L0ckAndL0ad

Oh, actually, I've been very fond of BBC for the past year. I considered them to be neutral. That opinion has changed recently. Let me make myself clear. Criticism is good. I did not say that the article was a smear or false. I said it had that certain smell, and that's it's already outdated. I do not think that articles like that can help people getting a good idea about the state of the Russian Armed Forces. And seeing quite a few statements about Russian Armed Forces that are far from reality, I realize that I have to keep caution people about what they read. Can we get back on track here now?

Not true. Would I be correcting the article if it was? We're talking about the head of MoD coming out and saying "yeah, we're not doing enough in training, we need to do better", are we not?

And let me illustrate my point. A person reads the article about how bad everything is in Russian military. Then he goes and says: When the point of the words of the head of MoD was to confirm and address this issue, which they corrected by increasing the ammo used for training. But what gets into focus? 30 rounds. That's the message people carry around. That's how a smear works. People like to focus on how bad their enemies are doing. This is how we end up with forums of people who don't know the real state of things in Russian Army. I mean, how many of people here actually knew about the fact that more than 50% of Russian Army personnel is professional, and not conscripts? As you see, and no disrespect intended, but people like panzersaurkrautwerfer come up with the ideas of how Russian army of 2015 is filled with different incompatible equipment, including loads of T-80s and T-62s. People should be cautious, especially nowadays.

True. I am critical of certain things about Russian Forces as well, there's nothing wrong about it. But this one strongly focuses on just how bad stuff is with Russian military. Hell, it even mentions birth rate decline and health issues. How would you westerners treat a Russian article that's doing exactly that, but talking about NATO armies? What would be the purpose of such article? How objective would it be? One can bring up number of things, like obesity problems in the US. What I am saying is, anything with that kind of smear smell about it, should be dealt with caution, at the very least. That's why I won't suggest relying on such articles and personally see them as indecent. I get that neutral journalism is hard to come by these days, but still.

Oh, lets see. It's of March 2014. I gave you contracted personnel numbers of Dec 2014. Oboronservis has been dealt with and reorganized. Rheinmetall didn't finish the training complex in Mulino, and Russians had to finish it by themselves. Then there are Mistrals, status of which is very well known to everyone, I guess. What else was there? Oh, the shells, yes. As the article says, head of MoD said that they need to shoot more. So they did increase the number of ammo expended during training. Don't remember where I read it, must have been twower's LJ or otvaga forums. But, you see, it's not "decent" just because it's outdated. It has a certain smear smell to it. Any article with that is not decent by default in my book.

Not really, no. Outdated.

You also haven't answered the questions that I've asked First of all, everything starts with a country's military doctrine. And Russia's military doctrine is focused on defending the homeland - the largest border of all. And inside those borders, lies the largest country, with so many different landscapes and environments, one can go mad. To deal with local conflicts around those borders, there are Armed Forces. To deal with major enemy (like NATO), the only thing that can work is nuclear weapons. So nuclear weapons get the priority in upgrades. And Air Defenses that can save from enemy's nuclear weapons. And I am actually under the impressions that these are being upgraded more than the usual branches of Armed Forces. So, I've asked you the question - who do they need to be better than? Like, in an immediate future. (right today?) I don't see them fighting anyone in an open conflict (contrary to Ukrainian conflict) against a country that's got a superior Armed Forces. And, given how bad they were doing back in 2008, they've still managed to defeat the superior numbers of Georgians (16 thousand Georgians vs 10 thousand Russians in South Ossetia). And their equipment was second grade even by their own standards - T-62s, BMP-1/2s, BTR-80s. So, since 2008, they've improved immensely in that regard. And keep doing that. But it's not like there's something critical is missing that they should get ASAP for their ground forces. Javelin-like ATGM is desirable IMO, but not absolutely critical. Now lets talk vehicles and equipment. I do agree that having only 1 model of each type of equipment is very efficient. I very much support commonality and unification (no pun intended). But, it appears to me that you haven't really studied what are the Russian plans are for next gen stuff. There are 3 new generation armored vehicle chassis in the works, Armata, Kurganets, Boomerang. Each is suppose to be used for like 8 vehicles. Armata chassis is going to be used for: MBT, heavy IFV, repairs-evac vehicle, SPA, mine cleaning vehicle, engineers vehicle, bridge laying vehicle, BMO (flamethrower guys vehicle), heavy flamethrower system (like Buratino), heavy flamethrower loading vehicle. So that's actually 10, not 8. You wanna keep talking about commonality? Alright. Same thing can be said about Kurganets and Boomerang, there are many roles that need to be filled with those chassis as well - command vehicles, recon, medium arty/mortars, SAM, etc. And all new gen APCs/IFVs are suppose to be equipped with the same unmanned turret (Epoch). Ain't that a commonality? AK-12 vs A-545? Yeah, that's a funny story indeed. But there's no way both would be used for mass production. I'm pretty sure it'll be AK-12. Armata price? It hasn't been disclosed yet. How can one speculate on that? Especially, given that pre-mass production model costs way more than mass production model. I do agree that making a super costly MBT is stupid, but there are too little details yet to discuss it more seriously. Now lets talk personnel. Many of you here seem to be too far from the reality in this regard. Russian Armed Forces are slowly moving to become almost 100% professional army. They are already more than 50% professional (Army: 295k prof, 273k conscripts - dec 2014 numbers). Each year the amount of conscripts is decreasing. While training standards are increasing. You get large scale maneuvers few times a year, since, like, 2011, where people come to unfamiliar training ranges (and not their own home ranges). You get numerous simulators, both PC based and natural-model based. I do not think that conscription will cease to exist entirely in the near future, but even if professional personnel would stay at 70-80%, it's be more or less enough, IMO. Eventually, conscription may be entirely replaced by reservists force. So, I'd say that your "problems" with Russian stuff are due to your low knowledge, first of all. I do not want to sound like an apologist or anything, but they are just not as bad as many of you seem to picture them. EDIT: Oh, and I forgot to comment regarding existing stuff that's in use. Stagler have answered on that already, but I'll reiterate. Russian current MBTs: T-72, T-90. They have very high part/ammo commonality. T-80 is barely used, in like one unit, and only due to the fact that they can service them right on that spot, where all the supplies for them are situated, IIRC. They've stopped producing T-90, and just upgrading T-72 with low cost upgrades to make them on par with T-90A, to wait it out until the new MBT is ready for mass production. I don't see how you can save more money than that. That is actually a money saving solution. And what are these T-62s are you talking about? O_o T-62s were retired in 2011. Russian IFVs. BMP-2 and BMP-3. There's like 7000 BMP-2s. While there's like 500+ BMP-3s. They do currently produce BMP-3s, in low quantities, to support factories/production lines. There's no sense in mass producing BMP-3s to completely replace BMP-2, because new gen vehicles are on the horizon (heavy IFV T-15 on Armata chassis, medium Kurganets-25). And because you'll need a load of money. When they'll apear, it'll be time to retire BMP-2s. Russian APCs. There are basically two now. Wheeled BTR-82A, and trucked MT-LB for mountains/arctic. Old BTR-80s are being refitted into BTR-82AM (equals fresh factory-made BTR-82A). Will be replaced by Boomerang chassis vehicles. MT-LBs are good for cross country mobility, and may eventually be replaced by Kurganets chassis vehicles (which are suppose to be light enough, if not equipped with add-on armor). Guns? AK-74M, PKP, RPG-7. Everything else is being phased out slowly. AK-12 and the new 5.45 MG to follow. Should I mention M4, M16, M249, M240, M27, SMAW, M3 MAAWS? Bottom line: you can't just say "that's it, we're using X instead of Y", and get the same amount of X as you had Y. That's not saving money, that's throwing them around like crazy.

Oh, you mean that.. I see. Well, IMO, MRAPs are very good for police/police special forces. If you've got loads of them sitting around doing nothing. Especially for a country with so much small arms in the hands of ordinary people. Russian MoD also started getting MRAPs if you didn't know, btw: http://bastion-karpenko.ru/kamaz-63968/

Aerial drones work over longer ranges. Maybe short range comms can be made more secure to jamming? You can even go crazy, and use optical (laser) relay stations, which are directional and can't be jammed easily without having a direct LOS. People can come up with anything, when there's need. It's just another branch of arms race. As it is said, "war is the engine of progress". At the same time, did the ability to jam comms stop world wide production of UAVs? It did not. There's more and more drones each day. They're just very useful. While playing CM, I've noticed that I mostly use infantry to clear the buildings. Everything else I do mostly with vehicles, if mission permits. So why not make even less risk to soldiers and make non-APC vehicles to be unmanned?

I don't see how unmanned turret tank can be a bad thing. Russia needs a new MBT anyway. As for the robots, US does them as well, just saw a video of one of them in a nearby thread. I am personally a mecha fan, so why the hell not. I do have problems with some design decisions, but it's kinda hard to discuss them when they weren't really presented to us. Boomerang-BM turret (aka early Epoch turret module) seems like a good concept for light and medium APCs, and is a logical step forward from Berezhok turret, which can be seen in CMBS on BMP-2M. But the model that was shown to us looks a bit, uhm, unprotected. And, frankly, I don't like the decrease of firepower compared to BMP-3. Thus I don't think it's a good idea to use it on both APCs and IFVs. IFVs should be equipped with 57mm gun: http://bastion-opk.ru/gun-of-57-mm-caliber/ And they said on IDEX-2015 that they'd fit it onto a new gen Russian heavy IFV. That I do support. However, it does contradict the initial plan to fit everything with Epoch turret, so we have to actually see how that goes. As for T-14, the only thing I find bad in its supposed design is the multi gun thing. Would it really work? Won't it make it too bulky? We just have to see. It's not like they did it to look cool without any analysis, trials and doctrinal compliance. At the same time, most of the tanks have AA HMG. It was useful in WW2, but how useful is it now? Would changing it to a little bigger gun make it worse or better? Kinda hard to say without actually looking at the model. How come?

The new APS is Afghanit. Here's its patent with the description how it works: http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/226/2263268.html It's said to be working similar to Drozd. However, the description itself sounds like it's more similar to Trophy, actually, since it uses a 2-axis moving/rotating launcher (or, "base", to be more correct/specific, cuz the charge explodes on it, the same way the Trophy works, not launches and explodes afterwards (!!!)): Lemme highlight the important parts:

Uhm, yeah, but why would it lack actual smoke grenade launchers then? It's Illogical. The placements just shows that it's a 360 degrees fast smokescreen deployment solution, linked to LWS. The quotes say the same thing.

That photo originates from vpk.name news site (not manufacturer) IIRC. It does indeed looks like a new version of Drozd APS. Thus the confusion. But the potent info is more reliable, don't you think? Also, text from the same potent:

1. That's not the answer to the questions I've asked.2. They are doing exactly that, by creating new gen vehicles, weapons and gear. Read what I wrote regarding the patent and СПЗ.

Which is? Better in what, and than who?

But if you wanna go with robots, go with robots.

The actual unmanned turret (Bumerang-BM/early Epoch or whatever is the actual designation) was shown already: http://nevskii-bastion.ru/epoha/ And it was officially patented: http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/254/2542681.html #10 is СПЗ (Система постановки завес) - smokescreen deployment system.

You guys have no idea how funny and amusing is it to read how people from other side of the world discuss Crimea. Keep it going, please!

Was there a problem of being surprised by the reinforcements/tanks? Because the briefing warns about those specifically.

I always roll buttoned. Sensors aside, beware of having a "Commander" inside (preferably both seat name wise and MOS wise), besides the usual skeleton crew of the "Driver" and "Gunner". An additional pair of eyes is very useful. For some vehicles it's actually very crucial - BRM-1/3s. Their skeleton crew of 3 doesn't include a Commander. He sits on passengers seats there for some technical reasons. IFVs that have a dedicated commander sights lose their benifit when the commander is dismounted along with the infantry squad.

Is there a way to make it "minimize to tray on close" and "minimize at start" for Windows?

Why would you even bring someone's individual stats at this? Training requirements for the army and some personal records are completely unrelated.

Yeah Also note that equipment changes. Sights, outside factors correction equipment (on-board meteo station, gps, gun temperature & curvature measuring thing, etc). Ammo changes. And they've been using those digital networked simulators (from inside of working mock-up turrets) for quite a while now. So it all should affect the training reqs over time as well. Added: Oh, and I forgot the most important part. First - post 2008 reforms, which resulted in huge changes in all sorts of areas, including training. Second - personnel. These reqs were meant for conscripts. By 2017, Russian Armed Forces would have, what is it, around 50% professional personnel (volunteers)? Don't remember their projected numbers. But long story short, contracted military serve after they underwent 1-1.5 years of prior conscription service (or having a military university degree) if I am not mistaken. So, not only 90s, but even 2003 figures will be different from 2017.

I've got a 2003 training book (КС СО, БМ и Т ВС РФ 2003) with training reqs listed. Not representative of today's reqs, but still, some actual textbook reference: So there you have it. 35-45 seconds for pop-up targets, while being on the move yourself. As a matter of fact, modern day large scale maneuvers are done so that units train on someone else's ranges, not at home, so that the environment is new to them.

Oh, pity. Alright, I'll keep lurking around the ratings & comments section then. Thanks.