[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Three little hammers with laser guided rockets, longer on-station time, and higher fleet utilization due to reduced maintenance requirements isn't half bad either. The reality is that a lighter duty aircraft can spend more time in loiter, carry an equally lethal payload that is also more accurate, cost less to purchase, and cost less to operate. You don't need a 30 mm cannon to take out a Toyota pickup, and in a populated urban area you can't use it due to collateral damage. You can, however, use a laser guided rocket.
There have been multiple proposals to refurbish retired OV-10s. Unfortunately it's just about as expensive just to develop a new airplane. I think there are a few foreign nations still operating them.

I guess all we shot was Toyotas in Iraq. America's military might is not based on just barely enough to get by.

Less cost to purchase and operate? What color is the sky in your world? The A10 is far less expensive on both counts.

Does your replacement have the triple redundant systems to keep the thing in the air and can it protect the pilot from 50 mm fire? If not you can kiss your air support goodbye since the AF is only interested in protecting itself and not the Army (one reason I think the AF doesn't like the A10: they have to take care of troops instead of being glamorous high tech jockeys with cool toys.

Can you take out the enemy with your friendlies 20 meters away?

Years ago, BMW had a TV ad where they bragged that all the other cars compared their stats to a BMW. They then said something to the effect of "why not just get the car everyone wants to be like?".