And one they have repeatedly proven reluctant to do. It ain't sexy enough for the flyboys.
Army could fly other fixed-wing, but not CAS fixed-wing.
Suggest you check your facts on this one.
Something to ponder: We need to attach the Army to the Air Force.
There is not enough alcohol in the world to make that argument seem logical.
You can not destroy the enemy with air power only reduce it enough for the ground troops to move in and hold. Sandbox One and Two were both excellent examples of this.
Fixed-wig CAS remains USAF mission, and during Cold War days, emphasis was on strategic strike, with the A-10 as the primary CAS aircraft—and having flown the A-10 during that time—we recognized its critical need but the strategic mission was most important to stop massed forces.
It had nothing to do with being “sexy” and everything to do with prioritizing assets. . .and air supremacy and strategic strike were primary.
Having spent a few years with the 101st as a FAC, with combat experience, the old Cold War attitude as expressed by you is no more. Air Force has many A-10 fighter pilots in the upper echelons and they remain fiercely loyal to the mission and the jet, and with the evolution of precision munitions, most all jets in the Air Force inventory can (and do) conduct CAS.
Remember, CAS is the application of air power within close proximity to friendly forces and has nothing to do with flying low. You fly low in a CAS environment when the air-to-air threat is significant and you fly below the fight for command of the air. And the Army loves whatever USAF CAS platform delivers the ordinance. Be it a B-52 or an A-10, it matters not who delivers the mail as long as the mail is delivered on time and at the right address.
Army could fly other fixed-wing, but not CAS fixed-wing, and yes, the facts prove this: https://www.army.mil/article/137612
Something to ponder is a think piece, meaning an exploration of what we think we know and to examine possible scenarios in future where what we know may not be true, and what roles and missions may evolve.
Prime example is Billy Mitchell: http://www.historynet.com/william-billy-mitchell-an-air-power-visionary.htm
Billy Mitchell “provoked the Navy admirals into open hostility through his tirades against their super-dreadnought concepts.” This challenged the primacy of Naval forces even though “there is not enough alcohol in the world to make that argument seem logical.”
By dismissing out of hand the idea that perhaps aviation is evolving to become a primary fire you joined the Admirals in dismissing a concept that is contrary to what they “know.”
Tactics, strategy, weapons, missions, etc, all contribute to an evolving process that if accepted, ensures we field our forces in the most effective way, rather than engage in rice-bowl fights to protect old concepts and missions.