on a completely unrelated fantasy sidetrack. . . .I want to put this in the back of a Chrysler Town and Country with the power opening rear tail gate. Evil super villain soccer mom style.

Probably Drones are cheaper, require less ground facility, can linger longer, also serve as surveillance platform after munitions are used, cost less to lose, survive by being invisible cause most are small(ish), besides the chair force has a rep to uphold, j/k, the boys in blue do a fine job in the air.

Unlike NASCAR, I'd pay to see this vehicle make nothing but left turns all night doing its thing!

"So i'm pulling my weinermobile into my girlfriends C-5, and i yell 'Man you got a big cargo bay!...man you got a big cargo bay'..., and she says 'Why did u say that twice?', and I say 'I didnt'"

Two things:

1. Standoff ranges. the AC-130 has long been vulnerable to MANPADS and that's just going to get worse. The current generation of MANPADs has a range greater than that of the AC-130's guns.

2. Gun Accuracy. The further away you are from the target, the less accurate your gun will be. See #1.

There will always…

Being a German soldier in Afghanistan whose unit received USAF CAS (thanks btw) from A-10s and F-16s I can safely say that A-10 strafing runs are pretty much useless against insurgents. They might be great at busting tanks, but that's about.

I believe this is it

Because the A10 expensive and useless in contested airspace. In permissive airspace, drones and AC130s do a better job for less money.

This article doesn't have enough adjectives in it. You need things like 'scary', 'terrifying' and 'dangerous' to fulfill the necessary Gawker requirements for posting about projectile weapons.

Our matchsticks will block out the sun.

To prevent the spread of disease, maybe?

Probably because corpses are health hazards.