Sferrin - Not sure that I agree. The idea of a stealthy, supercruising, agile, eight-AAM fighter was extremely sporty in the mid-1980s, so DemVal was essential; and there were some real engineering issues in development. Maybe a couple of years lost to congressional vacillation, but not much more than that.
I agree that the Gripen and F-22 aren't comparable, although "glorified F-20" is a serious understatement. The point about Gripen was that it was designed to match the funds available with the result that it passed the affordability test - which the F-22 didn't.

Beazz
And since 1982 the world's leading power, with 30 times Sweden's GDP, has likewise taken one all-new fighter from conception to deployment, exported none of them (unlike Sweden) and is now closing down the line with no further development. Yes, C/D is a second-generation version with a new cockpit and ECM, and a lot of other changes.
LMAggie
DO NOT FEED THE TROLL

Beazz,
While I'm not comparing the F-22 and the Gripen, I am comparing the relative efficiency and performance of the two national enterprises that produced them.
In that, I'm afraid that the US side has fallen short since the glory days of the F-16. Affordability is a real issue with the F-22; it's not just Congress, but a Republican-led Pentagon that has finally curtailed production on the grounds that it demands a bigger share of resources than can be justified. And if you can't afford enough to fill up the force, it fails as a weapon.
And the F-22 is the only all-new fighter to have been conceived in the US and brought into service since the F-117 (now retired).
Let's look at a coalition flight-line in, say, 2014. Here are Franch Rafales, all multi-mission; German, UK and Italian Typhoons, likewise; and Czechs, South Africans and Swedes with Gripens; maybe some Indian Su-30MKIs. On the US side, F-16s and F-15s, between 20 and 25 years old; a few Super Hornets, capable but much slower than any of the allies' jets; maybe a few short-legged, complex F-35Bs and a handful of F-22s.
The system is not working well.

Thanks for the illiterate jingoistic spoutings. The point that you are obtusely and deliberately missing, and it is in fact important, is that the US military aircraft development process is on the point of pricing itself out of business. Consider facts (although this may be hard, because it requires abstract thought, not smileys... just try, please).

F-22: Multiple political and military leaders have, over the years, determined that the aircraft is unaffordable in quantities that the user regards as tactically realistic. (The user is right - the unit cost of upgrades and sustainment becomes prohibitive.) Now, IT DOES NOT MATTER whether you or I or the Flying Spaghetti Monster agree with the Pentagon and Congress or not. The F-22 has failed to survive in the economic and political environment.

B-2: Only 20 airplanes built, for basically the same reasons as the F-22, coupled with enormous O&S costs.

V-22: Trickling into service at a cost that would have paid, three times over, for a helicopter that would have done 95 per cent of its missions just as well and most of them better.

A-12: Cancelled.

RAH-66 Comanche: Cancelled.

Super Hornet: Slowest fighter aircraft in the world, indifferent range, based on a late-1960s aerodynamic design.

F-35: About one per cent of flight testing completed and the future of all three fighter arms hangs on it.

If there are any new combat aircraft in there that I missed, please let me know.

I agree that the F-16 is a classic. The trouble is that we seem to have lost the ability to do that sort of thing - in fact, as noted above, every all-new combat aircraft program started since 1981 in the US has been a resounding bust, delivering either nothing or far less than promised. In particular, three out of four stealth programs have failed to deliver any useful capability to the front line, apart from 20 expensive bombers.

Bloviating about Uncle Sam, even if you could spell above third grade level, doesn't change that.

And in case you didn't get it the first two times, I find your tone arrogant and offensive. Because it is.

LO.
I could care less what you find offensive. I find everything about you and those like you offensive to this country. You're most likely exactly what someone on here stated a while back about you, and that is you're either an X F35 employee or soon to be X.

No matter what the US produces you and those like you will find fault in it. If the F22 came in at 60mil a pop and 750 were produced your kind would be babbling that it should have been 40mil a pop and 1500 produced. If we had 1000 F35's in service now you would be here saying we should have 2000. You are simply an angry bitter old man with nothing better to do then criticize the US.

And the comments you make about the SH and B2 completely shows your bias against anything US. I have read way to much over the last year from ppl that actually know about the Sh and they do not see it as you do. As for the B2, are you kidding me? There is only one reason why the 100 originally ordered were not completed and it's because the old USSR simply fell apart, literally, overnight. Why in Gods name would they build another 80 of them? I personally would still have loved to seen em all, but I can see and understand the logic behind goin no further with the purchases. That does not make it a failure as you emply. I bet there is several hundred thousand AF personnel that disagree with you on it.

You seem to be unable to grasp the fact that the US military does not have the luxury to devote its entire 30 year budget to the developement and production of one airplane. It has to produce an entire fighting force from boots to the carriers that patrol the oceans. You seem to be unable to come to terms with the fact that an organization the size of the US military is going to have waste and some failures. Banks with assets of 10 Billion dollars have sense enough to be able to understand it and simply factor in a certain percent of loss as just the cost of doing business and move on and do the best they can. They have failures to, like IndyMac. The 3rd largest in US history. But the banks go on and by and large are doin well. So is the US military and its a/c developement and production. Like it or not. We still lead the world.

Here's a fact for you mister great user of spell check. The US military will be alive and well long after LO and Beazz are dead and gone and it will continue to be the worlds dominant fighting force. There will always be bitter angry ppl such as yourself who have made it their goal in life to find fault in any and all things their country does. Thank God your kind are few and no one that has any kind of power pays any attention to the likes of you.

Have a nice day ya miserable old man

Beazz

Bloviating about Uncle Sam, even if you could spell above third grade level, doesn't change that.

And in case you didn't get it the first two times, I find your tone arrogant and offensive. Because it is.

Throw in all that we have put into our Navy ( swedes dont have any swedish naval vessels)

Dispite our shortcomings with manageing our money, we have done what no other country could even think about and any American should be proud. And if the Swedes ever were to be invaded by the Russians or Chinese just see who they call. It won't be the French and their 250 multipurpose Rafaels nor the Brits and their 100 or so multiputpurose Typhoons. None of them have the tankers to get their multipurpose planes to the fight so a lot of good they are?

The F-22 has failed to survive in the economic and political environment. .....

B-2: Only 20 airplanes built, .....

V-22: Trickling into service .....

A-12: Cancelled......

RAH-66 Comanche: Cancelled. .....

We were not living in a bubble during the planning and development of these systems.

There was this little thing called the "Cold War" going on. For all intents and proposes, that war is over now. We won it by "spending the USSR under the table".

At the time these systems were planned, we had a Super Power as a serious threat in the world. That threat is no longer there.

Since the threat is no longer there, we can cut back on the systems that we were developing to MAINTAIN absolute dominance on the battlefield at ANY COST.

This reduction in cost is one of the driving forces behind the F-35, which WILL maintain our dominance in any foreseen future engagements.

And although I may regret my tone, I don't regret my facts. No French tankers? (Clue: they look like American tankers?) No Swedish Navy (tell that to the US Pacific Fleet, which has spent the last couple of years being shot at by a Swedish submarine)? Maybe we need an automated fact-checker as well as a spelling-checker.