"Russia’s armed forces: more capable by far, but for..." Topic

… how long?

"After a decade of modernisation and reform, Russia's conventional military capabilities are at their highest since the country's armed forces were formed in 1992. Can Moscow sustain the equipment-modernisation gains made as part of the 2020 State Armament Programme?

Russia's armed forces entered the last decade trying to come to terms with a lacklustre performance in its short war with Georgia. Russia struggled with an ageing equipment inventory and remained over-reliant on conscription. It begins the 2020s with a recapitalised inventory, a successful military intervention in Syria and far greater numbers of professional personnel. The key aims of the modernisation and reform programme implemented over the past ten years have been broadly met.

The impact and implications of the Russian military's modernisation and reform efforts are explored in the latest IISS Strategic Dossier Russia's Military Modernisation: An Assessment. It recognises that while Russia's armed forces today are far smaller than those of the Soviet era, conventional military capabilities are now at their highest since the Russian armed forces were formed in 1992. From 2010, sustained investment has supported an equipment-modernisation programme across all services, even if some military arms have benefited more than others. Structural reforms were also pursued as part of the New Look programme, launched towards the end of 2008, to improve performance. Taken together, these now provide Moscow with conventional armed forces at a far higher level of readiness than previously, which can be rapidly deployed. And as the Syrian and Ukrainian campaigns underscore, it is a capacity that the Russian government is willing to use when it considers its interests to be threatened…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

So … Where are they going to go and do with this new military ?

Russia's modernization of its armed forces is defensive rather than offensive in nature. As the article stated, the Russian military lacks the depth for a protracted war of attrition with the west. CW-style invasion of western Europe is simply not feasible.

So I see it as more aimed to deter NATO from expanding and the EU/USA from causing trouble inciting pro-democracy protests in its sphere-of-influence (i.e. Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, etc.).

Where, What are the current threats? Russia? China? Islamic terrorism? Global criminal networks? Release of a deadlier pandemic? Global economic depression? The rise of fake news (i.e. propaganda)?

With all the problems in the world, I'm not too worried about the Russians. They have their own problems to worry about.

USAF +1

Fanatik,

Dunno if the Russian force is defensive – it's increasingly used as an expeditionary warfare force. It's actions in Ukraine were very much offensive.

I don't think there would be a war of attrition against the west. I suspect any Russian offensive action is predicated on achievable targets (eg Crimea but also Baltics), and quick offensive action.

Europe itself doesn't have the capability to wage an attrition/protracted war simply due to the fact so much military infrastructure has been gutted. Not just units or bases or equipment but the industrial infrastructure to go with it.

Europe arguably doesn't even have the capability to wage a short defensive war – remember a huge chunk of Europe's combat power is situated within Greece and Turkey. With proposed cuts to British forces it will gut capability significantly.

Europe's lacking in a lot of areas:

1. Conventional combat units including armour and artillery as well as long range strike.

2. Strategic airlift and overall transport capability.

3. Electronic warfare capability

4. Modern equipment (most of Eastern Europe's combat capability is still stuck in 1980s or worse).

5. Munition stocks – highlighted in Libya when some partners pulled out quickly due to lack of munitions. This has not changed.

6. Ability to sustain losses. The reserve forces in a lot of countries have been reduced to poorly equipped light infantry. There are no more reserve pools of heavier equipment.

7. Layered air defence – many European states lack any kind of medium to long range air defence and those that do are equipped with now obsolete systems – MIM-23 Hawk, 2K12, 1980s vintage S300. Patriot or equivalent is only in use with a small number of operators in limited numbers (Netherlands, Germany, Greece, Romania, Spain and now Poland) and often in small numbers (single regiments).

8. Lack of air dominance capability – US F-22s really are a game changer and F-15C/D still better than most of what is in service in Europe. The acquisition of the F-15EX seems to indicate F-35 doesn't match an upgraded F-15 in combat even with supposed stealth advantage.

And hitting here is also decline in hours flown by many European pilots (even French were struggling to get over 100 hours per annum a couple of years ago).

9. Lack of maintenance and sustainment capability. Many countries are struggling to maintain spares now in peace time! As such serviceability is really, really low across all spectrums of warfare be it aircraft or submarines or tanks or trucks.

10. Lack of training capacity to induct large numbers of troops.

11. Lack of ability to combine logistics due to lack of unified procurement. This is a big advantage for US and Russia. Eg whereas those countries might operate 1 main assault rifle, the Europeans operate numerous different types from AR-15 types to AK-types to Heckler & Koch G36 to Beretta ARX160 to Bren CZ805.

Or artillery – European NATO has numerous different types and in multiple different calibres – 76mm, 100mm, 105mm, 122mm, 130mm, 152mm 155mm, 203mm. And on numerous types of platforms – Panzerhaubitze 2000, AMX 30 AuF1, CEASAR, KRAB, M109, M110, M114, M115 2S1 Gvozdika, MT-12, D20, D30, GIAT LG1, ZUZANA/DANA, TN90, M82, AS90, L118, FH70, OTO Melara Mod 56, Panter ETC. Often these are in service in numbers as low as 12-18 pieces.

That doesn't include rocket systems which are ironically mainly of the Soviet 122mm variety but which are based on numerous different types of trucks (various versions of Tatras, Urals, Jelczs, DACs) which makes it again problematic from a logistics capability.

Compare that to US: M109, M119, M777. Calibres 105mm and 155mm

In itself it's not a problem if each state is able to supply large number of troops and keep them sustained. But a massive problem when numbers are low and ability to replace is low.

12. The big one – most NATO partner states have only token militaries and lack capability to deploy much to support partner states without completely disarming themselves. Eg if Czech Republic deployed 30 tanks and a squadron of fighters to the Baltics, it would have no armour or fighter capability left in the Czech Republic! Same for Slovakia or Portugal or Croatia or Denmark or Belgium (especially with fighter fleet scheduled to decline to a mere 34).

The US can wage attrition war against the Russians but that would considerably weaken their position overall against the true elephant in the room, China.

I agree with much that. And it is easy to attack across a border too. Even though they did deploy a number of troops in Syria. But they were really not organized as an invasion force, per se.

One other thing is that the Russians are reintroducing divisions – for example 42nd division was downgraded to a brigade after 2008 but in 2016 was reformed as a division. Other divisions such as 150th have been reformed.

I had read somewhere that the Russians figured out a brigade structure didn't really suit their doctrine or the terrain.

Obviously a division as a manoeuvre unit is quite a powerful formation compared to a western brigade or battalion.

In the west, the focus since 1990s was on brigades but even now these are often lacking in capabilities such as logistics, artillery, air defence etc.

The focus in the west seems to have dribbled down to reinforced battalions as main manoeuvre unit.

For example British infantry brigades are just collections of random numbers of infantry battalions with no artillery, support services etc.

The US Divisional Bdes or Seperate Bdes are task organized like the old Bde Level Battle Groups or Regimental Combat Tms. With all the maneuver and support elements organic or attached from Divisional or even Corps assets.

E.g.

The Separate Mech Hvy Bde with I served and commanded with '86-'90. Was part of the 18th ABN Corps. And would be assigned to support the other 2 units in the Corps. The 101 and 82d. Or possibly attached to Division to round it out to 3 Bdes, etc.

The 197d Mech (Sep) Bde's TO&E-

2 Mech Bns [M113s and ITVs]

1 Tank Bn [3 M60A1 Cos. + 1 M1 IP Co.]

1 SPFA Bn [4 and then 3 SPFA M109 155mm Btys.]

1 Cbt Spt Bn [all the supply and non-combat support assets are here. E.g. Supply, Transport, etc.]

1 Armored Cav Bn [M60s, M113s, ITVs]

1 CE Bn [5t Dump Truck mounted CEs, + some M113s, CEVs, AVLBs and excavating vehicles]

1 MP Plt. [M151 Jeeps then Armored HMMWVs]

_______

IIRC all Divisional Bdes would be task organized similar to this. To form Combined Arms Battle Grps.

"8. Lack of air dominance capability – US F-22s really are a game changer and F-15C/D still better than most of what is in service in Europe. The acquisition of the F-15EX seems to indicate F-35 doesn't match an upgraded F-15 in combat even with supposed stealth advantage."

The excellent F-22 is as rare as hens teeth so to say, and suffers from needing way to much maintenance time to boot, adding insult to injury.
The F-15C/D force is seriously compromised by age, a lot of these birds fly with severe air-frame related performance restrictions, and the F-15 EX is yet to arrive.
The F-35 is only operational because the USAF severely downgraded its minimum required performance.
But worse is that the latter is also bleeding the military of many NATO partners dry.
Its delayed introduction hasn't just seriously compromised all those NATO Air Forces waiting for it to arrive (most of which fly early F-16's, which are by now either grounded or kept together with duct tape), its huge cost has also cut into their defense budgets in general.
The Dutch army, for instance, already lost it's MBT force and half it's artillery, and the Dutch Navy half it's ships, just to free the funds needed to acquire, and operate, three dozen or so F-35's.
Lockheed Martin represents a serious threat to NATO's combat capability.

Uninformed…just a view!

Never underestimate the Russians…Some guys have…!

They MAY be just like us and the Cold War fears about the Warsaw Pact MAY have been overplayed, but, 'Two blokes in a bar, both having to go Macho'…it COULD have kicked off.

The continual, UK Defence Cuts since since 'The Wall' came down and we were 'Frenemies, 'are beyond my understanding if anyone looks to history. Germany went from bankrupt and war weary…to revitalised, expansionist…(and Bat S**t Crazy!)…in a VERY short time.

I am rather thankful that WE, (UK), are no longer EU. The EU 'push' for 'Trade' into the Russian sphere of influence certainly has had repercussions. Remember, much of the growth of the British Empire was driven by 'Trade'. And do not forget German 'Lebensraum' or Jap 'Co-Prosperity'…or US whatever. I think that the EU is now pretty much a 'Dead Duck'…but…if Russia wants to re-grow their influence, a revitalised Military is a powerful, 'Consideration', if not a threat as such.

I DO think that the Baltic States SHOULD be worried about Russia and that GB and the US should 'Hmm', 'Help'…BUT, the old Cold War 'rules' will still apply. Hopefully, it will remain, the old 'posturing'…but…?

MUCH is vaunted about 21st century Tech and it's superiority . Tech can be neutralised, however…and I would much prefer having piled, rusting AFVs, airframes or hulls, etc. Capable of being refurbished into 'some, limited' capability…(and they WERE pretty good)…much faster than 21c hi tech can be manufactured, (if such capability is there!)…instead of having been SOLD for SCRAP.
Russians AREN'T STUPID!

Their history shows how adaptable and capable they can be…IF they feel 'pushed'…whether from 'outside' or within. GB and the USA…well, history also shows OUR capabilities…in earlier social/tech eras. Now, I am not so sure whether the capability or commitment would still be there.

Right now, there are OTHER threats out there…maybe more so than Russia…or The West TO Russia…but…READ your books…things DO change…Very Fast and in ways that CAN seem to have been 'impossible'…IF you are given the opportunity to HAVE Hindsight.

The real threat is China.
It would be smart to get Russia on our side before China gets Russia on theirs.
Especially since Russia has everything China is missing; top notch military technology and endless resources.