Ops-Normal.org

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... vails.html

This pair is supposed to replace the F-15, F-16 duo that has served the US air superiority role for around 50 years. They're both good, and US-made fighters have a pretty good record, especially fighting MIGs. Not much history with Chinese fighters - we'll see.

High tech and the superb F-22 probably represents the zenith or the apotheosis of the manned aerial war fighter's art and what comes after that will probably be remotely controlled or autonomous but both aircraft are probably far too specialised, too expensive. While both are likely to win most aerial battles, they will probably still lose the war due to their cost, massive reliance on ancillary technology and inability to prevail in theaters contested by equally technologically sophisticated foes relying on greater numbers of affordable aircraft with sufficient technology to counter these aircraft while accepting and being able to afford higher attrition rates .

The Chinese will put 100 lesser aircraft up for every 20 of these aircraft and win the war by sheer attrition alone I suspect.

Quick questions for those smarter than myself and better knowledge of history: when did aircraft become "too expensive". I don't have the numbers and the indexes but I would say the top F-15 was much more affordable than the F-22 and I don't recall F-16 to be so expensive in comparison to F-35

inability to prevail in theaters contested by equally technologically sophisticated foes relying on greater numbers of affordable aircraft

Not sure about technically sophisticated - from what I've seen it takes so long to get an F35 booted up that it could be destroyed on the ground by a Spitfire.

Wasn't the F16, intended as the F5 replacement? As such it was intended for large sales to allies. Bit like the F104 before that?

The F16 was originally the "lightweight fighter", intended to be the cheap and cheerful multirole replacement for the F5, etc. The F15 was designed as the ultimate air-air fighter, "without an ounce of bomber in it".
The F16A was indeed cheap, and excellent for export. It was usually dead well before the merge against sophisticated fighters/interceptors, in my experience, due to lack of RWR and poor radar range. One was, however, toast if the little b*gger got within visual range with any lateral separation. Nose-to-nose and blow through meant one could escape as his 'winder would never catch you after his 9'g' bat turn.
Then they upgraded the F16, especially with the F16C model, and it became a good allrounder and still quite cheap. The Israelis solved the range/space problem with dorsal extensions.

The stealth option with the F22/F35 is tremendous - you can't fight what you can't see. However, the cost means highly limited numbers, and there are many ways to defeat an opponent who has a very limited number of sophisicated units, and none of them involve going anywhere near him in the air. What one ideally needs is a few super-assets and a lot of medium capability assets. Only a very few nations can afford to do this, and I no longer think the UK is one of them; Canada certainly isn't.