Yer welcome...And thanks for your no experience in this issue.
By that simplistic argument, one hundred bombs delivered is better than six, correct?
Back in WW II, it would have required dozens of missions with dozens of bombers each to render this airfield inoperable for at least 24 hrs. But for US today, it is one bomber, one pass, and six bombs. And with 'stealth', the enemy would not see it coming until it is too late.
Close Air Support (CAS) is the only legitimate criticism Sprey leveled at the F-35.
And based upon what would you base that bet? Your opinion?
Lockheed is not 'ramming' anything down anyone's throat. Lockheed is a supplier who responded to a customer's request.
But if you want to talk about financials...
Top is the old carrier complement. Bottom is today.
Count how many aircrafts for each, as in
TYPE. Now try to imagine the logistical demands for the old versus the new. Then put yourself into the shoes of a Human Resources manager, as in training and certifications for your company. Six different platforms versus 3. Not counting helos. Go talk to a professional accountant and HR specialist for yourself.
You bitch and moan about a single aircraft while ignoring the diversity of platforms the three aviation branches have been fielding for years and how much they cost over those decades. The Soviets are gone, and while China is building,
NOW is no better time to target downsize the US military to make US more lethal for the same overall budget window we have been operating.
Your ignorance, and I say that kindly, is understandable, and unfortunately that ignorance tainted or even negated your critical thinking. Sprey seemingly criticized the 'high-low' philosophy the USAF adopted for the F-22 and F-35 mix. But oddly enough, if you even bothered to research Sprey, Boyd, the F-16, and the rest of the 'Fighter Mafia' back in the days, you would have found that with the F-16, that maverick group inside the Pentagon was advocating
EXACTLY that high-low mix.
In fact, they wanted the F-16 to have either a minimum or literally no radar at all. The fighter was to be a pure aircraft killer. They wanted the -16 to be a pure within-visual-range fighter. Sorry, but if my son/daughter was up there, I want him/her to kill the enemy from as far away as possible. Dogfighting romanticism be damned. The Fighter Mafia wanted a flight of -16s to be literally guided to the enemy by a shepherd, like an AWACS or a couple of F-15 like aircrafts, fight the enemy, then the shepherd would lead the survivors back to home base.
Boyd, Sprey, and the group had legitimate ideas and many of them truly visionary and adopted. But they were also wrong in many areas, notably the technology front.
I was talking about Sprey's comments about long wavelength radar systems versus 'stealth'. I explained how tactically limiting such systems are many times here already. Just because the Russians designed and built such, that does not mean such systems would be effective. The Russians do have a history of not using technology to best advantage. But I do encourage China and others to follow their lead.