Stupendously stupid sensationalist and wildly misleading title...

And the article itself seems kind of confused...

But...

There's a definite underlying point there that F-35 fanboys don't seem to want to address.

The notion of split roles between "air superiority fighters" to secure a combat theatre in the air...and a purpose built "close air support" aircraft to actually provide the support troops on the ground need, where they actually need the support...on the ground, in the types of wars that the USAF actually fights these days. The A-10 is okay at this.

An F-35 knocks those "WWII Era" lmao Super-Tocanos out of the air before they even know they're there, obviously...but that's obfuscating the roles of the respective planes.

And i think it kind of harkens to the confused role of the F-35 in general. Is it an "air-to-air" fighter designed to bang crappy prop planes out of the sky? It's clearly not designed to be an air superiority aircraft that you send out to secure airspace that might contain legitimate enemy front line air superiority fighters. And it's not a high capacity bomber. And it's not a "WWII era" lol CAS plane with its limited loiter times, limited gun, and reliance on precision munitions that are..."on the way".

It's a plane that doesn't really have a "role". It's a "jack of all trades, master of none" if ever there was a plane to fit that description.

It's a Trillion Dollar project that has some merits...but at the same time, can be outperformed in a CAS role in a secured air theatre by a crappy turboprop that like African despots buy for their air force.

It's like America is playing scared vs MANPADS, gonna hide at high altitude w/stealth. While the actual men on the ground have to pound it out and go toe-to-toe with the enemy, without the full advantage theatre air control ought to afford them.