Laterally thinking a little I would say the best solution is a combination of hovermast:

http://defense-update.com/20130902_idf_receivehovermast.html

or NLOS LAM:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM501_Non-Line-of-Sight_Launch_System

or Shrike VTOL or Hummingbird:

http://www.avinc.com/uas/adc/shrikevtol/
http://www.avinc.com/nano/

or Fire Shadow:

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/fire-shadow_datasheet-1371212588.pdf

And manportable weapons like MBDA TiGER:

Switchblade

http://www.avinc.com/uas/adc/switchblade/

and MMP

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/mmp_datasheet-1371209713.pdf

and/or a comms link back to M270 MLRS with ATACMS and G+MLRS

NLOS missile, 155mm artillery with M982 Excalibur and SGP and 120mm Mortar with M395 PGMM:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM395_Precision_Guided_Mortar_Munition
http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7m1ubixSigMAGoJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzZjZ0cWNmBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1ZJUDI4Nl8x/SIG=13ooc8p23/EXP=1378672366/**http%3a//www.baesystems.com/download/BAES_157357/5-in-saboted-standard-guided-projectile-sgp-datasheet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGN4zyPwMdw

and GL-SBD:

http://defense-update.com/20121207_fire-support.html

But best to clear the airspace first. Planes bombing you are a bigger problem that the guys on the ground! However, since you wanted a cool small plane.

Precisely. High altitude SAM coverage in the country is limited as well as obsolete. The US military doesn’t face any substantial armoured threats in the foreseeable future save for North Korea. As a matter of fact only four countries currently field sizeable tank forces – US, Russia, China and India (the Europeans having massively downsized their armour). As for North Korea between the CBU-97 SFW and SDB employed from mid to high altitudes, they’re more than covered. As a matter of fact, the only aircraft can they have some hope of countering (with massed AAA) is the low and slow A-10.

The A-10 has a venerable record, but tank busting isn’t high on anybody’s list of priorities. The B-1B may be a sub-optimal tool but will still provide strike options in a Pacific war, particularly a large scale one.

Not entirely true. The A-10C is capable of flying well above the 10-15,000ft ceiling of MANPADS and deploying both the CBU-97 and CBU-105 WCMD as well as AGM-65D/H AGMs, GBU-12s/(49s?), JDAMs and APKWS II 70mm guided rockets and laser Zuni 127mm guided rockets – the latter being easily MBT-capable with a 40lb warhead and 10km range. Oddly enough, if you felt like a challenge you could outrange most AAA and MANPADS with the GAU-8.

The only real issue if you can fly high without radar SAM threat is cloud cover (for non-SAR-equipped aircraft).

The USN has been able to do that for a decade with ageis radars systems, the F35 will bring that to fighters. In fact the most awesome things the F35 will do is the stuff the pilot doesn’t know about has he flies his mission, the RAAF is really looking forward to that part of the F35 envelope.

I think we might be talking about something slightly different. I think you’re talking about communicating radar data and multi-static receivers, I’m talking about using several radars miles apart to produce the equivalent of one radar with an antenna several miles wide. It’s not possible yet AFAIK.

The A-10 is a perfect aircraft if North Korea ever tried to cross into South Korea. The damage the A-10 can take and still make it home is amazing. No way a F-16 can compete with that. The B-1B is part of the Trinity Nuclear Deterrent and seen as an important part of American national security.

I have a way to save the USA military $30 BILLION dollars a year. Get rid of the Marine Corp. The Marine Corp is a redundant branch and the army, navy, and air force would be fine without it.

That’s a little severe but I think you could sensibly limit CVNs and amphibious assault carriers to a maximum of 9 or 10 of each and logically the B-52 is the oldest airplane in service and, at 60, is probably nearing retirement age anyway. You also have the LRS-B coming along to fill the gap.

Seen from a link on Facebook; http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2013/June%202013/June%2018%202013/A-10,-B-1-Vertical-Cuts-On-the-Table.aspx

The USAF may have to retire an entire type of aircraft to fit within their sequestration budget for FY2014. Which would you axe, if you had to, the A-10 or the B-1B? I’d get rid of the B-52’s if it were up to me…

The B-52 can carry the longer range AGM-86/129 cruise missiles whereas the B-1B can’t unless you remove the bulkhead between the first and second bomb bays or fit them externally which is prohibited by START.

Every time this cost issue comes up I immediately think of the 11 carriers and plans for 13 amphibious assault carriers.

Whilst seemingly the least logical answer for this, the B-2’s role is increasingly questionable. Why do you need a 170ft wide stealth bomber, when the capability exists to produce <2ft wide stealth cruise missiles with a range of >5,000km. When are you really going to fly one over an enemy to require the stealth? The only application I can think of is MOPing Iran’s nuclear facilities but it seems silly to base everything on one application. But maybe with the LRS-B planned, the B1-B is the logical choice. I can’t see the need for both. Keep the B-52 for extra stand-off ability and have a modernized stealth bomber force in the B-2 and LRS-B. Or remove the B-52 if the LRS-B can carry LR cruise missiles and have LRS-B, B-2 and B1-B.

The problem with the A-10 is that there’s nothing planned to accurately replace it, just a multitude of job-sharing for other fighter aircraft.

But it has got nothing to do with typhoon even Rafale would be greater threat than typhoon as it can cue it’s Meteor missile
with spectra alone without turning on it’s aesa radar for stealth reason which [B]Typhoon cannot with DASS.

SPECTRA will most likely be used to cue the radar into a focused narrow beam search on an area of interest as will the wingtip ECM/ESM pods of DASS (placed on the wingtips for triangulation). The radar has far greater range and far better precision than passive systems and this is where the term ‘sensor fusion’ comes from – you use a combination of sensors to achieve the required result. Furthermore, in narrow beam mode the radar has superior range and acuity, it’s a bit like looking for something small on the carpet (like a pin) when you know where it is compared to when you don’t know. Passive systems only really give direction from large ranges unless you use 2 aircraft far apart to triangulate. Using wing-tip pods gives you the best triangulation capability that can be attained with just one aircraft. DASS is setup to home in on radar and data transmissions, so it can in theory detect an aircraft even if their radar is off.

http://eurofighter.airpower.at/sensorik-dass.htm