NATO forces in Lithuania. Photo: twitter.com.
NATO is deploying troops to Russia's neighboring countries. We wrote about this yesterday. Under the Enhanced Forward Forces program, the North Atlantic Alliance is creating and strengthening military groupings in EU countries along the western border of Russia: in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Bulgaria and Romania. In each of the states of Eastern Europe, about one and a half thousand military and hundreds of tanks, artillery installations and other military equipment. In addition, in the Black Sea, NATO has created a fleet mini-group, which includes not only the Black Sea countries, but also Poland, Spain and Germany.
Together with NATO troops in Eastern Europe the US military is also deployed, which participates in a separate operation "Atlantic Resolve". This year alone, the Pentagon knocked out $ 3.4 billion from the White House for it. And, as experts note, we are talking about restoring the US presence in Europe of the times cold war. According to the Czech specialized portal Offiziere, two-thirds of the operation's budget will be spent on the transfer and maintenance of military equipment (tanks, artillery, helicopters ...). Most of them will be located at military bases in Germany, the rest - in Eastern Europe. The following fact can speak of the scale of the operation: in January, the 3rd armored brigade of the 4th infantry division was transferred from Colorado to the German port of Bremerhaven. And this is about 3,500 soldiers, 87 tanks, 18 Paladin self-propelled gun mounts, 419 HMMWV armored vehicles and 144 Bradley combat vehicles. Such an American landing in Europe has not been seen for three decades. However, he is not the only one. In February at Old light The Pentagon also moved an army aviation brigade from the 10th Mountain Division from New York. 10 Chinooks heavy military transport helicopters, 50 Blackhawks multipurpose helicopters, 24 Apaches attack helicopters and 2,200 soldiers were transported to Illesheim, Germany. According to the commander of the European troops of the United States, General Ben Hodges, 30,000 US troops will be stationed in Europe. Some of them have already arrived. One battalion will go to the Baltics, the other to Romania and Bulgaria, and most of the brigades will be deployed in Poland. At the same time, 28 joint exercises with NATO along the borders with Russia are planned this year. More than 60,000 people will take part in them.
NATO and US bases in Europe. Photo: offiziere.ch. Brussels and Washington say that the main goal of the operations is to contain Russia and demonstrate the cohesion of the alliance member countries. However, what are NATO and US troops actually preparing for? This is described in sufficient detail in American specialized publications.
Concentration at the borders with Russia in 72 hours
Since NATO troops under the Founding Treaty with Russia cannot be permanently deployed in the countries of Eastern Europe, then, according to Defensenews, the main task of the Pentagon now is to reduce the time for the transfer of troops from the United States to Europe, to minimize the time for their dispersal across individual countries near the borders with Russia and work out a quick grouping of all troops in one direction.
As stated at the symposium "Global Power american army» Commander, 21st Theater Combat Support Command Duane Gamble, after arriving in Germany, the 3rd armored brigade was able to redeploy to Poland and bring itself to full combat readiness in 14 days.
During the next rotation, the 2nd Armored Brigade of the 1st Armored Division will arrive in Europe in September, the terms of movement in Europe and deployment are planned to be reduced by 4 days. For example, most of the equipment will be transported by rail, General Gamble said and added that they are going to use the old military railway 168 kilometers from the port of Bremerhaven. During the Second World War Nazi German troops transported people along it to the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp.
Also, the US European Command is considering the possibility of delivering troops to not one, but several ports at once, according to Defensenews.
However, perhaps the most important thing for the troops of NATO and the United States is now the grouping of troops stationed in various countries of Eastern Europe, in one direction near the borders of Russia. According to General Gamble, it should take no more than 72 hours.
“If the bulk of the brigade is stationed in Poland, this is possible. If it is dispersed from the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea, then the task becomes more complicated,” Gamble said.
In March, at a Senate hearing, a security analyst at the RAND Strategic Research Center David Shlapak stated that NATO is not yet ready to quickly form a “fist”, for example, in the Baltic countries. In his opinion, this requires 7 brigades, including 4 from allied countries. “The shock battalion will arrive from Germany, and the paratroopers from Italy. At the same time, the soldiers will still have to be transported from the USA to the prepared tanks in Poland. It will take too long,” the expert said. True, he spoke about the situation if Russia attacks, and not NATO itself. In the West, as you know, the annexation of Crimea to Russia and the conflict in the south-east of Ukraine are considered Moscow’s aggression and the NATO and US operations are called retaliatory measures. According to RAND, Russia can capture the Baltic states in 60 hours, and the US needs three stationary brigades and a week of time to recapture them.
"We shoot every day"
While Bradleys tanks and combat vehicles were little used in Iraq and Afghanistan, they will become the main striking force near the borders with Russia, Armytimes reports. As the American special edition was told by the brigadier commander, Colonel Christopher Norrie, Russia gives a chance to fight with an opponent of equal strength. And the armored brigade began preparing for operations in Europe last year in the United States, practicing the main areas: communication and shooting.
According to the commander of the European forces of the United States, Ben Hodges, the armored forces will require strong air support.
"I'm not an aviator, but I don't want to do anything without aviation," the general told Armytimes. As we have already reported, in February, an army aviation brigade of the 10th mountain division arrived in Europe: about 90 helicopters of various classes and purposes.
According to Colonel Christopher Norrie, his brigade has been in Europe for two months now and conducts practice firing every day - in Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Germany. The teachings are getting more and more difficult.
“Last week, our reconnaissance battalion conducted a combined exercise with artillery support and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles,” the colonel noted. According to him, the Polish army participated in the exercises and after the training is completed, the brigade will be dispersed in Romania, Bulgaria, Germany and Hungary.
The Colonel's words about massive exercises are confirmed by numerous messages and even videos posted on social networks by military analysts and the representations of the Baltic countries in NATO. Over the past week, we have counted 10 different exercises, which, in addition to the Baltic countries, were conducted by NATO and the United States also in Slovenia and Ukraine.
So, in Lithuania, local and American ground forces worked out fighting in forests and villages. Similar exercises were also held in Estonia, where the forced march of armored troops and firing from anti-tank weapons were also practiced. missile systems. In Latvia, tank firing was carried out in the forest. At the same time, in Ukraine, representatives of the 45th US Infantry Brigade controlled and helped conduct mortar firing. In Slovenia, military vehicles and armored personnel carriers participated in the exercises.
American and Estonian military practice military operations in settlements. Photo: twitter.com. Tank firing of a NATO battalion in Latvia. Photo: twitter.com. Shooting from man-portable rocket systems in Estonia. Photo: twitter.com. Tank exercises in Poland. Photo: twitter.com. 
Practicing combat operations in the villages of Estonia. Photo: twitter.com. 
Joint exercises in Slovenia. Photo: twitter.com. The US military trains the Ukrainian army in firing mortars. Photo: twitter.com. However, the main exercises of NATO and US forces in Eastern Europe will take place in June in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and in July - in Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary. They will be used to practice the concentration of NATO and US forces for 72 hours in one direction near the borders with Russia. Only in the Black Sea region, 40 thousand soldiers will participate in the exercises.
"Russia keeps NATO at arm's length"
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov back in January, he said that the leadership of the alliance does not understand the real situation, increasing its presence in western borders Russia, including the Baltic and Black Sea countries. "It's sad, intelligence is not working well for them," the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry stated. He added that Russia is a peace-loving country, but will give its answer in case of danger. One of the protective measures was the formation in 2016 of four new divisions. “We hope this year to complete the deployment of three divisions on the western borders and southwest. We are actively working to protect the Kuriles,” the Russian Defense Minister said in February. Sergei Shoigu. According to him, work will also be completed this year on the modernization of coastal defense structures and equipping them with modern Bal and Bastion coastal missile systems. First of all - in the Crimea.
In addition, last year Russia responded to the deployment of the US missile defense system in Europe by redeploying Iskander-M mobile missile systems to the Kaliningrad region.
Mobile missile systems "Iskander-M". Photo: bastion-karpenko.ru. Today, the US and NATO are active not only in the eastern EU countries, but, as you know, in Ukraine and Georgia, where large-scale exercises will also take place in the summer - Seabreeze-2017 and Noble partner. The participation of NATO forces in the preparation of the Ukrainian army against alleged rebels in the Donbass, the anti-Russian policy of Kyiv completely turn almost the entire western and southwestern borders of Russia into a continuous line of confrontation and a real threat to the country's security. Moreover, the emphasis is on traditional warfare.
In it, according to the professor Stefan Hedlund from the Geopolitical Intelligence Service think tank, Russia will find it difficult to resist NATO forces, but the clash will cost the North Atlantic Alliance too dearly. The think tank was founded by the Prince of Liechtenstein in 2011, and Stefan Hedlund studied the Russian military for four years. In his report, he writes that there is little comfort in the superiority of NATO forces. “Even if Russia is weak when attacked, it has developed powerful defense systems that can successfully hold the defense of entire regions. Such safe regions are called "bubbles" by the military. At the last NATO summit in Warsaw, such “bubbles” were discussed: for example, the Kola Peninsula, Crimea, Kaliningrad and Syria. The alliance believes that they can suppress the defense systems, but it will be too expensive,” the professor noted. In his opinion, by investing in defense systems, Russia has expanded its operational territory and keeps NATO at arm's length. “By defending its perimeter, Russia has upped the ante in its dispute with NATO over spheres of influence in Ukraine and the Caucasus,” Stefan Hedlund notes, adding: “Someone could say that Russia won. However, this does not mean that Russia is a threat to the West.”
Anti-aircraft missile system S-400. Exercises in the Kaliningrad region in January this year. Photo: gisreportsonline.com. German political scientist, member of the Valdai Club Alexander Rar believes that few people in Europe believe in some kind of military aggression by Russia against one of the NATO member states. “But a number of Eastern European countries demanded - hysterically, one might say - the entry of NATO troops into their territory as a response to the events in Ukraine. And the United States immediately took up the idea of such an expansion of the military structure of NATO to the Russian borders,” the expert says. According to him, Germany sent Bundeswehr soldiers to the NATO battalion without much enthusiasm: “Rather, she did it out of solidarity with NATO recruits.” According to the German political scientist, few people in Europe today understand the perniciousness of such a step. “Russia will respond with a new arms race, the atmosphere in Europe will deteriorate further. It would be more important at this moment to reactivate the Russia-NATO Council,” says Alexander Rahr.
Founder of the analytical center "Geopolitical Intelligence Service" Prince Michael von Liechtenstein suggests that the current confrontation between NATO and Russia could have much worse consequences than during the Cold War. “During the Cold War, there was a bipolar world and nuclear deterrence worked; in a multipolar world, however, it lost its meaning. Therefore, the risk of turning even a limited traditional war-style confrontation into a nuclear one should be taken seriously,” the Prince of Liechtenstein commented on NATO expansion and Russia’s reaction at the end of last year.
Summary: NATO: history of origin, participants. The North Atlantic Council is NATO's highest political authority. NATO expansion in the 1990s-2000s. NATO intervention in the Balkans. Russia and NATO: 1997 agreement, creation of the "Russia-NATO Council" body.
Requirements for knowledge and skills:
Have an idea : about the history of the emergence of NATO, the members of the bloc.
Know: the true goals of this political bloc, the role of the United States
Be able to: Assess Russia's benefit from normal relations between Russia and NATO.
History of occurrenceNATO
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, North AtlanticAlliance- identical names of the world's largest military-political bloc, uniting most of the countries of Europe, the United States and Canada. Appeared April 4, 1949 in USA. Then the NATO member states became USA, Canada, Iceland, UK, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg. Norway, Denmark, Italy and Portugal. One of NATO's stated goals was to provide deterrence or protection against any form of aggression against any NATO member state. It was also announced that glaclear purpose of NATO-guarantee the freedom and security of all its members in Europe and North America in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter. To achieve this goal, NATO uses its political influence and military potential.
Moscow perceived the creation of the bloc as a threat to its own security. In 1954, in Berlin, at a meeting of the foreign ministers of the United States, Great Britain, France and the USSR, Soviet representatives were assured that NATO was a purely defensive organization. In response to calls for cooperation, the USSR proposed NATO member countries their entry into the alliance. However, this initiative was rejected. In response, the Soviet Union was forced to form in 1955 a military bloc of socialist states - organizationWarsaw Pact
Despite the "gentlemen's" agreements between the leaders of the USSR and the leaders of the West on the non-expansion of the alliance, in period from 1952 to 1982 Four more European states have joined the Alliance: Greece, Türkiye, Germany, Iceland and the number of its members increased to 16 States.
NATO expansion to the East
After the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact V NATO March 12, 1999. current Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic.
In 2004, NATO expands its membership already at the expense of the states that were former Soviet republics: Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, as well as states such as Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
In 2009, NATO adopted Albania and Croatia, and currently in this block there are 28 states.
All these steps are far from altruistic and harmless pursuits.
In April 2006, answering questions from the Moscow News newspaper A.I. Solzhenitsyn rightly noted: “NATO is methodically and persistently developing its military apparatus - to the East of Europe and to the continental coverage of Russia from the South. This includes open material and ideological support for the color revolutions, the paradoxical introduction of North Atlantic interests into Central Asia. All this leaves no doubt that a complete encirclement of Russia is being prepared, and then the loss of its sovereignty.
Organizational structure of NATO's highest governing bodies
The United States plays a leading role in NATO, x although formally each NATO member participates fully in the decision-making process on an equal basis, regardless of its size or political, military and economic power.
NATO's highest political body is North Atlantic Council (NATO Council) , which is composed of representatives of all member states and meets under the chairmanship of the Secretary General of NATO. This position is currently held by Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Between sessions, the functions of the NATO Council are performed by NATO Permanent Council, which includes representatives of all countries participating in the bloc in the rank of ambassadors.
The highest military-political body of the organization since December 1966 became Defense Planning Committee
, collected twice a year at the session at the level of defense ministers.
NATO's highest military authority is Military Committee consisting of chiefs general staffs countries - members of NATO and the civilian representative of Iceland, which does not have a regular armed forces, and meeting at least twice a year for its meetings. The Military Committee has under its command the command of two zones: Europe and the Atlantic. Supreme High Command in Europe headed by the supreme commander (always - American general). Under his command are the main commands in three European theaters of war: Northern EuropeanCentral European and South European. Between meetings, the functions of the Military Committee are performed by Permanent Military Committee.
The main bodies of NATO also include Nuclear Planning Group , which meets usually twice a year at the level of defense ministers, usually before meetings of the NATO Council.
NATO and threats to Russia's national security
A key place in achieving the political and military superiority of the United States and NATO is given to solving the problems of further weakening Russia. Here's how the former US Secretary of State put it G. Kissinger: "I prefer chaos in Russia and civil war tendency to reunite it into a single, strong, centralized state.
However, not the words of high-ranking politicians, but the practical actions of the United States and NATO determine the primary importance of the task of ensuring the national security of our country. Generally, threats to Russia's national security appear in the areas economy, socio-political, military, international, scientific, informational, border and environmental. At the same time, the US leadership considers NATO as one of the main instruments for protecting American interests in the rest of the world.
To this end last years NATO is actively modernizing its armed forces. At the same time, the inadequacy of the existing forces and means of the alliance to real security threats is becoming more and more obvious. The aggregate military potential accumulated by the bloc already today far exceeds the needs to conduct anti-terrorist operations or counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
European theater of operations: is NATO's "blitzkrieg" real?
The world is not yet on the brink, but almost. The legal return of the Crimea, the events in Ukraine and the Middle East brought to life forces that had been dormant for the time being. The rapid build-up of potentially enemy troops on the borders of our country gives rise to a logical question: do we have something to oppose? Yes, I have.
I do not consider nuclear weapons in this article, because this is a means of guaranteed destruction of at least half of the planet, with the current total potential. There will be no winners, and if the dying McCain does not give a damn about it, then other Western politicians still want to live, so it is unlikely to be used. Maybe only tactical, not without reason, in February of this year, senators and congressmen proposed to start deliveries of INF missiles to Europe, accusing Russia of violating the relevant START-3 and other treaties with some kind of fright.
However, Russia, following the already formed asymmetric tradition of retaliatory actions, may well use not a tactical, but an intercontinental means of delivering the “burning tour” into oblivion. Will there be such risky guys in Europe who decide to put themselves under attack? Let's hope not. Therefore, we look at what we can oppose in a conventional war.
Our main ally in the western direction is the Republic of Belarus. Member country of the CSTO and the Union State of Russia and Belarus. Therefore, we are considering our total power, since it is clear that, in the event that NATO armies begin to move to the East, they will also go through this state, as was already the case in 1812 and 1941. I do not think that the Old Man will give the green light to the unhindered passage of enemy troops through his territory. In this case, he will not last a day at his post, and at least 2/3 of the population will leave to partisan in the forests.
We start with the main strike weapon of our days - aviation:
1) Aircraft of the battlefield (attack aircraft, front-line bombers)
- the Armed Forces of the Republic of Belarus have four squadrons of Su-25s (about 40 aircraft), while the Air Force of the Western Military District of the Russian Federation has about 200 Su-25s (Su-39s do not take into account how many of them were produced and how many of them are in the troops - the information is closed , and we will proceed from open sources) and about 100 SU-24s and Su-34s.
- There are about 100 American Thunderbolts in NATO formations in Europe. All! Well, you can still add about one and a half hundred F-15 and F-16 fighter-bombers to this category, but they are incomparable with attack aircraft and bombers when fighting ground targets. They only bomb Yemeni rebels. But even taking them into account, it turns out 340 vs 250.
Okay, let's see what happens to those who are supposed to cover and shoot down the enemy "bombers". Maybe the advantage in attack aircraft is hidden by the lack of fighter aircraft?
2) Fighters.
- The Armed Forces of the Republic of Belarus have six squadrons of MiG-29SMT (about 60 aircraft), the Air Force of the Western Military District of the Russian Federation has about 400 Su-27SM and MiG-29 SMT aircraft, as well as about 100 MiG-31 BM fighters.
- NATO troops - about 150 F-16s of various modifications, about 430 Eurofighter Typhoons, while the FGR4 modification works quite successfully as an attack aircraft, which was demonstrated at the Green Flag exercises . 560 by 580 turns out, here it’s up to the flight characteristics of the machines and the skills of the pilots.
3) Strategic bombers.
It's scary to even compare. There are 5 of them in Europe (think about the number!) five aircraft, 3 of them - B-52. In Russia, there are 60 Tu-95MS and MSM, 16 Tu-160, more than 60 Tu-22M3. The armament of the "White Swan" generally allows strikes from a long distance, out of range of air defense. No, hypothetically, the United States can transfer three to four dozen of its strategists to the EU, there are two questions: will they want to help, and will there be a living airfield.
Let's go to the ground. After all, we, people, are earthly creatures and wars are won on earth. Well, since 1916, tanks have been the main striking means of ground forces. So, achtung, panzer!
4) Tanks
- The Belarusian Armed Forces have about 1,500 tanks (mainly T-72B). As part of the Western Military District - 2000 T-72B and B3, about 500 T-80U and about 200 T-90A.
- NATO troops include about 600 Leopards 2A4 and newer versions, 120 (or 150?) Leclercs. Do not forget a dozen "Schvabrams" in the Baltics, from the arrival of which the leadership of the Baltic countries was delighted as if the United States had brought them the gold reserves of Fort Knox. 4200 vs 800? Yes something like that. Here, of course, some “all-propalists” can throw foam, they say, NATO has thousands more Leopard 1, AMX-30, former countries ATS - "seventy-two" export options ..... Yes, somewhere in the warehouses all this is. Only there is no ammunition for them (Soviet), and if there is, then they are unusable.
But after all, in the Russian Federation there are about thirty thousand tanks that are mothballed (and the storage bases, well, for some reason it happened, in the European part of the country). Okay, in addition to tanks, there are also armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, which are also important in wars. How many are there?
5) armored personnel carrier and infantry fighting vehicle
- The Armed Forces of the Republic of Belarus have about 2,100 infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, mainly BMP-2 and BTR-70. There is also a small number of BTR-80 and BTR-82A. Yes, we should not forget about such a type of armored vehicles as BMD, which Western countries. There are about 200 of them in Belarus (however, in warehouses, as part of the "reserve of the first stage"). In the west of Russia, there are about 5,000 infantry fighting vehicles of various modifications in combat units, and about 4,000 armored personnel carriers. I did not find information on how many infantry fighting vehicles are in the western military district of the Russian Federation. But, given that there are several units of the Airborne Forces in it (the district), then about 500 BMDshek different types should be.
- NATO has about 11,000 infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers of various brands in Europe. There is such a zoo, you can only list their models for a week. Well, here you can exhale, approximate parity.
6) ACS and MLRS, OTRK
- in Belarus there are about a hundred OTRK, about 1500 self-propelled guns and MLRS. In the Western District of the Russian Federation, there are about 500 OTRK, about 3000 self-propelled guns and MLRS of various models, about 50 TOS.
- NATO troops in Europe have about 4,000 self-propelled guns and MLRS, but again, there is such a zoo that it is simply impossible to even imagine how they can interact under one command and with a single logistics. But this is from the "if only yes if only" section. And so - the advantage of the CSTO.
7) SAM and other air defense systems.
- here you can not even compare, because. The United States (being the boss of weapons business in NATO), is not particularly concerned about the creation of air defense systems, relying on aviation. So, for example: together with the American "Patriots" in Europe, there are about 500 anti-aircraft systems, while Belarus alone has over 1000 of them....
8) Combat helicopters.
- the Armed Forces of the Republic of Belarus are armed with about 30 Mi-24 helicopters, as part of the Western Military District of the Russian Federation - about 500 Mi-24, 30 Ka-52, about 700 Mi-8, some of which can carry weapons.
- NATO countries in Europe are armed with about 1000 combat (I emphasize, combat) helicopters of the "Mongoose", "Tiger", "Cobra" and "Apache" types. Given the above about air defense systems, the survivability of combat helicopters over stuffed "Shilki", "Tunguska", "Buks" and S-300 Belarus is a big question, not to mention the ZVO of the Russian Federation.
9) Navy.
- Having acquired a permanent base in Syrian Tartus, controlling the Black Sea and the Kuriles not only by surface and submarine ships, but also by means of coastal defense, any NATO aircraft carrier simply will not reach the strike distance. But the enemy has a lot of destroyers with the same Tomahawks. But, firstly, the destroyer may again not reach the strike distance, and secondly, the low flight speed makes them ("Tomahawks") vulnerable to both missile defense systems and conventional fighters. The only plus is the quantity. A hundred KR flying to one specific point is almost impossible to destroy.
10) Cruise missiles.
- There are many of them in NATO, according to various sources, from 1000 to 1500 units are deployed in Europe. However, without a launcher, it's just an iron club stuffed with explosives and electronics, you can't send it flying with a flickford cord.
- become famous "Caliber" - quite a worthy response to Western cruise missiles. They start from the 3S14 installation, which is placed with equal comfort stationary, mobile, on a missile boat, submarine and aircraft. This makes the missiles virtually indestructible, because it is very problematic to hit a target that does not know where it goes. It is difficult to establish the number of "Calibers", but, knowing the ability of Russia to rivet weapons, like cheesecakes for a holiday, you can not worry: there will be enough for everyone.
11) The number of personnel.
- The personnel of the army of the Republic of Belarus in peacetime - 62,000 people, the Western Military District of the Russian Federation - about 800,000 people.
- The total number of armies of European countries is about 900,000 people. Most soldiers in the Bundeswehr - 320,000 and France - 190,000, and this, please note, together with the reservists. *
The bottom line is this: in terms of the main types of weapons and the number of soldiers, the likely Western Front as a whole is capable of repelling any aggression from NATO. And what will the instigators of a possible conflict, the United States, do?
Mass transfer of troops to Europe will be difficult. There will not be enough transport planes and ships, and far from all will sail / fly too. And then, who will defend Canada? It has about 50,000 l / s, including reserves. About 100 tanks of the Leo-2 type, about 2200 armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles of many types (Bizon, Grizzly, Coyote and others), 35 Adats air defense systems, a few Oerlikons. The Russian USC, created in 2014, is constantly building up the Arctic group, including in places close to the Bering Strait. This is the Eastern Military District, which is many times larger than Canada in terms of the number of military personnel, equipment, aviation and navy. And here the main question is precisely what is more expensive for the United States: distant Europe or neighboring Canada? It seems to me that they are still neighbors, therefore, to transfer soldiers and equipment to European theater Americans won't.
But they are already slowly doing this, sending either a company to Latvia, or a brigade to Poland, or trying to deploy new missile defense systems in Europe. And the same "Patriots" and "Tkhaads" are very quickly rearming, turning from air defense systems into strike launchers of cruise missiles.
I would very much like not to bring things to a hot phase. And this can be avoided by actively supporting the claims of the Irish "Sinn Fein" and the Scottish National Party, which has a parliamentary majority in its homeland. Conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, these two countries did not lose national identity, have been wanting to secede for a long time and do not want to leave the European Union at all. And, having achieved independence with the help of Russia, they will gladly provide the opportunity for the Russian military to stay. Thus, continental Europe becomes vulnerable to a strike from the northern flank, the English Channel is reliably blocked, and Europe itself is deprived of an allied army, because in this situation, Great Britain will not get into a conflict on the continent.
The fighting spirit also leaves much to be desired, for except for the Germans, no one really knows how to fight, and even then, the Hans need a good Fuhrer, and Merkel is clearly not drawn to such a role. After all, what is modern Europe, then? Strikes, strikes, gay parades and obedience to America, but already with a tight fit. They conducted real military operations only during the Second World War, when, for example, Denmark surrendered after 6 hours. The current European wars are the destruction of civilians from the air in the absence of air defense, followed by cleansing of women, the elderly and children. This is not an adversary.
It can be summarized as follows: most likely, Europe will not get anywhere, because for the third time there are not so many people who want to receive a teapot from the Russian Ivan, as it seems to all oppositionists from different countries. But it is necessary to prepare for possible hostilities, for which Russian army It is constantly updated, relocated and conducts exercises, and so successfully that last year almost an entire combined arms army was transferred near Kaliningrad along with the fleet, and this was just in one night.
But in NATO, logistics is lame on both legs. Commander of the US Armed Forces in Europe General Ben Hodges and professor T.-D. Young argue that normal organized resistance to an offensive Russian troops will begin only on the border of Poland and Germany, because there are simply no routes, they have not been created. And the European Armed Forces generally stopped in development, everything is purchased from the United States, and their equipment does not shine with merits, to put it mildly. Therefore, they will fight, if at all, every man for himself.
*The data is dated 2015, provided by a reliable source, but during this time the balance has not seriously changed. About 20 T-72B3s appeared in Belarus, an American tank division and one or two brigades appeared in Europe, additional forces are being deployed in the Russian Federation, and a potential NATO ally, Ukraine, has as many as 5 rubber boats to strengthen the naval power of the Independent country.
NATO troops will remain in Poland and the Baltic countries as long as the threat from Russia persists, Jens Stoltenberg said in an interview with Polskie Radio. The NATO Secretary General stressed that a signal must be sent to Russia that the actions it has taken in Crimea and Ukraine must be completely ruled out against any NATO member country.
"Poland is a devoted ally"- so in a conversation with Polskie Radio general secretary NATO Jens Stoltenberg summed up the 19 years of membership of this country in the North Atlantic Alliance. The head of NATO was also asked about Russia. “What really should be worrying is the fact that the Russians have begun to increasingly use nuclear and conventional weapons in their military doctrine, as well as during military exercises. And it's very dangerous." he stressed.
In a conversation with the Brussels correspondent of Polskie Radio, Beata Płomecka, he thanked Poland for its contribution to NATO activities in Europe, as well as for the operation in Afghanistan and Iraq. "We are very grateful, Jens Stoltenberg said. — NATO is important for Poland, and Poland is important for NATO. This is a collective alliance, we stand together, shoulder to shoulder, one for all - and all for one. This is the strength of the alliance, and Poland is part of it.".
The head of NATO also announced that Poland meets all the requirements of the alliance and sends at least 2% of GDP to defense. In a conversation with Polskie Radio, he also touched on the strengthening of the eastern flank of the alliance, stressing that the July NATO summit in Brussels will confirm that NATO troops will remain in Poland and the Baltic countries as long as the threat from Russia remains.
“It was about sending a clear signal that any actions like those committed in Ukraine, including the illegal annexation of Crimea, are excluded in relation to any of our allies. To do this, NATO is on the eastern flank to protect all member countries and protect their territorial sovereignty from any aggression. Battlegroups will be on the eastern flank for as long as necessary." Stoltenberg warned.
NATO Secretary General also called on Russia to comply with international agreements. It was about both the Minsk agreements and the treaties relating to arms control.
Moreover, Jens Stoltenberg commented on the recent speech of the President of Russia. Vladimir Putin announced that the army has new types of weapons, missiles that can hit targets in both hemispheres of the Earth. The head of the alliance said he was not surprised by this performance. He added that this is a confirmation of Vladimir Putin's mechanisms of action, because Russia has been allocating huge sums of money for the modernization of its military capacities for several years, it has invested in re-equipping the army, in nuclear and conventional weapons.
The head of the alliance said that, first of all, we are talking about compliance with the INF Treaty, that is, an agreement regarding the elimination of medium-range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. “Therefore, we call on Russia toshe kept the agreementtransparentand verifiableway",- summarized the NATO Secretary General.
source Polskie Radio Poland Europe tags- 03:00
The chief designer of the Tu-160 strategic bomber Valentin Bliznyuk has died at the age of 91, the Tupolev press service reported.
- 03:00
Former Washington Capitals forward Andrei Nikolishin said that psychological pressure should not be a decisive factor in the final group stage match of the youth hockey world championship between the national teams of Russia and Germany.
- 03:00
Bronze medalist of the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City Andrey Nikolishin answered whether the influence of the legendary former striker Igor Larionov on the Russian youth hockey team is too great.
- 03:00
Russian athlete Sergey Shubenkov commented on the response of the All-Russian Athletics Federation (VFLA) to open letter compiled by him, as well as athletes Maria Lasitskene and Anzhelika Sidorova.
- 03:00
Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev commented on the end of negotiations between Ukraine and Russia on gas transit.
- 03:00
Pittsburgh Penguins head coach Mike Sullivan commented on the game of Russian forward Evgeni Malkin in the National Hockey League (NHL) regular season match with the Ottawa Senators (5:2).
- 03:00
The official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, believes that the Swedish 16-year-old schoolgirl Greta Thunberg is primarily a child.
- 03:00
Bronze medalist of the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City Andrey Nikolishin called the game in the majority the main problem of the Russian youth hockey team at the world championship in the Czech Republic.
- 03:00
Former Washington Capitals forward Andrey Nikolishin expressed the opinion that the goalkeeper of the Russian national hockey team Amir Miftakhov is to blame for only one missed puck in the match with the US national team at the World Youth Championship in the Czech Republic.
- 03:00
A court in the Stavropol Territory sentenced a college student who attacked three minors with acid in the summer of 2017 to five years in prison.
- 03:00
Russian tennis player Vera Zvonareva will not take part in the Australian Open Grand Slam due to injury.
- 03:00
Journalist Vaughn Smith told RT about a phone call from his friend, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is currently in prison in the UK.
- 03:00
Sergei Tsekov, a member of the Federation Council Committee on International Affairs, commented in an interview with RT on the signing by Moscow and Kiev of a package agreement that will allow gas transit through Ukrainian territory to continue after January 1, 2020.
- 03:00
The well-known figure skating coach Rafael Harutyunyan shared his opinion on why there are many athletes in the group of Eteri Tutberidze who can do quadruple jumps.
- 03:00
A plane flying to Moscow made an emergency landing at the Koltsovo airport in Yekaterinburg, Interfax reports.
- 03:00
Olympic bronze medalist Andrey Nikolishin said that the defeat of the Russian national hockey team from the US national team at the World Youth Championship in the Czech Republic was not due to fatigue.
- 03:00
Bronze medalist of the Olympic Games Andrey Nikolishin commented on the defeat of the Russian national hockey team from the US national team at the World Youth Championship in the Czech Republic.
- 03:00
Forward of the Russian national team Nikita Rtishchev shared his expectations from the World Youth Championship match with the German team.
- 03:00
The silver medalist of the 2002 Olympics, choreographer Ilya Averbukh, congratulated Evgenia Medvedeva, two-time world champion in figure skating, on her debut in his ice show The Wizard of Oz.
- 03:00
Prime Minister of Ukraine Oleksiy Honcharuk said that by 2023 the Ukrainian energy system should finally separate from the Russian-Belarusian one and become part of the European one.
- 03:00
Russian forward "New York Rangers" Artemy Panarin received an invitation to take part in the All-Star Game of the National Hockey League (NHL).
- 03:00
As part of the regular season of the National Hockey League (NHL), the Pittsburgh Penguins defeated the Ottawa Senators.
- 03:00
The chief specialist of the Phobos weather center, Yevgeny Tishkovets, said that snow will remain in Moscow on New Year's Eve.
- 03:00
The Department of Health of Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug said that four people were hospitalized in the Surgut Trauma Hospital after a bus collided with a cargo trawl.
- 03:00
The price of Brent crude oil is rising. This is evidenced by trading data.
- 03:00
An earthquake with a magnitude of 5.5 was registered in the east of the Kamchatka Peninsula, Interfax was told in the Kamchatka branch of the Unified Geophysical Service of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
- 03:00
State Duma Deputy Vitaly Milonov suggested that the head of the traffic police, Mikhail Chernikov, punish drivers who provoke the formation of traffic jams.
- 03:00
More than 40,000 law enforcement officers will ensure law and order during the New Year holidays in Moscow.
- 03:00
The former head of the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi car alliance, Carlos Ghosn, confirmed that he had left Japan and said he was fleeing political persecution.
- 03:00
Dmitry Morozov, chairman of the State Duma Committee on Health Protection, said that a presumption of consent to posthumous organ donation may appear in Russia, and a draft law has already been prepared.
- 03:00
In Moscow on Tuesday, December 31, up to +2 ° C is expected, Gazeta.Ru reports, citing data from the Hydrometeorological Center.
- 03:00
The former head of the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi car alliance, Carlos Ghosn, may have left Japan under a different name.
- 03:00
Specialists of the Taxcom fiscal data platform have calculated the index of mimosa lettuce. The results of the study are at the disposal of RT.
- 03:00
The American edition of Forbes writes that US sanctions against the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline were a year late.
- 03:00
From January 1, the last stage of limiting the maximum debt comes into force in Russia. According to the new rules, the maximum amount of interest on loans for up to one year should not exceed the debt itself by more than 1.5 times.
In order to determine the possible role of aircraft carriers in a large-scale non-nuclear conflict, let's try to figure out how much tactical aviation the Russian Federation and NATO will have in the very near future - say, by 2020. The author did not set himself the task of achieving absolute reliability in the calculation of the Air Force by collecting them open sources, but in the orders of numbers should not be mistaken.
The Russian Aerospace Forces for 2020 inclusive must have:
PAK FA - 12 pcs. These will be vehicles for trial operation in the army, so it is hardly worth considering them in the total number.
Su-35S - 98 machines tentatively. The contract for 48 aircraft has already been completed, the second one is being executed, for 50 aircraft until the end of 2020.
Su-30 M2 / SM - according to rumors, it is planned to bring up to 180 machines by 2020.
Su-33 - it is not clear, we will leave 14 cars.
Su-27 SM / SM3 - 61 vehicles. In general, initially they said that at least 100 aircraft would undergo modernization, but recently something has not been heard about the Su-27SM3. Perhaps the program is curtailed?
MiG-35 - 30 vehicles
MiG-29SMT - 44 vehicles
MiG-29UBT - 8 vehicles
MiG-29KR - 19 vehicles
MiG-29KUBR - 4 vehicles
MiG-31 - 113 upgraded by 2020
In addition, a certain number of unmodernized vehicles are expected to remain in the Russian Air Force: 78 Su-27s, 69 MiG-31s and 120 MiG-29s.
As for front-line aviation, everything is more complicated here:
Su-34 - 124 vehicles until 2020, but it is possible that their number will increase even more. Taking into account the fact that they are now produced at 16-18 aircraft per year, it is quite possible to increase the number of aircraft to 142 aircraft. So let's count.
Su-24 - 0 vehicles. Alas, according to existing plans, the Su-24 should be completely decommissioned from the Air Force by 2020. On the other hand, in the event of an aggravation of the international situation, this decision may be reviewed. And, in fact, even if a decision is made to withdraw, it can be assumed that the upgraded Su-24s will be mothballed and not destroyed. Let's leave about half of the current number of Su-24s in service - approximately 120 aircraft.
Su-25 - can be up to 200 vehicles.
Tu-22M3M - it is planned to upgrade 30 vehicles. Strictly speaking, these are long-range missile-carrying aircraft, and not tactical ones, but they, with a high degree of probability, will be used to solve tactical aviation tasks, so we will take them into account here.
Of course, there are also Tu-95s and Tu-160s, which theoretically could perform non-strategic functions, but in practice, in the event of a conflict with NATO, they are unlikely to act in this role.
Thus, we counted:
Fighters - 458 pcs.
Interceptors - 113 pieces
Tactical bombers - 262 pcs.
Long-range missile carriers - 30 pieces
And in total, it turns out, 863 new or modernized aircraft and, in addition, 267 non-modernized fighters and interceptors and 200 attack aircraft - a total of 1,330 aircraft.
It is clear that all these machines cannot take off at the same time, because no one has canceled the need for maintenance and repairs. But today we are by no means in the 90s, so we can safely assume that the number of non-combat-ready aircraft at any given time will be within reasonable limits.
And what about our opponents? Let's first count the European NATO countries
Germany. Formally, today the Air Force has 125 Eurofighters and 93 Tornadoes. In fact, 55 Eurofighters and 29 Tornados are capable of performing combat missions. Generally speaking, Germany planned to acquire 180 Eurofighters, but for how long, and how many of them will be “on the wing” by 2020? It is unlikely that by that date the once mighty Air Force will be able to boast at least a hundred combat-ready or undergoing maintenance aircraft.
France. 167 Mirages-2000 of various modifications, approximately 115 Rafales in the Air Force by 2020 and 44 Rafales in the Navy aviation. In total - 326 aircraft. It seems to be a great force, but only about 40% of the aircraft are combat-ready from this number.
England - 141 Eurofighters (only 232 ordered), 76 Tornadoes. The schedule for the delivery of Eurofighters is unknown to the author, for example, they will reach 160 cars - a total of 236 aircraft will be obtained. But there is no reason to believe that the situation with combat-ready aircraft is much better than in France or Germany.
Italy - 83 Eurofighters, 68 Tornados in the fighter-bomber version, 82 AMX ACOL and AMX-T ACOL light attack aircraft
Spain - 86 F-18s and 61 Eurofighters.
Greece - 156 F-16s, 22 Mirage-2000s, 34 Phantom IIs and 34 Corsair attack aircraft
Turkey - 260 F-16s of various (including quite modern) modifications, 51 Phantom II, 35 old F-5s
Norway - 57 fairly old F-16s.
Netherlands - 63 old F-16s.
Belgium - 68 old F-16s
Denmark - 30 old F-16s in service should be decommissioned by 2020. Let's keep them all the same
Portugal - 30 old F-16s
Hungary and the Czech Republic - 12 Swedish SAABs each, total - 24
Bulgaria - 15 MiG-29 and 14 Su-25
Romania - 12 F-16s and 36 MiG-21s
Slovakia - 12 MiG-29
Croatia - 16 MiG-21
Poland - 48 F-16s. There are also MiG-29s and Su-22s, but they seem to be being withdrawn from the Air Force.
And in total, it turns out, 2,177 aircraft, of which no less than 814 (rather, significantly more) are already very old machines.
Since 2,177 is noticeably larger than 1,330, it seems to be that the air forces of the European countries that are NATO members are significantly stronger than the Russian Aerospace Forces. But if you dig a little deeper, then everything becomes completely different.
The first is, of course, the percentage of serviceable machines in their total number. Unfortunately, this figure for the new aircraft of the Russian Air Force is unknown to the author. At the same time, there is data on the US Air Force, where the readiness level of F-15 and F-16 aircraft is 71-74% of the total number, and A-10 attack aircraft - even 77%, and there is no reason to believe that we are worse today.
Let us assume that the % of serviceability of the RF video conferencing system is at the level of 70%. At the same time, the owners of the most powerful air force in Europe, equipped with the most modern aircraft - Germany, England, France - have extremely low serviceability percentages of about 40%.
It turns out interesting. If we compare the total estimated number of the most modern aircraft of the Russian Federation (Su-35/30, MiG-35 / 29SMT / K), which, even without taking into account the upgraded MiG-31BM, by 2020 there should be about 383 aircraft with the most modern NATO aircraft (440 Eurofighters maximum, plus 159 Rafales, for a total of 599 vehicles), it turns out that the European NATO countries have more than one and a half times the advantage. But if we compare the number of combat-ready vehicles (with 70% for the Russian Aerospace Forces and even 50% for NATO), then we get 268 versus 299, i.e. almost parity.
If we assume that the percentage of serviceable aircraft on average in European NATO countries does not exceed 50-55% versus 70-75% of the Russian Federation, then the ratio of combat-ready aircraft will be 1,088 - 1,197 NATO aircraft versus 931-997 aircraft of the Russian Federation, that is, the superiority of European countries NATO is minimal.
But that's not all. After all, it is not enough to have planes, they must also be controlled. And if the Russian Aerospace Forces are subordinate to a single command and are capable of acting as a single entity from the very beginning of the conflict, then the Air Forces of European NATO members (we listed the Air Forces of 19 (!) Countries) do not represent anything like that. But this is very important. Of course, NATO countries conduct joint training of their air forces, but they are unlikely to be intensive and massive enough to ensure such coordination and interaction of aviation, which is possible within the framework of the air forces of one country.
Recall also that the training of NATO pilots is very heterogeneous. The author does not have exact data on this, but it is unlikely that the training of Turkish or Bulgarian pilots is equivalent to French or English.
Relations between countries within NATO itself should also be taken into account. It is not so easy to believe that in the event of a serious local conflict, the European NATO countries, as one, will enter the war as a monolithic force. It is very difficult to imagine the armed forces of Greece, to the last drop of blood fighting for the interests of Turkey.
Again, it is extremely difficult to expect that even those countries that do get involved in a conflict will throw all their aircraft into battle. You can be sure, almost certainly, that in the event of some large-scale clash, for example, in Eastern Europe, neither England nor France will throw the entire power of their Air Force into battle, but will limit themselves to sending a “limited contingent”. Of course, the Russian Federation has the same problem, because to completely expose Far East and the southern borders are impossible, but in general, the percentage of the total number of combat-ready aircraft that will be able to bring the Russian Federation into action in any conflict may well turn out to be higher than that of European NATO countries.
Logistics issues. No, of course, the airfield network in Europe is very large and has over 1800 paved airfields. But the fact is that at the end of the Cold War, the Europeans are heavily saving on their military budgets, which will create certain problems for them when trying to concentrate the power of their air force, say, closer to Eastern Europe. Not that the Russian Federation did not have such difficulties, but it is easier to deal with them within one country.
All of the above leads us to the fact that despite the list of air superiority of the European NATO countries over the Russian Federation, the actual balance of forces in the suddenly erupted conflict may not be as brilliant for the Europeans as it looks on paper.
And if you go beyond the actual air force and remember so important factor how is air defense?
The armed forces of the Russian Federation have a very strong ground air defense, significantly superior to that of the European NATO countries. It's not that NATO has absolutely no ground components air defense, but earlier, at the time
of the Cold War, they traditionally relied on their air superiority. And after the USSR collapsed and military budgets began to be cut everywhere in Europe, of course, they saved a lot of money on the development and updating of air defense systems. And did NATO countries really need new versions of the same air defense systems at that time? In the “wonderful” 90s, if a military conflict with the Russian Federation suddenly happened, the question was not how to defeat the Russian Air Force, but how to find them.
However, any disarmament policy is good only when the enemy is even weaker, but if he suddenly begins to intensify, then ... Of course, no ground-based air defense, no matter how powerful it may be in itself, is not able to withstand modern air forces. But as one of the components of the country's balanced armed forces, it is capable of greatly complicating the actions of enemy aircraft and seriously increasing its losses.
Until recently, NATO aviation had a certain superiority in tactical control, missile weapons and electronic warfare, and in addition - in the training of pilots. But it is well known that in the SAP 2011-2020. very much attention is paid to the issues of communications and command and control, so we can count on the fact that even if we have not evened out on this issue, then at least close the gap. In terms of the missile situation, the situation is also gradually stabilizing, so, for example, by 2020, a noticeable amount of RVV-SD should be expected to enter the troops. As for the electronic warfare equipment, the gap has been completely eliminated here, and it can be assumed with a high degree of probability that NATO is now catching up. On the issue of combat training, the situation has also improved significantly - not only did the Russian Aerospace Forces begin to spend significantly more resources on training, but also the war in Syria allowed many pilots to gain combat experience. And although the "barmaley", of course, are not a serious opponent for the Air Force, but still, at a minimum, we can talk about "exercises close to combat conditions."
In view of the foregoing, the author of this article can conclude that the Russian Aerospace Forces (if there are a sufficient number of trained pilots) in the very near future can receive not only parity with the air forces of European NATO countries, but even good chances of gaining air superiority in initial stage hypothetical military conflict.
Of course, all this is true exactly until the moment when we remember the US Air Force. Even without taking into account the F-35, which, most likely, as of 2020 will remain in a semi-combatable state, the US Air Force has 1,560 fighters (184 F-22; 449 F-15 and 957 F-16 of various modifications) as well as 398 attack aircraft, including 287 A-10 and 111 AV-8B. And that's not counting 247 F-18s, and 131 AV-8B aviation marines, and 867 F-18 carrier-based aircraft. The United States has 3,203 tactical aircraft at its disposal, and in terms of air power, the United States, perhaps, surpasses the European countries of NATO and the Russian Aerospace Forces combined.
Thus, we can say that the United States in the air has overwhelming superiority. But ... as one very wise proverb says: "if your gun is a millimeter further than you can reach, then you do not have a gun."
Currently, the United States has deployed 136 F-15 and F-16 combat aircraft on European bases, not counting transport and reconnaissance aircraft. This air group cannot fundamentally influence the balance of power in Europe. Ensuring air superiority will depend entirely on the speed of the transfer of the US Air Force from US territory to Europe.
It would seem, what's wrong with that - refueled, sat at the helm, and flew across the Atlantic ... But this only happens in third-rate action movies. Even the most unpretentious combat aircraft require maintenance at the rate of 25 man-hours for one hour of flight. We need people, we need equipment, we need cover for airfields where deployed air wings will be deployed, we need fuel, ammunition, and much, much more. And the problem is that now the Americans in Europe have none of this. And the Europeans, who somehow maintain the percentage of serviceable cars at the level of 40-50%, do not either. And delivering all this from the USA to Europe is not at all as simple as it might seem.
Remember Operation Desert Shield
Transportation continued from the beginning of August 1990 to mid-January 1991. 729 tactical aircraft and 190 aircraft of the Marine Corps were deployed, and in total about 900 land-based tactical aircraft (729 + 190 = 919 aircraft, but part of the Harriers of the marine infantry operated from the decks of landing ships), as well as 5 divisions, 4 brigades and 1 separate regiment of ground forces and marines. By the beginning of Desert Storm, this contingent was provided with all the necessary supplies for one month of combat operations. This is without a doubt an outstanding result. But it took more than five months to create this grouping - the transfers went from August 7, 1990 to January 17, 1991!
Of course, we are talking not only about the transfer of aviation, but also about large contingents of ground forces, but in the event of some large-scale conflict, these same ground forces will be extremely needed by the United States on the continent. The fact is that with the ground forces of the European countries of NATO, approximately the same problem as with the air force - it seems that there are a lot on paper, but for now you will concentrate in right place, the war will end three times in time. We have already mentioned the state of the once formidable Bundeswehr, which today has only three divisions with 95 combat-ready tanks. France has two tank divisions with three regiments of special operations forces and more - foreign Legion, but in the event of a sudden conflict, it will be very problematic to extract parts of it from Tahiti, Djibouti and similar places. Italy has three divisions, Great Britain has two (and several brigades) ... Together, the European countries of NATO have very impressive by the standards of the 21st century ground forces, but only on one condition - if you collect them all in one place, and with this in the event of a sudden military conflict there will be very big problems.
If the above reasons are correct, then in the foreseeable future Russian Federation can achieve air parity with NATO in the event of a sudden large-scale conflict. And the United States will need not even weeks, but months to realize its air superiority. It is a completely different matter if the conflict is preceded by a long (several months) period of aggravation of relations - in this case, the war can start with one and a half, or even two times NATO's advantage in the air.
To be continued...
