No longer decided by who climbs higher or fires faster, dominance now hinges on something less visible but far more decisive: information. In this new era, whoever owns the electromagnetic spectrum, connects sensors across land, sea, air, and space, and executes strikes based on fused data in real time — wins.
Two aircraft define this strategic shift, each born from rival power blocs with starkly different philosophies of war: America’s F-35 Lightning II and Russia’s Su-57 Felon. Both are fifth-generation fighters. Both are stealth-capable. But beneath the fuselage lies a larger contest — one between a global military alliance system built on integration, and a resurgent power focused on autonomy and raw air combat strength.
The F-35 Lightning II, developed under the Joint Strike Fighter program, isn’t just a combat jet. It’s a combat system, a digital nerve center in the sky built for joint and allied warfare. It collects, interprets, and shares information in real time across multiple domains — connecting satellites, naval fleets, ground forces, and other aircraft. As of early 2025, over 980 F-35s have been delivered to more than 17 nations, forming the technological backbone of NATO and allied air forces.
In contrast, Russia’s Su-57 Felon, created by Sukhoi under the United Aircraft Corporation, represents a fundamentally different vision. Built to outmaneuver and outgun its adversaries, it emphasizes speed, agility, and survivability in standalone operations — not dependent on vast information-sharing networks, but designed to fight and win even when isolated in contested airspace. Despite entering limited service in 2020, Russia has fielded fewer than 25 Su-57s to date, a reflection of both technical hurdles and sanctions-hit production.
These aircraft are not just tools of war. They are strategic emissaries — representing how each nation plans to fight, deter, and prevail in an increasingly multipolar and volatile world.
Stealth: The Art of Staying Hidden
Stealth remains the core of fifth-generation design, and here, the F-35 leads decisively. Its radar cross-section (RCS) is estimated at just 0.001 m², achieved through edge-aligned panels, internal weapons bays, and radar-absorbent materials. This makes it nearly invisible to conventional radar, especially in frontal engagements. Critically, its stealth is all-aspect — effective from front, side, and rear angles.
The Su-57, while marketed as stealthy, prioritizes frontal stealth only. Its RCS is believed to range between 0.1–0.5 m², significantly larger than the F-35’s. Exposed engine nozzles and IR emissions further compromise its stealth from the sides and rear. When carrying weapons externally — a frequent practice in Russian doctrine — its radar signature becomes even more vulnerable.
Verdict: The F-35 is built to penetrate defended airspace and strike before being seen. The Su-57 is built to fight once seen.
The F-35’s most potent weapon isn’t a missile — it’s information dominance.
Equipped with the AN/APG-81 AESA radar, Distributed Aperture System (DAS), and Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS), the F-35 offers a 360-degree real-time battlespace view. Advanced sensor fusion powered by onboard AI allows pilots to see, classify, and prioritize threats before they’re even within visual range. Data is shared instantly with allies via Link-16 and MADL systems, making the F-35 the quarterback of any strike package.
The Su-57 features the N036 Byelka AESA radar suite, along with infrared search and track (IRST) systems and a unique L-band radar array in its wings for detecting stealth aircraft. These are impressive innovations, but lack the seamless fusion and real-time sharing of the F-35’s suite. Its data systems are not yet mature enough for integrated battlefield coordination.
Verdict: The F-35 turns warfighting into a networked game. The Su-57 is still playing single-player.
The Su-57’s twin Saturn AL-41F1 engines (with a future upgrade to the Izdeliye 30) offer supercruise and extreme agility through thrust-vectoring. In a close-range dogfight, these features give the Felon a potential edge. It’s fast, can change direction mid-air, and excels at high-G maneuvers — a nod to Russia’s love of airshow theatrics and close-quarters combat tactics.
The F-35, powered by a single Pratt & Whitney F135, trades some agility for stealth and integrated systems. It isn’t built to dogfight like an F-22 or Su-57. It’s built to detect, strike, and leave before the enemy knows it was there.
Verdict: In a knife fight, the Su-57 may turn tighter. But modern air battles are more likely to be sniper duels than brawls.
Both aircraft can carry a broad range of air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons.
The F-35 holds 5,700 kg internally in stealth mode, and up to 18,000 kg with external pylons. Its arsenal includes AMRAAMs, AIM-9X, JDAMs, and various standoff and cruise missiles — ideal for both precision strike and defensive counter-air roles.
The Su-57 holds around 4,000 kg internally and up to 10,000 kg externally. It’s compatible with the R-77 and R-74M2 for dogfights, the Kh-59MK2 for standoff strikes, and is reportedly being prepared to carry hypersonic weapons, including variants of the Kinzhal missile — a potentially game-changing capability if integrated successfully.
Verdict: The Su-57 may hit harder in a blitz. But the F-35 hits smarter and more silently — and with friends.
The F-35 has seen action. It’s been used by Israel in covert strikes in Syria, by the US and UK in Iraq and Libya, and by Italy in NATO maritime missions. Its kill chain has been tested, refined, and repeatedly proven under operational conditions. Its maintenance ecosystem — powered by ALIS (and transitioning to ODIN) — ensures predictive diagnostics and high mission readiness.
The Su-57 has been deployed in Syria and reportedly used in Ukraine, though under heavily controlled environments. There’s no confirmed record of it participating in high-risk, beyond-visual-range engagements. Its real-world performance, therefore, remains largely unvalidated.
Verdict: The F-35 has earned its wings. The Su-57 is still in trials, even in war.
The F-35 is arguably the most successful fighter export program in history. Lockheed Martin’s aircraft is now central to NATO’s future air posture, Japan’s Indo-Pacific deterrence, and the growing strategic alignment of countries like Australia, South Korea, Finland, and Switzerland.
The Su-57, by contrast, has no confirmed export contracts. India exited the joint FGFA program over concerns about quality and cost. Potential buyers like Algeria, Vietnam, and Iran have shown interest but face economic constraints, production delays, and geopolitical obstacles. Russian industry, hit by sanctions and supply chain disruptions, is simply unable to scale production or support global logistics in the same way.
Verdict: The F-35 is a global platform. The Su-57 is a national prototype.
The most important difference between the F-35 and Su-57 isn’t speed, stealth, or payload. It’s doctrine.
The F-35 is designed for coalition warfare. Its sensors feed into a collective brain, enabling distributed lethality, precision strikes, and shared battlespace awareness across countries and services. It represents not just American power, but integrated Western power.
The Su-57 is built to operate alone or in small formations, acting as a force-multiplier for Russian airspace control. Its philosophy reflects Russia’s need to act unilaterally, to deny airspace access to superior forces, and to impose costs through agility, speed, and stand-off weapons.
Verdict: The F-35 fights as part of a team. The Su-57 fights as a lone wolf.
In the air war of tomorrow, the decisive factor won’t be who can turn tighter or climb higher. It will be who sees first, decides first, and shoots first — all within a networked ecosystem of platforms, satellites, drones, and data nodes.
On that battlefield, the F-35 is already there — validated, battle-tested, and embedded in a global alliance of shared logistics, intelligence, and doctrine.
The Su-57, while ambitious and technologically impressive in specific areas, remains unfinished, underproduced, and isolated. Its strengths — agility, thrust-vectoring, and missile speed — are real. But they exist within a system that lacks scale, strategic depth, and the connective tissue of coalition warfare.
In the defining air contest of the 21st century, the F-35 isn’t just a fighter. It’s a strategy.
