Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

But you don't have to be the CCCP again.
Its focus on secrecy at all levels limited technological development.
Its focus on technology purely for military use also limited the markets for technology based companies.
There is plenty of scope for Russia to be even better than the Soviet Union was.
Don't focus on the brain drain, getting things right in Russia, increasing the living standard of everyone, improving mortality rates... actually getting to the problem of an ageing population is the way forward.
Dealing with health and education issues, and especially dealing with corruption issues and criminality and drug abuse are all steps Russia needs to take (and steps many other countries have to take).

The point is you are less judgemental than the west and will deal with countries the west wont deal with.
Few countries like to deal with the preachy west so when you offer a real stable alternative that benefits locals as well as yourself I can see a lot of success in Russia's future. Just don't turn into the US2.

I wouldn't say such things if I had not seen it first hand. Once you have been inside it is quite obvious.

You can find solutions to every problem but that doesn't mean every problem can be solved.
No country in the world has no problems.
At the moment some of Russias problems are clear and solutions are certain.

Look at the US and UK.

Both countries like to tell Russia and other countries how to operate and what to do, yet they both have serious problems of their own.

The problem is that everyone thinks they have the solution and the other guy is wrong.

Some offer solutions for good reasons and others for bad reasons.

I am sure if you listened to everything the west said you would enjoy the west owning everything of value in Russia and stripping your country like they stripped and are stripping Africa, Asia and Central and South America. Talk to someone from Nigeria about oil spills and they will tell you all about the contamination and damage. You will hear about people who have lost their livelyhood that are working to clear up the mess. Tune in to CNN right now and you will see those hard working americans that have lost their livelyhoods sitting at home doing nothing or lining up at BP for money instead of doing anything about the mess that has been created.

You need to create a do it yourself, help yourself culture, that will be of more value than having a foundry that can make 22nm computer chips.

Look at any Western defence company and compare it to a state owned Russian JSC.

High vs low wages
Qualified labour pool vs unqualified
Worker age under 40 vs 58+
Shareholder accountability vs junk stock
Latest equipment vs rusting Soviet or 2nd hand Chinese junk
Unified project management vs poor management
Company marketing vs relying on the state
Enforcement of anti-corruption vs turning a blind eye

The list goes on and on...

sepheronx wrote:You know Vlad, I have been gone for a while, and thought that you may have changed. But you have not. You are not the only Russian who has served and that roams the internet. If you go to other sites (I can give you a link) they will tell you the same thing.

It seems you have been doing some complaining yourself. Yeah, I browse militaryphotos too and saw a couple of your rants. Who is more angry?

Russia has to adjust to new standards. They need to build what they know and intake what they don't. But there is a problem of reliance. If you rely on someone else for your goods, then you are susceptible to sanctions which in turn can hurt you (look at USSR after second world war).

If we need to get what we don't know, how are we going to get it? US just made the biggest bust of a Russian spy ring since the Cold War. The only option left is to buy it. We either suffer reliance or have an obsolete Army.

Also, there was an article floating around that Russia intends to spend on R&D as well as purchase things like UAV's/UCAV's and various other tools in the future.

The article said once we get what we want from Israel we will not buy from them. From the way things are developing that is going to be some time. Putin also said we will not steal imported technology as we are no China.

What Russia needs to do, is pull a China. In other words, spend much more on economic and infrastructure upgrade, before going back to military. The problem though is that they would fall even further behind in the sectors that they are currently ahead (Missile defense).

I agree, our infrastructure is falling apart.

You may have seen things happen, but does not make you right. It is the same thing with me and in the country I am currently living in (Canada). I have seen things and have heard and learned of what happened to us. Believe me, we once had one of the largest Navies in the world. Look at us now? we only have US defense companies in our country building our technology. I know how cynical you are towards your country and what is happening, but believe you me, you do not want to go this rout. If you think the US would be kind enough to allow you have an advanced defense industry while being in NATO or being so called "allies" (which can change in a matter of years), you are rightfully wrong.

You want to compare Canada to Russia? Canada had one of the largest navies in the world?

Believe it or not, but the Russian defense industries are still among the top most competing. Why else are countries like India always involved? India has access to all nations technologies, yet they still continue to go with Russian. What about Libya? They have sanctions released and now western defense agencies are trying to sell sell sell. Yet Libya is interested in, once again, in Russian technologies. China may not have a choice, but they too are interested in the technologies as well (various other countries too).

What about Libya? They reported $11b worth of deals and it turned out just to be T-72 modernisation and an Ak-74 factory. They look poised to buy Rafale and FREMM. China has a choice and they have chosen that our land armaments are not good enough for them. Their lack of engine technology is their own problem. When it comes to marine and helicopter engines, they turn to France.

Yes, Russia is outdated in various aspects, but that is expected to happen.

Expected for who? When I was a child watching Red Army parades I never expected to be watching the same technology crossing the streets or flying over Red Square as I saw 25 years ago.

But I sense the same thing in your words as I have in many people who come from a specific city in the country I live (A city that mostly, oddly enough, Russian's and Ukrainians live). This is a city where people complain and talk ill of the city and their dreams are to move away but never to help progress. If things are indeed as bad as you say, then Russia does not have a future. If you disagree with this statement, then it is your fault, as you make it out to be that way. But the best option for you is to do something about it. Join a political group. Go join activists. Get up and do something about it, rather then complain about it.

Joining activists is how you end up in jail. I will only join a movement that has a chance to succeed. I am no fool. I do my work through the Church. It is the only thing that is safe from political crackdowns. Things are as bad as I say, but Russia can easily have a future when the government wakes up to what makes capitalism really work. The small business and a fair rule of law.

I just hope for the best for you and your country. But as I read it, I don't think you feel the same.

It isn't my country I have a problem with, it is the corrupt officials that run it. If you can't distinguish the two, you have a serious comprehension problem.

Well lets look:

Look at any Western defence company and compare it to a state owned Russian JSC.

High vs low wages

Actually all the biggest pay rates and company cars and other perks go to the management. The workers get paid the minimum the company can get away with.

Qualified labour pool vs unqualified

And having qualified people that are unemployed because immigrants will work for less is OK?
The qualified labour pool drives down wages. If you wont work for that someone else will.

Worker age under 40 vs 58+

Having the entire management structure filled with young people means experience is less respected than "degrees". Most of the time it is the people who actually do the work that are more valuable to the company than the 35 year old manager with his shiny new degree on the wall.

Shareholder accountability vs junk stock

Yes... the Fuck everything except the profit margin attitude... that created the economic crisis. It also creates oil spills and environmental pollution.

Latest equipment vs rusting Soviet or 2nd hand Chinese junk

We had the latest equipment here in a company called Fisher & Paykel. They made whiteware like fridges and ovens. It turns out labour is cheaper in Mexico right now so that is where they moved the factory. When wages rise in Mexico they will likely move to China. This is their plan, which they have stated.
Skilled workforce? All the work is simple factory labour... put five screws in this big part and then get another big part and put in five screws etc etc. Progress to state of the art is two people watching a robot waiting for a light to come on to refill the screw compartment.

Unified project management vs poor management

Yeah, wonderful western management techniques, that is the solution to Russias problems. Russia has universities, surely they teach management? Cannot they start teaching the "Western Way". It is not black magic.

Company marketing vs relying on the state

The problem there is that most MIC in Russia have limited capacity to sell independantly. Their marketing is already handled, and to break that up would be stupid in my opinion. Before it was joined up Mil would undermine Kamov and Kamov would unmine Mil and Bell would win.

Enforcement of anti-corruption vs turning a blind eye

Corruption is certainly a problem, but don't think getting rid of corruption will help Russian military companies on the international market. In fact teaching them how to be corrupt at the right times would be a much better strategy. Many contracts are won or lost on the quality of women whose services can be provided for certain officials.

What I am trying to say is that the West is no where near perfect either and if you want to become a western style country and think that will solve all your problems... think again.
You will have lost your identity and still have lots of problems.
To be brutally honest I think you need to look at the way the west does things and then pick and choose what suits you. Then look at the Asians and the Africans and of course the central and south americans and see how they do things. You might find they do some things better. What you will also find is that one thing the Asians don't like is when westerners try to impose their way of doing things on them. I am speaking in very broad terms here of course there are plenty of variances within the west, asians, and africans and the americas so learning say from the US, Japan, Ghana, and Peru will not be enough. I think you already know which countries are worth approaching in terms of building a relationship and which are hostile to Russia. France, Germany and Greece and a few other European countries, plus Vietnam, South Korea, Indonesia perhaps, etc etc.

GarryB wrote:

Actually all the biggest pay rates and company cars and other perks go to the management. The workers get paid the minimum the company can get away with.

Managers don't make that much money either, which is why no one from the West wants to work there. It is the executives that steal the money.

And having qualified people that are unemployed because immigrants will work for less is OK?
The qualified labour pool drives down wages. If you wont work for that someone else will.

There aren't too many migrants working in the MIC, any of them who have qualifications go to the West. There are plenty of unqualified Russians to fill those slots. It is not like Turks stealing menial labour jobs.

Having the entire management structure filled with young people means experience is less respected than "degrees". Most of the time it is the people who actually do the work that are more valuable to the company than the 35 year old manager with his shiny new degree on the wall.

The management structure is mostly made up of people educated in the CCCP. They never bothered to reducate themselves to working in a non-centrally planned economy. Who to kid? It is still largely a centrally planned economy which is why it doesn't work. They still think like the Soviet which is why no one has adapted the modern means.

Yes... the Fuck everything except the profit margin attitude... that created the economic crisis. It also creates oil spills and environmental pollution.

They are still for the profit, just lining their own pockets and not the shareholders No one can compare to Russian industrialists as causes of pollution except China. The original point being that they do not care about cutting costs to have a lean mean profit making company because the state will always bail them out.

We had the latest equipment here in a company called Fisher & Paykel. They made whiteware like fridges and ovens. It turns out labour is cheaper in Mexico right now so that is where they moved the factory. When wages rise in Mexico they will likely move to China. This is their plan, which they have stated.
Skilled workforce? All the work is simple factory labour... put five screws in this big part and then get another big part and put in five screws etc etc. Progress to state of the art is two people watching a robot waiting for a light to come on to refill the screw compartment.

Automation means improved efficiency, which means profits. It also means better quality products. Two things Russia sourly lacks at the moment.

Yeah, wonderful western management techniques, that is the solution to Russias problems. Russia has universities, surely they teach management? Cannot they start teaching the "Western Way". It is not black magic.

I will tell you a thing or two about Russian business schools. They teach the fundamentals of business 101, but they do not teach the importance of marketing, human resources, production efficiency, and unified management. The curriculum is still based on operating in a centrally planned economy. It is totally outdated.

The problem there is that most MIC in Russia have limited capacity to sell independantly. Their marketing is already handled, and to break that up would be stupid in my opinion. Before it was joined up Mil would undermine Kamov and Kamov would unmine Mil and Bell would win.

They don't sell independently because it is illegal to go outside of Rosboronexport. To break that up would break the monopoly of state control on the MIC which is a big hindrance to its innovation.

Corruption is certainly a problem, but don't think getting rid of corruption will help Russian military companies on the international market. In fact teaching them how to be corrupt at the right times would be a much better strategy. Many contracts are won or lost on the quality of women whose services can be provided for certain officials.

Getting rid of corruption will make Russian military companies make a 180. They will stop pocketing the funds as bribes and actually reinvest it in the corporation.

What I am trying to say is that the West is no where near perfect either and if you want to become a western style country and think that will solve all your problems... think again.
You will have lost your identity and still have lots of problems.
To be brutally honest I think you need to look at the way the west does things and then pick and choose what suits you. Then look at the Asians and the Africans and of course the central and south americans and see how they do things. You might find they do some things better. What you will also find is that one thing the Asians don't like is when westerners try to impose their way of doing things on them. I am speaking in very broad terms here of course there are plenty of variances within the west, asians, and africans and the americas so learning say from the US, Japan, Ghana, and Peru will not be enough. I think you already know which countries are worth approaching in terms of building a relationship and which are hostile to Russia. France, Germany and Greece and a few other European countries, plus Vietnam, South Korea, Indonesia perhaps, etc etc.

Everyone needs to adapt capitalism to their own economic systems, that is why so many countries have been succesful. But there are underlying tenants that we still have not adopted that are necessary for long term growth. Such as... support of small business, independent judiciary, and the break-up of monopolies to encourage competition. There is no competition in Russia, those who have cornered the markets pay a bribe to the courts to shut down anything in their way.

I will tell you a thing or two about Russian business schools. They teach the fundamentals of business 101, but they do not teach the importance of marketing, human resources, production efficiency, and unified management. The curriculum is still based on operating in a centrally planned economy. It is totally outdated.

So why is your solution to buy foreign stuff if the real problem is this?

Will licence production of thermal sights and communications equipment really change anything at the management level?

The rest of the stuff... free market economies don't work, everyone has their little protected industries and it is certainly not survival of the fittest.
The best little companies get swallowed up by bigger ones, or good technologies get bought by larger companies, while the smaller companies remain weak and regional.

The reality is that very soon the Russian MIC is going to start asking the Russian Military to pay the same amount of money they get for their weapons and equipment when they export it. All of a sudden the free ride is going to end.
Many of the factories in the Russian MIC will maintain extra capacity for mass production, and while orders remain small it will likely be the Russian Armed forces that have to pay for that extra unused production capacity... or they will lose it.

GarryB wrote:So why is your solution to buy foreign stuff if the real problem is this?

Because we can't wait 25 years for the next generation of executives, we have to fill the gaps now.

Will licence production of thermal sights and communications equipment really change anything at the management level?

French consultants and technical teams will be there to meet their contracted production. It can change how that factory is run if the managers listen to what the French tell them, it will also train the workers to handle the technology.

The rest of the stuff... free market economies don't work, everyone has their little protected industries and it is certainly not survival of the fittest.
The best little companies get swallowed up by bigger ones, or good technologies get bought by larger companies, while the smaller companies remain weak and regional.

Having smaller companies starting up is how those big companies come into existence. Once those big companies have become obsolete, they go out of business for another small company to rise and take their place. 50% of Americans are employed by SDBs, 67% of French are employed by SDBs. It is the life blood of the high GDP economies.

The reality is that very soon the Russian MIC is going to start asking the Russian Military to pay the same amount of money they get for their weapons and equipment when they export it. All of a sudden the free ride is going to end.
Many of the factories in the Russian MIC will maintain extra capacity for mass production, and while orders remain small it will likely be the Russian Armed forces that have to pay for that extra unused production capacity... or they will lose it.

If the Army pays full price, then the profit margins of these bankrupt companies will go up. They do not want to sell their products at a loss. Once the automation brings up productivity, they will be able to reduce prices. They are all owned by the state anyway so it doesn't really matter except as a stimulus to MIC.

Because we can't wait 25 years for the next generation of executives, we have to fill the gaps now.

What do you mean 25 years?
It takes 3 years to do a management degree, instead of buying Rafales and Leclercs you should be going to Harvard and other flash western schools and "buy" some management courses.
You can set those management courses up in the nicest places in Russia and pay some of the best lecturers to come over and teach. Send your existing management lecturers to those courses along with the existing managers at important Russian MIC companies then the lecturers can teach it throughout Russia, and they will likely form a relationship with existing managers who will take the management ideas to the Russian MIC. The contact will be good for the managers because they will get go know some lecturers who will continue to study the latest stuff in management and the lecturers can use the experience of the managers to use as examples of what to do and what not to do to their students.
It should take less than 8 years for most of Russia to get up to speed with western management practises... even here in New Zealand at the bottom of the world, thousands of kms from anywhere we have management courses and our students seem to be able to work anywhere.

French consultants and technical teams will be there to meet their contracted production. It can change how that factory is run if the managers listen to what the French tell them, it will also train the workers to handle the technology.

An expensive way to educate a small group of people.

Having smaller companies starting up is how those big companies come into existence. Once those big companies have become obsolete, they go out of business for another small company to rise and take their place. 50% of Americans are employed by SDBs, 67% of French are employed by SDBs. It is the life blood of the high GDP economies.

Big companies becoming obsolete? Big companies often reach a limit and stop growing but most big companies get bigger by swallowing smaller companies.
I live in a small town and I have watched as small shops disappear and are replaced by nation wide companies. There was a time when there were 10 fish and chip shops here. Then McDonalds moved in, then Kentucky Fried Chicken, then Burger King, then Subway, all of a sudden those fish and chip shops started to struggle and started to close down. Same with the book shops, a NZ wide franchise called Paper Plus has arrived and three book shops have closed. Another NZ wide franchise called "The Warehouse" has opened here too and several shops that sold similar products at about 30% higher prices simply could not compete and have closed.

The consumer is getting a better deal, but the buying power of the bigger company means it can get everything cheaper by buying in bulk. Whether they pass on those savings or not depends on the competition. When there are a lot of small businesses to rival them they keep prices down. As the rivals fold the price starts going up and there is no competition to make them keep it down.

When I was a kid motor cars were not as common as they are now, so the corner shop was important. Now it is the supermarket that is the place to shop. Big company wins again.

If the Army pays full price, then the profit margins of these bankrupt companies will go up. They do not want to sell their products at a loss. Once the automation brings up productivity, they will be able to reduce prices. They are all owned by the state anyway so it doesn't really matter except as a stimulus to MIC.

This article might interest you... it certainly interested me... it seems to cover both sides well:

http://www rusbiznews.com/news/n822.html

Just add the dot.
Obviously the question should really be Will Russia replace the T-90 for the Leclerc?

GarryB wrote:[

What do you mean 25 years?
It takes 3 years to do a management degree, instead of buying Rafales and Leclercs you should be going to Harvard and other flash western schools and "buy" some management courses.
You can set those management courses up in the nicest places in Russia and pay some of the best lecturers to come over and teach. Send your existing management lecturers to those courses along with the existing managers at important Russian MIC companies then the lecturers can teach it throughout Russia, and they will likely form a relationship with existing managers who will take the management ideas to the Russian MIC. The contact will be good for the managers because they will get go know some lecturers who will continue to study the latest stuff in management and the lecturers can use the experience of the managers to use as examples of what to do and what not to do to their students.
It should take less than 8 years for most of Russia to get up to speed with western management practises... even here in New Zealand at the bottom of the world, thousands of kms from anywhere we have management courses and our students seem to be able to work anywhere.

It isn't just the uni courses that need to be changed. You have to go further back to primary school. Concurrently the way we do business needs to be changed. For the effects to change society would take a full generation. Not to say there isn't immediate steps we could take like sending cadres off to Western schools, we already do that but the impact is minimal working in a system that doesn't want to hear what they have to say.

An expensive way to educate a small group of people.

It is the only way when you don't have the technology.

Big companies becoming obsolete? Big companies often reach a limit and stop growing but most big companies get bigger by swallowing smaller companies.

Big companies become obsolete all the time, it is called bankruptcy. That doesn't happen much in Russia and when it does, the state just takes it over.

I live in a small town and I have watched as small shops disappear and are replaced by nation wide companies. There was a time when there were 10 fish and chip shops here. Then McDonalds moved in, then Kentucky Fried Chicken, then Burger King, then Subway, all of a sudden those fish and chip shops started to struggle and started to close down. Same with the book shops, a NZ wide franchise called Paper Plus has arrived and three book shops have closed. Another NZ wide franchise called "The Warehouse" has opened here too and several shops that sold similar products at about 30% higher prices simply could not compete and have closed.

When a BK, MD or KFC opens up on the block, it is owned by a local who may own just that one or a few more in a franchise. That is still an SDB, less than 500 employees. They just buy the brand. It could just as easily be a non-brand F&C or shop. It is not like a Walmart or Careforre that is owned by the company and managed by it. New Zealand has one of the highest small business sectors in the world, it too is the life blood of the NZ economy.

This article might interest you... it certainly interested me... it seems to cover both sides well:

Obviously the question should really be Will Russia replace the T-90 for the Leclerc?

Read it when it came out... 80% of equipment abroad. Now that is a stretch. Russia will not buy Leclerc, it will buy French systems to make T-90 modern.

It isn't just the uni courses that need to be changed. You have to go further back to primary school.

I disagree. Any management techniques taught in high school level or below is minimal to nil. There were no management causes at the high school I went to and there are still none. Any manager in NZ that actually did a management course will have done it at tertiary level and that is a 3 year course max.
There might be other changes you might want to make to your education system but none that will effect management.
Of course training is one thing, getting them into positions where they can actually impliment what they have learned is another. They wont start at the top and the top are hardly going to listen to the new junior member who just joined the team... except when the existing management also have been sent to a similar course and they are all on the same page so to speak.

Big companies become obsolete all the time, it is called bankruptcy. That doesn't happen much in Russia and when it does, the state just takes it over.

Here in NZ it is more common for smaller businesses to disappear due to financial problems. Put simply a small business has fewer things it can cut in hard times and it can't rely on multiple revenue streams to keep it going when some parts of its business are slowing down.
In a New Zealand if a big company that is important is having trouble the government will offer a bailout package, but will not take it over. A few years ago the BNZ (Bank of New Zealand... owned by Australians) was going tits up and the NZ government bailed it out with cash. If it had been an insurance company the government would have left it alone and the other insurance companies would have taken pieces at cut rates till it either managed to recover, or it disappeared.
Not likely these days however as most insurance companies are international and if the NZ branch gets into trouble they can just close it down or pump money into it from other places till it recovers.

They just buy the brand. It could just as easily be a non-brand F&C or shop.

If they were just buying a brand and were just like any other fish and chip shop then they could sell what they want... you could get chicken nuggets at KFC and a Wopper at MDs. They are buying more than just a name, they are selling a specific product that they have very little control of. They can't even call their chips chips, they have to call them fries... which means nothing in NZ.

New Zealand has one of the highest small business sectors in the world, it too is the life blood of the NZ economy.

Life blood of NZ is farming. Sheep and dairy exports.

Read it when it came out... 80% of equipment abroad. Now that is a stretch. Russia will not buy Leclerc, it will buy French systems to make T-90 modern.

These days everything has a computer in it, so it is no surprise if you want the best and the best computer stuff is not made in Russia that it will need to be imported. The motherboard of this computer is an ASUS, which is made in China. The Memory sticks are from Taiwan if my memory serves me correctly.
The computer box itself is really old, it had a 486 based computer in it and it was made in Japan. They are all foreign though I wouldn't really consider any of them as being the "West", except Japan perhaps.

I gave a link to the article because in addition to all the problems I have mentioned for the Russian MIC it adds a few like having to retain capacity for mass production, which is a cost it seems the MIC is carrying itself, and of course the fact that exports earn the companies much larger profit margins that equipping its own armed forces.

The real final solution will occur when Russia starts spending money on equipment and the funds flow to the MIC and it can start working on next gen stuff, and of course developing a capacity to make its own electronics where necessary.

I personally think the focus has been all wrong, with the reform and downsizing there was little sense in spending money on new equipment, but now that the reforms have been implimented and are being tested what is needed is an up to date C4IR system, but there is no need for high tech weapons so to speak.

If you took the equipment... the basic equipment of the US forces in Desert Storm, there wasn't actually that much difference between the US forces and the Russian equipment in service now except for the proliferation of thermal sights for armour and the command and control and communications equipment. The US didn't really use UAVs very much then yet could still fight a much larger and relatively well equipped opponent. The success comes not from having the nicest rifles or the best tanks... the west is wrong about the tank being the best way to defeat another tank... the best way to defeat a tank is with air power and sensor fused submunitions fired from SMERCH rockets from 90km away.
What made the Germans so effective in WWII was their command and control and communications. They defeated most of Europe in a very short period, not because they had the best tanks, or the best rifles, or even the best artillery. They won because the army and airforce both worked together as a team to hammer the enemy.
Sure they were defeated, but they took on hugely superior numbers and won.
The Russian Army doesn't need brand new tanks or brand new artillery or brand new rifles. It needs to sort out its C4IR first. As Vostock-2010 shows a 152mm shell from a 2S5 is just as effective as a 152mm shell from a 2S19 MSTA. In real combat the 2S19 offers much better crew protection from small arms, but those on the receiving end probably wont notice.
As far as I am concerned the only issue is worn out equipment... if it is old but still in good condition, then just keep using it. If it is worn out then even a newly made older model is better than a worn out old model.
Buying everything all new is just too expensive, and is not really money well spent.
Buying new models of old stuff keeps the MIC working, as long as you make it clear that the money earned from the production must be used to upgrade the factory and for development of new stuff to replace the older stuff. BTR-82 is a good example of old stuff with minor though important changes while the BTR-90 gets its design revised to meet the needs of the user (ie engine moved so it can have a ramp rear exit).

GarryB wrote:

I disagree. Any management techniques taught in high school level or below is minimal to nil. There were no management causes at the high school I went to and there are still none. Any manager in NZ that actually did a management course will have done it at tertiary level and that is a 3 year course max.
There might be other changes you might want to make to your education system but none that will effect management.
Of course training is one thing, getting them into positions where they can actually impliment what they have learned is another. They wont start at the top and the top are hardly going to listen to the new junior member who just joined the team... except when the existing management also have been sent to a similar course and they are all on the same page so to speak.

You are skipping the fundamentals I am talking about. That would be the liberalisation of education. Russian secondary schools are all about reading, writing, and arithmetic. It does not cultivate student's interest in exploring other fields nor does it give them a background to do so when they reach uni. Upon graduation students will pick a specialist school, of which there are very few business schools. The reason they are so few is because there is little reason for Russians to think they can go into business. It is for the children of those who already run the system. State monopolization and cronyism has killed that. The future of Russian industry cannot be of the current path, it has to be a systematic change so the masses can enter the system, of which education is only a part.

Here in NZ it is more common for smaller businesses to disappear due to financial problems. Put simply a small business has fewer things it can cut in hard times and it can't rely on multiple revenue streams to keep it going when some parts of its business are slowing down.

In a New Zealand if a big company that is important is having trouble the government will offer a bailout package, but will not take it over. A few years ago the BNZ (Bank of New Zealand... owned by Australians) was going tits up and the NZ government bailed it out with cash. If it had been an insurance company the government would have left it alone and the other insurance companies would have taken pieces at cut rates till it either managed to recover, or it disappeared.
Not likely these days however as most insurance companies are international and if the NZ branch gets into trouble they can just close it down or pump money into it from other places till it recovers.

NZ system is comparable to most Western countries. The government only bails out companies too big to fail, but then they will sell it off when it becomes viable after restructuring. In Russia the government buys up companies when they are doing just fine or facing bankruptcy, then they need constant bailouts thanks to the state screwing it up. The government won't sell off a company or asset unless it is strapped for cash. By then it is too late to do anything with it. It is time for the RF to privatise the majority of its holdings. Let the failing companies fall and let the winners arise from the ashes.

If they were just buying a brand and were just like any other fish and chip shop then they could sell what they want... you could get chicken nuggets at KFC and a Wopper at MDs. They are buying more than just a name, they are selling a specific product that they have very little control of. They can't even call their chips chips, they have to call them fries... which means nothing in NZ.

Different franchises can sell different products. Have you ever seen the disclaimer in an ad saying "only at participating restaurants"? The owners have a say in what they sell and what they sell it for. The owners buy the brand and they buy what sells, they do not have to order it. I have seen shops sell multiple brands, KFC, Pizza Hut, and BK in one.

Life blood of NZ is farming. Sheep and dairy exports.

Those are small and medium sized businesses. In Russia there are big holding firms that own most of the land.

These days everything has a computer in it, so it is no surprise if you want the best and the best computer stuff is not made in Russia that it will need to be imported. The motherboard of this computer is an ASUS, which is made in China. The Memory sticks are from Taiwan if my memory serves me correctly.
The computer box itself is really old, it had a 486 based computer in it and it was made in Japan. They are all foreign though I wouldn't really consider any of them as being the "West", except Japan perhaps.

The Russian semiconductor industry is obsolete, almost non-existent really. We have a long way to go and until we make inroads into fixing that problem, we will not be able to compete in military sales without foreign equipment going in it.

I gave a link to the article because in addition to all the problems I have mentioned for the Russian MIC it adds a few like having to retain capacity for mass production, which is a cost it seems the MIC is carrying itself, and of course the fact that exports earn the companies much larger profit margins that equipping its own armed forces.

The real final solution will occur when Russia starts spending money on equipment and the funds flow to the MIC and it can start working on next gen stuff, and of course developing a capacity to make its own electronics where necessary.

You are talking about retaining a mass production capacity for items not even the Army wants. What sense does that make? We need a mass production capacity for items of the next generation.

I personally think the focus has been all wrong, with the reform and downsizing there was little sense in spending money on new equipment, but now that the reforms have been implimented and are being tested what is needed is an up to date C4IR system, but there is no need for high tech weapons so to speak.

C4ISR is only half the battle, you have to have the weapons to fight it. China is not standing still, we need to stay one generation ahead of them since we will never have their numbers. The day that China will need Russian resources is not all that far away.

If you took the equipment... the basic equipment of the US forces in Desert Storm, there wasn't actually that much difference between the US forces and the Russian equipment in service now except for the proliferation of thermal sights for armour and the command and control and communications equipment. The US didn't really use UAVs very much then yet could still fight a much larger and relatively well equipped opponent. The success comes not from having the nicest rifles or the best tanks... the west is wrong about the tank being the best way to defeat another tank... the best way to defeat a tank is with air power and sensor fused submunitions fired from SMERCH rockets from 90km away.

For the 90% of obsolete equipment in service, we really aren't at the level of the US in 1991. More like the later years of Vietnam to the early 80s. Most of our equipment was already 10 years behind the US in 1991. With twenty years of stagnation the gap has only grown as this stuff rusts. If you filled the ranks with the best products we make this second, it would be 1995. With the imports we can bring it to 2005. Problem is it will be 2015-2020. So we are left with the same problem unless we import even more. Thus we become dependent on foreign suppliers.

What made the Germans so effective in WWII was their command and control and communications. They defeated most of Europe in a very short period, not because they had the best tanks, or the best rifles, or even the best artillery. They won because the army and airforce both worked together as a team to hammer the enemy.
Sure they were defeated, but they took on hugely superior numbers and won.
The Russian Army doesn't need brand new tanks or brand new artillery or brand new rifles. It needs to sort out its C4IR first. As Vostock-2010 shows a 152mm shell from a 2S5 is just as effective as a 152mm shell from a 2S19 MSTA. In real combat the 2S19 offers much better crew protection from small arms, but those on the receiving end probably wont notice.
As far as I am concerned the only issue is worn out equipment... if it is old but still in good condition, then just keep using it. If it is worn out then even a newly made older model is better than a worn out old model.
Buying everything all new is just too expensive, and is not really money well spent.
Buying new models of old stuff keeps the MIC working, as long as you make it clear that the money earned from the production must be used to upgrade the factory and for development of new stuff to replace the older stuff. BTR-82 is a good example of old stuff with minor though important changes while the BTR-90 gets its design revised to meet the needs of the user (ie engine moved so it can have a ramp rear exit).

Keeping old stuff in service raises the cost of the maintenance budget which should be used to buy new equipment. When your average fleet age is 25 years, it is time to start replacing it. The ammo stocks are already well past their shelf life and have to be disposed. It doesn't make sense to keep producing obsolete weapons, especially when you need better to keep up with the export competition. Just to say "build it because it works" is not good enough when our military is facing ever advancing foes. It is possible to upgrade old equipment, but there comes a point when it is just too old for it to be worth it. 25 years is already over that point.

The Russian semiconductor industry is obsolete, almost non-existent really.

Good. It is easier to develop from scratch than fix something that is broken. It is better to start from new than keep using the repaired and patched up.

You are talking about retaining a mass production capacity for items not even the Army wants. What sense does that make? We need a mass production capacity for items of the next generation.

Weapons that work and are not worn out are better than next gen stuff the Army can't afford in numbers. Not every district in Russia is facing NATO or the Chinese hoards.

Mikhail Barabanov of Moscow Defense Brief says the problem is not age, but physical wear:

“40-year-old ships and 30-year-old tanks are now almost gone. In reality, the problem of old equipment in our Armed Forces is not so much its age as the amount of equipment wear and tear. That leads to breakdowns. For example, in the Vostok-2010 exercise the guided missile cruiser Moskva didn’t succeed in launching its Vulcan [SS-N-27??] anti-ship missiles. As a result, missile boats with Moskit missiles destroyed the target.”

Nevertheless, Barabanov remains confident that, even with aging weapons, Russia’s military is superior to neighboring armies, including China’s:

“On the whole, the equipment level of Russian units in the Far East is generally adequate to perform defensive missions, although not at the highest level. It’s another issue that the equipment is badly worn out.”

Barabanov is not against buying new equipment of older designs:

“Even if industry’s existing models can be criticized for deficiencies from the standpoint of modern requirements, the fact remains they will be physically new, with a full service life, and allow for significantly increasing the combat readiness of troops.”

I would read from that that the combat readiness of troops is being effected by having worn out equipment. If the quick solution is new build old weapons then that is a cheap solution to start with.

C4ISR is only half the battle, you have to have the weapons to fight it. China is not standing still, we need to stay one generation ahead of them since we will never have their numbers. The day that China will need Russian resources is not all that far away.

Russia has plenty in storage of older material... too much in fact. The issue is probably more to do with older ammo stores being destroyed leaving older weapons in service without recent production ammo etc.
Russia needs to start offering gifts of aircraft and tanks and other material from storage to sweeten deals on new stuff.
[sarcasm]Great solution to piracy is to fit old Soviet tank turrets to civilian vessels over 1,000 tons for protection from pirates[/sarcasm]

For the 90% of obsolete equipment in service, we really aren't at the level of the US in 1991. More like the later years of Vietnam to the early 80s. Most of our equipment was already 10 years behind the US in 1991. With twenty years of stagnation the gap has only grown as this stuff rusts. If you filled the ranks with the best products we make this second, it would be 1995. With the imports we can bring it to 2005. Problem is it will be 2015-2020. So we are left with the same problem unless we import even more. Thus we become dependent on foreign suppliers.

Again you ignore reality. First of all you don't need the global invasion capability of the US forces or NATO. You need the ability to defend yourself... which you already have. The rest is gravy.
The problem was that the Russian armed forces stopped spending money which starved the Russian MIC. The solution is to start spending money on RUSSIAN PRODUCTS to support your own MIC. Whether those Russian products are Russian designs or licence produced material from abroad is irrelevant, you make a choice based on performance and cost. Factories are upgraded and experience is gained and R&D starts.

25 years is already over that point.

I agree that 25 years is important in some areas, but in many others it is not.
The Abrams is over 25 years old, the F-15, the F-16, the F-18, the B-52 is closer to 60... they were actually made in the 1950s!
In comparison the T-62 and older model T-72s are relatively obsolete, but with a force reduction from 20,000 to about 6,000 it should be possible to sort that out.
The T-90 with upgrades can be as good as any Abrams. Fighters and bombers the current new Russian aircraft are comparable to their US equivelents except that the US actually spends money on the aircraft and gets the upgrades applied to its aircraft, while the Russian AF keeps most of its aircraft in storage and upgrades a tiny fraction of its fleet.
The old ships like the Kirov are to be upgraded with new electronics and sensors and weapons.
In desert storm the age of the B-52 was not an issue. It was the level it was upgraded to that was the issue. A Mosquito could be modified to carry a satellite guided bomb. Beware gold plating. Americas fleet of 5th generation stealth fighters and trillion dollar fleet of B-2s are not as much use to them right now as their 60 year old B-52s.
The one technology area Russia might actually have a chance to get one up on the US and the rest of the world is the T-95 and funding for that was cancelled.

GarryB wrote:

Good. It is easier to develop from scratch than fix something that is broken. It is better to start from new than keep using the repaired and patched up.

Good that we don't have one... Russian Technologies is trying to make one, it will be made like any other. Broken state run mess.

Weapons that work and are not worn out are better than next gen stuff the Army can't afford in numbers. Not every district in Russia is facing NATO or the Chinese hoards.

I would read from that that the combat readiness of troops is being effected by having worn out equipment. If the quick solution is new build old weapons then that is a cheap solution to start with.

I would gather from that our weapon stocks are just about useless. Moskva can't even fire her missiles. Since our 25 year old equipment is so worn, what is the point of upgrading it. The weapons in the Far East are not enough to stop a Chinese advance. They could demolish most of our bases with MLRS before we even fire a shot they are so close to the border. Then whatever survives will be quickly overrun. Since most of our T-90s are there, what will follow up in a counter attack? A bunch of 25-30 year old T-72s . The wear on the vehicles is so great, they would breakdown before most reach the border. The 6 Day War showed how combat ready our forces are, much armour couldn't even be mobilised as it wouldn't leave the stalls, tanks broken down on the road. BMPs stalled in the Roki setting back our advance. Even the air defence drills show S-300 misfires and those are our latest stocks, the missiles in storage will mostly all be like that. A bunch of misfires. If China came rolling over the border we would have no choice but to nuke them or give up the Far East. We are in this state because we have spent so much of the budget on maintenance of old crap that we don't buy anything new.

Russia has plenty in storage of older material... too much in fact. The issue is probably more to do with older ammo stores being destroyed leaving older weapons in service without recent production ammo etc.
Russia needs to start offering gifts of aircraft and tanks and other material from storage to sweeten deals on new stuff.
[sarcasm]Great solution to piracy is to fit old Soviet tank turrets to civilian vessels over 1,000 tons for protection from pirates[/sarcasm]

Russia really doesn't have plenty in storage, at least ones that aren't past there service lives. We ran out of ammo during the 2nd Chechen War and had to order more, it was the only order for artillery since the collapse of the CCCP and it is all that remains. There has only been one order for air ordinance for $100 million which is not yet filled and won't be enough but for one day of war with China. The reason we rarely use PGMs is because we don't have any that work. The ordinance is a bunch of bombs and rockets that have a longer shelf-life but still is not reliable. No one wants our worn 25-30 year old equipment. All of the stuff that is any good we have been using for the last 20 years, all the storage is a bunch of scrap. The reason Ukraine can sell old tanks is because they never used them.

Again you ignore reality. First of all you don't need the global invasion capability of the US forces or NATO. You need the ability to defend yourself... which you already have. The rest is gravy.
The problem was that the Russian armed forces stopped spending money which starved the Russian MIC. The solution is to start spending money on RUSSIAN PRODUCTS to support your own MIC. Whether those Russian products are Russian designs or licence produced material from abroad is irrelevant, you make a choice based on performance and cost. Factories are upgraded and experience is gained and R&D starts.

We really don't have the ability to defend ourselves, you are ignoring that reality. If we didn't have nukes, China would be sitting in the Far East and Siberia as we speak. If we don't rearm 70% modern by 2020, that is exactly where they will be. They are just watching us for a sign of weakness and their social pressure will one day be so great they will have to attack. We do not have time to wait on the corrupt MIC to catch its learning curve, the clock is ticking. Building obsolete equipment is no longer an option. China already makes its equal which is why they have stopped importing land armaments. Soon they will no longer need our engines and we will have no control over their supply. They are developing ABM and the few nukes we will have won't deter them. There is no time!

I agree that 25 years is important in some areas, but in many others it is not.
The Abrams is over 25 years old, the F-15, the F-16, the F-18, the B-52 is closer to 60... they were actually made in the 1950s!

The US inventory of active tanks is not over 25 years old. Production did not end until 1996 and the earlier M1s have been withdrawn. The average is 20 years but they have all been extensively upgraded and completely overhauled. The average age of their fighters is 18 years and they will all be replaced in the next decade. Large aircraft have much longer service lives than supersonic fighters. 25 years is the cut-off point if you don't take care of your equipment which we have not done. It might be possible to completely overhaul and upgrade a 25 year old well maintained T-72, but A) they are not well maintained and B) the cost is not worth it when you can buy new T-90s. The same can be said for our fighters. Smaller ships have no choice but be removed and the larger ships are not worth the cost.

In comparison the T-62 and older model T-72s are relatively obsolete, but with a force reduction from 20,000 to about 6,000 it should be possible to sort that out.

The new T-72M1s are still mostly 25 years old. The cost of upgrading and overhauling every major component is about half the cost of a brand new T-90S. Would you rather have modernised 6,000 T-72s or 2,700 brand new T-90s? That is based on the cost India is considering to pay which would make them as modern as an M-60A2. If we go the cheap route with a simple re-engine and armour package it would not be worth bringing them to battle.

The T-90 with upgrades can be as good as any Abrams. Fighters and bombers the current new Russian aircraft are comparable to their US equivelents except that the US actually spends money on the aircraft and gets the upgrades applied to its aircraft, while the Russian AF keeps most of its aircraft in storage and upgrades a tiny fraction of its fleet.

Spare me, a T-90 is not as good as any Abrams. Only the lead elements have Reflex, of which is not likely to destroy an M1A2, and any T-90 in a gun duel with an Abrams is dead meat. The FCS is just that inferior. Even if you did hit it, it wouldn't kill it. While an Su-35BM might be better than any legacy US fighter, the US will have 5th generation and AESA throughout the fleet. That is why PAK FA is a must have but will not really see service until 2020. By 2020 the VVS will be whittled down to a few hundred modern planes.

The old ships like the Kirov are to be upgraded with new electronics and sensors and weapons.

Actually the decision has not been made. It would cost $1.1 billion to upgrade each today, and every year we wait will cost 10% more. The Kuznetsov will be decomissioned for a 5 year overhaul from 2012-2017 so we will have no carrier for them to protect. By 2015 we will have no surface fleet of any consequence.

In desert storm the age of the B-52 was not an issue. It was the level it was upgraded to that was the issue. A Mosquito could be modified to carry a satellite guided bomb. Beware gold plating. Americas fleet of 5th generation stealth fighters and trillion dollar fleet of B-2s are not as much use to them right now as their 60 year old B-52s.
The one technology area Russia might actually have a chance to get one up on the US and the rest of the world is the T-95 and funding for that was cancelled.

And the age of the 50 year old B-52s is still not an issue. They have enough spares at the AZ boneyard to last them an eternity. When you store them in a desert they last a really long time. Not like storing them in snow where the temperature change constantly expands and contracts tearing the skin year in and year out. The T-95 has no state support, which means dead.

Good that we don't have one... Razz Russian Technologies is trying to make one, it will be made like any other. Broken state run mess.

Private run companies are not a guarantee of success either.

The problem with being pessimistic is that the ultimate solution is to do nothing, because everything is broken so nothing it can do will be done right.
The old saying is that a pessimist sees the glass half empty and an optimist sees a glass half full... and a designer sees that you have 50% more glass than you need.
Certainly things will not get better very quickly if we are all optimists like me, but they will never get better if we are all pessimists like you.
If you don't trust Russians to get it right get a green card and move to the US... and get fat and vote for the guy that wants to invade everyone... which is all of them.

I would gather from that our weapon stocks are just about useless. Moskva can't even fire her missiles. Since our 25 year old equipment is so worn, what is the point of upgrading it.

Not can't. Couldn't. I am sure the issues are being dealt with as we chat about it.
The Vulkan missiles in question, called SS-N-12 SANDBOX in the west because I don't think there is a separate western designation for the V-1000 Vulkan to distinguish it from the P-500 Bazalt missile originally called SS-N-12 and I doubt they would have noticed the change, are very potent antiship missiles and there is currently nothing to replace them. They are both larger and much longer ranged than the Brahmos and carry a much larger warhead at a similar speed.
The Vulkan only entered service in 1987 so it is much much younger than its western equivalent, the Harpoon.

We are in this state because we have spent so much of the budget on maintenance of old crap that we don't buy anything new.

No. You are in the current state because you have gone from communism to democracy, had at least three major economic collapses, have greatly downsized and reformed our armed forces, and have not bought a lot of new stuff.
Also open air storage is not really storage... it is often neglect.
And of course there is parts theft and other types of corruption that lead to open air storage not being as good as it sounds.

Also that is what I was hinting at before... you can't afford to buy all new brand new designs, and you don't need to. New built old designs that work are good enough, especially with upgrades applied. New built Mig-29M2s for example would be a good little fighter to face the Chinese hoards. Not all Chinese fighters are Su-27s upgraded above Russian levels. Most are just Mig-21 modifications which a Mig-29M2 would eat for breakfast.

Russia really doesn't have plenty in storage, at least ones that aren't past there service lives.

So here is an important issue you never talk about. What is the point of buying all new stuff if you don't even have ammo for the stuff you have?
Changes clearly need to be made. Purchases of ordinance and proper storage facilities are clearly needed. Until you have that you are wasting your time and money. Having the latest tank or plane is of little value if they are using cheap dumb ammo. At the start of WWII on the Soviet side there were thousands of tanks and thousands of planes but most tank units had HE ammo and no armour piercing ammo. Most of the aircraft were lined up at airfields in the open ready to be attacked... which they were.

Combat ability has more to it than how old the equipment is.

We really don't have the ability to defend ourselves, you are ignoring that reality. If we didn't have nukes, China would be sitting in the Far East and Siberia as we speak.

From who? If is a very big word in this regard. There are only two forces that could defeat you on a conventional battlefield today, and they are NATO and China. Traditionally an attack from NATO is dismissed because that is what the Nukes are for right?
Well post cold war the attack from China can also be dismissed for the same reason.
Anything else the Russian armed forces can deal with.
BTW Vietnam doesn't have nukes and I don't see China sitting in Vietnam.
Chinas armed forces have as many problems as the Russian armed forces, and they are certainly not stupid enough to confront the Bear for resources they can simply buy on the open market.

They are developing ABM and the few nukes we will have won't deter them. There is no time!

Yeah, the sky is falling. 150 years ago the British were sure that the Russians were coming to take India from them. Ironically their mistreatment of India threw them into the arms of the Russians. Chinas economic growth is based on trade and production. They are not going to risk a war with a country that can destroy large parts of its infrastructure very easily for a little bit of land. A single attack on the 3 gorges dam would kill millions in the ensuing floods. A Russian support for Taiwans independance is another area they have a weakness.
Very rarely are solutions to problems purely military.

It might be possible to completely overhaul and upgrade a 25 year old well maintained T-72, but A) they are not well maintained and B) the cost is not worth it when you can buy new T-90s. The same can be said for our fighters. Smaller ships have no choice but be removed and the larger ships are not worth the cost.

No fair. You keep skipping between design age and object age. As I said above you could make a decent T-72 with upgrades built in with 70% performance of the T-90 for about 25% the cost. It has been stated that the Russian armed forces are going to get 1,500 T-90s in total. It has been stated that total tank forces will be 5.5 to 6 thousand tanks. The T-95 no longer has funding. The T-80s use too many components made in the Ukraine. That means that there will be up to 4,500 T-72s in Russian service, mostly in storage.
If the existing tanks in storage are not in good condition then scrap them all and make new build T-72s with T-90 like components where possible to increase production of those parts to reduce prices and increase commonality and reduce logistics strain by requiring a reduced range of parts to be stockpiled.
The problem there of course is that when the next generation tank is developed either the force is going to be much smaller or it is going to include three generations of tanks. Perhaps the solution is cheap tank and expensive tank... ie T-72 and T-64/-80 combination. Currently it is T-72 and T-90, but the question is will the T-90 become the cheap tank in the next phase of T-90 and T-95, or will a new cheaper tank need to be developed in addition to a new expensive tank?
Otherwise you might end up with a tank force of 1,500 T-95s, 1,500 T-90s, and 2,000 or so T-72s, with the T-90 and T-72s gradually being upgraded with technology developed for the T-95. The other solution would be develop a cheap mass production tank that is easy to make and use and has good general effectiveness as say the T-99 that can be exported and a T-95 that has all the bells and whistles that costs so much you can only afford 1,000 and have the remaining force of 4,500-5,000 T-99s filling out the remaining. Of course it might be worth greatly upgrading the storage facilities and keeping the expensive tanks in quality storage and the cheap but easy to use and maintain tanks for practise and exercises.

That is based on the cost India is considering to pay which would make them as modern as an M-60A2. If we go the cheap route with a simple re-engine and armour package it would not be worth bringing them to battle.

Yet it would create a tank good enough to train on to keep wear and tear on the T-90s down. The focus of the upgrade should be to increase commonality with the T-90 so upgrading thousands of T-72s should reduce the price of the T-90s because the cost of the shared parts will go down. Maintainence will be easier, and the variety of reserve parts stored will be decreased too. Training for maintainence and operational crews will be simplified.

It really comes down to actual numbers, and how flexible the Army wants to be with its vision of 1,500 T-90s. There doesn't seem to be that much money in the budget for tanks so I am not optimistic that the Army will end up with all new tanks.

Spare me, a T-90 is not as good as any Abrams. Only the lead elements have Reflex, of which is not likely to destroy an M1A2, and any T-90 in a gun duel with an Abrams is dead meat.

How often have Russian tanks fought enemy tanks since WWII? The best way to kill a tank is with air power or artillery. As a gun platform the T-90 is as good as any Abrams. The only thing currently missing is battle management hardware and software, which is being addressed in the upgrade (whether it is Russian or licence produced foreign stuff).

The Kuznetsov will be decomissioned for a 5 year overhaul from 2012-2017 so we will have no carrier for them to protect. By 2015 we will have no surface fleet of any consequence.

If money is being spent to overhaul the Kuznetsov then money will also need to be spent on escorts for 2017 when it heads back to sea. An upgrade of a Kirov class vessel will not be an overnight thing either, though I would expect 3-4 years rather than 5 depending upon how deep the upgrade. I would think a replacement of the powerplant system in the Kirovs to all nuclear, plus the installation of multirole vertical launch systems and new electronics would make them powerful carrier group lead ships.

The T-95 has no state support, which means dead.

Pantsir had no state support... the UAE paid for that to be developed.
There is only one tank maker in Russia and the T-95 is its future tank. Cancelling the state money for it does not mean it is dead, first of all because they will be working on brand new technologies, state of the art stuff in many areas in this design. When the money stops the state of the art doesn't stop too.
If you were working on a UAV design and you were making it with all of the best stuff you could apply to the design, if the money stops your work will of course be effected, but what are you going to do... stop working on a replacement for the thing you have in production now? If you are going to keep working on a replacement are you going to throw away everything you were working on and start from scratch? That would cost even more and you are still getting no extra money for it.
Very simply you will work on it when you can with your own money... you wont be able to afford all the lastest and the bestest but you will continue to work at the leading edge of your field simply to explore the new technologies and keep current.
Some of the features you will try to include in the upgrades to the existing tank as an opportunity to actually get things into production for field testing, which reduces costs of your project tank and improves commonality with existing design and of course improves the performance of the existing system.
The T-95 is expensive and there is no money for tanks period let alone expensive ones... I think the money being cut had more to do with high cost rather than any performance issues, but that is just my opinion.

In recent interview Popovkin:

RG: To reequip entire army by new weapon is unreal even in two five-year plans. In the program -2020 are laid some priorities? Let us say, to first of all modernize aircraft pool or land arsenal?

[Popovkin]: First priority - strategic forces of restraining. They have two components: strategic nuclear forces, and also warning system about the rocket attack, ABOUT the aerospace defense.

The second priority - large enumeration of high-precision weapon, whose application it is based on the information input from space. The third - automated control systems of the troops. In the next two or three years one must connect all specific ASU into the united system for control. To modernize it so that it would be with the open architecture and it made it possible to increase possibilities in any direction.

One additional priority is connected with the number of armed forces. With the millionth army we cannot hold uniformly strong groups in all strategic directions. Therefore it is important to have means of the transfer of personnel and technology. First of all - contemporary military transport aviation.

So buying all new stuff... even by 2020 is not realistic.
His priority seems to be (apart from strategic forces and precision guided weapons) to be the command control and communications structure.
You say old model T-72s would be useless against China, well I say if you had C4IR to anything like the level the US has and T-34s would probably do.
Any ground force will force the Chinese to either mass up and fight or scatter. If they mass up to fight artillery and air power smashes them.
His comments about precision weapons (the guided from space suggests Glonass guided bombs and missiles) offers some hope. The Russians have the most experience with gun tube launched anti tank missiles, though the existing ones are quite expensive if you took the next step and produced some missiles with terminal guidance that were able to perform diving top attack flight profiles then the T-90 would be able to take on M1A2s... though I don't know why you'd want that. It would certainly demolish any Chinese tank.

The end part suggests mobility to allow forces to transfer from hot spot to hot spot around Russia is going to be a priority, which is perhaps another reason why they cancelled a 55 ton future tank.

Rest of the article is here:

http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvpk.name%2Fnews%2F41396_k_oruzhiyu_pervyii_zamestitel_ministra_oboronyi_vladimir_popovkin_raskryil_planyi_pereosnasheniya_armii__polnyii_tekst_intervyu.html&lp=ru_en&btnTrUrl=Translate

(English translation through babelfish for english speakers.)

GarryB wrote:Private run companies are not a guarantee of success either.

The problem with being pessimistic is that the ultimate solution is to do nothing, because everything is broken so nothing it can do will be done right.
The old saying is that a pessimist sees the glass half empty and an optimist sees a glass half full... and a designer sees that you have 50% more glass than you need.
Certainly things will not get better very quickly if we are all optimists like me, but they will never get better if we are all pessimists like you.
If you don't trust Russians to get it right get a green card and move to the US... and get fat and vote for the guy that wants to invade everyone... which is all of them.

It isn't a matter of the way we look at a glass. It is a matter of what I and every other educated Russian knows. The state run system in Russia does not work, this isn't a matter of opinion. It is fact backed up with numerous failures to analyse. No amount of doing business as usual is going to change that. The fundamentals have to be altered to ensure competition and fair application of law. The end of monopolies must be adjudicated and the rise of small and medium enterprises encouraged. Russia has plenty of potential, but it cannot be tapped until the business climate is changed. Do not tell me to move again or you will go to Afbanistan.

No. You are in the current state because you have gone from communism to democracy, had at least three major economic collapses, have greatly downsized and reformed our armed forces, and have not bought a lot of new stuff.
Also open air storage is not really storage... it is often neglect.
And of course there is parts theft and other types of corruption that lead to open air storage not being as good as it sounds.

Also that is what I was hinting at before... you can't afford to buy all new brand new designs, and you don't need to. New built old designs that work are good enough, especially with upgrades applied. New built Mig-29M2s for example would be a good little fighter to face the Chinese hoards. Not all Chinese fighters are Su-27s upgraded above Russian levels. Most are just Mig-21 modifications which a Mig-29M2 would eat for breakfast.

No, we are in this state because we should have downsized the army 20 years ago and spent that money on R&D and new equipment. We have waited so long maintaining a military we couldn't afford that the MIC has decayed to its current state. Just imagine how much better it would be if MIC had received half the maintenance budget over the last 20 years, on the order of $100 billion. That could have saved it when it was still viable. We have waited so long to do anything about it we have no choice now but to import.

Building obsolete designs is not an option and will not be done. It wouldn't have been so obsolete if we continued building it twenty years ago and progressed as every other country has done. We waited too long and now we are buying foreign technology to catch up.

So here is an important issue you never talk about. What is the point of buying all new stuff if you don't even have ammo for the stuff you have?
Changes clearly need to be made. Purchases of ordinance and proper storage facilities are clearly needed. Until you have that you are wasting your time and money. Having the latest tank or plane is of little value if they are using cheap dumb ammo. At the start of WWII on the Soviet side there were thousands of tanks and thousands of planes but most tank units had HE ammo and no armour piercing ammo. Most of the aircraft were lined up at airfields in the open ready to be attacked... which they were.

Combat ability has more to it than how old the equipment is.

Clearly new ammo will have to be purchased. It makes little sense to build new platforms without new weapons to go with it. We don't want to remake old weapons for new platforms and we haven't done that. There are plenty of new bombs and missiles being sent for export, we just need to buy more for our new fleets. Until the new fleets arrive, it doesn't make sense to buy much munitions with nothing to fire it. The old fleets cannot handle the new.


Combat ability has a direct correlation to how old the equipment is on three levels. 1) how survivable is it against modern threats 2) how good are its weapon systems and 3) how available is the equipment due to its age and parts availability. Modernisation might solve one or two, but not all three and money can be better spent solving all three with new.

From who? If is a very big word in this regard. There are only two forces that could defeat you on a conventional battlefield today, and they are NATO and China. Traditionally an attack from NATO is dismissed because that is what the Nukes are for right?
Well post cold war the attack from China can also be dismissed for the same reason.
Anything else the Russian armed forces can deal with.
BTW Vietnam doesn't have nukes and I don't see China sitting in Vietnam.
Chinas armed forces have as many problems as the Russian armed forces, and they are certainly not stupid enough to confront the Bear for resources they can simply buy on the open market.

The nukes are for both considering we do not have a conventional force that could stop either of them. No one really talks about the Chinese threat because we do not want to aggravate relations, but we all know it is there. If is not a very big word when the threat is sitting across your border with a population, economy and defence spending that dwarfs ours and a very good reason to attack. We all are very worried about it, it is just not PC to talk about it. The Chinese have the same problems we do except for two, they have money and plenty of population to staff it. Chinese already tried to sit in Vietnam and got their ass whooped. They have already grabbed their natural resources which is all they are really after. They do not have to sit in Vietnam for that but take it to the ocean. To grab ours they have to take land. They will grab it from us when the prices peak, they cannot afford to import it then.

Yeah, the sky is falling. 150 years ago the British were sure that the Russians were coming to take India from them. Ironically their mistreatment of India threw them into the arms of the Russians. Chinas economic growth is based on trade and production. They are not going to risk a war with a country that can destroy large parts of its infrastructure very easily for a little bit of land. A single attack on the 3 gorges dam would kill millions in the ensuing floods. A Russian support for Taiwans independance is another area they have a weakness.
Very rarely are solutions to problems purely military.

Not a very good example to use something that actually happened. When China is backed with social unrest, they will do whatever to alleviate that unrest. If it is paying too much for raw materials, they will take those raw materials. They have already done it to Vietnam and they will continue to do it. Russian support of Taiwan's independence would mean little since we couldn't get past a blockade of it. Bombing a dam would just piss them off, CCP doesn't actually care about the people. They just care about power.

No fair. You keep skipping between design age and object age. As I said above you could make a decent T-72 with upgrades built in with 70% performance of the T-90 for about 25% the cost. It has been stated that the Russian armed forces are going to get 1,500 T-90s in total. It has been stated that total tank forces will be 5.5 to 6 thousand tanks. The T-95 no longer has funding. The T-80s use too many components made in the Ukraine. That means that there will be up to 4,500 T-72s in Russian service, mostly in storage.
If the existing tanks in storage are not in good condition then scrap them all and make new build T-72s with T-90 like components where possible to increase production of those parts to reduce prices and increase commonality and reduce logistics strain by requiring a reduced range of parts to be stockpiled.
The problem there of course is that when the next generation tank is developed either the force is going to be much smaller or it is going to include three generations of tanks. Perhaps the solution is cheap tank and expensive tank... ie T-72 and T-64/-80 combination. Currently it is T-72 and T-90, but the question is will the T-90 become the cheap tank in the next phase of T-90 and T-95, or will a new cheaper tank need to be developed in addition to a new expensive tank?
Otherwise you might end up with a tank force of 1,500 T-95s, 1,500 T-90s, and 2,000 or so T-72s, with the T-90 and T-72s gradually being upgraded with technology developed for the T-95. The other solution would be develop a cheap mass production tank that is easy to make and use and has good general effectiveness as say the T-99 that can be exported and a T-95 that has all the bells and whistles that costs so much you can only afford 1,000 and have the remaining force of 4,500-5,000 T-99s filling out the remaining. Of course it might be worth greatly upgrading the storage facilities and keeping the expensive tanks in quality storage and the cheap but easy to use and maintain tanks for practise and exercises.

I am not skipping anything. I am clearly talking about object age there. As far as tank forces, the plan is now to have 2000 T-90s filling the active forces and 4,000 upgraded T-72s in storage. The modernisation efforts are not going well at all. We actually produce far more T-90s than T-72s that get upgraded. Once we clear the export books, we can easily build enough T-90s. It just needs to be a version that is up to modern standards.

Yet it would create a tank good enough to train on to keep wear and tear on the T-90s down. The focus of the upgrade should be to increase commonality with the T-90 so upgrading thousands of T-72s should reduce the price of the T-90s because the cost of the shared parts will go down. Maintainence will be easier, and the variety of reserve parts stored will be decreased too. Training for maintainence and operational crews will be simplified.

If you want to talk about commonality, make them all T-90s. End of that line of reasoning.

How often have Russian tanks fought enemy tanks since WWII? The best way to kill a tank is with air power or artillery. As a gun platform the T-90 is as good as any Abrams. The only thing currently missing is battle management hardware and software, which is being addressed in the upgrade (whether it is Russian or licence produced foreign stuff).

If that is best way then why make tanks? As a gun platform the T-90 doesn't even compare to any Western tank. The Tardy in the Malaysia trials beat the T-90 thanks to its French FCS. Laser guided ATGMs were added to our tanks because the FCS does not compare so there is no validity to your statement.

If money is being spent to overhaul the Kuznetsov then money will also need to be spent on escorts for 2017 when it heads back to sea. An upgrade of a Kirov class vessel will not be an overnight thing either, though I would expect 3-4 years rather than 5 depending upon how deep the upgrade. I would think a replacement of the powerplant system in the Kirovs to all nuclear, plus the installation of multirole vertical launch systems and new electronics would make them powerful carrier group lead ships.

Kirovs are already nuclear. The upgrade will bring it to Peter the Great's standard. No new VLS system will be developed for it.

Pantsir had no state support... the UAE paid for that to be developed.

The Panstyr had plenty of support. It was selected as the replacement for Tanguska long ago.

There is only one tank maker in Russia and the T-95 is its future tank. Cancelling the state money for it does not mean it is dead, first of all because they will be working on brand new technologies, state of the art stuff in many areas in this design. When the money stops the state of the art doesn't stop too.

It does in Russia. State owned companies make it so. These are not private firms that do whatever they want nor can they market on their own. If the state says it is dead, it is dead. Unless something changes in the T-95 programme, it isn't a possibility and really a waste of time for us to talk about it.

Do not tell me to move again or you will go to Afbanistan.

It was a serious question. It is not a stupid teenage American saying if you don't love it leave.
It is a near 40 year old saying if everything is broken and corruption means nothing can be fixed and the government just makes promises and the sky is falling my advice is to travel... go to other places. Not forever... for 2 years. New Zealanders have a tradition called an OE, or overseas experience which usually involves living in London for 6 months to a year and travelling to Europe. It is a real eye opener for us because other countries are so close and it is cheap to fly to Europe.
Depending upon where you go you will either find paradise, or you will find that every country has problems and everyone has solutions to those problems and some of those solutions create more problems than they solve. And that even if your solutions actually work they will take time even in they are implimented the way you want... which they wont. Those that have wealth and power like to hold on to that wealth and power.
You think a free market economy and western business practises will stop companies from screwing the goverment when it comes to weapons.
Do you think France has everything perfect?
The best way to appreciate the place you are is to go somewhere else. You might find a better place which is good for you, or you might find things weren't so bad where you were... and you can move back.
Either way you'll cheer the fuck up .

The end of monopolies must be adjudicated and the rise of small and medium enterprises encouraged. Russia has plenty of potential, but it cannot be tapped until the business climate is changed.

The monopolies have served their purpose for the most part... ie they have prevented a large foreign company coming in a buying up all your metal companies and your oil reserves and your farming land so that Russians don't end up like Cubans before Castro kicked the colonialists out.
The problem is that most Russians who don't have connections don't have the money to compete.
The ones that do are currently in Britain buying UK soccer teams with their wealth instead of investing it in Russia.
To destroy monopolies is to hand your farms to China and your mineral wealth to the west and your forests to Finland.
Why do you think the West was so shitty with Putins Russia?
He did what Iran did and made sure that Russia got the real profits from oil, so he could pay back all the loans of the Yeltsin years. The west didn't want money back... it wanted forests it could cut down for timber, it wanted oil fields to power Europe and to deny to China to try to limit its growth.
I hope you don't think democracy and a free market economy is going to result in the communist ideal of everyone in the middle class and no one poor and no one super rich... communism didn't create that, capitalism didn't create that either. There will always be the haves and the have nots.

No, we are in this state because we should have downsized the army 20 years ago and spent that money on R&D and new equipment.

Disbanding forces cost more than trickle feeding them and keeping them alive. If you spent that money early on... well you couldn't have, because you simply didn't have it. There would also be the risk to the political entity that suggested that. Equally the downsizing and reform in the middle of the Chechen campaigns could simply have made them much worse.

That could have saved it when it was still viable. We have waited so long to do anything about it we have no choice now but to import.

It is still viable. Actually spend some money now and you will see how viable it is. The problem is that now that it is producing state of the art stuff the price is nothing like it used to be. Licence production, especially of things used widely, is certainly a way forward but the rush to buy all new stuff ignores the problem of all the existing stuff. Perhaps when you deal with that in a constructive way you can generate more money than it costs to store and hold on to that crap.
Another problem is that you want everything done now!
If this had all been done before and you knew the changes worked then there should be a rush, but you might find that the new structure doesn't work except on exercise.
Take more time and make sure you get it right.

Building obsolete designs is not an option and will not be done. It wouldn't have been so obsolete if we continued building it twenty years ago and progressed as every other country has done. We waited too long and now we are buying foreign technology to catch up.

I said Mig-29, not Mig-23 or Mig-21. The Mig-29M2 is hardly obsolete. Especially when Russian mass production of AESA elements kicks in and it becomes viable to give them AESA radars.
Against F-22s obviously they are clearly obsolete, but only on country has F-22s and only one country will have them for the forseable future. Against Chinas Mig-21s and the many variants of Mig-21s a Mig-29M2 with new model AAMs developed for the T-50 should be able to kill in large numbers. A force of 150 T-50s could simply be overwhelmed with cheaper fighters. You need numbers fighters like Su-27SMs and Mig-29M2s that can fill gaps, and you should get them at a rate of 5 to 1 at least compared to T-50s.

Clearly new ammo will have to be purchased. It makes little sense to build new platforms without new weapons to go with it. We don't want to remake old weapons for new platforms and we haven't done that. There are plenty of new bombs and missiles being sent for export, we just need to buy more for our new fleets. Until the new fleets arrive, it doesn't make sense to buy much munitions with nothing to fire it. The old fleets cannot handle the new.

The Su-35 is supposed to enter production in 2012 so I don't see why you could not start buying weapons now. When you do need them you will buy them in large numbers... how are they going to pay of the expansion of production if they have to rely on export sales? Buying now spreads the cost, because these weapons are not going to be cheap. It also means they can work on their production methods and so by the time you have the aircraft in service they already have experience in making the weapons efficiently.
Some missiles like the AAMs for the T-50 are different from current Russian missiles because they need to be lock on after launch, but there is no reason why the Su-35S couldn't be equipped with them too. In the future when the T-50 and the Su-35 and Mig-35 and the Su-27SM and Mig-29SMT all operate together there is no reason for them all to have different AAMs. There are only a handful of Su-27SM and Mig-29SMT aircraft in Russian AF service but those numbers will be swelled with later models and any Mig-29s or Su-27s that are in good condition could certainly be upgraded to fill out regiments till they get newer mounts.
For GLONASS guided bombs and missiles, well these guidance methods offer cheap guided munitions. There are variants of the Kh-25 and the new Kh-38 that use sat nav as well that should be bought and put in service right away.

Modernisation might solve one or two, but not all three and money can be better spent solving all three with new.

If there was enough money to buy all new gear I would certainly agree with you, but the budget is not infinite and some things cost more than others. Buying all new T-90s would be nice, but buying 6,000 of them is simply not possible. Commonality is good for logistics but you can take it too far. Having the same engine and transmission in two different types of tanks is a good thing because transmissions and engines need parts replaced and maintained on a regular basis. Having the same kind of gun is good too and the same type of ammo. Having the same type of frontal armour on the other hand is a little bit wasteful. Bolt on an extra sheet of armour on the older models and that is enough. The extra power from the bigger engine will more than compensate for the extra weight, but the cost of removing the old armour and putting in new armour is not worth the extra cost. If the tank is damaged in combat it might be worth replacing, but otherwise leave the T-72 as the cheaper tank so you can afford more of them.

Chinese already tried to sit in Vietnam and got their ass whooped.

I know... China, with its huge population and even at that time its economy was much better than war torn Vietnam, got its butt kicked by tiny Vietnam. And Vietnam didn't even have nukes. Makes you think either China is a paper tiger, or there is more to success in war than the size of your economy and growth rates.

Russian support of Taiwan's independence would mean little since we couldn't get past a blockade of it. Bombing a dam would just piss them off, CCP doesn't actually care about the people. They just care about power.

I was thinking more in terms of US commitments to help Taiwan and drawing China and the US into a conflict to avoid a Russia China conflict.

If you want to talk about commonality, make them all T-90s. End of that line of reasoning.

The ideal choice, but also the most expensive. If money was no issue then it is the obvious choice. Money is an issue so it is not an option.
The point is that there is only one Tank making company in Russia, so if you want to make seperate parts for the T-72 and the T-90 then you need extra production facilities. By developing a single upgrade standard/production standard for the T-72 and T-90 respectively you can minimise the differences, make maintainence and storage of spare parts cheaper and easier. There is no point in rushing to upgrade the T-72 till you have that standard unified upgrade ready. There is no point in suddenly mass producing T-90s till the final production standard is finalised and approved.

If that is best way then why make tanks? As a gun platform the T-90 doesn't even compare to any Western tank. The Tardy in the Malaysia trials beat the T-90 thanks to its French FCS. Laser guided ATGMs were added to our tanks because the FCS does not compare so there is no validity to your statement.

The Twardy was used to replace the Scorpion light tank. Perhaps cost was an issue?
Laser guided tank rounds were developed in the Soviet Union to address deficiencies in FCS, but FCS have improved along with other technologies in Russia since then.

Kirovs are already nuclear. The upgrade will bring it to Peter the Great's standard. No new VLS system will be developed for it.

They use a combined small nuclear reactor for cruise speed and a gas turbine (with the nuclear) for max speed. Replacement with a more powerful reactor would be beneficial and reduce complication.

The Panstyr had plenty of support. It was selected as the replacement for Tanguska long ago.

Support, but no money. It was UAE money that replaced the 10km range missiles with 18km range missiles and the single barrel 30mm guns with the twin barrel 30mm guns and the radars with phased array antennas.

It does in Russia. State owned companies make it so. These are not private firms that do whatever they want nor can they market on their own. If the state says it is dead, it is dead. Unless something changes in the T-95 programme, it isn't a possibility and really a waste of time for us to talk about it.

Again you contradict yourself. You complain that the Russian MIC is behind in everything and then you claim the development of a next generation tank should cease and that this is a good thing for Russia?
I guess the T-90 will be fine as a MBT in 2050?

GarryB wrote:
It was a serious question. It is not a stupid teenage American saying if you don't love it leave.
It is a near 40 year old saying if everything is broken and corruption means nothing can be fixed and the government just makes promises and the sky is falling my advice is to travel... go to other places. Not forever... for 2 years. New Zealanders have a tradition called an OE, or overseas experience which usually involves living in London for 6 months to a year and travelling to Europe. It is a real eye opener for us because other countries are so close and it is cheap to fly to Europe.
Depending upon where you go you will either find paradise, or you will find that every country has problems and everyone has solutions to those problems and some of those solutions create more problems than they solve. And that even if your solutions actually work they will take time even in they are implimented the way you want... which they wont. Those that have wealth and power like to hold on to that wealth and power.
You think a free market economy and western business practises will stop companies from screwing the goverment when it comes to weapons.
Do you think France has everything perfect?
The best way to appreciate the place you are is to go somewhere else. You might find a better place which is good for you, or you might find things weren't so bad where you were... and you can move back.
Either way you'll cheer the fuck up .

That cheered me up all right. I about laughed myself out of my seat. I completed 2 tripos and degreed in International Biz in one of England's top colleges. I know quite well how the Western system works, I lived it for 4 years in UK, France, and Slovakia. Been to 48 countries and lived in 7 each over six months or more. I know how business works from Russia, Europe, China to the Middle East, I have worked in them all. I also know which one works the best.

The monopolies have served their purpose for the most part... ie they have prevented a large foreign company coming in a buying up all your metal companies and your oil reserves and your farming land so that Russians don't end up like Cubans before Castro kicked the colonialists out.
The problem is that most Russians who don't have connections don't have the money to compete.
The ones that do are currently in Britain buying UK soccer teams with their wealth instead of investing it in Russia.
To destroy monopolies is to hand your farms to China and your mineral wealth to the west and your forests to Finland.
Why do you think the West was so shitty with Putins Russia?
He did what Iran did and made sure that Russia got the real profits from oil, so he could pay back all the loans of the Yeltsin years. The west didn't want money back... it wanted forests it could cut down for timber, it wanted oil fields to power Europe and to deny to China to try to limit its growth.
I hope you don't think democracy and a free market economy is going to result in the communist ideal of everyone in the middle class and no one poor and no one super rich... communism didn't create that, capitalism didn't create that either. There will always be the haves and the have nots.

They don't have the money because the rates are so high, you cannot afford to pay back a loan. The state even raised rates on EU lending so high that it costs more to get that than a loan from VTB. People cannot start a business because the red tape and courts are against you unless you have political connections, or money to bribe. The entire system is designed to keep those in power up and the rest down. The economy is weak because we cannot grow small and medium enterprises. Until that changes we will be reliant on raw materials until they run out. The state is the one allowing FDI to take over our industries. When we can no longer afford to prop up failing SOEs we have no choice but to sell it off. Perfect example is AvtoVaz and how it can do nothing without the French saving it. There is no benefit to having monopolies, without competition innovation dies and so does fair prices. If the state wants to regulate FDI it is easy enough to do, but the state favours FDI to domestic companies. Perfect example is road construction. The state spends almost nothing to build roads, instead they invite FDI companies to make toll roads. Finland owns the Karelian timber industry. China will own our HSR. France owns our auto industry. It is already happening and United Russia is inviting more of it. The system isn't protecting us from foreign ownership but promoting it.

Disbanding forces cost more than trickle feeding them and keeping them alive. If you spent that money early on... well you couldn't have, because you simply didn't have it. There would also be the risk to the political entity that suggested that. Equally the downsizing and reform in the middle of the Chechen campaigns could simply have made them much worse.

Disbanding forces costs nothing. You can actually make money selling off the land and equipment. We would have had the money and then some taken from the maintenance, pension and personnel budgets that could have been used for R&D and procurement. The Chechen wars never used more than 93,000 men, far less in the first war. We did not need 2 million men to fight it. If we had cut down to the current force structure we could have saved lives in both wars with better equipment and working weapons. You not only save money on maintenance, but less personnel costs and pensions of a bloated officer corps that could would add up to $100 billion even in those lean times. If we had sold off our surplus stocks before they became too old, we could have added tens of billions more on top of what we sold to China. It could have been a really good industry providing upgrade packages for it too. Now it is nothing but scrap or museum pieces.

It is still viable. Actually spend some money now and you will see how viable it is. The problem is that now that it is producing state of the art stuff the price is nothing like it used to be. Licence production, especially of things used widely, is certainly a way forward but the rush to buy all new stuff ignores the problem of all the existing stuff. Perhaps when you deal with that in a constructive way you can generate more money than it costs to store and hold on to that crap.
Another problem is that you want everything done now!
If this had all been done before and you knew the changes worked then there should be a rush, but you might find that the new structure doesn't work except on exercise.
Take more time and make sure you get it right.

It isn't viable, once most ships, tanks and planes have reached the 25 year threshold, they are scrap. Unless you are a poor African army that still uses T-55s. Yeah, we spent money keeping those in stock too. If the current reforms had been carried out 19 years ago, we would have the equipment we want and the MIC would never have decayed as it did. The structure will work just fine, it is used by all the developed nations. It probably would have ended the 1st Chechen War and I would never had to spend a year of my youth traipsing through the Caucasus. We do not have time, this was supposed to get started 5 years ago. If we wait longer we won't have a serviceable military as most equipment is due to withdraw by 2020 and all of it by 2025.

I said Mig-29, not Mig-23 or Mig-21.

That doesn't cover the whole range of armaments now does it. We will build what is relevant, but have no choice but to import the rest.

The Su-35 is supposed to enter production in 2012 so I don't see why you could not start buying weapons now. When you do need them you will buy them in large numbers... how are they going to pay of the expansion of production if they have to rely on export sales? Buying now spreads the cost, because these weapons are not going to be cheap. It also means they can work on their production methods and so by the time you have the aircraft in service they already have experience in making the weapons efficiently.

We already ordered the armaments for the Su-35 and Su-34, and it was only $100 million worth. Enough to fight one day of a regional war. Su-35BM will start delivery in 2012, it is already in production but it has not passed state acceptance trials and neither has the Su-34 because of failure to use these weapons. Until we fix the bugs we cannot mass produce it.

If there was enough money to buy all new gear I would certainly agree with you, but the budget is not infinite and some things cost more than others. Buying all new T-90s would be nice, but buying 6,000 of them is simply not possible. Commonality is good for logistics but you can take it too far. Having the same engine and transmission in two different types of tanks is a good thing because transmissions and engines need parts replaced and maintained on a regular basis. Having the same kind of gun is good too and the same type of ammo. Having the same type of frontal armour on the other hand is a little bit wasteful. Bolt on an extra sheet of armour on the older models and that is enough. The extra power from the bigger engine will more than compensate for the extra weight, but the cost of removing the old armour and putting in new armour is not worth the extra cost. If the tank is damaged in combat it might be worth replacing, but otherwise leave the T-72 as the cheaper tank so you can afford more of them.

The T-72 will be a reserve cannon fodder tank run by conscripts. MoD is not interested in modernising them as displayed by the low numbers today. They are also not willing to spend the money to give them a decent upgrade as they are only being brought up to T-72M1 standard. They will never get around to upgrading all of the T-72s so lets just get real and start building T-90s so we can at least have 2000 modern tanks by the deadline.

I know... China, with its huge population and even at that time its economy was much better than war torn Vietnam, got its butt kicked by tiny Vietnam. And Vietnam didn't even have nukes. Makes you think either China is a paper tiger, or there is more to success in war than the size of your economy and growth rates.

China of 1979 is far different than it is today. Russia of 1979 is also very different than it is today. China is stronger and we are weaker. If we don't get off our arse and rearm, we won't stand a chance.

The Twardy was used to replace the Scorpion light tank. Perhaps cost was an issue?
Laser guided tank rounds were developed in the Soviet Union to address deficiencies in FCS, but FCS have improved along with other technologies in Russia since then.

The FCS really hasn't improved much since then, the T-90 lost to a Polish piece of shit all because it had a French FCS and transmission. The reason Popovkin says our armour is obsolete is because it is OBSOLETE.

They use a combined small nuclear reactor for cruise speed and a gas turbine (with the nuclear) for max speed. Replacement with a more powerful reactor would be beneficial and reduce complication.

Uh, no it doesn't. It uses two KN-3 nuclear reactors which is standard for our large nuclear icebreakers at 300MW. They power the boilers all the time. The gas is used as an emergency back up in case of reactor failure.

That cheered me up all right. I about laughed myself out of my seat. I completed 2 tripos and degreed in International Biz in one of England's top colleges. I know quite well how the Western system works, I lived it for 4 years in UK, France, and Slovakia.

Do you know how many years it took Britain to sort its sh!t out?
It wasn't excommunists and the new rich that were the problem, it was the upper class and the church that were the problem and they held on to power and money too.
This is never something that can happen overnight.
Western countries are a guide, not a road map.
I appreciate you wanting change in Russia, but I also worry about Russia losing its identity and becoming just another country in Europe... you know, like Britain and France... they drew most of the lines on the maps and have created lots of problems around the world, either directly or indirectly and now they hold themselves above it all. They plundered the world for centuries and now they demand everyone bend to the rule of international law. Law they mostly created themselves to meet their own needs. Laws they ignore themselves when convenient. They will chastise a country for not releasing to their custody a person of interest yet are happy to give asylum to those with millions of dollars of ill-gotten gains.
America will firebomb and drop pesticide on poppy fields in central and south america, but will ignore the same in Afghanistan because that feeds a different market and it might make their stay in Afghanistan more costly if you make the farmers grow food instead of drugs.
They will even tell off countries in south america for destroying the rainforests... what happened to the forests of Europe? Chopped down for land for farms and for wood?

I know how business works from Russia, Europe, China to the Middle East, I have worked in them all. I also know which one works the best.

Works best for who?
Look at western europe... but also look at South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Japan, and even look at China. The system has to match the culture, and I can't see any one system suiting everyone. The Americans think their system suits everyone, but they think they are everyone.

Perfect example is AvtoVaz and how it can do nothing without the French saving it.

Lets not look at things in a vaccuum... the French and other companies have saved a few car companies recently... didn't you mention Toyota too?

People cannot start a business because the red tape and courts are against you unless you have political connections, or money to bribe. The entire system is designed to keep those in power up and the rest down. The economy is weak because we cannot grow small and medium enterprises. Until that changes we will be reliant on raw materials until they run out.

So step one is an authority that can deal with corruption effectively that is no corruptible itself step two is to change the small and medium business rules to cut most of the red tape and step three is training in proper business practises.

Without that first step the rest is not going to be effective.

Finland owns the Karelian timber industry. China will own our HSR. France owns our auto industry. It is already happening and United Russia is inviting more of it. The system isn't protecting us from foreign ownership but promoting it.

BUT YOU WANT THIS. You say you want the western system of doing things. Here in New Zealand we do things the western way. We used to have state owned assets like the railways and power generation and delivery. Even our postal service was government run, as was our telecommunications. Now the power generation system worked fine, if there was lots of rain on the southern lakes we generated most of our power through hydro electric dams and we shut down the coal fired generators in the north island. Then the government wanted some easy money and sold the power generation and distribution because they said the competition would bring better prices.
Now when there are heavy rains in the south island lakes the water is spilled because a different company owns the north island coal fired powerstations and they are not going to reduce supply so the full dams can be emptied faster.
We get power increases when the lakes are low and we get power increases when the lakes are high.
The company that supplies our largest city had 6 main power cables taking power into Auckland but that cost too much to maintain so now they have two which means if one goes down they have to have power cuts because one cable can't supply enough power for all of auckland. Government control resulted in a bloated industry with too many workers but no powercuts. Free market control led to powercuts and higher power prices.
Our government sold telecom, which is now owned by foreigners, they fired all the linesmen and then hired 10% back on as contracters to do the same amount of work as the before. While there was not work for 10 men before... more like 4-5, so there were a lot of slackers, now they have to work much harder for no extra money, so for line work everything takes much longer. Prices didn't go down either.

Disbanding forces costs nothing. You can actually make money selling off the land and equipment.

The forces you disband are generally the lowest readiness units that don't have a full equipment list anyway. The equipment they did have will be the most obsolete in the armed forces and probably not worth anything except to a museum. You also end up with an enormous number of young men with nothing to do... which could be quite dangerous if there are no jobs to keep them occupied.

It isn't viable, once most ships, tanks and planes have reached the 25 year threshold, they are scrap. Unless you are a poor African army that still uses T-55s.

You are joking right? Large ships spend rather more than 25 years in service, in fact most aircraft carriers should give at least 40 years. Abrams tanks will remain in service for rather more than 25 years, as will the Challangers.
I agree T-55s are now obsolete for a major power, but for fighting in places like Afghanistan against guerilla forces without their own armour I doubt the guerillas will notice the difference between a 100mm shell and a 125mm shell.
Of course that is another option to get rid of obsolete Russian Army equipment, sell or donate 5,000 T-54/-55 or T-62 tanks to the Army of Afghanistan. Sell them the ERA kits and rack armour kits to protect them from RPGs. They can use 500-1,000 of the ones in the best condition and use the rest for spare parts or fixed position artillery set in concrete. You could then sell them all your 100mm Tank ammo that hasn't expired yet and a factory for making more. Don't worry about upgrading them with laser range finders or anything... unless they want to pay for such things.

If we wait longer we won't have a serviceable military as most equipment is due to withdraw by 2020 and all of it by 2025.

I am not suggesting anyone wait, I am suggesting things take time... I think a lot of "hurry up!" is certainly in order, but I don't think the solution is to bypass the Russian MIC and spend all your money with foreign companies. Licence production is quicker and cheaper than developing stuff you are having problems developing, but it certainly isn't cheap either.
The problem was created because of lack of money actually being spent, and also to a brain drain, what is needed is to get the best and the brightest back into the Russian economy. Things like the new silicon valley are good steps in the right direction and perhaps will lead to technology being pushed forward even faster in Russia, but you also need an economy and a culture to get that to the public.
You need to get everyone in Russia to benefit and contribute.
Not easy.

That doesn't cover the whole range of armaments now does it. We will build what is relevant, but have no choice but to import the rest.

Age is not the only criteria for obsolescence. What is its purpose and can it still perform that role efficiently should be the guide. A 1975 Su-24 would be obsolete but upgrade the avionics and it is not obsolete because it can perform in the role it was designed for. Dropping bombs on point targets in all weathers deep behind enemy lines.
No it can't dual with an enemy fighter, or safely ignore all SAM systems, but with the proper flight profile it will have a better chance of getting through than most other multirole types (ie F-16 etc).
With newer weapon types it could do the job even better, for example the latest model Kh-58 has a broad band seeker than can engage a much wider range of radars, while known fixed SAM sites can be engaged with satellite guided missiles like the Kh-25 and Kh-38.
High off boresight missiles like the R-73 will make interception from the front dangerous and the high low level speed makes interception from behind difficult.

We already ordered the armaments for the Su-35 and Su-34, and it was only $100 million worth. Enough to fight one day of a regional war. Su-35BM will start delivery in 2012, it is already in production but it has not passed state acceptance trials and neither has the Su-34 because of failure to use these weapons. Until we fix the bugs we cannot mass produce it.

The order from memory was for 14 different weapon types, so this is progress, it tells the weapon makers what the Russian AF wants so they can take steps to ensure that when new orders are made that they are better prepared to make at least those weapons in reasonably large numbers. Waiting till it works properly is an acceptable reason for a delay isn't it?

The T-72 will be a reserve cannon fodder tank run by conscripts. MoD is not interested in modernising them as displayed by the low numbers today. They are also not willing to spend the money to give them a decent upgrade as they are only being brought up to T-72M1 standard. They will never get around to upgrading all of the T-72s so lets just get real and start building T-90s so we can at least have 2000 modern tanks by the deadline.

There has been no reason to upgrade them till they have established the final upgrade they want for it. Spending billions on upgrading all the T-72s then finding you have 10,000 upgraded T-72s and you only needed 4,000 would be pretty dumb.
Tanks seem to be getting a very low priority so I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to buy 2,000 T-90s, and upgrade 2,000 T-72s and have 2,000 unupgraded T-72s in storage. Use the unupgraded T-72s for training and practise, the upgraded T-72s and T-90s for parades and war. That way most of the normal wear and tear will be inflicted on the cheapest tank... as long as it has the same electronics like battle management system and sights etc so the crews know how to use it it will be good enough. They can use tank simulators to fill in the differences between what an unupgraded T-72 and a T-90 can or cannot do.
As the heavily used tanks wear out they can be replaced with new tanks as the new tanks can be afforded. Where it can be afforded tanks can be upgraded during routine overhauls where the upgrade actually makes them more like the other vehicles in service to reduce the cost of ownership.

Uh, no it doesn't. It uses two KN-3 nuclear reactors which is standard for our large nuclear icebreakers at 300MW. They power the boilers all the time. The gas is used as an emergency back up in case of reactor failure.

You might want to recheck that info. It certainly does have two reactors... which are reliable enough to not need two backup boilers. Top speed of the Kirov class vessels on nuclear power only is something like 20 knts and the boilers are used to boost speed above 30 knts.
My suggestion is that the four powerplants are replaced with perhaps two reactors of much greater power otherwise it will put limits on its ability to keep up with any future nuclear powered carriers the Russian Navy might be planning.


BTW I wonder how the new command structure will effect logistics. I would guess having the logistics structure under the command structure that is responsible for all three branches of the military should make for more efficient purchases and an opportunity for larger bulk orders. For example the new 152mm guns being developed for the Navy are rumoured to have very long range shells that have terminal guidance, which is something that would definitely be useful for the Army.
30 x 165mm ammo is already largely standardised between the services, yet there are still differences that make naval and airforce ammo incompatible with army ammo... the airforce and navy use electric ignition while the army uses percussion, but in all other respects the ammo is the same. Hopefully a unified logistics structure for the different branches might lead to changes that solve such differences.

GarryB wrote:
The forces you disband are generally the lowest readiness units that don't have a full equipment list anyway. The equipment they did have will be the most obsolete in the armed forces and probably not worth anything except to a museum. You also end up with an enormous number of young men with nothing to do... which could be quite dangerous if there are no jobs to keep them occupied.

The forces to disband would have all been conscript units with no soldiers and a bunch of officers and equipment who do nothing. They were part of our paper army. Equipment included T-62/72/80s, all of which had high market value with a refurb in the 1990s. Even a T-55 in good condition would bring a couple hundred thousand dollars. Same as BTRs and BMPs. Sitting on it and letting it degrade for twenty years has left these objects worthless. Conscripts never wanted to serve in the first place. It would have made the population that much more happy rather than them starving in the the Far East and freezing to death with no electricity. It isn't like they actually got paid.

It isn't viable, once most ships, tanks and planes have reached the 25 year threshold, they are scrap. Unless you are a poor African army that still uses T-55s.

You are joking right? Large ships spend rather more than 25 years in service, in fact most aircraft carriers should give at least 40 years. Abrams tanks will remain in service for rather more than 25 years, as will the Challangers.
I agree T-55s are now obsolete for a major power, but for fighting in places like Afghanistan against guerilla forces without their own armour I doubt the guerillas will notice the difference between a 100mm shell and a 125mm shell.

No, I am not joking. Large ships like our one carrier and handful of cruisers are not the majority of the Navy. It is mostly missile boats, corvettes, and frigates which is a travesty to have serving more than 25 years. Most of those are actually 30 years. The Western tanks get regular maintenance and overhauls. After 25 years the only original parts on those tanks will be the hull. Afrikans deserve a better tank than T-55, let them use T-62. lol

I am not suggesting anyone wait, I am suggesting things take time... I think a lot of "hurry up!" is certainly in order, but I don't think the solution is to bypass the Russian MIC and spend all your money with foreign companies. Licence production is quicker and cheaper than developing stuff you are having problems developing, but it certainly isn't cheap either.
The problem was created because of lack of money actually being spent, and also to a brain drain, what is needed is to get the best and the brightest back into the Russian economy. Things like the new silicon valley are good steps in the right direction and perhaps will lead to technology being pushed forward even faster in Russia, but you also need an economy and a culture to get that to the public.
You need to get everyone in Russia to benefit and contribute.
Not easy.

We will do all that, but we cannot wait for the MIC to catch up. We have made focused investments on what we wish to remain competitive and have let others fall. The list is only growing as our investments in things like UAVs have not paid off.

There has been no reason to upgrade them till they have established the final upgrade they want for it. Spending billions on upgrading all the T-72s then finding you have 10,000 upgraded T-72s and you only needed 4,000 would be pretty dumb.

That is the excuse to why we haven't upgraded much of anything. It will always be obsolete at the rate MIC is going.

You might want to recheck that info. It certainly does have two reactors... which are reliable enough to not need two backup boilers. Top speed of the Kirov class vessels on nuclear power only is something like 20 knts and the boilers are used to boost speed above 30 knts.
My suggestion is that the four powerplants are replaced with perhaps two reactors of much greater power otherwise it will put limits on its ability to keep up with any future nuclear powered carriers the Russian Navy might be planning.

It is CONAS propulsion...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CONAS

The reactors are just fine for powering a ship of that class.

Thales has signed an agreement with Ural Optics for the production of military equipment
16.07.2010 // 11:13



YEKATERINBURG, July 16 . (ITAR-TASS ) . The French company Thales , on Thursday as part of the VI International exhibition of technical means " Defence Expo -2010 " , which takes place in the Sverdlovsk region on July 14-17 , has signed an agreement with Ural Optical Mechanical Plant ( Federal State Unitary Enterprise ) on the commencement of military and civil engineering . Said the deputy general director Anatoly UOMZ Sludnyh .

"Thereafter, the parties will be concluded several contracts , which provides for several areas of cooperation - laser technology in medicine and the national economy, thermal imaging devices for the national economy , opto- electronic systems, sights for small arms. We plan to arrange the delivery of French technology in the Urals, and , conversely , the export of equipment of Russian origin in France , " - explained Sludnyh .

The exhibition "Defense and Security " held in Nizhny Tagil every two years , alternating with the International exhibition of arms . This year it is attended by over 250 Russian and foreign companies. As part of the exhibition presents more than two thousand full-scale exhibits . To work at the site " Miner " registered more than 200 representatives from 36 countries.

Thales - the world leader in aviation , aerospace and defense industries , and markets security systems and transportation systems. In 2008, the profit " Thales was 12.7 billion euros . The company employs 68 thousand employees in 50 countries, of which 25 thousand - the engineers and developers.

http://arms-tass.su/?page=article&aid=86497&cid=25

Makes Sense.
If you are spending a large wad of cash on thermal imager production technology from France you might as well use that on as many different platforms and systems as you can.
Thermal imagers are not cheap, though the best way to make them cheaper is to order them in large blocks.
Thermal imagers are not weapons in themselves but they add capability to weapons and systems they are attached to. Whether it is rifles or machine guns, or tanks and air defence equipment, thermal sights increase effectiveness by making the system it is added to capable of operating in the dark, in bad weather, or under certain conditions like dust or smoke where normal performance would be severely degraded.
When used with aircraft in certain types of pods they can combine to change a 20th century recon plane into a 21st century recon plane by replacing wet film systems with digital datalinks able to handle real time still photos and video of the target area, or in the case of the Damocles pod it could simply be fitted to the centreline of a Su-25 to give it the all weather capabilities of the Su-25TM but without the cost in a pod that can be shared amongst many aircraft.

We plan to arrange the delivery of French technology in the Urals, and , conversely , the export of equipment of Russian origin in France , " - explained Sludnyh .

So the stuff will be made in Russia, and some of it will be exported back to France, so Thales France can take advantage of lower manufacturing costs in Russia and the Russian factory will likely increase production numbers further, which should make costs lower still.
No doubt further orders for Thales thermal sights might result in cheaper equipment made in Russia sold by Thales of France to third parties with no doubt Thales benefiting from either lower cost product selling better or they could take a larger cut for profits and offer the customer the same price. I would expect they might do a little of both with a slightly higher profit but also reduced price to consumer.