On: The Pentagon is battling the clock to fix serious, unreported F-35 problems

[supermanfan]

Again, this is nonsense since the F-35 will never be flown at low altitudes for CAS since the Air Force won't risk their fighter pilots.

Also, aerial refueling can only be done away from the battlefield where the tanker is safe.

[baud147258 → supermanfan]

I think the poster above implies that the CAS will be done from high altitude using guided bombs and missiles.

[stouset → baud147258]

Correct. The irony is that the GP claims I'm uninformed, but is apparently completely unaware that the USAF already has their fighter pilots performing CAS with the F-15E (Strike Eagle) while the Navy does so with the F/A-18E/F (Super Hornet). It's true that the Air Force won't risk their fighter pilots, which is why this happens fast and at high altitude, and this exact same same reasoning is why the Air Force is retiring the A-10C.

Furthermore, if combat is happening in an area too unsafe for tankers to operate nearby, your Warthogs won't be operating there either.

[baud147258 → stouset]

Thank you. Also thank for all the info you wrote on the CAS A-10 vs F-35 debate here, you changed my mind on that question (for what it's worth, since I have not stake in the matter as I'm not American, my country won't ever buy F-35 and I'm not in the military).

[imtringued → supermanfan]

You don't need to flow low when your bombs are guided, have a 74km standoff range and can follow moving targets.