I think this is where the disconnect happens with a lot of folks, as a matter of perspective: you have those who say that COIN and low-tech conflicts are not the future, that they won’t happen very often, and that preparations must be made to both equip and train for a huge fight against an enemy that has the capability to challenge a modern military; then you have those who believe that COIN has been and always will be the de-facto standard of warfare for the foreseeable future, with a potential ODS or Allied Force type conflict here and there sprinkled in between. There’s very little compromise between the groups which makes things even more ridiculous, because there really is room at the table for everyone.
I’m not going to deny that fighting China or Russia on strictly conventional terms would be a very rough fight, even for modern assets; given simulators like DCS, we can get a pretty good idea just how difficult it is to fight an enemy with such capabilities. At the same time, we often don’t take into account the logistical side of the house, which represents a huge monkey wrench in all capabilities, including advanced aircraft like the F-35. Tankers, ELINT, transports, AWACS – our entire operations surround these aircraft, not advanced fighters like the F-35 and F-22. We know this and so do our enemies, and because it’s very difficult to replace these aircraft, utility of them in a conflict zone is going to be complex, to say the least. That will put a damper on all aerial operations, even more so for a conflict with an enemy like China, where there is unlikely to be a lot of friendly ground to operate from.
Assuming there is some friendly ground to operate from, the small resources that an A-10 takes to keep running is a huge advantage, and while their usage may demand a high number of losses, such is inevitable in this scenario. The important factor is an A-10 will be there when the F-35 is waiting for its ALIS to quit bugging out and throwing up false positives. And I’m sure the Air Force will be plenty willing to sacrifice A-10s (and other aircraft) while keeping expensive F-35s well away from the action. We can argue about how good an A-10 will be if they’re getting shot at, but even that has inherent value – sort of like setting up an ambush with a KC-135 as bait.
From my perspective, such a conflict is extremely unlikely because it damages all nations, not just the belligerents. Neither China nor Russia has the reasons or inclinations to start a shooting war, especially as their economies and quality of life improves. It’s the same for the USA; nobody wants blackouts, censored communications, etc. in such a widespread conflict. There’s too much for everyone to lose and while there’s always big words being traded by generals and politicians, one has to look beyond the words to see what their meaning is. For example, much of the debate about the A-10 is not based on the Air Force wanting to get rid of it or the mission, but trying to leverage the popularity of it to get a larger budget for everything else. The people at the top know what the A-10 does and how it helps them achieve their goals, and the hope was that by threatening to take that tool out of the toolbox, they could strongarm the people into giving them what they wanted.
I firmly believe that a light turboprop is essential for operations, namely because it helps to alleviate some of the stress on the more advanced fleet. The past 20 years have taken a major toll on the Air Force’s inventory, and because they were so foolhardy about lack of maintenance for their existing equipment in favor of future F-35 and F-22s, they have a crisis on their hands. One might note that the Army, despite having the old designs of AH-64s and UH-60s, continue to operate and upgrade these airframes, even though they’re old by Air Force standards. This is because Army aviation knows full well that they are highly unlikely to be getting new airframes anytime soon, and thus have taken steps to ensure that what they have will last well into the future. Had the Air Force taken the same stance with their own fleets, I strongly suspect there would be less controversy about the F-35 and F-22.
