Russian Armed Forces

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

This
https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-bal ... 0d3ad5c5e8
could equally well go onto the RN thread
- any thoughts?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 54 times
United Kingdom

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

From what I have read, there are difficulties in using Hypersonic weapons against pinpoint targets like ships at see, in that it is pretty difficult to carry out manoeuvres at such speeds and there use equates more to naval gunfire in having to predict where the target will be with the missile only able to make slight changes in course in the terminal phase. I am sure a lot of work is being done in this area to make the weapons viable and some form of mid course guidance update maybe required, but the system as a whole i going to be very complicated and expensive.

Of course it is the speed of these weapons that should make them so dangerous as so early detection, high speed interception and stand off counter measures are going to be vital for high value targets moving forward. Modern Naval Groups will have to have access to real time satellite early warning and surveillance capabilities 24/7, to detect possible hostile forces, missile launches and ideally missile tracking. This would be joined up with powerful ship based AAW radars working with manned to unmanned airborne radar to further extend the radar coverage and engagement zone. Unmanned UAVs would carry stand off jamming equipment and countermeasures and be able to be moved to the main threat axis. When it comes to interception it will require multiple interceptors to ensure the destruction of the incoming threats, and this is the main reason the current level of capacity on most NATO ships, usually around 48 is far to few. One hit form a hypersonic AShM will probably be enough to disable any surface warship by its kinetic energy alone.

So to prevent this the layers of defence must be further out. CIWS like Phalanx will be of little use against such a threat but will still be useful against more traditional missile threats but they will need complimenting by more capable systems such as Sea Ceptor/CAMM. This means that vessels that are currently routinely fitted with a CIWS like Phalanx should in future also be fitted with an enhanced system like that mentioned, possible using a containerised or modular form for vessels like RFAs that would include both missiles, data link. Modern consoles could be adapted to be easily re-rolled to control such a system or a mobile console able to be installed on any vessel could be developed. Where possible though such installations should be permanent.

Hypersonic weapons are a great tool to scare people with and there is some justification for this but countermeasure do exist but they are needed to be installed now whilst the more elaborate countermeasures are developed. High density launch systems for weapons like Sea Ceptor need to be used rather than individual launch canisters. A T-26 for example could carry almost double the number of Sea Ceptors using ExLS stand alone four missile launchers in the same space as the current "Mushrooms". We could use the T-31 as a magazine ship for other Warships if it were allowed to carry more Sea Ceptors, as would installing the weapon on the Carriers, Amphibious Ships and RFAs.

The danger is if one side is allowed to gain a major advantage by deploying effective hypersonic weapon systems and the other does not counter the threat effectively. This will enable the former to create no go zones for the latter which in turn may allow the former to carry out actions to the major detriment of the latter or their allies.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:Hypersonic weapons are a great tool to scare people with
yep, but they
Lord Jim wrote:will enable [the former] to create no go zones for the latter which in turn may allow [the former] to carry out actions to the major detriment of the latter or their allies.
The current version of shore-based deterrent is "Bastion" but the Kuola Peninsula is also (strategically) called a bastion... the bubble will be substantially enlarged if you have Mig-31s flying high and launching Kinchals at opposing naval forces
- hard to apply the old tru-ism of shooting the archer, rather than the arrow (as a counter)
Lord Jim wrote: We could use the T-31 as a magazine ship for other Warships if it were allowed to carry more Sea Ceptors
A great idea: gain a capability (thru capacity) w/o having to give up any other 'in return'
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

https://www.euronews.com/2021/05/09/vic ... YifQ%3D%3D

He did not mention which country operates concentration camp -like gulags for political opponents and which one has security forces that mete out brown shirts -type of violence to peaceful protesters, with impunity.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 54 times
United Kingdom

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

Comparisons could be made between Russia under Putin and Hitler's rise to power and his actions up to the start of WW2. Cracking down on any opposition, annexing the territory of neighbouring countries, destabilising these as well and supporting anti governmental factions. You have to admire the way Russia under Putin has occupied the Grey Area with regards to international competition and conflict, taking advantage of the Western Powers when they were concentration of COIN wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are now playing catch up and need to do so rapidly. On the bright side I personally feel Russia is far more vulnerable then the West to such actions taken against it and I believe it presents a hard shell but if this is broken it could be come a house of cards ready to fall or at least for those at the top. Could this lead to a rash last throw of the dice? I do not think so as I hope there are enough cooler heads still in place or near to them to prevent such an act.

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 0
Tuvalu

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by Pseudo »

Lord Jim wrote:Comparisons could be made between Russia under Putin and Hitler's rise to power and his actions up to the start of WW2. Cracking down on any opposition, annexing the territory of neighbouring countries, destabilising these as well and supporting anti governmental factions. You have to admire the way Russia under Putin has occupied the Grey Area with regards to international competition and conflict, taking advantage of the Western Powers when they were concentration of COIN wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are now playing catch up and need to do so rapidly. On the bright side I personally feel Russia is far more vulnerable then the West to such actions taken against it and I believe it presents a hard shell but if this is broken it could be come a house of cards ready to fall or at least for those at the top. Could this lead to a rash last throw of the dice? I do not think so as I hope there are enough cooler heads still in place or near to them to prevent such an act.
I think that what the West needs to do is find the modern equivalent of arming the Mujahedeen. I've got no idea what that would be though and obviously whatever it turns out to be the west needs to stick around and stay interested lest it lead to similar longer term consequences.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1851
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 5 times
United Kingdom

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:Comparisons could be made between Russia under Putin and Hitler's rise to power and his actions up to the start of WW2. Cracking down on any opposition, annexing the territory of neighbouring countries, destabilising these as well and supporting anti governmental factions. You have to admire the way Russia under Putin has occupied the Grey Area with regards to international competition and conflict, taking advantage of the Western Powers when they were concentration of COIN wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are now playing catch up and need to do so rapidly. On the bright side I personally feel Russia is far more vulnerable then the West to such actions taken against it and I believe it presents a hard shell but if this is broken it could be come a house of cards ready to fall or at least for those at the top. Could this lead to a rash last throw of the dice? I do not think so as I hope there are enough cooler heads still in place or near to them to prevent such an act.
The problem with the west is they just can’t seem to grasp that what they spend on defence is not enough for peace times let alone a new Cold War comprising of 2 foes this time ( Russia & China ) as that is where we’re heading it’s clear with Russia’s action over Ukrainian and china’s in the SCS.

If we were honest all major western and Central European nations along with the likes of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea all need to start spending a minimum of 2.5-3% of gdp on defence abd maintain that for the next 10 years at least.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 54 times
United Kingdom

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

I think everyone on here will agree with you, and in the grand scheme of things the extra £Bns or small numbers compared to what is spent on Health, Welfare and Education. However the voters want ever increasing amounts spent on two of the three which limits the available funds in the Government's Piggy Bank to routinely increase defence spending. What would be better would be for the Government to be honest and take out the padding they use to reach the 2% figure, and clearly define what this amount is to cover.

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 0
Tuvalu

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by Pseudo »

Lord Jim wrote:I think everyone on here will agree with you, and in the grand scheme of things the extra £Bns or small numbers compared to what is spent on Health, Welfare and Education. However the voters want ever increasing amounts spent on two of the three which limits the available funds in the Government's Piggy Bank to routinely increase defence spending. What would be better would be for the Government to be honest and take out the padding they use to reach the 2% figure, and clearly define what this amount is to cover.
I agree with you that defence spending should be higher, but I see a lot of people here lauding "UK PLC" and it's early education and welfare spending that alleviates child poverty that create the educated and stable workforce that "UK PLC" needs in order to prosper in the future.

That said, I think that a case could be made that because early education and measures to reduce child poverty are investments in future prosperity then a fair bit of the spending on them could be treated as capital spending rather than current spending, which means that borrowing to fund them would be a perfectly reasonable proposition. That would free up a bit of the current spending budget to put towards defence.

Having said that, I don't even think that you need to get that creative. All that's needed to cover the ten-year procurement budget shortfall is the government's will to do so. In government borrowing terms £7bn over ten years really isn't a lot.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Pseudo wrote:a case could be made that because early education and measures to reduce child poverty are investments in future prosperity then a fair bit of the spending on them could be treated as capital spending rather than current spending, which means that borrowing to fund them would be a perfectly reasonable proposition. That would free up a bit of the current spending budget to put towards defence.
A good point. Equally, the deterrent is v capital intensive: expensive to buy, but cheap to operate.
- hence the Treasury should fund the capital cost directly, and the Navy (the proud owner :) - or tenant, rather) would be happy to fork out the money for 1600 submariners (+ gas, every 30 years or so)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 0
Tuvalu

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by Pseudo »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:A good point. Equally, the deterrent is v capital intensive: expensive to buy, but cheap to operate.
- hence the Treasury should fund the capital cost directly, and the Navy (the proud owner :) - or tenant, rather) would be happy to fork out the money for 1600 submariners (+ gas, every 30 years or so)
And if not the Treasury then the deterrent is at least as much a foreign policy tool as it is a military capability, so the FCO should pick up half the cost. :D

Really though, you're absolutely right that the Cameron government should never have pushed the capital cost of replacing the deterrent on to the MoD.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 54 times
United Kingdom

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:A good point. Equally, the deterrent is v capital intensive: expensive to buy, but cheap to operate.
- hence the Treasury should fund the capital cost directly, and the Navy (the proud owner - or tenant, rather) would be happy to fork out the money for 1600 submariners (+ gas, every 30 years or so)
Isn't that how things were until Mr Osborne conned the MoD into taking on the burden in exchange for more funding in 2010?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3196
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 25 times
France

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote:I think everyone on here will agree with you, and in the grand scheme of things the extra £Bns or small numbers compared to what is spent on Health, Welfare and Education. However the voters want ever increasing amounts spent on two of the three which limits the available funds in the Government's Piggy Bank to routinely increase defence spending. What would be better would be for the Government to be honest and take out the padding they use to reach the 2% figure, and clearly define what this amount is to cover.
We need to get over this political shit show of having everything for nothing if we the people want more spent on the NHS , Education and Defence then we need to pay more tax other wise we get what we have now money being robbed from area to fill the hole in another and back again when first falls apart. On top of this all three need to get there shit together and stop wasting billions of pounds

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:We need to get over this political shit show of having everything for nothing
If your location is "true", then that is an interesting comment
- I lived in France on a "hi-tech" passport and paid 25%
- but most people there pay more than over here... so who should pay then?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3196
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 25 times
France

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by Tempest414 »

yes I do live in France but before that lived worked and served in the UK

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 54 times
United Kingdom

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

Everybody must pay a fair amount.

But we cannot match Russia at the moment as if they stick to buying new kit made in Russia and upgrading older kit by using Russian components they get things done far cheaper than we do. But we must not try to match the mass of the Russian military by relying on technology, we must maintain a higher level of mass in manpower and more traditional capabilities if we are to be able to deter Russia for further adventures. Having a Summer Rapid Deployment exercise that moves at least a Division into eastern Poland or even the Baltics, following agreed notification would be a start for NATO and a firm message to Russia, as long as the issues created by Able Archer are not repeated on their side.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 54 times
United Kingdom

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »


As usual a well orchestrated parade, but it is Putin's speech that bears listening too or more correctly reading the subtitles courtesy of YouTube. It maybe just me but hr is really ramping up the rhetoric about defending Mother Russia and her national interests. It is the last part that raised my eyebrows. But it could just be me.

I am also impressed by the vehicles available to its Airborne Units. Mind you you would never get me parachuting to the ground inside either one of those AFVs regardless of how safe it is supposed to be!

And of course they have to go one up one the West and publicly display their UCGV even if they were on the back on transporters.

On a lighter note, a few years ago only one T-34/85 lead the vehicle parade, now they have an entire company. Next year they will probably have IS-2s or even IS-3s in the parade at this rate.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

On Monday, the Arctic Council did not have a good start to the meeting as S. Lavrov was defending their military build up in the area being for "keeping others out" :crazy: .
- I hear that we are/ were getting 'an' Arctic Strategy of our own; where is it :?:

Anyway, now (in a closed doors bilateral) the US and Russia have tried to defrost their relations, as per https://www.state.gov/secretary-blinken ... er-lavrov/
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 54 times
United Kingdom

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

Well with only two Ice Breaker/Warships he USN is way behind Russia in this field, meaning the latter can open up routes to location others cannot and possession is nine tenths of the law, especially when Russia is involves.

Our strategy is probably offering morale support to the Canadians and Norwegians with the odd forward deployed Commando force, amphibious ship, escort(s) and support vessels, but I cannot see us going further north than the most northerly part of Norway.

Denmark is in an interesting position with regards to Greenland, which is once again become valuable real estate in the competition between the West and Russia. Will NATO form a Standing Naval Group that is able to operate around Greenland including its northern reaches?

Whatever happens we have some serious catching up to do as Russia only takes notice of actions not words.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 54 times
United Kingdom

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

Had to post this video, anyone else played Command and Conquer Red Alert> :D

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

A nice mixture of N. Korea (lots of 'babes') and the teens standing for a copy-cat idea of Hitler Jugend in it?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 54 times
United Kingdom

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by Lord Jim »

Well Putin does have a paramilitary youth club he sponsors, training and brainwashing a generation of Russian teenagers to have views on the world that are about as far from PC as you can get. Russian SP training kids in armed and unarmed combat, as well as teaching them that the west is out to get them, they are evil and corrupt so only mother Russia under Putin can save them is surely one up on out Combined Cadet Force. Mind you practicing and shooting AKs sure beats the old .303 Mk4 form my days in the Cadets.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: is surely one up on out Combined Cadet Force. Mind you practicing and shooting AKs
I agree on both accounts
- folks that have only shot with full power rifles (and I am only talking 'on the ranges') probably cannot appreciate how handy the mentioned & derivatives is/are out to 250m
... these days I would need to get a better prescription to see the Bull's Eye on a 25 m range
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by Phil Sayers »

Russia deploys three TU-22M3 Backfire bombers to Khmeimim airbase in Syria:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... re-to-stay

As speculated in the article I wonder whether they will be pestering the CSG21 deployment. If they stay based there they will constitute a significant new means of power projection.


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Russian Armed Forces

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Phil Sayers wrote: As speculated in the article I wonder whether they will be pestering the CSG21 deployment. If they stay based there
A good point and relates to what I have been saying that we better get the next version of Aster (NT) onto our AAWs plenty quick. The real constraints come from OpFor targeting as the lock on onto a specific target is limited to 200-300 km, whereas the defences can use networked sensors. However, after that launch point, there are some interesting stats in the linked articles, mainly relating to the high alttitude before the dive onto the target:
"
It is clear the fire range in the technical assignment should allow to strike without entering the air defense of the aircraft-carrying formation. The longest interception range of seaborne US aircraft on duty in the air is 700 kilometers from the carrier when aimed by AWACS (E-2S Hawkai and E-3 various modifications). It means Kh-32 range should be 800 km (experts say 600 to 1000 km). It is quite possible as Kh-22 flew for over 350 km yet in early 1960s. A more powerful engine and two times higher ceiling will boost the speed. Experts estimate the cruising speed at 5400 km/h.

As a result, it is an antiship missile launched from an altitude of 1 to 13 thousand meters and flying at an altitude of some 40 km at a speed of 1500 meters per second. The missile does not meet modern stealth requirements.

Let us analyze the capabilities of the latest and most powerful air defense of the US Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers and Arleigh-Burke-class destroyers with Aegis information-control system and the latest Standard-6 antiaircraft guided missiles. The missile (RIM-174 SM-6 ERAM) became operational in the US Navy in 2013. It is distinguished by an active radar homing warhead which allows to fire and forget the missile. It increases the effectiveness of engagement against low flying targets also beyond the horizon and allows destroying targets by outside aiming data, e.g. from an AWACS aircraft.

The Standard-6 launch weight is 1500 kg, the range is 240 km and the maximum altitude is 33 km. The speed is Mach 3.5 or nearly a thousand meters per second.
Maximum maneuvering overload is 50g. The warhead is kinetic (for ballistic targets) or fragmentation (for aerodynamic targets), weighs 125 kg which is twice as much as the previous missiles of the family.
Maximum speed of the attacked aerodynamic target is estimated at 800 meters per second. The hit probability by one missile at an aerodynamic target is 0.95.

The comparison of Kh-32 and Standard-6 shows the flying section of Kh-32 is seven kilometers above the top destruction level of the US missile and nearly two times surpasses its maximum speed for aerodynamic targets: 1500 against 800 meters per second.

But that does not mean the United States will not fire at hypersonic missiles. The Aegis system can detect them and provide aiming information as it is capable of missile and even satellite defense. Therefore, Standard-6 will be engaged, but it remains to see how effectively."
- enter (or not :? ) Aster NT?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply