Russian Equipment
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Russian Equipment
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.
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.
Last edited by glad rag; 16th Oct 2016 at 01:20.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
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....
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
Last edited by A_Van; 15th Oct 2016 at 16:15.
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).
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
conventionally NATO is much better especially navy is no contest
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
It would be relatively easy to roll up national forces thus triggering Article 5, but a coup de main would be a game changer.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
start a war with them (and the old lady on pills might do that, for sure)
Just a try.
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red Kit
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
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
Last edited by Tinribs; 17th Oct 2016 at 19:14. Reason: add photo
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.
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.
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
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MSOCS
most likely to occur around the border of Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia, invoked by Article V
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.