Because I have credibility and can articulate my position better than you. And I don't say that "they know as little as me because they haven't flown the F-22 or F-35 just like I haven't" when in reality, they have: studied enough about air-to-air to qualify for an equivalent of a PhD from any institution, they have spent thousands of hours putting their theories to the test in a practical real-world environment, they have fought against some of those aircraft they talk about if they haven't flown them, etc, etc, etc. I don't mind you defending your right to have an opinion, but do yourself a favor and don't try to bring those who have "been there, done that" to your level (or you to their level). Just like you have the right to tell a doctor what's wrong with your bloodwork, or you have the right to tell an auto mechanic what is wrong with your car - they have the right to scoff you when you act as if you know as much as they do.

The rationale for the reduced F-22 buy was the F-35. Unfortunately, the F-35 won't be fielded for quite a while. The good news is, neither will aircraft like this. Aircraft like the Su-35; however, will be fielded much sooner - so will advanced mobile SAM systems.

Looking at the most likely threat over the next X years, an aircraft with the capabilities of the F-22 was certainly needed. We needed a capability to defeat the SA-20 and Su-35 tomorrow. What was not needed was for us to put our entire air superiority capability into just 189 of aircraft. An integrated fleet would have been better.

The F-15 does have its limitations, but at this time the majority of the air-air threat is still comprised of MiG-21's / MiG-29's / early-generation Su-27's / etc. With that in mind, an upgraded F-15 would have done well as a limited-life interim missile truck to span the gap from now until the F-35 comes on line. The F-22 is capable, but its MR rate is only so good, only so many can deploy at a time, and it can only carry so many missiles to the fight. An upgraded F-15 with a SLEP and an ESA radar, Aim-9x, HMS, and advanced IRCM could have provided a very capable defense-in-depth to the adversaries who are likely to fight quality with quantity. Not a popular concept, but airframe hours could have been protected by transitioning the majority of CT to the simulator - not the best answer, but better than not having them at all. It's not perfect, but it's better than the reduced fleet of F-22s alone.

Unfortunately, it was obvious to everyone except for the USAF leadership that the F-22 buy was going to be cut - they continued to put all of our eggs into the F-22 basket until the very end by slashing the rest of the fleet. Maybe they thought they could improve the likelihood of the F-22 buy if they could argue that we didn't have any other airplanes with which to fight a war.

Your reply advocates the full development of a new F-15 like aircraft instead of the F-22, I advocate a stop-gap as an answer to the F-22 planned fleet reduction. Your plan would have us rolling out the new F-15 about the same time the F-35 is rolling out. My plan had the ability to have immediate returns. Your plan involved spending A LOT of money for a long-term stop gap measure. My plan involved spending not as much for a shorter-term measure. I could go on, but you and I are not really on the same page.