Agree about the stealth component being mostly uneffective against anything but a backward nation. See IR trackers for one example.
Ever seen that thing known as the horizon? Notice how you can't see past it, but the earth does in fact extend beyond it? Your "IR trackers" can't see past it either, because the earth is round, not flat.
Furthermore there is a significant reason why infra-red search and track systems are secondary sensor system with radars far preferred.
The reason is volume scan rates and ranging issues.
"Stealth" which your refer to in ignorance exploits these truisms. If you intend to rely on IRST systems for your anti-air targetting, you'll cop Slammer after Slammer from an aircraft like the F-35 with no ability to do anything other than run or die, because it's APG-81 is going to decisively out-range your IRST all day, all night and in all weather.
If you can't target an F-35 through radars means, you've already begun to lose the BVR fight.
ADMk2:
The Gripen that performed slightly under the competitors was the older C/D. When they tested the NG they were satisfied the performance gaps had been closed. Remember, they did select the Gripen NG as the winner, not the C/D. One cannot be too careful about partially 'leaked' reports anyway. The Brits and Yanks always buy right into them......yellowcake.....there I said it.
The Gripen C/D as assessed by the Swiss was considered decidedly inferior to their Legacy Hornets. The NG was assessed as slightly inferior in most areas.
Yes the Swiss chose the Gripen, that was what all the controversy was about. It was a political decision based on cost alone. Capability wise, they'd be better off with any of the other contenders, per their own assessment.
The Germans placed much faith in their technology weapons in ww2. Fancy tanks and aircraft like the Tiger, the ME 163, ME 262, and the HO 229 were technologically impressive, but they have to be there in meaningful numbers to make a difference in battles. With fewer and fewer replacements being purchased as each new generation costs exponentially more then the previous, the law of diminishing returns will kick in with respect to technology.
Yet it's fine to place faith in IR technology? In pre-WW2 bi-static and VHF radar technology as a solution to problems with 21st century defence technology?
I wish I could have my cake and eat it too...
Doesn't an IR tracker negate stealth advantage in a2a duel?
No. IRST is a secondary sensor system for good reason. It's short ranged compared to a fire control radar, it's ability to scan large volumes of sky is poor and it's extremely affected by adverse weather conditions.
Didn't the Eurofighter take down the F-22 in real mock duels - the great stealth air superiority fighter?
Not on your life pal. Did you ever see the Wiley Coyote cartoon where he opens up an umbrella to protect himself from a falling rock or anvil?
That's what's happening here. You're vainly grasping at whatever misunderstood idea you can try and find to justify your opinion.
There's a reason why Gripen has only sold 80 odd export examples in competition with other modern types despite being the cheapest 4th Gen option available. It's because those who can afford better choose that option...
Last point on the NG: For 9 billion we will end up with 45 F-35s. Not enough to patrol the second largest country in the world, lend planes to NATO and UN, and account for downtime. for 9 billion we could have 150 Gripen NGs.
Well the RCAF believes differently. They believe they will ve able to purchase 65x F-35's for $9b, enough to equip 3 squadrons and a training unit.
So far I see nothing wrong with that assessment, as opposed to yours.
