PDA

View Full Version : Red Army Rebuilding Stumbles



gdamier
03-18-2010, 10:18 PM
RED ARMY REBUILDING STUMBLES

March 18, 2010: Russia has cut its armed forces twelve percent (to about a million troops) in the last two years, and received billions of dollars in new equipment. Military bases are being refurbished, with special attention paid to housing for the families of career (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20100318.aspx#) troops. The government is making good on its pledge to rebuilt the armed forces. All this is part of an effort to save (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20100318.aspx#) the Russian armed forces, especially the glorious, Soviet era "Red Army." Things aren't going so well. The senior political leadership (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20100318.aspx#) is finding out that some problems are not getting fixed simply by applying more money. Efforts to purge the forces of over 100,000 unneeded (and not very effective) officers is running into stiff resistance. The senior generals and admirals want to at least let these men remain until they reach retirement age, and leave with dignity, rather than being, in effect, fired. Technically, the politicians could push this purge through. But this would make a lot of senior officers, including bright ones that the country really needs, very angry. So there's something of a standoff, despite the corruption that still persists among officers, especially those the government wants to get rid of.
Meanwhile, attempts to improve the quality of the lower ranking troops is running into one problem after another. Soviet era habits and customs leave the troops surly, unresponsive and not very effective in combat. This is overcome by having some elite units (with higher pay and better leadership). But this still leaves most of the troops wallowing in the past. The government is upgrading training and pay for NCOs and officers, but this will take a decade to have any meaningful effect, and might even fail. Despite all that, the reform efforts press on.
A year ago, former Russian president, and current prime minister, Vladimir Putin, announced that, despite the current recession, and low oil prices, Russia would continue the big spending begun two years earlier, to rebuild the armed forces. This was a popular move, and considered necessary for "restoring Russia's place in the world" (becoming a superpower again), and making the "Red Army" a feared force once again.
Russia can't become a superpower again, because all those nuclear weapons are great for defending the country, but you need non-nuclear forces to throw your weight around. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, Russia has lost over 90 percent of its combat power. It was disarmament by starvation (massive cuts in the defense budget) and neglect (the military leadership tried to hold on to more equipment than they could afford to maintain or operate, making the situation worse.) Digging out of the hole is going to cost a few hundred billion dollars and over a decade of effort. The government increased the annual defense budget to $38 billion three years ago, and is spending over $25 billion a year (for the next six years, and the last two) to rebuild the conventional forces. It takes time to rebuild fleets and armies.
The quickest things to fix are aircraft. Thus long range bombers, especially the Tu-95s, were refurbished, upgraded, and kept in the air over international waters a lot (and the Norwegian coast). This was mainly a PR exercise for domestic consumption. What also played to the crowd was "resisting NATO." The Cold War enemy was seen as surrounding Russia with anti-Russian alliances. The American anti-missile systems being built in Eastern Europe, to block Iranian missiles from blackmailing Europe, were depicted as an attempt to stop Russian missiles. This appears absurd in the West, but makes perfect sense to most Russians. "They" are out to get us, is what most Russians think. Decades of Soviet propaganda about foreign plots to destroy Russia, enhanced by the widespread destruction of World War II, have left their mark.
But the ground forces are a mess, with most of the weapons and equipment 20-30 years old and falling apart. Over a hundred thousand armored vehicles were junked, or "put into storage" (parked somewhere out-of-the-way, where they could rot quietly) since 1991. Only the best, least used and most recently built stuff has been kept. Even that gear is not much good, and replacements have to be bought in the next 5-10 years, or the army will be reduced to a bunch of guys with assault rifles, mortars and old trucks.
The air force is getting new planes, and more upgrades on existing aircraft. This works for warplanes, with many Western nations using 30 year old, but recently refurbished, warplanes. Ships are another matter, as Russian warships were not designed to be refurbished. So new ones have to be built. The Russians are concentrating on submarines, buying new attack boats (SSNs) and boomers (SSBNs carrying ballistic missiles.)
All these purchases are made along with exhortations to improve quality and reliability of Russian weapons. Despite exports of nearly $9 billion worth of weapons a year, Russian weapons still have a well deserved reputation of not being as dependable, or effective, as their Western counterparts. As a result, even Russia is shopping for Western weapons and components for some of their own needs.


Source: http://www.janes.com/

BlackFlag
03-18-2010, 10:28 PM
Cool story, bro.

LineDoggie
03-18-2010, 10:40 PM
Holy Christ, Wall O' Text attack

Ever hear of Paragraphs or the enter button?

cwjian
03-19-2010, 12:00 AM
Why do they call it the Red Army?

Ritual
03-19-2010, 01:09 AM
Their love of red wine is world renown, why else?

Russianlynxy
03-19-2010, 01:15 AM
what is this article about again? Doesn't really seem like it's discussion worthy...

Russia lost a lot of its military capability, was at a standstill for 15 years, and now rebuilding that capability, and it's not easy.
Thanks obvious?

artjomh
03-19-2010, 01:20 AM
I know some people are slow by nature, and far be it for me to be prejudiced against their unfortunate mental deficiencies, but isn't it time someone caught up to the fact that there hasn't been a thing called "Red Army" since 1946? 8)

Russianlynxy
03-19-2010, 01:37 AM
I know some people are slow by nature, and far be it for me to be prejudiced against their unfortunate mental deficiencies, but isn't it time someone caught up to the fact that there hasn't been a thing called "Red Army" since 1946? 8)

I think Red Army makes it more "colorful" for the reader. A nice little Communist touch ))

Lokos
03-19-2010, 01:47 AM
An article for dullards, by dullards.


All this is part of an effort to save the Russian armed forces, especially the glorious, Soviet era "Red Army."

1) Save? Let's call it what it is: remodulation. Or, the effect of transforming a military institution built to wage large-scale, conventional total wars into one designed for medium-intensity conflict and small-scale high intensity conflict.

2) There hasn't been a 'Red Army' since the late 40s.


Efforts to purge the forces of over 100,000 unneeded (and not very effective)

Pray tell, what makes them ineffective?


Soviet era habits and customs leave the troops surly, unresponsive and not very effective in combat.

Not very effective in combat? As opposed to whom?


This is overcome by having some elite units (with higher pay and better leadership)

And what 'elite' units are these?


and making the "Red Army" a feared force once again.

It's the second strongest conventional force in the world. Rest assured, its neighbors pay it more than enough respect...


but you need non-nuclear forces to throw your weight around

Against whom?


Russia has lost over 90 percent of its combat power.

1) The Soviet Union collapsed during that time period - and with it, its armed forces. Why is it 'Russia' alone that has lost 'combat power'?

2) Given the inevitability of Post Cold War reduction of conventional forces (accounting for the vast majority of 'lost combat power'), why is this treated as an unplanned and a disastrous decline? There is no potential for the Russian Federation to reach the relative conventional means of the Soviet Army in the medium term future. And there's no need. What is the problem?


neglect (the military leadership tried to hold on to more equipment than they could afford to maintain or operate, making the situation worse.)

In actuality, they committed to a graduated maintenance program, designed to keep up the combat effectiveness and readiness of the greatest range and quantity of conventional systems in their stock. If you spin it the right way, though, the above is absolutely correct... It just needs a little shove.


The American anti-missile systems being built in Eastern Europe, to block Iranian missiles from blackmailing Europe, were depicted as an attempt to stop Russian missiles.

Let's call a duck a duck.


This appears absurd in the West

Does it?


"They" are out to get us, is what most Russians think.

And most Russians are correct, insofar as the American leadership, in particular, has no use for a multipolar world, and would have absolutely no qualms with seeing the Russian Federation decline. Now, the extent of their active investment in this potentiality is very debatable. But there is most certainly the motive.


Over a hundred thousand armored vehicles were junked, or "put into storage" (parked somewhere out-of-the-way, where they could rot quietly) since 1991.

Spin is wonderful. I endorse it.


Only the best, least used and most recently built stuff has been kept.

Absolutely - like the T62s that just operated against Georgian forces a few years back.


Even that gear is not much good, and replacements have to be bought in the next 5-10 years, or the army will be reduced to a bunch of guys with assault rifles, mortars and old trucks.

... Utterly idiotic. Nothing more to say. Just... foolishness.


Russian weapons still have a well deserved reputation of not being as dependable, or effective, as their Western counterparts.

Idiot.

L.

Flamming_Python
03-19-2010, 01:59 AM
What a craptastic article.

void
03-19-2010, 02:09 AM
Hmmm. Numerous misrepresentations which have already been mentioned, but a few more to add. The "over a hundred thousand vehicles" that are junked are mostly obsolete and un-needed vehicles such as T-55s, BTR-60s, T-72As, etc. Whats wrong about junking them? They were kept around in the Soviet days for the time of massive mobilisation during WW3 when anything with wheels, an engine, and armour, would be thrown Westward. Not really a viable scenario now.

Second point. Why is there an assumption of a trend of Russia now buying/relying on Western gear, based on the single (and incomplete) datapoint of a POSSIBLE future Mistral purchase? It makes no sense.

Lastly, this statement: "Soviet era habits and customs leave the troops surly, unresponsive and not very effective in combat. This is overcome by having some elite units (with higher pay and better leadership)". What evidence is this statement based on? On what occasion, since the the reforms have begun, have the "red army" troops demonstrated this tendency? Seems like pure unfounded speculation to me, since there is simply no data to support this claim (in fact the only data point I can thing of, the Georgian War, seems to suggest the opposite).

asch
03-19-2010, 02:51 AM
"Red Army" huh. uneducated peasants. p-)

Redbeard
03-19-2010, 04:47 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v722/misha1980xl/hahahaohwowm.jpg


12345678900

cordel
03-19-2010, 06:07 AM
Source: http://www.janes.com/

Aren't these people supposed to be US military experts? That's just hilarious.

Elbs
03-19-2010, 06:10 AM
Nope. Jane's is a British firm.

cordel
03-19-2010, 08:04 AM
Anyway here is how they position themselves:

114377

They claim that "no other organisation offers a comparable breadth of coverage or depth of proven expertise", and they are publishing that BS??? :roll: Not mentioning the 'Red army' part, which is pure gold.

TheArmenian
03-19-2010, 09:05 AM
The credibility of Janes is getting closer and closer to the bottom. Sad, very sad.

AlexMartin2
03-19-2010, 09:37 AM
The credibility of Janes is getting closer and closer to the bottom. Sad, very sad.

Well, this isn't the first low-quality article about Russian military from Jane's. But we could be exaggerating a little. How about info about other militaries? China for example, or other non-western armies.

PS I't good to be back :)

AlexMartin

Arbody
03-19-2010, 10:04 AM
Well Jane's published lot of very good book's especially about world's navy and warships (love them ) but their analysis sux

Breakfast in Vegas
03-19-2010, 10:13 AM
Aren't these people supposed to be US military experts? That's just hilarious.They're very British, not American... but it doesn't make it any better.

Perhaps Jane's should just stick to picture books of battleships, tanks and aircraft. They're good at that.

yydebox1
03-20-2010, 10:15 PM
Perhaps Jane's should just stick to picture books of battleships, tanks and aircraft. They're good at that.
Epic,man.rofl