Very interesting debate and both sides have put forward some valid facts to get across their point of view.
However, I do have some questions as follows for the experts:
1. As we all know, technology has created improved weapon systems, but at the same time has dramatically increased the costs for those systems. It is very possible that technological advances are not always the answer to every situation. The nature of the air war has changed, and close-range visual combat (dog fights) might never happen again. The proliferation of new enhanced capabilities of radars, with incredibly agile short-range missiles now makes visual-range combat extremely dangerous, and long-range air-to-air missiles have improved significantly, allowing slower fighters to more easily shoot down opponents. If this argument is valid, then in my opinion, the platform becomes irrelevant to some extent. Do you agree?
2. For close air support, why not to acquire an aircraft which is relatively inexpensive and can be used purely for close air support. Is it the time to accept less expensive, less capable aircraft with our limited budget in order to have the number of airplanes we need to adequately provide close air support to the army on the ground?
3. How about acquiring more Surface-to-Air Missiles for a fraction of the cost as compared to fighter jets. New Surface-to-Air Missiles are faster, fly higher and farther, and are less susceptible to jamming and countermeasures. These new missiles can engage an airborne target at altitudes as low as 75 feet or as high as 50,000 feet or more and the ability to simultaneously engage many targets. For fighters, they pose a challenge as tough as-if not tougher than-the best competitor aircraft. For $75 million to $100 million or more (just guessing), one can probably buy at least half dozen launchers of modern design and can cover a large area.
Regards