Yes, and that is why the F-35 can't replace the A-10, it is too fast, it can't loiter in the combat area & pick targets when they appear, this makes the F-35 a bad ground support aircraft when battles prolong for several hours.
Re:F-35: What The Pilots Say
by CapricornNoble on Thursday March 28, 2019 @06:29PM
(#19517292)
Except "loitering and picking targets" isn't how Close Air Support is being done these days anyway. It introduces too much risk, because there is always the "fog of war" and confusion on the battlefield. If your pilots are picking targets with the Mk1 Eyeball, there is a decent chance they will pick friendly forces, or civilians, by accident.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/05/a-10-j...
That's why we are moving to digitally-aided CAS and precision munitions. Of course, if we get in fight with the Chinese or Russians GPS will be jammed to Hell, so that needs to be taken into account too...
Re:survivability....The A-10 survives being hit. The F-35 avoids being hit in the first place. Modern SAMs like the S-400 will spot and engage the A-10 are farther ranges than they can even detect an F-35. The A-10 can survive ground cannon fire (say from a Pantsir-S1's cannons) better than the F-35...but the F-35 doesn't need to get "low and slow" to deliver ordnance on target in the first place.
If F-35s are tasked with doing gun runs on T-80s, then in your AOC (Air Force operations center) or DASC (Marine equivalent, roughly) somebody sucks at either weaponeering, building an Air Tasking Order, or both.