The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II – Unstoppable Warthog

The Vietnam war presented American and Allied forces with an array of difficulties, from unconventional Vietcong tactics to impenetrable jungle terrains. Unsurprisingly, conventional bombing techniques from previous conflicts proved less than effective in this theatre of war.

Bombers like the B-52 were increasingly vulnerable to ground fire and surface-to-air missile systems and lacked the precision necessary to support troops engaged in combat. Instead, troop support was usually given to multirole strike aircraft like the F-100, F-111, or the Phantom. These aircraft had large stores capacities, but their high cruising speed made it difficult for pilots to pinpoint and keep track of locations on the ground. It also meant that pilots would spend more time recommitting to targets, given their larger turn circles. These aircraft would usually expend munitions quickly, and lacked the ability to linger on station for too long before being forced to return to base. These aircraft were also expensive to run; adjusted for inflation, the Phantom was roughly $10,000 per hour to operate.  For the large part, these aircraft were designed for strike missions, not lingering close air support.

Rapid advancements in helicopter technology opened up new and unique capabilities for the military. The Bell Iroquois was modified to carry guns, followed shortly after by specifically designed “Huey gunships” allowing crews to suppress enemy positions, particularly during insertions and extractions. The arrival of the AH-1 - the first widely adopted attack helicopter - further expanded the capability of close air support for longer periods of time. However, the limited stores capacities of these helicopters were an obvious deficit.

However, the A-1 Skyraider, and older design, did a reasonable job when tasked to provide close air support. This prop driven aircraft was designed just after World War 2 and represented the last of the attack aircraft from that era, which were designed to linger on station to support troops. It could fly slow, loiter for a decent amount of time, and carry a medium assortment of weapons. However, the Air Force noted that it was not robust enough to survive consistent small arms fire, and many were lost.

By the late 1960s, it became clear that an aircraft in the same vein as the Skyraider should be acquired to fill this unique and crucial role. So, it was off to the drawing boards to create a loitering troop-support aircraft.

The US Air Force and Army ran several competitions and conceptualisation phases in search of such an aircraft. The Army wanted something like the AH-1 Cobra, a stronger attack helicopter, and began the Advanced Aerial Fire Support System program. Their proposed solution was the AH-56 Cheyenne, an anti-tank attack chopper. This interesting design likely paved the way for the Apache, however the Air Force believed they could develop a cheap fixed-wing aircraft that could fulfil the same troop support roles as a helicopter.

In 1966, the Air Force were now looking for a new aircraft designed specifically for Close Air support. It would be the first US aircraft solely designed and dedicated to the role. Designated Attack Experimental program, or A-X, a request for information was sent to multiple contractors.

By 1970, the Air Force sent out a revised list of proposals.  Specifically, they wanted the aircraft to be built around a 30mm cannon, have a large stores capacity, capable of short take-off, and have exceptional low speed performance. In fact, the aircraft need not go any faster than 400 knots.

Six contractors would submit concepts, but only two would be selected for assembly. The first was Northrop’s YA-9, while the other was Fairchild Republics YA-10. Both aircraft were similar, although outwardly had several differences, notably the engine placement.

On May 10^th, 1972, both concepts would take their maiden flights. A series of fly offs would occur from October to December that year. According to pilots, the YA-9 had great flight characteristics, and the two aircraft were supposedly equally balanced in many ways. However, the YA-10 would secure victory. This likely came down to the fact that it had the peculiar advantage of engines placed outside the fuselage. Fairchild were not receiving any work or contracts at this time, and this win with the Air Force may have saved the company.

The YA-10 designers focused on several key elements. The aircraft would need to have a high stores capacity, carrying a wide variety of air-to-ground missiles, rockets, guided and unguided bombs, and other munitions. It would also be capable of loitering on station for prolonged periods of time, cruising slowly with good low speed performance. It would also need to be very robust to withstand the inevitable ground fire.

The resulting Warthog, as it became known, would indeed be extremely rugged, including a strong cockpit to shield the pilot from gunfire from below. The aircraft could be broken down into different modules, allowing ground crew to rapidly isolate issues and then replace damaged modules. For an aircraft constantly flying low near enemy fire this was an innovative and welcome design principle.

The Warthog’s engines would also be robust. Mounted on the sides of the fuselage, this offered several benefits. Firstly, it would limit the amount of smoke and gasses from the main cannon from being sucked into the compressor. The width of separation from the fuselage also meant that any serious damage to the engines that resulted in fires would not reach the avionics in the back of the aircraft. These engines could also ingest shrapnel and restart, a potentially life-saving attribute when so close to ground fire.

      In fact, the aircraft would have triple redundancy in a variety of systems. If the primary flight control system failed, for example, a further two could be used to keep the aircraft airborne. Likewise, it boasted duplicate hydraulic systems.

Armed with the GAU-8 cannon, it would be able to destroy anything from standard vehicles to battle tanks. It would carry a variety of guided and dumb bombs, air-to-ground missiles, rockets, and air-to-air missiles.

In 1974, a near finalised version of the A-10 would compete in fly-offs against the A-7 Corsair, at that time the primary attack aircraft in US service. It performed well, filling a unique role the Corsair could not, and in late 1975 the first production variant of the A-10 would take to the skies.

In February 1976, authorisation was given to begin full scale production of the new Warthog, to deliver over 700 aircraft by the early 1980s. By March 1976 the first Warthogs were being delivered to the US Air Force.

Operated exclusively by the United States, the aircraft first entered combat operations in 1983, during the US invasion of Grenada, however no resistance was encountered, and no weapons were employed.

The aircraft’s first baptism of fire was during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. During the conflict, 132 Warthogs flew over 8,000 sorties, successful against a huge variety of ground targets, implementing a variety of bombs, as well as AGM-65 Mavericks. The aircraft’s performance was considered impressive, with the operation allowing the Warthog to prove itself, laying to rest some of the doubts which had circulated regarding its true value in a war.

For the next decade it would operate to a lesser extent in the Bosnian War and later the Kosovo War. However, it would really be put to work in the early 2000s. Beginning in 2002, Warthogs began operating against insurgents in Afghanistan, and in 2003 took part in operations in Iraq. These aircraft would fly over 27,000 sorties annually in the Middle East, providing close air support or operating in a strike role.

Its deployment in Afghanistan has made it an icon, perhaps the most recognised close air support aircraft produced, and likely the most memorable air asset from the global war on terror.

Interestingly, despite its reputation, the Warthog was not the most used close air support aircraft in Afghanistan, but rather the second. It was the F-16, which flew over three times as many Close Air Support missions. Nevertheless, due to its favourable low-level performance and close cooperation with troops on the ground, the Warthog has since overshadowed the F-16s close air support role.

Throughout their life - which was initially expected to be only 6,000 flying hours - the “hogs” have seen many upgrade programs, some aimed at new technology, and others aimed at strengthening the airframe and improving service life. Several occurred in the late 1970s shortly after entering service, then further upgrades in the 1980s, and the 1999 HOG UP program which aimed to fix many of the life expectancy issues and structural problems which had been encountered over the years.

The most important upgrade program would occur in 2005. During this period, the fleet of A-10As and OA-10A forward air control aircraft, were upgraded to A-10C standards. This included many huge overhauls, including new digital multi-function displays, new helmet mounted integrated targeting system, new smart bomb and GPS systems, Link16, and a new HOTAS which blended an F-16 joystick and F-15 throttle.

Since 2014, the future of the Warthog has been unclear. All useable airframes have far exceeded their original 6,000 flying hour lifetime, averaging an excess of 15,000 hours. How long these airframes can operate for is anyone’s guess, technically they could continue for many more years with structural upgrades, however this is unlikely.

Decision makers have proposed that either the F-16 or F-35 take over the role of the Warthog. However, as Warthog pilots themselves note, while F-16 crews receive similar training, they too are flying older aircraft with limited stores capacities. Meanwhile, younger F-35 crews - those who haven’t converted from other aircraft - are usually not taught how to do close air support in the US Air Force, although this may be changing. The actual strength of the F-35 in close support is yet to be proven, however, it is unlikely it would have the same tank-like ruggedness of the Warthog, an aircraft specifically designed for the task of flying low and through small arms fire.

In 2015, the US Air Force stated that if not the F-35, then perhaps the MQ-9 Reaper could serve in the close air support role. This has led to disagreements between the Air Force and army. At one point the US Army had shown interest in purchasing the Warthogs if the Air Force were to retire them, stating that fears surrounding the Warthog’s budget and vulnerabilities were overstated given the aircraft’s invaluable capability. The Army noted that despite 80% of close air support missions now being flown by multirole aircraft, ground commanders would still request the Warthog most of the time.

Right now, there is no immediate plan to retire the A-10, despite some decision makers pushing for the aircraft to be sold to foreign buyers, to be replaced by newer jets. However, those with experience have appropriately postponed such a sale until another aircraft can demonstrate its ability to rival the A-10's distinctive capabilities.

Today the Warthog continues to fly. Most of the airframes have flown multiple times their rated lifespan, but thanks to diligent maintenance and repairs they are still performing well.

The case of the ageing Warthog is one which faces many militaries today. Aircraft are simply not being conceptualised and produced at the speed they were during the Cold War, and a perfect replacement may be some time off.

Regardless of its future, the Warthog will not be forgotten. As many soldiers have remarked, it is a lifesaver; a familiar and welcome sight for friendly units in combat, and a sign to any enemy combatants to rethink their advance. Save for the Su-25, no other aircraft since the Second World War has filled such a unique role. The Warthogs and their pilots are more than just air support packages; they are fighting alongside these soldiers on the ground and have a close working relationship to them.