OT
We can have air superiority without the F-22 but not without fighters. The alternative to the F-22 is the F-35 which is having its own problems, and which some people are now arguing should be canceled. The F-15s and F-16s will become obsolete, and also wear out.
Also while war against one of the more powerful nations in the world is probably very unlikely we should prepare for it, both for the deterrence effect of the preparation, and as a just in case thing if war really happens. We could still win air superiority in such a conflict without the F-22 but not as quickly or with as few of casualties.
The B-2 is in a different category with a couple of dozen bombers, rather than hundreds of fighters. It is more expensive that most targets it takes out, but that's typically been the case with bombers dropping non-nuclear weapons. The point is the bombers can get reused. They don't have to be cheaper than their targets even in a war against a major power, much less in wars against nations or groups with fewer resources, which we defeat through a higher expenditure of resources rather than losing more men. Still it is incredibly expensive per unit but that's because so few where built. If we built 500 of them they might only cost one or two times what a 747 costs each, since there would be no (or almost no) new development cost and since unit production costs would decline. Not that I think such an effort is justified. Spending as much as buying 1000 747s would be a waste of money, but any aircraft, esp. an advanced one, is going to be expensive if you buy so few.
And the bombers are more useful against terrorist groups than the fighters. They can stay over the target longer and carry more ordinance. Against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban B-52s can do this, but the basic design for them is 60 years old and the actual aircraft are decades old, we can't rely on them forever, and we can't count on all of our future opponents being as weak in air and anti-air as our current ones. |
