The Wall Street Journal
By Dion Nissenbaum
Jan. 14, 2014 7:33 p.m. ET
The Air Force's budget-cutting plan to retire hundreds of jets that have provided invaluable protection for U.S. troops is creating strange bedfellows, as influential lawmakers and longtime critics of Pentagon bloat rally to save the A-10 "Warthog."
For more than two decades, the A-10 Thunderbolt II has provided aerial protection to ground troops, a task it has performed from Iraq's "Highway of Death" in the first Gulf War to the Taliban strongholds of eastern Afghanistan. Few people at the Pentagon challenge the plane's reputation for providing forces with the best support possible.
Eliminating the Warthog—so named because of its ugly, snub-nosed design—is one way the Air Force is looking to deal with its need to trim more than $50 billion from its budget over the next five years as part of a broader congressional mandate that the Pentagon cut $500 billion over the next decade. Air Force officials say retiring the entire fleet of about 300 A-10s by 2020 would save a total of $3.7 billion.
The Air Force's plans for the A-10 have brought together an unusual alliance of interests looking to protect the planes from Pentagon budget cutters. Opposition to the Air Force proposal is being led by Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R., N.H.), whose husband was an A-10 pilot who flew combat missions in Iraq. Joining Ms. Ayotte and more than two dozen other lawmakers is the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington-based nonprofit group that typically is a forceful advocate for defense cuts.
Ms. Ayotte temporarily blocked confirmation hearings for the administration's nominee to be Air Force secretary late last year until the Pentagon addressed some of her questions. She also ensured that the recently enacted National Defense Authorization Act, the bill that outlines defense policies, contained language preventing the Air Force from severely paring the A-10 fleet this year.
The emerging battle over the proposal to begin a five-year plan to phase out the A-10s in 2015 is a reminder of how difficult it is for the Pentagon to slash billions in spending as required by Congress and President Barack Obama. Virtually every proposed defense spending cut—from trimming benefits for veterans and closing bases to phasing out armored vehicles and eliminating aging surveillance drones— faces stiff opposition.
Effective resistance in Washington to substantive cuts restricts Pentagon options as defense officials search for ways to trim their budget as the U.S. tries to shift its focus from costly ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to emerging challenges across the globe.
In the case of the A-10, the usual opponents of defense cuts are joined by military reformers who argue the Air Force is sacrificing a proven plane to save money for expensive but more exciting fighter jets. Critics of the plan say the Air Force has never fully embraced the A-10 or its mission of providing air support for ground troops, and that mandatory budget cuts known as sequestration are merely providing the Pentagon was a convenient way to get rid of the plane.
"The Air Force is simply using sequestration and sensible budget constraints as an excuse to kill a system it never wanted in favor of the overpriced, behind-schedule, less-capable boondoggle that is the F-35" fighter jet, said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight. The F-35, the most expensive Pentagon weapons program in history, has faced cost-overruns and questions about its role for the military. The Pentagon is investing hundreds of billions in developing the F-35 to be its most advanced jet fighter. Opponents of the F-35 say the Pentagon's focus on protecting the expensive jet comes at the expense of more reliable existing Pentagon programs, like the A-10.
Top Air Force officials say they don't want to get rid of the A-10s, whose unique asset is a tank-stopping cannon in its nose that can fire nearly 4,000 rounds a minute. But, officials argue, there are few alternatives to come up with the necessary savings.
"Is the A-10 the best airplane to perform close air support? Absolutely," said Maj. Gen. Paul T. Johnson, the Air Force director of Operational Capability Requirements who has flown more hours in the A-10—about 3,000—than many other pilots working at the Pentagon. "Do we want to get rid of the A-10 performing close air support? No. But it's a measure of where we are fiscally."
The A-10 may be the best at what it does, he argued, but "in the age of austerity we can't afford that." Other planes and helicopters are still able to provide the same kind of protection as the A-10, he said, even if they aren't as effective. Warthog pilots are the only ones in the Air Force specifically tasked to provide air support for troops on the ground.
Air Force officials acknowledge that getting rid of the A-10 could lead to higher deaths, longer battles and even defeat on the battlefield. "There's a risk that attrition will be higher than it should be—that's a clever way of saying more people will get hurt and die—and extreme risk is that you might not win," Gen. Johnson said.
That is an intolerable option for the Warthog's supporters. "If they kill the A-10, the Air Force should be able to explain to families of fallen troops why they died," said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Project on Government Oversight's Straus Military Reform Project.
Source: http://online.wsj.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment