An F-35 Will Never be Alone: Russia Seems to Warn America's Stealth Fighter

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...sia-seems-warn-americas-stealth-fighter-52472

"If a Russia... ever was to see an F-35 inside its airspace', we would love to send Chief of Staff of the @usairforce Gen. David L. Goldfein 'message with two words' — ‘remember Vietnam' 'An F-35 will never be alone."

This is perhaps the most aggressive illustration of a new Russian rhetorical approach.

In a move that would raise eyebrows even by Cold War standards of political saber-rattling, the Russian Embassy in Washington seemed to threaten America’s F-35 fighter with Vietnam-era propaganda footage.

Last month, the official handle of the Russian Embassy in the US tweeted the following update:

'If a Russia... ever was to see an F-35 inside its airspace', we would love to send Chief of Staff of the @usairforce Gen. David L. Goldfein 'message with two words' — ‘remember Vietnam'
'An F-35 will never be alone'

As observed by Foxtrot Alpha, the tweet is a direct reference to a recent Brookings Institution lecture given by Air Force chief of staff Gen. David Goldfein. During his talk, General Goldfein gave this assessment of the F-35’s capabilities:

“If a China or a Russia or another adversary on the globe ever were to see an F-35 inside their airspace,” Goldfein said. “I would love to send them all messages with two words — ‘we’re here. “It’s not ‘I’m here,’” he said. “An F-35 will never be alone.”

Several outlets have offered important insight into Goldfein’s speech, noting that his comments came on the heels of a successful F-35s performance at the annual Red Flag exercise in Nevada. At the same Brookings event, Goldfein stressed that the F-35 exceeded “our expectations when it comes to not only being able to survive, but to prosecute targets."

Less covered, however, is the context behind the Russian response. On the surface, it’s clearly a play-on-words intended as a dig at the F-35’s stealth capabilities; that is, an F-35 “will never be alone” in Russian airspace because Russian anti-air systems will detect it.


The Vietnam propaganda footage is also straightforward, considering the massive losses sustained by the US Air Force during the Vietnam War. These losses were, in no small part, due to the hundreds of air defense systems-- most prolifically, the S-75 Dvina-- and anti-air cannons funneled by the Soviets to the Viet Cong.

Still, there are some deeper subtexts worth considering. First, the Kremlin is engaged in a long-running PR campaign to sell potential investors on the viability of their Su-57 stealth fighter program. In the sense that these efforts have always included potshots at the competing F-35, the tweet would not be at all unusual if written by a Russian political commentator or military analyst. In fact, it almost certainly would have never been covered by major media outlets if it didn’t come from the Russian Embassy.

But if the lead is the source and not the content, then what explains the former? Why would an official diplomatic body like the Russian Embassy tweet something of this kind?

This is perhaps the most aggressive illustration of a new Russian rhetorical approach. In the early and mid 2010’s, standard Kremlin practice was to simply ignore western aspersions against Russian military capabilities. But over the recent years, Russian officials have made an increasingly dramatic point of publicly responding to these types of comments. As one recent example, it was only a few months ago that the Russian Ministry of Defense issued a biting reply to the US Ambassador to Colombia, who dismissed the Tu-160 bomber as little more than a museum piece.


This strategy is perhaps not without a rationale. At a time when the Kremlin is actively signaling both its nuclear and conventional deterrent capabilities to NATO, they may very well believe that even an indirect slight against Russian air defense systems cannot go unanswered.

 

[maximuswarrior]

Makes full sense. Well done Russia.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Makes full sense. Well done Russia.

If Americans think they can conquer a land of 100 million Whites they got another thing coming.

 

[gambit]

Here is the real deal...For the Russians or anyone else for that matter...

In military history, especially on the technology front, there are points where a new technology's effects are so great that the tactics and strategies of the immediately previous era are no long valid.

One such point is the introduction of the repeating firearm, aka the 'machine gun'. Another point is powered ships. Another is the airplane. For each example, the military that do not have that technology, the odds of losing the war is over %50. Obviously, some common sense must be exercised in understanding this perspective. A landlocked country would not have a navy, so the example would be navy vs navy where a navy with sailing ships would not win against a navy with steam powered ships. An army with single shot rifles not likely to win against an army that have machine guns.

So how does this apply to using the Vietnam War? Up to the Vietnam War, in order to deliver ordnance on a ground target, the attacker must be over the target. Not literally over the target, but the attacker must be in a territorial airspace and is approaching that ground target. As the attacker release his ordnance, forward momentum will theoretically deliver the ordnance on the target. The airpower technology and tactic dates back to WW I. The countermeasures are air-air guns and missiles. The result is that some of the attackers are destroyed, some damaged, and many times the attack itself does not produce the desired results for the attacker as the mission's dangers were too many for the attacker to properly focus.

The new technology that changed airpower forever, like how the machine gun changed ground warfare, is the 'standoff' weapon, meaning a weapon that can be released/launched from OUTSIDE the ground threat zones. That standoff weapons are the cruise and ballistic missiles. Each weapon has advantages and disadvantages, but the bottom line is that the owner of these weapons have the flexibility to use them according to varying needs. With the standoff weapon, the pure bomber and fighter-bomber are now options instead of the only platforms available to attack ground targets.

With the standoff weapons like the cruise and ballistic missiles, US airpower no longer relies on the tactics of the Vietnam War, Korean War, or WW II, to attack any place in the world. So if US airpower no longer restrained by the older tactics based upon older technology, it also mean the examples of the Vietnam War with those US air casualties are less and less applicable today. Before the standoff weapon, it could take literally a dozen bombs gravity dropped to destroy a point on the ground. Today, a single cruise missile strike on a single air defense unit WILL introduce high uncertainty of survival to the entire local air defense network.

This does not mean the F-35 will never enter any contested airspace alone. It does not mean a single F-35 but to mean the F-35 as the only strike platform. It mean a FLIGHT of F-35s will be a component of a plan containing coordinated strikes with different methods to produce different results. An example of that is the air war part of Desert Storm.

An F-35 will not be alone. A flight of F-35s will not be alone. What supports the F-35 and what accompanies the F-35 are left to the target to speculate. And worries.

 

[KAL-EL]

If Americans think they can conquer a land of 100 million Whites they got another thing coming.

Could you be any more over the top and dramatic?