My buddy ELP has a new post up on why the F-35 doesn't need the F-22. I'll let you read the post but the passage that has me wanting to put my fist through a wall is this....
While not a long range bomber like the B-2, the FB-22 would be survivable and carry enough payload and have enough reach for a wide variety of operations. This, combined with the USAF displaying some common sense and getting in on the U.S. Navy UCAS-N program would provide great future options (and deterrence) in the Pacific Rim. The Federal Budget may be in such dire straits that it won’t be able to afford a long range bomber program in the coming years.Budget concerns aside (which I agree with), the myth of the long ranged F-22 and its proposed derivatives is something that must be slain. Figures from Wikipedia (yes, I know Wiki isn't reliable but hey..it'll do for the purposes of this exercise)....
F-22
Combat radius: 410 nmi[195] (471 mi, 759 km)
F-35
Combat radius: over 590 nmi (1,090 km) on internal fuel[178]
Oh and to add a little pain to the F-22 advocates out there...GUESS WHAT! Even the F-35B will be longer ranged than the F-22 if they're both in stealth configuration.
We can have the conversation about these airplanes, but a little truth would be appreciated.