Did you know the Russians built a space shuttle in the soviet days?Typhoon wrote:CSM | Grounded? Russia's answer to US next-gen fighter hits the skids.
Looks like the Russians stole a few secrets too manyThe Kremlin is cutting its initial production of the Sukhoi T-50 fighter by 75 percent amid cost overruns and rumored technical concerns – the same kind of issues that have plagued US development of the F-35.
Do you know the Soviet shuttle, contrarily to the American one, was fully automatic and could operate and land - as it did - without a crew? From which US agency did they steal that capability?...Doc wrote:
Did you know the Russians built a space shuttle in the soviet days?
The Buran was a classic example of "we don't know what the Americans are going to do with it, but we should steal the plans and build one of our own, just in case"Endovelico wrote:Do you know the Soviet shuttle, contrarily to the American one, was fully automatic and could operate and land - as it did - without a crew? From which US agency did they steal that capability?...Doc wrote:
Did you know the Russians built a space shuttle in the soviet days?
In the case of the T-50, it is not possible to speak of a near-clone, like Tu-144 or Buran. T-50 is neither clone to F-22 nor to JSF.Typhoon wrote:CSM | Grounded? Russia's answer to US next-gen fighter hits the skids.
Looks like the Russians stole a few secrets too many
Some people are so often way off the mark, so obsessed by their hatred of Russia, that it is a waste of time trying to answer their bizarre arguments. They don't know the difference between sense and nonsense, between logic and illogic, between a reasoned argument and crude propaganda... Completely hopeless...Alexis wrote:In the case of the T-50, it is not possible to speak of a near-clone, like Tu-144 or Buran. T-50 is neither clone to F-22 nor to JSF.Typhoon wrote:CSM | Grounded? Russia's answer to US next-gen fighter hits the skids.
Looks like the Russians stole a few secrets too many
However, it's one more example of the rule that who attempts to use the Lockheed Martin formula of stealth aircraft will run into serious, possibly fatal problems.
The F-22 was eventually completed, but at a much inflated cost and widely outside schedule. LM tried to re-do same on turbo with F-35 and they did exactly that: F-35 is such a clusterf*ck that it will most probably never be completed.
Good luck to Russians on puting T-50 on F-22 rather than on F-35 way... and as far as Chinese J-20 and J-31 are concerned
But "some people" will insist that the US and NATO did nothing wrong and that Russia has overreacted to a quite harmless development...NATO promises not to expand East
March 29, 2015
Full text at the link below
NATO website contains the text of a speech of then Secretary General of the bloc, Manfred Worner, in Brussels on May 17, 1990:
"NATO and European security in the 1990's" http://nato.int/docu/speech/1990/s900517a_e.htm
He swears that after United Germany enters NATO there will be no further advance to the East.
http://i079.radikal.ru/1503/7b/b9d7383a8005.jpg
Since then, 12 countries of Eastern Europe joined NATO. Moreover, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic - under Yeltsin, when the "evil Putin" was not even a thought, but there were loud debates about when will Russia finally collapse.
Western politicians are too stupid to believe this. But maybe we, common people, should give it some thought. Overconfidence is the main cause of death in any war, and NATO has an oversupply of it... Let's hope we never put it to the test... And I'm not speaking out of concern for my own safety. Have you seen in the map where Portugal is?...NATO Would Probably Lose a War Against Russia
Shellback Sat, Dec 6
With the hyper-aggressive resolution just passed by the US House of Representatives we move closer to open war. Thus what follows may be apposite. In short, the US and NATO, accustomed to cheap and easy victories (at least in the short term – over the long term Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo are hardly victories), will have a shattering shock should they ever fight the Russian Armed Forces.
At the beginning of my career, in the 1970s, I spent some years engaged in combat simulations. Most of these exercises were for training staff officers but some were done in-house to test out some weapon or tactic. The scenario was usually the same: we, NATO, the good guys, Blue, would be deployed, usually in Germany; that is, on the eastern edge of West Germany. There we would be attacked by the Warsaw Pact, the bad guys, Red. (The colors, by the way, date from the very first war game, Kriegspiel; nothing to do with the Communist Party’s favorite color).
Over several years of being on the control staff I noticed two things. Naturally both Red and Blue were played by our people, however interesting it might have been to borrow some Soviet officers to play Red. What always fascinated me was how quickly the people playing Red would start getting aggressive. Their fellow officers, on the Blue side, were very risk-averse, slow and cautious. The Red players just drove down the road and didn’t mind losing a tank, let alone a tank company. What was really interesting (we tested this in the office, so to speak) was that, at the end of the day, the full speed ahead approach produced fewer casualties than the cautious approach. The other thing – rather chilling this – was that Red always won. Always. And rather quickly.
I developed a great respect for the Soviet war-fighting doctrine. I don’t know whether it was based on traditional Russian doctrine but it certainly had been perfected in the Second World War where the Soviets carried out what are probably the largest land operations ever conducted. Nothing could be farther from the truth than the casual Western idea that the Soviets sent waves of men against the Germans until they ran out of ammunition and were trampled under the next wave. Once the Soviets got going, they were very good indeed.
The Soviet war-fighting doctrine that I saw in the exercises had several characteristics. The first thing that was clear is that the Soviets knew that people are killed in wars and that there is no place for wavering; hesitation loses the war and gets more people killed in the end. Secondly, success is reinforced and failure left to itself. “Viktor Suvorov”, a Soviet defector, wrote that he used to pose a problem to NATO officers. You have four battalions, three attacking and one in reserve; the battalion on the left has broken through easily, the one in the middle can break through with a little more effort, the one on the right is stopped. Which one do you reinforce with your reserve battalion? He claimed that no NATO officer ever gave the correct answer. Which was, forget the middle and right battalions, reinforce success; the fourth battalion goes to help the lefthand one and, furthermore, you take away the artillery support from the other two and give it to the battalion on the left. Soviet war-fighting doctrine divided their forces into echelons, or waves. In the case above, not only would the fourth battalion go to support the lefthand battalion but the followup regiments would be sent there too. Breakthroughs are reinforced and exploited with stunning speed and force. General von Mellenthin speaks of this in his book Panzer Battles when he says that any Soviet river crossing must be attacked immediately with whatever the defender has; any delay brings more and more Soviet soldiers swimming, wading or floating across. They reinforce success no matter what. The third point was the tremendous amount of high explosives that Soviet artillery could drop on a position. In this respect, the BM-21 Grad, about which I have written before, was a particular standout, but they had plenty of guns as well.
An especially important point, given a common US and NATO assumption, is that the Soviets did not assume that they would always have total air superiority. The biggest hole, in my opinion, of US and NATO war-fighting doctrine is this assumption. US tactics often seem to be little more than the instruction to wait for the air to get the ground forces out of trouble (maybe that’s why US-trained forces do so poorly against determined foes). Indeed, when did the Americans ever have to fight without total air superiority other than, perhaps, their very first experience in World War II? The Western Allies in Italy, at D-day and Normandy and the subsequent fighting could operate confident that almost every aircraft in the sky was theirs. This confident arrogance has, if anything, grown stronger since then with short wars in which the aircraft all come home. The Soviets never had this luxury – they always knew they would have to fight for air superiority and would have to operate in conditions where they didn’t have it. And, General Chuikov at Stalingrad “hugging the enemy”, they devised tactics that minimized the effectiveness of enemy aircraft. The Russians forces have not forgotten that lesson today and that is probably why their air defense is so good.
NATO commanders will be in for a shattering shock when their aircraft start falling in quantity and the casualties swiftly mount into the thousands and thousands. After all, we are told that the Kiev forces lost two thirds of their military equipment against fighters with a fraction of Russia’s assets, but with the same fighting style.
But, getting back to the scenarios of the Cold War. Defending NATO forces would be hit by an unimaginably savage artillery attack, with, through the dust, a huge force of attackers pushing on. The NATO units that repelled their attackers would find a momentary peace on their part of the battlefield while the ones pushed back would immediately be attacked by fresh forces three times the size of the first ones and even heavier bombardments. The situation would become desperate very quickly.
No wonder they always won and no wonder the NATO officer playing Red, following the simple instructions of push ahead resolutely, reinforce success, use all you artillery all the time, would win the day.
I don’t wish to be thought to be saying that the Soviets would have “got to the the English Channel in 48 hours” as the naysayers were fond of warning. In fact, the Soviets had a significant Achilles Heel. In the rear of all this would have been an unimaginably large traffic jam. Follow-up echelons running their engines while commanders tried to figure out where they should be sent, thousands of trucks carrying fuel and ammunition waiting to cross bridges, giant artillery parks, concentrations of engineering equipment never quite in the right place at the right time. And more arriving every moment. A ground-attack pilot’s dream. The NATO Air-Land Battle doctrine being developed would have gone some distance to even things up again. But it would have been a tremendously destructive war, even forgetting the nuclear weapons (which would also be somewhere in the traffic jam).
As for the Soviets on the defense, (something we didn’t game because NATO, in those days, was a defensive alliance) the Battle of Kursk is probably the model still taught today: hold the attack with layer after layer of defenses, then, at the right moment, the overwhelming attack at the weak spot. The classic attack model is probably Autumn Storm.
All of this rugged and battle proven doctrine and methodology is somewhere in the Russian Army today. We didn't see it in the first Chechen War – only overconfidence and incompetence. Some of it in the Second Chechen War. More of it in the Ossetia War. They’re getting it back. And they are exercising it all the time.
Light-hearted people in NATO or elsewhere should never forget that it’s a war-fighting doctrine that does not require absolute air superiority to succeed and knows that there are no cheap victories. It’s also a very, very successful one with many victories to its credit. (Yes, they lost in Afghanistan but the West didn’t do any better.)
I seriously doubt that NATO has anything to compare: quick air campaigns against third-rate enemies yes. This sort of thing, not so much.
Even if, somehow, the nukes are kept in the box.
To quote Field Marshal Montgomery “Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: ‘Do not march on Moscow’. Various people have tried it, Napoleon and Hitler, and it is no good. That is the first rule.”
(His second rule, by the way, was: “Do not go fighting with your land armies in China.” As Washington’s policy drives Moscow and Beijing closer together.... But that is another subject).
http://russia-insider.com/en/history_mi ... nst_russia
It has been damn difficult to get this article, as it is behind pay-walls everywhere, as if the western press didn't want it to be read by too many people...Putin: try to take Crimea away and I will give you a nuclear war
Ben Hoyle - The Times - April 02, 2015 9:12AM
The Ukraine crisis has brought the world closer to nuclear war than at any point for a generation, according to an account of a secret meeting between Russian and American military and intelligence figures.
As President Putin celebrated the anniversary of the annexation of Crimea on March 18 with an appearance at a concert outside the Kremlin, a group of retired Russian generals sat down in Torgau, Germany, with a group of their American counterparts. The assembled Russians once ran the interior ministry, the military directorate in charge of nuclear weapons, the GRU (Russian military intelligence) and the FSB (the main successor agency to the KGB). The American individuals present had similar backgrounds in the military, CIA and Defence Intelligence Agency.
Behind closed doors, over two days, the Russians delivered a series of blunt warnings from Moscow that reveal just how precarious Europe’s security has become over the past year, and how broad the gulf between the Kremlin and the West now is.
The US party at the Elbe Group talks appears to have been surprised to discover that Russian security experts believe that the US is bent on destroying their country — and that Russia is both entitled and fully prepared to use nuclear force to defend itself. That point of view reflects both Mr Putin’s assessment of Russia’s vulnerability and the KGB background shared by him and his closest advisers, according to Kremlin insiders.
Swaggering nuclear rhetoric has increasingly permeated Russian life. In a recent documentary, Mr Putin said that when he gave the instruction to annex Crimea, he also ordered that Russia’s nuclear forces be placed on full alert.
He has referred to Russia’s nuclear might many times since the Ukraine crisis began, including in remarks to a group of schoolchildren in August, when he reminded them that “Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers”, and “it’s best not to mess with us”.
Notes of the Elbe Group meeting indicate some areas where the Kremlin is open to dialogue, namely on the “future nature and composition” of the contested territory in eastern Ukraine which, the generals say, Russia wants to see become “an autonomous entity in a confederated Ukraine”.
However, they also show the detailed thinking behind the nuclear bluster. Among the “key messages delivered by Russian participants” was a warning that any military move by the West on Crimea would trigger a Russian response, possibly involving nuclear force. “The United States should also understand it would also be at risk.”
The Russian delegation said that any NATO build-up in the Baltics would prompt an increase in Russia’s “nuclear posture”, according to notes drawn up by a US participant. The warning is baldly recounted: “Russia will use its nuclear weapons against NATO.”
When discussing possible Russian action in the Baltics, it reported: “Russian members mentioned a spectrum of responses from nuclear to non-military.”
The most trenchant Russian remarks on eastern Europe were delivered by the former military intelligence chief Valentin Korabelnikov, who remains a senior adviser to the defence ministry. Since the GRU masterminded the annexation of Crimea, he is likely to have been involved in the planning. He said that the biggest threat to Russia was US activity along its borders, according to notes taken by Kevin Ryan, a retired US brigadier-general who served as defence attaché in Moscow.
Russia regards the US as an ailing superpower which is trying to create crisis situations to preserve its position of strategic superiority around the world. NATO expansion to the borders of Russia, including “NATO troop deployments in eastern Europe and the Balkans” could lead to unpredictable situations. “For nuclear powers, this is particularly dangerous.”
Russia also believes that “Ukraine could be a launching point” for unleashing fascist and Islamic extremist groups against Moscow. The “fight for resources in the Arctic” was another Russian security concern.
The Elbe Group forum was set up to improve mutual understanding between the two countries’ military and intelligence agencies, and has met six times in five years.
The Russian delegation was briefed by Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, about what messages to deliver to the Americans, according to its leader, Anatoly Kulikov, the former minister of the interior. Mr Kulikov said that Mr Putin had been briefed.
Both delegations agreed that there was a growing risk of an accidental clash between Russian and US or NATO troops in eastern Europe which could lead to “unintended escalation” and devastating consequences for the world at large.
In language that recalled the darkest days of the Cold War, they urged their respective administrations to set up a military hotline to defuse such escalations by allowing “both sides to quickly and accurately establish the facts surrounding an accident” so that commanders on the ground could “communicate with each other in a manner that avoids combat”.
The report’s conclusions, written from a US perspective, emphasise Russia’s interest in trying to involve the US in legitimising the new status quo in Ukraine. The American conclusions play down the threat of nuclear attack, suggesting that the Russians “threaten nuclear war in an effort to shock the US back to the table”.
More than 6,000 people have been killed since a Russian-backed uprising began in east Ukraine a year ago. The fighting is in a lull at the moment, with a ceasefire largely holding, but there are widespread concerns that violence will flare again with the arrival of summer.
President Obama has so far resisted a growing clamour in Washington to provide Kiev with lethal military aid to defend itself against the rebels.
The Times
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo ... 7289725875
Better sit down while you wait...Parodite wrote:Indeed the West should read this as it's the best news so far; Silly Puti theatens with nuclear MAD.. further signalling his desperation and pending decay. Why is he desperate? Because his position in Russia is at stake. I won't be surprised if he gets whacked rather soon by people in his direct environment.
Yep.. that's all I need to do.Endovelico wrote:Better sit down while you wait...Parodite wrote:Indeed the West should read this as it's the best news so far; Silly Puti theatens with nuclear MAD.. further signalling his desperation and pending decay. Why is he desperate? Because his position in Russia is at stake. I won't be surprised if he gets whacked rather soon by people in his direct environment.
I'm amazed at your inside information on Russia... But you seem to forget that Russians are not Western Europeans. Their idea of a good leader is somewhat different from ours... I wouldn't be surprised if they would keep reelecting Putin as long as he lives. They may even make him a Tsar...Parodite wrote:Seriously... try walk in Putin's shoes. He is the "leader"of Russia, but it is only the crime syndicates and their oligarch associates that leave him in power for as long he is useful to them. It scares the lavender out of him. His position is inherently extremely vulnerable, he is trapped.
This is not about elections aqa "elections" but about the criminal Olgarchy on which Putin depends. When the price of his political adventures becomes too high for his sponsors they have ways to get rid of him. That is the Russian way.Endovelico wrote:I'm amazed at your inside information on Russia... But you seem to forget that Russians are not Western Europeans. Their idea of a good leader is somewhat different from ours... I wouldn't be surprised if they would keep reelecting Putin as long as he lives. They may even make him a Tsar...Parodite wrote:Seriously... try walk in Putin's shoes. He is the "leader"of Russia, but it is only the crime syndicates and their oligarch associates that leave him in power for as long he is useful to them. It scares the lavender out of him. His position is inherently extremely vulnerable, he is trapped.
You and many people in Europe and in the US seem to ignore a major difference between Russia and the West: while in the West economic power controls political power, in Russia it's the other way around. What you call oligarchs are primarily political agents who control a good deal of the economy, but their first concern is political. In the West oligarchs want primarily to make money, and thus control politicians in order to have policies favouring their financial interests. The only oligarchs who would want to get rid of Putin are the Western oligarchs. Russian oligarchs see Putin as their number one asset, considering their political objectives.Parodite wrote:This is not about elections aqa "elections" but about the criminal Olgarchy on which Putin depends. When the price of his political adventures becomes too high for his sponsors they have ways to get rid of him. That is the Russian way.Endovelico wrote:I'm amazed at your inside information on Russia... But you seem to forget that Russians are not Western Europeans. Their idea of a good leader is somewhat different from ours... I wouldn't be surprised if they would keep reelecting Putin as long as he lives. They may even make him a Tsar...Parodite wrote:Seriously... try walk in Putin's shoes. He is the "leader"of Russia, but it is only the crime syndicates and their oligarch associates that leave him in power for as long he is useful to them. It scares the lavender out of him. His position is inherently extremely vulnerable, he is trapped.
The political objectives of Russian oligarchs are entirely and only in the service of their private business interests. Putin however is in a much more difficult and vulnerable position because he has to play simultaneously different games; servicing not only his oligarchs, the crime syndicates working with those oligarchs, but also the Russian voting public as well as the international political environment. Some like to see Putin as a brilliant player... whatever you think of him... but to me his behavior resembles that of a cornered cat who is losing control.Endovelico wrote:You and many people in Europe and in the US seem to ignore a major difference between Russia and the West: while in the West economic power controls political power, in Russia it's the other way around. What you call oligarchs are primarily political agents who control a good deal of the economy, but their first concern is political. In the West oligarchs want primarily to make money, and thus control politicians in order to have policies favouring their financial interests. The only oligarchs who would want to get rid of Putin are the Western oligarchs. Russian oligarchs see Putin as their number one asset, considering their political objectives.Parodite wrote:This is not about elections aqa "elections" but about the criminal Olgarchy on which Putin depends. When the price of his political adventures becomes too high for his sponsors they have ways to get rid of him. That is the Russian way.
Time will tell, but you seem to have already made up your mind, based on the most dubious sources...Parodite wrote:The political objectives of Russian oligarchs are entirely and only in the service of their private business interests. Putin however is in a much more difficult and vulnerable position because he has to play simultaneously different games; servicing not only his oligarchs, the crime syndicates working with those oligarchs, but also the Russian voting public as well as the international political environment. Some like to see Putin as a brilliant player... whatever you think of him... but to me his behavior resembles that of a cornered cat who is losing control.Endovelico wrote:You and many people in Europe and in the US seem to ignore a major difference between Russia and the West: while in the West economic power controls political power, in Russia it's the other way around. What you call oligarchs are primarily political agents who control a good deal of the economy, but their first concern is political. In the West oligarchs want primarily to make money, and thus control politicians in order to have policies favouring their financial interests. The only oligarchs who would want to get rid of Putin are the Western oligarchs. Russian oligarchs see Putin as their number one asset, considering their political objectives.Parodite wrote:This is not about elections aqa "elections" but about the criminal Olgarchy on which Putin depends. When the price of his political adventures becomes too high for his sponsors they have ways to get rid of him. That is the Russian way.
AbsolutelyEndovelico wrote:Time will tell,
You have absolutely no idea what various sources I have been indulging in. I even read most of your posts! But that is only because of your very limited psychic powers... so much you are missing.but you seem to have already made up your mind, based on the most dubious sources...
Maybe you will care to enlighten us about your sources...Parodite wrote:You have absolutely no idea what various sources I have been indulging in. I even read most of your posts! But that is only because of your very limited psychic powers... so much you are missing.
I'm sorry.. my sources are classified.Endovelico wrote:Maybe you will care to enlighten us about your sources...Parodite wrote:You have absolutely no idea what various sources I have been indulging in. I even read most of your posts! But that is only because of your very limited psychic powers... so much you are missing.
And filed under "G", for garbage...Parodite wrote:I'm sorry.. my sources are classified.Endovelico wrote:Maybe you will care to enlighten us about your sources...Parodite wrote:You have absolutely no idea what various sources I have been indulging in. I even read most of your posts! But that is only because of your very limited psychic powers... so much you are missing.
I'm not an expert on military matters - although I served for three years, two of which in an operational environment - but I tend to agree with this assessment. Short of a nuclear war, I think the US would have trouble winning a war against any relatively competent opponent. The Ukraine would be the ideal place to prove it...Is American Warfighting Doctrine Hardwired for Failure?
by 'Shellback'
[Shellback is the pseudonym of someone who started working for a NATO military structure in the Brezhnev years]
http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/02/20/3675
In my career working for the defense establishment of a NATO state, I never had much to do with the US armed forces in the field. Except once, in the early 1980s, when I saw the US Army on a big exercise in Germany and was pretty appalled. Lack of basic training, disorganization, criminal behavior (theft and the like), rogue units and an overall lack of military professionalism and competence. That was relatively soon after the Vietnam debacle and the US forces were at a nadir of their existence. Serious efforts were made (I saw a US unit commander summarily fired right then and there for incompetence) and the US forces are much, much better today.
My 35 year old observations serve only to illustrate that even armed forces with a good record can have bad periods after defeats. But armies improve – defeat is a good teacher – and the Americans have improved greatly since their defeat in Vietnam. Their operations in Iraq in 2003 were a masterpiece of logistic and operational perfection. No better illustration can be given than the fact that the Americans captured every single bridge. At every step of the operation, they were inside the Iraqi decision loop. Iraqi tanks were just targets.
But the Iraqi army was hardly a first class opponent and we cannot say that American forces have been up against first class opponents lately. And, if it takes 11 weeks to force little Serbia to give up, or over seven (seven!) months to overthrow Qaddafi, there must be some problem. To say nothing of Iraq or Afghanistan.
I can't get two questions out of my mind:
When was the last time the USA won a war?
When was the last time US trained troops fought effectively?
Spectacularly successful at raining death and destruction in the first few weeks, something goes wrong later. Obviously there is something wrong in the way the USA fights wars. The expansion of political ends bears much responsibility for eventual failure. Consider, for a contrasting example, the 2008 Ossetia War. Russia had one clear aim and that was to roll back the Georgian attack. Postwar, its aim was to make another attack highly unlikely. It did the first quickly and assured the second by recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia and, under agreement, stationing troops there. Then Moscow stopped. There was no attempt to institute regime change in Tbilisi, to introduce Moscow's notions of “democracy” or good government, to conquer Georgia, to turn it into a willing or unwilling ally or to attempt to satisfy any other grandiose desires. Moscow confined itself to the things that can be accomplished by violence and stopped when it had done them.
But what was the US/NATO war aim in Afghanistan? Knocking Taliban out of power – that was brilliantly accomplished, but then year after year of killing, dying and blowing things up to what purpose? Building schools? Giving women the vote? Afghanistan will never be a “Western democracy”. Whatever that is. (Neither would it have become a Soviet style “socialist state”, whatever that was). Knock over Saddam Hussein and destroy his forces? Brilliantly accomplished in short order. But then what? Again, Iraq will never be a “Western democracy”. And so the military achievement is squandered in pursuit of an ever receding chimera.
The fuzzy, but enormous, political aims tacked on after the first week or two destroy the soldiers' victory. As Bismarck said, you can do anything with bayonets except sit on them. But Washington is always trying to sit, indeed trying to sleep comfortably, on them.
But it's not just the ever expanding war aims that lead to defeat; I believe there is a problem at the heart of American warfighting doctrine. The early successes are based on assumptions that do not, over the long term, endure. It is precisely the initial success that encourages politicians to add the fuzzy political ambitions that lead, in their turn, to failure. The eventual failure is determined in the initial success.
I believe that this problem also answers the second question about the failure of US trained troops. We have just seen the Iraqi army that the US expended so much time and treasure training fold in front of ISIS warriors. The latest in a long string of failures. I believe that the answer to both questions is the same.
Air power and weapons.
Air power first. The US armed forces are used to operating in conditions in which almost every aircraft in the sky is friendly. Indeed, since the very first days of WWII, when have they ever had to fear air attack? And for decades now they have assumed, correctly, that every aircraft they see is friendly. They can go where they like confident that no one is tracking them from above, no one is sighting in on them from above and that, in trouble, they can call in tremendous destruction from the air. They kill their enemies – You Tube is full of videos – from the air without the enemy even knowing he's taken his last breath. They operate confident that the enemy's command and control system was destroyed in the first few days by air attack. And that, I believe, is the basic assumption of their warfighting doctrine – you never have to worry about what's above you. And that's what they – consciously or unconsciously – pass on to the armies they train. “If you get into trouble wait for the air to save you”. But you can only be certain of total air superiority against second or third class opponents. And only for a while: really determined opponents will figure out way to operate anyway.
Secondly, weapons. Americans believe that weapons win wars. And more sophisticated weapons win them faster and easier. But that's not true. Obviously you need weapons to fight wars. Equally obviously Mongol cavalry with compound bows are at a severe disadvantage against Abrams tanks. But what really wins wars is fighting spirit, leadership, determination, organization, adaptability. The moral factors. Mongol cavalry would soon learn to avoid the tanks and shoot the crews when they got out of them. And, indeed, we have seen this and the Pentagon ought to know it by now. Vietnam. Somalia. Iraq. Afghanistan. That's enough, isn't it, to prove my point? The determined little guy often beats the sophisticated big guy. Weapons are necessary, but they're not sufficient. Senator John McCain believes that weapons are decisive and that's why he wants the USA to send weapons to Ukraine. But first estimates say the rebels have captured 80 tanks, 100 other AFVs, 65 artillery systems and 500 tons of ammunition in Debaltsevo. So, to arm Kiev is really, at the end of the day, to arm the rebels. Why? Simply because weapons are useless in feeble hands.
I leave aside the question of what would happen should the Americans come up against first class opponents and American aircraft start falling in dozens and American troops are subject to mass air attack. All with weapons which, while not perhaps quite as fancy as US ones, are rugged, adaptable and get the job done.
I won't talk about careerism and ticket punching and what you need to do to be promoted in today's American forces and the resulting quality of leadership. I don't know anything about it and leave the reader to consider better informed pieces such as this one.
In short, I don't think the Americans are nearly as good as they think they are – they've been spoiled by success (initial success that is) against second and third rate enemies which are swiftly overwhelmed by their air power and fancy weapons. Overwhelmed in the first few weeks; after that it's different.
Maybe the US armed forces are a lot closer to what I saw in the early 1980s in Germany than is believed by the rah rah people in Washington.
Time to stop Western hubris... And time for Europe to recognize where its interest lays...New S-500 Anti-Missile Missile Will Seal Russia Airspace
by Pepe Escobar
http://russia-insider.com/en/new-s-500- ... space/5497
Some sectors of U.S. Think Tankland – with their cozy CIA ties – are now hedging their bets about Cold War 2.0, out of fear that they have misjudged what really happens on the geopolitical chessboard.
I’ve just returned from Moscow, and there’s a feeling the Federal Security Bureau and Russian military intelligence are increasingly fed up with the endless stream of Washington/NATO provocations – from the Baltics to Central Asia, from Poland to Romania, from Azerbaijan to Turkey.
This is an extensive but still only partial summary of what’s seen all across Russia as an existential threat: Washington/NATO’s intent to block Russia’s Eurasian trade and development; destroy its defense perimeter; and entice it into a shooting war.
A shooting war is not exactly a brilliant idea. Russia’s S-500 anti-missile missiles and anti-aircraft missiles can intercept any existing ICBM, cruise missile or aircraft. S-500s travel at 15,480 miles an hour; reach an altitude of 115 miles; travel horizontally 2,174 miles; and can intercept up to ten incoming missiles. They simply cannot be stopped by any American anti-missile system.
Some on the U.S. side say the S-500 system is being rolled out in a crash program, as an American intel source told Asia Times. There’s been no Russian confirmation. Officially, Moscow says the system is slated to be rolled out in 2017. End result, now or later: it will seal Russian airspace. It’s easy to draw the necessary conclusions.
That makes the Obama administration’s “policy” of promoting war hysteria, coupled with unleashing a sanction, ruble and oil war against Russia, the work of a bunch of sub-zoology specimens.
Some adults in the EU have already seen the writing on the (nuclear) wall. NATO’s conventional defenses are a joke. Any military buildup – as it’s happening now – is also a joke, as it could be demolished by the 5,000 tactical nuclear weapons Moscow would be able to use.
This is a Russian assessment and should be taken seriously. Europeans should be aware of the risks they have taken by becoming unnecessarily aggressive in respect of Russia. People should realize that Russia could take the Baltic states in a little more than 24 hours, and that there would be nothing NATO could do to counter it, short of a nuclear war. Did we need this s_hit in Europe? Is there any rational explanation for antagonizing Russia in such a manner that will risk a major war? Are we terminally stupid?...The future Russian-European war: balance of power and prospects of the American "Northern Fist"
April 10, 2015 - Dima Piterski
[Translated by Kristina Rus]
After the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis, the stream of anti-Russian propaganda in the world has reached the scale of the times of the Soviet Union. But if the majority of EU countries have relatively neutral forces, calling for reconciliation, in Scandinavia and the Baltics the line towards Russia is most radical and destructive. It is in these countries, where the US influence is constantly growing: in the Baltics there are no longer any independent states, and in Scandinavia the process is actively moving in the same direction. Interestingly, of the four Scandinavian countries (including Finland - it's not always included in this geographical concept), only Norway and Denmark are a part of NATO, and Sweden and Finland so far have a non-aligned status, at least on words. Nevertheless, the wave of anti-Russian hysteria and militarization is sweeping through these two states.
The tools are misinformation and lies at the highest level: just remember the story about the Russian nuclear submarine, supposedly entering the territorial waters of Sweden. Only what was the reason and how such an object could be missed, no one answered - irresponsibility in big politics is now in fashion.
Norway constantly sheds "crocodile tears" - drawing attention to the flights of Russian strategic aviation (which, incidentally, never violated anyone's borders), and most recently voicing ridiculous assumption that the Russian research vessels are "spying" on them, located at the former submarine base Olavson. The base was sold a few years ago by Norwegian authorities themselves, as the cost of its operation was huge, but there was no real military purpose -in the war with Russia it will not help, though, it really is a powerful refuge for submarines, and in the global conflict the underwater forces of the Norwegian Navy are miniscule - only 6 diesel-electric submarines of "Ula" class.
The rhetoric in Denmark and Finland is not as harsh, and the amount of too obvious misinformation, voiced by officials, is much smaller. But this are just words. But actions are no different - Denmark has already agreed to participate in the formation of the system of European missile defense, and Finland is actively establishing the cooperation of their armed forces with the armies of other Scandinavian and Baltic countries (especially Sweden), and, of course, with the U.S. forces.
Military tandem Sweden-Finland
The most active is the formation of a military tandem Sweden-Finland and, although the intention to create a military bloc with the participation of these countries was officially refuted, in fact, the opposite is happening. The countries expressed their readiness to create joint land and naval brigades, and at the end of March held joint Air Force exercises. They were also joined by the U.S. Air Force, landing at the Estonian airfield "Amari". Moreover, the integration of Air Forces of those two countries will continue to grow - instead of 62 aging American fighters F/A-18, Finland is going to buy either the Swedish SAAB JAS-39 Gripen of new modification or French Dassault Rafale, and most likely the choice will fall on the Swedes. In both cases, the interaction of the Air Forces of the countries will grow significantly, and in the case of the purchase of JAS-39 it will reach the maximum - even the weapons and spare parts will be standardized.
Now a key objective for the U.S. in this area is pulling these countries into NATO. The population is actively prepped - in the event of a further escalation of the Ukrainian conflict, the accession of Sweden and Finland into NATO may be a matter of time.
Baltic Foothold
Active placement of U.S. troops on the territory of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, and the constant NATO exercises held there indicate that these three countries will become a staging ground for NATO forces, including for the aviation of the Scandinavian countries. The geographical location of these countries allows to simultaneously strike in the direction of surrounded by NATO Kaliningrad region, and in the direction of Leningrad and Pskov regions. The armed forces of the Baltic countries themselves are extremely weak and small - collectively they can only provide 23 thousand soldiers, and can not boast of any significant amount of military equipment, and the Air Force in these countries is virtually absent. So the main role of these states is to become a springboard for NATO troops and a battlefield - not the brightest prospect, but it doesn't bother the anti-people government of these countries, "dancing the tune" of the overseas "ally".
Norway: Arctic Oil Bait
Among the Nordic countries Norway stands out perhaps by the highest degree of anti-Russian hysteria. And unlike the Baltic States, there is a material substrate - namely the Arctic oil reserves, for which the Norwegians have serious sights, actually - just like us. This adds to the pressure from the United States, leading to a kind of "resonance". In addition, Americans can "warm up" the Arctic appetites of Norwegians, killing two birds with one stone - forming a new enemy for Russia and increasing the supplies of their weapons. Thus, Norway is in a kind of "trap" based on its own energy ambitions. In regards to a purely military component - Norway has a strong Air Force and Navy, as well as a high level of training of soldiers. Very soon will begin deliveries of American fighters of the 5th generation, F-35, which will be purchased in the amount of 52 units, in addition to (and in the future - replacement) 57 F-16.
The Northern Fist Against Russia
As we can see, the above mentioned countries are increasingly militarizing and uniting around an anti-Russian ideology. Under the patronage of the US a kind of a military "fist" is forming threatening the North-Western borders of Russia. What forces, and in what directions can these states throw against the Russian Federation?
1) A powerful aviation group, able to operate from Murmansk to Kaliningrad region - along the entire length of the potential front line. In total it includes nearly 300 fighters - 62 F-18, 134 JAS-39 Gripenи, 102 F-16. All light class aircraft, but of a good level and in a very serious quantity.
2) Two naval groups - the first in the "Northern seas" (North, Norwegian, Barents) represented mainly by the Norwegian Navy. It includes 5 frigates of Fridtjof Nansen model, equipped with anti-ship missiles (ASM) Naval Strike Missile and Aegis combat information and control system, 6 Skjold missile boats with the same missiles and 6 Ula diesel submarines.
The second - in the Baltic sea, represented by the Navy of Finland, Sweden and Denmark. Here into the battle can be thrown: 5 Danish frigates with American Nagroopi anti-ship missiles with a good air defense system; 5 Swedish diesel-electric submarines with torpedo armament and 9 corvettes with anti-ship missiles RBS-15, including 5 of the Visby class with "Stealth" technology; 8 Finnish missile boats with anti-ship missiles RBS-15 (the maximum range - 200 km), 6 minelayers and 13 minesweepers.
3) Ground forces - we won't consider the Danish forces here, because geographically they are somewhat "detached" from the action. Finland, Sweden and Denmark collectively can provide 31 thousand soldiers, 284 German "Leopard 2" battle tanks and about 1000 units of various artillery. The Baltic states have another 23 thousand soldiers, absolutely deprived of equipment. As you can see - ground forces is the weakest point of these countries.
In addition there is an American presence in the Baltics - still small, only a few dozen pieces of equipment and several hundred personnel, who officially arrived for exercises, but so far are not in a hurry to go back to the USA.
The Kaliningrad Region is the #1 Target
Kaliningrad region, which is actually surrounded by NATO forces, due to sharing land borders only with Poland and Lithuania, is the most vulnerable target for a potential enemy. Already Lithuania often creates problems for the delivery of goods to this territory, a total ground blockade is theoretically possible, as well as energy blockade.
The Russian armed forces stationed in the Kaliningrad region, are not very strong , but are actively rearming, for example, in 2012 they got the most modern anti-aircraft missile systems S-400. However, the number of troops is small - only about 10 thousand people.
From Poland and the Baltic up to 80 thousand troops can be thrown to battle simultaneously - and that is without US support. The force of the "Northern Fist" can provide powerful air support to the Polish ground forces, and try to create a naval blockade of Kaliningrad. To counter this attempt to take Kaliningrad under a full siege will be the task of the Baltic Fleet of the Russian Navy - its forces are approximately equal to the combined forces of the "Northern fist" Navy: 2 destroyers (956 model), 2 modern patrol ships (model 11540) with "Stealth" technology, 4 patrol ships (20380 model), 12 missile boats, 3 diesel-electric submarines. All these ships are armed with anti-ship missiles of different types, with most characteristics superior to the Scandinavian and American ASMs. So the victory in this confrontation depends more on the level of crew training and third factors, such as intelligence, etc.
The task of the armed forces of RF in case of such an aggressive attempt to take the Kaliningrad region must be the urgent creation of a land corridor through Latvia and Lithuania, here the ground forces and aviation of Sweden, Norway and Finland would try to interfere, engaging some of the forces of the Western military district (ZVO) in the Leningrad region. Of course, the Western military district forces, which comprise up to 40% of the armed forces personnel, are incomparably more powerful, but, nevertheless, the forces of the "Northern Fist" can buy time until the arrival of reinforcements from Western Europe and the USA.
Limited Nuclear Conflict
Is the scenario of a major European war plausible, given large stockpiles of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons of the opposing sides? If the main "battlefield" will become the Baltic States, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Finland, Norway - that is, non-nuclear states, then it is real. Nuclear strikes will not be launched on the countries which don't possess them. However, in this scenario, the use of tactical nuclear weapons is of little doubt - this is especially true for us since the number of NATO armies exceeds ours several times on almost all indicators. As a result, in such a war the losers will be those countries which now advocate most against Russia. And there will not be any winners - both camps will have hundreds of thousands of soldiers killed and mountains of destroyed military equipment. Nevertheless, mankind, as history shows, can not exist without war for long - and in Europe there was no (large) wars since 1945. How many more years will the nuclear weapons deter aggression and hatred? It is clear that the war would have been burning in Europe since March 2014, if not for this deterrent.
Conclusions and Outlook
1) "The Northern Fist" is really forming. Its goal is geopolitical pressure on Russia and creating a threat to the Kaliningrad region.
2) The troops in Kaliningrad should be maintained in the most combat-ready state, its numbers should be increased.
3) The US through the creation of "mini" military bloc in the Nordic and Baltic countries are squeezing the ring of military encirclement of Russia.
4) Norway, despite its ambitions, is still far from being able to compete with Russia in the Arctic. The Northern fleet of the Russian Federation is a serious force with which it is impossible to compete with the 6 diesel submarines, several frigates and missile boats. Here Russia has 45 submarines, including 23 nuclear, aircraft-carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov", the heavy nuclear cruiser "Peter the Great" and many other ships.
5) In addition to geopolitical reasons and the US fight against Russia there is a much more urgent task - to get the military-industrial complex to work at "full speed", despite the economic problems in most European countries. Now, even the broke Baltic States are beginning to allocate some money for the purchase of military equipment.
6) A big war in Europe may still occur - the voltage level, at times really is approaching critical. And the presence of a large number of weapons and active preparations for war can cause extra confidence.
7) The next step of the expansion of the European missile defense project could be its placement in Scandinavia. The GMD system (Ground-based Midcourse Defense) will be able to intercept some of Russian Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), flying over the North pole to the USA. And most importantly, to intercept them before deploying battle units because most modern Russian ICBMs have multiple warheads. Such a scenario is possible after 2020, when the current phase of the European missile defense will be implemented and the GMD will be refined. The temptation to ignite a war after this step will naturally be higher.
8) Countries in this new anti-Russian bloc, are not the beneficiaries - rather, just the opposite, they will suffer most, as they will become the battlefield. The US, as always, is far away.
9) All the countries that are near Russia and are hosting the elements of the US missile defense must be [officially] warned at the highest level that they will be the first target for the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation and they will not get security, but vice versa - a mortal danger. Such a statement should not be at the level of Ambassador, as was done in Denmark, but at the highest level. The population of these countries must know where the decisions of their governments are leading them.
P. S. REGNUM for some reason focuses on Kaliningrad, although this is only a small part of the problem. The main danger of a strike from the Baltic States is a threat to St. Petersburg in the North and the route Moscow - St.-Petersburg in the East, with the possibility of further advance on Moscow. Murmansk and the base of our Northern fleet will be attacked from Norway. Accordingly, they will synchronize it with strikes on the South-Western front. The task of UAF here will be to die heroically, bounding as many of our troops as possible and saving the maximum number of lives of the Anglo-Saxon Ubermensch. This is the main danger, and the Kaliningrad will not go anywhere. As correctly stated by Nersisyan, the only way to defend Kaliningrad is to cut a land corridor through the Baltic States. Although this would immediately raise the issue of the need for destruction of the U.S. group in Poland, or the signing of the armistice and the withdrawal of American occupation forces from Eastern Europe. Such a dangerous neighborhood cannot be tolerated.
http://fortruss.blogspot.pt/2015/04/the ... lance.html
