Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

T

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
Pmichael said:
12 aircraft over a rather large timeframe is ridiculous.

That's not western misinformation (western media actually has a decades long history of overstating Russian military assets) but Russia barely getting things out into service in the last 20 years.
Click to expand...

Whataboutism - I'm pretty sure I could find an example of Russian military capability being understated by Western sources for every example of the contrary. They've just been inaccurate one way or the other and when information is hard to come by this is perfectly excusable.

That's not the case in this instance though, the authors (intentionally or not) grossly distorted easily verifiable facts and committed totally unjustified leaps of logic. It is hard to disagree with the assertion that schedule performance of many Russian weapons systems post-1990 has been very disappointing, and that most definitely includes the Su-57 - you only need to compare it to the smooth progress of the J-20. However it's entirely possible (compulsory, in fact, if you value your credibility) to convincingly argue that point on the basis of factual information, rather than creating tendentious falsehoods.

Why are you trying to sugar-coat what objectively is just an extremely unprofessional piece of work by any accepted journalistic standard? The people who wrote and contributed to that article royally dropped the ball and deserve every shrapnel of the flack they are taking for it.
 
Last edited:
Dizasta1

Dizasta1

Senior Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Should I be taking that personally? As that sumerizes my statement as well. I feel it to be true. They have claimed they will have Hypersonic fighters, Wonder Tanks, Masses of super high end fighters, new nuclear carriers and LHA.... And have gotten? Even there small arms programs like the AN94 and Groch pistol fell flat.
sorry but this is not a new trend, they have started big programs and projects yet been forced to cut them back or cancel all together for various reasons time and time again from as far back as the 70's. Sanction or not. This would have happened with or without sanctions.

The "Oil Glut" may have been contrived as you say, but if it worked as you claim it means that the Russian Federation is balanced on a knifes edge and the Russian Leadership failed to learn the lessons of the USSR.

The Ukraine industrial share with the Russian Federation has been rocky from the moment the USSR ended. The Russian Federation has done everything it can to extricate itself from dependency on the former Warsaw pact industry share. Where you see any reliance on the Ukraine is a program that predates the fall of the USSR and no other alternative remains. Over the last two decades the Russian Military and Space program have looked into every possible degree of eliminating Ukrainian industry from there machines even to the point of disaster. I remember the Mir impact incident do you? The Pride of the Russian Space program Mir was to dock with a Progress freighter for a test. That test? To see if the Cosmonauts could control the Progress and dock with out use of a telemetry radar set made in the Ukraine. The result, was the collision and hull breach of Mir's newest module. That is just one example
The AN70 is another where the Russian Airforce killed there funding of a ready to go transport because spending money in the Ukraine was looked at unfavorably compared to indigenous state industry.
.... Well since Bats actually have good eye sight.... Sorry this is just the latest in a long run of Russian programs that go this route, they end up either delayed, ordered in small numbers that are far short of initial public announcement or totally cancelled. Sanctions or no this is the Norm.
We see this with the SU35 where they made air of claims of best fighter ever the new back none of the Russian Airforce and almost nothing. If not for foreign buys the Russians would have only bought a few dozen and called it quits.
Click to expand...

Terran, my post is not directed at you or to any post you made.

The Su-57s are here to stay, and irrespective of the "speculations" and "assumptions" made by the western news networks, the aircraft will be produced at whatever production rate Russia wants to produce them. Facts are facts, Russia isn't the one with a $600 billion defense budget per year. So Russia have the luxury of flushing billions $$ down the toilet on various defense programs that don't come to fruition. They are being extremely careful of their defense spendings and responsibly moving forward with their military's modernization.

You're right about one thing though, Soviet Union leadership drowned Russia's wealth in the gutter. Which why this Russia, the REAL Russia, is acting responsibly and is ensuring that it doesn't fall trap into an arms race like the Soviet Union did. And it doesn't end up with a $21 trillion in debt. So when Business Insider or whatever the heck they call themselves these days, puts out a headline that Su-57s are a failure and Russians have admitted to it. It's almost comical and laughable for the reader, who isn't one to be suckered into believing it.

Today, Russia is standing strong as a nation, despite the massive economic black hole the Soviets left them in. Despite the rampant corruption that took place in the 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I find that to be something of an accomplishment and a credit the people of Russia and their leadership, that ensured that their country doesn't sell themselves out to big corporate behemoths, like they do in America.
 
P

Pmichael

Junior Member
Tirdent said:
Whataboutism - I'm pretty sure I could find an example of Russian military capability being understated by Western sources for every example of the contrary. They've just been inaccurate one way or the other and when information is hard to come by this is perfectly excusable.

That's not the case in this instance though, the authors (intentionally or not) grossly distorted easily verifiable facts and committed totally unjustified leaps of logic. It is hard to disagree with the assertion that schedule performance of many Russian weapons systems post-1990 has been very disappointing, and that most definitely includes the Su-57 - you only need to compare it to the smooth progress of the J-20. However it's entirely possible (compulsory, in fact, if you value your credibility) to convincingly argue that point on the basis of factual information, rather than creating tendentious falsehoods.

Why are you trying to sugar-coat what objectively is just an extremely unprofessional piece of work by any accepted journalistic standard? The people who wrote and contributed to that article royally dropped the ball and deserve every shrapnel of the flack they are taking for it.
Click to expand...

whataboutism... you have no fucking idea what that word means.

Also we can completely ignore the article and the fact that Russia ordered 12 Su-57 stretched over a long timeframe shows that the SU-57 program is a disaster.
 
T

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
Pmichael said:
whataboutism... you have no fucking idea what that word means.
Click to expand...

If you say so.

"Whataboutism ... is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument"

My position was that the article in question is factually nonsense, you argued that somehow it's not ok for me to criticize that because Western sources supposedly tend to give Russian hardware too favourable a review. Which suggests you believe I'm all too happy to unquestioningly accept glowing assessments in other instances and therefore hypocritical in calling the BI article out.

Trouble is, no matter what else the article unequivocally IS crap, the assertion about Western commentators hyping Russian stuff is debatable to say the very least and I'm intellectually honest enough to recognize nonsense of either kind.

Pmichael said:
Also we can completely ignore the article and the fact that Russia ordered 12 Su-57 stretched over a long timeframe shows that the SU-57 program is a disaster.
Click to expand...

It sure as hell doesn't match the projections of Russian government sources, there can be no argument about that. A "disaster" though? Typhoon took, at least compared to the currently intended Su-57 schedule, a similar length of time and the first F-35 LRIP contract covered all of 2 aircraft, for some perspective.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Dizasta1 said:
Terran, my post is not directed at you or to any post you made.

The Su-57s are here to stay, and irrespective of the "speculations" and "assumptions" made by the western news networks, the aircraft will be produced at whatever production rate Russia wants to produce them. Facts are facts, Russia isn't the one with a $600 billion defense budget per year. So Russia have the luxury of flushing billions $$ down the toilet on various defense programs that don't come to fruition. They are being extremely careful of their defense spendings and responsibly moving forward with their military's modernization.

You're right about one thing though, Soviet Union leadership drowned Russia's wealth in the gutter. Which why this Russia, the REAL Russia, is acting responsibly and is ensuring that it doesn't fall trap into an arms race like the Soviet Union did. And it doesn't end up with a $21 trillion in debt. So when Business Insider or whatever the heck they call themselves these days, puts out a headline that Su-57s are a failure and Russians have admitted to it. It's almost comical and laughable for the reader, who isn't one to be suckered into believing it.

Today, Russia is standing strong as a nation, despite the massive economic black hole the Soviets left them in. Despite the rampant corruption that took place in the 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I find that to be something of an accomplishment and a credit the people of Russia and their leadership, that ensured that their country doesn't sell themselves out to big corporate behemoths, like they do in America.
Click to expand...

Agreed on avoiding arms race that will bankrupt the country. Russia doesn't enjoy the status of having ruble as world's default reserve currency to justify insane debts. But Russia today is just a shadow of the industrial and technical potential of the Soviet Union. It is actually less than any single technologically advanced European nation like France, UK, or Germany because they've lost much of their talent pool and don't have the resources to play with any more. Russia is nowhere near a threat today and it makes little sense for the western powers to continue their gradual eroding of Russian influence in the region. They obviously want to keep Russia from resurgence which isn't necessarily a bad thing but Washington's methods of encroaching on former Russian spheres of influence has a very aggressive undertone and that is what worries Russian policy makers. Similarly the US' "pivot to Asia" worries China because Chinese interpret it not only as an effort to keep China away from advancing their capabilities (which eventually means taking away US influence) but Chinese also think its aim is to eventually break China apart and keep those peoples in perpetual poverty and slavery to western policies. These two "bogeymen" are constantly portrayed as the threat because they are not politically aligned with the Washington consensus unlike every other developed and industrialised nation.
 
P

Pmichael

Junior Member
Tirdent said:
If you say so.

"Whataboutism ... is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument"

My position was that the article in question is factually nonsense, you argued that somehow it's not ok for me to criticize that because Western sources supposedly tend to give Russian hardware too favourable a review. Which suggests you believe I'm all too happy to unquestioningly accept glowing assessments in other instances and therefore hypocritical in calling the BI article out.

Trouble is, no matter what else the article unequivocally IS crap, the assertion about Western commentators hyping Russian stuff is debatable to say the very least and I'm intellectually honest enough to recognize nonsense of either kind.



It sure as hell doesn't match the projections of Russian government sources, there can be no argument about that. A "disaster" though? Typhoon took, at least compared to the currently intended Su-57 schedule, a similar length of time and the first F-35 LRIP contract covered all of 2 aircraft, for some perspective.
Click to expand...

We only need to look what Russia actually put into service the past decade and they will do in the next years and we will see that's not a lot.

Your post is just fluff
 
T

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
Fluff is a statement containing no substance - I have provided some to support my arguments in that post, however.

Your own point, on the other hand... you might have had a good argument if you'd been talking about the decade before the past decade (and given the anemic economy, the coming one may be difficult once more). As for the period 2008 to 2018 though, let's try some facts again, ok?

~70 Su-35S
~100 Su-30SM
~100 Su-34

2 Yasen-class SSN
3 Borey-class SSBN

~20 S-400 battalions

+ lot's of stuff I simply have little interest in.

More tactical combat aircraft than France has ordered (let alone taken delivery of) Rafales, 33% of their SSN fleet and 75% of their SSBN fleet - all in the space of 10 years. Sure, it falls *well* short of the US or China (both of which have much more money to burn), but probably compares very favourably to anyone outside those two. Substance, not fluff.
 
timepass

timepass

Brigadier
Russian cruiser Varyag (Varangian), (ex-Chervona Ukraina), is the third ship of the Slava-class of guided missile cruisers built for the Soviet Navy now serving the Russian Navy.

In early January 2016, Varyag was reported to have entered the Mediterranean Sea through the Suez Canal to be deployed off Syria′s shore replacing sister ship Moskva, in support of Russia's air operation in Syria that had begun in autumn 2015. The ship was named flagship of the Russian naval task force positioned in the eastern Mediterranean.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=914131302090698
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top