Can Russia regain it's Military Might?

[scarey1989]

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

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

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

What Do You Think?

 

[Viktor]

Russian bombers like Tu-95MS where build in 1980s and are newer than US B-52 ...so?

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

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

It is however sure that its former military strength can not resurect over months it is proces whitch will last for decades to come and Russia will never again match the numbers it had during the Soviet times but it is obivios even now that it will be strong regional force ... something to respect.

 

[Chrom]

.

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

What Do You Think?

Compared to USSR times russian army is joke. Compared to any other army except USA army - it is unstopable war machine.

 

[XaNDeR]

Well first of all B-52 is older than Tu-95, and US will still need them for along time .
Secondly Russia will never again match the sher numbers of Soviet union , not even USA did in the cold war ( allthough many things were more advanced rather than outnumbered ) , just different doctrines.

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

If you want any other questions ask , im not sure what else you want to know.

 

[scarey1989]

I am not shure that Russia is second to the USA (XAnder). Russia is particularly powerful in terms of numbers of aircraft and amount of aircraft, however, as Robert Hewson (editor of Janes Air Launched Missiles) said, ''the level of technology used by BAE systems of Uk, Saab of Sweden and US hardware is much higher''.

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

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

However, over the next few decades I think this will change.

 

[Chrom]

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

However, over the next few decades I think this will change.

It is not only about quality, but also about quantity and full-spectrum capabilties. While new Rafale is certainly better than old Su-27/Mig-29 in russian service - how many of these Rafales are produced? While Leopard-2A6 might be somewhat better than T-90 - how many of these new Leos in service? Can they compete with 10.000 still very capable T-64/T80/T-72?
Can few Pumas compete with tens of thousands BMP-2? In reality old M-113 will be forced to fight much superior BMP-2's...
Noone besides USA and Russia have strategic forces and full sattelite network. Russian strategic forces, SAM's, artilerry, MRLS, radar networks - these can be matched by USA only.
Any army except USA army against russians is like pure infantry against proper combined arms forces. This infantry might be better equipped and even better trained - but it have next to no chances against combined arms forces, even if equipped with older weapon.

 

[eckherl]

Well first of all B-52 is older than Tu-95, and US will still need them for along time .
Secondly Russia will never again match the sher numbers of Soviet union , not even USA did in the cold war ( allthough many things were more advanced rather than outnumbered ) , just different doctrines.

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

If you want any other questions ask , im not sure what else you want to know.

Why does the U.S still need the B-52, is it that good of a platform that we still need it with the current aircraft in our inventory.

 

[eckherl]

It is not only about quality, but also about quantity and full-spectrum capabilties. While new Rafale is certainly better than old Su-27/Mig-29 in russian service - how many of these Rafales are produced? While Leopard-2A6 might be somewhat better than T-90 - how many of these new Leos in service? Can they compete with 10.000 still very capable T-64/T80/T-72?
Can few Pumas compete with tens of thousands BMP-2? In reality old M-113 will be forced to fight much superior BMP-2's...
Noone besides USA and Russia have strategic forces and full sattelite network. Russian strategic forces, SAM's, artilerry, MRLS, radar networks - these can be matched by USA only.
Any army except USA army against russians is like pure infantry against proper combined arms forces. This infantry might be better equipped and even better trained - but it have next to no chances against combined arms forces, even if equipped with older weapon.

Yes - Russia has alot of war equipment that could be brought to the battle, but can they fight a sustained war for any amount of real time. I think that Russia can be comfortable with what they currently have in place to not be really concerned about anyone wanting to provoke them into any thing, including the U.S. They have all the time on their side to get their military back in fighting order. It also helps them at the current times that relations with China are really good.

 

[f-22fan12]

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

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

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

What Do You Think?

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

In conclusion, unless Russia's economy, which is smaller than Italy's today, grows at a fast pace for quite some time, Russia will not be able to fund its military adequetly. At the current moment their economy can only fund a military equal to and likely smaller than the U.K.'s.

 

[crobato]

Why does the U.S still need the B-52, is it that good of a platform that we still need it with the current aircraft in our inventory.

The B-1B and the B-2 does not replace the need for an aircraft with high payloads and long enduring patrol and loiter. You still need an aircraft that can stand up and stand off for a long time. Hence why the Russians are still using Tu-95s despite the Tu-160s and Tu-22s. I don't know if the Tu-16s, which can do this function, can be resurrected in the RuAF, but this type has been resurrected in the PLAAF to do the same purpose.

 

[XaNDeR]

crobato you stole what I was about to say , anyway no problem

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

Your missing facts

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

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

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

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

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

Btw shouldn't this topic be moved??

 

[Chrom]

Yes - Russia has alot of war equipment that could be brought to the battle, but can they fight a sustained war for any amount of real time. I think that Russia can be comfortable with what they currently have in place to not be really concerned about anyone wanting to provoke them into any thing, including the U.S. They have all the time on their side to get their military back in fighting order. It also helps them at the current times that relations with China are really good.

Russia can fight sustained war much better than any country except USA. Compare industrial capabilities - short and mid-term russian plants can still produce more tanks/aircrafts/IFV's/etc than any other country except may be USA. And russian military complex is completely self-sufficient - again, that could be also applied only to USA.
Still, i think what China is certainly a new superstar. It already exceed even USA in terms of basic industrial capabilties like metal and energy generation. China still lack more complex and specialised industry - but they will certaily develop it in the next 20 years.
Tiny EU countries and even USA cant really compete with 1.5 billion citizens...

 

[Grand Danois]

Some questions for the armour guys about those T-64/T-72/T-80 that Russia inherited from the SU.

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

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

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

When will that point be reached?

I'm guessing that the tanks in storage are slowly being cannibalised or upgraded and put into service, as active tanks are worn out. Plus some could be zeroed, upgraded, and exported?

 

[XaNDeR]

Those tanks that are in reserve are not needed , they are in reserve in case of beeing needed for some war that broke out or something usualy old models , and T-64 and T-72 will get slowly removed from service in the next decades , the newer tanks like T-80 and T-90 , and even brand new projects like Black Eagle ( allthough it won't be producing for russia only export ) and T-95 will soon replace them , and the numbers will probably be alot less than number of active T-72's at the moment which is 9700 , because they are far more effective and they won't need as many similar to Su-34 which will be in smaller numbers as Su-24 due to far better effiecency.
My question would be why would they even wan't to return the old T-64's that were designed in the 60's to active service if they have far better projects like T-95 that will be modern and in a whole new league?

 

[Grand Danois]

Those tanks that are in reserve are not needed , they are in reserve in case of beeing needed for some war that broke out or something usualy old models , and T-64 and T-72 will get slowly removed from service in the next decades , the newer tanks like T-80 and T-90 , and even brand new projects like Black Eagle ( allthough it won't be producing for russia only export ) and T-95 will soon replace them , and the numbers will probably be alot less than number of active T-72's at the moment which is 9700 , because they are far more effective and they won't need as many similar to Su-34 which will be in smaller numbers as Su-24 due to far better effiecency.
My question would be why would they even wan't to return the old T-64's that were designed in the 60's to active service if they have far better projects like T-95 that will be modern and in a whole new league?

I asked the question because it was suggested (as it has been done several times) that Russias future military might lay with Soviet warstock.

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

Btw, 9700 T-72 in active service?

 

[crobato]

I think the T-64s will probably go, while the T-72s and T-80s for the most part, will remain, upgraded batch by batch. In the future, trends in metal prices are going to mean that making tanks will be increasingly costly, that it is more economical to upgrade existing ones. Unless of course, the total worth of the metals in the tank alone makes it more profitable to recycle it.

Cost of making tanks is growing sky high, thanks to the rising steel prices. High cost of Tungsten isn't helping too, when it comes to fielding Tungsten sabots and using Tungsten Carbide as hard faces for tank armor.

Ironically, China has something to do with it, being the number one steel producer, its been cutting back its exports to build the economy at home. And the fact that China also controls much of Tungsten production in the world does not help either and they have been sharply cutting back on the exports either. Being in control of both resources probably helps China control the cost of making its tanks. Russia though, remains a strong steel manufacturing power so that will probably help maintain a cost level when making new Russian tanks.

As for money, the sky high oil prices has suddenly given Russia a 300 billion plus foreign reserve in the last year or so, That money and the sure promise of more to come is what is resurrecting the new Russian military.

 

[Grand Danois]

I think the T-64s will probably go, while the T-72s and T-80s for the most part, will remain, upgraded batch by batch. In the future, trends in metal prices are going to mean that making tanks will be increasingly costly, that it is more economical to upgrade existing ones. Unless of course, the total worth of the metals in the tank alone makes it more profitable to recycle it.

Cost of making tanks is growing sky high, thanks to the rising steel prices. High cost of Tungsten isn't helping too, when it comes to fielding Tungsten sabots and using Tungsten Carbide as hard faces for tank armor.

Ironically, China has something to do with it, being the number one steel producer, its been cutting back its exports to build the economy at home. And the fact that China also controls much of Tungsten production in the world does not help either and they have been sharply cutting back on the exports either. Being in control of both resources probably helps China control the cost of making its tanks. Russia though, remains a strong steel manufacturing power so that will probably help maintain a cost level when making new Russian tanks.

Manufacture of a tank is what makes it expensive - not steel prices. If you think about it, building a merchant hull of 65,000 ton doesn't cost the same as a 1,000 tanks...

As for money, the sky high oil prices has suddenly given Russia a 300 billion plus foreign reserve in the last year or so, That money and the sure promise of more to come is what is resurrecting the new Russian military.

This is my main concern for Russia. We, as in Western Europe, need a strong and stable Russia. Politically and security wise because it is our European neighbour; economically because of trade and energy.

The issue for future Russian power is not as much in its military expenditure as in its demographics. The figures I remember (going up to 2005), the population is declining with almost a million a year, with a decreasing life expectancy, and - counter intuitively - a rising average age. This suggest a very, very low fertility rate.

And this in a country that expends the profits from mineral wealth on superpower projects and political prestige (like paying back debts in one go), instead of investing in the civilian sector, spreading the wealth around much better and creating growth outside a narrow set of sectors...

If I was president of Russia , my priorities would be different in order to make Russia a power 20 years from now. Perhaps invest more in people now...

 

[rjmaz1]

In conclusion, unless Russia's economy, which is smaller than Italy's today, grows at a fast pace for quite some time, Russia will not be able to fund its military adequetly. At the current moment their economy can only fund a military equal to and likely smaller than the U.K.'s.

This is true.

Russia has 10 times as many aircraft, ships and vehicles compared to Italy. The maintenance cost just keeping them in operating condition would eat up most of the budget. They do not even have enough money to operate all of their current equipment let alone fund future procurement.

To give a real life example, this is like owning a racecar with it being maintained perfectly ready to race but not being able to pay for a race driver or the fuel or tyres. Italy for instance as it has less equipment its maintenance costs are far lower. This gives a large amount of money for operating costs. Italy can thus afford the race car driver as well as the fuel and tyres. It may have fewer race cars but atleast they will be on the grid at the start of the race. Italy also has saved a bit of money to buy a new race car next year.

Russia has two options to spend its future budgets. It can either start buying new equipment. Or spend money to make the current equipment operational. It cant do both. Remember that most of the current equipment is not operational. To get 1000 of its current aircraft operating regular with well trained pilots will cost far less than buying 1000 new aircraft.

As Russia cant operate its current military and afford new equipment it has to scrafice some of its current or future capabilites. In my opinion Russia should sell most of its equipment that it will want to replace. Keeping these in operational condition yet not operating them is a waste of space and resources. Russia could sell all of its newer Mig-29 for a million each. That seems like nothing but keeping them in operating condition is probably costing them that same amount each year. Being cheap it would insure everything would sell. If the price is too high they might not sell everything. 1000 aircraft at 1 million each is the same as 100 aircraft at 10 million.


I'd sell the following:
All 380 Mig-29's
All 380 Mig-31's
All 400 SU-24's
All 250 Mi-24's
All 160 Tu-22M's

At a million bucks each they will all sell within a few years. China, Iran and India would buy them for that price. To either add to their current inventory or to use for spare parts. Thats an income of 1.5 billion dollars for the initial sale. Keeping them in operating condition would probably cost that same amount each year. So after 10 years you've saved a massive 15 billion dollars. That money could then be spend on making the remaing aircraft 100% operational and help fund the current new aircraft.

This would leave:
400 modernised SU-27/30/35's for fighter/interceptor duties.
200 SU-34 strike fighters.
16 TU-160 heavy bombers
50 or so Mil-28's and Ka-50 attack choppers.

All of these aircraft would be 100% operational with trained pilots. These cover most bases, sure u dont have a dedicated interceptor but the Suhkois can do the job.

The money saved by streamlining everything could then fund the devlopment and procurement of its stealth fighter. They could also development a C-17 like transport aircraft and replace 90% of their airlift with a single type. The Russian stealth fighter would then sit at the top with the Su-27/30's moving to the lower risk patrolling missions.

The same could be done with the Navy. Again China, India and Iran would pick up alot of the second class systems cheaply.

Now with alot of Russia systems being operated overseas's it can make alot of money providing parts, maintenance and upgrades.

Steamlining is the key. They have already streamlined alot but Russia doesn't want to loose face. They can streamline much further in my opinion.

Basically they should streamline until their equipment number is similar to say France or the U.K. Then start the rebuilding from that point.

 

[swerve]

I asked the question because it was suggested (as it has been done several times) that Russias future military might lay with Soviet warstock.

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

Btw, 9700 T-72 in active service?

That's the figure the IISS gives for total holdings. It also says Russia has 430 T-90, 4500 T-80, 4000 T-64, 3000 T-55 & 1200 T-34. I imagine the last were found in some storage depot where they'd been forgotten about, & declared. They weren't listed a few years ago. Plus 350 T-64 & ca 150 T-55 in the navys army.

Add up the nominally active units, & you get 3 TDs, 16 MRDs, 6 other divisions converting to MRDs, 10 motor rifle brigades, 7 motor rifle regiments, 4 AB divs, 9 Spetsnaz bdes, & a number of MRL, artillery, anti-tank, engineer, etc. units. The tank holdings of that lot would probably, at full strength, be something like 10000, if my vague memory of the tank strengths of Russian units is right. But that's far more units than can actually be manned without calling out reserves, so they clearly aren't all active. I'd say at most 5000 tanks are in units which might, perhaps, be considered active, rather than cadre.

Reserve units, if fully equipped, would have rather fewer, maybe 8000.

 

[XaNDeR]

This is true.

Russia has 10 times as many aircraft, ships and vehicles compared to Italy. The maintenance cost just keeping them in operating condition would eat up most of the budget. They do not even have enough money to operate all of their current equipment let alone fund future procurement.

To give a real life example, this is like owning a racecar with it being maintained perfectly ready to race but not being able to pay for a race driver or the fuel or tyres. Italy for instance as it has less equipment its maintenance costs are far lower. This gives a large amount of money for operating costs. Italy can thus afford the race car driver as well as the fuel and tyres. It may have fewer race cars but atleast they will be on the grid at the start of the race. Italy also has saved a bit of money to buy a new race car next year.

Russia has two options to spend its future budgets. It can either start buying new equipment. Or spend money to make the current equipment operational. It cant do both. Remember that most of the current equipment is not operational. To get 1000 of its current aircraft operating regular with well trained pilots will cost far less than buying 1000 new aircraft.

As Russia cant operate its current military and afford new equipment it has to scrafice some of its current or future capabilites. In my opinion Russia should sell most of its equipment that it will want to replace. Keeping these in operational condition yet not operating them is a waste of space and resources. Russia could sell all of its newer Mig-29 for a million each. That seems like nothing but keeping them in operating condition is probably costing them that same amount each year. Being cheap it would insure everything would sell. If the price is too high they might not sell everything. 1000 aircraft at 1 million each is the same as 100 aircraft at 10 million.


I'd sell the following:
All 380 Mig-29's
All 380 Mig-31's
All 400 SU-24's
All 250 Mi-24's
All 160 Tu-22M's

At a million bucks each they will all sell within a few years. China, Iran and India would buy them for that price. To either add to their current inventory or to use for spare parts. Thats an income of 1.5 billion dollars for the initial sale. Keeping them in operating condition would probably cost that same amount each year. So after 10 years you've saved a massive 15 billion dollars. That money could then be spend on making the remaing aircraft 100% operational and help fund the current new aircraft.

This would leave:
400 modernised SU-27/30/35's for fighter/interceptor duties.
200 SU-34 strike fighters.
16 TU-160 heavy bombers
50 or so Mil-28's and Ka-50 attack choppers.

All of these aircraft would be 100% operational with trained pilots. These cover most bases, sure u dont have a dedicated interceptor but the Suhkois can do the job.

The money saved by streamlining everything could then fund the devlopment and procurement of its stealth fighter. They could also development a C-17 like transport aircraft and replace 90% of their airlift with a single type. The Russian stealth fighter would then sit at the top with the Su-27/30's moving to the lower risk patrolling missions.

The same could be done with the Navy. Again China, India and Iran would pick up alot of the second class systems cheaply.

Now with alot of Russia systems being operated overseas's it can make alot of money providing parts, maintenance and upgrades.

Steamlining is the key. They have already streamlined alot but Russia doesn't want to loose face. They can streamline much further in my opinion.

Basically they should streamline until their equipment number is similar to say France or the U.K. Then start the rebuilding from that point.

Im sure your joking about selling the Tu-22M and Mig-31 , thats insane.
Tu-22M is a VERY VERY capable supersonic bomber , russia absolutely needs them for many reasons.
Mig-31's are Interceptors that Russian Airforce need , they are designed to intercept bombers and AWACS , they are beeing upgraded to M standards , and they are very important factor in russian airforce there is no way they would sell them..
Mig-29's are beeing upgraded to Mig-35 , and yeah they will probably sell some.

Another point , Russian Airforce has only few Su-34 at the moment , not 200 , and they have about 30 Mi-28 / Ka-50 in total.

And as you see upgrading Su-27's , Mig-31's and Mig-29's is pretty cheap if you consider what it would be buying new more capable aircraft , and its a very good idea , and besides modernizing them buying new aircrafts..

I don't even understand your post good but selling Tu-22M or Mig-31 is a stupid move , if you say that then you probably don't know alot about the 2 aircraft.

Btw why would they sell all the Mi-24? They are still very capable and effective just look at Chechnya ..