For years, the F-22 Raptor has been an icon of American air dominance—a lean, stealthy fighter meant to control the skies. Built through the last decade of the Cold War and unveiled as the globe’s first fifth-generation fighter, it blended unparalleled stealth, maneuverability, and combat power. But as the years pass and technology advances, the Air Force grapples with a painful dilemma: should it keep modernizing the Raptor, or start phasing down the fleet?
Some of the F-22’s difficulty lies in its own specialization. Designed largely for air-to-air supremacy, it is less adaptable than some of the other fighters. Its stealthiness comes at the expense of needing to carry weapons internally, which restricts payload capacity.
Carry anything outside, and the stealth benefit is lost, leaving the Air Force to use the older planes, such as the F-15, for operations that call for greater firepower or less stealth requirements.
Upgrading the Raptor isn’t easy either. Its avionics were constructed atop older systems, and in contrast with more modern planes with modular configurations, the hardware and software are costly and difficult to revise. Maintenance is just as challenging; the plane’s stealth coatings and composite panels need specialized capabilities and careful treatment, adding time and expense to maintenance.
Expense is a central argument in retirement plans for a portion of the fleet. The Air Force has suggested that it retire 32 Block 20 Raptors—arearer, older training jets with aging sensors, weapons, and electronic warfare capabilities. It would require almost a decade and about $3.5 billion to upgrade them to full combat capability.
Lt. Gen. Richard Moore has suggested that the money could be used more effectively on newer jets. Retiring the Block 20s may make available hundreds of millions annually for aircraft like the F-35 or the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter.
Not all agree to retire them. Some lawmakers have questioned why relatively young airplanes are being taken out and have demanded that studies be done to look at what it would cost to keep them flying. This discussion is part of a greater challenge: the U.S. fighter force is smaller and older than ever, and readiness concerns for extended high-end combat have been raised.
Nonetheless, the F-22 isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. The Air Force is spending billions to maintain the jets’ current capabilities with upgrades such as extended range, enhanced sensors, stealth-compatible external fuel tanks, improved electronic warfare capabilities, and improved communications. The enhancements are designed to keep the Raptor viable until its eventual replacement comes online.
That substitute is likely to be supplied by the NGAD program—a sixth-generation fighter with greater range, enhanced stealth, adaptable engines, and cutting-edge weaponry, possibly including directed-energy systems. A test article has already taken to the skies, and production contracts have been signed, though the price estimate—possibly approaching $300 million per plane—has been questioned.
Currently, no substitute can entirely replace the Raptor’s mission. Any delay or budget overrun for NGAD will require the Air Force to keep flying upgraded F-22s and F-15EXs longer than expected. Other countries are producing stealth fighters and beyond-line-of-sight systems, closing the technological advantage America has held for decades.
The debate over the F-22 isn’t about whether the aircraft is still effective—it is. Rather, it’s about balancing today’s operational needs with investments for tomorrow. The decisions made now will shape American air power and the nation’s ability to dominate the skies for decades to come.