The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law • Hacker News Board

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#11

Post by rjsw » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 1:20 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #2

This is something congress really shouldn't be doing. For example, how much of the scope ambition and scope creep for the F 35 came from congressional meddling? Someone recognized for their expertise in infantry strategy and tactics should be placed in charge of close air support procurement, given a preliminary budget to try to meet and then be given free reign to figure out what they can get from that budget.

Congress should also pass a law banning other countries from owning ground-to-air missiles.

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#12

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 1:27 PM UTC

the_ancient wrote: post #8

maxerickson wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 t…

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.

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#13

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 1:30 PM UTC

yourapostasy wrote: post #9

maxerickson wrote: post #2

This is something congress really shouldn't be doing. For example, how much of the scope ambition and scope creep for the F 35 came from congressional meddling? Someone recognized for their expertise in infantry strategy and tactics should be placed in charge of close air support procurement, given a preliminary budget to try to meet and then be given free reign to figure out what they can get from that budget.

Wouldn't that preliminary budget, issued by Congress, be considered meddling? Is it akin to software development managers with the sheerest excuses for domain expertise accepting whatever budget and mandate is handed down from managers with zero domain expertise, and then they set about browbeating anyone and everyone they can lay their hands on to meet the hazy objectives? This direction of development sounds to me…

As below, I agree that it is subjective as to what is meddling.

I think setting a budget based on a high level discussion is what Congress is supposed to be doing. The military side can explain what capabilities they can get with a certain budget, Congress can decide if that is a reasonable level of capability and set the budget at the requested level or lower or even higher.

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#14

Post by dforrestwilson1 » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 1:31 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #2

This is something congress really shouldn't be doing. For example, how much of the scope ambition and scope creep for the F 35 came from congressional meddling? Someone recognized for their expertise in infantry strategy and tactics should be placed in charge of close air support procurement, given a preliminary budget to try to meet and then be given free reign to figure out what they can get from that budget.

This is a real moral dilemma for me. I served in the military, and the A-10 is simply the best manned aircraft we have for CAS. However, I also hate the defense lobby.

One one hand there's probably a job interest in keeping the A-10 running. Mac Thornberry has taken campaign donations from lots of defense contractors, including some related to the A-10: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/pacs.php?cycle=2016&c...

On the other hand, no other aircraft does what the A-10 does as well, and the Air Force would shut it down if simply given the money in a lump sum with no conditions. The defense contractors associated with the F-35 would love to replace the low-margin A-10 with their newest shiny toy even if it is not as effective.

The fact that this is a debate right now is a sad testament to the power of the defense lobby and poor defense procurement.

They ought to think ahead and refit the A-10 fleet as ground-piloted drones.

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#15

Post by Retric » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 1:37 PM UTC

the_ancient wrote: post #8

maxerickson wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 t…

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.

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#16

Post by dsfyu404ed » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 1:38 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #2

This is something congress really shouldn't be doing. For example, how much of the scope ambition and scope creep for the F 35 came from congressional meddling? Someone recognized for their expertise in infantry strategy and tactics should be placed in charge of close air support procurement, given a preliminary budget to try to meet and then be given free reign to figure out what they can get from that budget.

I see this as more of a "you've wasted so much time effort and $ on this argument that we're stepping in" two of you (army, marines) say you want it, one of you wants to replace it with something that can't do it's job as well so we're going best two of three and keeping it.

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#17

Post by the_ancient » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 1:40 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #12

the_ancient wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

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 t…

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....

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#18

Post by nosequel » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 1:40 PM UTC

the_ancient wrote: post #10

discardorama wrote: post #7

How is it that a bunch of elected people without much military knowledge "know" more about these things than the men/women in uniform, with decades of experience?

The Airforce does not want the A-10 The Army and Marines are begging to keep it I trust the Army and Marines more than the fucking Airforce

Why is that exactly? I love the A-10, and so does the Army and Marines, it is by far the best CAS weapon we have. The airforce knows more about aircraft and keeping those aircraft in the air than both the army and marines. Unfortunately the A-10 is old, and no one is manufacturing replacement parts for it. So as of right now the air force is happy with AC-130 gunship and the F-15E, F35. I hate the idea of the A-10 going away, and certainly the pilots are the same way. Keeping planes in the air on old parts is a hard thing though.

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#19

Post by GunboatDiplomat » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 1:46 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #2

This is something congress really shouldn't be doing. For example, how much of the scope ambition and scope creep for the F 35 came from congressional meddling? Someone recognized for their expertise in infantry strategy and tactics should be placed in charge of close air support procurement, given a preliminary budget to try to meet and then be given free reign to figure out what they can get from that budget.

What would be reasonable is the Air Force pulling its head out its ass and just giving the CAS role back to the Army, since they hate it so much. Seriously, just give the Army the CAS roles, and the Air Force can go zoom around in their shiny supersonic invisible aircraft, and the soldiers and marines on the ground can get the close air support they so need from an organization not doing everything it can to stop giving them that support.

Re: The A-10 Warthog May Be Kept Out of Retirement by Law

#20

Post by dsfyu404ed » Sat, Apr 30, 2016, 1:48 PM UTC

GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #19

maxerickson wrote: post #2

This is something congress really shouldn't be doing. For example, how much of the scope ambition and scope creep for the F 35 came from congressional meddling? Someone recognized for their expertise in infantry strategy and tactics should be placed in charge of close air support procurement, given a preliminary budget to try to meet and then be given free reign to figure out what they can get from that budget.

What would be reasonable is the Air Force pulling its head out its ass and just giving the CAS role back to the Army, since they hate it so much. Seriously, just give the Army the CAS roles, and the Air Force can go zoom around in their shiny supersonic invisible aircraft, and the soldiers and marines on the ground can get the close air support they so need from an organization not doing everything it can to stop giv…

x2. The marines do this for the most part.