The "Upgradeability" argument is a moot point considering there is no other airframe that can come close to replacing the A-10 in the missions it is best at. To say that the plane isn't nearly "upgradeable" enough (A point on the face I would dispute, as it's already been upfitted with Pave gear) is to say, "let's get rid of the plane because it's not good enough for future battles we might fight, and if we do, then we'll have absolutely nothing capable now." It's an argument that completely lacks any real world basis.

I don't get rid of my only computer because it's a Pentium 3 because it's old, until I have something that can actually replace it (and no, it won't/can't be replaced by the JSF).

Also, I point out that the A-10 is actually young compared to some of the planes we're still flying. B52 anyone? U-2? We don't stop flying planes because they're old, we stop flying them because there is something better to replace them. At this time, no such thing exists for the A-10.

Also, it's insane to say that the missions that the plane "Might" be used for in the future don't suit the plane, considering the missions it actually has, are almost perfect for it (ground support in Iraq as the article states).

The truth is that the Air Force doesn't want the plane and they're trying to come up with any excuse to kill it, despite the fact that it actually saves US troops lives.