And MALD-V.

i dont really understand if this have anything to do with what i said , CAMM dont have A2G mode

CAMM is due to be deployed on land, sea and air eventually. Here it mentions potential for use against surface targets:

http://www.mbda-systems.com/files/docs/flaads_june2010_press_information.pdf

It can also be used against surface targets.

Ultimately I think the way to go is an ARM version of Meteor, or maybe a JDRADM version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144

SA help stealth aircraft fight their enemy more effectively that true
but SA and Stealth is not the same , an AWACS like E-3 for example can be said to have very good SA , An Aegis destroyer can be said to have very good SA , but no one going to say there 2 are stealth , by contrast AGM-129 is stealth missiles but no one going to claim the missiles it self have good SA
SA and Stealth is very deadly together but they are not the same

All part of the same thing. SA allows you to plan routes away from hot-spots, and gives you a better heads-up of enemies and allows quicker targeting, all of which reduce chances of your detection until it’s too late.

probably built a stealth fighter with bad kinematic ( F-35 ) or built a fighter with good kinematic but bad stealth ( mig-31 ) is alot easier to built sth that have both ( f-22 )

Actually stealth is the only hard part. Most western nations and many others are already well versed in propulsion and aerodynamics.

no it doesnt , it may be able to use APG-81 as a jammer , but never read any where that the fighter itself have active cancellation

AIR International’s F-35 special made a clear distinction between that and active deception jamming, when the above is no longer possible.

Captor-E is about smae size as APG-81 , probably 10 – 15 percent bigger , which still far smaller than IRBIS-E or Zaslon-M
and no way it can match the S-300/400’s common radar : 64N6E Big Bird

or SMART-L which better in both size and power and only claim to detect stealth missiles with RCS = 0.001 m2 from 64 km

No one said it could. I’m merely quoting an EADS radar expert. I suspect the above ranges are underestimates and take no account frequency. It’s well known that a Type 42 destroyer could track F-117s (RCS of 0.0025m^2) out to 150km, that would imply tracking 0.001m^2 targets at 120km with ’90s ship radar. I suspect stuff like TRS-4D and Artisan will be streets ahead of that, Russian stuff too I imagine.

he did say F-35 is more stealth and designed to beat S-400 system which is really something

Well the F-35 team failed to meet every other design parameter, so when they come along at the eleventh hour with vague statements in an attempt to mislead people into believing one was exceeded by an entire order of magnitude, naturally I question it. The language used is evasive. E.g. if I say, “the F-5 has a smaller cross-section than an F-35,” given my exact choice of words, am I lying? Not technically, but if the conversation was about stealth, then I’ve certainly mislead people. Stealth could also be assumed to be about EO/IR, so if I have a smaller, less powerful aircraft, maybe it’s harder to see in these regions, so I could say that it does stealth better and not be lying and say that it has a smaller cross section and not be lying.

as far as i know only Russian ever claim to experiment with plasma stealth and the result doesnt end well that why they designed the PAK-FA now
if plasma stealth was working dont you think all aircraft carrier and Destroyer will have it , they are bigger and have more power than any fighter or bomber but no even the Zumwalt class you old method to achieve low RCS
if iam not wrong i did read somewhere that B-2 relative big size make it less vulnerable to VHF band ( dont remember why may be thicker RAM )

Aircraft carriers and destroyers don’t have boundary layers or shapes that can exploit it. Some detail was released about charged wing trailing edges on the B-2, it was quickly withdrawn, followed by standard ink poisoning tactics. E.g. rumours were disseminated saying it was about disguising the vortices and other rumours about electrogravitics. The last one was just a supertroll of the dumb really. Extra size would only help if the VHF problems experienced by stealth fighters were down to resonant effects. They aren’t, it’s just that the RAM doesn’t work that well outside that 3-20GHz band, nor does the ground wave effect.

f-35 have stealth + SA but F-22 have stealth+SA + kinematic , and F-22 probably a much better interceptor due to it’s speed , and USAF dont want that ?
passive detection is part of SA , and it not the same as Stealth, Active cancellation , plasma stealth are not going to happened , not in near future
anyway he also said
“F-35 is the first US aircraft designed to the requirement that it be highly effective at neutralizing S-400 systems and their cousins“
so i dont really think EF-2000 tiny radar going to do much again it’s RCS
probably have sth to do with clutter rejection threshold

It could very much be argued that SA is part of stealth. A better knowledge of what’s going on around you allows you to remain stealthy, remember the F-117 and SA-3. Decent stealth + poor SA = No stealth.

With allegedly superior stealth technology another nation could easily use the F-35 to build a fighter that’s as kinematically good as the F-22. F-22 kinematics are good but not ‘special’ good, like its stealth is. The kinematics are far more easy to duplicate. The F-35 does use active cancellation AFAIK.

An S-400 depends on what radar you put with it. VHF AESA has been alleged to exist and that presents problems in that it offers targeting as well as detection.

The not so tiny Captor-E is actually very good. You will note that Mike Hostage never specifically said, “the F-35 has a smaller radar cross section.” He can’t because then he’d be lying, which is harder than simply misleading. Until he says, ‘smaller radar cross section,’ it’s just more headlining.

not necessary B-2 is better again VHF , low frequency and it bigger than both

B-2, as a larger aircraft, has more electrical power and is widely believed to use plasma stealth. That’s basically the only way you can hide something that large. Think about it. It came out in 1992. If it was effectively much better than the F-22 relative to size, why didn’t the F-22 use the same technology? Answer – it can’t because it’s too small and doesn’t have enough power to run it.

When did russians bomd ukrainian cities?

Never, it’s just another example of western media spin. I see both sides lying or at least deliberately missing the other half of the truth. RT coverage of the Ferguson riots has been a little disingenuous at times but then western media all but stopped covering the Ukrainian crisis after February. Only MH17 and the aid lorries got coverage, and of course they didn’t mention that the lorries were inspected by the Red Cross, and many of them made out they were military vehicles and could be carrying weapons.

Since when did the 9x become a SEAD weapon?

It allegedly does have A2G capability in the AIM-9X-2.

CAMM/FLAADS (M/L/A) is also due to have a surface attack capability.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/files/docs/flaads_june2010_press_information.pdf

FLAADS(M) provides a true 360° air defence capability for naval forces out to ranges
greater than 25km against the future air threat. Requiring no dedicated
tracker/illuminator radars, CAMM can be cued by ship target indication data to provide
high levels of protection in open ocean and littoral environments. It can also be used
against surface targets.

Rough rule of thumb says that when you move a SAM to A2A role, you multiply max. range by about 4. What that means for A2G I don’t know.

Well yes, i think calling Putin a child murderer for the downing of this passenger a/c is equally idiotic

Meanwhile 10 times as many civilians have been killed in Eastern Ukraine and 10 times that again have been displaced and not a word on it from Western sources. The targeting in question was deliberate, or at least sufficiently indiscriminate and inaccurate for them to have known the consequences in advance. War crime vs accident.