This defense of retiring the A-10 is total BS.
Yes, providing ground support requires air superiority. Thank you Captains Obvious.
The idea that nobody would want an A-10 to face in combat a new Chinese J-31 some time in the distant future is just as obviously dumb. I wouldn't want an A-10 to face a MiG-21. The A-10 is not--to state the obvious--a fighter plane.
But are these authors really telling me that the only way to field the F-35 as an air superiority fighter is to retire the A-10?
And they are telling me that in the Air Force strategy that focuses on that air superiority mission that the Air Force will decide where, when, and if the Army gets air support from those F-35s?
You see, that's the problem.
And by the way, the Air Force isn't happy about the Army having armed drones, too. Thanks so much.
The very fact that the Air Force doesn't even see a mission for the A-10 worth paying for is the real problem.
Sorry. I get a little emotional--as the authors accuse A-10 defenders of succumbing to--about the Army getting left on its own while the Air Force plans to fight its own battle high above the mud and sand.
UPDATE (prior to publication): This author thinks even less of the cited article.