Russian Equipment

[glad rag]

One thing that is apparent is that Russia has the political will to operate alone and aggressively as it sees fit.

So how does their kit stack up? In the cold war they had us by numbers but we always seemed to be ahead both technically and in capability.

Is this really still the case? Their Rocket forces have had some serious additions recently.

Can we expect to see the same expotential technical advances both in air and ground equipment?

I understand that the numerical advantage is still there comparatively speaking [the West has decimated their armed force levels to facilitate/fund the folly of expeditionary warfare] whilst after a considerable and lengthy dip the Russians are back up and sprinting ahead in the spending stakes.

The replies to this question should be both interesting and enlightening but please remember we are ignoring ROE and we are talking 2016 AND the rather obvious fact that the F35 isn't ready and won't be going anywhere hot any time soon. :ok:

[A_Van]

The answer depends on "who are you?". US alone, NATO, UK, Al-Qaeda, etc. ....

[AtomKraft]

When I was in we always said that while the Rooskis had 'quantity', we had 'quality'.

Later on, we found their kit was quite a bit better than we had thought at the time.

Also, wasn't it Stalin who said "Quantity has a quality of its own kind".

Nowadays, some of their stuff is clearly excellent- and they tend to have plenty....

[recceguy]

Uncle Adolf thought at one moment that he could try to make war with them...

Also Napoleon by the way (at least this one slept a couple of nights in the Kremlin...)

Obwana has been reluctant to bomb them in Syria so far, but maybe the old hysteric one on pills will start it, just to prove she can do it also ("Enforcing a no-fly-zone over Syria" she said)

If you consider that an Sa-3 managed to shoot down a F-117 a couple of years ago (I saw the wreck at the Belgrade Air Museum) ... you can wonder what will happen next :
The S400 have never been tested against some so-called stealth aircraft, so who knows who will be the winner ?. It would be a HUGE embarrassment if it was not the expected side as in the usual movies where they always save the world.
Western competitors trying to sell their fighters and radars on foreign markets would like to see the result also.

[A_Van]

My two cents or two-penn'orth...

First, about "militarization" in Russia. Imagine you and your neighbour had similar Land Rovers (or Land Cruisers) in late 80's. Then in the next 20 years you were buying a new model every 5-6 years, while the next door guy had problems with money and was still operating that good old (and durable) stuff. Then finally his business improved and he could again afford for a model similar to your one. Would you blame him? Would you whistleblow to the taxmen to nail him down?

In fact, since 2009-2010 Russia is just trying to pick up to the world state-of-the-art, because absolute majority of the equipment in operation in late 2000's was manufactured in 80's and was close to the crap status. Fortunately, some research and experimentation works were continued during that 20 poor years and there were something to put into the production lines when the situation improved.

I would not elaborate on the quality, just agree with those who assume it is "not bad". As for the quantity, it is still less than in the US' possession and far less than in NATO member states altogether.

More important is that the (civilized) world changed dramatically along the dimension of human life value in the recent years. In WW2 it was acceptable to lose some 10K lives in a single big operation and millions during the whole war altogether. In 80's, even in the Soviet Union (where human life was not valued as much as in the West) it was found unacceptable to lose 15K in Afghanistan in 10 years and the troops were pulled out. US later pulled out even with losses of a few thousands (Afghanistan and Iraq) in a similar time frame. I wonder if those sh@t-heads who are seriously thinking of a big war with Russia take into account tens of millions casualties in Europe and a few mln in US?Let alone total destruction of all infrastructures followed by invasion of new barbarians from south who would quickly occupy new territories (as they do not need those infrastructures).

[MAINJAFAD]

Having worked on and operated a piece of the 'Crap' that A Van is talking about, all I can say is the Russians do have some very good design concepts as regards maintenance and logistics (i.e. multiple systems share quite a large number of common components and LRU's which include various smaller circuits which are modular in design and construction and can be changed just by releasing a clip! (no soldering required). Their equipment tends to work when its switched on and you can power it down and back up without some electronic circuit locking up and requiring a complete shut down for half an hour (which I've seen on both US and UK equipment). Build quality is generally ****e, except were it has to be good (Hitler made that mistake on judging the T-34), plus it is normally designed to operated by Conscripts and Reservists so it is quite easy to operate. Resistance to countermeasure for automatic systems fitted back then, ****e, but a full manual override on everything meant that the best computer in the world could takeover and if you could see the target you could kill it (unless of course Mr HARM / ALARM got involved).

[AreOut]

their nuclear capacity is better than NATO not only because of better rocketry but also because they have more area which would be habitable after nuclear exchange

conventionally NATO is much better especially navy is no contest

[Pontius Navigator]

their nuclear capacity is better than NATO not only because of better rocketry but also because they have more area which would be habitable after nuclear exchange

conventionally NATO is much better especially navy is no contest
Are we sure about that? Remember one of the tenets of force is concentration. Unless both sides go face to face for a slugfest the advantage likes with the one who gets the better force in place first.

It would be relatively easy to roll up national forces thus triggering Article 5, but a coup de main would be a game changer.

[Bigbux]

Quality of kit is always an interesting topic, but probably about as much use as comparing the dog-fighting abilities of a prototype F-35 with a clean F-16. Of much more interest to me would be the doctrinal and tactical developments put in place, since Russia made such a fist of invading South Ossetia, to allow them their hybrid invasion of the Ukraine. Better kit and eager adoption of new and inexpensive gear, such as RC drones (not full-blown UAVs) simply makes life easier for them.

[recceguy]

So we all disagree quite a bit. Only one way to check or confirm all those suppositions :
start a war with them (and the old lady on pills might do that, for sure)

Just a try.

[Heathrow Harry]

Understand they see Syria as a great place to bring on good, young officers and NCO's.....

[Lordflasheart]

quote - "... Syria as a great place to ..." ... test new weapons, and unload old, time-ex or illegal stock.

[Wetstart Dryrun]

I believe their nuclear missiles do not have pinpoint accuracy.

However, the emissions from a Russian nuclear warhead have unacceptable levels of CO, CO2 and NO2.

...clearly, they may not be deployed without incurring international somethingorother.

[Tinribs]

I cannot speak for their modern kit, my experience is well out of date but it may be a start

I was in a ex military Russian helicopter crash when the chopper went end over down the strip. We were trapped inside because the tail was lying across the door and we could see a small fire because the side fuel tanks were leaking onto the hot engine

On exiting via the pilots window we all gazed in wonder at the totally trashed
machine. It had remained intact with only the corners, tail, blades and nose cone missing. Parts of the frame were exposed and the structure reminded me of a bin lorry ie very large very heavy and mighty strong.

Thank you Ruskies for building choppers like the proverbial bog house, without your wisdom I and some mates would be toast

Maybe that notion of what a military aircraft ought to be continues, if so beware

[sandiego89]

Technical ability is but one part of the mix when it comes to Russian modernization- I would also cite support, training, exercises and production as an important part of the mix. I know you intensely dislike the F-35 and you cite the "folly" of expeditionary warfare, but delving into to those two areas may reveal some interesting thoughts.


Technology wise we might be seeing some impressive Russian modernization, and some legacy platforms that are quite good (su-27, Tu-160, modern subs around the corner, impressive air defense, a-to-a missiles, small arms etc.). Much of it is likely quite good, some even excellent. True transformational capabilities are often cited as technical progress on par with the west, but if resources do not allow series production and fielding to front line units it is somewhat of a hollow argument. PAK-FA perfect example. Looks great on paper and at the airshow, but fielding fully trained and supported squadrons is a whole different level. The aircraft carrier is another example, but re-hashed ski jump carriers operating a few weeks per year are not on par with US super carriers.


Support. The Russians seem far behind here when we include support ships, aircraft and logistics support. Few oilers (ships), AWACS/ELINT, and air to air tankers. Spares and support seem to be hugely lacking, and of serious concern to anyone that is tempted to buy Russian gear. The Navy has been hugely neglected.


Training/Exercises. Hours were drastically cut in all services, with pilots getting very few flight hours, ships not sailing etc. It has improved but still seems behind western standards. The quality of the training is also hugely important. Expensive Red Flag type scenarios are more valuable for war fighting.


Experience. Right or wrong, western warfighters have gotten much more recent experience on the modern battlefield.


So I return to the F-35. Yes I know horribly expensive and late, but it does have some very impressive features (some still only promised) AND it has been purchased and is being fielding in ever increasing numbers. Pilots and ground crews are getting trained as per NATO standards and they are beginning to use it in more and more complex exercises. So here we have an advanced system, with huge support and huge fielding. If war breaks out, the F-35 is better than a paper airplane.


Then if we go to your "folly" of expeditionary warfare. There is a huge doctrine difference here. The US desires to maintain the ability to fight anywhere- I won't get into the politics of that, but the US has by far the most advanced means of conducting and sustaining overseas warfare. The US has the ships, aircraft and support to mount warfare wherever desired. Russia does not. The US enjoys geographic isolation and has not had to worry as much about defense of the homeland. The US Marines have also heavily invested into the V-22 (some call that a folly as well) and the US Army has long employed maneuver warfare. Using technology to go around or beat the enemy seems to be preferred to marching into the breech. Expeditionary capability brings maneuver options and flexibility. Russia would be very hard pressed to operate overseas.


So I say great equipment is only truly great when you have the money to field it and support it with properly trained/experienced crews.

[AreOut]

that's right however if clash happens near russian borders (Ukraine, Syria, Iran etc.) logistics won't be problem for them, especially now when it seems Turkey is more on their side

[MSOCS]

AreOut, you are assuming the clash happens in and around Syria. Personally I don't think it will - a fight with NATO is the last thing Russia wants but Moscow is probably prepared to engage in a conventional skirmish in that region if provoked.

If we're talking large-scale conflict then I'd wager it is most likely to occur around the border of Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia, invoked by Article V. Also, the Kremlin narrative that NATO is "encircling Russia" are utter bolleaux....just look at a map! Putin's using that rhetoric to incite pitchforks when all NATO is actually doing is showing collective resolve to the FSU states that wanted to join the alliance of their own free will, and did. If there was a real desire for restitution, those FSU states wouldn't have joined....it's only Russia that wants them back.

We just need to work out when, where and how. Should be interesting.

[recceguy]

most likely to occur around the border of Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia, invoked by Article V
Yes, should be interesting, especially if you consider that more than 30% of residents of Latvia and Estonia are ethnic Russians, with no right to full citizenship - and transmitting that to their children, along with their enthusiasm towards NATO.
In other words, an apartheid system in Europe - but it's so much more important elsewhere to give immediate citizenship and free money to muslim sudaneses or somalians , that we can be forgiven to ignore that.
I have an Estonian friend Captain in my company, and he and his families are huge fans of Mr Putin, and - would you believe that ? - they all regret the Soviet era.

I understand that in those Baltic countries it's so tempting to move towards the side of the green banknote - but then EU and also US tell them " you must take your share of African migrants" and those people who are not idiots see what's happening now in Europe ... so maybe the war you obviously expect shouldn't happen exactly as you figure - especially the end result.
Some people a little bit too much convinced of the superiority of their forces - full of minorities including the proud and vocal sexual ones - might need a Vietnam from time to time.
I'm sure that in the 60's a lot of experts like the ones we have in this thread, were predicting victory because of the technical superiority of F4 and F105 and the associated stuff.

[Just This Once...]

Wow - a heady mix of racist leanings, factual inaccuracies and inflammatory statements. Quite some post.

[glad rag]

great post recceguy, a summation of where the Eastern European mindset is at these days?

[Pontius Navigator]

JTO, ok, a categoric assessment that recceguy' s post is blinking (if he of whom you referred). Would you like to identify such racist, inaccurate and inflammatory statements?

[A_Van]

Just This Once:
I am very reluctant to support such topics. But the "racist leanings", as you put it, should be rather addressed to the establishments of those Baltic states. They even invented a special term -"non-citizens" - for a good portion of the Russian population who do not speak their local languages (though born there and live for decades). Even some EU human rights activists defined a few tens of constraints in the local laws concerning these minorities.
Can you imagine that e.g. in Belgium the Wallons who do not speak Flemish (or vice versa) would be restricted in human rights? Or Swiss people speaking Italian in the Canton of Ticino?

Also, what factual inaccuracies are there in the post of recceguy? OK, I read about 26% of Russian in Latvia and not 30+, but is it a big difference? In some key areas the proportions differ. E.g. in Riga it's 37%. 20 years ago they were about 45%...

On the main topic now.

SanDiego89: sorry for disappointing you, but the current level of pilot training in Russian AF is really good. Logistics are also not bad. I assume your estimates are based on some 10 year old data.
You are right to a certain extent about mass productions of new models. But it will come.
However, recall the maiden flight of F-22 around 1990 with production started in 2001.

[Bigbux]

It's probably also important not to assume that Putin's desired outcomes are the same as the West's, with it's emphasis on expeditionary warfare. Russian logistics and deployability have improved vastly, but their intended persistent reach is probably not much further than the borders of the former Soviet Union. It is far safer and cheaper to engage in non-military destabilisation of the West using our own political and legal systems, not to mention cyber-warfare.

As for racism and human rights, very much a US and Western European construct grown from our own relative safety (I'm not suggesting they are not valid). I find the further East you travel, the less they resonate. Very useful for propaganda and mirroring though.

[Herod]

recceguy and A Van. References please to the non-citizenship of Russians resident in the Baltic States.

[Just This Once...]

JTO, ok, a categoric assessment that recceguy' s post is blinking (if he of whom you referred). Would you like to identify such racist, inaccurate and inflammatory statements?
I'll take it as read that you know that no country in Europe is forced to take African migrants and give them free money and immediate citizenship at the behest of the US or the EU and the inaccuracies over the percentages has already been commented upon.

Regarding the ethnic Russians in Latvia, it is true that the number of Russians living in Latvia increased massively during the Soviet occupation. Although the point at which an occupying power becomes ethnic is not known to me.

As to those that chose to remain after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact - they had the option to become naturalised citizens and nearly half took that path and became Latvian citizens. Those that did not and retained Russian (or other) citizenship were granted indefinite leave to remain.

All children born after 1991 automatically receive Latvian citizenship, even if the parents remained Russian. A rather different reality to the picture painted by recceguy.

Latvia has been criticised by some (including the US) for its handling of illegal immigrants, the majority of which come from Russia. Only relatively recently has Moscow agreed to work with Latvia to help stem the tide of illegal Russian migrants crossing the boarder.

It probably suits some to paint Russians in Latvia as suffering and trapped by circumstance under a brutal regime; but in reality quite a few Russians are trying to migrate to Latvia and away from mother Russia. Apartheid it is not.

[Pontius Navigator]

JTO, thank you, I am now better informed.

[Fonsini]

In my experience people who habitually call other people racists love every kind of diversity except intellectual diversity.

Because only their opinion is valid.

[A_Van]

Herod,


You wrote: "recceguy and A Van. References please to the non-citizenship of Russians resident in the Baltic States"


If you have problems with using search engines, here you are please (the first URL popped out after typing your words in Google):


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizens_(Latvia)


Let me draw your attention to the following excerpt:
"According to the population census, in March 2011, there were 290,660 non-citizens living in Latvia or 14.1% of Latvian residents,[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizens_(Latvia)#cite_note-9) down from approximately 715,000 in 1991.[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizens_(Latvia)#cite_note-10) According to the Population Register, in January 2011, 326,735 non-citizens resided in Latvia".

So, the solution to this problem they had chosen was very simple: let's wait until all of them just die or go out. And it works, for 25 years already.


Please also note that sites on such topics in English tend to provide a rather mild point of view.

[Herod]

The way I read it is that they have not taken out citizenship. In the same way my wife, who is a Swedish national, is not allowed to vote in UK General Elections. If you want a say in the running of a country, become a citizen of that country.

[racedo]

The way I read it is that they have not taken out citizenship. In the same way my wife, who is a Swedish national, is not allowed to vote in UK General Elections. If you want a say in the running of a country, become a citizen of that country.

But UK citizens who live abroad and will never have to contribute anything can vote.

[Heathrow Harry]

only if they are registered at a UK address - unlike France or Autsrali or the USA you can't go down to the Embassy and vote............

[57mm]

Getting back to the thread, Russian ejection seats have proved to be highly effective and indeed some of their features have been assimilated into NATO/US seats, have they not?

[Lonewolf_50]

For this whole thread, I'd like to remind folks that "it's the Indian, not the arrow" that tends to count at crunch time. If the Russians are minding their P's and Qs as regards training their people on the kit, they'll perform well when and if they come into contact with ... whomever.