Really? I am not interested in
theoretical claims of Russia in regards to defeating top-of-the-line stealthy aircraft such as F-35; they lie and exaggerate very often (personal assessment).
Advanced SAM systems have failed to detect F-35 in exercises, designed to simulate real-time battlefield environment:-
"The F-35s recently had to turn on their transponders in order to make an exercise against Patriot batteries useful (and don’t kid yourself, Patriots are the absolute top of the heap in their class of SAMs). The U.S. also owns an S-300 battery and the Navy has Aegis and E-2D, which is about as good as it gets. Point is…the F-35 was developed against very capable systems." - Cory stansbury (quora)
News item:-
"The F-35 has hit yet another snag. During a recent exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, US Air Force F-35A pilots set out to practice evading surface-to-air missiles, but they could not, because the SAM radars on the ground could not even find the ultra-stealthy planes.
"If they never saw us, they couldn't target us," said Lt. Col. George Watkins, commander of the 34th Fighter Squadron at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, told the Air Force Times.
To participate in the exercise as planned, the F-35As had to turn on their transponders, essentially announcing their presence so the SAM sites could see and engage them.
"We basically told them where we were at and said, 'Hey, try to shoot at us,'" said Watkins.
Had Watkins and crew not turned on their transponders, "most likely we would not have suffered a single loss from any SAM threats while we were training at Mountain Home."
Air Force planners have been counting on the F-35's ability to enter heavily contested airspace unseen by enemy radar and missiles, and the result of this exercise seems to vindicate that strategy, to say the least.
"When we go to train, it's really an unfair fight for the guys who are simulating the adversaries," Watkins continued. "We've been amazed by what we can do when we go up against fourth-gen adversaries in our training environment, in the air and on the ground."
The idea that F-35s can enter the most heavily defended air spaces on earth, pass by undetected by SAM sites and radars, and soften up those targets as well as legacy fighters represents the entire reasoning behind the trillion-dollar thrust to get this weapons system in the air.
Watkins said that with just four F-35s, he can "be everywhere and nowhere at the same time because we can cover so much ground with our sensors, so much ground and so much airspace. And the F-15s or F-16s, or whoever is simulating an adversary or red air threat, they have no idea where we're at and they can't see us and they can't target us."
Watkins described a "pretty awesome feeling" seeing the grand plans of the F-35 come to fruition in a realistic training exercise, by rendering virtually all other platforms obsolete.
Source:
http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-too-stealthy-2016-8
Low-frequency early warning radar systems are unreliable:-
"Various countries have claimed over the last 30 years to be able to counter stealth by various means. The interesting part is that the means keep changing, and never seem to pan out. And, of course, all of those who claim to have countered stealth are those who don’t have it. The basic physics behind stealth haven’t changed in 30 years, and aren’t likely to change in the next 30.
In the past 30 years, stealth aircraft have been extensively used and we have exactly one first generation stealth aircraft lost in combat. That’s a pretty extraordinary record. And the details of what happened to that aircraft are so obscure and classified that speculation is pointless. About the only thing we know for sure is that NATO restrictions on flight planning were so severe that the ill-fated F-117 was flying the same route, altitude and timings used night after night by other F-117s. No serious analyst has ever claimed stealth makes an aircraft invisible to radar, only that it radically reduces detection range. If you are constrained to using the same routes every night, it doesn’t take a genius to see the potential for disaster. However, that was a failure of tactics, not technology. Ask anyone in the stealth community, and they will tell you that tactics are just as important as technology — mess up with one, and the other won’t save you.
I have a good friend who is an ex-USN submariner, and he used to refer to the USAF as the “junior stealth service.” It is an apt comparison, and one that speaks to the question at hand: people have claimed for decades that this or that technology would turn the oceans transparent and make it easy to find submarines. That, too, has never panned out.
Two last points. An answer here listed a number of Russian systems that can “defeat” stealth. First off, Russian propaganda. Need I say more? Secondly, none of the aircraft listed are operational, and are highly unlikely to become so in the foreseeable future. The S-300/S-400 SAMs are formidable, but hardly the monsters they are often made out to be. They are vulnerable to attack, and their supporting radars with counter-stealth claims are, again, largely expensive upgrades of dubious capabilities.
Finally, combat is an interesting thing. It almost never resembles a clean laboratory test. People on Quora seem to inordinately look at weapon systems like they are going to be used in one-on-one duels with no context or tactics involved. But that is ridiculous. Case in point: Yes, a stealth aircraft might give a return to a low-frequency early warning radar. However, the return will be small and intermittent as the aircraft moves through space. A modern synthetic unit would almost certainly fail to even display the hit. An older radar with a raw display would show it…and a thousand other similar hits from false targets. Further, the stealth aircraft is going to know about that radar long before the radar gets that hit, and will adjust course, speed and altitude accordingly. Oh yeah, and that large, basically immobile radar might be destroyed before our stealth aircraft is ever threatened.
A friend of mine who had once been a HAWK SAM battery commander told me that after moving his trailer-mounted radars, it took a lot of time and effort to bring them back up and calibrate them. And often, they simply broke down during the move, and needed to be repaired. The system was advertised as being mobile, but my friend with first-hand experience poo-pooed the idea. The S-300/400 may be a more modern and rugged system than the HAWK of the 1970s, but how good will they be under combat conditions in the field? And in the hands of conscript troops who have never been known for their technical prowess?
Russian/Chinese fanboys seem to think that stealth was invented four decades ago, and then left to fossilize. This, assuredly, is not the case. Second generation stealth was considerably (and visibly) better than the first generation, and the third generation is better than the second. Tactics and support have improved, as well. The problem is, if you don’t even have first generation stealth available to your forces, how can you anticipate where the technology and tactics are taking your opponent who has had it for four decades? The only way for you to find out is to face it in combat, and learn from your hard-won experience." - Peter Koves (Quora)
Source:
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Russia-can-detect-an-F35-with-their-latest-radar
Related:-
"But the same qualities that allow a low-frequency radar to detect a stealth fighter also prevent it from detecting the same aircraft with great precision. Mike Pietrucha, a former U.S. Air Force an electronic warfare officer, told reporter Dave Majumdar from The National Interest that early low-frequency radars could poinpoint a target’s location to within only 10,000 feet or so — not nearly accurately enough to guide a missile.
For that reason, low-frequency radars such as Sunflower are useful only as early-warning systems. All they can do is alert air-defenders to the likely presence of low-observable aircraft in a general area."
Source:
https://warisboring.com/dont-sweat-russias-stealth-fighter-detecting-new-radar/
No country is in the position to devise a reliable method to detect/take out entire squadrons of F-35 and F-22 in a battlefield scenario at present; these aircraft are able to
see first (and
shoot first) in comparison to any other airborne asset out there and defeat its electronic warfare capabilities in the process. They tend to achieve absurd kill-ratios in various battlefield simulations (AEWACS in the picture or not). Loren Thompson's disclosure is very telling in this respect.
You are mistakenly assuming that Russia and/or China are at par with the US in the matters of defense; they are not. Russia haven't even fielded a decent stealthy aircraft so far; how is it going to figure out the intricacies of defeating top-of-the-line stealthy aircraft of USAF? Doesn't add up.
If India receive state-of-the-art weapon systems from US (and Russia), we would be in big trouble. Pakistan should have sufficient diplomatic clout to dissuade other countries from providing state-of-the-art weapon systems to India which would imbalance South Asian security situation.
---
I also dispelled the notion that the game is rigged in Syria, with relevant disclosures which weren't public knowledge before. Pay heed.
