War in the Baltic

>Poztonia - 6000 troops
>Latveria - 4600 troops
>Lithuenia - 18 000 troops

What did they mean by this?

Are you seriously saying that Russia is a threat to the baltic nations of NATO? Because that is a funny joke. Russia cannot even win against Ukraine, they can't even come close to Kiev.

>SAMs
>no fly zone

Jej

Attached: image.jpg (750x998, 100K)

Because Russia isn't at war with Ukraine

>Is there anything that NATO can do to stop them?
Yes. If they hole up in the cities along the coast and dispersed stay behind forces in the assload of forests behind the inevitable armored advance they could hold out pretty much indefinitely even while outnumbered. Russia doesn't have enough troops to stage an overwhelming push into Poland, Baltics and Ukraine simultaneously, so the longer it goes the more fucked they are.
>s400s create no fly zones
The US has actual honest to god stealth aircraft and the most advanced SEAD tech in the world you absolute moron. NATO would have crushing air superiority within a week.

Its a tripwire. If Russia attacks and kills tens of thousands american soldiers in combat then america is forced to go total war on them. Its essentially 21th century Pearl harbor

Russian economy is already pretty much destroyed. Ordinary people already can't afford food.
Just close the gas pipe and Russia will collapse in matter of days.

>the anti russian forces in the baltic are wich are also anti goverment, then this shitshow will speed up, and russia will wait until some russian minorities got cleansed
Lol. I personally know some of those "anti russian anti government forces", and you've been had. Nobody there is stupid enough to do something like ethnic cleansing, and they are far too few in number to ever get into a position of polotical power. Kremlin propaganda constantly tries to paint them as baby killing nazis when they're for the most part just disgruntled middle aged national guardsmen with normal lives and families.

Well half of Polish military is stationed near Kaliningrad

Slight hyperbole, user. The Russian economy is growing, albeit extremely slowly

>Crimean Resistance forces
Wow are you retarded? Everyone in crimea is Russian and welcomed annexation

Yes
Name one of those conflicts where those werent involved
Hell Georgian war was to defend their client states that Georgia was trying to reclaim
Jesus christ the underage idiocy on this board

The Russian economy now is about as big as it was in 1996.

Big picture, here, guy. Just because they post a good quarter doesn't mean their economy is on the upswing.

But the "defend ethnic russians" angle is present. They've been funneling literally billions of dollars into Latvia and Estonia for 20+ years to support a bunch of movements, propaganda news outlets and political parties whose sole reason for existing is to keep the russian immigrants from assimilating into the local populations (which is happening even despite this, though much more slowly than naturally). The reason for this is to give them a "legitimate" cassus belli when the opportunity comes. Russians might be shit at making things or not getting wasted, but they've been good at playing the long game for centuries now.
>why would Russia want Baltics
>why would Russia want warm water ports in the Baltic
>why would Russia want to stop paying transit fees for their oil/gas/coal exports
>why would Russia want to connect its isolated Kaliningrad enclave with the rest of the country by land
>why would Russia want to remove potentially hostile military forces a stone's throw away from its second largest city
>why would Russia want a shortened land border and a buffer between Europe and its heartlands

Russia has invaded the Baltics many times before, and many of the motivations haven't changed.

Attached: Pbk_logo2.jpg (176x176, 3K)

fist of all like user pointed out, they are not at war.

second of all, yes they could fuck up nato pretty bad
since we talk about 2 major powers and war, we talk about nuclear weapons. of course nato would retaliate ans fuck up russia too, but pretending that russia couldnt is just stupid.

Baltics are already crippling, population isnt really feeling patriotic despite official claims

>Pidorashkans

What does that made-up word means?

The fuck are you on about? The Russian economy of 96' pales in comparison to the economy of today. Considering the global economic environment AND the global sanctions on the country they're not doing too bad, friend...

>posts reasons for Russia to invade Baltic states
>forgets most important reason

Bepsi, they just want some.

Attached: A530A43B-69DE-453A-B246-04ABEC378E00.jpg (800x450, 49K)

>Pidor=Faggot
>Rashkans=Russian

Russian AA can't really do anything against F-35s

>If Russia decides to take the Baltic states

It doesn't.

And that about wraps this thread up. GG, thanks for coming out.

Attached: 54b0e3fb4ab10_o,size,933x0,q,70,h,fe0226.jpg (933x699, 69K)

Russia ADA would get BTFO'd by cruise missiles. Their current systems are upgrade to upgrades of old soviet systems that have been easily trashed in previous conflicts e.g. Iraq and the Balkans. Are the current generation of systems better than the ones on those previous conflicts? Sure. But so are the tools to mitigate them. Further, what is more likely? That a country that is forced to import the most sophisticated components of its military equipment due to an inability to produce comprble tech domestically has some unbeatable missile system or that the US has the tools and training to meet and overcome such a threat?

They'd definitely win some early victories and probably be in physical control of most of the battle space initially; assuming their massive advantage in manpower and armor over the baltics. However once the freedom isn't free tradmarked death machine gets spun up their only recourse to prevent an absolute and total reaming will be to wave a nuke around.. even Russian military planners admit this openly. That is why their own doctrine regards the use of a tactical nuke as a de-escalation measure. Would they do it? Who knows really? But they say they would and have incorporated simulated strikes on European capitals into their wargames (specifically zapad). It's a pretty stunning admission of weakness from a country whose security strategy relies so heavily on maintaining an exaggerated image of strength militarily. The biggest problem with the strategy is that is turns the conflict into a zero sum game immediately. Would Obama back down over a nuclear threat? Probably. Trump? I'd bet he would push the launch button with his boner simply so he could brag about having fucked and entire country.

No he is seriously saying that Russia has EW capabilities. You know the "fact" that you said it was that they don't, without backing it up with anything.

>Is there anything that NATO can do to stop them?
I mean I can think of something

Attached: 4e96b12a03ff42d4ad32616b0bec2306.jpg (877x500, 63K)

S400 s300 a shit. American stealth is bar none. S500 a shit too

Why in the world can 4channers not stay calm when ever there's X vs. X country or alliance mentioned?
Here's the thing guys: It's not either "S-500 is invincible! Filthy imperialists will never recover and stealth is now obsolete" OR "Lol russians are all starving and a single F-35 will wreck all SAM-sites on day one"

So how about we instead listen to how NATO actually plans for this scenario? In a limited war (without nukes) it is widely accepted that NATO will not have total air superiority like we're used to having - at least not initially. There's no doubt that NATO will be dominating the air as even just the European members have more modern military aircraft than Russia has, and with the U.S. the difference is just ridiculous. That being said there will be a time in the opening of the conflict where NATO-troops can't rely on air support and where bombing enemy targets is a complicated affair.

Looking at numbers of ground troops and vehicles Russia has a lot more stationed in the vicinity than the west, who will have to spend time moving troops and gear before they can respond in full force.

This is why there's NATO troops from multible countries stationed at all time in the baltics. If Russia were to invade, they'd have to fight thousands of troops from different member states and thus forcing NATO into attacking back. This is also why many of the NATO countries that aren't located at the baltics are now focusing on creating mobile, self-sustaining forces that can be deployed quickly and act somewhat independently.

>Baltics are already crippling
Crippling what? I don't understand what you're trying to say, vatnik cunt

>That being said there will be a time in the opening of the conflict where NATO-troops can't rely on air support and where bombing enemy targets is a complicated affair.
Yes, which is why if the NATO leadership aren't completely retarded they will retreat into Tallinn, Parnu, the Estonian islands, Riga and Klaipeda while possibly trying to screeen a line along the Daugava river which only has a few viable crossing points. Look at all the major urban battles in the past 30 years, modern warfare has turned them into natural fortresses. If NATO can hold the Russians up for just a week or two Russia loses the conventional war.

> REEEEE, Ruskies get out!

Tbh I don't think the same tactics Russia used in Ukraine will work with the Baltics. Most of the Russian population consists of elderly people who are ineffective in combat and besides the regular military these countries have National Guard and army reserves which became really popular after the Crimean incident.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 80K)

Yeah. Crimea and Donbas worked because the government was in chaos and the military was totally unprepared. Once the state and military were actually able to respond the successes ended. An identical effort in any of the baltics would encounter immediate organized resistance.

Yeah, they blew the little green men card with Ukraine. By now everyone with a Russian minority has prepared to deal with a bunch of "people's republics" popping up. It might've worked in Latvia or Estonia back then, but not now.

No

It would now, but back in 2013 I wouldn't be so sure. Our political leadership is incredibly ineffectual, and half of them have ties to the former KGB and Kremlin money. But now that Ukraine is established as a case study for ayy lmao uprisings nobody could plausibly ignore it or delay a response by the military - not least because NATO is here in non-trivial numbers now.

To be honest the fight in the Black Sea area will be more interesting than the Baltics.

In 2013 it wouldn't have worked either. For example I'll use Estonia. Government has been stable and kaitsellit has existed for two decades and change. The big factors that enable Russia to succeed in Crimea were the lack of response from anything resembling a central government and military leadership in Ukraine and the US and UK welching on their promise to protect Ukraine from foreign invasion in return for surrendering their nukes. Womp womp.

Why would they tho?

>The US has actual honest to god stealth aircraft and the most advanced SEAD tech in the world you absolute moron. NATO would have crushing air superiority within a week.

I don't think you understand how meaningless stealth is in a compact environment like the baltic. you're going to be flying within 60 miles on the enemy at all times. you're going to be detected.

at those distances various IR system on the ground will be tracking you.

You can also bet that Russia has more SAM's capable of shooting down HARM's than NATO has SEAD weapons in the region.

It's a habit

Russian shill found. It's rightful Ukrainian clay and Russia is in the wrong, it is only right for America to uphold justice and force Russia to return Crimea.

Russia can't afford adding any more pensions to its welfare system. So no Russia doesn't want these or any other dependents.

Estonia is much better prepared than Latvia, but I'm not Estonian so I can't speak for how their leadership would've acted. But the folks we have in charge in Latvia would've been completely out of their depth and likely sabotaged any sort of quick response by the military. And our regular military combat strength is all of two light infantry battalions (everybody else is a pog). The national guard has been criminally neglected, underequipped and completely unprepared for any sort of serious combat, especially urban engagements. The whole ukraine debacle saw a big shift in public opinion, and destroyed any plausible deniability a "people's uprising" in some Russian-majority cities might've had.

Remember, politicians are in charge of military response and politicians aren't concerned with running the country, they are concerned with maintaining their position. The salami tactics rely on giving the ENEMY plausible deniability. Any and all excuses to tarry would be taken, which is what the Russians expect and encourage. But now there are no excuses. The military and national guard is at least somewhat prepared for this scenario, and the military leadership sure as hell knows what will happen if they give the enemy time to entrench. Nobody with any authority could do anything but react immediately with utmost urgency and expect to keep their job for long now.

Attached: 1508080198471.jpg (750x545, 97K)

I've actually been playing a scenario on CMANO thats based on the first 24 hours of that conflict.

Been playing all weekend in real time, 9 hours in (fair amount of pausing to set up strike plans and missions)

Stealth means very little, SU35's are going to detect F22's before either get in range of one another.

The area is saturated with search radars so it's enough to give a fighters radar or IR system a rough area to look in.

Colossal range of S400 and SM-6 mean that most aircraft are flying at low level on strike missions.

stand off cruise missiles and tomahawks seem to be the best way to make an opening.

Harpoon is surprisingly effective in the confined waters of the Baltic. SSK's are a nightmare.

Getting warships close to Kaliningrad to use as SAM seems to help a lot. lost one of my two Burke's getting there though because of missile spam from shore and missile boats.

Attached: baltic.jpg (1920x1161, 497K)

>Shoot commercial jet traveling over no fly zone
Bad Russia!
>Not shoot Cessna flying over no fly zone
AHAHAHAHA Russkie BTFO!

Found the Russian.

> S400 and S300 SAM systems in Russia an Kaliningrad will pretty much force a no fly zone over the three countries.

What is SEAD. What is a Mechanized Division.

> Then surface to surface missiles will pretty much make reinforcing across the Polish Lithuanian border impossible by destroyer the multitude of bridges in the area.

What are SAM systems.

> NATO shipping will have to navigate the confined waters of the Baltic where shore launched ASM's, missile boats and SSK's will be waiting.

What is CCW, what is SEAD; what are global positioning systems, what are land based fighter jets,

> Is Poland as far east as NATO can reasonably defend?

Was Donetsk as far west as the Russian forces could have reasonably taken and held?

Makes sense

>Stealth means very little, SU35's are going to detect F22's before either get in range of one another.
And you deduced this from a video game

Attached: 1494655870546.jpg (250x211, 6K)

Hey Germoney, would You like Your Konigsberg sparkling or flat?

Attached: 1518832447233m.jpg (1024x691, 114K)

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how radar works.

Also, even ignoring radar.

F22's and SU35's flying parallel to one another or merging diagonally will detect one another long before they enter each others no escape zone for missile launch.

Even head to head the IRST of SU35 is finding F22 tanks to the abundance of search radars giving a rough fix. At Sub 100 miles the LPI mode on F22 is not enough to disguise it's bearing.

That being said AMRAAM tends to make things usualy end up in NATO's favour.

Shame the only aircaft carrying AIM120D is the F15C, F22 is using C8, as are RAF Typhoons, German typhoons using C5 and danes using B.

>video game

A simulator that's used by the DoD, mod and a whole host of other defence companies.

>I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how radar works.
It emits pulses of microwave radiation and looks for reflections of those pulses in receiver data. Stealth works by minimizing those reflections making it much more difficult to distinguish them against background noise and clutter (reflections from things that aren't targets), which is something that all kinds of fancy signals processing equipment is used for. Without a considerable amount of classified information about both the stealth aircraft and the sensor you are using to detect it it's fucking impossible to make sweeping statements like that you brainlet.

Nobody who is a civvie can access the sort of technical documentation that would give you even a vague idea of how an engagement would play out.

If you wanna make assertions, cite sources.

>Crimean Resistance Forces

Attached: Saq.gif (500x200, 745K)

That doesn't mean they use the same input values for their simulation as civilian larpers do.

>Russia invades NATO
Russia can barely invade Ukraine, and no amount of IADS can prevent free action of western aircraft.

Thinking that one weapon beats another all the time is a trademark of someone who doesn't understand how war works.

Your desperation to throw insults also marks you out as poorly informed.

VLO aircraft can use that advantage to appear from unexpected directions. it means very little in a close quarters ariel meat grinder.

Stop them? No.

The initial stages of a U.S. response is to figure out how big the threat is and where to allocate resources. Do we know if the attack in the Baltics is a diversion? Should we concentrate forces in Poland or Germany? Intelligence is key here, and unlike what the butthurt belt may think, losing ground isn't that big a deal. Taking it back is almost assured, but the U.S. isn't going to sacrifice unnecessary troops protecting the locals.

If you have to live in occupation for months just so the U.S. can have limited casualties in the eventual counter attack, that's the route we'll take.

>Thinking that one weapon beats another all the time is a trademark of someone who doesn't understand how war works.
But that's you, idiot. I'm literally telling you that war isn't something you can adequately simulate by throwing some stat cards at each other. There is just too many details you can't account for before the fact, let alone if many of the ones you can predict are classified and not accessible to you.

You don't have ANYTHING to go by. Fuck all. Yet you make assertions like
>su35 detects f22 before weapons range
HOW ON EARTH DO YOU FUCKING KNOW THAT?

you are unironcally the dumbest poster on Jow Forums right now
>VLO aircraft can use that advantage to appear from unexpected directions. it means very little in a close quarters ariel meat grinder.
>Thinking that one weapon beats another all the time is a trademark of someone who doesn't understand how war works.
>VLO aircraft can use that advantage to appear from unexpected directions. it means very little in a close quarters ariel meat grinder.
>Thinking that one weapon beats another all the time is a trademark of someone who doesn't understand how war works.
>VLO aircraft can use that advantage to appear from unexpected directions. it means very little in a close quarters ariel meat grinder.
>Thinking that one weapon beats another all the time is a trademark of someone who doesn't understand how war works.
>VLO aircraft can use that advantage to appear from unexpected directions. it means very little in a close quarters ariel meat grinder.
>Thinking that one weapon beats another all the time is a trademark of someone who doesn't understand how war works.

Just look at yourself right here, moron

Attached: snap.jpg (800x450, 49K)

>But that's you, idiot

Implying i didnt give a balanced description of capabilities in Stopped reading your post there, you seem to be an upset teenager who just want to throw insults, you're not woth my time.

>i didnt give a balanced description of capabilities
You didn't give anything but your own completely baseless conjecture. Give me sources.
>you seem to be an upset teenager who just want to throw insults, you're not woth my time
You seem to be trying to imitate the sort of condescending attitude your betters usually direct towards yourself, while completely lacking self awareness.

You make obscenely specific claims like
>SU35 can detect F22 before either is in range
I ask you to back your bullshit up numerous times, all you do is accuse me of exactly what you are doing yourself. Moron. Are you the idiot who was calling everybody "kid" in the nuke thread yesterday?

It's amazing how you're able to form those words with your rectum.

I think we're seeing the dumb wikipedia stat card autists trying to direct the sort of remarks that they usually receive towards everybody else. See this faggot (probably the same guy). He makes a bunch of assertions and then accuses everyone else of being a "teenager" who oversimplifies things and "doesn't understand how war works".

I agree with everything you just said.

RCS modelling is a thing you know.

And in anything but a head don engagement the NEZ of an AMRAAM or R77 will be smaller than the detection range of an IRST system.

You're not hiding any aircraft at altitude when you're 60 miles from a huge number of air defence early warning radars, SAM systems, airborne early warning and fighter radars.

Attached: 15.25.jpg (1591x998, 196K)

>russian militias vs russian armed forces
Listen im no russaboo but pretending Ukraine would stand a chance against Russia is silly

If they learned anything from ww2, then yes. Unfortunately the west learned better the lessons of ww1 than WW2, and it's cost us a century of unimpeded progress

>it's like the Yugoslav conflict meets Chechen Wars

Attached: E1968793-A85E-44B5-AD43-9BB52DA95CF1.jpg (1024x837, 86K)

SAMs have never and will never effectively protect airspace. Relying on SAMs is retarded.

But I thought it was the Ukrainian govt that shot down that airliner........

And is entirely in the realm of guesswork without precision measurements and knowledge of exact material construction. Even at that distance IADS is at a significantly greater disadvantage compared to the aircraft. In the F-117 shootdown the Nighthawk was unlockable at closer to 30 miles when its bomb bay opened. The actual shot was at 8 miles out.

>comparing modern air defence systems to vitnamese and iraqi ones

That's what the Russians said. The reality is much stupider: They handed a Buk over to pro-Russian insurgents with just enough training to lock and shoot a target, but none of the training on how to actually ID targets.

>And is entirely in the realm of guesswork without precision measurements and knowledge of exact material construction.

not guesswork at all. they will never be completely accurate numbers, but they are close enough to be within a margin of around 10-20%.

For IRST it's far easier, if you know the size of an object and you know what you're looking with you know how far away you can see it.

You're comparing a 1960's SA-3 against an F117.

Comparing a modern AESA radar to a modern VLO aircraft is far more complex.

"stealth" isn't a magic get out of jail card.

You just can't fly within 60 miles of a modern air defence network and everything that goes with it and hope to be completely unseen.

Even when the systems involved were newer than the planes they shot at, they still didn't deny any airspace. See yom Kippur war, Georgia, Syria and Ukraine

The radar being newer doesn't magically make it get better returns.

And I'll remind you that the F-22 and F-35 aren't Radar-blind like the F-117. Especially the F-35.

you're still looking and old systems with more primitive technology and using that as an analogy for how things will work in the future.

You're building the Maginot line and developing infantry tanks.

Modern systems like Iron dome, S400, AEGIS etc are a totally different beat to systems we've seen in Iraq and Vietnam.

Isolated events like Syria and Ukraine are not good examples, Syria's air defence network is a mess with isolated hardpoints that the west has deliberately avoided.

>The radar being newer doesn't magically make it get better returns.

I'd say using a beamforming AESA over an analogue radar powered by vacuum tubes is a hell of a start to getting better returns.

>Primitive technology
>S-300 and s400
>Vs 70s Jets and 80s missiles in Syria

Tell me which is primitive again?

Tell me a single example where SAMs have effectively denied airspace. Meanwhile, I can give you countless examples where the mere threat of enemy air forces in a region required scrubbing of operations.

I'll remind you that the newer radars are dealing a ~15 and ~25 year leap in stealth modeling with the F-22 and F-35. The aircraft aren't standing still, and there's only so much performance you can squeeze out of a ground system, especially if it's vehicle-mounted.

>Tell me a single example where SAMs have effectively denied airspace

I've literally been telling you that a modern IADS system has never been properly tested.

Iron dome stops rockets every week, but thats hardly a full system.

systems from 2010~ onwards have been a huge leap in capability.

The difference is that western IADS is about missile defense, it's not even trying to maintain airspace control.

>it's not even trying to maintain airspace control.

AEIGS is.

Nope. AEGIS is primarily a missile interception system. To the point the newest, biggest Standard Missile models can intercept ballistics in the boost phase.

SM-6 is purely for air defence.

Not that it matters when you know perfectly well that a modern system has not been tested.

Slinging a few HARMS with a bit of jamming and MALD's just won't get you into Kaliningrad.

>Newer systems are more effective!

So are newer airframes. There's never been an instance of a SAM denying airspace even in the third world. By their very nature, SAMs are at an inherent disadvantage as they're reactive in nature and then physical problems like the inverse square law put them at an even bigger disadvantage.

>Not that it matters when you know perfectly well that a modern system has not been tested.
You keep saying this as if it means anything. Reactive defense is always at a massive disadvantage to proactive offense.

>tens of thousands american soldiers
Little overoptimistic aren't we?

not when S400 outranges your SEAD weapons.

The AGM88 is legacy equipment. JASSM and JASSM-ER and thomahawks fill its role now.

Uh, it doesn't.

>There's never been an instance of a SAM denying airspace even in the third world.

You're retarded.

Do you have any idea how many sorties have been planned around avoiding air defences?

>SAMs are at an inherent disadvantage as they're reactive in nature and then physical problems like the inverse square law put them at an even bigger disadvantage.

Yes, that confirms it. you're a retard who's desperately trying to look like he knows what he's talking about.