[Igor Antunov]

Well cruise missles can be launched from Subs.

In conjunction with attacks by

B-2, and Drones.

Drones are easy to shoot down plus they are launched from ships which themselves need to stray close to shore, subs are sitting ducks close to the coast as most large nations have very dense coastal sonar networks, and B-2 bombers are just another aircraft.

[War Angel]

About 900 are state of the art modern, from a total of 2800. That 900 is like the airforces of france, germany and the UK combined. The rest range from obsolete (only useful against third world/small opponents such as georgia to only useful in newly adapted specialised/limited roles. Keep in mind even a mig-25 is deadly with the latest ordinance/weapons systems. About half the airforce is kept as backup, not all of these obsolete aircraft are active.

And how many of those are working and kept in that condition? Does Russia have the money to keep such a large force operational?

[Oxymoron]

subs are sitting ducks close to the coast as most large nations have very dense coastal sonar networks

They and leave. The enemy has to send a Plane or Destroyer to the area which will give enough time for the Subs to do what they have to do. Knocking out early detection centers, radars, fuel dumps, command centers etc then.....

and B-2 bombers are just another aircraft which is very difficult if not impossible to track and shoot down especially after the Subs have done their work.

[Igor Antunov]

And how many of those are working and kept in that condition? Does Russia have the money to keep such a large force operational?

Over 900 would be fully operational and conducting regular flights. The rest is in reserve, or simply helicopters and transports aircraft, which I'm not including.

And anti-submarine warfare does not need to be conducted from sea. Russia does have a blue-water navy and submarine fleet. Not to mention air superiority while their AA batteries are operational, so the subs would need to stray into this all alone after being detected. And high flying stealth aircraft are not invisible to modern radar, especially really dense networks such as the russian one, high flying spyplanes are easily detected and intercepted if they stray over such countries. And none of these are out of range for the russian SAM systems.

[Oxymoron]

And anti-submarine warfare does not need to be conducted from sea.

really? Please elaborate.

[Igor Antunov]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-submarine_Rocket

All these can be launched from shore-based launchers.

[Oxymoron]

The link says nothing about effectiveness.

Also CAN is really a strange term.

[Igor Antunov]

CAN as in platforms exist to launch them from shore.

Effectiveness? If they can outrun a submarine, they are effective, since they are rockets, they will outrun the submarine. Countermeasures are only effective once, these rockets are fired in multiples. Also accuracy is a given at such speeds against such large targets.

[Oxymoron]

CAN as in platforms exist to launch them from shore.

How many? What type of detection system are they using? What type of command and control?

[Igor Antunov]

How many? What type of detection system are they using? What type of command and control?

Ask the russian military, who's task it is to defend russian airspace, borders and shorelines. I assume they use something that works and is in plentiful supply and does not advertise it's capabilities to the enemy, export monkey models notwithstanding. Anti-*insert item of choice here* missiles are a notorious russian speciality. In fact russian-built missile systems in general are notoriously effective in Russian hands.

Did you know the export iskander missle system has a range of 270km, with radius accuracy of 50-80 metres? Non export model has an accuracy of 5 metres and a range of over 650km. Everything they export, even if it goes by the same name, is at least a generation behind. For example, T-72's in iraqi hands during desert storm were using half-filled shells topped up with good old gunpowder, giving them 50% killing power at advertised range, and were using antiquated home-grown guidance. targetting and detection systems because the monkey models they received had none. The steel itself used in the tanks was also stressed and of poor quality, and thinner by up to 50% in places than in Russian T-72's.

[Oxymoron]

Ask the russian military, who's task it is to defend russian airspace, borders and shorelines. I assume they use something that works and is in plentiful supply.

Thanks for the honesty.

Anti-*insert item of choice here* missiles are a notorious russian speciality. In fact russian-built missile systems in general are notoriously effective in Russian hands.

They are? Based on what war or action?

[Zerogouki]

This argument is stupid. Please take it elsewhere. This is the "F-22 versus F-23" thread, not the "Russia versus NATO" thread.

And for the record, ten million cruise missiles would totally beat a few dozen Growlers.

[Igor Antunov]

Based on the recent georgian conflict for example, russia utilised the iskander system to great effect after coming up against formidable russian-built non-monkey model anti-aircraft missile systems fielded by geogia, weapons systems left over from the soviet breakup. Georgian airfields and military installations were struck and destroyed by ballistic missiles. Their airforce was destroyed by ballistic missiles. Their port and navy were demolished by sea-based ballistic missiles. It was a missile based conflict.

Zerogouki

Ten million russian anti-ship missiles would sink all of the navies of the world combined, what the hell is your point?

[Zerogouki]

The point is that THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT FUCKING RUSSIA.

[Igor Antunov]

In discussing the merits of these two aircraft, we can surely diverge to discuss how they would go against various anti-aircraft systems. Oxymoron just keeps asking question after question about Russian missiles which would be the most likely thing to go up against this aircraft in any significant future conflict. So I feel obliged to answer him because it would be cruel not to.

[War Angel]

Over 900 would be fully operational and conducting regular flights. The rest is in reserve, or simply helicopters and transports aircraft, which I'm not including.

So, they have 900 working aircraft, the rest is in storage. Now, let's take a look at the world's largest and strongest (taking into account quality and not just numbers) air fleets:

The USA has 5,573 aircraft, out of which 2,286 are fighters.
Israel has over a thousand aircraft, probably around 1,300 or so (exact numbers are hard to come by).
Britain has 1069 aircraft.

[Typhoon]

The S-400 and S-300 certainly could intercept the B2 and the F-22, the question is at what range, without external support the S-4/300 would likely be unable to detect the aircraft at a particulary outstanding range, likely sub 50km.

900 working aircraft

Its very hard to get an accurate figure but ~900 would be for operational fighters alone.

russia utilised the iskander system to great effect

The missile employed was the Tochka-U, rather than the Iskander.

How many? What type of detection system are they using? What type of command and control?

Russia does not use a shore based ASW missile system as such, only anti-shipping. So unless the submarine is on the surface its only the navy or airforce that it has to worry about.

Yeah, but HOW MANY?

Hypothetically a single Growler could shoot down up to 128 targets before reloading, though in reality this would be less as more than one missile may be fired at each target and the Growler will likely be equipped with a range of missile loads rather than the 9M96 alone.

[Igor Antunov]

I was using outdated 1990's figures Oxy. Sorry. Russia has 3,888 fighter/bomber/other aircraft, and 2,625 helicopters, all serviced and flyable. That's a total of 6,513 flying machines. China comes in third and USA is first. Your US figure is wrong oxy, USA has 22,763 aircraft total, of which 4,593 are helicopters.

It can only carry about 1000 of them on it's carriers, thus that's all it's able to project to any theatre if all the carriers were concentrated in one place, which would be stupid and risky. The US airforce, like it's army is mainly situated on the continental united states, and it's there permanently.

[NYYS]

The S-400 is invincible! The Amerikkkan empire shall soon fall! Glory to the Russia, for they have made it impossible for aircraft to be used in combat against them ever again!

[Igor Antunov]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, cry harder child.

And seriously if you'd done some research you would know that carrier groups were designed from the start to escort and protect shipping lanes on the high seas, not to get dangerously close to the borders of nations that can fire hypersonic guided missile salvos at them.