I think the key with technology and the AF is that they tend to want "super-systems" or something akin to a silver bullet platform. When they complain about the extended development cycle of their airframes, they really can only blame themselves. And with the F-22, I would have expected that they would have tested the navigation system...remember a few months back when they had to ground the entire fleet for a few days when the nav system went ####-up when they crossed the international date line?

Once the AF gets its teeth into what it considers a world-beating technology (stealth is the current flavor of the month), they want it on every aircraft built from that point on. I've spoken with some F-22 maintainers, and they have some harsh comments about the plane's actual availability rate. Others have commented on its sheer size (it's slightly bigger than an F-15)...it may not show easily on radar but you can see it coming.

What seems to cause the most confusion is that fact that you don't always need a stealthy, world-beating system to get the job done. Look at the A-10. Or the C-130. Even the F-16 was a program the AF didn't really want at first. They passed on the F-16XL, which had all the makings of a superb ground attack platform (a cranked delta design with more payload than the F-16 and if memory serves slightly better maneuverability). Don't get me wrong...the F-15E is a great attack plane, but I believe the F-16XL would have been cheaper and could have filled some of the roles (SEAD for one) that they've had to stretch the F-16 to fit.

Lift and tankers are two areas that the AF shorted to allow for the F-22 and F-35 (don't get me started on that one), and now they're paying the price for it. Sooner or later there will also be a need for an E-3 follow-on. These assets, which cut across communities and services, strike me as being more valuable than another "stealth" fighter that fills a need that is 20 years old.