via Itar-TASS
MOSCOW, October 1. /TASS/. Russia’s Ground Forces are due to receive 5,000 pieces of new armored vehicles and 6,000 pieces of modernized weaponry by 2020, Colonel General Oleg Salyukov said on Wednesday.Read the entire article, but the Russians will have more armor available than the entire EU, and the US is still attempting to "pivot" to the Pacific while at the same time put out brush fires in the Middle East...oh and might I add that the longer we're involved in stumping on ISIS the less money we will have to refit and modernize our own forces.
“In total, up to 2020 it is planned to buy over 5,000 new and around 6,000 modernized samples of armored vehicles and military hardware, and around 14,000 pieces of modern samples of vehicles,” said Salyukov, the commander-in-chief of the Russian Ground Forces.
The government is planning to buy modernized T-72B3 tanks, which were seen at Russia's tank biathlon world championship outside Moscow in early August and during the last month’s Vostok-2014 military drills in Russia's Far East.
Other weapons purchases for the army include BMP-3 amphibious infantry fighting vehicles, modernized BMP-2 and BTR-82A armored personnel carriers, Salyukov said.
This part of the story should chill every heart in Europe...
Analysts of the international HIS company said in February that Russia’s defense spending is expected to increase by over 44% in real terms over the next three years, to $98 billion in 2016.Yeah.
Defense spending is going down in the West while its increasing everywhere else.
Sidenote. What exactly is a T-72B3? An unknown upgrade of the T-72, a renamed T-90 or what?
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t72b3.htm
ReplyDelete@What exactly is a T-72B3@
ReplyDeleteIMHO, Cheap and compromise (as it was possible) mod. of T 72 with accent on improving warfare of T-72 against another tanks. Intermediate performance before Armata’s appearance.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEurope doesn't count anyway, NATO=US.
ReplyDeletethe russians know NATO/Europe won't give a shit if they try something similar with the bordering NATO countries, so they will do it, this year or the next one.
the US officials (and the EU ones) love the "corrupt east european countries" song but they bribe the shit out of the politicians to ignore national interests of the respective country or even go against it, be it in the defense or energy sector....
these things are very well known in the bordering countries and if i would have some power i would either tell the westerners to stop their distructive activities (economical and subversive) or i'll just stand aside as the russians pass heading west and not give a shit.
for example my country's airforce is fucked, non-existent, anymore because of that.
this reminds me of WW2 when my country allied with Germany, then the germans ripped a chunk of my country and afterwards they were expecting us to stay with them till the end...
@This part of the story should chill every heart in Europe...@
ReplyDeleteI’m still surprised that I do not hear any indignations cries that Russia is definitely improving our “anti-papuans” capabilities.
@the russians know NATO/Europe won't give a shit if they try something similar with the bordering NATO countries, so they will do it, this year or the next one.@
ReplyDeleteThis year or the next one, you said? I guess no – see no reason. We totally renew our army – so it would be better to fulfill this process in main terms. It will take 5-10 years. Then the first candidate – some post Ukrainian state- which will be totally anti Russian and Nazi. They will feel all our new army features – including heavy divisions with their Armata-tanks. I see no reason to do the same with others European countries – it looks like instruments of proxy-wars will be enough for our goals on this directions. But anyway this decade or the next, with this kind of measures or another Russia appears in Europe to get some old moral debts and to loot fat but weak European countries as more as possible.
http://www.afp.com/en/node/2896220
ReplyDeletethese are the alcoholic monkeys NATO/EU is dealing with.
with these things, pretentiously called "people", only and eye for an eye works.
relax and have fun. Bgggg.
DeleteThe B3 modification is quite mediocre. There is no the logic. It would be much better to buy a pair of thousands T-90 MS's or their analogues for the Russian army than these ones. Even the most ardent Russian patriots consider that such a modification is bad.
ReplyDelete@The B3 modification is quite mediocre@
DeleteT-72 B3 is a compromise (there is B4 mod by the why). T-90 is high-class for most important current directions. Only Armata platform will be our MBT. Soviet sheer madness with three MBT at once will not be repeated. More of this in time the same concept “MBT” will disappear.
And what for we need such a compromise, if it is not capable of fighting modern tanks of potential adversaries. Would be better to buy several hundreds of modernised t-90' instead of 'this'. Or to buy nothing.
DeleteI do not know how many of you follow russian doctrine but its not focused on Europe its focus is in Asia and Meduim weight tanks make a lot of sense there. In any case this is just an low cost interm solution till Armata family of vehicles apear.
ReplyDelete@its not focused on Europe its focus is in Asia@
DeleteReally? Would be so kind to point me out "Asia" below?
The article "8" of Russian Military doctrine (google translation)
8 The main external military dangers:
a) the desire to endow the power potential of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) global functions carried out in violation of international law, to bring the military infrastructure of countries - members of NATO to the borders of the Russian Federation, including by expanding the bloc;
b) an attempt to destabilize the situation in individual countries and regions and undermine strategic stability;
c) deployment (capacity) of military contingents of foreign states (groups of states) in the territories bordering on the Russian Federation and its allies, as well as in adjacent waters;
d) the creation and deployment of strategic missile defense systems that undermine global stability and violate the established balance of power in the nuclear-missile sphere, as well as the militarization of outer space, the deployment of strategic non-nuclear precision weapon systems;
d) territorial claims against Russia and its allies, the interference in their internal affairs;
e) the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, missiles and missile technology, increasing the number of states possessing nuclear weapons;
g) violation of certain states of international agreements, as well as non-compliance with previously signed international agreements on arms limitation and reduction;
h) the use of military force in the territories of neighboring states and the Russian Federation in violation of the UN Charter and other norms of international law;
and) the presence (occurrence) of foci and the escalation of armed conflict in the territories bordering on the Russian Federation and its allies;
a) spread of international terrorism;
l) the occurrence of outbreaks of ethnic (Interfaith) tension, the activities of international armed radical groups in the areas adjacent to the state border of the Russian Federation and those of its allies, as well as the presence of territorial conflicts, the growth of separatism and violent (religious) extremism in some parts of the world.
Could be worse.
ReplyDeleteEurope has forgotten that it doesnt matter how many tanks you have, its how many you can operate
But
Russia appears not to have learnt that lesson either, focussing on procuring lots of tanks they will never be able to operate.
Last time I saw some semi hard numbers from a semi reliable source, the UK had three functional tank squadrons, somewhere between 30 and 40 tanks. Out of a stockpile of some four hundred tank hulls and a paper strength of two hundred and twenty four on the books, fewer than forty can actually fight.
Germany is in the same shape, I believe they were down to 6 fully functional fighters not too long ago.
Estonia looks to be next, hell its already started, an attack on one is an attack on all, unless its a raid to seize an intelligence colonel, then we all just dont mention it...
@Russia appears not to have learnt that lesson either, focussing on procuring lots of tanks they will never be able to operate.@
DeleteIt is wrong translation in the article above – T 72 Б3 – is modernization of old tanks, not a new-built piece, maybe some new will be manufactured, but main accent is on modernization and step-by-step unification (T-80 will be written away soon).
@Estonia looks to be next@
Next for what? All Baltic nations will disappear soon (in historical terms) because of natural reason of depopulation. Not interesting. May be to have some “dacha” (a summer residence in Russia saying) there. Bgggggg. But Kaliningrad is more preferable)))
@a raid to seize an intelligence colonel@
It was a little and soft hint, I guess.
If NATO is a fraud, then so is the nuclear umbrella under which it lies.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of scale, if the Russians follow thru with this and it isn't matched by NATO members, then there would be nothing to stop the Russian from invading Eastern and Central Europe if that is what they wanted.
Apart from Poland, nobody else has the size or fight in them to resist the Russians. Only France and the UK would be able to dissuade the Russians since they have nukes but would they be willing to resist a nuclear exchange for Estonia or Romania or Germany?
Western Europe is a joke
@the Russian from invading Eastern and Central Europe if that is what they wanted.@
DeleteNo, we didn’t IMHO. All our USSR “shop-windows” who lived in several times better than main USSR provinces now are absolutely rusofobic and glorify as heroes now their national troops in German Nazi Army. So I guess USA’s playbook for geopolitical objects is greatly better and cheaper: deindustrialization, outlet for goods, zombie-making via Media, credit burden, some military bases. NO STUPID SOVIET “BROTHERHOOD”.
@Only France and the UK would be able to dissuade@ I guess we will get compromise agreement with them.
@Western Europe is a joke@
After Scotland “referendum” I’m absolutely sure that Europe is the next “meat to eat”. And we, Russians must not “click with face within large family” and got the more the better.
Can anyone say "Fulda Gap?"
ReplyDeletei was wondering if anyone would get the force of connection. well done William. the Russians are being basically a bunch of refurbished tanks and ifvs. add that fact to the idea that they're actually increasing their defense budget in real terms and you're looking at tremendous bang for the buck. will they have top of the line armor? not at all, but they will have quantity. overwhelming quantity that will set NATO on its back heels. if trends continue then they'll have a 10-1 advantage in tanks that aren't as good but are good enough. additionally western forces are getting SMALLER. much smaller and they're focusing not on becoming even better but on social exercises instead of making the best warriors possible. one last issue. the west has a hard on for special ops instead of maintaining excellence in their conventional forces.
Deleteadd it all together and a Fulda Gap with the Russian bear rampaging wild is a likely scenario. what? you say that airpower will fill the hole? i say not really. check out Denmark. they're going with the F-35 and will barely have a squadron and training wing. we're talking about an airforce that will number around 30 plus airplanes. the same will apply to many of our other partners so air support won't fill the gap.
we're screwed.
Fulda gap – is old history by now IMHO. Look at Ukraine or Libya and drag on all Europe territory – this is more correct image for generalization. Armored large Hordes appear only in case of Nuke war, after “gifts exchanging”.
DeleteSo, freedom to Catalonia!! Damnation, where is my Popcorn???
@will they have top of the line armor? not at all, but they will have quantity@
DeleteYeah, it is force for Nuke war – for armored strikes afterward. If it was prepared for internal operations against militants – Kontakt-1 was used on the «Т -72 Б3» mode instead Kontakt-5.
An defense instrument. We need time (5-10) to prepare our assault troops. But anyway they will be more “anti-Papuans” oriented, then it was before.
Denmark is a bit of a special case as AA can easily cover the entire country.
DeleteBtw. from other angle, buying of T-72B3 means that Armata program will not appear soon. There were info that new tank meet some solid problems in development phase, for now we did not even seen a chassis not to mention working prototype. Buying the B3 for me means that Armata will be delayed for another couple of years before entering service.
ReplyDelete@Btw. from other angle, buying of T-72B3 means that Armata program will not appear soon. @
DeleteTotally right, pan Shas. Maybe some Armata-tanks will appear on Red Square Parad-2015, but for flag-waving only. In army in huge numbers they will appear (if every thing will be going normal) to 2020 (in better case).
Well the trend is changing at least in EE and Finland.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.baltic-course.com/eng/markets_and_companies/?doc=97085
http://www.army-technology.com/features/featurerussian-aggression-spurs-eastern-european-vehicle-modernisation-4387406/
http://yle.fi/uutiset/more_funding_for_the_military/7498506
There is even serious talks about re-introducing AP-mines.
Also one has to remember that while it looks good in numbers, a lot of the older soviet era arsenal has been neglected. And one has to take into accout everything else like AT-capabilities and artillery.