The criticism against the F-22's and F-35's combat ranges is based upon ignorance, specifically that of war doctrine unique to the country, and that somehow that made the J-20's 'superior'.
Combat radius is defined as the maximum range an aircraft can travel to a location, perform its mission, and return to base. The definition is general in scope.
It is the mission that complicates the debate and produced ignorance based assertions of superiority and inferiority.
The B-2 have flown from CONUS to Yugoslavia, performed its mission, and returned to base. Does that make the B-2 'superior' to the J-20 ? Of course not. The mission is different which produced a different type of aircraft for a different combat doctrine. The mission produced what is called a 'bomber'.
The B-2 has a very specific mission -- to carry large tonnages of bombs.
The A-10 has a very specific mission -- to support ground combat for as long as possible at as low altitude as possible.
The F-16 has a very specific mission -- to do whatever is asked of it. From being a patrol fighter, to attack, to interceptor, and even reconnaissance.
Each mission affects its combat radius. The results are the B-2, AWACS, and tankers have combat radii in the four digits while the F-16 have less. The F-16's mission is broader in scope than the bomber, necessitating an airframe that is compromise laden, of which range is one compromise. Calling a compromise as an 'inferiority' or a 'flaw' is just plain stupid, and such stupidity is common in this forum.
The F-16, F-15, and F-35 are international airframes, so take a look at this combat radius map...
How many countries can fit into the geographical US ? Not many.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gener...lcon_operators#/media/File:F-16_operators.png
Why would any country that is far smaller -- geographically -- than the US want to buy and maintain an airframe that can range a continent ?
Which now leads to war doctrines.
The F-35's combat radius can cover approximately half of CONUS. What are the odds of the USAF and USN actually have to fight an invader on home soil ? Very low. The reality is that the invading army would be destroyed by the US Army and armed US citizens without the need for air support. But that would be for a different debate assuming the invading army made it past the ocean barriers.
The US military is an expeditionary military like none in history. Of course in the past, armies have crossed continents but those campaigns were yrs in mission and the armies literally lived off the lands. The US military -- so far -- is the only one that can transport itself
EXTRAHEMISPHERICALLY with everything a particular campaign needs.
The war doctrine here is that the F-35 -- as an international airframe -- will not be fighting alone. Take the F-35 combat radius over CONUS and transpose that over any country in Europe and Asia and it is clear that the F-35 can cross borders in short air time. Whether a particular F-35 is US flagged or not -- is not the point. If US airpower has to fight, by that time, all the necessary diplomatic resolutions are done and US flagged F-35s will be stationed in host countries who are committed to the fight as well.
http://www.travelersdigest.com/7356...on-to-the-united-states-united-kingdom-japan/
Look at ( above ) Germany in comparisons to various US states and other countries.
Look at Texas. The F-35 unrefueled can easily cross Texas. Same for Germany. So why would Germany needs a multirole fighter that can travels over several countries ?
The F-35's combat radius is ideal matched for all maritime partners like Japan and South Korea who have no need for anything more as international waters is no different than borders of other countries. Waters poses unique challenges for anyone so the F-35 combat radius is not a deterrence to the operator country that seeks a versatile platform for its maritime patrol needs. A single F-35 squadron can do serious damages to any invading navy two or three hundreds miles offshore. A clean F-16 over water and below 1,000 ft altitude is a radar threat to any ship, now imagine a flight of F-35s with their 'stealthy' features and enclosed ordnance flying below 1,000 ft approaching an invading fleet.
Casting doubts on the combat efficacy of the F-35 based upon a specious comparison to the J-20 is outright ignorant and stupid. Usually from those who have never served and do not know what they are talking about.
