thobbesSo much of this is going nowhere with my opinion v your opinion and you not understanding my points or your using typical Russian style handwavium with no backup (“USSR could have done it if there policy was to get rid of Arabs”) or completely illogical arguments (e.g “And you don’t need aircraft carriers/amphibious to defeat a middleastern country. Its flat desert environment.”) to wierd theories on birthrates.
How is MIG in bind. It is manufacturing the most capable carrier borne aircraft.
Ermm…both the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-35C as well as the Rafale are a lot more advanced than the Mig-29.
And in case you’ve not noticed, articles are coming out about MiG losing money. The point of defence companies is to make money. Companies lose money usually when they’re not selling enough of their product.
thobbesSad news indeed to see the inactivation of this grand lady of the sea.
Though her name will live on with CVN-80 to be named USS Enterprise:
thobbesBrazil currently has four KC-137 (Boeing 707 variants) & two KC-130, which is not a large force but is very respectable for the size of the air force, & this modest fleet is supposed to be replaced by more & more capable aircraft.
The KC-390, to be bought to replace the C-130 (more than one to one planned) will come plumbed for AAR as standard, & current plans call for the purchase of significantly more than two AAR kits. The KC-137s are meant to be replaced in a separate programme, & Brazil has expressed interest in the A330 MRTT. We’ll have to wait & see what actually happens, but KC-390 development is funded & underway.
Cheers for the update!
thobbes[QUOTE=JSR;1957872]India? Aviation products are delayed and use extensive help from outside. procurement budget is divided among so many products and every thing is in small number per year that there is no effectiveness. [/qupte]
I was referring to their military as in quality of troops, training and doctrine etc.
The joys of trying to explain human systems to technology buffs. 😀
France does not produce most of things by itself. it is integrate parts and finaly assembly from various countries. Mistral need Russia built parts as that Mistral has to be customized to RuNavy specifications.
Of course it does as it’s using Russian spec systems. However the Russians went to the French for the hull because they couldn’t do it themselves.
Using airborne forces is much faster in establishing taking control of airstrips. Amphibious ships are much slower to react. You have to load them at the port and than unload them at some beach far away from battlefield.
Sorry but that’s a very one dimensional perspective.
Amphibious ships are a multi-purpose vessel and one that favours modern operations (i.e. interventions in third world, humanitarian assistance, light carrier). They have facilities for both troops, aviation and land vehicles and have command centre capability.
Much more versatile than an airborne brigade I think!
Defeat Iraq was the easiest. Just destroy the electric grid , fuel/water supply and wait for hot summer months. Russia can wait West cannot as oil pricing was rising in 1991.
So Russians can defeat Iraq if they commit warcrimes?
Iraq does not have anything to stop. infact a air droping weopons to North & South would have created internal revolt. And I would think if Russia has to invade Iraq. It will also invade Kuwait/Jordan/Saudi Arabia.
a. Internal revolts didn’t work in Iraq – they all failed and Kurds only managed success after US imposed a no-fly zone.
b. Russia lacks capability to invade Iraq let alone Kuwait/Jordan/Saudi Arabia:
1. Lack of aircraft carriers
2. Lack of amphibious capability
3. Lack of global logistics reach
It couldn’t have done this even in the glory days of the USSR.
The US by the way could still accomplish this.
Your only counting the direct impact of wars but indirect impact of expensive wars is far larger on society.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/us-birth-rate-plummets-to-its-lowest-since-1920/2012/11/29/ee7e8d16-3a3f-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_story.html
Russia also has a declining birth rate. It’s common in more developed countries. In Australia they forks out thousands of dollars per baby so people would breed.
Serbia is difficult to tackle in 1999 as they are more competent and you cannot use unupgraded airforce against them. it has to be ground invasion with ships. and it would still have taken less time than months of bombing.
Wow so Iraq in 1991 who are not as capable as Serbs shot down 39 Allied aircraft including an F/A-18 kill by a MiG-25 while “more competent” Serbs only shot down 2.
Oh and NATO won using air bombardment. The Serbs pulled out and NATRO’s still there – that’s all that matters.
Soviet Union neglected human resources as large number of its forces were from republics. The Afghan war was started by them.
You’re totally right about USSR neglecting human resources. And once it became Russia, it still neglected human resources (e.g. initial performance in Chechnya). As to whether they will ever emphasise human resources the way successful militaries ala Israel and the US do can only be proven by similar combat results.
Arabs love western weopons it Is just they are so complex that they cannot use it without permission and extensive contractor support. see Turkey example.
Firstly Turks are not Arabs. Not even close.
Turkey is an extremely poor example as it’s developing it’s own domestic military which includes some relatively high end work.
A better example would be Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or UAE.
Arabs love Western toys but like the Russians/Soviets don’t care much for human resources.
There is measure of control on its F-16 use despite claims to contrary.
US has always controlled it’s weapons exports.
[quote]
Russian weopons become more complex and expensive in 21st century. There use in third world will be diminished.[/qupte]
And there lies the problem.
Russia is losing it’s markets:
– Eastern Europe – mainly switched to West as main weapons supplier. Even Serbia is doubtful as a sure customer.
– Africa – sophisticated militaries in decline. Most sales are ex-Soviet stuff or lower tech weapons (AK-47, RPG) or second hand items (e.g. Angolan, Eritrean and Ethiopian Su-27s).
– Middle East – mainly switched to West (Egypt, Iraq) or military in decline (Libya, Syria). Only Algeria is a solid customer here with Yemen occassionally buying Russian new builds as well.
– South America – only growth spot thanks to Venezuela. However Cuba is no longer capable of making any acquisitions and Peru is also mainly focusing on upgardes with little procurement.
– India – no longer a guaranteed customer as in past.
– Asia – basically China and Vietnam. Malaysia is a free agent while the Indonesians don’t seem to happy with their Flankers and are buying second hand F-16s instead. Myanmar is primarily supplied by China.
And the Chinese-Russian defence trade is strained at times due to accusations of copying.
– Ex Soviet states – pretty much a monopoly for Russia but these aren’t high volume customers. Belorussia and Ukraine are too poor to buy anything.
So Russia’s defence markets are struggling. It’s why MiG is in such a bind – countries that previously brought MiG-15/-17/-19/-21/-23 have either switched to Western products or are no longer capable of operating or acquiriing new fighter jets.
Problem with these countries is that that they have no say in wars. And there is no guarantee that US will automatically come there support. As with time US will have greater business/ employment relationships with China & Russia.
Agree with China but less optimistic with Russia-US relations.
thobbesWell I suggest you talk about the US then rather than the ‘West’.
The West (or rich countries aligned if you wish) are part of the US based defence system. Though they pick and chose where they get involved in terms of small colonial wars, but in a time of crisis most would easily back the US.
Countries like Australia, the Netherlands, Denmark or even tiny Croatia are reorientating their militaries to act as part of US led Coalition expeditions rather than stand alone, fight alone forces.
You said and I quote – “The funny thing about those high end threats is that the only countries able to field high end threats are Western ones.”
South Korea, Turkey and Japan are not Western countries.capability.
But they are Western alligned (and Japan and South Korea are closer to US in terms of defence reliance than even some European states). Maybe word OECD would be more appropriate?
We’re talking about how its likely to shape up in the future. It is likely to become a major military power within the next decade or two.
Could you please expand on how Brazil is likely to become a major military power in next couple of decades?
Other than a single ageing aircraft carrier equiped with A-4 Skyhawks they have no power projection.
Their airforce’s “external combat” (ie fast jet fleet) is small and equipped with ancient equipment. Even if they obtained the 100+ modern jets they’ve planned, that is nothing compared to most Middle Eastern, north Asian and European airforces.
Not to mention lack of tankers, strategic airlift etc etc.
Brazil seems to be merely retaining its place at the top of the pecking order in Latin America and that’s it.
I could be wrong and would love to hear about Brazil’s military plans some more.
I’ve heard the UK, France and Germany called the same (i.e. ‘has beens’).
Most definitely hasbeens if compared to even the recent past. The world has shifted to Asia and Middle East.
For now. They have a massive rearmament program in the works. While they’ll never be a match for the Soviet Union let alone the US, Russia is far from a walkover either.
Not a walkover but not a quality military either. Flashy weapons do not make a military a quality force.
Russians always neglected human resources and until further evidence is shown, I’ll maintain that proposition.
Russia’s attitude towards human resources is why Arab forces tended to be more comfortable with Soviet/Russian tech than Western ones:
No military has seen real combat in decades. Every conflict has involved overwhelming odds including total air dominance by one side.
The Iraqis never had a ghost of a chance.
These small wars (which are quite large given current level of military activity) have given the Western forces valuable experience in terms of coordination, weapons development, infantry tactics. logistics, planning etc.
The Russians have obviously learned from their forays but they still seem to have a long way to go (e.g. logistics or lack of air-ground coordination).
Doesn’t change the fact that China is, to borrow your phrase, a ‘high end threat’. That’s why at least the US and Pacific countries need to be focussed on countering it. Which means the F-35 is a necessity.
But there will never be war with China – the economic and social repurcussions are too huge.
The funny thing about F-35 is it’s range seems insufficient for Asia Pacific level combat.
Global challenges are still evolving and military planners need to remain flexible. Ten years back very few could have foreseen how drawn out and bloody counter-insurgency campaign waged by ISAF forces in Afghanistan would be. Similarly predictions about conventional warfare being a thing of the past will simply be ignored.
I really think anyone with half a brain would’ve known Afghanistan and Iraq would turn into a quagmire. Indeed I thought that the minute I heard about the proposed invasion of Afghanistan.
The West showed a complete lack of:
– cultural understanding e.g. ethnic (both Iraq and Afghanistan are foreign constructs with different ethnic groups that generally don’t get along) as well as the obvious religious ones, clan and family ties that override allegiance to the nation state..
– knowledge of history of foreign occupation of both countries (Soviets in Afghanistan, Brits in both and even Ottoman Turks in Iraq).
– knowledge of local political ties and allegiances – e.g. Taliban’s connection to Pakistan’s ISI, Iranian influence amongst Shias.
In a book called Horse Soldiers, one can see how much the US didn’t bother gathering intelligence on these countries – Spec Forces initially deployed to Afghanistan were reading old issues of National Geographic because there was no real reports on the country. They were told General Dostrum (their initial contact) was sick and dying yet were amazed to find him fit and healthy.
As for conventional war between major powers, it will be back one day but I suspect that the power of the US hegemon needs to be considerably degraded for that to happen.
Time will tell indeed, but you hope for the best, plan for the worst. Which in this case means the aircraft are all that they were advertised to be.
Very true but when you’ve acquired such expensive equipment that you can only afford a handful or it takes so long to develop that troops are using equipment far beyond their use by dates, then that shows a lack of concern for the worst/.
The West is more interested in using defence as an economic handout mechanism than effective defence of national interest.
thobbesRAAF C-130H retirement flights
Final flights for C-130H. To be retired 30/11/12 after 34 years of service.
Their replacements have been C-17s.
thobbesDude, you keep drawing me back, due to constant nonsense. No offense.
1.) T-90 was never used in Chechnya. Nor Ossetia.
2.) T-80U was never used in Chechnya.
3.) T-80 was. Guess what, you think if they had Abrams anything different would have happened? Crews had no training, ERA was not loaded, they drove into street and plazas. In second Chechen war, MBT losses almost completely evaporated. Wonder why? Better tanks? Try again.
Again until Russian built armour performs well, I will doubt their efficiency. And history has shown that Russian armour has for a wide variety of reasons performed poorly.
Even in later stages of WWII, Russian tanks losses were horrendous despite absolute numerical and in many instances qualitative superiority (e.g. M4(76mm)/T-34/85 v Hetzer/StuG/Panzer IV which were German mainstays).
I think the issue here is Russian tank doctrine and emphasis on conscripts is flawed. And where Russian tanks have been used (e.g. Israeli-Arab Wars, Chechnya, Iraq), those same flawed Soviet models were used.
In fact I think the best results obtained by Russian tanks were by Indian Armoured Regiments using T-54/55s who use Western/British doctrine and training methods (remember I believe the man is more important than the kit).
5.) Because a heavier attack helo has a bigger payload, more powerfull gun, more armor, more powerful sensors and defense measures? Is there Radar or DRCM on the Tiger?
The French didn’t need a heavier attack helo due to doctrinal requirements. The Australians consider their Tigers to be an Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter.
6.) The Boreis have not been sitting around. Don’t make things up please.
The MOD not taking the boats because they don’t have proper facilities to base them yet does not weigh on the construction speed.
How long did the French take on their carrier again? The Triomphant are not exactly examples of super speedy construction either.
They are not in service.
The French might’ve taken longer to build but they probably wanted to get things right.
We are not taking into account industrial legislation (very strict in France in terms of hours worked), political/economical requirements (e.g. Rafale produced very slowly due to need to keep production line open rather than replace ageing Armee de’l Air jets) etc.
thobbeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Iraq_War#2003
That is 2003 alone. More than just a “few” losses, even during the initial operations.
Your including losses in insurgency postinvasion as well as accidents and friendly fire losses.
If you look at period Iraq was an actual combatant with a formal AD network (Mar-May 1), exclude friendly fire/accidents then the losses are much lower.
As stated, insurgency ops are a lot different.
I will repeat again though- if Russia had time to plan out a strike on Georgia, what, you think they could not have mapped AD sites, cruise missiled them to hell, and properly arranged for air strikes? Really?
Russia seems to lack appropriate SEAD and C3 capabilities for this kind of mission.
It’s more than just dropping dumb bombs on sites.
As for F-117, it was very poor planning on USAF. That they didn’t lose more aircraft is proof of US superiority.
Until we see it happen, I will doubt Russia is capable of world class operations.
Also until US/West performs at Russian level, I willl assume they are far more capable than any Russian formation.
thobbesArmata is a lot more abitious than Leclerc. Not to mention, modern Russian MBTs have never fought, so you have zero basis for saying they did not perform well.
Both T-80s and T-90s were used in Chechnya and the T-80 found unsatisfactory. Armata (T-99) is apparently less ambitious than failed T-95
By the way Leclerc’s not seen battle either.
To be fair I don’t think either T-80/-90 or Leclerc compare to M1/Challenger/Leopard2
Russia has Ka-52, why would it want a small attack helo?
Why would the French want a heavy attack helo?
Yes, but Russia builds bigger subs in a shorter time.
Which then sit around getting delayed due to issues like the Boreis!
thobbes[QUOTE=TR1;1955906]That is just not true. Vehicle reliability was fine, breakdowns given the terrain, and sudden nature of the conflict are to be expected.
Air-ground coordination was bad, no doubt.
However, the Georgian AD at best shot down 2-3 Russian birds. For the most part Georgian AD was incapable of stopping the RuAF from doing what it wanted. [/qupte]
The losses are debatable. I’ve seen 3 as the official number (i.e. 1 Tu-22, 2 Su-25) but have seen up to 8 Su-25 listed even in Russian sources.
Still 3 aircraft in 8 days coupled with an inability to suppress a rather primitive Georgian AD network is nothing to write home about.
You way want to re-check your American aviation losses, because that is just not true. Both for insurgency wars, and actual opponents with AD.
American losses to enemy airpower (where AD network was present):
-1999 Kosovo (1 F-16, 1 F-15)
– 2003 Iraq (1 A-10, 1 F-15E, 1 AH-64, a couple of UH-60s)
– 2011 Libya (0 aircraft)
Insurgency work is different and helicopter losses are always high due to nature of combat.
I mean just look at Russian losses over Afghanistan. :p
thobbesYeah? Where are the big French nuclear subs? Where is the French Pantsir? Where is the French GLONASS? The French Ka-52? The French S-400? The French Armata? French Kalibr? I could go on.
What about:
– Russian Leclerc class MBT (because whatever the case maybe Russian modern MBTs have never performed well even when the Russians used their non-monkey model ones in their own wars)
– Russian Tigre light attack helicopter
– Mistral amphibious boats
– UAVs.
As for large nuclear subs the French have got the Triomphant class weighing in at some 12,640 tons on surface. Smaller than an Ohio class but stil quite large.
As for GLOSSNAS, why would the French bother given they have access to US NAVSTAR system, whilst Europe as a whole is developing Galileo system.
As is expecting the Russian product line to be competitive everywhere against every NATO nation.
The Russian product line is generally not very competitive in anything other than third world dictatorships. Exceptions exist – Flanker, S300, SA-24.
thobbesSmaller Russian forces, pushed back the Georgian military completely. This was despite no preparation for such a serious escalation, no time to build up forces and properly plan a counteroffensive, little time to funnel
And once bigger Russian forces came in, the coordination was poor, vehicle reliability was poor, air-ground coordination non-existant, Georgian AD shot down more planes than the Yanks have lost to enemy fire in several wars combined.
reinforcements in (are you aware of Ossetian geography?)….and finally, it is a fact that the situation in the region has changed since. In both equipment, and personel, as a result of 8-8-8, Russian forces in Abkhazia and Ossetia (and Chechnya, Vladikavkaz, etc) have improved vastly.
We’ll see next time another war comes around in that part of the world.
Can the “West” do anything without the US? On anywhere near the same scale?
Doubtful, and I don’t mean to insult the European armed forces.
The West is designed to operate around US. It has been that way since 1942!
And in 1956 when the French-Israeli-UK combined operation was doing such a marvellous job of annihilating the Egyptians the US put a stop to it. (The only other operation where European countries were involved in an operation against a reasonably equipped opponent was Falklands).
Since then the Europeans have gone to major steps to integrate their militaries into one force centred around the US.
Most smaller European militaries have 1-2 brigades whose sole purpose is to operate as part of an expeditionary force. The Dutch recently retired their heavy armour because it is expected such capabilities would be provided by other NATO/Coalition partners.
Hence Europe is viewed as a whole.
thobbesWell, it is your problem if you doubt that. I could link you some serious places if you are interested in Russian mil reform (Twower’s, Otvaga, MilKavkaz, etc) but somehow I think you are not interested in challenging your notions.
Throw them in.
Bare in mind that cultural change is a very difficult thing to accomplish especially in old organisations with many decades of certain ways of thinking.
Cultural change has been talked about in Russian defence circles since fall of Communism. As seen by 2008 War, it hasn’t really taken off.
Still I’m willing to read about any developments.
At the end of the day, the Russian Army has conventional capabilities that no one save the US (with its giant budget) and China come close to.
To be honest I think India’s military is probably better than either either China or Russia simply due to a Western orientated training/doctrine model.
Russia doesn’t need ability to project power halfway across the world.
Then why do they “pose a threat” to West that needs to be countered? After all West is quite happy to have Russia play in it’s buffer zone sandpit (i.e. all the ex-USSR states).
Your comment about Russia being decades behind the West in electronics is hilarious.
I did not realize AESAs, or the kind of AD electronics Russia is working on right now existed in the 80s, just to list a few examples.
Then why are Flanker customers ala India/Malaysia opting for Western avionics? Why is Russia looking for drones from other parties?
I think comparing the defense products of 1 nation to that of the entirety of Europe and the US is weird as well.
How many European nations produce the same breadth of military products that Russia does?
Well then lets compare to France who produce pretty much everything that Russia does (aside from strategic bombers but then Russians are buying French amphibious assault ships which are far more useful in 21st century than strategic bombers as well as UAVs)
thobbesAnd yet, numerically inferior Russian forces, pushed back a surprise attack they were not prepared for in several days. That is not what I call a “poor” performance.
By a third rate opponent?!? Georgian military was not exactly top class. They were probably only slightly better trained than Iraqi elite formations that the US absolutely annihilated.
One would expect a major power’s military to be able to withstand an attack especially from a poorer opponent.
Isolated military structures were shown to be deficient, and well, steps have been taken. 2008 was a big factor in pushing Russian mil reform.
Funny because massive reforms to make the military more effective were meant to have taken place as a result of Chechen Wars.
To be fair Russia’s military did perform better in South Ossettian War than it did in Chechnyan ones.
However it did not perform as a world class force.
Once again though, categorizing the course of the war, and end result, as poor on the part of Russian forces, is silly.
The end result is irrelevant. The Georgian military was smaller, more poorly equipped and more importantly lacked a cohesive military strategy or political commitment to being deployed effectively (it suited the Georgians to be thumped so they had a better picture to present at UN).
When was the last time any Western army fought against a conventional army in such circumstances?
Because the Western military is completely dominant in all factors of war – air/ground/navy/combined/logistics/training/doctrine/C3/intelligence/etc etc.
Do you think the current Russian military could accomplish any of the following with low casualties incurred by Western allies:
1. Defeated Iraq in 1991.
2. Invaded Iraq in 2003
3. Maintained air offensive against Serbia in 1999? (I don’t think the Russians could do this at all given their losses over Georgia)
thobbesChina, India, Russia; each arguably fielding an air force superior to any European one.
But completely inferior to the USA which is the cornerstone of all Western orientated defence capability.
[QUOTE=Vnomad;1955830]Also, while Japan, South Korea, Turkey (and soon Brazil) are pro-West they aren’t ‘Western’.
These countries are US aligned. South Korean and Turkey are especially reliant on US defence ties.
Turkey seems to be turning east.
As for Brazil, their air force/military is still predominantly focused on internal defense. This is a country whose entire 4th generation fighter fleet is composed of 12 1980s vintage Mirage 2000s and the rest is cheap 1980s AMX and F-5s, none of which were top of the line in their day and a dozen A- Skyhawks.
There is no force projection here.
China significantly lags only in the development of jet engines and Russia is still transitioning from a larger conscription driven military to a smaller professional one. Neither can be taken lightly going into the future.
Russia is a has been and I doubt they will improve their military performance given some major structural and cultural issues that permeate the Red Army (yes I called it that).
They also lack the ability to project conventional power past their own former satelites. And they always will. They have 1 small carrier and virtually no air-to-air refuelliers and as stated are far behind in development of military electronics.
As for the Chinese again I’m not sold. This is a force whose last combat experience was the bloody attempted invasion of Vietnam in 1979.
Again it’s power projection is limited and it is hemmed in by SE Asia, Japan and the Koreas, all of which happily accept the USA as the counterweight to China.
When did the ‘West’ ever fight semi-capable opponents?
Iraq 1991!
Developing multiple designs to replace all current aircraft would have been more expensive still. Persisting with existing designs would have led to a capability gap against Russian and Chinese aircraft currently in development.
The only viable improvement would have been to de-link the required Harrier replacement from the aircraft required by the AF and Navy.
Totally agree on delinking USMC component from F-35.
Also West needs to focus on attainable goals and not pie-in-the-sky overcomplicated options with forever changing goal posts.
Maybe if you could get Russia and China to shelf their revolutionary designs as well.
The US already has F-22 for air dominance.
As for how revolutiuonary new Russian/Chinese jets are, only time will tell.
The Osprey is to serve till 2050 and if the USMC is to be believed, is the safest aircraft in their fleet. The results of the program will only be revealed with time. Not too long back, there were many calling for scrapping the Harrier, then in development.
Totally right. Only time will tell.
I’m not a big fan of service propaganda releases – I work for government and often see truths completely twisted to show a favourable outcome.
Sign In
