Military Strength of Russia (and compared to other nations)

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 03:03 AM
link   
I'm wondering about the state and strength of the Russian military (air force, navy, army), and how it compares to other countries/blocs (NATO, US, China, India, etc).

I've been reading into this for quite some time, but it seems that:

1. A lot of information about Russia is outdated, some as much as 15 years.

2. The Russian Military seems to be hiding recent developments (last 5-10 years)

3. Many different statistics and opinions are availiable, and they vary greatly.

I'd appreciate any input, thank you.




posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   
There are various threads on here about different toys the Russians have. The Russians also have been known to sell alot of stuff to China.

As far as their military goes, its very hard to say. The silence from Russia regarding its once frightening military is pretty worrisome. I wonder if the spooks in the pentagon know more than us, and are keeping their knowldge quiet.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Augmenter
I'm wondering about the state and strength of the Russian military (air force, navy, army), and how it compares to other countries/blocs (NATO, US, China, India, etc).

I've been reading into this for quite some time, but it seems that:

1. A lot of information about Russia is outdated, some as much as 15 years.

2. The Russian Military seems to be hiding recent developments (last 5-10 years)

3. Many different statistics and opinions are availiable, and they vary greatly.

I'd appreciate any input, thank you.


The Russian military excels in three places, Submarines,Military Aircraft and Tanks
Compared to:

Russia>China

Russia=NATO

Russia>India

Russia v. USA I dont know,it would be a war of numbers and older tactics

1.Best informationl: FAS.org , Army-technology.com , Wikipedia.org , Military fansites

2.Recent information shows that Russia may have lied about its strength(radar and missles) to keep us off guard

3.How so?, please explain


en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I would like to know about the rumor that russia lied about its strength. I know about that really expansive bunker project, but what else is there? Is it just technology, or did russia actually lie about their spendings and quantities produced.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by zikan42
I would like to know about the rumor that russia lied about its strength. I know about that really expansive bunker project, but what else is there? Is it just technology, or did russia actually lie about their spendings and quantities produced.

We know now that russia was far ahead in space based weapons,and rocket technology...they have very advanced subs and SLBMs and missle torps stuff that we never made they did...



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chickenhound

Originally posted by zikan42
I would like to know about the rumor that russia lied about its strength. I know about that really expansive bunker project, but what else is there? Is it just technology, or did russia actually lie about their spendings and quantities produced.

We know now that russia was far ahead in space based weapons,and rocket technology...they have very advanced subs and SLBMs and missle torps stuff that we never made they did...

Werent they always excelling in those areas? Im pretty sure russia always had extremely advanced tech.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   
russia have always been ahead of the US in most fields (example thrust vector tec)
its only been let dwon since the end of the cold war era where russias deffence budget has droped where the US has doubled by billions each year



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
russia have always been ahead of the US in most fields (example thrust vector tec)
its only been let dwon since the end of the cold war era where russias deffence budget has droped where the US has doubled by billions each year



"doubled by billions each year"

Apart from the fact the above doesn't even make sense, would you mind posting some data to support that assertion (such that it is)?

Everthing I read show America spends about 4% of there GDP on defense. Historically that's rather low and I wouldn't be suprised to find out that Russia spends a greater portion of GDP on defense.

Additionally, in what fields does Russian military tech exceed that of America? Stealth? Communications? UAVs? Computers and information processing? Radar? Missile defense? Subs?

Virtually every for any major weapons system you can think of, America has the premier example in larges numbers. M1A2, F-22, Nimitz Class, Seawolf, Aegis; well you get the point.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Number23
Apart from the fact the above doesn't even make sense, would you mind posting some data to support that assertion (such that it is)?


'Double's' may be a bad ( very) word but US defense spending is going up at quite a rapid pace... Why supply information when you can go .gov sites and find the information?


Everthing I read show America spends about 4% of there GDP on defense.


Meaningless standard as the IRS 'ins' somewhat more than 2 trillion dollars with defense spending then being very close to 20% not including 'war' spending and federal aid to defense contractors.


Historically that's rather low and I wouldn't be suprised to find out that Russia spends a greater portion of GDP on defense.


Historically that is not the highest it's been but it's substantial non the less. Trying to figure out what is really happening in Russia is very hard and thing to do and i will applaud any such efforts.



Additionally, in what fields does Russian military tech exceed that of America? Stealth?


Stealth airplanes will be blown out of Russian skies without much ado so the Russians see no need to build stupidly expensive aircraft that dies like the rest.


Communications?


They have extensive networks for military communication ( rather redundant in fact) even thought it might not be as efficient as those in the West.


UAVs?


I would say tied if not ahead but I'm open to new information...


Computers and information processing?


After all the stuff the French has been selling them i think Clinton pretty much made sure they lacked nothing they wanted. He was enabling the sale of supercomputers to Russia at some speed...


Radar?


Would have to say the Russians win with no field not even in sight.


Missile defense?


Probably 25 years ahead or if i am completely misinformed only 10 years ahead...


Subs?


The newer stuff is on par, if not better, and are certainly built far more cheaply.


Virtually every for any major weapons system you can think of, America has the premier example in larges numbers.


It's not hard to sell stuff when you give half of the product away for basically free ( export credits and the like) so i would not draw too many conclusions based on US arms sales...


M1A2,


Too complex and it can't get anywhere without refueling half a dozen times. It's just not the type of weapon you build for 'defense' or if your survival was at all threatened.


F-22,


Wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of it if it manages to get close enough without some software glitch self destructing it.



Nimitz Class,


Well populated targets normally put to good use terrorizing the world.. Awesome things but would not have been of much, if any, use during a hot-cold war.


Seawolf,


If it cost that much it's best you don't bother building it imo and even aircraft carriers starts to look like great investments.


Aegis; well you get the point.


Never really worked during trails and it's sole achievement ( as i recall) was shooting down a bunch of civilians.

Stellar

[edit on 22-8-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Stealth airplanes will be blown out of Russian skies without much ado so the Russians see no need to build stupidly expensive aircraft that dies like the rest.
They are trying to build them as well so are the chinese ever hear of the PAK FA OR J-XX.As well as the rest of the world.....MCA anybody.



They have extensive networks for military communication ( rather redundant in fact) even thought it might not be as efficient as those in the West.
Well thats true



I would say tied if not ahead but I'm open to new information...
I would say behind due tot he lag in microelectronics that started int he 60's.



After all the stuff the French has been selling them i think Clinton pretty much made sure they lacked nothing they wanted. He was enabling the sale of supercomputers to Russia at some speed...
yes i know what the CLinton administration did with supercomputers at that time.



Would have to say the Russians win with no field not even in sight.
I would say they lag in AESA technology.



Probably 25 years ahead or if i am completely misinformed only 10 years ahead...
probabaly are but they still use nuke tipped interceptors. KEI are more complex and sphisticated but alight nuke is muhc more reliable. Again i'd say the microelectronics speaks for itself whihc became evident in the NIKE X program.



The newer stuff is on par, if not better, and are certainly built far more cheaply.
They're behind in nuke boat quieting




Too complex and it can't get anywhere without refueling half a dozen times. It's just not the type of weapon you build for 'defense' or if your survival was at all threatened.
it does have its speed and chobham armor.



Wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of it if it manages to get close enough without some software glitch self destructing it.
LOl that made me chuckle. Kind of a sad excuse to dismiss it.



Well populated targets normally put to good use terrorizing the world.. Awesome things but would not have been of much, if any, use during a hot-cold war.
Best aircraft carrier in the world due to it's ability to carry the most aircraft.



If it cost that much it's best you don't bother building it imo and even aircraft carriers starts to look like great investments.
It's a great sub but yea it's too expensive.Which is why the cancelled it after 3 subs.



Never really worked during trails and it's sole achievement ( as i recall) was shooting down a bunch of civilians.
well nothing is perfect but it's currently deployed on over 75 ships and counting.....



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   
the 'current' state of the russian armed forces is in poor condition IMO!!

nothing really has been improved since the fall of the USSR, and russia are still using a lot of the remaining parts of the former Soviet Unions equipment.

even a quote from a recent interview of the russian minister of defence, (Sergei Ivanov) "the armed forces of the Russian Federation are currently not combat ready!"

never the less, russia is still a powerful country due to the scale they built up in the cold war era, but technology wise they are still behind a few nations!!

but this year Russia announced a plan of $400 billion (US Dollars), on development and production of military equipment!

+ looking on ATS, some future aircraft (& other projects) i have seen the russians are working on, look really impressive.

skys the limit, russia as a nation has just started to get back on its feet again, and its no secret russia longs to get its 'superpower' status back!

so (who knows) maybe the next 20 years, russia maybe back bigger and stronger than they ever was before.








[edit on 22-8-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   
So this has become Russia v. USA ok

America has always had one advantage, air and sea power, russia has a small surface fleet but a bastion sub fleet that rivals our is technology and expirence in a all out war our navy would be a sitting duck to russia Oscar and Typhoons, so we would enage in sub hunting with Los Ageles and Virigina class subs in the Bering and Okhostk areas
this would bring there fleet and our fleet into airrange , Su-27 Su-30 and Mig-29/30 s would engage F-15s(are only air superiority fighter, F-22 is a joke) Russia wouldnt use a numbers tactics this early,but rather a catcher or fisher approach,they would allow use to penetrate their ADIZ then they would jump our fighters and most win in 6/10.
Now on land the russians would take it hard..for many of their tanks are in disrepair but there best units using T-90s could and would wipe the floor with our Abrams tanks
But in the end the war would drag to a stalemate and many would die


Russia excells in aircraft,spacecraft and submarines, we in electronic warfare and support......Use Vietnam and Afgahnistan to see how we both fight russian and American are pretty much on the same level



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I would say total reserves belonging to Russian military (jets, submarines, tanks, other land-based systems, navy) are far higher than those of China, India, and Europe, and likely the US. However alot of these reserves are in urgent need of modernizing. Russia also has always placed high importance on tanks and land-based systems, and it will make sure to always excell in those areas.

As far how much importance Russia places in its military (both budget and research and development), I would actually put it behind China, India, and US. The military is not the major concern of Russia toay, as it had been during the Cold War, and as opposed to the US. Economy is. After economy is strengthened, its back to military focus.

From what I heard, the future plan for Russia (1-3 decades), is to replace all of its old military equipment (Soviet Era) with brand new technologies. This includes the nuclear ICBM's. Certainly Russia is not planning on producing new military tech in as high numbers as it did during the Cold War, but it still wants to be on par with China and India. Putin also stated that the paln is for Russia to have a fully volunteer army by 2010 or so (like that of US). This will certainly cut the number of Russian military personel, but will yeild more professional career soldiers. This is a major transition for Russian army.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
They are trying to build them as well so are the chinese ever hear of the PAK FA OR J-XX.As well as the rest of the world.....MCA anybody.


Yes i have but where do you see the connection between building aircraft with stealth abilities that they might be able to export or use defensively as against the American model of building stealth aircraft in a offensive role against stationary defensive systems which can see them well enough? The Russians almost ALWAYS build similar fighting systems than America does but it's normally after the wholesale theft of the entire knowledge base and experience making their copies rather more practical considering that the learning and development process did not destroy the likely procurement levels...


I would say behind due tot he lag in microelectronics that started int he 60's.


Which can in most cases be solved by focusing on alternative solutions or in dire instances by simply building the bigger platforms of weapons systems to house the system. Their missiles/fighters/uav's might have to be larger due to lesser technology but the larger frame then allows one more range, speed or firepower. Having a lead


I would say they lag in AESA technology.


I was referring to their defensive capabilities for the mainland and as far as i understand their last two generations of fighter radars were by no means inferior considering their doctrine... Russians did not build their planes to 'duel' with American planes and would not normally have to employ their radars until the very last minutes of the engagement. I think people confuse the absence of similar Russian systems to mean that they can not build them instead of it just reflecting doctrinal differences...


probabaly are but they still use nuke tipped interceptors.


They still operate the one's around Moscow with nuclear tips but i think it was mostly the S-5 being deployed with nuclear missiles and they have now all been withdrawn from service. Not sure about the S-300 and nuclear in general but it may still be true for some specific defensive regions...


KEI are more complex and sphisticated but alight nuke is muhc more reliable. Again i'd say the microelectronics speaks for itself whihc became evident in the NIKE X program.


Well the USA also used nuclear tipped interceptors at the start and it would have worked perfectly well. There is no dire need for Hit-to-kill when using nuclear tipped missiles in a ABM role but it does become somewhat important when fighting against conventional aircraft which best explains the current lead Russia holds. Once again the microelectrics makes American missiles smaller but also lacking in range while the Russians played to their advantages and build massive long range air defense systems. I am sure the USA could manage the same and it's hard to explain why America does not currently operate a official NABM defense shield as Russia does.


They're behind in nuke boat quieting


A few generations ago the gap was large enough to matter but since the early 80's any advantage was largely pointless and considering the Russian doctrine completely irrelevant. Russia never heavily depended on their SLBM's to win a war so any American ability to track and hunt them would not have changed the balance substantially. In a convoy defense role they might have been more effective ( long sweeps far ahead) but once again typically Russian deployment of attack subs would have just overwhelmed them in a battle where exposure by action invites very near certain death. The Russians used their subs much like undersea 'tanks' that could rapidly deploy en mass to operating areas and then gain victory by simply inviting attacks on their superior numbers. Time is not something NATO had to start with and the careful sneaking tactics envisioned for these hunter subs would have been largely pointless towards keeping the Atlantic as convoy route.


it does have its speed and chobham armor.


It's a awesome weapon system that would have likely killed numerous Russian tanks if they happened to catch them..... I am not suggesting that it's a inferior tank but that it is not the type of thing you can invest in when your national survival is at stake. Tanks built to kill other tanks in head on duel's is by design ,imo, stupid.


LOl that made me chuckle. Kind of a sad excuse to dismiss it.


Well actually i was trying to express what i imagined it would take to lose a air superiority contest with the planes the F-22 will likely face....


Best aircraft carrier in the world due to it's ability to carry the most aircraft.


Well imo that just qualifies it as a more expensive target than your average carrier is.
As i said it's awesome for bombing the living #$%()*&$%*&$ out of mud hut residents all around the world but it would not have been very functional against a enemy like the USSR.


It's a great sub but yea it's too expensive.Which is why the cancelled it after 3 subs.


Cost is not what got it cancelled for; the F-22/JSF isn't exactly cheap either...


well nothing is perfect but it's currently deployed on over 75 ships and counting.....


Which imo just makes it a bigger problem than i thought it was..... I am not sure how much the system has improved over the years but when i look at the patriot, and it's supposed upgrades, i would be pretty worried if i were manning them ships...

Anyways!

Stellar



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Yes i have but where do you see the connection between building aircraft with stealth abilities that they might be able to export or use defensively as against the American model of building stealth aircraft in a offensive role against stationary defensive systems which can see them well enough? The Russians almost ALWAYS build similar fighting systems than America does but it's normally after the wholesale theft of the entire knowledge base and experience making their copies rather more practical considering that the learning and development process did not destroy the likely procurement levels...
Well a lot of people are after them you know.
the detection of a stealth aircraft is alot different ad tougher than a conventional aircraft if you haven't noticed.


Which can in most cases be solved by focusing on alternative solutions or in dire instances by simply building the bigger platforms of weapons systems to house the system. Their missiles/fighters/uav's might have to be larger due to lesser technology but the larger frame then allows one more range, speed or firepower. Having a lead
yea but speed range etc isn't always everything. with microelectronics you can match that platform witha smaller design only at the expense of weapons loadout.



I was referring to their defensive capabilities for the mainland and as far as i understand their last two generations of fighter radars were by no means inferior considering their doctrine... Russians did not build their planes to 'duel' with American planes and would not normally have to employ their radars until the very last minutes of the engagement. I think people confuse the absence of similar Russian systems to mean that they can not build them instead of it just reflecting doctrinal differences...
Well that's true but the development of the SU 27/30 and MIG 29 leads me to question that.



They still operate the one's around Moscow with nuclear tips but i think it was mostly the S-5 being deployed with nuclear missiles and they have now all been withdrawn from service. Not sure about the S-300 and nuclear in general but it may still be true for some specific defensive regions...
i recall reading the S300's used light nuclear interceptors like 5kt for example.



Well the USA also used nuclear tipped interceptors at the start and it would have worked perfectly well. There is no dire need for Hit-to-kill when using nuclear tipped missiles in a ABM role but it does become somewhat important when fighting against conventional aircraft which best explains the current lead Russia holds. Once again the microelectrics makes American missiles smaller but also lacking in range while the Russians played to their advantages and build massive long range air defense systems. I am sure the USA could manage the same and it's hard to explain why America does not currently operate a official NABM defense shield as Russia does.
You can make them smaller yes but if i build one ofa similar sizeto yours since i lead in microelectronics i get the overall better system.



A few generations ago the gap was large enough to matter but since the early 80's any advantage was largely pointless and considering the Russian doctrine completely irrelevant. Russia never heavily depended on their SLBM's to win a war so any American ability to track and hunt them would not have changed the balance substantially. In a convoy defense role they might have been more effective ( long sweeps far ahead) but once again typically Russian deployment of attack subs would have just overwhelmed them in a battle where exposure by action invites very near certain death. The Russians used their subs much like undersea 'tanks' that could rapidly deploy en mass to operating areas and then gain victory by simply inviting attacks on their superior numbers. Time is not something NATO had to start with and the careful sneaking tactics envisioned for these hunter subs would have been largely pointless towards keeping the Atlantic as convoy route.
Lol you mean the 200 HK subs. Most of them are no longer operational and the navy is rusting at its piers.i strongly reject quantity over quality. AN exmple would be the T 72 vs an Abrams where an Abrams killed multiple T 72's with no losses.



It's a awesome weapon system that would have likely killed numerous Russian tanks if they happened to catch them..... I am not suggesting that it's a inferior tank but that it is not the type of thing you can invest in when your national survival is at stake. Tanks built to kill other tanks in head on duel's is by design ,imo, stupid.
AIr power and artillery can only do so much. You need to designt he tanks to fight other tanks.



Well actually i was trying to express what i imagined it would take to lose a air superiority contest with the planes the F-22 will likely face....
Ok



Well imo that just qualifies it as a more expensive target than your average carrier is.
As i said it's awesome for bombing the living #$%()*&$%*&$ out of mud hut residents all around the world but it would not have been very functional against a enemy like the USSR.
Lol good luck getting past the defensive shield.they don't float around in the waters by themselves you know.



Cost is not what got it cancelled for; the F-22/JSF isn't exactly cheap either...
What did it get canceleld for then.

The Seawolf was a product of the Cold War, conceived to maintain the USA’s acoustic advantage over Soviet submarines. With the end of the Cold War and the change of emphasis to littoral operations, the cost of the Seawolf submarines was judged prohibitive and the programme was curtailed in favour of the smaller and cheaper Virginia Class New Attack submarines.

www.naval-technology.com...

Show me your reason for disagreeing.



Which imo just makes it a bigger problem than i thought it was..... I am not sure how much the system has improved over the years but when i look at the patriot, and it's supposed upgrades, i would be pretty worried if i were manning them ships...
the patriot is a very complex issue.

www.fas.org...

The Patriot role in OIF was defense against tactical ballistic missiles; it had no assigned air defense role, but it did have a self-defense role against anti-radiation missiles. The Patriot deployment was substantial, involving up to 40 U.S. fire units and 22 fire units from four coalition nations. Two types of Patriot interceptor missiles were used: the improved PAC-2 missile, which is the traditional Patriot interceptor; and a new hit-to-kill missile, the PAC-3. Both were used with success in OIF, with the bulk of the engagements falling to the PAC-2. All nine enemy tactical ballistic missiles that threatened areas designated for Patriot defense were engaged. Eight of these engagements were observed by enough other sensors to conservatively declare them successes; the ninth engagement is judged to be a probable success. None of the attacking tactical ballistic missiles caused any damage or loss of life to the coalition forces.

www.acq.osd.mil...

the AEGIs shot down an airliner which is friendly fire.......things like that happen in wars. But using that as a reason to dismiss the system is just stupidd especially since adjustments would have been made.

[edit on 23-8-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   

The first TBM launch of the war occurred at 0924Z, and targeted TAA THUNDER. Units from the 101st AA Division, specifically its helicopter fleet and 4,000 soldiers, occupied TAA THUNDER. The impact of a high explosive warhead would have caused significant casualties and damage to helicopters. MG Dick Petreaus, the 101st ADA Division Commander, later stated,

“…PATRIOT saved the 101st!” This launch was detected first by the USS Higgins, an AEGIS cruiser off the coast of Kuwait in the Arabian Gulf. The Higgins gave the area one and a half minutes notice when it immediately notified the Coalition Forces Land Component Command Headquarters and the 32d AAMDC.

“The CSM and I personally witnessed the commencement of combat operations for the Patriot force today while visiting D/5-52 ADA; the timing of moving the float radar to that location could not have been more impeccable. The system performed relatively well with the firing of three GEMs. The second EM selfdestructed shortly after launch. The successful intercept was a real confidence booster to the troops and the state of Kuwait. CBS embedded media arrived at the D/5-52 ADA location and shot interviews with the ECS crew. I witnessed the interviews and all were sincere and professional. The Brigade remains postured to counter additional tactical ballistic missile threats and is prepared to support accelerated ground attack plans for CFLCC and support the CFACC’s current air campaign plan.” – from COL Glaeser’s (Cdr, 11th ADA Brigade) Commander’s Narrative, 20 March 2003

PAC-3 Records its First-Ever Combat Kill

At 1030Z, the AMDWS picked up a second Iraqi launch of an Ababil-100 from just south of Al Basrah. Indications showed Camp COMMANDO and Camp Doha as the intended targets. 1LT Scott, SGT Spicer and SGT Bostick were on shift inside the ECS, conducting maintenance when the headset called in “SCUD Launch – SCUD Launch”. They brought the radar up to radiate and as 1LT Scott recalled, “just then a TBM appeared on our scope heading directly towards us; and the ground impact point appeared to be right in front of us, vicinity Camp Doha.” E/2-43 ADA, organically part of the 108th ADA brigade, but OPCON to 11th ADA brigade in Kuwait, fired two PAC-3 missiles and destroyed the Iraqi TBM. The TBM was intercepted just three miles away from its intended destination by E/2-43 ADA, which was located just outside Cam Doha.

www.cdi.org...


They launched another TBM and I was sitting at the helm here on CHAT. The alarms go off, the AMDWS goes off, there’s an AMDWS launch point and impact point, you got the little football moving and everybody just executed like you trained. It was so satisfying as a leader to see everybody executing as they train; nobody got excited. Information was passed, CHAT was up, people were talking on CHAT. And, before you knew it we had a report on CHAT that a battery had launched two PAC-3 missiles, and then it wasn’t minutes later the battery had a confirmed kill. So, it all worked. The sirens in Kuwait went off, people went to bunkers, people put on their masks, MOPP suits, people were leaning against structures inside the building, the concrete structures. Everybody was at ease and the Patriot did its thing.” – COL (P) Anderson, CofS, 32d AAMDC

After the second TBM launch, the I MEF Commander then directed the 108th ADA brigade to move B/2043 ADA to cover Umm Qasar. Coalition forces could not afford to have the port damaged by an Iraqi TBM. The port city was critical, especially for humanitarian relief efforts. Three more TBM launches occurred in quick succession. At 2103Z, missile number three was launched from West of Al Basrah. This Ababil-100 was not intercepted, but fell harmlessly into the Persian Gulf. The fourth missile, launched at 2208Z from North of Al Basrah was an Al Samoud. It too was not intercepted and fell harmlessly into the Kuwaiti western desert. Missile number five was launched at 2320Z and was another Ababil-100 targeted at Camp UDARI. C/5-52 ADA fired one GEM and one PAC-2 missile and destroyed the incoming TBM.

www.cdi.org...


The 32d AAMDC sent out FRAGO 2 accelerating the timeline for detachment of forces. C/2-1ADA was ordered to 31st ADA brigade and E/2-43 ADA would eventually be relieved by C/6-52ADA, a Config-2 Patriot unit from the 69th ADA brigade out of Germany.

AT 1001Z, AMDWS indicated an Iraqi TBM was inbound towards TAA FOX and the city of Al Jahra. This one was another Babail-100. Kuwaiti Firing Battery 3 engaged with one GEM missile, but Kuwaiti Firing Battery 5 actually intercepted the TBM with two GEMs of their own. The engagement was significant for two reasons. First, had this Iraqi missile hit either Ali Al Salem airfielf or Camp Doha, particularly the command facilities for all Coalition land forces in Southwest Asia, the casualties and loss of equipment may have been severe. Second, this was the sixth Iraqi TBM that was successfully engaged and destroyed by Patriot systems to date and
marked the first-ever Patriot engagement in combat by a Kuwaiti Patriot battery. The Iraqi TBM was intercepted by the Kuwaiti Air Defense Battalion, commanded by Colonel Jasem Al-Huwaitan. Kuwaiti Firing Battery Five, commanded by Major Majid Al Khalidi, fired two GEM missiles and destroyed the incoming Ababil-100. This removed doubts about the GEM capability to destroy missiles. The Kuwaitis were defending not only their country, but were also Coalition Forces. They were fully integrated into the Patriot command and control network, passing information and accepting missions from the Patriot command. The Kuwaitis also freely exchanged parts, missiles, and equipment with the United States.
The 32d AAMDC sent out FRAGO 2 accelerating the timeline for detachment of forces. C/2-1ADA was ordered to 31st ADA brigade and E/2-43 ADA would eventually be relieved by C/6-52ADA, a Config-2 Patriot unit from the 69th ADA brigade out of Germany.

AT 1001Z, AMDWS indicated an Iraqi TBM was inbound towards TAA FOX and the city of Al Jahra. This one was another Babail-100. Kuwaiti Firing Battery 3 engaged with one GEM missile, but Kuwaiti Firing Battery 5 actually intercepted the TBM with two GEMs of their own. The engagement was significant for two reasons. First, had this Iraqi missile hit either Ali Al Salem airfielf or Camp Doha, particularly the command facilities for all Coalition land forces in Southwest Asia, the casualties and loss of equipment may have been severe. Second, this was the sixth Iraqi TBM that was successfully engaged and destroyed by Patriot systems to date and
marked the first-ever Patriot engagement in combat by a Kuwaiti Patriot battery. The Iraqi TBM was intercepted by the Kuwaiti Air Defense Battalion, commanded by Colonel Jasem Al-Huwaitan. Kuwaiti Firing Battery Five, commanded by Major Majid Al Khalidi, fired two GEM missiles and destroyed the incoming Ababil-100. This removed doubts about the GEM capability to destroy missiles. The Kuwaitis were defending not only their country, but were also Coalition Forces. They were fully integrated into the Patriot command and control network, passing information and accepting missions from the Patriot command. The Kuwaitis also freely exchanged parts, missiles, and equipment with the United States.

www.cdi.org...
www.space.com...
www.cdi.org...

Rather than simply look at the failure you need to look at the reason for failure rather than just blindly criticizing it.
www.acq.osd.mil...
en.wikipedia.org...
airdefense.bliss.army.mil...



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   
i've read a whole bunch on this website about russian military. the russian military is rather much more advanced than many people think, they excel the US in space technology, and they have excellent technology in most other areas. but the russians rather focus on simple rugged, cheaper, but effective weapons, such as the Mig instead of the F-22 for instance, all throught he war the russinas maintained lead in numbers of migs vs. the american higjly advanced yet very expensive and not in large enough quantities jets and fighters, etc. also in tanks the T-72 tanks are simple, yet very effective tanks when used right, and when troops actually wanna fight or have a reason to fight. for instance many people would say Gulf war I is the ultimate tester that abrams tanks ae superior to the russian T-72, but in the gulf war the iraqi troops barely wanted to fight, and the general;s were dumbasses, and the whole battle and war was corrupted and the iraqi army was always not very well equipped. many tanks were missing fuel, missing ammo, missing maintenance, and many other things. or the klashnikov, the klashnikov is one of the cheapest most effective machine gun you can find, more klashnikovs have been sold legally and illegally to countries all over the world than any other weapon. while the USA made the more expensive more complex machineguns and automated weapons and hand guns. and if you say the russian military is in shambles, then you are uneducated on this matter. the russian military if in a state of defense or war can rise to top notch and be able to equal or even defeat the US in a defensive war. there are 30k tanks in the Russian military, although around 1500 are operational all the time, the 30k tanks are maintained and updated if needed, and are always there, while the US has about 8k tnaks. there is about 5k-10k aircraft int he US arsenal, the russina military has double maybe triple that. in nukes, the US has about 8k, the russians have 30k, and 8k of those nukes, are the ones that are fully operational all the time. and numbers do matter, for instance in WWII, the germans had the best techonologically advanced army in the world, while the russians had rather backdated weapons, and later on better weapons that were simple easy and cheap to build, a war like the 'great patriotic war' in russian terms, basically an attack on russia in that scale is what you'd expect if the US invades russia, and i think the result might very well be the same.

i don't know about Navy, but i'm sure that the Navy, Airforce, mech infantry, and army, and all the parts of the russian army will be top notch in any case of war and would not be a shadow of it's former power, it will actually be even stronger. and if you look into it, the russians still have the power to take over europe and engage in that distructive war that both nations have planned for all through the 45 years after WWII, the cold war. in war there are always three things you have to follow: (1) don't ever hate your enemy, it clouds your judgement, (2) don't ever underestimate your enemy, it undermines your fighting capability, (3) don't ever judge your enemy's moves or your enemy himself, it will drive you to making the big strategic mistakes that you would make because you can't predict what your enemy would do while and when you judge your enemy.

and i wouldn't put far seeing the Russians bigger and better than ever, in fact the russians did not merely lose an inch of military power, they actually grew stronger and more advance, it lost only how the poeple around the world think of it, 20 years ago, people looked at it as the big empire that stretches across the north east of asia and the east of europe, now it's looked at as the nation that was and might be again. it also lost of course political influence due to it's change in ideology and government and due to the fact that it lost the superpower thought of it. but military power is still in good shape.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
Well a lot of people are after them you know. the detection of a stealth aircraft is alot different ad tougher than a conventional aircraft if you haven't noticed.


In terms of very accurate tracking and firing solutions it is rather harder but not so in a simple early warning fashion. If you can see them coming the surprise is gone and then it's just a question of ground control getting you close before you use your own radars for a firing solution. If they turn on their own radars to try locate your aircraft they expose themselves to your air defenses which Russian has plenty of.


yea but speed range etc isn't always everything. with microelectronics you can match that platform witha smaller design only at the expense of weapons loadout.


You can make it much smaller with more technological advanced systems but you also have a market economy where everything 'cost' ( labour) so much more. In the end having less capable electrical engineering ability will only set you back if you refuse to adapt your doctrine/strategy to what you have to work with and there was not inherent 'higher' cost involved in bigger weapon systems.


Well that's true but the development of the SU 27/30 and MIG 29 leads me to question that.


Why? These fighters all have perfectly good radars for fighting their likely enemies and in a cold war scenario ( which they were designed for) America's limited numbers of stealth aircraft would have not changed the balance substantially if at all. Considering that Russian always envisioned the use of nuclear weapons there would not have been runways to fight the delicate American stealth fighters from anyways while you could land a mig 29 in a field and raid the local farmers kerosene store for fuel. The Russians were always designing their weapons to lose them ( that's what happens in a nuclear war) while Americans designed them for durability, cheaper maintenance and general heavy use without replacement.


i recall reading the S300's used light nuclear interceptors like 5kt for example.


I think when they first appeared that was the case and i am unsure if the practice continues. The point is largely moot as the Russians did build tens of thousands more nuclear warheads ( likely for these interceptors ) but still kept on refining the hit-to-kill ability of their missiles. As far as i could see they did not require that excess kill capacity by the early -mid 1980's and then not on the S-300's anyways.


make them smaller yes but if i build one ofa similar sizeto yours since i lead in microelectronics i get the overall better system.


Not if the micro electrics is complex and hard/expensive to manufacture and generally more difficult to maintain and operate. High technology has a great many drawbacks and if you are not careful you can bankrupt yourself by over designing a system which are unlikely to survive the situations it was expressly designed to deal with. The Germans seemed to have realised this after the second world war while America,after having done it so very well,in the second world war then took up the German example of over engineering everything for no great gain in strategic ability.


mean the 200 HK subs. Most of them are no longer operational and the navy is rusting at its piers.i strongly reject quantity over quality. AN exmple would be the T 72 vs an Abrams where an Abrams killed multiple T 72's with no losses.


Well i was referring to the cold war when at it's height the USSR operated over 400 submarines which would have very likely overwhelmed anything in the Atlantic. The Germans managed a great deal of destruction with far less against a enemy far stronger than the one the USSR faced in America. Just investigate history and see how this kept happening.


er and artillery can only do so much. You need to designt he tanks to fight other tanks.


Actually you kill tanks with your infantry/art/planes or something that packs a heavy punch and can be moved around easily. Tanks are concentrated firepower to achieve break troughts and using them to hunt other tanks is just yielding the incentive to the other side.


d luck getting past the defensive shield.they don't float around in the waters by themselves you know.


While true it hardly changes the fact that they carry the firepower of the fleet and that it provides a central point failure. It has not been shown that a effective defense cruise missile defense shield is practical against even moderate amounts of such missiles ( a few dozen) and there is just no evidence to suggest that massed raids by backfires and bears/badgers ( not even mentioning the cruise missiles subs and surface fleets) could have been effectively been countered without at least a likely mission kill on the carrier.


www.naval-technology.com...

Show me your reason for disagreeing.


Well as i suggested earlier the US can not do much with the JSF yet it's building it so why think this has anything to do with money when it's clearly being wasted anyways? There was obviously just no requirement for such a useless weapon and certainly not at that cost. It does not contribute much towards destroying mud huts in Afghanisthan so they got rid of it.


the patriot is a very complex issue.


Most things get more complex when you start researching/investigating so i can agree with that.

You have provided sources suggesting the missile is effective and here are my sources suggestive of the alternative...


Accounts from the field indicate that the Patriots are being used in a manner known as the ripple-fire, where multiple Patriots are launched against a single threat in the hopes that their lethality will be increased simply by sheer dint of numbers. The ripple-fire method is more or less how the Patriot was designed to be operated, so it is not unusual that it is being applied in Iraq. But it is important to note this doctrine, because otherwise the impression might be gained that the missiles were destroying their targets on a one-to-one basis. Also, some of the Iraqi missiles are simply being let to fly unmolested if U.S. forces deem that they will land in unpopulated areas. This would imply that Patriot missile battery commanders are reserving their limited number of missiles for the most pressing threats.

Finally, the accidental downing of a British Tornado fighter by a Patriot missile on Sunday is a terrible reminder of the system’s limitations. Even if the operators do everything they are supposed to do, technical problems can and do crop up. Expectations of the Patriot's effectiveness must be reined in so that such tragedies can be side-stepped in the future.

www.cdi.org...



To begin, the 32d AAMDC claims that the Patriot made nine intercepts out of nine engagements, allowing it a 100 percent success rate. This seems to be the result of a rather tortuous portrayal of the facts given in their own history. Reading through it, 23 Iraqi missile launches are documented (9 Ababil-100s, 4 Al Samouds, 4 CSSC-3s, 4 FROG-7s, and 2 unknowns). Of these, indeed, 9 apparently were intercepted by U.S. or Kuwaiti Patriot batteries, thanks to the at least 24 Patriot-type missiles (PAC-2, GEM, GEM+, and PAC-3) that were fired. However, that leaves 14 Iraqi missiles which were not intercepted. Excluding the one Ababil-100 which malfunctioned and blew up shortly after launch and the four FROG-7s which were outside of the Patriot’s range, leaves 9 Iraqi missiles which were not destroyed by the Patriot. The fact that they landed “harmlessly” in the desert or the Persian Gulf, in the words of the authors of the report, does not change the fact that they were not intercepted. In the CENTCOM area of responsibility at the time of the war, there were 1069 Patriot missiles (54 of which were PAC-3 missiles), and 29 U.S. and 5 Kuwaiti Patriot batteries, so there should have been ample assets on the U.S. side to counter these Iraqi threats. Claiming that the Patriot had a 100 percent interception rate seems disingenuous at best and an outright manipulation of events at worst. Also surprising is that after 12 years of criticism, following the dismal performance of Patriot in the first Persian Gulf War, the Army is still calling an "engagement" an interception, when by their own descriptions sometimes "engaged" Iraqi missiles were not intercepted. For example, the history for March 21, 2003, reports six Iraqi TBMs "successfully engaged and destroyed by Patriot systems to date." But that counts an Ababil-100 and an Al Samoud that were NOT intercepted on March 20th. This calls into question what evidence the Army has for the nine intercepts it does claim.

www.cdi.org...



We conclude that the body of video we have reviewed contains data on at least 22 to 23 out of roughly 47 Desert Storm engagements. Of even greater significance, the video appears to include 17 to 18 out of roughly 30 engagements in Saudi Arabia. This indicates that there is a very substantial base of video information from which an assessment of Patriot's performance can be made.

We have found no convincing evidence in the video that any Scud warhead was destroyed by a Patriot. We have strong evidence that Patriots hit Scuds an two occasions (in WSMR Events 8 and 13), but in both cases we found video evidence that the Scud warheads fell to the ground and exploded. These clips suggest that even when Patriots could hit Scuds they were still not able to destroy the Scud warheads. We also have several other clips where it is possible that Patriots hit Scuds without detonating their warheads. but the evidence in these clips is quite ambiguous

Continued



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   

We conclude that the body of video we have reviewed contains data on at least 22 to 23 out of roughly 47 Desert Storm engagements. Of even greater significance, the video appears to include 17 to 18 out of roughly 30 engagements in Saudi Arabia. This indicates that there is a very substantial base of video information from which an assessment of Patriot's performance can be made.

We have found no convincing evidence in the video that any Scud warhead was destroyed by a Patriot. We have strong evidence that Patriots hit Scuds an two occasions (in WSMR Events 8 and 13), but in both cases we found video evidence that the Scud warheads fell to the ground and exploded. These clips suggest that even when Patriots could hit Scuds they were still not able to destroy the Scud warheads. We also have several other clips where it is possible that Patriots hit Scuds without detonating their warheads. but the evidence in these clips is quite ambiguous (see, for example, Additional Event 3).

In addition, we have estimated minimum miss distances for all cases where we could clearly observe Patriot missing Scuds. We present our summarized findings in tabular and graphical form in figures 8, 9 and 1O. The median minimum miss distance was roughly 600 meters. This is much larger than the press video minimum resolvable miss distance of 35 to 70 meters. To achieve lethality against Scud targets, a system like the Patriot must routinely achieve miss distances of meters to tens of meters, not hundreds to thousands of meters as observed in the video. This result of the video review by itself indicates unambiguously that there was a serious problem with Patriot during the Gulf War.

www.fas.org...



Marines deployed north and east of the headquarters suddenly observe a low-flying missile passing overhead, pointed towards Kuwait in the direction of Camp Commando. IMEF’s air defense computer terminals display nothing out of the ordinary, and no Scud alert is sounded. Marines in the headquarters are astonished and surprised to hear the signature of a low-flying jet engine overhead, followed by the noise and concussion from a large warhead blast.
An Iraqi Seersucker antiship cruise missile converted into a land attack role has just missed decapitating IMEF by a mere one hundred yards. The missile, launched from the Faw peninsula, flew undetected and unengaged straight through the heart of an alert and robust U.S. theater air and missile defense system. Following this attack, the U.S. Marines maintained a Combat Air Patrol (CAP) of F/A-18s over the Faw peninsula for several days.
Fortunately, the cruise missile in this instance was armed with only a conventional warhead. Because of their payload capabilities and their inherent ability to fly over large swaths of land, land attack cruise missiles (LACM) are a platform optimized for the employment of chemical or biological weapons. Currently, such an attack would likely go undetected, preventing U.S. forces from donning protective equipment and taking shelter.
During OIF, five Chinese-built CSSC-3 “Seersucker” antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs) were launched by Iraq against land targets in Kuwait. The attack described above was the first. A second attack, using two Seersucker cruise missiles on 28 March, was aimed at ships at the naval base of Kuwait City. One missile homed in on a radar reflector, the other on a seafront shopping center. Two Seersuckers were also launched on 31 March—one at the port at Umm Qasr and the other at troops at Safwan. Not a single one of these missiles was targeted or even detected in-flight.

www.jfsc.ndu.edu/current_students/documents_policies/documents/jca_cca_awsp/Cruise_Missile_Defense_Final.doc


Well that is where i stand on that issue.


the AEGIs shot down an airliner which is friendly fire.......things like that happen in wars. But using that as a reason to dismiss the system is just stupidd especially since adjustments would have been made.


Well the fire was hardly 'friendly' and people died so either it was on purpose or the Aegis system can not even tell one 'friendly' airliner from ( in war) dozens of hostile cruise missiles. I am sorry but it just seems to me that it works no better now than it did during testing all those years ago. I misplaced the senate report in question but you might try your luck at finding it.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   
The claims made that the Russian military tech is on par in any way with the US military tech I think is unimportant.

Russian military doctrine is more important as the two wars in Iraq proved the Soviet military doctrine to be a load of crap. Immediately after the Gulf War before the fall of the Soviet Union, Soviet policy makers and Generals were re-working the Soviet Military Doctrine to meet the concerns of growing US Military supremacy in doctrine (not in technology).

The war in Chechnya first proved the Russian doctrine to be ineffective, in 2000 Putin sent the army back in with a new doctrine, but still archaic comparitively.

If Russia will learn from these wars the technology they have will not matter as much...skill on the battlefield is always more important than tools.





new topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join