Of course with radar you have to take into account all the things you mentioned; however I was making a comparison, taking into account the relative power transmitted by the fighter radar and the missile, and the size of the antenna.
There are other factors, but they are likely to result in similar affects on both systems (i.e. losses between the antenna, transmitter and receiver). Beam shape is important but is a function of the size of the antenna, (these days the number of T/R Modules), and the frequency of operation. If you know exactly where to look it is possible to focus the beam to a very fine angle to search for a target, but the fighter radar has this ability to a greater degree than the missile radar. There are differences because the fighter and missile use different techniques. Strictly these days not a Pulse Doppler (PD) radar, or even an Interrupted CW (ICW) radar). Modern radars transmit pulses of varying length and change the transmitted frequency on a pulse to pulse basis (sometime even during the pulse). The computer then resolves the range and velocity ambiguities and generates track files for each potential target. Using these tricks the fighter radar can effectively improve the sensitivity of the receiver given a specific size of antenna and available transmitter power.
The missile radar has a few tricks as well that can effectively improve receiver sensitivity, but not as good as the fighter radar.
(The available power in the missile and fighter is a factor in determining the maximum power of the transmitter).
For the purposes of the original argument I assumed that the receiver sensitivity (including the processing tricks) were the same so that the comparative performance could be determined on the basis of antenna size and transmitter power.
For metaphoric purposes only of course.
Even if antenna gain is the same, the fighter radar has much greater emitter power. At the same time, the farther you go, radar receptivity falls by an exponential rate.
The point about the missile flight path is valid, a lofted flight would present a slightly different aspect angle and likely an increased RCS, but not by very much and again the inverse fourth power law comes into play.
It can increase it significantly to the point the missile can take it up. That depends on the lofting angle, but if the target is headon, the missile might have to take a steeper approach downward, increasing the RCS presented to the missile.
I think your suggestion about IR management on the wing leading edges using fuel is logical; it has been used on the SR-71 and on Concorde. It might be easier to use another more efficient primary cooling fluid, combined with a heater exchanger cooled by the fuel.
Combined sensor seekers are being developed, because it is very difficult to be stealthy in all wavebands, for all aspects all of the time.
The Python 5 features a digital EO seeker for the first time in a short range missile. Still I wonder how it can see through clouds.
The bottom line is that to hit an F-22 with an AMRAAM the missile must come very close to the fighter and very nearly aiming at it to get a hit. To achieve this result the attacking fighter’s radar must be able to see the target and provide mid-course steering information.
Also this won’t be one sided, the target F-22 will be advised by the missile warning system that a missile is approaching and will take avoiding action, with such a small RCS missile the no escape basket is very small and the F-22 would not have to move very far evade the missile: not to mention deploying other counter-measures.
IMHO using the current version of AMRAAM, in a F-22 against F-22 engagement it would be difficult for either fight to shoot down the opponent.
One thing I like to add is to reconsider again the use of SARH. SARH is essentially bistatic in principle---both emitter and receiver are not the same station. VLO principles depend highly on preventing the emitter from recieving the reflections, hence monostatic radar. This is defeated in principle if the reciever is not anywhere near the emitter. Against an VLO object, assuming a lofted trajectory, the SARH missile would get better gain.
The ultimate solution would be the implementation of multistatic radars in all fighter aircraft, and/or in relation to AWACS and ground stations, so in essence you create a multistatic network.
You have Fighter A
Fighter B
VLO object X
A emits to X. Reflections from X does not travel to A, but can be picked up by B. At the same time, B emits, and while B is not picking up its own emitted emissions, A would be recieving B's emitted reflections.
A and B are networked to each other, and tracked by each other's radars. Using known locations of A and B, each plane can analzye the signals and even compared to each other via datalink.
Now this requires a lot of processing power for sure, and the pulses of both planes have to be synchronized, or you have to use some kind of chirping CWI radar on both.
