Future of Russian Military

Viktor

New Member
On a tactical level I think Russia could have done better. The Georgian air assets, naval assets, and strong points, should have been dealt with early on and at the same time, on a tactical level.
Yes Russia could have done batter but anything you do can allways be done batter so lets not be to critical ... in the situation where you need to react fast I think Russia menaged to eliminate threat exceptionaly fast.


I don't know how much of this is true "Georgia had more man" doesn't sound right to me.

At first about few thousand of Russians entered area ... even at the end of the war when about 10 000 Russians where in the area Georgia still had more boots on the ground (you dont actually thing whole 58th army entered battelfield against Georgia)


I don't know the level of training provided to the Georgians others here may know better. It's not like the US supplied PAC-3 and Block-52+ Vipers to them. Maybe Israel sold some Spider SAM's I don't but even if they did why didn't Russia take them out on a tactical level?
I don't recall any Israeli SAMs in Georgia
Nor was their IADS truly networked on any level
Well Ill try reading this http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/3-2008/item3/article3/

You can clearly see that Georgia operated two 36D6 radars from S-300 system, 2 Pechora-2A batteries, 3 Ukrainian BUK-M1 batteries, Osa and hundreds of other MANPADS ... and yes Israel has also sold Spyder system and you had pics and video of it around the internet. Throw no exact number is known . So I say thats a pritty decent airdefence for a small and pour country and destroying all that modern airdefence and radar systems in a 3 days is pritty impresive.

Nor were they a "NATO standards" army.
Well I dont know what NATO standards really mean but it is a fact that western ( I call them all NATO without exceptions) did train them for 5 years so standarsd or not they where trained army not some rebel scum.


Russia should have dealt with Georgia on a tactical level better then they did, in 2008
Should have send Kh-55 throw Sucky window before the war started. :vamp
 

ASFC

New Member
Well Ill try reading this http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/3-2008/item3/article3/

You can clearly see that Georgia operated two 36D6 radars from S-300 system, 2 Pechora-2A batteries, 3 Ukrainian BUK-M1 batteries, Osa and hundreds of other MANPADS ... and yes Israel has also sold Spyder system and you had pics and video of it around the internet. Throw no exact number is known . So I say thats a pritty decent airdefence for a small and pour country and destroying all that modern airdefence and radar systems in a 3 days is pritty impresive.

Well I dont know what NATO standards really mean but it is a fact that western ( I call them all NATO without exceptions) did train them for 5 years so standarsd or not they where trained army not some rebel scum.
Oh dear. It wasn't a 'pretty decent airdefence' if it was not networked properly-it is the same argument when people declare that Iran is unstoppable because they have bought a battery of S-300.

Georgia did not have a Nato/Western Standard Army-the training and aid they had received had been related to their mission in Iraq, and only trained certain parts of their army. It is wrong to say that just because Russia defeated an Army that had received barely 5 years of Nato training to certain parts (i.e. the infantry) that Russia could invade the rest of Europe and win because their win in Georgia means all Nato armies are rubbish/useless compared to Russia, because Gergia was not a member of Nato and was barely starting on the road to a Nato standard military.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
His claim was actually the opposite. He claimed that Russian future defense IS a joke. What I'd like to add is that the Georgian war showed that the Russian Army was beginning to transition to a modern force structure, one that is long overdue, and that it effectively implemented elements of this force structure during the war in Georgia.
 

nevidimka

New Member
Holy crap. They had all those at their disposal? Including the S 300! Do you think Russia would have certain technology advantages for themselves to circumvent their own high performance SAM's ?

Something that is not exportable?
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
They didn't have any S-300.
They operated some radars which can also be used together with the S-300 complex.

I understand the reason behind bolstering the national pride after such a conflict and the russians forces did better than some would have believed.

BUT one should defenitely stay away from the idea that Georgia can really be seen as an example how easily Russian forces are able to overcome a modern western style NATO force.
 

ROCK45

New Member
transition

Feanor
Russian Army was beginning to transition to a modern force structure, one that is long overdue, and that it effectively implemented elements of this force structure during the war in Georgia.
It is always easier to look back after the fact and make comments and say this should have been done or that. That said I would think that Russia's battle field awareness needs improving.

I assume some of these radar's, SAM's, Georgian Command & Control, Su-25 aircraft, Navel Command, Coastal patrol Boats, could have been targeted much earlier on using tactical assets, thus taking the fight out of the Georgians much sooner.

Russian forces using different means should have located most of these Georgia assets before the war broke out. This is an area where Russia's Armed Forces could improve a little. For example the Georgian Missile or Patrol Boats, should have been sunk in their docks, avoid the little naval battle all together. The Su-25 if all possible destroyed on the ground, thus taking away one of your enemies ways or reaching out and striking back.

Viktor- I read the article you attached from that news story it was interesting and the confirm parts should have tip off Russia's incoming forces of what possibly to expect. From the lost aircraft early on at least it seem they didn't use this information, they should have. I wonder why if Russia knew this country was going to be a "hot spot" why didn't Russia move in some Special Forces even on a recon level, this would have been very helpful. I would assume since they know the country so well that this wouldn't to hard to do, work in some teams just to collect information? I think this might have save lives and have Russia's early deployment/missions turn out much more successful. What do you think? http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon5.gif
 

Dalregementet

New Member
Do you have a link to a source that a third Su-34 has indeed been completed? I recall reading that 10 are in assembly on rian.ru but nothing about a third one. I assumed that those ten will be added to the two currently at the Lipetsk training center to form the first squadron.

Dalregementet I agree to some extent, however there is a rather major downsizing and reformatting under way as we speak. The army will lose over 100 000 men, and will see the disbanding of all the "cadre" units.

As for Bulava serial run, time will tell.
Feanor,

I assume you´re russian... so I guess you have a belief and a desire that russia will succeed with the transition. But hey, take a look at the russsian army and the russian society - are russia known for good quality and good organisation? Nope! Are russians known to sacrifice themselves for their motherland or for their comrades? Nope! Are russia known to win battles were they are inferior in numbers? Nope! What I'm saying is that I'm sceptic that the russian army will be able to transform itself into something useful. Russia has historically won because of superiority in numbers and by sacrificing their own soldiers without hesitation. You had the politrucs running after the soldiers in the red army, shooting everyone that wasn´t charging ahead. Those days are gone - thank good! Also, the weapons that russia produces are not generally state of the art and as always, the quality sucks. A summary: Not superior in numbers, inferior in arms quality, less proffessional soldiers and a bad attitude/morale. Will this be significantly different in 10 years time? I don´t think so.

I'm not impressed with russian winning over Georgia - It's like if Sweden would have attacked Luxembourg. And if you look at this clip below, are the russian troops acting proffesional when on the move? Nope. Do the troops act disciplinened? Nope. Just a thought... what would have happened if these troops would have met a brittish armoured division? It would have been game over for the russian troops.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaDCB3JBCTU&feature=related"]YouTube - War in South Osetia - pictures made by a Russian soldier[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUVYUeBdmSc&feature=related"]YouTube - British Army (Unseen)[/ame]

If russia ever will have a chance to be a great nation they have to start all over from the very beginning. Erase corruption and maffia. Start working with ethics and values. Work with constant improvements in bureacracy and production. Embrace free thinking and new ideas. Just to start with... So, in maybe a 100 years from now, we'll start to se a shift. That's what I think.
 

roberto

Banned Member
Feanor,

I assume you´re russian... so I guess you have a belief and a desire that russia will succeed with the transition. But hey, take a look at the russsian army and the russian society - are russia known for good quality and good organisation? Nope! Are russians known to sacrifice themselves for their motherland or for their comrades? Nope! Are russia known to win battles were they are inferior in numbers? Nope! What I'm saying is that I'm sceptic that the russian army will be able to transform itself into something useful. Russia has historically won because of superiority in numbers and by sacrificing their own soldiers without hesitation. You had the politrucs running after the soldiers in the red army, shooting everyone that wasn´t charging ahead. Those days are gone - thank good! Also, the weapons that russia produces are not generally state of the art and as always, the quality sucks. A summary: Not superior in numbers, inferior in arms quality, less proffessional soldiers and a bad attitude/morale. Will this be significantly different in 10 years time? I don´t think so.

I'm not impressed with russian winning over Georgia - It's like if Sweden would have attacked Luxembourg. And if you look at this clip below, are the russian troops acting proffesional when on the move? Nope. Do the troops act disciplinened? Nope. Just a thought... what would have happened if these troops would have met a brittish armoured division? It would have been game over for the russian troops.

YouTube - War in South Osetia - pictures made by a Russian soldier

YouTube - British Army (Unseen)

If russia ever will have a chance to be a great nation they have to start all over from the very beginning. Erase corruption and maffia. Start working with ethics and values. Work with constant improvements in bureacracy and production. Embrace free thinking and new ideas. Just to start with... So, in maybe a 100 years from now, we'll start to se a shift. That's what I think.
British amroured division? i doubt British armoured division can survive for single day against Russians. Just look at Afghanistan example and look at Soviet/Russian history. Imagine if Russians/Saudis joined hands and armed the insurgents for $200 to $300B worth of weopons and training. The only choice for British army would be surrender within days. Not decade worth of fighting. There is another example of 21st Motorized division in Tajikistan of putting down the Islamists in 90s.
Corruption is at individual levels. but in West corruption is at state level. thats why every state/corporation is hugely in debt. They are in debt because of artificial raise of living standards which state cannot afford.
Russian 58th army dont need to be dicipline when other side is so coward to run away from battlefield leaving weopons behind. It is the end result that matters not the fancy weopons/discipline.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Russian forces using different means should have located most of these Georgia assets before the war broke out. This is an area where Russia's Armed Forces could improve a little. For example the Georgian Missile or Patrol Boats, should have been sunk in their docks, avoid the little naval battle all together. The Su-25 if all possible destroyed on the ground, thus taking away one of your enemies ways or reaching out and striking back.
We are in agreement on this.

I wonder why if Russia knew this country was going to be a "hot spot" why didn't Russia move in some Special Forces even on a recon level, this would have been very helpful.
I'm sure recon units organic to the 19th and 42nd MRs were used. Also the 45 independent Spetznaz regiment was redeployed from the Moscow MD.

Dalregementet said:
I assume you´re russian... so I guess you have a belief and a desire that russia will succeed with the transition. But hey, take a look at the russsian army and the russian society - are russia known for good quality and good organisation? Nope! Are russians known to sacrifice themselves for their motherland or for their comrades? Nope! Are russia known to win battles were they are inferior in numbers? Nope!
That's a whole bucketload of assumptions in a single paragraph. Most not backed up by any evidence. The bolded one in particular strikes me as somewhat ridiculous. Do you want to provide any solid evidence of why you think the transition will fail? By the way I am in no way sure that it will. But the possibility for success is certainly there, and if the funding is present, then it will most likely be a reality. As for organization just do a little reading on Red Army logistics during the latter parts of WWII. ;)

Just fyi the only one of those assumptions which you got right atm is the fact that I'm Russian. The rest are guessetimates at best, and wrong at worst.

What I'm saying is that I'm sceptic that the russian army will be able to transform itself into something useful. Russia has historically won because of superiority in numbers and by sacrificing their own soldiers without hesitation. You had the politrucs running after the soldiers in the red army, shooting everyone that wasn´t charging ahead. Those days are gone - thank good! Also, the weapons that russia produces are not generally state of the art and as always, the quality sucks. A summary: Not superior in numbers, inferior in arms quality, less proffessional soldiers and a bad attitude/morale. Will this be significantly different in 10 years time? I don´t think so.
More generalizations. Lack of specific analysis. Attempts to apply basic (very basic) and stereotypical knowledge of history to a concrete and serious modern day issue. To sum it up, garbage. Put some solid evidence on the table.

I'm not impressed with russian winning over Georgia - It's like if Sweden would have attacked Luxembourg. And if you look at this clip below, are the russian troops acting proffesional when on the move? Nope. Do the troops act disciplinened? Nope. Just a thought... what would have happened if these troops would have met a brittish armoured division? It would have been game over for the russian troops.
Are you serious? Do you even want to present serious evidence? You wrote a fairly long paragraph which contained no real evidence. Fyi a clip isn't evidence of anything. It may or may not be indicatory of general Russian Army performance. Same with the British Army clip. Unless you have hard data that's not a claim you can make.
 

SkolZkiy

New Member
Feanor,

I assume you´re russian... so I guess you have a belief and a desire that russia will succeed with the transition. But hey, take a look at the russsian army and the russian society - are russia known for good quality and good organisation? Nope! Are russians known to sacrifice themselves for their motherland or for their comrades? Nope! Are russia known to win battles were they are inferior in numbers? Nope! What I'm saying is that I'm sceptic that the russian army will be able to transform itself into something useful. Russia has historically won because of superiority in numbers and by sacrificing their own soldiers without hesitation. You had the politrucs running after the soldiers in the red army, shooting everyone that wasn´t charging ahead. Those days are gone - thank good! Also, the weapons that russia produces are not generally state of the art and as always, the quality sucks. A summary: Not superior in numbers, inferior in arms quality, less proffessional soldiers and a bad attitude/morale. Will this be significantly different in 10 years time? I don´t think so.

I'm not impressed with russian winning over Georgia - It's like if Sweden would have attacked Luxembourg. And if you look at this clip below, are the russian troops acting proffesional when on the move? Nope. Do the troops act disciplinened? Nope. Just a thought... what would have happened if these troops would have met a brittish armoured division? It would have been game over for the russian troops.

If russia ever will have a chance to be a great nation they have to start all over from the very beginning. Erase corruption and maffia. Start working with ethics and values. Work with constant improvements in bureacracy and production. Embrace free thinking and new ideas. Just to start with... So, in maybe a 100 years from now, we'll start to se a shift. That's what I think.
You do not KNOW ANYTHING about Russia and RuArmy. Most of these declarations are ridiculous.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Post closed while heads cool down.

I have to say that the title is disparaging enough and not acceptable in its own right.

Read the Forum Rules for an indicator of whats expected.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Post re-opened. While we're at it - someone can think of a suitable new title for the thread - and we'll change it.

It's current title is unacceptable.
 

Wall83

Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #94
As the creator of the thread why dont just call it "Future of russian military"

Admin: Ack. Title changed.
 

macman

New Member
The Moscow Defence Brief goes into some detail about the new reforms/restructuring.

Main points, from what I can tell, seem to be:
- Move to a system focused on Brigades & districts, with higher states of readiness.
- More independant local command structure.
- Cut out a lot of the dead wood at the the higher echelons of the command.
- More NCO's & lower ranked officers, less top heavy.
- Some Military schools now civilian trained - others restructured.
- Much of the Reserve equipment now handled by civilian contractors.
- More units able to quickly deployed. Will be mostly paratroops & special forces rather than any new units, just attached to disticts, brigades.

Seems like a good plan for cutting down on inefficiencies & corruption.
A lot of the inefficiencies & corruption seem to stem from senior levels, who have built up their own little empires - this should break them up.

Should also greatly improve quick reaction time & flexibility.

Undoubtedly problems will surface, but with the added flexibility, these can be much more easily handled.

As to resistance to change, Serdyukov dealt with the Tax dept pretty well from most reports, & they were dug in almost as much as the senior military command.

Think he's the right guy for the clean out, getting it to the point where the better military guys can get things done...


Serdyukov’s Plan for Russian Military Reform
Ruslan Pukhov

On October 14, 2008, following a meeting of the Collegium of the Russian Defense Ministry, Minister Anatoly Serdyukov announced the launch of a new stage of military reform. If the Defense Minister’s reforms go through as planned, it will mark the most radical transformation of the Russian military system since 1945, touching upon every aspect of the armed forces, including service strength, central command and control bodies, tables of organization, and the officer training system. The reforms were clearly influenced by lessons drawn from the August military campaign against Georgia, even if the strategy had been developed much earlier. Indeed, the general thrust of reform was expected from the moment Serdyukov was installed at the Arbat. Nevertheless, events in Georgia have enabled Serdyukov to act decisively.

The main points of Serdyukov’s plan are as follows:

* Accelerate the downsizing of the armed forces;
* Reduce the number of officers and restructure the composition of the officer corps;
* Establish a non-commissioned officer corps;
* Centralize the system of officer training;
* Reorganize and downsize central command and control bodies, including the MOD and the General Staff;
* Eliminate cadre formations and bring all formations to permanent readiness status;
* Reorganize the reserves and their training system;
* Reduce the number of units, formations, and bases;
* Reorganize the Ground Forces into a brigade system, eliminating the regiment, division, corps, and army echelons; and
* Reorganize the Airborne Troops, eliminating divisions.


Cuts to Personnel and the Number of Officers

According to Serdyukov’s announcements, the planned reduction of the service strength of the armed forces from 1.13 million to 1 million servicemen will be advanced from 2016 to 2012. The number of officers will be reduced radically, from 355,000 positions currently on the books to just 150,000. That said, the actual number of officers to be discharged is less. Some 40,000 positions are currently vacant, and these will be eliminated by the end of the year. Moreover, 26,700 officers are due to be retired, and another 9,100 will have reached retirement age in 2009. In addition, 7,500 serving officers were called up for two years after graduation from civilian institutes of higher learning. They will be discharged at the end of their term, and this category of specialists is no longer being recruited. The remaining 117,500 officers will be discharged over the course of three years. To a large extent, their release will be effected as a result of another reform, announced by Serdyukov in early 2008, concerning the transfer of a number of positions, such as military medics and lawyers, to the civilian public service.

The central command and control bodies also face steep cuts. Serdyukov counted 10,523 people in the central apparatus of the Ministry of Defense and another 11,290 working for the military command bodies of the Ministry; in all, almost 22,000. This total is to be reduced to just 8,500, including 3,500 in the central apparatus of the MOD. In line with these changes, personnel at the General Staff will be reduced by 50 percent by March 1, 2009.

Serdyukov described the current personnel profile of the army as «shaped like an egg, swollen in the middle. There are more colonels and lieutenant colonels than junior officers. By the end of three years we will have built a pyramid, where everything will be clearly structured and proved.» Accordingly, the number of lieutenants and senior lieutenants in the armed forces is to increase from 50,000 to 60,000.

The creation of a non-commissioned officer (NCO) corps, formally lacking in the Soviet Army, is an important element of the reforms. A strong corps of NCOs should serve as the basis for soldier training and military discipline. But the introduction of sergeants into the system will take not three to four years as envisaged, but at least 10-15. This delay could undermine reform by creating problems with management and the manning of those combat arms where a relatively high percentage of officers are involved in the direct operation of military equipment, such as the submarine fleet, air- defense forces, etc.
......
More details at:
http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/4-2008/item6/article1/
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
You forgot to mention that they're disbanding all cadre units (i.e. units that are essentially skeleton crews of officers and equipment, to be mobilized in case of a major war). That probably one of the most important points of the whole reform.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
You forgot to mention that they're disbanding all cadre units (i.e. units that are essentially skeleton crews of officers and equipment, to be mobilized in case of a major war). That probably one of the most important points of the whole reform.
I presume the equipment of the cadre units is rather old. Will it be scrapped?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I don't think it will be scrapped. I think they'll keep it around as equipment for reservists. Though at this poinst even the reserve depos have enough equipment to outfit the reservists with T-72Bs, so it's hardly older then what the Land Forces currently have. In the future, time will tell.
 

zano333

New Member
thanksssssssssssss

Admin: Welcome to the forums with your first post. However, please read the Forum Rules about posting behaviour before making any more posts.

"One liner" comments are frowned upon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top