0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
1,600 $
9 DAYS LEFT UNTIL THE END OF JANUARY

U.S. Air Force To Deploy Approximately 150 F-35, F-22 Fighter Jets To The Arctic

Support SouthFront

U.S. Air Force To Deploy Approximately 150 F-35, F-22 Fighter Jets To The Arctic

Click to see full-size image

The US is to soon begin deploying combat aircraft to the Arctic, according to US Senator Dan Sullivan.

Senator Sullivan pointed out that the force would be composed of both F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and F-22 Raptors.

Sullivan also said the development of Nome in Alaska as the first US deep seaport within the Arctic Circle would serve as a message to great power rivals such as Russia and China that the United States was seriously committed to projecting military power and protecting its interests in the Arctic Ocean.

This is a follow up from when on July 21, 2020, the United States Department of Air Force released its Arctic Strategy. The strategy “recognizes the immense geostrategic consequence of the region and its critical role for protecting the homeland and projecting global power,” stated Secretary of the Air Force Barbara Barrett. The Secretary also underscored the region’s elevated importance to the Air Force and Department of Defense.

Back then, Dan Sullivan congratulated the US Air Force on the most “robust” Arctic Strategy to date.

“I applaud and commend the Air Force and Secretary Barbara Barrett for their leadership in developing the most robust Arctic strategy yet. This strategy is a testament to the Air Force’s enduring commitment to Alaska, which dates back more than 100 years when the father of the Air Force, Billy Mitchell, called Alaska the most strategic place in the world,” said Senator Sullivan. “Today the Arctic is a region of great power competition, and this new strategy focuses on making tangible investments in real capabilities – communications, cold-weather materials and radar technology, and refueling capacity – to help the U.S. respond to this competition. Additionally, I am hopeful that this document will help lay the foundation for the use of Alaska as a vital power-projection platform to both Europe and the Indo-Pacific and solidify the Arctic’s central place – geographically and metaphorically – in the future of continued great power competition.

“For the last five years, Congress – not the Department of Defense – has been leading on the issue of Arctic advocacy. Of late, however, with President Trump’s new Memorandum on Safeguarding U.S. National Interests in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions, the appointment and confirmation of former ambassadors to Arctic nations – Secretary of the Air Force Barbara Barrett and Secretary of the Navy Kenneth Braithwaite, and USNORTHCOM Commander General Terrance O’Shaughnessy’s continued robust advocacy, the executive branch seems to be getting the message about the Arctic’s importance. I believe this moment may be the inflection point for U.S. interests in the region and I am hopeful the Air Force and the rest of the Department of Defense will invest robustly in this geo-strategically-important region.”

Just days earlier, on September 8th, a US Navy destroyer held naval exercises with Norwegian and British frigates just 115 miles off Russia’s Arctic coastline.

The UK-led drills took place in international waters, but inside Russia’s claimed 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone.

The UK-led exercise was headed by the Royal Navy frigate HMS Sutherland, joined by the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Ross, British Royal Fleet Auxiliary RFA Tidespring, and Royal Norwegian frigate HNoMS Thor Heyerdahl, and Danish and Norwegian patrol aircraft.

The transit is the latest example of what looks to be a new normal for the Navy as more vessels move north into the Arctic, including what US and Norwegian officials say will be more US submarines calling at the refurbished port of Tromso, Norway, above the Arctic Circle.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Support SouthFront

SouthFront

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
96 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sauron

Was a good call to involve Canada in development. Though melts in middle east, at least won’t freeze in the arctic.

Servet Köseoğlu

Deploying walkers is also necessary..its perfect for arctic climate..
comment image

Lone Ranger

An X-wing will easily take them out ;)

Антон С

Chained tow trucks with caterpillars and vehicles with low pressure tires – best choice for the North. Walking crap is good for comics only.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm6yRE1J5T8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqQo6Vpiik0

Servet Köseoğlu

ı know its for comics.. U.s .Army issued a formal request for information for a high-mobility tracked vehicle family that it is calling the Joint All Weather All Terrain Support Vehicle, or JAASV..comment image

Антон С

Modernization of BvS-10 from Sweden. Sweden is the first word which came to mind after mention of BAe. They have bought swedish plants. AA missiles from Norway, trucks from Sweden, possibility of new APC from Finland (“Patria”). GM or “Ford” can’t afford R&D? Very strange.

Servet Köseoğlu

they can but for minor purchases they prefer outsorcing..

Johnnydadda

Start those engines boys, let’s melt some ice!

occupybacon

Soon Kuznetsov will be ready and will show them

HiaNd

Courtesy of Neo-Nazi controlled Ukrainian government Ukrainian best talents are sent to work to Poland.
Your toothless mother is “ready” to give blow job to hole US military base in Poland just like the rest of her West Ukrainian female and male “colleagues”.

occupybacon

Unlike your mom that is so ugly your dad needed another man in his bed.

HiaNd

Well that one women or men is ugly…that can’t happen in Western Ukraine since all of you there are ugly toothless sons of bitches !
comment image

occupybacon

Please take your mom off the Internet, her mouth is nsfw

Scaathor

How dare you use a picture of Occupies mom without his/her/whatever permission?

Wow… what a looker.

HiaNd

That is the most beautiful girl in his village actually!

Lone Ranger

They dont need the Kuznetsov for that, whole North Russia along with Islands are dotted with bases, radar stations and SAMs

occupybacon

Totally useless outdated toys.

Lone Ranger

Indeed, maybe Trump will rebuild the armed forces like Putin did with Russia.

occupybacon

US Navy has more planes than Russia. US Airforce has 3 times…

Lone Ranger

Outdated jets falling apart…
Most of them arent even operational sitting in the desert mothballed.
Only new jet is the Flop-35, so crappy even third grade arab countries can buy it now.
Russia is getting around 80 jets and helos per year for the past 10 years.
All state of the art.
And that will stay so for the forseeable future.

occupybacon

Sounds like a little girl bragging about her beautifull dolls and bashing other kid’s toys.

Lone Ranger

You started it…

occupybacon

Here’s a lollipop

Lone Ranger

Hope its orange flavoured…

occupybacon

More orange than Trump

Антон С

Actually ~200 helicopters and 50-100 planes of all types. This year plan – 170 helicopters in total, 95 for military.

Lone Ranger

Most excellent.
Russia is Stronger than ever.
But not overbloated.
The smart way to do.
Good job.??

Jim Allen

So what ?
Houthis don’t even have an air force, and they’re whuppin’ Headcutter ass.
Slightly outnumbered too.

occupybacon

Planes are not made to be used by bedouins, includinhmg Saudis

HB_Norica

All the Saudis do is ride the bus and press the button. It’s USA and US mercs that are doing the intelligence, putting the missions together and maintaining the aircraft. It’s not like they have to dogfight or anything … just stay on autopilot and push the right button when it goes beep. The hardest part of their job is keeping their weight down so they fit into their flight suits.

Антон С

With 20 trillion budget instead 0,7 now.)

Lone Ranger

Or with a $100billion but without the Military industrial complex…

Антон С

100 bln is enough for daily meal and chewing gum.

Jim Allen

LOL

Sauron

Kuznetzov is a goner. Burevestnik will dominate the arctic. Indefinite range in theory, 10meters in reality

HB_Norica

You may be right …. sub hunting in the arctic’s back on the menu so the Kuznetsov may just get a get the mission it was built for instead of playing aircraft carrier in the Mediterranian..

occupybacon

Yeah, probably if they keep it only for helis, won’t send any aircraft into water.

HB_Norica

Actually that’s true. They’re main armament are anti-shipping missiles and anti-submarine missiles and they use helicopters for ASW so the air wing likely wouldn’t be missed except to defend against aircraft. The Russians have a lot of SAMs and air bases in the arctic nowdays.

occupybacon

I bet they have. Since they can’t afford to go too far from their coast they put all their money on the arctic.

HB_Norica

Duh …. if you’re interested enough in military shit to continue coming here and haven’t noticed that Russia’s military is pretty much a defensive force that operates under a land based air defence and it’s standoff missile capabilities I’d be questioning your intelligence.

The USA / NATO produce weapons to project power. Just look what they produce … stealth bombers to sneak under radars and aircraft carriers and marines to bring the hurt to far flung shores. Russia produces air defences, artillery and their entire navy is focussed on sinking aircraft carriers and hunting subs.

You’re 100% right …. they can’t afford to operate outside of Russia. I’ve made that argument numerous time when people question why Russia doesn’t shoot down IAF jets or attack US forces in Syria. I’ve made that argument to you yet you keep insisting that the Kuznetsov is an attempt at being a US style carrier when it’s an ASW platform.

occupybacon

They are mainly defensive because they are contained by USA but they would love to continue expansion like in the good ol times.

HB_Norica

Cool.

So did Putin fill you in on his plan for world domination at your last meeting? …. or maybe read it in your tea leaves? … or are you just blurting out ideas you pull out of your ass from time to time?

occupybacon

Just basic history of Russia. An empire that stop expanding is poised to crumble.

HB_Norica

Russia is “poised to crumble”?

Russia’s empire crumbled in 1917. The USSR’s ’empire’ crumbled in 1990. The crumbling is done.

What you are seeing since 2000 is the reemergence of the Russian state and since 2008 or so Russia that’s no longer bending over and taking it up the ass.

Unfortunately Putin never talks to me however it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that one of the reasons that the Soviet Empire collapsed was the cost of supporting an empire. Happened to the British, French, Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese as well.

With the exception of places with a Russian culture and strategically vital to the Russian state like the Crimea I doubt very much that Putin will be stepping on the ol’ empire rake any time soon given past experiences.

occupybacon

See? That’s what I’m talking about. I didn’t say it’s poised to crumble, I said it’s contained by the USA for now.

HiaNd

Nothing that S-400 and Russian air-force can’t take care of.
Just they should watch out those Wunderwaffe jets, doesn’t start falling from the sky because they don’t like humid climate or bad weather…

Cromwell

I don’t think they like the Serbs eithercomment image

Scaathor

The only stealth aircraft known to have been shot down and it was a 1960s S-125 wot done it… and these Yankistani fuktards really think stealth is invisible and that S-400s can’t engage them.. priceless :-P

HiaNd

S-400 is over-kill, too modern and too powerful for all those “invisible” US planes.

Bruno Gama

Well…Serbia and Bosnia and immediations have dozens of dead “Stealth” Nighthawks… Why those beautiful Planes stopped being produced? Hahahaha… killed with S-125, and S-200… Just like the Israelis F-16 killed by the Syrians with S-200… Or the British Super Duper Tornado, Downed by the Houthis with improvised old Soviet Bombs transformed in Sams! Damned! The Brits are so powerful! Poodles of the Yankees and getting orgasm with that! Shame!

Bruno Gama

The Brits have to kneel to the French to stop providing Exocets to Argentina or their navy would sink in one week… HMS Sheffield…lovely Exocet hit!

MikeH

“Nothing that S-400 and Russian air-force can’t take care of.”

The airfield was just put in Kaliber range. This is a silly reaction by the US. It is ineffective but at least it will let Lockheed test the ability of the coating to stand up to arctic conditions. LOL

Jens Holm

Its so funny reading the comments about it.

I will remind someone below that the S300 range is about 150 km.

Lone Ranger

Newest version of the S-300 hass a range if 300km +
S-400 has 400km +
S-500 600km +

swedish_viking

It needs an AWACS/AEW&C very high in the air for those ranges unless it has radars placed closer to the target.
600km would be very difficult to achieve because of the shape of the planet, the shape limits the range of sight for airborne AWACS/AEW&C to about 450km.
That would need a radars or AWACS/AEW&C a lot closer to the target and rather far from the air-defense complex or some new target acquisition satellites not in service yet. (i don’t think such satellites are invented yet).
You can create missiles with such long range but it would still be limited by target acquisition,.
You can create radars with sensors at greater ranges but they will till be limited by physics and shape of the planet, the only reason to create radars with sensor ranges longer than 450km is to be able to see low RCS at a greater range than before.

Lone Ranger

S-400 has a radar range of 600+km.

Lone Ranger

That too.
Russia solved the problem by using multiple typesv of radars.
Currently they are the best at ground based over the horizon detection.

Lone Ranger

Missiles can also carry their own radars.
Russians also have AWACS type jets like the A-50 Il-76 variant.
Plus the Voronezh radar system with 8000km range.
It can detect a tennisball size object from 6000km.

Антон С

“Voronezh-D and -DM” is for detecting high altitude targets, i.e. ballistic missiles and objects in near space. But there is no doubts, engineers solved all problems caused by Earth’s curvature. Detection of targets (even stealthy) at medium altitude is possible with “Resonance-N” station, 350 km for a fighter at 10 km altitude. 1100 km is maximum range. Max.alt. – 100 km. Ground AWACS.

http://bastion-opk.ru/resonance-n/

Lone Ranger

The the primary role of Voronezh indeed, but with the newest upgrades its a full fletched radar with an extreme range detecting anything in the air.

Антон С

That’s why I wrote about two modifications. -M is for meter waves diapason, -DM – decimeter. Meter waves can reach more distant objects, but with lower resolution. DM waves have better resolution. There is “Voronezh-CM” (in Crimea) with centimeter diapason, so it’s even more accurate in targets tracking. Range – until Lisbon. -DM is placed in Kaliningrad, horizontal range – 4500 km.
comment image
comment image

Lone Ranger

Best ground based radars currently in service.
I also like the fact that they are if modular design, easy to build and to repair, will function even when its only partially finished.

Антон С

There are another 2 types of stations to look behind horizon: “Container” (its hardware placed in containers) with up to 3000 km range and “Sunflower” coastal station with 450 km range for planes and up to 300 for ships. Field of metal sunflowers:
http://bastion-opk.ru/VVT/PODSOLNUH_03.jpg

Early warning systems. Add satellites to the list and radars on anti-air missile to understand how it’s working on behind horizontal distance, its for “swedish viking”.

Lone Ranger

??

swedish_viking

Voronezh radar system is an early warning radar not an target acquisition radar.
Yes Russia has AWACS and they’re needed to increase the range of air defenses.

Lone Ranger

You think it can track a tennis ball size object from 8000km but cant lock on onto a jet?
Nah…

swedish_viking

Not for target acquisition only early warning.
The frequencies used have to much clutter and isn’t precise enough for target acquisition.
If you can see and track a target doesn’t mean target acquisition.
Target acquisition is actually very complex an precise if your just 1/10th of a second off then you miss the target by about 500m (it’s actually much more to take into account but in layman terms it’s about 500m).

Lone Ranger

We dont know how precise it is.
Its 2020…
Aside from that you can launch a swarm of SAMs when they get in range their radar will take over or wirk in tandem via networking.
By the way terrain mappining radars have a far better resolution than the 500m you claim and those are civilian.
They have about a 5-10m resolution.

swedish_viking

The 500m isn’t resolution it’s mass in motion.
I don’t think you have much knowledge of the subject in hand since you don’t seem to understand my previous answers.

Lone Ranger

Im not a radar expert, but not dumb either.
Why would anybody need 10,000km range if they cant lock on?
Dont come with the trajectories, supercomputers can calculate those in a few secs, you dont need 30mins in advance.
The reason to have more range is to be able to lock on and detect stealth aircrafts ad well.
Simple logic.
You think they cant lock on from thousends of km I think they can.
But I respect your opinion.

swedish_viking

An early warning radar does just that.
If one can see an attack coming in 30minutes then one can prepare a proper response and might be able to stop the attack from being successful and also prepare an response.
In a situation of war a soldier can’t just open fire that could start a mayor war it needs a chain of command and it might need decisions from the very top like the president and here time is of extreme importance.
If they can get a 30min prewarning it may be enough not only to an attack but also to stop a conflict or for some lower command to make poor decisions since there is time for an chain of command to decide how to handle the current situation.
I think early warning radars are of most importance even if they can’t be used for target acquisition, not everything has to be for engaging targets there are many other uses of military equipment.

MikeH

“I will remind someone below that the S300 range is about 150 km.”

I’ll remind you the Kaliber has a max range estimated at 4500 km. You can’t do anything with these hangar queens without their airfield.

Jim Allen

S-300 has twice that range.

Jens Holm

And of course the americans has never thought on that sitting on their hands having only an umbrella as protection.

Jens Holm

Its old russian land. They took it from the inuites and sold them to USA.

Lone Ranger

Lot of crashing Floppys and Craptors coming…
They aint very good at arctic and desert conditions.
Hangar queens…

Lone Ranger

Feel good measure.
They already lost.

Lone Ranger

Single engine jet in the arctic = was nice to know you…

Ishyrion Av

They will freeze to death.

cechas vodobenikov

waste your fuel you morons and purchase more from Russia. when the empire collapses we will provide you some canoes and paddles and teach to make burgers from cockroaches and hunt for seals

Romeo Pesiao

It’s pure envy….

AJ

Better put plenty of anti freeze in those things.

Антон С

What short range planes can do at Alaska? It’s placed on the edge of Arctic, there is no targets for fighters.
comment image

Scaathor

ROFL!! This retard thinks that US stealth fighters are designed to operate under sub-zero temperatures?

johnny rotten

Now everyone is warned, from the evil Ruskie to the Chinese up to the hostile Aliens, now they will have to deal with the mythical Fake-35, for the friends it will instead be the nice arctic barrel, unfortunately, however, it will almost always have to stay on the ground given the difficult weather conditions, but Congress is already working on further huge funding to overcome this recent new environmental difficulty, everything will be solved as always, with more and more dollars.

Wolfgang Wolf

much fun with this flying crap)) will surely work VERY RELIABLY)))

HB_Norica

It’ll be interesting to see how the F-35 fares in the arctic. A single engine engine aircraft with half the range and weapons load of Russian aircraft it’s flying against that can only manage one sortie a week. Stealth is out the window because any mission the F-35 flies in the Arctic will need external fuel tanks and I wouldn’t want to fly a finicky single engine aircraft that relies on a computer to fly over the Arctic ocean.

The Canadian air force looked at the F-35 and wouldn’t touch it because being a high maintenance single engine aircraft with a short range it won’t cover the distances necessary to defend the Arctic and if you lose power to the engine the $100 M aircraft is lost and the pilot is in a very bad situation. It’ll be interesting to see how arctic conditions affect this ‘flying supercomputer’ …. anyone out there try running windows vista while pulling 5G turn at -160 celsius?

Jim Allen

Norway flies F-35.
I don’t see these junk doing too well anywhere.

HB_Norica

Take a look at the area Norway’s trying to defend compared to North America and Russia.

The F-35 is made for circle jerk NATO R2P and regime change missions. It will be interesting to see how a ‘flying supercomputer” fares against Chinese or Russian EW. Any bets on who’s the first to figure out how to hack them and reprogram their weapons to home in on US soldiers fitbits and iphones.

Jim Allen

These fugitives from the scrap yard were designed to perform 5 seperate roles, one of which is air superiority fighter.
It performs all of the 5 roles extremely poorly.
That wouldn’t be pleasing to the brilliant minds that spec’d these absurd aircraft, and then accecpted these extremely underperforming junk for service in US military. No competent military would have spec’d an aircraft of this nature in the first place. It would have never accecpted aircraft that could not perform to specifications. Courts Martial should be busy with a long docket of US Military personnel (officers) facing multiple criminal charges.
The manufacturers of these foreign manufactured components imported, and assembled in US, should be defending themselves in both criminal Courts, and civil litigation. Fraud comes to mind, treason another, conspiracy is popular.
It appears US military is trying to lose the war US Government is provoking.

HB_Norica

I understand what the USA was trying to do with the JSF program. From an engineering and military perspective a strike fighter with used across NATO makes for great $$$ savings due to economies of scale and one aircraft X 1000″s makes manufacturing ordinance and logistics much simpler.

The reason they didn’t pull it off is politics, corruption and MIC companies chasing profits over a sense of patriotism.

They tried to cram so much shit into a single airframe that of course it’s going to fail.

On paper … or more to the point a comic book … an invisible flying supercomputer that can function as an AWAC, launch a nuclear attack undetected, provide close air support, and act as an air superiority fighter and can operate off carriers and as a VSTOL…. makes perfect sense.

Unfortunately we in the real world have to live with entropy … so the more complex you make something the more likely it is it’s gonna fuck up. Modern silicone chips have circuits that are measured in width by atoms protected by insulation that are atoms thick. There is always the chance they break or short circuit spontaneously due to quantum tunneling …. and that happens spontaneously sitting in the hanger … lord knows what high turns, extreme temperatures, turbulence and hard landings will do to it.

You need microprocessors in every modern aircraft however the more microprocessors you have the more likely it is for one of they to spontaneously fail simply due to laws of quantum mechanics. Add to that the stealth aspects and all the different roles … and different equipment … this aircraft has to incorporate into it’s airframe and you’ve built a nightmare that no amount of time or quality control can fix.

The problem isn’t the concept of the JSF …. it’s the greed of contractors and the ignorance / corruption of decision makers that turned this into a fiasco.

Romeo Pesiao

USAF has plenty of flying tankers,. the problem you exposed, not burden to them.

HB_Norica

Tankers and AWACs …. just the nice fat targets the KS-172 was built for. Russia / India are now playing around with turning the Bramos anti-shipping missile into an air to air missile. That’s 800 km range @mach 5 in it’s current configuration and they expect to be able to extend the range significantly.

The F-22’s combat radius is 800 km so tankers have to operate within that radius. The Russians are going to be able to shoot down tankers even if you have air superiority.

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2020/09/wtf-wtf.html

Bruno Gama

Wow!!!150 F-35 in Alaska, that is, thousand of Kilometers away from the majority of Russian Population… And Moskva, the only city in the world that has an active ABM System, +/- 200 Nuclear ABMs, Russians don´t believe in magical bullets, i.e. “Aegis”, “SM BLOCKS 666”, etc, that “kills” ghosts “ICBM” with a pre-dated trajectory! Wow! The F-35 to attack Russia will have to use refueling many times, which will help the Russian detect them (considering the false narrative that F-35 are “stealth”, with that radar-cross section?), the refueling aircraft will be shoot down by either fast interceptors like the MIG-31 FOXHOUND or SAMS, maybe Naval Sams of the Pacific or the Northern Fleet, and without refueling the F-35 will rest in peace in the snow…like every enemy of the Rus´, since the foundation of the Dynasty… “Nice Strategy”… It´s sound Pompeian to me, not Caesarian… Hahahaha… I should ask why the US has loose almost every war it has entered since WWII: Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq (2003-2011)… Once again, i have to think to the MIC Lobbyists that have killed the F-22 project in the name of the F-35… They have done a great job to the World! Kkkkkkk

Антон С

Exactly what I said before. There is no 150 fighters at Chukotka (closest russian land near Alaska), no targets for 150 F-35. F-35 can’t hit ships or submarines, land targets with cruise missiles, can’t intercept long-range missiles, especially ballistic ones. What is the reason to place them at Alaska? Lobbying is good supposition: “Russia is near, we have to do something! – Let’s place 150 fighters to trick the people before the elections.” Could be really dangerous, if to place in Germany, Poland or Pribaltica (in Tallinn for example, 300 km from St.Pereburg).

HiaNd

F-35 are only “danger” to pilots who fly them and nobody and nothing else on this planet.

96
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x