Even if that's true, the A-10 and V-22 are bigger failures, but everyone insists on continuing to use them, despite no longer being effective, if they ever were to begin with. The modernisation kit for the A-10 costs more per unit than the F-35, that's how laughably obsolete the old hardware is at this point. Besides, if you adjust for inflation, the most expensive aircraft the US has ever produced was the F-15. Not that we need to be using these things so damn much anyway, I'm just saying that the old stuff isn't any better.
I'll put it this way: the arguments that "reformists" use against developing better weapons for the military (note that whether or not standing militaries should even exist are not part of this argument) are the exact same arguments that hoplophobes use against civilians like us owning modern "assault rifles," and perpetuate the myth that the Second Amendment applies only to flintlocks. New technology scares these people. "Fudds," I believe @jacobtothe calls them.
It's a good reminder of how much central planning wastes.
Agreed. However, I have started to notice that statists will jump at any chance to discredit the entirety of a dissident's claims if we don't get our facts straight, which is why I think the military luddites who style themselves as "reformists" are actually a pro-war psyop masquerading as anti-war voices in order to discredit pacifists.