adequate for most needs. The M4 has been around since 1988, they'd had plenty of time to do the switch if it really were the better weapon.
        Turing_Machine 10y ago
        Some designs are so good they continue to be used actively eg the 1911 or M2. The B-52 design dates back to the 1940s, with the first flight occurring in 1952. The Air Force is planning to keep those well into the 2040s. I believe one of the current B-52 pilots is the grandson of one of the original pilots. Not messing with success is often a good plan.
      - 10y ago
  - yaur 10y ago
    It's not arbitrary. Requirements need to be in the problem domain, not the solution domain.
- GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
  But the Air Force is already tasked with that. Their 'customers,' i.e. the Army and Marines, say that they're trying to retire the best means of providing that support (and the Air Force is notorious for neglecting CAS if they can get away with it). So the only answer (as things stand) is to force them to keep the CAS aircraft of choice on flying status and not try to replace it with a woefully inadequate replacement. Or hand over CAS to the Army. Which is probably better long term.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    I'm coming at it from a perspective that separation of forces and procurement are broken. Given the way things are, I'm not hugely concerned that this bill is being written, but I'm still complaining about the way things are.

maxerickson 10y ago

In my comment, a mission would be something like "close air support", not the level of maintenance to do on a specific set of aircraft.

the_ancient 10y ago
So it is arbitrary definition you are making I fail to see how that is different than simply coming to congress with "We protect America now give us a trillion dollars of stolen money you pried from the citizens and do not dare ask us how we will spend it" I think every damn screw the military buys should be heavily scrutinized by someone outside the military, maybe congress is not the right venue but the idea that the military should just be allowed to spend money however they see fit is moronic on a level I can not even comprehend The military, above all other federal agencies, have proven they can not be trusted with the money they are given, they have simpley "lost" (literally unaccounted for) more money than most agencies have for their entire budget.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Because doing it in smaller pieces would enable more oversight than doing it in one chunk. I agree that it is subjective as to how detailed to get at the congressional level, but the person running my arbitrary close air support mission can go to congress and explain how much support they can provide at a certain funding level. Congress can clearly reason about that and base decisions about increasing or decreasing the budget on what sort of capability seems reasonable. In this case, Congress is mandating maintenance of the aircraft whether the military uses them or not. That's moronic.
  - the_ancient 10y ago
    What is moronic is the Airforce has spent over a Trillion Dollars on a plane that still does not work, and wants to decommission a proven air system so it divert that money into the failed F35 program, and wants to decommission a proven air system with out having a proven replacement. That is moronic....
- Retric 10y ago
  Tools != goals. The A-10 is not useful to the modern US military. If congress wants to fund something better great, but as it stands the A-10 is simply wasting Money. It's like congress is funding muskets from the revolutionary war.
  - vinceguidry 10y ago
    As long as we're making comparisons to infantry weaponry, the M16 rifle is nine years older than the A-10 Warthog.
    - rangibaby 10y ago
      M16 has been replaced by the M4. Some designs are so good they continue to be used actively eg the 1911 or M2. Variants of the original AK-47 are still used, even in Russia(!) where it is considered a superior weapon in urban warfare because it can penetrate cover better than more modern, smaller bullets. I think the A-10's future potential is unclear. It is theoretically extremely vulnerable to modern anti-air missiles, but the same thing could be said about the Hind helicopter, which was deployed successfully by the RUAF in Syria.
      - vinceguidry 10y ago
        > M16 has been replaced by the M4. This isn't a case of replacing old tech with new tech, it's a case of the changing realities of war making a short-barreled carbine adequate for most needs. The M4 has been around since 1988, they'd had plenty of time to do the switch if it really were the better weapon.
      - Turing_Machine 10y ago
        Some designs are so good they continue to be used actively eg the 1911 or M2. The B-52 design dates back to the 1940s, with the first flight occurring in 1952. The Air Force is planning to keep those well into the 2040s. I believe one of the current B-52 pilots is the grandson of one of the original pilots. Not messing with success is often a good plan.
    - 10y ago
- yaur 10y ago
  It's not arbitrary. Requirements need to be in the problem domain, not the solution domain.
GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
But the Air Force is already tasked with that. Their 'customers,' i.e. the Army and Marines, say that they're trying to retire the best means of providing that support (and the Air Force is notorious for neglecting CAS if they can get away with it). So the only answer (as things stand) is to force them to keep the CAS aircraft of choice on flying status and not try to replace it with a woefully inadequate replacement. Or hand over CAS to the Army. Which is probably better long term.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  I'm coming at it from a perspective that separation of forces and procurement are broken. Given the way things are, I'm not hugely concerned that this bill is being written, but I'm still complaining about the way things are.