Agiel

Well that's what Putin sort of wanted when he besieged the Ukranian military facilities on the Crimea and used human shield "self-defense forces" preceding their takeovers. I'd give the Ukrainian political and military leadership a little credit for not playing the Russian's game. The difference between now and Georgia 2008 was the fact that there was plenty of press in Crimea that exposed the "oppressed" Russian minority to be as belligerent and thuggish as the more militant demonstrators of the Euromaidan protests and further isolating Russia. I agree with Rostere; the Ukrainians playing the geo-political non-violent resistance card means Russia won a battle, but lost a war with Crimea.

As I feel Rostere has sections 1 and 2 pretty much covered, thought I'd go over number 3... 3a: The various independence and separatist movements of the collapse saw the population of Russia's domain reduced to half of what it was in Soviet times. As Russia has and still uses a conscript army, this has played havoc on its military strength. No longer do they have a vast population of able bodied men to fill the ranks and what's more demographic trends of Russia show this pool of potential conscripts is dwindling as the years go by. Adding to that, the vicious hazing in the Russian armed forces has not been conducive to fostering a strong esprit de corps among the conscripts. The situation has gotten so bad that many who are able seek exemptions, some of them legal but many times not. As a result, yearly conscription figures show that they fall well short of quotas (around 400,000 out of a possible 600,000 eligible men between the ages of 18-27 every year). Perhaps in an attempt to make obligatory military service a more attractive prospect, the Russian MoD has reduced the service period from two years in all services (save for the navy, which was three) to eighteen months, then to one year, hardly enough time for the average conscript to pick up valuable soldiering experience and skills. Russia is more than acutely aware of the problem. Generals are begrudgingly putting more emphasis on the volunteer "contract soldiers" in "combat zones" such as the Caucasus and more technical roles (tank crews, helicopter pilots, SAM operators, etc) and increasingly relegating conscripts to auxiliary and/or non-combat roles (truck drivers, signals and communications personnel, airbase guards, and so forth). There is a growing interest in fostering a strong NCO corps modeled after those of the volunteer armies of the world, as many NCOs in the Soviet and Russian militaries were themselves conscripts and as a result the duties that some might expect to be carried out by sergeants and warrant officers were filled by junior commissioned officers instead. A story I have read told that in 1988, Marshall Sergey Akhromeyev visited several US Army bases including Fort Hood, the largest armour training school in the United States; he showed little interest in the brand spanking new M1A1s on display and was more impressed by the fact that there were sergeants with as much as twenty years of duty under their belt serving as tank commanders and trainers passing on their vast knowledge to trainee tank crews. Then there's the number in equipment. A common point of criticism of the Soviet armed forces and its successors was that they did not have the same level of appreciation for equipment that did not throw a round downrange as the equipment that did. It is one thing to have a sizable fleet of very capable military aircraft like the Su-27 and the Su-34, but they don't reach their full potential as a complete weapons system without a complex support network that their potential adversaries might enjoy: AEW&C which provide command and control and operational situational awareness, tankers to insure they're spending more time in the air than on the tarmac, and the ground crews to increase readiness and reduce maintenance times. The United States alone has 32 E-3 Sentries in service and an additional 18 delegated to NATO unified command, to say nothing of those in service with the RAF and ALA and the fleet of E-2 Hawkeyes available to the US Navy which is nearly twice as large as the total E-2 production where the the RuAF has 13 A-50 Mainstays. The combined USAF and ANG fields more than 400 KC-135 refueling aircraft compared to the mere 23 Il-78 Midas of the RuAF. Believe it or not, the armoured corps of the Russian military is now at its most vulnerable than at any other time in its entire existence. As a result of severe cutbacks in the military and hoping the T-99 program bears fruit, they have begun retiring their fleet of T-80s, among their most capable main battle tanks, in favour of T-90s and T-72s. The reason for this is the fact that the gas turbine engine of the T-80 series is a logistical nightmare due to how much fuel it drinks, but it also doesn't help that the the factory responsible for modernising the line, Omsktransmash, recently went bust (some believe it to be due to the fact that the Uralvagonzavod Bureau has greater clout with military circles) and that the bureau that designed the T-80 is in Ukraine (they have since converted their T-80s into diesels). Before the retirement of the T-80, optimistic estimates put the number of the Russian Army's most modern tank, the T-90 (of which production has since ceased), at no more than 10% of the entire tank park (there are currently twice as many M1A2 Abrams in service with the United States Army as there are T-90s in service with the Russian army). Much of the burden of Russia's armoured operations will have to be borne by their T-72s, which while being different beasts from the ones used by Saddam Hussein, are not too far removed from what the Indians and the Syrians are using today and are heavily outclassed in firepower and protection by the Abrams, Leo 2s, Leclercs, and Challengers of the world. A quote from Vasiliy Fofanov, a Russian armour expert, from 2007: In short, the Russian armed forces at the moment are rather lacking in quality AND the quantity needed to offset these shortcomings. Will tackle 3b and 3c in later posts.

Just a prelude for a later post: With the F-22's flyaway cost of ~$150 million, with 1% of the US's GDP, the United States could afford 1,200 F-22 Raptors, if it so chose to build them (though this would not include the costs of restarting production for them). With 1% of Russia's GDP, and assuming the projected flyaway cost of $60 million for the PAK-FA T-50 still undegroing development and evaluation (which Sukhoi has flat out admitted will not be as stealthy as the F-22 or the F-35, or as advanced in terms of avionics and armaments) holds true, Russia can only afford to build little more than 300.

A little treat for sorophx. Some familiar sights and sounds (B****ing Betty) for him to be sure:

A Russian army vet that served in Chechnya (both times), now journalist, welcomes Crimea to Russia: Originally Russian, translated into Swedish for Dagens Nyheter, then finally into English

To add to that, the Swedes also came up with the brilliant RBS-56 BILL: So brilliant in fact, Raytheon copied the principle for the TOW 2B.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: A Ninja Gaiden/DMC/Bayonetta-style game where you play as an Eldar Harlequin Solitaire. Ooh, ooh! Maybe even a (old) Ghost Recon-style game where you play as Catachan Jungle Fighters. As an aside, despite the license's storied history as part of the now defunct THQ, I'd say it's now better for it now that any company with enough vision for GW to give the okay can utilise it. I've heard it said on Relic's forums that Relic still retains the rights to the "Dawn of War" franchise of the 40K license, and given the talented people there GW would have to be stupid to not let them make a Dawn of War 3 when they eventually decide to make it (if the work has not already been started).

A bullpup AR-15: http://youtu.be/hXQk6_dg_c4

On the bright side, these sanctions would force Putin into a position where he would have to spend almost North Korea percentages of his country's GDP if he wanted a conventional military (one that is already ailing, mind you) that meets the bare minimum of adequate force projection in Russia's sphere of influence. In addition, he may well see oil-rich nations of Central Asia fall to the orbit of the Chinese which could precipitate even more resounding economic problems in the long run.

I've had trojan ad/malware put on my computers that were piggybacking otherwise innocuous software. Just this other day I had to remove a search engine hijacker I got from installing Portforward.

Thanks for clarifying. Do you have any specifics on which types of equipment are currently not compatible? I'm curious as I did read something about the artillery being predominantly Russian and a preponderance of the Russian BUK-M1 air defense systems (which were being replaced by a Norwegian designed system iirc). BUKs have been phased out and replaced with the NASAMS variant of SL-AMRAAMs. There's debate whether this was done simply to advance STANAG compatibility or because Russians have an effective way of jamming their own tech - apparently some Russians were downed with a Georgian BUK during that conflict, but the fact of the matter is the BUK is out. On paper, NASAMS is inferior to BUK, but certainly prettier and less loud. And I'm out of wartime a job. And moving from "know" to "think", probably the biggest issue is the Finnish use of 7,62x39mm sov block weaponry, apparently it's better in a heavily forested environment than the NATO rounds, also the mainstay ARs of the Finnish Army accept standard russian mags (but not vice versa), which is... convenient. True that because it no longer has the benefit of being launched from a high-flying, high speed aircraft the SL-AMRAAM has less range than the far larger SA-11, it is better suited for a hasty defense scenario than the SA-11. As the AMRAAM and its variations are active radar homing as opposed to the SA-11's semi-active radar homing, it is far less susceptible to DEAD weapons and tactics, as once the missile Pitbulls, the launching vehicle and accompanying search and track radar are free to shut down their radars and reposition. In contrast, either the TAR or the TELAR of the SA-11 must track and illuminate the target throughout the missile's flight, so if for instance when these systems are emitting and are damaged or destroyed by a HARM or cluster bomb, the missile is rendered useless.

My friends and I are toying around with it as well, we being veterans of European Escalation. If you wish to have a friendly game with us, you can contact me with my above Steam name which is the same as the moniker I use on this forum(one of my friends happens to be one of the Marshalls, in other words, one of Eugen's balance consultants and SMEs). As our game group is called Task Force 1776, you can probably guess what side of the Iron Curtain we usually play as ;D

Some newer beasts: Leopard 2A6 Commander's station M1A2 SEP Abrams TC's station. Note that the brand new CITV and IVIS screen over the M1A1. M1A2 SEP Abrams gunner's station. M1A2 SEP Abrams, Commander turned out: "Drive me closer! I want to hit them with my sword!" CV-90/40 Commander/Gunner's station.

I have the game for you: M1A1 (HA) TC's station T-72A/M1 Gunner's station Leopard 2A5 TC's station Game is Steel Beasts Pro: Personal Edition. Be warned, you'll have to pay $125 for it (though I suspect a lot of WoT players have paid a similar sum if not more).

Yes, I was also going to write about how this is a problem for Sweden as well. For those of you who don't know, Sweden has a rather large military industry compared to it's small size (as recently as 2010 the 7th largest arms exporter while only being 22nd in the list of highest GDP). Being a part of NATO will (I think) put obstacles to selling weapons to certain countries, and in general to the independence of the military industry. The military lobby is a very influential group in Sweden, you can compare it to the pro-Israel lobby in the US. Even if 99% of people don't really care or know anything about the matter, it's a matter of extreme importance to a few very influential people that Sweden has it's own next-generation fighter jet, it's own next-generation stealth submarines et.c.. I can tell for sure that NATO military suppliers such as Lockheed Martin will NOT be happy to have additional competition in their respective fields among NATO countries, and vice versa. Why would Norway have joined NATO and not Sweden? Norway was targeted by the Soviets as a secondary theater in the prospective Cold War-gone hot. Using naval bases there they could cut down on the transit times of Northern Fleet submarines from the Murmansk and the airbases could be used to launch maritime bombers against NATO convoys. Though Sweden is not a part of NATO, they were de facto members in the defensive context since the Soviets attacking Norway alone meant wading through a defensive bottleneck from Finnmark all the way down to Trondheim (then there's a fact that there was no way the Soviets would let a huge flank open to the probably sympathetic Swedes when they're fighting the war to end all wars).

I would have to ask him the next time we speak over Teamspeak. I should say given a certain character from a certain film, there ought to be at least a large number of mil-sim players who share that moniker as well.

Well the primary air defense fighter of the Finnish Air Force now is the F-18. The "/A" was omitted for the Finnish designation apparently to underline the fact that it was for defensive operations only, though modernisation packages included the LITENING II targeting pod for target acquisition and prosecution with precision guided munitions. They have also acquired the AIM-120 AMRAAM of which their theoretical opponent has no real answer to (or at least one that is deployed widely) and the AIM-9X Sidewinder, which has HOBS capabilities though I do not know if helmet-mounted cueing systems were included in the deal (in any case, even without it the Bug still has its automatic acquisition modes of the AN/APG-73 to take some advantage of the missile's capabilities). As for armour the Finnish military has pushed the T-72 out of service, fully replacing them with variations of the Leopard 2. Procurement of German Leopard 2A4s began following the end of the Cold War and recently they have purchased the last remaining Dutch Leopard 2A6es (which improve on the -A4 with advanced optics for the tank commander, inter-vehicular information systems, monolithic armour inserts, a turret wedge that improves protection against KE penetrators, strengthened roof armour against DPICMs, and most prominently, a lengthened L/55 gun over the L/44 of the -A4, which gives it a relatively spectacular improvement in muzzle velocity and long-range armour penetration over the already impressive L/44. As the L/55 gun is a 120mm smoothbore it is fully compatible with almost all NATO tank munitions save for those from the UK. It is theoretically possible to upgrade their existing Leo 2A4s to the KWS I (upgrade to the gun, the IVIS) Leopard 2A6 standard, though if this proves restrictively costly in money and time they can be upgraded to the KWS II (improved optics, add-on armour) Leo 2A5 standard (the KWS II upgrade package was implemented sooner for the German and Dutch Armies than the KWS I). The Finnish military has also purchased Swedish CV-90 IFVs to complement their fleet of Soviet-made BMP-2s, the former of which for my money I feel to be far better suited for the Finnish military's needs (the BMP-2 was built to roll through the Fulda Gap and the North German Plains, not the rolling, probably snow-covered hills of Scandinavia).

I think a 3800 would be the minimum for loading up the main menu screen.

http://pikdit.com/i/we-shall-camoflage-it-with-murica/ From my friends' and I's ArmA II server, Task Force 1776. Contrary to looks and the name of our gaming group, we aren't really that jingoistic and we count Limeys, Krauts, and a Viking or two amongst our ranks

There's a joke in the Finnish military: "If the enemy is attacking from a direction that is not East, then that means he has performed a brilliant flanking maneuver."

Not playing it myself, but a good friend of mine has taken an immense liking to Digital Combat Simulator: UH-1H Huey, such that he has read through "Chickenhawk," the autobiographical account of a former Huey pilot and taken this great .gif as his avatar on Teamspeak:

Oopsy daisy, here it is: *Edit* how about now?

As I sit at the edge of my seat for Dark Souls 2 (on the PC), I found this gem:

If DCS is still leaving you hankering for something that can cruise faster than 250 knots combat loaded, won't struggle to get above 15,000 ft MSL, and still pitch and roll on a dime, I would suggest picking up Jane's F/A-18 with the Team Superhornet add-on. The attention to avionics detail is only surpassed by DCS and Falcon 4.0. Also, the lead producer of Digital Combat Simulator, Matt Wagner, got his start in the industry working on this project. First glance at Amazon US showed a used copy for $13.42 USD, though I unfortunately could not find copies on European retailers, so if you're game you might have to pay the same sum for shipping and handling. As for alternatives... well... it's not available on GoG or any other digital retailer and I highly doubt EA in its current form is interested in re-releasing a dated-looking study-sim. So an alternative I would suggest is an alternative I *cannot* suggest

Plus there's the fact that though the EU needs energy, energy is all Russia has to give, as attempts to diversify have largely fallen flat. Though the 30% of energy that usually comes from Russia lost will be quite a loss, (relatively) short term alternatives exist for the EU.