An Air Force general has been fired after an investigation into comments he made to lower-ranking officers about how talking to members of Congress about the capabilities about the A-10 “Warthog” attack jet was tantamount to treason, the Air Force confirmed Friday.
The comments by Maj. Gen. James Post, the number 2 commander at the Air Combat Command, had a “chilling effect on some of the attendees and caused them to feel constrained from communicating with members of Congress,” according to a report by the Air Force inspector general.
Post spoke to a group of over 300 Air Force officers at a weapons and tactics conference in Nevada on January 10. In response to a question about the status of the A-10, Post was reported to have said that it was their duty to support the service’s budget priorities by not offering opinions inconsistent with those aims.
Post “discussed the importance of loyalty to senior leader decisions and used the word 'treason' in describing his thoughts on communication by Airmen counter to those decisions,” the Air Force said in a statement.
The report concluded that Post's "choice of words had the effect of attempting to prevent some members from lawfully communicating with Congress.”
Post released a statement late Friday in which he apologized for what he described as his “poor choice of words.”
The objective of my comment was simply meant to focus the attention of the audience on working within the command's constraints,” Post said.
“It was sincerely never my intention to discourage anyone's access to their elected officials. I now understand how my poor choice of words may have led a few attendees to draw this conclusion and I offer my humble apology for causing any undue strain on the command and its mission," Post said.
A two-star general has been removed from his post and issued a letter of reprimand for warning airmen under his command not to lobby Congress against retiring the Air Force’s beloved A-10 “Warthog” attack jet.
At the Air Force’s annual Weapons and Tactics conference on January 10, Maj. Gen. James Post III, the vice commander of the branch’s Air Combat Command, told an audience of more than 300 airmen that speaking to lawmakers about plans to retire the popular Cold War-era plane amounted to treason. His comments were made in response to a question about the A-10, a close air support aircraft.
“If anyone accuses me of saying this, I will deny it,” Post said. “Anyone who is passing information to Congress about A-10 capabilities is committing treason.”
Post went on at length, insisting that airmen have a duty to support the service’s chosen budget priorities by refraining from offering opinions inconsistent with those priorities, according to John Q. Public, a popular blog about the Air Force.
The Air Force is planning to retire about 300 Warthogs ‒ officially the A-10 Thunderbolt II ‒ over the next few years, which the service says would save $4.2 billion by 2019. The jet is ardently defended by military members from all branches ‒ due to its role in supporting ground troops in battle in Iraq and Afghanistan ‒ and on Capitol Hill.
The military plans to replace the A-10 with Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, an aircraft plagued with chronic cost overruns and delayed deliveries that will not be ready until at least 2019.
Post’s remarks at the conference weren’t the first time he had engaged in this particular exposition. He’d been saying it to groups of A-10 operators for some time, according toJohn Q. Public.
Sens. John McCain (R-Arizona) and Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire), two of the jet’s staunchest supporters, called on the Air Force to investigate Post’s comments, the Air Force Times reported.
"U.S. law clearly states that 'No person may restrict a member of the armed forces in communicating with a member of Congress.' The Constitution defines treason as levying war against the United States in providing aid and comfort to our enemies," Ayotte said in a statement to the Air Force Times. "How could members of the armed forces exercising their lawful right to communicate with Congress be providing aid and comfort to our enemies? If the facts are on the Air Force's side regarding its efforts to prematurely divest the A-10, what does the Air Force fear?"
Air Combat Command brushed off criticisms that Post’s speech was a violation of 10 US Code § 1034 – Protected communications; prohibition of retaliatory personnel, which reads, “No person may restrict a member of the armed forces in communicating with a Member of Congress or an Inspector General.”
“The intent of his comments were to communicate the Air Force’s position and decision on recommended actions and strategic choices faced for the current constrained fiscal environment,” In an e-mail to Military.com, spokeswoman Maj. Genieve David said,
"Our role as individual military members is not to engage in public debate or advocacy for policy,” she added.
Despite the seemingly blasé response to Post’s potentially law-breaking comments, the Air Force inspector general did open an investigation into the speech in late January, Stars and Stripes reported.
The investigation found that Post discussed “the importance of loyalty to senior leader decisions and used the word ‘treason’ in describing his thoughts on communication by Airmen counter to those decisions.”
.....
The twin-engine, straight wing jet was developed by Fairchild Republic in the early 1970s, designed solely for close air support based around its 30mm GAU-8 Avenger rotary cannon. Supporters say it can fly “low and slow” over its targets, providing more accurate fire than other aircraft. It is currently being used in the battle against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, as well as for NATO exercises in Germany.
“It was sincerely never my intention to discourage anyone's access to their elected officials.
Post went on at length, insisting that airmen have a duty to support the service’s chosen budget priorities by refraining from offering opinions inconsistent with those priorities, according to John Q. Public, a popular blog about the Air Force.
The Air Force is planning to retire about 300 Warthogs ‒ officially the A-10 Thunderbolt II ‒ over the next few years, which the service says would save $4.2 billion by 2019. The jet is ardently defended by military members from all branches ‒ due to its role in supporting ground troops in battle in Iraq and Afghanistan ‒ and on Capitol Hill.
The military plans to replace the A-10 with Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, an aircraft plagued with chronic cost overruns and delayed deliveries that will not be ready until at least 2019.
If the facts are on the Air Force's side regarding its efforts to prematurely divest the A-10, what does the Air Force fear?"
Calling it treason to praise the capabilities of the A-10 to congress... sounds very political. Considering the amount of money and contracts with private business involved, how could it not be?
If the A-10 jet is "ardently defended by members from all three branches of the military" ....then why is the air force so intent on replacing them with the more problematic F-35? Sure looks like politics at play, imo.
Yeah, what does the Air Force have to fear about the A-10?
Calling it treason to praise the capabilities of the A-10 to congress... sounds very political. Considering the amount of money and contracts with private business involved, how could it not be?
If the A-10 jet is "ardently defended by members from all three branches of the military" ....then why is the air force so intent on replacing them with the more problematic F-35? Sure looks like politics at play, imo.
Yeah, what does the Air Force have to fear about the A-10?
It is political because the budget is political. Ever since the Clinton era, they have been trying to kill off the A-10 and other systems inorder to reroute funds to systems they want. This has resulted in the Air Force almost totally abandoning it's previous roles in close air support (CAS) of ground troops. The Air Force was run for many years by Fighter Pilots from the air superiority systems, the F-15 which was supposed to be replaced by the F-22. They have had some leadership from other areas for about a decade now, one being a Special Forces guy but not anyone from CAS.
The F-15s air superiority fighter entered service around 1972 and were slated to be replaced with the F-22 but the service couldn't afford enough for total replacement. The Air Force F-16 multi-role aircraft entered service around 1976 with the Navy/Marines adopting the FA-18 for that role shortly afterwards. The Joint Strike Fighter, F-35 is a replacement for the multirole tasks and will be one of the few times that all branches have the same aircraft. The Navy currently uses a updated version of the FA-18, the Super Hornet, for fleet defence/Air Superiority.
The A-10/OA-10 is a close air support air craft specifically designed to loiter in an area and kill tanks and convoys. Because it is neither fast nor stealthy, it is believed by some leadership to be obsolete. They much prefer aircraft that move fast and have stealth capabilities. Thus, they want to kill off these systems to move the money to the new fast and stealth aircraft. The problem is that the faster the air craft, the longer and further it takes to make a turn. The faster aircraft such as the F-16, F-15E, and FA-18 cannot turn ontop of the enemy the way an A-10 can. They make a strike using missiles/rockets go out, turn around then come back. The A-10 makes a pass using missiles rockets then turns almost in place and then strafe the enemy with further missiles/rockets and with a 30 MM gun that can chew up tanks.
Again, the A-10 is an early 1970s aircraft. So it is also very old for an aircraft and it really should be replaced. My personal opinion is that it should be replaced by an aircraft designed specifically to do the same job. A purpose built aircraft will always do it's job much better than multi-role/multi-purpose aircraft.
Excellent post, DVS. I would only add that almost every inch of the A-10 has been modernized, upgraded and replaced. While it is truly amazing how long the plane has been in service....it's a shame to lose a plane that still continues to prove it's worth.
It is political because the budget is political. Ever since the Clinton era, they have been trying to kill off the A-10 and other systems inorder to reroute funds to systems they want. This has resulted in the Air Force almost totally abandoning it's previous roles in close air support (CAS) of ground troops. The Air Force was run for many years by Fighter Pilots from the air superiority systems, the F-15 which was supposed to be replaced by the F-22. They have had some leadership from other areas for about a decade now, one being a Special Forces guy but not anyone from CAS.
The F-15s air superiority fighter entered service around 1972 and were slated to be replaced with the F-22 but the service couldn't afford enough for total replacement. The Air Force F-16 multi-role aircraft entered service around 1976 with the Navy/Marines adopting the FA-18 for that role shortly afterwards. The Joint Strike Fighter, F-35 is a replacement for the multirole tasks and will be one of the few times that all branches have the same aircraft. The Navy currently uses a updated version of the FA-18, the Super Hornet, for fleet defence/Air Superiority.
The A-10/OA-10 is a close air support air craft specifically designed to loiter in an area and kill tanks and convoys. Because it is neither fast nor stealthy, it is believed by some leadership to be obsolete. They much prefer aircraft that move fast and have stealth capabilities. Thus, they want to kill off these systems to move the money to the new fast and stealth aircraft. The problem is that the faster the air craft, the longer and further it takes to make a turn. The faster aircraft such as the F-16, F-15E, and FA-18 cannot turn ontop of the enemy the way an A-10 can. They make a strike using missiles/rockets go out, turn around then come back. The A-10 makes a pass using missiles rockets then turns almost in place and then strafe the enemy with further missiles/rockets and with a 30 MM gun that can chew up tanks.
Again, the A-10 is an early 1970s aircraft. So it is also very old for an aircraft and it really should be replaced. My personal opinion is that it should be replaced by an aircraft designed specifically to do the same job. A purpose built aircraft will always do it's job much better than multi-role/multi-purpose aircraft.
It is political because the budget is political. Ever since the Clinton era, they have been trying to kill off the A-10 and other systems inorder to reroute funds to systems they want. This has resulted in the Air Force almost totally abandoning it's previous roles in close air support (CAS) of ground troops. The Air Force was run for many years by Fighter Pilots from the air superiority systems, the F-15 which was supposed to be replaced by the F-22. They have had some leadership from other areas for about a decade now, one being a Special Forces guy but not anyone from CAS.
The F-15s air superiority fighter entered service around 1972 and were slated to be replaced with the F-22 but the service couldn't afford enough for total replacement. The Air Force F-16 multi-role aircraft entered service around 1976 with the Navy/Marines adopting the FA-18 for that role shortly afterwards. The Joint Strike Fighter, F-35 is a replacement for the multirole tasks and will be one of the few times that all branches have the same aircraft. The Navy currently uses a updated version of the FA-18, the Super Hornet, for fleet defence/Air Superiority.
The A-10/OA-10 is a close air support air craft specifically designed to loiter in an area and kill tanks and convoys. Because it is neither fast nor stealthy, it is believed by some leadership to be obsolete. They much prefer aircraft that move fast and have stealth capabilities. Thus, they want to kill off these systems to move the money to the new fast and stealth aircraft. The problem is that the faster the air craft, the longer and further it takes to make a turn. The faster aircraft such as the F-16, F-15E, and FA-18 cannot turn ontop of the enemy the way an A-10 can. They make a strike using missiles/rockets go out, turn around then come back. The A-10 makes a pass using missiles rockets then turns almost in place and then strafe the enemy with further missiles/rockets and with a 30 MM gun that can chew up tanks.
Again, the A-10 is an early 1970s aircraft. So it is also very old for an aircraft and it really should be replaced. My personal opinion is that it should be replaced by an aircraft designed specifically to do the same job. A purpose built aircraft will always do it's job much better than multi-role/multi-purpose aircraft.
As a grunt who was in service before the A-10 came online let me comment. the A-10 wasn't designed to loiter anywhere. It was cheap and somewhat expendable in the face of an envisioned Roosian/Warsaw Pact invasion of Germany. Designed to be a 'sight' hunter and not have a big electronic signature, the A-10 was to swoop in low and gun Roosian tanks trying to punch through the Fulda gap. Flying below Roosian missile systems they had to be built tuff enough to face light ADA, early attempts at updating slaved a missile's targeting system to the pilot so he could use the advances in attack systems. There were hundreds of updates to make 'my' era's A-10 capable of carrying 'smart' weapons.
Very true the fighter jocks have owned our AF for generations, the F-16 was to take over ground support missions. Missions and munitions have changed since the M16A1 and it's 20 round mag was standard issue. Stand-off smart bombs, cluster bombs, stealth tech and a whole array of spoofer elec counters has changed the AF since the day of see and shoot. These days a multi purpose aircraft can drop a bomb from 30,000 feet and hit the window- third from the right. They can hit an suv going 60 mph. With tanker to refuel from an F-16 can loiter an insane length of time.
Now Nap of the Earth missions are tough on airframes- there comes a point where rebuilding isn't cost effective. These days the Army's attack helos are far more 'mission capable' to fill CAS missions. It would be nice to have a dedicated AF airframe for CAS, but the AF (not politicians) figure a fast mover with a variety of enhanced munitions can do far more across the mission spectrum than the, older than the pilots, A-10.
It's funny how at times some demand the 'professional' military make key decisions (when you agree) but they are spineless political wonks when they see the big picture differently than the armchair crowd. Put steel on target and I could give a hot damn what did it...eace
Maybe it's just me but if I was 100 meters from a tank I'd much prefer that the guy trying to kill it could actually see the damn thing and not be lobbing bombs at it from 30,000 feet.
I'd opine it was never you. If a MBT is 100 meters from you the 'splash' from ANY ordinance would earn you one each HEE-roes death... :roll:
Dumb weapons you fire and forget are a piss poor substitute for one guided to the target. (no one said the bomb would be 'lobbed' but rather dropped and flown into the target... :d
Course in your scenario I'd rather have an Apache/TOW than a Warthog blasting away with a 30mm. just coz a pilot can see the tank doesn't mean he will hit it and if it is 100 meters away from me most likely I'll get hit too...eace
I agree with everything you've said, except your contention that the A-10 should be replaced. They fact that it's a 40 year old design by itself isn't reason enough to replace it. It fulfills it's mission extremely well and it's hard to imagine anything that would be more than just incrementally better. Given development costs a replacement should be more than just a minor improvement.
I think they should let the Army handle that role.
Not just the design is 40 years old, but the actual airframes are as well.
The only real improvements that I could think of would be to add a pair of 50 cals for light/unarmored vehicles and up to 4 5.56 or 7.62 mini guns for troop concentrations.
I think they should let the Army handle that role.
Interesting. Makes you wonder the type of stuff that they say in private. WOW!
Air Force fires general over A-10 jets 'treason' remarks | Fox News
its not treason...that word is over used, for everything now.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?