"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (101 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Gilder said:
I have to be honest but I disagree with a lot of his assumptions and equally am interested in what he doesn't say regarding some of the facts that he mentions but doesn't go into the impact of those facts.

Tanks and armour.
He states that Russia is able to build 200 tanks, 400 BMP IFV and 500 BTR 82 APC. He doesn't mention that all of these types have proven to be death traps to their crews and are totally unsuitable in the modern drone warfare of today. Russia will have to start from scratch. He also doesn't mention that current NATO equipment have proven to be far more adept at operating in the drone warfare environment, are considerably better at protecting their crews and its a safe bet that future developments will improve on that.
Neither does he mention that NATO standard MRAP vehicles have proven to be eminently successful in this conflict, Russian ones far less so.

He mentions that Russia has rebuilt its armour by dragging large amounts of old tanks from the boneyards, he also says that this cupboard is now bare. Both facts that we can agree with. What he doesn't say is that as a result Russia only has its new production to rely on. So if it loses much more than 1 tank every two days and 2.5 IFV / APC every day then the force will shrink

Future Forces
I think its fair to say that all forces are trying to figure out how to alter and amend their forces to take into account the lessons being learned. The UK are withdrawing some of their tanks in NATO and are replacing them with units designed around the use of drones. Will it be perfect, No, does it show that they are trying to make core changes, Yes. The USA are using drone vessels against Iran. No doubt other forces will be doing similar things in the near future. The tone of his paper is that Russia will have learnt considerable lessons from the conflict which I am sure we can all agree. But he also implies that the other countries haven't learnt the lessons and that I totally disagree with.

This phrase caught my eye:-
Drones represent the one area where the analysis found Russia holds a genuine, durable advantage. Outside of Ukraine itself, Russia has built what the analysis describes as the most developed and combat-experienced drone force in the world, spanning both battlefield reconnaissance and strike drones and longer-range weapons capable of hitting targets deep behind the front line

I have outlined Outside of Ukraine Itself. Does he really think that Ukraine isn't sharing its lessons and technology with Nato and other countries? Almost every NATO country is building drones, ECM and Anti drone weapons with Ukraine. I fundamentally disagree with the belief that Russia has any advantage in this aspect.

Air Warfare
He goes into some detail as to the dire situation the Russian airforce is in when compared to Nato. But he doesn't go into the impact this will have should Russia ever try to take on NATO and how this seriously reduces the Russian Threat. Russia is suffering serious problems when Drones are attacking its infrastructure using drones with a 500lb warhead. This would pale into insignificance should the NATO airforces strike.

Russian Serious Issues.
It is correctly stated that Manpower is likley to be a serious issue for Moscow. What he doesn't say is Money. Russia is almost bankrupt and everything mentioned above will cost a simply eyewatering amount of money to design, develop and build.

Summary
Is Russia finished, No. We should and are keeping a close eye on what is happening but neither should we assume that Russia is likely to be all powerful. Before this started everyone believed Russia to be an overwhelming danger. It has proven otherwise, we shouldn't make the same mistake twice.
Click to expand...
Well said.

In regards to Russia's future military, there seems to be this mystique that captures some people's imagination, where Russia will rise from this current folly and recapture their place both in military tech and future global markets.

*if* Russia as a whole, can shake the monolithic hierarchy that has plagued their mindset for a century and somehow find the money to rebuild, trying to convince potential customers to buy their wares will be a challenge.

Currently, several exporters have filled the vacuum Russia created, South Korea being one such case.

In regards to Ukraine partnering with NATO, here is a good outline of what's going on as of last November:
NATO and Ukraine announce new joint-initiative to accelerate defence innovation: UNITE – Brave NATO
 
GrauGeist said:
I beleive that it's going to be Ukraine, who will be the more "dangerous" of the two, post-war.

Russia has done nothing but play catch-up to Ukraine's adaptability and innovation and in doing so, has changed the face of 21st century warfare.
Click to expand...
Let's not kid ourselves. As anyone who has seen my posts knows, I am extremely pro-Ukraine. That said, the adaptations and innovation (not all successful but much useful), has not just been one-sided. Russia has introduced things and indeed, Ukraine has sometimes copied them.

As for the argument that Russia becoming more dangerous, the key message trying to be put forward is that Russia, like Ukraine, has benefitted from the lessons learnt in the crucible of hot war. They have had the first hand experience that the rest of the world (and we're primarily talking Western Europe and their allies here) has not had the benefit of. Yes militaries around the world are all watching and taking notes. They are inviting the Ukrainians to come and teach them and share lessons and probably have some observers in place. That said, it is one thing to try to learn by watching or being told but a completely different thing to learn first hand. This is the benefit the Ukrainians and Russians have had. And yes, one could argue that the Russians have not learnt as well as the Ukrainians but the key point is again, the Russians have still had more experience than non-participants. If anything this argument is aimed at those Western governments/militaries warning them to be ready, to invest, to not rest thinking they've got it. It is also a warning that Ukraine should be welcomed into NATO and the like. It is also a warning that, should (hopefully when), the war ends with Russia's defeat, there is also a risk of those who have learnt their lessons/developed equipment/tactics etc will also be potentially looking for buyers of their knowledge. We had the concerns of this happening when the Cold War came down, especially with nukes. The same could be said now with UAVs etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 1 more.
    • Total: 102 (members: 3, guests: 99)

    Similar threads

    A
    Long-deployed USS Lincoln to be replaced after mental health concerns and reports of poor conditions
    2 3
    Replies
    43
    Views
    3K
    Admiral Beez
    A
    cammerjeff
    USAF awards contract for Ski Modification Kit for C-130J's to the Sierra Nevada Corp out of Colorado.
    Replies
    0
    Views
    192
    cammerjeff
    cammerjeff
    N
    Command of Amphibious Warships and Aviation Major Command
    Replies
    1
    Views
    426
    Antarctica
    Antarctica
    G
    Interesting View of the RAF and A400
    Replies
    5
    Views
    975
    Gnomey
    Gnomey
    M
    Horizon Continues Development of Hybrid VTOL
    Replies
    0
    Views
    638
    MIflyer
    M
    Back