# Why have we wasted so much money on the F-35? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 27, 2016, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228 "2016-04-27T01:49:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/21 "2016-04-27T13:14:47Z")
> [@dracoi](#): > > 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? Someone arguing that America in the 1930s had no use for a major project to build state of the art tanks in serious quantities would be completely correct. The historical course of building a small tank force with cheap tanks that could be used for training and only attempting to design or mass produce state of the art tanks once war had broken out and lessons from Europe could be taken into account worked extremely well and left quite a bit of money for other projects in the 1930s. You know who did build a lot of high end military equipment in the 1930s? Italy - they had a military well equipped with state of the art planes and tanks. And by the time war rolled around their gear was so obsolete it became the butt of many jokes. I don’t think the history of WW2 tanks is especially applicable to the F-35 because the technology behind it changes much less rapidly than 1930s tank tech and because there’s a lot more lead time on design, but I do want to point out that the historical reference you made doesn’t support your point. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/22 "2016-04-27T13:30:40Z")
> [@XT](#): > > And [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PQ6335puOc)… [This too](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIQfIj-RLyw). ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/23 "2016-04-27T14:15:27Z")
There has to be **some** project to keep all those government dollars flowing into the military-industrial complex! Might as well be this boondoggle as any other. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/24 "2016-04-27T14:31:03Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > We haven’t spent $400 billion. > > Other than that, great OP! Total cost of the F-35 program is expected to be $1.5 trillion over its 55 year lifespan. That seems…expensive. > [@Velocity](#): > > 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. What’s wrong with the ones we have? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/25 "2016-04-27T14:35:12Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > You know who did build a lot of high end military equipment in the 1930s? Italy - they had a military well equipped with state of the art planes and tanks. And by the time war rolled around their gear was so obsolete it became the butt of many jokes. You’re arguing the opposite side of the issue. But I think your example works better against you than for you. Italy’s situation in the 1940’s shows what happens when a country doesn’t keep its military upgraded. Sure, it still has a fully equipped military on paper - but its military can’t stand up to any country which has been upgrading. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/26 "2016-04-27T14:42:43Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Total cost of the F-35 program is expected to be $1.5 trillion over its 55 year lifespan. That seems…expensive. > > What’s wrong with the ones we have? The air frames don’t last forever. You can only retread them so many times. [QUOTE=coremelt] 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? [/QUOTE] Sure. China continues to push in the South China Sea area. Other countries, many of whom the US has defensive treaties push back. Shit happens and one of those countries get into a shooting situation that escalates. The US is treaty bound to intervene. Or China pushes in the Sea of Japan region and a shooting war happens between China and Japan, dragging us in. Or China decides to push it’s plans wrt Taiwan and…well, you can see where there are quite a few areas where tensions are high and the US could potentially be brought in. And, of course this discounts the part where China simply sells air craft or ground to air missiles or whatever to other potential US belligerents. Russia is even easier to find a plausible scenario. Even leaving aside the Ukraine, you have Russian fighter planes buzzing US warships at literally 30 feet. It would be trivially easy for this sort of thing to blow up into a shooting situation where Russian and US fighters shoot at each other. Hell, Putin might manipulate the situation to GET just such an event for his own internal political designs, or simply fuck up and misjudge US reaction…which, surprisingly, happens a lot as the US is pretty unpredictable. > [@](#): > > 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. Is that the reality? And you have that in writing I suppose? And you know, for a fact, that the US won’t need anything else in the next 20-40 years? And you are also aware that the US moves things like the F-22 about (as few of them as we have) for strategic reasons and to show support (we recently moved a squadron to the UK and, IIRC, one of the Baltic states in response to Russian air games). ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/27 "2016-04-27T14:47:17Z")
[QUOTE=msmith537] Total cost of the F-35 program is expected to be $1.5 trillion over its 55 year lifespan. That seems…expensive. [/QUOTE] That seems expensive to you?? Unless I’m slipping a zero that’s something like $20 billion per year. Not cheap but not exactly going to break the bank. Also, this is the projection IF we actually buy the 2000+ aircraft we were originally scheduled to buy (that’s where the $400 billion from the OP comes from)…which seems doubtful. Also, it’s a PROJECTION…it most likely won’t cost that much. Right now the plane is on the bleeding edge, and has a lot of issues. As those get ironed out and as production smooths out the costs will most likely drop…unless, like with the F-22, we only buy a couple. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/28 "2016-04-27T14:51:51Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. Exactly. Good fences make good neighbors. The questions should be about other wasted military spending that doesn’t serve as a deterrent or counter to actual or even potential threats, and to the lack of spending on technology that will serve us better in the future. There are also still those who don’t want that success because unused weapons don’t need replacing and don’t lead to additional spending in the wars prevented. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/29 "2016-04-27T15:39:12Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > What’s wrong with the ones we have? Airframe fatigue, just like how a household Ford usually shouldn’t go beyond 300,000 miles. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/30 "2016-04-27T15:54:57Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Sure. China continues to push in the South China Sea area. Other countries, many of whom the US has defensive treaties push back. Shit happens and one of those countries get into a shooting situation that escalates. The US is treaty bound to intervene. The US having 2000+ stealth fighters makes absolutely no difference to the outcome. One of two things happens, both parties back down after a week of fighting, or it escalates into a nuclear war where both sides lose. The US cannot win a real fight against China or Russia in any meaningful sense, if the US starts winning with their 2000+ stealth fighters then tactical nuclear battlefield weapons will be used, end of story. At that point both sides back down or its the end of the world. Stealth fighters cannot change that equation. So your 1.5 Trillion fleet can never be used for it’s intended purpose and will only be used to beat second and third rate powers into submission, for which it’s vastly overkill. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/31 "2016-04-27T15:55:11Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Airframe fatigue, just like how a household Ford usually shouldn’t go beyond 300,000 miles. That’ll get you to the moon with an extra 70,000 miles for a good look around. ---
**Author:** ![AdamF](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/adamf/32/6246_2.png) [@AdamF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AdamF)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/32 "2016-04-27T15:55:50Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > 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?. Precisely. Conventional war between the USA and China/Russia cannot be won. And nobody wants a nuclear war. And the US and its allies are very likely to win a proxy conventional war in a third country. A new fighter aircraft is needed to maintain this balance. With hindsight, different choices should have been made. But at this point, F-35 is likely the best choice going forward. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/33 "2016-04-27T16:09:27Z")
It’s worth keeping in mind that the military industrial complex is a huge employer. America may not make jeans anymore, but it still makes some of the best weaponry. And selling the older, non-bleeding edge stuff to allies is a lucrative business as well. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/34 "2016-04-27T16:09:44Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > The US having 2000+ stealth fighters makes absolutely no difference to the outcome. One of two things happens, both parties back down after a week of fighting, or it escalates into a nuclear war where both sides lose. > > The US cannot win a real fight against China or Russia in any meaningful sense, if the US starts winning with their 2000+ stealth fighters then tactical nuclear battlefield weapons will be used, end of story. At that point both sides back down or its the end of the world. Stealth fighters cannot change that equation. So your 1.5 Trillion fleet can never be used for it’s intended purpose and will only be used to beat second and third rate powers into submission, for which it’s vastly overkill. Well, aside from the fact that those 2000+ next gen stealth fighters will probably do what our 2000+ 4th gen non-stealth fighters did for the last 30 years wrt a major confrontation between the US and China or Russia, i.e. deter it from ever happening, you are making a series of assumptions here. One, that all wars will lead to nukes. Two, that the only thing these planes would or could be used for is fighting China or Russia directly. The reality, though, is that the US and it’s allies (recall, we aren’t the only country proposing to buy these planes) has extensively used it’s air forces in the past 30 years…and primarily against countries equipped by either Russia or China (or both…or France or other major arms dealers). Currently we are using them against pretty low tech opponents, but it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that we will be using them against better armed opponents in the future. I also think your assessment of potential conflict between China or Russia and the US/West is off. They don’t necessarily have to lead to nukes being shot and could stay conventional, especially in China’s case unless they were seriously losing the war, since the converse is actually more true…while it’s true that China has a few hundred nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US, the US has literally thousands of the things that could hit China AND Russia if needs be. So, while in our calculus of battle we have to think about the things, so do they, and no one wants to open that can of worms unless their back is to the wall. So, a limited confrontation is possible…and more likely, a limited confrontation between, say, Turkey and Russia, or China and the Philippines/Japan/Vietnam/Taiwan/pretty much every country with a border with China IS possible, and the US could get dragged into such a confrontation on a limited basis. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/35 "2016-04-27T16:32:59Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > 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. > [@coremelt](#): > > 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. > [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > Go on then. I’m quoting myself just to keep everything lined up and orderly. It must have escaped several people’s attention that Turkey is starting to have problems with Muslim extremism. > [@](#): > > It should come as no surprise that Turkey - while attempting to absolve itself of blame for the aggressive use of a flotilla to deliver supplies to the Hamas enclave in Gaza - is again the hub for a new effort to resupply the terrorist group. > **[Radical Islam has transformed Turkey](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/26/radical-islam-has-transformed-turkey/)** > > It should come as no surprise that Turkey - while attempting to absolve itself of blame for the aggressive use of a flotilla to deliver supplies to the Hamas enclave in Gaza - is again the hub for a new effort to resupply the terrorist group... > [@](#): > > Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s recent speeches and media remarks have been marked by an increasingly radical rhetoric. Among mainstream political leaders in Turkey today, Erdogan is by far and away the most hard-line and polarizing orator. > > Radical anti-Western antagonism and paranoia, based on an extremist melange of Turkish nationalism and Islamism, have increasingly infused his speeches. > **[Erdogan grows more radical](https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2015/03/turkey-erdogan-grows-more-radical.html)** > > Erdogan’s hard-line nationalist and anti-Western rhetoric has become more unrelenting ahead of Turkey’s general elections, but electoral concerns are not the sole reason behind the escalation. Regarding India, people seem to have forgotten that they were on the Soviet side during the cold war. Things have thawed considerably in the last 20 years, but there are plenty of Pakistan-related issues that could change that. ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/36 "2016-04-27T16:40:57Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > Someone arguing that America in the 1930s had no use for a major project to build state of the art tanks in serious quantities would be completely correct. The historical course of building a small tank force with cheap tanks that could be used for training and only attempting to design or mass produce state of the art tanks once war had broken out and lessons from Europe could be taken into account worked extremely well and left quite a bit of money for other projects in the 1930s. > > You know who did build a lot of high end military equipment in the 1930s? Italy - they had a military well equipped with state of the art planes and tanks. And by the time war rolled around their gear was so obsolete it became the butt of many jokes. > > I don’t think the history of WW2 tanks is especially applicable to the F-35 because the technology behind it changes much less rapidly than 1930s tank tech and because there’s a lot more lead time on design, but I do want to point out that the historical reference you made doesn’t support your point. All right, the tank example might not have been the best one. From a political perspective, though, I think it’s a real mistake to assume that we won’t need something like this in the future. Especially when it’s China and Russia we’re looking at. I think an actual war involving high-tech fighters is not likely with either of them, but the odds are more than high enough to be prepared for it. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/37 "2016-04-27T16:43:25Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Total cost of the F-35 program is expected to be $1.5 trillion over its 55 year lifespan. That seems…expensive. How much is DoD going to spend on health care for service members and their dependents over the same period of time? I’m not saying that the F-35 is cheap. But things have gotten better, and I wouldn’t be surprised if things got worse in the future. However, there is a total lack of perspective on what such numbers actually mean. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/38 "2016-04-27T16:44:55Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > The US cannot win a real fight against China or Russia in any meaningful sense, **if the US starts winning with their 2000+ stealth fighters then tactical nuclear battlefield weapons will be used, end of story.** Cite? You go first, then I’ll provide mine. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/39 "2016-04-27T16:45:43Z")
Don’t think I’m some anti-military hippy. I accept that nuclear deterrent has worked the last 70 years and that mostly “pax americana” is a good thing. The US absolutely needs a fleet of air superiority stealth fighters. I question that they need an air force which is entirely made up of 5th generation stealth fighters, rather than a high / low mix. Why not save the air frame hours on the stealth fighters for where they are needed and use cheap airframes for the counter insurgency stuff? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228/41 "2016-04-27T16:58:07Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > Why not save the air frame hours on the stealth fighters for where they are needed and use cheap airframes for the counter insurgency stuff? How much cheaper do you think 4th/4.5 gen fighters are than 5th gen fighters? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-have-we-wasted-so-much-money-on-the-f-35/753228.md?page=3)