[bmiranda]

Although there are teething issues, for US allies the unit the F-35 is attractive due to a unit cost which is lower than any of its competitors (such as the Eurofighter Typhoon).

For domestic use, the F-35B STOVL jet used by the Marines is a dramatic improvement in range and capabilities over the Harrier.

The F-35A/C are less of an improvement, but I would by no means call them a failure. It's easy to criticize a program due to cost overruns and mismanagement, but that doesn't mean the end result is bad. At the very least it's a sunk cost now, so we'll just have to deal with it.

[colordrops]

I don't even know how to respond to your comment without sounding flippant. 10 billion dollars for a questionable program would upset me, let alone 1.4 trillion. It's blindingly obvious that this is a result of graft.

No one has made a clear case that the US is in any sort of danger if we don't upgrade our planes.

Imagine if that 1.4 trillion went towards fighting global warming, cancer, or lack of health care. It's sick.

[SllX]

The United States has a role in the world. Leaving aside subjective thoughts on whether we should fill that role, or continue to fill that role, if we vacate that role then somebody will fill that role instead.

The most obvious and likely right now would be the PLA if the United States were to vacate that role tomorrow. Or more likely, it would go unfilled for almost a decade before the PLA takes it.

Personally speaking, I would rather the US continue to fill the role it currently has than see it vacated and filled by a group like the PLA, and in order to do that, the United States has to maintain technological and military superiority over its competition which means continuing to research, develop and procure new fighters, carriers, destroyers, submarines, and maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Or to put this another way, the world isn't standing still, so why would America?

[colordrops]

It seems I mixed multiple issues together. I can't claim that I understand geopolitics enough to suggest that we should stop all military spending. I was mainly suggesting that for such a huge expenditure a clear case for it should be made to the public. The other issue I'm getting at is that there's no way the F35 should cost as much as it does. For instance if Musk for some reason was tasked with designing and building the next generation of aircraft I'm sure it could be done for at least an order of magnitude less than the F35. The money is mostly lining the pockets of sociopaths and massive intentionally inefficient bureaucracies.

[SllX]

If Musk wanted to bid on future US Military contracts I am sure he would be able to, but since he doesn't seem to be in the business of constructing fighters for the Air Force I think we can safely leave him out of this discussion.

The F-35 is a complex weapons and sensors platform, tasked, perhaps overtasked, for many different capabilities and mission-types. I think you can make a compelling argument that it may have been cheaper to divide those into separate proposals and take separate bids for more specialized fighters, but then you would have been stuck justifying each and every one of those to Congress rather than the F-35.

Not developing any sixth generation fighters when the competition is, was not an option though. I'm not happy, as a member of the public and US taxpayer with precisely how the F-35 turned out, nor am I happy that F-22 production was shut down by the Obama administration with the F-35 expected to fill its role instead.

[7952]

Technological superiority does not guarantee military superiority. It is perfectly possible for a less advanced opponent to deliver more overall effect by using resources more carefully.

[SllX]

I don’t see any that as an argument against achieving and maintaining Technological superiority. If, hypothetically, you had to discard one in favor of the other, military superiority would win out in terms of priorities, but the US has and should maintain both.

[7952]

This is really difficult to think about because the US is able and prepared to spend limitless amounts of money compared to other countries. You could argue that there is an opportunity cost to developing the F35. But has the US really limited expenditure in other areas as a result?

It seems to me that the US strategy depends on adversaries playing by the same rule book and trying to compete using similar technology. In that environment the US is absolutely going to have superiority in military capability and technology because they can spend such vast quantities of money.

The risk comes when an adversary throws out the rule book and looks for technology and tactics that nullify that advantage and are affordable. The US could be found lacking, but I don't suppose that is a fault with the F35 program exactly. And I guess that a lot of the individual technologies developed as part of the F35 program are useful in their own right.

[SllX]

Apologies for the later reply, it has been a busy couple of days.

Certainly there is an opportunity cost in any large-scale expenditure, but the technology developed for the F-35 will be useful beyond just the F-35.

The United States has maintained technological and military superiority over its competition precisely because it is willing to invest large sums of money into the Military-Industrial Complex. The Space Race was one expression of this, and the United States and global economy has been coasting off the technology and discipline developed precisely to safely land a man on the Moon and safely return that same man home.

Yes, there are risks to putting too much money into extremely large capital expenditures which can potentially be lost in war but that is 1. the nature of war and 2. the US Military generally looks to be effective in all theaters of war, whether their opponent is following the same the rule book or not. The Air Force has their missions, and the Army, Marines, Coast Guard and Navy have theirs.

At the scale of the Department of Defense's budget though, opportunity costs don't mean the same thing to them that they mean to you or I though. They are operating arm of the largest economy of the world and should be viewed through that lens.

[bitL]

As much as it sucks, military dominance matters a lot - it's likely better for the US to have the greatest conventional weapons than Russia/China/EU having them.

[Pamar]

EU citizen here: I sincerely doubt you (or anyone else) should worry about EU military supremacy now and for the foreseeable future.

[bitL]

Given the ongoing split between US and EU it's no longer inconceivable that in 20-50 years trans-atlantic relationship deteriorates to the point of open warfare, sadly. Unfortunately, the brightest (or at least prudent) people aren't ruling either continent any longer.

[Pamar]

I still find improbable that in 50 years there will be a single hegemonic “coalition” in Europe. So even if we will not be friends anymore US will have to deal with maybe 2-3 regional powers, not a single global one.

[Latteland]

Your vision is unbelievable. The only way the us fights the eu is one or both sides are taken over by a complete dictatorship. The people on those countries would be diametrically opposed to this. Trump is not a dictator (regardless of his authoritarian preferences). Trump seems to be actively trying to knock the us out of cross country allegiances. I think whatever damage he causes, we'll be able to repair them over time.

[alkonaut]

Unit cost is always a difficult measure because any purchase also involves agreements on counter investments, how much of the plane you can license build yourself etc (with F-35: probably not much!).

There is also the much more important measure of total lifetime cost. Flight hours are expensive for the F-35 compared to many 4th gen fighters.

I find it difficult to see why a plane designed to work stealthily in contested airspace would be very attractive for the role European air forces like Denmark or Norway have.

[7952]

The Harrier was also incredibly flawed when compared to normal fighters. It had a very poor safety record, was slow, and could not carry much fuel or weapons when taking off vertically. This was a consequence of the vertical take-off design which has never proven itself to be effective for jet aircraft. The only benefit could be that you don't need the expense of a full aircraft carrier. That might make sense for a relatively cheap aircraft, but the F35 is not cheap. And you are pushing up the price of other variants as a result of the need to have a jump jet version. All so that you can have a fighter jet land operate from an amphibious assault ship. Should that really influence the procurement of over 3000 aircraft?