With today's technology, the Air Force can more effectively perform the CAS mission by using new multirole aircraft to manage information and give pilots a clearer picture of the battle space, argued Rebecca Grant, president of IRIS Independent Research, Washington.
"Close-air support is a lot more, in a way, about managing the information: who is on the ground, who needs what, what's the developing situation," Grant said. "This is really not about the pilot flying and looking down and trying to see the situation on the ground. If that's how they are doing it, well, that's how our grandfathers did it in World War II. That's not the gold standard today."
The A-10 performs well in an environment of total aerial dominance, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, Birkey said, but may not be survivable in less permissive environments. In a notional land engagement in the Asia/Pacific, the A-10 may not have applicability, he added.
The Air Force could design a replacement A-10 that is capable of multiple missions, said Mark Gunzinger, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington.
"If you are thinking about the future and the kind of operational environments that the Air Force is prepared for, should prepare for, to me it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a single-mission" platform for CAS, Gunzinger said. "It makes a great deal of sense to have a multi-mission platform performing that mission. In fact, it makes a lot of sense to have many multi-mission aircraft capable of supporting that mission, not just one."
But with several costly projects looming in the next few decades, including the new bomber, the Air Force does not see a clear funding stream for a next-generation A-10 replacement. Given a better budget environment, the service would want a relatively cheap, next-generation aircraft to provide close support for ground troops — but that is not a realistic proposal today, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said this spring.
"We need a low-threat CAS platform in the near future, if the money will allow it," Welsh said at an April event sponsored by Defense One in Washington. "It doesn't today, but we would certainly like to have something like that, that operates more efficiently than what we have today, that carries more firepower and does so in a low-threat environment."
It would be a challenge for the Air Force to squeeze another new aircraft into the budget plan, which already includes recapitalizing the bomber, trainer and Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System fleets, Gunzinger said.
One option is to combine the T-X and A-X programs, given the trainer's capability to conduct CAS missions, he suggested.
"It would be a multimission system — light attack, close-air support, along with our training aircraft," Gunzinger said. "It could help defray the cost of developing an A-10 replacement, since the Air Force has already determined it's going to invest in T-X."
Unless there is a radical shift in the short-term budget environment, analysts see the Air Force potentially developing a replacement A-10 after the procurement "bulge" in the 2020s. Still, the Air Force must balance tight resources and technological advancements with calls to replace the A-10 one-for-one.
"To me, this looks like the ACC is wanting to explore all its options," Grant said. "I think Congress has made really clear that they want a fuller discussion of the A-10. So the question down the road will be, as they evaluate a single-mission aircraft, how much do they want to give up?"
