The A-10 is essentially a modernized Junkers Ju 87. Its success is scalable because it is something in a unique and highly necessary part of war fighting and territorial occupation - the destruction of heavy ground forces in advance by air - the same role performed by the JU 87 against the Poles and Russians for the WWII Wehrmacht.
What about China? What if the Chinese were to decide to do something about Taiwan
What about China? Haven't we learned about wars in Asia yet and attempts to project power across the ocean?
Why do we need to fight for Taiwan? We didn't fight for Hong Kong and Macau, we certainly didn't fight for KMT control of the rest of China.
This is precisely the problem presented by the F22 and the F35 - a lack of perspective about what is actually important and strategic for the US. There is nothing on Taiwan of any strategic importance to the US (and the same goes for S. Korea and Japan and Singapore). There is nothing there we could not get elsewhere if necessary, except perhaps for Kobe beef.
China itself has more strategic importance to the US than anything else in Asia on account of rare earth minerals and simple potential power except only continued Russian control of Siberia.
What is truly strategically important to the US is the entire western hemisphere, and the mineral wealth in Australia and Africa and south, and sources of oil.
China is developing its own 5th generation fighter (the J-12/13/JXX), and even if it is a 10th of what the Raptor is, the sheer numbers of the type (plus enhanced legacy fighters such as advanced variants of the J-10, and the upcoming SU-35 with AESA radar and low supercruise) will make it tough for anything that is not a Raptor.
The F22 can't work from carriers, so where are you projecting its power from to combat the Chinese? Guam? Diego Garcia? Are you suggesting we are going to forward deploy an aircraft we refuse to export at Osan in Korea?
What the US really needs for force projection are aircraft that work from carriers, not stuff stationed in New Mexico and Alaska. It also needs a plane that carries some real weaponry. Lastly, it needs conventionally armed missle power projected from subs, ships, and airbases since we obviously are not going to use nuclear weaponry in any forseeable conflict.
The F22 carries 8 missles and 480 rounds. Woohoo! Such firepower! Everyone must be quaking in their boots.
The A-10's success stems from the fact that there are jets above it that shoot down anything ....way before ....that could have threatened the A-10.
A role NOT carried out by the F22 to date.
It is not scalable anywhere because for it to operate it requires that the battlespace (both in terms of enemy air, and enemy SAM systems) is sanitized. The A-10 would not survive in anything approaching a modern IADS. It would require a better jet to knock out opposition on the air and the ground, enabling the A-10 to do its CAS duties. The only jet that can do so in an modern S-300 IADS environment is the F-22.
What about China? Haven't we learned about wars in Asia yet and attempts to project power across the ocean? Why do we need to fight for Taiwan? We didn't fight for Hong Kong and Macau, we certainly didn't fight for KMT control of the rest of China.
The same could be said about Georgia, or Kuwait. We don't have to fight for them, but that may not be what happened. Also, comparing Hong Kong and Macau to Taiwan is a bit disingenous. Hong Kong reverting to Chinese rule as agreed is quite different from Taiwan being invaded by the Chinese. Furthermore, it is US policy to step in in case Taiwan is threatened.
What is truly strategically important to the US is the entire western hemisphere, and the mineral wealth in Australia and Africa and south, and sources of oil.
My job is a fund manager for a emerging/frontier markets fund, and I can tell you that the Chinese are all over Africa and South America. So, if Africa and S.America are strategically important to the US, well, they already belong to China. So does Australia more and more every 5 years.
The F22 carries 8 missles and 480 rounds. Woohoo! Such firepower! Everyone must be quaking in their boots.
Yes, they are shaking in their boots. Because the AMRAAM-D, matched with the extended range from the Raptor's supercruise, its stealthiness, and its LPI (low probability of intercept) AESA radar, means that each of those missiles is lethal to anything flying out there. They are PETRIFIED to the point of forcing their own 5th generation programs (e.g. the PakFa from Russia and the JXX from China). It also petrifies them because a Raptor with the SBD ...up to 8 of them ...coupled with extended range due to the supercruise launch, can penetrate their vaunted IADS. They are so scared that they are spending billions of Dollars on the issue.
A role NOT carried out by the F22 to date.
Yes, in the same way that the F-15 did not carry out anti Luftwaffe missions in World War 2 ....because it was there for the mission. The Raptor is present now, and it would guarantee USAF air dominance (not superiority ...dominance) for the next 25 to 30 years. The A-10 is a weapon system that while very effective in Iraq, during the Cold War was not expected to survive the Soviets streaming in through the Fulda Gap!
Reconfigure B-1s to carry long range air to air missiles. I have seen a photo produced by rockwell back in the 80s of a B-1 with very large numbers of AIM-54 phoenix missiles laid out in front of it.
That's just the internal load. Externally, it has four hard points capable of holding 5000 lbs each. Why does everyone dismiss that? 20,000 lbs of ordnance is enough for people to quake in their boots, no?