Actually, yes.
One of my pet peeves for years has been the F-35. Let me explain why. When you go to get your car fixed, the mechanic has a bunch of tools, perhaps thousands of them in a big box. The mechanic does not simply buy a Swiss Army Knife and decide he has all the tools he needs. He wants, and you expect him to have the right tool for the job.
The F-35 is a Swiss Army Knife. It is expected to do all the jobs, and it does, but not better than a dedicated tool for the job in question. It can not do ground support for the troops as well as an A-10. The old aircraft has just been given a new lease on life because testing showed it was better than the F-35 by a large margin. So equipping every squadron in the Air Force with the F-35 would actually reduce the capabilities available to the troops.
But wait, there is more. Most of the missions are being ready flying overhead to provide some intelligence and perhaps ready to strike a target of opportunity or hitting a target or two for close air support of embattled troops. The F-35 has less loitering time than other aircraft already in the system, and less than new aircraft coming into the market.
Let me introduce you to one that would be fantastic for that kind of job.
Home - Textron AirLand
For the cost of one F-35 you could equip half a squadron with these. They are built using mostly off the shelf parts. The wings, avionics, engines, and controls are all from Civillian aircraft in use right now. That means that repairs are going to cost a fraction of what they would be for the F-35. To that end, the cost per hour of operation is going to be about a quarter of the cost of the F-35 to run. So you can buy more of them, and fly them more for the same cash. Sort of like buying a car for the gas mileage, you know more is better.
Is it the cutting edge of technology? No, and it doesn't need to be for about half the missions that the F-35 will be doing. Just as home tool kits normally are not as extensive or as expensive as the Mechanic's tools at the auto shop. You don't need ten grand in Snap On Tools to change the oil, but he does need them to change the seals on all the different cars he will see.
I am not opposed to spending money for what is needed. The F-35 may be a good deep strike fighter bomber, and it is undeniably better than the F-18 for that job. But that expensive plane is not a one size fits all answer to every mission. If we go with other available airframes even with modernization programs for some of them we provide greater capability with less cost for specific missions.
I'm not surprised you would object. If Obama had said that was what was needed, I bet you wouldn't spend a moment arguing that the troops need the more expensive aircraft. My objections are based upon facts, and my support for alternatives are based upon those facts.
But that isn't what you expect, informed and logical information. Nope, all you think is Trump is bad, and anything he proposes is automatically bad. That kind of response is what we normally call knee jerk, and it's useless.