Jump to content

Russian army under equipped?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Sublime said:

Omg lmao i hope thats not an urban legend

It isn't.  I'm not going to scour the web for them, but there's a few cockpit shots where you can see the garmin chilling out.  This opens interesting questions about how effective Glonass actually is.  

Re: Role specificity

Multirole isn't the be all end all.  If you're going strictly for recon, whatever the redressed U-2/drones will do it 100X better than a F-16 with a recon pod.  If you're going air to air, the F-15C will leave the F-16 crying.  If you're doing CAS, again fast movers go home, A-10 is here to save the day.

But the F-16 is a good enough fighter for most occasions.  An F-15E isn't as good as an A-10 for gas, but it'll do okay, etc, etc.

So while you might maintain some dedicated bombers, in a practical terms if you need more bombers than fighters, you can shift your multiroles over and make for one heck of a strike fleet.  You might have some planes that really only do air to air well.  But if your bombers can step up and join the air superiority campaign effectively, then that's just awesome instead of having them wait for clear skies.  Or if your country is a smaller airforce, it might be having a dedicated recon platform is just too expensive, while a recon pod is less so.

Multirole fighters are also closely linked to technology.  A plane with powerful engines and advanced avionics is better able to lug a few tons of bombs AND do air to air operations, while a plane with less advanced those things might be forced to make compromise one capability for the other (lighter airframe to allow for more agility, or heavier airframe to carry more bombs, something like that).  This is why Russia has lagged in multiroles, in that by most measures it's still far enough behind that building a plane that's really quite good at everything isn't happening, so they're building sort of semi-multiroles (planes that are good fighters, but can bomb if they must, or good bombers than are not totally hopeless A2A).  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A little humor....😎

I think the Abrams in CMBS is somewhat more godly than in reality. I also think the technical aspects of armored vehicles matters less in real wars than in war games. In an actual war between NATO and

Guidance helicopters VKS RF to strike at ISIS.  

Posted Images

2 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

This opens interesting questions about how effective Glonass actually is.

I actually do a bunch of work with GPS systems.  Glonass is pretty good.  In fact, civilian GPS systems are really good these days.  It's pricey, but you can buy civilian GPS that will get you centimeter level accuracy on the fly.  Also, modern civilian GPS uses GPS and GLONASS satellites these days, so instead of hitting like 8 sats at a time, you're now pinging off 16 at any given time, it's made a huge difference to the entire system, especially in cities.  

If Russian military 'GPS' only uses GLONASS satellites right now, I guess I could see where weirdly a civilian GPS system listening to both GPS and GLONASS could be better, especially if it was an old receiver in the plane.

I still feel GPS is relatively easy to knock out or wreck to the point of uselessness that neither side should count on it in a war.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, hattori said:

I still feel GPS is relatively easy to knock out or wreck to the point of uselessness that neither side should count on it in a war.

I've been pondering (actually trying to come up with a reason to take on the learning curve of Children of a Dead Earth) if the reliance on satellites down to the tactical level and munitions guidance may not spark a second coming for SDI/militarization of space. With all the talk about air supremacy, what would be the consequences of space supremacy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Machor said:

As much as I love CMBS (and didn't enjoy playing CMANO), I find myself thinking the decisive weapons systems in such a conflict will be those of the operational level:

[Nods to Vladimir's profile pic.]

"Russia's missile deployment in Kaliningrad ups the stakes for Nato"

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37600426

 

Those systems would indeed play a very important role in conflict, against an advanced adversary in the region. Missiles like the Tomahawk or Kalibr are quite important in modern warfare. The reason I like the Iskandar is because it's ground based mobile and because of that has a high survival rate on the battlefield, on a short notice such systems can hammer military infrastructure, reducing workload on say the Russian air force because the nearby enemy airfields just got hammered and is offline until repaired. 

Edited by VladimirTarasov
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well an interesring popular mechanics article that i openes a thread abt in the GDF discusses just that. More or less space has already been weaponized by the Russians. Well Soviets then. But cosmonauts still go up everytime with shotguns tho noone seems to comment.

Apparently the russians had modified a few 23mm autocannons from the rears of tu95s and fitted a single one  on a satelite to shoot at US sats  in a war. Never was needes obvioualy though apparently was tested by firing at earth randomly in the 90s and worked ( shells obv burned up in atmosphere )

I highly doubt all the Russian armed satellites are gone or admitted to, or that this legacy of the Russian space prorgram isnt gone or hasnt been improved on.

As far as gps reliability anyways, though obviously we.re light years ( or 13 ) frm the 03 invasion of iraq even then military gps not having streets in it ( does the US mil gps now ) had disastrous results most famously for Jessica Lynch and the 509th.

Edited by Sublime
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sublime said:

Can patriots shoot down iskanders a la scuds? How similar are the 2 systems besided being grnd to grnd ballistic missiles?

Iskanders have a wide variety of ways to avoid being hit or even detected by enemy radar, it employs jammers, decoys, and it maneuvers to avoid being hit. I'd assume it is very hard to hit, but I'm sure it's not impossible. If memory serves me correctly they have a 800KG warhead, and 5 meter CEP. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hattori said:

I actually do a bunch of work with GPS systems.  Glonass is pretty good.  In fact, civilian GPS systems are really good these days.  It's pricey, but you can buy civilian GPS that will get you centimeter level accuracy on the fly.  Also, modern civilian GPS uses GPS and GLONASS satellites these days, so instead of hitting like 8 sats at a time, you're now pinging off 16 at any given time, it's made a huge difference to the entire system, especially in cities.  

If Russian military 'GPS' only uses GLONASS satellites right now, I guess I could see where weirdly a civilian GPS system listening to both GPS and GLONASS could be better, especially if it was an old receiver in the plane.

I still feel GPS is relatively easy to knock out or wreck to the point of uselessness that neither side should count on it in a war.

We actually used civilian GPS pretty extensively because the various civilian models were a lot handier for dismounted work.  The US Army models generally were kept mounted to vehicles as they interfaced with all those onboard systems.

It's still worth asking why Russian's frontline high readiness planes are relying on US civilian model GPS units to figure out where they're at.  The only "smart" reason I could think of is if they're using it to line up with grid coordinates given from a ground observer (who might be a Syrian with a commercial set) but the published Glonass accuracy shouldn't be off to the degree that the two systems don't get you to the same spot on earth.  And Russian bombing isn't exactly precision.   And even then the level of precision required for aircraft navigation is pretty broad from my understanding.

So again, interesting questions that require answers.

 

 

26 minutes ago, Sublime said:

Can patriots shoot down iskanders a la scuds? How similar are the 2 systems besided being grnd to grnd ballistic missiles?

The short answer is yes.  Also C-RAMs and other counter-missile systems would be fun times.  There's some longer term solutions, but again looking at the rate of success for cruise missiles, attacking a defended location is going to be moderately long odds (especially when bolstered by various airborne sensor platforms).
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

So again, interesting questions that require answers.

I don't know much about the subject, but apparently the use of western-made devices does not necessarily mean they are not using GLONASS. You probably have a device in your pocket right now that uses GLONASS.

Quote

Septentrio, Topcon, C-Nav, JAVAD, Magellan Navigation, Novatel, Leica Geosystems, Hemisphere GNSS and Trimble Inc produce GNSS receivers making use of GLONASS. NPO Progress describes a receiver calledGALS-A1, which combines GPS and GLONASS reception. SkyWave Mobile Communicationsmanufactures an Inmarsat-based satellite communications terminal that uses both GLONASS and GPS.  As of 2011, some of the latest receivers in the Garmin eTrex line also support GLONASS (along with GPS). Garmin also produce a standalone Bluetoothreceiver, the GLOTM for Aviation, which combines GPS, WAAS and GLONASS.

Various smartphones from 2011 onwards have integrated GLONASS capability, including devices from Xiaomi Tech Company(Xiaomi Phone 2), Sony Ericsson, ZTE,Huawei, Samsung (Galaxy Note, Galaxy Note II, Galaxy S3, Galaxy S4), Apple(iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPhone 5C, iPhone 5S,iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone SE, iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus), iPad Mini (LTE models only), iPad Mini 2 (LTE models only), iPad Mini 3 (LTE models only), iPad Mini 4 (LTE models only) iPad (3rd generation and 4th Generation, 4G and LTE models only [respectively]), iPad Air (LTE models only) andiPad Air 2 (LTE models only) and Apple's flagship iPad Pro 12.9" and 9.7", HTC, LG, Motorola Nokia.

Edited by Vanir Ausf B
Link to post
Share on other sites

Garmin GPSMAP 64 in Su-24 Fencer (?) in a jerry-rigged wooden cradle with rubber band  though they'll have a problem using the bottom 4 interface buttons; Mark, Menu Quit & Enter.  Still it looks like it either switched off or the battery's gone flat, as I doubt Russian cockpits have a cigarette lighter fitting for a power adaptor....

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Garmin-GPSMAP-64st-Handheld-Navigator/dp/B00ICKY93Y/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1476045833&sr=8-1&keywords=garmin+gps+64st

1247964316885102951.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus. Lol i wonder if america and russia fought if we.d just secretly agree not to hit eachothers satellites.

Better hope that fencer doesnt go inverted i dont see a rubber band holding it vertically.  Thats pretty bad considering thats more or less the pride of the VVS over there. 

If this was found out abt American crews in a war there.d be hell to pay

Edited by Sublime
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, hattori said:

I still feel GPS is relatively easy to knock out or wreck to the point of uselessness that neither side should count on it in a war.

This leaves me wondering how much actual fighting could be done under those circumstances. Men can always find a way to kill each other it's true, but it sure would change the nature of the fighting. Stirs a recollection of a bumper sticker during the Vietnam era: "What if they gave a war and nobody came?"

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine quite a bit of fighting. Itd probably be very chaotic and confused.

However the US navy start training its officer cadets use of celestial navigation and sextants again because of perceived over reliance on gps.

So the military to some degree knows theres an issue and im sure that within a couple days itd get sorted.

Lots of JDAM kits would be getting taken off..

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sublime said:

However the US navy start training its officer cadets use of celestial navigation and sextants again because of perceived over reliance on gps.

That's good. A little like how every Marine first trains as a rifleman before going into a specialty. That tradition has stood them in good stead on any number of occasions. I think the first rule of combat should be, "Something always goes wrong, so have a good back-up plan."

Michael

Edited by Michael Emrys
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was able to dig these up:

"Russian Satellite Maneuvers Illustrate Why U.S. Alarm Bells are Ringing"

http://spacenews.com/editorial-russias-orbital-provocations/

Idk if the source is reliable, but the article comes across as sensible enough. If you don't want to waste time reading it, the gist is that there's stuff going on in space even as you're reading this.

"Russia to reveal location of US military satellites in free space database – report"

https://www.rt.com/news/347744-russia-satellites-database-norad/

OK, it's RT, but this seems feasible. My question is: Wouldn't such an act by Russia make it possible for terrorists around the globe to watch out for US spy satellites coming in over their base/training camp/whatever?

Then, there's this quip, whatever it's worth:

"In the US, the Boeing X-37B spacecraft, a highly secretive Air Force project, has reportedly undergone orbital tests to carry the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) system, which is able to survive a nuclear blast and is the USAF's back-up plan should ground communications fail. The US Air Force has two X-37Bs in its fleet and has been sending them into space on secret missions since 2010."

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Emrys said:

That's good. A little like how every Marine first trains as a rifleman before going into a specialty. That tradition has stood them in good stead on any number of occasions. I think the first rule of combat should be, "Something always goes wrong, so have a good back-up plan."

Michael

This is the same type of reason that the US Army still teaches land navigation using a map and compass.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2016 at 5:34 PM, John Kettler said:

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

Oh @#!####$#@! good grief, John. That's a plane from a movie:rolleyes::rolleyes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_(film)

Edited by LukeFF
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if i offended you @FO but we didnt always act so. This comes from about 16 years of ridiculous assertions, claims, and thoughtless rushes to post. If anything we.ve handled JK with kid gloves compared to the bar we hold others accountable like vladimir tarasov.

And this is coming from a person who feels they genuinely gave him a chance. He lived too far to meet but i spent hours on the phone with him and tried to coach him on his first CMx2 pbem game. Im not gonna get into it but I couldnt handle the frustration.

Also no offense - ive read your posts about your backround and i respect what you.ve revealed - but I also do however respect JKs manhood enough to let him defend himself.  I certainly dont feel the need for anyone to leap to my digital or real defense nor do I think JK is digitally helpless at defending himself. Ive seen him do it. 

Edited by Sublime
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...