Reply With QuoteWhat you say is true, but besides this it's probably more effective from an operational and from a financial POV.Originally Posted by Climber
Are you seriously asking that question? I am sorry, maybe in Russian it makes any sense, but in English it doesn't.
What you say is true, but besides this it's probably more effective from an operational and from a financial POV.
Yeah balloney, the last time their AD was up to date was in the Yum Kippur war; and I don't recall SEAD being used to much effect there. Everything after that war was just some left over shell of some half-operated air-defense systems. You are going to tell me that Lebanon in 1982 had a proper air defense system, or what?
**Ahem** well Raden it just so happens that the exact UAVs we are talking about are designed for usage against rebels and insurgents, not for bringing world peace. That's sorta out of their modus operandi, and it would be quite unreasonable to expect that they will fulfill this role as well as the actual role that they were designed for (scouting out bad guys and blowing them up).
True. because we lack of strategical depth ( Material, territorial, Financial, political and the time thing). Russia have a lot of strategic depth. they have the luxury of massive firepower under any conditions, we don't.
I would like to invent the best freaking UAV, I will call it the peacemaker. lol
I guess, there is a cultural thing in his question, as a lot of people was raised with the ideal that war is a mean to bring peace. We know thats not true, and war is just a mean of survival.
You are right and as I previously said I ignore what Russia's doctrine is at the present. At the URSS' time, their doctrine was focused on massive quantities.
In 1973 the IAF, but also the West in general, had no efficient SEAD doctrine. But it was the last conflict in which Eastern ADs were efficient.
Raising the effectivness of your military isn't just relevant for a country such as Israel that lacks strategic depth. Perhaps if the only other countries to deploy such systems were Singapore and South Korea (then you'd have a point) but that's not the case.
To be specific, you said "the first in space"
The first steps of putting a man-made object into space were taken by German scientists during World War II while testing the V2 rocket which became the first human-made object in space on October 3, 1942 with the launching of V-4
from wiki
What about tactical backpack portable UAV"s ?
I didnt say thats the only reason, I said its the main reason we developed such systems, same reason Israel Tal developed the Merkava the way it is. We have our own doctrine, and we stick to it because we dont have many choices.
And I am comparing Israel with Russia, because its the topic and we are discussing it. In this case I have a point.
Yet the theoretical knowledge for rocketry, etc... was to a large extent developed by a Russian scientist.
From Wiki:
Although many called his ideas impractical,[11]:8,117 Tsiolkovsky influenced later rocket scientists throughout Europe, like Wernher von Braun. Russian search teams at Peenemünde found a German translation of a book by Tsiolkovsky of which "almost every page...was embellished by von Braun's comments and notes.
Last edited by Flamming_Python; 05-07-2012 at 03:07 AM.
Personally I think Russia stands to gain from making its military as effective as possible, with minimum military and civilian casualties, precision munitions and so on. Currently Russia is converting a lot of its dumb bombs, artillery shells & systems, MLRSs, etc... to GPS guided; not an expensive upgrade but capable of drastically increasing accuracy. Concurrently, it is also introducing more accurate and guided munitions, cruise missiles, etc... into service. The guided Krasnopol artillery shells come to mind for example. Just because we have strategic depth, doesn't mean we should rely on it. I'm not up to date on Russia's doctrine, but I think Russia aims to finish wars decisively as quickly as possible; if need be then with de-escelation via overwhelming conventional or nuclear firepower.
In some regards, it's a path that France took too. Our defense is based on a smaller but professional army with nuclear deterrence and modernized conventional forces.
What is the size of Russia's army at the present. Do you plan to maintain conscription or not?
Posting Permissions
