Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Share

    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1749
    Points : 1789
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  franco on Sun Apr 03, 2016 4:06 pm

    Section of the roof has collapsed (~1200 m2) and fire officially contained now. Looks like building pretty much done.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  sepheronx on Sun Apr 03, 2016 4:26 pm

    So they will collect insurance money and build a new building? For some reason, I smell a jewish lightning for sure.

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 573
    Points : 598
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  eehnie on Sun Apr 24, 2016 12:30 pm

    Sometime ago I posted my view about which would be the right organization for the Armed Forces valid for a generic country. With the time I simplified a little more my view. I think it would be interesting for every country to go to a structure like this:

    - Army: All the land based forces in the mainland of the country (including all the Surface-Surface and Surface-Air land based forces), with aerial support of own UAVs.
    - Aerospace Force: All the forces that use aerospace based platforms (aircrafts, helicopters and spacecrafts), plus the own bases in the entire territory.
    - Navy: All the forces that use sea based platforms (ships and submarines), with aerial support of own UAVs, plus the own bases in the entire territory.
    - Airborne/Shipborne Troops: All the land based forces for the territory unconnected to the mainland by land ways (islands and all the types of unconnected enclaves, exclaves,..) and all the land based forces for operations outside the own territory (military bases abroad, operations to help allies,...), with aerial support of own UAVs, plus the own bases in the entire territory.

    All with shared power under civil command, and also with regional coordination. The four branches would be able to own nuclear weapons, and their management would require also coordination.

    This type of structure would allow to very high level of standardization, and to very low level of redundancies.

    An important detail is that the same troops would be trained for airborne or shipborne operations with the right equipment for both.

    Also it would mean that the Army and the Airborne/Shipborne Troops would operate in separate and unconnected territories (except for the bases of the Airborne/Shipborne Troops in the mainland, that would be located on important military airfields maybe plus important military port). While the Army would be more oriented to defense of the mainland, the Airborne/Shipborne Troops would be oriented to defense of difficult unconnected borders, to defense of allies and to attack.

    In the case of Russia, Crimea and Sakhalin should be connected to the rest of the territory by land ways (surely a tunnel would be safer), and should be territory for the Army (without need of the Navy or the Aerospace Force for its movements). Kaliningrad and the Kuril Islands would be the territories for the Airborne/Shipborne Troops with significant population (still under 20000 inhabitants in the Kuril Islands).

    Under this scheme the Aerospace Force would be the alone owner of manned aircrafts, helicopters and spacecrafts, but with the expected development of UAVs, the own aerial support of the rest of the branches would be strong enough. As example the rest of the branches would be able to manage the air patrol of the territories where they work, and would use combat UAVs too. While it becomes possible, temporarily it would be room for some manned aircraft and helicopter in the Naval Aviation.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:38 am

    So you are suggesting all attack and transport army helos and dedicated ground support aircraft like the Su-25 (short range) tactical fighterbomber MiG-35/Su-35 (Medium range) and long range theatre Su-34/tu-22M3M bombers be under the control of the Aerospace forces?

    So what advantages do you perceive having all transport helos and attack helos and light battlefield support aircraft in the control of the Aerospace defence forces when they operate directly in coordination with the Army and light transport helos and light medium and heavy transport aircraft like the Il476 with the VDV?

    I understand grouping all manned aircraft together but is that actually effective in regards to Naval aviation for example.

    The Air Force traditionally had several separate components including the PVO air defence, Frontal aviation, long range aviation, which included transport and strategic bomber and naval aviation... frontal aviation could be considered army aviation, and of course naval aviation was clearly naval based, while long range aviation had a leg of the nuclear triad with its strategic bombers an associated tanker aircraft.

    equally the Army does not have the early warning radar infrastructure to control the strategic nuclear land based surface to surface missile force.

    Nuclear warheads have traditionally been control by a component of the KGB/FSB and I doubt that will change.

    In terms if civilian control I would prefer centralised control rather than distributed regional civilian control.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 573
    Points : 598
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  eehnie on Tue Apr 26, 2016 3:11 am

    The main advantage of having all the land based warfare under the Army, all the air based warfare under the Aerospace Forces, and all the sea based warfare under the Navy, would be that it helps on the optimization of the resources. Unified vision of the needs on land, sea and air warfare:

    - Helps in the definition of the overall priorities
    - Helps in the definition of the right criteria in the development of new warfare
    - Helps in the standardization of the respective fleets
    - Helps in the optimization of the use of every pieze of warfare
    - Helps in the optimization of the maintenance services
    - Helps in the optimization of the age of the fleet
    - Helps in the optimization of the order for replacements
    - Helps in the optimization of the new purchases
    - Helps in the optimization of the knowledge required to design the fleet
    - Helps in the optimization of the knowledge to operate right every type of warfare
    - Helps in the optimization of the training services
    - Helps in the optimization of the infraestructure needed for every type of warfare, that is very different and expensive
    - Helps in the definition of the structure for the entire branch

    Basically, to have separate Air Force, Naval Aviation and Army Aviation, makes to the Armed Forces to fall in lots of redundances in most of the chapters included in the point about optimization, This example is easy to explain, but it also happens with other cases like land based Air Defense under the Aerospace Forces, or with Naval Infantry under the Navy. Basically the result is better in terms of optimization if a branch, say to other we need this, and the specialized branch solve it including the need in their mix of requirements. To fall in unnecessary redundances makes to increase the costs significantly.

    It is not rare to see how these services that are not in their natural branch, can fall in lower standards than the main forces of their natural branch. For a branch that need to run a service that is not in their main knowledge it is difficult and expensive to reach the standards of the branch that has most knowledge on it. As example, for the Navy it is difficult to reach the standars of the Aerospace Forces in the Naval Aviation (lower thechnological level of some aircrafts, age of the fleet,...). Other example, for the Aerospace Forces it is difficult to reach the standars of the Army in the Air Defense forces (lower level of protection of the crews, lower level of saturation of the reserves than in other land forces,...).  

    Surely there are still more details of interest to comment.

    The main problem of this type of structure can be in the coordination of the different branches when it is necessary a work together, but with regional coordination at different levels, surely the benefits would be important.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 26, 2016 12:25 pm

    On paper all air power under the control of the aerospace forces, all ground forces under the Army, all ships under the navy makes sense.

    In practise it doesn't work... when the VDV want to mount a landing do they have to go asking the Aerospace force for some transport planes? What if the Army has already borrowed them all to transport some ground forces from one place to another?

    The VDV having their own transport planes makes sense even if it is not totally efficient... it is the same for Naval aviation etc.

    Obviously there needs to be communication and cooperation... for instance in the conflict in Georgia the VDV were actually landed by naval forces... something they didn't much practise previously.

    More to the point every force needs air defence capability... army, navy, air force, strategic rocket forces, etc etc

    And everyone needs to be able to work together too.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 573
    Points : 598
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  eehnie on Tue Apr 26, 2016 5:01 pm

    The case of the Airborne/Shipborne Troops makes sense, and was included in my scheme as the fourth branch because of some reasons:

    - It would keep the land forces as its main area. Its main knowledge would be in the land forces.
    - It can be big enough to reach high own standards.
    - It would not need to operate air or sea based warfare, except some UAVs, like in the case of the Army or the Navy.
    - It would require some specific warfare and training that would not be necessary to be in the Army in case of a separation.
    - It would work in totally different territory than the Army, except for their bases in the mainland.
    - It would help to a higher optimization still of the Army, thanks to make this branch very stable.

    Under the proposed scheme:

    - The Army would work in the most internal area, in the mainland of the country. A fixed territory that would not change.
    - The Aerospace Force would work over all the territory.
    - The Navy and the Airborne/Shipborne Troops would work in an external ring of territory around the mainland.

    It opens two spaces of coordination:

    - The coordination in the mainland between the Army and the Aerospace Forces.
    - The coordination in the external ring, between the Aerospace Forces, the Navy and the Airborne/Shipborne Troops.

    The coordination between them in both areas seems necessary, and can be organized easily in the overall level, and also in regional levels.

    Every scheme with divided branches needs coordination. Only a scheme with a single branch would need not coordination between branches (but would need also internal coordination).

    Another important advantage of this scheme is that would allow easily to restrict the non-combat services of every branch to work only in the safety of the mainland (training services, non-combat air and land transport,...)

    Under this scheme the Army would be a very stable force, thanks to attend a territory that would not change. It would be optimizable until an extreme degree. The Airborne/Shipborne Troops would be less stable and would be more affected by the changes in what the gobernment can afford or not (temporary contracts, volunteers to combat in the borders or outside in a concrete campaign,...). The Airborne/Shipborne Troops, would own the entire bench of modern land warfare, including land based air defense and even land nuclear weapons, but also would own the old material that is to be finnished fast after years in the reserve in the Army and the Airborne/Shipborne Troops (maybe for sales, maybe as help to third countries, maybe in own combat operations,...). The optimization of the Airborne/Shipborne Troops would be more difficult, but also the less optimizable land areas would be restricted to this branch.

    This, and the more risky nature of the transport operations where the Airborne/Shipborne Troops would be involved, with likely need of air and/or sea escorts for the air and/or sea transport makes difficult to think in a viable own service of transport. It would be expensive, and unefficient.

    It is interesting to note, that while the air and sea warfare after 50 years of active/reserve service becomes very dangerous and is better to be scrapped or to be in museums, the land warfare can have still some use in the short term. I find interesting to send it to the borders, and to put it under the control of the land forces for the difficult borders, and outside operations.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 27, 2016 12:25 pm

    I think your force structures are too rigid and not flexible enough.

    I agree that giving each branch its own areas of focus is good, but there are so many areas where there is overlap.

    A good example is the U2 shootdown of Francis Gary Powers... the air defence forces sent Sukhoi interceptors, while the SA-2s on the ground were air force batteries.

    Being May the Air Defence forces had just changed their operating codes, while the Air Force had not changed them yet.

    This resulted in an Sukhoi interceptor being shot down by an SA-2 missile because it was not squawking the correct code.

    I don't think going the other way where the Army and Navy have their own independent Air Forces and the Air force has their own Army and Navy would work, but in some areas there are aircraft that the air force has no purpose for... the Air force does not need MPAs... it does have use for theatre strike aircraft and those theatre strike aircraft fitted with potent anti ship missiles are useful for the Navy to destroy carrier groups near Russia... so the AF does not need Il-38, but the Navy does, while the Tu-22M3 can be used by both Air Force, Army and Navy.

    The problem of course is that many forces need to be mobile... not just VDV and Naval infantry... air force units deployed to Syria is an example of deploying forces outside Russia when in Russias interests.

    Equipment like Mistral will make such deployments easier and quicker.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 573
    Points : 598
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  eehnie on Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:04 pm

    Cases of friend fire can happen even inside the same unit.

    I do noth think a concrete example that happened under a different organization can be a good example of what I'm proposing, basically because I'm proposing regional coordination of the different branches, something that I doubt it was done at the time of the case that you explained.

    Regional coordination between different branches has been strengthened in recent years in Russia and it is a key tool for a right functioning of the Armed Forces in overal terms. As example to have a coherence between the regions of every branch operating in the same territory helps a lot in the coordination. Even a regional coordination can be done at different levels.

    One of the problems that this type of structure would try to avoid is a bad use of the warfare by officials with low knowledge of the cababilities of the warfare of a branch that is not their natural branch, because it is a true risk for the life of the crews and for the survivability of the warfare pieces.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:42 am

    Cases of friend fire can happen even inside the same unit.

    It can but when you spend a small fortune of IFF systems and you shoot down a friend because he has not changed his codes for the new month and you have then there is a serious problem.

    Having SAMs and interceptors and radar sites training together and working together all the time makes rather more sense... and the best way to do that is to make them part of the same organisation.

    Of course the Aerospace defence force wont defend ships at sea nor will they defend army units operating at home or abroad. A shake up of the MIC as well as the military itself can mean better unification so that naval, army, and air force all use standard missiles and guns and other equipment.

    For instance army, navy, and air force can use Verba Manpads, plus also morfei and S-350 and S-400/S-300V4, and S-500.

    They already use the same 30mm shell (30 x 165mm). They could use the new 57mm calibre weapon.

    They just need to coordinate their requirements and developments.

    As you mention is the risk some civilian with no idea controlling military forces and using forces for roles they are not capable of completing... ie MBTs rolling into enemy held urban areas... like it was a parade.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 573
    Points : 598
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  eehnie on Fri Apr 29, 2016 12:27 am

    All the branches of the Armed Forces are part of the same organization. To understand a branch like an independent organization is a mistake. A branch in overall terms, is one more of the types of unit. Like there are regiments, brigades, divisions, armies,... there are also different branches of the Armed Forces. The different branches should not be more independent than a regiment or a brigade. No-one in the Armed Forces should have a degree of independence that makes the other parts of the organization operating in the same area to know not what is being done. Like we see perfectly possible the coordination between battallions, regiments, brigades, it is possible the coordination between the different branches of the Armed Forces.

    Also it is important to remember some thing. The platforms of every branch have Anti-air weapons. Land based platforms have SAMs, sea based platforms have also their own SAMs, and Air based platforms have Air-Air systems installed in the aircrafts, helicopters and spacecrafts. The same happens with radar and similar systems. Every type of platform have their own radars, but for a right coverage of the entire territory or at regional level it is necessary a common work in the different levels of coordination (national and regional of different leves). And like you said there is room for use of common weapons and technologies between the different branches if they are not too expensive or too specific.

    Not only civilian leaders can fall in lack of enough knowledge to manage properly some weapons and platforms, also military officials can fall on it if it is not a technology of their own main knowledge. But also, it is very expensive to give to military officials of all the branches the necessary knowledge for the use of all the weapons. It is very expensive on money and on time of the officials and their teachers. Basically it is easier and cheaper to restrict the knowledge of the use of weapons to the officials and soldiers of one branch and to find a right coordintation between the people with the knowledge of every type of weapon.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 29, 2016 10:05 am

    To understand a branch like an independent organization is a mistake. A branch in overall terms, is one more of the types of unit. Like there are regiments, brigades, divisions, armies,... there are also different branches of the Armed Forces. The different branches should not be more independent than a regiment or a brigade. No-one in the Armed Forces should have a degree of independence that makes the other parts of the organization operating in the same area to know not what is being done. Like we see perfectly possible the coordination between battallions, regiments, brigades, it is possible the coordination between the different branches of the Armed Forces.

    That would be the ideal, but in practise the VDV and the naval forces did not cooperate that much before the situation in South Ossetia. To compensate they have cooperated a lot more often since, but the problems are systemic in all militaries... just look at the news of exercises... an S-300 battery will have an air defence exercise where it might move 400km to a new position and then defend that area from an air attack, or the Navy might operate in some sea somewhere and defend from some sort of attack... the point is how often do different branches have joint exercises where an enemy threat from different branches is tested? Where different branches of the Russian military have to work together?

    I am not saying the problem is huge... in the georgian conflict things seemed to go well with what they had, but if a VDV unit is ordered to attack a position and needs 30 Il-76s to do it what if they are not available?


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 573
    Points : 598
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  eehnie on Sat Apr 30, 2016 8:05 pm

    I think Russia improved significantly on coordination of the different branches since 2008. Surely it is possible for Russia to improve still and to get closer to the ideal functioning. Also the unification of the Aerospace Forces helps on it, because a simplified structure of branches and inside the branches is easier to coordinate. This is one reason more of why the type of structure that I proposed is as symple

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  sepheronx on Thu May 05, 2016 12:29 am

    So Franco, after the 2 divisions headed west (so additional 20,000 troops), what will be the total amount of troops in western district of Russia?

    Edit: OK, so Franco left without answer, and this is becoming quite confusing. So what is Russia doing to re-inforce the area? 20,000 troops is not even close to enough, and I don't even know what they currently have in place.

    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1749
    Points : 1789
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  franco on Fri May 06, 2016 12:44 am

    sepheronx wrote:So Franco, after the 2 divisions headed west (so additional 20,000 troops), what will be the total amount of troops in western district of Russia?

    Edit: OK, so Franco left without answer, and this is becoming quite confusing.  So what is Russia doing to re-inforce the area? 20,000 troops is not even close to enough, and I don't even know what they currently have in place.

    Land Combat Units in the West not including those assigned to Northern Command or Kaliningrad after the new divisions;

    1 Tank Division
    1 Tank Brigade
    3 Motor Rifle Divisions
    3 Motor Rifle Brigades
    3 Airborne Divisions
    2 Spetsnaz Brigades
    1 Airborne Recon Brigades
    2 Artillery Brigades
    1 MRL Brigade
    3 SSM Brigades

    Total units manpower = ~82,000

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  sepheronx on Fri May 06, 2016 10:20 am

    So this is after the 2 new divisions heading west?

    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1749
    Points : 1789
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  franco on Fri May 06, 2016 9:14 pm

    sepheronx wrote:So this is after the 2 new divisions heading west?

    Yes, but not sure of your heading west other then they (or at least 3 of the 4) will be stationed close to the Western border. All four new divisions are brand new formations. Talk has been that a regular brigades (4500 men) will be used as the base to build each of the new 10,000 man divisions. The fourth division will be stationed in the southern Urals from where it can operate in Central Asia or re-enforce the West or East.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  sepheronx on Sun May 08, 2016 6:17 am

    I would think that with current growing hostilities from NATO, Russia would move far more men to the western borders and have the western command to be roughly 100,000+ troops. This will be important as NATO is drastically increasing presence there.

    Although, after adding in Kaliningrad, how many? Or was the 80,000~ with Kaliningrad?

    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1749
    Points : 1789
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  franco on Sun May 08, 2016 2:51 pm

    There would be another 10,000 in Kaliningrad and another 10,000 in the Northwest. Plus you would have another 80-90,000 in the Southern Military District. More then enough compared to the what they are facing off against. Of course that is not taking into consideration that the President of Ukraine just announced last week that the Ukrainian Army is now the most powerful in Europe. Suspect

    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1749
    Points : 1789
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  franco on Fri May 20, 2016 3:54 pm

    Shoigu Press

    - COMBAT POTENTIAL OF RUSSIAN ARMED FORCES UP 32% IN THREE YEARS
    - RATIO OF MODERN ARMS IN RUSSIAN ARMED FORCES REACHES 47%
    - STATE DEFENSE ORDER ALMOST DOUBLED SINCE 2013, TROOPS RECEIVED OVER 15,000 NEW WEAPONS IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME
    - COMBAT STRENGTH OF SOUTH MILITARY DISTRICT ENHANCED, TROOPS EQUIPPED WITH HIGH-PRECISION LONG-RANGE WEAPONS
    - CENTRAL MILITARY DISTRICT STARTS TO RECEIVE UPGRADED T72B3 TANKS; ALREADY RECEIVED UPGRADED SUKHOI SU-24M, SU-25 JETS
    - ONE ROCKET FORCE IN CENTRAL MILITARY DISTRICT TO BE REARMED WITH ISKANDER-M OPERATIONAL-TACTICAL MISSILE SYSTEMS
    - OVER 80 MILITARY UNITS WILL GET MODERN WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING 34 DRONE SYSTEMS, THIS YEAR
    - NEW FORMS OF COMBAT TRAINING BEING INTRODUCED IN RUSSIAN ARMED FORCES WITH CONSIDERATION OF EXPERIENCE OBTAINED IN SYRIA
    - Russian military are trained for brief conflict
    - Aviation, naval crews spend more than twice as much time in air, at sea
    - Number of contract servicemen in Russia equaled number of conscripts for first time in 2015, now exceeds number of conscripts by 30%

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 573
    Points : 598
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  eehnie on Fri May 20, 2016 6:54 pm

    In overall terms I see well the situation of the Russian armed forces. The cover of the local technology of all the military warfare areas is very high, and the level of the technology is good. Also the exposition of the Russian military warfare to foreign supplies is so low, and the works to replace foreign pieces affected by sanctions is being done fast enough.

    While there are not critical problems, always there is something to do to improve the situation. These would be the reforms that I would expect first at a material level:

    1.- Finalisation/confirmation of the total retirement except of the museums, of the models likely retired in the decommission wave of 2010-13 which retirement is not totally confirmed:

    S-60
    B-4M
    ML-20
    M-160
    M-46
    D-1
    D-20
    M-30

    Il-14
    Tu-124

    Vasilek
    ZU-23-2

    Yak-38
    T-64

    2.- Exchange of some warfare between the Russian Armed Forces and other Russian security forces, by role and level of the armament:

    Project 11351 (from R Coast Guard to R Navy)
    Project 1265 (from R Coast Guard to R Navy)
    Project 1130 (from R Coast Guard to R Navy)
    Project T-4 (from R Coast Guard to R Navy)
    Project 1176 (from R Coast Guard to R Navy)
    2S1 (from Border Service of the FSB to R Army)

    3.- Retirement or transfer to other non military gouvernment areas (including other security forces) of foreign warfare and non-combat vehicles:

    Type Dora
    Type Dubna
    Project REF-675
    Project REF-100
    Project R-5757
    Project UK-3
    Project V92
    Project V820
    L-39
    L-410

    An-140
    DeepWater 2000 Project ARS-600
    Iveco LMV
    IC16M Project IC16MII
    An-148/158/178

    4.- Retirement of the heavy towed warfare:

    2A36 Giatsint-B
    2B16 Nona-K
    2A18 D-30
    2A19/29 T/MT-12
    2A65 Msta-B

    5.- Update on self propelled Surface-Surface, Surface-Air and Artillery warfare, by the replacement of the tractor elements with unarmoured cabin, by (more standardized) tractor elements with armoured cabin according to the modern safety standards for the rest of the land warfare (the retired unarmoured tractor elements can be used for military transport in non-contested areas):

    SS-29
    SS-27
    SS-25
    SS-26
    SS-21
    SS-1
    SS-C-7
    SS-C-6
    SS-C-5
    SS-C-1B
    Tornado
    BM-30
    BM-27

    SA-21
    SA-10/12/20/23
    SA-22
    SA-8

    A-222

    BM-21

    6.- Finalisation of the development of own warfare and non-combat vehicles including the material to replace foreign components and spare parts (in this case I list only the projects where the production of the first unit would not be finished by 2020 and some thing that is not being considered and I think would be good):

    New ammunition for the SA-4 tractors (I see not news despite a lack of projects for new surface-air systems/ammunition for the 15-50Km range, approximately the original range of the SA-4)
    Yak-135 as light supersonic trainer (plus FGA to export)
    Il-PAK-TA as supersonic transport
    MiG-41
    Project 23560 of multirole destroyer/cruiser
    Project 23000E of multirole Aircraft Carrier
    Tu-PAK-DA as supersonic strategic bomber (I do not expect a success as subsonic)
    Generation of artillery mobile warfare based on Armata, Kurganets and Bumerang platforms.

    7.- Replacement of the oldest active warfare and non-combat vehicles:

    Be-12 (this aircraft makes to look the Russian air warfare older and of lower technological level than it is)
    An-2 (this aircraft makes to look the Russian air transport fleet older and of lower technological level than it is)

    It is perfectly possible to complete the points 1, 2, 3 and 4 by 2020, the point 5 would be more difficult but I would not rule out to see it solved also by 2020. The point 6 will take surely until 2025-2030. In fact the points 6 and 7 are more like a continuous process.

    About the point 3, all the cases are of non-combat vehicles. Sovietic non-combat vehicle designs are not considered foreign despite to be produced outside of Russia. In some cases, it would be a trouble with spare parts produced outside of Russia, that would be solved by the work on the point 6 or the use of a number of pieces to provide spare parts to others.

    About the point 5, surely the different standards used until now for the safety of the crew on some groups of warfare like the Surface-Surface systems, Surface-Air systems and Coastal Artillery systems come from the fact of a separate leadership at organizational level. I think this change to armoured tractors is likely because it would make longer the life of these systems and the retired unarmoured tractor elements have an alternative use as tractor elements for trucks in non-combat areas, an use that most if not all of them have today.

    About the point 6, I think unmanned technologies will advance, specially for maritime patrol and combat helicopter roles, but seems to be for the next generation, after the listed projects.


    Last edited by eehnie on Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:47 am; edited 39 times in total

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  GarryB on Sat May 21, 2016 12:21 pm

    I agree with most of your suggestions, but can't let you criticise the An-2... a cheap, simple, effective light transport that can operate from strips of ground in ice and snow and almost any weather condition... it has a minimum flight speed of something like 75km/h.

    I have seen video of one flying into a head wind of 100km or so and it was actually moving backwards at about 20km/h... amazing plane that will be tough to replace.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 573
    Points : 598
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  eehnie on Wed May 25, 2016 1:40 pm

    In the case of the An-2, I never would say that an aircraft active after 66 years has been bad. It is more to say that the aircraft is out of its time, and is of lower technological level than the rest of the aircrafts in active service in the Russian air transport fleet.

    Habitually the Russian Armed Forces are citicized by having old and outdated warfare and transport vehicles. I do not think it is right in overall terms, but examples like this, that are fairly old, help to the argument.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 26, 2016 11:49 am

    Part of the reason it is still used is that the operators know the aircraft so well and parts are available and the aircraft itself is simple and basic and most importantly easy to fix and rugged enough to operate without pampering.

    Technically it has already been replaced but the An-28, while a good STOL aircraft just didn't match the simplicity and low cost operations of the An-2.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1749
    Points : 1789
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  franco on Thu May 26, 2016 10:52 pm

    See folks, nothing to worry about! The new Russian military is a paper tiger. dunno


    http://www.jamestown.org/regions/russia/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=45462&tx_ttnews[backPid]=48&cHash=0a57ed405b1f66a00dc7c043936a93f5#.V0a3EpErK1s

    Suspect

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:20 pm


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:20 pm