Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Discussion in 'World Armed Forces' started by tphuang, Mar 24, 2006.

  1. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,230
    Likes Received:
    1,340
    The EU alone has half a billion people. What did you expect?
    The EU's issue was never the resources. The issue is a lack of unified command and will. Plus there is no integrated military with comprehensive full spectrum capabilities.
    That means in any conflict the response will be lackluster.

    The US is supposedly replacing the A-10 with the F-35. So they have no replacement either.

    Yes, Russia has had brain drain, and lost industry in 90s, but the budget is still high enough given their GDP.
    The corruption on military contracts is not an issue unique to Russia.
    Meanwhile the industry is being rebuilt and a lot of new talents have been trained.
    They are not past the hump, that may take another decade. But at least they can defend themselves.
    Two decades ago even that was in question.
    Today they even have limited expeditionary capabilities.
     
    #6661 gelgoog, May 5, 2019
    Last edited: May 5, 2019
    bruceb1959 likes this.
  2. Anlsvrthng
    Offline

    Anlsvrthng Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    269
    The comparison of Russia vs USA gives quite interesting results.

    Example, if we compare the price of MIG-29 vs F-18 ( roughly same category ) ,then the 2014 procurement of both aircraft was approx 50 million vs 1 billion rouble .

    It gives 1:20 exchange rate.


    Now, if we correct the data with the population size then the result will be in the 55% range of economical capacity of Russia vs USA per capita.

    The same data is 66% for the UK vs USA. ( using exchange rate) , and 52% for Italy.


    Quite hard to get data for Chinese procurement prices, but I think those can give similar results.
     
  3. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,031
    Likes Received:
    10,377
    That's about as much as misundtanding as calling T90 a T72. M1 was a short lived iteration of the Abrams all out to the bone Yard
    Abrams, T72, T80, T90, Leopard 2 have all been improved in almost everything. Armor, FCS, weapons, power pack, electric systems, chassis, fuel system and ammo.
     
    bruceb1959, Air Force Brat and Brumby like this.
  4. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,230
    Likes Received:
    1,340
    The M1 has used the same crappy gas turbine engine for how long already?

    The Russians have the T-14, the South Koreans have the K2, the Japanese have the Type 10, heck even the French Leclerc is a relatively recent design compared with the M1.
    Or the T-72 or the T-80 for that matter.

    Yet the French have a joint program with the Germans intended to replace the Leclerc.
     
  5. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,031
    Likes Received:
    10,377
    That "Crappy" gas Turbine has been modified and upgraded a number of times. It offers excellent power to weight vs a conventional turbo diesel. Being significantly lighter than a conventional engine in the same class and reduced maintenance demands. The Fuel economy costs are almost marginal when you consider the costs applied to Turbo charged Diesals. It also starts easier in extreme cold will run on just about any fuel you can think of. That's why the T80 has used a "Crappy" Gas turbine of its own.
    even has a toilet but they have how many Now? A couple dozen Maybe? With revised plans now for 100 by 2025?
    Your point? They still operate K1A1 to and they have some T80 from Russia. They designed K2 as they wanted a tank better suited to Mountain fights and so that they could up gun to a 140mm gun down the line.
    And still operate Type 90. The Japanese wanted a tank that could move across Japan's mountains Bridges and Islands as well as be able to move from island to island.
    Which entered service in 1993 after eleven years of design. The Same time the Abrams was upgraded to M1A1.
    Leclerc performs on par with NATO tanks like Leopard 2 and Abrams it doesn't surpass them.

    Abrams first entered service as the M1 in 1980 it was designed in the late 1970s. And has continually been modified and improved. Based on its growth potential the SEP series being the latest.
    T72? Entered production 1971. Has been heavily upgraded.
    T80? 1975. Has been heavily upgraded but got a bloody nose in the Chechen war. However that had more to do with the state of the Russian army than the tank.
    T90 is a bit of a hybrid of T80 and T72 with some upgrades.
    Leopard 2? 1979. "Oh but it suffered in Turkey" because older versions and was used improperly. A tank can be killed I don't care who's tank it is if it's not used properly it can be killed.

    If just being a newer tank was a sign of a better tank than Challenger 2 entered service in 1998. After Leclerc after Abrams after T90.

    First the French and Germans are pushing a European union centric program across defence. They want a "Euro-Corps" with Europe armed troops.
    The French joined for a future tank. The Germans pushed as they are the economic and political european iron thrown. And are the leaders in large caliber guns. The Euro tank will not emerge until the end of the coming decade.
    The U.S. has a program for a future tank by the end of the coming decade.

    For today the Tanks we have listed are all third gens and more or less operate with parity depending on variant not family or age of interdiction of first variant.
    A brand new T72 would wipe the floor with a first gen Leclerc. Just as then Brand new upgraded Abrams gutted older itteratations of the T72 in Iraq. Not because they were the Mythical Lion of Babylonbut because they were Polish knock down kits from the early to mid 1980s vs 1993 vintage M1A1 tanks then top of the line designed to slaughter early to mid 80s Soviet union tanks.
     
    bruceb1959, Brumby and Air Force Brat like this.
  6. Pmichael
    Offline

    Pmichael Junior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    196
    And Russia can't maintain the capabilities they have with that budget. One of the main problems is that they are still playing number games like the SU with hundreds and thousands of outdated aircraft and tanks in various level of front line to reserve services. This was already a problem in the Cold War but Russia can't maintain such large numbers even less.

    More and more inventory of the military are outdated while new hardware barely see service in meaningful numbers.
     
    Air Force Brat likes this.
  7. Lethe
    Offline

    Lethe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2014
    Messages:
    1,079
    Likes Received:
    1,493
    I wrote a post a couple years back addressing this question of PPP/MER and future military spending amongst major powers.

    Applying a crude 50/50 approximation of MER and PPP measures, using IMF April 2019 projections for future economic growth, and assuming that defence allocations as proportion of GDP remain equivalent to the 5yr average of 2014-2018 spending (as estimated by SIPRI 2019) , generates the following "comparable" figures of defence expenditure in 2024:

    USA (3.2%): $823bn
    China (1.9%): $584bn
    Russia (4.5%): $322bn
    India (2.5%): $289bn
    Saudi Arabia (10.2%): $175bn

    Everyone else small fish.
     
    #6667 Lethe, May 7, 2019
    Last edited: May 7, 2019
  8. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,230
    Likes Received:
    1,340
     
  9. asif iqbal
    Offline

    asif iqbal Brigadier

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    8,671
    I think most Russian big ticket items are due to be decommissioned in 2020s

    Now Russia is moving to small warships

    These giants of the Soviet era will soon disappear

    Although submarine section Russia is doing really well

    SSBN and SSN are making a come back but surface fleet is on its way down they will rely on lighter warships
     
  10. Lethe
    Offline

    Lethe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2014
    Messages:
    1,079
    Likes Received:
    1,493
    Admiral Nakhimov will rejoin the fleet at some point and serve till at least late 2020s. Pytor Veliky will then go in for upgrade and could serve till early 2030s.

    Admiral Kuznetsov should go but there seems little chance of that happening.

    The post-Soviet era has a while left to run yet.
     
    #6670 Lethe, May 8, 2019
    Last edited: May 8, 2019
Loading...

Share This Page