OT? A New Cold War

[Targan]

It's just a matter of time before US aircraft making strikes against ISIS and Russian aircraft protecting Assad end up in a tangle, with losses on both sides. Things could spiral out of control from there if our leaders aren't careful.

I'm sure the Royal Australian Air Force is very worried about the possibility of Aussie Super Hornets ending up tangling with Russian Su-30s. That would likely end with very poor outcomes for the Super Hornets. Let's hope the F-22s flying overwatch can keep the Russian fighters at bay.

[Adm.Lee]

And now we hear that the Russian Su-30s have wandered into Turkish airspace not once, but twice, over the weekend. Not a good time or place to have "navigation errors", comrade.

[aspqrz]

I'm sure the Royal Australian Air Force is very worried about the possibility of Aussie Super Hornets ending up tangling with Russian Su-30s. That would likely end with very poor outcomes for the Super Hornets. Let's hope the F-22s flying overwatch can keep the Russian fighters at bay.

As has often been shown, historically, it is not so much the plane as the pilot.

Super Hornets flown by Aussie pilots with extensive flight hours of training vs. Su-30's flown by third world pilots with limited flight hours of training

Bet on the Aussies.

(Remember the story in an old S&T of the Saudi F-4 [IIRC] Pilot, fully trained mind, who took off and who couldn't find/remember how to lower the gear for landing So he ejected! His argument, 'The ground belongs to the King, the sky to Allah' ... so maybe he didn't get any more flying assignments, but he wouldn't have lasted long against the Israelis!)

Planes are expensive, training ... flight hours ... more so. And they come from two different pots of money. Most third world countries find the pot of money to buy the sexy new weapons system(s) but don't have the pot to fund their maintenance or training the guys in uniform to use it.

(Yes, First World countries can be as bad in many ways, but they have bigger pots of money to begin with)

And, of course, while Australia has the techs (and probably the spares) to keep those Hornets flying, does the TPLAC*

* 'Tin Pot Little Asian Country', with apologies to Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Now, against the Russians, the evidence is that Russian pilots have fewer flight training hours than their western equivalents, though more than your typical third world pilot ... though ISTR reading somewhere recently that flight hours for most Russian AF units had been cut to the bone, less than 25 hours a year, but that was before the Ukrainian invasion, so maybe they've upped it.

And, of course, Russian tech is not as easily maintainable or as reliable as western tech and, unless things have changed dramatically, they don't have the Technicians on the ground to maintain the same sort of tempo that western air forces can. Especially over the long term.

All that would, of course, apply as much in a Twilight war situation as in real life.

Phil

[unkated]

Now, against the Russians, the evidence is that Russian pilots have fewer flight training hours than their western equivalents, though more than your typical third world pilot ... though ISTR reading somewhere recently that flight hours for most Russian AF units had been cut to the bone, less than 25 hours a year, but that was before the Ukrainian invasion, so maybe they've upped it.

And, of course, Russian tech is not as easily maintainable or as reliable as western tech and, unless things have changed dramatically, they don't have the Technicians on the ground to maintain the same sort of tempo that western air forces can. Especially over the long term.

While i agree with most of what Phil said, I have to disagree on a couple of points:

1. Starting about 5-6 years ago, the Russian air force picked up its pace of training. While still well behind their most of their NATO counterparts, they are improved over the rates of flying in the 1990s and early 2000s.
   
2. Russian equipment is easier to maintain than most western equipment, designed to be maintained by less sophisticated technical crews. Accordingly it has rather high reliability. While they generally lag behind leading western designs, the Su-30 is a breakthrough design. OTOH, its electronics is still a couple steps behind western military electronics.

While i doubt Australian or other Western pilots have much to fear from Su-30s, I do worry that a tangle of Western and Russian aircraft over Syria can make a tangled situation much worse.

Uncle Ted

[RN7]

Starting about 5-6 years ago, the Russian air force picked up its pace of training. While still well behind their most of their NATO counterparts, they are improved over the rates of flying in the 1990s and early 2000s.

They need to improve a bit more.

2014
Israel: not stated but probably between 200-300 hours a year
USA: 260 hours a year (USAF-bombers)
USA: 248 hours a year (US Marine/Navy fighter-attack aircraft)
Britain: 210-240 hours a year (fighter-attack aircraft)
France: 180 hours a year (fighter-attack aircraft)
India: 180 hours a year (fighter-attack aircraft)
Italy: 180 hours a year (fighter-attack aircraft)
Australia: 175 hours a year (fighter-attack aircraft)
USA: 160-190 hours a year (USAF fighter-attack aircraft)
Japan: 150 hours a year (fighter-attack aircraft)
Germany: 140 hours a year (+ 40 hours simulators) (fighter-attack aircraft)
China: 100-150 hours a year (fighter-attack aircraft)
Russia: 60-100 hours a year (fighter-attack aircraft)

Russian equipment is easier to maintain than most western equipment, designed to be maintained by less sophisticated technical crews. Accordingly it has rather high reliability. While they generally lag behind leading western designs, the Su-30 is a breakthrough design. OTOH, its electronics is still a couple steps behind western military electronics.

Maybe what they export but the version of the equipment that goes only to the Russian Air Force is more sophisticated and less easy to maintain. Russian radars and AAM are also very advanced.

[aspqrz]

While i agree with most of what Phil said, I have to disagree on a couple of points:

1. Russian equipment is easier to maintain than most western equipment, designed to be maintained by less sophisticated technical crews. Accordingly it has rather high reliability. While they generally lag behind leading western designs, the Su-30 is a breakthrough design. OTOH, its electronics is still a couple steps behind western military electronics.

While i doubt Australian or other Western pilots have much to fear from Su-30s, I do worry that a tangle of Western and Russian aircraft over Syria can make a tangled situation much worse.

Uncle Ted

Unless things have dramatically changed with Russian military tech, and as far as I am aware they have not, 'simpler' does not necessarily mean 'reliable' ... unless we're talking AKs or the like.

Anything sophisticated (like electronics, or jet aircraft ... hell, even tanks) the Russians field is generally far far less reliable than similar western equipment. Of course, it's usually cheaper, relatively, too, so they can field more of ... whatever ... and that means they can have many more of them in the field and hope to match the smaller numbers of western equivalents despite their r/s reliability.

And they have fewer techs to maintain and repair the stuff, and what they have are kept at higher organisation levels.

I guess they can keep the forces in Syria going, for a while, probably by cannibalising personnel and parts from all over Russia and shipping it there, but, even then I think the strain of doing so will soon become evident.

I'd hazard a guess their sortie rate will drop over time, and not because they are successful in wiping out IS, but simply because they won't be able to maintain it ...

In a real 3WW back in the day Depends on how long it lasts. Short term They might swamp the western allies, medium and longer Probably not.

Now With everyone drawn down dramatically, the relative balance of forces would be much the same ... so the Russians would be aiming for a quick victory and wouldn't be able to sustain their forces for long. Again, they might swamp the western allies, but probably not.

YMMV ... and, hey, it's not as if Putin's military are putting their maintenance and reliability data out there for everyone to see.

(However, the breakdown of that new AFV/APC in Red Square might be indicative that things may have become worse, not better ... the Moscow Divisions were always mostly for show, doing nothing but preparing for parades such as that ... and making sure there were no embarrassing breakdowns!)

Phil McGregor

[Raellus]

In Defense of the Russian Army

A few of you might find this old thread interesting.

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.phpt=897

A lot of the arguments both for and against the Soviet military still hold true today for its Russian Federation equivalents.

Although a direct clash between U.S./NATO and Russians forces in/near Syria is unlikely, the potential for a clash between Russian and NATO weapons systems in/near Syria is a real possibility- for example, if the Syrian rebels get lucky and down a low-flying Russian Hind gunship with an American-made TOW ATGM, I'm sure Russia will have something to say. In effect, we could soon be looking at a sort of low-boil proxy war between Russia and the West in Syria.

[RN7]

In regard to the intervention in Syria by Russia I think we can expect the Russians to be around for a while. There has been some discussion about the relative strengths and limitations of Russian technology and training standards, but there has been little discussion about their capabilities.

The Russian Air Force has capabilities at its disposal that no European or Middle Eastern air force can match. Russian long ranged bomber, ground attack, ISR, AWAC and logistics capability are far superior to any European air force, while Russia's fighter force is BVR (beyond visual range) specialised due to a heavy emphasis on Flanker derivatives. Whatever the training standards of the Russian Air Force are we can be certain that BVR specialised air regiments receive the best of their training, and BVR is exactly the type of air superiority that will be fought over the sky's of the Middle East.

Russian AESA radar, sensors and air-to-air and anti-surface missiles that are used only by the Russian Air Force are very capable, while Russian land based air defence systems are exceptionally dangerous. In the Middle Eastern Theatre the Russian Air Force would only fear Israeli involvement, and that is precisely the reason it informed Israel in advance of its attacks on anti-Assad forces in Syria. There is little prospect of NATO getting directly involved unless Turkish and Greek security is threatened by Russian aircraft, and European NATO air forces with the exception of perhaps the British will be outclassed by the Russian Air Force.

The USAF and other US forces can certainly match any Russian capability and they in fact exceed them, but don't expect America to be doing much while Obama is still in the Whitehouse. In fact the fact that Obama is still president is probably the reason that Putin has sent Russian forces to Syria.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

In regard to the intervention in Syria by Russia I think we can expect the Russians to be around for a while. There has been some discussion about the relative strengths and limitations of Russian technology and training standards, but there has been little discussion about their capabilities.

The Russian Air Force has capabilities at its disposal that no European or Middle Eastern air force can match. Russian long ranged bomber, ground attack, ISR, AWAC and logistics capability are far superior to any European air force, while Russia's fighter force is BVR (beyond visual range) specialised due to a heavy emphasis on Flanker derivatives. Whatever the training standards of the Russian Air Force are we can be certain that BVR specialised air regiments receive the best of their training, and BVR is exactly the type of air superiority that will be fought over the sky's of the Middle East.

Russian AESA radar, sensors and air-to-air and anti-surface missiles that are used only by the Russian Air Force are very capable, while Russian land based air defence systems are exceptionally dangerous. In the Middle Eastern Theatre the Russian Air Force would only fear Israeli involvement, and that is precisely the reason it informed Israel in advance of its attacks on anti-Assad forces in Syria. There is little prospect of NATO getting directly involved unless Turkish and Greek security is threatened by Russian aircraft, and European NATO air forces with the exception of perhaps the British will be outclassed by the Russian Air Force.

The USAF and other US forces can certainly match any Russian capability and they in fact exceed them, but don't expect America to be doing much while Obama is still in the Whitehouse. In fact the fact that Obama is still president is probably the reason that Putin has sent Russian forces to Syria.

I'm trying my best not to get too political here but I admit to some I might be getting close. I'll just say that under the current leadership we (The US in particular, NATO in general), we do not have the will or the "oomph" to counter Russia here. Despite cuts, we still have good equipment and people but without the leadership and where that leadership should be wise enough to let the generals take the lead, we cannot do much, nor should we at this point. To start something now will end up in a huge mess. The best we can do is hold the line although I'm dubious on that for now. If this was 1983 or so, we would have the will to show strength here, we do not now.

[CDAT]

I'm trying my best not to get too political here but I admit to some I might be getting close. I'll just say that under the current leadership we (The US in particular, NATO in general), we do not have the will or the "oomph" to counter Russia here. Despite cuts, we still have good equipment and people but without the leadership and where that leadership should be wise enough to let the generals take the lead, we cannot do much, nor should we at this point. To start something now will end up in a huge mess. The best we can do is hold the line although I'm dubious on that for now. If this was 1983 or so, we would have the will to show strength here, we do not now.

We would need a complete overhaul of leadership, including all the politicians who were stars on there shoulders. We have very few if any warfighters in the senior ranks.

[Raellus]

I'm kind of curious as to exactly what you guys- Nowhere and CDAT- think the U.S./NATO should be doing to counter Russia, that they currently "lack the political will" to do.

In Europe, various measures are being taken to address Russian militarism/aggression. New basing agreements, more armor and combat air power oriented eastward, and even the possibility of new additions to NATO.

In Syria, what could be done to prevent Russian intervention that wouldn't lead to an armed class between Western and Russian forces

[swaghauler]

I'm kind of curious as to exactly what you guys- Nowhere and CDAT- think the U.S./NATO should be doing to counter Russia, that they currently "lack the political will" to do.

In Europe, various measures are being taken to address Russian militarism/aggression. New basing agreements, more armor and combat air power oriented eastward, and even the possibility of new additions to NATO.

In Syria, what could be done to prevent Russian intervention that wouldn't lead to an armed class between Western and Russian forces

Not exactly on target with "countering Russia" but.... All those African and Syrian refugees could be gathered up and all the males from 18 to 50 could be told; "we will provide food, shelter, and clothing for your family, IF YOU enlist in the new Syrian (or Libyan) People's Army and fight to regain your homeland."
You then train them for 3 or 4 months and set them upon your target list with mortars, man portable AA and AT, as well as Russian pattern small arms. You could have a million men under arms in less than a year. They may be willing to fight in exchange for the health, welfare, and safety of their family members who remain in Europe. This would also give you the time to help you find and eliminate potential terror threats that may be trying to "hide" among the refugees. Anyone who refuses, you just send them home. With NATO providing Air and Heavy Artillery/Armor Support only where needed; The numbers of this "Peoples Army" could prove effective. It will be no more expensive than feeding, housing, and training them in a civilian skill.

[CDAT]

I'm kind of curious as to exactly what you guys- Nowhere and CDAT- think the U.S./NATO should be doing to counter Russia, that they currently "lack the political will" to do.

In Europe, various measures are being taken to address Russian militarism/aggression. New basing agreements, more armor and combat air power oriented eastward, and even the possibility of new additions to NATO.

In Syria, what could be done to prevent Russian intervention that wouldn't lead to an armed class between Western and Russian forces

For me, it is that the senior leadership in the US military are not war fighters. My first deployment (03 ground war) my unit got bounced around from one unit to another. So I got to see lots of rules come down from the top. We were first attached to 1st MEF, and were required to salute all officer even in the field, this lasted tell the Brits complained and it came back down to only salute US military. We got transferred back to the Army and given to the 3rd ID, they got mad at us that we were not using our seat belts, we were barely on the seats sitting sideways weapons out. That way when we got attacked we could react faster, they did not care, they only cared that if we had a rollover we would be safe. In the almost two years of that deployment we had One roll over, we had hundreds of firefights. Later when 3rd ID went home got attached to the 1st AD, they were all about us not having out plastic doors on. All they did was keep us from being able to get in or out quickly, restricted our fields of fire and such. I do not remember who was our higher when we ran into some insurgents setting up an ambush. As we turned the corner they started to run off, we notified command by radio that we would be delaid as we were stopping to take care of this, and very shortly got a call from Command telling us to immediately leave and head back to base, someone else will deal with it. We were escorting combat engineers with there heavy equipment. We had everything we needed to deal with it right then and there but no our Battalion commander was scared someone might get hurt and that would not look good on his OER. I only worked with a few of our allies the Brits who were squared away, the Poles just a bit communication was fun but good guys, and then the super crazy Ausies. Maybe just there SAS are crazy but that is all we worked with and only for about a day. So for me it is not that our allies are not doing there job, it is that our leadership in the US military has failed us. In my admittedly limited experience I would say that most all officers at or above the rank of O-3 Captain are politicians first.

[LT. Ox]

For me, it is that the senior leadership in the US military are not war fighters. My first deployment (03 ground war) my unit got bounced around from one unit to another. So I got to see lots of rules come down from the top. We were first attached to 1st MEF, and were required to salute all officer even in the field, this lasted tell the Brits complained and it came back down to only salute US military. We got transferred back to the Army and given to the 3rd ID, they got mad at us that we were not using our seat belts, we were barely on the seats sitting sideways weapons out. That way when we got attacked we could react faster, they did not care, they only cared that if we had a rollover we would be safe. In the almost two years of that deployment we had One roll over, we had hundreds of firefights. Later when 3rd ID went home got attached to the 1st AD, they were all about us not having out plastic doors on. All they did was keep us from being able to get in or out quickly, restricted our fields of fire and such. I do not remember who was our higher when we ran into some insurgents setting up an ambush. As we turned the corner they started to run off, we notified command by radio that we would be delaid as we were stopping to take care of this, and very shortly got a call from Command telling us to immediately leave and head back to base, someone else will deal with it. We were escorting combat engineers with there heavy equipment. We had everything we needed to deal with it right then and there but no our Battalion commander was scared someone might get hurt and that would not look good on his OER. I only worked with a few of our allies the Brits who were squared away, the Poles just a bit communication was fun but good guys, and then the super crazy Ausies. Maybe just there SAS are crazy but that is all we worked with and only for about a day. So for me it is not that our allies are not doing there job, it is that our leadership in the US military has failed us. In my admittedly limited experience I would say that most all officers at or above the rank of O-3 Captain are politicians first.

I admit we have different history, that being said, Bull!
I was and o-3 and all I had to do to get the 4 was go (getting paid all the time) and finish my degree, was that going to make me a political aspirant
I remember some fours and fives that went on to lead the US in the field, names like Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr.
I know a lot of enlisted and NCO personnel here and it is fun to knock the brass but I take exception to this line as it is a personnel attack against a number of men and women that cannot defend themselves.
Read the Wall and look at the name and find the ranks of all those there.
Im sorry but I am a bit upset.

[CDAT]

I admit we have different history, that being said, Bull!
I was and o-3 and all I had to do to get the 4 was go (getting paid all the time) and finish my degree, was that going to make me a political aspirant
I remember some fours and fives that went on to lead the US in the field, names like Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr.
I know a lot of enlisted and NCO personnel here and it is fun to knock the brass but I take exception to this line as it is a personnel attack against a number of men and women that cannot defend themselves.
Read the Wall and look at the name and find the ranks of all those there.
I'm sorry but I am a bit upset.

I am sorry that you are upset, but that does not change my experience. Are there some good ones out there, yes. But I do not think they stay in, I did not say all I said "I would say that most all officers at or above the rank of O-3 Captain are politicians first". Key word was most. It was not a personnel attack as I did name any specific person, as I do not know who made most of the decisions. However if I felt like it, I could see your reply being an attack. Saying I am doing this for fun, is it fun to see a organization go down the dumps , no. Is it fun to see a organization loose its focus, no. I joined to make things better, to defend my country not to be used for political experiments. I was forced to be my units EEO rep, and at the course for it they covered lots of different "political experiments" and ways that they were changing things to make things fit how they wanted it to be not how it really was. It does not change the fact that for us outside the wire it was bad calls. We did not get a say (not that we should) but at the same time they did not listen to what the boots on the ground were saying. The bean counters are running the shop. Now, even in 2003 the senior leadership is/was very different than in 1991 I do not think that Powell or "Stormin" Norman would make it to were there were today, but that is is a opinion only as we will never know. It is not only officer who this is the case, but in the touchy feely military of today where units spend more time in EEO, Sexual harassment, and such than they do combat training what can you expect. In between my deployment in 2003-4 and 2008-9 I never saw my weapon, we did no firearms training. Now one year of that was when I reclassed to EOD (2005). That is very different than when I joined and we were in the field every month. Over my time in I saw them move away from training for war to more of the touchy feely stuff.