Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


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

    Share

    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 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.




    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

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

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

    There are no typhoons with IRST or AESA.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    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 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.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    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.


    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    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

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    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/

    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 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.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

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

    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!

    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 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.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    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!

    par far
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1069
    Points : 1206
    Join date : 2014-06-26

    USAF VS. RUSSIA’S VKS: A COMPARISON

    Post  par far on Fri Jan 29, 2016 4:42 pm

    A comparison of the USAF and Russian Air Force.

    http://southfront.org/usaf-vs-russias-vks-a-comparison/



    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9443
    Points : 9935
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:11 am

    Russia's Armata Proves That US Army is not as 'Powerful as Many Believe'

    The US military is often said to be the best in the world, but it is "nowhere near as powerful and dominant as many believe," national security and foreign policy analyst Daniel L. Davis wrote for the National Interest, pointing to Russia's Armata as the best example.

    "The yawning capability gap that once existed between the United States and the rest of the world has now shriveled to nearly nothing," he noted.

    For Davis, nothing reflects the true state of America's military better than the Pentagon's "dysfunctional acquisition system." For instance, the US Army spent $20 billion on its key modernization program in early 2000s, known as Future Combat System (FCS), only to cancel the effort in 2009 without producing any visible results.

    Meanwhile, it took Russia only six years to design, test and start producing the next-generation heavy military tracked vehicle platform, which serves as the basis for the Armata T-14 tank and T-15 personnel carrier.

    "Both employ state-of-the-art armor, weapon systems, ammunition and fire-control systems," Davis observed. "The T-14 in particular appears to be just as survivable and deadly as the US Abrams tank. In 1991, the Abrams could have won a tank-on-tank engagement against possibly every potential enemy tank in the world." This appears to be no longer the case.

    The Russian Defense Ministry unveiled the Armata last year at the May 9 Victory Day military parade in Moscow.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160208/1034413193/armata-us-armed-forces.html#ixzz3zcZ1Ryjr


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3596
    Points : 3631
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

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

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:45 am

    Jesus guys. Stop with this non-sense. What distinguishes Russia and the US currently when considering their results in the Tigris Euphrates Area is the coherence of Russian Objectives and Incoherence of US objectives. Those are made worse by the very effective alliance between Russia and Iran and the completely dysfunctional relationship between the US and its partners in the Area.

    It means nothing in the bigger picture. The US has more means to conduct open, symmetrical warfare than Russia. Has more projection assets etc. If the deal becomes a Russia/US conflict (god help us all), the posture of both sides will determine the outcome. I do not see Russia wanting to wage war to the US. I can imagine a chain of events that could see the US call it dibs and start WW3.

    The simplicity of the Russian approach shouldn't be construed as a better or more effective way to wage war. It's just the simplest way. For Russia.

    All the rest is pure fantasy.

    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 Tue Feb 09, 2016 1:20 am

    Fanboys exist on both the sides. Wink

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:26 am

    What nonsense?

    It is US officials and potential presidents claiming Russia is the threat to the whole world and much more dangerous than ISIS or Ebola... if they want to spout that crap then why not make comparisons?

    Russia is introducing its super soldier system in the field.

    Russia is in the process of introducing a wide range of all new equipment and systems including a revolutionary family based approach to armoured vehicles in different weight classes.

    Its air power has progressed enormously and is clearly able to go places and kill people just like the US has been doing for a while now... but what is the equivalent for the US... what can it do now that it could not do fifteen years ago? Still printing money. Still bombing countries and over charging them for the rebuild... presidents that talk the talk but are unable to walk the walk.

    Still making democracy a dirty word.


    _________________
    “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

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9443
    Points : 9935
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Wed Feb 10, 2016 12:30 am

    Deployment of Russia's armaments in Kaliningrad region limits NATO’s capabilities — expert

    More:
    http://tass.ru/en/defense/855511


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

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

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:41 am

    The $tronk is strong with this one.  Bring the discussion level up.  Threads like this are just embarrassing.


    _________________
    The true value of life knows only the paratrooper. For he is more likely to look death in the eye.  -- Vasily Margelov

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9443
    Points : 9935
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:02 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:The $tronk is strong with this one.  Bring the discussion level up.  Threads like this are just embarrassing.

    i have tried to reduce such threads thats why i merge relative posts and topics in one, so as not the forum to be "polluted" with same discussions spread in different sections


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    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 Tue Feb 16, 2016 12:08 am

    In order to obtain the supremacy, U need to get the supremacy in electronic warfare. Once the superiority of electronic warfare is obtained U have the air supremacy, after U have the superiority in the ground.
    NATO, and US acknowledge they lost the electonic warfare.
    They said :

    Army falls 25 years behind other nations.

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/congress-moves-to-boost-militarys-electronic-warfare-capability/


    Congress Moves to Boost Military’s Electronic Warfare Capability
    Army falls 25 years behind other nations

    BY: Adam Kredo
    February 1, 2016 1:00 pm

    As Army leaders work behind the scenes to beef up the force’s electronic warfare capability, which lags about 25 years behind most other modern countries, Congress is readying a new piece of legislation to help military leaders procure the funds necessary to catch up with the rest of the globe, according to a preview of a new bill viewed by the Washington Free Beacon.

    Countries such a Russia, China, and Iran have made significant gains in the electronic warfare arena in recent years, according to congressional and military officials who spoke to the Free Beacon.

    Meanwhile, the United States has fallen far behind on this front due to shrinking budgets and an acquisitions process for new technologies that can take more than a decade to complete.

    The new bill seeks to cut through this red tape by giving Pentagon leaders more flexibility on how funds are spent within the electronic warfare umbrella. It is just the first step of many that will be required to bring the United States into the modern age, officials say.

    “It is critical our military dominate the offensive and defensive ends of electronic warfare because our enemies know they can harm our troops by targeting our electronic systems,” Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.), a leading sponsor of the bill who recently met with military leaders to discuss the threat, told the Free Beacon.

    “My Electronic Warfare Enhancement Act will cut through the Pentagon’s bureaucracy in order to put critical electronic warfare technology into the hands of our servicemen and servicewomen as rapidly as possible,” Kirk said.

    Col. Jeffrey Church, chief of the Army’s electronic warfare division, told the Free Beacon that he and others have been working behind the scenes to convince Defense Department leaders of the necessity to catch up to other nations’ technological capabilities.

    “The [technology] is out there right now,” Church said. “We can go to industry. We can go to the government, off the shelf. The technology is there. Often times, people forget, but I say, ‘What do you think the Russians are using? Make-believe technology? No, it’s there. We could have, the U.S. army, a world class’” electronic warfare force.

    For more than a decade, the Army was out of the electronic warfare business, Church said. Other nations surpassed the United States during that time in technology and its use in the field.

    Senior military leaders, for instance, have described Russia’s capabilities on this front as “eye-watering.”

    From around 1995 to 2003, the Army had shuttered its electronic warfare units. Operations informally ramped up again around 2005, when a large number of troops were being killed and maimed by radio activated improvised explosive devices in Iraq.

    While the army shut its units down, other military branches, such as the Air Force, continued to operate in the electronic warfare arena.

    At the time, “We didn’t have any people. We didn’t have any equipment. We didn’t have any experience,” Church said. “All of that stuff had gone out of the inventory in the mid 1990s. So really the Army started building from zero.”

    Multiple Pentagon studies have concluded over the years that “the army is 25 years behind,” Church said. “The army needs to dedicate efforts to this resource. The army needs to rapidly get back in to the electronic warfare capabilities. Every study concludes the same thing.”

    Since Army operations on the electronic warfare front ramped back up, leaders have developed a plan to procure new systems and technology that would enable troops to conduct both defensive and offensive electronic operations.

    However, most of that technology will not be in place until 2023 or beyond, according to timelines viewed by the Free Beacon. The chief obstacle is securing the necessary funds in a time when military resources are being whittled down.

    “Everything comes down to dollars,” Church said. “It doesn’t matter how good your program is, how important your program is, if your program doesn’t get dollars it doesn’t go anywhere.”

    Kirk’s bill offers a remedy for this problem.

    It would provide Pentagon leaders with flexibility in how funds are spent, and it would permit them to use any appropriated funds for electronic warfare to be used for the development and implementation of equipment.

    This means that troops in the field will more quickly receive the technology they need to conduct electronic warfare missions.

    Congress wants the Pentagon to speed up its acquisitions process so that capabilities can be fielded in around two years, which amounts to a much shorter timeline than the current standard.

    Kirk’s bill would give the electronic warfare portfolio what is known as Rapid Acquisition Authority. This designation would allow officials to waive certain rules that slow down the process.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

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

    Germans acknowaledged the superiority of russsian army.

    Post  nemrod on Sun Mar 06, 2016 11:38 pm

    An evidence that we have been realizing for few years. In fact since the deployment of the SU-35, SU-30 SM, Mig-31, Mig-29, Mig-33, and the future Mig-35 on US aircrafts, and the superiority of russian electronic warfare on any US hardware. US is relying on stealth and BVR, nowadays they are becoming pointless.
    Henceforth a think is sure, Russia achieved a superiority on NATO. If a war occurs undoubtedly, Russia will win. This ascertainment is becoming now an evidence.


    http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/nato-geheimpapier-russland-ist-nato-kraeften-in-syrien-ueberlegen_id_5336051.html

    Nato-GeheimpapierRussland ist Nato-Kräften in Syrien überlegen



    Seit September fliegt die russische Luftwaffe Angriffe in Syrien. Dabei wird immer wieder angeprangert, dass Putins Bomber auch Hunderte Zivilisten töten. Ausgerechnet die Nato allerdings lobt Russland: Der Einsatz sei "präzise und effizient", heißt es - und hätte eine deutlich größere Wirkung als der Einsatz der Nato-Flotte.

    Das nordatlantische Militärbündnis Nato hat der in Syrien eingesetzten russischen Luftwaffe ein hohes Maß an Professionalität bescheinigt. Dies berichtet das Nachrichtenmagazin FOCUS unter Berufung auf eine vertrauliche Nato-Analyse aus Brüssel.

    Obwohl die Kampfflugzeuge der russischen Streitkräfte den Jets der westlichen Allianz zahlenmäßig deutlich unterlegen sind, erzielten die Kreml-Piloten bei Einsätzen gegen das Terror-Netzwerk IS und andere Rebellengruppen insgesamt eine größere Wirkung. Grund dafür sei die höhere Frequenz der russischen Luftangriffe, zitiert FOCUS aus dem Geheimpapier.

    Demnach flogen rund 40 der bei Latakia stationierten russischen Kampfjets zuletzt bis zu 75 Einsätze pro Tag. Die Luftschläge seien „präzise und effizient“. Die Nato-Flotte mit insgesamt 180 Maschinen griff täglich lediglich 20 Ziele am Boden an. Präsident Wladimir Putin, Oberbefehlshaber der russischen Streitkräfte, will in nächster Zeit bis zu 140 Kampfjets in Syrien einsetzen. Kürzlich ließ er bereits vier hochmodernde Maschinen vom Typ Suchoi Su-35 nach Latakia verlegen. Die Su-35 ist nach Ansicht von Fachleuten den meisten Fliegern aus westlicher Produktion überlegen.



    IS hat Machtdemonstrationen am Boden eingestellt

    Laut NATO galten bislang nur 20 Prozent der russischen Angriffe der terroristischen IS-Miliz. Die übrigen Attacken richteten sich gegen Anti-Assad-Milizen, von denen einige vom Westen unterstützt werden. Die starke Präsenz der Kampfflieger hat dazu geführt, dass es seit Wochen keine großen Bewegungen der Aufständischen mehr am Boden gibt. Insbesondere die Terror-Miliz IS, die zur Propaganda mit langen Fahrzeug-Kolonnen durch besetzte Gebiete fuhr, verzichtet nunmehr aus Angst vor Luftangriffen auf ihre Machtdemonstrationen.

    Bei der Zielerfassung greifen die Kreml-Piloten laut FOCUS auf die syrische Luftbild-Aufklärung zurück. Zudem markierten russische Spezialeinheiten und Spione vor Ort strategisch wichtige Einrichtungen. Über die bei den Angriffen der alliierten und russischen Luftstreitkräfte getöteten Zivilisten gibt es in dem Geheim-Dokument keine Angaben. Nach Informationen der Syrischen Beobachtungsstelle für Menschenrechte kamen seit September 2015 allein bei russischen Luftschlägen mehr als 1700 Zivilisten ums Leben, darunter 423 Kinder.



    nemrod
    Major
    Major

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

    Electronic Warfare: Russian Gains Threaten to 'Disconnect' U.S. Forces

    Post  nemrod on Sat Mar 12, 2016 4:00 pm


    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/electronic-warfare-russias-gains-threaten-disconnect-us-15323


    Electronic Warfare: Russian Gains Threaten to 'Disconnect' U.S. Forces

    Dave Majumdar

    February 25, 2016

    The United States will have to rebuild its capacity to counter Russia’s electronic warfare expertise in Europe. Electronic warfare—like much of America’s conventional warfighting capabilities—has been severely neglected during the twenty-five-year lull since the end of the Cold War. Moreover, for nearly fifteen years, the United States has been focused on counter-insurgency warfare in the Middle East rather than preparing for war against another great power.

    But with a newly resurgent Russia once again threatening the peace in Europe, the United States will have to reinvest in electronic and cyber warfare to counter Moscow’s advancements in those fields. “For twenty years we’ve been making a partner out of Russia so our focus has not been on the capabilities that they have been developing,” U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, commander of U.S. European Command told the House Armed Services Committee on February 25. “Secondly, for all the right reasons, for the last thirteen or so years, our nation’s military has been focused on counterinsurgency operations—COIN—in Afghanistan and fighting Al Qaeda.”

    Since neither the Taliban nor Al Qaeda has any meaningful electronic warfare capability, the United States had more or less allowed its capacity to fight in that arena atrophy. “While we have retained capability, we have not really practiced it to the veracity that we used to, nor have we retained the capacity that might be required to bust these growing A2/AD [anti-access/area denial] problems we see around the world,” Breedlove said. “We have electronic warfare capability—we probably do not have the capacity we need now.”

    For example, America’s capabilities to suppress enemy air defenses are good, “but they’re not very dense,” Breedlove said. “We don’t have a lot of them,” he added.

    The basic problem, however, is that Moscow has watched American warfighting capabilities since the first Persian Gulf War and has learned lessons from those wars. Russia—which retains a very robust defense industry—has invested heavily in countering American advantages. “Russia knows how we roll,” Breedlove said. “They have invested a lot in electronic warfare because they know we are a connected and precise force and they need to disconnect us to make us imprecise.”

    While electronic warfare is one area where American capacity in Europe has atrophied, Breedlove said that the U.S. military in Europe needs more permanently stationed forces. One area that he highlighted was the North Atlantic where the Russian Navy massively increased its activity to nearly Cold War levels.

    The U.S. Navy simply does not have enough submarines to counter Moscow’s resurgent undersea fleet. The problem will only get worse as the older Los Angeles-class attack submarines are retired without enough Virginia-class boats to replace them. “I do not get what I’ve asked for,” Breedlove said. “In that very contested, very highly sophisticated part of the world, we play zone defense, we can’t play man-to-man.”

    Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for the National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.

    Image: U.S. Navy.


    Elbows
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 12
    Points : 12
    Join date : 2016-03-13

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

    Post  Elbows on Sun Mar 13, 2016 11:24 pm

    I was expecting an interesting discussion on the pros/cons of both forces...guess it's not the right thread.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:04 am

    They are two tools that could not be compared fairly as the wielder of each tool has a different purpose for its tool.

    the US military is a sledgehammer that separates a people from a countries resources by smashing up the infrastructure. The victory leads to a puppet regime that then spends the countries wealth restoring the infrastructure by buying the services of the country that destroyed the infrastructure in the first place.

    The Russian military on the contrary is used to defend Russian territory and interests, and the current use of a small contingent to support an ally in Syria is an abboration... though it does highlight the fact that despite western criticisms of how poor Russian aircraft are in terms of value for money they clearly are able to do a better job than the west is able to do.

    Higher sortie rates with much fewer aircraft, more cost effective munitions able to hit targets enable a much smaller force than the west is using to hit rather more targets on the battlefield and to have a decisive influence on the progress on the battlefield.


    _________________
    “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

    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 Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:37 am

    Elbows add your contribution then to make it interesting.



    nemrod
    Major
    Major

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

    US general says we could be screwed in a war against China or Russia

    Post  nemrod on Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:47 am

    In fact Gen Mark Milley abstained to talk about the US Air Force's state in order to sweeten the reality of the catastrophe. US could not even sustain a war against North Korea, or Iran. No use to talk about Russia or China.


    http://nypost.com/2016/03/16/general-says-army-at-high-risk-in-war-against-china-or-russia/

    US general says we could be screwed in a war against China or Russia

    US Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley Photo: Getty Images

    WASHINGTON — The Army’s top general says military forces on the ground face a high level of risk if the United States gets into a large-scale conflict against a power such as Russia or China.

    Testifying Wednesday on Capitol Hill, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley says years of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, constrained budgets and troop cuts have had a cumulative effect on the service.

    Milley says the Army is ready to fight the Islamic State group and other terrorist organizations.

    But what Milley describes as a “great power war” against one or two of four countries – China, Russia, Iran and North Korea – would pose greater challenges.

    Milley says the Army’s readiness is not at a level that is appropriate for what the American people expect to defend them.


    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 9:05 pm


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:05 pm