And how does it relates to your comment on its opposition that, I presume was a stab at some fictional post-hoc engineering? What the F-22 was designed to counter was well documented. The need existed and was met until some dumbarses thought the world is going to be pony tails and all they ever have to do is shoot up terrorist.
Yes,
that need existed. Until 1991. After 1991, Russia had exact same peace dividend as everyone else in Europe, just using own nukes instead of US as a shield.
But Soviet Union ceased to exist, and Russia came. Thus, available F-22 fleet in 2010s was sufficient to arguably clear out entire VVS/VKS or entire PLAAF; doubling the fleet didn't bring more magic. Same could be done even without them, however, at any point between 1991 and 2011; RuAF failed to properly modernize in 1990s, and F-22 didn't address enormous post-soviet SAM network.. I.e. F-22 closed a need that didn't exist in the first place. That was needed - material symbol of US superiority over everyone - was there.
In real life, however, USAF and USN wasn't fighting Russia or China - it was fighting in Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan.
Neither conflict needed stealth air superiority fighter. Even one that delivered free fall munitions for a price more comparable to explosives delivered by LACMs(sarcasm). USAF needed that was later described as MRF - i.e. it needed nothing, as there were thousands of those for that era, as well as stealthy first day bombers - which it has(F-117 fleet). Everything good.
Did situation change in 2010s? Yes and no.
First, there appeared new most likely next opponent(Iraq and Afghanistan still continue) ... no, that was not China, that was
Iran.
With all respect to imperial tomcats, Iran as opponent didn't need F-22. It needed counter to its deterrence capability. This counter slowly emerged since 2000s (when need was identified), with delays on delays. Key parts of it were never born, thus de facto keeping Iran fully relevant.
From USAF point of view, however, it was a MRF and bomber fight, with some need for first day strike fighter (F-35) towards the end of the decade. Which was covered. Failure to neuter Iran was not their fault, it was owned by the navy.
But what about "next big power competition"? First, right out of the box, it was extremely unlikely with either.
Was F-22 needed against 2010s
China? Well...yes, but no. 2010s China is still mostly unable to respond to F-22 in the air; true. It still for the most unable to effectively respond to USAF/USN even without F-22 - it's simply a weeker force with growing proportion of 4++/4.5 gen aircraft (4 and below are not all that efficient even back then). Towards the end of the decade, PLAN starts getting dozens of stealth-defeating destroyers, and China fields its first suitable SAMs - not in very high numbers yet.
The problem is different; 2010s China already had targeting and it had PLARGF. Base denial capability was here, F-22 was asked out, and it is pretty much where it ends here. If there is capability that USAF badly lacks at this point - no, it isn't F-22.
It's goddamn B-2, it's JASSM stocks, and F-35 on top. More F-22...will probably be useful, but not useful enough as to compensate resources from anything else. You need someone to
contest your air superiority to make air superiority fighter useful. Or you need to reach battle zone in force to contest enemies. F-22 are ideal here on first sight, but struggle with "in force".
Anyway, at this moment it isn't clear what to fight about. Taiwan? PLA is not ready to take it. South China Sea bases? Ugh.
Was F-22 needed against 2010s
Russia? Main area growrth of VKS in 2010s is (1)explosive growth in modern SAM order of battle (both in new batteries and their ability to direct older fires), (2)displacement of large numbers of outdated fighters (unable to keep up with concurrent F-15C) with modern 4++ ones, of which only Su-35s have capability of ambushing F-22 under ground direction. So either SAMs, or small numbers of dangerous previous gen aircraft under ground cueing. Small=well below F-22 fleet.
That's
F-35 job. More F-22 are not needed.
Ah, honorable mention to
DPRK, which through this period is both harmless (another Yugoslavia/Iraq level AA system) and unassailable (get Seoul nuked, not worth it). Either way, it's strike capability, not F-22.
Does situation changes in 2020s?
Oh, yes, it does.
Iran (which is still the most likely big fight for the US), or its ability to turn international commercial electronics market into state of the art MIC hardware, reaches a level where it also needs
1st day strike fighter and significant stand off PGM stocks. RGC deterrence fleet changes in quality (from "maritime Basiji" to modern assymetric force, very capable of high tech bite), requiring even more precision strike.
Does it need F-22? Well, F-22 can shoot down Yak-130 trainer, that's easy to admit. But otherwise, it can be done even without F-22.
I.e. Iran scenario needs F-35s(1st day), MRFs(available are good enough) and maritime interdiction assets. Most of all, USN needs to compensate for that it hasn't been able to do in 2010s, but it instead now looks on China and China only.
Russia gets its more or less modern 4++ fleet, which is still
small - ca. 350 relevant aircraft in Su-30/35 and Mig-31BM fleets. That's a couple of big european air forces. Yes, by mid-2020s, there is a small fleet of felons, that doesn't mean much in offensive counter air. They however will do a lot to amplify whole flanker force against
intruding stealth aircraft(def ca).
Still, it can't hope to win head on against European NATO, even without USAF.
But what it can do? It now has hundreds of modern fire units, integrated with older ones(several thousand independent targets), quite capable of engaging LO aircraft. And that network, now with significant number of Su-35s/30sm2s and some felons, will likely play to a draw with almost anything other than 110% effort SEAD.
Does it need more F-22s to dissasemble? Not really, what for? Hunting that few felons over SAM networks? Nice idea, eject safely: get broadband stealth or don't try.
It needs
1st day strike craft, i.e.
F-35, as many as possible. It needs B-2s and B-21s, as many as possible. It needs MRFs for daily routine - preferably better MRFs than available ones - up to debate if European 4.5s count; US ones arguably not anymore.
There, where F-22s are needed(Alaska) - it's better to find something more useful there. They are
not reaching Russian strategic bombers, launching their missiles somewhere around North pole, in time. And they aren't exactly best LACM hunters. Maybe bullying Russian Far East, but that needs range and/or tanker support, things there are just few and far in-between.
Future prospects? Addition of a yet another new gen of SAMs, probably in high number by the end of a decade; now still in limited numbers. More felons.
Overall, Russian scenario doesn't need nor benefit from more F-22s; there's enough already, and for more you will need a more advanc aircraft. But honestly, fighting Russia needs bottle caps as currency.
China in 2020s is a rapidly emerging peer opponent (by ~12.2025 - i'd argue peer).
PLARGF is now augmented by space targeting, with processing/AI background potentially matching US one; that can be interrupted only by major space war. It's honestly hard to say what exactly fighting PLA even needs now, because it's impossible to identify anything specific.
PLAAF is peer force, with a very large J-20 fleet it can fully employ, supported by massive situational awareness support; J-20B and J-35A expected soon(J-35 rumored this year). Next gen fighter on the horizon.
PLANAF is on 4++ aircraft now, J-35 probably very soon as well. Next gen fighter on the horizon.
PLAAF and PLAGF now both deploy fully modern SAMs/ABMs in massive numbers(potentially better than available Ru ones), supported by really Chinese scale infrastructure(radar coverage etc). Those - and same PLARGF that was the original sin for short range aircraft - now get to the point where they can be reliably expected to be brought forward.
PLAN has >4 dozens of combatants(entire first line basically), more or less designed to eat LO aircraft at will.
All of it goes to lengths to threaten any supportive assets, which make F-22 relevant in theater(tankers too, now).
As befitting peer opponent, US armed forces need more or less everything, on the highest possible level.
F-22 as of 2020s isn't on that highest level - later this decade belated update make it more relevant - but nothing above.
When China produces a hundred J-20s per year - what US does
not need is more badly connected, expensive assets with insuffucient range (or indeed connected - but with cut stealth, supercruise and bonus drag).
If there would be 750 F-22s - sure. maybe you can simply absorb the punishment through dispersed operations(with F-22 however? it's RAMs and other maintenance won't allow that, and in any case dispersal/hardening effort is badly behind scedule&focuses on further locations). But 750 F-22s died so early that it's pointless - the
only peer current tactical bet is F-35(strike fighter or no, at least it's fully relevant), the only way to get out of this is F-47. Which shouldn't just
come, it should come in numbers to blunt that J-20 force.
Even DPRK, which is now fully capable nuclear hedgehog, now got into modern SAM game. So you need SEAD, DEAD and absolutely vital 1st day strike(or golden shield), not air superiority. If you want to bring there air superiority - consider some flying boost stage ABM, that's relevant. Won't fit into F-22 though, so point is moot.
And the 5th gens doesn't benefit from this somehow? Stealth is a significant strength amplifier that can be turned off and on as needed.
That's exactly that happens.
To keep F-22 in LO category, solutions need to be either perfectly matched, or removable. It happens - it takes time.
Would uncut F-22 (with IRST and cheeks) be better? Yeah. But it also was unlikely to be uncut, because it was that it was, single trick air dominance, ideal 1980s aircraft.
F-23 with more range and better big ammo capability could've survived cuts better, by making a more attractive proposition (more belieavable bomber).
But F-22 was not.
I'd like to see supporting evidence that points to actual insurmountable roadblocks as opposed to mere funding reductions.
I guess whole F-22 and now even F-35 experience(tr 3.5 delay fest) points to that.
5th gen is just harder to upgrade.
Untrue though and it's easy to analyse. The F-22 was not designed with PGMs in mind as the conception of the ATF far precedes any notions of small PGMs. Easy way is to look at what dictates the weapon bay layout, and that translates to interfaces etc. Did AIM-120A/C have an one way GPS uplink? But the capability was added. Now they have two way datalinks for dataloading and post-launch control.
You are also assuming that a prolonged F-22 lifepath would render JSF stillbirth. Far from it. They had enough money. Put the money in the wrong hand and they funnel it to dust. And then there's B-2.
Satellite PGMs don't require much integration beyond release tests. Not just F-22, they were integrated into Ukrainian Soviet fighters in months. Feed in release location, feed in flight parameters and variables, feed in target coordinates, you're mostly good.
Granted, european militaries take decades to do even that, but that's special competitive category.
As for "just right hand" - my personal belief is that
right hands (in right places inhuman society) are the single most valuable and scarce resource. It isn't "just", regrettably. Better of us take best opportunities for themselves, worse of us protect themselves(feel free to say to your wife she doesn't get xyz because there's a better candidate for your job).
Any honest planning should assume some level of bad hands - and, frankly, assuming that existing level is bottom is wiiiidely optimistic.
And a stupid ideal indeed.
That's how USAF kept ahead since the end of WW2.
Stupid or not, it worked. Just shouldn't have been broken. The way to not break the system is timely replacement.
Adding more faulty/unsuitable elements overtime will eat more resources.
