New major military powers

[XaNDeR]

First, why wouldn't China, a country with almost no natural resources not want to attack a mineral rich country? And you second post. Europe is not uner any threat from Russia. And tech. superiority is no joke. The Europeans are better. Just add their defence budgets up and compare them.

European budget means squat , tell me what tehnology do the europeans have better than Russia? please enlighten me ..
As far as Eurofighter beeing slightly better than a everyday flanker , and AFAIK in PAPER leopard 2A6 beeing a serius contender to T-90 , I dont see any tehnology beeing superior to the russians , Russians have better artillery ( probably the best in the world ) , better missile tehnology ( goes for AA and Anti Ship , Anti Ground ) , better support aircraft ..

On the other hand you have Europe , which would need so much time to even mobilize and prepare for such a vast task to defend against Russian attack ..
Then its also AWACS which will be useless since Mig-31's primary role is to shot them down and you can't stop them ..

Furthermore Europe does not even have the right mobility and flexibility to even work properly , you have to take in consideration that your dealing with more than 20 country's , more than 20 different army's , languages , the coordination would be very weak.

As far as the Air and Navy goes , Europe would lose quick , however on Land they could really make a good difference , because Leopard 2 , Challenger 2 , Leclerc , but they are still in low numbers , and they would lose air supriority , are you really sure that few thousand Europe tanks ( from different country's ) are ready and prepared to stop a advance of probably 100 divisions , with air support?

To furthermore add the chances in Russia's favour , their industrial capability is much better than Europe , the plants in Russia are fully prepared to Construct more than 2000 Tanks and 1000 aircraft yearly.. Not that it would matter as the war would not go on for years , it would be decided much sooner...

So do you still think the chances are so much in Europe's favour now?

Without USA , Europe has no chance , with the USA , the russians wouldn't have any chance

 

[mexsoldier]

i think europeans have a chance in air and sea...

but not in land, first because the first countries that will be taked are germany and poland, germany mainly has the largest infraestructure industrially speaking, if russians take germany, (maybe one of the most weaker country in western europe...)(ok, not of the weaker but still weak), europe will not have assembly lines to stops russians, and the next will be france, because russia won't attack by sea but by land, (the british navy is superior, and if you add the french, russia has no opportunity), but there is the inconsistence of this, if russia attacks europe, russia is moskow will be burned to the hell by the americans...

 

[Chrom]

Europe would probably lose in all-out war with Russia - but not becouse of less tank or troops - but rather becouse of 2 factors:
1. Lack of strategic assets
2. Lack of coordnation.

The 2nd point dont need explanaton - the first point is about Europe always provided only "support" to USA main forces in NATO enveronment. As such, some very important strategic weapons are either completely absent in Europe without USA (long-range bombers, tactical missiles for example) or very underdeveloped - example SAM's, satellite network, AWACS. There is little doubt what Europe have capability to develop and produce these lacking things - but it will certainly take a lot of time and a LOT of money.

European miltary is integral part of NATO, and was developed as such from ground on. Thats why without a NATO (particulary USA) european military is like a car without a wheel and gearbox.

 

[XaNDeR]

Europe would probably lose in all-out war with Russia - but not becouse of less tank or troops - but rather becouse of 2 factors:
1. Lack of strategic assets
2. Lack of coordnation.

The 2nd point dont need explanaton - the first point is about Europe always provided only "support" to USA main forces in NATO enveronment. As such, some very important strategic weapons are either completely absent in Europe without USA (long-range bombers, tactical missiles for example) or very underdeveloped - example SAM's, satellite network, AWACS. There is little doubt what Europe have capability to develop and produce these lacking things - but it will certainly take a lot of time and a LOT of money.

European miltary is integral part of NATO, and was developed as such from ground on. Thats why without a NATO (particulary USA) european military is like a car without a wheel and gearbox.

I highly agree with you chrom , you pointed out 2 major points why Europe would probably lose without US help , i pointed the coordination before , but I did not point strategic assets .



P.s. mexsoldier

Royal Navy is not superior to Russia , the russian sub fleet would not have much job disgarting their submarine forces.

The surface fleet of Royal army is not prepared to defend against Russian fleet , while Brits have a major advantage in crew training and maintance, the Type 42 Destroyer is the main destroyer that the Brits have and the Type 42 is mostly Anti Air vessel , its Anti Ship capability's are however limited .
But Russia would not even use its surface fleet in this case , they would send Tu-22 Backfire's , and the Europe navy's would fall in a matter of days , they have no defence against Backfire's..


But once again i have to point out that nor Russia , nor Europe has no interest in such a war , and the war is unrealistic in any case because United States would certainly get involved if anything of such would likely to happen , but it won't because there is no interest in this by neither side..

 

[f-22fan12]

Your not very good informed my friend , Russia posted gross domestic product growth of 6.4% in 1999, 10% in 2000, 5.1% in 2001, 4.7% in 2002, 7.3% in 2003, 7.2% in 2004, 6.4% in 2005 with industrial sector posting high growth figures as well. Russia became the fastest growing economy in the G8. It grow another 6.5% in 2006.
Also in tehnology russia vastly surpases the USA in many areas , its not as bad as you say : Tehnology is good but not the best..
military budget doesn't mean alot when it comes to tehnology , and yet again the estimate number of budget of russia is unknown , its a estimated figgure , but it can be alot more .
Estimating Russian military expenditure is beset with difficulty; the annual IISS Military Balance has underscored the problem numerous times within its section on Russia. The 2006 Edition says that taken at face value, the 2004 budget corresponds to 2.5% of GDP, also look at 1 fact , mostly military budget goes for paying the soldiers , and all western country's give alot more of money to that than Russia , this is a interesting fact .
Again about the tehnology , there is so many areas in which Russia is better than the US ,like a guy before said in 1 post : Ballistics missile technology, BVR missile technology, some aircraft technology (TVC nozzles on planes is a Russian concept), ATGM technology, tank defense technology, air defense technology, anti-stealth technology, ECCM technology (just look at the ECCM in their SAM's). They're better in a lot of things and there's no denying it. The Americans bought an S-300 to make the PAC-3.
Then they are also other area's and you can't deny the facts , proove me wrong ?
Im not saying anything against you bud , but I dont understand why you are so vastly underestimating Russia's potential and military might..
I also don't like China's military growth , but I don't underestimate them in any case im just always beeing realistic and see things the way they are , and I like both US and Russian military.

Here is my view on all of this. 1. The economy of Russia is growing very fast. But growing the fastest amoung a group of countries (G8) that has already reached its growth potential is nothing great. And all of this is based on oil prices. Everyone knows that you can't get billions of $ from oil forever. 2. Russia would never have this tech. if it wasn't for the Soviet Union. All of Russia's good tech. was developed by the Soviets. The Soviets paid for it. Now Russia has it. Russia, however, doesn't spend nearly as much as the Soviets did on tech. research so they will never have the edge the Soviets had. They will consistintly fall behind. Why? they just can't spend as much as before. And I completely disagree about the ballistic missiles. Who had the first SSBN's? U.S.A. And you are right about thrust vectoring. Although the Russian's developed Thrust vectoring they can only afford to buy 40 Su-35 planes. Only 40 planes with thrust vectoring, while the U.S. HAS ALREADY BOUGHT 150+ thrust vectoring equipped f-22's. So even though its Russian tech, Guess who would win???

The bottom line is the Russians can't even afford to buy substantial amounts of the good/ hi-tech. things they build.

btw, no hard feelings from me either, just a debate/forum. Thats what its for.

 

[XaNDeR]

Here is my view on all of this. Russia would never have this tech. if it wasn't for the Soviet Union. All of Russia's good tech. was developed by the Soviets. The Soviets paid for it. Now Russia has it. Russia, however, doesn't spend nearly as much as the Soviets did on tech. research so they will never have the edge the Soviets had. They will consistintly fall behind. Why? they just can't spend as much as before. And I completely disagree about the ballistic missiles. Who had the first SSBN's? U.S.A. And you are right about thrust vectoring. Although the Russian's developed Thrust vectoring they can only afford to buy 40 Su-35 planes. Only 40 planes with thrust vectoring, while the U.S. HAS ALREADY BOUGHT 150+ thrust vectoring equipped f-22's.

The bottom line is the Russians can't even afford to buy substantial amounts of the good/ hi-tech. things they build.

btw, no hard feelings from me either, just a debate/forum. Thats what its for.

Your comparing USA to Russia now , I thought this debate was about Europe and Russia , and I would like you to tell me what Europe tehnology is substantialy better than that of Russia .

And of course no hard feelings , its a debate.

And yet again read what Chrom or I wrote , its all facts..

Btw USAF operates around 95 F-22's , not 150+

 

[f-22fan12]

I highly agree with you chrom , you pointed out 2 major points why Europe would probably lose without US help , i pointed the coordination before , but I did not point strategic assets .



P.s. mexsoldier

Royal Navy is not superior to Russia , the russian sub fleet would not have much job disgarting their submarine forces.

The surface fleet of Royal army is not prepared to defend against Russian fleet , while Brits have a major advantage in crew training and maintance, the Type 42 Destroyer is the main destroyer that the Brits have and the Type 42 is mostly Anti Air vessel , its Anti Ship capability's are however limited .
But Russia would not even use its surface fleet in this case , they would send Tu-22 Backfire's , and the Europe navy's would fall in a matter of days , they have no defence against Backfire's..


But once again i have to point out that nor Russia , nor Europe has no interest in such a war , and the war is unrealistic in any case because United States would certainly get involved if anything of such would likely to happen , but it won't because there is no interest in this by neither side..

Europe would certainly not lose without U.S. help. Explain. In ground combat, you would have 400 Leclerc MBTs, 400 Challenger 2 MBTs, 200 Arietes, and 500 Leopard 2 A5+A6, 150 strv 122s, 120+ leapardo 2E alot more. That totals about 1,800 extremely high quality tanks. Don't forget Greek and Dutch leopard 2 A6's. The Europeans would win in tanks for sure. In the Air force, it would be the same. Over 350 Eurofighters 200 Rafales and alot more up against the Russians. And they would win in the Naval are too. No need to even explain.

 

[f-22fan12]

Your comparing USA to Russia now , I thought this debate was about Europe and Russia , and I would like you to tell me what Europe tehnology is substantialy better than that of Russia .

And of course no hard feelings , its a debate.

And yet again read what Chrom or I wrote , its all facts..

Btw USAF operates around 95 F-22's , not 150+

They bought 180.

 

[XaNDeR]

Europe would certainly not lose without U.S. help. Explain. In ground combat, you would have 400 Leclerc MBTs, 400 Challenger 2 MBTs, 200 Arietes, and 500 Leopard 2 A5+A6, 150 strv 122s, 120+ leapardo 2E alot more. That totals about 1,800 extremely high quality tanks. Don't forget Greek and Dutch leopard 2 A6's. The Europeans would win in tanks for sure. In the Air force, it would be the same. Over 350 Eurofighters 200 Rafales and alot more up against the Russians. And they would win in the Naval are too. No need to even explain.

Im sorry but you have no knowledge about European military whatsoever , there is no need to even explain miself , its all explained in my previus posts.





edit: What the .. maybe you are gonna learn something..
Ok lets make it as short as possible


Chrome already pointed it out for you why it would be much hard for European army to have any good chance of defending it ..

2. Lack of strategic assets
1. Lack of coordnation.

Let me explain if you don't understand

1.The European army's are more than 20 country's , with different languages , different army's , even thinking about coordinating that is crazy, that would be a mess my friend.

2.Europe lacks long range bombers , tactical missiles , SAM's , satellite networks , AWACS


Your point that the European navy's would handle Russian navy is a fantasy , there is no way in the world they have any defence against Backfire's , and belive me there are many regiments of TU-22M Backfire bombers, and large numbers of long range maritime patrol aircraft that would literaly destroy the europe navy's in a matter of days ..

The Airforce is the same , you have to be kidding that 250 Eurofighters and 200 Rafales have any chance of stoping more than 1300 fighters consisting out of modernized Su-27 , Mig-29 , Mig-31 and fewer further advanced versions of Su-30 and so on , BACKED by several layers Of S-300 AND S-400 Anti Air defences..
There is no chance to be able to win in such a encounter..
The Russian BVR is same as that of Europe , R-77 ..
The air battle would be decisively won , as I said before.

2000 - 3000 Tanks are good , but on the other side you have 100 divisions , more than 15.000 Tanks that are in good shape, of that more than 3500 are T-80 and T-90 ( not counting the reserves ) backed up by several gun batalions , the Russian artillery is the best in the world .. so as i agree that it would be a fierce battle on ground , the Europe forces lack any serius coordination to have a chance and remember Russia has Air superiority .

 

[Snayke]

It's not difficult to set up a chain of command. And I do believe Europeans all speak English as its a compulsory study in their schools so language would not be a big problem prohibiting coordination. The only big obstacle is actually time in organising the combined forces into that chain of command.

Also, you speak of anti-air defences yet it's the Russians advancing into Europe, unless you are suggesting the Russians have placed anti-air units already in Europe over air zones they are encroaching into?

It would be a long and bloody war in my opinion. But obviously the Europeans would be at a disadvantage. The question is, can Russia keep supplying their frontline? I don't really know much about Russia's logistical capabilities.

Oh and, a conscript army does not equal more quality soldiers.

 

[XaNDeR]

It's not difficult to set up a chain of command. And I do believe Europeans all speak English as its a compulsory study in their schools so language would not be a big problem prohibiting coordination. The only big obstacle is actually time in organising the combined forces into that chain of command.

Also, you speak of anti-air defences yet it's the Russians advancing into Europe, unless you are suggesting the Russians have placed anti-air units already in Europe over air zones they are encroaching into?

It would be a long and bloody war in my opinion. But obviously the Europeans would be at a disadvantage. The question is, can Russia keep supplying their frontline? I don't really know much about Russia's logistical capabilities.

Oh and, a conscript army does not equal more quality soldiers.

1.Yes the obstacle is organizing , there are so many different army's as i said before , that the time it would take to organize themself and coordinate army's good , in the time the Russians would already set the flag in France ..
2.You seem to have mixed considerations here , what do you mean that Russia has no S-300 in Europe only in Russia , S-300 is a mobile system, they can move them at any time , with their advancement..
3. On the contrary , while the war on the ground would take much time as you speculate , because vast areas and slow supply zones , the opposite of that is the Naval and Airforce battles which would be decided in a matter of days .
I pointed already and i will point again , the ground forces are the european only strong points , because the lack of strategic assets and disadvantages make their airforce and navy uterly useless , Russian can counter anything , yet Europe can not counter the most vital things.
4.Russia's logistics is quite capable of marching trough Europe , USSR was made to counter anything from USA at that time and was much prepared considering logistics to go easly trough europe , and while the USSR fell apart , Europe's military declined alot more than that of Russia.

 

[Snayke]

So how will Russian anti-air guns be below Russian aircraft advancing into European airspace? I'm assuming Russian aircraft will be entering hostile air space.

 

[swerve]

They bought 180.

Of which quite a few haven't been built yet. 95 currently operational sounds credible to me.

 

[XaNDeR]

So how will Russian anti-air guns be below Russian aircraft advancing into European airspace? I'm assuming Russian aircraft will be entering hostile air space.

Surely your joking , do you think that Russians would send their airforce to engage that of europe trough whole europe airspace without any support at all ,they are slightly more creative than that don't you think .

And I find this conversation already very bothering since it does not have any realistic perspective inside , there is just no way that this scenario could ever happen ..

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

European budget means squat , tell me what tehnology do the europeans have better than Russia? please enlighten me ..
As far as Eurofighter beeing slightly better than a everyday flanker , and AFAIK in PAPER leopard 2A6 beeing a serius contender to T-90 , I dont see any tehnology beeing superior to the russians , Russians have better artillery ( probably the best in the world ) , better missile tehnology ( goes for AA and Anti Ship , Anti Ground ) , better support aircraft ..

The russians only have little bits of good technology. On the whole standard EU kit is more advanced than standard Russian stuff. the bulk of the russian army when mobilized would be soviet era, ie T72. Electronicly the russians are inferior, especially in netorking and Situational Awarenes. And they dont have the best arty in the world, not by a long shot, next gen US systems are MRSI (multiple rounds simultainious impact) capable with PGM's that are meter accurate, you think the russians are anywere near that level of arty capability? And now we have the missiles. The simple fact of the matter is that the russians have ALLWAYS been half a generation behind the west in AAM technology and a full generation behind in ASM although not SSM, AShM and SAM's. In WVR ASRAAM is longer ranged and more capable than the R73, it has a digital wide view seeker and is much harder to defeat than the R73. It is virtualy impossible to defeat it geometricaly. R73's seeker is not as sophistocated or capable. In BVR terms the R77 and R27 are about as good as AIM 120 and AIM 7 respectively, but the ruskies are allways playing catch up in this reguard and have been since the 60's. I'd take either AIM 120C, MICA or METEOR over the R77, dispite the russians marketing data. And the Typhoon is much much better than an Su 27, the average russian fighter is 1980's vintage after all. Their demostraters are very capable, but the latest delivery of the SU 34 Fullback was the first new frontline aircraft the russian's have taken delivery of since the early 90's. And as far as the 'support aircraft" the E3 is a MUCH better AEW&C platofrm than the MAINSTAY, it has beed repeatadly upgraded which the A50E has not. Dont make the assumption that experimental russian kit has any effect on russian warfighting capability. It does have an effect on india's though.

On the other hand you have Europe , which would need so much time to even mobilize and prepare for such a vast task to defend against Russian attack ..

Both sides would have to mobilise, which would take time. The major individual european armies would probably be able to mobilise quicker than the russians due to better infestructure, concentrated population and a professional army.

Then its also AWACS which will be useless since Mig-31's primary role is to shot them down and you can't stop them ..

Are you kidding me???? For one thing the MiG 31 is a high altitude interceptor. Its primary role is to intercept ingressing strike packages quickley at all altitudes. You think it can somehow negate E3 because someone said it had a counter ISR role??? nfloorl:

The only way a MiG 31 could get into missile range of an E3 without being shot down is if a regiment of them charged headlong at the sentry. Even then i dont like their chances. Or would you like to explain exactly how a MiG 31 is going to penetrate a European IADS and shoot down an E3 with air superiority fighters as capable (and quick) as typhoons in the way??????

Furthermore Europe does not even have the right mobility and flexibility to even work properly , you have to take in consideration that your dealing with more than 20 country's , more than 20 different army's , languages , the coordination would be very weak.

This is a major problem for the europeans and NATO in general. It may work in training but i'm not convinced it will work in battle. The logistical problems in supplying several armies who speak different languages and dont have standard equipment would truely be a nightmare. However i seriously doubt the russians have the logistical capability to sustain a rolling campaign throughout centrel europe, they do IMO have a capability to wage one in the east though.

As far as the Air and Navy goes , Europe would lose quick , however on Land they could really make a good difference , because Leopard 2 , Challenger 2 , Leclerc , but they are still in low numbers , and they would lose air supriority , are you really sure that few thousand Europe tanks ( from different country's ) are ready and prepared to stop a advance of probably 100 divisions , with air support?

Lets examine those claims a bit shel we? How exactly would the europeans lose in the air and see quick? The russian navy does have sove very capable platforms, outside of land based air cover EU navies have no counter to russian naval aviation, (backfire bomber). However in general EU personell and training standards are much better, and EU platforms are more sophistocated electronicly. South of iceland the russian navy would have real problems, although i wouldnt be venturing into the barrents if i was in the RN.

Now for the air forces the russians have quite a few platforms on paper, but it is questionable how many are servicable and battle ready. Allmost all of them are pre 1990 and are generally outclased by the premier european air forces. the europeans have (in general) better platforms, better servicability, better AEW&C, better situational awarness and better trained people. I see the advantage laying with europeans.

On the land the mobilised strength of the russian army is about 60 divisions, not 100. And i think you got the other sides strengths and weaknesses mixed up, the land battle is the one were the russians hold the major advantage. Sheer weight of numbers is their bigest advantage, with some 10 000 T72's and other soviet erra kit equiping these formations, on qualitative terms the europeans would be much better. Those 60 divisions will be far less capable than their european counterparts.

To furthermore add the chances in Russia's favour , their industrial capability is much better than Europe , the plants in Russia are fully prepared to Construct more than 2000 Tanks and 1000 aircraft yearly.. Not that it would matter as the war would not go on for years , it would be decided much sooner...

How exactly are the russians far ahead of urope in terms of industrial capabcity? Economicly (which is far more important anyway) the russians are light years behind the europeans.

So do you still think the chances are so much in Europe's favour now?

Without USA , Europe has no chance , with the USA , the russians wouldn't have any chance

I think your off the mark by quite a bit. The Europeans could probably beat the russians without the US if they could sort their logistical situation out, but it wouldnt be easy. Anyway this question has been debated to some extent in this thread:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6343&page=1

Have a look before you contine in this one, maybeyou could add to the discussion there.

 

[mexsoldier]

this is just a comparison of europe and russian armies...

this scenario could happen, for sure, this scenario happened 2 times ww1 and ww2, but this is not the case, although the Russian army is very advanced in missile technology and aerospace stuff , i think that united kingdom and france can last at least 2 years fighthing, why?, because it is not only FR and UK, but is whole europe, germany is the 4th richest country in the world, their industrial capabilities are inmense, at least double of russians, maybe not in heavy industries such steel and coal, but in all others, cars, communications and high tech devices, radio etc,. europe has enough money to start a war and stand for many months, even years, (im not saying that europe will win, but will be fighting for a long time)so russia will be fighting against germany, UK, france, spain, italy, sweeden, i think that there is enough manpower, and civilians that europe has some chances to win, as you guys know, any country could change from a peace time economy to a wartime economy, so you will have instead of ferraris, tanks, instead of Saab cars, eurofighters, instead of volkswagen , vehicles of transportation, instead airbus, bombardiers, europe has a lot of chances to win a long term war, while no atomic bombs were involved, and europe has a very strong economy that can give support to a war, even if US is not involved, however , although i think this scenario could happen, is very hard to think about it, there is no problems in the area that could make the start of this...


(im not saying Europe will win)

 

[swerve]

Im sorry but you have no knowledge about European military whatsoever , there is no need to even explain miself , its all explained in my previus posts.





edit: What the .. maybe you are gonna learn something..
Ok lets make it as short as possible


Chrome already pointed it out for you why it would be much hard for European army to have any good chance of defending it ..

2. Lack of strategic assets
1. Lack of coordnation.

Let me explain if you don't understand

1.The European army's are more than 20 country's , with different languages , different army's , even thinking about coordinating that is crazy, that would be a mess my friend.

2.Europe lacks long range bombers , tactical missiles , SAM's , satellite networks , AWACS


Your point that the European navy's would handle Russian navy is a fantasy , there is no way in the world they have any defence against Backfire's , and belive me there are many regiments of TU-22M Backfire bombers, and large numbers of long range maritime patrol aircraft that would literaly destroy the europe navy's in a matter of days ..

The Airforce is the same , you have to be kidding that 250 Eurofighters and 200 Rafales have any chance of stoping more than 1300 fighters consisting out of modernized Su-27 , Mig-29 , Mig-31 and fewer further advanced versions of Su-30 and so on , BACKED by several layers Of S-300 AND S-400 Anti Air defences..
There is no chance to be able to win in such a encounter..
The Russian BVR is same as that of Europe , R-77 ..
The air battle would be decisively won , as I said before.

2000 - 3000 Tanks are good , but on the other side you have 100 divisions , more than 15.000 Tanks that are in good shape, of that more than 3500 are T-80 and T-90 ( not counting the reserves ) backed up by several gun batalions , the Russian artillery is the best in the world .. so as i agree that it would be a fierce battle on ground , the Europe forces lack any serius coordination to have a chance and remember Russia has Air superiority .

Where do you get these numbers from? On the Russian side, you're counting more fighters than they have still in existence, let alone operational, & not allowing for the steady decline in numbers. On the European side, you're quoting astonishingly low numbers. FYI, European air forces are planning to buy 635 Eurofighters, & production orders have been placed for 399 so far, & 294 Rafales.

The Russian air force & navy currently have about 850 fighters, not 1300. The rate of building is less than the rate at which they are being retired, so the number is diminishing. It has no Su-30, & none on order. Of the 360 Su-27, about 70 are new or modernised. Of the 225 or so MiG-29, very few have been modernised. Flying hours have increased, but for all but a few pilots are still far below what NATO considers the minimum to remain competent.

There are also about the same number of strike aircraft (Su-24, Su-25, a handful of Su-34), Some of the Su-24 & Su-25 are being modernised, but most are so far untouched.

Currently, EU countries + Norway (can't imagine it staying out) have about 170 Mirage 2000, 400 F-16 (with a lot more F-16 block 50+ on order), over 100 Typhoon, 150 F-18, 175 Gripen, about 50 Rafale, 75 Tornado F3 and a few hundred older fighters (upgraded F-4 with AMRAAM, MiG-29, Mirage F1, etc). Oops! More than Russia has. Also, about 270 Tornado, 80 AMX, 125 Mirage 2000D/N, & a few hundred assorted A-7, Su-22, Harrier, etc. strike aircraft. Allow for the number of multi-role aircraft listed under fighters, add in Russian bombers, & you find that the total numbers of combat aircraft are fairly similar, but European ones are much better piloted, older types have been upgraded more, maintenance levels are certainly better, etc. etc. Assuming Russian air superiority is evidence of a failure to examine the situation.

What you say about the lack of co-ordination of W. European forces shows that you know nothing about them. What do you think NATO HQ would be doing? Most European armed forces fit seamlessly into an integrated command system, & some of the few that don't actively liaise with that organisation.

 

[mexsoldier]

even if the soldiers speak another languages...

i think soldiers won't be mixed, i mean, UK soldiers will be with another english speakin soldiers, the same as the french and German, differently than america or australia, the european, at least 90% of the europeans i have ever now, all of them speak at least french or spanish, almost everybody in europe speak english and their home language, this is at difference of australia because their neighborhoods were british colonies, (NZ), and america because there are two different americas, latin america and north america, this is not the case, but im saying that language won't be a big problem( everybody know that google translates?)...

 

[XaNDeR]

The russians only have little bits of good technology. On the whole standard EU kit is more advanced than standard Russian stuff. the bulk of the russian army when mobilized would be soviet era, ie T72. Electronicly the russians are inferior, especially in netorking and Situational Awarenes. And they dont have the best arty in the world, not by a long shot, next gen US systems are MRSI (multiple rounds simultainious impact) capable with PGM's that are meter accurate, you think the russians are anywere near that level of arty capability? And now we have the missiles. The simple fact of the matter is that the russians have ALLWAYS been half a generation behind the west in AAM technology and a full generation behind in ASM although not SSM, AShM and SAM's. In WVR ASRAAM is longer ranged and more capable than the R73, it has a digital wide view seeker and is much harder to defeat than the R73. It is virtualy impossible to defeat it geometricaly. R73's seeker is not as sophistocated or capable. In BVR terms the R77 and R27 are about as good as AIM 120 and AIM 7 respectively, but the ruskies are allways playing catch up in this reguard and have been since the 60's. I'd take either AIM 120C, MICA or METEOR over the R77, dispite the russians marketing data. And the Typhoon is much much better than an Su 27, the average russian fighter is 1980's vintage after all. Their demostraters are very capable, but the latest delivery of the SU 34 Fullback was the first new frontline aircraft the russian's have taken delivery of since the early 90's. And as far as the 'support aircraft" the E3 is a MUCH better AEW&C platofrm than the MAINSTAY, it has beed repeatadly upgraded which the A50E has not. Dont make the assumption that experimental russian kit has any effect on russian warfighting capability. It does have an effect on india's though.

From my source the only program from United States that had MRSI was Crusader and it was cancelled..
Yes the Typhoon may be a better contender to Su-27, but for every eurofighter russia has almost 3 Flankers , and the BVR capability is the same .. R-77 can compare to AIM-120 , your wrong about the ASM btw , tell me 1 ASM from the west that has a bigger range than a Russian?
E-3 Sentry , what are you talking about the 16 E-3's that NATO has?

Both sides would have to mobilise, which would take time. The major individual european armies would probably be able to mobilise quicker than the russians due to better infestructure, concentrated population and a professional army.

Not right at all , your perspective on this is maybe a little mind buggled , why would europe mobilize before they would know that Russians attacked them?
The russian army would be fully mobilized by then .

Are you kidding me???? For one thing the MiG 31 is a high altitude interceptor. Its primary role is to intercept ingressing strike packages quickley at all altitudes. You think it can somehow negate E3 because someone said it had a counter ISR role??? nfloorl:

The MiG-31M-, MiG-31D-, and MiG-31BS- standard aircraft
They are modernized for AWACS alike targets , need more info?

The only way a MiG 31 could get into missile range of an E3 without being shot down is if a regiment of them charged headlong at the sentry. Even then i dont like their chances. Or would you like to explain exactly how a MiG 31 is going to penetrate a European IADS and shoot down an E3 with air superiority fighters as capable (and quick) as typhoons in the way??????

The R-37 missiles on them have a range of 300km , well over the range of any Eurofighter , so how exactly are they gonna stop them? The Su-27's can engage the Eurofighters while the Mig-31's deal with the Sentry's , if the Typhoons would primarly focus on Mig-31 , they would lose many aircraft because they would ignore the Flankers.

This is a major problem for the europeans and NATO in general. It may work in training but i'm not convinced it will work in battle. The logistical problems in supplying several armies who speak different languages and dont have standard equipment would truely be a nightmare. However i seriously doubt the russians have the logistical capability to sustain a rolling campaign throughout centrel europe, they do IMO have a capability to wage one in the east though.

They just might have enough logistics to march till France imho

Lets examine those claims a bit shel we? How exactly would the europeans lose in the air and see quick? The russian navy does have sove very capable platforms, outside of land based air cover EU navies have no counter to russian naval aviation, (backfire bomber). However in general EU personell and training standards are much better, and EU platforms are more sophistocated electronicly. South of iceland the russian navy would have real problems, although i wouldnt be venturing into the barrents if i was in the RN.

I already explained miself , you are seriusly underestimating russia's sub fleet , they might not have good training but what does Europe has to counter their sub fleet?? care to explain?
And even the slight idea that Europe would be able to stop the Backfires is ridicilous..

Now for the air forces the russians have quite a few platforms on paper, but it is questionable how many are servicable and battle ready. Allmost all of them are pre 1990 and are generally outclased by the premier european air forces. the europeans have (in general) better platforms, better servicability, better AEW&C, better situational awarness and better trained people. I see the advantage laying with europeans.

They might have better trained people but don't count Russians out yet , they have great natural pilots and the flying hours went up too , its not 1995 anymore , the 1300 aircraft mentioned before are all battle ready , your seriusly not considering the facts , Russia has at least 4000 fighters , while the majority is in reserve , the 1300 i mentioned is operational and ready , from the further 2700 in reserve i did not count any .. but im sure the majority would not work , but im sure 1/3 could fly , thats another 900 , mostly from Mig-27 , Mig-29 , Su-27 , and Mig-21..

On the land the mobilised strength of the russian army is about 60 divisions, not 100. And i think you got the other sides strengths and weaknesses mixed up, the land battle is the one were the russians hold the major advantage. Sheer weight of numbers is their bigest advantage, with some 10 000 T72's and other soviet erra kit equiping these formations, on qualitative terms the europeans would be much better. Those 60 divisions will be far less capable than their european counterparts.

On paper Russa has 200 divisions that could be prepared for such a large scale war , but i agree its imposible to form nowhere near that amount , but im pretty sure 80-100 would not be out of the picture..
Also take in consideration that around 3500 of the Tanks are very capable T-80 and T-90 , and whilst your considering T-72 as a shit tank i would disagree , T-72 has 1 big flaw that is unfixable , yet the russian's T-72 have a modern gun capable of penetrating any western armor , therefor it means for each europe tank you have 5 T-72's so don't think that they are useless.

How exactly are the russians far ahead of urope in terms of industrial capabcity? Economicly (which is far more important anyway) the russians are light years behind the europeans.

They are quite capable of making 2000 tanks and 1000 aircraft yearly if their military industry works at fullest. Did you tried to look somewhere beyond small details like those you have discussed. How many Leclercs/Challengers/Leopards/etc Europe can actually field against Russia? How much it can produce within 6 month?
Then compare that to what Russian army has now, add what it has in reserves and add their capacities to produce around 2000 +tanks in 1st year of mobilization, around 1000 combat aircraft, 1000 helicopters, and many thousands of tactical missiles.
But think about 1 thing , this war would not last as long anyway , so this is useless ..

I think your off the mark by quite a bit. The Europeans could probably beat the russians without the US if they could sort their logistical situation out, but it wouldnt be easy. Anyway this question has been debated to some extent in this thread:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6343&page=1

Have a look before you contine in this one, maybeyou could add to the discussion there.

Thanks but I already finished my discussion , since its useless and far from reality , as this scenario is imposible to happen ..
Btw i hope you don't take this seriusly , its just a discussion , not that im saying your wrong , i don't know everything , and you don't know everything too , cheers

 

[XaNDeR]

Where do you get these numbers from? On the Russian side, you're counting more fighters than they have still in existence, let alone operational, & not allowing for the steady decline in numbers. On the European side, you're quoting astonishingly low numbers. FYI, European air forces are planning to buy 635 Eurofighters, & production orders have been placed for 399 so far, & 294 Rafales.

The Russian air force & navy currently have about 850 fighters, not 1300. The rate of building is less than the rate at which they are being retired, so the number is diminishing. It has no Su-30, & none on order. Of the 360 Su-27, about 70 are new or modernised. Of the 225 or so MiG-29, very few have been modernised. Flying hours have increased, but for all but a few pilots are still far below what NATO considers the minimum to remain competent.

There are also about the same number of strike aircraft (Su-24, Su-25, a handful of Su-34), Some of the Su-24 & Su-25 are being modernised, but most are so far untouched.

Currently, EU countries + Norway (can't imagine it staying out) have about 170 Mirage 2000, 400 F-16 (with a lot more F-16 block 50+ on order), over 100 Typhoon, 150 F-18, 175 Gripen, about 50 Rafale, 75 Tornado F3 and a few hundred older fighters (upgraded F-4 with AMRAAM, MiG-29, Mirage F1, etc). Oops! More than Russia has. Also, about 270 Tornado, 80 AMX, 125 Mirage 2000D/N, & a few hundred assorted A-7, Su-22, Harrier, etc. strike aircraft. Allow for the number of multi-role aircraft listed under fighters, add in Russian bombers, & you find that the total numbers of combat aircraft are fairly similar, but European ones are much better piloted, older types have been upgraded more, maintenance levels are certainly better, etc. etc. Assuming Russian air superiority is evidence of a failure to examine the situation.

What you say about the lack of co-ordination of W. European forces shows that you know nothing about them. What do you think NATO HQ would be doing? Most European armed forces fit seamlessly into an integrated command system, & some of the few that don't actively liaise with that organisation.

Thats full of bullcrap , Russia has about 460 Su-27's , 460 Mig-29's , 325 Mig-31's , around 90 of Su-35 , 34 , 33 , 30

Thats exactly 1335 frontline fighters all operational , not counting the reserves that they have , look at my previus post please.

Europe does not even have a strategic bomber force to make it worse