this look awesome

Radar systems work by sending out a signal and then listening for its echo off distant objects. Each of these paths, to and from the target, is subject to the inverse square law of propagation. That means that a radar’s received energy drops with the fourth power of the distance, which is why radar systems require high powers, often in the megawatt range, to be effective at long range.[1]

The radar signal being sent out is a simple radio signal, and can be received with a simple radio receiver. It is common to use such a receiver in the targets, normally aircraft, to detect radar broadcasts. Unlike the radar unit, which must send the pulse out and then receive its reflection, the target’s receiver does not need the reflection and thus the signal drops off only as the square of distance. This means that the receiver is always at an advantage over the radar in terms of range – it will always be able to detect the signal long before the radar can see the target’s echo. Since the position of the radar is extremely useful information in an attack on that platform, this means that radars generally must be turned off for lengthy periods if they are subject to attack; this is common on ships, for instance.

Turning that received signal into a useful display is the purpose of the “radar warning receiver” (RWR). Unlike the radar, which knows which direction it is sending its signal, the receiver simply gets a pulse of energy and has to interpret it. Since the radio spectrum is filled with noise, the receiver’s signal is integrated over a short period of time, making periodic sources like a radar add up and stand out over the random background. The rough direction can be calculated using a rotating antenna, or similar passive array using phase or amplitude comparison. Typically RWRs store the detected pulses for a short period of time, and compare their broadcast frequency and pulse repetition frequency against a database of known radars. The direction to the source is normally combined with symbology indicating the likely purpose of the radar – airborne early warning, surface to air missile, etc.

This technique is much less useful against AESA radars. Since the AESA (or PESA) can change its frequency with every pulse (except when using doppler filtering), and generally does so using a pseudo-random sequence, integrating over time does not help pull the signal out of the background noise. Moreover, AESA radars may extend the duration of the pulse and lower their peak power. This makes no difference to the total energy reflected by the target but makes the detection of the pulse by an RWR system less likely.[2] Nor does the AESA have any sort of fixed pulse repetition frequency, which can also be varied and thus hide any periodic brightening across the entire spectrum. Older generation RWRs are essentially useless against AESA radars, which is why AESA’s are also known as ‘low probability of intercept radars. Modern RWRs must be made highly sensitive (small angles and bandwidths for individual antennas, low transmission loss and noise)[2] and add successive pulses through time-frequency processing to achieve useful detection rates.[3]

AESA radars can be much more difficult to detect that they can broadcast continually and still have a very low chance of being detected. This allows such radar systems to generate far more data than traditional radar systems, which can only receive data periodically, greatly improving overall system effectiveness.

For bomber interception. For air superiority fighters, optical sensors are more important as they don’t place them in danger when used and can relatively reliably identify aircraft at BVR.

Wrong
most fighter , interceptor have radar , only a few have irst , optical , fewer can actually use them to give firing solution , some new fighter dont even have irst ex: f-22 , typhoon trance 1 , jas-39

F-117 got targeted by the radar operating at VHF. Once track was established, Serbs fired 2 IR SAMs, one of which missed. Good mission planning would have prevented that, simply because F-117 wouldn’t have been passing in range of Zoltani’s battery (only one which was using VHF radar). But inherent vulnerability of low-RCS aircraft to VHF and HF radars is a fact.

no , mission planing make it fly too close , repeated , = dangerous even if it a normal radar because f-117 have really bad SA

Work on your reading. Not missile, radar.

NO you said missiles take several sec to lock on , which is wrong

Instantaneous up to 7 g, but F-4 in the video was in a sustained turn.

F-4 CAN SUSTAIN G quite good depend on fuel state and altitude , and unless you have exact info about speed you wouldńt know if it a sustain turn or not

It also means that enemy’s missile range is reduced if you turn away from the enemy after firing a missile, and that you can cause a greater overshoot if you turn sideways.

Faster = bigger turn radius , slower turn rate , reduce enemy missiles fly distance , reduce pilot reaction time , higher ir signature

Then show me some evidence that the F-135 incorporates anything more than bog-standard IR signature reduction measures! It does not have external cooling channel, that would be visible;

Show me same feature in rafale , typhoon engine
and f-135 do have cooling feature , just read the link people posted

it does have notched nozzle but that only reduces IR signature of afterburning plume’s wings, it does jack all at subsonic speeds where signature of the engine itself is actually more significant at long range than that of exhaust

posted an official link that say this , otherwise it only your opinion , and invalid
also f-35 have paint to reduce IR while both typhoon , rafale doesńt

, and even then it is relatively ineffective due to F-135s size and thrust level.

Can you show a calculation or official link to prove this ????
According to your logic all the t-50 , f-22 , b-2 , typhoon , rafale have huge ir signature and due to their thrust level no way to reduce their IR SIGNATURE

In other words: “I don’t like it but it is correct so I’ll just dismiss it.”

no it mean what you said was so nonsense , biased , ilogical that no one bother to argue about it

IIRC, French have tested Dassault’s EW system against land-based AESA radars.

OH really french have tested rafale ew perform singer ship geolocation again AESA ????? Post a link about it , dont make up story

F-16 is air superiority fighter by design, it just got AtG mission tacked on (like the F-15E), F-35 is a ground attack aircraft by design. Just take a look:
F-16A: wing loading 338,5 kg/m2, thrust-to-weight ratio 1,15, dash speed Mach 2,0, cruise speed Mach 0,95, X seconds from M 0,8 to M 1,2 at 30.000 feet, 463 km combat radius at the internal fuel
F-16C: wing loading 392,4 kg/m2, thrust-to-weight ratio 1,19, dash speed Mach 2,0, cruise speed Mach 0,95, 27 seconds from M 0,8 to M 1,2 at 30.000 feet
F-35A: wing loading 427,9 kg/m2, thrust-to-weight ratio 1,07, dash speed Mach 1,6, cruise speed Mach 0,95, 61 second from M 0,8 to M 1,2 at 30.000 feet, 1.082 km combat radius at the internal fuel

Wing loading and TWR are for 50% fuel + 6 AAM. F-35 also uses submerged cockpit with no rearward visibility, something that was only used on ground attack aircraft and bomber interceptors.

In clean configuration (including 2 wingtip AAMs), F-16 can cruise at Mach 1,1.

1) you are changing some number to fit to your idea
2 ) go to ” fighter agility ” or ” about F-35 kinematic ” thread and read , your knowledge about aerodynamic is really limited
3 ) rear visibly solve by DAS

You mean just like Rafale?

Post link say rafale can do the same then we can continues

F-35A has wing loading of 379 kg/m2 and TWR of 1,2 with 6 AAM and 25% internal fuel. Typhoon has wing loading of 291 kg/m2 and TWR of 1,08 with 6 AAM and 100% internal fuel. But with F-35s higher drag, it is doubtful wether higher TWR will matter at all.

less wing loading doesnot equal more agility , compare f-106 , f-15 ,f-4 , f-16 and see for yourself
and drag is not the same at all speed ,f-35 may be very bad at high mach but at transonic , subsonic , it good , and fighter often dogfight at about mach 0.7-0.85 only

VHF radar can guide in IR SAMs and IRST-equipped interceptors into an acquisition range. As for IR signature, yes it is huge for all fighters, but it is not equally huge.

VHF have really bad accuracy , they may be able to guide fighter but not missiles SAM dont use them as fire control for reason
without actual technical spec you wont know what fighter have bigger IR

Radar and IRST have overlapping functions, so do gun and missiles, so there is redundancy even if only one of each systems is present.

they cańt replace other , their performer very different

I’m not going by biggest number, some sources say that Typhoon can fly at 65.000 ft.

By a zoom climb , sure

a) From the top, side signature will be smaller.
b) IR signature is compared at the same speed, F-35 needs to use afterburner for supersonic flight therefore it will have higher IR signature.

a) the side may be , but not the top , and also depend on the heat of the flame
b) but typhoon fly faster , dont have reduced IR paint like f-35 = more heat signature , and f-35 only need to use after burner to past sonic barrier and it can use mil power for 15 min in supersonic before use after burner again

And immediately start decelerating to the subsonic speed. It cannot sustain supersonic speed without using at least low afterburner.

Decelerate to mach 1 from mach 1.3 after 15 min is not immediately

Wrong.

Posted any official link of aircraft producer claim their fighter can give firing solution for missiles ( again air target ) just rely on RWR ( no radar involve ) then

And got pasted by Rafale and gripen.

doesnot change the fact that it did kill the typhoon , and the typhoon did score kill again gripen , rafale , even f-22

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2012/08/Fox_Three_nr_8.pdf

“Endurance is excellent, even at low-level where we can fly at 450 knots for 1 h 30 min in a clean configuration.”

So you’re off by a mere factor of 9. Even at maximum dry thrust and internal fuel only it can patrol for 20 minutes at supersonic speeds at useful combat radius.

450 knot is about 800 km/h that not supersonic , and also clean fighter without missiles, rack while alot have less drag , not really useful for any think ( scout may be )

Not necessarily.
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/F16_Turn_Rates.jpg
http://www.slideshare.net/Picard578/stevenson-f-22-brief

F-22 achieves best M0,9 cruise range at 40 k feet, and best M 1,5 cruise range at 45k feet. Its best maneuvering envelope is probably between 30k and 40k feet.

No planes or missiles all have to follow aerodynamic rule
the only different is because plane have engine they dont perform well at high altitude where their agility is worst , how ever they still turn better when the air is thick than when it too thin like at 60 k ft

F-16 can pull almost 3 g instantaneous at ~58.000 feet and Mach 1,2:
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/F16_Turn_Rates.jpg

F-16 cańt reach that altitude

Red shift can be used to measure velocity, range can be measured by triangulation or kinematic ranging (a single fighter triangulation, basically).

i said it before , red shift is only used in astro physic where think more really really fast , really far away , really realy big , and you have super big lens to look at them for a long time , if you still dont believe it try to find any IRST system on fighter , tank , or ship that use red shift to measure velocity then !
Also what IRST producers or fighter producer claim that they can do kinematic ranging according to your method ?? Post a link about it ? Or it just doeńt exist

F-35 is not stealth in two out of three most important aspects: IR and visual. Third one (EMCON) it is stealth in thanks to having the IRST, but its IRST is limited in air-to-air role. Rafale is stealth in all three, as much as it can be.

no fighter is stealth in visual ( your beloved typhoon , rafale, gripen isnot really smaller than f-35 especially when they are loaded )
f-35 have reduce ir paint and reduce IR nozzle while typhoon , rafale , gripen dont
f-35 obviously stealth in RF
and sure rafale is stealth as well if you compared it to b-52 or su-27

Stealth is a relative thing, Rafale does have comparably low IR signature and extensive IR signature reduction measures, to the point that AIM-9L/M had trouble locking on to Rafale. Wether it will be really stealthy in IR when supersonic? No, even at high subsonic speeds it won’t really be stealth in IR, but it will be far stealthier than the F-35.

trouble locking on may be due to flare , missiles malfunction , ground too hot ..etc not because the rafale is stealth in ir , and no actual info show that it more stealth than f-35 in ir

And AESA can be detected by modern RWRs.

you still unable to post official link of any rwr producer claim to do so ( apart from the f-35 ew that have been tested ) also i repeat ” at what range “
stealth fighter can be seen by any radar the distance that they can be seen is another thing