Russia's Military Modernizes

[Vlad Plasmius]

Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov unveiled an ambitious spending plan Wednesday allowing Russia to maintain its nuclear deterrent while developing its conventional forces.

Intercontinental ballistic missiles, aircraft carriers and an early warning radar system will figure prominently in the Defense Ministry's eight-year, $189 billion plan, Ivanov said in comments before the State Duma.

The plan also makes it easier for the military to launch rockets into space from Russian territory, said the defense minister, who is considered a leading contender for president in 2008.

Ivanov boasted that the spending plan he outlined Wednesday gives the country the capacity to fight "wars of the future," Interfax reported.

Indeed, nearly half -- 45 percent -- of military hardware now being used would be replaced in the course of the 2007-2015 procurement program.

This year alone will see $11.3 billion spent on new arms.

The modernization of the armed forces reflects Russia's economic resurgence over the past several years: This year's defense budget of $31 billion marks a nearly fourfold increase from the $8 billion spent in 2001.

Ivan Safranchuk of the Center for Defense Information called the build-up evidence that Russia seeks to "expand its military-political influence across the globe."

In a further sign of the country's assertiveness, Ivanov also said Russia retained the right to launch a pre-emptive, conventional strike, and he ruled out any personnel cuts.

In 2007, Ivanov said, the armed forces will acquire four satellites and four "launch vehicles."

Procurement of intercontinental ballistic missiles will jump markedly in the coming years: In 2007, 17 ICBM's will be bought, compared to no more than 10 in previous years.

Russia will also continue operating 50 long-range Tu-160 and Tu-95 bombers, Ivanov said. And the country will buy Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missiles. A series of launch test failures had delayed purchase of the SLBM's and a new generation of atomic submarines.

Between 2012 and 2015, Russia must decommission almost all of its Soviet-built ICBM's, given that the missiles' service lives will have expired. In the arena of conventional, or non-nuclear, forces, Russia plans to buy 31 ships, including aircraft carriers. Also, additional arms will be bought for tank, infantry and airborne battalions

Source: The Moscow Times (http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2007/02/08/001.html)

I wonder if this is in addition to the defense budget or if these purchases will be included. Certainly interesting though, especially about aircraft carriers and new ships.

[Jiang]

Source: The Moscow Times (http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2007/02/08/001.html)

I wonder if this is in addition to the defense budget or if these purchases will be included. Certainly interesting though, especially about aircraft carriers and new ships.

Russia want modern military:roll: . Well just sell better stuffs to China and make some money. Then they can do it. Otherwise they can not afford it.

[Pointblank]

The Russians have one thing in vast quantities that the world economy runs on: oil. And right now, they are making a good killing with the gas prices today.

[Scratch]

Intercontinental ballistic missiles, aircraft carriers and an early warning radar system will figure prominently in the Defense Ministry's eight-year, $189 billion plan
Because of that sentance I think the new arms purchases are included in the $189B figure. That is an average of 23,625B per year. Meaning this year half of it would be for procurement, a rather big amount.
Especially new carriers will be a sign to gain greater international influence. Let's see if they get a cat CV.
And Russia now sellign it's oil for world market prices to everyone won't face imminent butget problems, I believe.

[Neutral Zone]

Just to broaden the topic out a bit, Does Russia really need a carrier fleet? China needs a CV force because of the need to protect it's oil supply routes, Russia has more oil than it can use. Traditionally Russia has been a continental as opposed to a maritime power and at the minute it doesn't appear that Russia faces any credible external threat, far more likely, IMO, would be more Chechen style insurgencies. Perhaps the money intended for future carriers would be better spent upgrading the Russian army to fight such campaigns?

But speaking purely as a naval enthusiast I'd love to see a credible and effective Russian carrier fleet. Who knows, perhaps the plans for Ulyanovsk are being dusted off? :)

[akihh]

I say this is bad news for countries next to russia. They have to increase defence spending to counter this, and it's gonna be expensive.

Especially the baltic sea area is affected as russia is reportedly building up forces there to protect the new energy transit routes trough gulf of finland. In a way, eastern part of baltic sea will become a "home" area for russian fleet.

As I'm from Finland which shares a long border with russia AND baltic sea is our lifeline to europe, this is very serious situation for us. We probably don't have enough resorces to all-around modernize our armed forces so something ingenious have to be invented.

Gollevainen, you agree?

[Gollevainen]

Didn't they just whined becouse US didnt sold us the JASSM systme for Hornets, but we got the SLAM-ER deal trough tougth....and I spotted someone mentioning Russian long range SSMs as the target these systems are aquired for...

But As Estonia is in NATO, and we both are in EU, there is a change for close co-operation between us two If we would engage Russia and that brings the closing of Gulf Of Finland as a source of extra grey hairs to the Russian maritme planners.

But More like increasing thread, this merely puts things back to the basic status quo that has somewhat existed in there region since the Viking age. The question should more be that how will the politics see it, Do we see it as a reason to seek militarisation and NATO alligment or see it as a warning sing that things are going to the wrong way. I would like to still believe that Europe poses too important economical sector to Russia that it just cannot afford to go odds with us. The recent high profile rumblings should be seen more as a sings of centuries old Russian diplomatic handicap and how Moscow is poking its boundaries with a stick and seeing what it can do and what they cannot.

After all Russia has effectly been kept outside of European and general western cultural hemisphere, and we cannot expect them to learn the rules of diplomacy and co-extince overnigth. Also we cannot as a west see the Russian resources as something automatically belonging to us becouse we are more democratic and "better" as nations. We both need to understand each others and seek the path that will not lead to confrontation.

Becouse if it will become, We finns are the ones getting the biggest blow as the two key areas, Leningrad district and Baltic sea; and the Kola & arctic sea region lies in our backyard.

[Scratch]

I see this more as a issue of national pride and such things, a similarity with China. Russia is a huge country with a history and had very much to say in world politics until recently. They will not come back to that soon, but they somehow want to have a credible military option for international weight I think.
You probaby shouldn't see this as a direct threat to it's neighbours. I can't really see potential of conflicts especially in the russia.european region. Trade and political consensus to a degree is too importand.
I'm not really that convinced that -in the China case- you need a fleet consisting of several CBGs to protect oil lines. Unless you're going to clash with important powers on a really big sacle (US/NATO). And if that was your intention you might want CVs anyway, no matter if you're China or Russia.
Beisdes, that ICBM and ships thing is just the part most recognized. There will be other issues of modernization; tanks, infantry etc.
But then again the growing influence of europe and especially NATO on Russias borders makes them suspicious. Think of the Georgian thing.
Maybe they even already seek a counter-balance to future China.

[Vlad Plasmius]

Russia has been making some subtle moves to assert itself on the international field. They've signed some agreements with Algeria and there's even going to be a meeting on forming a natural gas body, similar to OPEC. Russia is trying to assert itself as the world's dominant energy provider, it seems to me, so they may consider a strong navy essential to protecting their source of income and of course, to counter the U.S. and China.

Russia is planning on moving its Black Sea Fleet to a port in Syria, projecting Russian naval power into the Mediterranean. I wouldn't be surprised if their first new carrier gets put there. Though, they may put in the Pacific.

As far as affording it, Russia currently has $300 billion of foreign cash reserves and while their funds from China sales are dropping slightly, it is increasing in several other countries.

Over the last few years Russia's budget has increased by about 25% each year. Their economy has also been growing by about 6.5% each year. With Russia becoming very assertive on the international energy market from gas to oil to nuclear and even to nickel, as well as efforts with the commercial aircraft industry all of these this will bring more money to government coffers.

In fact, I wouldn't be too surprised if Russia ended up spending more than what this plan calls for on new purchases.

[alwaysfresh]

Modernize is the key word. Follow the most advance world trend. More focus on special forces. Increase efficiency of navy and aircraft: more multi-role ships and aircraft. This means getting rid of alot of other equipement and the pain of maintaining less efficient equipement (because it is a waste of money). Decrease the number of individuals in the military and spend more on R & D:

(1) If only you had a stealth bomber you wouldn't need 1000 extra airplanes and 100 000 extra members.
(2) Better radar and missiles means less radars and less missiles to maintain.
(3) Increase foreign military cooperation, therefore even less military members required and decreases the amount of capital required for R & D.

It is all logical.

[BLUEJACKET]

And get out of the N.Caucasus guagmire ASAP! They should also end conscription and build all-volunteer Armed Forces with better pay, living conditions and benefits. Perhaps the PLA's experince in running businesess may also be worth looking into.

Russia intensifies efforts to rebuild its military machine
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0212/p04s01-woeu.htm

Putin Says U.S. Is Undermining Global Stability
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/world/europe/11munich.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Gates to Putin: 'One Cold War is enough'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070211/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gates&printer=1;_ylt=AnNBPiEtpvFn0FkVvtc4V6OWwvIE

[Pointblank]

And get out of the N.Caucasus guagmire ASAP! They should also end conscription and build all-volunteer Armed Forces with better pay, living conditions and benefits. Perhaps the PLA's experince in running businesess may also be worth looking into.

Russia intensifies efforts to rebuild its military machine
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0212/p04s01-woeu.htm

Putin Says U.S. Is Undermining Global Stability
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/world/europe/11munich.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Gates to Putin: 'One Cold War is enough'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070211/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gates&printer=1;_ylt=AnNBPiEtpvFn0FkVvtc4V6OWwvIE

The PLA was ordered to divest their interests in businesses due to the high level of corruption that occurred with the officers involved in those businesses.

[BLUEJACKET]

But in the preceding years, they made some $ and improved their quality of life. I read that Russian commanders lease their soldiers to local enterpises and get bribed for it anyway- why not legalize it so everyone benefits?

[Pointblank]

But in the preceding years, they made some $ and improved their quality of life. I read that Russian commanders lease their soldiers to local enterpises and get bribed for it anyway- why not legalize it so everyone benefits?

Corruption in the ranks of the officers is a serious detriment to the officer corps. It distracts them from effectively commanding (see some of the battles of the First Sino-Japanese War as an example), uses and abuses state resources in an inappropriate manner, and it is a impediment to the professionalism of the military and officer corps. There should be a strong anti-corruption mechanism in any military that is composed of both indoctrination that corruption is bad, and secondarily, a good enforcement mechanism. No matter what type of army you have, there is no room for corruption in the military.

[MaxTesla]

Just to broaden the topic out a bit, Does Russia really need a carrier fleet? China needs a CV force because of the need to protect it's oil supply routes, Russia has more oil than it can use. Traditionally Russia has been a continental as opposed to a maritime power and at the minute it doesn't appear that Russia faces any credible external threat, far more likely, IMO, would be more Chechen style insurgencies. Perhaps the money intended for future carriers would be better spent upgrading the Russian army to fight such campaigns?

But speaking purely as a naval enthusiast I'd love to see a credible and effective Russian carrier fleet. Who knows, perhaps the plans for Ulyanovsk are being dusted off? :)

The Russians and Germans are building a pipe line from Russia to Germany via the baltic sea, this pipe line called nord stream will need to be protected and that is why russia is building up its navy

they are building the pipe line to by pass nations that are not friendly towards russia ie poland and the baltic states

when the pipe line is completed Russia will be able to deliver GAS directly to real europe and not have to worry about transist countries such as poland


Also Russia is doing gas and oil exploration in the arctic and that area as well will need to be guarded by a fleet

Those 2 economic projects are the reasons behind russias expansions of marine time power

[Scratch]

I disagree that the baltic see pipeline is a reason for building up a modern CV fleet. It's just disproportional, there's no real threat to it. And I don't believe it's main intention was to bypass other nations.
Plus, I don't believe Russia would have to worry transit nations like Poland or the baltic states. What do you think these could do? Stop gas flow into western europe? They are EU members and could for sure not afford to piss off western europe states in that regard.
Maybe it's different from Russia's view in the arctic. But still I can't see these are the main reasons for building up a CV fleet.

[Vlad Plasmius]

I think their motivation for a carrier fleet is obvious enough. In fact, I believe their next carrier will be at the Syrian port, if that is built. Russia wants to challenge the U.S. on the sea and a port in Syria will help achieve the result.

[Pointblank]

I disagree that the baltic see pipeline is a reason for building up a modern CV fleet. It's just disproportional, there's no real threat to it. And I don't believe it's main intention was to bypass other nations.
Plus, I don't believe Russia would have to worry transit nations like Poland or the baltic states. What do you think these could do? Stop gas flow into western europe? They are EU members and could for sure not afford to piss off western europe states in that regard.
Maybe it's different from Russia's view in the arctic. But still I can't see these are the main reasons for building up a CV fleet.

Vladivostok is also another location of importance for the Russians, as the Russian Pacific Ocean Fleet is based there. Of course, if the Russians want to expand and protect their interests in the Pacific, a carrier group would do the trick.

[MaxTesla]

I disagree that the baltic see pipeline is a reason for building up a modern CV fleet. It's just disproportional, there's no real threat to it. And I don't believe it's main intention was to bypass other nations.
Plus, I don't believe Russia would have to worry transit nations like Poland or the baltic states. What do you think these could do? Stop gas flow into western europe? They are EU members and could for sure not afford to piss off western europe states in that regard.
Maybe it's different from Russia's view in the arctic. But still I can't see these are the main reasons for building up a CV fleet.

YES that is exactly what they are afraid of, poland and the baltics have allready many time said that they will stop the flow if Russia increase the prices, that is what Russia is worried about Poland and the baltic states stealing gas like they have done before

Also when the pipe line is complete Russia will be able to give ZERO gas to Poland.

The Poles are very anti Russo or atleast some of them are.

The Baltics are all pro nazies! They are destroying everything in the country that can be linked to russia or the former Soviet Union

In The baltics Former SS soldiers get pensions but former Red Army soldiers get nothing

And the Baltic states are removeing all statues that were placed to remember the liberation of nazi troops

But the Baltics saw the Nazies as liberators and are very sad that the nazies lost.

[Gollevainen]

Ok no more political BS and nationalistic chest beating! This is military forum, so discuss military subjects or change the scenery.:mad: :mad:

I wont warn you again

[Scratch]

This kyrills (?) issue with Japan isn't really sattled yet, is it? Though a few military muzzles might be apreciated there by the russian leadership. And perhaps they want to play part in the game between China and the US for influence around the China Sea.
Then again, the mid-east is an importand place as well. We shall see.

[celtic-dragon]

I think their motivation for a carrier fleet is obvious enough. In fact, I believe their next carrier will be at the Syrian port, if that is built. Russia wants to challenge the U.S. on the sea and a port in Syria will help achieve the result.
Maybe, but Russia is still having problems paying for day to day maintenance. We have all seen the pictures of the Red Banner Northern Fleet and the Black Sea Fleet rusting at anchor, and they are rather depressing to look at. I was no fan of the Soviet Union, but I thought such proud and beautiful warships deserved a better fate. If Russia wants to reassert her power at sea, she has to actually find a way to pay for overhauling her fleet without selling it off piecemeal. I'm reading over at the "Slava" forum that Russia can't even afford the maintenance on one of her last remaining Kirov class battlecruisers. Again, she needs to get day to day ops under control before worrying about power projection.

[Vlad Plasmius]

Russia is beginning to expand their state assets. Gazprom is buying up all kinds of major natural gas, oil, and coal, groups. They're looking to expand outwards and eventually may merge with Rosneft. They're also expanding their gas operations in the Middle East.

The United Aircraft Building Corporation is under Russian state control and so is Atomprom. Russia is also looking to consolidate metals production under the Russian state. Should all of that take place it will give Russia significant capital to build up their budget. In the past few years Russia's military budget has increased by 300%. At the rate Russia's going, more money will be going into state coffers and their economy will continue growing. If 7% growth is maintained it will give Russia an economy of about $2 trillion. In addition the world's third largest reserves of foreign currency on the order of about $300 billion, Russia has significant state assets to buildup the military.

Not to mention Russia's going to pool some of that cash with the equally massive economic power of India.

This is only going to grow as time goes buy, and eventually Russia will have no real difficulty building up funds for the Russian military.

[Jon K]

Russia is beginning to expand their state assets. Gazprom is buying up all kinds of major natural gas, oil, and coal, groups. They're looking to expand outwards and eventually may merge with Rosneft. They're also expanding their gas operations in the Middle East....
This is only going to grow as time goes buy, and eventually Russia will have no real difficulty building up funds for the Russian military.

I have to partially disagree. While new Russian weapon acquisitions seem to be impressive they will merely patch up holes as hordes of Soviet era equipment will get too old. Soviet Union was dismantled fifteen years ago, many weapons are too old technically or even physically.

Another thing is the sustainability of Russian economic growth. While Russian economy may run wild for some time it's going to hit hard times fairly soon as there is lack of new workforce due to fall in birth numbers during last years of Soviet Union and first years of new Russia. This is also going to hit armed forces as well. Yes, long-term population predictions are always tricky but the impact in age cohorts mostly effecting military (IMHO, 18-27 year olds) will be significant for a long time. Youngest recruits for 2025 are already coming.

Russian rearming cannot be of course anywhere compared to Soviet armed might.Even after rearming it's forces cannot be compared to even what EU countries could put up together. And ultimately the biggest thing lacking with Russia compared to Soviet Union is the lack of appealing ideology.

To be able to effectively to fight a global power Russia would have to be allied with some global power, whether EU, India, China or USA. What we will see after Russian re-arming at tops will be something comparable to Cold War France or UK in sense of power projection ability to either neighbouring countries or globally.

The real question, IMHO, will be what choice does Russia make in age-old defense calculation of quality versus quantity, or operations/personnel/material.

[MaxTesla]

I have to partially disagree. While new Russian weapon acquisitions seem to be impressive they will merely patch up holes as hordes of Soviet era equipment will get too old. Soviet Union was dismantled fifteen years ago, many weapons are too old technically or even physically.

Another thing is the sustainability of Russian economic growth. While Russian economy may run wild for some time it's going to hit hard times fairly soon as there is lack of new workforce due to fall in birth numbers during last years of Soviet Union and first years of new Russia. This is also going to hit armed forces as well. Yes, long-term population predictions are always tricky but the impact in age cohorts mostly effecting military (IMHO, 18-27 year olds) will be significant for a long time. Youngest recruits for 2025 are already coming.

Russian rearming cannot be of course anywhere compared to Soviet armed might.Even after rearming it's forces cannot be compared to even what EU countries could put up together. And ultimately the biggest thing lacking with Russia compared to Soviet Union is the lack of appealing ideology.

To be able to effectively to fight a global power Russia would have to be allied with some global power, whether EU, India, China or USA. What we will see after Russian re-arming at tops will be something comparable to Cold War France or UK in sense of power projection ability to either neighbouring countries or globally.

The real question, IMHO, will be what choice does Russia make in age-old defense calculation of quality versus quantity, or operations/personnel/material.


The new russia is turbo capitalism, they have no interest in fighting anyone big. What they will do now is modernise their army make it professional/volounter. They will of curse build missiles and advanced ones http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070220/60996073.html to prevent beeing bombed but the new russia can be seen as an arms dealer that will sell to anyone who has the money to pay

And most of the old Soviet equipmet has gotten scraped or will be scraped and not replaced at all, Russia will keep a small (compared to before) professional/volounter army. It will most likely model itself on Great Britain when it comes to equipment i.e haveing a small but very modern arsenal. Atleast i think that will be the result in 5-10 years

[Vlad Plasmius]

Another thing is the sustainability of Russian economic growth. While Russian economy may run wild for some time it's going to hit hard times fairly soon as there is lack of new workforce due to fall in birth numbers during last years of Soviet Union and first years of new Russia. This is also going to hit armed forces as well. Yes, long-term population predictions are always tricky but the impact in age cohorts mostly effecting military (IMHO, 18-27 year olds) will be significant for a long time. Youngest recruits for 2025 are already coming.

Russian rearming cannot be of course anywhere compared to Soviet armed might.Even after rearming it's forces cannot be compared to even what EU countries could put up together. And ultimately the biggest thing lacking with Russia compared to Soviet Union is the lack of appealing ideology.

Here's Russia's solution: moving out. That means having their corporations purchase outside, build labor pools outside for commercial products, mainly in Africa. As well it means alliances with Iran and India to assist in the low labor pools.

India has a horribly underexploited workforce.

With Russian corporations like Gazprom bringing money to state coffers and allies like India providing additional cheap labor those problems can be alleviated. Also, a tightening of political control in Russia can certainly lead to prevention of the decreasing population by forceful means.

So, I think Russia is taking significant effort to reduce the societal and economic troubles of building a large modern military.

To be able to effectively to fight a global power Russia would have to be allied with some global power, whether EU, India, China or USA. What we will see after Russian re-arming at tops will be something comparable to Cold War France or UK in sense of power projection ability to either neighbouring countries or globally.

Well, yes, I would say alliance with India and Iran, which could develop into a global power. Then creating European dependence on Russia, would put them in a prime strategic position.

The real question, IMHO, will be what choice does Russia make in age-old defense calculation of quality versus quantity, or operations/personnel/material.

According to Sergei Ivanov the emphasis will be on maintaining the 1.1 million-man army, but making it increasingly professional and modern.

Ultimately, Russia's methods are very reliable. They look to consolidate all the world's major resource powers in the nuclear and hydrocarbon fields to create a dependency on Russia. They make those resource powers dependent through military sales or political and economic arrangements.

Russia being able to hold these cards as well as a strong nuclear arsenal, possibly expanded with renewed production of IRBMs, would provide the ultimate deterrence.

It's similar to the strategies thought up before World War I. The idea being that of major powers being able to wage total war through use of industrial assets. With Russia this includes nuclear deterrence, a large industrial capacity, major international corporate holdings, and a system of alliances with major skilled and unskilled labor pools.

[FuManChu]

Ultimately, Russia's methods are very reliable. They look to consolidate all the world's major resource powers in the nuclear and hydrocarbon fields to create a dependency on Russia.

If you're talking about countries being totally reliant on Russia for energy, I doubt that will happen. Indeed Russia's attempts at using economic/energy resource power to push its neighbours around has backfired in reference to Europe - it made them think about diversifying much more seriously. I don't think Russia really wants to use its resources in a manipulative way, but that's how it's being perceived at the moment.

In regards to other resource-producing countries being totally reliant on Russia, again I don't see that happening.

By the way, basing an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean would be a very stupid thing to do in terms of diplomacy. Indeed there's an issue as to whether it could even happen.

[Pointblank]

If you're talking about countries being totally reliant on Russia for energy, I doubt that will happen. Indeed Russia's attempts at using economic/energy resource power to push its neighbours around has backfired in reference to Europe - it made them think about diversifying much more seriously. I don't think Russia really wants to use its resources in a manipulative way, but that's how it's being perceived at the moment.

In regards to other resource-producing countries being totally reliant on Russia, again I don't see that happening.

By the way, basing an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean would be a very stupid thing to do in terms of diplomacy. Indeed there's an issue as to whether it could even happen.


I don't think the Russians are even allowed to have a carrier pass through the Bosporus Strait... they get around this with the old Kiev and Kuznetsov carriers by calling them aviation cruisers to get around this restriction.

[Vlad Plasmius]

Well, I'm saying that's apparently their aim, I doubt Russia can achieve it, but they are making inroads towards doing that.

[celtic-dragon]

Here's Russia's solution: moving out. That means having their corporations purchase outside, build labor pools outside for commercial products, mainly in Africa. As well it means alliances with Iran and India to assist in the low labor pools.

India has a horribly underexploited workforce.

With Russian corporations like Gazprom bringing money to state coffers and allies like India providing additional cheap labor those problems can be alleviated. Also, a tightening of political control in Russia can certainly lead to prevention of the decreasing population by forceful means.

So, I think Russia is taking significant effort to reduce the societal and economic troubles of building a large modern military.



Well, yes, I would say alliance with India and Iran, which could develop into a global power. Then creating European dependence on Russia, would put them in a prime strategic position.



According to Sergei Ivanov the emphasis will be on maintaining the 1.1 million-man army, but making it increasingly professional and modern.

Ultimately, Russia's methods are very reliable. They look to consolidate all the world's major resource powers in the nuclear and hydrocarbon fields to create a dependency on Russia. They make those resource powers dependent through military sales or political and economic arrangements.

Russia being able to hold these cards as well as a strong nuclear arsenal, possibly expanded with renewed production of IRBMs, would provide the ultimate deterrence.

It's similar to the strategies thought up before World War I. The idea being that of major powers being able to wage total war through use of industrial assets. With Russia this includes nuclear deterrence, a large industrial capacity, major international corporate holdings, and a system of alliances with major skilled and unskilled labor pools.
Pretty ambitious for a country whose black market economy exceeds the official economy. It still sound like pie-in-the -sky, to some extent. Russia will modernize and improve her military, but the glory days are over. Why would India need an alliance with Russia, when she can chart her own course independently now?

[FuManChu]

I don't think the Russians are even allowed to have a carrier pass through the Bosporus Strait... they get around this with the old Kiev and Kuznetsov carriers by calling them aviation cruisers to get around this restriction.

Exactly, which is why I can't see a full-blown carrier getting into the Med. No way it would get in via Gibraltar either. Plus I don't think the Syrians would want to make themselves even more of a target by having a Russian carrier stationed in their main port.

[BLUEJACKET]

The Kuznetsov transited Gibraltar with no problem- but I don't think they'll forward deploy a carrier in the Med.
Kuznetsov Deploys
The aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov departed from its Northern Fleet base in mid-December, bound for a three-month deployment in the Mediterranean, in support of the implementation force in Bosnia. Initially accompanying her were the new Sovremenny-class destroyer Besstrashny ("Fearless") and the Boris Chilikin-class replenishment ship Dnestr. On 31 January, the force rendezvoused off the southern tip of England with the Krivak I-class frigate Pilkii ("Ardent") and the Olekma-class replenishment tanker Olekma; the combined force then proceeded through the Straits of Gibraltar. This represents the first major Russian naval deployment to the Mediterranean since 1993. Correction: this rendezvous was made on 31 December 1995, not 31 January. http://www.webcom.com/~amraam/curr95.html
..4.01.1996 crossed Gibraltar. 7 -17.01.1996 stay in Tunisia, repairs. Visited by CINC of US 6 Fl. 28.01-2.02.1996 visited Syria. 17-18.02.1996 visited La-Valetta (Malta). http://warfare.ru/?catid=268&linkid=1738


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:USS_Deyo_with_Admiral_Kuznesov.jpg

They may forward deploy other ships, aircraft, marines and submarines- as was the case in Egypt a few decades ago (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/agency/mf-med.htm).
On 23 November 1999 Prime Minister Vladimir Putin announced to the Russian Security Council that Russian Navy operations would soon extend beyond their previouly limited boundaries. Areas mentioned in his speech as having strategic significance for Russia were the Baltic Sea and regions to the south of Russia. Putin stated that additional funds would be provided for deployment by November 2000 in the Mediterranean of Russia's sole aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, a destroyer, a frigate, one tanker, and nuclear-powered submarines carrying SLBMs. The Tartus base in Syria, first used for Russia's Mediterranean squadron in 1983, was also to be reactivated.

[Pointblank]

The Kuznetsov transited Gibraltar with no problem- but I don't think they'll forward deploy a carrier in the Med.


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:USS_Deyo_with_Admiral_Kuznesov.jpg

They may forward deploy other ships, aircraft, marines and submarines- as was the case in Egypt a few decades ago (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/agency/mf-med.htm).

If tensions between Russia and the West increase, you bet the Brits will not allow the passage of a Russian carrier through Gibraltar again.

[BLUEJACKET]

It's an international strait! If they block it, there will be confrontation, and the Russians will help Spain to take The Rock back! Actually, there may not even the a need for them to send a carrier: additional Oscars, Akulas, Kilos, Amurs, and follow on classes (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ship.htm)plus previously (before the crisis) deployed long-range fighters/bombers will do the job!

[FuManChu]

It's an international strait!

So? That wouldn't stop it being closed.

If they block it, there will be confrontation, and the Russians will help Spain to take The Rock back!

First of all, how could the Russians exert any power in that region? Would its armies sweep across Europe?

Second, if Spain attacked Gibraltar it would face the wrath of the whole European Union and probably the US.

Actually, there may not even the a need for them to send a carrier: additional Oscars, Akulas, Kilos, Amurs, and follow on classes plus previously (before the crisis) deployed long-range fighters/bombers will do the job!

So the Russians start World War III because they can't station a carrier in the Med? I doubt it.

[BLUEJACKET]

Will the UK risk confrontation by closing Gibraltar (http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/europe/gi.htm) to the RN carrier? The Russians (and others) been involved in the Spanish civil war (http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~warden/scw/scwevent.htm)without rolling across Europe. Besides, the FSB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Security_Service_of_the_Russian_Federation #International_affairs) and/or GRU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRU#GRU_activities) may do something to stop tourists from coming - costing millions in lost revenue-in addition to attacking military targets there. With long-range CMs/IRBMs Russia could target USN/NATO carriers and other forces from its own territory, the Black/Baltic Seas, (and perhaps from their ally Serbia as well!)

Russian Missile Forces Lower Quantity But Higher Quality
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/missiles/Russian_Missile_Forces_Lower_Quantity_But_Higher_Q uality160010644.php

[bd popeye]

The Kuznetsov transited Gibraltar with no problem- but I don't think they'll forward deploy a carrier in the Med.


Bluejacket that movement of the Kuznetsov occuried over 10 years ago. Do you honestly forsee the Russian deploying that ship to the MED or any other region anytime soon? From my understanding the Kuznetsov seldom goes to sea any longer and when it does go out It has only a handful of aircraft. True or not?

[BLUEJACKET]

Absolutely. But as more funds are given to the military the Russian navy will start showing the St.Andrew flag again. This doesn't mean that Kuznetsov's presence is essential in the Med.- when 1 Oscar (the infamous Kursk) shadowed US CBG there along with AGI Liman (http://www.cdi.org/russia/244-10.cfm), the USN had to keep a close eye on it!
The Kursk, the newest of 11 Oscar II-class attack submarines in the Russian fleet, has been of particular interest to the U.S. Navy. Late last summer, the Kursk slipped into the Mediterranean Sea and shadowed a U.S. carrier battle group - the first time in at least two years that a Russian sub had been in the Mediterranean.
The skipper of the Kursk received a special award for last summer's mission in the Mediterranean, according to a Pentagon official who discussed the matter Friday on condition of anonymity.
In testimony before Congress in October, Vice Adm. Daniel J. Murphy Jr., commander of the U.S. Sixth Fleet based in the Mediterranean, described that mission as ''inconvenient'' for U.S. forces. He said nine Navy P-3C Orion electronic surveillance aircraft were diverted from missions over Kosovo to search for the Russian submarine, which he described as having the ''very best technology.''
The Oscar II-class submarines were designed to stalk U.S. carrier battle groups and, in time of war, attack with nuclear cruise missiles. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nds36.htm

All of the Med. can be covered with long range ASMs/SLCMs/LACMs, even if launched from the West of the Gibraltar and NE of the Bosporus! Their Pac. fleet may even send an SSN to the Red Sea and launch CMs across Egypt!

http://www.naval-history.net/ww2mR081StartMed.GIF

[bd popeye]

Absolutely. But as more funds are given to the military the Russian navy will start showing the St.Andrew flag again. This doesn't mean that Kuznetsov's presence is essential in the Med.- when 1 Oscar (the infamous Kursk) shadowed US CBG there along with AGI Liman, the USN had to keep a close eye on it!

You better believe that noisey old Kursk was being shadowed by a LA class..I know this STG1(sonar tech first class) that..never mind...

BLUEJACKET just when do you see the Russian Navy returning to it's former glory? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? Just when? And how many deployable subs do the Russians have at this moment in time????

Thanks!

[sunchips]

Russia has been making some subtle moves to assert itself on the international field. They've signed some agreements with Algeria and there's even going to be a meeting on forming a natural gas body, similar to OPEC. Russia is trying to assert itself as the world's dominant energy provider, it seems to me, so they may consider a strong navy essential to protecting their source of income and of course, to counter the U.S. and China.

Russia is planning on moving its Black Sea Fleet to a port in Syria, projecting Russian naval power into the Mediterranean. I wouldn't be surprised if their first new carrier gets put there. Though, they may put in the Pacific.

As far as affording it, Russia currently has $300 billion of foreign cash reserves and while their funds from China sales are dropping slightly, it is increasing in several other countries.

Over the last few years Russia's budget has increased by about 25% each year. Their economy has also been growing by about 6.5% each year. With Russia becoming very assertive on the international energy market from gas to oil to nuclear and even to nickel, as well as efforts with the commercial aircraft industry all of these this will bring more money to government coffers.

In fact, I wouldn't be too surprised if Russia ended up spending more than what this plan calls for on new purchases.

sorry, just wondering, though: how is russia's relationship with china as of now? do they consider them a threat? or are they still good friends, Cinsidering the ASAT tests, etc.,

is russia going to gradually down arms sales to China?

[BLUEJACKET]

BLUEJACKET just when do you see the Russian Navy returning to it's former glory? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? Just when? And how many deployable subs do the Russians have at this moment in time????
It's hard to tell, as it depends on their economic strength- and Russia being oil & gas exporter is volnurable to energy price fluctuations. The number of "deployable subs" is probably classified, and I don't have anyway of determining it. As of 2005,
Currently, Russia has no more than 20 SSBNs, according to a recent (March 2005) statement of Chief of the Navy Vladimir Kuroyedov, but most experts believe that the number of operational SSBNs does not exceed 12-14 and is likely to contract further. ..The core of the attack nuclear submarine fleet consists of Project 971 Shchuka B (NATO name Akula) submarines—a smaller multipurpose development of Project 945 (Nato name Sierra). Project 971 began in the mid-1970s and the first submarine in that class was launched in 1984. A total of 13 these SSNs have been built, the latest, Vepr, was launched in 1996. Project 971 SSNs are widely known as the quietest, fastest, most modern submarines in Russia and are widely reported to be on par with the most advanced U.S. attack submarines. Reportedly, Russia plans to build several more submarines of this class, completing vessels whose construction was frozen in the 1990s due to the lack of funding. Another "core class" of SSNs are Projects 949 Granit and 949A Antey (NATO names Oscar I and II); 13 of these submarines have been built. ..Diesel submarines number about 20 and are represented by reasonably advanced Project 877 Varshavyanka (NATO name Kilo) class submarines of various modifications, which entered service in late 1980s. A submarine of the latest modification entered service in 2000. http://www.nti.org/db/submarines/russia/
This table gives you an idea of current/future numbers- cut it by half and there's your guestimate- http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ship.htm
If you got some $ to spare, contact this analyst (http://www.answers.com/topic/pavel-felgenhauer), maybe he can provide you with better data.
Moscow sends nuke-armed tactical subs to sea in breach of US-Russian agreement (http://www.bellona.org/articles/subagreement_breach)

IMO Russia doesn't need to restore her global /blue water presence- the littorals are more important now. In the Far East, China will pick up the slack; the Indian Ocean is for Indians to police; Arctic, Baltic, Atlantic, and the Med. will see occasional or increased RN deployments as situations warrant.
They will be lucky to maintain modern units in the fleet with slow production of new ones- for themslves and for export.

how is russia's relationship with china as of now? do they consider them a threat? or are they still good friends, Cinsidering the ASAT tests, etc., is russia going to gradually down arms sales to China?

Russia needs China for a number of geopolitical & economic reasons, but there are some in the elite who fear about the "Yellow Peril" to their Far Eastern provinces that were taken piece by piece from the Ching Dynasty China. as I said in another post, they would be better off selling them back before it's too late! As for arms sales, they don't allow the latest systems to China, but they do need $$$ to revitalise their heavy industry.
China may bring USA's influence in Asia to zero (http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/26-02-2007/87743-china-usa-0)

"Russia's Upcoming Revised Military Doctrine"
http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_printable&report_id=622&language_id=1

Don't ignore Putin's warning (http://www.torontosun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2007/02/25/3664751.html)

Putin delivers for the former KGB (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jid/jid070227_1_n.shtml)

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/missiles/Ukraine_Says_US_Should_Have_Consulted_Them_on_Miss ile_Shield160010664.php

Missile Defense Briefing Report No. 217, February 26, 2007
American Foreign Policy Council, Washington, DC
Editor: Ilan Berman

EUROPE’S CHOICE...
The Bush administration is moving closer to making a European leg for its missile defense system a reality. The Associated Press (February 13) reports that the government of Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski in Poland is close to reaching a domestic consensus over hosting ten proposed interceptors for the U.S. missile defense shield. According to the Polish premier, just one of the country’s eight major political parties remains hesitant about signing on to the Bush administration’s anti-missile effort. Kaczynski’s government, however, is already preparing itself for participation. According to the Xinhua news agency (February 22), officials in Warsaw have expressed hopes that negotiations with the United States over basing could be concluded as soon as possible.

The Czech Republic appears to be following suit. In recent days, Prague has initiated serious discussions with the White House about housing a complimentary X-band radar array, Czech President Vaclav Klaus has revealed in comments carried by Moscow’s Itar-TASS news agency on February 14th. According to Klaus, the possible deployment of ABM components on Czech soil has become viewed as his country’s “contribution to the consolidation of defenses of the whole of the NATO territory.”

...AND RUSSIA’S RESPONSE
News of this newfound enthusiasm for missile defense has sent shockwaves through the Kremlin, with Russian officials warning that Eastern European countries could risk becoming Moscow’s targets. “[T]he countries that accept to deploy... should be worried about ecological and other consequences," Russian air force chief Vladimir Mikhailov has told reporters in comments carried by the Agence France Presse (February 14).

Nor has Russia’s response been limited to rhetoric. The New York Times (February 7) reports that Russia’s defense ministry has unveiled an “ambitious” new $190 billion, eight-year defense plan aimed at preserving and reinforcing the country’s strategic arsenal. The plan’s major initiatives are said to include the acquisition of 17 new ballistic missiles this year, as well as the deployment of 34 new Topol-M ICBMs capable of “penetrat[ing] prospective missiles defenses.” Russian officials similarly have signaled their readiness to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty signed between President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987 – a move that would pave the way for Moscow to resume the development and deployment of intermediate range ballistic missiles capable of threatening Europe.

The backbone of Russia's defense is RVSN, and they aren't neglected (http://uruknet.info/?p=m30811&s1=h1).

[FuManChu]

Will the UK risk confrontation by closing Gibraltar to the RN carrier?

Not if it wants to transit. If it were going to be based in the Med, who knows. The Russians wouldn't stand for a NATO carrier to be based in the Black Sea, Baltic, etc.

The Russians (and others) been involved in the Spanish civil war without rolling across Europe.

If you haven't noticed, Spain isn't in a state of civil war, nor is there any chance of it falling into such a state. So that's irrelevant.

Besides, the FSB and/or GRU may do something to stop tourists from coming - costing millions in lost revenue-in addition to attacking military targets there.

You have to be joking, right? Who would care about a loss of tourism if security issues required action?

With long-range CMs/IRBMs Russia could target USN/NATO carriers and other forces from its own territory, the Black/Baltic Seas, (and perhaps from their ally Serbia as well!)

I doubt that tactic would work, and the Serbs would be very stupid to get dragged into such a conflict.

[Finn McCool]

Look this "Russian Mediterranian Breakthrough" talk is just a redux of Cold War wargames. The Soviet Navy had to have enough power to bust through its chokepoints (GIUK gap, Bosphorus, Baltic Sea entrance) It never had that power. Why? It didn't have the amphibious capability. In order to overcome that problem, the Voyenno-Morskoy Flot would have to have enough power to land in European Turkey, Denmark and maybe Iceland in rapid succession or simaltaeneously.

Nowadays the North Sea exits and Baltic Sea exits are not as important. But what Russia still needs is a force of LHAs, LPDs and other longer range amphibious ships in the Black Sea Fleet to give it the ability to get by the Bosphourus and or project power into the Mediteranean in order to get access to the strategic Middle East. Russia has never had a satisfactory Marine Corps. After the Black Sea Fleet the Far East Fleet should recieve amphib upgrades to allow it to bypass chokepoints at the Sea of Japan exit to reach the water off China and the open Pacfic. And TU-160 regiments to provide the ASM fire power to back up the Navy. Forget about all this WWIII talk. It's about power projection.

[Vlad Plasmius]

sorry, just wondering, though: how is russia's relationship with china as of now? do they consider them a threat? or are they still good friends, Cinsidering the ASAT tests, etc.,

is russia going to gradually down arms sales to China?

I think Russia is anxious about China. It's why they've been trying so hard to court them.

Russia probably won't decrease arms sales, but look for increasingly nationalist Chinese politicians to talk about "self-reliance" in the military and cut down on Russian arms shipments.

[zachjeli]

Russia probably won't decrease arms sales, but look for increasingly nationalist Chinese politicians to talk about "self-reliance" in the military and cut down on Russian arms shipments.[/QUOTE]

thats bad for Russia since they need all the money they can get and the only customer to buy a lot of weapons from Russia is china. but now they are being more self-reliant, Russia will have to sell the weapons some were else such as Iran or North Korea. :coffee:

[BLUEJACKET]

The Russians wouldn't stand for a NATO carrier to be based in the Black Sea, Baltic, etc.
If you haven't noticed, Spain isn't in a state of civil war, nor is there any chance of it falling into such a state. So that's irrelevant.
I doubt that tactic would work, and the Serbs would be very stupid to get dragged into such a conflict.
There can't be any land-attack carriers in the Black Sea, as per old international agreement. I mentioned their civil war to pint out the fact that the distance didn't prevent Russia's participation in it- and Spain is eager to get Gibraltar back. If the Serbs conclude that htey have more to gain by siding with Russia, than they'll provide assistance in accessing the Med.
I failed to mention that, although that strait can be blocked, Turkey may not block Bosporus- it has it's own disputes with NATO members, furthermore, by the same token, Russia may close the Suez by grounding a few large commercial ships and/or attacking NATO warships there- then NATO navies and merchant ships will have to go around Africa to reach the Persian Gulf, while her own trade can go over land & via the Caspian Sea and Iran!
I do agree that Russia has rather small marine corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Marines), but maybe they don't need it much. The Army soldiers can be given extra training (the VDV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Airborne_Troops) already have a lot in common with the marines) & augment the MC. With modern weaponry, closing the choke points won't change much in Russia's case due to her location- while for NATO it will make life miserable!

Russia to create new super weapon that provides air, missile and space protection
http://english.pravda.ru/print/russia/economics/87851-russian_weapon-0

"The 20th-century concept of unacceptable damage, defining a second-strike deterrent capability and once being calculated in percentage points of losses in population and economic resources, has shrunk to a single nuclear explosion on the American soil,” he said. “And neither a sudden attack on the enemy’s nuclear weapon facilities nor an anti-ballistic missile shield can guarantee, at least up to 2050, that a single second-strike missile armed with a nuclear warhead does not reach the United States".
Goltz pointed to North Korea, where even the unverified notion of this country having one or two nuclear charges effectively deters possible U.S. attack. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1668095&C=europe

[Vlad Plasmius]

thats bad for Russia since they need all the money they can get and the only customer to buy a lot of weapons from Russia is china. but now they are being more self-reliant, Russia will have to sell the weapons some were else such as Iran or North Korea.

India is buying more from Russia than China. Venezuela is also looking to make a big deal with Russia on military equipment. Syria too is looking to expand its arsenal. Hell, even Saudi Arabia is talking about buying weapons from Russia.

[Infra_Man99]

Here are two articles on Russian micro UAVs and gel body armor. Pretty cool stuff 'cuz both technologies are small, lightweight, and highly flexible. Now, the real question is, will this stuff be any good on the battlefield?

--------------------------
DATE:13/07/07
SOURCE:Flight International
Russian micro UAVs demonstrate swarming capability
By Peter La Franchi

The little-known Russian A-Level Aerosystems company has demonstrated swarming capabilities using micro unmanned air vehicles with repeated flight displays at this year's ParcAberporth UAV airshow at West Wales airport.

Two ZALA 421-08 flying wing UAVs and a single portable ground station were used in the demonstrations, with the air vehicles keeping formation using A-Level Systems' own GPS-based autopilot and navigation system.

A-Level Systems managing director Nikita Zakharov says the micro UAV type has been flying for two years with deliveries of operational systems under way to Russian's Ministry of Interior Affairs.

The ParcAberporth flights, the first by Russian UAVs in UK airspace, also included demonstration of voice-based reporting by the air vehicle, including location reports, airspeed and communications link status. Zakharov says voice-based mission planning and re-planning capability is currently in development for the system.

--------------------------

Russian scientists developed liquid armour
From: www.ruvr.ru

Russian scientists in Yekaterinburg have used nanotechnology to protect people by developing so-called liquid armour, which is like gel and is applied on the metal or clothe. The surface becomes bullet-proof in a sharp impact.

Nikolai Victorov, one of the authors of the discovery says: “A metallic surface, for one a door of a vehicle or clothe is filled with liquid armour. When a bullet hits the surface or it is subjected to an attack by knife the nano-particles are being pressed and collected in a cluster and liquid becomes a hard composite. It takes only milliseconds to turn from liquid state to hard. However, the hard material turns into liquid only after some time. The transition period depend on the concrete incident and lies between five minutes and an hour.

This is quite light armour. An ordinary bulletproof car weighs between 2 and 3 tons but if the special gel is used the car’s normal weight increases slightly. For one, a bullet-proof jacket filled with gel weighs 2 or 3 kg.

Another important factor is that liquid armour is flexible. According to Nikolai Victorov, this effect is achieved by the use of gel. If gel is applied on a shirt and when a person wears it he does not feel uncomfortable in his movements. This makes it possible to protect the body effectively. The movements of a person have no impact on the behavior of nano-particles. If the shirt is tied into a knot nothing will happen since the pressure on it is insignificant.
Scientists in Yekaterinburg insist that liquid armour could be used in many areas from defence to space industry. Gel could be used in automobile industry. When bumper is filled with gel the safety of passengers is upgraded.

03.04.2007
--------------------------

[sandyj]

Outside View: S-400 missile system delays

by Andrei Kislyakov

Moscow (UPI) May 22, 2008

The Russian Topol strategic missile launchers that rolled through Red Square on May 9 were impressive to the eye, though I hope there is no intention to use these weapons.
Meanwhile the "density" of armed conflicts across the world keeps growing, and the main role in these conflicts is played by conventional yet precision weapons.

The missile defense system being set up by the Americans, incorporating ground, naval and space components tightly integrated with air defense systems, is an effort to protect themselves not only against strategic nuclear missiles but also against the whole spectrum of precision weapons.

While the pragmatic Americans, who figured out early that to integrate all aerospace defense would mean putting it in one bundle, have been working on this program for a long time already, Russia's government only developed a similar program and started its implementation as late as the end of April.

As Sergei Ivanov, until this week first deputy prime minister, pointed out, the range of measures involves creating a multi-service system of defenses against precision weapons, including unified control and information systems, to protect Russia's armed forces, economy and infrastructure.

Sergei Ivanov, who also put in a long tour of service as Russia's defense minister, stressed that today's Russian army and navy are equipped with air defense missile systems developed in the 1960s and '70s.

Ivanov's comments imply a quick retooling of the Russian armed forces with modern air defense weapons capable of repulsing airspace attacks. This mainly concerns the S-400 Triumph air-defense and theater anti-missile weapon -- North Atlantic Treaty Organization reporting name SA-21 Growler -- that proved highly capable in tests held in July 2007.

This system is a really good one. Unlike its predecessor, the S-300, the S-400/SA-21 interceptor missile is capable of engaging targets not only in the air but also in outer space. It could potentially become the backbone of both Russia's unified aerospace defense system and a European non-strategic missile defense.

Unfortunately, however, the new weapons are being deployed far too slowly, and in too small numbers, to have any effect. The sole S-400 battalion is deployed in the vicinity of the Moscow region town of Elektrostal.

Speaking on the creation of an integral air defense missile system and preparations for its serial production, Ivanov noted a number of problems impeding the process, primarily inadequate financing and coordination, lack of manufacturing capacities for mass production and poor quality of component parts produced.

These problems not only are hampering defense production but also are a scourge of the entire national economy. In addition, the defense industry lately has developed a harmful habit of exporting the bulk of its latest and most sophisticated hardware, ignoring the requirements of the national armed forces. The S-400 interceptor missile system is no exception, and its export record is predetermined.

In other words, the Russian armed forces are still a long way from deploying a dependable air defense system capable of reliably protecting all vital infrastructures within the Russian territory. By that time, the S-400 Triumph would be obsolete and helpless against new, modernized guided precision weapons, and its capability would not match its name.

Yet missiles are not the only means of countering modern precision weapons. Precision weapons are a means of destruction comprising guidance or automatic homing devices. So it is possible to defend a location either by destroying the bomb or missile, or by hindering its homing mechanisms. The latter option envisages creating effective countermeasures.

Modern foreign precision weapons use automatic homing devices operating within the visible, infrared and radar spectra. With its homing system "blinded," a cruise missile is virtually useless.

The Russian military already has developed a relatively cheap way of protecting a large area without deploying air-defense missile systems. The idea is to use remote-detonated munitions to build up a high-altitude barrage, lowering the target contrast in all three spectra and disorienting the incoming precision weapon.

It is clear that one shouldn't rely solely upon this method of countering precision-guided munitions. But any means of protection are good in today's world with its avalanche-like pace of developing new weapons systems.

(Andrei Kislyakov is a political commentator for RIA Novosti. This article is reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.)

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

[Scratch]

It seems after some problems lately with their Bulava, they now make some progress.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3731459&c=EUR&s=AIR

Russia Test Fires New-Gen Strategic Missile: Reports

MOSCOW - A Russian submarine on Sept. 18 test-fired a Bulava strategic multiple warhead missile designed to overcome missile defenses, news agencies reported, citing the defense ministry. [...]

[lcortez]

Recently saw a report on the BBC stating that the Russian Defence Minister had stated that Russias plan was to build a total force of 6 aircraft carriers,and to build up the submarine fleet.
Blue jacket,I can categorically assure you that the subject of Gibralter doesnt come up for discussian that much as it inevitably raises the subject of Ceuta & Melila,and their is absoloutly no chance of a Spanish alliance with Russia,whose help over Gib wouldnt be needed anyway:)

[Scratch]

The pace of military built up / renewal seems to have increased lately.

Russia has a lot of energy $$ now and it seems they already have plans of how to spend those.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/world/americas/27russia.html

Russia Flexes Muscles in Oil Deal With Chávez

[...] as it announced an upgrade of its own military focusing on nuclear deterrence and permanent combat readiness.
[...]declared that by 2020 Russia would construct new types of warships, including nuclear submarines carrying cruise missiles and an unspecified air and space defense system. [...]
On Friday, Mr. Medvedev said the conflict also proved “the acuteness” of Russia’s need to modernize its military. Defense spending will increase by 26 percent next year, bringing it to 1.3 trillion rubles ($50 billion), its highest level since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4833037.ece

Russia to build missile defence shield and renew nuclear deterrence

Russia is to build new space and missile defence shields and put its armed forces on permanent combat alert, President Medvedev announced yesterday. [...]

Russia also send a warship, the Neustrashimy, to the Horn of Africa, after a frighter with 33 T-72 tanks was hijacked by pirats.

It seems in the next decade we might see a strong rerise of Russia, if they can keep on their energy trade that makes them wealthy.
Will be interesting so see how, strategicly, they interact with the rising power at their south-eastern border.