Russia successfully tests new air defense missile — media

TASS: Military & Defense - Russia successfully tests new air defense missile ? media

MOSCOW, April 2. /TASS/. A new Russian upgraded air defense missile has been successfully tested at Sary Shagan range in Kazakhstan, the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper reported on Monday.

"A new modernized air defense interceptor missile has successfully accomplished its task hitting a hypothetical target at the stated time," the paper quotes Major General Andrei Prikhodko, Deputy Commander of the Russian Aerospace Forces’ air and missile defense taskforce, as saying.

The Russian Aerospace Forces’ missile defense system is designed to protect Moscow from a limited nuclear strike by intercontinental ballistic missiles or accidental launches.

More:
TASS: Military & Defense - Russia successfully tests new air defense missile ? media
===================================================
These guys are burning lots of rubles to upgrade their military hardware.

I would be curious to know just how realistic this is. I'm reminded of Reagan's SDI.

Certainly the technology is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was in Reagan's time, but how much is Putin really spending on this stuff? And how much of it is just a facade? For decades we believed that the USSR was more powerful than it actually was. And how much of this is going to be used by HSIC to drum up more defense spending?

Lerxst said:

I would be curious to know just how realistic this is. I'm reminded of Reagan's SDI.

Certainly the technology is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was in Reagan's time, but how much is Putin really spending on this stuff? And how much of it is just a facade? For decades we believed that the USSR was more powerful than it actually was. And how much of this is going to be used by HSIC to drum up more defense spending?

Click to expand...

Who's to know for sure? There has been a lot of recent press on major advances in Russian military hardware. But as in the 1950s-1960s, we over estimated their true posture until spy satellites revealed the truth that they were still pretty much a toothless tiger. But they had succeeded in making us paranoid & spending huge amounts on money on basically useless hardware such as the B-36 & the Nike air defense systems.

JacksinPA said:

TASS: Military & Defense - Russia successfully tests new air defense missile ? media

MOSCOW, April 2. /TASS/. A new Russian upgraded air defense missile has been successfully tested at Sary Shagan range in Kazakhstan, the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper reported on Monday.

"A new modernized air defense interceptor missile has successfully accomplished its task hitting a hypothetical target at the stated time," the paper quotes Major General Andrei Prikhodko, Deputy Commander of the Russian Aerospace Forces’ air and missile defense taskforce, as saying.

The Russian Aerospace Forces’ missile defense system is designed to protect Moscow from a limited nuclear strike by intercontinental ballistic missiles or accidental launches.

More:
TASS: Military & Defense - Russia successfully tests new air defense missile ? media
===================================================
These guys are burning lots of rubles to upgrade their military hardware.

Click to expand...

If you look at the NATO encirclement of Russia and China it's not surprising they might want to up their spending on defence.

oneworld2 said:

If you look at the NATO encirclement of Russia and China it's not surprising they might want to up their spending on defence.

Click to expand...

Perhaps if Russia and China hadn't spend the past five decades oppressing their neighbors, said neighbors wouldn't have wanted American protection in the first place.

Tigerace117 said:

Perhaps if Russia and China hadn't spend the past five decades oppressing their neighbors, said neighbors wouldn't have wanted American protection in the first place.

Click to expand...

Darn Chinese invading only another communist country and just once in 50 years. Somehow that is oppressing the Japanese

Lerxst said:

Certainly the technology is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was in Reagan's time, but how much is Putin really spending on this stuff? And how much of it is just a facade? For decades we believed that the USSR was more powerful than it actually was. And how much of this is going to be used by HSIC to drum up more defense spending?

Click to expand...

Actually, most of the technology used today is based almost directly off of SDI.

Almost every modern air defense system is based off of some of the key features of SDI. The US showed that off in the 1990's with the rapid advances in it's own ADA capabilities. But what most have always missed is that it was never really about "Frickin Lasers in Space". The core goal was always about kinetic kill vehicles, and the other tech required to actually intercept inbound targets (GPS, more capable tracking systems, real time datalinking between various systems, etc).

In working for 5 years in ADA, it often shocked me how much of modern ADA came directly from those Reagan era programs. And much of our current technology is still based on those programs. Like many of our systems still using JAZ drives to load their software and updates. Cutting edge technology in 1997 when PAC-3 was introduced over 20 years ago, but now antiquated but impossible to easily replace because that was what was used when the original equipment was designed.

Nations like Russia are not quite so hampered, because they were able to jump past the technologies the US used to get where it is today, and move directly to a newer generation of equipment.

Oozlefinch said:

Actually, most of the technology used today is based almost directly off of SDI.

Almost every modern air defense system is based off of some of the key features of SDI. The US showed that off in the 1990's with the rapid advances in it's own ADA capabilities. But what most have always missed is that it was never really about "Frickin Lasers in Space". The core goal was always about kinetic kill vehicles, and the other tech required to actually intercept inbound targets (GPS, more capable tracking systems, real time datalinking between various systems, etc).

In working for 5 years in ADA, it often shocked me how much of modern ADA came directly from those Reagan era programs. And much of our current technology is still based on those programs. Like many of our systems still using JAZ drives to load their software and updates. Cutting edge technology in 1997 when PAC-3 was introduced over 20 years ago, but now antiquated but impossible to easily replace because that was what was used when the original equipment was designed.

Nations like Russia are not quite so hampered, because they were able to jump past the technologies the US used to get where it is today, and move directly to a newer generation of equipment.

Click to expand...

Based upon your experience in this field do you think the Russians currently have comparable systems? As in operationally effective against vs. US and other NATO nation's capability.

Lerxst said:

Based upon your experience in this field do you think the Russians currently have comparable systems? As in operationally effective against vs. US and other NATO nation's capability.

Click to expand...

They have a close system. You have to remember, the similar US equipment (PATRIOT, THAAD) does have the advantage of 1-2 more decades of real world use and testing over theirs.

In some ways theirs is probably superior, in other ways I am sure ours is superior. There is no simple "one or the other" answer to this kind of thing.

However, there are always other things that have to be considered in considering such a hypothetical conflict.

For one, experience of those involved. One thing the US and NATO have the upper hand in is battlefield experience. And this pays off in many ways. More experienced crews, equipment that has been battle tested. And finally, more refined tactics.

In the past 30 years, the US has gone against an enemy with some rather well refined Air Defense capabilities. Interestingly enough, both times it was an enemy that used Soviet equipment and tactics. And both times, the US pretty well crushed them. On the other hand, the Soviet Union has not really faced any kind of real technologically challenging opponent since the fall of Nazi Germany.

So largely they are only making equipment based upon only testing, and how poorly the previous models fared against US equipment.

And finally, there is a major shortcoming I see in both Russian and Chinese equipment. Their love to brag.

Whenever either country comes out with a new piece of equipment, they both scream to anybody who will listen how awesome it is. They scream it is the best ever made, it is going to destroy anybody it comes against, it is gonna be so great it is going to get bored of being great. And you hear about this normally very early on in the R&D cycle.

Interestingly enough, the US tends to take the opposite approach. We both keep the majority of our military procurements both open, and very close to the chest.

Yes, much of it is very open, because of the law. But how much of it is really talked about?

How many in here have heard of THAAD? How many know what it is, and how it operates? Other than being deployed to Hawaii in response to the NK threats, most have generally never heard of it.

How about PATRIOT? Sure, it is a Kennedy era program, made operational under Carter and deployed under Reagan. And it got a lot of attention during Gulf War I. But how many are even aware that it is now getting ready to go through it's 4th major upgrade? What was seen in 1990-1991 was the prototype of the PAC-2 software upgrade. Since then there have been multiple other upgrades, including the full PAC-2 upgrade (which was a major software and hardware upgrade, including integrating GPS), PAC-3, and many other hardware and software upgrades.

Most people think PATRIOT, and they think of the 1990 version. However, to somebody who knows what to look for, the difference becomes obvious.







For example, I can tell the top is a first generation/PAC-1 or Prototype PAC-2 launcher. This is obvious when you look on the mast and do not see the GPS antenna.

The second, that is a PAC-2 or later version. The generator is clearly visible and that is a PAC-2 modification, as well as the GPS antenna being on the mast.

The bottom one, it is obviously PAC-3. I know exactly what to look for, but many would not spot the differences. But here, from another angle it may be more obvious.



And it goes even beyond that. Anybody who has served in the 14 series in the last 20 years can do this. The difference is obvious to us, because we work on them on a daily basis.

We can even spot for example the German version with barely a glance.



So comparable system, yes. These are all comparable. And they have advantages, for example leapfrogging some of the older technologies we have used to get to where we are now. And also having much newer equipment. But they have disadvantages as well, as in less real world testing and improvements, less experienced crews.

But one of the big differences may come down in a real battle is age. The US equipment has been upgraded many times, but it is still generally between 30-40 years old. One of the jokes when I was in a PATRIOT unit is that I was the only soldier in the entire Battalion that was older than the launcher he operated. Yes, it is maintained and upgraded, but most of the components are still Reagan era equipment. And the maintenance demands are increasing simply because it is starting to wear out as fast as it can be replaced. And in a battle, that can be a major factor.

Oozlefinch said:

They have a close system. You have to remember, the similar US equipment (PATRIOT, THAAD) does have the advantage of 1-2 more decades of real world use and testing over theirs.

...snipped due to to character count...

So comparable system, yes. These are all comparable. And they have advantages, for example leapfrogging some of the older technologies we have used to get to where we are now. And also having much newer equipment. But they have disadvantages as well, as in less real world testing and improvements, less experienced crews.

But one of the big differences may come down in a real battle is age. The US equipment has been upgraded many times, but it is still generally between 30-40 years old. One of the jokes when I was in a PATRIOT unit is that I was the only soldier in the entire Battalion that was older than the launcher he operated. Yes, it is maintained and upgraded, but most of the components are still Reagan era equipment. And the maintenance demands are increasing simply because it is starting to wear out as fast as it can be replaced. And in a battle, that can be a major factor.

Click to expand...

Great response and very interesting. Thanks for taking the time on this. I think the conversation is very relevant given the way things are shaping up right now. Russia being the 2nd most prolific arms marketeer on the planet means the likelihood of seeing their new products in action against U.S. forces to be elevated.

And your commentary on the value of experience and it's importance is spot on. But it seems that all of that experience comes at a steep cost - a double edged sword so to speak. Many experienced NCO's I am friends with are seriously considering not re-enlisting even though they may only be 4-6 years shy of their 20 year letter. They are tired, frustrated, and some of them have lost their families due to the frequency of deployment overseas. I have read posts on this forum describing similar stories in other branches, very much so in the Navy. A lack of sufficient training, lax command, and low morale is causing an exodus of experienced sailors and an increase in accidents at sea.

The Army has been offering waivers to normally unqualified recruits and crazy bonuses just to hit their recruiting marks.

Lerxst said:

Great response and very interesting. Thanks for taking the time on this. I think the conversation is very relevant given the way things are shaping up right now. Russia being the 2nd most prolific arms marketeer on the planet means the likelihood of seeing their new products in action against U.S. forces to be elevated.

Click to expand...

Well, since the early 1950's the US has normally faced off against Soviet-Russian equipment and tactics. And for the most part, I am underwhelmed. Even more so when compared to the fact that Israel has done the same thing, and always grossly outnumbered.

The biggest thing that the Russian Equipment has is that it is cheap, it is easy to train people to use, and it is easy to maintain. The Warsaw Pact - Russian doctrine is still to use 5-10 pieces of equipment where the US would use 1.

There are 5 main conflicts (or series of conflicts) I use to consider how such situations are generally resolved.

Korean War. A clear US-UN win. Took everything thrown at it, overran NK entirely and only beaten back by a wave of Chinese getting involved. But a year later on the advance once again, only stopped by the armistice.

Vietnam. A clear US military win, but a political loss.

Arab-Israeli Wars. As stated, the Arabs used Warsaw Pact tactics and equipment, was crushed every time. Even though they had overwhelming numbers.

Iran-Iraq War. This is really the only modern war where large chunks of it were fought with Warsaw Pact weapons and tactics. And it was a 7 year long stalemate that killed well over 1 million people.

Gulf War I. "The Mother of All Battles", the first time the US went directly against Warsaw Pact tactics and equipment in an outright major offensive. The Air War destroyed their air capability, the ground war was over within 4 days.

Gulf War II. Very much a repeat of the first one, but this time was an actual invasion of Iraq itself. Once again, Warsaw Pact equipment and tactics against US-NATO equipment and tactics. The war was one in 3 weeks.

And do not think it is because of numbers. Iraq had the 5th largest military in the world in 1990, even before the massive conscription during Desert Shield. Their army was massive, outnumbering the entire US Army and Marine Corps combined. In Kuwait they had more artillery, more tanks, and more Infantry than the US and it's coalition partners had.

But they lacked the training, the doctrine, and the quality of equipment. The Battle of 73 Easting is a prime example of that. Essentially a scouting element trying to snipe away at what it thought was a smaller unit, and turned out to be a Republican Guard Division. A scouting mission turned into the scouts getting ambushed, then more and more units flooded in from both sides. And during the entire battle, the US-UK forces were badly outnumbered the entire time.

And at the end, the Coalition forces had 6 killed, and 1 M2 Bradley destroyed.

Iraqi forces? 160 tanks destroyed, 180 APCs destroyed. 1,000 KIA and 1,300 POW.

This was in a sandstorm, so there was no aircraft involved. No A-10s screaming overhead, no carpetbombing, no laser guided munitions. A good old fashioned WWII style slugfest. And some of their most elite units ceased to exist.

I am not all that worried about most Russian equipment to be honest. For one, I never put much faith in equipment that is hyped to such levels before it is really even operational in the field.

Now look at the OP again. Notice, the same article was quoted twice?

A new Russian upgraded air defense missile has been successfully tested at Sary Shagan range in Kazakhstan, the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper reported on Monday.

Click to expand...

OK, huge questions here. It was tested, nothing else. Not active, not deployed, tested. Secondly, what is the missile system? Anybody else notice that it is not only from a state news agency, but that it did not even name this new system?

And "new upgraded"? OK, is this new, or is it an upgrade? PATRIOT to PAC-1, PAC-1 to PAC-2. Those are upgrades. PAC-3 however is actually an entirely new system, which simply shares major components with the original PATRIOT.

Oh, and the missile tested? It's the A-235, an upgrade to the A-135 ABM missile.

A silo based ABM missile, armed with a 10 kt nuclear warhead.

Nope, they are not going to sell this to anybody. And by treaty, they can only defend a single location with this system (which happens to be Moscow).

Yea, the US could have such a system also. If it had not decided to kill it's Safeguard ABM program.

Thanks again for the great response. I agree with your comments on the examples of U.S. vs. Warsaw Pact tactics/Russian equipment. Historically, countries employing them have suffered an almost complete route or at least been sound defeated after some time.

I think both Russia and China are focusing on area denial weapons and tactics when it comes to how they will deal with the U.S./NATO military advantages. And a regional strategy vs. strategic. Russian clearly wants to increase the land mass between it and it's NATO neighbors, but knows it cannot hope to win a strategic victory. Having U.S. brigades on it's border in Poland did not make the Kremlin happy. And China has a number of regional territorial claims it is intent on securing at some point. It appears that's the scenario they are preparing their military for - occupation of border lands and area denial of U.S. and Japanese naval assets. No real capacity of projecting very far beyond their region with the exception of their ICBM's. They do have a lot of work going into the expansion of the nuclear submarine fleet, but I think this is still more focused on trying to threaten U.S. and allied fleets operating in the waters around Japan all the way to lower end of the South China Sea.

Lerxst said:

Thanks again for the great response. I agree with your comments on the examples of U.S. vs. Warsaw Pact tactics/Russian equipment. Historically, countries employing them have suffered an almost complete route or at least been sound defeated after some time.

Click to expand...

Much more important to me than the equipment is the doctrine used.

The Soviets-Russians and their allies all tend to use not only Soviet-Russian equipment, but use the old Warsaw Pact Doctrine in deploying that equipment. People all to often concentrate on the equipment, and fail to recognize that the way it is employed is even more important.

Here is a good read on the subject, but I will break it down in a bit more condensed version.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=651812843

In short, it is the modified doctrine they took from the Germans to win WWII. Essentially massing all of their strength in a single location, then trying to blitz through the opposing forces. Then swing behind them and force a pocket that they can be destroyed in. This worked OK against the Germans, who used similar tactics. But against the US and other forces? Not so well.

A classic example is the Battle of the Bulge. A US Division was put into such a pocket, but able to hold out until help arrived. Because part of US doctrine is to continue to support them until the end, and try to relink or evacuate. Bulge, Chosin Reservoir, Khe Sahn, our military history is full of disasters and almost disasters like that. As opposed to say Stalingrad and Dien Bien Phu.

Another key part is how they arrange their armies. Generally, they are broken down into A, B, and C grade troops. A are the elites, B are the normal military, C is the conscript units (cannon fodder). We saw this in Iraq, with the "Republican Guard" units being A, the Iraqi Army being B, and the conscript militias being C. A is trained to a razor edge, the most loyal and fanatical, B is regular military, C is poorly trained and equipped (often with cast-offs from the other 2 grades of units).

The US on the other hand does not follow this model. Yes, we have the more "elite units", like the 101st and 82nd, Rangers, and the like. But they are still essentially equipped and trained the same as the other units. They are just trained for different missions. And even our "C units" (National Guard) is equipped and trained the exact same way.

That is why at 73 Easting happened, you saw the results. M1 and M60 tanks ran into the Iraqi Republican Guard T-72 tanks. They used the tactics they had been drilled into them in anticipation of a Soviet invasion of Germany, and did hit and run tactics for the first half of the battle. Hit with their M2 Bradley's and TOW missiles then withdraw. Finally going in with their tanks for the center. As the Republican Guard A unit disintegrated, the B and C troops essentially fell apart. The result was a slaughter.

For what it is and what it costs, the Soviet-Russian equipment is actually not bad stuff. Yes, the T-72 is not up to par with the M1, but it compares ahead of the M60. And when both sides use similar tactics and equipment, it makes for a good long stalemate. But against US trained forces (without that A, B, C nonsense), it generally turns into a failure. Because the doctrine is a failure.

The US, NATO, Israel, none of them follow that A-B-C grade nonsense. They equip all of their units to the equivalent of Russian A troops, and train them almost to the same degree. In Iraq, we captured tens of thousands that only had 1 month of military training. Just enough time to learn to shoot their rifle, then handed a uniform and put into a trench. In the US, even the most green National Guard unit had all of their people trained at the same bases to the same standards of their Active counterparts. And issued the exact same equipment.

For another example, at the Battle of Kuwait Airport, USMC tanks battled 4 Iraqi Tank Divisions (and their support Infantry). Now first, realize that Marine Tank units are not organized like in the Army. There is no "Marine Tank Division", each Marine Infantry Division has a single Tank Battalion. But the 2 Tank Battalions from 1st and Second Marine Division (plus a Company from 4th Division and 1 Army Armored Brigade) still operated as a single unit. Primarily with equipment considered equal to or inferior to those of Iraq they utterly destroyed them. 10 M60s damaged or destroyed, a single M1 damaged by mines, 19 dead.

Iraqi forces? Thousands killed, thousands more captured. The tanks of 4 divisions all captured or destroyed.

And yes, the Reserves and Guard (and Marines) may be lower on the list to get the new equipment. Active Army had transitioned to the M1 in 1990, but the Marines and Guard-Reserves still mostly used the M60 at that point. But they still did a great job even with the older tanks, and their ultimate replacement with M1 was already in the works, it was simply supply and demand that kept it from happening. All US units had the M1 by 2003, the Russians still use the T-72 as their primary tank. And while it is the upgraded T-72 is pretty equivalent with the last generation of M60 (M60A3 SLEP). In fact, the M60A3 SLEP is actually not far behind the M1 in protection and capability.



But the doctrine is still ultimately based around a war where the opponent used a similar but less refined version of the same doctrine. It is based heavily on a massive Combined Arms assault at a fixed point of battle. With the use of lesser trained and equipped troops mixed with elite units to attempt a breakthrough. And in WWII, the C units were often made up of Shtrafbat Battalions. In simple terms, Penal Battalions. Around half a million Soviet troops served as such in WWII.

Sentenced to serve anywhere from 3 months or until death, most were unarmed (the Officers were generally allowed a pistol). They were put in front of the regular forces as "bullet sponges", and instructed to use any weapons they could scavenge off the battlefield. Any member who hesitated or retreated (or was thought might retreat) was summarily executed. Very few of this almost 500,000 man force were known to have survived the war.

This is how all Warsaw Pact Doctrine militaries are still trained and organized. They still believe in massing at single locations, and prior to an attack start with a massive artillery and rocket barrage (for a few hours) on the point of penetration (with a few diversion attacks). And their defensive strategy is to essentially counter-attack, trying to blunt the attacking force through force of their own.

US forces on the other hand on the attack tend towards much shorter but more intense artillery barrages, across a wider area to confuse the attack point. And rather then go directly at the enemy, they try to attack along the flanks in hit and run tactics, trying to draw them out of position. And in the defense, we are generally trained that instead of counter-attacking, we dig in and assume as strong of a defensive position as we can until relief arrives.

You must realize, when I discuss such things it is as an analyst, not as any kind of "fanboi". Warsaw Pact is a great tactic, if the enemy is using a lesser one. The Soviet offensive into Germany and into Japan it worked very well (if bloody). Against Afghanistan it was flawless. But it was unable to adapt to irregular forces. And when those irregulars started to get comparable equipment, it ultimately failed.

In the Arab-Israeli Wars and Iran-Iraq War it was failure, or bloody stalemate. This shows how inflexible such a doctrine ultimately was.

Lord Tammerlain said:

Darn Chinese invading only another communist country and just once in 50 years. Somehow that is oppressing the Japanese

Click to expand...

Tibet is a communist country?

South Korea is a communist country?

South Vietnam was a communist country?

Tigerace117 said:

Tibet is a communist country?

South Korea is a communist country?

South Vietnam was a communist country?

Click to expand...

50 years

South korea was over 60 Tibet was over 60 years

South Vietnam was a liberation from western imperialism.

The only country China has tried to oppress in the last 50 years was Vietnam

Lord Tammerlain said:

50 years

South korea was over 60 Tibet was over 60 years

South Vietnam was a liberation from western imperialism.

The only country China has tried to oppress in the last 50 years was Vietnam

Click to expand...

Still a lingering memory in many countries.

The Korean War still isn't over.

Uh....no. The French had been out of South Vietnam for years. The communist forces committed systematic and deliberate war crimes against the people of South Vietnam. Why don't you ask, say, the Hmong how much they liked being "liberated"?

As far as false claims go that ranks up there with your "Japan didn't act so badly in the Philippines" clunker you made near the beginning of my time at DP.

Tigerace117 said:

Tibet is a communist country?

South Korea is a communist country?

South Vietnam was a communist country?

Click to expand...

First of all, try reading and knowing history. He specifically said "50 years".

Yes, Tibet is a Communist country. It was annexed by China in 1950, and has been Communist for 67 years.

South Korea was invaded by them from 1950-1953. Over 50 years ago.

South Vietnam was never invaded by China. However, the People's Republic of Vietnam was invaded by China in the Sino-Vietnamese War in 1979. which was 39 years ago this year.

Tigerace117 said:

The Korean War still isn't over.

Click to expand...

True. But China has been out of Korea since 1953.

Oozlefinch said:

First of all, try reading and knowing history. He specifically said "50 years".

Yes, Tibet is a Communist country. It was annexed by China in 1950, and has been Communist for 67 years.

South Korea was invaded by them from 1950-1953. Over 50 years ago.

South Vietnam was never invaded by China. However, the People's Republic of Vietnam was invaded by China in the Sino-Vietnamese War in 1979. which was 39 years ago this year.



True. But China has been out of Korea since 1953.

Click to expand...

Actually, Chinese troops were involved in training and arming the NVA and Viet Cong.

Memories of Tibet and Korea are still strong in the minds of many Asian countries.

Not only that, but the Chinese seized the Paracel Islands from South Vietnam.

JacksinPA said:

TASS: Military & Defense - Russia successfully tests new air defense missile ? media

MOSCOW, April 2. /TASS/. A new Russian upgraded air defense missile has been successfully tested at Sary Shagan range in Kazakhstan, the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper reported on Monday.

"A new modernized air defense interceptor missile has successfully accomplished its task hitting a hypothetical target at the stated time," the paper quotes Major General Andrei Prikhodko, Deputy Commander of the Russian Aerospace Forces’ air and missile defense taskforce, as saying.

The Russian Aerospace Forces’ missile defense system is designed to protect Moscow from a limited nuclear strike by intercontinental ballistic missiles or accidental launches.

More:
TASS: Military & Defense - Russia successfully tests new air defense missile ? media
===================================================
These guys are burning lots of rubles to upgrade their military hardware.

Click to expand...

Lerxst said:

And a regional strategy vs. strategic. Russian clearly wants to increase the land mass between it and it's NATO neighbors, but knows it cannot hope to win a strategic victory.

Click to expand...

Having learned the folly of taking on the US directly, both nations are now trying to use Finlandization to achieve their goals.

Tigerace117 said:

Actually, Chinese troops were involved in training and arming the NVA and Viet Cong.

Memories of Tibet and Korea are still strong in the minds of many Asian countries.

Not only that, but the Chinese seized the Paracel Islands from South Vietnam.

Click to expand...

Training troops do not count. It is not the same as having active units participating in the conflict.

I know about Tibet, but that was over 50 years ago. As was Korea.

And yea, they took over an unoccupied island that had no military forces on it (just a 6 person civilian weather station).

Oozlefinch said:

Having learned the folly of taking on the US directly, both nations are now trying to use Finlandization to achieve their goals.



Training troops do not count. It is not the same as having active units participating in the conflict.

I know about Tibet, but that was over 50 years ago. As was Korea.

And yea, they took over an unoccupied island that had no military forces on it (just a 6 person civilian weather station).

Click to expand...

They also admitted that they sent hundreds of thousands of troops to actively fight.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...nam-war/6b9cb8a4-4d18-48bf-80d2-bea80f64057c/

Not before they engaged in a gigantic firefight with the South Vietnamese Navy.

Tigerace117 said:

They also admitted that they sent hundreds of thousands of troops to actively fight.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...nam-war/6b9cb8a4-4d18-48bf-80d2-bea80f64057c/

Not before they engaged in a gigantic firefight with the South Vietnamese Navy.

Click to expand...

China sent advisors and assistance. They were not actively involved on the battlefield. Other than a few advisors they all stayed in North Vietnam. Doing things like training their forces, and working as "Tech Reps" on their equipment. The deaths were almost exclusively during the various bombing raids the US did into North Vietnam.

And 4 minesweepers against 3 frigates and a corvette in a 40 minute battle is hardly a "gigantic firefight".

Oozlefinch said:

China sent advisors and assistance. They were not actively involved on the battlefield. Other than a few advisors they all stayed in North Vietnam. Doing things like training their forces, and working as "Tech Reps" on their equipment. The deaths were almost exclusively during the various bombing raids the US did into North Vietnam.

And 4 minesweepers against 3 frigates and a corvette in a 40 minute battle is hardly a "gigantic firefight".

Click to expand...

The Chinese stated more than four thousand troops were killed in action. They also stated they sent combat troops to fight---and no, being a "tech rep" doesn't count as combat.