You missed the point: for 15 years, during the cold war, the soviets didn’t have any plane in the F-15 class.

The Su-27 was first flown in 1977, and redesigned in 1981, basicly it started to enter service around 1987 in large numbers so basicly it was a cold war aircraft.

The MiG-29 was first flown in 1977 and started to enter service in 1983.

The MiG-29 had AA-10, wich are AIM-7 equivalents and AA-11 which had no equivalent at the time, so Russia in 1985 had the MiG-29 that was pretty well an F-15 equivalent, it was more agile, had better WVR weapons, a HMS and in BVR was almost as good.

But the time the Soviet Union collapsed there were close to 600 Su-27s and 1200 MiG-29s in service in the world and very few out side the former Soviet union and Warsaw pact states.

That’s the way it works, one side develops something, and the other side must come up with a counter.

No they didn’t, the M-17/M-55 were never fielded operationally. And the M-17 was originally conceived as a balloon interceptor anyway.

The Tu-160 and the B-1B are not on the same page. The Tu-160 is an intercontinental ALCM launcher, while the B-1B was a low-altitude strategic penetrator (never operationally received ALCM capability). In terms of role, the Tu-160 can be equated to the B-52H, while in terms of capability, it can be equated to the cancelled B-1A.

yeah you are right but the B-1B is a variant of the B-1A, basicly the same aircraft, modified yes but still a variant.

Also the latest KH-55 can be fired at a very long range
Дальность полета, км
Х-55СМ 3000 km

Х-55 2500 km
The KH-55 has a max range of 3000km so the Tu-160 does not need to fly very deep into enemy territory to fire it at the target, basicly the Tu-160 is a B-1A equivalent not an B-52

http://www.sergib.agava.ru/russia/raduga/kh/55/kh55.htm

The Su is more agile, that’s granted, but if the Eagles had gone that close, something went terribly wrong, as thanks to the AWACS they most likely would have found the SUs first, and launched a bunch of Amraams towards them. That’s called a force multiplier for you, and it is something the Soviets didn’t have (Don’t argue me that the Moss was there, it was rubbish thanks to the contra rotating props), as for the A-50, they didn’t have enough.

The F-4 and Mirage F.1 being beaten by F-15s, I sure hope so, but, what does it have to do with all this ?

Until I see proof of the contrary, the PAK-FA isn’t a stealth airframe either. At least the speculative pics I saw didn’t look very much like it ? As for the fact that no EU is building a stealth fighter, I’d agree it’s a mistake, especially in regards to what happen in Russia right now, or in many other countries. But that’s just my opinion.

Nukes were important until some people on each side realised that MAD maybe wasn’t the brightest idea… (Even if the loosing side would most likely have used it anyway). But if you consider nikes as the only important thing, it renders all your posts on the last 5 pages here completely useless, as no matter what, we’d have seen an ICBM war, and the end of all lifeform on the planet.

The F-4 is a third generation fighter MiG-23 third generation fighter.

But the Russians had enough of these to anihilate any enemy advantage

The West never had any real advantage niether nuclear or niether tactical that is the reason you never have seen a Soviet Union/Russia versus US war

Is ALREADY developing UCAV that looks like a combat-proven, production manned, strategic, nuclear-capable bomber that’s been in service for well over a decade now? Are you even listening to yourself?

First of all, you fail to acknowledge the time difference. Proving how the Germans were never ahead of the US in missile technology by showing that the US had the MGM-5 Corporal whereas the Germans had the V-2 would be foolish in WWII context, so how does it work for you in comparing the Su-27 to the F-15 in Cold War context? Ten years is ten years, no matter how it’s sliced.

There are plenty of US aircraft the Soviets never mass-produced an equivalent for. The B-36, for example; what did the Soviets have that could compare? Give me a Soviet bomber that had its payload, its range, and anywhere near its service dates. What about the C-124? What Soviet equivalent was there? The KC-97? KC-135? SR-71? A-6? AH-1? F-117?

In many cases, the Soviets had no need for an equivalent aircraft. In some cases, they tried and failed. In others, they deemed it to expensive to even try to compete or keep up.

That doesn’t necessarily discredit the Soviet Union, nor especially its designers. There were numerous Soviet aircraft the US never had a proper equivalent for. An-2, MiG-21, Mi-6, Mi-24, etc. In most cases, the US had no need for such an aircraft, or at least perceived that they had no need for it.

When will you join the real world? Get a calendar.

Logan Hartke

The Soviet Union at no moment was less capable, the Soviets had more nukes and they started after the West, had submariens like the Typhoon

excellent bombers here is the base

sourcehttp://www.fas.org/irp/dia/product/smp_85_ch2.htm

The former GDR had walkman and computers, too, when it collapsed in 1989. Just it was very expensive, not competitive against the originals, and 10 years late. But nice pictures anyways.

Brazil developed the first walkman, it is not a matter of developing niether it is matter of lack of science or technology, it is simply bad policies, but History is not yet finish, a triumph or defeat is always reversable;)

Ignoring the doors slammed in his face, Pavel filed a patent in March 1977 in Milan. Over the next year and a half, he took the same step in the US, Germany, England and Japan.

Sony started selling the Walkman in 1979, and in 1980 began negotiating with Pavel, who was seeking a royalty fee. The company agreed in 1986 to a limited fee arrangement covering sales only in Germany, and then for only a few models

source

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/bizfocus/archives/2005/12/18/2003284964

Andreas Pavel (born in 1945) is a German-Brazilian inventor who is the ‘father’ of the portable personal stereo cassette player, better known as the Walkman [1].

Born in Aachen, Germany, Pavel went to São Paulo when he was 6 years old, brought by his father who went to work for the Matarazzo industries. It was in Brazil, in 1972, that he invented his device, the stereobelt. He lived in a modern house in Morumbi, and was acquainted to some important personalities of the time, as the journalist Vladimir Herzog and the poet Augusto de Campos[2].

source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Pavel

The biography of Sony founder Akio Morita credits him with the concept of the portable music player, a device better known to Sony customers around the world as the Walkman.

But the Japanese consumer electronics giant has just paid several million euros to a German inventor who patented the idea in 1977.

After more than 20 years of court battles, 59-year-old Andreas Pavel agreed to a settlement that, in return for the payment, suspends all legal procedures he had set in motion against the company, according to German weekly Der Spiegel, which obtained confirmation from Sony’s head office in Tokyo.

In 1977, Pavel, then living in Italy, registered for several patents relating to a portable stereo device named the Stereobelt (literally, the “belt stereo”). In 1979, Sony launched its famous Walkman, which went on to sell more than 200 million units in its first two years.

http://www.news.com/Sony-pays-millions-to-inventor-in-Walkman-dispute/2100-1041_3-5226735.html

Absolute correct! But you forget an important detail as always.
In most cases, they were several years late with that. So at a given date, you can field that at hand only!
That capability gap was enough to bridge the superior numbers built by the SU.
But I see a change about that in present Russia. Forced by the circumstances they will stick more to quality than quantity.

That is not true, the Soviet always developed weapons as good or better than their american counter parts however the arms race demanded to the americans to create a new generation of weapons, in few words there was a real balance, no super power had any true advantage over the other

Read you claims and update your knowledge accordingly.
Fixed inlets were used to save weight at first and to reduce setbacks from complexity.
When loaded the Su-24 is limited to 600 kt or high subsonic dash near s.l. – (highest sweep!)
Clean escape dash is 750 kt or Mach 1,15.
Still excellent values related to speed.

Having terrian following radar the Su-24 was designed as a low altitude interdiction strike aircraft, its max speed is Mach 1.15 (1400km/h) at sea level and Mach 1.6 (1700km/h) at high altitude.
Максимальная скорость, км/ч
на высоте 1700 (М=1.6)
на уровне моря 1400 (М=1.15 )

В ходе эксплуатации самолета требование достижения максимального числа Маха, равного 2,5 (фактически на испытаниях получено лишь 2,16 на большой высоте) было снято. Теперь было необходимо получить лишь скорость, соответствовавшую числу М=1,35, но было оговорено достижение ее в полете на малой высоте.

The original speed requirement stipulated a maximum Mach number of Mach 2.5 (in early flight tests it only achieved Mach 2.16 at high altitude) however later it was lowered to a speed corresponding Mach 1.35, but this was stipulated in flight at low altitude

sourcehttp://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/su24.html

I am really thinking hard but I don’t find the Western original, the first operational military airborne low-level attack toilet. Maybe in the B-29? Nah, wasn’t low level.

For a big cabin aircraft like the B-29, well it is not a big merit however for a single seat fighter derivative like the Su-34 it is a big merit to have a toilet.