Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergarr]

1) Complete air superiority.  The F-22 might be an overdesigned money sink but it's also fantastically well suited for a first strike role fighting something like the modern Russian airforce.  Behind it is top notch AWACS and a huge arsenal of European and American fighters and joint role craft to exploit this.  The Russians have less then 100 post Soviet fighter craft.  They'd be outnumbered and facing planes that far outclass them.  The importance of complete air superiority in a modern conflict cant be overstated, it's said that tanks simply can not operate on a battlefield where the enemy has air superiority.  Look at the first and second gulf wars to see this taken to the extremes.

You underestimate the Russian Anti-Air Defence. Suprisingly, all Americans seems to forget the fact that the Russian Anti0Air is much, much better than the American one.

[Darvi]

Russia has one advantage though: being Russia. Landwars in Asia aside, I don't recall anybody ever marching in there unscathed, and clearly no amount of superior fire- or manpower can overcome that obstacle.

[/snark]

[10ebbor10]

1) Complete air superiority.  The F-22 might be an overdesigned money sink but it's also fantastically well suited for a first strike role fighting something like the modern Russian airforce.  Behind it is top notch AWACS and a huge arsenal of European and American fighters and joint role craft to exploit this.  The Russians have less then 100 post Soviet fighter craft.  They'd be outnumbered and facing planes that far outclass them.  The importance of complete air superiority in a modern conflict cant be overstated, it's said that tanks simply can not operate on a battlefield where the enemy has air superiority.  Look at the first and second gulf wars to see this taken to the extremes.

You underestimate the Russian Anti-Air Defence. Suprisingly, all Americans seems to forget the fact that the Russian Anti0Air is much, much better than the American one.

I dunno. As far as I found, most of the Russian anti air systems seem to be dating back to the 1960's.

[Sean Mirrsen]

1) Complete air superiority.  The F-22 might be an overdesigned money sink but it's also fantastically well suited for a first strike role fighting something like the modern Russian airforce.  Behind it is top notch AWACS and a huge arsenal of European and American fighters and joint role craft to exploit this.  The Russians have less then 100 post Soviet fighter craft.  They'd be outnumbered and facing planes that far outclass them.  The importance of complete air superiority in a modern conflict cant be overstated, it's said that tanks simply can not operate on a battlefield where the enemy has air superiority.  Look at the first and second gulf wars to see this taken to the extremes.

You underestimate the Russian Anti-Air Defence. Suprisingly, all Americans seems to forget the fact that the Russian Anti0Air is much, much better than the American one.

I dunno. As far as I found, most of the Russian anti air systems seem to be dating back to the 1960's.

The quintessential Russian mobile AA, the one that any given Russian is most likely to remember if asked - the Tunguska, aka SA-19 Grison - actually hails from the late 1970s. We've had quite a lot of advances since then, too.

Add in the fact that radar stealth technology was actually invented by Nazi Germany... well by Germany in principle, during either the first or second world war. So the missiles are much more advanced than the technology aircraft have to defend against them.

[DJ]

If Russia were to lose a conventional war in Ukraine, NATO could keep marching on Moscow to neutralize the threat for good. I'm not saying they would, but could Putin trust them not to? And it doesn't make sense to wait for total defeat of the conventional army to deploy the nukes.

[Sergarr]

1) Complete air superiority.  The F-22 might be an overdesigned money sink but it's also fantastically well suited for a first strike role fighting something like the modern Russian airforce.  Behind it is top notch AWACS and a huge arsenal of European and American fighters and joint role craft to exploit this.  The Russians have less then 100 post Soviet fighter craft.  They'd be outnumbered and facing planes that far outclass them.  The importance of complete air superiority in a modern conflict cant be overstated, it's said that tanks simply can not operate on a battlefield where the enemy has air superiority.  Look at the first and second gulf wars to see this taken to the extremes.

You underestimate the Russian Anti-Air Defence. Suprisingly, all Americans seems to forget the fact that the Russian Anti0Air is much, much better than the American one.

I dunno. As far as I found, most of the Russian anti air systems seem to be dating back to the 1960's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_%28missile%29

A liquidation of lack of knowledge is in order.

[Sean Mirrsen]

1) Complete air superiority.  The F-22 might be an overdesigned money sink but it's also fantastically well suited for a first strike role fighting something like the modern Russian airforce.  Behind it is top notch AWACS and a huge arsenal of European and American fighters and joint role craft to exploit this.  The Russians have less then 100 post Soviet fighter craft.  They'd be outnumbered and facing planes that far outclass them.  The importance of complete air superiority in a modern conflict cant be overstated, it's said that tanks simply can not operate on a battlefield where the enemy has air superiority.  Look at the first and second gulf wars to see this taken to the extremes.

You underestimate the Russian Anti-Air Defence. Suprisingly, all Americans seems to forget the fact that the Russian Anti0Air is much, much better than the American one.

I dunno. As far as I found, most of the Russian anti air systems seem to be dating back to the 1960's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_%28missile%29

A liquidation of lack of knowledge is in order.

I think he's referring to this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-75_Dvina
Which, while indeed the most widespread and numerous SAM system (much like the Kalashnikov ) is vastly outclassed by modern systems, and has had countermeasures for it developed quite some time ago. Which is the reason it's phased out by the S-300 pretty much everywhere.

[10ebbor10]

Then again, the S-300 is also 30 years old.

[Sergarr]

Then again, the S-300 is also 30 years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

30 years old. Clearly M1 Abrams is not fit for modern fighting *sarcasm*

[10ebbor10]

Without refits and Active defense systems, tanks are pretty fragile against RPG and other missile weaponry. Their performance would be quite substandard.

[Sergarr]

Without refits and Active defense systems, tanks are pretty fragile against RPG and other missile weaponry. Their performance would be quite substandard.

And the S-300 had a lot of refits too, you know.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Add in the fact that radar stealth technology was actually invented by Nazi Germany... well by Germany in principle, during either the first or second world war. So the missiles are much more advanced than the technology aircraft have to defend against them.

You might want to re-analyze your logic there- they aren't up there flying messerschmitts...


@dick-measuring
As civilians, what we hear about military tests & their results is virtually guaranteed to be skewed.
If NATO had tested the SAM system and found they could defeat it, they're not going to tell Russia.

The most pertinent information, I saw, was that they'd gotten their hands on something as recently as 2012.


Now, I'd say everyone's pretty close-together as far as tech goes.
But for the edge? Tech-wise?
One of these parties is putting in more than half of the total global expenditure.

[Descan]

Of course, Nazi Germany with it's super-weapons and super-tanks pretty much proved that technology isn't everything, if your technologies are at least on the same field/within a few decades of each other. (I.E. tanks versus tanks, not machine-guns versus spearmen. And even then, Zulu.)

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Ayup.

But, as per mainiac's post, the numbers would be at least near-even, if not favoring NATO.



And, gas pipes. There won't be no invasion without diplomacy literally hanging itself.

[10ebbor10]

Of course, Nazi Germany with it's super-weapons and super-tanks pretty much proved that technology isn't everything, if your technologies are at least on the same field/within a few decades of each other. (I.E. tanks versus tanks, not machine-guns versus spearmen. And even then, Zulu.)

Well, not really. They just proved that strength in numbers is a thing, and that even the worldst most advanced weapon doesn't do much without supplies.