Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Russia deploy troops 50 miles from the border of Alaska

Interesting developement, just protecting the border or is it signs of another cold war?

http://www.infowars.com/russia-positions-troops-50-miles-from-alaska/

Reply 1

AlexanderHam

Original post by Rock Fan

Interesting developement, just protecting the border or is it signs of another cold war?

http://www.infowars.com/russia-positions-troops-50-miles-from-alaska/

Infowars? Seriously?

Russia is a paper tiger in terms of being a serious competitor of the United States. It is a shadow of what the Soviet Union was. The Soviet Union maintained itself as the second largest economy in the world until 1988. Russia isn't even in the top 10 anymore; it was pushed out by Canada. The UK's economy is substantially larger than Russia's.

The Soviet Union had a population of 290 million, Russia has a population of 145 million. In 1990 the Soviet Union had 58 nuclear cruise missile carriers (SSGN) and 64 nuclear attack submarines (SSN). The figures are now 6 and 17 respectively. In 1990 it had 59 ballistic missile submarines (SSBN), it now has 13. In 1990 it had 30 missile cruisers and 45 destroyers; it now has 3 cruisers and 14 destroyers (see link below for infographic)

http://www.offiziere.ch/wp-content/uploads-001/2015/12/Soviet-and-Russian-Navy-blk.png

In 1990, the Soviet Air Force had 205 strategic bombers, 230 medium bombers, 2100 attack aircraft and 3500 fighter aircraft. The Russian Air Force has 700 fighter aircraft, 539 attack aircraft and 125 strategic bombers. And much of those aircraft were built before 1990 and are generally obsolete types. The Russian aerospace industry has proved incapable of developing a fifth-generation (stealthy, AESA radar, sophisticated ESM and avionics) fighter thus far, whereas the US is already starting to develop sixth-generation fighters (stealthy for both radar and infrared, variable bypass engines, use of artificial intelligence, equipped with directed energy weapons).

In 1990 the Soviet Army had 2.8 million soldiers, 55,000 tanks and 75,000 armoured personnel carriers. Today the Russian Army has 230,000 personnel, 2500 tanks and 3200 armoured personnel carriers.

Basically, Russia is a shell of what the Soviet Union was. The Soviets constituted a serious peer competitor and a superpower with the ability to project power globally. Russia is now mainly a regional power whose ongoing influence derives mainly from their nuclear weapons and seat on the Security Council. In terms of their economy, in terms of innovation, in terms of demographic sustainability, Russia looks like it is dying.

So let them play their little games flying their creaking, obsolete propeller-driven bombers up to our air border, pretending it constitutes some kind of actual threat. Let them lapse into fascism and despotism. And if they step out of line and start trying to threaten other countries (as with Ukraine), sanction them. But overall, not a serious threat or peer competitor. Just a has-been nation well past its prime but trying to recapture its lost vitality.

Reply 2

Drewski

Considering the Bering Strait is 53 miles wide that's not that big a deal.

It's like us having troops in Dover. Is that threatening France?

Reply 3

shawtyb

well, my partner is in the military and has to go away this week as the various countries in NATO are meeting up and they think its an impending war coming. there also off to estonia next year

Original post by Rock Fan

Interesting developement, just protecting the border or is it signs of another cold war?

http://www.infowars.com/russia-positions-troops-50-miles-from-alaska/

Reply 4

Drewski

Original post by shawtyb

well, my partner is in the military and has to go away this week as the various countries in NATO are meeting up and they think its an impending war coming. there also off to estonia next year

If they think it's an impending war why have they booked an exercise for next year? :rolleyes:

Reply 5

shawtyb

Original post by Drewski

If they think it's an impending war why have they booked an exercise for next year? :rolleyes:

its an ongoing thing thats happening right now, everyone are rotating and taking turns watching the airspace (or something like that) as putin keeps flying his planes over

Reply 6

shawtyb

Original post by Drewski

If they think it's an impending war why have they booked an exercise for next year? :rolleyes:

next yr just happens to b my bfs batterys turn

Reply 7

Drewski

Original post by shawtyb

next yr just happens to b my bfs batterys turn

Exactly. It's an ongoing rotation to provide air defence for countries which don't have their own. It's been going on for 10 years.

Why do you think that implies an impending war?

Reply 8

shawtyb

Original post by Drewski

Exactly. It's an ongoing rotation to provide air defence for countries which don't have their own. It's been going on for 10 years.

Why do you think that implies an impending war?

i didnt say i think that, he said they think that. there all in the military, im not so they have a better idea then anyone on this forum.
there upping the rotations though as his not had to do it before but he will have to next yr
plus america are bringing over more troops then anyone else when they meet up in the next 3 weeks

Reply 9

Drewski

Original post by shawtyb

You forget the fact there are people on this forum with military experience...

They're upping the rotations because there are fewer people to do them, so of course the few that remain have to do more.

Yes, there are bigger exercises planned, that's partly as a reaction to the exercises Russia has been doing, but partly as a reaction to having spent a decade fighting in the sand - they need to remember how to fight in the cold and the forests.

And all of that is highly irrelevant to a story about something happening 4000 miles away.

Reply 10

shawtyb

Original post by Drewski

i meant compared to people with no military experience ie 3/4 of TSR :smile:

Reply 11

Professor Oak

I mean, they're allowed to defend their borders. If I were Russia, I'd being do the same thing

Reply 12

JabaDaba12

Careful underestimating Russian strength, especially on the basis of figures like the economy, quick and decisive seizure of territory, and skilled leadership can both go a very long way.

Reply 13

Aj12

Original post by AlexanderHam

Infowars? Seriously?

The Soviet Union had a population of 290 million, Russia has a population of 145 million. In 1990 the Soviet Union had 58 nuclear cruise missile carriers (SSGN) and 64 nuclear attack submarines (SSN). The figures are now 6 and 17 respectively. In 1990 it had 59 ballistic missile submarines (SSBN), it now has 13. In 1990 it had 30 missile cruisers and 45 destroyers; it now has 3 cruisers and 14 destroyers (see link below for infographic)

In 1990, the Soviet Air Force had 205 strategic bombers, 230 medium bombers, 2100 attack aircraft and 3500 fighter aircraft. The Russian Air Force has 700 fighter aircraft, 539 attack aircraft and 125 strategic bombers. And much of those aircraft were built before 1990 and are generally obsolete types. The Russian aerospace industry has proved incapable of developing a fifth-generation (stealthy, AESA radar, sophisticated ESM and avionics) fighter thus far, whereas the US is already starting to develop sixth-generation fighters (stealthy for both radar and infrared, variable bypass engines, use of artificial intelligence, equipped with directed energy weapons).

Basically, Russia is a shell of what the Soviet Union was. The Soviets constituted a serious peer competitor and a superpower with the ability to project power globally. Russia is now mainly a regional power whose ongoing influence derives mainly from their nuclear weapons and seat on the Security Council. In terms of their economy, in terms of innovation, in terms of demographic sustainability, Russia looks like it is dying.

So let them play their little games flying their creaking, obsolete propeller-driven bombers up to our air border, pretending it constitutes some kind of actual threat. Let them lapse into fascism and despotism. And if they step out of line and start trying to threaten other countries (as with Ukraine), sanction them. But overall, not a serious threat or peer competitor. Just a has-been nation well past its prime but trying to recapture its lost vitality.

The problem with Russia is that from a military point of view they have some concerning bright spots. As a whole their military is terrible, but Putin's rearmament campaign has made a difference. The Russians are back to running submarine patrols at levels not seen since the cold war. Some of their subs and their tactics are pushing NATO to the edge somewhat. At times when RN subs have been playing cat and mouse games with the Russians they have shown a tactical awareness and a technical capability that simple was not there during the Cold War. This is at a time where the US's subs are aging and the RN has extreme quality but minute numbers.

In terms of air power they may be struggling with conventional fighters but they are building some excellent air defence systems like the S-400 and S-500. Russia too seems to be building an edge in MBT's, the Abrams tank is old and its replacement is slow in coming. Russia has also been able to ignore its weakness in the same way China has by working on low cost alternatives that negate an American conventional advantage, Cyber and hybrid warfare being too such examples.

Russia may not be the USSR and it is not a superpower competitor but Putin's Russia is not Yeltsin's where the entire military was rusting away. It can make life difficult for the US on the world stage as we have seen in Syria and Ukraine.

Reply 14

TheDailyMan

Russia is stronger than you think it is, under estimating and being outright arrogant about your pride will be your downfall.

Never underestimate anyone.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 15

Tempest II

Original post by AlexanderHam

Original post by Aj12

I think you both make very good points. At the end of the day, it really does depend what Russia's strategic objectives are; should they aim to seize the Baltic states then NATO would struggle to stop them. According to RAND, the capitals of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania could all be in Russian hands less than 60hrs after a conflict breaking out.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1253.html

"Russia's recent aggression against Ukraine has disrupted nearly a generation of relative peace and stability between Moscow and its Western neighbors and raised concerns about its larger intentions. From the perspective of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the threat to the three Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania — former Soviet republics, now member states that border Russian territory — may be the most problematic of these. In a series of war games conducted between summer 2014 and spring 2015, RAND Arroyo Center examined the shape and probable outcome of a near-term Russian invasion of the Baltic states. The games' findings are unambiguous: As presently postured, NATO cannot successfully defend the territory of its most exposed members. Fortunately, it will not require Herculean effort to avoid such a failure. Further gaming indicates that a force of about seven brigades, including three heavy armored brigades — adequately supported by airpower, land-based fires, and other enablers on the ground and ready to fight at the onset of hostilities — could suffice to prevent the rapid overrun of the Baltic states."

I read that US officials were in agreement with these scenarios which is why NATO is reinforcing its Baltic presence.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-summit-idUSKCN0ZN2NL

"NATO leaders agreed on Friday to deploy military forces to the Baltic states and eastern Poland for the first time and increase air and sea patrols to reassure allies who were once part of the Soviet bloc following Russia's seizure of Crimea from Ukraine."
The 28-nation Western defense alliance decided to move four battalions totaling 3,000 to 4,000 troops into northeastern Europe on a rotating basis to display its readiness to defend eastern members against any Russian aggression."

Should the Russians decide to push further into Poland or even Germany then I highly doubt they'd find it so easy but realistically Putin isn't going to consider this as a viable option.

There's no doubt that Russia's navy would get obliterated in a fight with NATO; no other nation on earth can withstand the amount of firepower the US Navy can bring to bear. Even a joint French-UK naval force would cause the Russians a severe headache.
I also can't see the Russian air force being much of an issue; although aircraft like the Su-33, Su-34 & Su-35 are all good aircraft, they're certainly no better than their Western equivalents and NATO pilots receive far more training than Russian ones. Against aircraft like the F-22 & Typhoon (& even older models like F-15s & F-16s) which will supported by tankers, AWACS etc the Russians will take heavy losses. The best they can hope for is to fight under neutral skies as the biggest threat to NATO aircraft will almost certain be SAMs & other so called "area of denial" weapons.

It's these systems that could give NATO problems - the Russians (& the Chinese too) have developed weapon systems that deliberately counter what NATO uses to conduct its operations.

Zircon hypersonic cruise missiles - These could penetrate the US Navy's Aegis anti-missile screen to strike carrier battle groups without being intercepted. The sheer speeds involved (Mach 5-6) make them very difficult to shoot down with current levels of defensive missile technology. Perhaps powerful direct energy weapons could stop them but we're probably talking 10-20yrs into the future.

R-37/K-100 missiles - In order to destroy NATO AWACS & other ISTAR aircraft at long ranges, the Russians have the R-37 missile, carried by the MiG-31, which possibly has a range of over 200 nautical miles. They're also working on the K-100 with India that could equip the Flanker type aircraft.

S-400 SAMs - As NATO is heavily dependant on airpower, the S-300, 400 & future 500 SAMs potentially pose a massive threat to all non-stealth NATO aircraft. The Russians actually claim it can defeat stealth aircraft to an extent as well but this hasn't been reliably tested. Although these systems may turn out to be vulnerable to platforms like the F-22 & F-35, it's still going to take time to disable them, which during an invasion of the Baltics, is time NATO may not have.

Electronic/Cyber warfare - Both the Russians & Chinese have invested heavily in this as they know the West know depends heavily on networking to share information between different parties. They also have the ability to jam GPS,
satellite radar systems & possibly even laser guidance which would cause interference to NATO ISTAR & weapon delivery platforms.

"Hybrid" warfare & political interference - Although some describe this as a new type of warfare, it's a strategy the USSR also used. The use of "green men" who wear no insignia and who are at best were trained by the Russians or at worst are actually Russian special forces, allows them to deceive the West & deny involvement. Therefore, it's possible the Russians could invade nations like Latvia, Estonia & Lithuania before NATO even realises its in a war.

It does appear as though Russia realised that Soviet era doctrine & weapon systems were outmatched after the 1991 Gulf War where the West comfortably beat Iraq. From this, they've instead looked at exploiting what makes us weak and focusing on destroying NATO's ability to command & control its forces.

Reply 16

AlexanderHam

Original post by Aj12

The Russians are back to running submarine patrols at levels not seen since the cold war

At the moment they will usually have four to six SSBNs on patrol. During the 1970s and 1980s they typically had four to five times that number on patrol at any one time. You have the same proportion for attack subs. The US Navy could assign two of its SSNs to shadow every single Russian SSN and still only have used 50% of its combat strength.

At times when RN subs have been playing cat and mouse games with the Russians they have shown a tactical awareness and a technical capability that simple was not there during the Cold War. This is at a time where the US's subs are aging and the RN has extreme quality but minute numbers.

Russian submarines have advanced since the Cold War but they are still not as quiet as an Astute or Virginia class. Between the US, UK and France they have close to, what, 80 SSNs? The Russians have 17. During the Cold War the Western alliance had to use their superior technology to offset Russian numbers. Now the West has both qualitative and quantitative advantages over Russia.

In terms of air power they may be struggling with conventional fighters but they are building some excellent air defence systems like the S-400 and S-500.

It's widely accepted that S-400 and S-500s would not be capable of sustaining themselves in an armed attack by a mix of cruise missiles, drones, MALD flying decoys, F-22s and B-2s. For such systems to have any degree of survivability they have to stay mobile and keep moving, which means they are continually setting up their system just to take a shot, then pull down the radar antenna and lower the missile canisters, and move to the next location. The need to stay survivable also means those systems are not capable of constituting a A2AD capability that would substantially deny certain airspace to the United States

I accept the S-300 to S-500 series are quite capable, but pure performance figures does not tell the whole story where logistics, intelligence, morale, sortie rates and many other things have equal or greater impact on which side wins the battle. I think the fundamentals of Mole Cricket 19 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19) have not changed. Russian manned systems would do better, but it would not change the outcome. US technological, logistical, intelligence and training advantages would be decisive in my opinion

Russia may not be the USSR and it is not a superpower competitor but Putin's Russia is not Yeltsin's where the entire military was rusting away. It can make life difficult for the US on the world stage as we have seen in Syria and Ukraine.

Of course, Russia has moved on from the 1990s. It is not in the same chaotic state and its military is taking steps to modernise, to reduce its overall size to increase quality, to buy new weapons.

But you can see the true face of Russian airpower in the Syria campaign; they will spend over $500,000 (remember cost per flight hour is high for these old birds) to fly a group of Tu-22s from Engels AFB to Syria merely to drop a dozen unguided bombs on a target. Russia doesn't have the money to purchase in any appreciable quantities the guided bombs it has developed, and it doesn't have the manufacturing capability to build them in significant numbers; Russian production of smart bombs is basically a hand-crafted cottage industry. It's that technological edge that has allowed the Western allies to clip 45,000 ISIS terrorists and only very small numbers of civilians (around 3%), whereas the Russians have killed around as many civilians as they have combatants.

It's true that Russian MBTs are quite good (though the Armata has serious engine issues), as is Russian artillery. But generally speaking, they have neither the technical capacity nor the numbers to constitute a serious threat. NATO has ten times as many troops as Russia does, and quite simply in a stand-up fight between Russian and American troops (of a conventional sort and ignoring the nuclear context), I would put my money on the Americans.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 17

nulli tertius

Original post by Tempest II

Their principal strategic objective of course is not to have mushroom clouds over Moscow and St Petersburg.

This is where Trump is so dangerous. Putin has to believe that an attack on the Baltics is an unwinnable gamble and Trump's nonsense makes that less likely.