Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR

[Doktor]

The beauty for Romania and Poland is that they don't need Germany. They have this label "protected by USA and some other very well armed, trained and coordinated guys" on the front door.

The most Russians can do is to start skirmishes in the Baltics and Moldova under the "Russians seek human rights", something we've seen in Kosovo 1999, Macedonia 2001 and in Ukraine now. That's about their final reach without openly going head to head with USA. No matter how weak and green the current POTUS is.

[Mihais]

Gentlemen,deterrence is currently the idea that the Russians will lose 15000 men attacking any country in EE.That is the level of sustainability in modern Russia?as seen in A-stan and first Chechen war.
It's a pretty low level.In high intensity combat that's done in a few days.In a mixture of high intensity with low intensity,it will take longer,but not as long as A-stan.

What is the level of pain we can take,varies a lot.But probably more than that.If there is a place where Russians are both hated and despised,it is EE.

So,if they don't have the stomach and the desire for full blown occupation,what we prepare effectivelly is the Colonel's scenario of a raid.

So,the thing is to bloody them in an engagement that lasts a few days.
Relevant aren't the French or German armies.The few btn's,the air and airmobile assets that can be sent right before the start,the local armies and territorial defences that can be mobilized in 24-72 hours.

Let's assume for a moment the Russians invade the Baltics with 10 bde's,defeat the NATO bde there.Uraaa,pobedaaaa.Except it guarantees 100000 insurgents with acces to all the munitions the West .Stalin could pull tricks like that.Putin cannot.

[Doktor]

Mihais,

What you are saying is to let the RA occupy the place and fund the insurgents?

Maybe that's your best scenario, but leaving the bear unopposed after smacking NATO forces (even if Baltics ones) is very, very, bad idea.

[SteveDaPirate]

Stuart Slade's Nuclear Warfare 101, 102, and 103 explains it much better than me ... and in alot more pages than I can type from memory.

I'll check it out, thanks!

[Mihais]

Mihais,

What you are saying is to let the RA occupy the place and fund the insurgents?

Maybe that's your best scenario, but leaving the bear unopposed after smacking NATO forces (even if Baltics ones) is very, very, bad idea.

Nope,is an unavoidable follow up in the best case for them.And the best is still a loss for them.

[Garry]

Pretty short term solution. Aircraft from CONUS won't be eating any Iskanders and are less than 8 hours away.

The growing inventory of F-35Bs also make cratering runways ineffective at preventing stealth aircraft from operating from forward locations. When you can easily land and potentially even takeoff from an average parking lot sized strip of pavement, the list of suitable locations to disperse aircraft rapidly outpaces ballistic missile inventories.

I don't remember where I read, that vertical takeoff halves the effective range of an aircraft, and/or its weapon payload. Even if it less limiting with F35, it still reduces its capabilities.....

[SteveDaPirate]

I don't remember where I read, that vertical takeoff halves the effective range of an aircraft, and/or its weapon payload. Even if it less limiting with F35, it still reduces its capabilities.....

Vertical takeoff does severely limit the amount of weight an aircraft could carry but the F-35B doesn't do that except to show off.

The F-35B is a STOVL (Short Takeoff Vertical Landing) aircraft. While it has enough power to takeoff vertically, it wouldn't do so when loaded down with munitions and fuel. Instead it uses the lift fan and tilts the jet down to achieve a high angle of attack and takeoff in a very short distance while fully loaded instead. This allows it to operate from ships like the USS Wasp or very short runways without requiring a catapult.

The USS Wasp is 257m long and you can tell that the F-35B in the video isn't even using the full length to get airborne. It will likely require a little more distance when carrying munitions, but you can see how a short strip of road or even a large parking lot could serve as an improvised runway for it quite easily.

Cratering every potential runway for a STOVL aircraft is totally impractical.

[Chunder]

I don't remember where I read, that vertical takeoff halves the effective range of an aircraft, and/or its weapon payload. Even if it less limiting with F35, it still reduces its capabilities.....

The reverse actually holds more merit. There is no Increase in range C over B. The F-35C has additional fuel load to help it to recover safely, not increase the Range. Sure, this wouldn't hold true if it was Land Based, Didn't have to contend to deal with landing on a ship, at night, bad weather, etc.

And that is just the start of it.

What can the B do that The C Cant - aside from flat decks or austere airstrips?

The Response rate is only limited to the number of crew available to launch them... not catapult cycle times and or failure, and you're talking a dramatic decrease. Something happens? You can launch more of them Quicker. Im not actually sure if even a Nimitz has the same capability.
.Operate in Higher Sea States
.Increased Carrier Operational Flexibility due to not being reliant on wind for recovery and established recovery patterns.
.Increased sortie rate - not just from a Landing and taking off perspective, but because a Nimitz needs to conduct cyclic operations to launch and recover aircraft. I.E half remain on deck. The C design requirement is 2 sorties per day, 3 at surge. The B is designed for 3 & 4 respectively. It's been shown to hit 6.5. That's big.
.Increase of Navy Strike package availability (I think the USN is 12 hrs a day for strike correct if wrong)
.Increased overall affordability. (Not paying for catapults and arresting gear & their crew and downtime maintenance)
.Increased Payload Bring Back.
.Cross deck with LPH/LPD etc in alternative scenarios.

That QE STOVL's 36 aircraft. Might Be smaller, the CV itself Might not have the Range because it's not a CVN but those STOVL's enable it to generate a comparable if not greater sortie rate... with no need to cycle, and certainly have the same strike rate with approximately the same range. Ultimately I think it's why the U.K reversed it's backflip on the F35B.

[SteveDaPirate]

The C variant has larger wings and control surfaces to decrease stall speed and improve low speed handling. (as a side effect it can actually out-turn the other versions) The ability to fly slower means it can bring more fuel and munitions back to the carrier when it lands. Folding wings also allow a ship to fit more F-35Cs on deck.

The increased size of the aircraft as a result of larger wings means it can carry more fuel internally, although this is offset by the increase in drag associated with more surface area. It ends up having a hair more range than the A model with both factored in.

The B model loses about 1/3rd of it's internal fuel capacity compared to the A as well as a portion of the weapons bay to fit the lift fan that allows for short takeoffs without catapult assistance. (It still outranges a Super Hornet however)

The C model buys you easier landings, increased bringback, and a reduced footprint on deck without sacrificing range or payload at the cost of requiring catapults to get off the ship.

The B model buys you the flexibility of launching off very short runways without relying on outside infrastructure and style points for hovering in place at the cost of some range and the ability to carry the largest weapons internally.

[SteveDaPirate]

It appears the unveiling of the T-14 has spurred efforts to rejuvenate or replace Western tank fleets.

Germany's Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, the builder of the Leopard 2 tank, and France’s Nexter are mulling a joint venture to develop a new tank to replace the Leopard-2 and Leclerc tanks.

Not to be outdone, Italy is going to unveil the prototype of its new Centauro II wheeled tank at Eurosatory-2016 expo in Paris.

In January, Poland announced plans to modernize its 128 Leopard-2 tanks, and France said it would upgrade 200 Leclercs.

http://sputniknews.com/europe/201606...-upgrades.html

[Chunder]

The C variant has larger wings and control surfaces to decrease stall speed and improve low speed handling. (as a side effect it can actually out-turn the other versions) The ability to fly slower means it can bring more fuel and munitions back to the carrier when it lands. Folding wings also allow a ship to fit more F-35Cs on deck.

I think you may have misread what I said.
The 'C's increased fuel doesn't give it greater range. That fuel is there to help it land. You don't have to trap with the B. That means there is no penalties with regards to going around yet again, hitting after burner again, changing the landing pattern to get the aircraft back on deck etc. The RN's carrier size is revolved around putting together a strike package.

The increased size of the aircraft as a result of larger wings means it can carry more fuel internally, although this is offset by the increase in drag associated with more surface area. It ends up having a hair more range than the A model with both factored in.

Again... the actual range difference is in the order of 100nm at most between the B & C after the traits of the C variant are factored in. Operationally this has practically no effect. What it does mean is that the difference being under 2000lb of fuel between the A & C variant don't give the C a longer range unless land based. This is an engine that uses about 28000lb fuel per hour in DRY thrust and the C has less than 2000lb more than the A. edit: This means the a out ranges the C operationally.

The B model loses about 1/3rd of it's internal fuel capacity compared to the A as well as a portion of the weapons bay to fit the lift fan that allows for short takeoffs without catapult assistance. (It still outranges a Super Hornet however)

You have to list what is actually used in the weapons bay and when is it actually needed. PGM's like brimstone and SDB ... of which both the RN and USMC are far more likely to use than 2000lb bombs.

The C model buys you easier landings, increased bring back, and a reduced footprint on deck without sacrificing range or payload at the cost of requiring catapults to get off the ship.

If USN aviators shit themselves getting back on deck and the RN can operate in higher sea states, can sortie at higher rates, can generate strike packages 24 hours a day, what does that tell you? At worst the B Lands at 1/4 of the speed a C does, if it's not landing at 0 relative. It doesn't have the same problems that landing at 135 knots at 11 feet per second does. Additionally the RN is happy with the bring back at 5000lb's they've slated - 2 AMRAAMs and 2 Paveways, that was before developing rolling recovery which enables another 2000 - 5000lb's depending on amospheric conditions. Additionally, it's only really a cost metric. Operationally it never has been a problem.

The B model buys you the flexibility of launching off very short runways without relying on outside infrastructure and style points for hovering in place at the cost of some range and the ability to carry the largest weapons internally.

1) If you're operating from short runways, chances are you're closer to the action anyway.
2) It's not the case with the LPH/D's which operate closer in anyway, and the range is only a factor when operating land based. The C Variant operationally doesn't have much greater range at all, if any. Operationally negligible.
3) Pliable waters of CVN's may affect the range practically anyway. They may or may not.
4) You're going to need outside infrastructure to supply something that uses 28000lb's of fuel per hour dry thrust.

[SteveDaPirate]

Chunder, I put my reply over in the F-35 thread so we don't derail this one too badly.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sho...60#post1010060

[Garry]

I agree with OOE that NATO would have to likely have to retake the Baltics rather than keeping a determined force of Russians out entirely. I've often wondered if Riga and Tallinn might be held against a Russian attack however, even if the rest of the country is lost initially.

Being located on the Baltic Sea, they are well situated to quickly receive large quantities of men and materials from CONUS to help hold the cities while taking advantage of naval fire support and aviation. MEUs and prepositioned stocks in Norway might even be able to beat the Russians to the Baltic capitals if the Baltic countries themselves can slow the Russians down even a little.

Attacks on the Baltic countries could be met with naval bombardment of St. Petersburg and a counter invasion of Kaliningrad to raise the cost of doing business for the Russians. The Russian Baltic fleet doesn't appear to be in a condition to do more than die heroically, and Kaliningrad is geographically cut off from any Russian support.

naval support is unlikelly before air superiority is gained in this region. Otherwise RAF and NAVY aviation will attack anybody around this ports....
the onshore antiship missilles can also block access to these ports.

retaking them will be tough exersise considering that they border with Russia and Russian rears can be supplied with good system of roads and railroads.....

all this would be quite costly..... why NATO west needed this liability?

[Garry]

Putin undoutably wants Moldavia and the Baltics, and the only thing that will keep him from them long term is a USARE presence big enough to force us into a for real war, and a USAR in CONUS big enough to make it a war Russia can't feel confident in winning.

Why would he need Baltics or Modavia? what do they bring to him? I heard about corridor to Kaliningrad.... does not sound convincing..... Modavia? no value I can see or heard of ..... so why would he send army there?

[Garry]

Well, that does depend on the current sitting President, doesn't it?

Tell me, would Putin dare to play these games if Reagan or Bush Sr were still in charge?

But that does not change the fact that we have overmatch against the Russians. What they can put on the field and what we can put into the field are two different things.

Hell, their best strategic move in the last 10 years are little green men. You actually think that they would scare us?

Putin ordered troops to engage Georgia when Bush was in power. If he thinks that issue is strategic he would have acted same regardless who is attacking him from presidential chair.... he thought he is pushing back