More on the F-22

The surge in blogosphere debate on the merits of the F-22, sparked by the Atlantic's article, has been very interesting to read. I've pointed out the problems with the article's bias (particularly its complete failure to discusss the Navy's role in military aviation strategy), but that doesn't mean that the F-22 itself should be counted out completely.

A friend familiar with the issue tells me that the main role of the F-22 would be to use its stealth capacity to knock out enemy surface-to-air (SAM) missile sites, allowing our other jets to enter enemy airspace without worrying about fire from SAM sites on the ground. In this way, a smaller number of F-22s could act as a force multiplier for the legacy jets in the service.

I think to some degree, some of the F-22 opponents are guilty of shortsightedness. Yes, we need to focus now on fighting asymetric wars against largely land-based insurgent forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and will need to be able to do so in the future. This requires increased investment in special forces, predator drones, and counter-insurgecy training for soldiers and marines clearing and holding the ground. However, I think that it's dangerously naive to believe that we've reached a state of international affairs where we will never again face war with a great power who can field an airforce against us. After the Civil War, the US military spent the next 50 years fighting guerilla and counter-insurgency battles against Native American tribes and in the Philippines (and one short war against a cut-rate power, Spain), and then were completely unprepared for World War I.

Maintaining an aura of invincibility for US forces- particularly in aviation and our tomahawk missile-launching submarines, functions as a highly useful deterrent to potential adversaries. They have to make policy decisions knowing, in the back of their minds that we have the ability to come out of nowhere and hit them with virtually no chance to even fight back, which is an enormous advantage, and arguably keeps us from having to use force more often. Other leaders also have to consider that, when our military advantage is several orders of magnitude, that there's almost no way for them to keep up, which may quell attempts to engage in an arms race (although it probably does little to limit arms races with regional rivals). These benefits should not be lightly discarded.

I don't know enough yet about the costs and benefits of the F-22 to make a call on whether it is the correct platform to maintain these advantages, but the general point stands- there is value in spending money to maintain a significant military edge over other powers, and we shouldn't shortsightedly overlook that in the focus on our immediate foes.