An aircraft WITH Stealth has an advantage in pretty much all domains compared to one WITHOUT Stealth. This is a simple matter of physics - you have to generate more radar energy to get a return from a smaller RCS.
Generating more radar energy means that everyone knows where you are. So well done - you’ve announced to everyone in the Northern Hemisphere that you are HERE! Now your opponents can choose to either go around you or give you an AMRAAM surprise that has been data-linked over the horizon by that rather ‘slow’ F-35 that has been skirting on the edges of your detection ranges.
Non-radar detection works both ways - but again, the 5th Gen will usually have better sensors available to it than a 4th gen or 4.5th gen. Historically and today - he who sees his target first usually wins. The SU-35 has close to zero stealth / low observable / thermal damping measures. Painting it grey doesn’t count.
It is logic such as yours that explains why the VKS is unable to maintain any semblance of air superiority after five years… ‘but our jets are faster and can carry more bombs? Why we no win?’
Modern air combat is NOT about being able to pull air-show moves.
You show no concept of understanding geography and the fact that all neighbouring countries are providing 24/7 radar assistance to that one country not to mention the fact that there are countries in the rear providing satelite imagery and AWACS aircarft, infact to this day there is no single aircarft of the “VKS” being downed by another aircarft, all due to loses are due to ambushes and data provided by 3rd 4th and 5th parties. In an engagement between 1 f-35 and 1 Su 35 ilumination wont matter since others will not be involved. The radar detection capabilities of Su35 is greater than the F-35, its stealth characteristics are as good as Kevin Spacey’s analysis of the F-35.
Soviet/Russian doctrine views Frontal Aviation almost like flying artillery. In order to make use of it (particularly things such as helicopters, platforms such as Su-34s) they aim for a localised dominance.
Why else do you think they even bothered with types such as the Fulcrum and Flanker?
There’s been a confirmation of an F-16 shooting down an Su-35 over Ukraine, source is USA though, not Ukraine. A few months after Ukraine and Russia said an Su-35 was shot down over Ukr
That is a flawed misrepresntation during a senat hearing. Shot down by patriot battery well hidden close to Kharkiv. Plane entered a 60km radius of PAC-3 launcher.
So far I have not heard any claims of air to air kills against fixed wing aircraft from Ukraine other than the F-16 AA battery ambush, if you know of any sources or claims I don’t mind you showing me some 0.0 I may have forgotten as well
I think there was one claim of 120 dl from awacs about a year ago that’s another one I rmb
We also have Western stocks of air-to-air missiles (AMRAAM for example) being supplied along with significant resupply of Soviet era AAMs from Eastern Europe (Polish AAMs alongside their MiG-29s for example). Why do you need restocks of AAMs unless you are firing them? What would you be firing at - given that drones are often very poor targets for them? What are chances of the Ukrainian pilots having a 0% hit rate over four years of war?
I don’t deny Russia losing a lot of aircraft to enemy ground emplacements, drones and accidents, it’s just that due to disparity in avionics and aircraft, its a bit difficult for Ukraine’s air force on shooting down opposing enemy aircraft.