Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Share
    avatar
    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7263
    Points : 7563
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  sepheronx on Sat Apr 04, 2015 8:17 am

    TR1 wrote: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.

    Thanks for the info.

    Yeah, I have not heard a whole heck of a lot regarding the bomb kits. Something like these though could benefit Russia since it seems like Russia has a massive stockpile of dumb bombs. But since the stockpile is high, I imagine many are duds now due to being of old stock. Guided kits for newer dumb bombs could be beneficial. Could you please link me (if you got any) of the kits shown?

    Thanks.
    avatar
    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2161
    Points : 2274
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  higurashihougi on Sat Apr 04, 2015 9:45 am

    sepheronx wrote: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.

    But it does not go into the head of US weapon making system, which is dominated by oligarchs, lobbyist, addicted gamers, and rabies dogs rather than scientists and technicians.

    Proof ? M16.

    The harsh truth is that teh US goverment does not wage war to win, but for the oligarchs to make money on blood and flesh of dead people... for example selling overpriced stupid weapons to the army.

    TR1 wrote:You have to be utterly delusional to not think the US has a massive lead in precision weapons.

    I don't really agree with you, thought. For example Tomahawk BMG-109 using GPS which can be easily jammed, or LRASM / AGM-158 JASSM, a copy of Kh-59 with sextoy GPS guided and camera. Not good weapons for me.


    Last edited by higurashihougi on Sat Apr 04, 2015 9:58 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7263
    Points : 7563
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  sepheronx on Sat Apr 04, 2015 9:57 am

    higurashihougi wrote:
    sepheronx wrote: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.

    But it does not go into the head of US weapon making system, which is dominated by oligarchs, lobbyist, addicted gamers, and rabies dogs rather than scientists and technicians.

    Proof ? M16.

    The harsh truth is that teh US goverment does not wage war to win, but for the oligarchs to make money on blood and flesh of dead people... for example selling overpriced stupid weapons to the army.

    This was most evident during the Iraq war more so than any other war, through groups like Haliburton and private military companies like Blackwater, Executive Outcomes, etc.  A lot of people became very wealthy during the war.  Then Lockheed obtained many contracts.  After the wars are faught, then the companies get further contracts - Iraq obtaining M1's, sales of F-16's (which they never obtained yet), more M16's and M4's, ammunition, etc.  Lot more money made.  I wouldn't say M16 is a bad rifle as it has its ups as well, but reliability was apparently an issue, but doesn't seem as so much now.  The M4 was a good contribution and models like the Canadian C7 was high quality, but apparently expensive.  That is the major issue of US made military gear vs any other (besides european) is the costs.  M16's, M1's, Bradly's, Humvees, etc are all quite expensive compared to the Russian and Chinese counterpart (AK-74M and newer models/Type 95, T-90A(AM)/Type 98, BTR-82, TigerM, etc) and while there are benefits to one, there are benefits as well to the others.  Worth the price differences though? Probably not since you can get a T-90A for a lot cheaper and AK's are made all over the world with various qualities at various prices, and a humvee was problematic regarding maintenance and protection even during Operation Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom.  Now the company who makes them, HUMMER, is a Chinese company.

    Edit: I think TR1 is aiming at the number of guided munitions really. Which may very well be true (I have no numbers so I don't know).
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16004
    Points : 16659
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 04, 2015 11:28 am

    Precision guided weapons are expensive and without the C4IR network to find enemy targets and pass that precise location data to armed assets there is little use for guided weapons.

    In the conflicts the Soviet Union and Russia have fought most of the time aircraft like the Su-24 and Su-25 bore the brunt of fighting and often delivered dumb weapons at targets they could see... and were generally quite effective in their role.

    Ironically the main precision guided weapon use was AAMs and anti ship missiles and of course strategic land attack cruise missiles that have had money spent on them.

    With the introduction of new aircraft and new training aircraft into the Russian AF there were claims that 14 different types of guided weapons have been introduced in numbers.

    Now I would speculate that at least 2 of those 14 types were Vikhr ATGMs and Krisantema ATGMs fitted to Ka-52 and Mi-28M attack helos respectively, but that leaves at least 12 weapons entering service in numbers... now that GLONASS works and much more capable aircraft are entering service the Russian military today is vastly more powerful than it was even in the late 1980s.

    Sure the US has rather more systems in service to murder people all round the world on the whim of whomever is currently in power, but those drones that are so effective in the third world would be useless in Russian air space, and much of the rest of their forces would likely not perform very well against a much more modern and capable force.


    _________________
    “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
    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5367
    Points : 5610
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Analysts say Russia needs quality growth of its armed forces

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Apr 04, 2015 2:36 pm

    TR1 wrote: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.

    This exactly is a perception created through the Iraq war propaganda. They filmed only rarely their B-52 Bombing campaigns where they just leveled areas with it old Vietnam style, just ball park figure and start throwing it, but for propaganda purposes they played the same videos over and over again, with some hangars, radars and fortifications how they used precision weapons. Both US and Russia have very thin stock piles of precision weapons for aircraft plattforms (Air-to-Ground). We need direct numbers to compare entire stockpile of bombs and how many of them are actual precision weapons and not some propaganda perception like the same perception they have created with invincible tank here and there, reality is much further away from believes and perceptions.
    avatar
    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 818
    Points : 1321
    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

    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3130
    Points : 3222
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

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

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

    Posts : 2998
    Points : 3030
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    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 .
    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 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.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3130
    Points : 3222
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    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 : 3956
    Points : 4013
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    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 : 3956
    Points : 4013
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    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/
    avatar
    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2161
    Points : 2274
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    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.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3130
    Points : 3222
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    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.
    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 Sun Aug 09, 2015 2:33 pm

    I wanted to be honest with you, for that reason I quoted all the article including this piece of shit :

    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

    Aviatia.net claimed that the Probability of winning cannon dogfight is 66% for the Typhoon, and only 34% for Sukhoi, they dared to claim that the Typhoon is more manoeuvrable than Sukhoi. Well, if so, why didn't you win ? Another piece of shit subjective western pov. In front of the evidence of their defeat, they tried to justify by this uglly comment

    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.

    It is like football match,when the defeated team always invoke the referee, "if we loose, it is not because we loose, but because of the referee". What did they mean ? IRST ? We could assume that Typhoon's IRST could indeed detect the russian plane at 90 km, meanwhile the Sukhoi could only detect at 50 km. And after ? As we've seen previously, the air-air missiles are useless against either Typhoon, or Sukhoi. They could easily dodge them, as they are the two manoeuvrable. Radar ? We've seen that the air combat could only end in dogfight, hence with gun. What is the interrest of your radar, AESA or not ? You have a powerfull hardware, useless.

    In fact do not pay attention about these stupid uggly comments in all western media including inside a supposed neutral newspaper. They are all like that.

    medo wrote:

    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.

    Awacs, Elint are only useful against poor, isolated countries under blockade. Against Iraq and Serbia US outnumbered them, and all serbians, and iraqis secret hardware were between US hands. There were easy to jam them. In spite of that, the victory was hard for US. Moreover countries like Russia has its own powerful Awacs, Elint, and jammers.



    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.
    To say simple, Nato like to play against easy opponents, in order to claim an easy victory. But nobody is fooled.



    JohninMK wrote:
    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.
    I could certify that it will be the same. Americans are well aware about their hardware's capacity.


    JohninMK wrote:
    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.

    If they are back one day. Nobody is fooled, and everyone knows very well about the full capacity of US air fleet.

    JohninMK wrote:
    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

    It is not only the indian pov. In nearly all exercises US have problems, but they cleverly hide them. There is a long time ago, nearly 30 years ago. There were exercises between belgium F-16 and french Rafale. The Rafale easily outmanoeuvred all F-16. There was a shame for US.
    In fact european countries at the end of 60's understood that all US hardware could not match with soviet hardware in order to protect them. The Vietnam, arab-israel wars demonstrated that the ability of US military industry to overcome soviet hardware was doubtful in the best case. If not a disaster. For that reason, UK, like France, Germany, Italy developed their own aircraft industry. Do not forget that the F-4 Phantom II was a disaster, like Corsair II, the F-105 was cancelled. The credibility of US industry was very low in all matters. The ability of the F-15, F-16, F-18 to overcome all soviet hardware contrary to what it seems was, and still is doubtful. The only aircraft that could match with soviet was F-14. But its price was too much expensive.
    Well you are going to tell me that see Gulf War I, and Serbia's war. Yes, but see the context. In Gulf War I, Meanwhile Iraq had only few hundreds of modern aircrafts, no more than 200, US built up 3.000. The losses for Iraq including its Mig-23 ML, Mig-25, MIg-29 was around 40. US losses acknowledged 40. The real scale of US losses was around 100.
    During Serbia's war it is really important to not forget that Serbia could barely build up 6 of its malfunctionning Mig-29. All of them lack of spare parts, their radars could not run etc..If Serbia could build up just 50 aircrafts it was a feat. US coalition built up.....900.


    Since the begining I believe that soviet -russian- hardware could easily match to all western hardwares.



    avatar
    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5367
    Points : 5610
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Aug 09, 2015 4:58 pm

    There are no typhoons with IRST or AESA.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3130
    Points : 3222
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  medo on Sun Aug 09, 2015 10:15 pm

    Werewolf wrote:There are no typhoons with IRST or AESA.

    Only Tranche 1 is without IRST, the rest have them. For AESA radar, I'm not sure if they are in serial planes yet.

    nemrod wrote:It is like football match,when the defeated team always invoke the referee, "if we loose, it is not because we loose, but because of the referee". What did they mean ? IRST ? We could assume that Typhoon's IRST could indeed detect the russian plane at 90 km, meanwhile the Sukhoi could only detect at 50 km

    As I know, OLS-30 IRST in Su-30 could detect a target at a range of 90 km, same as OLS-35 in Su-35, also they have laser designator inside to mark ground targets and TV for ground targets and for visual ID of aerial targets.

    I also read, that Indians claim, that Su-30MKI Bars-M radar could detect F-16 blk52 at range of 350 km and track at range of 200 km. I don't think Rafale or Eurofighter have much smaller RCS than F-16 blk52. Could anyone confirm those claims? If they are correct, than we could only guess, at what ranges Su-35 could detect and track them.
    avatar
    nemrod
    Major
    Major

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

    Su-30K vs western fighters

    Post  nemrod on Sun Aug 09, 2015 10:23 pm

    Werewolf wrote:There are no typhoons with IRST or AESA.

    Thx Werewolf for your remarq. Even though I heard about an aesa radar for the EAF, and Typhoon's IRST's name is "Pirate" this is not important. In air combat, AESA is useless, because it will end in dogfight. As you can see, with a good pilot the russian origin fighters match with the western's state of the art fighter. Against the F-22, there will be the same result, SU-30 will easily overcome it, because at first with its useful IRST it could easily detect the F-22, before F-22 switch on its radar. And even though the F-22 will detect at first the SU-30, and fired its missile, it will immediately be detected. The AIM 120 D will be useless too, because this exercise demonstrated how the SU-30 could be manoeuvrable, hence it will be able to easily dodge every western air to air missile. This exercise prove again that west must be worried.

    Why the SU-30 will easily overcome any F-22, please read this
    https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/f-35-analysis/

    All Su-27 variants, as well as most modern Western fighters, carry IRST as a part of their sensory suite. Russian OLS-35 is capable of tracking typical fighter target from head-on distance of 50 km, 90 km tail-on, with azimuth coverage of +-90 degrees, and +60/-15 degree elevation coverage.

    Fighter supercruising at Mach 1,7 generates shock cone with stagnation temperature of 87 degrees Celsius, which will increase detection range to 55 km head-on. Not only that, but AMRAAM launch has large, unique thermal signature, which should allow detection of F22 and missile launch warning up to 93+ kilometers, while AMRAAM moving at Mach 4 could be detected at up to 83 kilometers. That is worsened by the fact that F35 cannot supercruise, therefore additionally increasing its IR signature by requiring afterburner.

    ....
    Moreover, these systems do not adress fact that air around aircraft is heating up too – whereas, as mentioned, shock cone created by supercruising aircraft is up to 87 degrees Celzius hot, air temperature outside is between 30 and 60 degrees Celzius below zero....

    Hence if you have a radar and you cannot swithc on because it nullifies any stealth advantages, you cannot fire missile because you will be immediatly detected, moreover, as we've already discussed the air to air missile will be inefective. The only advantage will be in the SU-30 because all radars will detect the presence of the F-22. I mean specifically F-22 -that is supposed the western state of the art-, and not F-35 as everyone is well aware that it will be the next sitting duck, and the will have the same F-105's fate.

    avatar
    nemrod
    Major
    Major

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

    Russia's military superiority over USA Military

    Post  nemrod on Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:09 pm

    I don't where should I write this post seeing its high importance. It is now a fact, Russia completly close the gap between her and US. It takes decades for US to catch up Russia.  Iam near sure that at several times SU-30 SM could easily down any US fighter, including the F-22.


    http://www.voltairenet.org/article189043.html

    Keep in mind
    - The Russian operation in Syria was designed to deprive the jihadist groups of the support they receive from various states under the cover of aid for the « democratic opposition ».
    - The operation demanded the use of new weaponry, and transformed itself into a demonstration of Russian force.
    - Russia now has the capacity for jamming all NATO communications. It has now become the primary power in terms of conventional warfare
    - This performance has stoked discord in Washington. It is still too soon to say whether this will favour President Obama, or whether it will be used by the « liberal hawks » to justify an increase in the military budget.






    The Russian army asserts its superiority in conventional warfare
    by Thierry Meyssan

    Moscow’s military intervention in Syria has not simply overturned the fortunes of war and spread panic throughout the ranks of the jihadist groups. It has also shown the rest of the world the current capacities of the Russian army in situations of real warfare. To everyone’s astonishment, it has proved to possess a system of signal jamming capable of rendering the Atlantic Alliance deaf and blind. Despite a far superior budget, the United States have just lost their military domination.

    The Russian military intervention in Syria, which was at first considered a risky bet by Moscow against the jihadists, has transformed itself into a demonstration of power which upsets the strategic balance of the world [1]. Originally conceived to isolate and then destroy the armed groups equipped by states who support the jihadists in violation of the pertinent resolutions of the Security Council, the operation has now blinded all the Western actors and their allies.

    The Pentagon is now divided between those who tend to minimise the facts while attempting to find a weakness in the Russian system, and those who, on the contrary, consider that the United States have lost their superiority in terms of conventional wafare, and that it will take long years before they are able to recover it [2].

    We remember that in 2008, during the war in South Ossetia, although the Russian forces had managed to repel the Georgian attack, they had above all shown the world the deplorable state of their equipment. And only ten days ago, ex-Secretary of Defence Robert Gates and ex-National Security advisor Condoleezza Rice were describing the Russian army as a « second-rate » force. [3].

    So how has the Russian Federation managed to rebuild its defence industry, and to design and produce very high-technology weapons without the Pentagon measuring the importance of the phenomenon, and allowing itself to be over-taken ? Have the Russians used all their new weapons in Syria, or do they have other surprises in reserve ? [4]

    The confusion in Washington is so great that the White House has cancelled the official visit by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and a delegation of the Russian Chief of Staff. This decision was taken after an identical visit to Turkey by a Russian military delegation. There is little point in discussing the operations in Syria, because the Pentagon does not know what is happening there. Furious, the « liberal hawks » and the neo-conservatives are demanding a relaunch of the military budget, and have succeeded in stopping the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

    In the most bizarre fashion, the Atlantist commentators who are witnessing the out-distancing of US military power are now denouncing the dangers of Russian imperialism [5]. And yet Russia is only acting to save the Syrian People, and proposing that other states work in collaboration with them, while the United States, when they enjoyed military pre-eminence, imposed their economic system and destroyed a number of states.

    We are obliged to note that the hesitant declarations by Washington, published during the Russian deployment before the offensive, should not be interpreted as a slow political adaptation of official rhetoric, but should be understood for what they actually reveal – the fact that the Pentagon did not know the terrain. It had become deaf and blind.
    A system of generalised jamming

    We know, since the incident of the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea on the 12th April 2014, that the Russian Air Force has at its disposition a weapon which enables it to jam all radars, all control circuits, all systems for the transmission of information, etc. [6]. Since the beginning of its military deployment, Russia had installed a jamming centre at Hmeymim, to the North of Latakia. Then, suddenly, the USS Donald Cook incident occurred, but this time within a perimeter of 300 kilometres – which includes the NATO base at Incirlik (Turkey). And this is still going on. Because the event happened during a sand-storm of historical proportions, the Pentagon first thought its measuring equipment had malfunctioned, but then discovered that it had been jammed. Completely.

    Modern conventional warfare is based on what is known as « C4i » - an acronym which corresponds to the English terms « Command », « Control », « Communications », « Computer » and « intelligence ». The satellites, planes and drones, ships and submarines, tanks and now even the combatants themselves, are all connected to one another by a system of permanent communication, which enables the Chiefs of Staff to oversee and command the fighting more efficiently. It is this entire system - NATO’s nervous system – which is presently jammed in Syria and part of Turkey.

    According to the Romanian expert Valentin Vasilescu, Russia has installed several Krasukha-4, equipped its planes with SAP-518/ SPS-171 jamming equipment (like the plane that overflew the USS Donald Cook), and its helicopters with the Richag-AV system. Besides this, it is using the spy-ship Priazovye (Project 864 Vishnya class, to use NATO terminology), in the Mediterranean [7].

    It seems that Russia has agreed not to interfere with Israëli communications – a US preserve – which means that it will not deploy its jamming system in South Syria.

    Russian planes have enjoyed the privilege of violating Turkish air space many times. Their purpose was not to measure the reaction time of the Turkish Air Force, but to verify the efficiency of their jamming capabililies in the area concerned, and also to keep an eye the installations which are at the disposition of the jihadists in Turkey.
    High-performance Cruise missiles

    Russia has used several new weapons, like the 26 stealth (or LO technology) cruise missiles (3M-14T Kaliber-NK), equivalent to the American RGM/UGM-109E Tomahawk [8]. Fired by its fleet in the Caspian Sea – with no military necessity – they reached and destroyed 11 targets situated at 1,500 kilometres distance, in the non-jammed area – so that NATO could appreciate their performance. These missiles crossed Iranian and Iraqi air space at an altitude varying between 50 and 100 metres, depending on the terrain, and flying just four kilometres away from a US drone. None of them were lost, compared to US missiles, which have a margin of error beteen 5 % and 10 %, depending on the models [9]. At the same time, this salvo demonstrated the waste of the incredible sums of money spent on the useless « anti-missile shield » built by the Pentagon around Russia –even though it was officially intended for protection against Iranian launch sites.

    Taking into account that these missiles can be fired from submarines situated anywhere in the oceans, and that they can transport nuclear warheads, the Russians have clearly made up for their delay as far as launchers are concerned.

    Finally, in the case of a nuclear confrontation, the Russian Federation would be destroyed by the United States – and vice versa – but would win in the case of a conventional war.

    Only the Russians and the Syrians are capable of evaluating the situation on the ground. All the other military information from other sources, including the jihadists, are without foundation, since only Russia and Syria have an overall picture of the terrain. Moscow and Damascus intend to profit as far as possible from their advantage, and are therefore keeping their operations secret.

    From the official communiqués and the confidences of certain officers, we may conclude that at least 5,000 jihadists have been killed, including several leaders of Ahrar el-Sham, al-Qaïda and the Islamic Emirate. At least 10,000 mercenaries have fled to Turkey, Iraq and Jordan. The Syrian Arab Army and Hezbollah have re-captured the area without waiting for the promised Iranian reinforcements.

    The bombing campaign should end by the Orthodox Christmas. The question which will then have to be answered is whether or not Russia will be authorised to finish its job by pursuing the jihadists who have found refuge in Turkey, Iraq and Jordan. Failing this, Syria will have been saved, but the problem will still not have been resolved. The Muslim Brotherhood will not fail to seek revenge, and the United States will not fail to use them again against other targets.
    Translation
    Pete Kimberley
    avatar
    nemrod
    Major
    Major

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

    Breaking News: US military admits, Russia's military superiority.

    Post  nemrod on Fri Oct 23, 2015 3:03 pm

    I was registered here for three years -thx to you all-. Before I used to believe that Russia is far behind US, and could never catch up its lag. Moreover, I used to believe, because of propaganda that western hardware for these last 70 years were far better than soviet, russian' ones. Finally, after your advice I tried to review all what I believed, and as my last posts attest I discovered that I believed in shit of lies.
    After that, I realized how Russia not only caught up its lag, but is ahead -except in Navy, but it is in russian tradition- in most of areas.
    Now we have a confirmation of NATO, that all US american's strategy is dramatic failure. I used to exchange about stealth, BVR, and I realized these are mere hype, they could not work, never worked, and won't work a day. The recent events in black sea where SU-24 disabled all electronic warfare in the state of the art's USS Donald Cook was among the first warning. Nowadays since the september 2015 Russia built an "impenetrable" bubble. What does it mean ? In fact all NATO infrastructures are completely jammed if not disabled-it is a major event-. It means that NATO radars, satellites, AWACS, figthers, etc.. could not communicated between them, even less with the fighters above the bubbles, no use to tell more about the drones. It means too, that if NATO could not communicated with their hardware, and its fighters bombers including the F-22, how this aircraft could use its air to air missiles ? Moreover, as the Gen. Valentin Valescu confirmed I suspected the froze of the SU-50 program as an ultimate proof that stealth could not work, hence Russia could easily detect any US aircraft including F-22, F-35, and B-2, and russian air force could downed all US aircrafts. Furthermore, all costly equipment inside the F-22 mostly the supposed sophisticated AESA is jammed too, hence could not work. This recent event proved if a war occurred, US army will be brushed off.
    The events that occurred in Syria were among the most important since 1991 with the fall of Soviet Union.




    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/09/29/top-nato-general-russians-starting-to-build-air-defense-bubble-over-syria/


    Top NATO general: Russians starting to build air defense bubble over Syria

    Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, right, believes that Russia’s new presence in Syria is the first piece an intricate layer of defensive systems designed to hinder U.S. and coalition operations in the region. (OEPA/ADAM WARZAWA)

    While Russia’s stated goal in moving into Syria is to fight the Islamic State, NATO’s top commander believes Russia’s new presence includes the first pieces of an intricate layer of defensive systems deployed to hinder U.S. and coalition operations in the region.

    “As we see the very capable air defense [systems] beginning to show up in Syria, we’re a little worried about another A2/AD bubble being created in the eastern Mediterranean,” said Breedlove to an audience at the German Marshall Fund Monday.

    [These new satellite images show how Russia is expanding its military presence in Syria]

    A2/AD stands for anti-access/area denial. During the early stages of warfare, A2/AD could have been a moat around a castle, or spikes dug into the ground—anything to keep the enemy off a certain swathe of territory. In the 21st century, however, A2/AD is a combination of systems such as surface-to-air missile batteries and anti-ship missiles deployed to prevent forces from entering or traversing a certain area—from land, air or sea.

    According to Breedlove, the introduction of an A2/AD bubble in Syria would be Russia’s third denial zone around Europe. The first and oldest he said, was in the Baltics where the Russian naval base in Kaliningrad has robust anti-air capabilities. The second zone—originating from Russian-occupied Crimea—covers the Black Sea.

    “Russia has developed a very strong A2/AD capability in the Black Sea,” said Breedlove. “Essentially their [anti-ship] cruise missiles range the entire Black Sea, and their air defense missiles range about 40 to 50 percent of the Black Sea.”

    Breedlove went on to suggest that Russia’s presence in Syria had little to do with fighting the Islamic State and a lot to do with propping up Syrian President Bashir al-Assad, adding that the sophisticated air defense systems and other pieces of equipment—including aircraft designed for an air-to-air role—was a clear indicator of Russia’s intentions.

    “These very sophisticated air defense capabilities are not about [the Islamic State], they’re about something else,” said Breedlove. “High on Mr. Putin’s list in Syria is preserving the regime against those that are putting pressure on the regime and against those that they see who might be supporting those putting pressure on the regime.”

    As of last week, Russia has more than two dozen aircraft at a newly renovated airfield in Latakia province, including ground-attack aircraft and helicopter gunships. In addition to the aircraft, there are at least 500 troops and number of tanks and armored personnel carriers.

    [These are the 28 jets Russia now has in Syria]

    Following Breedlove’s remarks, both President Barrack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Put addressed the United Nations General Assembly. There, Obama took jabs at Putin for his ongoing actions in Ukraine and Putin blamed the West for the chaos in Syria and their failure to cooperate with Assad.

    “We believe it’s a huge mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian authorities, with the government forces, those who are bravely fighting terror face-to-face,” Putin told the assembly.


    Below this other link of Gen. Valentin Valescu.


    http://reseauinternational.net/le-general-philip-breedlove-la-russie-a-cree-en-syrie-des-zones-impenetrables-pour-lotan/

    Le Général Philip Breedlove : la Russie a créé en Syrie des zones impénétrables pour l’OTAN

    Selon le Washington Post (Top NATO general: Russians starting to build air defense bubble over Syria) le commandant militaire de l’OTAN a reconnu publiquement, lors d’une conférence tenue à la Fondation Marshal, qu’en Syrie, la Russie a créé une zone d’exclusion, impénétrable pour tous moyens de l’OTAN (Anti-Access/Area Denial -A2/AD bubble). La zone d’exclusion dispose des moyens de dernière génération, AA, navals en méditerranée orientale (S-300 PM 2) et terrestres (Pantsir-S1). La zone comprendrait 30 % du territoire de la Syrie, autour du gouvernorat de Lattaquié où se trouve la base aérienne russe de Hmeymim.Russian-cruiser-RFS-Moskva-aerial

    La zone est opaque à tous les moyens d’observation terrestres, navals, aériens et spatiaux de l’OTAN. N’étant pas en mesure de déterminer les caractéristiques des nouveaux systèmes de reconnaissance et de contrôle de feu déployés par les Russes, l’OTAN ne peut les annihiler par le biais du brouillage. Par voie de conséquence, tout transit ou transport utilisant cet espace d’exclusion aérienne par les puissances régionales ou mondiales, n’est possible qu’avec l’accord de la Russie. Étant donné les progrès indéniables de la Russie, ces dernières années, dans le domaine des systèmes radar, les planificateurs militaires américains suspectent que les avions F-22 de 5ème génération ne sont plus « invisibles » pour les Russes. Cela expliquerait le fait que l’année dernière, la Russie ait diminué de manière drastique le financement des tests de l’avion de 5ème génération Su T-50 à une phase pourtant avancée, et le refus de créer une version à double commandes (pilote et instructeur), sans laquelle il ne peut y avoir passage à un nouvel avion.

    Par manque d’argent, la Russie « gèle » le programme de l’avion Su T-50

    Rappelons que sous la pression des États-Unis, les espaces aériens de la Grèce, de la Bulgarie et de la Turquie ont été fermés aux avions militaires russes, de sorte qu’ils ne puissent de déployer en Syrie. Les bombardiers Su-24, Su-25, Su-34 ont donc été obligés de s’équiper de conteneurs de brouillage SAP-518/ SPS-171, et les hélicoptères Mi-8AMTSh de conteneurs Richag-AV, leur permettant d’atteindre la Syrie au nez et à la barbe de tout le monde.

    Comment les avions de combat russes sont-ils arrivés en Syrie sans que personne ne s’en aperçoive ?

    La Russie avait décidé, dans le plus grand secret, d’amener en Syrie des avions de combat et du matériel, à l’insu des pays voisins dans lesquels opèrent les avions de la Coalition anti-EI conduite par les Etats-Unis pour soutenir ce qu’ils appellent des rebelles « modérés », auxquels sont transmises des données recueillies par les moyens d’observation aériens et satellitaires. Sur la base de ces informations, les rebelles avaient lancé une attaque surprise sur la base aérienne russe de Hmeymim avant la mise en place du dispositif aérien russe.

    Comme les États-Unis s’opposaient de toutes leurs forces à une présence militaire russe en Syrie, l’Etat-Major de l’armée russe a dû tout d’abord, créer en Syrie le puissant système automatisé C4I (commandement, contrôle, communications, informatique, renseignement et interopérabilité) qui lui a permis d’imposer sa suprématie dans la guerre radio électronique (Electronic Warfare -EW) contre les systèmes de reconnaissance terrestres, aériens et satellitaires américains, imposant ainsi, de facto, une zone d’exclusion de l’OTAN en Syrie (A2/AD bubble).sisteme-Federatia-Rusa-2

    L’élément clé dans le dispositif mis en place par les Russes est constitué par les systèmes Krasukha-4 qui réalisent un brouillage non-stop des radars de surveillance, ceux des satellites militaires américains de la famille de Lacrosse/Onyx, ceux qui sont basés au sol dans les pays voisins de la Syrie, ceux des avions AWACS, E-8C, et ceux des avions sans pilote RQ-4 Global Hawk, MQ-1 Predator, MQ-9 Reaper.sisteme-Federatia-Rusa-1

    La Russie a amené en Syrie d’autres types de matériel moderne, qui génèrent des contre-mesures, y compris dans le spectre visible, infrarouge ou laser, contre les moyens optoélectroniques de surveillance aérienne et satellitaire (IMINT) des Américains.

    L’arme ultrasecrète qui permet à Poutine d’assoir sa suprématie dans la guerre radio électronique en Syrie ?

    Selon le général Philip Breedlove, il n’y a pas qu’en Syrie que la Russie a créé des zones d’exclusion de l’OTAN. Ces zones existent déjà dans l’enclave Kaliningrad, en Mer Baltique, et sur la côte russe de la Mer Noire qui comprend également la Crimée.

    Valentin Vasilescu

    Traduction Avic – Réseau International

    http://www.ziaruldegarda.ro/generalul-philip-breedlove-rusia-a-creat-in-siria-zone-impenetrabile-de-catre-nato/
    avatar
    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2998
    Points : 3030
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  max steel on Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:30 pm

    Russians Can Move Military Forces 'Very Quickly'.Russia's military capabilities are so impressive that they have left the commanding general of US Army in Europe extremely worried."The ability [of Russians] to move a lot of forces very quickly is the thing that worries me the most about what they can do. The lack of indicators and warning that we have and their ability to move a lot of stuff real fast – that's not a good combination," Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges told Defense News.

    area and access denial capabilities that Russia has in Kaliningrad and Crimea. According to the US general, Moscow is quite capable of denying access to the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea if it wants to.

    "Then they have the ability to create sort of a bubble over a quarter of the Mediterranean with the air defense systems that they have put into Syria," the general added.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4503
    Points : 4684
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:53 pm

    max steel wrote:Russians Can Move Military Forces 'Very Quickly'.Russia's military capabilities are so impressive that they have left the commanding general of US Army in Europe extremely worried."The ability [of Russians] to move a lot of forces very quickly is the thing that worries me the most about what they can do. The lack of indicators and warning that we have and their ability to move a lot of stuff real fast – that's not a good combination," Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges told Defense News.

    area and access denial capabilities that Russia has in Kaliningrad and Crimea. According to the US general, Moscow is quite capable of denying access to the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea if it wants to.

    "Then they have the ability to create sort of a bubble over a quarter of the Mediterranean with the air defense systems that they have put into Syria," the general added.

    Isn't it amazing, that according to former US secretary of state, Condomsleeza Lice, Russia has a second-rate military, but you have NATO generals sweating bullets claiming Russia has one of the most formidable military's in the world... lol1 It's like the book 1984!
    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 Fri Oct 23, 2015 10:05 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:Isn't it amazing, that according to former US secretary of state, Condomsleeza Lice, Russia has....
    I don't want to say what I think about this insane person, however if I remember she had been gilding her buttocks meanwhile her black brothers were hitting by Katina. This person like most politic-women in the US media circus is despicable.
    avatar
    nemrod
    Major
    Major

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

    Russian TU-142 successfully jammed USSN Ronald Reagan in West Pacific

    Post  nemrod on Tue Nov 03, 2015 12:23 pm

    Another proof of the abilities of Russia to destroy any US assets including aircrafts carriers, commands control center. It proofs again that Russia is taking edge over NATO, and the US doctrine is definitely dead. Their F-22, F-35, F-15, F-16, F-18 could not match with new russian's hardware.

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article189155.html
    Once this article will be in english, I will publish it here.

    Bravo Russia!

    Sponsored content

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri May 26, 2017 1:52 am