Second, if the F-35 is that good why does the USAF think it needs the F-22?
"We need 700 of them to beat the Soviets over the fulda gap of course. I'm sorry senator, can an aide bring me the newer talking points please? let's see here 1980's, 1990's, oh here we are 2000's. Sorry about that-- 'we need the F-22 to fight the next generation of russian/chinese mega fighters' does that answer your question? I almost accidentally read the 1990s version about fighting the serbs and resurgent iraqis. ha!sorry about that, sir"
We also took into consideration the capabilities of the newest manned combat aircraft program, the stealth F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35 is 10 to 15 years newer than the F-22, carries a much larger suite of weapons, and is superior in a number of areas most importantly, air-to-ground missions such as destroying sophisticated enemy air defenses. It is a versatile aircraft, less than half the total cost of the F-22, and can be produced in quantity with all the advantages produced by economies of scale some 500 will be bought over the next five years, more than 2,400 over the life of the program. And we already have eight foreign development partners. It has had development problems to be sure, as has every advanced military aircraft ever fielded. But if properly supported, the F-35 will be the backbone of Americas tactical aviation fleet for decades to come if and it is a big if money is not drained away to spend on other aircraft that our military leadership considers of lower priority or excess to our needs.
Having said that, the F-22 is clearly a capability we do need a niche, silver-bullet solution for one or two potential scenarios specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet. The F-22, to be blunt, does not make much sense anyplace else in the spectrum of conflict. Nonetheless, supporters of the F-22 lately have promoted its use for an ever expanding list of potential missions. These range from protecting the homeland from seaborne cruise missiles to, as one retired general recommended on TV, using F-22s to go after Somali pirates who in many cases are teenagers with AK-47s a job we already know is better done at much less cost by three Navy SEALs. These are examples of how far-fetched some of the arguments have become for a program that has cost $65 billion and counting to produce 187 aircraft, not to mention the thousands of uniformed Air Force positions that were sacrificed to help pay for it.
In light of all these factors, and with the support of the Air Force leadership, I concluded that 183 the program of record since 2005, plus four more added in the FY 09 supplemental was a sufficient number of F-22s and recommended as such to the president.
The reaction from parts of Washington has been predictable for many of the reasons I described before. The most substantive criticism is that completing the F-22 program means we are risking the future of U.S. air supremacy. To assess this risk, it is worth looking at real-world potential threat and assessing the capabilities that other countries have now or in the pipeline.
Consider that by 2020, the United States is projected to have nearly 2,500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds. Of those, nearly 1,100 will be the most advanced fifth generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by contrast, is projected to have no fifth generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese. Nonetheless, some portray this scenario as a dire threat to America's national security.
Defense.gov Speech:
I think its because the Air Force has liked to maintain a hi/lo mix for decades though. or that General Mosely was willing to sacrifice large swaths of the USAF to get a fighter pilot crown jewel. I guess it depends on who you ask, really. why does the USAF need the F-22? is it to kick butt in the air, or is it the same "solution looking for a problem" that the F-35 has been called? I remember in the early 2000's that the F-22 was getting the same criticisms leveled against it that the F-35 is nowadays. especially since it was a "cold war" anachronism. lets not pretend the F-35 is the only airplane who's "need" can also be explained by bureaucratic inertia. The USAF "needs" the F-22 like the USMC "needs" the F-35B everyone is so wild about. if the F-35 is "too big to fail" the F-22 was serious sunk cost mentality and "too expensive to mothball" there is plenty of politics with the F-22, just like the F-35. the phrase "corporate welfare" and "Military-industrial complex" were thrown around a lot at the time.
I'm not saying that the F-22 isn't a superb fighter, at an astronomical cost, that only poisons its pilots occasionally, I am talking about the F-22 as a system and its own political fights for survival and what some call "dubious value", others call "essential for the future" There are a great many, that much like sweetman and the F-35, thought it should be cancelled outright and its systems and lessons should be incorporated into a new fighter, rather than doggedly sticking with the F-22 "no matter the cost".
sorry if the original question was meant to be a rhetorical silver bullet.