I have to wonder if that'd be target #1 if Russia did invade NATO. They don't have the nukes, and the army, which does have the nukes, low-key hates them. Domestically, they exist to enforce obedience to Putin, which is something we have in common with Russians in disliking.

Either that, or you send F-35s to hit all the same basic stuff as Ukraine has been. Which seems more likely, just because it's less dramatic.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Tactically, it’d be (most likely) unescorted B-2s - or more likely, B-21s, since they’re not only even lower visibility, but also a good bit less expensive per unit, and the fleet is slated to be much larger than the B-2 fleet. F-35s do not have the legs to go in to Moscow and then get back to friendly lines (read: a place safe enough to aerially refuel).

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Hmm. Russia is pretty big, and I guess it's unclear how close you'd want to fly your non-stealth aircraft to it. F-35s are at least some of what they've been doing in Iran, which is why it came to mind, but Iran isn't really as much of an airborn threat, and has less strategic depth.

The F-35 is listed has having a range greater than 1000nmi, which gets you from Moscow to central Europe. Not sure what load they're assuming in that figure, though, probably empty. If you're hitting a refinery in Omsk (or whatever they have in Omsk), for sure, there's no question, it's got to be a strategic bomber.

There's not really a reason not to use a bomber, if you're absolutely sure it won't be detected, I guess.

[–] Rose@lemmy.zip 7 points 2 days ago

I doubt Ukraine will target that one, as it's among the most obvious targets. I think one of the reasons Ukraine began to target the Wildberries warehouses in Russia is that Russia was probably hardening its defense of the oil plants. It's like the Ukrainian incursion into Russia. Unexpected and forces Russia to reallocate resources, freeing up another direction.