Russia to receive advanced tanks to replce T-72 and T-90

You have good points, but to assume "America rules the winds" will always be true is a big mistake. Technology is just one facet of war, how that technology is used is also a consideration, other facets are political will, economics, tactics, and the men that are fighting. Attrition is a tool of war, and all of the US opponents since Korea have used it effectively. The US really doesn't know what will happen in a future war against a major well equipped and dedicated opponent. The US thinks each stealth aircraft will equal some big number of enemy aircraft, but nobody really knows.

In Chuck Yeager's autobiography he tells of the days he was Maintenance Officer at Wright Field after WW2. After a plane had completed maintenance, Yeager would give it a qualification flight, and would use the opportunity to dogfight other pilots, particularly those flying the newest planes. Yeager almost never "lost" no matter what aircraft he was flying and how big a technological gap between his plane and the opponent. The man in the cockpit (or the man holding the rifle, leading the assault, driving the tank, etc) is a major force multiplier.

 

It depends on how much this "stealth" is comprehensive. My personal conduction on public forums is to post only what's public. There are on the net rumors about advanced techs related to "visual stealth" configurations, but I can only say they are rumors [this would make also laser designator useless, btw].

 

I do not think NATO has garaunteed air superiority unless we are talking about total war fullscale Euro invasion by Russia. If we are talking about wars in Russian air defence sphere, then I doubt this is true.

 

If we want to enter the field of avionics and air combat tactic, it's known [also on this forum, I guess] that I consider Russians the absolute masters of avionics. Simply the last Russian fighters could become objects of cult for lovers of avionics. This is out of doubt: Russian engineers project better than Western engineers. But today avionics is one of the three factors ...

AVIONICS
PILOT
SUPPORT TECHNOLOGY

Honestly I can say without effort that Russians are better than Americans in Avionics and in the selection and training of pilots, but as for I know [also observing the stealth Russian fighters in India] support technology [from electronic warfare to stealth features] are in favor of the Western units. And those features give a tremendous advantage which can cover the gap made by avionics and pilots [Red Star pilots are absolutely better that "Top Gun" pilots].

 

Calm ... we tend to imagine that a conventional war between US and Russia could be possible in some way. No. Even a EU - Russia war would develop [and not after a long time] in a nuclear conflict. This simply means that we will keep on seeing local conflicts supported by the two sides [like in Eastern Ukraine ...].

 

Well my point wasn't really that NATO would always have air superiority. I merely took that as a given in the example of how useful the Armata would be. If NATO controls the airspace, than the relative quality of a particular line of tanks isn't that relevant.

 

There is actually one major area of technology that the US is by far in advance of any potential adversaries.

AWAC aircraft.

In an Air to Air combat scenario, being able to see your enemy before he can see you will play a major role. And the RADAR inside of fighters comes nowhere close to the capabilities of an AWAC aircraft.

At this time, Russia has less then 100 AWAC aircraft.

The US on the other hand has over 300 of them.

This is a major force multiplier, as the AWAC aircraft can see any enemy aircraft long before the fighters can, and guide them to the enemy before the enemy knows they are there.

In fact, the newest Russian AWAC aircraft entered service in 1983, and that is the Kamov Ka-31, a helicopter.

The newest US AWAC is the Boeing 737 AEW&C, which entered service in 2009.

That is a major game changer in and of itself.

Actually, I do not see how such technology would defeat a LASER designator. You aim the LASER at the target, and the missile guides itself at the point of light. And as far as I know, there is absolutely no technology that will make light vanish.

This is where the various force multipliers and area denial tactics come into play.

AWAC, Surface to Air Defense, defense in depth, these all start to play major roles when it comes to such things.

And these are all things in the last 50 years that the US has shown it excels in. In the 1980's and 1990's the US fought with quite a few nations, many of them actually had some pretty formidable air forces. And in each and every instance, the US pretty much had free reign of the skies.

I am not saying it will be a walk-over, but it will not be a US route either.

 

I myself question how useful such a weapon would be against the US.

Tanks against tanks is actually not something that we really want to engage in. Tanks are big and expensive. It is better to try and take them out with much less expensive equipment, like Bradleys and Helicopters (or even airplanes).

While many people watch movies like Fury and think that is what modern tank warfare is like, far more often it is other vehicles that actually do a lot of the anti-tank warfare.

And one of the biggest advantages of going after tanks with helicopters is the same reason aircraft are so effective against submarines. Neither tanks nor subs have any real way to strike out against an aircraft of any kind. They are pretty much sitting ducks from the air.

 

There is an other aspect to consider, which actually is more general:

at the present status of the military industries of US, NATO countries on a side and of Russia on the other side, we should underline that the productive capabilities of the two systems are well different.

Our industries are able to produce, in the same time, more planes and more tanks than the Russian one. Furthermore our naval yards can construct destroyers, submarines and carriers in time and in quantities which are unreachable, as for efficiency, by Russian naval yards.

So, in case of a prolonged conventional war, Russians would have great difficulties to keep our "pace" ...

Going back to the announced super tank, we have also to evaluate how many units can Russian industry produce per temporal unit [let's say per year]. I suspect we are able to produce many more "common" tanks, so that, already with the present tanks [Abrams, just to name one] quantity could be a factor in favor of the West [while in the past it was usually the other way round].

 

This is the starting consideration I was made and it brings us back to the Russian doctrine [military doctrine] which still gives a huge importance to ground superiority, while NATO doctrine sustains that air superiority is fundamental, essential and not rarely it can make ground superiority even redundant, unnecessary [like against Serbia, es I reminded before].

 

Actually, I would seriously question that.

Look at what the BRAC closures of the 1990's have done to our military manufacturing infrastructure. Most of our construction shipyards were actually closed during that time. Including both Terminal Island and Mare Island.

Our capability to build new ships is actually a fraction of what it was just 30 years ago. As well as our capability to repair major damage on the ships we already have.

 

There is no doubt the US has advantages of areas of excellence, but so does every country and organization. In Iraq, the enemy was not superior in any technology, their superiority was in dedication and the will to win. Their strength (win at all costs) just happened to come against the US greatest weakness (a moderate will to win, followed by no will to win with obama) and so even with no air power at all and minimal ground forces, they won. Technology is great, and training is great, but it is not invincible.

 

I agree about this, anyway we have to consider the matter in the context of the comparison we are doing. Russian naval yards have seen their operative capabilities decreasing well more than ours. Moreover, we've got a certain recovery margin [that is to say we can convert other naval yards to military production, like we have done in Italy to produce the Cavour carrier].

So, carrying on the confrontation, Russia is more in troubles than us ...

 

Why do you say that? They seem to be quite behind the US in all areas that I can think of.

 

Well, in general it's so. Anyway, just considering the last programs, as for I have heard around the last Russian project, the T-50, follows their conception that avionics wins, in fact they have preferred maneuverability over stealth features. The T-50 won't be as stealth as the F35 [this is in the field of SUPPORT TECH]. Russian avionics is really better than ours. We rely on computer assisted flight to reach great performances [see Typhoon], they prefer the old way of avionics.

The T-50 is also faster, just to add an other detail [again, it's a Russian conception that faster is better].

But making a comprehensive comparative evaluation, the F35 is a better fighter, not only in ground attack configuration. Also in air to air combat the F35 can compete [and the F22, as for we can say, is still superior to T-50].

 

I am not denying the US has had major air superiority in all our wars so far, but who are we talking about?

Who did we dominate in the 80s and 90s? Iraq? Serbia? None of which had anything resembling an Air force to compare to the US neither in quality of planes nor of pilots. Comparing those conflicts to one with Russia is not fair or reasonable.

Especially if you are talking about a conflict in Russian sphere of air defences. The S400 is nothing the US has ever faced, nor has the US faced an airforce that has quality fighter jets and quality trained pilots like Russia. Obviously outside that sphere is an open question, but not a garauntee of US dominance.

In reality a conventional war in Europe between Russia and NATO would probably be very bloody and not a walkover either way.

 

Russian pilots have no combat experience since they haven't fought in a real war since Korea... Men react differently in battle than in training. In fact most of the Russian equipment are only good on paper since they've never really been tested in battle. The one that did take part in battle since Korea has faired poorly and been totally upclassed by the western equipment and trained crews.

 

I would argue the British Challenger 2 remains as the best main battle tank in the World. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it's record remains unblemished in combat...0 losses.

Much like the U.S. F-15 fighter plane, it has never been shot down in an air-to-air sortie, the Challenger 2 has never lost a tank battle.

The last serious tank battle was the Battle of 73 Easting and the coaltion won a decisive victory. When is the last time the Russians were in a tank battle? They have no combat experience to draw upon for modern warfare.

 

Like the chinese, they only look good on paper. They sure do make great paint job on their planes though... Maybe they should go into the "pimp my ride" business instead of military gear.

 

Well, going back to my first post in this thread, I do make a distinction between going up against NATO and going up against a lessor adversary. I think in dealing with a non NATO enemy, there is an argument for an improved, updated main battle tank.

 

Huh?

The US thoroughly trounced Iraq 2 different times, in 1991 and 2003. And there was no "dedication and the will to fight", other then the Republican Guard, most units surrendered as soon as they could (they even surrendered to unarmed observation drones in 1991).

The only "truly dedicated" force they had was the Republican Guard. And while top notch, they were still not very effective, as seen in 73 Easting and other engagements with them.

And about the air power and Iraq winning, what in the hell are you talking about? Iraq has never won a battle, let alone a war against the US. More or less like in Vietnam, the "loss" was by one force fighting against the government of that country, after the US had already left. So what you are trying to imply is not only very wrong, it is borderline ignorant.

There is one big difference however.

No matter what their condition, Russia at least still has it's shipyards. One thing that has long infuriated me about the way the US now handles BRAC is that they do not just close the base, they essentially destroy it and turn it over to civilian control, forever removing it form future use if the need ever came up again.

At one time, the US used to "mothball" a base that was no longer needed. It did this thousands of times, including Fort Rucker and Camp Parks and dozens of others. A small caretaker detachment is assigned (generally a company in strength) to do basic maintenance and to keep the base from being stripped or vandalized, and it was left like that for years in the event it might be needed again.

This way, if a need comes up it can quickly be brought back into service and resume it's former function. Fort Rucker was mothballed on 2 separate occasions (1946-1950, 1953-1955), and Camp Parks is unique that it started as a Navy Base, mothballed from 1946-1951 until it was reactivated as an Air Force Base for basic training, then mothballed again from 1959 until 1973 where it was reactivated as an Army Reserve base (and still operates in that capacity to this day).

To me, the 1990's BRAC was almost a treasonous crime. We saw over 200 bases closed, many of them very important for various reasons. And even a quarter of a century later, the former bases are generally mismanaged and ignored by the civilian "owners", who often ignore the intent of the bases being turned over to them in the first place.

Mare Island Naval Shipyard (including it's scores of historic buildings and huge drydocks) was turned over to the city of Vallejo, and they have let it go to hell. Every year several buildings are burned down by squatters, and most of the buildings are still unused, and heavily vandalized. There has been no maintenance on the dry docks in over 20 years, and it will take tens of millions to ever get them working again. The same with the rest of the shipyard equipment, unused for decades and will have to be replaced.

El Toro Marine Corps Air Station was to have been turned over so that John Wayne Airport (considered one of the most dangerous airports in the country) was to have been moved there, but instead it is now being turned into housing for the uber-rich and a giant park for middle-aged yuppies.

Every base in the San Francisco area is now closed. Long Beach is now closed (with the Seal Beach Naval Weapon Station now being a "white elephant" to the navy, no more mission, but they are unable to close it for other reasons). If we ever end up in another major war, we are in big trouble. The infrastructure we built for WWII not only no longer exists, it can not be remade.

 

The Russians have always favored a more "brute force" approach to it's equipment, both civilian and military alike.

It tends to be less "elegant" then that of the US, is less expensive, and generally easier to maintain.

But that also leads to the problem that it is generally less effective, so they have to use numbers to overcome the more sophisticated Western equipment. And this is not unlike the US in WWII with tanks. The M4 Sherman was unquestionably inferior to most German tanks, but the US was able to produce so damned many of them that this did not matter.

But in equal numbers engagements, the differences are striking. Compare once again the Battle of 73 Easting. The Iraqi forces outnumbers the Coalition Forces in 1991, but not enough to make up for the training and doctrine and technological differences, and were pretty much destroyed without a fight.

And our reliance on "Computer Assisted Flight" is kind of a misnomer, that is only existent on aircraft after the F-117. And that is because the newer generation of aircraft simply can not fly without it. The F-117, B-2, and later aircraft simply lack the ability to fly safely and in a stable manner without a computer doing most of the flying (the F-117 would simply go out of control and crash, the B-2 like most flying wings would tend to stall or flip over and crash). As for "better", that is all a matter of opinion really.

But think on this, the Chinese when they can much prefer to buy or steal US avionics instead of Russian Avionics. And faster is not always better, things like turn radius and ordinance avionics are much more important then then simple speed. Otherwise, we would be using the SR-71 as a fighter.

Actually not, during most of WWII we were very much behind. It was really not until late 1943-early 1944 that we finally achieved "Air Superiority", both from finally building aircraft capable of going against that of our enemy, and the attrition of the best enemy equipment and pilots.

And for large parts of the Korean War we also did not have Air Superiority. The F-80 and F-84 were simply no match for the MiG-15, and US losses were horrendous. It was only later in the war that those old turkey were replaced with the F-86 that the US finally came out on top.

 

The F-12

I think JFK's young and brightest whiz kids got involved and as usual, (*)(*)(*)(*)ed it up.

 

Who controls and is rising in power in Iraq today? And Afghanistan? Don't live in the past, don't make the typical American mistake of fighting the last war.

 

This is true also regarding the Eurofighter [nickname: "Typhoon"], its avionics is intrinsically unstable ... this gives to the plane incredible levels of performances in manoeuvrability during air to air combat, but without the computers the pilot would get mad to keep it in air ...