Youtube hearted comments of Titanium Rain (@ChucksSEADnDEAD).

@Verminator4 the fuselage shape is driven by the internal weapons bay, not the lift fan. Supermaneuverability is a meme. Looks great at the air show, it's suicidal in combat. Purposefully stalling your plane is a desperate maneuver.
5
Of course a STOVL aircraft is of much use, it allows the Marines to operate off short deck carriers like they did with the Harriers and create makeshift airbases in islands. The tactical advantage of not being dependent on Navy carrier catapults cannot be overstated.
4
F-16 is jack of all trades, master of all. The F-35 is a F-16 on steroids, how come it can't master its trades? 18k lbs is not a poor weapons load. Planes that have to take off from short carriers always suffer in terms of raw performance. Compared to the Harrier, it's a significant upgrade. The A-10 has already been replaced. Most CAS missions are attributed to F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s and B-1s. The flying tank model is outdated, as proven in 1991 - the A-10 was grounded and pulled out from missions against the Iraqi Republican Guard due to 7 shot down and 13 heavily damaged. The F-35 will never have to get close to AAA. And if it does, it has even better redundancy than older aircraft. Cheaper? The F-35 is already a very affordable plane, even costing less than modern production F-16s. You should look into the F-16 deals done recently, they're north of 100 million per plane.
4
@Drew Peacock How is being too fast a problem? Speed is life. The A-10 is thin-skinned too, bub. Look into any photos of ground fire damage to A-10s and you'll see. Making skin thicker only slows you down, and provides more material to get fragmented and sent flying into the sensitive components. It's preferable to let the round go through without meeting resistance or at least blowing out a panel rather than send metal into hydraulic lines.
3
The A-10 cannot loiter in contested space. In uncontested space, there's tankers. Delicate? The F-16 has already lost half a wing and landed. A F-15 lost a wing two feet away from the root and landed. This is thanks to body lift. The F-35's body is designed to provide even more lift so it's extremely likely that the plane can survive losing a wing. The independent hydraulic systems also give the F-35 an advantage. Although the A-10 has two hydraulic systems for redundancy, they can get bled if hit. Independent hydraulic systems will not bleed if one gets hit. The F-16 only has one engine and it's one of the most successful aircraft ever fielded.
3
Airplanes can't fly forever, and it often costs more to refurbish ageing aircraft than buy new ones.
3
Too expensive, but cheaper than a modern contract F-16 or Typhoon. Too bulky, but the frontal area is barely different from a super hornet. Jack of all trades, but F-16s are master of all and nobody complains. F-18s already shot down enemy aircraft while carrying bombs and completed the ground attack mission but people still think that multiroles can't do it all.
2
@jeff-gl1yx Yes, don't address the facts at hand and dismiss anyone who contradicts you. The A-10 is derived from the A-X program which was initially meant to be a turboprop aircraft because at the time they didn't think jet engines could be efficient at the speeds they were asking for. The requirements to fly low and slow are completely outdated thanks to targeting pods, and were also pressed forward by the Army's insistence on a CAS aircraft slow enough to escort helicopters even though it compromises the safety of the fixed wing aircraft. The two engines mounted apart to mitigate heat seeking missiles destroying one engine, one of the much lauded features of the A-10 design, is meaningless in the age of integrated defense systems and continuous rod warheads which can slice an aircraft in half. The losses it suffered in 1991 made it clear that it was outdated. The A-10 has been replaced. I appreciate your refusal to explain to me how I'm wrong because quite frankly that would be a waste of your time as the A-10 only got 20% of CAS missions since the mid 2000s and 11% since the 2010s.
2
More capable fighters? You mean ones that would have to get all those sensors crammed inside a pod and carry it in a pylon anyway? In the air you lose sight you lose the fight, so whoever can see the other first is the most capable fighter. All fighters carry a ton on instruments in board, sensor or EW pods carried externally, plus fuel tanks.
2
I agree, it's a stupid war. We need Ukraine to deliver a knockout blow and end this.
1
Does the Brandon Herrera hair gel cause autism? And if I already have it, will it cure me?
1
It is, actually. France, the UK and the US promised Ukraine security in exchange for nukes. Budapest Memorandum, 1994.
1
And yet the multirole had to be called in to do the A-10s job in 1991.
1