12? You mean 21?
Anyway, the B-52H and B-1B are still in service, in decreased numbers yes, but the B-2 didn't replace them. So it's not a totally valid comparison. You make a valid point though, only the USAF seems to disagree and wants 381 to replace 475 F-15C Eagles rather than 183 Raptors and keeping 178 Eagles. This is only possible if the US exits Iraq, but now LM/Boeing wants the Pentagon to use (more) supplemental wartime funds to keep the F-22 line open (or at least fix the gap). I just don't get that, those funds should go to the war effort and the F-22 is not required for exiting Iraq. So LM/Boeing should be happy with this order for 4 more under current government and fill this gap themselves, as it could mean more orders. Being a little more customer-focused. But I suppose they fear a democratic administration.
Elias, it seems it's already too late for that, to fix this gap, because it takes some time before orders are signed. This isn't exactly like the C-17 where orders can be signed almost instantly because the requirement and selection is so obvious. The C-17 is also a case where Boeing warned about line closure if not more were ordered soon, it's stupid, it's their risk not the Pentagons to keep lines open for longer or not. As if they would sell a 'no' and wouldn't produce it anymore when the USAF decides to buy 20 more in 2015, I'd bet they'll set up a new line. Plus, you can just let the customer pay for reopening the lines then, and the customer will accept those costs because it's way cheaper than shopping abroad, or developing a new one. Same applies for the F-22, only now, the DoD wants to keep the line open, to avoid those costs when ordering more. Now LM/Boeing can use this to force more funding. I'd turn it around as DoD and make it their problem.