I typically understood NEZ the same way obligatory presented it: As a statement about the engagement geometry and the relations between its kinematic variables of shooter, target and weapon–thinking in possible vectors.

What stealth does is allowing you to operate within a launch platform’s and its weapons’ NEZ (versus your position and kinematic state) without becoming an actual target. Does not make the NEZ of your opponent’s weapons smaller, but less risky for you. That’s the point of an F-22 crossing the canopy of an AMRAAM-equipped F-15 for example: Well within NEZ of the weapon, launch paramters and target kinematics, but not a suitable target to lock on.

In my understanding at least.

You may be within the kinematic NEZ, but that’s academic if no firing solution is available. You also have to look at the range that the launch platform can detect you, and the range at which the weapon can be employed effectively against you. There is a range at which weapons can be used against stealthy targets, where they have a low probability of escape, but you have to include the fire control/seeker limitations into the equation too.

AMRAAM A,B,C,D has around the same chance to engage a target at any given G.
But C and D has improved ECCM, longer range for any given target, can be carried internally and has a smaller warhead.

Here is a nice link on AA missiles.
http://www.canit.se:8000/~griffon/aviation/text/missiles/aam.html

Where in that link did you get the information that would lead you to that conclusion? One of the reasons for a smaller warhead was because the missiles were more accurate, therefore more room for larger motors became possible. The newer missiles also have a much greater HOBS capability than the early ones. Another thing to consider is that if fired at the same range, the missile with the longer powered flight profile will have more energy to deal with maneuvering targets. With the upgrades you have a more accurate missile with longer ranges/NEZs, more flexible(HOJ/2 way datalink/etc..), that is more resistant to countermeasures.

No, stealth reduces the risk of operating inside NEZ.
Speed, altitude and long range AAM is what let you engage outside NEZ.

No, with stealth, the NEZ is significantly smaller, therefore you can operate outside of it. If you’re in a conventional aircraft, then I’d agree that speed, altitude, and a long range AAM are what would enable that.

From the article:

“The Meteor was scheduled to enter UK service in August 2012, after an eight-year development period. That date has been redefined as the “platform-ready In-service date”

In other words we are talking nonsense but if we use the term “redefine”, we hope nobody will notice.

Another thing in the article that gives some insight too though is-

“the MoD said that the Raytheon AIM-120C AMRAAM missiles currently carried by the Typhoon would “provide sufficient capability out to 2015.”

That shows a vote of confidence for the capability of the C model AMRAAM(most likely the C5).

could it be combined into the same airframe as the other super hornets?

The Growler is the same airframe as other Super Hornets.

It is a strike FIGHTER. Not a “striker”. A striker is an A-6 or an F-111 or a Tornado (non- F-3 of course).

It’s A2A capability is EVERY bit as important to the aircraft’s design as A2G.

I have never once claimed it is superior to anything in basic aerodynamic performance.

I will now though and I think it will be a pretty reasonable aerodynamic performer at it’s best, at least on par with early F-16 and F/A-18 variants throughout the flight regime, perhaps a slight improvement, but not substantially better, at least at it’s introduction to service anyway. Who can say with regard to growth variants?

Well being able to out accelerate/out turn a clean F-16(with a combat load and without using A/B), and with greater high Alpha abilities is significantly more than a slight improvement.

If one wishes to talk kinematics, a Meteor equipped F-35 at a reasonable altitude, say 35,000 feet plus WILL possess an A2A missile performance that is kinematically superior to ANY current generation aircraft/missile combo and that includes supercruising F-22’s at 60,000 feet. Future US A2A missiles are likely to be similarly capable, if not moreso.

-for A/A missions the F-35 wouldn’t need to stay at 35,000 feet
-I would have to disagree with a subsonic launch of a Meteor at 35,000 feet exceeding the range of a AIM-120D, launched supersonically at 60,000 feet.

[/QUOTE]

Guarantee and high ikelihood do not go hand in hand :). Let us wait till the PAK FA is out :).

I was referring more to the EF/Rafale/etc…. vs. some other fighter. We don’t know what the PAK FA’s RCS is, so we can’t really compare them yet.

Pogosyan, while at the UK airshow with the F-22, said that “while the SU-35BM isn’t a match for the Raptor, the PAK-FA will be.”

He also claimed he wasn’t impressed by its maneuverability, and said the Su-35BM matched it there.

This is operating on the assumption that the F-22 airshow displays have shown everything it can do. It also doesn’t take into account the F-22’s abilities at combat speeds/altitudes.