"Not fit for combat": Americans try to devalue the Su-57 fighter jet

16 410 92

Russia has produced at least three dozen fifth-generation Su-57 fighter jets to date, according to a report in the American publication The National Interest. It also notes that only one country has so far expressed interest in purchasing these aircraft.

At least three dozen Su-57s have been produced to date, but Rostec and state-owned arms exporter Rosoboronexport are still seeking foreign buyers, which is why it has become a regular at international air shows. To date, the only confirmed buyer for the fifth-generation stealth fighter is Algeria.

– writes NI.



The author of the publication adds that improved The engine may help the matter, although it is not a fact.

In an era where aerial combat occurs well beyond visual range, few countries would want an aircraft that consistently impresses at air shows but is unsuitable for modern combat.

- claims the publication.

It's worth noting that this article contains several factual errors. Besides Algeria, India has also shown a genuine interest in the Russian fifth-generation fighter.

The Su-57's high combat effectiveness has already been repeatedly confirmed in the area where the Russian Federation's special military operation is being conducted.

It's no coincidence that The National Interest mentioned the improved engine. The Su-57 made its maiden flight just a few days ago. Clearly, the success of Russian designers is a major irritant to the United States, which has nothing to boast about yet.

In this regard, The National Interest's report strongly resembles an attempt to devalue Russia's fifth-generation fighter in the eyes of foreign customers. Apparently, the United States is simply trying to gain a competitive advantage in the arms market.
92 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    26 December 2025 10: 29
    It is obvious that the successes of Russian designers greatly irritate the United States, which has nothing to boast about yet

    It's a strange statement. The US introduced the F-22 25 years ago, and there are already over 1000 F-35s flying, which also took part in combat operations with those same Jews. But the claim that the Su-57 is unsuitable for combat operations is, of course, a silly lie. Obviously, there should be over 1000 Su-57s by now, but we're moving too slowly.
    1. +6
      26 December 2025 10: 58
      Well, actually, even a plywood plane is good for combat. It all depends on who's fighting whom. Well, who knows what the Su-57 would be worth in a clash with NATO? Nobody knows. But slinging mud at the competitor is always a given!
      1. 0
        29 December 2025 09: 01
        Who do you think our Su-57s are currently encountering over Khokhloreich? Which bloc?
      2. +1
        30 December 2025 17: 13
        In an era where aerial combat occurs well beyond visual range, few countries would want an aircraft that consistently impresses at air shows but is unsuitable for modern combat.

        Super maneuverability helps with missile evasion.
  2. +4
    26 December 2025 10: 54
    The enemy press is trying to prove that an aircraft against which the US has no superior or even comparable aircraft should not be used. However, they want the same thing from the Oreshnik, the S-500, the Sarmat, and many other aircraft.
  3. +4
    26 December 2025 11: 09
    Capitalism with a human face doesn't exist. In this socio-political system, the strongest survives and the weak are destroyed. So, throwing mud at a competitor is normal. All sorts of rules were invented for suckers and losers; those who are weak must abide by them.
  4. 0
    26 December 2025 12: 45
    The Americans couldn't even surpass our aging Tu-160, let alone the sophisticated Su-57. The US is far behind us in missiles, air defense, tanks, and UAVs... they're just pouting and full of arrogance.
    1. -2
      27 December 2025 16: 33
      The B-1, which the Tu-160 resembles, flew 7 years earlier and 100 aircraft were produced compared to 37 of our Tu-160s.
      Well, they released a bunch of tanks, and to no avail.
      We probably have a bunch of strategic UAVs.
      Our air defense is unparalleled, it shoots down everything, but there’s just one problem: how to deal with the debris.
      1. 0
        27 December 2025 17: 43
        Enemies of the people who want to slander the Russian people are, of course, liars.

        The Tupolev Design Bureau began work on creating a strategic intercontinental aircraft in 1969. Parallel developments were conducted by the Sukhoi Design Bureau and the Myasishchev Design Bureau. By 1972, a preliminary design for the first version of the "160" aircraft was developed and presented to the Scientific and Technical Committee of the Air Force. On June 26, 1974, the USSR Council of Ministers issued a decree instructing the Tupolev Design Bureau to develop the Tu-160 strategic multirole bomber-missile carrier with four NK-32 engines based on the adopted preliminary design.

        However, the liars, the Judas liberals, the traitors, stole the idea from the USSR and implemented it because they were incapable of coming up with it themselves.

        After Ronald Reagan came to power in 1981, and in 1980, the B-1B was created on the basis of the B-1A as a low-altitude air defense penetration aircraft (first flight - ???); it entered service with the US Air Force in 1985.

        The aircraft entered service with the US Strategic Air Command as a nuclear weapons carrier. In the 1990s, it was converted to a tactical weapons carrier.
        1. 0
          27 December 2025 19: 42
          You've really got me. Your wonderful B-1 not only began to be designed in 1981, when the TU-160 made its first successful flight, but the B-1 is not an analogue of the super-heavy and unrivaled TU-160. In reality, the B-1 is an attempt to copy the TU-22... The B-1... in terms of its capabilities and dimensions, it is an analogue of the TU-22.

          The aircraft was produced in series from 1959 to 1969 in bomber, missile-carrying, reconnaissance, and jamming variants. It was intended to replace the Tu-16 fleet. Subsequently, the Tu-22 attack variants were completely replaced by various Tu-22M series. Meanwhile, the Tu-22 reconnaissance and jamming variants continued to operate until the early 1990s.

          So you didn't manage to throw mud at great Russia, the Russians not only invented: an airplane, a helicopter, radio television, a naval mine, a mortar, castle artillery, the largest caliber cannon in history, a light bulb and an electric motor, the first satellite, the first cosmonaut, discovered one of the continents, the first submarine, and much, much more and also the S500 BE200 MI26 and TU160 to top it off
  5. 0
    26 December 2025 14: 21
    It's no coincidence that The National Interest mentioned the improved engine. The Su-57 made its maiden flight with it just a few days ago.

    By the way, nothing says anywhere whether the Su-57, with this "Product 177" engine, can cruise at speed without afterburners. And if not, then what "successes" can our designers possibly be talking about? We don't yet have a fully-fledged fifth-generation aircraft. And the author of the National Interest isn't far off the mark.
    1. +2
      26 December 2025 22: 36
      I heard the ringing, but I don't know where it is.

      1) All modern aircraft fly at cruising speed without afterburners. This is because cruising speed is the aircraft's most fuel-efficient speed, and afterburners are the least fuel-efficient flight mode.
      2) If you meant supersonic instead of cruising, the Su-57 flew supersonic without afterburners, using the old Su-35 engines. The Su-35 also flies supersonic without afterburners.
      3) By the way, the F-35 can't fly supersonic without afterburners. It can only achieve it briefly. So, the F-35 isn't 5th generation?
      1. -2
        27 December 2025 15: 34
        If you meant supersonic instead of cruising, the Su-57 flew supersonic without afterburners, using the old Su-35 engines. The Su-35 also flies supersonic without afterburners.

        Of course, this is understandable by default when we're talking about a fifth-generation fighter, for which one of the key parameters is the combat radius at non-afterburning supersonic cruise speed. There's no point in taking anyone at their word or being clever. And if the Su-57 and Su-35 already fly "on old engines at supersonic speeds without afterburners," then why did Rostec, represented by UEC, spend almost 20 years developing a new "Product 30" engine for the Su-57? Did they have nothing better to do, or were they just wasting government funds?
        And how far can the Su-57 and Su-35, powered by AL-41F1S engines, fly at supersonic speeds (maximum 1300 km/h) without afterburners, or even reach supersonic speeds without them? The F-22, with its F119-RW engine, can fly at a maximum supersonic speed of 1963 km/h without afterburners for almost 200 km. The F135 engine, based on the F119, couldn't do any worse.
        1. 0
          27 December 2025 16: 30
          When you cite the speed without afterburning at supersonic speed, you also cite the altitude at which it is achieved. At ground level, the F-22 doesn't reach 1963 km/h. When Westerners cite the speed characteristics of their aircraft, they somehow "forget" to include the altitudes at which they are achieved.
  6. +1
    26 December 2025 15: 19
    So let them devalue it on the world market, and let them do so more and more, so that all the 57s go into our army and not elsewhere! Especially when we're at war, we have so few of them, and we need them so much!
    Why are we even selling such necessary top-secret weapons abroad?!
    1. +3
      26 December 2025 16: 03
      That's true. I also don't understand the desire of cheap traders to sell everything and give the money to the bow-legged Ursula. Not only are they giving away finished products or raw materials for next to nothing (an Su-30 is cheaper than a pathetic Rafale), but they're also gifting technology to all sorts of ungrateful countries.
      1. 0
        26 December 2025 22: 58
        This is what's being given to enemies secondhand—pardon the pun—"sold to trusted partners." Top-secret technologies are what kills the most! Technologies created by the people with blood and sweat, and it's incredibly infuriating! This is truly sabotage and betrayal!
        Even if they sell the S-400 and SU-57 in a stripped-down version, we don't know just how "stripped-down" the sturgeon is!
  7. +3
    26 December 2025 15: 58
    I don't understand the disdain for the MiG-35 from officials. Entire factories that produced the MiG-29 are idle, losing their skills. Breaking is easier than building. And the plane itself is excellent, better value for money than the Su-35S.
    1. +1
      26 December 2025 23: 07
      Because these officials are essentially not ours, not for Russia and Russians. Let's hope that a true comrade of the Russians (no sarcasm) Kim Jong-un will save the MIG! Thanks to the North Koreans for their real help in the war against the capitalists.
      And maybe the Iranian Ayatollah, whatever his name is, will also help save the MiG. These planes of ours will be like manna from heaven to them, since "ours" don't need them!
    2. 0
      27 December 2025 16: 36
      The MiG-29's performance data for range and endurance are inferior to the Su-35's, but otherwise it's a good aircraft. It seems to have sparked interest in North Korea. And there are apparently other customers, but they're not publicizing it yet. So the aircraft factories aren't idle; they're also producing UAVs for the Air Defense Forces.
  8. 0
    26 December 2025 16: 15
    It's no coincidence that The National Interest mentioned the improved engine. The Su-57 made its maiden flight just a few days ago. Clearly, the success of Russian designers is greatly irritating the US. which we have nothing to boast about yet.

    "Analytics" in all its glory! lol
  9. -1
    26 December 2025 16: 17
    Quote: kriten
    The enemy press is trying to prove that an aircraft against which the US has no superior or even comparable aircraft should not be used. However, they want the same thing from the Oreshnik, the S-500, the Sarmat, and many other aircraft.

    Quote: vladimir1155
    The Americans couldn't even surpass our aging Tu-160, let alone the sophisticated Su-57. The US is far behind us in missiles, air defense, tanks, and UAVs... they're just pouting and full of arrogance.

    Two Vladimirs, you could sing your propaganda songs as a duet! lol
    1. -2
      27 December 2025 19: 47
      And you could spread lies, like the Americans who supposedly were on the moon, and like the British who supposedly discovered Stonehenge (but didn't build it out of concrete)... liars, they are liars, and that's it.
      1. -2
        28 December 2025 13: 20
        What crystal clear, unadulterated, ignorant conspiracy nonsense...
        I recognize ̶br̶a̶t̶a̶ ̶K̶o̶lya̶ as a true spiritual "patriot"! lol
        1. -1
          28 December 2025 22: 30
          You are simply naive and in your blind admiration for the West you are ready to do anything... go away to your desired passion... why do you live in Russia and hate it?

          https://www.drive2.ru/b/491192527131508963/

          https://rutube.ru/video/977c52d9687515d06e86910e14404711/
          1. -1
            29 December 2025 19: 46
            I don't know how to describe your state of mind, but judging by these links, is it either childish naivety combined with illiteracy in perceiving conspiracy theorists' gurus, or "simply" a love of all sorts of information dumps based on pseudo-patriotism?!
            Even you, Volodya, can learn about Stonehenge:
            https://diletant.media/articles/45248894/
            https://moluch.ru/archive/555/122157
            I don't really want to write about the astronauts' flights to the Moon, but I'll ask anyway: do you consider Soviet and Russian cosmonauts, as well as the Soviet and Russian leadership, to be involved in the American "scam"?
            1. -1
              29 December 2025 22: 00
              You are naive, and your life is boring. Tell me, why are you and people like you so sure that America is the best??? The links I provided cite obvious facts that you are incapable of objectively understanding because your prejudices prevent you from thinking freely. Read Chekhov's story "The Man in the Case." You're probably still convinced that the skyscrapers in New York on September 11th weren't deliberately demolished by nuclear charges placed under them. Are you really so naive that you think that steel columns encased in concrete, several meters thick, destroyed aluminum planes less than 4 mm thick?? Led by Al-Qaeda terrorists. How naive!!
              1. -1
                30 December 2025 13: 03
                Volodya, no offense, but after reading your latest "masterpiece," I felt a growing sense that you're wilfully violating the regimen prescribed to you by a specialist... sad
                p.s. It's better to end the dialogue!
                1. -1
                  30 December 2025 13: 12
                  It is obvious that your prejudices do not allow you to think freely... and you helplessly and flawedly resort to insults, because you are not capable of objecting on the merits



                  https://yandex.ru/video/preview/15075308666662535591

                  https://dzen.ru/a/YT3lOSSoFBkuUfqj
  10. 0
    26 December 2025 19: 04
    Well, I won't argue with anyone here, but I'll remind you that the two-fingered Erdogan is ready to bring back the S-400s so he can rejoin the F-35 program, of which there are already thousands, and there are those who want to buy them. They've seen combat, but they haven't faced off in real combat with even our Su-30 or Su-35, or better yet, the Su-57.
    1. +1
      28 December 2025 20: 22
      It's not Erdogan who wants to bring it back, but the British-controlled source where this nonsense was published. And Erdogan doesn't want to buy the F-35. He's already bought several, but the Americans, demanding that he get rid of the S400, won't hand over the planes or the money. So he's now considering a European alternative, the Eurofighter. Negotiations are apparently underway. They won't return the F-35 to production; its place has apparently already been taken by the Greeks or Italians.
  11. 0
    26 December 2025 21: 30
    video how Americans They bombed their enemies in droves. Where is the Russian air force operating now? Is it covering the Black Sea Fleet?
    1. +1
      26 December 2025 21: 52
      Quote: kovaleff
      A video of Americans bombing their enemies in droves. Where is Russian aviation operating now?

      It is necessary to clarify where the Americans are bombing areas without air defense.
      There are plenty of videos of Russian aviation, where they also bomb, with glide bombs, at the front, where the air defense density is higher than anywhere else in the world...
      1. +3
        26 December 2025 22: 21
        Are military aircraft designed to operate in air defense zones?
        P.S. Do they also fly against the wind?
      2. -1
        26 December 2025 23: 17
        Moreover, I’ll add to this: there’s a video from the crests showing Russian Su-57s flying in formation over the outskirts!
      3. -1
        27 December 2025 09: 49
        And Iran is no longer considered an "air defense" region?! wink
        1. 0
          27 December 2025 13: 27
          Quote from Vox Populi
          And Iran doesn't count anymore

          They arrived in Iran only after the Jews had destroyed all the air defenses...
          1. -2
            28 December 2025 13: 04
            Could you please clarify how and in what sequence this happened? winked
        2. -1
          28 December 2025 14: 49
          And when was it considered an "air defense region"? You're taking credit for something you had nothing to do with. Iran didn't even have a proper air defense system. Russia offered to create one, but the Persians refused, to their own detriment.
          1. -1
            28 December 2025 14: 51
            Citizen! Keep your alternate reality to yourself... lol
            1. 0
              28 December 2025 14: 56
              The reality is that Jews can only fight against technologically backward countries, and even then, with the help of the United States.
              1. -1
                28 December 2025 15: 08
                This begs a rather unpleasant counter-question, but I don’t see the point in asking it! wink
                1. 0
                  28 December 2025 15: 21
                  I agree, you apparently only have a head for eating, so there is absolutely no point in your comments. bully
                  1. -1
                    29 December 2025 19: 17
                    Are you writing this as a person with a TV instead of a head or within the framework of the "technical assignment"?! lol
        3. -1
          28 December 2025 20: 25
          Before bombing Iran, the Jews did everything they could to ensure there was no Iranian air defense in the area where the Americans would bomb Iran. And it took two weeks. And look at the results of the bombing. They really upset Trump.
          1. 0
            29 December 2025 19: 21
            It's always "interesting" to read notes from an alternative history (reality)... lol
    2. 0
      27 December 2025 19: 48
      On Rutube, Dmitry Vasilets posts a lot of videos of our FABs destroying the enemy from airplanes.
  12. 0
    26 December 2025 22: 39
    Ah, The National Interest Pushkova, you can ignore the small site...
  13. 0
    27 December 2025 07: 49
    First, the Indians pulled out of the joint project. Now the Americans are trying to expose their competitor. They really dislike and fear competition. And the Indians want to buy the SU-57 again. But now it will be much more expensive for them. As the saying goes, don't spit in the well.
    1. 0
      28 December 2025 01: 43
      Nothing's more valuable, where did you get that idea? "Our guys" are even planning to give them production and secret technologies!
  14. +3
    27 December 2025 08: 40
    Envy is a bad thing.
    As the saying goes, "There are always more fish in someone else's boat."
  15. -1
    27 December 2025 08: 52
    Why this article? Nothing is said about the original engine, only the improved one. How should this be understood? Besides, this aircraft doesn't see the battlefield, unlike the F-35, which sees everything and hits everything. It's possible to be offended, of course, but it's not so childish.
    1. +2
      27 December 2025 09: 54
      Quote: Alexpan
      who sees everything and strikes everything.

      It not only sees, but also guides all aircraft participating in combat with it to their targets, and also maintains communication with all types of troops and transmits to them the coordinates of targets for destruction.
    2. +1
      27 December 2025 16: 49
      The Americans themselves have admitted the F-35 is a poor aircraft. What it "sees" is a product of advertising. After purchasing the F-35, the Jews redesigned all its electronic equipment, installing their own. The US Congress, two years ago, was considering the aircraft's reliability. Today, it has up to 800 vulnerabilities, up to 100 of which are critical, and they still haven't been fixed. And they only fight using long-range missiles. They perform poorly at medium and short ranges and in air combat. And there's no data on their maneuverability anywhere. They can't be used from the ground. It's a very expensive (golden) hour of operation and takes a considerable amount of time to prepare for a repeat mission. And there's also the problem of invisibility due to the paint layer on the outer surface being damaged by both external weather conditions and the skin heating in flight—the paint simply peels off.
      As for their sales, "If they don't buy it, we'll turn off the gas." Keep in mind that the governments of the countries where the Americans push their technology are in charge of their "poodles."
      So before you praise Americans, you should learn more about what you're praising. And yes, advertising is the engine of commerce.
      1. 0
        28 December 2025 01: 21
        I don't praise the Americans for ideological reasons, but... not being a military expert and following various sources I don't distrust, I still want to point out that Russian military equipment is not of the same generation as American. Air duels between the F-35 and the Su-57 are not suited to modern warfare. The weakest link in the Russian economy is electronics and its integration into systems, both military (!) and civilian. We are at least 30 years behind the times.
        1. -1
          28 December 2025 01: 58
          Where were those Su-57 vs. F-35 aerial duels?! That's very interesting to know! Especially interesting are those "duels" that ultimately "don't correspond to modern warfare conditions"!
          Couldn't the F-35 have fought, in your opinion, with our Su-57 when it shot down the Chinese balloon?
        2. +2
          28 December 2025 11: 12
          Our MiGs were once criticized. Poor electronics, poor radar sight—you probably remember this from the press.
          After the unification of Germany, the Americans coaxed a couple of MiGs from the Germans and transferred them to one of their testing grounds for testing. Well, the radar sight (so to speak, poor electronics) surpassed the detection range of their sight on the latest modification of the F-16 at that time (some kind of unit). And our aircraft was reaching missile launch range at the moment the F-16 was just beginning to detect our aircraft with its radar. Otherwise, all the electronic equipment functionally met the modern conditions of the time and was quite sufficient for piloting in various conditions and conducting combat operations. And the aerobatic qualities of our fighters also surpassed the American ones; the Americans, with their aircraft, lost to the Americans and Germans (who were also involved in testing, pilots) who "fought" on ours. Incidentally, in terms of takeoff and landing conditions, our aircraft also surpassed the Americans. Operation was cheaper and easier; ours could take off from the ground, which the Americans could not. At that time, the Americans did not publish the test results, but now you can easily find them.
          Today, the Su-35 also has a radar that outperforms American counterparts in range. And considering that it also has long-range air-to-air missiles, we're still winning. They're playing catch-up right now.
          So, there's no point in criticizing, or rather, underestimating, our developers, including those in the electronic warfare industry. As for quantity, it's planned based on the needs and capabilities of the industry. We've had to significantly restructure and modernize, and even completely rebuild, many of our aircraft in the aviation industry, which also limited the production of certain aircraft. But it seems these problems are gradually fading, and aircraft production across all categories, using our own domestic base and developments, is starting to increase. So, we'll fully saturate the aviation industry with our own aircraft in a few years.
  16. -1
    27 December 2025 09: 24
    It's no coincidence that The National Interest mentioned the improved engine. The Su-57 made its maiden flight just a few days ago. Clearly, the success of Russian designers is a major irritant to the United States, which has nothing to boast about yet.

    - Don't be fooled by the Americans' empty rhetoric. Deep down in their depraved souls, they harbor great envy - someone has built a better fighter than their F-35, they simply have nothing to say.
    1. -2
      27 December 2025 10: 28
      Quote from: lord-pallador-11045
      they just have nothing to say.

      You are right, there is nothing to talk about.
      The F-35 has been in development since 1995, with its first flight in 2001. To date, 1126 aircraft have been produced, 20 countries have acquired them, and there is a queue of more to acquire them until 2030. The F-35 has participated in combat operations at a distance of 1800-2300 km from its base.
      The Su-57 has been in development since 2002, with its first flight in 2010. To date, 32 aircraft have been produced, 10 of which are prototypes, and one country has acquired them. It is believed to have participated in the Air Defense Forces from its territory.
      1. 0
        27 December 2025 13: 30
        Quote: vitgusin
        32 have been released to date

        So this information is classified... Are we just wasting our time?
        1. 0
          27 December 2025 16: 01
          Quote: sannyhome
          So this information is classified.

          If you weren't informed, that doesn't mean it's classified. Specifications, but not quantities, may be classified until a certain time.
          1. 0
            27 December 2025 16: 11
            Quote: vitgusin
            but not quantity.

            Well then, share where you got this information))
            1. -1
              27 December 2025 16: 27
              Quote: sannyhome
              Well then, share where you got this information.

              The source prohibits providing a link without permission.

              Some thirty two have been built.
              Ten have been used a test aircraft
              Twenty two are available for service
              Early flight tests revealed that the initial T-50 design had problems with structural strength and fatigue; when the first two prototypes were showcased publicly in MAKS-2011, the airframes cracked despite flying with a restrictive 5–g limit, which necessitated grounding and structural reinforcing for over a year as well as a “second stage” structural redesign.
              The first fully operational Su-57 regiment of 24 aircraft is expected to be equipped by 2025.
              Several countries have expressed interest when the Su-57 is in full production.

              Google translator to help.
              1. +1
                27 December 2025 16: 47
                Quote: vitgusin
                The source prohibits providing a link without permission.

                You can insert any link using spaces or periods, but it's already clear that your source is Western media, which are happy to fantasize about any topic... Which is to be expected....
                1. +1
                  27 December 2025 16: 52
                  Quote: sannyhome
                  that your source is Western media,

                  Unfortunately for you, there are Russian media and everyone else.
                  1. 0
                    28 December 2025 20: 44
                    Some Russian media outlets source data from Western sources for one reason: there's nowhere else to get it. So all the "advertising"—the engine of sales—of their technology data flows to us. Only much later do we learn what's real and what's not, or simply lies. And the Western press (except for certain specialist sources) tries to keep quiet about various shortcomings and blunders after delivery to the troops, as well as about the actual results during combat operations.
                    Take Yugoslavia as an example. They claimed to have carried out that campaign with virtually no air losses. But the result: the Yugoslavs shot down up to 106 (108) Western coalition aircraft and helicopters. Of those, a couple were F-117s. They acknowledged the one that crashed within Yugoslavia, but they're still hiding the second, which crashed outside its borders. And then there's the Abrams, the best tank in Ukraine, and other German Leopard cats and other equipment. You can read the reviews of Ukrainians who actually flew them in combat, as well as many other weapons that didn't perform as advertised.
                    1. 0
                      29 December 2025 19: 23
                      What a spreading noodle, just a sight to behold! wink
          2. 0
            28 December 2025 02: 03
            Now, even the quantities supplied to the troops are a secret. And it's no secret to anyone.
            And it’s not just about airplanes that are kept secret, but also about tanks, missiles, and, in fact, everything else!
            1. -2
              28 December 2025 20: 54
              It's no secret. The first batch of 36 aircraft with first-stage engines is a small series. By the end of 2025, the Russian Aerospace Forces should have at least 42-44 aircraft. Some aircraft will already have flat-nozzle engines. Deliveries are currently being finalized. Two have already been delivered to Algeria.
              Units produced, 52 (including prototypes) by 2025
              1. 0
                28 December 2025 22: 18
                I'd like to see that much, and even more, but where did this data come from? Could it really be from the Air Force Minister himself?
      2. +1
        27 December 2025 14: 11
        You are right, there is nothing to talk about.
        The F-35 has been in development since 1995, with its first flight in 2001. To date, 1126 aircraft have been produced, 20 countries have acquired them, and there is a queue of more to acquire them until 2030. The F-35 has participated in combat operations at a distance of 1800-2300 km from its base.
        The Su-57 has been in development since 2002, with its first flight in 2010. To date, 32 aircraft have been produced, 10 of which are prototypes, and one country has acquired them. It is believed to have participated in the Air Defense Forces from its territory.

        - and this only says that the Americans know how to sell any junk to anyone - they are profiteers, but they take quantity, and Russia takes quality - this may not be clear only to you.
        1. +1
          27 December 2025 15: 56
          Quote from: lord-pallador-11045
          this may not be clear just for you.

          There's competition on the international market, and people buy what's been battle-tested, not what's been hyped. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, the UAE, and Turkey want to buy, but they've encountered obstacles due to US policy. Other countries are undecided and are considering European alternatives.
          1. 0
            27 December 2025 16: 18
            There's competition on the international market, and people buy what's been battle-tested, not what's been hyped. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, the UAE, and Turkey want to buy, but they've encountered obstacles due to US policy. Other countries are undecided and are considering European alternatives.

            - Well, let these countries continue to consider alternatives. It's just surprising that pilots from Western micro-powers are afraid to engage in even training combat with our pilots, or are our pilots maneuvering "too dangerously" in the sky? - that's what combat is for!
            1. 0
              27 December 2025 16: 35
              Quote from: lord-pallador-11045
              Are our pilots maneuvering "too dangerously" in the sky?

              Wake up. The first quarter of the 21st century is over, and no one maneuvers anymore; they destroy enemy aircraft at a range of 100-200 km, when they don't even know where they came from. And competent pilots are retreating from provocation.
              1. 0
                27 December 2025 16: 56
                Wake up. The first quarter of the 21st century is over, and no one maneuvers anymore; they destroy enemy aircraft at a range of 100-200 km, when they don't even know where they came from. And competent pilots are retreating from provocation.

                - Are you making a statement or justifying yourself? - If the latter, then it's forgivable, but if the former, then why are the Americans (along with you) so envious of Russia? - Because the US doesn't have such a fighter!
              2. 0
                28 December 2025 21: 09
                Our fighters, maneuvering and performing anti-missile maneuvers or using other counter-missile means, easily evade attacks from long-range missiles. And then, upon approaching, the enemy will simply engage in close combat or be forced to flee without completing its combat mission. So, missiles aren't everything. In close combat, the more maneuverable aircraft will win. An experienced pilot in our fighters, with superior maneuverability compared to the enemy, will simply prevent you from using either short-range missiles or the onboard cannon while maneuvering. Furthermore, Western aircraft have worse G-force characteristics for missiles. Under the influence of such forces, they can simply fall off their pylons. Therefore, knowing this, Western pilots are instructed to avoid close combat with our fighters whenever possible.
            2. 0
              27 December 2025 17: 07
              Our fighters lost almost all of the training battles they conducted against the Americans. They even lost to the Indians when they participated in training battles using our aircraft. The Indian MiG-21 Bison outperformed the American F-15 and F-16. Bulgarian and German MiG-29s effectively outperformed US aircraft in all exercises. For this reason, the Americans generally did not allow this to be published in the press. Information about this can be easily found online, but it did make it there.
              1. 0
                27 December 2025 19: 45
                Quote: svoroponov
                The Indian MiG 21 Bison outperformed the American F-15 and F-16.

                1970, Suez Canal. Operation Rimon 20. The battle lasted six minutes, during which four Soviet MiG-21 aircraft were shot down. Three pilots were killed in action.
                On August 1, 1970, Marshal Pavel Kutakhov, commander of the Soviet Air Force, arrived in Cairo. He ordered an investigation into the circumstances of the armed clash with the enemy. On August 2, he ordered the cessation of Soviet flights in the Suez Canal zone. The Marshal forbade his pilots from engaging Israeli fighters.
                1. -1
                  28 December 2025 12: 36
                  The marshal forbade his pilots to engage Israeli fighters.

                  Are you really afraid of the formidable Israeli Air Force? laughing Yes, the USSR could have swatted Israel like a fly if it wanted, but the reasons were different, most likely purely political. Perhaps some Jewish bigwig paid a tidy sum to the Soviet party elite to prevent this from happening. Jews are a nation of traders, not warriors. The American F-35 isn't a fighter, but more like a flying computer, while the Russian ones are simple and reliable, like jackhammers, and cheaper, too. Never mind the MiG-21s; they're a generation behind the F-16 or F-15, after all. But it's worth noting that Israel and the US have never even dealt with the aging Su-27, which remains dangerous enough for any Western fighter. And for dessert, there was an article in the Jewish media recently that the S-500 can see the F35 perfectly well. You just have to laugh at how much money the Americans spent on its creation, and still haven’t created anything more or less combat-ready. Just compare how many air victories the F35 has and how many our Su-35 has in the North-Eastern Military District. If you judge objectively, the result is not in favor of the former.
                  1. 0
                    28 December 2025 13: 09
                    The reasons here are different, most likely purely political. Perhaps some Jewish fat cat paid a tidy sum to the Union's party leadership to prevent this from happening.

                    This is pure (and very stupid) conspiracy nonsense, just like the rest of your comment! wassat
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. The comment was deleted.
                      5. The comment was deleted.
                  2. +1
                    28 December 2025 22: 08
                    There was an article in the Jewish media recently that the S-500 can see the F35 perfectly well.

                    What about the S-500? Even I often see the 35s without radar. I think seeing them and shooting them down are two very different things.
                    1. -1
                      29 December 2025 05: 52
                      One of the Ukrainian F-16s was shot down over Donbas by an S-400; the coordinates were obtained from an SU-35. How is the F-35 different from the F-16 if it is detected?
                      1. +1
                        29 December 2025 08: 30
                        1.Who will see whom first.
                        2. It is not the radar of the system that should see, but the seeker head.
                        3. It is not the planes (not just the plane itself) that need to be compared, but the systems in which it is included.
                      2. 0
                        29 December 2025 09: 19
                        Why do you think the S-500's seeker won't detect the F35, or that any tests have already been conducted? You can fire three or four missiles at once; one will miss, and another will hit. Besides, seekers come in different types (laser, thermal, optical), so is the F35 immune to all types? Doubtful.
                      3. 0
                        29 December 2025 09: 34
                        The aircraft will detect the threat before the system locks on it. It simply won't enter the kill zone. The seeker's capabilities are limited by its power, which is orders of magnitude lower than that of fixed-wing systems. Learn about the difference between active and passive radar operation and why systems like the S-300 (and others) need to protect toruses, etc.
                        The confrontation between air defense and aviation is determined by the level of information they can gather while remaining undetected. It's important to understand the difference: the system's radar sees it, and the seeker sees it.
                        There are no ideal systems; much is determined by the technological level and application tactics.
                        The F-35 is a great aircraft, and the Su-57 will probably become one too, but by that time the 6th generation will have appeared.
                  3. +1
                    28 December 2025 22: 23
                    Quote: Stanislav Bykov
                    How many air victories does the F35 have, and how many does our Su-35 have in the SVO, if we judge objectively, the result is not in favor first

                    1. Your question is not relevant. All aircraft victories are aerial, and all battles between aircraft, in your understanding, remain in the 20th century. Aircraft detect the enemy at a distance of 200-400 km and destroy them at a distance of 100-200 km.
                    2. You mixed up the numbers.
                    Over the course of twelve days, Israeli aircraft carried out more than 1400 sorties against Iranian nuclear and military facilities, covering distances of 1700-2300 km each way, including F-35Is without refueling. The average number of flight hours per one Israeli F-35 numbers increased from 440 to 2250, reflecting the intense pace and critical role of these modern fighters. Each flight was led by an F-35. No Israeli F-15 or F-16 aircraft entered Iranian airspace without permission from the F-35. The aircraft could instantly transmit sensor data to other Israeli fighters, which used the F-35's radars for synchronized attacks.
                    This meant that the F-16 and F-15I could engage targets detected by the F-35 without the need to activate own radars these aircraft, which was a critical advantage when operating in airspace with advanced air defense systems. S-300 Bavar-373 Khordad-15/12 and others.
                    The F-35's ability to simultaneously serve as a strike platform, electronic warfare platform, intelligence gathering system, and command and control platform has created operational capabilities that did not exist before. предыдущих generations of aircraft.
                    Constant training and combat experience are crucial. Israel's eight years of combat operations with the F-35, accumulated over thousands of sorties in various conflicts, have created knowledge and tactical innovations that cannot be replicated by conventional aircraft. standard training exercises. The Israeli Air Force's ability to quickly update its electronic warfare systems based on the latest combat lessons gives it a decisive advantage.
                    I hope you realize it's too early to write about first place. "No matter how much you shout halva..."
                2. 0
                  28 December 2025 21: 17
                  Are you familiar with the combat conditions of that time? Well, practically all of our aircraft were shot down by ambush missiles, and the Israelis received information from a French AWACS aircraft, meaning they were simply directed at ours. There were no aerial battles. If missile attacks failed, the Israelis tried to avoid combat. In response, our forces deployed air defense systems with our crews there and evened out the odds. In the process, they shot down a famous Israeli ace. True, several of our crews were killed, too. But war is war. So the example is irrelevant.
                  The regiment's chief navigator, who was fighting there at the time, told me a lot. And my grandmother's student actually became a hero of Egypt. He was an air defense specialist.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. +1
                      28 December 2025 23: 05
                      Quote: svoroponov
                      There is an article about what really happened there and how both sides hid their losses. By the way, Israel is still engaged in this lie.

                      You can write whatever you want.
                      Let's go over the facts.
                      1948 Seven countries attack Israel and are defeated.
                      In 1967, in six days, Syria and Egypt were defeated with the full support of the USSR.
                      1973 Syria, Iraq, Egypt were defeated with the support of the USSR.
                      1982 Syria and Lebanon suffered defeats with the support of the USSR.
                      In 12 days, Iran lost 80% of its air defense and 50% of its missile forces.
                      Please don't write about who's to blame and who's not. These are just the facts.
                  2. 0
                    28 December 2025 21: 47
                    Sorry. It's not about fights, but about the fight you brought up. I'll add the rest.
                  3. +1
                    28 December 2025 22: 53
                    Quote: svoroponov
                    The chief navigator of the regiment, who was fighting there at the time, told me a lot of things.

                    It's clear that everyone took part, it's clear that everyone is telling it as they saw it and as they want.
                    This is an electronic encyclopedia "Secret Wars of the Soviet Union"
                    If you're interested, read on. You'll learn a lot about things no one else wanted to tell you.
                    I wrote only one episode, how Israel finds an antidote.
                    The MiG-21 was the finest aircraft in the world at the time, unmatched in speed and altitude, and all the world's air forces couldn't destroy it. But Israel did what no one else could.
      3. -1
        28 December 2025 11: 28
        Before joining the Air Defense Forces, he participated in the Syrian operation. During the Air Defense Forces reconnaissance missions, he flew as far as Kyiv.
        Incidentally, during the flight to Syria, a pair of Su-57s were forced to fly over or near American bases (Iraq-Syria). The Americans didn't "see" them, as their air defenses were covering the bases, and the appearance of these aircraft at an airfield in Syria was a surprise to them. They assumed the Turks had allowed these aircraft to pass through their airspace and that there had been a showdown between the troops there. This is about the visibility of our fighters.
        1. 0
          28 December 2025 22: 04
          So they turned on the Khibiny and all the screens of the Americans and Israelis went dark...