But still running the A-10 is a good example of where that’s not true.

The A-10 was originally designed as a CAS and tank killer for the invasion of western europe by eastern troops and armor. It was never designed to fight against guerillas.

The AF is still running the A-10 because they've not managed to get rid of it yet — not for lack of trying, but because when they try the army suggests taking it off their hands and if there's one thing the AF likes less than CAS, it's the idea of the Army getting fixed-wing units.

Right but you get why it's not even remotely suitable for that role now? It's no longer a weapon system that's suitable for use against peer/+. It'd have absolutely no chance of getting that close to an advancing Russian force.

> Right but you get why it's not even remotely suitable for that role now?

Which does not matter because it's not a role anyone actually needs.

> It's no longer a weapon system that's suitable for use against peer/+.

Which has not actually been needed in 75 years, unlike a weapon system suitable for use in asymmetric conflicts.

If you're of the opinion there is absolutely no possibility we'd ever have to fight a peer/+ adversary, then your position makes sense.

But nobody serious responsible for managing our defence thinks that. Hence why the capability needs to be upgraded.