Yes it will maneuver at the last phase agreed. But the concept does not change, there will only be more RCS fluctuations. As said a good stealth design deflects radar waves from a threat radars boresight. A ideal all aspect design would do this at every aspect with the same performance. Let me make a simple example: A car on a turntable is sprayed by a high pressure firefighting tube –> the deflected water around it will fluctuate at different aspects but the position of the tube dictates most of the deflection behavior/direction.

I honestly dont get what are you trying to say ? Both the shape of the car and the position of the tube will dictate the deflection angle of the water, not just the tube position.So if the car turn obviously the defection angle change too

A typical energy optimized trajectory via autopilot updated missile up-link with a dive down maneuver at terminal phase (at long ranges) or a climb from below (short ranges) would likely do it. Energy cant be eliminated; the deflected RF energy (minus the RAM/RAS absorbed portion) will be a strong signal, in quantity about the same amount of RF energy reflected by a conventional design.

Normal BVR always climb at initial phase and dive down at terminal phase.So this have been taken in to account of stealth aircraft designer. But if you want your proporsal to work, your missiles need to dive down target but from side aspect , not from front. And the major problem is that if target change direction then the location of their spike will change also

I explained this in the first post of this thread. The basic idea is to use other sensor assets input into the IADS/GCI to enable a x-band attack system to do something it would be otherwise unable to do via this proposed bi-static effect.

Your explaination isn’t sufficient
You cant just blindly illuminate a space then launch missiles randomly at the blind space and hope that the there would be some reflection from something there and the missiles can home on the reflection to target.
There are plenty of problems:
1/ Rule of engagements
2/ Chaff , decoy
3/ Do you launch enough missiles to cover every possible aspect that target can have high RCS spike ?
4/ When to launch the missiles if you are not intended to measure range?

Above I explained the behavior of a ideal all-aspect stealth design, it always deflects the waves away from the boresight of the attack radar. This will probably never be realized. The weaker the design gets at different sections, less waves are deflected and can travel back into the direction of the emitter, causing fluctuations at the SARH seeker. However a SAGG guided missile will also benefit from aspects where less RF energy is deflected because the ground based fire control radar will start to receive echos and use command guidance if seeker lock has been brocken.

The problem is you assumed that once aircraft turn aspect with low RCS toward the missiles, it will present the fire control radar with a high RCS spike. But that is not neccessary true.

Lets put it simple, a good stealth design deflects more RF energy into direction where a potential bi-static SARH seeker/receiver can be positioned.
A bad stealth design deflects less into presumably safe directions and sends back echos to the attacking radar boresight.
A SAGG guided missiles makes use of both of this worst and best case scenarios and the fluctuations between them.

Stealth aircraft are generally have bow tie signature, meaning most of scattering is to the side, and they have low frontal and tail aspect RCS. Theoretically you can put a receiver so that it always be at the side of target, and thus take advantage of their design, but side aspect generally mean less Doppler shift, which mean seeker has to deal with higher level of clutter and harder to distingush target from chaff/ ground return.

The kinematic penalty would be negligible because its limited to terminal phase

Well, no. How exactly to you imagined the missiles fly profiles would be ?. Fly directly at target then make an U turn to approach it from the side ?

CW designs such as the HAWK/SA-6 seekers have no doppler range measurements. Even if your argument is right and a modern FMCW illumination radar would have problems to create the necessary doppler shift of such deflected waves: A SAGG based system will have analytic means to distinguish between chaff and target.

The reason radar can distingush between chaff and target is due to Doppler shift. Doppler shift is created due to the radical velocity of target and the transmitter.

First, what do you think that the F-35 would have such a great advantage?
The Su-35 also has RCS reduction measures, unlike the F-15 and F-16 used in the Red Flag AFAIK.

F-16 and F-15 both have RCS reduction measure, notably the Have Glass program with Golden canopy and Ironball paint.

Have Glass covered insertion of RAM into the inlet duct and on other elements of the airframe, addition of a metalized canopy and foam behind radar. Have Glass consisted of two separate programs:

the radar cross section reduction-oriented Pacer Mud that led to creation of the radar absorbent material called FMS-3049 and

the infrared signature reduction-oriented Pacer Gem that resulted in incorporation of the new top coat paint (FMS-2026) matching the shades of the current paint.

The new RAM was implemented on 60% of the structure, generally on selected upper and lower surfaces, where 10-20mils of RAM was sprayed, adding about 100kg of weight to the aircraft.

if the F-35 would shoot itself in the foot using just LPI mode i.e. so forfeiting the doppler effect.

LPI mode is achieved through frequency hopping , PRF jitter and pulse compression. They don’t really affect Doppler effect

Same can be said with all those things you list: they are not a F-35 exclusive, about all current production fighters have something similar.
And no, a difference of -10db means not a ten time greater detection range, actually it’s less than the double.

1/ There is way more than 10 dB different between radar cross section of F-35 and Su-35
2/ -10 dB in RCS mean about 44% reduction in detection range, about 70% reduction in burn through range and 90% reduction in jamming power required.

@Marcellogo

I think its possible that SARH SAMs and AAM with missile up-link course updates until terminal phase are more effective against stealth/VLO targets than the same for ARH seekers. As said, they work effectively as a bi-static radar. Given that the main technique of stealth/VLO designs is a geometry that avoids radar waves to directly bounce back to the radar receiver which sent them, –> the waves must be deflected into a other direction. This other direction where the RF energy is deflected to, can be exploited by a bi-static radar, which a SARH/SAGG/TVM guided SAM/AAM effectively is. Its auto-pilot/INS can position it via course updates at a position or angle where the radar waves are most likely deflected to, do a sniff maneuver in terminal phase, catch the RF source and home on it.
This bi-static feature is only present in SARH missiles, a ARH seeker must rely to be guided close enough to the target to receive a echo. Hence I think this property of SARH missiles have kept them alive for operators which have to face stealth opponents and not only the reduced cost/technology. To really exploit this possible effect against stealth targets, an advanced system and IADS such as the S-400 is necessary.

There are a few problems with your proporsal:
1/ what if VLO asset change direction ? since they are designed with very narrow RCS spike in mind, their reflection spike can get out of missiles FoV very quick
2/ Reflection from side aspect RCS has very low Doppler shift, so missiles seeker will have to deal with much higher clutter level

I had read that

Manufacturers info is more accurate than third-party websites

I am a bit surprise that the detection range from the front is only 1/3 the range from behind but that’s probably true.

The jet exhaust is much hotter than the wing leading edge or the nose.

those are downgraded export figures.

No, it isn’t.

Has any context to these kill ratios been published?
Like:
Exact type of plane that was pitted against f35?
Who was attacking, who was defending?
Outside sensors (awacs, ground based radar) in play?
Exact numbers of planes on either side per skirmish?

After watching the video , it seem like they pit 8 Blue air against 20 Red air. According to the general Red air has jamming and SAM support. Not sure whether they had AWACs or not.
Red air are most likely the 64th and 65th Aggressors Squadrons, consist of F-16 and F-15

I said that the col was comparing the su 30 to the Raptor. You replied by making it look like, to someone who didn’t watch the video, that I posted the wrong video or something because you made it look like the F 15 vs the su 30 was the central topic of the video. When clearly it wasn’t.

You mean at 3:35 where the general imply how much better Raptor is than Su-30 by his hand gesture or at 9:22-9:29 where is said Su-30 sustain turn rate is no where close to Raptor ?. The video literally go against what you are trying say

The subsequent obscurantism that the col went on to say about fuel tanks, F 15’s, pilots and tactics does not take away the main point and reason why I posted the video. Which is, that the USAF col said that an su 30 can do anything that a Raptor can do at an airshow. (Indian pilot in a su 30. Not Russian pilot in an su 35)

You did not said ” the su-30 can do anything Raptor do at airshow”. If that was the case i wouldnt have reply. You said ( and i quote word for word) :

when India was flying their various 4th and 4.5 gen fighters with the Raptor, the USAF said that the only thing that could play with the Raptor in dogfighting was the su 30’s.

No where in the video that the general mentioned such a thing. Not even remotely close.