July 7, 2008 -
July 14, 2008 • Vol. 13, No. 41 Download Now! (pdf)

 

EDITORIAL
An Indecent Decision
by Matthew Continetti

SCRAPBOOK
Buckminster Fuller, Justice Anthony Kennedy

ARTICLES
Closing the Enthusiasm Gap
by Stephen F. Hayes

Very Retiring Republicans
by Fred Barnes

McCain, Obama, & the Catholic Vote
by Ryan T. Anderson

History's Fall Guys
by Dean Barnett

Shaken and Stirred Up
by Reuben F. Johnson

A Heaping Bowl of Mush
by Philip Terzian

Laughter at the Supreme Court
by Lee Ross

FEATURES
L'Affaire Enderlin
by Anne-Elisabeth Moutet

BOOKS & ARTS
Talking Politics
by Christopher Hitchens

Isn't That Special?
by Andrew Roberts

Boris the Good
by Andrew Nagorski

After the Fox
by Edward Short

Unholy Thoughts
by Stefan Beck

Speak the Speech
by Judy Bachrach

Rhymers' Dictionary
by John Simon

Keeping Score
by James M. Banner Jr.

Here's My Plan
by Matthew Continetti

Identity Theft
by Edith Alston

Cops on the Case
by Jon L. Breen

CASUAL
Lost in the Personasphere
by Andrew Ferguson

PARODY
Fred Flintstone wins McCain's eco-challenge


« Obama's Vague Attack on Gitmo | Main | Hillary: Tanned, Rested and Ready for 2016? »

China Canard?

Slate explains "why the Air Force doesn’t need more F-22s":

On Feb. 13, according to today's issue of Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, Gen. Bruce Carlson, chief of the Air Force's materiel command, told a group of reporters, "We think that [187 planes] is the wrong number" and that the Air Force would find some way to build 380 before the program's done. He joked that 380 is a "compromise," since the original plan calls for 381.

Gen. Carlson's rationale for this expansion: "Most people say in the future there will be a China element to whatever we do." In plainer words: He says we need more than twice as many F-22s than the secretary of defense says we need because of the future military threat from China.

Two things should be noted about this claim. First, by the Pentagon's own measure, the Chinese military has a long way to go before it constitutes a threat to U.S. forces. Second, even if it does become a threat, it's not at all clear that the F-22 would be the best weapon to deal with it.

Disagree. The Raptor--poor, misunderstood soul that it is--isn't so much a means of winning a war against Red China as it is a tool for preventing one. China's subsidization of Russia's advanced defense sector has allowed the two nations to develop (and field) some particularly nasty fighter aircraft. With U.S. forces spread thin, allowing for Chinese air superiority over the straits of Taiwan would be bad news bears. Airpower is the cornerstone of our strategy to win any state v. state conflict; if China believes that we're no longer capable of controlling the air (or the sea), our strategy collapses, and we're up the Yangtze without a paddle.

Feel free to insert a "if you want peace, prepare for war" quote at your leisure.

The Raptor is expensive, true. It's a Cold War relic, also true. But if we're serious about fighting small wars, and remaining strong against peer competitors, we're going to need advanced platforms like the F-22. It's the "two-militaries" solution that's slowly evolving in the post-Rumsfeld Pentagon, a plan that hinges on modernizing the "geriatric" Air Force.

Email the article China Canard? to a friend:

Send this article to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


 
Contributors
Editor (on leave):
Michael Goldfarb

Deputy Editors:
John McCormack
Samantha Sault

Contributors:
Dean Barnett
Jennifer Chou
Brian Faughnan
Ulf Gartzke
Reuben F. Johnson
Thomas Joscelyn
Stuart Koehl
John Noonan
Bill Roggio
Jaime Sneider
Search
Archives
Contact
wws@weeklystandard.com
Categories
Feeds: Atom | RSS
[What is this?]
Powered by
Movable Type 3.2