Reality Check: Russian Defense Minister says....

Russian Army Could Not Wage War:
Link:
my.aol.com...

Excerpt:
"MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian forces are so poorly equipped they could not launch an offensive war, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov was quoted as saying Tuesday.

Ivanov, a close ally of President Vladimir Putin, has spearheaded military reform in Russia and is trying to transform bloated Soviet-style conscript units into a modern professional force.

"Conditions are on an acceptable level only for the fulfillment of nuclear deterrent, counter-terrorist and peace-keeping activities," Ivanov told a meeting of military top brass also attended by Putin, according to Interfax news agency.

Only last month, Ivanov said Russia reserved the right to launch pre-emptive non-nuclear strikes, but his latest comments suggested it would not actually be capable of doing so.

"As a whole, the armed forces are only 75-80 percent equipped with fully functioning ammunition and technology, and of this, modern weapons makes up less than 20 percent."

The armed forces' decline from victors of World War II to what many see as a national disgrace was graphically shown up in 2000, when the Kursk, the country's newest nuclear submarine, sank with the loss of all hands after an onboard explosion.

Ivanov said lack of money, aging equipment and poor training in the air force meant crashes were frequent and not a single Russian air unit was fully operational.

"This year, there have been eight aviation accidents, of which five have been crashes, which have killed 12 people. Seven of the eight were caused by a mistake by the flight team in...using the plane's technology."

But many analysts say Ivanov, who has said combat-ready troops must be fully professional by 2007, is loathe to fully implement reforms as they could cost an extra $1 billion a year and be unpopular with the military leadership, who are losing around a fifth of military personnel........."


With two years of recorded economic growth....will Russia modernize its military, air force, naval forces?
The US military budget alone is higher than the Russia's entire economy.
Is this a reason for Russia seeking to join the EU?
Putin is the Russian military's only hope...will he succeed or is a military coup on the horizon?


regards
seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
Russian Army Could Not Wage War:
Link:
my.aol.com...

Excerpt:
"MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian forces are so poorly equipped they could not launch an offensive war, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov was quoted as saying Tuesday.

Ivanov, a close ally of President Vladimir Putin, has spearheaded military reform in Russia and is trying to transform bloated Soviet-style conscript units into a modern professional force.

"Conditions are on an acceptable level only for the fulfillment of nuclear deterrent, counter-terrorist and peace-keeping activities," Ivanov told a meeting of military top brass also attended by Putin, according to Interfax news agency.

Only last month, Ivanov said Russia reserved the right to launch pre-emptive non-nuclear strikes, but his latest comments suggested it would not actually be capable of doing so.

"As a whole, the armed forces are only 75-80 percent equipped with fully functioning ammunition and technology, and of this, modern weapons makes up less than 20 percent."

The armed forces' decline from victors of World War II to what many see as a national disgrace was graphically shown up in 2000, when the Kursk, the country's newest nuclear submarine, sank with the loss of all hands after an onboard explosion.

Ivanov said lack of money, aging equipment and poor training in the air force meant crashes were frequent and not a single Russian air unit was fully operational.

"This year, there have been eight aviation accidents, of which five have been crashes, which have killed 12 people. Seven of the eight were caused by a mistake by the flight team in...using the plane's technology."

But many analysts say Ivanov, who has said combat-ready troops must be fully professional by 2007, is loathe to fully implement reforms as they could cost an extra $1 billion a year and be unpopular with the military leadership, who are losing around a fifth of military personnel........."


With two years of recorded economic growth....will Russia modernize its military, air force, naval forces?
The US military budget alone is higher than the Russia's entire economy.
Is this a reason for Russia seeking to join the EU?
Putin is the Russian military's only hope...will he succeed or is a military coup on the horizon?


regards
seekerof

Yes the Russian economy is on its ass.

Give Putin another 4+ years and yes the economy will

grow even more and there is going to be moderization.

LOL!

what did I say!

what did I say!

Originally posted by THENEO
LOL!

what did I say!

what did I say!

What did you say?

"Modern weapons" is:

Something that wins US similar system 6-0..



Even their "obsolete" systems are at the same line with the US systems..

Or what do you think?

That guards tank divisions are equipet with T-26s?




T-26..

They may not be ready for an offensive war, but I feel sorry for anyone who would dare to go into the country and put them on the defensive.

Originally posted by AZLS1
They may not be ready for an offensive war, but I feel sorry for anyone who would dare to go into the country and put them on the defensive.

Nukes + pissed off Russians= end of world!

Reality check indeed........

"Copyright 2000 Air Force Association Air Force Magazine
October, 2000
SECTION: RUSSIAN MILITARY ALMANAC; Pg. 72
LENGTH: 4305 words
HEADLINE: Organization of the Russian Armed Forces
BYLINE: By Tamar A. Mehuron, Associate Editor, with Harriet Fast Scott, William F. Scott, and David Markov
BODY: THE Russian military's most recent year had three highlights; Consolidation of military and political power in the hands of the newly elected Russian President, Vladimir V. Putin, renewed fighting in the breakaway province of Chechnya, and the loss of the submarine Kursk and her crew.
Russian authorities blamed Chechens for the September 1999 explosions in Moscow apartment buildings and in other cities. Putin, then Prime Minister, strongly supported a military response to these "acts of terrorism." After President Boris Yeltsin resigned Dec. 31, 1999, Putin, a former KGB officer and former Director of the Federal Security Service (FSB), the domestic successor to the KGB, became acting President. He was subsequently elected President March 26, 2000.
In May 2000 Putin created seven federal districts to consolidate his political power. These districts correspond closely to the seven military districts. He appointed seven Presidential Representatives (five of whom were retired general officers) for the federal districts. These actions provided Putin with centralized top -- down control throughout the 89 regions making up the Russian Federation.
Putin also designated the federal district representatives as new members of the Security Council, a body he chaired. Overall direction of Russia's military forces was provided by the Security Council. The "permanent members" of the Security Council, in addition to the President, were the Prime Minister, Secretary of the Security Council, Director of the Federal Security Service, and Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defense. Other members included the Directors of the Foreign Intelligence Service, Federal Border Guard Service, and Ministers of Internal Affairs and Emergency Situations. The Chief of the General Staff (Gen. of the Army Anatoliy V. Kvashnin) was, for the first time, made a member of the Security Council. Putin also retained control over the power ministries (which have their own troops) and the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Justice.
The Security Council approved a new military doctrine in April 2000. It provided for the use of nuclear weapons not only in response to a nuclear attack but also in the case of a large-scale conventional weapons attack against Russia or its allies. The doctrine also highlighted terrorism within Russia as a military threat.
Armed forces under the Ministry of Defense consisted of four military services: Strategic Rocket Forces, Air Forces, Navy, and Ground Forces. In 1999, their authorized personnel strength totaled 1.2 million, although the actual figure was 1.01 million.
Russia's previous war with Chechnya had ended in 1996. In the aftermath of September's explosions in Moscow, Russia's armed forces moved on Chechnya in October. The General Staff for the first time exercised operational control in actual combat conditions in Chechnya over all Russian forces involved: troops of the Ministry of Defense, Internal Troops, Border Guards, and other power ministries. In May 2000, the First Deputy Chief of the General Staff, Gen. Valeriy Manilov, stated that there were 80,000 Russian army troops and police officers in Chechnya with "a maximum of 3,000" separatist rebels facing them. In June the Russian military leadership announced that, for all practical purposes, the war was over.
Less than a week after these assurances, Chechen forces killed more than 100 Russian soldiers. The conflict continued.
The Chechnya conflict exacerbated the poor condition of Russia's armed forces. Students at several military institutes graduated early due to a shortage of young officers. Modernization of military weapons and other equipment slowed, except for prototypes. Forty percent of the men discharged from the armed forces had no pension security. Military housing remained critical.
In August, the Security Council decided to cut the number of Russia's nuclear warheads to 1,500 and transfer the savings to strengthen its conventional forces. Furthermore, as the land-based nuclear arsenal shrinks in the next five years, the separate status of the Strategic Rocket Forces will also be re-evaluated. The decision follows a public dispute between Minister of Defense Marshal Igor D. Sergeyev and Kvashnin concerning the future composition and size of the Russian armed forces. To gain more funding and support for the conventional forces, Kvashnin, a tank officer, argued for a sharp cut in the number of land-based ICBMs and the merger of the separate elite Strategic Rocket Forces into the Air Forces. By contrast, Sergeyev, former Strategic Rocket Forces head, advocated a separate strategic deterrence force composed of all nuclear forces.
But the decision to reform the military was quickly overshadowed by the sinking of the Kursk, Russia's newest and most modern attack submarine, on Aug. 12 in the Barents Sea. The nuclear-powered submarine, built in 1994, had been participating in exercises when it suffered apparent explosions and sank, and its 118 crew members perished. Rescue efforts by Russians, Norwegians, and British were hampered by severe weather and the 60-degree tilt of the submarine on the seabed. The tragedy highlighted the deterioration of Russia's military forces.
Strategic Rocket Forces (RVSN). A second regiment of the new SS-27 Topol-M missile system was placed on alert duty. The Commander, Gen. of the Army Vladimir N. Yakovlev, asserted that the new missile can be equipped "with a powerful set of means to breach anti-missile defense." Weapons and supporting equipment deteriorated throughout the Strategic Rocket Forces. More than 70 percent of its missiles require extensive work to extend their operational life, as do the majority of fixed command-and-control facilities and 60 to 70 percent of battle management assets.
Air Forces (VVS). The 37th Air Army gained one Tu-160 bomber and three Tu-95Ms in 1999 from Ukraine. In early 2000, Ukraine returned an additional seven Tu-160s to Russia. One additional new Tu-160 is being completed at the Kazan plant. Russia modified its Kh-55 nuclear armed cruise missile, now designated Kh-55SM, to carry non-nuclear warheads. The Kh-55SM missiles can be launched by either the Tu-160 or Tu-95. Fighter aircraft developments included the first test flights of Sukhoi's Berkut S-37, with its swept-forward wings, and the MiG prototype Project 1-44.
The average annual flying time was 10 to 16 hours for fighter pilots, 18 to 24 hours for pilots in ground-attack aircraft, 12 to 26 hours for bomber pilots, 20 hours for long-range aircraft pilots, and 44 to 60 hours for military transport pilots. Exceptions to this were the bomber, ground-attack, and reconnaissance pilots flying missions in Chechnya.
Navy (VMF). Repairs on the missile cruiser Slava, which began in 1990, were completed in November 1999. It was re-designated the guard missile cruiser Moscow. The first in a series of nuclear surface ships, the heavy guided missile cruiser Admiral Ushakov is undergoing repairs. The Yuriy Dolgorukiy ballistic missile submarine, under construction at the Severodvinsk yard, is 47 percent completed. It is the first of the Borey (Arctic wind) -- class fleet.
Ground Forces (SV). The Chechnya war exposed weaknesses in Russia's ground forces. Conscripts were poorly trained; contract troops were little better. Equipment generally was in poor condition, and most was obsolete by NATO standards. Chechen fighters, with manpower odds of 10-to-1 against them, and lacking artillery, air support, or tanks, remained in the field.
Russian helicopter gunships flew approximately 40,000 missions, striking Chechen forces, providing air cover for ground troops and transporting personnel and supplies. Five military transport helicopters were equipped with Global Positioning System satellite navigation, which significantly improved their effectiveness, especially during night operations. The new Ka-52 helicopter, Alligator, made its first flight in February.
Airborne forces currently number about 40,000 personnel and were scheduled to increase. These forces remain directly subordinate to the Supreme High Command. As Russia's only mobile forces, they are heavily involved in the Chechen war. As of June 2000, 171 airborne troops had been killed and 420 wounded. Of those killed, approximately one-third were lost in a single battle.
Lineup of Russian Aerospace Power, 1999

Strategic Forces Includes deployable Russian and deactivated Ukrainian strategic forces.
783 -- Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles
SS-18 (RS-20): 180. SS-19 (RS-18): 150. SS-24 (Silo) (RS-22): 37. SS-24 (Rail) (RS-22): 36. SS-25 (RS-12M): 360. SS-27 (RS-12M2): 20.

106 -- Long-Range Bombers a

a Ukraine sent one Tu-160 Blackjack and three Tu-95 Bear-Hs to Russia to pay off its energy debts. Tu-95 (MS6) Bear-H6: 29. Tu-95 (MS16) Bear-H: 54. Tu-160 Blackjack: 23.

105 -- Medium Range Bombers
Tu-22M Backfire: 105

20 -- Tanker Aircraft
II-78 Midas: 20

308 -- Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles b

b The SS-N-20 SLBMs decreased from 80 on four Typhoon SSBNs in 1998 to 20 on one operational Typhoon SSBN in 1999.
SS-N-18 (RSM-50): 176. SS-N-20 (RSM-52): 20. SS-N-23 (RSM-54): 112.

21 -- Strategic Ballistic Missile Submarines c

c All Delta Is and Delta IIs have been withdrawn from active deployments and are not counted as operational strategic forces. Since 1994, operational forces of Delta IIIs and Typhoons have shrunk from 14 to 11 and six to three, respectively.
Delta III (Kalmar): 11. Delta IV (Delfin): 7. Typhoon (Akula): 3.

100 -- Strategic Anti-Ballistic Missile Launchers
ABM-3 (SH-11) Gorgon: 36. AMB-3 (SH-08) Gazelle: 64.

Air Forces

885 -- Fighter � Interceptors
MiG-29 Fulcrum: 260. MiG-31 Foxhound: 300. Su-27 Flanker: 325.

490 -- Ground-Attack Aircraft
Su-24 Fencer: 295. Su-25 Frogfoot: 195.

200 -- Reconnaissance/Electronic Countermeasures Aircraft
MiG-25 Foxbat: 40. Su-24 Fencer: 150. Tu-22MR Backfire: 10.

20 -- Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircraft
A-50 Mainstay: 20.

425 -- Aircraft of Military Transport
Aviation An-12 Cub: 45. An-22 Cock: 25. An-24 Coke: 25. An-32 Cline: 50. An-72/74/79: 20. An-124 Condor: 24. An-225 Cossack: 1. II-76 Candid: 220. Tu-134/154 Careless: 15.

2,400 -- Strategic Surface-to-Air Missile Launchers
SA-5 (S-200): 200. SA-10 (S-300P): 2,100. SA-12 (S-300V): 100.

Navy

1 -- Aircraft Carrier
Kuznetsov -- class CTOL ship: 1.

60 -- Bombers and Strike Aircraft
Tu-22M Backfire: 60.

55 -- Fighter � Interceptors
Su-27 Flanker: 30. Su-33 Flanker: 25.

35 -- Fighter � Attack Aircraft
Su-24 Fencer: 35. 42 -- Reconnaissance/Electronic Warfare Aircraft An-12 Cub: 5. II-20 Coot: 8. Su-24 Fencer: 12. Tu-22MR Backfire: 5. Tu-95 Bear: 12. 270 -- Anti-Submarine Warfare Aircraft Be-12 Mail: 25. Ka-25 Hormone-A: 50. Ka-27 Helix-A: 85. II-38 May: 35. Mi-14 Haze-A: 20. Tu-142 Bear-F: 55. 135 -- Helicopters Ka-25 Hormone: 15. Ka-29 Helix: 30. Ka-31 Helix: 5. Mi-6 Hook: 10. Mi-8 Hip: 35. Mi-14 Haze: 40.

Russian aviation was restructured in 1998. Three commands -- the Strategic Forces. Air Forces, and Air Defense Forces -- were merged into two. The Strategic Forces and Air Forces survived, but the Air Defense Forces disappeared. Our table reflects the changes.
The Strategic Forces absorbed all medium-range theater bombers and aerial tankers (formerly part of the Air Forces) and the 100-launcher Moscow ABM system (formerly part of Air Defense Forces). The Air Forces picked up all strategic SAMs, interceptors, and airborne early warning aircraft (formerly part of Air Defense Forces).
Increases in some categories in 1999's military aircraft lineup reflect equipment changes to maintain minimal readiness and force levels. In addition, new information on inventory types is also reflected in changes to individual numbers.

The active military population of the Soviet Union peaked in 1989, the year the Berlin Wall fell and the Warsaw Pact collapsed. Moscow initiated major force reductions, which continued throughout the 1990s. In late 1991, the USSR itself collapsed, leaving Russia with a portion of Soviet forces while large numbers of troops stayed in newly independent nations. After 1991, none of the forces of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus (or any other former Soviet republic) are counted in this table.
Russian aviation was restructured in 1998. Many of the troops of the Air Defense Forces (formerly counted in the second column. "Strategic forces -- offensive/defensive") went to the theater forces or command and rear services or left the military altogether. This accounts in part for the large one-year 1997 -- 98 changes in strength in this table.
All data are current as of Dec. 31, 1999. Adjustments in Russian strategic forces reflect START deployable delivery systems as noted in the Jan. 1, 2000, MOU on Data Notification. All Delta Is and Delta IIs, as well as three Delta IIIs and three Typhoons, have been withdrawn from active deployments and are not counted as operational strategic forces.
While there are 21 SSBNs, press reports indicate that only one Typhoon SSBN is operational with 20 SS-N-20 SLBMs.
Zero indicates that that particular nuclear weapon type was deployed in that country at one time but is not deployed there now; a dash indicates that a weapon was never deployed in that country.
Russia retained all of the sea-based strategic weapons. Russia also retained most of the ICBM and bomber forces, though a significant number of these weapons came under control of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. None of the forces of these nations are counted in this table after 1991.

Active Duty Military Population, 1999
As of Dec. 31, 1999
Force element Authorized Actual
Ground forces 440,000 350,000
Air forces 210,000 180,000
Naval forces 200,000 170,000
Strategic offensive defensive forces 150,000 140,000
Command and rear services 200,000 170,000
Total 1,200,000 1,010,000

External Deployments and Peacekeeping Forces
As of Dec. 31, 1999
Angola (peacekeeping) 100
Armenia (group of forces) 3,000
Bosnia (peacekeeping) 1,300
Croatia (peacekeeping) 30
Cuba 800
Georgia/Abkhazia (peacekeeping) 1,500
Georgia/South Ossetia (peacekeeping) 1,700
Georgia (group of forces) 5,000
Iraq/Kuwait (peacekeeping) 10
Kosovo (peacekeeping) 3,500
Moldova/Dniestria (peacekeeping) 2,500
Moldova/Trans -- Dniestria (peacekeeping) 500
Syria 150
Tajikistan (peacekeeping) 8,000
Ukraine (naval intantry unit) 1,500
Vietnam 700
Western Sahara (peacekeeping) 25
Total 30,315

Strategic Nuclear Weapons of Russia and the Other Nuclear-Armed Former Soviet Republics, 1999
Russia Ukraine Kazakhstan Belarus Total
ICBMs 756 27 0 0 783
Warheads 3,540 0 0 0 3,540
Bombers 74 32 0 0 106
Warheads 592 0 0 0 592
SSBNs 21 -- -- -- 21
SLBMs 308 -- -- -- 308
Warheads 1,176 -- -- -- 1,176
Total vehicles 1,138 59 0 0 1,197
Total warheads 5,308 0 0 0 5,308

Strategic Nuclear Warheads, 1991-99
USSR
Nation 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Russia 7,644 6,766 6,902 5,961 6,410 6,414 5,326 5,308
Ukraine 1,408 1,264 1,594 1,056 0 0 0 0
Kazakhstan 1,360 1,260 1,040 0 0 0 0 0
Belarus 54 54 36 18 0 0 0 0
Total 11,159 10,466 9,344 9,572 7,035 6,410 6,414 5,326 5,308

Moscow's Active Duty Military Forces. 1989-99: USSR and Russian Federation
Command
Theater forces -- Strategic forces --
offensive/ and rear
Total ground, air, naval defensive services forces
1989 2,690,000 890,000 1,450,000 5,030,000
1990 2,187,000 876,000 925,000 3,988,000
1991 2,150,000 755,000 650,000 3,555,000
1992 1,205,000 366,000 180,000 1,751,000
1993 1,082,000 230,000 100,000 1,412,000
1994 1,045,000 245,000 105,000 1,395,000
1995 923,000 279,000 176,000 1,378,700
1996 985,000 274,000 175,000 1,434,000
1997 776,000 260,000 164,000 1,200,000
1998 725,000 149,000 200,000 1,074,000
1999 700,000 140,000 170,000 1,010,000

Strategic Nuclear Forces, 1989-99: USSR and Russian Federation
Ballistic Submarine-launched ballistic
missile ICBMs Long-range bombers missiles submarines
1989 1,378 150 954 70
1990 1,373 155 924 61
1991 1,393 141 912 59
1992 1,031 135 864 57
1993 884 74 788 52
1994 773 95 732 47
1995 671 69 524 33
1996 747 69 440 26
1997 756 70 424 25
1998 756 70 368 22
1999 756 74 308 21"

Link:
www.aeronautics.ru...



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 28-11-2003 by Seekerof]

Russian,

I said that if the Russians entered into a war,

their economy is so bad they could not support it for any lenght of time.

Fulcrum,

your hatred of the US is only matched by the narrowness of the appraisal you apply to their society.

hahahahaha, thank you Seekerof.
Yup the Russians can throw some good # up on paper, but they can't afford any of it.

Yes, THENEO and their economy has determined how long they've fought every other big war


This description of their armed forces is most likely true, and has been said for a long while, but when someone as high up as this says it in public it gets me worried for varied reasons. They wouldn't say this in public for no reason, it makes me think they are playing games. The first that comes to mind is to concrete and reinforce the perception that we have.

Thats very true kegs, but they could also realize that the information has been leaked for years and that maybe just maybe, releasing a report of the 'truth' will end the speculation and the spread of information relating to numbers and information far worse than reported.

There are other reliable sources that can be referenced to show relatively the same as the report from .ru

I really never use .ru, but because a number of members love pulling information from there, I felt it would have greater impact if the information above came from a source they consider to be reliable enough to pull information from also.

regards
seekerof

[Edited on 28-11-2003 by Seekerof]

That may be true too Seekerof, but I'm finding it hard to recall a time when they've done anything similar and it hasn't been for the offensive rather than the defensive.
Speculation is just that; wither to a tabloid or a government.
I can't see them taking it that seriously.

If I was them I could see how they could view speculation that their armed forces were less than they where as invaluable propaganda, though in this climate I can see why they'd want the opposite. However a statement like this isn't going to get them the opposite, and it isn't going to go anywhere near that direction.

kegs, you make an excellent observation.
Ran across another intersting article from 2000 concerning the continued state of the Russian military apparatus (page 3)...:
A Hollow Debate on Military Readiness

Other than a few upgrades between 2000 and 2004, things have not changed dramatically since 2000 concerning this matter.



seekerof

Good article Seekerof: A Hollow Debate on Military Readiness.

Here is one that I found that seems to sum up the state of Russia's military.
Russia-India partnership to end technical deadlock.

MOSCOW, December 30 (RIA Novosti) - On December 30 the Government of Russia is to discuss the draft 2005 state defense order at its last session this year.

The draft 2005 state defense order, which contains many secret provisions, will be discussed behind closed doors, a Cabinet source told RIA Novosti here today. In his words, the Government has always opted for such tactics, while discussing the state defense order.

All other issues will be discussed openly, RIA Novosti's interlocutor added.

The draft state defense order has already been discussed beforehand at a recent session of the commission for military-technical issues under the supervision of Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov.

Previously, Russia's Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov talked to correspondents, saying he was positive that the new state arms-procurement program for the 2005 period will be okayed during the Government's final session this year.

For his own part, Economic Development and Trade Minister German Gref told reporters last week that some provisions of the 2005 program will be revised, stipulating additional appropriations. Gref made this revelation last week, after visiting the Plesetsk space center in northern Russia's Arkhangelsk region. Among other things, this will concern the development of the Strategic Missile Forces and the Plesetsk space center itself, Gref went on to say.

The Defense Ministry eventually gets several times more money than it requests, Gref noted. As I see it, we will manage to coordinate this issue, finding a way out of this situation and obtaining ample interaction opportunities, the Minister added.

Indeed, present-day appropriations are something inadequate; and we will revise such appropriations for the 2005 period, Gref went on to say.

Defense Ministry officials believe that additional funds can be used to buy three more mobile versions of the Topol-M ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile) complex.

Additional appropriations can be spent on the purchase of three mobile Topol-M ICBM complexes, due to be procured next year, a Defense Ministry source informed RIA Novosti. The Strategic Missile Forces would receive a Topol-M battalion comprising three launchers over the 2006 period, in case we obtain additional monies, the agency's interlocutor added. That battalion would become part and parcel of the Teikovskaya ICBM division, which is deployed in the Vladimir region (Central Russia).

Plans are in place to provide the Russian Armed Forces with four silo-based Topol-M ICBM complexes, 11 revamped Sukhoi Su-27SM fighters, 80 BTR-90 armored personnel carriers (APCs), two nuclear-powered submarines (an Mk 955 Borei-class submarine and one Mk 941 Dmitry Donskoi-class submarine), two Iskander shorter-range missile complexes, 91 [30 as in text- mistake] T-90 main battle tanks, as well as about 3,000 motor vehicles, throughout the entire 2005 period.

Article 2

Most defense industry state orders in 2004 for new weapons - defense
minister OMSK. Jan 15 (Interfax) - Most of the 148 billion rubles allocated for state defense orders in 2004 will be used for creating new weapons and military equipment, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov told a news conference in Omsk on Thursday. "If we are talking about the re-equipment of the army, we will sooner or later have to give up good, high-quality Soviet weapons and begin making enough modern high-precision weapons, new space systems, missile systems, communication equipment, and precision weapons for ground troops, although there will not be as many as we made in the Soviet Union," Ivanov said. The Russian government has already approved a 148 billion rubles budget for state defense orders in 2004, he said. "The state expenditures on defense has been increasing since 2000. Their percentage in the GDP does not exceed 3%, it is somewhere around 2.6%," Ivanov said. The funding allocated for state orders is a separate item in the budget, he said. "The funding for state defense orders, which amounts to 148 billion rubles, is much higher than it was in 2003," Ivanov said.

[..]

"The priorities of the draft 2004 budget are in favor of security structures, to the detriment of the social sphere." He reported that spending on national defense in 2004 will be increased from 345 billion rubles to 412 billion rubles. The share of "security" items in the budget will increase from 25% to 27.2%. Zadornov told us about the consequences this sort of budget policy will have.

Question: Which items in the military budget have actually increased?

Mikhail Zadornov: It is too early to discuss military spending in detail now, since later we'll get the statement of the secret part of the budget that determines defense spending in more detail. Then we'll be able to talk about the structure of the defense budget. And now we can handle only general figures.

Mikhail Zadornov: Which items have suffered most of all because of the shift of the draft budget in favor of defense?

Mikhail Zadornov: First of all, it is the social sector in general that has suffered. Spending on this sector has been reduced by five billion rubles compared to the government's plans in July. Besides, the draft budget proposes less spending than the 2003 budget on such items as investment, industry in general, development of rural areas, transportation, telecommunications, support of media, the military reforms, and destruction of weapons, although some corrections are still possible until August 25.

Question: How will it affect the situation in the country if the security slant remains in the budget?

Mikhail Zadornov: There will be no serious outcomes within one year.

otal military aquisitions 2005: $4 bln
------------------------------------------------------
Navy: $786 mln
AF: $786 mln
GRU, medicine, support: $714 mln
RVSN: $ 1,714 bln

Science: $2,249 bln
Repair: $ 421 mln

Equipment:
------------------
40 T-90
90 BTR-80
24 BMP-3
2 Tu-160,
20+ Su-27SM
12+ Mi-28N (300 hls total order, 50+ till 2010 year)
6 S-400
7 SS-27
5 space launchers
2 SSBN 955 Borei

I think this defence order is not complete. So it is just White Papers for public.

Arms sales in 2004 according to Rosoboronexport: $ 5,7 bln

Oh well.

Why is all of Russia's beautiful gear wasting away in drydock? I'm Canadian, and our military regulary buys gear of the US and UK... why don't we pont up a few bucks and buy a few alpha subs and some nice tanks? they are just as good as the american gear, and way better than brit gear... brits sold us a bunch of lemons for 1billion that dont even work... the piece of crap caught fire on its maiden voyage back to Canada. American LA class subs would be better, but Alphas would be half as much dough... and who we gonna fight, chinese? there tangos would be torn to shreds by alphas. Come on Russia, sell us the goods. We already dispose of your nucs for ya for free... do us a favour.

Originally posted by Devans28
Why is all of Russia's beautiful gear wasting away in drydock? I'm Canadian, and our military regulary buys gear of the US and UK... why don't we pont up a few bucks and buy a few alpha subs and some nice tanks? they are just as good as the american gear, and way better than brit gear... brits sold us a bunch of lemons for 1billion that dont even work... the piece of crap caught fire on its maiden voyage back to Canada. American LA class subs would be better, but Alphas would be half as much dough... and who we gonna fight, chinese? there tangos would be torn to shreds by alphas. Come on Russia, sell us the goods. We already dispose of your nucs for ya for free... do us a favour.

From what i have heard you left the door open and a wave got in, causing a short and the fire.

www.ctv.ca...

First of all thats a Reuters report...
Thats like quoting Kerry on the Bush's theatrics in Iraq..
Ivanov's view is bloated out of proportion in that report..
Maybe Fulcrum sounds overtly patriotic..but let me put some reason beind his stance..
Russia can still launhc a Major offensive on the EU and prolong the battle beyond a time limit being set over here by board members who have dyslexic knowledge of war economy..

You do not need a "booming cash flowing economy" to sustain a war unless you are building new units (air/land/sea) during the war itself..
This was needed in WWII.. but you guys mustve read the figures in the post above..
Russia needs the following to sustain a war for over 6 months:

1. Oil
2. Food
3. tech manpower for repair and deployment..

They have sufficient quantities of all of these..
You don't need liquid cash for these..

Plus an initial offnesive will be more or less welcomed by a sizeable portion of the population of the former soviet states..Latvia,Romania, Yugoslavia..etc...
Russia can screw scandanavia over in under 4 days( im not kidding) and control of the baltic oil reserves is another resource won over..

Don't underestimate Russia..
They're still the second most powerful entity on the planet after the US...
And all they need is some stealth/anti-stealth tech to take the fight back to the US...

Also about joining the EU.. Its all a diversion..
Russia's major objective for the next 25 years is to try and make India and China patch up their differences so that a Russia-China-India axis can be formed..
unstoppable...militarily, economically, resource wise
a influence area that will encompass most of Asia, parts of Africa, Brazil, Argentina,Venezuela and Cuba.
China entrusted with pushing into the Pacific to contest the USN pacific fleet
Russia deals with the Atlantic and India does the same with the Indian ocean..

Another very important factor helping this along is th EU gradual independance from american influence..
Us major allies as of now are only the UK, Japan, and Australia..

Mark my words to next 2 decades will see a lot of amazing twista and turns..



The Sheer landforces that russia controls can trample over any resistance that the EU

Originally posted by Devans28
Why is all of Russia's beautiful gear wasting away in drydock? I'm Canadian, and our military regulary buys gear of the US and UK... why don't we pont up a few bucks and buy a few alpha subs and some nice tanks? they are just as good as the american gear, and way better than brit gear... brits sold us a bunch of lemons for 1billion that dont even work... the piece of crap caught fire on its maiden voyage back to Canada. American LA class subs would be better, but Alphas would be half as much dough... and who we gonna fight, chinese? there tangos would be torn to shreds by alphas. Come on Russia, sell us the goods. We already dispose of your nucs for ya for free... do us a favour.

YAAA MAANN that sub thing was really bad PR for the Canadian Military!!

In fact I rate it as bad as the Kursk incident..