That's absolutely true. A lot of these expensive systems are just jobs programs -- and bribes to important senators. The Zumwalt, for example, had components made (money spent) in almost every state -- about 80 senators could claim jobs and money for their constituents because of this thing.
I happen to think it's a pretty cool ship. But expensive. And I don't think it was built so that we could assert military power. I think it's just because the government has an overwhelming need to spend money.
The F-35 is the same thing: a bad plane. Everyone knows it. But the big benefit from the F-35 is that it is hideously expensive. From a political viewpoint, that ridiculous cost is a plus: it means jobs.
Having been on multiple sides of the acquisition Rubik’s Cube, 24 yrs. Navy active & reserve and 27 yrs. contracting, I’ve seen every miserable mistake made. The labyrinthine process, the Requirements Mafia and requirements creep/change, sequestration, failure to re-institute Federal budgeting/authorization/appropriation, constant interference from Congress & the Executive branch, the Test Mafia, DoD knotheads at every turn, it’s a wonder anything ever gets produced and deployed/fielded. It’s much like the mess that has become health care — a huge gulf between the warfighter/user and developer/builder, the two most important parties, cause interminable delays, drive up costs, and ultimately cause severe cutback or cancellation of programs. It the original number of ships, aircraft, vehicles were to be built, the non-recurring costs would be spread out and reduce unit cost significantly. But it’s the warfighters/users who suffer and the developer/builder who loses the long term orders (at a profit far less than what most think is being made, almost always less than 8%, and usually below 6%).