Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Share

    Austin

    Posts : 6447
    Points : 6848
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Austin on Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:53 am

    Pentagon preparing strike with 4000 precision weapon that can disable 80 % of Russia's Nuclear Potential according to Rogozin


    Dmitry Rogozin: The main guarantee of security of the Russian Federation is a strong strategic nuclear deterrence and arms of a new generation of autonomous

    Rogozin said that that "little blood" paralyze a country like Russia, enough for a few hours, apply about 4 thousand strikes with precision weapons. During this time, you can destroy the nuclear capabilities of the country with minimal losses to the public. Resist such a threat, he said, is possible only with the help of an autonomous self new generation of weapons.

    "What can we oppose this enemy? Main security guarantee Russia a strong strategic nuclear deterrence," - said Deputy Prime Minister. However, he doubted that this is only enough to reflect current threats.

    "The American strategists first time in the last 50 years, a vision of how to defeat other nuclear" little blood ", while avoiding unacceptable damage for itself in responding to the country that was attacked - said Rogozin. - At the end of last year The Pentagon held a computer game, the results of which showed a blow to the largest and most highly developed country with the use of 3.5-4 thousand units of high-precision weapons in a few hours - and nearly destroyed the infrastructure, the state will lose the opportunity to resist. "

    According to the deputy head of the cabinet of ministers, if such a blow will be inflicted on Russia, the main targets will be the objects of nuclear deterrence. He led the expert estimated that, in the event of such an attack could be destroyed from 80 to 90 percent of Russia's nuclear potential. At that civilian casualties would be minimal. Remaining the same weapons will not be enough to retaliate against the aggressor and the leadership of the country would not do it.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Viktor on Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:49 pm

    Austin wrote:Pentagon preparing strike with 4000 precision weapon that can disable 80 % of Russia's Nuclear Potential according to Rogozin

    It was much worse before, but in that case we are talking about total nuclear war. This was most probably said to speed some thing up or with some other purpose.

    Still I think mindstorm in it some previous post pretty clearly explained such scenario with Russian ability to fire its cruise missiles in comparison with US.
    avatar
    coolieno99

    Posts : 139
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2010-08-25

    Pentagon preparing strike with 4000 precision weapon that can disable 80 % of Russia's Nuclear Potential according to Rogozin

    Post  coolieno99 on Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:30 pm

    Austin wrote:Pentagon preparing strike with 4000 precision weapon that can disable 80 % of Russia's Nuclear Potential according to Rogozin  
    1. The remaining 20% can still destroy the U.S.
    2. The Pentagon predicted the U.S. would defeat North Vietnam in 90 days. After 10 years of fighting  and 58,000 American servicemen killed, the U.S.  pulled out of Vietnam.

    Arrow

    Posts : 163
    Points : 163
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Arrow on Thu Sep 05, 2013 2:02 pm

    http://russianforces.org/blog/2013/09/russian_early_warning_system_i.shtml


    In the near future, the U.S. will has hypersonic cruise missile and will will fly at a much lower trajectory than ICBM and SLBM warhead. They will be invisible to Voronezh radar system.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  TR1 on Thu Sep 05, 2013 4:09 pm

    Arrow wrote:http://russianforces.org/blog/2013/09/russian_early_warning_system_i.shtml


    In the near future, the U.S. will has hypersonic cruise missile and will will fly at a much lower trajectory than ICBM and SLBM warhead. They will be invisible to Voronezh radar system.
    When is this "near future" ?
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Viktor on Thu Sep 05, 2013 4:23 pm

    TR1 wrote:
    Arrow wrote:http://russianforces.org/blog/2013/09/russian_early_warning_system_i.shtml


    In the near future, the U.S. will has hypersonic cruise missile and will will fly at a much lower trajectory than ICBM and SLBM warhead. They will be invisible to Voronezh radar system.
    When is this "near future" ?
    Russian prediction is 2025-2030. He is speaking about Mach 20 sustained at up to 100km altitude.

    Those are the threats Russian scientists predict S-500 will have to deal with.

    Austin

    Posts : 6447
    Points : 6848
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Austin on Fri Sep 06, 2013 3:14 am

    Sadly S-500 induction dates have changed they first said 2016 and now Air Force chief at MAKS states 2018.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  TR1 on Fri Sep 06, 2013 3:53 am

    Can't say I am really sad about it given S-400 induction.
    No rush here really.
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3261
    Points : 3367
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  flamming_python on Fri Sep 06, 2013 4:02 am

    Arrow wrote:http://russianforces.org/blog/2013/09/russian_early_warning_system_i.shtml


    In the near future, the U.S. will has hypersonic cruise missile and will will fly at a much lower trajectory than ICBM and SLBM warhead. They will be invisible to Voronezh radar system.
    Even today's cruise missiles are invisible to the Voronezh-class radar systems; I hate to break it to you.
    No way an early-warning radar would be able to track a missile hundreds of kilometres away following an algorithm-based flight path and hugging the terrain a few dozen metres above the ground. It doesn't matter how fast or slow such an object would be travelling.

    The Voronezh radar is made for tracking ballistic trajectories.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16882
    Points : 17490
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  GarryB on Sat Sep 07, 2013 4:58 am

    Cruise missile attack for Russia would by more danger than balistic missile. Russia would be a problem with the early detection of this missiles.
    There is no country in the world safe from cruise missile attack.

    The job of the VKKO however is to monitor the space and air above Russia so give them a few years and I suspect with a mix of ground, air and space based radar and optical sensors they will have most of Russian air space covered.


    _________________
    “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

    Vann7

    Posts : 3471
    Points : 3583
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    NATO Air Force vs Russian Air Defence

    Post  Vann7 on Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:14 pm

    Viktor wrote:I dont believe that we will se Pancir-SM batteries consisting of only 2 (TEL and TELAR) vehicles. 6 vehicles per battery as previously is more likely.

    Thing is that Russian answer to modern air threats is rapid increase of:

    - missile guidance channels
    - number of missiles per battery/regiment/brigade
    - missile range in distance and altitude and more complex trajectories
    - modern command post that can perform more calculations
    - etc ....

    When you see it for the same number of vehicles the difference (increase) in number of missiles per Pancir-S1/SM battery is 34% and the same (34%) goes for BUK-M2/3 but
    note that in both cases we are comparing brand new SAM system with the most newest. If we take a look comparison of an older SAM systems
    like we have in S-300PS/T and Vityaz case than we may see numbers like 300% Very Happy


    The Buk-M3 are nice , have no doubt the west have nothing as effective/Mobile like them.
    Can't wait Russia to start being armed with many of them.. the more the better.
    The problem however will continue to be .. Offense > defense.
    Anyone that believe that in any conventional attack against Russia (or ally) will be just 10-15 planes and once you defeat them the conflict will be over are not really connected with reality. If anyone dare to Attack Russia conventionally it will be carefully planned. Not only how to attack..what to use ,but also carefully studied any possible retaliation scenarios of Russia fully explored. So if for example NATO arm Ukraine ,Georgia or Saudi Arabia ,it will be very limited the retaliation they can do.. either because they are close to Russia or because they are third world countries with nothing much to lose.

    When you take into account of the hundreds if not thousands of attack drones that NATO have. And that they can sell them to countries hostile to Russia.. ie Ukraine new gov,Poland ,Saudi Arabia or even Georgia. Russia then will need a system of defense that could counter X drones * y numbers of missiles.  So if Ukraine facist government is provided with 50 drones and each carry 5 missiles ,then Russia will need a defense that can counter 250 missiles +50 drones. That is a system of defense that could intercept at the same time at least 300 targets. In terms of Buks ,that could be 60 Buks defenses all active in crimea alone and 60 buks in Sochi against any attack of Georgia .

     This is why Russia rightly is worried about NATO ABM system .. because can be used offensively and in no time Russia could end with a thousand of nuclear missiles facing Moscow and very close to their borders. i think for Russia will be more practical and less expensive if they combine static defenses with mobile ones.. Have a valley near the borders of any hostile country ,with hundreds Buks-M3 of S-300 /S400s missiles underground in mini Silos, ready to use all of them at same time..just in case they receive a massive attack to their naval base Crimea and hundreds more in every very important facility or economical region they have like Sochi stadiums for example. and combine the static defenses with Mobile ones. They will save a ton of money if crew operation ,and the static sams will use the earth as launcher not an expensive tank. Combining static and mobile defenses i think will be much more efficient way to defense their airspace near important facilities or military bases. at the moment i think Russia have static defenses but they are against nuclear attacks ,not conventional ones.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16882
    Points : 17490
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 16, 2014 2:05 am

    The problem is that the effective drones that are not easy to shoot down simply don't exist yet... you can talk about thousands of programmed attack drones and giving them to third parties to use against Russia but honestly a fully armed Su-27 with 10 AAMs and a 30mm cannon could be assured of taking down at least 12 enemy drones on its own due to the fact that they don't defend themselves and can't really manouver.

    Once they have started their attack of course that is it because Russia can not only keep sending up fighters... even an Su-25 armed with R-60MKs would be capable of dealing with 10+ attack drones each... it would truly be a turkey shoot... and once the origin of the threat is determined the Russians can start live testing their Kh-555s and Kh-101s till the problem is dealt with.

    This is why Russia rightly is worried about NATO ABM system .. because can be used offensively and in no time Russia could end with a thousand of nuclear missiles facing Moscow and very close to their borders.

    The solution to thousands of enemy nukes is not thousands of SAMs... that would be ridiculously expensive... the solution to thousands of enemy nukes is thousands of medium range missiles with your own nuke and conventional warheads that can be based deep inside Russian territory yet still reach anywhere in Europe and Asia... ie the end of the INF treaty.


    _________________
    “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
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:56 pm

    Hehe, attack drones are just that - drones. And the most effective attack drones cost even more than an equivalently sized piloted aircraft, while being less effective. Also, cruise missiles are still by far the most efficient of all 'drones'- 1 million bucks a pop and a small building sized problem is gone. I wonder if in the future you can have a cruise missile strike package delivery service by phone-  Twisted Evil 
    Not only those- SAMs being cheaper would allow as much as hundreds of missiles per target.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 776
    Points : 953
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:20 pm

    Vann7 wrote:The problem however will continue to be .. Offense > defense.

    Taking into account a large scale conventional scenario between highly advanced opponents all the results coming from the most advanced simulation's models suggest the exact opposite of this assumption  Smile  

    Highly advanced defense systems (and with that i don't refer exclusively to high-end SAMs) don't only allow to completely neutralize or apply hindering losses on the entire spectrum of the most crucial offensive/ISR elements of the enemy forces (such as ballistic missiles, cruise missiles , aircraft, gliding bombs, helicopters, UAV/UCAV, AWACS, airborne jammers,  decoys and so on.......) but also to maintain integer the bulk of theirs own offensive means so to achieve a progressively faster degradation of opponent's offensive capabilities.

    Very advanced defense systems don't only allow to fend-off attacks or completely prevent them but also allow to the offensive elements to survive.

    That is even more true with Air Forces, representing effectively motionless targets for enemy offensive elements.
    All airfields…… and in particular NATO ones, lacking often the most elementary guise of passive hardening measures and of IAD coverage…. represent in facts for the enemy very easy targets, with well-known coordinates , characterized ,moreover, by high concentration of : delicate and very soft skin targets (aircraft) , exposed fuel stock and ammo depots in a forcibly compressed area;  all factors rendering them one of the most trivial targets in modern warfare , except when inserted in a very solid, high-end, dense and multilayered IAD.

    Even more ,we cannot stress enough how the more advanced, extensive and dense is a sector of enemy  IAD defending critical assets the more attacking Air Forces become exponentially vulnerable to “beheading” attacks; with offending Aviation forced effectively to bring and concentrate in the close-theater's airfields a very high number of Aircraft, ammunitions and corollary assets in order to even only prepare an attack against a particular IAD’s sector with some chance of success.

    etaepsilonk

    Posts : 715
    Points : 697
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  etaepsilonk on Wed Mar 19, 2014 3:56 pm

    To mindstorm:

    You forgot to mention that medium/high tier SAMs actually work most effectively with friendly fighter CAP overhead.
    The best example for that is Iran-Iraq war, using this tactic IRIAF managed to pretty successfully defend themselves against numerically and sometimes, qualitatively superior enemy.


    And yeah, lack of NATO attention towards SAMs is pretty disturbing. They basically follow by the letter Luftwaffe's WW2 concept of "airforce wins it all".
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:06 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:To mindstorm:

    You forgot to mention that medium/high tier SAMs actually work most effectively with friendly fighter CAP overhead.
    The best example for that is Iran-Iraq war, using this tactic IRIAF managed to pretty successfully defend themselves against numerically and sometimes, qualitatively superior enemy.


    And yeah, lack of NATO attention towards SAMs is pretty disturbing. They basically follow by the letter Luftwaffe's WW2 concept of "airforce wins it all".

    No kidding, the gap between Russian SAMS and NATO SAMS is staggering!

    etaepsilonk

    Posts : 715
    Points : 697
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  etaepsilonk on Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:10 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    etaepsilonk wrote:To mindstorm:

    You forgot to mention that medium/high tier SAMs actually work most effectively with friendly fighter CAP overhead.
    The best example for that is Iran-Iraq war, using this tactic IRIAF managed to pretty successfully defend themselves against numerically and sometimes, qualitatively superior enemy.


    And yeah, lack of NATO attention towards SAMs is pretty disturbing. They basically follow by the letter Luftwaffe's WW2 concept of "airforce wins it all".

    No kidding, the gap between Russian SAMS and NATO SAMS is staggering!

    Well, exactly opposite is the case for airforces, isn't it? Smile

    It's not like NATO is defenceless in AD field, in a war those tasks would be mostly performed by fighters.
    For example, I think that F-15 could be a very good anti-CM platform- good range, lots of ordnance, AESA radar.


    Last edited by etaepsilonk on Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:17 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    etaepsilonk wrote:To mindstorm:

    You forgot to mention that medium/high tier SAMs actually work most effectively with friendly fighter CAP overhead.
    The best example for that is Iran-Iraq war, using this tactic IRIAF managed to pretty successfully defend themselves against numerically and sometimes, qualitatively superior enemy.


    And yeah, lack of NATO attention towards SAMs is pretty disturbing. They basically follow by the letter Luftwaffe's WW2 concept of "airforce wins it all".

    No kidding, the gap between Russian SAMS and NATO SAMS is staggering!

    Well, exactly opposite is the case for airforces, isn't it? Smile


    The exactly opposite for airforces? I strongly disagree, Russian fighter jets are as capable as any other country's jets in the world.

    etaepsilonk

    Posts : 715
    Points : 697
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  etaepsilonk on Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:23 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    etaepsilonk wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    etaepsilonk wrote:To mindstorm:

    You forgot to mention that medium/high tier SAMs actually work most effectively with friendly fighter CAP overhead.
    The best example for that is Iran-Iraq war, using this tactic IRIAF managed to pretty successfully defend themselves against numerically and sometimes, qualitatively superior enemy.


    And yeah, lack of NATO attention towards SAMs is pretty disturbing. They basically follow by the letter Luftwaffe's WW2 concept of "airforce wins it all".

    No kidding, the gap between Russian SAMS and NATO SAMS is staggering!

    Well, exactly opposite is the case for airforces, isn't it? Smile





    The exactly opposite for airforces? I strongly disagree, Russian fighter jets are as capable as any other country's jets in the world.  


    I meant numerically.
    Heck, I'm sure that the best 4th gen fighter is Su-35 Smile

    But keep in mind that NATO's F-15s are nearly as good and much more numerous.
    And those are just the fighters, there're also AWACSs, tankers, recon, comm planes, all of which contribute to battle effectiveness as much as fighting systems themselves.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 776
    Points : 953
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Mar 19, 2014 6:55 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:It's not like NATO is defenceless in AD field, in a war those tasks would be mostly performed by fighters.


    In this world that represent a complete fairy tale  Rolling Eyes

     

    I try to explain the absurdity of this apologetic concept with a very simple example :

    A NATO Command Center receive data from early warning radars /AWACS that four groups of enemy "intruders", still at several hundreds km of distance are in route at high subsonic speed toward several possible critical NATO targets in the theatre of operations (C4 center ,a main radar, some main military airfields) ,let put that the contacts in each group are 25, 20, 21 and 30.

    Any NATO general, well aware that its "IAD" (if would be even serious employ in that instance this term.....Laughing ) lack any dedicated and optimized interceptors such as MiG-31 ( designed to greatly dilute cruise missile PGM Attacks), any system like S-300 family, any system like BUK-M family, any system like TOR-M family, any system like Tunguska-M or Pantsyr-S, high power ECM vehicles, dedicated decoy and masking systems, for not say the entire structure of passive and active network of overlapping sensors and command posts, purposely conceived to allow the repulsion of air attack some order of magnitude bigger than this one and well knowing that allowing the enemy to coordinate a saturating attack on the not-hardened airfields would lead to a catastrophic outcome , order all the interceptors capable to scramble toward an useful and far intercepting point of those enemy squadrons to urgently take-off.

    Alarms in all possible airfields potentially targets of a possible cruise missile/PGM attack by part of those enemy squadrons is immediately risen, AWACS  in the area recede in a sure position and jamming aircraft take-off while all possible fighter in the theatre airfields take the air in the attempt to intercept the menace ; theirs failure would mean the entire NATO Air Force structure in the area to literally collapse, with the utter loss of all aircraft, weapons and material that those air bases contain; a true disaster.


    At 400-500 km from the potential target airfields ,each of those enemy squadrons change suddenly route , now two groups are directed at north-east and other two toward west/north-west for the possible cruise missile delivery toward other two main NATO airfields.

    NATO generals orders all the intercepting squadrons  (likely 100-150 fighter aircraft) ,obviously not more able to execute a successful engagement to return to theirs respective bases and order to the aircraft present in the possible targeted airfields to instead immediately take-off.  

    All the aircraft of the first NATO Air Force's squadrons land and begin the slow repair and re-fuelling operations , when ,suddenly, one of the AWACS detect an enormous number of small RCS contacts incoming at very low altitude and high subsonic/supersonic speed toward all NATO airfield in the sector , NATO General's blood literally freeze in the veins while dozen after dozen of Kalibr missiles ,shot from more than 2500 km of distance , proceed totally undisturbed at destroy all main air bases in the theatre.

    The four "attacking" squadrons can U-turn from their mission : it was  not necessary to shot even only a single missile neither put a single aircraft in danger of enemy interception in order to completely crumble the enemy ridiculous air defense concept of operation.  Razz 


           
    Fighter aircraft are totally incapable to provide any kind of real defense in a modern conflict against an advanced opponent, and without this critical "defensive screen" theirs same survival and that of the asset at the base of theirs operation result impossible .
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  collegeboy16 on Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:09 am

    etaepsilonk wrote:
    I meant numerically.
    Heck, I'm sure that the best 4th gen fighter is Su-35 Smile

    But keep in mind that NATO's F-15s are nearly as good and much more numerous.
    And those are just the fighters, there're also AWACSs, tankers, recon, comm planes, all of which contribute to battle effectiveness as much as fighting systems themselves.
    Hahaha, Su-35 need not fear any F-15- the only F-15s that can actually cause trouble are murican and we all know if it comes to that its nuketime, other operators are not worth mentioning since against them lower aircraft would suffice.
    Also, F-15 cant be better than F-35 and we all know Su-35 is more than a match for the F-35.

    Vann7

    Posts : 3471
    Points : 3583
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Vann7 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 3:34 pm



    I meant numerically.
    Heck, I'm sure that the best 4th gen fighter is Su-35 Smile

    But keep in mind that NATO's F-15s are nearly as good and much more numerous.
    And those are just the fighters, there're also AWACSs, tankers, recon, comm planes, all of which contribute to battle effectiveness as much as fighting systems themselves.


    Actually in comparison with all US 4generatin fighters ,Not only the Su-35 is superior but also all thousands of SU-27s and MIg-29 with upgraded avionics that Russia have.. because they can see first and attack first.. and in the case of the Sukhois they have thrust vectoring engines.. means that no F-15-f-16-f18 stance a chance in visual combat against any Sukhoi.. this was even confirmed by an American pilot of an F-22 ,who saw how India wiped
    all their 4gen planes in RED FLAG exercises in 2008.. So he told that is was scary how Russia technology dominate their 4th generation planes. in a dogfight you cannot win a sukhoi super maneuverable using linear thrust engines.. pilot skills being the same.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNRMO70Hw0s&index=134&list=FLwGYjBaQ5y2UY3gKVsOTACw

    When it comes to F-22 raptor and F-35.. Their numbers are not good enough to make a difference , major problem the raptor will face is that it will be detected as soon launch a missile and the the SU-35 can jam the raptor missiles with its very advanced ECM capabilities. SO the raptor will see first ,first first but will not score a hit ,and once the SU-35 short the distance is game over for the raptor.. since lose a lot of energy when doing tight turns ,major weakness confirmed by Rafale and Eurofighters pilots who already defeated it. SU-35 in the other hand is a True vector engine fighter , not only 1 Y axis dimension but in X dimension too. With its infrared passive sensors (that the raptor dont have) the Su-35 can see the raptor easily at up to ~50km-80km according to Sukhoi claims. That is very decent medium ranges of interception.

    US strong point vs Russia is in the navy vs navy in open sea when using their aircraft carriers + combat jets(away of Russian territory).. and also strong in intercepting ICBM with their navy ,also geographics/political advantage in first strike capability,can use any territory in Europe to attack Russia.. Russia cannot use Mexico or canada to attack US.The US navy can overwhelm any navy in the world including Russia for sure albeit not without suffering massive losses.. But its army is mediocre at best ,specially its missiles forces.

    In a conventional only war ,Lets say US choose to invade Ukraine with its army and tanks with Russia threatening to fight them if they do it. And US deploy all their impressive number of massive Airforces Poland and Romania..
    The major problem they will face is that Russia Kaliber missiles have 3,600km range and can hit any part of Europe ,and any airforce military base. So Russia can do direct hits on their military bases anyplace in europe and just using their land missiles forces the most powerful in the world...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drlreb9-fXQ


    NATO will need to move their airfoces not only away of Russia combat range but away of their combat range too. It means that in a war between USA and RUssia their airforces will play no role at all. because will be at range of Russian cruise missiles or at range of S-400s. It means the NATO will no longer be able to count with air support in a war against Russia. And then when NATO armies gets closer ,Russia will start firing iskanders with 500km range and 5m precision. This means Russia can do Direct hits on the supply lines of NATO in their operation bases..

    Russia also have a huge advantage on Sam Defenses and mobile sam defenses ,not a single American slow tomawahk missile will bypass a zone protected with highly mobile Pantsirs ,Tors and Buks. In the other hand US and Allies will have a pain dealing with Supersonic mach 3 missiles hugging terrain and coming from all directions *at the same time*.

    Russia army is very dynamic can move every thing with their foot soldiers to any place ,that is sams ,electronic jammers and offensive weapons to any part the army move, NATO army is very static and purely offensive.they depend on airforces for their defenses 100%.


    Simply NATO is not prepared to fight Russia in a conventional war (specifically in the case they fight near Russia) main land. All western tanks will be useless if Russia can knockdown them from 90km away with Smerch drone+lazer guided rockets. This is why NATO tactics is 100% based in weakening RUssian economy. To give them another Afganistan. That is a proxy war.. NATO instigate revolutions and arm radicals with weapons in nations important for Russian interest. Weapons clients like Syria ,Iran or major trade partners like Ukraine,this way they can avoid a direct war with Russia that they can't win. US can be more effective with sabotages to Russian economy and Sanctions. This is the Reason Syria but also Ukraine is attacked.. they want to use Syria discovered Gas fields to supply Europe and cripple Russia economy. They also after Ukraine because Russia pipelines pass through Ukraine and large part of Russia economy depends of their business with them.

    here is a comparison of US vs Russia airforces.. and why in a fight vs Russia or China they will NOT have air superiority..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNRMO70Hw0s&index=134&list=FLwGYjBaQ5y2UY3gKVsOTACw






    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  TR1 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 4:16 pm

    Russia does not have thousands of MiG-29s and Su-27s.

    And far from all of them are upgraded.

    Vann7

    Posts : 3471
    Points : 3583
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Vann7 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:18 pm

    TR1 wrote:Russia does not have thousands of MiG-29s and Su-27s.

    And far from all of them are upgraded.


    Your correct.. still doesn't matter.. NATO will not have air supremacy in a conflict with Russia. The
    several hundreds strong war planes they can get combined with S-400s,S-300s and mobile buks and tors can pull back any NATO airforce. Russia have airforce range advantage and Sam advantage and counter measure advantage. Just days ago the US airforce lost 2 drones in crimea ,against Russian electronic counter measures.

    http://news.yahoo.com/russia-says-intercepted-us-drone-over-crimea-arms-180430584.html;_ylt=At_B0i8Ttqvgrn8ZH8ESDpzQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBsdmNodWplBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMzBHNlYwNzcg--

    US deny the claims they lost drones,just like they did when lost drones in IRAN ,and later it was proved IRAN downed a stealth drone capture and obama change their version asking for a return.  A real Combat simulation done by Pentagon between NATO and Russia+China airforces combined shows the problem of air supremacy even in the case they use F-22 and F-35.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITbGBmaqQkk

    Simply NATO will never send an army with tanks to any place ,that they do not have air supremacy first.
    Their armies not prepared to fight Russia in a conventional war ,specially when Russia have the option to get assistance of China . But even without any China help , Russia can counter NATO numbers with superior weapon advantage ,that can allow any combat plane , to snipe all NATO forces from a safe distance and also bomb their military bases in any part of europe from where their airforce take off day and night.


    Last edited by Vann7 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:42 pm; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  TR1 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:30 pm

    To be quite frank until I see photos of the drones I am skeptical the event ever happened.

    Sponsored content

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:52 am