US/NATO Armed Forces vs Russian Armed Forces comparison

Conflict:

Country involved (of Russia and the US)

War in Afghanistan

US

Somali Civil War

US

Al-Qaeda insurgency in Yemen

US

War in North-West Pakistan

US

Syrian Civil War

Russia, US

Iraq War

US

Ukraine crisis:

Russia

Werewolf wrote:
Those numbers are not really detailed and hard to understand what they are actually referring.

nemrod wrote:
I agree with you, this is why, in this link
https://www.russiadefence.net/t3191-usaf-and-russian-air-force-a-comparison

I asked if  someone among you could provide some figures about :
How much F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, F-35  against how much Mig-29 familly, Su-27 Familly and Mig-31.

Werewolf wrote:

nemrod wrote:
I agree with you, this is why, in this link
https://www.russiadefence.net/t3191-usaf-and-russian-air-force-a-comparison

I asked if  someone among you could provide some figures about :
How much F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, F-35  against how much Mig-29 familly, Su-27 Familly and Mig-31.

I think it is a job for stealthflanker.

“We—the U.S. [Department of Defense]—haven’t been pursuing appropriate methods to counter EA [electronic attack] for years,”

Pentagon Worries That Russia Can Now Outshoot U.S. Stealth Jets

American fighter planes are the fastest, most maneuverable jets in the world. But their weapons are becomingly increasingly obsolete—and that has some in the U.S. Air Force spooked.

High flying and fast, the F-22 Raptor stealth jet is by far the most lethal fighter America has ever built. But the Raptor—and indeed all U.S. fighters—have a potential Achilles’ heel, according to a half-dozen current and former Air Force officials. The F-22’s long-range air-to-air missiles might not be able to hit an enemy aircraft, thanks to new enemy radar-jamming techniques.

The issue has come to the fore as tensions continue to rise with Russia and a potential conflict between the great powers is once again a possibility—even if a remote one.

“We—the U.S. [Department of Defense]—haven’t been pursuing appropriate methods to counter EA [electronic attack] for years,” a senior Air Force official with extensive experience on the F-22 told The Daily Beast. “So, while we are stealthy, we will have a hard time working our way through the EA to target [an enemy aircraft such as a Russian-built Sukhoi] Su-35s and our missiles will have a hard time killing them.”

The problem is that many potential adversaries, such as the Chinese and the Russians, have developed advanced digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) jammers. These jammers, which effectively memorize an incoming radar signal and repeat it back to the sender, seriously hamper the performance of friendly radars.

Worse, these new jammers essentially blind the small radars found onboard air-to-air missiles like the Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM, which is the primary long-range weapon for all U.S. and most allied fighter planes.

That means it could take several missile shots to kill an enemy fighter, even for an advanced stealth aircraft like the Raptor. “While exact Pk [probability of kill] numbers are classified, let’s just say that I won’t be killing these guys one for one,” the senior Air Force official said. It’s the “same issue” for earlier American fighters like the F-15, F-16, or F/A-18.

Another Air Force official with experience on the stealthy new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter agreed. “AMRAAM’s had some great upgrades over the years, but at the end of the day, it’s old technology and wasn’t really designed with today’s significant EA in mind,” this official said.

Like boxers, every missile has a reach, a range, a limit to how far it can hit. In the not-too-distant future, the AMRAAM might also be out-ranged by new weapons that are being developed around the world. Particularly, Russia is known to be developing an extremely long-range weapon called the K-100 that has far better reach than anything currently in existence.




“While we are stealthy, we will have a hard time targeting Russian Su-35s and our missiles will have a hard time killing them.”

The problem is not a new one. Historically, the Pentagon has always prioritized the development of new fighters over the development new weapons—it’s a uniquely American blind spot. During the 1970s, the then brand new F-15A Eagle carried the same antiquated armament as the Vietnam-era F-4 Phantom II. It wasn’t until the 1990s that the F-15 received a weapon in the form of the AMRAAM that could take full advantage of its abilities. The same applies to short-range weapons—it wasn’t until the early 2000s with the introduction of the AIM-9X that the U.S. had a dogfighting weapon that could match or better the Russian R-73 Archer missile.

The Air Force officials all said that some of the American missiles would get through during a fight—there is no question of that—but it would take a lot more weapons than anyone ever expected. The problem is that fighter aircraft don’t carry that many missiles.

The Raptor carries six AMRAAMs and two shorter range AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles inside its weapons bays. At the moment, the F-35 carries only four AMRAAM missiles inside its weapons bays, but that might be expanded to six in the future. Older fighters like the Boeing F-15 Eagle carry no more than eight missiles—while the F-16 usually carries no more than six weapons.





That means that if a fighter has to fire—for instance—three missiles to kill a single enemy fighter, the Pentagon is facing a serious problem.

“Getting a first shot is one thing,” said a former Air Force fighter pilot with extensive experience with Russian weapons. “Needing another shot when you have expended your load is another when your force structure is limited in terms of the number of platforms available for a given operation.”

There are some potential solutions, but all of them mean spending more money to develop new missiles. former Air Force intelligence chief Lt. Gen. Dave Deptula said it’s “critical” that the U.S. and its allies move “air-to-air weapons into a future where they can effectively deal with adversary electronic attack.”

One relatively simple fix would be to develop a missile that picks out its targets using radars with a completely different frequency band. Current fighter radars and missiles operate on what is called the X-band, but they don’t necessarily have to. “Getting out of X band is on option,” said one senior Air Force official.

The Pentagon could also develop a new missile that combines multiple types of sensors such as infrared and radar into the same weapon—which has been attempted without much success in the past.

Right now, the Defense Department—led by the Navy—is working to increase the range of the AIM-9X version of the Sidewinder by 60 percent to give the Pentagon’s fighter fleet some sort of counter to the jamming problem. But even with the extended reach, the modified Sidewinder won’t have anywhere close to the range of an AMRAAM.

The other option is to stuff fighters like the F-22 and F-35 with more missiles that are smaller. Lockheed Martin, for example, is developing a small long-range air-to-air missile called the “Cuda” that could double or triple the number of weapons carried by either U.S. stealth fighter. “Look to a new generation of U.S. air-to-air missiles, like Cuda, to neutralize any potential numerical advantage,” one senior industry official said.

The industry official said that despite the small size, new weapons like the Cuda can offer extremely impressive range because it doesn’t have an explosive warhead—it just runs into the target and destroys it with sheer kinetic energy.

But the senior Air Force official expressed deep skepticism that such a weapon could be both small and far-reaching. “I doubt you can solve range and the need for a large magazine with the same missile,” he said.

This official added that future weapons would be far better at countering enemy jamming—so much so that future fighters will not need to have the sheer speed and maneuverability of an aircraft like the Raptor. “I think top end speed, super cruise, and acceleration will all decline in importance as weapons advance in range and speed,” he said.

For a military that’s committed hundreds of billions of dollars to such advanced fighters, such developments might not exactly be welcome news.

According to the Joint Stock Company UAC (United Aircraft-building Corporation), Russia has produced more combat aircraft than the U.S., in 2014.

As reported by Russian media outlets, in an interview with Ekho Moskvy radio station, Vladislav Goncharenko, deputy head of the military aviation programmes department at UAC (the a Russian holding which encompasses Irkut, Mikoyan, Sukhoi, Ilyushin, Tupolev, Beriev and Yakovlev), Moscow has surpassed the U.S. in the number of produced combat aircraft.

Whilst in 2013, UAC companies delivered 68 planes, 100 aircraft, 95 of those are combat planes for the Russian Air Force were produced and delivered in 2014.

Along with the production of more planes, UAC subsidiaries have carried out the modernization of existing aircraft and the development of new weapons systems, Goncharenko said.

Even though we don’t know the corresponding U.S. figures, the number of new aircraft delivered to the front-line units of the Russian Air Force is a clear sign Moscow is strongly supporting its renascent military power.

For sure “quantity” does not always come with “quality” and, most probably, U.S. technology will still be ahead of Russian (or Chinese) one for several decades. However, it’s impossible to foresee the outcome of a dogfight in which few, advanced American 6th Generation fighter jets, face outnumbering Russian 5th Generation warplanes.

In the meanwhile, PAK-FA T-50 prototypes have been quipped with Himalayas EW defense systems to increase jamming resistance and self-protection capabilities. The delivery of the first production PAK-FA 5th Generation stealth jet to the Air Force is planned for 2016 whereas new type of combat and reconnaissance drone will appear by 2018. 6th Generation aircraft are being studied as well.

By 2020, 55 PAK-FA fighters will be in service with the Russian Air Force.

H/T to @Missilito for the heads-up

nemrod wrote:

It is no use to tell that SU-35 outclasses most of the western fighters, including F-22. The Mig-35 outclasses most of US fighters, including the F-22,

GarryB wrote:Both Russian aircraft can outmanouver either US aircraft and at the end of the day I would expect Russian ECM equipment should be able to deal with AMRAAM and AIM-9X, so if it comes down to a cannon fight... my money would be on the Russian fighters.

max steel wrote: Analysts say Russia needs quality growth of its armed forces  

Analysts say Russia needs quality growth of its armed forces



QUERY : Where does Russia armed forces lack as compared to US armed soldiers ? what quality do they lack  ? Less experience ?

henriksoder wrote:

max steel wrote: Analysts say Russia needs quality growth of its armed forces  

Analysts say Russia needs quality growth of its armed forces



QUERY : Where does Russia armed forces lack as compared to US armed soldiers ? what quality do they lack  ? Less experience ?

I think US army got better got better equipment on the battlefield, for example high-technology drones, tanks and aircrafts with high precision and weapons which is stronger than Russia's. US army is better trained, they can better obtain a stronger offensive and defensive than the Russian army can. Still, Russia got almost three times more tanks, many well experinced soldiers and can almost control the sea with their many corvettes and warships. They can fulfil a stronger offensive than US army can, but US army is better equipped to face a Russian invasion than the Russian army are.

TR1 wrote:US has far more precision weaponry in service. It is not even a comparison....

TR1 wrote:LOL @ whoever down-voted that.


You have to be utterly delusional to not think the US has a massive lead in precision weapons. Compare the number of Russian precision weapons bought in past few years, to what the US has since the end of the Cold War.

max steel wrote:So having more precision bombs is the only factor which makes US army better in quality ? Whqt all precision weapons do they use ?

I guess they are many factors .


I think one reason can be their troops are more battle hardened . Ofcourse they are better compare the deaths of soldiers in Afghan war .

TR1 wrote:Did not think it was you. I have a cabal of butthurt followers who try to down-vote anything not resembling Russia-strong posts.

USSR never purchased massive precision weapons stocks, not for tactical aircraft. No one really did back then- just look how many guided bombs the US dropped in Desert Storm. A handful of the total. More laser guided, but still.
Not to mention weapons bought in the 80s....its 2015 now.

Plenty bomb kits shown at exhibits, but to date I have not seen any serial orders for them.