The British army has admitted it is no match for Russia

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Or... guerrilla fight you till you give up. Lol.

Well, that's an option for anyone fighting anyone anywhere for any reason.

- - - Updated - - -

See, where exactly do you pull this number from exactly? Are you saying EVERYONE in every country except say, the Ukraine is effeminate? Because I just got to ask you what your idea of effeminate is?

hy·per·bo·le
hīˈpərbəlē
noun
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Take a Valium or something.

[SupBrah]

First I'm saying lauding the Military as a united force of supreme good that could never do no wrong is naive and childish

Please show me where I said anything of the sort. Hint: you can't. I never once claimed the military could do no wrong. I'm just saying that a larger and/or stronger army tends to almost always beat a smaller and/or weaker army.

a Small Elite Army works better in todays modern climate and the trend has been going for thousands of years.

That can be true, but the problem is already mentioned in the article of this thread. Brittan doesn't have a small, elite army capable of defeating Russia's large, elite army.

Now, that Survey. It's mostly hogwash because it asks for an OPINION. On a word like Masculine. Not even taking into account the fact that Self-esteem issues are rampant in todays young white men in the UK, it also becomes extremely polarizing because the idea of being Masculine is so vague.

So you admit that young UK men tend to me more emasculated and feminine. Everyone has self esteem issues, but (since the idea of masculinity is apparently so vague to young men nowadays) a masculine man would notice the problem and work on improving it (hitting the gym, working to advance in his career, finding activities and meeting people to work on his social skills, etc), while a more feminine man will just whine on the internet about how life isn't fair while doing nothing to improve the problems affecting them due to the rampant entitlement culture present in modern young people.

it really shows more the level of self-deprecation British young have compared to Americans, who are all Pomp and no muster.

It also shows why America is a global powerhouse while Britain is a husk of what it once was.

also note: I'm in no way saying all British men are emasculated, not at all. I've met Brits just as rough and tough as any Murican or Slav. Unfortunately, masculine men are becoming an ever growing minority in both UK and US. It's just that the US hasn't fallen victim to cultural marxist ideology as strongly as Western EU (yet).

[Ulmita]

Russia has no way to project it's manpower, Same as China.

Sure they're scary in numbers, but what happens if China ever tried any naval conflict? They'd get their out of date hardware smashed to bits by the extremely advanced US Eastern Fleet.

Lol stop posting non sense and go read the pentagon reports on the Chinese navy.

[Deleted]

Please show me where I said anything of the sort. Hint: you can't. I never once claimed the military could do no wrong. I'm just saying that a larger and/or stronger army tends to almost always beat a smaller and/or weaker army.


That can be true, but the problem is already mentioned in the article of this thread. Brittan doesn't have a small, elite army capable of defeating Russia's large, elite army.



So you admit that young UK men tend to me more emasculated and feminine. Everyone has self esteem issues, but (since the idea of masculinity is apparently so vague to young men nowadays) a masculine man would notice the problem and work on improving it (hitting the gym, working to advance in his career, finding activities and meeting people to work on his social skills, etc), while a more feminine man will just whine on the internet about how life isn't fair while doing nothing to improve the problems affecting them due to the rampant entitlement culture present in modern young people.



It also shows why America is a global powerhouse while Britain is a husk of what it once was.

also note: I'm in no way saying all British men are emasculated, not at all. I've met Brits just as rough and tough as any Murican or Slav. Unfortunately, masculine men are becoming an ever growing minority in both UK and US. It's just that the US hasn't fallen victim to cultural marxist ideology as strongly as Western EU (yet).

A global powerhouse and yet it doesn't have a functioning public health service and kids have to pick up a mortgage if they want to study. Lol.

Silly Brits, building a functional society. Pffft

[grimniruk]

It also shows why America is a global powerhouse while Britain is a husk of what it once was.

Hate to burst your bubble, but that's because of America's fast amount of wealth and general landmass compared to other countries, not because you think your Men are any way more masculine.

If anything, I think Americans are probably one of the most weakest and effeminate groups of people I have met if we go by an actual measure of masculinity. Because Americans seem to be more like strutting clucking hens trying to big themselves up than actually rolling up their sleeves to do any work. But I do want to know, What exactly is your definition of Masculine?

- - - Updated - - -

Lol stop posting non sense and go read the pentagon reports on the Chinese navy.

90% of all public military reports are "X enemy is deadly, pls send more money" anyway. The Chinese Navy is nothing compared to the Nato combined forces.

[Deleted]

Hey hold on a second. We have plenty of STRONK manly slavic men in eastern Europe ready to kill all of them Russians. What do you think huh?

I'll stand with the Russians.

- - - Updated - - -

lol. ok buddy.

Hush, generation #

[grimniruk]

You are literally lying.

He's just repeating the Speil the Russian Government said when the UK would shoot down any more Russian Planes.

[Ulmita]

You are literally lying.

Why am i lying? Have the Russians trespassed another countries FIR, besides maybe 2 times the one of Turkey due to hunting ISIS on the borders?
Or am i lying because of the "I am sorry part"

[Kellhound]

You're comparing a variety of deployed, in-production systems (the various Russian OLS systems) with a missile that's been in development for a decade, is already two years late, and likely won't be produced and deployed in useful numbers for over half a decade - the "something wrong" the F-22 or F-35 are likely to do (in the advent of a war) is get thrown into a war they (and their operators) weren't actually ready for. Unless it gets its shit together fast (and the Navy is starting to try, but not going anywhere near as fast as they need to), the US is going to be in the position of Nazi Germany - lots and lots of stuff that utterly outclasses anything their opponents have... but that either still has a few bugs, doesn't exist in strategically useful numbers, or is logistically a loss - sometimes two or three of them at once.

The 120D hit IOC last year. It always takes time to fully field a new system, but 5 years is for a full role out. However, even the 120C has more than 2x the range of Russia's ability to locate a stealth aircraft via heat.

- - - Updated - - -

Totally silly discussion:

We have nukes, they have nukes. The time when you could roll out the tanks, planes and soldiers and attack each other are way beyond liable today. For small skirmishes like Ukraine it's all good, since they have no nukes. So in the grandness of things everything is a stalemate no matter how much money you spend.

There are many scenarios where Russia and NATO could be involved in armed conflict that did not include a nuclear exchange.

- - - Updated - - -

no, I mean Septic..

1, It means he is listening to the will of his people without caring what outsiders think. it being bad is nothing more than your opinion.

2, ALL countries do this. including the precious USA. this has gone on forever. and is not unique to Russia. It's just popular to boogeyman them.

3, by that comment, it shows you have never trained, nor seen conflict. all the gear and no idea will get you killed fast. obviously it depends on exact context, but the best infantrymen in the world with an Kalashnikov will out'play' somebody green out of boot with a modern 416 setup, sophisticated comms etc etc. (416 being an example.)

Tank v tank, it is correct, but it also shows you cherry picked and failed to read the last sentence. which was me pointing this out already.

and finally, Seppo/Septic is a slang term used by other countries military for the americans. Seppo > Septic > Septic tank > Yank. because well, it rhymes, and the yanks are full of shit. (And whilst I'm sure some offended petal will report that, I was explaining it for reference, look it up.)

You must not be aware that a large portion of the Russian Army is made up of one year conscripts, while a large part of the US military is made up of combat veterans. But hey, why lets facts get in the way of your anti-American view?

- - - Updated - - -

Skroe's argument is even funnier to anyone who has ever seen the TV show "Only fools and horses", in the show there was an argument between a street sweeper and a bartender because the street sweeper was bragging about how he has used the same broom for 20 years. But then he adds that the broom has had 17 new heads and 14 new handles which prompts the bartender to ask "How can it be the same bloody broom then?".

This is a similar scenario, because the engines in question are the latest model in a lineage that dates back to 1981 Skroe cannot accept that they could be modern engines.

An old engine built with modern materials is still at heart an old engine.

- - - Updated - - -

NATO wouldn't win even without nukes, attacking 3rd world countries is one thing, attacking huge countries that can shoot back n haf huge armies West has NO EXPERIENCE in. There's no way they would walk into a ww1 meatgrinder scenario to die by the millions.
Ofc people like Skroe who think war is a computergame don't get, to them soldiers r just units like in a RTS game.
Attacking 3rd world countries has given people hybris cuz there's no risk there.
West in 2016 does NOT haf the stomach for a real war.

NATO has no interest in attacking Russia. Defeating a Russian attack on the other hand is a very different animal, and invading a strong enemy at the out break of war is not something Russia has ever been good at.

- - - Updated - - -

Google thinks otherwise:



Let me guess, it doesn't count because shields don't really count as weapons and give no offensive advantage? (or some similar nonsense).

A SAM is neither a cruise missile nor a ballistic missile, so by default they do not fall under the INF treaty.

- - - Updated - - -

The AL-41F1 are in the same category with the latest F110-GE-132. Those engines are NOT 5th generation material and that's the bottom line and the most important stuff to remember. We both acknowledged this much.

Thrust wise (remember thrust is just a part of an engine performance) the PAK-FA will only lag behind the F-22 with those engines because both use two. So to give you an example of thrust in military aircraft you have something like:

1. F-22 Raptor: 2 x Pratt & Whitney F119 engines = 35,000 x 2 = 70,000lbs of thrust total
2. Pak-FA + SU-35S: 2 x AL-41F1 engines = 33,000 x 2 = 66,000 lbs of thrust total
3. Su-27, Su-30, Su-34: 2 x AL-31F M1 engines = 60,400 lbs thrust total
4. F-15E: 2 x F110-GE-229 = 30,000 x 2 = 60,000 lbs of thrust total

Now bellow this top four the picture changes dramatically.

You have the:

-Eurofighter typhoon with 2 x Rolls Royce EJ200 which each provides max 20,000 lbs of thrust = 40,000lbs total
-The F-18 with 2 x GE F404 engines which each provides max 18,000 lbs of thrust = 36,000lbs total
-The new F-16E/F which sports the new F110-GE-132 engine which provides 32,500 lbs of thrust total
-The Swedish Gripen with 1 x GE F414G engine which provides 22,000 lbs of thrust total

And then you have the daddy of the engines, the F135-GE engine which power the F-35 and provides a whooping 44,000 lbs of thrust. So if the F-35 had two of those it would sport something short of 90,000lbs of thrust putting it in its own category completely.

Now, the 44,000lbs of thrust that the F135 provide are indeed not a lot for the specific airplane and thats why all the negative comments of being slow. But then, 44,000 lbs of thrust are double of what Gripen has, more than the twin engine F-18 and Typhoon and more than the new F16F/E new F110 model engine.

Now what did i achieve with all these numbers? Certainly not proving that an aircraft is better than the other. You can't really draw any conclusions by looking JUST at the thrust, not even for the aircraft's speed. Speed is a function of engine performance, weight and how air-dynamic is the shape of the aircraft (drag). You can't even draw a conclusion not even for the engine itself by just looking the thrust it generates. You need to look other stuff like reliability, fuel efficiency, hours of life etc.

The numbers are there just to understand a tiny part of the philosophy of manufacturing each engine and aircraft model.

And that is where Russian engines really fall on there face compared to Western engines.

- - - Updated - - -

Also remember that most of the NATO countries have no tools or means to project power to Russia's borders and many of not most will drop out NATO in case such a war, ESPECIALLY if USA or UK start the war (which is the most probable scenario if it ever gets to this).

The US and the UK have no interest in starting a war with Russia, they have nothing we need or want, and in the case of the US they are distracting us from our larger concerns in the Pacific.

- - - Updated - - -

Russian birth rates are rapidly converging to US birth rates, if not eclipsed them - that is, US ones are going down, Russian going up. Families who treat children as "special snowflakes" usually only have one.
Birth rates are already better then most of Europe. And they never were "legendary", neither in WWI nor in WWII.
Army is also already at about 60-80% contract soldiers (depending on branch) instead of conscripts.

And "not having stomach for real war" doesn't mean "not going to real war". If the only option is war it'll be war, there should be no questions about it.

US will have demographic issues much earlier though, with baby boomers dropping out of workforce and dropping birth rates.

You know which country is world-second on total immigration after US? It's Russia...

The Russian Army has too many conscripts, too many officers, and too few professional NCOs to be nearly as effective man for man as a 100% professional army with a proper NCO corps and fewer officers.

- - - Updated - - -

For Russia that has little to do with birth rates and more with giant demographic gap from disastrous 90's (and, as second order effect, demographic waves from population lost in WW2).

Current Russian birth rate is around 13.3 births/1000 population (from 2014), slowly going up
Current US birth rate is around 13.4 births/1000 population (also around same year), going down

US has lower deaths, but that is going to improve for Russia as well (and is improving).

You see, UN methodology also predicted from extrapolating 1990s that Russian population will be below number we have right now by about 3-5 millions... it didn't happen. Their projections are "if things stay mostly as they are"; and things generally don't.

Russia has a LONG way to go to reach the life expectancy of the US.

[Tijuana]

Missile Defense in no way shape or form is a breach of the INF Treaty. That is a Russian fiction concocted after the fact, meant to obscure and excuse their treaty breaking actitivies.

The US formally withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002. That was the treaty alone which governed Missile Defense. We were transparent. Russia, as always, is trying to cheat.

To be fair, the US missile defense shields use tomahawks. We have all sorts of capability with those, including nuclear. If I were Putin, I would be upset over this also.

[Thelin]

I'll stand with the Russians.

- - - Updated - - -



Hush, generation #

whatever that means?

[Shalcker]

The Russian Army has too many conscripts, too many officers, and too few professional NCOs to be nearly as effective man for man as a 100% professional army with a proper NCO corps and fewer officers.

Too many as in how many exactly? What is optimal ratio, and how far is Russian army from it at the moment?
And how fast is it moving in that direction?

Russia has a LONG way to go to reach the life expectancy of the US.

If 2005-2012 trend in life expectancy would continue, we can get there around 2030.

[Deleted]

The British army is no match for the Russian army and the Russian army is no match for the US army

[Kellhound]

I really don't want to get into nation bashing, but you do know the thing that makes the American Military strong is it's hardware, not it's under-trained jarheads right?

Undertrained as compared to who? Marines have 13 weeks of boot camp followed by 59 days of combat training (for combat troops).

[Kellhound]

To be fair, the US missile defense shields use tomahawks. We have all sorts of capability with those, including nuclear. If I were Putin, I would be upset over this also.

Tomahawks are not part of the missile defense shield, and they are also no longer land based, having been withdrawn to comply with the INF treaty.

- - - Updated - - -

Too many as in how many exactly? What is optimal ratio, and how far is Russian army from it at the moment?
And how fast is it moving in that direction?

If 2005-2012 trend in life expectancy would continue, we can get there around 2030.

Russian Army is about 1:3 to 1:4 officer to enlisted, which is about what the USAF is with all of its pilots. USMC is about 1:10. Russia has had very little luck in reducing that ratio for years.

The 2005-2012 trend has already flattened greatly in 2013-14.

[Ulmita]

http://yle.fi/uutiset/finland_confir...a_year/8143705

Because you lie.

Those evil transport aircrafts eh? And 6 a bit over a year? Try over 2500 Turkish F-16 fully armed flying over your cities per year.
Transport aircraft lol

[Skroe]

To be fair, the US missile defense shields use tomahawks. We have all sorts of capability with those, including nuclear. If I were Putin, I would be upset over this also.

The US Missile Defense shield in Europe uses SM-3 (Standard Missile 3) fired from Mark 41 Vertical Launch Tubes. The entire system is known as "Aegis Ashore" which is basically the tubes + sensor + combat control system of Arliegh Burke Flight IIA Destroyer minus, well, the boat parts.

This is a rendering



This is the built unit.



These things are popping up all over the place. THe one above is in New Jersey (its a test unit). There is one in Hawaii. There is one in Romania. There is one being built in Poland. Japan wants them. Expect ltos more. But it's rather ingenious if you think about it - impliment the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense fork of the Aegis Combat System in a building, rather than a boat.


However they do not use Tomahawks. Now to be clear, Mark 41 VLS tubes are indeed the tubes that Tomahawks on ships are fired from. But lots of stuff is fired from VLS tubes - Anti-Air missiles, Torpedoes, drones, anti-ship missiles. The Aegis Ashore units could only fire things other than the SM-3 if the software of the system computers are equipped to fire and guide them. So far as we know, that is not the case. But in any event, there are only a limited number of cells in the VLS box, and they are all taken up by SM-3s. Those Tomahawks would have to be fired from somewhere were they to exist.

And again, firing an SM-3 in a land attack role would be stupid. It would be like shooting a sattelite at something. I mean let's do the math here. Each SM-3 costs $11.2 million. The next version will be pricer. By contrast SM-6, which is smaller and meant for anti-air and not anti-ship (and perhaps land attack) costs $3.5 million. The latest Tomahawk costs $1.6 million each. Whats the difference? The SM-3 has a somewhat different design iin order to get high above the earth, and unlike the SM-6 and Tomahawk, which have explosive warheads, it has a kill vehicle - basically a suicidal mini-sattelite - as a payload, and they cost a lot more than a warhead.


You can really only turn the SM-3 into a land attack missile in the same way that you could theoretically turn the Space Shuttle into an orbital bomber - very awkwardly, very badly and hysterically cost prohibitively.

Don't get me wrong. I'm an advocate for an aggressive, antagonistic approach to Russia. They need to learn that the games they pay come with stiff consequences. Nothing would make me happier than if the US put long range land attack missiles in those Aegis Ashores, and then kept building them all across Europe, just to mess with Russia. But let's not invent capability where there isn't. Using the SM-3 in a land attack role would be like using a rifle to turn on the television from across the room or something.

If you want even evidence of this, consider the Navy's longer term goal: to have a unified missile to be able to do anti-ship, anti-air, and land attack. The SM-6, completely unintended, turned out to basically be that. But the Navy has no plans to have an all-in-one missile be able to Ballistic Missile Defense. In fact, let's keep in mind the SM-3 is only deployed on SOME Arleigh Burke destroyers, namely the ones modified with the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense fork of the Aegis Comat System. That's something like 22 ships out of a total of 62 with the ACS. Most Burkes use SM-2 and SM-6 and do not do Ballistic Missile Defense. At the present and going forward, only some of the Burkes being procured have the Aegis BMD fork, because the Navy doesn't need nor want all Burkes to be Aegis BMD capable.

And to pre-empty the claim, there is no nuclear warhead for the SM-2,SM-3 or SM-6. The nuclear capable Tomahawks were rapidly dismantled after being retired in 2012 as part of President Obama's ongoing efforts to be a well-liked global citizen and handcuff American military capability. A new warhead for nuclearized Tomahawks would have to be fabricated from scratch (which would be expensive, but far from impossible).

[Raldazzar]

You must not be aware that a large portion of the Russian Army is made up of one year conscripts, while a large part of the US military is made up of combat veterans. But hey, why lets facts get in the way of your anti-American view?

Prove it. cite sources not just random thoughts. I've seen with my own eyes how green the majority looked. so will need to back that statement up with some hard facts.

[IIamaKing]

since when UK is so close buddy to China ?

I think you confuse size with quality.

[Skroe]

Prove it. cite sources not just random thoughts. I've seen with my own eyes how green the majority looked. so will need to back that statement up with some hard facts.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../personnel.htm

All Russian men between the ages of 18 and 27 are obliged by law to perform one year of military service. In 2015, the total number of conscripts in the Russian army was 297,100 people - is one of the lowest in the past ten years. The most popular in the twenty-first century was an appeal to the Russian army in 2009 - 576,580 people. Then, 305,560 people were called in the spring.

According to official data, the strength of the Russian Armed Forces was estimated in 2012 at 774,500 personnel, including 220,000 officers and about 200,000 contracted soldiers. The military needed to recruit about 300,000 men during each annual draft to keep the number of personnel at the required level of 1 million.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...nnel-draft.htm

Currently, conscription is carried out 2 times a year: from 1 April to 15 July and from 1 October to 31 December. Since 2008, during the time of the country's military reform, the overall strength of the army was reduced to 1 million people, while the share of conscripts has decreased, the number of contractors. In 2013, the service was made more than 81 thousand, contracts for the posts of sergeants and privates. By 2016 the total number of this category of personnel more than 230,000 men.

The largest number of recruits in recent years, was aimed at the spring of 2009 - 305,560 people.. In the fall of 2010 on military service received 278,800 people, in the spring of 2011 - 218,720, in the autumn - 135,850. In the course of the spring draft 2012 troops 155, 570 people were sent, in the autumn of 2012 - 140,140. In the spring of 2013 the Russian army recruited 153,200 people, in the autumn - 150,000. As a result of the spring conscription in the Russian Armed Forces in 2014 to 154,000 troops. On alternative civil service directed 325 people. The total number of draft dodgers in the spring of 2014, according to the War Department, was 4,334.

YEAR - SPRING - AUTUM - TOTAL
2008 133 200 219 000 352,200
2009 305 560 271 020 576,580
2010 270 600 278 821 549,421
2011 218 720 135 850 354,570
2012 155 570 140 140 295,710
2013 153 200 150 000 303 200
2014 154 000 154 100 308 100
2015 150 145 147,100 297,245
2016 155 000 155 000 310,000