SAP 2018-2027 - Arms Procurement

GarryB wrote:

I personally believe that all types of equipment you mention in the poll will still be in service and/or in reserve for one I can't see Russia getting rid of the huge number of MT-12 anytime soon without having to totally scrap

The current model MT-12 is the MT-12R which has a radar sight for night and all weather use. It uses a unique round being a 100mm calibre smoothbore gun not related to the 100mm rifled gun of the T-54/55, or the 100mm rifled medium pressure gun of the BMP-3.

It uses the 3UM10 round with the 3BM24 APFSDS projectile, the 3UBK8 round with the 3BK16M HEAT round, and the 3UOF12 round with the 30F35 HE FRAG projectile but it can also fire GLATGMs too.

Removing the MT-12 removes an entire calibre of ammo from the logistics and storage chain.
.

d_taddei2 wrote:Confused by your reply on one hand it looks like your saying it's a good weapon but on the other saying it should be removed.

I am not saying it wouldn't be beneficial to remove it like you said it removes a calibre but I am saying is that I personally can't see it being removed from service and /or reserve (especially reserve) by then for a few reasons one of which I mentioned earlier too many of them and to get rid of them would result in majority being scrapped. Another reason is like you said in your reply the upgraded version seems like it could still be useful. And last reason what will replace it in units that still use it? AT-5/AT-13/AT-14??? Or a self propelled ATGW system?  And has money been allocated for such replacement?

Confused by your reply on one hand it looks like your saying it's a good weapon but on the other saying it should be removed.

And last reason what will replace it in units that still use it? AT-5/AT-13/AT-14??? Or a self propelled ATGW system?  And has money been allocated for such replacement?

GarryB wrote:

Confused by your reply on one hand it looks like your saying it's a good weapon but on the other saying it should be removed.

That is right... in practical terms it is still an effective weapon... small easy to conceal and move, with ammo powerful enough to take on a range of armoured vehicle types up to and including MBTs with the guided shells from flank positions.

On paper however it has unique ammo that is not more powerful than the Sprut-B gun in the standard 125mm calibre smoothbore able to use all the new ammo types being developed for the new and upgraded tanks.

It would be a potent and capable system for smaller conflicts like Afghanistan or Syria or Iraq where a larger calibre is not needed, but having its own unique ammo is an issue.

Perhaps making a T-55 or T-62 or T-72 upgrade using the same 100mm smoothbore gun for smaller countries might be a good idea and sell them some MT-12s to go with them perhaps...

And last reason what will replace it in units that still use it? AT-5/AT-13/AT-14??? Or a self propelled ATGW system?  And has money been allocated for such replacement?

The direct replacement would be the Sprut B, which is 125mm calibre weapon that weighs twice as much (6 tons vs 3 tons) but has its own power plant for short distance moves.

VORONEZH, 18 October. / TASS /. The draft State Arms Program (GPP) for the period 2018-2025 entered the College of the Military Industrial Complex, experts will complete their work in less than two months. After this, the new LG will be submitted for approval to the President of the Russian Federation. This was reported by TASS Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin.

"I can only say one thing: a week ago [the program] entered the College of the Military Industrial Commission, my decision was created by working groups headed by members of the College of the Military Industrial Complex, which are responsible for the technical equipment of the families and types of armed forces," he said. carefully study their notebooks, their thick volumes. "

According to the vice-premier, two months are assigned to the work for this work, but he expressed the hope that it will be completed earlier. "We have two months under the regulations, but we will do this work more quickly and we will send the draft of the State program of armaments to the president." While there is confidence that we will be able to put this work to the end of the year for signature, "he concluded. financing not only the armed forces, but also other power structures, we will already report this to the president. "

The Deputy Prime Minister also specified that the main focus of the new SPG until 2025 will be made on the creation of a system of "unhabitable" communications and management, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin told Tass. "The most important thing is the creation of a management system and a system of unbreakable communications," the deputy prime minister said.

In general, the priority of the prospective GPU until 2025 will not be the modernization of old weapons, but the creation of new ones, the deputy prime minister said.

"Priorities are mainly given not so much to the modernization of the old weapons as to the creation of new ones: they are promising aviation complexes, including military transport and long-range aviation, these are unmanned complexes, robotics, that is all that is connected with the possibility and necessity of the withdrawal of a person from the zone of defeat, "he said," behind this we see the future and this will be the focus. " According to him, this applies to everything, and aviation, and the ground forces, and the Navy.

VORONEZH, 18 October. / TASS /. Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin believes it is right to prohibit the purchase of imported software for government needs from manufacturers that do not disclose the source code. He stated this at a military-industrial conference "Diversification of the OPK in the field of telecommunications and communications."

"Buying foreign equipment, switches, routers, servers, we sit down on the constantly updated foreign software, which does not have source codes," he said. "It is worth considering a ban on the supply to the public sector of equipment for those foreign sellers who do not open the source code and do not transfer the documentation necessary for the subsequent modernization by own forces ".

The vice-premier warned that "all these games will end very badly." "As a matter of fact, we simply drag the bomb into our own house and do not know how this story will work in the conditions of aggravation of relations," Rogozin remarked. "And no one has simply canceled industrial espionage, so it's just stupid."

Rogozin called for more ambitious tasks, taking into account the potential of the national defense industry. According to him, this is not so much a technological as a political task in modern conditions.

eehnie wrote:The main reason for the retirement of more weapons from the Russian Armed Forces would be the exhaustion by use. In this case, exhaustion by need to help to Syria with more weapons.

By the begin of 2018 the ISIS can be defeated, but it means not the end of the war, it means only the begin of a new phase of the war which intensity we do not know still.

The destruction in previous phases of the war of thousands of units of heavy military warfare makes possible the need of thousands of units of heavy combat material in the future too, and at this point the T-64 and the (M)T-12 would be first in line for the help from Russia, assuming the movement of older and weaker weapons to Syria can be finnished by the begin of 2018, crating a reserve of material inside the own territory of Syria. While to cover the needs of SA, SS, Infantry and engineering heavy combat material will be more difficult after the exhaustion of the oldest material, the needs on tanks and artillery will be covered easily, thanks to bigger reserves.

To be fair, I consider the (M)T-12 more obsolete than the T-64, the MiG-21 or the BTR-60 as military concept (heavy towed weapon that requires a tractor auxiliary vehicle, low range that makes this weapon only can work inside the range of the man-portable weapons of the adversary increasing the risks for the crews, and low caliber in relative terms that makes the weapon less powerful and effective than others).

In fact with the likely apparition of rocket assisted projectile ammunitions for 125mm weapons and longer range weapons for the TOS-1, the (M)T-12 would be the alone weapon in the Russian Armed Forces that only can work inside the range of the man-portable weapons of the adversary (in this case the application of rocket assited projectile technologies for its caliber would not be enough to allow to this weapon to outrange man-portable weapons).

There is a number of fair reasons that put the (M)T-12 first in line to exit as military help with the T-64. Even, it would not be a surprise if the (M)T-12 goes to Syria before than the T-64 after the application of the State Armament Program 2018-2025. The (M)T-12 is still a good weapon for the standards of the Syrian civil war.

d_taddei2 wrote:

eehnie wrote:The main reason for the retirement of more weapons from the Russian Armed Forces would be the exhaustion by use. In this case, exhaustion by need to help to Syria with more weapons.

By the begin of 2018 the ISIS can be defeated, but it means not the end of the war, it means only the begin of a new phase of the war which intensity we do not know still.

The destruction in previous phases of the war of thousands of units of heavy military warfare makes possible the need of thousands of units of heavy combat material in the future too, and at this point the T-64 and the (M)T-12 would be first in line for the help from Russia, assuming the movement of older and weaker weapons to Syria can be finnished by the begin of 2018, crating a reserve of material inside the own territory of Syria. While to cover the needs of SA, SS, Infantry and engineering heavy combat material will be more difficult after the exhaustion of the oldest material, the needs on tanks and artillery will be covered easily, thanks to bigger reserves.

To be fair, I consider the (M)T-12 more obsolete than the T-64, the MiG-21 or the BTR-60 as military concept (heavy towed weapon that requires a tractor auxiliary vehicle, low range that makes this weapon only can work inside the range of the man-portable weapons of the adversary increasing the risks for the crews, and low caliber in relative terms that makes the weapon less powerful and effective than others).

In fact with the likely apparition of rocket assisted projectile ammunitions for 125mm weapons and longer range weapons for the TOS-1, the (M)T-12 would be the alone weapon in the Russian Armed Forces that only can work inside the range of the man-portable weapons of the adversary (in this case the application of rocket assited projectile technologies for its caliber would not be enough to allow to this weapon to outrange man-portable weapons).

There is a number of fair reasons that put the (M)T-12 first in line to exit as military help with the T-64. Even, it would not be a surprise if the (M)T-12 goes to Syria before than the T-64 after the application of the State Armament Program 2018-2025. The (M)T-12 is still a good weapon for the standards of the Syrian civil war.

Although some armed forces now only use it as a form of indirect artillery using HE frag rounds which have a 8km range which is better than any man portable system and then there's the kastet/bastion its guided and has 5km range which is on par with some ATGW although most don't have such range.

One other useful weapon sitting in reserve is the M -46 130mm gun good range and explosive power. I always thought that it was a better idea to have the M-46 mounted on the MT-LB than the D-30 122mm gun better range and explosive power but on the downside it's heavier gun, bigger ammo, and I read that it struggled to fire much above 45° and a single propelling charge but still a good gun.

eehnie wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:

eehnie wrote:The main reason for the retirement of more weapons from the Russian Armed Forces would be the exhaustion by use. In this case, exhaustion by need to help to Syria with more weapons.

By the begin of 2018 the ISIS can be defeated, but it means not the end of the war, it means only the begin of a new phase of the war which intensity we do not know still.

The destruction in previous phases of the war of thousands of units of heavy military warfare makes possible the need of thousands of units of heavy combat material in the future too, and at this point the T-64 and the (M)T-12 would be first in line for the help from Russia, assuming the movement of older and weaker weapons to Syria can be finnished by the begin of 2018, crating a reserve of material inside the own territory of Syria. While to cover the needs of SA, SS, Infantry and engineering heavy combat material will be more difficult after the exhaustion of the oldest material, the needs on tanks and artillery will be covered easily, thanks to bigger reserves.

To be fair, I consider the (M)T-12 more obsolete than the T-64, the MiG-21 or the BTR-60 as military concept (heavy towed weapon that requires a tractor auxiliary vehicle, low range that makes this weapon only can work inside the range of the man-portable weapons of the adversary increasing the risks for the crews, and low caliber in relative terms that makes the weapon less powerful and effective than others).

In fact with the likely apparition of rocket assisted projectile ammunitions for 125mm weapons and longer range weapons for the TOS-1, the (M)T-12 would be the alone weapon in the Russian Armed Forces that only can work inside the range of the man-portable weapons of the adversary (in this case the application of rocket assited projectile technologies for its caliber would not be enough to allow to this weapon to outrange man-portable weapons).

There is a number of fair reasons that put the (M)T-12 first in line to exit as military help with the T-64. Even, it would not be a surprise if the (M)T-12 goes to Syria before than the T-64 after the application of the State Armament Program 2018-2025. The (M)T-12 is still a good weapon for the standards of the Syrian civil war.

Although some armed forces now only use it as a form of indirect artillery using HE frag rounds which have a 8km range which is better than any man portable system and then there's the kastet/bastion its guided and has 5km range which is on par with some ATGW although most don't have such range.

One other useful weapon sitting in reserve is the M -46 130mm gun good range and explosive power. I always thought that it was a better idea to have the M-46 mounted on the MT-LB than the D-30 122mm gun better range and explosive power but on the downside it's heavier gun, bigger ammo, and I read that it struggled to fire much above 45° and a single propelling charge but still a good gun.

Man-portable weapons include man-portable mortars that reach a caliber of 120mm that have available rocket assisted projectile ammunition reaching 16-17 Km of range.

For a heavy weapon is important to have some role that can be solved from outside the entire mix of man-portable weapons of the adversary in order to have a future, because it means to outrange the entire mix of weapons of the infantry units, allowing the heavy weapons to work from safe positions against them. In the case of the artillery pieces its role is clear, to fire to the adversaryat distance, then to be outranged by man-portable weapons is a serious handicap for them.

The reality of the decommission of weapons by help to allies is more in relative terms than in absolute terms. Is more about better/worse than about good/bad weapons. Despite the T-64 is totally decommissioned today, I tend to consider the T-64 stronger than the (M)T-12, in mobility, in power, even in range with the likely apparition of rocket assisted projectile ammunition for 125mm, then it is likely that Russia allows the exit of the (M)T-12 to Syria before.

d_taddei2 wrote:

eehnie wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:

eehnie wrote:The main reason for the retirement of more weapons from the Russian Armed Forces would be the exhaustion by use. In this case, exhaustion by need to help to Syria with more weapons.

By the begin of 2018 the ISIS can be defeated, but it means not the end of the war, it means only the begin of a new phase of the war which intensity we do not know still.

The destruction in previous phases of the war of thousands of units of heavy military warfare makes possible the need of thousands of units of heavy combat material in the future too, and at this point the T-64 and the (M)T-12 would be first in line for the help from Russia, assuming the movement of older and weaker weapons to Syria can be finnished by the begin of 2018, crating a reserve of material inside the own territory of Syria. While to cover the needs of SA, SS, Infantry and engineering heavy combat material will be more difficult after the exhaustion of the oldest material, the needs on tanks and artillery will be covered easily, thanks to bigger reserves.

To be fair, I consider the (M)T-12 more obsolete than the T-64, the MiG-21 or the BTR-60 as military concept (heavy towed weapon that requires a tractor auxiliary vehicle, low range that makes this weapon only can work inside the range of the man-portable weapons of the adversary increasing the risks for the crews, and low caliber in relative terms that makes the weapon less powerful and effective than others).

In fact with the likely apparition of rocket assisted projectile ammunitions for 125mm weapons and longer range weapons for the TOS-1, the (M)T-12 would be the alone weapon in the Russian Armed Forces that only can work inside the range of the man-portable weapons of the adversary (in this case the application of rocket assited projectile technologies for its caliber would not be enough to allow to this weapon to outrange man-portable weapons).

There is a number of fair reasons that put the (M)T-12 first in line to exit as military help with the T-64. Even, it would not be a surprise if the (M)T-12 goes to Syria before than the T-64 after the application of the State Armament Program 2018-2025. The (M)T-12 is still a good weapon for the standards of the Syrian civil war.

Although some armed forces now only use it as a form of indirect artillery using HE frag rounds which have a 8km range which is better than any man portable system and then there's the kastet/bastion its guided and has 5km range which is on par with some ATGW although most don't have such range.

One other useful weapon sitting in reserve is the M -46 130mm gun good range and explosive power. I always thought that it was a better idea to have the M-46 mounted on the MT-LB than the D-30 122mm gun better range and explosive power but on the downside it's heavier gun, bigger ammo, and I read that it struggled to fire much above 45° and a single propelling charge but still a good gun.

Man-portable weapons include man-portable mortars that reach a caliber of 120mm that have available rocket assisted projectile ammunition reaching 16-17 Km of range.

For a heavy weapon is important to have some role that can be solved from outside the entire mix of man-portable weapons of the adversary in order to have a future, because it means to outrange the entire mix of weapons of the infantry units, allowing the heavy weapons to work from safe positions against them. In the case of the artillery pieces its role is clear, to fire to the adversaryat distance, then to be outranged by man-portable weapons is a serious handicap for them.

The reality of the decommission of weapons by help to allies is more in relative terms than in absolute terms. Is more about better/worse than about good/bad weapons. Despite the T-64 is totally decommissioned today, I tend to consider the T-64 stronger than the (M)T-12, in mobility, in power, even in range with the likely apparition of rocket assisted projectile ammunition for 125mm, then it is likely that Russia allows the exit of the (M)T-12 to Syria before.

You clearly haven't served in the military man portable 120mm mortar system your dreaming. 82mm mortar system yes is man portable. But even then not great distances. Even 50 cal. Teams when I was in would only go short distances. I think you and a few friends should try carry 120mm mortar system including rounds even just 5km see how you get on lol. If you take the 2B11 sani it's around 200kg  without transport mount which works out about 40 kg  each although the mortar doesn't come apartt like the barrel and base plate being the heaviest parts then you have to carry your own rifle and ammo for it, and any personal kit, water/food, spare radio batteries and some poor guy/guys will also have to carry at least 1 or 2, 20 litre jerry can of water   as well. Then you still have to add 120mm ammo good luck lol. "The 2B11 weighs nearly 500 lb when fully assembled, and thus must be mounted to the 2x1 wheeled chassis 2L81 and towed to the emplacement site by the truck. The GAZ-66 prime mover also transports the ammo load: 24 70-lb crates of 120mm HE mortar bombs, 2 bombs per crate, for a total of 48 available rounds."

1st LEVEL NEEDS: BASIC NEEDS RELATED TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF PRODUCTION CAPABILITIES. ALLOW DECOMMISSIONS IN THE SAME MINIMAL AMOUNTS.

First unit of new heavy combat armament in production by the end of 2018 covering 1st level needs including all the branches:

Warships: First unit (Project 12300, Project 23560)
Submarines: First unit (Project 09851)

First unit of new heavy auxiliary material in production by the end of 2018 covering 1st level needs including all the branches:

Auxiliary ships: First unit (Project 15310)
Auxiliary air vehicles: First unit (Mi-38)

First unit of new heavy combat armament including all the branches:

Surface-Surface Not mobile: First unit (SS-30 RS-28)
Warships: First unit (Project 23000 multirole Aircraft Carrier)
Surface-Air: First unit (SA-?? A-235, SA-?? S-500, SA-?? S-350 Armata, SA-?? S-350 Kurganets, SA-?? S-350 Bumerang, SA-?? S-350 BMD-4(M), SA-?? Pantsir Armata, SA-?? Pantsir Kurganets, SA-?? Pantsir Bumerang, SA-?? Pantsir BMD-4(M), SA-?? 57mm BMPT Armata, SA-?? 57mm BMPT Kurganets, SA-?? 57mm BMPT Bumerang, SA-?? 57mm BMPT BMD-4(M), SA-?? Sosna Armata, SA-?? Sosna Kurganets, SA-?? Sosna Bumerang, SA-?? Sosna BMD-4(M))
Surface-Surface: First unit (SS-33 Burevestnik, TOS BM2 Armata, TOS Kurganets, TOS Bumerang, TOS BMD-4(M))
Artillery: First unit (2S?? Armata 240mm direct+indirect, 2S?? Armata 203mm long range direct, 2S?? Armata 203mm direct+indirect, 2S?? Armata 152mm direct+indirect, 2S?? Kurganets 152mm direct+indirect, 2S?? Kurganets 152mm antitank, 2S?? Kurganets 125mm antitank, 2S?? Bumerang 152mm direct+indirect, 2S?? Bumerang 152mm antitank, 2S?? Bumerang 125mm antitank)
Tanks: First unit (T-14 152mm)
Infantry: First unit (BMO-2 Armata)
Combat Engineering: First unit (Engineering Armata, Engineering Kurganets, Engineering Bumerang, Engineering BMD-4(M))
Strategic Bombers: First unit (Tu-PAK-DA)
Fighter Interceptors: First unit (Mig-41)
Fighter Ground Attack: First unit (Su-PAK-ShA 5G platform)

First unit of new heavy auxiliary material including all the branches:

Auxiliary air vehicles: First unit (Su-Superjet, Ka-60/62, Tu-330, Mi-46/AHL, Il-106/PTS Ermak 80,Il-276, Il-PTS Ermak 160,Tu-304/Frigate Freejet, New successor Il-76, CRAIC CR929, Ka-40 Minoga, New successor of the Mi-26/27, MS-21/Yak-242)

2nd LEVEL NEEDS: NEEDS OF ARMAMENT TO COVER THE REPLACEMENT OF THE LESS MODERN ARMAMENT IN ACTIVE SERVICE. ALLOW DECOMMISSIONS IN THE SAME AMOUNTS.

Heavy combat armament including all the branches:

Infantry: Intense production (BMO-2 Armata, T-15, B-10 Kurganets, B-11 Kurganets, K-16 Bumerang, K-17 Bumerang, Typhoon-U 6x6, Typhoon-K 6x6, BMO-T, BMP-3, BMD-4(M), BTR-MDM BMD-4(M))

Heavy auxiliary material including all the branches:

No 2nd level needs. Post-Sovietic reduction unfinished on air and sea heavy auxiliary material.

eehnie wrote:The replacement of the (M)T-12 with weapons of 125mm on the new platforms requires production of new weapons. This only will be done at the rythm of the introduction of the new platforms in the Russian units.

The replacement of the (M)T-12 with the 2S25 would require a return to production of the weapon. There is not reserve of this weapon.

The replacement of the (M)T-12 with the towed version of the 2S25, the Sprut-B, has a serious handicap. This is a design of the 1980s that has not been ordered until now (unlike the 2S25). It means something.

The cheapest option, and is a likely option, is the replacement with tanks in the reserve. And this is not as rare as some people can think.

Analyzing how will be the future units of the Russian Armed forces, it is necessary to take into account that the Armata units will not have heavy antitank weapons. Will have tanks. A 125mm weapon mounted in an armata platform is a tank. Or the same if we talk about the new 152mm tank weapon. In this case previous tank and heavy antitank weapons will be replaced all by tanks.

In the other side, the Kurganets, Bumerang and BMD-4M units will not have tanks, all will be antitank weapons. The position of the tanks will be covered by antitank weapons of 125mm or 152mm mounted on these platforms. In this case, previous tanks and heavy antitank weapons will be replaced all by mobile antitank weapons.

As it became known to Kommersant, next week President Vladimir Putin will hold a series of meetings with the leadership of the Defense Ministry, government members and representatives of the military-industrial complex. It is there that the parameters of the new state armament program (GWP) for 2018-2027 should be agreed upon. According to Kommersant's information, its funding was previously announced in the amount of 19 trillion rubles, which should ensure a balanced development of all types and services in the next decade.

Military sources "Kommersant" note that the main difference between the new GPV and its predecessor should be the allocation of 1 trillion rubles. for the construction of separate facilities: the Ministry of Defense is motivated by the need to "synchronize the supply of weapons and the construction of facilities for their storage." However, in the financial and economic block of the government, according to Kommersant's information, they insist that the military should give an accurate account of the linkage of the construction of a separate facility to each of the types of weapons and military equipment. If the parties can resolve these issues, the total financing of the GPU until 2027 will reach 20 trillion rubles.

In the new SAP, much attention will be paid to strategic nuclear forces: purchases of air-launched cruise missiles, submarine ballistic missiles and land-based intercontinental carriers will be conducted. Thus, in the period 2018-2027, new strategic solid fuel assemblies RS-26 Rubezh and rail Barguzin will be adopted, as well as liquid RS-28 Sarmat(carrier of hypersonic blocks - article 4202). The purchase of Su-30SM and Su-35 multifunctional fighters, as well as Su-34 front-line bombers (these all participated in the Syrian campaign) will continue in the aviation sector, the first purchase of a series of advanced Su-57 front-line aviation, 24 MiG-35 fighters, and also the strategic missile carrier Tu-160M2 will be acquired. In parallel, scientific research will be conducted on a prospective long-range aviation complex. Procurement of helicopters will be reduced ( see "Kommersant" on May 17), but in the interests of aerospace forces the serial production of the S-500 "Prometheus" anti-aircraft missile systems and Buk-M3 complexes, unmanned aerial vehicles and the new system of space optical-electronic reconnaissance "Hrazdan" will be deployed.

In the part of the Navy, the program will be designed for the purchase of diesel-electric submarines, a new generation of Husky type nuclear missile carriers (with a new liquid intercontinental ballistic missile), as well as support ships, minesweepers, corvettes, frigates, communication vessels, experimental and research vessels . In the GPV will be present and the serial purchase of small missile ships capable of carrying cruise missiles Caliber-NK. According to Kommersant, the creation of an aircraft carrier with a nuclear power plant is also possible within the framework of the GPU, however, the decision on the expediency of its construction will be determined by the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces later. Land forces will receive new military air defense systems (including those developed within the framework of the RKD Standard), T-90 and T-14 Armata tanks, Kurganets-25 infantry armored vehicles and Boomerang armored vehicles. Emphasis will also be placed on the adaptation of armaments to the Arctic territories, in particular, the S-300V4 anti-aircraft missile system and the Tor-M2 anti-aircraft missile system. Experts also noted that the military will continue to improve the tactical control system, as well as take the sets of military equipment "Ratnik" in a configuration optimized for the requirements of the Airborne Forces.

MOSCOW, November 21. / TASS /. The coordinated volume of the state program of armaments (GPV) for 2018-2025 is 19 trillion rubles. This was reported on Tuesday by the ex-commander of the Russian Air Force, the head of the Council of the Federation Council on Defense and Security Viktor Bondarev.

"The new state armament program is almost ready, the finalization is in the final stage, I recall that for a long time the financing parameters have been the subject of heated discussion, but the agreed amount was 19 trillion. And if we take not the absolute figures but the average annual value, the current program turns out to be financially comparable with the previous one "- said the senator.

He clarified that in some areas of work in the new GPV prolonged until 2027.

Bondarev also said that the hypersonic "Zircon" missiles and the Skif ground-based missiles are part of the arsenal of the Russian Armed Forces.

"To date, we have in our arsenal unique strategic bombers (Tu-160), OTRK with powerful ballistic and cruise missiles (the Iskander family), Sarmat TRC, air defense systems (S-400), intercontinental ballistic missiles, atomic missile cruisers with powerful anti-ship missiles (hypersonic "Zircon" missile), Skif bottom-based missiles, "he said.