This bad plane has proved itself time and time again. In my opinion, they should evaluate these planes and find where they can improve upon them and make more. Don't mess with success.
I wonder how to compare the A-10 with the Apache Longbow helicopter? They both have somewhat the same job, but the plane seems to be able to take more abuse than the helicopter. I know that a plane cannot hover and rotate like a helicopter, but is that necessary for this particular tank and armor busting?
An A-10 has a very very tight turning radius...I've seen them use not much more than the width of a 150 ft. runway to do a 180 degree turn.
The reason that we have both is obvious: the Army learned that it can't trust anybody else -- even the USAF -- with the Close Air Support mission. If the AF had had its way, the A-10's would have been mothballed at Davis-Mothan after the (last) Gulf War and they wouldn't have been available for the present war.
Different ways of accomplishing the same thing- let's ping a helicopter pilot, and let him explain better than I could.
The primary intent of Apache Longbow is to hover "out of sight", behind a hill, pop up, acquire target and fire. Unfortunately, there aren't many hills in southern and central Iraq. Thus, they are more vulnerable than the A-10's.
The A-10 has great protection for the pilot (titanium bath-tub) but it is somewhat vulnerable to SAM's. Fortunately, we've got a lot of A-10 pilots with a lot of guts.