That cheered me up all right. I about laughed myself out of my seat. I completed 2 tripos and degreed in International Biz in one of England's top colleges. I know quite well how the Western system works, I lived it for 4 years in UK, France, and Slovakia.
Do you know how many years it took Britain to sort its sh!t out?
It wasn't excommunists and the new rich that were the problem, it was the upper class and the church that were the problem and they held on to power and money too.
This is never something that can happen overnight.
Western countries are a guide, not a road map.
I appreciate you wanting change in Russia, but I also worry about Russia losing its identity and becoming just another country in Europe... you know, like Britain and France... they drew most of the lines on the maps and have created lots of problems around the world, either directly or indirectly and now they hold themselves above it all. They plundered the world for centuries and now they demand everyone bend to the rule of international law. Law they mostly created themselves to meet their own needs. Laws they ignore themselves when convenient. They will chastise a country for not releasing to their custody a person of interest yet are happy to give asylum to those with millions of dollars of ill-gotten gains.
America will firebomb and drop pesticide on poppy fields in central and south america, but will ignore the same in Afghanistan because that feeds a different market and it might make their stay in Afghanistan more costly if you make the farmers grow food instead of drugs.
They will even tell off countries in south america for destroying the rainforests... what happened to the forests of Europe? Chopped down for land for farms and for wood?
I know how business works from Russia, Europe, China to the Middle East, I have worked in them all. I also know which one works the best.
Works best for who?
Look at western europe... but also look at South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Japan, and even look at China. The system has to match the culture, and I can't see any one system suiting everyone. The Americans think their system suits everyone, but they think they are everyone.
Perfect example is AvtoVaz and how it can do nothing without the French saving it.
Lets not look at things in a vaccuum... the French and other companies have saved a few car companies recently... didn't you mention Toyota too?
People cannot start a business because the red tape and courts are against you unless you have political connections, or money to bribe. The entire system is designed to keep those in power up and the rest down. The economy is weak because we cannot grow small and medium enterprises. Until that changes we will be reliant on raw materials until they run out.
So step one is an authority that can deal with corruption effectively that is no corruptible itself step two is to change the small and medium business rules to cut most of the red tape and step three is training in proper business practises.
Without that first step the rest is not going to be effective.
Finland owns the Karelian timber industry. China will own our HSR. France owns our auto industry. It is already happening and United Russia is inviting more of it. The system isn't protecting us from foreign ownership but promoting it.
BUT YOU WANT THIS. You say you want the western system of doing things. Here in New Zealand we do things the western way. We used to have state owned assets like the railways and power generation and delivery. Even our postal service was government run, as was our telecommunications. Now the power generation system worked fine, if there was lots of rain on the southern lakes we generated most of our power through hydro electric dams and we shut down the coal fired generators in the north island. Then the government wanted some easy money and sold the power generation and distribution because they said the competition would bring better prices.
Now when there are heavy rains in the south island lakes the water is spilled because a different company owns the north island coal fired powerstations and they are not going to reduce supply so the full dams can be emptied faster.
We get power increases when the lakes are low and we get power increases when the lakes are high.
The company that supplies our largest city had 6 main power cables taking power into Auckland but that cost too much to maintain so now they have two which means if one goes down they have to have power cuts because one cable can't supply enough power for all of auckland. Government control resulted in a bloated industry with too many workers but no powercuts. Free market control led to powercuts and higher power prices.
Our government sold telecom, which is now owned by foreigners, they fired all the linesmen and then hired 10% back on as contracters to do the same amount of work as the before. While there was not work for 10 men before... more like 4-5, so there were a lot of slackers, now they have to work much harder for no extra money, so for line work everything takes much longer. Prices didn't go down either.
Disbanding forces costs nothing. You can actually make money selling off the land and equipment.
The forces you disband are generally the lowest readiness units that don't have a full equipment list anyway. The equipment they did have will be the most obsolete in the armed forces and probably not worth anything except to a museum. You also end up with an enormous number of young men with nothing to do... which could be quite dangerous if there are no jobs to keep them occupied.
It isn't viable, once most ships, tanks and planes have reached the 25 year threshold, they are scrap. Unless you are a poor African army that still uses T-55s.
You are joking right? Large ships spend rather more than 25 years in service, in fact most aircraft carriers should give at least 40 years. Abrams tanks will remain in service for rather more than 25 years, as will the Challangers.
I agree T-55s are now obsolete for a major power, but for fighting in places like Afghanistan against guerilla forces without their own armour I doubt the guerillas will notice the difference between a 100mm shell and a 125mm shell.
Of course that is another option to get rid of obsolete Russian Army equipment, sell or donate 5,000 T-54/-55 or T-62 tanks to the Army of Afghanistan. Sell them the ERA kits and rack armour kits to protect them from RPGs. They can use 500-1,000 of the ones in the best condition and use the rest for spare parts or fixed position artillery set in concrete. You could then sell them all your 100mm Tank ammo that hasn't expired yet and a factory for making more. Don't worry about upgrading them with laser range finders or anything... unless they want to pay for such things.
If we wait longer we won't have a serviceable military as most equipment is due to withdraw by 2020 and all of it by 2025.
I am not suggesting anyone wait, I am suggesting things take time... I think a lot of "hurry up!" is certainly in order, but I don't think the solution is to bypass the Russian MIC and spend all your money with foreign companies. Licence production is quicker and cheaper than developing stuff you are having problems developing, but it certainly isn't cheap either.
The problem was created because of lack of money actually being spent, and also to a brain drain, what is needed is to get the best and the brightest back into the Russian economy. Things like the new silicon valley are good steps in the right direction and perhaps will lead to technology being pushed forward even faster in Russia, but you also need an economy and a culture to get that to the public.
You need to get everyone in Russia to benefit and contribute.
That doesn't cover the whole range of armaments now does it. We will build what is relevant, but have no choice but to import the rest.
Age is not the only criteria for obsolescence. What is its purpose and can it still perform that role efficiently should be the guide. A 1975 Su-24 would be obsolete but upgrade the avionics and it is not obsolete because it can perform in the role it was designed for. Dropping bombs on point targets in all weathers deep behind enemy lines.
No it can't dual with an enemy fighter, or safely ignore all SAM systems, but with the proper flight profile it will have a better chance of getting through than most other multirole types (ie F-16 etc).
With newer weapon types it could do the job even better, for example the latest model Kh-58 has a broad band seeker than can engage a much wider range of radars, while known fixed SAM sites can be engaged with satellite guided missiles like the Kh-25 and Kh-38.
High off boresight missiles like the R-73 will make interception from the front dangerous and the high low level speed makes interception from behind difficult.
We already ordered the armaments for the Su-35 and Su-34, and it was only $100 million worth. Enough to fight one day of a regional war. Su-35BM will start delivery in 2012, it is already in production but it has not passed state acceptance trials and neither has the Su-34 because of failure to use these weapons. Until we fix the bugs we cannot mass produce it.
The order from memory was for 14 different weapon types, so this is progress, it tells the weapon makers what the Russian AF wants so they can take steps to ensure that when new orders are made that they are better prepared to make at least those weapons in reasonably large numbers. Waiting till it works properly is an acceptable reason for a delay isn't it?
The T-72 will be a reserve cannon fodder tank run by conscripts. MoD is not interested in modernising them as displayed by the low numbers today. They are also not willing to spend the money to give them a decent upgrade as they are only being brought up to T-72M1 standard. They will never get around to upgrading all of the T-72s so lets just get real and start building T-90s so we can at least have 2000 modern tanks by the deadline.
There has been no reason to upgrade them till they have established the final upgrade they want for it. Spending billions on upgrading all the T-72s then finding you have 10,000 upgraded T-72s and you only needed 4,000 would be pretty dumb.
Tanks seem to be getting a very low priority so I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to buy 2,000 T-90s, and upgrade 2,000 T-72s and have 2,000 unupgraded T-72s in storage. Use the unupgraded T-72s for training and practise, the upgraded T-72s and T-90s for parades and war. That way most of the normal wear and tear will be inflicted on the cheapest tank... as long as it has the same electronics like battle management system and sights etc so the crews know how to use it it will be good enough. They can use tank simulators to fill in the differences between what an unupgraded T-72 and a T-90 can or cannot do.
As the heavily used tanks wear out they can be replaced with new tanks as the new tanks can be afforded. Where it can be afforded tanks can be upgraded during routine overhauls where the upgrade actually makes them more like the other vehicles in service to reduce the cost of ownership.
Uh, no it doesn't. It uses two KN-3 nuclear reactors which is standard for our large nuclear icebreakers at 300MW. They power the boilers all the time. The gas is used as an emergency back up in case of reactor failure.
You might want to recheck that info. It certainly does have two reactors... which are reliable enough to not need two backup boilers. Top speed of the Kirov class vessels on nuclear power only is something like 20 knts and the boilers are used to boost speed above 30 knts.
My suggestion is that the four powerplants are replaced with perhaps two reactors of much greater power otherwise it will put limits on its ability to keep up with any future nuclear powered carriers the Russian Navy might be planning.
BTW I wonder how the new command structure will effect logistics. I would guess having the logistics structure under the command structure that is responsible for all three branches of the military should make for more efficient purchases and an opportunity for larger bulk orders. For example the new 152mm guns being developed for the Navy are rumoured to have very long range shells that have terminal guidance, which is something that would definitely be useful for the Army.
30 x 165mm ammo is already largely standardised between the services, yet there are still differences that make naval and airforce ammo incompatible with army ammo... the airforce and navy use electric ignition while the army uses percussion, but in all other respects the ammo is the same. Hopefully a unified logistics structure for the different branches might lead to changes that solve such differences.