Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 16, 2014 5:51 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

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  Mike E on Tue Sep 16, 2014 5:58 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)

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2521
    Points : 2654
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  kvs on Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:10 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.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  Mike E on Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:15 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.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2521
    Points : 2654
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  kvs on Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:06 am

    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.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  Mike E on Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:37 am

    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:00 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

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Modern army of Russia

    Post  Mike E on Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:04 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.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    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 4:30 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.



    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 05, 2014 10:12 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

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    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 9:33 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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 23, 2014 7:29 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 – A Comparison

    Post  F-15E on Tue Dec 23, 2014 12:53 pm

    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 ?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 24, 2014 8:40 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

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  nemrod on Thu Dec 25, 2014 12:44 am

    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.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Exercise Indradanush IV: Su-30MKI overcame EF Typhoon

    Post  nemrod on Sat Aug 08, 2015 5:10 pm

    I closely follow this exercise since the beginning, and I waited for the result with great interrest.
    No matter the score -I think indian pilot is somewhere swaggered much  Very Happy , british pilots are very competent too  -, it is not the problem. The EAF Typhoon is one of the best western fighters beside the Rafale. The most interesting news is the russian fighter if there is a skill pilot could overcome any western fighter. No use to talk about the F-22, it will be sure the same result, because most of air combats will be dogfights, and not BVR. It proves again that Russia caught up the gap with west a long time ago. And with new Mig-35, and SU-35 could easily match every western fighter. It is a very good news for Russia.


    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/indian-air-force-beats-raf-120-in-training-exercise--using-russiandesigned-jets-10444466.html


    Indian Air Force 'beats RAF 12-0 in training exercise' – using Russian-designed jets



    India’s top guns have claimed they humiliated the cream of the RAF during a two-week exercise which offered British pilots a rare chance to go up against some of the latest Russian-designed fighter jets.

    Operation Indradhanush saw the Indian Air Force (IAF) bring four of its fleet of Russian-designed SU-30MKI Flanker fighter aircraft to RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire to face off against the RAF’s Typhoon FGR4 fighter.

    The exercise was relished by British pilots as an opportunity to train alongside Russian-designed aircraft, amid increasing tensions in the Baltic – where the RAF has deployed fighters following the conflict in Ukraine – and more frequent interceptions of Russian bombers off the British coastline.

    However, to the dismay of RAF officers, their Indian counterparts have reportedly taken the unusual step of publicly claiming to have come away from the exercise with a resounding 12-0 victory against their UK opponents.

    In an interview with Indian television, IAF Group Captain Ashu Srivastav claimed victory over the British aircraft during close-range dogfights – prompting an RAF source to label his claim “comical”.

    Group Captain Srivastav said the performance of his pilots was “exceptional”, while other reports in the Indian media said that IAF aircraft were able to defeat the more advanced RAF Typhoon aircraft not only in one-on-one combat, but also in situations where one IAF pilot was pitted against two Typhoons.

    Responding to the Indian claims, the RAF source they were clearly designed for the “domestic audience”. He told The Independent: “There must have been some clouded recollection on the flights back to India, as the headlines of the Indian press bear no relation to the results of the tactical scenarios completed on the exercise in any shape or form.”

    The RAF source also stressed that the Typhoons had effectively been fighting “with one arm behind their backs” as they did not make full use of their more advanced weapons systems.

    Tony Osborne, the London bureau chief of Aviation Week, also suggested caution when dealing with the Indian claims. “These cricket-style scores claimed by the IAF look impressive but should be treated with caution and certainly not as a realistic gauge of combat capability,” he said.

    “We have to view these scores through the haze of pilot bravado, national pride and also some political correctness. Nonetheless, the Su-30MKI is one of the aircraft that the Typhoon was designed to tackle and defeat, and no doubt in the right hands would present a potent challenge. Today [though] the aim would be to engage aircraft like the Su-30MKI from long-range before the two could come together in a dogfight.”

    Even the Indian pilot admitted the SU-30s were “less successful” in the longer-range combat exercises.

    Aviation experts also pointed to an exercise in 2011 when RAF fighters decimated the ranks of the visiting IAF pilots, prompting the then Air Chief Marshal of the RAF, Stephen Dalton, to comment: “Well, they lost.”

    A spokesperson for the RAF said of this summer’s exercises: “Our analysis does not match what has been reported, RAF pilots and the Typhoon performed well throughout the exercise with and against the Indian Air Force. Both [forces] learnt a great deal from the exercise  and the RAF look forward to the next opportunity to train alongside the IAF.”

    The RAF has seven frontline Typhoon squadrons equipped but it has recently been reported that the RAF’s fast jet fleet, which is set to shrink to its smallest size in history by the end of the decade, is stretched to the limit while carrying out operations in the Middle East and the Baltic.

    This week, Ministry of Defence officials granted another reprieve to ageing Tornado strike jets because of a shortage of aircraft needed to bomb Isis targets.
    Typhoon FGR4: Britain’s best

    Armament rating 8.0/10

    Manoeuvrability 9.7/10

    Max Rate of Climb 65k ft/min

    Service Ceiling 65k ft

    Max Speed 2.35 Mach

    Fuel Economy 0.68 km/l

    Unit Cost $125m

    Probability of winning cannon dogfight 66%
    Sukhoi su-30Mk1: Russia's best

    Armament rating 8.5/10

    Manoeuvrability 7.8/10

    Max Rate of Climb 60k ft/min

    Service Ceiling 56k ft

    Max Speed 1.90 Mach

    Fuel Economy 0.58 km/l

    Unit Cost $47m

    Probability of winning cannon dogfight 34%

    Source: aviatia.net


    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  medo on Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:03 pm

    Don't forget, that Su-30SM is more capable than Su-30MKI.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  nemrod on Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:33 pm

    medo wrote:Don't forget, that Su-30SM is more capable than Su-30MKI.

    No matter SU-27-30 SM, MKI, SU-32-33-35, Mig-29-33-35, Mig-25-31, this is not the question. The important are facts, Russia's air fleet quality has at least the same western quality, and must be better than US. If now you compare Mig-35, and F-22, the Mig-35 will likely overcome the F-22. Obviously it depends the pilot's skills.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  max steel on Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:36 pm

    Look at all the aspects independent mentioned Typhoon leads in each one of them but still they lost to Indians su-30 mki overwhelmingly . You know why ? Believe it or not but it happened only because of Indian AF pilots. IAF is cream of cream. Probably the second best ( after China) or best airforce in whole Asia and Oceania .

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  nemrod on Sat Aug 08, 2015 9:39 pm

    To Max.
    max steel wrote:Look at all the aspects independent mentioned Typhoon leads in each one of them ....
    If you read the western press, you will have believe :
    1- Soviet Union -as Russia nowadays- has scientists but in all aspect they were not able to produce modern aircraft.
    2- Hence they will have necessarily to copy West to build them.
    3- There are many goofies that still believe the Su-27 Flanker was merge from copy of F-14, and F-16
    4- West has necessarily the best pilots in the world.
    5- West has necessarily the technology in the world.
    6- All the rest of the world will have to necessarily copy the naive west.
    7- West could not loose against the rest of the world. Because the rest of the world are under men.
    etc...
    If I try to enumerate all shits that I believed in the past, the post will be to much long, and no one could read it, including you  Very Happy
    The west is blinded by two false victories -1991, and 1999-, and they imagine all that West will last for centuries and centuries, nevertheless the wake will be more harder. In engineering, soviet specialists were among the best of the world, in all areas, including radars, communications, electronics, nevertheless, Russia underwent one of its worse crisis during its history, it was during the dark era of 90's. After only few years Russia wake up, and now its hardware is in quality comparable, if not better than west, and this exercise prove that.  
    Do not take credit what west said, see only the facts.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  medo on Sat Aug 08, 2015 10:21 pm

    nemrod wrote:
    medo wrote:Don't forget, that Su-30SM is more capable than Su-30MKI.

    No matter SU-27-30 SM, MKI, SU-32-33-35, Mig-29-33-35, Mig-25-31, this is not the question. The important are facts, Russia's air fleet quality has at least the same western quality, and must be better than US. If now you compare Mig-35, and F-22, the Mig-35 will likely overcome the F-22. Obviously it depends the pilot's skills.

    It matter for RAF. If they lost with their best Eurofighters against export Su-30MKI with weaker engines and radar, than what trouble could do more capable Russian Su-30SM, not to say Su-35. They have more powerful engines and agility, more powerful radars and more powerful EW an ESM equipment. It would be also interesting to see results from similar exercise between Malaysian Su-30MKM and US F-22 fighters. For now it is only known, that Su-30MKM was the hardest opponent to F-22.

    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3369
    Points : 3412
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  JohninMK on Sun Aug 09, 2015 12:03 am

    medo wrote:
    nemrod wrote:
    medo wrote:Don't forget, that Su-30SM is more capable than Su-30MKI.

    No matter SU-27-30 SM, MKI, SU-32-33-35, Mig-29-33-35, Mig-25-31, this is not the question. The important are facts, Russia's air fleet quality has at least the same western quality, and must be better than US. If now you compare Mig-35, and F-22, the Mig-35 will likely overcome the F-22. Obviously it depends the pilot's skills.

    It matter for RAF. If they lost with their best Eurofighters against export Su-30MKI with weaker engines and radar, than what trouble could do more capable Russian Su-30SM, not to say Su-35. They have more powerful engines and agility, more powerful radars and more powerful EW an ESM equipment. It would be also interesting to see results from similar exercise between Malaysian Su-30MKM and US F-22 fighters. For now it is only known, that Su-30MKM was the hardest opponent to F-22.
    Not just the RAF but the USAF. Maybe there are some very good reasons the Flankers have not been back at Red Flag since 2008.

    This in an Indian view of 2008, like this RAF exercise their view is a bit different to that of the host.
    http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2014/03/10/dissecting_a_dogfight_sukhoi_vs_usaf_at_red_flag_2008_33623.html

    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3369
    Points : 3412
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  JohninMK on Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:49 am

    Here is another take on it

    http://theaviationist.com/2015/08/08/have-indian-su-30s-really-dominated-raf-typhoons-in-aerial-combat-with-a-12-0-scoreline-most-probably-not/

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2129
    Points : 2244
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  higurashihougi on Sun Aug 09, 2015 6:40 am

    JohninMK wrote:Here is another take on it

    http://theaviationist.com/2015/08/08/have-indian-su-30s-really-dominated-raf-typhoons-in-aerial-combat-with-a-12-0-scoreline-most-probably-not/

    RAF claims is rubbish. They lost but they don't have the face to admit it.

    “Our analysis does not match what has been reported, RAF pilots and the Typhoon performed well throughout the exercise with and against the Indian Air Force. Both forces learnt a great deal from the exercise and the RAF look forward to the next opportunity to train alongside the IAF.”

    So lost 0-12 is "performed well" ?

    First of all, the purpose of such exercises is usually to study the opponents, learn their tactics and strategy, sometimes without showing the “enemy” the full extent of a weapon system capability (even though the latter is also the “excuse” air arms most frequently use to comment alleged defeats). Then, the kill ratio depends on how the scenario has been set up, with the Rules Of Engagement affecting the number of simulated kills.

    Oh so basically they means that they intentionally lost, and all the training is set up ?

    A**hole losers.

    In that case, the kill ratio was confirmed but it was also explained that the F-15s were defeated because they lacked an advanced active electronically scanned array (AESA) and were called to fight the Su-30s in scenarios that involved six Eagles against up to eighteen IAF aircraft with no chance to simulate any beyond visual range (BVR) missile shot (due to the Indian request of not using the AMRAAM).

    Pure masturbation.

    Again AESA is used as the s3xtoy to jerking off the fanboys, but it seems like they do not know what is the true advantage of AESA against PESA.

    First, Su-30 PESA already can use dynamic shifted phase, that means it can quickly oscillate the radar beam against the radar antenna. The oscillation speed of Su-30 PESA is slower than AESA, but that is more than enough.

    Second, PESA has the significant advantage against AESA in the purity, cleanliness, and power of the signal. Old generation AESA likes in F-22 suffers from the distortion of both frequency and phase. Newer generations AESA of Russia and U.S. today somehow managed to fix it, but still the power is not very high.

    Third, the true advantage of AESA against PESA is that, people can put the AESA radar on the aircraft's aerodynamic shape, and the AESA radar is no longer restricted to the traditional radar surface. That is the reason why Russia can put the 10 metre L-band radar on the wing edges.

    But the West only put AESA at the traditional position of PESA. Like somebody buys a TV but uses it only to emit light.

    Furthermore, since the drills took place during F-22 budget reviews, some analysts affirm the Air Force intentionally accepted the challenging ROE (Rules Of Engagement) to gain more Raptors…

    Ah, s3xtoy F-22. The problem is F-22 stealth cloak is even ineffective against Western weather radar. And it is damn expensive.

    In this case, for instance, dealing with the ROE, an RAF source said the Typhoons fought “with one arm behind their backs.”

    Another typical case of loser's masturbation.

    Moreover, WVR engagements, in which the super-maneuverable Su-30 excels, are less likely than BVR (Beyond Visual Range) ones where a Flanker would be much more vulnerable, as Indradhanush 2015 seems to have proved.

    Total bullshit.

    Maneuverability is critical for air fight, no matter whether dog fight or BVR. Super-maneuverability enable the fighter to quickly escape the incoming missile, or rapidly jump out of enemy's radar angle. Great maneuverability enable the hunted aircrafts can become the hunting one during a pursuit.

    Su-30 is super-maneuverable, while Typhoon and other EU canards cannot have high AoA since the vertical stabilizer will be blocked by the hull and wings at high AoA.

    And Su-30 has bigger radar (means greater angular resolution), and the radar vision angle is 240 degree. It can quickly escape the radar vision of Typhoon, while thanks to the 240 degree vision, it can still see and monitor the Typhoon during the drastic maneuverability. And as Typhoon losts the sight of Su-30, Su-30 begins to lock Typhoon.

    And that we still have not mentioned the powerful ECM system of Su-30.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  medo on Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:34 am

    JohninMK wrote:
    medo wrote:
    nemrod wrote:
    medo wrote:Don't forget, that Su-30SM is more capable than Su-30MKI.

    No matter SU-27-30 SM, MKI, SU-32-33-35, Mig-29-33-35, Mig-25-31, this is not the question. The important are facts, Russia's air fleet quality has at least the same western quality, and must be better than US. If now you compare Mig-35, and F-22, the Mig-35 will likely overcome the F-22. Obviously it depends the pilot's skills.

    It matter for RAF. If they lost with their best Eurofighters against export Su-30MKI with weaker engines and radar, than what trouble could do more capable Russian Su-30SM, not to say Su-35. They have more powerful engines and agility, more powerful radars and more powerful EW an ESM equipment. It would be also interesting to see results from similar exercise between Malaysian Su-30MKM and US F-22 fighters. For now it is only known, that Su-30MKM was the hardest opponent to F-22.
    Not just the RAF but the USAF. Maybe there are some very good reasons the Flankers have not been back at Red Flag since 2008.

    This in an Indian view of 2008, like this RAF exercise their view is a bit different to that of the host.
    http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2014/03/10/dissecting_a_dogfight_sukhoi_vs_usaf_at_red_flag_2008_33623.html

    I remember, that in beginning of the nineties RuAF send their Su-27 in the US on their common exercise with US F-15 fighters and win their dogfights. Of course USAF or RAF will claim, they didn't fight with full capabilities, but IAF also didn't. USAF and RAF use all AWACS and data link network in their exercises, while IAF was limited, as they don't have their own A-50 AWACS with them and maybe even not using their own data link network as it is not compatible with NATO Link 16. There were other limitations too, which were equal for both sides.

    NATO likes to have exercises with using all AWACS and data link network capabilities against opponents, who doesn't have them and have to rely on their own sensors and than claim, how they are far superior against opponents. Problem is, that RuAF have AWACS planes and modernize them to A-50U and soon will also have A-100 and that their most important fighters as Su-35, Su-30SM, Su-34 and MiG-31BM have full data link network to share situation picture inside the group and with AWACS as well as SATCOM for longer distance communications. Same is true for Chinese AF, which also have their own AWACS planes and data link network and their J-11B is more capable than Russian export flankers.

    Sponsored content

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces – A Comparison

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 1:09 pm


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:09 pm