Why is it that stealth is perceived by some as more effective than jamming?

Its the difference between looking for something transparent vs having sand thrown in your eyes, either way you can’t see the target.

Because if your jamming doesn’t work, you’re still visible. Additionally, if you’re emitting, you’ve lost the element of surprise(and weapons that have HOJ may be able to target you). If you combine VLO and stand off jamming, it makes the VLO aircraft even harder to detect, without allowing a foe to know of it’s presence.

I understand the combat significance as far as the qualitative difference is concerned. I still do wonder about the numbers though, especially as far as range is concerned and the constants of an already given speed determining range are considered. One thing I have difficulties coming to terms with is the missile speed. The AMRAAM for example: Does it top out at its maximum velocity (let’s assume M4) because it runs out of fuel–and could theoretically reach higher speeds–or because its aero drag at that speed can’t be overcome by its thrust? And how long does the AMRAAM need to get up to speed? How long is the burn phase? And what would be the timing differential in acceleration to top speed between the launch platform going M0.9 or M1.6?

-the AMRAAM isn’t aerodynically limited to M4. M4 is a vanilla number.
-while this discussion isn’t specifically about the AMRAAM, it’ll help in understanding how launch speed can play a big role on missile kinematics(i.e. the missile will have a higher top speed if launched at a higher speed and altitude).
-it also points out how air density/drag at 60k feet is half that of 40k feet, which also contributes to the extended ranges.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-10195.html

The article does not state the assumed height difference in numbers. 60k/M1.6 versus 0k/M0.9 (with an added long gliding path) could be a very different game from 60k/M1.6 versus 50k/M0.9. In terms of PR-speak, this leeway is very convenient, and therefore makes me wary.
If you are not going to source your other numerical assumptions, that’s OK (it’s not your day job afterall), but I’m going to remain undecided on that particular statement and its conclusiveness.

There’d still be a considerable kinematic advantage even against a M.9/50k feet launch(or a M.9/60k feet launch for that matter).

I didn’t know the Russians were Indians.

What sort of lack of logic is this? (On your part, now I’ll let you figure it out)

Where in that statement was it said that Russians were Indians?

The chance that in real combat they encounter a target EXACTLY in the moment they are supercruising at 50k and M1.6+ is very slim, IMHO as they probably won’t be doing that very often. As I have already written before, these speeds are just not practical for everyday use.

The highly trumpeted kinematic superiority is a paper advantage to me. Stealth isn’t…

That may be true on ingress/egress, but over the target area the F-22 will be supercruising, to minimize exposure time/increase difficulty of targeting solutions.

Wild guessing like yours above is is of little help. You do not have an idea about statistics, do you have? A failure can occure during the first hour or in the last hour of a period. In both cases the claim is a single failure during that period only. The data of AIM-120 fired in anger and the related hits are to find in the internet.

Where did I guess wildly? If anything, my illustration was far less of a SWAG than claiming an AMRAAM would fail after an hour in a Raptor’s bay. If the problem was as severe as you seem to think it is, it’d be a much bigger news story.

There is data on the AIM-120 being fired in combat, and how many planes were shot down, but did it address the questions I presented? How many missiles passed within the lethal radius, out of those fired? How many missed, due to poor launch conditions? How many missed due to missile malfunctions? etc….
I’d love for you to point me to these statistics on an open source link.

Not going into some questionable claims. A safe assumption is. There is no technology-gap related to propellants used by both sides. So the amount of propellant for a missile gives a good yardstick about range-capabilities.
I stick to the German site, because the technical section there is a reliable claim about the “Adder”, which is comparable to the AIM-120 when it comes to size and the related range values. For practical use the lower values are the most realistic.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wympel_R-77

Well if you’re going to accept the wikipedia figures, then here’s the German site’s figures(which also coincide with what other sources have also claimed)-

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM

A/B-Version: ~55-75 km
C-5-Version: ~105 km
D-Version: ~180 km

and these are legacy fighter conditions, not 60k feet and M1.8.

That is an unproven advertisement claim. Maybe you have some data for the benefit of all outside that general advertisement claims. In the meanwhile I do enjoy the Vista next to XP, when Vista was claimed to be the best thing to have for a short while. It will be replaced by 7 this year for “unknown” reasons. People from former “Superpowers” do show a strange behavior sometimes. Be it the USA or Russia. “Right or wrong my country.”
How many AIM-120 were built? The AIM-120D is no longer an upgraded C, but something new. I do remember, when the propulsion-modul of the AIM-120A was fittet into later variants for cost saving reasons. 😉
To avoid misunderstandings by the others. The AIM-120 is an excellent weapon, but as every weapon a compromise related to the technology at hand. Had I bought a Vista from 2008 I had avoided some trouble related to that too. As Schorsch claimed, never by an A-model or something not in use for at least one year to debug it by “front-line use”.

Will you also admit that the ranges on the R-27/77 that many quote to show some sort of advantage, are also unproven claims. You’ll have to forgive me if I put more credence in the home team’s claims.
As for the C8 vs. D nomenclature issue, the name was changed prior to any development(i.e. they didn’t start working on the C8, and then scrap it to build the D).

You do not know, but that does not prevent you to do such guess to stay polite. At least as an US-citizen you have the opportunity to ask the related press-officer about that.

Like sferrin said, I made no claim other than there’s no information available that would lead one to a conclusion that F-22s aren’t(haven’t been) carrying C7s.