Russian Army/Ground Forces Discussion and Updates

[stojo]

US Air Force (USAF) General Frank Gorenc, the commander of US Air Forces in Europe and Africa, said that Russia's military modernization has diminished NATO air superiority in Europe.

"They have closed the gap," Gen Gorenc, also the chief of Allied Air Command, told reporters during a briefing.

"The advantage that we have from the air, I can honestly say, is shrinking," he added. "But the more alarming thing is their ability to create anti-access/area denial [A2/AD]."

AFA 2015: Russia has closed air power gap with NATO, US warns - IHS Jane's 360

Feanor, what is your take on this? Do you think this is just a scare tactics play in order to build up a political support for NATO up-gunning in Europe, or this is really the case?

 

[Feanor]

US Air Force (USAF) General Frank Gorenc, the commander of US Air Forces in Europe and Africa, said that Russia's military modernization has diminished NATO air superiority in Europe.

"They have closed the gap," Gen Gorenc, also the chief of Allied Air Command, told reporters during a briefing.

"The advantage that we have from the air, I can honestly say, is shrinking," he added. "But the more alarming thing is their ability to create anti-access/area denial [A2/AD]."

AFA 2015: Russia has closed air power gap with NATO, US warns - IHS Jane's 360

Feanor, what is your take on this? Do you think this is just a scare tactics play in order to build up a political support for NATO up-gunning in Europe, or this is really the case?

Russia has made gains, and the Russian military is in a higher state of readiness then it has been since the Cold War. This isn't scare tactics. That having been said, NATO would still annihilate Russia in a big war. The question of course is, what about the little ones? And I think in many ways it will be a question of response time. How fast can you do how much. Like when Russia grabbed Crimea, and by the time the west realized the game Russia was playing, it was too late.

 

[Spacearrow99]

Russia has made gains, and the Russian military is in a higher state of readiness then it has been since the Cold War. This isn't scare tactics. That having been said, NATO would still annihilate Russia in a big war. The question of course is, what about the little ones? And I think in many ways it will be a question of response time. How fast can you do how much. Like when Russia grabbed Crimea, and by the time the west realized the game Russia was playing, it was too late.

The Russians cannot project power globally, but no one can project power in Eurasia like Russia. Remember trains are much faster than ships traveling from the U. S. Do the Russians have to logistics to sustain major operations? A practicable NATO attack would only use the East European Plain, and a large number Russia's active and reserves forces are stationed in Russia's part of the Eastern European Plain. NATO has not faced anything close to Russia's air defenses.

 

[Feanor]

The Russians cannot project power globally, but no one can project power in Eurasia like Russia. Remember trains are much faster than ships traveling from the U. S. Do the Russians have to logistics to sustain major operations?

I suspect it mainly depends on how long they have to sustain them for. Russian logistics kept the Ukrainian rebels in the war for quite a long time. And Russia's own rapid reaction exercises are often quite large scale (over a hundred thousand troops) but they rarely last very long.

A practicable NATO attack would only use the East European Plain, and a large number Russia's active and reserves forces are stationed in Russia's part of the Eastern European Plain. NATO has not faced anything close to Russia's air defenses.

Well it's not that simply. First off NATO would have to build up the troops and infrastructure to launch this attack. And this would attract a lot of attention. Russia would certainly wave around the nuclear stick, making the entire thing non-viable. There's also big questions about whether the Europeans would go along with something like this.

And of course, how would the CSTO respond? Belarus surely would end up on Russia's side (geography and the nature of their leadership, plus the Russian troops there), but what about the others? So the difficulties are not in overcoming Russian military power as much as the geopolitical problems with it.

 

[Ranger25]

I suspect it mainly depends on how long they have to sustain them for. Russian logistics kept the Ukrainian rebels in the war for quite a long time. And Russia's own rapid reaction exercises are often quite large scale (over a hundred thousand troops) but they rarely last very long.



Well it's not that simply. First off NATO would have to build up the troops and infrastructure to launch this attack. And this would attract a lot of attention. Russia would certainly wave around the nuclear stick, making the entire thing non-viable. There's also big questions about whether the Europeans would go along with something like this.

And of course, how would the CSTO respond? Belarus surely would end up on Russia's side (geography and the nature of their leadership, plus the Russian troops there), but what about the others? So the difficulties are not in overcoming Russian military power as much as the geopolitical problems with it.

I don't see NATO or the US spoiling for any type kinetic engagement with the Russians any time soon. Recent moves indicate a move toward increased deterrence in the Baltic states as a reaction to the invasion of Ukraine and seizure of Crimea.

 

[Feanor]

Some interesting tidbits. A video of a T-90 allegedly firing in combat during a counter-insurgency operation in Dagestan. If true, this might pre-date the Ukrainian misadventure and be it's first combat employment.

КонтртеррориÑтичеÑкий Т-90 в ДагеÑтане - Берлога Бронемедведа

And a BMP-3 with the Bumerang-BM combat module. Allegedly it's an unmanned vehicle variant.

Gur Khan attacks!: СенÑÐ°Ñ†Ð¸Ñ "Дней инноваций"

 

[Feanor]

With the operation in Syria involving large numbers of Naval Infantry, Russian Naval Infantry units are getting beefed up. They're returning MLRS companies into the brigades, and it's likely they will be turned into full btlns with time. There is also an active re-armament program to requip them with upgraded arty, new body armor, and new C4I gear. Together with the VDV, the Naval Infantry seems to be part of an increased focus on force projection and expeditionary warfare capability. It's no accident that despite the deployment of T-90A tanks, the bulk of Russian ground presence in Syria are marines and airborne.

Рв МорÑкой Пехоты РФ Ñнова еÑÑ‚ÑŒ Ñ€ÐµÐ°ÐºÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ð°Ñ Ð°Ñ€Ñ‚Ð¸Ð»Ð»ÐµÑ€Ð¸Ñ! - Добро пожаловать в журнал РоÑтовÑкого Орла

And, incase anyone still reads this thread, a new Armata based combat vehicle is close to field trials.

 

[wittmanace]

Yeah, I check it all the time still. I'm sure many do.

What kind of platform is it you mean, based on the armata?

 

[Feanor]

Yeah, I check it all the time still. I'm sure many do.

What kind of platform is it you mean, based on the armata?

There are two much expected ones. One is a 57mm AA system to replace the Tunguska. The other is an assault tank. Supposedly it's a tank with a 152mm gun, but it's speculated that instead of a tank cannon it will carry a howitzer, as well as a 57mm autocannon or grenade launcher. However the details are all assumed. The fact of it's development is the only real confirmed fact we have.

 

[Nick underscore]

.. Together with the VDV, the Naval Infantry seems to be part of an increased focus on force projection and expeditionary warfare capability. It's no accident that despite the deployment of T-90A tanks, the bulk of Russian ground presence in Syria are marines and airborne.

Рв МорÑкой Пехоты Ð*Ф Ñнова еÑÑ‚ÑŒ Ñ€ÐµÐ°ÐºÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð½Ð°Ñ Ð°Ñ€Ñ‚Ð¸Ð»Ð»ÐµÑ€Ð¸Ñ! - Добро пожаловать в журнал Ð*оÑтовÑкого Орла..

Thanks for the update.

It does make sense for increased Naval Infantry size/strength compositions, but in some ways - I'm still surprised at the 'eventual' size of the VDV strength in relation..

Who is in charge of Naval Infantry currently and do you think is he leveraging the current temp/ climate (also considering VDV increases over previous 1-2 years)?

Separately, would/ could you infer the increased force projection on both the VDV and Naval Infantry, that these units will be predominantly contracted soldiers?

IMV, It's a shame the actual 'projection' element will be 'missing' to some degree. I guess that is where the Mistral gap will be felt..

 

[Feanor]

Thanks for the update.

It does make sense for increased Naval Infantry size/strength compositions, but in some ways - I'm still surprised at the 'eventual' size of the VDV strength in relation..

Who is in charge of Naval Infantry currently and do you think is he leveraging the current temp/ climate (also considering VDV increases over previous 1-2 years)?

Separately, would/ could you infer the increased force projection on both the VDV and Naval Infantry, that these units will be predominantly contracted soldiers?

IMV, It's a shame the actual 'projection' element will be 'missing' to some degree. I guess that is where the Mistral gap will be felt..

The Naval Infantry is not a single structure like the VDV which is likely why it doesn't enjoy the same prominence. They're part of the Coastal Troops which are subordinated to each fleet or flotilla command. Coastal Troops in addition to Marines, include mech infantry, artillery, missiles, etc.

For the Marines specifically, lack of anything like the Mistrals is a problem, but the VDV is primarily airborne. If Russia wanted to, they could keep a VDV regimental taskforce in combat in Syria using airlift to bring them in and keep the supplied. The price tag would be very high, flying in everything. But it's certainly doable. Strictly speaking even the Marines could maintain a brigade-size taskforce in Syria quite easily using the BDKs as supply vessels. The problem is that they're already using the BDKs to keep the airgroup there supplied.

 

[Ranger25]

The Naval Infantry is not a single structure like the VDV which is likely why it doesn't enjoy the same prominence. They're part of the Coastal Troops which are subordinated to each fleet or flotilla command. Coastal Troops in addition to Marines, include mech infantry, artillery, missiles, etc.

For the Marines specifically, lack of anything like the Mistrals is a problem, but the VDV is primarily airborne. If Russia wanted to, they could keep a VDV regimental taskforce in combat in Syria using airlift to bring them in and keep the supplied. The price tag would be very high, flying in everything. But it's certainly doable. Strictly speaking even the Marines could maintain a brigade-size taskforce in Syria quite easily using the BDKs as supply vessels. The problem is that they're already using the BDKs to keep the airgroup there supplied.

As an aside comment, I'm impressed with the heavier weapons of the Russian Marine forces V the USMC. Even their AEVs are armed with 30mm guns and ATGWs while the US AEV has either a 7.62 or 40 mm launcher.

 

[Feanor]

As an aside comment, I'm impressed with the heavier weapons of the Russian Marine forces V the USMC. Even their AEVs are armed with 30mm guns and ATGWs while the US AEV has either a 7.62 or 40 mm launcher.

There's no ATGMs on BTRs these days. They have dismounted ATGM teams. While in principle you could put some on them, I have yet to see it. In general, Russian/Soviet mech-infantry tends to be more heavily armed, have larger numbers of tanks organic to the infantry, and rely more heavily on firepower. However they have smaller numbers of dismounts, and are less willing/able to clear complex urban areas house by house. As is Russian Marine units, however, have been significantly lightened. They no longer have tanks, they only operate older air-defense systems (the Tunguskas don't fit into the BDKs, they're too tall), they had their MLRS btlns cut and have only now gotten a single company of MLRS back per brigade/regiment. They don't have their own helos (they can use the AVMF ones, but the AVMF has very few helos for transport or fire support, in exercises VVS helos are used) and they certainly don't have their own jets.

Also don't forget that USMC has LAV-25s, CAAT platoons, etc. Finally Russian Naval Infantry is still a mech-infantry force. The USMC is primarily light infantry. The main means of moving a USMC line company from A to B in-country is trucks (7-tons), maybe Humvees. The USMC for a light infantry force, packs a serious punch, while Russian Naval Infantry, for a mech-infantry force, is rather light.

Currently they're working on a new combat vehicle for Russian Marines, and preliminary indications point to it being tracked. If they follow Soviet-Russian armor school traditions, it will be an IFV. If they go with the new modular design, it could end up with the same standard mount as the Bumerang-Kurganets series which can take either the machinegun or the Bumerang-BM module.

 

[Navor86]

Are there actually plans to increase the size of the Russian Naval Infantry?
And is the Orbat on wikipedia correct?

 

[Feanor]

Are there actually plans to increase the size of the Russian Naval Infantry?
And is the Orbat on wikipedia correct?

I don't know. I mean adding the MLRS batteries in are already an increase in size. Others are likely to follow, but what scale. I don't recall any large scale increase plan off the top of my head. If I find something, I'll post it.

 

[Feanor]

"At Least I’ve Got a Machinegun": Marine from Crimea Told About His Service

A Russian contracted marine serving in Sevastopol, Crimea, told Mil.Today on an anonymous basis about the service of a machine gunner.

The translation is awful, the commentary questionable, the source absent, and the length of the interview extremely short. Not sure what you found interesting about that...

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

There are two much expected ones. One is a 57mm AA system to replace the Tunguska. The other is an assault tank. Supposedly it's a tank with a 152mm gun, but it's speculated that instead of a tank cannon it will carry a howitzer, as well as a 57mm autocannon or grenade launcher. However the details are all assumed. The fact of it's development is the only real confirmed fact we have.

Sounds more as a replacement for the ZSU-57-2 to me. It will be very remarkable if they want to replace the 2S6M Tunguska with a modern version of the ZSU-57-2 instead with the Pantsir S1...

 

[Feanor]

Sounds more as a replacement for the ZSU-57-2 to me. It will be very remarkable if they want to replace the 2S6M Tunguska with a modern version of the ZSU-57-2 instead with the Pantsir S1...

There are no ZSU-57-2s in the current Russian ORBAT. Mech Bdes have two air defense btlns. One is a missile-artillery btln, the other just missile. The missile btln has 3 batteries of Osa or Tor SAMs (the former being hopelessly antiquated and are being slowly phased out). The missile-artillery btln has 3 batteries with one being MANPADS (Igla mostly, but the new Verba around), one being either ZSU-23-4 or 2S6, and one being Strela-10M (some new Strela-10M3/4 or Strela-10MN have been inducted). The replacement for the Strela-10 is the Sosna, but it has yet to reach state trials. The replacement for the ZSU-23-4 and 2S6 was thought to be a land-forces Pantsyr variant but will now instead be a different system. From what I understand they are unsatisfied with the protection levels possible on a system like the Pantsyr, and the new vehicle will combine air defense with secondary anti-ground roles, and for chassis will use all of the new universal chassis, not the specialized GMZ chassis used by air defense systems. Strictly speaking the turret and weapon are already finished (and displayed on the ATOM demonstrator), they need either an EO or radar system to let it service airborne targets.

The idea is that mechanized units will operate jointly at the squad level, with combined arms groups of 2-3 IFV, 1-2 tanks and 1-2 air-defense systems, working as a single unit, on a single chassis.

EDIT: There are indications that the Pantsyr upgrade currently in the works is only an intermediate variant. There is work being done in the direction of making the Pantsyr a longer range and more capable system, in which case were they to try and induct it into the Land Forces ORBAT, the most logical place for it would be to replace the Tor.

 

[Ranger25]

Seems a bit optimistic giving the economy

MOSCOW: The Russian Defense Ministry will purchase about 200 aircraft and helicopters, up to 30 surface ships and submarines and up to 600 armored vehicles annually, Russian General Staff Chief Valery Gerasimov said at a briefing conference for foreign military attaches.

“There are plans to purchase 70-100 aircraft, more than 120 helicopters, up to 30 surface ships, submarines, special ships and support vessels and up to 600 armored vehicles annually,” Gerasimov said.

Read more: Russia to Purchase About 200 Aircraft, Up To 30 Vessels Annually | Air Force & Aerospace News at DefenceTalk


I know this is a cover story here, but seems more like hype given the condition of the Russian economy, unless they plan to spend themselves into oblivion similar to the Soviet Union


Thoughts?

 

[Feanor]

MOSCOW: The Russian Defense Ministry will purchase about 200 aircraft and helicopters, up to 30 surface ships and submarines and up to 600 armored vehicles annually, Russian General Staff Chief Valery Gerasimov said at a briefing conference for foreign military attaches.

“There are plans to purchase 70-100 aircraft, more than 120 helicopters, up to 30 surface ships, submarines, special ships and support vessels and up to 600 armored vehicles annually,” Gerasimov said.

Read more: Russia to Purchase About 200 Aircraft, Up To 30 Vessels Annually | Air Force & Aerospace News at DefenceTalk


I know this is a cover story here, but seems more like hype given the condition of the Russian economy, unless they plan to spend themselves into oblivion similar to the Soviet Union


Thoughts?

Well some of this stuff is exaggerated. They often combine numbers for upgraded and new vehicles. For example most of the BTR-82 are AM variants, which mean they're re-manufactured BTR-80s for not much more then the cost of an overhaul and the new equipment. Surface ships consist mostly of smaller patrol boats, harbor vessels, etc. The most numerous warship Russia has received is the 21631 Buyan-M (5 spaced out over many years), which is a small missile ship (light corvette). The second most numerous is the 20380s, which are also corvettes. Russia has yet to take delivery of any frigates, though 2-3 are expected soon (11356/22350). Meanwhile Russia's defense budget is relatively large.

The other side of it is that military spending has always been a priority for the Putin regime. They're working on new taxes right now to make up for the deficits produced by low oil prices, and while they care about the economy as a whole (because their own pockets are on the line) they care little for the living conditions of normal people, which is where you will see them take the money from. I don't think they will spend themselves into oblivion, though it's always possible, rather I think they will prioritize self-preservation over militarization. Defense spending will likely continue to rise, but far less dramatically then it has so far, possibly even plateau off.

Meanwhile Coalition arty firing trials have begun, and some footage is available.

Gur Khan attacks!: Чудовищный удар «ÐšÐ¾Ð°Ð»Ð¸Ñ†Ð¸Ð¸»

And work on Russian MRAPs is nearing conclusion. The truck-sized Tayfun-K and -U vehicles have already been delivered to SpetzNaz units in South MD, now the VDV expects to receive the Tayfunenok (little typhoon) next year, it's a 4X4 MRAP. It will have protection levels similar to the Iveco Lynx. Which is an accomplishment. But keep in mind, it comes a decade after the Iveco vehicle, and it's a considerably larger vehicle too. It's certainly useful, but far from cutting edge.

Gur Khan attacks!: «Ð¢Ð°Ð¹Ñ„унÑта» поÑвÑÑ Ð² войÑках в 2016 году