Warnings over Russia's new tank Armata

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

So be it. We'll look after our tiny island and mainland Europe can look after itself. We all know how that has panned out over the last century.

@Oberon

Good insightful post Jamie. Tis a pity we only got to visit the Yorkshire Air Museum together and not the likes of Bovington.

Thanks Jim, I'd love to visit Bovington sometime, see that Tiger in action. Honestly though, our military as it stands at the moment is only strengthened by European co-operation, and if not through the EU then through NATO which...depending on todays events, will hopefully continue to survive even after we leave the EU. Thus, as NATO nations use STANAG, so should they consider other standardized equipment, which if planned right could also help to reduce costs and increase inter-nation co-operation in military matters.

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Anyone know the number of warbirds in Russia's arsenal? IMO without flyable/operational aircraft to support the Russian wonder tank that tank isnt much more than a target from above. Observing the last several conflicts in the Middle East it seemed to me that air superiority conqueured all just like it did in the Battle of Raseiniai.

Current estimates are around 3,000 airframes, although how many of them are actually serviceable at the moment is debatable.
Russian doctrine has always factored in heavy acceptable losses, as well as a liberal scattering of Surface to Air units. NATO attrition would be heavy, but aerial dominance is definitely achievable as it stands.

[Rockstar]

Current estimates of Russian airframes are from what I've read are no more than 3000. Sounds scary but with no budget I suspect the operational number is quite low.

The U.S. alone has a little over 5,000 airframes with an incredibly larger budget to support them.

[Skybird]

Maybe the Russian air force in numbers is not that impressive anymore as it once was. It surely is impressive however in its top notch fighters' principal quality and capability, and arsenal of latest generation missiles. Missiles, air combat as well as anti tank missiles, always have been a field where Russia/USSR excelled in. While I would give the edge to the West in airframes's quality, last time I checked on AAMs and ATGMs, I had several examples where I would prefer the Russian designs to their Western counterparts (torpedoes as well, btw.)

And Russian ground units are really heavy in both SAMs and ATGM.

The huge and diverse array of highly potent SAMS - now that is something entirely different. Russia has the technological ability to turn whole geographic regions into access-denial zones. If they would want it, they could interfere in most of Eastern European airspace already right now, and deep into Germany. The equipment for that they already have in place, they just need to push the button.

And they already said years ago they also have the technological means to de-cloak stealthed airplanes. Whether these means are mobile and thus can be seen outside Russia, or are stationary unmovable installations, is something different, also the range of these claimed sensors seems to be unknown. Would we want to base on the assumption that they were just boasting? I would not. Not when consideirng the costs of a even just a single B2 bomber or a F-22.

The ME wars of the past 20 years - have not been against Russia and Russian forces, running regular Russian equipment by Russian doctrine and commanded by Russian commanders and trained Russian troops. The Iraq wars say little about how it would go against the Russians, if war would come.

Also, the American cyber war especially in 2003 found practically no potent opponent for that at all.

Blocking comms and radio networks also is something that Russian forces prioritize and are damn good at - Iraqi forces could have just dreamed of that.

[XabbaRus]

Hmmm, smacks to me of scaremongering. I seem to remember after it was revealed on May 9th there was some ridicule given one apparently broke down during rehersals and now it is being touted as the best tank since sliced bread. We demonise Russia as the bogeyman and the threat to humanity and just as defense budgets come under pressure we have this "leaked" report again sowing the seed that Russia has something we don't and are "dangerous".

For sure it is an advanced tank and I have never underestimated Russian kit. They have some unique solutions to overcome some technical limitations, thought this tank does seem quite neat.

[Mike Abberton]

Re: the Russian air force. It's not just a disparity in airframes, there is also a huge disparity is support forces - AWACs, ELINT, Air Refueling, etc.

If NATO can control the airspace, it could probably deal with being outnumbered, although being outnumbered would seriously hamper their ability to influence a concurrent ground war. If they control the airspace and have numerical superiority, it would be bad news for the OPFOR.

Mike

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Mike Abberton

If NATO can control the airspace, it could probably deal with being outnumbered, although being outnumbered would seriously hamper their ability to influence a concurrent ground war. If they control the airspace and have numerical superiority, it would be bad news for the OPFOR.

Yes. But that is were the Russians are very strong at: denying airspace not by aerial platforms, but ground-based platforms. Those new systems of theirs are beasts, real beasts. And they have SAMs and shoulderpads (and ATGMs) in overwhelming numbers. The latest generation of these are game changers, really, and to me they are an argument why to abandon manned aircraft, for an airframe can only manouver as excessively as the biological body of the pilot still can survive it, even if the plane/drone could pull many more Gs. But it would kill the crew.

Only bad handling and incompetent crews could ruin their value. You may (or may not, I do not know) see that from Iranian or Syrian crews. But most likely not from Russian crews and commanders.