Its very resilient but thats not a winning argument. The response to that argument is other aircraft aren’t subject to the fire in the first place so its a moot point. The air force would prefer to drop a 500lbs bomb from an altitude where small arms cannot reach them moving fast enough the bigger stuff misses.
IMO where the A10 is so much better is its ability to provide close cover and loiter for long periods.
CAS does not require the jet to fly “close”. In CAS, “close” means close delivery of weapons and weapons effects.
With advances in accuracy and targeting, stand-off is becoming more and more usual and accurate.
The A-10’s strength was its ability to loiter in the target area, deliver ordnance multiple times over multiple passes. Low altitude CAS was driven by the A/A threat. That is why the A-10 took it high after the first few days of Gulf War I. . the A/A threat went away so they now flew high to remain out of range of most small arms.
The A-10 became a ripe target when the US decided to reap the ‘peace dividend’ and invest in multi-mission aircraft as opposed to a single-mission aircraft like the A-10. Gulf War I derailed that effort for a while. Heck, even Gen Horner, big anti-A-10 guy, admitted the A-10's "saved our asses.".
Oh, and last thing, I did a study of BD jets from Gulf War I. If an A-10 took a hit, it had an 84% chance of surviving the hit and getting home, whereas with the other fighters, if they took a hit, they had an 86% chance of losing the jet.
IMO where the A10 is so much better is its ability to provide close cover and loiter for long periods.
And then make it back to base, which is just what I was saying in the first place.