Well, maybe as a nation our military should grow accustomed to one really nice house, cause that’s all we can afford. Hard to pity someone who only has one really nice house.

You would totally do that while it was in nebrahoma doing nothing, but I’m just saying we should wait until it does something to pass judgement on it.

It in itself doesn’t, but I’m just asserting that it’s impossible to rule a lot of the criticism correct or incorrect yet.

Yes, it’s fair to say the F/A-18 would be a more apt example. F-16 still is currently filling a lot of those roles though, so I don’t get why its history has to do with what gaps it will leave when it is retired.

Could we be doing it better? ABSOFREAKINLUTELY!

IT HASN’T TURNED OUT TO BE ANYTHING IT’S NOT EVEN COMBAT READY YET. Thank you for demonstrating exactly what I was talking about. Passing judgement on its maintenance costs before a final design has even seen a single service cycle.

That’s the main thrust of what I’m saying. Not that the F-35 was the best plane ever made, but it’s not unique, just a bigger project (3 variants) than the US has ever undertook in one go for a fighter.

I know, but I said “F-16 replacement” as in replacing what it is today, not what it was meant to be in the 70's.

I get what you are saying. I only have my own experience working in state, local and federal government. I’m not in front of a proper computer right now, I’ll try and remember to get you something. Though it’s not a very popular position to take, and it’s more something you hear from people with experience than…

While I agree a lot of complex things happen to bring a fighter into existence, every jet fighter has gone through a similar process, so at some point you should see that it’s not a miracle, but just the only way America has ever figured out how to do it, given its constitution and the opinions of its populace.

How am I disputing the article? I’m agreeing with the main thrust of it: now that the F-35 is reaching maturity it’s looking less and less terrible.

I used to think like that. Spent a lot of time looking into military spending, even volunteered for a think tank for a while on this subject, and I learned I wasn’t totally right.

Eisenhower was right 100%, and wars and military truly are the biggest wastes of human resources.

I hear what you are saying, but who does it better than the US? Has a nation ever been better at building a military than we are?

What does the jet need to be “great” at? I mean, we have the F22 for air superiority, we have bombers, wouldn’t there also be a need for an F16 replacement that does a lot of different things all in one air frame?

Also where’s your citation!?!?!

What would I cite to say what something sounded like to me?

I did, and there was a large amount of coverage about large numbers and incomplete sets of facts. By omission articles would imply that the F-35s were a quarter billion a pop and didn’t mention the fact they would get down to the ball park of other fighters before they are even fully combat ready, for example. Or they…

The criticism started long before the metaphorical drywall went up.

Boston Scientific, Cisco, Nvidia Corporation, The Gap, Apple, Vizio, Hewlett-Packard Amazon, Alphabet are some examples. But again, it’s easier now that it was in the past, so it shouldn’t be that important to you. But go ahead and just keep moving the goal post all over the place. On this point I can still nail it.