The British army has admitted it is no match for Russia

[Kellhound]

So you think our societies can take an old school massacre meat grinder war?

Depends on who the aggressor is.

- - - Updated - - -

surgical strikes with what exactly?

SEAD is a complex operation utilizing a mix of hard and soft kills and employing multiple weapons.

- - - Updated - - -

Nah i doubt it. As i said it all depends on the stance that will USA get with the new president. If the hawk gets elected and pushes hard on eastern Europe and on South China sea it is almost certain that there will be an alliance.

Besides, the future is east. It good for them to build ties even if they become pals again with some of the European countries that seem to have problems with them.

And as for the Chinese scenarios of stealing land from Russia, these are Sci-Fi scenarios. Don't listen to some of the posters here, they are dreaming.

There is nothing to really gain for either being in an alliance, as going to war against the US just to defend the other is not in their interest.

[Skroe]

It is a semi plausible scenario over long time.
Its no more unreasonable than France and Germany burying the hatchet. (was, in the 20th i mean)

Let's keep in mind how that happened though.

The French State post-World War II was functionally a new entity and not many faces from the pre-War era were brought back. The Nazi's had managed to comprehensively defeat and conquer what existed before.

In Germany, the war, the occupation, the East-West split, de-Nazification, and the allied powers basically treating post-War Germany like a hamster in a cage for 50 years, changed everything about the country. In matters of foreign and security policy, neither Germany was more than the most nominally of independent states from the split, through unification, until the mid-late 1990s. To a degree they still aren't.

France and Germany may have buried the hatchet, particularly between peoples. But at a policy and government level, that was because the pre-war elites had been pretty much wiped out on both sides and one of those countries was basically externally forced to reconcile.

It's really not a great example for Japan and China. A slightly (very slightly) more appropriate example (maybe) would be the US and UK rapprochement. It's so far behind us now its rarely discussed. But the US and UK circled each other from 1781 through the early 20th century. Even pre-US entry into World War I, some Americans sympathized with Germany because there was a lingering cultural resentment to the (Second) British Empire, feeling the Brits just replicated around the world what the American colonials escaped. Some Americans would have liked to see "the Empire" (as they called it, seriously) defeated. And then after World War II... most people don't realize but strictly speaking the world ended the War with THREE superpowers - the US, the USSR and the British Empire. The US was in great shape, the other two were severely damaged, but there was no reason the Empire couldn't recover like the USSR did. What happened though is that the US spent the next decade actually periodically teaming up with the USSR and pushing decolonization around the world. The most notable episode of this is of course, the Suez Crisis, which was the final nail in the coffin for reviving European Empires, but it was far from the only only one. There was a practical and a philosophical rationale behind this. From a practical perspective, the US, comfortable in it's role as the leader of the rest, did not want to share power with another Western Superpower that could potentially be a rival and a source of instability due to it's colonial composition. It was a strategic weakness, and the West minus the British Empire enhanced the US's power in the west. The philosophical reason was even then, a cultural resentment to "colonialism", again, the US having escaped it. As late as 1955, that was a real cultural feeling.

So in this example as well, we have that rapprochement, which took two centuries and required two major world wars, and utterly immense societal, political and economic change in both countries, to the point where the Empire gave way to "The United Kingdom, member of the ECC/EU (except not anymore)" and internationally reluctant, and the United States, former isolationist backwater now the richest, most powerful country the world's ever seen at the end of a globe-spanning invterventionist, expeditionary foreign and security policy.

Basically a true Chinese and Japanese alliance would require both of them to be altered beyond recognition. And in my estimation, the time scale would be closer to the US-UK's 200 year one, than Franco-German's 50 year one.

[Deleted]

Let's keep in mind how that happened though.

The French German question was about a thousand years old when it died.
There wasn't just an elite or even people thing, it was a geography thing.
And after the war, Degaule was still around - Him sticking with germany and rejecting the UK was a bit of a big deal.
Partially due to the division of Germany, and partially because it became an imperative goal for the French republic to never again go to war with Germany.
Its not terribly unreasonable to assume that (as i pretended in my scenario) that a re jiggering in the area could spark a, well detante, for no reason other than the fact that neither party wants to go to war with each other again.
But yeah, not something that would happen tomorrow.

[muto]

Eh, the day's of the British Empire are gone..... not exactly surprising that Britain's army couldn't take on Russia's.

No it's not. Great Britain is arguably the most influential country to ever exist on the planet. It gave way to the creation of 3 very large powerful countries; Canada, Australia, and the United States. English is also the "staple" second language that is taught at a young age across Asia, and Europe.

[Ausr]

Yes your famous typo, I got a whole list of your less thought out, I mean "typos"
I've yet to figure out how China need Russia for anything seems to be the other way around quite frankly. Mutual interests from time to time != allies.

- - - Updated - - -


Anything is a plausible scenario if the hell freezes over

I think the best part about reading Ulmita's posts, besides being hilarious because of what a "genius" he is, is that he thinks he's always right and that he thinks he's provoking us, even though he's shown to be constantly wrong.

He's like a Trump supporter.

[swdan]

Chussia doesn't sound much better, but some.

its not Chussia. its western China and eastern China

[Kellhound]

I was saying that SCO could be the next anti USA or if not SCO another form of alliance between China and Russia for 100's of pages in the Putin thread.
The reason is simple: Necessity.

Whoever can't see this its better of playing with his barbies. USA is pushing hard in South China sea and even if they stop Japan and China have disputes on other islands too. Since USA is Japan's ally, USA will be dragged in such conflict if ever happens.

China cant survive allone and they know it. Russia can't survive alone and they know it. If you put both together and IF USA keeps putting pressure on the area, an alliance in inevitable in my honest opinion.

Both of them can survive alone, so long as they dont try to take land/sea that doesnt belong to them. Both of them know it is in neither's interest to join a war against the US to defend the other.

[Melkandor]

He's like a Trump supporter.

This thread is about Britain's military being no match for Russia's. What's with people & their weird fetish of bringing up Trump in every single Internet forum thread?
OT: Of course Britain's military is no match for Russia's. The last time it was maybe close to being on par was after the fall of the Soviet Union.

[Ausr]

This thread is about Britain's military being no match for Russia's. What's with people & their weird fetish of bringing up Trump in every single Internet forum thread?
OT: Of course Britain's military is no match for Russia's. The last time it was maybe close to being on par was after the fall of the Soviet Union.

I was going to reply but I see you're one of them and in giving my explanation, would be infracted.

[caervek]

This thread is about Britain's military being no match for Russia's. What's with people & their weird fetish of bringing up Trump in every single Internet forum thread?

He didn't bring up Trump he likened somebody to a Trump supporter. Trump supporter is now an internet blanket term like tin foil hatter or flat earther, it's used to describe the mentality and intelligence of the person it refers too rather than their political allegiance.

[VincentWolf]

Is this surprising to somebody?

[Ulmita]

I think the best part about reading Ulmita's posts, besides being hilarious because of what a "genius" he is, is that he thinks he's always right and that he thinks he's provoking us, even though he's shown to be constantly wrong.

He's like a Trump supporter.

I am right most of the times =) and when i am not i admit it here (unlike some else)

I was correct when i said Britain is no much for Russia, i was correct when i said no EU country is a match for Russia and i am definitely correct when i say that if USA picks an aggressive line towards China will force an alliance between China and Russia out of just basic necessity.

I've also said that a Chinese - American war is not very probable since the Chinese in the near future will come close to equal if not overcome the USA as a economical and military power.

The only way we will see such war is if next US president does something silly, like sinking a Chinese military ship in those waters or shooting down any of their planes that patrol the area. (Plus what navy is crazy enough to go into waters that has close to 60 diesel electric subs waiting? ).

In our life time you will witness the birth of a multi polar world and this is wonderful news.

- - - Updated - - -

Is this surprising to somebody?

Yeah i can name you a bunch of people from this very thread that argue against when i mentioned this a while ago.

- - - Updated - - -

Both of them can survive alone, so long as they dont try to take land/sea that doesnt belong to them.

Nah dude it isn't that simple. You just wont let them exist peacefully. You will try to stick your missile shield to Korea, then to Japan then who knows else.
You will try to provoke any way possible as you did with the Russians.

Both of them know it is in neither's interest to join a war against the US to defend the other.

Why would you think it is better to fight individually than as a team?

[Kellhound]

I am right most of the times =) and when i am not i admit it here (unlike some else)

I was correct when i said Britain is no much for Russia, i was correct when i said no EU country is a match for Russia and i am definitely correct when i say that if USA picks an aggressive line towards China will force an alliance between China and Russia out of just basic necessity.

I've also said that a Chinese - American war is not very probable since the Chinese in the near future will come close to equal if not overcome the USA as a economical and military power.

The only way we will see such war is if next US president does something silly, like sinking a Chinese military ship in those waters or shooting down any of their planes that patrol the area. (Plus what navy is crazy enough to go into waters that has close to 60 diesel electric subs waiting? ).

In our life time you will witness the birth of a multi polar world and this is wonderful news.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah i can name you a bunch of people from this very thread that argue against when i mentioned this a while ago.

- - - Updated - - -



Nah dude it isn't that simple. You just wont let them exist peacefully. You will try to stick your missile shield to Korea, then to Japan then who knows else.
You will try to provoke any way possible as you did with the Russians.



Why would you think it is better to fight individually than as a team?

You are rarely right, you just lack the knowledge to understand the shortcomings of your arguments.

China is far from reaching parity with the US at sea and in the air, and no one has any intention of invading China. The cost of a war is the deterrent, though China has to be careful it doesnt back itself into a corner.

Funny thing about missile shields, they only effect you if you actually plan on using small numbers of missiles against them. They are, by nature, defensive. Korea and Japan are acquiring ABM capability of their own.

Because individually only the country at war with the US suffers. This is especially true if it was a Russia-NATO war as not participating is an all around win for China. Just because you have a desire to see a counter to NATO/US power does not mean anyone is actually interested in yoking themselves into fighting the US.

[Ausr]

I am right most of the times =) and when i am not i admit it here (unlike some else)

I was correct when i said Britain is no much for Russia, i was correct when i said no EU country is a match for Russia and i am definitely correct when i say that if USA picks an aggressive line towards China will force an alliance between China and Russia out of just basic necessity.

I've also said that a Chinese - American war is not very probable since the Chinese in the near future will come close to equal if not overcome the USA as a economical and military power.

The only way we will see such war is if next US president does something silly, like sinking a Chinese military ship in those waters or shooting down any of their planes that patrol the area. (Plus what navy is crazy enough to go into waters that has close to 60 diesel electric subs waiting? ).

In our life time you will witness the birth of a multi polar world and this is wonderful news.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah i can name you a bunch of people from this very thread that argue against when i mentioned this a while ago.

- - - Updated - - -



Nah dude it isn't that simple. You just wont let them exist peacefully. You will try to stick your missile shield to Korea, then to Japan then who knows else.
You will try to provoke any way possible as you did with the Russians.



Why would you think it is better to fight individually than as a team?

I'm curious to know if your nose grew like 2 ft by the time you were done replying to me.

[Ulmita]

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.

Some update on the engines shenanigan from Janes:

Second-phase' engine for Sukhoi T-50 nears completion

Development of the improved 'second-phase' engine for Russia's fifth-generation T-50 PAK FA fighter is nearing completion, according to TASS.
Komsomolsk-na-Amure Aviation Plant (KnAAZ) general director Alexander Pekarsh recently told the Russian news agency that the second-phase engine "is ready and working; testing is going according to plan".


The T-50 is Russia's most advanced fighter. Eight prototypes are conducting flight tests, while four are being assembled at KnAAZ. Prototypes have the 'first-phase' or 'Item 117S' (AL-41F1S) engine, which also powers the Su-35S fighter (KnAAZ assembles Sukhoi's T-50, Su-35S, and Su-30 fighters).


The developmental 'second-phase' engine is known as 'Item 30'. It reportedly features a reduced infrared signature, significantly increased thrust (up to 42,990 lb), supercruise, a 15-18% improvement in fuel efficiency, and lower life-cycle costs.