Russia to cut military spending

[Vympel]

Link

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia is cutting military spending amid a deepening economic crisis but this will not affect purchases of new weapons and ammunition, the head of Russia's military said on Wednesday.

"We have revised a number of items," Army General Nikolai Makarov, the armed forces' chief of general staff, told Reuters after closed-door hearings on army reform in the lower house of parliament, the State Duma.

"But I believe that on the issues we had wanted to resolve first, in particular, (new) weapons and ammunition, we will be fully covered. We will keep them at the planned level."

Communist deputy Viktor Ilyukhin told Reuters the government aims to cut the 2009 military budget by 15 percent. He said Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov did not tell deputies which spending items would be trimmed.

Russian business daily Vedomosti said the original 2009 budget, now being revised, had set the Defense Ministry's budget at 1.376 trillion troubles ($38.31 billion).

"Probably not a single ministry would agree to trim its spending," Makarov said. "But judging by the real economic situation of the country ... if there is just no cash, we simply cannot ask for it."

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has said Russia plans to spend more than 4 trillion troubles ($111.4 billion) in 2009-11 to purchase new weapons, and the bulk of the sum will be spent to modernize the armed forces.

The move was apparently prompted by Russia's five-day war with neighboring Georgia last August when Tbilisi tried to retake its rebel South Ossetia province by force.

Russia repelled the Georgian attack, but the war exposed a Soviet-style army with obsolete equipment, poorly coordinated command, outdated communications and a lack of spy drones and high-precision bombs.

Addressing Russia's leading arms designers and producers later on Wednesday, Putin said budget cuts would not affect this year's planned purchases of new weapons for the armed forces.

(Reporting by Dmitry Solovyov; Additional reporting by Aydar Buribayev; Editing by Janet Lawrence)

I resent the "Soviet-style army" as if it's a bad thing - an equivalent Soviet force from 1989-1991 would make mincemeat of the Russian forces arrayed against Georgia in almost every department ...

In any event, I find it ironic that Russia cuts its military spending by 15% in a financial crisis but the USA, AFAIK, isn't cutting anything.

[K. A. Pital]

...an equivalent Soviet force from 1989-1991 would make mincemeat of the Russian forces arrayed against Georgia in almost every department ...

You see, Georgia utterly lost but they still won since they exposed the Russians as backwards mongolo-communist hordes. Isn't that clear? God I loathe that crypto-racist crap-talk in military matters. It also indicates that reporters cannot understand how a military functions and that "old" does not mean "ineffective" or "obsolete"; well, that's nothing new.

Too bad for the Army though, cutting down on procurements just means the degradation process will still creep, even the stated procurements were not enough for a decent re-armament tempo.

[CJvR]

Looks like the Russian carrier fleet got torpedoed before it even was laid down.

[Guardsman Bass]

So it's procurement and training that will be cut, then? I figure as much from this nugget:

Addressing Russia's leading arms designers and producers later on Wednesday, Putin said budget cuts would not affect this year's planned purchases of new weapons for the armed forces.

That sucks for the Russians, then (at least those not in the business of designing and producing arms for this year).

In any event, I find it ironic that Russia cuts its military spending by 15% in a financial crisis but the USA, AFAIK, isn't cutting anything.

One of the side-benefits of having the one of the most widely accepted currency and among the world's safest Treasury Bonds. We can more or less just print money to pay for our stuff, as long as we don't do too much of it, and remember to contract the money supply a bit once the economy gets going to prevent inflation.

[Vympel]

How can procurement be cut when the budget cuts are explicitly stated as not affecting the year's planned purchases of new weapons? New weapons = procurement.

[Serafina]

One of the side-benefits of having the one of the most widely accepted currency and among the world's safest Treasury Bonds. We can more or less just print money to pay for our stuff, as long as we don't do too much of it, and remember to contract the money supply a bit once the economy gets going to prevent inflation.

Well, in the oppinion of a lot of people, you ARE doing it too much.
And its more than just "printing money", its also making a lot do depts.

Oh, and the US can not afford a defense cut - they have two wars to fight, after all. Russia has no such problems (or is at least not as strained as the US).

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Well, in the oppinion of a lot of people, you ARE doing it too much.
And its more than just "printing money", its also making a lot do depts.

Oh, and the US can not afford a defense cut - they have two wars to fight, after all. Russia has no such problems (or is at least not as strained as the US).

Oh the US does. It's so busy wasting money on useless ships and useless vehicles, one wonders how much longer the US can keep up that level of spending now with taxes going down the chute.

[Sidewinder]

Looks like the Russian carrier fleet got torpedoed before it even was laid down.

Maybe the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or Collective Security Treaty Organisation can work out a deal, similar to the NATO Strategic Airlift Capability or Early Warning & Control Force, in which the member states combine resources to jointly buy and operate high-dollar military equipment?

[Guardsman Bass]

How can procurement be cut when the budget cuts are explicitly stated as not affecting the year's planned purchases of new weapons? New weapons = procurement.

My bad.

So what are they going to cut? I also mentioned training - and then there's pay.

[FedRebel]

In any event, I find it ironic that Russia cuts its military spending by 15% in a financial crisis but the USA, AFAIK, isn't cutting anything.

Poor bastards, spent themselves to death again

Seriously that kind of comparison isn't all that apt, 25 years ago sure, but today...

The US is a Superpower preoccupied with literally blowing the crap out of adobe huts in the third world and building overpriced, overcomplicated vehicles that don't work

Russia is a former Superpower trying to grow its balls back and regain the status it lost, problem is in military spending they went a little too fast and were looking too shortsightedly at the sharp rise in oil prices a little ways back (they thought the prices would stay high and they'd make out like bandits exporting their oil)

[Posner]

God I loathe that crypto-racist crap-talk in military matters.

Why do you rush to embrace victimhood? Why are you making it a matter of race instead of a matter of nationalism?

[Sea Skimmer]

How can procurement be cut when the budget cuts are explicitly stated as not affecting the year's planned purchases of new weapons? New weapons = procurement.

Well for starters, you’re just totally ignoring the fact that the largest costs for running a military aren’t weapons and ammo, it’s paying for soap, fuel and basic supplies and spare parts all of which is procurement too. By reducing training and air force flying hours for example, Russia could cut procurement spending and preserve cash for longer term weapons projects that would be severally disrupted by even a one year interruption in funding. Things like the Su-34, S-400 and naval buildup. If this means the 789th reserve armored mortar battalion can't get fuel to drive to a north Siberian training range to practice defending airfields then so be it.

[K. A. Pital]

God I loathe that crypto-racist crap-talk in military matters.

Why do you rush to embrace victimhood? Why are you making it a matter of race instead of a matter of nationalism?

So what? Nationalism, when it exists in the form of bad attitude towards other nations, is the same as racism. Basically, nationalism is the "respected face" of racism - "oh, but I'm not racist, I'm just nationalist". What's the difference between racism and hostile nationalism as forms of denigrating attitude towards other nations or entire ethnicities? I doubt there's any.

Though you're right in one thing - that can be simply stupidity, not racism. However, it's also true that racism or nationalism is a manifestation of stupidity, because smart people generally don't fall for such bunk.

[Axis Kast]

God I loathe that crypto-racist crap-talk in military matters.

The denigratory reference toward a "Soviet-style" anything is probably an artifact of the widespread assumption in the West that everything Communist is inherently ramshackle and inefficient. Given the fact that when the layman says "Soviet," he also usually says, "Something about two decades old...," you've got a recipe for assumptions about diminished capabilities.

[Posner]

God I loathe that crypto-racist crap-talk in military matters.

Why do you rush to embrace victimhood? Why are you making it a matter of race instead of a matter of nationalism?

So what? Nationalism, when it exists in the form of bad attitude towards other nations, is the same as racism. Basically, nationalism is the "respected face" of racism - "oh, but I'm not racist, I'm just nationalist". What's the difference between racism and hostile nationalism as forms of denigrating attitude towards other nations or entire ethnicities? I doubt there's any.

Though you're right in one thing - that can be simply stupidity, not racism. However, it's also true that racism or nationalism is a manifestation of stupidity, because smart people generally don't fall for such bunk.

So you think that a (faulty) assumption that a nation's military is second rate is a sign of nationalism on the same level of racism?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

So you think that a (faulty) assumption that a nation's military is second rate is a sign of nationalism on the same level of racism?

What exactly are you alluding here? The term "Soviet style" is definitely not only denigrating the Soviet Military but also the present day military of Russia. Sure it is in a bad state, but I think the writers, in their amateurism, are either ill-informed or attempting some sensationalism. Russia for example, has precision weapons, but all precision bombs need some form of external feedback to work.

[Posner]

So you think that a (faulty) assumption that a nation's military is second rate is a sign of nationalism on the same level of racism?

What exactly are you alluding here? The term "Soviet style" is definitely not only denigrating the Soviet Military but also the present day military of Russia. Sure it is in a bad state, but I think the writers, in their amateurism, are either ill-informed or attempting some sensationalism. Russia for example, has precision weapons, but all precision bombs need some form of external feedback to work.

Sorry that I was unclear. I agree that the writers are way off on the state of the Russian military. I just don't see that as a sign of crypto-racism.

[Axis Kast]

I'm with Posner.

Most people hear "Soviet-era" and begin going back in time. How many people, reporters included, do you think really "get" the long service lives of tanks and other combat vehicles? Combined with the fairly typical assumptions I mentioned above, it's hard not to call this human error.

[Ryan Thunder]

The US is a Superpower preoccupied with literally blowing the crap out of adobe huts in the third world and building overpriced, overcomplicated vehicles that don't work

By all means, please expand on this.

You'll probably just run away like the last time you pulled this bullshit, though.

[Pelranius]

Looks like the Russian carrier fleet got torpedoed before it even was laid down.

Maybe the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or Collective Security Treaty Organisation can work out a deal, similar to the NATO Strategic Airlift Capability or Early Warning & Control Force, in which the member states combine resources to jointly buy and operate high-dollar military equipment?

The Chinese might not be too happy about footing a huge bill for aircraft carriers, since those aren't really relevant to their own defense concerns right now, unless it involves massive transfer of technology.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The Chinese might not be too happy about footing a huge bill for aircraft carriers, since those aren't really relevant to their own defense concerns right now, unless it involves massive transfer of technology.

Aren't the Chinese building their own carriers?

The US is a Superpower preoccupied with literally blowing the crap out of adobe huts in the third world and building overpriced, overcomplicated vehicles that don't work

By all means, please expand on this.

You'll probably just run away like the last time you pulled this bullshit, though.

Eh? Last I checked, the FCS is still a big black hole for money, and the LCS is a really expensive for a ship of that size.

[Ryan Thunder]

Eh? Last I checked, the FCS is still a big black hole for money, and the LCS is a really expensive for a ship of that size.

Wow, two projects of several, one of which isn't actually useless. How damning.

Also, FCS isn't even supposed to begin production for another eight years, and won't even be deployed until 2030.

[Axis Kast]

The Soviets were not well-known for the frequency of technology transfer. During the Cold War, shipments of spare parts were a major mechanism of leverage over allies. Eastern European countries were sometimes exempted, but India is the only other major producer that really jumps to mind.

It's unlikely that the Russians will really collaborate with the Chinese to product anything that requires extensive technology transfer. They've already been burned on reverse-engineering, and a lot of their procurement doubtlessly has to do with anticipating a strategic challenge in Siberia and the Pacific.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Wow, two projects of several, one of which isn't actually useless. How damning.

Also, FCS isn't even supposed to begin production for another eight years, and won't even be deployed until 2030.

How about Crusader, Pegasus and Osprey? There are plenty of programmes that went nowhere or were utterly wasted efforts thanks to fuck-ups in the military-industrial complex. Thrift is something that needs to come back into vogue in the US, and PDQ.

[Ma Deuce]

Wow, two projects of several, one of which isn't actually useless. How damning.

LCS certainly isn't worth the money put into it, especially considering it's piss-poor armament for it's size, necessitated by the ridiculous 50-knot speed requirement.

Also, FCS isn't even supposed to begin production for another eight years, and won't even be deployed until 2030.

And yet it has already eaten up more than two and a half times the total program costs of the F-22 (including procurement), despite having not yet produced a single prototype. This for a frickin' armored fighting vehicle, which normally cost a fraction as much as fighter planes to develop and build. And those are only two examples: There's a lot of fat you could trim from the US military's budget with no real loss in capability, though some things would be politically impossible (like busting the Marine Corps down to their rightful place as dedicated naval infantry), and unfortunately there's stuff that many politicians would consider "fat" that really isn't, like the F-22.