Have you hear nothing in the last TEN years about metric wavelenght radars?
Actual AEW radars can detect and track stealth aircrafts with enough precision to allow ARH missiles to be fired against it, with a way lesser hit ratio than against normal ones but still enought to make the mission pattern F-22 was developed around i.e. I repeat loitering over enemy controlled territory in order to achieve Air dominancejust impossible to even try..

The problem is not whether you can detect them or not but at what distance ?how well in jamming condition ? , and AEW with low frequency radar isnot thing new ,in fact most if not all AWACs (E-3 , E-2 , A-50 ..etc ) all use low frequency (C band , L band or even lower ) , it is unlikely that Russia , US , china ..etc dont know about the ability of metric frequency radars , they still choose to follow the stealth path and for good reason.

No, you’re not wasting your time.. quite on the contrary, this piece was very useful..
Let me sum it up, why are we talking about this.. Picard has mentioned somewhere Rafale could go up to Hopsalot has argued the FCS only allows for 4.0g and supplied a source.. I have responded that such limit was unknown to me and that it was in no way a hard limit, to my knowledge.. and that you needed whole envelope map in order to assess such info bcs it could be that the 4.0g limit was only valid for the given speed.. Your response was that I did not grasp aircraft design and flight control laws..

Anyway, it looks that I was right, after all. The link mentions that at lower speeds the FCS provided higher g-load limits, namely 5.2g or 5.4g. Which is exactly what I have asked about.. And if that is true, then Picard, too was correct on this..

MSphere, no you are not correct, and neither was Picard, read Garry post!

You are confusing between “available” G and structure G limit
Available G = how much lift can the wing and body of the aircraft generated , it depending on AoA, weight, and airspeed
Structure G limit refers to structural g limit , the FCS of Rafale need to put a limit of 5 G when weapon are carried on heavy A-G station because otherwise the wing will fall of when aircraft turning too hard .
Now you can argue that the pilot can override the FCS ( or for some reason the FCS shut down and let the pilot do what ever he want ) , and then he can fly the Rafale at maximum speed to generate enough lift for 5,5-6 g sustained turn with 3×2.000 l external fuel tanks, 4 air-to-air missiles and 2 SCALP cruise missiles , and we ignore the structure limit ,there are still several problems:
1) the Rafale wont be able to fly much faster than mach 0.8 with 3×2.000 l external fuel tanks, 4 air-to-air missiles and 2 SCALP cruise missiles, the drag in that configuration would be enomours
2) Turn rate is affected by speed , so while 5G turn at mach 0.8 is still decent , a 5G turn at mach 1.8 is almost like not turnning ( as the turn rate reduced to 1-2 degrees/second)
3)instantaneous turn rate is different from sustained turn rate , while going faster can help improve instantaneous turn rate because more lift will be available through speed, it a different story with sustained turn rate , because in a sustain turn the engine have to overcome drag to maintain speed of aircraft , and as you go faster there will be more drag.
4)Last but not least , Picard exact statement was : ” In fact, Rafale can achieve 5,5-6 g sustained turn with 3×2.000 l external fuel tanks, 4 air-to-air missiles and 2 SCALP cruise missiles. F-35A can only sustain 4,6 g when in clean configuration.”
which mean he need to compare them in the same condition which is 15K feet , mach 0.8 . If he take the sustain turn performance of Rafale at sea level then compare it with the F-35 at 15K feet then he is even more of a moron because that would be similar to me compare the speed of the F-35 at 30K feet with speed of the Mig-25 at sea level then declare F-35 is a much faster aircraft .

Except your tb iq decade outdated. Magic missile? 1700 L droptanks? Are yu kidding?

Physics cannot be out dated unless the Rafale suddenly follow a different Physics law. It not about the actual range of these aircraft but about the different between high altitudes and low altitude. And while these aircraft may carry less fuel than Rafale , they only carry merely 4000 lbs of bombs (aka 2 2000 lbs bombs)

strike eagle was an air superiority aircraft equipped for strike, which is the easiest way to convert an airframe, as it has the performance way above what is needed for strike in the first place. The F-16 was an exclusive air to air fighter, again, having extremely high flight performance… from which one could add what it took to make it strike capable. the F-35 was developped as a strike aircraft and they try to make pretend to be also an air superiority platform.

any evidence to back up your theory ? number and what not?

…

Larger plane….more fuel. The Gripen can more than adequately defend Canadian airspace and do so at longer range than the F35 without tanks. It can carry as much in A2A as the legacy hornet with tanks. Not a problem.

e.

Feom kinematics pov
Gripen with 3 tank will have no advantage over the traditional hornet, similar speed (probably even slower) , not agile

On what bandwidth? From what angle? What you seems doesn’t have understood in my post is that

From this, https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/eurofighter-boasts-typhoon-reign-over-f-35-345265/
it appears that even AWACs with their powerful low frequency radar need to stay out of F-35 frontal cone (60 degree) to detect it.

there will be several radars, several AD systems operating in different bands all acting at the same time.

there will be several F-35, MALD-J too

Actually, to counter stealth those system are evolving into a multistatic environment, with many of them able to made direct use of emission coming from other sources.

And how far are these systems have to be located from each other to be always able to look at stealth aircraft from their non stealthy aspects ?

Problem is that f-35 was initially marketed as being perfectly capable to operate just alone and so to greatly compensate its way higher unitary cost. So the comparison would need to be made between VLO RCS alone against LO RCS + supports.
For USN there will growlers available , so no problem but what have USAF taken instead of EF-111?

MALD-J , any aircraft carry ALQ-184, ALQ-131, and even F-35 itself can do seft support jamming with APG-81, ASQ-239 and ALE-70

A better place for them might be a VLO conformal pod on the wing stations since they are already wired.

you mean carry a whole new pod on wing station ? , wouldn’t that be counter productive? , in my opinion F-35 will carry ALE-70 the same way F-18E Carry ALE-55