Jamming? The APG-81 cannot jam the frequencies of those radars.

F-35 can also carry ALE-70 , which works in similar fashion as ALE-55
alternatively, it can use MALD-J

The TLAM is not stealthy, it will be detected and killed if it tries to loiter to find its target. Next…

The JDAM doesn’t have enough range. And can probably be shot down. Next…

JSOW-C. The C has a penetration warhead, not really suited. Will be shot down. Next…

JSOW-ER. Won’t be integrated in the F-35 for quite some time. Will be shot down.

What’s needed is either a real ARM missile if such a missile can track the emissions of those radars with a terminal seeker ( like AARGM ), either mini cruise missiles that can be launched from very low altitude like the SPEAR III, or a really steathy cruise missile like JASSM-ER with an ARM + terminal seeker

JSM is stealthy , has long range , and has both IIR , GPS , datalink and a terminal RF seeker too
http://www.janes.com/article/54738/norway-australia-sign-agreement-on-passive-rf-seeker-development-for-jsm

MADL-J? Who will launch it, without being shot down

F-35 can , and MALD-J range is something like 920 km so…

It probably doesn’t take more than 15 minutes to fold the antenna and leave. There are only a few cables to unplug before leaving. Maybe I was wrong for the 5 minutes ( that is probably the time it takes to fold the antenna though ) for the whole procedure, but anyways you can’t rely on targeting data gathered before an attack. The enemy will surely use the capability to move the system quickly as much as possible as they expect a cruise missile attack.

F-35 using APG-81 in SAR mode or ASQ-239 can update the info about target coordinate

VHF being able to engage them at something between 50 and 100 NMI a quarter to an half of the S-400 maximum distance.

.

Where do you get that conclusion from ? the terminal seeker of ARH missiles can barely detect F-35 over hundred of meters in jamming condition , how will you engage them with VHF radars ?

the F-35 cannot get accurate GPS coordinates at that kind of range.

It can , either by using APG-81 in SAR mode or use ASQ-239 to locate ground emitters

Some of them are mobile. They can fold their antenna and move within 5 minutes. You can’t rely on satellite data to attack them.

I dont know any early warning radar that can fold ther radar and move in 5 minutes

Off topic, but Typhoon + large AESA + Meteor is likely to outshine everything else in BVR, isn’t it? I wonder how the range of the Gripen E AESA will compare.

Typhoon have decent radar but it unlikely that it would be powerful enough again VLO aircraft, stealth fighter just have too big of an advantage especially with ECM

Yes, but as previously demonstrated by calculations above.. does it really practical ?

The NG’s director clearly know what he’s talking about and select one which looks promising and not telling the whole picture.

.
Actually , thinking about it, may be radar can generate EMP effect, not at X band but seem doable in Ku or Ka band , maybe not again a massive ground base radar but again something like missiles or APS on tanks like OP said is entirely possible ( and yes i know these frequency are heavily affected by weather and moisture)
Iam quite certain that SpY-1 can damage airplane or missiles radar at close range if it was at full power

Of it’s not stealthy it’s pretty much the same in fact.

It make a difference if the target is stealthy, jamming techniques is very important too.
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/electronic-countermeasure-ecm/

An who says a B-70 couldnt carry cruise missiles also just like the B-52 with a response time 4 times faster.

B-52 still likely to have higher load out because it can carry missiles on the wing
And fast response times when launching cruise missile from 4000-5000 km doesn’t really matter, or not enough to counter the increase in cost and high maintenance going along with it

And we should have built the B-70. We still have the B-52 so tell me why a plane that flew twice as high and 4 times faster would not be a better airplane.

1) Cost
2) Range
3) Pay load.
and flying high and fast doesn’t make you invulnerable to modern SAM and AAM. While staying 4000-5000 km from enemy line, launching cruise missile does.

OK.. If the F-35A is 9g rated, then why was it limited from 5.2g to 4.6g?

.

Because of the altitude different.
To turn an aircraft need to generate enough lift to counter acceleration, at high altitude the air is thinner, thus you have less lift, an aircraft that can easily excess 9 G at sea level will barely able to pull a 5-6 G turn at 15K feet.
Secondly, a sustained and instantaneous turn are very different, a sustained turn is a turn we your aircraft have enough thrust to counter drag, thus able maintain it’s velocity. By contrast, an instantaneous turn is when aircraft trade velocity to get more lift to turn (this often done by increase AoA) . Sustained turn can be done continously while if you repeatedly doing instantaneous turn without try to regain speed then your aircraft will fall down from sky