Like clockwork...

So it seems like every ten years or so since the late 80's, the Airforce comes up with a grand plane to retire the A-10 and replace it with a much faster jet that they assure us will be able to do the same job.  The first several times it was the F-16 that would take the role.  Then we had Gulf War the first and the A-10 performed with absolute stunning success, so they gracefully backed out.  I recall reading about the AF wanting to do it again just before the towers fell, and shortly thereafter let that effort quietly die as well.  Due to the length of the latest unpleasantness, they were half a decade tardy on the latest push, to which congress told AF leaders to get stuffed.

Unfortunately, every time we get an advancement in military technology, some people who should know better think "This will solve everything!" and make foolish mistakes.  This is why we had a run of air superiority fighters in the 50's and 60's that had no internal canons.  New technology caused the brass to determine that aerial dog-fighting was a thing of the past because missiles were the new hotness.  The Vietnam conflict showed the folly of that decision and now both the AF and Navy have schools for it.  Our fighters now sport canons as well.

The reality is easily summed up thusly:

During both of the gulf wars, the A-10 proved time and time again that they can go in, accomplish the mission, absorb obscene amounts of damage and still fly home.  Hell, it can fly home after losing an engine, all of its hydraulics, half a wing, half of its tail or even all of its fuel tanks if home is within 230 miles.  And it repeated these tasks over the Balkans and Afghanistan.

On the other hand, in October 2015, while flying a mission over Paktia Province in Afghanistan, an F-16 showed exactly how it was designed for air superiority, not close air support.  Upon receiving damage to one stabilizer from ground fire, the pilot immediately had to drop external fuel tanks and its air to ground armaments and return to base for an emergency landing.  This is not what we want in a close air support aircraft.

Now, apparently, due the the continuing FUBAR that has become the F-35 it appears that the AF has admitted that the retirement plan is on hold for several years.  They also quietly admitted that they are considering developing a replacement aircraft that is closer to the A-10 than the F-35.  They estimate that it would take 15 years to design a replacement.  If the F-35 is a reference, I think they are being rather optimistic.  Last I heard, current upgrades will allow it to fly until 2028.  Maybe its time to upgrade the AF leadership and procurement process instead.