[BitWielder1]

Maybe they should not try to over-design a "perfect" plane for all occasions.
What packs more punch, one plane for 2 bil, 10 planes for 200 mil each, or 100 planes for 20 mil each?
You can still design all you want and get the benefit of mass production of whatever tech you come up with.
You could also make more variations, do you want distance, speed, load capacity or stealth. A single plane can't have all. But you can pick a plane that fits the next mission.

[Nowhere Man]

I think we over engineer at times. First you cannot design a plane for every mission, some are made to bomb, others for fighting, others for intercepting, hauling things and so on. Yes, there are times one can crossover into another role like a fighter can carry bombs or a plane like the F-111 could make a fine interceptor against bombers but when you try to make a jack of all trade, you get a master of none. Sometimes you have economize too, instead of the F-35, I would keep making the F-18 for the Navy (and kept the F-14's), go with the F-15 Silent Eagle, keep the F-16 and A-10's and go along with something like the F-20 (uprated F-5) Basically aircraft technology has plateaued since the 1960's for the most part,the differences is with avionics and stealth, the latter I do think, IMHO, is a bit overrated.

I think overall instead of a new bomber made by committee, I think we'd be better off with the B-52 and B-1 for the foreseeable future.

I rmeember in 2003, they made a redesign of the Wright Flyer to celebrate the Wright Brothers 100th anniversary. They used computer aided drafting and design and the latest in materials and engine technology. I remember if flopped big time, yet the Wright brothers used basic things like wood, cloth and the basic engines of the day and made it work.