Are single role aircraft a bad buy in a multirole world?

The Air Force Chief of Staff reportedly told the Army that he was about to kill the A-10 because he could no longer afford a single mission airplane.

Besides being an outright lie...C-17, C-130, KC-135, SR-71 etc...are all examples of single role aircraft, the A-10 signifies something more dangerous.

The USAF is moving away from close air support.  Words are meaningless, actions are reality.  The reality is that the USAF has been trying for years to dump the A-10..

But back to the bigger issue.

Are single role airplanes such a bad thing?  Consider the carrier air wing of two decades ago.  You know them but let me give you a refresher.

F-14 Fleet Defense Fighter.

A-6 Deep Strike Bomber, Refueler, Electronic Attack.

A-7 Light Strike Aircraft.  Hauls as much as a F-18 but much cheaper.

S-3 Viking.  Anti-Sub specialist, Electronic attack in the ES-3 platform and aerial refueler.

The other pieces of the wing has remained about the same.  We had E-2 Hawkeyes, C-2 Greyhounds, SH-60 SeaHawks etc...Fast forward to today and we have Super Hornets, E-2s, C-2s and MH-60s.

Which is more powerful?  The Carrier Air Wing of 20 years ago or the Wing of today?

The same rationale can be applied to the USAF.  Are they making the same mistake as the USN so many years ago?  Is it a mistake to neck down to a two plane fighter/attack force?  And if it is who will pay the price for that mistake.  I'll give you a hint.  It won't be airmen that pay the price.

It'll be some soldier in a ditch begging JTAC for air strikes and being told that the F-35s are off doing ISR for the next air tasking.  He better hope the cannoneers are set for the fire mission because that will be the only help he'll get.  The Air Wings/Forces have officially abandoned ground forces to fight on there own.