It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Future of russia defense industry?

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskanderFlat wrong. Unless it's a matter of a whole new low profile radar/thermal stealth concept, a tank hull is a tank hull.


The figure is compatibilty and mobility. I am not talking about upgrading tank hulls but designing new vehicles for a future conflict. I dont care how much you upgrade a tank, it still wont be a different tank which can change and furfill a different purpose like mobility warfare.

A tank is a tank, the T-90 is competitive againest other tanks but warfare is not going to be land base where the one with the heaviest armour or the largest gun will win. Its who can put out the most fire power in the most places. eg ATGM vs Tank. NO matter what people say, the future of warfare is majority> minority. Person with the most robots, most missiles and most UAVs will win simply because it cost less to make a UAV than a plane and is cheaper to duplicate the AI than it is to train a pilot. Manned warfare is outdated, not now but in the near future when AI becomes easier to make.

No manned plane can perform as well as a un-manned one and a un-manned one can be made smaller, stealthier and be put into situations which a manned one wont be risked. The T-90 is going to be obsolete even with all these upgrades because its easy to fire on and its expensive to maintain


How you figure that Russians are not funding RnD I have no idea


They are funding it but on a very limited scale. My statement, "the russians are not putting money in RnD research" implies the russians are not putting enough money into RnD not that they have not put money into RnD. Like i have stated in my previous post the russians are using 30% of their new defence budject for the years '06-'15 to use on RnD and everything else to run the military while 70% of that money will be used to buy new equipment and repair new equipment


Scores or Russian engineers working in US simply went back to Russia because they get paid better.


I have tried to look for it myself but find no results on english google. And please dont refer to me to a russian site since my russian skills are non-existant


Russians have been running them since the 70s.


Net centric warfare?. Im not talking about radios or whatever gadgets you have, Im talking about the general having knowledge of everyone in the battle field in a 3D view. Plane locations, infrantry concentrations etc. Even some third world army can have radios and comunicate with each other

And no, they could not have been operating it since the 70's because you need computers to process the locations and a proper GPS system to work it


No offense, but every single aspect of that statement lacks basic logic and is based on assumptions and speculation.


Is it fair to say that the russian proposal for the PAK-FA is speculation considering funds have not been allocated to the project for proper development. Is it fair to say the russian plans for their military for '06-'15 are based on the assumption that there will be funds for the project?. Everything will do is based on assumptions. If i walk onto the road, i assume people wont try to run me over or when go into a bus the person next to me doesn't ahve a gun

The deadline for the PAK-FA is un-workable simply because there is no funds for it. The MiG corporation recently signed(assuming it was real) a contract with the indians to developed the MiG-2000 which i assume has to be real because it was reported in the media

Now, is it safe to assume the T-90 wont do so well againest a stealth UAV which it only can see after it was hit by a few hellfires. eg, once the new technical revolution happens, old equipment like tanks, anything from this old generation will be useless. Like WW2, aircraft vs ships or cannons vs missiles. Numbers of tanks dont win wars, if it was the case the russians could ahve done anything they wanted in the cold war. They have been nullifed by the modern ATGM missile which is now be evolved to hit the tanks on the top turnet. You have to stop somewhere in armour development.


it is only logical to upgrade them instead of investing into a total replacement by a new generation.


And thats your problem. Because the russians are ivesting so much into upgrading old equipment, they are not putting money into developing a new generation of vehicles for a new type of war. It is logcial to do so, but im not trying to debate that point and about the russian army. I am trying to find places which will be willing to buy russian and thus fund the russian defence industry. No exports - no capital.


my apologies but you clearly lack a knowledge base on the state of Russian economy.


Why dont you test me out?


2007 is slated for two main 5th gen fighters which will form the back bone of the air force.


2007 is the year they are stated to fly, you said 2012 was the year they were stated to take over the major roles in the russian airforce. The Mig-1.44 was also stated to enter service before the F-22 yet was canceled and stayed cancelled. Statements like that mean nothing to anyone and should only be used as guidelines since the project has not been allocated the funds it needs to fly the plane by 2007 like it was claimed.

185/9 = 20.5 billion a year

How are you going to replace a fleet of planes which cost more than 70million each with a budget of 20.5 billion a year?. Considering the money has already been allocated for the ground force and navy for all the vehicles you mentioned that eaves no money for the 5th generationplanes to enter service.

So instead of saying '07 is the deadline, provide something to show its actually getting funded because the MiG-2000 seems to have won the contract instead of the PAK-FA


This is a 3 minute search just from lenta


Like i explained before, my russian is non-existant. ALl i can tell from your links is it is in russian and is about military equpment from the NATO given names


that 1 dollar spent by Russian defense equals at least 10 dollars spent by US defense.


Lets use per capita values to work out how much things cost in russia compared to america. Nominal values are absolute values which means equal to american dolalrs while PPP is adjusted for prices in russia

PPP
Russia 11,041

Nominal
Russia 5,369

That is roughly 2 times more cheaper than in america to live there. Considering your claims that russian scientist get paid more money in russia than if they were in america, that would mean the russians have less than twince as much to speed or roughly 41billion per year adjusted for difference currency

Considering that 40billion is still as much as what japan and britian spend, that means that the russian forces wont have enough money for either development since the 40billion in japan is used to maintain equipment instead of upgrade



Please don't take it as insult, it's not, because for example its kind of like a "movie magic" concept.


Iskander, I am hardly ignorant to many facts and I like to think i'm going againest the majority on many opinions. Facts do speak for themselves, Statistics about the russian economy and about funding are as clear as glass. Your actually saying things which is speculation. eg trationally russians will starve for their military. Thats not a fact and hardly applies in the present situation. Your using that as the basis of your argument about the hidden russian military budget. I have used oped source figures and try to picture russia having this extra money somehow. Putin is hardly turning russia into a war machine and is actually trying to privatize and change it into a market economy. Trying to enter the WTO is one example of this


I think the article was on lenta.ru, feel free to investigate, I'm to old to care about "show me or you're lying" crapp.


Then you'll understand it when i dont believe you?. Seriously, a stealth Yak-141 and a supersized carrier is quite unbelievble to me


Man there is a whole lot you wrote there, and most of it just repeating the same things over and over


Yes, i wrote about the actual subject of this thread which i created. What you ahve wrote has nothing to do with the future of the russian defence industry but has to do with a underlining meaning about the russians re-emerging and the secret industries. What i have wrote are about potentional markets, potentional competitors and the actual funding allocated to the russian military complex


BTW that Chianese is MiG-21/F-16 hybrid, not Indian upgrade.


There is nothing french in it. And the russian component is limited to the engine. You claimed china is upgrading these planes with french and russian technology. Which components are you refering to?


Just as an example, PAK-FA was advertised by MiG as a 5th gen, yet it was NOT a single engine 5th gen design that was required


The PAK-FA is a program for a 5th generation aircraft with twin engines. Sukhoi won that project and is intended to furfill the ligth and heavy role

What your refering to is the MFI and LFS project which was the MiG-1.42 project with the MiG-1.44 and the LFS with the Project-33(MiG-2000) was its F-35 equalivant. The PAK-FA is the new project which was made after the failure of the MiG-1.44 because it either lacked funds or did not meet the requiments. The PAK-FA is a project between all the russian airforce industries MIG and Sukhoi included. It is intended to replace both the MiG-29 and Su-27

The roles of heavy and light dates back to the cold war. It is now designing a aircraft for both purposes. There is no Light and heavy plane but a common plane between the two forces


[edit on 18-7-2006 by chinawhite]




posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   
According to Swedish think Tank SIPRI Russia today is world's leading arms exporter ...and the export of Russian arms has dramatically increased



The annual report of Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) showed that in 2000-2004 Russia became the world’s biggest exporter of arms and military hardware. The report compiled a list of the world’s largest military exporters. Five of them account for 81 percent of global arms deliveries. The report has Russia in the first place with $26.9 billion in exports, the United States in second place with $25.9 billion, France in third place with $6.3 billion, Germany in fourth with $4.8 billion and the Great Britain in fifth with $4.4 billion in exports. According to SIPRI’s data, Russia has dramatically increased its military exports and overcame the United States, which led the way five years before. Five years ago the United States sold $53.4 billion worth of arms and military hardware, while Russian sales amounted to $16.4 billion.


Ironically(and predictably) Russian experts believe that Russia is not world's No 1


Russian experts, however, explain the results of SIPRI findings by the imperfect methodology of calculations. .............................................. In reality, Makienko said, Russia occupies a third or even a fourth place in this rating, behind the United States, France and, possibly, the Great Britain
.

however


But even if this criticism is true, Russian military exports are steadily developing in recent years. According to domestic statistics, in 2000-2004 Moscow received $22.7 billion for its exports of arms and military hardware. Last year Russian military exports amounted to $6.126 billion, while the plan called for sales of $5.1 billion. Further growth of military exports is expected. The management of Rosoboronexport, Russia’s military export agency, says that in previous years the order portfolio for Russian arms was at the level of $15-16 billion, but today it has reached the level of $23 billion. This figure is comparable with Soviet times, when the country exported its military prowess to all of the friendly states.www.mosnews.com...



Russia’s state-owned arms export agency Rosoboronexport said on Tuesday, July 11, that it gathered a portfolio of orders worth about $17 billion, including orders for air defense systems worth $3.5 billion.

Ivan Goncharenko, deputy director of Rosoboronexport, said Russian air defense enterprises, in particular leaders Almaz and Antei, had orders until 2010. Goncharenko said naval orders led exports in 2006, but aviation equipment would take the top spot by 2007. www.mosnews.com...


So infact Russian weapon industry is growing .....and it will continue to grow until it has technically inferior customers like China (during 2001 till 2004 43% of Russian arms export went to China www.catholic.org... )

The Chinese Government is spending a lot of money in Defense inspite of the fact that today China is unable to feed 150 million of her population(10%). So as long as Govts like that of China exsists Russian defense industry will continue to boom .


China has world's second largest number of undernourished population

World Hunger Map



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   
chinawhite, I already covered tank topic in the other thread on T-95.



No manned plane can perform as well as a un-manned one and a un-manned one can be made smaller, stealthier and be put into situations which a manned one wont be risked. The T-90 is going to be obsolete even with all these upgrades because its easy to fire on and its expensive to maintain.


Your notions on the future of tank warfare are misguided. Again, I've covered all that in the other thread. Even now proper T80/90 deployment provides nine levels of protection.

The whole unmanned issue is nothing new either and goes back to the 60s. It's all been done before and current issues are the same as back then. Naturally all aspects of technological evolution were factured into the unmanned concept back in those days, and little has changed.


They are funding it but on a very limited scale. My statement, "the russians are not putting money in RnD research" implies the russians are not putting enough money into RnD not that they have not put money into RnD. Like i have stated in my previous post the russians are using 30% of their new defence budject for the years '06-'15 to use on RnD and everything else to run the military while 70% of that money will be used to buy new equipment and repair new equipment


I have no idea how you figure that, but it's simply not the case.


Net centric warfare?. Im not talking about radios or whatever gadgets you have, Im talking about the general having knowledge of everyone in the battle field in a 3D view. Plane locations, infrantry concentrations etc. Even some third world army can have radios and comunicate with each other

And no, they could not have been operating it since the 70's because you need computers to process the locations and a proper GPS system to work it


Man, we're talking about cold war basics here, just look it up man. If you think 3D view is what makes theater wide SA. just open up any basic strategy book and figure it out for your self. Start with Soviet GCI with autopilot override, EWR-SAM-VVS coordinated networks, all from the 70s.

And you don't "need computers to process the locations and a proper GPS system" to coordinate forces. Basic naval navigation might be a good place for you to start from. I can also recommend radio navigation basics, there are a ton of pilot navigation manuals on the net.


Is it fair to say that the russian proposal for the PAK-FA is speculation considering funds have not been allocated to the project for proper development.


No, I believe I was rather clear on that. I'll repeat my self, MiG-1.42/4 project was Mikoyans OWN initiative, and NOT a federal project, while PAK-FA is under full federal funding.

Mikoyan bureau funded the project with their own funds, in hopes to win over the contract which was already given to Sukhoi as a consolidated PAK-FA project.

MiG-1.42/4 did not get the funds for serial production because it simply did not meet requirements.


Is it fair to say the russian plans for their military for '06-'15 are based on the assumption that there will be funds for the project?. Everything will do is based on assumptions. If i walk onto the road, i assume people wont try to run me over or when go into a bus the person next to me doesn't ahve a gun


No, it's your assumption, the reality is that not only the funds for both 5th gen project were already allocated, but both designs already went through wind tunnel testing, and are to be test flown in 2007.

I simply have no idea the bus, the gun and the road mean.


The deadline for the PAK-FA is un-workable simply because there is no funds for it. The MiG corporation recently signed(assuming it was real) a contract with the indians to developed the MiG-2000 which i assume has to be real because it was reported in the media.


Alright, no more going in circles anymore, read above.


Now, is it safe to assume the T-90 wont do so well againest a stealth UAV which it only can see after it was hit by a few hellfires. eg, once the new technical revolution happens, old equipment like tanks, anything from this old generation will be useless.


You got a lot of reading to do. Make time.


Like WW2, aircraft vs ships or cannons vs missiles. Numbers of tanks dont win wars, if it was the case the russians could ahve done anything they wanted in the cold war. They have been nullifed by the modern ATGM missile which is now be evolved to hit the tanks on the top turnet. You have to stop somewhere in armour development.


chinawhite, what are you doing? Same T-95 thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...

Its all there.


"it is only logical to upgrade them instead of investing into a total replacement by a new generation."


And thats your problem. Because the russians are ivesting so much into upgrading old equipment, they are not putting money into developing a new generation of vehicles for a new type of war. It is logcial to do so, but im not trying to debate that point and about the russian army. I am trying to find places which will be willing to buy russian and thus fund the russian defence industry. No exports - no capital.


chinawhite, can you please stop making stuff up? Other peoples time actually has value to some people. If you want to get somewhere, do find out the following;

1) How much Russians are in fact spending on modernisation of existing equipment?
2) How much are they investing into new generation of vehicles, of which types and in what numbers?
3) How does the Russian government fund its military?
4) On what economical bases does Russian defense industry operate?

When you get there things will get much clearer for you.


2007 is the year they are stated to fly, you said 2012 was the year they were stated to take over the major roles in the russian airforce. The Mig-1.44 was also stated to enter service before the F-22 yet was canceled and stayed cancelled. Statements like that mean nothing to anyone and should only be used as guidelines since the project has not been allocated the funds it needs to fly the plane by 2007 like it was claimed.


Yes, 2007 is the year of flight tests for 5th gen. MiG-1.44 is again, MiGs initiative, not the actual federal program. MiG has been gradually pushed out of the market by overwhelming success of Sukhoi, and since the 90s MiG has been trying everything they could to take the lead, thus various projects which they took upon them selves to prove their worth. Didn't happen, Sukhoi practically owns them. Mikoyan also regularly USED the media to advertise their projects in attempts to gain public support and gain official funding.

The funds were allocated to original projects, which we have not yet seen, and will see in 2007. End of story.


185/9 = 20.5 billion a year


Dead wrong, as soon as you actually look into the basic structure of Russian defense budget, the first thing you'll learn is that it's not fixed.


How are you going to replace a fleet of planes which cost more than 70million each with a budget of 20.5 billion a year?. Considering the money has already been allocated for the ground force and navy for all the vehicles you mentioned that eaves no money for the 5th generationplanes to enter service.


Again, you have no concept of unit cost cap nor funds allocation. Do your self a favor and just do some reading into these matters since they obviously interest you.


So instead of saying '07 is the deadline, provide something to show its actually getting funded because the MiG-2000 seems to have won the contract instead of the PAK-FA


We've been here, lenta.ru, use the auto translator or something.


Lets use per capita values to work out how much things cost in russia compared to america. Nominal values are absolute values which means equal to american dolalrs while PPP is adjusted for prices in russia


Don't even go there. Your trying to compare consumer market values, we're talking about industrial manufacturing values.

For example, I'm sure you can understand why manufacturing in China is cheaper then in US. If not, plenty of reading material on that as well.


Considering your claims that russian scientist get paid more money in russia than if they were in america, that would mean the russians have less than twince as much to speed or roughly 41billion per year adjusted for difference curren.


Do you work? If you do you probably know all to well that in the last decade CEO salary went up by as much as 300% with apropriate trickle down to various manegment levels. IT and engeneering salaries did not raise what so ever. Wages on the other hand do not even keep up with inflation. That's your basic pyramid, and we all know what pyramids lead to.

Russian defense industry is booming, and naturally they pay well to people that keep it going.


Considering that 40billion is still as much as what japan and britian spend, that means that the russian forces wont have enough money for either development since the 40billion in japan is used to maintain equipment instead of upgrade


How you end up with that kind of math and what you're counting I have no idea.


Facts do speak for themselves, Statistics about the russian economy and about funding are as clear as glass. Your actually saying things which is speculation. eg trationally russians will starve for their military. Thats not a fact and hardly applies in the present situation. Your using that as the basis of your argument about the hidden russian military budget. I have used oped source figures and try to picture russia having this extra money somehow. Putin is hardly turning russia into a war machine and is actually trying to privatize and change it into a market economy. Trying to enter the WTO is one example of this


Man, you're all over the place there. I don't know which statistics your looking at. I've been reading this stuff for years so it's kind of second nature to me. Importance of military to Russians is a historical fact, which time and time clearly showed that it's simply their #1 priority.

When it comes on privatising your way behind the times. All that took place back in yearly to mid 90s. As I said earlier now it's all about holdings and consortium's, or in other words some semi-federally controlled sectors.

Considering our aggressive push into Eurasia with all those color revolutions, turning Russia into a war machine is exactly what Putin is doing. Look into that as well.

To put it simply, when it comes to Russian defense industry, think of those news investigations on professional beggars that come home to a mention and a Mercedes Benz, wash of the make up and head over to the airport to fly out to Hawaii.


Then you'll understand it when i dont believe you?. Seriously, a stealth Yak-141 and a supersized carrier is quite unbelievble to me


So was the fact that the earth is round, yet look, some people cough on to that one.


Yes, i wrote about the actual subject of this thread which i created. What you ahve wrote has nothing to do with the future of the russian defence industry but has to do with a underlining meaning about the russians re-emerging and the secret industries. What i have wrote are about potentional markets, potentional competitors and the actual funding allocated to the russian military complex


The future of Russian defense industry? Massive rearmament, and escalation of the arms race which never stopped. What else in new.


There is nothing french in it. And the russian component is limited to the engine. You claimed china is upgrading these planes with french and russian technology. Which components are you refering to?


Nope, I talked about MiG-21 modernisation programs, not French/Russian cooperation.


What your refering to is the MFI and LFS project which was the MiG-1.42 project with the MiG-1.44 and the LFS with the Project-33(MiG-2000) was its F-35 equalivant. The PAK-FA is the new project which was made after the failure of the MiG-1.44 because it either lacked funds or did not meet the requiments. The PAK-FA is a project between all the russian airforce industries MIG and Sukhoi included. It is intended to replace both the MiG-29 and Su-27


PAK-FA is a fully funded Sukhoi project to be delivered in 07, and since Sukhoi rolled up Mikoyan bureau, MiG-1.42/4 and other projects are rolled into one. I might have said somewhere that PAK-FA is a MiG project, if I did I meant 1.42/4.


The roles of heavy and light dates back to the cold war. It is now designing a aircraft for both purposes. There is no Light and heavy plane but a common plane between the two forces


Were do you get this? No, A twin engine and a much cheaper single engine configuration projects already went through win tunnel testing.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 12:06 AM
link   
iskander,

You want me to assume that the russian military has a hidden budget while you also want me to believe dates set by them(PAK-FA)?. And talking about russian starving for the russian military is another assumption you made.

There were four areas of your post that were repeats of the same thing. Let me remind you this is a thread about the FUTURE of the russian defence industry eg forigen markets and future export weaponary. Why dont you get to answering them instead of trying to tell me how much they will starve to fund the army. huh?


Originally posted by iskander
Your notions on the future of tank warfare are misguided.


You seem to be missing my point. Im not talking about the future of tank warfare im talking about a future WITHOUT the tank. Ask yourself a question, can a tank survive and is viable in a 1000 ATGM situation. It it going to be viable when it needs a fleet large aircraft in support its operations or a vunerable logistics train to support it. Warfare is going to be moble and quick, and no matter what you do to a existing tank, it will not be as quick as a new generation of LIMITED warfare. Im refering msotly to the MEFFV which is the future of warfare, compatibilty and mobility

MEFFV


Start with Soviet GCI with autopilot override, EWR-SAM-VVS coordinated networks, all from the 70s.


Im not talking about coordination of planes and having radar commands, i am talking about NCW and BMS systems for a indivual soldier. Have a quick look or search on the internet


I'll repeat my self, MiG-1.42/4 project was Mikoyans OWN initiative, and NOT a federal project, while PAK-FA is under full federal funding.


And ill repeat my self

The PAK-FA tender was only created after the MFI and LFS projects were cancelled. It is being designed to replace both of those roles.

The Mig-1.42 was for their tender of the MFI, eg MiG-MFI project


No, it's your assumption, the reality is that not only the funds for both 5th gen project were already allocated


Both planes?. There is only one PAK-FA plane, no light and no heavy one. Its just one plane to repalce the heavy MFi and the light LFS plane. And there has not been any funding being reported except for vague comments about the PAK-FA flying in 2007 by a russian

Interesting thread here
No Sukhoi Fighters to Be Delivered This Year


Alright, no more going in circles anymore, read above.


I dont agree/believe you already why are you trying to refer me to the above




chinawhite, can you please stop making stuff up? Other peoples time actually has value to some people.


Coming from the person, who talking about some stealth Yak-1.44 and gives me some vague articles in russian. I am not making anything up but stating a objective opinion

And i couldn't really be bothered trying to debate this, your the one that is persuing this no me. You the one which is trying to debate my opinion which i will defend. You can end this anytime you want. I have a lot of better (and important) things to do than trying to reason with you.


1) How much Russians are in fact spending on modernisation of existing equipment?
2) How much are they investing into new generation of vehicles, of which types and in what numbers?
3) How does the Russian government fund its military?
4) On what economical bases does Russian defense industry operate?


1)

State arms program to get 5 trln rubles in 9 yrs - minister

MOSCOW, June 2 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's state arms program will be financed with 5 trillion rubles ($184 billion) over the next nine years, the defense minister said Friday.

Link
2) Refer to above
3) though your taxes and their revenue
4) Since the downfall of the soviet union, exports. The russian army has only recently started to buy more equipment again. The majority of the equipment in the russian army is cold war era


The funds were allocated to original projects, which we have not yet seen, and will see in 2007. End of story.


And shall we wait for 2007?. Because i have had enough of these claims it will fly and meanless quotes. I can also say that the chinese army is the best army in the world according to quotes from our own president, its not the truth, its called propaganda.

Also the same applies to north korea and their threats of capbility


Dead wrong, as soon as you actually look into the basic structure of Russian defense budget, the first thing you'll learn is that it's not fixed.


So, your going to ASSUME that the russian army is going to get more money? Based on what?

Dead wrong, You might be refering to soviet times but the russian governemtn has to pass the proposals before they get funding. The governemt is putting 20.5 billion a year into the russian army and that is a fact displayed by every site which has reported it


We've been here, lenta.ru, use the auto translator or something.


I have tried that, it doesn't work. Most likey because it doesn't use a .com or something with the server
babelfish.altavista.com...


Your trying to compare consumer market values, we're talking about industrial manufacturing values.


Please.....

Your trying to convince me its at least 10 times more cheaper in russia than america. Considering you claims about russian scientist getting paid mroe in russia than america it is even harder to believe. PPP and nominal values measure the difference in cost between both countries. I have already read enough books, i dont need you telling me what i should believe



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by prelude
According to Swedish think Tank SIPRI Russia today is world's leading arms exporter ...and the export of Russian arms has dramatically increased. Ironically(and predictably) Russian experts believe that Russia is not world's No 1


Not on price but sheer numbers. Thats means nothing when it comes to funding

SIPRI’s statistics is based on a special method of calculation. The rating was made on the ‘military value’ of the delivered arms, but not on their actual cost. An expert with SIPRI said that the estimates of the institute based on the number of delivered planes, tanks, missile systems, etc, did not reflect exporters’ financial results.


Articles like that like to trumpet the china threat or russian threat to create alarm in other countries. I have wrote a lot of times criticing their inflated figures. Because your so simple minded you want to think how powerful russia and and boast about what it can do. Refer to my display picture because i like to down play the china threat because i know what is benifical

Here is the chinese military budget represented by four insitutions




SIPRI is Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
RAND is the RAND Corporation.
Offical budget is chinas government figure
DoD is deparment of defense

And as a percentage figure



As you can see china does spend more than japan according to some reports and a hgiher percentage but still lower than other countries. What the US dont want to factor in is the PLA is a massive army and 51billion is not a lot compared to the american budget. Theses aren't for a build up but a moderization of her forces. Does every country deserve new equipment. Japan gets new equipment quite regulary while the PLA doesn't. They(japan) say that they are modernizing because the PLA is getting new equipment. The PLA thus far has not shown intention to attack japan nor does japan ahve to worry about getting nuked by china

The reason china is sustaining these military modernization is because she is demobilizing her massive army has been retiring massive fleets of aircraft to support units second line units and jsut scrapping them altogther. Anyway china has been demoblizing troops and now enjoys are higher per capita of funding to each soldier

With less soldiers and less aircraft/ships she closes down some of the barracks airbases and naval bases. she uses that money alone with extra money that the chinese government gives them. some times ranging from 10%-17% starting from the 90s. And when china some newer machines she only buys a little and uses them in her elite divisons. The other divisons just soldier on with the same equipment or gets the equipment the elite divisons had but got replaced with newer equipment. So they are hand downs

The offical chinese budgect covers all these areas courtesy of globalsecruity
China's expenditure on national defense falls into the following categories: personnel expenses, mainly including pay, food and clothing of military and non-military personnel; costs for maintenance of activities, mainly including military training, construction and maintenance of facilities and running expenses; and costs for equipment, including research and experimentation, procurement, maintenance, transportation and storage. In terms of the scope of logistic support, these expenditures cover not only active service personnel, but also militia and reserve requirements.

Chinese Budget

From the most exaggerated estimates it includes everything from supercomputers to datalinks and civillan engines. All chinese space launchs even for foriegn compaines. Most dual-use technology. And out blown examples of pay rise

eg. chinas offical defense budget increased by 17% to 25billion and they just increased chinas un-offical budget of 50billion by that same amount. good research on the DoDs part? The russian bear ring any bells

While it is my opinion that chinas foriegn imports of arms are not included in the offical defense budget I do include all chinese RnD programs and some military oriented space programs. So my esitmate is about 40billion.

China has brought a large number of russian equipment but russian equipment is cheaper than western equipment with some of the manufracturing being done in china to save money. Since the early 90s china has brought a very large number of russian equipment gradually building out to 2000 and now is slowly disappearing.

Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting


and it will continue to grow until it has technically inferior customers like China


My good man, can you name what systems china will require from russia?

Your own article has stated that china and india account for some three quarters of the russian export market. Once these markets are gone, where to then?. The export orders sukhoi are getting helped keep the company from going bankrupt. You design planes so people can order them and buy those planes. Which country in the world would be buying decent amount of russian equipment when it is already a american or western customer.

China for one wont be buying russian gear in large numbers while the indians seem to have their own indigenious they are content with. Land force equipment is about parity between china and russia while russia has now stagnated in AFVs and india are developing their own tanks and their own planes. Naval ship wise, the russians will not see a single order again simply because her own indigenious production is to a higher standard than what the russians can offer while the russian submarines are sub-standard to western submarines and no western influence force will buy them


The Chinese Government is spending a lot of money in Defense inspite of the fact that today China is unable to feed 150 million of her population


Lots of money on defense?. Something like 2% of the GDP

And those figures are quite loop-sided. Find the figures for obesity and overweight people and will notice that there is enough food but people are either to poor or to far away from food growing areas. Stats llike that are average numbers and is nothing close to a comprehensive figure



[edit on 19-7-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 05:23 AM
link   
From some reason iskander, you think im under some sort of propaganda from my media or government. Considering that australian television does not show any information what so ever about russia i doubt i am under and influence or propaganda. What i tend to find in russian forums is a sense of "fakeness" or a downright lie to pretend something that they are not. Same goes in any site where one nationality tends to dominate be it chinese, indian, america or pakistani

What i read comes straight from looking at figures (CIA factbook, wikipedia articles, radomized articles posted in forums) and making my own judgment about what is happening. Considering the fact that putin is rising the defence budget by 22-40% a year suggest that there was a shortfall or underfunding occuring in the russian army at that time dont you think?.

A leap of almost half is a large number to jump up from and considering the amount of repairs and upgrades suggest that the russian army wasn't doing so well as you claimed it would have. The fact is, the russian export market is drying up.

Like i said before, the ex-american ex-western military planes of the forth generation will be entering the market while similar products from russia will still be there. Who would buy a expensive russian plane when they have a good quailty western plane which is cheaper and comes with american FMF and a suite of battle proven weaponary. In my opinion i rank a similar russian product lower than a similar american product because it is simply been proven. I am the one which normally cries foul about the comparision between the battle situation but western weaponary seems to have fewer problems than russian ones

Also the FC-1 has a lot of potentional in the export market because it is a low cost plane which is a easy to upgrade and new platform to replace older F-5s and MiG-21s which are similar products. Cheaper than buying a MiG-29 or a Su-27

The FC-1 is a light multi-role fighter aimed at the low cost market which does not want to buy a second hand airframe. A plane which is new so it can be kept in service longer. The FC-1 should be fitted with open architecture. Open architecture means the planes can be upgrade numerous times during its service time. Plug and play hardware and software upgrades. The reason i am sure about the FC-1 and open architecture is becauses of the different packages china is offering for export. Grifo+Mix of avonics or Chinese radar and chinese avonics.

Being a new plane with a longer service life is enough said. There might be numerous F-16s or older Mig-29s out there but the FC-1 is a newer airframe which has a longer service life. Because the FC-1 was built in a different generation it will have utilized more advanced manufracturing technologies like composite materials, new metals and such. Not saing that the F-16 is not made out of a fair bit of composties but the FC-1 will have acess to better composties.

The updated FC-1 pictures show us a DSI intake. This increases fuel efficiency and reduces the amount of maintance. Very important attributes for a third world airforce reling on conscripted armies with minnial education(no offense but its true). The fuel effiecy helps armed forces with smaller funds for manintance and supply so it will save money in the future

Also the FC-1 will still be in production for a few years to come. The F-16 will not. This leads to lack of spare parts. If a aircraft doesn't have sare parts it cannot fly safely. China is not shy about selling spares to countries and the countries that buy the FC-1 will be under french conditions(seel to anyone when the price is right). China doesn't really care about what countries do in their own time. Its their buiness

Chinas ability to make flexible payment choices. China will accept different types of payments and are flexible in what you pay them. Bartering and such. I give you a some FC-1s you give some natural resources(oil LPG and such). This compared to the americans which nearly always want hard currency which countries cant afford to give up. and a lesser extent the russians which are not really economicly confindent to barter goods. So the FC-1 can be based on a flexible payment choice

The last point is the chinese williness t sell you warehouses of weapons for your aircraft. The americans will only give you weapons to defend yourself when the fighting actually starts. And the russians will jack up the price when the fighting starts(not forgeting their late deliveries). China is such a large economy compared to russia it is not under such a threat of sanctions and such so the world community will hesitage on putting sanctions on

Also we cannot argue who has a better weapon since the data china is giving for its weapons cannot be verifled(becauses so much people dont believe in anything chinese). The data we have tells us that the chinese SD-10 is a better weapon than the AARRAM models A-C but not so good againest the D model. While the russians give false or over exaggereted data with their missles. A 100km range missile will only have 100km when your at the edge of earth. Its my belief that a 4th generation battle will come down to the superior missile attacking than the super manuverbility of certain aircraft.

One thing i forgot to mention was the price of the plane. 10-15million depending on the type of radar and the source of the article. It will be more appealing to a small airforce that doesn't want to buy a more capable Mig(not by that much) which is about 30million or a F-16 which is a more risker approch since the spare part situation in the future and the ability to upgrade. A second hand F-16 is about 22-30 million dollars. Does not include the maintanice cost involed. The F-16 is not designed for run ways which are not properly built which the Mig-29 is and the Mig-21 which the FC-1 is based on





Also comments released by the russian governemtn have no weight in my book. Simply there to grab attention while adding nothing to the actual information known. 2007 was the salted figure a plane will fly and not the one which would enter russian service. The reports i have read talk about the plane entering mass-production in 2015 instead of your 2012 figure. 2009 is the figure which the actual plane will fly.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite


SIPRI’s statistics is based on a special method of calculation. The rating was made on the ‘military value’ of the delivered arms, but not on their actual cost. An expert with SIPRI said that the estimates of the institute based on the number of delivered planes, tanks, missile systems, etc, did not reflect exporters’ financial results.


If I believe that what the experts say are true....then it furthur accelerates the glory of the Russian Arms Industry.....It means the " military value " of the Russian arms are higher than their acctual cost ....in other words Russian arms are cheap but at the same time have higher military value .


Not on price but sheer numbers. Thats means nothing when it comes to funding

it seems you deliberately over looked the positive quotes ...let me requote...


But even if this criticism is true, Russian military exports are steadily developing in recent years. According to domestic statistics, in 2000-2004 Moscow received $22.7 billion for its exports of arms and military hardware. Last year Russian military exports amounted to $6.126 billion, while the plan called for sales of $5.1 billion. Further growth of military exports is expected. The management of Rosoboronexport, Russia’s military export agency, says that in previous years the order portfolio for Russian arms was at the level of $15-16 billion, but today it has reached the level of $23 billion. This figure is comparable with Soviet times, when the country exported its military prowess to all of the friendly states.www.mosnews.com...



Russia’s state-owned arms export agency Rosoboronexport said on Tuesday, July 11, that it gathered a portfolio of orders worth about $17 billion, including orders for air defense systems worth $3.5 billion.

Ivan Goncharenko, deputy director of Rosoboronexport, said Russian air defense enterprises, in particular leaders Almaz and Antei, had orders until 2010. Goncharenko said naval orders led exports in 2006, but aviation equipment would take the top spot by 2007. www.mosnews.com...



Articles like that like to trumpet the china threat or russian threat to create alarm in other countries. I have wrote a lot of times criticing their inflated figures. Because your so simple minded you want to think how powerful russia and and boast about what it can do.

Frankly speaking I dont believe in most Western media reports...you seemed to believe them and semmed to call them "free press"...I know very well that they are full of propaganda ...this world is driven by propaganda...but most people call them propaganda when its directed against his/her interests...you provide a real life example.


My good man, can you name what systems china will require from russia?

Any system that cant be yet made by the "Chinese Copy-Cut Technology"...can you name me a single Chinese Defense Technology that has been developed without Russian Influence (apart from Fensui and Acupuncture)


Your own article has stated that china and india account for some three quarters of the russian export market. Once these markets are gone, where to then?.;

there are no such chances in near future . The Chinese and the Indian Defense Industry is just in its innitial phase of development...it takes decades to develop a world class system

More over if one country goes away another will appear....arms industry will never run in loss as long as there is something called "struggle for exsistance "...you can see new markets growing ...CIS, Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, Bangladesh, Malaysia


The export orders sukhoi are getting helped keep the company from going bankrupt.

Propaganda and Ignorance
Sukhoi(Military +Civilian ) is presently investing more on national market than foreign market


Which country in the world would be buying decent amount of russian equipment when it is already a american or western customer.

that has to do more with politics than with business.....there are many instances where countries has got offers from western customers but still longed for Russian ones...India is one of them ...Pakistan has been trying to get Russian equipments but has beet uptil now refused



China for one wont be buying russian gear in large numbers while the indians seem to have their own indigenious they are content with.

Both have miles to go before they reach the techincal superiority that Russia has today and by that time Russia will advance further


india are developing their own tanks and their own planes.

They have been "developing" for the last 30 years ,as far as I know ...let them develop them fully then I will comment.
(however I am sure they will develop their own Indiginous designs ...Bcoz they have that capability, unlike "copy-cut" China .)


Naval ship wise, the russians will not see a single order again simply because her own indigenious production is to a higher standard than what the russians can offer while the russian submarines are sub-standard to western submarines and no western influence force will buy them


Russia is presently building dozens of Indian navy ships , 4 nuclear subs and a multibillion dollar air craft carrier for India ......

If Russian ones are substandard...then I doubt wether China has any sort of standard ..becoz all they have been doing these days is to copy Russian Systems ...no matter what you say ..world knows that Russians have their own Technology sometimes its superior to the US one sometime not ....but sadly its only the Chinese who claim that China has some sort of Technology ...frustration ?



And those figures are quite loop-sided. Find the figures for obesity and overweight people and will notice that there is enough food but people are either to poor or to far away[/qoute]
That's even worse it speaks of the great diffrence of wealth that has recently characterized "communist" Chinese hypocricy.

[edit on 19-7-2006 by prelude]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   

You seem to be missing my point. Im not talking about the future of tank warfare im talking about a future WITHOUT the tank. Ask yourself a question, can a tank survive and is viable in a 1000 ATGM situation. It it going to be viable when it needs a fleet large aircraft in support its operations or a vunerable logistics train to support it. Warfare is going to be moble and quick, and no matter what you do to a existing tank, it will not be as quick as a new generation of LIMITED warfare. Im refering msotly to the MEFFV which is the future of warfare, compatibilty and mobility


I'm sorry, but again that has already been covered in the T-95 thread. The concept that there will be no future for a tank on the modern battlefield is not yours, but of just another defense industry lobby group in Washington.

Abrams will be the last US MBT while everybody in the filed repeatedly states that the "light tank" concept is a dead duck. Feel free to do your own research to find out why.


Im not talking about coordination of planes and having radar commands, i am talking about NCW and BMS systems for a indivual soldier. Have a quick look or search on the internet


chinawhite, with all do respect, the "digital soldier" concept is just an example of another budget misappropriation, in a LONG line of useless projects that exist only because they are pushed through by retired generals that went private sector.

You mentioned that you're Australian, so Metal Storm will be a good example of such "good old boys club" contract dealing.

That utterly useless project is an Australian undertaking while being under the retired US general management, and it's the only way they secured RnD funds from US DOD, while it's just another dead duck sold as a deadly lion.


Your trying to convince me its at least 10 times more cheaper in russia than america. Considering you claims about russian scientist getting paid mroe in russia than america it is even harder to believe. PPP and nominal values measure the difference in cost between both countries. I have already read enough books, i dont need you telling me what i should believe.


A lot of things are hard to believe, it's called denial.

Such stereotypical propaganda dates back to the 80s in order to build up public opinion on Glasnosts and Perestroyka.

chinawhite, if you choose to believe stereotype based propaganda that Russia is a poor third world country that can't afford to fund its own armed forces, it's your business, but please understand that the "they can't afford it" concept is a basic public opinion manipulation tool that for the most part only works on US population.

America has not yet faced a serious conflict with in her borders, so naturally people don't have a concept of war. Since the cultural standard here is that the only force in the world is the all mighty dollar and that nothing can be done with out it, the easiest way to sterilise public opinion from outside threat is to push propaganda stating that there is no threat, because we have all the money in the world and everybody else just wants to work for us.

Such brain washing tools are for complete simpletons, because one only has to do some basic research to find out how things really stand, so in order for such propaganda to be effective you need a LOT of simpletons to believe such nonsense.

American educational system has been rightfully called an "anti-educational" environment by the way. It's not an accident or incompetence, because its main goal is to crank out "pliable" mentalities, so even the most absurd propaganda will be absorbed by the whole culture as a fact, and quickly forgotten in order to absorb the next lie.

I for one actually traveled to central and Far East Russia throughout the 90s, and done so more times that I can remember, and for a FACT know that the "poor little Russians" stereotype is a sheer myth. It is absolutely true that there is still a whole lot of poverty over there, but at the rate they're going I seriously doubt it'll be the case with in a decade or so.

I my self will be going to Russia in about a moth in hopes of securing a position that I'm looking for.

"No Sukhoi Fighters to Be Delivered This Year"

The article that the post was based on dates back to "Thursday, August 18, 2005"

It's just another good example of how Russian defense department uses media to control public opinion on defense budgeting.

US DOD does the same thing, here's an example;

"Army Slashes Abrams, Bradley Funding"

www.military.com...

As far as the rest of your remarks, after reading the following I will not participate any further in this perticular discussion.


While the russians give false or over exaggereted data with their missles.


You are clearly out of touch with the reality of arms trade market and even general history of Russian defense industry, and clearly base your opinions on mass media "concepts for hire" elements.

If you care to look into it, there is a wealth of information available on the Russian arms manufacturing standards and test requirements. As soon as you invest the time into educating your self on the topic, you will find out that Russian projects go through some of the most rigorous testing phases, results of which are regularly verified by international customers and other independent parties.

Historically, Soviet/Russian test methodology is based on performance levels achieved under the worst case scenario conditions, engineering design philosophy factored in incredible performance head room as standard practice, including all possible improper operation and failure variables, environmental/storage/maintenance conditions, and so on.

It's exactly why Soviet/Russian designed hardware is regularly fielded even if it's way passed designated service life limits. And it's a system wide philosophy, starting from lacquer sealed ammo to ICBMs.

I'm guessing here, but judging by your patterns so far, most likely you're already thinking of something like K-19, Chernobil and Kursk, and I respectfully ask you not to go there, because once again you'll be just repeating what media tells everybody, and not what actually occurred.

That's about it, Cheers.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   


posted by iskander

On 20 March 2006 Putin signed order #231, allocating over 5 trillion - rubbles - for deep modernization of Russian armed forces between 06 and 2015. Those are the official numbers, which are traditionally lower then the actual expenditures. Divide 5 trillion by 24 and you'll get the amount in dollars. [Edited by Don W]


Order 231 covers 9 years. At 5T of rubles, - maybe rubbles is more accurate - that’s a mere $208.33 billion divided by 9 years or $24 billion a year. Compared to US starting budgets of $455 billion a year, that does not seem like much. Even if a ruble goes 2X or 3X times as far as a dollar, it is still far behind the US.



The Russian economy cannot be judged by Western standards. Consumer economy (cash flow) and defense industry economy (still Federally controlled) are entirely different entities. US and Russian defense budgets can not be simply measured by the total amount.


Well, as we go more and more “off budget” it is becoming more and more difficult to get a handle on US expenditures. The Bush43 administration likes that because they don’t have to appear before Congress and Congress likes it because they do not have to appear before the public. A win win for the inside the beltway types, a lose lose for those of us on the outside. But what is new?



The current reality of US high tech is the micro management, mismanagement and the culture of incompetence that drives capable people out of the market. The set up is always the same, incompetent boss that "manages" a group of engineers comprised of Indians Chinese Russians. It's the same everywhere . . Russia is literally busting just from oil revenues. China is a total monster that literally keeps American economy running. Considering that they make just about everything, one can honestly say: "America-made in China." [I am not at all sure you have a bulls-eye here, Iskander]


I have read that China’s leaders are sitting on a boiling kettle that is about to spill over. Although some of our Chinese poster do not agree with me, I have heard from sources (CSpan2 authors) that the breakdown in China is 300 million prospering and 1 billion shut out. I used the quick reference of coastal versus inland and one poster correctly pointed out one interior province - Suichang, is well represented in the new manufacturing scheme. But the overall difference is still fairly described as coastal versus inland. Over the recent past 45,000 “civil incidents” have been reported and 2 ended in shots fired.



Russians know well that diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments. Russians are doing what they always have done. Napoleon and Hitler learned that the hard way. Russians play possum, buy time and fight with space. It's exactly what they have been doing this whole time. No wonder the G8 met in St. Petersburg . It focused around Russia’s entry into WTO. For Russia it's going to be a big deal. US puppet states like Georgia for example had no problems with their ticket into WTO because they do what they are told. For Russia to get into WTO is a major step.


Well, in the past few years I have come to see the only old time philosopher or theorist to get a handle on real life is Karl Marx. The IMF and WB are both hand maidens of the United States. It is probable that the US is also the largest contributor to each, but as Mr. Wolfowitz shows - him taking an early retirement from Oval Office staff - the US is still firmly in control of the WB. As in Robert McNamara. And etc.



For me personally the matter is simple. In a month I have a job interview in Moscow. If it goes as planned my wife will be learning Russian. I'm as patriotic as the next guy, but I also live in the 21st century, and C21 is a world market economy, not about Cold War era paranoia and pseudo-patriotic rhetoric. I’ve had it. [Edited by Don W] [My comments in brackets]


I have a good friend of many years who signed over for a second 2 year term in South Korea, working for ExxonMobil as they are building an off shore drilling rig of humongous proportions. No one asks and no one tells where it is going. He and his wife both have acquired 200-500 word vocabularies and are doing charity work on the weekends. They might adopt a child but frankly, they are in their late 40s and I’d advise against it if they asked me.

I never knew what he made here but once his wife said he made $300 a day on a job 5-6 years ago. He has said he makes 2X there what he’d make here but he may not really work for ExxonMobil as he says although he has A1 health care, he has no retirement.

Good luck to you, Mr Iskander!

Here’s my bottom line stuff on Russia. From the CIA Factbook which has moved, by the way. You’ll want to update your bookmark.
See www.cia.gov...

Important. Oil Production, Russia, 9 mbbl/d, US, 7.6 mbbl/d
Definitive. Oil consumption, Russia, 3 mbbl/d, US, 20 mbbl/d.
So, is the US economy about 6-7 times that of the Russian Federation? It looks to me to be so. Yes, both Napoleon and Hitler learned about Russian winters the hard way, but look here at the geographical median latitudes for each country. US 38 N, RF 60 N. That gives the US a 3X or 4X advantage on almost anything you want to talk about.

Finally, here is a clip from the Factbook on the Russian army.
“Russia has adopted a mixed conscript-contract force [contract meaning volunteer?]; 18-27 years of age; males are registered for the draft at 17 years of age; length of compulsory military service is two years; plans call for reduction in mandatory service to 18 months in 2007 and to one year by 2008; 30% of Russian army personnel were contract servicemen at the end of 2005; as of May 2006, 178,000 contract servicemen were serving in the Army and Navy; planning calls for volunteer servicemen [contract?] to compose 70% [up from current 30%] of armed forces by 2010, with the remaining servicemen consisting of conscripts; at the end of 2005, the Army had 40 all-volunteer permanent-readiness units [how big is a unit? - like our battalion?], with another 20 permanent-readiness units to be formed in 2006; 88 Ministry of Defense units have been designated as permanent readiness units and are expected to become all-volunteer by end 2007; these include most air force, naval, and nuclear arms units, as well as all airborne and naval infantry units, most motorized rifle brigades, and all special forces detachments (2006). [My remarks in brackets]


[edit on 7/19/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   

May I Add?


Naturally by all means.



Order 231 covers 9 years. At 5T of rubles, - maybe rubbles is more accurate - that’s a mere $208.33 billion divided by 9 years or $24 billion a year. Compared to US starting budgets of $455 billion a year, that does not seem like much. Even if a ruble goes 2X or 3X times as far as a dollar, it is still far behind the US.


Putin had to make it somewhat official some time. What the actual numbers are we'll never know.


Well, as we go more and more “off budget” it is becoming more and more difficult to get a handle on US expenditures. The Bush43 administration likes that because they don’t have to appear before Congress and Congress likes it because they do not have to appear before the public. A win win for the inside the beltway types, a lose lose for those of us on the outside. But what is new?


Well what's new to me is that Pentagon can announce that it could not account for 1.2 trillion, along with 56 aeroplanes, 32 tanks and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units. Naturally it leaked about two weeks after Rabbi Zakheim resigned.

That's some kind of entirely new level of "finance manager" "mismanagement". Unfortunately double quotations were necessary in this case.


I have read that China’s leaders are sitting on a boiling kettle that is about to spill over. Although some of our Chinese poster do not agree with me, I have heard from sources (CSpan2 authors) that the breakdown in China is 300 million prospering and 1 billion shut out. I used the quick reference of coastal versus inland and one poster correctly pointed out one interior province - Suichang, is well represented in the new manufacturing scheme. But the overall difference is still fairly described as coastal versus inland. Over the recent past 45,000 “civil incidents” have been reported and 2 ended in shots fired.


Chinese know all well how to deal with all kinds of social unrest. Nixon did go to China. 45,000 "civil incident" and 2 shooting incidents PALES in comparison to what we get to enjoy domestically, so I would not worry about China when it comes to possibility of another color revolution attempt.

Their hunger for energy and means to fulfill their geo political and economical ambitions are in fact something to worry about. The flat world of global supply chain assures their industrial base, and feeble attempts of predicting their implosion do to uncontrolled growth will only fall on death ears, because their economy is not based on consumer confidence and market manipulation stock/investments gamble.

It's not what you know, it's knowing how and what to know.


Well, in the past few years I have come to see the only old time philosopher or theorist to get a handle on real life is Karl Marx. The IMF and WB are both hand maidens of the United States. It is probable that the US is also the largest contributor to each, but as Mr. Wolfowitz shows - him taking an early retirement from Oval Office staff - the US is still firmly in control of the WB. As in Robert McNamara. And etc.


I'm not so sure about Marx. Sound concepts but considering that he was a mooch living of Engels, "do as I say and not as I do" philosophies don't sit that well with me. Personally I find Nitzhe to be in good humor and to the point. My kind of undeclared sarcasm.



I have a good friend of many years who signed over for a second 2 year term in South Korea, working for ExxonMobil as they are building an off shore drilling rig of humongous proportions. No one asks and no one tells where it is going.


That's interesting. I though Japanese are disputing that gas hydrate deposit since it's a heavy fishing area in disputed waters. It they get around the island issues, I'm pretty certain that Samsung will be building for Exxon.


He and his wife both have acquired 200-500 word vocabularies and are doing charity work on the weekends. They might adopt a child but frankly, they are in their late 40s and I’d advise against it if they asked me.


I speak fluently, my wife speaks German so if works out I'm sure she'll have no problems picking it up Russian pretty quickly. Adopting at late 40s, why not. My wife is 34 years young, we don't have kids yet, and her clock sure is ticking though. We'll see how things turn out, maybe our kid will be learning Russian as a 1st language.


I never knew what he made here but once his wife said he made $300 a day on a job 5-6 years ago. He has said he makes 2X there what he’d make here but he may not really work for ExxonMobil as he says although he has A1 health care, he has no retirement.


Understandably so. There are good paying jobs, and they're also solid 6 figures that simply can not be ignored.

These days private sector retirement plans are highly unstable. Millions are getting "flushed" by being forced into early retirement.


Good luck to you, Mr Iskander!


Thank you donwhite. I do appreciate luck, even though it's a variable for people with loose ends.




Here’s my bottom line stuff on Russia. From the CIA Factbook which has moved, by the way. You’ll want to update your bookmark.


Thank you. On that note here's a general knowledge tid bit I can share;


Link


So, is the US economy about 6-7 times that of the Russian Federation? It looks to me to be so. Yes, both Napoleon and Hitler learned about Russian winters the hard way, but look here at the geographical median latitudes for each country. US 38 N, RF 60 N. That gives the US a 3X or 4X advantage on almost anything you want to talk about.


Bare numbers always look good, yet its the groth/stagnation dynamics that matter in the long run.


Finally, here is a clip from the Factbook on the Russian army.
“Russia has adopted a mixed conscript-contract force [contract meaning volunteer?]


In the case of front line cervice, mercinaries to be exact, regular forces on contract.


18-27 years of age; males are registered for the draft at 17 years of age; length of compulsory military service is two years;


Don't forget NVP base prior to that, which I believe starts from age of 14.


plans call for reduction in mandatory service to 18 months in 2007 and to one year by 2008


See above.


30% of Russian army personnel were contract servicemen at the end of 2005; as of May 2006, 178,000 contract servicemen were serving in the Army and Navy; planning calls for volunteer servicemen [contract?] to compose 70% [up from current 30%] of armed forces by 2010, with the remaining servicemen consisting of conscripts


To this and the rest, assestment from NCOIC;

www.ncoic.com...

donwhite, please feel free to add more, this is the kind exchange I'm happy to participate in.

mod edit:

Please use this in the post creation window in future to cut down the length of your link, as long url's can alter the width of the page.
Or alternatively you can use: [url=www.urlhere.com]link name here[/url]
A good walkthrough to explain in more detail is ATTN :Image Size Guidelines





[edit on 21-7-2006 by UK Wizard]



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

donwhite, please feel free to add more, this is the kind exchange I'm happy to participate in.


I really like posts by Donwhite ...he is the only Amirican capable of contructive criticismin this forum .....thre are many people in this forum who go on posting just for time pass with all those steriotype comments ...they must learn something from Donwhite



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

donwhite, please feel free to add more, this is the kind exchange I'm happy to participate in.


I really like posts by Donwhite ...he is the only Amirican capable of contructive criticismin this forum .....thre are many people in this forum who go on posting just for time pass with all those steriotype comments ...they must learn something from Donwhite

but Donwhite tell me one thing what do think about the inequality of wealth distribution in USA? its very acute in USA compared to many other countries...as a result a great proportion of population is unable to enjoy the world class benefits USA is famous for....for eg while USA has one of the best Medical Facilities in this world a lower middle class US citizen is someime unable to enjoy even some basic medical facilities (had personal experience....a By-pass surgery costs about 200,000 USD !!! )

Following is the Gini index of selected countries(greater the Index more is the Inequality of wealth and income)-I have highlited the main economies (takes a lot of time to edit all)
REMEMBER higheer the Gini Index higher is the income gap between the rich and the poor and the vise versa
Rank /Country/ Gini index /Richest 10%to poorest 10%/ Richest 20%to poorest20%/ Survey year
1 Denmark 24.7 / 8.1/ 4.3/ 1997
2 Japan 24.9 / 4.5 3. / 4 / 1993
3 Sweden 25 / 6.2 / 4 / 2000
4 Belgium 25 /7.8 / 4.5 / 1996
5 C Republic 25.4 / 5.2/ 3.5 / 1996

6 Norway 25.8 /6.1/ 3.9/ 2000
7 Slovakia 25.8 /6.7/ 4 /1996
8 Bosnia and Herzegovina 26.2/ 5.4/ 3.8/ 2001
9 Uzbekistan 26.8 /6.1/ 4/ 2000
10 Finland 26.9 /5.6/ 3.8/ 2000
11 Hungary 26.9/ 5.5/ 3.8/ 2002
12 Republic of Macedonia 28.2/ 6.8/ 4.4/ 1998
13 Albania 28.2 /5.9/ 4.1/ 2002
14 Germany 28.3 /6.9/ 4.3/ 2000
15 Slovenia 28.4 /5.9/ 3.9/ 1998
16 Rwanda 28.9 /5.8/ 4 /1983
17 Croatia 29 /7.3/ 4.8/ 2001
18 Ukraine 29 /6.4/ 4.3/ 1999
19 Austria 30 /7.6/ 4.7/ 1997
20 Ethiopia 30 /6.6/ 4.3/ 1999
21 Romania 30.3 /8.1/ 5.2/ 2002
22 Mongolia 30.3 /17.8/ 9.1 /1998
23 Belarus 30.4 /6.9/ 4.6/ 2000
24 Netherlands 30.9/ 9.2/ 5.1 /1999
25 Russia 31 / 7.1 /4.8 / 2002
26 South Korea 31.6/ 7.8/ 4.7 /1998
27 Bangladesh 31.8 /6.8/ 4.6/ 2000
28 Lithuania 31.9 7.9 5.1 2000
29 Bulgaria 31.9 9.9 5.8 2001
30 Kazakhstan 32.3 7.5 5.1 2003
31 Spain 32.5 9 5.4 1990
32 India 32.5 / 7.3 / 4.9/ 1999
33 Tajikistan 32.6 7.8 5.2 2003
34 France 32.7 /9.1/ 5.6/ 1995
35 Pakistan 33 7.6 4.8 1998
36 Canada 33.1 /10.1 / 5.8/ 1998
37 Switzerland 33.1 9.9 5.8 1992
38 Sri Lanka 33.2 8.1 5.1 1999
39 Burundi 33.3 19.3 9.5 1998
40 Yemen 33.4 8.6 5.6 1998
41 Latvia 33.6 9.2 5.6 1998
42 Poland 34.1 8.6 5.5 2002
43 Indonesia 34.3 7.8 5.2 2002
44 Egypt 34.4 8 5.1 1999
45 Kyrgyzstan 34.8 8.6 5.5 2002
46 Australia 35.2 / 12.5 / 7/ 1994
47 Algeria 35.3 9.6 6.1 1995
48 Greece 35.4 10 6.2 1998
49 Israel 35.5 11.7 6.4 1997
50 Ireland 35.9 9.7 6.1 1996
51 United Kingdom 36 / 13.8/ 7.2/ 1999
52 Italy 36 11.6 6.5 2000
53 New Zealand 36.2 12.5 6.8 1997
54 Jordan 36.4 9.1 5.9 1997
55 Azerbaijan 36.5 9.7 6 2001
56 Nepal 36.7 9.3 5.9 1995
57 Georgia 36.9 12 6.8 2001
58 Moldova 36.9 10.3 6.5 2002
59 Vietnam 37 9.4 6 2002
60 Laos 37 9.7 6 1997
61 Estonia 37.2 14.9 7.2 2000
62 Armenia 37.9 11.5 6.8 1998
63 Jamaica 37.9 11.4 6.9 2000
64 Tanzania 38.2 10.8 6.7 1993
65 Portugal 38.5 15 8 1997
66 Mauritania 39 12 7.4 2000
67 Morocco 39.5 11.7 7.2 1998
68 Mozambique 39.6 12.5 7.2 1996
69 Tunisia 39.8 13.4 7.9 2000
70 Turkey 40 13.3 7.7 2000
71 Trinidad and Tobago 40.3 14.4 8.3 1992
72 Guinea 40.3 12.3 7.3 1994
73 Cambodia 40.4 11.6 6.9 1997
74 Turkmenistan 40.8 12.3 7.7 1998
75 Ghana 40.8 14.1 8.4 1998
76 Senegal 41.3 12.8 7.5 1995
77 Singapore 42.5 17.7 9.7 1998
78 Kenya 42.5 13.6 8.2 1997
79 Iran 43 17.2 9.7 1998
80 Uganda 43 14.9 8.4 1999
81 Nicaragua 43.1 15.5 8.8 2001
82 Thailand 43.2 13.4 8.3 2000
83 Hong Kong, China (SAR) 43.4 17.8 9.7 1996
84 Ecuador 43.7 44.9 17.3 1998
85 Uruguay 44.6 18.9 10.4 2000
86 Cameroon 44.6 15.7 9.1 2001
87 Côte d’Ivoire 44.6 16.6 9.7 2002
88 People's Republic of China (mainland only) 44.7/ 18.4/ 10.7/ 2001
89 Bolivia 44.7 24.6 12.3 1999
90 Philippines 46.1 16.5 9.7 2000
91 Costa Rica 46.5 25.1 12.3 2000
92 United States 46.6/ 15.9/ 8.4/ 2000
93 Guinea-Bissau 47 19 10.3 1993
94 Dominican Republic 47.4 17.7 10.5 1998
95 Madagascar 47.5 19.2 11 2001
96 The Gambia 47.5 20.2 11.2 1998
97 Burkina Faso 48.2 26.2 13.6 1998
98 Venezuela 49.1 62.9 17.9 1998
99 Malaysia 49.2 22.1 12.4 1997
100 Peru 49.8 49.9 18.4 2000
101 Malawi 50.3 22.7 11.6 1997
102 Mali 50.5 23.1 12.2 1994
103 Niger 50.5 46 20.7 1995
104 Nigeria 50.6 24.9 12.8 1996
105 Papua New Guinea 50.9 23.8 12.6 1996
106 Argentina 52.2/39.1 /18.1 / 2001
107 Zambia 52.6 41.8 17.2 1998
108 El Salvador 53.2 47.4 19.8 2000
109 Mexico 54.6 45 19.3 2000
110 Honduras 55 49.1 21.5 1999
111 Panama 56.4 62.3 24.7 2000
112 Zimbabwe 56.8 22 12 1995
113 Chile 57.1 40.6 18.7 2000
114 Colombia 57.6 57.8 22.9 1999
115 Paraguay 57.8 73.4 27.8 2002
116 South Africa 57.8 / 33.1/ 17.9 / 2000
117 Brazil 59.3 / 68/ 26.4/ 2001

(I have deleted countries ranking below Brazil to save space)
source:en.wikipedia.org...
world map showing countrywise distribution of wealth between the rich and poor

[edit on 20-7-2006 by prelude]



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   
coming in late

don't think its a real concern for RUSSIA, you have to look at it from a different prospective

hell the future's is bright if managed correctly

RUSSIA already has the necessary resources it needs to keep it's industry up and running for quite some time

whether or not that their weapons suck or if they have the "$" to build is not a real issue or concern to them

it's industry is not going to just crumble and disappear any time soon

as long as there is a need for demand and supply

my opinion of course



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   

posted by prelude

but Donwhite tell me one thing what do you think about the inequality of wealth distribution in USA? For eg while USA has one of the best Medical Facilities in this world a lower middle class US citizen is sometimes unable to enjoy even some basic medical facilities . . “


Following is the Gini index of selected countries
2 Japan 24.9 / 4.5 3. / 4 / 1993
14 Germany 28.3 /6.9/ 4.3/ 2000
25 Russia 31 / 7.1 /4.8 / 2002
26 South Korea 31.6/ 7.8/ 4.7 /1998
34 France 32.7 /9.1/ 5.6/ 1995
36 Canada 33.1 /10.1 / 5.8/ 1998
49 Israel 35.5 11.7 6.4 1997
51 United Kingdom 36 / 13.8/ 7.2/ 1999
79 Iran 43 17.2 9.7 1998
88 People's Republic of China 44.7/ 18.4/ 10.7/ 2001
92 United States 46.6/ 15.9/ 8.4/ 2000
109 Mexico 54.6 45 19.3 2000
113 Chile 57.1 40.6 18.7 2000
114 Colombia 57.6 57.8 22.9 1999 [Edited by Don W]




Thank you Prelude. You have made my task more difficult. The fundamental American culture is North European and of that, mainly English. From the 1950s on, there have been a lot of immigrants especially 1) from the Hispanic countries of the Western Hemisphere and for the first time a lot of people 2) from Southeast Asia primarily the old French Indo China countries.

It takes a lot of time for all of those cultures to blend into a larger culture but all of them will add some of their own ways and cause those of us who were here before they came to change some of our views. I really think this is America’s strong point. We have been good at letting in new people. It takes time for us to accept them. We are not always kind to the newcomers. But we are getting better at that, slowly. You can watch the debate over what to do about 12 million undocumented workers. It will end in favor of those workers, I am very confident. We need them as much as they need us.

Middle class. Where did it come from? The war industry began in 1940 and peaked in 1944. The war ended in 1945. Out of a population of 140 million, 16 million men were drafted into the Armed Forces. On VJ Day, we had 13 million men in uniform. 3 million had already been released. America suffered 450,000 KIA. The Russians lost more than that number at Stalingrad. The Chinese had been invaded in 1937 and had lost more than 1 million by the time of the capture of Nanking.

Our government passed the GI Bill. It guaranteed a new house for each veteran who served more than 90 days, with no money down and a low interest loan. 15 million houses were built and sold under the GI bill. The GI Bill gave every veteran a 4 year college education or technical school. Tuition paid plus living money. Not loans. Grants. Those 2 measures - housing and education - formed the basis of the Great American Middle Class.

Before 1945, my guess is that 60% would be low class, 30% would be middle class and 10% would be upper class. The ultra rich - Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, etc. - were as today, very few. Perhaps 10,000. Today, around 75,000 maybe 100,000.

The American middle class thrived from 1945 to 1980. Probably at one time, 50% were middle class. 20% would have been upper class and 30% lower class. Half of the middle class was “blue collar” workers. That is, union jobs by hard working men. “White collar” is office work and professionals. Doctors, lawyers, merchant chiefs. Men who worked at the engine foundry at International Harvester made more money than school teachers, firemen and policemen. 30 million jobs.

Unions, yes, but not strong, ideological unions as were found in Europe. Here it was mainly selfish - get mine! A very few unions tried to make life better for everyone, but most were interested only in making more money for themselves.

Ford was a top job. They paid - example $15 an hour - in 1980. Ford bought its carburetors from Holley. They paid $10 and hour. Holley bought its basic parts from a no-name aluminum casting company. They paid $6 an hour. If the UAW of Ford had been a good union, they would have forced Ford to pay Holley workers and the aluminum parts company workers the same, $15 an hour. But they did not. They betrayed the union movement. Now the unions are dead and all the workers are making $6 an hour. Or its adjusted amount for 2006.

To be a strong union, first there are two laws unions must have. 1) Mandatory re-hire of strikers and the 2) right of secondary boycotts. The first is obvious but the second is equally important. It is the right to strike Company B when the first strike is against Company A. This means if Wal-Mart sells tires made by Bridgestone, the Wal-Mart workers can legally strike in support of the Bridgestone workers. This makes Wal-Mart urge Bridgestone to settle the strike.

There will never be a strong union movement in America until those two laws are passed. Semi-skilled and skilled workers form the basis of a large middle class. That is necessary because that grouping has the most people.

The inequality of wealth distribution will get worse until such time as Americans organize unions with a social conscience. Socialism, but with modifications to take the best we’ve learned over the years. To me, it means a level playing field. Plus standards all are obliged to follow. That is the proper function of government. And the social safety net. Plus investment in the social infrastructure. And always, every person has a right to good health care. And a livable retirement. Period.


[edit on 7/20/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   


posted by iskander


by Donwhite
30% of Russian army personnel were contract servicemen at the end of 2005; as of May 2006, 178,000 contract servicemen were serving in the Army and Navy; planning calls for volunteer servicemen [contract?] to compose 70% [up from current 30%] of armed forces by 2010, with the remaining servicemen consisting of conscripts
donwhite, please feel free to add more, [Edited by Doh W]



Thank you, Ik, I also enjoy this discussion. Let me ask you one more point about the Russian army. Or armed forces. You are saying there are 3 groups, conscripts, volunteers and mercenaries. Now, by mercenaries do you mean like hired from outside Russia, like I heard the other day, we’ve got soldiers from Fiji, and elsewhere, in Iraq. About 20,000.

So I was confusing volunteers with mercenaries. I was using the terms interchangeably. You are suggesting the terms are not referring to the same groups. The above quote indicates the current level of volunteers is 30% and it is to be raised to 70% by 2010. The clips says by 2010 the remaining soldiers will be conscripts, and no contract or mercenary soldiers. Is that a correct reading?

I am alarmed at the 20,000 number I heard - again on CSPan2 by an author - and I forgot what other countries he said are hiring out their armed forces to us in Iraq. I assume the order of “heavy lifting” in Iraq is US, #1, Mercenaries, #2, Brits, #3 and remaining CF’s, #4. Do you think Tony Blair has insisted on this “order?” If indeed it is the order. I feel 100% confident without knowing that we promised such countries as Spain and Japan and Philippines their troops would not be put in harms way if they would send some. Our SFs were in the Philippines on that Moro mission we began in 1899 and dropped off of in 1914 so that could be a quid pro quo.



[edit on 7/20/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 02:54 AM
link   
EDIT: Triple post

[edit on 21-7-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 02:55 AM
link   
EDIT::

[edit on 21-7-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by prelude
It means the " military value " of the Russian arms are higher than their acctual cost


You might say that or they are selling them at a lost of profit. The articles goes on to say that the russian military sells things at a lower price than a similar priced western weapon with the same firepower rating. That means the russians need to sell more weapons than a western country to make the same profit.

eg, 1.5 Su-30s for one F-15 which means a higher production cost incurred and other expenses


it seems you deliberately over looked the positive quotes


They are not positive. The orders they ahve are of the present future and not of the future of the russian armed forces. Hence it does not matter how much orders they have now but the potentional orders for the future which matter the most. I have already posted a list of potentional areas of military sales which have already been replaced or will be repalced by either western equipment or from a new third source like china, india or iran. Even pakistan has worthly equipment ir can sell like the al kalid tank which was reported to ahve recieved a order from saudi arabia

The profolio includes orders which were made some time before. Some of chinas equipment it had ordered a long time ago is still in the portoflio or was in the portofilo before hand.


but most people call them propaganda when its directed against his/her interests


I have always hated SIPRI and Rand and have on numerous occasions debated their articles contents. Things like CIA which provides their interuptation of events is deemed propaganda but things like their factbook are not since other netural sites will colaborate this information and does not present a viewpoint.

What the article you refered to was information which was "collected" then processed into a opinion which is deemed as bias by myself because its his opinion. If he gave figures and said nothing, that is not bias. The article just mentions it uses its own method of working out export growth which is one sided because they make it to support their case. Like AMD and intel, they both claim to use the better technology while they both use different caluations to show their products in a better light. eg clocking speeds


can you name me a single Chinese Defense Technology that has been developed without Russian Influence



Most of these missiles
Most of these ships
Apart from a possiblity of certain technologies ALL of these
Take your pick out of these ones
Most small arms
Trasport vehicles

Other sections with systems without russian influence
AA guns
Rocket artillery

And im not claiming all of them without russian influence. in case you try to say that


The Chinese and the Indian Defense Industry is just in its innitial phase of development


That is true for india but not true for china. It has exported weapons since the begining of its existance. NORICO was one of the principle suppilers during the iran-iraq war and has suppiled to middle eastern countries as well.

Eygpt, kuwait, suadi, Jordan...etc

Also china exports planes and ships to a number of countries already, eg pakistan iran, and the most recent one, thailand which had a choice between western exporters as well


CIS, Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, Bangladesh, Malaysia


Apart from venezuela, none of these countries are expericing large problems which will require multi-million/billion dollars exports to


Sukhoi is presently investing more on national market than foreign market


You must have missed the meanings since the orders suhkoi got held the company together while MiG had barely any orders for its equipment. Or are you trying to claim that sukhoi sold mroe planes in the home market than it did for export in those years after the collapse of the SU?

But since its about 500 planes altogther exported, that would be hard to substanite


that has to do more with politics than with business


India is not a western customer, it did buy some equipment but the majority of it is russian (70-90%). It has not longed for russian equipment but has been offer superior products for roughly the same price. I presume your refering to the MRCA program since that is the only program which comes to my head.

We have the
- F-18 with AESA
- Rafale with AESA
- Eurofighter with Captor or a ESA suite. Tranche II or III
- MiG-29OVT with TVC and a AESA radar if they play the development cost

The F-18 has the present advantage, the rafale has the present future advantage but at a greater cost and the MiG-29 has a lower unit price but has to fund development of the Zhuk-A and is a long term project with a geing design once it gets into service. All are great planes but its depending on the indians which one best suites their needs. I think they would go for a meduim term, high tech solution like the rafale and might risk the EF. The MiG-29 is to risky and long term since it is not a final product as yet but has a good chance since its unit price is a lot lower and has compaitbilty with the current indian airforce

The rafale also needs compatible supporting aircraft since it was part of the reason why the RBE2 has such a short range because it is meant to operate in a AWACS enviroment and hence will not require very long range detection. But anyway, the MRCA deal is not clear cut

Pakistan never longed for russian equipment. It has always been supplied by a western country for aircraft and recently brought tanks from the ukraine with a western weaponary suite because of price or sanctions. They were offered M1 abrams but didn't want them

They are a chinese customer and has numerous joint production contracts with china



Both have miles to go before they reach the techincal superiority that Russia has today and by that time Russia will advance further


China outspends russia in RnD by a long shot while russia does not have a clear led. India already posses most of russias most advanced technology or either get a joint production license for it

Name some equipment that russia has that china doesn't have? Something they need


They have been "developing" for the last 30 years


The LCA was helped by the mirage company while the arjun tank is almsot a indianized version of the Leopard II because of the consultacy from Krauss Maffei
Source

The J-10 and T-99 are not copy and cut projects. Unlike the indian ones, they do not use imported components but use chinese componets. Can you name one bit of each tank or plane that comes from another design


Russia is presently building dozens of Indian navy ships , 4 nuclear subs


4 nuclear submarines??????. I would like to see source on this. Same as the destroyers. The aircraft carrier was given for FREE


all they have been doing these days is to copy Russian Systems


Which important systems?(not including older systems which does not need replcment) Like the AESA radar or chinas own line of anti-ship missiles?. Her own SAM system and currently/finished building a new technology testing ship which is to develop new systems for her future ships. Apart from the older little partol ships, which ship is russian influenced?



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   
I have alreay posted my reasons about future markets but it seems to be getting side stepped

Potentional markets for russian weapons

#.South America, all the states following Venezuelas path.

The difference is Venezuela is a oil rich country and the rest of the region are poor countries. Now in these last 30 years which country has brought new equipment which was modern?. argentina lost the flasklands and would have been expected to up-build for another round. They want to but theres no money. The whole south america has no sercuirty threats nor do they pocess natiosn which will threaten them. Venezuela might not be a stable country at the mommet but south america do not fear them but treat them as heros. This place is where europens sell their weapons and if you go check out a equipment list there is a lot of french influence there

States in south america have rarly been known to buy massive amounts of equipment and the most likey equipment would be aircraft since the F-5 aircraft are getting old even with thoughs upgrades. But the amount fo F-16 which ahve limited airframe use mainly dents the russian hopes of using this as a area where it can sell a lot of fighters. For small arms and other land based equipment they would opt for cheaper chinese weapons(which they have) or for american made weapons depending on their polictical influence but considering the amount of left wing governemtns coming to power in south america this would be a real doubt

The whole area is not cash rich and it would be such a bargin even if they made that contract

# Indonesia, Burma, Vietnam, Bangladesh, all asian smaller economyes whit out deep commitmences to other supplyers.

Burma and bangladesh as chinese buyers and so is thailand. Indonesia also recently bought some chinese equipment something about missiles anti ship or ballsitic im not to sure but off my head they did buy some. Vietnam has brought a grand total of 4 planes in the last few years and i think they were in a contract to recieve some second hand tanks

Almost the same conditions as South america. Not much need for the equipment and not much money for that equipment. Most of those countries while either buy from a third source like vietnams polish tanks or buy from chinese like burma and bangladesh which dont really need high tech equipments and much of a airforce

#Iran&middle east.

Iran has here own fighters in development with russian technical help. This includes russian avonics and russian R-77 misile supposly featured on her Shafaq and Azarakhsh planes. The suadis wouldn't be left to fall since america needs that oil and other countries in the middile east are well off with their cizitens not paying any tax. Wasted money?. yes but when the oil is gone they wont have enough money to buy russian planes. In the missile east theres a large Anti-american sentiment but also a very large anti-russian sentiment as well just depending on your country

The middile east is mainly a western affair, all the large contracts are for american and western compaines and most of them have either rejected russian equipment or have brought in very small trial quanties. It has fierce competition from many of the worlds arms compaines and is doubtful and large sales go though

#Old customers, India and China, thougth not so strongly dependaple but not all areas they can be selfinsuficient.Shanghai co-operation pact and its evolpment into full scale military alligment.

But like i said they wont come in just buy from a russian factory but joint-ventures or production lines with-in ther country like indias Su-30MKI which is costing india 23million a piece and the BrahMos and other equipment. India has some very ambious plans like a indegenious BVR missile her own stealthy aircraft. indigenioius submarines and her own MBT tank which will be the future rumoured arjun II

China has not made a major order for russian weapons in a while excluding the Il-76 which cannot be made in china. The purchases china have made are spare parts and equipment that was ordered before hand. J-1s Yuan HQ-9 missiles. The real russian weapons that china brought were brought when chian didn't have capability to make things herself. Sovernys were brought just to fill the gap in blue ocean capbility and were ordered when china did not have the Type-52B/C. the kilos were ordered way back when china did not yet ahve the yuan The S-300 was brought when china did not have the HQ-9. THe last one is debateble because some sources say its just a licensed produced on while some say its a different version

China does not need russia anymore. The western embargo is not a embargo from the west but only for american products. During the whole time china had access to western technology. Israel france, germany all supplied china technology

In actual reality the chinese and russian relationship are almost about staurated on the high tech field since the russians have offered all they can offer. In a sense china and russia are on par on many levels in RnD. And on the level china is investing RnD and the amount of uni grads china is producing is inevtible that russia will be over taken. I wrote on this before. The russians only are really using Cold war developed technologies.

What china really needs now is managment systems communications data links. etc. Things the russians cant offer and things joint ventures are producing. Engines from germany. France for command systems.

Russia, if you look at the systems russia gave are basically technologies from the cold war. Kilos, Su-27s, Sovs. etc are all there to inhance chinas combat capablity instead of to upgrades chinas RnD research. Other systems china has are all fom western technology during the US-china honey-moon period when china was begining to change from a peoples force to a aerican force. RRUs if you look at their force structure is similar to american ones and their equipment is also very similar. Russian equipment was only used as a stop-gap until a chinese system could be found.

Chinas having a new medium transport program with ukrainian after they dropped russia(which in turn formed a partnerhip with india). Another souce of informaion

None the less, russian help was very valuble then but now china is almost self sufficent. But none the less with the russians experience in design is more benifical and quicker to work with russian help

# Domestic need. Russia has supraisingly well recovered from its fall

While in reailty russia could only let her military budget grow at 6% but if they wanted to it could grow more but that puts pressure on a economy which has not had stable growth so for now and the future ahead i dont see russia explanding in any direction

All of the money which would be spent would be at a discounted rate and though upgrading older aircraft with newer technologies which is not much of a increase to fund RnD. The russian defence industry is geared towards exports and is not geared to a future american threat



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   

You are saying there are 3 groups, conscripts, volunteers and mercenaries. Now, by mercenaries do you mean like hired from outside Russia, like I heard the other day, we’ve got soldiers from Fiji, and elsewhere, in Iraq. About 20,000.


No, not from outside. Chechen war is not the only conflict Russian has been engaged for over a decade. Total numbers of front line troops that seen action is staggering. By mercs I meant veterans of brutal campaigns. I'm sure you're familiar with musicological damage troops get on the front lines, and with out government support systems in place they are simply incapable of integrating back into civilian life.

So for most vets the choice in the civilian life was limited to police service or mafia gun for hire. In order to curve this trend Russian government began offering a second tour contractual terms to vets that are about to be rotated into the world.

To this day this cycle is working pretty well. To retain their most capable troops and keep them from contributing to organised crime they are simply paying them of to stay on the front lines, or getting nubs up to speed. Interestingly enough, during Clinton's Serbia campaign, a whole lot of Russian vets volunteered to fight against the Muslims.


So I was confusing volunteers with mercenaries. I was using the terms interchangeably. You are suggesting the terms are not referring to the same groups. The above quote indicates the current level of volunteers is 30% and it is to be raised to 70% by 2010. The clips says by 2010 the remaining soldiers will be conscripts, and no contract or mercenary soldiers. Is that a correct reading?


To a certain degree. They are planning to wrap it all that up by 2010, so contract mercenaries will no longer be necessary. By now the Chechen issue is officially solved. If you follow the new the last groups are surrendering in mass. Right now it's about Crimea and Osetija.


I am alarmed at the 20,000 number I heard - again on CSPan2 by an author - and I forgot what other countries he said are hiring out their armed forces to us in Iraq. I assume the order of “heavy lifting” in Iraq is US, #1, Mercenaries, #2, Brits, #3 and remaining CF’s, #4.


Actually you left out the bulk of support from PMCs. Mercs do roam the planes in larger numbers then during the cold war. We actually have to go back to the Middle Ages and Crusades to compare the numbers of mercs fighting in the 21st century.


Do you think Tony Blair has insisted on this “order?” If indeed it is the order. I feel 100% confident without knowing that we promised such countries as Spain and Japan and Philippines their troops would not be put in harms way if they would send some. Our SFs were in the Philippines on that Moro mission we began in 1899 and dropped off of in 1914 so that could be a quid pro quo.


Not sure about Blair. He's just like Bush, they both have strings coming out of their backs, and it sure looks like they are pulled by the same people.

Spain, Japan and Philippines want nothing more then to pull their troops out, and lately it's exactly what they have been doing.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join