Originally Posted by
3006hunter
If the A-10 wasn't needed, you wouldn't see the outcry of support that has tried to keep it in service.
Not necessarily true, as I am sure a lot of it has to do with congressmen keeping the aircraft and associated jobs in their district.
Originally Posted by
satpak77
just curious but when was last time a US fighter aircraft engaged another enemy fighter aircraft in an air-to-air scenario ?
Well, me and my squadron over Serbia in March 1999, but let me ask you this: what did the Iraqis do with their fighters in 2003? They buried them because they knew we would annihilate them if they took off. So, in many respects, the reason the A-10 (and B-1, B-52, Predator, etc) have been able to conduct their CAS mission so effectively is because of the air superiority we have gained.
"I wouldn't be here if we didn't have air superiority." Gen Dwight Eisenhower on the Normandy beaches
And, by the way, I am guessing you are discounting all the NORAD intercepts (9/11), and all the renewed Cold War intercepts of Russian Bear bombers along our coasts over the last few years, as well as all the intercepts in the Baltic.
You are making a false dilemma argument--it is NOT either/or air superiority / CAS. The argument is what is the BEST mix of aircraft to fight the future wars we expect to face, and based on limited budgets, it probably is not best to keep a single-mission aircraft in service that is only survivable in low threat areas.