Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Share

    Poll

    Vote (multiple choice allowed) for the type of material that in your opinion will remain in the Russian Armed Forces after the end of 2025, and leave without vote the material that will be totally out of the Russian Armed Forces, including of the reserve:

    [ 5 ]
    6% [6%] 
    [ 7 ]
    9% [9%] 
    [ 7 ]
    9% [9%] 
    [ 8 ]
    10% [10%] 
    [ 9 ]
    12% [12%] 
    [ 4 ]
    5% [5%] 
    [ 9 ]
    12% [12%] 
    [ 5 ]
    6% [6%] 
    [ 7 ]
    9% [9%] 
    [ 17 ]
    22% [22%] 

    Total Votes: 78
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1214
    Points : 1388
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  d_taddei2 on Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:07 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    I personally believe that all types of equipment you mention in the poll will still be in service and/or in reserve for one I can't see Russia getting rid of the huge number of MT-12 anytime soon without having to totally scrap

    The current model MT-12 is the MT-12R which has a radar sight for night and all weather use. It uses a unique round being a 100mm calibre smoothbore gun not related to the 100mm rifled gun of the T-54/55, or the 100mm rifled medium pressure gun of the BMP-3.

    It uses the 3UM10 round with the 3BM24 APFSDS projectile, the 3UBK8 round with the 3BK16M HEAT round, and the 3UOF12 round with the 30F35 HE FRAG projectile but it can also fire GLATGMs too.

    Removing the MT-12 removes an entire calibre of ammo from the logistics and storage chain.
    .

    Confused by your reply on one hand it looks like your saying it's a good weapon but on the other saying it should be removed.

    I am not saying it wouldn't be beneficial to remove it like you said it removes a calibre but I am saying is that I personally can't see it being removed from service and /or reserve (especially reserve) by then for a few reasons one of which I mentioned earlier too many of them and to get rid of them would result in majority being scrapped. Another reason is like you said in your reply the upgraded version seems like it could still be useful. And last reason what will replace it in units that still use it? AT-5/AT-13/AT-14??? Or a self propelled ATGW system?  And has money been allocated for such replacement?
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1989
    Points : 2014
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  eehnie on Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:47 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:Confused by your reply on one hand it looks like your saying it's a good weapon but on the other saying it should be removed.

    I am not saying it wouldn't be beneficial to remove it like you said it removes a calibre but I am saying is that I personally can't see it being removed from service and /or reserve (especially reserve) by then for a few reasons one of which I mentioned earlier too many of them and to get rid of them would result in majority being scrapped. Another reason is like you said in your reply the upgraded version seems like it could still be useful. And last reason what will replace it in units that still use it? AT-5/AT-13/AT-14??? Or a self propelled ATGW system?  And has money been allocated for such replacement?

    For the replacement of the (M)T-12 in the units that still use it, the easiest and cheapest option would be to use some tanks of the current fleet in the reserve. Without cost, or if Russia wants, at the cost of some upgrade. And it would mean a serious upgrade in the capabilities of the soldiers in charge of them. The nature of the tank/antitank weapons is the same, the antitank artillery of the last decades used tank weapons.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17690
    Points : 18286
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 14, 2017 7:41 am


    Confused by your reply on one hand it looks like your saying it's a good weapon but on the other saying it should be removed.

    That is right... in practical terms it is still an effective weapon... small easy to conceal and move, with ammo powerful enough to take on a range of armoured vehicle types up to and including MBTs with the guided shells from flank positions.

    On paper however it has unique ammo that is not more powerful than the Sprut-B gun in the standard 125mm calibre smoothbore able to use all the new ammo types being developed for the new and upgraded tanks.

    It would be a potent and capable system for smaller conflicts like Afghanistan or Syria or Iraq where a larger calibre is not needed, but having its own unique ammo is an issue.

    Perhaps making a T-55 or T-62 or T-72 upgrade using the same 100mm smoothbore gun for smaller countries might be a good idea and sell them some MT-12s to go with them perhaps...

    And last reason what will replace it in units that still use it? AT-5/AT-13/AT-14??? Or a self propelled ATGW system?  And has money been allocated for such replacement?

    The direct replacement would be the Sprut B, which is 125mm calibre weapon that weighs twice as much (6 tons vs 3 tons) but has its own power plant for short distance moves.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1214
    Points : 1388
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:28 am

    GarryB wrote:

    Confused by your reply on one hand it looks like your saying it's a good weapon but on the other saying it should be removed.

    That is right... in practical terms it is still an effective weapon... small easy to conceal and move, with ammo powerful enough to take on a range of armoured vehicle types up to and including MBTs with the guided shells from flank positions.

    On paper however it has unique ammo that is not more powerful than the Sprut-B gun in the standard 125mm calibre smoothbore able to use all the new ammo types being developed for the new and upgraded tanks.

    It would be a potent and capable system for smaller conflicts like Afghanistan or Syria or Iraq where a larger calibre is not needed, but having its own unique ammo is an issue.

    Perhaps making a T-55 or T-62 or T-72 upgrade using the same 100mm smoothbore gun for smaller countries might be a good idea and sell them some MT-12s to go with them perhaps...

    And last reason what will replace it in units that still use it? AT-5/AT-13/AT-14??? Or a self propelled ATGW system?  And has money been allocated for such replacement?

    The direct replacement would be the Sprut B, which is 125mm calibre weapon that weighs twice as much (6 tons vs 3 tons) but has its own power plant for short distance moves.

    I know that the calibre is the biggest issue but the replacement to sprut B I don't think will happen mainly due to Russia not seemly not being interested in it how many does Russia have in service? Apart from conflicts like Syria and Iraq I can't see a comeback for anti tank guns and even in Syria type conflict it might be easier to mount it on the back of a truck to help mobility but would likely need stability legs when firing its something the SAA like to do put things on trucks the small power plant is really only to move gun into position and cover very very short distance not as a mode of transport. When I was in the forces the British army used something similar on a 155mm artillery gun although they were only in use in TA units. I would have thought a AT-5 or metis mounted a 4x4 or if money allowed wheeled armoured vehicle such as tigr
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17690
    Points : 18286
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:00 am

    The Sprut is an excellent weapon which when deployed is like the D-30 gun in that its trails are lowered onto the ground and staked with three arms at 120 degrees each so the gun can be aimed 360 degrees without having to dig it out and shift it.

    Being able to fire all the new ammo types being developed for new Russian armour means all sorts of special ammo can be used... in fact any length of rod penetrator could be used to further improve anti armour performance, while there are no autoloader restrictions on round length or weight.

    It is a very potent and powerful weapon that remains mobile.

    There is little advantage to mounting it on a vehicle... they already have a light tank with a 125mm gun on it... 2S25, and soon Boomerang and kurganets and likely Typhoon. (note in a recent thread it was mentioned the Typhoon will carry up to 125mm calibre weapons which confirms this will be an option.)

    Missiles are useful, but will already be there... the tank calibre gun offers the ability to fire a range of rounds at a range of targets including HEAT and HE Frag as well as sensor fused air bursting shells too... and of course APFSDS rounds.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1989
    Points : 2014
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  eehnie on Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:17 am

    The replacement of the (M)T-12 with weapons of 125mm on the new platforms requires production of new weapons. This only will be done at the rythm of the introduction of the new platforms in the Russian units.

    The replacement of the (M)T-12 with the 2S25 would require a return to production of the weapon. There is not reserve of this weapon.

    The replacement of the (M)T-12 with the towed version of the 2S25, the Sprut-B, has a serious handicap. This is a design of the 1980s that has not been ordered until now (unlike the 2S25). It means something.

    The cheapest option, and is a likely option, is the replacement with tanks in the reserve. And this is not as rare as some people can think.

    Analyzing how will be the future units of the Russian Armed forces, it is necessary to take into account that the Armata units will not have heavy antitank weapons. Will have tanks. A 125mm weapon mounted in an armata platform is a tank. Or the same if we talk about the new 152mm tank weapon. In this case previous tank and heavy antitank weapons will be replaced all by tanks.

    In the other side, the Kurganets, Bumerang and BMD-4M units will not have tanks, all will be antitank weapons. The position of the tanks will be covered by antitank weapons of 125mm or 152mm mounted on these platforms. In this case, previous tanks and heavy antitank weapons will be replaced all by mobile antitank weapons.


    Last edited by eehnie on Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:09 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Austin

    Posts : 6653
    Points : 7052
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  Austin on Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:38 pm

    Rogozin: Putin will receive a draft of the new state program of armaments before the end of the year

    Подробнее на ТАСС:
    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4656930

    VORONEZH, 18 October. / TASS /. The draft State Arms Program (GPP) for the period 2018-2025 entered the College of the Military Industrial Complex, experts will complete their work in less than two months. After this, the new LG will be submitted for approval to the President of the Russian Federation. This was reported by TASS Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin.

    "I can only say one thing: a week ago [the program] entered the College of the Military Industrial Commission, my decision was created by working groups headed by members of the College of the Military Industrial Complex, which are responsible for the technical equipment of the families and types of armed forces," he said. carefully study their notebooks, their thick volumes. "

    According to the vice-premier, two months are assigned to the work for this work, but he expressed the hope that it will be completed earlier. "We have two months under the regulations, but we will do this work more quickly and we will send the draft of the State program of armaments to the president." While there is confidence that we will be able to put this work to the end of the year for signature, "he concluded. financing not only the armed forces, but also other power structures, we will already report this to the president. "

    The Deputy Prime Minister also specified that the main focus of the new SPG until 2025 will be made on the creation of a system of "unhabitable" communications and management, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin told Tass. "The most important thing is the creation of a management system and a system of unbreakable communications," the deputy prime minister said.

    In general, the priority of the prospective GPU until 2025 will not be the modernization of old weapons, but the creation of new ones, the deputy prime minister said.

    "Priorities are mainly given not so much to the modernization of the old weapons as to the creation of new ones: they are promising aviation complexes, including military transport and long-range aviation, these are unmanned complexes, robotics, that is all that is connected with the possibility and necessity of the withdrawal of a person from the zone of defeat, "he said," behind this we see the future and this will be the focus. " According to him, this applies to everything, and aviation, and the ground forces, and the Navy.


    Подробнее на ТАСС:
    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4656930

    Austin

    Posts : 6653
    Points : 7052
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  Austin on Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:41 pm

    Rogozin proposes to prohibit state purchases of imported software without disclosing the source code

    Подробнее на ТАСС:
    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4656570

    VORONEZH, 18 October. / TASS /. Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin believes it is right to prohibit the purchase of imported software for government needs from manufacturers that do not disclose the source code. He stated this at a military-industrial conference "Diversification of the OPK in the field of telecommunications and communications."

    "Buying foreign equipment, switches, routers, servers, we sit down on the constantly updated foreign software, which does not have source codes," he said. "It is worth considering a ban on the supply to the public sector of equipment for those foreign sellers who do not open the source code and do not transfer the documentation necessary for the subsequent modernization by own forces ".

    The vice-premier warned that "all these games will end very badly." "As a matter of fact, we simply drag the bomb into our own house and do not know how this story will work in the conditions of aggravation of relations," Rogozin remarked. "And no one has simply canceled industrial espionage, so it's just stupid."

    Rogozin called for more ambitious tasks, taking into account the potential of the national defense industry. According to him, this is not so much a technological as a political task in modern conditions.


    Подробнее на ТАСС:
    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4656570
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17690
    Points : 18286
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  GarryB on Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:08 am

    If they do produce Sprut 125mm towed guns to replace the MT-12 then they wont make 125mm guns made in the 1980s they will made current model higher pressure guns able to fire all the new ammo.

    The current model of the MT-12 has a radar fitted... I would not expect a new model Sprut to be less well equipped.

    In fact a radar would be very useful for the 125mm gun as ANIET uses radar and a timed fuse for air burst detonation of shells above targets, so radar would make it rather more effective.

    It would also fire any new guided missile rounds and long penetrator rounds with no autoloader restrictions.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1214
    Points : 1388
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:00 am

    On the subject of removing calibres one thing that has been forgotten is the even though Russia might remove a certain calibre it doesn't mean that Russia won't stop producing it. Russia is advancing but many countries are still using soviet era weapons and will continue to do so for decades so maybe Russia isn't in any hurry to remove calibres but obviously from there own forces going forward and to streamline logistics they will reduce the number of calibres but I don't see total wipe out in the future from Russian Defense companies.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17690
    Points : 18286
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:40 am

    The 100mm smoothbore calibre is not widely used, and the MT-12 was not widely exported so there would not be enough export interest to warrant continued production of the ammo if the weapons were withdrawn from Russian use and storage.

    Either they would just be disposed of, or sold to a client... including ammo production capacity.

    That would mean one less calibre to stockpile for future use, plus saving all the parts and components needed to keep the weapons operational.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1214
    Points : 1388
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sat Oct 21, 2017 4:50 pm

    Don't get wrong I see benefits of removing it but as long as various armies using BS-3 and MT-12 the supply will be there and there's no signs yet of Russia replacing theirs. And Russia won't want to just drop it leaving customers without. Three options really to tackle foreign customers. Would be :
    1) Russia could offer Sprut at a discounted price to entice then to buy and retire the MT-12 = happy customer and Russia can drop that calibre and still makes money from continuing sales of parts and ammo of sprut.

    2) tell customers that by a certain date I.e year xxxx the ammunition will no longer be produced so either change weapon or buy shit loads of ammo to cover there needs after production is stopped.

    3) Russia produces enough ammo to cover customers needs for x amount of years then cease production.

    But number 3 could be risky if they over estimate and left with ammo then be forced to give it away. One unlikely solution but still worth mentioning is to sell production rights and machines to another country.

    Also it seems me mentioning the topic of mounting anti tank on a vehicle has actually happened. Algeria has truck mounted the
    MT-12.

    http://itweb.co.za/mobilesite/defenceweb/home/item_id-48532/

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17690
    Points : 18286
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  GarryB on Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:45 am

    As I said it is not obsolete... the only reason to remove it from the inventory would be to get rid of a calibre from the stockpile.

    Of course at the end of the day they can continue to produce equipment and ammo they don't use...

    Russian ammo makers still make 303 ammo for commercial use and also 30-06 ammo too, not to mention 5.56mm rounds as well.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1989
    Points : 2014
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  eehnie on Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:00 pm

    The main reason for the retirement of more weapons from the Russian Armed Forces would be the exhaustion by use. In this case, exhaustion by need to help to Syria with more weapons.

    By the begin of 2018 the ISIS can be defeated, but it means not the end of the war, it means only the begin of a new phase of the war which intensity we do not know still.

    The destruction in previous phases of the war of thousands of units of heavy military warfare makes possible the need of thousands of units of heavy combat material in the future too, and at this point the T-64 and the (M)T-12 would be first in line for the help from Russia, assuming the movement of older and weaker weapons to Syria can be finnished by the begin of 2018, crating a reserve of material inside the own territory of Syria. While to cover the needs of SA, SS, Infantry and engineering heavy combat material will be more difficult after the exhaustion of the oldest material, the needs on tanks and artillery will be covered easily, thanks to bigger reserves.

    To be fair, I consider the (M)T-12 more obsolete than the T-64, the MiG-21 or the BTR-60 as military concept (heavy towed weapon that requires a tractor auxiliary vehicle, low range that makes this weapon only can work inside the range of the man-portable weapons of the adversary increasing the risks for the crews, and low caliber in relative terms that makes the weapon less powerful and effective than others).

    In fact with the likely apparition of rocket assisted projectile ammunitions for 125mm weapons and longer range weapons for the TOS-1, the (M)T-12 would be the alone weapon in the Russian Armed Forces that only can work inside the range of the man-portable weapons of the adversary (in this case the application of rocket assited projectile technologies for its caliber would not be enough to allow to this weapon to outrange man-portable weapons).

    There is a number of fair reasons that put the (M)T-12 first in line to exit as military help with the T-64. Even, it would not be a surprise if the (M)T-12 goes to Syria before than the T-64 after the application of the State Armament Program 2018-2025. The (M)T-12 is still a good weapon for the standards of the Syrian civil war.
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1214
    Points : 1388
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:44 pm

    eehnie wrote:The main reason for the retirement of more weapons from the Russian Armed Forces would be the exhaustion by use. In this case, exhaustion by need to help to Syria with more weapons.

    By the begin of 2018 the ISIS can be defeated, but it means not the end of the war, it means only the begin of a new phase of the war which intensity we do not know still.

    The destruction in previous phases of the war of thousands of units of heavy military warfare makes possible the need of thousands of units of heavy combat material in the future too, and at this point the T-64 and the (M)T-12 would be first in line for the help from Russia, assuming the movement of older and weaker weapons to Syria can be finnished by the begin of 2018, crating a reserve of material inside the own territory of Syria. While to cover the needs of SA, SS, Infantry and engineering heavy combat material will be more difficult after the exhaustion of the oldest material, the needs on tanks and artillery will be covered easily, thanks to bigger reserves.

    To be fair, I consider the (M)T-12 more obsolete than the T-64, the MiG-21 or the BTR-60 as military concept (heavy towed weapon that requires a tractor auxiliary vehicle, low range that makes this weapon only can work inside the range of the man-portable weapons of the adversary increasing the risks for the crews, and low caliber in relative terms that makes the weapon less powerful and effective than others).

    In fact with the likely apparition of rocket assisted projectile ammunitions for 125mm weapons and longer range weapons for the TOS-1, the (M)T-12 would be the alone weapon in the Russian Armed Forces that only can work inside the range of the man-portable weapons of the adversary (in this case the application of rocket assited projectile technologies for its caliber would not be enough to allow to this weapon to outrange man-portable weapons).

    There is a number of fair reasons that put the (M)T-12 first in line to exit as military help with the T-64. Even, it would not be a surprise if the (M)T-12 goes to Syria before than the T-64 after the application of the State Armament Program 2018-2025. The (M)T-12 is still a good weapon for the standards of the Syrian civil war.

    Although some armed forces now only use it as a form of indirect artillery using HE frag rounds which have a 8km range which is better than any man portable system and then there's the kastet/bastion its guided and has 5km range which is on par with some ATGW although most don't have such range.

    One other useful weapon sitting in reserve is the M -46 130mm gun good range and explosive power. I always thought that it was a better idea to have the M-46 mounted on the MT-LB than the D-30 122mm gun better range and explosive power but on the downside it's heavier gun, bigger ammo, and I read that it struggled to fire much above 45° and a single propelling charge but still a good gun.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1989
    Points : 2014
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  eehnie on Sat Oct 28, 2017 9:35 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:
    eehnie wrote:The main reason for the retirement of more weapons from the Russian Armed Forces would be the exhaustion by use. In this case, exhaustion by need to help to Syria with more weapons.

    By the begin of 2018 the ISIS can be defeated, but it means not the end of the war, it means only the begin of a new phase of the war which intensity we do not know still.

    The destruction in previous phases of the war of thousands of units of heavy military warfare makes possible the need of thousands of units of heavy combat material in the future too, and at this point the T-64 and the (M)T-12 would be first in line for the help from Russia, assuming the movement of older and weaker weapons to Syria can be finnished by the begin of 2018, crating a reserve of material inside the own territory of Syria. While to cover the needs of SA, SS, Infantry and engineering heavy combat material will be more difficult after the exhaustion of the oldest material, the needs on tanks and artillery will be covered easily, thanks to bigger reserves.

    To be fair, I consider the (M)T-12 more obsolete than the T-64, the MiG-21 or the BTR-60 as military concept (heavy towed weapon that requires a tractor auxiliary vehicle, low range that makes this weapon only can work inside the range of the man-portable weapons of the adversary increasing the risks for the crews, and low caliber in relative terms that makes the weapon less powerful and effective than others).

    In fact with the likely apparition of rocket assisted projectile ammunitions for 125mm weapons and longer range weapons for the TOS-1, the (M)T-12 would be the alone weapon in the Russian Armed Forces that only can work inside the range of the man-portable weapons of the adversary (in this case the application of rocket assited projectile technologies for its caliber would not be enough to allow to this weapon to outrange man-portable weapons).

    There is a number of fair reasons that put the (M)T-12 first in line to exit as military help with the T-64. Even, it would not be a surprise if the (M)T-12 goes to Syria before than the T-64 after the application of the State Armament Program 2018-2025. The (M)T-12 is still a good weapon for the standards of the Syrian civil war.

    Although some armed forces now only use it as a form of indirect artillery using HE frag rounds which have a 8km range which is better than any man portable system and then there's the kastet/bastion its guided and has 5km range which is on par with some ATGW although most don't have such range.

    One other useful weapon sitting in reserve is the M -46 130mm gun good range and explosive power. I always thought that it was a better idea to have the M-46 mounted on the MT-LB than the D-30 122mm gun better range and explosive power but on the downside it's heavier gun, bigger ammo, and I read that it struggled to fire much above 45° and a single propelling charge but still a good gun.

    Man-portable weapons include man-portable mortars that reach a caliber of 120mm that have available rocket assisted projectile ammunition reaching 16-17 Km of range.

    For a heavy weapon is important to have some role that can be solved from outside the entire mix of man-portable weapons of the adversary in order to have a future, because it means to outrange the entire mix of weapons of the infantry units, allowing the heavy weapons to work from safe positions against them. In the case of the artillery pieces its role is clear, to fire to the adversaryat distance, then to be outranged by man-portable weapons is a serious handicap for them.

    The reality of the decommission of weapons by help to allies is more in relative terms than in absolute terms. Is more about better/worse than about good/bad weapons. Despite the T-64 is totally decommissioned today, I tend to consider the T-64 stronger than the (M)T-12, in mobility, in power, even in range with the likely apparition of rocket assisted projectile ammunition for 125mm, then it is likely that Russia allows the exit of the (M)T-12 to Syria before.
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1214
    Points : 1388
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:48 am

    eehnie wrote:
    d_taddei2 wrote:
    eehnie wrote:The main reason for the retirement of more weapons from the Russian Armed Forces would be the exhaustion by use. In this case, exhaustion by need to help to Syria with more weapons.

    By the begin of 2018 the ISIS can be defeated, but it means not the end of the war, it means only the begin of a new phase of the war which intensity we do not know still.

    The destruction in previous phases of the war of thousands of units of heavy military warfare makes possible the need of thousands of units of heavy combat material in the future too, and at this point the T-64 and the (M)T-12 would be first in line for the help from Russia, assuming the movement of older and weaker weapons to Syria can be finnished by the begin of 2018, crating a reserve of material inside the own territory of Syria. While to cover the needs of SA, SS, Infantry and engineering heavy combat material will be more difficult after the exhaustion of the oldest material, the needs on tanks and artillery will be covered easily, thanks to bigger reserves.

    To be fair, I consider the (M)T-12 more obsolete than the T-64, the MiG-21 or the BTR-60 as military concept (heavy towed weapon that requires a tractor auxiliary vehicle, low range that makes this weapon only can work inside the range of the man-portable weapons of the adversary increasing the risks for the crews, and low caliber in relative terms that makes the weapon less powerful and effective than others).

    In fact with the likely apparition of rocket assisted projectile ammunitions for 125mm weapons and longer range weapons for the TOS-1, the (M)T-12 would be the alone weapon in the Russian Armed Forces that only can work inside the range of the man-portable weapons of the adversary (in this case the application of rocket assited projectile technologies for its caliber would not be enough to allow to this weapon to outrange man-portable weapons).

    There is a number of fair reasons that put the (M)T-12 first in line to exit as military help with the T-64. Even, it would not be a surprise if the (M)T-12 goes to Syria before than the T-64 after the application of the State Armament Program 2018-2025. The (M)T-12 is still a good weapon for the standards of the Syrian civil war.

    Although some armed forces now only use it as a form of indirect artillery using HE frag rounds which have a 8km range which is better than any man portable system and then there's the kastet/bastion its guided and has 5km range which is on par with some ATGW although most don't have such range.

    One other useful weapon sitting in reserve is the M -46 130mm gun good range and explosive power. I always thought that it was a better idea to have the M-46 mounted on the MT-LB than the D-30 122mm gun better range and explosive power but on the downside it's heavier gun, bigger ammo, and I read that it struggled to fire much above 45° and a single propelling charge but still a good gun.

    Man-portable weapons include man-portable mortars that reach a caliber of 120mm that have available rocket assisted projectile ammunition reaching 16-17 Km of range.

    For a heavy weapon is important to have some role that can be solved from outside the entire mix of man-portable weapons of the adversary in order to have a future, because it means to outrange the entire mix of weapons of the infantry units, allowing the heavy weapons to work from safe positions against them. In the case of the artillery pieces its role is clear, to fire to the adversaryat distance, then to be outranged by man-portable weapons is a serious handicap for them.

    The reality of the decommission of weapons by help to allies is more in relative terms than in absolute terms. Is more about better/worse than about good/bad weapons. Despite the T-64 is totally decommissioned today, I tend to consider the T-64 stronger than the (M)T-12, in mobility, in power, even in range with the likely apparition of rocket assisted projectile ammunition for 125mm, then it is likely that Russia allows the exit of the (M)T-12 to Syria before.

    You clearly haven't served in the military man portable 120mm mortar system your dreaming. 82mm mortar system yes is man portable. But even then not great distances. Even 50 cal. Teams when I was in would only go short distances. I think you and a few friends should try carry 120mm mortar system including rounds even just 5km see how you get on lol. If you take the 2B11 sani it's around 200kg  without transport mount which works out about 40 kg  each although the mortar doesn't come apartt like the barrel and base plate being the heaviest parts then you have to carry your own rifle and ammo for it, and any personal kit, water/food, spare radio batteries and some poor guy/guys will also have to carry at least 1 or 2, 20 litre jerry can of water as well. Then you still have to add 120mm ammo good luck lol. "The 2B11 weighs nearly 500 lb when fully assembled, and thus must be mounted to the 2x1 wheeled chassis 2L81 and towed to the emplacement site by the truck. The GAZ-66 prime mover also transports the ammo load: 24 70-lb crates of 120mm HE mortar bombs, 2 bombs per crate, for a total of 48 available rounds."
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17690
    Points : 18286
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  GarryB on Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:37 am

    The ammo for the MT-12 is one piece, just like the 100mm rifled ammo for the T-54/55 so it would be interesting for them to adapt the autoloader of the T-72 to this round to unify their 100mm guns to this calibre.

    They would remove the older calibre from their inventory and enjoy the benefits of a smooth bore calibre... ie higher muzzle velocity, easier maintenance, lighter gun, etc etc.

    They have HEAT, HE, and APFSDS rounds so they would not lose any performance in that regard... and of course it has its own ATGM with a 5km range.

    For fixed positions the MT-12 is a potent but small weapon... its muzzle velocity is so high that its elevation is limited from +7 to minus 6 degrees and its traverse is about 55 degrees.

    In comparison the Sprut can elevate to 25 degrees and depress to minus 6 degrees, while traverse is 360 degrees...


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1989
    Points : 2014
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  eehnie on Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:57 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    d_taddei2 wrote:
    eehnie wrote:The main reason for the retirement of more weapons from the Russian Armed Forces would be the exhaustion by use. In this case, exhaustion by need to help to Syria with more weapons.

    By the begin of 2018 the ISIS can be defeated, but it means not the end of the war, it means only the begin of a new phase of the war which intensity we do not know still.

    The destruction in previous phases of the war of thousands of units of heavy military warfare makes possible the need of thousands of units of heavy combat material in the future too, and at this point the T-64 and the (M)T-12 would be first in line for the help from Russia, assuming the movement of older and weaker weapons to Syria can be finnished by the begin of 2018, crating a reserve of material inside the own territory of Syria. While to cover the needs of SA, SS, Infantry and engineering heavy combat material will be more difficult after the exhaustion of the oldest material, the needs on tanks and artillery will be covered easily, thanks to bigger reserves.

    To be fair, I consider the (M)T-12 more obsolete than the T-64, the MiG-21 or the BTR-60 as military concept (heavy towed weapon that requires a tractor auxiliary vehicle, low range that makes this weapon only can work inside the range of the man-portable weapons of the adversary increasing the risks for the crews, and low caliber in relative terms that makes the weapon less powerful and effective than others).

    In fact with the likely apparition of rocket assisted projectile ammunitions for 125mm weapons and longer range weapons for the TOS-1, the (M)T-12 would be the alone weapon in the Russian Armed Forces that only can work inside the range of the man-portable weapons of the adversary (in this case the application of rocket assited projectile technologies for its caliber would not be enough to allow to this weapon to outrange man-portable weapons).

    There is a number of fair reasons that put the (M)T-12 first in line to exit as military help with the T-64. Even, it would not be a surprise if the (M)T-12 goes to Syria before than the T-64 after the application of the State Armament Program 2018-2025. The (M)T-12 is still a good weapon for the standards of the Syrian civil war.

    Although some armed forces now only use it as a form of indirect artillery using HE frag rounds which have a 8km range which is better than any man portable system and then there's the kastet/bastion its guided and has 5km range which is on par with some ATGW although most don't have such range.

    One other useful weapon sitting in reserve is the M -46 130mm gun good range and explosive power. I always thought that it was a better idea to have the M-46 mounted on the MT-LB than the D-30 122mm gun better range and explosive power but on the downside it's heavier gun, bigger ammo, and I read that it struggled to fire much above 45° and a single propelling charge but still a good gun.

    Man-portable weapons include man-portable mortars that reach a caliber of 120mm that have available rocket assisted projectile ammunition reaching 16-17 Km of range.

    For a heavy weapon is important to have some role that can be solved from outside the entire mix of man-portable weapons of the adversary in order to have a future, because it means to outrange the entire mix of weapons of the infantry units, allowing the heavy weapons to work from safe positions against them. In the case of the artillery pieces its role is clear, to fire to the adversaryat distance, then to be outranged by man-portable weapons is a serious handicap for them.

    The reality of the decommission of weapons by help to allies is more in relative terms than in absolute terms. Is more about better/worse than about good/bad weapons. Despite the T-64 is totally decommissioned today, I tend to consider the T-64 stronger than the (M)T-12, in mobility, in power, even in range with the likely apparition of rocket assisted projectile ammunition for 125mm, then it is likely that Russia allows the exit of the (M)T-12 to Syria before.

    You clearly haven't served in the military man portable 120mm mortar system your dreaming. 82mm mortar system yes is man portable. But even then not great distances. Even 50 cal. Teams when I was in would only go short distances. I think you and a few friends should try carry 120mm mortar system including rounds even just 5km see how you get on lol. If you take the 2B11 sani it's around 200kg  without transport mount which works out about 40 kg  each although the mortar doesn't come apartt like the barrel and base plate being the heaviest parts then you have to carry your own rifle and ammo for it, and any personal kit, water/food, spare radio batteries and some poor guy/guys will also have to carry at least 1 or 2, 20 litre jerry can of water   as well. Then you still have to add 120mm ammo good luck lol. "The 2B11 weighs nearly 500 lb when fully assembled, and thus must be mounted to the 2x1 wheeled chassis 2L81 and towed to the emplacement site by the truck. The GAZ-66 prime mover also transports the ammo load: 24 70-lb crates of 120mm HE mortar bombs, 2 bombs per crate, for a total of 48 available rounds."

    We, in the Basque country know what a Kg means, and what a man can up or can not. 329 Kg is the world record since 2001.



    Only with one hand the record is 267 Kg, done like you can see in this video for 238 Kg (this second man is able to up 308 Kg).



    157 Kg is the world record for women since 2015.



    Im sure the woman is able to beat to many UK soldiers  affraidaffraid NATO standards, you knoe  affraidaffraid, but not to me Twisted EvilTwisted Evil . Im able to up a 2B11 120mm mortar alone to a car or truck, also to down it later.Twisted EvilTwisted Evil

    Well, take this as some curious data, because would be a little off topic to discuss about how many time or distance a man-portable weapon must be carried and by who. It really matters not.


    Last edited by eehnie on Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17690
    Points : 18286
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:36 am

    The only reason they can pick up such weights is because they are told there is beer inside...

    Seriously though many man portable items are in reality vehicle delivered and vehicle mobile only.

    Even if you could carry it a very short distance it only becomes useful if you can move fast and across all types of terrain.


    _________________
    “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

    Austin

    Posts : 6653
    Points : 7052
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  Austin on Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:28 am

    Yuri Borisov, Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation [ https://vpk-news.ru/articles/39639 ]

    - You probably already look into tomorrow and plan for GPV-2025. What will it be like?

    - The GPU determines the appearance of the RF Armed Forces, which is adequate to the conflicts that may threaten our country. This is the main document on the basis of which the army and the navy are developing, and for quite a long period. Ensuring the security of the state depends on effective implementation of the SAP.

    Of course, the world is changing and the nature of conflicts too. In addition, there are periodic revolutionary moments in the creation of technology. Say, fifth-generation combat aircraft systems, new tank platforms come. These processes are inevitable, and we must not only track them, but also timely respond to challenges in order to be competitive with the best armies in the world.
    What are the features of GPV-2025? To ensure the given dynamics of the RF Armed Forces transformation, the continuity of the measures is necessary first of all. What we planned and implement today, should smoothly move into future weapons programs and be implemented.

    Of course, priorities are changing, but they are basically the same in the existing LG and GPV-2025. The development of strategic nuclear forces (SNF) as the main deterrent of possible aggression against Russia is paramount. We, of course, pay special attention to this direction. Our nuclear missile shield should be reliable, so that no one even had an idea to try us for strength.
    The very nature of the fighting is changing, as was shown by the Syrian conflict, the local wars of recent decades. An increasingly important role is played by precision weapons. Therefore, our second priority is to expand the range of such weapons.

    The third priority is reconnaissance and information support of combat operations. And this is a space grouping, navigation, unmanned vehicles.

    Undoubtedly, robotics will gain new development, as the general tendency is to conduct combat operations without human participation. And although it is still far from high-intellectual systems, robots are already a norm of life.

    I think that the future program period will be characterized by the introduction of fundamentally new types and systems of weapons. The reserves received in this direction by the leading enterprises of the defense industry allow us to expect that by 2025-2026 absolutely new types of weapons will appear that will make serious changes in the strategy and tactics of armed struggle.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1989
    Points : 2014
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  eehnie on Wed Nov 01, 2017 6:56 am

    ESTIMATION OF NEEDS OF PROCUREMENT IN RELATION WITH THE NEW 2018-2027 STATE ARMAMENT PROGRAM.

    First, to note that at this point Russia keeps the best of the Sovietic arsenals improved with the time. The reductions by destruction and scrapping affected logically to the oldest, less modern and less capable material. Coming from a process of reduction, Russia had the time and the option of addapting the size of its current armed forces to the current needs, while keeping its active forces and its reserve in a level of saturation with material modern enough.

    Second, to say that in overall terms I do not expect changes in the size of Russian active forces. It is the logical situation after a process of reduction of equipment since the time of the Soviet Union. In the refered to the Russian Navy, I think the trend will be to have the ships under 40 years old in active service, the ships between 40 and 50 years old in the reserve to cover non habitual operations, and decommissions of the ships older than 50 years old.  

    And third, to note that the production of armoured tractor elements for land warfare explained in the point 6 of the comment opening the topic would be more in the side of the production of components, not complete armament. It would not be in the subject of this comment, but it would have an impact in the procurement of land based Surface-Surface heavy weapons and of land auxiliary vehicles allowing to upgrade of the current weapons to modern standards and to a good number of replacement of auxiliary vehicles without new procurement.

    Looking forward, is not easy to do a calculus, in fact, it is very difficult. Despite it, this would be my estimation of needs of armament in order to keep stable the current size of the Russian Armed Forces under the next 2018-2025 State Armament Program.

    To note that needs related with lack of saturation of the planned active force and reserve would be problems more urgent than the needs related to the improvement of production capabilities, but Russia reachs saturation in all the areas as commented.

    1st LEVEL NEEDS: BASIC NEEDS RELATED TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF PRODUCTION CAPABILITIES. ALLOW DECOMMISSIONS IN THE SAME MINIMAL AMOUNTS.

    First unit of new heavy combat armament in production by the begin of 2018 covering 1st level needs including all the branches:

    Warships: First unit (Project 23560, Project 22350, Project 22160, Project 20386, Project 22800)
    Submarines: First unit (Project 09851)
    Amphibious: First unit (Project 11711)
    Missile Boats: First unit (Project 12300)


    First unit of new heavy auxiliary material in production by the begin of 2018 covering 1st level needs including all the branches:

    Auxiliary ships: First unit (Project 03182, Project 23120, Project 23470, Project 23131, Project 16450, Project 23550)
    Auxiliary air vehicles: First unit (Mi-38, Yak-152)


    First unit of new heavy combat armament including all the branches:

    Surface-Surface Not mobile: First unit (SS-30 RS-28)
    Warships: First unit (Project 23000 multirole Aircraft Carrier)
    Surface-Air: First unit (SA-?? A-235, SA-?? S-500, SA-?? S-350 Armata, SA-?? S-350 Kurganets, SA-?? S-350 Bumerang, SA-?? S-350 BMD-4(M), SA-?? Pantsir Armata, SA-?? Pantsir Kurganets, SA-?? Pantsir Bumerang, SA-?? Pantsir BMD-4(M), SA-?? 57mm BMPT Armata, SA-?? 57mm BMPT Kurganets, SA-?? 57mm BMPT Bumerang, SA-?? 57mm BMPT BMD-4(M), SA-?? Sosna Armata, SA-?? Sosna Kurganets, SA-?? Sosna Bumerang, SA-?? Sosna BMD-4(M))
    Surface-Surface: First unit (TOS BM2 Armata, TOS Kurganets, TOS Bumerang, TOS BMD-4(M))
    Artillery: First unit (2S?? Armata 240mm direct+indirect, 2S?? Armata 203mm long range direct, 2S?? Armata 203mm direct+indirect, 2S?? Armata 152mm direct+indirect, 2S?? Kurganets 152mm direct+indirect, 2S?? Kurganets 152mm antitank, 2S?? Kurganets 125mm antitank, 2S?? Bumerang 152mm direct+indirect, 2S?? Bumerang 152mm antitank, 2S?? Bumerang 125mm antitank, 2S42 120mm Lotos)
    Tanks: First unit (T-14 152mm)
    Infantry: First unit (BMO-2 Armata)
    Combat Engineering: First unit (Engineering Armata, Engineering Kurganets, Engineering Bumerang, Engineering BMD-4(M))
    Strategic Bombers: First unit (Tu-PAK-DA)
    Fighter Interceptors: First unit (Mig-41)
    Fighter Ground Attack: First unit (Su-?? 5G platform)

    First unit of new heavy auxiliary material including all the branches:

    Auxiliary air vehicles: First unit (Su-Superjet, Ka-60/62, Tu-330 or Il-276 40, Mi-46/AHL or Ka-102, Il-106 or Il-PTS 80, Tu-230 or Il-276, Il-PTS 160, Il-90 or Frigate Ecojet, Il-276 60, Tu-304 or CRAIC CR929, Ka-40 Minoga or Ka-92, New successor of the Mi-26/27, MS-21/Yak-242)

    The 1st level needs are needs of strategic importance to improve the capabilities of production of the Russian Armed Forces. Some can have an exigent timeline until the end of 2025, but are affordable in overall terms, and as consequence are very unlikely to be affected by cuts or delays.

    2nd LEVEL NEEDS: NEEDS OF ARMAMENT TO COVER THE REPLACEMENT OF THE LESS MODERN ARMAMENT IN ACTIVE SERVICE. ALLOW DECOMMISSIONS IN THE SAME AMOUNTS.

    Heavy combat armament including all the branches:

    Infantry: Intense production (BMO-2 Armata, T-15, B-10 Kurganets, B-11 Kurganets, K-16 Bumerang, K-17 Bumerang, Typhoon-U 6x6, Typhoon-K 6x6, BMO-T, BMP-3, BMD-4(M), BTR-MDM BMD-4(M))

    Heavy auxiliary material including all the branches:

    No 2nd level needs. Post-Sovietic reduction unfinished on air and sea heavy auxiliary material.

    There are not more 2nd level needs. For the rest of the areas, there is enough material more modern in the reserve to cover the replacement of the less modern material in active service.

    Additional production of modern armament and heavy auxiliary equipment is likely. In some cases there is material in production by the begin of 2018 (ships) listed not until now. There are also orders signed by the begin of 2018. And more orders are also possible after the begin of 2018. But this production would be less necessary. As consequence, likely will not reach big amounts. The main goal of these additional productions will be to go toward the projected level for the stable productions in the long term.


    Last edited by eehnie on Fri Apr 20, 2018 3:13 pm; edited 38 times in total
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1989
    Points : 2014
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  eehnie on Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:04 pm

    eehnie wrote:The replacement of the (M)T-12 with weapons of 125mm on the new platforms requires production of new weapons. This only will be done at the rythm of the introduction of the new platforms in the Russian units.

    The replacement of the (M)T-12 with the 2S25 would require a return to production of the weapon. There is not reserve of this weapon.

    The replacement of the (M)T-12 with the towed version of the 2S25, the Sprut-B, has a serious handicap. This is a design of the 1980s that has not been ordered until now (unlike the 2S25). It means something.

    The cheapest option, and is a likely option, is the replacement with tanks in the reserve. And this is not as rare as some people can think.

    Analyzing how will be the future units of the Russian Armed forces, it is necessary to take into account that the Armata units will not have heavy antitank weapons. Will have tanks. A 125mm weapon mounted in an armata platform is a tank. Or the same if we talk about the new 152mm tank weapon. In this case previous tank and heavy antitank weapons will be replaced all by tanks.

    In the other side, the Kurganets, Bumerang and BMD-4M units will not have tanks, all will be antitank weapons. The position of the tanks will be covered by antitank weapons of 125mm or 152mm mounted on these platforms. In this case, previous tanks and heavy antitank weapons will be replaced all by mobile antitank weapons.

    In the refered to the option of a replacement of the (M)T-12 by tanks, it is necessary to take into account that most of the (M)T-12 in active service are serving in units that today have tanks. Looking at the order of battle of the Russian units, this replacement would mean in most of the cases to go from 40 tanks + 12 (M)T-12 in these units to 52 tanks per unit plus the command tank. Russia has a reserve of tanks to do it inmediately at 0 cost (or maybe a t the cost of some repair). Even it would be positive in terms of standardization of the weapons in the units, and would improve the mobility of the units eliminating their last towed heavy weapon in many cases.

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t5271-russian-army-military-districts-units-locations-equipment-and-re-armaments

    Austin

    Posts : 6653
    Points : 7052
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  Austin on Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:36 am

    19 trillion take into service

    https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3467573


    As it became known to Kommersant, next week President Vladimir Putin will hold a series of meetings with the leadership of the Defense Ministry, government members and representatives of the military-industrial complex. It is there that the parameters of the new state armament program (GWP) for 2018-2027 should be agreed upon. According to Kommersant's information, its funding was previously announced in the amount of 19 trillion rubles, which should ensure a balanced development of all types and services in the next decade.

    Military sources "Kommersant" note that the main difference between the new GPV and its predecessor should be the allocation of 1 trillion rubles. for the construction of separate facilities: the Ministry of Defense is motivated by the need to "synchronize the supply of weapons and the construction of facilities for their storage." However, in the financial and economic block of the government, according to Kommersant's information, they insist that the military should give an accurate account of the linkage of the construction of a separate facility to each of the types of weapons and military equipment. If the parties can resolve these issues, the total financing of the GPU until 2027 will reach 20 trillion rubles.

    In the new SAP, much attention will be paid to strategic nuclear forces: purchases of air-launched cruise missiles, submarine ballistic missiles and land-based intercontinental carriers will be conducted. Thus, in the period 2018-2027, new strategic solid fuel assemblies RS-26 Rubezh and rail Barguzin will be adopted, as well as liquid RS-28 Sarmat(carrier of hypersonic blocks - article 4202). The purchase of Su-30SM and Su-35 multifunctional fighters, as well as Su-34 front-line bombers (these all participated in the Syrian campaign) will continue in the aviation sector, the first purchase of a series of advanced Su-57 front-line aviation, 24 MiG-35 fighters, and also the strategic missile carrier Tu-160M2 will be acquired. In parallel, scientific research will be conducted on a prospective long-range aviation complex. Procurement of helicopters will be reduced ( see "Kommersant" on May 17), but in the interests of aerospace forces the serial production of the S-500 "Prometheus" anti-aircraft missile systems and Buk-M3 complexes, unmanned aerial vehicles and the new system of space optical-electronic reconnaissance "Hrazdan" will be deployed.

    In the part of the Navy, the program will be designed for the purchase of diesel-electric submarines, a new generation of Husky type nuclear missile carriers (with a new liquid intercontinental ballistic missile), as well as support ships, minesweepers, corvettes, frigates, communication vessels, experimental and research vessels . In the GPV will be present and the serial purchase of small missile ships capable of carrying cruise missiles Caliber-NK. According to Kommersant, the creation of an aircraft carrier with a nuclear power plant is also possible within the framework of the GPU, however, the decision on the expediency of its construction will be determined by the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces later. Land forces will receive new military air defense systems (including those developed within the framework of the RKD Standard), T-90 and T-14 Armata tanks, Kurganets-25 infantry armored vehicles and Boomerang armored vehicles. Emphasis will also be placed on the adaptation of armaments to the Arctic territories, in particular, the S-300V4 anti-aircraft missile system and the Tor-M2 anti-aircraft missile system. Experts also noted that the military will continue to improve the tactical control system, as well as take the sets of military equipment "Ratnik" in a configuration optimized for the requirements of the Airborne Forces.

    https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3467573

    Austin

    Posts : 6653
    Points : 7052
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  Austin on Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:35 pm

    Bondarev: agreed amount of GPU for 2018-2025 is 19 trillion rubles

    Подробнее на ТАСС:
    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4746605


    MOSCOW, November 21. / TASS /. The coordinated volume of the state program of armaments (GPV) for 2018-2025 is 19 trillion rubles. This was reported on Tuesday by the ex-commander of the Russian Air Force, the head of the Council of the Federation Council on Defense and Security Viktor Bondarev.

    "The new state armament program is almost ready, the finalization is in the final stage, I recall that for a long time the financing parameters have been the subject of heated discussion, but the agreed amount was 19 trillion. And if we take not the absolute figures but the average annual value, the current program turns out to be financially comparable with the previous one "- said the senator.

    He clarified that in some areas of work in the new GPV prolonged until 2027.

    Bondarev also said that the hypersonic "Zircon" missiles and the Skif ground-based missiles are part of the arsenal of the Russian Armed Forces.

    "To date, we have in our arsenal unique strategic bombers (Tu-160), OTRK with powerful ballistic and cruise missiles (the Iskander family), Sarmat TRC, air defense systems (S-400), intercontinental ballistic missiles, atomic missile cruisers with powerful anti-ship missiles (hypersonic "Zircon" missile), Skif bottom-based missiles, "he said.

    Sponsored content

    Re: State Armament Program 2018-2027

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:14 pm