The debate concerning saving the F-22 Raptor has degenerated into arguments over whether it retains viability as a 'make work' program given current economic troubles - this is unfortunate and has fueled even further criticism against it by people who view it as a ridiculously expensive boondoggle - but I've found in arguments both for and against which attempt to transcend this silliness a failure to really focus in on the substantive issue, which as far as I'm concerned has less to do with the tactical relevance of the F-22 and more to do with strategic relevance of pursuing and perfecting cutting edge military technology.
It's obvious that history has not kept step with the original intentions of the Raptor as an air superiority replacement for the aging F-15s - right now it looks like overkill that is out of sync with the current perceived needs of the new 'asymmetrical battlefield' and not nearly as well suited or cost efficient vis a vis that battlefield as the soon to be online F-35 - but that's to place too much emphasis on short term tactical applications. In the long term strategic view what comes into focus is that the technology, in both design engineering and high end manufacturing is well beyond what any rival can achieve and the implications of that are what really matter when discussing its relevance.
To begin with, you definitely don't want Raptor-centric technology migrating out of the country because we refuse to employ it and, related, you don't want that technology to grow 'stale' because we refuse to push its limits. Secondly, overwhelming technological superiority dissuades rivals from attempting to keep up and mitigates challenges to future air dominance by unexpected morphing of battle dynamics. Finally, and most importantly I think, if rivals do not attempt to keep up they either will not develop or will be hampered in developing related technologies and expertise. Why is China going to the moon? Prestige, yes. To stoke nationalistic chauvinism, absolutely. To diminish the technological gap between it and America? Damn right - which is why America needs to commit to a mission to Mars - and why the Raptor cannot be allowed to slip away.
Now, it may be too loose and broad an assumption to say America's technological edge will be diminished and left vulnerable if we stop production at 180 F-22s - that's fair - but I think what concerns me more is the possible emergence of a point of view linked to certain political sympathies [see Obama's antagonism towards missile defense] that do not quite understand how important that technological edge is nor fully appreciate the speculative environment required to keep it virile.
[ed: how then do you explain Gates' opposition to it?]
