>Considering the actual missions flown over the last 50 years I think the Air force’s priorities are much more reasonable. That is a very, very difficult point

>Considering the actual missions flown over the last 50 years I think the Air force’s priorities are much more reasonable. That is a very, very difficult point to defend. The vast majority of USAF missions over the past 50 years have been CAS missions against ground forces, not jet-against-jet duels against other air superiority fighters. Yet, if you look at the design priorities of not just the current state-of-the-art fighters, but even previous-gen fighters like the the F-15, F-16 and the F-18, you'll see that they privilege air-to-air combat capability over air-to-ground. IMHO, the only plane in the USAF's inventory that's actually suited for the missions the USAF is actually flying is the A-10. And if you look at the A-10's history, you'll see that the USAF leadership fought tooth and nail against the program (it was essentially forced on the USAF by the Army), and at every feasible opportunity they've tried to retire the airframe. Stealth isn't magic. Stealth doesn't make you invisible. Stealth is, at best, a very sophisticated camouflage that makes your plane harder to see with radar at a distance, and its advantages end the moment your plane starts shooting. Contra your point, stealth is actually most suited for the "blitzkrieg" style missions which are designed to crush enemy air forces in the opening days of an engagement. That's actually what it was designed for. The F-22 (and other stealth aircraft) were designed to wipe out Soviet aircraft and air-defense systems in the opening days of WW3, at which point more conventional fighters (like F-4s, F-15s and A-10s) would do the majority of the "grunt work" of wiping out Soviet ground armor. Stealth is far less suited for the kinds of "patrol" missions where your planes are going to be flying the same airspace day and day out, supporting ground troops or enforcing a no-fly zone. As the evidence from the F-117 shootdown in Yugoslavia demonstrates, all the camouflage in the world won't help you if your enemy is able to deduce where you will be based on your past activity. Stealth is poorly suited for close-air support missions, where you're flying close to enemy troops, for long periods of time, and shooting at them on a regular basis. The Air Force's priorities have not been reasonable, by any rational measure, nor have they been reasonable for quite some time now. The Air Force should be investing in developing UAVs and the accompanying swarm tactics that allow for effective use of large numbers (e.g. 100+) aircraft in a combat theater. Instead, they're blowing billions of dollars on a "unified" combat aircraft that can't actually perform any of the roles it's supposed take over. EDITS: Added points and restructured for clarity.