The F-22 is the only aircraft of its generation to fill its tactical role in warfighting. The F-16 is being retired and as stated in this article, another replacement aircraft isn't even slated to arrive in production for nearly five years. We may have little use for the F-22 in the current theatre of operations in the Middle East, but just as we are now using technology in the War on Terror that was little-used in the Cold War, it is impossible even for the best military and intelligence community professionals to project exactly what resources we will need in future conflicts.

Ben Lambeth, a noted scholar of aviation theory at RAND, made a great case for the power of tactical air weapons in his writings about NATO intervention in Kosovo. Secretary Gates, et al, should talk to experts like Dr. Lambeth and LTG Leslie Kenne, the woman behind the Joint Strike Fighter, before they back the failure to purchase more of a vital weapons system.

TheCloudBoy:

The F-22 is the only aircraft of its generation to fill its tactical role in warfighting.

Yes, we have no other plane who's purpose is sitting in a hanger because it's incapable of flying in so much as a light rain. That's not all! We have no other 5th generation stealth fighters... except for the F-35.

And it is such a wonderful fighting machine that the military has yet to use it in any operation.

. . . well, yeah, but don't you see, it's REALLY COOL!

Wouldn't you say that a picture like this is worth a few billion dollars? <link> (OK, it's an F-18, but still...)

That's a great shot. I have this Top Gun vision of some apartment dweller spilling coffee on himself and yelling, "I want some butts!" as the Hornet blows past.

:-D

Gates is an expert.

"Ben Lambeth, a noted scholar of aviation theory at RAND, made a great case for the power of tactical air weapons in his writings about NATO intervention in Kosovo."

The F-22 would have been useless in Kosovo. It's only real use is in air-to-air combat against advanced opposition in an all out conventional war. It can be pressed in to service as a fighter bomber but no commander would risk such a valuable plane on such a mission when less expensive, more suitable planes are available. In light of this, the 187 planes currently in service are more than enough.

Cloud boy - were you reading the same press release as Senator Dodd (who even admitted his information came from them - about the F-35 program) ? F-35 goes into production in 2010. In the meantime, their are still very few aircraft that even compare to the f-16, F-18, and those belong to allies. Just another budget fight - slash and burn the budget, just not in my backyard. Can the F-22, and about 100 billion dollars worth of other worthless government spending, and give ME my healthcare. I could use the money I spend on premiums.

The big problem with the F-16 and F-18 platforms is that these are not just old designs, but old (and high mileage) airframes. We've ridden these horses very hard, and it's starting to show in terms of structural failures in flight. The ones we have in the inventory are nearing the end of their useful service lives. The F-35 will replace these platforms, as well as the retired F-117 (returning a very useful tactical strike capability we currently lack).

By way of comparison, the F-15 models the F-22 was designed to replace haven't had near the combat hours put on their airframes, because we just haven't had to fly anything like the same number of counter air missions over the last 20 years.
,

"but just as we are now using technology in the War on Terror that was little-used in the Cold War"

Such as? I mean we didn't even have the drones or robots we use now during the cold war.

"it is impossible even for the best military and intelligence community professionals to project exactly what resources we will need in future conflicts"

And therefore we need to commit billions of dollars to building more of this specific aircraft?

We'll make 'em when we need 'em. We'll put Rosie the Riveter back to work in WW III

If 187 planes are "enough", then why did several leading experts and USAF generals say otherwise? Why did a man (General John Corley) who has countless command and combat hours in fighter aircraft say otherwise?

Because Corley, and the other AF generals are all fighter jocks, and the F22 is their mid-life sports car.

Why? Well, have you ever heard the term "self-interest"? Even more so when pockets are being lined and palms being greased by the contractor.