The topic of “Russian fighter jets” is currently trending due to a series of recent military encounters between U.S. and Russian aircraft near Alaska. Reports from multiple news sources indicate that U.S. fighter jets have been actively intercepting Russian warplanes, which has captured the attention of the public and media alike. The frequency of these interceptions suggests a heightened level of military activity in the region.
Specific incidents highlighted in the news include U.S. jets escorting Russian military aircraft out of Alaska’s air defense zone. Such military maneuvers raise concerns about airspace violations and the implications for national security, which likely contribute to the increased search interest as people seek more information about these confrontations.
The geographical context of Alaska as a critical point for both U.S. and Russian military operations further emphasizes the significance of these events. Given the strategic importance of this area, the intercepts are seen as crucial developments that inform broader discussions about international military relations, security, and regional tensions, driving more searches on this topic.
Watch the Moment
Internet Reacts
F
Introducing the Spitfire – Messerschmitt – Mitsubishi – Jet Fighter!
T
Spiterschmittishi
V
If Germany join i say we petition the national governments to make this the official nickname of the jets
F
Where’s the italian part? Oh you don’t care, do you?
S
Spiterschmittishi Superlegerra
U
Spiterschmittishi editioné speciale
S
Spiterschmittishi Veloce
M
SpiterschmittishiGorlami
E
Pininfarina will handle the design
F
Sheer ignorant belittling. Italy makes much better cars, yachts or ships than the UK. And I’m not Italian.
S
It would be iconic
N
Messerspitsubishi
T
Supermarine 109M Zero
R
* Centauro
N
Friendly reminder that Italy built some of the best fighters of WW2, which were also considered by Germany to replace the BF109s
P
Folgoreeee
D
There were some insane design flaws and by mid war they were obsolete. Germany and Italy were the ones building up their military, no one else was as focused on developing a fighter and the Spitfire was still considered equal. The Luftwaffe sustained bad losses during the battle of France and were surprised by the Spitfire. Once allies put proper money into development they exceeded axis design pretty quickly.
U
the fw 190 and machi’s where equal of anything the allies produced. The fw 190 might be the best fighter of the war. That doesn’t mean the p51 or spitfire where not equally good. The margins where really thin.
D
The mk IX Spitfire had a far higher kill ratio than the 190. It wasn’t even close to the best fighter of the war. By 45 everything the allies fielded completely dwarfed anything the axis could produce. P51 had an 11:1 kill ratio and was the 190’s peer opponent.
U
Thats comparing apples with oranges. Life expentancy near the end of the war for new pilots was atrocius in terms of dogfighting capacity with pear pilots it axis planes were certainly still the equal.
F
They don’t care, Deutschland uber Alles. After that they are surprised France doesn’t want to deal with them.
K
Nah It’s the GAYLORD GLADIATOR Hoffmann SOUPRA MULTIPLAX PRISON
W
Mezzo mix?
R
You mean, Supermarine, Messerschmitt, Fiat/Macchi, Mitsubishi
W
There is nothing in this article which suggests anything that the headline claims. It mentions what we’ve already seen numerous articles talk about which is Meloni spoke to Merz about the program, the UK nor Japan are mentioned in this article in relation to discussing the matter with Germany or hoping they join for that matter. All it does is rehash unproven talking points, for example financing “issues” which don’t really exist, the estimates for the UK haven’t increased much, Government finances are doing pretty well and exceeding expectations freeing up extra money so once the DIP is released it’s expected the UKs money will follow, Italy has already approved its funding and Japan has more than enough money with how much it’s invested into defence in the past few years. The article provides no evidence or commentary that either Japan or the UK are interested in Germany joining, never mind “hoping”.
R
Germans: It needs to make a scary noise during the attack.
A
Joint venture with Britain, some sort of Stuka Vulcan?
B
Only if you fly downwards with bombs on it. Otherwise it has to have 3 wings or only a wing.
D
So it will speak German?
G
Never understood why France/Germany/Spain didn’t follow a similar model: >The Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), which was launched by a treaty signed in December 2022 between the UK, Italy and Japan, has not encountered the same obstacles as the FCAS, with the three countries having opted for centralized and balanced governance through a joint venture. > >Named “Edgewing,” it brings together the British defense contractor BAE Systems, Italy’s Leonardo and Japan Aircraft Industrial Enhancement, with each holding one-third of the capital. It has been operational since June 2025 and aims to fly its first demonstrator before 2027, with the system entering service in 2035 – five years ahead of FCAS.
O
FCAS comes from a time where, atleast in Germany, defense politics were secondary to everything else and this project looked like a nice way to deepen the french-german cooperation. Now that defense actually matters and we have our own ideas, FCAS seems straight up unviable
N
Because the French always insist on the biggest share of the pie.
R
Because the french have specific requirements related to their nuclear deterrence strategy (and their specific views of what a “omnirole” fighter should be able to do, that is different from german and british ones)
E
That’s of course a real problem, but it has nothing to do with what the GP asked (i.e. why the FCAS isn’t being led by a joint venture corporation).
[
[deleted]
S
Because French nuclear doctrine includes a tactical first strike as a “fuck off, last warning”. Submarine launched intercontinental ballistic missiles are a bit of an “all or nothing” last resort.
R
It’s unique to France, the jet launched nuke would be used as a first and final warning, and contrary to the USA or the UK, we allow ourselves to shoot first. The ICBM is a different deterence : global chaos. Or like de Gaulle would say: *”We have enough nukes to kill 80 million Russians. A country don’t readily attack another that have the means to kill 80 million Russians, even if themselves have enough to kill 800 million French people, assuming there were 800 million French people.”*
T
> It’s unique to France, the jet launched nuke would be used as a first and final warning, and contrary to the USA or the UK, we allow ourselves to shoot first. Neither the US nor UK commits to no first-strike as far as I’m aware.
R
French, US and british nuclear doctrine are pretty similar regarding the use of nuclear ICBM (it’s kind of a defensive posture but there is a deliberate ambiguity about first strike possibility). France is different because the ASMP-A sole purpose is a final warning. Therefore it can only be used has a first nuclear strike.
O
I love the idea of a final warning being a 300kt nuclear blast, how very French
L
Maybe they don’t commit not to do it. We clearly threaten to do it. This nuance is important
B
The more complete your deterrence is, the more credible it is. France’s entire defense strategy revolves around nuclear deterrence as a way to remain independent from the US. The UK relies on SSBNs only and look how dire their situation is right now, they can barely scramble one SSBN. A single misstep in scheduling maintenance and they find themselves with no credible nuclear deterrent. The next air launched missile will be hypersonic and target a 1000km+ range. That’s far more useful and flexible than the suicidal B61 bombs that the US gave Europe. Also tactical nuclear warheads are going to be more and more prevalent in the future, you can’t do tactical strikes with an SSBN.
T
> The UK relies on SSBNs only and look how dire their situation is right now, they can barely scramble one SSBN. A single misstep in scheduling maintenance and they find themselves with no credible nuclear deterrent. A squadron of cruise-missile armed fighters is hardly a credible nuclear deterrent by itself though; if it were we’d all just do that instead, it would be vastly cheaper. It nicely fills the lower rungs on the escalation latter though like AGM-86 for the Americans.
B
The UK really needs a credible first strike capability so that it can move gradually up the nuclear escalation ladder, without going full turbo suicidal by launching the Tridents. UK should join with France (probably as a junior partner) to develop ASN4G and independently support and operate it from GCAP.
T
I do agree that we need more steps on the escalation ladder. In the past buying ASMP and fitting it with a British warhead was one of the options considered by the UK when it was discussing how to replace WE.177. Whether that would be something considered today is anyone’s guess, but it’s probably very low on the priorities list.
B
Maybe. The UK is half-arsing it by buying an orphan fleet of 12x F-35As to contribute to the NATO B61 mission that is both limited in utility, and not independent of the US. It would be better to scrap that and go-in with the French on ASMP replacement, work with them to develop the operating procedures for fielding the weapon, building the supporting supply and logistics chain, and design GCAP from the outset to be able to fulfill the mission.
R
>Maybe. The UK is half-arsing it by buying an orphan fleet of 12x F-35As to contribute to the NATO B61 mission that is both limited in utility, and not independent of the US. B61 seems like as useless as it can be nowadays. Fly over the target and drop a freefall nuke? That’s some Mission Impossible level of difficulty to pull off.
B
I didn’t say by itself. I’m talking about complementary. The more effectors your enemy has, the more of a threat they are, especially if we’re talking tactical strikes and not armageddon. In case of an actual WW 3, cruise missiles can be shared with relative ease, SLBMs cannot. All nuclear powers but the UK have air-launched nuclear cruise missiles, it’s not just France. SLBMs are the most effective part of the nuclear triad but there’s a reason why Russia, China, India and the US, have a full triad (it works) and why the UK, France and Pakistan don’t (we can’t afford it).
G
If France has a single maintenance mistake they also have no ICBM deterrent. Both countries only use 4 SSBNs
B
The only pillar that France is leading is the airframe design for obvious reasons. France was supposed to lead the engine development (again for obvious reasons) but Germany took that and made it a 50-50 joint venture. Everyone agrees that the most critical aspect of these next gen fighters is the combat cloud and networked warfare and that’s the pillar led by Germany (along with the remote carriers) but somehow they’re complaining? Mind you if Germany hadn’t brought Spain on board (France had opposed it, Germany lobbied for it), then the German industry would have an even bigger work share. And I wish to remind everyone of an often forgotten fact that explains why France was originally supposed to lead the whole FCAS program: in exchange Germany gets to lead MGCS and they do. I don’t see where the problem is? It seems like a fair distribution to me.
Additional Sources:
The Hill – Fighter jets intercept Russian warplanes near Alaska
Al Jazeera – US jets escort Russian military aircraft out of Alaska’s air defence zone
CBS News – U.S. fighter jets intercept Russian warplanes off Alaskan coast
