State Armaments Program 2011-2020

Found something in Aviation week...

Article


On April 5 the Russian government discussed the program for the development of the national defense industry for 2011-2020. The Prime Minister Vladimir Putin appealed to the military to define what weapons they really need and for what tasks. He stated that 40% of defense R&D programs don’t result in anything representing just a waste of resources.

The military was quick to respond. Two days later deputy defense minister and chief of armaments Vladimir Popovkin announced that a number of programs for development of new armor and artillery weapons will be cancelled. The main victim is the mysterious Object 195 program that was aimed to develop a new generation main battle tank to replace existing T-80 and T-90 tanks in the Russian Army. The new tank also dubbed T-95 has been developed by Nizhny Tagil Uralvagonzavod armor manufacturer in complete secrecy for more than 15 years. Popovkin said the military will focus on modernization of the T-90 instead.


Among other cancelled development programs are the 152 mm Koalitziya-SV self-propelled double-barrel artillery system, BMD-4 airborne combat vehicle, 125 mm Sprut-SD self-propelled anti-tank gun and BMPT tank support combat vehicle. All these programs were in the phase of prototype testing. Popovkin said these weapons hadn’t been included in the defense procurement program, but the government will reimburse the designers for their development expenses.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a5d47479a-23ea-41cc-9a0d-2e8de47fbf49


This is somehow outrageous... i think they would show the T-95 in Summer .... and curiously my friend who posted this news in other forums didn't find it in any Russian Defense News site like RIA Novosti...

any thoughts ?

hopefully it's just a misinformation.

I am rather pessimistic about all this. Putin & Medvedev have been pooring money into the cops (FSB, MVD) while dramatically and, I would argue, irresponsibly cutting the VDV and the Spentnaz GRU units. In the foreseeable future, Russia is most unlikely to have to fight a conventional war with heavy use of armor, the real risks are mostly in the Caucasus and, possibly, in Central Asia and these types of conflicts would require precisely the kind of forces and means which are being cut now.

The other branch which is in dire need of modernization is the air force, and I am really not sure at all that it will be getting enough money to truly equip itself with enough Su-34s and PAK-FAs.

Cops, cops, cops and more cops, that what these guys will be financing...

Ministry of Defence will purchase weapons abroad
Sergei Ptichkin

"Rossiyskaya Gazeta" - The Central Issue № 5152 (73) on April 8, 2010


Фото: Завражин Константин

Head of the armament of the Armed Forces - Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin, said yesterday that the Russian army will be equipped with the best weapons, including foreign.

According to Popovkin, after the completion of hostilities in South Ossetia was made a very serious analysis of the technical condition of our army and the defense capabilities of enterprises. Moreover, this analysis was carried out not in one sitting. Several meetings were held with the participation of the High Command and industry representatives. The Minister of Defence, Chief of Staff and Chief of arms visited all the leading enterprises of the defense. And then a list of what is first required to upgrade the technical quality of the inventory of army, air force and navy. Was drawn up a list that our military-industrial complex can develop and produce its own, but that may have purchased abroad. That said Popovkin, there is nothing to worry about.

Indeed, the import of military equipment is not a sign of the weakness of its own industry. For example, according to the Center for Analysis of the global arms trade, military U.S. imports over the period 2006-2009 is estimated at 16.5 billion dollars. In 2009, the cost of purchases of weapons by the U.S. second only to India. During the same period, imports of British military amounted to 6.744 billion dollars. Buying weapons abroad, and Germany, and France, and almost all NATO countries with strong military industry.

Russia since the beginning of the twentieth century, until 1917, bought military equipment from abroad in large quantities. The most powerful cruisers, battleships and naval empires were built in the U.S., Britain, Denmark and France. Even the Soviet Union bought some items of military equipment abroad, however, especially this fact without advertising.

For the current Russian arms imports was inevitable. Technological equipment of defense enterprises in most cases obsolete. And we are simply unable to produce military equipment to new generations. Of course, there are a number of areas in which Russia is still the leader. This air defense systems, tactical missiles, fighter aircraft, various samples of small arms and other things that are successfully sold to foreign buyers Rosoboronexport.

However, Defense Ministry is determined to give up samples, only yesterday were considered promising, and indeed to bet on the latest and real-world military equipment manufactured abroad.

Popovkin led a sad figure. In recent years the development of domestic UAV of its defense budget has been spent 5 billion rubles, and the output obtained absolute zero. None of the proposed industrial units are not even passed the first phase of public testing. That is why the decision was made on the purchase drones in Israel.

It does not satisfy the army and domestic sniper rifles. In the summer of planned comprehensive comparative tests of sniper systems represented by domestic and foreign developers. After that choice is made in favor of procurement already given sample. It may be that this model will be American, British or German sniper rifle.

Department of Defense closed the work on creation of the T-95. Apparently, closed topic BMD-4: in state defense order them and never will. Do not plan to buy military and so-called military vehicle tank support. As the chief said arms, tank - a self-contained combat unit, which in any support is not needed. Popovkin even expressed surprise at the fact, why do design and build prototype BMPT.

Actually, judging by the statements Popovkin, domestic armored vehicles stopped responding to modern requirements. We do not have such equipment or the respective motors or transmission of modern, or even weapons. Moreover, the very armor is becoming archaic. Abroad, light armored vehicles to protect the various composite grid reinforced special pulepogloschayuschimi elements. We have nothing. Therefore, it is possible, the usual armored personnel carriers in our army be European. They are comfortable, permeable, well armed and protected by nanotechnology synthetic armor. Defense is considering licensing the production of these machines on to Russian car factories.

The most sensational import order, however, is still hypothetical: it is buying amphibious assault ship, Mistral. The question with him is not solved yet. In the words of Vladimir Popovkin, it is not about acquiring warship in its pure form. It first comes to buying the most advanced shipbuilding technologies, which will give a powerful impetus to the development of the entire shipbuilding industry. And along the way - and Helicopter, and instrument. It may be the main attack helicopters of the Russian "Mistral" will be Ka-52. During the visit of a French ship in St. Petersburg "Alligator" landed on its side, and, as recognized experts, the impression that it was for such a vehicle he created.

"Mistral" played the role of a battering ram that has broken the old stereotypes. It became clear that foreign military equipment to purchase is not only possible but necessary.

http://www.rg.ru/2010/04/08/vystrel.html

Ultimatum defense industry
The Russian army was forced to buy weapons from foreign firms
2010-04-09

Deputy Minister of Defence - Chief of the Armed Forces of Russia Arms, Army General Vladimir Popovkin participated in a roundtable discussion RIA Novosti, to discuss the issue of procurement of arms and military equipment for the Russian Army abroad. In the presence of numerous foreign journalists in Moscow and made some general statements that can be called sensational. He criticized the quality of equipment produced by domestic defense industry, said that the Russian military-industrial complex, in contrast to the Soviet no longer a self-sufficient and arms purchases for its own army outside the country is virtually unavoidable. The only exceptions are the types of weapons that are the basis of Russia's defense capability. Namely - the strategic and cruise missiles, nuclear submarines that carry them on board, long-range bombers and multi-purpose fighter, the station missile warning and reconnaissance satellites ...

Actually the statement of General nothing new was not. These words he spoke more than once. But the accents that apart, require interpretation. Vladimir Popovkin, for example, said that the military paid for the defense industry in advance 5 billion rubles. the creation of unmanned aerial vehicles, but never got the machine, which is needed for the troops. And so were forced to buy them in Israel. The problem here is not a lack of knowledge and skills, and technological backwardness of the park defense enterprises. The fact that some leaders of bureaus and plants, instead of directing tempered funds for the purchase of modern machine systems, put them in the bank at interest, to acquire the margin. All this leads to the fact that the development of advanced weapons projects drag on for years, are some examples of weapons and serial deliveries to the army as no and no.

That's why the generals decided to abandon the "Object 195" - the new main tank, work conducted in absolute secrecy for more than 15 years of double-barreled self-propelled 152-mm guns of the Coalition-SV ", from a new turret to replace them on the tanks T 80 and T-90 from the tank support combat vehicle (BMPT), which has never appeared in the army, although brilliantly manifested itself in various international exhibitions, and even from airborne combat vehicle BMD-4 "Bakhcha and 125-mm self-propelled guns" Octopus-SD, which participated in last year's parade on Red Square ... All of this technology, they say the military, created in Soviet times and is now obsolete. And it is because instead of purchasing it on the Russian defense industry enterprises in the management of Defense rely on foreign countries. Already, there are buying tank night sights, sniper rifles, and even engines for ships and avionics for military aircraft ... Here are gathered to buy for home, four French Navy helicopter, although not the fact that in Paris, take the risk, as we want Russia to sell the ship with the combat information and control system SENIT9, which includes software to manage the diverse forces of NATO. And without it, this ship - just a floating tool, equipment and management systems which arms and other ships in the marine group still needs to be a Russian enterprises. And the level and quality to ensure no one today can not.

Statements of General Popovkin that the military forced to buy certain types of military equipment abroad, because they are not able to produce my own industry, in fact became an ultimatum to domestic defense industry. Or will he be strong to change, innovate and new technologies, turn to the needs of our Army and Navy, or the armed forces would deprive him of his orders. And export all is not enough. Even if such an attitude will soon disappear and they are.

http://www.ng.ru/editorial/2010-04-09/2_red.html

"Perspective" armor obsolete sooner than was commissioned


Newspaper Kommersant№ 61 (4361) on 08.04.2010

Deputy Minister of Defence - Chief of armed forces of Russia Vladimir Popovkin yesterday described the closure of a number of development works (ROC) and production of armored vehicles. Ceased funding for the "Object 195" - an experienced main battle tank, once seen as a promising (work on it were more than 15 years in complete secrecy). Closed on the ROC barreled 152-mm self-propelled guns "Coalition-SV". Have ceased work on the project Burlak "- a new turret with a unified fighting compartment, which could be installed on new tanks as well as on the old T-72 T-80 and T-90 in their modernization. To be made whole military equipment will not be. In addition, Mr. Popovkin said that the program of the state defense order does not entered combat vehicle BMD-4 airborne "Bakhcha-U, 125-mm self-propelled antitank gun" Octopus-SD and tank support combat vehicle BMPT. Purchased, they will not, but the manufacturer has already paid the actual expenditure for the few samples that they still managed to do. An expert in vehicle colonel Viktor Murakhovski Defense calls the decision "totally justified". "All this technology was created in Soviet platforms and is already outdated, - says Mr. Murakhovski .- In modern conditions necessary to develop a completely new combat vehicles.

Ivan Konovalov

http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1350456

Buying foreign systems is not wrong in itself, but that argument hardly applies in the case of the BMD series since there are no foreign equivalents to it (only the Russian airborne forces are fully mechanized).

As for this statement "Do not plan to buy military and so-called military vehicle tank support. As the chief said arms, tank - a self-contained combat unit, which in any support is not needed" that is complete nonsense. Tanks NEVER operate alone. Never. They have always had support from mechanized infantry, close air support and BMPs. That statement about tanks is just bizarre...

With regard to the BMP-T, the fire support vehicle, I thought its armament was a little strange, with two low rate of fire 30mm guns and 4 ready to launch ATGMs with two bow weapons either grenade launchers or machine guns and a coaxial mg.
For such a role I thought that a modified BMP-3 would be better with high elevation 30mm and also a high elevation 100mm rifled gun would be rather more useful, perhaps the BMP-3 armament with external gun mounts and a rear turret bustle autoloader for the large calibre 100mm gun to keep explosives out of the crew compartment mounted in a T-90 chassis.

Regarding Coalition I thought that was already saving money in that it was a joint development with the navy developing on new next generation very very long range tube artillery unified with land and sea forces.
It was my understanding that the twin barrel gun with autoloader was already being developed for their new destroyers.

Confused messages from the top it seems to me... in one breath they are saying they need to start making new stuff because upgraded old stuff is still old stuff.
Now they are trying to cancel the new stuff and buy foreign stuff?

The T-95 has been delayed for technical and financial reasons in the past.
I think the problem at hand is translation of the word cancel.

Hermes was cancelled for a while because it was too expensive and too few platforms in service could exploit its max range anyway.

Until the Radar of the Mi-28N is working properly then it makes no sense to put a missile on it with a range 3 times further than it can detect targets in most conditions that costs several times more than the existing ATGM carried.

Once the Radar is up and running properly however it then doesn't make sense to keep using a 6km range ATGM when targets can be detected at 15km or even further away by radar.

The T-95 seems to be the way forward in tank design from the scraps I have seen, so even if they 'cancel' it now what they are actually doing is freezing the design till it becomes more affordable, some of its technologies mature perhaps and its new capabilities are better able to be exploited because more assets are better able to operate with it effectively.

With the enormous stocks of stored vehicles and the wish to reduce those stocks hopefully the Heavy APC based on tanks is not a dead idea, though they must be careful to ensure a commonality of the fleet so that they just have T-90 chassis and engines and wheel types and transmissions etc etc so if they do unfreeze the T-95 design they only have two types rather than the half dozen different types they have now. (ie T-54/-55/-62/-64/-72/-80/-90 engines, chassis, transmissions, gearbox types, gun calibres and types, etc etc).

I think that they are more like suspending it then cancelling.... Cancelling T-95 ???!!!! D:

Yes, I hope so too.

Sort of a, "what do we need right now because we can't afford everything you asked for all at once." type situation.

The late model T-90s, especially that Burlak upgrade look really interesting.
The Burlak upgrade includes a new battle management system and also a second autoloader for the rear turret to carry long rod penetrators and so that no ammo is stored loose in the crew area.
It also has an enlarged turret with the panoramic sight for the commander fitted with the Catherine thermal imager and the gunner sight fitted with a different thermal imager that operates in a slightly different wavelength for shooting targets.
With the battle management system tanks will be able to work together better as a team and will be able to work with other vehicles also fitted with the same system so they share target data etc etc.

milky_candy_sugar wrote:I think that they are more like suspending it then cancelling.... Cancelling T-95 ???!!!! D:

According to Popovkin, it is obsolete based on Soviet technology. RIA Novosti hosted a round table last week, which I watched, about the importation of arms. The cancellation of these land systems was discussed. The arms manufacturers have been unable to make modern designs that compete with the West, so like Pyotr Veliky, we will go to the West and get their technology. MoD is more determined with latest weapons to arm our troops than propping up wasteful R&D projects that don't come up with the results demanded. 40% of all research funding has come to nothing. This will be stopped and if we can't develop it, we will import it.

The problem of course is that not all the high tech stuff you want will be available for import and the stuff you can buy might not be better than some stuff being planned yet at the same time there will be issues in integrating a wide range of systems that may not be compatible out of the box.

Most NATO stuff should work together, but will it all work with the domestic stuff you want to continue to use.

Equally if you are looking for foreign stuff then perhaps Non NATO sources are also a possibility... there is plenty of room for joint ventures or trade with countries like South Africa and South Korea etc.

So far things seem rather pragmatic from this side of the world, but after what Russia has been through is it fair to expect state of the art from existing Russian industries?
Considering production capacity at the moment would not allow everything needed to be mass produced in the numbers required anyway it should be a case of the military giving the Russian military industrial complex clearer ideas of what they expect to be developed, so that they get what they want rather than what might be possible from a design point of view.

A good example is the BMP-T. It was supposed to have been created for a specific purpose and solve particular problems and now they say there is no use for it???

Who decided on the development of the BMP-T and why have they decided now to drop it?

If it was a company initiative then that was their risk to take, but if it was a requirement generated by the military that has now been dropped then I think there should be a bit of slack given to the military industrial complex for this failure.

If they can't afford all these R&D programmes, how are they going to afford to buy western stuff that will likely cost rather more than any Russian design.

That does not seem credible to me. Stopping those projects would result in killing the russian tank force. On the other hand I haven`t found nothing about this on Ria Novosti. E few eeks ago I founded an article saying that the T95 will be presented on mid-summer 2010 and that the work was almost finished
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20100326/158314386.html

Nothing on a couple of other site too. here are the URL`s all regarding the same press conference
http://lenta.ru/news/2010/04/07/t90/
http://www.argumenti.ru/army/2010/04/56001/
http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=351545&cid=549

As you can see there is nothing on those articles about the T95 or other projects
Furthemore that post from aviation week was just a blog. They have been saying that the russian army will revice T95`s from months now and similar reports can be found on high-reliability sites. I don`t know much about this episode but i do not belive that they will cancel it

I can't believe it!

This reminds me of Yelstin's time( who was the worst president of all time)

Why spend so much money if you want to cancel projects?

Everything I have read about the T-95 makes it sound very sophisticated and modern, the only criticism I have seen is that it is too expensive to be a standard tank.

I have read an interview with the head of the tank making firm creating the T-95 (and also building the T-90s) and he said there were problems with the quality of the components he was getting from some of his subcontractors and that his company was making lots of parts themselves to ensure they get what they want.

It doesn't sound to me that they want to cancel programs, yet it also makes sense to revue what is being put into service as new right now to ensure things aren't being bought just because they are new, but because they will offer an increase in performance potential that is significant.

Otherwise simply upgrading existing stock could be an alternative, but old stuff upgraded is still old stuff except if it is new build upgraded stuff like the Su-35S and Mig-35S which are new builds but based on upgrades of existing models.

You get improved performance without the cost of going all next generation. Many jobs will be better performed with a stealth fighter, but for most jobs a Flanker or Fulcrum is much cheaper and good enough.

sepheronx wrote:

No offense Vlad, but even you would notice that this is a load of BS.

Most western based systems where created during the Soviet times (70's and 80's) and are still in service with the US. If Russia want's to build newer and larger ships, why not buy the tech to develop it from abroad? If they want to make new air dropable vehicles with stronger armor, then why not invest in composite development?

Maybe privatizing the defense industries will create internal competition, and could lead to better development in the future?

No offence Seph, but this is the reality of Russia's R&D. Most western based systems created in the 70's and 80's are not the current ones in service. An F-16A is not an F-16 Block 50, an M1 is not an M1A2, and a Hornet is certainly not a Super Hornet. While we are lucky if we get one upgrade, US equipment gets three or four and it is based on the latest technology. Our upgrades are still a decade behind by the time we finally get them, if at all. When it comes to completely new systems, research has failed nearly half of the time. This cannot continue. Whatever shows immediate promise will be developed, but we are not going to kick around a bunch of Soviet era based projects ad infinitum. If it isn't produced in 15 years, it isn't worth investing any further.

Now, how to address the issue. For technologies that can be licensed produced in Russia, it will be done. No country except France has been willing to give us this kind of access. Damocles targeting pods, Catherine thermals, and soon Mistral BPCs are all made in Russia. This not only means jobs for Russians, but also access for hard-to-get production equipment that only comes with state level deals. This will revolutionise those industries with modern production methods and get people trained in their use. We can then go about developing the next generation of technology while we upgrade our army with the latest devices. For technologies that are not given access to license, we will buy stop-gaps until our research has made decent strides. It is not an option to wait another 10 years for production models to come out, we have to arm the troops with modern equipment now.

I know your argument, you say we are keeping money out of our own R&D base and hindering development. We have been throwing money at it for the last 20 years and haven't gotten a return for nearly half the money. You would have the army either accept inferior equipment like China, or go without it at all like Ukraine. Neither of the two are acceptable options. The MIC will be revitalised when infused with European technology and will be reformed on Western management methodology. Companies will only be rewarded with funds if and when they produce results. They won't be propped up just to give people jobs twiddling their thumbs and corrupt heads stealing tax money. As in France, companies will be partially owned by the state but will be mostly privatised. They can use their own funds to start promising technologies, and when they properly demonstrate them, the state will give them more funding. Research will be merit based. No more pipe dreams in Russian MIC.

Take the Mig-29 as an example, with the equivelent being the F-16, the Mig-29 went through two versions in Soviet service, there was the basic Mig-29 and the Mig-29S which added R-77 missiles and RHAW and self defence avionics like RWRs and active jammers etc.

Then the money stopped.

We had the Mig-29SMT in 3 seperate versions depending upon how much the customer wanted to spend, plus the original Mig-29M model. Now we have the Mig-29M2 and the Mig-29K which are largely unified with the Mig-29OVT. We also have the aircraft so heavily upgraded it gets a different number in the Mig-35.

The Mig-35 is every bit is "upgraded" as the best F-16 in any western force right now and it is actually probably better than most because it has a built in optronics system for air to air and air to ground use.

The problem is not the development, it is the fact that they don't actually have the capacity to make them for the Russian Armed forces and for export.

To be brutally honest I think the real priority for the Russian armed forces should be command, control, and communications down to grunt level.

Once that is achieved the next focus should be on intel and recon platforms integrated into this C3I setup.

It matters little whether you are holding an AKM from 1971 or an AK-103 from 2006, if you are trying to fight an enemy it matter most whether the entire armed force is working together as a team that knows what everyone else is doing and what everyone needs to do.

Once you are fighting like a 21st century unit then it makes sense to properly arm you...

If the T-95 is going to be dropped because it can't be produced in numbers right now, then what ever foreign vehicle you choose to adopt instead... you are going to have to spend money on tooling and factories and train workers to make it. Why spend that money on building foreign tanks when you are not prepared to spend it now to build existing Russian tanks?

With aircraft the Russian aircraft has hundreds of aircraft in storage. It has a few thousand in service. And it has a few in its future.
Throwing out all the old aircraft and building all new 5th gen stealth aircraft is just a waste of money. Throwing out the worst old aircraft, upgrading some of the stored aircraft and building some new upgraded aircraft and of course building some brand new stealthy aircraft is the best option.

There would certainly be potential for collaboration with Germany and France and also Italy and probably Greece, but I really don't see Russia licence producing Challengers or Abrams so the point is rather moot.

It is good to scare Russian makers out of their apathy, but they have been promised money for years and I could understand them wanting to see it first.
They have had the worst deal out of everyone because the purpose of production is to produce. A design bureau can think about things, keep up to date with new stuff, etc, but a factory can't keep a skilled workforce or retool when it has no work.
Now all of a sudden there is talk of money and the factories are told to make state of the art stuff. Well spend money on retooling up the factories and the training of skilled workers and release the FSB to hunt down corruption and abuses.

Buying French thermal imagers made sense because at the time there was no viable Russian alternative.
The T-95 sounds like it is not a similar case in that it is expensive and complicated and would probably only work in a netcentric environment.

GarryB wrote:Take the Mig-29 as an example, with the equivelent being the F-16, the Mig-29 went through two versions in Soviet service, there was the basic Mig-29 and the Mig-29S which added R-77 missiles and RHAW and self defence avionics like RWRs and active jammers etc.

Why don't we take the MiG-29 for example... 15 years after having developed the SMT upgrade, there are only 4 MiG-29SMTs and they aren't even in Front-line aviation. The only reason we get more is because Algeria didn't want them. Speaking of ECM, Gardenyia isn't even a DRFM jammer. Pilots have stated they would rather chuck it in exchange for more fuel. India doesn't want it and are putting Elta jammers on both SMT and Kub models. They have ditched the RWR for their own Tarang RWR which is obsolete by Western standards, but better than SMT. We have to increasingly put French, Israeli, and Italian avionics in all of our exports just to keep our customers interested. The Malaysians even opted for a South Afrikan RWR over Russian for their Flankers... South Afrika!

We had the Mig-29SMT in 3 seperate versions depending upon how much the customer wanted to spend, plus the original Mig-29M model. Now we have the Mig-29M2 and the Mig-29K which are largely unified with the Mig-29OVT. We also have the aircraft so heavily upgraded it gets a different number in the Mig-35.

Don't fool yourself, The SMT/M2/Kub are all variations on the same theme, they are not upgrades over the other. The only true upgrades for them are buying European avionics. The heavily upgraded MiG-35 comes with a plethora of European goodies as well.

The Mig-35 is every bit is "upgraded" as the best F-16 in any western force right now and it is actually probably better than most because it has a built in optronics system for air to air and air to ground use.

And that is why RAC-MiG has to partner with SIBIT (Israel), Finmeccanica (Italy), and SAGEM (France) to make MiG-35 an exportable platform. US built the Super Viper years ago, where is MiG-35? It still doesn't exist except in several modified MiG-29s that haven't fused into a production prototype. By the time it is produced, if it is produced, it will be a semi-Euro plane competing against Fifth generation fighters.

The problem is not the development, it is the fact that they don't actually have the capacity to make them for the Russian Armed forces and for export.

We have plenty of capacity to make them for the VVS, we have square kilometres of factory space and thousands of layed off aviation techs across the country. The problem is the state doesn't place orders for them. They mentioned a possible order at MAKS but nothing came of it.

To be brutally honest I think the real priority for the Russian armed forces should be command, control, and communications down to grunt level.

It is an obvious need, SIGMA has turned out to be a complete failure. The system crashed several times during Kavkaz and Baltic exercise last year when it was tested. The generals are buying FELIN combat suits from SAGEM so needless to say, our future soldiers will likely be made with the help of France. Especially considering Thales is building our military communication satellites.

Once that is achieved the next focus should be on intel and recon platforms integrated into this C3I setup.

And that is why we buy more Israeli drones. They have finally let up and looks like they will export their more advanced UAVs since we deny Iran S-300 and their relations with US are piss. We spent 5 billion rubles on drone research and all was for nothing. At least Israeli drones work.

It matters little whether you are holding an AKM from 1971 or an AK-103 from 2006, if you are trying to fight an enemy it matter most whether the entire armed force is working together as a team that knows what everyone else is doing and what everyone needs to do.

No one says we are importing foreign assault rifles. If we can't handle that we don't deserve an MIC. But we are importing foreign sniper rifles which is a disgrace considering we almost let Izhmash go bankrupt waiting 20 years to enforce patents of the AK-47.

Once you are fighting like a 21st century unit then it makes sense to properly arm you...

Soldiers should always be properly armed. If you aren't willing to give them night-sights then they will never be able to fight in the dark. There are simple things that need to be done now while we modernise C4ISR, which will take a decade.

If the T-95 is going to be dropped because it can't be produced in numbers right now, then what ever foreign vehicle you choose to adopt instead... you are going to have to spend money on tooling and factories and train workers to make it. Why spend that money on building foreign tanks when you are not prepared to spend it now to build existing Russian tanks?

T-95 isn't being dropped due to production issues, it is being dropped because it is obsolete now, much less when it gets off the production line. France is starting up the LeClerc modernisation programme this year and it would be a great opportunity to get a production license. It will be the most networked MBT in the history of the world and would go well with our Thales based communications network.

With aircraft the Russian aircraft has hundreds of aircraft in storage. It has a few thousand in service. And it has a few in its future.
Throwing out all the old aircraft and building all new 5th gen stealth aircraft is just a waste of money. Throwing out the worst old aircraft, upgrading some of the stored aircraft and building some new upgraded aircraft and of course building some brand new stealthy aircraft is the best option.

It costs more money to maintain old aircraft which comes directly out of the operations budget. That money should be put to buying new aircraft that are cheaper to maintain. In the long run we will be able to operate double as many aircraft than we do on the current budget. All of our fighters do not have to be PAK FA, Su-35BM and MiG-35 hi-low mix would be good enough. The only enemy we have to worry about is China.

There would certainly be potential for collaboration with Germany and France and also Italy and probably Greece, but I really don't see Russia licence producing Challengers or Abrams so the point is rather moot.

The link to Western technology is not through USA or UK, it is and has been for some years now through France. All roads lead to Paris. As we speak we are in discussions for Turbomeca helicopter engines, Mistral BPC, FELIN combat system, IFVs, and many other things. The more we buy, the more willing France will offer us higher order purchases.

It is good to scare Russian makers out of their apathy, but they have been promised money for years and I could understand them wanting to see it first.
They have had the worst deal out of everyone because the purpose of production is to produce. A design bureau can think about things, keep up to date with new stuff, etc, but a factory can't keep a skilled workforce or retool when it has no work.
Now all of a sudden there is talk of money and the factories are told to make state of the art stuff. Well spend money on retooling up the factories and the training of skilled workers and release the FSB to hunt down corruption and abuses.

The design bureaus have not kept up. We have to keep turning to France because they have failed in many areas. The longer we wait the longer that list grows. Retooling a factory is not going to improve the research divisions. They are full of geriatrics that have no vision. What is needed are good salaries and university partnerships to bring in young blood to reinvigorate the R&D. We need people trained in Western management to bring reform to our state run disaster areas. We need an infusion of European technology to give the researchers the tools to get back on track and stop focusing on Soviet obsolescence.

Russia is the world's second largest conventional arms exporter after the United States.

Actually, France is the second largest exporter after the US. In 2009 they exported $11 billion, we only had $8.8b.

Hold on a second. The T95 is obsolete and the T90 isn`t? This does not make sense at all. The T90 is based on soviet technology too, like almost every piece of equipment our armed forces use today, including the new S400, and the Su35 But they haven`t canceled the orders for the delivery of Su35 and S400`s, have they?
So why do they decide to continue modernising a tank which is based on soviet tech (obsolete)and also an inferior design than the "new" T95? If there have been developed new technologies during those 15 years, why don`t they just incorporate them in the T95, but decide to kill it after all of this years or research and spendings?
Another thing is that they have been claiming the T95 to outperform both T90 and western counteparts for years. Just a month before the general director of the Uralvagonzavod plant said for Ria Novosti that the tank has meet all requiments put forward by the military. Is it possible for requiments to have changed in less than a month?

Last year there was a similar post about Russia canceling the PAK FA program (widespread on forums, althrough I could not verify the source on Ria Novosti) but we all saw it tanking the skies and now it`s scheduled to enter service in 2013. There is no official article about this on Ria Novosti either. How could they not notice something like this. I hope there will be more detailed info about this soon

Popovkin was so brutal with our military industry. During the interview he even said that the the T-90 is a modernised T-34 (I find this very stupid) and he highly critised all Flanker derivates. Popovkin seemed to be rather confused. He made comments with no sense at all, like the lack of composite armor in russian velichles (althrough we were the first to use composite materiels on the T64) or saying that local manifactures have such high prices (nonsense)

I can not understand how the BMPT is considered unneeded. It`s the perfect tank-supporting machine in urban combat. Something to have if there will ever be another war in Chechnya. The BMD-4 fits perfectly our new war doctrine too. Finally the French AMX 10 RC isn`t better than our Sprut-SD

Why don't we take the MiG-29 for example... 15 years after having developed the SMT upgrade, there are only 4 MiG-29SMTs and they aren't even in Front-line aviation.

And why is that?

The Mig-29 design was a point interceptor of short range for Frontal Aviation.

The Russian AF had no money so even if they wanted to upgrade their aircraft they couldn't. If they had the money there was no need to upgrade the Mig-29 to SMT standard because it continued to be able to do the job it was designed for.
Why would an interceptor need the ability to deliver expensive guided munitions that the Russian AF couldn't afford either?

Now they are getting money, why waste money upgrading old Mig-29s to SMT standard when they would get a better deal by spending the new money on brand new airframes like the Mig-35 and Su-35 that are significantly more capable than the SMT upgrade.

The only reason we get more is because Algeria didn't want them.

That had more to do with Sukhoi than Mig. I would expect that they simply liked the Flanker more and wanted them in service rather than the Fulcrum. The Flanker clearly suited their needs better. A bit like South Korea buying F-15Es instead of F-18Es. Both are capable aircraft and lets face it, both are overkill if the enemy is North Korea. The range of the F-15E suggests they want to reach to China.

Speaking of ECM, Gardenyia isn't even a DRFM jammer.

In the late 1980s it was pretty good. Now there are other options including pod mounted systems, and I don't think the systems in the Su-35 and Mig-35 are the same as those fitted to the Mig-29S in 1989.
I also doubt the latest Russian jammers are likely to be exported anyway, whether the customer wants them or not. The latest generation of that sort of stuff is not usually cleared for export for obvious reasons.
If you want DRFM jammers then there are Russian models available like the MSP-418K or the KS418 being developed from it.

The Malaysians even opted for a South Afrikan RWR over Russian for their Flankers... South Afrika!

South Africa make some good stuff, lots of it clandestinely with the Israelis and others. New Zealand is not well known as a high tech exporter of weapons and technology but a New Zealand company developed a chip the size of the nail on your little finger that acts as a GPS receiver that can be put in things that already have an antenna like a cellphone to give electronic devices the ability to act as a GPS receiver. Not everything new and high tech comes from the US or western europe.

We have to increasingly put French, Israeli, and Italian avionics in all of our exports just to keep our customers interested.

Customising a product to meet the needs or wants of the client. That is just normal.
For the Russian Armed forces however the client in this case wants stuff made in Russia, even if it is developed elsewhere they want to licence produce it in Russia. That is no big deal either, every major user of military equipment does that... the US has Italian pistols, Swedish AT4 rocket launchers, their tanks have had british 105mm and then german 120mm guns, their tanks currently have british designed armour, etc etc, all licence produced in the US.

The point is that a lot of stuff that went into Russian aircraft came from the Ukraine or Belarus or wherever. These are now foreign countries, so if you don't want to wait ten years for a Russian company to develop the technology from scratch and then create factories to produce it then the alternative is to find a foreign product that is the best that you have access to and negotiate licence production.
It worked well with the Thales Catherine Thermal imager. There are several Russian companies that have developed cooled and uncooled thermal imagers, but Thales has products tested and ready to go. The Russian company that will make these sights will gain tooling and a skilled workforce and the agreement includes future cooperation with Thales France to improve and develop new systems.
The other Russian optics companies will also learn from the new technology and also improve or they will use the money generated from sales of what they can sell to improve their products.

Don't fool yourself, The SMT/M2/Kub are all variations on the same theme, they are not upgrades over the other.

SMT 1 is a minor change that retains the existing radar, but adds self diagnostic equipment and changes the maintainece method to save money and parts. The original maintainence method simply had time limits for parts, when the time expired the part was replaced without inspection or testing. This meant that you went through a lot of parts as life span was a very conservative number.
It also added R-27E compatibility and also R-27T and ET compatibility and also added some guided air to ground weapons so operationally was a significant change. Lots more fuel is added including inflight a refuelling probe.
SMT 2 changed the radar and added R-77 capability and added RHAWs and RWRs and jammers. It also included new engines and a lot of other internal changes including a digital mil std bus so new weapons could be added plug and play. The larger wing of the Mig-29K is fitted with a 4 pylon and larger control surfaces but it doesn't fold like the Mig-29K.
SMT 3 replaced the radar to the best available and added lots of stuff that was intended for the Mig-29M.

The M2 was based on the M which has a different structure from the previous model Migs. The single seater and two seater are the same but the single seater just has stuff where the other crewman would sit.

Certainly they wouldn't make them completely different but the similarities are constrained by the fact that SMT is an upgrade programme to modify previously made Mig-29s and would have been what the Russian AF had applied to its in service Mig-29s if it had the money. Any new build replacement aircraft would have been M2s simply because they were superior.

The K was designed from the outset to be a naval fighter for use on a carrier, so much stronger undercarriage, folding wings, tail hook, more powerful engines etc etc.

The only true upgrades for them are buying European avionics.

...because the Russian AF has spent peanuts in the last 20 years on new avionics... the companies that develop avionics in Russia have been starved of funds for two decades.

The heavily upgraded MiG-35 comes with a plethora of European goodies as well.

Even the F-22 has parts made in Japan. The F-35 has parts made all over the world... including the jet nozzle which is Russian designed because no one in the west has any experience developing a jet nozzle that can turn more than 90 degrees in full afterburner.

And that is why RAC-MiG has to partner with SIBIT (Israel), Finmeccanica (Italy), and SAGEM (France) to make MiG-35 an exportable platform.

Russian aircraft design bureaus never worked alone before. Mig has never made engines or radars or cockpit displays etc etc. It has always been a company that Mig was working with. Whether that company is in Italy or Kazakhstan is not important. What is important is the final product. The Russian government have stated they will buy some Mig-35s but that is clearly to give it a chance in the Indian MRCA competition. It is a bit like the Mig-29K, when the Indians reordered that kept the production lines open so it became the best choice for the Russian Navy when they decided they would need a new fighter for the Kuznetsov. The Mig-29K is a capable aircraft but there was no competition because the Su-33 is not in production.

US built the Super Viper years ago, where is MiG-35?

How many of the latest F-16s does the USAF have in service? Most of the newest model F-16s were for export weren't they?
Except the correct answer is the difference in development and deployment is directly related to the defence budget different between the USAF and the RuAF over the last two decades.

Even buying everything from the west that the west is prepared to sell will not solve that problem and in some ways will just make Russia dependant on the west for new gear in the future.

The problem is the state doesn't place orders for them. They mentioned a possible order at MAKS but nothing came of it.

Those kms of factories are mostly empty shells because to make a state of the art modern fighter you need more than a lathe and a chisel like in WWII. You need high tech computer controlled tools and skill workers who can use those tools... and you need money for the raw materials. You get the money from orders so when you have no orders, you have no tools or trained workers or raw materials.
The orders mentioned at MAKS were a step forward as they included new weapons too. There is no point having T-50s if they are armed with R-73s and external R-27ERs.
Orders are easy to make, but you need to get the money and use that money to retool and when you retool, you have to retrain and hire. Securing raw material is obviously important too and then you finally get to start production... assuming your parts suppliers deliver the parts on time and in good condition.

We spent 5 billion rubles on drone research and all was for nothing. At least Israeli drones work.

I would suggest Israel spent more than 5 billion rubles to make their drones work.
You make it sound like all Russian UAVs are rubbish and were a waste of money and time.
I would suggest to you that there are an enormous number of a wide variety of Russian UAVs which look to be as good as any other you might buy anywhere else.
The problem is that the Russian AF wants long range high altitude and high speed, which basically means something like a manned aircraft performance, which is very expensive to develop when there is no money and no guarantee that the Russian Armed forces will even buy it.
Now that the Russian Armed forces show they are prepared to spend money on UAVs, which got almost no attention before the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia BTW, the makers in Russia can now look at what they want and start to work towards that.

Before the invasion of SO the Ru Armed forces didn't want anything, after they still didn't know the details of what they wanted, they just wanted a working system.
With an aircraft industry like Russias there is no reason why Russian UAVs and UCAVs can't be developed in Russia... except for this "I want it now" problem.

No one says we are importing foreign assault rifles.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I was trying to say was that the AK-103 has new modern plastic stocks and is made on new computer controlled machines to a much higher standard than the Soviet period AKM.
The practical difference in performance is not important at all as the weapons are very similar. The AK-103 on paper is much better, but in practical terms both will do the job.

But we are importing foreign sniper rifles which is a disgrace considering we almost let Izhmash go bankrupt waiting 20 years to enforce patents of the AK-47.

Now you seem to switch sides?
Do you mean import western stuff to give Russian workers a kick in the pants and to get them moving after a period in the doldrums?
I would say a better solution is for the government to get the funds to the factories and designers so the former can start making new stuff and the latter can start working on upgrades for the new stuff.

Soldiers should always be properly armed. If you aren't willing to give them night-sights then they will never be able to fight in the dark. There are simple things that need to be done now while we modernise C4ISR, which will take a decade.

A soldier with an obsolete rifle is still properly armed. They are just not optimally armed. BTW regarding night sights I was looking at a website yesterday showing some interesting new toys:

http://lzos.ru/en/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=130&category_id=11&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=2&vmcchk=1&Itemid=2

and here are some more devices from the same company, some of which include digital compass's, GPS, and laser rangefinders.

and for scopes with laser rangefinders and ballistic calculators here:

http://www.tochpribor.com/product.php?idProduct=109

T-95 isn't being dropped due to production issues, it is being dropped because it is obsolete now, much less when it gets off the production line

The things I have heard suggest to me that it is more like the F-22 than the F-4 you are suggesting. The Black Eagle was largely a shell, a concept vehicle that was not operational. The T-95 has been worked on for a very long time and I can't see how it can go from... this is technologically difficult to make to obsolete overnight, especially when most western tanks were developed in the 1980s and have just received upgrades the same as the T-90.

If the issue is being netcentric then what is the point of buying the Leclerc when the issue is the computers and systems inside the vehicle. Why not just buy the "system" and install it on T-90s, the latest Burlak upgrade looking rather good and certainly not inferior to any foreign tank.

It will be the most networked MBT in the history of the world and would go well with our Thales based communications network.

But where do you draw the line? Replace your rifles with FAMAS rifles because they fit the FELEN design better? French APCs because they are integrated into the C4I system already too? Drop the T-50 for the RAFALE?
If Russians can create a netcentric 5th gen fighter, even if it takes 10 years, why can't they design and build a system for their army and take 10 years doing that?
Even if they buy a French Net centric system that will take a decade to introduce so why make any decisions about replacing the T-90 with Leclerc now?

It costs more money to maintain old aircraft which comes directly out of the operations budget.

Not really. Most of the spares should have been bought, and there are lots of old airframes that can be canabalised too which are all already paid for.

That money should be put to buying new aircraft that are cheaper to maintain.

Certainly most of the money should be invested in new aircraft, but upgrades of existing types can be implimented during overhauls and as most earlier upgrades like SMT for the Fulcrums and SM for the Flankers were focused on reducing operational costs keeping some of the old aircraft can be affordable.
The SMT upgrade for the Mig-29 replaces the old obsolete non digital wiring and hardware and reduces operational costs by 40%.
Some old aircraft can just be used till they need an expensive overhaul and scrapped, others can be upgraded at low cost... the SMT upgrade was something like 6 million per aircraft but as I said reduced operational costs by 40%.

In the long run we will be able to operate double as many aircraft than we do on the current budget.

But buying new aircraft is expensive. Compare spending 40-60 million dollars for the new aircraft with 10-20 million at most for upgrading existing aircraft to a level where they have R-77 compatibility.
Remember with the withdrawl of all those single engine fighters the Russian AF lost most of its short range strike aircraft like the Mig-27s and Su-17s, so having a few Mig-29SMTs and Su-27SMs able to carry guided air to ground weapons will fill a large capability gap too.

Retooling a factory is not going to improve the research divisions. They are full of geriatrics that have no vision. What is needed are good salaries and university partnerships to bring in young blood to reinvigorate the R&D. We need people trained in Western management to bring reform to our state run disaster areas. We need an infusion of European technology to give the researchers the tools to get back on track and stop focusing on Soviet obsolescence.

That is your opinion and of course I respect that. However I think a better way is to actually make orders of Russian hardware, put it in service and then with experience with the hardware give the design bureaus feedback of what needs to be improved and what they want to replace it.

As I keep harping on, some technologies simply did not exist in a mature form in Russia like thermal imagers. The solution was French for tanks and I believe Swedish for helicopters and French for fixed wing aircraft. Right now several Russian optics companies have caught up and are able to offer rifle sights and portable thermal imagers so Russian soldiers are actually going to be getting Russian thermal sights for their rifles rather than French models.
This makes sense to me.
Stating that the T-95 is rubbish already is highly suspicious because it will be a net centric tank in an armed force that is not yet net centric.
Stating the current attempt to make the armed forces net centric is useless because it crashed twice... welcome to the world of computers.
I have read an article that stated it was too easy to jam, but then the system it replaced... a radio... was slow and inefficient and also easy to jam.
Progress can happen in leaps but also in small steps.
The important thing is to keep the steps in the right direction.
This French FELEN suit will have certain elements that are rather more advanced than Russian designers can provide, but in other areas like protection levels I would expect Russian stuff would be good enough.
It is a bit like India and the Brahmos.
The system the Russians end up with will be a combination of French technology and ideas and Russian technology and ideas.

For the T-95 though, it was a project going on for a long time, with (most likely) the cost going up for both research and parts, yet probably was not meeting the MoD's requirements.

Yet, the designer said in an interview I read that it met all the requirements from the Armed Forces. I suspect if there is a problem that it is because the Armed forces has raised its expectations.

Problems with it is the lack of battle management software, the gunner must feel very uncomfortable, and maybe SATCOM (although I am not sure about that one).

The Burlak upgrade has added a battle management system, and also a second autoloader in a turret bustle in addition to the underfloor autoloader.
With no ammo in the crew area it should be as safe for the crew as an Abrams.

Edit: Something though caught my attention to one of Vlads posts. He mentioned about sniper rifles being bought from elsewhere rather then domestically. And I am wondering as to why that is? Is the SV-98 just poor quality? Or what is it?

I have spoken to someone on another site that said the SV-98 was not cheap and that the standard scope supplied was rubbish.
He did say it was accurate.

The other thing I see as a problem is that their military industrial complex is far too bloated. You have Yakovlev, Mikoyan, Sukhoi, Ilyushin, Tupolev, Beriev, multitude of research institutes and various other industries. While in most other nations, there is less. Thales and Thales derivatives (Thales-Samsung in Korea as an example), Boeing, Lockheed in US, EADS in Europe, Chengdu in China......

In the 1980s and before each design bureau had thousands of employees. Talk about bloated. Now they are much smaller organisations, a fraction of their size previously and each specialises in a specific area, though they tended to dabble in other areas. For example look at the pattern of Sukhoi aircraft. Su-9, Su-11, Su-15 were all interceptors for the PVO to replace older models from Yakovlev. Su-24 was a strike aircraft, Su-25 Combat air support. The Su-7 was a fighter bomber, as was the Su-17. Mostly ground attack and interceptor... till the Su-27 series that included navy and strike variants. Now they are primarily a fighter design bureau but also the S-62 UAV for high altitude and even the S-60 replacement for the Backfire.
Tupolev focused on bombers and airliners.
Ilyusion was transports, Yakovlev is now jet trainers and UAVs.
The big joining of all these design bureaus into large companies doesn't mean enormous companies, it means big companies with design bureaus almost as departments. If you want to look at helos go to the Mil department or the Kamov department for example.
The conglomeration was necessary because there were no orders and anyway a design bureau can't build anything... they just design so they needed a way to make money so they joined with the factories to make new companies already.
The MIG company was made up of a dozen companies already before it was absorbed by OAK.

BTW Vlad, I am not trying to be annoying, and I don't see this discussion as an arguement and hope you don't view this that way either.

I respect your inside knowledge and understand you probably don't have time to spend all day answering my posts...

Good points Stalingradcommando, though I wouldn't expect T-50 production before 2015 and maybe operational units in 2018.
This is all from a blog on a western website regarding what one Russian official is supposed to have said.

Both Putin and Medvedev have said that the quality of existing forces is not good enough.
Checking that what they replace it with will actually be better is of course important but it is also important not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

A joint French and Russian combat suit system is not a bad idea, but simply going all French for the components is to ignore what the Russian MIC has gotten right and to focus on where they need to improve.
The combat suit system is just one component of an entire system that needs to be put in place to create an effective 21st Century Russian armed forces and if the solution to make the Russian Army net centric is to replace all of its components with foreign equivelents then it is going to be very expensive for the Russian military.

Integrating a new C4IR system is expensive enough in existing vehicles but having to buy all new vehicles as well will make it prohibitively expensive.

Equally training will be a problem because new recruits will be expected to fly before learning to walk.

Introducing the Burlak upgrade for the T-90 will introduce Battlespace management systems, and you would think the T-95 had a related system that a T-90 crewman could learn to use quickly. Throwing them into a Leclerc means everything new and different, from engines to guns.