In recent years, some former U.S. military officers have publicly praised Russia’s Su-57 fighter jet while questioning the F-35’s combat effectiveness, drawing widespread attention. This trend stems from several factors. First, these officers often compare the aircraft based on specific tactical scenarios or technical parameters—highlighting the Su-57’s advantages in super-maneuverability, high-speed interception, and high-altitude performance, whereas the F-35 prioritizes stealth and sensor fusion. Their design philosophies differ fundamentally. Second, such commentary may serve strategic communication purposes: by elevating an adversary’s capabilities, they can indirectly pressure the U.S. military to accelerate next-generation fighter development or justify increased defense budgets. Additionally, many retired officers work for defense think tanks or media outlets after service, potentially influencing their perspectives. It’s important to note that while the Su-57 has certain advanced features, it still lags behind the F-35 in stealth quality, avionics maturity, and operational deployment scale. Therefore, these statements should be critically assessed rather than taken at face value. Overall, this pattern of ‘praising the rival while downplaying one’s own’ reflects strategic narrative tactics in military discourse more than objective technical evaluation.
近年来，部分美国前军官在公开场合对俄罗斯苏-57战斗机给予较高评价，同时质疑F-35的实战效能，引发广泛关注。这种现象背后有多重原因。首先，这些前军官往往基于特定战术场景或技术参数进行对比，例如强调苏-57在超机动性、高速拦截和高海拔作战方面的优势，而F-35则更侧重隐身性能与信息融合能力，两者设计理念不同。其次，部分评论可能带有战略传播目的——通过抬高对手装备水平，间接推动美军加快下一代战机研发或争取更多国防预算。此外，一些前军官脱离现役后受聘于防务智库或媒体，其言论也可能受到立场或利益影响。值得注意的是，苏-57虽具备一定先进性，但在隐身能力、航电系统成熟度及实战部署规模上仍落后于F-35。因此，此类言论应理性看待，避免片面解读。总体而言，这种“吹捧对手、贬低己方”的现象更多反映的是军事话语中的策略性叙事，而非客观全面的技术评估。
原创文章，作者：admin，如若转载，请注明出处：https://avine.cn/1215.html