That's my point, can't you put supercruise, and updated avionics/radar into a current non super-expensive composite airplane?
Also, is the F22 fairweather only like the f117, and the B-2? If they get struck by lightning, they explode, unlike metal bodied planes. That's also one of the problems with the boeing sst. Composites don't take lightning strikes, and who wants to get into a plane that will explode if struck by lightning(which happens more often in airplanes).
The F-22 also has to carry less ordinance, since it carries it internally. And what is its range(I'm sure classified) compared to a normal aircraft capable of carrying drop tanks?
The F22 is an interesting concept, but how will it work in a real war? Thrust vectoring for superioir manuverability in dogfights. Once again, great vs. russia or china, but useless against anyone else.
In the end, my biggest concern is obviously just the price. It might be worth more, but so what. I've seen $500,000 racing trucks do incredible off road while driving on impossible inclines, and they are worth every cent. But the HMMWVs should not be replaced by them because we can have a bunch of HMMWVs for a lot less money.
Super-high tech is great, but if its a choice between 500 F-15s, or 100 F-22s, what do you want in the air above your army?
The unmanned aircraft are the future. They can pull high-G's without the pilot feeling the effects. They are cheap and disposable. They can carry more fuel, and be more effieciently designed without the need for a cockpit and support systems for the human onboard. We just need to make a few better ones than we currently use. But they are new, so it'll be a few years then they will take over the skies. In the end, if you can make a possibly reusable(i.e. if it makes it back in tact) weapon for the cost of a cruise missle, who care's if its shot down.