The A-10 has had a long and distinguished career. The 21st Century foray into the deserts and warfare against forces with little in the way of anti-aircraft capability has extended its life significantly.
The A-10 would be borderline useless in a conflict against a modern enemy with modern air-defense capabilities. The F-35 is hugely unproven, but the loyalty the A-10 has engendered with its excellent performance in Iraq and Afghanistan and its high-visibility to the troops on the ground has become an obstacle to a modern air-power military.
If the A-10 was going deep, absent SEAD and absent strikes to take out the IADS.
“The F-35 is hugely unproven,”
Indeed. Even the Test & Eval platform is under-performing, and once you hang enough ordnance on the jet to be CAS or deep-strike effective, you lost L/O capability.
“. . .but the loyalty the A-10 has engendered with its excellent performance in Iraq and Afghanistan and its high-visibility to the troops on the ground has become an obstacle to a modern air-power military.”
Stand-off SEAD weapons, cruise missiles, F-22 to pull the plug and poke their eyes out (’knock down the door,” and F-15E’s with strike loads (and self-protection weapons for A/A), those are the ones that engage in strategic attacks. The A-10 is a CAS platform, tactical in nature. Neither the F-22, F-16s or the F-35 are CAS platforms that can stay in the target area for multiple passes and affect the battle-space.
So, modern airpower is effective when using the proper platform for the mission (strategic or tactical). The problem comes when trying to make a jet that can do all and be all, fly all missions with equal effectiveness. Can't do that, especially if you are trying to affect the near-battle, as that takes specialized weapons, platforms and intensive CAS training for the pilots.
Of course, others may disagree.