I'm just gonna come out and say that this argument hasn't aged well:

Employing a squadron of stealth fifth-generation F-22s along with other select capabilities would help reduce the need to expend significantly more resources while reducing operational risk. Coercive diplomacy backed by naval presence, decisive air power, and accurate weapons in the region would allow the U.S. and others to negate Libyan air defenses and air forces. The world-class capability inherent in the F-22 also bears a psychological-intimidation factor that sends a clear message that no Libyan aircraft will fly without consequences.

 

Simply talking about a no-fly zone should highlight the urgent need to recapitalize the U.S. Air Force with modern aircraft (in addition to upgrades of the legacy fleets). Using fifth-generation F-22 aircraft for a no-fly zone mission would allow the Air Force to operate above the Libyan skies with impunity. An F-22 Raptor does not need to destroy enemy air defenses first, because it is not vulnerable to this threat, unlike some fourth-generation aircraft.

I suspect that the four month grounding of the F-22 in the midst of the campaign might have made things... awkward. I wouldn't bother with this (obviously, replacement aircraft could have been found) were it not for the fact that the op-ed was such a bald effort to shill for the institutional interest of the USAF.

 

View the full article

Original idea, but I suspect the F-22 problems are real, you dont need uberstealth to fight against Libya, less when it's not a covert action ...