Quantity of Quality

EDIT: Whoops title should’ve been Quality of Quantity as penned by Comrade Stalin.

An oft used phrase is how modern aircraft are so much more advanced than older ones, so fewer are necessary.

Whilst this may be true for those engaged in occassional COIN or third world intervention, does it hold up in a conventional war type scenario against a peer or near peer opponent.

Firstly geography – as awesome as the F-22 or F-35 is, it can’t be everywhere at the same time.

Secondly. high intensity combat wears aircraft out quicker than peacetime flying. Hence more aircraft going out for maintenance and greater risk of malfunctions.

Thirdly, if the opponent is also advanced, then replacing legacy jets with lower numbers of high tech jets does not increase capability if the opponent is doing the same at 1:1 levels.

E.g. If I 10 F-16s and my opponent has 10 MiG-29s.

If I buy 6 F-35s and my oppponent 10 Pak Fas, I have not really gained anything.

Fourth, smaller fleets are more susceptible to attrition. Even advanced aircraft are lost to malfunction, bird strikes and human error. In high intensity warfare, it’s combat losses as well.

Losing a single F-35 out of 36 is a lot more detrimental than a single F-16 out of 72.