No need to worry about ground-based Russian Anti-Air if you’re staying away from territory under Russian control. If the Su-34’s Air2Air capabilities were much good, we wouldn’t be here reading/discussing OP’s post.
Stealth(F-35 “stealth” anyways) ain’t shit versus Russia’s ground-based assets. It’s use in an all-out invassion would be more down to its beyond-the-horizon capabilities, if they even served well there. Try to keep up.
Seriously though, Russia, and Russian territory, are sooo not the match-up you want for the F-35, no matter how much of the complex’s Kool-Aide you’ve drank. This isn’t the war, not even the right hemisphere, that it was designed for.
You do have to worry about russian AA, they have Buks everywhere, and even S-300s near the front lines, those have serious range.
Their Tu-22M3s fly far behind their own lines to launch missiles, as will their Su-34s from here out, so you’ll have to get closer and closer to threats in order to meaningfully intercept now.
This is the exact same bs that’s happened since the beginning: Ukraine gets a new toy, Russia hides behind their lines, Ukraine’s toy becomes less useful.
Finally, after the russian soil authorization is given, the F-35 can bring strike capability to Russian soil, which is the best way to win this war.
They already invaded a nuke-holding country, doesn’t seem to have been too much of a problem.
We had a thunder-run make it halfway to Moscow last year, and Putin just ran: Russia might be a nuke-holding country, but they’re unfortunately handicapped by being a country full of Russians.
All this is going to do is guarantee Ukraine is a nuclear state again by the end of 2025, which is fine with me, we promised their security in exchange for giving up the nukes they developed, might as well let them have them back considering what trash they have to live next to.
You’re splitting hairs on the difference between violating a country’s territory and threatening its existance, and since you need it spelled out, they aren’t just any nuke-holding country. They are one of a few that has the capability to wipe all life on earth even if their targets never returned fire, but please, do go on about how going gloves-off at them “by proxy” is such a great idea.
You’ll have better luck convincing Russia to back down by diplomatic means than you will convincing NATO to do what you are suggesting. That’s how stupid of an idea it is.
No need to worry about ground-based Russian Anti-Air if you’re staying away from territory under Russian control. If the Su-34’s Air2Air capabilities were much good, we wouldn’t be here reading/discussing OP’s post.
Stealth(F-35 “stealth” anyways) ain’t shit versus Russia’s ground-based assets. It’s use in an all-out invassion would be more down to its beyond-the-horizon capabilities, if they even served well there. Try to keep up.
Seriously though, Russia, and Russian territory, are sooo not the match-up you want for the F-35, no matter how much of the complex’s Kool-Aide you’ve drank. This isn’t the war, not even the right hemisphere, that it was designed for.
You do have to worry about russian AA, they have Buks everywhere, and even S-300s near the front lines, those have serious range.
Their Tu-22M3s fly far behind their own lines to launch missiles, as will their Su-34s from here out, so you’ll have to get closer and closer to threats in order to meaningfully intercept now.
This is the exact same bs that’s happened since the beginning: Ukraine gets a new toy, Russia hides behind their lines, Ukraine’s toy becomes less useful.
Finally, after the russian soil authorization is given, the F-35 can bring strike capability to Russian soil, which is the best way to win this war.
Yes, invading a nuke-holding country is the best way to win a war. JFC
…
They already invaded a nuke-holding country, doesn’t seem to have been too much of a problem.
We had a thunder-run make it halfway to Moscow last year, and Putin just ran: Russia might be a nuke-holding country, but they’re unfortunately handicapped by being a country full of Russians.
Who in the fuck do you think developed those nukes for them anyway? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv_Institute_of_Physics_and_Technology
You think Russia could make new ones or even maintain the old without Ukrainians? https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russian-missile-failed-during-test-researchers-imagery-indicate-2024-09-23/
All this is going to do is guarantee Ukraine is a nuclear state again by the end of 2025, which is fine with me, we promised their security in exchange for giving up the nukes they developed, might as well let them have them back considering what trash they have to live next to.
You’re splitting hairs on the difference between violating a country’s territory and threatening its existance, and since you need it spelled out, they aren’t just any nuke-holding country. They are one of a few that has the capability to wipe all life on earth even if their targets never returned fire, but please, do go on about how going gloves-off at them “by proxy” is such a great idea.
You’ll have better luck convincing Russia to back down by diplomatic means than you will convincing NATO to do what you are suggesting. That’s how stupid of an idea it is.