Is 1.5 Trillion really the number?
Somewhere around there for the entire program of aircraft of all models.
There seem to be quite a few more 'problems' with the program that jacked up the cost. I get the 'old' technology concerns to a point (think B-52s and C-130s are doing just fine) but could that 1.5 trillion have been better invested say in counter cyber attack programs?
B-52 isn't a fair comparison in terms of age necessarily. In that, the -52 is flown much like an airliner anymore; the low altitude high-airframe stress work just isn't as much done anymore with the current H-model jets, as was done in the 1970s/80s. The former D and G model jets that served in Vietnam, as well as the G models that served in Desert Storm, in the time after Vietnam those jets were flown on many low-level flying missions that were fair stressors to the airframes, consistent with the attack tactics at the time. Due to that and combat, the D models were all retired in 1984, and the G models in 1994. The H models mainly sat nuclear alert for most of their lives, and didn't see major combat until Afghanistan, as they were never used in Vietnam or Desert Storm, they were kept stateside. So while the H models are 1960/61 model years, one really has to look at how they've been used to understand why they're lasting so long. In any event, the B-52s also keep getting mostly killed in Red Flag exercises up in Nevada.
C-130s the same. The current J models aren't that old. The A/B/E (1950s/60s model years) and many of the earlier H models from the early 1970s are all retired. The oldest -130 in US service is from the 1970s, and most are newer J models from the 2000s.
We have F-15 Eagles coming apart in the air on ACM missions, D-model F-16s were recently all grounded for a good while due to airframe cracks. These tactical jets are worked hard and their airframes show it. Many USMC F/A-18s sit broken on their ramps. They are in need of replacement. While a full spectrum of combat capabilities are indeed needed, such as cyber attack counter programs and the like, we still need the fighter jet. And the F-35 is the future to replace a good few platforms. I think it'll have growing pains like any other aircraft, much like the F-111 did in its early days, but I think it'll ultimately be a success for what we're needing it to do. I agree much of the program has been an exercise in fiscal mismanagement to a serious degree, and that's in large part to reforms that our acquisition process needs. Hopefully we iron that out, as we already spend tons of $$$ on defense as is, and we need to be far more responsible in that realm.
