> If you compare the F-35 to basically any plane worldwide with similar capabilities, it's very reasonably priced.

If you compare corvettes to other sports cars, you'll find they are very reasonably priced. That doesn't make a corvette a good economical option for day to day commuting.

There are only 2 5th generation fighters available for export - the F-35 and the J-35. The F-35 is 40% more expensive than the J-35. No one is buying F-35s for the low price tag.

More to the point, the unit costs are low because the number of airframes scheduled to be built is enormous. The US needs to export hundreds of F35s to help distribute the massive cost of the development program. This development program was nearly 400% over initial budget, and the general managing the project was fired over it. The fact is the F-35 is far more expensive than it was intended to be.

The F-35 is cheaper than most of the 4th generation fighters on the market. Cheaper than Eurofighter, cheaper than Rafale, cheaper than Gripen.

Cheaper to buy. But with double the operational costs and only 50% availability, this is a miniature part of the story.

The J-35 has just one export customer, Pakistan. And they have yet to even start operating these aircraft yet.

The market sure seems to favor the F-35, with 19 customers.

Pre-March 2026 sales will be drastically different to post-March 2026, for obvious reasons.

> You can see that in that it's very popular for export

It's very popular for export since the US has been forcing their allies to buy them over any alternatives, this was shown in the WikiLeaks cables.

Nothing else is remotely as capable in the modern threat environment that most countries can actually buy. That's the cold truth. They can't buy anything else that compares and the best isn't for sale.

They have already lost two in the first real conflict. Doesn't seem like it's all that capable.

Designing for zero loss in a major war is way more expensive than we can undertake.

I mean, we did that too. That's why there are only 19 operational B-2s (21 built).

The pressure was not "because it was the best thing for those countries or war". The pressure was because it was good for USA manufacturer and economy. It was one of the perks of being a leader of a group of allies - you can pressure them to buy your stuff.

Well if you don't let them buy it then what's the point in developing for that? Just develop for your own militay or some poorer countries the US can't be bothered to keep as vassals.

Was. Having a remote "power off" button, have the effect of chaning the mind of many potential buyers. Specially with Trump.

Are those the right capabilities for the price, though?

If it was the right plane, full stop, wouldn't Ukraine be fielding a wing of them? No, because they're extremely cost constrained.

Ukraine would love the F35. We won’t sell it to them at any price, though, because of the escalatory concern with Russia. We only just barely decided to allow them to have F16.

The only features the F-35 doesn't have for a modern fight are IP ownership and range.

The former was a military procurement mistake and the latter has been worked on for years [0] but never prioritized.

Also, I'm kind of surprised this was published by War on the Rocks, because it leaves a number of extremely relevant topics unmentioned.

The B-21 explicitly addresses both issues above, while mostly resisting the urge to increase size and complexity.

The Air Force is aware of basing vulnerabilities and is looking at multiple solutions (ACE, autonomous tanking, stealth tanking, modular anti-drone aircraft shelters).

The CCA cross-service effort is already targeting pairing >1 UAV to each manned aircraft.

Replicator and other efforts are addressing the "low-at-industrial-scale" problem, and the US just used waves of Shahed clones against Iran.

The article's points would have been more valid 10-15 years ago, but all now have addressing in progress.

[0] https://www.twz.com/air/plans-to-finally-give-f-35-external-...