Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #10

Obviously Russia will do the work of identifying their less capable and older weapons to send them to Syria. These weapons remain useful and appreciated there, and are the cheapest option to give them something in enough amounts for the Syrian soldiers can have something to fight above man-portable weapons. And Russia will replace these less capable weapons with more units of more capable weapons that are today in the orders for procurement.

I understand what you are intending to say... that Russia has an inventory including a lot of low tech weaponry that could be passed on to partners who have greater need for it and use for it.

What I am trying to tell you is that a towed AA gun is not a towed AA gun and a light powerful highly mobile mortar is a very useful system even today.

The ZU-23 is a HMG replacement in some situations where even a 14.5mm KPV is not enough and would still be rather more useful as there is no actual replacement available right now.

In terms of the 82mm Vasilek there really is no replacement that I am aware of that could do the job for the light weight and high mobility of that system.

As I mentioned... there are two potential systems that could replace those weapons directly... a trailer mounted single gun... the twin barreled 2A38M cannon (two are fitted to the Tunguska air defence vehicle) would be an improvement in range and power over the ZU-23 yet retain the towed mobility and relatively light weight of the ZU-23.

An upgrade of the ZU-23 included fitting MANPADS missiles to the mount... the trailer with a 2A38M cannon on it could have an EO ball turret for aiming and tracking purposes and also have four 10km range high speed SOSNA-R missiles fitted to make it even more effective.

Regarding the 82mm mortar the 57mm grenade launcher seems to pack a powerful punch in a small lightweight system that can fire in a direct fire mode and indirect mode making it as useful as the 82mm Vasilek but with greater HE potential and likely better range performance.

Replacement by ZSU-23-4 and man portable 120mm mortars is missing the point of these systems.

But you are thinking of the ZU-23-2 as an air defence system with the same role as ZSU-23-4 or Tunguska... obviously it will come out badly in such a comparison...

But the cost of spending several million dollars on a Tunguska as a gate guard or as a HMG replacement in some hill outpost does not make sense.

the ZU-23-2 is just as much a devastating ground to ground weapon as it is an anti aircraft weapon.

In fact if the enemy is using drones below about 2000m then it is more practical than MANPADS... cheaper and able to hit very low RCS and low IR targets.

In terms of dealing with a vehicle base IED it has the raw HE power to smash through light armour so even a heavily armoured truck would be shredded where SVD or even PKM fire would bounce off...

Like I was trying to say the best replacement for the ZU-23-2 in Russian service would be a twin barrel 30mm cannon in the form of a single 2A38M cannon... one gun with two barrels firing at about 2,000 to 2,500rpm which would make it higher in rate of fire of the ZU-23-2 and with rather more powerful rounds that would be more effective in range and on target performance.

Notably it would be compatible with the new sensor and timed fuse 30mm ammo which would make it excellent for dealing with drones to about 3km altitude and 4km range.

A group of drones are a difficult target for a 23mm cannon because they are small and only a hit will generate a spray of fragments... rounds that miss will just continue on their flight.

In comparison a burst of timed fuse 30mm shells would result in even the rounds not making contact with the drones exploding nearby greatly increasing a chance of a hit and even a small high velocity fragment could ruin a fragile drone...

Of course the late model ZU-23-2 has MANPAD mounts too so the new 30mm weapon with 4 or 8 high velocity SOSNA-R laser beam riding missiles with a range of 10km and a time to max range of about 12 seconds would be an excellent air defence weapon.

In terms of the Vasilek, the new 57mm grenade launcher seems to have a very powerful HE round and the capacity should allow guided shells as well along with dumb direct fire munitions likely including HEAT rounds and various other options...

In terms of the artillery I think the focus should be on calibres... for instance the adoption of the Hosta and widespread adoption of the 120mm mortar, then withdrawl of the 122mm calibre artillery could remove an entire calibre from the inventory... which of course would be valuable in terms of not having to support the calibre... reducing the number of different ammo types makes a lot of sense.

Regarding your list:

Surface-Air Towed: (Gradually replaced by equivalent self propelled weapons)
ZU-23-2 23mm

I think the likely future will either be a towed trailer with a single barrel 30mm twin barrel and the SOSNA-R SAM, or possibly a single barrel 57mm cannon with a missile on a motorised trailer and an EO turret.

Artillery Towed: (Gradually replaced by equivalent self propelled weapons)
2B9 Vasilek 82mm
2A19/29 (M)T-12 100mm
2A18 D-30 122mm
2B16 Nona-K 120mm
2A36 Giatsint-B 152mm
2A65 Msta-B 152mm

First of all towed artillery does not get replaced by self propelled artillery... towed and self propelled are different tools for different roles... there has been self propelled artillery since WWII and there has been towed artillery since well before them... neither will replace the other as each has their own advantages and disadvantages and they are enough to make having both rather useful.

I would think the 120mm and 152mm weapons will be replaced by new models with new ammo and guidance systems while the 82mm might be replaced with a 57mm grenade launcher and the 100mm and 122mm will eventually become obsolete and replaced in their roles by the 120mm gun/mortars.

Surface-Air Self Propelled: (Reserves not satured)
SA-13
ZSU-23-4 23mm
SA-4 without ammunition (missiles)
SA-6
SA-8

In some areas these vehicles upgraded are still useful, but old electronics and systems will just get less economic to maintain... the vehicles can be sold for other purposes of course... the SA-13 uses the MTLB chassis which is still very useful for example.

SA-6 and SA-8 and SA-13 as well as other systems are still used as target drones for air defence units to practise.

Surface-Surface Self Propelled: (Reserves not satured)
BM-21 Grad
SS-1 Scud
SS-C-3
SS-21 Tochka
BM-27

With new ammo these are useful, but retiring them and sending them to Syria would make new production replacements easier to justify and would be rather more useful. Iskander can directly and completely replace Tochka and of course the new modular rocket system can replace Grad and Smerch and Uragan. Scud is totally obsolete, but in terms of the SS-C-3... anything you can fire at enemy ships is useful as there will be so many targets the more missiles the better... of course new missiles would be better... so use them up as targets...

Artillery Self Propelled: (Reserves satured)
2S9 120mm
2S23 120mm
2S3 152mm
2S4 240mm
2S7 203mm
2S1 122mm

The 240mm and 203mm are niche weapons used in specific roles in specific locations with specific units... small scale production of new ammo types would be useful.
120mm and 152mm are current but the vehicles above are getting obsolete so passing them on to Syria and other allies makes sense as long as they are familiar with the platforms and have ammo.

the conversion of the 2S1 to 120mm means eliminating the 122mm calibre from the inventory... which is a huge advantage in terms of logistics. In terms of loss of capability the 120mm gun/mortar can use the same guided rounds and otherwise its performance is similar so the loss in actual performance is minimal in most practical terms.

Tanks: (Reserves satured)
T-80 125mm
T-72 125mm

In the future the removal of the T-80 from the inventory will leave the T-72/90 as the main old technology tank in service with obviously the tank models of the new vehicle families.

the fact that they all will use the 125mm smoothbore and also later the 152mm smoothbore simplifies development and production of tank ammo so enormous stockpiles can be generated.

Infantry: (Reserves in the point of saturation)
BTR-60 (not sure if availabe)
BTR-70
BMP-1
BRDM-2

You mention these base vehicles but in each motor rifle division and tank division there will be dozens of different variants and versions of these types. It makes sense to replace them all at one time rather than one at a time... so the BTR-60 and BTR-70 and all their modifications can be replaced initially by BTR-82 type variants, but later Boomerang and Typhoon and Kurganets and armata based vehicles can replace them completely.

BMD-1
BTR-D
BMD-2

These vehicles may soldier on for a bit because the production run of vehicles for the VDV is not super fast it seems. Most BMD-1s and 2s should be replaced by BMD-4Ms and of course the BTR-DM should replace the BTR-D... these platforms are optimised for air dropping so will not be of much use to Russias allies.

Interceptor: (Reserves not satured)
MiG-25
MiG-31

MiG-31 is still very much a front line interceptor that wont be replaced till mid to late 2020s.

Fighters + Fighters Air Superiority: (Reserves not satured)
MiG-23
MiG-29/35

Old model MiG-29s are worn out and could be gifted to allies for parts perhaps but the MiG-35 has not even entered service yet. The 23 is obsolete... even a serious upgrade is not worth the money... the amount it would cost you would get a much better aircraft for the same money or less with a MiG-29M2.

Ground Attack: (Reserves satured)
Su-25
Su-24

The Su-24 is gradually being replaced by the Su-34 but the replacement for the Su-25 does not exist yet and it is a critical aircraft... even more so now it has decent attack helos to cooperate with.

MiG-27
Su-17/20/22

Minor upgrade and gift to Syria... Gefest & T upgrade to enable the accurate use of dumb bombs and rockets and perhaps navigation and ejection seat upgrades... perhaps an engine upgrade too to reduce costs and simplify operations.

Strategic Bombers: (Reserves not satured)
Tu-95
Tu-22

Right now the Tu-22M3 is the only actual heavy bomber they have as the Tu-95 and Tu-160 are cruise missile carriers.

Multirole: (Reserves not satured)
Su-30

Will remain in service for a decade or more.

Maritime Patrol: (To be gradually replaced as warfare concept)
Be-12
Il-38
Tu-142

The UK has been caught with its pants down without ASW aircraft... the Russians are not stupid enough to make the same mistake. UAVs are improving but wont replace MPAs any time soon. They will in fact make them much more capable but wont actually replace them.

Combat Helicopters: (To be gradually replaced as warfare concept by equivalent unmanned helicopters)
Mi-24/25/35
Mi-14
Ka-27/28/29/31/32/35
Mi-28
Ka-50/52

An unmanned helicopter would be a useless piece of crap.

the idea of unmanned is to make it expendable so you can use it in situations and places you would not want to risk a human. You wont put super sophisticated sensors and weapons on something expendable so it wont be as effective as a manned system.

Of the types mentioned above the Mi-14 will likely go back into production and the rest will continue to be useful for some time.

Just my opinion of course.