Current Numbers of the NAVY and the Coast Guard

[LegionnairE]

Guys, relying on the army is completly wrong. Think about the ME. All of them heavily relied on Army. Think smartly, try to beat the enemy from his weak point. Plus army is pretty well equipped when compared to HvKK and DzKK. That's why should and do rely on AF and Navy. We're doing good. Currently the big piece in the budget goes to the Navy, then AF, then the Army.

All air, ground and naval forces are equally important but even for Island states such as UK and Japan the Army comes first. Our geography requires that we must be strong in all aspects, we need a complete armed force and that's pretty much what we have.

We have weaknesses, a heavy cargo plane such as A400M and heavy lift helicopters such as CH47F Chinook are of utmost urgency. Rapid deployment is more important than the average size of the army. We need air defence but we need air defence for our navy first. We need SM2s first, then PAC3 or HQ9. It's simple strategy, our area of influence is growing. A naval war in the Mediterranean is much more likely than a pre-emptive strike on Syria, or war with Greece now.

 

[jamesseo89]

Although I wish that in near Future PN along with other Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE and Jordan and Oman should join in with Germans on U-216 program(4000 ton) and also produce its smaller coastal version (1600 ton)

 

[Neptune]

All air, ground and naval forces are equally important but even for Island states such as UK and Japan the Army comes first. Our geography requires that we must be strong in all aspects, we need a complete armed force and that's pretty much what we have.

We have weaknesses, a heavy cargo plane such as A400M and heavy lift helicopters such as CH47F Chinook are of utmost urgency. Rapid deployment is more important than the average size of the army. We need air defence but we need air defence for our navy first. We need SM2s first, then PAC3 or HQ9. It's simple strategy, our area of influence is growing. A naval war in the Mediterranean is much more likely than a pre-emptive strike on Syria, or war with Greece now.

Applies. Btw with saying Atlas, ours was supposed to make it's maiden flight by the end of June. It's been eight days still not any news about it. I think sth's wrong with the MSN 9 (Turkish A400M Atlas)

 

[gr8vision]

Guys, relying on the army is completly wrong. Think about the ME. All of them heavily relied on Army. Think smartly, try to beat the enemy from his weak point. Plus army is pretty well equipped when compared to HvKK and DzKK. That's why should and do rely on AF and Navy. We're doing good. Currently the big piece in the budget goes to the Navy, then AF, then the Army.

The Army (Land Forces) are not that well equipped. They have a lot of outdated equipment. And the domestically produced equipment is not proven in combat, untested in real military scenario's and is mostly heavily-borrowed from or reverse-engineered of the previous-generation (or half-generation) German (starting from guns to many other things, including tank, submarine, etc), British/American (BAE Systems' partnership with NUROL), Korean (Altay tank) or Israeli (ANKA UAV) analogues.

If you will serve in the Turkish Army, or have anyone that serves there as a draftee/conscript, they will tell you how many times they get to do live shooting (once or twice in 5 months is quite a norm - that's in Erzincan, not posh location in Western part of the country) from a 1950's machine gun G3.

Without an army, especially an effective, modern army, you can't have a Navy or Air Force. Indeed, all modern armies (land forces) have significant "air force" component integrated into them - i.e., not part of the Air Force, but part of the Landforce. That's not just helicopters, but often bombers and fighter jets.

As of Navy - like was shown, Turkey already has a massive Navy, twice larger than its principal antagonist, Greece, which is a bankrupt state that will be reducing its military.

 

[Neptune]

The Army (Land Forces) are not that well equipped. They have a lot of outdated equipment. And the domestically produced equipment is not proven in combat, untested in real military scenario's and is mostly heavily-borrowed from or reverse-engineered of the previous-generation (or half-generation) German (starting from guns to many other things, including tank, submarine, etc), British/American (BAE Systems' partnership with NUROL), Korean (Altay tank) or Israeli (ANKA UAV) analogues.

If you will serve in the Turkish Army, or have anyone that serves there as a draftee/conscript, they will tell you how many times they get to do live shooting (once or twice in 5 months is quite a norm - that's in Erzincan, not posh location in Western part of the country) from a 1950's machine gun G3.

Without an army, especially an effective, modern army, you can't have a Navy or Air Force. Indeed, all modern armies (land forces) have significant "air force" component integrated into them - i.e., not part of the Air Force, but part of the Landforce. That's not just helicopters, but often bombers and fighter jets.

As of Navy - like was shown, Turkey already has a massive Navy, twice larger than its principal antagonist, Greece, which is a bankrupt state that will be reducing its military.

Oh thanks, but i won't do that again

 

[gr8vision]

We're even more dominant in land forces with a mind blowing 402.000 active personnel and the ability to mobilize a couple of millions of at a time of crisis. Thanks to conscription we have a trained population that can be re-trained and re-instated shortly. I'm not even mentioning the Jandarma. We have some heavy equipment that needs modernization but that's about it, projects are underway to fix that problem. Our only real need for the land forces is a modern, reliable heavy lift helicopter. Gören-2 project will also be exciting and addition of A400M to the fleet will give us far greater logistical capabilities.

As for the Air Force right now only ones that can match us in the region are the Israeli, and until yesterday they've never been considered a threat. By ordering some 200+ CFTs and forming a couple of new F16 squadrons we can quickly match them. procurement of some more BWR missiles might be in order but that's about it.

We have superior AEW&C capabilities, we have superior air-refueling capabilities to any country in the region, first one also applies for Russia and Israel. TurAF is doing just fine.

That being said, navy is extremely important. Even with all the exciting projects such as Milgem and Atmaca, we can't forget the needs of our navy. Some SM2 equivalent of air-defense missile is a great need. AIP modernization for U209-1400s also might be in order.

With the procurement of the LHD we'll need to form a permanent fleet to roll with her, the navy must be ready.

Thank you, but most of your comments are not really a response to my post, despite quoting it. My post was simple: Turkey doesn't seem to need such a large (and thus expensive) Navy, whilst it does need a very large Army and Airforce. Whoever disagreed with me, I've asked to prove their point. So far, no one was able to. No one in the region: Greece, Cyprus, Syria, Israel, Bulgaria, Georgia, or anyone else, except Ukraine and Russia, have a large enough Navy to even challenge Turkey. In fact, Turkish Navy is twice large than the combined Greek/Cypriot, or the Israeli Navy.

Now, regarding your theory behind conscription - to have a "trained population that can be re-trained and re-instated shortly" - sounds great. In theory. And it's what is used as an argument by all governments that have conscription. Although I am all for conscription - and did not question or debate it - at the same time I have to ask you to be more scrupulous in your research and prognosis. Because if you think that 3 weeks, or 5 months, or 1 year, or even 1.5 years of military training lasts, you are seriously overestimating it. That's why Israel and Switzerland, both of which have very powerful militaries despite their tiny size, have a different model: where citizens are periodically called up throughout their young adulthood, every 3 years or so, to undergo a few weeks of "refresher" courses in the military reserve. Oh, and let's not forget that Israelis have to serve for three (3) years, not a paltry one (1) year during which you can barely learn much, especially if you are from a rural area and have only minimum education and literacy level. In 3 years you can become a very fine soldier - even a special forces one. But in 1 year, or even 1.5 years - not possible unless you are some extraordinarily gifted, physically and intellectually, person (that's less than 1% of the population).

Second, please don't compare Turkey to Israel or Russia. It is really unnecessary. Compare it to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Greece, any European country except France and UK. After 5 years to Israel. In 20 years, maybe, to Russia.

Not withstanding that Israel and Russia have nuclear bombs, and it would take them only a few minutes to destroy 90%+ of Turkey, they also have *real* domestic military production that is not dependent on foreign parts and expertise (and they are producing now, not tomorrow), and have powerful abilities to deliver massive non-nuclear explosives - whether by airforce (e.g., Tu-160), or ballistic missiles (Topol-M), Navy (Bulava), torpedoes (Gabriel V), or just plain Smerch-M, Tochka-U, and Iskander-M. Turkey's counterstrike would be intercepted with at least 80% probability by S-400/S-300PMU2, GreenPine/Barak, and similar. Thus, while the Turkish people would win any war if anyone invades them, at the same time we have to be realistic, and keep in mind that Turkish army would be nearly destroyed in the process. And that Turkey cannot conduct offensive operations either against Israel or against Russia, now and in the next 5 years at least.

Anyways, this is not the point - the point is that Turkey needs to upgrade and update its Airforce and Land Forces while maintaining their size (in case of Air Force - expanding it), and in case of Navy - also update and upgrade, but cut it in half, as it simply can't afford to spend so much on expensive and unnecessary toys like so many frigates and submarines.

Oh thanks, but i won't do that again

If you served once - that more than enough

So how many times did they allow you to do live shooting while serving, and over what period - did you serve 5 months or 1 year?

 

[LegionnairE]

Thank you, but most of your comments are not really a response to my post, despite quoting it. My post was simple: Turkey doesn't seem to need such a large (and thus expensive) Navy, whilst it does need a very large Army and Airforce. Whoever disagreed with me, I've asked to prove their point. So far, no one was able to. No one in the region: Greece, Cyprus, Syria, Israel, Bulgaria, Georgia, or anyone else, except Ukraine and Russia, have a large enough Navy to even challenge Turkey. In fact, Turkish Navy is twice large than the combined Greek/Cypriot, or the Israeli Navy.

Actually most of my post was to respond this, strategically nobody in the neighborhood has the power to come and simply invade Turkey, neither Israel, nor Russia. So we need to project our power into Israel and Russia's (especially the latter) influence areas. It can only happen with a stronger navy, Turkish navy is indeed very large but without proper air cover they can't operate so they are practically trapped within TurAF's range. We need SM2s and SM3s. After that, and the procurement of the LHD TN will be a complete force. We should be ready for a naval engagement in the Eastern Mediterranean.

I agree with your point on conscription. Israel's a better model for this. But I don't think that 1.5 years is too short. We can train our troops to a point where many countries consider special force within that time frame. It's known to happen, commanders from other NATO armies that observe our conscripts' drills often made such comments. In Turkish army conscripts has specialties, if you are chosen to mountain commando or paratrooper commando units you get an impressive training. The time may be short but most people adapt, lose weight and so...

Not withstanding that Israel and Russia have nuclear bombs, and it would take them only a few minutes to destroy 90%+ of Turkey, they also have *real* domestic military production that is not dependent on foreign parts and expertise (and they are producing now, not tomorrow), and have powerful abilities to deliver massive non-nuclear explosives - whether by airforce (e.g., Tu-160), or ballistic missiles (Topol-M), Navy (Bulava), torpedoes (Gabriel V), or just plain Smerch-M, Tochka-U, and Iskander-M. Turkey's counterstrike would be intercepted with at least 80% probability by S-400/S-300PMU2, GreenPine/Barak, and similar. Thus, while the Turkish people would win any war if anyone invades them, at the same time we have to be realistic, and keep in mind that Turkish army would be nearly destroyed in the process. And that Turkey cannot conduct offensive operations either against Israel or against Russia, now and in the next 5 years at least.

On paper you're right, but I'd like to bring up the 2008 Georgian example again, how did Russia fail to mobilize and how the war took longer than it should. They didn't have any support ships and they didn't have enough logistical means, they made some very dangerous maneuvers that could have fatal consequences if made against a potent force such as TAF. Russian black sea fleet is very old and outdated, that's why they are buying mistrals from France now.

As for Israel, the situation is pretty much a stalemate but I don't think It'd last if the above measures mentioned by me can be taken. We could invade Syria in a heartbeat that can open a war theater with Israel that they can't possibly risk entering. Even though I believe Israeli air force can keep us away from the sea but as we get closer you'll see the threat diminish. Because from that distance the technological differences don't matter as much as tactics and logistical support.

 

[Neptune]

Thank you, but most of your comments are not really a response to my post, despite quoting it. My post was simple: Turkey doesn't seem to need such a large (and thus expensive) Navy, whilst it does need a very large Army and Airforce. Whoever disagreed with me, I've asked to prove their point. So far, no one was able to. No one in the region: Greece, Cyprus, Syria, Israel, Bulgaria, Georgia, or anyone else, except Ukraine and Russia, have a large enough Navy to even challenge Turkey. In fact, Turkish Navy is twice large than the combined Greek/Cypriot, or the Israeli Navy.

Now, regarding your theory behind conscription - to have a "trained population that can be re-trained and re-instated shortly" - sounds great. In theory. And it's what is used as an argument by all governments that have conscription. Although I am all for conscription - and did not question or debate it - at the same time I have to ask you to be more scrupulous in your research and prognosis. Because if you think that 3 weeks, or 5 months, or 1 year, or even 1.5 years of military training lasts, you are seriously overestimating it. That's why Israel and Switzerland, both of which have very powerful militaries despite their tiny size, have a different model: where citizens are periodically called up throughout their young adulthood, every 3 years or so, to undergo a few weeks of "refresher" courses in the military reserve. Oh, and let's not forget that Israelis have to serve for three (3) years, not a paltry one (1) year during which you can barely learn much, especially if you are from a rural area and have only minimum education and literacy level. In 3 years you can become a very fine soldier - even a special forces one. But in 1 year, or even 1.5 years - not possible unless you are some extraordinarily gifted, physically and intellectually, person (that's less than 1% of the population).

Second, please don't compare Turkey to Israel or Russia. It is really unnecessary. Compare it to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Greece, any European country except France and UK. After 5 years to Israel. In 20 years, maybe, to Russia.

Not withstanding that Israel and Russia have nuclear bombs, and it would take them only a few minutes to destroy 90%+ of Turkey, they also have *real* domestic military production that is not dependent on foreign parts and expertise (and they are producing now, not tomorrow), and have powerful abilities to deliver massive non-nuclear explosives - whether by airforce (e.g., Tu-160), or ballistic missiles (Topol-M), Navy (Bulava), torpedoes (Gabriel V), or just plain Smerch-M, Tochka-U, and Iskander-M. Turkey's counterstrike would be intercepted with at least 80% probability by S-400/S-300PMU2, GreenPine/Barak, and similar. Thus, while the Turkish people would win any war if anyone invades them, at the same time we have to be realistic, and keep in mind that Turkish army would be nearly destroyed in the process. And that Turkey cannot conduct offensive operations either against Israel or against Russia, now and in the next 5 years at least.

Anyways, this is not the point - the point is that Turkey needs to upgrade and update its Airforce and Land Forces while maintaining their size (in case of Air Force - expanding it), and in case of Navy - also update and upgrade, but cut it in half, as it simply can't afford to spend so much on expensive and unnecessary toys like so many frigates and submarines.



If you served once - that more than enough

So how many times did they allow you to do live shooting while serving, and over what period - did you serve 5 months or 1 year?

Ahah. I was an officer cadet. At the 3rd grade, we had two different types of shootings. One was basic which we used G3A7 the other one was On-Boat trainings which we used M4A1's standart training variant. Both basic and on-boat trainings, each were once a week.

 

[gr8vision]

On paper you're right, but I'd like to bring up the 2008 Georgian example again, how did Russia fail to mobilize and how the war took longer than it should. They didn't have any support ships and they didn't have enough logistical means, they made some very dangerous maneuvers that could have fatal consequences if made against a potent force such as TAF. Russian black sea fleet is very old and outdated, that's why they are buying mistrals from France now.

The Georgia example might not be so good - Russia has learned lessons from then, and quietly fired and replaced all generals from that operation. Their main problem back then was lack of communications gear and basic ability to communicate in the theater. They have resolved this. Also, they didn't have any UAV's - now they do. Finally, they didn't use any long-range artillery, MLRS and other missiles and rockets. They could have easily bombed Georgia with conventional bombs, and there would be little Georgia would be able to do. Even Georgian SAM's wouldn't help after sometime, because they would be simply overwhelmed by the number, quantity of Russian missiles and rockets.

The Mistral that Russia is buying is somewhat useless - that's why French are selling it and agreed to allow production of it in Russia. It is a helicopter carrier, and is highly unprotected.

While Russia might have less ships than it wants or needs in the Black Sea, they do have plenty of submarines. I truly doubt that any Turkish submarine is a match for a Russian one.

Also, Russian's already deployed Iskander's and Tornado's in their forward base in Gyumri, Armenia, against Turkey. They also have another base with Iskander's in occupied Abkhazia. Plus the Southern Military District of Russia - which encompasses all of North Caucasus - is their most battle-ready army, that has more equipment and supplies for them than any other of their military districts.

But all of this is hypothetical. If push comes to shove, Russia won't really invade Turkey - it would simply launch a bunch of conventional missiles, ballistic and otherwise, such as Topol-M's and others, and overwhelm Turkish air defense (as Patriot PAC3 are not even nearly as effective as even mid-generation S-300VM, and are projected to intercept no more than 30% of missiles and rockets, and in case of using Iskander's and Bulava's, they might not be able to intercept them at all). And Turkey would be powerless to counter-strike - at least 80% of all Turkish rockets, missiles and airforce would be intercepted by S-300PM2 or S-400 (or more advanced modifications).

It's better to be friends with Russia, and concentrate instead on hostile Iran, Armenia, Syria, perhaps Greece and South Cyprus. Meanwhile, encourage Russia to cooperate militarily - as in transferring technologies, such as transport helicopter technology. Turkey had many opportunities, such as with Ka-50-2 Erdogan, but it foolishly passed them over 10 years ago. If not, today Turkey would have had hundreds of its own co-produced military helicopters, and would have been either producing or much closer to producing its 100% own helicopter. There are many other missed opportunities - all because Turkish elite prefers to spend more money on German and other European countries's stuff.

 

[LegionnairE]

Finally, they didn't use any long-range artillery, MLRS and other missiles and rockets. They could have easily bombed Georgia with conventional bombs, and there would be little Georgia would be able to do. Even Georgian SAM's wouldn't help after sometime, because they would be simply overwhelmed by the number, quantity of Russian missiles and rockets.

Depends on why, if there were any Smerch or Tochka batteries in-range why wouldn't they use them? Probably another logistical problem.

The Mistral that Russia is buying is somewhat useless - that's why French are selling it and agreed to allow production of it in Russia. It is a helicopter carrier, and is highly unprotected.

it's a shallow way of looking at it. A navy needs more than frigates and destroyers. Russians are aware that they couldn't mobilize their troops fast enough, so they are taking measures. The problem was logistical so the measures are logistical. I've never seen an LHD "protected" with more than a Mk 49 RAM launcher so I think it's good enough for the Russians.

While Russia might have less ships than it wants or needs in the Black Sea, they do have plenty of submarines. I truly doubt that any Turkish submarine is a match for a Russian one.

Well, they don't have any submarines in the black sea. On your second assessment, I doubt that a huge nuclear submarine can outmaneuver a conventional submarine in these rather shallow waters. Their losses would be beyond recovery.

Also, Russian's already deployed Iskander's and Tornado's in their forward base in Gyumri, Armenia, against Turkey. They also have another base with Iskander's in occupied Abkhazia. Plus the Southern Military District of Russia - which encompasses all of North Caucasus - is their most battle-ready army, that has more equipment and supplies for them than any other of their military districts.

It was a stupid move if not just for show. That base is within range of Turkish mortars, howitzers, MLRS', and cruise missiles. In any event they will be toast within hours They are just wasting their equipment in a place that offers no strategical depth where they can't maneuver back and forth. They don't have many options, best they can do is to fire a salvo and retreat as fast as they can. It's because we have the seas, they will be stuck trying to maneuver in the mountainous Caucasia, it'll be a logistical nightmare for them. We can launch counter-offensives over Crimean peninsula though widening the war theater may not be a good idea at first, we're hardly without options.

With the CCIP upgrade all our F16s got equipped with JHMCS and AN/APG 68 v(9) synthetic radars in any event it'll be extremely difficult for the Russians to accomplish air superiority.

As I've said, although on paper Russian army might seem much superior the ground realities are different. So unless we're trying to invade Moscow, what we have is enough. We can focus on our navy to expand our area of influence. We need to control Eastern Mediterranean to protect our rights on Cyprus and economical area in it's surrounding seas.

 

[Yabgu]

Thank you, but most of your comments are not really a response to my post, despite quoting it. My post was simple: Turkey doesn't seem to need such a large (and thus expensive) Navy, whilst it does need a very large Army and Airforce. Whoever disagreed with me, I've asked to prove their point. So far, no one was able to. No one in the region: Greece, Cyprus, Syria, Israel, Bulgaria, Georgia, or anyone else, except Ukraine and Russia, have a large enough Navy to even challenge Turkey. In fact, Turkish Navy is twice large than the combined Greek/Cypriot, or the Israeli Navy.

Now, regarding your theory behind conscription - to have a "trained population that can be re-trained and re-instated shortly" - sounds great. In theory. And it's what is used as an argument by all governments that have conscription. Although I am all for conscription - and did not question or debate it - at the same time I have to ask you to be more scrupulous in your research and prognosis. Because if you think that 3 weeks, or 5 months, or 1 year, or even 1.5 years of military training lasts, you are seriously overestimating it. That's why Israel and Switzerland, both of which have very powerful militaries despite their tiny size, have a different model: where citizens are periodically called up throughout their young adulthood, every 3 years or so, to undergo a few weeks of "refresher" courses in the military reserve. Oh, and let's not forget that Israelis have to serve for three (3) years, not a paltry one (1) year during which you can barely learn much, especially if you are from a rural area and have only minimum education and literacy level. In 3 years you can become a very fine soldier - even a special forces one. But in 1 year, or even 1.5 years - not possible unless you are some extraordinarily gifted, physically and intellectually, person (that's less than 1% of the population).

Second, please don't compare Turkey to Israel or Russia. It is really unnecessary. Compare it to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Greece, any European country except France and UK. After 5 years to Israel. In 20 years, maybe, to Russia.

Not withstanding that Israel and Russia have nuclear bombs, and it would take them only a few minutes to destroy 90%+ of Turkey, they also have *real* domestic military production that is not dependent on foreign parts and expertise (and they are producing now, not tomorrow), and have powerful abilities to deliver massive non-nuclear explosives - whether by airforce (e.g., Tu-160), or ballistic missiles (Topol-M), Navy (Bulava), torpedoes (Gabriel V), or just plain Smerch-M, Tochka-U, and Iskander-M. Turkey's counterstrike would be intercepted with at least 80% probability by S-400/S-300PMU2, GreenPine/Barak, and similar. Thus, while the Turkish people would win any war if anyone invades them, at the same time we have to be realistic, and keep in mind that Turkish army would be nearly destroyed in the process. And that Turkey cannot conduct offensive operations either against Israel or against Russia, now and in the next 5 years at least.

Anyways, this is not the point - the point is that Turkey needs to upgrade and update its Airforce and Land Forces while maintaining their size (in case of Air Force - expanding it), and in case of Navy - also update and upgrade, but cut it in half, as it simply can't afford to spend so much on expensive and unnecessary toys like so many frigates and submarines.



If you served once - that more than enough

So how many times did they allow you to do live shooting while serving, and over what period - did you serve 5 months or 1 year?

I don't agree with what most of what you said. If we are going to get into oh they have nuclear bombs then we might as well not have an army as then the 9-10 nuclear countries could destroy anyone else, that's why we are member of NATO etc. A stronger land force would only be useful if you have a strong air force especially otherwise you would be demolished with air strikes, that's why Israel maintains a very strong air force. Now you said comparing with Israel, they today have a strong air force than us but we have a much stronger air force however only the G class with SM1 with 150+km range is useful against their aircraft to shoot them down and protect cover. Also when we get the proper air defence destroyer TF2000 they could provide good air cover, yet we need to have more air superiority fighters and we need to induct large numbers of SOM missiles and also naval version like tomahawk and other missiles /rockets.

 

[gr8vision]

Well, they don't have any submarines in the black sea. On your second assessment, I doubt that a huge nuclear submarine can outmaneuver a conventional submarine in these rather shallow waters. Their losses would be beyond recovery.

It was a stupid move if not just for show. That base is within range of Turkish mortars, howitzers, MLRS', and cruise missiles. In any event they will be toast within hours They are just wasting their equipment in a place that offers no strategical depth where they can't maneuver back and forth. They don't have many options, best they can do is to fire a salvo and retreat as fast as they can. It's because we have the seas, they will be stuck trying to maneuver in the mountainous Caucasia, it'll be a logistical nightmare for them. We can launch counter-offensives over Crimean peninsula though widening the war theater may not be a good idea at first, we're hardly without options.

With the CCIP upgrade all our F16s got equipped with JHMCS and AN/APG 68 v(9) synthetic radars in any event it'll be extremely difficult for the Russians to accomplish air superiority.

As I've said, although on paper Russian army might seem much superior the ground realities are different. So unless we're trying to invade Moscow, what we have is enough. We can focus on our navy to expand our area of influence. We need to control Eastern Mediterranean to protect our rights on Cyprus and economical area in it's surrounding seas.

You are right about the stupidity of having a "base" in Gyumri - it's just for show, although they do have 5,000 mostly contract soldiers and officers there. Still, if they are the first to fire from Iskander's, and have their at least 3 batallions of S-300's protect them from Turkish counter-strike, they might be able to survive until aviation comes (although that would mean breaching Georgian airspace - but then Russian has proven that it can do that and more).

On the submarine - they actually do have one submarine remaining in the Black Sea, the recently modernized Alrosa - Kilo-class Project 877 - see: alrosa.net/eng/ . Meanwhile, according to latest reports, around 2017 Russia plans on having 6 brand new submarines of the Project 636 - see: day.kiev.ua/ru/article/mirovye-diskussii/podvodnye-lodki-v-stepyah-ukrainy-ne-shutki

 

[gr8vision]

I don't agree with what most of what you said. If we are going to get into oh they have nuclear bombs then we might as well not have an army as then the 9-10 nuclear countries could destroy anyone else, that's why we are member of NATO etc. A stronger land force would only be useful if you have a strong air force especially otherwise you would be demolished with air strikes, that's why Israel maintains a very strong air force. Now you said comparing with Israel, they today have a strong air force than us but we have a much stronger air force however only the G class with SM1 with 150+km range is useful against their aircraft to shoot them down and protect cover. Also when we get the proper air defence destroyer TF2000 they could provide good air cover, yet we need to have more air superiority fighters and we need to induct large numbers of SOM missiles and also naval version like tomahawk and other missiles /rockets.

You certainly have a point, and there is no dispute that the nuclear option is only the last resort and in the most desperate circumstances, which everyone hopes won't come even if Russia and Turkey would ever fight another war.

But my point was that provided that Russia has a clear qualitative advantage in air defense (SAM) and in precise MLRS such as Smerch, Tochka-U and Iskander, just to name a few, they are able to inflict significant damage to infrastructure in north-eastern Turkey without even having to invade it per se. Additionally, Russia, like Israel, are mostly self-sufficient in domestic military production, whilst Turkey essentially only began very recently and is still years, over a decade for sure, away from true self-reliance.

Also, my point was that while there is no doubt that in the end Turks would prevail on their own territory, they would be badly scarred. Meanwhile, Turkey does not have the ability to inflict equal damage to Russia.

But if there is a description of a scenario in which Turkish army would more easily and more quickly win over Russia, would be interesting to read.

 

[Yabgu]

You certainly have a point, and there is no dispute that the nuclear option is only the last resort and in the most desperate circumstances, which everyone hopes won't come even if Russia and Turkey would ever fight another war.

But my point was that provided that Russia has a clear qualitative advantage in air defense (SAM) and in precise MLRS such as Smerch, Tochka-U and Iskander, just to name a few, they are able to inflict significant damage to infrastructure in north-eastern Turkey without even having to invade it per se. Additionally, Russia, like Israel, are mostly self-sufficient in domestic military production, whilst Turkey essentially only began very recently and is still years, over a decade for sure, away from true self-reliance.

Also, my point was that while there is no doubt that in the end Turks would prevail on their own territory, they would be badly scarred. Meanwhile, Turkey does not have the ability to inflict equal damage to Russia.

But if there is a description of a scenario in which Turkish army would more easily and more quickly win over Russia, would be interesting to read.

Nobody is doubting that Russia is way stronger than us in most aspects. They was a recent superpower 25+ years ago so looking at today the gap has reduced considerably conventionally and it will be extremely hard to get near them so I don't compare us to Russia right now because that would be delusional however in the region I think we will be the strongest/ are the strongest right now with Israel have a clear edge in air force and some other sectors while we have a clear advantage in submarine force, naval ships, strategic depth etc because most of the countries that we will potentially ever have a problem with is on our eastern border which is insignificant to the country in terms of output and cities like Istanbul, Izmir, Ankara is hard to be targeted while their cities can be easily targeted.

 

[LegionnairE]

You are right about the stupidity of having a "base" in Gyumri - it's just for show,

Glad we agree.

On the submarine - they actually do have one submarine remaining in the Black Sea, the recently modernized Alrosa - Kilo-class Project 877 - see: alrosa.net/eng/ . Meanwhile, according to latest reports, around 2017 Russia plans on having 6 brand new submarines of the Project 636 - see: day.kiev.ua/ru/article/mirovye-diskussii/podvodnye-lodki-v-stepyah-ukrainy-ne-shutki

Well, I didn't know about this. It makes little difference but thanks.