Are Sukhoi airframes made to last more G forces than their western opposites? I heard that Sukhoi SU 35 airframes can withstand more than 10 Gs without bending, unlike for example F/A-18.

If your question is really, “Are Russian fighters made with superior materials and techniques that make them able to withstand more G forces or damage than their Western/American counterparts?” then I will say here and now no, they aren’t. They are rugged, sure. They are supposedly designed to be able to operate from unimproved airfields and less pristine surfaces than manicured taxiways and runways. I am unsure what you’re after when you say “last more G forces”? Are you talking about how much G the airframe can take at once, as in, instantaneous peak loading? Or are you talking about over the life of the jet, as in, is it built to constantly withstand (x) positive and (y) negative G loading without harming the airframe? In terms of “without bending”, all modern fighters, and indeed most modern aircraft in general, are designed to “bend” and flex to be able to tolerate loads and endure that stress without the airframe failing. Bend, but don’t break, is the way to think of it. Sukhoi and MiG fighters vary wildly in terms of what they can do. The MiG-25 and 31 for example, can NOT endure high G loading. The SU-27, MiG-29, SU-57, and other highly maneuverable fighters are designed to endure high G loading.

As for American fighters, and in particular Grumman products, they are most definitely designed and built well and can tolerate a fairly high loadout and endure G loading in their flight envelope. How many Gs depends on a number of factors such as gross weight, whether it’s G onset, sustain G, etc. One former USAF Trainer, for example, could take 5.5 positive G *instantly* and not hurt it. (this was the Cessna T-37 “Tweet”. Grumman was known as “Grumman Ironworks” since WWII for their ruggedness in combat. Their planes are indeed well-designed, precisely machined, and very well-engineered. McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) was also known for their excellent construction and ability to take punishment in combat. A squadron mate of mine at VMFA(AW)-121 “The Green Knights” flying D Model Hornets, callsign Maj Ken “Cheyenne” Bode, took an IR SAM to the starboard side engine, right in the turkey feathers (the afterburner and the articulating nozzle).

We believe it was an SA-7 that hit his aircraft. He made it back to base successfully and safely.. Capt John “Ping” Scanlan, another good friend of mine, was the WSO in this jet when it was struck. At the time, we had been stationed at Shaikh Isa airbase in Bahrain.

So yeah, western jets can damn sure take a hit. I don’t see battle damage from Ukrainian/Russian jets. All I see are pictures of the wreckage. I am sure this is simply because they do not want to show such images for one reason or another. I am also not saying that this means Russian fighters “suck” or are weak because of this. I am only saying that Western fighters are NOT “weak”. The people that design these things typically want to make sure they are resilient enough to accomplish their missions, even if struck, to the maximum extent possible.

So to sum up, no, Sukhoi airframes aren’t made to “last more G forces than their western counterparts”. Each aircraft has a specific mission set, and the airframe is designed to perform that mission or those missions successfully. Individual designs dictate the performance that the airframe is expected to deliver to accomplish those missions. Western aircraft are designed that way as well.