FFS!

darthed1981

It is worth bearing in mind as well, the bulk of Russia's equipment is technically no match for NATO's.

What we need to watch out for a bit is that new Russian weapons, like the T-50 fighter and T-14 Armata MBT, and all the new missile designs, are currently being developed and will likely be in service soon.

We need to make sure that when these come into service in quantity we have a good number of equal quality units to match them, no more penny pinching!

in the air and naval theatres, we are ahead already.  However, a new European platform for artillery, MBT and APC would seem wise.  The european countries need to press ahead with replacing F-16 with F-35 though, currently a bit behind schedule.  I'd expect the USAF to deploy F-35A somewhere they can fire their weapons within the next 12 months, Syria the obvious place.

Despite the cynicism, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, F-22 and F-35, not to mention the good old F-15, are in service in huge numbers.  The Russians have about 50 Su-35.  They do have hundreds of Mig-29 and Su-27 variants, but these are outmatched by the west's new fighters, except arguably in WVR engagements.  The F-16, the west's go to cheap fighter, of with several thousand are available to NATO, is roughly a match for the Mig-29/Su-27.

The Astute and Virginia Class SSNs are well in advance of all but the very latest Russian subs.  A sub poses a significant risk to high value surface units (like a carrier) but as long as an SSN is in escort, unless the sub can predict the carrier's route it will have to dash to get in firing position, revealing itself to both opposing SSNs and ASW frigates. 

To be fair, the Russian SSN fleet is by far their most powerful asset in the naval war, and would inflict heavy casualties, but the likely outcome of a "third battle of the Atlantic" would be a NATO win, so its unlikely Russia would try and fight it.

Europe has four major MBTs in service, Challenger II, Leclerc, Leopard and of course the M1A2.  Maybe a buy of a few hundred M1s or a new tank based on the Leopard could be wise?  It seems the main area we need to work on is an effective rapid reaction force capable of blunting the Russian armoured divisions?

The Germans need to pull their finger out as well.  What was left of their army plus old men and kids, inflicted 100,000 casualties on the Russians in the Battle of Berlin.  That German army would intimidate anyone, even Putin.

chillidoggy

The Russians will never beat the Germans to the beach.

munckee

Militarily Russia has never really proved its effectiveness, in WW2 they were incredibly difficult to beat in their own country because they were more used to the weather and they were prepared to sacrifice whatever numbers it took, more Russians died than anyone else in WW2 and allegedly as many died at the hands of Russians as Germans.

Afghanistan they proved the point that its a very difficult country to control but they were less successful than the US/UK/Allies even if we weren't that successful either.

Its incredibly difficult to say how they would stack up to a committed NATO but they would stand no chance against US or a US/UK alliance.

Which probably reinforces the point that Putin would just resort to nukes he wouldn't accept a miltary defeat.

ICBM

munckee said:

Militarily Russia has never really proved its effectiveness, in WW2 they were incredibly difficult to beat in their own country because they were more used to the weather and they were prepared to sacrifice whatever numbers it took, more Russians died than anyone else in WW2 and allegedly as many died at the hands of Russians as Germans.

No, they thoroughly beat the most powerful army in the world at the time. Certainly it cost them dearly in lives, but there's no arguing with the fact that they defeated the German Army on the Eastern Front, and even after D-Day three-quarters of the Germans were still fighting in the east.

It's also true that more Russians died at Stalingrad alone than the other Allies lost in the whole war, and that much of that was down to poor tactics and a stubborn willingness to keep throwing men into the battle no matter the losses, but nonetheless it was the turning point in the war.

ToneControl

Yes, it's fair to note that Russia can build stuff cheaper, but they can't buy in advanced tech. 
Does anyone think they are in the world-leading position for tech?

So: they do not have a huge population, do not have much cash, and don't have the best tech

Agreed they could annexe a few neighbours

Stuckfast

I'm sure Russia see it as being in their interests for countries like Ukraine and the Baltic states to be weak and divided and isolated, but I find it hard to believe they really want to invade and occupy those countries. Not only would it be a massive provocation to the West, but they would then be faced with the impossible challenge of subduing populations who are not at all sympathetic to Russian rule. Putin and his KGB cronies won't have forgotten how difficult that was in Afghanistan and Chechnya, nor previously in Soviet bloc nations like Hungary. It's one thing to annexe the Crimea where there is a majority Russian population and broad support, quite another to try to annexe the rest of the Ukraine.

darthed1981

Stuckfast said:

I'm sure Russia see it as being in their interests for countries like Ukraine and the Baltic states to be weak and divided and isolated, but I find it hard to believe they really want to invade and occupy those countries. Not only would it be a massive provocation to the West, but they would then be faced with the impossible challenge of subduing populations who are not at all sympathetic to Russian rule. Putin and his KGB cronies won't have forgotten how difficult that was in Afghanistan and Chechnya, nor previously in Soviet bloc nations like Hungary. It's one thing to annexe the Crimea where there is a majority Russian population and broad support, quite another to try to annexe the rest of the Ukraine.

Good point.

The other thing I've seen pointed our recently as well is that the Baltics have much less value as targets now Russia has invested so much in their own Northern naval bases.  As long as these are capable of making the baltic a no-go area for the NATO navies, Putin may be content here.

What is disturbing though is Russia's new-found interest in areas where historically they have been antagonists only because they were facing off against the West in general.  Most notably the Middle East.

If the end goal is Russia returned as a super-power, maybe the face-off is literally just that.  You can't measure yourself a superpower until you can stand toe-to-toe with the USA, so a bit of measuring is required.

Hope of no direct hot war at all...

ESBlonde

Any conflict with Russia will probably require them to invade (likely on a pretence) a part of Eastern Europe/NATO and the wests response will be swift and hopefully enough to drive out the invader. There will be neither the will nor the reserves to then push back further into the motherland. This would be a recipie for disaster (as napolian and Hitler both discovered) and NATO should leave the Russians to sort out thier own political nut case.
Similarities to The first world war standoff and the first Iraq war border stop are reminders of what can go wrong.
Russian military might is designed for fighting on thier own terms in thier own open desolate and very cold country where they already have home advantage. The might to overcome that would be considerable and the likely time scale would make it unworkable.

Fretwired

darthed1981 said:

Fretwired said:

darthed1981 said:

I just hope that we do invest more in defense, so that the quick and relatively painless conflict that would tempt Putin is never tempting enough. If it were as easy as some make out, he would have done it already.

It's about being smart. NATO is not smart. The EU is not smart. Countries waste money procuring kit from national suppliers. For example, there are at least six different main battle tanks. Since Germany and France are the two biggest and most prosperous EU countries they should aim to provide the main land-based forces to counter Russia along with the US.

The UK is a strategic island. We should scrap our tanks and old fashioned infantry divisions and provide the main naval power and rapid reaction and specialist elite forces and air cover over the North Sea into Scandinavia and over the Atlantic. The RN has a new naval base in the Gulf so we can protect the sea lanes that bring gas and oil products into Europe. Scrap the aircraft carriers and build stealthy subs and lots of lower cost frigates. Numbers matter.

Main army HQ in France, air force HQ in Germany and navy HQ, intelligence and NATO HQ in UK. The smaller European nations chip in with whatever they can manage. Where possible standardise on kit. 

This isnt all about you not liking Bae is it?

 We discussed this before but I honestly feel the QE is one area where we have actually done what the US asks for once.  She will be able to fill a slot currently requiring a US carrier and that carrier group could allow the US to more quickly defeat the Russian Navy in the Pacific, for example.

I agree a couple more subs wouldnt go amiss, do you mean more Astutes or diesel electrics?

As for the Frigates, they cant just use Type 31 for everything, they would need more Type 26 to  bottle up the GIUK gap.  Again not a bad idea the Navy would sure agree!

The rest is just NATO s early 80s plan isnt it?  The only difference is that did involve a large British army of the Rhine.  We should bring them back as well.

As for buying more off the shelf  from the US, the recent P8 buy shows the way there.

Nothing to do with me not liking BAe - my plan would give them more work. This isn't my idea. It was an international group of European military experts looking to provide a viable, cost-effective defence strategy. Too much cash is currently wasted on duplication of kit etc.

darthed1981

Fretwired said:

Nothing to do with me not liking BAe - my plan would give them more work. This isn't my idea. It was an international group of European military experts looking to provide a viable, cost-effective defence strategy. Too much cash is currently wasted on duplication of kit etc.

Certainly a lot of wisdom in that, given major projects tend to be pan-European.  There are very nearly 500 Typhoons in Europe, a figure that would bother anyone! 

I feel a new pan-European MBT would be a decent idea, to provide a counterpoint to the Armata. 

Fretwired

darthed1981 said:

Fretwired said:

Nothing to do with me not liking BAe - my plan would give them more work. This isn't my idea. It was an international group of European military experts looking to provide a viable, cost-effective defence strategy. Too much cash is currently wasted on duplication of kit etc.

Certainly a lot of wisdom in that, given major projects tend to be pan-European.  There are very nearly 500 Typhoons in Europe, a figure that would bother anyone! 

I feel a new pan-European MBT would be a decent idea, to provide a counterpoint to the Armata. 

The French and the Germans have agreed to build a new tank. The Germans would like the Brits to join (as world leaders in armour) and given Challenger 3 has been scrapped it may make sense. On the other hand the Yanks are looking to build a new tank so should we go with them. The agony of choice.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/get-ready-russia-european-power-has-plans-lethal-new-tank-15251


I just wonder if big tanks have had their day. Turkey and Israel have lost lots of tanks to the latest Russian handheld weapons - factor in drones with the ability to hit a tank with a lethal missile from behind and completely destroy it.

CHRISB50

ToneControl said:

Yes, it's fair to note that Russia can build stuff cheaper, but they can't buy in advanced tech. 
Does anyone think they are in the world-leading position for tech?

So: they do not have a huge population, do not have much cash, and don't have the best tech

Agreed they could annexe a few neighbours

There is footage of them using commercial GPS in their bombers. 

Tech isn't a strong point for Russia. 

darthed1981

Fretwired said:
I just wonder if big tanks have had their day. Turkey and Israel have lost lots of tanks to the latest Russian handheld weapons - factor in drones with the ability to hit a tank with a lethal missile from behind and completely destroy it.

Well tanks have always been vulnerable without infantry to take out anti tank weaponry right back to WW2.

Taking heavy losses in tanks on the attack is almost to be expected but no other weapon exists that can exploit a break out into open ground like the tank.  

Dug in armour is very resistant to artillery as well, and a multiple layered defense with lots of space to fall back could help us form a wall to break Russian spearheads.

If the new European MBT does take off I suspect it will be a fine vehicle 

Myranda

My dad was in the army as a tank gunner near the end of the cold war... one thing he mentioned several times was that, given how much better trained and equiped the British army was, it was expected that for every British tank destroyed eight Russian tanks would have been destroyed.

This sounds brilliant - how could we lose?! But Russia was estimated to have 10 times more tanks than us... 

Since then, greater infantry and attack helicopter tech might mean that the west's even smaller tank forces are less pressing... but again, Russia could easily have more ground troops and helicopters... making any technical advantage lesser by virtue of not being able to hit all the bad-men before they hit you

So, the general consensus is: don't do war with super-powers, even former ones lead by bear-wrestling loonies...

Annnd, that the said loony-country can't do war with the west, because as a capitalist country it needs to trade with other economies, and crushing them would be bad.

OF course... a big orange idiot with a scouring pad on his head might push us into war with ill-conceived rhetoric later today, so get ready to kiss your anuses good-bye

darthed1981

The US could launch a massive cruise missile strike against Assad's bases tonight. 

Last time, they warned Russia first, so they wouldn't lose personnel, and of course the Russians warned the Syrians, so not much damage was done.

So you now escalate, but you try and do it without any risk of directly hitting Russian assets...

Hope the Americans are shooting straight if they go for a strike tonight.  Resorting to a military option seems very likely.

ICBM

darthed1981 said:

Resorting to a military option seems very stupid.

Edited for accuracy.

It’s never achieved the desired result before, so why would it now? All it will do is drag the West further into the war and prolong it, not actually help the Syrian people, and Russia will simply increase support for Assad.

This may seem uncomfortable, but if you really want to stop the war and the suffering, the most effective solution is to allow Assad to win, as quickly as possible. It would have been much better if this had been done seven years ago.

He’s a nasty dictator. But trying to remove him has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, caused a vast refugee crisis, and achieved almost precisely nothing other than the near-total destruction of Syria - and the rise of Daesh.

The Russians actually explicitly warned Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary Of State that this would happen if the US supported a rebellion against Assad. We just have to hope that Trump winning the presidency means a different approach will be taken, but I’m not going to hold my breath.

The West also needs to think about who stands to gain from provoking a US military reaction against Assad, and thus who might actually have been behind the chemical attack.

darthed1981

Well the Russians said exactly that at the UN, the rebels have almost lost, the US could be their last hope.  Ultimately, nobody would get in their way.

The rebels really should surrender, and end the war, they have lost now and no realistic scenario results in anything other than more suffering until they do.

They could, could have toppled Assad years ago before Putin stepped into the vacuum left by the west dilly-dallying.  Obama was burned by Libya though, and I think just hated the idea of fully committing to another war where the people they are supporting are often Islamists who will turn on the US as soon as they get power.

One wonders if the old softly-softly approach may have worked better, implying that when the time came to retire, it could for Assad mean his own Carribbean island, and not handing him over to the mob, if he were to play the right cards.

Too late now though.  The latest news seems to indicate that the US, Britain and France are readying for a massive strike against Assad in Syria.

The other issue is, everyone in the US government seems to still think its "topple dicator, send the troops home" - it isn't it's basically colonise the middle east, build educational and social institutions and protect them with 150,000 troops for 20 years.  Not sure anyone wants to spend that kind of money.

ICBM

Yes, exactly - all that.

If our leaders think that bombing Syria is going to do anything other than make a bad situation worse they are fools or delusional, but I don't doubt it will happen. They *never* learn.

"FFS" indeed, to go back to the thread title. Which I know was about something entirely different!

munckee

ICBM said:

darthed1981 said:

Resorting to a military option seems very stupid.

Edited for accuracy.

It’s never achieved the desired result before, so why would it now? All it will do is drag the West further into the war and prolong it, not actually help the Syrian people, and Russia will simply increase support for Assad.

This may seem uncomfortable, but if you really want to stop the war and the suffering, the most effective solution is to allow Assad to win, as quickly as possible. It would have been much better if this had been done seven years ago.

He’s a nasty dictator. But trying to remove him has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, caused a vast refugee crisis, and achieved almost precisely nothing other than the near-total destruction of Syria - and the rise of Daesh.

The Russians actually explicitly warned Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary Of State that this would happen if the US supported a rebellion against Assad. We just have to hope that Trump winning the presidency means a different approach will be taken, but I’m not going to hold my breath.

The West also needs to think about who stands to gain from provoking a US military reaction against Assad, and thus who might actually have been behind the chemical attack.

Yep its unpalatable but correct.  Plus look what happened to Libya and Iraq when the dictators were removed.  Unfortunately in the very pc words of my dad "Only nutters can control the nutters."

Rocker

As was alluded to in Yes! Prime Minister, the Russians will use salami tactics - slice by slice rather that outright hostility.  As they did by annexing the Crimea. The West will adopt a wait and see approach (as they always did). No war but no peace either...