Future of Russian Military

[Wall83]

Russia has anounched big planes to rearm its armedforces with new modern hardware by 2015. 58 Su-34 strikefighters, the new Su-35BM, 3-4 Tu-160 tactical bombers, the new T-95 mainbattletank, 69 new topol-m ICBMs, 3-4 955 Borei class submarines a number of new frigates, a number of convential submarines and the fifth generation Sukhoi PAK FA/ Tu-50 fighter, all this will have entered service with the russian armed forces by 2015.

Now should we relly belive this? It have taken Russia 12 years to get one Borei class submarine to its first seatrail and it still doesnt have its new Bulava missiles. The Topol-m ICBMs are not entering service in any great number, actually the SS-25 missile entered service alot faster in bigger numbers in the 1990s then the SS-27 are now. From 1997-2003 about 35 ICBM missiles was put on active duty, but between 2003 and 2007 only about 15 has been activated. The new PAK FA fighter first flight are continuing to be pushed forward year after year and the T-90 tank is still being produced in very low numbers in waiting for the new T-95 tank that still havent been heard or seen of (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,562073-2,00.html). Also only a handfull of new Su-34 has been given to the russian airforce in the last year and no new ones have been produced in 2008 so far.
Is the rearment of russia just a political theater to make Russia look bigger than what it relly is?

[Jon K]

Is the rearment of russia just a political theater to make Russia look bigger than what it relly is?

In short: yes. If you look at the operational numbers (not only from Der Spiegel piece) they're really small. As far as the budget goes, it's almost good going for a medium power like Italy, France, Germany or UK, but not good for a country which is trying to look like a great power of India-China -league. And when one tries to run larger armed forces than possible with a budget problems ensue, like in Russian case.

Correcting the path of destruction the Russian armed forces are going would demand drastic action, it seems unlikely but we have to remember that it's Russia, which has seen astonishing changes in it's armed forces in short timeframe during centuries. (eg. Peter the Great, changes in 1939-1942 etc...)

[eckherl]

Well, they sure in the hell have alot of equipment that maybe old but it is still effective enough to keep everyone at bay, loads of ICBMs surely will keep people from pissing in your yard. ICBMs + OIL + Natural Gas = security and time for them to decide what they want to do.

[Wall83]

Its suprising that Russia cant produce more than it has, if you compare with China Russia is far behind. Since the year 2000 China has commissioned about 15 hevy destoyers and fregates, russia none. China has produced and bought 200-300 planes to its air force the last 10 years, Russia about 20. Submarines in the last 10 years, China: ~30. Russia: ~5.
I would think that russia wont have much of a armed force after 2020, most likley not bigger then a medium sized european country.

[ROCK45]

I found it strange that India & China have more advance Flankers then the country that makes them. Like eckherl said having the loads of ICBMs is keeping others at bay. It's one of those things that you just assume they have hundreds of advance fighters and tanks but it's not the case. Russia has tons of oil and natural gas so maybe things will change?

[Jon K]

I would think that russia wont have much of a armed force after 2020, most likley not bigger then a medium sized european country.

That's likely, but given historic Russian preference for large numbers I would not be surprised if forces were to be quite strong numerically. The real question is, of course, future Russian strategic alignment. Will it ally with US and EU (or either) or China? This will also largely direct strategic alignment of Russian forces.

[Wall83]

That's likely, but given historic Russian preference for large numbers I would not be surprised if forces were to be quite strong numerically.

That might bee but so far that has yet to happend. And thats relly what is so strange, for the russian military budget is not that small. Not at all like old Sovietunion but still, with current budget they should be able to pruduce more then what they are doing. Its almost like they are pumping money but nothing is coming out of it. I mean 20 fighters in 10 years? Countrys like North Korea or Thailand can do better then that.

[Feanor]

The situation is not as simple as the numbers suggest. I would stay away from both extreme sides of the argument. I don't think the Russian Army will disappear by 2020. I also don't think it will be a super power by 2020 (as Mr. Putin would have us believe). The truth is that the Russian defense industry was seriously damaged by the collapse and ensuing "market economy". The result is that few Russian defense plants are capable of producing the needed weapons. Injections of money cause minor increases in production, some investment, and lots of inflation.

Now as for the numbers: no serial production runs for the VVS have been done. Serial modernizations have been in the process for some time. Tank production has not been going on for 7 years, it has been going on since 2004. In 2004 and 2005 Russian got a single tank battallion in 2 years. 1 mroe battallion came in 2006, and another in 2007. Two more are due this year. This is a definite increase in production numbers, and a rather dramatic one. The question is whether the trend will continue? Time will tell. About the nuclear arsenal. The reason that Russia managed to preserve the nuclear arsenal during the 90's is because most of it still had enough life left in it. However by now most of it is past it's service life. This is why so much of it is being removed so quickly. Now as for new production, the author intentionally ignores the growth rate of production. 2007 was an absolute post-Soviet record year for nuclear weapon production with 17 missiles, most of them SLBM Sineva R-29RMU missiles. Another important thing that's being ignored is the sharp increase in training that the Russian military and airforce has seen, including a sharp rise in flight hours.

The conclusion is pretty much this, Russia is pulling itself out of a huge slump in military capabilities. As a result many negative inertial trends will continue. However if the current growth trends continue the Russian military may just pull itself out of this slump within the next couple of decades.

[Jon K]

That might bee but so far that has yet to happend. And thats relly what is so strange, for the russian military budget is not that small. Not at all like old Sovietunion but still, with current budget they should be able to pruduce more then what they are doing. Its almost like they are pumping money but nothing is coming out of it. I mean 20 fighters in 10 years? Countrys like North Korea or Thailand can do better then that.

Yes, it's something unbelievable. Basically it seems that Russian military is striving to maintain all capabilities of Soviet Union, in terms of personnel, military industrial complex etc. Maintenance cost of the show is so large that almost no real results occur.

[Wall83]

Well lets just take a look what will be left of the russian forces by 2020.
In the airforce about 80 procent of the SU-24, Su-25, MiG-29 and Su-27 will have been ritired. The Tu-160, Tu-95 and Tu-22M will problebly still be in service but in redused numbers. The Mi-24 Hind chopper will be on its last legs and the IL-76 transport will have started to reach its last years in service.
In the army the two main battletanks T-72 and T-80 will probebly still stand for 75% of the total number of tanks, seriously outmodern in comparenment with the lastest western MBTs.
The russian navy will problebly have zero numbers of cruisers, the admiral kuznetsov will still be the only aircraft carrier in service, no more then 10 destroyers will be running and a few new frigates may have joined the fleets.
The SSBN fleet will at most consist of 4-6 borei class submarines and about 8-10 SSNs will be in service along with 10-15 dieselsubmarines consisting of old kilos and some ladas.
The rocked force will have scrapt all of its SS-18 missiles and 80-90 procent of the SS-25 mobile missile systems. SS-19 will in its last service years with no more then 30-40 missiles still in active duty. SS-27 will have reached around 100 and maybe some RS-24s will have entered service, 20-30 at most.

[f-22fan12]

Yes, it's something unbelievable. Basically it seems that Russian military is striving to maintain all capabilities of Soviet Union, in terms of personnel, military industrial complex etc. Maintenance cost of the show is so large that almost no real results occur.

Russia will never again be able to achieve what the Soviet Union achieved. When the Soviet Union collapsed, it had a population of over 240 million people. Today, Russia's population is only 140 million. The Soviets had the second largest economy in the world. The Russians have an economy the size of Italy. All of this "expansion" is for political show. All one has to do is look at their track record in procuring weapons systems and you will see why Russia will not get all of that equipment by the time they have said.

[Feanor]

Well lets just take a look what will be left of the russian forces by 2020.
In the airforce about 80 procent of the SU-24, Su-25, MiG-29 and Su-27 will have been ritired. The Tu-160, Tu-95 and Tu-22M will problebly still be in service but in redused numbers. The Mi-24 Hind chopper will be on its last legs and the IL-76 transport will have started to reach its last years in service.
In the army the two main battletanks T-72 and T-80 will probebly still stand for 75% of the total number of tanks, seriously outmodern in comparenment with the lastest western MBTs.
The russian navy will problebly have zero numbers of cruisers, the admiral kuznetsov will still be the only aircraft carrier in service, no more then 10 destroyers will be running and a few new frigates may have joined the fleets.
The SSBN fleet will at most consist of 4-6 borei class submarines and about 8-10 SSNs will be in service along with 10-15 dieselsubmarines consisting of old kilos and some ladas.
The rocked force will have scrapt all of its SS-18 missiles and 80-90 procent of the SS-25 mobile missile systems. SS-19 will in its last service years with no more then 30-40 missiles still in active duty. SS-27 will have reached around 100 and maybe some RS-24s will have entered service, 20-30 at most.

Any sources for your estimates? Or did you pull all that off the top of your head? :)

EDIT: Those of us interested in keeping up with Russian defense issues, I suggest you take a closer look at the Caucus-2008 exercises. The 76th Pskov Airborne and 7th Novorossiysk Airborne. Now look at the recent violation of Georgian air space (this time open and admitted to) by VVS aircraft a few days ago. And add that with the continuing pressure and provocations on the Georgian side of the border. The place is ready to light up like a Christmas tree.

[Wall83]

Any sources for your estimates? Or did you pull all that off the top of your head? :)

Just read info anywhere on the web and you tell me.

[Feanor]

Again I'm asking you for sources for your estimates. Do you have any? Please share them with us. Also those of us that read Russian please read this article and tell me if I'm hallucinating?

http://arms-expo.ru/site.xp/049057054050124051049049053.html

Did I misunderstand something or does it say that 40 tank, 97 motor-rifle, and 50 airborne batallions are to be re-armed in 2009?

[nevidimka]

Btw, Do anyone know the amount of defence spending that Soviet Union had during its heydays? The highest it spent?

I believe this year Russian military spending is at 35Billion.

And like some1 said, it looks like nothing much is coming out of the product line, even though massive amounts are being spent.


And its crucial for Russia to bring back its military to a powerfull state if it wants to keep itself as a single country, as the wolf is out there waiting.

[Waylander]

The wolf?
Who is this wolf which is threatening Russia's territory to any degree?

[Feanor]

Btw, Do anyone know the amount of defence spending that Soviet Union had during its heydays? The highest it spent?

I believe this year Russian military spending is at 35Billion.

And like some1 said, it looks like nothing much is coming out of the product line, even though massive amounts are being spent.


And its crucial for Russia to bring back its military to a powerfull state if it wants to keep itself as a single country, as the wolf is out there waiting.

The military budget for this year reached 36.9 billion. Entering service this year are 4 sets of BTR's (whether 80 or 90 I still don't know), 2 sets of T-90's, 1 set of BMP-3's. With the air force things are a little more fuzzy. Second regiment of Su-27's will complete SM modernization this fall (iirc September). Some Su-25 may end up modernized to SM. Some Su-24 may end up modernized to M2. Sukhoi mentioned 10 Su-34's currently undergoing assembly at NAPO. Possibly another Tu-160M produced, with another 1-2 Tu-160M's to be modernized. Continuing production of Mi-28 and Ka-50 and Ka-52, though numbers are unclear. In 2007 two Mi-28's were handed over to the army for active duty service. Possible production of the Ansat light training helicopter, and first serial run of the Yak-130 trainer.

[Eeshaan]

The wolf?
Who is this wolf which is threatening Russia's territory to any degree?

I think he's talking about NATO/EU/USA :p:

By the way, a vast amount of natural resources i.e. oil, natural gas etc., a growing economy and a large, somewhat obsolete military eager for modernization : this is how you could sum up the current situation in Russia. Russia can definitely boast about it's military growth right now, given it's current position. We can expect further claims on increasing it's military capabilities in future, followed by some muscle-flexing, as it seems like Russia will be able to achieve it's targets in the next few decades.

Although currently, Russia is in a very comfortable position and does not need to feel threatened at all by any other nation. The old bear's fangs and claws are still quite sharp, though not as sharp as 2-3 decades ago :vamp

[flyer19999]

The cold war is over. Russia has the beginnings of a lot of exciting and new weapon systems. Probably only a few will become operational and enter production but that should be enough. There main goal is like any other country and that is not to be caught by surprise.

[Wall83]

Btw, Do anyone know the amount of defence spending that Soviet Union had during its heydays? The highest it spent?

I believe this year Russian military spending is at 35Billion.

In 1988 the official Soviet military budget was 21 bilion ruble or 33 bilion dollars. However that figure was only on operations and maintenance costs and western experts belived that the actualy figure was at least ten times higher. So about 330-350 bilion dollars.
The US military budget in 1988 was 426,4 bilion dollars.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm

[Feanor]

How about in PPP to modern dollars? Anyone here an econ major to translate that for us?

[DarthAmerica]

The wolf?
Who is this wolf which is threatening Russia's territory to any degree?

The United States, NATO, PRC and Japan are all in that category and have military forces that can act on it. An indication of how threatened Russia feels by this would be that the Russians have been openly hinting of a presence in the Western Hemisphere. That is a huge strategic geopolitical no no that the Russians are all too familiar with. Russians historically only act out this way when they perceive a threat.

The Russians are watching as NATO and the EU gooble up it's neighbors in the south and west through diplomatic maneuvers while China reaches great power status to the east. More worrisome than U.S. Troops within driving distance of Russia proper is the erosion of Russia's only credible defense against a nuclear power.

The United States is building a missile shield with all the components necessary to lay the foundation for what would have been called "Star Wars" in the 1980's. Right now BMD sites are mostly fixed, few and only capable of dealing with limited threats. It won't stay that way for long nor will it be limited to missile defense. The United States is about to do to, and use Space the way it has done with the oceans.

Russia is starting to feel just a bit enveloped nowadays and will respond as best it can which for now is limited to Strategic bomber patrols and pressure on neighboring states where Russian ground forces could reach if necessary.

-DA

[Chrom]

How about in PPP to modern dollars? Anyone here an econ major to translate that for us? It is very hard to directly PPP due to socialistic nature of USSR - most vital services were either completely free (medicine, lodging/apartments, education, some entertainment) or so heavy subsidized it could be considered nearly free - partially tourism, sport, some kinds of food, etc.

Still, depending on computing method, 320 billions $ in 1988 ~ 700-800 billions $ now. Just keep in mind, these 320 billions which allegedly USSR spend in 1988 is also very doubtful figure, most likely having little touch with reality. More conservative estimation, based on actual USSR archive data, is about 5-6% of USSR GDP, or ~ 150 billions in 1985 dollars. Note, this share remains nearly unchanged since 70x, so this defeats common myth about SDI program affecting USSR defense spending.

However, to this figure we should add some "reserve" and "double-purpose" civilian facilities which produced civilian good but were build with "military mobilization" possibility in mind. This of course negatively affected they economical effectivity. This is gray and almost completely unresearched USSR fenomen.

[nevidimka]

It is very hard to directly PPP due to socialistic nature of USSR - most vital services were either completely free (medicine, lodging/apartments, education, some entertainment) or so heavy subsidized it could be considered nearly free - partially tourism, sport, some kinds of food, etc.

Still, depending on computing method, 320 billions $ in 1988 ~ 700-800 billions $ now. Just keep in mind, these 320 billions which allegedly USSR spend in 1988 is also very doubtful figure, most likely having little touch with reality. More conservative estimation, based on actual USSR archive data, is about 5-6% of USSR GDP, or ~ 150 billions in 1985 dollars. Note, this share remains nearly unchanged since 70x, so this defeats common myth about SDI program affecting USSR defense spending.

However, to this figure we should add some "reserve" and "double-purpose" civilian facilities which produced civilian good but were build with "military mobilization" possibility in mind. This of course negatively affected they economical effectivity. This is gray and almost completely unresearched USSR fenomen.


5-6% of USSR GDP? I thought it was more like 20-23% of USSR GDP?
And based on ur estimate that would be USSR's ~150 billions to US ~425 BIllion? That doesnt make sense.

[Chrom]

5-6% of USSR GDP? I thought it was more like 20-23% of USSR GDP?
Are you joking? It was one of usual propaganda myths. Now researchers have actual archive data and have pretty good estimation of USSR GDP and defense spending. Also keep in mind, USSR / US GDP per capita and living standard index were constantly improving from 40x to 80x - i.e. USSR slowly catched up rich West. On average, in 80x USSR citizens already lived better than "2nd-grade" West countries like Italy or Spain.

But keep in mind - as i said, we should add "hidden" upkeep cost in form of "reserve", "double purpose" and "mobilization" facilities, buildings, research programs, etc. As i said, this reduced they effectivity in civilian life. This need much more complete research, and in fact we may well find what USSR really spend as much as another 5-10% GDP on that - i.e. up to 10-15% GDP overall.

Still, this kind of "double purpose" facilities or "national security" affected buildings/processes/business/etc. take a hefty share (not reflected in military budget) of GDP in any country, so it is hard to say how much economical overhead for national security reason USSR had additional compared to other countries.


And based on ur estimate that would be USSR's ~150 billions to US ~425 BIllion? That doesnt make sense.

Why not? Remember - compared to America USSR was still pretty poor, and USSR engineers always prioritized very practical and cost effective approach.

P.S. To give you an idea what means 25% GDP for military purposes:

North Korea is believed to spend 20-25% GDP on military. By that, NK have 20% of ALL 17-54 age mens in army.

[nevidimka]

Adding to that, its much more cheaper to to R&D and produce something in USSR than it is in the west.

And MY GOD!!.. if the PPP is correct, Russia has to spend ~700-800 Billion on Defence in todays money to keep the Soviet Era Military capability? H** S***.

But Even the US is spending 600+ million on defence, and considering its much more cheaper in Russia than in US, does it mean there is a slowdown on defence spending by the US?

Hence had the Soviet Union survived to this day, the US military spending would have breached $1 Trillion!!

[Chrom]

Adding to that, its much more cheaper to to R&D and produce something in USSR than it is in the west.

And MY GOD!!.. if the PPP is correct, Russia has to spend ~700-800 Billion on Defence in todays money to keep the Soviet Era Military capability? H** S***.
Pretty much yes. Of course, 700-800 billions in PPP, that means 300-400 billions in natural $$.

But Even the US is spending 600+ million on defence, and considering its much more cheaper in Russia than in US, does it mean there is a slowdown on defence spending by the US?
Yes. After cold war, America dramatically reduced defense spending. Iraq war and corresponding "war against terror" greatly raised military spending again, although probably still not up to cold war level.

Hence had the Soviet Union survived to this day, the US military spending would have breached $1 Trillion!!
Why not? US already spend obsense amount of money on "national security" on the matters which were unthinkable even 10 years ago. Like checking everyone in airports for 3-inch scissors, confiscating electronic media from everyone on border, telephone tapping and spying on own citizens without court decision - all this currently do not add on military budget, but in fact nearly serve same purpose of national security.

Often these things are not reflected in any state budget, but still in fact burdens economic - like already mentioned airport checking.

[Feanor]

It's still cheaper then having another couple of skyscrapers downed.

[Chrom]

It's still cheaper then having another couple of skyscrapers downed.

Doubt so. We shouldnt underestimate the economic burdens of such laws and government behavior. Generally, i have strong suspicion what recent US economic troubles take roots in that "national security" strengthing.

But the question here is not about what is cheaper. The most cheapest thing would be concentration camps a-la Hitler then.

The question here is fundamental human rights and live quality for everyone. America , over last 15 years, increasingly becoming totalitarian police state, in current form with more strict control over own citizens (nevermind foreigners) than former communist states. Right now US have more prisoners than ANYONE in the world, including such dictatorship states as China or NK. In fact, the amount of prisoners now in America is greater than was in USSR by Stalin times. America becomes something what americans always hated and opposed earlier.

Since 2001, there is officially no private live in America. Before that time, CIA and FBI also could interfere in private live without court decision - but that was illegal, and conducted at much lesser scale. Now - it is perfectly legal to spy against own citizens without court permission and even without any suspicion.

Like last mentioned marasmatic law about rights to confiscate and check electronic medians - it becomes worse and worse every year, at very rapid speed.

[Chrom]

P.S. Keep in mind, "terrorist threat" is not something new. It was always there, but somehow earlier governments managed to fight it without such human rights restrictions. Right now West moving in very, very wrong direction.

[ASFC]

GWOT is causing some of the economic problems-i.e. the massive increase in the budget deficit under Bush since 9/11.

Feanor, in cash terms it is cheaper to lose the Skyscrapers in a Terrorist attack-but the human cost is even more intolerable. And I would not call invading Iraq part of the GWOT! (But going any further is too political).

To answer the OP, Russian Defence will never be a joke-they will always have a naturally large army, and will always have their countries weather and geography on their side.

[F-15 Eagle]

The Russian military is no joke. Yes its true they are in a slump but they are trying to get out of it. I would expect Russia to be more powerful 20 years from now and maybe as powerful as the old USSR 100 years from now.

[Feanor]

GWOT is causing some of the economic problems-i.e. the massive increase in the budget deficit under Bush since 9/11.

Feanor, in cash terms it is cheaper to lose the Skyscrapers in a Terrorist attack-but the human cost is even more intolerable. And I would not call invading Iraq part of the GWOT! (But going any further is too political).

Don't forget the economic shock that followed it immediately. Cut down on travel, hysteria about terrorist attacks.

[nevidimka]

If Russia could continue on the path of economic growth it is having right now, and reduce/stop the brain drain and improve its living conditions, its military could improve a great deal in 20-30 years, and those carrier projects would be a reality.

[Chrom]

Cut down on travel, hysteria about terrorist attacks. That hysteria was exactly used (and later maintained!) by US government to tighten "national security", gain much more power, issue laws which violate human rights, attack innocent (at least in 9/11) countries, etc.

So we could well question what caused more damage - 9/11 itself or government, which used it as ground for various not pretty moves and laws.

Plus, of course, you conduct wrong logic here - you assume what there will be additional terroristic acts without that "national security" strengthening. This is of course not proven.

Generally, somewhere the line between security and human rights should be drawn. I feel right now US stepped far too far after that line.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Doubt so. We shouldnt underestimate the economic burdens of such laws and government behavior. Generally, i have strong suspicion what recent US economic troubles take roots in that "national security" strengthing.


I dont think so mate, the spending behaviour of the credit sector and lack of adequate regulation had a hell of a lot more to do with the US's financial woes than the Patriot act. In that case it was private institutions (which funnily enough it usually is in free market economies) and a lack of or bad regulation/law that allowed the sub prime morguage market to implode, not larger draconian laws. National defence spemnding had stuff all to do with it. In that case most of the spending acts as an economic stimulous because all of the money goes to americans/ US corporations.

The post 911 hysteria was the driveing factor behind legislation like the partiot act, and it is reminicent of the dark MaCarthy days (notably in the rantings of men like Bill O'riely). Time will pass and the wounds will start to heal, and (unconsititutional IMO) legislation like the patriot act will be repealed. We passed a similar act in my country (much less extreeme) which was due to the similar mood, hopefully things will change here too.

[Chrom]

I dont think so mate, the spending behaviour of the credit sector and lack of adequate regulation had a hell of a lot more to do with the US's financial woes than the Patriot act. In that case it was private institutions (which funnily enough it usually is in free market economies) and a lack of or bad regulation/law that allowed the sub prime morguage market to implode, not larger draconian laws. National defence spemnding had stuff all to do with it. In that case most of the spending acts as an economic stimulous because all of the money goes to americans/ US corporations.
Thats too, but as i said - we shouldnt underestimate economic burdens of GOAT, GW2, Patriotic act and likes. At very least they greatly amplified the "behaviour of the credit sector and lack of adequate regulation" problem.

The post 911 hysteria was the driveing factor behind legislation like the partiot act, and it is reminicent of the dark MaCarthy days (notably in the rantings of men like Bill O'riely). Time will pass and the wounds will start to heal, and (unconsititutional IMO) legislation like the patriot act will be repealed. We passed a similar act in my country (much less extreeme) which was due to the similar mood, hopefully things will change here too.
Agree. We'll see how it turns out.

[Eeshaan]

If Russia could continue on the path of economic growth it is having right now, and reduce/stop the brain drain and improve its living conditions, its military could improve a great deal in 20-30 years, and those carrier projects would be a reality.

I just saw an interview of the Indian Navy's chief yesterday, he made a very good point :

It takes about 10 years to make one state-of-the-art ship.
And it takes around 50 years to make a modern, well equipped fleet.

That shows how much Russia will need to spend to meet it's Navy's requirements in the next few decades. Also, it may take more than 50 years to get both the carrier project AND the rest of the Navy ready and modernized.

[nevidimka]

Some quick facts on the growing Russian economy:


-10 years ago, Russian economy was a 200 billion economy, this year it has crossed $1.4 trillion mark.
-Today Russia is the 8th largest economy in the world in PPP, and by the end of the year it will overtake France to become the world's 6th largest.
-Last year foreign investment surged by a factor of 2.5 touching $100 billion.

-This year the Hydrocarbon exports will bring in more than $300 billion in earnings.
To put that into perspective in the 90's russia earned around $30 billion a year, roughly the same as the Soviet Union during the peak of the oil boom in the late 70's.

Putin is putting alot of money into the economy, from the boom in the petrol dollars right now. Also Russia is investing hugely on diversifying its economy, so as not to depend on petrol dollars in the future. Infrastructure development is also receiving massive boosts in order to support its growing economy.

The Soviet union had double the population of Russia now, and it spent massive amount of money to prop up its eastern bloc and friendly country allies everywhere, but there is no more the case as there is no more Soviet Union, hence alot of cash that's being generated is being put into the country.

It looks like whatever $$$ Russia is putting into its rapidly growing economy will start showing its result in the near future. Hence its ability to bring back to life its old military power looks set on track.


Forgot to add, the figures stated above is from the "Hindu" newspaper column by a Russian Analyst, dated 4th Aug 2008.

[Feanor]

How much of our current economic growth is geniune growth and how much is just inflation? Inflation for 2008 so far has topped 10%.

EDIT: When you add money to the economy in the short run it's easier to adjust prices then to adjust production. Hence pouring money into the economy simply creates runaway inflation with only a little bit of actual production expansion. This is actually why the stabfond was created. It's not a rainy day fund like some western articles suggest, but an attempt to stem inflation and to prevent overexpansion.

[swerve]

Some quick facts on the growing Russian economy:

-10 years ago, Russian economy was a 200 billion economy, this year it has crossed $1.4 trillion mark.
-Today Russia is the 8th largest economy in the world in PPP, and by the end of the year it will overtake France to become the world's 6th largest.
-Last year foreign investment surged by a factor of 2.5 touching $100 billion.

-This year the Hydrocarbon exports will bring in more than $300 billion in earnings.
To put that into perspective in the 90's russia earned around $30 billion a year, roughly the same as the Soviet Union during the peak of the oil boom in the late 70's..
According to the World Bank (i.e. the organisation chiefly responsible for the PPP calculations others use), Russias GDP at PPP in 2007 was already 6th, behind Germany, but ahead of the UK. In billion USD -

5. Germany - 2754
6. Russia - 2088
7. UK - 2081
8. France - 2054
9. Brazil - 1834
10. Italy - 1780

The margin of error is such that in reality, we don't know which of Russia, the UK & France is top.

Most of the growth from $200 billion, or whatever it was, 10 years ago to $1290 billion (World Bank, again) in 2007 has been due to appreciation in the exchange rate, not real growth. Don't confuse them.

[Feanor]

The real growth is only starting right now, and the poor performance of the defense industry (not the few pioneers like KnAAPO or UVZ but the majority) reflects that very well. The unpleasant example is the Su-34 which "entered serial production" in 2006 but to date has only seen 2 aircraft delivered. Allegedly ten more are in assembly right now, and may be delivered this year. But then again it was reported that another one would be delivered last November.

[Wall83]

The real growth is only starting right now, and the poor performance of the defense industry (not the few pioneers like KnAAPO or UVZ but the majority) reflects that very well. The unpleasant example is the Su-34 which "entered serial production" in 2006 but to date has only seen 2 aircraft delivered. Allegedly ten more are in assembly right now, and may be delivered this year. But then again it was reported that another one would be delivered last November.

Is this because Russia dont have the money to buy more then two planes a year or is it the russian defence industry that just isnt able to build them any faster?
I meen two planes in one year and they call it "serial production"....come on.

[Jon K]

Is this because Russia dont have the money to buy more then two planes a year or is it the russian defence industry that just isnt able to build them any faster?
I meen two planes in one year and they call it "serial production"....come on.

Welcome to the Wonderland. Cost of Russian work is supposed to be smaller than that of in EU. (Of course, the result per worker is also much smaller). Compare what the 27 billion Euro budget would buy for Spain, Italy, France etc. and then look at what Russia gets. The money is flowing somewhere else than to armed forces.

[Feanor]

Welcome to the Wonderland. Cost of Russian work is supposed to be smaller than that of in EU. (Of course, the result per worker is also much smaller). Compare what the 27 billion Euro budget would buy for Spain, Italy, France etc. and then look at what Russia gets. The money is flowing somewhere else than to armed forces.

Enlighten us. Where is the money flowing? :)

[drandul]

Enlighten us. Where is the money flowing? :)
That is easy :rolleyes: generals need to have funding for new stealthy versions of personal yachts, sport cars and land in middle-terrain for small personal military bases with swimming pools and tennis courts :rolleyes:

[Jon K]

That is easy :rolleyes: generals need to have funding for new stealthy versions of personal yachts, sport cars and land in middle-terrain for small personal military bases with swimming pools and tennis courts :rolleyes:

Yes, officers need to keep fit to lead from the front. As they age, they just need more elaborate PT facilities... :D

[F-15 Eagle]

Can someone please tell me how many combat aircraft, tanks/APC, artillery, and ships and submarines Russia has? I can't find any good sources and the only one I can fins is wikipeidia and we all know how that is.

[baranek]

F-15 Eagle

Here is probably the best source about russian equipment:
www.warfare.ru
You can also take a look on globalsecurity.org
For example state of russian navy(very reliable): http://warfare.ru/?catid=243&linkid=1720

[swerve]

Can someone please tell me how many combat aircraft, tanks/APC, artillery, and ships and submarines Russia has? I can't find any good sources and the only one I can fins is wikipeidia and we all know how that is.
Perhaps Anatoliy Serdyukov . . . At least, he could order someone to find out.

Holdings west of the Urals have been declared for CFE purposes, but they exclude quite a lot of gear. Also, it's complicated by the number still in the inventory, but not operational, some of which may be reserve stocks capable of being mobilised, others stored for too long without maintenance to be usable but not yet written off. Tricky.

[kato]

Tons of equipment was moved across the Ural for CFE, just like the USA moved tons of equipment outside the CFE treaty zone in the early 90s.

[Feanor]

But it's not that hard to estimate operation equipment. We know ~how many divisions, and what their content and make up is.

Drandul I suppose you have some evidence? Russia has been increasing military spendings on a regular basis and that increase has been matched with increased training and batches (if small) of new equipment as well as an ongoing fullscale transfer to a professional army.

[drandul]

But it's not that hard to estimate operation equipment. We know ~how many divisions, and what their content and make up is.

Drandul I suppose you have some evidence? Russia has been increasing military spendings on a regular basis and that increase has been matched with increased training and batches (if small) of new equipment as well as an ongoing fullscale transfer to a professional army.
Yes- you right- at least all operational battle ships and submarines not staying all time in harbor but doing some patrols and training operations in ocean. (I can see it in my home's window- activity in military port is high). But I can see a brand new cottages and luxury cars owned by some high rank officers as well... sorry- no any documented evidences :smooth

[Feanor]

Well lets consider, Russia restarted the production line for strategic bombers, is re-arming the tank forces, and the infantry with new APCs and IFVs (albeit slowly). Switching over to a professional force (rather rapidly) and is in the middle of modernization programs for a large chunk of the air force, with new helicopters and aircraft alread having been delivered. There are more and more reports of Russina Naval taskforces activizing training activity. Russian strategic bombers have resumed patrols, and the Russian submarine force is finally receiving new boats (the latest one only a few days ago, allegedly a secret design of combined diesel and nuclear power). I don't know about high ranking officers (I'm sure corruption is rife) as I don't live there any more, but you can't deny that someone up high is trying to revitalize the armed forces.

[Jon K]

Well lets consider, Russia restarted the production line for strategic bombers, is re-arming the tank forces, and the infantry with new APCs and IFVs (albeit slowly). Switching over to a professional force (rather rapidly) and is in the middle of modernization programs for a large chunk of the air force, with new helicopters and aircraft alread having been delivered. There are more and more reports of Russina Naval taskforces activizing training activity. Russian strategic bombers have resumed patrols, and the Russian submarine force is finally receiving new boats (the latest one only a few days ago, allegedly a secret design of combined diesel and nuclear power). I don't know about high ranking officers (I'm sure corruption is rife) as I don't live there any more, but you can't deny that someone up high is trying to revitalize the armed forces.

Historically UK moved from conscription to volunteer forces within some three years, while in the US it took about same time. This was during full blow Cold War. And if you look at the acquisition programs, the numbers are really small, even quite small countries have made more purchases.

What Russia seems to lack is political will to cut off the dead flesh. Putin adminstration is mostly throwing just money after the problems.

[nevidimka]

Yes- you right- at least all operational battle ships and submarines not staying all time in harbor but doing some patrols and training operations in ocean. (I can see it in my home's window- activity in military port is high). But I can see a brand new cottages and luxury cars owned by some high rank officers as well... sorry- no any documented evidences :smooth

These corrupt military officers in possesion of luxury assets should be sacked or put in jail. The Administration must come down hard on these corrupt military mens who seems to be all over Russian defence establishment. Hopefully Putin will clean up the corruption that is sucking the military's blood from inside.

Also, the Russian Navy and aviation is gonna make another joint exercise in the Indian Ocean, after the recent Altlantic deployment success.

[startacek1]

5 Days Ago 07:46 AM
Jon K Quote:
Originally Posted by Wall83
Is this because Russia dont have the money to buy more then two planes a year or is it the russian defence industry that just isnt able to build them any faster?
I meen two planes in one year and they call it "serial production"....come on.

Welcome to the Wonderland. Cost of Russian work is supposed to be smaller than that of in EU. (Of course, the result per worker is also much smaller). Compare what the 27 billion Euro budget would buy for Spain, Italy, France etc. and then look at what Russia gets. The money is flowing somewhere else than to armed forces.
5 Days Ago 06:47 AM
Wall83 Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
The real growth is only starting right now, and the poor performance of the defense industry (not the few pioneers like KnAAPO or UVZ but the majority) reflects that very well. The unpleasant example is the Su-34 which "entered serial production" in 2006 but to date has only seen 2 aircraft delivered. Allegedly ten more are in assembly right now, and may be delivered this year. But then again it was reported that another one would be delivered last November.

Is this because Russia dont have the money to buy more then two planes a year or is it the russian defence industry that just isnt able to build them any faster?
I meen two planes in one year and they call it "serial production"....come on.
5 Days Ago 08:53 PM
Feanor The real growth is only starting right now, and the poor performance of the defense industry (not the few pioneers like KnAAPO or UVZ but the majority) reflects that very well. The unpleasant example is the Su-34 which "entered serial production" in 2006 but to date has only seen 2 aircraft delivered. Allegedly ten more are in assembly right now, and may be delivered this year. But then again it was reported that another one would be delivered last November.


How will these things stand up in the Georgia conflict? Missile production stats::confused:?

If they lost too much supply too early then their troops on ground will get shot at by the Georgians. It's been almost 1.5 weeks of prep officially so far. But their supply depots are in range of a few longer range Georgian missiles so could they take a major loss? Just in response to the reports of bombings against local oil lines, plus russian lines in Caspian could get hit.

I'm just refering to the amount of supplies the russians have, I havn't heard anything about the Georgians.

[Feanor]

What long range Georgian missiles?

[flyer19999]

Russia has the money, however there is so much corruption in the country most of the money is stolen by greedy business people. Moscow now ranks as the world's leading city with millionaries. The corruption is worst than that in the USA and elsewhere.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union crime and corruption are everywhere in Russia. There are very few checks-and-balances. If Russia could create an accounting of money practices they would have enough money for defense and some left over.

[Feanor]

The problem is that the Russian military is very large. Given current funding, the procurement that's currently happening is pretty much all that could happen. The USA has almost the same size armed forces, but spends 10 times more and is still experiencing difficulties with funds.

[Wall83]

Well the year of 2008 is coming to its end and not much has happend with the Russian armed forces.
The first Borei class submarine has finaly had its reactor started up and may, after almost 13 years in building, go to sea trails by the end of the year :D.
http://russianforces.org/blog/2008/11/yury_dolgorukys_reactor_is_on.shtml
No word about any new fighters this years (what a suprise) and the total number of new ICBMs will probaly bee around 6-8.
The latest news about the new T-95 tank is that it will be deliverd after the year 2010. The new PAK-FA stealth fighter are planed to make its first flight next years...well lets just see about that.
No new frigats, SSKs, SSNs, destroyers or cruiser has joined the forces this year.

Any comments on this?

[SkolZkiy]

For latest several years putting in service new arms is not shown as publicly as it was.
About Borey the problem was not with the sub the problem was with nave ICBMs Bulava - don't you think that it would be stupid to put on service strategic sub without ICBMs?? more then this at first Borei was being built not for Bulava but for BARK (this project was closed) and constructors had to reconfig and rebuilt sub according to new missile.
If you don't see some news in the web it doesn't mean that there nothing happens

[Wall83]

Well it depens how you look on it. China has launched atleast 2 Type-094 ssbn without having any new SLBM to arm it with.

[SkolZkiy]

May be it is right but during this years Borei was modified and if you don't know there already two Borei's in produce =) first was started in 2004 and second in 2006. they must be put in service in 2010 year =)

[Wall83]

Yes i know that two more boreis are under construction. But I dont think they will be in the water by 2010.
If they finaly get the Bulava in working order by 2009 they problably test it on the Yuiry for some time. And we should remember that they must produce 16 missiles to each submarine. So no more then one submarine a year will get a full complement of SLBMs. That meens that it will take atleast to 2011-2013 before three Boreis will be fully armed och operational.

[Feanor]

Wall83 you obviously don't pay very close attention to the Russian military. The Bulava has had a fully successful test flight, serial production of the missile has started, and there are rumors of another test flight before the end of this year. I also found an article which says that UVZ has completed their portion of the state defense order early, so that means two T-90A btlns. Skolzkiy is right though, they have been keeping increasingly quiet about defense procurement recently, this year in particular.

http://arms-tass.su/?page=article&aid=63529&cid=25

[Wall83]

Yes I know they had two launches of the Baluva in 2008. One in september that had some problems with the warheads seperation. The second in late November seems to have been a success but it problably have many test launches left before it gets put on active duty.
I have not heard anything about a serial production, and it seems very stupid to me to start production of an missile that still hasent been fully tested and have failed during fifty procents of its launches. Why build missiles that have 50/50 chance of working??

[Feanor]

Serial production has been started.

http://rian.ru/analytics/20070807/70518239.html

[Wall83]

Hm well i dont read russian that well but okey. If then the "serial" production has started over a year and a half ago they should have several dozens of missiles ready? If not that serial production is the same as the one for the Su-34, then its about two missiles a year ;).

[Feanor]

Who said anything about over a year and a half ago. Serial production has just been started this month.

[SkolZkiy]

About another test flight till the end of this - this was said by vice-primeminister Sergei Ivanov. About SU-34 there are 10 planes building right now and 3 of them were put on service OFFICIALLY. BUt as i said before NEW INFO ON PUTTING NEW ARMS IN SERVICE IS NOT PUBLISHED for last half-year =)

[nevidimka]

Huh? did I get that right? the Bulava is in production already? That after 1 Total launch success??

[harryriedl]

Huh? did I get that right? the Bulava is in production already? That after 1 Total launch success??
agree seems odd that its had such a patchy sucess rate that they have put in production. It would make sense to keep on testing it as it is primary nuke tride. You would want 100% sucess rate as you are reling on SSBN as the primary or second strike wepond you would want reliblity

[Dalregementet]

I would say a joke! The russians tries to maintain a too large army, mainly made up of antique equipment so they waste the few resources they have on old junk. Procurement of new equipment goes slow so the deterioration of the russian armed forces are accelarating. Just look at the performance in the georgian war, look how the russian soldiers behaved - undisciplined and unproffessional. The equipment was old, no night vision capability and no UAVs to just mention a few issues.

I think the russian army has lots of problems to deal with... alcohol and corruption just to mention a few.

YouTube - drunk russian soldier drives tank

[F-15 Eagle]

Wow that video is something else.:nutkick I don't understand Russian but I can picture the owners of that store mad as hell that a tank drove throw the wall.

On a side note I wounder if the record low or almost record low oil prices might have a negative impact on the modernization of the Russian Military.

[Feanor]

About another test flight till the end of this - this was said by vice-primeminister Sergei Ivanov. About SU-34 there are 10 planes building right now and 3 of them were put on service OFFICIALLY. BUt as i said before NEW INFO ON PUTTING NEW ARMS IN SERVICE IS NOT PUBLISHED for last half-year =)

Do you have a link to a source that a third Su-34 has indeed been completed? I recall reading that 10 are in assembly on rian.ru but nothing about a third one. I assumed that those ten will be added to the two currently at the Lipetsk training center to form the first squadron.

Dalregementet I agree to some extent, however there is a rather major downsizing and reformatting under way as we speak. The army will lose over 100 000 men, and will see the disbanding of all the "cadre" units.

As for Bulava serial run, time will tell.

[SkolZkiy]

damn =)) Sory guys not 3 but of course 2. wrong button =))

About reducing the size of RuA - during the last real-time interview on TV Vladimir Putin explained that nodody will br fired from service before his but they won't renew contracts with most officers who are to retire up to 2010 year and those officers who came after universities.

read this or translate
Путин: Я рассчитываю на то, что все преобразования, которые намечены и будут осуществляться в вооруженных силах, повлияют на обороноспособность, но в лучшую сторону. Будут укреплять обороноспособность государства. Ради этого все и делается.

Что касается увольнений, о которых вы сказали, никаких массовых увольнений не планируется. Более того, в 2009 году увольняться будут только те офицеры, которые выслужили соответствующие сроки службы. Это первая категория. Вторая категория - это офицеры, которые были призваны после военных кафедр по договорам на два года. И срок этих договоров истекает. Значит, что касается, что касается прапорщиков, то их просто не будут готовить вновь. Но те, кто хотят дослужить в таком качестве, имеют это право. Те, кто хотят перейти, по сути исполняя те же самые обязанности, но на гражданскую службу, а как правило это делается с повышением заработной платы, могут сделать этот выбор самостоятельно. Но, повторяю еще раз, те, кто служат в качестве прапорщиков, их никто не собирается увольнять только за то, что они прапорщики. Так что эти опасения, они лишены оснований. Если же будут появляться какие-то перегибы в этом смысле, будут появляться, всплывать вещи, которые не планировались, но возникают, то тогда мы на это будем реагировать, я даже ни на секунду не сомневаюсь.

Что касается обеспечения жильем. В течение 2010 года все офицеры должны быть обеспечены постоянным жильем, а к 2012 году, в 2012 году, все военнослужащие, вооруженные силы, будут обеспечены служебным жильем. Темп, набранный в решении этой задачи, такой, что дает нам полное основание считать, что поставленные задачи будут исполнены.

[Viktor]

I would say a joke! The russians tries to maintain a too large army, mainly made up of antique equipment so they waste the few resources they have on old junk. Procurement of new equipment goes slow so the deterioration of the russian armed forces are accelarating. Just look at the performance in the georgian war, look how the russian soldiers behaved - undisciplined and unproffessional. The equipment was old, no night vision capability and no UAVs to just mention a few issues.

I think the russian army has lots of problems to deal with... alcohol and corruption just to mention a few.

YouTube - drunk russian soldier drives tank (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaaP7bQglcU)

Have you ever ask yourself a question. How did Russia destroyed Georgian 5 years nato/israel trained army in 3 days with all that "antique" equipment as you put it. Georgia had more man, batter tanks (israeli modernized), descent amount of artilery and nice airdefence with Upgraded Russian/Ukrnian and even Izrael airdefence system all networked. So??

I dont think that modernization of army is worde than buying new equipment as you can save a lot of money in comparison with brand new equipment and still be able to maintained 20 000 tanks strong force.

[ROCK45]

We all knew how this short war would end the Georgian Armed Forces are tiny compared to Russia. I do not know who started it or who was wrong or right but the type of fighting that took place in my opinion was very 80s level.

I think Russia's Arm Forces showed they need better battle field awareness they seem to react more then have set goals.

I think Russia's battle doctrine is more Divisional based then Battalion based and I think showed in the close in fighting.

On a tactical level I think Russia could have done better. The Georgian air assets, naval assets, and strong points, should have been dealt with early on and at the same time, on a tactical level.

Viktor
Georgia had more man, batter tanks (israeli modernized), descent amount of artilery and nice airdefence with Upgraded Russian/Ukrnian and even Izrael airdefence system all networked. So??
I don't know how much of this is true "Georgia had more man" doesn't sound right to me. I don't know the level of training provided to the Georgians others here may know better. It's not like the US supplied PAC-3 and Block-52+ Vipers to them. Maybe Israel sold them some Spider SAM's I don't know but even if they did why didn't Russia take them out on a tactical level?

I'm not taking sides and don't really know started the war but military wise I think for a world power Russia should have dealt with Georgia on a tactical level better then they did, in 2008

[Feanor]

I don't recall any Israeli SAMs in Georgia. Nor was their IADS truly networked on any level. Nor were they a "NATO standards" army. However they did have the number advantage during most of the fighting. At least statements from Russian commanders are along the lines that initially the Georgians had a massive number advantage, and only towards the end of the conflict the numbers of deployed Russian troops began to match the numbers of Georgian forces.

However the Russian Army did not fight on a divisional level. This war was almost a proving ground for the new brigade concept of the Russian Army. It was fought by reinforced regimental tactical groupings (~brigade), iirc 5 of them, and superior air power. Recon and tactical cooperation between VVS and ground forces was bad, but did not have an effect on the overall outcome (other then causing some avoidable casualties).

[Viktor]

On a tactical level I think Russia could have done better. The Georgian air assets, naval assets, and strong points, should have been dealt with early on and at the same time, on a tactical level.

Yes Russia could have done batter but anything you do can allways be done batter so lets not be to critical ... in the situation where you need to react fast I think Russia menaged to eliminate threat exceptionaly fast.


I don't know how much of this is true "Georgia had more man" doesn't sound right to me.


At first about few thousand of Russians entered area ... even at the end of the war when about 10 000 Russians where in the area Georgia still had more boots on the ground (you dont actually thing whole 58th army entered battelfield against Georgia)


I don't know the level of training provided to the Georgians others here may know better. It's not like the US supplied PAC-3 and Block-52+ Vipers to them. Maybe Israel sold some Spider SAM's I don't but even if they did why didn't Russia take them out on a tactical level?


I don't recall any Israeli SAMs in Georgia

Nor was their IADS truly networked on any level

Well Ill try reading this http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/3-2008/item3/article3/

You can clearly see that Georgia operated two 36D6 radars from S-300 system, 2 Pechora-2A batteries, 3 Ukrainian BUK-M1 batteries, Osa and hundreds of other MANPADS ... and yes Israel has also sold Spyder system and you had pics and video of it around the internet. Throw no exact number is known . So I say thats a pritty decent airdefence for a small and pour country and destroying all that modern airdefence and radar systems in a 3 days is pritty impresive.

Nor were they a "NATO standards" army.

Well I dont know what NATO standards really mean but it is a fact that western ( I call them all NATO without exceptions) did train them for 5 years so standarsd or not they where trained army not some rebel scum.


Russia should have dealt with Georgia on a tactical level better then they did, in 2008

Should have send Kh-55 throw Sucky window before the war started. :vamp

[ASFC]

Well Ill try reading this http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/3-2008/item3/article3/

You can clearly see that Georgia operated two 36D6 radars from S-300 system, 2 Pechora-2A batteries, 3 Ukrainian BUK-M1 batteries, Osa and hundreds of other MANPADS ... and yes Israel has also sold Spyder system and you had pics and video of it around the internet. Throw no exact number is known . So I say thats a pritty decent airdefence for a small and pour country and destroying all that modern airdefence and radar systems in a 3 days is pritty impresive.

Well I dont know what NATO standards really mean but it is a fact that western ( I call them all NATO without exceptions) did train them for 5 years so standarsd or not they where trained army not some rebel scum.


Oh dear. It wasn't a 'pretty decent airdefence' if it was not networked properly-it is the same argument when people declare that Iran is unstoppable because they have bought a battery of S-300.

Georgia did not have a Nato/Western Standard Army-the training and aid they had received had been related to their mission in Iraq, and only trained certain parts of their army. It is wrong to say that just because Russia defeated an Army that had received barely 5 years of Nato training to certain parts (i.e. the infantry) that Russia could invade the rest of Europe and win because their win in Georgia means all Nato armies are rubbish/useless compared to Russia, because Gergia was not a member of Nato and was barely starting on the road to a Nato standard military.

[Feanor]

His claim was actually the opposite. He claimed that Russian future defense IS a joke. What I'd like to add is that the Georgian war showed that the Russian Army was beginning to transition to a modern force structure, one that is long overdue, and that it effectively implemented elements of this force structure during the war in Georgia.

[nevidimka]

Holy crap. They had all those at their disposal? Including the S 300! Do you think Russia would have certain technology advantages for themselves to circumvent their own high performance SAM's ?

Something that is not exportable?

[Waylander]

They didn't have any S-300.
They operated some radars which can also be used together with the S-300 complex.

I understand the reason behind bolstering the national pride after such a conflict and the russians forces did better than some would have believed.

BUT one should defenitely stay away from the idea that Georgia can really be seen as an example how easily Russian forces are able to overcome a modern western style NATO force.

[Viktor]

They didn't have any S-300.

Yes ... I said only radar from S-300 systems ... two 36D6.

[ROCK45]

Feanor
Russian Army was beginning to transition to a modern force structure, one that is long overdue, and that it effectively implemented elements of this force structure during the war in Georgia.

It is always easier to look back after the fact and make comments and say this should have been done or that. That said I would think that Russia's battle field awareness needs improving.

I assume some of these radar's, SAM's, Georgian Command & Control, Su-25 aircraft, Navel Command, Coastal patrol Boats, could have been targeted much earlier on using tactical assets, thus taking the fight out of the Georgians much sooner.

Russian forces using different means should have located most of these Georgia assets before the war broke out. This is an area where Russia's Armed Forces could improve a little. For example the Georgian Missile or Patrol Boats, should have been sunk in their docks, avoid the little naval battle all together. The Su-25 if all possible destroyed on the ground, thus taking away one of your enemies ways or reaching out and striking back.

Viktor- I read the article you attached from that news story it was interesting and the confirm parts should have tip off Russia's incoming forces of what possibly to expect. From the lost aircraft early on at least it seem they didn't use this information, they should have. I wonder why if Russia knew this country was going to be a "hot spot" why didn't Russia move in some Special Forces even on a recon level, this would have been very helpful. I would assume since they know the country so well that this wouldn't to hard to do, work in some teams just to collect information? I think this might have save lives and have Russia's early deployment/missions turn out much more successful. What do you think? http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon5.gif

[Dalregementet]

Do you have a link to a source that a third Su-34 has indeed been completed? I recall reading that 10 are in assembly on rian.ru but nothing about a third one. I assumed that those ten will be added to the two currently at the Lipetsk training center to form the first squadron.

Dalregementet I agree to some extent, however there is a rather major downsizing and reformatting under way as we speak. The army will lose over 100 000 men, and will see the disbanding of all the "cadre" units.

As for Bulava serial run, time will tell.

Feanor,

I assume you´re russian... so I guess you have a belief and a desire that russia will succeed with the transition. But hey, take a look at the russsian army and the russian society - are russia known for good quality and good organisation? Nope! Are russians known to sacrifice themselves for their motherland or for their comrades? Nope! Are russia known to win battles were they are inferior in numbers? Nope! What I'm saying is that I'm sceptic that the russian army will be able to transform itself into something useful. Russia has historically won because of superiority in numbers and by sacrificing their own soldiers without hesitation. You had the politrucs running after the soldiers in the red army, shooting everyone that wasn´t charging ahead. Those days are gone - thank good! Also, the weapons that russia produces are not generally state of the art and as always, the quality sucks. A summary: Not superior in numbers, inferior in arms quality, less proffessional soldiers and a bad attitude/morale. Will this be significantly different in 10 years time? I don´t think so.

I'm not impressed with russian winning over Georgia - It's like if Sweden would have attacked Luxembourg. And if you look at this clip below, are the russian troops acting proffesional when on the move? Nope. Do the troops act disciplinened? Nope. Just a thought... what would have happened if these troops would have met a brittish armoured division? It would have been game over for the russian troops.

YouTube - War in South Osetia - pictures made by a Russian soldier

YouTube - British Army (Unseen)

If russia ever will have a chance to be a great nation they have to start all over from the very beginning. Erase corruption and maffia. Start working with ethics and values. Work with constant improvements in bureacracy and production. Embrace free thinking and new ideas. Just to start with... So, in maybe a 100 years from now, we'll start to se a shift. That's what I think.

[roberto]

Feanor,

I assume you´re russian... so I guess you have a belief and a desire that russia will succeed with the transition. But hey, take a look at the russsian army and the russian society - are russia known for good quality and good organisation? Nope! Are russians known to sacrifice themselves for their motherland or for their comrades? Nope! Are russia known to win battles were they are inferior in numbers? Nope! What I'm saying is that I'm sceptic that the russian army will be able to transform itself into something useful. Russia has historically won because of superiority in numbers and by sacrificing their own soldiers without hesitation. You had the politrucs running after the soldiers in the red army, shooting everyone that wasn´t charging ahead. Those days are gone - thank good! Also, the weapons that russia produces are not generally state of the art and as always, the quality sucks. A summary: Not superior in numbers, inferior in arms quality, less proffessional soldiers and a bad attitude/morale. Will this be significantly different in 10 years time? I don´t think so.

I'm not impressed with russian winning over Georgia - It's like if Sweden would have attacked Luxembourg. And if you look at this clip below, are the russian troops acting proffesional when on the move? Nope. Do the troops act disciplinened? Nope. Just a thought... what would have happened if these troops would have met a brittish armoured division? It would have been game over for the russian troops.

YouTube - War in South Osetia - pictures made by a Russian soldier (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaDCB3JBCTU&feature=related)

YouTube - British Army (Unseen) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUVYUeBdmSc&feature=related)

If russia ever will have a chance to be a great nation they have to start all over from the very beginning. Erase corruption and maffia. Start working with ethics and values. Work with constant improvements in bureacracy and production. Embrace free thinking and new ideas. Just to start with... So, in maybe a 100 years from now, we'll start to se a shift. That's what I think.
British amroured division? i doubt British armoured division can survive for single day against Russians. Just look at Afghanistan example and look at Soviet/Russian history. Imagine if Russians/Saudis joined hands and armed the insurgents for $200 to $300B worth of weopons and training. The only choice for British army would be surrender within days. Not decade worth of fighting. There is another example of 21st Motorized division in Tajikistan of putting down the Islamists in 90s.
Corruption is at individual levels. but in West corruption is at state level. thats why every state/corporation is hugely in debt. They are in debt because of artificial raise of living standards which state cannot afford.
Russian 58th army dont need to be dicipline when other side is so coward to run away from battlefield leaving weopons behind. It is the end result that matters not the fancy weopons/discipline.

[Feanor]

Russian forces using different means should have located most of these Georgia assets before the war broke out. This is an area where Russia's Armed Forces could improve a little. For example the Georgian Missile or Patrol Boats, should have been sunk in their docks, avoid the little naval battle all together. The Su-25 if all possible destroyed on the ground, thus taking away one of your enemies ways or reaching out and striking back.

We are in agreement on this.

I wonder why if Russia knew this country was going to be a "hot spot" why didn't Russia move in some Special Forces even on a recon level, this would have been very helpful.

I'm sure recon units organic to the 19th and 42nd MRs were used. Also the 45 independent Spetznaz regiment was redeployed from the Moscow MD.

I assume you´re russian... so I guess you have a belief and a desire that russia will succeed with the transition. But hey, take a look at the russsian army and the russian society - are russia known for good quality and good organisation? Nope! Are russians known to sacrifice themselves for their motherland or for their comrades? Nope! Are russia known to win battles were they are inferior in numbers? Nope!

That's a whole bucketload of assumptions in a single paragraph. Most not backed up by any evidence. The bolded one in particular strikes me as somewhat ridiculous. Do you want to provide any solid evidence of why you think the transition will fail? By the way I am in no way sure that it will. But the possibility for success is certainly there, and if the funding is present, then it will most likely be a reality. As for organization just do a little reading on Red Army logistics during the latter parts of WWII. ;)

Just fyi the only one of those assumptions which you got right atm is the fact that I'm Russian. The rest are guessetimates at best, and wrong at worst.

What I'm saying is that I'm sceptic that the russian army will be able to transform itself into something useful. Russia has historically won because of superiority in numbers and by sacrificing their own soldiers without hesitation. You had the politrucs running after the soldiers in the red army, shooting everyone that wasn´t charging ahead. Those days are gone - thank good! Also, the weapons that russia produces are not generally state of the art and as always, the quality sucks. A summary: Not superior in numbers, inferior in arms quality, less proffessional soldiers and a bad attitude/morale. Will this be significantly different in 10 years time? I don´t think so.

More generalizations. Lack of specific analysis. Attempts to apply basic (very basic) and stereotypical knowledge of history to a concrete and serious modern day issue. To sum it up, garbage. Put some solid evidence on the table.

I'm not impressed with russian winning over Georgia - It's like if Sweden would have attacked Luxembourg. And if you look at this clip below, are the russian troops acting proffesional when on the move? Nope. Do the troops act disciplinened? Nope. Just a thought... what would have happened if these troops would have met a brittish armoured division? It would have been game over for the russian troops.

Are you serious? Do you even want to present serious evidence? You wrote a fairly long paragraph which contained no real evidence. Fyi a clip isn't evidence of anything. It may or may not be indicatory of general Russian Army performance. Same with the British Army clip. Unless you have hard data that's not a claim you can make.

[SkolZkiy]

Feanor,

I assume you´re russian... so I guess you have a belief and a desire that russia will succeed with the transition. But hey, take a look at the russsian army and the russian society - are russia known for good quality and good organisation? Nope! Are russians known to sacrifice themselves for their motherland or for their comrades? Nope! Are russia known to win battles were they are inferior in numbers? Nope! What I'm saying is that I'm sceptic that the russian army will be able to transform itself into something useful. Russia has historically won because of superiority in numbers and by sacrificing their own soldiers without hesitation. You had the politrucs running after the soldiers in the red army, shooting everyone that wasn´t charging ahead. Those days are gone - thank good! Also, the weapons that russia produces are not generally state of the art and as always, the quality sucks. A summary: Not superior in numbers, inferior in arms quality, less proffessional soldiers and a bad attitude/morale. Will this be significantly different in 10 years time? I don´t think so.

I'm not impressed with russian winning over Georgia - It's like if Sweden would have attacked Luxembourg. And if you look at this clip below, are the russian troops acting proffesional when on the move? Nope. Do the troops act disciplinened? Nope. Just a thought... what would have happened if these troops would have met a brittish armoured division? It would have been game over for the russian troops.

If russia ever will have a chance to be a great nation they have to start all over from the very beginning. Erase corruption and maffia. Start working with ethics and values. Work with constant improvements in bureacracy and production. Embrace free thinking and new ideas. Just to start with... So, in maybe a 100 years from now, we'll start to se a shift. That's what I think.

You do not KNOW ANYTHING about Russia and RuArmy. Most of these declarations are ridiculous.

[gf0012-aust]

Post closed while heads cool down.

I have to say that the title is disparaging enough and not acceptable in its own right.

Read the Forum Rules for an indicator of whats expected.

[gf0012-aust]

Post re-opened. While we're at it - someone can think of a suitable new title for the thread - and we'll change it.

It's current title is unacceptable.

[Wall83]

As the creator of the thread why dont just call it "Future of russian military"

Admin: Ack. Title changed.

[macman]

The Moscow Defence Brief goes into some detail about the new reforms/restructuring.

Main points, from what I can tell, seem to be:
- Move to a system focused on Brigades & districts, with higher states of readiness.
- More independant local command structure.
- Cut out a lot of the dead wood at the the higher echelons of the command.
- More NCO's & lower ranked officers, less top heavy.
- Some Military schools now civilian trained - others restructured.
- Much of the Reserve equipment now handled by civilian contractors.
- More units able to quickly deployed. Will be mostly paratroops & special forces rather than any new units, just attached to disticts, brigades.

Seems like a good plan for cutting down on inefficiencies & corruption.
A lot of the inefficiencies & corruption seem to stem from senior levels, who have built up their own little empires - this should break them up.

Should also greatly improve quick reaction time & flexibility.

Undoubtedly problems will surface, but with the added flexibility, these can be much more easily handled.

As to resistance to change, Serdyukov dealt with the Tax dept pretty well from most reports, & they were dug in almost as much as the senior military command.

Think he's the right guy for the clean out, getting it to the point where the better military guys can get things done...


Serdyukov’s Plan for Russian Military Reform
Ruslan Pukhov

On October 14, 2008, following a meeting of the Collegium of the Russian Defense Ministry, Minister Anatoly Serdyukov announced the launch of a new stage of military reform. If the Defense Minister’s reforms go through as planned, it will mark the most radical transformation of the Russian military system since 1945, touching upon every aspect of the armed forces, including service strength, central command and control bodies, tables of organization, and the officer training system. The reforms were clearly influenced by lessons drawn from the August military campaign against Georgia, even if the strategy had been developed much earlier. Indeed, the general thrust of reform was expected from the moment Serdyukov was installed at the Arbat. Nevertheless, events in Georgia have enabled Serdyukov to act decisively.

The main points of Serdyukov’s plan are as follows:

* Accelerate the downsizing of the armed forces;
* Reduce the number of officers and restructure the composition of the officer corps;
* Establish a non-commissioned officer corps;
* Centralize the system of officer training;
* Reorganize and downsize central command and control bodies, including the MOD and the General Staff;
* Eliminate cadre formations and bring all formations to permanent readiness status;
* Reorganize the reserves and their training system;
* Reduce the number of units, formations, and bases;
* Reorganize the Ground Forces into a brigade system, eliminating the regiment, division, corps, and army echelons; and
* Reorganize the Airborne Troops, eliminating divisions.


Cuts to Personnel and the Number of Officers

According to Serdyukov’s announcements, the planned reduction of the service strength of the armed forces from 1.13 million to 1 million servicemen will be advanced from 2016 to 2012. The number of officers will be reduced radically, from 355,000 positions currently on the books to just 150,000. That said, the actual number of officers to be discharged is less. Some 40,000 positions are currently vacant, and these will be eliminated by the end of the year. Moreover, 26,700 officers are due to be retired, and another 9,100 will have reached retirement age in 2009. In addition, 7,500 serving officers were called up for two years after graduation from civilian institutes of higher learning. They will be discharged at the end of their term, and this category of specialists is no longer being recruited. The remaining 117,500 officers will be discharged over the course of three years. To a large extent, their release will be effected as a result of another reform, announced by Serdyukov in early 2008, concerning the transfer of a number of positions, such as military medics and lawyers, to the civilian public service.

The central command and control bodies also face steep cuts. Serdyukov counted 10,523 people in the central apparatus of the Ministry of Defense and another 11,290 working for the military command bodies of the Ministry; in all, almost 22,000. This total is to be reduced to just 8,500, including 3,500 in the central apparatus of the MOD. In line with these changes, personnel at the General Staff will be reduced by 50 percent by March 1, 2009.

Serdyukov described the current personnel profile of the army as «shaped like an egg, swollen in the middle. There are more colonels and lieutenant colonels than junior officers. By the end of three years we will have built a pyramid, where everything will be clearly structured and proved.» Accordingly, the number of lieutenants and senior lieutenants in the armed forces is to increase from 50,000 to 60,000.

The creation of a non-commissioned officer (NCO) corps, formally lacking in the Soviet Army, is an important element of the reforms. A strong corps of NCOs should serve as the basis for soldier training and military discipline. But the introduction of sergeants into the system will take not three to four years as envisaged, but at least 10-15. This delay could undermine reform by creating problems with management and the manning of those combat arms where a relatively high percentage of officers are involved in the direct operation of military equipment, such as the submarine fleet, air- defense forces, etc.
......

More details at:
http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/4-2008/item6/article1/

[Feanor]

You forgot to mention that they're disbanding all cadre units (i.e. units that are essentially skeleton crews of officers and equipment, to be mobilized in case of a major war). That probably one of the most important points of the whole reform.

[swerve]

You forgot to mention that they're disbanding all cadre units (i.e. units that are essentially skeleton crews of officers and equipment, to be mobilized in case of a major war). That probably one of the most important points of the whole reform.
I presume the equipment of the cadre units is rather old. Will it be scrapped?

[Feanor]

I don't think it will be scrapped. I think they'll keep it around as equipment for reservists. Though at this poinst even the reserve depos have enough equipment to outfit the reservists with T-72Bs, so it's hardly older then what the Land Forces currently have. In the future, time will tell.

[waraich]

Russian defence technology was on top in 80's in asia but after defeat in Afghanistan and disintegration of USSR they are now standing behind china .

Russia economy is booming due to high oil and gas prices.I hoped they will meet their targets in 2015 and regain their strength as world super power .

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/russia_challenges_modernizing_military

[zano333]

thanksssssssssssss

Admin: Welcome to the forums with your first post. However, please read the Forum Rules about posting behaviour before making any more posts.

"One liner" comments are frowned upon.