It's true, and it often forgets that most other aircraft go through the same teething problems. As the article skillfully shows, there's a lot of work that goe

It's true, and it often forgets that most other aircraft go through the same teething problems. As the article skillfully shows, there's a lot of work that goes into seemingly simple things like a hook. Other elements can be really complex to work out. The F-35's integrated power pack[1] was the source of quite a few issues if I recall correctly. But it was developments like that which allowed the plane to keep weight under control such that we now have a supersonic STOVL jet in the F-35B. It's a pet peeve of mine when commentators say "that's stupid, they should just do <this>!" . Well, if it were so easy... I get your sentiment regarding the need for new fighter jets. At the very least, some of these engineering developments end up helping commercial applications as well. A good example is the C-5 Galaxy, which went through torturous development. But lead to the development of the TF-39 engine, which was revolutionary in concept. It then became the CF6, which then went on to power a long line of successful airliners. [1] https://www.defenseadvancement.com/feature/3-aircraft-systems-in-1-why-honeywells-ptms-for-the-f-35-is-so-effective/ https://www.defenseadvancement.com/feature/3-aircraft-system...