Vladimir Putin's Nuclear threat to the west

[Steel_Tomb]

I wouldn't say the US is paralyzed in 'Stan/Iraq... counter insurgency is a long uphill slog and true things aren't 100% in Iraq. But how much of that is at the foot of the Iraqi's? If the different factions weren't so greedy in their quest for power in the name of all mighty Allah Iraq would be a much better place. Intervention from the likes of Syria and Iran in forms of arms doesn't help matters either, but thats an issue for the UN and the international community as a whole, which doesn't seem to be doing much about it either!

[Skybird]

If, when, because of.

If the enemy would not shoot back, war would be a picnic. One knew - at least one SHOULD have known and COULD have known - that the different Iraqi factions are greedy in their quest for power in the name of almighty Allah, that Iraq would be a mean place, that Syria and Iran would intervene, and that the Un would not be able or willing to stop that. And in Afghnaistan, killing the enemy sees no effect, the situation was allowed to detoriate after 2002, and now one is fighting with one's back against the wall and wants other nations to be stupid enough to take the blame for the failure.

So...?

The system of only counting one's own guns and rifles bogged down. And here is where the factors that I mentioned in my post above, as well as different ideological motivations with longer breath compared to Western short visison, come into play. violence in afghnaistan has climbed to new heights these days, and in how far the relative stability in Iraq is owed to Monsieur Sadr having agreed to a seize-firing six month ago that now is to be ended, remains to be seen. If anyone thinks he had to agree to that seize firing because of an asusmed weakened position, he better thinks twice: basically he allowed the Us to kill the enemies and untrustworthy elements in his brigades that had started to pose a risk of rebellion to him, and used the time to increase his studies to raise his influence as cleric, and in some years eventually as ayatollah. That is imporant for his ambitions, since that rank allows him to speak out fathwas. at least a more clever US commander is in place now, so I see a fair chance for Patreus to be able to deal with any eventual worstening of security status again.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Stanny

Yeah,yeah...of course.
Russians should dress and equip their poor and hungry soldiers first,before they can initially start posing any threat to U.S. and NATO.
Russia is very weak compared to U.S.A. both in economic and military,as well social and all other aspects.Military equipment is extremely out-dated,they have only 12 4++ generation SU-35 fighters while USAF has already got 100 5th generation F-22s,they have several SSBNs in service while US NAVY has about 20 Ohios with much more powerful Trident ICBMs,they have several SSNs in service,while US NAVY has 50 688 and 688i Los Angeles,3 Seawof,4 Virginias and dozens of new Virginias to be completed.
Where do you see any threat?Russian goverment is capable of threatening and terrorising their own people and citizens only.

Actually, that still makes them, in terms of equipment at least, very well off compared to most countries.

Originally Posted by CCIP

Unfortunately I have to agree with you.
Why Russia hasn't gone to a proper professional army is probably a mystery to most people (and to me, except for the fact that they get a lot of free labour by concripting young men like this). This is something they'll need to do to get their armed forces in shape.

There's always the good old cost fallback, and while of course it isn't the whole reason it shouldn't be completely ignored.
Personally, however, I think the real resistance is due to the whole "Relative Expert Power" ladder concept. Part of a leader's authority over his subordinates is based on superior knowledge - they are under him because he knows more and can teach them. This is a great part of the authority of for example, a US Navy CPO.
The Soviet conscript system had this down-pat, at least theoretically. The conscripts don't know much more than how to clean and aim their rifles, and the conscript sergeants aren't a whole sight better. The officers know more, and they play a personal role in teaching their men. So now the officer is clearly the authority figure, the expert of the platoon. As you go up, more experience and more schooling. The end result = a clearly defined ladder, with expertness (and thus authority) correlating to rank.
The Warrant Officer program in 1972 introduced some wrinkles to this. But with the senior enlisted corps so decimated, the NCOs simply don't have the experience superiority to force their views onto the officers by the moral authority of experience. And because the officers themselves receive more specialist education than in say the US, they are less vulnerable to "blackmail" tactics by the NCOs - you might have heard of US enlisted reacting to a crap "sea puppy" officer by putting in minimum effort until the division goes to h*ll and the JO caves in if only to save his OER, but a Soviet officer is used to his conscripts putting in minimum effort, both because they often aren't all that motivated and they often don't know enough to be more enthusiastic in a helpful way.
So the WO corps, at least in the Army, was quickly sidelined. That destroyed at least half the purpose of creating it in the first place, but at least the Expert Power structure in intact.
Obviously, such measures won't work in a fully professional army. A professional army, or even just all-professional NCOs, is a perversion of Expert Power, with an additional peak near the far right of the enlisted scale.
A veteran professional NCO often knows more than his JO and can probably do the JO's job very easily. So where does the officer's authority come from? A holdover from the aristocratic past? Or is it down to the thin legalistic thread of The Regs?
Even now, Russian officers are paid more for being in a "contract unit", reflecting the perceived difficulty of working with enlisted that may be more experienced.
It is said that the Russians gape when they see all the things NCOs are allowed to do in the West. I couldn't help but think whether the gaping is really about "How the heck does the officer in your system even retain control when the NCOs are clearly so much more capable at their tasks? Why even bother, for example, to have a "Sonar Officer" when your real hydroacoustics experts are all enlisted?"
And until they have an answer that satisfies them to that question, there will be resistance. Quite frankly, when I look at this problem, I wonder myself how the West keeps this problem solved in the post-aristocratic world.

[Stanny]

Why is Russia so worried in U.S. planned Missile Defence Shield in Europe?They are so worried because both Pentagon and Russian Defence Ministry got the same results in their researches:approximately 90 or even more percent of russian ICBMs will be shot down without any,even minimum possibility to harm U.S.A. or any of it's key allies in Europe in case of real nuclear war.The counterstrike of U.S. military will be absolutely deadly to Russia,however.It is also known that U.S. military has got a strategic reserve of nuclear weapons for "Maintaining the superiority and domination in the world after the complete destruction of Russia in nuclear war".

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I dont think it'll be Russia, should something spark off. Its more likely to be a rogue state with illegally manufactured or purchased nuclear weapons if anything. And they wont missile it, they'll smuggle it somewhere and detonate on the ground.

Makes you think about many suicide bombings. What if those bombs were dirty bombs?

[XabbaRus]

Originally Posted by Stanny

Why is Russia so worried in U.S. planned Missile Defence Shield in Europe?They are so worried because both Pentagon and Russian Defence Ministry got the same results in their researches:approximately 90 or even more percent of russian ICBMs will be shot down without any,even minimum possibility to harm U.S.A. or any of it's key allies in Europe in case of real nuclear war.The counterstrike of U.S. military will be absolutely deadly to Russia,however.It is also known that U.S. military has got a strategic reserve of nuclear weapons for "Maintaining the superiority and domination in the world after the complete destruction of Russia in nuclear war".

Could you care to provide sources to back that claim up.
Russia is pissed off because assurances were made that NATO wouldn't go right up to Russia's borders and they went back on it. Now having looked at your profile I doubt you will be able to provide objective data but please try.

[Stanny]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Could you care to provide sources to back that claim up.
Russia is pissed off because assurances were made that NATO wouldn't go right up to Russia's borders and they went back on it. Now having looked at your profile I doubt you will be able to provide objective data but please try.

If you can understand russian,I advice you to read what russian military analysts are talking on this issue.The most widely discussed question is so called "Project 2010".

Project 2010 actually means the year of 2010,when Russia is expected to reach the lowest point in it's strategic nuclear attack capabilities,and U.S.A is expected to reach the top of it's military power contrarywise.That will provide U.S. the possibility to strike first with no threat of being counter-attacked.

These conclusions were made as a result of rigorous calculations of how both U.S. and russian military potentials are changing.

So what has Russia got actually:

During Soviet Era the key weapon of russian nuclear arsenal was the SS-18 Satan ICBM.USSR had approximately 308 such missiles,each with huge nuclear warhead loadout and awesome number of countermeasures.They were capable to jam and penetrate virtually any missile defence system.But,all of them are ending their service life now.

All production facilities for these missiles were left in Ukraine after the end of the Soviet Union.

In the last decade Russian armed forces have been steadily reducing the number of R-36M missiles in service, withdrawing those that age past their designed operational lifetime. About 40 missiles of the most modern variant R-36M2 (or RS-20V) will remain in service until 2020 and will be then replaced by newer MIRV version of Topol-M. In March 2006 Russia made agreement with Ukraine that will regulate cooperation between the two countries on maintaining the R-36M2 missiles. It was reported that the cooperation with Ukraine will allow Russia to extend service life of the R-36M2 missiles by at least ten years to 25 year.[4]

Russia has now really three combat ready regiments of "Topol-M" mobile ICBMs,totaling of something about 54 units.Each one has got approximately 100-120 times smaller nuclear warhead and countermeasure loadout then SS-18 Satan had.Production tempos at Votkinsk Plant are 4-6 units a year,instead of planned 40-50 units.Again,I will repeat those ICBMS are much less powerful than U.S.Trident D5 ICBMs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topol-M
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_(missile)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_missile

Russia has now got only one operational Typhoon Class SSBN TK 208 Dmitry Donskoy.5 other submarines of this class are withdrawn from service.U.S. Navy has all 18 SSBN Ohio active in service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_class_submarine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_class_submarine

Situation in air force capabilities comparison is even worse.USAF has got 21 B-2 Spirit bombers that are absolutely invisible to any russian radar system and can smash any strategic objects deep inside russian territory.Russians have only got 14 Tu-160 Black Jacks and old Tu-95 Bears that are extremely vulnerable.USAF has got over 100 newest 5th generation F-22 Raptors that have no competitors in Russian Air Force at all.

It is not as shiny picture as Mr.Putin trying to present it,isn't it?

[XabbaRus]

I think you are overstating American capabilities.
So you don't think the Russians have anything that can detect and take down a B-2?
Interesting since the plane is old hat now.

The F-22 though arguably the best fighter planes isn't the silver bullet it is made out to be. There are only 112 of them.

So only one Typhoon is left, but there are still between 6 & 8 Delta IVs in service plus Borei of which one has been launched and two others are in advanced stages of production.

I can't find anything on the web to do with Project 2010 and I can speak Russian. I did find something similar but that was based on an official document release in 1993 when the economy was screwed.

Russian forces maybe not be what they were in Soviet times but they are better than they were 5 years ago.

[Stanny]

You should read Vladimir Krasilnikov's review in russian here:

http://www.hrono.ru/text/2003/kras_udar.html

Compare his figures with up-to-date information from Wikipedia and you will see that Russia is progressing really slowly.

The F-22 though arguably the best fighter planes isn't the silver bullet it is made out to be. There are only 112 of them.

Yes,but there are only 12 Su-35s in service with Russian Air Force for the present time,and they are not a 5th generation fighter jets at all.That is a heavily modernized version of Su-27,and they still have big problems outfitting them with AESA radars,desperately needed for modern air combat.However,USAF is completing the modernization of and deployment of new F-15C AESA versions,F-16 Block 60 already have AESA,F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets have AESA too.

So you don't think the Russians have anything that can detect and take down a B-2?

Do you mean that accident when F-117A Nighthawk was shot down during NATO campaign in Yugoslavia?It was shot down more using a visual detection,than actually tracking it with a radar,just occasionally.

So only one Typhoon is left, but there are still between 6 & 8 Delta IVs in service plus Borei of which one has been launched and two others are in advanced stages of production.

It is still almost twice less than 18 SSBN Ohios of U.S. NAVY.You must also take into consideration that facts:

1)The primary strategic naval wepon of Russian Strategic Submarine Fleet will be Bulava ICBM.Bulava is just a navalized version of Topol-M ICBM with the same much reduced nuclear warhead and countermeasure loadout compared to that of Trident D5 ICBMs normally carried by all U.S. SSBN Ohios.

2)Bulava had a lot of problems during tests.

To my personal opinion,these "power demonstrations" done intensively by russians in the past time should be only associated with presidential elections coming in the next two weeks.Russian people should be shown that they are still mighty and able "to show something to these americans".That's why we can observe such stupid accidents like Tu-95 Bears flying at low altitude over the decks of U.S. aircraft carriers as it was in 1970s,though principles of naval warfare have changed,flying up to U.S. airspace in Alaska,where ancient Tu-95s are met with state-of-the-art F-22 Raptors and so on.I am reading russian military forums quite often,and even russian people who understand more or less in military technolgy say that "their goverment looks at them as at idiots".I am treating all that is shown on russian TV nowadays as pure propaganda.

[Steel_Tomb]

What gets me is that although Putin is a dedicated Russian man who wants his nation to be great... he doesn't actually improve things that matter at this time. Yes armed forces are important, but they are at a moderately adequate level now. He should be improving the lives of the average joe Russian citizen, new housing and state of the art technology... bring the standards of living up to the levels that we here in the West enjoy, that more than anything else would get Russia recognized... not pure military strength.

[Stanny]

Originally Posted by Steel_Tomb

What gets me is that although Putin is a dedicated Russian man who wants his nation to be great... he doesn't actually improve things that matter at this time. Yes armed forces are important, but they are at a moderately adequate level now. He should be improving the lives of the average joe Russian citizen, new housing and state of the art technology... bring the standards of living up to the levels that we here in the West enjoy, that more than anything else would get Russia recognized... not pure military strength.

You are absolutely right.Actually,there are only three cities in Russia where there are high living standards.This is Moscow (10 mln. inhabitants),Saint Petersburg (5 millions) and Ekaterinburg (1.5 million).All other cities,towns,villages are living in extreme poverty.

Russia's most urgent problem is that they almost do not have so called middle class income citizens.There is a huge gap between dozens of billionaries and hundreds of millionaires and tens of millions of all other people.

[XabbaRus]

Really extreme poverty, please define that?
How many Russian cities have you visited in the past few years?
It seems a few sweeping statements are made without checking the facts.

Yes there is extremem poverty in Russia. Yes Moscow and Petersburg are the cities that are most developed, but to say all other places are in extreme poverty is a joke.

Putin HAS done more for the average Russian then Yeltsin ever did.

[Oberon]

Yeltsin did something?

[XabbaRus]

Quoting wikipedia as a primary source isn't the best IMO.

Again I'll have to read that guy's stuff but will have to research his background.

[XabbaRus]

That link to Vladimir Krasilnikov's article is that Project 2010? It seems that is his personal observations based on events he has seen, not hard data though I have only skimmed it.

As for using wikipedia, never as a major source.

Has he seen the document prepared by the Russian Committee of Chiefs of Staff?
Also this article is 5 years old, things have changed.

At this very moment there are few but will be more modern strike fighters etc. I see it on forums all how Russia doesn't have anything capable of taking on the F-22 but who does. The Su-34 is a Fencer replacement and a vast improvement modernised Su-27s are coming on stream. These will be adequate to take on the current crop of potential adversaries, eg European airforces.

As for AESA radars the Russians are ahead of Europe, christ we can't even get one in the Typhoon and Rafale.