panzersaurkrautwerfer

Before we go super off topic:
 
The danger of the word terrorist is that it's a very handy tool to discard opposing forces and view points.  
 
The more useful definition is looking to the focus of the group's operations.  If it's fighting enemy forces in an asymmetrical manner (blowing up convoys, IED attacks, small unit ambushes), then insurgent or guerrilla is a more balanced perspective.  The focus of the terrorist is not so much fighting in an asymmetrical battle against the enemy's military forces, but in fighting the enemy's will to fight through atrocity.  Kidnapping and killing random westerners has virtually no impact on the mechanical ability of the west to drop bombs on ISIS, however in their own stupid little way they believe that the fear caused by their actions will cause the west to bow down to their demands.
 
So to that end, the old Islamic State in Iraq was terrorist (as their whole method of operations was seeing what could ft an IED, and get into a highly populated center of civilians), the Taliban is closer to insurgent/guerrillas.
 
Of course guerrillas can commit acts of terrorism (Taliban for instance, despite my distinction operates quite liberally with terrorist acts too), and terrorist groups can fight in more "pure" asymmetrical methods, but certain countries just stamp terrorist on anything that opposes whatever they're up to at the moment which rather takes any meaning away from the word.  
 
As an addendum too, I tend to exclude the perceived legitimacy of the party in question.  You can be a popular terrorist, or an unpopular guerrilla/insurgent/etc.  

Haha.  Ha.  
 
When we know what it actually looks like/has on it/there's something more than CG renderings it might be worth thinking about.  Emphasis on might.

Provided for plow tank pornography purposes:


 
Enjoy the wicked sweet early 90's VHSness.  Delete all references to CEVs, and consolidate the plow/MICLIC/lane marking roles into the ABV and it all works more or less the same.  

We were talking about something cool, and then nooooooo, another student of military history knows better.
 
Just in short, I do enjoy how impenetrable Russian IADS is, and how NATO will struggle with it, but supremely unstealthy last generation Russian fighters will zip on through NATO/Ukrainian IADS and kill  all the mens.
 
Carrying on in good order though!
 
 
Who died and appointed you to be thread-Stalin?  It was off track and we were happy there talking about much more relevant topics like how cool Longbow 2 was.
 
Re: IADS examples.
 
Super-off topic!  The question was never "will NATO bomb the Russians?" because the answer to that is fairly well agreed by all parties to be "Yes, eventually."  The million dollar question was if the Russians could bomb NATO.
 
And apparently given your able defense of large SAMs and the 2S6, the answer is "no, all Russian pilots will die shrieking in their canopies as they are violated from every direction by PATRIOT and 2S6 fire because IADS is the end all"
 
However I do not think that was your intent, so carrying on in good order.
 
Effectively the realistic outcome of any ADA component is to raise the difficulty of bombing something, but like all defenses, given effort and proper equipment they can be breached.  Anyone with a basic understanding of military workings understands defense is the stronger form of military operations, but it is never the decisive one (or, even if the defensive fight was important, what decided the matter was the follow-on offensive, or threat of same no matter how anemic it was).  The Israelis had to suffer through the slings and arrows of both first generation ATGMs and SAMs once they'd moved beyond babby's first missile stage.  However, as time and time again has proven, the IADS builds complexity into the operation, but to act as if they were the be all end all is a shallow reading of military history.  Hanoi still rocked with bomb blasts, Israeli jets still snake and naped their way across the desert.  Like all defensive, reactive ways of warfare, they're only good if you can follow up the breathing room they've given you.
 
Which gets to relative strength.
 
Here's what the Russian Air Force can muster circa around now:
 
830 "fighter" type planes (includes multi-roles and assumes the Russians would potentially commit MIG-31s offensively)+60 additional PAK-FAs maybe+100 claimed MIG-35 starting initial small number service claimed 2016
535 "Strike" type planes (planes with unambigiously strike-only role, chiefly SU-25 and SU-24)+89 claimed SU-34s
For amusement:
16 A-50 AWACS type planes
19 IL-78 aerial refueling planes+31 on order
 
Here's what the USAF brings to the fight:
1,473 "fighter" type planes (F-16, F-15s minus Es, F-22, F-35s in inventory)+1763 F-35 on order)
534 "Strike" type planes (F-15E, A-10C)
32 E-3 Sentry (AWACS)
16 JSTARs (Sort of AWACS for ground)
417 refueling planes (KC-135, not bored enough to look up KC-46 procurement)
 
USMC could bring if invited
229 Fighters (F/A-18s, to be replaced by F-35s)
99 Strike (AV-8, also to be replaced by F-35s)
 
USN if they get sick of the ocean
998  fighters (F/A-18A/B/C/D, and F/A-18E/Fs) 
117 Dedicated SEAD (EF-18G) 
 
Here's what our special relationship would show up with should Her Majesty deem fit:
 
125 Fighters (Typhoon)
102 Strike (Tornado)
6 AWACS (E-3 Sentry as operated by RAF)
 
Deutchland
 
109 Fighters (Typhoons, to eventually become fleet of 143)
116 Strike (Tornadoes) 
 
Merde. It is time for zee French:

135 Fighters (Rafales, remaining Mirage 2000s in fighter role)+37 additional Rafales if the Navy shows up.
84 Strike (Mirage 2000s in strike units)
4 AWACs (French owned E-3s)
 
Za naszą i waszą wolność!
 
80 Fighters (MIG-29, F-16)
23 Strike (SU-22)
 
"I swear guys!  THIS time we're going to pick a side and stick with it!"
 
76 Fighters (Typhoons)
134 Strike (Tornadoes, AMX International)
 
Ukraine:
50 Fighters (operational and on hand, others broken/in storage)
15 Strike (remaining operational SU-25s)
 
NATO
18 AWACS (E-3s "owned" by NATO)
 
These numbers:
 
Total commitment by all parties involved. Obviously not the case in event of war, each of these parties to include Russia will be forced to commit platforms to protecting other fronts  It's safe to assume this will equally effect all countries involved, and NATO is much better able to spread forces around at this point.
The only numbers that include F-35s are the USAF simply because I got bored of adding those in quickly
Russian "new" planes only count confirmed orders.
Only USAF tankers are counted, again this is a boredom thing on my end.
Russian and USAF strategic bombers are excluded.  It's doubtful any of those assets would be used for CAS, and very likely, at all for fear of causing some sort of "is this B-1 heading towards the Russian border dropping bombs on a bridge, or is it carrying nukes?" situations.
This excludes a large number of NATO countries.  I simply stuck to countries we've gotten some indication might show up in CMBS.
 
You can see the massive disparity in air power, capabilities, and numbers.  There are more USAF F-16s alone than all fighters in the Russian inventory, and significant numbers (nearly 50%) of Russian strike fighters are SU-25s, which given how everyone's crowing how dead the A-10 would be over Ukraine, I think it's safe to say they're not any more likely to survive terribly long either.  Additionally the 60 or so AWACS type platforms vs the 16 or so A-50s is a massive disparity in surveillance and command and control capability.  And bluntly russian SOF can only get lucky so many times, while risking the fact that "Chechen separatists" may suddenly appear in western Russia and do the same before disappearing to never be heard from again.
 
Some more random one off key points:

 
 
Who knows, there's only about 180ish of them I think, there's going to be a TON of other high end fighters in the air though, and the stealth isn't going to be as important for CAP over friendly lines.
 
If memory serves, West Germany isn't a country any more, and the hypothetical war of 1988 is not the hypothetical war of 2017.
 
Irrelevant to a painful degree.  Finding a tank company gone to ground is something much harder to do than finding a CVBG.  While standoff is going to be important, the defender's ability to acquire Russian aircraft will be much greater than Russian aviation's ability to acquire NATO ground forces.  Simple reality of finding a plane in the cold blue sky over a tank on the cluttered green earth.
 
Says the man who thinks tanks are aircraft carriers.  
 
As I have shown there is a MASSIVE difference in NATO capabilities and Russian capabilities.  And we know unambigiously USAF/USN/USMC avaitions, and several of their NATO counterparts fly significantly more than their potential Russian opponents. 830 Russian fighters to the 3,312 fighters NATO could call on, even assuming mirror capabilities is simply not a fight the Russians are going to be able to manage.  And ESPECIALLY something the Russians will not be able to manage over PATRIOT (from various NATO allies and US Army sites), MANPADs, Ukrainian ADA, etc, etc, etc.  The idea an SU-25 is going to live long enough to make a pass is possible, leakers can happen.  The idea it's not going to be part of his posthumous medal for valor is positive madness.  
 
Even assuming leakers, the odds that an SU-25 or SU-24 is going to get over US forces, make more than one pass, and survive to return to friendly lines is even more insane.  With Russian IADS, it's going to be hard for US forces to bomb Russian forces as much as we'd like.  Russian strike pilots would do well to jettison their landing gear on takeoff to save weight, because god knows they wouldn't be needing them again if they make it to the FEBA.  The war in the Ukraine is not a war of national survival.  The Russians would not be desperate enough to simply throw away aircraft they cannot afford to lose by the dozens to achieve tactical level strikes (especially considering each of those 830 fighters that follows the SU-25s it was trying to protect crashing to earth is one less fighter to stave off the 991 dedicated strike craft+ 3000ish now bomb carrying fighters from NATO). 
 
Given this force, this literal swarm of current generation airframes, something like a yankee imperialist 2S6 is a stupid, stupid, stupid waste of money.  We're best served by the might of our winged bretheren, and saving our pennies to make sure those flyboys get all the crew rest they need instead of pretending it's still 1989 and paying for Chaparral 2 or Son of Linebacker.  

I have obtained early view of T-14 and M1A3 platforms.


 
Extensive testing indicates the M1A3 will defeat the T-14 under all circumstances.


 
Thus the Armata is terrible and should not be in the game, and we can stop having "ARAMATA IS COMING" threads.

Regards:

Your repitllian vampire overlords.  

Police them moostaches!

VS-17 addendum
 
Now that I think about it, the tape itself is legitimate, but the tape would be applied around the sides like a picture frame.  No need to actually change it unless you really want to/are not busy effectively reskinning every object in the game and making it more awesome.  

I'd just call it an "HR" myself.
 
General McMaster is awesome.  Beyond his battlefield record his tankers and scouts loved him (as a Regimental Commander as that was the vintage of guys I was dealing with.  I can hardly tell you what my first two Brigade Commanders looked like, let alone express any sort of affection for them), and he has a reputation for saying what's right vs what's "right" if you get my drift.
 
Not to mention the whole 73 Eastings thing.  

I'm not really trying to be antagonistic, but I would qualify that with "it does what it says on the tin if you hold it right, and it's not a day ending in "y" or "in the strictest technical sense that labeling a day optic with a decal that says "night sight" does make it technically a night sight, but it doesn't make it a very good one"
 
All the Russian hardware I saw generally did what it was supposed to, just with appalling quality and shoddy worksmanship. Maybe it's better now, but it is the same companies doing it since the stuff I handled was cranked out, so perhaps not. 
 
Granted it was mostly infantry gear, but I expected "rugged and simple" not "did something just fall off?  I think something just fell off"
 
Also
 
 
then
 
 
RUSSIA IS SUPERIOR BUT I AM NOT GOING TO BE POLITICAL SO I WILL NOT TALK ABOUT THE FACT THEY ARE SUPERIOR.  ALLOW ME TO INSERT SOMETHING ABOUT HOW SMART RUSSIANS ARE INTO A TOPIC ABOUT PUFF THE MAGIC RUSSIAN TANK THAT IS TOTALLY REAL AND MY BEST FRIEND YOU JUST CANT SEE HIM.
 
I like the UN's education index.  They're not trying to sell me something
 
Additionally can we just have one Armata thread?  It seems to be the pattern that RT publishes how Aramatatata will eat all the American babies from 10 KM while jumping a ditch and someone sees fit to post another thread because we cannot possibly have heard of this tank that is the promised one instead of simply adding to the existing half dozen Armata threads.

I'm not really trying to be antagonistic, but I would qualify that with "it does what it says on the tin if you hold it right, and it's not a day ending in "y" or "in the strictest technical sense that labeling a day optic with a decal that says "night sight" does make it technically a night sight, but it doesn't make it a very good one"
 
All the Russian hardware I saw generally did what it was supposed to, just with appalling quality and shoddy worksmanship. Maybe it's better now, but it is the same companies doing it since the stuff I handled was cranked out, so perhaps not. 
 
Granted it was mostly infantry gear, but I expected "rugged and simple" not "did something just fall off?  I think something just fell off"
 
Also
 
 
then
 
 
RUSSIA IS SUPERIOR BUT I AM NOT GOING TO BE POLITICAL SO I WILL NOT TALK ABOUT THE FACT THEY ARE SUPERIOR.  ALLOW ME TO INSERT SOMETHING ABOUT HOW SMART RUSSIANS ARE INTO A TOPIC ABOUT PUFF THE MAGIC RUSSIAN TANK THAT IS TOTALLY REAL AND MY BEST FRIEND YOU JUST CANT SEE HIM.
 
I like the UN's education index.  They're not trying to sell me something
 
Additionally can we just have one Armata thread?  It seems to be the pattern that RT publishes how Aramatatata will eat all the American babies from 10 KM while jumping a ditch and someone sees fit to post another thread because we cannot possibly have heard of this tank that is the promised one instead of simply adding to the existing half dozen Armata threads.

Hi,
BTW.. I am not being rude, but don’t like political discussion on the net, the pub is for that, too easy to get the tone wrong. So will not respond. The Economist and Financial Times are as hostile to Russia and Putin as Neo-Cons but... they don’t fiddle facts. They are also smart when it comes to collecting and evaluating data. If they rate Russia as number 13 in the world for educational outcomes ahead of most western nations, it likely they are correct.  They will have known it would be controversial and double checked. Given they measures they are using. They may be wrong, but the default is that they are not.
 
All the best,
Kip.

I have obtained early view of T-14 and M1A3 platforms.


 
Extensive testing indicates the M1A3 will defeat the T-14 under all circumstances.


 
Thus the Armata is terrible and should not be in the game, and we can stop having "ARAMATA IS COMING" threads.

Regards:

Your repitllian vampire overlords.  

I have obtained early view of T-14 and M1A3 platforms.


 
Extensive testing indicates the M1A3 will defeat the T-14 under all circumstances.


 
Thus the Armata is terrible and should not be in the game, and we can stop having "ARAMATA IS COMING" threads.

Regards:

Your repitllian vampire overlords.  

I have obtained early view of T-14 and M1A3 platforms.


 
Extensive testing indicates the M1A3 will defeat the T-14 under all circumstances.


 
Thus the Armata is terrible and should not be in the game, and we can stop having "ARAMATA IS COMING" threads.

Regards:

Your repitllian vampire overlords.  

You did compare the ability of the Soviet military in 1980's to conduct anti-shipping warfare to the ability of the Russian Federation to conduct CAS over hostile airspace in 2017.  You also announced it was your duty to bring a thread that was pleasantly derailed back to quite honestly a line of discussion that was pretty well tapped out.
 
So yeah, apples and monkeys, thread-Stalin.
 
Anyway, so now I'm bored, annoyed, and I AM FILLED WITH THE ANGER AND FURY OF A'TOMIC POM*
 
 
Re: SOF
 
There's practical limitations on just what they can do.  Russian SOF is not some sort of collection of ubermench able to accomplish any mission, any time without raising an eyebrow.  In a practical sense given the overt, and high intensity nature of the conflict we can assume the level of force protection is to put it mildly, "harsh and draconian."  Preventing observation of these high value assets will be a priority, let alone keeping folks back and away from the launchers.  Counting on a SOF campaign to do anything but knock off the odd launcher is fool hardy and the Russians are not at all that stupid.  
 
This isn't 1988 man.  There's no ultra deep cover Spetnaz company waiting by Ramstein to conduct a suicide attack with the Red Army Faction to knock out as many fighters as possible.  In talking about conducting SOF missions outside of the Ukraine, it's a game Russia will be hard pressed to play, simply put if it starts running craziness in NATO countries, it's inviting effectively like escalation into Russia, which is damage it cannot afford to absorb (Again, how hard would it be to send a few dozen Chechen fighters via funding through Saudi Arabia with Iglas in hand to camp out below any airport/air base?).
 
There's also a practical limit on how many special forces units can be deployed against targets (just in terms of teams available, and able to effectively blend in), mobility (likely restricted to foot movement, full scale war will doubtlessly bring a curfew and civilian traffic will be restricted.
 
Which really gets to the point of we can expect an effect, but again, an effect to the point where it strongly influences the ability of NATO to the degree it negates a nearly three to one advantage in airframes, literally dozens of AWACs and other radar platforms, the 1,000+NATO available PATRIOT missile launchers (again, they're not all going to the Ukraine, but it provides a number to draw from, and PATRIOT can be air transported pretty easily compared to other hardware) is just daft.  
 
But it does.  The loss of one AWACS would hurt, but it's not going to remove the capability.  The number of AWACS available also means you could afford to have more than two E3s in the air at once, say some sort of two forward one back setup.  It also handily negates your earlier statement about airframe/crew fatigue, they're not going to run into the ground with that many available platforms.  Two AWACS over West Germany reflects the 80's availability of those platforms.  It's not 1988 anymore, and the capability has increased to the degree where your point is moot.
 
 
A-10 has a role, but its after the Russian Air Force has been put to bed, and SEAD/DEAD has done its job.  Same deal with the SU-25, but there's no reasonable observer who believes the Russian Air Force can take on the NATO air element, to the degree it prevents the NATO CAP from being able to operate freely above friendly forces.
 
Additionally how many sorties did that  damaged SU-25 go on to fly the next day?  I rather imagine it was difficult with significant parts of the airplane missing.  A plane that badly damaged is effectively a self-conducting downed pilot rescue and little more.  Even if hundreds of SU-25s are limping home (this is doubtful.  The Georgian example made it home because once it left the target area it was safe from enemy fire, over the Ukraine the SU-25 would have to dodge the pursuing fighters), holed by various hits, they're effectively "killed" for the purposes of follow on operations and likely the remainder of the campaign.
 
 
We aren't talking about just superior technology dude.  We're talking about better planes, we're talking about better pilots, we're talking about three times as many airframes, cutting edge sensors, advanced command and control, all conducted above highly advanced friendly air defense.  If it was just one for one each side had 200 planes, but the US had 200 F-22s and the Russians 200 MIG-29s, it'd be a rough go, but certainly some CAS would leak through just by saturation.
 
But to the degree the Russians are outnumbered, to the degree they are behind technologically and training wise....god.  It'd be a bad day to be a Russian pilot.
 
Which goes to the REDFOR planning cycle. They're not going to commit horribly outnumbered, out gunned, and out-manned platforms to knock out a few tanks here and there.  Giving up a few Bears or Backfires to kill a carrier is an effective trade, carriers are important.  Giving up a four strike fighter element for a chance at a tank or two, the math just doesn't work.  The Russians only have so many planes, and they cannot afford to fritter them away by hoping THIS SU-24 isn't going to be picked up by AWACS while somewhere over Russia before catching an AIM-120 after crossing the border.  Further any fighters expended trying to make a hole through CAP is one less fighter to keep the few thousand NATO strike capable fighters away from bombing the tar out of Russian forces.
 
The actual value of the Russian Air Force would likely be closer to the whole "fleet in being" because that's the only way it survives the war without getting its heart ripped out over the Ukraine.
 
All well and good, but how fast do you think it'd take follow on NATO CAP to arrive?  Given the number of AWACS, and NATO interceptors, any hole will last for a few minutes, and only be created at major losses.  This was viable when the air forces were basically 1:1 in number, or Russian superiority, as losing some number of planes to secure a local advantage was sensible.  But in a fight where NATO has vast superiority of numbers and systems  it's just feeding the NATO kill count.  Make a hole, AWACS sends more fighters to fill the hole.  They have more fighters and more capable systems, Ivan's skeletal remains are collected up by a MIA recovery team in 2034 that's working with permission from Kiev.  His MIG-29 is in pieces, not over the Russian Army, A-10s have party funtime in late August because there's no Russian fighters left to challenge them.
 
Third and fourth order effects.  
 
 
Which gets to the point that building a new SHORAD system is moronic now.
 
Simply put Russian CAS may get some hits in.  But it will also almost certainly die in the process.  And Russians are not stupid enough to throw away their platforms and pilots to bag a couple of tanks.
 
 
*I discovered the PX sells rip-its.  My Grandfather picked up a strange affection for spam after his years in the Marines, it appears I've acquired at least an occasional nostalgia for terrible energy drinks after my years in the army.

We were talking about something cool, and then nooooooo, another student of military history knows better.
 
Just in short, I do enjoy how impenetrable Russian IADS is, and how NATO will struggle with it, but supremely unstealthy last generation Russian fighters will zip on through NATO/Ukrainian IADS and kill  all the mens.
 
Carrying on in good order though!
 
 
Who died and appointed you to be thread-Stalin?  It was off track and we were happy there talking about much more relevant topics like how cool Longbow 2 was.
 
Re: IADS examples.
 
Super-off topic!  The question was never "will NATO bomb the Russians?" because the answer to that is fairly well agreed by all parties to be "Yes, eventually."  The million dollar question was if the Russians could bomb NATO.
 
And apparently given your able defense of large SAMs and the 2S6, the answer is "no, all Russian pilots will die shrieking in their canopies as they are violated from every direction by PATRIOT and 2S6 fire because IADS is the end all"
 
However I do not think that was your intent, so carrying on in good order.
 
Effectively the realistic outcome of any ADA component is to raise the difficulty of bombing something, but like all defenses, given effort and proper equipment they can be breached.  Anyone with a basic understanding of military workings understands defense is the stronger form of military operations, but it is never the decisive one (or, even if the defensive fight was important, what decided the matter was the follow-on offensive, or threat of same no matter how anemic it was).  The Israelis had to suffer through the slings and arrows of both first generation ATGMs and SAMs once they'd moved beyond babby's first missile stage.  However, as time and time again has proven, the IADS builds complexity into the operation, but to act as if they were the be all end all is a shallow reading of military history.  Hanoi still rocked with bomb blasts, Israeli jets still snake and naped their way across the desert.  Like all defensive, reactive ways of warfare, they're only good if you can follow up the breathing room they've given you.
 
Which gets to relative strength.
 
Here's what the Russian Air Force can muster circa around now:
 
830 "fighter" type planes (includes multi-roles and assumes the Russians would potentially commit MIG-31s offensively)+60 additional PAK-FAs maybe+100 claimed MIG-35 starting initial small number service claimed 2016
535 "Strike" type planes (planes with unambigiously strike-only role, chiefly SU-25 and SU-24)+89 claimed SU-34s
For amusement:
16 A-50 AWACS type planes
19 IL-78 aerial refueling planes+31 on order
 
Here's what the USAF brings to the fight:
1,473 "fighter" type planes (F-16, F-15s minus Es, F-22, F-35s in inventory)+1763 F-35 on order)
534 "Strike" type planes (F-15E, A-10C)
32 E-3 Sentry (AWACS)
16 JSTARs (Sort of AWACS for ground)
417 refueling planes (KC-135, not bored enough to look up KC-46 procurement)
 
USMC could bring if invited
229 Fighters (F/A-18s, to be replaced by F-35s)
99 Strike (AV-8, also to be replaced by F-35s)
 
USN if they get sick of the ocean
998  fighters (F/A-18A/B/C/D, and F/A-18E/Fs) 
117 Dedicated SEAD (EF-18G) 
 
Here's what our special relationship would show up with should Her Majesty deem fit:
 
125 Fighters (Typhoon)
102 Strike (Tornado)
6 AWACS (E-3 Sentry as operated by RAF)
 
Deutchland
 
109 Fighters (Typhoons, to eventually become fleet of 143)
116 Strike (Tornadoes) 
 
Merde. It is time for zee French:

135 Fighters (Rafales, remaining Mirage 2000s in fighter role)+37 additional Rafales if the Navy shows up.
84 Strike (Mirage 2000s in strike units)
4 AWACs (French owned E-3s)
 
Za naszą i waszą wolność!
 
80 Fighters (MIG-29, F-16)
23 Strike (SU-22)
 
"I swear guys!  THIS time we're going to pick a side and stick with it!"
 
76 Fighters (Typhoons)
134 Strike (Tornadoes, AMX International)
 
Ukraine:
50 Fighters (operational and on hand, others broken/in storage)
15 Strike (remaining operational SU-25s)
 
NATO
18 AWACS (E-3s "owned" by NATO)
 
These numbers:
 
Total commitment by all parties involved. Obviously not the case in event of war, each of these parties to include Russia will be forced to commit platforms to protecting other fronts  It's safe to assume this will equally effect all countries involved, and NATO is much better able to spread forces around at this point.
The only numbers that include F-35s are the USAF simply because I got bored of adding those in quickly
Russian "new" planes only count confirmed orders.
Only USAF tankers are counted, again this is a boredom thing on my end.
Russian and USAF strategic bombers are excluded.  It's doubtful any of those assets would be used for CAS, and very likely, at all for fear of causing some sort of "is this B-1 heading towards the Russian border dropping bombs on a bridge, or is it carrying nukes?" situations.
This excludes a large number of NATO countries.  I simply stuck to countries we've gotten some indication might show up in CMBS.
 
You can see the massive disparity in air power, capabilities, and numbers.  There are more USAF F-16s alone than all fighters in the Russian inventory, and significant numbers (nearly 50%) of Russian strike fighters are SU-25s, which given how everyone's crowing how dead the A-10 would be over Ukraine, I think it's safe to say they're not any more likely to survive terribly long either.  Additionally the 60 or so AWACS type platforms vs the 16 or so A-50s is a massive disparity in surveillance and command and control capability.  And bluntly russian SOF can only get lucky so many times, while risking the fact that "Chechen separatists" may suddenly appear in western Russia and do the same before disappearing to never be heard from again.
 
Some more random one off key points:

 
 
Who knows, there's only about 180ish of them I think, there's going to be a TON of other high end fighters in the air though, and the stealth isn't going to be as important for CAP over friendly lines.
 
If memory serves, West Germany isn't a country any more, and the hypothetical war of 1988 is not the hypothetical war of 2017.
 
Irrelevant to a painful degree.  Finding a tank company gone to ground is something much harder to do than finding a CVBG.  While standoff is going to be important, the defender's ability to acquire Russian aircraft will be much greater than Russian aviation's ability to acquire NATO ground forces.  Simple reality of finding a plane in the cold blue sky over a tank on the cluttered green earth.
 
Says the man who thinks tanks are aircraft carriers.  
 
As I have shown there is a MASSIVE difference in NATO capabilities and Russian capabilities.  And we know unambigiously USAF/USN/USMC avaitions, and several of their NATO counterparts fly significantly more than their potential Russian opponents. 830 Russian fighters to the 3,312 fighters NATO could call on, even assuming mirror capabilities is simply not a fight the Russians are going to be able to manage.  And ESPECIALLY something the Russians will not be able to manage over PATRIOT (from various NATO allies and US Army sites), MANPADs, Ukrainian ADA, etc, etc, etc.  The idea an SU-25 is going to live long enough to make a pass is possible, leakers can happen.  The idea it's not going to be part of his posthumous medal for valor is positive madness.  
 
Even assuming leakers, the odds that an SU-25 or SU-24 is going to get over US forces, make more than one pass, and survive to return to friendly lines is even more insane.  With Russian IADS, it's going to be hard for US forces to bomb Russian forces as much as we'd like.  Russian strike pilots would do well to jettison their landing gear on takeoff to save weight, because god knows they wouldn't be needing them again if they make it to the FEBA.  The war in the Ukraine is not a war of national survival.  The Russians would not be desperate enough to simply throw away aircraft they cannot afford to lose by the dozens to achieve tactical level strikes (especially considering each of those 830 fighters that follows the SU-25s it was trying to protect crashing to earth is one less fighter to stave off the 991 dedicated strike craft+ 3000ish now bomb carrying fighters from NATO). 
 
Given this force, this literal swarm of current generation airframes, something like a yankee imperialist 2S6 is a stupid, stupid, stupid waste of money.  We're best served by the might of our winged bretheren, and saving our pennies to make sure those flyboys get all the crew rest they need instead of pretending it's still 1989 and paying for Chaparral 2 or Son of Linebacker.  

Last Russian tank I'd call ground breaking was the T-64.  It's been a spell.
 
 
True, but in no way is the US military claiming it's the be all end all tank that will be in service in less than two years without anyone having actually see it for reals (I believe there was some years ago a "2017" date associated with it, but it's long since slid past that).

Provided for plow tank pornography purposes:


 
Enjoy the wicked sweet early 90's VHSness.  Delete all references to CEVs, and consolidate the plow/MICLIC/lane marking roles into the ABV and it all works more or less the same.  

Last Russian tank I'd call ground breaking was the T-64.  It's been a spell.
 
 
True, but in no way is the US military claiming it's the be all end all tank that will be in service in less than two years without anyone having actually see it for reals (I believe there was some years ago a "2017" date associated with it, but it's long since slid past that).

Provided for plow tank pornography purposes:


 
Enjoy the wicked sweet early 90's VHSness.  Delete all references to CEVs, and consolidate the plow/MICLIC/lane marking roles into the ABV and it all works more or less the same.  

Haha.  Ha.  
 
When we know what it actually looks like/has on it/there's something more than CG renderings it might be worth thinking about.  Emphasis on might.

Haha.  Ha.  
 
When we know what it actually looks like/has on it/there's something more than CG renderings it might be worth thinking about.  Emphasis on might.

GSR isn't a magic eyeray that sees through all things.  It's pretty easy to confuse, and on a battlefield there is a lot of terrain between the emitter and the possible targets.  It is not useless by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not like press button and on the screen the location of all enemy tanks within the claimed effective range appears.  
 
It's the same sort of logic that made the US Army buy up a million LRAS3 type systems, and the same unfortunate reality in terms of the tyranny of lines of sight, target fidelity, and the reality that most military forces avoid the wide open spaces that favor sensor-centric warfare.  
 
So to elaborate on my earlier comment, in a world filled with sensor contacts that are both targets, and not targets, ground based radar is good at telling you where things are vs not.  It's marginal at discriminating between targets, and still totally subject to LOS issues.  It can shoot at the maybe targets, but again its not good at bulldozer vs tank, and it is just as bad as every other optic at seeing behind terrain.  

You did compare the ability of the Soviet military in 1980's to conduct anti-shipping warfare to the ability of the Russian Federation to conduct CAS over hostile airspace in 2017.  You also announced it was your duty to bring a thread that was pleasantly derailed back to quite honestly a line of discussion that was pretty well tapped out.
 
So yeah, apples and monkeys, thread-Stalin.
 
Anyway, so now I'm bored, annoyed, and I AM FILLED WITH THE ANGER AND FURY OF A'TOMIC POM*
 
 
Re: SOF
 
There's practical limitations on just what they can do.  Russian SOF is not some sort of collection of ubermench able to accomplish any mission, any time without raising an eyebrow.  In a practical sense given the overt, and high intensity nature of the conflict we can assume the level of force protection is to put it mildly, "harsh and draconian."  Preventing observation of these high value assets will be a priority, let alone keeping folks back and away from the launchers.  Counting on a SOF campaign to do anything but knock off the odd launcher is fool hardy and the Russians are not at all that stupid.  
 
This isn't 1988 man.  There's no ultra deep cover Spetnaz company waiting by Ramstein to conduct a suicide attack with the Red Army Faction to knock out as many fighters as possible.  In talking about conducting SOF missions outside of the Ukraine, it's a game Russia will be hard pressed to play, simply put if it starts running craziness in NATO countries, it's inviting effectively like escalation into Russia, which is damage it cannot afford to absorb (Again, how hard would it be to send a few dozen Chechen fighters via funding through Saudi Arabia with Iglas in hand to camp out below any airport/air base?).
 
There's also a practical limit on how many special forces units can be deployed against targets (just in terms of teams available, and able to effectively blend in), mobility (likely restricted to foot movement, full scale war will doubtlessly bring a curfew and civilian traffic will be restricted.
 
Which really gets to the point of we can expect an effect, but again, an effect to the point where it strongly influences the ability of NATO to the degree it negates a nearly three to one advantage in airframes, literally dozens of AWACs and other radar platforms, the 1,000+NATO available PATRIOT missile launchers (again, they're not all going to the Ukraine, but it provides a number to draw from, and PATRIOT can be air transported pretty easily compared to other hardware) is just daft.  
 
But it does.  The loss of one AWACS would hurt, but it's not going to remove the capability.  The number of AWACS available also means you could afford to have more than two E3s in the air at once, say some sort of two forward one back setup.  It also handily negates your earlier statement about airframe/crew fatigue, they're not going to run into the ground with that many available platforms.  Two AWACS over West Germany reflects the 80's availability of those platforms.  It's not 1988 anymore, and the capability has increased to the degree where your point is moot.
 
 
A-10 has a role, but its after the Russian Air Force has been put to bed, and SEAD/DEAD has done its job.  Same deal with the SU-25, but there's no reasonable observer who believes the Russian Air Force can take on the NATO air element, to the degree it prevents the NATO CAP from being able to operate freely above friendly forces.
 
Additionally how many sorties did that  damaged SU-25 go on to fly the next day?  I rather imagine it was difficult with significant parts of the airplane missing.  A plane that badly damaged is effectively a self-conducting downed pilot rescue and little more.  Even if hundreds of SU-25s are limping home (this is doubtful.  The Georgian example made it home because once it left the target area it was safe from enemy fire, over the Ukraine the SU-25 would have to dodge the pursuing fighters), holed by various hits, they're effectively "killed" for the purposes of follow on operations and likely the remainder of the campaign.
 
 
We aren't talking about just superior technology dude.  We're talking about better planes, we're talking about better pilots, we're talking about three times as many airframes, cutting edge sensors, advanced command and control, all conducted above highly advanced friendly air defense.  If it was just one for one each side had 200 planes, but the US had 200 F-22s and the Russians 200 MIG-29s, it'd be a rough go, but certainly some CAS would leak through just by saturation.
 
But to the degree the Russians are outnumbered, to the degree they are behind technologically and training wise....god.  It'd be a bad day to be a Russian pilot.
 
Which goes to the REDFOR planning cycle. They're not going to commit horribly outnumbered, out gunned, and out-manned platforms to knock out a few tanks here and there.  Giving up a few Bears or Backfires to kill a carrier is an effective trade, carriers are important.  Giving up a four strike fighter element for a chance at a tank or two, the math just doesn't work.  The Russians only have so many planes, and they cannot afford to fritter them away by hoping THIS SU-24 isn't going to be picked up by AWACS while somewhere over Russia before catching an AIM-120 after crossing the border.  Further any fighters expended trying to make a hole through CAP is one less fighter to keep the few thousand NATO strike capable fighters away from bombing the tar out of Russian forces.
 
The actual value of the Russian Air Force would likely be closer to the whole "fleet in being" because that's the only way it survives the war without getting its heart ripped out over the Ukraine.
 
All well and good, but how fast do you think it'd take follow on NATO CAP to arrive?  Given the number of AWACS, and NATO interceptors, any hole will last for a few minutes, and only be created at major losses.  This was viable when the air forces were basically 1:1 in number, or Russian superiority, as losing some number of planes to secure a local advantage was sensible.  But in a fight where NATO has vast superiority of numbers and systems  it's just feeding the NATO kill count.  Make a hole, AWACS sends more fighters to fill the hole.  They have more fighters and more capable systems, Ivan's skeletal remains are collected up by a MIA recovery team in 2034 that's working with permission from Kiev.  His MIG-29 is in pieces, not over the Russian Army, A-10s have party funtime in late August because there's no Russian fighters left to challenge them.
 
Third and fourth order effects.  
 
 
Which gets to the point that building a new SHORAD system is moronic now.
 
Simply put Russian CAS may get some hits in.  But it will also almost certainly die in the process.  And Russians are not stupid enough to throw away their platforms and pilots to bag a couple of tanks.
 
 
*I discovered the PX sells rip-its.  My Grandfather picked up a strange affection for spam after his years in the Marines, it appears I've acquired at least an occasional nostalgia for terrible energy drinks after my years in the army.

Kieme CMBS USA Stryker
 
Covers all stryker versions.
 
The usual weathering plus reworked wheel (HD) using real photographs for the rubber parts.
 
Download:
https://app.box.com/s/o8li17ip0h7kipzxwdd453pfjawtae0f
 
Preview:

Again it's apples and apple martinis.  
 
I've sat behind an AN/PPS-5B.  I was not impressed, and speaking as a former scout type the overall GSR experience was that it was pretty low fidelity.
 
In practice we did something called "cuing" which is basically the sequence of sensors you use to acquire something.  Basically it was broader sensors all the way down to eyeballs or if the situation called for it, someone putting their hands on it.
 
Radar was very good at providing strong indications of where there might a something.  It was never very good at finding personnel for sure, and against vehicles it was better, but still did not do much better than "tracked" or "wheeled" contacts, and again it's not like it could tell you if it was a HMMWV or a junked car, or even other large reflective masses giving off tank signatures.
 
So again, in working the "is there something out there" piece, GSR was good for letting us know there were some suspiciously bad guy like contacts, which then spooled up another sensor system (UAVs were pretty good in that role given their ability to give several contacts eyes on in short order) which then cued to other sensors and systems, and if the contact either needed to be further interrogated ("That sure as hell look like tank and tire tracks going into those woods....") or was confirmed (GSR never did this, the lowest fidelity we ever got good reads on was from the Raven) troops would be committed.
 
But 6 KM detection in a realistic combat situation was....no.  I'd doubt 10 KM too outside of situations like tanks rolling across salt flats or something.
 
Which leads me to be dubious of most ground based systems to say the least.