Putin had barely wrapped up his four-day visit to Beijing when Russian state media swiftly released a report comparing advanced Chinese and Russian weapons. From the Su-57 to the Borei-class “North Wind” submarines, the article placed both countries’ cutting-edge systems side by side. The timing was no coincidence — it was deliberate.
The report focused on five categories. Fighter jets compared the Su-57 with the J-20, claiming they were “roughly equal.” Tanks matched the Russian T-14 Armata with China’s main battle tanks, emphasizing “generational differences.” In submarines, Russia was credited with better stealth, but China’s Type 094 was noted for longer missile range. For hypersonic missiles, China’s YJ-21 was set against Russia’s Zircon, with Chinese figures looking stronger. Air defense matched Russia’s S-400 with China’s HQ-9B, concluding both were “similar.”
At first glance, this looked balanced, but closer analysis reveals selective omissions. The report ignored the J-20’s stealth characteristics, made no mention of networked combat or sensor fusion, and reduced comparison to superficial metrics. Judging fighter jets only on a few neutral indicators is like assessing a soccer team based solely on sprint times — it misses the essence of modern air combat.
The real difference between the J-20 and Su-57 lies in stealth, data links, and electronic warfare integration. Modern air warfare is about sensors, algorithms, and coordinated systems — whoever detects, fuses, and strikes first gains the upper hand. By skipping these, Russian media ensured the conclusion would be a vague “about the same.”
The tank comparison was similarly flawed. The T-14 is a next-generation platform, and should properly be compared with China’s future Type 100 concepts, not the current Type 99A. By focusing on “generational gaps,” the article subtly boosted Russian prestige without real technical value.
On submarines, the report was more honest — Russia retains its traditional advantage in stealth, but China’s JL-2 and JL-3-equipped Type 094 offers longer strike range. In hypersonics, the YJ-21’s speed, altitude, and range outshine Russia’s Zircon, something the report could not deny. Air defense was framed as parity between the S-400 and HQ-9B, a diplomatic choice.
The message was twofold: reassure Russian audiences of their nation’s strength, while acknowledging China’s progress without undermining the newly polished image of bilateral friendship. It was a careful media move, not a technical assessment.
What truly matters, however, is not single weapons but China’s system-level approach — integration, autonomy, and intelligent warfare. The highlight of China’s parade was not any single piece of equipment, but the unified command chains, multi-domain sensors, firepower nodes, and logistics in one networked architecture. Russia avoided discussing this for a reason: it lacks such strengths.
This is why experts like Australia’s retired Major General Mick Ryan remarked that “Putin may worry” — not because of individual weapons, but because China has broken free of reliance on Russian supply chains. Still, such worries are overstated. Russia values China not as a competitor but as a stable, reliable partner in the face of Western pressure. Putin’s sense of being “at home” in Beijing was reinforced when he privately shared sensitive U.S. negotiation details at a banquet — a gesture of strategic trust unlikely if there were genuine concern.
India’s reaction is also telling. New Delhi is revisiting talks with Russia to co-produce Su-57s, even considering overseas assembly. This comes after years of delays in its indigenous AMCA program and earlier withdrawal from the T-50 project due to lack of stealth performance and tech transfer. Facing limitations in engines and avionics, India’s military is opting for pragmatism: buy first, dream later. Yet even if successful, India risks fielding fifth-generation jets just as China moves toward sixth-generation systems emphasizing manned-unmanned teaming, electromagnetic warfare, and AI-driven combat.
The broader signal from Putin’s visit is that China and Russia now share sensitive information proactively, not reactively. Beyond energy and logistics cooperation, this trust underpins real projects. Strategic consensus acts as glue, ensuring cooperation isn’t just symbolic.
In the end, the Russian weapon comparison was more about politics than performance. It downplayed gaps, highlighted parity, and sidestepped China’s systemic advances. The real story is not whose missile flies farther, but who can sustain the “detect-decide-strike-regenerate” cycle more effectively. That is the future of military competition — and China just showcased its edge.
