No, the reason why is because the F-35 is a multi-service and multi-national project. Couple that with large production numbers trying to leverage the advantage

No, the reason why is because the F-35 is a multi-service and multi-national project. Couple that with large production numbers trying to leverage the advantages from economies of scale, you have a very heavy program. It's strange how many people hold the F-35 as solely the Air Force's fault when considering the branches and countries involved and especially considering how much the STOVL requirement on the part of the Marines compromised the design for all other variants. The whole F-35 vs A-10 satisfies a lot of tropes; government bureaucracy gone wild, old vs new, Air Force doesn't care about CAS, etc.. The fact is, guided munitions have changed the nature of close air support to the point that most CAS missions have been performed by other aircraft for a number of years now. The A-10 operates well in such asymmetrical environments as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the Air Force concern is towards less permissive environments and having an inventory of planes that can multitask vs single-task. The A-10 has always been known to operate only in permissive environments and MANPADS are an emerging threat (Su-25 in Ukraine, for example). Yes, the A-10 is highly survivable, but there is case to be made in not being hit in the first place. I would prefer if they kept the A-10 (and to be honest, prefer if they start fielding A-29 or some other LAS/LAAR craft in such permissive environments), but their argument against the A-10 (essentially, "we prefer to keep it, but other aircraft can do a pretty good role and it's cheaper to abandon it") isn't without merit.