Yes:
The Army has got to modernize our surface-to-surface fire capabilities at echelon to guarantee that we have clear overmatch in the close fight, in the deep fight, in the strategic fight. If we are unable to do that we will not be able to do for the joint force what it is that surface-to-surface fires do; which is to open those windows of opportunities to allow our joint and Army aviation forces to exploit deep [emphasis added].
This ability to shoot at enemy air defense assets will enable Army attack helicopters to move in to strike.
And transport helicopters, too, for tactical airlift of ground forces, of course.
Less obviously it allows "joint" aviation forces--that is, Air Force aircraft in particular--to strike ground targets on or behind the battlefield.
Remember, the Russians hope to nullify our air power with ground-based air defenses long enough for their ground forces with ample artillery to defeat our ground forces.
Long ago when I was but a lad playing board war games, I learned that lesson in one game about the Golan front in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. The Israelis really needed their air power but Syrian air defenses would take quite the toll. It didn't take me long on the Israeli side to realize that the best initial use of my long-range artillery was to take out Syrian air defenses to get the air force into the game without taking too many losses.
That's multi-domain synergy. It isn't anything new although it is a buzz word right now.
And our ground troops like having air support when the enemy does not.
