Post number 39 in this very thread my son. To quote what you can’t remember you wrote:
“Bottom tropopause, just above contrail belt (about 12200m) is much more likely operational height.”

To much weed rots your memory…

LOL, are you sferrin’s brother, imbecile?

How much is 12200m? Have you even bothered to calculate, or is it too high for you, eh?…Another, “pub expert”/LOL.

Now, I’m fed with your stupidity as well, so just haul your dumb a$$ and close the doors on your way out, “son”/ROFLMAO…

Non of that gets around the fact that your claim of Raptors not operating at 60k and that they normally operate at is 36k is utterly wrong.

1) Where did I say, F22’s op height is 35k ft? Get your facts straight.

2) Public domain knowledge sets F22’s dry thrust at 55k ft and 65k ft for AB. Now, I’m not sure how well you are acquainted with aerodynamics and flight operations, but a height at which a plane can’t fly on dry thrust and can pull ~1.5g, can’t be called “Typical operational altitude”, can it?
As I said it’s useful for high-alt photo session, but air-combat?…and F22 is a fighter, not strategic recce aircraft, like SR-71.
Now, if you don’t get this, I’m out of mechanisms to explain it more literally, so you’ll just have to trust me, or skip my posts.

Just out of curiosity, where are you deriving these stats from?

Well, this case is so clear that needs no derivation, whatsoever. Take dry and AB ceiling (public domain data) and you should be able to figure the rest out, yourself.

Hm…
Harrier IIB+ has T/W about 1,7:1 (empty), while F-35B has <=1,33:1.

How does one even get the idea to compare the two in sense of VTOL operations?
Harrier proved maneuvering while hovering (lateral translations and yaw rotations), skyhook grappling (LOL, some even considered submarine deployment) and VIFFing (killed quite a few better performers).
F-35 can barely hover (empty) and if you load its fuel tanks full, it needs a take off run (no weapons and ammo!). As for skyhooking and VIFFing, well just forget it.

The only true “fault” the Harrier has, is speed. If it was M2 capable, nobody would replace it for many years to come.

😀 >>DUEL<< refueling capability! F35’s pilot must call “en garde”, before he hooks up…:D

HMMH = High – Medium (in) – Medium (out) – High

As long as a tank crew is not aware to be targeted, it can do nothing about that. The crew has to be informed from the own network, that an airborne threat is in a striking distance to learn about that and get out of the line of sight.
I agree, the best way is to do all measures possible to avoid detection at all. Even the fastest tank in the world is in trouble, when targeted from above. In such case a smoke screen and a short “combat-jump” can break the aiming and safe your day by that. The field of view from seeker-heads is getting better every year. Maybe you have noticed that all serious armies do equip their MBTs with sensor warning systems and active countermeasures right now.
http://defense-update.com/products/a/arena-e.htm
That does help against something like the Hellfire but not against the mass of a bomb, when even a “near miss” will disable your MBT.
The example about the M-1 did show, that the crew may have had a chance to survive that hit in an unknown condition. The M-1 was no longer in a fighting condition for sure.

We can agree in general, before something could be targeted it has to be detected and identified, after that the aiming-cycle does start. The one alerted in time has a chance to prevent that or get away by outsmarting the robot.
A smart 100 kg bomb is powerful enough to flip-over a 70 tons MBT close by.

There’s one thing you’re constantly forgetting. I said MOBILE target.
So a mobile target, by definition, is MOVING and not because it has been alerted to possible airborne danger (but may be), but because it’s traveling somewhere, is fighting, or whatever and isn’t aware of airborne danger whatsoever.
In Europe’s climate/terrain/urban conditions, MOVING, means presenting itself as a target in short appearances between naturally featured “covers”.
An aircraft, bomb, or any tropospheric aircraft will have an angle against 40km distant target of about 17,3° above horizon, at bottom tropopause. Average tank height is 2,5m, so I think my point is clear.

Finally, a 130kg SDB (GBU-39B) has 22,7 kg warhead. Maverick has 57kg of cumulative (two-staged) armor penetrating optimized explosive and wasn’t able to penetrate M1’s turret.
So, anything short of direct hit has a 99,99% chance of leaving tank operational.

Many “should”s and “could”s and that’s much more realistic (won’t get into details, but don’t think I didn’t see them :)).
As I said, I don’t have a grudge with the F22, since it’s very unlikely that it’ll ever get near me, or shoot me, being a fighter.
…and you should better find a girl, than flaming my posts :)…