Joe,

I suspect there is no meaningful data because the new aircraft systems have not seen battle conditions. This is not an unusual situation. The battleship admirals were probably saying "Show me the data!" in the '30s when some crackpots were predicting the future of naval power lay not in the big guns, but rather in those puny aircraft.
Holding too firm to the tried and proved methods of warfare will, from time to time, render you the victim of someone who has moved ahead of you in strategy or material.
Will the move from A 10s to other platforms be effective or foolhardy in retrospect? You can only make your plans and do your best.

Best
Les

Les: I keep asking for design data, stats on capability...
Again: single engine design is a flaw that can be deadly in a low and slow combat mission. One hit and it is game over.

That is well and good as long as you are aware your criteria may be based upon an outdated paradigm. Do modern tank killing weapons have to be delivered by a "low and slow" weapons platform?
I'm sure I don't have the answer, but I am reticent to cling to something just because it was the best at one time.
Best
Les

Good question.

Matt, the only part I would disagree with is the accuracy. The A-10 can carry laser guied weapons as well.

When it comes to weapons the A-10 has the cannon. Most attack aircraft can carry laser guided weapons, TV guided weapons, GPS guided weapons and some can self designate. On top of that we have options like sensor fused cluster bombs, conventional cluster bombs (which are great for people and technicals) all of these weapons can be dropped from higher altitudes and with the small diameter bomb from 50 miles away. Even the F-35 or F-16 can do well in this roll.

Now if you have the above capability and the have that ability to get down low/slow and use the Mk1 to spot the enemy in uncontested airspace such as Afghanistan or the battle with ISIS you don't need anything very fancy, just good viability and simplicity and a little redundancy. Here the A-10, OV-10, T-6, A-29, A1-D, or anything else with a heavy weapons load will work fine.

I guess the Army still believes that it needs weapons with a 30 mm cannon!

Army recon targets Apache helicopter cannon for Humvee replacement | Fox News

This is true, and it can carry a heavier load out than the aircraft competing to replace it. My point was more that a modern lighter aircraft can be very accurate and lethal due to modern weaponry, not that the A-10 didn't have the same capability. Though I'm not sure if their targeting pod has the ability to self laser designate targets, which the modern aircraft can.

But do you need laser guided weapons when doing low and slow support for troops on the ground?

Yes because they are more accurate. The guy on the ground designates a target with his laser and the laser guided rocket hits the laser point. No joke they are that accurate, it's really amazing to see in person. It is the epitome of close air support. The 30 mm cannon is accurate but it's still a gun, and the A-10 has a pretty archaic aiming system for the gun.

Speaking of A10 so... 4 buzzed downtown Charlotte last week... Really low. My brother sits on the 24th floor in a building next to the stadium. He was looking DOWN on these now suspended warthog pilots

http://www.fox46charlotte.com/news/local-news/196968319-story

I saw a-10s flying in Idaho years ago. They were spooky. Unlike any airplane I have seen. They seemed to defy physics - in a good way. Hard to explain.http://onlinemarketingou.com/apple/images/44.gifhttp://onlinemarketingou.com/apple/images/34.gif
http://onlinemarketingou.com/apple/images/37.gif
http://onlinemarketingou.com/apple/images/43.gif

Interesting news about the "obsolete" A-10
https://www.foxnews.com/us/michigan-air-national-guard-lands-jets-takes-off-from-u-s-highway-in-military-first