Neither ESSM nor SM-2 are chasers.

I know they was design to intercept but what if the enemy aircraft sneak up from the horizon , throw harpoon , nsm … Etc. and then run away does that mean sm-2 and essm can’t chase these aircraft ?

The point with stealth is to delay detection,
making intercepts much more demanding,
high speed would have the same effect.

The point with a big radar is the other way around, getting an early detection
so you dont have to tail chase every detection.

Every one go to great length to get as much agility as possible,
and some go to even greater length & cost to combine that with high speed:
F-22.
S-400, or rather, the missile you are talking about, 40N6, is so heavy so it is a counter to AWAC’s and equally non-maneuvering targets.
Agile fighters will have to be engaged at much shorter ranges with more nimble missiles, but: they will now lack the AWAC support due to 40N6

I mean missiles couldnot even intercept farther than 30 km if the enemy running , and 90% aircraf have missile warning now so they can always turn their nose if they detected enemy missile , along with irst and LFR normal fighter can lock stealth target from 59-70 km so t-50 , f-22 , j-20 , f-35 all look like a waste of money ,yeah they can see the enemy from longer range but what the point ? If they can only attack enemy at the distance enemy can attack them ?

Yeah, and here is another wunderwaffen with 150 km range,
but do note the detail that the range shrink to a few km in tail chase.
You see, range is not given in absolute terms, but are given at launch when two a/c are closing in in straight flight

http://www.upiasia.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/07/15/Indias-Astra-tested-for-night-operations/UPI-69881279199751/
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=113735

and if missile doenot really have long range then what the point of having stealth fighter or fighter that have very big , strong radar ? why dont they just built fighter with high speed , and agility with some missile warning like DAS ? ( f-15k , or su-35s )
and how about s-400 missile does that mean they also have very short range in tail chase

There are several things to take into consideration when talking about an active (or SAR) AAM vs an LO target.

1. The distance that the missile’s seeker can lock onto the target is significantly reduced vs a non-LO target. This means that the launching AC (or 3rd party targeting) will have to guide the AAM into a closer intercept before the AAM goes active. This gives the target LO fighter more time to evade, jam, or attack the launching AC in order to sever the guidance to the AAM.

2. The RCS of an LO target is not uniform but has distinct highs and lows. This will cause the missile’s seeker to gain & lose track as its aspect to the target changes. In other words, it will be difficult for the missile to maintain a solid track of the LO fighter. Without a solid track, determining target speed, vector and an intercept course is more difficult.

3. The F-22/35 still carries chaff & flares as a defensive measure vs missiles & AAA that finally do come within striking distance.

4. I have no doubt that the F-35 will get more advanced systems like active (360 AESA) jammers, towed decoys, etc as it progresses through it’s lifetime. It did not come with them in Blk3 when cost savings vs need vs development time were taken into account. There is already internal space in the F-35 reserved for jammers and if they wanted they could add permanent TDs by replacing the vertical stabilizers and put the TDs in the base as they do on the F-16s, house them in the wing pylons (in non LO mode), or put them in LO blisters that mount on the wing stations.

5. NCADE is designed to attack boost-phase TBMs so it’s maneuverability is in question against a fighter. However, it can definitely get high enough if launched into the face of an oncoming high-altitude target (Mig-31, HALE, etc).

1-as i know all air to air radar guide missile now a day can effectively reject chaff , and all IIR missile can see the different between fighter and flare , so what the point of having chaff and flare on F-22 , F-35 , why dont they save the place for more important equipment ??
2-and while the F-35 , have a lower RCS and can evade missile easier , normal gen 4 aircraft like F-16 have 4 ALE-50 , so it mean that they can easily fool all 4 missile on the F-35 , how could the F-35 can even win ? , gps on aim-120 have nothing to do here as the distance between enemy decoy and enemy aircraft is so short , and i dont think apg-81 could even see the ale-50 as it is a AESA radar => ale-50 will not be able to resend apg-81 signal
3-can you give me any offical source state that F-35 still have low RCS against low band radar ( like L-band )

can anyone tell where the idea ” F-35 shape can still have effect in L-band frequency “ come from :confused::confused: any link ???? thank alot

Generaly speaking a modern decoy will use multiple techniques to foil a lock, those techinques include mimicking the RCS of the aircraft that it protects.

Cheers

i know the decoy like ITALD , MALD ,ALE-50 can have the RCS equal or bigger than the aircraft it protect by the use of Luneburg lens or enhance repeater but how can they mimicking the shape of the aircraft ( as what i understand the radar that capable of NCTR can see the shape of enemy aircraft right ?)

In the mid-1980’s the South African Air force using Mb-326K Impala Mk2 aircraft shot down 2 Angolan x Mi-24′ and 4x Mi-17’s in two seperate engagements.

Also a Rhodesian AF Allouette III shot a Botswana Defence Force Islander, not sure if it was shot down though.

if it shoot down the heli by gun then that not very impress

Quite a few problems there.Peak power output , antenna size , reciever sensitivity and the prf.Also radar line of sight will be an issue in extended ranges.Add to that interference from the sea surface.

i mean even with the same radar the range against naval target that have the same RCS value as an air target always much much shorter:confused: