Of course not, because your question was based on a wrong understanding of CAS. That's why I quoted the official US DoD definition of CAS for you, which btw is the basis of your own documents as well:
Again, per definition, altitude, speed or dive attacks has no relevance for the role, because any air attack in support of friendly troops accounts for CAS!
So no matter if you make an outdated dive attack to drop dumb bombs directly above the target...
...or if you attack it like in modern air warfare, with ATGMs / LGBs from 7 to 15Km distance at high altitudes => it's CAS!
Not the design of the weapon launch platform is important today, but the capability of the weapon itself.
So you are wrong not because I said so, but because your definition of CAS is wrong and outdated. LCA not only is capable of doing CAS, but with LDP, 500 and 1000lb LGBs integrated, is better suited for the role, than any fighter we had in Kargil (btw, the lack of suitable weapons systems was the reason why only a low number of LGBs was used back then, read up on the issues with US paveway LGBs...)!
Add an ATGM with multi launchers and you have a cost-effective CAS platform, with sufficient loiter time and weapon load capability, for uncontested areas.
The old idea of aircrafts that makes low level attack runs is gone, that's why A10, Su 25 or the Tornado gets upgraded with guided weapons or replaced.
In Libya the Tornado was the most efficient CAS fighter, because of the use of Litening pod, 500lb Paveway 4 LGBs and Brimstone ATGMs. By 2019 it passes the crown to the EF P3E, a delta canard fighter, with the same weapons, but higher load capabilities and more survivability.
