Quite right, the Agp 77 is an active array but you might not know that the Apg 77 moves its entire array is one unified direction not separate directions- this is why the Russians arent taking the Apg 77 too seriously(Link escapes me) , it functionally operates like a passive phased array.

Mistakes: Lets see. Ram coatings on B2 focussing on remoulding , heat setting tapes around opened apertures increasing maintenance work, all over ram to control creeping wave RCS when better shaping saves weight ( F 22 vs F117), underestmating composite volume and strengths (A12), incorrectly predicting VHF radar RCS (B2 block 30 upgrade), countless shapes that don’t work the Russians never need to test since they can look at the geometries of American stealth shapes (radomes and chining for instance), control range tradeoffs (old diamond X 46 vs 6 pointer X46 unveiled this year which offers better range control), underseimating aperture numbers on RCS (early F 22 had to many drain holes etc edecresing stealth leading to redesign with fewer apertures which accessed multiple systems) to name a few in the open media.

F 22 redesign: http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=0bEeCnIpPZcC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=f+22+apertures+drain+holes&source=web&ots=2-mBlFkUcv&sig=MnsBLfY6LnzmE52bj9csiGuu7_E&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA36,M1

Only if the land is valuable. I don’t see anyone trying to invade Ethiopia yet or much of Africa. Additionally China is in no position to challenge Russia on many issues and lets not forget both nations have very weak logistics, power projection capabilities. But the U.S is better than many alternatives from a western point of view. The Chinese and Russian forumers may well think differently.

Lets remember U.S “Help” is seen in many quarters of the world as U.S exploitation. Alot of nations would very much like to avoid U.S “help” which is often sen as self serving with an eye towards resource aquisition. ( Iraq, Iran 1950s-1970s, much of South America). The recent “war on oil” opps I mean “war on terror” has helped to largely bankrupt the U.S further whilst making the U.S no safer when simple diplomacy like leaving the Middle East alone would have achieved far more (but how could the U.S control oil? ). Iraq has really exposed American interests in a very very ugly way. The notion that the U.S will be missed sits nicely with the notion that the IMF (U.S controlled) helps nations as well. Having said that, someone needs to keep Putin in check and I don’t see China doing that.

We forget Russia has access now to commercial computing. The Mig 29 etc were built with substandard chips resulting in inferior avionics. Not so today where there radar may use the same components to a large extent. The much vaunted Apg 77 can’t scan in multiple directions at the same time- the whole array moves as one; we know this from recent upgrade requests) so all told the russians with at least a 10 year advantage in later IOC may very well have similar capabilities. Adding to this the fact that the U.S has fielded many configurations ( B 2, YF 22, YF 23, A 12, X 36, X35, X32, F 117, Have Blue, Tacit Blue, X 46, X 45, ) and coupled with access to supercomputing ( a stolen Lockheed computer prediction RCS program) and there is very little reason why Russia could not build a competent stealth aircraft even without the U.S operational lead. That F 117 that crashed in Allied force had the same GPs stealth fairing as the F 22 (teaching aperture stealth design) and had 1997 stealth material having been recently upgraded so even russian materials science may not be far behind. Finally the nature of Russian stealth is considerably easier not having to contend so much with VHF as the Americans must given the Western preference for X band. Let us not forget the Russians can benefit from not repeating U.S mistakes and can avoid the tremendously costly research phase where many shapes, configurations and materials may not work but need to be verified. So the capability is there at a far lower cost than the U.S given the generous displaying of configurations and materials time has provided.

(http://www.infosecnews.org/hypermail/0010/2999.html)

I doubt Israel has the will to strike Iran anymore. I say this because Iran by Israels calculations may already be too close tio a nuclear capability and the Iranians have dispersed their facilities to such asn extent only a massive multi target strike could possibly succeed. This isn’t Osirak. Add the further unknowns regarding S 300s and their confirmed tors (designed to strike PGMS) and one wonders how much Israel could really do. Lack of real intelligence for targeting represents a real problem one doubts even the iDF has resolved. Adding to this Bush gave Israel an unprecedented free hand in the Middle East and yet Israel did nothing. The last 8 years were the time to unilaterally strike with U.S attention elsewhere and with Iran potentially concearned that the U.S could join Israel, opening a 2 front war of sorts, the very motive pushing Iran to end the first Gulf war (fear that the U.S would actively join Iraq in 1988 onwards).

Cynically speaking, the oil companies would have loved an Israeli strike (push up oil) and with Bush largely shall we say “sympathetic” to their concearns, there was alot going for such a strike.

Israel may have already missed the boat, intentionally or otherwise.

The jamming vulnerability of UCAVS is laughable. Think for a moment how we jam a UAV? If we are using narrow beam phased array communications using satelite as go between (very likely if we are talking long range deployments) then sidelobes are non existant and jamming will only succeeed if you are between satelite and receiver – good luck. Wha of multiple frequence datalinks with encrytion and frequence hopping or LPI datalinks which may never be detected eg F22 to F22 datalink (designation escapes me) ? Take for instance missile jamming. Datalinks on amraam, meteor etc are nearly invulnerable to jamming because transmission is backwards from missile to carrier aircraft. If this were not true and orders were sent by encrypted radio with wide sidelobes then yes, barrage jamming could succeed. Remember uavs have been used in Afghanistan and Iraq without jamming problems and furthermore, conceptually speaking jamming an awacs – fighter link is just as damaging because whatever the situational awareness or initiative of the pilot, loss of overall battlespace control usually results in a shambles ie Becca Valley, Desert Storm 1, Allied Force. Commanding fighters using datalinks etc is not that different to Uavs.

I’m surprised no one says F14 Tomcat. Superior BVR abilities at least against Iraqi jets with little or substandard RWR, superior avionics, good maneouvrability not to mention the immense intimidation factor of the Hughes Awg-9 weapons system. F15 was good but sparrows compromised its BVR to the point that after first shot your at a dogfight whereas the Aim 54 at least gave you multiple BVR shots (albeit within a narrow azimuth) and a greater bility to disengage and given its opponents (mig 21 and mig 23/ mig 25) the Aim 54 would have been and was in Iranian service quite effective.