Future of russia defense industry?

Status
Not open for further replies.

chinawhite

New Member
Everyone knows about russian weaponary,

Reliable, cost effective and "battle proven"

Gone are the days where the Soviet government subsidized the defence industry and made massive orders for military equipment. Gave massive sum for RnD. While now is the new era of independent arms sales and arms fairs

Her tradtional market of arms sales like india have now decide to be a more indegenious route or instead wanting to do it herself like the joint development and self production. And china which has also stopped buying new russian equipment and is now concentrating on building up and "indegenising" her equippment while the Other countries like algeria, syria, Iraq(LoL) are all now so poor they cannot buy this equipment. The Soviets sold equipment to these countries but it wasn't in hard currency but in batter deals which were bought higher than market prices. eg Cuban sugar

While russian equipment is still competitive in the third world they are becoming more expensive and less sophiticated compared to western weaponary. It is not just Russian, American and European suppliers anymore. More countries are seeking to make joint ventures and own the production lines and self produce russian equipment. Now what is the current state of russias RnD research?. What the russians are really doing is modiflying Soviet era weapons with western technology. All the new improvments like the T-90, Su-35s, and new ships all benifited from acess to western technology

The T-90 is actually the T-72BM with a new name. A sheep in sheeps clothing. This was done to improve the image of the T-72 after all the losses of T-72 in combat like chechnya and iraq. While the parts in both tanks is similar in design but are not compatible. The T-90 ustilzes a lot more advanced technology and a better sensors and is all round superior. But it is one example of a old tank that has just been modifled to seek export orders.

Current sales are india which has brought 124 T-90 tanks and is assebliing the rest. While the russian army has brought the grand sum of between 100-300 according to different sources. While in 2005 the russian military only ordered 17. The T-72 had tremendous export sucess serving in 28 armies. While the T-90 being a more capable tank has not reached anywhere close to these levels. My conclusion is people already know what these tanks are and rather go for a cheaper solution while the higher upper class countries which would likey buy this equipment choose western or european equipment

The Su-35 is a post-soviet design which is one of the most capable fighters ready for export and a very very cheap price compared to her comtempories like the Eurofighter or the rafale has not seen one sale. The russian airforce has not shown interest in buying this fighter ethier. While her predecessors like the Su-27 and Su-30 have been ranking up huge export sucess while being and less bang for a than a Su-35 and being less advanced they still are not being showned interest in. While again the more upper class markets are still a western owned region, like The middle east, Europe and Asian countries which rather opt for western equipment rather than newer russian equipment.

The russian defense industry are now surving on export orders and to be more competitive they need more RnD funding to be more competitve when the western onsluahgt led by the Americans with their F-35 enters the aircraft market. The russians at this point do not have a prototype to match the F-35 on a cost effectivness graph. The mikoyan MFI 1.42 projet led to the 1.44 aircraft. While being claimed to be a advanced platform it did not finish development and was cancelled because of the lack of funds. While the new project PAK-FA has not even finished the design phase. It has hugley impossible schedule to perform(first flight in 2010). And according to media reports has only recieved something like 1/10th of the projected funding needed.

The plan is to be a heavy fighter like the F-22 but only cost as mush as the F-35. The downfall of the 1.42 project was the lack of funding on the wooping 70million price tag. Here is the projected image of the PAK-FA


In reailty this is a Make or break project for russias avation industry. When the F-35 starts mass production you will be seeing the sales of the Soviet era fighters down like a stone. If this suceeds then it will be a major benifit for russia as the F-35 as of now is still on the protected aircraft list with only selected nations getting them.

Her naval ships are just re-vamped soviet designs which are still none the less are best in catergory. But russia has not designed a major post-soviet vessel.

In reality the russian economy has improved and has registered a straight 6%+ growth for the last 7 years. But this figure is still only at $1.535 trillion. compared to frances $1.816 trillion, Germanys $2.446 trillion Indias $3.678 trillion chinas $8.158 trillion and americas $12.37 trillion . Its economy cannot fund major military projects and keep its economy growing. Its defence budget is about 1/10 of americas and the JSF project will cost more than the russians can spend. You need economic growth along with RnD spending to compete and the russians have the protentional for it but it will take time. According to some reports the Big american compaines like Boeing Microsoft and lockheed martin brought them over and now are american scientist

Even if the russians go to india or china for funding they dont want to be the second fiddle and will want part of the contract or a joint development which leads to less money the russians make off exports. But the indians have got their MCA and other things they have control of plus american technology access so would they want to fund a huge program if they are already offered the F-35?

China was never a player in the PAK-FA or MFI project and only wanted to buy technology nd not to buy actual aircraft. Recent reports by chinese avation sources have produced photos that claim china is producing her own F-22 class aircraft so the PAK-FA wouldn't be a big possibilty. Her airforce is not looking to russia to buy upgrades for her russian aircraft and her navy is building her own ships and the eariler russian purchases which were rumoured to be stop gaps have been proven by the lack of future purchases to only be stop gap meaures.


So will the russian defence industry survive?. Will it just be selling designs and contacts instead of pyhiscally exporting thier own aircraft?
 
Last edited:

turin

New Member
Besides China and India which clearly intend to establish their own indigenous aircraft industry, there still are many other countries which need new planes and cannot afford and/or dont have the know-how to produce own ones. Same goes for the land systems-market.
Therefore I am pretty sure there still is a big market for the russian industry.

Also take into account the very theoretical idea that someday the russian economy itself might get healthier enabling the government to revive its own defense-building activities.

Regardless the Russians better be very careful about simply exporting know-how and basic knowledge to India and China in order to make money. We can see with the JF-17 where this is going and in the end this is a straight shot in the foot.

By the way, according to some interview with a russian defense analyst the first flight of the PAKFA is now scheduled for 2007, a very optimistic date I might say. Also the project is thought to consist of a one- and a two-engined version, the first one being lighter and cheaper in order to have a credible hi-lo-mix. Makes some sense but we will see how that plays out in the end.
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
There is quite a big difference between China and India. Clearly, Russian export to China has been reduced to transports, SAMs and possibly heavy bombers. India looks like it is still interested in importing the whole wide spectrum. Of course, it is looking for different import sources. Either way, troubling signs for the Russian industry.
 

turin

New Member
I agree on India. However the warning signs are already there. I admit, it seems like their national programs concerning Jetfighters and MBT are not looking that promising right now, but I wouldnt see that being too much a comfort for the Russians in the next say ten years.
I think, in some respects Russia did already go too far concerning its cooperation with China, but I guess they simply didnt have much choice.
 

Vital

New Member
Of course it WILL survive!
First of all I agree with turin. There are a lot of countries, who need and can afford only our weapons. But we do not sell our technologies "know-hOW" I can assure you, they are not any more "new technologies" We still have something to surprise you.
Regarding ships, You absolutely right, we re-vamp and sell because we don't need them. They are too old. 3 new nuclear submarines and two middle class ships are being built in St. Petersburg (according to the official information)
 

LancerMc

New Member
While I agree that the Russian defence contractors and manufacturers will never achieve a level like the one under the Soviet system again, they still will be able to produce advance technology and designs for the future.

I think Russian companies need to start working with other international companies to bring their ideas to the rest of the world. Yakolev is doing this with their new trainer design by helping China and Italy develop their own jet trainers based on their design work. Russia still holds the best technology in Air to Air and Surface to Air Missiles. MiG is also the first company to demonstrate an all aspect thrust vectoring nozzle which is for the MiG-29 and possibly the Su-27/30. This nozzle will mostly likely be offered to India for its future order 125 Light Combat Aircraft.

So don't count the Russian's out, they just need to change their focus to better make themselves competitive for the future.
 

Wild Weasel

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
LancerMc said:
While I agree that the Russian defence contractors and manufacturers will never achieve a level like the one under the Soviet system again, they still will be able to produce advance technology and designs for the future.

I think Russian companies need to start working with other international companies to bring their ideas to the rest of the world. Yakolev is doing this with their new trainer design by helping China and Italy develop their own jet trainers based on their design work. Russia still holds the best technology in Air to Air and Surface to Air Missiles. MiG is also the first company to demonstrate an all aspect thrust vectoring nozzle which is for the MiG-29 and possibly the Su-27/30. This nozzle will mostly likely be offered to India for its future order 125 Light Combat Aircraft.

So don't count the Russian's out, they just need to change their focus to better make themselves competitive for the future.
Well, frankly- when one takes into account the 4th, and 5th generation fighters available to the West, equipped with advanced AAM's like the AIM-120C, Meteor, Mica, ASRAAM, Python, and AIM-9X- I wouldn't be willing to make the statement that Russia "still holds the best technology in Air to Air Missiles." The current score is already a handful of MiG-29's downed by Western AAM's, with no Western losses to date.

Likewise, they don't have the world's best SAMs, either.
The Patriot PAC3, and SM-3 Aegis, SM-6 ERAM, ESSM, RAM, as well as ASTER, Rapier, and Starstreak, among others, are all as capable, if not more so than their Russian counterparts.

Point of fact, Western pilots are trained and equipped to penetrate Russian air defences, avoid or destroy their SAM systems, and prosecute their targets. Platforms like "stealth", and OECM-jamming aicraft, long-range strike weapons such as Tomahawk, ALCM, JASSM, and Storm Shadow, and units like the Wild Weasels- give the West the ability to nullify even the best of Russia's SAM systems. If they activate their search or fire control radars, the HARMs and ALARM missiles will destoy them. If they keep them switched off, they are basically combat ineffective, and they are eventually going to be destroyed by long range strike weapons anyway.

Conversely, Western land forces are not overly concerned with the threat of Russian fighters penetrating their own air defenses, and attacking their rear echelon. They deploy their SAMs to defend against ballistic missile threats, primarily.
Western AWACs, recon, and C&C aircraft operate safely behind their SAM, and AAM walls with almost total impunity. They are probably more concerned about being a victim of BVR, or SAM system fratricide, than they are about Russian SAMs or AAM's.

Finally, look at it from the perspective of the pilot. If I were an American (or Western Coalition) fighter pilot about to undertake an attack mission against targets protected by Russian SAMs, I could do so without being concerned I had been tasked with a suicide mission. I would expect that our SEAD assets and tactics had dealt with whatever threat I was facing.
On the other hand, if I was an OPFOR pilot that had been ordered to sneak past Coalition defences- I'd seriously be considering the best way to keep my aircraft on the ground. Not because I am a coward- but because I am a realist, and knowledgeable enough to understand that the likelyhood for my survival is dismal at best.

"Fly through PAC-3, or Aegis? Are you kidding me?"

I'm really not biased towards Russian forces and equipment. I realize that they are definately capable of producing systems that are equal to those of the West- they have done so int he past. But that's simply not the case these days.
Fortunately, it seems that the possibility for war between Russia, and the West is far more remote that I can ever remember. And I am quite thankful that is the reality today.
 

Vital

New Member
Point of fact, Western pilots are trained and equipped to penetrate Russian air defences, avoid or destroy their SAM systems, and prosecute their targets. Platforms like "stealth", and OECM-jamming aicraft, long-range strike weapons such as Tomahawk, ALCM, JASSM, and Storm Shadow, and units like the Wild Weasels- give the West the ability to nullify even the best of Russia's SAM systems.
I want to remind you, that a "stealth platform" was shot down by the old soviet SAM system in Yugoslavia. Please read about this war more ad you will find more interesting details :) I won't be so self-assured about penetrating Russian system. Don't forget about C-300 and C-400.
 

asif iqbal

New Member
Russians systems are nothing but pathetic junk, thier record speaks for itself

ok so the serbs managed to shot down a F117s so what one lucky shot out of a million, whats your point

todays russia see's nothing but starving people and corruption russia is like a old pot just rusting away its just a matter of time before its gone for good
 

KGB

New Member
Vital said:
I want to remind you, that a "stealth platform" was shot down by the old soviet SAM system in Yugoslavia. Please read about this war more ad you will find more interesting details :) I won't be so self-assured about penetrating Russian system. Don't forget about C-300 and C-400.
There's a lot of conflicting claims about that particular airwar, its hard to tell fact from propoganda.

Was the F117 taken out by a SAM or by some luck gunner?
 

Vital

New Member
May be you are right whether it was a very Lucky gunner or a SAM, I don't want to argue.
But such expressions as "Russians systems are nothing but pathetic junk" are groundless. if it so, why China, India etc prefer to buy them. They can afford buying other systems.
Regarding, starving people. Please, visit Russia! I mean real Russia but not Moscow
 

Gollevainen

the corporal
Verified Defense Pro
Was the F117 taken out by a SAM or by some luck gunner?
lately there has been an article out claiming it to be SAM, S-125 Petsora to more precisely, but this wasent 'a lucky shot' as many Bush-groupies wants to think but more of result of tactical innovative and professionalism, the one factor that has (by the lack of it) coused most examples of this praised 'poor record' of russian 'junk'. I have served my military time along whit this junk, and I wouldnt hesitate for a minute, which one i would choose in the real battle field, expensive and neat western toy, or solid, simple and 100% workable russian 'junk'.

people like Asif Igbal should find some better things to do than come and mock weapons which he certainly have no idea about and flaovour that mockery with tasteles countrybrashing...people's starve in russia...my ass:kar :sniper :mad

But Russian defense industry surely is on the edge of new times as Russian political situation beguns to worse in europe and central asia. Moscow cannot continue its rather cocky energy-policy and pressuring its neighbours if their armed forces arent beeing modernized. When the political will comes behind military modernization, money will eventually finds it ways to rigth places...even in russia, thougth how unbelieviable it migth sound
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
Vital said:
May be you are right whether it was a very Lucky gunner or a SAM, I don't want to argue.
But such expressions as "Russians systems are nothing but pathetic junk" are groundless. if it so, why China, India etc prefer to buy them. They can afford buying other systems.
Regarding, starving people. Please, visit Russia! I mean real Russia but not Moscow
That's the point, China looks like that it is not buying that much from the Russians anymore. Indians are going with Western systems, because the Russian offers are not competitive.

The F-117 incident has been discussed extensively. You can read up on it by googling
 

Wild Weasel

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
In any case, one downed F-117 for hundreds of launched SAMs in half a dozen conflicts doesn't say much for the abilities of the Russian SAMs. Considering all the factors involved, it's just as likely that several more aircraft could have been lost due to pilot error, or random equipment failure. And then there's always the propaganda factor, right?

What is known, is the record of the Western AAM's and SAM's launched at OPFOR targets. The ( operational, combat proven ) PK ratio tends to be many times higher for AMRAAM, or Patriot, than what we've seen from Russian-made systems.

It's true that we haven't actually seen the most current Russian technolgy employed in actual combat. Therefore, it's difficult to say whether or not they are actually worth their weight. But we have seen quite a bit of the most current Western kit in use, like the AMRAAM, and Patriot- and so far, the figures are quite impressive.
Add to that the capabilites of stealth, stand off range offensive jamming, long range cruise missiles, and strike weapons, and highly developed SEAD tactics- it is plain to see that the ball is firmly in the West's court at this point in time.

A basic tenet of modern warfare is: "That which can be seen, can be destroyed." Well, even the most powerful C300, and '400 SAM systems can certainly be seen- they are absolutely enormous! Satelite imagery shows everything needed to target them with a swarm of GPS-guided cruise missiles.
Stealth aircraft can easily approach within HARM, JASSM, JSOW, JDAM, or SDB launch range to put them out of commision in ONE sortie- and with little or no expected losses of attacking aircraft.
Whats more, there are other systems nearing operational/deployable status that could render any SAM system obselete overnight.
For instance, the Lockheed-Martin LOCAAS is a very small cruise missile with an advanced LADAR seeker, and guidance package- capable of fully autonomous search and destroy missions against any target on the ground. They are so small, and light-weight, that as many as thirty or so could be carried by a single seat fighter. They have a range of more than 200km, a speed of more than 450knts and carry an advanced warhead that can devastate a SAM system's radar, control trailer, or the missiles themselves.
Finally, they would cost only a small fraction of the price of even a single C300/400 missile- and yet, only one LOCAAS that is not destroyed while inbound would be capable of knocking out an entire SAM sytem, if it attacks the radar.

I don't care how fantastic people believe Russian SAMs to be. Once a swarm of LOCAAS is inbound, each of those ridiculously inexpensive little cruise missiles will have to be shot down, or the entire air defence grid is at risk of being permanently knocked out of commision. Combined with OECM, a couple other fighters worth of air-launched decoys, and HARM/AARGM missiles- that SAM system is most assuredly going to get wasted. Even the vaunted S300/400 SAM sytem could not survive such an attack.

This is not really super-advanced, "Star Wars" technology- this is commercial-off-the-shelf technology that currently exists today, combined with 30+ years of SEAD tactics learned from many hard-fought air-war campaigns. The West specializes in power-projection warfare, which requires rapid and total air supremacy- no matter what the defense threat is supposed to be. Thus far, we've seen that they can achieve this in short order- and that there is little to nothing that Russian systems have been able to do about it. Stealth, and advanced electronics has trumped Russian defense tech for more than twenty years, and so far, there doesn't appear to be an effective defense option to stop it.
 

Rich

Member
""""lately there has been an article out claiming it to be SAM, S-125 Petsora to more precisely, but this wasent 'a lucky shot' as many Bush-groupies wants to think but more of result of tactical innovative and professionalism, the one factor that has (by the lack of it) coused most examples of this praised 'poor record' of russian 'junk'. """"

Bush groupies? Whats Bush got to do with it?
 

LancerMc

New Member
For clarification the shoot down of the F-117 during the Kosovo Crisis was due to pilot error.

In a article by the publication Air Forces Monthly a few years ago, the F-117 was returning from a mission under a moon lit night. The pilot decided to fly under the cloud cover and was noticed by a Yugoslavian gunner seeing the F-117 out lined against the moon lit up clouds. The gunner put a few rounds into the aircraft. The SAM was later fired at the aircraft while it was on fire from the ground fire and it finished the job.
 

Gollevainen

the corporal
Verified Defense Pro
Bush groupies? Whats Bush got to do with it?
Bush groupie is a comical expression for people whos mind works like "US is the best, US is invinciple, all other are crab, Russia is made out of crab, French are pussyes that cannot win wars..."

And like with any other nationalists, theyr mind is rather blind to any negative information about their idol, pretty much like groupies...at least those I knew:rolleyes: :tasty :smokie

In a article by the publication Air Forces Monthly a few years ago, the F-117 was returning from a mission under a moon lit night. The pilot decided to fly under the cloud cover and was noticed by a Yugoslavian gunner seeing the F-117 out lined against the moon lit up clouds. The gunner put a few rounds into the aircraft. The SAM was later fired at the aircraft while it was on fire from the ground fire and it finished the job.
the article i was refering was published few months ago, It was propaply Serbian publication, but I remember it been showed in this sites news section also. Anyway or anther I think this is an issue that everybody has to just believe what ever they want, as the contradicts are so evident and politically heated...Remember, there isent such thing as unbias, or objective truth...:cool:
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Gollevainen said:
Bush groupie is a comical expression for people whos mind works like "US is the best, US is invinciple, all other are crab, Russia is made out of crab, French are pussyes that cannot win wars..."

And like with any other nationalists, theyr mind is rather blind to any negative information about their idol, pretty much like groupies...at least those I knew:rolleyes: :tasty :smokie
It's also an unfortunate expression to use in what we try to establish as a serious military forum. It denotes a lack of professionalism amongst those who contribute to meaningful debate.

Gollevainen said:
the article i was refering was published few months ago, It was propaply Serbian publication, but I remember it been showed in this sites news section also. Anyway or anther I think this is an issue that everybody has to just believe what ever they want, as the contradicts are so evident and politically heated...Remember, there isent such thing as unbias, or objective truth...:cool:
and again, the Serbs ignore the fact that a French Staff Officer is undergoing a process of court martial for leaking NATO air traffic controll data to the Serbs. Maj Brunel was arrested and charged as a Serb sympathiser. He also blamed other French staff officers attached to NATO command and made it clear that critical data was leaked on way points and times.

Just as an addition to the discussion. The following is cut from an AFA article on the Bekaa Valley.

"In contrast with the desperate air battles of October 1973, Israel's 46-hour Bekaa Valley air war set a new standard for orchestrated air operations and proved that even sophisticated mobile SAMs could be dismembered by well-coordinated air attacks..........

Yet the Bekaa Valley air war also helped drive Middle East strategy in a new direction. Potential opponents started to look for new weapons, since challenging the IAF in the skies was deemed pointless. Ivry cited conclusions drawn by the Syrian minister of defense, who felt that Israeli airpower and electronic warfare won the day in the Bekaa Valley and the next war would be a "surface-to-surface war and not the surface-to-air war anymore." As Ivry said, "That's when they started to buy the Scuds." He was referring to Syria and Iraq.


In Moscow, the Bekaa Valley operation threw military men into a kind of shock. Top Soviet systems had been trounced. On a visit to Czechoslovakia in 1991, Ivry met a Czech general who had been serving in Moscow in 1982. He told Ivry that the Bekaa Valley air war made the Soviets understand that Western technology was superior to theirs, and in this Czech general's view, the blow to the Bekaa Valley SAMs was part of the cascade of events leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union."
 

Gollevainen

the corporal
Verified Defense Pro
It's also an unfortunate expression to use in what we try to establish as a serious military forum. It denotes a lack of professionalism amongst those who contribute to meaningful debate.
my bad, get agitated from that Igbal ...thougth I meant it more of a joke than offence (and where I came, jokes arent mented to offend) so lets say that it was cultural related missunderstandment misshap...I try to be more carefull in the future...


and again, the Serbs ignore the fact that a French Staff Officer is undergoing a process of court martial for leaking NATO air traffic controll data to the Serbs. Maj Brunel was arrested and charged as a Serb sympathiser. He also blamed other French staff officers attached to NATO command and made it clear that critical data was leaked on way points and times.
And You deny that using this information by the yugoslavian airdefence is example of innovative and tactical professionalism? Its not matter where the informaition came, the fact is that Serbs knew what they were hunting and actively did that, with triumph results. Its phathetic to deny glory from some military action, if the intelligense data (crucial element in any warfare) is done by inconvidient ways...


In Moscow, the Bekaa Valley operation threw military men into a kind of shock. Top Soviet systems had been trounced. On a visit to Czechoslovakia in 1991, Ivry met a Czech general who had been serving in Moscow in 1982. He told Ivry that the Bekaa Valley air war made the Soviets understand that Western technology was superior to theirs, and in this Czech general's view, the blow to the Bekaa Valley SAMs was part of the cascade of events leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union."
i would say that Bekaa valley (if the soviet equipment were to be fault and not the Syrian skills to use the equipment) is more of example to Soviet collapse than factor in it...Soviet collapse is much bigger thing to be generalized by single events as factors, at least not any direct historical event could take that position.

But in general i believe that Soviet systems, thougth sligthly older generation than Western wouldnt berform so badly if they would have been used in healthy command enviroment and by personel whit skills and will to use them and most importantly, flexibility to overcome sudden changes of situation. Im not well aware of Syrian military life and levels of that time, but I would like to take look of it If someone knows it more detaily... In contras to Bekaa Valley, where the 'eastern' and 'western' counterpart were almoust equal in overal size, in Serbia 1999 is berfect example of how non invinciple western warmachines can be. Serbian army was never defeated, or dismobilised, neither the command elements of whole society. I think its rather shame to NATO that they managed to wipe out only a mere brigadefull of serbian military hardware, inspite such ernoumous effort to do so...

Humans still do the figthing, not machines, and there's the achiless heel of Western military....
 
Last edited:

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Gollevainen said:
And You deny that using this information by the yugoslavian airdefence is example of innovative and tactical professionalism? Its not matter where the informaition came, the fact is that Serbs knew what they were hunting and actively did that, with triumph results. Its phathetic to deny glory from some military action, if the intelligense data (crucial element in any warfare) is done by inconvidient ways...
no, my point was that it was more than just tactical tradecraft - it was also very good intel tradecraft at work. It wasn't a statement about dismissing serb competency, but hilighting that it was a far more complex issue than a professional battery commander.

  • if you know the flight path as its been repeated 4 nights running, then that also points to pilot negligence and overconfidence
  • if you know the flight path then you can set up a corridor of anticipation - a box kill then becomes a highly likely event

Gollevainen said:
i would say that Bekaa valley (if the soviet equipment were to be fault and not the Syrian skills to use the equipment) is more of example to Soviet collapse than factor in it...Soviet collapse is much bigger thing to be generalized by single events as factors, at least not any direct historical event could take that position.
The comment from the Czech General is more about "allied perception" than historical accuracy - it does show the significance of speed of adaptation by the Israelis - and it does point to the fact that Ewarfare and co-ordinated air strikes were able to be developed and deployed within days - and thus neutralising SAMs in a dramatic fashion. The significance here is speed of solution, speed of deployment and the speed of nullification of what had prev been a battlefield changer.

Gollevainen said:
But in general i believe that Soviet systems, thougth sligthly older generation than Western wouldnt berform so badly if they would have been used in healthy command enviroment and by personel whit skills and will to use them and most importantly, flexibility to overcome sudden changes of situation. Im not well aware of Syrian military life and levels of that time, but I would like to take look of it If someone knows it more detaily... In contras to Bekaa Valley, where the 'eastern' and 'western' counterpart were almoust equal in overal size, in Serbia 1999 is berfect example of how non invinciple western warmachines can be. Serbian army was never defeated, or dismobilised, neither the command elements of whole society. I think its rather shame to NATO that they managed to wipe out only a mere brigadefull of serbian military hardware, inspite such ernoumous effort to do so...
My argument would be that NATO/Serbia is a classic example of how Air cannot be a panacea for all ground force neutralisation models - it was inapprop tradecraft - it wasn't so much an indictment of technology. A similar analogy can be applied to US Helo losses in Iraq. The principle reason for platform loss was not that the platforms were vulnerable - it was the fact that pilots broke doctrine and jeopardised not only their missions but also their lives.


Gollevainen said:
Humans still do the figthing, not machines, and there's the achiless heel of Western military....
How is human performance the wests achilles heel? The 5 major conflicts of force majeur in the 20th century have shown that although western nations may be slow to react to conflict, when they do discover the political will and intent to go to war they prosecute to its maximum outcome to achieve their aims. I consider the notion that western nations to be softer on accepting losses to be riddled with flaws. History has shown time and time again for the last 700-800 years that europeans and americans will bear savage human losses once they commit to the final solution of conflict resolution. England, France, Germany, Italy to a lesser extent, Spain, the US, the Dutch etc... all have demonstrated an absolute willingness to "bleed to achieve".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top