The F-22 is likely one amazing airplane.
If we in the US don't need the F-22, then
it's way too expensive. If we do need it,
then it's maybe quite cheap.

In a sense, we can suspect that, if the F-22
is never used, then maybe it has, thus, done
its best possible work -- would be enemies
were afraid to attack us where the F-22 could
ruin their attack.

Could a plane far ahead of its candidate
opponents do that well at avoiding a war?
Under some fairly realistic circumstances, yes.

Suppose for the sake of the argument, we assume
that the US should have fought Gulf War I
(I tend to think so, e.g., Kuwait was invaded
and Saudi Arabia was next on Saddam's
hit list; Gulf War II, hmm ...? YMMV). So,
with this assumption, in Baghdad Saddam had
spent a huge bundle on anti-aircraft means --
radars, guns, and missiles. Okay. Sorry,
Saddam, for all those millions, you didn't get
10 cents worth. Why? Because Lockheed had
developed the F-117, and it flew into the
Baghdad anti-aircraft means and supposedly
never got even a single scratch.

Lesson: Given the assumption that Gulf War I
was to be fought, we really, really like
the F-117.

The F-22? No doubt there are scenarios where
its superiority would be similar.

Broadly it appears that the US has military
planners sitting around evaluating what
potential enemies might be able to do and, then,
coming up with military R&D programs to
keep the US ahead. Then, if the stuff the
US develops is sufficiently superior, say,
like the F-117 or the SR-71,
then the chances of actual shooting go way down
and the superior US weapons in effect
did the best we could hope for.

Now, for the cost of an F-22, likely that
is heavily for just its crucial attribute --
being way ahead as technology. So, pay
super big bucks for the F-22 #1 and much
less for #2, #3, .... Or, what's crucial
about the F-22 is not that we have built
some airplanes but that we have
created some highly superior technology,
that gets used in some real airplanes.

Or the F-22 is part of a technology race
where, like for the F-117, the US wants
to win, against any and all competition.
I hope we do.

Uh, in Gulf War I, Saddam's planes? Soon
enough they saw that getting off the
ground and heading to the Americans
was a fast way to a smoking hole and, thus,
just took the back way to Iran and parked.
Not a chance. Saddam's planes didn't
have a chance.

In Gulf War I, supposedly the US had
more injuries from rest and recreation
than from enemy action. Now if we have
to fight a war, then that's how we want
to fight it.

Or, once General Schwarzkopf
was asked what happened to those
many thousands of Iraqi
soldiers out in the Iraqi desert
defending against an attack from
Saudi Arabia? The answer: "They
are still there.".

Uh, there was one more: Saddam had
a lot of Russian tanks. Maybe
they were really good tanks, maybe
tough and rugged. Their gun could
shoot a mile. Ah, but then there
was the US tank: Also tough and
rugged, likely more so than for the
Russian tanks.
With a gas turbine engine
to permit especially fast speed
for a tank.
Then we get to the really good stuff:
(a)
The US tank could see through dust,
fog, and in the dark (infrared, etc.).
(b) The gun on the US tank could
shoot 2 miles. (c) The US tank
could shoot while moving while
the Russian tank had to stop to shoot.
Hmm (a)-(c) -- guess what happened
in the US-Iraqi tank battles? Remember
that the Iraqi tank could shoot only
1 mile, and the US tank could shoot twice
that far. So, by the time an Iraqi tank
was in range to shoot, it was already dead.

So, how'd the US tanks be so much better?
Sure: Technology. Much of the cost of
the US tanks? Technology R&D and not
just metal work.