These questions continue to bother concerning the F-22 debate:
Why did mainstream media do such a poor job of analysing all sides of arguments for and against? Was it laziness on part of reporters - there was a gov't line which they simply accepted as true because they couldn't be bothered looking into the details - or maybe because advocates of F-35 had done such a good job of denigrating the F-22 that nobody bothered to question it? Did editors kill analysis 'cause they figured it was all too technical for most readers? Is this just more evidence of press bias favouring anything Obama wants to do?
Since from what I can see the F-35 quite clearly cannot substitute for the F-22 - it's not fast enough, it's not mobile enough, it's not stealthy enough - in face of evolving Russian/Chinese advancements in realm of denial of access technologies - better radar arrays, better targeting capabilities, long range SAMs - [not to mention improved Su-35] all developed in last twenty years in dire effort to counter marked US advantage in stealth technology - if all that is true and it does seem to be true, how does one possibly justify killing off the F-22? The only thing I can think of is that US military savants predict that regardless of current F-22 advantages over competitors continuing improvements in Russian/Chinese denial of access technology will negate those advantages within ten years thus rendering the F-22 too much money for too little ultimate gain. That may be a convincing argument - I dunno since no one to my knowledge ever made it - possibly Gates did in some speech I never read about - but all Obama ever said and all the MSM ever reported was that the F-22 was a relic of cold war thinking and the F-35 a more than capable replacement, two statements which are simply not accurate.
So I don't get it, some pieces of the puzzle have to be missing because otherwise it appears to me that Gates, who doesn't give any indication he's doing it under pressure from Obama, in tearing down the F-22 tears down one of the pillars of American power projection, domination of the airspace. Possibly it's a cunning decision based on sound judgments concerning the likely contours of a future battlefield, that air dominance is no longer an advantage America can count on given emerging technologies - that may make sense, it just troubles me that that is the only argument that seems to make sense and I never heard anyone make it! And, as I said before, it may be true that they have a justifiable confidence in their ability to jam Russian radar which would certainly mitigate some of the shortcomings of the F-35 - but again, I did not see that argument being made.
addendum: a quick look across net seems to suggest that Gates' prime objection to the F-22 is that it is of no use in the wars being fought now and I suppose by extension the wars most likely to be fought in the near future - which seems like an absolutely idiotic rationale - an argument so dumb that one has to believe there's more to it than that - hell, if all you're concerned about are present conflicts then current set of planes are fine, maybe add a few more attack helicopters and A-10s - and since the F-35 isn't even flying yet and won't be for another 3 years at best how does that make it relevant - why not just continue to build upgraded versions of F-15s and 16s? [there's a contradiction in F-35 reasoning here: logically one must believe future wars will not be like current wars in order to justify it ie you must assume countermeasures that make the F-35 a better option than an F-15 - but then you're entering denial of access technology that applies to conflicts the F-22 is better suited for than the F-35 - in other words the same reasoning that leads you to believe an F-35 is better than an F-15 also leads you to conclude the F-22 is better than the F-35]. The Navy can stop spending money altogether because god knows how long it will before the new LCS or Zumwalt class destroyer ever see action. Also tied to this weak rationale is USAF claim, which appears to be a directive from Gates, that 187 F-22s is a number within risk parameters - but Gates refuses to let anyone define what that 'risk' is - war with Iran? with China? a world war? Who the fuck knows! but rest assured we're within acceptable parameters of it whatever it is. The more you stare at this puzzle the less sense it makes.
Yes, of course, Gates could be simplifying his argument for public consumption - maybe a more convincing argument is reserved for beating down disgruntled USAF officers. Maybe it's all just an unavoidable result of budget concerns - but if that's the case, we should be having a thorough debate about the long term strategic consequences of such because China is definitely preparing for a war where air dominance is going to matter - so somebody's wrong here and it better not be us.
