• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

NATO response to Russian sabre rattling

Technoviking said:
I don't know.  Maybe pulling China (who owns a significant portion of our debt) away to their sphere? :dunno:

True.  But now we're sending trainers to Ukraine, and I think still participating in exercises in East Europe.


In so far as China is concerned, Russia doesn't have a "sphere" of it own; the Chinese aim, I suspect, to dismember Russia and make the Asian parts of Siberia into independent client states (rather akin to Mongolia). The Chinese don't like the Central Asian Stans, but they don't want them tied to Russia, either. In China's mind, as far as I MIGHT understand it, Russia is a barbarian state that should be in China's sphere ... or Germany's.
 
While Russia may hope that *we* will overreact; I think they have not looked too deeply into the well to see just how depleted our actual resources and will to act have become. We are not sending in the Armies and the Fleets because we simply don't have enough and don't want to, really.

And even if they have assessed our military mettel, we are still putting the squeeze on the Russians in other ways. The economic embargoes hurt, and the collapse of oil prices is something they don't have a real counter for. I'm pretty sure a lot of Russians can see the writing on the wall if China really starts using their influence in the region, and turning Russia into a semi dismembered Chinese client state; this is directly opposite to the current (and very deep ) narrative of Russia's "Destiny" in the world system. A nation which views itself as the "bridge" unifying the East and the West, and becoming "the New Rome" is not going to take being roughly demoted to a Chinese vassal state very well at all.....
 
Thucydides said:
While Russia may hope that *we* will overreact; I think they have not looked too deeply into the well to see just how depleted our actual resources and will to act have become. We are not sending in the Armies and the Fleets because we simply don't have enough and don't want to, really.

And even if they have assessed our military mettel, we are still putting the squeeze on the Russians in other ways. The economic embargoes hurt, and the collapse of oil prices is something they don't have a real counter for. I'm pretty sure a lot of Russians can see the writing on the wall if China really starts using their influence in the region, and turning Russia into a semi dismembered Chinese client state; this is directly opposite to the current (and very deep ) narrative of Russia's "Destiny" in the world system. A nation which views itself as the "bridge" unifying the East and the West, and becoming "the New Rome" is not going to take being roughly demoted to a Chinese vassal state very well at all.....


I agree that Russia "will not take it very well," but, please, tell me why China should not be in this position?

fUy5v.gif

 
Only 371$ for this upgrade?  ;D Got to love how certain press sources don't have proof-readers.

Defense News

US Army: Strykers Need Bigger Gun to Fight Russia

WASHINGTON — One of the most important US Army units in Europe — the Stryker-equipped 2nd Cavalry Regiment — is outgunned by its Russian counterparts, Army officials say, and needs a fast-track upgrade.

The Army staff in April approved a request from the unit's commander, Col. John Meyer, to fit a 30mm cannon on 81 of the infantry carriers, needed for it to engage similar units or light-armored vehicles. The Senate version of the defense authorization bill contains $371 for the Stryker lethality upgrade.

(...SNIPPED)
 
So, Strykers will be upgraded to LORIT LAVs?
 
Russia's jamming ability emphasized:

Defense News

Electronic Warfare: What US Army Can Learn From Ukraine
By Joe Gould

WASHINGTON — The US military has for weeks been training Ukrainian forces in US tactics, but the commander of US Army Europe says Ukrainian forces, who are fighting Russian-backed separatists, have much to teach their US trainers.

Ukrainian forces have grappled with formidable Russian electronic warfare capabilities that analysts say would prove withering even to the US ground forces, which are nearly a decade behind. The US Army has also jammed insurgent communications from the air and ground on a limited basis, and it is developing a powerful arsenal of jamming systems, but these are not expected until 2023.

"Our soldiers are doing the training with the Ukrainians and we've learned a lot from the Ukrainians," said Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges. "A third of the [Ukrainian] soldiers have served in the ... combat zone, and no Americans have been under Russian artillery or rocket fire, or significant Russian electronic warfare, jamming or collecting — and these Ukrainians have. It's interesting to hear what they have learned."

Hodges acknowledged that US troops are learning from Ukrainians about Russia's jamming capability, its ranges, types and the ways it has been employed. He has previously described the quality and sophistication of Russian electronic warfare as "eye-watering."

Russia maintains an ability to destroy command-and-control networks by jamming radio communications, radars and GPS signals, according to Laurie Buckhout, former chief of the US Army's electronic warfare division, now CEO of the Corvus Group. In contrast with the US, Russia has large units dedicated to electronic warfare, known as EW, which it dedicates to ground electronic attack, jamming communications, radar and command-and-control nets.


(...SNIPPED)
 
USAF to deploy F22s to Europe as the next display of resolution and support.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-sending-f-22-fighter-jets-to-europe-air-force-secretary-1.3202273
 
Along with the A-10s that recently arrived in the Baltic states is another group of assets:

Reuters

U.S. military deploys drones to Latvia on training mission
Mon Aug 31, 2015 5:36pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military has deployed two MQ-1 Predator reconnaissance drones and 70 airmen to Latvia on a training mission as part of U.S. efforts to reassure European allies the United States is committed to their security, the Pentagon said on Monday.

The deployment of the MQ-1 Predators to Lielvarde Air Base in Latvia over the weekend was the first time the U.S. military has sent a detachment of drones to Latvia to participate in partner training, said Navy Captain Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman.

The United States has stepped up partner training deployments to NATO allies in Eastern Europe since Russia last year seized and annexed the Crimean region of Ukraine, raising concerns that Moscow next might target a member of the Western alliance.

(...SNIPPED)
 
MCG said:
So, Strykers will be upgraded to LORIT LAVs?

Here's more to answer your question:

AUSA 2015: Army defends high cost for up-gunned Stryker | IHS Jane's 360 - 13 October 2015
The army is working to up-gun 81 Strykers with 30 mm cannons on remote weapon systems and others with Javelin anti-tank missiles, a long-considered upgrade that was pushed through an operational need statement from the 2nd Cavalry Regiment based at Vilseck in Germany. Service leaders approved the plan in April and now testing and integration work remains.

The cost per system appears particularly high (about USD5 million per vehicle), and according to Heidi Shyu, the army's acquisition executive, this is partly schedule driven because it is through an urgent need statement that is seeking the upgrade as soon as possible. It is also for only 81 systems, so the limited quantity drives up per-unit costs. The price includes a design and integration element as well, she added.

1639958_-_main.jpg
 
More on the above about the Stryker:

Defense News

Army Seeks New Stryker Capability Beyond Bigger Gun
By Jen Judson, Defense News 10:29 a.m. EST March 1, 2016

This story, first published at 9:39 a.m. on March 1, has been updated to include a link to the market survey posted to the Federal Business Opportunities website.

WASHINGTON — The Army is looking beyond carrying out an urgent request to equip Stryker units in Europe with a medium-caliber cannon by scouring the industry for capability upgrades, the Stryker Brigade Combat Team program manager said.

The service released a market survey Tuesday “intended to reach out to industry and involve them in the dialogue,” Col. Glenn Dean told a few reporters in an interview Monday. “What capabilities should we be considering beyond the things that were already sort of on our menu.”

The deadline to respond to the solicitation is April 1.


(...SNIPPED)
 
Couldn't they just take the turret & gun system from the CV90 series, and install them on the Stryker?  Or take the turret we have on our LAV's, and simply upgrade the gun?

Already proven systems, not much of a need to design/test, etc.

 
CBH99 said:
Couldn't they just take the turret & gun system from the CV90 series, and install them on the Stryker?  Or take the turret we have on our LAV's, and simply upgrade the gun?

Already proven systems, not much of a need to design/test, etc.

Biggest gun I've seen in that chassis is a 105mm, and it was a prototype mobile artillery unit. A 105mm gun in a direct fire role on a LAV chassis would be impressive, but the ammo would be limited, that said it would be very mobile, like stripping all the armour of a Leopard 1, and putting the energizer bunny in the engine.
 
I seem to remember GM attempting to make the old Grizzly a DFSV in the early 90's. Good concept but the cannon's overpressure badly deformed the hull and would have been, in all likely hood, fatal to the crew. No further action was taken on the project and the vehicle was never considered in further R&D programs. The newer hulls are considerably more robust, but I'm not sure what the overpressure issues are. Doesn't one of the US forces have a variant in this class?
 
ueo said:
I seem to remember GM attempting to make the old Grizzly a DFSV in the early 90's.

I doubt it was a Grizzly.  More likely a Cougar.  You would be safe in using the term AVGP.
 
Raptors permanently forward-deployed to Poland?

Aviationist

U.S. to permanently deploy F-22 Raptor stealth jets to Poland?
Mar 02 2016 -
By Jacek Siminski
Polish Łask Air Base might become a permanent home for the F-22 Raptor jets.

According to the Polish “Rzeczpospolita” Daily, that quotes the U.S. General David W. Allvin, Director, Strategy, and Policy, Headquarters U.S. European Command, the Americans may permanently deploy F-22 Raptor jets to Poland.

Rzeczpospolita claims that Allvin came up with an idea of reinforcing the Polish airbases with a U.S. presence instead of establishing a permanent US military infrastructure within the territory of Poland, which may violate the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE).

The idea, already proposed by the Pentagon, needs to be approved by the US Congress now.

(...SNIPPED)
 
ueo said:
I seem to remember GM attempting to make the old Grizzly a DFSV in the early 90's. Good concept but the cannon's overpressure badly deformed the hull and would have been, in all likely hood, fatal to the crew. No further action was taken on the project and the vehicle was never considered in further R&D programs. The newer hulls are considerably more robust, but I'm not sure what the overpressure issues are. Doesn't one of the US forces have a variant in this class?

which is odd when you see stuff like this

LAV-300_V-300_Cadillac_cage_90mm_Textron_Wheeled_Armored_Vehicle_United_States_640.jpg
 
The platform rock on a Cougar with the low velocity 76mm was about all that thing could handle. Anything more would likely have tipped us over.
 
CBH99 said:
Couldn't they just take the turret & gun system from the CV90 series, and install them on the Stryker?  Or take the turret we have on our LAV's, and simply upgrade the gun?

Already proven systems, not much of a need to design/test, etc.

The article says they don't want to lose the ability to carry a section.  So no through turrets.

Instead maybe something like this...

http://www.kongsberg.com/en/kps/products/remoteweaponstation/protectormcrws/

af4f00f942454550_800x800ar.jpg

 
Colin P said:
which is odd when you see stuff like this

LAV-300_V-300_Cadillac_cage_90mm_Textron_Wheeled_Armored_Vehicle_United_States_640.jpg

Although I also recall the KOCR guys complaining about cracking welds on the Cougars with the 76mm when they were first issued to them.
 
The original front shock pylons in both  varients were the major problem. Leaking O rings and insufficient welds made for a maintainers night mare. The snap posted earlier appears to be some 76mm variant with a weird muzzle brake (possible USMC trial as it appears to be in front of a hovercraft.). Never seen this one before.
 
Back
Top