Honestly, for those who really know the battles within the Pentagon about the design and procurement of equipment, it's no surprise. Too much design-by-committ

Honestly, for those who really know the battles within the Pentagon about the design and procurement of equipment, it's no surprise. Too much design-by-committee, and mission creep from difference parts of different services who want a piece of the funding pie. When the program is billed as "one plane for all 3 services," you know there's trouble brewing on the horizon. It's telling that a lot of the quotes from this article comes from former members of the "fighter mafia" that pushed for focused designs from small groups done in "stealth" before the committees with their "mission creep" hit the design process. The F-16 and A-10, as a result, were widely hailed as revolutionary designs for the roles they were meant for (although in hindsight they followed the obvious path for air superiority and close air support aircraft). The F/A-18 was not quite as capable, but was nevertheless able to benefit from the design knowledge gained by these programs. The managers/designers of the F-16 and A-10 programs include Chuck Spinney and Pierre Sprey, both heavily quoted here. John Boyd was one of the major figures, and is probably one of the most hated men in the Pentagon, but has since passed away. The F-35 is succeeding brilliantly in its mission, though, which is to funnel taxpayer money to a nice fat cross section of the military-industrial complex.