Other than having the politics backwards, interesting insight.

I'm assuming that those electric engines and systems are EMP hardened?

Okay,

#1: The US has as much if nit more "rare-earth" materials as China, if the gov't would just get out of the way. That means the EPA needs to get schooled on reality.

Item #2: Consolidation of competitors may mean slightly less costs, but also less diversity of thought or ideas. Boeing didn't come up with the Space Shuttle, the F-22, the F-15, the F-35, etc. etc. etc. Boeing just bought out their more successful competitors. Boeing still can't come up with a fighter on it's own nickel.

If you let the industry consolidate further - there will be less fresh ideas, and less creativity. The gov't should be promoting More competition (even to the public sector) between defense contractors, so they are not totally beholden to the govt teat while they innovate.

Oh, for Pete's sake. Why a multi-cam anyway? Trying to be all things to all environments means less than ideal for all. Issue cam for the places the units are stationed in or projected to serve in. Optimized desert/urban, woodland. Old school KISS.

Yep, that's just what I'd like to see - an "optionally manned" NUCLEAR bomber. I'm sure the Chinese would be more than happy to turn our Nuclear or conventional "optionally manned" bombers around on a dime.

Not like they wouldn't have compromised the chips used in guidance or communications, or even the software to drive those with their spy saturation of defense industries.

No, - just assume 10 years behind the curve for Chinese intel - like seemingly everything else, that they won't/ or haven't cracked our control methods for remote craft.

I'm a little confused. The A-400 has problems so our Allies and others want the C-17. The F-35 is turning into an overpriced under-performing joke compared to the expectations. But yet, we also close the F-22 production line because it is too expensive. Ummn, the F-35 costs per plane are ramping up fast compared to upcoming competition, so the allies may choose to bail on that (driving up the price more), but at least Japan and Australia have indicated that they would prefer the F-22 (possibly driving that superior aircraft's price down).

I'm a little confused. The A-400 has problems so our Allies and others want the C-17. The F-35 is turning into an overpriced under-performing joke compared to the expectations. But yet, we also close the F-22 production line because it is too expensive. Ummn, the F-35 costs per plane are ramping up fast compared to upcoming competition, so the allies may choose to bail on that (driving up the price more), but at least Japan and Australia have indicated that they would prefer the F-22 (possibly driving that superior aircraft's price down).

So this administration would like to abandon the C-17 market and the potentially expanding market for our most technologically advanced fighter for another fighter that may very well lose out to the competition. (I forgot - the US didn't sell the F-14 and F-15 to our allies after it was developed - my bad).

Are they trying to Intentionally destroy the most advanced parts of our defense industry? - or are they just as inexperienced and unprepared for their jobs as I had feared?