The missing F-22

I have great respect for Robert Gates, whom Dubya appointed and Obama retained as Secretary of Defense, but I am puzzled his arguments with respect to the F-22 air-superiority fighter and our unwillingness or inability to enforce a no-fly zone over rebel-held Libya. Here's how it goes:

1) We don't need and can't afford more F-22s than the 187 now on order. Better that the money should be spent on the smaller, cheaper, slower, but more versatile F-35, which is tailor-made for the sort of counter-insurgencies that now challenge us. One reason the F-22 is so expensive is that it is nearly invulnerable to ground fire, because the enemy can't see it or, seeing it, can't hit it.

2) The United States couldn't (or anyhow shouldn't) attempt to enforce a no-fly zone in Libya because we would first have to destroy Libyan anti-aircraft defenses, and that would require more airplanes than could be flown off a single aircraft carrier.

How does that compute? Blue skies! -- Dan Ford