Миг25/31 это перехватчики, миг29 самолёт для завоевания господства в воздухе в близи линии фронта, предназначен завязывать маневренный бой с другими истребителями

YF-22

technika koniec lat 90tych

Yes some birds can hover like the humming bird can

Я восхищон.

There's a thing called elecronic warefare - in case the radars don't work, the maneuverability remains. Stealth is more a trademark, than a real technology - all modern missiles don't distinguish between a stealth and non-stealth target - they all reflect the radiowaves in meter range absolutely equally. You also can hit the stealth aircrafts even with very old soviet missiles from 60ies - like it happened once with the F-117.

bahnstormero It's delusional (with all due respect) to attempt to include US Stealth technology in your 'trademark' category that granted most other country's level (including Russia) appropriately do fit. The breakthrough came when the Raptor was in design mode. The Raptor wasn't shelved because it's stealth didn't work (as many jealous 'experts' love to claim) but because maintenance for it wasn't cost effective. But US stealth? In a word: 'scary'. It consistently and reliably reduces the aerodynamic footprint of any jet to the size of a small bird. Now the same 5th generation US technology has been applied to the F-15 and F/A-18 Hornet. It always comes down to the same basic equation: you simply can't kill what you can't see. In summation: the current level of US stealth technology makes every other country's 'modern' jet fleet obsolete.

а зачем тогда на F-22 используется управляемый вектор тяги?

Юрий См Good question. The Raptor was initially intended for stealthy air dominance but YES it is still vulnerable to detection at certain times such as when they carry external store, rejoin with tankers or talk on the radio (secure or unsecure ones). Then they DO become more vulnerable to detection. Better to have TVC (Thrust Vector Capability) and not need it then to need it and not have it.

Ognjen Davidovic Hey, like I said, it's awesome technology - but only for an airshow. It's totally useless in practical applications. Bottom line? Russia mastered thrust vectoring, the US mastered stealth. I'll take stealth over a cool airshow toy any day.

Bless u God, yes, yes that it's it !!! .

Your points although well-intended are useful primarily only in a vacuum. You're over-thinking the 'what-ifs' and therefore missing the main concept of the Raptor's 5th gen Stealth Technology which is to avoid the typical 50km Radius (100kv diameter) dogfight engagement arena in the first place. True, any advantage stealth provides the F-22 during WVR (Within Visual Range) conditions are neutralized and then it comes down to pilot & machine close-sequence tactics such as superior Helmet Cueing, Thrust-Vectoring Control, AoA and target tracking, pilot training, etc., during which both fighters could very well end up in a never ending 'rate fight' - exactly what the designers of the F-22 built it to avoid.

***** Overthinking? Vacuum? The art of tactics is to put yourself in your opponent's shoes and assume he's not stupid and that he won't fight the way you want him to. That said, all I did was to precis the Rand report. I wouldn't call that overthinking. Any assumptions made within the 50km radius were in the F-22s favour. I did not allow for jamming or use of stealthy EA either. What I am doing is showing that the value of stealth - which was extremely effective in 1991 when used for deep penetration strike mission - is less so in air superiority missions. I also pointed out, as does the Rand report, that the AIM-120, on which so much of this depends, has not been anywhere near as effective as the "one-shot-one-kill" slogan claims. The WVR scenario is only useful if your opponent decides to engage. If he ignores the F-22 and pushes on at top speed, there's not a lot the Raptors can do about it.

TheThirdMan The Rand report? What am I missing? The Rand Report on this subject was explicitly directed to determine a 'what if' dog fight scenario that will never happen. No offense but you need to update your understanding to the correct perspective: During the Civil War the moment the two ironclads (Merrimack vs. Monitor - Battle of Hampton Roads, 1862) finished their battle every other 'Modern Navy' on earth became OBSOLETE. It no longer mattered to even discuss the 'what-ifs'. In post WWII after the Cruise Missile was developed all future Battleship vs. Battleship encounters became OBSOLETE. Discussion of which battleship would win a theoretical fight no longer had value. See where this is going? Beginning to grasp the rules of the new era? See the aforementioned 'vacuum' now? The moment 5th generation Stealth Technology was achieved (US has it, no one else does) every other jet fighter on earth became OBSOLETE. The only viable manner of thinking that matters now is to recognize and limit dependance on meaningless data and update realization instead to not only the fact that the dog fight era is dead but discussion of it (Eurofighter vs. F-22 etc., etc.) no longer even matters. I'm not suggesting you think outside the box - I'm telling you the box no longer exists. And yes, 5th Gen Stealth Technology IS that effective.

***** No offence mate but you sound like a Lockheed Martin spin doctor. If you have not read the Rand report in its entirety, it is difficult to see the implications and they are not dependent solely on the scenario they outlined. Otherwise you are just putting a telescope to a blind eye. If you don't want to offend, stop using so much invective and patronage. Otherwise, go right ahead but don't expect a polite response. The Rand report shows that in the 50 years BVR has been around it has not worked except on rare occasions. The USAF, up to 2008, had fired 17 AMRAAMs for a total of 10 aircraft destroyed, including one "own goal". Four of those targets were WVR and the others were mostly non-manoeuvring. In none of those cases did the EA have any advantages at all, including functioning coherent radar, jamming support, numerical superiority or any AWACs support. It should have been a cake walk but it wasn't. The F-22 does nothing to change that situation. The US teen series fighters are all capable of BVR combat and have been since inception. The only difference is detection. (I guess you are familiar with the Boelke Dicta). I'm interested to hear your counter-argument on the Pk of the AIM-120, the very missiles these invincible weapons depend on. The hard data is out there. I'm interested to hear why you think the Rand report is wrong. Why will that scenario never happen? Don't forget the invincible battleships Japan built in WWII or the Maginot Line. They relied on assumptions that their opponents would fight a certain way. They relied on the assumption that they would be able to bring their weapons to bear on their enemies. The F-22 makes exactly that assumption. Like the Maginot Line, it only works if your opponent takes you on in the manner you want him to. Invincible weapons have a history of turning into hyper-expensive white elephants. It has already been demonstrated that there are ways around the scenario where the F-22 shoots down an enemy before the enemy pilot knows it's there and there are even ways to defeat it, even if that goal is more difficult to achieve. The scenario proposed doesn't even allow for the possibility of a coherent enemy force with jamming and stealth of its own. It asks you to use your own imagination. That's what war planners do. I'm not actually interested in the Typhoon vs F-22 argument either because it's too much fine detail in a debate which requires a big picture view. I only mentioned it in passing. If you had read either of my previous posts you will know that. You would also know that for any incoming aggressors, the targets are not the F-22s. In short, the F-22 has been built for a fighter vs fighter scenario which is the product of a bygone era. The only difference is the standoff range but if it has to happen, at a macro level, history has already shown that dogfights are still the most common way by which these conflicts are resolved. You will doubtless argue that it will not happen because of BVR etc. In a small, localised combat, like what the USAF has been doing for the past 40 years that is true. In a larger theatre conflict, it most certainly isn't.

TheThirdMan I'm not sure why you're not understanding there simply is no such thing as a jet fighter vs jet fighter dog fight any more. 4 years ago when the Raptor was still prime time they tested the best fighter jet (the never been defeated F-15) on earth against it 5 to 1 over the desert sands of Utah in an all out 150 mile by 150 mile hard deck arena. In less then 30 minutes all 5 F-15's were 'shot down' and everyone of the pilots said the same thing: we simply couldn't see the Raptor - not on our radar screens and certainly not visibly. It didn't matter what they did. Nothing worked. It doesn't depend on what the Raptor pilots 'wanted' them to do because there isn't anything they could do. That was Stealth Gen 4 Technology. Gen 5? Even more insane. A new era. I'm not going to spend too much more time on this discussion. Some things you just can't teach. This is the stealth era. Dog fights are a by gone era. You either realize this and 'shelve' all those data oriented arguments and scenarios or get left behind. Good luck.