32
32
0
"I very much value the opportunity to interact with you here. The country needs good people to do the work that we do. I salute the folks that spent time with me here today." - Gen Norton Schwartz
*RP Staff will be moderating this discussion
*Post your questions below
From RP Staff: General Norton Schwartz has been a RallyPoint supporter from the get-go. We are honored to have him on our board of advisors. This coming Monday, June 8, 2015 at 11:00am EST, General Schwartz will be visiting us on RallyPoint for a live Question and Answer session. Post your questions below!
Topics General Schwartz is interested in discussing include:
- The role of the F-35
- A-10 controversy
- Air Force culture and needed change
- The future of the military retirement system
- The status of remotely piloted aircraft operators
*RP Staff will be moderating this discussion
*Post your questions below
From RP Staff: General Norton Schwartz has been a RallyPoint supporter from the get-go. We are honored to have him on our board of advisors. This coming Monday, June 8, 2015 at 11:00am EST, General Schwartz will be visiting us on RallyPoint for a live Question and Answer session. Post your questions below!
Topics General Schwartz is interested in discussing include:
- The role of the F-35
- A-10 controversy
- Air Force culture and needed change
- The future of the military retirement system
- The status of remotely piloted aircraft operators
Air Force
Air Force Reserve
Leadership
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 53
22
22
0
Why is the Air Force so adamant about getting rid of the A-10? Especially when retiring the F-16 would make more sense since the F-35 is a direct replacement.
(22)
(0)
Gen Norton Schwartz
The A-10 issue hinges on the question of versatility. The A-10 is a great CAS platform but has limited utility in other mission applications. The F-16 is a multi-role aircraft. While it may seem simplistic, the logic of the argument was that we needed to preserve the most versatile capabilities for the resources available.
(5)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
While I respect the argument of versatility, by that logic, we should retire the C-17 in favor of the KC-46 because it can carry cargo AND refuel. There is no other aircraft that can match the A-10 in CAS, and I think many of believe that the lives it saves makes the small amount of funding it requires worth every penny.
(3)
(0)
TSgt James Carson
The F-35 is mentioned to take the place of the A-10. That airframe isn't even strong enough to take the hits a A-10 does and survive. THE a-10 IS CHEAPER TO BULD, AND COULD BE FURTHR MODIFIED TO STAY ISN SERVICE FOR YEARS TO COME.
(1)
(0)
A1C Kyle Sprague
Thank you for your time, General. I understand the point regarding the lack of versatility of the A10, however, many of my friends who are the boots on the ground would firmly stand by the A10 for its combat effectiveness. I know people personally who have benefited from CAS via the A10 and other aircraft and they were extremely grateful for the effectiveness of the A10. Also, the sheer intimidation factor of the aircraft is astounding. It is my belief that our military as a whole would be adversely effected by the removal of the A10 from our fighting force.
(1)
(0)
10
10
0
Sir, Thanks for being here with us! During your time in command and while I was on active duty, RPAs were becoming a major part of our USAF combat operations overseas. I remember you mentioning at a Nimitz lecture series that 'unmanned weapons' have always been around and we have been extending our reach to the battlefield for centuries. I enjoyed your analogy of using a bow and arrow as the early ways fighters extended their fighting distances. Having seen the growing role of UAVs since you left command, do you have any concerns or worries about their role in today's military or civilian applications? I know we are seeing adversaries building this very same capability and would love to hear your thoughts on our ability defend against this threat as we grow with more advanced technology as a military.
(10)
(0)
SGT(P) Bruce Van Havermaet
Good morning sir, thank you for your service. Why is it the med board take's so long to med someone out? I might be in that situation and I here sad stories about that. I have 15 years in with more active time than national guard time, and deployments. Now for the A10 great plane, keep it. Affordable, simple, basic that's what has made it great.
(0)
(0)
Gen Norton Schwartz
All technologies offer advantages and some liabilities. I don't think one can dispute the value of persistent surveillance for military missions. And, reducing the time from target acquisition to action on the target has military value as well. Given the proliferation of the technology, however, we need to think about both our own use and how others might employ such a capability against our on troops.
Commercial opportunities abound for remotely operated aircraft...large and small. Agriculture, package delivery, pipeline surveillance, bridge inspection, etc. The key will be to keep civil airspace safe from multiplying air platform conflicts.
Commercial opportunities abound for remotely operated aircraft...large and small. Agriculture, package delivery, pipeline surveillance, bridge inspection, etc. The key will be to keep civil airspace safe from multiplying air platform conflicts.
(7)
(0)
9
9
0
Gen Schwartz,
Why hasn't the Air Force seriously considered implementing Warrant Officer structure?
This question comes to mind for a multitude of reasons. A friend of mine was recently passed over for promotion to Major. He is a heavy pilot with more than 3000 hours of which 1500+ were combat. (He was never in any trouble, was successful, and well-liked). He simply never made the wickets and never had much interest in command...but he is among the best pilots I have ever served with and would have gladly stepped down from a senior captain to a W4 or similar position rather than get his walking papers.
Implementing WOs has many benefits and few drawbacks. It saves the AF tons of money in training through potential retention, keeps excellent and highly qualified individuals wanting to serve still serving, and provides an intermediary rank structure for technical experts in line with the other services. WOs would also nicely fulfill a void as many other posters in this forum have asked.
What are your thoughts? If you were a captain still believing he can make a difference, what would you do to try to get such a change implemented?
Why hasn't the Air Force seriously considered implementing Warrant Officer structure?
This question comes to mind for a multitude of reasons. A friend of mine was recently passed over for promotion to Major. He is a heavy pilot with more than 3000 hours of which 1500+ were combat. (He was never in any trouble, was successful, and well-liked). He simply never made the wickets and never had much interest in command...but he is among the best pilots I have ever served with and would have gladly stepped down from a senior captain to a W4 or similar position rather than get his walking papers.
Implementing WOs has many benefits and few drawbacks. It saves the AF tons of money in training through potential retention, keeps excellent and highly qualified individuals wanting to serve still serving, and provides an intermediary rank structure for technical experts in line with the other services. WOs would also nicely fulfill a void as many other posters in this forum have asked.
What are your thoughts? If you were a captain still believing he can make a difference, what would you do to try to get such a change implemented?
(9)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
I left the Air Force to join the Army because of the Air Force's lack of Warrant Officers. I was sad to leave after 9 years, but i felt it was the best way for me to have a positive impact.
(1)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
Having Warrant Officers could also alleviate the problem of trying to maintain qualified UAV pilots.
(0)
(0)
Gen Norton Schwartz
I have always had the view that there is a place for a full-time aviator track in the AF...one that would be competitively selected based on skill, performance, commitment. I am not sure, however, if there is a need to proliferate additional grade structure through the return of the Warrant Officer.
(1)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
Gen Norton Schwartz, thank you for your response to my question. How would you outline a full-time aviator/non-command track within our current dogmatic "up or out" promotion system? Looking at some of our allied nations with whom I have served one viable solution may be to plateau those not identified for a command track at captain for them to serve out their years. Also, how would this address enlisted fliers/UAVs as other posters are mentioning?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google