Possible war between USA and Russia/China

U.S can attack Russia in 2012 to 2015 says russian military analyst

After 2012-2015, the U.S. will be able to annihilate Russian strategic nuclear forces by a non-nuclear preemptive strike, said Konstantin Sivkov, the first vice president of the Russian Academy of Geopolitical Problems.
« declare that the likelihood of a military threat is great as never before now,» Sivkov told Interfax on Saturday.
Western military experts have recently started to talk about the possibility of attacking Russia and annexing its territory, Sivkov said. ‘Russia is supposed to be dismembered into three parts, with the Western part going to the European Union, the central part and Siberia to the US, and the eastern to China. This is a rough scenario,’ he said.
Russian armed forces will be unable to successfully counter an aggression, Sivkov said. «At the present time, the conventional armed forces cannot properly perform their duties in a regional war, like the Great Patriotic War, even in theory. Even if fully deployed, their potential is limited even in local wars. The only factor that deters [the US] now is the nuclear arsenal,» he said.

Future of Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces

The clock is ticking on Russia’s ability to defend itself. We are about to enter a very dangerous period.
Did you know that World War I was a preemptive war? Germany started this war because Russia and France were making technological advances that would put Germany in danger in the future.
Doesn’t this kind of sound like where we are today?

After 2015 Russia is going to have an increasingly difficult time defending against an America nuclear strike. This is due to the advancing U.S. capability to destroy Russian nuclear forces on the ground, during the boost phase or immediately after separation from their carriers.

Honestly don't think that they'll ever do so...

The US went to pieces with an attack that killed less than 3 thousand people.
It was incompetent in its reaction to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.
I rather think even one SS-18 launched at the US with 10 warheads hitting 10 separate cities would be enough to change the US completely as we know it.

Economically, the damage to the US would be more than all of Siberia would be worth to them... and of course I really can't see them letting the European Union have all the western developed portion of Russia... and I would think Japan would also want its share too.

This is an article written to remind the Russian government that spending on the air force and the navy is nice but spend money on the Army and the strategic missile forces too.

The reality is that all parts of the Russian military need funding and when they are operating to a better potential the Russian Navy and the Russian Air Force will make the Russian Army much more capable than it has ever been... simply because a modern Army that works with its Navy and Air Force has a lot more reach and hitting power than one that basically works alone and does not expect support from the air or sea.

Well, Its a different war we're fighting today, possibility of US atacking Russia will be there, its the question of how prepared they are to fight a modern military (which only happened in WW2)... Russia has Thousands of nuclear warheads, I don't think they will be able to destroy all of them, Like Gary said, even if one missile makes it to US (and there will be way more than just one) consequences will be catastrophic... I'm Sure invasion fleet could be detected, and could receive a lot of damage with cruise and antiship missiles, even before they hit the shore... As for Europe... I dont think they will be able to go very far in European part of Russia, there are a lot of Russian Troops there...

And to add to that, It will be nearly impossible diplomatically, there is just too much to lose, there will be too many protests around the world as well...

You guys are right, U.S will never attack russia directly, but they will arm their enemy's and conduct proxy wars against them

Yes, supporting Russias internal enemies is much more likely... and continues.

To be totally honest I really doubt the west could attack the Russians simply because of some of the people in the west.

Wikileaks gets most of its information from "spies" in the west and I really don't think they are doing it for money.
I think the spies leaking the info are simply upset at the west for being so two faced and the western media being so ineffectual.
I think the leakers are patriots that see the lies that are being told who believe the patriotic crap from the state department but have access to information about what is really happening and what is actually being said.

It is the hypocrisy of the western politicians and diplomats that makes them want to release this info to expose them for the criminals that they are. Unfortunately the media can't jump on this because they are implicated in it too so the stories die and nothing is done about it.

Sad really... a journalist 20 years ago would have brought down governments with a small fraction of this stuff and the leakers would be heros defending the Truth in the "truth democracy and the american way" values speeches we always get from the west.

Now they are scapegoats and everything is swept under the carpet because everyone did it so no one wants to point the finger.

Anyway, what I am trying to say is that a plot to start a war with Russia would lead to a lot of leakers who simply just want peace and a secure future for their children... which is all most people want right?

Is the US still supporting the chechens, like they did in 90s.

The last thing the US wants is to see Russia fall and give pieces of it to China. China is their new Soviet Union. They always have to look for a bad guy.

Ogannisyan8887 wrote:Is the US still supporting the chechens, like they did in 90s.

I think its mostly arabic countries right now...

Vladimir79 wrote:The last thing the US wants is to see Russia fall and give pieces of it to China. China is their new Soviet Union. They always have to look for a bad guy.

Russia is still No.1 enemy of the US, china No.2 because china still can't make hi-tech weapons or a engine for the matter. But the most important reason why i put china at number two is because their economy is very dependent on the US, thats they buy most their debt to keep the US economy from collapsing because a good US economy also means a good chinese one too. The second US stops buying
their cheap products is the very second their economy collapse's. So the point that I am trying to make is that china is dependent on the US, but Russia on the other hand is not.

^^^His observation is absolutely right. There can never live two gods in harmony

nightcrawler wrote:^^^His observation is absolutely right. There can never live two gods in harmony

Thanks, so yours on world war one.

Actually, most people here view Russia as the subdued bear it seems, Internationally, Russia is not as great of an Empire so to say as us. China on the other hand, has been investing heavily on the places we forgot, this will come to haunt us in a few decades.

IronsightSniper wrote:Actually, most people here view Russia as the subdued bear

Regardless of their views, Russia is far from a subdued bear and the war in 2008 proved that point exactly.

Actually, pretty subdued, e.g. Tu-22 recon shoot down, showed that Russia lacked significant numbers of Intelligence drones, also the GPS blackouts, showed the lack of All-Weather precision bombing, don't get me wrong, Russia is in tip top shape in many things, but Russia isn't as high as China on our threat list because at least Russia doesn't have major economic ambitions in resource rich locals like South America and Africa.

IronsightSniper wrote:Actually, pretty subdued, e.g. Tu-22 recon shoot down, showed that Russia lacked significant numbers of Intelligence drones, also the GPS blackouts, showed the lack of All-Weather precision bombing, don't get me wrong, Russia is in tip top shape in many things, but Russia isn't as high as China on our threat list because at least Russia doesn't have major economic ambitions in resource rich locals like South America and Africa.

Military strength is eluding China

By John Pomfret
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 25, 2010

MOSCOW - The Moscow Machine-Building Enterprise Salyut on the east side of town has put up a massive Soviet-style poster advertising its need for skilled workers. The New Year's party at the Chernyshev plant in a northwest suburb featured ballet dancers twirling on the stage of its Soviet-era Palace of Culture.

The reason for the economic and seasonal cheer is that these factories produce fighter-jet engines for a wealthy and voracious customer: China. After years of trying, Chinese engineers still can't make a reliable engine for a military plane.

The country's demands for weapons systems go much further. Chinese officials last month told Russian Defense Minister Anatoly E. Serdyukov that they may resume buying major Russian weapons systems after a several-year break. On their wish list are the Su-35 fighter, for a planned Chinese aircraft carrier; IL-476 military transport planes; IL-478 air refueling tankers and the S-400 air defense system, according to Russian news reports and weapons experts.

This persistent dependence on Russian arms suppliers demonstrates a central truth about the Chinese military: The bluster about the emergence of a superpower is undermined by national defense industries that can't produce what China needs. Although the United States is making changes in response to China's growing military power, experts and officials believe it will be years, if not decades, before China will be able to produce a much-feared ballistic missile capable of striking a warship or overcome weaknesses that keep it from projecting power far from its shores.

"They've made remarkable progress in the development of their arms industry, but this progress shouldn't be overstated," said Vasily Kashin, a Beijing-based expert on China's defense industry. "They have a long tradition of overestimating their capabilities."

Ruslan Pukhov, the director of the Center for Analysis of Strategic Technologies and an adviser to Russia's ministry of defense, predicted that China would need a decade to perfect a jet engine, among other key weapons technologies. "China is still dependent on us and will stay that way for some time to come," he said.

Indeed, China has ordered scores of engines from the Salyut and Chernyshev factories for three of its new fighters - the J11B, a Chinese knock-off of the Russian Su-27; the J10, which China is believed to have developed with Israeli help; and the FC1, which China modeled on an aborted Soviet design. It also told Russia that it wants a third engine from another factory for the Su-35.

How China's military is modernizing is important for the United States and the world. Apart from the conflict with radical Islamism, the United States views China's growing military strength as the most serious potential threat to U.S. interests around the world.

Speaking in 2009, Liang Guanglie, China's minister of defense, laid out a hugely ambitious plan to modernize the People's Liberation Army, committing China to forging a navy that would push past the islands that ring China's coasts, an air force capable of "a combination of offensive and defensive operations," and rocket forces of both "nuclear and conventional striking power."

The Pentagon, in a report to Congress this year, said that the pace and scale of China's military reform "are broad and sweeping." But, the report noted, "the PLA remains untested in modern combat," thus making transformation difficult to assess.

'Could be sitting ducks'

One area in which China is thought to have made the greatest advances is in its submarines, part of what is now the largest fleet of naval vessels in Asia. In October 2006, a Chinese Song-class diesel-powered attack submarine reportedly shadowed the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier and surfaced undetected four miles from the ship. Although the Pentagon never confirmed the report, it sparked concern that China could threaten the carriers that are at the heart of the U.S. Navy's ability to project power.

China tried to buy Russian nuclear submarines but was rebuffed, so it launched a program to make its own. Over the past two years, it has deployed at least one of a new type of nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarine called the Jin class and it may deploy as many as five more.

The Office of Naval Intelligence said the Jin gives China's navy its first credible second-strike nuclear capability; its missiles have a range of 4,000 miles. But in a report last year, the ONI also noted that the Jin is noisier than nuclear submarines built by the Soviets 30 years ago, leading experts to conclude that it would be detected as soon as it left port.

"There's a tendency to talk about China as a great new military threat that's coming," said Hans M. Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists. But, when it comes to Chinese submarines carrying ballistic missiles, he said, "they could be sitting ducks."

Another problem is that China's submariners don't train very much.

China's entire fleet of 63 subs conducted only a dozen patrols in 2009, according to U.S. Navy data Kristensen obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, about a tenth of the U.S. Navy's pace. In addition, Kristensen said there is no record of a Chinese ballistic-missile sub going out on patrol. "You learn how to use your systems on patrol," he said. "If you don't patrol, how can you fight?"

Anti-ship capabilities

China's missile technology has always been the pointy edge of its spear, ever since Qian Xuesen, the gifted rocket scientist who was kicked out of the United States during the McCarthy period in the 1950s, returned to China.

U.S. government scientists have been impressed by China's capabilities. On Jan. 11, 2007, a Chinese missile traveling at more than four miles a second hit a satellite that was basically a box with three-foot sides, one U.S. government weapons expert said. Over the past several years, China has put into orbit 11 of what are believed to be its first military-only satellites, called Yaogan, which could provide China with the ability to track targets for its rockets.

China is also trying to fashion an anti-ship ballistic missile by taking a short-range rocket, the DF-21, and turning it into what could become an aircraft-carrier killing weapon.

Even though it has yet to be deployed, the system has already sparked changes in the United States. In September, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said China's "investments in anti-ship weaponry and ballistic missiles could threaten America's primary way to project power and help allies in the Pacific - particularly our forward bases and carrier strike groups." The U.S. Navy in 2008 cut the DDG-1000 destroyer program from eight ships to three because the vessels lack a missile-defense capability.

But the challenge for China is that an anti-ship ballistic missile is extremely hard to make. The Russians worked on one for decades and failed. The United States never tried, preferring to rely on cruise missiles and attack submarines to do the job of threatening an opposing navy.

U.S. satellites would detect an ASBM as soon as it was launched, providing a carrier enough warning to move several miles before the missile could reach its target. To hit a moving carrier, a U.S. government weapons specialist said, China's targeting systems would have to be "better than world-class."

Wu Riqiang, who worked for six years at the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation as a missile designer, said that while he could not confirm that such a missile existed, he believed weapons such as these were essentially "political chips," the mere mention of which had already achieved the goal of making U.S. warships think twice about operating near China's shores.

"It's an open question how these missiles will do in a conflict situation," said Wu, who is now studying in the United States. "But the threat - that's what's most important about them."

Morale trouble

The deployment of a naval task force to the Gulf of Aden last year as part of the international operation against pirates was seen as a huge step forward for China. The implication was that China's military doctrine had shifted from defending China's borders to protecting China's interests, which span the globe. But the expeditionary force has also provided a window into weaknesses of the People's Liberation Army, according to a new report by Christopher Yung, a former Pentagon official now at the National Defense University.

China's lack of foreign military bases - it has insisted that it won't station troops abroad - limits its capacity to maintain its ships on long-term missions. A shortage of helicopters - the workhorses of a naval expeditionary force - makes it hard for the ships to operate with one another. China's tiny fleet of replenishment ships - it has only three - doesn't give it enough capacity to do more than one such operation at a time.

China's navy, according to Yung, also has difficulty maintaining a fresh water supply for its sailors. And poor refrigeration on its ships makes it hard to preserve fruit and vegetables, something that makes for griping on board.

"The sailors during the first deployment had a real morale problem," Yung said, adding that following their mission, they were taken on a beach vacation "to get morale back up."

Empowering local commanders, considered key to a successful fighting force, is something that Beijing clearly has yet to embrace. British Royal Navy Commodore Tim Lowe, who commanded the Gulf of Aden operation for the U.S. 5th Fleet up until May, noted that while other navies would send operations officers to multinational meetings to discuss how to fight pirates, China would dispatch a political officer who often lacked expertise. The concept of sharing intelligence among partner countries was also tough for the Chinese to fathom. To the Chinese, he said, "that was an unusual point."

Tension with the Kremlin

China's military relations with Russia reveal further weaknesses. Between 1992 and 2006, the total value of Russia's arms exports to China was $26 billion - almost half of all the weapons Russia sold abroad.

But tensions arose in 2004 over two issues, Russian experts said. Russia was outraged when it discovered that China, which had been licensed to produce the Su-27 fighter jet from Russian kits, had actually copied the plane. China was furious that after it signed a contract for a batch of IL-76 military transport planes it discovered that Russia had no way to make them. After receiving 105 out of a contracted 200 Su-27s, China canceled the deal and weapons negotiations were not held for several years.

Purchases of some items continued - S-300 air defense systems and billions of dollars worth of jet engines. An engine China made for its Su-27 knock-off would routinely conk out after 30 hours whereas the Russian engines would need refurbishing after 400, Russian and Chinese experts said.

"Engine systems are the heart disease of our whole military industry," a Chinese defense publication quoted Wang Tianmin, a military engine designer, as saying in its March issue. "From aircraft production to shipbuilding and the armored vehicles industry, there are no exceptions."

When weapons talks resumed with Russia in 2008, China found the Russians were driving a harder bargain. For one, it wasn't offering to let China produce Russian fighters in China. And in November, the Russians said they would only provide the Su-35 for China's aircraft carrier program if China bought 48 - enough to ensure Russian firms a handsome profit before China's engineers attempted to copy the technology. Russia also announced that the Russian military would buy the S-400 air defense system first and that China could get in line.

"We, too, have learned a few things," said Vladimir Portyakov, a former Russian diplomat twice posted to Beijing.


HMMMM it seems that China is not as super as you think.

Actually, pretty subdued, e.g. Tu-22 recon shoot down,

Actually it was a Tu-22MR, which is rather different from the Tu-22.

The fact that it was shot down simply showed the lack of up to date intell on Georgian forces, and that lack of intell was largely due to the fact that an attack was deemed rather unlikely because the result would be the walkover that it was... who knew saakashvili was that dumb?

showed that Russia lacked significant numbers of Intelligence drones,

But surely according to western media aggressive Russia wanting to go back to the cold war must have done all sorts of preparation to retake its former empire in preparation to continue and take Europe as it has planned for for 65 years or more...

also the GPS blackouts, showed the lack of All-Weather precision bombing,

The Russian Army performed over a dozen precision strikes during that conflict and the Su-25s were very effective.

because at least Russia doesn't have major economic ambitions in resource rich locals like South America and Africa.

Russia has plenty of its own resources... it isn't going after the resource rich, it is going after those with money... which often includes resource rich countries like Venezuela which as you know the US buys oil from.

GarryB wrote:

Actually, pretty subdued, e.g. Tu-22 recon shoot down,

Actually it was a Tu-22MR, which is rather different from the Tu-22.

The fact that it was shot down simply showed the lack of up to date intell on Georgian forces, and that lack of intell was largely due to the fact that an attack was deemed rather unlikely because the result would be the walkover that it was... who knew saakashvili was that dumb?

Notice the recon suffix after Tu-22, which implied it was a variant.

I'd agree with that, but it also showed that Russia lacks UAVs in quantities useful, because otherwise they wouldn't have even sent a Tu-22 over there to do the Intel gathering.

showed that Russia lacked significant numbers of Intelligence drones,

But surely according to western media aggressive Russia wanting to go back to the cold war must have done all sorts of preparation to retake its former empire in preparation to continue and take Europe as it has planned for for 65 years or more...

Nope, Russia just lacked UAVs.

also the GPS blackouts, showed the lack of All-Weather precision bombing,

The Russian Army performed over a dozen precision strikes during that conflict and the Su-25s were very effective.

Su-25s were also shot down due to lack of IFF on MANPADs and other times just shot down by enemy forces. Precision bombing is an umbrella term and can include E/O or Laser guided munitions, but the GPS blackouts prevented Satellite guided munitions which are generally cheaper and equivalent in effectiveness to E/O or Laser guided munitions. Until GLONASS is complete, Russian satellite guided munitions will have to depend on a GPS/GLONASS mix.

because at least Russia doesn't have major economic ambitions in resource rich locals like South America and Africa.

Russia has plenty of its own resources... it isn't going after the resource rich, it is going after those with money... which often includes resource rich countries like Venezuela which as you know the US buys oil from.

Precisely, which means that Russia doesn't have the Imperialistic drive of the Soviet Union so thus they cannot compete with us in the Economic Empire arena, whilst China, is actively investing in rare minerals and other natural resources from Africa and South America. And in the next few decades, the Superpowers will always have to compete for who has the most control of resources, so thus China is a larger threat than Russia to us.

Notice the recon suffix after Tu-22, which implied it was a variant.

The Tu-22 and Tu-22M are completely different aircraft and there were recon versions of both of them.

I'd agree with that, but it also showed that Russia lacks UAVs in quantities useful, because otherwise they wouldn't have even sent a Tu-22 over there to do the Intel gathering.

It was a surprise attack, they used what they had available. They weren't given too many options.

Their problem was a problem the west makes too. They assumed the equipment they were facing was the same equipment they had in service. They did not allow for the fact that some of Georgia's equipment had been upgraded by Ukrainian specialists.

Nope, Russia just lacked UAVs.

The lack of UAVs only had minimal effect on the conflict in terms of loss of life. Their lack of recon assets... whether manned or unmanned was their real problem. Western forces lacked UAVs in Desert Storm... hardly made much of a difference really.
In Kosovo 50+ UAVs were shot down over a period of 2 months during the air campaign yet their effectiveness in dealing with the Serb air defence network was rather low.

Su-25s were also shot down due to lack of IFF on MANPADs and other times just shot down by enemy forces.

And yet to not use them would have actually influenced the results of the conflict more than any uber UAV or multi billion dollar system the US might have used to do it all from the US by remote control.
Just look at the pictures from the conflict... the vast majority show Georgian vehicles abandoned parked in neat rows along the roads... you don't get out of your vehicles and run to escape ground forces... that will only help you escape air power.
If anything it shows those Su-25s were the most powerful tools in the tool box.

Precision bombing is an umbrella term and can include E/O or Laser guided munitions, but the GPS blackouts prevented Satellite guided munitions which are generally cheaper and equivalent in effectiveness to E/O or Laser guided munitions. Until GLONASS is complete, Russian satellite guided munitions will have to depend on a GPS/GLONASS mix.

95% of Russian air to ground munitions in stock in 2008 were unguided dumb weapons and the remaining 5% were not satellite guided.
GLONASS is operational and has been for some time though its accuracy has not been brilliant a satellite guided bomb is not guided purely by satellite signals. It has its own inertial navigation system that receives updates from the aircraft carrier at launch and from satellite during its journey. Take away the satellite signal and it will fly an inertial path to the target anyway.
Brahmos recently received its GLONASS guidance system and the Indians are said to be pleased with its performance.

And lastly a surprise attack is a surprise attack, not a war for oil. It doesn't matter how much each weapon costs in such a small conflict.

Precisely, which means that Russia doesn't have the Imperialistic drive of the Soviet Union so thus they cannot compete with us in the Economic Empire arena, whilst China, is actively investing in rare minerals and other natural resources from Africa and South America.

Nor do they have to push an ideology or agenda and can deal with anyone they wish for the purposes of mutual benefit. They become an alternative to the imperial Americans and the commie Chinese... most of the areas of the world you mention have experience with colonial powers and did not enjoy the experience.
Russia is in a unique position now to retain ties with commie and leftist countries while still able to hold the democracy card.

And in the next few decades, the Superpowers will always have to compete for who has the most control of resources, so thus China is a larger threat than Russia to us.

And where are the Chinese getting this power? Is it licence producing Flankers? Or is it western investment trying to make money with cheap Chinese labour and corrupt government officials.
Any protest about working conditions and a word to the local government official about moving the factory to Mexico and all of a sudden the problem is solved... the trouble makers disappear.
And the west then has the balls to complain about Chinese treatment of dissidents!

Georgian war wasn't like any war Russia was fighting... at first I was thinking, Russia would sustain big losses... but i was proved wrong... I think its mostly due to the skill of soldiers on Russian side... because instead of just conscripts, there were also battle hardened contract soldiers... If you ask me, they did a damn good job... Georgia experienced a lot more losses, and a lot of tanks and other equipment have been captured... Like those nice Land Rovers and Humvees... as for SU-25s... its not very surprising that just one or two of them got shot down... Those things are flying tanks, they can take a lot of punishment. You should ask a question : If it was another airplane, like mig-29...
by the way how many A-10s did USAF lose ?

[quote="GarryB"]

Notice the recon suffix after Tu-22, which implied it was a variant.

The Tu-22 and Tu-22M are completely different aircraft and there were recon versions of both of them.

Forgive the ignorance, but it's not like we're talking about a biplane compared to a jet liner here, they're similar enough to be bundled into one category of Tu-22.

I'd agree with that, but it also showed that Russia lacks UAVs in quantities useful, because otherwise they wouldn't have even sent a Tu-22 over there to do the Intel gathering.

It was a surprise attack, they used what they had available. They weren't given too many options.

Their problem was a problem the west makes too. They assumed the equipment they were facing was the same equipment they had in service. They did not allow for the fact that some of Georgia's equipment had been upgraded by Ukrainian specialists.

Surprise or not, doesn't explain the build up prior to the surprise.

None the less, just because you were surprised doesn't mean you can't send over UAVs, Russia simply lacked any useful quantities of them.

Nope, Russia just lacked UAVs.

The lack of UAVs only had minimal effect on the conflict in terms of loss of life. Their lack of recon assets... whether manned or unmanned was their real problem. Western forces lacked UAVs in Desert Storm... hardly made much of a difference really.
In Kosovo 50+ UAVs were shot down over a period of 2 months during the air campaign yet their effectiveness in dealing with the Serb air defence network was rather low.

A Tu-22 shot down is what I put the e.g. to, it's comparable to having a U-2 or B-1 shot down. That's a lot of tax payer money (and pilot's life) lost for not having UAVs.

Su-25s were also shot down due to lack of IFF on MANPADs and other times just shot down by enemy forces.

And yet to not use them would have actually influenced the results of the conflict more than any uber UAV or multi billion dollar system the US might have used to do it all from the US by remote control.
Just look at the pictures from the conflict... the vast majority show Georgian vehicles abandoned parked in neat rows along the roads... you don't get out of your vehicles and run to escape ground forces... that will only help you escape air power.
If anything it shows those Su-25s were the most powerful tools in the tool box.

I'd happily disagree, the fact that Su-25s couldn't effectively evade from MANPADs and other SAMs with either maneuvers, flares, or jamming, showed either the superiority of Russian SAMs or the inferiority of Russian ECM equipment. There is a big reason why the U.S. spends so much money on "Defense", and a lot of the time it's ensuring the war fighter gets home safely, which is something we can all appreciate.

Precision bombing is an umbrella term and can include E/O or Laser guided munitions, but the GPS blackouts prevented Satellite guided munitions which are generally cheaper and equivalent in effectiveness to E/O or Laser guided munitions. Until GLONASS is complete, Russian satellite guided munitions will have to depend on a GPS/GLONASS mix.

95% of Russian air to ground munitions in stock in 2008 were unguided dumb weapons and the remaining 5% were not satellite guided.
GLONASS is operational and has been for some time though its accuracy has not been brilliant a satellite guided bomb is not guided purely by satellite signals. It has its own inertial navigation system that receives updates from the aircraft carrier at launch and from satellite during its journey. Take away the satellite signal and it will fly an inertial path to the target anyway.
Brahmos recently received its GLONASS guidance system and the Indians are said to be pleased with its performance.

And lastly a surprise attack is a surprise attack, not a war for oil. It doesn't matter how much each weapon costs in such a small conflict.

BrahMos probably uses TVC, a GPS-guided bomb doesn't.

Of course, one would also argue that the war was for Oil, but of course, you'd say something along the lines that the Georgians were the aggressors or something to which I'd counter with why build up so much forces on the border prior to war to which you'd respond with "peacekeeping efforts" to which I'd say, one man's peacekeeping is another man's war for blood." There's a whole debate about this on wikipedia so why I'm pursuing this here is beyond me.

Precisely, which means that Russia doesn't have the Imperialistic drive of the Soviet Union so thus they cannot compete with us in the Economic Empire arena, whilst China, is actively investing in rare minerals and other natural resources from Africa and South America.

Nor do they have to push an ideology or agenda and can deal with anyone they wish for the purposes of mutual benefit. They become an alternative to the imperial Americans and the commie Chinese... most of the areas of the world you mention have experience with colonial powers and did not enjoy the experience.
Russia is in a unique position now to retain ties with commie and leftist countries while still able to hold the democracy card.

Actually, some would argue that with Putin still in power, Russia's imperialistic ambitions only grows. They've been fighting hard to keep their energy monopoly on Europe, which is really one of the only reasons why Europe isn't Russianphobic, once that monopoly goes away, Russia falls back to back up "jobs" of producing other materials or goes back to their position in Europe in the 1700's, as that one backwards country.

And in the next few decades, the Superpowers will always have to compete for who has the most control of resources, so thus China is a larger threat than Russia to us.

And where are the Chinese getting this power? Is it licence producing Flankers? Or is it western investment trying to make money with cheap Chinese labour and corrupt government officials.
Any protest about working conditions and a word to the local government official about moving the factory to Mexico and all of a sudden the problem is solved... the trouble makers disappear.
And the west then has the balls to complain about Chinese treatment of dissidents!

If you know anything about the West, we aren't going to Embargo China just because they're totalitarian assbutts, we're too liberal for that. What we will do is avoid some truths to manipulate a discussion to give the idea that China is an empire, which they really are. The problem will never be fixed, a refresher on the Capitalistic system. There is that 30% of the world's Population, stretching from Alaska to Vladivostok to Tokyo, that owns 80% of the world's wealth. They have to get cheap labor from somewhere, so South America, Africa, China and Indochina are the best candidates. Move jobs to either one and working conditions stay the same. The only difference with China is that they actually have their own Domestic production of resources so we could save on transportation costs of moving our stuff to them to make into usable stuff. However, move jobs out of China and guess what? They'll get more jobs. Let it be from Corporations in Europe, Corporations in Russia, or Corporations in Japan, they will always get jobs. And simply said, we can't unfeed the dragon.

Asides from that, you act like Human rights is something negotiable, "oh, we did this quo pro quo with you so now we can get a free ticket to abuse our dissidents". Nope, human rights are universal, and if it takes balls to defend them then I guess America has a manifest destiny to lead the world.

Georgian war wasn't like any war Russia was fighting... at first I was thinking, Russia would sustain big losses... but i was proved wrong... I think its mostly due to the skill of soldiers on Russian side... because instead of just conscripts, there were also battle hardened contract soldiers...

The surprise aspect of the war meant that a large volume of men in the ranks of the Russian forces used were taken locally from North Ossetia and Chechen units who tended to have a bit of a grudge against the Georgians and were quite keen to get down there and help the South Ossetians.

The Georgian forces on the other hand got their a$$e$ handed to them by the Abkazian forces quite a few times and were keen to attack the weaker South Ossetian forces only.
They had all sorts of new communications gear and top standard western battle management gear, but they simply didn't use it... I am sure stories from the front brought back by retreating forces probably didn't help, but it is clear that the air power was what they feared the most and that was Su-25s.
They lost something like 3 or 4 of which 2-3 were probably blue on blues and there were quite a few other Su-25s that returned to base with their engine nozzles smashed to pieces by a direct hit yet they still managed to limp to base.

Very simply they took some losses but did their job very effectively.

Forgive the ignorance, but it's not like we're talking about a biplane compared to a jet liner here, they're similar enough to be bundled into one category of Tu-22.

They are a generation apart really so no, they are not very similar. It is a bit like calling a EB-66 EW aircraft an EF-111 Raven... they both do an elint job and both have two engines, but one replaced the other for a reason... or several reasons.

Surprise or not, doesn't explain the build up prior to the surprise.

What build-up? There was a regional exercise that finished 8 days before the attack, but that is hardly a build up because everything was put back into storage by the time the conflict started 8 days later.

None the less, just because you were surprised doesn't mean you can't send over UAVs, Russia simply lacked any useful quantities of them.

So you are blaming Russia for not being the US or Israel?

Why should Russia have had lots of UAVs? There are a lot of other things they need to spend money on before they need to worry about UAVs.

A Tu-22 shot down is what I put the e.g. to, it's comparable to having a U-2 or B-1 shot down. That's a lot of tax payer money (and pilot's life) lost for not having UAVs.

Or an F-117? I guess all recon aircraft should be removed from service... in fact all aircraft should be withdrawn from service... hell we could make robots now that can walk why is the US risking soldiers in Afghanistan now when they could be using remote controlled robots over there?
BTW the Tax payer doesn't give a damn about the Tu-22 because it is already paid for and its destruction probably saves them $100,000 a year fuel and maintainence bill.

There is a big reason why the U.S. spends so much money on "Defense", and a lot of the time it's ensuring the war fighter gets home safely, which is something we can all appreciate.

Yes, uber merican technology... wonder why the flight rules in Kosovo banned all flight below 20,000 ft. And the Georgians didn't have the latest model MANPADS, and fortunately neither did the Russian ground forces involved in that war because the Igla-S doesn't hit engine exhausts, it has an algorithm that aims the missile at the body of the aircraft and is much more likely to bring the aircraft down rather than just smash an engine exhaust like the older models.

BrahMos probably uses TVC, a GPS-guided bomb doesn't.

Why would that matter? The fact that it is a satellite guided bomb means it has a capacity for manoeuvre. If it has a capacity to manoeuvre then it can hit the target.

Of course, one would also argue that the war was for Oil, but of course, you'd say something along the lines that the Georgians were the aggressors or something to which I'd counter with why build up so much forces on the border prior to war to which you'd respond with "peacekeeping efforts" to which I'd say, one man's peacekeeping is another man's war for blood." There's a whole debate about this on wikipedia so why I'm pursuing this here is beyond me.

Let me just say two things. First it was about oil... but only in regards to US interest in Georgia. If there was no oil pipeline going through Georgia feeding oil from the Caspian Sea that bypassed both Russia and Iran then the US wouldn't give a flying Fuk about Georgia. For Georgia it was about getting territory it believed was Georgias thinking this was their best opportunity... olympic games distracting everyone, bush in power, and with the declaration of independance from Kosovo initiating the problems because the Russian response to that was to drop border restrictions that kept South Ossetia and Abkhazia dependant on Georgia. Saakashvili believed he had a limited time frame to take back both regions before they could become more independant of Georgia and have better relations with Russia.

His attack sealed the deal.

And if you want to claim that Russia was building up forces for some sort of strike then what the heck happened to these forces when the Georgians crossed the border?

Seems to me as soon as the Georgians met Russian forces they turned and ran so any build up of Russian forces before the Georgian attack should mean there were Russian forces to push back to get to Tskinvali... and that clearly didn't happen.

The reality is that suck arse milli vanili made up the pretend build up of Russian forces to excuse his build up of forces that probably took months or years of planning and preparation.

The secret is in the artillery... the Georgian attack was mostly ground artillery... when you are planning a war against highly trained peacekeeping soldiers with light equipment the best plan is to use artillery and strike them from a distance so you have a good chance on inflicting casualties and they can't take advantage of their better combat training.
If an enormous regional superpower is moving armour into a disputed region you go straight to the UN and complain... you don't build up a force and attack.

Actually, some would argue that with Putin still in power, Russia's imperialistic ambitions only grows.

Really? What exactly stopped Russian forces in Georgia? They could have exercised their right to regime change (illegitimate, sure, but it has never been a legitimate thing anyway). When one of the stans had a coup recently and they were begged to send in Russian troops did they? Most of the Stans at one point or another have asked to become part of a new Soviet Union simply because their economies are even shallower than Russias and their futures are not so good looking either.
The simple fact is that Russia has finished with its imperialistic ambitions.

Regarding Georgia... look at what the US did to Grenada for the sake of 200 US students. In comparison there are thousands of Russian citizens in SO and Abkhazia, not to mention Russian peacekeepers.

They've been fighting hard to keep their energy monopoly on Europe, which is really one of the only reasons why Europe isn't Russianphobic, once that monopoly goes away, Russia falls back to back up "jobs" of producing other materials or goes back to their position in Europe in the 1700's, as that one backwards country.

Hahahaha... I guess Russia has invaded Norway and Britain? Or does it control Norways oil and north sea oil? Russia has no monopoly of energy in Europe and is spending billions of dollars building new pipelines so that the Ukraine is bypassed and cannot hold Europe to ransom by intercepting and stealing energy that was paid for by Europe. If you want to find a bad guy look at the Ukraine.

Gas supplies to Europe from Russia continued during the cold war and was never effected by cold war tensions. Post cold war the only issues with it have been with theft by countries the pipes travel through.

If you know anything about the West, we aren't going to Embargo China just because they're totalitarian assbutts, we're too liberal for that.

If you know anything about the West, we aren't going to Embargo China just because they're totalitarian assbutts, we're too greedy for that.

Too many consumers.

In the early 1990s when you looked out the window in any Chinese city you saw bicycles. Hundreds of thousands of bicycles. In the early 2000s you saw cars hundreds of thousands of cars, but only in the cities.
Do you know what the goals of the west are?
That in the next 10 years that the statistic of one car for every 30 people living in the country side in China change to one car for every 3-4 people.
Do you know what that will do to the planet?
Do you know what that will do to oil prices?
Do you know that when they have done that their next target will be the 1.2 billion Indians?

The west wants the world to adopt the US model of consumerism when having 300 million people in America being that wasteful is damaging enough to the world. When it spreads we are screwed.

Let it be from Corporations in Europe, Corporations in Russia, or Corporations in Japan, they will always get jobs. And simply said, we can't unfeed the dragon.

You can stop the money is everything bullsh!t and spend a little bit more on production costs and reduce profits by a small margin and produce stuff in your own country and create jobs.

But the problem is the banks and the rich people.

They don't give a sh!t about people... it is all about money, about profit, so after US taxpayers spent trillions bailing these c0cksuckers out what do they do? Invest their money where they get the best returns... China. Creates jobs and growth... and generates revenue and profits... for China.

The US government is dumb. The bailouts should have gained government control of those companies... if I spend my money and bail out a local shop you can be damn sure I own that shop now till they pay me back.
The government could have demanded those companies and banks invest in the US economy and create jobs and growth.

Unfortunately the US is pretty dumb, they think big government is bad but big business is good. They are both bad and both for the same reasons, but at least your government is accountable and at least is working in your interests to an extent. A business works for profit and nothing else.

Nope, human rights are universal, and if it takes balls to defend them then I guess America has a manifest destiny to lead the world.

Except in Guantanimo? The US has an entire procedure to get around international law called rendition where they take prisoners to countries where the laws are different so they can do different things to them. This in itself breaks international law because international law expressly forbids such things.
It seems according to US law only US citizens are human and therefore accorded rights.
Hardly credentials to offer to lead the world with.

Forgive the ignorance, but it's not like we're talking about a biplane compared to a jet liner here, they're similar enough to be bundled into one category of Tu-22.

They are a generation apart really so no, they are not very similar. It is a bit like calling a EB-66 EW aircraft an EF-111 Raven... they both do an elint job and both have two engines, but one replaced the other for a reason... or several reasons.

Only difference is that they didn't take a EB-66, modernized it, and gave it a new name.

Surprise or not, doesn't explain the build up prior to the surprise.

What build-up? There was a regional exercise that finished 8 days before the attack, but that is hardly a build up because everything was put back into storage by the time the conflict started 8 days later.

Russia still had troops from said exercise at the border even after the exercise was finished.

None the less, just because you were surprised doesn't mean you can't send over UAVs, Russia simply lacked any useful quantities of them.

So you are blaming Russia for not being the US or Israel?

Why should Russia have had lots of UAVs? There are a lot of other things they need to spend money on before they need to worry about UAVs.

And thus why that Tu-22 was shot down. At least Russia now agrees with me and is actually paying attention to UAVs nowadays.

A Tu-22 shot down is what I put the e.g. to, it's comparable to having a U-2 or B-1 shot down. That's a lot of tax payer money (and pilot's life) lost for not having UAVs.

Or an F-117? I guess all recon aircraft should be removed from service... in fact all aircraft should be withdrawn from service... hell we could make robots now that can walk why is the US risking soldiers in Afghanistan now when they could be using remote controlled robots over there?
BTW the Tax payer doesn't give a damn about the Tu-22 because it is already paid for and its destruction probably saves them $100,000 a year fuel and maintainence bill.

But the thing is, Russia doesn't have robots to do the recon, thus why nothing should be withdrawn from service.

There is a big reason why the U.S. spends so much money on "Defense", and a lot of the time it's ensuring the war fighter gets home safely, which is something we can all appreciate.

Yes, uber merican technology... wonder why the flight rules in Kosovo banned all flight below 20,000 ft. And the Georgians didn't have the latest model MANPADS, and fortunately neither did the Russian ground forces involved in that war because the Igla-S doesn't hit engine exhausts, it has an algorithm that aims the missile at the body of the aircraft and is much more likely to bring the aircraft down rather than just smash an engine exhaust like the older models.

How does this relate to War fighter safety again?

BrahMos probably uses TVC, a GPS-guided bomb doesn't.

Why would that matter? The fact that it is a satellite guided bomb means it has a capacity for manoeuvre. If it has a capacity to manoeuvre then it can hit the target.

Guidance systems are similar, however maneuvering systems aren't. You can do funny moves with TVCs while you can only adjust your trajectory somewhat with a GPS-guided bomb. It matters because Indians won't be pleased with GLONASS once it's on a less maneuverable platform, like a bomb. So, thus, comparing BrahMos's performance to a GPS-guided bomb's performance is, dumb.

Of course, one would also argue that the war was for Oil, but of course, you'd say something along the lines that the Georgians were the aggressors or something to which I'd counter with why build up so much forces on the border prior to war to which you'd respond with "peacekeeping efforts" to which I'd say, one man's peacekeeping is another man's war for blood." There's a whole debate about this on wikipedia so why I'm pursuing this here is beyond me.

Let me just say two things. First it was about oil... but only in regards to US interest in Georgia. If there was no oil pipeline going through Georgia feeding oil from the Caspian Sea that bypassed both Russia and Iran then the US wouldn't give a flying Fuk about Georgia. For Georgia it was about getting territory it believed was Georgias thinking this was their best opportunity... olympic games distracting everyone, bush in power, and with the declaration of independance from Kosovo initiating the problems because the Russian response to that was to drop border restrictions that kept South Ossetia and Abkhazia dependant on Georgia. Saakashvili believed he had a limited time frame to take back both regions before they could become more independant of Georgia and have better relations with Russia.

His attack sealed the deal.

And if you want to claim that Russia was building up forces for some sort of strike then what the heck happened to these forces when the Georgians crossed the border?

Seems to me as soon as the Georgians met Russian forces they turned and ran so any build up of Russian forces before the Georgian attack should mean there were Russian forces to push back to get to Tskinvali... and that clearly didn't happen.

The reality is that suck arse milli vanili made up the pretend build up of Russian forces to excuse his build up of forces that probably took months or years of planning and preparation.

The secret is in the artillery... the Georgian attack was mostly ground artillery... when you are planning a war against highly trained peacekeeping soldiers with light equipment the best plan is to use artillery and strike them from a distance so you have a good chance on inflicting casualties and they can't take advantage of their better combat training.
If an enormous regional superpower is moving armour into a disputed region you go straight to the UN and complain... you don't build up a force and attack.

Thank you that you agree with me.

Actually, some would argue that with Putin still in power, Russia's imperialistic ambitions only grows.

Really? What exactly stopped Russian forces in Georgia? They could have exercised their right to regime change (illegitimate, sure, but it has never been a legitimate thing anyway). When one of the stans had a coup recently and they were begged to send in Russian troops did they? Most of the Stans at one point or another have asked to become part of a new Soviet Union simply because their economies are even shallower than Russias and their futures are not so good looking either.
The simple fact is that Russia has finished with its imperialistic ambitions.

Regarding Georgia... look at what the US did to Grenada for the sake of 200 US students. In comparison there are thousands of Russian citizens in SO and Abkhazia, not to mention Russian peacekeepers.

Nope, many, and I mean even the non-Russianphobics, will tell you that Russia is pursuing Empire again, this time it's focused around it's Energy however.

US =/= Russia

They've been fighting hard to keep their energy monopoly on Europe, which is really one of the only reasons why Europe isn't Russianphobic, once that monopoly goes away, Russia falls back to back up "jobs" of producing other materials or goes back to their position in Europe in the 1700's, as that one backwards country.

Hahahaha... I guess Russia has invaded Norway and Britain? Or does it control Norways oil and north sea oil? Russia has no monopoly of energy in Europe and is spending billions of dollars building new pipelines so that the Ukraine is bypassed and cannot hold Europe to ransom by intercepting and stealing energy that was paid for by Europe. If you want to find a bad guy look at the Ukraine.

Gas supplies to Europe from Russia continued during the cold war and was never effected by cold war tensions. Post cold war the only issues with it have been with theft by countries the pipes travel through.

Of course, Oil from Norway and the U.K. are both hard to extract and hard to transport. Oil from Russia goes through the pipes!

If you know anything about the West, we aren't going to Embargo China just because they're totalitarian assbutts, we're too liberal for that.

If you know anything about the West, we aren't going to Embargo China just because they're totalitarian assbutts, we're too greedy for that.

Too many consumers.

In the early 1990s when you looked out the window in any Chinese city you saw bicycles. Hundreds of thousands of bicycles. In the early 2000s you saw cars hundreds of thousands of cars, but only in the cities.
Do you know what the goals of the west are?
That in the next 10 years that the statistic of one car for every 30 people living in the country side in China change to one car for every 3-4 people.
Do you know what that will do to the planet?
Do you know what that will do to oil prices?
Do you know that when they have done that their next target will be the 1.2 billion Indians?

The west wants the world to adopt the US model of consumerism when having 300 million people in America being that wasteful is damaging enough to the world. When it spreads we are screwed.

One man's Greed is another man's profit. We are still no.1 and we have one institution we can call our savior and that is Capitalism. You should understand something about humans, the majority of us are not going to sit and gloat at the fact that we'll rape this planet in 20 years. We'll innovate. Sure, you may look down on us as those Greedy Imperialist, but half the things you have came from us and the other half will.

Let it be from Corporations in Europe, Corporations in Russia, or Corporations in Japan, they will always get jobs. And simply said, we can't unfeed the dragon.

You can stop the money is everything bullsh!t and spend a little bit more on production costs and reduce profits by a small margin and produce stuff in your own country and create jobs.

But the problem is the banks and the rich people.

They don't give a sh!t about people... it is all about money, about profit, so after US taxpayers spent trillions bailing these c0cksuckers out what do they do? Invest their money where they get the best returns... China. Creates jobs and growth... and generates revenue and profits... for China.

The US government is dumb. The bailouts should have gained government control of those companies... if I spend my money and bail out a local shop you can be damn sure I own that shop now till they pay me back.
The government could have demanded those companies and banks invest in the US economy and create jobs and growth.

Unfortunately the US is pretty dumb, they think big government is bad but big business is good. They are both bad and both for the same reasons, but at least your government is accountable and at least is working in your interests to an extent. A business works for profit and nothing else.

Money is everything, if you disagree with me, get out of N.Z.

Nope, human rights are universal, and if it takes balls to defend them then I guess America has a manifest destiny to lead the world.

Except in Guantanimo? The US has an entire procedure to get around international law called rendition where they take prisoners to countries where the laws are different so they can do different things to them. This in itself breaks international law because international law expressly forbids such things.
It seems according to US law only US citizens are human and therefore accorded rights.
Hardly credentials to offer to lead the world with.

Of course, you can't prove anything about Gitmo.

Only difference is that they didn't take a EB-66, modernized it, and gave it a new name.

That is the point... the Tu-22M is a completely different swing wing aircraft from the fixed wing Tu-22 bomber and recon aircraft.
A complete redesign hidden in a designation chosen to hide the fact that they are different aircraft.

Russia still had troops from said exercise at the border even after the exercise was finished.

The troops involved in the exercise were local units it was a regional exercise. After that exercise ended they went back to their normal bases... if they had troops waiting at the border they would not have taken a day to move them into South Ossetia.

If they were planning an attack they would have done much more pre war recon work like the Georgians did with their UAVs. Obviously they didn't have UAVs of their own but they could easily have had Mig-25 recon models with SLARs flying above the mountains looking deep into Georgia without entering Georgian airspace.

And thus why that Tu-22 was shot down. At least Russia now agrees with me and is actually paying attention to UAVs nowadays.

The much better solution would be to upgrade the Tu-22MRs so that they could actually do the job they were designed to do.
UAVs is the cheap option that might not result in anything useful for quite some time... and when they start getting shot down then what do you do? Send in Manned aircraft to suppress the enemy air defences. Perhaps an upgraded Tu-22MR and SEAD assets would have been a better solution all round.

But the thing is, Russia doesn't have robots to do the recon, thus why nothing should be withdrawn from service.

The thing is that the Russians don't have UAVs able to do the job the Tu-22MR does either so why are you whining about it?

How does this relate to War fighter safety again?

I war people die. Wrapping your air force in cotton wool does not make them more effective... just like flying at 20,000 ft and killing more Albanians than Serbs because of ID issues just to protect precious NATO pilots doesn't make much sense either.

By all means reduce risk, but at the end of the day the Su-25s pretty much eliminated the need for a large scale ground war and saved rather more lives than using UAVs would have.

Guidance systems are similar, however maneuvering systems aren't. You can do funny moves with TVCs while you can only adjust your trajectory somewhat with a GPS-guided bomb. It matters because Indians won't be pleased with GLONASS once it's on a less maneuverable platform, like a bomb. So, thus, comparing BrahMos's performance to a GPS-guided bomb's performance is, dumb.

What on earth are you talking about?

GLONASS is a navigation system that locates the receiver in 4D space (including time as well as longitude, latitude, and altitude).
GPS doesn't work at the speeds Brahmos flys at... it is designed for US military use and civilian use and in civilian use it has altitude and speed limits and these limits are designed to prevent the military use of GPS without the proper codes which you need US permission to use and even if you get it they can still turn it off or turn it down as they wish.

Why would a less manoeuvrable platform be less useful with GLONASS guidance?
The weapon will have launch parameters based on the speed and altitude of the launch platform and that information would be well known by the designers of the software used to release the weapon.

When target information is entered into the bomb via the aircraft avionics the current real time position of the aircraft and also therefore the bomb will also be entered. The aerodynamics of the bomb will be known so it will hardly allow the bomb to be released 2,000km from the target area if the bomb cannot hit the target from that distance.
Assuming therefore that the weapon will release when its launch parameters suggest it can hit the target then WTF is the problem?

Does GPS give a weapon extra range?

It probably gives a minor improvement in accuracy when it is turned on and the launch platform is subsonic and therefore actually able to use GPS data...

Nope, many, and I mean even the non-Russianphobics, will tell you that Russia is pursuing Empire again, this time it's focused around it's Energy however.

Government control of energy companies is not Empire.

Empire means taking over small countries on your borders and further away... which Russia is clearly not doing. South Ossetia is not part of Russia, and neither is Abkhazia. If they were into empire building they would be the first territories to take. Next probably being a little overthrow of the current dictator in Belarus with the reward of someone who doesn't play Russia against the EU and simply wants economic and military and political ties with Russia... that end in joining the Russian federation. Ukraine next and of course the stans as well while they are corrupt and screwed up and easier to absorb.

The fact is that Russia is sick of dealing with everyone elses problems and subsidising failing states.

Of course, Oil from Norway and the U.K. are both hard to extract and hard to transport. Oil from Russia goes through the pipes!

Does it? I thought it was only gas that went via pipelines.

Of course anything that goes from Russia to Europe through pipes also transits several countries that are now hostile to Russia and can charge transit fees or even siphon off material payed for by other countries that Russia is libel for. Hense the Russians are building two new pipelines that bypass the trouble states to improve access to Russian gas and the Europeans still complain.

Why shouldn't Russia have a gas monopoly... Europe can spend more money and buy liquid natural gas and pay more for energy if it wants to.

It is like the US bitching and moaning about undemocratic Venezuela... but it still buys oil from Venezuela because it is cheap.

Whine about monopoly all you want, because what really annoys you is that western energy companies can't get a piece of that pie and that is the real problem. It certainly isn't price because energy companies are always getting fined for price fixing and making customers pay more for fuel than they should be.

One man's Greed is another man's profit. We are still no.1 and we have one institution we can call our savior and that is Capitalism.

That needed an enormous bail out recently because it really doesn't work. Market economies don't work because market forces are a stupid way to run an economy.

Sure, you may look down on us as those Greedy Imperialist, but half the things you have came from us and the other half will.

Yeah... 500 different types of soap to wash my ass and I should be grateful to the US despite the fact that as I have a beard I could be "renditioned" off the street at any time and taken to Hungary and tortured for a year or two and then released without charge or explanation. Real progress.

Money is everything, if you disagree with me, get out of N.Z.

And that is why the US is the real evil empire. People mean nothing. Poor people are stupid or evil. The unemployed are just scamming the taxpayer. Greed is good.

If Jesus appeared in the US today he would be shot in about 10 minutes for being a commie.

Of course, you can't prove anything about Gitmo.

People in cages, tortured, kidnapped from half way round the world and held without charge or legal representation. Even Stalin told those in the Gulags what their crimes were before the show trials and sentences. Real hearts and minds stuff when a bitch as loyal and stupid as Toady Bliar can't even defend that sort of stuff.

truth justice and the American way... well you can clearly scratch truth and justice which leaves the American way... not impressed.

Only difference is that they didn't take a EB-66, modernized it, and gave it a new name.

That is the point... the Tu-22M is a completely different swing wing aircraft from the fixed wing Tu-22 bomber and recon aircraft.
A complete redesign hidden in a designation chosen to hide the fact that they are different aircraft.

Again, not like comparing a biplane to a jet liner.

Russia still had troops from said exercise at the border even after the exercise was finished.

The troops involved in the exercise were local units it was a regional exercise. After that exercise ended they went back to their normal bases... if they had troops waiting at the border they would not have taken a day to move them into South Ossetia.

If they were planning an attack they would have done much more pre war recon work like the Georgians did with their UAVs. Obviously they didn't have UAVs of their own but they could easily have had Mig-25 recon models with SLARs flying above the mountains looking deep into Georgia without entering Georgian airspace.

You don't have to be planning an attack to be prepared for a response, which is what those troops stationed at the border were to do.

And thus why that Tu-22 was shot down. At least Russia now agrees with me and is actually paying attention to UAVs nowadays.

The much better solution would be to upgrade the Tu-22MRs so that they could actually do the job they were designed to do.
UAVs is the cheap option that might not result in anything useful for quite some time... and when they start getting shot down then what do you do? Send in Manned aircraft to suppress the enemy air defences. Perhaps an upgraded Tu-22MR and SEAD assets would have been a better solution all round.

You can't upgrade that plane to fly at speeds fast enough to escape a Buk, thus, UAVs are the simpler, cheaper, and more effective solution.

Well, when they do get shot down, which is what usually happens, you send in low-flying helicopters or attack-aircraft like Su-25s. Of course, they get shot down too, so why not send in Tu-160s to carry masses of Kh-31Ps? What happens if that gets shot down? Well, send in an Army brigade to knock out the defenses, without air cover of course.

Bottom line is that a UAV is expendable while a Tu-22 w/ Pilots is not.

But the thing is, Russia doesn't have robots to do the recon, thus why nothing should be withdrawn from service.

The thing is that the Russians don't have UAVs able to do the job the Tu-22MR does either so why are you whining about it?

The thing is that I care about Russian's lives and if you did too you'd agree that if Russia had UAVs those damn Tu-22 pilots wouldn't have been killed forcing another family at home to bitch and moan. Maybe if you were just more passionate about the Russian Military you'd see where I'm coming from.

How does this relate to War fighter safety again?

I war people die. Wrapping your air force in cotton wool does not make them more effective... just like flying at 20,000 ft and killing more Albanians than Serbs because of ID issues just to protect precious NATO pilots doesn't make much sense either.

By all means reduce risk, but at the end of the day the Su-25s pretty much eliminated the need for a large scale ground war and saved rather more lives than using UAVs would have.

But it does make your pilots safer, you don't want to make Russia become a Germany, have all your good pilots get shot down in the first few and then have your noobs fly your Sukhois and make them look like flying bags of crap.

Guidance systems are similar, however maneuvering systems aren't. You can do funny moves with TVCs while you can only adjust your trajectory somewhat with a GPS-guided bomb. It matters because Indians won't be pleased with GLONASS once it's on a less maneuverable platform, like a bomb. So, thus, comparing BrahMos's performance to a GPS-guided bomb's performance is, dumb.

What on earth are you talking about?

GLONASS is a navigation system that locates the receiver in 4D space (including time as well as longitude, latitude, and altitude).
GPS doesn't work at the speeds Brahmos flys at... it is designed for US military use and civilian use and in civilian use it has altitude and speed limits and these limits are designed to prevent the military use of GPS without the proper codes which you need US permission to use and even if you get it they can still turn it off or turn it down as they wish.

Why would a less manoeuvrable platform be less useful with GLONASS guidance?
The weapon will have launch parameters based on the speed and altitude of the launch platform and that information would be well known by the designers of the software used to release the weapon.

When target information is entered into the bomb via the aircraft avionics the current real time position of the aircraft and also therefore the bomb will also be entered. The aerodynamics of the bomb will be known so it will hardly allow the bomb to be released 2,000km from the target area if the bomb cannot hit the target from that distance.
Assuming therefore that the weapon will release when its launch parameters suggest it can hit the target then WTF is the problem?

Does GPS give a weapon extra range?

It probably gives a minor improvement in accuracy when it is turned on and the launch platform is subsonic and therefore actually able to use GPS data...

Because with a less maneuverable platform you can't adjust your platform accordingly to where the GPS says the target is. Also, you do realize that GPS is an umbrella term for any Satellite based navigation system? So I wouldn't know why you're saying that the U.S. designed GPS, because we really just invented it but our GPS is called NAVSTAR (which has a full constellation unlike GLONASS.)

Nope, many, and I mean even the non-Russianphobics, will tell you that Russia is pursuing Empire again, this time it's focused around it's Energy however.

Government control of energy companies is not Empire.

Empire means taking over small countries on your borders and further away... which Russia is clearly not doing. South Ossetia is not part of Russia, and neither is Abkhazia. If they were into empire building they would be the first territories to take. Next probably being a little overthrow of the current dictator in Belarus with the reward of someone who doesn't play Russia against the EU and simply wants economic and military and political ties with Russia... that end in joining the Russian federation. Ukraine next and of course the stans as well while they are corrupt and screwed up and easier to absorb.

The fact is that Russia is sick of dealing with everyone elses problems and subsidising failing states.

Empire means a lot of things, by your definition you can say that the U.S. is a benevolent country. That is not so and same is true for Russia. For example, Russia has been doing as much as it can to protect it's Energy monopoly on Europe. That way, they can assure their longevity through funds from Energy. Not to mention that Defense wise, Russia is expanding their borders by continually establishing a presence in all theaters of the world (something Superpowers are akin to.)

Of course, Oil from Norway and the U.K. are both hard to extract and hard to transport. Oil from Russia goes through the pipes!

Does it? I thought it was only gas that went via pipelines.

Of course anything that goes from Russia to Europe through pipes also transits several countries that are now hostile to Russia and can charge transit fees or even siphon off material payed for by other countries that Russia is libel for. Hense the Russians are building two new pipelines that bypass the trouble states to improve access to Russian gas and the Europeans still complain.

Why shouldn't Russia have a gas monopoly... Europe can spend more money and buy liquid natural gas and pay more for energy if it wants to.

It is like the US bitching and moaning about undemocratic Venezuela... but it still buys oil from Venezuela because it is cheap.

Whine about monopoly all you want, because what really annoys you is that western energy companies can't get a piece of that pie and that is the real problem. It certainly isn't price because energy companies are always getting fined for price fixing and making customers pay more for fuel than they should be.

Precisely, Russia has our balls in their hands but once we switch to Clean energy, Russia knows they're going back to where they were in the 1700's, that backwards country to the East.

One man's Greed is another man's profit. We are still no.1 and we have one institution we can call our savior and that is Capitalism.

That needed an enormous bail out recently because it really doesn't work. Market economies don't work because market forces are a stupid way to run an economy.

You're confusing market forces with Government again.

Sure, you may look down on us as those Greedy Imperialist, but half the things you have came from us and the other half will.

Yeah... 500 different types of soap to wash my ass and I should be grateful to the US despite the fact that as I have a beard I could be "renditioned" off the street at any time and taken to Hungary and tortured for a year or two and then released without charge or explanation. Real progress.

And you have a problem with that how? Or are you a supporter of terror?

Money is everything, if you disagree with me, get out of N.Z.

And that is why the US is the real evil empire. People mean nothing. Poor people are stupid or evil. The unemployed are just scamming the taxpayer. Greed is good.

If Jesus appeared in the US today he would be shot in about 10 minutes for being a commie.

It is true that most Poor people got there by their sheer stupidity and laziness so I don't understand why we should follow a Nordic model and become neo-socialists.

And you know better, we wouldn't shoot Jesus, we'd deport him to Sweden.

Of course, you can't prove anything about Gitmo.

People in cages, tortured, kidnapped from half way round the world and held without charge or legal representation. Even Stalin told those in the Gulags what their crimes were before the show trials and sentences. Real hearts and minds stuff when a bitch as loyal and stupid as Toady Bliar can't even defend that sort of stuff.

truth justice and the American way... well you can clearly scratch truth and justice which leaves the American way... not impressed.

And yet a single piece of evidence. You know, if you're just going to post Conspirator propaganda then why do we have these overly long discussions in the first place?