Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Share

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    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?

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1523
    Points : 1686
    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
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 216
    Points : 229
    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.




    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    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
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 216
    Points : 229
    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!

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    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...

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    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
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 216
    Points : 229
    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.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    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
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 216
    Points : 229
    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
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 216
    Points : 229
    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    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.

    victor7
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 216
    Points : 229
    Join date : 2012-02-28

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  victor7 on Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:08 pm

    Like mentioned before, this decision is crucially strategic for the whole country.

    No one is asking giving money to poor, I did not mention it anywhere, but investing in industries that might employ them and increase the middle class consumers to prop up the economy.

    There cannot be any comparison with US vrs Russia anymore. Russia is not a superpower now and should not try to act like one. Do not need 100s of submarines to do the force projection all around the world. US can do whatever they want with their money and resources, not my problem.


    Like the report mentioned, only 60B of the 640B is newly developed equipment. I bet half of that will be taken up by Pakfa. So it not that some later generation arming is happening to Russian Forces from this 600B spending. Or totally new arms are being made for exports.

    Russia needs very substantial efforts to stop corruption and capital flowing out of the country. $60B a year flowing out means $180B impact on the economy each single year (Russia's money multiplier is 3). Over 10 years this has $1.8 Trillion impact on the economy.

    Russia needs to have its nuclear missiles and delivery wings in top shape to destroy any country on earth within half an hour.

    This $600B arms budget should be implemented in parts of like $100B or so to evaluate the impact and efficiency of the new investments.

    Very crucial that Russia develop several new industries for additional revenue sources to the economy. Focus towards Agriculture, Nanotechnology etc. can yield long term benefits.





    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:04 am

    I am sorry but what you suggest is stupid.

    Funding is already allocated for investment in infrastructure and industry.

    It is like you are looking at a household budget and deciding that too much is being spent on icecream... but it isn't icecream... it is the large bunch of people PROTECTING the country.

    The military has been neglected and now they are getting funding to fix it... to make it what it needs to be.

    Russia needs very substantial efforts to stop corruption and capital flowing out of the country. $60B a year flowing out means $180B impact on the economy each single year (Russia's money multiplier is 3). Over 10 years this has $1.8 Trillion impact on the economy.

    What is this crap? 60B a year being spend on the Russian military is NOT flowing out of the country... it is being spent on Russian workers and upgrading Russian factories and is not going into swiss bank accounts... very few Russian factory workers have swiss bank accounts or accounts in the cayman islands.

    And what is this money multiplier BS? Russia has real problems and it doesn't need you making up new ones.

    but investing in industries that might employ them and increase the middle class consumers to prop up the economy.

    The US economy is a model of a consumer economy and it is dysfunctional... people want to buy lots of stuff and end up having to work all hours in multiple jobs just to pay for such a lifestyle, while the manufacturers can't afford to pay a living wage and end up moving their factories to countries where labour is cheap. The result is a consumer society with no manufacturing jobs and everyone is either a CEO, a Lawyer, or unemployed.

    Russia should not follow the path of consumerism as it is enormously wasteful and destructive.

    Making products for other consumer states on the other hand will be very profitable...

    Russia needs to have its nuclear missiles and delivery wings in top shape to destroy any country on earth within half an hour.

    The purpose of having such things is to ensure you never have to use them. You still need an army that can go into places and let you impose your will or have your way.

    Very crucial that Russia develop several new industries for additional revenue sources to the economy. Focus towards Agriculture, Nanotechnology etc. can yield long term benefits.

    The Russian government is not a communist government in a managed economy. The government can offer incentives and push certain buttons, but at the end of the day it is down to Russians to explore new areas of marketable and exportable means of making a living. The Russian government can help fund things like Skolkovo but at the end of the day that is an even greater risk of corruption based failure than the military budget is... or do you believe corruption only happens in the Russian military?

    victor7
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 216
    Points : 229
    Join date : 2012-02-28

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  victor7 on Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:24 am

    What is this crap? 60B a year being spend on the Russian military is NOT flowing out of the country

    Each single month $5-6B is flowing out of Russia and landing in secret accounts all over the world. This is common money from the government, tax evasion etc. On annual basis it is good $60B. These are funds of today from common areas of daily life. These are not the proposed $640B funds for military purchases. When the $640B kicks in, the monthly outflow might reach $10B or more easily. Recently Russia bought $2B worth of oil drilling machines or platforms from China. The payments went as follows: $1.85B went to the Chinese company and $150M went to the Cayman Islands to a numbered account. Corruption is the biggest threat to today's Russia and Putin has to do something about it as it is rotting the society from inside.

    While having a much strong military makes lots of sense to gain some diplomatic clout and even in pulling some trade deals and selling weapons to allies and importantly keeping the hostile parties on a peaceful tone etc. but investment in military is dead in the sense that assets produced do not go to work like any bicycle would or a motor engine would and result in working towards another asset. Discussing military as a dead investment is a very open topic but it sure is a low returns asset. After some point, military investment is outright foolish.

    it is the large bunch of people PROTECTING the country.

    About time this protecting of the country becomes more efficient and gains some depth. Ex: Merely allotting 90 hours a year flying time to pilots does not make sense. No wonder RuAF could not even jam its own Buk system that Georgia got from Ukraine and hence lost a Tu22 Bomber. Whatever military is there has to be well trained and taken care of first rather than building numbers and thumping chest. When the time of implementation comes, the equipment gets blown up along with the ill trained personal manning it.


    Russia has to be consumer oriented high self esteemed country but not on the lines of the US. Credit card based fake flamboyance is funny at the very least.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:53 am

    Each single month $5-6B is flowing out of Russia and landing in secret accounts all over the world. This is common money from the government, tax evasion etc. On annual basis it is good $60B.

    I am sorry but I have no respect for your sources so far, and really don't believe this claim is true either.

    More to the point how is money flowing out of russia anything to do with budgeting for rebuilding the Russian military?

    How does spending money on Sukhoi and Mig and Izhmash effecting the flow of money out of Russia?

    I am sure this is the same source that claims Putin is worth 50 billion dollars.

    These are funds of today from common areas of daily life.

    What are you talking about? If funds from everyday life are siphoned off into foreign banks then the Russian government should immediately block access to foreign banks... but then the whole purpose of joining the WTO is to get easier access to foreign banks and to transfer money more easily to improve trade and reduce red tape in international transactions...

    When the $640B kicks in, the monthly outflow might reach $10B or more easily.

    What is this garbage?

    Do you think the Russian government will simply hand 640 billion to Russian manufacturers and those Russian manufacturers are going to immediately move that money to offshore accounts and then make the weapons and equipment for free without paying their own workers to make this stuff, without paying subcontractors for their work?

    Wake up.

    Stop reading US and UK sources on Russia... it is mostly bollocks.

    Recently Russia bought $2B worth of oil drilling machines or platforms from China. The payments went as follows: $1.85B went to the Chinese company and $150M went to the Cayman Islands to a numbered account. Corruption is the biggest threat to today's Russia and Putin has to do something about it as it is rotting the society from inside.

    What are you talking about? First of all deals don't just happen out of thin air and to negotiate contracts there are fees... the larger the contracts the larger the fees. Are you suggesting there was a 150 million dollar bribe to buy Chinese drilling machines? Why? Do you bribe your supermarket checkout girl to be allowed to buy apples?

    The thing about bribery and corruption is that if you know about it... especially the amount involved and where the money is then that is probably because there persons responsible got caught so when the money is seized and returned to the government then there is no corruption at all is there?

    BTW corruption happens all the time in the west... they just have different names for it.

    After some point, military investment is outright foolish.

    Yes because 90% of the countries of the world spend nothing on their military.... oops hang on, that is not true.

    The US didn't become a global power than then create a powerful military force... it happens the other way around.

    If Russia wants to be a global player that is not limited to the European or Asian land mass then it needs a modern mobile military and the overhaul they are currently getting is exactly what they need.

    Tell the people of South Ossetia that the Russian military is pointless... Saakashvili only invaded SO because he believed the Russian military was in a poor state, if Russia neglects its military who will even listen to what it has to say let alone respect its borders?

    An upgraded and modern military will actually be cheaper to operate and maintain and give a much better return on the investment. Russian MIC companies making state of the art material will also be much more competitive on the international market which will also earn foreign currency.

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:24 pm

    and Victor 7 , everything made by the military funds other inventions , as proven by the example of the GPS , since your such a Pro American technology guy. So you telling us that Russia should stop investing in its military, because its foolish, then why does your favorite Pentagon keep investing?


    I would love to hear your answer...

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:47 pm

    Exactly... the western military subsidises their space programs and their commercial aircraft programs...

    The Russian civilian aircraft industry would be in much better shape if the Russian military had bought hundreds of tanker aircraft and transports and of course recon and AWACS and maritime patrol aircraft based on civilian airliners. Without that sort of subsidy Boeing and Airbus would not be doing so well either...

    victor7
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 216
    Points : 229
    Join date : 2012-02-28

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  victor7 on Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:01 am

    Russian Patriot wrote:and Victor 7 , everything made by the military funds other inventions , as proven by the example of the GPS , since your such a Pro American technology guy. So you telling us that Russia should stop investing in its military, because its foolish, then why does your favorite Pentagon keep investing?


    I would love to hear your answer...

    I am not asking to not spend on military, without military no nation can survive. However, spending big amounts and having 20% corrupted away and sent overseas.........this should be stopped.....somehow! tough but possible!! If Russia does not stop rampant corruption in its society, then it will remain a backward nation in comparison to the west. The trickle down economic effect will not happen for general population and they will not be able get exposed to modern way of life.

    Regarding Pentagon spending, like I said before, America can spend itself to total oblivion, that's not my problem. Russia needs to have very efficient and strategic outlook towards defense spending and make sure whatever is invested does not end up in overseas accounts of corrupt officials in MIC.

    Btw, where did my postings give you the idea that I am pro America and Pentagon is my favorite. Please clear up your understandings before jumping to conclusions.

    victor7
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 216
    Points : 229
    Join date : 2012-02-28

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  victor7 on Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:12 am

    The Russian civilian aircraft industry would be in much better shape if the Russian military had bought hundreds of tanker aircraft and transports and of course recon and AWACS and maritime patrol aircraft based on civilian airliners. Without that sort of subsidy Boeing and Airbus would not be doing so well either...

    The main reason rest of the world buys Boeing and Airbus is their planes are very fuel efficient in comparison to anyone else. Russian planes for one are gas guzzlers and running an airline on those planes cannot result in profits. There are airlines which are striving to make even $50 per flight. That is why Russian Antanov and Illyusin planes are sold at deep discount on the airplane marts.

    Problem is folks cannot take or accept the hard truth. Instead of focusing on finding solutions and improvements, the main focus turns into name calling and counter attacking. Third Worldish!

    Dassvidania!

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:11 pm

    victor7 wrote:
    Russian Patriot wrote:and Victor 7 , everything made by the military funds other inventions , as proven by the example of the GPS , since your such a Pro American technology guy. So you telling us that Russia should stop investing in its military, because its foolish, then why does your favorite Pentagon keep investing?


    I would love to hear your answer...

    I am not asking to not spend on military, without military no nation can survive. However, spending big amounts and having 20% corrupted away and sent overseas.........this should be stopped.....somehow! tough but possible!! If Russia does not stop rampant corruption in its society, then it will remain a backward nation in comparison to the west. The trickle down economic effect will not happen for general population and they will not be able get exposed to modern way of life.

    Regarding Pentagon spending, like I said before, America can spend itself to total oblivion, that's not my problem. Russia needs to have very efficient and strategic outlook towards defense spending and make sure whatever is invested does not end up in overseas accounts of corrupt officials in MIC.

    Btw, where did my postings give you the idea that I am pro America and Pentagon is my favorite. Please clear up your understandings before jumping to conclusions.


    The F-22 Thread, but I apologize for making conclusions.What you say has some merit ,but why do you think that corruption will take 20%?


    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  TR1 on Sun Apr 22, 2012 11:59 pm

    http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2012/04/25.html

    Rejoice Victor.

    Goszakaz lowered for 2012.
    Was over 700 billion rubles, lowered by 25 billion.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:17 am

    What you say has some merit ,but why do you think that corruption will take 20%?

    More importantly when you have stamped out corruption, can we deal with the murder rate and then gambling addiction and perhaps alcoholism... and everything else and then the prisons will be empty and Russia will save so much they can afford to spend much more on other things. Cool

    However, spending big amounts and having 20% corrupted away and sent overseas.........this should be stopped.....somehow! tough but possible!!

    You should have said this in the first place... can you not see the difference between talking about dealing with corruption by cutting spending, and just dealing with corruption with better accounting practises?

    It is like getting someone to buy your groceries for you and you suspect they are keeping the change. The solution is to ask for the receipt and checking that all the goods bought are in the bags they deliver. The solution is not to just give them less money and buy fewer things each week.

    Can you not see that spending less money will not stop corruption but will drag out the upgrade of the military over a longer more painful process?

    If Russia does not stop rampant corruption in its society, then it will remain a backward nation in comparison to the west.

    First of all Rubbish. Corruption is theft. Name one country that does not have thieves? In the US a private company can give a lobbiest a million dollars to get a law change or a law written that benefits them. That lobbiest will target specific senators and wine and dine them and give them gifts like cars and hookers and eventually the laws go through. How is that not corruption? Yet it is public knowledge that it happens...

    The problem for Russia is that they have plenty of corruption, they just haven't made it part of the system yet.

    The trickle down economic effect will not happen for general population and they will not be able get exposed to modern way of life.

    The role of the government is not to drive the economy and create innovation. The governments role is to ensure there is infrastructure and education and health to support the population and allow the population to drive the economy forward by keeping them healthy, by making transport and movement cheap and easy and by giving the people access to training and education to give them the skills to do what they want.

    Regarding Pentagon spending, like I said before, America can spend itself to total oblivion, that's not my problem.

    Not your problem, but it is Russias problem. Part of their role is defence of Russia... and the greatest threat to Russia is the US. They need to first overhaul and upgrade the Russian military and then build a system that counters the high price ticket items the US will use that is not as expensive, but is effective.

    Russia needs to have very efficient and strategic outlook towards defense spending and make sure whatever is invested does not end up in overseas accounts of corrupt officials in MIC.

    Good accounting and an active FSB are solutions to that... not reducing spending.


    Btw, where did my postings give you the idea that I am pro America and Pentagon is my favorite. Please clear up your understandings before jumping to conclusions.

    Your sources are generally pro America, and you seemed to be in love with the F-22...

    The main reason rest of the world buys Boeing and Airbus is their planes are very fuel efficient in comparison to anyone else.

    BS. In fact western planes really do not suit Russian airlines... they need expensive infrastructure at air ports, there are no cloakrooms for the passengers to Siberia to put their heavy clothes so they have to freeze walking to the terminal at small airports. And most western aircraft have only two crew, with no engineer, which increases the workload of the pilot and copilot, and more importantly means that you are likely to need more pilots that are multilingual for international flights.

    If Boeings and Airbuses are so wonderful why are they both fined so regularly for corruption? Without military orders increasing production numbers and reducing costs to produce them they would be too expensive to buy.

    Russian planes for one are gas guzzlers and running an airline on those planes cannot result in profits.

    All Russian planes? Makes you wonder why Il-76 and An-124 aircraft are in such demand if they are such inefficient aircraft.

    You clearly are believing the western propaganda about Soviet and Russian planes, which is not really a surprise.

    The main problem with modern Russian civilian airliners is that the Russian military has not ordered a few batches for different purposes that would start full scale production and reduce prices and risk.

    That is why Russian Antanov and Illyusin planes are sold at deep discount on the airplane marts.

    Those transports are in heavy demand internationally largely because of corruption... and that is US corruption.

    You have read about the F-35 being designed from the outset to have parts made in various US states so that the congressmen from those states will not cancel it.

    The C-17 was the first aircraft to do such a thing and despite costing as much as an SSBN they are still making them because the pentagon gets money for them even when it doesn't ask for it. Half a trillion dollars for a medium transport plane... and you talk about corruption in Russia?

    The only other competition is the C-5 and there are no civilian models to compete with the An-124.

    Problem is folks cannot take or accept the hard truth.

    The Russian word for truth is Pravda. The American equivalent is Fox News, which is where you seem to get your information about Russian civilian airliners.

    Soviet airliners were always competitive, the Tu-154 was a very good aircraft, as was the Il-62, but there has been a gap of 20 years with no orders and a loss of a closed market. Aircraft prototypes were designed and made but there were no orders, and engines were designed but never made for much the same reasons.

    Saying all Russian and Soviet airliners are gas guzzlers is simply ignorant.

    A bit like saying all Americans are fat, or all black people are good at sport.

    Was over 700 billion rubles, lowered by 25 billion.

    Which as worked out on his site is about 1.9 billion dollars less spending.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  TR1 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:43 am

    Yeah, no offense, but this gas guzzler theory....really, has no reason when explaining why Tu-204 did so poorly, for example.

    Il-96 has a hard time competing with new large twinjets, but much the same could be said of say the A-340.


    The Soviet airliners of their time were perfectly competitive, if anything post USSR airliners are comparatively much less impressive (when compared to the big market players).

    Sponsored content

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 8:16 pm


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:16 pm