Or designed something similar?
My understanding is that close air support is a mission, not an aircraft. It is useful to have pilots close to the action, of course. But precision munitions were in their early stages back in 1984, when we stopped building A-10s. And drones operated by pilots wearing excellent VR helmets and aided by artificial intelligence are on the way, even if I do not like it.
I understand the counterarguments, but I cannot help thinking that if the A-10 were so effective in terms of cost and combat, somebody else would be building it. Or at least fielding an imitation. (France and Russia the U.K. come to mind; Russia has the Su-25.) Why don’t they?
ADDENDUM: Apparently the Iraqi government has purchased Su-25s from the Russian Federation. Iran also fields them and the Ivoirian air force idiotically used them to attack French troops in 2004. (Idiotic because although the attack succeeded, the French proceeded to destroy the entire Ivoirian air force on the ground.) So I may have answered part of my question: there is a market for an A-10 equivalent! Still, why is there no A-10 export market and why haven’t other Western countries with expeditionary militaries picked it up?