A good majority of whom? Can you point to a single official US source claiming that stealth aircraft were and always would be invincible?

This is not the issue.

The big missconception is that stealth technology can work alone.

This is not true, LO tactics are no done without ECM support, from the start the F-117 was meant to operate hidden in a ECM veil, put from other aircraft, like the EF-111.

Stealth concept was never, is not, and will never be a snipper-like tactic where a lone B-2 goes inside the enemy territory launch a laser bomb, destroying the favorite limousine of a evil dictator just as a warning.

To do so, that B-2 needs a pair of EF-111s, and depends on the effectivity of it partners.

Around 1,400 manned low-RCS sorties by the time that the F-117 was lost in 1999

Well this, as well proves nothing about the effectivenes of stealth technology, since planes like F-16 and others did have better sortie-lost ratio in the war.

Otherwise, the single mission the F-117 went without ECM support, and downed in that mission, proves a lot about how LO vehicles operations are done.

Once again, the question boils down to how many losses in how many sorties,

Who cares?, is the last stealth crap the USAF has.

Time to celebrate.

The childish belief of stealth snipper-like operations and the realibility of the UAV concept went down by a single shot…and that was even an EM shot.

And all that with no man killed, or prisioner drama, congratulations to the iranian forces

Bet the US forces forgot ECM cover for stealth operations again.

Construction tecniques in the T-50 seems to be more advanced than the F-22 ones, since, at least in the nose, it assembing requires less riveting.

I can’t find high resolution pictures of the Raptors wings to do a comparation.

One interesting detail is that the radome is not tilted backwards, seems the russians have a great confidence on their first operative AESA, lets see.

December 1966

I would like to know how this report can fit with the operations in Vietnam, where with heavy ECM support, fighter support, and tactical advantages (a lor of fuel reserves) bombing campaigns were still a challenge.

The B-47 medium bomber was an air defense nightmare! It flew very high, near a high mach number making it virtually impossible to intercept. Plus the USAF had 1,500 B-47s

1500 fried chickens for SA-2 batteries

he probably means its not as prioritized, but will still have its importance.
supersonic maneuverability on the other hand is a different story

ATF parameters for supersonic maneuverability were pretty conventional, 5-4 sustained gs at around M1.5, is more/less, the same numers for most 4th gen planes.

All the information over the flat exhausts for the T-50 tells that such devices are meant for short take off and landing, no stealth claims, if russians will implement such system in the PAKFA program, will be because this requirement, rather than the stealth thing.

Probably the final T-50 will get more zigzag thingies around, i don’t see why they should ruin an excellent design as is right now.

Maneuvarability won’t matter for much in future air combat

Maneuvaerality was never important in any modern USAF campaign for the 3 last decades..

But USAF leaders are not kids playing pc-games…the ATF was designed to counter the soviet union, not a 3th world air force.

But still the F-22 was designed with maneuverability in mind…and actually was selected over the F-23 because of this factor.

Maneuverability is obsolete if you outnumber your enemy 10:1 in the sky…

Will India outnumber 10:1 the China air force?…you are dreaming cowboy fantasies that no even USAF generals are dreaming.