Actually the F22 is the most futuristic - which is why the O´tard admin and his fellow travelers stopped the production.

It is amazing, fantastically capable and a physical demonstration of American technical superiority and shows a commitment to maintaining the ability to fight effetively to defend ourselves.
So, the Demonrats will do everything they can to cancel it.

F-22 has some special problems of it´s own. The main problem facing manned-fighters is the rapid advancing technology of un-manned fighters. No human can compete with the flight envelopes of the "drone" aircraft. A human would return from such a flight as a puddle of goo in the floor board. A human pilot trying to compete against a well controlled and programmed "drone" would be like a plane and pilot from WWI trying to fight against an FA-18 with modern missiles and guns. Technology has come a long way and it get´s better by twice every two years now.

The F-35 has been in design and planning now for more than ten years! In tech terms, that´s centuries old! The concerns of just abut everyone involved center around the veritable obsolescence of the aircraft while it is still in the assembly line! In my opinion, it is a monstrous waste of money and talent pushed forward by a government that is hide bound to please the unions and mud-bound pilots who just can´t stand the thought of having to fly their planes from a bunkered desk console in Tampa Bay or Jackson Hole via a ten thousand mile satellite link.

Really, it is the fiasco of the ancient B-36 Propeller driven bomber- obsolete before it was even off the drawing board. But, the government went ahead with production because no one knew what else to do at the time.

"Turn on the battery. Press the starter. In 90 seconds, the virtual F-35B is ready to fly...."

Well just go ahead and tell our enemies how to steal one why don´t you?!

The problem with air-to-air combat using a drone, #3, is latency in command response. Think about those annoying delays when the Fox anchor asks a question to the reporter at the scene, who remains quiet for several seconds before responding. Now, imagine a remotely-piloted fighter (pilots abhor the term "unmanned") deployed halfway around the world engaged in a fight with a T-50 (two guys in the cockpit). It must first capture the tactical situation and then transmit the data (if it´s video, that´s a LOT of data) from the battle theater to whatever ground base in the Midwest is controlling the action. After assessing the situation (by looking at a screen and not through the canopy), the pilot on the ground then has to transmit the proper engagement command back to the vehicle. However, before that signal is received - possibly before it´s even sent - the missile released by the bad guys has already found its target. Remote dogfighting is a great concept but there are still many bugs to be worked out.

I understand the F35 is just as expensive as the F22. The F22 has already proven itself, while the 35 still has a lot of bugs to work out. We would be just as well off starting up the F22 assembly line again. (The F35 was supposed to be cheaper, but cost overruns, delays, changes etc. have made it about the same cost as the 22.)

Even if the F35 cost the same as the F22, the latter cannot fill the carrier and STOL roles that the 35C and 35B do. There is also a great deal of parts interchangeability between the F35 variants that should make it cheaper to maintain over the life of the airframe compared to what we have today.

The Navy would have been perfectly content with more F/A-18s over the coming decades, a very capable airframe that fills mission requirements for strike, fighter protection, refueling, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare. Besides, direct jet blast during vertical landings isn´t kind to flight deck non-skid. And both they and the Marines are so fed up with the delays and cost overruns that they´re contemplating pulling out of the program altogether.