We could do a lot of good with $400 billion. If that money had been put into healthcare, education, or infrastructure, our nation would be a much better place. Even just writing a $1000+ check to every citizen would be a better investment than this useless plane. We haven’t fought a war against groups with any real airpower since WW2. What is the purpose of this plane? Are we just pretending to be back in the cold war?
We haven’t spent $400 billion.
Other than that, great OP!
There are a variety of reasons, none of which have anything to do with the cold war. Why did we spend that sort of money? Well, basically, because we need a next generation fighter with the capabilities this plane has…and we didn’t’ want to buy more F-22’s when we had the chance. You probably haven’t been keeping up on modern events, but China is developing a gen 5 stealth air craft…and so is Russia. That’s all well and good, you might say…we won’t be fighting either of them. Probably true, though are you really sure this will always be the case? I mean, China is pushing hard in the South China Sea (as well as other places), and Russia seems bound and determined to push the western allies every place they can. Of course, Russia and China also SELL their military hardware, so it’s a good bet that some day someone will buy them who is opposed to the US/allies. In addition, you might not realize this but many of our allies are ALSO looking for a next gen stealth aircraft…and several of them are already lining up to buy the F-35 rather than try and develop their own, since developing such an air craft that pushes the envelope is a large part of the price tag (China, of course, is doing it the old fashioned way…by stealing our designs and trying to reverse engineer them :p).
The purpose of the plane is actually multi-role…it’s an attack fighter, as well as an air superiority fighter. It is also being developed with various modifications to the air frame allowing it to be versatile, being able to be used by multiple branches of the military in multiple roles.
Because we forgot this speech by President Eisenhower.
And this by Smedley Butler:
And this…
Someone must have originally believed the promise of the F-35 being versatile enough that different versions of the same basic plane could serve multiple roles. Instead, we got a plane that does none of them well.
The irony, of course, is that similar things have been said about every new US air craft since WWII. Let’s talk about this 20 years from now when we still have F-35s in service as a front line fighter and we are having the same discussion about the gen 6 fighter recently developed that people think are a waste of tax money and show that old Ike was certainly right…
All of this sounds to my ears a lot like someone in the 1930’s arguing that America has no use for tanks. We just had a major stock market crash and everyone has lost their jobs… and the last war was the war to end all wars, right? Who needs tanks?
It seems to me that the F35 is a better way to waste $400 billion than just about any other option, though I could be persuaded that infrastructure should be funded first.
The general argument is that any military spending that prevents a war is cheaper than fighting the war. So all truly successful military spending doesn’t get used.
Please tell me a realistic scenario where the US is going head to head with China or Russia in air to air combat that doesn’t turn into a nuclear exchange? The reality is that the F-35 will be used to bomb middle eastern or african countries, and mostly insurgents with no air force at all. it’s vastly overkill for those kind of roles, the US should have gone with a high / low mix, the F-22 for air superiority against this peer state war that can never happen (because Nuclear), and a much larger fleet of cheap non-stealth aircraft for the US never ending low intensity wars.
Are you seriously suggesting that China and Russia are our only potential enemies?
It’s trivially easy to imagine scenarios where Turkey or India, for example, might become a serious enemy.
Turkey is a NATO member and India also has Nuclear weapons. India is also a stable democracy and has been for over 50 years. Yes I can’t imagine any scenarios where the US would go to war with either of those states, not realistic ones. China and Russia are the only “peer state” potential enemies the US has now. Everyone else is either a NATO member / US ally or a second or third rate power. And yes I’m counting North Korea and Iran amongst those. The US could achieve total air superiority extremely quickly against either of those states, using just F-22’s, B-2’s and cruise missiles, and once you have total air superiority you don’t need stealth.
The greatest threats to our aircraft are SAMs. Having air superiority doesn’t negate the need for stealth technologies.
Sometimes I think no one in the DOD remembers how great a success the F-111 turned out to be in its original role as an Air Force/Navy Fighter/Bomber.
Sorry when I said “total air superiority” I also meant wild weasel / SEAD. Eg total destruction of the enemies radar network and SAM sites. Yes shoulder mounted SAM’s might be a small threat, but do you really think its a good use of tax payers money to be using $100 million+ stealth fighters to be bombing insurgents in pick up tricks with an occasional shoulder mounted SAM to worry about? Because 99% percent chance thats the only thing F-35’s are ever go to go up against.
Go on then.
Taiwan, Baltics/NATO, South China Sea, Japan.
Let’s get real. China and Russia don’t want nuclear war any more than we do.
China sinks a Philippine coast guard vessel in the South China Seas. The US sends a carrier in response. Something stupid happens and Chinese and American navy ships exchange fire, aircraft are scrambled, and some are shot down. Both sides realize too much is at stake to further escalate, and the situation fizzles out over several days.
There: realistic scenario in which the US engages a near-peer in air-to-air combat in which nuclear weapons aren’t used. You’re welcome.
You’re overlooking something important: The US would still need fighters of *some *sort. Suppose the US simply replaced its current fighter fleet with…2,443 new F-15E/SEs, F-16E/Fs and F-18E/Fs. That would still cost an immense amount of money.