Future of russia defense industry?

[chinawhite]

Everyone knows about russian weaponary,

Reliable, cost effective and "battle proven"

Gone are the days where the Soviet government subsidized the defence industry and made massive orders for military equipment. Gave massive sum for RnD. While now is the new era of independent arms sales and arms fairs

Her tradtional market of arms sales like india have now decide to be a more indegenious route or instead wanting to do it herself like the joint development and self production. And china which has also stopped buying new russian equipment and is now concentrating on building up and "indegenising" her equippment while the Other countries like algeria, syria, Iraq(LoL) are all now so poor they cannot buy this equipment. The Soviets sold equipment to these countries but it wasn't in hard currency but in batter deals which were bought higher than market prices. eg Cuban sugar

While russian equipment is still competitive in the third world they are becoming more expensive and less sophiticated compared to western weaponary. It is not just Russian, American and European suppliers anymore. More countries are seeking to make joint ventures and own the production lines and self produce russian equipment. Now what is the current state of russias RnD research?. What the russians are really doing is modiflying Soviet era weapons with western technology. All the new improvments like the T-90, Su-35s, and new ships all benifited from acess to western technology

The T-90 is actually the T-72BM with a new name. A sheep in sheeps clothing. This was done to improve the image of the T-72 after all the losses of T-72 in combat like chechnya and iraq. While the parts in both tanks is similar in design but are not compatible. The T-90 ustilzes a lot more advanced technology and a better sensors and is all round superior. But it is one example of a old tank that has just been modifled to seek export orders.

Current sales are india which has brought 124 T-90 tanks and is assebliing the rest. While the russian army has brought the grand sum of between 100-300 according to different sources. While in 2005 the russian military only ordered 17. The T-72 had tremendous export sucess serving in 28 armies. While the T-90 being a more capable tank has not reached anywhere close to these levels. My conclusion is people already know what these tanks are and rather go for a cheaper solution while the higher upper class countries which would likey buy this equipment choose western or european equipment

The Su-35 is a post-soviet design which is one of the most capable fighters ready for export and a very very cheap price compared to her comtempories like the Eurofighter or the rafale has not seen one sale. The russian airforce has not shown interest in buying this fighter ethier. While her predecessors like the Su-27 and Su-30 have been ranking up huge export sucess while being and less bang for a than a Su-35 and being less advanced they still are not being showned interest in. While again the more upper class markets are still a western owned region, like The middle east, Europe and Asian countries which rather opt for western equipment rather than newer russian equipment.

The russian defense industry are now surving on export orders and to be more competitive they need more RnD funding to be more competitve when the western onsluahgt led by the Americans with their F-35 enters the aircraft market. The russians at this point do not have a prototype to match the F-35 on a cost effectivness graph. The mikoyan MFI 1.42 projet led to the 1.44 aircraft. While being claimed to be a advanced platform it did not finish development and was cancelled because of the lack of funds. While the new project PAK-FA has not even finished the design phase. It has hugley impossible schedule to perform(first flight in 2010). And according to media reports has only recieved something like 1/10th of the projected funding needed.

The plan is to be a heavy fighter like the F-22 but only cost as mush as the F-35. The downfall of the 1.42 project was the lack of funding on the wooping 70million price tag. Here is the projected image of the PAK-FA
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/3076/medium/pakfa2.jpg

In reailty this is a Make or break project for russias avation industry. When the F-35 starts mass production you will be seeing the sales of the Soviet era fighters down like a stone. If this suceeds then it will be a major benifit for russia as the F-35 as of now is still on the protected aircraft list with only selected nations getting them.

Her naval ships are just re-vamped soviet designs which are still none the less are best in catergory. But russia has not designed a major post-soviet vessel.

In reality the russian economy has improved and has registered a straight 6%+ growth for the last 7 years. But this figure is still only at $1.535 trillion. compared to frances $1.816 trillion, Germanys $2.446 trillion Indias $3.678 trillion chinas $8.158 trillion and americas $12.37 trillion . Its economy cannot fund major military projects and keep its economy growing. Its defence budget is about 1/10 of americas and the JSF project will cost more than the russians can spend. You need economic growth along with RnD spending to compete and the russians have the protentional for it but it will take time. According to some reports the Big american compaines like Boeing Microsoft and lockheed martin brought them over and now are american scientist

Even if the russians go to india or china for funding they dont want to be the second fiddle and will want part of the contract or a joint development which leads to less money the russians make off exports. But the indians have got their MCA and other things they have control of plus american technology access so would they want to fund a huge program if they are already offered the F-35?

China was never a player in the PAK-FA or MFI project and only wanted to buy technology nd not to buy actual aircraft. Recent reports by chinese avation sources have produced photos that claim china is producing her own F-22 class aircraft so the PAK-FA wouldn't be a big possibilty. Her airforce is not looking to russia to buy upgrades for her russian aircraft and her navy is building her own ships and the eariler russian purchases which were rumoured to be stop gaps have been proven by the lack of future purchases to only be stop gap meaures.


So will the russian defence industry survive?. Will it just be selling designs and contacts instead of pyhiscally exporting thier own aircraft?

[turin]

Besides China and India which clearly intend to establish their own indigenous aircraft industry, there still are many other countries which need new planes and cannot afford and/or dont have the know-how to produce own ones. Same goes for the land systems-market.
Therefore I am pretty sure there still is a big market for the russian industry.

Also take into account the very theoretical idea that someday the russian economy itself might get healthier enabling the government to revive its own defense-building activities.

Regardless the Russians better be very careful about simply exporting know-how and basic knowledge to India and China in order to make money. We can see with the JF-17 where this is going and in the end this is a straight shot in the foot.

By the way, according to some interview with a russian defense analyst the first flight of the PAKFA is now scheduled for 2007, a very optimistic date I might say. Also the project is thought to consist of a one- and a two-engined version, the first one being lighter and cheaper in order to have a credible hi-lo-mix. Makes some sense but we will see how that plays out in the end.

[tphuang]

There is quite a big difference between China and India. Clearly, Russian export to China has been reduced to transports, SAMs and possibly heavy bombers. India looks like it is still interested in importing the whole wide spectrum. Of course, it is looking for different import sources. Either way, troubling signs for the Russian industry.

[turin]

I agree on India. However the warning signs are already there. I admit, it seems like their national programs concerning Jetfighters and MBT are not looking that promising right now, but I wouldnt see that being too much a comfort for the Russians in the next say ten years.
I think, in some respects Russia did already go too far concerning its cooperation with China, but I guess they simply didnt have much choice.

[Vital]

Of course it WILL survive!
First of all I agree with turin. There are a lot of countries, who need and can afford only our weapons. But we do not sell our technologies "know-hOW" I can assure you, they are not any more "new technologies" We still have something to surprise you.
Regarding ships, You absolutely right, we re-vamp and sell because we don't need them. They are too old. 3 new nuclear submarines and two middle class ships are being built in St. Petersburg (according to the official information)

[LancerMc]

While I agree that the Russian defence contractors and manufacturers will never achieve a level like the one under the Soviet system again, they still will be able to produce advance technology and designs for the future.

I think Russian companies need to start working with other international companies to bring their ideas to the rest of the world. Yakolev is doing this with their new trainer design by helping China and Italy develop their own jet trainers based on their design work. Russia still holds the best technology in Air to Air and Surface to Air Missiles. MiG is also the first company to demonstrate an all aspect thrust vectoring nozzle which is for the MiG-29 and possibly the Su-27/30. This nozzle will mostly likely be offered to India for its future order 125 Light Combat Aircraft.

So don't count the Russian's out, they just need to change their focus to better make themselves competitive for the future.

[Wild Weasel]

While I agree that the Russian defence contractors and manufacturers will never achieve a level like the one under the Soviet system again, they still will be able to produce advance technology and designs for the future.

I think Russian companies need to start working with other international companies to bring their ideas to the rest of the world. Yakolev is doing this with their new trainer design by helping China and Italy develop their own jet trainers based on their design work. Russia still holds the best technology in Air to Air and Surface to Air Missiles. MiG is also the first company to demonstrate an all aspect thrust vectoring nozzle which is for the MiG-29 and possibly the Su-27/30. This nozzle will mostly likely be offered to India for its future order 125 Light Combat Aircraft.

So don't count the Russian's out, they just need to change their focus to better make themselves competitive for the future.

Well, frankly- when one takes into account the 4th, and 5th generation fighters available to the West, equipped with advanced AAM's like the AIM-120C, Meteor, Mica, ASRAAM, Python, and AIM-9X- I wouldn't be willing to make the statement that Russia "still holds the best technology in Air to Air Missiles." The current score is already a handful of MiG-29's downed by Western AAM's, with no Western losses to date.

Likewise, they don't have the world's best SAMs, either.
The Patriot PAC3, and SM-3 Aegis, SM-6 ERAM, ESSM, RAM, as well as ASTER, Rapier, and Starstreak, among others, are all as capable, if not more so than their Russian counterparts.

Point of fact, Western pilots are trained and equipped to penetrate Russian air defences, avoid or destroy their SAM systems, and prosecute their targets. Platforms like "stealth", and OECM-jamming aicraft, long-range strike weapons such as Tomahawk, ALCM, JASSM, and Storm Shadow, and units like the Wild Weasels- give the West the ability to nullify even the best of Russia's SAM systems. If they activate their search or fire control radars, the HARMs and ALARM missiles will destoy them. If they keep them switched off, they are basically combat ineffective, and they are eventually going to be destroyed by long range strike weapons anyway.

Conversely, Western land forces are not overly concerned with the threat of Russian fighters penetrating their own air defenses, and attacking their rear echelon. They deploy their SAMs to defend against ballistic missile threats, primarily.
Western AWACs, recon, and C&C aircraft operate safely behind their SAM, and AAM walls with almost total impunity. They are probably more concerned about being a victim of BVR, or SAM system fratricide, than they are about Russian SAMs or AAM's.

Finally, look at it from the perspective of the pilot. If I were an American (or Western Coalition) fighter pilot about to undertake an attack mission against targets protected by Russian SAMs, I could do so without being concerned I had been tasked with a suicide mission. I would expect that our SEAD assets and tactics had dealt with whatever threat I was facing.
On the other hand, if I was an OPFOR pilot that had been ordered to sneak past Coalition defences- I'd seriously be considering the best way to keep my aircraft on the ground. Not because I am a coward- but because I am a realist, and knowledgeable enough to understand that the likelyhood for my survival is dismal at best.

"Fly through PAC-3, or Aegis? Are you kidding me?"

I'm really not biased towards Russian forces and equipment. I realize that they are definately capable of producing systems that are equal to those of the West- they have done so int he past. But that's simply not the case these days.
Fortunately, it seems that the possibility for war between Russia, and the West is far more remote that I can ever remember. And I am quite thankful that is the reality today.

[Vital]

Point of fact, Western pilots are trained and equipped to penetrate Russian air defences, avoid or destroy their SAM systems, and prosecute their targets. Platforms like "stealth", and OECM-jamming aicraft, long-range strike weapons such as Tomahawk, ALCM, JASSM, and Storm Shadow, and units like the Wild Weasels- give the West the ability to nullify even the best of Russia's SAM systems.
I want to remind you, that a "stealth platform" was shot down by the old soviet SAM system in Yugoslavia. Please read about this war more ad you will find more interesting details :) I won't be so self-assured about penetrating Russian system. Don't forget about C-300 and C-400.

[asif iqbal]

Russians systems are nothing but pathetic junk, thier record speaks for itself

ok so the serbs managed to shot down a F117s so what one lucky shot out of a million, whats your point

todays russia see's nothing but starving people and corruption russia is like a old pot just rusting away its just a matter of time before its gone for good

[KGB]

I want to remind you, that a "stealth platform" was shot down by the old soviet SAM system in Yugoslavia. Please read about this war more ad you will find more interesting details :) I won't be so self-assured about penetrating Russian system. Don't forget about C-300 and C-400.
There's a lot of conflicting claims about that particular airwar, its hard to tell fact from propoganda.

Was the F117 taken out by a SAM or by some luck gunner?

[Vital]

May be you are right whether it was a very Lucky gunner or a SAM, I don't want to argue.
But such expressions as "Russians systems are nothing but pathetic junk" are groundless. if it so, why China, India etc prefer to buy them. They can afford buying other systems.
Regarding, starving people. Please, visit Russia! I mean real Russia but not Moscow

[Gollevainen]

Was the F117 taken out by a SAM or by some luck gunner?

lately there has been an article out claiming it to be SAM, S-125 Petsora to more precisely, but this wasent 'a lucky shot' as many Bush-groupies wants to think but more of result of tactical innovative and professionalism, the one factor that has (by the lack of it) coused most examples of this praised 'poor record' of russian 'junk'. I have served my military time along whit this junk, and I wouldnt hesitate for a minute, which one i would choose in the real battle field, expensive and neat western toy, or solid, simple and 100% workable russian 'junk'.

people like Asif Igbal should find some better things to do than come and mock weapons which he certainly have no idea about and flaovour that mockery with tasteles countrybrashing...people's starve in russia...my ass:kar :sniper :mad

But Russian defense industry surely is on the edge of new times as Russian political situation beguns to worse in europe and central asia. Moscow cannot continue its rather cocky energy-policy and pressuring its neighbours if their armed forces arent beeing modernized. When the political will comes behind military modernization, money will eventually finds it ways to rigth places...even in russia, thougth how unbelieviable it migth sound

[tphuang]

May be you are right whether it was a very Lucky gunner or a SAM, I don't want to argue.
But such expressions as "Russians systems are nothing but pathetic junk" are groundless. if it so, why China, India etc prefer to buy them. They can afford buying other systems.
Regarding, starving people. Please, visit Russia! I mean real Russia but not Moscow
That's the point, China looks like that it is not buying that much from the Russians anymore. Indians are going with Western systems, because the Russian offers are not competitive.

The F-117 incident has been discussed extensively. You can read up on it by googling

[Wild Weasel]

In any case, one downed F-117 for hundreds of launched SAMs in half a dozen conflicts doesn't say much for the abilities of the Russian SAMs. Considering all the factors involved, it's just as likely that several more aircraft could have been lost due to pilot error, or random equipment failure. And then there's always the propaganda factor, right?

What is known, is the record of the Western AAM's and SAM's launched at OPFOR targets. The ( operational, combat proven ) PK ratio tends to be many times higher for AMRAAM, or Patriot, than what we've seen from Russian-made systems.

It's true that we haven't actually seen the most current Russian technolgy employed in actual combat. Therefore, it's difficult to say whether or not they are actually worth their weight. But we have seen quite a bit of the most current Western kit in use, like the AMRAAM, and Patriot- and so far, the figures are quite impressive.
Add to that the capabilites of stealth, stand off range offensive jamming, long range cruise missiles, and strike weapons, and highly developed SEAD tactics- it is plain to see that the ball is firmly in the West's court at this point in time.

A basic tenet of modern warfare is: "That which can be seen, can be destroyed." Well, even the most powerful C300, and '400 SAM systems can certainly be seen- they are absolutely enormous! Satelite imagery shows everything needed to target them with a swarm of GPS-guided cruise missiles.
Stealth aircraft can easily approach within HARM, JASSM, JSOW, JDAM, or SDB launch range to put them out of commision in ONE sortie- and with little or no expected losses of attacking aircraft.
Whats more, there are other systems nearing operational/deployable status that could render any SAM system obselete overnight.
For instance, the Lockheed-Martin LOCAAS is a very small cruise missile with an advanced LADAR seeker, and guidance package- capable of fully autonomous search and destroy missions against any target on the ground. They are so small, and light-weight, that as many as thirty or so could be carried by a single seat fighter. They have a range of more than 200km, a speed of more than 450knts and carry an advanced warhead that can devastate a SAM system's radar, control trailer, or the missiles themselves.
Finally, they would cost only a small fraction of the price of even a single C300/400 missile- and yet, only one LOCAAS that is not destroyed while inbound would be capable of knocking out an entire SAM sytem, if it attacks the radar.

I don't care how fantastic people believe Russian SAMs to be. Once a swarm of LOCAAS is inbound, each of those ridiculously inexpensive little cruise missiles will have to be shot down, or the entire air defence grid is at risk of being permanently knocked out of commision. Combined with OECM, a couple other fighters worth of air-launched decoys, and HARM/AARGM missiles- that SAM system is most assuredly going to get wasted. Even the vaunted S300/400 SAM sytem could not survive such an attack.

This is not really super-advanced, "Star Wars" technology- this is commercial-off-the-shelf technology that currently exists today, combined with 30+ years of SEAD tactics learned from many hard-fought air-war campaigns. The West specializes in power-projection warfare, which requires rapid and total air supremacy- no matter what the defense threat is supposed to be. Thus far, we've seen that they can achieve this in short order- and that there is little to nothing that Russian systems have been able to do about it. Stealth, and advanced electronics has trumped Russian defense tech for more than twenty years, and so far, there doesn't appear to be an effective defense option to stop it.

[Rich]

""""lately there has been an article out claiming it to be SAM, S-125 Petsora to more precisely, but this wasent 'a lucky shot' as many Bush-groupies wants to think but more of result of tactical innovative and professionalism, the one factor that has (by the lack of it) coused most examples of this praised 'poor record' of russian 'junk'. """"

Bush groupies? Whats Bush got to do with it?

[LancerMc]

For clarification the shoot down of the F-117 during the Kosovo Crisis was due to pilot error.

In a article by the publication Air Forces Monthly a few years ago, the F-117 was returning from a mission under a moon lit night. The pilot decided to fly under the cloud cover and was noticed by a Yugoslavian gunner seeing the F-117 out lined against the moon lit up clouds. The gunner put a few rounds into the aircraft. The SAM was later fired at the aircraft while it was on fire from the ground fire and it finished the job.

[Gollevainen]

Bush groupies? Whats Bush got to do with it?

Bush groupie is a comical expression for people whos mind works like "US is the best, US is invinciple, all other are crab, Russia is made out of crab, French are pussyes that cannot win wars..."

And like with any other nationalists, theyr mind is rather blind to any negative information about their idol, pretty much like groupies...at least those I knew:rolleyes: :tasty :smokie

In a article by the publication Air Forces Monthly a few years ago, the F-117 was returning from a mission under a moon lit night. The pilot decided to fly under the cloud cover and was noticed by a Yugoslavian gunner seeing the F-117 out lined against the moon lit up clouds. The gunner put a few rounds into the aircraft. The SAM was later fired at the aircraft while it was on fire from the ground fire and it finished the job.

the article i was refering was published few months ago, It was propaply Serbian publication, but I remember it been showed in this sites news section also. Anyway or anther I think this is an issue that everybody has to just believe what ever they want, as the contradicts are so evident and politically heated...Remember, there isent such thing as unbias, or objective truth...:cool:

[gf0012-aust]

Bush groupie is a comical expression for people whos mind works like "US is the best, US is invinciple, all other are crab, Russia is made out of crab, French are pussyes that cannot win wars..."

And like with any other nationalists, theyr mind is rather blind to any negative information about their idol, pretty much like groupies...at least those I knew:rolleyes: :tasty :smokie

It's also an unfortunate expression to use in what we try to establish as a serious military forum. It denotes a lack of professionalism amongst those who contribute to meaningful debate.

the article i was refering was published few months ago, It was propaply Serbian publication, but I remember it been showed in this sites news section also. Anyway or anther I think this is an issue that everybody has to just believe what ever they want, as the contradicts are so evident and politically heated...Remember, there isent such thing as unbias, or objective truth...:cool:

and again, the Serbs ignore the fact that a French Staff Officer is undergoing a process of court martial for leaking NATO air traffic controll data to the Serbs. Maj Brunel was arrested and charged as a Serb sympathiser. He also blamed other French staff officers attached to NATO command and made it clear that critical data was leaked on way points and times.

Just as an addition to the discussion. The following is cut from an AFA article on the Bekaa Valley.

"In contrast with the desperate air battles of October 1973, Israel's 46-hour Bekaa Valley air war set a new standard for orchestrated air operations and proved that even sophisticated mobile SAMs could be dismembered by well-coordinated air attacks..........

Yet the Bekaa Valley air war also helped drive Middle East strategy in a new direction. Potential opponents started to look for new weapons, since challenging the IAF in the skies was deemed pointless. Ivry cited conclusions drawn by the Syrian minister of defense, who felt that Israeli airpower and electronic warfare won the day in the Bekaa Valley and the next war would be a "surface-to-surface war and not the surface-to-air war anymore." As Ivry said, "That's when they started to buy the Scuds." He was referring to Syria and Iraq.

In Moscow, the Bekaa Valley operation threw military men into a kind of shock. Top Soviet systems had been trounced. On a visit to Czechoslovakia in 1991, Ivry met a Czech general who had been serving in Moscow in 1982. He told Ivry that the Bekaa Valley air war made the Soviets understand that Western technology was superior to theirs, and in this Czech general's view, the blow to the Bekaa Valley SAMs was part of the cascade of events leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union."

[Gollevainen]

It's also an unfortunate expression to use in what we try to establish as a serious military forum. It denotes a lack of professionalism amongst those who contribute to meaningful debate.

my bad, get agitated from that Igbal ...thougth I meant it more of a joke than offence (and where I came, jokes arent mented to offend) so lets say that it was cultural related missunderstandment misshap...I try to be more carefull in the future...


and again, the Serbs ignore the fact that a French Staff Officer is undergoing a process of court martial for leaking NATO air traffic controll data to the Serbs. Maj Brunel was arrested and charged as a Serb sympathiser. He also blamed other French staff officers attached to NATO command and made it clear that critical data was leaked on way points and times.

And You deny that using this information by the yugoslavian airdefence is example of innovative and tactical professionalism? Its not matter where the informaition came, the fact is that Serbs knew what they were hunting and actively did that, with triumph results. Its phathetic to deny glory from some military action, if the intelligense data (crucial element in any warfare) is done by inconvidient ways...


In Moscow, the Bekaa Valley operation threw military men into a kind of shock. Top Soviet systems had been trounced. On a visit to Czechoslovakia in 1991, Ivry met a Czech general who had been serving in Moscow in 1982. He told Ivry that the Bekaa Valley air war made the Soviets understand that Western technology was superior to theirs, and in this Czech general's view, the blow to the Bekaa Valley SAMs was part of the cascade of events leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union."

i would say that Bekaa valley (if the soviet equipment were to be fault and not the Syrian skills to use the equipment) is more of example to Soviet collapse than factor in it...Soviet collapse is much bigger thing to be generalized by single events as factors, at least not any direct historical event could take that position.

But in general i believe that Soviet systems, thougth sligthly older generation than Western wouldnt berform so badly if they would have been used in healthy command enviroment and by personel whit skills and will to use them and most importantly, flexibility to overcome sudden changes of situation. Im not well aware of Syrian military life and levels of that time, but I would like to take look of it If someone knows it more detaily... In contras to Bekaa Valley, where the 'eastern' and 'western' counterpart were almoust equal in overal size, in Serbia 1999 is berfect example of how non invinciple western warmachines can be. Serbian army was never defeated, or dismobilised, neither the command elements of whole society. I think its rather shame to NATO that they managed to wipe out only a mere brigadefull of serbian military hardware, inspite such ernoumous effort to do so...

Humans still do the figthing, not machines, and there's the achiless heel of Western military....

[gf0012-aust]

And You deny that using this information by the yugoslavian airdefence is example of innovative and tactical professionalism? Its not matter where the informaition came, the fact is that Serbs knew what they were hunting and actively did that, with triumph results. Its phathetic to deny glory from some military action, if the intelligense data (crucial element in any warfare) is done by inconvidient ways...

no, my point was that it was more than just tactical tradecraft - it was also very good intel tradecraft at work. It wasn't a statement about dismissing serb competency, but hilighting that it was a far more complex issue than a professional battery commander.


if you know the flight path as its been repeated 4 nights running, then that also points to pilot negligence and overconfidence

if you know the flight path then you can set up a corridor of anticipation - a box kill then becomes a highly likely event

i would say that Bekaa valley (if the soviet equipment were to be fault and not the Syrian skills to use the equipment) is more of example to Soviet collapse than factor in it...Soviet collapse is much bigger thing to be generalized by single events as factors, at least not any direct historical event could take that position.

The comment from the Czech General is more about "allied perception" than historical accuracy - it does show the significance of speed of adaptation by the Israelis - and it does point to the fact that Ewarfare and co-ordinated air strikes were able to be developed and deployed within days - and thus neutralising SAMs in a dramatic fashion. The significance here is speed of solution, speed of deployment and the speed of nullification of what had prev been a battlefield changer.

But in general i believe that Soviet systems, thougth sligthly older generation than Western wouldnt berform so badly if they would have been used in healthy command enviroment and by personel whit skills and will to use them and most importantly, flexibility to overcome sudden changes of situation. Im not well aware of Syrian military life and levels of that time, but I would like to take look of it If someone knows it more detaily... In contras to Bekaa Valley, where the 'eastern' and 'western' counterpart were almoust equal in overal size, in Serbia 1999 is berfect example of how non invinciple western warmachines can be. Serbian army was never defeated, or dismobilised, neither the command elements of whole society. I think its rather shame to NATO that they managed to wipe out only a mere brigadefull of serbian military hardware, inspite such ernoumous effort to do so...

My argument would be that NATO/Serbia is a classic example of how Air cannot be a panacea for all ground force neutralisation models - it was inapprop tradecraft - it wasn't so much an indictment of technology. A similar analogy can be applied to US Helo losses in Iraq. The principle reason for platform loss was not that the platforms were vulnerable - it was the fact that pilots broke doctrine and jeopardised not only their missions but also their lives.


Humans still do the figthing, not machines, and there's the achiless heel of Western military....

How is human performance the wests achilles heel? The 5 major conflicts of force majeur in the 20th century have shown that although western nations may be slow to react to conflict, when they do discover the political will and intent to go to war they prosecute to its maximum outcome to achieve their aims. I consider the notion that western nations to be softer on accepting losses to be riddled with flaws. History has shown time and time again for the last 700-800 years that europeans and americans will bear savage human losses once they commit to the final solution of conflict resolution. England, France, Germany, Italy to a lesser extent, Spain, the US, the Dutch etc... all have demonstrated an absolute willingness to "bleed to achieve".

[Vital]

What is known, is the record of the Western AAM's and SAM's launched at OPFOR targets. The ( operational, combat proven ) PK ratio tends to be many times higher for AMRAAM, or Patriot, than what we've seen from Russian-made systems. It's propaganda isn't it?
Now I uderstand why some people do not understand my point of view. The problem is that they Haven't seen Russian 'junk' in action. And I hope You will never see it.
Special thx for Gollevainen's words.!!! :) :) :)

[gf0012-aust]

It's propaganda isn't it?

No, its not propoganda when the evidence is supported by historical events

Now I uderstand why some people do not understand my point of view. The problem is that they Haven't seen Russian 'junk' in action.

In actual fact the 4 great SAM models are - and so Russian systems have been evaluated in the heat of combat:

Hanoi
Yom Kippur
Bekaa Valley
GW1

In both Hanoi and Yom Kippur the SAMS held the initial advantage - but incursive air ended up dominating the battlespace. In the case of Yom Kippur the Egyptians made the mistake of moving out of SAM coverage and lost the force protection advantage that they had.

Yom Kippur is a classical example as the Russians had put their best systems in place for real world testing. It was regarded as the most lethal Russian modeled grid then available - more intensive than Hanoi's defences.

Bekaa Valley is regarded as one of the first great battle event changers as it saw the introduction of combative EWarfare and the first combative implementation of UAV's- and the Israelis decapitated the SAMs completely once counter measures were in place

GW1: The Iraqi SAM grid was absolutely decapitated within the first 24 hrs of the war starting. They were unable to pick up and defeat F117,s EF-111's and combinations of Rivet/Combat platforms. TAC CM's decimated the grid and the SAMs were unable to detect and neutralise the cruise missile attacks on critical nodes.

Russian based ADS was completely neutralised and outflanked by not only kinetic suppression, but also electronically.

The odds in all 4 examples certainly lie with the counter systems and not with the GB SAMs.

btw, I have been involved with assessments of some Russian equipment - so I'm not just quoting books and the internet

And I hope You will never see it.
Special thx for Gollevainen's words.!!! :) :) :)

Well, its fine to be proud of your country and its equipment, but it still needs to be judged by real world performance

[Gollevainen]

no, my point was that it was more than just tactical tradecraft - it was also very good intel tradecraft at work. It wasn't a statement about dismissing serb competency, but hilighting that it was a far more complex issue than a professional battery commander.


if you know the flight path as its been repeated 4 nights running, then that also points to pilot negligence and overconfidence

if you know the flight path then you can set up a corridor of anticipation - a box kill then becomes a highly likely event

And i never stated that it would be as simple. I agree that this f117 shot-down is complex, as many other issue, but complex or simple, Ã*t's unfair to minimisize serbs effort to shooting the plane down.



The comment from the Czech General is more about "allied perception" than historical accuracy - it does show the significance of speed of adaptation by the Israelis - and it does point to the fact that Ewarfare and co-ordinated air strikes were able to be developed and deployed within days - and thus neutralising SAMs in a dramatic fashion. The significance here is speed of solution, speed of deployment and the speed of nullification of what had prev been a battlefield changer.


Again agreed, but what i tryed to say before, perhaps bit too shaddowly, is that the main reason for Bekaa's succes was the lack of Syrian spontaneous in overall military issues. Almoust every gun shoots and kills, no matter where it is made or how many better weapons are fielded. The key is how you use it. Soviets with their strong love affair for byrocrasy generated a strong and stiff norm-based warfare doctrine which was unable to adjust the rapid changes on enemy side. Like you mentioned the speed, i would say it was more of syrian slowness that their equipment that caused the Bekaa chatastrophe.



How is human performance the wests achilles heel? The 5 major conflicts of force majeur in the 20th century have shown that although western nations may be slow to react to conflict, when they do discover the political will and intent to go to war they prosecute to its maximum outcome to achieve their aims. I consider the notion that western nations to be softer on accepting losses to be riddled with flaws. History has shown time and time again for the last 700-800 years that europeans and americans will bear savage human losses once they commit to the final solution of conflict resolution. England, France, Germany, Italy to a lesser extent, Spain, the US, the Dutch etc... all have demonstrated an absolute willingness to "bleed to achieve".

Well i was more pointing out the current thrends, happened in past twenty years alongside the rapid envolment of technology. For me it seems that west is bit too eager to go on with the technology and all the things it makes possiple. I've told many times in other forums of my experience with two quite differnet artillery systems, D-30 and 155K98. Each represent completely different thinking and philosifc of warfare (ofcourse D-30 is almoust thirty years older) and i must say, as much is i'm proud of our armproductions jewl, the 155K98, the technologial superioty over D-30 works best in theory, in practise is another case. Ofcourse many of the sortcomings of the finnish gun is mere of childilness, but if war broke out in this minute, i would choose the D-30. Least i know that it's down to us mens if something goes wrong.

humans do mistakes also, but human-made mistakes are much more easily to be corrected and prevented than those coming from too much thusting on technology.

[gf0012-aust]

well i meant more of the reliance to technology and underestimating enemyes whit lesser technolocigal levels. Iraq is perfect example of this, as is the Chechnya in some acpects. No one can deny that US faced resistance that it wasent prepaired for in Iraq, and how millions of dollars are wasted and supreme technology is fielded, but they still cannot claim victory from that war. Serbian campaing was another example when NATO overestimated its own reach and underestimated Serbian's.

There needs to be a subtle distinction made though on political objectives and tactical objectives.

As a western analogy the criticism often levelled at US forces is that they over rely on technology rather than on tradecraft - they certainly do dominate at technical force application

At a force majeur level then the US absolutely dominated the war in Iraq, and I'd be loathe to comment on the deployment of tradecraft. After all, the brute force approach hasn't worked in Grozny either.

As for Serbia, I agree that its a singular failure in tactical planning and application of assets - but thats again a separate issue than trying to compartmentalise platform superiority against idealogical "nationality" concepts such as "the west" and "the slavs" etc....

I'm wary of any argument that promotes notions of ideas that the "west" does "X" and the others do "y". It seems like an easy but not terribly genuine vehicle of debate that lends itself to patriotic hijacking. ;)

[gf0012-aust]

And i never stated that it would be as simple. I agree that this f117 shot-down is complex, as many other issue, but complex or simple, Ã*t's unfair to minimisize serbs effort to shooting the plane down..


I'm not trivialising what the Serbs achieved at all - I'm merely adding some more fat to the incident. Too often these debates can deteriorate to nationalistic ripostes rather than considered dissection.

Again agreed, but what i tryed to say before, perhaps bit too shaddowly, is that the main reason for Bekaa's succes was the lack of Syrian spontaneous in overall military issues. Almoust every gun shoots and kills, no matter where it is made or how many better weapons are fielded. The key is how you use it. Soviets with their strong love affair for byrocrasy generated a strong and stiff norm-based warfare doctrine which was unable to adjust the rapid changes on enemy side. Like you mentioned the speed, i would say it was more of syrian slowness that their equipment that caused the Bekaa chatastrophe.

Well, I guess we're both reinforcing issues of the importance of tradecraft as well as technology ;)


Well i was more pointing out the current thrends, happened in past twenty years alongside the rapid envolment of technology. For me it seems that west is bit too eager to go on with the technology and all the things it makes possiple. I've told many times in other forums of my experience with two quite differnet artillery systems, D-30 and 155K98. Each represent completely different thinking and philosifc of warfare (ofcourse D-30 is almoust thirty years older) and i must say, as much is i'm proud of our armproductions jewl, the 155K98, the technologial superioty over D-30 works best in theory, in practise is another case. Ofcourse many of the sortcomings of the finnish gun is mere of childilness, but if war broke out in this minute, i would choose the D-30. Least i know that it's down to us mens if something goes wrong.

well, for an example of grit and determination against notionally superior technology but definite superiority in numbers - the the Finns can always point to their performance against the Russians in the Winter War of 1939-40. IIRC the Finnish movie on this struggle is called "Talvisota"??

[Vital]

I found an interesting discussion. Read it. You can find a lot of useful information http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread24986/pg1

Please, don t tell me about Iraq. The Iraqi SAM grid was absolutely decapitated within the first 24 hrs of the war starting.. Absolutely! You are right? but you defeated not the system but people, who just left their places. They don't have faith for that moment. Besides US troops have been occuping Iraq for 10 long years. Actually, I would say, Iraq was defeated 10 years ago.
I want to remind you about WWII. We stopped Nazi troops, because we were stronger spiritually. Iragi people were ready to be defeated.
What kind of weapons did u test? AKM?

[Gollevainen]

I'm wary of any argument that promotes notions of ideas that the "west" does "X" and the others do "y". It seems like an easy but not terribly genuine vehicle of debate that lends itself to patriotic hijacking.

Well generalizing is cruisal for these kind of "light discussions", tough i agree with you once again. We finns sure are western but i wouldn't state us to rely on technology, it's quite the opposite. But i thing you would agree with me on the fact that West, meaning NATO and EU (older states, not the new ones) have quite different ways of thinking compared that on Russia/Soviet and all where it has been influenced.



I'm not trivialising what the Serbs achieved at all - I'm merely adding some more fat to the incident. Too often these debates can deteriorate to nationalistic ripostes rather than considered dissection.


Well, altough i'm great fried of the serbs, i think i can see things behind red/blue/white glasses. I've noticed the same fault in many other discussions, most notably in those concerning china and india.

Well, I guess we're both reinforcing issues of the importance of tradecraft as well as technology ;)

Ofcourse. I never stated that technology is a bad thing, Isreals sucses and Americans in the first Gulf war are good examples. Also it's not obivios fact that when superior technology fights against briljant minds with inferior technics, the later would become victor. Not at all, tough human minds tend to be still bit more clever than machines.

Example like i told you about my experience with systems representing both type of thinking, i admitt that the APU and all it's benifits are great improvements over muscle work. Everthing is smoother and faster, as long as the APU works. But what if it brokes? All the new technologial superioty whci h the 155K98 enjoyed is pretty much based on the APU. Ofcourse the manufactor states that the gun/howitser can be used as normal towed piece, in practise it would slow the battery so much that it's faster and more eficient to replace the whole system with new one. Basicly meaning that the battery has to survive certain ammount of time with one gun less.

Everything electronical and mechanical tends to broke much more easier than those which requires pure muscle. Thats the main reason why i trust the D-30a lot more. There simply just isen't things waiting to be broken during extensive fighting conditions. But thats just a obinion of simple gunner looking the issue on his own spectrum, perhaps unable to see lot bigger issues involved;)


well, for an example of grit and determination against notionally superior technology but definite superiority in numbers - the the Finns can always point to their performance against the Russians in the Winter War of 1939-40. IIRC the Finnish movie on this struggle is called "Talvisota"??

yeas, the whole war is called Talvisota (Talvi= winter, Sota=war) in finnish. It was great example of spontaneous and clever leadership of our troops. I would love to go on and boast about the strong will of our soldiers defending the patria...and bla, bla, bla...and so on, but i think it's a topic for another thread than this.

[tphuang]

Just wondering Gary, how would you rate S-300 and S-400 series against their American counterparts?

[Vital]

Gollevainen? Thank you for not blaming the Russians for this war I mean "Talvisota ! From my point of view it was one of the biggest mistakes in our history. :)

[Vital]

To tphuang. What do you mean by saying Just wondering Gary, how would you rate S-300 and S-400 series against their American counterparts? I think i missed something

[Gollevainen]

It's past, history, long gone...there's no reason to me to start blaiming anyone. Frankly we finns have done so way too long and thus missed great opportunityes with russia and the fact that we could really benefit from each others. I belive in mutual co-existence, good neighbouring and so on. :cool:

but lets us not drift too oftopic...(it's funny tough, almoust every time when i enter some discussion, somehow it eventually leads to Finland...:rolleyes: )

[tphuang]

To tphuang. What do you mean by saying I think i missed something
well, I respect Gary's opinion of different weapon systems. We have had some discussions on SDF recently about S-300/S-400 vs PAC2/3 and SM-2/3

[gf0012-aust]

Just wondering Gary, how would you rate S-300 and S-400 series against their American counterparts?

As a throw away comment, I'd have to say that the Russians historically have been better at SAM development than the Americans.

Bearing that in mind - the US is rumoured to have work arounds for the S300 (unsubstantiated) and the S400 is respected.

One could argue that the Russians have been "better" at SAMs development as thats where they focused their efforts as a form of asymetrical response. SAMs were also cheaper to develop and deploy than to build intercontinental strikers. So both countries took different approaches to dealing with each others threats.

Again, the issue is not so much the system in place, but the ability for the other side to counter it within a battle changing response time. (the major lesson of both Yom Kippur and Bekaa)

I think an example of how this is dynamic is that no major military power expects static SAMs to survive the first few days of modern war - so the advantage on statics goes to the attackers. - hence why there is a push for mobile SAM's. Mobility for any missile systems survivability is the key.

historically the evidence for that lies in:

Hanoi - the NV held the upper hand until the US co-ordinated and developed combined packages of EW, Jammers and Strike. eg EC-121's, Grumman Prowlers and Shrike carriers co-ord with ground strike such as the Thunderchiefs.

Yom Kippur, (the egyptians moved outside of their static umbrella and were progressively retrograded at the battlefield level)

Bekaa Valley - Static sites were euthenased electronically

GW1 - as much as some argue that the Iraqis "gave up" - the reality is that the hard core republican NG etc were very committed. Even though the Specwarfare/USAF/USN/USMC absolutely closed off their comms and grids within 48 hrs max - the Iraqis still staurated the city sky with intense grid work - even firing off SAMs without co-ordinates in the hope that they would detect an aircraft whilst in flight. The video footage of their defence for the first 4 nights is pretty commanding. They certainly didn't give up on ADS efforts. The end result was that all static SAM sites were decapitated early.

GW1/2 - SCUDs - static launchers were killed very early - the headache was hunting and killing the mobile launchers.

Subs be they SSBN/SSGN/SSG Subs have absolute mobility and as a primary, secondary or even tertiary response weapon, they are much harder to neutralise than a static launch site.

So, in a long winded way, I guess I'm saying that it's how a system is employed and deployed than the actual weapon system itself. The obvious example is the Serb shootdown.

Anyone who takes an S300 or S400 for granted will get into a lot of "hurt"

[Vital]

Mobility for any missile systems survivability is the key.100% true.
Anyone who takes an S300 or S400 for granted will get into a lot of "hurt"
Why?
I think that deployment of any AD systems (S-300/400 or PAC2/3) as
separate systems- it is madness, That's why we should treat them as a part of more complex system, which comprises EW, Decoys, Jammers + countermeasures etc.
The only think, I can't argue it's communication. No doubt, Westerns have better communication equipment and systems, But i still believe that even in modern conflicts, soldiers' experience and his spirit will play the first fiddle.

[Gollevainen]

To get us back in line, I try now to point out few errors in Chinawhite's orginal post. I havent done so earlyer as we were having bit bad relationship, but now we are clear ready to play ball...



Gone are the days where the Soviet government subsidized the defence industry and made massive orders for military equipment. Gave massive sum for RnD. While now is the new era of independent arms sales and arms fairs

Her tradtional market of arms sales like india have now decide to be a more indegenious route or instead wanting to do it herself like the joint development and self production. And china which has also stopped buying new russian equipment and is now concentrating on building up and "indegenising" her equippment while the Other countries like algeria, syria, Iraq(LoL) are all now so poor they cannot buy this equipment. The Soviets sold equipment to these countries but it wasn't in hard currency but in batter deals which were bought higher than market prices. eg Cuban sugar

While russian equipment is still competitive in the third world they are becoming more expensive and less sophiticated compared to western weaponary. It is not just Russian, American and European suppliers anymore. More countries are seeking to make joint ventures and own the production lines and self produce russian equipment. Now what is the current state of russias RnD research?. What the russians are really doing is modiflying Soviet era weapons with western technology. All the new improvments like the T-90, Su-35s, and new ships all benifited from acess to western technology

I think you are on wrong tracks on rigth from the start here. Currently Russia is on the situation where Arms sales have been one of the most important export item in overal. Russian defence industry have scored multible great deals during the last 15 years and I cannot follow your logic on that matter.

The T-90 is actually the T-72BM with a new name. A sheep in sheeps clothing. This was done to improve the image of the T-72 after all the losses of T-72 in combat like chechnya and iraq. While the parts in both tanks is similar in design but are not compatible. The T-90 ustilzes a lot more advanced technology and a better sensors and is all round superior. But it is one example of a old tank that has just been modifled to seek export orders.

Current sales are india which has brought 124 T-90 tanks and is assebliing the rest. While the russian army has brought the grand sum of between 100-300 according to different sources. While in 2005 the russian military only ordered 17. The T-72 had tremendous export sucess serving in 28 armies. While the T-90 being a more capable tank has not reached anywhere close to these levels. My conclusion is people already know what these tanks are and rather go for a cheaper solution while the higher upper class countries which would likey buy this equipment choose western or european equipment

T-90 was elevauted by finnish army also, few years ago when we needed new tanks and changed our doctrine to anti-tank oriented tactics from old mechanised advance doctrines. To that use, modified T-72 would have been exelent and economical choice, the nible and fast little tank is far superior to our enverioment than the winner of the contest, big Leo2A4. What Russian lacked was simply NATO commonatibily, not in technolocigal means. Ok, Leo is propaply better tank in overall, but in thick woods, short distances and muddy roads, T-90 would have been atractive choise, when no specialised tank-destroyer isent made for our conditions.

In reailty this is a Make or break project for russias avation industry. When the F-35 starts mass production you will be seeing the sales of the Soviet era fighters down like a stone. If this suceeds then it will be a major benifit for russia as the F-35 as of now is still on the protected aircraft list with only selected nations getting them.

Yuo claim that entrance of F-35 will be horrible blow to Russian export sales, but i cannot follow that one either. Sure its a blow, but not to exports but to aviation industry itself when competiting plane against other. But in export field, this creates competition and countryes not yet fielding even 4th gen fighters have suddenly acces to Sukhois and MiGs as they have to have something, even lesser choices to compete their neighbours. What other suplier can deliver economical, but yet advanced fighters in same manner than Russia? F-35 wouldnt be offered to all potential Soviet clients, as competitive to Su-35. Russian deals whit pariah nations guarantees some sort of monopoly to support its exports.

Her naval ships are just re-vamped soviet designs which are still none the less are best in catergory. But russia has not designed a major post-soviet vessel.

And what made this bad? Exporting is about what you can sale, not what you can devolp, and relying on old good desings affors short delivery times and quantative production runs.

[Vital]

Gentlemen, don't you think that it's a bit earlier to compare SU-35 & F-35. F-35 is still tested. It will be deployed in 2008. To this moment SU-35 will be a rather old vehicle. Ok, I agree SU-35 is not the 5th generation aircraft, it's 4++ Besides I not sure in F's chracteristics. They can be overviewed for the worse.

[chinawhite]

And what made this bad? Exporting is about what you can sale, not what you can devolp, and relying on old good desings affors short delivery times and quantative production runs.

You dont get my post. Its about russia not developing new designs but only coming out with soviet era designs. Yes you sale these boats now but what about in a few years?. More sovernys?

Its not about failing export sales its about Future of russia defense industry like my heading suggest. Its future directions and its current projects. Now dont divert this into something different

Russian defence industry have scored multible great deals during the last 15 years and I cannot follow your logic on that matter.

Yes in the last 15 years. During that time china was its number one exported getting billions of deals each year. What contracts do they have now except for licensed production and some upgrades.

India has the license to build her Su-30MKI, india has chosen french submarines. Iran has production of her T-72s her planes are being produced herself. Chinas last contracts have all but finished. Her sovernys, J-11 Kilos have finished there contracts and china has been working on indeniousing her J-11 fleet and he own indegenious production. The next generation fighter china is developing is going to be buit in china not russia. What other cotacts will russia get?

T-90 was elevauted by finnish army also

I dont get your last bit

Yuo claim that entrance of F-35 will be horrible blow to Russian export sales, but i cannot follow that one either.

When the F-35 gets released what fighters get retired from service?. F-16s F-18 are all on the market and new Su-XX orders would get swallowed up. Simple as that. Western countries will all buy the F-35 but when that export order is done it will export to more neatral nations where the russians would have been if they had a PAK-FA. The Sus are not cheap at 40million a plane for the more capable ones wheres the F-35 has a projected 40million price tag.


Wait i'll finish this post tommorrow. and yes i didn't think forget our debate about communism. im still working on my reply

[Gollevainen]

Its not about failing export sales its about Future of russia defense
industry like my heading suggest. Its future directions and its current
projects. Now dont divert this into something different

But exports are the one that is currently keeping Russian defence industry in business.

You dont get my post. Its about russia not developing new designs but only coming out with soviet era designs. Yes you sale these boats now but what about in a few years?. More sovernys?

if you would bother to look more deeply there have been multible of new projects errupted since 1990, but only handfull of these have entered any serious planning state and even fewer have materialized. Its all about who's going to buy these ships. Currently the project 2038 SKRs are beeing built for specially russian needs. The sudden fall of the soviet system along with its doctrines and needs isent thing to deal in overnigth. Currently Russian navy has slowly begun to follow almoust identical path as the red navy did after the revolution, a decade+ of turmiol, thenslowly reproduct older desings and start new program according the changed requirements and needs. Once a global blue water navy is now focusing on littorial units like this mentioned 2038, Lada class SSKs and tht new and neat border patrol boat.

But unlike in the post-revolution era, russian defence industry hasent been wrecked by its know-how, and thats the most important factor of this topic. If the money and political will, Russian defence markets will 'go to the moon' as we say in this part of the globe... You seem to forget the latest devolpment in Russia and that Old bears days migth not be done yet...And no matter what place the still waiting to happen, stable Russia will take in world policyes, its going to need strong armed forces, and modern ones. I include myself into those who believe Russian new rise, inspite how easy it would be countered by penny facts. Westeners, including Finns cannot never fully understand and predict Russia as a abstract concept.

India has the license to build her Su-30MKI, india has chosen french submarines. Iran has production of her T-72s her planes are being produced herself. Chinas last contracts have all but finished. Her sovernys, J-11 Kilos have finished there contracts and china has been working on indeniousing her J-11 fleet and he own indegenious production. The next generation fighter china is developing is going to be buit in china not russia. What other cotacts will russia get?


you cannot expect russia solely dominate one potential market area. Its not how the global capitalism works. Some deal goes to other, some not, its byuers markets and russian industry have lots of potential market areas... Sure Russia cannot compete in same fields than west, but its not nesseserity to do so. There are always markets for its expertice and will to sell it whitout political agenda, that west has custom to do these days...
But you want next markets, i would say South America and the spreading Bolivarian revolution...And when Russia comes up whit something totally new that China hasent copyed yet, it can sell it to them so the next chinese look-alike equivalent can be born. China has still lot to do to become a equalent participant in the top devolpers of military innovations.

When the F-35 gets released what fighters get retired from service?. F-16s F-18 are all on the market and new Su-XX orders would get swallowed up. Simple as that. Western countries will all buy the F-35 but when that export order is done it will export to more neatral nations where the russians would have been if they had a PAK-FA. The Sus are not cheap at 40million a plane for the more capable ones wheres the F-35 has a projected 40million price tag.

F-16As of the European NATO, thats a fleet need of replacement, F-35 particularry and i expect that at least 25% of them finds new home in some other airforce. As for example...

Wait i'll finish this post tommorrow. and yes i didn't think forget our debate about communism. im still working on my reply
thats nice:) :cool:

[aaaditya]

You dont get my post. Its about russia not developing new designs but only coming out with soviet era designs. Yes you sale these boats now but what about in a few years?. More sovernys?

Its not about failing export sales its about Future of russia defense industry like my heading suggest. Its future directions and its current projects. Now dont divert this into something different



Yes in the last 15 years. During that time china was its number one exported getting billions of deals each year. What contracts do they have now except for licensed production and some upgrades.

India has the license to build her Su-30MKI, india has chosen french submarines. Iran has production of her T-72s her planes are being produced herself. Chinas last contracts have all but finished. Her sovernys, J-11 Kilos have finished there contracts and china has been working on indeniousing her J-11 fleet and he own indegenious production. The next generation fighter china is developing is going to be buit in china not russia. What other cotacts will russia get?



I dont get your last bit



When the F-35 gets released what fighters get retired from service?. F-16s F-18 are all on the market and new Su-XX orders would get swallowed up. Simple as that. Western countries will all buy the F-35 but when that export order is done it will export to more neatral nations where the russians would have been if they had a PAK-FA. The Sus are not cheap at 40million a plane for the more capable ones wheres the F-35 has a projected 40million price tag.


Wait i'll finish this post tommorrow. and yes i didn't think forget our debate about communism. im still working on my reply

you are wrong about one thing , india is looking at the russian amur submarines ,these will be customised to indian navy standards and will be built under tot in india by larsen and toubro and kirloskar marine engines limited at hazira in west bengal,this was stated by the indian defence minister pranab mukherjee when he visited russia in december.

india and russia have signed an agreement under which india will acquire 10 billion dollars of arms and equipments from russia in the time period of 2000-2010(this agreement has now been renewed).

under the earlier agreement india recently placed orders for 3 more stealth warships from russia in a deal worth 1 billion dollars and for 2 regiments of smerch rocket launchers.

india has also commited itself to joint developments of a fifth generation combat aircraft with russia ,the indian air chief has submitted his requirements,india wants a single engined ,smaller version of the pakfa comparable to the jsf.

india and russia are also developing the mta.

so i see bright future for the russian defence industry post soviet union breakup.

russia has also increased and consolidated its market in africa and is now adding gulf to it.

[Vital]

While we were discussing the future, Rosoboronexport have prepared a package of $4 billion package of contracts to sell our "Junk" to Algeria. It proves that out military hardware is still popular and up to date. :p:

[tphuang]

While we were discussing the future, Rosoboronexport have prepared a package of $4 billion package of contracts to sell our "Junk" to Algeria. It proves that out military hardware is still popular and up to date. :p:
well, to the poor countries, Russians' offer of advanced 4th generation fighters are still very welcoming. I'm sure Algeria can't afford the price tags on the latest F-16s and M2Ks.

[chinawhite]

I was talking to some americans about this subject and were thinking about what the americans did after the collapse of the soviet union when those soviet scientist where left without jobs, We disscusssed the possiblity of russian scientist getting promises like a visa and good money to come to america, Paperclip two. your thinking on very different lines. Im thinking how is the russians going to compete like the Soviets did and your thinking something entirley different. What i know is that if the american goverment didn't get the russian scientist then the commerical market would have like microsoft beoing locheed martin would all have wanted those russian scientist

Here are russias former/current exporters.

China -China never wanted to import russian equipment and donest seem so in the future. Joint ventures unlikey but will build russian equipment

India-India wants a joint venture or russian technology. Have their own technology pool and wanting to produce their own equipment

Iran-Iran is building its own with production lines russian technology and technical assitance

Iraq-No brainer with this one

And other country i have mentioned is insinificant in the scheme of things. Malaysia wants 18 somthign Su-30s Vietnam wants 4. Ships are a no brainer to me since their main export destination was china and india.

But exports are the one that is currently keeping Russian defence industry in business.

Exactually my point. No exports no development. As of now exports in russia number maybe 10-20billion. Think about what was actually needed in soviet times to build her ships making RnD prioties. At the height of the cold war Soviet expeniture was 170billion for arms and RnD and a good part of this for researching new equipment. The current russian defence budget is 20billion thats just enough to keep some of the navy some of the airforce and some money left over for other things.The russians make a good deal and always have a good price. This cuts profit margins somewhat which leaves less for RnD spending. Its simple logic to figure out that if russia is getting RnD money from exports and exports fail it will not get money

Now after the fall of the soviet union what new developments actually have happened that wasn't soviet based or new commerical technology the russians aquired?. The domestic industry is the one which susutains your growth and the exports and more money generators. Other countries which brought russian equipment dont want to just import equipment it wants to make it themselves, joint ventures or just use russian technology.The russians dont have a domestic supply of buyers. the russian military have all these plans reported in the press which dont come though. i'll give you examples underneath

if you would bother to look more deeply there have been multible of new projects errupted since 1990, but only handfull of these have entered any serious planning state and even fewer have materialized.Once a global blue water navy is now focusing on littorial units like this mentioned 2038, Lada class SSKs and tht new and neat border patrol boat.

Its got nothing to do with Soviet to russian doctrime. Heres what i am stating. The ussians are building all this soviet era equipment which has not got a moderized version. All the weapons on ship the radar systesm are soviet era or soviet derived with western technology. Yes it might be a new design but they are still using old weapons. Funding covettes for your navy is not going to make a profit in which you can spend on RnD.

Yes russia is designing this covette but it has company in the likes of china, france, US, britian. all those ship building nations. Russia like i said beforehand has trouble paying its soldiers and the funds it does get are in the form of hard currency. The higher end navies of the west buy westernies and it is agaienst NATO regulations to buy russian equipment. That leaves us with the lower scale of the market place where countries like China and india have a advantage because they are not looking for the best capability but are looking for the best price. The russians on one hand accept hard currency and the other china which accepts bater trades which are more economical for a poorer nation like a african nation or a south american nation.

What ever happened to the Amur class?. One got built then got scraped? Countries that buy submarines buy them more for capability then for the cheap price tag. They usually buy the best they can get a hold of. The Amur in my opinoin doesn't fit any of the ceritas. Its not cheap its less capable and from reports i have read not that advanced either.

This is the future not the present numbers. Russia might still be a powerhouse in exporting to other nations now because other countries dont have those capabilties but when you steadly give other countries no how they will expand themselves. And combine that with lack of russian investment you ahve a situation

But unlike in the post-revolution era, russian defence industry hasent been wrecked by its know-how Russia will take in world policyes, its going to need strong armed forces, and modern ones.

I do not believe in the re-rise of russia. they are not a manufracturing society but just one where people sells there good to. eg

China buys russian resources. china makes the finished product and sells it back to russia for a larger price. With military development goes hand in hand with economic development. During the last 7 years russias economy has only risen by resources and a big piece of that is because of gold prices and the war in iraq and increasing oil pices. Its not done anything to the service sector its manufracturing sector. Ill give you a idea of how small the russian economy is. This is in nominal figures here and source is IMF

— European Union 12,865,602
1 United States 11,734,300
2 Japan 4,671,198
3 Germany 2,754,727
4 United Kingdom 2,133,019
5 France 2,046,292
6 People's Republic of China 1,830,000
7 Italy 1,680,112
8 Canada 1,092,422
9 Spain 1,041,338
10 South Korea 680,409
11 Mexico 675,254
12 India 665,071
13 Australia 618,021
14 Netherlands 607,531
15 Brazil 603,783
16 Russia 581,783

Just gives you a idea of what each nation can spend on defence

you cannot expect russia solely dominate one potential market area. Its not how the global capitalism works.

Arms trades are not dictated by market practices or capitalism:p:

Its all about polictical infuence in the region and your global reach. Even though russian equipment outperforms other equipment by some margin it still wont be selected because its russia. Its not looking about Brang for the bruck. And in the other regions they wouldn't have enough money to spend to buy new equipment. Theres only a limited pace where russia can sell its equipment. Its not the soviet era where it had its sphere of influence. It doesn't have that reach nor the money and power which came with it. The countries russia did export to were poor third world nations which couldn't afford to buy the best and did it though barter trades. Or were the pre-axis of evil countries of the evil empire like regan like to call it.

These countries like algeria or syria are extremely poor and i dont imangine them sustaining the russian growth nor do i see the government government rising defence spening by 6% a year

And when Russia comes up whit something totally new that China hasent copyed yet, it can sell it to them so the next chinese look-alike equivalent can be born. China has still lot to do to become a equalent participant in the top devolpers of military innovations.

Just like russia did during the cold war to western equipment. Well, according to my memory china was turing out more engineers than the US, Im not going to bother going though why china copied equipment beforehand but you can reason yourself in the western dominace thread.

I highly doubt china will build a russian design under license but incorpated new ideas into our own equipment. If you want you know a recent example of china actually copying russian equipment mention it now

F-16As of the European NATO, thats a fleet need of replacement, F-35 particularry and i expect that at least 25% of them finds new home in some other airforce.

So ?. Im betting the 2000 or so F-16s produced will eventually find themselves in some third world airforce.

EDIT:I want you to name the russian export destinations in the future and the potnetional buys/buyers

[chinawhite]

india is looking at the russian amur submarines

Is it me or were they rejected in favour of the scropene submarines?. Because i am 99% sure they were. 6 submarines wont be replacng the kilos because they are just coming or going to a refit to add the klud missile. So its the "ATV" rumoured akula purcahses kilos some foxtrots and now the armur submainre with full TOT?. sounds kinda full to me

india and russia have signed an agreement

That was a 30year friendship treaty which was fore a one billion a year thing. But anhow the MRCA deal with 8billion and the carrier and the T-90 in the 2000-2010 period already exceeds it quite a bit

india has also commited itself to joint developments of a fifth generation combat aircraft with russia

The smaller version is called the MCA which was ment to play the small area while the PAK-FA which is suppose to be a F-22 class aircraft is suppose to be the bigger one. like the F-22 F-35 combination

[ajaybhutani]

Is it me or were they rejected in favour of the scropene submarines?. Because i am 99% sure they were. 6 submarines wont be replacng the kilos because they are just coming or going to a refit to add the klud missile. So its the "ATV" rumoured akula purcahses kilos some foxtrots and now the armur submainre with full TOT?. sounds kinda full to me



That was a 30year friendship treaty which was fore a one billion a year thing. But anhow the MRCA deal with 8billion and the carrier and the T-90 in the 2000-2010 period already exceeds it quite a bit



The smaller version is called the MCA which was ment to play the small area while the PAK-FA which is suppose to be a F-22 class aircraft is suppose to be the bigger one. like the F-22 F-35 combination

1. T90 deal is over.. whats in line is the competitive trials between arjun and T90's. to satisfy IA that the tank is good nough.. If arjun fails again then comes the chances of more T90.. either case didnt the last purchase cover ToT?
2. the long term plan for navy for deisel submarines is to see the good of both west and east.. so scorpene, a good posiblity of upgrading U209,and again if money is left ( might be with the growin economy).. then amur.. and then good indigeneous subs with the good from them all. its about money and availability of western tech. wether we will purchase amur outright or we purchase the technology instead..
3. theses a good possibility the russia wont get the MRCA deal..but yes there are a lot of things to cover up the 1 B $ a year figure.. like smerch rockets, the new frigades( much more than a B $). does this figure include the join production too.. like brahmos ??
4. as for PAK-Fa things are getting too much speculate.. lemme speculate a big too. :D .. since airframe design of PAK-Fa is over and indians wanted to learn from scratch.. so maybe the idea of second smaller version came up... whose airframe will be funded by india completely( it could be a MCA.. but of course both this new plane and MCA wont survive together..).. and of course partial funding by india in other stuff.. i believe the radar is already funded..( the joint venture for 160 M $.. more money shud go thru that route.. )..
its a win win condition for russia.. as then it will also get a fighter it can sell outside too ..( but again like brahmos this plane can only be sold to common good firends).. while the original PAK-FA can be sold by russia to china etc .. but will they..
what i dont like is that kaveri will be dead then.. as it will only be produced for LCA.. and no more
of course this is all but a speculation..

[ajaybhutani]

I was talking to some americans about this subject and were thinking about what the americans did after the collapse of the soviet union when those soviet scientist where left without jobs, We disscusssed the possiblity of russian scientist getting promises like a visa and good money to come to america, Paperclip two. your thinking on very different lines. Im thinking how is the russians going to compete like the Soviets did and your thinking something entirley different. What i know is that if the american goverment didn't get the russian scientist then the commerical market would have like microsoft beoing locheed martin would all have wanted those russian scientist

Here are russias former/current exporters.

China -China never wanted to import russian equipment and donest seem so in the future. Joint ventures unlikey but will build russian equipment

India-India wants a joint venture or russian technology. Have their own technology pool and wanting to produce their own equipment

Iran-Iran is building its own with production lines russian technology and technical assitance

Iraq-No brainer with this one

And other country i have mentioned is insinificant in the scheme of things. Malaysia wants 18 somthign Su-30s Vietnam wants 4. Ships are a no brainer to me since their main export destination was china and india.



Exactually my point. No exports no development. As of now exports in russia number maybe 10-20billion. Think about what was actually needed in soviet times to build her ships making RnD prioties. At the height of the cold war Soviet expeniture was 170billion for arms and RnD and a good part of this for researching new equipment. The current russian defence budget is 20billion thats just enough to keep some of the navy some of the airforce and some money left over for other things.The russians make a good deal and always have a good price. This cuts profit margins somewhat which leaves less for RnD spending. Its simple logic to figure out that if russia is getting RnD money from exports and exports fail it will not get money

Now after the fall of the soviet union what new developments actually have happened that wasn't soviet based or new commerical technology the russians aquired?. The domestic industry is the one which susutains your growth and the exports and more money generators. Other countries which brought russian equipment dont want to just import equipment it wants to make it themselves, joint ventures or just use russian technology.The russians dont have a domestic supply of buyers. the russian military have all these plans reported in the press which dont come though. i'll give you examples underneath



Its got nothing to do with Soviet to russian doctrime. Heres what i am stating. The ussians are building all this soviet era equipment which has not got a moderized version. All the weapons on ship the radar systesm are soviet era or soviet derived with western technology. Yes it might be a new design but they are still using old weapons. Funding covettes for your navy is not going to make a profit in which you can spend on RnD.

Yes russia is designing this covette but it has company in the likes of china, france, US, britian. all those ship building nations. Russia like i said beforehand has trouble paying its soldiers and the funds it does get are in the form of hard currency. The higher end navies of the west buy westernies and it is agaienst NATO regulations to buy russian equipment. That leaves us with the lower scale of the market place where countries like China and india have a advantage because they are not looking for the best capability but are looking for the best price. The russians on one hand accept hard currency and the other china which accepts bater trades which are more economical for a poorer nation like a african nation or a south american nation.

What ever happened to the Amur class?. One got built then got scraped? Countries that buy submarines buy them more for capability then for the cheap price tag. They usually buy the best they can get a hold of. The Amur in my opinoin doesn't fit any of the ceritas. Its not cheap its less capable and from reports i have read not that advanced either.

This is the future not the present numbers. Russia might still be a powerhouse in exporting to other nations now because other countries dont have those capabilties but when you steadly give other countries no how they will expand themselves. And combine that with lack of russian investment you ahve a situation



I do not believe in the re-rise of russia. they are not a manufracturing society but just one where people sells there good to. eg

China buys russian resources. china makes the finished product and sells it back to russia for a larger price. With military development goes hand in hand with economic development. During the last 7 years russias economy has only risen by resources and a big piece of that is because of gold prices and the war in iraq and increasing oil pices. Its not done anything to the service sector its manufracturing sector. Ill give you a idea of how small the russian economy is. This is in nominal figures here and source is IMF

— European Union 12,865,602
1 United States 11,734,300
2 Japan 4,671,198
3 Germany 2,754,727
4 United Kingdom 2,133,019
5 France 2,046,292
6 People's Republic of China 1,830,000
7 Italy 1,680,112
8 Canada 1,092,422
9 Spain 1,041,338
10 South Korea 680,409
11 Mexico 675,254
12 India 665,071
13 Australia 618,021
14 Netherlands 607,531
15 Brazil 603,783
16 Russia 581,783

Just gives you a idea of what each nation can spend on defence



Arms trades are not dictated by market practices or capitalism:p:

Its all about polictical infuence in the region and your global reach. Even though russian equipment outperforms other equipment by some margin it still wont be selected because its russia. Its not looking about Brang for the bruck. And in the other regions they wouldn't have enough money to spend to buy new equipment. Theres only a limited pace where russia can sell its equipment. Its not the soviet era where it had its sphere of influence. It doesn't have that reach nor the money and power which came with it. The countries russia did export to were poor third world nations which couldn't afford to buy the best and did it though barter trades. Or were the pre-axis of evil countries of the evil empire like regan like to call it.

These countries like algeria or syria are extremely poor and i dont imangine them sustaining the russian growth nor do i see the government government rising defence spening by 6% a year



Just like russia did during the cold war to western equipment. Well, according to my memory china was turing out more engineers than the US, Im not going to bother going though why china copied equipment beforehand but you can reason yourself in the western dominace thread.

I highly doubt china will build a russian design under license but incorpated new ideas into our own equipment. If you want you know a recent example of china actually copying russian equipment mention it now



So ?. Im betting the 2000 or so F-16s produced will eventually find themselves in some third world airforce.

EDIT:I want you to name the russian export destinations in the future and the potnetional buys/buyers
possible purchases
india more planes..( mig35), more rockets..like smerch, more ships, talwar, nuclear subs,possibly more tanks etc.
china more planes, more subs(klub and in future maybe amur), more destroyers, etc..
malaysia right now its su30MKM so good possibility for more planes in future and surely missiles etc..
cant sell to iran for the time being due to the problems around.
recently a deal was signed with an african country for 40 mig29s. with options for 20 more.
and then there are joint developments for export like brahmos, future developments in line like ultra long range missile KF172, ramjet versions of R77.. which countries like india,chian,malaysia will purhase. PAK-FA and possibly a smaller version( may or may not be as good as f22/f35 but surely will come at a lower price.).

russia's main customers are china and india and still in the naval front theres a lot that these two big economies can purchase.. and if russia can keep up pace in technology theres a lot of money flowing in in the future too.
The cold war days are over and theres no doubt that russia what it used to be.. but it still has a lot of potential as a weapons seller.

about money problem... i guess joint development is surely gonna help reduce that problem..
about the GDP figures .. please note that the figures posted by you are not current and again the are real GDP.. they dont represnt the purchasing power.. PPP figures are equally important.. where does russia stand in PPP?

[aaaditya]

Is it me or were they rejected in favour of the scropene submarines?. Because i am 99% sure they were. 6 submarines wont be replacng the kilos because they are just coming or going to a refit to add the klud missile. So its the "ATV" rumoured akula purcahses kilos some foxtrots and now the armur submainre with full TOT?. sounds kinda full to me



That was a 30year friendship treaty which was fore a one billion a year thing. But anhow the MRCA deal with 8billion and the carrier and the T-90 in the 2000-2010 period already exceeds it quite a bit



The smaller version is called the MCA which was ment to play the small area while the PAK-FA which is suppose to be a F-22 class aircraft is suppose to be the bigger one. like the F-22 F-35 combination

india's original plans were to acquire 30 submarines of a single type known as the type 75 but now it has been changed (single vendor system is no longer allowed).

india now wants to set up two submarine lines(india currently operates 3 types of submarines) of which the scorpene will be manufactured by the navy and the amur will be maufactured by the l and t and keml at hazira(the docking facilities are already set up).

the scorpene was selected as opposed to the hdw214 .

one advantage in favour of the amur is its ability to carry and fire the brahmos ,i can be customised to indian requirements with fuel cells and choice of weapons and sensors.

well if you divide 30 years by3 you get 10 years and multiply that by 1 billion dollars and you get 10 billion dollars/per decade.however the indo-russia defence agreement needs to be ratified after every 10 years period during which period the two nations also identify indian defence requirements taking into consideration the potential threats nad decide wether the weapons can be acquired outright with tot or can be jointly produced.

russia will always have firm customer in india.

recently they sold smerch rocket launchers to kuwait,and are the frontrunners to sell turkey 200 attack helicopters(the ka50 series equipped with israeli avionics and weapons),the russian inductry is most likely to grow and expand now that they are giving more attention to quality of their products and after sales service.

[aaaditya]

Is it me or were they rejected in favour of the scropene submarines?. Because i am 99% sure they were. 6 submarines wont be replacng the kilos because they are just coming or going to a refit to add the klud missile. So its the "ATV" rumoured akula purcahses kilos some foxtrots and now the armur submainre with full TOT?. sounds kinda full to me



That was a 30year friendship treaty which was fore a one billion a year thing. But anhow the MRCA deal with 8billion and the carrier and the T-90 in the 2000-2010 period already exceeds it quite a bit



The smaller version is called the MCA which was ment to play the small area while the PAK-FA which is suppose to be a F-22 class aircraft is suppose to be the bigger one. like the F-22 F-35 combination

the atv's will most probably be built at the south indian town of vizag.
so either way you see three submarine types will be available to the indian navy.

india is not purchasing the akula's but are acquiring them on lease for a 10 year period to train the crews(like they did with the charlie class) after which they would be returned to russia.

mca is a totally indigenou project being developed by the hal and ada(as a twin engined stealthy medium weight variant of the lca)intended to replace the jaguars.
the mca has nothing to do with pak-fa lite and is an independet effort by the hal and ada.

the requirements for pak-fa lite were handed over by the iaf and calls for a lighter single engine ,low cost version of either the t-50 or a mig design,russia favours the lighter ,single engine version of the existing pakfa.

[ajaybhutani]

the atv's will most probably be built at the south indian town of vizag.
so either way you see three submarine types will be available to the indian navy.

india is not purchasing the akula's but are acquiring them on lease for a 10 year period to train the crews(like they did with the charlie class) after which they would be returned to russia.

mca is a totally indigenou project being developed by the hal and ada(as a twin engined stealthy medium weight variant of the lca)intended to replace the jaguars.
the mca has nothing to do with pak-fa lite and is an independet effort by the hal and ada.

the requirements for pak-fa lite were handed over by the iaf and calls for a lighter single engine ,low cost version of either the t-50 or a mig design,russia favours the lighter ,single engine version of the existing pakfa.

there are certain things that questions that we need to ask ourselves..
1. can india support two developments PAk-FA (/lite) and MCA( i believe most of us will agree its no.)
2. economically it makes a lot of sense to make a smaller single engine version.. with most avionics shared.. but that surely hurts indegenous engine development .. if we change the engine too to a lighter version.. then its more or less a different project all together..
the main reason why russians want india in is money for PAK-Fa.So russia will expect india to invest a lot in avionics esp radar and .. since most money would have already been invested in PAK-FA airframe and engine a lot less will be needed .. its avionics where indian money can flow in faster.
The main consideration thus is are we ready to invest large amounts of money in kaveri.. ( or an engine replacing it.. as it makes more sense for india to have the new engine capable of being fitted in LCA too. )...or go for single AL41 engine....
its all about how much money we have.. the russians wont mind another engine if they dont have to invest in it..

[ajaybhutani]

Russia & Algeria Nearing $4+ Bn Arms Deal

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/02/russia-algeria-nearing-4-bn-arms-deal/index.php

that surely comes in as a good sign for Russian Defence Industry.

[Gollevainen]

Exactually my point. No exports no development. As of now exports in russia number maybe 10-20billion. Think about what was actually needed in soviet times to build her ships making RnD prioties. At the height of the cold war Soviet expeniture was 170billion for arms and RnD and a good part of this for researching new equipment. The current russian defence budget is 20billion thats just enough to keep some of the navy some of the airforce and some money left over for other things.The russians make a good deal and always have a good price. This cuts profit margins somewhat which leaves less for RnD spending. Its simple logic to figure out that if russia is getting RnD money from exports and exports fail it will not get money

But In Soviet ages the military build up was totally incomprehensive, it was too much to any economy to take, I think Russia will eventually balance up in the similar levels than Biggest EU members...

Now after the fall of the soviet union what new developments actually have happened that wasn't soviet based or new commerical technology the russians aquired?.

Lots of them, its not my burden to give examples. Many of them are desings still in desing board in Soviet days but now have envolped into reality, and still remain best of their shop in the whole world, eq S-400, Club...

This claim of western based technology in modern Russian systems, I would like to hear more....

The domestic industry is the one which susutains your growth and the exports and more money generators. Other countries which brought russian equipment dont want to just import equipment it wants to make it themselves, joint ventures or just use russian technology.The russians dont have a domestic supply of buyers. the russian military have all these plans reported in the press which dont come though. i'll give you examples underneath

Like I said, i beleive in Russian rising to some sort of balance, idications of it are already in the air, then the domestic need rises and the industry will boost up. In the end this guestion is pretty much related to Russian state in general.



Its got nothing to do with Soviet to russian doctrime. Heres what i am stating. The ussians are building all this soviet era equipment which has not got a moderized version. All the weapons on ship the radar systesm are soviet era or soviet derived with western technology. Yes it might be a new design but they are still using old weapons. Funding covettes for your navy is not going to make a profit in which you can spend on RnD.

The 2038 is completely new desing, tailor made for new russian requirments and whit NEW weapons not aviable in the Soviet days. Youre totally ignoring its importance...

Yes russia is designing this covette but it has company in the likes of china, france, US, britian. all those ship building nations. Russia like i said beforehand has trouble paying its soldiers and the funds it does get are in the form of hard currency. The higher end navies of the west buy westernies and it is agaienst NATO regulations to buy russian equipment. That leaves us with the lower scale of the market place where countries like China and india have a advantage because they are not looking for the best capability but are looking for the best price. The russians on one hand accept hard currency and the other china which accepts bater trades which are more economical for a poorer nation like a african nation or a south american nation.

In export field that exavctly is a good thing for russian current capasity and unlike yuo think, this field will become wider, as new third-world nations evolp into better economyes but still anti-western.

What ever happened to the Amur class?. One got built then got scraped? Countries that buy submarines buy them more for capability then for the cheap price tag. They usually buy the best they can get a hold of. The Amur in my opinoin doesn't fit any of the ceritas. Its not cheap its less capable and from reports i have read not that advanced either.

Amur was launched last year or year before and its currently serving in Baltic fleet. I would like to see your prooves that it lacks in the capapilityes as I have heard totally opposite.

This is the future not the present numbers. Russia might still be a powerhouse in exporting to other nations now because other countries dont have those capabilties but when you steadly give other countries no how they will expand themselves. And combine that with lack of russian investment you ahve a situation

But other markets will rose or Russian economyes will evolp into better this is a thread anout futre am I rigth?

I do not believe in the re-rise of russia. they are not a manufracturing society but just one where people sells there good to. eg

well basicly that makes this whole deapte useless, dont you think? You want to beleive so and thus the facts migth seem easily fitting to that thinking, but its not the case. Maybe we should focus on more of russian general political situation before we can jump into conclusions by little practical examples?

China buys russian resources. china makes the finished product and sells it back to russia for a larger price. With military development goes hand in hand with economic development. During the last 7 years russias economy has only risen by resources and a big piece of that is because of gold prices and the war in iraq and increasing oil pices. Its not done anything to the service sector its manufracturing sector. Ill give you a idea of how small the russian economy is. This is in nominal figures here and source is IMF

— European Union 12,865,602
1 United States 11,734,300
2 Japan 4,671,198
3 Germany 2,754,727
4 United Kingdom 2,133,019
5 France 2,046,292
6 People's Republic of China 1,830,000
7 Italy 1,680,112
8 Canada 1,092,422
9 Spain 1,041,338
10 South Korea 680,409
11 Mexico 675,254
12 India 665,071
13 Australia 618,021
14 Netherlands 607,531
15 Brazil 603,783
16 Russia 581,783

Just gives you a idea of what each nation can spend on defence

but then again the idea is that how russian defence industry finds it place in the cahnged requirments. And how well the Russian economy can devolp. Why dont you dig up numbers of those countryes economical growth rates (and that table there doesent tell me shit before you add some info about what those numbers are, are they GDP figures, trade?? As a hint, just name of the country and some irrelevant numbers doesent make you look smart)

Just like russia did during the cold war to western equipment. Well, according to my memory china was turing out more engineers than the US, Im not going to bother going though why china copied equipment beforehand but you can reason yourself in the western dominace thread.
Soviets migth have done so also, who cares. I remain in my position that China cannot be par whit the others when the next generations appears. Its not related to level of graduated engineers. Its more complex issue, mostly related to acceptance of innovation if you want to relate it to single matters.

I highly doubt china will build a russian design under license but incorpated new ideas into our own equipment. If you want you know a recent example of china actually copying russian equipment mention it now

Well figure out yourselve some new chinese military equipment that is totally indegenious and basis for only domestic weapond evolution in its desings, and You get my answer there.

China is growing, yes i understand that and Im almoust obligated to beleive so due my role in sinodefence, but No one can deny that past misschieves are still aburden to Chinise military build up, expecially when it comes to domestic production evolpment. Thatswhy solely i believe that China cannot be par whit others in devolping next generations of military hard-ware.

And there Russians triumph, that evolpment chain isent totally destructed



I want you to name the russian export destinations in the future and the potnetional buys/buyers

Just my honest obinion?

1.South America, all the states following Venezuelas path. The area is poor, but potential, as long as the nations can devolp out from the opressed role of cheap labor into truely domestical market area. Chavez is the key as well as the dude taking Castro's position after his death.

2. Indonesia, Burma, Vietnam, Bangladesh, all asian smaller economyes whit out deep commitmences to other supplyers. And basicly all thats rising.

3. Iran&middle east. There is always strong anti-western attitude and factor present, Who knows what forms it gains when Saudis finally kick out Americans away.

4. Old customers, India and China, thougth not so strongly dependaple but not all areas they can be selfinsuficient. Also there is the prospects of Shanghai co-operation pact and its evolpment into full scale military alligment. It will bring commitments to will support Russian weapon industryes.

5. Domestic need. Russia hassupraisingly well recovered from its fall, and now slovly they have hit the bottom (or are about to hit it) and slowly beguns to rise. Your glooming ideas of Russian extinction isent just biting me...

6. And when the levee breaks and US/EU will tremple and fall as all hegemonies have done, the sky is only limit.

[chinawhite]

the scorpene will be manufactured by the navy and the amur will be maufactured by the l and t and keml at hazira(the docking facilities are already set up).

Do you have confirmation about this?. Indians do spread a lot of rumours like ATV Akula submainres backfires and at one time Mig-1.42 production as reported by a indian newspaper in 2003. Is this confirmed about the Amur submainres or is this just forum chit chat?. Because the last word i heard was about the russian amur getting trashed for bad build quailty. that is the first one built.

India has about 10kilo submainres which are going/coming back from a moderization which allows them to fire Klub missiles which are more effective on a submainres considering its size

i can be customised to indian requirements with fuel cells and choice of weapons and sensors.

In reailty it would probaly have western sensors and western fuel cell, plus the option of russia willing to give india the source codes for launching the missile from the scropene submainre. The amur comes at a disadvatnage because of its extremely small size. One amur could hold about 10maximum brahmos missiles(this is just off my head) but it wouldn't be a patrol submainre but be limited to the coast

recently they sold smerch rocket launchers to kuwait,and are the frontrunners to sell turkey 200 attack helicopters

Highly unlikey that russia would win simply because turkey is a US ally and uses US only equipment. Also the T-80U was entered in a tank competition and lost not because it was less capable or expensive but because of polictics just like how the F-15 was chosen over the EF and rafale in singapore because it was againest polictics.

The smerch is the BM-30 which is a MLRS which is cheap compared to otehr ground equipent like tanks. This is true because the BM-30 surpasses the west in sheer weight of rocket power and at a relativly cheap price compared to their western counterparts. No big lost there seeing as how the rusians have never been in the lucrative middle eastern buiness where big is beautiful

the atv's will most probably be built at the south indian town of vizag. india is not purchasing the akula's but are acquiring them on lease for a 10 year period to train the crews

Well the fabled ATV is nothing more than a rumour as of now. On forum chit chat its just the akula II made in india. check BR for that. I do understand that it is for leasing but i would imagine training in russia would be better than having your own akulas unless they were akulas. Do you have any informatio on the ATV that would be useful, i got all the information from global and BR but anything different?

mca is a totally indigenou project being developed by the hal and ada(as a twin engined stealthy medium weight variant of the lca)intended to replace the jaguars.

Repalce jaguars with this?. I have seen the pre-designs of this posted by harrison and no way will this be intended as a first role ground attack aircraft. Firstly its two small its suppose to be one crew and its a delta wing aircraft. A delta is completey unmanuverble at low speeds and espically at low altitudes. While if the MCA is just a enlarged LCA it will be small to carry a decent payload

russia favours the lighter ,single engine version of the existing pakfa.

Unlikey. russia rejected project 33 and a verision of the Su-47 simply because they were one engined. Its about reliability of the aircraft that matters to them. thats why the Mig-29 isn't a single engined plane thats why the Su-27 isn't a singled engined plane

[ajaybhutani]

Unlikey. russia rejected project 33 and a verision of the Su-47 simply because they were one engined. Its about reliability of the aircraft that matters to them. thats why the Mig-29 isn't a single engined plane thats why the Su-27 isn't a singled engined plane
thats because the russians were engines were known to wear and tear faster.. they had compromised engine life for thrust.. so with increased probability for engine failure it makes more sense to have a a twin engined jet as that can save the plane.. easily..

[chinawhite]

But In Soviet ages the military build up was totally incomprehensive, it was too much to any economy to take, I think Russia will eventually balance up in the similar levels than Biggest EU members...

The soviet economy was growing faster ad was alot larger than the current russian economy. Right now it sells cheap oil and gas for influence in central asia and the recent crsis between unkranie and russia were over gas prices. In the soviet era development would come with cost. without money(like the current situation) there is no innovation. I believe in what JFK said. not exact quote "It will work if theres enough money". thats not it but the general idea is clear. the Soviet spent likes say 100billion on military RnD and it led to breakthoughs because every idea that could be made into a weapon was amde into a weapon. now the russians dont have that luxury to experiemnet and thats why there are lack of innovation

Lots of them, its not my burden to give examples. Many of them are desings still in desing board in Soviet days but now have envolped into reality, and still remain best of their shop in the whole world, eq S-400, Club

The Klub is a remodeled shipwreak and the S-400 is a S-300 with a different motor and a fire control system. This just proves my point exactly. These are branded as new objects but derived from soviet era weapons. The Klub has so many names fro marketing its not funny. The new planes russia has made are just revamped soviet designs. Su-35 are soviet TVC is also soviet

This claim of western based technology in modern Russian systems, I would like to hear more.

Firstly the MFD were western imports and at the time russia did not have this technology. And theres processing pwoer to pwoer this new soviet desgins. The chip on the R-37 was derived from a old style pentium chip which i was told came from germany to russia. Im not sure the state of soviet era electrics but it was sure vacum technology on the Mig-25


The 2038 is completely new desing, tailor made for new russian requirments and whit NEW weapons not aviable in the Soviet days. Youre totally ignoring its importance...

Klub has already been mentioned and the Kh-35 is a soviet era weapon. I would also imagine that the engine technology is also russian derived. I didn't ignore anything

as new third-world nations evolp into better economyes but still anti-western.

Not every third world nation hates america. During the cld war america inlfuenced alot more third world countries than russia. Its just because russias allies were the bad boys in the western world

Amur was launched last year or year before and its currently serving in Baltic fleet. I would like to see your prooves that it lacks in the capapilityes as I have heard totally opposite.

I am sure someone made a quite convincing post why the Amur was not in service. Im still wondering this since i have not red reports of it being in service before. In capabilites yes. Being a small submainre can only hold a limited amount of missiels and fuel. This comment was for the indians purchase because of their need for a Fleet submainre for long endurance patrols and a Amur offers little capabilty in that matter

Maybe we should focus on more of russian general political situation before we can jump into conclusions by little practical examples?

Id rather focus on the figures and not get into russian polictics but the general direction of the russian economy and thier growth areas and potentioal growth. You dont need to understnad polictics for that one


As a hint, just name of the country and some irrelevant numbers doesent make you look smart

neither does giving finnish examples.:rolleyes: . If you do the maths a economy growing at 2-3% and is about 4-5 times larger and one growing at 6 % it is going to take ages for this to come back on par espically since the gigger economy does not stall


I remain in my position that China cannot be par whit the others when the next generations appears. Its not related to level of graduated engineers. Its more complex issue, mostly related to acceptance of innovation if you want to relate it to single matters.

But with funding comes innovatoin. chinese engineers had all these wonderful plans in the 60s 70s 80s unitl now how to design future aircraft but were limited by risk and money thats why no inovation occured. Just look at the J-9 fighter the chinese tank with a engine in the front. There was no lack of inovation but lack of will and funding. wheres soviet engineers had the luxury of pursuing their dreams to make weapons and also the americans


Thatswhy solely i believe that China cannot be par whit others in devolping next generations of military hard-ware.

You have to figure out the conditions chinese engineers were under when they designed the equipment. less risk apporch on a proven platform.

And your opinoin i will get to tommorrow since its nearing mid-night now

[Gollevainen]

The soviet economy was growing faster ad was alot larger than the current russian economy. Right now it sells cheap oil and gas for influence in central asia and the recent crsis between unkranie and russia were over gas prices. In the soviet era development would come with cost. without money(like the current situation) there is no innovation. I believe in what JFK said. not exact quote "It will work if theres enough money". thats not it but the general idea is clear. the Soviet spent likes say 100billion on military RnD and it led to breakthoughs because every idea that could be made into a weapon was amde into a weapon. now the russians dont have that luxury to experiemnet and thats why there are lack of innovation