Ok, the usual arguments as I expected. I'll address them in turn.
1.) "We don't need a new air superiority aircraft. We have the F-15 or the F-16, and we have not needed one recently nor in the foreseeable future."
Wrong. Flat out, plainly and absolutely incorrect. The best air superiority aircraft we have right now in the USAF inventory is the F-15C (F-16 fanboys can stop right now), and that aircraft is showing its age these days. It first flew in 1972 and entered active service in 1975, well before stealth was even being considered for fighter aircraft. For those that don't see the need for air superiority after what happened in Iraq, by that reasoning we could avoid upgrading nearly everything we have because "it worked just fine" over there. Take a look at where the Russians are selling their aircraft, particularly the Su-27 and its derivatives, for an indication of what the U.S. could face in the near future. Also take a look at the Mirage 2000, and where it's being sold. We cannot count all of the countries using these aircraft to remain our friends forever. Trust in the stability of countries in unstable parts of the world is not the greatest basis for weapons procurement or national security.
we haven't learned a thing or three in 30 years about how they could be improved upon in a number of ways?
That's exactly what they're doing. By your logic, we should never have built the M1 tank and only redesigned and refitted the M60 series. Sometimes, in order to compensate for the inherent design flaws of an older model, you have to construct something entirely new. Given that the Eagle is one of the largest and heaviest fighters around, a new design which avoids having to build the airframe around the radar would result in significant and very beneficial weight and size savings (near as I can tell -- ~2 ft shorter, ~2 ft narrower, 2.5 ft shorter, and from 8,000 to 10,000 lbs lighter). The new airframe enables other things as well, not the least of which is a tremendously smaller RCS (it's considered stealth -- it damn well better have a smaller RCS).
2.) Budget.
Great -- so the existence of a budget deficit (caused, incidentally, by a direct attack on United States soil and a significant downturn in the world's economy) is reason to avoid protecting national security? I wouldn't call that the height of stupidity, but it's not far off. Do you install a quality deadbolt on your front door, or do you use twist ties to secure it from intruders? Granted there are limits to spending, but if the need exists, and it is very real, spending should not be the priority. If the problem is the cost per unit, which is going up fairly exponentially regardless of which weapons system you address, then buy more units. The difference in cost between the F/A-22 and perhaps the latest F-16 is that once you've made 2,500+ aircraft, the costs of R&D really aren't a factor anymore. Given the logic that it's always cheaper to buy the older planes, we'd still be flying P-51s.
3.) Need more money for the ground troops.
Admittedly, this is a new one I haven't heard before. However, the lack of modern weapons or the lack of a new generation of modern weapons for the Army and Marines is not the fault of the Air Force. If the Army wants to spend its money on the Crusader, microwave tanks, and various other gadgets while ignoring the weapons that its troops use, then the criticism needs to be addressed to those drawing up the Army's budget (and that of the Navy with regard to the Corps). I agree that something should be done with infantry weapons, but that need does not trump all other needs within the military. Further, it is easier to come up with high power weapons for aircraft or ships given the availability of power (aircraft engine or ship's powerplant), but man portable devices are harder to develop without small fusion power reactors.
As for the Eurofighter, it is a capable platform, but it is not in the same league as the F/A-22. It has no true stealth characteristics meaning that it can be detected and targeted from longer ranges. It does not have supercruise capability meaning that it has to go into afterburner and waste fuel to push above Mach 1. Don't underestimate the importance of this one because fuel=time on station which can mean the difference between fighting and running. When you consider the fighter pilot adage of speed=life, you should begin to understand why supercruise is important. The Eurofighter does not have thrust vectoring engines. I suspect that it's avionics are not as powerful as the Raptor's, but I'm only speculating. "Limited additional capabilities"? BS.
Not to get too far off topic but what is the plan for Close Air Support. I read the A-10 is going away. Again.
That rumor keeps cropping up, but it isn't true. A-10s are being upgraded with at a minimum new engines and probably some other items as well. I believe the plan is to keep the A-10 flying through about 2020 or so. At that point, it will be interesting to see what happens for CAS.