Russian Geopolitics and Economy Discussions

Azeri441

Well-known member
Messages
301
Reactions
6 1,291
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Azerbaijan
Even when you combine entire NATO there is zero chance of success against Russia.

The entire world took notes when US/NATO left Afghanistan empty handed. If you cannot militarily win in Afghanistan be rest assured that winning against Russia is of a different magnitude.

Lmao entire NATO force? NATO is superior than Russian military in every single aspect, from industrial output to training,

and your logic about Afghanistan is so ironic since Soviets themselves lost in Afghanistan, and in a way worse fashion, Soviets sustained massive casualties while USA couldn't get the corrupt Afghanistan government to take control of its country, USA wasn't really defeated in Afghanistan, Afghanistan government was just too inept and useless to take control of the country.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,361
Reactions
22 12,853
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Some thoughts on a supposes Russian steamrolling the Baltics and eventually Europe.


Russian forces are tied to railroad from factory to army depot and to combined arms army and, where possible, to the division/brigade level. No other European nation uses railroads to the extent that the Russian army does. Part of the reason is that Russia is so vast — over 6,000 miles from one end to the other.

Here's the thing, there's currently no wide gauge lines running from Belarus to Warsaw. Rail traffic moving across borders usually stops to cross-load cargo or uses adjustable railroad carriages and switches engines (which cannot adjust). In times of war, that means the Russian army WOULD have to to rely on trucks.

Now do the math:

Russia’s truck logistic support, which would be crucial in an invasion of Eastern Europe, is limited by the number of trucks and range of operations. It is possible to calculate how far trucks can operate using simple beer math. Assuming the existing road network can support 45 mph speeds, a single truck can make three trips a day at up to a 45-mile range: One hours to load, one hour to drive to the supported unit, one hours to unload, and another hour to return to base. Repeating this cycle three times equals 12 hours total. The rest of the day is dedicated to truck maintenance, meals, refueling, weapons cleaning, and sleeping. Increase the distance to 90 miles, and the truck can make two trips daily. At 180 miles, the same truck is down to one trip a day. These assumptions won’t work in rough terrain or where there is limited/damaged infrastructure. If an army has just enough trucks to sustain itself at a 45-mile distance, then at 90 miles, the throughput will be 33 percent lower. At 180 miles, it will be down by 66 percent. The further you push from supply dumps, the fewer supplies you can replace in a single day.


could they sustain these ?

The Russian army does not have enough trucks to meet its logistic requirement more than 90 miles beyond supply dumps. To reach a 180-mile range, the Russian army would have to double truck allocation to 400 trucks for each of the material-technical support brigades. on paper, each combined army is assigned a material-technical support brigade. Each material-technical support brigade has two truck battalions with a total of 150 general cargo trucks with 50 trailers and 260 specialized trucks per brigade.

The Russian army makes heavy use of tube and rocket artillery fire, and rocket ammunition is very bulky. Although each army is different, there are usually 56 to 90 multiple launch rocket system launchers in an army. Replenishing each launcher takes up the entire bed of the truck. If the combined arms army fired a single volley, it would require 56 to 90 trucks just to replenish rocket ammunition. That is about a half of a dry cargo truck force in the material-technical support brigade just to replace one volley of rockets. There is also between six to nine tube artillery battalions, nine air defense artillery battalions, 12 mechanized and recon battalions, three to five tank battalions, mortars, anti-tank missiles, and small arms ammunition — not to mention, food, engineering, medical supplies, and so on. Those requirements are harder to estimate, but the potential resupply requirements are substantial. The Russian army force needs a lot of trucks just for ammunition and dry cargo replenishment.


Now, NATO air superiority is already given since DAY 1. Without air superiority, moving a large army outside the border= suicide.
 

Test7

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
4,785
Reactions
19 19,930
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Turkey
Dear members,

Please make sure your posts do not violate forum rules. You can express your ideas freely, but this expression should not be offensive to others. In this context, a few messages were deleted.
 

Dalit

Committed member
Messages
297
Reactions
416
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Netherlands
Eh? In a conventional war, NATO would crush Russia so hard it wouldn't even be funny. Russia's only hope would be using nukes for MAD.

Afghanistan was an occupation gone badly because NATO had no interest in babysitting the nation anymore. In conventional warfare in Afghanistan, the Taliban got steamrolled every single time and it wasn't even close. And a war with Russia would be a conventional one not a jihadist shooting gallery.

Not that Russia would do anything if Sweden and Finland were to join NATO. Unlike Ukraine, both are EU members and Putin knows what the response would be. This is just Maria Zakharova blabbing nonsense as usual while her superiors watch NATO's reaction to her statements.

Not a chance and you know it. Russia is conventionally also very strong. Apart form France and Germany I don't see any strong European nations. Just a hotchpotch of smaller nations knitted together to make Europe look bigger. I don't even count Britain as Europe. Brexit is a clear example how weak Europe is. Russia doesn't even need to fight Europe. Europe is disintegrating by itself.

Afghanistan is a great lesson for the world. The US/NATO weren't babysitting, but supporting bacha baaz Northern Alliance. Pretending to save democracy and women. A loss was inevitable. Let's give credit to the Afghan Taliban. They held their nerve and made sure the US/NATO exited by themselves.

It doesn't really matter who said what. Fact is that Russia is fully in control and shaping the narrative.
 

Dalit

Committed member
Messages
297
Reactions
416
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Netherlands
Lmao entire NATO force? NATO is superior than Russian military in every single aspect, from industrial output to training,

and your logic about Afghanistan is so ironic since Soviets themselves lost in Afghanistan, and in a way worse fashion, Soviets sustained massive casualties while USA couldn't get the corrupt Afghanistan government to take control of its country, USA wasn't really defeated in Afghanistan, Afghanistan government was just too inept and useless to take control of the country.

The Europeans along with their American partners are always quick to claim mission accomplished. Russia was never defeated. Not even during the Cold War. Russian power was diminished, but Russia is today resurgent.

Not only does Russia have a strong military capability, but it has lately proved that it can also control political proceedings. Why did the US and her European partners blame Russia for intervening in US elections? Because it did and successfully. Russia can sit thousands of miles away and convince the American people to vote for a specific candidate. I wouldn't underestimate Russia.

Russia is not only capable of dealing with Europe, but it can also convince many Europeans that their cause is righteous.
 

Domobran7

Active member
Messages
78
Reactions
1 80
Website
historyandwarfare.wordpress.com
Nation of residence
Croatia
Nation of origin
Croatia
Why does Russia think that it's that powerful ? Only advance it has over Europe is Nukes
Europe is not unified. It has EU, but EU is an administrative hellhole that tends to lock itself out of the loop, and is also more interested in pushing leftist globohomo agenda than actually doing anything for security of Europe.

If it is just EU, Russia has nothing to be afraid of.
 

Anastasius

Contributor
Moderator
Azerbaijan Moderator
Messages
1,390
Reactions
5 3,093
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Azerbaijan
Not a chance and you know it. Russia is conventionally also very strong. Apart form France and Germany I don't see any strong European nations. Just a hotchpotch of smaller nations knitted together to make Europe look bigger. I don't even count Britain as Europe. Brexit is a clear example how weak Europe is. Russia doesn't even need to fight Europe. Europe is disintegrating by itself.

Afghanistan is a great lesson for the world. The US/NATO weren't babysitting, but supporting bacha baaz Northern Alliance. Pretending to save democracy and women. A loss was inevitable. Let's give credit to the Afghan Taliban. They held their nerve and made sure the US/NATO exited by themselves.

It doesn't really matter who said what. Fact is that Russia is fully in control and shaping the narrative.
Russia is conventionally good at zerg rushing their opposition and overwhelming brutality in the hopes of making the enemy surrender. If the enemy doesn't fall for this, Russia withdraws pretty quickly. I would also like to draw your attention to the amount of failed or "in development hell" projects Russia has going.

Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Canada, Poland, Romania and oh yeah, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. And that's not even counting smaller nations like Estonia who have started pulling their weight. Russia's only hope is nukes. Literally their only hope. Remember, we are talking about NATO. Not just Europe, despite your attempts to boil it down to just Europe.

Afghanistan is a lesson in nothing aside from proving yet against that nobody benefits from these wars except major companies. The US had no interest in Afghanistan besides being a permanent war to score those delicious military contracts. All the Taliban did was hide in a bunch of holes and then crawl out when NATO got bored and left. And now we see how much credit they deserve having trouble wrestling an ISIS offshoot.

Russia is good at propaganda and making it seem like they've got everything under control. I'll give them that. In terms of actual solid facts on the ground...not so much.
The Europeans along with their American partners are always quick to claim mission accomplished. Russia was never defeated. Not even during the Cold War. Russian power was diminished, but Russia is today resurgent.

Not only does Russia have a strong military capability, but it has lately proved that it can also control political proceedings. Why did the US and her European partners blame Russia for intervening in US elections? Because it did and successfully. Russia can sit thousands of miles away and convince the American people to vote for a specific candidate. I wouldn't underestimate Russia.

Russia is not only capable of dealing with Europe, but it can also convince many Europeans that their cause is righteous.
Oh wow, you actually believed that "Russian collusion" nonsense.
 

Dalit

Committed member
Messages
297
Reactions
416
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Netherlands
Russia is conventionally good at zerg rushing their opposition and overwhelming brutality in the hopes of making the enemy surrender. If the enemy doesn't fall for this, Russia withdraws pretty quickly. I would also like to draw your attention to the amount of failed or "in development hell" projects Russia has going.

Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Canada, Poland, Romania and oh yeah, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. And that's not even counting smaller nations like Estonia who have started pulling their weight. Russia's only hope is nukes. Literally their only hope. Remember, we are talking about NATO. Not just Europe, despite your attempts to boil it down to just Europe.

Afghanistan is a lesson in nothing aside from proving yet against that nobody benefits from these wars except major companies. The US had no interest in Afghanistan besides being a permanent war to score those delicious military contracts. All the Taliban did was hide in a bunch of holes and then crawl out when NATO got bored and left. And now we see how much credit they deserve having trouble wrestling an ISIS offshoot.

Russia is good at propaganda and making it seem like they've got everything under control. I'll give them that. In terms of actual solid facts on the ground...not so much.

Oh wow, you actually believed that "Russian collusion" nonsense.

Did you really think that Russia stands alone? Chinese and Russian interests align more than ever in this day and age. Just like Russia, China is often seen as an enemy by Western powers. China and Russia are a formidable force. This coalition has the ability to smoke the Western alliance.

I think you can take Turkey out of your Western equation against Russia. Turkey is hardly a European entity. Europe treats Turkey as an orphan. Turkey is not going to fight against Russia. Britain same story. Brexit was a stern message to Europhiles. The EU is in reality a veritable arm of the USA.

You make too much of Europe and the Western alliance. Europe is as weak as it gets. There is division and anger among many citizens of European nations. Many Europeans don't want anything to do with US and EU politics. Many Europeans seek an independent nation free from EU bureaucracy and meddling. There is no unity nor cohesion. The US is hoping against all hope to save its post WW creation. In reality there is a lot of opposition against EU.

Estonia? Come on man. That leaves us with Germany, France and to a certain degree the likes of Spain and Italy. I am sorry. This coalition along with the help of Canada and the US doesn't have the ability to challange Sino Russian military axis.

Let me tell you that most nations in the developing world hands down support Sino Russian coalition as opposed to Western coalition. All one needs to do is delve into colonial history.
 
Last edited:

Dalit

Committed member
Messages
297
Reactions
416
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Netherlands
Problem is the U.S. is getting nothing done to prevent Russia's growth, Eventually the Germans will cave in with purchasing NS2 Gas screwing Ukraine even more from their current billion dollar gas transit deals to the point that it will be a country that might be even more poor than an African one since they are already 1st place in beating Kosovo as poorest country in Europe and that is not a joke either. They are working on the power to siberia gas plan to power Mongolia and China, setting up a gas line project for the middle east. Also thanks to Israel's paranoai of its surrounding neighbors they are blocking the UAE's plans for oil transfer to Europe which of course the Russians can take advantage of this by trading their Arctic oil to Europe because of course besides Ukraine and China there is also alot of shit going on in the Arctic that they are doing which barely gets mentioned on the news.

Europeans withdraw their support in funding the free syrian army leaving Turkey and the UAE as their current supporters because the thing is there was a proposed oil line project from the UAE to Europe but we all know whos involvement stopped this from happening.. And Venezuela for having a good amount of oil, a coup was stopped by Russia. Also Lavrov is scheduling a meeting with the Indians and Chinese to replace SWIFT and even want to propose a Quantum communication node project with the BRICS countries on trade relations for secure talks. If they are serious about invasions as everyone thinks they are it would be better for them to do it with a better economy like with their proposed plans than any day or month or year now.

No matter what you propose, Russia is a reality that won't disappear. You can have as many alternative pipelines, but will that bring back Crimea? Russia won't stop with its activity just because Europeans and Americans want that to happen.

Russia is often presented as the main evil. Why are the Americans constantly placing missiles next to Russia? Why are the Europeans along with the US creating military bases near Russia? Ukraine and Russia have more in common than Europe. Why is Europe meddling in Ukraine and trying to create a rift between Russia and Ukraine? All legitimate questions Russians want answers to.
 

Anastasius

Contributor
Moderator
Azerbaijan Moderator
Messages
1,390
Reactions
5 3,093
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Azerbaijan
Did you really think that Russia stands alone? Chinese and Russian interests align more than ever in this day and age. Just like Russia, China is often seen as an enemy by Western powers. China and Russia are a formidable force. This coalition has the ability to smoke the Western alliance.

I think you can take Turkey out of your Western equation against Russia. Turkey is hardly a European entity. Europe treats Turkey as an orphan. Turkey is not going to fight against Russia. Britain same story. Brexit was a stern message to Europhiles. The EU is in reality a veritable arm of the USA.

You make too much of Europe and the Western alliance. Europe is as weak as it gets. There is division and anger among many citizens of European nations. Many Europeans don't want anything to do with US and EU politics. Many Europeans seek an independent nation free from EU bureaucracy and meddling. There is no unity nor cohesion. The US is hoping against all hope to save its post WW creation. In reality there is a lot of opposition against EU.

Estonia? Come on man. That leaves us with Germany, France and to a certain degree the likes of Spain and Italy. I am sorry. This coalition along with the help of Canada and the US doesn't have the ability to challange Sino Russian military axis.

Let me tell you that most nations in the developing world hands down support Sino Russian coalition as opposed to Western coalition. All one needs to do is delve into colonial history.
Yes, I do think that Russia will mostly stand alone. You are foolish if you think China will definitely jump into the ring for Russia, especially since they have claims on Siberia and most of eastern Russia which has valuable resources that they need and they don't like paying Russia for. Same for Russia, they don't jump into fights they don't have 90-100% chance of winning or they withdraw early.

I won't take Turkey out because Russia is a Turkish rival. Whether Turkey is a European entity or not (it's treated as half-and-half since it's clearly not 100% Middle-Eastern or Asian), it won't just bow out if NATO goes all in. Same goes for Britain which has been more hawkish towards Russia than pretty much any other European entity - and yes, Britain is European.

If we are talking about internal strife, Russia has no less of it than the EU. More in fact, considering that Russia consistently has to keep clamping down on separatist sentiments with extreme measures and has basically given up on trying to fix their dying demographics via natural birth rates and is now practically begging former Soviet states to come and get citizenship to boost their numbers.

By the way, don't think I didn't notice how you tried to switch from "NATO vs. Russia" to "only a few parts of NATO vs. Russia & China". I mean, in that case why not throw New Zealand, Australia, South Korea and Japan into the mix among others? But I prefer sticking to the original point so here it goes - Russia has no hope 1 v. 1 against NATO unless they use nukes and that is a Pandora's Box they really don't want to open because it means Russia also ceases to exist.

In short, your logic is flawed.
 

GoatsMilk

Experienced member
Messages
3,442
Reactions
11 9,063
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
So how many more decades do we think will pass before the americans and russians have their first war against each other? Have any others nations "cock teased" each other for so long without actually ever fighting? Or is it all smoke and mirrors, a show and dance made for public consumption?
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,361
Reactions
22 12,853
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
By the way, don't think I didn't notice how you tried to switch from "NATO vs. Russia" to "only a few parts of NATO vs. Russia & China". I mean, in that case why not throw New Zealand, Australia, South Korea and Japan into the mix among others? But I prefer sticking to the original point so here it goes - Russia has no hope 1 v. 1 against NATO unless they use nukes and that is a Pandora's Box they really don't want to open because it means Russia also ceases to exist.

In short, your logic is flawed.

That same member had been floating ideas of a supposed alliance between China, Russia, Iran and Pakistan (which he named CRIP) for quite some time now, basically all anti western countries would suddenly team up in a coordinated manner in his made up mind. None of which really gain traction.
 

Dalit

Committed member
Messages
297
Reactions
416
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Netherlands
That same member had been floating ideas of a supposed alliance between China, Russia, Iran and Pakistan (which he named CRIP) for quite some time now, basically all anti western countries would suddenly team up in a coordinated manner in his made up mind. None of which really gain traction.

That has already happened and US/NATO eviction from Afghanistan is a good example of that. If you are foolish enough to believe that Pakistan solely fought against US/NATO occupation in Afghanistan for a full 2 decades you need to see a shrink. There is a great deal of cooperation between China, Russia, Pakistan and Iran when it comes to Afghanistan.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.




What do you think happens when such meetings take place? Are these countries playing scrabble?




China has invested hundreds of billions of dollars in their OBOR project around the world including regional countries like Pakistan and Iran. What makes you think that trade and military cooperation between regional counties like China, Iran, Pakistan and Russia is impossible? Aren't paranoid Western powers already accusing China of setting up military bases in many OBOR nations? Russia has shown keen interest in joining this initiative. Why is the US and the EU mimicking China by starting their own initiative to lure developing nations to counter Chinese advances? Don't act like a simpleton and post oneliners. In reality you are aware of these facts, but you like to twist them.
 
Last edited:

Dalit

Committed member
Messages
297
Reactions
416
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Netherlands
Yes, I do think that Russia will mostly stand alone. You are foolish if you think China will definitely jump into the ring for Russia, especially since they have claims on Siberia and most of eastern Russia which has valuable resources that they need and they don't like paying Russia for. Same for Russia, they don't jump into fights they don't have 90-100% chance of winning or they withdraw early.

I won't take Turkey out because Russia is a Turkish rival. Whether Turkey is a European entity or not (it's treated as half-and-half since it's clearly not 100% Middle-Eastern or Asian), it won't just bow out if NATO goes all in. Same goes for Britain which has been more hawkish towards Russia than pretty much any other European entity - and yes, Britain is European.

If we are talking about internal strife, Russia has no less of it than the EU. More in fact, considering that Russia consistently has to keep clamping down on separatist sentiments with extreme measures and has basically given up on trying to fix their dying demographics via natural birth rates and is now practically begging former Soviet states to come and get citizenship to boost their numbers.

By the way, don't think I didn't notice how you tried to switch from "NATO vs. Russia" to "only a few parts of NATO vs. Russia & China". I mean, in that case why not throw New Zealand, Australia, South Korea and Japan into the mix among others? But I prefer sticking to the original point so here it goes - Russia has no hope 1 v. 1 against NATO unless they use nukes and that is a Pandora's Box they really don't want to open because it means Russia also ceases to exist.

In short, your logic is flawed.

Too simplistic. Russia and China are putting their differences aside for the time being because they know they have mutual interests that converge on so many levels. Do you really think Russia and China would bother quarreling over a supposedly Siberian region when both are being maligned and challanged by Western powers? You are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Obviously, the most pressing challange for both China and Russia is facing off the US and her cronies.

Let's hear it from a knowledgeable Turkish member. @Cabatli_53 @T-123456 Would Turkey fight on EU behalf against Russia? Why would Turkey shed blood on behalf of EU and the US which don't treat Turkey with respect? Turkey had to step out of the F-35 project because it was going to get sanctioned for acquiring S-400 missile system from Russia. The EU treats Turkey like an orphan and Turkey is not even a full EU member after so many decades. In fact, Turkey and Western nations are locked in a war of culture and identity. In many Northern European nations Turkey is treated with suspicion and disdain because it has Eastern and Islamic roots. Right wing and liberal politicians in European nations often target Turkey for its Islamic history. That is actually the main reason why a powerful nation like Turkey has never become a full EU member in the first place. Western powers are deliberately pressuring the lira to break Erdogan's Turkey first policy. Other ragtag nations are being included into the EU membership, but Turkey with its bigger economy and history is being shunned. Not a secret why this is happening.

Britain gave the entire EU bandwagon a middle finger by going its own seperate way after Brexit. Why would Britain risk wrath of Russia when the war is actually between the US and Russia/China? Britain couldn't even lift a finger when Russia was accused of poisoning Litvinenko in broad daylight. Other little European states are just cannon fodder. When Putin walked into Crimea and integrated this important piece of land into the Russian Federation the Western powers just stood by and watched the show. What more proof do we need that Western powers only gang up and pounce against weaker opposition?

Internal strife like Western funded Pussy Riot and Navalny? There is no internal rife in Russia of a similar magnitude such as the EU. The EU is fighting for its existence and Brexit was just a small glimpse of what may come. Russia walked into Crimea and the entire Western world stood like a spectator. Why didn't the Western powers intervene and help Ukraine during crunch time? Now you want us to believe that US and EU are ready to conquer Russia. I actually live in a Northern European nation. I was born and raised in a Northern European nation. I know the mindset and sentiment of European people. What you are portraying is largely baloney. Most Europeans are sick and tired of their governments that kowtow US position. In fact, NATO itself has discovered how unreliable the US actually is. Just have a good look at Afghanistan.

Throw them all in. It won't make much of a difference. You know as well as I do, when push comes to shove the world will cease to exist when a clash between Russia/China vs the West really happened. Let's just give the hypotheticals a break. There is not one superior side in reality.
 
Last edited:

blackjack

Contributor
Russia Correspondent
Messages
1,320
Reactions
7 758
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Russia
Russia is conventionally good at zerg rushing their opposition and overwhelming brutality in the hopes of making the enemy surrender. If the enemy doesn't fall for this, Russia withdraws pretty quickly. I would also like to draw your attention to the amount of failed or "in development hell" projects Russia has going.

Oh Really


1640981109286.png


1640981162054.png


1640981297389.png



1640981500377.png


There are also new tanks 100s of T-90s being upgraded to Armata standards, Armatas, exoskeleton ratnik-3 suits which I am sure at this rate they have their soldiers armed with them by the time NATO does, etc.
Yes, I do think that Russia will mostly stand alone. You are foolish if you think China will definitely jump into the ring for Russia, especially since they have claims on Siberia and most of eastern Russia which has valuable resources that they need and they don't like paying Russia for. Same for Russia, they don't jump into fights they don't have 90-100% chance of winning or they withdraw early.

Lavrov is arranging a meeting with the Chinese and Indians to replace SWIFT and considering all the oil and gas projects Russia has all the Crimea sanctions will be long forgotten. The chinese are not retarded enough as you think they are in wanting to be surrounded by the west with the Russians out of the picture.
Now, NATO air superiority is already given since DAY 1. Without air superiority, moving a large army outside the border= suicide.
Air defense units, sophisticated EW systems and a sufficient enough

S-400 Tier 1" 2007 radars NEVSKY BASTION, NEVSKY BASTION. MILITARY-TECHNICAL COLLECTION. HISTORY OF HONORED WEAPONS, FOREIGN MILITARY EQUIPMENT. MILITARY-TECHNICAL COLLECTION. HISTORY OF DOMESTIC WEAPONS, FOREIGN MILITARY EQUIPMENT (nevskii-bastion.ru)

S-400 Tier 2: 2015 radars available to export in 2020 Integrated multifunctional radar system 55Zh6ME | Catalog Rosoboronexport (roe.ru)

S-400 Tier 3: which is to have better performance than the Nebo-M or Tier 2 radars. Russia developing radar for detecting hypersonic targets - Military & Defense - TASS

Than of course if we go further on upgrades there is the S-500 to engage targets 600kms away, and S-550 to solely rely on satellite and hypersonic target interceptions, but I think they fucked up the news report on the S-550 with the A-235 systems

Pantsir: it seems that there were orders in 2000 to UAE on wiki so I am wonder what kind of performance specs were they?

Pantsir-S1 Anti-aircraft missile and gun system "Pantsir-S1" | Catalog Rosoboronexport (roe.ru)

performance with drones.

pantsir trans.JPG


Pantsir-S1M Anti-aircraft missile and gun system "Pantsir-S1M" | Catalog Rosoboronexport (roe.ru) Russia’s upgraded Pantsyr anti-aircraft missile/gun system can fight any strike drones - Military & Defense - TASS

Pantsir-S2: this is what they keep to themselves.

Pantsir-SM: basically twice the radar and missile range of S1, interceptor missiles are twice as fast, targets it can deal with fly at speeds 2km/s while previous versions are 1km/s.

Pantsir Quad pack in developement: makes it possible to have 4 times the amount of current missiles used and probably why Morfei got abandoned since no news has come out of it yet.

(1) Jon Hawkes on Twitter: "As rumoured for a while, new small diameter anti-UAV missile for Pantsir in the flesh. Intended as a lighter and cheaper countermeasure for low and slow UAV, readily installed in place of one or more standaard 57E6-series tubes as needed, each tube holding 4 of the new missiles https://t.co/5uVGjbEAxh" / Twitter

to deal with real small drones thiis radar is in developement to ptobably assist the quadpack design

https://tass.com/defense/1111675

"The RTI Joint Stock Company, a developer and producer of high-tech products, will create new radars that operate in terahertz frequency range and are capable of pinpointing the smallest drone, RTI CEO Pavel Laptayev told TASS.

"The terahertz technology [featuring radio wave length below one millimeter] will be converted into a product within five years. These radars can detect small drones, and function in space," Laptayev explained.

According to the CEO, the submillimeter radar enables a beam to be aimed on a relatively small object with extraordinary precision, impossible for other ranges, and identify its shape, material, speed and trajectory.

Laptayev admitted that RTI managed to achieve significant success in the terahertz range only in 2019, with the company mastering the components for such stations, and learning to identify objects and materials. According to the CEO, the RTI specialists now work on radar software that would swiftly and effectively classify a target and relay this information to the operator.


Than of course there is potential of growth in the photonic radar field.

https://rg.ru/2018/04/08/revoliuciia-v-tehnike-lokacii-v-rossii-sozdaetsia-radiofotonnaia-rls.html

For example, the basis of radar missile defense systems and tracking of space objects are huge radar complexes. The premises in which the equipment is located are multi-storey buildings. The use of photonic technologies will allow you to fit all the control and data processing systems in much smaller dimensions - literally in several rooms. At the same time, the technical capabilities of radars to detect even small objects at a distance of thousands of kilometers will only increase. Moreover, due to the use of photonic technologies on the radar screen, there will be not a mark of the target, but its image, which is unattainable by classical radar. That is, the operator instead of the usual glowing point will see what is really flying - an airplane, a rocket, a flock of birds or a meteorite, it is worth repeating, even thousands of kilometers from the radar.

On the screen of the photon radar will appear not the mark of the target, but its image, which is unattainable by classical radar.

Now all radar systems - military and civilian - operate in a strictly defined frequency range, which complicates the technical design and leads to a variety of radar nomenclature. Photonic radars will achieve the highest degree of unification. They are able to instantly rebuild in a very wide range of operating frequencies - from meter values to millimeters.

The characteristics of the S-500 Prometheus air defense system were announced
It has long been no secret that the so-called stealth aircraft are clearly visible in the meter range, but most accurately their coordinates are better given by stations of centimeter and millimeter ranges. Therefore, in air defense systems, meter stations with very large antennas work simultaneously, and more compact ones - centimeters. But the photonic radar, scanning space in the long frequency range, will easily detect the same "invisible" and, instantly adjusting to a broadband signal and high frequency, will determine its exact coordinates in height and range.


https://rg.ru/2018/04/22/radiofotonika-stanet-drajverom-sovremennoj-radioelektroniki.html

Developments in the field of radiophotonics go in several directions. Is there anything out there? Absolutely. For example, in the Research Institute of Long-Range Radio Communication under the leadership of Alexei Shulunov, a prototype of a radiophotonic radar has already been assembled. This is an X-band radar with an optical heterodyne, which can be rebuilt in the widest range of radio waves - from meter frequencies to millimeter.

According to experts, it is the ability of radiophotonic radars to instantly rebuild in the widest frequency range that will change the entire radar technology, including the construction of various radar complexes.


The bottom line is India and Turkey still make these purchases and still get additional batches despite both having their own independent air defense projects on the side, so it seems they do not give a shit about the so called israel air strikes since of course I told you 1000 times has nothing to do with the efficiency of the system. I dont know which tier versions of S-400 they have received in which they declined purchases from the U.S. according to what people are saying here, but if such systems are useless than of course why would the Russians themselves continue improving their own air defenses?

At best most of the Pantsir-S1s were used in conflicts hell there might have been versions that existed before 2008 in combat. Sure there are still disagreements about the 103 tomahawks none intercepted while the other side says 70 something. But if Israel stated in their report that their 1st wave of missiles fucked up but the glidebombs from F-35s on 2nd wave managed to hit buildings while russia on that same day reported 14 of 16 intercepted that seems to state they were efficient. Of course the TB2 vs pantsir meme image showing the evidence and explanation for each favors the pantsir system in terms of cost comparision losses despite turks having a habit of overexagerating their capabilities all little too much or way more than the U.S. or Russia like they even wanted to take credit that they were used against a 1980s S-300 while it was israel's kamikazee drone that did the job and some non-existant pantsirs or modern EW systems that Armenia was too broke to afford themselves.

1640982670004.png


systems that will replace krasukhas. https://iz.ru/733273/aleksei-ramm-aleksandr-kruglov/pomekha-dlia-vraga

and whole alot of other shit https://www.russiadefence.net/t7276p200-russian-electronic-warfare-systems

76 Su-57s being ordered, 2nd Su-57s variants being ordered again in the next armement plan and there is the LTS aircrafts/drones and Su-70 drones getting ready soon for production. NS2, power to siberia, gas line project to middle east and arctic oil sales will just further sharpen their swords and military capabilities with more produciton numbers to come........NATO on the other hand or particularly Europe, I dont know but I can see why Sweden and finland would panick.
 
Last edited:

GoatsMilk

Experienced member
Messages
3,442
Reactions
11 9,063
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
What about US/NATO performance in Afghanistan?

Its conventional performance was outstanding. Its ability to occupy however was terrible. Same thing can be said of Iraq, absolutely destroyed Iraq in the space of a few weeks, but occupying the country was a mess. Americas raw power is insane. One aircraft carrier group has more fire power then most of the worlds militaries alone.

Russian military performance if we are being honest has been nothing special in recent history.
 

Dalit

Committed member
Messages
297
Reactions
416
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Netherlands
Its conventional performance was outstanding. Its ability to occupy however was terrible. Same thing can be said of Iraq, absolutely destroyed Iraq in the space of a few weeks, but occupying the country was a mess. Americas raw power is insane. One aircraft carrier group has more fire power then most of the worlds militaries alone.

Russian military performance if we are being honest has been nothing special in recent history.

US/NATO conventional capability was rubbish. Taliban made continues territorial advances during the entire 20 year war in broad daylight. What good is conventional capability when the opposing side continues to swallow territory?

Frankly, Russia doesn't need to fire a single bullet. What Russia has demonstrated recently through social media charm offensive speaks volume. Russia literally hacked US elections and EU states are also terrified of Russian influence. Russia has managed to infiltrate Western capitals without firing a single bullet. There are today countless Russia supporters among many European citizens.
 

blackjack

Contributor
Russia Correspondent
Messages
1,320
Reactions
7 758
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Russia
Russian performance in Georgia was terrible.

How? Georgia wasted more money than them and they were taken in 5 days with just a small fraction of their power.
Americas raw power is insane. One aircraft carrier group has more fire power then most of the worlds militaries alone.

All it takes is one nuclear warhead Zircon to be launched from underwater via satellite via HARMONY SONAR networks and thats it.
 

Follow us on social media

Latest posts

Top Bottom