No it is not. Far more difficult attacks are carried out everyday. This is why we are so vulnerable to these methods. Because we don't even imagine them being possible. Some people are smart enough and little bit more resourceful than to strap on a Mig-21 and hope to get a lucky shot.

It is funny that you mention 9/11. Most people would have considered the simultaneous hijacking and intentional crashing of several air liners into the political, financial and military headquarters of the United States laughable prior to it actually happening. Not some seven years later we are locked in combat with the perpetrators.

Most people would have told you that an irregular force bleeding the U.S. Military almost to the point of exhaustion and tying up of the strategic reserve of the United States in Mesopotamia unlikely yet here we are.

I suspect in December of 1941 there would have been people who said that a Japanese sneak attack on Pearl and other places in the pacific would be unlikely as well. History proved otherwise.

The point is that the enemy is not always going to play into your strengths. You have to think like these people to beat these people. To them, all the F-22 represents is a target. They aren't and never were planning on "dogfights" when they started this conflict. Yet they were just as aware as you and I of it's development. They watched the IOC press releases. They read of it's capabilities in our press releases from exercises it participates in.

Are we so arrogant to assume that they don't have intelligent people figuring out ways to counter it asymmetrically for lack of other means? Countering it also means not fighting the types of battles where an F-22 could be useful. I've never seen a Taliban Su-30 for instance. F-22's do a whole lot of good vs Cleric Al-Sadr. Do you see where I'm going with this? High tech or low tech and enemy confronted with a superior weapon system MUST find asymmetric means to counter it.

If you think antrax letters is the stuff of fiction novels then I must say that I haven't even scratched the surface of what is possible in regard to asymmetric methods.



Find every pilot? That is a trivial task. You could pay a PI to do that. Imagine a state intelligence service. In fact they maintain active records of these personnel. If not the entire squadron, the key leaders definitely. We do that. We have used that information in combat to gain advantages too. And against many more numerous and well protected individuals in much more restrictive closed societies. Do you think it is simply coincidence that enemy armies crumble before our tanks putting up little effective coordinated resistance? Or that entire squadrons of enemy air force fighters simply don't bother to scramble their aircraft in the midst of an armed invasion of their homeland?

I supposed you are right and this is very much a conspiracy! Again, people tend to focus so much on the obvious like F-22's, spectacular battles, news footage of tracer fire in the night ect. That's is usually just the mopping up of whats left of an enemy after victory has already been guaranteed through other means. It is not just the inferior force, WE DO THESE THINGS TOO.

Sun Tzu says the following...

"Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist
only seeks battle after the victory has been won, "

"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles
is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists
in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

"Whether the object be to crush an army, to storm
a city, or to assassinate an individual, it is always
necessary to begin by finding out the names of the attendants,
the aides-de-camp, and door-keepers and sentries of the general
in command. Our spies must be commissioned to ascertain these"

...all of that written long ago. Nothing I have written is fiction or unreasonable. I also don't mean to suggest that the U.S. Military does not take extensive measures to defend against these things. Only that for lack of a better means an opponent will seek out ways to counter threats no matter what side he is on or his level of technological sophistication. We have been surprised before. That is why is is called the "Art of War" and not "Science of War". In the U.S. Military we try too much to reduce it down to science when in fact war is full of the tangible and intangible. The intangible is equally powerful when it's power is summoned by a skilled leader.

People asked how to kill F-22's. This is how they will try.

-DA