Russia vs US Military and Economy and this forum isn't fair...

TR1 wrote:at least I am

I am referring only to the ones who demand and believe in that.

Ukraine's military sucks.

Yes I do agree. But what I believe is that you assume a classic style war between two nations. That won't be the case in this crisis. The Russian airforce won't be simply able to bomb raid Ukraine back to stone age in case of war. If Russia considers that, NATO might as well consider to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine. What are they gonna do then ? shoot short range ballistic missiles into Ukrainian cities ?

What will happen in any case is that Ukraine will be flooded with funds and weapons and other tons of support to fight a Russian force deployed there. It won't be only what is left of the Ukrainian military fighting but up to a million+ people who can get easily armed and constantly supplied from all directions. Not that Ukraine isn't allready full with weapons. How much of troops would the Russians need to deploy in order to win such a war ? it would drain all the resources and weaken the Russian military without NATO even getting a scratch. All the job would be done by Ukrainians and mercenaries and volunteers. The loss on NATO side will be a few aircraft and a few hundred million USD. On Russian side the losses will be a lot of troops, vehicles, aircraft and billions of USD. Apart of that, Ukraine will loose it's entire infrastructure. Everyone will be asking himself if it really was worth it. Was it ? NO.

A lot of you guys are just too blind to see that THAT is exactly what NATO wants. Entangling the Russian army into another blood draining guerilla war. Don't believe it and keep up the illusions about unbeatable Russian army. Keep them hates coming.

Kremlin will only sharpen it's rhetorics towards EU, show it won't bow to US/EU demands and what Rasmussen keeps barking but it won't even think about risking such a costly war, not with so much at stake. Putin's too smart at that and I can imagine how many hardliners do actualy urge him to take action.

NATO cannot do that.. their Patriot defenses 160km range does not cover even 1/3 of Ukraine territory. But if NATO attacks Russian warplanes in Ukraine it will be war my friend.. war.. Iskanders will fly and shutdown those Patriots defenses and NATO will do nothing
because they attacked Russia first.. and Russia is defending civilians ,NATO is only defending Nazis genocide against civilians. In the other hand Russia S-300s and S-400s deployed from Belarus to Rostov to Crimea will cover Ukraine air space 100%. SImply im sorry to tell you NATO stand not a chance in a fight with Russia at least near their land. For simple reasons..

1) Is not a united force.. ie. >greece not going to fight Russia and in the side or Turkey. Neither Bulgaria.. neither Germany will
  fight Russia.. it will be only US + POland + Turkey + romania. and probably France and UK.
2) Russia Missile forces will target with precision any part of europe or black sea. So NATO will not have Air superiority in Ukraine, neither in RUssia.. and will be at disadvantage in the black sea too. it will be a choke point for their navies and very vulnerables to Russian long range attacks.
3)Russia have China guarding their back , they share a border . Defeating Russia in Land is the same as defeating China in land. an impossibility.Because both will work together and NATO will run out of man power very quick.


For sure i dont think such land wars will happen with real armies ,because will be foolish if for example USA try a D-DAY invasion in crimea ,they will not even enter the Black sea or pass the strait of Turkey while a cruise missile waiting them at the exit. a Big CHoke point.  NATO armies will be at serious ,disadvantage fighting near Russia unlimited supplies mother land.   NATO forces can be defeated dude.. their myth of invulnerability is just that a myth.. and you just have fallen for that propaganda. Check how China routed NATO forces in NORTH korea after they invade and planned to unite Both koreas. The same armies that defeated Hitler in the western front could not defeat China. Documented  by a former american veteran of the korean war..

http://bevinalexander.com/books/korea-first-war-we-lost.htm

Simply without air superiority NATO cannot win wars. And against strong armies like CHINA they could neither win having air superiority.
NATO is overrated indeed. If you want to see how NATO perform in a modern war without air superiority and without navy to help ,look no futher than Syria war. They lead all the Rebel Combats ,they provided all communications and logistics ,their training ,their weapons and even had special forces with them and American Generals fighting with the Rebels leading their tactics..



video of the general here in Syria..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3lPGY7UlsA

You have there american general collaborating with Alqaeda groups in Syria to remove Assad with a few hundreds NATO special forces too leading the Rebels combats. US-France-Uk-Turkey-Jordan -Australia-Saudi arabia, so many NATO countries with over 100,000 jihadist fighters and still they failed. Now they are trying IRAQ to overthrow their government under the name of ISIS.



You will not believe what kind of help Rebels had from drones ,Robots ,thermal missiles ,satelite encypted communications ,night vision equipment ,Turkey Artillery .manpads ,antitank weapons ,and even provided by armored 7-72 tanks . Turkey ,Israel and Jordan airforces also have been helping to shield the crossing of Rebels into Syria . NATO even wanted to use their navies to help their Alqaeda friends but they had second thoughts with Syrian anti-ship capabilities . NATO is greatly overrated dude. They are not invulnerable , Syria army wiped many hundreds of NATO special forces and arrested others .All Russia support was logistics and weapons.

TheGeorgian wrote:

TR1 wrote:at least I am

I am referring only to the ones who demand and believe in that.

Ukraine's military sucks.

Yes I do agree. But what I believe is that you assume a classic style war between two nations. That won't be the case in this crisis. The Russian airforce won't be simply able to bomb raid Ukraine back to stone age in case of war. If Russia considers that, NATO might as well consider to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine. What are they gonna do then ? shoot short range ballistic missiles into Ukrainian cities ?

What will happen in any case is that Ukraine will be flooded with funds and weapons and other tons of support to fight a Russian force deployed there. It won't be only what is left of the Ukrainian military fighting but up to a million+ people who can get easily armed and constantly supplied from all directions. Not that Ukraine isn't allready full with weapons. How much of troops would the Russians need to deploy in order to win such a war ? it would drain all the resources and weaken the Russian military without NATO even getting a scratch. All the job would be done by Ukrainians and mercenaries and volunteers. The loss on NATO side will be a few aircraft and a few hundred million USD. On Russian side the losses will be a lot of troops, vehicles, aircraft and billions of USD. Apart of that, Ukraine will loose it's entire infrastructure. Everyone will be asking himself if it really was worth it. Was it ? NO.

A lot of you guys are just too blind to see that THAT is exactly what NATO wants. Entangling the Russian army into another blood draining guerilla war. Don't believe it and keep up the illusions about unbeatable Russian army. Keep them hates coming.

Kremlin will only sharpen it's rhetorics towards EU, show it won't bow to US/EU demands and what Rasmussen keeps barking but it won't even think about risking such a costly war, not with so much at stake. Putin's too smart at that and I can imagine how many hardliners do actualy urge him to take action.

I definitely agree with you. It's sad that it's not possible to discuss critically and realisticly Russian capabilities. I understand that on other forums like MP or DefencePK it's all about "defending your nation or the one you like more", if you know what I mean, but on "more" purely forums which are primarily Russian, it should be possible to discuss critically. On other forums such as CDF it's possible to discuss what China's weaknesses are for example. You don't get "slammed" hard like her, when I or you or others point out MASSIVE WEAKNESSES Russia has.

When Russian military sources point out year after year that they are NOT happy with the progress of many things regarding buildning and re-arming, then I am somehow "slammed". I still can't post links but it's not hard to find those Russian sources that point out frustration about re-armament program and massive delays in several sectors.

Furthermore, regarding Ukraine, as you pointed out, it's just not possible to do for Russia without heavy losses. S-300 and S-400 are not gonna help when B-2 Stealth bombers with 1,000 Tomahawks from 1500 kilometers away start flying against Russian targets. Then maybe 2 or 3 Gorshkovs with 2-3 Russian SSN can "take out" 25 A-Burkes and 20 U.S. SSNs, ya? NOT gonna happen.

The U.S. strikes always far away and then closing in more and more as they systematically take down the defences.

The point is as long as THE BEST U.S. has, can easely defeat the BEST Russia has, then Russia is just sitting targets.

We have UNfortunately been witness to the U.S. and its allies rolling back Libya to the Somalian-level of standard, and the same thing being done to Iraq and Syria, while the third front has been opened up in Ukraine/Moldova. (Transnistria and Gagauz are completely isolated now).

I can bet that Transnistria and Gagauz would be taken out pretty fast if one Russian soldier crossed the border into Ukraine. There is nothing an isolated Transnistria and Gagauz can do against NATO with Romania, Moldova and hostile Kiev. Absolutely NOTHING.

Not to mention that Kalingrad is isolated too.

Since I cannot post links yet, I would recommend the IISS assesment of Russian capabilities towards Ukraine, dated on 7th April 2014 with the name "Russia and Ukraine: military-strategic options, and possible risks for Moscow".

It worth reading about capabilities and possible consequences that can errupt by tying down considerable number of forces into Ukraine.

 S-300 and S-400 are not gonna help when B-2 Stealth bombers with 1,000 Tomahawks from 1500 kilometers away start flying against Russian targets

they can actually. cruise missiles are common targets to S-300

Asf wrote:

 S-300 and S-400 are not gonna help when B-2 Stealth bombers with 1,000 Tomahawks from 1500 kilometers away start flying against Russian targets

they can actually. cruise missiles are common targets to S-300

So how many can you take down when B-2 and Tomahawks come along? How long can you keep up "doing that" ? Russia can't shoot down 100% of them. Be real now.

I am amazed by some people here being way out of "reality". The funniest one saying that Russia can defeat NATO. I am not saying it's you, but he knows who he is.

Russian economy is about to experience 0% growth for 2014, according to World Bank and IMF. The best to hope for is 1% growth.

U.S. and NATO forces can pound Russian forces from a far, while S-300 and those FEW S-400 Russia has are sure gonna be extremely busy.

We know that S-300 and S-400 cannot shoot down 100% of incoming missiles from B-2 and B-1 bombers in combination with massive Tomahawk strikes.

Also, there is no way for Russia to stop Tomahawks being fired. In order to stop B-2 and Tomahawks flying, they need to be taken out, and there are no capabilities in order to do so.

Some are just way to disillusioned on here.

With massive economic power NATO forces have, comes also the military power and soft power. That's why U.S. was able to roll Russia's influence in Libya and Syria (that is destroyed now anyway) for the past three years. That's why Iraq continues to be a mess, and that's why the U.S. has opened up a third front against Russia in Ukraine/Moldova.

This is only possible when you can project massive military and soft power with combination of economic power. Which Russia lacks.

According to SIPRI, NATO forces spend 12 times more on weapons than Russia do. Still, there are fanboys on here that claim, Russia can "defeat that". LOL, even though reality is quite the different.

Vann7 wrote:But if NATO attacks Russian warplanes in Ukraine it will be war my friend.. war.. Iskanders will fly and shutdown those Patriots defenses and NATO will do nothing
because they attacked Russia first..

You overestimate Russia's strike capabilities and dramaticaly underestimate NATO strike capabilities .... I am not saying this because NATO is "far superior". But be glad you got decent leadership and hope that this conflict will end without intervention from any side. Grim reality is that so many people actualy believe in that mainstream BS internet and media feeds them. War ain't that easy and not Hollywood like 2 min job. Also we saw how reliable Iskandar missiles were in 2008. You better deploy some new or modified stuff over there while we'e at it.

they attacked Russia first

Right .... let me put it this way. How the West will see it:

That would be a Russian attack against Ukraine in first place .... and if NATO responds to their call for help, it's more of a support rather then an aggression. How do you think it looks to when Russian S-300 / 400 from Russian territory start to attack NATO aircraft patroling over Ukraine and then further try to take out defense systems of surrounding countries via SRBMs ? you won't be the good guys in this one. You will be aggressors who invaded another nation and then attack the "good guys" trying to defend that nation. Even if that wasn't entirely true, you are still the ones who attacked a foreign country in first place.

T055 wrote:
So how many can you take down when B-2 and Tomahawks come along? How long can you keep up "doing that" ? Russia can't shoot down 100% of them. Be real now.

IF the B-2s fire tomahawks at Russia , Russia can fire Iskander-M missiles level to the ground the miltiary base that the B-2 took off and destroy the others.     The B2-s will neither be invisible in air ,just a lower signature. Russia can show down B-2 too. using their airforces or S-400s missiles if come at range. a manpad can do it if they at visual contact.

TOmahwaks are slow flying missiles can be defeated easily with Gatling Guns artillery of Pantsirs but also TORS and BUK defenses. aside of s-300s and s-400s.. no problem. Even manpads can destroy Tomahawks. or Russian airforce too. Since Russia have a heavy network defense  means that if one unit fails the other will not. so 100% is a reality unless they fired hundreds at the same time. There is also Electronic Counter measures that will easily Jam the 30 years old over rated tomahawks missiles you talk about ,making the cruise missiles to totally miss their target even if they bypass SAM defenses.

Russia can also fire their Kalibr 3m-54 modern missiles with 700km up to 3,600km range  and hit a military NATO base in ANY part of Europe that is launching cruise missiles against Russia. But also Iskanders too. designed to shutdown NATO ABM defenses in Europe.

T055 wrote:

Asf wrote:

 S-300 and S-400 are not gonna help when B-2 Stealth bombers with 1,000 Tomahawks from 1500 kilometers away start flying against Russian targets

they can actually. cruise missiles are common targets to S-300

So how many can you take down when B-2 and Tomahawks come along? How long can you keep up "doing that" ? Russia can't shoot down 100% of them. Be real now.

I am amazed by some people here being way out of "reality". The funniest one saying that Russia can defeat NATO. I am not saying it's you, but he knows who he is.

Russian economy is about to experience 0% growth for 2014, according to World Bank and IMF. The best to hope for is 1% growth.

U.S. and NATO forces can pound Russian forces from a far, while S-300 and those FEW S-400 Russia has are sure gonna be extremely busy.

We know that S-300 and S-400 cannot shoot down 100% of incoming missiles from B-2 and B-1 bombers in combination with massive Tomahawk strikes.

Also, there is no way for Russia to stop Tomahawks being fired. In order to stop B-2 and Tomahawks flying, they need to be taken out, and there are no capabilities in order to do so.

Some are just way to disillusioned on here.

With massive economic power NATO forces have, comes also the military power and soft power. That's why U.S. was able to roll Russia's influence in Libya and Syria (that is destroyed now anyway) for the past three years. That's why Iraq continues to be a mess, and that's why the U.S. has opened up a third front against Russia in Ukraine/Moldova.

This is only possible when you can project massive military and soft power with combination of economic power. Which Russia lacks.

According to SIPRI, NATO forces spend 12 times more on weapons than Russia do. Still, there are fanboys on here that claim, Russia can "defeat that". LOL, even though reality is quite the different.

Do you ever hear for IADS? Do you know, why Igla-S was developed? Igla-S with proximity fuse is developed exactly for destroying smaller targets like Cruise missiles, where direct hit was not necessary. MANPADS and AA guns inside IADS are enough to shot down all Tomahawks, which will mostly come from the sea. IADS is not only S-300 and S-400. Russia have thousands of SAMs + fighters, so they are capable to defende their air space against NATO.

Also, US and EU will soon face the greatest depression in history and they soon will not be able to maintain all those extremely expensive complexes and will not be able to afford such war against Russia or China.

Yes, Russias strength is its ground based air defense systems. Most S-300 and S-400 are backed up by Tor or Pantsir (depending if army or airforce) and these are specifically designed to deal with pgm's. Remember the test of a pantsir taking down a 900km range cruise missile from Tu-95?

But they will pull a saturation attack obviously, but at that point, the location of the launchers will come into view and the source will more than likely be dealt with. Same with the B2. Even if they can only see it coming from a 100km or bit more away, they can determin were it came from and destroy that airfield. Long range cruise missiles Russia certainly has. Not just Iskanders, but even Kh-55 and variants would pose a massive threat and would more than likely be used in the case of strategic bombers boming Russia. As well, MiG-31s would probably get the trace of the bomber and then intercept it on its way back from a bombing run. So yeah, B2's are real good, but so few of them in service and it does not carry infinite fuel and arsenal.

Vann7 wrote:
check one of NATO biggest nightmares that will have to face in a fight against Russia..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Klub

Given Russia won't loose it's subs before they can launch some of their Klubs. Also US might soon deploy LRASM's for their navy and also airforce.

Russian somewhat slight edge over US on recent naval systems development is mostly due to US neglecting to modernise it's navy for decades already .... while concentrating on wasting their funds constantly on some cancelled projects. But since China is growing a naval power too, they will most likely shift their attention back to it.

sepheronx

same shit will happen to you as well. It will be a senseless brawl with massive losses on both sides.

T055 wrote:

I definitely agree with you. It's sad that it's not possible to discuss critically and realisticly Russian capabilities. I understand that on other forums like MP or DefencePK it's all about "defending your nation or the one you like more", if you know what I mean, but on "more" purely forums which are primarily Russian, it should be possible to discuss critically. On other forums such as CDF it's possible to discuss what China's weaknesses are for example. You don't get "slammed" hard like her, when I or you or others point out MASSIVE WEAKNESSES Russia has.

When Russian military sources point out year after year that they are NOT happy with the progress of many things regarding buildning and re-arming, then I am somehow "slammed". I still can't post links but it's not hard to find those Russian sources that point out frustration about re-armament program and massive delays in several sectors.

Furthermore, regarding Ukraine, as you pointed out, it's just not possible to do for Russia without heavy losses. S-300 and S-400 are not gonna help when B-2 Stealth bombers with 1,000 Tomahawks from 1500 kilometers away start flying against Russian targets. Then maybe 2 or 3 Gorshkovs with 2-3 Russian SSN can "take out" 25 A-Burkes and 20 U.S. SSNs, ya? NOT gonna happen.

Really and you bitch around that you can not discuss things critically about russian capabilities but suggest when Russia would intervene in East Ukraine that somehow B-2 and 1000 US Cruise Missile would target Russia? And you talk about critical thinking? You are the desillusional on this forum. Russia would make USA into glass when they would launch 1000 Cruise Missiles against Russian targets.

The U.S. strikes always far away and then closing in more and more as they systematically take down the defences.

The point is as long as THE BEST U.S. has, can easely defeat the BEST Russia has, then Russia is just sitting targets.

You kid are completley insane. The Best US has is mediocre in Missile technology compared with what Russia has. It is the US that has sitting ducks in its country, while Russian Defensive capabilities are hihgly mobile, from small SHORADS to big TELAR systems and even IRBM and ICBM systems all mobile, the US has only naval based ICBMs.

We have UNfortunately been witness to the U.S. and its allies rolling back Libya to the Somalian-level of standard, and the same thing being done to Iraq and Syria, while the third front has been opened up in Ukraine/Moldova. (Transnistria and Gagauz are completely isolated now).

I can bet that Transnistria and Gagauz would be taken out pretty fast if one Russian soldier crossed the border into Ukraine. There is nothing an isolated Transnistria and Gagauz can do against NATO with Romania, Moldova and hostile Kiev. Absolutely NOTHING.

Not to mention that Kalingrad is isolated too.

Since I cannot post links yet, I would recommend the IISS assesment of Russian capabilities towards Ukraine, dated on 7th April 2014 with the name "Russia and Ukraine: military-strategic options, and possible risks for Moscow".

It worth reading about capabilities and possible consequences that can errupt by tying down considerable number of forces into Ukraine.

Military, Russia can invade every single boardering country except of China, there is no military power that could even hold out 1 month against Russian invasion. Ukraine is a shit hole on military level even Serbia has much higher military capabilities.

How well, in your opinion, Russia could fare against an imperial destroyer?




----------------
Tactical map (from Ukrainian media)

etaepsilonk wrote:How well, in your opinion, Russia could fare against an imperial destroyer?

Depends how close it has to come into orbital sphere of the earth. ICBMs can reach quite a high altitudes.

Werewolf wrote:
Depends how close it has to come into orbital sphere of the earth. ICBMs can reach quite a high altitudes.

What about energy shields? I heard the one on the ID can resist impacts of multi-megaton equivalents of TNT. Did you take this into account?

etaepsilonk wrote:

Werewolf wrote:
Depends how close it has to come into orbital sphere of the earth. ICBMs can reach quite a high altitudes.

What about energy shields? I heard the one on the ID can resist impacts of multi-megaton equivalents of TNT. Did you take this into account?

No expert on Star Wars and sci fi energy shields, but sounds like a magnetic shield, an EMP could deal with it...but lets get back on earth, trooper.

Werewolf wrote:

etaepsilonk wrote:

Werewolf wrote:
Depends how close it has to come into orbital sphere of the earth. ICBMs can reach quite a high altitudes.

What about energy shields? I heard the one on the ID can resist impacts of multi-megaton equivalents of TNT. Did you take this into account?

No expert on Star Wars and sci fi energy shields, but sounds like a magnetic shield, an EMP could deal with it...but lets get back on earth, trooper.

Emp? Don't the modern designs, like ID, have a built-in anti-energy dampener, specifically for threats like EMP? Should help with starstorms as well, don't you think?

etaepsilonk wrote:How well, in your opinion, Russia could fare against an imperial destroyer?

EMP won't do shit. It has countermeasures for that. You'd need something like an ion canon what I assume Russia does not posess

An imperial I-II class SD would be able to outmanouver or simply shoot any sort of incoming ICBMs from Orbit. Russia would have a chance if the SD decided to get to the lower atmosphere. The problem is that a scan from the SD would have already determined what kind of threat level they have to expect from Earth before they engage in a fight. So they would obliterate any strike capabilities of the Russian Federation in a matter of hours, with some devestating turbo laser barrages from orbit. A single SD is capable of doing so. It would just require more time than let's say a handfull of them. One SD alone is able to devestate the entire planet surface ....

But let's assume the captain of the SD is a complete retard and decides to desscent to the lower atmosphere. The Tie Fighter / Bomber squadrons can be actualy taken out by the Russian airforce, preferably the more manouvrable interceptors like Mig-35 etc. Missiles would also definitly work. But getting rid of that threat, you still have the SD itself. The shields will be a huge problem, but the Russians might be able to figure out the hostile vessel possesses shield deflectors, you can't miss those two massive "balls" on top of the bridge ( that is if Russian fighters can get that close ). They will be automaticaly seen as targets. It's too ovious. ( Yes I assume they have never heard of Star Destroyers before ). Yet even there the problem is to have firepower strong enough to take out those shield deflectors. I'm not sure if air to ground missiles will do that job. Maybe ship to ground based cruise missiles that can pin point the two deflectors. The main flaw of the SD are it's lack of defense systems against small crafts like fighters. That's what those TIE squadrons are for. This vessel was mainly designed to get into a brawl with other capital ships, but is just as effective in taking out planetary defense.

Anyway, if the shield is down, a massive missile storm or a single nuke will handle the rest.

A single SD is unlike to destroy entire Russian defense force, but you also won't be able to get rid of it any time soon. It would be annoying.

We would crush the imperial destroyer!

Come back to earth guys....

TheGeorgian wrote:
EMP won't do shit. It has countermeasures for that. You'd need something like an ion canon what I assume Russia does not posess

An imperial I-II class SD would be able to outmanouver or simply shoot any sort of incoming ICBMs from Orbit. Russia would have a chance if the SD decided to get to the lower atmosphere. The problem is that a scan from the SD would have already determined what kind of threat level they have to expect from Earth before they engage in a fight. So they would obliterate any strike capabilities of the Russian Federation in a matter of hours, with some devestating turbo laser barrages from orbit. A single SD is capable of doing so. It would just require more time than let's say a handfull of them. One SD alone is able to devestate the entire planet surface ....

But let's assume the captain of the SD is a complete retard and decides to desscent to the lower atmosphere. The Tie Fighter / Bomber squadrons can be actualy taken out by the Russian airforce, preferably the more manouvrable interceptors like Mig-35 etc. Missiles would also definitly work. But getting rid of that threat, you still have the SD itself. The shields will be a huge problem, but the Russians might be able to figure out the hostile vessel possesses shield deflectors, you can't miss those two massive "balls" on top of the bridge ( that is if Russian fighters can get that close ). They will be automaticaly seen as targets. It's too ovious. ( Yes I assume they have never heard of Star Destroyers before ). Yet even there the problem is to have firepower strong enough to take out those shield deflectors. I'm not sure if air to ground missiles will do that job. Maybe ship to ground based cruise missiles that can pin point the two deflectors. The main flaw of the SD are it's lack of defense systems against small crafts like fighters. That's what those TIE squadrons are for. This vessel was mainly designed to get into a brawl with other capital ships, but is just as effective in taking out planetary defense.

Anyway, if the shield is down, a massive missile storm or a single nuke will handle the rest.

A single SD is unlike to destroy entire Russian defense force, but you also won't be able to get rid of it any time soon. It would be annoying.

But you see, SD would, in fact, descend to the lower atmosphere, because it would need to disembark the invasion force, which would be the MAIN actual threat for Russia, and means of occupying it's territory. I suspect that SDs' shields would be able to hold just enough to disembark the soldiers and their equipment.
Stormtroopers got those very effective systems-  imperial speeders:


They're very fast, maneuvrable, despite their extremely small cost, could very well deal with russian fighters, like Su-27.

And their flexibility and availability means that they'd be deadly for Russian ground forces too, their energy beam cannons should be able to pierce the front armor of T-90 tank, and so, other vehicles too, obviously.

double post.

T055 wrote:Really and you bitch around that you can not discuss things critically about russian capabilities but suggest when Russia would intervene in East Ukraine that somehow B-2 and 1000 US Cruise Missile would target Russia? And you talk about critical thinking? You are the desillusional on this forum. Russia would make USA into glass when they would launch 1000 Cruise Missiles against Russian targets.

You kid are completley insane. The Best US has is mediocre in Missile technology compared with what Russia has.

Military, Russia can invade every single boardering country except of China, there is no military power that could even hold out 1 month against Russian invasion. Ukraine is a shit hole on military level even Serbia has much higher military capabilities.

--------------------------------------------

My reply:

First, LMAO. That's all you got. Personal attacks. You say "you kid are completely insane". It's just a sad way of discussing and it proves my point that forum is unfortunately taken over by a few extremists.

Yeah, Soviet Union and Warszaw Pact couldn't win economically, militarily nor through soft power against the NATO, and now suddently Russia "can do that", against an alliance with better tech, better experience and a military budget 12 times higher than Russia has according to well-respected SIPRI.

Keep on dreaming!

Lol at Russia "turning U.S. into glass". You are funny - I like that.

Ya, the so-called "mediocre U.S." has been rolling back Soviet/Russian influence big time everywhere since 1945 and 1991. Yet, still today in 2014, Russia is according to you "soooo strong" and can "defeat NATO". It clearly shows who is in touch with the reality.

While the U.S. has destroyed Libya and practically Syria too, you can continue to spout how Russian Forces are sooo "strong" while the U.S. and NATO with the EU have opened a brutal front against Russia in Ukraine and Moldova, slaughtering pro-Russian separatists as we speak, while the fact is that Russia 1) CANNOT do anything without considerable losses 2) Has to think of its 0% economy for 2014 3) Is not nowhere near of completing re-armament plans projected several years back - and this is according to RUSSIAN/Pro-Russian sources. This is from the officials.

4) And no, Russia cannot even invade Turkey or Poland, not to mention Ukraine, especially Kiev. Poland does border with Kalingrad so it's border with Russia. Russia has troops in Belarus. So why not "try" ? Lol.

5) Turkey is almost bordering with Russia if it wasn't for Georgia. We all know there is no chance for Russia to take Ankara or Kiev or Warszaw in any kind of way. You can just dream, and that's the hard reality.[/quote]

Strizh wrote:We would crush the imperial destroyer!

Of course. Those superior MiG-29 and MiG-31 along with 10 Su-35S can do this. F-22, B-2, the U.S. and NATO air power are NOTHING. Not even Imperial Forces can stop the Superior S-300 and Russian Air Force, LOL   

Keep spouting what you dont know. Here you are: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp-growth-annual

Reliable, unbiased source. Yeah, 0% growth lol. Not even IMF predicts that. Only you.

As well, I can see that the rest is based on nothing but your opinion. At least I gave a link and graph. You got nothing.

T055 wrote:

Strizh wrote:We would crush the imperial destroyer!

Of course. Those superior MiG-29 and MiG-31 along with 10 Su-35S can do this. F-22, B-2, the U.S. and NATO air power are NOTHING. Not even Imperial Forces can stop the Superior S-300 and Russian Air Force, LOL   

http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21578522-hypersonic-weapons-building-vehicles-fly-five-times-speed-sound

If they are concentrating on speed (again), then obviously they are not putting too much emphasis on stealth being the main factor. It has been noted that there are plenty of systems capable of detecting stealth from all over. Passive sensors to be exact, or VHF/UHF radar (although not very accurate). As well, majority of stealth is around xband radar, but there is the idea that it isnt quite stealthy against Ku band.

Nothing is 100%. Sorry to say, but you are really doing a poor attempt at trolling and are probably a former member here whom was banned. Would not be surprising.

etaepsilonk wrote:
But you see, SD would, in fact, descend to the lower atmosphere, because it would need to disembark the invasion force, which would, in fact, be the MAIN threat for Russia, and means of occupying it's territory. I suspect that their shields would be able to hold just enough to disembark the soldiers and their equipment.
Stormtroopers got those very effective systems-  imperial speeders:

They're very fast, maneuvrable, despite their extremely small cost, could very well deal with russian fighters, like Su-27.

And their flexibility and availability means that they'd be deadly for Russian ground forces too, their energy beam cannons should be able to pierce the front armor of T-90 tank.

But then again the commander of that vessel would have to be a total retard to risk that, especialy after they had scanned what Earth is capable of. The MAIN threat for Russia would obviously be the firepower of the SD itself. When I wrote a single one is able to devestate the planet's surface, it was no exaggeration. That's their basic tactics. Bombarding the planet before deployment. They would probably sweap away any defense they can detect before landing troops. Russians have a chance if they keep most of their stuff hidden, under bunkers etc. I don't know if SDs are able to multi layer scan through earth segments though.

Stormtroopers ? how many can a single SD deploy ? maximum a single "division" ( 10.000 men ). They are no particular threat. I don't see them as much experienced as let's say avarage Russian soldier. Avarage Russian soldier will beat stormtrooper easily any day. So a single Russian infantry division is able to get rid of them + home turf advantige. Also projectile weapons are superior to their laser weapons and their armor isn't even able to deflect arrows and bolts ....

Speeders are only for ground. True their lasers could pierce BTR / BMP armor and considering their speed, they would be quite a threat. But you just have to hit the drivers by a machine gun spray and they're down

Those dozens of AT-AT / AT-ST walkers might be a problem though.

Combined assault with routine pattern might be quite something to deal with for Russian army though.

BUt all in all, ground forces are anything from being even close to the threat level as the ship itself.

All of Eaths forces combined x 2 wouldn't be able to survive a week long bombardment from orbit.

Sorry for offtopic lol