I’m aware that they scan. They have much narrower fields of view as the range increases though, so to say X has the capability to detect something at Y km/nm, doesn’t tell the whole story. That just means that if they happen to be looking in the right place, they have a reasonable likelihood of spotting a target. If they aren’t aware that they need to look in a certain sector, that could mean a pretty lengthy time before detection occurred(IF it occurred).

And radar doesn’t?
Just examine the beam towards the maximum range, for even as high as 50-60dB gain MSA antennas, or AESA’s clipped beams.
IRST works very much like an MSA radar and can permanently search for IR sources, if set to do so.
So no, IRST can actively search for targets, just like the radar does and it doesn’t need to hope for a fluke.
IRST search sensor doesn’t change resolution while scanning, but larger volumes scans reduce dwelling time and so reduce chances of detecting the target, exactly the same way as with any radar system.

The Su-27 shows a very well designed LERX; the F-18E a design that was hastled by economic considerations resulting in a aircraft with the adverse features of LERXes

Kiwi, do you know why F16 and F18 have LERX, in the first place?

Kiwi, if a plane does ~30°/sec ITR at SL (and F22 does, after which it slips to PS after a couple of seconds, while maintaining AB), it can’t do 28°/sec STR at 20k ft, no matter what anybody says. 😉
This is particularly true, if that same plane constantly exhibits 20 sec circle at SL, with a loads of vertices, even during comparatively low humidity conditions.
This is where aerodynamic knowledge helps (keeps you away from believing and makes you know, or at least “healthy” skeptic :D).

The Eurofighter`s STR of 23.3 deg/s at seal level is lower than the MiG-29C`s 23.5deg/s at 3000 meters and 50% of weight why?
the MiG-29C is stable longitudinally and flying higher
Rafale will do 23.9 deg/s at sea level too in combat weight of 50% weight
the Eurofighter STR at 3000 meters is 22deg/s Rafale must have similar figures
The MiG-29M`s sustained turn rate at 3000 meters and combat weight is 22.8 deg/s both MiG-29M and MiG-29C must have higher STR at sea level.
The Cobra can be used as the Hook and bell in combat by the Su-27.
F-22 can get 28 deg/s STR.
The F-22 will achieve that thanks to better lift/drag ratio and higher TWR

Out of curiosity, where did you get all those figures from (particularly the ones at altitudes)?

Were F-117s certified to drop Durandals?

Yes well, Durandal was in US arsenal and it’s ballistic profile was known to US armorers, so there was really no problem to clear the weapon for the aircraft (F117 has a bomb computer).
Anyway, since it’s certified for free-fall bombs, it most certainly can carry Durandal.
What stopped USAF to integrate Durandal into F117’s arsenal, if F117 was so good in busting “heavily fortified” (LOL, read a bit about F117’s targets in GW1) targets?
I’m sure RAF wouldn’t mind leaving, most heavily defended objects (airfields) to USAF then, would it?

Any commanding officer that would task his F-22 crews to fly in at 200 feet is a moron why go down to 200 feet when you can travel at 50K+ feet and fire weapons from 100 or so miles away? why purposely get in detection range?

Because F22 CAN NOT take out a runway from 100 nm away (nor can from 200ft for that matter), but the thing is some weapons demand a certain attack profiles, because of construction limitations.

1st you claim I don’t know what I’m talking about by saying the tactic is near obsolete now your agreeing with me. which is it? Do Currently deployed U.S. forces use Durandal today?
My research tells me we don’t even have them in inventory anymore.
If you can show me 5th generation types that will use Durandal and low level penetration tactics I will shut up. BUT UNTIL then I stand by my point.

Look, the thing with runway busting is, it needs to be very accurate and the weapon needs a very precise INS to correctly align itself with a runway’s axis, or otherwise the damage will be insignificant, as opposed to “bunker busting”, the one thing F117 can do, where the bomb is going for a point target.
Normally, even planes don’t have INS precise enough to correctly align themselves after as little as 15 minutes of autonomous flight, hence ILS radio beacons.
New weapons with GPS correction mechanisms will mitigate this inaccuracy, but only to a degree and still the plane itself is the most accurate delivery system.
So, someone will eventually have to go in and “drop the bombs” and as always, 200ft and highest possible speed will be a way to go.

Now, I’m talking about freefalling and self-propelled runway penetrators like various types bomblets and Durandal respectively, which are so far the only way to go (AFAIK), unless you’re willing to go Soviet way and nail a tacnuke into the airfield.

..like I said before the tactic is valid but more risky. However I don’t see the tactic used much for F-35,F-22
B-2, T-50 ect. And Like I mentioned before I’m not even sure if id try this with out escort jammers. Modern IADS are just so lethal. If Im worng then I will stand down and stand corrected. But surely you see my point right?

Actually you claimed low level attack is a Cold War relic and it isn’t.
Moreover, such tactics is the only one available, in runway busting type tasks, since no one can fire Durandal or bomblets from 15k ft and expect to hit anything.
One can only speculate how’d F15E or other models fare, but obviously so good that Torandos were tasked with that particular airfield attack.

As for modern IADS, if given small enough time to react, it’s harmless like any other system.
This is what are low level attack meant to do.