From a strategic sense, we would want to have (at least) 2 competing aircraft makers so that they compete against each other and innovations continue to be made

From a strategic sense, we would want to have (at least) 2 competing aircraft makers so that they compete against each other and innovations continue to be made. However, the cost of new aircraft is absurdly high, to the point where this might be unsustainable as a nation. In a way, we have become victims of our own success. During the 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars, we lost very few aircraft. Mostly because of their superior technology and design, and ability to counter the threat of Iraqi defenses. In the future, we might face a more challenging opponent - either because they produced better air defense systems, or because we allow our aircraft to become obsolete. Because our aircraft have been so good, it's tempting to mission-overload them. Build fewer, more-capable aircraft (or now, drones). But that increases the percentage loss of capability for each aircraft that is destroyed. Lose one plane out of two hundred, that's 0.5%. Lose one plane out of 50, that's a 2% reduction in airpower. So it might make sense to build more planes/drones, each of which costs less (and is individually less capable), and run the assembly lines at a slower pace. The cost then becomes more predictable and more even over the years (no huge expenditures in one year, and nothing the next). It'd take longer to fully staff a squadron, but would also ensure that new aircraft enter service each year so that the entire force would be, on the average, fairly new.