The USAF has been trying to divest itself of the A-10 for nearly 20 years. Early this morning the U.S. House Armed Services Committee voted to keep the A-10 flying for at least one more year. Even an offered amendment to retire over 150 of the A-10s and keep 100 flying was (pardon the pun) shot down in the committee deliberations. In the interest of full disclosure, while I am a fan of the aircraft (it is just cool), I have written and spoken out in support of retiring the aircraft. Heck I think that the B-29 was cool and that the A-1 Skyraider was awesome, but they had their day and were retired.
Any of us over the age of 21 remember (or should remember) the images of the destruction of Iraqi tanks and trucks caused by the A-10s in 1991. We also all should recall the file videos and photos of the A-10 firing the massive 20 mm cannon around which it is built. Photos and video of the aircraft in action/training are still in current production. Even I, jaded, cynical, taking most things with a grain of salt, am impressed by this gun and think this aircraft epitomizes military hardware coolness.
But, the Air Force wants to get rid of this aircraft. Why? The USAF needs the money for the F-35 (you know, the expensive, doesn't work as predicted, needs improvement, costs tons of cash, aircraft of the future). The Air Force also recognizes that while a grand aircraft, the cost of maintaining airframes designed and built 30 to 50 years ago is expensive--they are maintenance intensive and maintenance men and women do not come cheaply (remember nearly 70% of the budget is personnel cost related) and parts are expensive as well. The US Army has rejected the idea of taking over the A-10 to use for close air support--the Army knows how much it costs to maintain and will cost in the future to maintain this airframe and want no part of that expense. And for all worried about the close air support mission, here is a statement from the Secretary of the Air Force back in February 2015:
“the A-10 has done a magnificent job, but so has the F-16 and the F-15E, and the B-1 bomber has been a contributor and there have been a number of aircraft that have contributed to the totality of close-air support. So to me, close-air support is not a plane, it’s a mission.”
So why does a congressional committee insist that the USAF keep an aircraft it does not want in a time of fiscal tightening? The simple answer is the politics of the A-10. Support for the A-10 was pushed by representatives from Georgia and Arizona (where most A-10s are based when not deployed). Further support comes from representatives from New York, Maryland and Texas--surprise, surprise, surprise, Fairchild Aircraft, Inc. has three large facilities in three states, want to guess which ones? The A-10 means jobs in five states. The A-10 looks cool and mean. The A-10 is an easy sale to the U.S. public. So, go out and round up a few former military personnel to testify about how great the A-10 is, make sure the press gets sound bytes from these testimonials. Vote to keep an aircraft not wanted by its owners and voila--you have one of the results of the Armed Services Committee mark up of the 2016 defense policy bill. Which for my two cents is bad business for the military, but makes perfect sense from the political perspective of the civil-military relationship. After all, the jobs secured for having the A-10 have produced so much tax revenue that we have no need to trim costs from the DOD budget, right?
And on a totally unrelated note, a shout out to my mentor Steve Saideman, who covers civil-military affairs in Canada, I read a really good article this morning about Canadian SOF working with the Peshmerga against Daesh. You can read the article here.
Any of us over the age of 21 remember (or should remember) the images of the destruction of Iraqi tanks and trucks caused by the A-10s in 1991. We also all should recall the file videos and photos of the A-10 firing the massive 20 mm cannon around which it is built. Photos and video of the aircraft in action/training are still in current production. Even I, jaded, cynical, taking most things with a grain of salt, am impressed by this gun and think this aircraft epitomizes military hardware coolness.
But, the Air Force wants to get rid of this aircraft. Why? The USAF needs the money for the F-35 (you know, the expensive, doesn't work as predicted, needs improvement, costs tons of cash, aircraft of the future). The Air Force also recognizes that while a grand aircraft, the cost of maintaining airframes designed and built 30 to 50 years ago is expensive--they are maintenance intensive and maintenance men and women do not come cheaply (remember nearly 70% of the budget is personnel cost related) and parts are expensive as well. The US Army has rejected the idea of taking over the A-10 to use for close air support--the Army knows how much it costs to maintain and will cost in the future to maintain this airframe and want no part of that expense. And for all worried about the close air support mission, here is a statement from the Secretary of the Air Force back in February 2015:
“the A-10 has done a magnificent job, but so has the F-16 and the F-15E, and the B-1 bomber has been a contributor and there have been a number of aircraft that have contributed to the totality of close-air support. So to me, close-air support is not a plane, it’s a mission.”
So why does a congressional committee insist that the USAF keep an aircraft it does not want in a time of fiscal tightening? The simple answer is the politics of the A-10. Support for the A-10 was pushed by representatives from Georgia and Arizona (where most A-10s are based when not deployed). Further support comes from representatives from New York, Maryland and Texas--surprise, surprise, surprise, Fairchild Aircraft, Inc. has three large facilities in three states, want to guess which ones? The A-10 means jobs in five states. The A-10 looks cool and mean. The A-10 is an easy sale to the U.S. public. So, go out and round up a few former military personnel to testify about how great the A-10 is, make sure the press gets sound bytes from these testimonials. Vote to keep an aircraft not wanted by its owners and voila--you have one of the results of the Armed Services Committee mark up of the 2016 defense policy bill. Which for my two cents is bad business for the military, but makes perfect sense from the political perspective of the civil-military relationship. After all, the jobs secured for having the A-10 have produced so much tax revenue that we have no need to trim costs from the DOD budget, right?
And on a totally unrelated note, a shout out to my mentor Steve Saideman, who covers civil-military affairs in Canada, I read a really good article this morning about Canadian SOF working with the Peshmerga against Daesh. You can read the article here.
No comments:
Post a Comment