Putin puts troops in western Russia on alert in drill 1.1

[Cybran]

My worthless paper affords me a standard of living you'll never experience, son.

How'd Russian standard of living? Hows yours?

What's your worthless paper good for when you don't have the freedom to buy a Kinder Surprise egg.

[Kasierith]

I dont know and I certainly dont take Scors argument at face value but what I do know is not to argue a sudden change in military capacity during a 12 month period. It simply dont happen. Period.

Numerous aircraft that have been in long term production, such as the Sukhoi Su-34, were finally put into official service this year. There has also been widespread increases in orders for more updated aircraft and decomissioning of old ones. It's actually been a pretty big deal in real Russian news how much more is being spent on defense and military; if everything goes through (which it won't, there's always fluff in the estimates), Russia's military spending as a % of GDP will be nearly as high as the US's next year.

[Rukentuts]

What's your worthless paper good for when you don't have the freedom to buy a Kinder Surprise egg.

You really wanna open the "freedom" door again?

Because I can post rankings again if you forgot.

[Kellhound]

I was talking not about SRBMs.

152mm tac nukes are of little use, as Russia does not have the deep strike capability that the use of said weapons were intended to allow.

[Skroe]

And research from last year is out of date.

- - - Updated - - -

No it's not, but okay.

Having lived in both the US and Russia for numerous years? You might want to look at your own country's infrastructure before you start casting stones.

I'm from Massachusetts, but have lived all over the North East. I have no idea what you're talking about. Worst thing you can say about our infrastructure up here is fast trains are always 20 years out and the ice can really tear up roads some years.

[Kellhound]

Numerous aircraft that have been in long term production, such as the Sukhoi Su-34, were finally put into official service this year. There has also been widespread increases in orders for more updated aircraft and decomissioning of old ones. It's actually been a pretty big deal in real Russian news how much more is being spent on defense and military; if everything goes through (which it won't, there's always fluff in the estimates), Russia's military spending as a % of GDP will be nearly as high as the US's next year.

A handful of new planes is not that significant, especially when they keep having to ground the entire MiG-29 fleet every so often for issues.

[Cybran]

I don't give a shit about your freedumbs, declining world status or inevitable global irrelevance. So please spare me.

[Rukentuts]

You don't care about your own claim? Okay...

[Skroe]

Numerous aircraft that have been in long term production, such as the Sukhoi Su-34, were finally put into official service this year. There has also been widespread increases in orders for more updated aircraft and decomissioning of old ones. It's actually been a pretty big deal in real Russian news how much more is being spent on defense and military; if everything goes through (which it won't, there's always fluff in the estimates), Russia's military spending as a % of GDP will be nearly as high as the US's next year.

The T-50 won't be accepted in large numbers of years... past 2020.

The Su-34, Russia has a few dozen of. And they're a terrible old design that is aging poorly. You have 45 them. It's US peer, the F-35, the US has 100 of already, is vastly more advanced, and we're on the road to buying 2500 of them over the next decade and a half.

I keep up with what Russia is buying. It's also converting it's first two Borei subs to attack configuration because the Bulava is 7+ years out from being workable. It's also abandoned it's true next generation tank design towards a modernized T-80. These are not good investments.

Military Spending as a percent of GDP is useful as a comparison statistic, but not beyond that. Countries should be spending 3.5-5% on it (the US nominally spends 3.8% but due to things outside the normal DoD budget, like supplemental war spending and dual use programs, its closer to 4.5%). Russia spending ~4% isn't really news.

Fact is, it would be 4% of Russia's $2 trillion GDP compared to 4% of the US's $16.5 trillion GDP. Care to guess which goes farther?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't give a shit about your freedumbs, declining world status or inevitable global irrelevance. So please spare me.

Keep dreaming, sparky. Same old tale heard going back to the 1950s.

And yet here we are. It must be disappointing for you, living your life this day in age, with the US what it is and you, well, what you are.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't care about your own claim? Okay...

This is Cybran.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/world/europe/far-right-gains-as-syrians-reach-eastern-europe.html?pagewanted=all

The things he said is pretty much Ataka party line from what I've read. Far right, nationalist, pro-Russian, anti-immigrant, anti-EU.

[Kasierith]

[QUOTE=Skroesec;28767793]

I'm from Massachusetts, but have lived all over the North East. I have no idea what you're talking about. Worst thing you can say about our infrastructure up here is fast trains are always 20 years out and the ice can really tear up roads some years.

Generally the North East is the best at updating and consistently maintaining its infrastructure, meaning that you have a location based perspective bias. If you want an extremely glaring and evident example of what I'm referring to, the issue with Hurricane Katrina would be a good one. Issues with roads, power distribution, water lines, bridges, and other such things tend to be very common, and is largely due to a lack of funding for doing regular mandatory repairs and instead doing it purely on an as needed basis.

The T-50 won't be accepted in large numbers of years... past 2020.

The Su-34, Russia has a few dozen of. And they're a terrible old design that is aging poorly. You have 45 them. It's US peer, the F-35, the US has 100 of already, is vastly more advanced, and we're on the road to buying 2500 of them over the next decade and a half.

I keep up with what Russia is buying. It's also converting it's first two Borei subs to attack configuration because the Bulava is 7+ years out from being workable. It's also abandoned it's true next generation tank design towards a modernized T-80. These are not good investments.

Military Spending as a percent of GDP is useful as a comparison statistic, but not beyond that. Countries should be spending 3.5-5% on it (the US nominally spends 3.8% but due to things outside the normal DoD budget, like supplemental war spending and dual use programs, its closer to 4.5%). Russia spending ~4% isn't really news.

Fact is, it would be 4% of Russia's $2 trillion GDP compared to 4% of the US's $16.5 trillion GDP. Care to guess which goes farther?

You're keeping up with bits and pieces of information at best, and for some reason seem to be under the delusion that poor design = anything not as good as what the US has. Yes, we get it, the US spends an overwhelming amount of its oh so abundant finances on its military. The rest of the world doesn't care, outside of perhaps China or North Korea. Russian military interests are directed towards China more than the EU, ultimately; despite the laughably thin arguments to the contrary, MAD is still in effect and, like in the Cold War, there will not be any all out direct conflicts between nuclear states. Because no matter how confident you claim to be in your defense systems, the risk will never be worth it.

Oh, and it's news if Russia is increasing its spending compared to what it was doing before.

[Rukentuts]

Generally the North East is the best at updating and consistently maintaining its infrastructure, meaning that you have a location based perspective bias. If you want an extremely glaring and evident example of what I'm referring to, the issue with Hurricane Katrina would be a good one. Issues with roads, power distribution, water lines, bridges, and other such things tend to be very common, and is largely due to a lack of funding for doing regular mandatory repairs and instead doing it purely on an as needed basis.

Ah yes, gotta love "state's rights"; the freedom to remain behind.

[Kasierith]

Ah yes, gotta love "state's rights"; the freedom to remain behind.

In Ohio, there's massive infrastructure improvements going on that were put through under the Democrats in 2012 before the election changes. Of course, the Republican governer is taking the credit now that all the planning and budgeting was done.

[Rukentuts]

In Ohio, there's massive infrastructure improvements going on that were put through under the Democrats in 2012 before the election changes. Of course, the Republican governer is taking the credit now that all the planning and budgeting was done.

Tends to be how it works. The Dems are entirely in power here, and with our economy, budget, and etc. all being near the best in the nation the Republicans are saying it was their policies from the last time they were in power; even though it all dramatically improved after they left.

[Skroe]

You're keeping up with bits and pieces of information at best, and for some reason seem to be under the delusion that poor design = anything not as good as what the US has. Yes, we get it, the US spends an overwhelming amount of its oh so abundant finances on its military. The rest of the world doesn't care, outside of perhaps China or North Korea. Russian military interests are directed towards China more than the EU, ultimately; despite the laughably thin arguments to the contrary, MAD is still in effect and, like in the Cold War, there will not be any all out direct conflicts between nuclear states. Because no matter how confident you claim to be in your defense systems, the risk will never be worth it.

Oh, and it's news if Russia is increasing its spending compared to what it was doing before.

No. A poor design is a poor design.

The Joint Strike Fighter is going to cost US Taxpayers $between $80 million and $120 million per copy, depending how you count it. They will be replacing F-16s and F/A-18C/Ds that were bought for $40 million in today's dollars.

Now if the US wanted to it could buy, from Lockheed, today, the F-16 Block E/F 60/62 design that it is selling to UAE and Iraq (and maybe another country) for about $60 million. They are a half a generation ahead of the Block 30/32, 40/42 / 50/52 that make up most of the US Air Force F-16 fleet. There would be no development costs. Economies of scale would apply very well to this order. We could have a huge fleet of Block 60/62s for a fraction of the cost of the F-35.

Oh but there is a problem. The 60/62 technology, while advanced compared to what we have have in our variants, is still based on a 40 year old aging airframe. You could attach more pods or integrate more systems or put a more powerful radar or add conformal fuel tanks, but at the end of the day, it's still an F-16, an aircraft that can only operate in permissive environments, and has none of the truly bleeding edge technology of the F-35. We'd be buying something we could use in a place like Afghanistan, and not a place like China.

I chose the F-16 for this example on purpose (the F-15 and F-22 comparison is also good) because the Block 62 is directly comparable in some ways to the SU-34 an aircraft that, like the F-16 Block 62, is an upgrade of a 40 year old airframe, in this case the SU-27.

You say that Russian defense is primary concerned about China. To a degree that is certain true. But then, what of the Su-34? It could never launch a ground attack in China. It would be spotted and shot out of the sky. Sure maybe they replaced the vacuum tubes of the Su-27 with fiber optics, but it still a 4th generation design at a time when everyone else around Russia, including China, is looking towards 5th generation ones.

The point is that, it isn't a matter of the source of the weaponry, but it's design crossed with its purpose. Why does one build a non-stealthy attack aircraft this day in age? For a country like the UAE it makes sense - they can't get in on the F-35 (yet), so they buy the best American thing on the market. But Russia, which makes its own aircraft? It's nonsensical. Like modernizing the T-80 this decade when the US is finding a way to shed 20 tons of the M1 Abrams to make them vastly more air mobile, its simply a bad solution. The F-35 for all it's immense and well deserved controversy is delivering an incredible aircraft (albeit at great cost). If Russia truly wants to be a first rate power, it should make first rate investments, not short cuts like this. And neither should they be claimed to be first rate investments, unless they actually are.

Another winner of a program? The odious Angara launch vehicle, made obsolete by SpaceX Falcon 9.

[mmokri]

I thought why Ukraine military shells cities with civils. And then I reсall that its usual brit(USA and Israel are brits v2) tactic of reducing own casualties.

Coup-masters continues their adventures.

[Gangresnake]

I thought why Ukraine military shells cities with civils. And then I reсall that its usual brit(USA and Israel are brits v2) tactic of reducing own casualties.

Coup-masters continues their adventures.

Russia did the same in Chechnya.

[ringpriest]

You're keeping up with bits and pieces of information at best, and for some reason seem to be under the delusion that poor design = anything not as good as what the US has. Yes, we get it, the US spends an overwhelming amount of its oh so abundant finances on its military. The rest of the world doesn't care, outside of perhaps China or North Korea. Russian military interests are directed towards China more than the EU, ultimately; despite the laughably thin arguments to the contrary, MAD is still in effect and, like in the Cold War, there will not be any all out direct conflicts between nuclear states. Because no matter how confident you claim to be in your defense systems, the risk will never be worth it.

Oh, and it's news if Russia is increasing its spending compared to what it was doing before.

Don't be too confident. While yes, it would be stupid in the extreme for the US (or anyone else) to start a nuclear war, Russia is more vulnerable now than in will likely be in 5 years, or twenty, and plenty of influential idiots in and out of the US government share with Skroesec the dangerous and Strangelovesque idea that nuclear war is "winnable".

[Kellhound]

Don't be too confident. While yes, it would be stupid in the extreme for the US (or anyone else) to start a nuclear war, Russia is more vulnerable now than in will likely be in 5 years, or twenty, and plenty of influential idiots in and out of the US government share with Skroesec the dangerous and Strangelovesque idea that nuclear war is "winnable".

The US military does not think that a nuclear war is winnable.

[malgin]

Russia did the same in Chechnya.

Have you been to Chechnya? Propably not. It was the alpha project for creating a new muslim state (ISIS-like) on Russia territory. Most of the terrorists were brainwashed in Saudi Arabia, Afganistan, Georgia training camps. I guess there should be no secret who were behind the scene

- - - Updated - - -

The US military does not think that a nuclear war is winnable.

What about the idea of the first strike? I guess it's pretty popular in US politics circles now. Even here you can get the idea from Scro that Russia probably wont do anything if US attacks it. So there is nothing to be afraid of.

[Kellhound]

Have you been to Chechnya? Propably not. It was the alpha project for creating a new muslim state (ISIS-like) on Russia territory. Most of the terrorists were brainwashed in Saudi Arabia, Afganistan, Georgia traning camps. I guess there should be no secret who were behind the scene

- - - Updated - - -



What about the idea of the first strike? I guess it's pretty popular in US politics circles now. Even here you can get the idea from Scro that Russia probably wont do anything if US attacks it. So there is nothing to be afraid of.

Political circles are meaningless hot air. The US military understands that it does not have the ability to destroy all Russian ICBMs in order to prevent retaliation.