OK LJ,
Lets assume Scorpion is more survivable than an A-10.
But should we buy it?
I think there are 2 strong argument against:
1) The theory that if you look at the total cost of ownership there are a lot of fixed costs - running an airbase and associated personnel is somewhat irrespective of what aircraft you base on it. I remember reading an analysis (admittedly from the F-15 camp against the F-16) that you come up against the law of diminishing returns quite quickly (in terms of cheaper aircraft meaning cheaper budget or more airframes) - I imagine it was mainly spin but does seem pretty logical and came with some pretty convincing graphs!
2) I'd say for the first time since the cold war we are in a position where it is easy to imagine we could be in a conflict where we (the west) are very hard pressed to establish air superiority. How useful would Scorpions be then? If we bought a low mix combat aircraft I'd suggest it should be optimised for air-air. Far better to have air superiority and then a CAS aircraft that is not optimised to the job than other way around! What would have been better in May 1940 more Hurricanes or Fairey Battles?
TR