Former air force chief: Russia's air defenses weak

Former air force chief: Russia's air defenses weak

www.google.com

MOSCOW — Russia is lagging 25 to 30 years behind the United States in developing prospective air defense weapons because of a meltdown of its defense industries, a former Russian air force chief said Thursday.

Retired Gen. Anatoly Kornukov said Russia has only a reduced capability to protect itself from an enemy attack — a statement that contrasted sharply with the government's claim that the nation's military are getting stronger following a post-Soviet decline.

The Defense Ministry has boasted about developing new S-400 air defense missile systems and proudly displayed some of th

(visit the link for the full news article)

It is obvious that Russia has some of the best military technology, rivaling that of the United States.

Personally, I'd take this statement from a retired Russian general with a big grain of salt; it's another one of the deceptive tricks.

Although we should take into account the shorter service life of Russian-built aircraft compared to their western counterparts, their SAM systems are not to be underrated.

www.google.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

It should be expected that Russia cannot adequately defend its total airspace due to its massive size alone. In reality, Russia could never avoid a full-scale invasion by a hostile military but they can still defeat them regardless as history proves.

This is why Russia relies on mobility, ie Topols. Why have a silo that is a good target for an airstrike when you can have mobile nuclear missiles constantly driving around Siberia?

Though consider a hostile airstrike within Russia... The enemy may hit their target but they won't make the flight home.

reply to post by ironfalcon


Nobody doubts that Russia has very good technology. I think what the general was referring to was the fact that there isn't enough of that technology to go around.

You can have the best anti-aircraft missile design in the world, but it doesn't mean squat if you have 15 missiles and the other side has 2,000 aircraft.

Russian Military or Government made a statement a year or two ago that the US will be able to hit any target, anywhere in the world with impunity. And as such, it said if the US attacks it with it's advanced strike conventional capabilities that it will use nuclear weapons in response. That is about all that matters as far as the US is concerned. They still have ballistic missile subs and mobile nuclear missle launchers. However, they could have problems with rogue states like North Korea or Iran, although right now those nations are doing business with Russia and I don't see them biting the hand that feeds them any time soon. US capabilities are so far ahead of what was used in the wars with 3rd world countries that what would be pulled out against a 1st world country or major power would be quite a bit different.



[edit on 14/5/10 by spirit_horse]

The US is too busy becoming Mexico and joining the new world order as a third world beggar nation, to bother with Russia.

Let's just hope they don't decide to nuke us anyway to put us out of our misery.

lol, this is not news, I've known this for a while. Russia, themselves proved their airforce was weak when they announced that major modernization push a couple years ago. They said something like building 3 new SU aircraft every year. A very pathetic number.

A big grain of salt, indeed. Russia is faking, Russia has a fishing rod, and she's just adding something fake, some bait.

Oh come on, Russia couldnt even defeat Afghanistan. How strong can their military be?

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Though consider a hostile airstrike within Russia... The enemy may hit their target but they won't make the flight home.

You have to look at the trade off. Complete destruction of a Russian military base for the loss of maybe one or two B1s? Not too bad, unless you're one of the B1 guys walking home!

And besides, the Russians will load up the ingress routes with their air defense to try to knock them down prior to the aircraft reaching the target.

reply to post by ironfalcon


The one area of weakness about the Russian military that has been reported in the media, is degradation of Russia's air and space early warning system. This is based on launch detection and sensor satellite's and what is viewed as conventional radar. A few years back, the media mentioned the big problem was the satellite's. They showed a video clip said to be inside a ground radar center. My brief impression was it looked, pretty beat up. But it could have been an old tape (I doub't it) Russia not having faith in it's EWS, could ruin a lot more then everyone's day.

Originally posted by Metal Head
Oh come on, Russia couldnt even defeat Afghanistan. How strong can their military be?

neither can the USA. nobody can destroy the mujahideen, you're not fighting a war against a government, theres no way you can end them, theres always more and more

reply to post by ironfalcon


America spends so bloody much on weapons, what do you expect. Though like others you would expect russia to be pretty well defended if it came to it.

I think nukes although important for deterrent, other weapons like electromagnetic weapons are very important today. The problem is we know nothing of what anyone has, and we can only guess.

Originally posted by ironfalcon


It is obvious that Russia has some of the best military technology, rivaling that of the United States

I highly highly doubt that last statement. I bet Russia has good technology, but the U.S. has a military budget that almost dwarfs Russia's entire economy. I personally believe like Adam Smith that defense and law are the main roles of government...so I have no problem with U.S. military spending (though I disagree with foreign policy.) It's definitely not the cause of the U.S.'s budget woes (social programs are behind that) I would bet even that Britain and France both have more advanced weapons than Russia.

Originally posted by RizeorDie

Originally posted by Metal Head
Oh come on, Russia couldnt even defeat Afghanistan. How strong can their military be?

neither can the USA. nobody can destroy the mujahideen, you're not fighting a war against a government, theres no way you can end them, theres always more and more

You have to grant that the U.S. has the country much more stable than Russia ever did or could have, and Russia largely lost because of the U.S. sending the mujaheddin weapons...mainly the stinger missile. Afghanistan isn't won...but the U.S. has hardly dipped a toe in it military wise, at least compared to Russia (or the relative size of the U.S.'s overall military strength.)

[edit on 14-5-2010 by yellowcard]

reply to post by yellowcard


I would say that electromagnetic weapons are the most important today. Invisible to the eye, and totally deniable to everyone.

Who has what and what do these things do, who knows. But i would suggest alot of espionage is going on,a nd they steal of each other quite easily, lol.

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by yellowcard

 

I would say that electromagnetic weapons are the most important today. Invisible to the eye, and totally deniable to everyone.

Who has what and what do these things do, who knows. But i would suggest alot of espionage is going on,a nd they steal of each other quite easily, lol.

EMPs are scary business...they not only cripple a military, but also entire economies. I have no doubt that Russia has more EMP weapons than the U.S., maybe even more advanced ones. I believe that I have heard or read that the U.S. has outlawed EMPs from its arsenal. I could be wrong....but I swear I heard that somewhere, perhaps it was part of the Russian treaty. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just speaking off the top of my head, not in the Googling mood.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by yellowcard]

reply to post by yellowcard


America will have to pay for all its black-op dealing with malevolent extraterrestrials in exchange for short-term superpower status. Thats one thing other nations don't have to collectively go to bed thinking about. Tease me, call me a loony, but there is strong evidence that this has taken place.

Originally posted by TSawyer
reply to post by yellowcard

 

America will have to pay for all its black-op dealing with malevolent extraterrestrials in exchange for short-term superpower status. Thats one thing other nations don't have to collectively go to bed thinking about. Tease me, call me a loony, but there is strong evidence that this has taken place.

I'm sure if we had ET technology that we could survive an EMP blast.

Originally posted by yellowcard

Originally posted by RizeorDie

Originally posted by Metal Head
Oh come on, Russia couldnt even defeat Afghanistan. How strong can their military be?

neither can the USA. nobody can destroy the mujahideen, you're not fighting a war against a government, theres no way you can end them, theres always more and more

You have to grant that the U.S. has the country much more stable than Russia ever did or could have, and Russia largely lost because of the U.S. sending the mujaheddin weapons...mainly the stinger missile. Afghanistan isn't won...but the U.S. has hardly dipped a toe in it military wise, at least compared to Russia (or the relative size of the U.S.'s overall military strength.)

[edit on 14-5-2010 by yellowcard]

You're wrong. The American military does not have a relatively large troop presense in Afghanistan for various reasons:
- US operates 800 bases all over the globe and they already have a large and very expensive troop presense in all of them.
- US operates massive amounts of private military contractors (AKA mercinaries) to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan so the media will avoid most of what is really going on. I recall that the US had more contractors in the climax of the Iraq occupation than their own forces (so 160,000+ contractors), now operating 100,000+ contractors in Iraq.
- US's main role in Afghanistan is to control the opium trade to fund CIA programs, because it is no big secret that almost the entireity of CIA funding is from drug money. Private contractors are running the Afghan opium trade which produces 93% of the world's opium/heroin, and there have been reports of American-paid mercinaries killing American soldiers because they stumbled into the wrong poppy field.

You have to understand that the US's military extent includes much more deception than most people can handle (which is why it is so successful). For the past fifty years the US has used its main forces mainly for media value while agencies like the CIA lead extremely brutal campaigns all over the world, leading to the blood of millions spilled on American hands. The US prefered not to invade every country that presented a threat to its interests, but rather to coup democratically elected governments, replacing them with the most brutal leaders and indiginous forces possible to instill American-lead order.

For example, look up the contras. They go way beyond Iran negotiations and Nicauaguan insurgencies. The CIA-hired south American special forces who made up the contras were so effective at massacres and dissensitization on national levels that they were selected for crushing other revolutions in central/south America.