I wrote a similarly hyperbolic F-35 comment on <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9446079" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9446079</a> earlier this year (the comment at the top). I&#x27;m half-way kidding in both comments, regarding my comments about the F-35, but on the other hand, unless my aforementioned comment about secret programs, etc. is at least partly true (meaning you&#x27;re partly wrong), then the F-35 (or at least the opportunity cost of it) will surely turn out to be the fall of US military dominance.<p>When we&#x27;re spending nearly (or more than) $100MM for a jet that cannot even stand up against an F-16, a jet introduced in 1978. That&#x27;s 5 years before I was born, so it&#x27;s really weird to think about a jet from that long ago even flying today, let alone a pre-Nintendo jet dog fighting (let alone, beating!) a modern jet in 2015, that surely has orders of magnitude more computational power on board than did the entire world at that time.<p>In other words, the scenario described is a bit like that movie, The Final Countdown, except the fighter jets on the aircraft carrier lose to Japanese Zeros :&#x2F; what a frightening situation to be in.<p>All that said, I understand that we live in a different world now, and that air superiority isn&#x27;t defined only by dog fighting capability, and that we also have to factor in that most modern dog fights would be over before either pilot could see the other with their own eyes, and that this is, in fact, part of the promise of the F-35. But, regardless of this, what was the value gained by the F-35 by making the wings so small? A slightly larger wing size could have increased fuel capacity, increased fuel efficiency, increased low-speed and low altitude capabilities, and made it a much better dog fighter, at no real expense to other features.