An S-300 can detect an insect sized object perhaps 50 km away - ballpark? Then it can begin to compute its way looking for fasts insects in 6000 km3 of clutter... My guess is that it'll detect the SDMs before it detects the F-22A.
Poor mission planning and box-kill. Stealth is not invincibility nor invisibility. No-one has said that. Strawman?
Kill the radar with a standoff weapon. Problems with the English language perhaps?
I was simply putting in my opinion on how to distinguish between different generations of fighter jets. Future potential? Quite possible when compared to legacy 4th gen. But the future is with 5th gen. platforms which are going to enter service in large numbers by 2020, and by 2025 will be available for export to even third world nations (if the Russian and Chinese 5th gen. programs produce something worthy of the name). I am actually of the opinion that the current 4.5th gen is the real 5th gen. The 5th gen. advertised is actually a 6th. gen. that the US reached much faster due to more focused R&D efforts.The discussion I had with Darth was with regard to some specific platforms (F-16/MiG-29/F/A-18C). I haven't argued that the tiff was "5th gen". It was about what jet holds most future potential.
Yes.No! That's has been one of my arguments. So we agree.
A stealth plane is simply smaller in RCS. So..... a more powerful radar could detect it.
Come on. We all know there is only one type of magic, albeit one defense contractors are very good at. It's called marketing.
Perhaps you have never heard of SDB or the JDRADM. Or the thousands of AGM-88s that have been fired at IADS in past conflicts. Do you pay attention when people say "out systemed"? Do you realize that IADS have limits on how many targets they can handle at one time? Do you realize that you don't have to score kinetic kills to mission kill an IADS platform? Do you understand that IADS are not a new concept anymore and have very well established history of being obliterated by offensive air operations? Did you know that emitting IADS have an inherent disadvantage in terms of survivability? Have you ever asked yourself why that is?
There you are indeed rising a point you previously claimed to be invalid, also non stealth platforms can survive an advanced IADS. Of course stealth increases survivability and offers some additional options, but the combination of careful planning tactics, standoff weapons and long range stand off weapons should be able to deal with such kind of threats as well. And here we come back to the original topic. As the Europeans are allied with the US they can reject stealth aircraft to some extent as the US will pose the ability to "kick down the door". That's also something of a design concept for the european fighters like the Eurofighter which isn't well understood. Aircraft like the Eurofighter were designed to complement other assets within the NATO.
Nothing I said invalidates anything. You just misunderstand. Non-VLO aircraft flying in the US Military have the benefit of systems that European airforces don't even have established doctrine on not to mention the technology or funding to procure. Europe would be repeating past mistakes to be reliant on a foreign power to successfully execute it's foreign policy. Historically stand-off weapons have not been enough by themselves to achieve the results the US Military gets in combat operations. We learned that in ODS. Add to that Europe lacks the SEAD, tanker, ISR and all weather precision attack capabilities the USA does. The result is more European combat aircraft exposed to hostile fire for longer time which is the way IADS kill modern aircraft. With these deficiencies in mind IADS have improved significantly since ODS.
Europe won't fight any major war against anyone without US support. There is no realistic threat which Europe will have to face alone anytime soon. What kind of enemy do you think about which country and for what reason? The problem Europe has is that the nations don't follow a common foreign and defence policy. Though the situation has improved over the years and though Europe tries to become more independent it will need quite some time to establish a similar combat system as the US. With similar I just mean in terms of major capabilities, though it is unlikely to ever match the US capabilities by limited defence spending, partitially doubled efforts due national interests. Europe won't start one war after another for what reasons ever. There is currently no theater in sight which aircraft like the Typhoon or Rafale couldn't handle. Europe isn't going to war with major powers like China, India or Russia. Not even the US is likely to go to war with any of these countries for obvious reasons.
No they didn't.
HARM-like is completely removed from the functional reality.
Wow where to begin with such a fundamentally flawed view of warfare. You must have an amazing crystal ball. I'll start by taking you on a trip back through time...to the 1930's. While the United States and Russia had to intervene and stop Nazi Germany from taking over Europe. There was a considerable length of time where INDIVIDUAL European nations had to survive on their own and failed to include powerful nations like France.
Well calculating range from SFC is quite misleading, let alone that Typhoon's internal fuel load is about 11000 lb. And BTW do you calculate the range with max internal fuel not considering takeoff, RTB etc.?
Or the operating altitudes. Not to mention the math and the specifications are wrong. 33 min at M1.7 is not 185nm. Nor do we know what the F-22 maximum speed in dry thrust is. I've read in OSINT reports of it cruising faster than that dry.