I think it’s a terrible symbol, and let me tell you why.
John Young, the USD(AT&L), says the thing hasn’t met the majority of its Key Performance Parameters (KPP’s = Very Important Requirements). The developer, Lockheed Martin, denies that assertion, but I'm inclined to believe the customer over the contractor.
It has a 62% mission availability rate and, despite the fact that we’re fighting two wars right now, it hasn’t flown a single combat mission (nobody denies that). The Secretary of Defense said it has no role in the war on terror.
It is something like 6 years behind schedule, and was supposed to cost $6.5B. So far, we've spent $65B. Yes, that's an increase of a factor of 10. In fact, it cost so much that we weren’t able to buy enough of them to really matter (the most conservative assessment says we need somewhere close to 300. We've got 100).
I guess since we can’t use the F-22 in the current counterinsurgency wars, we decided to use it on posters and logos instead. Surely we can find a better symbol of American airpower. Like, say, a UAV...