Putin puts troops in western Russia on alert in drill

[Skroe]

It did its job just fine, no need to waste billions of dollars to troll Americans. I bet they just couldn't find an older craft to do that.
Nevertheless, mission accomplished, u r tasty.

The only reason it got close is because the Destroyer, which keep in mind is primarily an air-defense warship, decided not to blow it out of the sky the second the SU-24 got in range of the Destroyer's ordinance. That hardly qualifies as a "troll". It's like those time Russia sends it's Tu-95s to just outside the Alaskan border, the US Air Force rolls its eyes, send F-22s to intercept them, and escort them further out to sea.

The most dangerous thing about Su-24 - is that they are still combat worthy.

That's defining down "combat worthy" to something barely meaningful. Under your definition, a peer like the F-111 Aardvark would still be combat worthy. Hint: it isn't... it's been out of the US Air Force for nearly 20 years, and Australia is ridding / has gotten rid of it's last reserve Aardvarks.

You still got your A-10s, service extended till 2028. So whatcha gonna say to that, cowboy?

\
That's comparing apples and oranges. The A-10 is good for one thing and one thing alone. If we were to say make a "New A-10" like single-mission aircraft, it would look identical to the A-10 in almost every respect, probably with more titanium, a different gun and more modern avionics. But it would be essentially the same, because the A-10 is what a heavily armed CAS aircraft looks like. This is one of the reasons the A-10 survives. The design is proven and affordable. Hell the navy is doing this too in a sense: it's not building anymore DDG-1000 Zumwalt class destroyers after the first 3. It's going to build dozens of Flight-IIA and Flight III Arleigh Burke class destroyers (a 1980s design) because of the intrinsic strength of the basic design. Another example is the M1 series tank. The Army is preparing bidding on the M1A3, which is expected to be 20 tons lighter than the M1A2 and replace most of the M1A1 fleet. It will look very much like the M1A2 externally, but internally, it's going to be somewhat different. The design though, simply works.

The Su-24 is a different case. It is comparable to the F-111 Aardvark. Now don't get me wrong, the F-111 Aardvark was a very good aircraft and performed the "medium bomber" role pretty well. The SU-24 was a nominal peer. I say nominal because he Su-24 was a shittier version of it even then. It had a much smaller range and could carry less ordinance. It's electronics were less sophisticated. It has seen some upgrades, but here is the rub: it's an aircraft meant for a penetrating role, but due to lack of stealth and modern ECM cannot perform that role. This is why the F-111 Aardvark was phased out in the late 1980s (then entirely in the 1990s) as the F-117 and B-1Bs came onto the scene, and starting taking missions the F-111 did just a few years earlier (like Operation El Dorado Canyon).

So no. It's not combat capable, except if you mean "it can fly with weapons, and launch them if it doesn't get shot down first". Against AEGIS Warships, designed to destroy SU-24s mind you, it is useless. Against modern American fighters it can't out run or out manuever, it is useless.

The fact it is flying is a testament to the decrepit nature of the Russian aircraft industry, capable of making glorified stunt show aircraft - one or two at a time mind you - and not comprehensive, modernized combat systems.

And T-72 is from the same era as Abrams.

The T-72 is from the generation prior to the M1. It is a 1970s era tank. The M1 Abrams is a 1980s era. Furthermore the T-72 has seen very few upgrades (and what Upgrades there are not widely deployed). Russia instead relies upon it's immense numbers of tanks. The M1 on the other hand has seen constant upgrades that have been widely distributed. First generation M1s have been entirely mothballed. The US Army relies mostly on the 6000 M1A1s and M1A2s built in the 1990s and 2000s. The older M1A1s will be retired over the next decade as the lighter (but still conceptual, to be fair) M1A3 is purchased.

- - - Updated - - -

That article is 2 weeks old, nothing new there. Well, at least that SU-24 is flying. A bit like the JSF (F-35) that can do nothing else yet. Didn't it need another 8 million lines of code before it could do a little bit more? I guess the SU-24 is (and has always been) more bang for the buck.

The JSF can't do anything yet. Because it isn't done. You're basically damning an unfinished program for being unfinished. Because it's a fighter program that will be producing fighters through 2045 and is only in low rate initial production of ~20 units a year out of an eventual expected production run of 3500. By 2017, that will be around 112 per year, then up from there. I'm terribly sorry our next generation fighter isn't done being next generation yet.

And when it is? When it is done? When 3500 it is in the hands of countries that are US Military allies but not Russian military allies? What then? Russia isn't even remotely close to anything comparable in terms of the technology it brings to the table. Sure... I'm sure Sukhoi can turn out another SU-27 variant that impresses at stunt shows. But the airframe isn't what makes the F-35 advanced. It's the computers, the sensors and the electro-optical targeting system. It's this especially - the notch under the nose:


Mocking the F-35 for it's troubled history is ultimately a losing argument. No one in this forum has skewered Lockheed Martin worse than me for the entire program when given the opportunity. That company represents everything wrong with government contracting. Everything. However that is mostly an argument about taxpayers getting fleeced by a corporation very intent on milking the biggest military contract in human history for every cent. It is not an argument about what is actually being produced and what will be produced. The DoD is going to pay whatever it takes to make the F-35 what it wants it to be. So at the end of the day, the promised aircraft - albeit at an exorbitant price - is exactly what we'll get... a successor to the F-16 and F-117, in absolutely immense numbers.

But that's the future. The future is fun, but it's not here yet. Most rich NATO countries being armed with the most advanced stealth attack aircraft in the world, ten years hence, is very much tomorrow's problem (not that Russia will have an answer to it, besides pretending that an evolved S-300/S-400/S-500/S-600 system somehow offers defense against long range anti-radiation missiles). At the present Russia faces active aircraft, from F-15s to F-22s, far more capable than anything it has. So snarkiness about the F-35 is pretty pointless, because it wouldn't be what kills Russians. Advanced systems that are actively deployed, would be doing that.

Not that NATO is going to be killing Russians anytime soon. Well at least directly.

[Elim Garak]

The only reason it got close is because the Destroyer, which keep in mind is primarily an air-defense warship, decided not to blow it out of the sky the second the SU-24 got in range of the Destroyer's ordinance.

I said u r tasty. And u continue to deliver tasty.

That's defining down "combat worthy" to something barely meaningful.

To be combat worthy. You have no idea how Su-24 would perform if it had too.

That's comparing apples and oranges. The A-10 is good for one thing and one thing alone.

It's the same thing. Su-24 is good for one thing and one thing only. You just fail to realize that Russia has a very different geopolitical situation and military doctrine.

The T-72 is from the generation prior to the M1. It is a 1970s era tank. The M1 Abrams is a 1980s era.

No it is from the same era, because military eras are not counted in year difference. Which is just 7 years for tanks in question. They are of the same era. Both can be called death traps and both has been upgraded enough to be viable today. The latest t-72 modernization is called t-90. Soon to be replaced by t-99.

[TooMuch]

The JSF can't do anything yet. Because it isn't done. You're basically damning an unfinished program for being unfinished. Because it's a fighter program that will be producing fighters through 2045 and is only in low rate initial production of ~20 units a year out of an eventual expected production run of 3500. By 2017, that will be around 112 per year, then up from there. I'm terribly sorry our next generation fighter isn't done being next generation yet.

I was making jokes about the JSF because the US promised their NATO counterparts several things: a date it would be ready (long gone), a "fixed" price (multiple times as much) and for the NATO partners buying them there would be "additionally business" as thanks for their investments (several countries are still waiting for that). My problem is, like I have said so many times, why would we even want/need them. Or any military at all. The middle ages have been gone long, long time but it seems the warmongering mindset of certain people can and will not change.

[Cybran]

The situation in Ukraine summed up in one picture.

[TooMuch]

Lel, lets all drop military spending, except Russia. That'll surely not backfire.

Where in any of my posts did I exclude Russia (or any country).
Top 3: Bakis, Rukentuts, Gabriel

[Kellhound]

It did its job just fine, no need to waste billions of dollars to troll Americans. I bet they just couldn't find an older craft to do that.
Nevertheless, mission accomplished, u r tasty.

The most dangerous thing about Su-24 - is that they are still combat worthy.

You still got your A-10s, service extended till 2028. So whatcha gonna say to that, cowboy?

And T-72 is from the same era as Abrams.

They have older aircraft designs, like the Tu-95.
T
he most dangerous thing about the Su-24 is its high accident rate, not as bad as the MiG-21 true, but still very high.

The Russians still have their A-10, the Su-25 (which looks a lot like the YA-9, that lost to the A-10)

The T-72 was/is the cheap Soviet tank of the era anyway, the T-64 was the high end.

[Bakis]

Again, stop posting: you make a bigger fool of yourself with every post. Tell me now what a Godwin is please, and what a fascist? Tell me why YOUR linked article is "better" than mine? Tell me where I said that? When people tell stuff that shows another side than the one you have chosen, you react as like being stung by a wasp...

Maybe check back on your own posts: YOU (yes BAKIS) are the one insulting people all the time, YOU (yes BAKIS) can't admit you are wrong, YOU (yes BAKIS) have a lack of reading comprehension, seeing your replies to what people post. So it's not more than natural that people question your education, or your thinking capacity. Funny that after 23:00 CET you are always offline, maybe it has to do with your age.

I never said my article is better than yours that is the problem. You immediately said I was full of shit cos you posted an article. By linking an article you were immediately right in your view. Remember?
In your very first post you wrote I was full of bullshit and linked article which turned out to be the exact opposite of my later article and pretty much every military analyst but lets forget that

YOU (yes BAKIS) can't admit you are wrong

Not admitting when I'm wrong? Read post #13600 please, but I guess you will post an article and say that post never happened.
After all posting article make you right and other people wrong

Funny that after 23:00 CET you are always offline, maybe it has to do with your age.

Strange, it is 00:53 now. Guess that people who work are wrong too even if they goto bed a bit later than usual

So tell me now, who look like a complete fool?

[Kellhound]

I said u r tasty. And u continue to deliver tasty.

To be combat worthy. You have no idea how Su-24 would perform if it had too.


It's the same thing. Su-24 is good for one thing and one thing only. You just fail to realize that Russia has a very different geopolitical situation and military doctrine.


No it is from the same era, because military eras are not counted in year difference. Which is just 7 years for tanks in question. They are of the same era. Both can be called death traps and both has been upgraded enough to be viable today. The latest t-72 modernization is called t-90. Soon to be replaced by t-99.

The Su-24s capabilities are well known, it is of little threat to a Burke
The Su-24 is used to kill Russian pilots and drop bombs in mild threat environments.
Russian tanks have not done well against Western tanks in decades.

[Skroe]

Why would we even want/need them. Or any military at all. The middle ages have been gone long, long time but it seems the warmongering mindset of certain people can and will not change.

Do you want me say it directly? I'll lay it out directly for you.

To kill other human beings when we feel threatened or are going about defending our interests. Military hardware isn't paid and built to deliver groceries or something. It's paid for to kill other human beings if the need arises. Because some (many) countries have irreconcilable differences and terrible history with each other and get along only through a balance of fear about the consequences of military action, economic interaction, and their relative levels of power. Higher principle is the wrapping paper on the package. These are the guts of it.

I have nothing but disdainf or utopian one-worlders. Even worse than obnoxious internet wanna-be communists (you know what kind of people I'm talking about), who at least have a developed if discredited philosophical foundation. Utopians want to skip to the end for some nonsense ambition of making Star Trek real or something. They arrive at an endpoint, that humanity is better off resembling something united they've seen in a work of fiction, then work backwards. Since when is that approach legitimate in any way about anything?

Nothing could be further from the truth. Nevermind the fact such a dream is tremendously insulting to the immense number of non-Western traditions that utopioan one-worlders sideline or gloss over, it completely (and disrespectfully) plays down the entirely legitimate and intractable differences between countries. I mean hell, look at US and Western European beliefs about pretty fundamental things like jury trials, social wellfare, and civil rights. There are some things we have nothing in common about. And we're the most alike peoples in the world on most issues. Saying that people who respect and want these differences to be maintained are warmongers is ridiculous. Utopianism isn't enlightened... it's delusional, and it's foundation is ignorance and disrespect to the immense ways the multitude of humanity is different from each other, and frankly, really doesn't care for those who are different from themselves.

Don't get me wrong: nothing would be better than a united world without war. But that's the same way as saying "nothing would be better than faster than light travel". In the very real world we live in, both are far harder to accomplish than in fiction. On whose terms is the world united? American terms? That means 95% of the world loses. Broadly Western Terms? What about the other 5.5 billion people in the world who will be subject to that? Some kind of international compromise? Really. And how has compromise worked out for countries as a whole so far? How achievable is it? Does every country have an equal voice? Is that fair to larger richer countries? If it is proportional, what about the rights of small countries? As we see with Climate Change, even with the treat of catastrophe, the world cannot agree to even modest collective action because of fundamental disagreements (in this case, particularly, developing countries shaking down rich ones for hundreds of billions of dollars per year, which is never going to happen).

You call it "middle ages". It's not that. It's the world in which we have and will continue to live, because the differences that the US has with Russia, the US has with China, the EU has with everyone, the "Global South" has with the West, China has with Japan, Australia has with Indonesia, so on and so forth... are extremely legitimate and pretending that if we somehow just all took a step back and threw down our arms, it would fix it, is immature and without credibility. If we were to listen to you, we would skip to the end, without actually working through these immense differences... slowly and painfully. How legitimate would such a world be in that case? How lasting? Human history isn't guided by the good things that has happened to it - no one celebrates United Nations Day. It is guided by the absolutely horrible things have happened to it though.

Hell blanket weapons bans don't even work. Countries will always cheat. Because no one truly is interested in principle over their relative power. I'm sorry, but maybe you were born too soon. We just aren't there yet.

- - - Updated - - -

I said u r tasty. And u continue to deliver tasty.

What are you talking about. Is this English? Are you having a seizure?

To be combat worthy. You have no idea how Su-24 would perform if it had too.

I can be informed by the US Air Force, which ran the F-111 out of service as fast as it could, twenty years ago, because it made a judgement about what the F-111 would face.

The F-111 was by all accounts, a superior aircraft to the SU-24.

And what the SU-24 would face is well beyond what the F-111 would have. So put 2 and 2 together. It's a flying fossil

It's the same thing. Su-24 is good for one thing and one thing only.

Nah, it's a different situation. A modernized SU-24 / F-111 would look like a substantially larger and two seat F-35 with no compromises for a STOVL variant. The larger size would be used for fuel and for internally carried ordinance. It would look nothing like the SU-24. The requirement for the SU-24 role has changed unbelievably since the 1970s. The Su-24 could not operate in contested airspace. A "modernized and inspired by successor" of it (or the F-111) would be required to in order to be useful at all.

In fact, the Air Force examined this about 8-10 years ago, when it considered the so called "FB-22"



It got pretty far (with the semi-related X-44 MANTA). It was to be an F-35 without vertical stabilizers, improved thrust vectoring and a delta wing. But it was not persued when it was decided a new design was needed, which became the "Interim Bomber", then the "2018 bomber", and most recently, Long Range Strike-B, which looks like a smaller, modernized B-2.

So no, in summary the SU-24 is entirely unsuitable to it's role.

You just fail to realize that Russia has a very different geopolitical situation and military doctrine.

It's different alright. And that's fine. That is why their submarine requirement is different and so forth.

But the SU-24 is an attack aircraft incapable of attacking anything remotely modern. So it's not capable. It's a flying museum piece.

No it is from the same era, because military eras are not counted in year difference. Which is just 7 years for tanks in question. They are of the same era. Both can be called death traps and both has been upgraded enough to be viable today. The latest t-72 modernization is called t-90. Soon to be replaced by t-99.

No. The competitor to the T-72 was the M-60. The competitor to the M1 was the T-80. The competitor to the M1A1 was the T-90. Russia has no competitor to the M1A2. Russia's next generation tank, the T-95 was canceled in 2010. The T-99 is not "soon". It exists only on paper.

Of Russia's MBTs, the vast majority of them are T-72s (4000, with 6000 in reserve), followed by 3000 T-80s and 550 T-90s.

By contrast the US has 0 Active / 2000 M1s in reserve, 4700 M1A1s and over 1500 M1A2s.

This is why people joke about the Russian Ground Forces. Because they are a joke.

[Rukentuts]

Of Russia's MBTs, the vast majority of them are T-72s

...

By contrast the US has ... 4700 M1A1s

And to add a little field data...

The most lopsided achievement of the M1A1s was the destruction of seven T-72s in a point-blank skirmish (less than 50 yards (46 m)) near Mahmoudiyah, about 18 miles (29 km) south of Baghdad, with no losses for the American side.[21] In addition to the Abrams' already heavy armament, some crews were also issued M136 AT4 shoulder-fired anti-tank weapons under the assumption that they might have to engage heavy armor in tight urban areas where the main gun could not be brought to bear.

[Kellhound]

And to add a little field data...

Every major war post WWII that pitted Western tanks against Soviet tanks didn't end well for the Soviet tanks. Heck, I was just reading that the Russian's don't even make the best APFSDS round for the their own 125mm tank guns, the Israelis do.

[malgin]

And to add a little field data...

As always your data is a half true/nonsense. Thouse tanks have outdated ammunition (producrion was stopped 1973) so they couldn't penetrate the armor; there was no additional armor on the tank's tower either.

[Deleted]

Of Russia's MBTs, the vast majority of them are T-72s (4000, with 6000 in reserve), followed by 3000 T-80s and 550 T-90s. By contrast the US has 0 Active / 2000 M1s in reserve, 4700 M1A1s and over 1500 M1A2s.

This is why people joke about the Russian Ground Forces. Because they are a joke.

The problem is that the Russian joke tanks is at the border of Ukraine....and the American super tanks are not, and US do not have the political will to mover the American tanks to Ukraine....so who have better tanks is irrelevant.

[Kellhound]

As always your data is a half true/nonsense. Thouse tanks have outdated ammunition (producrion was stopped 1973) so they couldn't penetrate the armor; there was no additional armor on the tank's tower either.

Even with the best APFSDS rounds a T-72 has to be at point blank range to defeat the frontal armor of a M1A1, while an M1A1 can defeat all but the T-72B with Kontakt 5 ERA at ranges exceeding 2km.

[Deleted]

Every major war post WWII that pitted Western tanks against Soviet tanks didn't end well for the Soviet tanks.

Iran Iraq war, Indo-Pakistani Wars, was large and one side did not collapsed because they did use west or east tanks/tactic because they was equal good or bad in using the tanks/tactic.

But it show that right training is divisive.

[Skroe]

As always your data is a half true/nonsense. Thouse tanks have outdated ammunition (producrion was stopped 1973) so they couldn't penetrate the armor; there was no additional armor on the tank's tower either.

I'd be less concerned about what the tanks are firing, then who is driving the tanks.

Let's just keep something in mind... and this is yet another reason why the Russian military is kind of a joke. It's Ground Forces (Army) has 190,000 conscripts who serve one year and 107,000 professional soldiers. That's fewer professional soldiers than the British Army. It was supposed to be 450,000 professional soldiers. Never happened.

http://russiamil.wordpress.com/2011/...power-problem/

You're going to have a hard time fielding well trained armored brigades, when the majority of the army play soldier for one year then go home. Sure Russia can have immense numbers of (mostly terribly outdated) tanks on paper. And it's crewing them with what? People too poor or unconnected to get out of their mandatory service?

At at the head of this? The army has 800 Generals. Yes. 800.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26975204

By contrast the 546,000 Active Duty US soldiers are commanded by a mandated by law maximum of 230 Generals.

Anyone wanna take a guess why it's horrific for large, complex bureaucracies to be extraordinarily top heavy, as a rule? And specifically why it's particularly a terrible thing for armed forces?

[Kellhound]

Iran Iraq war, Indo-Pakistani Wars, was large and one side did not collapsed because they did use west or east tanks/tactic because they was equal good or bad in using the tanks/tactic.

But it show that right training is divisive.

The only area Russia has an edge is in ERA, and ERA is dangerous to infantry. However, the latest US APFSDS was designed to counter Kontakt 5 ERA. Soviet tactics and training (which Russia has not been able to shed) has proven far, far, far inferior to NATO tactics and training.

[BreathTaker]

What, are you arguing about military forces of the west and Russia again?
Seriously this is getting boring.
Good always wins so US will disappear from Earth far sooner than Russia anyway, stop all this useless conversations here.
Or i'll call a wrath of the almighty on you, i warned you!

[Kellhound]

I'd be less concerned about what the tanks are firing, then who is driving the tanks.

Let's just keep something in mind... and this is yet another reason why the Russian military is kind of a joke. It's Ground Forces (Army) has 190,000 conscripts who serve one year and 107,000 professional soldiers. That's fewer professional soldiers than the British Army. It was supposed to be 450,000 professional soldiers. Never happened.

http://russiamil.wordpress.com/2011/...power-problem/

You're going to have a hard time fielding well trained armored brigades, when the majority of the army play soldier for one year then go home. Sure Russia can have immense numbers of (mostly terribly outdated) tanks on paper. And it's crewing them with what? People too poor or unconnected to get out of their mandatory service?

At at the head of this? The army has 800 Generals. Yes. 800.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26975204

By contrast the 546,000 Active Duty US soldiers are commanded by a mandated by law maximum of 230 Generals.

Anyone wanna take a guess why it's horrific for large, complex bureaucracies to be extraordinarily top heavy, as a rule? And specifically why it's particularly a terrible thing for armed forces?

Even worse, Russia generally lack the professional NCO corps that has proven time and again to be the key to a successful military. What the US has sergeants doing, Russia has to use a junior officer.

- - - Updated - - -

What, are you arguing about military forces of the west and Russia again?
Seriously this is getting boring.
Good always wins so US will disappear from Earth far sooner than Russia anyway, stop all this useless conversations here.
Or i'll call a wrath of the almighty on you, i warned you!

No real argument, that would require Russia's military to be far more capable than it is.

[Mormolyce]

That was like... 300 pages ago?!
Are you going trough the whole thread from then?

Not my fault it moves like 300 pages before I see it again.

Apparently some people on here REALLY care about what happens in Russia. They must live near there.