US pilots are testing the aging A-10 Warthog for a new kind of mission against more advanced enemies

AIR DECOY MISSIONS HELPS ELIMINATE UNLOVED A-10

Michael Peck
Wed, December 14, 2022

B-1Bs and A-10s over the Philippine Sea on November 9.

US Air Force/Capt. Coleen Berryhill

Since arriving in the 1970s, the A-10 has earned a reputation as a tank-killing ground-attack plane.


In recent exercises, the A-10 tried out a new role: deploying decoys to distract enemy air defenses.

The change comes as the US military is shifting its focus and forces to operations in the Pacific.

The A-10 Warthog has made its reputation as a tank-killer, but now the Air Force is testing 50-year-old plane for another mission: launching decoys to protect other aircraft.

During exercises in the Pacific in early November, A-10s were equipped with the ADM-160 Miniature Air Launched Decoy.

Described as a sort of cruise missile, the 8-foot-long MALD weighs less than 300 pounds and has a range of 500 miles. It is equipped with a Signature Augmentation System that mimics the radar signature and flight profiles of specific US aircraft. (The MALD-J variant has a jammer.)

The idea is to launch salvoes of MALDs ahead of a US airstrike to confuse the enemy about how many aircraft are coming and from where.

During Green Flag-West from November 2 to 9, a DATM-160 — a training version of the MALD — was loaded onto an A-10 on an island off the coast of Naval Air Station North Island in California.

A US Air Force crew chief prepares to launch an A-10 for Green Flag-West in California on November 9.

US Air Force/Senior Airman Zachary Rufus

"The A-10 can carry up to 16 MALDs, the same quantity as the B-52, and 12 more than the F-16," according to an Air Force news release.

But interestingly, the MALD isn't being envisioned as a means to protect the A-10. Rather, the Warthog would use its decoys to support other aircraft, such as fifth-generation F-35s and F-22s or bombers.

During another exercise over the Philippine Sea on November 9, A-10 pilots simulated using MALDs in "an integrated strike mission simulation" with B1-B bombers.

"Having a combat-proven platform like the A-10 provide support through their MALD decoys increases the probability that our aircraft and weapons successfully strike their targets," Maj. Daniel Winningham, 37th Bomb Squadron B-1B instructor pilot, said in a release.

Maj. Taylor Raasch, an instructor with the Air Force 66th Weapons Squadron, which participated in Green Flag-West, said that the way the A-10 can "help support the fifth-generation fight in support of a pacing threat is provide the unique capability to carry a multitude of weapons and work in austere environments."

'How are we going to find the boats?'

An A-10 carrying a DATM-160 on California's San Clemente Island on November 7.

US Air Force/Senior Airman Zachary Rufus

While the MALD may be a useful way to protect US aircraft and drive enemy air-defense networks crazy, choosing the A-10 to haul decoys is curious.

The Warthog was designed in the 1970s as a ground-attack aircraft to smash Soviet armored columns invading Europe. That meant it needed a powerful 30-mm cannon and anti-tank missiles, as well as armor plating and a rugged design to survive thick Soviet air defenses — and even with that armament, Air Force planners expected heavy losses.

While the A-10 has respectable range — about 700 miles, which can be extended by aerial refueling — a longer-range decoy-laden aircraft, such as a cargo plane or a drone, might be more useful, especially across the vast Pacific.

Instead, the venerable A-10, which first flew in 1972, seems to be in search of a mission.

US airmen load an ADM-160 MALD on an A-10 at a base in Wisconsin on March 1.

US Air National Guard/Tech. Sgt. Samara Taylor

For years, the Air Force has sought to scrap the Warthog, believing the aging plane might not survive against modern Russian and Chinese air defenses. And for years, the Warthog has kept flying, buoyed in part by a popular image as an aerial tough guy that can dish out punishment and take it, too. (Congress finally relented this month, allowing the Air Force to begin retiring A-10s in the coming year.)

As the US military pivots its focus to the Pacific, some argue that the A-10 would be useful in a war against China, especially if it were armed with long-range missiles.

The mission in support of the B-1B "was a fantastic way to demonstrate how the A-10 is capable of shifting from a close-air-support team mindset to a strike team. We are building on our old principles to transform into the A-10 community the joint force needs," Capt. Coleen Berryhill, an A-10 pilot, said in a release.

November's Green Flag-West exercise also marked a shift. Since 1981, the Air Force has used the exercise to train to provide air support to Army units. This time, the A-10s trained to support the US Navy, including as a ship-killer.

US Air Force Capt. Coleen Berryhill flies near a formation of B1-Bs and A-10s over the Philippine Sea on November 9.

US Air Force/Capt. Coleen Berryhill

While the Warthog's cannon and missiles could pulverize most warships, maritime strike would be a new mission — and one that would be vital in a conflict with China.

"A concern we had in the planning phase of Green Flag was 'how are we going to find the boats?'" said Capt. Joseph Cole, assistant director of operations for the Air Force's 549th Combat Training Squadron. "We know we can kill them, but how can we find them and target them?"

The exercise also saw the A-10 operate from an "austere" island off the California coast, reflecting the Air Force's growing focus on using rugged or improvised airfields in the Pacific. But this also raises questions about supplying the A-10 with fuel, munitions, and especially maintenance in forward areas.

The A-10 was designed a half-century ago for an armor-focused conflict. Ironically, that sort of warfare is now taking place in Ukraine, but US officials have declined to send manned aircraft to Ukraine, and some Ukrainians have cast doubt on the Warthog's utility.

The US military's focus on the Pacific will only increase, but whether the A-10 has a role there remains to be seen.

Michael Peck is a defense writer whose work has appeared in Forbes, Defense News, Foreign Policy magazine, and other publications. He holds a master's in political science. Follow him on Twitter and LinkedIn.

BEST DAMNED KILLING MACHINE EVER

OBITUARY

Famed A-10 Warthog pioneer passes away
Pierre Spey was part of the Pentagon's 'Fighter Mafia' and a long-time opponent of the not-so-stealthy F-35

By STEPHEN BRYEN

AUGUST 24, 2021
Print

The A-10 Warthog has until recently been a mainstay of the US Air Force. 

Photo: US Air Force

Pierre Spey, one of the most interesting and controversial aircraft designers and a Pentagon nemesis, died this week at the age of 83. Spey was responsible for the design of the A-10 close support fighter and in part for the F-16 design.

And he was a longtime opponent of the super-expensive stealthy F-35.

Spey was born in 1937 in Nice, France. His parents, both Jewish, escaped the coming holocaust and made their way to the United States. Spey was admitted to Yale University at the age of 14 and later studied at Cornell University. He studied aeronautical engineering, mathematical statistics and operations research.

Starting out at Grumman Aircraft (where the A-10 was eventually built), he went to the Pentagon where he was part of what became known as the “Fighter Mafia” – teaming with John Boyd and Thomas P Christie. Robert Coram in his book on John Boyd has a good deal to say about Spey and Christie.

After his Pentagon career, Spey became a record producer focused on jazz. Some of his recordings were highly praised. The equipment for the recording studio was put together by Spey in his home in suburban Maryland, near Washington DC.

His recording with the Addicts Rehabilitation Center Choir singing Walk With Me appears in Kanye West’s 2004 hit Jesus Walks.

Spey was a highly successful Air Force and Pentagon infighter. Through his influence, the A-10 was chosen over the objections of Air Force brass and Pentagon leaders.

The A-10 is a unique close air support and ground attack aircraft that the US Air Force has been trying to get rid of for decades. Unfortunately for the Air Force, the A-10 has performed brilliantly in the two Iraq wars and in Afghanistan.

The A-10 was called the Warthog because from the outside it is an ugly aircraft. But the Warthog designation was also a term of affection from the pilots who flew the aircraft.

A 30mm cannon from an A-10 sits to the side as an aircraft mechanic works an A-10 Thunderbolt Warthog on December 20, 2017, at Hill Air Force base in Ogden, Utah. 

Photo: AFP / George Frey / Getty Images

Tom Christie said: “He was one of the most detested people by the United States Air Force because he was challenging a lot of sacred programs and strategies.”

The A-10 was originally designed to support NATO if there was a Soviet invasion of Europe. It was designed to knock out Russian armor, radars and command centers and support allied troops against Warsaw Pact forces.

The A-10 features a very unique design. It has two engines, mounted high on the upper rear which are designed to reduce the heat signature that infrared anti-aircraft missiles seek. It has self-sealing foamed fuel tanks that can take ground fire hits and not explode or burn and a titanium cocoon protecting the pilot.

The aircraft design allows the fighter to operate at low speeds and to be maneuverable. It carries a powerful GAU-8, 30mm hydraulically driven seven-barrel Gatling-style autocannon that can fire 3,900 rounds per minute.

It also carries Maverick (AGM-65) air-to-ground TV-guided missiles and bombs. In Operation Desert Storm in 1991, A-10s destroyed more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces.

On a single day, A-10s destroyed 65 Iraqi, mainly Russian-built heavy battle tanks (T-62s and T-72s).

In Afghanistan, the A-10 was primarily engaged in providing close air support against the Taliban and protecting US and Afghan troops. Most of the time this involved ferreting out Taliban fighters ensconced in mountainous areas surrounding friendly forces rather than performing an anti-armor role. Again the A-10 was tremendously successful.

Even so, the Air Force continues to try and rid itself of the A-10 and replace it with the F-35, something Spey believed was a mistake. The F-35 in a close support role, if it ever was used that way, would be extremely vulnerable to ground fire and in that scenario its stealth capability would be of no value.

Spey considered stealth as a scam because he said Russian radars (which China has copied) using longer-wave frequencies would be able to detect the F-35 and shoot them down. Spey also criticized the F-35 because it is not maneuverable, can’t fly slow and only carries a small weapons load, mostly because the F-35 to retain its stealthiness must carry weapons internally.

  

A US Air Force Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning not-so-stealth fighter. 

Photo: AFP / Yichuan Cao / NurPhoto

Moreover, the original F-35 did not have a gun system – it was put on the aircraft later after much criticism. Of course, the F-35 carries a smaller ammunition load and smaller caliber than the A-10, has a less effective range and isn’t of any use in ground support if the aircraft has to stay far from the conflicted area for safety reasons.

The F-35 is extremely expensive to operate and hard to maintain. The A-10 is far cheaper to operate and easy to maintain even at remote locations (something that can’t be done with the F-35).

Acquisition costs also are radically different. In current-day dollars, the A-10 would cost US$9.3 million (it is no longer manufactured and the plant where it was made is closed). By contrast, the F-35 costs in excess of $78 million and its sustainment costs could bleed the Air Force budget.

In Spey’s view, the F-35 is not a combat survivable aircraft because it can’t really provide close support and because its lack of maneuverability means it wouldn’t survive in any close encounter with enemy aircraft.

By contrast, the A-10 was built to take hits and keep flying. A number of A-10s were shot up in the Iraqi conflicts, but were able to return to base.

In the latest Biden-backed budget, 43 A-10s will be scrapped if the budget is approved by Congress.

American soldiers stand in front of an A-10 Thunderbolt at Incirlik Air Base in Adana, Turkey.

 Photo: AFP / Ozge Elif Kizil / Anadolu Agency

A fitting tribute to Spey would be to give the 43 A-10s the Pentagon wants to scrap to Taiwan.

The A-10 would be a superb aircraft to destroy any attempt by China to launch an invasion of Taiwan, since the aircraft could slice up Chinese landing craft and destroy any armor that the Chinese might be able to get onto the island in an attack.

Supported by upgraded and new F-16s that can challenge China’s top combat aircraft, Taiwan would have a fighting chance to stop even a powerful China from a successful attack.

  

SEE LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY 

A-10: Why The Thunderbolt Is A ‘Flying Tank’ Legend

By Peter Suciu
Published 2 days ago

Image: Creative Commons.

Many think of the A-10 as a flying tank so old that she should be retired to make way for room and budget for newer planes like the F-35. And yet, there are those that just won’t let this plane head into the sunset. –

On May 10, 1972, the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt had its maiden flight. The development of the aircraft began in the early 1960s when the United States military was still relying on the Korean War-era Douglas A-1 Skyraider for its primary ground-attack aircraft.

The Skyraider was certainly a capable aircraft for its air, but by Vietnam, its age was showing. In fact, the aircraft was ill-suited to the jungle campaign, and as a result, the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy lost 266 A-1s in combat, largely from small arms fire.

Even before that point, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara had called for the development of a tactical attack aircraft. Despite the more overt attractions of Mach 2 aircraft, the Air Force focused on the close air support (CAS) mission. It needed something that was a modernized Skyraider that could carry a heavy load of ordnance, had good endurance and could survive severe damage from ground fire.

Between 1963 and 1969, extensive studies gradually refined the specifications for the new aircraft, and several prototypes were considered. In December 1972, the Fairchild Republic A-10A Thunderbolt was deemed the winner, while GE was chosen to produce the aircraft’s 30mm tank-busting GAU-8 gun, a powerful weapon that had a very high muzzle velocity that was twenty times that of the 75mm gun fitted to some B-25s in World War II.

In addition, the 30mm gun, which used rotating barrels, offered an unparalleled rate-of-fire for an aircraft weapon. Able to fire up to 4,200 rounds per minute, no attack aircraft in history has ever mounted a gun with the tank-killing capability of the GAU-8.
Introduction of the A-10

Production of the A-10 Thunderbolt II began in 1972, and the aircraft officially entered service with the United States Air Force in 1977. The A-10s short takeoff and landing (STOL) capability permitted it to operate from airstrips close to front lines. Service at forwarding base areas with limited facilities is possible because of the A-10’s simplicity of design.

It was first deployed during Operation Urgent Fury, the 1983 American invasion of Grenada, and provided air cover for the United States Marine Corps, but did not fire their weapons.




An A-10 Thunderbolt II takes off to provide close-air support to ground troops in Iraq April 25 from Al Asad Air Base, Iraq. The 438th Air Expeditionary Group A-10s perform 10 sorties daily, with 900 sorties in this last four months. (U.S. Air Force photo/Tech. Sgt. Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr.)


A-10 Warthog. Image Credit: Creative Commons.


A-10 Warthog. Image Credit: Creative Commons.


A-10 Warthog. Image Credit: Creative Commons/Computer Generated.

In fact, it wasn’t until the Gulf War in 1991 that the aircraft took part in combat operations. A-10s successfully shot down two Iraqi helicopters with the GAU-8, and took part in numerous sorties against Iraqi Republican Guard units. Several A-10s were shot down by surface-to-air missiles, while nearly a dozen were hit by anti-air artillery rounds – yet the aircraft performed well enough that the Air Force abandoned an idea to replace the A-10s with a close air support version of the F-16 Fighting Falcon.

Wings Clipped?

Over the past two decades, the A-10 has been deployed to subsequent operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. However, for the past decade, the Air Force has wanted to divest some or all of its remaining 281 A-10 Warthogs. The service’s most recent plan was to reduce the A-10 fleet to some 218 aircraft in total within the next two years and to retain those planes with a number of upgrades, including new wings, a new High-Resolution Display System and other advancements that could extend their operational service through 2030 or beyond.

Supporters of the A-10 note that it offers excellent maneuverability at low airspeeds and altitude while maintaining a highly accurate weapons-delivery platform. The Thunderbolt II can loiter near battle areas for extended periods of time, are capable of austere landings, and operate under 1,000-foot ceilings (303.3 meters) with 1.5-mile (2.4 kilometers) visibility.

In addition, its wide combat radius and short takeoff and landing capability permit operations in and out of locations near front lines. Using night-vision goggles, A-10C pilots can conduct their missions during darkness, while Thunderbolt IIs are also equipped with a Night Vision Imaging Systems (NVIS), goggle compatible single-seat cockpits forward of their wings, Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems and a large bubble canopy that provides pilots all-around vision.




Image: Creative Commons.


Image: Creative Commons.


Image: Creative Commons


Image: Creative Commons.

The aircraft’s pilots are even protected by titanium armor that further protects parts of the flight-control system. The redundant primary structural sections allow the aircraft provides better survivability during close air support than the previous aircraft. The A-10, which has earned the moniker “Warthog,” can survive direct hits from armor-piercing and high explosive projectiles up to 23mm. The aircraft’s self-sealing fuel cells are protected by internal and external foam, while manual systems back up their redundant hydraulic flight-control systems – and permits pilots to fly and land when hydraulic power is lost.

Designed for the accurate delivery of ordnance at low altitude, the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt became one of the most heavily armed, and armored plane in history.

New Lease on Life?

In March 2022, the Air Force announced that it had tested an A-10C Thunderbolt II loaded with GBU-39 Small-Diameter Bombs near Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida. This integration of the GBU-39 on the A-10 is one of the major upgrades that were announced in 2019 as part of the A-10 Common Fleet Initiative.

This upgrade, which has been in development since 2020, will increase the weapon capacity of the A-10, which until now was limited to carrying only a single weapon on each pylon. By utilizing the BRU-61/A rack, the A-10 will be able to carry four SDBs on each weapon pylon, becoming essentially a “bomb truck” that can release these stand-off weapons to neutralize threats as far as fifty miles in the target area before starting to provide Close Air Support (CAS) to ground troops. This could allow the A-10s to remain a vital part of the Air Force’s fleet well into the 2030s.

WRITTEN BY Peter Suciu

Now a Senior Editor for 1945, Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He regularly writes about military hardware, and is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes.

Expert Biography: A Senior Editor for 1945, Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,000 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu.

Bbrrrtttiful Images Of A Flightline Packed With A-10s For Hawgsmoke 2022

Emma Helfrich - Yesterday 

The U.S. Air Force has released a number of striking photos showing 37 A-10 Warthogs in an orderly formation on the flightline at Gowen Field in Boise, Idaho. The Warthogs are from multiple units across the globe, which have gathered in Idaho for the latest iteration of a biennial bombing, missile, and tactical gunnery competition for A-10s dubbed Hawgsmoke.


Bbrrrtttiful Images Of A Flightline Packed With A-10s For Hawgsmoke 2022© U.S. Air National Guard photo by Staff Sgt. Mercedee Wilds

Hawgsmoke 2022 kicked off on September 6 and will wrap up tonight. This year’s event was hosted by the Idaho Air National Guard’s 124th Fighter Wing, and the snapshots that have already come out of it are impressive. The 37 Warthogs involved in the competition make up more than a tenth of the Air Force’s entire 281-strong fleet all in one place. 150 Pilots, as well as maintainers and weapon teams from 15 active duty, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve units, are participating in the overall competition, including the following outfits:

25th Fighter Squadron from Osan Air Base, South Korea47th Fighter Squadron from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona66th Weapons Squadron from Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada74th Fighter Squadron from Moody Air Force Base, Georgia75th Fighter Squadron from Moody Air Force Base, Georgia76th Fighter Squadron from Moody Air Force Base, Georgia104th Fighter Squadron from Warfield Air National Guard Base, Middle River, Maryland107th Fighter Squadron from Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Michigan163d Fighter Squadron from Fort Wayne Air National Guard Station, Indiana190th Fighter Squadron from Gowen Field Air National Guard Base, Boise, Idaho303rd Fighter Squadron from Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri354th Fighter Squadron from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona357th Fighter Squadron from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona358th Fighter Squadron from Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri422d Test and Evaluation Squadron from Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada On Sept. 7, over 30 A-10s from across the nation parked at Gowen Field's flightline in preparation for the competition. Credit: U.S. Air National Guard photo by Master Sgt. Becky Vanshur More than 150 pilots, maintainers, and weapon teams from approximately 14 active duty, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve units from across the globe are in the competition. Credit: U.S. Air National Guard photo by Master Sgt. Becky Vanshur



Bbrrrtttiful Images Of A Flightline Packed With A-10s For Hawgsmoke 2022

© Provided by The Drive

To start the competition, the 124th performed a missing man formation on Tuesday to honor fallen soldiers and mark the beginning of the traditional Hawgsmoke opening ceremony. The Air Force noted that Idaho's Warhawk Air Museum also performed a flyover with a Curtiss P-40N Warhawk and a Republic P-47D Thunderbolt. It is important to note that the A-10’s official nickname is actually Thunderbolt II, a direct reference to the P-47, and both aircraft were built by the same manufacturer.

Hawgsmoke — a play of the 'Gunsmoke' aerial gunnery competitions dating back decades — was first established in 1996 by Col. Cliff Latta, the operations group commander of the 110th Fighter Wing in Battle Creek Michigan, according to Hawgsmoke.com, an unofficial website dedicated to the competition. Latta wanted a way to showcase his unit to the other Air National Guard A-10 squadron at the time, and thus the world’s first Hawgsmoke competition was held that same year in conjunction with the annual Air National Guard A-10 Operations Group Commander meeting.



Bbrrrtttiful Images Of A Flightline Packed With A-10s For Hawgsmoke 2022

© Provided by The Drive

A-10 Thunderbolt II pilots participate in an opening ceremony after arriving at Gowen Field, Boise, Idaho, to compete in Hawgsmoke 2022. Credit: U.S. Air National Guard photo by Staff Sgt. Mercedee Wilds A-10 Thunderbolt IIs arrive at Gowen Field, Boise, Idaho, to compete in Hawgsmoke 2022. Credit: U.S. Air National Guard photo by Staff Sgt. Mercedee Wilds

The 175th Fighter Wing out of Martin State, Maryland, was crowned the winner of the inaugural Hawgsmoke in 1996 and started what would later become a tradition among winning units to host the next competition. However, the military started to lose interest in Hawgsmoke over the next four years, so Latta attempted to reinvigorate the event in 2000 by including every A-10 unit in the Air National Guard, Active Duty, and Air Force Reserves, as continues today.

“Hawgsmoke was established to allow current Hawg Pilots an opportunity to show their stuff,” Latta once said. “The goal was to have a low-key fighter pilot weekend with the comrades … that just happened to have a competition attached.”

The Warthog, however, came long before Hawgsmoke, nearly 20 years before to be exact. The first A-10A was delivered to Arizona’s Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in 1975 intended specifically for close air support missions. The Warthog went on to receive a significant amount of notoriety for its role in the Gulf War where it had a mission-capable rate of 95.7%, flew 8,100 sorties, and launched 90% of the war’s AGM-65 Maverick missiles. The Hawgsmoke competition was introduced five years after the Gulf War ended and by then the aircraft had already retained a legendary reputation.


Bbrrrtttiful Images Of A Flightline Packed With A-10s For Hawgsmoke 2022

© Provided by The Drive

Three A-10 Warthogs taxi on the runway ahead of the Hawgsmoke competition. Credit: U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sergeant Joseph R. Morgan An A-10 Warthog as it speeds up for take-off during the 2022 Hawgsmoke competition. Credit: U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sergeant Joseph R. Morgan

The most recent competition was Hawgsmoke 2020/2021, which was held last April after being pushed back a year due to complications brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. After the event’s three-year hiatus, the 190th Fighter Squadron from Boise, Idaho came back to win their third Hawgsmoke competition overall having also been the reigning champions back in 2008 and 2010. The 190th, also known as the Skullbangers, outperformed a total of 12 units to win their third title after exceeding in a number of competitions meant to test maintenance, weapons load crews, and pilots in various combat-reminiscent scenarios. Points are awarded through a number of drills that range from weapons loading to strafing.

TAn A-10 Thunderbolt II arrives at Gowen Field, Boise, Idaho, to compete in Hawgsmoke 2022. Credit: U.S. Air National Guard photo by Staff Sgt. Mercedee Wilds

“It was awesome,” said Lt. Col. Jason ‘Jodi’ Cobb, 190th Fighter Squadron A-10 instructor pilot in an Air Force press release. “Overall, we came together as a group of A-10 pilots with great camaraderie and esprit de corps for the mission that we are focused on. It’s really exciting to get together with people that we don’t ever get to see and go do what we do, it’s surreal. It’s really a high honor in order to [be a part of] Hawgsmoke.”

The 190th Fighter Squadron, having won this aerial warfighter skills competition three times since its inception in 2000, is back on their home turf defending the title. Credit: U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sergeant Joseph R. Morgan


Bbrrrtttiful Images Of A Flightline Packed With A-10s For Hawgsmoke 2022

© Provided by The Drive

The true champion of Hawgsmoke, though, will always be the Warthog. The storied aircraft has evaded complete retirement for decades now. While that day may still come in the not-so-distant future, especially now that support is building in Congress to allow for the retirement of another batch of A-10s, the Air Force is nonetheless working to modernize at least a portion of its A-10 fleet to ensure that it remains a key player in future high-end conflicts. You can read all about what those upgrades will entail in this past War Zone feature, here.


Bbrrrtttiful Images Of A Flightline Packed With A-10s For Hawgsmoke 2022

© Provided by The Drive

An A-10 Thunderbolt II, from the Idaho National Guard’s 124th Fighter Wing, Boise, Idaho, performs a strafing run during the Hawgsmoke 2022 gunnery competition. Credit: U.S. Air National Guard photo by Senior Master Sgt. Joshua C. Allmaras

There is also the possibility, albeit remote, that the Warthog could find new life in the skies over Ukraine as the country continues to fight against Russia’s invasion. In fact, resourceful Ukrainians have made it so the country's fighter pilots have already been able to train on the A-10 with DIY flight simulators in hopes that this day may come. Some Ukrainian officials, however, would instead prefer a more “fast and versatile” system while others ask 'why not both?' Regardless, even top U.S. Air Force officials have stated that transferring A-10s to Ukraine is not off the table, and considering they are the biggest proponents of unloading the aircraft, doing so would, at least to some degree, give them a reason to draw down the USAF A-10 force even further.

If the A-10 finally does leave the Air Force's inventory in the coming years, it will certainly be sad to see Hawgsmoke go along with it. But until then, the A-10 community will continue to make the best out of their aircraft.

With that in mind, it has now been announced that pilots from the 190th have defended their title from last year and won Hawgsmoke 2022. Congrats, Skullbangers!

Contact the author: Emma@thewarzone.com

LONG RIFLES AND AR15 VS THE A10

An A-10 Thunderbolt II, from the Idaho National Guard’s 124th Fighter Wing, Boise, Idaho, performs a strafing run during the Hawgsmoke 2022 gunnery competition at the Saylor Creek Bombing Range, south of Mountain Home, Idaho, Sept. 8, 2022. The competition traces its heritage back to 1949 and the Gunsmoke gunnery competition. (U.S. Air National Guard photo by Senior Master Sgt. Joshua C. Allmaras)© Provided by The Drive


Bbrrrtttiful Images Of A Flightline Packed With A-10s For Hawgsmoke 2022© Provided by The Drive


Thirty-three A-10 Thunderbolt II’s arrive at Gowen Field, Boise, Idaho, to compete in Hawgsmoke 2022, Sept 6, 2022. Hawgsmoke is a biennial USAF bombing, missile, and tactical gunnery competition for A-10 Thunderbolt II units which provides unique training. (U.S. Air National Guard photo by Staff Sgt. Mercedee Wilds)© Provided by The Drive


Bbrrrtttiful Images Of A Flightline Packed With A-10s For Hawgsmoke 2022© Provided by The Drive

SEE 

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for A-10 Warthog 

Photos of US Air Force A-10s in action capture Warthog strafing runs and the bullet-riddled aftermath

Despite the power of the plane's weapons, the Air Force is planning to retire the A-10, which is over 40 years old

GIVE THEM TO THE UKRAINE

Lauren Frias
Thu, December 21, 2023 

US Air Force pilots recently practiced strafing runs in the A-10 Thunderbolt II, a close-air support plane also known as the Warthog.


The training took place at Grand Bay Bombing and Gunnery Range near Moody Air Force Base in Georgia.


Photos show the A-10 performing flight maneuvers and deploying flares.

US military photos from a recent training exercise captured US Air Force A-10s in action, showing a bit of what the attack aircraft sometimes described as a cannon with wings is capable of.

In early December, Air Force pilots practiced strafing runs with A-10 Thunderbolt II close-air support aircraft, also known as the Warthog. The ground-attack planes are known for their powerful cannon and, in some cases, the unique shark-inspired nose paint.

Strafing runs train pilots to attack ground targets using mounted automatic weapons. In the case of the A-10, the plane's GAU-8 Avenger 30 mm cannon can fire nearly 4,000 rounds a minute.

Photos from the recent training exercise show A-10s from the 74th Fighter Squadron flying above Moody Air Force Base in Georgia, deploying flares, executing gun runs, and performing impressive flight maneuvers.

Some of the A-10s that participated in the training featured a fearsome paint job on the nose of the plane resembling a shark.

A US Air Force A-10C Thunderbolt II pilot deploys flares to intercept enemy heat-seeking missiles.US Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Devin Boyer/DVIDS

Not all A-10s get to sport the shark teeth war paint. Only planes that are part of the 74th, 75th, and 76th Fighter Squadrons have the shark nose art. It's a design specifically tied to the history of the squadrons.

"There are other A-10 units that have nose art, but not the iconic shark face," an A-10 pilot and commanding officer of the 74th Fighter Squadron previously told Business Insider's Ryan Pickrell.

The A-10 is a dedicated close-air support plane built to take out ground targets, including tanks.

A US Air Force A-10C Thunderbolt II pilot deploys flares near Moody Air Force Base, Georgia.US Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Devin Boyer/DVIDS

The aircraft was first introduced in the 1970s and was built with Soviet armor, considered to be a threat to Western Europe during the Cold War, in mind.

The gun is so loud that pilots have to wear two layers of ear protection to muffle the sound of the plane's cannon.

A US Air Force A-10C Thunderbolt II pilot conducts strafing runs over Grand Bay Bombing and Gunnery Range near Moody Air Force Base in Georgia.US Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Devin Boyer/DVIDS

The seven-barrel cannon on the A-10 is famous for the "BRRRT" sound it makes when fired, and it can be something of an intense experience for pilots.

An A-10 pilot previously told Business Insider it "feels like driving over railroad tracks" when the gun is fired. "You're sitting right on top of the gun," he said, "so it shakes the whole airplane."

The attack aircraft carry a little over a thousand rounds, which are fired in short yet devastating bursts.

A photo from the recent training of a bullet-riddled cargo container on the ground is evidence of the A-10's power.

A cargo container is covered with bullet holes at Grand Bay Bombing and Gunnery Range near Moody Air Force Base in Georgia.US Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Devin Boyer/DVIDS

The plane fires armor-piercing depleted-uranium rounds.

Alongside the GAU-8 Avenger cannon, the A-10 carries rockets, missiles, and bombs. The plane also has defenses, such as flares that can be used to intercept enemy heat-seeking missiles.

A US Air Force A-10C Thunderbolt II pilot deploys flares over Grand Bay Bombing and Gunnery Range.US Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Devin Boyer/DVIDS

But the A-10 may not be flying for too much longer.

A U.S. Air Force A-10C Thunderbolt II flies over Grand Bay Bombing and Gunnery Range.US Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Devin Boyer/DVIDS

Despite the power of the plane's weapons, the Air Force is planning to retire the A-10, which is over 40 years old, because the aircraft "does not deter or survive against our pacing challenge, and we need to move forward," the military branch said in a past request to Congress, referring specifically to the threats posed by China.

The Air Force is looking to the new F-35A Lightning II to perform key A-10 missions like close-air support, but there are some questions as to whether or not it fully meets expectations there. For now, the Warthog is still flying, but its days are numbered.

A-10 Vs F-35 Close Air Support Flyoff Report Finally Emerges

LONG READ

Joseph Trevithick
Wed, November 1, 2023 

A heavily redacted copy of the final report on a controversial flyoff between the A-10 Warthog and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has finally been released.

A report on the controversial close air support-focused flyoff between the A-10C Warthog and F-35A Joint Strike Fighter that took place between 2018 and 2019 has finally emerged. The declassified review, which was only completed last year and has been essentially buried until now, is heavily redacted and raises more questions than it provides answers in many areas. However, it does still offer valuable details that have not previously been made public even as the U.S. Air Force looks to retire the last of the Warthogs no later than the end of the decade.

A US Air Force F-35A drops a 2,000-pound-class Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) during an evaluation in 2017 unrelated to the flyoff against the A-10. USAF

Project on Government Oversight (POGO), an independent nonprofit, obtained a declassified copy of the report via the Freedom of Information Act and litigation against the U.S. government and published it this week, along with its own analysis. The document, which was produced by the Pentagon's Office of the Director of Test and Evaluation, or DOT&E, is dated February 2022. The comparative testing ran from April 2018 to March 2019. The flyoff was only conducted to meet a demand from Congress that had been included in the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for the 2017 Fiscal Year.

An A-10 fires its famous 30mm GAU-8/A Avenger cannon during training. USAF

One of the things that is immediately unclear from this report is why it took nearly three years to produce this final product in the first place or why its core findings were never announced publicly or even distributed to stakeholder communities in the military. It is The War Zone's understanding that very few people had previously seen any portion of this document, or details from it, and that it was not provided to members of the A-10 community or F-35 communities. In essence, it has been effectively 'buried.'

The unredacted portions do contain a useful overview of how the flyoff was planned and ultimately conducted. The Joint Strike Fight Operational Test Team, or JOTT, led the comparative testing, which was conducted as part of the larger F-35 Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) process. All test sorties were staged from Edwards Air Force Base in California and consisted of mock missions conducted over ranges at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, also in California, as well as Yuma Proving Ground, an Army facility in neighboring Arizona.

The flyoff focused on the relative abilities of the A-10C and the F-35A to perform three distinct mission sets: close air support (CAS), airborne forward air control (FAC[A]), and combat search and rescue (CSAR). Unclassified official definitions of those mission sets from the reports are reproduced below.


DOD via FOIA/POGO

DOD via FOIA/POGO

DOD via FOIA/POGO

The ability of the A-10 and the F-35 to perform each of the three mission sets was judged on a variety of factors, but the report lists two critical metrics for each one. For CAS this was targeting time and engagement time. When it came to FAC(A) the focus was on brief generation time and correlation time. Lastly, coordination time and recovery time were the primary measures of performance with regard to CSAR. Unclassified definitions of these timing metrics are shown below.

DOD via FOIA/POGO

Test sorties were conducted under conditions meant to simulate "low-threat 'permissive' and medium-threat 'contested' environments," according to the report. "High-threat missions were not included in this comparison test because the F-35A, along with the F-35B and F-35C, is being thoroughly evaluated during F-35 IOT&E in high threat scenarios versus modern, dense SAM [surface-to-air missile] and fighter aircraft, missions for which the A-10C was not designed."

Specific details about what types of threats were presented during the low or medium-threat test sorties in the flyoff, or how they were represented, are limited in the unredacted sections of the report. It does say that the "contested environment scenarios included a limited set (in numbers and capabilities) of surface-to-air missile (SAM) threats, and no airborne threat[s]." There is also a mention of simulated shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, also known as man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS). No mention at all is made in the unredacted portions of the report about electronic warfare threats, which are another major source of concern for the U.S. military, especially in future higher-end conflicts.

The U.S. military has multiple ways of simulating a diverse array of mock air defenses for testing and training purposes, including real examples of threat systems obtained through various means, high-fidelity mock-ups, and emitters designed to mimic various types of radiofrequency emissions.

A-10s and F-35s involved in the flyoff flew a combined total of 117 and a half flight hours across 69 sorties. A full breakdown of sorties and flight hours, as well as when and where those test runs occurred, across the three mission sets is seen below.

DOD via FOIA/POGO

Nowhere in the unredacted portions of the report is any definitive statement about whether the A-10 or the F-35 was deemed to be superior for conducting any of the three missions in either permissive or contested environments. The first bullet point in the executive summary, which might offer a broad general conclusion about the results of the flyoff, is entirely redacted.

"The F-35A was able to conduct all three missions in both low- and medium-threat environments," according to the report. In addition, the Joint Strike Fighters "often conducted suppression/destruction of threat air defense systems in contested environment to proceed in the assigned mission."

There is no similar unredacted statement about the A-10's overall adequacy to perform CAS, FAC(A), or CSAR missions.

A partially redacted section strongly indicates the flyoff concluded that more F-35 sorties than A-10 sorties would be needed to prosecute the same number of targets in permissive environments. This makes sense given the Warthog's substantially larger payload capacity. However, this portion of the report also notes that "the number of sorties necessary to complete the same mission objectives in contested environments would depend on air defense suppression plans."


A table listing various competitive capabilities between the F-35A and the A-10C at the time of the flyoff. DOD via FOIA/POGO


DOD via FOIA/POGO

The unredacted portions of the report also acknowledge significant limitations in the comparative testing that was conducted, and more can be inferred from other information provided.

For one, the flyoff team did not follow the approved test plan, did not fly all of the originally planned sorties, and did not ensure there were matching sorties for all test events that were conducted. All of the test sorties were supposed to be in matched pairs (one A-10 sortie and one F-35 sortie with as close to the same parameters and conditions as possible), the point of which was to provide equivalent data sets for analysis. As can be seen in the breakdown earlier in this piece, A-10s flew more CAS and FAC(A) sorties than F-35s did, and Warthogs had more total flying time during testing relating to those mission sets, as well as CSAR.

More details breakdowns of the test sorties across the three mission areas are provided below.

DOD via FOIA/POGO

DOD via FOIA/POGO

DOD via FOIA/POGO

"The comparison test was adequate to compare the mission effectiveness of each aircraft in a limited set of operationally-representative conditions, even though the test team did not conduct the test completely in accordance with the DOT&E-approved test plan," the report insists. "The data collected are sufficient to inform the conclusions in this report and fulfill the requirements of the NDAA."

"The sample sizes available for analysis provide sufficient data to draw the conclusions in this report," it adds. "The gaps do not detract from the value of the data for the measures used to compare the two aircraft."

No further justification for this is provided in the unredacted portions of the report.

In addition, the report acknowledges a lack of relevant specialized training requirements for F-35 pilots relating CAS, FAC(A), and CSAR mission sets at the time of the flyoff.

"To minimize the impact of this training shortfall on the comparison test, F-35A pilots previously qualified for FAC(A) and CSAR in the A-10 or other aircraft were used when possible, which was the ‘majority of the trials," according to the report. "Much of the F-35A pilot light hours were in aircraft other than the F-35A (primarily F-16 or A-10), while A-10C pilot light hours were primarily in the A-10."

An A-10 Warthog, at bottom left, flies together with, at top, left to right, an F-16C Viper, an F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, and an F-15E Strike eagle. USAF

It is worth noting here that making use of F-35 pilots with previous A-10 experience would seem to be a logical course of action that could also help preserve the specialized skill sets and knowledge base found in the A-10 community as those aircraft are retired. However, there are serious potential pitfalls in such a strategy, especially given the steps the Air Force is (or isn't) taking now.

"The common misconception between USAF leadership and we, the A-10C community, is that we are ready to die on the hill to keep the A-10 alive forever. The reality is quite the opposite," Patrick “BURT” Brown, an A-10 pilot and Air Force weapons officer, wrote in a piece earlier this year for The War Zone. "What we care about most is keeping the corporate knowledge of counter-land tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) alive regardless of the airframe. Presently, the threat of that knowledge dying off is very real given that the A-10C is being divested with no plan for follow on aircraft."

"Within the USAF, the A-10C community is the only one that still produces Forward Air Controllers (Airborne), known as FAC(A)s," Brown added. "This is a troubling data point not because FAC(A) missions have been on any recent Air Tasking Orders (ATOs), but because it signals that the USAF is willing to let that skill set die with the A-10C."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDc5NoQAD_A

"The skills learned and honed by practicing the FAC(A) mission set are invaluable in any counter-land operation. The F-35 could do this mission, but they don’t. The F-16 has done this mission, but they don’t today," he continued. "Between all the other high-end missions they must maintain proficiency in, CAS and other counter-land competencies are now relegated to 'just-in-time' training for the USAF’s multi-role fighter communities."

POGO's Dan Grazier has echoed many of these points, as well.

"The fight to save the A-10 has always been about preserving the institutional knowledge of the community rather than keeping one aircraft program flying," Grazier also told The War Zone. "That being said, the problem with making sure most of the F-35 pilots were A-10 veterans was that most F-35 pilots don't train for the attack role now."

"This was supposed to be an operational test," he added. "Operational testing is supposed to be done using the typical operator rather than specialized test pilots so you see how the aircraft being tested works in the hands of the people who will actually fly it in combat. That didn't happen in this case."

The A-10 seen here, serial number 80-0149, was sent to the boneyard at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona in April. USAF

The unredacted portions of the test report highlights a number of other areas where just how operationally representative the flyoff appears limited.

"The overall environment chosen by the test team for the comparison test was a simplified representation of typical combat environments," the report says. The use of relatively basic mock targets positioned in largely flat and open locales, even those meant to simulate enemies in built-up urban areas, is something that had already come up back in 2017 when the first details of the flyoff emerged, also through POGO. Concerns were raised even then about whether this could give F-35 pilots an unfair advantage given that the targets would be easier to spot, even from higher altitudes.

All Joint Strike Fighters have a built-in, but increasingly Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) that is based on technology now approaching two decades old. An Advanced EOTS is expected to be added to F-35s that receive the Block 4 upgrade package, but A-10Cs are flying now with more capable podded targeting systems. This means the level of detail in the targeting system video is inferior on the F-35 compared to the A-10C with updated targeting pods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbV9479GoB4

A-10s typically fly a very low altitudes, and are much slower than F-35s, both of which can be beneficial for finding and engaging threats that might be more concealed. A partially unredacted section also indicates that there might be added value in the Warthog's tactics when it comes to the employment of GPS-assisted precision-guided munitions.

"The test team did not record the slant range to the target with the generated coordinates, so ts effect cannot be directly assessed. Even so, tactics typically caused A-10C pilots to fly closer to the target than F-35A plots, which could explain some of the difference in the measured location errors," the report says, though the context is not entirely clear. "Target location error only affects the use of GPS-aided weapons. In any case, the location error is sufficient to cue another CAS aircraft's targeting pod."

The GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bombs seen loaded on this A-10 are among the GPS-assisted precision-guided munitions the aircraft can carry today. This is a relatively new addition to the Warthog's arsenal. USAF

The report also says "time-on-station can be a key contributor to the overall success of each of these mission areas [CAS, FAC(A), and CSAR]," another area in which the A-10 excels, at least in lower-threat environments.

Furthermore, despite being an evaluation of performance in missions directly related to personnel on the ground, "there were no live ground forces maneuvering or operating in conflict against each other on any mission, primarily due safety to range restrictions," according to the report. Only one day of testing, part of the CAS portion of the flyoff, involved the use of real, but inert ordnance, as well. In all other instances, the ordnance the A-10s and F-35s employed was entirely simulated.

The A-10 can be loaded with a much more diverse array of munitions and other stores, including multiple types of precision-guided missiles, rockets, and bombs, than any F-35 variant, on top of the Warthog's aforementioned greater payload capacity. A-10s can carry far more ammunition (up to 1,174 rounds) for their iconic 30mm GAU-8/A Avenger cannons. F-35As have a built-in 25mm GAU-22/A cannon feeding from a magazine with a maximum capacity of just 182 rounds. F-35B and C variants have no internal guns, but can be armed with a podded GAU-22/A with a smaller magazine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9rmAgHK-4s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMd2gys1n8E

An unrelated section of the flyoff report also notes that F-35s cannot carry different ordnance on their underwing pylons and their internal weapon bays at the same time for unclear reasons. The use of those underwing stations also negates the Joint Strike Fighter's stealthy characteristics. The A-10 is well known for its ability to carry mixed ordnance loads on individual sorties, which offers more flexibility for engaging different kinds of targets.

This picture of an inverted A-10 highlights its ability to carry a wide array of different stores on a single mission. USAF

The report also highlights the limited ability of the F-35A, at least at that time, to communicate directly with personnel on the ground. Ostensibly to create an even playing field, voice communication was therefore utilized almost exclusively during the comparative testing.

This, in turn, appears to have put A-10C drivers at a disadvantage in some situations since they were not allowed to use their very capable digital communications capabilities while also lacking modern enhancements found on the Joint Strike Fighter that are designed to help reduce pilot workload.

"This limitation likely slowed down A-10C performance timelines in CAS and FAC(A) roles in comparison to the F-35A," the report notes.

Back in 2017, when reporting on the initial details about the flyoff from POGO, The War Zone had specifically highlighted the A-10C's extensive ground-support-focused communications capabilities, particularly the Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver (ROVER) system. ROVER, which has been continuously improved upon since it was first introduced in the early 2000s, allows equipped aircraft to pump sensor feeds straight to JTACs and other personnel down below in near real-time, significantly improving coordination.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuR99AZAbCM

The F-35 Joint Program Office has since taken steps to integrate a ROVER-like video data link onto the Joint Strike Fighter. However, it is not immediately clear how far that work progressed in recent years and how many, if any, F-35s now have this capability.

Inversely, "A-10C pilots reported a significantly lower workload than F-35A pilots in the task-intensive FAC(A) mission." The reasons for this are not clear from the unredacted sections of the report.

Regardless, an unredacted portion of the executive summary included a recommendation to "improve digital communications, video data link capability and interoperability with 4th generation aircraft," as well as "fix the F-35A gun" and "develop training programs to further improve F-35A effectiveness in these missions."

Accuracy issues with the F-35A's 25mm cannon, which persisted at least into 2020, are well known. That same year, it emerged that certain jets were experiencing worrisome cracking as a result of using the gun at all. The full extent to which this issue may have been mitigated since then is not immediately clear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJhTDzeMYkI

POGO says separate documents it has reviewed show that the Air Force still does not have CAS-focused or related specialized training requirements for its F-35A pilots and is not expected to put them in place in the coming year, either.

Altogether, "you can't really consider this [flyoff] as a close air support test because there weren't really any friendly troops. If the tests had been done at [U.S. Marine Corps Base] Twentynine Palms or the [U.S. Army's] NTC [National Training Center], the JOTT could have incorporated real maneuver units performing realistic combined arms scenarios," POGO's Grazier told The War Zone. "That would have greatly increased the rigor of the entire endeavor by making the pilots distinguish between friendly and enemy troops. At NTC, they could have incorporated Soviet-era equipment. The JOTT could have crafted scenarios where the role players on the ground worked to camouflage their positions."

In addition, "rather than observing actual hits or misses, officials judged the results based on cockpit video and self-reported outcomes by the pilots and participants on the ground," Grazier separately noted in his own separate analysis of the report. "This created an opportunity for officials to manipulate the results based on desired outcomes and operator bias."

Grazier further raises the point that it is very curious that unspecified "range safety restrictions" are repeatedly cited in the report as the reason why the scale and scope of the comparative testing were curtailed in many regards despite inert training munitions only being used in one day's worth of testing.

What type of inert muntions were utilized during flyoff is unknown. The picture here shows an A-10 dropping a string of small inert training bombs during unrelated training. USAF

It is worth pointing out here that the U.S. military's current definitions of CAS include missions wherein aircraft are directed to targets by controllers who do not have direct visual confirmation of them. In many ways, this seems to have been the primary type of CAS reflected in the flyoff.

This kind of 'remote' CAS often blurs the line between that mission set and interdiction, a technically different mission type that is more focused on engaging enemy forces before they reach friendly units. This is also a reality that predates the flyoff.

“It is sometimes the case that sorties tasked for [close air support] may wind up supporting strikes that look more like interdiction, or vice versa," a spokesperson for the U.S. Air Force's top command in the Middle East told this author back in 2015 specifically about A-10 strikes against ISIS in Syria.

A pair of A-10s in Iraq in 2007. USAF

This all may well speak to how the Air Force envisions providing CAS in a future conflict, especially to forces on the ground in high-threat environments. There are also potential pitfalls to relying on this kind of air support, as has been shown on multiple occasions, even with platforms more specifically suited to these kinds of missions.

In 2014, an Air Force B-1B bomber infamously killed five Army soldiers and an interpreter in a botched CAS strike during a firefight in Afghanistan. The incident was blamed in part on degraded communications and the inability of the bomber's targeting pod to see infrared strobe lights marking friendly positions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BL6oe335Bk

The following year, also in Afghanistan, one of the Air Force's AC-130U Spooky special operations gunships mistakenly destroyed a hospital operated by international nongovernmental organization Doctors Without Borders. That incident also stemmed in large part from a breakdown in communications between the gunship and controllers on the ground, the latter of whom were not in a position to see the actual intended target. A near real-time video link on the AC-130U was also notably non-functional at the time, preventing the crew from directly sharing imagery of what they were looking at before the strike was authorized.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPdYjVYhhAk

"As someone who has a great deal of experience in combined arms training, I much prefer to have aviation support destroy targets before I can see them. That helps ground forces generate tempo in a running fight," POGO's Grazier, a retired Marine officer who served tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, told The War Zone. "I have had aircraft drop close enough to my position to feel the effects of the blast. I've even had brass fall into my tank from a helicopter firing on a target as they flew overhead. I was glad they had trained to the most difficult and delicate scenario."

Without being able to see the full flyoff report it is hard to truly assess the results and the justifications for those conclusions. At the same time, it has long been hard to give the Air Force the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the A-10, an aircraft the service has been actively trying to rid itself of since it first entered service in the 1970s.

The War Zone has detailed the many known instances in the past of the Air Force deliberately hamstringing the A-10 fleet and manipulating data to present it in an especially poor light. It is also known the service buried a set of requirements it had drafted regarding a dedicated A-10 replacement.

It is no secret that the Air Force did not want to conduct the flyoff at all, with then-Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh publicly describing it as a "silly exercise." The Congressional mandate for comparative testing had come after a scandal in which another Air Force general had suggested to his subordinates that defending the A-10 to members of legislators was tantamount to treason. Before that, the Air Force had also suppressed a short official documentary that presented a very positive picture of the A-10.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpCvySLGuOA

At the same time, it is increasingly hard to argue that the utility of the A-10, especially in higher-end conflicts, is steadily diminishing, despite the substantial upgrades it is still receiving. There are already growing questions about exactly how the U.S. military will conduct CSAR at all in high-threat environments where stealthy aircraft like the F-35 are expected to operate. The Air Force has notably truncated its purchase of HH-60W rescue helicopters for this reason and is now exploring various alternatives to traditional CSAR.

The comparative test report notes that A-10 and F-35 pilots involved in the flyoff repeatedly raised the idea of using F-35As to escort A-10Cs on CSAR missions. CSAR force packages have included fighter cover since before the Warthog entered service and this particular pairing could make good sense. Stealthy F-35As would be capable for neutralizing aerial threats and hostile air defenses in support of the mission, as well as just providing critical situation awareness, all thanks in no small part to their extensive sensor fusion and electronic warfare capabilities. Still, whether this would all be enough to adequately execute CSAR missions in a high-threat scenario is questionable and give the A-10s a decent chance of surviving is variably debatable, depending on the scenario.

The A-10 community is otherwise very actively looking for additional ways it can contribute in higher-end conflicts, including as launch platforms for decoys to help clear the way through enemy air defenses.

A pair of ADM-160 Miniature Air-Launched Decoys (MALD) on an A-10 during a fit check. Michigan ANG

All of this is becoming increasingly moot as the Air Force is now pushing ahead with plans to retire the entire A-10 fleet by 2030, if not before then. After years of pushback from Congress, lawmakers now look to be more inclined to finally let the Warthog go. Whether the contents of this report, which should be available to legislators in full, have any impact on their views remains to be seen.

In addition, U.S. Special Operations Command is now moving forward with its own plans to acquire dozens of dedicated light attack aircraft specifically to perform close air support, armed overwatch, and other related missions in permissive environments. Though the total number of OA-1K Sky Warden aircraft that are expected to eventually enter service will be much smaller than the size of the A-10 fleet currently, this could help make up for some of the resulting capability shortfalls.

The OA-1K Sky Warden. Air Tractor

A big question that remains is what the Air Force will or won't do in the end to preserve the institutional knowledge that the A-10 community has built up over the years.

"If the services are going to be stuck relying on the F-35 to fill the attack role, the best solution would be to assign an adequate number of squadrons to specialize entirely on the mission," POGO's Grazier told The War Zone. "HQ Air Force should transfer all transitioning A-10 pilots to those squadrons to concentrate their knowledge that they then pass on to the newly assigned attack pilots and issue appropriate Ready Aircrew Tasking Memorandums."

"That is not happening," he continued. "The Air Force isn't even pretending to train F-35 pilots for the role now so accumulated attack pilot knowledge will very rapidly evaporate."

We will have to wait and see whether or not more details about this flyoff might now begin to emerge with the final release of at least a portion of the final test report. Regardless, the A-10's career with the Air Force looks to be ever more firmly coming to an end.

Contact the author: joe@thedrive.com