Air Force Probing Alleged 'Treason' Remark By General

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Air Force says it is investigating an allegation that a two-star general told lower-ranking officers that passing information to Congress about the capabilities of the A-10 attack aircraft is tantamount to treason.

The alleged comment by Maj. Gen. James Post has angered members of Congress, including senators opposed to the Air Force's effort to retire the A-10 fleet as a cost-cutting measure. Congress wants to keep the A-10.

At a hearing Wednesday on defense budget issues, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, a New Hampshire Republican, condemned the reported comment and said all service members have a legal right to communicate with Congress.

Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force chief of staff, told Ayotte that the Air Force inspector general's office is investigating the matter.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AIR_FORCE_INVESTIGATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-01-28-13-48-55

[matt819]

1. Boy, am I ever sorry that Kelly Ayotte is my senator

But that's beside the point. In this case, she's right, though, reliably (as a member of the tea party), she confused a legal right with a legal obligation.

The military is legally obligated to respond to the civilian arms of government, Congress for funding and the President for the simple reason that he's the Commander-in-Chief. Failure to do either is in my view grounds for dismissal and prosecution.

[cloudbase]

2. That's not a career-enhancing move.

He'll land on his feet, though. He'll "retire" and take a consulting job with a yet to be named defense contractor and rake in some big bucks, all while drawing his pension.

[benld74]

3. And yet NOTHING done when

The CIA analyst was outed by the W admin freaks!

[Sunlei]

4. why would congress want to keep funding old planes the Air Force said, they want to retire?

America could probably use those billions to build several public hospitals.

[Lurks Often]

6. Because the Air Farce wants to use the money for the F-35

a FAR less effective aircraft in the close air support role then the A-10.

This about politics, career enhancement and the dislike of the Air Farce of planes that don't go fast, aren't "sexy" and don't support the planes that do go fast and are considered "sexy".

[TwilightGardener]

7. Bullshit. The AF Chief of Staff flew A-10's, everyone in the AF loves them,

but there are other ways to do close air support and the AF can't afford to keep everything in service indefinitely.

[Lurks Often]

17. The Air Force hates them and has been trying to get rid of the A-10

since before the Gulf War.

You'll notice that they aren't shutting down any F-16 squadrons or getting rid of the B-1, which costs more to fly and has a lower readiness rating then the older B-52

[TwilightGardener]

18. The AF, as a culture, has a great deal of affection for the A-10.

But they're not only old, their job can be done with other types of aircraft. It's a business decision (mission and money), not one based on "sexiness" or sentimentality or disdain for ground troops or any other factor I've seen tossed about. When it makes sense to retire F-16's and B-52's, I'm sure a lot of people will be screaming about that too. That's the way it goes.

[Lurks Often]

20. You are the only one who believes that the Air Farce likes the A-10

The pilots flying the A-10 may like the plane, but the generals running the Air Farce want it gone.

We never should have allowed the Air Farce to become a separate branch of service.

[24601]

19. They hated them until the Army offer to take them. The thought of the Army demonstrating to

Congress that Warrant Officers can fly jets terrifies Air Force pilots.

[jeff47]

9. It's slightly more complicated

They're starting to have trouble getting parts for A-10s, since they're so old. Plus, the AF has been trying to kill them off for a while (since they aren't sexy), so nobody wants to get into the A-10 parts business.

Could be easily fixed by putting out a contract for parts, but that runs into the sexy problem.

[SnowCritter]

10. Yet they manage to keep the B-52s flying

Go figure.

[jeff47]

13. The AF thinks they're sexy.

So they're gonna keep flying.

This problem is 100% solvable, the AF just doesn't want to solve it.

[Plucketeer]

15. And too...

look at the C-130. First ones into service in 1954!!! and they're STILL buying new ones today. In SPITE of what contractors say, a particular need CAN give birth to an ultimate that can't really be eclipsed by better.

[cstanleytech]

14. *shrug* I personally like the A-10 design but that aside I thought that the other reason other than

parts issue was that it had lost some effectiveness?

[jeff47]

16. Nope. It still does its job better than anything else.

Close air support needs a low & slow aircraft that can carry a hell of a lot yet withstand all the ground fire. A-10 is still fantastic at that. The F-35 won't be nearly as good at it, since it can't fly as slowly and is much more fragile.

("Fragile" being a comparison similar to a tank versus a jeep. The jeep being more fragile doesn't mean it's gonna fall apart)

[happyslug]

11. The Air Force has "Wanted" to "Retire" the A=10 since the 1980s

The reason for this is simple, the Air Force knows the Army wants the A-10 so when the budget is set by Congress, the Army will lobby for the A-10 and it will be retained. This is done by all of the services, for example the Army and Air Force always wants to cut back its support the the Azones, for it is a Navy Air base, guarded by the Air Force but the port is maintained by the US Army. Both the Army and Air Force knows the Navy will fight for that base, thus the Army and Air Force puts it high on their list of bases to close.

This procedure is practiced by all parts of the Federal Government. The classic example was when Congress tell the Park Service to cut back expenses, the Park Services does by closing the Washington and Lincoln memorials, knowing tourists to DC will go straight to their Congress person to complain why they are closed. By teh 1970s Congress Started to allocate money just for those memorial to undermine the Park Service, who then closed down the Camping Spots in the Shenandoah Valley closest to DC when Congress cut the Budget of the Park Service.

Since WWII, the Military Services have been the most aggressive in such fights, always cutting back on areas they know the other branches want them to do. The A-10 is part of the Tactical Air Force, a part of the Air Force that should NEVER have left the Army. Ther A-10 works well with Apache Attack Helicopters as a One Two punch (The Soviet Army did the same with its SU-29 and its Attack Helicopters and Russia still keep those two aircraft operating together). The A-10 flys over and hits anything it can, the Apaches then follow up and hit what was missed. The A-10s being jets can carry more bombs and can knock out any AA weapons, than the Apaches go slow and sure and hit anything the A-10 missed.

I bring this up for the ARMY wants the A-10 and for that reason the Air Force has always been willing to give up the A-10 for the Army will fight for it. The F-35 has problems, the main problem is its expense. Congress is about ready to chock on the expense of the F-35 and if Congress chocks the F-35 is history. Congress has Chocked before, in 1970 Congress Cancelled the MBT-70 program, a much more advanced tank then the M1 that succeeded it. Congress just refused to spend one million 1970 dollars for just one Tank.

The US already has the F-22 if the US NEEDS an advance fighter. The US has other planes that can perform the job of the F-35, thus the F-35 can be cancelled WITHOUT hurting US military capacity that much. That is the concern of the Air Force NOT an attempt to save the A-10. I suspect the "decision" to get rid of the A-10 is to get Army support for the F-35. Right now the Army is the only service that has NO INTEREST IN THE F-35 (The Marines wants the F-35 to replace its Harriers, the Air Force wants the F-35 to replace its F-16s and the Navy wants the F-35 to replace its F-18s).

Worse, during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was the Army that did most of the fighting (Followed by the Marines), thus the Army has increase prestige within Washington and if the Army would say the F=35 is needed, it increase the support for the F-35 in Congress.

Thus I suspect this is an attempt to get the Army to back the F-35 NOT to get rid of the A-10.

[Lurks Often]

5. If true court martial him, reduce him in rank and give him a dishonorable discharge,

do not allow him to just retire with his benefits and pension intact.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

8. Not treason. No way, no how!

[arcane1]

12. Does he have a brother-in-law who works for a company that makes it?

There's always a brother-in-law.