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

    The Russian Air Force Was Always Behind the West in One Key Area (Until Now)

    Post  nemrod on Thu May 12, 2016 11:44 pm



    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-russian-air-force-was-always-behind-the-west-one-key-16164


    The Russian Air Force Was Always Behind the West in One Key Area (Until Now)

    Dave Majumdar

    May 11, 2016
    inShare7
    Printer-friendly version

    The Kremlin’s air war over Syria demonstrated that Russia’s once dilapidated military has recovered from its low-point in 1990s in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse. But while the Russian Air Force showed off new precision-guided weapons and new high-performance aircraft like the Sukhoi Su-30SM Flanker-H, Su-34 Fullback and the Su-35S Flanker-E, it was evident that Moscow still lacked certain capabilities.

    One such gap was the lack of a targeting pod like Northrop Grumman’s LITENING G4 or the Lockheed Martin Sniper. However, Russia seems to be rapidly closing that gap with the development of its own indigenous targeting pod under the auspices of state-owned Rostec and Precision Instrumentation Systems.

    The Russian Air Force will start operational testing of a new indigenous targeting pod before the end of the year. “We have held joint meetings with the developers and manufacturers of the pod and have agreed on deadlines,” a Russian defense official told the Russian-language daily Izvestia. “In accordance with the approved plans, we will test the first product before the end of this year.”

    The new targeting pod—which will be fitted onto advanced Russian warplanes such as the Su-30SM, Su-35S, Su-34 and MiG-35—incorporated the typical features found on equivalent Western designs. It includes GLONASS satellite positioning, electro-optical/infrared imaging and laser designation capabilities. It also seems to have video downlink capabilities just like U.S. targeting pods. However, it remains to be seen if the new Russian pods offer the performance of their Western counterparts.

    Russia seems to have accelerated the development of the new pod after combat experience in Syria demonstrated that such capabilities are mandatory over the modern battlefield. Indeed, Russian forces have been accused of being less than precise with their airstrikes in Syria—which could in part be ascribed to Moscow’s lack of targeting pods.

    Until recently, Russia was not able to produce an indigenous targeting pod. Moscow had attempted to procure the Thales Damocles pod—and even hoped to license-build the French-developed sensor for a time—during the early 2000, but the effort fell flat. Meanwhile, Russia’s domestic industry—despite its best efforts—failed to develop an indigenous equivalent until now.

    According to Izvestia, Russian industry made a breakthrough in manufacturing piezoelectric ceramic film strips less than 100 micron in width. That in turn led to a breakthrough in building targeting pods. While initially manufacturers like Zelenograd SRI ELPA had trouble producing the filmstrips consistently, eventually they resolved those problems.

    That led to Precision Instrumentation Systems completing the first prototype targeting pods by the end of 2015. Production of the new pods is set to start later this summer, according to Izvestia. With the addition of the targeting pods, the Russian Air Force will more or less have matched all of the capabilities resident onboard U.S. fourth-generation fighter like the F-15, F-16 or F/A-18.

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

    moskit
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 16
    Points : 52
    Join date : 2016-05-19

    USA Buys Su-27 Jets to find Out why F-15 Is so bad.

    Post  moskit on Thu May 19, 2016 7:09 am

    Glory to Russian Armed Forces and to the great nation, the Russian Federation !!!

    Dear moderators, I am new to this forum and I find it is great in providing excellent indepth answers connected with Russian armed forces.
    I have recently read a piece published in Pravda connected with the sale of the crown jewel of Russian fighter aircraft, two SU 27to US. I would like to know how the Russians would be able to counter such a move. Can the Russians prevent the striping down of its crown jewel fighter air crafts by US? Does russia hold any surprises to nutralise this move? Please porvide me answers convincing. thank you.

    Ivan the Colorado
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 794
    Points : 828
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Age : 20
    Location : Colorado, USA

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

    Post  Ivan the Colorado on Thu May 19, 2016 8:01 am

    moskit wrote:Glory to Russian Armed Forces and to the great nation,  the Russian Federation !!!

    Dear moderators, I am new to this forum and I find it is great in providing excellent indepth answers connected with Russian armed forces.
    I have recently read a piece published in Pravda connected with the sale of the crown jewel of Russian fighter aircraft, two SU 27to US. I would like to know how the Russians would be able to counter such a move. Can the Russians prevent the striping down of its crown jewel fighter air crafts by US? Does russia hold any surprises to nutralise this move? Please porvide me answers convincing. thank you.

    Welcome aboard. You should go post an introductory post in the welcome section.

    What you are saying isn't news. The USAF acquired Su-27s as recently as 2003 as they were seen flying over Groom Lake back then. The USAF has done similar evaluations of older Soviet fighters that they captured in Vietnam or Korea. The Soviet Union also reportedly took captured US aircraft from Vietnam to test and evaluate as well. It wouldn't surprise me if countries like Egypt allowed Russia to take a look at their F-16s and other Western equipment either. There is nothing that Russia could do to prevent this as it was Ukraine that let the US evaluate a few of their fighters. Evaluation of foreign equipment and technology has been around for ages. You may want to take a look at how Rome built their navy for example.

    The F-15 isn't a bad aircraft by any measure either.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 19, 2016 10:50 am

    The US would learn very little from any recently purchased Su-27... it would likely be from the Ukraine or some other country with a chip on its shoulder... the point is that they wont get the opportunity to buy an in service upgraded Russian Flanker so anything they might learn would be fairly minimal.

    It is also a forum rule that your first post is an introduction in the rules and introductions section.

    Too late now but please take the time to post a thread about yourself and also take the opportunity to look at other peoples intros and have a quick read through the rules...

    And welcome... Smile


    _________________
    “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

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3599
    Points : 3634
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

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

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Thu May 19, 2016 11:04 am

    Also at this point it would be easier to straw purchase an "MK" Su30 than try and sneak tired airframes of dubious value. Off course the Titanium might come handy...as scrap.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

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

    6 Facts Highlight Why We Need to Rebuild Our Military

    Post  nemrod on Sat May 21, 2016 12:02 pm

    Precisions friends, the title is "6 Facts Highlight Why We Need to Rebuild Our Military", Iam not US, obviously, I don't support US, this is the title of the article, and not mine. As you guess, I support all countries in the world that are fighting US army. I support North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc... This article means US are more and more fearing of Russia and China's armies.

    http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/17/6-facts-highlight-why-we-need-to-rebuild-our-military/



    6 Facts Highlight Why We Need to Rebuild Our Military

    The U.S. military seems to be breaking. Senior military leaders have made dire statements before Congress, and story after story is revealing the potentially deadly challenges facing our men and women in uniform.

    As Congress considers the annual defense authorization bill, here are six clear, real-world examples of why Congress needs to use the defense bill to start rebuilding the U.S. military.

    1. The Marine Corps is pulling parts off of museum planes to keep their F-18s flying. Even with that drastic action, only about 30 percent of their F-18s are ready to fly. Not only that, but instead of getting 25 or 30 hours a month in the cockpit, Marine Corps pilots are getting as little as four hours per month of flying time.

    2. Only one-third of Army brigades are ready for combat. The Army has now fallen to the smallest level since before World War II, while the top Army general says that the Army would face “high military risk” if it were to fight a serious war.

    3. The Air Force is cannibalizing parts from some F-16’s to keep other F-16’s flying and is pulling parts off museum planes to keep their B-1 bombers flying. And half of Air Force squadrons are not prepared for serious combat.

    4. The Navy keeps extending deployments of its ships, but still doesn’t have enough to meet demand. While the Navy needs about 350 ships, today it only has 273.

    5. Serious crashes of Marine Corps planes and helicopters are nearly double the 10-year average.

    6. The Air Force’s B-52 bombers are an average of 53 years old. Most Americans would not want to drive across the country in a 53-year-old car (see example below), let alone go to combat in a 53-year-old airplane.

    1963 Oldsmobile (Photo: David Chapman imageBROKER/Newscom)
    1963 Oldsmobile (Photo: David Chapman image Broker/Newscom)
    These six facts show the consequences of cutting the national defense budget by 25 percent over the last five years.

    At the same time, threats are growing. Russia has invaded Ukraine and threatens more. China is building illegal islands. Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon and North Korea already has one. And we also face the real threat of terrorism and the growing threat of cyberattacks.

    The bottom line is that Congress needs to start rebuilding the U.S. military. We can’t let this go much further.


    Last edited by nemrod on Sat May 21, 2016 12:10 pm; edited 1 time in total

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

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

    The U.S. Military's Greatest Fear: Russia and China are Catching Up Fast

    Post  nemrod on Sat May 21, 2016 12:04 pm


    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-militarys-greatest-fear-russia-china-are-catching-16242



    The U.S. Military's Greatest Fear: Russia and China are Catching Up Fast

    Dave Majumdar
    May 17, 2016

    inShare
    20Printer-friendly version
    The United States has fallen behind potential adversaries in certain key technological areas such as integrated battle networks according to senior U.S. Navy officials. Indeed, as one U.S. Navy admiral told an audience at the Navy League’s Sea, Air and Space symposium that the term “near-peer” is a misnomer—in some cases the Russian and Chinese have the advantage over American forces.

    “Our near-peer competitors are no longer near peers,” said Rear Adm. Mike Darrah, Naval Air Systems Command’s program executive officer for unmanned systems and strike weapons. “In some cases, they have gone beyond us.”

    While Darrah was reluctant to go into details, he said that one specific area where the United States is falling behind is in networking. But he reiterated that the term “near-peer” is condescending and derogatory—which also has the effect of rendering American policy-makers complacent when dealing with a very real danger. It was a message that others Navy leaders like NAVAIR Strike Weapons program manager Capt. Jamie Engdahl also reiterated—the United States is not fielding advanced weapons fast enough to keep up with other nations technical advances.

    Darrah—due to security concerns—flatly refused to answer what the United States could do to counter the enemy’s advantage. But he did talk about specific areas where the United States needs to improve on—one such area is combat identification, especially in an environment where enemy electronic attacks will be continually disrupting American communications networks. “We’re not doing a good enough job at combat ID,” Darrah said.

    Position, navigation and timing in an environment where there is no access to GPS—or where the enemy is actively attacking satellite navigation—is another area the Pentagon must work on. American forces are far too reliant on GPS, and a smart adversary like the Russians or the Chinese are certain to attack those vital sinews that hold together U.S military operations.

    Addressing those issues is critical as the Navy moves toward the so-called “tactical cloud”—where every sensor and shooter shares data seamlessly. However, such networks are vulnerable to electronic and cyber attacks and—as such—Darrah said much more needs to be done to ensure the fidelity of the information in the cloud. Networking is the future of naval warfare, Darrah reiterated, noting that as times goes on individual platform will matter less than the sum total of the tactical cloud.

    Dave Majumdar is the defense editor of The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter at @DaveMajumdar.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

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

    US Military Might Lose the Wars of the Future

    Post  nemrod on Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:25 pm

    The fear of the T-90

    and the powerful T-15


    http://lexingtoninstitute.org/america-needs-lethal-well-survivable-army/


    June 20, 2016Daniel Gouré, Ph.D

    America Needs A More Lethal As Well As Survivable Army
    The U.S. Army once was superior to every potential adversary in terms of combat power, what it called overmatch. This is no longer entirely true. In the future battlefields, the Army will face enemies that will be extremely lethal, more numerous, fighting on home turf and able to exploit the advantage of getting in the first blow. Unless the Army takes a number of steps in the near-term, it is likely to find itself not merely outmatched, but at risk of defeat.

    In its most recent conflicts the Army benefitted from a number of advantages that are unlikely to be available in the future, certainly in other regions of the world. It had a secure logistical base largely free from interdiction. It could count on total air dominance. It didn’t have to face any long-range fires. While adversaries in Iraq and Afghanistan made excellent use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the only anti-armor threats came from rocket-propelled grenades. Finally, the Army possessed the luxury of unimpeded communications.

    Few, if any, of these advantages are likely to hold true in future conflicts, certainly none involving regional powers or so-called near peer adversaries. In Europe, Asia and even portions of the Middle East, the U.S. military will have to fight for air superiority. Even where adversaries have not deployed integrated air defenses, Army maneuver forces, bases and lines of communications are likely to be subject to massed rocket and missile attacks. Brigade combat teams will face an array of lethal threats ranging from sophisticated IEDs to advanced, tandem-warhead anti-tank guided missiles, precision guided artillery projectiles, long-range guns, armed drones and air-delivered weapons.

    The Russian Army, for example, has demonstrated an impressive array of new capabilities in its operations in the Ukraine and Syria including the coordinated use of drones with massed artillery and rocket batteries, advanced area munitions and thermobaric warheads, extremely lethal and sophisticated anti-tank guided missiles and the use of electronic warfare to black out military communications. It has shown an impressive capability to rapidly mobilize and deploy significant combined arms forces. In Eastern Europe, the Russian Army also will be operating close to its supply centers and under the protection of an integrated air defense network.

    The Army’s Operating Concept during the latter part of the Cold War was “fight outnumbered and win.” This made sense when the principal adversary was the Warsaw Pact. It was simple, clear and focused on ways, means and ends. The new bumper sticker is “win in a complex world.” It is essentially meaningless. In view of the Army’s declining end strength, aging equipment and platforms, and the rise of new threats, it is likely that the Army again will have to fight and to do so outnumbered.

    The character of the conflict and adversary in Southwest Asia propelled the Army to concentrate on ways of enhancing the survivability of its deployed forces. Out of this effort came the highly mobile Stryker with slat armor and, more recently, a double-V hull to defeat IEDs. There were tens of thousands of heavily armored mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles and uparmored Humvees. Electronic warfare focused entirely on ways of detecting and jamming remotely-controlled IEDs. The Army even adapted the Navy’s Phalanx close-in defense system to protect critical facilities against rocket attacks. Soldiers were provided with improved body armor.

    The drive to enhance force protection and platform survivability is ongoing. The Army is seriously considering deploying active protection systems (APS) on at least a portion of its fleets of combat vehicles. APS systems such as the Israeli Trophy have proven highly effective against rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank missiles. The Army is investing in a multi-mission launcher that can support the AMRAAM anti-aircraft missile as well as a future miniature hit-to-kill interceptor to counter rockets, artillery and mortars. The decades-old, open-topped M-113s are being replaced by a much more survivable Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle based on the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle. Army Aviation is deploying countermeasures to defeat infrared surface-to-air missiles and a navigation system for degraded vision environments.

    But in order to fight outnumbered and win, the Army also must invest in near-term lethality enhancements to match its efforts in force protection and platform survivability. The Army recently undertook a short-term program in response to an urgent operational need from U.S. Army Europe to upgun some 80 Stryker vehicles with a new and more capable 30mm cannon. What about the rest of the fleet? The possibility of mounting an anti-tank missile such as the Javelin on the Stryker also has been suggested. The Army badly needs new precision munitions, the Multiple Launch Rocket System and mortar systems to defeat both enemy armor and also their rocket launchers and massed artillery. Plans to enhance the lethality of both the Bradley and the Abrams tank with sensor and targeting upgrades and, for the latter, a new multipurpose cannon round, need to be funded in the near-term. Directed energy weapons for tactical applications against hostile air threats, rockets and artillery are within reach. Then there is the need to match investments in advanced networking such as the WIN-T system with a new generation of electronic warfare capabilities that will render adversaries deaf, dumb and blind.

    In counterinsurgency campaigns the goal, simply put, is to outlast the other side. Hence, the emphasis in Army modernization on survivability. In a serious conventional conflict with a near-peer, regional hegemon or capable non-state actor, this will not be enough. To fight and win outnumbered requires being more lethal than the adversary too.

    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 Wed Jul 06, 2016 1:10 pm

    2025 ~ 2030 Future European Navies:

    A. Aircraft Carrier:


    1. UK:CVF*2, 70,000 ton, 40~50 aircrafts (F-35B*48), Self-defense: Phalanx 20 mm CIWS*3.

    2. French Navy: R91*1, nuclear power, 42,000 ton, 30 to 40 aircrafts(Rafale M*44), Self-defense: Arabel PESA radar + A43 VLS*32(ASTER-15) + SADRAL CIWS x 2 + 20 mm gun*8.

    3. Italian Navy:STOVL Carriers, 20 aircrafte(F-35B*15~30).
    * Cavour carrier: 27,000 ton, EMPAR PESA radar + A43 VLS*32(ASTER-15) + 76mm CIWS*2 + 25mm gun*3.
    * Trieste LHA: 33,000 ton, L-Band AESA radar and 4FF X-Band AESA radar + A50 VLS*32(ASTER-15, ASTER-30, or CAMM-ER) + 76mm CIWS*3 + 25mm gun*3.

    4. German Navy: none.


    B. Destroyer and Frigates:


    1. UK:19 ships
    * Type 45 destroyer*6:8,000 ton, SAMPSON AESA radar + A50 VLS*48(Aster-15 and Aster-30) + space for additional 16 to 24 VLS.
    * Type 26 frigate*8:8,000 ton, Type 997 AESA radar + CAMM VLS*48 + MK-41 VLS*24( Tomahawk, LRASM, ASROC etc.).
    * Type 31 frigate*5:Smaller, lighter, and cheaper than Type 26 frigate.

    2. French Navy:15 ships。
    * Forbin Class AAW*2:7,000 ton, EMPAR PESA radar + A50 VLS*48(Aster-15 and Aster-30) + space for additional 16 VLS.
    * FREDA AAW*2:6,000 ton, Herakles Plus PESA radar + A50 VLS*32(Aster-15 and Aster-30).
    * FREMM-Fr frigate*6:6,000 ton, Herakles PESA radar + A43 VLS*16(Aster-15) + A70 VLS*16(SCALP-NAVAL CM).
    * FTI frigate*5:4,000 ton; Smaller, lighter, and cheaper than FREMM frigate.

    3. Italian Navy:22 to 28 ships.
    * Doria Class AAW*2:7,000 ton, EMPAR PESA radar + A50 VLS*48(Aster-15 and Aster-30) + space for additional 16 VLS.
    * FREMM-IT GP PLUS frigate*2:7,000 ton, New 4FF AESA radar + A50 VLS*16(Aster-15, Aster-30, or CAMM-ER) + A70 VLS*16(SCALP-NAVAL).
    * FREMM-IT GP and ASW frigate*8:6,700 ton,Kronos AESA radar + A50 VLS *16(Aster-15 or Aster-30) + space for additional A70 VLS*16(SCALP-NAVAL).
    * PPA frigate*10 to 16 with three variants:4,600 ton(Light variant) to 6,200 ton(Full variant), 4FF AESA radar(Light variant:X band;Light-PLUS variant:C band;Full variant:X + C band), A50 VLS*16(Aster-15, Aster-30, or CAMM-ER;Light PLUS variant and Full variant)+ space for additional A70 VLS*16(SCALP-NAVAL).

    4. Germany Navy :11 ships.
    * F124 AAW*3:5,800 ton, APAR AESA radar + MK-41 VLS*32(SM-2 x 24 + ESSM x 32).
    * F125 frigate*4:7,200 ton, TRS-4D GaN AESA radar + 21 cells SEARAM CIWS*2.
    * MKS180*4:8,000 ton, Two AESA radar towers + space for MK-41 VLS*48 + 21 cells SEARAM CIWS*2.


    C. Submarine:

    1. UK:11 ships.
    * SSBN*4(Vanguard class SSBN --> Successor class SSBN), 16,000 ton.
    * Astute class SSN*7, 8,000 ton.

    2. French Navy:10 ships.
    * Le triomphant class SSBN*4, 14,000 ton.
    * Barracuda class SSN*6, 5,300 ton.

    3. Italian Navy:6 to 8 ships.
    * U212A SSK*4, 1,830 ton.
    * Next generation SSK*2 to 4.

    4. Germany Navy:6 ships.
    * U212A SSK Batch I*4, 1,830 ton.
    * U212A SSK Batch II*2, 1,860 ton.

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:30 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 7:30 pm