Defence Q&A Which country has the best units in each category?

[FiReFTW]

Just wondering what you would say which country has the best certain unit types?

For example:

Main battle tanks
Self P. Artillery
Rocket Artillery
Armored Vehicles
Anti air vehicles

Attack Helicopters
Attack aircraft
Fighter aircraft
Bombers

Aircraft Carriers
Cruisers/Destroyers
Frigates
Submarines


So for example for Main Battle tanks category could be like:

Leopard 2A6/7 - Germany
T-14 Armata - Russia
.
.

For Fighter aircraft might be F-22 Raptor - USA etc...

 

[500]

US - Israel They Make Their AD Together
And US has only thaad + Patriot no new AD

So why there is no problem to show tests to the whole world?
OK lets say S-500 is super secret. Where are tests of S-300 and S-400?

We need just blindly believe Russian propaganda that S-500 is best even there is absolutely no any data on it?

 

[DANTE]

F-35 can detect tank using hi resolution SAR radar in any weather condition from high distance and then destroy it. Thanks to its stealth and sensors it can stay safe even heavy air defence environment.

things are always much more complex than that , the F-35 can't play the role assigned to the A-10/su-25SM3 because it was not designed for close air support missions since it don't have the payload , munitions and it's not survivable enough , stealth won't matter when you engage targets at 10-20 km from your position , i don't even talk about the complexity of the F-35 .... you also need to put in your mind that CAS aircrafts won't operate under a contested airspace .

B-2 can drop 16 2000 pound guided bombs anywhere in the world. Typical bomber fighter carries 2 such bombs and has only 1000 km radius.

that can be great against a third world country but against a peer oponent such as russia or china , the B-2 will be downed before launching it's 50 km range bombs . the tu-160M2will be much deadlier because it combines both advanced sensors and EW , range , payload and speed , coupled with the impressive range of the kh-101 missile , that's just a Global prompt strike system .

 

[500]

things are always much more complex than that , the F-35 can't play the role assigned to the A-10/su-25SM3 because it was not designed for close air support missions since it don't have the payload , munitions and it's not survivable enough , stealth won't matter when you engage targets at 10-20 km from your position , i don't even talk about the complexity of the F-35 .... you also need to put in your mind that CAS aircrafts won't operate under a contested airspace .

A-10 and Su-25 are concepts form 1970-es. There were no UAVs, no SAR radars, no FLIRs. So you needed to fly low and search targets with your own eyes.

Today we have all these. Targets can be detected from stand off distance and from UAVs and transferred to pilots.

Coming close with subsonic unsleathy jet against enemy with modern MANPADS, SHORAD systems, fighter jets will be a total suicide + it is absolutely uncessessary with modern sensors.

that can be great against a third world country but against a peer oponent such as russia or china , the B-2 will be downed before launching it's 50 km range bombs . the tu-160M2will be much deadlier because it combines both advanced sensors and EW , range , payload and speed , coupled with the impressive range of the kh-101 missile , that's just a Global prompt strike system .

First of all there are plenty of local conflicts where bombers can be used. US bombers dropped cheap guided bombs, Russian strategic bombers in Syria had only very expensive cruise missiles which are overkill in such conflict and less flexible than bombs.

Secondly B-2 can perform low lever flights. Russia has huge wastelands uncovered by radars.

Thirdly prior penetration cruise missiles will destroy radars and long range systems.

Fourthly B-2 can carry relatively cheap JASSM missiles.

As for launching long range cruise missiles - it can be done from good old B-52. You dont need new super expensive Tu-160 for it.

 

[DANTE]

A-10 and Su-25 are concepts form 1970-es. There were no UAVs, no SAR radars, no FLIRs. So you needed to fly low and search targets with your own eyes.

Today we have all these. Targets can be detected from stand off distance and from UAVs and transferred to pilots.

Coming close with subsonic unsleathy jet against enemy with modern MANPADS, SHORAD systems, fighter jets will be a total suicide + it is absolutely uncessessary with modern sensors.

modern A-10C and su-25SM3 have nothing in common with the original variants , much like all modern aircrafts they are equiped with modern avioncs and weapons ,the su-25SM3 for example has a complete ECM suite , an optical sighting system , modern communication systems and the aircaft is capable of using the vast majority of the russian missiles and PGM's .... a picture is worth a billion words .

Close air support means that the aircraft will provide air cover for advancing troops so you has to be in the vicinity of the batllefield , i don't see the importance of stealth here . an F-35 with it's limited payload won't be usefull .

First of all there are plenty of local conflicts where bombers can be used. US bombers dropped cheap guided bombs, Russian strategic bombers in Syria had only very expensive cruise missiles which are overkill in such conflict and less flexible than bombs.

Secondly B-2 can perform low lever flights. Russia has huge wastelands uncovered by radars.

Thirdly prior penetration cruise missiles will destroy radars and long range systems.

Fourthly B-2 can carry relatively cheap JASSM missiles.

As for launching long range cruise missiles - it can be done from good old B-52. You dont need new super expensive Tu-160 for it.

the russians used the kaliber and the KH-101 to flex its muscles and show and test their newest toys , the su-24/25/34 did the job pretty well .

the U-2 is not developed to attack third world countries that can be bombed by a super tucano , the main purpose of the U-2 is to penetrate deep into the soviet IADS and to be honnest , with a mere 50 km or 100 km bombs the U-2 will put itself at risk against both air patrols and ground based SAM's .

the aim behind the tu-160 is to provide the russians with a credible capacity in bombing mainland US while reducing it's vulnerability to the us air force air patrols ..... good luck cathing a tu-160 when it goes supersonic .

 

[500]

modern A-10C and su-25SM3 have nothing in common with the original variants , much like all modern aircrafts they are equiped with modern avioncs and weapons ,the su-25SM3 for example has a complete ECM suite , an optical sighting system , modern communication systems and the aircaft is capable of using the vast majority of the russian missiles and PGM's .... a picture is worth a billion words .
View attachment 33380

Close air support means that the aircraft will provide air cover for advancing troops so you has to be in the vicinity of the batllefield , i don't see the importance of stealth here . an F-35 with it's limited payload won't be usefull .

Indeed this picture worth a billion words. No radar, no pod. Its anti tank weapon is Vikhr missiles with 10 km max range. In order to hit one tank you need to fly directly towards it during the whole missile flight time (28 seconds!). That means by the time missile hits tank you will be closer than 5 km to it. Then in order to hit a second tank you need to turn back then another turn towards the target and again fly towards it until it hits.

Lets imagine we get a task to locate and destroy platoon of tanks 10 kms from frontline.

F-35 gets locations from uavs, radar locks on targets from 40 km. F-35 drops simultaneously 8 SDB-II bombs and turns back to base. 8 tanks are destroyed.

Su-25 gets location but he still needs to search for camouflaged tanks. He makes cuple circles until he finds one tank, then he is flying towards it and launches Vickrs from 10 kms. He needs to cricle again and again for each tank, while everywhere around there are MANPADS, Shorads, fighter jets can appear anytime.

Sorry but its simply a Flinstone stone age compare to F-35.

the russians used the kaliber and the KH-101 to flex its muscles and show and test their newest toys , the su-24/25/34 did the job pretty well .

So Tu-160 is completely useless in local conflicts, unlike the B-2.

the U-2 is not developed to attack third world countries that can be bombed by a super tucano , the main purpose of the U-2 is to penetrate deep into the soviet IADS and to be honnest , with a mere 50 km or 100 km bombs the U-2 will put itself at risk against both air patrols and ground based SAM's .

Low flying B-2 is extremely hard target for detection. Both because of LOS and RCS. B-2 can take missiles too.

the aim behind the tu-160 is to provide the russians with a credible capacity in bombing mainland US while reducing it's vulnerability to the us air force air patrols ..... good luck cathing a tu-160 when it goes supersonic .

Supersonic for Tu-160 is very useless feature. It does not have supercruise like Concord, so it needs to use afterburnes for supersonic - ie very short time. The acceleration time is also high because of its size.

 

[DANTE]

ndeed this picture worth a billion words. No radar, no pod. Its anti tank weapon is Vikhr missiles with 10 km max range. In order to hit one tank you need to fly directly towards it during the whole missile flight time (28 seconds!). That means by the time missile hits tank you will be closer than 5 km to it. Then in order to hit a second tank you need to turn back then another turn towards the target and again fly towards it until it hits.

Lets imagine we get a task to locate and destroy platoon of tanks 10 kms from frontline.

F-35 gets locations from uavs, radar locks on targets from 40 km. F-35 drops simultaneously 8 SDB-II bombs and turns back to base. 8 tanks are destroyed.

Su-25 gets location but he still needs to search for camouflaged tanks. He makes cuple circles until he finds one tank, then he is flying towards it and launches Vickrs from 10 kms. He needs to cricle again and again for each tank, while everywhere around there are MANPADS, Shorads, fighter jets can appear anytime.

Sorry but its simply a Flinstone stone age compare to F-35.

the su-25SM3 or even the A-10C can use the SDB just like the F-35 but they will use twice or even more so their effectiveness in crushing tank columns is much higher , they also have the exact same data link's and can receive targeting informations from UAV's , AWACS or any other command post , using SDB on tanks is just worthless when a Vikhr can do the job , the F-35 is nothing but a black hole for US taxpayers .

So Tu-160 is completely useless in local conflicts, unlike the B-2.

the tu-160 was not designed for local conflicts , the su-24/35 and tu-22M3 are more than enough , the tu-160 is designed in the event of a war with a peer oponent , in order to bomb somalia or irak you don't need the B-2 since a super tucano is more than enough .

Low flying B-2 is extremely hard target for detection. Both because of LOS and RCS. B-2 can take missiles too.

every aircrafts that fly low will be difficult to detect because of the earth curvature but as i already said in order for the B-2 to operate in a highly contested airspace it will have to pass throught a comprehensive layer of OTH radars , Metric wavelenghts radars and air patrols , with a mere 20-50 km ranged weapons the aircraft will be detected before it reaches the russian or chinese airspace , let's see the truth the B-2 might seem great against a modest army with obsolete radars and air defense but against a global power it will behave just like the B-52 ( launch cruise missile from stand off range ) .

Supersonic for Tu-160 is very useless feature. It does not have supercruise like Concord, so it needs to use afterburnes for supersonic - ie very short time. The acceleration time is also high because of its size.

the aircraft does not need to go supersonic from the very begining , it will only use it to retreat quickly from the contested airspace before the air patrols can reach it .

 

[500]

the su-25SM3 or even the A-10C can use the SDB just like the F-35 but they will use twice or even more so their effectiveness in crushing tank columns is much higher , they also have the exact same data link's and can receive targeting informations from UAV's , AWACS or any other command post ,

Su-25 does not have any SDB.
A-10 and Su-25 dont have sensor fusion and networking as F-35, nowhere even close.
A-10 and Su-25 lack radars so they can't lock on targets as F-35, Su-25 lacks even normal FLIR pod.

using SDB on tanks is just worthless when a Vikhr can do the job , the F-35 is nothing but a black hole for US taxpayers .

Only if you bomb enemy which lacks even MANPADs, not talking about other air defence stuff.

the tu-160 was not designed for local conflicts , the su-24/35 and tu-22M3 are more than enough , the tu-160 is designed in the event of a war with a peer oponent , in order to bomb somalia or irak you don't need the B-2 since a super tucano is more than enough .

1) Not always u have airbases around. Thats why you need strategic bombers.
2) Tu-22M3 cant drop guided bombs as well.

every aircrafts that fly low will be difficult to detect because of the earth curvature

Tu-160 can't fly low.
Detecting low flying aircraft with RCS 0.01 m is way harder than aicraft with RCS 50 m.

but as i already said in order for the B-2 to operate in a highly contested airspace it will have to pass throught a comprehensive layer of OTH radars ,

You cant put radars every 30 km in Russian wastelands nor even in China.

Also the advantage of strategic bombers is that they can strike quietly (the launch of ballistic missiles is immediately detected). But Tu-160 cant do quiet strike, because it is flying high and lacks stealth.

the aircraft does not need to go supersonic from the very begining , it will only use it to retreat quickly from the contested airspace before the air patrols can reach it .

You cant see in Tu-160 fighter approaching you and anyway in case of global war there will be no airbases to return.