Emu

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/05/26/f-22-restart-not-wild-idea-says-welsh/84971806/

Depends how many satellites you have. Drones can be designed to be very small and stealthy. In theory you could even have something like a MALD-V (1,000km range) with a Hellfire warhead, that would both spot targets and either destroy the target, or force the expenditure of a costly SAM. For time sensitive targets, you make sure satellites are doing frequent enough passes, and target anything necessary with a 10-minute guided MRBM rather than wasting time flying a plane there. Planes don't cover ground as fast as satellites and are more expensive than drones/MALDs, especially if you include human cost. By the time you fuel and arm a plane, an MRBM would have already destroyed the target. MRBMs are faster and harder to intercept than plane-launched munitions. Stealth is also only stealth so far. It can certainly help prevent X-Band/S-Band getting a lock, but VHF will still detect your presence and despatch fighters. It can also be used to cue X-Band on a narrower search. It's a help but it's not a silver bullet. It's good to have some stealth aircraft too but guided MRBMs are currently a major hole in the NATO inventory. Going back 20 years, I would have based the F-35A/C on modified F-22s, with slightly enlarged bays for GBU-31/JSM/JSOW/JSOW-ER/AARGM-ER, F-35 avionics and build improvements; and I would have built the F-35B as a proper standalone VTOL fighter that was nothing to do with the other two. And I would have kept the main build of each in one or 2 states rather than spewing it out to 42 states a la F-22. I would also have continued with the SLIRBM program and maybe SBL(IFX) program too. You can add RATTLRS to that list too.

Satellites and drone spam.

I would put the money into DF-21D/DF-26 equivalents for strike instead.

I'm not sure Dassault have ever competed in a bid against the F-35. What I don't understand is how the EF beat the F-18F on SEAD survivability but was worse on CAS survivability. One way or another, that doesn't make sense. To date the EF doesn't even have an ARM wrt the effectiveness scores too. Then the F-16 beats them both on SCAR survivability??

US working on Multi-Object Kill Vehicle, or MOKV

Me too.

I have heard that the 0.1-1m2 figure is an overall all-aspect average on other forums, and that by the same measure the F-22 works out at 0.3-0.4m2. Frontal RCS is much less for both.

If they've honestly gone to that trouble to make something slightly stealthier than a Typhoon, then it's difficult to define it as a success.

It's a magnificent helicopter, but what would you do with it if it were in DCS? Lift stuff around all day?

Don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Don't bring a gun to a missile fight.

Bomby McBomberface.

https://us.yahoo.com/news/iran-touts-newly-tested-long-range-missile-113403619.html

This was a good watch. http://uktvplay.uktv.co.uk/shows/the-worlds-weirdest-weapons/watch-online/?video=2327577107001

And its success on the Eastern Front was never matched on the Western Front even in WWII.

Well I guess so, yes. But it generally isn't what we mean when talking about military planes. There are roll post stabilisers too, if that's what you mean.

Well kind of but that stops it being able to interpret the active signal. If all it needs to do is figure where the jamming is coming from then that's a different matter. If the jamming is coming from a separate source, then things get interesting though. For reference, when an ARH missile is being jammed it has a HOJ mode to fall back on. If you can bloom out 2 separate bands with amplitude filtering. Amplitude filtering means it doesn't get bloomed out, it just sees some guy shining a small bright dot and saying, "here I am, please shoot me down." I still disagree. I think the ability to bloom out two separate bands with amplitude filtering is fairly impossible, to the point where it's not really realistic and I certainly wouldn't like to be the one relying on it to save my behind and get me into a dogfight. There's probably a better chance of shooting the incoming AAM down with an AAM of your own, but again, I wouldn't wish to be the one banking my ass on it.

It only has hover capability with a partial fuel load, e.g. at the end of a mission. And it only has hover capability when the lift fan is active, which raises dry thrust from 34,000lbf to about 41,000lbf. With AB it's T/W is below 1 but then the A and C variants carry a lot more fuel than typical fighters. With a 30% fuel fraction, T/W goes above unity (about 1.03 for the A model). For comparison a GR9A's T/W was well over 1.5 dry but then a GR9 didn't have room for that much internal fuel, weapons, built-in avionics etc.

Of the planes that were lost in Desert Storm, most were lost at low altitude. Low altitude attacks were favoured then as a product of Cold War attack strategy, however they were found to be flawed and dangerous. Saddam Hussein's military did not have huge amounts of IIR SAMs and MANPADS, which are far more prolific these days. I think the Crimean conflict demonstrated that flying around at low level isn't a good idea against an enemy of some sophistication. The best defence against these SAMs is altitude plain and simple, but that makes the GAU-8 quite literally a spinning rim.

It will because all the radiation is coming from the same point. Just to put things in perspective, there's even such thing as passive radar. That's the active signal that's being jammed though. You can tell where the jamming is coming from but it doesn't help you get the GPS info. If you're talking about DIRCM, then yes it can jam IR with a laser, but an LWR would still be able to pin-point that signal. I'm sure if it were that easy to jam missiles, including IIR, nobody would bother investing in them. Please note that I'm not arguing about which plane will win, just making the case that one or other is bound to destroy the enemy head-on, pre-dogfight.