"keep it simple stupid" do we need a change in combat aircraft philosophy?

After reading several developments in aircraft today and Toms posts,

everything seems to be taking much longer than planned. Development of a complete and functioning avionics system and weapons integration is going beyond a decade. changing political needs change the role of the aircraft, thus more delays. Spiralling costs complicate this as politicians are afraid to commit to this aircraft.

As a result, aircraft are trying to do more in the same airframe. They are getting heavier, not lighter, because of these changes in roles, the avionics and such have become much more complicated and sensitive, bringing in another sense of maintainability issues..

To worsen things, growing private enterprises are creating a brain drain on skilled personnel..

what happens now?

Virtually none of the US major design companies (as well as European, etc) are using developments in modern technology to make a lighter, simpler, and CHEAPER aircraft.

development of such aircraft could be built personally by the company using their best knowledge, or based on the knowledge of what pilots need (F-5, MiG-21 any body?) rather than based on political needs (cough JSF cough).

such aircraft would undoubtely be cheaper to maintain, acquire, operate and likely be flying in the air instead of being hanger queens due to maintainability, software issues, spares, etc.

you could get it within a reasonable amount of time instead of waiting 10 years for something that you probably can’t afford or use to it’s full potential.

This is why I’ve posted the question (particularly to vortex) about the feasibility of using something similar to a scaled up, manned X-36 or BoP to be a modern light and cheap aircraft.

So far, the FC-1 is the closest thing I’ve seen to this. (Although not exactly next generation)