Jump to content


Photo

Cold War, The Reimagined Series


  • Please log in to reply
8004 replies to this topic

#7961 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,937 posts

Posted 20 September 2019 - 0634 AM

 

 

Considering the USSR possessed some 40000 MBT's at its dissolution (53000 if you accept Chris Werbs figures), its small beer. The ICBM's were a greater loss, and you got those back.

 

My figures were from a USMC book on Russian AFVs by Zaloga.

 

 

What date was that Chris? Ill have to compare it to figures the IISS have.

 

 

I think the words were "When the Wall came down".


  • 0

#7962 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,291 posts

Posted 21 September 2019 - 0603 AM

This presumably is a different thing to ARRC, and is more to allow rapid movement of troops and logistics which previous exercises have highlighted as an option? Its more of a logistics support HQ?

 

Yeah, it's one of the things that have been in the making since 2014 to overcome the issues with moving quickly across Europe that have crept in after the Cold War - different national standards for diplomatic clearance and transport, deterioration of logistics capabilities and even domestic coordination and authorization of military convoys. Supposedly this command will be the military authority in charge of all this and single point of contact for civilian authorities. The other new HQ is Joint Force Command Norfolk in Virginia, lead double-hat by the commander of the re-established US 2nd Fleet, which was activated in July and is responsible for transatlantic movements.

 

Jul 30 2019

 

JFC Norfolk formally activated by NAC

 

BRUSSELS, Belgium – NATO’s North Atlantic Council (NAC) announced formal activation of Joint Force Command Norfolk (JFCNF) as a NATO military body on July 26, upon activation and pursuant to Article XIV of the Paris Protocol. 

 

JFCNF's mission and tasks are to deliver multinational and NATO joint effects, maintain readiness, protect the North Atlantic strategic lines of communication, deter aggression, contribute to NATO responsiveness, secure reinforcements and resupply, and if necessary project power to defend its Allies and Partners.

 

“This is a significant milestone in the short history of this unique NATO command”, said Vice Adm. Andrew Lewis, Commander, Joint Force Command Norfolk.  “As we forge ahead, we are continuing to press ahead and look forward to receiving the full complement of trained international personnel so we can meet Initial Operational Capability by December 2019.”

 

https://shape.nato.i...ctivated-by-nac


  • 0

#7963 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,937 posts

Posted 21 September 2019 - 0645 AM


 
The first 24 or so minutes is dead, but the rest is ok and makes interesting listening. Particularly the discussion of the Russian cruise missile threat, and the lack of production capacity they have for them.


It's too bad they'll run out of targets long before they run out of missiles.
  • 0

#7964 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,498 posts

Posted 21 September 2019 - 1628 PM

Centr-2019 - first in post-Soviet history full regiment airdrop


Edited by Roman Alymov, 21 September 2019 - 1632 PM.

  • 0

#7965 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,498 posts

Posted 21 September 2019 - 1641 PM


  • 0

#7966 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,498 posts

Posted 21 September 2019 - 1644 PM

Bit more on the Russian exercises taking part this year, the centrepiece of which appears to be Tsentr 2019. Union Shield 19 seems to be ongoing at the same time, which means again Russia is breaching the technical limits of an exercise without inviting observers. Again.

 

https://nationalinte...duct-fall-80451

Observers? :)

70644213_2331395643788559_50834376885524


  • 0

#7967 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,498 posts

Posted 21 September 2019 - 1734 PM

China perspective of Center-2019

http://www.81.cn/syj...ent_9630467.htm

 


  • 0

#7968 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,684 posts

Posted 25 September 2019 - 0720 AM

 


 
The first 24 or so minutes is dead, but the rest is ok and makes interesting listening. Particularly the discussion of the Russian cruise missile threat, and the lack of production capacity they have for them.


It's too bad they'll run out of targets long before they run out of missiles.

 

 

Quite the reverse. There are far more civilian and military targets in Europe and North America than they have missiles for, or any immediate prospects of procuring missiles for.

 

 

https://www.express....i-saudi-attacks

Tass News agency reports Moscow has been waiting one year for the document from the United States to the proposal to confirm their refusal to start what would likely be considered World War 3 if a nuclear war broke out. Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia’s permanent representative to international organisations in Vienna, said: “In a month, it will be exactly one year since Russia proposed to the US to make a joint statement confirming that there can be no winner in a nuclear war, and that it should not be started. “We are still expecting a response. It looks like the US found maintaining silence to be the best option.”


  • 0

#7969 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,294 posts

Posted 25 September 2019 - 0958 AM

 

 

Quite the reverse. There are far more civilian and military targets in Europe and North America than they have missiles for, or any immediate prospects of procuring missiles for.

 

 

 

We do not know how many missiles they have nor how many are required to decapitate key infrastructure such as water, hydro, and communications nodes.  


  • 0

#7970 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,684 posts

Posted 25 September 2019 - 1059 AM

I have a book written in 1983 showing the strategic targets in the UK (including such things as motorway intersections, tunnels, steelworks). Admittedly it was assembled by CND, but there was a table at the back of the book showing the target list, and they were all good suppositions. Assuming a 100 percent PK by the Russians, there were (and almost certainly, still are) far more strategic targets in the UK than the Russians have missiles. Then scale that up across Europe, NATO, North America, and you witness the prodigious amount of TLAM's required for the task, and consequently, the amount of platforms to launch them. Then you need the recce means to ensure bomb damage, and if the target has not been hit, engage again. They are not even close to such a capability, and I warrant, never shall be. They can cause damage, certainly. Enough to cause a capitulation by NATO? No, not even close.

 

Chris is quite right to point to a limited number of nodes that would cause chaos if they were destroyed, places like West Drayton, or the limited number of electronic signal boxes commanding the UK Rail network. But its  irrelevant. The thing the Russians would need to do to ensure our capitulation is destroy links with your nuclear deterrent to enable nuclear blackmail, and that is impossible. Because its fail live. Where they ever to achieve it, the UK would launch its nuclear deterrent. There would be no means to stop it.

 

And at this point they STILL haven't disabled the French nuclear deterrent or the US one. So you have to ask yourself, what do they hope to achieve by enforcing a conventional win against NATO, when quite possibly all its going to do is create a nuclear release? Kind of a Pyrrhic victory  I would have thought.

 

 

But we have kicked all this around, so why bother to introduce fact in it when we can fall back on Russian Mythmaking.


  • 0

#7971 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,294 posts

Posted 25 September 2019 - 1215 PM

I'm talking about targeting infrastructure, not "our capitulation".  They are two entirely different things.  It is entirely possible that a big city like London could completely collapse without the British government then surrendering unconditionally.

 

I do not know how many cruise missiles it would take to knock out a city like Toronto or London.  I've never seen a study that addresses the issue, and would be shocked if our military ever discussed such a thing, since it's obviously sensitive information that should not be published.  But there is an answer and the militaries have done the studies and have an idea.  As civilians we know that key road, rail and tube bridges, power grid, water supply, and petrol/gas distribution are key.  How many such nodes are there in a big city, and how many direct hits would each node require?  50? 100 targets?  

 

In terms of the number of missiles in Russian inventory, I have no idea other than that they must have thousands of KH-55's left over from the Cold War, plus maybe 100 per year built since 2004 or so.  These statistics seem to be closely guarded secrets - I don't see where anyone is publishing their levels of precision missile stocks.  


Edited by glenn239, 25 September 2019 - 1220 PM.

  • 0

#7972 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,937 posts

Posted 25 September 2019 - 1225 PM

Stuart, you're not comparing apples with apples. I was talking about a conventional war in Europe with an element of coercion against or civil population to make us quit. I don't think it would take much coercion and I don't forsee it taking a great number of cruise missiles to cause serious dislocation and immense economic damage. Basically all they need to go after is electricity distribution. That's a target that can't be hardened or dispersed - without it, everything else fails. They'd be mad to go after our nuclear deterrent, or us theirs (which is yet another reason why I don't think sending a carrier up to Murmansk is a great idea).


  • 0

#7973 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,600 posts

Posted 25 September 2019 - 1245 PM

Stuart, you're not comparing apples with apples. I was talking about a conventional war in Europe with an element of coercion against or civil population to make us quit. I don't think it would take much coercion and I don't forsee it taking a great number of cruise missiles to cause serious dislocation and immense economic damage. Basically all they need to go after is electricity distribution. That's a target that can't be hardened or dispersed - without it, everything else fails. They'd be mad to go after our nuclear deterrent, or us theirs (which is yet another reason why I don't think sending a carrier up to Murmansk is a great idea).

 

I agree with Chris here, although with the caveat of Europe only - I don't see Russia as having that conventional capability against the US. Where as I absolutely think the US would have sufficient cruise missiles to treat most of Russia the same way. So that would come down to how committed the US is to countering strikes against NATO allies. Again, it seems to me it would behoove you to at least have a marginal ability to put a Russian region's infrastructure at risk. Kalingrad at a minimum.


  • 0

#7974 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,684 posts

Posted 25 September 2019 - 1305 PM

I don't believe we have enough cruise missiles to use against Russia either. If you look at how few conventionally armed AGM86 there is a clear issue striking targets in the Russian hinterland. There would appear to be only 500 of those ever produced, which is not going far against such a vast country. There is also the problem of the relative lack of launch platforms also.

https://en.m.wikiped...iki/AGM-86_ALCM
  • 0

#7975 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,600 posts

Posted 25 September 2019 - 1332 PM

The conventional AGM-86s are basically exhausted. One open article I read that crunched the numbers of production, conversion, use, etc. estimated a hundred or so left, and I would guess a fair percentage are converted to CHAMP as an interim measure until a new production missile enters service. Admittedly Moscow would be a little hard to target with AGM-158s unless off a B-2, but most any target within several hundred miles of the border would be in easy range and US bombers can carry prolific numbers of them. The AGM-158 buy is supposed to be on the order 2000 of the base model (completed 2017) and something like 2500-3000 of the ER model (sole model produced starting LOT 15 to continue to 2023). Since a bomber carries 20-24 of them depending on type, a typical half squadron detachment of six aircraft is carrying 120-150 weapons per strike with a stand off range of 200-500+ miles. That seems like sufficient numbers to target a lot of infrastructure. Deeper targets could be serviced by B-2s delivering 16 weapons each, though clearly the number of aircraft is a big limiting factor in that case.


Edited by Josh, 25 September 2019 - 1335 PM.

  • 0

#7976 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,684 posts

Posted 26 September 2019 - 0213 AM

European Russia we could reach. Central Russia (where a considerable chunk of reinforcements for Eastern and Western Military districts is housed) would probably beyond our reach, in anything but minute numbers. I have to question whether the US would risk B2's on a conventional mission, when its clearly part of their nuclear strike capablity against the same targets. There are all kinds of reasons why this is a bad idea, not least what Russia is going to do when they detect 20 B2 stealth bombers on OTH radars coming towards them.

 

This has always been the problem ive had with critics of Russia. They project what we apparently can do on Russia, when we cant even do this to Russia. So what hope has Russia got doing it to Europe?   I know they have the ambition to this kind of capability, I read an interesting article about it in warship magazine. But we have to beware of placing on Russia the ability to do what it WANTS to do. If it ever develops the capacity to do this, is going to take years to build up. And clearly, if evidence is any kind of guide, most analysts dont believe they have anything like the capacity to build it in the timescale they want.

 

We have to be careful here, lets stop doing the Russian propaganda machines work for them. Its not helping the reading of the situation.

 

 

This was interesting.

https://www.middleea...eastern-england

 

Israeli fighter jets have taken part in a training exercise in British air space for the first time, as the Israeli Air Force seeks new opportunities for military co-operation, and European air forces seek to learn more about combating air defence systems.

Seven Israeli F15s and a refuelling tanker took part in the British Royal Air Force-hosted exercise, known as Cobra Warrior, alongside around 40 other aircraft from Germany, Italy, the US and the UK.

Together, they practised aerial combat and refuelling over the sea off the north east of England, and simulated attacks on targets on the ground.

“We can learn [from] their drills and the way they are flying,” said Brigadier General Amnon Ein Dar, head of training for the Israeli air force.

“It’s a huge lesson learned.” He added that he hoped there would be further joint exercises with European air forces.

Mark Regev, the Israeli ambassador to London, also appeared briefly at the exercise, which he hailed as strengthening the democracies of both Britain and Israel.

Great to join @IAFsite pilots at @RAFWaddington, who are taking part in @RoyalAirForce Exercise Cobra Warrior for the first time.

This important cooperation will further strengthen our common security. pic.twitter.com/DMiACPrr1I

— Mark Regev (@MarkRegev) September 17, 2019

RAF officers said they were not prepared to discuss what they described as “the bigger picture” behind the decision to invite the Israeli air force to participate.

Group Captain Rob Barrett, who directed the three-week long series that concluded last week, said: “We welcome the opportunity to train alongside all of the participating nations’ forces on this challenging exercise.”

A defence minister in the UK government told the country’s parliament that Britain was working closely with the Israeli military “in order to counter the destabilising regional activity of Iran and Hezbollah”, and to conduct operations against Islamic State.

European air forces and the US would also have been seeking to benefit more broadly from Israel’s recent military experience, according to Justin Bronk, a research fellow studying air power and technology at the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based defence and security think tank.

New stealth fighter

Israel has conducted a number of air strikes against Iran-backed forces in Syria in recent years.

In May 2018, an Israeli Air Force commander confirmed the first operational use in Syria of the new F35 stealth fighter, which is also flown by the US Air Force and the Royal Air Force.

F35s are also reported to have been flown in missions targeting Hamas in Gaza, where the Israeli Air Force regularly conducts air strikes.

“There are two clear operational reasons for the RAF, Italy and the US Air Force in particular to welcome Israeli participation in exercises,” Bronk said.

“The first is that the Israeli Air Force has a great deal of recent experience in operating around and indeed sometimes directly against the Syrian air defence network and some of the Russian air defences which are increasingly integrated with it.

“This is very valuable for Nato air forces looking to be prepared to defend against any aggression in Eastern Europe where many of those same systems would be a threat, and to conduct operations in future against smaller states which buy their air defence systems from Russia.

“The second reason is that Israel has been using its new F35s in the region, as have the US Air Force, US Marine Corps and RAF.

“This gives them plenty to discuss in terms of developing novel tactics to make the best use of the F35, and what it may or may not be able to tell about Syrian and Russian activities whilst in flight.”

Joint exercises

Earlier this year, the RAF, the Israeli Air Force and the US Air Force co-operated in a joint F35 training exercise over the eastern Mediterranean which was intended to help the Americans and British learn from the greater experience that the Israelis have acquired while flying the aircraft.

The US jets involved in that exercise flew from the Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates.

 

For its part, the Israeli military is said to be increasingly eager to engage in joint exercises that would give it an opportunity to train in different terrains and to draw upon the experience gained by the US and British military during their long years fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Amos Harel, military correspondent for Haaretz newspaper, says the IDF no longer takes the view that it has little to learn from the armed forces of other nations.

It is also eager to train outside Israel because training areas within the country are few in number and variety, so officers and troops soon become overly familiar with the terrain.

A recent training exercise in Germany, Harel wrote, “is good preparation for combat in locales in which the IDF [Israel Defence Forces] might find itself some day, notably Lebanon, though that’s not spelled out explicitly to the hosts, to avoid embarrassing them”.

 

As we see, this includes training of interoperatbility between F35's of both countries.

 

https://www.middleea...rael-first-time


  • 0

#7977 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,937 posts

Posted 26 September 2019 - 1202 PM

 

European Russia we could reach. Central Russia (where a considerable chunk of reinforcements for Eastern and Western Military districts is housed) would probably beyond our reach, in anything but minute numbers. I have to question whether the US would risk B2's on a conventional mission, when its clearly part of their nuclear strike capablity against the same targets. There are all kinds of reasons why this is a bad idea, not least what Russia is going to do when they detect 20 B2 stealth bombers on OTH radars coming towards them.

 

This has always been the problem ive had with critics of Russia. They project what we apparently can do on Russia, when we cant even do this to Russia. So what hope has Russia got doing it to Europe?   I know they have the ambition to this kind of capability, I read an interesting article about it in warship magazine. But we have to beware of placing on Russia the ability to do what it WANTS to do. If it ever develops the capacity to do this, is going to take years to build up. And clearly, if evidence is any kind of guide, most analysts dont believe they have anything like the capacity to build it in the timescale they want.

 

We have to be careful here, lets stop doing the Russian propaganda machines work for them. Its not helping the reading of the situation.

 

 

Again, I think you grossly underestimate the amount of weaponry they would need to really screw NATO over.  You should sit down and do the math - how many NATO airfields supporting tactical aircraft are left in Western Europe and the UK (the UK has four, Germany has six and Poland has five - each would take just a few cruise missiles to put its runways* out of commission) How many deployed air defence radars and SAM batteries are there, and where are the vast majority that are not currently deployed stored?  How many significant bridges are there, between Germany and Estonia? Where is NATO's gap crossing capability stored?  Remember that the Russians only have to keep our aircraft on the ground and all the investment in them is utterly wasted - they can easily do that with a fraction of the stocks of cruise missiles we can be confident they have. Once tactical aircraft are grounded they can go in with aircraft carrying much less expensive guided munitions. If you want to keep hand-waving and ignoring demonstrated capabilities we know our potential enemy has, as well as their massive advantages in Geography, rapid mobilisation, operational level transportation, initiative and lack of RoE (up to and including using chemical weapons against us on our own soil in peacetime), that's up to you.

 

*The Polish F-16 bases have one runway and both are well inside Iskander range from Kaliningrad.


  • 0

#7978 Tim Sielbeck

Tim Sielbeck

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 234 posts

Posted 26 September 2019 - 1223 PM

 

 

...  You should sit down and do the math - how many NATO airfields supporting tactical aircraft are left in Western Europe and the UK (the UK has four, Germany has six and Poland has five - each would take just a few cruise missiles to put its runways* out of commission)

 

 

I think you ask the wrong question.  I think it should be, "How many airfields are there that NATO can use to service their aircraft from, including road systems."


  • 0

#7979 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,684 posts

Posted 26 September 2019 - 1245 PM

Quite a lot, particularly those with the F35B.

NATO concludes a maritime drone exercise.
https://www.plymouth...ato-war-3354950
  • 0

#7980 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,684 posts

Posted 30 September 2019 - 0508 AM

Really good podcast on the recent Russian nuclear developments, such as the end of INF and the cruise missile explosion.

https://www.spymuseu...can-scientists/


  • 0