We've seen this argument many times, but is this true? Where's the data? Etc.

I'm not saying it's a bad argument, but since the hypothesis space is vast (what kind of future conflicts the US/NATO will engage in, what intensity, what kind of economics, what kind of arms race will those bring, etc), and data is sparse, it seems like HN/pundits are not great at really reducing the uncertainty.

Sure, it's still a fuckload of money, and probably it could be better spent on providing new skill training to unemployed/at-risk-workers in those states where the F35 money goes right now, but that's a hard sell, and doesn't really move the needle with regards to air-force capacity.

> Perfect for the era development started in, but useless for the era when it was finally shippable.

Are you any good at lottery numbers?

Traditional fighters will probably lull in use in between the proliferation of drones, and the proliferation of countermeasures to those drones.

The F-35 was never about actual combat

I do not believe for a second the F-35 was ever designed to be an actual combat jet, I think is was all just a giant smoke screen to serve several political goals on both the domestic and Foreign fronts.

It is simultaneously a prime example of a Jet designed by committee, a 1 Trillion + dollar program that will never serve the purpose it was sold to the taxpayers for...

...And yet it has served in actual combat with the US, UK, and Israel.

Do you really think that an aircraft not meant to do something would be fielded by those nations and used to do that very thing?

And of course the program has political goals, every defense acquisition program does, to pretend otherwise would be silly.

did it engage in dog fights, or only bombing missions?

No where in my comment did I say it was not capable of combat at all, but it certainly has not lived up to the billed goal of the program nor will be be effective in its billed role of "Fighter jet to replace all Fighter Jets"

It is mediocre in all roles for which was designed to replace. It is not as good at dog-fighting as its counter parts, it is not as good at close air support as its counter parts, it does not have as good of stealth has it counter parts.

It is a 1 Trillion+ Dollar "ok" fighter jet, which is not what we were sold

Not sure who bills it as "fighter jet to replace all fighter jets" but that's certainly not what the Operational Requirements Document for F-35 says.

Not in those words no, but yes the operational requirement of the F-35 was soo vast is was to be the Joint Strike Fighter to fill all the roles for all the branches of military

It was to replace almost all of the jetfighter platforms from the A-10 to the F15 and to replace some of the bomber platforms

The F-35 is to replace some F-15Cs, the legacy Hornet (F-18 A/B/C/D) and the A-10.

The F-15Cs are all pushing 40, Hornets are 30+ and because they're used by the Navy they're used hard, the A-10 is totally obsolete, and no bomber is being replaced by the F-35.

Was it really sold to the taxpayers? Were taxpayers ever really asked whether they want it?

Well it was certainly sold to the tax payer representatives via the appropriations process as a Joint Strike Fighter that would replace all other Fighter jets....