Shocking how a 4 star general thinks a heavy stealth bomber designed to fly at a seriously high altitude (50K feet!!) will somehow replace a Close Air Support and limited interdiction aircraft with a completely different mission profile. An armchair enthusiast like me knows better ffs.
The Warthog is a specialist that is almost irreplaceable by an any conventional fighter/strike aircraft. It maybe 50 years old, but there is nothing better than it for CAS. It is feared in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria for a good reason
I know this was posted a long time ago, but I feel it needs a different perspective.
I watched the same video and thought it was McCain who came out worst in that exchange.
Low flying aircraft are vulnerable to both ground fire and now sophisticated man portable surface to air missiles. Getting in low is dangerous. Furthermore, it's not necessary. Troops can point at a target with a laser and from a significant distance an aircraft can deploy a bomb. If an aircraft is needed there are drones that don't carry a human pilot.
B52's are actually quite good in that role as they carry a large payload and have a long loiter time, so it was perfectly reasonable for the generals to say the heavy bombers can do CAS. They have been doing it - it's an established fact.
The A-10 came out of the Vietnam war experience, which was John McCain's experience. Things have moved on since then. They don't have any serious plans to replace it, and I think that says a lot about how the role has changed.
Right now the only thing the A-10 has over the F-35 is it's much cheaper and so far has higher availability. They are good reasons to keep it, but it has generally been used only in low threat environments.
And yes, the air force has got itself in a real mess with the overspending on the f-35.