The Russian Military: Declining or Better?

[Stan]

Imagine yourself in Zaire with a cell phone that worked in only three major cities (if you called (pardon the pun) ahead to get a connection), and you had a compass and map from the 1960s.

Half of the high end Garmins with purportedly unlimited free updates can't get you around this tiny little country.

We've lost our very basic military training where the drill sergeant snapped the eraser off the pencil, gave it back and told you, "you were not yet trained to use that end of the pencil"

Carl,
Back to VFR

[TheCurmudgeon]

Stan, the problem would not be land navigation. It would be GPS guided "smart" munitions or drones that rely on GPS for course corrections for weather conditions.

[Stan]

Stan, the problem would not be land navigation. It would be GPS guided "smart" munitions or drones that rely on GPS for course corrections for weather conditions.

Jeez, Stan... That begs the question

We are guiding our million dollar sierra with Russian satellites

Hence the term "Smart" as in street wise from DC or Intelligent from God knows where ?

We still have SR teams that lase the targets behind enemy lines for far less cash !

EDIT:

If I look back on the blunders of Russian smart bombs in Georgia with most of the ordnance landing miles from what we concluded were their intended targets, I would have to conclude that a Russian satellite blackout might be a good thing.

My point however is the same. I can still call in Artillery using a map, can still call in my location using a map, and, the map batteries never die when I need them the most. Worst case scenario, I need to sharpen a pencil.

[carl]

I don't know if there would be panic in the ground guy community if the GPS went down and stayed down. I suspect there would be.

I know there would be panic on the aviation side

[Fuchs]

Half of the high end Garmins with purportedly unlimited free updates can't get you around this tiny little country.

We've lost our very basic military training where the drill sergeant snapped the eraser off the pencil, gave it back and told you, "you were not yet trained to use that end of the pencil"

U.S. Army land navigation skills with compass and map were already a running gag in (parts of) the Luftwaffe (!!!) back in the 90's.

It's one of those skills which make it really easy to embarrass people in general.


(Disclaimer: I'm fine with maps, yet horrible without.)

[Stan]

Fuchs,
Good point

However, when put to the test in the middle of the Sub-Sahara with only lunch and a cold beer in the back of the truck, you better get it right !

We did, and several times over.

It was in fact 1994 and both of us are still alive.

Land navigation skills are not for the common soldier and few pass a 16 mile road march at White Sands.

But then, few from the Luftwaffe make it past the first day at Bragg, nor do most other soldiers, regardless of nationality.

Pilots are not land navigators, unless following rivers and mountains qualify as navigating

U.S. Army land navigation skills with compass and map were already a running gag in (parts of) the Luftwaffe (!!!) back in the 90's.

It's one of those skills which make it really easy to embarrass people in general.


(Disclaimer: I'm fine with maps, yet horrible without.)

[JMA]

It was in fact 1994 and both of us are still alive.

That time and place was a great incentive not to get lost... a scenario which can't be emulated during training (obviously).

[Stan]

That time and place was a great incentive not to get lost... a scenario which can't be emulated during training (obviously).

Mark,
Exactly !

I wonder, just how many herein know what a "click" really means

Then, there are expressions related to thickness, something about pubic hair, which, we will not get into herein

[novelist]

Mark,
Exactly !

I wonder, just how many herein know what a "click" really means

Then, there are expressions related to thickness, something about pubic hair, which, we will not get into herein

If I'm not mistaken, a "click" is a kilometer.

[AmericanPride]

I'll make the argument that the question is not relevant insofar that Russia's military capabilities should properly be measured in comparison with other states rather than itself at two different periods of time. Military capabilities should also be analyzed within the context of the political outcomes pursued by war.

Here are some statistics:

o Since 1991, Russia has participated in ten (10) conflicts. Of these, seven (70%) ended in favorable conditions for Russia. Only one (10%) ended in defeat (First Chechen War). This compares with the 71.43% favorable rate of the U.S. in the same time period.

o Of the ten conflicts, half (50%) were external conflicts, and four (80%) of these ended on favorable terms, with one (20%) ending in a armistice (civil war in Tajikistan)

o In quantitatively measuring manpower, defense budget, power projection, and nuclear capabilities, Russia ranks #2 (18.25%) after the U.S. (30.34%).

o Russia ranks #1 (as of 2013) in the following quantitative factors of military capability: nuclear weapons and strategic bombers.

o It ranks #2 or #3 in the following: nuclear submarines (#2), strategic airlift (#2), amphibious landing ships (#3), and budget (#3).

The other factor to consider is the rate of growth in military capabilities - is it increasing or decreasing relative to U.S. or other major state capabilities? One of the major triggers of World War I was German intelligence assessments that despite the significant disparity between German and Russian military capabilities, Russian capabilities were increasing significantly faster than German capabilities. This created political pressure to attack Russia, or to at least treat it with hostility (and thereby increase insecurity in the international system). This is something that should also be considered in the modern context when assessing Russia's emergence from the shadow of the USSR and what it means for the U.S and international security.