The problem with A-10 that most are overlooking here is it would take a pounding in a dense IADS environment, despite its survivability. Thats not dissing the A-10, its just acknowleding that it has a limitation on employment.
Those that are poo-pooing the stand-off CAS support are failing to recognize that against a sophisticated enemy with dense IADS (AA and missiles), low is not where you want to be. Afghanistan and present day Iraq are not dense IADS environments, so A-10 shows its stuff there.
If we were only building to fight against third world countries, we would not need new aircraft. We are building to fight against major adversaries.
Those that are poo-pooing the stand-off CAS support are failing to recognize that against a sophisticated enemy with dense IADS (AA and missiles), low is not where you want to be. Afghanistan and present day Iraq are not dense IADS environments, so A-10 shows its stuff there.
I agree to a point with what you are saying here - But the reality is we need both - We need A-10s for what they can surely provide (without question of getting the job done) while also understanding the need for the newer aircraft (F-35 types) for the more IADS environments we are likely to see in the future. But that future is always going to include the down and dirty CAS type roles (those that think otherwise are simply foolish and wrapped in technology, while never having been in the sh*t on the ground).
The original notion of the F-35 taking on the A-10 role was utterly ridiculous. It is evident that clearer thinking heads recognized this reality with the new updated A-10 programs.