Turbine D:
The JSF was a political beast from its inception, thanks to Goldwater-Nichols and "one size fits all" attitudes among the politicos. We agree on that. Also on the strategic acquisition decision to spread the vendor base across many constituencies.
If we go back 30 years or so to F-18 acquisition (*and Tip O'Neil's support of a controversial program ... local vendor driven) the Hornet program had its share of detractors and bile when it came out, eh? (Don't we all remember the infamous cracks in the tail?)
A pretty popular book called "Pentagon Paradox" was made possible by the donnybrook the Hornet caused. Here we are three decades later, and the Hornet is a workhorse. It didn't turn out to be the F-111, but it did not get through acquisition unscathed.
But no, we cannot seem to agree on the facts: there is not unlimited money in the DoD budget. I suggest you take a gander at "sequester" from the past year or so and recalibrate your rangefinder.
Not sure if you are still linked to/involved in things that are DoD contracts.
It may be the case now (as it was when I was last on active duty) that with the limited dollars the priority spending leans in a particular direction. (Hey, V-22 thread over on rotary forum, go have a look at the both of them!
) A decade ago JSF ate amazing piles of dough, and the current choice was just getting selected and basing was being ironed out. (Environmental Impact Statements, how I hate thee!) It still eats piles of money but it doesn't have unlimited money.
Nothing in DoD does. That's reality, not hyperbole.
Does it get "more than its fair share" is a valid question. Given my own bias, I'd say the answer is yes. I am not an objective observer given the various programs (that I cared about while still serving) getting pushed about by its programming bow wave.