All those F-35 JSF are not needed.
The military only needs enough stealth fighters/bombers to knock out the enemy's radar and surface to air missiles. After that is accomplished the conventional aircraft can roam at will at the higher altitudes and drop guided bombs on targets.

The Navy has an arsenal of cruise missile that compliment the initial strikes on an enemy by stealth aircraft.

Also, where are our enemies?

For that kind of money, we could fund thousands of energy projects. We could rebuild our domestic infrastructure to run on solar power. In short, we could eliminate a lot of the conflicts that we have ourselves in right now. Either way, we don't need a stealth fighter. Our enemies don't use ground radar, they use Kalashnikovs and suicide. The best weapons in the world can't defeat mindless extremists. Just get us out of that and on with our lives.

Toss in the added White House request to chop an additional $400 billion from the defense shopping budget over the following 12 years .... the cost and procurement for the F-35 has stopped being possible.

I feel a little bit surprised by the extent to which Americans have shown concern over China's military development. Only ten years ago, I would hardly imagine that US would modify their major weapon system development programs so as to meet challenges posed by PLA. And it also seems inevitable that US will devote more resources in Asia-Pacific after finishing up in Afghanistan as countermeasures to China's military influence on the region.

However American people should be more prudent about some of their efforts in coping with China. First, are these efforts really necessary? China is far from such an opponent that billions of dollars have to be spent upgrading US military capabilities otherwise US national interests in the region would be fundamentally undermined. Just like a point of view from a recent article by James Holmes of the US Naval War College, China, not like the Soviet Union, is not seeking ideological expansion throughout the Asia-Pacific region, therefore as for China’s rise, there is nothing for US to “contain”. (The article, however, elaborated too much on how radical Chinese scholars condemn US policy on “containing” China.) Actually in contemporary China, mercantilism is prevailing and no ideological ambition is justifiable. In history, China suffered too much from ideology conflicts. China also learned lessons from how Soviet Union exhausted itself in competition with US when exporting its ideology to a much broader region than Asia-Pacific. Therefore, developing economy has been the only real focus of Chinese government for the recent thirty years.

Admittedly, there are three sound reasons for China to develop its military power: First, need to manage potential crises across the Taiwan Strait, second, need to protect its marine transport because of the national economy heavily relying on export and import, and third, need to preserve its national interests in South China Sea. The second and third one overlaps each other to some extent, and again, they are for economic development rather than ideological expansion.

Chinese people have been among the most tolerant people that have ever lived in this planet. For thousands of years of recorded history, Chinese people have seldom pursued expansion over territories of others. In fact, the ruling classes were so “satisfying” about their own homeland and vested interests that they locked up the country to enjoy themselves until western invaders broke in. By nature, Chinese people have no interests in business of others. By nature, Chinese people enjoy peaceful life and want to keep far away from contentions. By nature, Chinese people do not fulfill their national values by demanding others to accept their ideology, because such ideology itself is tolerance and beliefs in “all rivers run into sea” and “harmony brings wealth”.

In sum, Chinese people just want to live a rich life. To achieve this object in an extremely complex external environment, they need spears and shields so that people with longer spears and thicker shields have to at least think over before actions. After all, the people with stronger arms claim national interests over the whole world, although their population is only 1/6 of the Chinese people.

I wanted to give the link for that The Diplomat article by James Holmes. However it was said that my submission had triggered the spam filter and could not be accepted. I dont know why.

Nowadays power and money prevail on needs of our economy and peoples real needs such as jobs and low prices. Unfortunately, American economic policy is not for small people but big corporations and their interests.

Probably, we would live in a completely different world if American president, congress and all kind of American news media - newspapers, TV channels and agencies support people's interests first.

Isn't it sad the amount of money we are spending on weapons for defense, or weapons for war? It's such a shame - because at 385 BILLION dollars we could do so many other positive things. A couple other people mentioned energy in their posts, and that's one of the many things we could do to increase the value of our worldwide brands and increase the amount of positive features of our country. But no, instead we spend almost half a trillion on weapons of war.

We have so many problems around the world - that money could go to so many other issues. It's a shame because we do need protection because of the way this world is, but it would be nice to be able to spend that money on other things. Even a lot of our wealthyaffiliates spend a good amount of money on war planning and defense. All of the money that is spent worldwide on war supplies and defense is enough to make this world a much better, safer place.

But instead the money is being spent to make the world a more dangerous place by adding weapons of mass destruction and tools that can kills thousands and even millions of people at a time. It's really sad when you think about it. Because like I said we do need stuff like the f-35's in a way because you never know when you're going to come under attack.

There are a lot of countries and groups out there that actually provoke and promote war and hate, and that's why we need these tools of war and defense. It woukd just be nice if this doba and we coukd all be civil and get along. Because if that could happen all of this money being spent for weapons of war could be spent on more positive things.

This world could be a lot more positive place if everyone wasn't so damn power thirsty and always tryng to have the edge in a possible war. Its such a shame everyone can't get a long, and it's sad.

1) the trillion dollar cost is most likely the Total Ownership Cost (TOC). The aircraft will be in service for 40 to 50 years (they have a service life of 30 years, but the last F35 will be manufactured in 2035 giving the fleet the longer service life). Imagine the cost of a B-52 50 years ago. Now imagine the Total Cost of Ownership given the fact that it is still flying today. My guess is if we'd have projected those costs out in 1950 dollars at that time, we'd have heard similar comments about "jaw dropping cost".

2) the "combat radius" continues to be incompletely reported. As DoDBuzz said in its story about the F35 coming up "short" on its combat radius in its KPP:

"But programme officials are also debating whether to change how the range of the F-35A is calculated, the source said. The equation does not include a buffer margin of 5% of fuel capacity, which is intended to be preserved through the end of the flight test period in 2016. Eliminating the buffer margin adds another 72.4km to the aircraft’s combat radius, the source said."

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/05/13/the-f-35s-legs-might-not-be-long-enough/#idc-cover

That's approximately 45 more miles added to its "combat radius", more than required by the KPP.

The F-35 is cutting into the Defense Department's most important priorities. Totally agree with you, Greg, although you are as naive as I am!! I always come up with similar thinkings as you presented here. You are damn right in that people's power thirst puts the world into danger. One more thing is that arms dealers benefit from wars and unfortunately US government always needs to take care of their interests!! So it is power thirst plus money thirst that make things wors infection "In sum, Chinese people just want to live a rich life." Very true and understandable. It is, after all, the natural inclination for people everywhere. "For thousands of years of recorded history, Chinese people have seldom pursued expansion over territories of others." Pure BS. From ??? on, the area that is now modern China has been consumed with wars among various kingdom, either internally or wi.