Russia's "Rust Bucket" military surprises the West

Discussion in 'Europe' started by Osmanovic, Jan 30, 2016.

Share This Page

  1. Osmanovic

    Osmanovic 1st Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2016
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    325
    Location:
    United-States
    Their army’s equipment and strategy was “outmoded”; their air force’s bombs and missiles were “more dumb than smart”; their navy was “more rust than ready”. For decades, this was Western military leaders’ view, steeped in condescension, of their Russian counterparts. What they have seen in Syria and Ukraine has come as a shock.

    Russian military jets have, at times, been carrying out more sorties in a day in Syria than the US-led coalition has done in a month. The Russian navy has launched ballistic missiles from the Caspian Sea 900 miles way, and kept supply lines going to Syria. The air defences installed by the Russians in Syria and eastern Ukraine would make it extremely hazardous for the West to carry out strikes against the Assad regime or Ukrainian separatists.

    Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, the commander of the US army in Europe, has described Russian advances in electronic warfare in Syria and Ukraine – a field in which they were typically supposed to be backward – as “eye watering”.

    Russia: Russian Tu-22M3 bomber takes aim at IS positions near Deir-ez-Zor
    The chief of US Air Force operations in Europe and Africa, Lieutenant General Frank Gorenc, has disclosed that Moscow is now deploying anti-aircraft systems in Crimea, which the Kremlin annexed from Ukraine last year, and in Kaliningrad, an enclave between Lithuania and Poland. It is doing so, he says, in a way that makes it “very, very difficult” for Nato planes to gain access safely to areas including parts of Poland.

    It is not just Nato member states watching the Russians with concern. Israel, too, sees the build-up of Russian weaponry across its northern border in Syria and wonders where it will all end. Their apprehension is that the advanced equipment already in situ in the Middle East will end up with Iran, viewed as an existential threat to the Jewish state, or with other Arab countries, thus eroding the air superiority that is Israel’s primary advantage over its neighbours.

    It is this military might that is underpinning President Vladimir Putin’s strategic triumphs. His intervention in Syria has been a game changer and what happens there now lies, to a large extent, in his hands. The Ukraine conflict is semi-frozen, on his terms. The Russians are allying with the Kurds, unfazed by the Turkish anger this has provoked. And, crucially, they are now returning to Egypt to an extent not seen for 44 years, since they were kicked out by President Anwar Sadat.

    One of the most senior analysts in Israeli military intelligence told The Independent in Tel Aviv last week: “Anyone who wants anything done in this region is beating a path to Moscow.”

    Mr Putin has relished pointing out the significance of the West seeing “for the first time that these weapons do exist, that they are of high quality, and that we have well-trained people who can put them to effective use. They have now seen, too, that Russia is ready to use them if this is in the interest of our country and our people.”

    In Syria the Russians have been conducting as many air strikes a day, up to 96, as the US-led coalition has carried out in a month. This is in marked contrast, Western military planners have noted, to how quickly Nato began to feel the strain when bombing Libya and Kosovo.

    One reason for the dearth of coalition sorties is that its Sunni state members are carrying out scarcely any missions, focusing instead on Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. Operations by Turkey, meanwhile, have been overwhelmingly against the Kurds rather than Isis.

    Western defence officials also contend that the Russians are hitting other rebel groups in the guise of attacking Isis and that they are more indiscriminate in their targeting because they are less sensitive to any evidence of civilian casualties and because of their lack of precision-guided weaponry.

    But Russia had never promised it was going to attack only Isis. Instead, it declared that “all terrorists” would be targeted. This, conveniently for Mr Putin and President Bashar al-Assad, has included more moderate rebel groups. Experience of the Chechen wars show that the Kremlin is, indeed, more prepared to shrug off “collateral damage” than the West. It is also true that there were not enough Russian guided bombs and missiles in the first stage of the Syrian mission: Moscow’s claim that it has used precision weapons alone does not stand up to scrutiny.

    The aircraft, missiles and bombs used at first were a mix of old, dating from the Soviet era, and relatively new. There are 34 fixed-wing aircraft based at Latakia: 12 Su-25s and four Su-30SM fighter-bombers; 12 ageing Su-24M2s and six Su-34s. There are also helicopters and an unspecified number of drones.

    However, more of the most advanced of these, the Su-34, codenamed Fullback by Nato, have been replacing older aircraft. One reason for this is that aircraft such as the Su-25, a veteran of the wars in Chechnya and Georgia, are vulnerable to Manpads – shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles – which Moscow suspects the Turks and the Saudis have been supplying to Sunni rebels.

    The introduction by the Kremlin of advanced air-defence systems has gained impetus since the shooting down of a Russian jet by the Turks. The S-400 Triumph system is a source of great Israeli worry should it fall into “wrong hands”. This has an array radar that continuously monitors the skies, and a missile battery which can shoot down targets 250 miles away. One such array is positioned at the Russian base at Latakia and covers half of Israeli airspace.

    The deployment of Russian electronic warfare equipment in Ukraine and Syria, such as the Krasukha-4 which can jam Awacs and satellite radar systems, has been another sobering experience for Nato. Ronald Pontius, deputy to the US Army head of cyber command, stated: “You cannot but come to the conclusion that we are not making progress at the pace the threat demands.”

    Gen Gorenc, while bemoaning the proliferation by Russia and worrying about Nato’s capabilities, acknowledged that Russia was not breaking any international agreements and “has every right” to deploy these systems. In Syria, he said, the Russians were using “cruise missiles, they are using bombers. It is clear that they are desiring to show the ability they have to affect not just regional events, but worldwide events.”

    That, indeed, is the point. The question for the West is whether to react to this by initiating a new chapter of confrontation with Moscow, or one of greater accommodation.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...i-tech-shock-to-west-and-israel-a6842711.html
     
    AMDR, T-123456, Falcon and 3 others like this.
  2. Pathfinder

    Pathfinder Lieutenant Colonel

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Messages:
    1,395
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Location:
    United-States
    Personally I am not very surprised by their capabilities in Syria. I think we all already knew what they had. They have fielded long-range cruise missiles since the soviet times and they have had precision guided munitions since soviet times. Now what is surprising is that they have a significant stock pile of these weapons which is what may have caught western military experts off guard. Then again we could just be exaggerating their overall capabilities the same way Saddam's capabilities were exaggerated. Obviously you can't compare Russia and Saddam but we have a tendency to fear monger a lot while criticizing our selves and not our adversaries capabilities.
     
    AMDR, Osmanovic, Falcon and 2 others like this.
  3. Technofox

    Technofox That Norwegian girl Staff Member Ret. Military Developer

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2015
    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    3,190
    Occupation:
    Professional "Doer" of "Things"
    Location:
    Norway
    Hobby:
    Being a geek
    Me neither... well not totally. Some of their tactics are suprising in today's age, but are pretty common for Russia given its past experience.

    Dumb bombs delivered via strategic bomber, a TU-22M3, against an adversary without any air-defense to speak of?



    Cost effective, but not so much in terms of battlefield doctrine, tactics or usage. A rather poor way to break a siege as these aircraft are trying to do against Deir-ez-Zor where the SAA has been besieged by ISIL for months - and continues to be.

    That said, Russia's military has undergone a drastic rearmament and modernization since Putin returned to the presidency. His focus throughout was military first. Sure some of their assets are still rusty. Their cruiser, submarines... most ships other then frigates. Many of their TU-95s are in poor shape, their TU-22Ms too, but not the whole Russian military. Their missiles are still first rate, even if their use in Syria is of questionable battlefield usefulness too - it's likely a sales pitch and message to NATO and not of strategic or tactical value to use 3M-54 and other long-ranged missiles.

    Their land forces and especially air-defense and missile regiments are still world class and have undergone further refinements and upgrading. The VVS is getting better, it's got a small number of modern strike aircraft like the SU-34, but is still mainly centered around SU-24s and SU-25s, in conjunction with strategic bombers. While the SU-34 has seen action in Syria:

    [​IMG]

    Older SU-24s are doing the heavy lifting alongside TU-22M3s, but even the US is using strategic bombers as tactical strike weapons as noted with the B-1B in Syria:

    [​IMG]

    So it's not as if this is out of necessity. It's more concerning that they are using unguided munitions when they have guided ones. But given Russia's history and current financial situation, perhaps this isn't surprising either.

    Their fighter aircraft are world renowned for their lethality. Second only to those of the US, and sometimes better than what the Americans are fielding.

    Anyone seen their Project 03160 ‘Raptor’ special forces command boats in Syria?

    [​IMG]

    Similar in US to the US Riverine Command Boat, itself a derivative of the Combat Boat 90. It's a new addition.

    So some of their forces are rusty, old and outdated. But not all, they are making rapid progress in terms of modernization. Surprising to some, but not to me.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2016
    AMDR, Osmanovic, Falcon and 2 others like this.
  4. Atilla

    Atilla Major

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2015
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    1,298
    Location:
    Turkey
    They don't hesitate to use their military to accomplish geopolitical missions. This is why people are in confusion and amazed by Russian military.

    They did a good job of modernizing key sectors in military. They create fast deployable troops, increase air defense, ballistic missiles capabilities, and they work hard on cyber attack capabilities.
     
    AMDR, Osmanovic and Falcon like this.
  5. Falcon

    Falcon Major Staff Member Social Media Team

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2015
    Messages:
    921
    Likes Received:
    1,431
    Location:
    United-States
    The river boats are news to me.

    Putin did a good job of modernizing the Russian military in a relatively short period of time with limited resources. He has also done a good job of using it to achieve his countries strategic goals. So far he is getting everything he wants with his military. The caucasus, Georgia, Ukraine, and now Syria.
     
    AMDR, Osmanovic and Technofox like this.
  6. Technofox

    Technofox That Norwegian girl Staff Member Ret. Military Developer

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2015
    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    3,190
    Occupation:
    Professional "Doer" of "Things"
    Location:
    Norway
    Hobby:
    Being a geek
    Depends on how we quantify his strategic aims. A cold conflict in Georgia and Ukraine, effectively freezing them out of NATO? Check, that one's a masterstroke - though expect Ukraine to be promoted to non-NATO partner and its military further trained and armed by the US and Europe, so that may yet backfire against Russia too.

    A return of Crimea to Russia and a holding of Tartus in Syria? Also check, but Russia's paying dearly for both in economic terms. Crimea earned Russia sanctions and the Syrian campaign is hemorrhaging money at a time when Russia's economy is stung by cheap commodities too and OPEC divisions.

    If Russia can't or wont reform its economy away from commodities and reproach the West, which has frozen Russia out of international financing, something even the Chinese can't step in to replace, and facing an investment crisis with foreign firms looking elsewhere, these may be Pyrrhic victories for Russia. A dying nation clinging to crumbs of greatness of a forgotten time.

    Speaking of reproachment with the West, Russia's actions have Turkey mad and Europe looking for alternative oil and gas supplies including from the US and Iran - a key Russian rival in the commodities realm. Once again, even with its vast appetite, China can't step in to replace Europe. It too is seeking alternatives, and like Europe, has placed an emphasis on green energy.

    Russia's actions also see an increased US and European military presence in Eastern Europe, something Russia sought to avoid. Putin is once again justifying NATO's existence at a time when it was facing an identity crisis.

    Russia's military has achieved many strategic aims, but it's politicians and policies are causing many strategic blunders. Like the US in the Middle East and China in the SCS, politicians are using militaries to achieve aims and goals that further cause resentment, tensions and problems in their respective regions.

    China lost the SCS to the US, the US burnt the Middle East... again, and Russia is loosing Europe and Central Asia. Maybe it's not quite a victory for Putin's military.
     
    Falcon, AMDR, Osmanovic and 1 other person like this.
  7. Pathfinder

    Pathfinder Lieutenant Colonel

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Messages:
    1,395
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Location:
    United-States
    I agree. His moves in Ukraine and Georgia were a good play for Putin, but like you said Ukraine and Georgia are now a splinter for him. Still those two countries are nothing he can't handle. Militarily they are not a threat and he has already gotten the land he wants out of them. By not occupying eastern Ukraine he holds a big stake in Ukraine's internal affairs. He can use separatists oriented regions in the future to stall political and economic progress in Ukraine. He may still have influence over some Ukrainian oligarchs put I can not confirm this.

    Their economy is doing bad but he probably calculated the costs before going out on his adventures. He guaranteed himself a good port on the black sea and is getting Latakia to bypass Turkey. For the first time in history the Russians have a serious presence in the mediterranean. He can always resupply that base via the air and from St. Petersburg through the strait of Gibraltar.

    :0--0:

    I think China will suck up Central Asian gas and oil. Europe will get its gas from Algeria, Egypt, Israel, and Azerbaijan.

    Given all of the downsides to his military actions I think it is safe to say that his recent military moves were desperate attempts to secure his country's position in the world in the face of an assertive US and NATO.
     
    Falcon, AMDR and Technofox like this.
  8. T-123456

    T-123456 Captain Staff Member International Mod

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2015
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    481
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Well spoken.
    The war in Syria is not over yet,lets see who wins or loses
     
  9. Osmanovic

    Osmanovic 1st Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2016
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    325
    Location:
    United-States
    The biggest difference between the Russian Military now and the Russian Military of the Georgian war is command, control, and communications. They learned many lessons in Georgia and rectified their mistakes allowing them to carry out an amazing operation in Crimea.
     
    Falcon, AMDR and Technofox like this.
  10. AMDR

    AMDR Captain Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2015
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    867
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    United-States
    The Russians used the US refocus to counterinsurgency of the 2000s to make great gains in their conventional capabilities. IMO it turned out pretty good for them, especially in the AA department. Their land-based electronic warfare capabilities are also top notch as well.

    It will be very interesting though, to see how the Russian Military responds to the "Third Offset Strategy", because right now they are, at least in my opinion, in a exposed position strategically for the following reasons.

    As we all know Russia is very reliant on Oil. Oil is low right now and is projected to stay that way for the next 3-4 years. They will have to cut back on some of their planned military expenditures in the next few years to keep their heads above the water with the overall budget. Meanwhile the NATO and US military budgets are believed to have bottomed out on the cuts and are projected to slowly increase for the next few years. I think the US Military in particular will use this opportunity to quickly advance the "Third Offset Strategy", which is designed to specifically to counter the increasingly advanced conventional capabilities of China and Russia.

    With Oil Low and Military budget growth stagnation or even shrinking, the Russians will be under pressure to respond to a new, full spectrum set of capabilities that the US are bringing online like UUVs, Railguns, Lasers, Hypersonic Weapons, and advanced Cyber/EW capabilities just to name a few. I guarantee you this is something that the Russians are taking a close look at, and it is definitely on their minds as we head into the 2020s when the US starts maturing and deploying these systems.

    During the 70s and 80s the Second Offset Strategy was successful in that it made the Soviets make a "Strategic Pause" in their military acquisition to reassess how they were gonna go forward and still maintain their edge in Germany when going up against the new American systems and strategies like ASSAULT BREAKER and FOFA (Follow-on forces attack). When Oil prices dropped low in the late 80s, the huge military spending to keep up with the West was one of the key reasons why the Soviet Union fell. Now, I'm not saying that Russia in the present will collapse, but they should be careful not to fall into the same trap as their father.
     
    Atilla, T-123456 and Falcon like this.
Loading...