well, it all depends on what you want in it, I’d say.

They’ve spent a lot of money and time on various electronic systems in the F-35, engines, etc… Take some of these and put them into an airframe developed to suit your air superiority goals… shaped without STOVL constraints (meaning, first and foremost, bigger, longer and sleeker), apply coatings you already have… all in all you can get something specialized for A2A rather quickly. On the other side, if you want to reinvent everything, then, obviously, you have a snowball’s chance in hell to succeed in so little time

Problem is that, for the description they made of the desired thing they seems to go into something very different from F-35 and more in general to the same concept of fighter itself.
In every case they are in very preliminar phase, at the point we doesn’t ever know if this PCA refers to a plane to drones to conventional missiles or DEW.
IMHO it’just a request of a capacity, something more like” we still want back the possibility to perform offensive air superiority missions i.e.enter and stay deep into heavily defended enemy territory for what the F-22 was designed forth but faided short of aspectatives” thing than a precise project, hence my own skepticism about development times.
.

i dont think US airforce ( or any other air force that using/ designing stealth aircraft ) are not aware of low frequency or multi static radar. Nor do they changed their whole tactic because of those things.( since they already existed since F-117 , B-2 time )

To be honest , iam not sure what your point is , USA upgrade those F-15C not so that they can be subtitude for the stealth jet , but more like support assets since load out of stealth fighter is rather limited. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of stealth in modern combat

I would have to get a look at the dates but I’m quite sure that when the practical possibilities of those system became evident, F-117 and B-2 were long time in service and F-22 on advanced stages of deployment.
For the rest, you still confondd a crytics between the objective limits of a given technology to the utter rejection of it.
I repeat myself, there is a difference between being part of a cooperative and incremental effort and being considered instead a magical hat-trick able to solve all problem at once.
So, pointing out how stealth was often presented like the latter one would not in any way imply that it actually is not anymore the most relevant part of the former.
Aboutt the point of it , I have the impressionthat probably we have a little carried away by the discussion itself , my first post defended the implementation of a modernization package on the F-15 and now you say i’m against it.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2241950.html

7th modernized Il-38N is undergoing testing.

Could a multiple radar complex like the one above cabin be installed over a smaller plane to be used on STOBAR carrier instead of Ka-31?

The only KPP that “came down” was range and even then only by a very slight margin.

You may be thinking KPI.

btw.. we’re getting close to “damn.. not another thread take over by F-35 talk!!!”… 😀

It always a risk, remember that F-35 would be practically the sole new fighter Nato countries would acquire for more than a decade, dso even if it is not still out of development phase every debate around the future have eventually to revolve about it.
For the rest, when we talk about F-15 we are talking actually about two different things, performing divergent mission so when one talk about making number, sorry but even considering just the F-35 of the batches actually in acquisition they are actually more than each of the two different types (and of the F-22A)
So, imho it’s more than probable that it would end with the F-22A protecting american territory, the F-15C escorting F-15E and the F-35 escorting other F-35.

While the max loadouts for the Mig-29K may be true, that is not what those youtube videos show:

1st video shows a -29 with two EFT starting takeoff run (oddly it switches to a clip of a clean Mig-29 on ski jump, around 2:37)
2nd video does not show the Mig-29 with anything like the anti-shipping loadout you are mentioning, taking off (other than crews loading those aircraft and positioning the Mig), again the clip breaks to stock footage of Mig-29 taking off with clean wings.

Not to mention there is no way in h*ll any aircraft (even on a cat-trap carrier) would be able to take off with that load on a stationary carrier (the carrier is anchored). The carrier aircraft need sufficient WoD to be launched with such a heavy load. (notice that the carrier is moving in the stock clip of the Mig-29K taking off from the ski-jump)

When the planes in the video are launched the ship is moving.
As you say those videos are collage of trials that may have taken a whole day condensed in few minutes in an amateur made video.
They are not any kind of forensic proof.
Still what you say would imply that they have launched a Mig-29 from a launch pad, in front of several photographer and a commission of technicians send by Indian buyers to made it have an emergency stop once out of video camera f.o.v.
All of this just to enrag7iss off someone on keypublishing aviation forum?

Let’s recall that this is the smaller Vikramaditya not even the Kuz.
In the case of a real insufficent payload they would have designed a pathway starting from the bottom line of the flying deck, as it usually happen to the V/STOL carriers not just from 2/3 of ship itself.

Just one more to complete the reply to this trollfest: anyone that has seriously looked into this tread know how the same planes from Latakia airbase, even the more than 20000kg empty weight ones as the Su-24 and Su-34 take off with a payload way lower than they own maximum, typically no more than 4X 500kg bombs and even Tu-22M footages show them carrying 12X OFAB 250/270 bombs.
So, why all of a sudden just the ones of VMF have to come to the party dressed as bomb trucks?

Nice try there..
It is exactly an issue, a very big issue. Pakistan is in dire need of such capabilities right now. And China has no platform even close to Mi-35M to offer Pakistan.
Russia however have.

No one in the world has armored attack helicopters able to carry a squad of soldiers, except russian. Case closed.

it depends what of unmanned platforms have the capacity to carry them. and how effective is that against all the threats. just disclosing some thing does not mean it can be widely deployed on all platforms and all conditions.

Those comments are equally applicable to manned aircraft, warships etc. Cost, weight and volume constraints may limit the amount of EW protection they can be given, and the effectiveness of any EW system against a specific threat or class of threat.

But that not alter the fact that (contrary to your assertion), self-protection EW systems are available for UAVs.

they have weak engine and insufficient payload. and practically no self defense missile capacity. no radars to see real time at distance. its all your opinion. they have no practical worth in real contested airspace.

My 2 cents?
UAV have being developed to be expendable. Once it begin the spiral of EW system, AA missiles, IRST and so on, let’s say bye to it, they will cost almost like a Super Tucano with none of its payload and flexibility.
Same land attack drones have a sense in an anti terrorism campaign for tergeted killings, thinking as a predator/ reaper as the standard COIN/CAS plane of an AF would be simply an absurd.
For an anti microUAV device, like the one in the video, better to equip IFV’s guns with PFHE ammunitions and sights suitable for the task.

F-22 is 28 year old technology. F-35 is 15 year old technology. B-21’s technological baseline was snapped in 2014.

Each new weapon system advances the capability to operate against A2AD by imposing a cost.
Yes, the IADS technology that enables A2AD is also advancing – upgraded sensors, computing, networking, and communications. But those new technologies force the adversary to deploy on a wide scale to maintain A2AD and is very expensive to do. Possibly too expensive to fully deploy, leaving gaps in IADS coverage.

Examine what you wrote above at tell us how IADS technological advances do not adversely impact Gen 4 more than Gen 5 jets.
Refusing to do what it takes to degrade the IADS and deny A2AD allows the adversary to establish a sanctuary from which to launch potentially devastating attacks without the possibility of retaliation – Iran against Gulf States and European cities and North Korea against Japan and South Korea are examples which come to mind.

Recent seminar presentations by USAF leadership and Pentagon-funded technology studies tell us where future combat systems are headed in 2030. Expect swarms of UAVs to create openings in the IADS using kinetic effects/cyber/DEW, allowing penetrating jets to enter and deploy swarming weapons from deep magazines. The swarms of small systems would act as a team. The 2016-technology IADS in that sector, having no way to completely stop a swarm attack by mobile robotic killers, would be destroyed.

First I didn’t write anything that even distantly implies that 4gen planes can cope with modern AD at the same level of the ones of 5gen per se.
What I was instead cryticizing was the initial idea (actually having been corrected) of getting rid of specialized EW/SEAD asset (i.e. EF-111 Ravens or Wild Weasel planes) through the widescale adoption of 5 gen fighters. Also because actually what you refer as 4 gen planes are not anymore, given that almost any plane in service in 1 tier AF have received almost a partial RCS reduction process.
Before the introduction of such planes those assets (together with ver low quote handling capabilities i.e. a primitive stealth mode) were absolutely necessary to have even the slimmest chanche to penetrate enemy defended aereospace, 5 gen planes offered a different operative modality to cope with them, it worked, for some time but countermeasures were implemented quite earlier and with a far greater ease that everyone would have expected and even if still not enough to negate LO tactical advantages they have forced even the more steadfast stealth zealots a.k.a. USAF to rethink the whole question.
I naturally am expecting swarm drones to enter in service in all major world air forces in year 2030 (maybe beginning from East as prototypes of such systems have been shown up in latest Zuhuai salon), problem is that I expect countermeasures to such operative modality to be widescale introducted in the next 5 years and I’m being conservative…
So, we have to agree about a point first: if all the technological systems we have descrived in ours posts have to be considered as an incremental and cooperative effort to the ever shifting challenges of aerial warfare, let’s be my guest, if someone still think to some of them at a magical hat-trick to solve all problems; well, let’s take my own asan invitation to a reality check.