Anti-tank systems are good for other things besides tanks, like bunkers.
Also heat sensors can also pick up warm truck engines when not looking for tanks

Posted by: Rick Bradley at September 5, 2006 10:09 AM

I agree war with China is Highly unlikely. First of all they really would not want to piss off their best customer. Second China's biggest weakness is food! They never had all that much good farm land and are ruining more and more of what little they do have. and Third It's true that china has over 300 million middle class or better citizens, even more that us. But that still leaves over a Billion dirt poor hungry peansants that are begining to ask, "Were is mine?"

As for trying to fight a war with less than 200 F-22's it is possible. If the F-22 is the point of the spear and like any spear point it is only effective if it is backed up with a long strong shaft. That means the F-22 must be backed up a relative large numbers of cheap, dependable but still effective realtive low cost fighter. Easy to build and maintane. We just could do with less if the F-22 is all it is claimed to be!

Posted by: davids at June 28, 2006 5:25 PM

Johan W: "Were China to make a move gainst Taiwan for instance, it would be based on most likely a careful cost benfit analysis."

I'm sorry, but "careful" and "analysis" are not words that I would ever use in describing scenarios in China/Taiwan. IMO, all it would take for a full-scale shooting war to erupt between the two countries would be one successful vote in Taiwan for independence. The mainland Chinese will not allow that loss of face, cost-benefit be damned.

I'm not sure we'll ever go to war with China, either, but for different reasons. I'm pretty certain that the U.S., faced with the choice of going to war with a genuine world power and a major trading parter who is holding most of our debt or watching that trading partner steamroller over one of the few reasonably functional democracies in the region, will make a few condemnatory speeches and then go get the popcorn.

Murc: "Noo, your kidding, you mean a designer of a fighter that is outdated, but desperately wants more sold is saying the newer and better jet is worst."

Sprey doesn't get a dime from any more F-16s sold. Why would he have any vested interest in selling more of them?

On the other hand, he and the fighter mafia had to fight to get the F-16 and the A-10 on the agenda in the first place because both planes were designed to do one thing better than any other plane on the battlefield rather than create an extremely lucrative flying brick like the F-111. As awesome as the F-22 is, the process that produced it looks a lot more like the F-111 than the F-15 or F-16.

I also say that a plane that is capable of doing the work of 10 also needs to be at least 10 times more reliable than the older jets. The magnification effect you get from being technically superior cuts both ways, because the impact of one grounded advanced jet becomes equivalent to grounding 10 or more of the less advanced ones.

Posted by: Edward Liu at June 28, 2006 9:41 AM

David,

Of course we don't need Apache Longbows in Iraq. The Longbows already did their job. We achieved air superiority over Iraq back in '91, making most of the Raptor's advanced capabilities moot. We don't need them... in Iraq. The real question is, will we need these weapons against an enemy that DIDN'T have the majority of their forces cornholed 15 years ago.

Again, anti-tank weapons ARE useless, if the enemy has no tanks. Air to air fighters are useless, if the enemy has no fighters. And armored tanks are useless if the enemy has no guns. But unless our next war comes against Mrs. Jensen's Special Ed class, I'd suggest we not throw away powerful new military equipment.

Really, this article was beneath you.

Posted by: Brian at June 27, 2006 8:22 PM

I am as big a fan of using simple and robust tools for simple jobs as the next guy or gal, but I think that dismissing weapons that don't get used as useless might just be missing the point. Were China to make a move gainst Taiwan for instance, it would be based on most likely a careful cost benfit analysis. If there were no F22's and the SU 30 type jets would be contesting air dominance over the Taiwan start with F15's, the Chicoms have a hand worth playing. It would be a tough fight - but it is proabbly winnable. And in the Taiwan strait Air superiority would probably be the end of the fight one way or the other, who ever gets it probably has won the fight. The existence of the F22 makes the prospect of attaining Air Dominance so chancy, that it would probably not be attempted.

My point is that the overmatch that programs like the F22 or m1-a2 or B2 provide make the prospect of convetional warfare against the US so dangerous and probably disastrous that few organised states would consider running the risk. If those programs did not exist the calculus would change - so th success of programs of the F22 might in part be measured against the very fact that do never fire a shot in anger, their overmatch successfully deters major state vs state conflict of a conventioanl nature.

In unconventional war like geurilla fights the US is superiior on the battlefeild - but the overmatch is not enough to totally deter thsi kind of warfare. Intelligence and Technology as well as political circumstances are required to win that style of war - and there does not appear to be the near prospect of magic bullets that would deter it entirely.

Posted by: Johan W at June 27, 2006 8:00 PM