Military Review

The main trends in the rearmament of the Russian army in 2011-2020

44

R-36M - in the past the main missile of the Strategic Missile Forces


Since 2008, a large-scale reform of the armed forces has been carried out, and since 2011, the State Rearmament Program has been carried out. Both sets of activities were completed in 2020 with notable success. Thanks to them, over the past decade, the appearance and capabilities of the army have changed for the better in the most serious way. At the same time, in the course of updating weapons and equipment, several key trends and approaches were observed that determined the results of the reform.

At the level of concepts


By the time the reform was launched in 2008-2020. The Russian army had accumulated a number of serious problems, due to which the real combat capability was insufficient, and the costs turned out to be unjustifiably high. In this regard, within the framework of the new reform, a set of fundamental measures was proposed: it was necessary to reduce the size of the armed forces to the required level, restructure the organizational and staff structure of the troops and the administrative apparatus, optimize the system of education and training, etc.

Some of these steps were taken at the first stage of the reform, in 2008-2011. Some of these measures justified themselves and still have a positive effect on the state and capabilities of the army. Other decisions had to be canceled, and then the old structures were restored or new ones created. During the first stage of the reform, the foundation was laid for the next two stages, and in addition, it became possible to launch the next State Arms Program.


"Yars" in mobile design - the basis of the modern grouping of the Strategic Missile Forces

The program provided for the production of the transfer of new samples to the troops. weapons and technology, as well as the modernization of existing products. Directly for the purchase and modernization of the material part in 2011-2020. it was planned to spend more than 19 trillion rubles. In parallel with the procurement, the optimization and modernization of the defense industry was carried out, which required several more trillions.

In the course of the state program, measures were taken to improve the interaction between the armed forces and industry. So, the military acceptance was restored. Introduced mechanisms to control product prices. As reported by the Ministry of Defense, only in 2018-20. with their help, it was possible to exclude unjustified price increases and save more than 550 billion rubles. This money remained in the State Program and was used for new purchases.

Based on the results of all events in 2008-2020, we managed to fulfill all the tasks set. By the end of last year, the share of modern weapons reached the target level of 70%, and in some areas, significantly higher indicators were obtained. In particular, the Strategic Missile Forces carried out an almost complete upgrade of weapons.

Strategic forces


Within the framework of the reform and the State Program, more attention was paid to the development of strategic nuclear forces. At the same time, since 2010, such processes had to be carried out taking into account the START III treaty. Objective restrictions did not prevent the implementation of most of the plans and turn the strategic nuclear forces into the most powerful and modern component of the armed forces.


Modernized tank T-72B3 and its crew

By the beginning of the tenth years, the basis of the weapons of the Strategic Missile Forces was made up of missile systems produced in the days of the USSR. The newest were the Topol and Topol-M systems in stationary and mobile versions; the introduction of new complexes "Yars" began. To date, the number and share of old R-36M and UR-100N UTTKh have significantly decreased, the end of Topol operation is approaching, and Yars has come out on top in terms of quantity. The introduction of fundamentally new complexes "Avangard" has begun.

It is important that the Strategic Missile Forces were updated not only through the purchase of missiles. New objects of various kinds were built and various auxiliary models were adopted. Thus, the stability of mobile complexes has now been increased due to the presence of Typhoon-M anti-sabotage vehicles, Foliage demining complexes and other products.

The naval component of the strategic nuclear forces is developing through the construction of new strategic missile-carrying submarines, project 955 Borey. During the period of the State Program 2011-2020. the industry has delivered four such boats. Also, tests have been completed and the Bulava missile has been put into service for new submarines. These measures make it possible to gradually abandon older SSBNs and their SLBMs without losing their combat effectiveness.


BTR-82A - an example of a successful modernization of the existing model

The development of the air component of the nuclear forces in the recent past was carried out mainly through the modernization of missile-carrying aircraft. By the end of the decade, it was possible to launch the processes of restoring production of the Tu-160, which makes it possible to count on the appearance of new machines - after several decades of waiting. New models of air-launched cruise missiles with a special warhead have been developed and put into service. Their non-nuclear versions have already been tested in a real operation.

Land vehicles


The ground, airborne and coastal troops are armed with tens of thousands of various combat and auxiliary vehicles - armored vehicles, artillery, command posts, cars, etc. The development of this park has been carried out in several main ways and has been generally successful.

The purchases of samples of new production took place in several areas and differed markedly from each other. Thus, it was possible to purchase large quantities of cheaper and easier-to-manufacture automotive equipment, which had a positive effect on the aging fleet. Completely new combat vehicles, more complex and expensive, were purchased in smaller numbers. A noticeable part of such purchases consisted of new types of armored vehicles for the Airborne Forces.

Repair and deep modernization became the main way of fleet renewal. So, the most widespread a tank in the army, the updated T-72B3 gradually became. Similar projects for the modernization of the T-80 and T-90 have been developed and brought to a series. The same processes are observed in the field of armored vehicles for the infantry: in the units, the modernized BTR-82AM, rebuilt from the available BTR-80, are massively used. This approach allows you to save on the construction of new equipment, but get the most out of existing products.


The most massive modern fighter - Su-35S

In the past decade, the development of several promising families of armored vehicles began at once, now preparing for adoption. They can be viewed as yet another trend in the development of military equipment, creating a reserve for the next few decades.

Military aviation


In the area aviation the past decade has seen significant progress. Projects launched in the 2011s or earlier have gone through all the necessary stages and made it to the series. In 2020-34. The Air Force / Aerospace Forces received hundreds of newly built aircraft. Purchased were Su-30 bombers, Su-35 and Su-XNUMXS fighters. In parallel, the repair and modernization of the existing equipment was carried out.

Similar processes have been observed in the field of helicopters. New attack Mi-28 and Ka-52, as well as transport Mi-8/17 were actively purchased. New modifications of this technique are being developed with various differences and capabilities. In the near future they will be brought to service.

Until recently, the development of long-range aviation was associated only with the modernization of equipment. It was only by the end of the tenth years that the process of building new Tu-160s was launched. A lot of efforts required the restoration of the production of transport Il-76 of the latest modification, but such equipment is already being supplied to the troops.


Su-57 - the future of front-line aviation

The past decade has been a period of rapid development of unmanned aircraft. At the beginning of the tenth years, only light UAVs entered service, incl. foreign development, and by the end of the decade it was possible to develop a lot of our own samples of all classes. The operation of the first reconnaissance and strike complexes of the heavy class has already begun, and a number of new models are expected to enter service.

In the recent past, the groundwork was created for the further development of aviation. So, the PAK FA project went through the main stages and successfully reached mass production. Mass deliveries of the Su-57 will begin in the near future. Work continues on the PAK DA bomber, the PAK TA transport aircraft and the PAK DP interceptor. All these projects were launched within the framework of the 2011-2020 State Program. and will be fully implemented in the future.

Fleet development


The growth of the defense budget had a positive effect on the development of the Navy. It became possible to speed up the already begun construction of ships, reduce the time for scheduled repairs and lay down new combat units. Thanks to this, in the last decade, the numerical strength of the surface and submarine forces has grown, as well as the auxiliary fleet has grown. However, the complexity of the construction and development of the Navy leads to the persistence of certain problems.


Diesel-electric submarine "Novorossiysk", representative of the mass project 636.3

Due to the complexity and financial constraints, the construction of rank 1 ships is very limited. In this category, new submarines of various projects are widely represented, while in the field of surface ships, the results are much more modest. Destroyers of project 1 are assigned to rank 22350 - two of these ships are already in service and eight more will be transferred to the Navy later. In other classes, the situation is more modest. So far, we are talking only about the modernization of large ships.

It is possible to build destroyers, patrol boats, small missile ships, diesel submarines, etc. in fairly large series. At the same time, the lack of displacement is compensated by modern missile weapons. One of the main innovations of the last decade was the "Caliber" complex with a high impact potential, confirmed in practice.

In the last State Armaments Program, it was possible to find opportunities for a major upgrade of the auxiliary fleet... Rescue and hydrographic vessels, transports and tankers for various purposes, etc. have been built or are under construction.

[Center]
Destroyer "Admiral Gorshkov" pr. 22350

Some of the projects launched in the previous State Program pass into the period of the new one. So, the long-awaited laying of the first domestic universal amphibious ships took place. The construction of warships of a number of types continues. Research work on the theme of the aircraft carrier fleet has intensified.

Seizing opportunities


Having survived two decades of problems and decline, by the early XNUMXs the Russian armed forces had received a number of new opportunities of all kinds. In the following years, reforms were carried out with a number of changes in all key areas, and in parallel, the rearmament and modernization of the defense industry was carried out.

The first large and long-term State Armaments Program has been completed to date with positive results. The current state of armaments and equipment in our army no longer causes such concern as it did 10-15 years ago. On the contrary, there are numerous reasons for pride, and the renewed army has demonstrated its capabilities in a real conflict.

The observed processes and achievements show that the methods and approaches used in the previous State Program, on the whole, justified themselves. They ensured the solution of urgent tasks of restoring the defense capability, and also created a groundwork for further development. It is obvious that in the future the processes of reforming and rearming the army will continue. However, they no longer require record spending associated with an increase in the pace of work. Maintaining and building up key indicators can now be carried out without rush jobs.
Author:
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, UAC
44 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 19 March 2021 04: 12
    +1
    Rearmament is good, especially against the backdrop of the enemy fuss around Russia.


    In the photo, any T-72, but not the T-72B3!
    1. Odysseus
      Odysseus 19 March 2021 04: 25
      -2
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      In the photo, any T-72, but not the T-72B3!

      You just don't understand. The rearmament from the T-72 to the T-72 (which was considered a massive, simple, consumable tank back in the 70s of the 20th century) clearly indicates the "successful rearmament of the army" and about the "rearmament and modernization of the defense industry."
      Moreover, the rearmament is so successful that in the future there is no need for "record spending associated with an increase in the pace of work." Really, why? After all, the rearmament is mostly brilliantly completed.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 19 March 2021 04: 35
        +3
        Quote: Odyssey
        You just don't understand. Rearmament from T-72 to T-72
        Don't lie, modernization already available samples not really rearmament, although an important part of it.

        Quote: Odyssey
        T-72 (which was considered a massive, simple, consumable tank back in the 70s of the 20th century)
        Well, yes, "Abrams" and "Leopard" svezhachok already reduces cheekbones.
        1. Odysseus
          Odysseus 19 March 2021 05: 09
          -1
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          It is not necessary to lie, the modernization of the existing models is not exactly rearmament, although it is an important part of it.

          So you yourself showed the T-72. You, as a non-commissioned officer's widow, whip yourself up. Show "not available samples" and we will rejoice together.
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Well, yes, "Abrams" and "Leopard" svezhachok already reduces cheekbones.

          In the garden there is an elder, and in Kiev there is an uncle. What does Abrams have to do with it? Which, by the way, is 8 years younger and which, by its concept, cannot be called a mass mobilization tank. If we had been armed with M2A2, we would have read on VO that this is a 22nd generation tank with which it is possible to conquer Alpha Centauri.
          1. Sling cutter
            Sling cutter 19 March 2021 05: 27
            +12
            Quote: Odyssey
            Show "not available samples" and we will rejoice together.

            Colleague, you are pouring pound spoons of salt on the tele-wounds of our putriotic-minded members of the forum, who are told that the Il-76md and Tu-160m are not modernization, but completely new samples. lol
            1. Odysseus
              Odysseus 19 March 2021 05: 39
              0
              Quote: Stroporez
              Colleague, you are pouring pound spoons of salt on the tele-wounds of our putriotic-minded members of the forum,

              I myself am ultra-patriotic. I just try not to confuse love for the Motherland with love for His Excellency.
              Returning to the topic, objectively speaking, there is one branch of the military where the rearmament is actually carried out as a whole, this is army aviation. Of course, there are problems there and there are significant problems, but in general, here, indeed, the main stage has been passed. What can you only be glad about.
              Otherwise, the state of affairs ranges from: rearmament has just begun (ground forces and, God forgive me, the fleet), it is coming, but there are many problems and work ahead (air defense and strategic missile forces).
              1. Sling cutter
                Sling cutter 19 March 2021 05: 43
                +15
                Quote: Odyssey
                I just try not to confuse love for the Motherland with love for His Excellency.

                Totally agree!
                Quote: Odyssey
                objectively speaking, there is one branch of the military where the rearmament is actually carried out as a whole - this is army aviation

                Namely, everything needs to be assessed soberly and carefully, and not like many with caps flying into the sky for any reason.
              2. Aag
                Aag 19 March 2021 07: 44
                +4
                What's wrong with the Strategic Missile Forces?
                I agree that there is a lot of work, but in terms of rearmament, against the general background, it is quite successful.
                1. ccsr
                  ccsr 19 March 2021 12: 48
                  +4
                  Quote: AAG
                  What's wrong with the Strategic Missile Forces?

                  It is also incomprehensible to me, given the fact that the Americans would never have repelled a massive launch of even old missiles.
                  Quote: AAG
                  .But, in terms of rearmament, against the general background, it is quite successful.

                  Judging by the new models, the rearmament of the Strategic Missile Forces was indeed the most successful in our armed forces, and this is good news.
                  1. Odysseus
                    Odysseus 20 March 2021 23: 41
                    -1
                    Quote: ccsr
                    Judging by the new models, the rearmament of the Strategic Missile Forces was indeed the most successful in our armed forces, and this is good news.

                    Uh, what "new samples" do you mean? Poplar in the next variation? A UR-100 rocket from the Brezhnev era? We are talking about reality, not about PR for "dear Russians".
                    1. ccsr
                      ccsr 21 March 2021 10: 52
                      0
                      Quote: Odyssey
                      Uh, what "new samples" do you mean?

                      Here it is described in detail:
                      In December last year, it became known that two new Avangard missile systems were put on alert. Thanks to this, the total number of deployed complexes reached 4 units. In its current form, the complex is built on the basis of the UR-100N UTTH intercontinental ballistic missile, capable of carrying one hypersonic gliding warhead.

                      https://topwar.ru/178938-modernizacija-rvsn-v-2021-godu.html
                2. Odysseus
                  Odysseus 20 March 2021 23: 38
                  -1
                  Quote: AAG
                  What's wrong with the Strategic Missile Forces?
                  I agree that there is a lot of work, but in terms of rearmament, against the general background, it is quite successful.

                  It's like that. Only under the guise of "rearmament" there are less than 1200 warheads left. Of which 460 are the Voevoda who have long overdue all conceivable terms, which, according to the norm, had to be written off a long time ago.
                  This would not be so fundamental, given that the United States is not doing better. But the trouble with conventional weapons, and NATO and China now have an absolute advantage.
                  The military viability of the Russian Federation hangs only on nuclear weapons.
                  1. Aag
                    Aag 21 March 2021 00: 55
                    +2
                    [quote = Odyssey] [quote = AAG] What's wrong with the Strategic Missile Forces?
                    The fact that there is a lot of work, I agree. But, in terms of rearmament, against the general background, it is quite successful [/ quote]
                    It's like that. Only under the guise of "rearmament" there are less than 1200 warheads left. Of which 460 are the Voevoda who have long overdue all conceivable terms, which, according to the norm, had to be written off a long time ago.
                    This would not be so fundamental, given that the United States is not doing better. But the trouble with conventional weapons, and NATO and China now have an absolute advantage.
                    The military viability of the Russian Federation hangs only on nuclear weapons .. [/ quote
                    Let's concretize ?! I said, I asked, for the Strategic Missile Forces. What is wrong there? Yes, there are problems ... ((But it seems that you are not an expert on them. Please, no offense ...

                    I have no specific, tangible data on other types and types of the RF Armed Forces.
                    I am worried about the level of training, motivation l / s, -YES! -Sometimes it infuriates (the children of my colleagues are already serving ..) But the system is built in such a way (I will remind you about the Strategic Missile Forces) that it does not fundamentally change its effectiveness. Yes, it could
                    would be much better, more efficient!

                    As far as I am aware, the "shelf life" of warheads is not critical (more often they "fade".
                    media ...) Please do not confuse one with the other.
                    IMHO: another thing is more kretich, -supporting the actions of the Strategic Missile Forces, - foreign intelligence, the FSB, air defense, missile defense, aerospace forces, and even an anti-aircraft defense!
                    It hurts me when some say - to hell with them (tanks, for example), airplanes, etc. - we have ICBMs!
                    ... We may not "hit" ... If not at the right time, in the right place, air defense, aerospace forces, tanks, finally ... and so on.
                    Do not push all defense problems onto the Strategic Missile Forces.
                    Everyone needs to work hard and efficiently!
              3. Glory1974
                Glory1974 19 March 2021 11: 18
                0
                objectively speaking, there is one branch of the military where the rearmament is actually carried out as a whole, this is army aviation.

                does army aviation really exist? It seems to have been reduced?
          2. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 19 March 2021 05: 31
            +1
            Quote: Odyssey
            So you yourself showed the T-72. You, as a non-commissioned officer's widow, whip yourself up.
            Showed as a mistaken photo, is it so hard to understand?
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            In the photo, any T-72, but not the T-72B3!


            Quote: Odyssey
            Rearmament from T-72 to T-72
            Once again I will remind you of this stupid lie, and I will analyze it: Rearmament, as you described it, is the replacement of one sample with another equivalent, which is clearly stupid and untrue, but in fact, modernization is already available samples with IMPROVEMENT of characteristics.

            Quote: Odyssey
            Show "not available samples" and we will rejoice together.
            What, you don't know how to use search?


            Quote: Odyssey
            In the garden there is an elderberry, and in Kiev there is an uncle. What does Abrams have to do with it? Which, by the way, is 8 years younger and which, by its concept, cannot be called a mass mobilization tank.
            In the sense of "where"? A sample that is a hundred years old at lunchtime (T-72) is contrasted with the same sample (Abrams and Leo), but only the Americans, like the Germans, do not even have a replacement for their tanks, moreover, they do not even produce them, they only weigh , but for some reason you don’t make a claim to them, what’s not clear? And here, in Russia, I mean, there is a replacement and is even being made.
            1. Odysseus
              Odysseus 19 March 2021 06: 06
              -5
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Once again I will remind you of this stupid lie, and I will analyze it: Rearmament, as you described it, is the replacement of one sample with another equivalent, which is clearly stupid and untrue, but in fact, the modernization of existing samples with IMPROVEMENT of characteristics

              Some kind of complete chaos. "Rearmament" is a partial overhaul with the modernization of the T-72 fleet produced in the 80s. What is the "stupid lie" here?
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              What, you don't know how to use search?

              And ... Another modernization of the T-72 and also, by the way, mainly from the availability. Only here the production of zero. But 20 tanks in 2020 (for the first time since 2010) still managed to produce. Whole 0,07% of the Soviet annual level. Needless to say, an achievement ..
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              In the sense of "where"? A sample that is a hundred years old at lunchtime (T-72) is contrasted with the same sample (Abrams and Leo)

              I mean, they say your boot has come off, and you answer, and Uncle Petit's boots are unfashionable. The logical question is, where does Uncle Petya have to do with it? Is it clear now ?
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              but for some reason you don’t make any claims to them, what’s not clear?

              Logic from a parallel world. Here is your neighbor rushed out of the window, will you go rushing too?
              And then what a parallel, completely different states, military doctrines, etc. And even if you follow your crazy logic, I already wrote if we had a couple of thousand M2A2s and there would be no question of rearmament, there would be endless songs about our tanks that have no analogues in the world destroying T-72 tanks in Iraq, etc. ...
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 19 March 2021 06: 24
                -5
                Quote: Odyssey
                Some kind of complete chaos. "Rearmament" is a partial overhaul with the modernization of the T-72 fleet produced in the 80s. What is the "stupid lie" here?
                Yeah, it's not "rearmament of T-72 to T-72" anymore, but "modernization" all the same.

                Quote: Odyssey
                And ... Another modernization of the T-72 and also, by the way, mainly from the availability. Only here is the production of zero.
                It's okay to consider the first T-90s as the upgraded T-72, but already the T-90 with a welded turret is an independent type of tank, and in the photo there is a T-90 "Breakthrough" and at least 60 of them are NEW built, and only 160 and more.

                Quote: Odyssey
                As much as 0,07% of the Soviet annual level.
                And what did you remember the Soviet level, for some reason I cannot compare with modern Americans and Germans, but you can not compare with the USSR, which has been gone for a long time, to my great regret? Why did it happen? Smells like logic from a parallel world, so that.

                Quote: Odyssey
                if we have a couple of thousand M2A2
                M1 (one) A2, actually, but these are trifles, "have we ..." is this an alternative logic?
                1. Odysseus
                  Odysseus 19 March 2021 06: 45
                  +2
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Yeah, it's not "rearmament of T-72 to T-72" anymore, but "modernization" all the same.

                  We are discussing the author's article with you. This is his rearmament, which, moreover, has already been largely carried out. It was on this occasion that I was ironic. In reality, modernization.
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  T-90 "Breakthrough" and there are at least 60 of them that are NEW, and only 160 and more.

                  T-90M new built 30 (according to other sources in general 10). 160 this together with the modernization of the T-90A at the end of the 2025s .. This is the prospect until XNUMX. Which I hope to come true.
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  and you from the USSR, which has been gone for a long time, to my great regret, can you?

                  Here, at least the similarity criteria are partially preserved and we do not leave the topic of the article (and it is devoted to our army, not the American one). The same factories (minus Kharkov), the same tanks. But on the whole I agree - there can be no comparison here.
          3. carstorm 11
            carstorm 11 19 March 2021 10: 32
            -4
            And what do you want to call him?) Nishev?) If we were armed with m2a2, we would be Poland, or the devil knows what else.
  2. ares1988
    ares1988 19 March 2021 05: 35
    +14
    22350 suddenly became a destroyer.
    1. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan 19 March 2021 15: 44
      +3
      This pearl surprised me a lot:
      It is possible to build destroyers in large enough series,
      Well, how many dozen destroyers are there in the series? The series is large!
      The author, do you actually understand what you are writing about?
  3. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 19 March 2021 05: 50
    +8
    What was that?
    Well, okay, 99% water and repetitions three times, this is usually for the author.
    But even that 1% that is on the topic, and then confused everything.
  4. Gregory Charnota
    Gregory Charnota 19 March 2021 07: 10
    -5
    only few helicopters! NATO has more than two thousand
    and how much in the Russian Federation? 200 -300 points
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 19 March 2021 22: 16
      +1
      Quote: Gregory Charnota
      NATO has more than two thousand
      and how much in the Russian Federation? 200 -300 points

      AND? if Russia has an army the size of a NATO army, then it will go around the world
      1. Gregory Charnota
        Gregory Charnota 21 March 2021 13: 16
        0
        300 helicopters is not enough for such borders as in the Russian Federation! look at the length of the borders! the first territory in the world!
        1. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 22 March 2021 07: 39
          0
          Quote: Gregory Charnota
          300 helicopters is not enough for such borders as in the Russian Federation! look at the length of the borders! the first territory in the world!

          I tell you once again that chasing the number of ships and planes of NATO countries is not realistic. No economy except the American can withstand this.
  5. Earthshaker
    Earthshaker 19 March 2021 08: 35
    +3
    It was so optimized that only the northern fleet is subordinate to the commander in chief of the navy. There is no centralized management of the fleet. There is no main command post of the Navy in St. Petersburg, which means its principle. The frigate became a destroyer. I don’t want to evaluate this cotton opus.
    1. Glory1974
      Glory1974 19 March 2021 11: 24
      +3
      It was so optimized that only the northern fleet is subordinate to the commander in chief of the navy. There is no centralized management of the fleet. There is no main command post of the navy in St. Petersburg, which means its principle.

      The landlords are no better. Now the districts are formed, then the fronts, then the regional commands. Plans for the use of either brigades or divisions. The end and the edge of the reform is not visible.
  6. ramzay21
    ramzay21 19 March 2021 09: 55
    +3
    The rearmament program, in the form that it was originally supposed to have completely failed, especially in the Navy and aviation.
    1. carstorm 11
      carstorm 11 19 March 2021 10: 32
      -2
      In aviation, which side?))))
      1. ramzay21
        ramzay21 19 March 2021 21: 18
        +1
        It was planned to deliver 2020-52 T78 units by 50, aka Su 57, 2020 aircraft delivered at the end of 1.
        It was planned to deliver 2020 MiG 37 units by 35, 2020 units were delivered at the beginning of 6.
        It was planned to deliver 2020 Il 50 MD-76A units by 90, in fact, 2020 units were delivered at the end of 7. And it was also planned 60 pieces of An 70 and possibly 20 pieces of An 124, which will no longer exist.
        Do you think this has been completed by the GPV 2011-2020?
        1. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 19 March 2021 22: 15
          0
          Quote: ramzay21
          Do you think this has been completed by the GPV 2011-2020?

          GPV was corrected more than once
          1. ramzay21
            ramzay21 20 March 2021 01: 58
            +1
            GPV was corrected more than once

            This is not a correction, it is zeroing.
        2. carstorm 11
          carstorm 11 20 March 2021 08: 14
          +1
          All of you in a heap do not mix) 35,34 and 30 hundreds apparently passed you by. Hundreds of combat mi 28 and ka 52 are also trifles. Yes, in the navy. Oops there. And aviation, I would not say so
          1. ramzay21
            ramzay21 20 March 2021 09: 11
            +1
            That in aviation, that in the navy they did not what they needed, but what they could. In the fleet, too, RTOs were riveted even more than what is laid down in the GPV, only the sense from them is 0.
            The Su 35 were incorporated into the GPV, just like the Su 34. But many different modifications of the Su 27 will in no way replace the two full-fledged Su 57 air regiments, especially when the 5th generation aircraft arrive in the air forces of neighboring countries. Moreover, a huge number of modifications of the Su 27 and Su 30 came with the old avionics without AFAR, this is a modern aircraft for 15 years now.

            Due to the disruption in deliveries of the Il 76 MD-90A, the deliveries of the AWACS aircraft were disrupted, without which neither the modern Air Force nor the modern Navy are inconceivable. It's the same with tankers.
            In BTA the situation is terrible, the main fleet of An 26 and An 12 is long overdue to write off, but they are not expected to be replaced. The average age of IL 76 is around 40 years old, new ones have not been received for 30 years, but at least there is a prospect for them. The new An 124 has not been received for 30 years, they are working out their resource without the prospect of replacement.
            All the most important projects of the GPV have not been completed in aviation either.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. moreman78
    moreman78 19 March 2021 11: 03
    +5
    Due to the complexity and financial constraints, the construction of rank 1 ships is very limited. In this category, new submarines of various projects are widely represented, while in the field of surface ships, the results are much more modest. Destroyers of project 1 are assigned to rank 22350 - two of these ships are already in service

    "Here it is, Che Mikhalych!" They pulled an owl onto a globe.
    So then I propose to deepen this process - since with ships of rank 2 there is also an ambush, let's now assign all corvettes (ships of rank 3) to rank 2, and everything will be bad!
  9. Sergey Obraztsov
    Sergey Obraztsov 19 March 2021 11: 17
    -1
    In short, somewhere in the middle - In many areas it is good, in several areas it is excellent, somewhere there is a tyap-blooper, somewhere it is depressing. I see no reason for ecstatic joy, but there is no reason to grieve that everything is gone. Yes, you can "get on a war footing" and spend 6% of GDP on the defense industry as an independent one, but what's the point? No one in their right mind is going to attack the Russian Federation, and no one in their right mind either. In my opinion, this is enough.
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 19 March 2021 13: 03
      -1
      Quote: Sergey Obraztsov
      I see no reason for ecstatic joy, but there is no reason to grieve that everything is gone.

      Absolutely correct approach - normal work is going on, and those who remember the times of the USSR are well aware of how the deadlines and the work carried out in accordance with the Resolutions were filled up. And how the development of some technology was postponed, due to the fact that Afghanistan required a simpler one - all this was, and any armed man of that time understands the current problems, especially since civilians are now at the helm, starting with the Supreme, and they are too far away from equipment and weapons. By the way, no one counted what the new weapons development had cost over the past ten years, and these are just astronomical sums, so they saved on serial equipment and postponed re-equipment until they realized that they had managed to create a new one. Now the process of rearmament is underway, and even in Soviet times it fit into at least one cycle of the armament program, or even stretched over two programs. So I can recommend to those who are too suffering to remember one song - "No need to panic, because we are not in the Titanic", and everything will be fine.
  10. lazy
    lazy 19 March 2021 12: 04
    +2
    in general, I agree, but the author of what destroyers are being built, especially in series?
  11. Luty
    Luty 19 March 2021 14: 31
    +2
    I was surprised to learn that 22350 had become a destroyer. And I always thought and heard that it was a frigate.))))
  12. Victor Tsenin
    Victor Tsenin 19 March 2021 19: 18
    +1
    > It is possible to build destroyers, patrol boats in fairly large batches
    The name of the frigate replaced the name of the patrol ship, no?
    > Destroyer "Admiral Gorshkov" pr. 22350
    As far as is known, he has not yet grown to a destroyer)
  13. Pilat2009
    Pilat2009 19 March 2021 22: 13
    0
    uh ... So how many destroyers were built in 2000-2020? For the author, a destroyer and a frigate are the same?
  14. Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 20 March 2021 18: 54
    0
    Something too officious an article.

    It would be necessary to take the time and read the armaments program adopted in 2008 and compare it with the result. I am afraid that not everything will be as blissful as the author described.
  15. Old26
    Old26 21 March 2021 17: 02
    +3
    Quote: Odyssey
    It's like that. Only under the guise of "rearmament" there are less than 1200 warheads left. Of which 460 are long overdue all conceivable terms Voivode

    Actually, on October 1, 2020, there were 1447 charges, not 1200, as you voice. "Voevod" has been for several years now, if not 46, but about half that.
    Dear comrade. If you are trying to assert something, it would still be desirable to "keep your finger on the pulse", that is, to track all changes in the number of carriers and charges