Military talks, 2010 + Options

[Dangerman]

It's also worth noting that Russia and China seem to have a different doctrine in regards to main battle tanks than most other countries. They have MBTs that are cheaper/less up-to-date such as the T-72/T-80 or the Type-95 which are available in large numbers and then there are newer, more expensive tanks such as the T-90 (as well as its recent variants) or the ZTZ99 which are only given out to the more elite/strategically important units and not available in large numbers. Western countries on the other hand tend to have smaller militaries that only run -one- model as their MBT, i.e. the US only use Abrams tanks instead of, say for example, a few Abrams tanks and many old Pattons nowadays. Chances are that whatever comes out of the Armata project will be treated in a similar way as the T-90.

Though even an T-72 can tale out a Modern NATO MBT if it has a good crew, good ammunition and good officers commanding them. While no where as good as a NATO MBT they are capable in their own right, the conception that they're useless is the performance based upon the Iraqis using them who were hilarously awful in terms of competence (they could barely push into Iran when they faced an officer purge, lost the ability to maintain a majority of their equipment and were mainly consisted of light Infantry who often took on the Iraqis head-on against mechnaized divisions and fortified positions and won) in every right and used super-downgraded T-72s (if this video is true it is a downgrade of a downgrad of a downgrade: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7NVRTlAkx0).

Late edit - Also from the looks of it Russia will be likely replacing all of their MBTs (maybe aside from the T-90) since they're ordering 2300 (source: http://defense-update.com/20120810_russia-...nk-by-2015.html) of them and if Wiki is right that's around the current amount of tanks that they have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equip...nd_Forces#Tanks).

This post has been edited by dangerman1337: 21 Jan 2013, 19:05

[Col._Sandfurz]

As far as I know, T-99 is planed for "mass" production.
The T-95 was kinda testbed for the new unmanned turret.
But I have no idea if the russians will shift away from their current doctrine of "mass MBT" like T-72 etc. and "elite MBT" like the T-90/T80UM1.
At Wikipedia, you can read that T-99 Armata should replace all current tank models, but no one could tanke a look into the future.

@MARS: Afaik the NATO forces do not have huge diffrences in training, but the US "mass MBT" may be the M1A1. Afaik there is quite a gap between this one and the M1A2 or M1A2 SEP (TUSK)
I got this from Wiki:
1,547 M1A2 and M1A2SEP variants
4,393 M1A1 variants
2,000 M1 variants
So you can see that there are far more M1A1..
Thats just an idea that popped in my mind as I read this article.

@dangerman1337:
You are right, but its really unrealistic..
If a T-72 tank crew is trained and equipped well, the chance that the modern day NATO MBT is trained and equipped as good as the T-72 is extremely high.
Chances are aslo good that NATO crews are trained even better (considereing that lot of the T-72's all arround the world are operated by "poor"(in therms of money, not cultural etc.!!!) countries)
But your post shows that NO MBT is invulnerable.. a circumstate that fanboys often forget when talking about their beloved toys

[Dangerman]

The thing is that the T-72 gets a lot of bad rep due to Iraqis who locally manufactured a very crappy version (if the video is true) and were hilarously incompetent in terms of tactics and strategy (then again this applies to most if not all Arabi militaries), heck look at this thread at SB.com and look at IXJac's posts to how bad they were: http://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/ira...ca-1941.114534/). Even though NATO MBTs have highly trained crews with them I meant that a T-72 with a good crew, officers and ammunition (AKA not the Iraqis) is a threat to even a modern MBT, however it would require the T-72 to flank said MBT which is unlikely.

Though still if there's anything I detest more than the "Soviet tanks were/are crap" stuff is the "tanks are useless in modern warfare and light vehicles like Stryker and lighter is all we need", the only reason why that movement has gained traction is because the conception is that Airpower is inherently good against ground forces which is not true since the Serbians were able to heavily negate NATO airpower though decoys and tactics (they did not shot down aircraft much but NATO had to dedicate a signifigant amount of sorties to surpress and take out Serbian AA). A second reason is that Rumsfeld and co wanted to ditch the Powell Doctrine and bum-rush Afghanistan (though to be fair, Afghanistan was fucked up by the Mongols and others way back and the ISAF is doing far better than the Soviets were doing, also some Taliban members are pretty hardcore) and Iraq so he would not deal with the politics of having to amass signifigant ground troops and vehicles to properly secure them (and look what happened during the aftermath). Another is thow media/fiction potray Special Forces to the point were the general public think they're ub3r wanked killing machines.

This post has been edited by dangerman1337: 22 Jan 2013, 12:33

[(USA)Bruce]

Are millatary questions allowed here?

Cause I wanted to know how stealth works in dog fights....

Lets say a squad of F-16s chased down a Nighthawk (Thats quite outdated) or a Raptor

Will they see it on screen?

or what will happen really?

[__CrUsHeR]

It depends on several factors, what is right and that the Nighthawk is not detected by enemy radar because it flies at low altitude which prevents electromagnetic waves 'find' the aircraft beyond its fuselage is made of materials that prevent their detection.

In a dogfight is much more difficult to 'escape' of electromagnetic waves from radar coupled considering the angle at which the waves are issued, if the fuselage is in fact 'bilndada' against waves probably will not be detected.

[Serialkillerwhal...]

there multiple factors.

1: Which way is the stealth plane facing? It's more stealthy from the face and sides and less so from the top and bottom.
2: What radar is being used on the non-stealthy aircraft? (Some Radar is more effective at stealthy target detection)
3: Is the Stealth plane (which it usually is) using only passive radar? (Passive being that it waits for others to make radar waves, it doesn't make any itself)
4: What tech is either side using. (Technology is a massive advantage)
5: Has the stealth jet compromised it's stealth by opening it's doors and dropping some firepower? (At which point everything just goes to the shitter since no plan lives past enemy contact)
6: Is there a AWACS or EW plane on either side? (EW or AWACS can simply brute force the entire fight with much better electronics blinding the other side or giving their side a perfect target.
7: As always. Pilot skill.

[Maxner12]

Dropping by to show the world's possibly largest "sniper rifle" (if you can handle that kickback, you can yourself a man), the Denel NTW 20:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXLRYf9EV2Y
Also, note the music, it somehow makes the video ten times better

[Karpet]

Russia had a whole bunch of T-80, T-72, that kind of stuff, they had a bunch of variants like the awesome T-80UK (yes I have been playing the C&C Cold War Crisis, shut up) and the T-80BV. It's extremely logical to assume that elite crews only had clearance to drive those things (better armor, Shtora or Arena(?) system, ATGM capability).
They did have pretty good AT weapons too (AT-5 fast BRDM, im not entirely sure but it might've been able to penetrate 600m of armor, again, not sure what type. Also BMP-2.)

Oh yeah, there is a current Russian RPG that can penetrate ERA armor and that is the RPG-29.

Also, I noticed that in GTA Ballad of Gay Tony, the police striker really resembles the BRDM. Just look at them picture by picture and you'll see.

[Gecko squid]

Hello I'm new to the forums

[Knjaz.]

As far as I know, T-99 is planed for "mass" production.
The T-95 was kinda testbed for the new unmanned turret.

First, there's no T-95 or T-99.
Object. 195 was not a test bed, it was a prototype undergoing trials, and quite succesfully. The problem is, according to available information, it turned out to be, so to say, a F-22 of a tank world, in all senses. To mass produce that thing, Russian MIC required serious investments (More than 10 billion $, or tens - I don't remember anymore, remember "10" and "billion(s)" were figuring), the cost of the tank itself was also extreme by Russian standards. The prototype costed 400 million roubles. (around 13 million USD). But there're still ones who consider not putting 195 into serial production was a mistake, and they have valid points.

Armata is, basically, a downgraded 195.

But I have no idea if the russians will shift away from their current doctrine of "mass MBT" like T-72 etc. and "elite MBT" like the T-90/T80UM1.
At Wikipedia, you can read that T-99 Armata should replace all current tank models, but no one could tanke a look into the future.

Armata is not a T-99, atm. "T-99" is somebody's imagination, that spread over the internet.
Can't really comment on that part of the doctrine, but latest modifications of T-90's are staying in production for quite, afaik.

What IS certain, is that mobilization capabilities are not going anywhere anytime soon, and that, while taking into account all these guerilla types of war our world had over last decades, when developing different combat vehicles, there's a clear understanding that such wars cannot possibly threaten the existence of the state/nation, unlike the large scale regional or global war with regular armies.

Thus, as an example, Armata, just like Object 195, as one of their requirements have the capability of the crew being able to operate vehicle for 2 days in hostile environment (irradiated, poisoned, contaminated), without leaving it.

This post has been edited by Knjaz.: 29 Oct 2013, 21:51

[__CrUsHeR]

In fact Russia and the USA dominates extraordinary technologies in defense industry; the 21 century has put in evidence the financial capacities of potencies to maintain costly armies, nowadays the major challenge is how to produce something modern, durable, efficient and inexpensive at the same time.

[TheCeLL]

Changing up the topic here...

What do you guys percieve as being the future for NAVAL combat?

Up until World War II, the Battleship was percieved as the dominant naval vessel, but it was superbly outperformed by the Aircraft Carrier.

Now, new missile cruisers seem to be appearing on the battlefield. They launch long range cruise missiles to destroy land and sea targets, and have advanced AA missiles to kill off planes.
Do you think long range missile vessels will replace the aircraft carrier as the mainstay of the fleet?

[Kalga]

Well, somehow I feel that point defense lasers and lots of ECMs will ruin the day of the missile, possibly forcing a new era of battleships (railgun/coilgun equipped of course, with combat distances in the hundreds of kms).

[BliTTzZ]

Point defense lasers are very expensive and ineffective protection against missile attacks. Right now it's not the problem to construct something big and hard hitting thing, it's all about energy source. Developing of weapons based on new physics principles will take a hell of the time, more than a few decades I think.

And what do you mean about modern naval warfare? Right now it's aircraft carriers and naval based cruise and anti-ship missiles. But it only works against countries which are much weaker than their opponent, who have such a strike force. Everything changes when you're facing equivalent opponent. There a few easy ways to engage carrier battle groups - and it's also effective and cheap, like: massive long range anti-ship missile attacks, torpedo attacks, even tactical nuclear weapons.

[MARS]

Changing up the topic here...

What do you guys percieve as being the future for NAVAL combat?

Up until World War II, the Battleship was percieved as the dominant naval vessel, but it was superbly outperformed by the Aircraft Carrier.

Now, new missile cruisers seem to be appearing on the battlefield. They launch long range cruise missiles to destroy land and sea targets, and have advanced AA missiles to kill off planes.
Do you think long range missile vessels will replace the aircraft carrier as the mainstay of the fleet?

Navies will most likely be the first to adopt high-powered lasers and railguns at some point since their enormous power consumption becomes less of an issue for something that's big enough to be powered by a nuclear reactor. Having a ship that serves as a mobile airfield is a very distinct role that will most likely remain relevant in the future as well, so carriers are here to stay. The really interesting question however is whether they're gonna remain the way they are. A super-carrier is essentially a massive sitting target with little defensive capabilities of its own, so it always requires support from other ships. Conventional wisdom would suggest that the carrier itself suffers the same problems as the battleships of WW2 and the only reasons why they haven't evolved into something else yet is a.) their unique role and b.) the fact that nobody's managed to sink one ever since the end of WW2. A lack of credible danger and misguided naval traditionalism will stymie innovation in that regard right until the day the unthinkable happens and a super-carrier gets knocked open via a suicide attack, tac nuke, ballistic missile or Macross Missile Massacre.

Personally, I'd still like to see a small submersible carrier that uses drones in the unspecified future. Beyond that, I can definitely see something like the old battleships in spirit (i.e. armed with long range cannons), but in a smaller, less stationary package and armed with railguns, which would have extreme range and fire ballistic shells that are practically impossible to spoof or intercept. Incidentally, railgun-type projectiles wouldn't even require any sort of explosive payload since their kinetic energy is powerful enough, which allows for much smaller, easy to store and inert ammunition; you can carry more of it and it can't blow up inside your own vessel.

[Svea Rike]

I'm just hoping someone will build the Helicarrier.

[__CrUsHeR]

I'm just hoping someone will build the Helicarrier.

Already exist, the French Navy's Mistral-class is an example: carrying a battalion of light armored vehicles and up to 36 helicopters.

[Svea Rike]

Already exist, the French Navy's Mistral-class is an example: carrying a battalion of light armored vehicles and up to 36 helicopters.

No, no, no, this Helicarrier:

[__CrUsHeR]

No, no, no, this Helicarrier:

Oh, you referred to as the S.H.I.E.L.D.'s Helicarrier... It would be very costly however much more efficient, maybe in the future be developed something based on a airship.

Speaking of airships Russia is designing an anti-air, anti-missile based airships - seems to be a promising idea for the future.

[The_Hunter]

Also that ship would likely never fly in that current shape.

The turbines would probably have to be twice (likely more) the size than the ones shown there to get that thing airborne.
Not to mention how they would be a major vulnerbility point.

You litterly only need to fire one missile up one of the turbines and the whole thing will crash and burn.

[The General]

I think that in navy it will remain on submarines. Ships and carriers at this point can easily be sunk even by those without a navy, by a long-range anti-ship missile that can be launched from land.

As far as lasers are concerned, they are expensive and ineffective. Lasers can be used to mark the target, but i don't see them being able to destroy it any time soon. They'll need a whole lot of energy just to be able to point in the distance, and it's a huge question if they will ever be able to save enough to actualy destroy it instantly.

About naval drones, they are easily destroyed too. Just destroy the mothership, and the rest is taken care of.

Navy defense is also fairly weak, which is why i think the future of it is under water.

[Svea Rike]

You litterly only need to fire one missile up one of the turbines and the whole thing will crash and burn.

Not even a missile, just one explosive arrow.

[The General]

No, no, no, this Helicarrier:

That just doesn't make sense.
Why would anyone spend a lot of money to build a giant flying airplane carrier which is a huge target, when they can make airplanes for half of humanity with that money. I'm afraid to think how much money you'd need just to build and lift one of those, not to mention maintaining it.

[The General]

Not even a missile, just one explosive arrow.

Toss a rock in the propeller and you're done.

[Svea Rike]

That just doesn't make sense.
Why would anyone spend a lot of money to build a giant flying airplane carrier which is a huge target, when they can make airplanes for half of humanity with that money. I'm afraid to think how much money you'd need just to build and lift one of those, not to mention maintaining it.

It gets even worse in Captain America: The Winter Soldier where they apparently build an entire fleet of these things.
I don't want this to turn into a comic book argument.

This post has been edited by Svea Rike Soldier: 25 Mar 2014, 13:14