Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+55
lyle6
zepia
Backman
lancelot
Scorpius
TMA1
PhSt
Sujoy
medo
marcellogo
ahmedfire
Vann7
Rodion_Romanovic
magnumcromagnon
dino00
LMFS
0nillie0
Big_Gazza
Isos
SeigSoloyvov
GunshipDemocracy
Tsavo Lion
Hole
Oleg.Klubkov
ZoA
JohninMK
Kimppis
T-47
PapaDragon
miketheterrible
OminousSpudd
franco
Odin of Ossetia
AlfaT8
Godric
max steel
BTRfan
sepheronx
kvs
Firebird
flamming_python
Werewolf
henriksoder
George1
GarryB
russianumber1
ali.a.r
calripson
Cyberspec
Austin
Viktor
milliirthomas
bhramos
Russian Patriot
Admin
59 posters

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5731
    Points : 5721
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  Tsavo Lion Tue Dec 29, 2020 5:49 pm

    I post links to show what is being written by different entities, not to support their biases & points of view- as a popular disclaimer states:
    ideas & opinions expressed may or may not agree with those of the author's. I'm not going to parrot others in their criticisms of those they oppose "on the geopolitical chessboard"- by presenting the full spectrum of propaganda out there, I show to be an impartial observer.
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 16597
    Points : 17102
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  George1 Sat Jan 02, 2021 1:30 pm

    The Zapad-2021 (or West-2021) Russian-Belarusian military exercise will focus on countering cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles, Russia’s Western Military District said in a statement.

    https://tass.com/defense/1241929

    GarryB likes this post

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5731
    Points : 5721
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  Tsavo Lion Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:02 am

    Interesting ideas: https://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2021-01-14/3_1124_east.html?print=Y
    franco
    franco

    Posts : 4407
    Points : 4439
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  franco Mon Feb 08, 2021 10:41 pm

    A Russian think tank review

    The ratio of the combat capabilities of the armed forces of the Russian Federation and NATO in Europe
    How much blood will NATO's defeat at the European theater of operations cost?

    https://qn7veek3vy676ftip3x3nsvd5y--russtrat-ru.translate.goog/analytics/9-fevralya-2021-0010-2930

    Cyberspec likes this post

    franco
    franco

    Posts : 4407
    Points : 4439
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  franco Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:43 pm

    Russian Defense Ministry for the first time in 30 years refused to participate in the OSCE seminar

    For the first time in 30 years, representatives of the Russian Ministry of Defense have not taken part in an OSCE seminar on military doctrines in connection with the unfriendly policies of the West. This was announced on Tuesday, February 9, by the head of the Russian delegation at the talks on military security and arms control Konstantin Gavrilov.

    “The Americans invited us, there was a request. We answered them that in connection with the current situation on the Russian borders with the conduct of exercises, flights of reconnaissance aircraft of the Russian Defense Ministry, we consider it inappropriate to participate in this seminar for the first time in 30 years, "Gavrilov said in an interview with RIA Novosti. ...

    He noted that a delegation from the Russian Federation participates in the negotiations on military security and arms control. She is expected to deliver her closing remarks with a statement on military doctrine.

    According to Gavrilov, participation in this seminar is envisaged at the level of the General Staff. “But in conditions when they interpret NATO expansion as a containment of Russia, the Ministry of Defense refused to participate in the seminar,” he added.

    The high-level seminar is traditionally organized every five years. This year it will be held on February 9-10 in remote mode. The event is being organized by the Chairperson of the OSCE Forum for Security Co-operation, currently the United States.

    On January 26, NATO Secretary General Iena Stoltenberg appealed to the members of the NATO Military Committee to support the defense potential of the alliance member states, including in connection with Russian policy.

    He advised allies in the alliance not only to increase defense spending, but also to invest in modern capabilities and ensure that the military remains ready to respond to allegedly aggressive actions from Russia, the risks of the rise of China and terrorism.

    At the end of December last year, Stoltenberg said that Russia does not pose a military threat that could threaten NATO's activities. At the same time, he noted that the Russian Federation is strengthening, allegedly "interfering in democratic processes" in the United States and France and "is behind cyber attacks" on the parliaments of Germany and Norway.

    GarryB, Big_Gazza, PapaDragon, Hole and TMA1 like this post

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3887
    Points : 3889
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  LMFS Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:48 am

    Not sure where to put this, but it has been commented a lot and is a fundamental piece of information about how Russia sees herself reacting to a potential, conventional NATO aggression. In short: beating the shit out of them before they can attack. So much for the "defensive" approach the West has mislead themselves into thinking, when reality is that Russia has no intention of taking blow after blow but to strike first if forced to. All the details here (p.29):

    The aviation battle application justification aviation to disrupt an integrated massive air strike in the enemy multisphere operation

    V.I. STUCHINSKIY, Doctor of Military sciences, Associate Professor
    MESC AF «N.E. Zhukovsky and Y.A. Gagarin Air Force Academy» (Voronezh)
    M.V. KOROLKOV, Candidate of Military sciences, Associate Professor
    MESC AF «N.E. Zhukovsky and Y.A. Gagarin Air Force Academy» (Voronezh)

    The article substantiates the need for complex aviation destruction of critical objects in the
    operational depth in order to disrupt the initial stage of an integrated massive air strike planned to be
    carried out within the framework of the enemy's «multi-sphere operation». A possible space-time
    construction of an integrated massive air strike is presented.
    Keywords: multi-sphere operation, integrated massive air strike, operational and tactical aviation,
    reconnaissance-strike system.

    https://vva.mil.ru/upload/site21/Ndz0E2BEpk.pdf

    GarryB likes this post

    franco
    franco

    Posts : 4407
    Points : 4439
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  franco Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:57 pm

    Faster on land than at sea

    Foreign concepts of our army will not be useful. Ground operations are the only way to achieve success in a theater of war.

    Some fascination with the entire world by the military successes of the United States led to the fact that the American concept of domination of the fleet and aviation over the ground forces began to be borrowed even by those for whom it categorically did not fit.

    The US ground forces are completely redundant from the point of view of ensuring the protection of the country. This protection, due to its geographic location, is provided by the Navy and Air Force. The Americans need ground forces exclusively for external interventions.

    In Russia, the situation is completely different. It is a continental country with the world's longest land borders, most of which are not protected by natural geographic boundaries. There can be no question of defending the country with a fleet. Strategic Missile Forces, Air Force and Air Defense are necessary, but, as the experience of Syria and Karabakh has once again confirmed, wars are won on the ground.

    The rearmament of the RF Armed Forces, which began at the end of the 2000s, saved them from collapse, and this applies to each type of the Armed Forces separately. At the same time, a brief description of this rearmament is most relevant to the ground forces: good, but not enough.

    The Navy ( "Where Are the Andreevskie Flags Going" , "NVO" of 07/31/2020) is rearming even faster than one might expect, while remaining a "luxury item". A lot of new aviation and anti-aircraft missile equipment entered the Aerospace Forces, which, alas, did not completely eliminate the "holes" in the air defense in the eastern part of the country. Although aviation can largely compensate for the lack of vehicles with high strategic mobility.

    Uneven army

    The unevenness of the rearmament of the ground forces in the territorial aspect is striking. If we use a five-point scale, ZVO ( "How to contain a soap bubble" , "NVO" from 09/11/2020) and YuVO ( "Is another war between Russia and Turkey possible" , "NVO" from 09/25/2020) are now equipped with a solid four. They confidently neutralize the armies of Georgia and Ukraine and provide security from the NATO bubble that sparkles rosy on the western borders. Is that Ankara's ambitions create certain problems.

    TsVO and VVO, together occupying more than 80% of the territory of Russia, alas, do not even pull a two. In the Central Military District ( "Short Blanket of the Central District" , "NVO" dated 10/30/2020), the update affected almost exclusively the Volga-Ural part, directly adjacent to the Western Military District and the Southern Military District. In the formations and units of the Air Defense Forces ( "Is the Eastern District Ready to Fight to Death" , "NVO" dated 17.12.20), only individual "injections" of new weapons were carried out, which practically does not change the overall picture: the district remains a "museum of antiques" (BMP-1, ATGM "Konkurs", ZSU "Shilka", etc.). This, to put it mildly, is strange, given that the Air Defense Forces is entrusted with the task of containing the world's strongest army - the PLA, which is rearming much faster than the Russian army.

    Thus, in a relatively small European part of the country there is a significant number of well-equipped units and formations of ground forces. And the developed transport network of the region allows relatively fast maneuvering of forces. In the gigantic eastern part of the country, we see a small number of not too well-equipped units and formations with an extremely poorly developed transport network. Therefore, it can be said that the program of rearmament of the RF Armed Forces has not even reached the middle, and in the future, priority attention should be paid to the ground forces.

    Tanks, infantry, artillery fire

    The wars in the Donbass, the Caucasus and the Middle East show that in a classic war the sides suffer huge losses in armored vehicles: they are very large in tanks, in infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers are simply catastrophic ( "Infantry does not walk" , "NVO" dated 23.10.20). But there is no replacement for armored vehicles and is not expected. There is only one way out: strengthening the active and passive protection of tanks ( "Premature rejection of armor" , "NVO" dated 02.21.20) and the creation of an infantry fighting vehicle based on the tank ( "Queen of the fields in the XXI century" , "NVO" dated 04/12/19).

    This is what the Armata project is aimed at. It involves the creation of a family of combat vehicles, the main of which are the T-14 tank and the T-15 BMP. This is a fundamental step in our military history: not only the creation of a new generation of armored vehicles (where we were almost always catching up), but also a new, unconventional approach to preserving the lives of servicemen.

    At the same time, as the experience of the aforementioned wars shows, quantity is no less important than quality. There should be a lot of equipment, otherwise its acquisition is pointless both in military and economic terms. The current European practice of purchasing new equipment in microscopic quantities is a senseless waste of money. You have to either buy a lot or not buy anything. For the ground forces, several thousand T-14 and T-15 must be purchased. In this regard, the question arises about the expediency of purchasing BMP "Kurganets" and armored personnel carriers "Boomerang". They may be good cars, but they are built on traditional concepts that ultimately lead to huge losses. Isn't it easier to abandon them, transferring all forces and resources to the "Armata"? This applies even more to the Terminator BMPT:Isn't it easier to use the same T-15 with a universal combat module? Perhaps the Russian Guard needs Boomerang, but this is a different department and a different way of posing the question.

    The experience of recent wars also shows that artillery ( "The God of War is still in favor" , "NVO" dated 01.18.19) has by no means lost its traditional role. At the same time, rocket artillery becomes more important than cannon artillery, since it provides a much greater damaging effect ( "Keeping the divine status" , "NVO" from 20.11.20). Russia has a unique weapon - the flamethrower MLRS TOS-1, which in its damaging properties is not inferior to a low-power nuclear charge, only without harmful side effects (penetrating radiation and radioactive contamination).

    Rockets supplement the artillery. First, it is the Iskander OTRK ( Strategic Weapon of the Poor , NVO dated 17.08.18), a kind of aviation substitute capable of effectively hitting priority targets. However, with very high performance characteristics, Iskander also has a very high price, so its goals should really be a priority. The main part of the army missiles are ATGMs ( "There will be nothing to fight with Chinese tanks" , "NVO" dated 12.21.18). They are orders of magnitude cheaper than the Iskander. As the current local wars show, ATGMs (primarily of Soviet and Russian production) are consumed in battle in gigantic quantities and sometimes almost for individual soldiers.

    With ATGMs, no one removed their initial task - the fight against armored vehicles, primarily with tanks. Our army also needs them to solve this problem, this especially applies to the Central Military District and the Air Defense Forces. But now ATGMs are becoming a universal weapon, so ATGMs should already be not only with cumulative, but also with other types of warheads. Their range can vary a lot, sometimes making ATGMs almost tactical missiles. Examples of such a missile are the Israeli "Spike-NLOS", Japanese Ture 96 and MMRM. Our analogue of these systems should be "Hermes", but it somehow takes too long to be adopted into service.

    However, the actual aviation of the army is also needed. It was taken away from the ground forces at the beginning of the 21st century, which was categorically wrong ( "Diversity is better than deficit" , "NVO" dated 13.03.20). True, in the composition of the current districts, this problem is being solved. But the problem of the lack of combat vehicles is not being solved in the same Central Military District and the Air Defense Forces.

    The problem of fighting enemy aircraft is even more urgent. With regard to modern warfare, we can say that there is never too much air defense. On the other hand, all the leading armies of the world have long been accustomed to fighting such opponents who have no aviation. But these times are a thing of the past. Now even partisan formations will have unmanned aircraft. Moreover, even partisans can have both handicraft and conventional factory-made UAVs. In the first half of 2020, we could observe downright epic battles between the Russian-made Pantsir air defense missile system of the Syrian Armed Forces and the UAE against the Turkish combat drones Anka and Bayraktar in Syria and Libya. By and large, the battle did not reveal a clear winner. But in the second half of the year, the Bayraktars, as well as the Israeli Harop, staged a real massacre of the Armenian troops, including the air defense ("Armenia - Azerbaijan: 26 years later ” ,“ NVO ”dated 27.11.20).

    For several years now, the air defense of Russian bases in Syria has, as it were, successfully repelled regular attacks from UAVs organized by the same Turkey. The words "as it were" are added here because the price of the Thor air defense missile system and the Pantsir air defense missile system is quite comparable (if not even higher) with the price of the drones they hit. Now there seems to be a variant of the "Pantsir" with small and cheap missiles, designed just for the destruction of UAVs. True, until now, "Pantsiri" are supplied to the air defense missile systems of the Aerospace Forces as an "attachment" to the S-400 ( "Troops of Peaceful Skies" , "NVO" from 11/23/18), although the means of countering UAVs are much more relevant specifically for military air defense ... Perhaps the salvation here will be the ZSU "Derivation". Or Tor-M2.

    Battle robots

    Unmanned ground systems (robots) are not developing as fast as their "flying counterparts", that is, UAVs. But here, too, the trend is obvious: machines will increasingly replace people on the battlefield.

    Currently, the main spheres of action of robots are various types of reconnaissance, fighting fires, mines and explosive devices, transporting people and goods. The development of combat robots is still somewhat behind the development of auxiliary vehicles. Already created combat robots are used to solve relatively simple tasks (primarily for the protection of stationary objects). As in the case of UAVs, for combat ground robots, the problem of ensuring a completely reliable connection with the operator or having an autonomous action program that guarantees that the robot does not get out of control has not been solved. Moreover, it is more difficult to remotely control a ground robot than an UAV (due to the presence of terrain folds and a much shorter line-of-sight range). From an economic point of view, ground robots are significantly less profitable than UAVs:they are much fewer times cheaper than classical ground combat equipment than UAVs - cheaper than an aircraft or a helicopter.

    Attempts to create remotely controlled combat vehicles in a number of countries (including the USSR) were carried out in the pre-war period, but did not bring real success. This process resumed in the 1960s. In the army, robots appeared only in the XXI century, and the volume of their deliveries is several orders of magnitude lower than the volume of deliveries of UAVs.

    At present, Russia has developed medium-sized universal robots MRK-27, Soratnik, Platform-M, capable of carrying various weapons. Nerekhta and Uran-9 are heavier machines for the same purpose. The reconnaissance and engineering vehicles include "Kursant", "Varan", RTK-05, "Tornado", "Vepr", "Grasshopper", "Mongoose". "Uranus" were tested during the fighting in Syria. The Lynx is being developed according to the concept of a biomorphic robot. Attempts are being made to create a tank-robot based on the T-72, T-90 and "Armata". So far, however, all of these machines remain experimental. But at least our lag in ground-based robots is not as strong as in drones.

    Communication, electronic warfare and other

    Finally, the role of communications, electronic warfare, intelligence and command and control is extremely important today. Russia is now rapidly making up for its lag in these areas from the United States, Israel, and partly from China (including in drones). However, much remains to be done. In particular, it is necessary to combine all ACS of the Armed Forces and combat arms into a single system, as well as the creation of shock UAVs. On the other hand, it is the electronic warfare that best of all ensures the fight against enemy UAVs.

    Strengthening the defense of the eastern part of the country requires a complete re-equipment of existing formations and the formation of a number of new ones. Apparently, the concept of storage and repair bases for weapons and equipment (bhirvt), which has been preserved from Soviet times, most of which is located in the Air Defense Forces, requires a complete revision. They are usually equipped with extremely outdated technology and are located very close to the Chinese border. In the event of a real war, they will not become the basis for the formation of new units at the expense of the mobilized contingent, but simply go to the Chinese. The current bhirvt, of course, should be abolished, and the equipment from them should be distributed to the allies (first of all, to the Syrians). New bhirvt must be created in the rear and equipped with modern technology.

    The most important thing is to never forget that for continental Russia, ground forces will forever remain the main guarantor of its security. No scientific and technical revolutions will cancel this fact.

    About the author: Alexander Anatolyevich Khramchikhin is an independent military expert.

    GarryB likes this post

    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 2085
    Points : 2080
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  AlfaT8 Sat Feb 27, 2021 3:31 pm

    franco wrote:Faster on land than at sea

    Foreign concepts of our army will not be useful. Ground operations are the only way to achieve success in a theater of war.

    No link?
    franco
    franco

    Posts : 4407
    Points : 4439
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  franco Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:25 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    franco wrote:Faster on land than at sea

    Foreign concepts of our army will not be useful. Ground operations are the only way to achieve success in a theater of war.

    No link?

    https://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2021-02-25/3_1130_concept.html
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 6129
    Points : 6105
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  miketheterrible Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:52 pm

    and are located very close to the Chinese border. In the event of a real war, they will not become the basis for the formation of new units at the expense of the mobilized contingent, but simply go to the Chinese.

    Why so all these retarded military specialists always think China is going to invade and take Russian land?

    Last time they tried, they got their asses kicked.  And China then had numerical superiority.  Technologically, China is still behind in all fields besides navy.  China's main foe is India and USA.

    Hell, by the time Chinese forces would be able to reach the border to capture these "bases" as the specialist says, Russian missiles would be flying at the Chinese formations and the airborne troops along with the AF would be dropping in behind their forces.  Not to mention Russia missiles would be heading to the Chinese military bases as well.

    Do these people think that playing games like civ or age of empires somehow make them think how smart they are?

    When many of those facilities in Russia were built, they were build in Soviet times when Russia already had a war with China. You think they didn't think things through when building them? Plus, how is the terrain in the area and exactly how far from the border?

    Russia would see the emassing of forces at its border rather easily and early, and would counter with a buildup of their own.

    Jesus Christ.

    Hole likes this post

    Scorpius
    Scorpius

    Posts : 337
    Points : 339
    Join date : 2020-11-06
    Age : 33

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  Scorpius Sat Feb 27, 2021 6:42 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:

    Why so all these retarded military specialists always think China is going to invade and take Russian land?

    Because that's what they're paid to do. In fact, China's invasion of Russia - from a strategic point of view-is a shot in the foot. China is losing its most significant ally against the United States, losing access to huge amounts of resources, which it now freely buys for a small price. I'm not even saying that China will simply cease to exist under the attacks of nuclear missiles - just imagine that this factor does not exist.
    PhSt
    PhSt

    Posts : 540
    Points : 546
    Join date : 2019-04-02

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  PhSt Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:14 pm

    Why so all these retarded military specialists always think China is going to invade and take Russian land?

    If I may add, it looks like a lot of the Chinese population are moving out of northern China to migrate to Southern China where the climate is warmer and suitable for habitation. So all this talk of the Chinese wanting to takeover Siberia is a big piece of NATzO Bullocks Rolling Eyes

    GarryB, magnumcromagnon, PapaDragon, miketheterrible and lancelot like this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7875
    Points : 7859
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  Isos Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:25 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:
    and are located very close to the Chinese border. In the event of a real war, they will not become the basis for the formation of new units at the expense of the mobilized contingent, but simply go to the Chinese.

    Why so all these retarded military specialists always think China is going to invade and take Russian land?

    Last time they tried, they got their asses kicked.  And China then had numerical superiority.  Technologically, China is still behind in all fields besides navy.  China's main foe is India and USA.

    Hell, by the time Chinese forces would be able to reach the border to capture these "bases" as the specialist says, Russian missiles would be flying at the Chinese formations and the airborne troops along with the AF would be dropping in behind their forces.  Not to mention Russia missiles would be heading to the Chinese military bases as well.

    Do these people think that playing games like civ or age of empires somehow make them think how smart they are?

    When many of those facilities in Russia were built, they were build in Soviet times when Russia already had a war with China.  You think they didn't think things through when building them?  Plus, how is the terrain in the area and exactly how far from the border?

    Russia would see the emassing of forces at its border rather easily and early, and would counter with a buildup of their own.

    Jesus Christ.

    They are stupid and biased.

    Chinese military is first facing chinese population to keep the communist party at power.

    Then they are turned toward the sea to keep fishing lines open because no fishing = half of the population starving and dying.

    Then they need it for securing oil supply from middle east.

    Then they need it for their maritime lines protection.

    Then they need it to face huge enemies like India (1 million soldiers at their border), US, Japan, Korea...

    Then economicaly speaking, chinese population is leaving the north for the costal areas because they live better there. No one likes the cold Siberia.

    Russia is also providing them gaz from northern Russia and oil which is critical for them. They can't afford to loose it.

    Finally Russia has 5000 nuks.

    miketheterrible likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30610
    Points : 31140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  GarryB Sun Feb 28, 2021 7:31 am

    There are antiques on the border because China is not the main threat that is moving its forces to Russian borders and talking about Russian aggression and such bullshit.

    China is also not inventing stories and imposing economic sanctions and penalties on Russia to damage relations.


    They are getting things just right in my opinion though it will be nice when they can retire their older systems and maybe pass them on to allies to continue the good fight of destroying western terrorist proxy forces.

    miketheterrible likes this post

    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 4516
    Points : 4508
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 45
    Location : Merkelland

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  Hole Tue Mar 02, 2021 8:37 pm

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 000173
    Not much AD in north-western China, the regions from where the "great attack on Russias weak central military district" will start, according to some morons.

    GarryB likes this post

    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 6129
    Points : 6105
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  miketheterrible Tue Mar 02, 2021 8:52 pm

    Yes, much like China's rather depopulated north, so is their military buildup.

    Does throw a wrench in the narrative of pro US Russian "experts" that's posted here.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30610
    Points : 31140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  GarryB Wed Mar 03, 2021 7:05 am

    Clearly the plan is to sow doubt and mistrust because if you can get one or the other to move forces and strengthen an area then the other side can jump up and down at the escalation and mirror that movement... both sides will see the increase in forces as suggesting some sinister motive... the Americans are trying to get India into their Anti China club because they need the numbers... if they can get some hostility between China and Russia... well that would be their biggest wet dream... that and Siberian separatism...

    The simple facts are that there are always problems over the exact path of borders.... especially borders based on rivers because you can change the path of a river...

    The Chinese have been good neighbours... excellent if you compare them with other neighbours Russia has... most of the Chinese citizens we have here are excellent citizens that do see China as the home country like white people here of British ancestry see Britain as the home country, but neither of us is going to want to become anything other than what we are... New Zealand citizens... we don't even want to be part of Australia.

    Countries should not fear their Chinese citizens any more than they should fear their european ones.

    The EU and HATO are proving to be much more hostile to Russia and Russian interests than China ever has... they are not really best buddies but there is mutual respect there... which there is none with the west for either country.

    Hole likes this post

    franco
    franco

    Posts : 4407
    Points : 4439
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  franco Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:54 pm

    Does Russia need a strong fleet?

    Historically, of all combat arms in VO, the fleet receives the greatest information support, thanks to the efforts of authors such as Alexander Timokhin and Maxim Klimov.

    Full article: https://topwar.ru/178933-chernovik-1.html
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30610
    Points : 31140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  GarryB Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:58 am

    So from what I am reading it says the Russian fleet is split into 5 pieces so any fleets they have a 1/5th of what they are funding so impossible to be effective without costing too much.

    It then says essentially navies are useless and in minutes of a conflict in the Black Sea (with a Turkey where Erdogan is overthrown) everything will be destroyed in minutes and ships will be meaningless... ignoring where these missiles come from I guess...

    It totally ignores the IADS of Russia and the fact that Turkey is partially inside the edge of that air defence network so no only does it not matter too much what sort of surface fleet Russia operates in the Black Sea, it goes on to suggest the ability of the US to base aircraft in Black Sea turncoat countries including the Ukraine rendering the Black Sea a pointless fleet in WWIII.

    But that is a given... in any WWIII scenario it is not anyones fleet that is going to matter very much... ICBMs and unlimited range cruise missiles and underwater doomsday weapons are going to be what it is all about.

    The point is that in peace time a surface fleet is going to be critical to Russian international trade and commerce capacity because the US fleet and the UK fleet and the French are certainly not going to lift a finger to help Russian vessels or vessels trading with Russia, whether they are in the right or not.

    It suggests using Tu-160s against opposing navies which is stupid because flying around the 5 fleet areas looking for ship targets is a stupid waste of aircraft that should be loading up nuclear armed cruise missiles and on alert to fly to launch positions to attack HATO and the US... not piss around looking for ships to sink.

    It talks about the 300km range to Turkey across the Black Sea, but does not mention the difference in air defence capacity and the fact that now the INF treaty is gone shore based Iskanders and ground launched Onyx and later Zircon missiles could obliterate all threats to Black Sea Fleet ships of the Russian Navy, which could remain in port and use their air defence systems to help protect from incoming munitions from western sources including Ukraine.

    Then the article starts talking about the Northern Fleet and the danger Norway presents, saying that a Carrier base in the Northern Fleet will be vulnerable to MLRS attack from positions in Norway... which sounds to me to be the ideal excuse to locate 400-500 tactical nuclear weapons in the region to obliterate any potential launch positions that Russian intel might manage to locate...

    But again... what influence can be expected in a WWIII conflict with HATO... an aircraft carrier is more for small conflicts and peace time... if you expect it to make any difference in WWIII then you are dreaming.

    It also mentions the Ukraine wants the US to fund development of several naval bases in the Ukraine a similar distance from Sevastopol, which makes the Black Sea a silly place to base a carrier fleet.

    The suggestion that strategic bombers converted to carry cruise missiles can some how replace carriers is the crux of the disagreement I have been having with some members on this forum.

    Russian aircraft carriers are not strike tools, the strike tools are the missiles carried in much larger numbers by the ships and submarines... the aircraft carrier is there to provide air defence support for the ships and submarines to protect them from missile attack responses.

    Talking about defending the Black Sea or Northern Fleet base has no meaning for the Navy... the Aerospace defence force is responsible for defending the airspace over Russia and will be knocking down incoming cruise missiles and weapons of other types, the Navy will be defending its base and likely launching strikes on all platforms engaged in attacking them and command and control centres of the opposing forces in reach.

    An example from the article:

    Yes, the fleet can solve certain tasks. The Northern and Pacific fleets can, in theory. In practice, we will count. But the Baltic and Black Sea, in the light of the radically changed strategy of using new types of weapons, do not pose a particular threat to the enemy.

    Well none of the fleets are meant to pose threats to enemy... they are largely defensive in nature and are more about protecting Russian access to international trade than being able to obliterate this or that country.

    It then says the potential of the navy is zero and it would be much more affordable to buy 50 Tu-160s and equip them with anti ship missiles... which is just a cop out because 50 aircraft would be much easier to ambush and shoot down than to destroy even 50 corvettes let alone bigger ships.

    It is hard to overemphasise the stupidity of building 50 Tu-160s for WWIII instead of building ships because a navy is more than fighting WWIII... what are these 50 Blackjacks going to be doing for the next 50 years of peace time... just getting older and costing money but doing nothing at all to help with Russian sea access to the worlds commercial centres.

    It is just stupid.

    That story is a 5th columnist wet dream... don't build ships... navies are for idiots who want to waste money... just ignore that the US and UK and France don't want to give up their navies and their reasons for doing so are even greater if Russia has 50 Tu-160s with hypersonic long range anti ship missiles on board... yet they see a value in a surface and subsurface fleet, but it is only stupid and expensive and already obsolete for Russia... I smell bullshit.

    It doesn't mention why, if Russia can't afford aircraft carriers or cruisers or destroyers, why they continue to upgrade cold war destroyers and cruisers and maintain the Kuznetsov and seem to want to keep them operational...

    Maybe they don't agree.

    Those 50 new Tu-160s will allow the Bears to be retired and for the Russian strategic cruise missile carrier fleet to become rather potent, but they are not going to send such expensive bombers to roam the international airspace looking for enemy ships to attack... and even if they did a US carrier group of course will not be able to shoot down those Tu-160s from 5,000km range, but they are also not going to be bothered with the 12 subsonic cruise missiles the Tu-160 can launch at their carrier group... the result is 50 Blackjacks likely split into 5 groups of ten will launch all 120 missiles from each of the 5 groups at 5 different carrier groups and I would expect most of the time those 120 missiles would be shot down... what a total waste of time and money...

    Of course if they are attacking US carrier groups WTF are they doing... they should be getting their asses back to base and loading up nuclear Kh-102s and attacking the continent of the United States of America... not pissing around with their carriers... what idiot wrote that story?

    Hole likes this post

    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 4516
    Points : 4508
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 45
    Location : Merkelland

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  Hole Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:14 pm

    What this "experts" and most western politicians don´t get, but the political and military leadership of Russia are aware of, is that you don´t count single tanks, aircraft and ships anymore, like in the 80´s, and compare them to the numbers of your opponent, but you look at the sum of all parts. In the Black Sea area Russia has a few ships and subs, but also planes, land-based missiles of all kinds and troops, including VDV units. In a war all will worke together to destroy the means of attack of a given enemy. Most likely the russian ships won´t fight other ships but attack air bases, while the air foce together with land-based missiles will destroy enemy ships and so on.

    GarryB, magnumcromagnon and miketheterrible like this post

    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7325
    Points : 7474
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  magnumcromagnon Wed Mar 10, 2021 2:38 pm

    Hole wrote:What this "experts" and most western politicians don´t get, but the political and military leadership of Russia are aware of, is that you don´t count single tanks, aircraft and ships anymore, like in the 80´s, and compare them to the numbers of your opponent, but you look at the sum of all parts. In the Black Sea area Russia has a few ships and subs, but also planes, land-based missiles of all kinds and troops, including VDV units. In a war all will worke together to destroy the means of attack of a given enemy. Most likely the russian ships won´t fight other ships but attack air bases, while the air foce together with land-based missiles will destroy enemy ships and so on.

    Western 'experts' brain cells are frozen in the WW2 era of warfare, and think capitol ships like 100k ton CVN's are the end-all-be-all, meanwhile the money and time spent to build then equip, field, train crew, service and protect a US CVN for a singular fiscal year can produce (within the same time frame) tens of thousands of cruise missile and torpedo's which would easily overwhelm and destroy a CVN group. Razz
    avatar
    calripson

    Posts : 534
    Points : 587
    Join date : 2013-10-26

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Corruption

    Post  calripson Wed Mar 10, 2021 4:50 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Hole wrote:What this "experts" and most western politicians don´t get, but the political and military leadership of Russia are aware of, is that you don´t count single tanks, aircraft and ships anymore, like in the 80´s, and compare them to the numbers of your opponent, but you look at the sum of all parts. In the Black Sea area Russia has a few ships and subs, but also planes, land-based missiles of all kinds and troops, including VDV units. In a war all will worke together to destroy the means of attack of a given enemy. Most likely the russian ships won´t fight other ships but attack air bases, while the air foce together with land-based missiles will destroy enemy ships and so on.

    Western 'experts' brain cells are frozen in the WW2 era of warfare, and think capitol ships like 100k ton CVN's are the end-all-be-all, meanwhile the money and time spent to build then equip, field, train crew, service and protect a US CVN for a singular fiscal year can produce (within the same time frame) tens of thousands of cruise missile and torpedo's which would easily overwhelm and destroy a CVN group. Razz

    They know perfectly well that carrier groups are a waste of money, but that money greases the palms of all the shipyards, defense contractors, lobbyists, and politicians.

    magnumcromagnon and Hole like this post

    lancelot
    lancelot

    Posts : 478
    Points : 480
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  lancelot Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:05 am

    GarryB wrote:...
    Those 50 new Tu-160s will allow the Bears to be retired and for the Russian strategic cruise missile carrier fleet to become rather potent, but they are not going to send such expensive bombers to roam the international airspace looking for enemy ships to attack... and even if they did a US carrier group of course will not be able to shoot down those Tu-160s from 5,000km range, but they are also not going to be bothered with the 12 subsonic cruise missiles the Tu-160 can launch at their carrier group... the result is 50 Blackjacks likely split into 5 groups of ten will launch all 120 missiles from each of the 5 groups at 5 different carrier groups and I would expect most of the time those 120 missiles would be shot down... what a total waste of time and money...
    ...

    What about the Kh-15S? That is supposedly a supersonic anti-shipping missile at Mach 5. I think each Tu-160 can carry like twelve Kh-15 missiles.
    I find it hard to believe the Russian government would fund the construction of all those new Tu-160s without having proper supersonic or hypersonic weapons for it.
    Any land attack missile can be converted into anti-shipping without much effort and vice-versa.

    Personally I think the Tu-160 is too large and expensive for most missions and Russia would be better served with a modern Tu-22M3 replacement. With the same number of engines you would have twice the aircraft and each would have about the same payload as a US B-1 bomber.

    I doubt the Tu-160s will replace all that many Tu-95s given that the performance parameters are so different. I expect the Tu-95 to be replaced eventually with the PAK DA which is another subsonic long range platform. The Tu-160 will likely replace some of the Tu-22M3s.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30610
    Points : 31140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  GarryB Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:49 am

    What about the Kh-15S? That is supposedly a supersonic anti-shipping missile at Mach 5. I think each Tu-160 can carry like twelve Kh-15 missiles.

    The AS-15 kickback is a mach 5 short range attack missile... its range is 250km which is a bit short for attacking aircraft carriers... it was intended to be used to destroy enemy air defences in real time as the Blackjack flys to its launch position. So it would have 12 Kickbacks in one weapon bay and 6 long range cruise missiles in the other and as it was flying along perhaps it detects a group of enemy fighter aircraft 400km away and closing... when it is about 200km away it launches its mach 5 missile set to detonate amongst the group of aircraft, or it detects a Patriot or THAAD battery... it would launch a missile.

    The main problem with the AS-15 was that it only came in a nuclear armed version.... no terminal guidance but the accuracy of about 300m was good enough for a relatively large nuclear explosion to deal with a group of fighters or SAM site.

    It was withdrawn from service in the late 1980s I seem to remember.

    I find it hard to believe the Russian government would fund the construction of all those new Tu-160s without having proper supersonic or hypersonic weapons for it.
    Any land attack missile can be converted into anti-shipping without much effort and vice-versa.

    Its replacement is supposed to have a mach 6 flight speed and a range of 1,500km which would make it more useful, but the problem still remains that if you at the stage of sinking US shipping including carrier groups you are probably close to a full nuclear strike on the US so why are your strategic aircraft fucking around looking for US carriers to sink or harass?

    The replacement is a defence penetration missile rather than an anti ship missile.

    The introduction of 50 new Blackjacks likely means the retirement of most Tu-95 Bear bombers, while the introduction and production of PAK DA bombers will likely see the withdrawal of the Tu-22M3s... some of those aircraft might be adapted for maritime patrol, but I suspect an Il-96M with twin engines would be more efficient and effective in such a role.

    Personally I think the Tu-160 is too large and expensive for most missions and Russia would be better served with a modern Tu-22M3 replacement. With the same number of engines you would have twice the aircraft and each would have about the same payload as a US B-1 bomber.

    The obvious problem is that the Tu-22M3 does not have the range to be a strategic bomber. We saw in Syria they had to ask for basing options in Iran to allow them to bomb targets in Syria. It is a theatre bomber and really not in the same class as the Blackjack.

    I doubt the Tu-160s will replace all that many Tu-95s given that the different in performance parameters is so different. I expect the Tu-95 to be replaced eventually with the PAK DA which is another subsonic long range platform. The Tu-160 will likely replace some of the Tu-22M3s.

    The new Blackjacks will likely replace half the Bears, but their missile only design means they can't replace Backfires in missions like Syria dropping cheap dumb bombs.

    The PAK DA will certainly replace the rest of the Bears and the Backfires and its subsonic flight speed should allow reduced operational costs.

    The real point of things is that the Russian Navy has a job to do in peace time.

    I appreciate the initial article talking about Russia primarily needing its Army first and foremost, but I don't agree that every part of Russia needs an army equipped to the same high level... it is simply not necessary. Over time backwater areas will be upgraded with new kit but the fact that they are backwater areas means they don't need the absolute best stuff anyway... and if they did the Army might be tempted to use them as a sort of mobile reserve in case of problems in other places leaving those areas actually empty in some situations.

    The border with China does not need to be the same as the border with Finland, because China is a neutral country that Russia can actually work with that listens to common sense. HATO or pre-HATO countries are like dogs with rabies, but you have to wait till they stray onto your territory or the owner (the US) will get shitty and call the cops (start WWIII).

    Investing in a Navy makes sense because it gives you a real global reach in terms of trade that the airforce and army and strategic missile forces and air defence forces cannot... well the SMFs can but it is very much glass is over flowing or glass is empty and being smashed sort of thing.

    Not having a carrier is like not having an airforce... it makes everything harder.

    To be clear a Russian carrier is not a US carrier, a Russian carrier will be focused on air defence... it essentially is not a case of them taking air force assets to sea, it is them taking the aerospace defence assets to sea for the purpose of adding to the ship based IADS to sea to further protect the ships.

    Saying a carrier is useless and makes them weaker and vulnerable... well it is like saying adding an airfield equipped with S-350 and S-400 and S-500 and TOR and Pantsir and also A-100 and Su-57 makes Russia weaker.

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3887
    Points : 3889
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  LMFS Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:02 am

    lancelot wrote:What about the Kh-15S?

    That is a weapon for the Tu-22M3, there will be much better weapons for the Tu-160. It is like half the length of the bays.

    Sponsored content

    Russia's National Defense Strategy issues - Page 14 Empty Re: Russia's National Defense Strategy issues

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:42 am