PAK-FA / Sukhoi Su-57 - Updates and Discussions

Today, in a Chinese chatroom, I summed up and satirized the highly complex, conflicted psyche of ordinary Chinese netizens regarding the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war and the situation in Iran.
I felt it only fitting and proper to share these insights with you—a perfect 'Chinese analogue.' Because quite frankly, so much of what you've regurgitated in this forum is the exact same rhetoric I’ve heard ad nauseam across the Chinese internet:
View attachment 52320

Here is what the Chinese swallowed hook, line, and sinker:

1,That global free trade was a gospel, right until Trump came along and kicked their teeth in.

2,That the almighty US Air Force and Navy could terrorize any primitive force by dropping two smart bombs, right until the recent debacles of Iran and Israel.



Look at you now. At the end of the day, you’ve crawled back to Mao’s old maxim: 'It’s either the East Wind crushing the West, or vice versa.' Your pathetic attempt to use the so-called 'global supply chain' to make the Americans codependent on you, hoping they’d abandon the idea of military conquest—that delusion is dead and buried. Now, you are shivering in absolute terror, deathly afraid that Daddy America is going to charge straight in and stick two blades deep into your gut.



Turns out, Khrushchev’s legacy rules supreme—missiles replace all your sophisticated bullshit.

Aircraft carriers, bombers... screw them all. They can go to hell. Missiles and FPV equivalents are substituting every single damn thing on the modern battlefield

You built a fantasy where your shiny 'high-tech' could substitute for raw national courage and blood sacrifice. But guess what? Modern war just proved you can't cheat the reaper.



You’re terrified now. Because you know your pampered society is scared to death of dying.



Within a mere 24~36 months, your entire built-up worldview has imploded.

That’s why you loathe the raw, bloody victories of Russia and Iran so much—it drives you absolutely mad

Is this meant for me? My personal opinion is global trade is a sham and Russia has to win the war in Ukraine.

India's goal is import-substitution and becoming an exporter of high-tech goods and services, eventually energy. And Russia is necessary for India because it's located in the backyard of China and they have the largest pool of natural resources on the planet that India needs.

India's diplomacy allows plenty of space for a no-war situaiton with the West. But we also understand that once the West has dealt with China, India will become the next target, hence the importance of Russia for India.

Russia's only in the process of achieving a partial victory. Their victory condition is New Russia, not just Donbas. That's Kharkiv to Odesa. But their partial victory is enough for India. As long as they gain a propaganda victory, that's fine, 'cause it will prevent the West from pressuring India.

I don't think you have noticed, but while miliarily strong at the two borders, India is still a lower-middle income country with national power comparable to what China had between 2005 and 2010. It's not enough to go against the West.

France is interested in India become a new pole in the future that rivals US and China because they don't want to get stuck again between two superpowers. While France is against Russia, they are not looking at India through the Russian-lens, they are looking at the bigger picture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: batman
IN sank a US-flagged Venus Challenger and damaged Gulf Star in the 1971 war. The US didn't go to war with India over it.

You will be surprised how malleable America is forced to be towards India while India's offered nothing else in return.



They lost, but the overarching political objectives were different each time. The one they truly lost was Vietnam, but only 'cause they did not invade the North and there's a limit to how long one can keep fighting while on the defensive.

Winning and losing is for sports. The calculations for warfare are different.

And you are mistaking me for an American-supporter. I am only against you in this specific instance. My habit is to take a contrarian viewpoint.

I argue for the Russians and Americans against the French, I argue for the French or American against Russians, I argue for Russians against the Americans and French. In your case, I just happen to take America's side. I have also argued for the Chinese side many times against Indians with nationalist viewpoints.

Post 31. I'm aguing for Russian tech against Rafale.

Post 3555. Here I'm arguing for Mig-29 and MKI against Rafale.

Post 1080. I'm arguing for the Russian and French against the F-16.

Post 329. I'm arging for the J-20 and F-22 over the F-35 against an American nationalist.

There was a time when I held the same opinion as you, that MKI would very easily beat Rafale and that Rafale was being bought for the sake of new technologies that Russia does not have and to create an alternate foreign supplier. This was over 10 years ago. But that opinion is now laughable. Reality is different from fantasy, I used to believe in the same nonsense you do today.
WVR with guns: Both are neck to neck, but two-pilot crew and TVC give MKI advantage here.

WVR with IR missiles: MKI all the way.

BVR: Rafale at the moment only because of better sensors(AESA & OSF-NG) and better BVRAAM(Meteor). But MKI specs are still close to Rafale F1 or F2 and if you pit those against MKI then MKI still beats them dry. Come MKI UPG., MKI will beat Rafale in a head to head battle as its design goals are to fight 5th gen fighters with -20dBsm frontal RCS.
 
WVR with guns: Both are neck to neck, but two-pilot crew and TVC give MKI advantage here.

WVR with IR missiles: MKI all the way.

BVR: Rafale at the moment only because of better sensors(AESA & OSF-NG) and better BVRAAM(Meteor). But MKI specs are still close to Rafale F1 or F2 and if you pit those against MKI then MKI still beats them dry. Come MKI UPG., MKI will beat Rafale in a head to head battle as its design goals are to fight 5th gen fighters with -20dBsm frontal RCS.

I think MKI will get killed without even seeing the Rafale. Simple reason, the MKI cannot hide. This allows the Rafale to use many other tactics to achieve surprise, which the MKI cannot.

We saw the same thing happening between M2000 and MKI. The MKI has a better radar and M2000 is visible to it from long range, but the M2000 could simply stay outside the radar cone of the MKI. If you are capable of operating from a blindspot of a radar, then that's better than stealth.

The AESA radar did not help.

I don't see the MKI's radar giving it an advantage, especially when the Rafale can pick up the MKIs with IRST alone.
 
Dude claiming Russian victory thinks that I am living in the fairy-tale world :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Say, does the Russian army's victory still need your official seal of approval?"
IN sank a US-flagged Venus Challenger and damaged Gulf Star in the 1971 war. The US didn't go to war with India over it.

You will be surprised how malleable America is forced to be towards India while India's offered nothing else in return.



They lost, but the overarching political objectives were different each time. The one they truly lost was Vietnam, but only 'cause they did not invade the North and there's a limit to how long one can keep fighting while on the defensive.

Winning and losing is for sports. The calculations for warfare are different.

And you are mistaking me for an American-supporter. I am only against you in this specific instance. My habit is to take a contrarian viewpoint.

I argue for the Russians and Americans against the French, I argue for the French or American against Russians, I argue for Russians against the Americans and French. In your case, I just happen to take America's side. I have also argued for the Chinese side many times against Indians with nationalist viewpoints.

Post 31. I'm aguing for Russian tech against Rafale.

Post 3555. Here I'm arguing for Mig-29 and MKI against Rafale.

Post 1080. I'm arguing for the Russian and French against the F-16.

Post 329. I'm arging for the J-20 and F-22 over the F-35 against an American nationalist.

There was a time when I held the same opinion as you, that MKI would very easily beat Rafale and that Rafale was being bought for the sake of new technologies that Russia does not have and to create an alternate foreign supplier. This was over 10 years ago. But that opinion is now laughable. Reality is different from fantasy, I used to believe in the same nonsense you do today.

You've been on forums for over ten years, and you're telling me you can't read a trend curve?

QQ20260616-214906.pngQQ20260616-213251.pngQQ20260616-212550.pngQQ20260616-212121.png


For heaven's sake, your 'Rafale' flew like a steaming pile of crap.
And now,


Thank goodness A few months later 1 Kuwaiti F-18 shoots down three F-15s —Distracted attention


it's made me lose all face on the forums.

Even at this very moment, people are still @ing me on chat apps, bragging about Pakistan's kills with the J-10C. Right now, Pakistani pilots are circle-jerking over how the F-16 is inferior to the J-10C
Your Rafale is really capable.
 
Say, does the Russian army's victory still need your official seal of approval?"


You've been on forums for over ten years, and you're telling me you can't read a trend curve?

View attachment 52326View attachment 52327View attachment 52328View attachment 52329


For heaven's sake, your 'Rafale' flew like a steaming pile of crap.
And now,


Thank goodness A few months later 1 Kuwaiti F-18 shoots down three F-15s —Distracted attention


it's made me lose all face on the forums.

Even at this very moment, people are still @ing me on chat apps, bragging about Pakistan's kills with the J-10C. Right now, Pakistani pilots are circle-jerking over how the F-16 is inferior to the J-10C
Your Rafale is really capable.

And IAF decided to buy 114 Rafales with plans of climbing up to 250 in total.

The F-16 the PAF operate is weaker than an AESA-equipped J-10C with PL-15 in BVR. So that's fine. They can't buy anymore F-16s 'cause of Indian pressure on America. They might get the AESA upgrade for their older jets, but it won't be better than the J-10C in BVR combat. It will be better for everything else, recce, air to ground etc. PAF has no choice but to hype up the J-10C. The Pakistani public is not dumb enough to believe them completely anyway.

The J-10's quality isn't great, but it's still a good jet. It does what it's advertised to do. As per the IAF, it didn't score any kills. SAMs killed all of their jets.

In Taiwan, M2000 defeated F-16Vs.

You have too much anger in you.
 
Well modern warfare isn't designed around visual range dogfights but beyond visual range combat which was the priority behind its design. Even the F35 would be relatively weak in WVR against other jets, I also don't think guns will be very relevant in 2026 and their choice to use that space for better BVR capability is a sound one.

However unlike the F22, there is no typical 1v1 situation where a Mig 21 would be able to get close enough to engage the J20 in wvr range combat before it gets blown to bits unless it's somehow able to sneak past it's radar blind spots using certain measures.

The J20 just like the F22 was designed to be an air superiority jet, the Su57 was designed to be a multi role jet. I also don't see how the F22 will do better strike roles than the J20 considering it wasn't designed for such roles and is outdated in many ways by today's standards.

Subjective

Reasonable

Except for it's raw kinematics and slightly better stealth profile at some profiles, how is the F22 a better jet?

The J20 has a bigger (it's the biggest nose mounted AESA radar currently operational in stealth jets) and a more advanced GAN radar versus the smaller and inferior GaA radar of F22.

PL-15 has estimated range of 200-300km, with a dual-pulse motor and AESA seeker. AIM-120D has estimated range of 130-160km. This overmatch is publicly recognised by US military planners and is not news.

The J20 has better supersonic performance while F22 has better subsonic performance.

The J20 has twice the combat radius of F22.

The outdated F22 also has no HMD, no IRST, no EOTS, obsolete processor, 90's era cockpit, limited data link capability etc

No jet is perfect, each will have it's share of flaws based on their design constraints.

I'll post a comment from a aviation expert on why the US wanted to retire the F22 in the first place,

"The USAF wants to retire the F-22 beginning around 2030 mainly due to two reasons: the F-22’s high operating costs, and the F-22’s obsolescence in a number of areas, with the latter being the primary reason,

‘With regards to high operating costs, the F-22 fleet was not produced in sufficient quantities to replace the F-15, and therefore its logistics and supply chain do not benefit from economy of scale as much as jets like the F-16 and F-35. The F-22 also uses legacy stealth materials that increase maintenance costs; properly retrofitting the F-22 with the F-35’s more durable full material stack is also not possible without replacing the composite panels of every F-22. These composites are not the same, so the structural strength of the jet and possibly the thickness of its skin would be affected, requiring recertification of its life limit and likely some redesigns of panels and doors to accommodate altered geometry. There are also a number of other technological advances that allows fighters to be cheaper to maintain, but which would require redesigns of the F-22, some being quite deep.

‘In terms of obsolescence, the F-22’s biggest issues are its limited range, its outdated core avionics and its stealth design.’

Smith continues; ‘For range, the F-22 was designed primarily for fighting in Europe and turn of the millennium era threats, and so its combat radius of approximately 590 nautical miles (less with any use of supercruise) is not ideal for a war with China. This is because jets may need to be flying from locations like Guam and relying on tankers only ~400 nautical miles (if F-22s are using supercruise) behind the F-22’s, which would then be threatened by new very long range missiles and enemy stealth fighters that may be able to slip sufficiently far past fighter screens to take those tankers out.

‘By comparison, the F-35A (land-based variant) has an air-to-air combat radius of 760 nautical miles, with a new engine being developed for it which would boost that to nearly 1000 nautical miles. The F-22’s NGAD successor is also anticipated to have an approximately 1000+ nautical miles combat radius.

‘For its core avionics the F-22 is considerably hampered by old ADA code with limited modularity, being run on old processors. Because the software isn’t very modular or open, adding a new sensor requires a lot of extra work. For the F-22 to outperform jets like the J-20 into the 2030s and beyond, it needs to keep up by getting a helmet mounted display, a panoramic cockpit display, updated electronic warfare systems, long range infrared sensors, updated communications systems, improved sensor fusion and combat ID systems, etc. Developing a clean sheet system based around an open architecture will take time and money, but from there it’ll be much easier to keep cutting edge, which will be critical as we enter into something resembling a second Cold War.

‘For stealth, the F-22 is quite stealthy, but its potential was compromised in order to make it very agile, which in this day and age is becoming a lesser and lesser priority as air-to-air missiles become more advanced.’

Smith concludes;

‘By creating a clean sheet fighter, you can make a jet better shaped to have highly effective stealth against both fire control radar bands like the X-band, and lower frequency “counter-stealth” search radars operating in the UHF and VHF bands, allowing jets like NGAD to escort B-21 bombers as they penetrate deep into enemy airspace.’ "

> Different people have different observatios, comprehension & conclusions.
> Yes all products have +/- points.
> F-22 is obsolete for USA hence 6gen NGAD & F-22's 11 Bn$ MLU (H/w & S/w) to supplement 6gen. But world is not parallel to USA yet.

> After 35 years its 0.0001 m2 RCS yet to be quoted by any other jet maker. Still if it's considered obsolete then imagine NGAD.
> 5gen jet is not supposed to attack 4gen always head-on but also from blind spots from side, top, below, rear.
> Since beginning F-35 was planned with EOTS so F-22 could avoid it & reduce some RCS, so limited to GPS bombs.
> F-22's 1990s cockpit looks like older cockpit with 6 different size MFDs, but full glass-cockpit with very few switches + bcoz of sensor fusion its display symbology is 5gen, not like F-15/16/18.
1781620006218.jpeg

> And if anybody is aware of industrial rack servers & has watched 1990s documentaries, F-22 test pilots, program managers & some design team guys said & showed that F-22 has modular space to swap computing modules around cockpit, IWB, etc. Its computers were said to be equivalent of average supercomputers.
> Its radar does SAR ground mapping which is critical capability. Hopefully it'll get upgraded too with side apertures like in Su-57.
> There was no need of HMDS due to sensor fusion, stealth, lack of IRST, TVC agility.
> It has multiple IFDL antennas, SatCom, which was sufficient for exchange of any military data. Video consumes highest bandwidth but there're codecs to reduce that.
> Although no cheek & rear radar like in Su-57, but there're antennas in wing, rudder, near exhaust, spine, belly for lower range awareness.

> Its MLU'll have -
- new computing modules- CPUs, RAMs, SSD, cache memory, connectors, cables, etc. When we upgrade new cellphone, PC, laptop, tabs with S/w patches, then military will also do it with their standards.​
- under-wing IRST,​
- TacIRST replacing MLD,​
- MUMT,​
- HMDS due to IRST may also come.​
- IDK if APG-77 radar'll be changed but new computing modules & S/w patches improve capability.​
- new RAM,​
- other avionics yet to be disclosed,​
- some new AGMs,​
- AIM-260 JATM is said to fit in F-22 IWB.​
So bcoz of costly MLU it won't retire for next 30 years atleast. Moreover 5gen supposed to supplement 6gen.

> But as 5 fingers different, since beginning some people in USA opposed 5gen citing reasons like USSR collapse, CAPEX, OPEX, etc. Ofcourse a capitalist nation feeds more salary to heirarchy of employees, but USA pioneered many H/w & S/w, still leading mostly, creating revenue for future tech.

> Su-57 seem to have advantage of cheek & rear radar with higher range awareness, DIRCM, more agility, more types of AGMs & 4x AGM capacity in IWB, combat radius, etc.
> But just 0.1m2 RCS, ongoing R&D with AL-51, HMDS, TVC, etc; IWB/SWB capability through pics just emerging.
Russia is yet to say "See, this Su-57 flies with RCS lower than 0.001m2 & has 2x engine with TVC, rear ceramic RF blocker, transpiration cooling".
 
I think MKI will get killed without even seeing the Rafale. Simple reason, the MKI cannot hide. This allows the Rafale to use many other tactics to achieve surprise, which the MKI cannot.

We saw the same thing happening between M2000 and MKI. The MKI has a better radar and M2000 is visible to it from long range, but the M2000 could simply stay outside the radar cone of the MKI. If you are capable of operating from a blindspot of a radar, then that's better than stealth.

The AESA radar did not help.

I don't see the MKI's radar giving it an advantage, especially when the Rafale can pick up the MKIs with IRST alone.
Negative. Virupaksha is "specifically" designed to track faintest of targets from 100s of kms away and MKI's future BEL Dual-Band is also designed to track skin-friction of jets flying at subsonic speeds from 200kms away. Rafale will get tracked by MKI from over 200kms+ away in heavy EM clutter, even with SPECTRA playing all of its tricks and get blown away by Astra MK3. Brute power of Virupaksha in itself shifts the game in MKI's favour.
 
And IAF decided to buy 114 Rafales with plans of climbing up to 250 in total.

The F-16 the PAF operate is weaker than an AESA-equipped J-10C with PL-15 in BVR. So that's fine. They can't buy anymore F-16s 'cause of Indian pressure on America. They might get the AESA upgrade for their older jets, but it won't be better than the J-10C in BVR combat. It will be better for everything else, recce, air to ground etc. PAF has no choice but to hype up the J-10C. The Pakistani public is not dumb enough to believe them completely anyway.

The J-10's quality isn't great, but it's still a good jet. It does what it's advertised to do. As per the IAF, it didn't score any kills. SAMs killed all of their jets.

In Taiwan, M2000 defeated F-16Vs.

You have too much anger in you.
J-10 is f*cking garbage.


While any outcome is possible in actual combat—as demonstrated historically by Mirage F1s and MiG-21s scoring kills against F-14s—military exercises are distinct. Exercises are structured, purposeful confrontations designed to train specific capabilities rather than unconstrained, video-game-style sessions for earning experience points. They are invariably conducted under strict, asymmetrical conditions to ensure both sides gain valuable experience while managing limited fuel and airframe lifespans. Casual external observers who misinterpret these results fail to understand this reality.

Statistically speaking, the J-10 does not possess the inherent capability to reliably defeat the J-16 or Su-35S. Media reports claiming otherwise are driven by sensationalism; while such specific exercise outcomes may have occurred, they cannot be used to extrapolate that the J-10 is superior to the J-16, or that the Rafale is superior to the Su-30MKI.


As for the SU-30MKI, India has long lacked upgrades, which can be considered absolute corruption. Imagine replacing it with AL-31F-M1, Irbis-E, or R-77-1

India doesn't even have the R-77-1.
The R-77 range of 80 kilometers.
India's goal is import-substitution and becoming an exporter of high-tech goods and services, eventually energy. And Russia is necessary for India because it's located in the backyard of China and they have the largest pool of natural resources on the planet that India needs.

India's diplomacy allows plenty of space for a no-war situaiton with the West. But we also understand that once the West has dealt with China, India will become the next target, hence the importance of Russia for India.



At the heart of this geopolitical triangle sits Russia. Neutralizing Russia means China’s fate is effectively sealed. Already plagued by resource depletion and a demographic cliff, China would be like an ICU patient having their life support unplugged the second they are disconnected from Moscow.
After that, they will strike India.

It is also highly plausible that the Greater Israel blueprint rolls out first. If Russia falls, Turkey and China go down with it.

Turkey will have no choice but to pivot completely to the West and become a puppet state, with nations like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan falling like dominoes right after.

As long as Washington can cut off the flow of Russian and Middle Eastern energy, both India and China are dead in the water.

This is no longer just a technical or military debate; it is a brutal reality of resource dominance and geography.

Frankly, a historic Indo-Pakistani rapprochement is the optimal play. It allows for the secure overland transport of vital resources rather than relying on vulnerable sea lines of communication,

potentially utilizing transit corridors from Central Asia via Afghanistan.
Of course not, you claiming Russian victory is enough mate. I already congratulated Russia on their "victory" :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
This is what Trump said. You should go find Trump
 
> Different people have different observatios, comprehension & conclusions.
> Yes all products have +/- points
True
> F-22 is obsolete for USA hence 6gen NGAD & F-22's 11 Bn$ MLU (H/w & S/w) to supplement 6gen. But world is not parallel to USA yet.
Its obsolete by every 5th gen and even 4.5 gen standards, not just for US.
> After 35 years its 0.0001 m2 RCS yet to be quoted by any other jet maker. Still if it's considered obsolete then imagine NGAD.
Cause those numbers are just the minimum value at an ideal ideal not representative of real world rcs, ther average rcs is what really counts and most other 5th gen have similar average rcs to it. F22 doesn't have any revolutionary or physics breaking geometry to such difference in stealth, in fact it's worse in many parameters compared to Su57 in terms of stealth.
> 5gen jet is not supposed to attack 4gen always head-on but also from blind spots from side, top, below, rear.
If it's to attack from blind spots, there is no need for 5th gen jets, even old 4th gen jets can do the same, no need to waste resources on 5th gen.
> Since beginning F-35 was planned with EOTS so F-22 could avoid it & reduce some RCS, so limited to GPS bombs.
That logic doesn't work because F22 was developed much earlier.
> F-22's 1990s cockpit looks like older cockpit with 6 different size MFDs, but full glass-cockpit with very few switches + bcoz of sensor fusion its display symbology is 5gen, not like F-15/16/18.
View attachment 52331

> And if anybody is aware of industrial rack servers & has watched 1990s documentaries, F-22 test pilots, program managers & some design team guys said & showed that F-22 has modular space to swap computing modules around cockpit, IWB, etc. Its computers were said to be equivalent of average supercomputers.
And I heard they were outdated, gonna need more information around it.
> Its radar does SAR ground mapping which is critical capability. Hopefully it'll get upgraded too with side apertures like in Su-57.
SAR isn't some revolutionary F22 tech, most modern 4th to 5th gen jets have.
> There was no need of HMDS due to sensor fusion, stealth, lack of IRST, TVC agility.
That jet is a fossil by today's standards.
> It has multiple IFDL antennas, SatCom, which was sufficient for exchange of any military data. Video consumes highest bandwidth but there're codecs to reduce that.
> Although no cheek & rear radar like in Su-57, but there're antennas in wing, rudder, near exhaust, spine, belly for lower range awareness.

> Its MLU'll have -
- new computing modules- CPUs, RAMs, SSD, cache memory, connectors, cables, etc. When we upgrade new cellphone, PC, laptop, tabs with S/w patches, then military will also do it with their standards.​
- under-wing IRST,​
- TacIRST replacing MLD,​
- MUMT,​
- HMDS due to IRST may also come.​
- IDK if APG-77 radar'll be changed but new computing modules & S/w patches improve capability.​
- new RAM,​
- other avionics yet to be disclosed,​
- some new AGMs,​
- AIM-260 JATM is said to fit in F-22 IWB.​
So bcoz of costly MLU it won't retire for next 30 years atleast. Moreover 5gen supposed to supplement 6gen.
Until then, it's obsolete.
> But as 5 fingers different, since beginning some people in USA opposed 5gen citing reasons like USSR collapse, CAPEX, OPEX, etc. Ofcourse a capitalist nation feeds more salary to heirarchy of employees, but USA pioneered many H/w & S/w, still leading mostly, creating revenue for future tech.
The F22 was build around an enemy that didn't exist when it arrived.
> Su-57 seem to have advantage of cheek & rear radar with higher range awareness, DIRCM, more agility, more types of AGMs & 4x AGM capacity in IWB, combat radius, etc.
True
> But just 0.1m2 RCS, ongoing R&D with AL-51, HMDS, TVC, etc; IWB/SWB capability through pics just emerging.
Russia is yet to say "See, this Su-57 flies with RCS lower than 0.001m2 & has 2x engine with TVC, rear ceramic RF blocker, transpiration cooling".
Already explained
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hyperactive ADD
The biggest problem for VKS has been the inability to generate sufficient combat sorties vis a vis targets that need to be destroyed. A lot of that issue stems from their decision in the 1990s to do away with their single engined strike fighters. Geran-2 can elevate some of the issues but they are not enough.
It's because of laser guided PGM's and glide bombs. Russian a2g capability is mediocre unless they resort to using their cruise missiles which are expensive option. The effectiveness of an ssb, jdam is far higher than the Fab series. Plus their lack of good anti radiation missiles also brings another problem.
In fact the entire failure for Ukraine is because of failure of vks to create air dominance and not being able to intercept their supply lines connected to Poland.
Allowing western hardware to be setup instead of completely wrecking havoc in their back lines.
The; not saving grace for their invasion is because of their Ballistic and cruise missile arsenal allowing them long enough to sustain pressure on ukrainians
 
Even i don't like certain things about West, but i can't negate something bluntly saying USA is on bottom of R&D & its products are shit. In engineering, sentiments, jealousy, overconfidence, etc have no room.

Its obsolete by every 5th gen and even 4.5 gen standards, not just for US.
No, that's sentimental reply. Let's focus on tech. Perhaps i should rephrase -
In emerging era of 6gen, every 5gen is technically obsolete, even MLU, hence new airframe is needed & gen leap occurs.
But every AF at any time operates 2 gens - latest & previous.

Cause those numbers are just the minimum value at an ideal ideal not representative of real world rcs, ther average rcs is what really counts and most other 5th gen have similar average rcs to it. F22 doesn't have any revolutionary or physics breaking geometry to such difference in stealth, in fact it's worse in many parameters compared to Su57 in terms of stealth.
- No, RCS are obtained by all nations same way - in anechoic chamber & RCS range, by USA, Russia, EU, China, India. We can see this in documentaries & videos.
- Front RCS is quoted bcoz that's the common approach angle in battle from both sides of border.
- Nobody shares jet's RCS from every angle, that's supposed to be secret.
- Average RCS is in minds of average general citizens like us for our understanding, let's admit it.
- If we wan't our AMCA's quoted RCS to be considered by world then we have to take their RCS as face value. Enemy should never be underestimated.
- The geometry is called planform shaping, used by all 5gen jets, but RCS is combined effect of geometry+RAM+RAS+EW+tactics. So F-22 leads in RCS due to all combined parameters.
- Su-57 has tried to reduce geometry by flatter fuselage, shorter rudders, etc, but it has higher surface discontinuities, bumps.
- There's no way for us to know which nation has better RAM, RAS, EW otherwise we would be dead by now.🕵️‍♂️☠️

If it's to attack from blind spots, there is no need for 5th gen jets, even old 4th gen jets can do the same, no need to waste resources on 5th gen.
But we & world are not stopping R&D.
I said not always head-on. Ofcourse, not just 4gen, even since 1gen tried this tactic of surprise attack.
Hence F-22 has conformal embedded antennas all around, but SU-57 has cheek & tail radar, IDK on spine & belly like F-22. Once we plan a strategy or tactic then we ourselves should not fall prey to it.

That logic doesn't work because F22 was developed much earlier.
Ofcourse that logic worked bcoz F-35 has 10x RCS than F-22. If exported F-35 had better RCS then F-22 would be in boneyard. Why would LM axe its own feet?

And I heard they were outdated, gonna need more information around it.
Everything becomes outdated & need upgrade. After MLU it'll level up again.

Until then, it's obsolete.
From 6gen PoV it'll be obsolete forever even after MLU becoming 5.5gen, but still ahead in 5gen domain.

The F22 was build around an enemy that didn't exist when it arrived.
We all hope for global peace but potential enemies & conflicts can pop up again in time, like China rose, EU skipped 5gen & USSR changed to Russia but with same people & is working on its 6gen.

Already explained
Russian engineers need to explain. In Russian documentaries like "Combat Approved" by Zvesda TV, they always say that Su-57 is F-22ski but never quote RCS# or compare with object like US quoted & compared to bee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hyperactive ADD
Even i don't like certain things about West, but i can't negate something bluntly saying USA is on bottom of R&D & its products are shit. In engineering, sentiments, jealousy, overconfidence, etc have no room.
Nobody says their r&d is bad but calling a spade a spade is different.
No, that's sentimental reply. Let's focus on tech. Perhaps i should rephrase -
In emerging era of 6gen, every 5gen is technically obsolete, even MLU, hence new airframe is needed & gen leap occurs.
But every AF at any time operates 2 gens - latest & previous.
Not at all, you are just too much of a fanboy and watched too many youtube shorts and have formed an ill informed opinion based on American warmachine propoganda.

F22 is almost an soviet era air machine made to fight against an enemy that doesn't exist, that's why it was it's already obsolete by today's standards.
No, RCS are obtained by all nations same way - in anechoic chamber & RCS range, by USA, Russia, EU, China, India. We can see this in documentaries & videos.
- Front RCS is quoted bcoz that's the common approach angle in battle from both sides of border.
- Nobody shares jet's RCS from every angle, that's supposed to be secret.
- Average RCS is in minds of average general citizens like us for our understanding, let's admit it.
- If we wan't our AMCA's quoted RCS to be considered by world then we have to take their RCS as face value. Enemy should never be underestimated.
- The geometry is called planform shaping, used by all 5gen jets, but RCS is combined effect of geometry+RAM+RAS+EW+tactics. So F-22 leads in RCS due to all combined parameters.
- Su-57 has tried to reduce geometry by flatter fuselage, shorter rudders, etc, but it has higher surface discontinuities, bumps.
- There's no way for us to know which nation has better RAM, RAS, EW otherwise we would be dead by now.🕵️‍♂️☠️
They may calculate RCS for their own testing in a similar manner but the publicly quoted numbers are of different parameters and the rcs number you quoted which may or may not be an offical number is just from a ideal plane at an ideal angle not representative of the real world against an enemy airspace. Like I said, it's the average is rcs which determines stealth and all these 5th gen are in similar ball park.
But we & world are not stopping R&D.
I said not always head-on. Ofcourse, not just 4gen, even since 1gen tried this tactic of surprise attack.
Yeah my point, your tactics doesnt require a 5th gen to work.
Hence F-22 has conformal embedded antennas all around, but SU-57 has cheek & tail radar, IDK on spine & belly like F-22. Once we plan a strategy or tactic then we ourselves should not fall prey to it.
It still doesn't have broadband coverage like Su57.
Ofcourse that logic worked bcoz F-35 has 10x RCS than F-22. If exported F-35 had better RCS then F-22 would be in boneyard. Why would LM axe its own feet?
Like I said, that's not how stealth geometry works.
Everything becomes outdated & need upgrade. After MLU it'll level up again.
So does every jet, nothing new. The fact that it requires such an expensive upgrade package shows how outdated the jet is by today's standards.
From 6gen PoV it'll be obsolete forever even after MLU becoming 5.5gen, but still ahead in 5gen domain.
Not by 6th, I'm talking by current standards that it's an outdated fossil.
We all hope for global peace but potential enemies & conflicts can pop up again in time, like China rose, EU skipped 5gen & USSR changed to Russia but with same people & is working on its 6gen.
Ok
Russian engineers need to explain. In Russian documentaries like "Combat Approved" by Zvesda TV, they always say that Su-57 is F-22ski but never quote RCS# or compare with object like US quoted & compared to bee.
I'm not sure what your point is but the Su57 was designed to beat Nato unlike American 5th gen meant against weak nations, there is a reason it's known as the raptor killer.
 
Even i don't like certain things about West, but i can't negate something bluntly saying USA is on bottom of R&D & its products are shit. In engineering, sentiments, jealousy, overconfidence, etc have no room.


No, that's sentimental reply. Let's focus on tech. Perhaps i should rephrase -
In emerging era of 6gen, every 5gen is technically obsolete, even MLU, hence new airframe is needed & gen leap occurs.
But every AF at any time operates 2 gens - latest & previous.


- No, RCS are obtained by all nations same way - in anechoic chamber & RCS range, by USA, Russia, EU, China, India. We can see this in documentaries & videos.
- Front RCS is quoted bcoz that's the common approach angle in battle from both sides of border.
- Nobody shares jet's RCS from every angle, that's supposed to be secret.
- Average RCS is in minds of average general citizens like us for our understanding, let's admit it.
- If we wan't our AMCA's quoted RCS to be considered by world then we have to take their RCS as face value. Enemy should never be underestimated.
- The geometry is called planform shaping, used by all 5gen jets, but RCS is combined effect of geometry+RAM+RAS+EW+tactics. So F-22 leads in RCS due to all combined parameters.
- Su-57 has tried to reduce geometry by flatter fuselage, shorter rudders, etc, but it has higher surface discontinuities, bumps.
- There's no way for us to know which nation has better RAM, RAS, EW otherwise we would be dead by now.🕵️‍♂️☠️


But we & world are not stopping R&D.
I said not always head-on. Ofcourse, not just 4gen, even since 1gen tried this tactic of surprise attack.
Hence F-22 has conformal embedded antennas all around, but SU-57 has cheek & tail radar, IDK on spine & belly like F-22. Once we plan a strategy or tactic then we ourselves should not fall prey to it.


Ofcourse that logic worked bcoz F-35 has 10x RCS than F-22. If exported F-35 had better RCS then F-22 would be in boneyard. Why would LM axe its own feet?


Everything becomes outdated & need upgrade. After MLU it'll level up again.


From 6gen PoV it'll be obsolete forever even after MLU becoming 5.5gen, but still ahead in 5gen domain.


We all hope for global peace but potential enemies & conflicts can pop up again in time, like China rose, EU skipped 5gen & USSR changed to Russia but with same people & is working on its 6gen.


Russian engineers need to explain. In Russian documentaries like "Combat Approved" by Zvesda TV, they always say that Su-57 is F-22ski but never quote RCS# or compare with object like US quoted & compared to bee.
The United States has advanced technology and plenty of money—but the problem is that its so‑called technological superiority isn't enough to give it even a half‑tier advantage over Russia. And as the first mover, it soon gets outdone by Russian hardware that has been developed specifically to counter it, while all the expensive equipment it pours money into ends up as mere showpieces. This is the law of diminishing returns. Fighter development takes 20 years, engine development takes 30—and the KGB was not sitting idle. In the end, the two sides just keep leapfrogging each other

In the propeller era, while others were developing aircraft suited for large‑scale operations—especially ground support—such as the Yak‑3, Spitfire IX, La‑5, and IL‑2, the US remained stuck in pre‑war thinking, continuing to conduct high‑altitude interception at 5,000 metres, and carrying a mere 3 tons of bombs for level‑flight free‑fall bombing at 6,000 metres—with engines still supplied by Britain.

In the first generation of jet aircraft, while others were playing with horizontal manoeuvring, the US was playing with vertical climbs.
In the second generation came the F‑104 "Widowmaker," followed by the F‑4—this latest fighter was thrown into Vietnam as soon as it rolled off the production line, losing over 700 aircraft. As a 25‑ton heavy fighter, it went toe‑to‑toe with the MiG‑21, which weighed only 10 tons.

When it came to the fourth of fighters, once the missile energy theory—including the importance of altitude and initial speed—proved its necessity, the Russians went back to playing with high‑altitude, high‑speed flight and vertical maneuvering, while the Americans returned to horizontal maneuvering. This was a complete reversal of the situation back in the days of the F‑86 versus the MiG‑15.
The F‑14, F‑15, and F‑16 were born in the 1970s, but in reality, even by 1986 they couldn't get their engines right. The F‑15 had only four squadrons deployed in Europe, and its mission‑capable rate remained below 15% for a long time due to the disastrous reliability of the F100 engine—not to mention the equally problematic TF30, and the F‑16, which used the same engine as the F‑16 but was a single‑engine aircraft. Over 4,000 were built, with more than 700 lost. If any other country had produced such junk, it would have been lambasted to death—but no one dares to criticise their American daddy.
What is truly laughable is that even though this generation of American fighters is generally more optimized for horizontal maneuverability, they only manage to match or come close to the level of the Su‑27 and MiG‑29—and in neither the horizontal nor the vertical dimension do American aircraft hold any advantage.

Then in the 1990s, the AIM‑9 couldn't even lock on and fire from directly in front of the target—it could only engage from behind. Not to mention helmet-mounted sights. As for single‑aircraft over‑the‑horizon strikes against enemy ships beyond the horizon—that only became a reality in the 21st century after the F/A‑18E entered service. Prior to that, it required a dedicated A‑6 modified as a low‑altitude relay command aircraft to perform sacrificial guidance. At that point, you finally realize that the 130mm naval gun was actually meant for anti‑air warfare all along. All these facts are fundamentally overturning the perceptions of kids who grew up playing American‑made video games.

Then came the short‑lived F‑117 and the F‑22, which had no air‑to‑ground capability. Then the Americans stopped producing dedicated air‑superiority fighters: the Navy for 30 years, the Air Force for 20 years—and they just sat idle. As for the F‑35, which is their Advanced Strike Fighter—they actually let something akin to a Su‑22 in the Russian system serve as a “multi‑role fighter.” It's laughable A-S-F.

On the large aircraft side, it's even more ridiculous. The B-52 was fitted with eight engines—because back then the Americans couldn't produce the RD‑3 engine used on the Tu‑16. Then there's the C‑5: the brochure claims a certain maximum payload range, but it turned out to be only half of what the Air Force actually measured. Its takeoff distance at maximum payload was 50% longer. For a long time, the US had to rent AN‑124s and IL‑76s. As for the B‑1, if I remember correctly, last year less than 10% of its total fleet was fully combat‑capable. And they still shamelessly boast that its frontal RCS is only one‑tenth that of the F‑15. As for the B‑2, I don't even want to talk about it—a free‑fall bomber, the only one of its kind. Although constrained by treaties, it's essentially an oversized F‑117 that insists on flying over someone's head to drop bombs—that's truly audacious.

People's perceptions always improve gradually. The reason I can recite all these details so familiarly is that I used to be an American fan myself—and who among us wasn't, really? As the saying goes, the louder the voice, the better; the heavier the propaganda, the better; wealth can cover up all flaws and make one immune to all criticism. It's as simple as that
 
Last edited:
Nobody says their r&d is bad but calling a spade a spade is different.
IDK what that means.

Not at all, you are just too much of a fanboy and watched too many youtube shorts and have formed an ill informed opinion based on American warmachine propoganda.
Ok, let's not use personal comments.
IDK any aero professional here so we all are "fan boys" or enthusiasts. Some are journalists, blogger/vlogger.
I've watched media from all nations, some in their language with English sub-titles.
I'm an average engineer in 40s & i highlight +/- points of all products with diagrams, calculations, etc.
Even if we talk about TV, cellphone, car, laptop, home appliances, etc, then some companies/countries are leading the world, they do R&D, make ISO standards, dominate market, similarly in military domain.🤷‍♂️


F22 is almost an soviet era air machine made to fight against an enemy that doesn't exist, that's why it was it's already obsolete by today's standards.
So i also said that from today's 6gen PoV it'll be obsolete forever even after MLU, so will all global 5gen jets. 6>5.5

They may calculate RCS for their own testing in a similar manner but the publicly quoted numbers are of different parameters and the rcs number you quoted which may or may not be an offical number is just from a ideal plane at an ideal angle not representative of the real world against an enemy airspace. Like I said, it's the average is rcs which determines stealth and all these 5th gen are in similar ball park.
Again, i said that nobody reveals all aspect RCS, that's secret.
But average value is for average, non-techie people.
Techies consider values as per angle - top, bottom, side, rear, front, so we can't generalize ot it'll be blunder maths.
The jet's computers are not programmed with average values.

Yeah my point, your tactics doesnt require a 5th gen to work.
It's not your or my point or tactic at all. Everybody would try to sneak, surprise, ambush the enemy where it expect least or none.

It still doesn't have broadband coverage like Su57.
Well, as i said earlier that F-22 doesn't have side & rear radars & we've to wait for full MLU disclosure, but IDK what exactly those BAND 2,3,4 antennas are in the diagram. Do you know?
But a country leading most H/w & S/w tech, not willing for equal symmetric battle, would be expected to plan & make a product, compensate missing things indirectly.

Like I said, that's not how stealth geometry works.
Whatever way geometry works in diferent bands, there's no logic for LM & USA or any country to axe their own feet by exporting better stealth jet than domestic.🤷‍♂️


So does every jet, nothing new. The fact that it requires such an expensive upgrade package shows how outdated the jet is by today's standards.
Again going in circle. What matters is at any point in time what is position of all global jets with their features, +/- points.
F-22 has caught up with under-wing stealthy IRST pod & EFT, TacIRST, new computing modules, etc.
While position of Su-57, J-20, J-35, Kaan, etc have to catch the low RCS 1st deciding visibility.

Not by 6th, I'm talking by current standards that it's an outdated fossil.
No, that's emotional, impulsive, non-technical comment, unless you share precisely, technically something we missed.

I'm not sure what your point is but the Su57 was designed to beat Nato unlike American 5th gen meant against weak nations, there is a reason it's known as the raptor killer.
I would also like to see Su-57 at equal level. i can't scan all world media. I would love the Su-57 techies say once that its RCS is like a bee which'll be great relief.🤷‍♂️ But R&D should move timely.
China would call J-20, J-35 as killer of AMCA, F-22, F-35, Su-57.
India would call AMCA as killer of J-20, J-35, Kaan.
Russia would call Su-57, Su-75 as killer of F-22, F-35, J-20, J-35, etc.
Every maker praises their products.
 
Even if we talk about TV, cellphone, car, laptop, home appliances, etc, then some companies/countries are leading the world, they do R&D, make ISO standards, dominate market, similarly in military domain.🤷‍♂️

TVs, phones, cars, laptops, home appliances, and so on — it’s all a complete mess. Apart from the core chips, which are indeed provided by the United States, there’s no doubt about that — like AMD, Intel, and Texas Instruments.

But these products have absolutely no barriers to purchase. Even North Korea can buy them in bulk and use them with peace of mind.

As for finished products, the United States is a total disaster.

From what I recall, the U.S. barely has any decent computer brands left. The once-thunderous IBM sold off its personal computer division to Lenovo.

In phones, there’s only the Pixel. Compared to Samsung or China’s BBK (which includes OPPO, vivo, OnePlus, and iQOO), it’s simply anti-human.
As for Apple, if I'm not mistaken, most of its components and profits go to Japan, and then to South Korea.

Even when it comes to chips, although they carry the name AMD, they are actually all made in Taiwan.


In cars, the U.S. gets thrashed at home by Japanese and Korean brands. Chrysler, one of the Big Three, was sold to Europeans. Right now, the mainstay of American autos is really just pickup trucks.

Motorcycles are the same story — so thoroughly beaten by Japanese bikes that the president had to step in and restructure protections.

The highest-end TVs are from Sony, followed by Korean brands. Now most people use cheap Chinese ones.... and in the future, it'll be goods from Vietnam, Malaysia, Bangladesh... even Thai products will count as high-end.

Home appliances are a similar situation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: batman
The United States has advanced technology and plenty of money—but the problem is that its so‑called technological superiority isn't enough to give it even a half‑tier advantage over Russia. And as the first mover, it soon gets outdone by Russian hardware that has been developed specifically to counter it, while all the expensive equipment it pours money into ends up as mere showpieces. This is the law of diminishing returns. Fighter development takes 20 years, engine development takes 30—and the KGB was not sitting idle. In the end, the two sides just keep leapfrogging each other

In the propeller era, while others were developing aircraft suited for large‑scale operations—especially ground support—such as the Yak‑3, Spitfire IX, La‑5, and IL‑2, the US remained stuck in pre‑war thinking, continuing to conduct high‑altitude interception at 5,000 metres, and carrying a mere 3 tons of bombs for level‑flight free‑fall bombing at 6,000 metres—with engines still supplied by Britain.

In the first generation of jet aircraft, while others were playing with horizontal manoeuvring, the US was playing with vertical climbs.
In the second generation came the F‑104 "Widowmaker," followed by the F‑4—this latest fighter was thrown into Vietnam as soon as it rolled off the production line, losing over 700 aircraft. As a 25‑ton heavy fighter, it went toe‑to‑toe with the MiG‑21, which weighed only 10 tons.

When it came to the fourth of fighters, once the missile energy theory—including the importance of altitude and initial speed—proved its necessity, the Russians went back to playing with high‑altitude, high‑speed flight and vertical maneuvering, while the Americans returned to horizontal maneuvering. This was a complete reversal of the situation back in the days of the F‑86 versus the MiG‑15.
The F‑14, F‑15, and F‑16 were born in the 1970s, but in reality, even by 1986 they couldn't get their engines right. The F‑15 had only four squadrons deployed in Europe, and its mission‑capable rate remained below 15% for a long time due to the disastrous reliability of the F100 engine—not to mention the equally problematic TF30, and the F‑16, which used the same engine as the F‑16 but was a single‑engine aircraft. Over 4,000 were built, with more than 700 lost. If any other country had produced such junk, it would have been lambasted to death—but no one dares to criticise their American daddy.
What is truly laughable is that even though this generation of American fighters is generally more optimized for horizontal maneuverability, they only manage to match or come close to the level of the Su‑27 and MiG‑29—and in neither the horizontal nor the vertical dimension do American aircraft hold any advantage.

Then in the 1990s, the AIM‑9 couldn't even lock on and fire from directly in front of the target—it could only engage from behind. Not to mention helmet-mounted sights. As for single‑aircraft over‑the‑horizon strikes against enemy ships beyond the horizon—that only became a reality in the 21st century after the F/A‑18E entered service. Prior to that, it required a dedicated A‑6 modified as a low‑altitude relay command aircraft to perform sacrificial guidance. At that point, you finally realize that the 130mm naval gun was actually meant for anti‑air warfare all along. All these facts are fundamentally overturning the perceptions of kids who grew up playing American‑made video games.

Then came the short‑lived F‑117 and the F‑22, which had no air‑to‑ground capability. Then the Americans stopped producing dedicated air‑superiority fighters: the Navy for 30 years, the Air Force for 20 years—and they just sat idle. As for the F‑35, which is their Advanced Strike Fighter—they actually let something akin to a Su‑22 in the Russian system serve as a “multi‑role fighter.” It's laughable A-S-F.

On the large aircraft side, it's even more ridiculous. The B-52 was fitted with eight engines—because back then the Americans couldn't produce the RD‑3 engine used on the Tu‑16. Then there's the C‑5: the brochure claims a certain maximum payload range, but it turned out to be only half of what the Air Force actually measured. Its takeoff distance at maximum payload was 50% longer. For a long time, the US had to rent AN‑124s and IL‑76s. As for the B‑1, if I remember correctly, last year less than 10% of its total fleet was fully combat‑capable. And they still shamelessly boast that its frontal RCS is only one‑tenth that of the F‑15. As for the B‑2, I don't even want to talk about it—a free‑fall bomber, the only one of its kind. Although constrained by treaties, it's essentially an oversized F‑117 that insists on flying over someone's head to drop bombs—that's truly audacious.

People's perceptions always improve gradually. The reason I can recite all these details so familiarly is that I used to be an American fan myself—and who among us wasn't, really? As the saying goes, the louder the voice, the better; the heavier the propaganda, the better; wealth can cover up all flaws and make one immune to all criticism. It's as simple as that

There's no need to spend time, effort for all this long history bcoz -
- discussion is specific as per thread topic, not entire history of all products.
- Everybody knows Russia has strong attitude. They always came up with some deterrent.
- Capitalism feeds big salaries to heirarchy of employees Vs Communism/Socialism. But USA pioneered certain civillian & mil tech in H/w & S/w to lead global markets for revenue to fund its R&D.
- media available since decades for all global products.
- every maker praises their products & criticizes opponents.
- every maker has failures, improvements, product iterations & life-cycle.
- We all are fans, enthusiasts, so everybody can have their perception where data is missing.
- No matter how loud the voice, heavier the propaganda, how big the wealth, nobody's putting a gun to head of any forum member or to professionals of any civillian & military domain to search, think, analyze, perceive, decide.🤪🔫 :ROFLMAO:

So on this thread let's focus on Su-57 & Su-57 Vs something.

USA/LM decided separate ATF/ASF with limited AG capability & JSF for AG role.
Russia decided Su-57 to be omni-role.
It's their money, economics, choice.
Now what matters is list of 5gen features implemented & operational in a jet of a country or not, simple, be it Su-57, F-22, F-35, J-20, J-35, Kaan, AMCA, etc. We can make a table & compare.


TVs, phones, cars, laptops, home appliances, and so on — it’s all a complete mess. Apart from the core chips, which are indeed provided by the United States, there’s no doubt about that — like AMD, Intel, and Texas Instruments.
But these products have absolutely no barriers to purchase. Even North Korea can buy them in bulk and use them with peace of mind.
As for finished products, the United States is a total disaster.
From what I recall, the U.S. barely has any decent computer brands left. The once-thunderous IBM sold off its personal computer division to Lenovo.
In phones, there’s only the Pixel. Compared to Samsung or China’s BBK (which includes OPPO, vivo, OnePlus, and iQOO), it’s simply anti-human.
As for Apple, if I'm not mistaken, most of its components and profits go to Japan, and then to South Korea.
Even when it comes to chips, although they carry the name AMD, they are actually all made in Taiwan.
In cars, the U.S. gets thrashed at home by Japanese and Korean brands. Chrysler, one of the Big Three, was sold to Europeans. Right now, the mainstay of American autos is really just pickup trucks.
Motorcycles are the same story — so thoroughly beaten by Japanese bikes that the president had to step in and restructure protections.
The highest-end TVs are from Sony, followed by Korean brands. Now most people use cheap Chinese ones.
Home appliances are a similar situation.
And that's what i said in 1 line in a generic way that some company/country leads a product segment.
I didn't say USA leads everything, but certain things.
 
There's no need to spend time, effort for all this long history bcoz -
- discussion is specific as per thread topic, not entire history of all products.
- Everybody knows Russia has strong attitude. They always came up with some deterrent.
- Capitalism feeds big salaries to heirarchy of employees Vs Communism/Socialism. But USA pioneered certain civillian & mil tech in H/w & S/w to lead global markets for revenue to fund its R&D.
- media available since decades for all global products.
- every maker praises their products & criticizes opponents.
- every maker has failures, improvements, product iterations & life-cycle.
- We all are fans, enthusiasts, so everybody can have their perception where data is missing.
- No matter how loud the voice, heavier the propaganda, how big the wealth, nobody's putting a gun to head of any forum member or to professionals of any civillian & military domain to search, think, analyze, perceive, decide.🤪🔫 :ROFLMAO:

So on this thread let's focus on Su-57 & Su-57 Vs something.

USA/LM decided separate ATF/ASF with limited AG capability & JSF for AG role.
Russia decided Su-57 to be omni-role.
It's their money, economics, choice.
Now what matters is list of 5gen features implemented & operational in a jet of a country or not, simple, be it Su-57, F-22, F-35, J-20, J-35, Kaan, AMCA, etc. We can make a table & compare.



And that's what i said in 1 line in a generic way that some company/country leads a product segment.
I didn't say USA leads everything, but certain things.
Learning from history is an accurate way to predict the future.
In the social domain, this is called credibility;
in mathematics, it is called mathematical induction.

From getting to know someone to falling in love and getting married—you're essentially doing the same thing—judging whether she's right for you by analyzing her past.
This is a basic means of understanding the world. A person who deceived yesterday does not become a saint today.
Denying experience and history runs counter to the fundamental method of objectively understanding the world.

Given the very poor track record of U.S.-made weapons over the past 100 years of aviation history,


it is possible to anticipate the degree of underperformance in their next new product. The F-22 lags significantly behind the Su-57 in every observable respect. There are objective differences in quality between things, and it is not a matter of subjective scoring. There is no need even to list comparisons, because the F-22 is itself a product of the same era, similar to the Su-37 or MiG-1.44/1.46. Furthermore, the F-35 lacked an initial design objective for "multi-role capability" — which is why it turned out so unfortunate — whereas the PAK-FA was the first fifth-generation aircraft to incorporate "multi-role" or a similar description.
QQ拼音截图20260617163338.pngQQ拼音截图20260617164739.png
By the way, since you mentioned a table, I once made one may yearS ago, but it was in Chinese. I can machine-translate it and post it.


In the official design guidance documents, one can find that the F-22 prioritized stealth first, maneuverability second, and supercruise third, whereas the Russians placed maneuverability first, supercruise second, and stealth only third. In other respects, the F-22, at the very least, failed to achieve its stated goal of matching the F-15's payload, and the F-35 failed to meet its affordability target,
while the Su-57 developed entirely in accordance with its intended goals — featuring multiple L-band radars that provide a situational awareness capability unmatched by other aircraft, the development of the Su-57D corresponding to item 6, and a superb internal weapons bay capability that delivers powerful air-to-air and air-to-ground strike capabilities also unmatched by other aircraft.
 
Last edited: