Russia is closing the gap with US air superiority

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3752
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post29 Apr 2016, 14:53

oldiaf wrote:http://breakingdefense.com/2015/09/russians-closed-the-gap-for-a2ad-air-force-gen-gorenc/


Haven't read the entire thread, but most of it seems focused on Russian air to ground capability, not air to air. I'd agree that some of the new birds they have are damn impressive, especially late model Flankers/SU-35. I'm not sure what #'s these are fielded in, but let's assume they have 4+ gen stuff = to the US (numerically).

The SU-27SM/SM3 look like mighty capable aircraft. Kinematic performance as good or better than the F-15C. Ditto for the SU-35, though that one comes with extra bells, whistles and internal fuel. Where I think they fall short is avionics and weapons. If BVR really is the order of the day, I'd give the F-15C a more than slight advantage.

If they get to the merge, it's a lot closer to 50-50. Flankers are more maneuverable and pilots being equal, it's just too close to call. Thank God for the 9x, as it mitigates many of the WVR maneuvering advantages the Russians have.

Am I way off here? Or is there something I haven't considered??
Offline

mrigdon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2015, 22:03

Unread post30 Apr 2016, 07:31

mixelflick wrote:
Am I way off here? Or is there something I haven't considered??


Russia STRONK!!!
Offline

avatar

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 20 Sep 2008, 15:19

Unread post06 Jul 2016, 09:44

Okay, so the video below isn't Russia vs US, but a force level comparison of Russia versus Turkey, but still it may offer some insight.

Seems while Russia has made some strides, there's a couple of areas (sensors and weapons) that have still not been invested in very much.


https://youtu.be/6f-FdlyqA8s
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6245
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post06 Jul 2016, 14:31

The Russians have shot at Syria and missed the entire country in some cases.

You don't want to underestimate your enemy, yeah but you don't want to OVER estimate him either. The USSR was struggling in certain areas, and there doesn't seem to be any indication they have rectified a lot of that today which really should not surprise.
Choose Crews
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post07 Jul 2016, 00:47



:roll: Considering that Russian manufacturers think that a "4++++" generation radar is one which gives them a ground SAR capability with a 10m resolution, and considering that the majority of their force is Su-24s flying around with Garmin fishing boat GPS, I don't think Turkey has anything to worry about Russian planes being able to hit anything on their territory.

XanderCrews wrote:The Russians have shot at Syria and missed the entire country in some cases.


Well to be fair, US Tomahawk cruise missiles fail from time to time as well. But these Russian missiles seemed to have a much higher failure rate. And we're not sure if they actually hit anything.

But either way the most interesting thing is how they took a Kh-65 and strapped on a new front fuselage and claimed it to be a "stealthy" cruise missile, even though it's got a completely exposed engine hanging underneath the missile. I think that speaks volumes as to their philosophy.
Offline

han9

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2015, 07:27

Unread post02 Aug 2016, 19:37

The question of perceived frequency of cruise missile failures may have something to do with the frequency and willingness of English language MSM to report it – that however is really OT here.

As to if Rus CMs actually hit have a look below

Rus UAV footage of places struck

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3eDynXdh8Y

for example at 0 : 17 the cross hair is on the building and split second later the explosions begin, so it is reasonable to say this was the target and it was hit just as intended. Claimed to be cruise missile strike but we could not see them coming.


Cruise missile strike

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGZHMSI17nc

One can actually see the cruise missile coming from the lower left corner towards the target. To make it easier to spot the frame is frozen for a few moments and the place the missile appears first is circled in red.

Cruise missiles again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s96OR5K7Ego

at 0 : 29 and 0 : 41 to 0 : 43 one can, just barely, see the cruise missile coming
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 961
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post04 Aug 2016, 13:57

arian wrote:But either way the most interesting thing is how they took a Kh-65 and strapped on a new front fuselage and claimed it to be a "stealthy" cruise missile, even though it's got a completely exposed engine hanging underneath the missile. I think that speaks volumes as to their philosophy.


It is cruise missile which mission is to fly low (under 110m) so I dont see why exposed engine is big deal.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1153
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post05 Aug 2016, 11:16

In the past the Russians could compensate their older tech by brute numbers and volume.

Even that advantage is gone.

So what are we talking about?
Offline

han9

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2015, 07:27

Unread post08 Aug 2016, 13:38

Haughtiness seldom brings good advice :wink:

Obviously in an all out USAF vs. VKS confrontation I would hedge my bets with the former rather than the latter.

That said there are many possible scenarios including ones involving US proxy forces making the matters discussed above more than just moot.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 961
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post10 Aug 2016, 11:38

vilters wrote:In the past the Russians could compensate their older tech by brute numbers and volume.

Even that advantage is gone.

So what are we talking about?


World is changed. Russia isnt USSR, it isnt communistic it is state capitalistic country. That is why Russia iced PAK-DA. If they are still USSR people would suffer but PAK-DA would probable finished and nice fleet of TU-160M would be operational.

Russia can shop many high tech stuff in world, that is something USSR couldnt do and that is very important if we talk about tech.

Also dont forget China and Iran. Both countries werent big problem to USA during cold war in fact they were bigger problem to USSR, but now they are problem to USA. China especially. So it isnt America vs Russia as was in cold war it is lot more complicated. So even though Russian numbers arent impressive neither are American numbers because America is force to divide forces on couple geopolitical opponents not just Russia.
Offline

les_paul59

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2016, 05:57

Unread post10 Aug 2016, 19:57

Don't forget that the U.S. has a lot of friends with big guns, that Russia and China don't have

In a large scale conflict it is NATO vs. fill in the blank
Offline

skyward

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 65
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 13:33

Unread post10 Aug 2016, 22:46

Most of the high tech stuff in the world are in western countries. It is not cheap. With the price on oil today, Russia can't really afford all the high tech stuff.

Forget about adding China to Russia discussion. China and US are more economically tied together then Russia to China. Who do you think is more important to China? China vs US will never happen. The two have to much to lose. Just because America force is divide now globally, don't think for a second these forces are fixed. They can easily be relocated.
Offline

han9

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2015, 07:27

Unread post11 Aug 2016, 09:49

With regard to China – before WW I there were many theories that the powers of those days were too much interlink for a war to break out, but guess what happened.

Considering, that China (PRC) is – depending on data - the biggest or second biggest US creditor to blast it and the debt with it into oblivion may not be such a bad idea.

On a different not: give it up Milosh a soloist can not outsing a chorus.

In line with my own advice I am bugging out of this thread.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3000
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post11 Aug 2016, 12:39

skyward wrote:Most of the high tech stuff in the world are in western countries. It is not cheap. With the price on oil today, Russia can't really afford all the high tech stuff


Some important high tech stuff is export controlled and somebody can't just go and order high performance T/R modules from Raytheon or EW systems or their components from BAE Systems or higher performance thermal imaging cameras/cores or many such items as they are export controlled. Of course Russia and China can buy many important commercial items like electronics components or equipment, but they will have to develop their own industry to design and manufacture actual products using them. This takes a lot of time, money and people to do and is reason why Russia and China are still well behind technologically in many military areas and don't seem to be catching up. Of course I know that Russia has bought some military equipment from France and Israel, but this doesn't seem to have sped up development of domestic capabilities and products.
Offline

str

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 141
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2015, 07:54

Unread post11 Aug 2016, 15:52

milosh wrote:
vilters wrote:In the past the Russians could compensate their older tech by brute numbers and volume.

Even that advantage is gone.

So what are we talking about?


World is changed. Russia isnt USSR, it isnt communistic it is state capitalistic country. That is why Russia iced PAK-DA. If they are still USSR people would suffer but PAK-DA would probable finished and nice fleet of TU-160M would be operational.


They iced PAK-DA because strategic bombers are *extremely* expensive (especially one able to penetrate NATO airspace,which is the most lethal in the world by far) and Russia can only afford so many expensive things at a time. Their whole economy is slightly smaller than Australia's and only a bit bigger than Mexico's. Nobody here, not a one, would suggest that Mexico can afford to build a clean sheet strategic bomber. And Mexico actually has a modern, competitive, manufacturing sector.

America, alone, has an economy 17 times larger than Russia. The EU is 14 times larger. Russia could spend 100% of its GDP on defense, become a modern Sparta where every job, every effort, is dedicated to the military. The West could match that effort, to the penny, by expending a combined 3.5% of GDP on that (roughly, EU != NATO, so the real number would be a bit less than that). America already spends 3.5% of GDP of defense.

Unless there is a *radical* change to the Russian economy, it is mathematically impossible for Russia to ever catch up with America. Therefore, the smart decision is not to try. Just keep enough of a nuclear deterrent to prevent a Western invasion while building an offensive capability just potent enough to threaten neighboring non-NATO countries. Work intelligence and political avenues to try and weaken NATO to the point where countries start leaving it. This creates more non-aligned countries which are susceptible to the threat of your modest strike force. Notice that these things are exactly what Putin has been doing.

han9 wrote:Considering, that China (PRC) is – depending on data - the biggest or second biggest US creditor to blast it and the debt with it into oblivion may not be such a bad idea.


They're really 3rd. Biggest US creditor is actually the US government itself. IOUs from one department to another. The 2nd biggest is the American people. China is a distant 3rd and, to make a long story short, they cannot dump their pile of treasuries without taking a massive loss on them.

By a similar token, glassing China does not make the treasuries they hold disappear. US debt is sacrosanct. Section 4 of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution declares all debt authorized by Congress is valid and cannot be made invalid. If everyone in China died tomorrow, the US Treasury will still pay interest and principle to the accounts of Chinese bondholders, whether they are living or dead.
PreviousNext

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests