Message posted by Chris McDowell on March 25, 2011 at 19:49:10 PST:

I take a little exception to the "military short-sightedness" angle that the article seems to take. It paints the absence of the F-22 as being due to shortcomings of the jet. The simple fact is, there's nothing going on over Libya that fits the Raptor's job description. It was never supposed to be a ground-attack fighter, and yet the article demeans the fighter for not carrying enough mud-moving ordnance. The air-to-air threat (which the Raptor was meant to deal with) from Libya is laughable, so the F-22 is simply not needed. You use the tools you need to complete the job; you don't empty out the whole toolbox just for the sake of using each and every item. Why risk having a Raptor go down over hostile territory, providing a major intelligence coup for many potential adversaries?

- Chris M.

In Reply to: Raptor escort of B-2s in that theater would have serious drawbacks posted by C. Reed on March 24, 2011 at 11:58:17 PST:

Replies: