Personally, I would prefer to see the money spent for one wing of F22’s go to buying new A-10’s.
Just my humble opinion of course. I see the A-10’s as being a more all around useful aircraft and my friends who were Army and Marines certainly think so.
While it is true the brave men and women on the frontlines would probably name their kids after the A-10 if they could, the fact remains that the only reason why aircraft like the A-10 and Apache and Spooky fly at all is because the US has always managed to exert total and solid air-supremacy (let alone superiority) in the field of battle. This means that the enemy cannot field their aircraft (due to the aircraft being either destroyed on the ground, shot down in the air, or pilots refusing to take off due to the obvious and lethal disadvantage they face). Furthermore, any SAM systems have either been suppressed, or destroyed, or (again) the operators are not willing to turn on their radars lest some HARM or Sideaarm or Shrike missile come sniffing down the radar emissions.
However, so far we have faced enemies that have been willing to play in an orthodox manner, and also field a generation of weaponry that is far behind ours. Thing is, we shall not always face such foes, and even if we do, the foes may have learnt a trick or two up their sleeves.
For instance, look at how the USAF/NATO had reported many tanks destroyed in the Kosovo conflict, when it turned out that those guys had duped us by simply using the same camouflage tactics that the British had been using in WW2. We were basically bombing mockups looking like tanks, or blowing up roads and bridges that were not. Also, microwave ovens would be turned on and fool some of the systems.
Also, look at the First Gulf War (when Saddam's military machine had not been destroyed to the level to whcih it was by the time the second GW came about). Even though the full might of the US (using weapons geared for a Cold War conflict against the Soviets, just that the USSR had gone Dodo) as well as the combined might of a vast assortment of allies (ranging from the Brits all the way down) ...a much higher grouping than during the 2nd Gulf war ....even though all of that faced Saddam's forces, a number of planes still ended up getting shot down! Ranging from tornados to F-18s (one was actually shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25 Foxbat) to even A-10s (SAM system). The Iraqi SAMs were not the most advanced, and they were not part of an integrated air defense system (IADS), and they were facing groups of hunter-killers (e.g. Wild Weasels) as well as electronic suppression ....but planes still came down.
Now imagine 10 years from now, we are facing an enemy that has more intelligence than camel-dung sniffing Sultanate wannabes, and not only do they have true IADS networks and the latest SAMs, but have also taken a leaf from the Balkan conflicts and are utilizing what they have in an INTELLIGENT manner (always assuming that the enemy will act in an orthodox - read: stupid - way is asking for a hurting).
And in that scenario we have F-15s and F-18s (as great as they are), and A-10s and Apaches for ground support (as great as they are) ....well, what will happen is that there is a chance that things may not go down as expected, and even if we will immediately adapt and end up winning, the enemy will have gotten a major boost in the propaganda war (particularly with the MSM there to help them). Why do you think the Chinese, were they ever to get into a shooting war with the US over Taiwan (will not happen, since China needs us, but more importantly because the US would not risk war over Taiwan), have plans to sink a major US ship. They just need one successful attack (and I don't mean on an aircraft carrier ...an AEGIS Cruiser/Destroyer would easily suffice), and then leave the American population to do the rest once the media shows dead American sailors.
Yes, the Raptor is expensive, but there is nothing out there currently that even comes close to it (not even the F-35 JSF, and not anything that the Russians and Chinese are working on), and more importantly it even covers potential threats that have not come up yet. The F-15 is amazing, and even though there are aircraft that can fly faster, are much more nimble, and have longer ranged weapons; the fact remains that in the hands of a USAF pilot (and with the full sensory capabilities afforded by AWACS etc) there is nothing out there that is better than an American F-15 if you consider the entire picture.
However, that is no longer good enough because there are things that are becoming near-peers, and some that are better if you look simply at single-specific issues. In war the fight is supposed to be an unfair beating, and that is what the Raptor provides.
Finally, go back to the first Gulf War, and imagine if Saddam had a true IADS network with the current generation of SAMs. If his old system with a poor network managed to have some teeth, just how would he have fared if he could have had what is starting to filter out today? F-15s would be dead, and A-10s would not dare tread inside a true IADS network ....however the F-22 can easily get in and out, using a mix of its stealth (compressing the detection envelop) and super-cruise (enabling it to avoid engagement by high kinematics at high altitude, as well as a longer range impartation on weapons). The F-15 (in USAF hands, and with the full spectrum of USAF assets) is currently the best air-superiority fighter in the world in sufficient numbers, but the thing about the Raptor is that it is a game changer ...we would be talking of air-supremacy rather than air-superiority.
Anyways, someday we will have to fight someone who is not an arm-pit sniffing camel jockey, and someone who realizes that heads are for thinking and not chopping off at the local bazaar, and when we do that is when things like the Raptor will finally make sense to those who would otherwise cancel them.