New fleet or total retrofit?

I have been wondering, with the new fighters coming online in the U.S. and the advancements on the horizon in munitions, which is a better deal for the U.S., an entirely new fleet of technologicaly way supieror aircraft or a real retrofit of an already battle proven fleet? An FA-18 with upgraded radar, long range stand off weapons, and upgraded more fuel-effficient engines could project as much power as alot of the aircraft on the drawing boards. The B-52 and B-1 have proven that retrofits can keep those airbourne syastems valuable for along time to come and with new advancements in munitions the B-2 could prove it's worth it's costs after all. So my question is..........after the projects already in the pipeline, does the U.S. need to pour more cash into funding new black aircraft projects? Can the current and new aircraft coming into service sustain the current air supieriority the U.S. enjoys for another 50+ years?

I would go for the new advanced jets coming out which is what were doing (not totally though). You enjoy a much bigger gap in air technology.

I agree with west point you can continue to upgrade older technology
but if you want to maintain the current dominance of the USAF you will
need to push the technological envelope.

Originally posted by danwild6
I agree with west point you can continue to upgrade older technology
but if you want to maintain the current dominance of the USAF you will
need to push the technological envelope.

That's my point though, where is the technological envelope really at, in new costly fighter/bombers or wicked smart munitions and directed energy weopons? I'm sure the D.O.D. has debated this but with the enormous profits to be made as a consultant which officials could be trusted to actually discuss this in good faith?

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but in response to your question who knows where the envelope lies I guess it depends on who you talk to and what there vision of future warfare is. Is it the F/A-22 with its primary role as air dominance (personally I doubt it) the JSF with mini-smart munitions
seems more likely to me. Can anyone be trusted with this debate just
google "military expenditures" you will see how many people have their
finger in the pie. One instance comes to mind in the 90's Senate majority
leader Trent Lott insisted on providing funding for the USS Wasp a amphibious assault ship even though the navy didn't want it. Why! Because
the ship was being built in mississippi of course. Unfortunately when it comes
down to it it's who's building what in my constituency and how many votes this will get me. Sorry for the bleak assessment but thats just my opinion.

[edit on 12-6-2005 by danwild6]