PAK FA is against F-22. PAK FA will have vertical take off? one engine? No, will be like F-22 in design. PAK FA is to be created against F-22. Maybe MiG will make a version, small version, one engine VTOL etc.

About missiles.

Let's talk precisely: AMRAAM - range some about 50-70Km on non-maneuverable target. When it is fired, achieved maximum speed, than fly inertial, permanently reducing the speed. So, if the target - for ex. Su-27 will turn to put missile in 3 or 9 o'clock will force the missile to spend more energy to turn to Su, to its new position. In head to head RCS is biggest, in 3 or 9 smaller and 6 o'clock smallest.
If put on ECM and release flares, Su will surely escape.
Another think: after AMRAAM is fired, Su have still some time to fire R-77 against enemy. There 3-4 seconds are very much.

To begin with the F-22A would be flying with its radar scanning and the Su-30MKI would not. The reason for this is that the F-22A can most likely detect the Su-30MKI's radar and fire a missile at the source negating the possibility of it doing the same.

If the Su-30MKI's RWR detects the F-22A's search radar then it wins the engagement as it can carry more missiles . which also have better performance. It would be able to fire at the F-22A first and would have a higher chance of destroying it.

However if the F-22A's "low probability of intercept" radar is not detected then the F-22A would detect the Su-30MKI's airframe at around 130km. It would be able to fire at about 50km. However if it were to do so then it would be easy for the Su-30MKI to evade the missiles.

This is because the 'no escape radius' of an AMRAAM is only about 30km. If the F-22A approached to that distance to fire it would be detectable by the Su-30MKI's IRST pod meaning it could fire R-73M's at the F-22A, almost guaranteeing a kill.

However . if the F-22A decided to not approach from the front it would have a bigger advantage. It could probably approach to within 30km from 90 degrees off the Su-30MKI's angle of attack and fire missiles. Naturally, firing missiles would make it stick out like a sore thumb on radar but the Su-30MKI's radar only covers the front 60 degrees. However it can twist that coverage by 60 degrees meaning that if the F-22A was unlucky it would be detected firing the missiles.

But in order for the F-22A to be able to achieve a kill like that every time it would take a lot of solid mission planning and wishful thinking. I'd personally give it a 3-1 ratio at best in this situation.

In more complex situations however that ratio would diminish as the F-22A would have to worry about other assets in the sky. Given that there are currently around 100 Su-30MKI's in service and around 20 F-22A's the balance is in the Su-30MKI's favour. In fact if they were to engage each other now the Su-30MKI's would probably lose fewer then 25 aircraft.

As for the total load of crap claimed about the EF-2000's performance; heres a reality check. The EF-2000 can be detected by the Su-30MKI's passive detection OR active search at over 130km. It can be fired at using the KS-172 at ranges close to 400km with a no escape area of 200km. With that sort of flight profile the missile will have reached the EF-2000 before it could even fire a return volley of missiles and the Su-30MKI could guide the KS-172 into the EF-2000 to ensure it doesn't attempt to evade.

But, in my mind is: whatever platform launched an AIM-120, SU-30 can detect it, so, the direction inclusive. I don't understand why F-15 can't do the same. If Su-30 come closer at about 30km, or shorter to see F-22, I think F-22 have maximum chance to win, because it can fire missiles earlier than Su does. But, if russian pilot can evade, it have than primary chance.
Not to forget that F-22 can evade too from missiles, and does it very good, better than F-15 and F-16.

USA have about 50 or more F-22. Su-30MKI in India are about 140 and indians want more, Algeria order several, and Venezuela same.
I want to see at work the newest Su-35 with Irbis radar.

As for F-22&Su-35 vs the rest comparison, it was obviously a PR one. Results are too comforting to be random: it portrays F-22 as very cool, but shows Su-35 to be very dangerous threat, to make an impression that buying more F-22 is the only option for US. At the same time, it observes political correctness not to insult Europe and gives surprisingly round number of 1:1 for Rafael, with also unexpectedly high number for EF2000. It's high because EF2000 is nowhere near F-22, I think you'll agree with that.
I don't say the results were taken out of nowhere; no, it probably was a real simulation. But with very pre-optimized conditions to achieve the desired results. Really, one couldn't wish for better looking; and it's known that just some tweaking of conditions may shift the results at will. Simply giving F-22's orders to Su-35 may easily yield such losses ratio.

In real situations, such ratios are simply non-achievable without very major total advantage, including having strategic and tactical initiative and established air dominance, for operating in which F-22 is tailored for. It is likely that if a pack of fighters flies overseas to attack USAF base with same number of F-22, they will all be shot down with very few US losses. However, in more equal situations there is much more than in theoretical "two fighters fly towards each other over a desert, nothing else exists".
Planes are not stealthy when flying at high supersonic. Fighter's location is known when flying as en escort, given away by escorted plane. Simple rain reduces stealthiness. Ground-based radars see stealth aircraft much easier than fighters', due to reduced effect of stealth tech on their high wavelengths. All aircraft shine bright from the turbines side (rear hemisphere), and are even not as stealthy from sides as from the front. Just accidental blinks may give away the location. If the approximate location is known, radar may narrowly light it up, enabling longer range than with normal scanning, and missiles with active or even semi-active homing may be used, since stealth only reduces detection range, and at close range they work again. Also, knowing location allows to attack from the rear. Of course, all that doesn't make stealth inefficient - just making the opponent to go through all that trouble and keep radar on aircraft instead of firing and forgetting is already a good advantage.

I'm pretty sure F-22 will have better kill ratio; however, nowhere near paper ratios; something halfway of paper ratio is typically the best achieved, in practice. This is due to fact that, even with fair simulation by designer's side, both simulation and design take into the account the same factors. Real life has way more factors, and ones unnoticed by simulation are also unnoticed by the designer, since both have the same data. In other words, simulation done by own designer's side always gives the best results, both among simulations and with RL included.

BTW, keep in mind that, for instance, 3:1 kill ratio doesn't mean 1 better fighter does the job of 3 - just that 100 better fighters will lose, for instance, 1% per mission, 100 weaker will lose 3%. If, with originally 3:1 kill ratio, 300 weaker fighters oppose 100 better, that one kill in three will happen much more often, and kill ratio for such conditions is likely to favor more numerous fighters, even if less efficient one on one. That's just practical data from all kinds of wars from WWII to Vietnam. Kill ratios are a function of numbers used, and the "nominal" one assumes one on one situation or equal numbers. One better fighter with 3:1 kill ratio never replaces 3. In air-to-air combat, 2 better fighters (with 3:1) may replace 3 weaker - 50% number disparity will bring kill ratio back to about 1.5:1, making it a match.
Also, it should be kept in mind that F-22 is tailored specifically for lowering losses. High kill ratios are result of that. They won't help as much when doing interception, escort, patrol - just anything except direct fighter engagement. Total efficiency is not directly proportional to kill ratio, but grows much slower, maybe at cubic root or so.

Lets say a future version of Desert Storm occurs against a fictional country equipped with Su-30MK's of some description, perhaps even more advanced then what India flies now. The country has say 30 of these aircraft and a further 50 older, less capable aircraft like Mig-29's or Mig-25's.

The USAF tasks 400 or so aircraft including around 50 F-22A's, 50 F-15's, 80 F-16's, 30 F-35's and other useful aircraft like B1's, B2's, AWACS, B-52's etc. With proper planning and the advantage of being on the offensive the USAF would find itself beating Su-30's left right and center with very few losses. The Iraq experience demonstrated this. Iran when fighting Iraq on relatively equal terms won most engagements thanks to superior aircraft (F-14's vs. Mig-25's) but still sustained losses on a regular basis. The USAF when facing Iraq had such a huge numerical and tactical advantage that with aircraft almost identical in performance to Iran's they lost a small handful of aircraft.

The advantage in this situation is one many Western simulators are designed for as this is the sort of missions they plan. Ignoring their reasons for such action they often have to fight third world militaries with decent equipment but a major tactical disadvantage.

For example the AWACS support in the Iraq situation gave US fighters the ability to avoid threatening Iraqi aircraft and engage others when the US fighter would have a major advantage. An F-15 would get tasked to the rear of a Mig-29, fire an AIM-7 and then escape before the next Iraqi plane became a threat.

In the scenario where the fighters are F-22A's and Su-30MK's this advantage can be amplified. The F-22A is harder for the next fighter to detect so it can slip in smaller gaps. It can move about faster and it can handle itself if it gets in a pinch much better then the F-15 thanks to thrust vectoring and AIM-9X's.

Of course . things get complicated or dangerous if you start talking about missiles like the KS-172 which can shoot down AWACS fairly easily but given its unlikely the Russians or Indians will sell this missile to the sorts of nations the USA would be invading any time soon we can ignore this.

The ONLY theoretical improvement that could lead Su-30MK's to gain a significant advantage over the USAF in this scenario is improved ECM and RWR's that can detect the F-22A's AESA and direct a missile at it. If this were to occur the F-22A's would be forced to rely entirely on AWACS, rendering their advanced radar useless (and naturally turned off).

If the situation was less favourable (a USAF vs. Indian Air Force engagement) however unlikely that is . with planned procurements for either side the ratio would change dramatically . the near invincible F-22A from the last engagement would find itself constantly under threat and in danger of being shot down while other, older USAF aircraft would almost be pointless to fly into Indian airspace until the Su-30's had been dealt with. The AWACS advantage would be a long way offshore, protected by naval SAM's that would also be under threat from a powerful regional navy and the USAF would have to find enough airbases nearby to host nearly their entire air force to avoid sustaining massive losses.

Also, while i appreciate Russia/Soviet Union's technical expertise in airframe design, which i would consider on par with if not exceeding many american/western fighter designs, you also have to remember that, in terms of developing stealth airframes that also incorporates exceptional maneuverability they have lagged far behind American designers with their multitude of designs namely (have blue, F-117, B-2, Yf-23, etc.). Also, considering a more constrained budget i would imagine that Sukhoi will be giving priority to dogfighting capability rather than expensive stealth technology which would also include astronomical research costs, again considering lack of experience in low observable technology.

With regards to plasma stealth, while it is techinically feasible, the practicality of having a reliable, in the field, cold plasma generator of some sort would be too expensive to justify.This is especially true considering the enormous capability of the AN/APG-77 radar, and the lack of siginificant reduction in radar cross section with current plasma stealth designs.

Also, for the maybe mig will come out with an F-35 counter, russia is actually in the process of unifying all of its major design bureaus under a single framework UNited aircraft something or other. but in most cases i would assume that the Mig-35 would be the most likey contender.

In terms of armament the F-22 can carry upwards of 8 missiles sidewinders and AMRAAMS maybe that new European long range one meteor or something like that. Although only with its external hardpoints in use, which has the obvious drawback of a major reduction in stealth.Also, the new AIM 9x is supposed to be quite something, as is the AMRAAM D. Not knowing much about russian missiles myself i couldnt think of an accurate comparison.

The 10:1 kill ratio hinkentoker is reffering to was actually against F-15's in sukhoi and mig mockups, nonetheless impressive although that secnario is unlikely to present itself.