Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Air Force & Aviation
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Miramar_14_MV-22_1965a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_0358a.JPG

Miramar_14_GR4_1646a.JPG

Miramar_14_LF_0221a.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Can Russia regain it's Military Might?

This is a discussion on Can Russia regain it's Military Might? within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Since the Soviet Union collapsed Russia has been forced to slash its defence spending to just 16bn per year, (half ...


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old August 31st, 2007   #1
New Member
Private
scarey1989's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: worcester
Posts: 18
Threads:
Can Russia regain it's Military Might?

Since the Soviet Union collapsed Russia has been forced to slash its defence spending to just 16bn per year, (half that of the UK's which is second to America) leaving an ill equiped conscript army to fight in Chechnya. As Robert Hawson, editor of Janes Air Launched Weapons siad, ''in terms of amilitary threat they are a joke''.

However, Putin appears determined to restore Russia's status as a global power anouncing earlier thsi year a 97bn revamp of the armed forces
It is only two weaks now that Putin annouced that Russia's ageing fleet of strategic bombers would resume combat missions.

However, I stiil remain dissmissive about Russiaa's ability to regain any signifiacnt military might in only a matter of months. The state of Russia's airforce is indicative and it has gone through an entire decade without a single new plane. Moreover, it's bombbers were biult decdes ago and and the mig's and sukhoi are relics of the soveit era.

What Do You Think?
scarey1989 is offline  
Old August 31st, 2007   #2
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Croatia/Split
Posts: 330
Threads:
Russian bombers like Tu-95MS where build in 1980s and are newer than US B-52 ...so?

Su-34 is being introduced in operational service and about all Russian airforce will be modernised by 2020.

New weapons are being introduced or developt on regular basis and whole new array of new weapons is eaither entering service or being developt.

It is however sure that its former military strength can not resurect over months it is proces whitch will last for decades to come and Russia will never again match the numbers it had during the Soviet times but it is obivios even now that it will be strong regional force ... something to respect.
Viktor is offline  
Old August 31st, 2007   #3
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,614
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarey1989 View Post
.

However, I stiil remain dissmissive about Russiaa's ability to regain any signifiacnt military might in only a matter of months. The state of Russia's airforce is indicative and it has gone through an entire decade without a single new plane. Moreover, it's bombbers were biult decdes ago and and the mig's and sukhoi are relics of the soveit era.

What Do You Think?
Compared to USSR times russian army is joke. Compared to any other army except USA army - it is unstopable war machine.
Chrom is offline  
Old August 31st, 2007   #4
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
XaNDeR's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 325
Threads:
Well first of all B-52 is older than Tu-95, and US will still need them for along time .
Secondly Russia will never again match the sher numbers of Soviet union , not even USA did in the cold war ( allthough many things were more advanced rather than outnumbered ) , just different doctrines.

But in future Russia is expected to be a very strong and modern force with a bigger capability than before , they are modernizing their army and increasing the capability , training , readiness , and in 2020 i dare to say russia will be much stronger than it is at this moment , allthough even now its very strong , second only to USA.

If you want any other questions ask , im not sure what else you want to know.
XaNDeR is offline  
Old August 31st, 2007   #5
New Member
Private
scarey1989's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: worcester
Posts: 18
Threads:
I am not shure that Russia is second to the USA (XAnder). Russia is particularly powerful in terms of numbers of aircraft and amount of aircraft, however, as Robert Hewson (editor of Janes Air Launched Missiles) said, ''the level of technology used by BAE systems of Uk, Saab of Sweden and US hardware is much higher''.

The Russians are good at radar, missiles and aerodynamic desighn and are terrific engineres, however, with only 16bn pounds (30 billiion $) spent on their defence a year they are not yet a force to be rekond with.

I would say France or Britain are second to the USA in termns of quality of hardwear as they have budgets of around 60 billion $ per year.

However, over the next few decades I think this will change.
scarey1989 is offline  
Old August 31st, 2007   #6
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,614
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarey1989 View Post
I
I would say France or Britain are second to the USA in termns of quality of hardwear as they have budgets of around 60 billion $ per year.

However, over the next few decades I think this will change.
It is not only about quality, but also about quantity and full-spectrum capabilties. While new Rafale is certainly better than old Su-27/Mig-29 in russian service - how many of these Rafales are produced? While Leopard-2A6 might be somewhat better than T-90 - how many of these new Leos in service? Can they compete with 10.000 still very capable T-64/T80/T-72?
Can few Pumas compete with tens of thousands BMP-2? In reality old M-113 will be forced to fight much superior BMP-2's...
Noone besides USA and Russia have strategic forces and full sattelite network. Russian strategic forces, SAM's, artilerry, MRLS, radar networks - these can be matched by USA only.
Any army except USA army against russians is like pure infantry against proper combined arms forces. This infantry might be better equipped and even better trained - but it have next to no chances against combined arms forces, even if equipped with older weapon.
Chrom is offline  
Old August 31st, 2007   #7
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
eckherl's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,268
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by XaNDeR View Post
Well first of all B-52 is older than Tu-95, and US will still need them for along time .
Secondly Russia will never again match the sher numbers of Soviet union , not even USA did in the cold war ( allthough many things were more advanced rather than outnumbered ) , just different doctrines.

But in future Russia is expected to be a very strong and modern force with a bigger capability than before , they are modernizing their army and increasing the capability , training , readiness , and in 2020 i dare to say russia will be much stronger than it is at this moment , allthough even now its very strong , second only to USA.

If you want any other questions ask , im not sure what else you want to know.
Why does the U.S still need the B-52, is it that good of a platform that we still need it with the current aircraft in our inventory.
eckherl is offline  
Old August 31st, 2007   #8
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
eckherl's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,268
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrom View Post
It is not only about quality, but also about quantity and full-spectrum capabilties. While new Rafale is certainly better than old Su-27/Mig-29 in russian service - how many of these Rafales are produced? While Leopard-2A6 might be somewhat better than T-90 - how many of these new Leos in service? Can they compete with 10.000 still very capable T-64/T80/T-72?
Can few Pumas compete with tens of thousands BMP-2? In reality old M-113 will be forced to fight much superior BMP-2's...
Noone besides USA and Russia have strategic forces and full sattelite network. Russian strategic forces, SAM's, artilerry, MRLS, radar networks - these can be matched by USA only.
Any army except USA army against russians is like pure infantry against proper combined arms forces. This infantry might be better equipped and even better trained - but it have next to no chances against combined arms forces, even if equipped with older weapon.
Yes - Russia has alot of war equipment that could be brought to the battle, but can they fight a sustained war for any amount of real time. I think that Russia can be comfortable with what they currently have in place to not be really concerned about anyone wanting to provoke them into any thing, including the U.S. They have all the time on their side to get their military back in fighting order. It also helps them at the current times that relations with China are really good.
eckherl is offline  
Old August 31st, 2007   #9
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
f-22fan12's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 276
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarey1989 View Post
Since the Soviet Union collapsed Russia has been forced to slash its defence spending to just 16bn per year, (half that of the UK's which is second to America) leaving an ill equiped conscript army to fight in Chechnya. As Robert Hawson, editor of Janes Air Launched Weapons siad, ''in terms of amilitary threat they are a joke''.

However, Putin appears determined to restore Russia's status as a global power anouncing earlier thsi year a 97bn revamp of the armed forces
It is only two weaks now that Putin annouced that Russia's ageing fleet of strategic bombers would resume combat missions.

However, I stiil remain dissmissive about Russiaa's ability to regain any signifiacnt military might in only a matter of months. The state of Russia's airforce is indicative and it has gone through an entire decade without a single new plane. Moreover, it's bombbers were biult decdes ago and and the mig's and sukhoi are relics of the soveit era.

What Do You Think?
Russia will certainly neeed some time to regain its military might if it ever will. The majority of the Russian army's tanks are old T-72s and T-80s. They have less than 150 new T-90 tanks. While the U.K. fileds about 400 modern Challenger 2 tanks. The Russian navy is in TERRIBLE shape with a submarine fleet filled with problems and always in port. And even the U.K. and France have better aircraft carrier,destroyer, and submarine fleets. The Airforce has impressive numbers of capable combat aircraft. But there is one problem, many of the Russian air force's aircraft were bought during the Soviet era. That means that Russia didn't pay for them. Russia is not going to be able to replace 400 su-27s and hundreds of mig-29s. When those planes retire, Russia's air force strength will be severly weakned. Their bomber fleet is very old. While some here argue that the B-52 is older, that is true. However our better strategic bombers like the B-1B and B-2 are NOT old. While Russia's only "good" bomber the Tu-160 is very old. Russia will not be able to replace all the vast amounts of military equipment is has today.

In conclusion, unless Russia's economy, which is smaller than Italy's today, grows at a fast pace for quite some time, Russia will not be able to fund its military adequetly. At the current moment their economy can only fund a military equal to and likely smaller than the U.K.'s.
f-22fan12 is offline  
Old August 31st, 2007   #10
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 466
Threads:
Quote:
Why does the U.S still need the B-52, is it that good of a platform that we still need it with the current aircraft in our inventory.
The B-1B and the B-2 does not replace the need for an aircraft with high payloads and long enduring patrol and loiter. You still need an aircraft that can stand up and stand off for a long time. Hence why the Russians are still using Tu-95s despite the Tu-160s and Tu-22s. I don't know if the Tu-16s, which can do this function, can be resurrected in the RuAF, but this type has been resurrected in the PLAAF to do the same purpose.
crobato is offline  
Old August 31st, 2007   #11
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
XaNDeR's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 325
Threads:
crobato you stole what I was about to say , anyway no problem

Quote:
Originally Posted by f-22fan12 View Post
Russia will certainly neeed some time to regain its military might if it ever will. The majority of the Russian army's tanks are old T-72s and T-80s. They have less than 150 new T-90 tanks. While the U.K. fileds about 400 modern Challenger 2 tanks. The Russian navy is in TERRIBLE shape with a submarine fleet filled with problems and always in port. And even the U.K. and France have better aircraft carrier,destroyer, and submarine fleets. The Airforce has impressive numbers of capable combat aircraft. But there is one problem, many of the Russian air force's aircraft were bought during the Soviet era. That means that Russia didn't pay for them. Russia is not going to be able to replace 400 su-27s and hundreds of mig-29s. When those planes retire, Russia's air force strength will be severly weakned. Their bomber fleet is very old. While some here argue that the B-52 is older, that is true. However our better strategic bombers like the B-1B and B-2 are NOT old. While Russia's only "good" bomber the Tu-160 is very old. Russia will not be able to replace all the vast amounts of military equipment is has today.
In conclusion, unless Russia's economy, which is smaller than Italy's today, grows at a fast pace for quite some time, Russia will not be able to fund its military adequetly. At the current moment their economy can only fund a military equal to and likely smaller than the U.K.'s.

Your missing facts

Fact 1- T-80 is not old tank , its capable of penetrating any western armor , T-72 is a bit older but still has a strong gun ( Iraq T-72 had very old ammunition that couldn't penetrate M1A1 ) , the sheer number of them give a huge advantage.

Fact 2- Russian submarine fleet is not in bad shape as you claim , its actualy in good shape , the old rusty subs are already in reserve , the remaining fleet is in good shape they have always gived priority to sub fleet , the russian sub fleet can without any doubt take on any other sub fleet short of USN and win not to hardly.

Fact 3- UK don't have better Carriers , Kuznetsov is a far more capable carrier than Invincible , bigger can carry more , it has offencive capability's as it is a mix betwen Cruiser / Carrier.
Charles de Gaulle is pretty good but has lot of problems.
Aircraft can get updated , those Su-27's and Mig-29's ( Mig-35's ) will be around for a while , and the bomber fleet is not old , its very capable , Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 are deadly bombers.LoL and do you care to tell me how exactly is B-1 younger than Tu-160 when it came in service in 1986?
And B-2's first flight was 1989 , its really not that younger.

Fact 4- Nobody knows the exact number of defence budget from Russia , or China , the official budget also doesn't include research of aircrafts and strategic forces.. etc
Of course the real budget is not much bigger than top europe country's but alot of the budget goes to soldier pay's , compare them..

I rather look at a country's defencive and offencive capability rather than saying that another country is more powerfull because it has superior training.
Tell me 1 fact why UK or France are more powerfull ? I don't see any.
And besides its ridicilous to compare 1 to another.

Btw shouldn't this topic be moved??
XaNDeR is offline  
Old August 31st, 2007   #12
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,614
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by eckherl View Post
Yes - Russia has alot of war equipment that could be brought to the battle, but can they fight a sustained war for any amount of real time. I think that Russia can be comfortable with what they currently have in place to not be really concerned about anyone wanting to provoke them into any thing, including the U.S. They have all the time on their side to get their military back in fighting order. It also helps them at the current times that relations with China are really good.
Russia can fight sustained war much better than any country except USA. Compare industrial capabilities - short and mid-term russian plants can still produce more tanks/aircrafts/IFV's/etc than any other country except may be USA. And russian military complex is completely self-sufficient - again, that could be also applied only to USA.
Still, i think what China is certainly a new superstar. It already exceed even USA in terms of basic industrial capabilties like metal and energy generation. China still lack more complex and specialised industry - but they will certaily develop it in the next 20 years.
Tiny EU countries and even USA cant really compete with 1.5 billion citizens...
Chrom is offline  
Old August 31st, 2007   #13
Entertainer
General
Grand Danois's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: CPH
Posts: 3,297
Threads:
Some questions for the armour guys about those T-64/T-72/T-80 that Russia inherited from the SU.

Some of them are in active service and have been upgraded. But I understand most are in storeage.

The tanks in storage will at some point in time reach technological obsolescence, as is (i.e. non upgraded). The armour will be outdated; the relevance of the gun is diminished vis a vis barrel pressures, calibre; FCS; power pack. Reliability will be affected as electronics, etc. degrade over time.

That makes me think that for every year that passes, returns are diminishing for those tanks as a mobilisation reserve... I.e the return on readying them for service, training a (conscript) crew, transporting them to the battlefield, the entire logistics and battlefield maintenance setup, etc, goes negative on the modern battlefield compared to fielding a "new" tank. F.i. it would be a waste of time fielding a T-34 on a modern battlefield today.

When will that point be reached?

I'm guessing that the tanks in storage are slowly being cannibalised or upgraded and put into service, as active tanks are worn out. Plus some could be zeroed, upgraded, and exported?
________________
"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
Grand Danois is offline  
Old August 31st, 2007   #14
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
XaNDeR's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 325
Threads:
Those tanks that are in reserve are not needed , they are in reserve in case of beeing needed for some war that broke out or something usualy old models , and T-64 and T-72 will get slowly removed from service in the next decades , the newer tanks like T-80 and T-90 , and even brand new projects like Black Eagle ( allthough it won't be producing for russia only export ) and T-95 will soon replace them , and the numbers will probably be alot less than number of active T-72's at the moment which is 9700 , because they are far more effective and they won't need as many similar to Su-34 which will be in smaller numbers as Su-24 due to far better effiecency.
My question would be why would they even wan't to return the old T-64's that were designed in the 60's to active service if they have far better projects like T-95 that will be modern and in a whole new league?
XaNDeR is offline  
Old August 31st, 2007   #15
Entertainer
General
Grand Danois's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: CPH
Posts: 3,297
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by XaNDeR View Post
Those tanks that are in reserve are not needed , they are in reserve in case of beeing needed for some war that broke out or something usualy old models , and T-64 and T-72 will get slowly removed from service in the next decades , the newer tanks like T-80 and T-90 , and even brand new projects like Black Eagle ( allthough it won't be producing for russia only export ) and T-95 will soon replace them , and the numbers will probably be alot less than number of active T-72's at the moment which is 9700 , because they are far more effective and they won't need as many similar to Su-34 which will be in smaller numbers as Su-24 due to far better effiecency.
My question would be why would they even wan't to return the old T-64's that were designed in the 60's to active service if they have far better projects like T-95 that will be modern and in a whole new league?
I asked the question because it was suggested (as it has been done several times) that Russias future military might lay with Soviet warstock.

I agree that they will not see service again, because fewer but newer models will be fielded.

Btw, 9700 T-72 in active service?
________________
"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
Grand Danois is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:46 PM.