They'd be going slower than that for a ground attack. Also, "In the Korean War, our Air Force lost 259 jet aircraft and 285 other aircraft to combined small arms and air defense fire, which is nearly five times as many aircraft that were lost in air-to-air combat. In South Vietnam, we lost 410 fixed-wing aircraft and 2,100 helicopters. In the Mideast War, 36 coalition aircraft were shot down by ground fire." [1].

[1] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/f...

Sure, but the NK and NV armies did have good anti-aircraft setups, likely much more effective than relatively untrained fighters with a weapon designed to shoot at other people with.

Richthofen in WW1 was brought down by a single shot from a rifle, but that is widely considered to be a freak shot.

Nevertheless, you're right that it is never safe to get in range of small arms fire, hence the genesis of the A-10.

Sure, but how many trucks can you field for the cost of one F-35? It only has to work one time out of a hundred, or even one in a thousand.

The main trouble with the F-35 is it is so expensive it can't be risked in actual combat.