Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16007
    Points : 16664
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:51 am

    The snap drills are not training as such... they are a test that local commanders can't fake... ie a transport unit works quickly and methodically and moves ammo from trucks to a forward firing point... there is no firing to be done today... that test is next week so they put all the boxes back and drive away. No one mentions the boxes are empty.

    In a snap drill those boxes can't be empty and every tiny part of the machine has to work together to get the job done so it is an excellent test on many levels.

    The electronic simulation system the Germans were building for the Russians wont be completed by the Germans because of the current sanctions but apparently Russian software companies have said they can complete the program and build more if needed... they allow an entire brigade train together in a virtual reality setup from snipers and soldiers right up through command and control and heavy vehicles and from a single vehicle right up to a brigade of vehicles.

    Obviously training can be day or night and in any weather and can be set anywhere on the planet.

    Performance can be recorded and monitored with mistakes found and corrected.

    More importantly I would suggest that with it being a digital electronic system... basically an enormous LAN game... you could change the vehicle types with a software update and practise driving vehicles not even in service yet....

    AFAIK they were planning two but if they can be made locally then why not have two per military district? (ie Cool If not right away then at least by 2025.

    Smaller versions would be useful too... perhaps as a mobile sim training system.

    With the new Ratnik equipment I would expect new training in its use would be needed, though using their plans of 70% new kit by 2020 suggests 30% of units wont have it by 2020.

    Performance in Chechnia and Dagestan wasn't that bad in my opinion... of the problems most were related to obsolete comms and recon and the decisions made by those higher up the chain of command. In Georgia I think a relatively small force took on a larger force that was comparatively equipped and did a good job... better planned and thought out, but still lacking in recon and comms security/nav.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2774
    Points : 2832
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  Mike E on Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:58 am

    GarryB wrote:The snap drills are not training as such... they are a test that local commanders can't fake... ie a transport unit works quickly and methodically and moves ammo from trucks to a forward firing point... there is no firing to be done today... that test is next week so they put all the boxes back and drive away. No one mentions the boxes are empty.

    In a snap drill those boxes can't be empty and every tiny part of the machine has to work together to get the job done so it is an excellent test on many levels.

    The electronic simulation system the Germans were building for the Russians wont be completed by the Germans because of the current sanctions but apparently Russian software companies have said they can complete the program and build more if needed... they allow an entire brigade train together in a virtual reality setup from snipers and soldiers right up through command and control and heavy vehicles and from a single vehicle right up to a brigade of vehicles.

    Obviously training can be day or night and in any weather and can be set anywhere on the planet.

    Performance can be recorded and monitored with mistakes found and corrected.

    More importantly I would suggest that with it being a digital electronic system... basically an enormous LAN game... you could change the vehicle types with a software update and practise driving vehicles not even in service yet....

    AFAIK they were planning two but if they can be made locally then why not have two per military district? (ie Cool  If not right away then at least by 2025.

    Smaller versions would be useful too... perhaps as a mobile sim training system.

    With the new Ratnik equipment I would expect new training in its use would be needed, though using their plans of 70% new kit by 2020 suggests 30% of units wont have it by 2020.

    Performance in Chechnia and Dagestan wasn't that bad in my opinion... of the problems most were related to obsolete comms and recon and the decisions made by those higher up the chain of command. In Georgia I think a relatively small force took on a larger force that was comparatively equipped and did a good job... better planned and thought out, but still lacking in recon and comms security/nav.
    Still a form of training...

    That VR system will be priceless for Russian forces to have. Let's hope it works well!

    Personnel will receive that new "advanced soldier" kind of system soon enough as well! (Ratnik)
    avatar
    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2844
    Points : 2975
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  kvs on Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:10 am

    We should consider the performance of the rebels in the Donbas. They are getting whipped into shape by Russian advisers and have become very effective on the battlefield even though they are outgunned and face Kiev regime forces at least twice in number. The Kiev regime is getting similar levels of support from NATO. It's hard to swallow for some and they make up stories about a Russian invasion every other day. NATO thinks there are 1,000 Russian troops in Ukraine right now. This is a silly number for a force deployment and would make more sense as some rounded-to-the-nearest-thousand number of advisers.

    I have red rebel stories about effective use of EM warfare against Kiev regime forces. This does not seem like something a rag tag collection of rebels could achieve after a few months of fighting. The current state of the Russian army appears to be quite advanced. The modernization program will take another 10 years, but the training is there and paying off.
    avatar
    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2774
    Points : 2832
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  Mike E on Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:15 am

    kvs wrote:We should consider the performance of the rebels in the Donbas.   They are getting whipped into shape by Russian advisers and have become very effective on the battlefield even though they are outgunned and face Kiev regime forces at least twice in number.   The Kiev regime is getting similar levels of support from NATO.   It's hard to swallow for some and they make up stories about a Russian invasion every other day.   NATO thinks there are 1,000 Russian troops in Ukraine right now.   This is a silly number for a force deployment and would make more sense as some rounded-to-the-nearest-thousand number of advisers.

    I have red rebel stories about effective use of EM warfare against Kiev regime forces.   This does not seem like something a rag tag collection of rebels could achieve after a few months of fighting.   The current state of the Russian army appears to be quite advanced.   The modernization program will take another 10 years, but the training is there and paying off.    
    The rebels are not trained directly by Russian forces, but by people in Russian forces or former Russian forces etc.
    avatar
    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2844
    Points : 2975
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  kvs on Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:06 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    kvs wrote:We should consider the performance of the rebels in the Donbas.   They are getting whipped into shape by Russian advisers and have become very effective on the battlefield even though they are outgunned and face Kiev regime forces at least twice in number.   The Kiev regime is getting similar levels of support from NATO.   It's hard to swallow for some and they make up stories about a Russian invasion every other day.   NATO thinks there are 1,000 Russian troops in Ukraine right now.   This is a silly number for a force deployment and would make more sense as some rounded-to-the-nearest-thousand number of advisers.

    I have red rebel stories about effective use of EM warfare against Kiev regime forces.   This does not seem like something a rag tag collection of rebels could achieve after a few months of fighting.   The current state of the Russian army appears to be quite advanced.   The modernization program will take another 10 years, but the training is there and paying off.    
    The rebels are not trained directly by Russian forces, but by people in Russian forces or former Russian forces etc.

    Both NATO and Russia have advisers in Ukraine. Following the evolution of the combat in the Donbas there was a clear transition from July onward towards high effectiveness of rebel forces. It is popular to extoll Strelkov as some military genius. He was very good but he was not responsible for every success especially the ones in August and September when he was absent from the field. It is quite a feat to organize a collection of rebels composed of mostly civilians into an effective fighting force. The pace of the transition was just too fast for it to have been the result of volunteers and trial and error. The rebels are following a detailed organizational plan. This sort of "technology" is more important than equipment (as long as the difference in the equipment compared to the enemy is not too great).

    But it is true that ex-forces volunteers from Russian, France, Serbia and likely elsewhere are contributing to the quality of the rebels. According to a post on mp.net some Serb volunteers got rejected because they were not qualified enough. So the rebels are not just grabbing any green recruit like the desperate Kiev regime. These green recruits are a risk to themselves and to others. It seems that the ceasefire has not given the Kiev regime forces any serious boost in terms of performance and they are still being encircled.
    avatar
    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2774
    Points : 2832
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  Mike E on Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:37 pm

    kvs wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    kvs wrote:We should consider the performance of the rebels in the Donbas.   They are getting whipped into shape by Russian advisers and have become very effective on the battlefield even though they are outgunned and face Kiev regime forces at least twice in number.   The Kiev regime is getting similar levels of support from NATO.   It's hard to swallow for some and they make up stories about a Russian invasion every other day.   NATO thinks there are 1,000 Russian troops in Ukraine right now.   This is a silly number for a force deployment and would make more sense as some rounded-to-the-nearest-thousand number of advisers.

    I have red rebel stories about effective use of EM warfare against Kiev regime forces.   This does not seem like something a rag tag collection of rebels could achieve after a few months of fighting.   The current state of the Russian army appears to be quite advanced.   The modernization program will take another 10 years, but the training is there and paying off.    
    The rebels are not trained directly by Russian forces, but by people in Russian forces or former Russian forces etc.

    Both NATO and Russia have advisers in Ukraine.   Following the evolution of the combat in the Donbas there was a clear transition from July onward towards high effectiveness of rebel forces.   It is popular to extoll Strelkov as some military genius.  He was very good but he was not responsible for every success especially the ones in August and September when he was absent from the field.    It is quite a feat to organize a collection of rebels composed of mostly civilians into an effective fighting force.   The pace of the transition was just too fast for it to have been the result of volunteers and trial and error.   The rebels are following a detailed organizational plan.   This sort of "technology" is more important than equipment (as long as the difference in the equipment compared to the enemy is not too great).  

    But it is true that ex-forces volunteers from Russian, France, Serbia and likely elsewhere are contributing to the quality of the rebels.   According to a post on mp.net some Serb volunteers got rejected because they were not qualified enough.   So the rebels are not just grabbing any green recruit like the desperate Kiev regime.   These green recruits are a risk to themselves and to others.    It seems that the ceasefire has not given the Kiev regime forces any serious boost in terms of performance and they are still being encircled.  
    Yeah, that makes sense, but that doesn't mean they are receiving direct training from the Kremlin. IMHO, they seem to be fighting like an "organized guerrilla-tactics group" if you catch my drift.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16007
    Points : 16664
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

    Still a form of training..

    I would call it the most realistic test of training short of going to war.

    That VR system will be priceless for Russian forces to have. Let's hope it works well!

    Within NATO I think only Germany has it, though it is possible the US might have their own version...




    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2774
    Points : 2832
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Modern army of Russia

    Post  Mike E on Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:04 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Still a form of training..

    I would call it the most realistic test of training short of going to war.

    That VR system will be priceless for Russian forces to have. Let's hope it works well!

    Within NATO I think only Germany has it, though it is possible the US might have their own version...


    We are in agreement...

    Such systems have been trialed for US forces for almost a decade now, but none have reached wide adoption.
    avatar
    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 818
    Points : 1321
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Begining of Shift of military balance: Russia surpassed US in production of new combat planes

    Post  nemrod on Thu Dec 04, 2014 3:30 pm

    Who could be astonished ?
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/04/pentagon-worries-that-russia-can-now-outshoot-u-s-stealth-jets.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29#



    “We—the U.S. [Department of Defense]—haven’t been pursuing appropriate methods to counter EA [electronic attack] for years,”
    A senior Air Force official with extensive experience on the F-22 told The Daily Beast.
    Really ? For years among the best fighters in the world last the SU-35, and Mig-35, if not the best. And their so called effectiveness of air-to-air missiles -especially AMRAAM- are just hoax, as their stealth technology.
    US Air Force are admitting that their philosophy did not work. Now, ask money to US tax payers.




    Pentagon Worries That Russia Can Now Outshoot U.S. Stealth Jets

    American fighter planes are the fastest, most maneuverable jets in the world. But their weapons are becomingly increasingly obsolete—and that has some in the U.S. Air Force spooked.

    High flying and fast, the F-22 Raptor stealth jet is by far the most lethal fighter America has ever built. But the Raptor—and indeed all U.S. fighters—have a potential Achilles’ heel, according to a half-dozen current and former Air Force officials. The F-22’s long-range air-to-air missiles might not be able to hit an enemy aircraft, thanks to new enemy radar-jamming techniques.

    The issue has come to the fore as tensions continue to rise with Russia and a potential conflict between the great powers is once again a possibility—even if a remote one.

    “We—the U.S. [Department of Defense]—haven’t been pursuing appropriate methods to counter EA [electronic attack] for years,” a senior Air Force official with extensive experience on the F-22 told The Daily Beast. “So, while we are stealthy, we will have a hard time working our way through the EA to target [an enemy aircraft such as a Russian-built Sukhoi] Su-35s and our missiles will have a hard time killing them.”

    The problem is that many potential adversaries, such as the Chinese and the Russians, have developed advanced digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) jammers. These jammers, which effectively memorize an incoming radar signal and repeat it back to the sender, seriously hamper the performance of friendly radars.

    Worse, these new jammers essentially blind the small radars found onboard air-to-air missiles like the Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM, which is the primary long-range weapon for all U.S. and most allied fighter planes.

    That means it could take several missile shots to kill an enemy fighter, even for an advanced stealth aircraft like the Raptor. “While exact Pk [probability of kill] numbers are classified, let’s just say that I won’t be killing these guys one for one,” the senior Air Force official said. It’s the “same issue” for earlier American fighters like the F-15, F-16, or F/A-18.

    Another Air Force official with experience on the stealthy new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter agreed. “AMRAAM’s had some great upgrades over the years, but at the end of the day, it’s old technology and wasn’t really designed with today’s significant EA in mind,” this official said.

    Like boxers, every missile has a reach, a range, a limit to how far it can hit. In the not-too-distant future, the AMRAAM might also be out-ranged by new weapons that are being developed around the world. Particularly, Russia is known to be developing an extremely long-range weapon called the K-100 that has far better reach than anything currently in existence.




    “While we are stealthy, we will have a hard time targeting Russian Su-35s and our missiles will have a hard time killing them.”

    The problem is not a new one. Historically, the Pentagon has always prioritized the development of new fighters over the development new weapons—it’s a uniquely American blind spot. During the 1970s, the then brand new F-15A Eagle carried the same antiquated armament as the Vietnam-era F-4 Phantom II. It wasn’t until the 1990s that the F-15 received a weapon in the form of the AMRAAM that could take full advantage of its abilities. The same applies to short-range weapons—it wasn’t until the early 2000s with the introduction of the AIM-9X that the U.S. had a dogfighting weapon that could match or better the Russian R-73 Archer missile.

    The Air Force officials all said that some of the American missiles would get through during a fight—there is no question of that—but it would take a lot more weapons than anyone ever expected. The problem is that fighter aircraft don’t carry that many missiles.

    The Raptor carries six AMRAAMs and two shorter range AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles inside its weapons bays. At the moment, the F-35 carries only four AMRAAM missiles inside its weapons bays, but that might be expanded to six in the future. Older fighters like the Boeing F-15 Eagle carry no more than eight missiles—while the F-16 usually carries no more than six weapons.





    That means that if a fighter has to fire—for instance—three missiles to kill a single enemy fighter, the Pentagon is facing a serious problem.

    “Getting a first shot is one thing,” said a former Air Force fighter pilot with extensive experience with Russian weapons. “Needing another shot when you have expended your load is another when your force structure is limited in terms of the number of platforms available for a given operation.”

    There are some potential solutions, but all of them mean spending more money to develop new missiles. former Air Force intelligence chief Lt. Gen. Dave Deptula said it’s “critical” that the U.S. and its allies move “air-to-air weapons into a future where they can effectively deal with adversary electronic attack.”

    One relatively simple fix would be to develop a missile that picks out its targets using radars with a completely different frequency band. Current fighter radars and missiles operate on what is called the X-band, but they don’t necessarily have to. “Getting out of X band is on option,” said one senior Air Force official.

    The Pentagon could also develop a new missile that combines multiple types of sensors such as infrared and radar into the same weapon—which has been attempted without much success in the past.

    Right now, the Defense Department—led by the Navy—is working to increase the range of the AIM-9X version of the Sidewinder by 60 percent to give the Pentagon’s fighter fleet some sort of counter to the jamming problem. But even with the extended reach, the modified Sidewinder won’t have anywhere close to the range of an AMRAAM.

    The other option is to stuff fighters like the F-22 and F-35 with more missiles that are smaller. Lockheed Martin, for example, is developing a small long-range air-to-air missile called the “Cuda” that could double or triple the number of weapons carried by either U.S. stealth fighter. “Look to a new generation of U.S. air-to-air missiles, like Cuda, to neutralize any potential numerical advantage,” one senior industry official said.

    The industry official said that despite the small size, new weapons like the Cuda can offer extremely impressive range because it doesn’t have an explosive warhead—it just runs into the target and destroys it with sheer kinetic energy.

    But the senior Air Force official expressed deep skepticism that such a weapon could be both small and far-reaching. “I doubt you can solve range and the need for a large magazine with the same missile,” he said.

    This official added that future weapons would be far better at countering enemy jamming—so much so that future fighters will not need to have the sheer speed and maneuverability of an aircraft like the Raptor. “I think top end speed, super cruise, and acceleration will all decline in importance as weapons advance in range and speed,” he said.

    For a military that’s committed hundreds of billions of dollars to such advanced fighters, such developments might not exactly be welcome news.


    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16007
    Points : 16664
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:12 am

    What a stupid ignorant article...

    American fighter planes are the fastest, most maneuverable jets in the world.

    The F-16 is mach 2 or less, F-22 is Mach 2.2, F-15 is mach 2.4 perhaps...

    MiG-35, and Su-35 and their predecessors... MiG-29 and Su-27 are Mach 2.4 fighters, and the MiG-31 can fly at Mach 2.8 for about 5 minutes and about mach 2.6 for 20 minutes and Mach 2.4 for as long as it likes.

    With thrust vector engine control both the MiG-35 and Su-35 are both far more manouverable than any US fighter.

    Particularly, Russia is known to be developing an extremely long-range weapon called the K-100 that has far better reach than anything currently in existence.

    The R-37M has a flight range of 280km... rather more than the Phoenix missile... a weapon currently only in service in the Iranian AF. The export model of the R-37M which is currenly entering Russian AF service with the new upgrades of MiG-31BMs and also likely operational with the Su-35 and MiG-35, is called RVV-BD and could be in service fairly quickly in the Indian AF if they want it.

    Otherwise the article is just self centred whine...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 818
    Points : 1321
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Begining of Shift of military balance : When Russia surpassed U.S. in production of new combat planes

    Post  nemrod on Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:33 pm

    http://theaviationist.com/2014/12/17/russia-produces-more-combat-planes/

    It is no use to tell that SU-35 outclasses most of the western fighters, including F-22. The Mig-35 outclasses most of US fighters, including the F-22, and the incomming F-35.
    The problem with Russia, Russian air force cannot afford to build up more SU-35, and Mig-35, and their number are still not enough. Let's hope an effort next.



    According to the Joint Stock Company UAC (United Aircraft-building Corporation), Russia has produced more combat aircraft than the U.S., in 2014.

    As reported by Russian media outlets, in an interview with Ekho Moskvy radio station, Vladislav Goncharenko, deputy head of the military aviation programmes department at UAC (the a Russian holding which encompasses Irkut, Mikoyan, Sukhoi, Ilyushin, Tupolev, Beriev and Yakovlev), Moscow has surpassed the U.S. in the number of produced combat aircraft.

    Whilst in 2013, UAC companies delivered 68 planes, 100 aircraft, 95 of those are combat planes for the Russian Air Force were produced and delivered in 2014.

    Along with the production of more planes, UAC subsidiaries have carried out the modernization of existing aircraft and the development of new weapons systems, Goncharenko said.

    Even though we don’t know the corresponding U.S. figures, the number of new aircraft delivered to the front-line units of the Russian Air Force is a clear sign Moscow is strongly supporting its renascent military power.

    For sure “quantity” does not always come with “quality” and, most probably, U.S. technology will still be ahead of Russian (or Chinese) one for several decades. However, it’s impossible to foresee the outcome of a dogfight in which few, advanced American 6th Generation fighter jets, face outnumbering Russian 5th Generation warplanes.

    In the meanwhile, PAK-FA T-50 prototypes have been quipped with Himalayas EW defense systems to increase jamming resistance and self-protection capabilities. The delivery of the first production PAK-FA 5th Generation stealth jet to the Air Force is planned for 2016 whereas new type of combat and reconnaissance drone will appear by 2018. 6th Generation aircraft are being studied as well.

    By 2020, 55 PAK-FA fighters will be in service with the Russian Air Force.

    H/T to @Missilito for the heads-up
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16007
    Points : 16664
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 23, 2014 6:29 am

    Russia cannot afford to build too many planes too quickly an end up with too many planes in service, or large production capacity factories now idle because they made planes too quickly and now have no orders.

    Slow production gives time to build infrastructure like aircraft shelters, and also train enough pilots and crew to actually operate the aircraft.

    it also means that the companies have more time to get orders from foreign customers so that production facilities can continue to make planes well after the Russian air force is equipped.

    Russia has the enormous advantage over the US that they still have MiG-29s and soon MiG-35s and Su-30s and Su-35s and Su-34s all in current production and will soon have PAK FAs in production too.

    In comparison the US has F-35 and F-18E/F in production AFAIK.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    F-15E
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 103
    Points : 94
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  F-15E on Tue Dec 23, 2014 11:53 am

    nemrod wrote:

    It is no use to tell that SU-35 outclasses most of the western fighters, including F-22. The Mig-35 outclasses most of US fighters, including the F-22,

    What did you smoke dude ?
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16007
    Points : 16664
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 24, 2014 7:40 am

    Both Russian aircraft can outmanouver either US aircraft and at the end of the day I would expect Russian ECM equipment should be able to deal with AMRAAM and AIM-9X, so if it comes down to a cannon fight... my money would be on the Russian fighters.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 818
    Points : 1321
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  nemrod on Wed Dec 24, 2014 11:44 pm

    GarryB wrote:Both Russian aircraft can outmanouver either US aircraft and at the end of the day I would expect Russian ECM equipment should be able to deal with AMRAAM and AIM-9X, so if it comes down to a cannon fight... my money would be on the Russian fighters.

    We talked several times in the past about the subject relating air to air missiles.
    I remember, I answered by giving you this link , where Tom Cooper explained that between 1992-2002, US engaged several F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18 using amraam missiles against Mig-25. If indeed, there were few success swaggered by US media here :

    using an hollywood montage that only americans have the secret, nevertheless the reality is less shining. As I explained US engagement's doctrin oblige a fight  only by respecting a ration at least 5 against 1, if not 10 against 1. Each time, when this ratio is not respected, US gave up the fight. They remembered the hard lessons in Vietnam, and in Korea. Their so-called suprematy became only hype, and they realized -in Vietnam- how the air to air missiles and radars were not reliables.
    It is evident if you launch several dozens of missiles -amraam-, if none reach their target, it would be unfortunate-and it occureed several times-.
    Tom Cooper explained in Acig.org, that US used to launch several dozens of amraam and several times all missed their target. Take care! I talked about AMRAAM. The old iraqis Mig-25 could evaded US, and british air to air missiles them easily. If US air force that was in that time in position of suprematy against iraqi air force were not able to down easily old Iraqi Mig-25 with their so-called state of art weaponneries, what would be happened against modern russian and chinese fighters ?

    In that time, there were no internet, no specialists that could explained us how US used to lie. Nowadays, Russia air force has nothing to see with the failing economy of the 90's. And it is important to add that Yeltsin's adminstration behaved like cowards, they used to sell, to give their secret weapons to US. Meanwhile, US gave nothing. And it is important to mention that, in that time, US could access easily to some strategic secrets relating to Mig-23-25-27-29-31, and SU-22-25-27. I don't know if they have the secret of russian Mig-33, and SU-33.
    Russia nowadays is another country, a real superpower. For that reason, Russia's new fighters are a real threat for american fighters. This time for US, the threat won't be virtual, it will be real, and russian -including indian, chinese- air force could easiy kick-assed US air force.
    avatar
    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3001
    Points : 3033
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  max steel on Thu Apr 02, 2015 9:51 pm

    Analysts say Russia needs quality growth of its armed forces

    Analysts say Russia needs quality growth of its armed forces



    QUERY : Where does Russia armed forces lack as compared to US armed soldiers ? what quality do they lack unshaven ? Less experience ? scratch
    avatar
    henriksoder
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 24
    Points : 41
    Join date : 2015-04-03

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  henriksoder on Sat Apr 04, 2015 5:43 am

    max steel wrote: Analysts say Russia needs quality growth of its armed forces  

    Analysts say Russia needs quality growth of its armed forces



    QUERY : Where does Russia armed forces lack as compared to US armed soldiers ? what quality do they lack unshaven  ? Less experience ? scratch

    I think US army got better got better equipment on the battlefield, for example high-technology drones, tanks and aircrafts with high precision and weapons which is stronger than Russia's. US army is better trained, they can better obtain a stronger offensive and defensive than the Russian army can. Still, Russia got almost three times more tanks, many well experinced soldiers and can almost control the sea with their many corvettes and warships. They can fulfil a stronger offensive than US army can, but US army is better equipped to face a Russian invasion than the Russian army are.
    avatar
    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7264
    Points : 7564
    Join date : 2009-08-05
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  sepheronx on Sat Apr 04, 2015 5:47 am

    henriksoder wrote:
    max steel wrote: Analysts say Russia needs quality growth of its armed forces  

    Analysts say Russia needs quality growth of its armed forces



    QUERY : Where does Russia armed forces lack as compared to US armed soldiers ? what quality do they lack unshaven  ? Less experience ? scratch

    I think US army got better got better equipment on the battlefield, for example high-technology drones, tanks and aircrafts with high precision and weapons which is stronger than Russia's. US army is better trained, they can better obtain a stronger offensive and defensive than the Russian army can. Still, Russia got almost three times more tanks, many well experinced soldiers and can almost control the sea with their many corvettes and warships. They can fulfil a stronger offensive than US army can, but US army is better equipped to face a Russian invasion than the Russian army are.

    What?

    Do you know how they train in Russia?  Do you know the equipment they field?  Russia also has high quality tanks, aircrafts and drones with high percision weapons.  KAB missiles are all guided, Kh missiles are all guided and high percision.  Su-27's are all high tech.  T-90s and T-72B3's are all high tech.  Russian army has plenty of experience and their training is pretty much no difference.  Plenty of surprise drills, and now aircraft pilots train as much as US pilots per hour. Or are you the type to believe that M4's mean high tech and skills?
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5735
    Points : 5775
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  TR1 on Sat Apr 04, 2015 5:59 am

    US has far more precision weaponry in service. It is not even a comparison....
    avatar
    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7264
    Points : 7564
    Join date : 2009-08-05
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  sepheronx on Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:04 am

    TR1 wrote:US has far more precision weaponry in service. It is not even a comparison....

    I never actually seen any numbers on the amount of KAB and Kh weaponry in storage.  I know they love to use dumb bombs as the nation is probably swimming in them, but I never seen any estimates on the guided munitions.  But they have been stockpiling for decades but rarely use them.  So I cannot comment on the number of precision guided munitions in terms of numbers.  But weapons like Iskanders and Tochka's fall under that too and they have far more of these short range BM's than the west.

    I remember reading how France had ran out of guided munitions when in the Libya campaign and had to use concrete bombs.

    Now with this said, is there any news regarding guided kits for dumb bombs in Russia? I know there was something proposed but never heard beyond that.
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5735
    Points : 5775
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  TR1 on Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:07 am

    LOL @ whoever down-voted that.


    You have to be utterly delusional to not think the US has a massive lead in precision weapons. Compare the number of Russian precision weapons bought in past few years, to what the US has since the end of the Cold War.
    Tactical Missile corps has published the number of guided weaposn they sold for a number of years. Not impressive numbers by any stretch.

    US has far more platforms that can use precision weapons as well.
    avatar
    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7264
    Points : 7564
    Join date : 2009-08-05
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  sepheronx on Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:09 am

    TR1 wrote:LOL @ whoever down-voted that.


    You have to be utterly delusional to not think the US has a massive lead in precision weapons. Compare the number of Russian precision weapons bought in past few years, to what the US has since the end of the Cold War.


    Well, I didn't do it so doing point at me.

    But I am curious about the numbers. Cause KAB series and Kh series have all existed for decades and I imagine the soviet government purchased a ton of them and probably stored them, and now I know recently Russia has been purchasing a lot but curious what the numbers are from the soviet era to now in storage.

    And I edited my last post, but I am wondering if you know TR1, but are there any known guidance kits for dumb bombs for Russia? I know something was proposed and shown but heard nothing beyond that.
    avatar
    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3001
    Points : 3033
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  max steel on Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:14 am

    So having more precision bombs is the only factor which makes US army better in quality ? Whqt all precision weapons do they use ?

    I guess they are many factors .dunno


    I think one reason can be their troops are more battle hardened . Ofcourse they are better compare the deaths of soldiers in Afghan war .
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5735
    Points : 5775
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  TR1 on Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:15 am

    Did not think it was you. I have a cabal of butthurt followers who try to down-vote anything not resembling Russia-strong posts.

    USSR never purchased massive precision weapons stocks, not for tactical aircraft. No one really did back then- just look how many guided bombs the US dropped in Desert Storm. A handful of the total. More laser guided, but still.
    Not to mention weapons bought in the 80s....its 2015 now.

    Plenty bomb kits shown at exhibits, but to date I have not seen any serial orders for them.
    avatar
    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7264
    Points : 7564
    Join date : 2009-08-05
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  sepheronx on Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:15 am

    max steel wrote:So having more precision bombs is the only factor which makes US army better in quality ? Whqt all precision weapons do they use ?

    I guess they are many factors .dunno


    I think one reason can be their troops are more battle hardened . Ofcourse they are better compare the deaths of soldiers in Afghan war .

    Well, if one is constantly at war with someone, then I suppose they will have a lot more experience, so in that case, it does go to the US for sure. Not sure if that is good though.....

    I like the snap drills that Shoygu has pushed. Very useful.

    Sponsored content

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue May 23, 2017 1:18 am