I think it is also the acknowledgment that the F-35, successful or not, could not replace the role the A-10 plays. Some that can lumber of a small area and pummel it has high value when dealing with ISIS cell engagements. That role is more important than ever in the small battle unit war we face today.

Warthog over the F35

30mm GAU-8
Redundant flight controls
Titanium plating for pilot and key systems
Self sealing fuel tanks
Able to fly low and slow near the dirt to better assist the grunts on that dirt
Takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin' better than any other airframe in the inventory

The A-10's durability was shown on 7 April 2003 when Captain Kim Campbell, while flying over Baghdad during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, suffered extensive flak damage. Iraqi fire damaged an engine and crippled the hydraulic system, requiring the aircraft's stabilizer and flight controls to be operated via the 'manual reversion mode'. Despite this damage, Campbell flew the aircraft for nearly an hour and landed safely.

If you are going to fly low and slow to perform CLOSE AIR SUPPORT, you will take fire. Until we find the next generation system that can provide the support to the troops the A-10 does, we can not reitre it.

The F-35 single claim to fame is its $1.3 Trillon and still climbing price tag. $98millon per aircraft and we all know that will still climb up. The F35 can not do for the groud troops what the A10 does. And at this point it looks like it will have a hard time beating out the F16. We spent so much on the F35 we are stuck with it, its "Too Big to Kill".