But high wings give better clearance on approach/takeoff, allowing for greater crosswind and rough runway ability. Depending on where the hatches are, a high wing can mean not having to climb over the wing to reach things. The higher wing allows for more sweep without the tips hitting the ground on landing (high aoa) and a little sweep means better ground sightlines, over the shoulder, for the pilot.

It's all about tradeoffs.

Thats what i meant. I was listing similarities. Turbofans are rare on small combat aircraft. See the soviet/russian Frogfoot, the supersonic take on the a10, that doesnt have fans.

Technically yes but the ratio between the air going through the jet (the hot part) and the fan (the cold part) draws some lines. The A10, like modern airline engines, is more fan than jet. This makes them efficient but limits top performance. It boils down to the shape of the engine. Wider engines with bigger fans/intakes become a liability above mach1. But a wider fan means better low-speed power, more surface area to "grip" on the slower air, allowing for better acceleration and shorter take-off. The f22 might technically have a fan, but it is extremely small in comparison to the jet that powers it.

The strange thing is that at extreme speeds the SR71 engines were high-bypass, with most air bypassing the blades altogether to be burnt in the afterburner as a ramjet.

There was an article on HN a couple months ago about how the DoD is considering replacing the A-10 with a turboprop-based plane.