Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Russian attack aircraft carry out simulated attack runs against US destroyer watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    I'd have fired on them and then blown the missiles just before they reached the planes just to show it won't be tolerated (and put the fear of hell into the pilots)
    At the distance they were flying that would have destroyed the aircraft.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    At the distance they were flying that would have destroyed the aircraft.
    I believe they can engage the aircraft from a few miles out

    but the point stands all sorts of a alarms should have been ringing in the pilots cockpit before he even got close (radar lock etc...)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    Cheers! It is really interesting to see in that graphical form, both to see how the Russian Navy has shrivelled up but also how immense the Soviet Navy was. The number of nuclear submarines they possessed is mind-boggling (considering today the Royal Navy has seven attack subs and four boomers.. though at the height of the Cold War in the 1980s I think we had about 35 attack submarines total, both nuclear and diesel. Then again, in the 1980s we spent about 6% of GDP on defence and now we spend 2%. In fairness, we also have substantially better capabilities in many areas today than we had in the 1980s so we are getting more bang for buck)
    Isn't it also true though that the Russians have been modernising their forces? Do they really need all those old subs and ships anyway? I think I read somewhere that the US has fewer ships and subs than it used to as well, although presumably still a lot more than Russia has.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    I believe they can engage the aircraft from a few miles out

    but the point stands all sorts of a alarms should have been ringing in the pilots cockpit before he even got close (radar lock etc...)
    Many miles out, but that's not the point I was making. Lots of missiles don't 'kill' by going directly into the thing they're aimed at - they're not like bullets. Many versions are designed to explode in the vicinity of the target and create a cloud of shrapnel that will shred any incoming object.

    Therefore, a missile detonating before it got to the aircraft is still likely to destroy it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Isn't it also true though that the Russians have been modernising their forces? Do they really need all those old subs and ships anyway? I think I read somewhere that the US has fewer ships and subs than it used to as well, although presumably still a lot more than Russia has.
    They have modernising a lot, yes.

    But so has everyone else. And everyone else has been modernising in the intervening years, too. So Russia has a longer way to go to catch up.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    They have modernising a lot, yes.

    But so has everyone else. And everyone else has been modernising in the intervening years, too. So Russia has a longer way to go to catch up.
    Definitely an overstatement about Russian military power these days, the USSR was enormous. Russia is too, but mostly geographically.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    *whispers* No, it's because we don't have any nuclear bombers...

    General point stands, though.
    When I was referring to "we" I was talking about the Western alliance. The US still has about 150 nuclear bombers of the B-1, B-2 and B-52 variety.

    While "we" did carry out these sort of provocations during the Cold War (flying B-52s up to the Soviet state border to get them to light up their air defence radars so the ELINT planes could sniff up all the electromagnetic signals), we don't do that anymore. The Russians still do and have been getting more brazen each year.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Isn't it also true though that the Russians have been modernising their forces?
    Not really. They project that image, but in reality they have neither quantity nor quality now.

    Let me give you an example. Since the end of the Cold War the Russians haven't put any new aircraft types into service. Their stealth PAK-FA aircraft is a disaster zone, and while the F-22 it was meant to match (and to which it is substantially inferior) went into service 15 years ago, the PAK-FA won't be in service for another half decade and even then they can now only afford 12 aircraft. The fifth generation of aircraft to which F-22 and PAK-FA belong, the Russians are only just getting these into service whereas the US has already started developing sixth generation aircraft (which will have infrared stealth, carry directed-energy weapons, have new types of variable cycle engines that are extremely efficient, and have artificial intelligence avionics); Russian industry is decades behind, Russia simply doesn't have the domestic technology industry to be able to keep up. The Chinese, maybe. Russia? No.

    The vast majority of their military equipment was built in the 1980s. In some categories their navy has been reduced by 90%, and since 1991 they've only built a single new surface combatant for their navy. The Russian military is creaking.

    The only area they have really modernised is in their nuclear arsenal
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    Not really. They project that image, but in reality they have neither quantity nor quality now.

    Let me give you an example. Since the end of the Cold War the Russians haven't put any new aircraft types into service. Their stealth PAK-FA aircraft is a disaster zone, and while the F-22 it was meant to match (and to which it is substantially inferior) went into service 15 years ago, the PAK-FA won't be in service for another half decade and even then they can now only afford 12 aircraft.

    The vast majority of their military equipment was built in the 1980s. In some categories their navy has been reduced by 90%, and since 1991 they've only built a single new surface combatant for their navy. The Russian military is creaking.

    The only area they have really modernised is in their nuclear arsenal
    OK. That last one would seem to be rather serious though.

    It seems like Putin is trying to provoke something, perhaps a Baltic incident that he can then claim means he needs to 'defend' Russians in one or more of the former Baltic Soviet states. A useful pretext would be some Russian or other dying because they were in a wholly provoked full on collision with a NATO ship whilst completely sensibly flying dangerously close to it. :teehee:

    Putin's a gangster ruler representing a cabal of gangsters. So he uses gangland tactics.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    OK. That last one would seem to be rather serious though.
    And demonstrates the folly of the west giving up its nuclear deterrent.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It seems like Putin is trying to provoke something, perhaps a Baltic incident that he can then claim means he needs to 'defend' Russians in one or more of the former Baltic Soviet states.
    It doesn't need a conspiratorial edge. As is being remarked on pprune (forum for military aviation professionals, current and former) we used to do this all the time and it's not a big deal - it's just that we've grown up and don't do it any more.

    Putin's just childish, essentially.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    OK. That last one would seem to be rather serious though.
    It's the one area where Russian scientists are still as good as the West. Russian rocket technology is superb, but really you don't need extremely advanced technology to update their nuclear forces and of course these weapons can never be really used so any marginal advantage gained isn't actually usable.

    I also think it's possible Russia would struggle to even get its nuclear forces into a launch state and for their national command authority to get launch orders to its silos and submarines. Every Russian boomer that goes to sea is shadowed by an American attack submarine; if, in a time of extremely heightened crisis, they started opening their launch doors, the American submarine would hear that on sonar and sink it.

    The National Security Agency and US Defense Intelligence's number 1 job, far head of anything related to terrorism, is to detect Russian preparations for a nuclear attack. You can be sure that they have zero-day exploits and malware in the Russian command and control system, that they possess at least some of the encryption keys used by their command and control system. In such a situation, the US and UK's much more advanced command and control system would allow them to come onto the punch first. While nuclear war is often portrayed as no-win, there is a possibility that if the US detected Russian preparations for a first-strike, the US could get in first and probably be able to take out Russian command and control systems, silos and submarines before they could fire back. So, as I said, I don't think nuclear force modernisation actually buys the Russians anything except being comforted that old creaking missiles won't blow up in the silo.

    Putin's a gangster ruler representing a cabal of gangsters. So he uses gangland tactics.
    Very true, and very well said
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    And demonstrates the folly of the west giving up its nuclear deterrent.
    Indeed. We know the nuclear deterrent works because it works on us. We would never think of attacking or invading Russia because their nuclear arsenal is huge. It's rather parochial that the hard left think the same considerations don't work in the other direction.

    At the very least, our nuclear deterrent gives the Russians a strong incentive to keep tight control over their nuclear forces to ensure there can never be an accidental launch
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    It doesn't need a conspiratorial edge. As is being remarked on pprune (forum for military aviation professionals, current and former) we used to do this all the time and it's not a big deal - it's just that we've grown up and don't do it any more.

    Putin's just childish, essentially.
    Or the pilots are. I wonder if this is even being controlled from the Kremlin.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Or the pilots are. I wonder if this is even being controlled from the Kremlin.
    :facepalm2:

    i do not think that the pilots of Putin's Evil Empire are allowed to indulge in Top Gun stunts without the highest level of authorization.
    But what do i know ?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    :facepalm2:

    i do not think that the pilots of Putin's Evil Empire are allowed to indulge in Top Gun stunts without the highest level of authorization.
    But what do i know ?
    No I'm sure Putin gives his fellow comrades a lot of freedom on such activities...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    :facepalm2:

    i do not think that the pilots of Putin's Evil Empire are allowed to indulge in Top Gun stunts without the highest level of authorization.
    But what do i know ?
    "Hello, Vladimir, is that you? Captain Shmersky here. Permission to fly past the US boat at zero feet".

    "Who is this?"

    "Captain Shmersky sir, First Attack Battalion, Baltic Fleet".

    "What? I'm expecting a call from my dealer, er, broker."

    "Sir?"

    "Can't this wait?"

    "Sir, I'm flying at 600mph and I'm 2 miles from the US ship. Please confirm original order sir."

    "Hello, hello... where is my cello player? I need to hide another billion. Sergei, is that you?"

    "Sir....? sir.....? sir......?"
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Or the pilots are. I wonder if this is even being controlled from the Kremlin.
    I doubt Putin picked up a phone and told a local commander to start screwing around with a US ship he knew was nearby. But he almost certainly has made it known throughout the military that these sort of stunts will be looked upon kindly. Russia is nothing if not centralized.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    "Hello, Vladimir, is that you? Captain Shmersky here. Permission to fly past the US boat at zero feet".

    "Who is this?"

    "Captain Shmersky sir, First Attack Battalion, Baltic Fleet".

    "What? I'm expecting a call from my dealer, er, broker."

    "Sir?"

    "Can't this wait?"

    "Sir, I'm flying at 600mph and I'm 2 miles from the US ship. Please confirm original order sir."

    "Hello, hello... where is my cello player? I need to hide another billion. Sergei, is that you?"

    "Sir....? sir.....? sir......?"
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    I doubt Putin picked up a phone and told a local commander to start screwing around with a US ship he knew was nearby. But he almost certainly has made it known throughout the military that these sort of stunts will be looked upon kindly. Russia is nothing if not centralized.
    It always makes one wonder in these situations just how much is decentralised to local commanders, etc. I suspect you're right and it's just a sort of general understanding that harassing NATO with dangerous acts is now the rule de jour.

    They've been doing even more destabilising things like flying cruise-missile carrying planes just off the coast of the US and Canada in recent months and similar things around Britain. The RAF must be jumpy as there were reports in Oxfordshire the other day of loud bangs right across the county which later turned out to be caused by sonic booms from RAF jets scrambling to intercept an unidentified plane. Apparently it turned out to be harmless and they got it to land at Cardiff.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 17, 2017
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.