Just NATO countries, Japan, South Korea and Israel have the best fighter plane in the US army, the F-35. The aircraft, which has advanced sensors and electronics, is described as a multirole system that can be used to perform strike missions and obtain air superiority. It is competing in India against Russia’s 5th-generation stealth-like flight, the Su-57.
The Su-57 and F-35 are competing with one another to meet India’s needed for a sizable number of new jets, but they are actually quite diverse.
The F-35 is optimized for secrecy, although it falls short of the cunning protection of its great brother, the F-22. Congress decided decades ago that the , F-22 could not be exported,  , leaving the Chinese in the lurch as they sought the warrior to ward off China. Compared to the F-35, the F-22 is a heavier plane with two motors, greater selection and supercruise.
Supercruise is defined as an plane’s ability to fly at supersonic speed without exhaust. In reality, fast speeds does need much more energy on any platform without supercruise, which is true. An airplane without a supercruise will typically take longer to reach its intended destination and gain, been restricted to more distant targets, or need air-to-air refueling.
Russia’s Su-57 is more like the F-22 than the F-35. It has superior supercruise, improved technology, and improved run and variety than the F-35.
India has been inclining toward its own-built warrior jets, but domestic demand will need to be met for a while before it can. Even so, India will have to buy crucial elements or collaborate with foreign companies to produce them.
It’s probably fair to say that the cameras and electronics in the F-35 are more superior than those in the Su-57. The “black boxes” in the F-35, including even the built-in shipping structure that connects to Lockheed for extra parts and technology changes, are kept safe by Lockheed Martin, the US defence company that builds the aircraft.
Customers of the F-35 must, therefore, depend on Lockheed. Israel was the only nation to require greater freedom from Lockheed dependent. Obviously, Lockheed and the US Defense Department viewed the Jewish demand as reasonable, primarily because Israel can repair and enhance its F-35 systems and procedures.
It is also the only state that has used the F-35 in battle, over Syria, Lebanon and probably Yemen and Iran. However, Israel needs the , full F-35 provide chain , for extra parts and it almost lost entry to some of that during the Gaza battle.
Russia, on the other hand, has been a dependable vendor to India without any noticeable breaks. Generally, India has required considerable co-production rights where there is a foreign sales of security hardware.
The Russians do not oppose that at all, largely because they value the social connection as much as the business opportunities, and partly because the Russian aerospace industry is stretched.
It is unlikely that Lockheed will want to co-create a lot of content for India. In the end, this might undermine any potential arrangement for the flight.
Both the F-35 and the Su-57 were together for the first day on display in India. The Russians put on a stunning show of the Su-57, the F-35 was only on static show.
Had the F-35 flown a presentation, it would have been superior to the Su-57. That is because the layout philosophy behind these aircraft is unique.
The F-35 is tailored for secrecy. The surfaces on the aircraft’s skin have coatings and design features to deflect radar ( specifically , X-band radar,  , which is the primary type of military radar ), the aircraft requires computers to keep it aloft and its design is not great for platform maneuverability.
As a battle system, the F-35 is designed for conflict activities, meaning that it can fire a weapon for 50 miles or more before the army can find it, or so the US Air Force claims. Similar disagreement weapons, such as smart weapons and cruise missiles, would also be launched hundreds of miles away from the target for battle ground support.
The Su-57 is designed to serve as a dogfighting aircraft, much like the venerable A-10 or the aging Russian Su-25, despite the Russians ‘ trend of going in the same direction.
The F-35 is equipped with a gun system, although it was not in the original plan. Having the gun is largely pointless. In a dogfight, the F-35 would have difficulty against a more agile opponent, and the Su-57 and Su-35 qualify as very agile indeed.
The US Air Force reportedly kept it in, claiming that the F-35’s presence was equivalent to the powerful 30mm A-10, despite the various reports about the F-35. Despite making a significant contribution to US warfighters in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, the Air Force is determined to liquidate the A-10.
In fact, the US Air Force is dominated by its desire for “low observable” technology, the Air Force terminology for stealth.
Never have the Russians been as persuaded of the value of stealth technology as they have in the US. Some say that is because they lack stealth technology, which is highly classified by the US Pentagon. But stealth technology also creates design problems, thus the F-35 while allegedly multirole, cannot dogfight and can’t really provide close ground support for troops.
Take note: when firing from far away, the target may move before the weapon arrives. Artificial intelligence might be able to reduce some of this constraint, but a wise enemy will quickly learn to dodge bullets.
Keeping the super-secret surface coatings of stealth planes in repair is a major task, requires specialized equipment and security-cleared personnel, special dust-free enclosures and considerable training and supervision.
Under peaceful conditions, this adds a lot of cost, but is doable. In combat circumstances, stealth coatings are likely to degrade and combat teams may be hard-pressed to clean them up for operations. Even older combat aircraft consider a degraded stealth plane to be a sitting duck.
The Russians also have focused on two other components: strong air defenses, including mobile air defenses, and on advanced ways to detect stealth threats.
So they are deploying new ground sensor designs that can be used in both the VHF and UHF frequency ranges. L Band transmitter-receivers that can pick up US and other stealth fighters that are designed for X Band are also included in their more recent jets.
L Band is good enough to generally locate a threat, but it lacks the accuracy of X Band or anywhere near it. With modern computers, L Band sensors may have already evolved or can be teamed with ground radars and sensors, taking away some of stealth’s advantages.
For India, the two main threats are Pakistan and China. Pakistan’s Air Force is a mashup of old French Mirage fighters, Chinese fighters and around 75 F-16s. China has stealth aircraft with the J-20 operational and the J-36 under development.
The Chinese complain a lot about India buying either Russian or perhaps American weapons, but they don’t complain much about it.
The challenge for India is the cost of the F-35 compared to the Su-57, the very high demand for effective maintenance and training, and various problems the F-35 encounters operationally, especially aircraft availability.
Today ( and optimistically ), the F-35’s availability is around 51 % for the US Air Force. Because India’s aerospace industry is less developed, it almost certainly would be lower. Because India would purchase approximately 100 aircraft, it could never hope to field more than half of them, probably less.
Although there are so few Su-57s operating today, it is likely that the availability figures for the Su-57 will be significantly better than the F-35 in India. This is just guesswork as to how things will ultimately turn out.
It is obvious that keeping the Su-57 will be easier and less expensive than keeping it, especially if it is co-produced in India.
India wants to have stronger ties to the US and have more access to US technology. Additionally, there are thousands of Indian engineers and technicians who want to work and train in the United States, as well as investments by Indian high-tech US companies.
Given that it could be cheaper to invest billions of rupees in the F-35, India is questioned about its willingness to do so.
Stephen Bryen is a former US deputy undersecretary of defense for policy and a special correspondent for Asia Times. This , article, which originally appeared on his Substack newsletter , Weapons and Strategy, is republished with permission.