But in visual range they won't be as stealthy (as you stated befor too), so radars will detect them and fighters like EF, Rafale, Su 35 should be way better in maneuverability and t/w ratios.
Visual range, in the sky, can be any distance from within a few meters to where the aircraft is barely discernable. Radar systems operate in three modes: Search, Track and Target.
The 'Target' mode is possible only when the other two modes have consistent acquistion of the target over a period of time. Against a very low observable target like the F-35, it is possible to target the aircraft but against maximum missile range the missile's own radar can be deceived thru ECM tactics and leave the missile with next to nothing fuel to maneuver.
The best way to increase the odds of success against a VLO target is to combine aircraft and missile radar information into a coherent electronic image for the missile.
In the illustration above, the 'semi-active' mode is when the launch aircraft continuously illuminate the target, the missile receive any echoes, process them and (hopefully) home in on the target. In the 'active' mode, the launch aircraft remove itself from the equation and the missile does all the work, minus the 'Search' mode.
Against a VLO target, instead of being in 'active' mode and leave the missile to its own fortunes, we maintain target acquired radar information on the target. Keep in mind that aircraft radar is more powerful than missile radar simply because of size. The missile is also using its own radar on the target. Here is where it gets tricky for the missile. Target information is also based upon target aspect angle with respect to the transmitting radar, in other words, the top and bottom view of any aircraft will yield the most powerful target echo. The head-on view the least. This VLO target will certainly maneuver violently and while the missile's own radar will, in this visual range scenario, detect the target, because the target is maneuvering, there is a condition called 'target scintillation', call it 'twinkling' if you like...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scintillation_(radar)
Scintillation is a fluctuation in the amplitude of a target on a radar display. It is closely related to target glint, or wander, an apparent displacement of the target from its mean position. This effect can be caused by a shift of the effective reflection point on the target, but has other causes as well. The fluctuations can be slow (scan-to-scan) or rapid (pulse-to-pulse).
It appears especially at seaside level.
Scintillation and glint are actually two manifestations of the same phenomenon and are most properly linked to one another in target modeling.
The highlighted is especially problematic for the missile as the missile's own radar does sweep, or scan, and does transmit in pulses. The missile's nosecone is also limited in space, therefore limiting its sweep angles. Should this VLO target just happened to maneuver just right, it will escape the missile's radar assisted by this 'target scintillation' phenomenon. Now throw in active ECM and chaff.
This is why it is not good to believe in these 'fire-and-forget' missile against VLO targets. We joke that against VLO targets, you can 'forget' that your missile will be successful. Target glint and scintillation are not unknown and goes back as far as the Vietnam War. It had caused missiles to miss, admittedly those were less sophisticated missiles back then. But then again, VLO targets sort of recreated that gap between missile sophistication and target radar effects.
By combining both missile's and launch aircraft's radars, and they are at angles to each other, thereby creating the highly desirable bi-static effects, the odds of success against this VLO target increases. Not guaranteed, just better odds. The missile may receive a very low radar echo due to target maneuvers, but at the same time, the target may present a large surface area to the launch aircraft that equal to a large echo. Now have the launch aircraft and the missile in a secured data link. The downside to this operation is that you certainly have to restrict yourself to
THIS target until he either escaped or destroyed.
This is why American VLO aircrafts are such threats to air defenses, ground or airborne -- resources.
No it is not! In the first hours, or days of war (where air superiority is not achieved), F35 have to do strike missions too and can only carry 2 a2g weapons internally. That means it don't depent only on the threat environment if they carry external loads, but also on the limitation the internal weapon stations offers.
Even if it require two of those precision guided munitions to destroy a ground radar, it is worth the created electronic gap. The mission does not have to be that nuclear facility. It cannot go anywhere. The mission could be against the air defenses around that nuclear facility. With precise timing, and keep in mind we did have such timing back in Desert Storm, a few F-35s each is armed with only two precision guided munitions, can destroy or seriously degrade the electronic coverage of a valuable ground target. Let the high altitude B-52s or the sneakier low altitude B-1s finish off that nuclear facility.
