Assumes facts not in evidence: That we will wage, threaten to wage, or deter against fighting a conventional war with either Russia or China, the only two nations on the planet who could theoretically develop the capability to thwart our current air power arsenal (F-15, F-18, etc). I mean: Really? A gunpowder war against Russia or China?
There is a large body of evidence, including but not limited to the past 50 years of U.S. military history, that we are more likely to end up in a war against guerillas, insurgents, terrorists, or third world regimes -- the strangely named "low intensity conflicts." For which these very expensive (and very cool, to teen boys) fighters are useless. Not suboptimal; useless.
And I haven't even begun to discuss how military power is only one component of "strategic posture." For example, China's enormous economic engine is far more important to its clout on the world stage than its military arsenal. Ask Pakistan or North Korea how much respect and real power a fearsome military buys globally.
This whole article is basically propaganda designed to puff up the importance of a weapons program held over from the cold war. It could have been written by Boeing (although even Boeing would have been more subtle). Its assertions are laughable. ("Unless the US deploys a minimum of 500-600 of these aircraft, it will lose the ability to access hostile airspace with acceptable losses in aircraft and aircrew." We access hostile aircraft every day.)