Tag Archives: NATO

Reducing Threats Through Vigilance

Portrait of COM NSHQ, NSHQ SEA  (NATO photo/Sgt. Emily Langer, DEU Army)

A&M Editor Kevin Hunter was privileged to speak with Vice Admiral Sean Pybus, NATO SOF Commander, regarding his perspective on today’s changing role for Special Forces in the face of growing European insecurity, particularly in Ukraine.

A&M: Please speak to some general challenges NATO SOF faces in securing the alliance’s perimeter.

VADM Pybus: Today’s security environment is a dynamic and dangerous one, no doubt. Threats run the gamut from high-end industrial warfare to insidious insurgencies, and now include the cyber domain across the spectrum. With regard to Europe and the larger neighbourhood, the Mediterranean Rim is on fire on the eastern and southern edges. Conflict and instability in these areas enable violent extremists, criminals, and migrants to act in ways that challenge or threaten European nations. In Ukraine, an aggressive Russia has NATO on edge and reminds us of Article Five of the Washington Treaty, which obligates the Alliance to defend any attack on one of our NATO members.


The A-10’s Swan Song?

Should the USAF replace the long-serving Warthog with the F-35?

By George Jagels

An A-10 Thunderbolt in Afghanistan. Beloved by troops and acknowledged as highly capable, the Warthog might leave the arsenal in the next 15 years. (USAF)

An A-10 Thunderbolt in Afghanistan. Beloved by troops and acknowledged as highly capable, the Warthog might leave the arsenal in the next 15 years. (USAF)

Aerospace is one of the few areas where beauty and utility often coexist, but there are exceptions. The Air Force’s main ground attack aircraft, the A-10 Thunderbolt, serves as one: The aesthetically unpleasing “Warthog” flies low, slow, and does the humble work of close air support and tank killing. I do not mean to imply this work is not heroic, as recent reports[1] highlighted two Warthogs rescuing 60 soldiers in Afghanistan through use of their devastating 30mm cannon and conventional bombs. A-10 pilots are also credited with destroying 4,000 Iraqi vehicles in 1991[2]. To use a DoD watchword, this is a “proven” platform. So why does the Air Force want to retire a third of its Warthog fleet (and eventually all 349) without a similar replacement?

The USAF has actually been trying to do this since the late eighties. A variant of the F-16, called the A-16, was tested to replace the A-10, but Congress squashed the effort in November 1990[3] (right around the time the Thunderbolt scored a major success in the Persian Gulf). Since then, the Warthog has flown thousands of sorties and undergone upgrades to lengthen its life by decades. The plane can loiter for long periods and sustain absurdly extensive damage without crashing[4]. In 2006, a British Army major vented after a botched air support operation by Harriers in Afghanistan, “I would take an A-10 over [a] Eurofighter any day.”[5] At a cost of around $13 million (in 1998 dollars) per plane[6], it seems to be an ideal aircraft in budget-constrained times. Current plans do indeed call for many upgraded A-10s to stay in service until 2028.[7]

Today’s Links

  • At Fort Sill, the Army holds a meeting to discuss Anti-UAS measures:

U.S. ground forces detect an enemy unmanned aircraft performing reconnaissance  over their forward operating base. Now the soldiers must determine how to  neutralize the Unmanned Aerial System threat: whether to jam the electronic  signal from its ground controller, kill the ground controller or shoot down the  Unmanned Aerial System, or UAS.

  • The Afghan Army is not retaining its soldiers too well these days, but at least they’re not joining the Taliban: