Ive made this basic comment before, but every time I read about the latest snafu re: F-35/22 etc, it just continually disappoints me that we no longer seem to be able to create combat aircraft like we used to.

I know a lot has a changed since the days where we were producing a new (and successful) jet every couple of years, but why can't we do that now?

We seem so insistent on trying to make our new tactical jets capable of doing every job under the sun and making it impervious to all threats thinking that the govt would save money by having fewer aircraft types to acquire for the services. So far it seems we haven't been able to build such a jack of all trades. Would it really be that much more costly to build a couple of different single role aircraft that really excel in their jobs like we used to vs an aircraft like the F-35?

As a multi-role aircraft, the Super Hornet seems to be quite capable despite not being a 5th gen aircraft. It can dogfight, it can drop bombs, and it can provide EW. Does the Navy stand to gain that much from the F-35? If there was ever to be an aircraft that would be suitable to all the branches and not cost $100M/ea, why not the Super Hornet?

Civilian (who is a fan of our military) rant over.