Watch The “Final Cut” Of A Glowing Film About The A-10 That The USAF Tried to Suppress

By Joseph Trevithick

Updated Jun 30, 2019 2:50 PM EDT

Another, more complete version of a small official documentary on the A-10 Warthog ground attack aircraft’s contributions in Afghanistan has emerged nearly four years after Combat Camera airmen shot the footage. The service had apparently tried to suppress the film, officially known as “Grunts in the Sky,” as it pushed to retire the planes for good despite their record of “saving guys on the ground.”

The film quickly began to spread online in December 2017 and appeared on the unofficial Air Force amn/nco/snco Facebook group. The existence of the video first became public in September 2015, after former Air Force officer Tony Carr posted an initial version , known as “Hawg,” on his blog John Q. Public. Carr had been and continues to be an outspoken supporter of the service and its mission, but a vocal critic of its leadership and many of their decisions.

“It’s a pretty easy answer, too, in terms of ‘why are we here?’” one A-10 pilot says. “The number one priority is always saving guys on the ground,” another adds.

The mini-documentary, which runs just over 20 minutes long, is interspersed with combat footage in the air and on the ground, well-shot B-roll of A-10s in Afghanistan, and particularly candid interviews with Air Force aviators and joint terminal attack controllers (JTAC) embedded with troops on the ground. It’s definitely worth watching if you’ve never seen it before.

It’s also a microcosm of the Air Force’s complicated and often controversial relationship with the A-10. The story of the production of “Grunts” and why it’s taken so long for it to see an official release are almost as interesting as its actual content.

Since its introduction in 1977, the Air Force has repeatedly attempted to retire the A-10, arguing that other aircraft can adequately take over the role. Advocates in Congress, bolstered by support from troops on the ground, have repeatedly stymied those plans, though.

By 2014, the service had already made it clear that their desire was to replace both its multi-role F-16 Viper fighter jets and A-10s with the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter . The debate over whether or not the stealthy jet is an adequate replacement for the Warthog had become increasingly tense.

In December 2014, now retired Air Force Major General James Post had created a massive controversy over the issue by implying to his subordinates that it was “ treasonous ” to offer support for the A-10 to members of Congress. In response to public pressure, in no small part from Tony Carr , the Air Force eventually booted Post from his job at Air Combat Command, before quietly moving him to the service’s headquarters in the Pentagon, effectively a promotion.

In this ironic picture, Air Force Major General James Post, at right, talks with a member of the 51st Fighter Wing in front of one of the unit’s A-10s at Osan Air Base in South Korea as part of his new job as Director of Current Operations in November 2015., USAF

In February 2015, the Air Force had also released a set of cherry-picked statistics exclusively to USA Today that tried to paint the A-10 as responsible for the most friendly fire incidents, suggesting the aircraft was actually dangerous to troops on the ground. The next month, senior officials argued that the Warthogs were just too old to be relevant in combat or even safe to fly – not mentioning a deliberate decision to end critical life-extending upgrades, which remains an issue to this day .

Later that year, the service also began poaching maintainers from the A-10 community in order to support the formation of new F-35 units, something the service has only recently backtracked on . These various maneuvers, all aimed at putting the venerable ground attackers on a final path to the boneyard, are only a small slice of the broader battle over the Warthog, especially between the Air Force and Congress , that continues right to the present day.

In this context, it’s not hard to understand why the Air Force might want to bury a film that not only demonstrated the A-10’s unique contributions in combat, but included comments from its own service members underscoring just how important the aircraft were in contemporary operations. The subjects who sat down for interviews in “Grunts” do not mince words about their experiences.

Below is the first iteration of “Hawg,” which appeared online in 2015:

“To have boots on the ground, you need support and you need the right kind of support to have boots on the ground,” Air Force Technical Sergeant Sean Deam, a JTAC, says in the documentary. “It’s the A-10, honestly.”

Deam indicated that troops on the ground just knowing A-10s were on station could be a major morale boost. His fellow service members and Army soldiers that gave interviews echoed these sentiments.

“That sound it so distinguishable,” Staff Sgt. Joseph Hauser, another JTAC says, talking about the unmistakable noise of the A-10 firing its massive 30mm main gun. “It literally shakes the ground. It is amazing. You hear it first when it fires and then you hear it echo from the gun in the sky. That sound right there just drives 11-bravos nuts,” he adds, referring to 11B, the Army’s military occupation specialty code for infantrymen.

Hauser says that the troops he worked with equated close air support with the A-10 more so than any other platform. He then gives the remark that lent the film its title, saying that Warthog pilots and troops on the ground share a unique bond and that “if you were to say that there’s a grunt in the sky, it’d be a Hog pilot.”

Air Force JTACs wave to an A-10 during a training exercise., USAF

In September 2015, Tony Carr updated the story by publishing more than 50 pages of internal Emails about the project on John Q. Public. These had come by way of another Freedom of Information Act request from Steven Mayne, a retired Air Force senior NCO.

Although censors had almost entirely redacted the contents, the Email chains showed that some of the service’s most senior officials had been involved in the discussions about what to do with “Grunts.” There were some additional details hidden among the blacked out sections, as well.

At one point, Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Edward Sholtis, then a public affairs officer for the Air Force’s top command for operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, asked everyone involved to delete any existing copies of the video they had until his office had made appropriate edits. “Because the units supporting the project were reservists, we don’t want to feed paranoia that there’s some kind of rogue video project out there,” he wrote, implying that there was such a concern, either inside the Air Force or somewhere else, regarding the handling of the documentary.

There are at least three versions of the film available online at present, including a version of the original “Hawg” that lacks any titles or other text to indentify its subjects and another edition closer to the final product in which all the faces are masked over. The Air Force had initially claimed that it could not release the video for security reasons.

You can watch the second version, “Grunts of the Air” below:

Tony Carr and others challenged this assertion since there had been apparently no issue in releasing a similar product highlighting the F-16 at around the same time. That the version the Air Force officially released under FOIA does not obscure the faces of an interviewees would seem to further suggest this was an excuse to withhold the video. The service did withhold names of the aviators involved, a standard practice when citing deployed personnel.

It’s not entirely clear why the Air Force decided now to release the film, but it might simply be because there were no actual legal grounds to withhold it any longer. It could also be a reflection of apparent shift in at least the service’s public attitude toward the plane.

In December 2017, Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson had told legislators she was a “fan” of the Warthog and supported plans to reboot a critical re-winging effort that could keep the entire fleet airworthy through at least 2040. Unfortunately, it looks as if that might not happen soon enough to avoid having to ground dozens of A-10s.

At the same time, we at The War Zone have confirmed the existence of draft requirements for a direct A-10 replacement and that they appear to be buried away in the Air Force’s bureaucracy. There is some indication that the service might seek to downplay or outright suppress the results of a separate light attack aircraft experiment, better known as OA-X, too.

It’s clear that while the saga over “Grunts” may finally have come to close, the one over the future and ultimate fate of the A-10 is likely to continue in one form or another until the aircraft does go to its final resting place.

Correction: The original version of this article indicated that the Air Force had released the “final” version of the film in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, but that was in error. The video emerged online, but a FOIA request to release the footage formally still remains unfulfilled.

Contact the author: joe@thedrive.com

Comments couldn’t be loaded. Please refresh the page.

作者：约瑟夫·特雷维西克

更新于美国东部时间2019年6月30日下午2:50

一部关于A-10“疣猪”攻击机在阿富汗作战贡献的官方小型纪录片，在战斗摄影兵拍摄近四年后，以更完整的版本面世。这部名为《空中步兵》（Grunts in the Sky）的影片，显然曾被空军试图压制，因为尽管A-10“疣猪”战机曾多次“拯救地面人员”，但空军仍力推将其永久退役。

这段视频于2017年12月迅速在网络上传播，并出现在非官方的空军士兵/士官/高级士官Facebook群组中。该视频的存在最早于2015年9月曝光，当时前空军军官托尼·卡尔在他的博客“John Q. Public”上发布了最初版本，名为“Hawg”。卡尔一直以来都是空军及其使命的坚定支持者，但同时也对空军领导层及其许多决策持批评态度。

“至于‘我们为什么在这里？’这个问题，答案也很简单，”一位A-10飞行员说道。“首要任务永远是拯救地面人员，”另一位飞行员补充道。

这部时长仅20多分钟的迷你纪录片穿插着空中和地面战斗画面、拍摄精良的A-10攻击机在阿富汗作战的镜头，以及对空军飞行员和随军联合终端攻击控制员（JTAC）的坦诚采访。如果你之前从未看过，绝对值得一看。

它也折射出空军与A-10之间复杂且常常充满争议的关系。《步兵》的制作过程以及为何迟迟未能正式上映，其背后的故事几乎与影片本身的内容一样引人入胜。

自1977年服役以来，美国空军曾多次试图让A-10退役，理由是其他飞机完全可以胜任这项任务。然而，国会中的支持者，以及地面部队的声援，一次又一次地挫败了这些计划。

到2014年，美国空军已经明确表示，他们希望用新型F-35联合攻击战斗机取代其多用途的F-16“蝰蛇”战斗机和A-10攻击机。关于这款隐形战机是否足以替代“疣猪”的争论也变得愈发激烈。

2014年12月，现已退役的空军少将詹姆斯·波斯特就A-10攻击机项目引发了巨大争议。他暗示下属，向国会议员提供支持A-10攻击机是“叛国”行为。在公众压力下（其中很大一部分来自托尼·卡尔），空军最终将波斯特从空战司令部调离，随后悄悄地将其调往五角大楼的空军总部，实际上相当于一次晋升。

在这张颇具讽刺意味的照片中，美国空军少将詹姆斯·波斯特（右）于2015年11月在韩国乌山空军基地与第51战斗机联队的一名成员在一架A-10攻击机前交谈。当时他刚刚就任现役作战主任一职。（美国空军）

2015年2月，美国空军还向《今日美国》独家发布了一系列精心挑选的统计数据，试图将A-10攻击机描绘成造成最多友军误伤事件的罪魁祸首，暗示该机实际上对地面部队构成威胁。次月，高级官员辩称，A-10“疣猪”攻击机过于老旧，已无法在战斗中发挥作用，甚至不宜飞行——他们只字未提终止关键的延寿升级这一刻板决定，而这个问题至今仍未得到解决。

同年晚些时候，空军还开始从A-10部队挖走维护人员，以支持新F-35部队的组建，直到最近才放弃了这一做法。这些旨在将老牌对地攻击机最终送入“飞机坟场”的种种举措，仅仅是围绕“疣猪”战机（尤其是空军与国会之间）的旷日持久的争夺战中的一小部分，而这场争夺战至今仍在继续。

在这种情况下，不难理解为什么空军想要雪藏这部影片。这部影片不仅展现了A-10在战斗中的独特贡献，还收录了空军官兵的评论，强调了这种战机在当时作战行动中的重要性。在《步兵》这部影片中接受采访的官兵们毫不掩饰地讲述了他们的经历。

以下是“Hawg”的第一个版本，它于 2015 年在网上发布：

“要想让地面部队投入作战，你需要支援，而且需要合适的支援，”空军技术军士肖恩·迪姆（Sean Deam）在纪录片中说道，他是一名联合终端攻击控制员（JTAC）。“说真的，关键在于A-10攻击机。”

迪姆表示，地面部队只要知道A-10攻击机已部署到位，就能极大地鼓舞士气。他的战友和接受采访的陆军士兵也表达了同样的看法。

“那声音太独特了，”另一位联合终端攻击控制员（JTAC）约瑟夫·豪瑟中士说道，他指的是A-10攻击机发射其30毫米主炮时那无可比拟的巨响。“它真的能震得大地颤抖。太震撼了。你先听到它开火的声音，然后还能听到炮声从空中回荡。那声音简直把11B步兵都震疯了，”他补充道，这里指的是11B，即陆军步兵的军事职业专长代码。

豪瑟说，他曾共事的部队认为A-10攻击机比任何其他平台都更能代表近距离空中支援。随后，他发表了那番话，而这番话也成为了影片的片名，他说“疣猪”飞行员和地面部队之间有着一种独特的联系，“如果你要说天上有什么步兵，那一定是‘疣猪’飞行员。”

美国空军联合终端攻击控制员（JTAC）在训练演习中向A-10攻击机挥手致意。

2015年9月，托尼·卡尔在John Q. Public网站上发布了50多页关于该项目的内部邮件，更新了报道。这些邮件是退役空军高级士官史蒂文·梅恩根据《信息自由法》提出的另一项申请获得的。

尽管审查人员几乎完全涂黑了邮件内容，但邮件往来显示，一些军方高层官员参与了关于如何处置“步兵”的讨论。此外，在被涂黑的部分还隐藏着一些其他细节。

当时担任空军中东和中亚作战最高司令部公共事务官的空军中校爱德华·肖尔蒂斯曾要求所有相关人员删除他们拥有的任何视频副本，直到他的办公室完成适当的剪辑。他写道：“由于参与该项目的部队都是预备役人员，我们不想加剧外界对存在某种未经授权的视频项目的担忧。” 这暗示空军内部或其他地方对这部纪录片的处理方式存在这种担忧。

目前网上至少有三个版本的影片可供观看，其中包括一个没有任何标题或其他文字标识人物的原始版本“Hawg”，以及另一个更接近最终成片的版本，该版本中所有人的脸都被遮盖住了。空军最初声称出于安全原因无法发布该视频。

您可以在下方观看第二个版本“空中咕噜声”：

托尼·卡尔等人对这一说法提出质疑，因为几乎在同一时间发布一款类似的F-16宣传片似乎并未引发任何问题。空军根据《信息自由法》正式发布的版本并未遮盖受访者的面部，这似乎进一步表明，这只是扣留视频的借口。空军确实隐去了涉事飞行员的姓名，这是引用部署人员信息时的惯例做法。

目前尚不完全清楚空军为何决定现在发布这部影片，但或许仅仅是因为已经没有法律依据可以继续扣留它。这也可能反映出至少在公开场合，空军对这架飞机的态度发生了明显的转变。

2017年12月，空军部长希瑟·威尔逊曾告诉立法者，她是“疣猪”攻击机的“粉丝”，并支持重启一项关键的机翼更换计划，该计划可以使整个A-10机队至少在2040年之前保持适航状态。不幸的是，这项计划似乎无法及时实施，从而避免数十架A-10攻击机停飞。

与此同时，《战区》栏目已证实，空军确实存在直接替代A-10的机型草案，但这些草案似乎被埋没在空军的官僚机构中。有迹象表明，空军可能还会试图淡化甚至彻底压制另一项轻型攻击机试验（即OA-X）的结果。

很显然，虽然关于“步兵”的传奇故事可能终于落下帷幕，但关于A-10未来和最终命运的争论可能会以某种形式继续下去，直到这架飞机最终退役。

更正：本文原版本错误地指出，空军已根据《信息自由法》的要求发布了该影片的“最终”版本。该视频已在网上流传，但根据《信息自由法》正式发布该视频的请求至今仍未得到满足。

联系作者：joe@thedrive.com

评论加载失败，请刷新页面。