It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian military is going strong

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Views or no views history shows itself.




posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
1) Russia's economy is not at its best YET (we'll see how it is in a few decades)
2) Russia's people may be poor, that doesn't mean the military sucks.
3) All the marvelous miltary stuff Russia made in the 80's is still in Russia's inventory and it is still a match for some of the more modern Western weapons. Example: Mig-29 created in the 80's. In 2000 Eurofighter was made to TRY to defeat it.
4) Russia is too often underestimated. I was born there. Live there. Seen their stuff. They will never give up.
5) Just wait some years and see which country comes out on top.
6) OK, all of you that think Hitler and Napoleon were defeated only because of the winter, that's a bad excuse. There is no excuse why a country lost or won a war, if we do it your way, we could make excuses for every war and we could say that all the countries won because of weather or whatever......a war won is a war won. If Hitler and Napoleon were alive today they wouldn't be making exuses of why they lost the wars.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   



1) Russia's economy is not at its best YET (we'll see how it is in a few decades)
2) Russia's people may be poor, that doesn't mean the military sucks.



1) Look at it when the american economy will crash in 6 months and that the barrel will hit 200$, Russia will make a lot of money... and their economy will explode!

2) Yeah! Look at China and a lot of countries!

[edit on 13-4-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Russia's economic growth in recent times has been due to the high oil prices. Russia's economy on straight GDP comparison or "purchasing power parity" is significantly smaller then Germany, France, UK - but about the same size as Brazil. It is dwarfed by the US economy.

Russia simply cannot afford the military is supported in Soviet times. It may have a large "on paper" airforce, but I would question whether its pilots rack up anywhere the number of flights than they should to keep them well trained. Similarly, just how much of its navy actually gets to leave port etc...

Also, the Russian population is in steep decline and this will have a detrimental effect on economic performance in future years.

You can dig up as many WW2 tanks to celebrate the Russian prowess in manufacturing, but you cannot hide the facts that Russia's only claim to fame in the modern world is (a) the fact it has vast numbers of nukes (which the US has to help maintain), (b) its Cold War legacy of foreign inlfuence (c) the fact i will sell, sell, sell military kit to garner influence and much needed foreign currency and (d) the fact that Russia is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council of the UN.

When talking about Russia, let's consider reality.

Regards



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Reality:

Everyone is poor, Mafia controls the economy (with the government), internet access is very limited, basically in a facist state. I was born there, use to live there, i've been back 4 times. (for 3 month periods [summer's])

However, you're right when you say that doesn't affect the military.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 04:00 AM
link   
They are running war games with China as we speak, 200 million man Chinese army and Russian army coming soon...better knock the dust of those nukes



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 04:06 AM
link   
You do NOT want to knock a nuke.

Simply, BRUSH it off. Simple, Yes?




posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Russia is still a beast, but there military isn't in the top 10 of rankings worldwide (and top 20 is a stretch). They could defend their homeland, but the Russians cannot project power. Military power is about a whole lot more than equipment, it is about training.

An example, the Russians supplying NATO with heavy lift cargo planes while Airbus gets their crap together. The equipment is good stuff, but the reason Russia is doing it is so they can get much needed training for thier heavy lift pilots. Simply having tools is nice, being able to use them effectively is something else entirely.

The Iraqis had state of the art equipment of the time in more than 1 battle in Gulf War I, but they learned a harsh lesson that equipment isn't what makes an army, well trained soldiers do.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Russia however is talented with fighter jets,tanks, air/missile defenses look at the SA 10,SA 12, and SA 20. they outclass the patriot even and i live in america and i admit it. Russia isnt weak its very powerful but that doesnt mean there aren't flaws such as bad training and a poor economy. By the way dont u think that with the newer fuels coming out russia's growth would stop when oil prices go higher.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian soldier
1) Russia's economy is not at its best YET (we'll see how it is in a few decades)
2) Russia's people may be poor, that doesn't mean the military sucks.
3) All the marvelous miltary stuff Russia made in the 80's is still in Russia's inventory and it is still a match for some of the more modern Western weapons. Example: Mig-29 created in the 80's. In 2000 Eurofighter was made to TRY to defeat it.
4) Russia is too often underestimated. I was born there. Live there. Seen their stuff. They will never give up.
5) Just wait some years and see which country comes out on top.
6) OK, all of you that think Hitler and Napoleon were defeated only because of the winter, that's a bad excuse. There is no excuse why a country lost or won a war, if we do it your way, we could make excuses for every war and we could say that all the countries won because of weather or whatever......a war won is a war won. If Hitler and Napoleon were alive today they wouldn't be making exuses of why they lost the wars.


The EF 2000 design is hardly from this century... try 1975-1980...

[edit on 14-4-2006 by Figher Master FIN]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Besides Russian soldier the Ef 2000 would destroy the Mig 29 in an engagement. Dont underestimate Western tech.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
It seems that Russia might be showing all of their cards? I know that with the U.S. Military, black projects are usually not revealed for a long time. Sometimes 20+ years. Heck a lot of our better planes were made in the 80's and 90's, so you really never know what kind of technology we really have.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
Besides Russian soldier the Ef 2000 would destroy the Mig 29 in an engagement. Dont underestimate Western tech.


must disagree

the MiG-29 is still a well proven weapons platform and the TYPHOON has not yet to perform in combat

also you have to take in the account that one really has faced a "skilled pilot" in the cockpit of the MiG-29 so the IRAQi engagements do not count but... are duly noted


upgrades are well underway such as the MiG-29SMT


do get get me wrong the TYPHOON is very "impressive"

but so is the SU-37

no ones really underestimating WESTERN tech but the same thing can be said in return about RUSSIAN tech.

in the hands of a "well skilled" pilot "any thing possible"


[edit on 14-4-2006 by LAWNMOWERMAN]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   
sorry double post

[edit on 14-4-2006 by LAWNMOWERMAN]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAWNMOWERMAN
no matter what the masses think now

RUSSIA still has the means to review its "super power status" at any given time

its just a matter of really wanting to do so

the reason they ever lost their "status" in the first place was because of their "poor choice of politics"
and mismanagement

those who think RUSSIA is a push over

go ask the GERMAN's and NAPOLEAN what happen when they made that same mistake


Why? so you can impose an inferior economic system on the rest of the world?

I am no expert on armaments but my understanding is that Russian equipment in many cases is cruder and simpler than that found in the west. This may explain its supposed reliability and durability. Mind you that reliable and durable aspect of Russian manufacturing prowess does not seem to transfer to any other products made there unfortunately from what I see and hear.

Annother problem is that Russian forces and to a lesser extent Russian arms are not battle proven like those of the US which is an issue to consider here.

Still nobody is answering the question: who is Russian defending themselves from in the first place?



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
no one really

but thats the beauty of it

it always the "unknown factor"

point well taken and true points

but you must forgive me i'm a bit of a "COLD WAR RELIC"

so my statements are always clouded by my ideology


[edit on 14-4-2006 by LAWNMOWERMAN]



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAWNMOWERMAN

Originally posted by urmomma158
Besides Russian soldier the Ef 2000 would destroy the Mig 29 in an engagement. Dont underestimate Western tech.


must disagree

the MiG-29 is still a well proven weapons platform and the TYPHOON has not yet to perform in combat

also you have to take in the account that one really has faced a "skilled pilot" in the cockpit of the MiG-29 so the IRAQi engagements do not count but... are duly noted


upgrades are well underway such as the MiG-29SMT


do get get me wrong the TYPHOON is very "impressive"

but so is the SU-37

no ones really underestimating WESTERN tech but the same thing can be said in return about RUSSIAN tech.

in the hands of a "well skilled" pilot "any thing possible"


[edit on 14-4-2006 by LAWNMOWERMAN]
Go looka the kill ratio for an EF2000 against a Su 35 its around 4 to 1. The EF 2000 is also being upgraded with newer A2a missiles and the Mig 29 has not shot down a single plane. The only kill ever achieved was by the cuban air force. The Su 37 is nothing more than a technology demonstrator. Also dont forget that russian pilots dont get much training, equipment is useless without the training. Iraq is one example.
Good point supergeo the Sr 71 is a great example it wasnt revealed until it was a senior citizen the same goes for the nighthawk it was designed in the 70's.


[edit on 15-4-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   
that may be the case, i will admit "sadly"
that the MiGs track record in combat is very "poor" still

but my point is this

if you were to put an ISRAELi pilot behind the cockpit of an MiG-29SMT or SU-35/37 up against an SYRAIN pilot behind the cockpit of an TYPHOON as an example

8 out of 10 times the ISRAELi pilot would come out on top in an engagement willing to bet

what good really would the TYPHOON be in "combat" if it can not be "operated correctly" by a highly skilled pilot just as it can be said about the the MiG-29



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 03:12 AM
link   
I don't understand how these 4:1...10:1 comparisions have been maed for WEstern vs non-western a/c.
One can understand if the comparisions have been made between a/c of the same AF(F-15s vs. F-22s).
Did the Typhoon go up against the Luftwaffe MiG29s? How good are the Luftwaffe MiG 29s?
Do they have serious BVR capability and top- notch Ruskie radars? (Zhuk M Phazotron)

I agree with Lawnmover man in his assessment that most (if not all) MiG 29s that have gone down in combat have been flown by less competent AFs flying planes which are defintiely not in prime condition.

You want to look at seriously capable MiG 29s? Try the new ones Lawnmower man mentioned in service with the Russian AF. Infact you can even try the not so latest ones with the IAF (MiG29A/B/S). They're equipped to carry the R-77 amraamski with a range of 80+ km and they have the new ZhukM phazotron radars. A simple google on these missiles and radars will give you a better idea of the a/c capabilities.

And if you're looking for recorded engagements between these MiG 29s and 4th gen a/c, then yo uwon't find any kills/losses because there haven't been any instances of authorised engagements. Though there has been one instance in the Kargil war(1999). The MiG 29s were flying escort for the Mirage 2000H fighters and they came across PAF F-16 A/Bs flying CAPs for NLI divisions of the Pak Army. Both a/c were on their resp. sides of the border but:



PAF's plight was exposed during the Pakistan army's incursion into the Kargil sector of Indian Kashmir in the summer of 1999. Analyses by Pakistani experts revealed that when the rubber met the road, PAF simply refused to play any part in support of the Pakistan army, angering the latter. While PAF fighters did fly Combat Air Patrols (CAP) during the conflict, they stayed well within Pakistani air space. On occasions, IAF MiG-29s armed with the deadly R-77 BVR Air-to-Air missiles were able to lock on to PAF F-16s, forcing the latter to disengage. In the absence of a PAF threat, the IAF was able to deliver numerous devastating strikes on intruder positions and supply dumps.


Source

This was confirmed by both sides as it is catalogued as a lock-on at acig.org
Scroll down right to the bottom of the table and check out the 2nd last entry in pink:

ACIG.org


P.S: I did a little research and found out that the EF Typhoon is actually replacing the Luftwaffe MiG 29s.



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAWNMOWERMAN
that may be the case, i will admit "sadly"
that the MiGs track record in combat is very "poor" still

but my point is this

if you were to put an ISRAELi pilot behind the cockpit of an MiG-29SMT or SU-35/37 up against an SYRAIN pilot behind the cockpit of an TYPHOON as an example

8 out of 10 times the ISRAELi pilot would come out on top in an engagement willing to bet

what good really would the TYPHOON be in "combat" if it can not be "operated correctly" by a highly skilled pilot just as it can be said about the the MiG-29


how irrellevant british pilots are well trained i dont see why you are making this assumption



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join