Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Share

    Austin

    Posts : 6444
    Points : 6845
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Austin on Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:15 am

    Here is the news on new Air Borne Combat Vehical being under development for VDV , expected entry to service date is 2016

    http://vpk.name/news/63418_vyishe_zhivuchest_lichnogo_sostava.html

    It seems the MOD rejected the BMD-4 purchase and purchase of BMD-4M remains unknown
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:37 am

    Looks to be similar to the T-90S and BMP-3, where the military said it would buy no more of either and made fairly specific criticisms of them.
    The result was the T-90AM and BMP-3M respectively.

    The problem and question is... do they decide to spend money on the upgraded types now or do they put the purchase off for 3-5 years and spend it on the new vehicles.

    The thing is that for the VDV the medium Brigade vehicles will likely be a bit too heavy as both the wheeled Boomerang and the tracked Kurganets-25 weigh 25 tons... if they could air drop vehicles that heavy then instead of BMD-4s they could be using BMP-3s and have some commonality with the Army.

    Note the BMD-3 is about 13 tons, but the Sprut light tank is air droppable and is 18 tons.

    I rather suspect therefore that the new vehicles for the VDV might be based on the Typhoon from the light brigades.

    The medium Boomerang and Kurganets-25 are fully amphibious and the naval infantry are getting custom designed amphibious models of the tracked Kurganets-25, so it would make sense for there to be a modified and optimised VDV version of either Typhoon or something between the Typhoon and Boomerang/kurganets-25.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  TR1 on Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:44 am

    Tank wise and even BMP wise new platforms is a good idea, but BMD wise I think this is an expensive mistake. It is a specialized vehicle, there won't be thousands of them ever made. I don't see what a new design will improve on, the uparmored BMD-4M showed at Tagil this year looks perfect for the VDV. Protection looks decent for vehicle of its specialized nature, fighting compartment is excellent, sensors suit extensive. VDV badly needs new vehicles, right now.
    Same with Sprut, so many years in design, and barely any bought. Way better platform than that stupid 105mm Stryker in my oppinion. Upsetting all in all.

    Unless of course they are going wheeled like Garry suggests. That in itself is a radical change, and I suspect many in the VDV would not be happy with it.

    http://photos.streamphoto.ru/2/3/2/309719b3affa287829cf464694c67232.jpg
    Dreams...

    Austin

    Posts : 6444
    Points : 6845
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Austin on Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:05 am

    Reading most about Armata , Boomerang and other new platforms i believe the procurement they are planning to do this decade is something that would last for next two after 2020.

    The new platform being built are not only technically better and based on previous cancelled project but are also logistically common and modular in design.

    The current Tanks and BMP or BMD are just incremental upgrade from say 30-40 years old design and it cant be stretched or made to be effective for threats in next 30 years or excel it.

    The new system i fell is to break those 40 years umbilical cord and venture in new terriotary that will last 30 - 40 years
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:12 pm

    The new system i fell is to break those 40 years umbilical cord and venture in new terriotary that will last 30 - 40 years

    Yes.

    A from scratch upgrade using all the new ideas and new technologies as well as extensive combat experience to better protect and mobilise Russian troops.

    What is the point of putting all the armour in the world on a tank when a tank operates with a dozen other vehicles that can be taken out to leave the tanks vulnerable. There is a reason tanks operate with IFVs, so there is a reason to protect IFVs like tanks.

    Basing entire brigades on the same vehicle makes the logistics tail more efficient, while giving all units the same level of protection and mobility.

    It will cost more in Heavy brigades, but will also make light and medium brigades cheaper as they wont have MBTs, they will have their own family vehicles.

    The west has toyed with vehicle families but has never implimented the idea.

    The current Tanks and BMP or BMD are just incremental upgrade from say 30-40 years old design and it cant be stretched or made to be effective for threats in next 30 years or excel it.

    Indeed, the MBT, BMP, BTR, BMD have not been replaced as concepts... there will be MBT or gun platform vehicles in each brigade type and in a different army an Armata MBT would just be a MBT, it is just that there will be different versions of the Armata with the same engine and armour but different weapons and different electronic and control suites.

    The MBT electronic suite in the Armata will be the same electronic suite as used in the Typhoon MBT, or likely direct fire support gun platform... the difference is that intially the Armata MBT will have a 125mm gun and later might get a 152mm gun, while the Typhoon MBT might have a 45mm or 57mm high velocity gun, but it will likely have the same electronics and sights as the Armata MBT. The Boomerang wheeled gun platform might have a 57mm or 45mm gun while the Kurganets-25 might have a 125mm gun like the Sprut, or they both might have 125mm guns... the Sprut is 18 tons and the Boomerang and Kurganets-25 are both 25 ton amphibians.

    Tank wise and even BMP wise new platforms is a good idea, but BMD wise I think this is an expensive mistake. It is a specialized vehicle, there won't be thousands of them ever made. I don't see what a new design will improve on, the uparmored BMD-4M showed at Tagil this year looks perfect for the VDV. Protection looks decent for vehicle of its specialized nature, fighting compartment is excellent, sensors suit extensive. VDV badly needs new vehicles, right now.

    The VDV has always had the prestige and political power to get specialised equipment, and indeed the Soviet Military has a history of specialist equipment rather than standardisation.

    I rather suspect they will want a variant of an existing type rather than a brand new vehicle for the VDV... very similar to the adapted Kurganets-25 for the naval infantry. No doubt the Kurganets-25 will have good armour and its amphibious ability will be based around crossing lakes and rivers rather than hitting real beaches or travelling long distances in rough water.
    This means that the naval infantry will need serious modifications to the Kurganets-25 to adapt it to suit their needs, but fundamentally they will be related vehicles with similar systems and roles. The Kurganets-25 for the navy will be a family of vehicles too.

    I think the VDV will go the same course and will either pick the Typhoon or perhaps Boomerang with extra armour or less armour to suit their needs for air dropping the vehicles. In many ways the BMD was just a very light BMP with similar to contemporary BMP armament. I think the new vehicles for the VDV will continue that, but now they have a choice between wheeled and tracked and also for much lighter vehicles in the Typhoon class, which might be possible to be heli dropped for some missions.

    I don't know the current status of the VDV but there is nothing wrong with introducing the BMD-4M now as it is a good vehicle... they have said they will not buy the BMD-4, which means they would consider buying BMD-4M or they haven't decided yet.

    The state of Russian transport capacity is probably a more urgent concern, but as shown during 888 they were able to cooperate with the navy without much warning and they performed very professionally.

    They have since increased their exercises with naval forces including anti piracy stuff, so this is all good.

    Same with Sprut, so many years in design, and barely any bought. Way better platform than that stupid 105mm Stryker in my oppinion. Upsetting all in all.

    I think Sprut would be an ideal platform for light units in place of towed anti tank guns to just give them mobility... the problem of course is that they are not based on one of the new families of vehicles so they will be a short term measure.

    I think the Sprut has an excellent future, but instead of being mounted on a BMD-3 chassis that fitting it to a Kurganets-25 or Typhoon or even a Boomerang chassis, plus also a modified naval infantry kurganets-25 chassis and whatever the VDV wants... the point is standardisation within the unit to aide the logistics and support.

    It doesn't matter if Russian Naval Infantry Kurganets-25 vehicles are not totally the same as the Army Kurganets-25 in terms of components... the max unification is good for procurement and development but operationally the navy will have different requirements that need to be met.

    If they are only good for rivers and lakes then in the open sea they will be useless, but basing them on the army system saves time and money and increases commonality and standardisation.

    The Russian military is achieving what NATO only dreams of.

    A standard range of calibres for cannon and artillery and missiles and small arms and vehicles and electronics and radars etc etc.

    Even their short range AAM will be a short range land based and naval SAM.

    Not going to be cheap, but when they are done they will have very very capable forces and sensible equipment.

    The new system i fell is to break those 40 years umbilical cord and venture in new terriotary that will last 30 - 40 years

    They seem to have learned the lessons...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:32 pm

    More importantly developing upgrades and improvements for the AAM can be applied to the SAMs as well for little extra outlay.

    To get more effective longer range 152mm artillery shells the Army and the Navy can pool finances and enjoy the benefits together.

    Increased production runs, training standardisation, pooling of spares and support will be cheaper... less retraining needed for mechanics moving from one ship or sub to the next.

    A huge reduction in the different chassis types in Russian Army service.

    A brigade will go from having one of 4-5 different types of MBT (T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90, even T-62 or T-55/54) plus one of 3 different BMP types (1,2,3), one of several BTR variants (60/70/80/82), plus all the extra vehicles like the T-80 chassis of the armoured BREM recovery vehicle, and the T-80 chassis of the MSTA, the special GM chassis of the Tunguska, the MTLB chassis for the SA-13 and of course the 6 wheeled chassis of the OSA, a truck mounted Grad, and all the BRDM light vehicles and MTLB based command vehicles and ATGM vehicles etc etc all in one brigade will be replaced by an Armata, a Typhoon, a Boomerang or a Kurganets-25.

    One engine type with perhaps a few different engine ratings for different weight vehicles, one main wheel type, one transmission, one track type... bliss.

    Austin

    Posts : 6444
    Points : 6845
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Austin on Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:35 pm

    yeah i see a lot of logistics advantage and commonality going with the new design .....in long term it would lead to tremendous cost saving , logistics saving and even maintenance cost.

    Thats perhaps the entire idea behind a Universal Combat Platform.

    Austin

    Posts : 6444
    Points : 6845
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Austin on Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:43 pm

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:48 pm

    Yes, by breaking it down into three vehicles however they have not tried to do everything with one design.

    They have basically split everything down into MBT (Armata), BMP (Kurganets-25), BTR (Boomerang), and light vehicle... perhaps BMD (Typhoon) but wheeled.

    The difference is that the Armata will have better armour than the T-90, and the Kurganets-25 is 7 tons heavier than a BMP-3, and the Boomerang is 10 tons heavier than a BTR, while the Typhoon is pretty new and will have good armour for its weight.

    Bigger unknowns are firepower and protection types... we expect NERA and possibly APS and passive protection systems on all of them along with special armours and optimised layouts for crew and ammo and fuel to reduce casualties.

    Layouts that make entry and exit faster and easier, and the firepower to do the job in the 21st C.

    They will be adapted over time with new systems and features like powered armour and perhaps even EM guns and DIRCMs to protect them from optically guided missiles like Maverick, Javelin, Spike, Trigat-ER Laser homing Hellfire, and of course built in screens for radar and IR and optical sensors like nakidka etc.

    Will be interesting what is for export and when, but I suspect building entire brigades at a time will be the key.

    There is no sense in just building Armata Tanks and then integrating them into Heavy Brigades and then building the other Armata based vehicles when all the tanks are made.

    It would make more sense to build and test all the vehicle types in a Heavy Brigade and introducing Armata and Kurganets-25 and Boomerang and Typhoon brigades a whole brigade at a time.

    The lighter vehicles will obviously enter service much faster as they will be easier and cheaper to build.

    Austin

    Posts : 6444
    Points : 6845
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Austin on Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:40 pm

    Russia Is Remaking Its Armed Forces

    Russia continues to increase its defense expenditures to modernize military capabilities. Money in the growing budget is being spent to reshape the national military, which is being transformed into a smaller but more effective and better-equipped force.

    The federal budget for 2012 and 2013‑14, approved by the Duma in November, calls for further growth of defense expenditures despite a budget deficit. Expenditures could be up 20.9% to 1.85 trillion rubles ($59.8 billion) from 2011, and account for 14.6% of the budget versus 13.9% last year.

    Vice Premier Sergey Ivanov announced in late November that the defense procurement plan for 2012 that was to be approved by the end of last year could grow to 2.2 trillion rubles in 2013, and 2.6 trillion rubles in 2014. It may even be more: In the 2011 budget, for example, defense expenditures for 2012 and 2013 were estimated to be 1.6 trillion rubles and 2.1 trillion rubles, respectively.

    Military spending as a share of GDP will be 3.1% this year and grow to 3.6% in 2013 and 3.8% in 2014. The Duma’s defense committee notes that beginning in 2013, defense expenditures will finally match the target level of 3.5% of GDP set by Russia’s security council.

    Almost 77% of defense expenditures for 2012 will go for the national armed forces. Half of this—730 billion rubles—will be spent on procurement and development of new weapons, or 20% more than in 2011. In coming years these expenditures are set to increase significantly, by 58% in 2013 and by 26% in 2014. According to the military, the rearmament priorities include the strategic nuclear forces, ballistic missiles and air defense; aviation; space systems and systems for command, control, communication, reconnaissance and electronic warfare.
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1165
    Points : 2053
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Russia’s new state arms procurement program through to 2025 will be developed by 2015

    Post  Russian Patriot on Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:54 pm

    Russia’s new state arms procurement program through to 2025 will be developed by 2015, Deputy Chief of the General Staff Maj. Gen. Igor Sheremet said on Thursday.

    In 2010, a 10-year arms procurement program was adopted, until 2020.

    “The state arms program is developed for a 10-year term,” he said in an interview with the Rossia 24 TV channel.

    “This means that we are to develop a state arms procurement program through 2025 not later than in 2015.”

    The program will be developed by the Military Analysis Committee of the Armed Forces, which is already “looking into 2030 and further on,” he said.

    http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120315/172192509.html
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:25 pm

    Excellent.

    Will be interesting to see what is added and what is taken out.

    Some might be wondering what is the point of the 10 year plans overlapping... shouldn't they be 5 year plans instead?

    Lots of things need long term planning in terms of funding and development.

    There will be a 5 year plan too and it will need fewer changes because planning in the shorter term has fewer variables.

    A 10 year plan gives you a structure to base your shorter term plans on while still allowing for the future.

    A good example would be in the ship building industry.

    Some wonder why older ships are being upgraded like the Kirov and Slava class ships when starting from scratch new build ships would be better.

    The problem is that the shipyards are already busy making smaller vessels and there are only a few shipyards that can handle very large vessels. One shipyard is going to be busy from 2013 to 2017-19 giving the Kuznetsov an upgrade and overhaul and plans for new aircraft carriers plan for them to look at laying down hulls in 2020-2025, which means there is very limited time for working on cruisers.

    At the moment the work on a Destroyer is going slow, as are the new Frigates. The Talwar based frigates should be faster as they have experience in making those, so a full sized cruiser is a while away.

    More importantly there is no point having carriers and cruisers if you don't have all the smaller vessels that are needed too, so building frigates and destroyers now is a good thing anyway.

    The upgrades of large ships can be done in smaller shipyards too...

    The point of the revised 10 year plan in 2015 is to look at the previous plans... 2010-2020 and the 2010-2015 plans and look at what is on schedule and what is not. They built extra factories to make the S-400 faster, and they can check in 2015 whether that was enough to solve the problems and meet the deadlines or if further changes are needed.

    With the creation of the Aerospace Defence force they might have a lot of decisions to make there too.

    Austin

    Posts : 6444
    Points : 6845
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Direct-Energy Geophysical Wave-Energy Genetic Psychotronic Weapons

    Post  Austin on Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:09 pm

    Putin allows high-tech gun that hits nervous system

    LONDON: Russian president-elect Vladimir Putin has given the go-ahead to a gun that uses electromagnetic radiation to attack a victims' central nervous system, a British media report said.

    The "psychotronic" can effectively turn people into zombies -- a dead person that can be given the semblance of life and controlled at will.

    The futuristic weapons developed by Russian scientists could be used against enemies and Russian dissidents, the Daily Mail reported.

    Sources said Putin described the guns as "entirely new instruments for achieving political and strategic goals".

    "Such high-tech weapons systems will be comparable in effect to nuclear weapons, but will be more acceptable in terms of political and military ideology," he was quoted as saying.

    Precise details of the gun have not been revealed. But previous research has shown that low-frequency waves can affect brain cells, alter psychological states and make it possible to transmit commands directly into someone's thought processes.

    High doses of microwaves can damage the functioning of internal organs, control behaviour or even drive victims to suicide.

    Plans to introduce the weapons were announced recently by Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov.

    "The development of weaponry based on new physics principles -- direct-energy weapons, geophysical weapons, wave-energy weapons, genetic weapons, psychotronic weapons, and so on -- is part of the state arms procurement programme for 2011-2020," Serdyukov said.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:18 am

    A little late for April fools jokes isn't it?

    If they had a beam weapon that could turn people into controlled zombies why on earth would they admit to it?
    avatar
    TheArmenian

    Posts : 1732
    Points : 1889
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  TheArmenian on Tue Apr 10, 2012 4:45 am

    This is not the best thread to post this article, but I could not find a better place.

    Anatoliy Serdyukov: Five Years at the Helm



    Anton Lavrov
    Anatoliy Serdyukov’s appointment as Russian defense minister in February 2007 came completely out of the blue. He had served as chairman of the Federal Tax Service, where he kept tabs on Russia’s largest corporate taxpayers, and was not exactly a public figure. Putting him at the helm of Russia’s conservative MoD seemed rather a strange choice. But Serdyukov had won Vladimir Putin’s unconditional trust during his time in charge of the tax service by delivering a large increase in tax receipts. Some of that rise was wrung in bitter clashes with the country’s oil and gas giants.

    Putin had long nurtured plans for a radical reform of the armed forces. To put those plans into effect he needed a civilian defense minister, someone who was not part of the closely-knit caste of professional soldiers. His vision included a drastic increase in the army’s financing, which required a minister capable of making sure that the extra money doesn’t just sink into a black hole without any trace.

    For all the post-Soviet changes and cuts, the Russian army was still essentially Soviet when Serdyukov took over from his predecessor. Despite the lessons learnt during two bloody campaigns in Chechnya, it was a mobilization army geared to fight in great wars but ill-suited to face the challenges of the new century, when great wars are becoming increasingly unlikely. Another major problem was the state of technology in the Russian army, which had seen very little by way of new weaponry since the early 1990s. By 2007 almost all its hardware still in service had become decrepit and obsolete.

    Serdyukov was given a free hand with regard to MoD appointments. He used that freedom to bring in his own tried and tested team. A number of key offices in the ministry, including several deputy-ministerial positions, were filled by people from the tax service. The first order of business for the new team was to audit the ministry’s finances, take stock of its assets, and optimize spending on defense procurement and other programs. The military part of the reform was delegated to a trusted group of forward-looking General Staff officers.

    Contrary to popular belief, the brief military conflict with Georgia in August 2008 did not really put Serduykov’s reforms to the test. The war came barely six months after the new minister’s arrival — far too short a time for those reforms to deliver any notable results. Nevertheless, Russia’s confident victory gave Serdyukov a much-needed credit of trust with the top Russian leadership, enabling him to conduct deeper transformations and undoubtedly contributing to his political longevity.

    The first round of radical transformations dubbed as the “New Look” reforms was rolled out in 2009. It introduced a completely new structure of the Army and the Air Force. The old Military Districts became Operational Strategic Commands. The Army saw the most drastic changes. Prior to the reform most of its units were staffed at skeleton-strength level and required mobilization to bring them to their full war-time strength. All of them have now been disbanded. The Russian Army now consists of permanent-readiness brigades manned and equipped to their full war-time strength. The Air Force has also undergone some serious restructuring. Its strength is now divided into airbases rather than the old air regiments; there have also been large redeployments of the actual aircraft. The Navy, the Strategic Missile Troops and the Airborne Troops have also seen some changes, but not as far-reaching as those in the Army and the Air Force.

    The next stage of the structural reform was the launch of a massive rearmament program. One of the main characteristics of Serdyukov’s tenure at the MoD is the constant wrangling between the ministry and the Russian defense industry. Arms deliveries to the Russian armed forces used to be heavily discounted compared to the prices charged to foreign customers — but that discount saw a steady erosion over the years. Prices continued to spiral even as the MoD resumed large-scale arms procurement programs after a long pause. To make matters worse, following a decade of stagnation the industry went through in the 1990s, many of its pricey products have become clearly inferior to the Western competition.

    That has triggered a veritable revolution in the MoD, which used to rely solely and exclusively on Russian suppliers. The ministry has started to place large orders for weaponry in foreign countries, including Russia’s erstwhile enemies in the NATO bloc. The largest and most controversial contracts include the purchase of Mistral-class amphibious landing craft from France, wheeled armor from Italy’s Iveco, and UAVs from Israel. All that being said, the vast majority of the Russian army’s weaponry is still being sourced from Russia’s own suppliers; this is not going to change any time soon.

    Human resources are one of the key priorities of the latest reform, which is definitely something of a precedent in Russian history. The change, which has affected everyone, from ordinary recruits to the top generals, clearly owes much to the fact that the new minister is a civilian. Back in 2004 the Russian armed forces started experimenting with phasing out conscription in favor of professional service. The experiment affected only a small part of the forces, but it soon became clear that Russia cannot afford a fully professional army due to financial constraints. The MoD has had to reconcile itself to that fact; it has since shifted its focus to improving the conditions for conscripts and trying to overcome the universal public loathing of the draft.

    The ministry has taken a number of steps to make conscription service less of an ordeal. In 2008 the length of that service was halved from 24 months to 12. Great efforts have been made to root out the old problem of horrendous bullying in the Russian forces, strengthen civilian monitoring of the army and make it more open with information. The intensity of combat and physical training has been ramped up to compensate for the shorter conscription term. Attempts are being made to create a professional sergeants corps, albeit with little to show for it so far.

    The system of officer training is in the middle of a complete overhaul. Most of the higher military schools have been disbanded; their resources and facilities are being used to set up new centers with more rigorous training standards. The officer corps, which used to make up a whopping 50 per cent of the Russian army’s numerical strength, has been reduced to less than half of its former bulk. The officers who have survived the cuts are getting much better pay. Early in 2012 the minimum take-home pay of a young lieutenant was increased to at least 900 dollars, which is significantly higher than the average national wage. This should make army service a lot more attractive, and greater competition will enable the army to recruit better candidates.

    It has now been five years in the top MoD job for Serdyukov. Over the years of deep and excruciatingly painful reforms he has made a lot of enemies in the Russian army, the defense industry, the media and even in the government. Neither is he much loved by ordinary Russians after abandoning plans to abolish conscription and ordering the cull of the officer corps. The only thing that has enabled Serdyukov to hold on to his job for so long is the full confidence Vladimir Putin has in him. The upcoming reshuffles in the government after the presidential election later this year may yet spell the end of the minister’s long tenure.

    But no matter how things turn out for Serdyukov in the coming months and years, he has already earned a place in the history of the Russian army as a reformer who launched the greatest military transformations in decades. The consequences of these transformations, both good and bad, will be felt for the next half a century.

    Serdyukov has presided over the final scrapping of the old Soviet army model and the roll-out of the radical “New Look” transformations. But the Russian armed forces are only just beginning their long and arduous march towards becoming a modern, mobile and well-equipped force, with highly trained soldiers and competent officers.

    http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/1-2012/item4/article1/

    victor7

    Posts : 213
    Points : 224
    Join date : 2012-02-28

    Russia's $600B weapons program

    Post  victor7 on Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:56 am

    I am adding this thread to Air Force forum as AF is most important wing of any modern defenses, atleast in my views.

    Russia plans to invest some $600B from now till 2020 in procuring new weapons to add some sharpness to its defense structures.

    About $400B is in reserve in Russia's foreign currency treasury currently.

    Oil prices are high currently and should remain high till 2020 as per the cycle, and this should add further revenues and savings to the treasury.

    However, for a country like Russia (i.e. post 1991) which is more of a regional power now, is $600B a bit too much of a bite to digest.

    I believe Russia should spend atmost $300B into arms and modernization. Rest of the $300B should be investing in cultivating other industries like Agriculture, Specialized Manufacturing (given high skills of Russian labor) etc. so that when Oil prices do a cyclical downturn, then Russia is not left low on revenues and savings.

    Here is a snapshot of what $100B would buy for Russia
    (My figures might not be exact but do give a general idea)

    $10B for 3000 T-90 tanks
    $10B get roughly 300 Su-30MKI standard multirole planes
    $10B gets 250 each Topol and Bulva missiles at $20M each (I think)
    $10B gets another 200 Su-35s or Mig 35s.
    $10B gets nearly 12 Borei class subs
    $1B gets nearly 500 Yakhonts at 2M a piece tops.
    $1B gets 10,000 or more Igla MANPADS
    $10B gets 25 Destroyers at $400M a piece
    $4B gets 2 Aircraft Carriers of Gorshakov size
    $10B gets 50 military satellites of various size + functions from $50M to $200M each.
    $10B gets 5000 Modern Artelliery pieces
    $10B gets all sorts of plane, tank, ship, wargame simulators for top training
    $4B gets 160 point defense deals combining Tor/Buk/Tungaska


    Merely $100B has thrown in lots of weapons to already fairly decently weaponized Russian armed forces.

    Russia should limit its weapons spending to $300B and spent other half into cultivating industries that add diversification to the revenue sources. This is more so because Russia's #1 export, the natural gas is facing serious competition from shale gas revolution in the US and hence gas prices have gone down by a lot recently.



    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:29 am

    Russia is spending this money now because for the last 20 years it has neglected it military forces to the point where some things got critical. Now that they are correcting this you want to steal from their budget?

    Spending money on the Russian military is not p!ssing it away... the money goes to the Russian MIC which earns hard currency on the international market. Spending money upgrading weapons means better products for the international arms markets which are currently earning Russia over 10 billion a year and has potential for further expansion.

    As long as they keep spending on their military sensible... ie about 3% then why even consider cutting funding?

    If military spending is 3% then there are likely plenty of other areas of spending that could be cut and that money could be used... remember if 3% = $600 billion that means the 97% of the rest is 19.4 trillion over 10 years... perhaps some spending cuts could be made there?


    victor7

    Posts : 213
    Points : 224
    Join date : 2012-02-28

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  victor7 on Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:51 am

    During 1990s, upto $3B a month was getting stolen and leaving Russia into safe havens abroad. Now the figure has jumped to $5-6B a month. Also, upto 20% of annual defense budget of Russia is corrupted away. The government should do something about these two problems as over ten years the cost to the economy is good $2T as money is not thrown into the economy and recycled but stolen and sent abroad.

    Regarding the neglect of the Russian Army, if government does something substantial about corruption as that alone can cover up many deficiencies.

    It is a very tough choice on a strategic topic. Let's see what Putin does about chronic problems in his new term in Kremlin.

    Russia's other problem is still persistent Tsarist culture i.e. 1 King, 10 Kingly and rest of the 10000 slaves. When money is concentrated in few hands then that effects the economic growth due to stagnant consumption.

    Some work cut out for Vladimir Vladimirovich!
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:19 am

    Russia's other problem is still persistent Tsarist culture i.e. 1 King, 10 Kingly and rest of the 10000 slaves. When money is concentrated in few hands then that effects the economic growth due to stagnant consumption.

    But surely the solution is the US because everyone is wealthy there and there is no corruption and big powerful companies with deep pockets cannot possibly write new laws controlling their industries...


    Corruption requires at least two ingredients... people and money or power... and is as inevitable as death and taxes.

    Corruption is an ongoing problem that will not be solved overnight if ever, but not spending money on their military is a very dumb solution... ask Gadaffi...
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  TR1 on Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:21 am

    Don't see how 600 (really it is over 700, if we count all defense sectors and interior ministry, etc) over 10 years it that much. Affordable by GPD count.
    It is a valid question of how much money does really need to spend. All I can say is I wish that the money is diffused smartly, in a way that helps the wealth of the nation in general - manufacturing/high tech jobs and production, soldiers pay (better to have solders paid more and spend that money when they get off duty than sme general hoard it and spend it off shore, etc.

    Plus, you are simplifying things into a matter of buying. Money doesn't just go into buying new equipment- it goes into soldier pay (big increases recntly), fuel, maintenance, exercises, a myriad of things.

    Also, those purchases are simplified beyond utility.

    10 billion for 300 Su-30SMs? Yeah right.
    First of all, realistically, gov does not just pay straight up low unit cost. It pays factory for many things, development, setting up production lines, gives out big loans, all in the name of national defense. How much do you think Russian gov spent on getting NAPO up in shape, in order to buy the Su-34? Realistically a lot more than the 33 million /Su-34 price that was floated around.
    Let's even say you manage to get 200 Su-30SM for 10 billion. What about weapons? Replacement engines? Service and overhauls? Training? Real price is far far more.

    Quite honestly you would not get nearly that much for 100 billion USD.


    I hate to say it, but it really is not as simple as that.




    victor7

    Posts : 213
    Points : 224
    Join date : 2012-02-28

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  victor7 on Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:24 am

    I think the $600B earmarked is for the NEW weapons alone and this is in addition to the annual budget of Russian Forces which is roughly $50B currently.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  TR1 on Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:32 am

    victor7 wrote:I think the $600B earmarked is for the NEW weapons alone and this is in addition to the annual budget of Russian Forces which is roughly $50B currently.

    No way, that would be utterly unaffordable. The program is the total spending over the time laid out. Hence why the budget suddenly pushed up to slightly over 70 billion per year. It was much less before. If this was just for new stuff Russia would be essentially doubling military spending.

    victor7

    Posts : 213
    Points : 224
    Join date : 2012-02-28

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  victor7 on Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:44 am

    Russia Planning 10 Year, $640 Billion Military Modernization

    Well, it looks like the Ruskies are going to persevere with their plans to modernize their military. Remember, a little while ago there was some doubt as to whether Russia would really be able to pursue an aggressive modernization effort.

    According to AFP, Russian defense officials just unveiled a ten year, $640 billion spending plan. Yup, in ten years, they’ll spend a little more than we do in one. So there’s no huge cause for concern about the Russian military rising up to take on the U.S. one-on-one.

    The real issue here is whether this investment cash will fund advanced weapons that get sold to a number of other nations that aren’t so friendly to the U.S. Still, only about $64 billion will be dedicated to developing new weapons in the period. So, don’t worry too much.

    Apparently, the Russian military will be getting 600 new airplanes, 1000 new choppers (100 choppers this year, alone).

    The Russian navy, in particular, is set to get a ton of new goodies including eight new nuclear ballistic missile boats:

    The Navy should receive about 100 new vessels, including 35 corvettes, 15 frigates and 20 submarines. Of the submarines, eight should be of the nuclear Borei class, carrying Bulava multiwarhead naval intercontinental ballistic missiles that the ministry plans to commission later this year after additional tests.

    The ministry will fund the development of a new liquid-fuel heavy intercontinental ballistic missile, to replace aging RS-18 Stilleto (SS-19 NATO codename) and RS-20 Satan (SS-18 NATO codename), Popovkin said. Such missiles can carry up to 10 warheads, he said, while solid fuel missiles, such as Topol, can carry maximum three warheads.

    In addition to this, Russia’s going to put 10 S-500 surface-to-air missile systems in service by 2014 and will buy another 56 S-400 SAMs. Let’s hope these missile remain too expensive for most nations to buy them.

    The Russians will also buy “small batches of drones, sniper guns and French-made Felin infantry combat suits.”


    victor7

    Posts : 213
    Points : 224
    Join date : 2012-02-28

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  victor7 on Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:07 am

    Russia's GDP is $2.3T as per the Purchasing Power Parity. $1.8T in nominal terms.

    Russia's economic growth is 3.5%

    Hence each year economy grows by roughly $80B in PPP terms. Of this for the next 10 years, Russia plans to spend $60B odd into buying new weapons. This means the program will not put Russia into a hole. However, this logic does not take into account the annual inflation. Counting inflation, this does put a dent.

    The main point is that oil and energy prices keep high and higher. If there are fluctuaions then ofcourse $640B figure can be readjusted downwards.

    Russia needs to see that new revenue rich industries are cultivated and developed on the side.

    Also, extremely important to have nuclear weapons capabilities in the Triad be at the top class levels and US BMD program in Europe does not cancel out Russia's nuclear deterrent.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:28 am

    600 billion over 10 years is not that big a deal.

    Slashing it in half like you suggest will just hurt the Russian MIC... but who cares about them afterall they are French aren't they?

    Your justification for taking this money away is amusing too because weapons is one area the Russians have outside energy exports that earn them money and you want to slash domestic purchases to "invest" in other areas?

    Are you crazy?

    Spending money on new kit is necessary because the kit in use is getting worn out and needs replacing.

    It has been largely neglected for 20 years.

    The people putting ideas forward like using that money to help the poor or to rejuvenate other industries tend to be American republicans like those at the Jamestown institute...

    BTW the US spends rather more on their military and rather less on local industry investment so why would you listen to them?

    The amount chosen wasn't plucked out of the sky, or chosen at random... they have a goal of 70% new gear in service by 2020 and this amount of money will let them achieve that.

    You sound like a westerner when you complain that they should be spending that on the poor and needy... the poor don't need handouts, they just need jobs that will pay a living wage and slashing the defence budget will not create jobs.

    It is just dumb to slash spending in case the economy might hit a bit of a wobble because economies are effing stupid things and if the Russian government says they don't trust the situation in Russia to be solid enough to spend money on things that are well overdue, then what investors will take the risk and all of a sudden your plan to cope with a bad economy CREATES a bad economy.

    Money is already budgeted to diversify the Russian economy and money and effort is already being put in place to fight corruption.

    Russia is not the US... the US could certainly do with an enormous cut in its defence budget, but only because its budget is enormously bloated and borderline cancerous... in a world of 7 billion people a country with less than 400 million spend more on their military than all the rest combined and you can't see that as a problem?

    Further more a country that is the largest in the world that crosses about 12 time zones spends less than 1/10th of what the US spends on defence and you think it is too much? 3% GDP is a world standard for defence spending and Russia is in the process of restructuring and re-equipping after a long period of stagnation and neglect.

    It is not just because I like Russian military equipment, but when I hear especially westerners whine that they are paying for Russian nukes to be dismantled and yet Russia is spending money on weapons... why can't they spend that money on the poor? Russian nukes getting dismantled only benefits the west which is why the west is happy to pay for it... and throwing money at the poor is not a solution anywhere... in New Zealand... the UK or the US or India. Building infrastructure and creating jobs and of course education and training help the poor to get work and help themselves.

    Sponsored content

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:02 pm