S-200 have range up to 300km, S-300 have range up to 200 km, S-400 (which is btw about as fielded as Typhoon) up to 400km. It easy to see how they can affect air battles even behind enemy front lines. Moreover, the SAM's will free fighters from air-defence duty - and again it is easy to see how it will affect airbattles.
New major military powers
- Thread starter mexsoldier
- Start date
- Status
While overall figure is close to real - 90 of Su-3xx is definitly mistake. Only about 15 Su-34 produced, and all other Su-30xx are counted in single numbed prototypes.
Okay, I am know in agreement. I've thought it through. I still dislike Russia's military though.
But Europe is increasing the numbers of Typhoons, while Russia is not increasing the number of Su-27s.
NATO (deployed in Europe, & they would be used in the defence of Europe) 17 E-3. UK 6 E-3. France 4 E-f. Total 27 E-3. Also 11 Erieye (Sweden & Greece) AEW.
Russia couldn't mobilise its army secretly, so Europe would know something is happening. BTW, since Russia does not have a regular refresher training system for reservists, most of them will be absolutely hopeless. Remember how well recently recalled reservists did in Grozny. Target practice for the Chechens.
Hmm. How many do you think have been modernised?
You seem to have some extremely odd ideas. Why would, say, 20 Typhoons all have to do one thing or another? They're not limited to one target at a time, or under rigid GCI. We're not talking about PVO-Strany in the 1960s, y'know.
Dream on.
nfloorl: So, Russians are somehow genetically superior to other nations, & can fly as well as inferior non-Russians even without training? You're sounding sillier & sillier the longer you go on. And your numbers of aircraft! 1300 total front line aircraft - yes, probably, including ground attack. Plus several hundred more reserves. 4000? I think you'll find that most of that lot have been through a scrap metal dealer by now. MiG-21? MiG-27? Dammit, man, they've scrapped some MiG-29s! Do you really think there's a single usable MiG-21 in Russia, outside museums?
No, on paper Russia has 26 divisions in the standing army & naval infantry, of which 2 are cadre HQs only. Most of the rest are at much less than half strength, needing mobilisation of reserves to function. There are also enough independent brigades & regiments for at least another dozen division. But there's manpower for maybe 10-15 divisions. Oops! Standing army is maybe 10 effective divisions, the rest being mobilisation divisions only.
Plus 17 reserve divisions & division equivalents, which would take longer to organise, & paramilitaries. You could scrape together maybe 70 divisions, after mobilising reserves, & including the interior ministry troops.
You really think that after 15 years of idleness all that machinery still exists? Not to mention the workers. Nope, it's all gone. Those may have been the numbers in 1992, but not now. Did you fall into a coma in the early 1990s, & just woke up?
There is no point of this scenario anyway , it does not fit in the real world in any case , there is no way it could ever happen , zero chance, hence its not important to even discuss it.
edit. swerve moreover alot of things you said is full of words , theories that would never work , you are in deep denial about most things , some things are correct , but most things are just conclusions in your mind , theories that are not backed up by any source anywhere ..
Ok , il put my thoughts 1 last time
I agree about the Mig-21 that its very unlikely they have any in service , but dont rule out that they don't have Mig-27's ..
You know what i find funny , you didn't even know Russia's air force number of fighters yet you claim you have the Russian doctrine figgured down to you fingers and claim to know everything about the way it works..
Last time i quoted anything , its pointless and stupid to even discuss a scenario that is imposible to happen in any case ..
edit. swerve moreover alot of things you said is full of words , theories that would never work , you are in deep denial about most things , some things are correct , but most things are just conclusions in your mind , theories that are not backed up by any source anywhere ..
Ok , il put my thoughts 1 last time
What the hell does this have to do with the scenario?
They have 17 instead of 16 i said? That certainly changes everything
How could Europe possibly speculate that Russia is gonna attack them , they read minds?
Probably enough to take out the E-3's
My god , you are seriusly ignoring every point of reality , you think AWACS has a 100 aricraft support ???
This post is not understandable at all , in what line did i say that someone is genetically superior , i said that they have nice pilots , and good flying hours , not as you said they are a bunch of shit pilots.. FAR from reality
I agree about the Mig-21 that its very unlikely they have any in service , but dont rule out that they don't have Mig-27's ..
Geez , you seriusly don't understand anything , im not talking how many divisions they have , im taking how many they could potentialy put together according to them , but like i said they could not put nowhere near 200 , so i said that 80-100 is not out of the question ..
You should visit Russia sometime , my friend knows someone who works in a military industrial site , and according to him you are wrong .
You know what i find funny , you didn't even know Russia's air force number of fighters yet you claim you have the Russian doctrine figgured down to you fingers and claim to know everything about the way it works..
Last time i quoted anything , its pointless and stupid to even discuss a scenario that is imposible to happen in any case ..
Last edited:
Some mobliziation capabilities are still retainained f.e. on Uralvagonzavod, and goverment subsidize such capability. But the real extent is unknown to public, and we can only speculate if it is 500 tanks/year or 2000 tanks/year.
Training in russian army is very uneven - worst probably in infantry, pretty bad-to-average in most aviation units (dont forget they have simulators even if they dont get much flying hours) and good/very good in such fields as SAM's, radar network, transport aviation, strategic forces, submarine fleet, etc - i.e. things what must operate full strenght in peace time (SAM's, submarines, strategic forces).
Training in russian army is very uneven - worst probably in infantry, pretty bad-to-average in most aviation units (dont forget they have simulators even if they dont get much flying hours) and good/very good in such fields as SAM's, radar network, transport aviation, strategic forces, submarine fleet, etc - i.e. things what must operate full strenght in peace time (SAM's, submarines, strategic forces).
I quite agree that the soldiers are not trained properly , however I also know 2 corps in moscow that are far above the rest of the army , but all in all if you take into consideration the training , yes probably soldiers lack training the most , the special units and paratroopers are far ahead from them aswell.
If you take into consideration the maintance and lack of repairs then the surface fleet is probably in the worst shape , allthough its getting better
If you take into consideration the maintance and lack of repairs then the surface fleet is probably in the worst shape , allthough its getting better
You're forgetting that the NATO command structure is located in Europe, & even if all the Americans left, would still exist.
In the Cold War, European NATO members provided most of the land, sea & air forces in Europe. In the unlikely event of a conventional war, the ratio of American to European ground forces would initially have swung even more towards Europeans, as reserves were mobilised, before becoming more American as reinforcements arrived (well, providing there were still ports & airfields to arrive at). Air forces would rapidly have become more American, as they could fly straight in.
Europeans didn't provide only "support to USA main forces": they provided the main force to meet any attack. There was a reason for the skewing of the US forces towards air and naval forces: they were the best things to support the Europeans in defending W. Europe.
Those are roughly the figures given by Aviation Week, & quoted in Wikipedia. The IISS disagrees. What are your reasons for preferring those figures?
38 AEW aircraft, not 16, of which 27, not 16 are E-3.
The Russian army calling up reserves & moving troops west might give some sort of a clue.
For example, taking all those tanks you mention out of their storage depots east of the Urals & shipping them west would be a little hard to conceal.Where did I say 100?
You're imagining things again. But if threatened, they'd be protected - though certainly not by 100 aircraft.You said "great natural pilots". What else could that possibly mean? And Western air forces also have simulators, & use them as well as all those extra real flying hours. As for "shit pilots" - you're inventing things again. I did not say that, only pointed out the undeniable fact that worse trained pilots are less skilled. BTW, how many flying hours do you think the average Russian fighter pilot gets? You've not exactly been specific.
Flyable? And BTW, who'll fly this vast armada of unmaintained relics, when even many front-line pilots are grossly under-trained?
True, you did - but earlier, you were saying "an advance of probably 100 divisions", & to attack with 100 divisions you'd need an army of a lot more. You seem unable to make up your mind.
BTW, by the time the entire Russian army had been mobilised, plus more than 50 more divisions recruited, armed, trained (or do you propose to send them off to die untrained?), & pointed west, don't you think someone would have noticed, & started doing something?
So why have you expended so much effort on it?
BTW, I agree - it ain't going to happen.Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Mate the germans have a MRSI capable system in the field, i cant remember the name of it and i'm to tired to look it up. NLOS is the yanks new toy, its fully auto and fires INS/GPS projectiles that are meter accurate.
As i said the R77 is comperable to the AMRAAM, but i would still take an AIM 120C or a MICA over and R77. And the average MiG 29 and Flanker still uses the R27 SARH, miles behind an AMRAAM. Again they might have bits of good kit but the average stuff is 1980's vintage. In most enguagements the russians wouldt be shot town in 2:1 or 3:1 by outdated EU stuff like F4's simply because AMRAAM and new radars are standard. Typhoons would have a feild day.
And by ASM i didnt mean Anti Ship Missile, I meant air to surface, what i should have said was PGM. The russians are still using TV guided weapons, with some laser guided stuff, which is a long way behind J series PGM's using INS/GPS for guidence, again there a generation behind. And i doubt they have a standoff weapon anywere near as capable as storm shadow, even if a few have a little bit more range.
Swerve dealt with the E3 question.
Somehow i dont its think my perspective that's skewed. You think that in todays day and age a nation like russia can mobilse, which means calling up hundreds of thousands of people, moving millions of tonnes of war stocks ext ext ext without the europeans noticing and mobilising too. In 1914 germany france and russia all mobilised after the other began too, and that was almost a CENTURY ago. They knew as soon as mobilisation began in a threat nation, and this was in the day of the telegraph, but somehow you think the europeans wouldn't notice with ISR capabilities envolved?????
I know this is an unrealistic scenario but your just being illogical, which shows you havent really thought about this.
How many have been modernised??? any of them or is this just the intentions of the programe??? The flankers are in the bigenst need for modernisation and i thought they had done ~30 or so.
And even with the "modernised" ones, they may have a stated counter ISR capability but i dont know how efective they will be. Just because they have a 300km ranged missile doesent mean that "all the E3's will be useless" as you seem to think. Lets have a look at the tacticle employment of the missile. The exact range vs RCS for the E3 is classified but you would be safe to assume that an aircraft as big as the MiG 31 would be detected well outside of 400 km perhaps 500km, so the E3 would detect the threat and be directing interceptors to the target. As for the MiG 31's how exactly are they going to detect and track the E3 at 300km??? If they are useing ESM and an AR variant of the R37 then all the sentry has to do is stop transmiting at the last minet and the missiles are useless. They can still track the battle by using ESM, and due to the russians lack of networking they would all be emissions hot. If however they are relying on SARH or ARH warheads the MiG 31 has to detect and track the E3 at ~300km which would be at or beyond the limit of the best russian fighter radars aka BARS at the moment (by the indians admission who actually use the system), i highly doubt Zaslon S-800 could do it, even if their marketing data says so. But lets say it did detect and track the E3 at 300km and fired an R37, its going to either illuminate the target with its own radar (which would seriously effect the maximum engagement range) or track the E3 and datalink the information to the missile. The whole time their going to have to point their aircraft at the target or loose the missile shot. While their doing that they cant manuever to avaiod the missile shots of EU fighters which would have been on intercept tracks as soon as the MiG 31 was detected at 400km to 500km. Even if they have a flanker escort, AMRAAM and MICA are standard issue, therefore both are fire and forget and the EU inteceptors can target all of the incoming bogeys. In that situation the MiG 31 can either manuever and loose the R37 missile shot or die. But lets say the MiG 31 does track the E3 at 300km, does fire an SARH or ARH missile at maximum range and isnt intercepted by EU fighters at any point, the missile still has to contend with very capable ECM, much more capable than average russain ECCM. The datalink is vulnerable to jaming & SARH shots from 300km ranges are very vulnerable to ECM. And then if the missile gets through all of that, it can be intecepted by AMRAAM shots. Isn't quite as simple as "AWACS would be useless" is it?
This isnt the 1980's. 4 typhoons or rafales or tornadoes can engage 24+ bandits with very long range missiles such as AIM 120C5, AIM 120D, or METEORS. They dont have to "concentrate" on the flankers, they can engage all of them. The flankers will most probably be armed with R27 SARH remember.
I think your underestimating the logistical complexity of supplying 50 odd mechanised divisions in an advace across hostile ground in a high intencity conflict. The Allies had trouble in 1944 with all the logistical assets they had, the russians dont have anywhere near that level of logistical capability. They aint the soviet union any more.
The RN and french navy have been practicing ASW for 60 years, dont you think they're pretty good at it? They have much much better people, beter sensors, and a very capable operational doctorine. The OSCAR II and Akula are very capable submarines, but again there arn't that many of them, the average foxtrot SSK or november SSN (if they are actually servicable) are no match for average EU ASW frigates or SSN/SSK. I think your severely underestimating the effect of quality people has on warfare. As for the OSCAR II and AKULA they would be a real headache, but i wouldnt be sending them into the north sea and expect to see them again if i was in command of the russian fleet. The europeans have some very capable ASW sensors. The french have (arguably) the best active sonar in the world, and all of the EU's major navyies have active and pasive sonars that are a generation ahead of the russian stuff which is yet again 1980's vintage.
The EU navies have no real counter to the Backfire outside their own air cover, the french have some with the charles de gual. Any EU task force that ventured north of iceland would be fair game, i wouldnt give it much of a chance. However south of iceland, the backfires would be operating at extreem range which means low payload and tankers to the west of Norway which would be vulnerable to Norwegan fighters. Then they would have to contend with Typhoons directed by E3's. So i'm not to shure how the EU navies would "loose" unless they went north looking for a fight.
For one thing i'm not counting the russians out, your the one who thinks the Europeans dont stand a chance without the americans. I'm just trying to bring some rationality to the debate.
The 2700 fighters that you are considering would be useless in this scenario. Even if they were anywere near flyable, which is very improbable as you cant just leave a vehicle as complicated as a frontline fighter in storage for 15 years and expect it to actually fly without being totaly rebuilt, they dont have any units to go to. You need pilots, a command structure, maintince and logistical facilities and support for any of these fighters to actually be used in combat. so there is no point in bringing them up.
As for your 1300 fighters. Wiki puts them at 452 Su 27's, 453 MiG 29's 225 MiG 31's that are not in reserve. The maintinace and operational costs for keeping over 1000 frontline fighters operational and battle ready would be truely massive, all this from a nation that has a smaller defence budget than Italy???? Somehow i doubt they are all "battle ready", although a good proportion would be or could be made to be within a short timeframe, perhaps 3/4's.
Mate i dont think its me who isn't realisticly considering the facts, just because the russians have 4000 fighters doesent mean anywere near that number could be used in a real shooting war.
No, the russians have enough equipment to raise 200 divisions, i doesent mean they have that number on paper. There is no way they could actualy field anywere near this number. They could field 60~70 odd at the moment, mabe 100 after a year or two of being on a war footing. Which is again irrelevent to this type of scenario. The Europeans could raise quite a few in a year or so.
Industrial capacity is meaningless without the economics to back it up. How are they going to pay for any of this production????? Its impossible to compleatly change industrial output to war production, the civilian economy would collapse, then you've got no revenue to pay for any production. Its not as simple as they have the factories so they can produce the tanks. The combined economic might of western europe is much much much larger than the russians and they can afford alot more capability (ie numbers + Technology).
Anyway such a conflict would only take a few weeks to be decided, unless both sides decided to go onto a war footing before hand, in such a case the europeans have the funds to increase their capability much faster and to a much higher level than the russians. When your dealing with a long war between major powers, econimics is the primary factor, not just industrial capacity.
I'm not taking this personally if thats what you mean. You have to have disagreement in a debate, its how ideas can be challenged and exchanged, its the most interesting way to learn.
But i think the way you are apreoaching this is slightly flawed. You seem to look at a platform or capability and see it as desisive without giving any thought as to how it is actually going to be employed. For instance the MiG 31 and the russian SSN/SSK fleet. You stated that AWACS would be useless because the MiG 31 has a counter ISR capability, without explaining how or why, and you stated that EU navy would "loose" because they didnt have a counter to the russian submarines. How exactly are the OSCAR's & AKULA's going to defeat EU navies under their own air cover in the north sea???? You seem to think they will both sail out into the mid atlantic and duke it out, and therefore (in your opinion) better submarines = EU looses. In reality its not that simple.
First of all im quite happy we are having this discussion since you seem to be a very educated man , ok now lets start .
You mean Phz-2000 ?
But anyway I didnt mean that Russians don't have any MRSI artillery , but the TOS-1 , Smerch and such MLRS systems are good and in big numbers.
Yes agreed about R-77 and AIM-120 , but your a little off friend , many aircraft ( Su-27 and Mig-29 ) have been recently upgraded to use R-77.
Oh , my apologize i thought you meant Anti Ship , I agree what you said , Europeans have alot better PGM'S , however Europe has not a single strategic bomber , while Russia has Bear Bombers , capable of 15.000 km range without refuel!
B-1 Bombers , and Tu-22 Backfire's.
Your probably right , mobilization of such a vast size and moving troops closer too the west would give Europe a heads up.
Why do you think i said Mig-31 /M /D /BS versions?
I told you before , they are made especialy to target AWACS , they have a PESA with larger antenna and greater detection range , said to be beyond 400km , which by the experts is enough to potentialy fire the missile just before beeing detected . The speed of the R-37 is well over 6 mach , which is very fast for a missile.
Im not underestimating sonar capability's of Europe's navy's , but tell me what ships or subs could potentialy be a threat to akula and oscar , there are not many european navy's with good ASW capability , probably only France and Britain are somewhere around very good. But your joking if you think that for example Type 42 has any chance of destroying a Akula before he is swimming with the sharks below surface , France would arguably be the most painfull navy for Russians to handle.Charles De Gaulle is very good , yet French are having big problems with it.
Now about the Tu-22 , are you joking , there is no way that They could stop them , you think Britain would send their Typhoons to counter and leave strategical important targets vulnerable? The Tu-22M could also release Kh-22MA , and it could receave mid flight updates , so the range from which Tu-22M could fire it , could be well beyond 600km , how exactly are Typhoons gonna detect that even with AWACS?
Small correction 325 Mig-31's
And you didn't count around 60+ Su-33 , 34 , 35 .. etc but ok it isnt the point.
121 Tu-95 and Tu-160 could be a big problem too , and almost near 200 Tu-22M's
, thats exactly what I said , they could potentialy raise it to 200 divisions , but more preferably would be around 80 , or maybe some more..
I agree it would take few weeks , so economics or industrial capaticity wouldn't mean anything , Im saying that till this whole time now , don't you read my posts =\ anyway my point was only that russia's industry is far more capable of producing more vehicles yearly as europe , I did not mention economics , allthough they are important , My point was only production..
And it would not play any role even since it wouldn't take long.
You mean Phz-2000 ?
But anyway I didnt mean that Russians don't have any MRSI artillery , but the TOS-1 , Smerch and such MLRS systems are good and in big numbers.
Yes agreed about R-77 and AIM-120 , but your a little off friend , many aircraft ( Su-27 and Mig-29 ) have been recently upgraded to use R-77.
Oh , my apologize i thought you meant Anti Ship , I agree what you said , Europeans have alot better PGM'S , however Europe has not a single strategic bomber , while Russia has Bear Bombers , capable of 15.000 km range without refuel!
B-1 Bombers , and Tu-22 Backfire's.
Your probably right , mobilization of such a vast size and moving troops closer too the west would give Europe a heads up.
I apologize if i said anytime that AWACS would be useless , but your still wrong in some perspectives , sure maybe AWACS could track the Mig-31 at around 400km , but your missing the point..
Why do you think i said Mig-31 /M /D /BS versions?
I told you before , they are made especialy to target AWACS , they have a PESA with larger antenna and greater detection range , said to be beyond 400km , which by the experts is enough to potentialy fire the missile just before beeing detected . The speed of the R-37 is well over 6 mach , which is very fast for a missile.
Already told you before , most Flankers and Fulcrums have been modernized to carry R-77..
If anything I always think is imposible to know logistics , I agree that supplying 50 or more divisions and advance of over 3000km i think? Is very hard , and it would be a slow procces. however the Tu-95 bear and B-1 would be very usefull since the range is well over any part of europe they would need to bomb , but i agree that the logistic problem may be a problem..
Im not underestimating sonar capability's of Europe's navy's , but tell me what ships or subs could potentialy be a threat to akula and oscar , there are not many european navy's with good ASW capability , probably only France and Britain are somewhere around very good. But your joking if you think that for example Type 42 has any chance of destroying a Akula before he is swimming with the sharks below surface , France would arguably be the most painfull navy for Russians to handle.Charles De Gaulle is very good , yet French are having big problems with it.
Now about the Tu-22 , are you joking , there is no way that They could stop them , you think Britain would send their Typhoons to counter and leave strategical important targets vulnerable? The Tu-22M could also release Kh-22MA , and it could receave mid flight updates , so the range from which Tu-22M could fire it , could be well beyond 600km , how exactly are Typhoons gonna detect that even with AWACS?
Fine lets disconsider the reserve aircraft .
Small correction 325 Mig-31's
And you didn't count around 60+ Su-33 , 34 , 35 .. etc but ok it isnt the point.
121 Tu-95 and Tu-160 could be a big problem too , and almost near 200 Tu-22M's
Ozzy cmon man
, thats exactly what I said , they could potentialy raise it to 200 divisions , but more preferably would be around 80 , or maybe some more..I agree it would take few weeks , so economics or industrial capaticity wouldn't mean anything , Im saying that till this whole time now , don't you read my posts =\ anyway my point was only that russia's industry is far more capable of producing more vehicles yearly as europe , I did not mention economics , allthough they are important , My point was only production..
And it would not play any role even since it wouldn't take long.
Well i hope i explained a few things and i hope it will be interesting to read my perspective. Cheers
Ozzy Blizzard,
a well thought out post. Ta.
About those Russian fighter numbers: Wiki got 'em from Aviation Week, 15 Jan 2007. I've not seen the AW article, & don't know its sources. The lower figures I quoted are from the IISS Military Balance 2007, which gives numbers of "combat capable" aircraft. Total numbers west of the Urals are declared to CFE, including stored aircraft whether usable or not.
Further to that, the Italians had to hurriedly scrap a few hundred of old M47 when CFE came in, because the USSR pointed out that according to the terms of the treaty, they still counted, although none of them could actually move, after sitting in a field for many years. I believe the conditions were deliberately made tight so that you couldn't render equipment inoperable but easily fixed, to keep it without having to count it.
CFE also tells us how many Russian tanks, IFVs etc are west of the Urals: e.g. 4882 tanks on 01-Jan-2006. That number has been reducing steadily. The other 17000 Russian tanks east of the Urals, mostly in long-term storage (big stores just east of the Urals). Would take quite a while to get most operational, & they're what would equip the reserve units. I reckon only the regular units could actually be made combat-worthy in less than several months, i.e. 40 or so division equivalents. Total armour & artillery holdings would equip about 100 divisions. One thing to consider is that Russian holdings of equipment in the CFE area are actually well under the CFE limit, & have been gently declining for years as the uselessness of stored equipment is recognised & its scrap value is realised.
I have a partial breakdown of CFE-limited aircraft stocks from 2003, which lists:
Su-27 296
Su-25 172
Su-24 413
MiG-31 237
MiG-29 445
MiG-25 81
Tu-22M 63
Tu-22 29
Some of the above were decommissioned, and declared as such.
And the following, all of which were decommissioned:
Su-22 53
Su-17 194
MiG-27 93
MiG-23 359
Checking back, we find that most of these aircraft had been listed as decommissioned for years.
The IISS gave total Russian air force holdings in commission, in the whole country (not just CFE area) of the active types above, for the same date, including those with training units, as -
Su-27 403
Su-25 260
Su-24 566
MiG-31 256
MiG-29 291
MiG-25 75
Tu-22M 117
These totals are compatible with the lists of aircraft in each MD. Note the differences with the CFE list: there were a lot of MiG-29 not in commission, especially when we allow for those serving in the Siberian MD.
Plus naval holdings -
Su-27 52
Su-25 10
Su-24 52
Tu-22M 45
The IISS has stopped listing the CFE-declared numbers. I think that is the source of the difference between the numbers I gave - from the IISS - and the AW numbers. One is the inventory of active units (not necessarily all flyable without repairs, though by all accounts the situation is much better than it was), the other includes stored airframes, some of which are unrepairable, & some of which have been passed to MiG & Sukhoi to be refurbished for export. The much larger figure Xander quotes includes all the decommissioned MiG-27s, Su-17s etc which haven't yet been scrapped.
a well thought out post. Ta.
About those Russian fighter numbers: Wiki got 'em from Aviation Week, 15 Jan 2007. I've not seen the AW article, & don't know its sources. The lower figures I quoted are from the IISS Military Balance 2007, which gives numbers of "combat capable" aircraft. Total numbers west of the Urals are declared to CFE, including stored aircraft whether usable or not.
Further to that, the Italians had to hurriedly scrap a few hundred of old M47 when CFE came in, because the USSR pointed out that according to the terms of the treaty, they still counted, although none of them could actually move, after sitting in a field for many years. I believe the conditions were deliberately made tight so that you couldn't render equipment inoperable but easily fixed, to keep it without having to count it.
CFE also tells us how many Russian tanks, IFVs etc are west of the Urals: e.g. 4882 tanks on 01-Jan-2006. That number has been reducing steadily. The other 17000 Russian tanks east of the Urals, mostly in long-term storage (big stores just east of the Urals). Would take quite a while to get most operational, & they're what would equip the reserve units. I reckon only the regular units could actually be made combat-worthy in less than several months, i.e. 40 or so division equivalents. Total armour & artillery holdings would equip about 100 divisions. One thing to consider is that Russian holdings of equipment in the CFE area are actually well under the CFE limit, & have been gently declining for years as the uselessness of stored equipment is recognised & its scrap value is realised.
I have a partial breakdown of CFE-limited aircraft stocks from 2003, which lists:
Su-27 296
Su-25 172
Su-24 413
MiG-31 237
MiG-29 445
MiG-25 81
Tu-22M 63
Tu-22 29
Some of the above were decommissioned, and declared as such.
And the following, all of which were decommissioned:
Su-22 53
Su-17 194
MiG-27 93
MiG-23 359
Checking back, we find that most of these aircraft had been listed as decommissioned for years.
The IISS gave total Russian air force holdings in commission, in the whole country (not just CFE area) of the active types above, for the same date, including those with training units, as -
Su-27 403
Su-25 260
Su-24 566
MiG-31 256
MiG-29 291
MiG-25 75
Tu-22M 117
These totals are compatible with the lists of aircraft in each MD. Note the differences with the CFE list: there were a lot of MiG-29 not in commission, especially when we allow for those serving in the Siberian MD.
Plus naval holdings -
Su-27 52
Su-25 10
Su-24 52
Tu-22M 45
The IISS has stopped listing the CFE-declared numbers. I think that is the source of the difference between the numbers I gave - from the IISS - and the AW numbers. One is the inventory of active units (not necessarily all flyable without repairs, though by all accounts the situation is much better than it was), the other includes stored airframes, some of which are unrepairable, & some of which have been passed to MiG & Sukhoi to be refurbished for export. The much larger figure Xander quotes includes all the decommissioned MiG-27s, Su-17s etc which haven't yet been scrapped.
Last edited:
Slight misunderstanding, there. The Wiki (i.e. Aviation Week) list says 325 MiG-31, including 100 in reserve, i.e. 225 active, which is what he said - "225 MiG 31's that are not in reserve".
Thats for clearing that up , i did not notice
another source claims they have 286 active Mig-31's though
in these regiments
BASE LOCATION CMD D/F
764 FIGHTER RGT Bolshoe Savino (Perm') 5 AF Army (Volga Ural) VU
750 pers., 34 Mig-31. 02.2007 comd trainings.
458 FIGHTER RGT Kotlas, Savvatia 21 ad corps Len
Mig-31
530 FIGHTER RGT Sokolovka, Chuguevka 23 ad corps FE
Mig-31
712 FIGHTER RGT Kansk 41 ad div Sib
Mig-31
350 FIGHTER RGT Bratsk 26 ad div Sib
Mig-31. disbanded 2002.
790 FIGHTER RGT Khotilovo ? ad div Msk
800 pers., 41 Mig-31. 2006+: to be disbanded
865 INDEP F RGT Elizovo (Petropavlovsk) Naval Aviation PAC
Mig-31. transferred from AF.
148 FLIGHT TEST CENTER Savostleika (Murom) 4 combat trg center AF
41 should be disbanded though
Incognito129
Banned Member
Yes its very likely to occur. All countries per capita wise come to the same global number. Per capita is based on the current technology of the world.
Japan has been at convergence for a while now and nearly the same per capita as the US.
I dont know what you are talking about with growth mechanisms. There's only 1 growth mechanism and thats investments.
Japan reached convergence with the US. This is really hard to explain. You should look up the solow model for more information, but in a nutshell, no. Growth is logarithmic so yes over time it slows down where to a point only new technology and population growth will make the economy grow.
Sorry, mate, you're talking about a theoretical model which might work when you're modelling it on a computer, but has bugger-all to do with the real world. You've mentioned PPP: do you know what the GDP per capita of Japan is at PPP now? And what it was in 1990? I suggest you go & check, then adjust your theories about convergence. Technological determinism is nonsense. It takes no account of institutional frameworks, resource endowment, nor any of a million human factors. Why hasn't Africa converged on Europe & the USA, for example? Solow may have got a Nobel prize, but that doesn't mean he was infallible, & exogenous growth theory should be taken with a bucketful of salt.
If you don't know what I mean by needing to find a different growth mechanism, you've either not been paying attention in your studies or your teachers should be sacked & replaced by some competent ones. Ever heard of diminishing returns? You should have done. Not much return from an investment in an oilfield which has been sucked dry, is there?
Russias current growth mechanism is the exploitation of natural resources, particularly oil & gas. This has a limited future. Russia needs to find a different source of growth in order to keep growing beyond that limit. There is no sign at present of that happening. How does that sound?
World power
The World power are; America, Russia, British, France, China & Europeans
Who are the manufactures and have the technology with their scientist.
Where as the countries who are buyer and depends on other, can not be listed as world power; Just like Pakistan, India etc.
The dream of destroying some one with power with limited source can not be champion, how long they will fight, when theirs fighter are not there, & depending on others.
Indo Pak have emotional, mentality having bought toys, and has tendency play with & break (childish behavior). So get out this dream being world power.:nutkick USA
The World power are; America, Russia, British, France, China & Europeans
Who are the manufactures and have the technology with their scientist.
Where as the countries who are buyer and depends on other, can not be listed as world power; Just like Pakistan, India etc.
The dream of destroying some one with power with limited source can not be champion, how long they will fight, when theirs fighter are not there, & depending on others.
Indo Pak have emotional, mentality having bought toys, and has tendency play with & break (childish behavior). So get out this dream being world power.:nutkick USA
The World power are; America, Russia, British, France, China & Europeans
Who are the manufactures and have the technology with their scientist.
Where as the countries who are buyer and depends on other, can not be listed as world power; Just like Pakistan, India etc.
The dream of destroying some one with power with limited source can not be champion, how long they will fight, when theirs fighter are not there, & depending on others.
Indo Pak have emotional, mentality having bought toys, and has tendency play with & break (childish behavior). So get out this dream being world power.
nfloorl: USA- Status