Here's my version of how design planning for the A-10 went:
Build a big [censored] gun.
...
Nope, bigger.
...
I said *BIGGER*....
...
Ok, now make it a gatling gun....
...
No, I want it to be able to fire 4,200 rounds per minute...
...
Ok, now build a plane around that gun.
Well... The mission requirements was "close range CAS", which all but specified the GAU-8 Avenger. And the aircraft was designed around the weapon.
So... Actually, yes. Pretty much.
Air Force want to junk them. Army wants them. I say let the Army put its money where its mouth is and let Army do more of the CAS role if AF is going to toss their best CAS asset.
Army already operates more air platforms than the Air Force. Let the AF stay up in their fast-movers and let serious folk take care of business on/near the dirt.
I know I've upset plenty of USAF folks by claiming the USAF has little interest in CAS specific airframes or giving any airframes to the Army.
I'm probably overly... assertive? in that line of thought, I admit that. The youngest A-10 airframe is 30 years old. The oldest, 42. Older an airframe gets, more maintenance it needs and more likely it is to break. And the average A-10 airframe is subjected to significantly different stresses than most cargo haulers.
That said, it is damn near criminal to lose the A-10. If you gave me the option of throwing every F-35 into the ocean in exchange for a thousand A-10's and better ADA or going with our projected F-35 procurement schedule, I'd build a gorram F-35 catapult out of my own gorram pocket. Your optimal CAS aircraft is low, slow, good line of sight at the ground, maneuverable, long loiter intervals, and hoards bombs like a proper APS'er hoards ammo.
I can seem to be overly dismissive of air superiority. Multi-role fighters are important. Very important. But they will NEVER do CAS like an A-10. Physics are a harsh mistress. If you want supersonic aircraft, you need wildly different characteristics than something designed for subsonic performance. You can't bolt on a different weapons loadout and replicate the same capacity. An A-10 can't do supercruise and an F-22 can't do repeated gun runs on enemy forces at 200ft AGL at 130 knots.
The GAU-8 Avenger is a beautiful weapon, but it's not just about looks. It's the ability to put rounds on target at extremely close ranges without injuring friendlies. Few artillery rounds or missiles can kill a target with virtually no risk to friendly forces in the open at distances of 20 or 30 meters. Only kinetic weapons can do so, which we DO have, usually normal munitions with the payload replaced with concrete. Concrete is a surprisingly handy weapon for urban combat.
The House FY 2015 spending bill blocks A-10 retirement. Be sure to call your Congresscritter and let them know that a vote for retirement of the A-10 is damn near the same thing as treason until we have something that's the same or better.
I for one would get a sick thrill seeing an a10 as part of an army avn bn or cav unit. Flown by army warrant officers.
I was the commo dork for a combined fire exercise of an entire division's worth of artillery (three regiments) and a half dozen A-10.
Never have I felt closer to the Gods than I did that day. Closest I can describe it is that it sounded like a particularly nasty bar fight between many angry trains.
