The F-15 has engines optimized for interdiction so long loiter times at slow speed over the same area were *not* on the design plan. I ask you for a source with actual numbers on loiter time and you give me nothing. The specific fuel consumption on the F-15 engines is a lot higher. 0.76 lb/(lbfh) vs 0.37 lb/(lbfh) on the A-10 engines. Plus the fuel load you are talking about for the F-15 seems like its with external fuel tanks which mean if the airplane gets one shot in them it will just flame up. The F-15 can't do slow low-level altitude passes at the same speeds and still hit a target with the cannon at the same level of accuracy. The plane would stall.
It actually does. It's a rough ride, but it was designed for a low level penetration into enemy territory. Not that it matters, because neither the A-10 or F-15E will operate at low altitudes.
Bullshit. The F-15 was designed as an high-altitude interceptor and only later on did they decide to add bombing capabilities to it. It was not designed with low level flight in mind at all.
That's a funny comment. Take a look at Blue on Blue incidents by the USAF in the past couple conflicts and you might notice a theme. A-10's have shot at a lot of friendlies because they couldn't ID their target properly (and, correspondingly, they've not shot at a lot of bad guys because they couldn't PID). The F-15 with a pod at 35K feet sees way better and way more then an A-10 at 2K feet without one. Which, again, doesn't really matter because A-10's always carry a targeting pod now and hang out at 20K feet. At least the E has a WSO who's job it is to figure out who's who before they start shooting.
Have you bothered looking at the number of CAS missions each plane has done on those places? The A-10 does a *lot* more missions so of course there are more events like that. In a lot of cases an F-15 won't even bother going there. As for the advantages of dual seat aircraft in a target rich environment they did develop a dual seat A-10 prototype but it was cancelled. You can guess why.
They're more expensive then you'd think. Depending on how you do the accounting a full magazine of 30mm CM costs between 40K and 80K dollars. There are a lot of hidden costs there to, since proficiency with the gun requires a lot more training time. And there's no gurentee that the gun rounds are going to kill your target. Experience tells that the best way to kill bad guys, regardless of what they're in or where they are, is to drop a whole pile of high explosives on them. Bombs do that quickly and efficiently.
So a full A-10 magazine costs tens of thousands of dollars and the USAFs much coveted Small Diameter Bomb II costs 250000 dollars *each*.
As for missing targets with a cannon being useless I guess you have never heard of fire suppression.