No one gives any credibility to the capabilities of the SU-57, lack of ability to produce them aside. Close up photos of the aircraft show that elementary features of a 5th generation aircraft are not implemented at all. It is basically a 4th gen aircraft dressed in 5th gen clothing. Its lack of stealth, for example, is well-known; it may be better than prior Soviet aircraft but orders of magnitude less stealthy than e.g. an F-35.

Someone will eventually produce an aircraft to rival the 5th gen capabilities of the US, but it hasn’t been done yet. Every competitor so far has been theater. Meanwhile, the US is actively developing and testing 6th gen combat aircraft.

Russian aircraft have never been focused on stealth.

They have poor sensor suites too. If everyone can see you before you can see them, you’re not going to survive no matter what other advantages you think you have.

Yep, while Russia is good at engine and airframe design they are behind in terms of optics and stealth. But their are other advantages like maneuverability maintainability and cost to manufacture.

Literally all irrelevant if you get taken out in a BVR engagement by a less maneuverable plane you can't see (or by a missile coming off an F-15EX you do see, being spotted by the F-35 you don't).

As history has show, russian tech is inferior to western by a magnitude.

I know it feels good to imagine otherwise but Russia is objectively ahead (at the moment) in terms of ballistics and air defense.

But aircraft tech, yes - absolutely. The US knows how to build impressive planes. But stand-off ballistics and drones are now the better bang for the buck.

> I know it feels good to imagine otherwise but Russia is objectively ahead (at the moment) in terms of ballistics and air defense.

What do you mean “ballistics”? Ballistic missiles? If so, then, sure, Russia has much longer range conventional SRBMs than the US (though that should change this year, with the PrSM coming online), which has largely (until comparatively recently) focused on manned aircraft abd cruise rather than ballistic missiles for the same use.

> But stand-off ballistics and drones are now better bang for the buck.

In the specific tacrical environment of the Ukraine war, they may be, given the inability of either side to achieve reliable air superiority. Certainly, as terror weapons against civilian populations it is true.

More generally, that's less clear.

It's not clear Russia is better at any of that, it's that Russia has land-based launch systems they can use in the war they started, whereas the US can't easily loan Ukraine an entire sea or air-launched system (particularly because the current logic still tends towards "no weapons which could hit Moscow easily).

Ukraine is not the United States military, and is not being armed with its full complement of weapons for very specific diplomatic reasons. Whereas Russia has been free to unload all it's conventional weapons as it sees fit.