F-35 vs. Su-57; Which is the Better Fighter
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
Interesting article - thanks.
The F-35 (mostly ground attack, modest air superiority) and SU-57 (mostly air superiority) are designed for different roles and in so-many ways, so it's not appropriate to compare them directly. For example the F-35 is designed for short/no runway so it's lighter and carries less weapons whereas the SU-57 requires a full runway, has more power and can carry more. There electronics and sensor suites are designed for different roles, the 35 can operate effectively at lower speeds and altitudes and the 27 at higher speeds and altitudes (it can supercruise and is designed for aggressive maneuvering).
I'm a member of a military BB and this topic has been debated for months with everyone agreeing that the 35 is better for it's intended ground attack role and the 27 for its air-superiority role. Turkey's current weakness is air-superiority, so either the F-22 or SU-57 being the better purchase. Lots of technical reviews on the net by x-military flyers and/or military analysts if you are interested in details from people who are more likely to know what they are talking about.
I generally avoid the geo-political talk, but I didn't realize Israel had such influence with the Americans; have they have actually convinced the Americans to sell other countries down-graded versions of the platforms? I'll have to read a bit more and see if there's any truth to that.
I enjoy bugging OTB about the mediocre performance of the F-35 ..... which is mostly true. Americans tend to design and operate weapons systems in layers. The F-22 supports the F-35 which is complimented by AWACS and can be coordinated with older aircraft (F-18, F-16, F-15), ground attack observers, forward laser teams, etc. However most countries can't afford the multiple platforms and especially the complex C&C electronics and support systems and therefore need the aircraft to be operated autonomously with versatility. The F-35 simply hasn't been living up to it's design goals and therefore less suitable for most foreign countries who need a more versatile, rugged, less expensive to maintain aircraft. But if you are looking for a modern ground attack aircraft only it's a serious option as is the SU-35 or maybe even the Rafale.
I agree the Russians have the advantage in super/hyper-sonic missiles, more maneuverable missiles and rumoured to be as good as American tracker sensors and electronics. Subsonic missiles are rapidly becoming obsolete against technologically advanced adversaries.
The F-35 (mostly ground attack, modest air superiority) and SU-57 (mostly air superiority) are designed for different roles and in so-many ways, so it's not appropriate to compare them directly. For example the F-35 is designed for short/no runway so it's lighter and carries less weapons whereas the SU-57 requires a full runway, has more power and can carry more. There electronics and sensor suites are designed for different roles, the 35 can operate effectively at lower speeds and altitudes and the 27 at higher speeds and altitudes (it can supercruise and is designed for aggressive maneuvering).
I'm a member of a military BB and this topic has been debated for months with everyone agreeing that the 35 is better for it's intended ground attack role and the 27 for its air-superiority role. Turkey's current weakness is air-superiority, so either the F-22 or SU-57 being the better purchase. Lots of technical reviews on the net by x-military flyers and/or military analysts if you are interested in details from people who are more likely to know what they are talking about.
I generally avoid the geo-political talk, but I didn't realize Israel had such influence with the Americans; have they have actually convinced the Americans to sell other countries down-graded versions of the platforms? I'll have to read a bit more and see if there's any truth to that.
I enjoy bugging OTB about the mediocre performance of the F-35 ..... which is mostly true. Americans tend to design and operate weapons systems in layers. The F-22 supports the F-35 which is complimented by AWACS and can be coordinated with older aircraft (F-18, F-16, F-15), ground attack observers, forward laser teams, etc. However most countries can't afford the multiple platforms and especially the complex C&C electronics and support systems and therefore need the aircraft to be operated autonomously with versatility. The F-35 simply hasn't been living up to it's design goals and therefore less suitable for most foreign countries who need a more versatile, rugged, less expensive to maintain aircraft. But if you are looking for a modern ground attack aircraft only it's a serious option as is the SU-35 or maybe even the Rafale.
I agree the Russians have the advantage in super/hyper-sonic missiles, more maneuverable missiles and rumoured to be as good as American tracker sensors and electronics. Subsonic missiles are rapidly becoming obsolete against technologically advanced adversaries.
This is the 21st century. The platform is only a part of the equation. Pilot training, updatable software package, stealth and the ability to engage beyond the horizon and the integration with the airborne controllers are far more important than the platform itself. F-35 is basically a replacement for the F-16. The Israelis have been able to control the skies over the ME with the upgraded F-16 and F-15 for decades. The arrival of the next generation fighters in the ME is not going to change it.
What about it? There is a ban on exports of the aircraft.F-22
Isn't the F-22 the same aircraft that has been making all it's pilots sick? Horrendously expensive to maintain? Having problems integrating the latest missiles (AIM-120, AIM-9)? Hasn't production stopped?
Although almost 20 years old, the F-22 is almost too bleeding edge, too sophisticated, too complex to be useful in the real world especially for lower tech air-forces .... not that the Americans would sell them one.
The F22 is no longer in production One would think there is a reason for that.What about it? There is a ban on exports of the aircraft.
Isn't the F-22 the same aircraft that has been making all it's pilots sick? Horrendously expensive to maintain? Having problems integrating the latest missiles (AIM-120, AIM-9)? Hasn't production stopped?
Although almost 20 years old, the F-22 is almost too bleeding edge, too sophisticated, too complex to be useful in the real world especially for lower tech air-forces .... not that the Americans would sell them one.
Interesting sentence, almost 20 years old and too sophisticated.... says something. It’s operational, which you can’t say for the Russian.What about it? There is a ban on exports of the aircraft.
Isn't the F-22 the same aircraft that has been making all it's pilots sick? Horrendously expensive to maintain? Having problems integrating the latest missiles (AIM-120, AIM-9)? Hasn't production stopped?
Although almost 20 years old, the F-22 is almost too bleeding edge, too sophisticated, too complex to be useful in the real world especially for lower tech air-forces .... not that the Americans would sell them one.
It’s also old, which should cause you to ask, what else does the US have that it’s not yet showing.
Super expensive, and no one is stupid enough to fly fighter jets against US pilots.The F22 is no longer in production One would think there is a reason for that.
Because a) they can't afford it and b) there's no prospect of actually using it.I won't compare a production aircraft to a prototype
if Russia is so happy with it, why not build it? they are still flying hundreds of obsolete Soviet era fighters
True for air forces like the US, but less true for less sophisticated air forces. They need their aircraft to be able to operate with less of the C&C infrastructure as it's just too damn expensive. Also the maintenance on the F-35 is very, very expensive. Russian and Chinese aircraft are know for being more rugged and less expensive to maintain.This is the 21st century. The platform is only a part of the equation. Pilot training, updatable software package, stealth and the ability to engage beyond the horizon and the integration with the airborne controllers are far more important than the platform itself. F-35 is basically a replacement for the F-16.
Ummm. sort-of. The F-35 for the US is designed to replace the F-16, A-10, F-18 and Harriers. BUT it's expected that for the USAF the F-22 will provide the air superiority role. The F-35 is not designed to engage in the fighter or air-superiority role with 5th and 6th generation equivalents. Not saying it's a bad fighter at all, just saying it's fighter capabilities are compromised by it's multi-mission requirements and it's best used against other multi-mission attack aircraft instead of air-superiority aircraft.
Past tense. Most ME adversaries do not operate aircraft as capable as the 15 or 16 - which are still great aircraft. If (if!) other ME countries start procuring more modern Russian or chinese aircraft or weapons, the balance may/will change. The procurement of modern Russian ant-aircraft missile systems has already started that change.The Israelis have been able to control the skies over the ME with the upgraded F-16 and F-15 for decades. The arrival of the next generation fighters in the ME is not going to change it.
Well, pretty much no country requires a pure air superiority aircraft. Even the Americans realized that with their attempt at the joint fighter. The technology and support is just too expensive.True for air forces like the US, but less true for less sophisticated air forces. They need their aircraft to be able to operate with less of the C&C infrastructure as it's just too damn expensive. Also the maintenance on the F-35 is very, very expensive. Russian and Chinese aircraft are know for being more rugged and less expensive to maintain.
Ummm. sort-of. The F-35 for the US is designed to replace the F-16, A-10, F-18 and Harriers. BUT it's expected that for the USAF the F-22 will provide the air superiority role. The F-35 is not designed to engage in the fighter or air-superiority role with 5th and 6th generation equivalents. Not saying it's a bad fighter at all, just saying it's fighter capabilities are compromised by it's multi-mission requirements and it's best used against other multi-mission attack aircraft instead of air-superiority aircraft.
Past tense. Most ME adversaries do not operate aircraft as capable as the 15 or 16 - which are still great aircraft. If (if!) other ME countries start procuring more modern Russian or chinese aircraft or weapons, the balance may/will change. The procurement of modern Russian ant-aircraft missile systems has already started that change.
Point is, you didn't even realize the F-22 wasn't available for export and it's current status. The aircraft gets little flight time because the cost of replacing it's oxygen system is so high and the maintenance costs are insane. Already much of the needed tooling is no longer available. Great aircraft on paper, probably the best AS fighter available, but impractical in the modern world and battlefield, especially for most "normal" countries. Just like the F-35.
The Russians have a long history of building slightly less sophisticated weapons systems that are more rugged, last longer, less expensive to maintain by less skilled technicians and perform at 99.9% of American systems. In some cases the platforms are more capable than American systems, because the Russians don't always think like american conventionally (AA system, rocket torpedo, supersonic missiles, etc.).
I think the future is in fighter drones - a combination of autonomous and remotely piloted. Both the Russians and Chinese are betting on it. And I'll bet the Americans already have the best.
The Americans landed on the moon in 1969 using 1950s and early 60s technology. The F-22 uses 35MHz CPUs in the aircraft, one of the reasons it has so many integration problems.Interesting sentence, almost 20 years old and too sophisticated.... says something.
The Russians have a long history of building slightly less sophisticated weapons systems that are more rugged, last longer, less expensive to maintain by less skilled technicians and perform at 99.9% of American systems. In some cases the platforms are more capable than American systems, because the Russians don't always think like american conventionally (AA system, rocket torpedo, supersonic missiles, etc.).
lol, if "operational" means sitting in a hanger - sure. In the meantime Russian and CHinese aircraft are in the skies and continually improving. Their pilots are getting real experience. Chances are the Reds have already stole most of the American technology (hey greed is american economics)It’s operational, which you can’t say for the Russian.
Probably something pretty damn amazing. It'll cost $300M each, and $10B in new support infrastructure. Will require an army of 20 engineers 200 hours of time to maintain for each hour of flight. G*d forbid one gets shot down or crashes, the US will have to raise taxes 5%.It’s also old, which should cause you to ask, what else does the US have that it’s not yet showing.
I think the future is in fighter drones - a combination of autonomous and remotely piloted. Both the Russians and Chinese are betting on it. And I'll bet the Americans already have the best.
It's easier and cheaper to just shoot them down with missiles. Besides the Americans avoid combat with capable enemies.Super expensive, and no one is stupid enough to fly fighter jets against US pilots.
I know, I'm trolling you. I agree 99% of adversaries would be crazy to engage the Yanks directly
We agree mostly - most countries don't need AS. But a superpower does if it intends to exert its influence over a large area for an extended period of time. For example if the Chinese actually try to take control of the South China sea and things get heated, they will need an air-superiority fighter. I know they are filling their little man-made islands with anti-air missiles, but because the islands aren't mobile, the locations are known and can be hit, so a layered attack/defense capability is required. If the Russians take the whole Ukraine (just an example) they will need a top flight fighter if NATO decides to respond, even if by proxy.Well, pretty much no country requires a pure air superiority aircraft. Even the Americans realized that with their attempt at the joint fighter. The technology and support is just too expensive.
Good conversation! None of us are experts, but it's fun to compare notes.
lol.You guys are all wrong. The best is the "Thunderfighter". Why not? It's a great idea. It will be great - fantastic. The best fighter ever for the Space Force.
Cadet Donald "Buck Rogers" Trump
Not so sure if the no one is stupid enough is the case.Super expensive, and no one is stupid enough to fly fighter jets against US pilots.The F22 is no longer in production One would think there is a reason for that.
However, more importantly is that the Obama Administration didn't want to spend the money required on the military.
USA need to double the amount it spends on the military. It can easily afford it if it, when it makes the necessary cuts to welfare, healthcare and education. Keep America Safe!Not so sure if the no one is stupid enough is the case.
However, more importantly is that the Obama Administration didn't want to spend the money required on the military.
WTF, are facts just not relevant to you?However, more importantly is that the Obama Administration didn't want to spend the money required on the military.
The defense budget between 2005-2009 was between $550 - $700B. Obama's budgets ranged between $720-$580B. Trump's budget is $640B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
You used the word "required". Why, how many more mothballed F-22s does the US need? How many more poor-performing F-35? Not enough Carriers? Submarines? Crap aside, the US military needs to rethink the use of old-military-philosophy platforms and start planning weapons systems for the future battlefield.
China and several other countries are winning the economic war. Canada and many other countries are winning the quality of life battle. C'mon.
