I agree 100% with the F-35 being used to replace the F/A-18C/D, the AV-8 Harrier, and the F-16. However, I am not convinced that it is the right choice to replace the A-10. I believe we need a dedicated close air support aircraft that can fly low and slow, take a hit, loiter over the battlefield for long periods of time, and carry a huge amount of ordnance including a 30mm cannon with 1,100 rounds of DU ammunition.
If the A-10 is obsolete, should we design a new aircraft that meets these criteria? If not, why not?

Hate to put it this way, but it's a question of $$$.

DOD would rather buy a whole heap of hellfires to mount on predators than build a new aircraft for anti-tank. They can keep a closer eye and micromanage the predators then they can a in cockpit pilot. You can buy lots of missles now for the cost of developing a new jet. Missles can be used on lots of airframes from helo's to preds, making them more versitile to employ as well. Days of pilots in the cockpit are drawing to an end quickly.

Not from my Gulfstream V @ FL450- Fly Air Force!

I agree with you Caninedale, those pilots who are actually flying aircraft in the air will be out of a job (a pilot job atleast) once the Pred and Reaper REALLY take off. I dont necessarily agree with it, because I think there should always be a need for fighter Pilots in our military. You just can replace an actual pilot who is seeing first hand what is going on over there with someone who is looking at whats going on 8000 miles away.

Dont get me wrong I think the UAV progam is going to be top notch with thier capablities and mission, but we still need fighters in the air.