Russian army under equipped?

[Chudacabra]

8 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Which again gets back to why we need to have the larger air control situation modeled somehow in the game.   Reasonably when Russian air defense is at its strongest, it's going to be too dangerous for anyone to do much CAS.  As the battle goes on though it's going to get to the point where it's just SHORAD platforms getting plinked from 30-40 miles out.  

I think you could model declining Russian air capabilities in a campaign to some extent. I don't really see much utility in a quick battle or scenario however. I think that CMBS is unquestionably the least realistic CMx2 game, but I also think it's the most fun (perhaps because Russian capabilities are likely greater than they would be in real-life, meaning that the game is at least somewhat close to balanced). Personally I would rather see better AA for the Americans, rather than an abstract and likely very difficult to program approach to air units.

[John Kettler]

I think CMBS would be a lot more fun if a bunch people played the same scenarios on each side, balanced or not, then used the (hallowed) Nabla System to determine who really had the best gaming chops. It doesn't matter whether the scenario is totally lopsided against you, only how well you perform (or don't) relative to everyone playing that side in a defined scenario. Nabla System explained at link.

http://cis.legacy.ics.tkk.fi/jarmo/nabla-system/manual-alpha.pdf

Regards,

John Kettler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

1 hour ago, Chudacabra said:

I think you could model declining Russian air capabilities in a campaign to some extent. I don't really see much utility in a quick battle or scenario however. I think that CMBS is unquestionably the least realistic CMx2 game, but I also think it's the most fun (perhaps because Russian capabilities are likely greater than they would be in real-life, meaning that the game is at least somewhat close to balanced). Personally I would rather see better AA for the Americans, rather than an abstract and likely very difficult to program approach to air units.

Okay.  Short as I'm annoyed because the forum ate my reply somehow:

1. There's no better AA to have.  There's the Avenger which is just stingers on HMMWV, and that's it.  SHORAD is already way more effective in game that it should be and it feels counter-productive to use a broken thing as a means of settling up air defense.

2. For the US, air defense really is 100% the fact that the US Army/Marines are covered by the premier Air Force, with it's slightly smaller Navy Air Force, and it's larger than most NATO country Marine Air Force.  

Like that's really worth emphasizing, which is why I kept saying Air Force.  The USN, and USMC air wings alone would be potent air forces if the USAF all had to take crew rest and sit this war out.  There's no reason why air based interception should not be able to handle the largely aging Russian strike craft, as flown by what by most standards are second rate flight crews (again talking in terms of training hours), especially when the interceptors likely in practical terms outnumber the strike packages.  

3. Here's what I proposed for a strategic air defense layer in a different thread:

" Same deal as the EW settings, given that they're both strategic level impacts on your battlespace.  I've put this forward before, but you'd basically have four conditions (loosely based on how the US defines airspace conditions).  

Off: As is, unless there's an anti-aircraft system on the map, aircraft are totally safe

Air Parity: The airspace is dangerous to everyone's airplanes.  Both players face a small to moderate chance of losing air assets committed (either through an off map shoot down, or the air asset has had to go evasive to the degree it is not returning).  This well simulates an environment in which both sides have functional air defense networks, and access to fighter cover.

Air Superiority: The player with air superiority has a much reduced chance of losing his air assets, while the player without has a much higher chance of losing that asset.  This simulates an environment in which one side has started to suffer enough losses to air defense or fighter assets to grant the other side a distinct advantage.

Air Dominance: One player's air assets are virtually safe (still a very small chance of loss), while the other would be silly to commit air assets.  Think of this like if the NATO air campaign goes stunningly well, and Russian air defense is effectively out of commission outside of isolated pockets. "

It doesn't seem much farther off than the EW layer that's already in-game, and meets the reality that strategic level air defense is pretty abstract for the ground forces commander (or it's not like LTC player is commanding a section of F-15Cs to protect his troops, they belong to sixteen layers of USAF/NATO dudes who's primary focus in life is making dead Russian planes, and not much else).  It also well simulates that most Russian air defense is actually echelons above SHORAD.  

This new system could then be paired with a weakening of on map assets to get closer to what air defense actually looks like instead of 2S6s being the reason no planes ever fly anywhere ever.   
 

[Machor]

"US officials have formally accused Russia of cyber attacks against political organisations in order "to interfere with the US election"."

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37592684

"Russia 'considering military bases in Cuba and Vietnam'"

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37591756

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

28 minutes ago, Machor said:

"US officials have formally accused Russia of cyber attacks against political organisations in order "to interfere with the US election"."

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37592684

"Russia 'considering military bases in Cuba and Vietnam'"

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37591756

 

The first thing isn't shocking.  It'll be interesting if the branch ever swings back their way.

The second is....eh.  The analysis is that it's doubtful. 

Cuba is currently seeking to get close to the US because we are pretty much their best chance for economic prosperity through tourism and trade.  Russia is offering a military base.  Vietnam already has strong US ties, and fears Chinese expansion....while Russia offers a military base and will totally 100% not help with Chinese aggression.

Pretty unlikely it'll go anywhere, and if it does it's yet more stuff of no real utility that will cost Russia real money to have.  

[VladimirTarasov]

I agree with Panzer about the second but Russian military presence in Cuba and Vietnam is already a reality, however I don't think Russia is opening a base in those regions we just don't need too, but of course the presence of our military in those regions will always offer some kind of influence. 

In regards to the first link it says it all in the article:  "However, officials said those attempts could not be directly linked to the Russian government" in US law, all suspects are innocent unless proven guilty. It could be a Russian dude working for Kim Jung IL for all we know. 

[Sublime]

Il is dead you mean kim jong un

[VladimirTarasov]

46 minutes ago, Sublime said:

Il is dead you mean kim jong un

Freudian slip hehe 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

2 hours ago, Sublime said:

Il is dead you mean kim jong un

He is not dead.  He lives on the hearts of the people of True Korea and only slumbers until the time is right for His coming to come purge the land of the unbeliever. 

 

 

11 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I agree with Panzer about the second but Russian military presence in Cuba and Vietnam is already a reality, however I don't think Russia is opening a base in those regions we just don't need too, but of course the presence of our military in those regions will always offer some kind of influence. 

In regards to the first link it says it all in the article:  "However, officials said those attempts could not be directly linked to the Russian government" in US law, all suspects are innocent unless proven guilty. It could be a Russian dude working for Kim Jung IL for all we know. 

The evidence that various cyber attacks originated from Russia is not exactly minor.  Unless someone has hacked and gained control of your government's computers and offices, and is attacking things that are generally opponents of Russia.  

Basically we can't prove it was you that broke our window, but a rock from your garden is now resting in our living room.  Occam seems to indicate you guys have been doing some silly things.  

[Sublime]

The biggest russian mistake is to think that anything short of a civil war would be required to disrupt american elections. We arent the ukraine or some small country without the benefit of a major ocean,  half of europe and 20 yrs of tech beyond russia in most cases,  and i cant think of another nation thatsbheld elections so consistenly this long that still exists 

I think the kremin for all their know how really have zero clue abt how utterly imbedded free fair elections are to americans and how disruptions or not once it gets shown it cane from russian sources unless the info revealed is like trump or hillarybis an agent it could easily backfire on whoever standa to benefit from FSB meddling 

And lets not kid ourselves. It was the russians.

[sburke]

1 hour ago, Sublime said:

The biggest russian mistake is to think that anything short of a civil war would be required to disrupt american elections. We arent the ukraine or some small country without the benefit of a major ocean,  half of europe and 20 yrs of tech beyond russia in most cases,  and i cant think of another nation thatsbheld elections so consistenly this long that still exists 

I think the kremin for all their know how really have zero clue abt how utterly imbedded free fair elections are to americans and how disruptions or not once it gets shown it cane from russian sources unless the info revealed is like trump or hillarybis an agent it could easily backfire on whoever standa to benefit from FSB meddling 

And lets not kid ourselves. It was the russians.

We are steering way into the political now, but even without Russia's involvement there are already concerns about manipulation of voting districts, voter ID, and particularly in PA concerns about systematic disruption of citizens ability to exercise their vote. It is already a sensitive situation, to think that Russia is incapable of creating an issue ignores the fertile ground that exists. Do I really expect significant impact, no. It is enough though to create the impression and us politics these days is not real reliant on facts.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

23 minutes ago, sburke said:

We are steering way into the political now, but even without Russia's involvement there are already concerns about manipulation of voting districts, voter ID, and particularly in PA concerns about systematic disruption of citizens ability to exercise their vote. It is already a sensitive situation, to think that Russia is incapable of creating an issue ignores the fertile ground that exists. Do I really expect significant impact, no. It is enough though to create the impression and us politics these days is not real reliant on facts.

This sort of touches on the fact that given how much is going on in the US electorate right now that:

1. The Russian stuff likely really won't make a difference.  There's enough strong movements in every direction that as Sublime said, short of it being revealed Trump is a literal Russian agent it's not going to change many people's positions.

2. There's enough going on though that it would be hard to tell regardless.  Like right now stuff rises and falls based upon if Clinton has the sniffles, or which group of Americans Trump offended recently.  It's more plastic, but it's also more dynamic.  Things are constantly changing and I think any attempt to seriously influence the election is crippled by abject lack of understanding Americans (as the Russian government has demonstrated), and then the fact the "reality" changes too fast for most decision making cycles (or I'd contend anything short of Hillary Clinton admitting to eating babies in her emails is not enough to change how people have fallen on that issue, as it's increasingly last week's issue, so releasing more isn't changing that political situation).  

[Kinophile]

9 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Freudian slip hehe 

A Freudian slip is when your deep subconscious surfaces for a second and causes you to articulate what you're really feeling/thinking, deep down, in contrast to what you're supposedly saying/feeling in public.

Unless you have a subliminal deep affection for a deceased North Korean tyrant then I'd say you're better off using " slip of the tongue", or mis-typed/ mis-spoke.

Only pointing this out as you've used that phrase before, in similarly incorrect instances. You've got pretty good English otherwise.

[John Kettler]

Was looking at another category of vid altogether on YT when I found this in the sidebar. It is from the Russian group South Front. This particular one has three primary topics, all relevant to the whole Russian military capability discussion. The topics are: the prototype and in use in Syria Tu-214R, the PAK-FA and the Su-30. This is some fascinating stuff, with the first being quite revelatory--if true. Information presented indicates this bird is effectively three different recon birds in one. JSTARS type with SLAR, RC-135 & others ELINT and overhead imaging from various platforms. Quite the feat if they can make it work properly in all three capability areas and integrate the take. The video asserts this is exactly what's being done and well. What's of particular interest is that it specifically talks about the Tu-214R as being part of a Reconnaissance-Strike Complex. The PAK-FA segment is quite interesting, but I don't know how much to believe about the claimed capabilities or the claim it will become the backbone, as its various forms unfold, much as the Su-27 family did, of Russian aerospace forces. By contrast, the Su-30 segment is on much more solid ground, though I don't know that I buy the argument of its ability to exploit purported defects in the F-22. Presumably, this doesn't refer to the oxygen system! One theme running through a good part of the vid is that the US can now forget having the air dominance our ground forces have enjoyed since the Korean War. Also, I have no idea what that keyframe is about--other than to make us think that's the worst nightmare for the US? Whatever it is, if it's even real, appears to be in US markings and is most definitely not the Tu-214R.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited October 9, 2016 by John Kettler

[John Kettler]

10 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

He is not dead.  He lives on the hearts of the people of True Korea and only slumbers until the time is right for His coming to come purge the land of the unbeliever. 

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

You really need to keep your mythoi (looked it up) straight. Obviously, you're thinking of Lord Cthulhu! 

Regards,

John Kettler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

1 hour ago, John Kettler said:

-snip-

John Kettler

What you're citing is quite possibly one of the best examples of the sort of fiction that passes for military reporting on Russia fairly often.  Russia achieving parity with capabilities and numbers in any reasonable amount of time requires effectively a large scale collapse of US aviation, and a massive step forward for Russian everything.

In a nutshell it's trash.  Pure and utter trash.

[John Kettler]

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

Concur it's magical thinking, but I am interested in this sort of thing from the platform on platform aspect, as opposed to the notion of being able to fight the US and NATO as equals--if not better--thanks to all the great Russian capabilities vs the opposition. I think the points made about the transition of the RUAF from dedicated more or less single mission planes to multi-role birds were valid, though I'd point out even things like the MiG-21 had ground attack capability and not just from its guns. I'd be very interested to see how the (hoped for) PK-FA's (hoped for) super duper sensors would stack up against the F-22 (whatever it had/has/will have by PAK-FA's IOC. Why not mention the F-35 as well? Thinking about depending on it for anything on the air combat side of air warfare makes me cringe!

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Sigh.

The Russian stuff hardly exists outside of claims.  I think if the program was transparent, the PAK-FA would give the F-35 a run for it's money in terms of glitches, the fact the Indians are off buying French planes even though they're supposed to get some of the first PAK-FAs should be indicative of a troubled program that's still many years from being a real plane.  

There's a lot of this sort of thinking that came out of the cold war, hinted capabilities, shadowy pictures, massive research facilities, all with an implied equal or better capability to produce high tech stuff.  

Then the curtain came down and it turns out Russian scientists are not any smarter than American scientists.  

In a nutshell, there's a lot of claims being made well in excess of what the state of the art is for the rest of the world, only on a lesser budget, from a father back starting point, often using equipment that is just the Soviet kit with some new paint.  In the skies above Syria SU-34s have Garmin civilian GPS devices in the cockpit because it's more functional than the Russian counterpart.  

There's always a lot of hope in Russian planning, and sometimes it results on a very good dozen or so platforms, but looking back, the last time Russia fielded a really new major piece of equipment, and fully fielded it vs simply fielded a dozen and called it quits was a long, long time ago.  

[AttorneyAtWar]

13 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

  In the skies above Syria SU-34s have Garmin civilian GPS devices in the cockpit because it's more functional than the Russian counterpart.  
 

I was honestly shocked to see that in some of the Syria footage, they were using those same civilians GPS systems in Tu-22's as well. No wonder there having trouble with accuracy and hitting things, civilian GPS+dumb bombs makes bombing Syria look like Germany circa 1944.

[Sublime]

Omg lmao i hope thats not an urban legend

[Sublime]

That "recalculating route... stand by" must be SOOOO annoying at 500 km/h worrying about manpads.. haha.

[Sublime]

9 hours ago, John Kettler said:

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

Concur it's magical thinking, but I am interested in this sort of thing from the platform on platform aspect, as opposed to the notion of being able to fight the US and NATO as equals--if not better--thanks to all the great Russian capabilities vs the opposition. I think the points made about the transition of the RUAF from dedicated more or less single mission planes to multi-role birds were valid, though I'd point out even things like the MiG-21 had ground attack capability and not just from its guns. I'd be very interested to see how the (hoped for) PK-FA's (hoped for) super duper sensors would stack up against the F-22 (whatever it had/has/will have by PAK-FA's IOC. Why not mention the F-35 as well? Thinking about depending on it for anything on the air combat side of air warfare makes me cringe!

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

Dude if you read the Congressional transcripts over the nomenclature and what the F111s purpose was you.ll see that in the EXACT same time frame as the Mig21 and so on the US started making planes that were multirole or supposed to be at least. I believe the only none multirole ac the US has made since the 70s are the F15C, SR71, F117, and B2.

You wanna read some of the congressional testimony? Its in war is boring look under the air tab and the article on the USAF and its problem with standardizing naming aircraft.

[Sublime]

And Id also contend that the F5, or F4 Phantom were WAAAAY better at ground attack and a2a than mig19s, 21s, 23s, etc.

The century series of "fighters" were somewhat of a disappointment but they were so niche specific theyre probably one of the major reasons the USAF made sure it wouldnt have supersonic nuke bombers only as "fighters"

[Kinophile]

, A,10 is a pretty misson-specific platform. 

[Sublime]

True. You got one. However it can do CAS, strikes, precision strikes, and at least carries 2 A2A missiles. So whilst yes it is "just a bomber" its weapons payload allows it to do more than just the CAS it was designed for. And also just like the F15C it absolutely excels at its mission. Of course all the multirole planes I named do pretty well too....

So i missed the A10. Big whoop. Look at all the planes I didnt miss lets see... f111, f16, f15e, f18, f14, a6, b52 and b1 ( used for close air support and strategic bombing and EW)

F4, F5, F22, JSF, and Im sure Im missing a lot.

 

Compare this with.. the SU25. Decent but definitely no A10 even upgraded. Su27s are good but they can only release all bombs at once. Mig29s have very short legs and if they can carry bombs its like 2.

Su24 and 34s are good. For bombing. Not multirole though. The mig25 31 is only good for hi speed intercepts with gci support and recon.

The mig21bis while famous and capable is useless against anything made in the 70s plus as far as a2a or sam threats unless you.re fighting a COIN rebellion or a third world country. Mig 23 and 27 id say are famous failures.

The Il28 is.. terribad and dated. The Tu95 is more dated than our B52s and way less useful.

The tu122 or 160s are cool. All 5 of them. Theyrr so few they name them.like capital ships.

Edited October 9, 2016 by Sublime