"... on Rome, lots of doom sayers like to go there, but Halpern's point is not wrong in broad sense that Roman military's focus for various reasons became too narrow which led to significant strategic mistakes, most notably allowing Vandals free reign in North Africa - so if you allow Halpern his point that canceling the F-22 demonstrates a short sighted and too narrow strategic focus, then the Roman analogy not entirely out of bounds.
But of course it's hard to say what canceling the F-22 says about our long term strategic posture because it will be 20 years before we know how truly relevant the technology is - by that time Russia and China will have their own 5th generation long range fighters and we may sorrily regret not staying ahead of the R&D curve - then again any potential strategic void may be filled by stealthy supersonic and possibly even hypersonic drones capable of much improved ceilings and speeds and operational windows when measured against the F-22 and therefore possibly better options against denial of access technologies, making investment in the F-35 short range tactical fighter seem like a wise choice.
Whatever the case, I think it's arrogant to scoff at F-22 alarmists - anytime America is seen to be walking away from cutting edge technology it has pioneered it's important that decisions like that be vigorously second guessed because if we do come to regret the decision it will be way too late to do anything about it. Staying ahead of the defense R&D curve is a vital long term strategy for the US, indeed, an imperative - I doubt if anyone writing on this blog can truly manage an informed opinion on how canceling the F-22 will ultimately impact that strategy. After all, Gates also canceled the airborne laser saying it was unworkable but an ABL was just successfully tested - although, granted, there are many questions to be answered regarding the actual significance of that test. Still, similar to the F-22, is it really technology we wanna walk away from? Of course lines have to be drawn between programs that are boondoggles or simply not feasible within reasonable limits and programs that show promise of practical application in the future - but when budget constraints conjoin with a left wing ideology that frowns on military expenditures do the lines drawn between programs then express logical necessity or a political bias?..."
