Sorry for taking so long. I was looking through some of my stuff, but unfortunately I couldn't find what I wanted.
I thought this document: http://www.vitaf.it/AMVI_Sito/Resource/Manuals/T-6_afman11-248.pdf
had some formation specifics, but it does not - the formation flight covered within is quite thin - so instead, I'll just have to narrate and you obviously don't have to take my word for it.
While I am an F-15 guy in ED's products, and will narrate from that perspective, almost all of this that isn't BVR-specific applies to any aircraft.
First, I'd like to introduce the extended trail (fighting wing!) exercise: You park your aircraft about 500'-1500' (I'd reccomend just past 500'
). Lead settles the power so that he can maintain a certain airspeed to start with (IIRC, the exercise limits are 200-500kt, and lead should probably set at least 400, but don't quote me on that, don't have my references handy) and the wingman matches this power setting and speed. Once ready, lead will begin a series of maneuvers and the wingman will follow, without touching the throttle. The goal of this exrcise is to stay within 1500' of lead.
I won't go into the techniques for lead other than to say that it isn't lead's job to intentionally try and spit out the wingman.
I'm sure most people figured this one out, but this is the type of flying you'll be doing in a dogfight, but a bit farther away from the bandit.
Some notes on fighting wing: This is used mainly when the wingman is inexperienced, thus he stays with lead and clears his six. Whether he's keeping up with lead or the bandit, it's the same sort of flying. This formation turns two aircraft into one in terms of combat value, but it can be useful to use under certain conditions even with an experienced wingman.
You can probably find information on this exercise in USAF materials.
High-speed intercepts: This doesn't exactly apply to an A-10, but the techniques should be similar ... it's just that an F-15 will be going Mach 2 while the A-10 is ... yeah.
The goal here is to rapidly attack a formation of aircraft. In order to make things work right, the attacking fighters will usually want to stay in tactical line-abreast formation, about 6000' apart (there are variations to this, and they're beyond the scope of this post, but again, techniques for flying are similar). Because seconds and 10th's of a nautical mile really, really count, both fighters will go gate ( full afterburner) to get to altitude and speed. The wingman will use pitch to gain or lose speed as necessary to stay in LAB (if the enemy has BVR capability, they'll be shooting at the guy who's in front of the line first, so keep the line and keep them guessing as to who's lead).
Note that this is a scenario where you don't have much room for wingman consideration. You still need to consider the wingman, but he's got to be on his toes and just keep up.
How does this apply to an A-10? Slightly different scenario: If an A-10 flight needs to separate from bandits, you're not going to be separating at anything less than 100% thrust. Anything less is silly - when the bandits have missiles, even if the cavalry is coming to save you, seconds and 10th's of a nautical mile really, really count. After initially fixing the formation if necessary (and this should happen very fast) the wingman keeps up and keeps his line to keep the bandits guessing, while retaining the ability to clear lead's six, and vice versa.
Note that I'm assuming the bandits aren't right on top of the hogs here, but rather just entering BVR weapon employment range.
Full power climb-out: Sometimes you just have to, for any number of reasons. The flying part is the same as elsewhere, the T/O itself requires a couple of extra things (eg. lead flies runway heading for a longer time, allowing the wingman to turn inside lead's TC after take off is complete).
You probably won't find much or any materials on the above couple of things, but you might find someone who will tell you, and will likely do so better than I have
That's what the rest of us are saying/thinking. Very interested to see GrayGhost's material, but even if a whole wing of experienced combat pilots swore that they maintained close formation at full power, I would need some explanation of the physics (and a clear defintion of "close") before I could accept that claim. Antecdotal evidence never trumps physics.
To be fair, I don't think Gray (or anyone else) is saying that pilots maintain close formation at full power. I think it's an assumption that hasn't been flushed out.