In message , Charles Gray
writes
To put it a different way, the model of a A-10 style aircraft,
equipped with cannon and guns, providing close air support and
anti-armor firepower to the troops?

Yes, just as there's a place for the AC-130 and similar aircraft. The
A-10 isn't using the GAU-8A as a primary weapon (and never has in
action) but does find it useful on a number of occasions where mission
requires and threat permits.

Ideally the A-10 would be replaced by something with less gun (maybe a
25mm rotary or 27mm Mauser), less armour (resisting AAA is one thing,
but SAMs do most of the killing), more speed and power, and more
countermeasures. Oddly enough, that's a good pencil sketch of the JSF

Or have things changed enought (cheap PGM's, UCAV's, etc) to where
that model is more along the line of a Battleship in 1945-- no matter
how effective at its job, there are now things that can do the job
just as well or better, and are more flexible to boot?

I wouldn't be that hard on the A-10 (even if I do attack some of the
more enthusiastic claims made for it). It doesn't have the battleship's
"prestige" connotations making losses headline news (no more so than any
other air asset, anyway), nor the peculiarly high costs (IIRC it's
relatively cheap to fly and maintain, always a survival aid ).

If you want a warship analogy, it's more like a cruiser than a
battleship in 1945: cheap enough to keep, versatile enough to still be
useful for a while, and handy to have until a replacement comes on line.

The A-10 isn't survivable in a high-threat environment, but there aren't
many of those and the likely ones can be reduced or suppressed enough to
let it be used. Since it's bought and paid for, still has a number of
uses, and still has a fair bit of life left in the airframes, why throw
it away?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk