IAFs Kargil experience and nearly all kind of NATO wars after that.
Kargil showed us how inefficient dumb bomb attacks are, especially in difficult terrain, because dumb bombs can't be used as precise as guided bombs can. You therefore need far more bombs and sorites, do take out a target, when a single guided bomb can be used.
Modern warfare is also linked, where ground forces or UAVs can provided laser guidance for an LGB. That makes especially CAS more efficient and less risky for ground forces, than dropping dumb bombs or making gun attacks on an area, where the pilot thinks the enemies are (I read somewhere that the A10 has the highest friendly fire kills, must look that up once more).
And if you look at NATO wars, the need for guided bombs is even more obvious, because low collateral damage is a key requirement today. French Air Force uses AASM guidance kits, but replace the warhead with concrete, to have a high precision, low collateral damage weapon, because they don't want to use a 500lb warhead for a light target like a jeep, or the targets are in urban areas, with a lot of civilians around.
For LCA being able to drop dumb bombs and train pilots for dive attacks is a back up, but the priority lies in guided strike capability, as a lesson learned from past experience. The only sad thing is, that we don't have indigenous LGBs or ATGMs yet.
Btw LCA can fly low as well, but the point is, it doesn't need to in modern warfare, because it's the weapon that travels to the targets, since that increases the survivability. An A10 (or LCA) that launches an LGB from 14Km distance at high altitude, is more survivable against manpads and AA guns, than an A10 that has to fly close to the target to attack it with dumb bombs.
