The Russian Federation has the technical capability to produce vast quantities of AESA radars and then some, what's lacking is the economy for extravagant expenditures. Also Russian military doctrine, much like its Soviet counterpart before, were / are not focusing on air power in way western doctrine is. Which from the economic point of view is the rational thing to do. This difference in general philosophy explains the difference in areas of focus. But it has little to do with capability.
it have many things , to do with strong and active airforce your capabilities are a lot different than being only equipped with artillery . Russian doctrine of using mass artillery is outdated if they can't secure the sky . otherwise the enemy can easily bomb the shit out of those artillery lined in front line
and bombing enemy from sky is cheaper in long run
Some of the electronics can be improved locally, jammers added etc.
if we were allowed to improve the equipment on Mig-29 we are also be allowed to thinker with Mig-29 and also we will have the problem of price what you suggest is like paying twice for the aircraft.
don't forget for example electronic in Kowsar is nearly 2/3rd of the price. so why for example spend 4-5 billion on Mig-35 when with that we can build our own turbofan get in class of RD-33 and have as much as next generation of kowsar and be able to use 1-2bilion we want to use to upgrade those-mig-35 , su-35 on acquiring 80-100 more next generation of Kowsar. and also by doing so we streamline our air force and instead of 10 different airplane we will have 2-3 type of airplane that reduce the cost of operating air force a lot.
that also solve our air-force chronic problem which is lack of funds .
There are plenty of possible reasons as to why India kept its Su-30 farther away from the border, one being political unwillingness to widen the aerial skirmish and thereby risk significant overall escalation. Maybe it would have acted likewise with Rafales. At any rate, it doesn't tell us anything about the Su-30MKI's hypothetical combat performance.
one can be that the bahamoot could not compete against midget JF-17 or middle weight F-16 equipped with AIM-120 or PL-12. who knew ,but still remain the fact that India air-force after the war went and bought Rafale while they could produce SU-30MKI locally (at least half of it) and again several month ago they cancelled order for 11 more Su-30MKI.
flanker had its time , but not anymore the air-forces around the world moving toward Network linked small-Medium fighter size equipped with powerful AESA radars , those airplanes rule the sky at least for the generation that is coming and Flanker is not one of them. it belong to the age how fast you can role and how good you can be at dogfight mattered . today that don't matter. all modern missiles cover 360 degree and tied to helmet mounted HUD , and most of the fights are happening at BVR ranges and if you think you can outmaneuver a modern missile you are vastly mistaken .
User drmeson whom I was replying to is the better addressee for this comment. As for Kousar, it does look like a viable and possibly worthwile option to pursue, but light fighters and medium / heavy fighters aren't interchangeable and fulfill different roles. While transition towards an entirely light- / medium-weight fighter based air force would require deeper doctrinal revisions as well as infrastructural adaptation, which in turn consume time and generate costs.
you see a kowsar sized fighter with stronger air-frame and more powerful turbofan engine can carry as much or even more than an F-4 it will be a multi-role fighter so not much problem on changing the doctrine from large fighter to light to medium .
and if you are concerned about range let look at this what limited kowsar is its engine , if the proper fund is injected in production of our Turbofan engines and we build engine bigger than Tolue-14 and Jahesh-700 as we were supposed to do two years ago if the proper fund were given to the team that was building the engine. the range on Kowsar will double just by replacing two kowsar with one turbofan engine in class of 50-60kn look at it like this Owj use 35 g/(kN⋅s) of fuel and for the 32kn dry thrust it use 1120gr/s fuel
if you use an engine like old F-404 it use 23 g/(kN⋅s) of fuel it mean for its 49kn of its maximum thrust it use 1127gr/s of fuel. first they look simillar but lets look deeper . owj at maximum with after burner can produce 22kn of thrust . it means 2x owj produce 44kn of thrust (5kn less than an old f-404 without afterburner) it means to achieve that it use 60 g/(kN⋅s) of fuel in another word 2640gr/s of fuel and still weaker than a single f-404 and wit that much fuel use the kowsar can surpass the speed of sound reach mach-1.6. thats why we say we must spend all the money people talking on buying foreign airplanes on our own kowsar . with proper engine airframe can supercrise up to mach 1.6
or more with external weapon it probably can reach to Mach-1.2 - 1.4 that is better than f-35 (it can't sustain that) and is equal to what Rafale and Grippen can achieve not to mention with after burner it probably will surpass Mach-2.
also with that added power some conformal fuel tank can be designed inside it that made its combat range as much as F-16 and Grippen and F-4 without sacrificing its external pylons for fuel and by being able to supercruise the plan very fast can reach the mission area without touching afterburner something that f-14 or Su-35 or Mig-35 had to do to reach target area.
