F-35 vs Su-57 Felon — How Stealth Jets from Russia Stack Up

In an era of renewed great-power competition, the contest between stealth fighters has renewed relevance. The comparison between the U.S. F-35 Lightning II and Russia’s Su-57 Felon isn’t just about raw performance — it reflects differing doctrines, supply chains and geopolitical alliances. For the U.S., the F-35 embodies coalition interoperability, network-centric warfare and widespread export reach. For Russia, the Su-57 is a statement of aerospace ambition and independent power-projection amid sanctions and shifting alliances.

Why this matters: as NATO, allied nations and U.S. regional partners assess 5th-generation platforms, the “F-35 vs Su-57” debate influences procurement, tactics and strategic choices. Moreover, with Russia publicizing the Su-57’s development and export prospects, U.S. defense watchers must understand how the “su 57 vs f35” match-up plays out on paper — and what it might mean in real-world operations.

Specifications Table

Here’s a side-by-side comparison of key specs for the F-35 and Su-57:

F-35 Lightning II Fighter Jet vs SU-57 Felon Stealth Fighter

Design & Technology

Stealth, Sensors & Signature

The F-35 was built around stealth first: compact single-engine design, internal weapon bays and radar-absorbent materials. As one analysis puts it: “The F-35 specializes in low radar-cross-section operations.” Its design emphasizes all-aspect low observability (LO) — that is, attempts to reduce radar signature from front, side and rear.

The Su-57, by contrast, combines stealth features with high performance. The aircraft emphasizes super-maneuverability (via thrust vectoring), twin-engine redundancy and a larger airframe that allows larger internal bays. According to Wikipedia: “Designed from the outset as a multirole aircraft … internal payload capacity … and advanced sensor systems.” But analysts caution that its radar-cross-section is likely higher than the F-35’s, particularly from non-front aspects.

Airframe, Aerodynamics & Engines

The F-35’s single-engine design simplifies maintenance and lowers weight; it was optimized for stealth and strike rather than air-superiority dogfights. The Su-57’s twin-engine design gives it greater thrust, higher top speeds and potentially super-cruise capability (sustained supersonic without afterburner) which the F-35 lacks. The Su-57 also features thrust-vectoring nozzles and advanced flight control for high angle-of-attack manoeuvres.

Avionics & Sensor Fusion

In the sensor domain, the F-35 holds a strong advantage in terms of proven integration, coalition interoperability and sensor fusion (such as the Helmet-Mounted Display, DAS – Distributed Aperture System). For the Su-57, its full avionics suite is still being matured; Russian sources suggest powerful radar arrays (including side-mounted AESA and L-band sensors) giving potential advantages against stealth aircraft in some scenarios.

Firepower & Performance

Weapons Load-out

The F-35 carries a variety of air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions, leveraging internal bays for stealth missions while also supporting external stores in less contested airspaces. For example, it can carry internal missiles like the AIM-120, bombs like the GBU series, and link Sensors across networks.

The Su-57 benefits from large internal weapon bays and a larger airframe that enables heavier loads. Open-source commentary suggests it can carry up to six large missiles internally, and moreover supports Russian long-range missiles (such as the R-37M) and integration with unmanned assets.

Engagement & Accuracy

In beyond-visual-range (BVR) engagements, the F-35’s stealth and sensor-fusion suite gives it a strong edge: “Most simulations have the F-35 coming out ahead … due to the American plane’s supposed superior detection avoidance and situational awareness.” In close-range manoeuvres, the Su-57’s higher thrust-to-weight ratio and super-maneuverability give it an advantage.

Mission Flexibility

The F-35 is built from the ground up for strike-penetration, ISR (intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance) and networked operations. The Su-57 appears more optimized for air superiority or interception in contested airspace, with a design reflecting Russian doctrine emphasizing kinematic performance and multi-role capability.

Operational Range & Mobility

The Su-57 offers significantly greater range and endurance on paper: data suggests a combat radius up to ~3,100 mi (≈5,000 km) versus around ~1,380 mi (≈2,220 km) for the F-35. This gives the Russian jet the potential to project power further without refueling.

However, in practice mobility also involves logistics, maintenance, tactical deployment and network support. The F-35 benefits from an established global logistics engine (for the U.S. and allied states), high sortie rates and mature support infrastructure. The Su-57, by contrast, remains in early production with limited fleet size, which constrains its operational availability and mobility in large-scale deployments.

Combat Effectiveness

Real-World Use

The F-35 is fielded in large numbers across multiple U.S. services and allied nations; it has operational combat experience (for example Israeli use) and has been integrated into coalition operations. The Su-57, while officially in service, has had limited combat exposure and few international exports to date.

Doctrine & Training

The U.S. doctrine emphasizes penetrating contested air-space, using stealth and data link networks, and employing the F-35 as both shooter and “quarterback” linking other assets. The Russian side emphasizes air-dominance, large missile loads and high‐kinematic performance to intercept or engage adversary aircraft in disputed zones.

Availability & Reliability

Production maturity and fleet readiness matter. The F-35 program, despite cost and maintenance challenges, has achieved widespread deployment. The Su-57’s production rollout has been slower and its operational metrics less transparent. Some defense analysts caution about its readiness levels.

Cost & Export Value

Price & Production

The F-35 program is one of the most costly defense program in history, though unit costs have declined over time. Its export footprint is global (NATO allies, partner nations) and its supply chain spans multiple nations. The Su-57 is comparatively cheaper to acquire (per many open-source citations) and Russia is actively marketing it to export markets.

Geopolitical Impact & Export Reach

The F-35 serves as a strategic asset for U.S. alliances: countries acquiring the F-35 integrate into a long-term network and logistics ecosystem aligned with U.S./NATO. The “f35 vs su57 who wins” debate matters also because export decisions signal alignment. Russia’s offer of the Su-57 to countries such as India demonstrates its intent to build alternative security partnerships.

Maintenance, Upgrades & Lifecycle

Long-term sustainment is key. The F-35 has scheduled upgrades for decades, with a predictable roadmap (Block 4, sensor improvements, etc.). The Su-57 program’s upgrade path (e.g., new engines) is progressing but less mature in export or large-fleet terms.

Analysis

When it comes to “F-35 vs Su-57”, each system brings distinct strengths and trade-offs.

Strengths of the F-35:

• Superior stealth in contested environments and strong sensor-fusion / network integration.
• Proven export success and support ecosystem across many allied nations.
• Optimised for coalition operations, strike missions and ISR roles.

Weaknesses of the F-35:

• Lower top speed and range compared to the Su-57 on paper.
• High lifecycle cost, complex logistics, and in some cases readiness metrics less than ideal.
• By design, it is not built primarily for extreme air-superiority dogfights; it avoids close-in knife fights.

Strengths of the Su-57:

• Higher speed, greater range and potential for super-maneuverability favouring air-dominance engagements.
• Larger internal payload capacity and potential to carry heavier/hypersonic missiles.
• Lower acquisition cost (for some markets) and alternative export path.

Weaknesses of the Su-57:

• Stealth is not believed to match the F-35’s all-aspect low-RCS capability.
• Production numbers are small, combat record limited, and maintenance/support infrastructure less mature.
• Integration into networked coalition operations and logistics may lag allied systems.

How the U.S. military views each system:
From a U.S. perspective, the F-35 is the core platform for members of the U.S.-led alliance architecture; its mission is to ensure dominance in contested airspace, target hostile air-defenses, and link sensors across platforms. Conversely, the Su-57 is viewed as a potential asymmetric threat — capable of challenging air-superiority missions or intercepting advanced air assets, particularly in scenarios where Russia defends its near-airspace or projects power. The “su 57 vs f35” debate underscores the need for the U.S. and NATO to maintain edge not just in performance metrics but in numbers, integration and support infrastructure.

Conclusion

In the F-35 vs Su-57 comparison, there is no simple “winner” — but clear contextual advantages.

• If the mission is penetrating high-grade air defences, networked strike operations and coalition interoperability in contested zones, the F-35 holds the edge.
• If the scenario is long-range power projection, high-end air-superiority fights, or where speed, range and missile load dominate, the Su-57 shows strong potential.

In practice, the F-35 is better suited for the U.S. defense ecosystem and allied operations today. The Su-57 remains a credible and evolving adversary, especially as production scales and export customers grow. For U.S. defence watchers, the key takeaway is that maintaining quantitative superiority, integration of sensors and logistics remains as critical as raw aircraft performance.

FAQ