Interesting article showing some of the thinking involved.

https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2017/3/9/the-price-of-payload-light-attack-for-pennies-on-the-pound

With this background, can the introduction of light attack aircraft provide battlefield capability and fiscal relief? In some ways, the answer seems to be a clear yes. Among manned systems operated in permissive environments, the A-29 and Scorpion clearly deliver ordnance at the lowest possible cost. The low operating cost of these airplanes allow for one thousand pounds of ordnance to be delivered for slightly over $300 per operating hour (See Table A). Only heavy bombers, capable of delivering tens of thousands of pounds of bombs at a time even come close to the cost per 1000 pounds of ordnance delivered. Fifth generation aircraft such as the F-22 and F-35 perform poorly in this metric, making the adoption of inexpensive light attack aircraft to supplement their numbers particularly attractive.

This is not to say that a light attack aircraft is not without flaws. Most obviously, in order to achieve low operating costs a light attack plane gives up other capabilities. Stealth, speed, and sensor integration all suffer to various extents in relatively inexpensive aircraft. An A-29 will simply not arrive on station as quickly as an F-15, survive contested airspace like an F-22, or have the situational awareness of an F-35; nor does it need to. A key design feature of light attack aircraft is the ability to operate from austere airbases. Both the A-29 and AT-6 have demonstrated this ability, allowing them to refuel, replenish, and respond from forward locations and arrive at the fight quickly, without the need for high speed.