Or maybe the OP was suggesting that drone tech is the future and the f22 is in fact a dinosaur, perhaps he could be saying that.
The F-22 is still the most advanced fighter in the sky. Air dominance is probably the most critical aspect of modern, conventional warfare. If you can't control the skies over your head - you can't win. That said, yes the military, like the rest of govt, needs to experience some form of budget cuts. Just not in an existing, proven piece of hardware that gives the US a significant advantage over all the rest.
No one is advocating unilateral disarmament. Planes do wear out or become obsolete. Has the case been made however that this is the best place to spend marginal defense dollars, considering the likely threats? Is one manned plane really better than 50 drones? Which would you rather face in combat? I'm not pretending to be an expert on this because I'm not. I just see a pattern of us spending enormous sums on last century hardware, not just planes but ships as well. What is the threat? China? Russia? Are we really going to go to war with China over Taiwan? Does anyone believe that, other than maybe John McCain? This hardware has become so expensive that it's too valuable to risk in actual combat. Who wants to lose a $400 mill piece of equipment? I don't care how advanced it is, you will lose them in combat. You will lose them in training. We can't afford to buy enough of them to make them any real use at that price tag.
our f15 and f16 and f18 fighters are already twice as good as anything any other nation that we might fight has. do we really need to spend 400 million each for another fighter to be 3 times as good as what some nonexistent enemy might someday have?
How many combat missions has the F-22 flown? It's like the fucking Bugatti sitting in the garage to impress the neighbors when all you do is drive to Costco.
No they aren't. We sell some of those fighters to other nations, and they are 2nd rate fighters at this point. China, Russia, and even India are developing next gen fighters presently. Also we are producing the F-35 jointly with either Britain or the EU, this might be a waste of money. It was designed to be less costly and is apparently not as sophisticated as the F-22.. although it is more versatile. It still costs like 200 mil/jet. The federal govt's primary responsibility is to defend our nation, and peerless fighter jets are a definite means to that end. If/when drones are up to speed - then no more F-22, but for now it rules the sky and it would make no sense to cut this out of the budget when there is so much waste everywhere else that serves no practical purpose.
when was the last time one of our fighters was even threatened in a combat mission. there is no comparison. look around the world. who is a threat? we should build tools to handle a threat against us not to give congress perks to take home.
I'm not an expert either AAA, I'm sure each branch has its own agenda and wants its share of the pie etc. IMO it is better to have and not need than need and not have. I have no idea how many f-22's are necessary to be a viable force but that matters more to me than much of the other garbage that govt wastes our money on. Also, who knows how advanced drones are at this point, probably no outsiders, but I highly doubt they are as capable as a human pilot.. so 1 F-22 is probably more valuable than 50 of the best drones in combat.