td, #498, your point is well made for different aircraft types. However, considering different forms of close air support then aircraft characteristics are less important than the capability of the total weapon system, against that of the opposing defence.
Specific weapon capability can change the game; the humble ‘high’ RCS iron bomb fitted with precision guidance enables ‘stand-off’ tactics, at least above small arms fire and some MANPADs.
Better defence capability requires different weapons and/or guidance, attack options, ultimately long range stand off irrespective of carrier, aircraft or UAV.
F-35 bomb photo; a good sales pitch, public consumption, value for money.
There are good examples in the book ‘Typhoon’ about the continuing ops in Iraq; i.e. bombs above alt ‘x’, range ‘y’; greater defence capability then switch to Brimstone, again depending on target type, value-effectives, etc. The book highlights one surprise, a call to use the gun; special circumstances.
Oh, the UK F-35 doesn't have a gun …
Also see Falklands thread re Vulcan SEAD tactics.
From the above the F-35 might be considered an expensive bomb-truck, but then context is everything; context is information, intelligence, communication, awareness.
F-35 systems weapons technologies in an A-10, not everything, but sufficient in many circumstances; if only hindsight was foresight and doesn't involve very log lead times.
A better, and available mix is to envisage the F-35 as a type of forward air-control, unseen eyes and ears, and/or sniper; used together with the F-15, F-16, Typhoon bomb trucks. The wider the range of simultaneous weapon carriage, range-loiter time, the better.
But then we never fight the war that we train (plan) for.