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

For the sake of organization I am going to respond to my opponents arguments in the order they were given. I feel that this does a good job of laying out the debate as a whole. 1. My opponent's point here is that due to the amount of time it takes to upgrade military hardware, it is a good idea to upgrade it before such upgrades become necessary. However, as this relates to the question of employing F-22's there are many presumptions in place. One is that at some point in the future the USAF will eventually need F-22's. Given the current global situation, it is entirely likely that the United States will never go to war with a nation against which it would be necessary to us F-22's. Though the US needs to keep its technology up to date, it is not necessary to produce large quanities of new aircraft that will also be outdated before it is even necessary to have them. a. It is true that just because technology is in use does not mean it is not out of date. However, the fact that numerous First World nations employ the F-16 shows that it must be viable or else these nations would not be using it because they certainly have the resources to develope and alternative. b. The preformance of these foreign aircraft is not going to matter if the USAF never has to engage them, which is an overwhelmingly strong possibility. In any case they will not be engaging them at any point in the forseeable future, and by then the USAF should have a superior alternative to the F-22. I say again, there is no need to add cutting edge aircraft to the Airforce if they will no longer be cutting edge before they are ever used. c. The USAF still has a three to one numerical advantage of Russia in terms of aircraft and far more skilled pilots. My opponent has explained his own beliefs about the qaulity of Russian aircraft, but he has not explained how an upgrade from Legacy aircraft to the F-22 would be the deciding factor in a hypothetical aeriel conflict. However, I hold that this point is irrevelevant since it is extremely unlikey that either the Legacy aircraft nor the F-22 will ever engage Russian forces. 2. Even if the F-22 may offer more 'bang for its buck' that does not mean it is necessarily a good idea to produce them. It is also necessary to examine the actual cost. However, I will go on to argue that comparing the cost of the F-22 and F-35 is not entirely important. b. Just because the F-35 may not be a good alternative to the F-22 does not mean that the USAF needs more F-22's. It may have been a mistake for me to even argue about the capabilities of the F-35 since I don't think the USAF should get more of those either. These aircraft are not going to be sent on any missions that Legacy aircraft would not be able to handle. By the time the US encounters a situation that the Legacy aircarft are too outdated to handle, the F-22 and F-35 will most likely be outdated as well. There is no need to produce large quantities of aircraft that will be outdated before they are needed and there is no need to create weapons to fight a war that won't concievably occur. 3. The key words in my opponents arguement here are "Ignoring Mutually Assured Destruction." Does the F-22 have the ability to defend against a massive scale ICBM attack? I hardly think so. What my opponent argues here completely contradicts Cold War military strategy. (1) The threat of MAD effectively prevents any war between nuclear nations, and if war did break out it would simply end in annihilation for both sides. 4. There are already nations on Earth that are powerful enough to destory us. The Russian Federation has a strong enough nuclear arsenal to effectively destroy the American state. Disregarding this, it is a ridiculous argument that we should spend huge amounts of money developing aircraft just because there is an extremely small chance that they might potentially be used at some point in the unknown future. And the reason that the US hasn't been at risk of invasion is certainly its nuclear arsenal, not its ariforce. When a nation has weapons capable of wiping out human civilization, other weapons tend to pale in comparison. Conclusion: I don't think this debate is a matter of aircraft preformance. My opponent may be able to prove that the F-22 is an excellent fighter jet, and in fact I would agree with this. However, it does not mean that adding them to the USAF is a good idea. The US is a nation that is experiencing economic troubles and now is not the time to be upgrading the Airforce with expensive and unnecessary fighter jets. There will certainly be an alternative to the F-22 that is superior before it is ever need, if it is ever needed at all. Over the past century we have moved toward a world that is increasing more stable and secure. Militarism simply for the sake of militarism is not conducive to this and is extremely dangerous in a world that many people have the ability to end. With the exception of the case of Iran and a few other rogue states that the USAF can easily handle, there is no good reason why the US should even have to go to war at any point in the future. Needlessly upgrading military hardware is therefore wasteful and potentially dangerous. Sources (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...