So in your honest opinion, Iranian airspace is no tougher than Libya, and your stating for the record that you do not believe they have the S-300, or S-400? The fact that F-22s have been deployed into that arena leads me to believe that the people who know, suspect otherwise. I am certainly "not" stating that I know, and for the record I am "not stating that I favor an airstrike". I doubt many in the know favor that either. While the B-2 is quite likely capable, I would highly doubt they would risk it in that environment due to the limited numbers available, again just IMHO. Just noting for the record that the F-22 is the most capable tool for the job.
Correct, though I wouldn't phrase it like that. I'd suggest the US would have no more difficulty completely dominating the Iranian IADS than it had in Libya. It's degree of over-match IS so great.
Iran definitely doesn't have S-400 and it's a dubious account that they even have S-300. Why wouldn't they do some muscle flexing of their own if they did? They made a shoddy attempt to a few years back, but leaked photos confirmed these were simply 44 gallon drums painted and welded to imitate S-300 systems, causing Iran much embarassment when the hoax was revealed. I'd suggest with the on-going threats against them, they'd be very keen to reveal such a system in advance. It's not going to present any sort of surprise in the battlefield, it's hardly an "ambush" type system, so there's little to be gained from concealing the presence of such a system.
The problem with Iran is not could they be taken down, but what it might do in response to such an attack. It would be almost completely unable to fend off the attacks of the Western forces, however it has the capability to strike back assymetrically through the use of ballistic missiles and large numbers of cruise missiles and fast attack craft in the Persian Gulf, it could employ at least in the early stages of such a conflict.
It might well achieve some minor tactical success through these means, but will still cop a hammering nonetheless. Again as I've said previously, the loss of a single Western aircraft seems to amount to "enemy" success nowadays and the onslaught and complete destruction of every major military asset employed by the "enemy" is just taken as a matter of course. The loss or severe damage of a single warship would also be greatly trumpeted as a "strategic" success, yet the obliteration of Iran's capability wouldn't matter as much, to the press and some of the more hysterical elements of the defence debate.
As to your assertation that F-22 is the "right" tool for the job, I very much doubt it. What the main targets would be in such a conflict , are those relating to the Iranian nuclear program. The F-22 is going to play a minimal role in engaging such targets.
Aircraft that will be employing heavy penetrating weapons such as the F-15E, Super Hornet, B-2, B-52 and B-1B, along with the usual standoff weapon barrage, standoff jamming and advanced SEAD capabilities, will carry the day.
The F-22A may have a minor air to air role and some DEAD duties, but these would be peripheral to the main objectives of the strike, if we assume such a conflict is a strike aimed at halting Iran's nuclear program.
