The kill ratios for a 5th gen versus 4th gen is more towards 10 times.
This is not the case. Or, to be exact, while such modeling results did appear between 4th and 5th gen fighters - it wasn't about generation, it was about the choice of opponents and conditions. Otherwise, the continued proliferation of teen series(neither F-, nor J- ) doesn't make any sense. F-22A v. Iraqi Mig-29A(downgraded, analog PD radar that simply filters away returns of F-22 magnitude even when sees them, WVR-focused IRST not even meant for stealth detection) is one thing, F-22A v. J-10C is something completely different.
You could actually see it right now, stealth or no stealth - Ukrainian fighters(4th gen) engaging Russian fighters(4th gen, 5th gen). A year and a half of war, not a single confirmed kill in one direction, dozens of kills in the opposite. We don't even see a practical(kill ratio) difference b/n su-57 and su-30sm right now(a2a), because the ridiculously unfair situation isn't just about generation.
Conclusion: when true /revolutions/ happen, you immediately see it in the form of an urgent arms race - for example, HMS Dreadnought. No one procured - much less designed - pre-dreadnoughts half a century later.
Stealth aircraft, as of yet, is a big, important, but ultimately evolutionary step in survivability and ambiguity. Big enough to not be hissed upon(overall stealth>good EW, stealth+good EW>>EW without stealth), but it shall be taken with a cold head.
Sorry, could you expand on what you mean by this?
When single fighter patrols remote airspace - it's 100% reliant on its own onboard equipment(which it has to use, and has to use over long time - which is a
huge condition for any powerful electronics). The more armament it can carry, the more economically - the better. It only has onboard fuel - thus the more, the better. And if your fighter will be detected - it's survival(jamming, dashing away) is up to itself.
Thus - you spend as much as you can on the fighter, which will gather as much data as possible by itself, and do as good as possible by itself. Even at a cost of sortie rate - sending dumb aircraft for such sorties is simply pointless.
When you have 50 networked fighters - you have 50 sets of sensors, armament, and so on - so just by that alone, individual sensor suite is 50 times less important (and in fact most of them won't emit, because why should they). Then, because it's 50 fighters (whole airforce!) - you have AWACS, which easily gives a better, more complete, and more nuanced tactical picture than any of those 50 - so they only start using their suites when it's necessary for engagement - yet in more favorable modes (narrow cued search, for example).
It's 50 fighters - so you may dedicate part of your force to both stand-off and stand-in (escort) jammer support.
They don't really give much f about fuel - because there are a couple of tankers on orbit behind them - no worries that closest airfield will be unavailable due to weather, spend as much as you can, as long as you can somehow cruise those 100-200 kms to the boom.
In this case - you can afford to get away with a rather simple aircraft - and instead of all the unnecessary complexity, concentrate on mission rate, serviceability, networking...and, say, more individual and group protection(stealth, ew, decoys).
If you will get 50 aircraft (1) to the situation (2) - you won't really get 50 times better force. It probably won't be that much stronger at all - added flexibility will be more than offset by scores of unnecessary optimizations.
That is because a 5th gen can snipe with BVR missiles at long range and then disengage.
The whole point of stealth is its ability to come(survive) closer, and go for a sure kill. Moreover, this way you can get higher Pk from smaller(=more numerous) missiles.
To snipe with BVR missiles you don't really need any stealth. Moreover, it hinders you, because the capability of long-range munition is ultimately tied to its size.
