This is a discussion on Future of Russian Military within the Geo-Strategic Defense forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by SkolZkiy
About another test flight till the end of this - this was said by vice-primeminister Sergei ...
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,131
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 =)
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.
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
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
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
Last edited by ROCK45; December 7th, 2008 at 08:12 AM.
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,131
Threads:
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).
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROCK45
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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROCK45
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?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROCK45
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.
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.
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,131
Threads:
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.
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 ?
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.
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/im...cons/icon5.gif
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.
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.
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.
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.
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,131
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROCK45
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalregementet
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
