To negate the shaping of VLO aircraft , The operating wavelength of your radar need to be in Mie region in respect to the dimention of the aircraft , because at that region we start to have creeping wave return

Mie region is where 1 < 2πa/λ < 10 , C band frequency (4-8 Ghz ) has wavelength between 3.75 and 7.5 cm ,F-35 length is around 15 meters (or 1500 cm )
1500/7.5 = 200 > 10 , so if you are using C band you wont be able to exploit the vulnerable of stealth aircraft at low frequency. And even though low frequency work better again VLO Platform , it doesnot mean you will suddently able to detect stealth aircraft from 300-400 km with low frequency radar ,for example : no AWACs use X band radar , all either use L band or C band AESA array , but they still have problem detect stealth aircraft as demonstrated in many exercrises

kinematics range of missiles isnot important , what important is their seeker range , what is the range of their tiny seeker again a stealth platform with some jamming.

If the centrimetric radar cannot detect the stealth platform in the first place then how can it help refine track ? , I understand that VHF radar will cued them to look at a certain direction , but if the centrimetric cannot see the stealth aircraft themselves then pointing them in that direction wont help much.

Sorry, I have to reduce your interesting post to just a pair of question in order of not getting stuck there forever, I have a way more beautiful business to care about as now.

Look, I have not talked at all about kinematics of missiles, re-read my post please.
Point was instead that while employng a SaRh or TVM missile you would absolutely need a very precise location of the incoming menace in order to point your fire control radar and illuminate them with , all ARh missiles, from Phoenix onward act autonomously, they are guided in the vicinity of the target usually with a mid corse guidance systems , when they are close enough they justactivate their own seeker and do all the engagement sequence all from themselves with not any actual imput from the launcher.
This was originally introduced to allow them to engage several targets in the same moment while the conteporary SaRH missiles ccound instead be used only against a single target.
Now, such a capacity of a completely autonomous engage sequence come actually extremely useful to counteract the main limitation of low frequency radar engaging a stealth, that several there have justly mentioned: such radar can spot them at an useful distance and can track them also but with a low refresh rate and without a precise location.
They instead just provide a sort of probably “box”, larger or smaller according to their own power and distance of target, in which the plane is.
Now while such a box is waay too big to allow for a SaRh targeting, it is at the contrariy well under the range in which an Arh seeker would activate themselves and perform their own, better reiterate it, completely autonomous engage sequence, not dependent at all by the original distance between Ad radar and the target.
Certainly, neither I expect tem to have the same kill probability than against a conventional target but still something that would work the same.

Vnomad, why you and your side are so extreme in yiour own conclusion?
It seems that according to your word vision any criticism about the current approach to an invite to ditch all current development and more specifically the F-35 and go back to square one.
Look, there are not Carlo Koop or Bill Sweetman there pursuiting a their own agenda, just regular guys discussing about aerial warfare technolgies and tactics.

Now, about what you specifically said:
RCS reduction tecniques are widely used everywhere and with a good reason, not just on fighter planes.
Just look at how much widely they have been used in the last decade on warships.
Practically now every destroyer and frigate actually sport them, even if the final result would be in the end vastly superior even to the largest conventional fighter.
Same with AESA radars, installed now on almost any fighting ships in costruction in the world, with the only exception of Burke Destroyer actually that would still wait some years, obviously.
And it is not only chinese and Russian new sthealth fighter: such features are installed on about all legacy fighters that would still have a long enought residue service life to made it convenient
Given that a partial but significative reduction is actually possible also on them at a small expense and complexity thing is perfectly feasible and convenient.
Designing a true VLO is a much more complicate thing. Even more if they are designed to operate in a STEALTH MODE ONLY .
Here:all caps,Bold,Italics and underlined so maybe it can be understood what is the real point of my (and several other) reasoning there.
Because the question is: what is the point in which further pursuing an ulterior reduction of RCS at expense of a great increase of costs, a further loss of time and a significant decrease of performance is still worth the cost.
Well, it seems that not in my opinion but in the one of the greatest and most acritical supporter of stealth approach i.e. USAF F-117, B-2 but even the F-22 are actually well past such a point and offer not significant advantages over the F-35.

About stand off weapon you cited: well, if you call them as the solution, I hereby can call them as the official certification of the utter failure, not of the F-35 or any VLO plane at all, but of the above mentioned STEALTH MODE ONLY, as they certify how also with the greatest RCS reduction possible you cannot now get past a certain point against modern Ad defenses.

Just a last line to note that the weapon you cited above are all gliding ones, so those ranges can attained only by high altitude drops.
Russian Radar Crew HAPPY!!!:very_drunk:

Low frequency radar can perform better again stealth fighter than their high frequency counterpart , but that doesnot mean you can suddenly detect stealth fighters from hundred km aways just by changing frequency from X band to L band. The main problem is when you reduce operating frequency of radar , the gain value will go down along with it ( doesnt matter if the antenna is PESA or AESA ) , so power will be alot less concentrated .
Lower gain ( bigger beam width ) will also reduce accuracy significantly , especially at long distance , ARH missiles can help at short range but at long distance , the size of the resolution cell can easily surpass the seekers range of ARH missiles.
Radar frequency and resolution

Because , low frequency radar mean long pulse width and wide beam width , both are terrible for long range engagement ( even with ARH missiles )

Because everyone his talking about L band (decimetric) there? Still the AESA IS VALID ONLY IF AIRBORNE thing???

I was talking about metric band radar i.e. C band working eventually in close connection with other L and X band radar.
Russians have introduced a whole new generation of them (the Nebo series) specifically aimed at confronting with sthealth and have refurbished most of their old ones (like the P-18 )with AESA modules. Chinese followed immediately after, Iran and all countries of russian sphere of influence acquired them in numbers.

For the rest I have gave just a look at the performances of such (the latest ones) radars and the “boxes” they are able to obtain are well inside the engagement range of even a standard airborne ARh missile, let’s imagine with a S-400 (or a SM-6) size one.
Still, they won’t operate alone, standard procedure would be one in which C bands would gave not only early warning but also a initial location and tracking of the target while decimetrical and centrimetical AD radars would instead used not to scan all the horizon but to look with a spot on mode into the “boxes” individuated by the former so to refine track and pass it to SAM batteries and PVO fighters.
For the rest also USN has introduced a similar way of operating (called cooperative engagement) for their own E-2D and AEGIS. So, if you things those are vain efforts, let’s complain with them also about wasting tax payer money, please.

It is certainly a more complex procedure than the pre-stealth one involving just centrimetical radars but given the fact that russian style AD complexes kept on having all such an hardware also after the end of cold war (first NEBO radar was introduced in the late eighties), it cost them “only” to adapt them into specifically counter stealth targets.
While certainly a consistent effort, it proved in the end to be way easier than expected given the sheer dimension of the trasmitting elements of such radars, that could be so converted with facility into AESA, with all the advantages of such a technology in terms of ECCM performances, something that can come handly also against the normal “entry by force” approach.
It means that such an approach solves everything and RCS have to be trashed? Certainly not, just mean that is possible to find and implement workable countemeasures at a fraction of cost (with obviously the above mentioned caveat) it takes to introduce in service a VLO plane and end its production at 21 or even 187.

Do you mean L-band? Why would I try and Jam the L- band when I can jamm the Fire control radar? Survalience radars cant achieve accurate firing solutions. They will only be able to vector fighters. If I want to spoof the Survalience radar Id use a MALD.
But we all know this we have done this dance before. I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT 5TH GEN PLANES AND TACTICS ONLY WORK IF YOUR COUNTRY IS BUILDING THEM.

No, we are talking about C-band radars or combination of it, L-band radar and X-band radar like in the last Nebo-m version.
Actually all such radars in russian (chinese and iranian also) service have been converted into AESA also, so anything you said positive about this kind of antenna be sure they have also.
And why a modern Ad sistem would need a dedicated fire control radar if they have ARh missiles?
A little technological refresh every a decade not in your habits?
Seems me instead that you are reasoning under the principle that AESA ONLY WORK IF AIRBORNE.

Congrats, man !!! And pics for the rest of us !!!! :applause: Bikinis preferred.. 🙂

Not at such a point. Still:rolleyes:.
And I don’t put such things on public forums without explicit permission from the person involved.

Not referred to anyone personally , dear GarryA, just noting a general trend of acritical and above al protracted recurrence of some practically fixed statements around this particolar argument.
Given that i’m an history graduate i.e. someone working constantly on selection of reliable sources I found it quite notable and disturbing.
At the contrary ecquilibrated and informative post like your last are the ones we all ought to reach. Bravo!

1. The overall point is that the jamming will be detected and tracked.

2. The 5th gen aircraft can not only track by passive means but achieve a firing solutions through multiple means.

3. Your not going to be able to jamm the APG-81 with a late eightes designed pesa radar.

4. So the F-35 has esm, off board, Eots, Apg-81 and im sure other means of achieving a firing solution. I don’t believe a single jammer will stop it.

5. The Amraams are data linked. Or they can use SM-6 from an Aegis.

And what made you think other cannot do the same?

Look, it is more than a decade now that I saw this some exact words about all those things like these they were 100% efficient and 100% exclusively american thing like .
It is not like this now nor it was so then.
All the planes actually in production, russians, europeans and obviously american have actually replaced the old analogic RWR sistems working on pulse repetition with digital high speed directional ESM systems like the APG-81 by years.
For the rest nor the data link nor the ability of using other means to ahieving a fire solution was something new at all, the early eighties operative PESA radar of Mig-31 have all this features even before the first sketch of AMRAAM or of APG-81 was even drawn, AA-10 alamo also had passive-only seekers decades ago, so really nothing really innovative up there IMHO, only LoMart huge expense in advertising.

It seems instead looking what you and others wrote that everything remained exactly the same in the actually now more than twenty five years from when the first sthealt plane was revealed and that not any countermeasure to it was not even found but neither tried…

in air to air role, i dont see Su-34 has any advantage again F-35 TBH

Same than above. WHY THE HELL would Ruaf use Su-34 in a specific air to air role?
It have a plentyful (maybe even too many types) of specialized air superiority fighters and interceptors for this.
Su-27SM, Su-30SM, Su-35, Mig-29SMT, Mig-35, Mig-31BM anyone?
It seems me that there is too much of a brochure-like approach there.
One plane directly against the other, in an empty space with no consideration of their own specific role, how they are supposed to interact with the whole of the air forces and so on.