> "My main issue with it is that I can't see that it is needed at all."

I don't usually find myself defending defense spending... but war-related technology is something you don't know you need, until you do, by which time it's too late to procure it.

If the US is going to continue its M.O. of attacking countries whose military air presence can be counted on two hands, and consists mostly of old Soviet cast-offs, then sure, the current level of tech is more than sufficient. Overkill, even. I don't think there has been a single loss of U.S. military aircraft to enemy action since... Kosovo?

I think a main impetus of this particular project is because both Russia and China are rapidly developing their own 5th-generation fighters, and while a head-to-head with China doesn't seem entirely likely, it's certainly less farfetched than the idea was 20 years ago.

Don't take it the wrong way, I'm not defending this particular boondoggle of a project, but the need for a 5th-generation fighter is entirely understandable.

On the plus side, it doesn't look like other countries' 5th-gen fighter projects are doing much better... The Chinese project has faced delay after delay after delay, and the Russians too.

If there was a war with China (thankfully far-fetched) why would they want to use 5th generation fighters at all? How many drones could Foxconn make in a day?

Well, the thing is, drones aren't sporting. Not honorable.

No respectable air force general wants to build a career on drone acquisition.

Isn't what they said about tanks and horses?

That's the point.

A few years ago, in a wargame predicated around the persian gulf, this retired marine who was playing the bad guys launched a low-tech attack on carrier groups which consisted of a ton of drones and fishing boats filled with high explosives. He won.

Result? They did a "redo" with a new rule that he can't do that stuff. Because carriers are awesome and admirals want to command them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

The good news is that, at least at the time, we still had someone like General Van Riper on our side. If you look at military history, many major wars have an opening stage where outdated doctrines are conclusively beaten and the military suddenly gets really interested in out-of-the-box thinking.

I'm not convinced we're better off for it, unfortunately. Read 'The Guns of August' sometime, it's very instructive on just how many people need to die before the generals start changing tactics.

Do we really need to outspend China by almost 5x? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e...

Isn't the more likely scenario that China overtakes us economically, not militarily?

The US is never going to fight China because both countries have nuclear weapons. That tends to put a damper on things. As a Chinese general reportedly put it back in the 90's, "You care a lot more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei."

Even if you did compare the two, the US is a richer country (so it costs comparatively more to train and outfit the same number of men to the same amount) with a stronger cultural valuation of human life and a stronger cultural and political desire for short-term victories. If the Chinese got into a prolonged military conflict, not only would they be less sensitive to heavy losses, but if it took more than a couple years, no one would be worrying about reelection the way American politicians would. China is content with simply being able to win; the US needs to immediately overwhelm the enemy while suffering minimal friendly losses, or else the war will be lost politically if not militarily.

That's why we have things like the F-22 and F-35; in combat exercises small numbers of F-22's can singlehandedly wipe out entire wings of enemy aircraft without the enemy getting as much as a missile lock on the F-22. The US is in a weird spot--if [one telegenic fighter jock gets shot down](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_OGrady), it becomes national news for a week!

> "Isn't the more likely scenario that China overtakes us economically, not militarily?"

This seems almost certain at this point, all the more likely that there will be a military showdown at some point.

> I don't think there has been asingle loss of U.S. military aircraft to enemy action since... Kosovo?

Not only there have been many, the enemy isn't that needed. Everyone seems perfectly capable of destroying their own machines. Actually it looks like investing in general safety would be a better option for everyone than investing in high tech radar protection.

Of course these are mostly helicopters rather than planes, but still - aircraft.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_accidents_an...

How is a fifth-generation fighter, getting deployed at the end of this decade, going to possibly evade the AUVs that are going to exist then? It doesn't look like it's at all skating to where the puck is going to be...

It is needed because it is designed to replace all those.

Imagine your wife had Hugh Jackman, Michael Phelps and Bill Gates as her husbands in some strange polyamory type setup (hey you brought your wife into the conversation first ;-) ). And then one day, all those husbands disappeared and she was left with you.

Well, she'd have a lot less ironing to do... Look, I think this analogy has gone too far already!!!

The F-16, F-18, A-10, and Harrier are aging airframes that won't last forever. They need to be replaced. And frankly, stealth is such an improvement in terms of survivability in combat that the marginal expense of stealth technology is easily worth it just to protect the monetary investment the government makes in a trained pilot.

The F-35 might not be the best design (they'd be better off with a cheaper F-22 derivative and a separate replacement for the Harrier I think) but it fulfills a real requirement.

I think a lot of people underestimate the differences between the F-22 and the F-35 on a price standpoint. The F-22 costs $2 billion per plane. The F-35 at $18X million per plan is a pittance in comparison for 80% of the capabilities.

The F-22 doesn't cost anywhere near $2billion dollars per plane.

I stand corrected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor. If you divide the number of aircraft built by the amount spent on the program, the GAO puts that at $412 million per plane. You can still buy more than 3 F-35's for each F-22.

That's not the marginal cost per plane, because that amortizes the cost of R&D over the current production run. If you ordered more F-22's, they would cost far less since the R&D is already done.

They're stealthy because they're new - if a real war breaks out, I have no doubt anti-measures would be developed pretty quickly, just like the radar during WW2.

Why would they need to make such an overly complicated plane is beyond me, it's like the F-14 situation all over again. Plus, the F-22 works (and looks) pretty well already...

The F-14 served its purpose. You might say, well, there was never any opposing navy that even thought about making air attacks on an American fleet when the F-14 was in service, but my answer to that is "exactly". The whole point of an overwhelming advantage is that no one ever challenges it.

In simulations the stealth (MADL, IFDL, and low radar profile from the front) and the fire-on-remote fused tactical picture the F-22 and F-35 present play out huge. It's mostly about the avionics. Conversations about these fighters are generally uninformed.

The US doesn't need them– but they'd love to sell them to other countries to recoup some of their costs. Too bad their pricing difficulties have pretty much ruined any chance of that working though, as Japan's already announced that they don't want them for more than the original projection.

The F-35 is causing the UK all manner of problems as well:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17437272

Unfortunately, we're already commited over $10 billion to building new carriers for them.

One new carrier and one floating Scottish island, you mean.

Just looked at the Wikipedia page for the new carriers, it seems we are going to operate one and keep the other in "extended readiness":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_...

I presume "extended readiness" is civil service jargon for "scrapped as soon as it is built".

More or less, yes. The thing is only being built because Labour managed to make it barely any cheaper to cancel the contracts than to actually build a second, unused & unusable one.