A comparison between the latest Russian and American combat aircraft

 

 

Table of Contents

 

 Introduction

 

 Background on Russian and American combat aircraft

 

 Russian combat aircraft

 Key models and capabilities

 

 American combat aircraft

 Key models and capabilities

 

 Direct comparison of latest models

 

 Speed and maneuverability

 Armaments

 Avionics and sensors

 Stealth capabilities

 

 Analysis of strengths and weaknesses

 

 Russian aircraft strengths

 American aircraft strengths

 Russian aircraft weaknesses

 American aircraft weaknesses

 

 What recent combat reveals

 

 Performance in Ukraine

 Implications for future development

 

 Conclusion

 

 Summary of key differences

 Questions remaining

           

 FAQs

 

 A comparison between the latest Russian and American combat aircraft

 

Introduction

 

The aviation industry continues to push the boundaries of what is technologically possible. Both Russia and the United States have developed incredibly advanced combat aircraft over the years that incorporate the latest innovations. But how do the two countries' newest fighters compare? Let's take a detailed look.

 

Background on Russian and American combat aircraft

 

Before comparing the latest models, we need some context on the development of Russian and American combat aircraft more broadly. Understanding past models sets the stage for appreciating the most cutting-edge jets.

 

 Russian combat aircraft

 

For decades, Russian combat aircraft have prioritized speed, maneuverability and rugged reliability - critical factors for surviving within visual range combat.

 

Key models demonstrate this priority:

 

- MiG-29 - One of Russia's most successful postwar fighters, emphasizing dogfighting capability. Armed with cutting-edge missiles and autocannon, it remains lethal today.

 

- Su-27 - With superb aerodynamics and thrust, it can match Western fighters in both speed and maneuverability. Variants like the Su-35 retain these characteristics using modern avionics.

 

- MiG-31 - Built for intercepting high and fast targets with powerful radars and long-range missiles. Its top speed of Mach 2.83 outpaces most aircraft even today.

 

While not always on the leading-edge of stealth or sensors, Russian manufacturers compensate via specialized designs optimized for air combat and ground attack.

 

 American combat aircraft

 

Meanwhile, American development has focused more heavily on technologies enabling standoff engagement:

 

- F-15 - Built as an air superiority fighter with advanced radar, enabling beyond visual range missile shots. Models remain very capable today with upgrades. 

 

- F/A-18 - As a multirole fighter, it balances air-to-air and air-to-ground abilities. Reliable and easily maintained, it forms a workhorse across missions.

 

- F-22 - Incorporating extensive stealth and sensor fusion technologies, it achieves unmatched situational awareness and lethality. Despite small numbers, it defines air dominance today.

 

American aircraft sport excellent sensors, networking, and stealth - but with less emphasis on short-range dogfighting compared to Russian counterparts.

 

Direct comparison of latest models

 

With the context above, we can better evaluate Russia and America's newest combat aircraft by directly comparing capabilities. Russia's latest fighters include the Su-57 and MiG-35, while America's include the F-35 and F-22.

 

 Speed and maneuverability

 

In these areas, the latest Russian aircraft retain a traditional focus, while American ones shift priorities:

 

- The Su-57 sports 3D thrust vectoring and superb aerodynamics for extreme agility helpful in close combat. However, its top speed remains in the high Mach 1 range rather than exceeding Mach 2. 

 

- The MiG-35 has excellent thrust-to-weight and nimble handling, being derived from earlier lightweight fighters. It can pull high G maneuvers and operate from unpaved runways.

 

- The F-35, while reasonably agile, makes maneuvers at slower speeds compared to Russian aircraft. Speed-wise, it reaches about Mach 1.6 - fast but not blindingly so.

 

- The F-22 prioritizes stealth over agility. However, with thrust vectoring and slick aerodynamics, it remains very capable in a dogfight when needed. Like the F-35 though, its top speed stays modest for reduced observability.

 

So, while the latest Russian fighters stay extremely dynamic, newer American one’s trade raw speed and nimbleness for stealth advantages.

 

 Armaments

 

In armaments, both Russia and America field mature modern weapons suites:

 

- For air-to-air missiles, Russian aircraft utilize weapons like the R-74 heatseeker and R-77 active radar while American's use AIM-9X and AIM-120. All are highly capable and deploy high off-boresight. Differences favor American aircraft's superior sensors.

 

- Air-to-surface armaments see advanced precision-guided munitions deployed by both nations, though Russian planes optimize for unguided rockets and bombs in tighter conflict areas.

 

- For autocannons, Russian aircraft feature rapid-fire 30mm designs while Americans employ slower-firing 20-25mm ones - playing to respective fighting priorities discussed earlier.

 

Overall, both nations could likely achieve air-to-air missile kills and conduct ground attacks against the other - but end results would depend on pilots using their aircraft's strengths effectively.

 

 Avionics and sensors 

 

Here America enjoys an advantage with newer aircraft designed ground-up around advanced integrated avionics and sensors:

 

- The F-35 employs EO/IR and AESA radars providing extensive sensor fusion. Pilots gain unprecedented battlefield awareness and ability to detect threats first. Data links enable seamless information sharing as well. Such avionics remain rare among Russian fighters outside the Su-57.

 

- The F-22 wields compact avionics reducing detectability. Its APG-77 radar enables air moving target indication and small ground target tracks from 250+ km while passively scanning electronic signals. Russian aircraft lack this degree of embedded low observability and radar flexibility.

 

Conversely, Russia's latest aircraft upgrade Soviet-era components to modern standards - but don't redo whole systems around information advantage and stealth.

 

 Stealth capabilities

 

Here Russia lags significantly, as stealth proves a towering challenge:

 

- The Su-57 adapts some stealth shaping like aligned edges, S-ducts, and radar blockers. Rumors suggest special radar-absorbent coatings too. However, exhausts remain unshielded and overall reductions stay modest. Real outcomes remain unproven.

 

- By contrast, the F-22 and F-35 represent generations of US refinement in stealth aircraft design, combining shaping, coatings, heat mitigation, and sensor evasion. The difference shows on radar, making US aircraft far harder to target. Russian fighters likely can't match this kind of low observability yet.

 

In stealth, Russian aircraft still downplay the concept while American ones embrace it more wholly in their architecture.

 

Analysis of strengths and weaknesses

 

While the latest fighters showcase impressive capabilities, they also face limitations that upcoming development must address. Understanding these can help predict future needs and likelihood of victory.

 

 Russian aircraft strengths 

 

Despite lagging in sensors and stealth, Russian combat aircraft still bring major advantages to the table:

 

- Speed and maneuverability - Even in newer fighters emphasizing this less, Russian aircraft retain excellent dogfighting and close air combat abilities. This helps them evade missiles or engage threats that come into visual range.

 

- Simplicity and ruggedness - Russian designs avoid complexity that undermines reliability or supportability. Many operate well from primitive airfields. The emphasis on toughness aids deployment flexibility.

 

- Specialization - By excelling in fighter combat or ground attack roles, Russian aircraft achieve strengths tailored tightly to likely missions. They know their niche well compared to more general US designs.

 

 American aircraft strengths

In response, American combat aircraft boast their own advantages: 

 

- Sensors and networking - Superior radar, electronic support, avionics fusion, and datalinks give US aircraft unmatched battlefield awareness and coordination. Pilots know far more than their Russian counterparts.

 

- Stealth and observability - With generations of refinement, US stealth aircraft prove extremely difficult for Russian radars, missiles, and pilots to detect or target. This compounds other sensor advantages.

 

- Advanced weapons - Air-to-air missiles like AIM-120 and smart bombs exploit sensor connectivity for superior odds of kills or on-target placement. Quantity and processing quality drives outcomes.

 

 Russian aircraft weaknesses

 

However, Russian fighters also suffer key limitations: 

 

- Obsolescent avionics - Upgraded Soviet systems lag what US equivalents offer in range, resolutions, processing, integration, and stealth resistance. This cripples lethality.

 

- Simplicity over advancement - Straightforward designs forfeiting complexity lose long-term capability. Ultimately, combat aircraft need balanced innovation, not just stripped basics.

 

- Lack of stealth research - Russia trails on composite materials, heat abatement, sensor evasion, and low-observability integration as whole aircraft concepts optimized to evade detection. Extra speed barely offsets.

 

 American aircraft weaknesses

Meanwhile, US aircraft also demonstrate telling deficiencies:

 

- Reduced dogfighting ability - Emphasizing stealth, sensors and missiles comes at the cost of close-in agility important to defeat short-ranged threats. This leaves them vulnerable to older Russian fighters at visual ranges.

 

- Dependence on complex systems - Extreme integration and programming means even small failures can cripple aircraft. And while networked sensors aid coordination, lone US fighters struggle to share their awareness.

 

- Soaring costs - New aircraft easily cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars due to intricate sensors, avionics, weapons integration, and stealth coatings. Such prices restrict procurement and deployment scale.

 

What recent combat reveals

 

With Russian and American combat aircraft now deployed in places like Syria and Ukraine, we're gaining some early lessons on their real-world performance that can shape development.

 

 Performance in Ukraine

In Ukraine, Russian fighters face unexpected setbacks: 

 

- Losses to air defenses - Simple manpads and anti-air systems down relatively advanced Su-34s and Su-25s. Against American standoff munitions, losses could multiply. Survivability proves worse than expected. 

 

- Lack of air dominance - Ukraine retains aerial defenses and aviation in the conflict zone despite Russia's efforts. Complete control of the skies remains elusive.

 

- Avionics deficits showing - Soldiers report navigation and targeting deficiencies in Russian attack jets during strikes - likely stemming from component gaps. US aircraft show no such issues.

 

Conversely, American aircraft remains untested here. But their networking and advanced missiles could overcome Russian IADS reach facing jets today.

 

 Implications for future development 

 

These lessons inform some implications for each nation's industry:

 

- For Russia, lower-than-expected survivability shows even the latest jets need improved countermeasures, damage tolerance, and reduced signatures. Striking defended targets may also demand new standoff munitions or escort drones.

 

- For the US, battle networks reach their limits when facing intense electronic warfare. This suggests a need for autonomous functionality as a backup if data links get compromised. Russian-style ruggedness also bears consideration to reduce dependency.

 

Both countries' aircraft have weaknesses conflict reveals - providing impetus for the next generation.

 

Conclusion 

 

 Key differences summarized

 

In summary, while Russian and American combat aircraft adopt different development priorities, each nation fields lethal designs posing grave threats:

 

- Russia favors speed, agility, and ruggedness for flexible close air combat from unrefined bases - but pays in sensors, networking, observability, and advanced integration. 

 

- America focuses on stealth, situational awareness, and connected coordination for beyond visual air dominance and strike - but loses some dogfighting prowess and independence in the process. 

 

Neither approach is perfect or assured of victory. Much depends on context, pilots, operations, and luck.

 

Yet both countries now look to patch perceived capability gaps highlighted by recent conflict. These drives promising new innovations to come.

 

 Questions remaining 

 

Debates continue around key questions that may shape outcomes as new aircraft deploy operationally:

 

- Can Russian aircraft extend detection and engagement ranges enough to threaten US fighters effectively from afar? Or will stealth and superior sensors maintain American first look/first shot advantages?

 

- Will Russia incorporate meaningful low-observability to complement agility? Or remain counting on speed, numbers, and ground control systems for an edge?

 

- Will American designers successfully reinforce dogfighting ability in tandem with stealth? Can they reduce dependency on off-board processing and complex subsystems?

 

Upcoming decades may reveal answers as fresh air combat philosophies meet in future wars. But maximizing lethality while minimizing vulnerability surely remains each nation's ultimate goal.

 

FAQs

 

Here are answers to some common questions about comparing Russian and American combat aircraft:

 

Q: What is the fastest current Russian fighter jet?

 

A: The MiG-31 interceptor remains Russia's fastest combat aircraft today, with a top speed exceeding Mach 2.83 - over 3,000 km/h! Originally built for high-altitude interception, its blistering velocity on afterburner outpaces all but a few planes globally even now. Later MiG-31BM upgrades even allow missile launches at such extreme speeds.

 

Q: Do Russian fighter jets have thrust vectoring like American ones?

 

A: Yes - some current Russian models like the Su-35 and Su-57 feature advanced thrust vectoring for added maneuverability. The 3D vectoring on Russia's Su-57 notably gives it superior angle authority in pitch/yaw than even America's F-22 for violent air combat turns. Thrust vector control proves useful for dogfighting or tactical flight regimes where raw agility offers an advantage.

 

Q: What advanced weapons might Russian and American fighters use against each other?

 

A: Air-to-air battles would likely see Russian R-77 and American AIM-120 radar-guided missiles facing off for beyond visual range shots. Meanwhile, within visual range fights employ heatseeking R-74 vs AIM-9X missiles or internal autocannons. BVR allows first detection/shot benefits, while WVR tests aircraft dynamic abilities against evasive targets.

 

Q: How has combat experience in places like Syria and Ukraine changed views?

 

A: Syria revealed surprisingly high reliability of new Russian jets like the Su-34 despite heavy use. But Ukraine suggests they remain surprisingly vulnerable to portable anti-air weapons, increasing interest in countermeasures. For the US, drone networking weaknesses arose when facing Russian jamming, prompting expanded autonomous capabilities.

 

Q: Could Su-57s penetrate American air defenses undetected? 

 

A: Unlikely. While the Su-57's reduced signatures might help vs older radars, the F-22 and F-35 sport advanced low-probability intercept radar modes and sensor fusion specifically to locate stealthy threats. Plus, American missiles use infrared seekers aiding stealth penetration. The Su-57 likely couldn't evade US defenses for long.

 

Q: Why don't more countries just copy advanced US aircraft designs?

 

A: Attempts like China's J-20 hint at challenges. US designs require extremely tight manufacturing tolerances and exotic materials for stealth plus complex flight control integration. Developing the technical skill/industrial base takes decades, as shown by Russia's struggles with the Su-57. The aircraft also depend heavily on advanced American missiles to exploit their systems. Simplistic copying inevitably falls short.

 

Q: What innovations might emerge in future Russian or American fighter designs?

 

A: Expect continued Russian advancement of low-observable skins, heat masking, and infrared sensor system protection to finally achieve a truly stealth fast jet. For the US, greater drone control integration, automated damage assessment, independent navigation, and compact high output power sources will further reduce onboard crew dependency.

 

Q: Why hasn't the F-22 been exported abroad despite its capabilities?

 

A: Concerns about technology security and proliferation likely drive this stance. Since entering service over 15 years ago, no foreign sales occurred despite international interest. The F-22 remains strictly US-only. Given it exceeds anything Russia or China fields even today, officials seemingly judge it too valuable to export regardless of financial incentives or partnership opportunities.

 

Q: Who makes the final decision about pursuing next-generation aircraft designs?

 

A: High up ministry and agency commanders’ direct long-term priorities, but politics also plays a major role. Ultimately Congress and the President shape US Air Force spending and programs through enabling legislation and annual budgets. Russia's military procurement depends greatly on the Security Council and President Putin's stance too. So, while uniformed leaders specify operational needs, civilian oversight pushes certain future visions ahead of others.