was unaware that “downfallen African bantustans” had military spending in the top ten of the world’s nations. And just because something is “basic” does not mean it is cheap or unimportant. The fact is Russia doesn’t have enough money. Everyone knows this. You go on and on about Putin, but since when has Putin ever declared that there is enough money for the armed forces and everything is going fine? The answer is never.

Very interesting, Vympel! Putin and Ivanov are still twaddling that money for defence is enough and will be more and more in the future, military procurements are growing, number of new weapons too! Doesn’t you read “Krasnaya Zvezda” for a long time period??? 🙂
Of course, this deplorably low 15 billion dollars Russian military budget isn’t any resonable military spending! So why Kremlin puppets tell us all above such a silly rubbishes???
DAFT PUTIN AND HIS PITIFUL FIVE MISSILES! 😡

The nuclear forces are fine for deterring such threats. I’d hate to break it to you, but the Cold War is over, and it ain’t never coming back. And good riddance. Not the US, not China, and not NATO has, or will have, any reason to carry out a nuclear strike against Russia. Russia’s nuclear forces ensure that, and continue to ensure that. As for “mythical” terrorist groups- there have been a myriad number of terrorist attacks on Russian soil over the past few years. There have been none from the USA, China, or NATO.

If Cold War is finally over or it is hiddenly begining again we can see in the near future. Unfortunately now US Army is closer to Russia doorstep as it never was during entire Cold War! Well, try to scrub your glasses, buddy!
As for US/NATO and terrorist linkage. You forgot that even your darling Putin told Russians in the TV after Beslan massacre that some world’s powers which doesn’t like Russia as a majro nuclear power are standing behind terrorist activity in Russia!

And another thing: extraordinary new equipment is for morons. You know what you get for pursuing revolutionary equipment instead of evolutionary, incremental improvements? Ridiculous cost and schedule overruns for dubious gain. Read a US GAO report on the subject. There’s enough of them.

I mean some extraordinary NUMBERS of new equipment (not necessary some revolutionary new systems!) which Russia doesn’t buy practically at all!

And everyone else does? Oh, wait, the US still uses tanks and armored personnel carriers that were designed back in the 1970s.

Of course, but US still upgrade, often secretly, its armament and acquire completely new designs in some areas! In contrary Russia simply paints its old pieces of scrap with new colour and calls it “modernization”! 😀

Of course it caused savings. Unfortunately those savings dont’ just go to the military, nor should they.

Clever note, Vympel! Well, maybe you can tell us where that money gone because now poverty in Russia is considerably greater than in the USSR???
I advice you to search your money in Switzerland! You surely find lacking cash especially on the bank accounts of some cunning Russian thiefs, buddy! :diablo:

O, yes! Additionally to threats posed by US and NATO, Russia can’t forget now about rising Chinese military threat! Dear comrade Brezhnev had never forgotten until his death about Chinese claims to the half of Siberia and he showed us the way preparing USSR very well to teach Chinese a lesson if necessary! You can read below exactly,why comrade Mao would have had to escape on Taiwan himself if he had dared to be unpolite once again… :diablo:

SOVIET ORDER OF BATTLE IN THE FAR EAST, 1983

1. THEATER FORCES:

SS-20 LAUNCHERS: 162
SRBM/MRBM LAUNCHERS: 300
TACTICAL NUCLEAR WARHEADS: 2000
CHEMICAL AGENTS: 30000 METRIC TONS
CONVENTIONAL AMMUNITION STOCKPILES: 2 MILLION METRIC TONS

2. GROUND FORCES.

– ARMY/CORPS COMMANDS: 12
– DIVISIONS: 54 (7 TANK + 47 MOTORIZED)
– PERSONEEL: 490 000 SOLDIERS
– TANKS: 14000
– IVFs: 6750
– APCs: 9000
– ARTILLERY PIECES: 8500
– MLRS LAUNCHERS: 1800
– ATGMs: 1100
– TACTICAL SAMs: 950

3. AIR FORCES: 3307 AIRCRAFTS

– FIXED WING AIRCRAFTS: 1997, INCLUDING:

MEDIUM BOMBERS: 112
FIGHTERS: 725
FENCERs/FIGHTER-BOMBERS: 905
RECON/ECM AIRCRAFTS: 255

– HELICOPTERS: 1310, INCLUDING:

ATTACK: 440
HEAVY LIFT TRANSPORT: 115
GENERAL PURPOSE: 315
ASSAULT: 440

4. PACIFIC OCEAN FLEET.

– SHIPS: 237, INCLUDING:

SSBNs: 25
SSBs: 7
SSNs/SSs: 92
CVHGs: 2
PRINCIPAL SURFACE COMBATANTS: 81
AMPHIBIOUS WARFARE SHIPS: 30

– NAVAL AIRCRAFTS: 427, INCLUDING:

LONG RANGE STRIKE AIRCRAFTS: 108
FIGHER-BOMBERS: 35
VTOL FIGHTERS: 41
LONG RANGE RECON/ECM AIRCRAFTS: 59
LONG RANGE ASW AIRCRAFTS: 25
MEDIUM RANGE ASW AIRCRAFTS: 53
NAVY HELICOPTERS: 106

There are other priorities asides from massive military expenditure.

I please and beg, don’t name acquiring about 30 ICBMs yearly as a “massive military expediture”! It’s ordinarily too silly… 🙁

That’s not what I heard. They ran out of SS-N-20s because their service life expired, however, there are still some 10 missiles remaining.

Yes, SS-N-20s service life expired four years ago and they were scrapped thanks to American funds. Remaining ten missiles may be placed in the Russian military museums as a remembrance of the first Soviet solid-propelland SLBM!

The successor, Bark (SS-NX-28) was cancelled because they couldn’t get it right. Hence Bulava. You might say it was political meddling, but the fact is Bark exploded multiple times in test-flights. Cancelling a system that clearly wasn’t performing is what the defense industry of every country needs more, not less, of.

The SS-NX-28 was up to 75% ready when it was suspended, guy! Note that this stupid move caused Typhoons withdrawal decision and necessity of redesigning “Borey” submarine what takes another seven years delay in its finishing. Actual appalling state of naval leg of Russian nuclear triad is a direct impact of “Bark” cancellation! Moreover I personally think that “Bark” would be better SLBM than “Bulava”.

The Arkhangelsk and Severstal haven’t been stricken. In fact, it was reported quite recently that one of these two boats went in for repair/refit/overhaul. Given that their aren’t supposed to be any spare SS-N-20s left, chances are good it’s being re-equipped for Bulava carriage.

One of these two Typhoons is “Bulava” test platform but I read in many sources it won’t be equipped with “Bulava” after trials completion.

Mate, seriously. This is not the Cold War. Those obscene levels of military procurement cannot be justified on any reasonable level. Russia’s nuclear deterrent is fine, they’ve got two new successful delivery systems in production and at least one more planned in the future (the new “heavy” missile).

But I don’t dare to urge Russia to repeat Soviet military procurements from 1970s and 1980s, buddy! I only try to persuade you that Russia could order only ONE TENTH of these Soviet purchases and that would be fairly enough! Is it really too large effort for present-day Russia??? Don’t be funny…

Keeping the three typhoon class subs operational with SS-N-20s means 600 warheads. Keeping 60 odd SS-18s means another 600 warheads. Adding 30 odd SS-19s means 180 more warheads. With 15 Tu-160s carrying 12 Kh-102 5,000km range cruise missiles and the Bears being modified to carry 8 Kh-102s externally and 6 Kh-55s internally then you have plenty of nukes already. Add in 10 (eventually) new SSBNs with 12 x 6 or 72 warheads each and some land based Topol-Ms and you can start looking at retiring some of those SS-18s and SS-19s and maintain a force of between 1700 and 2200 warheds and the US will do the same.

You probably are not well informed about things you are talking about. All SS-N-20s are gone now! They are already scrapped under Nunn-Lugar program. Moreover all Typhoons also withdrew from service two years ago. Only one of them serves nowadays as a “Bulava” test platform. Of course, it was a big mistake and idiotism but we can’t reverse this because key decisions were made almost ten years ago when new “Bark” SLBM project was doomed because of some kind of MITT’s meddling against Makeyev Design Bureau and Krasnoyarsk Plant. That caused almost ten years shift in acquiring of new “Bulava” missile what should have been forecasted then due to permanent beggarly Russian military expenditures under Yeltsin and Putin.
As for indefinitely prolongation of SS-18s/SS-19s service life: Russia can do that but I am not sure if these missiles could be usable for ten years. Taking into consideration ridiculous Russian life extension program (compared with simliar US activity relatring to Minuteman III missiles) it is rather certain that “old-new” SS-18s/SS-19s won’t be reliable weapons!
Innovation in Russian strategic bomber force isn’t important because of its next to zero effectivity in second strike against US, not mention about surviving of US first strike. Practically Russia could convert now all its strategic bombers into pure conventional missions without loss any significant nuclear strike capability against other nuclear powers.
The reality is very simple: Russia MUST start a significant production of NEW strategic missiles NOW and that is all. Russia has two such a new good projects (Topol-M and Bulava – although not so revolutionary ones as still twaddling us Putin’s propaganda), several good missile design bureaus and rocket plants, so now it is time to produce both missiles in sufficient numbers (30-40 ICBMs annually) instead of taking various dumb half-measures or babbling all these rubbishes about “how splendid hypersonic warheads, missiles, bombers and boomers we have”. Unfortunately “we have them” only in the “Krasnaya Zvezda” because this rag costs only one rouble and one Topol-M costs one and half billion roubles! 😀

PS. Another news about “massive investment in Russian nuclear forces” under Putin. It is a bit different from amazing official press relations in the “Krasnaya Zvezda” and similiar rags:

2005 ARMS ACQUISITION PLANS NOT MET
According to independent military analyst Vladislav Shurygin, the arms acquisition plan for 2005 was not fulfilled. Specifically, he pointed out that instead of seven ICBMs the Ministry of Defense acquired only four and instead of one refurbished and one new Tu-160 heavy bombers it received none. Furthermore, the defense industry was not fully paid even for the work completed.
[Vladislav Shurygin, “Poslesloviye k rekviyemu,” Zavtra, 8-14 December 2005]

One recently published very clever article from “ChSM” is quoted below. I am satisfied that many Russians begin to perceive growing US danger in spite of present stupid Russian military policy!

Russia, US slipping into familiar ‘chill’?

In a recent poll, 57 percent of Russians regard the US as a ‘threat to global security.’

By Fred Weir | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

MOSCOW – Call it cold war II, the sequel.

An intensifying shouting match between the US and Russia has stirred fears that the two former adversaries could be drifting back to a familiar ideologically charged rivalry.

Monday, 04/17/06

Most experts play down the new mood as a worrisome “chill,” and some suggest that a change in leadership – slated for 2008 in both countries – might reverse the slide in mutual ties. But many Russians, who have watched as Western influence has thrust decisively into the former Soviet heartland since the USSR’s 1991 demise, see it in darker, more visceral tones.

The US is bent on spreading its power by “buying leaders and organizing state coups” throughout the former USSR, says Yevgeny Ivanov, chief ideologist for the pro-Kremlin group Nashi, Russia’s biggest political youth movement. He’s referring to the recent wave of pro-democracy “colored revolutions” that wrenched Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan from Moscow’s orbit. “Their type of globalization is aimed at having the right to decide the world’s destiny,” he says.

At the other end of the age spectrum, Fyodor Suvorov, a retired military officer, agrees. “What is the US doing [in the former USSR]? It’s as if Russia went to ‘protect its interests’ in Mexico. While we give in to their pressure, the Americans have pushed NATO right to our doorstep,” he says.

A January poll conducted by the independent Levada Center in Moscow found that 57 percent of Russians regard the US as a “threat to global security,” while just 33 percent think it isn’t.

As in the original cold war, which lasted from the end of World War II until the 1991 Soviet collapse, each of the two sides blames the other for the rift.

A report issued last month by the bipartisan US Council on Foreign Relations faulted “Russia’s wrong direction” under President Vladimir Putin, and listed a catalog of alleged Muscovite sins that included growing authoritarianism, use of Russian energy supplies to bully neighbors such as Ukraine, and anti-American policies in areas such as Iran and former Soviet Central Asia.

A US State Department human rights report accuses the Kremlin of sidelining parliament, straitjacketing the media, pressuring the judiciary, and harassing nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The White House National Security Strategy, a policy blueprint released in mid-March, warned that “efforts to prevent democratic development at home and abroad will hamper the development of Russia’s relations with the US, Europe, and its neighbors.”

“There is clearly a policy shift underway,” says Masha Lipman, an analyst with the Carnegie Center in Moscow. “We’re talking about a bad trend; not just a cooling but a deterioration in relations.”

The crunch could come in July, when Russia is set to host a Group of Eight wealthy democracies summit in St. Petersburg – a moment that experts say Mr. Putin sees as crucial to his efforts to gain Russia’s acceptance into the club of Western nations. A growing number of US politicians, including Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona, are urging President Bush to boycott the event. “The glimmerings of democracy are very faint in Russia today, so I would be very harsh,” Mr. McCain told a TV interviewer recently.

Russia’s 12-year-old bid to join the World Trade Organization, which awaits only US agreement to become official, has already fallen victim to the new chill, Russian officials complain. “The negotiation process is being artificially set back,” Putin told Russian business leaders this month, citing US demands over issues “we thought had been settled long ago.”

Experts say the Russian security establishment was stunned by a report in the current issue of the US journal Foreign Affairs which suggests that due to the post-Soviet decay of Russia’s nuclear forces coupled with key advances in America’s strategic weaponry Russia has “become vulnerable to a US disarming attack.” Russian officials have attacked the article as a “provocation.”

“There is no doubt that such articles influence security thinking in the opposite country,” says Natalia Narochnitskaya, vice chair of the Duma’s International Affairs Committee. “Inevitably, it makes us think about how to respond. That’s a dangerous thing to start.”

The first cold war erupted amid Western alarm over the march of Soviet power into Eastern Europe after WWII, as Moscow staged coups against democratic governments and encouraged local Communist Parties to turn their countries into Soviet “satellites.” Ironically, Russians today report similar feelings of outrage at what they view as Western incursions into the post-Soviet region through pro-democracy revolts. “Russians feel that these [neighboring] countries are part of us, and they can’t accept that someone else wants to control them,” says Yevgeny Bazhanov, vice rector of the Diplomatic Academy, which trains Russian diplomats.

Mr. Bazhanov argues that Washington is misreading Russia’s efforts to restore national pride as “some kind of reversion” to the USSR. “There is no doubt that under Putin, Russia is more stable and better organized,” he says. “What we had in the 90s was chaos. When we hear US criticism of what’s going on here, it sounds to Russians as if Americans want us to be weak. They want to provoke chaos – not to democratize, but to destroy.”

And yet another serious caution confirming above opinions:

ANKARA, April 17 (RIA Novosti) – The United States is considering setting up three naval bases in Turkey, a Turkish newspaper reported Monday.

Cumhuriyet said the mooted bases would have the same legal status as the American-Turkish Air Force base at Incirlik, where the presence of Turkish representatives is mandated and all activities must be coordinated with the local authorities.

The paper said the port of Iskenderun on the Mediterranean coast and Urla in the Aegean Sea, as well as Mordogan on the Aegean Sea coast are possible locations for the bases, which are likely to host large naval ships including aircraft carriers.

The Americans have been searching for appropriate locations for the last eight months, the paper said, and had been considering the use of current Turkish ports or establishing new ones.

Initially, Washington wanted one of the three bases to be located on Turkey’s Black Sea coast. But the request was denied because Turkey is a signatory to the 1936 Montreux Convention, which regulates navigation in the Black Sea straits and bans non-littoral states from maintaining a permanent naval presence in the Black Sea.

so show me any other country which is buying this much quantity with its own money?(not with some one else ). alteast he is not wasting like soviet union.

Of course, I can’t show you any country similiar to the Soviet Union simply because any other country couldn’t compete with USSR in the field of military power!
On the other hand I can easily show you a lot of countries, like Russia, which didn’t buy any practically significant amount of new military equipment for years! But I think you can find them yourself. Try in Africa for example and have a good fun, buddy! 😀