An article written by a guy who has zero clue. That said, I do share his disdain for our acquisitions process and understand his comments regarding cost creep, etc. But he showcases his zero credibility with multiple comments. Restarting the F-22 - GTFO, that’s a dumb idea and non-starter. 6G is necessary and it’s going to hurt the bank account, pretty much no way around that. The hope is they can produce what they claimed they will relatively close to the timeline they said they would. That would be a massive improvement over LM’s bullshit with the F-35.

I’m not holding my breath, but I am rooting for Boeing to succeed where LM has failed miserably. Our national defense depends on it.

Edited yesterday at 04:35 AM1 day by brabus

It was his point on the affordability of the -47 and by implication the F/A-XX that gives me pause and consideration.

It’s like Op Spider Web, cost of that operation vs what effects they had, the cost of a 47 or XX vs 690 cheaper weapons thrown against it

Does the platform matter as much when the weapons / enablers (CCAs) are so much cheaper and therefore can be more plentiful?

On 2/7/2026 at 10:33 PM, brabus said:

That would be a massive improvement over LM’s bullshit with the F-35.

I’m not holding my breath, but I am rooting for Boeing to succeed where LM has failed miserably. Our national defense depends on it.

Well, if you want a hint at how well Boeing is going to build a new fighter, take a look at how the T-7 is going.

On 2/8/2026 at 5:23 PM, Clark Griswold said:

Does the platform matter as much when the weapons / enablers (CCAs) are so much cheaper and therefore can be more plentiful?

It’s a fair point. But yes, it does still matter because the force composition will never be 100% CCA anytime in the medium-term future (sure at some point it’ll all be T1000 fighting each other, but that’s a ways off).