You're the simpleton here, mate. You posted pictures of flawed comparisons, making an ass of yourself.
You apparently can't read either, since I've pointed out three timesthat I wasn't talking about their best aircraft and if you actually knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't claim that overall, Russia's air force is on par. And for the second time, I'll again point out the fact that at least 1/3 of the operative MiG-29s don't have modern radar systems unlike the Western counterparts.
You don't understand it at all. Russia's military aircraft aren't just inferior in terms of radar, they are also notoriously unreliable and a lot less nimble. Even the fastest plane to have ever be manufactured by Russia can be taken down by an F-15 because the tech equipped is insufficient to deal with them (this is something that Russia knew was a serious shortcoming but those very same are still in service now) and even India of all countries has retired the use of them.
To be fair, there is a lot that goes into warfare aside from simple technology.
The old saying: "Quantity has a quality all of its own."
Further, most American aircraft in service today are pretty much what rolled off of the assembly line 20+ years ago. While there were many advancement programs that were touted throughout the 90s - the fact is that most of those only affected 10% or so of the arsenal.
To put this into perspective, in 2006, for my avionics training, we were learning about vacuum tubes (IE - Triodes and Tetrodes) as well as magnetrons. Up until they were retired, most of the F-14s in service were A model avionics with B model engine retrofits (the original engines were designed for the F-111 and the profile of the intakes and performance characteristics were different - caused a lot of 'spontaneous' engine stalls - IE - the 'flame out' in Top Gun that induced the flat-spin).
While more advanced missiles like the AIM-120 have entered into standard service - the unfortunate reality is that Russian missile systems have been as advanced for some time and come in a variety of terminal guidance options (from optical, IR, and active radar). Aircraft like the Flanker series are equipped with a rear-facing radar specifically to provide mid course updates to missiles and/or guide semi-active missiles into a target.
This allows them to turn away from a target after firing - which is a downright ****ing genius design. For an AIM-120, AIM-54 (discontinued), etc to work - it must get updates about where the target is from at least one aircraft in the network. This means that if F-15s and SU-27s were to meet - at least one of the F-15s must play 'chicken' with incoming missiles so that his wing's missiles have a chance at catching an opponent that is likely in afterburn and climbing 180 from the missiles you launched (so your engagement envelope is severely reduced). Meanwhile - their rear-facing radars are lighting you up the whole way.
This depicts a distinct difference between American concepts of warfare and Russian concepts of warfare.
Notice I said: "Network."
Americans have long focused on the idea of integrated combat networks. For example, the AIM-9X can be locked onto target using information from a wingman - the missile can be fired at a target -behind- the launch aircraft (and well out of the seeker's field of view).
In theory - ground and air based radars can provide mid-course updates to missiles like the AIM-120 and guide them to the target in lieu of the fighters that launched them. An AWACS becomes more than just a traffic director and can serve as a crucial hub for combat networks.
This idea that a fighter can guide a missile from a cruiser to terminal guidance (where the missile's systems take over) makes for a formidable force.
However, it requires a lot of cohesion, training, and planning to be effective. When forces are out of position, it exposes vulnerabilities and when ideal assets are unavailable, casualties will be higher.
Personally, I like the design philosophy that the Russians use. The actual quality of their production is debatable (I've heard some stories about the aircraft not being able to survive what they are allegedly designed to do in terms of simple aviation). While I certainly see the value of the way our own military has designed its systems - I see it as an 'additional value' to be added once the basics of individual competency are resolved.
Another example is the A-10. A functional and serviceable aircraft if there ever was one. All of the 'network' stuff has been an add-on to an aircraft that is not reliant upon those systems to fulfill the mission.
However, there is an ongoing battle to eliminate the A-10 and replace it with F-16s or F-35s (*shiver* ... ****ing penguin....). America has a dangerous obsession with fancy warfare gadgets. When you see what has to go into maintaining and aircraft like the F-22 or a B-2, you understand why we never deploy the things to air bases (no matter how secure) that don't have climate control on their hangars.
Which is, honestly, why I like the T50. Bluntly, it's a superior design to the F-22 if for no other reason than it can actually be used in combat.
The 22 is lined with golden feathers - golden feathers that don't work as well as they did back when it was being designed. Keep in mind that the 22 is a 20 year old aircraft at its core. The civilian world has surpassed many of the technologies that went into its design, already... and some of the advances have rendered the costly attempts to hide an aircraft's RCS as not economical.
Consider what an MRI does - or those "backscatter" machines.
Apply that same concept to radar and the idea that you're going to hide an airplane goes out the window. Digital filtering of returns is also causing some shifts in paradigms. When you can filter returns based on things like terrain-relative velocity (pigeons don't fly at 300 knots), estimated altitude, etc rather than based on strength, an entirely different kind of radar begins to emerge.
While Russia still has a lot of ground to cover, even a relatively small nation is capable of designing and building aircraft that would rival our own.
Now, they would probably not have the talent pool or the manufacturing base to create one in-house... but that is rapidly changing, as well, with the prevalence of computer aided manufacturing, CNC, and composite structuring.
But, I digress.
