In an article that makes me think sometimes I actually have a clue what I'm talking about, former Air Force chief of staff McPeak offers my argument viz the F-22 - ie, that opponents of the Raptor make an odd claim when they argue that because it doesn't have a peer amongst potential enemies it therefore has no purpose - but McPeak states, as I did, that that's the very reason you want the F-22, that that apparent irrelevance is actually a manifestation of success, that the F-22 guarantees American air superiority for generations to come because it has no rivals, it inhibits, forestalls attempts by potential rivals to try and catch up and therefore makes the US military virtually unbeatable in any large scale, conventional war - in essence McPeak is saying opponents of the F-22 are entirely missing the point - unless they absurdly mean to argue that highly mechanized conventional war is as antiquated as the cavalry charge.
Look, possibly there are shortcomings to the Raptor that I know nothing about that make it less attractive than would seem, possibly there are emerging technologies that call into question its value - but if not, and this plane can do what they say it can do, it makes no sense to me to cut it so short of the numbers the air force says it optimally needs, or, failing that, to find some way to sell them to our closest allies. Hell, congress just ok'd what, 700 million for a bunch of Gulfstreams to carry members hither and thither? - 700 million would buy you another five or six F-22s - which doesn't really address the issue, but the point being this gov't seems to have no problem throwing billions of dollars around, and yet to further fund the F-22 would represent a grievous waste of taxpayer money, as Obama suggested when the program was cut? Doesn't add up.
