The Future of the Russian Air Force: 10 Years On

[gambit]

I know more than you think i do, but that's is not what the discussion is about, and really i don't beleive i'm flooding the discussion with anything, i'm simply defending my country, does that make me a bad person? Remember it is not me that's making fantastic patriotic claims that Russia can beat the US if only the US didn't have nukes, i'm only stating that our air force is improving. That is what the thread is about isn't it?

No...It does not make you a 'bad person'. However, when you inject nonsensical comments regarding US military capabilities in SE Asia when after all the politics regarding the region are stripped out and that even the NVA admitted their losses and inferiority in the war, you and your arguments become no more legitimate to the discussion than those other pests and their unrelated flood. Regarding the Vietnam War, you utterly failed to understand how political goals set military objectives and how divergent those political goals were at that time.

 

[ptldM3]

No...It does not make you a 'bad person'. However, when you inject nonsensical comments regarding US military capabilities in SE Asia when after all the politics regarding the region are stripped out and that even the NVA admitted their losses and inferiority in the war, you and your arguments become no more legitimate to the discussion than those other pests and their unrelated flood.

I understand your point of view, no war is simply black and white and i do understand that there is more to the story than figures. In reality the US had the uper-hand in vietnam but they did suffer heavy causualties, which brings me back to the US vs Russia subject, your claim is that the US would just walk all over Russia, my claim is it would not be that easy and or black and white.

Regarding the Vietnam War, you utterly failed to understand how political goals set military objectives and how divergent those political goals were at that time.

political goals of the US was to supress communism, atleast that's what the US always maintained.

 

[gambit]

I understand your point of view, no war is simply black and white and i do understand that there is more to the story than figures. In reality the US had the uper-hand in vietnam but they did suffer heavy causualties, which brings me back to the US vs Russia subject, your claim is that the US would just walk all over Russia, my claim is it would not be that easy and or black and white.

I said it before and will repeat: A newly promoted general or admiral does not guarantee new strategies, new tactics or even new ideas. But a new weapon will always offer new options.

The corollary to that is the most innovative general or admiral will be constrained by the available forces. The further the gap between his forces and his adversary, the more likely this innovative general or admiral will have to divert his considerable intellect to fighting a defensive war than an offensive one. William Westmoreland does not have high or even moderate regard for his opponent, Vo Nguyen Giap, as a battlefield commander. Westmoreland does have considerable disagreements among his US and non-US peers. Regardless of those differences, what was indisputable was that whenever Giap committed his NVA forces to conventional warfare, Giap consistently underestimated US technological advantages, their employments and deployments and suffered far more heavy casualties. Giap even admitted that gross disparity many times, according to insiders.

In an armed conflict between the US and Russia, the Russian Navy will be limited in range and operations. Look at the state of the Russian Navy for yourself. Similar disparities exists between air forces. Similar disparities exists between actual combat experiences for the ground forces. No...Am not saying that the Americans will 'walk' all over Russians forces. The disparities between Russian and American forces today is not as gross as between the NVA and American forces back in the 1960s and 1970s. But there is little doubt that Russian forces will be conducting a largely defensive war.

political goals of the US was to supress communism, atleast that's what the US always maintained.

Wrong...The political goal for the US regarding Viet Nam was to maintain partition of the country into distinct political states. This is subordinate to the greater goal of communism containment, of course.

 

[lockh33d]

That US of A uses the UN for its interests is for all to see Gambit. This is no rocket science.



You mean Bush, I admire him Gambit.
Btw, even Bush would not risk a war with Russia. China can be contained, but Russia is like a great bear. You try to occupy the bear's den, the bear comes out and kicks you in the a**.

I am pro america, but against your statements. US funded those Mujahideens against the Soviets, but what happened? You had 9/11.
Just to let soviets have their Vietnam, US supported terrorists. And it is US now, who is more worried than any other country in this earth.

Talk sense, atleast sometimes.

If I recall correctly. USA has the maximum no of idiotic foreign policies ever adopted for use. And that is still continuing. God bless America.

Well you got to be the biggest joker on the forum, and a hypocritical one too, on one hand, you say that you're pro-US, on the other hand, you constantly insult the nation and its policy makers, not just Bush, but ALL of them.

Here's something for you:

Composite Index of National Capability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And so you say, Russia is like a "Great bear," waiting to crawl out and bite me. However, explain why it's 3rd in place, behind the US and even China and India?

You can live in your fantasy world all you want, just remember that one day, when India is attacked, the so called big bear ain't going to crawl out and shell out its resources it has stored up for hibernation for India, as there is hardly enough for it to consume itself.

 

[prototype]

Well you got to be the biggest joker on the forum, and a hypocritical one too, on one hand, you say that you're pro-US, on the other hand, you constantly insult the nation and its policy makers, not just Bush, but ALL of them.

Here's something for you:

Composite Index of National Capability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And so you say, Russia is like a "Great bear," waiting to crawl out and bite me. However, explain why it's 3rd in place, behind the US and even China and India?

You can live in your fantasy world all you want, just remember that one day, when India is attacked, the so called big bear ain't going to crawl out and shell out its resources it has stored up for hibernation for India, as there is hardly enough for it to consume itself.

well i am apro american and also pro russian just like most of the indians now

theirs nothing here to debate that u.s.a is the most powerful and russia is just a shadow of former soviet union

but it is also true u.s.a will b still unable to beat russia even if pressed by an overwhelming conventional force.

russia's military have detoriated but they r still powerful and emerging back

and abt military tech it is still russia who is giving closest challenge to u.s.a,not europe or china

 

[ptldM3]

Well you got to be the biggest joker on the forum, and a hypocritical one too, on one hand, you say that you're pro-US, on the other hand, you constantly insult the nation and its policy makers, not just Bush, but ALL of them.

Here's something for you:

Composite Index of National Capability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And so you say, Russia is like a "Great bear," waiting to crawl out and bite me. However, explain why it's 3rd in place, behind the US and even China and India?

You can live in your fantasy world all you want, just remember that one day, when India is attacked, the so called big bear ain't going to crawl out and shell out its resources it has stored up for hibernation for India, as there is hardly enough for it to consume itself.

Get your worthless composite index out of here, this is what it measures.

total population of country ratio

UPR = urban population of country ratio

ISPR = iron and steel production of country ratio

ECR = primary energy consumption ratio

MER = military expenditure ratio

MPR = military personnel ratio

Pathetic attemp to lower Russia, but that's expected from a self proclaimed Russian hater. Can you so diligently explain how in gods name this relates to our airfore? Esspecially the highlited areas.

BTW according to the list Brazil and South Korea are ahead of France and the United Kingdom

I guess our air force and military are weak because our urban population and energy consumption isn't the highest.