So, the Federation of American Scientists just published the Pentagon’s latest 53-page Selected Acquisition Report for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program published in December of 2010. This trove of info is produced annually to give lawmakers the DoD’s latest estimates for the plane’s cost and development performance.
This report shows that Pentagon officials estimate the F-35A Air Force variant of the JSF will to meet its minimum combat radius requirement of 590 nautical miles. Granted, it misses the target by only six miles, but still, it’s missing the minimum performance metric. Program officials had estimated that the plane would have a combat radius of 690 nautical miles. This puts the Air Force version of the jet in between the Marines’ short take-off and vertical landing F-35B and its combat radius of 469 nautical miles and the Navy/Marines’ F-35C carrier variant which has a radius of 615 nautical miles.
This is troubling because some of the combat scenarios Pentagon officials think about the most involve operations in the Pacific theater where the “tyranny of distance” is a major factor.
Apparently, the range shortfall is caused by:
Based on updated estimate of engine bleed, the existing Conventional Takeoff and Landing Variant’s Combat Radius prediction of 584 nautical miles (nm) is below the threshold of 590 nm. The current prediction is based on estimates for bleed usage, aircraft performance, and fuel capacity that are not yet fully known. Current estimates have built-in margin that may not be realized. Non-material (analysis and test) measures continue to reduce key performance parameter (KPP) uncertainty. Realistic aircraft modifications to add fuel capacity exist to recapture the KPP. These design modifications are being matured to sufficient level to allow for a program decision on incorporation if the current estimate remains below threshold as uncertainty is reduced. This estimate is based on preliminary data. The Program is still in the data analysis stage.
What’s all that mean? Basically, the plane’s engine and avionics are running hotter than expected which requires “bleed air” from the F135 engine to be fed into the airframe to cool it down, as Steve Trimble at Flight Global points out. This reduces engine efficiency and therefore combat range. Additionally, the aircraft has less fuel capacity than planned and its stealth targeting pod is causing more drag than expected. All this has reduced the jet’s range.
As the SAR says, the program is looking at “aircraft modifications to add fuel capacity” to get the jet back to at least a 590 nautical mile combat radius.
Trimble’s sources told him:
One simple change under review is a software tweak that would maximise the amount of fuel taken onboard during in-flight refuelling. Another relatively simple fix is to raise shut-off valves higher inside the fuel tank to create slightly more capacity, a source said, adding: “That gets you back a lot of the fuel that you need to recover” to meet the range mandated by the contract.
A more complex solution also being considered is to install new fuel tanks in a small number of hollow spaces within the aircraft’s structure.
But programme officials are also debating whether to change how the range of the F-35A is calculated, the source said. The equation does not include a buffer margin of 5% of fuel capacity, which is intended to be preserved through the end of the flight test period in 2016. Eliminating the buffer margin adds another 72.4km to the aircraft’s combat radius, the source said
{ 103 comments… read them below or add one }
just a pretext to get more tax payers money and develop another engine
So wait is this the new engine? Or the onboard one?
I still say dump the A model and just buy the C. The C model exceeded range expectations, which are better than the A. If there is a concern about range coupled with a desire for 'commonality' to save on upkeep costs, just buying the C model meet both desires.
I think the death spiral is well under way. The costs quoted in the SAR are not encouraging.
Apollo had a huge budget- I vaguely remember- but basically they could/and did spend anything.
TO GO TO THE MOON!!!! Holy geez your a troll. We’re talking about an air breathing fighter, not something to match starwars
1] If you can't comment without calling names then don't comment.2]If you don't understand that it's 10 times harder to build a craft to land on another planet in the vacuum of space as compared to building an air breathing fighter then you completely miss the point.
Big difference in compters in the 60's and now. They didn't have to write 3 or 4 million lines of code and debug them.
True but the earlier fighters-F15–F16–F18 maybe even F22 didn't seem to have anywhere near the problems this plane is having.I know there are 3 variants but still the only thing you hear about are constant problems and cost overruns–it gets disheartening thinking of the constant problems fielding this beautiful machine.
Take a look at http://www.spacex.com , that's a lot more amazing what a company with innovative leadership and a goal oriented mind set can accomplish on a high tech endeavor. How to make that success happen for the defense department would be a worthy goal.
Just stick a extra gas tank behind the pilot like on the P-51…
or strip the paint off…
or get smaller pilots…
Do I have to think of everything?
lol! awesome!
LoL indeed! Or the pilots could skip for a couple of hours before flights to get the weight down, like boxers do.
or leave out the pilot completely, LMT is already looking into that
Missing by 6 nm?
Grounds to kill the program!
Whoa wait just a minute….I missed this:
"The current prediction is based on estimates for bleed usage, aircraft performance, and fuel capacity that are not yet fully known."
In other words whoever wrote this has no idea if the plane is long, short or on the money for range. It's a predication on a estimate for critical unknown factors.
Nice try at a headline on a slow Friday.
No, actually what this means is that even though we've virtually sold this aircraft to all of our alies. many of whom have or are in the process of deactivating exsisting planes in preperation for recieving the F35. Even the people building it don't know it's capabilities and guesswork is the norm for a plane that everyone is banking on to be the next best thing in airpower.
It's not exactly comforting to witness a plane that now cost's more than twice as much as when it was first anounced and has yet to be delivered…
Under any other circumstances an aircraft proposal with these continual unknowns would never make it past the D O D planners.As you look at cost,devolopment,specs. and deployment time frames it never would have gotten off the drawing board 30yrs.ago,but it has that one word guarntee–STEALTH.
Just buy the damn C model. God forbid the neckerchief boys from Colorado Springs have to accept the better Naval version. By the time you drop the weight of the tail-hook and beefed up landing gear, the radius should be even better.
The F-35A has an internal gun, the F-35C replaced the gun with more fuel and has a bigger wing with more fuel inside.
Better to concentrate on getting one version operational than to waste loads of money on trying to three variants operational, especially as we don't know what problems the F-35C is going to encounter in the next couple of months.
Yes except the A can't land on a carrier and the C can land on a runway.
How about we redesign the F-35C to carry a gun and call it the new F-35A.
Honestly no tailhook and no folding wing mechanicals and you probably save enough in weight to install a gun and have no difference between a potential USAF and USN versions of the C in that regard.
Best to keep the tailhook, even if you make it a liggher version like tshey did on the AF version of the F4. Tailhooks comemin handy on aborted takeoffs and emergency landings. The Navy uses them all the time. The beefed up landing gear might be handy too for the occasional hard landing.
This aircraft is turning into a VERY EXPENSIVE joke…..
on us …..The taxpayer
Please do be proofreading articles before is posting. Otherwise, is making reporter sound like Boris Badenov trying to find moose and squirrel.
Hey Rocky-watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat-lol
Isn't the range still pretty good compared to the F-16? (From Wikipedia: 340 mi (295 nm, 550 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with six 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs).
"…..One simple change under review is a software tweak that would maximise the amount of fuel taken onboard……"
huh? ya mean, like…."fill er up!" mabe, instead of "just gimme some"????
whoa. What a concept!
listen, wouldn't it just be easier and cheaper to, say…..move the runway six miles closer to target? huh? or, is that 3 miles? (dang, these are tough calculations)
If only some branch of the service had some kind of “mobile runway” that could bring planes within range of a target rather than having to design a plane to reach all its targets from existing runways (which the enemy has BTW targeted for destruction on day one).
Maybe if they launched these planes off some kind of boat it would work.
Or maybe they could design a plane that doesn't require a runway.
Just do like they always seem to do on long ranch strikes, Go right to the tanker after takeoff and top off. Takes care of the misssing 6 miles. Also allows more flexability for unplanned events like ACM.
Perhaps it is a little mean to fault them for missing by 6 miles, but we are talking about the MINIMUM performance requirement. The real question is why are we spending all this extra time and money on something that fails to deliver. Its like Johnny getting 48% on his test trying to find all sorts of reasons to get above the magic 50%, yet again, instead of telling Johnny he needs to shape up.
Comparisons (http://www.globalaircraft.org/qboard2.htm)
Eurofighter 2000 => 288 – 345 miles
F-15C Eagle => 1,222 miles (intercept mission)
Su-27 Flanker => 932 miles (intercept hi-hi-hi mission)
Rafale => 679 miles (penetration)
F-14D Tomcat => 1,239 miles (Combat Air Patrol)
F-16A Falcon => 340 miles (hi-lo-hi mission)
(I'm not sure that these are true apples to apples comparisons).
Most aren't. The number being discussed is combat radius on a strike mission. The F-16 one is the number to look at.
Perhaps we need to buy some F15 s or even (gasp) some French fighters
Convert the F16s in the Arizona desert to F16XL W/Supercruise F119 engines and convert all F15s to F15SE–somewhat expensive but very do-able—eventually stealth won't mean a thing with new radars-so why not worry about performance?
This issue with range along with concerns over next generation SAM systems and such makes me wonder how long till we see the RFI from the Pentagon.
Solicitation will read something like, wanted, proposals for precision stand off strike missile that can be launched from internal F35 weapons bay and deliver 250 lb class weapon a minimum range of 450 nmi, with multiple redundant targeting system both on board and able to receive updates from supporting aircraft, or something like that anyway.
I know Raytheon is already playing around with the JSOW ER, but curious when the issue will be raised specifically for the F35.
It already exists. It's called the JASSM ER
As you know I am generally pro F-35. Yet the F-35 should be exceeding the minimum requirements, not just matching them. The costs of correcting this should come out of LM's pocket.
yes, exactly! Great point.
True, but it is just 1% short of the minimum range. Is it meeting the minimum parameters by 1% or is it beating them by a bit more?
And, yes, at this stage, Lockheed Martin should take a hit. How did we end up with the acquisition process we have now? I look at the decision to buy absolutely no F-20's, and think that might have been when the death spiral began.
Arghh… That should be, 'Is it meeting the OTHER minimum parameters…"
Adding that 5% of fuel reserved for testing purposes bumps up the combat radius to 623 nm, but I'm still concerned when previous estimates were almost 690 nm.
From the actual report: "This estimate is based on preliminary data. The Program is still in the data analysis stage."
In other words: "We are using a computer to guess at the results based on whatever data we could get our hands on."
While this is the best they have right now — there is no way that any procurement decisions (or judgements about the program's effectiveness) should be made using this.
True, but it shouldnt be so close that you have to go back and pour through the data to find out where it went wrong. If it was getting 650mi we wouldn't be having this discussion.
My guess would be more like "We are using accepted and proven mathematical and physical modelling on state of the art computer systems combined with actual real-world data from dozens of test flights, also accounting for uncertainty, to give a combat range that we can say the aircraft will meet with a high confidence level".
This is why development of the F135 or F136 engine didn't make any sense as the F-35 should have been developed to use the same engine as the F-22 Raptor; the F119 engine used by the F-22 Raptor is capable of supercruise and wouldn't have any of the combat radius issues that exists with the F-35.
F119 – 35,000 lbs thrust w/ afterburning x 2 would use less fuel than
F135 – 43,000 lbs thrust w/ afterburning x 1?
right.
The J-20 is the twin engine SinoRaptor with great "projected" range and speed, questionable stealth and larger payload capacity for the uber missiles to come. That is the basic air war paradigm. Success needs all the parts to work as well as the critical sensors connecting the part to the whole. They need an equivalent to the F119. We already had it….
It would have been nice to have morphed the Raptor into the B version while upgrading the current fleet. With all we have learned the improvements would ensure superiority for a few decades.
Still there are many ways to advance to superiority from drones to hypersonic missiles.
So how much will China pay for a stealthy chopper tail? Less than the interest on what we borrowed to make it?
It's not just the engine. Raptor doesn't have the combat radius issues because it's a bigger plane with different requirements. Would the Lightning supercruise with a single F-119? I don't know, but when going for max range it's subsonic cruise efficiency that counts.
Yes, the "twin engine" is key. With a reduced burn one can conserve fuel with two engines AND attain fast speeds with more payload than an F-35 including more fuel. .
It will be a while before we have a Raptor B size drone with above-wing twin or tri-engine configurations that can burn hydrogen efficiently at low speeds while creating enough thrust to achieve scram capabilities. I assume that is part of the design debate of our next manned bomber, though I'm sure if it is scram able, a pilot won't survive the turns…..
Speed kills
I was thinking about a three engine fighter, seems like it could add alot for a mediumbomber/heavy fighter.
Its programs like this that should fundamentally change the way we select/buy weapons from now on. What a massive cluster**** !
Amen brother!!
Uh… can we just make it mandatory for all F-35 pilots to carry extra jugs of fuel to get the extra… 6 nm and then call it a day? :)
Seriously, how can anyone not know this during the design/testing process and had to wait till the darn thing is actually flown?
BTW to all: In comparing combat ranges, STemplar already cautioned others on using apples-to-apples range descriptions. I would only add that there may very well be (OK, I’m certain there is) differences in missions profile descriptions between aircraft as well used to derive those ranges. Also, any comparison between aircraft, if ‘stealth’ is important, should be made between aircraft without external fuel tanks. If ‘stealth’ isn’t important, compare the ferry ranges. Either way the F-35 ‘wins’ in comparison to similar aircraft.
Keepon 'hatin’ there boys and girls
Can't believe the posting here. Don't you guys read?
Here is what it said: "The current prediction is based on estimates for bleed usage, aircraft performance, and fuel capacity that are not yet fully known."
In other words the claim of a shortfall is just a guess, based upon more guesses. This is headline hunting. Trolling for eyeballs. This story should never have been published in such a sensational style.
Question-how far out the window do those ranges go w/ACM?
I'm sure those are ideal numbers.
Not too bad then
Cancel the JSF and buy more Super Hornets.
Maybe more F-22s and F-15s too.
With the amount of money that we will "save" from maintaining a fleet of JSFs (I think the number was around 1 trillion dollars, I'm not sure) we could purchase a much more effective and cheaper fleet of aircraft that are still in production and can be readily used in large numbers against any nations that would cause trouble in the Asian continent.
Sadly its too late to cancel the F-35. Lockheed and the fighter jockeys in Pentagon know this.
I know…
Maybe it would be possible to cancel the A model and the B model and just use the C model for production.
Lots of outcomes are possible. In a bid to end the foaming anger of the F35 fans I think we are going to buy some F35s still. The politics and operational issues don't go away. The simple fact though is if this program keeps going up in cost the death spiral will be initiated and you're going to see less of them bought. I think that's the most likely outcome.
The only way it will be cancelled is if there is some new huge capability shortfall coupled with large cost increases.
Longer isn't always better of course.
The claim of shortfall is based on computer models used to evaluate the F-35's performance. These same models currently provide us with the vast bulk of data on the aircraft because the manufacturer cannot seem to build them right, and the ones they do have do not seem to fly right. More importantly, these models are also used to create the design of the fighter. So, either the models are wrong and we should scrap the aircraft because they were designed using faulty methods, or they are right and we should scrap it based on repeated real world failures. Have fun choosing.
Using the "C" model for BOTH the Navy and Air Force; what a great NEW IDEA (lol)! The F-4's worked out real well for both, plus the many foreign countries that flew it! I say "go for it", if it will save money, and bring them into service quicker!
No internal gun on the F-35C however. Plus the F-35A is further along in development. There is a lot of extra weight from components related to carrier operations too.
Don't install the tail hook and don't install the mechanicals for the folding wings. Lotsa weight savings there, no re-design, just don't install them. If the Marines and the Navy think they can live without an internal gun, so can the Air Force. Plus this talk of the A being further along, the C isn't the one with the range issue, it's beating its parameters.
Why do people insist on holding on to this darn cannon? AAMs have come a long way since Vietnam.
Straffing Ground Targets, which is one of the reasons the Harrier GR.9 was replaced by the Tornado GR4 in Afganistan.
Harrier – no guns (the 25mm Aden guns were cancelled and the government decided not to buy the 25mm Gatling because it wasn't British)
Tornado GR.4 – carries two 27mm Mauser Cannons.
Onboard guns allows an escalation of force, first you fly over the bad guys, so as to give them a chance to run, if they don't run you have the option of straffing them and if they still don't run they hit them with everyone including the kitchen sink .
The gun on the Tornado and the F35 isn't meant for strafing. It's for close in air to air. The F35 like the Tornado carries a80 rounds of ammo and in the case of the F35 that's about $867,000 worth of airplane per bullet fired. F-15,s16s, and 18s can straf and for a lot less money.
F-35A : 9g Airplane
F-35B&C: not.
This is not a problem. This is by design. http://www.examiner.com/military-and-civil-aviati…
Of course the best part of the joke is that trade-offs have already been made to reach even this inadequate range.
Like removing fire suppression systems and auto-close fuel valves that prevent a fire from spreading. Making the aircraft much more vulnerable to small caliber AAA.
This should all have been known at the design stage, simple questions like how much fuel can it carry or other common sense questions.
Apollo got I believe somewhere around 2% of the gross domestic product.
The real sad part is that Lockheed Martin is laughing all the way to their offshore bank accounts.
Drop stealth parts over enemy territory?
Nice comments everybody. Yes stealth droptanks, simple design. Let’s be honest china is already building stealth. Anyways, they shoot down a 35 or it crashes, that would be about 6 times worse than a fueltank. 20 year tech boost, instantly. Simple droptank, a stealth 600 gal, **** make an external pod like they are doing with the silent F-18. If a conformal can become a weapons pod… Nice comment on the F-16xl. I love that idea. I am thinking stealth Uav tankers are one the way anyways. How bout a B-2 with a boom in one of it’s bays?
Drop tanks would be 'dropped' before they compromise stealth of the aircraft. You'd use that fuel first and drop them before you move into your operational area.
My information may be old, but isn't the F-35 equipped with the capability to carry ordinary drop tanks? Sure, the stealth capability is lost, but you could use the extra fuel to get closer to the target, drop the tanks, and use stealth mode when approaching the target area.
Yes it is, but drop tanks only add at best 50% to your range, so 25% to your combat radius. So it wold have a combat radius of about 800 nmi. That means it still needs aerial tanker support. It's also limited by the fact the longest range weapon it has internally at the moment is the JSOW which is about 70 miles. SLAM ERs and JASSMs are too big to fit in the internal bays. You can carry them externally but if you're going to do that not much use being stealthy.
A F-16IN has a 890 nmi combat raidius, and well over a 1000 with drop tanks.
You seem to be a big fan of the F16–go to wikipedia and check out the F16XL–then imagine the capabilities with the F119 thrust vectoring engine and the block 60 upgrades.
I'm a big fan of saving money and buying appropriate systems. I just throw out the F-16IN as an example of how a teen series can be upgraded. The XL was interesting but we have two left and no assembly line. The IN could start production tomorrow.
Seems to me there are about 4 principal specs that are critical here. Stealth, range, avionics, and cost. The F35 wins on stealth and avionics and the teen series on range and cost. I'm just curious what the F35 fans number is? When do they admit the F35 is too much? It's $382 billion right now for 2,443 aircraft, that's about $156 million per, and that number is only going to go up, it isn't going to be cheaper.
The F119 is somewhat bigger than the F100 or F110, it probably wouldn't fit. Thrust vectoring probably wouldn't be worth the cost on such an aircraft either.
You're about the only reasonable minded F35 proponent William, what's your number? When is the F35 too much $? or how much more capability slippage until the F35 loses its luster?
Imagine F-35xl? Delta wing with thrust vectoring. Twice the fuel. Might as well give it two engines too, oops, that sounds alot like a J-20. Hmm, I would buy half the planes and make one that is made for warfare, current and future. I feel we are about 1989 too late to this one. Totally agree with others saying AF needs C model. Didn’t they talk about a laser? Are we banking on that?
To be honest, we don't know or believe that the F-35 Lightning will be able to compare to some of our competitors like China. Most of the aircraft's capabilities can be matched by variations of the F-22. Which was pushed out of production for the "cheaper" F-35. However, even on it's minimum combat radius it still has an effective range that is wider than most aircraft. This of course includes the F-22. The problem is that this aircraft is really the only key to most of our problems in the WPTO. The F-35 is an overpriced program that can't be stopped because we need to fight area of denial weapons. As for the Air Force being persistent about the A version. It is probably due to the fact that it has a higher thrust to weight ratio compared to the other versions. I say go for the C version and include more F-22s and other existing airframes.
Couldn't the thrust to weight ratio of the A be incorporated into a C by stripping the extra weight out of it? Remove the wing folding mechanism, tail hook, put in the As landing gear, and don't reinforce the undercarriage would make the C a lot lighter and therefor (theoretically) increase the thrust to weight ratio.
And just wait…once in production the military will figure out once again that it really DOES need two seats and we'll see another total rework of the aircraft. It just doesn't get any better if you're an aircraft manufacturer.
And how many times have you heard the Pentagon yell "foul" on any multi-billion dollar project that has been in the works for a decade plus? They're tied to this aircraft now, like it or not. As for meeting specs – of course there are trade offs, but that's the purpose of establishing specs in the first place. The idea is to build an aircraft that does what the specs laid out, but of course, the Pentagon is always WAY too willing to accept over time, over budget, and not quite up to spec.
How many times? Lots. The DoD officially 'cries foul' by issuing a Cure Notice, and they do so whenever it doesn't look like the contractor can get 'here to there' Guess what? If the F-35 6nm 'estimated' combat radius shortfall starts looking like it is going to become reality,, a Cure Notice is one of the remedys available, and if the DoD determines a system isn't worth it (future cost vs. need) or can't suceed, it cancels..
RE: The idea is to build an aircraft that does what the specs laid out, but of course, the Pentagon is always WAY too willing to accept over time, over budget, and not quite up to spec.
Hardly. ..and you sound like you're under the mistaken impression that the contract objectives are known to be 100% achievable when the contract is awarded in the first place . This happens rarely if at all in the case of combat aircraft – they have to push the edge of 'possible' at the start just to be 'plausible' 25+ years later at the scheduled end of operational life.
This article is typical of this blog site. Def Tech writers know any headline critical of the F-35 will get TONS of views and bring the trolls out in droves. The guts of the article, however, show that it's not really anything but a "what-if" written by someone who is making a guess based on limited information. 6 nm is a pretty slim guess when we're talking about so many unknowns. It highlights continued issues with the aircraft's powerplant, though. From needing to add a second generator to meet the power budget to straining to provide cooling its obvious this system is an underperformer and/or Lockheed has crammed too many toys into a single engine aircraft. EOTS, EODAS, etc…. all these systems require power and cooling and there are a lot of them on that little airframe.
The F35 program was supposed to save a lot of money by using a single airframe and selling a lot of planes to US and allies. We now have something that is taking a long time, costing a lot of money, and struggles to meet requirements. Allies are having second thoughts (Australia has gone with upgraded F18s for now, Singapore went with F15s etc).
It's right to question this project, and the entire approach to contracts as the DOD looks at trimming its budget.
Since the 35 is now no longer cheaper than the 22, we should just keep making the 22. Maybe the only saving grace for the 35 is that the 35 will be cheaper to operate since it's only a single engine?
Im just confused on why we want so many of these and have such few f22's. Maybe the air force should cut some of its f35's for f22's?
On a side note these are just calculations the numbers aren't really known yet. I am sure the f35 in 5 or 6 years will be a solid performer. We had alot of problems with the f16 and f15 when they first came into service, but we eventually overcame them.
Almost as bad as the screen doors for the submarine program that got scrapped ;)
Its a pity the F-22 went out of production 2 years ago they were at about the same cost per unit 156 mil vs 150 mil from what I have read I can't see any major advantage of the F-35 over the F-22
The whole article is full of caveats.
Wait til the actual Logistics, Fuel, Flight tests, then comment.
end
Semper Fi
Compare this F35 program to the F22 EMD phase. The Congress, USAF, etal nearly killed the LM program. Month after month of revisions, indecsions, outright political enmity and the end result, in spite of all this was a D>>>> good Raptor Air Dominant fighter.
Give LM a chance. They produce the best, whatever the difficulties.
end
Semper FI
Go back & reread the news reports during the teen series developmental teething days. We just tend to have short memories. As for the F-22, right now they're all grounded due to a technical glitch.
180 rounds.
Perhaps I'm just hopelessly optimistic when it comes to the F-35 STemplar. Yet if it can deliver what is promised for the USAF it would provide some unique capabilities. Superior to the F-16 in range, payload, sensors, and survivability. The equivalent of having 1,500+ F-117s for day one strike missions. One can easily argue we could have had a better aircraft without the compromises made for the other variants, yet I doubt developing three separate aircraft would have been possible from a political standpoint in this day and age.
For the Navy the F-35C provides a decent strike capability, but I personally believe they will need something better sooner rather than later.
Meanwhile the F-35B seems to be the last hope for a STOVL fighter at this time. The Harrier is long out of production.
An advanced F-16XL or F-16E/F with new avionics, a F100-PW-232 or F110-GE-132, and some other changes would be an excellent interim aircraft. Yet for how long? If the F-35 is canceled could we really hope to field two new 5th generation strike fighters for the USAF and USN in less than 15 years? I doubt the two branches will see eye to eye on requirements once again. The Marines will probably have to give up their wishes for a STOVL fighter too.
I do support continued development and production of the F-22. If the F-35 is canceled, the F-22 will (hopefully) become the focus of more USAF investment. They will want to incorporate all of these new systems being developed for the F-35 into it, and possibly the new stealth coatings. Yet this will be costly and the F-22 will become the target of choice again.