Most accounts of the shoot-down show that they didn't shoot it down by locking on a missile and firing it and hitting it, they knew roughly where and when to look, used some radars to narrow the area, and volleyed multiple missiles, assisted by manual/visual guidance, and one of them exploded near enough to cause damage requiring the pilot to eject. It was the perfect set of circumstances to use that technique (knowing where it would be, only one aircraft to aim at and dedicate a lot of resources toward it, etc.), and they weren't able to shoot anymore down after that, so they certainly didn't have some sure-fire technique for tracking and shooting down stealth aircraft.

they shot down 1 and damaged another F-117 , a write off after landing - and from what I read, it was not a volley of SA-3 and blind luck.

the Serbs managed to shot down a Sea Harrier and a Mirage 2000 as well thanks to being well trained and knowing their stuff, not every adversary is incompetent.

F-15E is not widely considered a good fighter/interceptor and the F-14 was #%&*$# as an attack aircraft compared to the A-6.

I'll give you the F-4, but it also didn't sling a whole lot of advanced munitions either.

These F-35 threads never end well.

I never said the F-15E was a good fighter, but the F-15C (same basic aircraft) has been the best fighter in existence for most of it's lifetime.

And comparing a dedicated bomber (A-6) to a fighter bomber (F-14B) is meaningless, the A-6 also is a crappy fighter but that proves nothing.

I should also throw in the F-16 and F/A-18, both of which are excellent multi role aircraft.

The Meteor is great, but the AIM-120D already has excellent range and this will not fix the shortcomings in the Rafale's arsenal. Even the Super Hornet is getting the Brimstone integrated. At best, the Rafale will be getting a radar that is hopefully on par with that of the Super Hornet, roughly two decades later. The F-35 has everything out of the box. Again, you're looking at the advantages of politics and not capability. There is zero reason from a capability perspective to buy a Rafale or Gripen when you already have Eurofighters. Considering the logistical problems that seem to plague the German military, adding another plane that fills the same role with the same capabilities is pointless. The F-35 brings a lot of tech to the table that the other offerings don't have, and will likely cost less to.

As for the Su-35, it is a Russian design and is inferior to western designs. Just about everything that came out of the USSR was inferior. There are few exceptions - SAMs, especially mobile SAMs, mobile shell based artillery, the R-73 and a few others. Everything else was grossly inferior. Night vision, thermals, radars, missiles, armored vehicles, small arms. The latest versions of the Su-35 are utilizing French avionics to help minimize the gap. The biggest lacking of the Flanker series are the weapons, followed by the avionics. Even Russian special forces are using AR-15s, HK 417s and Glocks. All western weapons.

Unless money is a concern, the F-15SA or similar Strike Eagle variant is a much better option than a Flanker.

Interesting to see how people fall fir the LM marketing gimmick.

At some point detection ranges become long enough that stealth becomes of marginal value, except as an ECM assisting measure.

That has to be weighed of course against all the negatives that a stealth optimized design brings to the table, high costs, avionics packaging and cooling constraints, small internal weapons load, aerodynamic ccompromises etc.

So, are you saying the militaries of all of the countries buying the F-35 have fallen for a marketing gimmick, yet you are somehow figuring it out on your own?

The only Soviet systems that were significantly technically inferior as a rule were those that relied on their comparatively primitive miniaturized electronics and/or very precise standard of manufacture, or else where the comparable Western system represents a much greater "gold plated" level of investment.

A good example being the F-4 Phantom, yeah it was more technically capable than contemporary Soviet planes, but it also cost 4 to 5 times as much. Having your tactical fighter force soaking up so much more of a given budget means that you have to accept shortcomings in other areas.

It is true that Soviet equipment cost less, but most things were not 4-5 times cheaper. A lot of Soviet equipment was fairly expensive. Take the T-64 expensive, unreliable, short engine life ect. They had to design another tank, the T-72, as a cost effective solution. Factor that in for overall cost to. Then they had a repeat with the T-80, which resulted in more upgraded T-72s (T-90s). Then factor in the short life of most Soviet weapon designs. Flanker / MIGs have a shorter engine life than their western counterparts. The list goes on and on.

They did occasionally put out some good tech, but they were always behind the west. Both before and after the USSR.

Yeah, Sikorsky and Boeing should've done this kind of thing back when the RAH-66 was being developed. Could've had themselves a gold plated contract for 3 decades with 'too big to fail' written all over it.

Fortunately, Army Aviation tends to be a little bit more careful with their money and their equipment than the USAF.

Has there ever been a Soviet/Russian fighter aircraft that enjoyed a superior kill to loss ratio against its American counterpart?

None probably, but then again we've never seen the full might of the Soviet/Russian military pitted up against the kind of weak opposition that Western fighters have built up their records with.

The blame goes largely to the USMC, which essentially required an almost entirely new plane. Add in the MV-22 (USAF also got some), M27 and whatnot, and the USMC is clearly getting a lot of unique things that are expensive. The Navy had little interest in the F-35 if I recall, they largely got into it because the naval F-14 replacement was cancelled. Which is why they pulled a fast one on Congress to get the Super Hornet and decided to buy a few F-35s to hold them over.

The USMC's desire to have a Harrier replacement has some merit, but the issue I see is that they (or the commanders) will be reluctant to use the F-35 in a front line capacity as with the AV-8. The Peace Dividend of the '90s largely resulted in the F-35 becoming what it is today; had it remained as a F-16 replacement I sincerely doubt it would be as expensive nor as complex as it's all shaking out to be. By the same token, it might've gotten canned years ago for being a USAF exclusive toy, just like so many other defense projects over the past 2 decades.

The west has a very real problem in accepting practical "good enough" solutions as opposed to the "perfect" solutions; this is why we're in this boat today with so many defense industry pundits running around screaming about the Su-35, J-11, and whatever, without realizing that those aircraft are incremental upgrades to ye olde Su-27. I'd put an F-15E/K/S/Q and an F-16E/F up against an Su-35 any day -- especially if I've got the better pilots.

Nope!
You are completely missing the point that it's not only the detection ranges that have their range increased. You are missing the fact that all sorts of weapons also have had their ranges increased and vastly extended.
For example with since the 1980's one of the western longer range guided air-to-ground weapons was the AGM-65 Maverick with a maximum range of around 12 Nautical Miles (or 22Km) which today is being replaced by weapons such as the Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) which have a maximum range in excess of 60 nautical miles (or 110km).
Another example is for example the 40N6 Surface-to-Air missile (SAM) developed by the Russians for their S-400 Air Defence System, this missile (40N6) has a range of 400km (Yes, four hundred kilometers)!
Modern Air-to-air missiles have longer ranges then their predecessors, and so on...

Therefore Non-Stealth aircraft are far more vulnerable to these newest weapons (SAMs and Air-to-Air missile) while at the same time still being ineffective at releasing the newest and longer range air-to-ground weapons (without being engaged by the enemy).
So yes, Stealth will be more relevant than ever!

And there's another evidence that completely dismisses your "anti-stealth" theories which is the FACT that other countries such as Russia and China are developing their own 5th gen STEALTH fighter aircraft (T-50, J-20 and J-31).
If Stealth was so "useless" and without any future why would these other countries also try to develop such aircraft??

Again, like it or not Stealth is the future together with net-centric warfare. Actually Stealth is an extremely important component of net-centric warfare since it allows sensors to get closer to the enemy and thus providing more reliable information.

Resuming, NOT jumping into the F-35 = 2nd tier Air Force.
If Canada wants to become a 2nd tier Air Force it's their (wrong) choice. Apparently Germany doesn't want to remain a 2nd tier Air Force hence why it seems interested in the F-35.

Also regarding Stealth I find odd to see some here referring to the shot down of the F-117 over Serbia as some sort of evidence on how "Stealth don't work". Really, I though that people here were mostly military aircraft "aficionados" which searched/researched more about the subject of military aviation.

Heck, there's even a Simulator which has its own room here at SimHQ, that sim being "SAM Simulator" which historically depicts this event (the F-117 shot down over Serbia). About this event and what is well known about it, is that the Serbs were lucky, very lucky indeed since:
- The F-117 basically overflew the SAM site! The F-117 was shot down (hit by an SA-3 missile) at a distance of roughly 17-19km from the SAM site and flow as close to the site as 13km away!
- Of course if a Stealth aircraft flies very close to a radar source (like it happened to that F-117) than the Stealth aircraft will be detected. Stealth doesn't means invisibility - It means that it can only be detected at much shorter ranges compared to non-stealth aircraft.
- The F-117 didn't have Electronic Warfare equipment! The F-117 didn't have ECM, it didn't have decoy (Chaffs and Flares) launchers. So even if the missile launch was detected there wasn't much the pilot could do.
- Some sources seem to point out that the F-117 wasn't even equipped with RWRs (although I'm not sure about this).

So go on, play SAM Simulator (its free) - This scenario is among the "easiest" by the way. Or together or alternatively research more about the subject. The commander of that Serbian SA-3 battery (Col. Zoltan Dani) provides very interesting and useful insight about the subject.

Finally between 1991 Desert Storm and 1999 Allied Force how many Non-Stealth aircraft were shot down and how many Stealth aircraft were shot down?? Just to ask...

Interesting that you mention the Osprey. This was another aircraft that everyone said it was going to be a failure but currently it's one of the most successful vertical lift aircraft in world and certainly the most successful of all vertical lift aircraft in the USMC current inventory.

The Navy is reluctant to jump into the F-35 because historically it's the most conservative service and the service with the most backward mentality when it comes to combat aircraft of all 3 services (USAF, USMC and USN). Again this backward mentality from the US Navy has some historical roots like for example:
- In the 1930's, the US Army Air Corp (USAF predecessor) first nonoplane fighter aircraft (P-28 Peashooter) flew for the first time in 1932 while the US Navy first nonoplane fighter aircraft (Brewster Buffalo) flew for the first time in 1937. In a period where military aviation evolved so fast 5 year a part is a LOT.
- The F4U Corsair. I believe that many here know the story. This one just makes the US Navy look so pathetic with its backwards mentality. Well who "won" with this mentality was the USMC and the Royal Navy. Heck after the Royal Navy proved that the F4U Corsair could be operated safely from Carriers and it was superior to the best US Navy aircraft the F6F Hellcat which by the way entered in service later than the Corsair, was when the US Navy itself adopted the F-4U Corsair and curiously after WWII the US Navy kept their Corsairs and retired the Hellcats. With the F-35, I believe that something along this lines will happen with the US Navy - mark my words!
- The US Navy adopted jet propelled aircraft later than the USAAF.
- The US Navy adopted swept-wing aircraft quite later than the USAF. For example in Korea the USAF employed the superior swept-wing F-86 Sabre as well as the North Koreans/Chinese/Soviets employed the superior swept-wing Mig-15 all of this while the US Navy with its backwards mentality only employed inferior straight-wing aircraft like the F9F Panther and F2H Banshee.
- USAF (and also the USMC) have Stealth aircraft in service, the US Navy has not!

The only era where the US Navy seemed have "dropped" its backwards mentality for a moment regarding combat aircraft was from the late 1950's until the early 1970's where it acquired excellent aircraft which gave the US Navy parity with the USAF - I'm talking about the F-8 Crusader, the F-4 Phantom (yes, the great F-4 Phantom) and the F-14 Tomcat.
I won't mention the F/A-18 Hornet because this was a forced decision on the Navy to acquire one of the USAF's LWF contesters (the YF-16 or YF-17) and thus the F/A-18 is a modified YF-17 and thus having a point of origin from the USAF.

Well, my point is that while reluctant regarding the F-35 (namely the F-35C) the US Navy will acquire the F-35C it will eventually replace the Super Hornet (and of course the legacy Hornet) specially when everyone else (namely the USAF and USMC) proves how superior the F-35 really is (which already have started to be proved with the latest Red Flag exercise).

Also point of notice is that the Super Hornet fleet is wearing off much faster than anticipated, namely because it's the Super Hornet fleet whose responsible for air-tanking (refueling) missions. So the new Super Hornet orders seem to be required in order to fill in this unexpected condition of the Super Hornet fleet and of course to keep in-country a second fighter aircraft manufacturing line and manufacturer open (resuming POLITICS!).

The Super Hornet is indeed being kept alive to keep Boeing in the market. This is why it is being pushed hard for export. It seems like it finally received two orders; although the Canadians made a mistake in selecting them at the last minute. But The USN has no interest in replacing Super Hornets with F-35s. They want their F-14 replacement, and likely their A-6 replacement. The F-35 fits the same role as the Super Hornet, and they're content with the Super Hornet in the bomb truck role. I'm not sure what ranges the USN intends to operate from, but I can imagine with limited landing options over water, they will almost always be carrying drop tanks. Making the low RCS capabilities fairly useless for the operational limitations of the F-35. Clearly, the want a larger sized, longer ranged aircraft like the F-22. The Super Hornet program was designed because they knew it would be well over a decade before a unique program would get approval. Even though the Super Hornet essentially is an entirely new plane, they got it quickly as it was a proposed "upgrade".

Which is my main beef with the way Ricunes and some others here are painting the Stubblenose as the next coming of a weaponized Messias, and saying that the European Infidels are too stupid to grasp this relevation.

Unless you are fighting a very high tech enemy - and I don't even count China on that level because most of their copies, err.. own developments are not really so brilliant - you only need Stealth the first two to three days before the air defense network is taken care of and the enemy aircraft have no where to take off from. Then you end up using a very expensive plane with a very high maintenance requirement etc. as a dumb bomb truck for the rest of the campaign.

So unless you expect Euros to go to war versus US or us all together versus Russia (which is good at ground-based air defense, their fighters are still nothing exceptional) there is zero sense in fielding a force full of low-payload, low-RCS aircraft. And that's not even counting the fact that the Eurofighter Typhoon and other European 4+ Gen will also have methods to deal with ground defenses and capable enemy fighters.

That's why I said the LM Marketing Koolaid is cheap in this thread. For everything up to and including messing with Russia and China the "not so stealthy - just lower RCS" European aircraft would be doing a pretty decent job. If Germany should aquire a few F35 then as complimentary option to their own designs. And it's not like EADS/Airbus hasn't started working on Stealth projects themselves.