EU vs Russia who would win in this scenario.?

[Knjaz]

What silos?

Btw, you are aware that Russia only has 500-800 deliverable nukes? The five-digit number tossed around are paper-nukes which are at least to overhaul-cycles out-of-date.

I can just hope that these arent numbers US/NATO decision makers are using, because these are greatly underestimated numbers. It'd be very fun, if it wouldn't be so dangerous....

 

[swerve]

I would expect that at least some of the major western european countries like UK, France, Germany would be fielding US manufactured Network enabled remotely operated Non-Line-of-Sight anti-tank missiles like "Netfires" by 2023. These will probably reduce the dominance of tanks on the battelfield.....

Why US-manufactured? European manufacturers have built & tested such missiles, & they'd be deployed by now if the budgets hadn't been cut. If the money is spent, there's be a good chance of it being spent on European-made missiles.

Also, W. Europe already has a wide range of advanced anti-tank weapons. For example, Brimstone: had to be adapted for use in Afghanistan, because it was designed too specifically for destroying large numbers of tanks in a single pass by an attack aircraft. Or the Bonus smart munition, dispensed by 155mm artillery shells, or the DM702 SMART 155mm projectile.

And then there are the loitering munitions under development over here, & likely to be deployed before 2023.

 

[outsider]

Why US-manufactured? European manufacturers have built & tested such missiles, & they'd be deployed by now if the budgets hadn't been cut. If the money is spent, there's be a good chance of it being spent on European-made missiles.

Also, W. Europe already has a wide range of advanced anti-tank weapons. For example, Brimstone: had to be adapted for use in Afghanistan, because it was designed too specifically for destroying large numbers of tanks in a single pass by an attack aircraft. Or the Bonus smart munition, dispensed by 155mm artillery shells, or the DM702 SMART 155mm projectile.

And then there are the loitering munitions under development over here, & likely to be deployed before 2023.

Are the Europeans developing anything like "Netfires" though that doesn't require a platform (aircraft, helicopter, uav, 155mm artilery) to fire it, that is easily transportable by light truck or helicopter, with equivalent range (24 miles) and that can be dropped off somewhere and fired remotely without human intervention on the ground? Or is the ability to be fired remotely even necessary?

I'd also be interested in your opinion, as to how much impact weapons like these would have on the effectiveness of tanks.

 

[Grand Danois]

I can just hope that these arent numbers US/NATO decision makers are using, because these are greatly underestimated numbers. It'd be very fun, if it wouldn't be so dangerous....

Nope... those five-digit numbers thrown around doesn't exist as weapons. They're just useless devces on shelves in bunkers.

 

[JonMusser]

Possibilities

lets look at this scenario. its 2023. the middle east is a wasteland. russia becomes the number one producer of oil and natural gas.they go through a massive military buildup not seen since the cold war. lets say there is a civil war in ukraine between the Crimean vs ukraine. lets say ukraine bombs a russian ammo depot in the russia ukraine border becuz russia is supplying the Crimean. russia decides to defend themselves and decide to invade eastern ukraine and liberate crimea. the eu (minus the uk and us) declare war on russia. so who would win the new russian modernized military or the eu. its a war with no nukes. ukraine is not part of nato becuz they have not settled their land problems with crimea.a purely conventional war. so who would win?

I would suggest we not underestimate Russia in this instance where does Europe’s oil come from? Russia is the answer to that question. In this scenario one could assume most of Europe’s oil would come from Russia now that we have this established let us move to Europe.
Yes Europe’s GDP is huge however they don’t normally –operate as one force as in there is extram overlap in capabilities and other area where Europe simply doesn’t perform as well as America and Russia does.
This also doesn’t take in account if EU comes to Ukraine Aid there are many possibilities in this scenario that need better explaining.
The most major is why would the United States stand by and watch Russia eat Europe up? With the recourses Russia would have in that time with a monopoly in the oil industry it is hard to imagine the military not being the best in the world or one of top 3 militaries and with the knowledge of Europe oil imports the EU may have no oil to operate.

 

[swerve]

I would suggest we not underestimate Russia in this instance where does Europe’s oil come from? Russia is the answer to that question. In this scenario one could assume most of Europe’s oil would come from Russia ...

Europes oil does not come from Russia now (about a third of the EUs gas does), & there's no reason to think it will in 15 years time. Go away & read up on Russian oil reserves & production trends. Russia can't supply Europes oil, even if Europe collectively decides to buy oil from Russia in preference to other sources. Europe will get most of its oil from other sources, as it does now.

Any scenario which starts with the assumption that Europe is dependent on Russia for oil is fundamentally flawed.

 

[kato]

I'd consider - by range, payload and other characteristics - Netfires inferior to e.g. Polyphem.

Neither Polyphem nor Netfires/PAM gives a unit really an advantage over tanks - or at least not more than there already is. Netfires doesn't really take out a tank any "better" than a guided 155mm anti-tank mortar shell, and has the same (if not a larger) footprint, both in deployment and in logistics.

Except that of course the 155mm howitzer can be used in much larger volume-of-fire applications, and in connection with others much better for area targets... especially as, quite seriously, artillery is ubiquitous.

Unlike swerve, i wouldn't expect all that many loitering munitions and UCAV to be in service by 2023. An minor initial operating capability of LCMD and WAPEB maybe along with a squadron worth in UCAVs spread throughout the WEU.

What will not be in European inventories - and that presents a problem - will be cluster munitions. DPICM, MW-1 and similar cluster systems would rip any ground army apart once local air superiority is achieved.
What's also different is that - unlike the 80s - all Western European countries now field modern ALCM (Taurus, Scalp, Storm Shadow and of course ASMP-A) and a lot of European Navies are starting to field long-range land-attack missiles (TacTom, Scalp-Naval and RBS-15 Mk4). This will vastly affect e.g. the capability of waging ground-guided air campaigns, something the Russian Airforce is still relying on in defense, but will also deeply affect Russian defense regarding cities such as Leningr... err St. Petersburg.

 

[JonMusser]

Europes oil does not come from Russia now (about a third of the EUs gas does), & there's no reason to think it will in 15 years time. Go away & read up on Russian oil reserves & production trends. Russia can't supply Europes oil, even if Europe collectively decides to buy oil from Russia in preference to other sources. Europe will get most of its oil from other sources, as it does now.

Any scenario which starts with the assumption that Europe is dependent on Russia for oil is fundamentally flawed.

so if the Middle East is wiped out will gas just suddenly appear in Europe or will the get it from some other way??? which i would say the middle east makes up around a third so that means their is only 1 third left to fight a war and keep their economy going!

 

[Knjaz]

Nope... those five-digit numbers thrown around doesn't exist as weapons. They're just useless devces on shelves in bunkers.

I didn't say Russia has 10.000+ usable warheads, but assuming they have lesser then 1500, including tactical ones, is a great underestimation. I myself used lesser number, the real number is probably another 1-2 thousands to these 1500.
And that is as precise as u can ever get it - 12th Main Directorate of MoD is pretty silent in what it has and does. As always.

 

[swerve]

so if the Middle East is wiped out will gas just suddenly appear in Europe or will the get it from some other way??? which i would say the middle east makes up around a third so that means their is only 1 third left to fight a war and keep their economy going!

Firstly, the idea of the Middle East being "wiped out" is ridiculous. What does this "wiping out" consist of? What effect does it have on the oil & gas reserves? Note that: reserves. The oil & gas are underground, and wouldn't be destroyed by wars, civil conflicts, etc. They'd still be there to be exploited.

"The Middle East" is also a very large region, and the oil & gas in it is not all in one place. The largest concentration, by far, is around the Persian Gulf, but that's still a pretty big area. Realistically, what could stop production in the whole area?

Then we consider other oil-producing regions, & as yet unexploited reserves. Brazil, for example, has significant - and possibly very large - offshore reserves. There may be large quantities of oil in the waters from Patagonia (already the source of most of Argentinas domestic consumption) & the Falklands. There are tar sands & oil shales. Anything which reduces Middle Eastern production would lead to a frenzy of exploration & exploitation of all these.

Cut oil & gas supplies, & other forms of energy become more attractive. W. Europe is already moving towards building more nuclear power stations, for example, because of concerns about both energy security & global warming. That could be accelerated, & doubtless would be if the choice was between highly polluting tar sand & oil shale reserves & nuclear. Add in renewables . . . . and then remember that energy efficiency in most of Europe is increasing.

Also, you have repeated a mistake I've already corrected earlier in the thread. Europe does not import a third of its energy from Russia: the EU (less than all of Europe) imports about a third of its gas from Russia.

As of 2007, 53.1% of EU energy consumption was imported, 46.9% domestically produced, & 40% of gas was produced in the EU.

In 2006, Russia provided 30% of oil imports, 40% of gas imports, & 25% of coal imports. Not consumption. In the same year, total energy consumption was -
Gas 24% (of which 40% produced in the EU)
Oil 37% (17%)
Nuclear 14% (100%)
Coal 18% (40%)
Other 7% (100%)

Russias share of consumption was therefore
Oil - .3 * 83 = 25%
Coal - .25 * 60 = 15%
Gas - .4 * 60 = 24% (but this is rising)
Total 17.7% of EU energy consumption.

The Middle East provided about 2% of EU gas imports & 20% of oil imports. Over 25% of gas & 20% of oil imports came from Africa.

Note that EU coal & lignite production could be increased quite quickly. Production has fallen because of lack of price competitiveness (this would change if oil & gas imports became much more expensive) & environmental concerns.

 

[JonMusser]

Firstly, the idea of the Middle East being "wiped out" is ridiculous. What does this "wiping out" consist of? What effect does it have on the oil & gas reserves? Note that: reserves. The oil & gas are underground, and wouldn't be destroyed by wars, civil conflicts, etc. They'd still be there to be exploited.

"The Middle East" is also a very large region, and the oil & gas in it is not all in one place. The largest concentration, by far, is around the Persian Gulf, but that's still a pretty big area. Realistically, what could stop production in the whole area?

Then we consider other oil-producing regions, & as yet unexploited reserves. Brazil, for example, has significant - and possibly very large - offshore reserves. There may be large quantities of oil in the waters from Patagonia (already the source of most of Argentinas domestic consumption) & the Falklands. There are tar sands & oil shales. Anything which reduces Middle Eastern production would lead to a frenzy of exploration & exploitation of all these.

Cut oil & gas supplies, & other forms of energy become more attractive. W. Europe is already moving towards building more nuclear power stations, for example, because of concerns about both energy security & global warming. That could be accelerated, & doubtless would be if the choice was between highly polluting tar sand & oil shale reserves & nuclear. Add in renewables . . . . and then remember that energy efficiency in most of Europe is increasing.

Also, you have repeated a mistake I've already corrected earlier in the thread. Europe does not import a third of its energy from Russia: the EU (less than all of Europe) imports about a third of its gas from Russia.

As of 2007, 53.1% of EU energy consumption was imported, 46.9% domestically produced, & 40% of gas was produced in the EU.

In 2006, Russia provided 30% of oil imports, 40% of gas imports, & 25% of coal imports. Not consumption. In the same year, total energy consumption was -
Gas 24% (of which 40% produced in the EU)
Oil 37% (17%)
Nuclear 14% (100%)
Coal 18% (40%)
Other 7% (100%)

Russias share of consumption was therefore
Oil - .3 * 83 = 25%
Coal - .25 * 60 = 15%
Gas - .4 * 60 = 24% (but this is rising)
Total 17.7% of EU energy consumption.

The Middle East provided about 2% of EU gas imports & 20% of oil imports. Over 25% of gas & 20% of oil imports came from Africa.

Note that EU coal & lignite production could be increased quite quickly. Production has fallen because of lack of price competitiveness (this would change if oil & gas imports became much more expensive) & environmental concerns.

so did any where in the original scenario say anything about gas other than that Russia had Cornered the market so these other prospects though i agree are probable this scenario dose not take them into account all it says is that Russia cornered the petrol market. in the case of Russia not having a cornered market maybe Russia is a little less of a threat but one needs to realize that Russian military during the cold war was centered around a European invasion a blitz if you asked me though those systems are old it still represents Russian expertise in the area.. that considerd russia and the EU would proabaly face a long andf dreadful war but again if the EU would face a long horid war if its goal is to invade Russia their is no greater thing in Russian favor than Winter. i need to be clar if this happened i am on EU side however russia should not be underestimated it is a vary strong power and many of its air units are supior to EU of course unless this scenario also takes into account possible f22 sales to EU

 

[outsider]

so did any where in the original scenario say anything about gas other than that Russia had Cornered the market so these other prospects though i agree are probable this scenario dose not take them into account all it says is that Russia cornered the petrol market. in the case of Russia not having a cornered market maybe Russia is a little less of a threat but one needs to realize that Russian military during the cold war was centered around a European invasion a blitz if you asked me though those systems are old it still represents Russian expertise in the area.. that considerd russia and the EU would proabaly face a long andf dreadful war but again if the EU would face a long horid war if its goal is to invade Russia their is no greater thing in Russian favor than Winter. i need to be clar if this happened i am on EU side however russia should not be underestimated it is a vary strong power and many of its air units are supior to EU of course unless this scenario also takes into account possible f22 sales to EU

I know at the moment, the F22 is not available for export, but if it was I would have favoured the purchase of a joint NATO wing of F22 say between 80 to 100 aircraft based in Germany. The larger countries like Germany, UK, France, Italy purchasing 12 aircraft each and the smaller countries purchasing lesser numbers according to their means. But the point is they would all be operated jointly for ease of logistics and training, similar to the NATO C17 aircraft.

It will probably never happen, but I thought it would be an interesting solution to limited budgets, whilst offering economies of scale by operating F22's jointly and giving Europe a very usefull capability.

 

[JonMusser]

F22

I know at the moment, the F22 is not available for export, but if it was I would have favoured the purchase of a joint NATO wing of F22 say between 80 to 100 aircraft based in Germany. The larger countries like Germany, UK, France, Italy purchasing 12 aircraft each and the smaller countries purchasing lesser numbers according to their means. But the point is they would all be operated jointly for ease of logistics and training, similar to the NATO C17 aircraft.

It will probably never happen, but I thought it would be an interesting solution to limited budgets, whilst offering economies of scale by operating F22's jointly and giving Europe a very usefull capability.

I myself am pro sales of the f22 so Lockheed can keep the production going for a bet longer i think nato purchase would be smart however i don't think it will happen more likely that Australia, Japan and Israel purchase them as well as maybe i then hope that by doing this the usaf would be able to buy the fighters it needs according to the commanders and not the politicians

 

[Grand Danois]

I didn't say Russia has 10.000+ usable warheads, but assuming they have lesser then 1500, including tactical ones, is a great underestimation. I myself used lesser number, the real number is probably another 1-2 thousands to these 1500.
And that is as precise as u can ever get it - 12th Main Directorate of MoD is pretty silent in what it has and does. As always.

I'd say that anything below 2200 would work for me.

 

[kato]

I know at the moment, the F22 is not available for export, but if it was I would have favoured the purchase of a joint NATO wing of F22 say between 80 to 100 aircraft based in Germany.

What would NATO-Europe want with such a small F-22 unit?

In the not-too-far future NATO-Europe will have (well, maybe exaggerated a bit) at least 700 Eurofighters, up to 500 F-35A and B, some 300 Rafale and probably something like 300 Gripen NG - and that's before the remaining 250 Tornados, 200 Mirage 2000s and 100 MiG-29s probably still bouncing around the Union somewhere by then are replaced by what will probably be a large contingent of UCAVs and more of the above fighter types (more Rafale and Gripen would be beneficial imho).

 

[JonMusser]

What would NATO-Europe want with such a small F-22 unit?

In the not-too-far future NATO-Europe will have (well, maybe exaggerated a bit) at least 700 Eurofighters, up to 500 F-35A and B, some 300 Rafale and probably something like 300 Gripen NG - and that's before the remaining 250 Tornados, 200 Mirage 2000s and 100 MiG-29s probably still bouncing around the Union somewhere by then are replaced by what will probably be a large contingent of UCAVs and more of the above fighter types (more Rafale and Gripen would be beneficial imho).

despite this there is only one fighter you mentioned that is fith generation that is F-35 all other aircraft are 4.5 generation fighters and not nearly as capable

 

[outsider]

What would NATO-Europe want with such a small F-22 unit?

In the not-too-far future NATO-Europe will have (well, maybe exaggerated a bit) at least 700 Eurofighters, up to 500 F-35A and B, some 300 Rafale and probably something like 300 Gripen NG - and that's before the remaining 250 Tornados, 200 Mirage 2000s and 100 MiG-29s probably still bouncing around the Union somewhere by then are replaced by what will probably be a large contingent of UCAVs and more of the above fighter types (more Rafale and Gripen would be beneficial imho).

Well it would be half the size of the US F22 contingent, and the Americans feels that even in small numbers they have that they will be usefull.

I would see them in the same role as the Americans envisage, as the worlds only air dominance fighter to be used in the first days of a conflict. Regarding the small numbers proposed for the Nato contingent, thats the minimum size that would be usefull whilst balancing affordability. More would be better, but then that costs more.

 

[outsider]

despite this there is only one fighter you mentioned that is fith generation that is F-35 all other aircraft are 4.5 generation fighters and not nearly as capable

And the F35 is not as capable in the air to air role as the F22, the F35 being more optomised as a strike aircraft, with air to air capabilities.

 

[BuSOF]

Might be that from your end of Europe it looks like that. May I remind you that Western Europe most of all and longer than a economic unit is a cultural entity with millenia of mutual history. This is what many people don't understand. Besides all of the quarrels we've fought and the peanuts we're struggling about today we're brothers and sisters. We are quarreling all the time, but in the end we're standing together. It's a shame that the East European people got torn out after WW2.
WRT the strategic positioning please read the article about the German question that I provided earlier in this thread.

My part of Europe is Hamburg so hold your prejudgements, please! About how Western Europe is a homogenous cultural entity and all is so nice and romantic. Curiously enough as it is 99% of the western europeans I have talked to (including my colleagues in the course of political studies at the University of Regensburg) do not share your point of view.

And this is relevant in exactly what respect for this scenario?

In respect to the point that the question of war and peace, cooperation and confrontation is up to the politicians to decide. Am I mistaken? As for the economical point yes, in the long term the ecomony is crucial but in the short term tell me, how does somebody's 20.000 EURO GDP per capita (for example) stops the bullet of an assault rifle put to his heart?

See above. A misjudgement originating in not understanding what the EU really is about. The new EU members will have to understand that the EU was founded in a very special set of circumstances and had a very special reason to exist.
It is perfectly understandable to me that you consider the EU as not much more than something you can squeeze money out of. But the fact that we can afford to spend so much money to rebuild countries that were ruined by your good Russian friends has much to do with the fact that the EU works that well.

As I have already told you hold your prejudgements to yourself. I have attented 5 Years of Political Studies courses and there have been at least a dozen different explanations about what exactly the EU IS and what it is ABOUT. If you think you know it that doesn't surprise me. You woldn't be the first to think so.
It is perfectly understandable to me that there are thousand of dumb-ass
western politicians shouting out loud "Look at them sneaky eastern european bastards taking our jobs, stealing our money.This it outrageous! We won't tolerate that, would we?!" If that is also your point of view I really cannot help you for you are so far away from reality. Here is news for you. We didn't get anything. We pay AT LEAST double for every penny we get. You didn't rebuild a DAMN THING. If you call the russians our friends then you really don't get it. We've been doing quite well when we dependet on ourselves. That's when Eastern Europe was sold out to Russia. EU is doing well? Since when? Let me bring to you the words of an EU administrator to me and colleagues of mine (unofficially of course): "You know the way the politicians of the new member states tend to thinnk that hundreds of billions of investments are coming their way without any kind of control doesn't stop amazing me. We have already made that mistake with Spain, Portugal and Greece and even today we still cannot do things right about them. We are absolutely positive about avoiding that mistake again."

So get a perspective about the things, but a true one.

 

[Grim901]

And don't think that in 2030 ABM system would be ready - may be Russian could not make LCD or Blue-Ray but Russia could built good weapons.
US fighters found out this in Vietnam

By what standard? The Chinese copies of the same weapons? Russian weapons are cheap and versatile, which is usually a good thing, but when it comes to high tech stuff they tend to fall apart a bit. I'm looking at some nice pictures of Bulava's right before they explode during launch right now.

so if the Middle East is wiped out will gas just suddenly appear in Europe or will the get it from some other way??? which i would say the middle east makes up around a third so that means their is only 1 third left to fight a war and keep their economy going!

And production from other sources can't be increased?