Brazil could make Russian new-generation fighters

[Makenshi]

MOSCOW, April 7 (RIA Novosti) - Russia may allow Brazil to produce its fifth-generation fighters under a license in the future, a senior Russian government official said in an interview with RIA Novosti.

"We are discussing with the well-known Brazilian company Embraer the transfer of technology and the construction of facilities for the future licensed production of the aircraft, including the fifth-generation fighter," said Alexander Fomin, deputy director of the Federal Service on Military-Technical Cooperation.

Russia's advanced multirole fighter is being developed by the Sukhoi aircraft maker, part of Russia's United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), along with India's Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), under a preliminary intergovernmental agreement signed in October 2007.

The first prototype is scheduled to make its maiden flight before the end of 2009.

Last November, Russia and Brazil signed a series of agreements on military technology cooperation which emphasize the protection of intellectual property rights and technology secrets.

The agreements will facilitate the transfer of technology and the licensed production of the Russian aircraft in Brazil if Moscow decides to sign a contract with the South American country.

Meanwhile, Russia's Su-35 jet fighter is participating in an ongoing tender for the delivery of over 100 fighters to the Brazilian Air Force.

"We are actively participating in the Brazilian tender, which has been reopened. It involves over 100 fighter planes. Russia has made a bid in the tender with its Su-35 multirole fighter. The tender has stiff requirements, involving not only the sale, but also the transfer of technology. It is a key condition of the deal and Russia is ready to satisfy it," Fomin said.

Brazil wants a multirole fighter to protect its national airspace as well as to keep track of smugglers in the Amazon basin and guard the country's offshore oil rigs. However, it also wants the multi-billion dollar contract to reenergize the domestic defense industry through home-grown production and as much technology transfer as can be afforded.

Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/04/mil-090407-rianovosti02.htm

----------------------------------------------------

Between the 3 fighters that could be choosen (Saab Grippen, Dassault Rafale and F-18 Super Hornet), I was hopping the F-18 were the winner.

But if the Russians really offer tech tranfer with the Su-35 (which is a badass mofo by itself) AND a joint into the making of the PAK-FA T-50 (Russia's version of the F-22 Raptor, or F-35, don't remember which), I'm all for it.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I thought the US would be the only one "outsourcing" jobs !

 

[Maphusio]

Ohhh there have got to be allot of angry Russians. When the US tried to outsource a job it had all ready given to Boeing, there was hell to pay. Eventually, the US decided terminating a huge military contract for no rutten reason and outsourcing it was bad for PR.

 

[SkynetV4]

Here I was hoping that Brazil would get those kick ass looking Berkuts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-47

Embraer is becoming a very, very strong contender in international aviation. Their planes are a cost effective alternative to Boeings and Cessnas.

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

The original idea was for Brazil, India and China to jointly develop a 5th generation figther, but Im not sure if it was Brazil that backed out or Russia that didn't follow through with the deal.

Seems now we get to license build them, which isn't too bad, but could be better.

Brazil really does need some new figther jets.... its A4 Skyhawks, Mirage 2000's and AMX Figthers are a joke compared to Perus, Chiles and now, Venezuelas airforce.

Brazil's air force should be third in the whole american continent, behind only Canada and the USA.

 

[Crni Vuk]

has brazil really a that strong military and right economy to hold a big airforce with the newest fighter jets ?

I also think that russia has quite some issues with new military equipment and development since quite a lot of factories have been as well located in former soviet states, so technology and development of certain weapons was shared between several nations. See the baltic fleet for example which is still even today a small issue since russia basicaly has no ground there if I am not mistaken.

 

[UniversalWolf]

its A4 Skyhawks, Mirage 2000's and AMX Figthers are a joke compared to Perus, Chiles and now, Venezuelas airforce.

Yeah, those models are getting pretty dated, even with upgrades.

The Skyhawk was one of my favorite airplanes as a kid. I remember when the Blue Angels used to fly those.

 

[SkynetV4]

has brazil really a that strong military and right economy to hold a big airforce with the newest fighter jets ?

I also think that russia has quite some issues with new military equipment and development since quite a lot of factories have been as well located in former soviet states, so technology and development of certain weapons was shared between several nations. See the baltic fleet for example which is still even today a small issue since russia basicaly has no ground there if I am not mistaken.

You raise an interesting point. Some quick wiki-search revealed that their army is the second largest at 200000 men. Venezuela has the largest army, with over 600000. It would be an interesting exercise to compare the military equipment of botch countries. Venezuela has mainly Soviet equipment while Brazil has a nice mix of foreign-imported and a few homegrown designs. If it came to nuclear war, I think Brazil would have a longer arm to throw around, considering that they have a spaceport while Venezuela would be relegated to gravity and SRBM and MRBM weapons. None of them have nukes though.

Venezuela's oil deposits gives them a financial strength that other armies in the region would struggle to match.

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

You raise an interesting point. Some quick wiki-search revealed that their army is the second largest at 200000 men. Venezuela has the largest army, with over 600000. It would be an interesting exercise to compare the military equipment of botch countries. Venezuela has mainly Soviet equipment while Brazil has a nice mix of foreign-imported and a few homegrown designs. If it came to nuclear war, I think Brazil would have a longer arm to throw around, considering that they have a spaceport while Venezuela would be relegated to gravity and SRBM and MRBM weapons. None of them have nukes though.

Venezuela's oil deposits gives them a financial strength that other armies in the region would struggle to match.

Brazil's army at the moment is a national embarassment. Conscripts are sent back home because there is not enough food/rations to go around in their barracks, weapons are almost 60 years old, ammunition stocks are at 15% their recomended level, its armoured fleet is mostly grounded due to lack of spare parts, fuel, and maitanence.

Venezuela's army on the other hand, is being lavished with latest russian APC's, attack helicopters, AK-103's, nightvision scopes and all other paraphernalia.

On the ICBM/Nuclear front, Brazil could easily pound Venezuela into dust. Nuclear knowhow and missile technology are available, something Venezuela doesn't possess at the moment (although it is very likely Chavez is pursuing at least nuclear technology in secret)

As for oil, if Petrobras is anything to go by, Brazil has discovered vast oil fields off its coast, levelling the playing field somewhat.

Interestingly, Brazil's government allocated $2 billion to the army alone to be spent on modernization. So far, only God knows what happened to that money (corruption is rampant in Brazil)

Here is a neat little chart I compilled in another forum of what Brazil could do to its army if that money was invested properly:

500 T-90 MBT = $685,500,000
500 BMP-3 IFV/APC = $500,000,000
100 PzH 2000 Howitzer = $450,000,000

Total = $1,635,000,000

With less than $2 billion, its possible to replace its entire armoured fleet with some state of the art equipment, including the German howitzer which is quite possibly the best in the world. There is still $365,000,000 left, which can presumably be spent on small arms.

 

[SuAside]

fighters = force projection.

small arms, T-90s, BMPs & Howitzers might be more useful in real conflicts, but force projection is key when it comes to politics and pressuring people.

btw, that proposal is badly spent... puts way too much emphasis on tanks where all other militaries in the world are moving away from the promiment role MBTs used to have.

it also doesn't mention things like anti-air capability (be it AAA or missile based), airforce & modernised anti-tank capability for infantry or LMV.

anyhow, all this doesn't matter if you can't feed your military, train them properly and provide them with ammo... especially with the terrain in (most of) southern-america, specialised small number infantry (with rapid land or air deployment) could make for very nasty surprises.

either way, if you're really interested in the subject, i suspect that Lt. Col. Gonzalez should be able to brief you better. and he could ask his teachers at officer's school.
so pm him if you want.

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

fighters = force projection. small arms, T-90s, BMPs & Howitzers might be more useful in real conflicts, but force projection is key when it comes to politics and pressuring people.

The proposal has nothing to do with force projection but rather the needs of the military. Force projection these days has little to do with the army but more with air force and navy. The army plays mostly a defensive role.

Artillery still plays a very important role, and Brazil has one of the most (if not the most advanced) MRLS systems in the world, its a shame its only a handful.

btw, that proposal is badly spent... puts way too much emphasis on tanks where all other militaries in the world are moving away from the promiment role MBTs used to have.

BMP's are well known for their mobility and ability to cross water barriers, so are well suited for fighting in the amazon region.

Brazil is a massive country with huge open areas, fields, and urban envrironments where tanks would be very useful. Not to mention its extremely large coastline. The sheer size of the country makes tanks indispensable for defense and entrenched areas of conflict. We need only look at Chechenia to see thin skinned apc's take a beating in urban scenarios.

it also doesn't mention things like anti-air capability (be it AAA or missile based), airforce & modernised anti-tank capability for infantry or LMV.

Brazil is also developing its own air defense sytem which seems quite promising, and this is being done by private investment, hence why government funding is unecessary.

Anti-tank capability can be dealt with separately with the extra money that is left, such as infantry held anti-tank systems and so on. Future investments would focus on combat and transport helicopters, which are the true modern anti-tank vehicles. (together with the air force)

anyhow, all this doesn't matter if you can't feed your military, train them properly and provide them with ammo... especially with the terrain in (most of) southern-america, specialised small number infantry (with rapid land or air deployment) could make for very nasty surprises.

Indeed. Like I said, the proposal covers only the army and is suited to its needs. For the needs of force projection, the air force is already in the middle of a program to acquire a minimum of 30 modern figthers (possiblty the Su-35), with a maximum of 120. That would be more than enough to put Brazil as the most powerful air force in Latin America.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I agree with Suaside. Any nation that wants to keep up some military role in south america should probably aim for a smaller but more powerfull military with high specialication. Comparable to elite units with high quality equimpent. Here of course air supperiority would play a vital role since I have doubts that in the south american landscape ground artillery would be of any high use, not if the same roles can be performed almost in the same way by the air force, and in some cases even better. Artillery systems like the PzH2000 (self propeled artillery) have their strategic place in a landscape like europe with many open space and areas to hide your own equipment like a forrest at the same time. Such weapons can also come in to good use in areas like Afghanistan when air support would be to expensive.

I think probably, but that might be as well very expensive that any nation in south american with access to the ocean and aicraft carriers would have a huge advantage. Since those would allow a very mobile use. I mean I dont know if most areas from South America look either like mountains and jougnle, but I doubt that tanks would be very helpfull not in large quantities, if even for a future battle in areas like Europe most say that tanks will loose more importance (compared to the ideas of the cold war of course, tanks have like always a very important role on the battlefield, just less). But small very well trained infantry and motorized units could make probably more of a change in the long run. It is a idea that Germany is trying to follow the last 40 or 50 years or so. Less troops but with better training and equipment.

Brazil is a massive country with huge open areas, fields, and urban envrironments where tanks would be very useful. Not to mention its extremely large coastline. The sheer size of the country makes tanks indispensable for defense and entrenched areas of conflict. We need only look at Chechenia to see thin skinned apc's take a beating in urban scenarios.

I think one sould be cautious about tank and tank doctrine today. They are not that usefull on the battlefield anymore like maybe in the past and many nations today do reconsider their role on the battlefield slightly. Germany is decreasing their tank force in general for example (and one should not forget in Europe Germany had during the cold war once and still today the largest operational tank force in use), cause they are very expensive to maintentance and need a great and perfectly working logistic behind them. When I went for my medical examination to the military a counsultand in the office told me the tank forces will be on the loosing end in the long run, and that was a fwe years ago. That doesnt mean tank forces will not have a role. But for sure not in urban enviroment. German military experts roughly estimate that in the future conflicts will be probably battled out more by rather smaller but better trained and equiped units. Either for urban enviroments or asymmetrical warfare.

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

snip

I think you may have a misguided view of what south america looks like.

Brazil is a massive country with many different types of terrain and environment, with jungles in the north-west, desert like plains in the north-east, many mountain ranges throughout, and large open areas (pampas) and grassy fields and so on. Why do you think Brazil enjoys beef so much? Due to large pastures and plains.

Like I said, that chart is for the army alone. It does not concern the air force and the navy. If you want I can make another chart adressing those two branches which will more than adress your points.

In reality, Brazil has already developed its own air defence control systems, and its own air to air missile. Right now its in the process of developing a next generation air to air missile with South Africa.

As for the navy, Brazil does have an aircraft carrier (albeit an old one) and is already producing its own nuclear submarine.

As for 'high tech small specialized units', Brazil probably has the best trained jungle warfare troops in the whole of the American continent. CIGS (Centro de intrucao de guerra na selva - Intruction Centre for Jungle Warfare) has a training regime comparable to the SAS proving grounds in Borneo and SEALS. To date no foreigner has actually managed to complete the course, and applicants from Delta, SAS and Seals are known to have applied.

To summarise, the 2 billion budget was aimed at the army only. The things you are asking for are outside the scope of the budget and of the army itself, and is already being adressed by the appropriate branches of the military.

 

[Crni Vuk]

well as said, I have no clue how the situations looks like for all landscapes in South America. Brazil is the largest nation there when it comes to the landmass. So as said ... I am not a professional not even when it comes to things that concern european military. But I think what counts for Brazil has not to be the same for the other nations around it, like Equador, Peru, Bolivia, Argentina etc.

What does it help if you can operate all your forces in your own territory, if you cant follow the enemy in his one? Or even do a succesfull attack? A stalemate ... to speak so. But again ... I am hardly a pro, and I am just wildcatting. I would not be surprised if I base quit many of my ideas on false assumptions.

*edit
Just what I remember seen once, a hypotetical battle betwen european NATO and Warsaw pact forces on the German soil. It was assumed, of course before a nuclear slugfest most of the european NATO forces (with involving a see blockade of the russian Navy around europe in the atlantic ocean) would be at one point overrun by the communistic tank forces which have a numerical advantage. Even with a surprise attack on the ground though (trough east Germany for example), the initiative in operations would be regained by the NATO on the ground as they have a better logistic and in general more reliable equipment compared to soviet armor. To mention that, it is not about training or small arms in this, only armored forces. What do a few 10 thousand tanks help you when half of them stop on the run to the battlefield cause of maintentance issues? Or if you only have for a handfull of them the spare parts, fuel and anything else you need couse you lack the logistic? This would have been in particular a big issue for nations like Poland, east Germany and and a few other Warsaw Pact members.

 

[SuAside]

The proposal has nothing to do with force projection but rather the needs of the military.

which is pretty much why i was saying it was force projection & not actual things that would help the military much?

BMP's are well known for their mobility and ability to cross water barriers, so are well suited for fighting in the amazon region.

Brazil is a massive country with huge open areas, fields, and urban envrironments where tanks would be very useful. Not to mention its extremely large coastline.

why drag APCs into this? my comments was about MBTs, which a BMP is not.

The sheer size of the country makes tanks indispensable for defense and entrenched areas of conflict. We need only look at Chechenia to see thin skinned apc's take a beating in urban scenarios.

and you think T-90s would be better in that environment? they wouldn't preform much better i'm afraid. there'd be less vehicles lost, sure, but this is an infantry war. tanks still loose.

but Chechnya cannot be compared to Brazil in any way. tank support is nice, but where the metal meets the meat, you'll be aching for other things, not for tanks. tanks are simply not effective enough for fulfilling the primary role in any prolongued conflict.

in this aspect, T-90s would be more about deterrence than actual capabilities. they would be constricted to protecting towns and border crossings anyway. the open grounds of Brazil would be the air force's playpen, not a tank commander's.

Brazil is also developing its own air defense sytem which seems quite promising, and this is being done by private investment, hence why government funding is unecessary.

yes, because those private investors will give the military thousands of those for free once they're done, right?

Anti-tank capability can be dealt with separately with the extra money that is left, such as infantry held anti-tank systems and so on. Future investments would focus on combat and transport helicopters, which are the true modern anti-tank vehicles. (together with the air force)

so in part, airmobile forces, such as i said.

Like I said, that chart is for the army alone. It does not concern the air force and the navy. If you want I can make another chart adressing those two branches which will more than adress your points.

hmz, ok. here we use 'army' as a blanket term.

since you were talking of better investing air force money in the land force, i was kinda thinking you meant it overall, with all 3 branches.

As for the navy, Brazil does have an aircraft carrier (albeit an old one) and is already producing its own nuclear submarine.

aircraft carriers are force projection anyway.

As for 'high tech small specialized units', Brazil probably has the best trained jungle warfare troops in the whole of the American continent. CIGS (Centro de intrucao de guerra na selva - Intruction Centre for Jungle Warfare) has a training regime comparable to the SAS proving grounds in Borneo and SEALS. To date no foreigner has actually managed to complete the course, and applicants from Delta, SAS and Seals are known to have applied.

specialised units of the level which you are describing, have to remain small to remain effective. growing means loosing part of their specific skills (a problem faced by SEALS, Delta, etc nowadays).

To summarise, the 2 billion budget was aimed at the army only. The things you are asking for are outside the scope of the budget and of the army itself, and is already being adressed by the appropriate branches of the military.

well, fine then. all we need now is a war to test our theories.

 

[cronicler]

Crni Vuk: I Think you are reading the requirements for the terrain wrong.
There are 3 main kinds of armies in the world.
-There are your shock troop trained, in your face bastards whose job is to break things.
These range from elite squad sized units to light infantry units and to combat teams which can go up to regimental size. When you are thinking about these units you need to forget the different branch / different kind of unit types. These "killer" units have all the branches serving under a single umbrella like a Mechanised Infantry Unit with dedicated helo, Close Range Air Support and tank support. These are the units that do things quickly when something needs to be broken.
If a regime is serious about building a combat army then you can see indications of this kind of build up.

Then there are 800 pound gorillas whose job is to project force, so to speak. These kinds of forces (while still doing dirty jobs and paying in blood) are Diplomatic tools first, combat tools second. Any Aircraft Carrier task force, some of the stationary Armour Companies (Like the freaking Armour Corps we have at Ankara here in Turkey) can be counted in this category. These will mess up your day if there is the need but their primary job is to discourage you from going all out in the first place.

Lastly there are the Regime Protection armed forces. These are generally very heavy on the Psychological fear factor vs civilians and conscripts. Like the list you provided these are heavy on tanks and support but weak on the adaptability. Sure they can be used to grind any other force to dust on their "chosen" battlefield but throw in a couple of wrenches and a few fast/distruptive attacks and the whole thing just looses efficiency to a fatal degree. (And no the former mentioned Tank Corps has nothing to do with this category. honest.)


Anyway based on Brazil's topographic and vegetation maps, I'm wondering why they are going for a Multipurpose fighter at all. Sure it looks good on paper but it just looks good in action.

A dedicated Interceptor arm, a very light bomber/cargo arm and a decent support Helo arm would benefit Brazilian army much more considering their mission.

(A personal thought of mine here: quality is good and dandy but most of the time if you need it, you need a lot of it. I'm really curious when someone really deploys revitalised cropdusters for the close air support. 1 to 1.5 tons of cargo, silent as hell and really low radar signature (and crawling on the ground to boot). Coupled with laser guided bombs and other nasties that can move a long way from their original drop point. those things could be fielded like 7 or 8 planes versus a Modern fighter. This last part is my personal opinion btw. if you want to bash it we can go to a different thread. )

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

which is pretty much why i was saying it was force projection & not actual things that would help the military much?

Not things that would help the military much? There is more to the army than force projection, and off course that equipment helps the army A LOT. I don't see how that is debatable really.

why drag APCs into this? my comments was about MBTs, which a BMP is not.

OK, we'll stick to MBT's.

and you think T-90s would be better in that environment? they wouldn't preform much better i'm afraid. there'd be less vehicles lost, sure, but this is an infantry war. tanks still loose.

Im sorry? This is an infantry war and tanks still lose? Did you miss WW2 or something? Tanks were vital in providing close support to infantry and vice versa. Each complements the other and each functions better because of that - eliminate one and you reduce the overall effectiveness of the other one.

The whole soviet dogma of the cold war, with nukes or not, would be to overrun Europe with its massive tank divisions. The U.S, and NATO both knew they would be unable to stop this advance, as NATO's own tank regiments were whoefully outnumbered.

Tanks proved extremely useful to both sides in the Iran-Iraq conflict, air force playing a role or not. You can bet your ass off tanks will play a large role should there be a war between India and Pakistan.

My comparisson to Chechnya was urban warfare. Most russian experience in urban combat zones has indicated they are in need of a heavy skinned APC/Tank to improve survivability, which is why they have come up with the BMPT Terminator, which is basically an IFV mounted on a T-72 tank chassis. In Iraq, British forces had to call in Challenger 2 tanks to assist in entering the city.

Before that in the gulf war, the U.S strategy was air supremacy knocking out key targets followed by rapid tank movements.

I don't see how your comment that tanks are out of place is at all valid. Since helicopters were invented many predicted the demise of the tank and time and time again they have proven themselves useful in the battlefield in one role or another.

yes, because those private investors will give the military thousands of those for free once they're done, right?

I think you are mistaking R & D money with money for purchases. These missiles are still in development state and it would be nice if the government released money when they are done for the armed forces to buy them. Since they are not ready and there are more urgent needs to be adressed, I think the money is being spent where it should, for now.

so in part, airmobile forces, such as i said.

Well, yes and no. The army provides useful low level transport utilities with helicopters, but it would be the air force, with a large fleet of transport planes that would provide the 'meat and potatoes', so to speak. Tactical transport aircraft is something Brazil desperately needs. A large country with little capability to move its troops around is a very very bad thing. But again this falls unde the jurisdiction of the air force.

And having mentioned that, Embraer is developing a medium sized tactical transport aircraft comparable to Europe's A400, which should be ready in the near future.

hmz, ok. here we use 'army' as a blanket term.

since you were talking of better investing air force money in the land force, i was kinda thinking you meant it overall, with all 3 branches.

I think there is some misunderstanding here. At no point did I make a pretense that money would be used in anything other than the army. Had I used the term 'armed forces' then yes I would agree with you its a blanket term, but Arms especially deals with the issues that are relevant to that branch.

Also, I never mentioned better investing air force money into the land force, I think you are mistaken or misread what I wrote.

Aircraft carrier are force projection anyway ; )

Oh yes, one would only wish they could carry more than 4 A-4Skyhalks, and maybe many more of them too.

specialised units of the level which you are describing, have to remain small to remain effective. growing means loosing part of their specific skills (a problem faced by SEALS, Delta, etc nowadays).

AFAIK, they are pretty small, and the high attrition rate means they stay that way. Its not like they are trying to train their entire Army that way.

well, fine then. all we need now is a war to test our theories.

I think one thing we need to take into account is not only our own perception of needs and theories, but also the countries own geopolitics and their own dogmas and doctrines regarding warfare.

Brazil states it relies on detterence and is not a 'beligerent' country, which is why it doesn't invest in 'Heavy Equipment'. That 90's/early 2000's perception is slowly evolving to adress the rise of Venezuela.

There is also a very established belief in Brazil there will be a conflict in the amazon area, and among the military there is still a persistent belief the U.S could be a potential enemy. This dates back to dictatorship times when Brazil was paranoid that foreigners were 'out to seal the amazon'.

All this needs to be taken into account when we are adressing a country's needs and aspirations, and its good to understand why a country acts as it does.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Crni Vuk: I Think you are reading the requirements for the terrain wrong.
There are 3 main kinds of armies in the world.
...

Not always in the case of Europe. Europe gets much of its strength from the diversty in military and armies. Particularly Germany has or is undergoing quite some changes regarding its military. Away from a usual warefare to support and reconstruction. It is already now that from the actualy force only about 30% are trained for combat only, the rest are of course trained with weapons, but do jobs in either logicst, reconstruction or other specialication like Urban warefare. It might be exagerated now. But if you ask me the way how for example the US military is acting is a left dinosaur from the colt war.

Much of the tactics and thinking still are left overs from the colt war time when the danger was to face a army with several thousand tanks and a few million units on the battlefield. But this isnt probably what a war in the future will look like. Things become more expensive, actualy fighting much smaller and in many cases more complicated, more long lasting to speak so. Some say conflicts like Afganistan or Iraq have been short. I say its still a war. Just not with massive troop engagements. In many of the conflicts today you never had a real capitulation or anyone willingly for a peace treaty. A similar case to vietnam where the usual soldier with its more or less basic training is overstrained from the situation. Wars will become in the future even more gray areas, with mercenaries, piracy, less distinction between civlians and combatant. What is needed in such a scenario are forces trained for such situations. Something that no basic training at the moment does cover completely or very satisfying. Which is why Germany for example wants for the future to have a much smaller but much better trained force. With better training not necessarily talking about better training with weapons, but the right handling when it comes to urban warefare and situations to know whos a civlian and who the attacker.

Im sorry? This is an infantry war and tanks still lose? Did you miss WW2 or something? Tanks were vital in providing close support to infantry and vice versa. Each complements the other and each functions better because of that - eliminate one and you reduce the overall effectiveness of the other one.

The whole soviet dogma of the cold war, with nukes or not, would be to overrun Europe with its massive tank divisions. The U.S, and NATO both knew they would be unable to stop this advance, as NATO's own tank regiments were whoefully outnumbered.

Which has proven not to work already in cases like Afganistan, Vietnam, Afganistan (today) and the Iraq.

A massive concentration of tank forces, which has already been known in WW2 have a tactical place only in attack, talking about the Blitzkrieg or Guderians tank warefare which is still very popular. But tanks have no role in holding ground which is left to the infantry.

Already during the colt war it would have been for forces from the Warsaw Pact a huge issue to hold the conquered terrirtory cause they had not the logistic to keep their gear runing. Particularly the main battle tanks.

Tank warefare will in future loose more importance, which doesnt mean that it has no place in a future warefare but definetly not in the same sense like in WW2 or the Cold War. The infantry is quite capable of dealing with tank forces, particuilarly in Urban enviorment. The time when you had many fights between several thousand tanks on each side on wide open range with shoots from more then 3000 or 4000 meters are over. No army today with half a brain would engage in such a situation anymore on a large scale. Not if you consider the single price of either a T90 (in its most modern version), leopard 2 or M1A4 abrams. In a mater almost of minutes the whole Iraq tank force has been destroyed on the battlefield in wide open ranges. Even though when their tanks have been outdated, it just shows one thing. If you dont have the ecnomy and logistic for the vehicles you have no chance to give a response why fithting now is carried out in a asymmetrical fashion. In WW2 Kurks proved to be a desaster for the Germany army, not cause of a totall defeat (which it was not) as the loos in armored forces was much smaller compared to the Soviets, eventualy on a ratio to 3:10 or eventualy 4:10 (in some cases even only 2:10) but the replacement of the armor took much more time and was extremly complex compared to the Soviets that saw in 1943 (it changed during the war) in the loos of a tank in general only the loos of 5 men and nothing more.

The KFOR have quite a large number of Leopard 2 tanks and tanks from other nations located in the Kosovo area today. But not for actual use only for deterrence. They get more use out of it from the presence. Particularly in the Kosovo area they have almost no value in a real engagement.

Even without tanks armies can prove to be victorious particularly against enemies with large tanks in their force. There have been some examples with such cases.

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

Not always in the case of Europe. Europe gets much of its strength from the diversty in military and armies. Particularly Germany has or is undergoing quite some changes regarding its military. Away from a usual warefare to support and reconstruction. It is already now that from the actualy force only about 30% are trained for combat only, the rest are of course trained with weapons, but do jobs in either logicst, reconstruction or other specialication like Urban warefare. It might be exagerated now. But if you ask me the way how for example the US military is acting is a left dinosaur from the colt war.

We are generalising here. The realities and necessities of Europe, the U.S and so on are not the same as those of say Latin America, Sub-Saharan countries and so on. Not all countries are on the same level of technological and military development and hence the strategic realities also shift.

Much of the tactics and thinking still are left overs from the colt war time when the danger was to face a army with several thousand tanks and a few million units on the battlefield. But this isnt probably what a war in the future will look like. Things become more expensive, actualy fighting much smaller and in many cases more complicated, more long lasting to speak so. Some say conflicts like Afganistan or Iraq have been short. I say its still a war. Just not with massive troop engagements. In many of the conflicts today you never had a real capitulation or anyone willingly for a peace treaty. A similar case to vietnam where the usual soldier with its more or less basic training is overstrained from the situation. Wars will become in the future even more gray areas, with mercenaries, piracy, less distinction between civlians and combatant. What is needed in such a scenario are forces trained for such situations. Something that no basic training at the moment does cover completely or very satisfying. Which is why Germany for example wants for the future to have a much smaller but much better trained force. With better training not necessarily talking about better training with weapons, but the right handling when it comes to urban warefare and situations to know whos a civlian and who the attacker.

Iraq and Afghanistan are war but are best classfified as asymetrical conflicts. Same goes for Vietnam until the very late stages of the war. As I mentioned above, the geopolitical issues for Germany are different for those of Brazil.

Germany is a NATO member, a member of the E.U, and is motly engaged in peacekeeping and second-line duties. Brazil on the other hand, has no such strategic alliances and has different priorities alltogether. It hasn't really reached the stage Germany is in and like I said, due to geopolitical/strategic necessities will probably value different doctrines than those pursued by Germany.

Which has proven not to work already in cases like Afganistan, Vietnam, Afganistan (today) and the Iraq.

A massive concentration of tank forces, which has already been known in WW2 have a tactical place only in attack, talking about the Blitzkrieg or Guderians tank warefare which is still very popular. But tanks have no role in holding ground which is left to the infantry.

Thats not really a fair comparison. Firstly, all of those conflicts involved third world nations againt the world's most powerful military, and more importantly, most powerful airforce. Its fair to say whoever has air supremacy will likely control the ground, and on all those cases the US ticked those boxes. Secondly, the terrain in Vietnam was not really suited for tank warfare.

Thirdly, Brazil's likely opponents at the moment are countries with decent land forces but with mediocre air forces which make ground operations much more viable. One needs only to look at the conflicts in Africa and even Israel to see tank warfare is very much still alive and kicking. True, troops hold ground, but with tanks it is easier. I am going to mention Chechyna again where tanks were badly needed by the Russians, which led to the development of a tank/ifv to fill that gap.

Already during the colt war it would have been for forces from the Warsaw Pact a huge issue to hold the conquered terrirtory cause they had not the logistic to keep their gear runing. Particularly the main battle tanks.

Thats an interesting point of view, all the sources I have come across seem to agree logistics would not be a problem for the russians, and in particular, all concur Europe would pretty much be overun in a matter of weeks, with little the U.S or NATO could do.

Most people forget Russian tanks may not be of high quality, but are durable, effective, and easy to service, something most western tanks aren't. Or at least weren't back then.

No army today with half a brain would engage in such a situation anymore on a large scale. Not if you consider the single price of either a T90 (in its most modern version), leopard 2 or M1A4 abrams. In a mater almost of minutes the whole Iraq tank force has been destroyed on the battlefield in wide open ranges. Even though when their tanks have been outdated, it just shows one thing. If you dont have the ecnomy and logistic for the vehicles you have no chance to give a response why fithting now is carried out in a asymmetrical fashion.

Like I said, the first part isn't necessarily true. Tanks usesage is most widely done where combatants are usually at an equal tecnological level (Africa), and the Iraq/US debacle is not a valid example as the U.S is not only wholefully superior in numbers and equipment when compared to Iraq, but they also had air supremacy.

The average price of a tank today is still roughly the same it was 60 years ago, with monetary correction included. Fighting now is carried in an asymetrical fashion when there is a great power difference between the two combatants, when there is not, tank combat is still conducted as it was decades ago.

Again, you cannot apply the realities of combat experience of the U.S, Britain and NATO, to the needs and expectations of countries such as Brazil. The former are much more likely to engage in asymetrical warfare, which validate your points, than symetrical warfare, which supports the points I have been arguing.

Iran/Iraq war, conflicts in Africa, and a possible conflict between Pakistan/India, have all seen (and may see) large tank usage.

 

[Crni Vuk]

We are generalising here. The realities and necessities of Europe, the U.S and so on are not the same as those of say Latin America, Sub-Saharan countries and so on. Not all countries are on the same level of technological and military development and hence the strategic realities also shift.

I am aware that one has to consider the difference between south american, north america and europe. And there are really many facests about South America I just dont know. But I assume, for any nation that has a large military or want any military may it be South America or Europe economical and logistical questions are always important. So no matter if you have high technology or low, you want to make sure that the equipment you have is in either good condition, gets the needed maintenance and the troops ammunition. Not to mention payment or anything else a huge military needs. This are always things that have to be considered as well.

Iraq and Afghanistan are war but are best classfified as asymetrical conflicts. Same goes for Vietnam until the very late stages of the war. As I mentioned above, the geopolitical issues for Germany are different for those of Brazil.

Which you have as well in South America, last I heard. So it might not be far fetched to assume that at one point Brazil would face those situations in one way or another. If it doesnt already in their own nation when I think about coruption, drugs and what else plagues South America. Asymmetrical warefare is the war of the future. And to counter this will become more and more important. Particularly since the military even with low technology becomes more expensive.

Germany is a NATO member, a member of the E.U, and is motly engaged in peacekeeping and second-line duties. Brazil on the other hand, has no such strategic alliances and has different priorities alltogether. It hasn't really reached the stage Germany is in and like I said, due to geopolitical/strategic necessities will probably value different doctrines than those pursued by Germany.

Thats of course true. But I am just wildcatting.

Thats not really a fair comparison. Firstly, all of those conflicts involved third world nations againt the world's most powerful military, and more importantly, most powerful airforce. Its fair to say whoever has air supremacy will likely control the ground, and on all those cases the US ticked those boxes. Secondly, the terrain in Vietnam was not really suited for tank warfare.

Well someone mentioned the second World War and cold war. I was just trying to think ahead. Tactics and ideas of Guderian or the tactics from J.F.C. Fuller and theoretical works of Marshal Tukhachevsky in the theory of deep operations similar to the German blitzkrieg have been very popular for the last 60 years in military regarding armored warefare. In both Vietnam and Afganistan on a large scale the US and Soviet forces had (almost) the absolute air superiority. And in the case of Afganistan or Vietnam, the enemy did not even posses really any strength in armored vehicles. And it was not possible to use the tanks in any vital role. One could say now the terrain was just not suited for the tanks but only cause the enemy was aware about this situation and exactly cause of that never was positioning himself in a situation where tanks could use their full potential. Tanks can always only be used to their full potential when the enemy force has tanks as well and engange in such battles with them. So a large tank force has most of the time a bigger effect from deterrance.

Thirdly, Brazil's likely opponents at the moment are countries with decent land forces but with mediocre air forces which make ground operations much more viable. One needs only to look at the conflicts in Africa and even Israel to see tank warfare is very much still alive and kicking. True, troops hold ground, but with tanks it is easier. I am going to mention Chechyna again where tanks were badly needed by the Russians, which led to the development of a tank/ifv to fill that gap.

Tactical decisions and training play a role inside of it too. But I can not comment much on Israelian conflicts. I just know that Syrian/Moslem troops in that time had extremly poor training and Generals which was not the case of the Isralien forces which alrady spent much time in armies during WW2 of other nations including Brittain, US and France. When it comes to Africa I cant remember right now the last big clash of tanks engaging each other. But well did never said I know everything

Thats an interesting point of view, all the sources I have come across seem to agree logistics would not be a problem for the russians, and in particular, all concur Europe would pretty much be overun in a matter of weeks, with little the U.S or NATO could do.

Depends on the situation of attack. The scenario was based on the situation of a Soviet Surprise attack trough North/East germany towards the central with use of the Baltic See. US forces would have been blocked out by the Soviet Nyvy in the Atlantic following a fight between Soviet and US navy with high looses for both sides but a tactical win for the US navy since the Value of the navy in the NATO was in general higher, the US for example always had more and better equiped air carriers while the Soviets more numbers in ship hunting submarines.

The fighting on the ground would prove a hard situation for the Soviets thinking about the ecnomical situation inside the warsaw pact nations. Remember the Sovietunion was not just Russia. And most of the nations inside the Warsaw pact had already issues to keep their own economy runing in times of "peace" not to mention a war. At first Soviet units would overrun large parts of Germany and eventualy beyond in a very short time but soon come to a halt. The Soviets just do not have the same kind of experience aound logistic compared to some of the NATO members most important the US. And the Russians would not have been able to supply all of the east europe nations in the Sovietunion and the Warsaw Pact alone particularly when you have to imagine that some equipment has to be moved more then 2000 killomters. I can only mention here east Germany and Hungary, which would have colapsed in very short time they would not had any chance to keep all of their forces in runing condition. It was said even that East Germany would already loose more then 50% of its armored force do to technical falures in the first month since the economy was just to weak. Even the most reliable equipment needs maintentance. By just comparing West and East Germany the ecnomical situation was in West Germany much better. And the situation was similar for France and Great Britain. And by the way Soviet equipment wasnt always that known for reliabilty, particularly not their tanks. The auto loader of the T series for example was known for issues, and if the system had a failure or was damaged in a fight you basicaly had no chance to reload the gun. It would be almost impossible in a normal situation not to mention when you are under heavy fire. Another issue is that amunition in the soviet tanks are stored in the turret and crew compartment which is a difference to most western tanks, meaning that a penetration will most of the time mean a totall destruction of the tank. Russian tanks arent that popular on the market, particularly a few of the earlier T 80s and T 90s, why they get still bought is the price. What makes russian tanks extremly remarkable is their ABC protection and cheap price. Does it mean the NATO would have won against the Warsaw pact? I doubt it. But I am just saying that it would not have been a piece of cake for the Sovietunion, they had a much larger force particulary about armor. And NATO members have been aware about that. Its doubtfull that they did not tried to prepare for such cases or would have tried to think about tactics and situations how to eventualy counter such a "overrun". In any case the end result would have been a nuclear war either if NATO forces would have crossed the borders to Russia, or Soviet tanks standing next to Paris. Neither side would have let the other one win. Definetly not.