I can kinda agree with this but also not. In combat the actual time in theatre is very small, therefore an F-15 can afford, I guess, to go past mach 2. etc..(or whatever is the max AMRAAM firing speed) for the shot of the missile, it certainly wont be travelling that fast for long. Basically for a very short, but important instant in the engagement it can actually better the Raptor in missile Kinematics at least.

However the Raptor can do 1.7 SC I have heard, which will obviously give huge benefits in IR/Fuel reduction, but you have to ask will the combat take that long to result in the Raptor becoming more efficient and showing its advantages?

If the Raptor pilot doesn’t mind giving up a higher IR signature, he can fly faster than the Eagle with a combat load.

The maximum speed of the F-15 is over Mach 2,3, not 0,9. These claims are made to show an artificial ‘advantage’ that does not really exist.

How long do you think an F-15 can stay at M2.3 though? What happens if it has to merge, and it’s burned off a lot of fuel using A/B, and is at Bingo fuel in a dogfight? That’s why the F-22’s supersonic persistence is noteworthy.

Could you put some more numbers to your example to explain the proposed 50% difference? What are your speed and height numbers for the baseline aircraft and what are your speed and height for the F-22?

M.9 @ 40k feet vs. M1.5+ @60k feet

What your link does claim is true for every AAM. In that case not even a basic example is given. Just “highly depends” and “are classified” are empty claims to stay polite. Military and engineers are aware about the present state of technology and even elements of the AIM-120 are European technology. So “classified” is related to the software at first, when the public is kept in the “dark”.

“The effective range of the AIM-120A of course highly depends on the firing parameters, and official performance data are classified. Typical quoted figures for maximum range vary between 50 km (30 miles) and 70 km (45 miles).”

“an expanded no-escape envelope, improved HOBS (High-Angle Off-Boresight) capability, and a 50% increase in range.”

Here the ratio of the propulsion-section is rised and the lofting mode is refined.
But as given by your source, that is 50% of an unknown basic condition as are the distances for maximum range quoted.

The C5 is typically credited in the ~65 mile max engagement range. The C7 has a range increase over the C5, and the D model has a 50 percent longer max engagement range than the C7. While no parameters are given with these numbers, one can surmise that these most likely represent high altitude, head on shots, against non-maneuvering targets. Another thing in the food for thought category is that when these missiles are fired from a supercruising F-22 at high altitude, there’ll be another 50 percent increase due to the kinematic advantage.

Typical nonsense. The range of an AAM is related to the burn-time of a motor. Not a larger motor but a higher fuel-load will make the difference. 😎

Happy/Glad. I think you know what I was getting at.

I believe the reduced warhead was a prize they were willing to pay to squeeze in HOJ, in order to maintain lock if jammed, if size was no issue, the larger warhead would be kept.
I think it was a prize well spent.

The reduced warhead was due to the higher accuracy. This allowed a larger motor, for more range too. The electronics have shrunk in size, but having a bigger motor without a longer missile was a huge plus.

then why have to separate super hornets, why not combine both features into one version?

Because the missions are completely different, and for the SEAD/DEAD/Jamming missions you need specialized equipment, and training of the air crews.

How will that work, if you have two stealthy aircraft such as F22 vs F35 will it usually result in a WVR engagement or will they just never find each other?

They’d have to make use of ESM/IRST/other sensor platforms datalinked, as they’d betray their location if they started using high power radar scans. Once they got close, they might use their low probability of intercept modes, for additional situational awareness. In any event, you wouldn’t have any long range engagements.

Are stealth aircraft effective against ground radar below them scanning up?
Arrays would work but are super costly i believe.
Seems to me that if i was in charge of budgets i would be investing the lions share into anti stealth detection.

yes, yes, and yes.