I'm sure some Russia hawks regret the DOD decision to cancel the F22, but the F35 was not intended to replace the F22, so this is a bit irrelevant. The two aircraft a developed for different uses. The F22 was designed for air to air superiority, while the F35 is a ground attack fighter. The F22 was cancelled because of bulging operating and production costs, and because air to air superiority is not something the military really needs given its current and foreseeable engagements.
This is revisionist BS. It was meant to do everything, yet it does everything poorly. Lousy fighter, lousy bomber, lousy ground attack plane. It's only good at being a standoff weapon, and far too expensive for that when drones can do it all better and far cheaper.
Also, I'm not defending the plane. Obviously it has many problems, I'm merely pointing out that its use profile is different than the F22, and the notion that the F35 was ever intended to replace the F22 is an oversimplification of the DOD air dominance strategy. The F35 was meant to be a multirole fighter, but especially good at ground attack. The F22 RFP was sent out in 1986, when the country was still in the midst of the Cold War. The F22 was originally designed a response to the development new soviet fighters, which could out maneuver and out-hide F15s. The F35 was designed to replace aging fleets of multirole and ground attack fighters.
This isn't "revisionist BS." If you actually go back you'll find that the two planes were designed for different uses. The DOD may have dug themselves a hole while trying to sell the plane to taxpayers by saying it will do everything better than any other jet. That was not the original intent.
Hard to say that the F35 was built for air to air dominance when it was designed to carry only two amraam air to air superiority missiles. The F22 can carry six.
