The USAF needs more F-22 Raptors if it intends to maintain air supeiority.

Let me begin by summarizing my opponents points, so as to make them easier to respond to: 1. The Legacy Fighters are not obsolete, because a. They (specifically mentioning the F-16) are in use by many other countries. b. Russian aircraft do not have the same level of performance. c. It wouldn't matter if they did because USAF fighters outnumber Russian fighters and the pilots are better trained. 2. The F-22 doesn't provide the same bang for buck as the F-35 because a. There has not yet been a study submitted to the debate arguing that the F-22 is worth the extra cost. (Note that the F-22 only costs about 1.7x the price of a F-35 [a][b]) b. The F-35 is more technologically advanced, and is thus probably the superior of the two fighters. 3. In the wake of a war between nuclear powers, air superiority is most likely unimportant. 4. Our enemies are far behind us in terms of air strength, there is little chance of war with either Russia or China in the near future. And now, my rebuttal: 1. First I would like to express the importance of updating our hardware before the need to update it arises. Because of the fact that it takes so much time (decades in fact) to update military technology, there is a need to predict and implement what will be necessary long before it becomes necessary. a. Just because an aircraft is in use doesn't mean it is sufficiently powerful to be in use. For example, the Iranian Air Force employs F-14 Tomcats, yet the USAF has already determined them to be no longer worth the money it costs to keep them. b. I believe that at least the Sukhoi Flankers and the Mikoyan MiG-35 have better performance than the best of the legacy fighters (in almost every aspect, the F/A-18 Super Hornet). [c] Note that Sukhoi is currently producing the PAK-FA, which is better performing in most ways than any previous Russian-designed craft. c. You're right about our experience and numbers advantage, but that only matters to a point. For example, one military could employ the us of five million P-51 Mustangs with extremely advanced AI that are better then any human pilot at the controls, but they wouldn't be able to repel one single enemy bomber if they cannot A) Reach it (not a high enough operational ceiling), or B) Don't know it's there (if it has stealth capabilities). 2. Here is a letter from Peter Goon to US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Note that Peter Goon is an expert in the field of defense, with a Bachelor's in Mechanical Engineering, a Post Graduate degree Aeronautical Engineering from the Royal Australian Air Force, and experience in Flight Test Engineering, Independent Verification and Validation, Aeronautical Engineering System Design, Senior Project Management, Risk Analysis; and Air Power and Defense Capability Systems Analysis. a. http://www.ausairpower.net... b. I submit that the F-35, although newer and equipped with newer computer systems, is much less technologically advanced because of it's more basic design features. Beyond it's inherent design limitations [1], the design features that seem to have received the most attention are those that are the most rapidly evolving, and that can be changed quickly by upgrades (such as computer software, weapon systems, etc). 3. You're extremely wrong. Ignoring Mutually Assured Destruction, if we were to go to war with a nuclear capable nation then our priority would be to have aircraft that can deliver our warheads without being shot down and having aircraft that can shoot down our enemies nuclear bombers and ICBMs. 4. Here you're right that there is very little chance that we will need to have the most advanced technology, but wrong that this means it isn't worth billions, just in case. The fact alone that there is a possibility that we could have an enemy that is more powerful enough to destroy us is all the reason there should be to justify spending more on our defense then any other nation. There is a reason that the U.S. hasn't been at risk of invasion for over 60 years. [1] There are numerous aspects of the F35s design aimed at lowering cost: *Stealth is limited in the aft sector because of the nozzle design. *Stealth is limited in the beam sector because of the lower fuselage shaping. *Radar power is limited by the cooling capacity. *The radar aperture is limited by the nose geometry. *Engine thrust gross massflow is limited by the inlets. *The single engine is a risk for over-water operations, as opposed to the dual engines an F-22. *The wing planform is optimized for subsonic cruise and transonic maneuvers. These design limitations cannot be changed by upgrades. As a result of these, the F-35 is uncompetitive in Air Combat roles and Deep Strike roles, only making a good interdictor. [a] http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil... [b] http://armedservices.house.gov... [c] http://www.ausairpower.net... I'm sorry that this response is so belated, but my browser crashed I was writing the original instance of this round of the debate and I didn't feel like re-writing my response until the next day. One thing I've noticed through the process of this debate is the difficulty of not assuming knowledge that I take for granted is shared. It thus becomes hard to properly explain something, because I have to expect potential responses.