Improved stealth etc is useful, but F-35’s are only slightly better than 40+ year old jets. Thus hardly worth the price vs cheaply manufacturing a minor update of an older design.
Or as the saying goes “quantity has a quality all it’s own.”
Now is that 35 worth the price? If our policy continues to insist for preparing against an impossible push peer adversary landmasses, then maybe. Personally I don’t see those pushes happening, but that’s more due to the tyranny of distance and having like 10 minutes of play time before needing to refuel.
Actual air war looks very different, with a significant focus on cruse missiles early on etc. But again, comparing the F35 with outdated equipment is missing the point.
Further, the F16’s people are talking about very much needed a replacement. The newest was built in 2005 and while it’s a solid multi-role, all weather, air-to-air and air-to-ground fighter the design is showing it’s age.
But, the F35 isn’t simply a modernized F16 now it does stealth, STOVL, etc. So you need to consider what it could have been not compare it to what’s being replaced.
PS: I very much believe stealth aircraft are needed, but the same F35’s are eventually facing the sensors of 2050+. That’s the context where it starts to look very questionable.
Modernization of existing aircraft continued, but the US’s physical aircraft are only going to last to ~2040.
My impression of the present/near future of air combat is a stealthy fighter with AMRAAMs in front, radar off, and a quarterback aircraft in back out of missile range, with the radar on. The front fighter fires and turns around, and the missile gets mid-course updates from the quarterback aircraft. When the AMRAAMs are depleted, you leave. It seems like if you get into Sidewinder range and you're outnumbered, you're going to have a torrent of medium range missiles coming at you from all sides.
It's not clear to me how well newer radars can track the B-2, but it's hard for me to see how fighters could really protect it. I'd expect that in a conflict with China, if they can track the B-2, that the B-2 would be withheld until the fighter threat was neutralized.
F-35s are really going to be doing counter IADS so their loadout reflects that. Maybe you get a couple A2A missiles loaded in, but primarily for self defense. If you want offensive counter air, you're bringing the F-22s (or probably the NGAD) loaded out appropriately.
Anyway all this just affirms the original idea, which is that you can't prosecute a war against peer adversaries with 4th gen fighters. Our 4th gens can still take down the enemy air threat, but the IADS means those 4th gens are not even getting into the air space.
The unknown then is how much can be done with decoys and EW, or even things like cyberattacks on radars and control nodes.
Stating the F-35s are "only slightly better than 40+ year old jets shows a stunning lack of knowledge.
Anyway, we already had the F22, the F35 was supposed to be the cheaper alternative and it mostly delivered on that. But now we have a very capable aircraft with far to many roles to excel at all of them while still being quite expensive to operate.
1. Supersonic stealthy STOL for the USMC. Check
2. Supersonic stealthy replacement for A-7/F-18. Check
3. Supersonic stealthy replacement for F-16. Check
Despite its detractors, the F-35 is an excellent aircraft that is doing quite well in squadron usage. The USMC loves their B model, operating off of their mini carriers. The USAF is getting enough on the line that sustainment costs are bending down, and flyaway costs are cheaper than the newest F-16s that would get crushed by the F-35.
The only service that isn't as in love with the F-35 is the Navy. They've slowly been realizing that the short legs of the F-18 have hampered them in the Pacific. The F-35 has better range, but is still far shorter than older strike aircraft like the A-6.
The F35 is aiming to be both an air superiority and strike aircraft, and do electronic warfare and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, while being stealthy and cheaper than the F22.
Now add F18 missions like fighter escort and fleet air defense which add yet more demands.
You get less stealth, less speed, less range, less payload, and or fewer sensors etc than an aircraft dedicated to a smaller range of roles. Meanwhile you need to pay for all the capacity that aren’t particularly relevant when doing any specific mission.
Sure, generally being capable of Mach 2.2+ for example isn’t such a big deal. However, if you’re deep in enemy territory and low on munitions it’s quite valuable to quickly escape any reinforcements that show up. On the other hand when escorting a fleet all that extra engine is mostly wasted and costing you fuel.