Originally Posted by
Lonewolf_50
They used the F-35 for a strike mission for the same reason that we sometimes used a B-1 for CAS (not the ground commander's first choice, to be sure, they wanted all A-10's all the time) in Afghanistan.
If memory serves they even used the B-2 stealth bomber for drop bombs on stinking guys in caves in Tora Bora Afghanistan, which flew there from CONUS the long way around. Not the most efficient use of assets, but a great way to prove an operational concept for a new weapon system in a real world environment. On the other hand the Russians deployed a few very early build Su-57s (formerly T-50 and PAK FA) to Syria apparently to see how they'd perform in a real world deployed combat environment. War isn't about cost effectiveness.
Separately, these cost arguments have been going on literally for decades. Remember the broohahah when during the Reagan years USN used A-6s to bomb targets in Lebanon when the USS New Jersey and her 16 inch guns were offshore and well within range? And the finger wagging when F-15 pilots used expensive AMRAAM missiles to shoot down aircraft when they were within range to use much cheaper Sidewinders? This is no different and equally stoopid.