F-35 (JSF) vs A-10....is the F-35 worth it?

A better comparison would be the F-15E Strike Eagle vs the A-10. Both have a primary role of air to ground missions. The F-15C is an air to air only aircraft. To be honest I think the A-10 is awesome but the Strike Eagle is a much more capable aircraft. You can even compare the warthog to the F-16C because the primary rule of the Falcon is air to ground as well. The F-16 flies more air to ground missions in theatre than the A-10 right now anyways.

Having been battle tested, I did not see F15s nor F16s do what the A10 can do and has done. While the F15 maybe a much more capable aircraft, it is not a better aircraft than the A10 at ground support. It is mission specific and was designed to do just that, ground support. The F35 will be no different. It will not perform the ground support mission like an A10 can. Nor at the cheaper cost. The mere cost of the F35 will play huge in whether enough aircraft will be purchased to fill all the roles that are needed. Once purchased, some bean counter will then determine whether or not the cost of the mission warrants the cost of the aircraft. The A10 is still viable in the mission that it was built for. You can buy a lot of A10 for one squadron of F35 to do the ground support mission.

must put more likes into this one!!!

Not to be picky, but the F-15C was never considered "multi-role"... That would be the F-15E which does in fact have both a ground and air mission. It would also never be used for CAS as it is meant for deep strike, with advanced night time capabilities (in its hay day).

I am a HUGE fan of the A-10s and having severed directly with some of our initial A-10 units in Afghanistan, I can also tell you there was a lot of frustrations from the pilots. Specifically when they were constantly held back from CAS roles as the US want to give coalition platforms first dibs in many cases. That said, it's likely several F-16s, Tornados, and then some were providing that initial support, pushing the A-10s back in some cases to 3rd in line.

As for the F-35 vs the A-10, I'm more of a proponent of using both. There's no need to get rid of the A-10 and the F-35 was designed for more than just CAS.

I always thought the Aardvark was a solid strike platform, knowing how fast it was, but ... it looked REALLY COOL! 7:^D

you don't work for skynet LOL....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdyWIiYQv7E

I loved the F-111. During an ORI at Cannon in the early 80's they killed many aggressor F-15s from Holloman.

If you want the A10 taking care of you down low,you best have something bad ass protecting it over the top

there's plenty of stuff badass protecting it over the top. they want the f-35 to be the one protecting over the top AND on the ground.

Well, we DO need new airframes. Many of our aircraft are nearing the end of their life-cycle. The question is whether the F35 can REALLY do everything they say it can.