- Russia to start licensed production of foreign military equipment
- Moscow Military District dumps all obsolete weaponry - commander
- Russia hopes to make $9.5 bln in 2011 arms sales (Update 1)
- Russian state arms exporter's monopoly upheld
The most advanced weapon systems manufactured for Russia's ground forces are below NATO and even Chinese standards and are expensive, GF chief Col. Gen. Alexander Postnikov said on Tuesday.
"The weapon models that are manufactured by our industry, including armor, artillery and small arms and light weapons, fail to meet the standards that exist in NATO and even China," he said at a session of the Defense and Security Committee of the upper house of the Russian parliament.
He said that Russia's most advanced tank, the T-90, is in fact a modification of the Soviet-era T-72 tank [entered production in 1971] but costs 118 million rubles (over $4 million) per unit.
"It would be easier for us to buy three Leopards [Germany's main battle tanks] with this money," Postnikov said.
MOSCOW, March 15 (RIA Novosti)
Add to blog
You may place this material on your blog by copying the link.
- suhailCol couldn't be more wrong.16:17, 15/03/2011GF chief Col. Gen. Alexander Postnikov couldn't have been more wrong about the Russian weapons.NATO has been defeated by rag tag bands of resistance who are using only weapons like Kalashnikov and rpg 7.Hezbollah defeated Israel by using old weapons like katyusha rockets,and modern ones like kornet,metis m,rpg 29s,tow,fagot,rpg7Vs and konkurs,at3 saggers which simply democratized the israelis.India has been purchasing weapons from Russia right from 1947.Today when weapons are purchased by India,it means that hose weapons are of a world class quality.China,Vietnam and Malaysia have purchased Russian weapons and they have categorically stated that the Russian weapons far outclass weapons made by other countries.The most recent country to vouch for this is Saudi Arabia after it purchased the T90 tanks.It wants more of them.
- gixxerDenial09:09, 17/03/2011It's funny how people will so quickly disregard what their own generals are actually saying :)
OK...disregarding the fact that Russia lost 14500 men in Afghanistan (just google that)....NATO is not in a state of all out war in Afghanistan so bringing that up to compare weapon systems is plain ridiculous. NATO is there to secure the country so that we can build the much needed pipelines. We have lost very few men and the point is it's a hearts and minds type of war. If NATO wanted to they could obliterate the whole country within a week with Armour/airpower although that wouldn't accomplish our goal and would bring international condemnation. No Challenger two tank has ever been taken out and one even sustained 40 Rpg's as well as a Milan round in 2004. Israel suffered against Hamas as they were not willing to accept causalities on the ground. Their population just wouldn't of tolerated that. Also, basing an opinion of weapon systems on the likes of China,Vietnam and Malaysia purchasing Russian systems is silly.
When have any of these countries seen action in the last 50 years?
Here's the truth....list of Arms producers in order of sales:-
This can be verified by just doing a quick search on google because this data is monitored by international groups (aka hippies lol).
- AbramsSucks(no title)17:10, 15/03/2011Atleast you are critical on yourself. But i think Russian Army over-underestimated themselves. T90 is very decent tank, Leopard 2 is one of ew tanks which is better..
- ruypenalvaNon Patriotic18:00, 15/03/2011Non patriotic the statements of that Col Gen. When Russia acquires a russian made weaponry it is given jobs to its countrymen not to german born workers. Who that is able to do satellites, Glonass, is able to do simply things like armor veicles. That smells to bribes.
- AbramsSucks(no title)19:38, 15/03/2011By the way Leopard 2A6 (newest version) cost $5.74 million per unit while T90 cost $2.23 million.
- mustafa123This is disappointing...23:53, 15/03/20111) He's being an alarmist. The whole point of him saying this is to try to secure more government spending. The navy did this back in 2007, say that "The Russian Navy will cease to exist in 5 years," and then the navy got around 200 billion dollars. General Postnikov is just trying to get the same publicity and attract more spending. All I can say is, this is very unprofessional, it's a shame he has to be so unrealistically alarmist.
2) Worse than NATO? The Georgian military back in 2008 was equipped and trained to NATO standard, and Russia still wiped the floor with their army, even after a surprise attack. The Russian managed a 3 to 1 kill ratio in that war because Russian training and Russian equipment is superior. During the war, all NATO weapons failed, and Georgia was forced into using Soviet weapons. Again, General Postnikov is being alarmist.
3) Worse than China? This is a joke.
4)4 million dollars for a T-90? Then why on earth are we charing 2 million per tank to the Indians? According to the Russian budget the T-90A only costs 2 million, the T-90M shouldn't exceed 3 million. And three Leopards to one t-90? This is a joke. There is a reason, after all, why almost all Leopards sold are just German surplus from the Cold War, because otherwise they wouldn't be worth the price tag. The T-90 on the other hand is by far the most popular tank today on the international market.
5) The reason he mentions the Leopard is specific, is because he wants the Russian government to acquire Rhienmetall. Russia won't. America won't allow its colonies to transfer technologies to Russia, as seen in the ICQ ordeal, and that was just software for chatting via internet, hardly of military importance.
These are just a few things I can think of on the spot. I am really disappointed in Postnikov, but if it secures more spending, and helps overcome the various roadblocks that the ground forces have had on deciding exactly what to procure and reform, then fine. He still should have done it in a more professional manner though.
- dimitriusobvious..20:30, 16/03/2011thsi si the reality the last time greece purched ruusina millitary stuf they lasted 2 years.. armored vehicles and amunition.. all storrage and then sold for nothing.. only tor missile s are prooved reliable sinc e now and ships carrying vehicles..
- dimitriusrussina supply20:32, 16/03/2011russia ha s a difficulty in supplying teh purchasers with high level amunition on every stuff even the mig 31 is not reliable.. as for the bmp-3 its designed for russina steppes and not for ordinary ground,,
- dimitriusscalp naval20:34, 16/03/2011The first test firing of the SCALP Naval missile was carried out successfully by the French DGA (Direction Générale de l’Armement) in May 2010. This successful test firing, carried out using a FREMM frigate configuration from a production series Sylver ® A70 launcher, validated the weapon system’s definition as well as the technology options selected by MBDA.
FREMM is expected to be equipped with the SCALP Naval system as of 2013 and Barracuda as of 2015.
- dimitrius(no title)20:36, 16/03/2011russia is far behind nato in aircraft carriers and missile systemsSaudi Arabia will equip its Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft with standoff, MBDA Storm Shadow precision attack weapons. The weapons package ordered for the RSAF will also include the Brimstone anti-armor missile. For the air-to-air role the Saudis opted for the IRIS-T short range AAM, from Diehl BGT Defence, this missile is also being used by the German Air Force. According to news sources, the weapons package for the Typhoons could be worth over $1.8 billion.
- dimitrius(no title)20:51, 16/03/2011t90
The Russians desperately needed to mount a response after the 1991 Gulf War, when the Americans stormed through the deserts of Kuwait and Iraq. The Russian economy’s defense sector was reeling, after the American military’s Abrams M1A1 Main Battle Tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles left the battlefield littered with literally hundreds of burnt-out and charred carcasses of once mighty Russian T-72 and T-80 tanks. As if the Russians weren’t already in bad enough shape after the collapse of the Soviet Union, now the international image of their largest defense export, the T-72 tank, and their newest model, the T-80, as no more than a flaming hulk…
Chinese Type 99 Tank – Newest Armor of China
Posted by Andrew On December - 13 - 2007
Type 99Western forces beware, the Chinese have fielded the most advanced tank yet! Well, only the most advanced in China that is. Following in the ancient Chinese tradition of quantity over quality and cheap products, the Chinese have developed their own 3rd generation battle tank that they believe is the answer to the Western nations’ superior tank designs. Likewise, they also used their other ancient tradition of ripping off western designs to compensate for their lack of engineering ability in the design of this tank. Yes, the Type 99 tank does possess many up-to-date gimmicks like a laser awareness system to…
German Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank
Posted by Andrew On October - 16 - 2007
German Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank
Manufacturer: Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW)
Leopard 2 Main Battle TankSo the Germans have a tank that is comparable to the American Abrams line of tanks. Big deal right? Of course not! The Leopard is fighting side by side with the American Abrams in Afghanistan and Iraq right now! The Canadians in particular have deployed many Leopards to Afghanistan for combat roles, and the opinions on which tank is better are mixed. It basically goes both ways, each tank has its pros and cons, and in the end; they both are equally as effective against the threats they face there. The similarities…
Abrams Tank Gets Stuck
Posted by Capt. On May - 22 - 2007
Abrams Tank Gets Stuck in the Mud.
Click here to see other Main Battle Tanks
The British Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank – British innovation in armored vehicles tested in Iraq
Posted by Andrew On May - 14 - 2007
British Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank
Manufacturer: BAE Systems Land and Armaments [LSE: BA.L]
Photo Crown Copyright/MOD
The British Challenger 2 Main battle tank has several innovations unique to its design. One of the foremost innovations devised by the Brits is a type of armor known as Chobham armor, which is a layered matrix of steel and ceramics. In fact, incorporating layers of ceramic into steel has been a newer technique of strengthening steel, (the strongest knife blades are now layered steel and ceramics, because the ceramics provide an added measure of flexibility. The Chobham armor is known to perform especially…
The French Leclerc Main Battle Tank – Video of an MBT to reckon with…
Posted by Andrew On May - 9 - 2007
Manufacturer: GIAT Industries
The French, their military history aside, actually are widely known in Europe for their innovative and solid armored vehicle designs. In the mid 1980’s, Britain introduced its Challenger 2 main battle tank, Germany rolled out the impressive Leopard 2, and the US unveiled its M1A1 Abrams tank. The world was being introduced to battle machinery that combined decades of design research and cutting edge electronics systems. Not wanting to be left behind, the French decided to join the party. They had initially planned on simply importing the German Leopard 2 tank, but after some cost forecasting and…
The Main Battle Tank of America – The M1-A1 and M1-A2 Abrams Tank Video
Posted by Andrew On April - 19 - 2007
Manufacturer: General Dynamics [NYSE: GD]
Some countries excel in the creation of different things. It just so happens that the US excels in the creation of the machines of war. Aside from being the richest country in the world and having the Cold War spurring the development of said military technology, the Abrams tank was truly a revolutionary design when unveiled in the 80s. Despite whatever claims that certain tank exporting countries have about their newly designed next-generation tanks, none of them, aside from a distant second with the British Challenger 2 main…
Israeli Defense Forces Merkava 4 Main Battle Tank – Merkava 4 Tank Video
Posted by Andrew On April - 11 - 2007
The Israeli Defence Forces recently implemented a modernization drive on their main battle tank program. Their newest design, uveiled in 2002, features some technological advances forged from the fire of the battlefields of the Middle East. This video of the Merkava 4 main battle tank displays the blast-proof ammunition container, and the ability to target and track multiple targets while on the move, even helicopters. Likely the best features of the Merkava 4 are that it has one of the smallest profiles on the battlefield, the sloped turret angles allow for this advantage. Additionally, the Merkava 4 actually has a…
Japan’s Type 90 Main Battle Tank – New Japanese Self-Defense Forces Tank Video
Posted by Andrew On April - 4 - 2007
The Japanese Type 90 tank rivals any other main battle tank on the modern battlefield. The Type 90 incorporates several newer technologies, some that are even lacking in other nation’s tanks. For example, the Japanese employed an auto-loading cannon, which reduces the crew requirement and also increases the tanks rate of fire. Likewise, the electro optic thermal sighting system has a passive viewing mode, which enables them to target the infrared signals emitted from enemy vehicles rather than the type 90 having to target the enemy on its own. The type 90 employs the Japanese…
South Korean XK-2 Tank Video – New South Korean Tank with Hydraulics!
Posted by Andrew On April - 2 - 2007
The South Korean Army has developed a next generation tank, the XK-2 Blank Panther that incorporates some interesting advances in technology. The tank’s most impressive new features are its amphibious capability, active defense system, and handling/suspension technology. First of all, the tank is capable of driving completely underwater for river crossings. Likewise, the tank has an active defense system that can shoot down incoming missiles and rocket-propelled grenades. Obviously, the South Koreans are on the frontier of next generation tank technology. With comparable optoelectronic sighting, navigation, and fire and control systems to the US M1-A2…
- dimitriusiraqi war20:57, 16/03/2011The Iraqi Army had a considerable array of tanks, mostly purchased from the former Soviet Union. Chief among these were about 500 T-72's. These modern Soviet tanks were armed with an excellent 125mm smoothbore weapon and had many of the same advanced features found on the Abrams. Despite it's advanced design, the T-72 proved to be inferior to the M1A1's deployed during the Gulf War, and compared more closely with the older M60A3 tanks used there by the US Marine Corps. In addition, Iraq had a number of earlier Soviet models: perhaps as many as 1,600 T-62 and about 700 T-54, both of which were developed in the 1960's. These tanks were widely regarded as clearly inferior to the Abrams, but were expected to be highly reliable mechanically. The Gulf War provided military tacticians with an opportunity to evaluate developments in tank design that had not been available since World War II.
- shanksinhaPlainly Wrong11:46, 21/03/2011The good general obviously has a personal agenda to grind here. His statement is full of obvious falsifications like the T-90 being costlier than Leopard 2. And when he says Russian euipment is inferior to china, it comes out like a bad joke. In fact most of Russian equipment is comparable to NATO hardware, they just dont have the same kind of hollywood promotion techniques to help boost their "media-image".
I am from India and our armed forces has been successfully using Russian hardware for past 50 years. Apart from supply chain and spares issue, they are top notch. T-90S is entering service in Indian Army in large numbers (more than 1000), and is proving to be a highly competant platfrom with excellent combination of night-fighting and missile firing capability.
- amerikanskii44Agree16:15, 15/03/2012I think Col. Gen Postnikov is correct in certain areas. His expense statement appear somewhat brash, I think he was merely indicating upgrading the existing T-72's to T-90 levels was a more cost effective move. He was indicating that for the price range they were spending, they would get a better value in buying a German Leopard. Though it has a higher price tag than the T-90 or the upgrade for the T-72, Postnikov believed that the Leopard would be an improvement over each, filling a need in a short period of time. The money and time necessary to improve Russian armor would far outweigh the cost of buying some Leopards. The T-72/T-90 family of tanks is based on Soviet armor doctrine, which is in need of definite updates. The idea of matching every western tank with faster, lighter, low profile tanks is not of strategic significance in the modern battlefield. More survivable tank with a heavier gun supported by more agile and maneuverable armored vehicles has bee victorious in several modern international conflicts. Granted, for example, the T-72 tanks faced by U.S. Abrams in Iraq and Iraqi Merkava elsewhere were knocked down export versions manned by less reliable crews with dated and hodgepodge equipment, I cannot see how a Russian manned and armed T-72 or T-90 could feasibly go toe to toe with a heavier western MBT. I understand the merit of tank defense systems including reactive armor, however this lends to a theory of compensating for a weakness with questionable and possibly unreliable technology. In all I do not think that the Russian weapons industry is worthy of all of Postnikov's criticism, however I think he wishes to initiate an impetus for change in Russia tank doctrine and Russian tank design. In World War II, the war which realigned the world power structure leaving two principle powers, it was due in large part to the superiority of Soviet/Russian tanks which carved a bath to Berlin and international prominence for the Soviet Union. This superiority was due to innovative and forward thinking designs which took into account real battle-field experience (in Spanish Civil War, Kolkin-Gol, Winter War, and early days of Barbarossa) and made practical improvements and breakthroughs in technology. Russia now should look at the experiences gained from seeing the results of wars in the Middle East, and Russian experiences in Caucuses. (in both Chechnya and Georgia) if they wish to remain relevant as a world military power.
Any response would likely boomerang on Russia – the partnership between Rosneft and ExxonMobil is a case in point. The United States has hit Russia with a third round of sanctions. This time the Americans went with a higher caliber weapon, targeting Russia’s biggest energy companies (Rosneft and Novatek) and banks (VEB and Gazprombank).