New major military powers

[kato]

however Europe has not a single strategic bomber

Only currently, due to lack of requirement. Don't forget the good old Vulcan.
And don't forget that within the "all-out war" there would have been e.g. German Tornado IDS with tactical nukes going almost ferry range (i.e. 3000 km with maneuvers) to their target. Yes, they trained for that kind of scenario. France and the UK don't need bombers for strategic projection. That's what nuke-tipped SLBMs are for.

As for European ASW capability, any Russian sub not in the Northern Fleet is of no importance to Europe (i.e. about half the sub fleet). Any Russian submarine that wants to threaten anything in Europe needs to go through the Norway-UK-Iceland gap. Which is heavily cordoned off by NATO SMNG ASW forces and MPAs from all sides.

 

[eckherl]

Only currently, due to lack of requirement. Don't forget the good old Vulcan.
And don't forget that within the "all-out war" there would have been e.g. German Tornado IDS with tactical nukes going almost ferry range (i.e. 3000 km with maneuvers) to their target. Yes, they trained for that kind of scenario. France and the UK don't need bombers for strategic projection. That's what nuke-tipped SLBMs are for.

As for European ASW capability, any Russian sub not in the Northern Fleet is of no importance to Europe (i.e. about half the sub fleet). Any Russian submarine that wants to threaten anything in Europe needs to go through the Norway-UK-Iceland gap. Which is heavily cordoned off by NATO SMNG ASW forces and MPAs from all sides.

Are you stating that the German Airforce has access to tactical air delivered nukes.

 

[badguy2000]

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.

Russia VS China.
If a conventional war broke out between Russia and China.

here are some datas of industry capacity of both countries.

steel: China 450 million Tons per year/ Russia about 70 million tons
auto: china 7million + per year/Russia 1 million per year ?
shipbuilding: china is the third biggest shipbuilder. 15-20 % of global ships are built in China./ I have no the data of russia shipbuilding.
concrete: 40%+ of global concrete produced in China.
tractor: China produce 0.2 million tractors in 2007 and is the biggest tractor-producer.


Judging the above data,we know that China has much bigger industry capacity than Russia now.Once mobilized fully, China can easily work out " tank wave" and "aircraft-wave",instead of outdated "man-wave" in Korea war.

But Chinese military tech still lag behind Russia. PLA also lacks of experience.
So,if Sino-Russian war broke out and no nuke were used, Russia would have a obvious edge at fisrt. At first, Russia perhaps could destroy/annihilate hundreds of PLA's divisions ,just as Nazi German did with Soviet in 1941.


But at last, with the support of bigger industry capacity and much bigger population,China eventually could wear out the last blood of Russia with "tank-wave" or " airplane-wave" ,just as Soviet did with Nazi German in 1943-1945.
However, Chinese victory would be Soviet-style victory .As we know, Soviet lost 20+ million citizens during WW II,although it won eventually!

 

[badguy2000]

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

agree.
those countries such as India and Pakistan , which can not manufacture weapons and develope the technology with their scientists,can not be world powers!
They can not sustain a long-term war,without the support of real world powers like USA,Russia ,China or EU. They are just client-countries,however many weapons they buy from USA,Russia ,China and EU.

 

[badguy2000]

I think its not even a doubt that Chinese does not oppose any threat to Russia , you think China can just invade from south and keep going ? are you forgeting supply lines? the winter down there? It would be even hard to move there without any attack from russia , but as you said this scenario russian air force would bomb them to stone age , and there would be no reason for China to attack Russia , they have no interest there , it would be suacidal madness.

forget it!
in a conventional war,It in fact is very hard for Russian to defend from Chinese attack,because Siberian railway is easy to be cut off by Chinese.

Once Siberian railway is cut off, all Russia troop in Far east will starve to death.

 

[Brandon]

The China vs. Russia war is useless arguing. They share a lot of military tech and have a very strong relationship. Just look at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Central Asian countries, India, China, and Russia look like they are coming together. Russia vs. EU is a much more logical argument, especially given the recent events.

 

[f-22fan12]

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

90 Su-35??? Dream on. nfloorl:

 

[f-22fan12]

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 .

15,000 tanks in good shape??? Try 9,000 t-72s 3,000 T-80 and 250 T-90s
You are a few thousand off. And once again I agree with Swerve he is right. They do have a total of 650 Eurofighters on order. Where Russia has a decreasing # of planes.

Xander, Don't you realize that EVERYONE knows that Europe would defeat Russia, and don't you realize that EVERYONE disagrees with your false statements. Xander, YOU ARE WRONG. Just give up.

 

[swerve]

Are you stating that the German Airforce has access to tactical air delivered nukes.

No, he's saying that it did have, which is correct. The Luftwaffe was one of several NATO air forces which had American dual-key nukes. A matter of public record for about 40 years. I believe they've all been withdrawn now.

 

[Waylander]

Nope.
The weapons and the mission are still there.

God knows why?
As if we have nothing better to do with our time and money than to train for these missions, reserve Tornados for it and protect the area...

 

[XaNDeR]

forget it!
in a conventional war,It in fact is very hard for Russian to defend from Chinese attack,because Siberian railway is easy to be cut off by Chinese.

Once Siberian railway is cut off, all Russia troop in Far east will starve to death.

Im sorry but you are so far from reality that its not even funny!

15,000 tanks in good shape??? Try 9,000 t-72s 3,000 T-80 and 250 T-90s
You are a few thousand off. And once again I agree with Swerve he is right. They do have a total of 650 Eurofighters on order. Where Russia has a decreasing # of planes.

Xander, Don't you realize that EVERYONE knows that Europe would defeat Russia, and don't you realize that EVERYONE disagrees with your false statements. Xander, YOU ARE WRONG. Just give up.

You mean 9700 T-72?
And where did those 2000 T-62's go?

The total number of Eurofighters ordered does not mean anything , currently they have nowhere near that number..

Nobody said Europe Would Defeat Russia , your dreaming , if most 2 people said that it would not be so easy to defeat Europe because the lack of logistics which i have agreed with , but again nobody said Europe would defeat Russia's military.

And yet again the 10th time I say the same thing , this scenario is imposible in every way possible , so why are we even discusing it

 

[kato]

Are you stating that the German Airforce has access to tactical air delivered nukes.

Yes? Look up NATO "Nuclear Sharing".

JaBoG 33 at Büchel Airbase has 20 US B-61 tactical nukes stored on-site with USAF Guard personnel, and one of its two Tornado squadrons is earmarked for deploying these. Under the NATO Nuclear Sharing concept, Germany is supposed to keep this squadron trained and ready for deploying these tac-nukes, and it still trains for this purpose.

A further 150 B-61 used to be stored at Ramstein, on a US base, and earmarked for deployment by both US and German aircraft, but these were - rather covertly - moved back to the US in late 2005. Two other Luftwaffe bases (Memmingen and Noervenich) also have the safety bunker vaults for B-61 bombs, but no deployed bombs in peacetime. Most of these B-61 are mod-10, though a few mod-4 are probably still around as well. These have a variable yield between 0.3 and 170 kt.

Waylander:
Close-up protection for the nuclear vaults is provided by specialized US units for this purpose. Has always been that way, since that kind of thing started. These units were also responsible for deploying/transporting the nukes to their designated mission carriers, with assistance (especially to provide convoy safety) by specialized German units.
Nowadays the only mission carrier is of course Tornado, but remember that Germany used to keep nuclear-tipped Honest John, Lance, Pershing, Nike-Hercules, and of course nuclear-capable 155mm artillery as well during the Cold War. Deployment of most of these would have been in joint US-German units, with the US troops switching off the safeties and the German troops hitting the trigger (that's how it was done with Nike-Hercules).

 

[Snayke]

The China vs. Russia war is useless arguing. They share a lot of military tech and have a very strong relationship. Just look at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Central Asian countries, India, China, and Russia look like they are coming together. Russia vs. EU is a much more logical argument, especially given the recent events.

Sino-Russian relations are hardly friendly. It's only a relation of mutual interest. Old animosity still runs deep from the Cold War. Sino-Indian relations although warming are far from birthing military cooperation. It wasn't so long ago that China and India had a border war. The issue remains quiet but unresolved.

But it is true, Russia have nothing to gain from warring with China and vice versa so it would be more likely(however unlikely the scenario) that Russia would be in a conflict with Europe.

As for industrial capacity, I don't think Russia has more than Europe. Seeing as I can't find relevent figures for today, I'll go on last century's stuff. Germany itself had the highest industrial output pre-WW1 on the European mainland. Now Germany itself had much more than Russia. Combined with France and Britain, the other two major industrial nations and you have a severely disadvantaged Russia in terms of industrial capacity.

But that's just a brief look at industrial capacity a century ago. It could still be relevent to today's standings among European nations. Germany didn't rely on colonies to bring in materials whereas Britain did. I believe Germany recovered quick after WW2 as they were with France and a few others in an economic organisation (forgotten its name) which was the predecessor of the European Union.

But without semi-modern statistics who knows.

Here's some transportation statistics though!

Russia
Railways: 87,157 km
Road: 871,000 km

Germany
Railway: 47,201 km
Road: 231,581 km

France
Railway: 29,085 km
Road: 956,303 km

Poland
Railway: 23,072 km
Road: 423,997 km

I think logistics for Europe could be a bit easier than for Russia?

 

[XaNDeR]

The most logistic problems Europeans would face is the fact that the equipment would not be usable for many army's since most do not use the standard ammunition , not that they would find a hard time supplying the army

 

[Snayke]

I highly doubt Europe would be mixing divisions so the problem of ammunition wouldn't be so great. It's not like platoons will have a mixture of French, German and British soldiers.

EDIT: Although I thought there was a standard NATO ammunition?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I highly doubt Europe would be mixing divisions so the problem of ammunition wouldn't be so great. It's not like platoons will have a mixture of French, German and British soldiers.

EDIT: Although I thought there was a standard NATO ammunition?

5.56mm is standard nato round and most EU members use it because the've been in NATO for a while, so is 105mm & 155mm arty. But just because the ammo is the same doesent resolve the massive logistical complexity of supplying a NATO/EU army in the field, especially in a campaign as complex and fluid as this. All of their heavy units, logistics trains, electronics, most of their motorizrd stuff and even personal kit is different, not to mention the former WARPAC members that are using ex soviet kit and might not be using NATO 5.56mm ammo. Immagine trying to supply spare parts or batteries or bayonetts????? It would be a god damned nightmare especially on a modern, dynamic battlefield. The divisions may be individual but in a campaign this big sorting the whole mess out and doing it in an ordered fashion would be the real key for the europeans.

Adressing the Sino-Russian question thats a tough one to call. In a all out, long term war you would have to favor the Chinese due to their strong economic base, but then again in an all out war the russians could just hit the chinese with a massive strategic nuclear strike and its game over for bejing. This sort of thing is pretty unrealistic though, i cant see any sircumstance which would bring this about. In a limited conflict arround mongolia or over vladivostock is more realistic. In this sort of limited scenario that would last a few weeks maybe there are a couple of major factors that would decide the issue IMO apart from the actual tacticle employment of the respective forces. The major issue is whether the russians can concentrate in the east and logisticly support a large scale campaign in the area. Lines of communication running all the way back to the west of the urals through siberia is not really an atractive way to run a war. However the russians have deployed large formations in the are for the past 75+ years and fought several small conflicts with the japanese and chinese, therefore you would have to assume there are significant logistical and support structures such as repair yards, fuel and ammo dumps ect in eastern siberia. If there is sufficiant logistical infestructure and warstocks in the threater then the russians are in the game. In this limited scenario the essential equasion would be, assuming the russians can supply their deployed forces, if they can concentrate enough power in the critical area as the chinese will be able to conentrate faster. If they can and use their premier formations i would put my money on the russians. In agregate terms they have a better airforce. J10's & J11's may cause some trouble but they compromise a small proportion of the PLAAF's order of battle. not to mention Ivans AEW&C capability with 16~18 platforms such as A50E (i think) compared to PLAAF which doesent have one at all.

By the way the russians have closer economic ties to the EU than they do to Bejing, a sino-soviet esk scenario is more likely than Ivan charging through the fulda gap IMO.

 

[eckherl]

Nope.
The weapons and the mission are still there.

God knows why?
As if we have nothing better to do with our time and money than to train for these missions, reserve Tornados for it and protect the area...

Thanks @ Kato Waylander and Swerve - I always thought that the U.S, Britian and France pretty much handled this type of mission on their own. This is one of the reasons why I enjoy Defense Talk, you can always learn something new around here.

 

[XaNDeR]

5.56mm is standard nato round and most EU members use it because the've been in NATO for a while, so is 105mm & 155mm arty. But just because the ammo is the same doesent resolve the massive logistical complexity of supplying a NATO/EU army in the field, especially in a campaign as complex and fluid as this. All of their heavy units, logistics trains, electronics, most of their motorizrd stuff and even personal kit is different, not to mention the former WARPAC members that are using ex soviet kit and might not be using NATO 5.56mm ammo. Immagine trying to supply spare parts or batteries or bayonetts????? It would be a god damned nightmare especially on a modern, dynamic battlefield. The divisions may be individual but in a campaign this big sorting the whole mess out and doing it in an ordered fashion would be the real key for the europeans.

Adressing the Sino-Russian question thats a tough one to call. In a all out, long term war you would have to favor the Chinese due to their strong economic base, but then again in an all out war the russians could just hit the chinese with a massive strategic nuclear strike and its game over for bejing. This sort of thing is pretty unrealistic though, i cant see any sircumstance which would bring this about. In a limited conflict arround mongolia or over vladivostock is more realistic. In this sort of limited scenario that would last a few weeks maybe there are a couple of major factors that would decide the issue IMO apart from the actual tacticle employment of the respective forces. The major issue is whether the russians can concentrate in the east and logisticly support a large scale campaign in the area. Lines of communication running all the way back to the west of the urals through siberia is not really an atractive way to run a war. However the russians have deployed large formations in the are for the past 75+ years and fought several small conflicts with the japanese and chinese, therefore you would have to assume there are significant logistical and support structures such as repair yards, fuel and ammo dumps ect in eastern siberia. If there is sufficiant logistical infestructure and warstocks in the threater then the russians are in the game. In this limited scenario the essential equasion would be, assuming the russians can supply their deployed forces, if they can concentrate enough power in the critical area as the chinese will be able to conentrate faster. If they can and use their premier formations i would put my money on the russians. In agregate terms they have a better airforce. J10's & J11's may cause some trouble but they compromise a small proportion of the PLAAF's order of battle. not to mention Ivans AEW&C capability with 16~18 platforms such as A50E (i think) compared to PLAAF which doesent have one at all.

By the way the russians have closer economic ties to the EU than they do to Bejing, a sino-soviet esk scenario is more likely than Ivan charging through the fulda gap IMO.

Im afraid its not so simple Ozzy , if i might , considering the logistics that would be involved only the 38th and 39th guard army could theoreticaly go past 100 miles into russia , and since the treaty makes both russian and chinese army to be at least 100 miles from the respetive boarder , means that if china would send their 38th and 39th guard army over the boarder , the russians would already know whats going on , and they would already have divisions and gun batalions ready and they would literaly destroy them

 

[badguy2000]

not to mention Ivans AEW&C capability with 16~18 platforms such as A50E (i think) compared to PLAAF which doesent have one at all.

Well,PLA's KJ2000 and KJ200 both have entered into service .

But ,I agree that in a small conflict, Russian would have some edge.

 

[badguy2000]

Im afraid its not so simple Ozzy , if i might , considering the logistics that would be involved only the 38th and 39th guard army could theoreticaly go past 100 miles into russia , and since the treaty makes both russian and chinese army to be at least 100 miles from the respetive boarder , means that if china would send their 38th and 39th guard army over the boarder , the russians would already know whats going on , and they would already have divisions and gun batalions ready and they would literaly destroy them

that is truth.

the infrastructure in China is much better than that in Asian part of Russia.

Espeicially in Manchuria,there are lots of expressway. High speed railway will be constructed in several years.
if by expressway, 39 group army could rush to the suburds of Khabarovsk from Shenyang in 10 hours.