Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 06, 2011 3:12 am

    Not long after the guy claimed that Chinese and NATO stuff was better than the Russian stuff being offered and suggested that they could get three Leopards for the price of one T-90 there were reports that the guy had been misquoted and misunderstood and wrong.

    (If you want to read such an article look here: http://russiandefpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/postnikov-on-the-army-and-opk-part-ii/ )

    Very simply new technology is not cheap, so this drive for all new technology is going to be very expensive... the point is that the all new tech T-90AM costs 4 million dollars compared to the 2.25 million of so the T-90A cost. The Leopard 2A6 would cost about 7.5 million and that is without the modifications and spares and other extras that would be needed to put such a vehicle into operation... which would bring the price to 10 million at least.


    Very frankly the Russians are planning on a force of about 2,000 deployed and operational tanks with a force of something like 4-6 thousand tanks in reserve. At 4 mil per T-90AM making a max of 8,000 vehicles in total will cost 32 billion dollars.
    It has been made clear that armour is not a huge priority and they are already spending money in practical terms on new armoured jeeps. The Italian and French designs they are looking at are for roles previously met by unarmoured jeep like vehicles, and the Tigr and Tigr-M and Volk vehicles are also being developed and put into production too.
    Add to that money spent on the BTR-82 plus two or three new families of vehicles and you can see that mass production of T-90AMs is not very likely any time soon.

    I think the cheapest option to get going is to have the T-90AM in production to make 1,000 over the next decade up to 2020. Existing T-72s can be upgraded to this standard too... and this is important because they will likely be much cheaper. The goal is to have a heavy armour brigade based on a unified tank chassis and they already have the MSTA that can be based on the T-90 or upgraded T-72, so add the BTR-T with a T-90 base and the heavy armour brigade has a serious start. The point is that many components of the heavy brigade just need the chassis like the air defence vehicle, the artillery vehicle. The heavy APC will need some modification but it can be based on upgraded T-72s.

    This means that in 2015 the heavy brigades will mostly have T-90/T-72 based chassis, but after 2015 they will start getting Armata based chassis... one brigade at a time. The same will happen in the medium and light brigades where existing vehicles will be gap fillers till the proper vehicles are ready.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat May 14, 2011 9:09 am

    SerbNationalist wrote:
    IronsightSniper wrote:I don't think China has any satellites capable of doing that.

    NATO's achilles heel is not our dependence on computers (which are a good thing) but rather our small numbers. If a 1 billion Chinese army attacked Taiwan right now there's nothing we have outside of a nuke that can stop them.

    1 billion???? They have 1,3 billion population and they are going to attack you with 1 billion??? Really??? Wow...if you were sarcastic ok, if not...wow dude!!!
    Their army is about 4 million so no billions there.

    China can actually recruit and train a 1 billion man conscript army if they really needed to.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 15, 2011 4:32 am

    China can actually recruit and train a 1 billion man conscript army if they really needed to.

    According to the CIA World Factbook:


    Manpower available for military service:

    males age 16-49: 385,821,101

    females age 16-49: 363,789,674 (2010 est.)

    Manpower fit for military service:

    males age 16-49: 318,265,016

    females age 16-49: 300,323,611 (2010 est.)


    Still a large force... but most would be armed with sharpened sticks and have to walk everywhere on the battlefield... still it is a lot of cannon fodder.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Putin brands as inadmissible to declare Russian weapons "uncompetitive"

    Post  Austin on Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:43 pm

    Hopefully with this gentle message , Gen Makrov and Defence minister shuts up

    Putin brands as inadmissible to declare Russian weapons "uncompetitive"

    Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has branded as "inadmissible" statements made by the defense minister and chief of the general staff who said that Russian weapons were "uncompetitive," Putin declared at a question and answer session broadcast live by Russian television and radio channels on Thursday.

    "I realize that you have been annoyed by a number of statements made by top brass officers from the defense ministry, including chief of general staff, who called the quality of Russian weapons into question, which incidentally is of detriment to foreign economic activities in the field of weapons trade," Putin said.

    "The fact that they dare make such public statements is inadmissible," Putin stressed.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Russian generals criticize Russian arms

    Post  Austin on Sat Jan 14, 2012 5:51 pm

    Why do Russian generals criticize Russian arms?

    The latest statement on the subject was made by Nikolai Makarov, the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia. Russian defense officials have already expressed their concerns about the quality of Kalashnikov assault rifles, SVD sniper rifles and T-90 tanks. This time, Mr. Makarov criticized Smerch (Tornado) multiple rocket launchers.

    Russia's T-90 tank lags far behind Israel's Merkava-MK4, whereas Smerch is much worse than USA's HIMARS, the general said.Makarov claimed that the firing range of the Merkava-4 tank is 6 kilometers vs. 2.5 kilometers of the T-90. In its turn, Smerch systems are capable of striking targets in the radius of 70 kilometers. This makes the Russian multiple rocket launcher inferior to USA's HIMARS, which is supposedly capable of destroying enemy's forces at a distance of up to 150 kilometers.

    In addition, Makarov said, Russia's modern military hardware does not guarantee a high level of protection for personnel on battlefields. "We must make the hardware which would keep people alive in any conditions," he said.

    The general also criticized Russian optoelectronic reconnaissance spacecraft. The spacecraft, the official said, last only for three or five years, whereas foreign analogues operate for 15 years.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  Austin on Sat Jan 14, 2012 5:54 pm

    It appears the Russian Generals are true worried about deteriorating quality of Russian Arms compared to Western or even Israel ones.

    Probably the 20 years of neglect has taken its toll on the industry.

    What can we done so that Russia can this decade get weapon equal in capability and next decade may be exceed it ?

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1523
    Points : 1686
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  TheArmenian on Sat Jan 14, 2012 6:57 pm

    How trollish of you to not post the later part of the article that provides a lot of answers to your questions.
    Here it is:

    Is the situation as sad as Nikolai Makarov sees it? Pravda.Ru asked this and other questions to Konstantin Sivkov, the first vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems.

    "The new attacks against Russian arms mean that Russia needs to justify its purchases of defense products from foreign enterprises. Unfortunately, I have to admit that the tradition to destroy the national defense industry, which began during Yeltsin's times, continues today. Years ago, Yeltsin was doing it under the pretext of having no external enemies.

    "Many important defense enterprises were shut down. Now they want to destroy the national defense industry by purchasing military hardware from abroad. It is possible to improve the situation, though. One only needs the funds to modernize the industrial base, prepare qualified personnel and develop the vital industry in general.

    "Makarov compares Soviet-era weapon systems to state-of-the-art products of foreign countries. As for T-90 tanks, I would like to know which modification of this tank exactly raises concerns with Mr. Makarov. The T-90 appeared in the USSR at the end of the 1980s, whereas Israel passed Merkava-4 tanks into service in 2002. I'd like to say here that Merkava-4 tanks proved to be vulnerable against Russian anti-tank complexes during the war in Lebanon in 2006.

    "As for the firing range, the general is not right either. It particularly goes about Merkava's ability to attack with anti-tank LAHAT missiles. It seems that Makarov has forgotten that T-90 tanks are also equipped with anti-tank complexes. With such complexes, the Russian tank can strike targets at a distance of up to 5.5 kilometers.

    "Nevertheless, the T-90 has gone out of date a little in a quarter of a century. Why not investing in new products then? One would not have to spend billions that the country currently spends on purchasing foreign arms. We developed Black Eagle, or Molot tanks, for example, at the end of the Soviet era. What is more, Russia can launch the T-95 tank, whose performance is much better than that of its predecessor. As for the protection of the personnel, which Makarov pointed out as a problem, the T-95 has a special capsule, in which military men will stay alive in case of attack.

    As for the comparison drawn between Russian Smerch and American HIMARS, Mr. Makarov is mistaken too. HIMARS is not a classic multiple artillery rocket system. It is an artillery tactical missile complex. There are two variants of HIMARS. The system carries six volley fire rockets with range of 45-70 km. Russia's Smerch carries 12 rockets. General Makarov has also forgotten that there were powerful ammos designed for Smerch. Their impact zone is up to 90 kilometers. HIMARS's firing range of 150 kilometers, as Makarov noticed, refers to ATACMS tactical missiles. Tactical missiles and the missiles of multiple artillery rocket systems are two absolutely different things.

    "We have our analogue of such system - this is Tochka-M, which, like Smerch, was designed during the 1980s. Its firing ranger is smaller than that of HIMARS - 120 km, but its precision is higher. Iskander systems will replace Tochka-M in the near future. Iskander's firing range is 280 km, which makes any further discussion about HIMARS pointless.

    "Our officials crack down on the weapons of the past and refuse to believe that the problem can be solved by developing the nation's defense industry. If we continue to purchase military hardware from other countries, the Russian defense industry will die. The defense complex can not develop alone, without the support from the state. As a result, Russia supports the economies of other countries, although we need to support our own economy.

    "One should bear in mind the fact that Western weapon systems will never wage war against their creators. We could see that in Iraq. Saddam Hussein had US and French air defense complexes, but they simply deactivated them during Operation Desert Storm. If we buy arms from abroad, we become dependent on their producers. Everything that we purchase may turn into metal scrap if we receive no spare parts and fuel one day."

    Stop listening to articles written by journalist who quote, misquote and take out of contest statements by generals. Instead look at the real facts.
    Many customers are buying T-90 tanks while not a single country is coming close to acquire this wondertank called Merkava in its various iterations.
    Smerch is still successfully being sold abroad while I don't see customers lining to buy the allmighty Himars.

    As for Kalashnikovs, they are still the most widely produced and sold rifle in the world. The US, German, Israeli and other competitors are still left in the dust of this so called dinosaur. But hey, people can criticize all they want.




    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  Austin on Sat Jan 14, 2012 7:01 pm

    I am just posting questions posed by Russian Generals , This time it was Chief of Staff and last time it was the Army Chief ......... so there is nothing trollish about it.

    Ofcourse we can post different opinion in this thread based on those question.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  Austin on Sat Jan 14, 2012 7:20 pm

    Russia interested in joint development of military technologies with West - Rogozin

    http://www.itar-tass.com/en/c154/315921.html

    BRUSSELS, January 13 (Itar-Tass) —— Russia is interested in the development of new military technologies jointly with the West rather than in buying weaponry, Russian Deputy Prime Minister, former Permanent Representative to NATO Dmitry Rogozin told his farewell press conference at the NATO headquarters on Friday.

    “Trade in arms and military hardware means that the countries do not regard each other as enemies. No one has arms trade with an enemy,” he said. “Certainly, Russia is not interested in buying; it is interested in cooperation with Western, primarily European, countries in the promising R&D areas and the creation of security systems to unite our interests.”

    “Russia has a potential for making everything it needs to ensure national security. The latest procurements from foreign manufacturers are rooted in the profound crisis our defense sector experienced after the disintegration of the large state and under-financing,” he said.

    “Russia has a European credo. We think that in the 21st century Russia should fully return to the common cultural and political space with Europe, which implies intertwined interests and joint production of everything necessary for the development and security of our peoples,” Rogozin said.

    He cited as an example the Russian-NATO project Standex – the development of a new-generation remote control detector of explosives in anti-terrorist operations. “Success of this work will save dozens of lives,” he said.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  TR1 on Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:34 am

    Yeah, thats just trolling (not by Austin, by the generals). For example the T-90 to Merkava comparison that the general made was blatantly wrong in a number of factual parameters.
    Comparin Smerch to MLRS? What, is he being a tard on purpose? Let's compare MLRS to Iskander then.
    The other day the German defense minister critisized his industry as well Wink

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:04 am


    Rogozin says importing weapons unacceptable for Russia


    Russia should only consider buying weapons and military equipment abroad under exceptional circumstances, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said on Wednesday.

    Rogozin, recently appointed deputy prime minister responsible for the defense industry, discussed the modernization of Russia’s defense sector, arms procurement and development of nuclear and aerospace industries with other high-ranking officials on Wednesday.

    Given the procurement budget and the scope of the goals for re-equipping the army and navy, "there are good reasons to close the issue of purchasing foreign weapons from now on and raise it only as an evident exception from the general rule,” Rogozin said at the meeting, according to a statement from his secretariat.

    The deputy premier said the arms and military equipment projects should be run under a 20-30 year plan, which takes into account future threats and challenges, as well as Russia’s economic and demographic situation.

    This year’s State Defense Order is estimated at 750 billion rubles (about $25 billion), up 50% on the previous year. Only 50% of the 2009 State Defense Order was fulfilled amid corruption allegations.

    The only likely foreign purchases will be for very specific reasons or in very small batches, like Austrian sniper rifles for the VDV, or small armoured vehicles for MVD and border patrol in time for the Sochi games, or Mistral because of the speed with which it is needed.

    The examples given by that general are pathetic... and he is comparing the old model T-90 with the current model Merkava... if it comes up so short why isn't the Army buying the greatly improved T-90AM? Amongst its new features is supposed to be a new 7km range gun tube launched missile.
    Equally as pointed out by TR-1, if it was properly funded the Smerch system would have the 120km range standard rockets they were working on at the end of the cold war.
    The fact that he gives the rocket range as 70km proves he is a moron and is faking his information as the 15kg heavier 90km range missiles were developed before the end of the cold war and are in service.

    I think perhaps his real point, which the reporter likely missed was that he was trying to highlight that there is a lot of obsolete equipment in service and that during training it is quite probable that Smerch batteries are using their older 70km range stock first.

    In either case the Israelis will not sell Russia Merkava IVs and the US will not sell Himars to Russia and the fact that both are inferior to what the Russian MIC is CURRENTLY offering means they would be stupid to think about buying them even if they could.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  Austin on Sun Jan 15, 2012 7:34 am

    GarryB wrote:Amongst its new features is supposed to be a new 7km range gun tube launched missile.

    Source ?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:01 am

    Can't remember right now.

    From memory it was some General talking about improved ammo for the T-90AM.

    ...supposed to have a range of 7.5km or so I think.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  TR1 on Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:44 pm

    A good example of the kind of random shit Russian generals say at times. Fire these old dinosaurs ffs, these men cannot be behind a modern Russian military.

    Thanks to twower, the best Russian military blogger.
    http://twower.livejournal.com/707681.html
    Here is the video, a conference on geopolitics:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCRwUc-LjqM

    Things he says, with twower's comments.

    general: First of all, the Western world is getting ready for war, and likely, not just cold war. Not Iran, not Syria, not Iraq are the main objectives of the West. The West is getting ready for a final showdown with Russia.
    Twower: Likely, exactly for this purpose the leading European nations are constantly cutting their defense budgets and personel numbers.

    General: Not a single Iskander, that has been shown, is in the army.
    Twower: 630th Division recieved them back in 2005. In 2010, through 2011, the 26th rocket brigade was re-armed with Iskander.

    General: The latest Russian tank, T-90, I would call the Main Indian tank, since we only have 90.
    Twower: Maybe you can look around army units and see that is blatantly wrong? As is known, a tank batallion of a mechanized brigade = 41 tanks. The T-90 is operated by at least the 5th OMCBR, 19th OMCBR, 20th OMCBR, 136th OMCBR, and the 7th military base. (OMBCR= otdelnaya motostrelkavaya brigada= indipendant mechanized brigade. Already, we have a lot more than 90 units.

    General: We have even less BMP-3s. By some figures, 12 units, only 1 polk was formed.
    Twower: Nonsense. From seeing them personally I counted more machines. Both the 19th and 20th OMBCR are on the BMP-3. Each brigade has 3 mechanized batallions, each of which has three mechanized platoons composed of 10 units each. So at the very least we have 180 units in 2 brigades already, just counting the platoon vehicles.

    The general also makes random shit up like pilots today average 15-20 hours yearly ( lol wut? ), says that the T-90 has the old tank gun 2A46A2, which was made in 1958 for the T-64 (the T-90 and T-90A actually have the 2A46M-4 and M-5), and others gems.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:40 am

    The question is why do they do this?

    It can't be to increase spending... Russian spending in the past on their military has been minimal, but now many western countries' militaries will be looking on with envy at Russian spending and new equipment.

    I rather suspect either they are retired generals that are out of touch in combination with a media that wants to hear about problems and mistakes within the military... several media sources in Russia would conduct a similar interview as above, but the reporters would not give corrected information, nor would they research further... they would just come out with the comments and print a negative story.

    There are plenty of real problems to complain about, like the fact that there are far more Osa SAMs in service than its replacement in the mid 1980s (TOR), or indeed that even in 2008 that T-62s went to war for Russia.

    Russia needs to sort out its stocks of old equipment and either have a garage sale, or include old equipment in sales of new equipment to countries that can make good use of the old equipment. Most places in Africa they don't need T-90s for instance.

    The main problem is that most of the new stuff will not start production til 2015-18 so they are in a tricky position or upgrading old stuff, but not spending all their money so they have more money available for when the new stuff hits the shelves.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  TR1 on Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:39 am

    As I understand, Generals in India are forced to retire when they reach a certain age? I think Russia needs something like that, these ancient relics are dragging the whole thing down.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:57 am

    I think the real problem is that old generals like to talk and even the dumbest one will notice that a crowd of media surround them when they complain that the Russian Army is 50 years behind the western armies, but there are no reporters to be seen when you say that things are getting better...

    Every country in the world has old generals piping up and bitching about conditions... it is just that in Russia it is news and in the west it is also news. If it was a retired US navy admiral complaining about homosexuality in the service, it would be seen as an uncomfortable truth and noone would listen.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  TR1 on Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:56 am

    The key is constructive criticism. There are momentous challenges to be met by the Russian armed forces, but random warmongering and factual nonsense by generals doesn't help the process.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:18 pm

    Exactly.

    So many are complaining that everything is wrong, yet there are no solutions given... they just complain to feel better, but they don't improve the situation.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 4:04 am


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 4:04 am