I think I completely agree. Most A10 doctrine is typically to establish air superiority first, and then use A10 for ground support missions [1]. The F-35 is supposed to employ stealth to do more penetrating missions when you cannot assume air superiority. This is more important with adversarial nations getting more and more sophisticated with their anti-air programs, like with Iran purchasing S300 systems from Russia. These modern system have very powerful radar, and pose a large threat to operating aircraft in the vicinity. Navigating a wartime arena dotted with radar without modern stealth technology creates a lot of challenges for our air force.
In a similar vein, the gun on the F-35 seems more of an afterthought. I think the capacity is super limited even compared to F/A-18s. But it's again supposed to be dropping GBUs- not strafing targets. And besides, modern air doctrine for air to air combat is going to be at the extend of sensor range. I wouldn't be surprised if the sixth gen fighters ditch cannons in lieu of more fuel/more misses/better radar evasion profile.
For a high-speed modern aircraft like the F-35, the gun is primarily for signalling intent to a non-responsive aircraft. The gun is fired so that the tracer shells pass within view of the non-responsive aircraft. Preferably it is noisy enough to be heard.
The non-responsive aircraft is expected to wise up, realizing the situation, and then land or leave the territory.
In a similar vein, the gun on the F-35 seems more of an afterthought. I think the capacity is super limited even compared to F/A-18s. But it's again supposed to be dropping GBUs- not strafing targets. And besides, modern air doctrine for air to air combat is going to be at the extend of sensor range. I wouldn't be surprised if the sixth gen fighters ditch cannons in lieu of more fuel/more misses/better radar evasion profile.
[1]. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a18236/why-the-a-1...