There there no supersonic stealth crafts and AESA jammers as well.
Supersonic doesn't make much difference... if anything a supersonic target is less able to out manouver a highly supersonic SAM.
AESA radars have jamming capabilities... many radar guided missiles have home on jam capabilities too.
As for escorts, maybe there's some reason why they're called standoff jammers.
They are supposed to operate outside the range of the air defences to make noise so non stealthy aircraft can operate without being detected. Stealthy aircraft would be even harder to detect with such noise in the X band, but AFAIK there are no airborne VHF frequency jammers so VHF adar should be able to detect them at long range... and large SAMs should still be able to intercept both the jammers and the stealth aircraft...
Also, I see you have trouble realizing what 5th gen is really about.
It's an evolutionary improvement over previous gens, basically.
Evolutionary means a 4th gen aircraft could be upgraded to 5th gen... just like the T-72 can be upgraded to near T-90 performance because they are both on the same evolutionary chain.
The F-22 is a revolutionary design not directly related to the F-16 or F-15C.
The same with the F-35, which didn't evolve from any one previous design.
The role of the F-22 is pretty much similar to the F-15C, but it has changed as well.
Here you say that 5th gen cannot under any circumstances be put in harm's way, must only use standoff weapons, etc.
No I didn't.
What I said is that for every measure there is a counter measure and the time when air defences weren't equipped to deal with stealthy aircraft is over in terms of Russia.
In 1990 an F-117 could not have bombed Moscow because it would be armed with two laser guided bombs and is subsonic so even an old model MiG-29 with IR guided missiles and IRST could run it down and kill it.
the F-22 would be a different kettle of fish because it could shoot back well before the MiG pilot could get close... but it would only get 6 shots and then have to return to base.
Today with modern VHF radar entering service and S-350 and S-400 and soon S-500 systems and of course all the upgraded IADS systems being introduced the F-22 can no longer fly around the place at high altitude shooting down enemy aircraft climbing up to get them why supercruising at moderate supersonic speeds.... it would be detected and gang raped.
Now it has to fly at low level like planes of old, so all the advantages of flying high like much greater speed and much longer range and of course added range to missiles launched are all gone and the threat from ground based systems... even including small arms fire suddenly make that expensive stealth plane much more vulnerable.
Stealth is not useless, but it isn't invincible either.
The US invested everything in stealth... the Russians added jammers and ECM and ESM equipment to their stealth fighter as well as high manouver capability. the PAK FA will be a real dogfighter as well as sniper.
the PAK FA wont be used to send into enemy territory to take over enemy airspace for an invasion. It will be used to defend Russian airspace.
Well guess what, many people were saying exactly the same about 4th generation aircraft, calling them "gold plated hangar queens" and such. But that somehow didn't prevent them having jammers, being used for low altitude bombing runs, did it?
4th gen fighters were never able to operate at medium to high altitudes over the battlefield in enemy airspace where the enemy had any decent air defence capabilities without jamming or heavy enemy air defence suppression operations being continually mounted. Even then flying low and fast made them safer.
And I suspect the same might have been the case for previous generation as well.
So you really say nothing new here, but just repeat the process, comrade.
On paper the age of air power should be over... but few countries actually have the full chess set of pieces like the US does. It has inflight refuelling and transport and jammers and recon and UCAVs and a wide range of assets it can use as well as satellite and other sources of intel on an enemies air defences. Most of the countries the US has fought didn't even have a full set of pawns let alone the other pieces... there is a reason these other support pieces are called force multipliers... if you just have fighters then you are vulnerable to an enemy that has fighters and AEW or AWACS because he can manage his forces more efficiently and concentrate them so he always has superior forces on hand when needed.
Only Russia really has a full set of defence pieces and even then they are increasing and adding to that stock as we speak. Could the US penetrate Russian defences right now with a small attack that might succeed... probably. In a full scale attack on Russia would the US win... I very much doubt it because the US has never fought such a war where the risk of loses are 1 to 1 or worse. they have never faced such a well equipped competent enemy before and for their sake I hope they never do.
that is not to say russia is all powerful and can invade any country and win... take away their nukes and I don't think they could successfully invade Europe and get to Berlin.
Of course you can't take away their nukes so they are pretty safe from external threats.
So was it really that difficult to maneuver rocket into correct trajectory? I don't think so.
they were in very specific highly eliptical orbits... I am sure NASA could manage to match orbits but I don't think they could do it quickly as there would be several stages needed to align the orbital paths and synchronise the orbit so a collision actually becomes possible... and I sure as heck don't think they could hide what they were doing... it would be pretty immediately clear what they were trying to do... resulting in the Soviets likely launching ICBMs and giving the attack order to their fleet... the old saying... use it before you lose it.
Interesting. Could you provide me with the formula you used for these calculations?
The problem of wave propagation is the same for sound as it is for radio waves.
Imagine a man is shouting and you want to block his "signal". You obviously have to do this in the same range that he is broadcasting in but both signals... the original and the jamming signal degrade as a square function of distance... ie you can't just double the range and expect to be successful with double the volume and the further away you move the worse it gets.