Russian warfare

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

fidgetspinner

Banned

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post03 Sep 2019, 12:49

Below posts have been split off from the topic SU-57: On hold for a decade

xanderscrew wrote:moreover you need aircraft to take the offensive, to control the air to control the battle space, to deploy and project power overseas. There just any real substitute for a fighter/bomber just yet. Which is one of the reasons the Russians are bothering with airplanes still despite their SAMs and Iskander.


A decent airforce is still needed for their operations in Syria and monitoring their airspace since they and NATO enjoy crossing each other's path but not really their priority if we look at their SAM inventory with missiles.

The bottom line is that airplanes will pick and choose the when and where, theyre faster than Mobile SAMs, they deploy and rain down hellfire, and SAMS are primarily a DEFENSIVE weapon. They don't take the initiative, they don't destroy bridges and tanks and and ammo depots (filled with SAMs) they don't perform recon, they can't be everywhere, they don't support troops directly on the ground, they shoot down airplanes (And are seriously deadly, don't get me wrong-- which is why smart air forces don't underestimate them) but they are one trick ponies, and ground forces relying on them to win the day have been proven horrifyingly wrong the last few decades.


Shooting air planes is one of the examples of what it can do. shooting air ground missiles launched from aircrafts is also a function they can do. I am talking about missile projects like iskander, zircon, kinzhals etc being used

Yes SAMs kill airplanes, no one gets away clean. People are still cheering about the F-117 they downed, and leaving the part where they got annihilated out, but I guess you have to pull one good thing out of something that unbelievably lopsided. Once the air defenses are handled,suppressed, starved, jammed etc.. and with no air force, the ground and sea forces are at the mercy of the airplane, which again doesn't recognize things like mountains or rivers and is able to repositionat the speed of sound and adapt to a fluid battlefield, and reattack within hours. We've seen how that plays out for the ground forces time and time again. (especially tanks, oh lord have mercy on those crispy critter crews)


I really dont think comparing serbia to russia is a good idea there. Did serbia even have any ballistic missiles, satellites to give them locations on where F-117s can land than go launch those missiles directly at them? I am also sure well atleast a modern air defense comes with some claims of EW immunity while having jammers of their own.

but suffice it to say the US understands how to cripple a lot of the critical reconnaissance and communication efforts that leave enemies blind and dumb cut off and surrounded. And this before me even explaining why Stealth aircraft exist regarding the threat of SAMs.

ground radars, hearing about satellites starting to gain the ability to track low altitude targets according to the Russian side, stealth aircrafts are still being monitored when they land, refuel than slowly take off again leaving them vulnerable to attack. stations that re-supply them can get immediately destroyed by missiles. The countries that we have fought absolutely have none of these things

@popcorn

Well, as long as you're sure...

repellent-1, some microwave gun with a 10km range to be used on a buk air defense, KRET has all kinds of neat stuff for this.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5995
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post03 Sep 2019, 16:07

There's nothing new under the sun about spamming missiles, (in fact I believe it was krustchev who went gonzo over rockets in every facet) and the idea that SSMs will just wipe out all the aircraft with timing has a helluva lot of problems, which basically tells me you don't know what you're talking about. Again we've done this before ourselves.

the simple fact is again, that the Russians will tell you themselves that relying on defensive measures alone wont work. and the Americans will tell you that you can spam cruise missiles all you want, and its still no substitute for an airplane and won't have the effect your hoping for. At best slows down the air offensive but its not going to stop it. It won't win the war, it just slows the inevitable. The US has actually had sustained air campaigns launched from the Central United States. You just rely more on AAR (wouldn't be nice if you had some way of using an aero machine to go after those?) and launch from out of range of cruise missile attack. Its not rocket science (well it is I guess, but pretty basic) just move out of the envelope, and take a little more time wrecking things.

And remember too the original concept behind the B-2 was orbiting over the soviet union hunting mobile missile launchers. and Russia is a shadow of the USSR.

Let me put it this way, your strategy for going into a sustained heavyweight fight against a champion and highly skilled boxer is "some lucky punches" he already knows youre going to attempt. thats not realistic. The outcome isn't in doubt. I don't underestimate Russia and theres always unknowns, but the bottom line is they won't be able to stop the air, which as Corsair has alluded to, hasn't worked out too hot the last 8 decades or so. You catch a few dozen fighters on the ground here or there, sweet. The Japanese sank entire carriers, didn't stop the outcome. In the meantime they're annihilating your infrastructure and power grid. You're trying to swat mad swarming hornets one at a time. A war with Russia would bring THOUSANDS of combat airplanes deploying from all over the globe and ships. you're concept is completely defensive. The hope is that you create enough casualties to make them stop, (not likely theyll just change strategy after a reevaluation) or actually create a scenario where somehow airplanes can't make it near enough to deploy or do anything (word is too big, AAR exists)

If its a futbol match, or soccer as we call it here, youre tactic is basically "bunker." You can't win-- a tie is the best hope, and one goal gets in, you lose. But winning isn't an option. The Japanese discovered this. You get Pearl Harbor (sucker punch!). Then bunker in. But one side is targeting and destroying your ability to make and sustain a defense (bombing factories, power plants, infrastructure) and the other is perfectly safe from attack and invasion and churning out endless amounts of war material. 1 month into this was and the US will still be churning out tanks and planes and ships. The news for Russia will not be so cheery. Its great killing Marines on beaches, but its also unsustainable, they'll just make more. California has a bigger GDP than Russia, As does New York, and Texas. So one side is getting their cities wrecked (but hey theyre killing some fighters!) and the other side has nice unmolested cities and territories. You'll never guess who wins. Unless Russia figures out a way to hurt the US Homeland, the way the allies and the US will be hurting the Russian Homeland, the SAMS and Missile spam (just like 1991) become an interesting footnote.

Where do we concentrate the SAMs? around cities? Military bases? Natural Resources? at the border/frontline to reach deep into NATO territory? Command and Control? Infrastructure? Power? Natural Resources(oil refineries, Mining) ? Imagine only being able to pick 2 or 3 of the above. What are you willing to lose? What gets kept and what gets abdicated? Russia is rather large, they realized the sheer amount of money it costs to be "strong everywhere" with the USSR and they collapsed. its far easier to reposition an airplane 300 miles than a SAM system or a cruise missile system for that matter.

Now it wasn't always like this. There was an old joke from the cold war where some Soviet Generals are having tea in newly liberated Paris, and one general asks the other "so who do you think won the air war?" And the other General says "I think NATO did"

:D

But again, this operates from the notion that you have to take the offensive, and seize the nations that will make and sustain war material in order to do what we call "win" sitting back at your own borders?? not so much. Which brings me back to Japan. The us was marching to Tokyo, but Tokyo wasn't marching to California and certainly not DC. This is what I mean by initiative. Catching aircraft on the ground AFTER they've bombed you?

Image

And I'll risk the blowback, and say that Russia is closer to 1991 Iraq than it is 1991 USSR.
Choose Crews
Offline

fidgetspinner

Banned

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post04 Sep 2019, 15:07

xanderscrew wrote:and the Americans will tell you that you can spam cruise missiles all you want, and its still no substitute for an airplane and won't have the effect your hoping for. At best slows down the air offensive but its not going to stop it. It won't win the war, it just slows the inevitable. The US has actually had sustained air campaigns launched from the Central United States. You just rely more on AAR (wouldn't be nice if you had some way of using an aero machine to go after those?) and launch from out of range of cruise missile attack. Its not rocket science (well it is I guess, but pretty basic) just move out of the envelope, and take a little more time wrecking things.


https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3761577.html

Answering a question about the development trends of tactical missile weapons, Boris Obnosov said that in its most general form, it means increasing range, increasing accuracy, noise immunity and improving the cost-effectiveness criterion. Touching on the last criterion, Obnosov noted that today missile weapons are very expensive weapons. But still, the cost of missile weapons remains many times and orders of magnitude lower than the cost of targets. For example, anti-ship missiles X-35UE costs several tens of millions of rubles and weighs 600 kg. And this missile with a probability of 0.7-0.8 hits ships with a displacement of up to 5000 tons worth hundreds of millions and up to a billion dollars or more. Moreover, more than 70–80% of the surface fleet are just ships of this displacement.


But how is any of this going to solve the problem of missiles that have abilities to pierce through air defenses, destroy military aircrafts, destroy bases that hold military equipment with the ease of pushing a button? Out of cruise missile range.... So are the missiles within the 500km range? iskander missiles? What if these go through you defenses and destroy every aircraft out in hangers, refueling stations, etc?

And remember too the original concept behind the B-2 was orbiting over the soviet union hunting mobile missile launchers. and Russia is a shadow of the USSR.


I thought that we are paranoid from allowing our stealth aircrafts to fly near long range SAMs?

but the bottom line is they won't be able to stop the air, which as Corsair has alluded to, hasn't worked out too hot the last 8 decades or so. You catch a few dozen fighters on the ground here or there, sweet. The Japanese sank entire carriers, didn't stop the outcome. In the meantime they're annihilating your infrastructure and power grid. You're trying to swat mad swarming hornets one at a time.


Having 1000s of SAMs some of which are able or designed specifically to hold off aircrafts, air to ground. Some attacks might get through some might not. Now where will those aircrafts go if their refuel stations, air defenses, ammo storage are all up in flames? These aircrafts will have to land eventually right? When they do and there are no assets left to support or defend them they will become easy targets?

A war with Russia would bring THOUSANDS of combat airplanes deploying from all over the globe and ships. you're concept is completely defensive. The hope is that you create enough casualties to make them stop, (not likely theyll just change strategy after a reevaluation) or actually create a scenario where somehow airplanes can't make it near enough to deploy or do anything (word is too big, AAR exists)


Checked the measurements of zircon in comparison to the onix realize that yasen-m with 10 VLS can possibly hold 40 such missiles. How can you stop this submarine launching these missiles 1000kms to target different vessels than slowly subside away? Now there happens to be 2 in plans that have the potential to sink 80 vessels. I have no idea as of where we have the most aircraft at be it the US, Europe or the middle east. Any overseas attempt of carrying aircrafts is a futile effort. Those combat airplanes have places they reside in and can be targeted which again if you start a strike assets that support these aircrafts will be targeted as well.

Where do we concentrate the SAMs? around cities? Military bases? Natural Resources? at the border/frontline to reach deep into NATO territory? Command and Control? Infrastructure? Power? Natural Resources(oil refineries, Mining) ? Imagine only being able to pick 2 or 3 of the above. What are you willing to lose? What gets kept and what gets abdicated? Russia is rather large, they realized the sheer amount of money it costs to be "strong everywhere" with the USSR and they collapsed. its far easier to reposition an airplane 300 miles than a SAM system or a cruise missile system for that matter.


They got a pretty big SAM inventory along with some modernization efforts. The good news on their part is that each aircraft is only allowed to fly 1 sortie with no assets to support them for their trips its literally a one way ticket to hell.
Although may I ask why you are comparing WW2 Japan whom does not have the capabilities of what the Russians currently have today? If I remember correctly I heard that it required NATO flew over 38,000 combat missions. Now tell me of all the aircrafts they have used what if each aircraft is required to fly only 1 mission and that would be it for the war? How much lower would the 38,000 number be?
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5409
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post04 Sep 2019, 17:40

fidgetspinner wrote:Checked the measurements of zircon in comparison to the onix realize that yasen-m with 10 VLS can possibly hold 40 such missiles.


Zircon is right there with Plasma Stealth. I'll believe it when I see it.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5995
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post04 Sep 2019, 21:33

fidgetspinner wrote:
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3761577.html

Answering a question about the development trends of tactical missile weapons, Boris Obnosov said that in its most general form, it means increasing range, increasing accuracy, noise immunity and improving the cost-effectiveness criterion. Touching on the last criterion, Obnosov noted that today missile weapons are very expensive weapons. But still, the cost of missile weapons remains many times and orders of magnitude lower than the cost of targets. For example, anti-ship missiles X-35UE costs several tens of millions of rubles and weighs 600 kg. And this missile with a probability of 0.7-0.8 hits ships with a displacement of up to 5000 tons worth hundreds of millions and up to a billion dollars or more. Moreover, more than 70–80% of the surface fleet are just ships of this displacement.


Munitions are usually cheaper than the targets they destroy. :roll: Youre talking about attrition warfare against a force that can win in attrition. Youre talking economic battle against a nation that will always win the economic battle. not to mention the fact that NATO and the US will have far more munitions in the first place.

Again this is nothing new. the only "revolutionary" part here is the idea theyll make them better and cheaper. which is great but again the US has played the cruise missile spam game and quickly realized the limitations. and this is before we get into the fact that the US and NATO was going to go toe to toe with the USSR even when they had nukes.


But how is any of this going to solve the problem of missiles that have abilities to pierce through air defenses, destroy military aircrafts, destroy bases that hold military equipment with the ease of pushing a button? Out of cruise missile range.... So are the missiles within the 500km range? iskander missiles? What if these go through you defenses and destroy every aircraft out in hangers, refueling stations, etc?



Then we move the aircraft further awat and fly in, were we not clear about that? You want to keep pummeling an already destroyed base be my guest, but if its already pulverized theyre not going to be using it anymore.

Our missiles hit at 500KM!!

cool, we park at 600 KM. fly a whole 100 KM more. pretty basic. Change the numbers all you please, we just keep moving.

plus again the Allies are going to be throwing more munitions Russia's way in the first place. it won't be a one way street. Fun fact, the Allies flew more sorties in any one night in 1991 than Iran did for a combined 8 years.

"And remember too the original concept behind the B-2 was orbiting over the soviet union hunting mobile missile launchers. and Russia is a shadow of the USSR. "

I thought that we are paranoid from allowing our stealth aircrafts to fly near long range SAMs?


read your history.

Having 1000s of SAMs some of which are able or designed specifically to hold off aircrafts, air to ground. Some attacks might get through some might not. Now where will those aircrafts go if their refuel stations, air defenses, ammo storage are all up in flames? These aircrafts will have to land eventually right? When they do and there are no assets left to support or defend them they will become easy targets?


its already been explained. Russia doesn't have the capacity to knock out every airfield.

You keep thinking youve stumbled onto some unstoppable tactic. Its pretty basic actually. Congratulations on discovering the concept of logistics and sustainment.


"A war with Russia would bring THOUSANDS of combat airplanes deploying from all over the globe and ships. you're concept is completely defensive. The hope is that you create enough casualties to make them stop, (not likely theyll just change strategy after a reevaluation) or actually create a scenario where somehow airplanes can't make it near enough to deploy or do anything (word is too big, AAR exists)"

Checked the measurements of zircon in comparison to the onix realize that yasen-m with 10 VLS can possibly hold 40 such missiles. How can you stop this submarine launching these missiles 1000kms to target different vessels than slowly subside away? Now there happens to be 2 in plans that have the potential to sink 80 vessels. I have no idea as of where we have the most aircraft at be it the US, Europe or the middle east. Any overseas attempt of carrying aircrafts is a futile effort. Those combat airplanes have places they reside in and can be targeted which again if you start a strike assets that support these aircrafts will be targeted as well.


Ive been hearing about the Russian Uber weapons my whole life. This is new and exciting.

They got a pretty big SAM inventory along with some modernization efforts. The good news on their part is that each aircraft is only allowed to fly 1 sortie with no assets to support them for their trips its literally a one way ticket to hell.
Although may I ask why you are comparing WW2 Japan whom does not have the capabilities of what the Russians currently have today? If I remember correctly I heard that it required NATO flew over 38,000 combat missions. Now tell me of all the aircrafts they have used what if each aircraft is required to fly only 1 mission and that would be it for the war? How much lower would the 38,000 number be?



Japan is irrelevant because you have one side (Japan) playing defense with no way of shutting down the enemies running spigot of war material while theirs slows to a trickle. meaning their fate was sealed it was just a matter of how long it took and how many of them got killed. On one side every tank man and machine was irreplaceable and on the other side everything was replaced and then some. Rommel said fighting without the control of the air was like playing chess but the enemy got to take two turns instead of one. Its only a matter of when. The outcome is inevitable.

put another way, The Allies will be bombing Moscow, but nothing will be bombing DC. There no far flung back up bases for Russia to deploy aircraft from (which is fine, as youre saying they won't be using aircraft)

I'll save you a lot of typing, your notional concept to win is 3 parts:

Submarines wipping out huge fleets, which takes out the carriers (airfield, floating)

Cruise missiles that take out all the airfields, their logistics, and their aircraft

and a SAM complex that is essentially impenetrable.

All of which have been explained pretty thoroughly, and Russia would keep this up forever. You're trying to angle for a cost based, conventiona,l "guerrilla war"-- it doesn't work like that.


WE could easily go all day with "we will take out all your fuel with our munitions!" and I could respond the exact same way.

Image

and then point out of course that Russia has fewer hiding places, no unreachable factories or airbases etc, but NATO and the Allies certainly do. Russia will control its own battlespace, but also the air, land, and sea from hundreds of miles away in 3 separate theaters. with no tanks, troops, or planes; but using missiles, SAMs and Subs guided by satelite and OTH radar. nope. sorry.



sferrin wrote:
fidgetspinner wrote:Checked the measurements of zircon in comparison to the onix realize that yasen-m with 10 VLS can possibly hold 40 such missiles.


Zircon is right there with Plasma Stealth. I'll believe it when I see it.



IT never gets old. I love the Russian Uber weapons from plasma stealth to the FLIR BAll eye of SAuron to Firefox. Are you thinking in Russian Comrade?
Choose Crews
Offline

fidgetspinner

Banned

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post05 Sep 2019, 01:10

Munitions are usually cheaper than the targets they destroy. Youre talking about attrition warfare against a force that can win in attrition. Youre talking economic battle against a nation that will always win the economic battle. not to mention the fact that NATO and the US will have far more munitions in the first place.


Does not really matter who has more munitions or missiles than the other country the important question is are the numbers sufficient enough to wipe out every defense asset there is against their rivals?

plus again the Allies are going to be throwing more munitions Russia's way in the first place. it won't be a one way street. Fun fact, the Allies flew more sorties in any one night in 1991 than Iran did for a combined 8 years.


Sorry for this goofball statement. If russia destroys every defense asset of NATO and NATO destroys every defense asset of Russia who do you think loses the most money in investments of multi-billion or million dollar military projects?

its already been explained. Russia doesn't have the capacity to knock out every airfield.
You keep thinking youve stumbled onto some unstoppable tactic. Its pretty basic actually. Congratulations on discovering the concept of logistics and sustainment.


Geez throughout our entire history of warfare of the countries we have engaged I am actually wondering why none of them have 1000km missiles? Air fields can be monitored with enough missiles to destroy refuel stations and ammunition deposites. In fact the moment the aircrafts land they will get hit by Ground to ground missiles. a few tomahawks have destroyed some outdated migs in syria. Wonder what a few missiles from the russians would end up destroying 100 million dollar aircrafts. I think someone with less than the GDP of california can do this?

and then point out of course that Russia has fewer hiding places, no unreachable factories or airbases etc, but NATO and the Allies certainly do. Russia will control its own battlespace, but also the air, land, and sea from hundreds of miles away in 3 separate theaters. with no tanks, troops, or planes; but using missiles, SAMs and Subs guided by satelite and OTH radar. nope. sorry.


Things I have not said you think I have said which is hiding spots and that they will not use tanks, troops or aircrafts. I will try to make it more clear for you. sufficient amount of SAMs to deal with aerial targets, target aerial target locations immediately leaving behind no airforce. Targetting any overseas naval support meaning no aircrafts with a sufficient range to fly overseas or the worries of ships launching missiles or the worries of crossing through siberia for example sending F-22s that wont have the range to make it to moscow running out of fuel and sending a missile straight there way. This basically leaves the battlefield to what is on the mainland I do not have confidence in Europes current air defenses or missile technology, majority of Russias rocket launchers and missiles already outrange what they have got. Not a good sufficient ground force either. To me they will have enough force to take control of Europe.

IT never gets old. I love the Russian Uber weapons from plasma stealth to the FLIR BAll eye of SAuron to Firefox. Are you thinking in Russian Comrade?


What are you going to say next? The US astronauts are communists for wanting to Russian rocket engines to space? Its not my fault if one country lacks critical thinking over the other in a certain field of expertise. :roll:

@sferrin

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airpl ... hyper.html

The chief characteristic of hypersonic aerodynamics is that the temperature of the flow is so great that the chemistry of the diatomic molecules of the air must be considered. At low hypersonic speeds, the molecular bonds vibrate, which changes the magnitude of the forces generated by the air on the aircraft. At high hypersonic speeds, the molecules break apart producing an electrically charged plasma around the aircraft. Large variations in air density and pressure occur because of shock waves, and expansions.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5995
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post05 Sep 2019, 01:54

fidgetspinner wrote:@xanderscrew

"Munitions are usually cheaper than the targets they destroy. Youre talking about attrition warfare against a force that can win in attrition. Youre talking economic battle against a nation that will always win the economic battle. not to mention the fact that NATO and the US will have far more munitions in the first place."

Does not really matter who has more munitions or missiles than the other country the important question is are the numbers sufficient enough to wipe out every defense asset there is against their rivals?

"plus again the Allies are going to be throwing more munitions Russia's way in the first place. it won't be a one way street. Fun fact, the Allies flew more sorties in any one night in 1991 than Iran did for a combined 8 years. "

Sorry for this goofball statement. If russia destroys every defense asset of NATO and NATO destroys every defense asset of Russia who do you think loses the most money in investments of multi-billion or million dollar military projects?

"its already been explained. Russia doesn't have the capacity to knock out every airfield.
You keep thinking youve stumbled onto some unstoppable tactic. Its pretty basic actually. Congratulations on discovering the concept of logistics and sustainment. "

Geez throughout our entire history of warfare of the countries we have engaged I am actually wondering why none of them have 1000km missiles? Air fields can be monitored with enough missiles to destroy refuel stations and ammunition deposites. In fact the moment the aircrafts land they will get hit by Ground to ground missiles. a few tomahawks have destroyed some outdated migs in syria. Wonder what a few missiles from the russians would end up destroying 100 million dollar aircrafts. I think someone with less than the GDP of california can do this?

"and then point out of course that Russia has fewer hiding places, no unreachable factories or airbases etc, but NATO and the Allies certainly do. Russia will control its own battlespace, but also the air, land, and sea from hundreds of miles away in 3 separate theaters. with no tanks, troops, or planes; but using missiles, SAMs and Subs guided by satelite and OTH radar. nope. sorry. "

Things I have not said you think I have said which is hiding spots and that they will not use tanks, troops or aircrafts. I will try to make it more clear for you. sufficient amount of SAMs to deal with aerial targets, target aerial target locations immediately leaving behind no airforce. Targetting any overseas naval support meaning no aircrafts with a sufficient range to fly overseas or the worries of ships launching missiles or the worries of crossing through siberia for example sending F-22s that wont have the range to make it to moscow running out of fuel and sending a missile straight there way. This basically leaves the battlefield to what is on the mainland I do not have confidence in Europes current air defenses or missile technology, majority of Russias rocket launchers and missiles already outrange what they have got. Not a good sufficient ground force either. To me they will have enough force to take control of Europe.
.


AAR is infinite, silly. and as explained we can and have launched sustained bombing campaigns from the central US before.

Look, its really simple, you think they'll have enough recon and perfect timing and endless missiles that NATO won't somehow be able to strike back, despite NATOs and the US's tremendous advantage in nearly every aspect you say would be critical to winning. the entire concept is basically just rocket artillery on steroids youre going to need an unbelievable amount of weapons in order to consistently knock out every airfield in the entire European subcontinent alone. even this gem:


If russia destroys every defense asset of NATO and NATO destroys every defense asset of Russia who do you think loses the most money in investments of multi-billion or million dollar military projects?


LOL so if both sides lose everything Russia actually wins because they're stuff was cheap, expendable, garbage anyway and they don't care about the human costs, so jokes on you NATO! :lmao: if you spend less money in losing you actually secretly win?? Russia gets even poorer, the West rebuilds. (familiar script actually) thats not victory. The idea that "win" war because they killed $9 billion of your stuff and you killed $10 billion of theirs is laughably flawed you should be ashamed. I typically see this brand of "money logic" from strategy amateurs who think they've discovered some new hidden flaw and If you spend $50 equipping your peasant soldier, but then a $52 depleted uranium 30MM explodes him him all over the battlefield, you're really 2 dollars ahead and secretly winning the war, because theres just no way they could ever just keep spending more money to kill your people, when they have vastly more money to burn and don't really tire of killing your troops, taking your cities, and hoisting their expensive flags all over. besides think how much money they waste burying your dead! And all the smoke from your annihilated war machine? Thats gonna cause cancer in 30 years. So we will see who gets the last laugh amiright?

So its just my way of saying, "I hear you trying, but its completely unfeasible and flawed from start to finish. But thanks anyway"
Last edited by XanderCrews on 05 Sep 2019, 03:39, edited 1 time in total.
Choose Crews
Offline

fidgetspinner

Banned

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post05 Sep 2019, 02:05

Look, its really simple, you think they'll have enough recon and perfect timing and endless missiles that NATO won't somehow be able to strike back, despite NATOs and the US's tremendous advantage in nearly every aspect you say would be critical to winning. the entire concept is basically just rocket artillery on steroids. even this gem:


How much do 80 russian missiles cost in comparison to 80 USN vessels? how much would 1 missile cost in their inventory in comparison to 1 F-35? Not saying that Russia should have more missiles just the right amount to deal with critical infrastructures.

LOL so if both sides lose everything Russia actually wins because they're stuff was cheap, expendable, garbage anyway and they don't care about the human costs, so jokes on you NATO! if you spend less money in losing you actually secretly win?? Russia gets even poorer, the West rebuilds. (familiar script actually)


I did not say Russia would actually win, I am just saying the financial costs would be heavier for NATO well acknowledging that both sides lose that's it.
Last edited by fidgetspinner on 05 Sep 2019, 03:05, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3270
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post05 Sep 2019, 19:36

fidgetspinner wrote:
How much do 80 russian missiles cost in comparison to 80 USN vessels? how much would 1 missile cost in their inventory in comparison to 1 F-35? Not saying that Russia should have more missiles just the right amount to deal with critical infrastructures..

It's going to take a lot more than 80 missiles to take out 80 ships. You're assuming that not only every missile hits it's target, but that it has a 100% Pk. You're also assuming a high survival rate for the launch platforms of these missiles. It's dumb comparing the price of a single use missile, to that of an aircraft that can be used over and over for decades. Russian C2/ISR is nowhere near as capable or robust as US/NATO systems.
Last edited by wrightwing on 06 Sep 2019, 15:29, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

juretrn

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 417
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09
  • Location: Slovenia

Unread post05 Sep 2019, 23:11

Zajeta slika.JPG


I have a feeling I'm not missing anything...
I think I'll reserve the destruction of my brain cells to a nice beer instead.
Russia stronk
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4484
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post05 Sep 2019, 23:12

Forget an ignore list, they are banned.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 813
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post07 Sep 2019, 22:10

@XanderCrews

Don't use USSR as example, USSR military might was created on paranoiac base, which is logical if you look trough what they go in wars. Good example how paranoiac they were (political and military leadership) is Buran program. Even though scientists, engineers and even spies explain them Space Shuttle as space bomber is nonsense, they want space bomber because one of role of Space Shuttle was that and because USA hide that capability it surely have it!

So they forced soviet space program folks to build one even though no one in space program wanted to build system which would have 50tons of dead weight in start!
Offline

laos

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 97
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2009, 15:32
  • Location: Europe

Unread post08 Sep 2019, 07:20

The Egyptian operation of crossing the Suez Canal in 1973 is an example that you can successfully conduct an offensive operation without the use of aviation. SAMs provided protection for Egyptian land forces from superior Israel Air Force. Israel had to use tanks to destroy Egyptian SAMs. Israeli tanks provided “air superiority” over the Suez Canal.

Russian armed forces use artillery, including rocket artillery, to conduct strikes that in US are perform by Air Force. It’s nothing new. Systems like BM-27 entered Russian Army in 70s and BM-30 and SS-21 Scarab in 80s.

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests