What kept him alive was the A-10’s ability to stay above him and keep shooting the enemy. Quick is great, but actually covering troops that we put out by themselves is more important.
Again, the fascination despite the facts. Quick is key. That A-10 does the job well in a VERY specific environment. One void of counter air or anti air wherein the launch base is within a reasonable distance to the target. This is highly unique to that AO. Building a CAS capability around a very narrow definition such as that is stupid, and that is why the Air Force isn't doing it.
I still question the Air Force doing it at all if the F-35 is the answer. How long could the F-35 have stayed above the troops that night? The gun capacity is just awful.
Gun capacity on an A10 isn't that hot either. The sex appeal of the GAU is great, but it only has a shade over 1k rounds, and those go by pretty quickly.
What's really interesting is looking at the data; the majority of CAS missions in Afghanistan were performed by the B-1, hardly what comes to mind when you picture that aircraft. But it has high speed, packs a ton of munitions, and has the ability to persist for a long time over the battlespace.
What vacuum do you think military aviation operates in? Honestly. The A-10 will loiter for an hour or two at most depending on loadout. The F-35 will do about the same.
Loiter time isn't as big of a variable as people make it out to be. We'll just throw more assets into the mix. What matters is getting there fast to be able to actually impact the fight in a meaningful way.
If someone wants "the facts", are you aware of any publicly available information that does a (in your opinion) fair/accurate assessment of the pros and cons of the available CAS platform options? (Weblogs, forum posts, white papers, etc.)
