Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Share

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  Guest on Tue Aug 25, 2015 11:21 pm

    BlackArrow wrote:
    higurashihougi wrote:

    Electronics of F-15 is inferior to Russian fighters like Su-30/35 and MiG-25/31. Su-30 and MiG-31's radar are bigger, means angular resolution is higher. Su and MiG also have PESA dynamic shifted phase, while F-15 does not.

    Nonsense. Have you no idea of the the avionics and weapons fit of the latest F-15s - AESA radar, AIM-120C7, AIM-9X etac.
    AESA radars are only fitted to a select number of F-15Es. As far as I know radars on newer Russian aircraft outclass the APG-82 on Strike Eagles in an a2a role. But the F-15E hasn't been used for an A2A combat role for some time now. Russian and American missiles are more or less on the same levels. So the tech is broadly comparable, but I would put money on Russian aircraft since their role remains to win dogfights, not bomb ground targets.
    avatar
    BlackArrow

    Posts : 131
    Points : 111
    Join date : 2013-05-17

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  BlackArrow on Fri Aug 28, 2015 2:18 pm

    Ivan the Colorado wrote:
    AESA radars are only fitted to a select number of F-15Es. As far as I know radars on newer Russian aircraft outclass the APG-82 on Strike Eagles in an a2a role. But the F-15E hasn't been used for an A2A combat role for some time now. Russian and American missiles are more or less on the same levels. So the tech is broadly comparable, but I would put money on Russian aircraft since their role remains to win dogfights, not bomb ground targets.

    I think that some F-15Es sold abroad are fitted with AESA radars - such as F-15SG sold to Singapore. Also, some USAF single seat F-15s have been upgraded with AESA radars.

    'As far as I know radars on newer Russian aircraft outclass the APG-82 on Strike Eagles in an a2a role.'

    Which radars on which Russian aircraft are you referring to?  

    'Russian and American missiles are more or less on the same levels.'

    No they are not. No Russian equal to the AIM-120C or AIM-9X - for a while anyway.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Aug 28, 2015 3:13 pm

    BlackArrow wrote:
    Ivan the Colorado wrote:
    AESA radars are only fitted to a select number of F-15Es. As far as I know radars on newer Russian aircraft outclass the APG-82 on Strike Eagles in an a2a role. But the F-15E hasn't been used for an A2A combat role for some time now. Russian and American missiles are more or less on the same levels. So the tech is broadly comparable, but I would put money on Russian aircraft since their role remains to win dogfights, not bomb ground targets.

    I think that some F-15Es sold abroad are fitted with AESA radars - such as F-15SG sold to Singapore. Also, some USAF single seat F-15s have been upgraded with AESA radars.

    'As far as I know radars on newer Russian aircraft outclass the APG-82 on Strike Eagles in an a2a role.'

    Which radars on which Russian aircraft are you referring to?  

    'Russian and American missiles are more or less on the same levels.'

    No they are not. No Russian equal to the AIM-120C or AIM-9X - for a while anyway.

    Ibris Radar outclases any APG-82 version.

    AIM-120C is outclassed by R-27M2 and RVV-SD, AIM-9X is just a clone of R-73 and the R-73M outclasses the AIM-9X in range, maneuverability and performance of the seeker.
    avatar
    BlackArrow

    Posts : 131
    Points : 111
    Join date : 2013-05-17

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  BlackArrow on Fri Aug 28, 2015 3:23 pm

    [quote="Werewolf"

    Ibris Radar outclases any APG-82 version.[/quote]

    You don't know that. Irbis not in service yet.

    AIM-120C is outclassed by R-27M2 and RVV-SD,  What is R-27M2? RVV-SD is not in service yet, even if you believe it is anyway superior.

    'AIM-9X is just a clone of R-73' don't forget your medication

    'and the R-73M outclasses the AIM-9X in range, maneuverability and performance of the seeker.' Does it?  Range is not so important in such a class of missile anyway. I doubt if the R-73 seeker is anyway an improvement on the original 1980s IR seeker.
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2152
    Points : 2255
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  higurashihougi on Fri Aug 28, 2015 3:48 pm

    BlackArrow wrote:You don't know that. Irbis not in service yet.

    So Su-35S doesn't use Irbis but it uses Bars ? Or Su-35S hasn't been in service yet ?
    avatar
    BlackArrow

    Posts : 131
    Points : 111
    Join date : 2013-05-17

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  BlackArrow on Fri Aug 28, 2015 3:55 pm

    higurashihougi wrote:
    BlackArrow wrote:You don't know that. Irbis not in service yet.

    So Su-35S doesn't use Irbis but it uses Bars ? Or Su-35S hasn't been in service yet ?

    Su-35 uses Irbis. Su-35 has been delivered to the Russian AF just as F-35 has been flying with the USAF since 2010 - so what? Neither of them are in any kind of frontline service.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:46 pm

    BlackArrow wrote:
    higurashihougi wrote:
    BlackArrow wrote:You don't know that. Irbis not in service yet.

    So Su-35S doesn't use Irbis but it uses Bars ? Or Su-35S hasn't been in service yet ?

    Su-35 uses Irbis. Su-35 has been delivered to the Russian AF just as F-35 has been flying with the USAF since 2010 - so what? Neither of them are in any kind of frontline service.

    Now you have disproven your own mumbling that no Irbis is in Service. Irbis is a radar specifically designed for Su-35 jets and yes it is in active service.

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  Guest on Fri Aug 28, 2015 10:07 pm

    BlackArrow wrote:
    Ivan the Colorado wrote:
    AESA radars are only fitted to a select number of F-15Es. As far as I know radars on newer Russian aircraft outclass the APG-82 on Strike Eagles in an a2a role. But the F-15E hasn't been used for an A2A combat role for some time now. Russian and American missiles are more or less on the same levels. So the tech is broadly comparable, but I would put money on Russian aircraft since their role remains to win dogfights, not bomb ground targets.

    I think that some F-15Es sold abroad are fitted with AESA radars - such as F-15SG sold to Singapore. Also, some USAF single seat F-15s have been upgraded with AESA radars.

    'As far as I know radars on newer Russian aircraft outclass the APG-82 on Strike Eagles in an a2a role.'

    Which radars on which Russian aircraft are you referring to?  

    'Russian and American missiles are more or less on the same levels.'

    No they are not. No Russian equal to the AIM-120C or AIM-9X - for a while anyway.

    Which radars on which Russian aircraft are you referring to?
    Irbis and Bars leap to mind. There are a few more like the Zaslon-M. Much more of these radars in service than the APG-79 and APG-82 actually.

    No they are not. No Russian equal to the AIM-120C or AIM-9X - for a while anyway.
    R-27M and RVV-SD as mentioned above steadily come to mind. A huge motivator behind developing the AIM-9X was the appearance of the R-73 and they do accomplish tasks in similar styles so Werewolf has a point. Both Russian missiles are in service actually. In an air to air engagement, they would be on par despite minute differences on paper. Because a few kilometers or a few Gs do not matter in a very dynamic fight such as a dogfight.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Aug 28, 2015 10:52 pm

    Ivan the Colorado wrote:
    BlackArrow wrote:
    Ivan the Colorado wrote:
    AESA radars are only fitted to a select number of F-15Es. As far as I know radars on newer Russian aircraft outclass the APG-82 on Strike Eagles in an a2a role. But the F-15E hasn't been used for an A2A combat role for some time now. Russian and American missiles are more or less on the same levels. So the tech is broadly comparable, but I would put money on Russian aircraft since their role remains to win dogfights, not bomb ground targets.

    I think that some F-15Es sold abroad are fitted with AESA radars - such as F-15SG sold to Singapore. Also, some USAF single seat F-15s have been upgraded with AESA radars.

    'As far as I know radars on newer Russian aircraft outclass the APG-82 on Strike Eagles in an a2a role.'

    Which radars on which Russian aircraft are you referring to?  

    'Russian and American missiles are more or less on the same levels.'

    No they are not. No Russian equal to the AIM-120C or AIM-9X - for a while anyway.

    Which radars on which Russian aircraft are you referring to?
    Irbis and Bars leap to mind. There are a few more like the Zaslon-M. Much more of these radars in service than the APG-79 and APG-82 actually.

    No they are not. No Russian equal to the AIM-120C or AIM-9X - for a while anyway.
    R-27M and RVV-SD as mentioned above steadily come to mind. A huge motivator behind developing the AIM-9X was the appearance of the R-73 and they do accomplish tasks in similar styles so Werewolf has a point. Both Russian missiles are in service actually. In an air to air engagement, they would be on par despite minute differences on paper. Because a few kilometers or a few Gs do not matter in a very dynamic fight such as a dogfight.

    I don't have just "some" point, the AIM-9X was strictly based on technologies they extracted from a R-73 from a GDR Mig-29 with HMDS cueing and their off-bore capability which no western missile had a counterpart for it. They studied for several years the export version of MiG-29 in US along with HMDS and R-73 weaponary, not to mention tanks, hinds and what not else.

    The R-73 had also programs for rear launching LOAL versions, which still has no equals even tho this program wasn't fielded as a standard for all R-73M or M2's.

    Range matters when you stay undetected and having IRST on all russian fighter jets helps staying undetected, boosting your jet to high speeds maybe even with afterburner, giving with that speed higher range for your already superior range of R-73M2 will greatly increase the maximum launch range for your plattform and so you can exploit it. Of course that is a very specific use, but having better performing weapons helps certainly.
    avatar
    BlackArrow

    Posts : 131
    Points : 111
    Join date : 2013-05-17

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  BlackArrow on Fri Aug 28, 2015 10:59 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Now you have disproven your own mumbling that no Irbis is in Service. Irbis is a radar specifically designed for Su-35 jets and yes it is in active service.

    Irbis is fitted to the Su-35 alright. Some Su-35 have already been delivered to the Russian air force - but the Su-35 is still under development - plenty of weapon trials to complete.

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  Guest on Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:03 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Ivan the Colorado wrote:
    BlackArrow wrote:
    Ivan the Colorado wrote:
    AESA radars are only fitted to a select number of F-15Es. As far as I know radars on newer Russian aircraft outclass the APG-82 on Strike Eagles in an a2a role. But the F-15E hasn't been used for an A2A combat role for some time now. Russian and American missiles are more or less on the same levels. So the tech is broadly comparable, but I would put money on Russian aircraft since their role remains to win dogfights, not bomb ground targets.

    I think that some F-15Es sold abroad are fitted with AESA radars - such as F-15SG sold to Singapore. Also, some USAF single seat F-15s have been upgraded with AESA radars.

    'As far as I know radars on newer Russian aircraft outclass the APG-82 on Strike Eagles in an a2a role.'

    Which radars on which Russian aircraft are you referring to?  

    'Russian and American missiles are more or less on the same levels.'

    No they are not. No Russian equal to the AIM-120C or AIM-9X - for a while anyway.

    Which radars on which Russian aircraft are you referring to?
    Irbis and Bars leap to mind. There are a few more like the Zaslon-M. Much more of these radars in service than the APG-79 and APG-82 actually.

    No they are not. No Russian equal to the AIM-120C or AIM-9X - for a while anyway.
    R-27M and RVV-SD as mentioned above steadily come to mind. A huge motivator behind developing the AIM-9X was the appearance of the R-73 and they do accomplish tasks in similar styles so Werewolf has a point. Both Russian missiles are in service actually. In an air to air engagement, they would be on par despite minute differences on paper. Because a few kilometers or a few Gs do not matter in a very dynamic fight such as a dogfight.

    I don't have just "some" point, the AIM-9X was strictly based on technologies they extracted from a R-73 from a GDR Mig-29 with HMDS cueing and their off-bore capability which no western missile had a counterpart for it. They studied for several years the export version of MiG-29 in US along with HMDS and R-73 weaponary, not to mention tanks, hinds and what not else.

    The R-73 had also programs for rear launching LOAL versions, which still has no equals even tho this program wasn't fielded as a standard for all R-73M or M2's.

    Range matters when you stay undetected and having IRST on all russian fighter jets helps staying undetected, boosting your jet to high speeds maybe even with afterburner, giving with that speed higher range for your already superior range of R-73M2 will greatly increase the maximum launch range for your plattform and so you can exploit it. Of course that is a very specific use, but having better performing weapons helps certainly.
    Doesn't surprise me at all.
    BlackArrow wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    Now you have disproven your own mumbling that no Irbis is in Service. Irbis is a radar specifically designed for Su-35 jets and yes it is in active service.

    Irbis is fitted to the Su-35 alright. Some Su-35 have already been delivered to the Russian air force - but the Su-35 is still under development - plenty of weapon trials to complete.
    Su-35 is in active service sweetie, try again Wink
    avatar
    BlackArrow

    Posts : 131
    Points : 111
    Join date : 2013-05-17

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  BlackArrow on Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:28 pm

    Ivan the Colorado wrote:
    Irbis and Bars leap to mind. There are a few more like the Zaslon-M. Much more of these radars in service than the APG-79 and APG-82 actually.

    There are far more American built fighter aircraft fitted with AESA radars in service than Russian PESA in service around the world. USAF B-1B and B-2 bombers are fitted with PESA.

    R-27M and RVV-SD as mentioned above steadily come to mind. A huge motivator behind developing the AIM-9X was the appearance of the R-73 and they do accomplish tasks in similar styles so Werewolf has a point. Both Russian missiles are in service actually. In an air to air engagement, they would be on par despite minute differences on paper. Because a few kilometers or a few Gs do not matter in a very dynamic fight such as a dogfight

    R-73 was almost certainly a motivation behind AIM-9X. What was the motivation behind R-73 in the 1970s?

    What is this R-27M you keep talking about? RVV-SD is not in service yet, I think they have been recently ordered though.
    avatar
    BlackArrow

    Posts : 131
    Points : 111
    Join date : 2013-05-17

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  BlackArrow on Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:40 pm

    Werewolf wrote:I don't have just "some" point, the AIM-9X was strictly based on technologies they extracted from a R-73 from a GDR Mig-29 with HMDS cueing and their off-bore capability which no western missile had a counterpart for it. They studied for several years the export version of MiG-29 in US along with HMDS and R-73 weaponary, not to mention tanks, hinds and what not else.

    Rubbish. The US had HMD on their F-4s in the Vietnam war. In any case the HMD technology used with AIM-9X, the "joint helmet mounted cueing system" JHMCS is completely different technology from the Soviet origin HMD.


    The R-73 had also programs for rear launching LOAL versions

    That rearward firing missile doesn't exist anymore - I presume its cancelled. AIM-9X can turn 180 degrees though upon firing.

    Range matters when you stay undetected and having IRST on all russian fighter jets helps staying undetected,
    Not if you get detected by radar

    boosting your jet to high speeds maybe even with afterburner, giving with that speed higher range for your already superior range of R-73M2 will greatly increase the maximum launch range for your plattform and so you can exploit it. Of course that is a very specific use, but having better performing weapons helps certainly.

    Or, you could just fire an AMRAAM if you needed extra range.
    avatar
    BlackArrow

    Posts : 131
    Points : 111
    Join date : 2013-05-17

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  BlackArrow on Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:43 pm

    Ivan the Colorado wrote:Su-35 is in active service sweetie, try again Wink

    Really? I doubt it.What missiles are they armed with? I hear some of them have been sent back to the factory with many faults?

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  Guest on Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:03 am

    BlackArrow wrote:
    Ivan the Colorado wrote:Su-35 is in active service sweetie, try again Wink

    Really? I doubt it.What missiles are they armed with? I hear some of them have been sent back to the factory with many faults?
    Yes, really. What, now you are using your own uneducated thoughts to argue? That statement "I doubt it" speaks books on what you know. A new order for an additional 48 planes is imminent too. They can carry the most modern missiles in the Russian inventory. A few were sent back to be upgraded not because they were faulty. If they were faulty, they would've been grounded like the F-22s were for some time because of oxygen problems. Even if they had "been sent back to the factory" doesn't that imply that they are in service?

    avatar
    BlackArrow

    Posts : 131
    Points : 111
    Join date : 2013-05-17

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  BlackArrow on Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:12 am

    Ivan the Colorado wrote:
    BlackArrow wrote:
    Ivan the Colorado wrote:Su-35 is in active service sweetie, try again Wink

    Really? I doubt it.What missiles are they armed with? I hear some of them have been sent back to the factory with many faults?
    Yes, really. What, now you are using your own uneducated thoughts to argue? That statement "I doubt it" speaks books on what you know. A new order for an additional 48 planes is imminent too. They can carry the most modern missiles in the Russian inventory. A few were sent back to be upgraded not because they were faulty. If they were faulty, they would've been grounded like the F-22s were for some time because of oxygen problems. Even if they had "been sent back to the factory" doesn't that imply that they are in service?


    What missiles are the armed with? There are no R-77 in Russian AF service.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:32 am

    BlackArrow wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:I don't have just "some" point, the AIM-9X was strictly based on technologies they extracted from a R-73 from a GDR Mig-29 with HMDS cueing and their off-bore capability which no western missile had a counterpart for it. They studied for several years the export version of MiG-29 in US along with HMDS and R-73 weaponary, not to mention tanks, hinds and what not else.

    Rubbish. The US had HMD on their F-4s in the Vietnam war. In any case the HMD technology used with AIM-9X, the "joint helmet mounted cueing system" JHMCS is completely different technology from the Soviet origin HMD.


    The R-73 had also programs for rear launching LOAL versions

    That rearward firing missile doesn't exist anymore - I presume its cancelled. AIM-9X can turn 180 degrees though upon firing.

    Range matters when you stay undetected and having IRST on all russian fighter jets helps staying undetected,
    Not if you get detected by radar

    boosting your jet to high speeds maybe even with afterburner, giving with that speed higher range for your already superior range of R-73M2 will greatly increase the maximum launch range for your plattform and so you can exploit it. Of course that is a very specific use, but having better performing weapons helps certainly.

    Or, you could just fire an AMRAAM if you needed extra range.

    How much painful things to read here...

    No F-4 had HMDS cued weapons with off-bore capability, such technology did not exist back then and the US copied exactly this concept and studied the technology of HMDS cued weapons for dog fights. The entire US has abondoned the Dog fight with introduction of their precious F-4's untill they were fucked in the asses by MiG-21's in Vietnam and had than to rethink their ignorance of believing WVR is obsolete, in fact most cases of equal air forces operating against each other they will end up in big vast majority of cases in WVR and not in BVR kills.

    AIM-9X has no capability to turn 180° it has only LOBL function just like R-73M/M2, both never got LOAL capability especialy for reward firing capability into service.

    You can't get detected by radar when you sneak upon someone, sneaking implies already an approach towards a target from a blind spot.

    Firing an AMRAAM just for the range is like trying to pistol a soldier from 500 meters, no chance of actually achieving anything, but only warning him while takes evasive maneuvers and your missile will be a miss. That is the entire concept of IRST being used as a "radar" to be absolutley eleminate emission to not alert your chased target, so you can kill him without any alertion for him to take measures. Using radars eleminates this purpose with very low probability of hitting your enemy with BVR weapons.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 798
    Points : 882
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sat Aug 29, 2015 6:03 am

    Werewolf wrote:

    No F-4 had HMDS cued weapons with off-bore capability, such technology did not exist back then and the US copied exactly this concept and studied the technology of HMDS cued weapons for dog fights. The entire US has abondoned the Dog fight with introduction of their precious F-4's untill they were fucked in the asses by MiG-21's in Vietnam and had than to rethink their ignorance of believing WVR is obsolete, in fact most cases of equal air forces operating against each other they will end up in big vast majority of cases in WVR and not in BVR kills.

    Well. regarding to F-4 though.. There was the VTAS and SEAM (Sidewinder Expanded Acquisition Mode)

    http://www.hartov.dk/yahoo/vtas.htm

    The system apparently fielded. Though i don't know how many F-4 got it or how it fares so far in the era.

    Nonetheless both VTAS and SEAM does not seem to enter F-15 or F-16 avionic suites until the introduction of JHCMS or Israeli DASH system.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16302
    Points : 16933
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:30 pm

    The west was confident in its "superior" training and aircraft and never bothered with HMS and high off boresight AAMs... the original Sidewinder would not have had the manouverability to usefully be used the way the R-73 works... even if it had a wide field of view seeker it would not be able to turn hard enough off the weapon pylon to exploit it and when it loses lock it will miss.

    In the 1980s the west thought they would wipe the floor with the robot soviets and that their advantage would be in close in dogfights.

    After the fall of the iron curtain and experience with MiG-29s and R-73s they suddenly greatly increased their funding of AMRAAM and focussed on BVR combat because in controlled tests it was found that the F-16 could out manouver and get on the tail of the MiG-29B as used by the East Germans 62% of the time but that was not important... what was important was that the F-16 was not equipped with SPARROW so its only air to air armament was Sidewinder... so if it survived the R-27s that would be fired at it it would not survive the R-73 as in every case the MiG pilot fired first and in every evaluation it was found that the R-73 would have killed the F-16 before it got into a position to fire its own weapon with a reasonable chance of a kill.

    Of course with plenty of training and experience the western pilots learned ways of dealing with the R-73.... the two blackhawks shot down just after Desert Storm with all those US officials was a direct result of experience with the R-73... and mistaken fears the Mi-24 might be able to carry it...

    Edit: BTW the so called rear firing R-73 was not a special variant and is currently in service.

    The standard R-73 has thrust vector control to allow high g turns off the rail... this thrust vectoring control rocket motor (actually just paddles that can redirect the rocket thrust) allows the missile to maintain its nose pointing at the target and maintaining lock as it passes through a super stall of flying backwards at hundreds of kms per hour through to accelerating backwards towards the target.

    the only actual modification apart from mounting it facing backwards on the rail is a small aerodynamic fairing that fits over the rear to reduce drag in normal flight.

    The R-27 was also tested facing backwards but without thrust vectoring when the missile was accelerating backwards it would enter a period where it had stopped moving forward and had zero speed... at which point the main fins stalled and the nose of the missile dropped like a rock despite the rocket motor burning at full thrust... lock was broken and the missile continued downwards to hit the ground.

    Newer missiles with lock on after launch capability and a datalink will likely allow rear facing missiles to be used easily again.... perhaps with a parachute to slow the missile down without burning precious fuel.


    _________________
    “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
    nemrod

    Posts : 811
    Points : 1310
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Russia's military superiority over USA Military

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

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


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

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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 811
    Points : 1310
    Join date : 2012-09-11

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

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

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




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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Below this other link of Gen. Valentin Valescu.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Valentin Vasilescu

    Traduction Avic – Réseau International

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

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 4495
    Points : 4674
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 811
    Points : 1310
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  nemrod on Fri Oct 23, 2015 10:05 pm

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

    Posts : 811
    Points : 1310
    Join date : 2012-09-11

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

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

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

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

    Bravo Russia!

    Sponsored content

    Re: US-NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:58 pm