I'm beginning to slide on the F-22 debate - Gates' argument that big price tag, narrow focus items like the Raptor limit flexibility and flexibility is what the military requires going forward given the variegated nature of threats - this argument starting to convince me.
Still, no one as yet has really addressed issue that in order to maintain technological advantage you have to advance cutting edge technology, that the F-22 widens the gap viz air superiority so much that it inhibits the ability of your opponents to catch up - that there being no airforce to oppose the Raptor should be seen not as a flaw of the program but rather a success of the program.
You can argue that the current allotment of F-22s added to the coming boon of F-35s is enough to maintain and promote our technological advantage, and that may be a valid argument - but Rome started to become vulnerable to Barbarian advances when it surrendered its technological advantages, started to alter, for various reasons, the structure of its frontier forces leading to a decline in effectiveness and a weakening of deterrence. Be wise to heed that lesson.
update: Senate votes down additional money for the F-22 - not surprising, I suppose, but what I found funny was Obama going on TV and hailing the decision because it stops the waste of 1.7 billion taxpayer dollars - 1.7 billion! that's literally spit in the ocean compared to the hundreds of billions wasted in his bullshit stimulus - this guy plans to run trillion dollar deficits for the next ten years for fuck sake! Fucking shameless. Is there anyway this could be the beginning of characterizing military spending as a waste? Not from Gates of course, he's pretty much reliably hawkish - but to proceed with his agenda Obama is gonna need to come up with some cash - something to keep in mind as budgetary pressures mount over the next four years.
