This is a pretty interesting basic discussion which has lots of insights for anyone doing modern or cold war era "imaginations."
What is not discussed enough in the article is the prestige that is believed to come from having jet fighter aircraft. Or the challenges many nations have in maintaining the aircraft and pilot proficiency required to maintain them in airworthy and combat effective manner.
Today, even the US Navy is having challenges maintaining readiness due to parts availability (which really translates to budget shortfalls) issues.
There are several Nations today that have airforces with no operational aircraft but that still employ thousands of men. Many more have air forces that "only" fly a few usually propeller driver aircraft (such as various marks of CESSNA, AN-2 Colts, C-130s or maybe even the venerable C-47)/
When the Afghanistan Air Force was being rebuilt their were recommendation, mostly coming from Marines that they be rebuilt as an close air support focused force and that they be equipped with turbo prop aircraft, such as the OV-10, Super Tucano or others of the type. For a host of reasons, they ended up being given F-16s, which many people doubt they will be able to maintain in the long run.
I've often thought that a squadron of P-51s, F-4Us, A-20s or similar aircraft of WWII vintage would be more appropriate (and likely 'cheaper') for many air forces then a signle 'modern' jet fighters, and end up being more useful and sustainable.
There are several companies building 'lower tech' attack aircraft. At least a couple of them can be equipped with Air to Air missiles.