First flight for the Russian "F-22"

[Anodizer]

The are only 2 things that concern Russia: remaining "White" and being the largest energy producer in their sphere of influence..  And they would be better allies than most of you think..

[321BAR]

I don't think so. We're no longer in the '80s. The Euro air forces alone are a match for the Russians. Add the USAF/USN and the Russians don't stand a chance imho. As for ground forces, NATO combined outnumber Russia in tanks and troops, and considering the quality of western tanks it will be a very one sided conflict. A naval conflict with NATO would also be very one sided: 34 carriers versus 1. 392 warships versus 111. 92 nuclear subs versus 40. 68 diesel subs versus 20. Add to the overwhelming NATO numerical advantage, there is also a technological gap.

Yes naval forces would be superior against the Russians but the fact is is that a war in Europe would have NO naval aspect at all... along with the fact that like said above by someone else the US and its allies have superior armor but the Russians outnumber us by 5,000 and along with the fact that if a conflict broke out the Russians would be the first to strike...This means the advantage of surprise, shock, and numbers... NATO is not one country and would most likely need a small amount of time to respond to this assault effectively (being that each country in NATO includes the armed forces that are in each of these countries... These countries aren't in cold war mode anymore with the main front of their forces on the Russian border. They have their National armed forces in their own countries. France, Spain, Italy, England, and even Germany would need time to deploy forces for wartime and move the bulk of their troops (with the problem of nations needing to convey information back and forth together... i dont think this would be a deciding factor here but it would most likely hinder the movement of troops and weapons to the front 500 miles away up to thousands of miles and a channel... This means the Russians would most likely be able to rush Poland in a few days at the most due to the unreadiness of forces in poland and could possibly be in Germany and Austria in a week... By then the NATO forces would finally have a defensive line set and a counteroffensive ready thereby creating the stalemate. US would need MUCH more time to respond and move the most of its forces that are actually still in country or overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan to the European front or a 2nd front that would most likely be denied by China, North Korea and Middle Eastern countries which would either be neutral or by then enemy... China... now lets not get started with that ok? I mean Russia isn't Soviet anymore but i doubt the Chinese and Russians don't have friendly ties. And if the world is mobilized by war, China has a huge chance of expansion and the possibilities they could create with more territory... There is also the problem of the Chinese having the world's largest military... 2.8 MILLION armed military members at the moment at the LEAST... When Russia could not hold the NATO/American forces off they would ask for Chinese aid... Imagine the problems this would cause for us... With its close neighbors, Japan and S. Korea could fall or be subdued VERY quickly...

[Die Hard]

You're missing a few points... First, China and the USSR almost went to war in the 1960s. It went so far that they started mobilizing forces on the Sino-Russian border. Second, the Russians do not outnumber NATO in tanks. Look at the numbers again: NATO: 22,977 tanks, Russia: 22,800 tanks. NATO completely dominates in air power with 7,095 warplanes versus the Russians' 2,295. Third, the Russians are unlikely to achieve a surprise attack in todays world of satellite intelligence. Fourth, There are many neutral European countries with substantial armed forces that also would resist a Russian invasion. Fifth, Russia no longer shares a border with Poland. To attack western Europe Russia would need to advance trough Belarus, the Baltic states, and/or Ukraine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_split

[Penguin]

Best thread ever!

Tomcats forever, baby!

Mace, you're my Hero! The Tomcat has been my favourite bird since day one.

I agree, there's something in the design that says: "I'm the biggest, baddest, toughest kid on the block, just you try and mess with me"

The Hornet says: "I'm a nerd with a PDA, perpare to have your e-mail hacked!"  It's really missing that machismo that a true fighter like the Tomcat or P-51D has.

-Penguin

[Penguin]

You're missing a few points... First, China and the USSR almost went to war in the 1960s. It went so far that they started mobilizing forces on the Sino-Russian border. Second, the Russians do not outnumber NATO in tanks. Look at the numbers again: NATO: 22,977 tanks, Russia: 22,800 tanks. NATO completely dominates in air power with 7,095 warplanes versus the Russians' 2,295. Third, the Russians are unlikely to achieve a surprise attack in todays world of satellite intelligence. Fourth, There are many neutral European countries with substantial armed forces that also would resist a Russian invasion. Fifth, Russia no longer shares a border with Poland. To attack western Europe Russia would need to advance trough Belarus, the Baltic states, and/or Ukraine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_split


(Image removed from quote.)

NATO only has 177 more tanks.   

-Penguin

P.S. (Don't forget to subtract the warplanes and tanks owned by the French  )

[Plawranc]

My view is of the fact that Russia has still got a hold over Ukraine and Belarus like they do over Georgia, NATO will not dare twitch in their defence if Russia moves in as they are not members of NATO anyway.

China is on better terms with Russia now, they did almost go to war in 1960 but now they have signed a kind of alliance. Now any major war involving the US or Russia is inevitably bring in China sooner or later.

[Die Hard]

NATO only has 177 more tanks.   

Yes. However, the weight and technology gap is substantial. NATO tanks are both heavier and more advanced than their Russian counterparts. One NATO tank is probably worth 3-5 (if not more) Russian tanks on the battlefield. The Russian army has only 6,500 active tanks with the rest in reserve. The operational tanks are mostly T-72s and T-80s with a few T-90s. The reserves are mostly T-72s, T-64s, T-62s and even some T-55s.

[321BAR]

You're missing a few points... First, China and the USSR almost went to war in the 1960s. It went so far that they started mobilizing forces on the Sino-Russian border. Second, the Russians do not outnumber NATO in tanks. Look at the numbers again: NATO: 22,977 tanks, Russia: 22,800 tanks. NATO completely dominates in air power with 7,095 warplanes versus the Russians' 2,295. Third, the Russians are unlikely to achieve a surprise attack in todays world of satellite intelligence. Fourth, There are many neutral European countries with substantial armed forces that also would resist a Russian invasion. Fifth, Russia no longer shares a border with Poland. To attack western Europe Russia would need to advance trough Belarus, the Baltic states, and/or Ukraine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_split


(Image removed from quote.)

Die Hard you're including the United States in the NATO stats. 2nd, yes Belarus, the Baltics, and Ukraine border Russia but do you really think they will be able to stop a Russian invasion? 2nd: these neutral european countries would most likely not want a war with a major power, Russian/European treaties would stop them from going to war along with the fact that MANY European once Eastern Bloc countries still actually have some positive ties to Russia (albeit that there are also many negatives). Therefore Russia could easily attack Europe unopposed at the start. Yes satellite intelligence would be able to stop this but do you really think there aren't people in each country with the hacking ability to mess with these imagery satellites enough to show a false image of what is happening? If Russia had a fast battle plan to move the majority of its forces in a small time allocation they could invade with surprise effect or at least a shock effect on other countries... Do you really think China would back out of an opportunity such as world war? Yes Russia and China would not be on perfect terms but the Chinese could benefit very well on a Chinese Russian win in a world war...

Edit: If you really think Russians are actually showing their real armaments to the world then I'm the king of England... This T-95 no doubt is actually in service already. And also the only reason the NATO tanks are superior to Russia's is due to the composite armor. I doubt Russia hasn't tried to replicate this armor and have it in use at the moment... It's like saying that China has 2.8 million military members. This is only the lowest speculative amount of manpower in the chinese army... It could probably amount to 3-5million... Same with russia, they may be showing us what they want us to see... this T95 is either going to be equipped with a 135 or 155mm Main gun, This main gun could easily penetrate an M1, Chieftan, or a Leopard 2. By the way, these ARE THE ONLY countries with composite armor main battle tanks... They are not sharing these specifications with any other country...

[Die Hard]

1. The USA is a NATO member nation. 2. No they won't stop the Russians, but the Russian invasion will hardly be a surprise to NATO after they've invaded these countries. 3. Most of the neutral European countries likely won't have a choice but to fight. They certainly didn't in the last two wars. 4. No I don't think anyone has the capability to hack the satellite intelligence capabilities of all NATO nations, or even one of them. 5. China will do what is best for China. Exactly what that is I don't know, but going to war with its two largest markets is not it, I think.

Your edit: Yes I think the Russians are desperate to show off their new capabilities and thus remain relevant in world politics. That's why they're showing off their newest prototype fighter. That's why this thread exists.

NATO tanks are consistently heavier than Russian tanks. Russian tanks are at or around 40 tons. NATO tanks are at or around 60 tons. A 50% weight advantage.

I'm sure the Chinese can mobilize far more than 3-5 million men if they wanted to. I wouldn't think 100 million men under arms would be impossible for them if they made the effort. However, quality is again an issue, and how would 100 million men move half-way around the world to Europe? Walk across the Eurasian landmass? If China decided to support a Russian invasion the war would be over before they got there. And when they do get there they would be under constant interdiction from NATO air power, to say nothing of their supply lines.

Composite armor is used on the following NATO and European tanks:

US' M1 Abrams




UK's Challenger I and II




Germany's Leopard II. Other NATO nations fielding the Leo II: Canada, Denmark, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey. In addition these neutral European countries operate the Leo II:  Austria, Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland.





France's Leclerc




Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia's M-84




Italy's Ariete

[321BAR]

1. The USA is a NATO member nation. 2. No they won't stop the Russians, but the Russian invasion will hardly be a surprise to NATO after they've invaded these countries. 3. Most of the neutral European countries likely won't have a choice but to fight. They certainly didn't in the last two wars. 4. No I don't think anyone has the capability to hack the satellite intelligence capabilities of all NATO nations, or even one of them. 5. China will do what is best for China. Exactly what that is I don't know, but going to war with its two largest markets is not it, I think.

Your edit: Yes I think the Russians are desperate to show off their new capabilities and thus remain relevant in world politics. That's why they're showing off their newest prototype fighter. That's why this thread exists.

NATO tanks are consistently heavier than Russian tanks. Russian tanks are at or around 40 tons. NATO tanks are at or around 60 tons. A 50% weight advantage.

I'm sure the Chinese can mobilize far more than 3-5 million men if they wanted to. I wouldn't think 100 million men under arms would be impossible for them if they made the effort. However, quality is again an issue, and how would 100 million men move half-way around the world to Europe? Walk across the Eurasian landmass? If China decided to support a Russian invasion the war would be over before they got there. And when they do get there they would be under constant interdiction from NATO air power, to say nothing of their supply lines.

#1: already said US was NATO BUT, it would take weeks for us to move a sizeable force to Europe... I doubt the war would be over before China could be involved (world's largest industrial nation pumping at wartime...hmm....) they could pump out a whole new army's worth of equipment before the war was over... and it would not take them long to deploy it either. Neutral countries would be allowed to stay out due to neutrality and treaties with russia AND the NATO forces...
Your response to my edit: But don't you think the russians would show us a "prototype" jet that is actually already produced and used in mass? Seeing as how we try to do the same all the time? The F22 was leaked to the press and that is why the public knew of it, same with the F35... the US government couldnt keep the secret anymore. What if this prototype is actually literally the prototype model flown in tests say about 10 years ago?
    Russian T90s and new T95s could serve as an easy match to NATO MBTS with the size of the guns and the new tech on the Russian tanks

[KgB]

............And also the only reason the NATO tanks are superior to Russia's is due to the composite armor............

Russian tanks use reactive  instead of composite armor, and few other pretty cool features.
Missile Jammers, able to shoot guided missiles through main gun, don't need to be refuelled every 4 hours or so.... Battles would be very bloody:)


 

[321BAR]

Russian tanks use reactive  instead of composite armor, and few other pretty cool features.
Missile Jammers, able to shoot guided missiles through main gun, don't need to be refuelled every 4 hours or so.... Battles would be very bloody:)


 

more info to back my argument! ty

[Die Hard]

Again you assume the Russians can achieve complete surprise with their attack. This is all but impossible today. Only a fraction of the Russian forces are mobilized in peacetime; if the Russian mobilize their forces so will NATO. America already have forces in Europe and mobilization storage of equipment and munitions (including nukes). The USAF operate from seven main bases in Europe as we speak: RAF Lakenheath and Mildenhall in England; Ramstein and Spangdahlem Air Bases in Germany, Aviano Air Base in Italy, Lajes Air Base in the Azores, and Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. The rest of the USAF could mobilize there in days.

"But don't you think the russians would show us a "prototype" jet that is actually already produced and used in mass? Seeing as how we try to do the same all the time? The F22 was leaked to the press and that is why the public knew of it, same with the F35... the US government couldnt keep the secret anymore. What if this prototype is actually literally the prototype model flown in tests say about 10 years ago? "

No, I don't think that is at all realistic.

The T-95 tank has suffered from several delays and its status is unknown. Large scale production has certainly not commenced yet. It may even have been canceled. In any case, you cannot train a new tank army today without it being observed.

"Russian tanks use reactive  instead of composite armor..."

Reactive armor is ineffective against kinetic penetrators like the APFSDS(DU) rounds used by NATO tanks. Reactive armor only works against HEAT and other explosive rounds/missiles.

[Tango]

I think alot more can be said about who has the better planes, tanks, ships, etc. by just looking at how well they have stood up in combat. Anyone can sit down and talk about how good something will be when its on the drawing board, but in real combat is were it will shine or burn.

[321BAR]

Again you assume the Russians can achieve complete surprise with their attack. This is all but impossible today. Only a fraction of the Russian forces are mobilized in peacetime; if the Russian mobilize their forces so will NATO. America already have forces in Europe and mobilization storage of equipment and munitions (including nukes). The USAF operate from seven main bases in Europe as we speak: RAF Lakenheath and Mildenhall in England; Ramstein and Spangdahlem Air Bases in Germany, Aviano Air Base in Italy, Lajes Air Base in the Azores, and Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. The rest of the USAF could mobilize there in days.

"But don't you think the russians would show us a "prototype" jet that is actually already produced and used in mass? Seeing as how we try to do the same all the time? The F22 was leaked to the press and that is why the public knew of it, same with the F35... the US government couldnt keep the secret anymore. What if this prototype is actually literally the prototype model flown in tests say about 10 years ago? "

No, I don't think that is at all realistic.

The T-95 tank has suffered from several delays and it's status is unknown. Large scale production has certainly not commenced yet. It may even have been canceled. In any case, you cannot train a new tank army today without it being observed.

"Russian tanks use reactive  instead of composite armor..."

Reactive armor is ineffective against kinetic penetrators like the APFSDS(DU) rounds used by NATO tanks. Reactive armor only works against HEAT and other explosive rounds/missiles.

i actually havent said anything about complete surprise, just a level of surprise to give russian advantage sir.
It is realistic though because the American armed forces have done it in the past and always will sir... they hide the big juicy stuff so other countries cant copy it.