Any replacement for the A-10 will ultimately look pretty close to the existing A-10. This is simply a fact of the requirements. Anyone claiming otherwise, is shilling for the Jews attempting to disarm and reduce the capabilities of the US military.
The A-10 can easily be upgraded. They choose not to. Refuse to. That is telling. Every effort to design a replacement which is equally capable always looks roughly like the existing A-10. As I said, any replacement which doesn't look something like the current A-10 is no replacement at all.
You'll find a recurring theme with the Jews in control is to destroy platforms which can effectively support troops and destroy heavy armor.
If the Hornet could do it, it would have already. It can't. It has completely failed to do so. It's not even an option. Anyone telling you otherwise is shilling for Jews to disarm the US military.
The A-10s primary roll is the destroy convoys and columns of tanks. Our supposed adversaries know this because we've been advertising how we fight since 9/11. There's very little threat of China rolling into Taiwan in miles long columns of tanks like what was expected during the Cold War into Western Europe.
Whether you believe it or not, it is time for something else to take this job on. It's a victim of its own "success".
Well, that's not true and has never been true. While it's cannon was developed to destroy main battle tanks, armor developed put a stop to that. But missile development also advanced. And the cannon is still highly effective on all other targets.
It's primary role has always been support and suppression. A role it still does today. The only competitor is the Apache, which doesn't have the range, speed, nor endurance of the A10. No known aircraft can take the abuse the A10 can.
Eagles are pretty durable, both have successfully RTB'd on one wing.
>J >J >J
(post is archived)