Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:46 am

    As you mentioned Seph, making the smallest wafer doesn't make you the best.
    Smaller means potential ESM vulnerability and EMP vulnerability.

    The real issue is when will the makers get orders so they can use this technology.

    Vlad has pointed out that Russian makers ruin potentially good UAVs by using cheap engines and optics, but the concept of UAVs is cheap and disposable.

    Obviously now they will be realising their mistake and will be investing in better components so the performance should improve.

    The huge irony is of course that in the early 1990s most of the companies in the west were drooling over the end of the cold war creating an enormous mass of skilled educated workers that were used to working for low wages. For a while there was talk that most western companies would set up factories in Russia to use the cheap labour. There were even fears about the threat that Japan might buy Russian aircraft and space expertise and rise again. They have lost a lot of ground since WWII when their aeroplanes were state of the art for a while.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:09 am

    Hi, I have found the article I remembered above.

    Here is the link:

    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20091208/157159956.html

    And here is the article with bits relevant highlighted by me:

    Russian paratroopers to receive new weaponry in near future

    The Russian Airborne Troops will receive a variety of advanced weaponry, including BMD-4M airborne infantry fighting vehicles (AIFV), in the next few years, the Airborne Troops commander said.

    "We are expecting to receive up to 200 BMD-4M AIFV in the next few years to significantly increase the combat capability of our troops," Lt. Gen. Vladimir Shamanov said.

    "Paratroopers will also get indigenous Shakhin infrared scopes, new sniper rifles, underwater assault rifles and other advanced weaponry and gear," the general said.

    The BMD-4M is the latest modification of an armored combat vehicle that can be para-dropped to provide firepower and support for airborne troops. It features a new chassis, a digital fire control system and a set of high-precision weaponry, including a 100-mm gun.

    The 13-ton vehicle has a crew of two and can carry six paratroopers.

    Shamanov said the Airborne Troops would eventually include units equipped with unmanned aerial vehicles, transport and combat helicopters to increase mobility and combat effectiveness of the troops on the battlefield.

    The Airborne Troops are considered the most capable mobile assault forces in Russia. Various estimates put the current personnel at about 48,000 troops deployed in four divisions and a brigade.

    According to Russia's military reform plans, the Airborne Troops will be fully manned with professional soldiers by 2011.

    MOSCOW, December 8 (RIA Novosti)
    Have no idea who makes those Shakhin thermal scopes, but I have seen exhibitions with sights that look like the LZOS scopes.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:44 am

    Russia refuses to purchase obsolete armour



    Russian Ministry of Defense in the new state program of armaments for 2011-2020 intends to refrain from purchasing weapons, do not correspond to modern requirements. This, as the newspaper Vedomosti, said Deputy Defense Minister of Russia Vladimir Popovkin. In particular, it is a non-upgraded infantry combat vehicles BMP-3 armored personnel carriers BTR-80 with a side exit to landing, and some other items of military equipment.

    New State Program of arms will be presented for approval by the President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev in June 2010. According to Popovkin, in respect of military equipment for the Army is now being discussed refusal from the purchase of BTR-80, BMP-3 and T-90 tanks. The contract, signed in 2009 - early 2010, will be fully executed. In particular, in 2010, will be procured 150 BTR-80, 50 BMP-3 and 63 T-90.

    As the newspaper notes, the Ministry of Defense of Russia in recent years been forced to buy tanks and armored vehicles in a minimal configuration, since experienced a severe shortage of funds for purchases. In particular, the military bought the BTR-80 equipped only with machine guns, while the export of these machines come with a small-caliber guns.

    In September 2009, the auditor of the Accounting Chamber Nicholas Tabachkov said that the share of modern weapons supplied to the army, is only six percent. The share of modern equipment and weapons in the armed forces is about ten percent. According to the Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, by 2020 the proportion of new technology in the Russian army should be at least 70-80 per cent. For these purposes before the end of 2011 planned to spend about four trillion rubles.

    http://vpk.name/news/38684_rossiya_otkazhetsya_ot_zakupki_ustarevshei_bronetehniki.html

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  sepheronx on Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:14 am

    So is this regarding that they won't purchase non upgrades? Or are they going to not purchase these equipment at all?

    Stalingradcommando
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 35
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:28 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:Russia refuses to purchase obsolete armour

    Russian Ministry of Defense in the new state program of armaments for 2011-2020 intends to refrain from purchasing weapons, do not correspond to modern requirements. This, as the newspaper Vedomosti, said Deputy Defense Minister of Russia Vladimir Popovkin. In particular, it is a non-upgraded infantry combat vehicles BMP-3 armored personnel carriers BTR-80 with a side exit to landing, and some other items of military equipment.

    New State Program of arms will be presented for approval by the President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev in June 2010. According to Popovkin, in respect of military equipment for the Army is now being discussed refusal from the purchase of BTR-80, BMP-3 and T-90 tanks. The contract, signed in 2009 - early 2010, will be fully executed. In particular, in 2010, will be procured 150 BTR-80, 50 BMP-3 and 63 T-90.

    So they are stooping even the T90 now? No T90, no BTR, no BMP. I wonder if they will be producing anything after 2010.
    Popovkin got the whole military industry killed with this. And soon so will the plans of modernisation of our ground force. I wonder if there is anything positive in terminating all new weapons projects and stopping production of all the existing ones

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:37 pm

    Relax guys, it means they will purchase BMP-3M and BTR-82. Until now they have only purchased obsolete models.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:42 am

    Any word on whether the Russian factory that was to make the Thales thermal imagers is ready to start licence production?

    I would expect production of the T-90 would be limited till the T-90 upgrade has been completed. I read that would be at the end of this year.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Vladimir79 on Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:35 am

    GarryB wrote:Any word on whether the Russian factory that was to make the Thales thermal imagers is ready to start licence production?

    I would expect production of the T-90 would be limited till the T-90 upgrade has been completed. I read that would be at the end of this year.

    They have already started production in Q1 2010.Production is 12 units a month and will ramp up to 30 by the end of the year. Problem is most of those are going to India.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:08 am

    They have already started production in Q1 2010.Production is 12 units a month and will ramp up to 30 by the end of the year. Problem is most of those are going to India.

    That is excellent news.

    As they come to grips with mass production they will learn and improve.
    The more they make the cheaper they will be and the quicker they can expand production.

    ...they have a lot of sights to make...

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:20 am

    I have had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine who seems to think that the cutting of the T-95 program is only a temporary measure.
    He says that the person making the cuts, Popovkin, was talking about cutting the funding from the 2010-2013-4 period of the military budget and that the main reasons for the cuts were that most of the components for the T-95 are imported and also very expensive and it has been decided that considering the current situation where they are trying to dramatically downsize the number of tanks they already have that starting building a new tank now would be a waste of available funds.
    His comments about the T-95 being obsolete before it had even entered service were aimed at the Soviet focus of the attacking power of the tank as the primary asset of the ground forces rather than any particular issue with the T-95 design itself.
    It seems that the plan is to complete the upgrade design for the T-90 and then get that into service and upgrade some existing T-90s and the similar T-72 to that standard and to largely get rid of all the other types and in 5 years time when Russia is making high tech components herself the T-95 will be redesigned with new components and any new technology that might be available then and put into service.
    The rumours of a lot of foreign equipment entering Russian service is not true, though some joint ventures of course started will go ahead.
    Israeli UAVs and Italian armoured vehicles for example were for testing, and barretta pistols were commercial ventures.
    Russian vehicles might get addon armour developed in Germany, but Russian armoured vehicles will be made in Russia.

    As Vlad mentioned long ago this was a kick in the backside of the Russian production sector of the MIC, of which he has rather more experience than I.
    It seems to have worked.
    Of course lots of problems remain, if you can imagine the problems of running a factory for the last 20 years with almost no local purchases after having money thrown at you for most of the cold war, and now the Russian government is placing orders and demanding the quality of your products match those made in the west, it would be a bitter pill to swallow.
    Even with an order I rather doubt the government will pay up front, they will probably pay about 20 percent and allow the company to get soft loans to cover the rest of their costs, like retooling, hiring labour, training to get the skills necessary to do a good job, buying the materials needed and of course paying cash for work done by subcontractors and then waiting for parts and materials to arrive so production can begin.
    I am glad it is not my job to be a manager.
    Of course it must be an exciting time too with new tooling and technology coming on line, new ways to make things faster and cheaper and easier... ways to improve the product further etc.

    I am certainly look forward to see which way the upgrade for the BMP-3 will go.
    Will they go for heavy armour and ditch the amphibious capability?
    Or will they have some solution to improve protection and exiting arrangements and retain the ability to float on water? Some sort of lightweight honey comb armour or specially designed spaced armour that can be fitted, particularly to the front to compensate for the heavy frontal armour.
    Apart from faster, longer range ATGMs that are fire and forget I can't think of a way to improve the firepower of the BMP-3, it has the best combination of HE punch of a large calibre weapon and the firepower of a high velocity cannon for airborne or lighter targets.

    Andy_Wiz
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 29
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2010-10-12
    Location : South-West Fringe of the Empire

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Andy_Wiz on Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:00 pm

    BTW, Conngrats GarryB for excellent analysis!

    Here you predicted the essence of 2011-2020 armament programe for the Army part, first  - C4, tactical recon, INT, EW for the troops. Then 5-7 years later they buy new(or seriously revamped)platforms with better capacity to integrate into already formed C4ISR web and better industrial base for actually building them in numbers. Bravo! While Vladimir had most of his stuff right he, clearly, was exaggerating a bit, as did Mr.Popovkin(on purpose of telling the industry to get their ass off the couch)... He is right though that R&Ds will be cut drastically and only most important programs would have financing.

    Only thing that bothers me right now is this very obscure dealings with IAI UAVs. I mean they haven't even been tested yet... After complaining that they got monkey models, without decent cameras and equipment Russian MoD signs 400$mln. contract for parts with IAI...

    Thats just f@$6d up! Pardon my french...

    While there are nice Russian UAVs appearing such as this - http://bpla-orlan.ning.com/photo/bpla-orlan-10-novyj-bpla-orlan-2?context=featured

    P.S. One more thing - T-95 isn't obsolete! Sorry Vlad, but I've heard this from various people on one very respected military forum

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian army modernization

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 16, 2010 1:22 am

    I can certainly appreciate Vlads point of view, I mean if you look at the broken promises over the last decade or so and the stuff happening now was promised repeatedly... even during a period of high income... and nothing came through.

    It took the stab in the back that was the Georgian campaign to remind them of what happens to a force that is neglected for a decade and a half... a bit like a kitchen fire to remind you that you saved a small amount of money by stopping paying the house insurance...

    With the IAI UAVs it is a strange situation but I think understandable. I could be wrong but what I think the Russians want is a fully operational tested system to play with so they can find out what it can and cannot do. The problem is that the UAVs they bought are not state of the art, they are previous gen stuff that Israel was prepared to sell. However what is important is that they are learning what a UAV system can and cannot do and it has created expectations they can sensibly make requirements from when they open the competition to Russian makers.
    If a UAV was just an unmanned aircraft with a few cameras then the M-23 would be a good start. (For those that don't know the M-23 is simply an old Mig-23 that has been modified to fly on remote control. Because the expectations of airframe life span are lower (it is used as a target usually) and there is no pilot on board, the flight envelope of the aircraft is expanded like it can pull 12g quite safely compared to the originals 8g.)
    The reality is that a UAV is a lot more than just a remote control plane and rather than just start from scratch they chose to buy some off the shelf models and play with them to learn what can or can't be done with them. And indeed create some manuals and tactics on using them within an armed forces that has limited experience with such things.
    Of course the Russian Army artillery units have been using UAVs for ages, but we are primarily talking about the Russian airforce here and they want speed to get to places of interest quickly, endurance so they can loiter so they don't need lots of systems to cover an area, and of course altitude to keep them safe from trashfire. Of course the latter means it needs excellent sensors to see ground targets from long distances.
    Vlad mentioned that some of the early UAVs put forward had crap cameras, so I would guess an initial response would be to source much better quality cameras and digital stabilisers for better pictures. This probably means that current Russian UAVs have better cameras than the previous generation Israeli UAVs.

    P.S. One more thing - T-95 isn't obsolete! Sorry Vlad, but I've heard this from various people on one very respected military forum

    The people cancelling it couldn't say it is the best tank in the world... Smile

    There is only one tank manufacturer left in Russia and the T-95 was the best they could make. In 10 years time they will need a new tank and some of the features of the T-95 will likely remain though the add on modular armour packages might be much lighter perhaps.

    I mean the whole concept of modular armour would be ideal for their heavy, medium, and light armour brigades in that it could be fitted with heavy and medium levels of armour for the heavy and medium brigades and then a wheeled light version with the turret on top could be used for the light brigades as serious firepower.

    Personally I think they should continue with the T-95 but fit it initially with a 125mm gun and then much later they could put a bigger gun into it and use that version in the heavy brigades.

    ...but of course I don't have all the facts.

    What I do know is that the upgrade for the T-90 is supposed to improve crew safety by removing ammo from the crew area, and that the T-95 is supposed to take crew safety to the extreme... and that is why I want them both. Sure it would be expensive, but at the end of the day when you reduce force size you need to increase force quality and performance which will increase costs. Maybe 500 T-95s, 2,000 T-90(upgraded)s and 5,000 upgraded T-72s.
    Use the T-72s for practise and parades and break out the T-90s and T-95s for war.
    As they age keep giving them all upgrades and gradually increase the T-90s and T-95s in service and gradually use up the upgraded T-72s till the tank fleet is all T-90s and T-95s.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    State Armaments Program 2011-2020:

    Post  Vladimir79 on Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:35 am

    Prices constrain the state defense order

    In the new decade, Russia has joined the state program without arms: LG 2011-2020 and has not been adopted before 1 January 2011. The main reason for the delay in the adoption of state program called the weapons issue price coordination in the production of defense enterprises. These prices are increasing at a rate outstripping inflation, and often discount the increased military budget. With rising military department is struggling the last few years, but until that strategic success was achieved.

    Another round of fighting was opened by changing the rules of financing the state defense order: in force since 1 January 2011 the Federal Law № 402-FZ suspend several articles of the Budget Code of Russia and the law on state defense order. These changes will begin to finance government defense despite the fact that a state program of weapons on the 2011-20 years are not accepted. With this new law should limit the rise in production DIC.

    How much is a weapon?

    In accordance with the provisions of the new law, a state program of armaments and taken in accordance with its budget financing options are becoming a ceiling that limits the growth of prices for military equipment. According to the authors, this innovation should help to avoid an excessive rise in prices for military equipment.

    Rising prices for the products of defense enterprises in 2007 became an occasion for expressing the then leadership of the Ministry of Defence of serious complaints against the military industry. The result was the publication of the rules approved by the Government of pricing on armaments and military equipment, which limit the rate of profit for companies that produce weapons, 25 percent. In accordance with these rules, the prices of military products must be registered by the Federal Service for Tariffs (FST) on the entire production cycle. Or for the calendar year for those types of weapons, technological cycle of production which exceeds one year.

    Prices of nuclear weapons must be registered by the Federal Atomic Energy Agency, and the revision of prices is possible only in conditions of sharp price hikes for raw materials and components.

    Russian main battle tank T-90S - export version of the T-90. T-90 tank was created in late 1980 - early 1990's as the modernization of the T-72BII. Ural exhibition of armament and military equipment "Uralekspoarms-2000. Nevertheless, the armament and military equipment continued to rise in price. Thus, the price of the Be-200ES, purchased for the Emergencies Ministry, has risen from 700-750 million rubles to 1.2 billion, T-90 tank went up from 42 million to more than 70 million, and the lead ship of project 20380 - corvette "Guarding" for the construction has grown from 1,8 to 5 billion rubles.

    Problem of the uncontrolled rise in prices on an international arms - the number of thwarted or closed due to huge price increases procurement programs for the U.S. armed forces is difficult to calculate. A victim of rising prices began construction program warships class LCS, destroyers like "Zumvolt, reconnaissance helicopters, Comanche, and ARH-70.

    If this does not always rise in the cost of production due to increased complexity of technology and its capabilities. Weapons sometimes more expensive at times without any work to improve it.

    This increase in prices is clearly not due to inflation and does not always hold up small series. In some cases, and in many countries, the prices of military hardware to install "informally" on the basis of personal ties customer representatives and heads of defense enterprises. This situation the Ministry of Defense decides, in particular, the division of the ministry in two directions - "civil" and "military." The military leadership is no longer directly engaged in the procurement process. How complex these measures will slow the growth of prices of military equipment in Russia, we'll see soon enough.

    Not only are prices

    We should not think that the new law eliminates the problems associated with the financing of defense contracts. Serious problem is the current procedure for tenders for the supply of military products. They have to spend even when ordering the products made by only one manufacturer. Such competitions turn fruitless expenditure of time, often they win intermediary firms, have neither training nor the capacity and merely transmit orders to subcontractors, which does the real work.

    Edit this procedure can only modify the current law 94-FZ, governing the conduct of public procurement. The need for such changes referred to for many years.

    The current procurement procedure determines another problem: now start the new year shall stop work on the GOZ - companies are forced to renegotiate contracts. It is very difficult to work on technique a long production cycle - its funding must "break up". The same applies to the most complex and high-tech types of equipment - aircraft, warships, submarines and other systems on the production of which requires a year or more, as well as the impact on the conduct of research and development.

    All of these "holes" lead to the fact that budget money is too often fruitless settle the accounts of the Treasury, or vice versa too active "cool" and "sawn" - inefficiency defense contracts until recently reached several tens of billions of rubles. Next year will be the true test for a reformed Ministry of Defence - the degree of efficiency of spending of the military budget to demonstrate just how Anatoly Serdyukov and his team managed to perform the tasks that were set before him.

    Ilya Kramnik

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:23 am

    If you want state of the art best in the world then you have to pay top dollar.

    Most of the cost of a T-90 tank is the new Thales components that are very impressive in performance terms, but would make an accountant cry.

    The secret is to buy in bulk to try to keep individual costs down and to spend locally.

    If it is worth buying then buy lots of them.

    If it is expensive make sure it is Russian so all that money remains within the Russian economy rather than heading to a swiss bank account.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Interview with Vladimir Popovkin

    Post  Viktor on Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:46 pm

    I dont se no flaws in his thinking.


    To arms!
    First Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin revealed plans to re-equip the army

    "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" - federal issue № 5230 (151) on July 12, 2010

    Vladimir Popovkin: In many parts of the share of modern technology catastrophically low.
    The Minister of Defence has its first deputy, who will take care of all matters relating to the rearmament of the army and navy, and will oversee the civilian component of the military. Presidential decree to this post appointed Vladimir Popovkin. His first interview in his new position, he gave the "Rossiyskaya Gazeta".

    Rossiyskaya Gazeta: Vladimir, as will now be delivered to the army and navy of the new arsenal?

    Vladimir Popovkin: The decision to separate the administrative and operational functions of the Ministry of Defence. It creates a civil barrel, which will provide troops. A second barrel - to engage them in combat training, carrying all military activities related to the operation, the use of armaments and military equipment. Decided to withdraw from all procurement responsibilities of the Chief of Logistics and chief of weapons and to appoint a person responsible for this trend.

    RG: That is, in fact, you will be responsible for implementing the new state armaments program from 2011 to 2020. What tasks in the Defence Ministry placed at its formation?

    Popovkin: First of all, this is an attempt to correct in the army and navy situation with weapons and military equipment. For a variety of reasons it does not suit us. For a long time armed forces underfunded, and lack of funds primarily affects our defense arsenal. Modern armaments and military equipment now too little. If we have some time to live on the mobilization stocks unchanged, yet the Soviet Army, today, this potential is almost exhausted.

    RG: Can you name the percentage in our army, the new and old technology?

    Popovkin: This is - floating characteristics in different species and genera of troops it different. For example, the RVSN all weapons actually meets today's needs. Or take the Space Forces. There, the unit-of-life in the cosmos worked, it is necessary to run next. Launch vehicle has completed the task and brought the satellite into orbit - the next purchase. So naturally there is a process of renovation.

    But as for the Navy, Air Force, Army, the share of modern weapons, there really is catastrophically low. Take, for example, the Air Force. Until 2007, the Defense Department has acquired no more than a dozen planes and helicopters. In 2008, began to break to pieces the situation in 2009 conducted the first mass purchases. This year, shipments reached just fifty aircraft and helicopters. But that's not enough.

    RG: retool the entire army with new weapons is unrealistic even for two five-year period. The program of 2020 laid down some priorities? Let's say the first thing modernize its fleet, or land arsenal?

    Popovkin: The first priority - the strategic deterrent force. They have two components: the strategic nuclear forces, as well as a system of missile warning, missile defense and aerospace defense.

    The second priority - a long list of high-precision weapons, whose use is based on information support from space. Third - automated command and control. In the next two or three years to link all species of ACS in a single management system. Modernize it so it was with an open architecture and allows you to build the capacity in any direction.

    Another priority is associated with the armed forces. When million-man army, we can not keep the factions of equal strength in all strategic directions. It is therefore important to have means transferring personnel and equipment. In the first place - a modern military transport aircraft.

    RG: With the types of aircraft have already decided?

    Popovkin: This AN-124, whose production should resume in Ulyanovsk. In addition, the continued development of Russian-Ukrainian An-70 aircraft. It is also about a series of transport helicopters. In particular, we start to purchase new Mi-26. For a long time we just repaired the old ones.

    RG: But that - providing the Air Force fleet. And what about the fighting?

    Popovkin: Above updating it too hard. Long-term contracts for 80 Su-34 and Su-35s. To speed up work on emerging complex tactical aviation - PAK FA - have provided additional funding of tests.

    Another problem - re marine general purpose forces. This is very long to implement and very capacious funding problem. It can not run for a year or two or even five years. Too many in the navy should be restored. Therefore, a new program for the fleet lay up to five times more funds than, say, the cosmos.

    RG: You mentioned a promising system for tactical aircraft. Purchase of the five new program provides?

    Popovkin: With this machine, such a sequence. While experiencing a machine. By the end of this year should see another aircraft. During the 2011-2012 plan to complete all trials airframe PAK FA. And in 2013 signed a contract for the initial batch of ten aircraft to test the whole range of weapons the aircraft. To confirm its performance characteristics, run about 3 thousand flights. If the work was done with only two machines, it would take ten years.

    RG: Pilots can not expect so much?

    Popovkin: None. Therefore, the first stage of tests hope to complete by the end of 2013. And in 2016 the first serial start buying now fully tested cars with air attack and ground technological equipment.

    RG: How many planes are thinking to buy?

    Popovkin: While the Air Force assess the needs of 50-100 cars. How many will buy, now hard to say. Everything will depend on funding. But in any case, such orders are registered in the new program.

    Fighter at a reasonable price

    RG: When a document is discussed in the Duma, your Deputy General Frolov said that all previous weapons program underfunded. There is a danger of the repetition of this problem?

    Popovkin: The problem is that the weapons program in spite of their importance, are non-binding. Relatively speaking, this is - strategy of development of arms, prepared by the Defense Ministry and approved by the President. But it does not cost obligations, what is the state defense order. Further, unfortunately, it did not come beyond our control processes. As practice shows, based on the financial capacity of the state, each year the amount allocated for armaments and military equipment, less than the state program of armaments. Not the best way to implement it affects and pledged Ministry of Economic Development for fiscal year forecast deflators. Typically, they are not supported by actual inflation rates. In the end, after 5 years of the program is so unbalanced that the level of underfunding is 30 percent.

    RG: What do you do?

    Popovkin: We offer the absolute majority of armament to conclude on the basis of the state program long-term contracts - for the entire period of its validity. Then the document will be a hard commitment to the state before executing.

    RG: The need for state defense order for this not disappear?

    Popovkin: State Defense Order will detail the program, change prices, perhaps refine the quantitative parameters of the order. And not from the wishes of the financial and economic bloc, but from the global changes of a defensive nature. Say, from the perspective of new views on warfare.

    RG: In this approach, probably, and the defense industry is interested?

    Popovkin: The so-called co-operation of the first level - major defense holdings and concerns - already have a long-term contracts. But under holding companies "sitting" second co-operatives, private enterprises. And when it comes to the annual order, for example, ten blocks, a large interest from private owners to make them not visible. Under the order to reconfigure the manufacturing base. To get involved in this process, when there is no warranty on new contracts, small producers unprofitable. Suddenly, with the order to him for the last time approached.

    RG: The military, I think that here there is also self-interest?

    Popovkin: When the Defense Department worked through contracts with Cy 35 and Su-34 c by Sukhoi, managed to reduce the initial price of the aircraft by 25 percent. Due to the fact that this is a long contract, it became easier to negotiate with its subcontractors, including - with the engine and various aviation equipment.

    Moreover, we were told: 80 percent of the work will be advanced. This means that producers do not have to take loans from banks. Moreover, with the first real advance purchase accessories for the entire game. Of course, this is a profitable venture. There are in fact beginning to see tomorrow, to understand how to develop, when and what to upgrade.

    How much is a military threat


    RG: This scheme works well for full funding. And what will happen if, instead of the amount you are requesting under the program in 2020, will allocate less money?

    Popovkin: Let me first explain where did the needful version of the appropriations. When we calculate a new program, we appreciate all the forces that oppose Russia in various military and strategic directions. There is a forecast of the General Staff to develop military-political situation in the world. There are real threats, the potential conflicts that could affect us until 2020. To oppose them, Russia should be in strategic deterrence forces 100 percent of modern weapons and conventional forces in the stores - 70 percent. These are the criteria on which the said president and chairman of the government.

    RG: Why do economists in the government insist on a lesser amount? Think of a scheme?

    Popovkin: They operate their assessments: how many will collect taxes, a percentage of GDP should be spent on defense - 2,6 or 3? Incidentally, the Americans the figure is much higher. Although I do not think there is more threat than we do. When we brought the amount of appropriation, then we have done a version of the program. But it had to purchase some weapons dropped.

    RG: If no secret of what?

    Popovkin: Mainly it concerns the range of procurement of arms for the general purpose forces. But not all. For example, the priority in the delivery of tactical Iskander-M does not change. If we talk about aviation, the worst thing in the military situation with the helicopters. Therefore, their purchases, no matter what, we will implement to the maximum. The same applies to the new air defense systems, including S-400 and C-500. But we are forced to slow down the development of advanced platforms for armored vehicles, tanks and vehicles.

    RG: From research on prospective weapons will not refuse?

    Popovkin: The new program is a list of works on the basic military technologies. All of them remain.

    An armored car following the example of Toyota

    RG: So far, such operations are conducted, some patterns we'll have to buy in the West?

    Popovkin: We in the Soviet times, something bought abroad. For example, all survey vessels for the Navy did in Poland or in Germany. Our cadets flew training aircraft L-39 and L-410 Czech-made.

    Must emphasize the following. The new program does not say what weapons will fly abroad, as may be necessary to produce in Russia. There is only listed nomenclature and characteristics required of our military armaments and military equipment. Not in the program and addresses specific performers orders.

    RG: But what do you say what you prefer - domestic or foreign?

    Popovkin: Of course, the Defense Department for having to buy all of Russia. But be guided solely by patriotism in this matter is impossible. There are requirements, the criteria that should satisfy the weapons. If satisfied, buy. If not - speak Russian producers: create, we are ready to finance your work.

    Worst of all, when the company takes the money, but nothing good is creating. I have often cited an example where several billion rubles for the development of unmanned aerial vehicles have been wasted. I repeat: I am not a supporter of arms purchases abroad. Preferable to get there technologies and use them to create something from us. Incidentally, when we bought a batch of UAVs in Israel, our government has taken numerous decisions on the development of similar technologies in Russia.

    RG: Do not rejecting the use of strangers?

    Popovkin: When we, for example, are interested in a particular class of equipment - light armored vehicles that are not produced in Russia, we said: willing to purchase them abroad in the same way for what today we buy cars BMW or Toyota. Transferring production to Russia, with a term of localization up to 80 percent for 4 years and we are ready to start purchasing. It is important that the country has a modern defense technologies. Then to our CB to the new technology-based start your upgrade. And after a while - to develop the next generation of weapons.

    RG: Find, buy, put into production. After this chain of production of gold will not? Do you already eternal problem - pricing for military production.

    Popovkin: It's really a sore point. Trying to put it in order. This is done in two ways. The first - the company structure prescribed prices explain some of the costs it is formed. Defense considers these calculations using the military representatives and their department pricing. Then define: in our view, the price must be less than stated on such and such a sum. After this record prices with our conclusion will send to the Federal Service for Tariffs. Their experts estimate the cost based on their predictions and issue the final figures for the price.

    The second option - to force all businesses to conduct business accounting is not part of the overall balance, and separately - for the cost of military products. That is, consider how much money went for materials expended in the manufacture of our order electricity and so on. To the military through the state defense order does not contain factory hockey team, farms, resorts, motels, etc. We are already doing. But the process is, frankly, is painful.

    RG: In your opinion, actually increase in a decade the share of modern weapons in the Army to 70 percent?

    Popovkin: In order to arrive at this figure, it is necessary to maintain the pace of renovation weapons within 7-10 percent per year. Why in such a framework? Unfortunately, there are some samples of the life cycle is small. This spacecraft and rockets. Something does not become obsolete in duration, and the characteristics. This is especially typical for ACS, navigation systems. Knowing that soon will be a new model of the device, it is easier and cheaper to buy it in plastic, not metal casing. We are no longer interested in long-term - 15 years - a guarantee of its operation.

    Let me give a concrete example. If you put in the GLONASS navigation equipment all the requirements for durability, interface, etc., then it will pull on 5,5 thousands of dollars. But after a couple of years now would be worthless. Today the main issue discussed - without any weapons, we will survive, but without there? The Ministry of Defence has to determine at what can be saved, where - poduzhatsya.

    RG: And what will not survive without?

    Popovkin: Without all. Because a lot of things have already been abandoned. For example, from general industrial equipment, from research on means of support. Say, did not develop the army kitchens and baths. Industrialists say: you need this. Who will do after the test will buy one thousand sets. The same approach to the automotive industry. Create the necessary military machine - will gain around 50 thousand. It is now a worldwide practice.

    Missile shield around Moscow

    RG: When they say "new plane" and "a modern aircraft," refers to multiple machines?

    Popovkin: If its capabilities meet the requirements of modern warfare, if it can withstand the same of the enemy, it is a modern aircraft. Even when he was fifty years old. Take a strategic Tu-160. All of them in Soviet times had been made, but so far it advanced weapons. And he has no analogues. Why do we have something new to buy? A new - is what has not created a 30 per cent of resources. New we are not trying to buy. Try to take art.

    RG: You were talking about modernizing technology resource. He, too, has its limits.

    Popovkin: why in the aviation industry began to make forward-looking complex. While the PAK FA bring to mind, should slightly pull the current fleet. Modernizing that can be upgraded in parallel to create a new aircraft. Perfecting the Su-27 that it reached in 2020. Entered into a contract to supply up to 2015 forty-eight Su-35. More of the same contract was concluded - for the next five years. Because, unfortunately, the rate of departure of the old fleet is higher than the rate of its re-art technology.

    RG: The fifth-generation aircraft could potentially replace the entire fleet of tactical aircraft?

    Popovkin: Theoretically can. But it makes no sense to fire a cannon at sparrows. We must consider not only the fighting capabilities, but also the economic viability of the aircraft. Therefore, it was purchased MiG-29 SMT, we are planning to buy MiG-35.

    RG: And what other vehicles - land, sea and air?

    Popovkin: We have a lot of weapons that are better than anyone in the world. The same set of American Patriot "with our C-400 even in the comparison is not. This year, planned to buy five more battalions of S-400. First of all they will cover the Moscow air defense zone. Maybe one or two divisions will be delivered to the Far East. But this is the prerogative of the General Staff.

    RG: In space, too, would be nice to have such a barrier. He will provide the S-500?

    Popovkin: In this most important weapons - missiles. Because ninety percent of the pledged in the C-400 there will be - on technology, command centers, all other things. It is still, in my opinion, 25-30 years will be modern. But a new, more "vigorous" rocket do need to be able to contend not only with the tactical, operational and tactical, strategic missiles, but also hit warheads flying at a speed of 7 kilometers per second.

    RG: In addition to its orders, the Defense Ministry is able to somehow speed up the modernization of our defense?

    Popovkin: We do not just provide its orders, but also strongly lobbying for the interests of the MIC. For example, a high-tech product as the C-400, is in great demand in the market of weapons. Defense Minister first made a proposal to build another two plants for their production.

    We do not just say what the army needed weapons, but also reduce our producers with those who actually buy art technologies to develop their application in Russia. In addition, we leave to petition the government to allocate funds for the initial phase of critical research and development activities.

    But for everyday activities, productivity and diversification of production must still meet the leaders of industrial holdings. To sit only on the defense order they will not work. Needed to produce and peacetime production, actively seek civilian markets. Some plants, such as the Rybinsk aviadvigatelnogo, the company's "dry" in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, this is a very pretty well.

    Kalashnikov still shoot

    RG: And what about new weapons, communications and intelligence for an ordinary soldier. Here some progress occur?

    Popovkin: We are now together into a single system of governance "at the top and at the tactical level. Done a lot for that by the middle of next year, everyone felt the result of this work. Remains one problem - the small arms. It must be modern and meet the functional requirements.

    RG: That is the usual Kalashnikov you already do not like?

    Popovkin: We should make sure that he was not inferior in range, accuracy and precision shooting any similar weapons in the world. In general, a Kalashnikov is much easier to upgrade than to invent a new one.

    I say this: Mass Firearms in the Russian Army will be domestic. But for special tasks become party to acquire the limited best Western models.

    Get regular snipers who are in each room. Buy for them a foreign supervintovku no sense. Let rifle Dragunov first study. But there are elite snipers who perform specific functions. A specialist in the Army weight in gold. Why it does not get an elite weapon? Here we go the same way as the Russian security services. And for the price of such weapons do not stand.


    http://www.rg.ru/2010/07/12/popovkin.html

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:21 pm

    Popovkin: Theoretically can. But it makes no sense to fire a cannon at
    sparrows. We must consider not only the fighting capabilities, but also
    the economic viability of the aircraft. Therefore, it was purchased
    MiG-29 SMT, we are planning to buy MiG-35.

    I am very pleased he said this.

    The Flanker is an excellent aircraft and has great growth potential, but Russia needs cheaper simpler fighters too because of its enormous size.

    Very simply put a larger long range aircraft can mean larger areas can be covered and on paper that means fewer airfields are needed which appears to save money... but clearly the fewer aircraft you have the less things you can deal with at once.

    If you think in terms of a fire brigade... having one for all of Moscow would save money only as long as fires happen one at a time. If you get lots of fires then you have to start picking which fire to put out and which to let burn... it will end up costing more money than it saves when you really need it.

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  nightcrawler on Sun Feb 06, 2011 9:54 am

    But don't you think Mig-29 is way too much neglected nowadays. Everybody favours SU-30 or even SU-27 over MiG-29.Besides reports I have received suggests that US is now retrofitting a stealthy F-18[besides the F-15] don't you think Russia starts taming its old warbirds to satisfy future needs??

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Viktor on Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:40 am

    I dont know how much money would modernization on MIG-29 take, but in a future I think light 5th generation plane to make up the numbers would be ideal.

    Build with simplify technology, one engine perhaps and with one AESA (ZHUK-AE) radar in the first line defence or where big PAK-FA is not needed because of advesaries.

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  ahmedfire on Sun Feb 06, 2011 12:03 pm

    i think mig 29 has many problems
    many customers has no trust now in it
    problems like
    visible smoke,old electronics
    radar and hydrolic problems at landing and take off........
    is not easy ones!

    malysia bring it out of service,
    algeria returned smt again to russia..!

    russians can give the better by mig35 or su30 and su35..........

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Viktor on Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:56 pm

    Also what interest me is that 650 billion $ rearmament program.

    Is that sum of money going to be spend only on new weapons and modernization of perspective systems or does it represents entire Russia budget by the year 2020.

    If only for armaments I cant see where in the hell are the going to dig up such sum of money unless they predicted some serious BDP growth.

    Btw generals requested 1.2 trillion $ rearmament program.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:27 am

    But don't you think Mig-29 is way too much neglected nowadays.

    All Russian AF aircraft were neglected... the Mig-29 got a bad rap because apparently it is not an aircraft you can operate in numbers of one to two dozen and beat a super power plus NATO with.

    Personally I think it is a good aircraft with good upgrade potential and if existing aircraft have not been looked after then I think an order for 100-200 Mig-29M aircraft would be useful for the Russian AF... in fact giving them folding wings should mean storing them in hangars instead of leaving them outside all the time could be an option too... which should make maintainence easier.

    We have seen the Serbs operate Mig-29s that were so poorly maintained that the person in charge of them was arrested for it.
    With the right spares and support and the right weapons the Serb Mig-29s would have been a serious threat to NATO.
    Without these most aircraft would fail at their intended role.

    Of course it didn't help that NATO has practised against German Mig-29s so the early models performance was already compromised... newer models have much better performance however and should not be written off.

    Iraqi Mig-29s mostly fled to Iran when it was clear they were fighting the western world.

    Everybody favours SU-30 or even SU-27 over MiG-29

    When offered at the same price yes of course... but while the Mig-29 production facilities are sitting idle and the Flanker facilities are working on Su-30s of several types, and Su-35s, and soon T-50 prototypes I think it makes sense to now spend money on Migs manufacturing capability right now while it would be useful.

    Besides reports I have received suggests that US is now retrofitting a
    stealthy F-18[besides the F-15] don't you think Russia starts taming its
    old warbirds to satisfy future needs??

    The E and F models of the Hornet are called Super Hornets because they have already had a stealthy refit.

    It was very expensive and of questionable value considering the overall effect.

    The US is revamping existing aircraft because it knows the F-22 would be very very expensive to bring back into production. The Russians are not in the same boat and they can wait to see how much their big expensive stealth fighter costs before they decide what they want to do.

    Normally they would do what the US is doing... reviving their existing 4th gen fighters so they can continue to operate them in numbers so they don't have to commit to large numbers of the largely unproven and expensive F-35.

    Russia has a different problem in that its existing aircraft were neglected for so long they really need replacing very soon and the T-50 will not be produced in numbers to adequately replace them. They have talked about a smaller cheaper 5th gen fighter to use as a numbers aircraft, but that will take a while to develop. Until then I think the best solution is to buy a combination of the best 4th gen and the good enough 4th gen as a very capable stopgap.
    Su-35s are nice but with 5th gen bits wont be that cheap, so perhaps an Su-35b that is mostly a Su-30MKI with Russian bits and the same with the Migs... Mig-35s and Mig-29M2s.

    So buy 48 Su-35s and 48 Mig-35s and that will invest money in the 5th gen components and weapons and things these aircraft use, and a backup buy of 100-200 Su-35b (Su-30MKI with all Russian bits) and 100-200 Mig-29M2s.
    Especially if the cheaper aircraft can be... say 1/3rd the cost of the more expensive models.

    In practical terms even these cheap aircraft will be formidable enemies with the right C4IR and support... even NATO forces operate with equipment that on its own would be considered obsolete, but while it operates as part of a team it can do a good job.

    I dont know how much money would modernization on MIG-29 take, but in a
    future I think light 5th generation plane to make up the numbers would
    be ideal.

    Build with simplify technology, one engine perhaps and
    with one AESA (ZHUK-AE) radar in the first line defence or where big
    PAK-FA is not needed because of advesaries.

    I totally agree, but development will take time. I have read an interview of the manager at UAC just as Mig joined it and he said something along the lines of Mig having a light 5th gen fighter well developed that they will build but they are waiting for the T-50 to be fully developed and concrete before they start working on a new aircraft.

    Ideally having a small light 5th gen fighter that was cheap and easy to make in large numbers ready for production right now would be the best solution, but for the moment that isn't the case. Production at Flanker facilities is going well with local and export orders. A few orders to resurrect the Mig factories and the makers of components for them in my opinion would be important too. Even if these are the last manned planes they make the retooling and work will be good for them and their suppliers.

    think mig 29 has many problems
    many customers has no trust now in it
    problems like
    visible smoke,old electronics
    radar and hydrolic problems at landing and take off........
    is not easy ones!

    MIG just got the contract to upgrade Indias existing Mig-29s... and I doubt they would upgrade a plane they don't want.

    Any aircraft that is not upgraded for a while will suffer... the problem is not MIG who have upgraded the design continuously, the problem so far has been the customers that in some cases haven't even done basic maintainence let alone regular upgrades.

    Very simply put a plane is a platform that delivers weapons and with the right weapons and the right support the Mig-29 can do the job any modern western aircraft can.

    malysia bring it out of service,
    algeria returned smt again to russia..!

    Algeria were offered Flankers at the same price as Fulcrums... it is no surprise they returned the Fulcrums for more Flankers.
    The point is that Algeria is not Russia... Algeria is large but not as big as Russia.

    russians can give the better by mig35 or su30 and su35..........

    I am not suggesting they build Mig-29As. I am suggesting they build some Mig-29M2s as well as some Mig-35s.

    I doubt the Mig-35s will be cheap, though they will be capable. I am hoping the Mig-29M2s will be cheaper and any reduced performance is not significant. (plus there should be enough interchangability to reduce operational costs with the extra numbers).

    If only for armaments I cant see where in the hell are the going to dig
    up such sum of money unless they predicted some serious BDP growth.

    Btw generals requested 1.2 trillion $ rearmament program.

    And there is the rub... if they don't buy more 4th gen fighters they might find themselves in 2020 with 120 T-50s in operational service and all their Fulcrums, Flankers, and Foxbats except for the 48 Su-35s and 48 Mig-35s and 150 Su-34s out of service and having a severe shortage of aircraft because the funding promised wasn't the funding provided.

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  ahmedfire on Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:05 pm

    MIG just got the contract to upgrade Indias existing Mig-29s... and I doubt they would upgrade a plane they don't want.

    i also doubt they will put 200 mig29SM in basket!
    sure that they will upgrade them..we also upgraded mig 21  Laughing ....

    Any aircraft that is not upgraded for a while will suffer... the problem is not MIG who have upgraded the design continuously, the problem so far has been the customers that in some cases haven't even done basic maintainence let alone regular upgrades.
    i doubt that the problem isn't mig !
    why all customers of mig29 suffer from it and have many problems ?
    on the other hand,,no one complain from f16 !

    Malaysia has announced plans to phase out its RSK MiG-29N fighters over
    the next few years, with the fleet having been plagued by problems since
    it bought the type in the early 1990s
    .

    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/03/327276/malaysia-to-phase-out-troublesome-mig-29-fighters.html

    even the last version ,mig29k has problems with indian and russian navy !! look
    India Navy to Solve The Problems of Its Mig-29k

    http://newsflavor.com/opinions/india-navy-to-solve-the-problems-of-its-mig-29k/#ixzz1AuawA3FK

    The Indian Defence Ministry is currently liaising with the Russian
    RAC-MiG Corporation to sort out a recurring problem with the
    newly-inducted MiG-29 K fleet.

    http://www.indian-military.org/news-archives/indian-navy-news/1243-defence-ministry-to-sort-mig-29k-technical-snags-with-russia.html


    russia too;

    Naval Mig-29k develops Hydraulic failure leading to tyre burst

    A Russian-made MiG-29K fighter plane, recently inducted into the Indian Navy, developed a technical problem at INS Hansa base in Goa but caused no casualties, naval officials said today..

    look in kargil war:
    On 30 May, the Indian Air Force called into operation the Mirage 2000 which was deemed the best aircraft capable of optimum performance under the conditions of high-altitude seen in the zone of conflict. Mirage 2000s not only had better defence equipment compared to the MiGs, but also gave IAF the ability to carry out aerial raids at night.

    read this:
    Experts : 70% of Russia’s MiG-29 fighters unable to fly
    http://www.armybase.us/2009/02/experts-70-of-russias-mig-29-fighters-unable-to-fly/

    and this :

    Take My MiG-29s, Please
    http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20110101.aspx
    ...............

    the combat history of mig29 has no victories !!


    we can't neglect these problems man..
    why i should buy aircraft that everyone complain from it !


    Algeria were offered Flankers at the same price as Fulcrums... it is no surprise they returned the Fulcrums for more Flankers.
    The point is that Algeria is not Russia... Algeria is large but not as big as Russia.

    no,,algeria found some used parts
    that's the reason they bring it back...

    Algerian army announced in 2008 that it rejected its request because the new military aircrafts contained old equipments.
    http://www.echoroukonline.com/eng/algeria/4924-algeria-rejects-24-russian-mig-29-jet-fighters.html


    I am not suggesting they build Mig-29As. I am suggesting they build some Mig-29M2s as well as some Mig-35s.
    customers will not trust again in mig 29..
    mig company should build agood aircraft like mig 35,,to bring the trust back to this company..

    with Su-30 and Su-35 and MiG-35
    Russian could face American hot ones


    Last edited by ahmedfire on Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:41 pm; edited 1 time in total

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:39 pm

    why all customers of mig29 suffer from it and have many problems ?

    Rubbish.

    No one put a gun to anyones head and made them buy Mig-29s.

    And to state all customers you need evidence that all customers are having problems... so why is Myanmar buying some?

    There were about 40 users of the Mig-29 and the only ones so far to have withdrawn them from service are countries of the former Warsaw Pact who have now joined NATO.

    Iran took ownership of Iraqi Migs and then bought some more... must be a terrible aircraft because apart from the Su-24 the Iranians really don't have much of a history buying planes from Russia.

    Malaysia has announced plans to phase out its RSK MiG-29N fighters over
    the next few years, with the fleet having been plagued by problems since
    it bought the type in the early 1990s
    .

    Malaysia bought very early model Mig-29s without SMT like upgrades, so what they have is a cold war aircraft designed to operate in a GCI environment and designed for war... in other words low maintainence during operations but short times between overhauls and maintainence so that an overhauled aircraft can be sent to the front and will need little maintainence till it is "used up".

    The Mig-29M2 is a completely different aircraft.

    even the last version ,mig29k has problems with indian and russian navy !! look
    India Navy to Solve The Problems of Its Mig-29k

    Brand new model just entered service... having problems with a few things... tell me something I don't know.

    The Indian Defence Ministry is currently liaising with the Russian
    RAC-MiG Corporation to sort out a recurring problem with the
    newly-inducted MiG-29 K fleet.

    So they are going to work together and fix the problems that have been found from operational use???
    The Bastards... imagine them wanting to fix problems their customers have identified... the nerve of those a$$hats at Mig for not foreseeing the future problems the Indian Navy might have with their plane and not fixing it before it happened...

    On 30 May, the Indian Air Force called into operation the Mirage 2000
    which was deemed the best aircraft capable of optimum performance under
    the conditions of high-altitude seen in the zone of conflict. Mirage 2000s not only had better defence equipment compared to the MiGs, but also gave IAF the ability to carry out aerial raids at night.

    Which suggests they should have upgraded their Migs ages ago. Mirage 2000s are very nice aircraft but their line is dead. The Migs on the other hand have a future so far.


    Experts : 70% of Russia’s MiG-29 fighters unable to fly

    So? When corrosion was found in an F-15 a short while back the whole fleet was grounded pending inspection... that is 100% of USAF F-15s unable to fly... what is your point?

    Especially considering those Russian Mig-29s have been in service for a 20 year period without upgrades or full maintainence I would think they deserve a medal that so many are still fully operational.

    the combat history of mig29 has no victories !!

    Not true, Cuban Mig-29s have shot down a few Cessna aircraft dropping propaganda leaflets over Cuba.
    The Mig-31 has no combat victories either is it crap too?

    And of course there is this:



    Clearly a Mig-29, but how they can ID it as Russian is beyond me, and as it is over water and likely Abkhazian airspace then why would it matter if it was Russian?
    Russian planes have the right to fly into Abkhazian airspace to shoot down Georgian aircraft violating Abkhazian airspace and it is pretty clear the UAV was being used to locate targets for the upcoming invasion.

    we can't neglect these problems man..
    why i should buy aircraft that everyone complain from it !

    There is a pattern in western thinking that I find enormously amusing... for a while the Mig-29 was the boogeyman and everything new in the west like the typhoon and rafale were going to save the west from it... late 1980s especially after the Farnborough airshow when the Migs arrived. Later however when the Flankers went to the Paris airshow it became the super commie plane and all these faults came to light about the Mig... it was short ranged, and didn't even have a fly by wire flight control system. Funny thing is that after testing NATO fighters against East German Migs NATO... which prided itself on its pilots skill and how it would use its superior dogfighting capability to beat the commies in close combat where their superior training would win the day suddenly rushed the AMRAAM into service and started relying on their BVR missile tactics... I wonder why that was... I mean after all the Mig-29 was crap wasn't it?
    The fact that it played against all the best NATO fighters of the time including the F-15 and F-16 and of those aircraft the best in close in dogfighting combat was the F-16 you'd think it kicked a$$. 62% of the time the F-16 managed to get on the tail of the Mig eventually. 100% of the time the Mig-29 had already launched a missile from a position that should have given a very high chance of a kill.
    The Mig being used was a downgraded export model for warsaw pact customers, which means it was near base model first gen Mig-29s with a standard weapon load of 2 x R-27Rs and 4 x R-73s, or the 4 x R-73s could be replaced with 4 x R-60s or the Mig-29 could carry 2 of each missile type.
    The point is that this model Mig couldn't even carry the R-27T let alone the long range R-27ER and R-27ET models yet it matched the F-15 in medium range duals and beat it in short range dogfights... largely through its helmet mounted sight and high offboresight R-73 missile.

    The reality is that put a Mig-29SMT into a NATO force and fit it with R-77s and it could do the job just as well as any NATO fighter.

    customers will not trust again in mig 29..
    mig company should build agood aircraft like mig 35,,to bring the trust back to this company..

    Actual customers don't have problems with MIG, small issues are being blown out of proportion by factions wanting to sell other aircraft to customers... including Sukhoi.

    with su30 and su35 and mig 35
    russian could face americans hot ones

    You are talking about big and/or expensive aircraft... there is no way Russia could afford to replace existing fighters with all brand new aircraft of the latest models.

    And besides the only place where Russian fighters would face US fighters is between Alaska and Russia. Why spend a fortune buying Mig-35s and Su-35s for the border with Mongolia or China for that matter.

    Having a cheaper plane near the borders means you can withdraw your best fighters into the core of your country so any enemy ELINT aircraft will not be able to gather information about your best operational planes but you will still be able to patrol your borders.

    If they tried to only buy the latest and most expensive they would not have enough aircraft to secure their own borders let alone fight anyone.



    • “These
      military aircrafts were tested in Russia and experts confirmed their
      high quality which prompted leaders of the Russian Air Forces to agree
      on getting them.

    • Previously,
      Russian Daily Kommersant newspaper, reported that Algeria rejected its
      request of buying Mig-29 Jet fighters because they contained old
      electronic equipments.
    So the Algerians rejected them because there were a few old parts in them?

    Hahahaha that is funny.

    If that were true surely the solution is to replace the old parts with new ones?
    The real truth is that Sukhoi offered to sell Algeria Flankers at the same price as the Mig-29SMTs and so the Algerians had to find an excuse to return the Migs so they could get Flankers at the same price.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3057
    Points : 3155
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  medo on Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:32 pm

    Interview with Ground Forces Chief

    http://www.redstar.ru/2011/02/22_02/2_02.html

    - What are the features of state defense contracts this year in respect of equipping the Army? What modern armaments arrive in units and Army in 2011-2012?

    The main feature of the state defense order this year is to move from the repair and modernization of the fleet AMSE to purchase only new, modern designs for the complete equipping of formations and military units of ground forces.

    Primarily provided to purchase advanced digital communications and automated control systems, such as ACS antiaircraft missile brigade (mixed group), Air Defense Forces "Polana D4M1", a new integrated station automation tactical control of army air defense, and others.

    In addition, the air defense troops the Army will have upgraded the S-300V4, Buk-M2 and Buk-M3, anti-aircraft missile systems, short-range Tor-M2U (M), portable anti-aircraft missile complexes "Igla-S" and "Willow".

    Extend equipment and units of missile troops and artillery operational-tactical missile Iskander-M ", the new multiple launch rocket systems, self-propelled guns" Host "and" Nona-SVK ", anti-tank missile system Chrysanthemum-S and guns" Octopus -SD.

    From armored vehicles provided procurement of armored personnel carriers BTR-new modification 82a, modern tank recovery vehicle BREM-K BTR-80 BREM-L based on the BMP-3, special armored vehicles carrying capacity up to 2,5 tons (Iveco, "Tiger," "Wolf"), as well as new truck KAMAZ family Mustang.

    Thus, the CBR defense troops will receive heavy flamethrower system TOS-1A rocket infantry flame-throwers increased range and power of thermobaric gear RPO PDM-A and aerial radiation survey complexes WRC.

    A corps of engineers - the newest station complex purification and desalination of water for road base chassis KAMAZ (SD-10 / 5), universal travel machine (UDM) and other effective means of engineering armament.

    All these purchases will contribute greatly to improving the combat capabilities of units and formations of ground forces. So we will change and evolve, so that in modern conditions play a crucial role in ensuring Russia's military security.

    Khrizantema-S is already in army units, but still no photos of serial Khrizantema, only from prototype. It would be interesting to see what are differences between prototype and serial Khrizantemy, specially in FCS.

    It seems this year they won't buy tanks and BMPs.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Interview with Ground Forces Chief

    Post  Viktor on Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:06 pm

    1. Whats the S-300V4 ? ... perhaps Antej-2500?
    2. Why buy both BUK-M2 and BUK-M3 ?
    3. Whats the idea with Host and Nona-SVK, why not Msta-S or Coalition-SV
    4. Where is anti artillery radar?
    5. No UAV/UCAV for ground forces
    6. No tanks?

    Sponsored content

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:08 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:08 am