> Against a an adversary with no anti-air capabilities. Like the Taliban. Whom we are no longer fighting. For the nation-state level conflicts we're gearing up for, the A-10 is a waddling duck.

The US has been gearing up for nation-state level conflicts and only fighting asymmetric guerrilla ones since 1945. And the AF is the one branch which most refuses to fight the wars the US are actually fighting.

The US may be winding down against the Taliban, but there are plenty more farmers with AKs around the world to fight. The US is not done with that kind of conflict by a very long chalk.

For the most part they _are_ done with that kind of conflict. And in situations where they do need to engage an adversary like that, it is far easier to use drones.

I love the A-10, but it's effectiveness as CAS for adversaries with even low-level AA is decreased to a point that its less effective than the F-35.

Are there any drone platforms that have a gun on them?

Bullets are a lot cheaper than missiles. Predator drones get the job done when you just need a one-and-done missile shot. But a loitering gun in the sky is a fundamentally different weapon.

------

I think the issue is that the primary role of the A10, which was to destroy tanks, has basically disappeared. Tank armor has increased to the point where an A10's gun may not be reliable enough.

The A10 exists as a cheap CAS role that it wasn't ever really designed for. A10 has a loiter time of 90 minutes, while AC-130 has a loiter time of 4.5 hours. The air-force would rather be sending in AC 130.

-------

That being said: if the Army wants the A10, they should get the A10. Air Force's main job is air-superiority, ensuring the skys are clear for other operations.

> and can carry more ordinance

I think one of the reasons it is easy to make this mistake is that most seem to mispronounce ordnance in that they add a superfluous syllable. Ordinance has three syllables, while ordnance only has two. Hope that helps.