Alone the new ITT nanomatrial RAM reduce the RCS to 10% then minus Planform minus continus curvature (more advance as the diamond shape (F-117) and first used on the B-2), Brewster etc.
Supercruis, no VHF dectabel afterburner plume, reduce IR-sinature.

There is an important factor to mention, if RAM could do all the job of course RAM would do it because it would not reflect any radar emission back to the original transmitter or to a multi static reciever and it would do the job better than planforming however RAM can not absorb all the frequencies thus planforms still reflect radar emissions this means simply multi static radars with good computer power can track a stealthy machine

This is a fact that a radar net always will be able to do, basicly it is computer power that helps to discriminate the planform emisions from other electromagnetic emissions, the stealth machine still will reflect electromagnetic emissions in one way or other.

One has to be careful when reading about claims to shoot down stealth aircraft. Stealth varies greatly from not-so-stealthy (Ram painted gen 4) to incredibly stealthy (purpose built like B-2, F-22/35). F-16C incorporated RAM paint since 1985 and would be considered a “stealth” airplane by S300 marketing standards. It can be detected by S300 radar at >>50NM. B-2, F-22/35 on the other hand, would not be detected by S300 radar until <<50NM.

The US spends an incredible amount of $s collecting threat ESM data using satellites, RC-135s, U-2s and EP-3s. The fidelity of the data provides astounding capability to accurately predict the capabilities of threat RF systems especially when coupled with the known state-of-the-art capabilities of electronics and software. Don’t think for a minute that there are undiscovered secrets when it comes to systems that emit RF.

I don’t follow your logic where EAF in 1967 ties in with F-22.

I’ve always said that the easiest way to kill an enemy fighter is to destroy it on the ground. The North Vietnamese were most effective through mortar attacks on parked airplanes or by having sappers come through the perimeter wire at night and destroy parked airplanes using satchel charges.

Djcross

Everything depends upon what enemy are you fighting and second in a very inpredictable factor of what the enemy or rival will do, honestly i do not think the US can measure the Russian defences unless they report that their F-22 have snuck inside Russian airspace and they have never been detected or at least flown close to their airspace.

If they detected the F-22 very likely their SAMs can track them, they say the latest S-400 can kill stealth fighters and that system has very long range missiles.
What i meant with the 1967 example is in any war, the enemy always will try to destroy the most valueable targets as Israel did in 1967 when they destroyed the vast majority of the Egyptian Air fleet on the ground and very few aircraft were shot in the air and the F-22 are one of those, so any powerful enemy will try to put out of combat the F-22 on the ground and not in the air where it is more difficult.

Inpredictability means a real factor because you can not predict if the Russians have shown you their best systems or if they will find a way of detecting the F-22 and that is not a matter of money but of how smart are your scientists and politicians

The highest ratio I’ve seen reported for that mock battle was 20:1, & the USN deny it was that bad, though neither they nor the Israelis will officially say what the real ratio was. Where did you get 200:1?

Well i was wrong but you are not exactly right too however your guess was closer than mine sorry, sometimes my memory fails but see that on one ocassion the kill ratio was 40:1

here is the source

Report: IAF whips US pilots in exercise

By ARIEH O’SULLIVAN

TEL AVIV (September 24) – A recent joint exercise between the IAF and US Navy Sixth Fleet pilots apparently resulted in a thorough routing of the US pilots, according to the latest edition of Air Force Monthly.

The American-based magazine said the exercise in question took place in the Negev skies and involved engagements between IAF F-16s and US Navy F-14s and F/A-18s.

Quoting Israeli military sources, the magazine said one of the exercises ended with the score of 40:1 in favor of the IAF. The magazine said Israel “downed” 220 aircraft for the loss of just 20 of its own.

It said that the results have not been officially published “to save the reputations of the US Navy pilots.”

The magazine did not say when the exercise took place. But security sources said that the dogfights took place about three months ago. They said the exercise was the first time that Israeli pilots actually took part in the maneuvers and didn’t just give logistical support. Israeli pilots have also flown with various flight academies as guests or students.

The IAF said it does not give detailed results of training exercises. But air force commanders were said to be incensed by the report. While refusing to confirm or deny the report, military sources said neither Israel or the US had officially released the “scores.”

“We showed an arrogance we didn’t mean to display,” one senior IAF office

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37ebf3f846e1.htm

I mean the whole point i was refering was the F-15 is not the top fighter any more and an Eurofighter Typhoon is more of a real threat to the F-22, if F-16s armed with Python IVs were able to kill 40 jets with only a single lost well what can you expect from the Eurofighter or Rafale?

see that

The ‘clash’ took place last year over Windermere when the two-seater RAF Eurofighter was ‘bounced’ from behind by the two F-15E fighters.

The US pilots intended to pursue the supposedly hapless ‘Limey’ for several miles and lock their radars on to it for long enough so that if it had been a real dogfight the British jet would have been shot down.

But much to the Americans’ surprise, the Eurofighter shook them off, outmanoeuvred them and moved into shooting positions on their tails.

The British pilots themselves were almost as surprised at winning an encounter with an aircraft widely regarded as the best fighter in the world.

Related topic

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=673262005

So as you can see pitting F-15s versus F-22 is not the great feat

Stealth works against stealthy airplanes too. You can have two stealthy adversaries fly past each other (within XX miles) and never know the other was present. F-22 has all the attributes you quote, but doesn’t use them in the design engagement scenario. It doesn’t take wild gyrations to sneak up behind a blind & deaf man and whack him on the back of the head. The recent exercise in Alaska found the F-22s rarely exceeded 3 Gs while racking up a 108:0 score against F-15/16/18s.

Stealth does not work like the Klingon cloaking device on Star Trek. If a VLO airplane gets too close to an enemy radar, it will be detected. The most feared of all SAMs is the S300. It is the one system that VLO airplanes are designed to soft kill by sneaking past it. VLO airplanes like B-2, F-22 and F-35 will steer clear of a SAM aquisition and tracking radar by a distance the designers have defined based on airplane RCS and SAM radar performance. Mission planning does that by identifying “stay out” zones where detection by enemy SAMs is a real possibility. Stealth allows airplanes to perform their assignments without an expensive aerial circus of escorts, jammers, AWACS and tankers.

Stealth does not mean not visible to radar only means less visible to radar, that is the real meaning, the Russians claim that their newest S-400, a more advanced missile than the S-300 can kill stealth aircraft.

The F-22 must be difficult to fight, but i do not think even simulating F-15s or F-16s can simulate completly Russian or even European defences.

Russia just started deployment of the S-400 so no one can simiulate that missile system now in the West.
I have my doubts the simulation and kills by F-22 mean something very impressive the israelis got a more impressive kill ratio in mock combat using Python IVs against the US Navy F-18s and they were flying F-15s and F-16s, their kill ratio was 200:1.

I mean you can not say the Russian defence system will react in the same way as predicted in war games.

Also the F-15 is less impresive than the Eurofighter or MiG-35 in agility or supercruise, and we can expect Russia will get some Su-34s and Su-35BM with supercruise included.

Another aspect to mention a surprise attack is always present and a low rate production aircraft will suffer most than a high rate production aircraft, The Egyptian air force in 1967 was wiped out from the air and the F-22 is not the exception.

Flogger,
Go back and read the thread.

‘Remember your claims of Israeli RF-4E(S) loss during 82? Did you ever read the AFM article covering the retirement of those airframes? Any explanation? Hmmm.’

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/sho…237#post552237

Kfadrat wrote

‘TJ, an F-4E (S) was indeed shot down by an SA-8 unit not long after the 1982 war, the Israelis destroyed the wreck while it was being inspected by Soviet experts – duh – and killed 11 of them.’

Yes Flogger we know that the Israeli’s lost a Phantom. That is not in dispute. The claim made by Kfadrat was that it was an RF-4E(S) ‘Peace Jack’. The Israeli’s retired those airframes in 2004. AFM covered the retirement.

Read the caption under the last image in regards to Peace Jack airframe 492.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_363.shtml

TEEJ

According to the article of waronline, indeed there were reports of what Kfadrat claims, and that was reported in flight international, they confirmed it, the waronline article claims the Israelis did bomb the F-4 wreckage.

But does it not state that the Phantom was an RF-4E(S) ‘Peace Jack’? How did the Israeli’s cover it up when all the Peace Jacks were retired during 2004?. AFM did a piece on it during the F-4s retirement.

Does it not make you think that the original claim of a Peace Jack shootdown is simply a fabrication? When did the story first appear? It makes fabulous reading with Israelis killing Syrian and Russian teams inspecting said wreckage.

Explain how the Israeil’s can retire the RF-4E(S) that was claimed to have been shot down and involved in the fantastic tale?

TEEJ

There is a real fact Gil Vogel was shot down in June 1982 and he was flying a F-4, was it a RF-4E(S) or an F-4E well it is a matter of debate but undoutedly he was shot down and Israel lost an F-4 in June 1982

Details generally as for single-/tandem-seat Su-27, except those below.

Design Features

One third heavier empty weight, with 50 per cent increase in MTOW, 30 per cent increase in internal capacity, 10 per cent increase in mid-section. Completely new and wider front fuselage built as titanium armoured tub, 17 mm ({11/16} in) thick; armour adds 1,480 kg (3,262 lb

The empty weight of the Su-34 is well above 20 tons. Empty equipped it is close to the Su-24M. (smaller MKI is > 19 tons)
At MTOW (~45 tons) the weaponsload is less than 4 tons with max possible fuel load of ~19 tons.

Sens i do not know if you guess is correct because they claim a weapons load does not include fuel tanks see

Вооружение: одна 30-мм пушка ГШ-301 (180 патронов)
Боевая нагрузка – 8000 кг (нормальная – 4000 кг) на 12 узлах подвески:
8 УР класса “воздух-воздух” Р-73;
6 УР класса “воздух-воздух” Р-27РЭ или Э;
8 УР класса “воздух-воздух” Р-77(РВВ-АЕ);
6 УР класса “воздух-поверхность” Х-29Т/Л, Х-25МЛ, С-25ЛД
6 УР класса “воздух-РЛС” Х-31П либо “воздух-корабль” Х-31А;
1 многоцелевая УР «Альфа»;
3 УР класса “воздух-поверхность” Х-59М;
3 корректируемых авиабомбы КАБ-1500Л/ТК;
6 корректируемых авиабомб КАБ-500КР/Л;
3 бомбами калибра 1500 кг, 16 бомбами калибра 500 кг, 36 бомбами калибра 250 кг, 48 бомбами калибра 100 кг, 8 контейнерами КМГУ, 120 ракетами С-8 (в 6 блоках Б-8М1), 30 ракетами С-13 (в 6 блоках Б-13Л) или 6 ракетами С-25
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/su34.html
At no moment they are claiming fuel tanks are included, of course if the 8 tonns are added to 12 tonns of internal fuel this will give a total of 20 tonns, rested to the 44+ tonns we end up having an empty weight of 24 tons
however if we look at the drawing we find out that effectivively it carries fuel tanks they are the last item at the bottom

Now if we see the Sukhoi`s official data they only mention a normal take off weight of 39 tonns and they do not give the max take off
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su32/lth/

Probably your numbers are correct the Su-34 must be weighting around 21 tonns perhaps 24 tonns at the most but a Su-27 empty weight is no more than 16 tonns and a third of it would be 5.5 tonns

Now if the Su-34 can carry fuel tanks and with in flight refuelling can get up to 7000km i doubt it will have a very limited range, i do not think it is inferior to the Su-30MK, but to the contrary much more superior because it can carry 19 tonns of fuel and can have in flight refuelling, also consider it can hit targets at a very long distance, so indeed it can replace the Tu-22M in some missions