Originally Posted by
3006hunter
CAS isn't in the future plan....until it becomes forced in the next real world conflict.
Originally Posted by
PickleRick
The idea of the big wigs is that the USAF doesn’t really do CAS in future conflicts. Whether or not that’s correct is up for debate, especially since recent conflicts have a funny way of including a lot of CAS.
However, plenty of aircraft do CAS other than the A-10. F-35, F-16, F-15E, MQ-9, even B-1s. Nothing as good as the A-10 in most cases. IF CAS is required, my guess is that the USAF relies on those assets and others.
But as stated above, CAS is a low priority mission set when it comes to planning for future conflicts.
The USAF doesn't prioritize CAS as much as USA/USMC would like. IMO this is one of those niches where the Army probably should have been allowed to retain FW combat aircraft, but the USAF is jealous of their hard-earned union scope. They don't want to do it, but they don't want to let anyone else encroach either. Dog in the manger frankly. This is a gap in one of our joint seams.
Yes the USMC could operate A-10's, and that appeared to have almost happened the first time the USAF tried to get rid of them. Didn't happen to due to budget and also the land-based aspect IIRC. A-10's could have been designed for carrier ops with minimal tweaks, but they weren't and that's not something you can fix later.
From the perspective of a former groundpounder and FAC, who *really* relied on CAS nothing in the inventory can fully replace the A-10, and USAF is just fine with that.
The reality is that the A-10 is probably on borrowed time, and budgets don't allow for a modern, clean-sheet "A" only replacement. The letter "F" pretty subsumes the "A" in this day and age. We'll just have to live with that most likely.
Especially since the obvious peer conflict of this century is a naval and air-intensive fight on and over the high seas. Putin couldn't make it past the Dnepr, much less anywhere near the Rhine.