The sunk cost fallacy is irrelevant at this point. It's too late to start over. The existing fleet of legacy aircraft is literally falling apart and will have to be replaced with something. Building more fourth-generation aircraft would be a waste because they're simply to longer survivable. So they're stuck with making the F-35 work as the only remaining option.
> Building more fourth-generation aircraft would be a waste because they're simply to longer survivable.
I don't agree. The Su-27, which is regarded as a genuine threat to 5th generation planes has been in service since the late 1970s. Modern F-16s have little in common with the first ones that saw service. Boeing has been putting money into F-15s and F/A-18s with stealth capability. Fourth generation aircraft are still survivable and they're still being developed on the field.
There's even a school of thought that suggests that when your enemy is a bunch of dudes with death wishes and pick up trucks, lower tech is an advantage. In this kind of combat, the F-35 is at a particular disadvantage. Its cannon may not be able to achieve the accuracy needed for close air support, the helmets' signal clutter is such that an F-35 is actually a danger, and even more fun, not one model of the F-35 can carry more than 220 rounds of ammunition. In comparison, the A-10 carries about 1,100 rounds. In practice, this means that whereas an A-10 could make 10-20 attack passes, an F-35 will top out at 2-4...
Point being, it might not be a very good remaining option and fourth gen aircraft are better in important ways. With some luck, the testing process will solve all of these problems, though some seem incurable.
The opinions of armchair generals aren't worth much. Simulations and exercises have shown that legacy aircraft are simply not survivable against modern integrated air defence systems. This is a demonstrated reality and no amount of wishing or upgrades will change it.
The amount of ammunition an A-10 can carry is irrelevant if it gets hit by a missile before it reaches the target.
In its current state, the F-35 has three variants. None of those variants is fit for combat of any sort. They are outclassed in close air combat tests against badly crippled fourth generation fighters. Test fighters still can't reliably hit targets during strafing runs. And, the F-35s sensors are plagued by an array of issues, to the point that test pilots need to disable systems in order to actually complete tests.
That statement of fact was not issued by a 'armchair general', it was issued by the Pentagon's senior weapon's tester.
> Building more fourth-generation aircraft would be a waste because they're simply to longer survivable.
Arguably, that's the case for manned combat aircraft generally, at least, in terms of cost-effective survivability. A point which a number of experts have been making since before the F-35s massive cost overruns and other issues.
