First of all, a 10:1 ratio is improbable. Our current fighters use the same weapons and same countermeasures as the F-22. The F-22 has the advantage of stealth when it uses 6 AIM-120C missiles in it's internal bays. Anything more than that negates the stealth factor. So assuming you score kills with every one of the 6 missiles, you are looking at 6:1 ratio. Now, knowing that the same countermeasures are used on the 15s, 16s, and 18s, you cannot assume that every single missile would score a hit. We can be generous and say 50%. So you have a 3:1 ratio.

What the other jets can do that the F-22 cannot is crucial in modern war: ground attacks. That is the useful role of our jet flights. Air-to-air is almost useless. Since Vietnam, we have been in countless military conflicts. How many have involved air-to-air combat? How many of our existing jets have been shot down? Zero.

Dems are taking us there anyway so we might as well have some kickass toys.

I should have been more clear. There has been air-to-air combat, but it is rare. My main point is how many of our planes have been shot down by other planes? I can't find a single instance of this since Vietnam.

Fire from the ground is a threat to any fighter, so there have definitely been casualties that way. But the F-22s role is to kill other planes, and we have much less expensive planes that can do that role just fine.

Cost should not be an issue where National Defense/Security is concerned.

I agree, but there is a difference between the funds needed to adequately defend the country and the money that is spent on super advanced badassery.

I think USM's arguement makes a whole lot of sense.

Your thinking is too constrained. :grin:

I wish you would say the same about all of obama's welfare state plans.

So are my man parts. Maybe your sister could help with that? :wink::wink:

There was a time when an air superiority fighter was just that. That time is long, long gone. The F-22 was the F/A-22 a few years ago. You know what changed? The name.