Only 186 F-22 Raptors will ever exist. Lockheed Martin’s production line shut down in 2011, and no restart is planned. Meanwhile, the F-35A Lightning II fleet keeps growing, with more than 450 delivered to the U.S. Air Force through early 2025 and production continuing at roughly 100 airframes per year across all variants. Both are fifth-generation stealth fighters, but they were designed for fundamentally different jobs, and as of mid-2026, budget pressure and fleet-aging realities are forcing the service to make hard choices about how long it can afford to keep both.
The short version: the F-22 was built to dominate the sky in air-to-air combat against the most advanced threats. The F-35 was built to penetrate enemy air defenses, strike targets, and act as a flying sensor node that shares data across the entire force. Air Force leaders have consistently argued that neither jet can fully replace the other. Here is what separates them, what the public record actually supports, and where the debate stands heading into fiscal year 2027 planning.
Design DNA: air superiority vs. multi-role strike
The F-22 Raptor was engineered around four pillars: stealth, supercruise, high maneuverability, and integrated avionics, according to the Air Force’s official fact sheet. Supercruise, the ability to sustain supersonic flight without afterburners, is the capability that most clearly separates the Raptor from every other Western fighter in service, including the F-35. At speeds above Mach 1.5 without afterburner, the F-22 can close on targets or disengage from threats faster than any opponent expects, while burning far less fuel than an afterburner-dependent jet would at the same speed.
That kinematic edge pairs with a radar cross-section the Air Force has described only as extremely low, shaping and coatings designed from the outset for air-to-air engagements where fractions of a second and fractions of a radar return matter. The Raptor’s twin Pratt & Whitney F119 engines produce roughly 35,000 pounds of thrust each with thrust-vectoring nozzles, giving it a climb rate and turning performance that remain unmatched in the Western inventory. Top speed is classified in exact terms but is widely cited at approximately Mach 2.25, with a combat ceiling above 60,000 feet.
The F-35A takes a different approach. It is a single-engine, conventional-takeoff-and-landing strike fighter whose greatest advantage is not raw speed or agility but information. Its AN/APG-81 radar, Distributed Aperture System (six infrared cameras providing 360-degree coverage), and electronic warfare suite feed data into a fused cockpit display that gives the pilot a God’s-eye view of the battlespace. The Air Force describes the jet as a “fifth-generation, multi-role fighter” optimized for penetrating integrated air defenses and striking ground targets while sharing targeting data with every friendly platform in the network.
Where the F-22 is a specialist, the F-35A is a generalist. It carries a smaller internal weapons bay but can haul a wider variety of air-to-ground ordnance. Its top speed, around Mach 1.6, and its single F135 engine mean it cannot match the Raptor in a turning fight or a supersonic dash. But it was never meant to. The F-35 was designed to operate under the protective umbrella the F-22 provides, handling strike, electronic attack, and intelligence-gathering missions while the Raptor keeps enemy fighters at bay.
By the numbers: how the specs compare
Concrete performance figures help cut through the marketing language. The F-22’s combat radius is approximately 590 miles on internal fuel, according to Air Force data. The F-35A’s combat radius is roughly 770 miles, reflecting its design emphasis on penetrating deep into enemy territory to reach ground targets. The Raptor carries six AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles and two AIM-9 Sidewinders internally for its primary air-to-air loadout. The F-35A’s internal bay accommodates a mix of two AIM-120s and two 2,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions, though configurations vary by mission.
Cost tells its own story. The F-35A’s unit flyaway cost has dropped to approximately $80 million in recent production lots, according to Selected Acquisition Report data compiled by the Congressional Research Service. The F-22, no longer in production, carried a program unit cost north of $300 million when development spending is included, though the marginal flyaway cost of later airframes was lower. Operating costs diverge as well: the F-22’s cost per flight hour has been estimated at roughly $70,000 or more, driven by the specialized low-observable maintenance its coatings require, while the F-35A’s cost per flight hour has been trending downward toward a Pentagon target of $30,000, though it has not yet reached that goal.
Fleet size is perhaps the starkest difference. The Air Force received 187 production Raptors (plus eight test airframes) before the line closed. Of those, approximately 33 are Block 20 training variants that lack the full combat software and hardware of later blocks. The F-35A fleet, by contrast, is on track to eventually reach more than 1,700 aircraft for the Air Force alone, with allied nations operating their own variants. That numerical gap means the F-22 force is small, irreplaceable, and aging, while the F-35 force is large, expanding, and still maturing.
Readiness: the gap between capability and availability
A fighter’s specs on paper matter less if it cannot get off the ground. A Government Accountability Office audit, designated GAO-25-107870, found that many combat aircraft across the tactical fleet do not meet the Air Force’s own mission-capable rate targets, with sustainment costs and maintenance bottlenecks driving the shortfall. The F-22 has been a particular trouble spot. Its mission-capable rate has hovered in the low-to-mid 50-percent range in recent years, well below the service’s stated goal, meaning that on any given day, roughly half the Raptor fleet is unavailable for tasking.
The causes are structural. The F-22’s stealth coatings require meticulous upkeep in controlled environments. Spare parts for a 186-jet fleet lack the economies of scale that a larger program enjoys. Depot-level maintenance at Ogden Air Logistics Complex in Utah faces throughput constraints. And because the production line is closed, every airframe lost to a mishap or structural fatigue is gone permanently.
A separate GAO report, GAO-24-106639, examined the Air Force’s handling of its Block 20 Raptors and found that the service had not adequately documented its alternatives before deciding whether to modernize or retire those jets. The auditors warned that divesting Block 20 aircraft without a clear replacement could open capability gaps, particularly in training capacity and in scenarios requiring maximum available airframes against advanced adversary air defenses. As of mid-2026, the Block 20 question remains unresolved, tangled in broader debates over how much the Air Force can afford to spend sustaining a small, aging fleet versus investing in next-generation platforms.
The F-35A has its own sustainment headaches. The program’s global fleet has struggled with spare-parts availability, engine overhaul timelines for the F135 power plant, and software delays associated with the Block 4 upgrade package, which is meant to deliver new weapons, improved electronic warfare, and enhanced processing power. The Pentagon’s own operational test office has flagged these issues in successive annual reports. Still, the F-35’s mission-capable rates have generally trended higher than the F-22’s, and the sheer size of the fleet means more jets are available in absolute terms even when the percentage dips.
Operational reality: how they fight together
In large-force exercises like Red Flag at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, the F-22 and F-35 have repeatedly been paired in ways that exploit their complementary strengths. Pilots who have flown these scenarios describe the Raptor as the “quarterback” or “bouncer” of the formation: it uses its speed, altitude, and stealth to establish air superiority, clearing the sky of enemy fighters and suppressing surface-to-air threats so that F-35s and fourth-generation jets can execute strike missions below.
The F-35, in turn, feeds sensor data back to the F-22 and to command-and-control networks, building a shared picture of the battlespace that no single platform could generate alone. This division of labor reflects a concept the Air Force calls “collaborative combat,” where networked platforms multiply each other’s effectiveness rather than operating as isolated units.
Both jets have seen real-world deployments, though neither has faced a peer adversary in combat. F-22s conducted their first combat strikes during Operation Inherent Resolve against ISIS targets in Syria in 2014, dropping GPS-guided bombs, a mission well below the jet’s design ceiling but one that demonstrated its ability to operate in contested airspace. F-35As have deployed to the Middle East and Europe, flying deterrence patrols and participating in coalition exercises with allied F-35 operators including the United Kingdom, Norway, and Israel. Israel’s F-35I Adir variant has reportedly been used in operational strikes, though details remain limited.
What the public record does not contain is comprehensive data on how mixed F-22/F-35 formations perform against simulated peer threats in classified exercises. Anecdotal accounts from pilots and defense trade publications offer fragments, but official after-action metrics on joint sortie effectiveness have not been released. That gap makes it difficult for outside analysts to quantify exactly how much more effective the two jets are together than either would be alone.
The NGAD question and what comes next
Hanging over the entire F-22-versus-F-35 discussion is the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, which was conceived as the Raptor’s eventual successor for the air-superiority mission. NGAD has undergone significant turbulence. In 2024, then-Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall acknowledged that the program was being restructured to reduce unit costs that had ballooned to hundreds of millions of dollars per airframe. By mid-2025, the Air Force had signaled that NGAD would likely incorporate autonomous collaborative combat aircraft (CCAs), uncrewed wingmen designed to extend the reach and magazine depth of a manned fighter.
But NGAD’s timeline and final form remain uncertain. If the program slips further or is scaled back, the F-22 will need to remain in service longer than planned, intensifying the sustainment and modernization pressures the GAO has already flagged. If NGAD arrives on schedule and performs as envisioned, the Raptor fleet could begin drawing down in the early-to-mid 2030s. Either way, the F-35A is expected to remain the backbone of the Air Force’s tactical fighter fleet for decades, with planned service life extending past 2060.
That asymmetry explains why the Air Force insists it needs both jets now. The F-22 provides a capability, kinematic air superiority against the most advanced threats, that the F-35 was never designed to deliver. The F-35 provides scale, versatility, and sensor fusion that the small Raptor fleet cannot match. Retiring one to fund the other would not save money so much as trade one set of risks for a different, potentially larger set.
Where the evidence is solid and where it is not
The strongest public evidence in this debate comes from two sources: official Air Force descriptions of each aircraft’s design intent and mission, and GAO audits that measure real-world outcomes against the service’s own goals. When those two streams conflict, the gap itself is informative. The Air Force portrays the F-22 as a premier air-superiority asset; independent auditors document persistent readiness shortfalls. Service leaders emphasize the F-35’s centrality to future operations; oversight reports highlight sustainment challenges and cost growth.
Congressional Research Service products occupy a useful middle tier. They synthesize primary budget documents and acquisition records into accessible summaries and cite their upstream sources explicitly, making them valuable for tracing cost and schedule claims back to original Defense Department filings. But they do not generate new data. Readers looking for the most direct evidence should follow the CRS citation trail to underlying Selected Acquisition Reports and budget justification books.
Claims that one aircraft can simply “replace” the other, or that a numerical formula can trade Raptors for Lightnings, rarely rest on fully disclosed analysis. Classified performance data, internal war-game results, and detailed cost models will shape final decisions in ways outside observers cannot fully see. What the open record does support is narrower but solid: the F-22 was built to win air-to-air fights against the highest-end threats; the F-35 was built to penetrate, strike, and share; both face sustainment headwinds that complicate long-term planning; and the Air Force has not yet produced a public alternatives analysis rigorous enough to satisfy its own auditors. Until it does, the case for keeping both fighters rests on operational logic that is sound in principle but difficult to verify in detail.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
