Not suprising. 2-3 years ago there were HUD pictures all over the internet from a regular SuperHornet with an F-22 in it’s crosshairs. As stated, no plane is invincible, and any pilot can make a mistake.

Which was taken when the Superhornet pilot ignored some safety regulations for the minimum allowed distance(while the Raptor pilot didn’t) for training, in order to get that “kill.”

This show one thing, the 22 was killed with a radar missile, an AMRAAM, not even a sidewinder…

So much for the “It won’t let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. annoys the hell out of me.” joke..

Funny is that such incident was discovered by accident…funny..

Seeing as how we don’t know any details of the kill, it’s a bit silly to start arriving at conclusions. It may very well have been a passive shot, or some other combination of factors.

this in my opinion , debunks that eurofighter and Su-35BM are not capable of taking down raptor .

Eurofighter has a excellent EW ability , rather the best or one of the best

The Eurofighter and Su-35 have nothing comparable to the electronics on board an EA-18G. Additionally, seeing as how the circumstances of the kill weren’t discussed, we can only speculate as to what happened.

Well, lets say an aircraft is considered VLO in front aspect,
but can have a hundred times larger RCS, or equal to a conventional aircraft from a slightly different aspect. Should it then be classified as VLO, LO, reduced, or conventional ?

There aren’t any examples of that occurring in a production aircraft though. Seems like it’d be an extreme waste of money to design an aircraft that was VLO from the front only, and equal/worse to other aircraft from other angles.
The F-22 and F-35 have all aspect stealth, so while their best RCS aspect is head on, they’re not sticking out like sore thumbs from every other angle.

You will tell us or do you guessing from your ???, to stay polite. 😉

Let me break it down in easier to understand terms. Comparing the weight of an APG-73 and APG-79 only tells you the difference in weight between the systems. It doesn’t tell you that the APG-79 weighs more because of the antenna. The APG-63 series is a much better place to look, as there’s much more similarity between the (v)1 and 2 aside from the antenna, and the 3 has black boxes from the APG-79 and a different antenna(that uses newer/lighter modules).

We know, that there is a weight rise related to that technology. You can try to disprove us with data from:
http://www.raytheon.com

Or you post the answer and please ask, why they did change the backend for possible F-15 ASEA upgrades.

Here you can read what backend (APG-79!) will be used. 😉
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms04_025129.pdf

I’m not trying to prove or disprove anything. I am saying that to do an apples to apples comparision, you need to know where the weight increases are occurring. How much does an APG-63(v)3 weigh compared to a (v)1 or 2?

When classifying radar observability, does it matter from what angle ?

It depends on how high the RCS is from other angles. Obviously there are certain angles that are less optimised than others.

Rather a narrow minded viewpoint being displayed there.

Well, when there’s nothing else to compare them to, you’re limited to a pretty limited discussion in the first place.