Why the Air Force Is Retiring Its Most Lethal Cheap Platform While Losing Billion-Dollar Drones
The U.S. Air Force faces an institutional crisis it refuses to acknowledge. Unable to risk human pilots, the service deploys expensive, undefended UAVs into contested airspace and watches them get shot down at catastrophic rates. When those losses spiral into attrition that approaches 10 percent of the entire Reaper fleet, the Air Force calls in the very platform it has spent 15 years trying to eliminate: the A-10 Warthog. The contradiction is not accidental. It reveals a defense procurement system that has inverted the relationship between cost, effectiveness, and operational necessity.
The Perverse Incentive Structure at Work
For seven years, the U.S. Air Force has waged bureaucratic war against the A-10 Thunderbolt II—a platform so operationally effective that Congress has had to intervene repeatedly to keep it in service.
The justification is always the same: The A-10 is expensive to operate, vulnerable to modern air defenses, and unsuited to great-power competition. The service proposes retirement. Congress blocks it. The cycle repeats.
Now, in 2026, the Air Force has discovered something uncomfortable: The A-10 is indispensable.
As of March 2026, the USAF confirmed that A-10 Thunderbolt II close air support aircraft were employed during the first 48 hours of Operation Epic Fury against Iranian targets, operating daily in combat sorties throughout the campaign. Against Iranian drone swarms, fast-boat formations, and mobile missile launch teams—threats the Pentagon says are central to future conflict—the A-10 outperforms every other platform.
Recent imagery shows one A-10C returning from CENTCOM operations with painted kill-marks that suggest it destroyed two Iranian-style Shahed attack drones during its deployment. The aircraft is armed with the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II (APKWS II) rocket, a laser-guided Hydra variant modified with "Fixed-Wing Air-Launched Counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems Ordnance" (FALCO) software designed specifically for counter-drone intercepts.
The timing is not coincidental. The Air Force plans to retire a platform that is proving operational necessity in real time, while it stands over the grave of 24 MQ-9 Reapers lost in contested airspace where the aircraft should never have been deployed in the first place.
This is not strategy. This is institutional contradiction.
The Numbers Tell the Story
The economic absurdity is elementary:
A-10 operating cost: Approximately $20,000 per flight hour.
F-35 Lightning II operating cost: Approximately $44,000 per flight hour.
MQ-9 Reaper acquisition cost: Approximately $30 million per airframe.
MQ-9s lost in Operation Epic Fury (2026): 24 aircraft in three months.
Financial loss from MQ-9 attrition: $700 million.
The Air Force is spending roughly 2.2 times more per flight hour to operate its supposed replacement for the A-10 than it costs to operate the A-10. Simultaneously, it deployed undefended ISR platforms into contested airspace without proper suppression of enemy air defenses—a doctrinal violation that cost $700 million in 90 days.
Had the Air Force invested that $700 million in A-10 operations instead, the service could have flown approximately 35,000 flight hours of close air support, armed overwatch, and counter-UAS operations.
Instead, it lost drones and then called in the very platform it was accelerating toward retirement.
The Doctrine That Collapsed
The operational failure is not the A-10's vulnerability. It is the Air Force's unwillingness to conduct suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) operations that would protect any ISR platform, including the MQ-9.
For seventy years, the U.S. Air Force has adhered to a single, unambiguous principle: Suppress enemy air defenses with stealthy, survivable platforms before deploying slower reconnaissance and strike aircraft into contested airspace. This doctrine was born in blood during the Vietnam War, perfected in Operation Desert Storm, and remains doctrine today.
Yet in Yemen and Iran, the Air Force inverted this principle. Rather than conducting SEAD operations with F-35s and F-15Es armed with anti-radiation missiles to suppress Iranian air defenses first, the service simply deployed MQ-9 Reapers into defended airspace and accepted the losses.
Why? Because the Air Force calculated that losing $30 million UAVs was politically acceptable; losing manned aircraft and pilots was not.
This is not a platform problem. This is a doctrine problem. This is a risk-aversion problem. And the Air Force's solution to its doctrinal failure is not to restore SEAD capability—it is to spend billions on stealthy ISR replacements that won't be operational until 2035.
When the Contradiction Became Visible
Operation Epic Fury exposed the institutional logic inversion in unmistakable terms.
The A-10's characteristics—long loiter time, gun-based firepower, survivable airframe, low-speed handling—are precisely what's required to counter the threat the Pentagon says will dominate future conflict: massed, cheap, expendable unmanned systems.
Yet the Air Force remains incorrigibly hostile to the A-10's continued existence. Leadership has stated repeatedly that the platform no longer fits the demands of future conflict.
The evidence of Operation Epic Fury directly contradicts this assessment. But institutional inertia favors the retirement plan over the operational evidence.
The Contrast: Air Force vs. Army Philosophy
This institutional inversion is distinctly an Air Force problem.
The Army operates under fundamentally different strategic logic. When Apache attack helicopters proved effective across three decades of combat, the Army did not retire them. It upgraded them, procured more, and built doctrine around them.
When Ukrainian forces demonstrated that small, cheap, attritable drones (commercial quadcopters rigged with munitions) were devastatingly effective in ground warfare, the Army did not respond by retiring small drones. It embraced small drone tactics, funded drone programs, and integrated drone operations into doctrine.
The Army's principle is straightforward: What works in combat gets better resources. What doesn't work gets replaced.
The Air Force's principle is inverted: What's expensive and technologically complex gets better resources. What's cheap and operationally effective gets retirement notices.
This is not a difference in judgment about particular platforms. It is a difference in institutional values.
The Incentive Structure Explanation
The Air Force's institutional behavior becomes coherent when viewed through the lens of career incentives and procurement politics.
From a Pentagon career perspective:
Scenario A: Sustain and upgrade cheap, effective platforms
- A-10 sustainment, F-16 upgrades, small UAV programs
- Modest budget allocations, routine congressional oversight
- Limited career advancement potential, no major contractor relationships
- Result: Institutional invisibility
Scenario B: Develop expensive, technologically advanced replacements
- F-35 program ($1.7 trillion lifetime cost), NGAD/F-47 development, Ghost UAV, MQ-Next concepts
- Multi-billion-dollar annual budget allocations, extensive contractor partnerships
- Decades of program justification, continuous career advancement opportunities
- Result: Institutional prominence, contractor support, strategic visibility
Pentagon planners build careers on new programs, not on maintaining existing platforms. Advocating for A-10 retention is career-limiting. Defending a F-35 or NGAD program generates prestige, contractor relationships, and perpetual budget justification.
The Air Force is proposing to retire 340 aircraft, including A-10s, F-16s, and various support planes, while requesting just 45 new fighters—far below the ideal 72 per year—but simultaneously increasing F-47 sixth-generation fighter R&D funding and planning to "sharply cut" F-35 purchases. The service wants to shift resources away from proven platforms to futures platforms that won't be operational for a decade.
This is rational behavior within a system that rewards expensive complexity and penalizes cheap effectiveness.
The Congressional Intervention: A Safety Valve
Congress has repeatedly intervened to prevent the Air Force from eliminating the A-10 because lawmakers understand what the Pentagon apparently does not: Institutional prestige is not equivalent to operational effectiveness.
In December 2025, the National Defense Authorization Act prohibited the USAF from reducing the A-10 inventory below 103 aircraft and required at least 93 primary mission aircraft through September 30, 2026. Without Congressional action, the A-10 would have been completely retired by 2026—just as the service was discovering it was the most effective platform for defending against the threats it actually faced.
This is not Congress second-guessing military judgment on technical nuance. This is Congress preventing institutional suicide in the face of real operational evidence.
The Operational Contradiction Laid Bare
The specific capabilities that make the A-10 effective against 21st-century drone swarms are identical to the capabilities that make it ineffective against 5th-generation air superiority competitors:
- Long loiter time (ideal for drone defense, problematic against near-peer air defenses)
- Low-speed handling (ideal for precise engagement of slow targets, disadvantageous against high-speed threats)
- Gun-based firepower (cost-effective against swarms, obsolete against modern fighters)
- Survivable airframe (useful in low-threat environments, irrelevant in contested airspace)
The Air Force's solution is not to maintain the A-10 for the missions it's suited for and develop separate capabilities for contested airspace (the historically proven approach). Instead, it proposes to retire the A-10 entirely and depend on the F-35—a high-end fighter optimized for contested airspace but demonstrably suboptimal for close air support and counter-UAS operations.
This is not resource optimization. This is institutional contradiction.
The Broader Pattern: MQ-9 Attrition as Case Study
The A-10 situation is symptomatic of a larger institutional dysfunction.
The Air Force spent decades developing and procuring MQ-9 Reapers for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance in low-threat environments. The platform performed well in Iraq, Afghanistan, and early Yemen operations against non-peer adversaries.
Rather than acknowledging the operational error (deploying undefended platforms without SEAD), the Air Force is investing billions in Ghost, MQ-Next, and other stealthy replacements that might not be operational until 2035.
Had the Air Force instead:
- Conducted proper SEAD with stealth aircraft and anti-radiation missiles first
- Deployed MQ-9s into airspace where defenses had been degraded
- Maintained A-10s for close air support and counter-UAS operations
...the attrition problem would have been resolved using existing platforms at a fraction of the cost.
Instead, the service is attempting to solve a doctrinal problem through platform redesign, spending 10 times more money and requiring a decade of development to implement.
The $2 Billion Rescue: The Ultimate Cost of the Philosophy
The institutional inversion reaches its logical extreme in the rescue operation that followed the April 3, 2026 shootdown of an F-15E Strike Eagle over southwestern Iran.
The pilot was recovered within hours. The weapons systems officer evaded Iranian forces for 36 hours in the Zagros Mountains, bleeding from ejection injuries and hunted by hundreds of IRGC soldiers offering $60,000 rewards to locals for his capture.
The U.S. launched what military officials described as "one of the most challenging and complex [missions] in the history of U.S. special operations". To recover two airmen:
President Trump announced that the rescue mission involved 155 U.S. aircraft, including four bombers, 64 fighters, 48 refueling tankers, 13 rescue aircraft and other supporting platforms.
The cost was staggering. Confirmed American aircraft losses included aircraft worth hundreds of millions of dollars, with analysts estimating the total cost may exceed $2 billion, making it the most expensive combat search and rescue mission ever.
The aircraft destroyed or damaged in the operation included:
- Two MC-130 special operations transport planes were deliberately destroyed at an abandoned airstrip after replacement aircraft arrived
- An A-10 Warthog shot down during the operation, with the pilot ejecting over Kuwaiti territory and being recovered
- Multiple helicopters hit by small-arms fire
- Additional aircraft damaged by Iranian air defenses
The loss of two HC-130Js reduces the available fleet of specialized rescue aircraft. The HC-130J fleet is relatively small. Replacing those aircraft could take years. That means the United States has lost not only expensive hardware, but also a portion of its ability to conduct similar rescue missions elsewhere in the world.
Let this sink in: To recover two airmen, the Air Force spent $2 billion in aircraft, generated operational distractions that halted other planned operations, and permanently reduced its rescue capability globally.
Consider the alternative calculation the Air Force refuses to make:
- $2 billion in rescue aircraft could have funded 100,000 flight hours of A-10 operations ($20,000 per flight hour)
- That 100,000 hours would have provided sustained close air support, drone defense, and maritime strike capability that could have prevented the F-15E from being shot down in the first place
- The institutional commitment to rescue reflects genuine American values—no one is left behind
- But the institutional refusal to maintain adequate SEAD before deploying manned aircraft reflects a different set of priorities entirely
The contradiction is explicit: The Air Force values human pilot safety sufficiently to spend $2 billion to recover two airmen, but not sufficiently to conduct proper doctrine-compliant SEAD operations that would prevent pilots from being shot down.
This is not a principled commitment to pilot safety. This is risk transfer: Shift risk from pilots to expensive unmanned platforms, accept massive UAV attrition, then spend whatever is necessary to recover pilots when they are lost.
The $2 billion rescue, however heroic and successful, reveals an institution that has abandoned cost-benefit analysis in favor of institutional mythology: the sanctity of rescue regardless of the financial and operational costs.
The Russian Cautionary Tale: What Happens When SEAD Is Abandoned Entirely
The U.S. Air Force's doctrinal inversion—avoiding SEAD in favor of risk-transfer to expensive UAVs—finds its darkest parallel in the Russian Air Force's complete failure to conduct SEAD operations over Ukraine.
Unlike the USAF, which abandoned SEAD out of risk aversion, Russia abandoned SEAD because it lacked the institutional capability to execute it. The consequence is instructive: Four years of attritional warfare with no prospect of air superiority.
Russia's SEAD Failure
When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) failed to achieve air superiority, operating with poor intelligence, slapdash operational planning, and no concerted attempt to neutralize Ukraine's integrated air defense network. Russia possessed numerical and technological advantage over the Ukrainian Air Force but made fundamental doctrinal errors.
The Consequence: Attritional Deadlock
Unable to achieve air superiority, Russia shifted strategy. The VKS operated largely in parallel to ground forces with limited coordination; it did not unify electronic warfare units, missile forces and tactical aviation under a coherent suppression strategy. When Ukrainian resistance proved fiercer than expected, Russia simply shifted to standoff missile and drone strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure, and curtailed deep air operations.
The result is the war that exists today in 2026: An attritional deadlock in which neither side achieves air superiority, both sides operate under risk of sustained losses, and air power serves not as a decisive instrument but as a support element to ground forces conducting a grinding, casualty-intensive campaign.
This is what abandonment of SEAD doctrine produces: An air force reduced to standoff strikes, unable to support ground operations effectively, losing aircraft at unsustainable rates, constrained to night operations and distant launches to avoid enemy air defenses.
The Doctrinal Contrast: Why Air Superiority Requires Integrated SEAD
Russia's failure exposes what the U.S. Air Force is attempting to avoid acknowledging: Air superiority is impossible without SEAD. Period.
The contrast between Russian and Ukrainian approaches is illuminating:
The outcome is stark: A small nation without a modern air force, equipped with legacy Soviet systems and Western donations, denied air superiority to a larger nation possessing greater numbers of newer aircraft—because Ukraine understood SEAD doctrine and executed it, while Russia did not.
The Lesson for American Doctrine
The Russia-Ukraine contrast should alarm U.S. Air Force leadership. Russia failed to achieve air superiority because it could not conduct SEAD. The U.S. Air Force will fail to achieve air superiority because it refuses to conduct SEAD—choosing instead to transfer risk to expensive unmanned platforms and then spending $2 billion to rescue pilots when that risk transfer fails.
The philosophical difference is significant: Russia abandoned SEAD out of incapacity. The U.S. abandoned SEAD out of choice, preferring to deploy undefended UAVs and manage the resulting attrition through rescue operations and platform redesign rather than through proper doctrine.
Both approaches produce the same outcome: Air forces constrained to standoff operations, unable to achieve air superiority, degraded to attrition-based warfare.
The USAF should contemplate what a similar attrition-based air war against a near-peer competitor would look like. If the U.S. was committed to a major war elsewhere or otherwise politically unwilling to shoulder primary SEAD/DEAD responsibilities, NATO air forces would face similar problems establishing air superiority over territory contested by Russia.
The Russian experience in Ukraine is not an anomaly. It is a warning: Abandon SEAD doctrine, and you abandon air superiority. You accept attritional warfare. You reduce your air force to a support element for ground operations. You lose the ability to conduct deep strikes. You become hemmed in by enemy air defenses and forced to operate at standoff distances where effectiveness is degraded.
The U.S. Air Force is attempting to avoid this outcome through platform redesign (Ghost, MQ-Next, NGAD) rather than through doctrinal restoration (SEAD capability, Wild Weasel operations). Russia provides a cautionary tale: When air forces lack SEAD capability, no amount of platform sophistication compensates.
Career Incentives: Pentagon planners build careers on new programs (F-35, NGAD, Ghost), not on maintaining existing platforms. Advocating for A-10 retention generates minimal institutional prestige compared to defending billion-dollar modernization initiatives.
Contractor Relationships: Major primes (Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop) maintain relationships with Pentagon leadership built on high-dollar programs. A-10 sustainment—performed by smaller contractors—generates far less contractor prestige and political influence.
Doctrinal Narrative: The claim that the A-10 is "vulnerable to modern air defenses" became conventional wisdom in Pentagon circles. Conventional wisdom is easier to maintain than to overturn, even when operational reality contradicts it.
Risk Aversion: Pilots have become a premium resource whose safety is priceless. Air Force leadership prefers to lose billions in equipment rather than risk a single pilot. This creates a perverse incentive to deploy undefended UAVs repeatedly rather than conduct proper SEAD with manned aircraft.
None of these factors favor operational effectiveness. All of them favor institutional inertia.
The Test Case for Pentagon Dysfunction
The A-10 Warthog represents a test case of defense procurement dysfunction. A platform that:
- Costs approximately $20,000 per flight hour to operate (compared to $44,000 for the F-35)
- Has proven effective across three decades of combat
- Remains uniquely suited for current and near-future threats (drone swarms, maritime targets, low-altitude close support)
- Was proven indispensable in 2026 operations despite plans to retire it completely
...was nearly eliminated because institutional prestige and career advancement favor expensive complexity over cheap effectiveness.
The proper question is not: "Why does the Air Force keep trying to retire the A-10?"
The proper question is: "What is wrong with an institution that tries to eliminate its most cost-effective and operationally relevant platform while pouring billions into untested replacements that won't be ready for a decade?"
The answer exposes a fundamental inversion in defense procurement logic: An institution that treats cost as irrelevant, platform effectiveness as subordinate to technological prestige, and human pilot safety as justification for decisions that actually reduce operational effectiveness and increase total financial cost.
Until the Air Force realigns its incentives around operational effectiveness per dollar spent rather than technological prestige and career advancement, it will continue to make decisions like proposing to retire the A-10 while simultaneously deploying 24 MQ-9 Reapers into contested airspace without SEAD, losing $700 million, then calling in the A-10 to defend against the drone swarms that procurement system created.
The Stark Institutional Contrast: Investment vs. Abandonment
The Russia-Ukraine comparison reveals a fundamental institutional difference that extends far beyond SEAD doctrine. The U.S. Air Force inverts military logic through institutional choice. Russia abandons military logic through institutional incapacity. The contrast illuminates the underlying problem with the USAF's approach.
Russia's Pilot Crisis
Russia conducts no systematic combat search and rescue operations for downed pilots. Pilots who eject over contested territory are abandoned. There is no Russian equivalent to the U.S. Air Force CSAR system. No specialized pararescuemen trained in advanced medical care and direct-action rescue. No HH-60 helicopters with air support packages. No 24/7 dedicated recovery forces.
This means Russian pilots flying over Ukraine understand one essential fact: If they are shot down, they are on their own. Enemy forces will be hunting them. There will be no rescue attempt from their own military.
The U.S. System: Institutional Commitment to Pilot Recovery
By contrast, the U.S. Air Force maintains the most sophisticated personnel recovery system in military history.
The April 2026 rescue operation in Iran crystallized this commitment: 155 aircraft, hundreds of ground personnel, 339 munitions fired over 50 hours of operations, $2 billion in equipment destroyed or damaged, just to recover two airmen.
Was this excessive? Possibly. But it sent an unmistakable message to every American pilot in the U.S. Air Force: We will come for you. No matter the cost. No matter how dangerous the mission. You will not be left behind.
The Institutional Logic Inverted
This is where the USAF's institutional inversion becomes clear:
The service invests extraordinary resources in rescuing pilots who are shot down. It is willing to spend $2 billion and divert 155 aircraft to recover two airmen. It maintains a dedicated, specialized, decades-refined CSAR system with PJs trained to perform emergency surgery in hostile territory.
But the same service will not conduct the SEAD operations that would prevent those pilots from being shot down in the first place.
Instead, it deploys undefended $30 million UAVs into contested airspace, watches them get shot down at attrition rates that approach 10 percent of the fleet, and then invokes pilot safety as justification for not conducting proper SEAD.
This is not logic. This is psychological inversion: The willingness to spend $2 billion recovering a pilot from behind enemy lines, combined with unwillingness to spend the resources conducting SEAD that would prevent the pilot from being shot down.
The Contrast With Russia
Russia has no CSAR system because it lacks the resources and doctrine to maintain one. Russia sends pilots into combat knowing they will not be rescued. Russia loses pilots at a rate that has created a pilot shortage so severe that the VKS is now fielding both teenagers and retirees—any body that can pull an ejection handle.
The USAF has both: a CSAR system that commits to recovering every pilot, and a refusal to conduct SEAD that prevents pilots from needing recovery.
Russia's institutional failure is clear: inadequate pilot training, no rescue system, no commitment to personnel recovery.
The USAF's institutional inversion is more subtle but perhaps more damaging: extraordinary commitment to rescue combined with deliberate avoidance of the prevention mechanisms that would make rescue unnecessary.
The U.S. Air Force is attempting to have it both ways—maintaining moral commitment to "we will come for you" while simultaneously refusing the operational discipline that would make that commitment less necessary.
Russia abandoned both commitments out of inability. The USAF maintains one commitment while systematically avoiding the other, out of choice.
Sources
- Defense News, "US Air Force to retire all A-10s, cancel E-7 under 2026 spending plan" (June 27, 2025) – https://www.defensenews.com/air/2025/06/27/us-air-force-to-retire-all-a-10s-cancel-e-7-under-2026-spending-plan/
- SOFX, "Air Force to Retire Entire A-10 Warthog Fleet by 2026" (July 10, 2025) – https://www.sofx.com/air-force-to-retire-entire-a-10-warthog-fleet-by-2026/
- FlightGlobal, "US Air Force seeks to retire all A-10 Warthogs by 2027" (June 27, 2025) – https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/us-air-force-seeks-to-retire-all-a-10-warthogs-by-2027/163588.article
- Military.com, "Air Force Wants to Send Historic Number of A-10s to the Boneyard in 2025" (March 18, 2024) – https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/03/18/largest-number-of-10s-yet-could-be-headed-boneyard-air-force-shifts-strategy-and-aircraft.html
- Aerospace Global News, "A-10 Warthog retirement slowed by Senate NDAA bill" (September 16, 2025) – https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/a10-warthog-retirement-senate-bill-2026/
- Flying Magazine, "Air Force Looking to Speed Up Retirement of A-10" (June 27, 2025) – https://www.flyingmag.com/air-force-looking-to-speed-up-retirement-of-a-10/
- AvWeb, "A-10 Retirement Moved Up Two Years" (July 1, 2025) – https://avweb.com/aviation-news/a-10-retirement-moved-up-two-years/
- Wikipedia, "Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II" (accessed April 13, 2026) – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II
- National Security Journal, "The Air Force Has an A-10 Warthog Problem It Never Saw Coming" (July 2, 2025) – https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/the-air-force-has-an-a-10-warthog-problem-it-never-saw-coming/
- Defense One, "Air Force wants to retire the rest of its A-10s in 2026" (June 30, 2025) – https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2025/06/air-force-wants-retire-rest-its-10s-2026/406437/
- Army Recognition, "U.S. Deploys More A-10 Warthog Attack Jets to Hormuz as Ground Operation Option Emerges Against Iran" (April 2026) – https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/aerospace-news/2026/u-s-deploys-a-10-warthog-attack-jets-to-hormuz-as-ground-operation-option-emerges-against-iran
- Armed Forces Press, "Air Superiority Unleashes A-10 Over Iran, To The Chagrin Of USAF Leadership" (March 2026) – https://armedforces.press/air-force/2026/03/16/air-superiority-unleashes-a-10-over-iran-to-the-chagrin-of-usaf-leadership/
- Army Recognition, "Operation Epic Fury Proves U.S. A-10 Warthog Jet's Unmatched Close Air Support Role" (March 2026) – https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/aerospace-news/2026/operation-epic-fury-proves-u-s-a-10-warthog-jets-unmatched-close-air-support-role
- Army Recognition, "US A-10 Warthog Displays Drone Kill Marks Signaling Shift in Counter-UAS Operations" (October 14, 2025) – https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/aerospace-news/2025/us-a-10-warthog-displays-drone-kill-marks-signaling-shift-in-counter-uas-operations
- Army Recognition, "U.S. Air Force deploys A-10 Warthog ground attack aircraft in first strike wave against Iran" (March 3, 2026) – https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/aerospace-news/2026/u-s-air-force-deploys-a-10-warthog-ground-attack-aircraft-in-first-strike-wave-against-iran
- National Security Journal, "The A-10 Warthog Can Now Destroy Drones" (November 4, 2025) – https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/the-a-10-warthog-can-now-destroy-drones/
- Army Recognition, "U.S. A-10 Warthogs Hunt Iranian Fast Attack Craft in Strait of Hormuz During Operation Epic Fury" (March 2026) – https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/aerospace-news/2026/u-s-a-10-warthogs-hunt-iranian-fast-attack-craft-in-strait-of-hormuz-during-operation-epic-fury
- The National Interest, "Give The A-10 Warthog Drone Swarms" (March 12, 2025) – https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/give-the-a-10-warthog-drone-swarms
- 19FortyFive, "The A-10 Thunderbolt Was Built to Kill Russian Tanks — Now It's the U.S. Military's Best Drone Hunter in the Iran War" (March 2026) – https://www.19fortyfive.com/2026/03/the-a-10-thunderbolt-was-built-to-kill-russian-tanks-now-its-the-u-s-militarys-best-drone-hunter-in-the-iran-war/
- Richard C. Young's Defense Analysis, "Warthog's Last Stand: Could A-10's Have An Anti-Drone Role?" (October 15, 2025) – https://www.richardcyoung.com/terrorism/weapons/weapons-of-war/air/goodbye-warthog-air-force-accelerates-a-10-retirement-for-future-combat-needs/
- War on the Rocks, "The Need for SEAD Part I: The Nature of SEAD" (May 17, 2016) – https://warontherocks.com/2016/05/the-need-for-sead-part-i-the-nature-of-sead/
- Defence Security Asia, "Hermes-900 Losses Over Iran Trigger Drone Attrition Crisis" (March 2026) – https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/israel-hermes900-losses-iran-drone-attrition-air-defense-kill-zone-mq9-reaper-losses-2026/
- The Defense News, "U.S. Loses 24 MQ-9 Reaper Drones in Operations Against Iran" (April 10, 2026) – https://www.thedefensenews.com/news-details/US-Loses-24-MQ-9-Reaper-Drones-in-Operations-Against-Iran-Including-8-Shot-Down-in-April/
- FlightGlobal, "General Atomics developing Ghost strike and reconnaissance platform for US Air Force" (May 28, 2025) – https://www.flightglobal.com/military-uavs/general-atomics-developing-ghost-strike-and-reconnaissance-platform-for-us-air-force/163142.article
- Wikipedia, "2026 United States F-15E rescue operation in Iran" (accessed April 13, 2026) – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_F-15E_rescue_operation_in_Iran
- Breaking Defense, "US F-15E fighter jet downed by Iran" (April 3, 2026) – https://breakingdefense.com/2026/04/us-f-15e-fighter-jet-downed-by-iran-rescue-operations-underway/
- Military Times, "US forces rescue downed F-15 crew member in Iran, search for second continues" (April 3, 2026) – https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2026/04/03/us-forces-rescue-downed-fighter-pilot-in-iran-search-for-second-continues/
- Time, "How a U.S. Airman Shot Down in Iran Was Rescued From a Mountain Crevice" (April 5, 2026) – https://time.com/article/2026/04/05/-safe-and-sound-how-a-u-s-airman-shot-down-in-iran-was-rescued-from-a-mountain-crevice/
- Defence Security Asia, "US$2 Billion Burned in Iran: America Saves Two F-15E Airmen But Loses Aircraft in Its Costliest Rescue Mission Ever" (April 2026) – https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/us-2-billion-burned-iran-f15e-rescue-mission-hc130-helicopter-losses/
- Air & Space Forces Magazine, "F-15E Aviator Missing in Iran Rescued by US Forces" (April 5, 2026) – https://www.airandspaceforces.com/f-15e-aviator-missing-in-iran-rescued-by-us-forces/
- Al Jazeera, "How US operation to rescue air officer from Iran unfolded" (April 6, 2026) – https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/6/how-us-operation-to-rescue-the-officer-from-iran-unfolded
- The War Zone, "Everything We Now Know About The Operation To Rescue The F-15E WSO" (April 2026) – https://www.twz.com/news-features/everything-we-now-know-about-the-operation-to-rescue-the-f-15e-wso
- Air Force Times, "The rescue mission that brought 2 F-15E Strike Eagle crew members home" (April 8, 2026) – https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-military/2026/04/08/the-rescue-mission-that-brought-2-f-15e-strike-eagle-crew-members-home/
- Al Jazeera, "Modern variants of the jet cost more than $90m each" (April 6, 2026) – https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/6/how-us-operation-to-rescue-the-officer-from-iran-unfolded
- 19FortyFive, "The Russian Air Force Keeps Falling Out of the Skies Above Ukraine" (February 2, 2026) – https://www.19fortyfive.com/2026/02/the-russian-air-force-keeps-falling-out-of-the-skies-above-ukraine/
- CSIS, "Revitalizing European Air Defense" (October 11, 2024) – https://www.csis.org/analysis/revitalizing-european-air-defense
- Air University, "Failures of the Russian Aerospace Force in Ukraine" (October 25, 2023) – https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASOR/Journals/Volume-2_Number-3/Galamison_Petersen.pdf
- U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, "Air Denial Lessons from Ukraine" (September 2023, Vol. 149/9/1,447) – https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/september/air-denial-lessons-ukraine
- Simple Flying, "Why The Russian Air Force Has Failed To Secure Air Superiority Over Ukraine" (October 26, 2024) – https://simpleflying.com/why-russian-air-force-failed-air-superiority-ukraine/
- Joint Air Power Competence Centre, "Russian Air Force's Performance in Ukraine" (February 16, 2023) – https://www.japcc.org/articles/russian-air-forces-performance-in-ukraine-air-operations-the-fall-of-a-myth/
- Armada International, "Following the Rule Book: Ukraine Air Defence Suppressions Electronic Warfare" (February 7, 2024) – https://www.armadainternational.com/2024/02/ukraine-air-defence-suppressions-electronic-warfare/
- Scholastica, "Air Defence Insights From the Ukraine-Russia Conflict" (January 5, 2026) – https://ciasp.scholasticahq.com/article/141276-air-defence-insights-from-the-ukraine-russia-conflict
- Royal United Services Institute, "Getting Serious About SEAD: European Air Forces Must Learn from the Failure of the Russian Air Force over Ukraine" – https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-defence-systems/getting-serious-about-sead-european-air-forces-must-learn-failure-russian-air-force-over-ukraine
- European Council on Foreign Relations, "Air of superiority: What the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine can teach Europeans about NATO readiness" (July 7, 2025) – https://ecfr.eu/article/air-of-superiority-what-the-wars-in-the-middle-east-and-ukraine-can-teach-europeans-about-nato-readiness/
- Sandboxx, "Putin's Pilot Crisis: Russia is running out of well-trained aviators" (October 1, 2024) – https://www.sandboxx.us/news/putins-pilot-crisis-russia-is-running-out-of-well-trained-aviators/
- Strategy Page, "Attrition: Russian Air Force Losses in Ukraine" (May 3, 2024) – https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/2024050303430.aspx
- Aerospace Global News, "Four years of war: Counting Russian and Ukrainian aircraft losses" (February 25, 2026) – https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/how-many-aircraft-losses-russia-ukraine/
- Bulgarian Military, "F-16 'downed' in Ukraine as Russian defenses 'strike' hard" (April 12, 2025) – https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2025/04/12/f-16-downed-in-ukraine-as-russian-defenses-strike-hard/
- Kyiv Post, "US Shifts Focus to Training Ukrainian Cadets on F-16s, Delaying Squadron Stand-Up" (October 17, 2024) – https://www.kyivpost.com/post/40681
- Wikipedia, "Combat search and rescue" (accessed April 13, 2026) – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_search_and_rescue
- The World Data, "Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) Statistics in US" – https://theworlddata.com/combat-search-and-rescue-statistics-in-us/
- The Aviationist, "Mission to Recover Downed F-15E Aircrew Puts Combat Search And Rescue in the Spotlight" – https://theaviationist.com/2026/04/04/csar-in-the-spotlight/
- Time News, "Combat Search and Rescue: How the US Air Force Saves Downed Pilots" – https://time.news/combat-search-and-rescue-how-the-us-air-force-saves-downed-pilots/
- U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, "Fix the Long-Range Combat Search-and-Rescue Deficit in the Pacific" (August 2024, Vol. 150/8/1,458) – https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2024/august/fix-long-range-combat-search-and-rescue-deficit-pacific
- Kyiv Post, "Analysis: Ukraine Reduces Length of F-16 Pilot Training – A Step Too Far?" (January 4, 2025) – https://www.kyivpost.com/analysis/44892
- GlobalSecurity.org, "Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR)" – https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/csar.htm
- Wikipedia, "Search and rescue" (accessed April 13, 2026) – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_rescue
No comments:
Post a Comment