Politics of the F-22 in Libya

Somebody is being misleading:

Instead, political reasons likely kept the most advanced jet on Earth out of the fight, according to Deptula, an early advocate of using the jet to enforce the no-fly zone in Libya. Basically, the F-22’s stealth would have negated much of the official need for coalition help since the jet is almost completely immune to Libya’s ancient air defenses, argues the Deptula, who retired last October.

“Because of the high degree of stealth of the F-22, its supercruise and ISR capabilities, it would not have required the destruction of the Libyan enemy air defense system to operate inside Libyan airspace,” writes Deptula in an email to DoDBuzz. This is especially true “given the make-up of the current Libyan air defenses (predominantly made up of SA-2, 3, 5, and 6s). Accordingly, F-22s would be free to either engage any Libyan aircraft that took-off, or they could destroy LAF aircraft and/or helicopters on the ground at will.”

Fortunately, later in the piece Reed points out why this is quite misleading:

While the F-22 is “optimized” for air-to-air combat as Air Force Secretary Michael Donley pointed out last week, they can carry two 1,000 pound JDAMs for air-to-ground missions. No, this isn’t nearly as good as a bomber or strike fighters like the F-15E but it still packs a punch and could have hit ground targets.

Still, other jets such as the Strike Eagle and Marine Corps AV-8B Harrier carry a lot more of the air-to-ground munitions that have been used to chase down Gadhafi’s ground forces. Keeping them in the air unmolested means taking out Libyan air defenses, not just Libyan fighters. Some aviation experts also argue that the F-22s would require nearly as many “enablers” (support aircraft) as legacy fighters to carry out the Libyan mission.

Precisely; the F-22 might render other aircraft unnecessary if the no fly zone was actually a no fly zone, but of course it's not. Because the mission apparently includes direct ground support for Libyan rebels, it necessitates the participation of non-F-22 aircraft, which necessitates the destruction of the Libyan air defense network.

The other issue I have with Deptula is the corruption of the term "political." Even if Deptula were correct on the merits, and the F-22 could perform the mission without assistance from other aircraft, creating conditions for the inclusion of coalition partners is an entirely sensible political objective. Indeed, for my part anything that forces Britain, France, and the rest to take on as much of the heavy lifting as possible in genuinely sensible from an American point of view.