Pentagon Wars - Bradley Fighting Vehicle Evolution

When you need the absolute best for something, you need to specialize. That's why there have historically been so many different kinds of aircraft, each with relatively discrete missions. The F-35 is a terrible aircraft, and the procurement is deeply suspect. The South Korean acquisition process leaked some surprising information about the acquisition process and the F-35 failed the relatively modest criteria the Koreans had set and an older aircraft (F-15) to be purchased. At the time there was loads of news about the F-35 failing the acquisition and it even made it into Aviation week. Doing a google search now, it looks like it was a smooth process from RFP to acquisition and I can't find many of the older articles [1] The rumor is that Lockheed bribed the hell out of the Korean National Assembly and "won" the initial round of acquisition, but the agency in Korea responsible for the acquisition (DAPA) saw right through it and awarded the final contract to Boeing. The National Assembly got upset, Lockheed got upset and probably some U.S. congressmen got upset and the entire acquisition was tossed out "recompeted" and of course the F-35 won the second time. It's a sad joke and I can't even begin to guess at the acquisition shenanigans that happened in the U.S. 1 - link edit a great movie about this is the movie "Pentagon Wars" which includes this great scene. this video

This video about the evolution of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle may shed some light on why the Air Force ended up with a report with far more requested changes than SpaceX had anticipated: this video

The F-35 is becoming the definitive example of how scope creep destroys a project. A system designed to do everything for everyone. When it should be designed to do one thing better than everything else. Divide the F-35 into three different attack aircraft. Single engine CAS with STOVL capability. Big/fast/stealthy twin engine bomber. Carrier based attack drone. All three would likely fulfill their roles better for lower total cost and be operational on a shorter timeframe. The F-35 reminds me of this short story by A. C. Clarke link And this scene from pentagon wars: this video

It reminded me the feature creep scene in HBO's Pentagon Wars, which is eerily similar to what can happen in the software world: this video

There's a whole movie about it if you haven't seen it: this video unless this was an intentional reference, then, whoosh

There's a dated but entertaining dramatization of this failure from the movie Pentagon Wars: this video .

Your argument overlooks the many examples of utterly wasteful military spending that happens even against wishes of the military itself because the spending itself really is the focus over the actual military effect. So we could easily compromise between our PoVs and let you have all the military might you want - even if US might already peaks over the next few countries together (and looking at Afghanistan, Iraq, how is it even used?) - but you could still cut a lot of the pork. I think things might get a bit crazy in the next century with climate change creating a lot of additional pressure, so I don't mind living in a well-armed Western Bloc, but that does not mean I have to ignore the incredible waste. I remember a Youtube summary/satire about the Bradley vehicle development, as an example for how it works (although it really shouldn't): this video --- and that is before senators get involved who are concerned about getting and keeping spending for their state.

I think you better gave examples of government being inefficient. But also I was to add that there are places that do milk the government. Both of these can be true. It's not homogeneous. But you're right that we should be more nuanced and it's good to have an insider perspective. For a more funny example of your point, I like The Pentagon Wars' Bradley tank evolution this video

Modularity and abstraction come up against some limits when different customers have incompatible domain models, and thus different ideas of what your product ought to be. While I've seen its historical accuracy questioned, something about this satire from Pentagon Wars still resonates: this video

It's a lateral move. Recall that the US is updating their nuclear stockpile[0]. This is not expanding the stockpile, but neither is it reducing it. The F-35 was created to be a one-size-fits-all solution invented by the same bureaucrats who invented Full Stack Developer or the Bradley[1] with exactly the same results. If you're talking Doomsday clock, well there is a certain country actively stating they are willing to use nuclear weapons in an ongoing conflict that you might want to consider to contextualize (which itself requires further contextualization all the way down the rabbit hole) [0] link [1] this video