Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

This is a comment from Ukraine War thread which was a reply to my comment. I'm responding just to the part that is relevant to this thread as the statement cited below is a good opportunity to expand on what the State Armaments Programs 2011-2020 and 2018-2027 covered.

HighGround said:

It is well known in Russian analysis circles that Russian Ground Forces got a massive shafting in the SAP 2020 program, an issue that was rectified only in SAP 2027. SAP 2020 injected a lot of cash into Naval and Aerospace forces, and the MIC failed to deliver in those areas. By contrast, the Ground Forces got a lot less inventory in the same time period, the major bottleneck was not in munitions production as far as I could tell. No, in fact Russian MOD was skittish about ordering PGMs and next-gen platforms until the Russian intervention in Syria, at which point PGM orders consistently trended upwards.

Click to expand...

Below are dates and numbers as listed on wikipedia, referring to the procurement covering the period from 2011 to 2017 which is when SAP 2011-2020 was in effect, before revision in 2018.

Navy

x - laid down or reactivated, still under construction
x - laid down or reactivated, in service or sea trials
o - commissioned after being laid down or launched in 2011-2017


Air and air defense forces



Russian intervention in Syria began on 30/9/2015 i.e. it could only affect the last two years which demonstrates that the procurement decisions on PGMs were determined by availability of capable platforms which were only introduced as part of SAP 2011-2020. Before Russian Air Force simply didn't have the planes that could use modern PGMs effectively or at all.

As for the Ground Forces, this branch was least in need of technical modernisation and its primary challenge was generating sufficient number of high-readiness units and shifting personnel structure toward a mixed contract/conscript model. In that effort which is largely an administrative reorganisation within the branch the Ground Forces failed due to institutional inertia and corruption. That failure can be in turn contrasted with the transformation of the VDV which was largely successful and greatly improved the quality of the formation despite similar lack of technical modernisation e.g. vehicles.

The revision of SAP after 5 years is a standard procedure written into law and is expected whenever the circumstances call for it. SAP wasn't changed to reflect a different attitude of the planners but to provide a legal framework for decisions aready made in response to dynamically changing conditions.

The rest of the cited comment is not worth my time in either thread so I'll end here.

MarKoz81 said:

Russian intervention in Syria began on 30/9/2015 i.e. it could only affect the last two years which demonstrates that the procurement decisions on PGMs were determined by availability of capable platforms which were only introduced as part of SAP 2011-2020. Before Russian Air Force simply didn't have the planes that could use modern PGMs effectively or at all.

Click to expand...

Su-34 entered service in 2014. Su-35S entered service in 2014. More importantly, Tu-95MS, the primary missile carrier of the Russian fleet, has been in service for decades and has been modified pretty much on the fly to carry latest PGMs for the VKS.

Other than that, even now, Su-24M2s are capable of using PGMs, and will continue to have a presence in VKS.

As I said before, Russia simply did not order lots of PGMs. There are lots of reasons why, especially when we look at how Russia performed in the 2008 August War. This was an army that had an identity crisis and it only became a true military institution capable of learning and improving after that war.

MarKoz81 said:

As for the Ground Forces, this branch was least in need of technical modernisation and its primary challenge was generating sufficient number of high-readiness units and shifting personnel structure toward a mixed contract/conscript model. In that effort which is largely an administrative reorganisation within the branch the Ground Forces failed due to institutional inertia and corruption. That failure can be in turn contrasted with the transformation of the VDV which was largely successful and greatly improved the quality of the formation despite similar lack of technical modernisation e.g. vehicles.

The revision of SAP after 5 years is a standard procedure written into law and is expected whenever the circumstances call for it. SAP wasn't changed to reflect a different attitude of the planners but to provide a legal framework for decisions aready made in response to dynamically changing conditions.

The rest of the cited comment is not worth my time in either thread so I'll end here.

Click to expand...

This really isn't why. Well, at least I don't think so.

The reason why the Navy and Air Force got the lion's share of SAP 2020 was because the Shipyards and Aircraft manufacturers were the ones who most badly needed the cash injection and production orders. Almaz-Antey, UVG, etc, had a pretty okay time selling tanks, air defense systems, and so on overseas. Plus, certain systems were always in demand by the Russian Army and those enterprises had steady orders (so did submarine manufacturers).

But again, this all comes back to what is the true Russian MIC capacity for manufacturing PGMs?

It's definitely not 100-150 tactical/strategic rockets annually. It wasn't that low even before the war.

HighGround said:

Su-34 entered service in 2014. Su-35S entered service in 2014. More importantly, Tu-95MS, the primary missile carrier of the Russian fleet, has been in service for decades and has been modified pretty much on the fly to carry latest PGMs for the VKS.

Click to expand...

Su-34 commercial manufacturing started in 2005. Russia dont do assembly line unless the product is essentially in service. Look at Su-57.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In the 2000s, the Su-34 became one of the preferred aircraft for military aviation upgrading. Commercial manufacturing was started in Novosibirsk 2005.

Click to expand...

they are claiming over 200 Su-34 in service during Ukraine conflict.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

“We are talking about expanding the range of weapons of the Su-34, this has a certain advantage. Unification is taking place, flexibility in solving problems appears. If we have a limited number of MiG-31Ks, then there are more than 200 Su-34s. The number of Kinzhal carriers has increased, accordingly, the number of targets hit. Now we can create access denial zones in all theaters of combat," Leonkov said.

Click to expand...

most people not realize that this ukraine conflict is basically under microscope of those who facilitated that prisoner exchange. and Russia has every reason to prove that it can handle complex air operations on much larger scale than any one else over extended period of time. they are even mentioning how many foreign civil airliners (63) during new year time they have in airspace. that Civil aviation is there trade mark.

Any thoughts on criticism of AK-12 on this video? Are things like rail not holding zero true?

TK3600 said:

Any thoughts on criticism of AK-12 on this video? Are things like rail not holding zero true?

Click to expand...

Yes. The AK-12 is a comrpomised gun, and a properly modded AK-74M will perform better.

That said, there's probabyl AK-12 mods that also fix the gun, and newer versions of the AK-12 also fix some of these issues, so...

But I suppose the question should be, was the AK-12 the right choice for Ru MOD? It's hard to say, a case for acquiring AK-74M modification kits, or upgraded AK-103/104 can certainly be made.

HighGround said:

Yes. The AK-12 is a comrpomised gun, and a properly modded AK-74M will perform better.

That said, there's probabyl AK-12 mods that also fix the gun, and newer versions of the AK-12 also fix some of these issues, so...

But I suppose the question should be, was the AK-12 the right choice for Ru MOD? It's hard to say, a case for acquiring AK-74M modification kits, or upgraded AK-103/104 can certainly be made.

Click to expand...

AK-12 vs AK-74M mod is kinda already done. Russia made the choice. My question would be how feasible is fixing AK-12 so it works as intended.

1. Is there a reasonable way to fix optics not holding zero on rail?
2. Despite freefloating barrel, no MOA improvement detected. Why is that?
3. Gun is hard to clean. Can that be fixed without too much modification?

TK3600 said:

AK-12 vs AK-74M mod is kinda already done. Russia made the choice. My question would be how feasible is fixing AK-12 so it works as intended.

1. Is there a reasonable way to fix optics not holding zero on rail?
2. Despite freefloating barrel, no MOA improvement detected. Why is that?
3. Gun is hard to clean. Can that be fixed without too much modification?

Click to expand...

They already "fixed" it.


I read an article a few weeks ago that goes into the details, but I'm on my work computer right now. I don't remember if they solved all of the issues, but yes, it can be done.

TK3600 said:

AK-12 vs AK-74M mod is kinda already done. Russia made the choice. My question would be how feasible is fixing AK-12 so it works as intended.

1. Is there a reasonable way to fix optics not holding zero on rail?
2. Despite freefloating barrel, no MOA improvement detected. Why is that?
3. Gun is hard to clean. Can that be fixed without too much modification?

Click to expand...

“Fixed it” on paper. If it actually did anything? More than chrome the gas block and change the stock and hand guard?
1)
The rail on an AK is in two parts the dust cover and the gas block cover. The latter has an improved metal handguard which was offered commercially rather than the cheap polymer.
The dust cover would have required a redesign demanding either a hinge mechanism or a rubber buffer like the ACE. Still the Russians have a solution to this issue. They don’t issue optics so no problem… Nyet Rifle is fine! Despite that those are the very things Ratnik was supposed to give the Russian soldier.

2)
because MOA isn’t what free floating the barrel is about. The AK is a combat rifle not a sniper weapon. Its MOA is measured in “good enough”. Free floating the barrel became important for combat rifles after the advent of rail systems. When accessories were added to the handguard of AR15 rifles. these turned the barrel which was only meant to hold a bayonet into a weight barring surface.

3)
No. The gas piston system was redesigned vs the classic AK. This redesign created the cleaning issue. It’s been made ”easier” in that they chrome lined the piston port which is the biggest problem area however that just means what you can access is easier to clean .

overall the AK12 is a classic example of lipstick on a pig. Kalashnikov concern had the inside track for the contract, they built a prototype that was given the AK12 designation but was too ambitious. When it became clear it wasn’t going to work they cludged together a new prototype that was more iteration than revolution. Basically an AK made copying a bunch of features from the IWI ACE and commercial AK upgrades on the surface. But they skipped a number thing and fundamentally ended up with a half assed rifle. Because the AK12 is more or less an “improved” AK74 which in turn is an “improved” AKM an “improved” AK47… We have a line of a design that traces its self directly to World war 2 masquerading as a new weapon.

HighGround said:

Su-34 entered service in 2014. Su-35S entered service in 2014. More importantly, Tu-95MS, the primary missile carrier of the Russian fleet, has been in service for decades and has been modified pretty much on the fly to carry latest PGMs for the VKS.

Other than that, even now, Su-24M2s are capable of using PGMs, and will continue to have a presence in VKS.

As I said before, Russia simply did not order lots of PGMs. There are lots of reasons why, especially when we look at how Russia performed in the 2008 August War. This was an army that had an identity crisis and it only became a true military institution capable of learning and improving after that war.

Click to expand...

There were proposals from Russian defense companies to make glide kits for gravity bombs for quite some time. The Syrian experience probably did not help since the insurgents there basically had no proper SAM systems. Only after several years did MANPADS show up. But no long range SAM systems. And MANPADS can just be countered by bombing at altitude. Those MANPADS typically can at most reach 5 km altitude. So just fly higher. Which is why the Russians then started adding systems like SVP-24 Gefest to make bombing more accurate at altitude with gravity bombs. Which was much cheaper per bomb dropped than glide kits. Well this is not the case when against someone with the Buk or S-300.

Like you said, the Russians only started modernization properly after the Russo-Georgian War. Unfortunately they seem to have forgotten the lessons of that war after going into Syria. Because in Georgia they already faced an enemy which had its Soviet weapons upgraded similarly to what was done in Ukraine. The Georgians had Buk SAM systems upgraded by Ukraine, and they had T-72SIM1 tanks upgraded with US and Israeli electronics. Including thermal sensors, digital radios, etc.

Maybe because Russia still managed to win handily despite not upgrading its army significantly, with a non-professional army, they probably underestimated the degree of difficulty in Ukraine. Even though they did lose a Tu-22M3 there in Georgia. But I don't know. Maybe they did expect this. Which is why they still refrain from engaging some of their forces in case of further escalation.

TK3600 said:

Any thoughts on criticism of AK-12 on this video? Are things like rail not holding zero true?

Click to expand...

These US guys haven't even had the possibility to use the real thing and are speculating. It has issues like any new weapon system which will get fixed with time with further testing. The AK-47 wasn't perfect when it came out either. They decided to make it with stamping, which proved to be weak, and had to switch to a milled receiver.

A lot of people fail to understand the huge breakthrough that Kalashnikov group made with the AK-12. After the initial program proved to be a failure they had to redesign the weapon and resubmit it. They basically decided to start afresh with a design based on an AK-100. Except this time the weapon was basically converted to digital design. It was made with modern tools and methods. This means they can iterate on the design a lot more quickly and make changes to it. They changed a lot of things on it afterwards. To meet the specifications for Ratnik, even if it was just on paper, they added Picatinny rails and a two round burst mode to the rifle. They also changed the barrel. The new barrel is supposed to be way more precisely made. The whole gun is supposed to be made way more accurately because of using modern tools.

Kalashnikov group right now is one of the major makers of advanced machine tools in Russia. For example they make 5-axis CNC machines.

Of course these design methods are being applied to a whole plethora of weapon systems as well. You are already seeing sniper rifles and carbines which likely were made with the same method. Just think about it. Kalashnikov group haven't made such major changes to the small weapons they have sold for like two decades.

They not only have the AK-12 in serial production, but also the Chukavin sniper rifle. And they are also working on the AM-17 compact assault rifle.

Also, you have to remember that the Russians approved two guns for Ratnik-2. The AK-12 and the AEK-971. The special troops are supposed to get the more complex AEK-971. But the regular army gets the cheaper AK-12.

gelgoog said:

These US guys haven't even had the possibility to use the real thing and are speculating. It has issues like any new weapon system which will get fixed with time with further testing. The AK-47 wasn't perfect when it came out either. They decided to make it with stamping, which proved to be weak, and had to switch to a milled receiver.

Click to expand...

The AK-12 they are using is in fact the real thing. It is likely a trophy from Ukraine that they managed to acquire from friendly Ukrainian forces. I say this, because this same AK-12 has been passed around other "guntubers", one of whom is Oxide. Who previously the Russian Gost-6 plate and gave it a very positive review.

I highly recommend watching it.

Basically, Tier-1 Russian forces have access to anything as good as their Western counterparts in terms of small arms and infantry equipment.

gelgoog said:

A lot of people fail to understand the huge breakthrough that Kalashnikov group made with the AK-12. After the initial program proved to be a failure they had to redesign the weapon and resubmit it. They basically decided to start afresh with a design based on an AK-100. Except this time the weapon was basically converted to digital design. It was made with modern tools and methods. This means they can iterate on the design a lot more quickly and make changes to it. They changed a lot of things on it afterwards. To meet the specifications for Ratnik, even if it was just on paper, they added Picatinny rails and a two round burst mode to the rifle. They also changed the barrel. The new barrel is supposed to be way more precisely made. The whole gun is supposed to be made way more accurately because of using modern tools.

Click to expand...

You make a good point here. The AK-12 that are "reviewed" are reviews from a standpoint of the end-user, and the end-user will always prioritize performance.

But a small-arm's worth is not simply how accurately it shoots, how ergonomic it is to use, or how customizable it is. In the context of a small-arm's worth to a State or an Army, a small-arm needs to fulfill its function as a primary infantry weapon for millions of men/women. It needs to balance performance vs production.

In that context, the AK-12 is undoubtedly a massive step-up from the AK-74 and AK-74M.