What do American analysts think about the modernization of the Russian army

228
What do American analysts think about the modernization of the Russian army "Strategy Page" - An American online publication, positioning itself in the media market as a source of fresh information on military topics. This resource publishes a lot of materials about the armed forces of the world, gives analytical articles about wars and events in “hot spots”. Here you can read about various weapons systems (armored vehicles, artillery, naval aviation etc.), about the software used in military affairs, about information wars and the like. Lately, judging by the summer materials, the Strategy Page has been very interested in the Russian army - in particular, issues of its modernization.

For example, in a recent article (from 5 August) "Strategy Page" reports on the dispute "Russian military officials," breaking spears in the controversy about the usefulness of the launched military modernization. On the American website, they note that the trouble with Russian modernization lies in the very approach to it: only a few people have access to the secret thousands of pages of analysis and calculations to improve the sun.

It is noted that not all of these people find meaning in the “State Armaments Program” (or SAP). But how can society debate on this program, if no one is able to criticize it specifically and specifically? After all, it is covered with the darkness of mystery. Existing critics say that SAP is a “hodgepodge” made from Soviet military science of the era and scattered facts and goals. Moreover, SAP, apparently, does not give any realistic suggestions on how to cope with corruption in the military and defense industries, as well as solve the problems of bad management of the defense industry.

The authors of the material believe that corruption and poor governance have created serious problems in Russia. Many officers are not interested in SAP proposals aimed at improving combat capability. Many senior officers, American analysts write, are still much more concerned about their own enrichment than the creation of modern armed forces, which is relevant since the end of the Cold War.

As for the officials who are in charge of the defense industry of Russia, they are apparently incompetent in the field of new weapons. In the army for many years complain about it. SAP critics want more "realism" in relation to solving urgent problems in the army, especially in the fight against corruption and in overcoming the obsolescence of Russia's defense industry.

Meanwhile, Americans say, military modernization efforts have been underway for almost a decade: the government has realized that something needs to be done with rapidly aging military equipment.

In many cases, the site notes, procurement is important, because the Russian armed forces still use military equipment and equipment from the Cold War era - what was made in 1970 and 1980, and even in 50 s and xnumx's.

The attitude to the Russian modernization of the armed forces at “Strategy Page” is as follows: the defense industry of Russia is not at all world-class; the Russian military usually receives updated equipment from the Cold War, which cannot compete with new generations of Western technology.

From some information about SAP, the authors conclude that in the next decade at least one third of the existing equipment will be replaced in Russia, and in some categories (usually high-tech) - and more than 80%.

The Russian government is making big plans. But if it does not fulfill them, the morale of the army will drop below the plinth. This will happen especially quickly on navy. The authors note that from 1991 until recently, Russian warships are idle on the docks, and as a result, a whole generation of sailors has almost no marine experience. This is "the path to defeat in wartime, and sailors, especially senior commanders, are well aware of this."

Also on the site it is noted that a big problem is the fact that the new equipment, which was received by the troops, the army "is not impressive." The military can go online and see the technical characteristics of many types of modern Western technology. Russian weapons rarely look good by comparison, analysts say.

In conclusion, the authors write that no one knows exactly how much money the Soviet Union spent on armaments during its glory days — when its army was called the Red Army, and the powerful naval forces were known as the Red Fleet. The authors believe that the USSR spent on armaments more than ten percent of GDP ("no one is sure about the exact figures, since the Communists were not big fans of accounting and accurate financial reporting").

Today, Russia plays by the Western European rules, trying to keep military spending at the level of 3-4 percent of GDP. Moreover, a significant part of these means will only replace the weapons of the Cold War. Moreover, this will happen if the prices for oil and natural gas do not drop - and this cannot be, the authors of the material are sure. Therefore, the current Russian army will be nothing more than a “shadow” of the Soviet army in the days of its glory.

Observed and translated by Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
    Our news channels

    Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

    228 comments
    Information
    Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
    1. +61
      7 August 2013 08: 33
      Another propaganda of Western weapons. As they say business and nothing personal
      1. -59
        7 August 2013 08: 51
        Which set minus? I ask the moderators to bring Judah to clean water am
        1. +18
          7 August 2013 12: 20
          Quote: seasoned
          Which set minus? I ask the moderators to bring Judah to clean water

          Oh, how not beautiful, A-Z-YA lol
        2. Radoslav
          0
          7 August 2013 17: 06
          Ss..ka selling, Let's see after a while Russia will once again put the whole world in cancer, and there is no need to read articles with such chases, such as boobies, cowards, experienced ones, these nicknames speak for themselves about these little people
          1. +23
            7 August 2013 18: 06
            hi
            Well, if they blame them, then what? That's right - go the right way, comrades!
            1. +6
              8 August 2013 09: 46
              So why do they blame it?
              Take away the author, replace with someone’s name from for example site commentators wink - all the main conclusions then coincide:
              1. Yes, what is this weapon of the 1980s, ie times of the cold war
              2. Yes, what is supplied for the most part from the "reserve" of the USSR
              3. Yes, the situation in the fleet is awful (for example, if we take the number of ships)
              4. Yes, the rearmament plans are very ambitious and, given the need to restore many chains / technologies, a priori in full, probably until 2020, are impossible (you can look at the same shipbuilding and postpone the delivery of ships).
              5. Its only not lazy to react wink

              Total: American experts perceive our rearmament in fact the same way as ours.
              There are no cries for over militarization. Well well wink
              Praised our own - well done, we also praise our own, and their hai wink
              1. Don
                +7
                8 August 2013 12: 54
                Quote: cdrt
                1. Yes, what is this weapon of the 1980s, ie times of the cold war

                So what? Look when the F-16, F-18, F-15 began to enter operation. It was necessary to rearm the army in the 90s with a weak economy?
                Quote: cdrt
                2. Yes, what is supplied for the most part from the "reserve" of the USSR

                Again this nonsense. And that they should not have been used? That would be stupid. US that does not use the backlog of the 80s? The Russian Federation uses the backlog and is developing a new one.
                Quote: cdrt
                3. Yes, the situation in the fleet is awful (for example, if we take the number of ships)

                This is your personal opinion. What is it based on? The number in relation to the fleets of other countries? Which ones? USA? So it's silly to compare. Strength to protect territorial waters?
          2. +10
            7 August 2013 18: 11
            What, throw caps?
            1. +6
              7 August 2013 21: 20
              Quote: Spade
              What, throw caps?

              nuclear
          3. Donvel
            +2
            7 August 2013 18: 38
            Is the whole world cancer? When was this?
            1. popoves
              +6
              8 August 2013 02: 10
              Not a single country in the world was able to launch a volley of 16 nuclear missiles from a submarine at a depth, they controlled the boat in manual mode (when launching, the storm is cooler than on attractions) !!!
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sh7-9vNWBk
              1. Donvel
                -5
                8 August 2013 13: 18
                And did these boats save the country from collapse?
            2. German
              +1
              8 August 2013 03: 44
              can and cancer .... but later (a variation on the theme of x / f DMB)
              1. Donvel
                -3
                8 August 2013 13: 19
                And caps from strategic bombers, caps!
          4. Vovka levka
            +12
            7 August 2013 20: 19
            Quote: Radoslav
            Ss..ka selling, Let's see after a while Russia will once again put the whole world in cancer, and there is no need to read articles with such chases, such as boobies, cowards, experienced ones, these nicknames speak for themselves about these little people

            The grandmother said that she was still wow. Yes, only a good fellow did not ride.

            Chickens in the fall count, so time will tell. It is necessary to work, and not to shout Hurray, otherwise all forces will go to a cry.
            1. +1
              7 August 2013 22: 23
              Quote: Vovka Levka

              The grandmother said that she was still wow. Yes, only a good fellow did not ride.

              Chickens in the fall count, so time will tell. It is necessary to work, and not to shout Hurray, otherwise all forces will go to a cry.


              Well, if you don’t judge others so profitable by yourself, I’m sure that I won’t lose a gram from me, and adrenaline works from a scream. A western resource is a western resource, one thing is really true - it’s bad for the bourgeois from our military secrets.
          5. Anat1974
            +1
            7 August 2013 20: 33
            He set Rodoslav +. Although it sounds optimistic.
          6. -3
            7 August 2013 20: 38
            Quote: Radoslav
            Ss..ka selling, Let's see after a while Russia will once again put the whole world in cancer, and there is no need to read articles with such chases, such as boobies, cowards, experienced ones, these nicknames speak for themselves about these little people

            Bugaga, the accuser was found ... wassat Vanek, don’t you take a lot on yourself? wink
        3. 0
          8 August 2013 09: 41
          if it was set by one person (it was -51, I set +), then this is really strange sad
      2. +30
        7 August 2013 08: 55
        Quote: Oleg Chuvakin
        The trouble with Russian modernization lies in the very approach to it:


        Thank you Oleg, the trouble of course, earlier for me modernization was associated with the improvement of the existing one, and after this word surfaced in the speeches of politicians, it became a symbol of the devastation of the time of perestroika


        “You understand my idea,” he repeats every day to the ruler of the chancellery, “what do I want?” I wish that industry flourished in my life, that the sacred property right was fully ensured, that order was not violated under any circumstances, and finally, that the hand was visible everywhere and on everything! You understand: "hand"! This is the program with which I speak in the administrative field, and it is natural that until I fulfill all my assumptions, until, so to speak, crown the buildings, I will not be able to calm down. ... wherever I may be, my hand will still everywhere make itself feel not burdensome, but nevertheless by even pressure - until then, I say, I will not lay down my arms. And now we will sign the papers. (...)
        Days go by days and Mitenka is still talking ....

        M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, “Pompadours and pompadurs”,
        1. +44
          7 August 2013 09: 03
          They found all the bad that they could and did not say a word about the good. Wrong approach. The main thing is not a word about strategic nuclear forces and submarine missile carriers. Apparently, if something is good with us, then for the West this is as it were.
          1. +21
            7 August 2013 09: 06
            Quote: Orel
            They found all the bad that they could and did not say a word about the good.

            Well, they are the same, the most, and in Russia there is no democracy, and therefore there can be nothing good in Russia. Well, the brains of American observers work like this.
            1. Natalia
              +37
              7 August 2013 09: 37
              The attitude to the Russian modernization of the armed forces at “Strategy Page” is as follows: the defense industry of Russia is not at all world-class; the Russian military usually receives updated equipment from the Cold War, which cannot compete with new generations of Western technology.

              Hello everyone!)
              I have only one answer to this: Let them fill up their fucking havalnik and poison the bikes to their children before going to bed.
              1. Natalia
                +33
                7 August 2013 09: 44
                The authors note that from 1991 until recently, Russian warships have been idle on the docks, and as a result, a whole generation of sailors has almost no marine experience.

                No comment ... winked
                1. +15
                  7 August 2013 09: 58
                  It’s just here that it’s hard to disagree with them. After all, just started to go to the Mediterranean. Yes, and it's crumbs.
                2. +37
                  7 August 2013 10: 34
                  In the Mediterranean Sea there is always an interflot group.
                  Ships of different fleets succeed each other, a great practice for officers and sailors.
                  I’m generally silent about the BDK, they go to Syria as scheduled.
                  The Russian fleet is no longer standing at the wall, as in the nineties-zero.
                3. Lucky
                  +2
                  7 August 2013 19: 48
                  BEAUTY !!!!!! good
              2. +14
                7 August 2013 17: 44
                An excellent comparison with the Germans - I immediately immediately remembered the German pan-cook Guderianchik, who in 41 said that the T-34 was an example of primitive Bolshevik technology, which should not scare the brave soldiers of the Wehrmacht, and in his memoirs, which he had scribbled after the war, he wrote that 34- the twerk was an ubertank and a child prodigy, who almost sawed out the coolest German tanks in batches, from which the Russians won.
                1. +8
                  8 August 2013 02: 10
                  An excellent comparison with the Germans - I immediately remembered German Guderian, who in 41 said that the T-34 is an example of primitive Bolshevik technology, which should not scare the brave soldiers of the Wehrmacht, but in its memoirs, which he had already scribbled after the war, wrote that the 34-verka was an uber-bank and a child prodigy, who almost sawed the coolest German tanks in batches, from which the Russians defeated


                  Young man, learn to respect the enemy. "Kastrylevod Guderianchik" reached Moscow in 41st. By scornfully speaking about the enemy, you belittle the feat of the soldiers who died and survived in the battles with the "pot-maker". History repeats itself.
                  1. +3
                    8 August 2013 17: 24
                    Quote: chehywed
                    Young man, learn to respect the enemy.
                    I agree with you - he didn’t choose the fastest Heinz characteristic, just after reading his memoirs he was imbued with a great disgust for this person as a person - for recognizing the heroism of our soldiers and commanders, just like his mistakes, he can be said to be completely absent, but in the whole circle difficult weather conditions are to blame, Russian wunderwafers-shushpatsers, dumb superior Wehrmacht commanders, in general, everyone except him is handsome and smart. Although it must be admitted, the talent of the commander was great.
                    1. +2
                      8 August 2013 21: 48
                      I am glad that we understood each other. And the memoirs of the German generals are remarkable in that they individually won all the battles, and for some reason all together lost the war.
                      1. p-159
                        0
                        9 August 2013 20: 04
                        in NATO, too, can’t agree
            2. +37
              7 August 2013 10: 12
              Quote: Alexander Romanov
              something like the brains of American observers.

              Hi Sasha. Everyone’s brains work the same way, it seems to me. Oleg just gave an overview of not only the article, but also the comments on it. The picture is similar on our website if an article about Western weapons is published.
              But in general, I got the feeling that the Americans were panicking. They were panicked because they could not understand what was happening in Russia, they were panicked that modernization was going on (unlike the West and the USA), they were panicked because vaunted special services cannot obtain more or less serious information about the plans of the government of the Russian Federation.
              1. rolik
                +14
                7 August 2013 14: 39
                Quote: domokl
                But in general, I got the feeling that the Americans are panicking. They are panicked because they cannot understand what is happening in Russia.

                Absolutely right. Everything did not go according to the plan of the CIA and Pentagon analysts. Quite the opposite. Instead of gouging everything to the end and staying with weapons of the 50s of the last century, worthless Russians begin to develop and produce new weapons. Yes, and at the same time they begin to supply him to the army. Conducting large-scale exercises. This new Minister of Defense is just crazy. This is not at all what it was necessary to do and what the Yankees expected. The Russians are increasing the military budget, and mattresses are cutting at an accelerated pace. Everything is all wrong, that’s what they cannot suck in.
                1. p-159
                  0
                  9 August 2013 20: 09
                  I had a friend who served in Tajikistan a few years ago, so he said that NATO’s technicians in Afghanistan are mostly from the 70s, so they don’t have much technical equipment either
              2. +2
                7 August 2013 16: 48
                Quote: domokl
                Quote: Alexander Romanov
                something like the brains of American observers.

                Hi Sasha. Everyone’s brains work the same way, it seems to me. Oleg just gave an overview of not only the article, but also the comments on it. The picture is similar on our website if an article about Western weapons is published.
                But in general, I got the feeling that the Americans were panicking. They were panicked because they could not understand what was happening in Russia, they were panicked that modernization was going on (unlike the West and the USA), they were panicked because vaunted special services cannot obtain more or less serious information about the plans of the government of the Russian Federation.

                I agree with everything except serious information about the plans of the government of the Russian Federation
                there they have enough ears so far ...
              3. +3
                7 August 2013 23: 24
                Quote: domokl
                Hi Sasha. Everyone’s brains work the same way, it seems to me. Oleg just gave an overview of not only the article, but also the comments on it. The picture is similar on our website if an article about Western weapons is published.


                Do not make me laugh. Why should they panic? Our army is weakened (especially after the reforms), the fleet has practically not been updated. 2/3 of the ships in 30 or even 40 years. The officer corps and the corps of warrant officers (who formed the basis of contract soldiers) are either reduced or destroyed. The profession of a soldier is not honorable or respected. As well as are not respected and socially protected professions in the defense and scientific environment. Whether the population has confidence in government agencies (the army, law enforcement agencies, executive authorities) or not, or citizens are neutral. All three branches of the service are discredited. Patriotic programs are not effective enough. An attempt to raise the self-esteem and self-esteem of the people with the help of the church stumbles upon the active "muddying" and "discussing the linen" of the ROC by the "creative" class.
                They have nothing to fear - they, at least, are informational.
                1. p-159
                  0
                  9 August 2013 20: 10
                  and we will go our own way
            3. Good Ukraine
              +3
              7 August 2013 11: 33
              hi Article "ordering".
              But she was amused by the fact that earlier they sprayed poison saliva in all directions, but now it is just drooling. And the snot appeared.
              "Wipe the snot and see everything in a different light" good
          2. Fin
            +10
            7 August 2013 09: 26
            And it's good that they don't really know anything. As usual, the "analysis" is made from the Russian media. Some general phrases. Yes, there are enough problems, but if the military-industrial complex is raised as promised, they will be unpleasantly surprised. Until then, let them consider us backward.
            1. Constantine
              +24
              7 August 2013 09: 35
              Quote: Fin
              And it's good that they don't really know anything. As usual, the "analysis" is made from the Russian media. Some general phrases. Yes, there are enough problems, but if the military-industrial complex is raised as promised, they will be unpleasantly surprised. Until then, let them consider us backward.


              Given the level of organization of their intelligence, they know as much as they need. Unless on some, over secret samples they do not know. Simple equipment has long been shown and felt by them, or their experts have carefully watched this technique.

              PS
              But if it does not fulfill them, the morale of the army will drop below the plinth.


              So they did not realize that the Russians were fighting not because of money and pathos, but were standing for death for their homeland, albeit with an oar to the advantage. smile So many times the West raked here and never delivered the main lesson. smile
              1. Natalia
                +5
                7 August 2013 10: 26
                Quote: Constantine
                So they did not realize that the Russians were fighting not because of money and pathos, but were standing for death for their homeland, albeit with an oar to the advantage. So many times the West raked here and never delivered the main lesson.

                You speak the truth good + + +
              2. +1
                7 August 2013 23: 26
                Quote: Constantine
                So they did not realize that the Russians were fighting not because of money and pathos, but were standing for death for their homeland, albeit with an oar to the advantage.


                They will NEVER understand this, but morale must be reinforced with good technology, proper organization and solidarity of the people.
            2. +1
              7 August 2013 19: 18
              Quote: Fin
              but if they raise the military-industrial complex, as promised, they will be unpleasantly surprised

              They will raise money in the treasury. We will melt our money into bullets ... wink
            3. +1
              7 August 2013 22: 47
              Quote: Fin
              And it's good that they don't really know anything. As usual, the "analysis" is made from the Russian media. Some general phrases. Yes, there are enough problems, but if the military-industrial complex is raised as promised, they will be unpleasantly surprised. Until then, let them consider us backward.


              + and let them wonder how they are hammering them with these backward weapons
          3. +9
            7 August 2013 10: 03
            Quote: Orel
            The main thing is not a word about strategic nuclear forces


            Only numbers and only the USA and the Russian Federation without NATO

            As of March 1, 2012, Russia had 1492 deployed nuclear warheads on all types of carriers, and the United States had 1737. At the same time, deployed carriers, that is, intercontinental ballistic missiles, heavy bombers and ballistic missiles in submarines, had 494 in Russia and 812 in the USA . Total deployed and non-deployed media in countries 881 and 1040, respectively
            The United States has now succeeded in surpassing any state in a whole host of new classes of weapons: miniature nuclear munitions that are not prohibited by anything, variable power ammunition, deeply penetrating nuclear munitions

            In addition, just in case, the United States holds part of the removed warheads as a return potential and does not destroy them like us, but stores them in warehouses, they also produce miniature nuclear warheads
            1. +3
              7 August 2013 10: 08
              In addition, just in case, the United States holds part of the removed warheads as a return potential and does not destroy them like us, but stores them in warehouses,

              So such charges have some shelf life. Himself cast iron the charge becomes worthless.
              1. +3
                7 August 2013 10: 21
                Do you think the amers do not know this? Surely all this is quietly replaced by new charges
                1. +7
                  7 August 2013 10: 32
                  Surely all this is replaced by new charges

                  Everything would be so beautiful, if not for one BUT. They have no production of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium. Their only factory closed.
                  It was not for nothing that they bought weapons-grade uranium - HEU-LEU - processed for nuclear power plants from us. And now this program has ended ... a mustache ... now there is no nuclear industry in the USA. So .. the flaws remained.
                  1. SASCHAmIXEEW
                    -11
                    7 August 2013 11: 05
                    Listen to you, and there is no splash, they have spread all over the world. And RUSSIA then where? AU RUSSIA, WHERE WHERE?
                    1. +10
                      7 August 2013 11: 15
                      I do not quite understand your comment .. He generally what?
                      Why not the USA? There, they are still floating AUGs and under a striped flag. And as before, the scammers make Syria. And they decided to supply weapons to the militants. And money for the revolution is regularly printed.
                      Where is Russia? Russia has already plunged its face into the barrel of the G20, has already sent the United States with Snowden, is no longer running half-bent at home-grown Democrats. And you still ask where? Russia is actually a monopolist in putting cargo into orbit. Russia launches unique orbital radio telescopes, the largest producer of titanium, ... more examples are needed? Or compare with the US? With US achievements over the past 20 years?
                    2. iSpoiler
                      +15
                      7 August 2013 14: 26
                      Here I don’t stink)
                    3. +2
                      7 August 2013 23: 10
                      Quote: SASCHAmIXEEW
                      AU RUSSIA, WHERE ARE YOU?

                      "Yes, here I am, dear one! I am putting in order the administration, industry, the Armed Forces ... Ali does not live in the country and you see nothing of that, dove?"
                      1. Donvel
                        +1
                        8 August 2013 18: 37
                        I don’t see, mother. Governors steal, tsar’s people rob the Orthodox people, the tsar wants a lot, but a little can. What really is there, Mother Rasseya herself says through the mouth of an overseas party
                  2. +6
                    7 August 2013 11: 13
                    I wouldn’t be so confident in saying that there is no nuclear industry there. Americans are stupid, but not so much as to get everything at home. they are not our liberals who ruined everything that normally stood))
                    1. +4
                      7 August 2013 11: 22
                      Industry not. There is sneezing and coughing nuclear energy. The fuel for which ends. And there’s nowhere to take a new one from. That is, the reserves of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium are (in warheads), but who will process them into fuel? It’s not for you to distribute sour cream with milk.
                      ... it also became known that the last delivery of low enriched uranium to North America as part of the HEU-LEU program is scheduled for November 2013.

                      The United States also converts weapons-grade uranium into fuel for nuclear power plants from its nuclear warheads, but does not use it, but leaves it for storage. Experts note that the Megatons to Megawatts program initially drove the US uranium industry into stagnation, and the country would need significant cash injections to revive it.

                      But whether the United States will find money to revitalize the uranium industry is a big question.
                      1. +6
                        7 August 2013 15: 50
                        Do you think that for the United States, the big problem is to draw zeros on a computer and then withdraw them from your economy in the form of long-term obligations? it was more than once, for example, as during the crisis of 2008 - allegedly 1 trillion were printed, but in fact 4 ...
                  3. +3
                    7 August 2013 11: 39
                    EARLY JOY. WE WILL HELP THEM ...
                    Timeline of the sale of Russian weapons-grade uranium in the USA for 1995-2012
                    First shipment 1995 of the year. Delivery of the first batch of LEU in the amount of 186 met. tonnes (metric tons) recycled from 6.1 met. t. HEU, equivalent number of 244 warheads.
                    Grand Total: Destroyed 244 warheads, sold 6,1 tons of weapons-grade uranium.
                    1996 shipments of the year: USEC receives a material equivalent of approximately 479 to nuclear warheads, namely 370.9 met. m. LEU derived from 12 met. t. HEU.
                    Grand Total: Destroyed 723 warheads, sold 18,1 tons of weapons-grade uranium.
                    1997 shipments of the year: USEC receives a material equivalent of approximately 534 to nuclear warheads, namely 358.5 met. m. LEU derived from 13.4 met. t. HEU.
                    Grand total: 1 257 warheads destroyed, 31,5 sold tons of weapons-grade uranium.
                    1998 shipments of the year: The total number of shipments of the 1998 calendar year is approximately 764 nuclear warheads, namely 571.5 met. m. LEU derived from 19.1 met. t. HEU. Part of the 1998 order is delayed by Russia with pending agreements with the US government and three Western companies at the location of the natural uranium received from USEC for the natural component of uranium LEU.
                    Grand Total: 2 021 destroyed and the warhead sold 50,6 tons of weapons-grade uranium sold.
                    1999 shipments of the year: USEC receives a material equivalent of approximately 970 warheads namely 718.7 met. m. LEU derived from 24.3 met. t. HEU.
                    Grand Total: 2 991 destroyed and the warhead sold 74,3 tons of weapons-grade uranium sold.
                    2000 shipments of the year: USEC receives a material equivalent of approximately 1 462 nuclear warheads namely 1037.8 met. m. LEU derived from 36.6 met. t. HEU.
                    Grand Total: Destroyed 4 453 warheads, sold 111,5 tons of weapons-grade uranium.
                    2001 Shipments of the Year: September: USEC and TENEX Reach 5 000 Warheads Destroyed by Megatons Megawatts Agreement. USEC obtains a material equivalent of approximately 1 201 nuclear warheads namely 904.3 met. m. LEU derived from 30.0 met. t. HEU.
                    Grand Total: Destroyed 5 654 warheads, sold 141,5 tons of weapons-grade uranium.
                    2002 shipments of the year: USEC receives a material equivalent of approximately 1 201 nuclear warheads namely 879.0 met. m. LEU derived from 30.0 met. t. HEU.
                    Grand Total: Destroyed 6 855 warheads, sold 171,5 tons of weapons-grade uranium.
                    2003 shipments of the year: USEC receives a material equivalent of approximately 1 203 nuclear warheads namely 906.0 met. m. LEU derived from 30.1 met. t. HEU.
                    Grand Total: Destroyed 8 058 warheads, sold 201,6 tons of weapons-grade uranium.
                    2004 shipments of the year: USEC receives a material equivalent of approximately 1 202 nuclear warheads namely 891.0 met. m. LEU derived from 30.1 met. t. HEU.
                    Grand Total: Destroyed 9 260 warheads, sold 231,7 tons of weapons-grade uranium.
                    2005 shipments of the year: September: USEC notes that a weapon-grade uranium volume equivalent to 10 000 warheads has been destroyed. USEC receives a material equivalent of approximately 1 206 nuclear warheads namely the 846.0 met. m. LEU derived from 30.1 met. t. HEU.
                    Grand Total: Destroyed 10 466 warheads, sold 261,8 tons of weapons-grade uranium.
                    1. +4
                      7 August 2013 11: 42
                      2006 shipments of the year: USEC receives a material equivalent of approximately 1 207 nuclear warheads namely 870.0 met. m. LEU derived from 30.2 met. t. HEU.
                      Grand Total: Destroyed 11 673 warheads, sold 291,9 weapons-grade uranium tones.
                      2007 shipments of the year: USEC receives a material equivalent of approximately 1 212 nuclear warheads namely 840.0 met. m. LEU derived from 30.3 met. t. HEU.
                      Grand Total: Destroyed 12 885 warheads, sold 322,2 tons of weapons-grade uranium.
                      2008 shipments of the year: USEC receives a material equivalent of approximately 1 204 nuclear warheads namely 834.0 met. m. LEU derived from 30.1 met. t. HEU.
                      Grand Total: Destroyed 14 090 warheads, sold 352,3 tons of weapons-grade uranium.
                      2009 shipments of the year: USEC receives the tangible equivalent of approximately 1,204 nuclear warheads namely 834.0 met. t. KNOW obtained from 30.1 met. t. HEU.
                      Grand Total: Destroyed 15,294 warheads, sold 382,4 tons of weapons-grade uranium.
                      2010 shipments of the year: USEC receives the tangible equivalent of approximately 1,200 nuclear warheads namely the 857.9 MT met. t. KNOW obtained from 30 MT met. t. HEU.
                      Grand Total: Destroyed 16,494 warheads, sold 412,4 tons of weapons-grade uranium.
                      CURRENT STATUS OF TRANSACTION
                      And so, during the “uranium deal”, on July 12, 2012, Russia sold 450 metric tons (out of 500 tons agreed) of weapons-grade HEU to the USA, which were converted into 13258 tons of LEU, which is equivalent to the elimination of 18000 nuclear warheads. The deal is 90% complete.
                      http://www.usec.com/russian-contracts/megatons-megawatts

                      Whatever the Judas who stand behind this deal and justify this wild betrayal of national interests, this wild blow to national security, the United States since 1945, to this day only 550 tons of weapons-grade uranium has been able to produce.
                      It is an open question for me, what do Americans do with their uranium being removed from their dismantled nuclear warheads? And how does this process control Russia ??
                      But in spite of all the protests of the public, deputies of all levels, military, scientists, and other public figures - this “deal” has retained its strength to this day.
                      PS. Delivery is now complete. By the end of 2013, the United States will lose one of its sources of energy - low-enriched uranium from Russian nuclear warheads, Forbes magazine writes.
                      1. +4
                        7 August 2013 13: 31
                        At the same time, one must take into account the fact that there are practically no uranium deposits on the territory of Russia - all uranium was mined in the USSR on the territory of Central Asia and Kazakhstan, in the republics which our "strategists" declared at one time unnecessary ballast and got rid of them. fields in Namibia and South Africa
                        1. +3
                          7 August 2013 16: 02
                          At the same time, it is necessary to take into account the fact that there are practically no uranium deposits on the territory of Russia - all uranium was mined in the USSR on the territory of Central Asia and Kazakhstan

                          And what will Central Asia and Kazakhstan do with it if all its processing facilities are located in Russia?
                          And to the services of the USA, the uranium deposits of Namibia and South Africa

                          This uranium still needs to be removed and processed. And ore must be exported in hundreds of tons. Whether such transportation pays off, I find it difficult to say.
                        2. +2
                          7 August 2013 19: 26
                          if you think that uranium from Central Asia was brought to Russia in the form of ore, then you are deeply mistaken - the ore was processed on the spot, there are a lot of mining plants that were involved in this. Surely they are in South Africa And the United States bought and buys uranium in Africa, its deposits from they are also not dense, so apparently transportation pays off
                        3. 0
                          7 August 2013 20: 48
                          Quote: Wedmak

                          And what will Central Asia and Kazakhstan do with it if all its processing facilities are located in Russia?

                          What about Dzhezkazgan and Karaganda?
                          It is quite enough for enrichment and primary processing.
                          In addition, the French are pushing there.
                          They have enterprises for final processing.
                          And they calmly supply plutonium to mattresses.
                          Plus recycling of old mattress charges.
                          The British also updated a lot of obsolete charges for mattresses.
                          So it makes no sense that the mattress covers have closed their processing plants.
                        4. 0
                          7 August 2013 22: 43
                          Quote: Wedmak
                          And what will Central Asia and Kazakhstan do with it if all its processing facilities are located in Russia?
                          - Ust-Kamenskaya Ulbinka is already making nuclear pills - just download and get e / energy.
                          Quote: Wedmak
                          This uranium still needs to be removed and processed. And ore must be exported in hundreds of tons. Whether such transportation pays off, I find it difficult to say.
                          - carry a yellow hake, and it pays off. But there are already technologies for underground leaching, and the yellow hake mined in this way is quite cost-effective for long-distance transportation
                        5. 0
                          9 August 2013 00: 18
                          Rus9875 - now it became clear why the United States suddenly turned its eyes to Central Asia starting to give its unnecessary army junk. deposits of uranium, which is most likely not exploited due to lack of specialists
                      2. +2
                        7 August 2013 17: 55
                        Quote: AleksUkr
                        But despite all the protests of the public, deputies of all levels, military, scientists, and other public figures - this "deal" has remained valid to this day

                        And why did our "raising the country from its knees", "pursuing an independent policy" not raise the issue of denouncing this agreement?
                    2. tooth46
                      0
                      7 August 2013 23: 37
                      Thanks to Chernomyrdin.
                  4. Su-9
                    0
                    8 August 2013 00: 55
                    The Witcher, you would not write about what you know poorly. And then you can gullible and confuse here. For your information, in the United States produce weapons-grade radioactive substances in 4 factories. Right now.
                    If not scrap, read at least here: http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/nuclear_weapons/techni
                    cal_issues / us-nuclear-weapons-facilities.html
            2. +8
              7 August 2013 11: 25
              Yes, even the United States will have a million nuclear warheads, and we only have 1500 ... Will this save the United States if only part of it passes through missile defense? What will remain of the earth if nuclear warheads fly in different directions from both sides? So, the USA’s expenses for production, and storage of excessive quantities of Nuclear weapons, fall on the US government spending, aimlessly, and mediocre ... What the USA were so nervous when Sev. Korea, did not create a perfect (in technical performance, and rather small in terms of radius of destruction) missile? After all, they have much more? It means not in this matter, but in the show-offs ... This was especially shown in the 5-day war of Georgia (armed, and trained according to American standards), and Russia .. The next DE Ms. View, as well as the competition of equipment and people in North Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.
              1. 0
                9 August 2013 00: 20
                )) I do not think that someone will be saved from this, most likely the whole world will have to wave a pen
            3. iSpoiler
              +2
              7 August 2013 14: 22
              Be calm, even this will be more than enough for the States and China, and will remain .. !! Do not underestimate. wink
            4. +1
              7 August 2013 23: 05
              Quote: Vadivak
              new classes of weapons: these are miniature nuclear munitions that are not prohibited by anything, variable-power munitions, deep-penetrating nuclear munitions

              No need to be so upset. These ammunition were developed and were in service even during the USSR. The Navy adopted special ammunition (warhead torpedoes, for example) with the explosive power that was changed during the preparation of the vehicle.
            5. 0
              7 August 2013 23: 29
              Quote: Vadivak
              In addition, just in case, the United States holds part of the removed warheads as a return potential and does not destroy them like us, but stores them in warehouses, they also produce miniature nuclear warheads


              I will add that, judging by the press and the published developments, they are betting on a massive surprise attack on WMD carriers, key objects, etc. That will suppress strategic forces before retaliating.
          4. +2
            7 August 2013 11: 21
            Why should we be offended? They actually tell us our bottlenecks. We even need to say thank you to them for this. And our officials and industrialists have something to work on. When our "sworn" friends have nothing to pick up on Russia, we can breathe a little.
            AND WHILE WE HAVE WHAT WE HAVE ...
            1. +3
              7 August 2013 12: 31
              Do you think the military confrontation will look like Operation Barbarossa? Most likely it will be with the massive use of nuclear weapons. by the way, I notice that many members of the forum exclude the possibility of using nuclear weapons during the discussion
              1. 0
                7 August 2013 16: 17
                Under the CFE Treaty on January 1, 2011
                Former Soviet Union countries: 8 tanks, 511 BBM, 15 artillery systems of 263 mm caliber or more, 9 combat aircraft, 904 attack helicopters. (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan)
                NATO countries: 11 tanks, 624 armored fighting vehicles, 22 artillery systems of 788 mm caliber or more, 13 combat aircraft, 264 attack helicopters. Including: • Bulgaria - 100 tanks, 3 armored fighting vehicles, 621 artillery systems of 1 mm caliber and more, 085 combat aircraft, 524 attack helicopters. • Hungary - 738 tanks, 1 armored fighting vehicles, 161 artillery systems of 100 mm caliber and more, 57 combat aircraft, 19 attack helicopters. • Romania - 155 tanks, 599 armored fighting vehicles, 30 artillery systems of 100 mm caliber or more, 50 combat aircraft, 23 attack helicopters.
                And the real forces in Europe are Turkey and Germany.
                1. 0
                  9 August 2013 00: 23
                  nobody reacts to CFE for a long time
            2. +3
              7 August 2013 15: 41
              Do you really believe in this table?
            3. 0
              7 August 2013 18: 56
              Why scare us with their number? in a real war they will piss play with us.
              1. Lucky
                -1
                7 August 2013 19: 59
                There will be a nuclear war, they will not attack, there will be too many losses for them personally, and this will cause a storm of indignation in their country, then they have few soldiers, the bulk of the people are not soldiers, they don’t need it, for the first Enough time for soldiers, and then there will be problems! a war is being fought to seize territory, it will be a priori nuclear attack, then the seized land will not be suitable for use, so they won’t attack while there are nuclear weapons!
            4. +2
              7 August 2013 19: 27
              "Why should we be offended. They actually tell us our bottlenecks. We even need to thank them for this. And our officials, industrialists have something to work on."
              AleksUkr (1)  Today, 11:21 ↑


              Speak correctly. Our leadership needs to draw conclusions from the disastrous situation: - on the collapse of industry (after all, we all know to what extent it is ruined by the work of the Yeltsinoids); - the collapse of the army, through its reform, under the leadership of Putin-Medvedev.
              It is urgent to correct the mistakes made, and maybe not mistakes, but deliberate actions. And do not engage in hatred controversy.
          5. njvcrbqgfhnbpfy
            +2
            7 August 2013 11: 26
            There is once again the double standards of a campaign towards Russia .. and this is already constantly ............
          6. +4
            7 August 2013 11: 53
            Quote: Orel
            They found all the bad that they could and did not say a word about the good. Wrong approach. The main thing is not a word about strategic nuclear forces and submarine missile carriers. Apparently, if something is good with us, then for the West this is as it were.

            I agree - Antey (949), moment 31, with 300 / 400 / 500, t 50, ka 52, mi 28н, Boreas, Orlans, Iskander, Solntsepeki, Tornadoes and Tornadoes for them ... still - any of these samples any Western competitor will be bent into an arc, especially air defense and MLRS, I am silent about 949 - the AUG thunderstorm
          7. Skiff-2
            +7
            7 August 2013 12: 16
            In the American media, confusion and panic - cities and entire states became bankrupt, sequestration of the budget began manually, cuts in the army and navy (three aircraft carrier groups of the 90s are preparing for descent under the knife), combat aircraft are written off as whole squadrons, the army refuses to wunder the wunder F-35, downsizing in all branches of the armed forces, as well as civilian personnel ... Well, you have to somehow reassure the electorate, for example, the weakness and backwardness of the Russians. In general, they will not be envied - there is no money, there is no sea of ​​ambition, and here Al Qaeda was thrown (in Syria, Egypt and in general), they were naturally offended and now they have to close embassies in the entire region. In my opinion this is a panic - whom God wants to punish, deprives the mind. The main thing now is not to bother them ...
          8. +4
            7 August 2013 12: 39
            Quote: Orel
            They found all the bad that they could and did not say a word about the good. Wrong approach. The main thing is not a word about strategic nuclear forces and submarine missile carriers. Apparently, if something is good with us, then for the West this is as it were.

            And what's wrong with the fact that they underestimate our prospects? If they convince their readership that Russia is "blown away" militarily, it means that they will not be able to justify the large military budget and, on the contrary, are reducing it. This is good.
        2. +1
          7 August 2013 10: 36
          Quote: Vadivak
          Days go by days and Mitenka is still talking ....

          From Vadim’s despair, because this is the only thing he’s great at ... and considering his latest pearl about 08.08.08 events. just unfriendly.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. +1
        7 August 2013 10: 04
        As always, arrogant pro-Western propaganda ... let them think that we are weaker and dumber, there will be a surprise ...
      5. vvi84
        +2
        7 August 2013 10: 07
        Rather not propaganda of Western weapons, but an attempt to present Russian weapons as uncompetitive. Although some developments since the Cold War era scare our "Western partners" very well.

        Well, as for corruption ... It is probably incurable for both us and them. Question in what size?
        But we will NEVER find out.
        1. +1
          7 August 2013 20: 52
          Quote: vvi84
          Well, as for corruption ... It is probably incurable for both us and them. Question in what size?
          But we will NEVER find out.

          Hmm ... In Singapore, we somehow managed ..
          The truth is a little scoring on Roman law.
      6. eplewke
        +5
        7 August 2013 10: 48
        There is, of course, some truth ... It’s impossible to achieve former greatness, but the country was different, and now the interests are different. Well, we can create an excellent and efficient army! It is a fact! Let's remember the story!
        With which army did we meet Hitler and with which escort? With which deplorable army did we meet Napoleon, and with which we spent. It is the matter of time. Our and any state has ups and downs. And I think the path to the top is just beginning. Do you remember the state of our army 20 years ago! it's just awful! and now? there are already positive trends. And if all Western politicians are pouring mud on us, then comrades are on the right path! Because we were always afraid, afraid and will be afraid !!!
        1. +3
          7 August 2013 11: 05
          With which deplorable army did we meet Napoleon, and with which we spent.


          What are you talking about?
          1. +1
            7 August 2013 11: 17
            what was the deplorableness of the Russian army from the Napoleonic? except that the strength of the deplorable army could not defeat Napoleon. The army was just more united in Russia than Napoleon, judging by the national composition of the French army, where the Austrians, Prussians and Italians were gathered, who reluctantly fought for other people's ideas.
      7. +1
        8 August 2013 13: 36
        1.) Most likely, propaganda aimed at calming the potential enemies of the Russian Federation. Though they reassure themselves.
        2.) "The military can go online and see the technical specifications of many types of modern Western technology." --- Apparently theirs are military, journalists and analysts do not have the skills to access the Internet and cannot find information that, in addition to "modernized" equipment, new samples are supplied !!! Yes, perhaps a little, but this is the beginning. And for example --- How is the S-400 inferior to the LAMER M901 air defense system "Patriot" ??
      8. +1
        8 August 2013 16: 22
        Russian military usually get updated Cold War equipment


        Actually amers do the same!
      9. psdf
        0
        10 August 2013 04: 55
        Our non-technological-looking weapons, during the events of 08/08/08, contributed to the delivery of high-tech-looking weapons to an exhibition in Moscow.
    2. +11
      7 August 2013 08: 34
      The attitude to the Russian modernization of the armed forces at “Strategy Page” is as follows: the defense industry of Russia is not at all world-class; the Russian military usually receives updated equipment from the Cold War, which cannot compete with new generations of Western technology.
      Well, this is the "battlefield" for Messrs. Rogozin and Borisov - and prove to the West and, above all, to your people that American analysts are "spoiling nonsense .." We hope for your ability not only to speak, but also to organize important state affairs ...
    3. vladsolo56
      +12
      7 August 2013 08: 34
      There is such a phrase: Vaska listens, but eats. So let yourself write and think anything, only Russia has repeatedly proved its ability to concentrate at the right time. And who will reveal to them all the secrets of modern weapons, ready or prepared for production.
    4. serge-68-68
      +13
      7 August 2013 08: 36
      Politically unbiased sources evaluate the Russian army quite correctly.
      On the one hand - not all at once. Refreshing at least what is is already good.
      But on the other hand, without eradicating corruption, educating professionals, restoring production and science, the Russian army will not even look like the Soviet shadow.
    5. +7
      7 August 2013 08: 37
      There are a lot of cliches and mythical stereotypes in action. These "analysts" are not particularly deep.
      1. 0
        7 August 2013 12: 24
        Any analytical reviews can be criticized, especially if there are doubts about their objectivity. Or out of rejection when patriotic feelings suffer.
    6. +3
      7 August 2013 08: 40
      But in the USA everything is cloudless, a huge deficit, if a deflot occurs (and it does happen), the USA army will be buried without war.
      1. +3
        7 August 2013 08: 56
        Not cloudless. But at least they work, and are not involved in the development of funds.
        1. Regis
          +11
          7 August 2013 09: 36
          I apologize right away if I misunderstood you, but you should not rush from one extreme to another.

          It is certainly possible to say that the Americans do nothing but work for the good of the Motherland, and the Russians only "master the means," but this statement will have nothing to do with reality.

          Like where it says that in America everything is bad and they are about to fall apart.
          1. +3
            7 August 2013 09: 46
            Quote: Regis
            and Russians only "master the means"

            But what if, in most cases, the way it is? Like ostriches?

            The Americans have the opportunity to use market mechanisms to make their defense industry work for the country. We can't do it. On the contrary, all business initiatives in the right direction are extinguished at the root, which can be seen in the example of BAZ or "Corporation Protection". And the purely mercantile, aimed at "disbursing funds" receive all-round support.
            1. Regis
              +10
              7 August 2013 10: 33
              I apologize again. I don’t want to offend anyone, but in my opinion none of the people on the forum can fully know "how it really is" Neither in Russia nor tembolee in the United States. One can only make certain assumptions.

              It now reminded me of my old work) I was a worker and sincerely considered the authorities idiots) Because it periodically made decisions that I considered incorrect. Other workers did not understand them either.
              And a few years later, when I myself became the head of the same organization, I realized that most of the "idiotic" decisions were quite logical and correct in the current situation.
              1. +4
                7 August 2013 10: 52
                Quote: Regis
                I do not want to offend anyone, but in my opinion none of the people on the forum can fully know "how it really is"

                And this is fortunately. Most likely, everything is much worse than we know.
                For example, again BAZ. It is being squeezed out of the market for chassis manufacturers for weapons and military equipment. What for? It is correct that the corporation "Rostekhnologii" was able to master the funds for the creation from scratch of production capacities similar to the BAZ, already on the basis of KamAZ.
                There is a clear sacrifice of the interests of Moscow Region for the sake of another cut of funds.

                That is, we are observing a change in the very ideology of "rearmament of the army." The original task of rearmament itself was replaced by the task of absorbing funds and redistributing income to the pockets of the right people.
                1. Cat
                  +2
                  7 August 2013 13: 47
                  Quote: Spade
                  The original task of re-equipment itself was replaced by the task of utilizing funds and redistributing income into the pockets of the right people.

                  Apparently, therefore, the mentioned rearmament plan is so secret.
                2. 0
                  7 August 2013 21: 04
                  Lopatov, I have already said here that the BAZ is being rotten by the "pushers" and the State Duma lobbyists in favor of KamAZ, they shouted at me as if the lobbyists themselves. BAZ also has production experience, developments for the future, ready-made personnel, opportunities. Well, what else do you need?
                  1. +3
                    7 August 2013 23: 54
                    Quote: Very old
                    Well, what else do you need?

                    Its production, new jobs, a new technological base, new machines for the country and the army. And the necessary, scarce personnel will be lured by a high salary, an apartment, career growth. Yes, you never know the baits from marketing staff.
                3. +3
                  7 August 2013 23: 49
                  Quote: Spade
                  It is correct that the corporation "Rostekhnologii" was able to master the funds for the creation from scratch of production capacities similar to the BAZ, already on the basis of KamAZ.

                  NOT to use the funds, but to create a domestic production of heavy multi-axis machines (chassis for PGRK ICBMs). You somehow cunningly forget that BAZ is the production base of another (yes, allied, but different!) Country. With your budget, social network, etc. Then, who will feed their KAMAZ employees? Lukashenko? He has his mouth full of citizens of the Republic of Belarus.
                  So, dear, it's time to think about the realities of today, and not the stereotypes of the USSR. Although, personally, I myself will gladly vote for the renewed UNION OF SLAVIC REPUBLIC and KAZAKHSTAN and other republics of the former Union that freely joined it.
    7. +3
      7 August 2013 08: 43
      And it seems to me that John (Russian Ivan) sits somewhere in Texas and writes articles for these analysts to calm American souls, and comes on vacation to Russia to his homeland. Well, let them think. Russia, it's time for you to wake up and take up arms (development, production) !!!
    8. +5
      7 August 2013 08: 45
      They correctly described our problems. Well done.
      1. +1
        7 August 2013 09: 07
        Quote: Spade
        They correctly described our problems.

        This apparently Oleg correctly translated the article laughing
        1. +1
          7 August 2013 09: 13
          There is a source. You can see for yourself.
    9. +3
      7 August 2013 08: 46
      well, they did not compare the new model of our technology with foreign, they just know how to make allegations
      1. 0
        7 August 2013 09: 01
        They do not need to compare. They are right - there is no progress. Stuck.
      2. Fire
        +6
        7 August 2013 10: 33
        For some reason, the Americans do not look at their M-16s of the 60s, "Abrams" of the 70s and other rubbish that is still used, but it is necessary to dig deeper into "someone else's underwear" ... We have many developments of the 70s. 80s and to this day surpass their Western counterparts. I still hope that Mr. Shoigu will improve our army and equip it with more modern and RELIABLE military equipment.
        1. +1
          7 August 2013 21: 01
          Quote: feuer
          Something Americans do not look at their M-16s of the 60s, "Abrams" of the 70s and other rubbish,

          How many Abrams of the 1970s are equipped with the latest thermal imagers, communication systems and modern BIUS?
          How many of our tanks are equipped with thermal imagers?
          How many BMP and BMD equipped with thermal imagers were purchased by the RF Ministry of Defense?
          I am silent about BIUS (Redoubt) and communication facilities (P161 and clones) - upbringing does not allow obscene expression in the media.
      3. 0
        7 August 2013 20: 55
        Quote: Slevinst
        well, they did not compare the new model of our technology with foreign, they just know how to make allegations

        What is new?
        Which did not have time to accept in the USSR?
        1. 0
          8 August 2013 08: 42
          In Soviet times, there was no such electronics as they are now, and modernization of a successful Soviet chassis is the new technology. development is carried out on the example of tanks, even if you take it. Armata for example, and God forbid that the platform would be better than from T72. t72 has an excellent platform reliable and not whimsical.
    10. +7
      7 August 2013 08: 46
      two hundred dryers of generation 4 ++ simply annihilate "modern western technology". in general, this dull choir is simply ridiculous to listen to. after all the gay pride parades, it's ridiculous to think of Europeans as wars.
      1. +8
        7 August 2013 08: 51
        Quote: shoroh
        two hundred dryers of generation 4 ++ simply annihilate "modern western technology".
        If only it were all that simple. Even a thousand "dryers" and MiGs of generation 10 ++++++++ will turn out to be just a heap of metal if they are not skillfully used and they do not have the appropriate support and weapons. The time of "kladens swords" was only in fairy tales. In reality, only a well-trained and reasonably balanced army equipped with modern weapons wins.
        1. +6
          7 August 2013 08: 58
          Quote: svp67
          Even a thousand "dryers" and MiGs of generation 10 ++++++++ will turn out to be just a heap of metal if they are not skillfully used and they do not have the appropriate support and weapons.


          That is why Americans are focusing on drones, a gamer who does not experience overloads and remorse is capable of much.
          1. Cat
            0
            7 August 2013 13: 49
            Quote: Vadivak
            gamer without overload and remorse

            So it’s not easier for us
          2. 0
            7 August 2013 21: 03
            Quote: Vadivak

            That is why Americans are focusing on drones, a gamer who does not experience overloads and remorse is capable of much.

            Nevertheless, they take flying pilots to the Dron operators.
            He knows better how not to dump Dron into a flat corkscrew.
    11. Airman
      +8
      7 August 2013 08: 46
      I agree with the author of the article. Until we have a clear military doctrine of the state, there will be constant shyness from side to side. And corruption in the army is a consequence of corruption at the state level, and until state corruption is eradicated, it will also be in the armed forces, as they make up the state. Everyone wants to live beautifully, and the generals too.
      1. +4
        7 August 2013 09: 37
        I agree, the doctrine is important. For me, a mass of average-priced weapons will crush a bunch of expensive last word of technology.
      2. Fin
        0
        7 August 2013 20: 12
        Quote: Povshnik
        Until we have a clear military doctrine of the state, there will be constant shyness from side to side. And corruption in the army is a consequence of corruption at the state level, and until state corruption is eradicated, it will also be in the armed forces, as they make up the state. Everyone wants to live beautifully, and the generals too.

        Military Doctrine - a declaration of state policy in the field of military (defense) security. This is a system of official views and regulations, establishing the direction of military construction, preparing the state and the armed forces for war, methods and forms of its conduct.
        Declaration (French declaration - declaration) - 1) in constitutional law the name of a normative legal act with the aim of giving it a solemn character, emphasizing its particular importance for the fate of the relevant state. A specific feature of the declaration as a normative legal act is the general, non-specific nature of the provisions contained in them, requiring additional legislative regulation.

        Well, where does the military doctrine?
    12. +6
      7 August 2013 08: 46
      An article to reassure civilian western plankton ..
      1. +2
        8 August 2013 00: 25
        Quote: MIKHAN
        An article to reassure civilian western plankton.

        I agree with you, Vitaly. The little thing is weak, in my opinion wretched, for an amer chewing a hamburger. So that he sleeps peacefully.
        All military analysts argue with splashes from the pen, which is better: F-22 or our PAK FA. Here is silence. And why? Ours is much cheaper and TTX higher than an American.
        Armata is the highlight of the tank technology exhibition program. The show was canceled for reasons of secrecy, so the insinuations went: "nothing is ready, nothing to show!"
        Ash and Borea is so, childish pranks. What to write about them. And these are the quietest boats to date in the world. Well and so.
        Do we have a problem? Yes, even eat your ass! But why only bubble about them? What, little chernushka recently in the press has become, you need to spoil?
        I do not blame Oleg for anything: what they wrote, then translated. Although, as giving this forum material, it could have kicked the scribblers for the tendentiousness and one-sidedness of the material.
        I never belonged to cheers-patriots, I didn’t deal with hatred. Moreover, I consider this practice to be extremely harmful and dangerous for the training of the armed forces. But, not to see the shifts, not to rejoice at them, not to provide, at least, moral support to the leaders and laborers of the military-industrial complex, I consider it a black ingratitude for their titanic work. IMHO.
    13. +2
      7 August 2013 08: 49
      Well, there are some fair statements, but we know them without the snotty ones. this is material for their consumer. I do not think that the army is upset by new helicopters, submarines, air defense, etc., although there are areas in which we are clearly sagging. moving slowly - yes. not always high-quality performance - it also happens. but the main thing is that the process is ongoing. it's like a steam locomotive - the main thing is to disperse
    14. ed65b
      +9
      7 August 2013 09: 00
      Well, yes, and the T-50 is certainly just a miserable shadow of a raptor. Keep documents secret? And they wanted to be given something to read? naive people. And what they are interested in modernizing the Armed Forces, it means that things are going in the right direction, so the probable friends stirred.
    15. Dumb cattle
      +13
      7 August 2013 09: 02
      Complete nonsense that it is somehow very doubtful that, for example, the same Su-34 or "Iskander" is worse than Western models. Well, it made me laugh at all: @ after all, the Russian armed forces still use military equipment and equipment from the times of the Cold War - something that was made in the 1970s and 1980s, and even in the 50s and 60s "Yeah, but they themselves massively use the same F-15, F-16," Abrams ", etc. - what are the latest models of technology of the 21st century ?! lol
      1. +10
        7 August 2013 10: 44
        Dig deeper:
        "Despite the fact that B-52 was developed in 50s under the requirements of the Cold War, it still remains the main long-range bomber aircraft of the US Air Force and will remain so until at least 2018 or 2030. [5] "
        So "whose cow would bellow." laughing
        1. +2
          7 August 2013 21: 13
          Alexei, the current B-52 and his grandfather of the 50s are two big differences, as they say in a famous city. From the grandfather there was only a skeleton, a platform - it was too painful for them to succeed. The picture clearly shows this, even the novice engines. What about the filling? And what is in the belly?
        2. 0
          7 August 2013 21: 15
          TU-160 will be modernized. White Swan - long life!
      2. Donvel
        0
        7 August 2013 19: 46
        But they keep them on alert and constantly modernize. And ours are rusting. Often in the news I read "MI-8 / Su-27 crashed here and there."
    16. +4
      7 August 2013 09: 04
      Wishful thinking. They are right about the problems of doctrine and corruption, but in terms of technology and weapons they simply do not know the characteristics and are based on data of the "half-finger-ceiling" type. smile
      And this is good.
      1. +3
        7 August 2013 09: 15
        Hello Ivan! they also have enough corruption in the military-industrial complex. And that's putting it mildly. And nobody canceled the bias. And for sure they are "under supervision".
        1. +1
          7 August 2013 09: 23
          I will advise you: type in a search engine Army Weapon System 2012 download
          Their system is very different from ours, including its openness.
          1. 0
            7 August 2013 10: 12
            Quote: Spade
            I will advise you: type in the search engine Army Weapon System 2012 download
            Thank you! hi
          2. 0
            7 August 2013 10: 46
            Scored. But I did not find the desired data either by Avax or by F22
            1. 0
              7 August 2013 11: 10
              F-22 should be looked at in old ones. As well as "Avaks". This is a report on what was done last year.

              Try to see here:

              http://pentagonus.ru/publ/perspektivy_razvitija_sistemy_upravlenija_vozdushnym_k

              omponentom_obedinjonnykh_operativnykh_formirovanij_ssha / 16-1-0-1600

              http://pentagonus.ru/publ/16-1-0-587

              http://pentagonus.ru/publ/16
        2. +6
          7 August 2013 10: 58
          Hello Jura! I know about their corruption. But what bothers me is not their mess, but ours. Russia is somehow closer to me. And even if they steal, we would have to lean our thieves against the wall. hi
          1. +2
            7 August 2013 11: 12
            Hello Ivan! Even under Stalin they were stealing, they were not afraid ... And even under the present ... So that they cannot be leaned against the wall. It is still possible to minimize losses from their "activity" by fighting the most egregious cases of theft. But in general: you have to get used to it. Capitalism, however. From Monday on vacation. I will be 02.09. already in the city. Well, somewhere until 10.09. let's go you know where.
            1. +5
              7 August 2013 11: 23
              so they stole under Stalin at their own peril and risk. In our time, there is no fear and no risk. on the contrary, the one who does not steal in the eyes of the others looks like crazy.
            2. +4
              7 August 2013 14: 24
              smile Agreed! In the meantime, I’m probably going to roll back to Pyshma again, update the pictures, look, I’ll post some interesting things.
    17. +1
      7 August 2013 09: 11
      American analysts who think to inform a wide audience and analysts who think for decision makers are different people.
      This is like our HBO.
    18. +2
      7 August 2013 09: 15
      Good whine on unfulfilled hopes. We are clearly shocked by the modernization that has begun, and this is an indicator!
      1. +1
        7 August 2013 09: 17
        Of course in shock. Money goes somewhere, but there are no results. They do not understand how this is possible.
        1. +4
          7 August 2013 09: 28
          Come on shovels facts or are you also on the bait of the State Department?
          1. 0
            7 August 2013 09: 39
            On the contrary, agents of the State Department should shout "everything is fine with us", "we have no analogue in the world" "we will throw our caps over" "any criticism is unfounded statements."

            Here's how you, for example.
          2. +7
            7 August 2013 10: 13
            Quote: Slevinst
            Come on shovels facts or are you also on the bait of the State Department?

            Well, let's say, will the facts on "Oboronservis" and "Slavyanka" suit you?
            And the facts of a systematic disruption of the defense order, about which power men constantly resent?
            1. 0
              8 August 2013 08: 44
              Well, something is still done after such a long stagnation, this can be considered normal. but they steal everywhere only f35 what it costs
          3. +7
            7 August 2013 10: 30
            you know, as soon as someone starts to say real things, screams immediately begin: agent, spy. in fact, say Lopatov the truth. each new minister begins the modernization of the army and navy, which ends with nothing. take and summarize all the funds allocated to the defense industry as a whole and think about why the military uses mainly Soviet equipment
            1. +1
              7 August 2013 11: 20
              Retrofitting is a type of "big" home renovation.
              As you know, "you cannot finish it, you can only stop it." winked
              1. +3
                7 August 2013 11: 27
                Weapon modernization, unlike repair, can neither be completed nor stopped.
    19. +3
      7 August 2013 09: 18
      Thanks to Oleg for the review! And the “Strategy Page” is a very interesting resource. I don’t speak languages ​​myself, but we went there several times with our guys. Liked.
    20. +5
      7 August 2013 09: 20
      Well, the T-50 has come out cheaper, the elites are slowly nationalizing - today, by the way, is the last day for officials to get rid of foreign assets. Again, LGBT people do not favor. Not everything is certainly rosy, far away. Well, honestly, most participants in this forum have the opportunity to feed themselves and their families, have housing, cars, etc. And now try to take all this away!
    21. ded10041948
      +1
      7 August 2013 09: 27
      I was especially pleased with the phrase: "sailors, especially senior commanders." What is it like?
    22. +9
      7 August 2013 09: 48
      And also the old-fashioned Russian heterosexual military, are not able to withstand the advanced NATO combat bastards! hi
    23. +1
      7 August 2013 09: 50
      Also on the site it is noted that a big problem is the fact that the new equipment, which was received by the troops, the army "is not impressive." The military can go online and see the technical characteristics of many types of modern Western technology. Russian weapons rarely look good by comparison, analysts say.


      This is more of a cultural lag. If the author knew not only English, but also Russian, he would honor the characteristics of weapons on the other side of the barricades. And flying irons for many yards and oblique air defense, he would have dreamed in nightmares about the 3 world.

      Although in fairness for something, the author is right - there was a lag in the navy. In electronics, quite large, as in drones.
    24. USNik
      +3
      7 August 2013 09: 52
      The military can go online and see the technical specifications of many types of modern Western technology. Russian weapons rarely look good in comparison, analysts say.

      Yeah, internet war is as cool as pen-ping. I can also advise "noting analysts" to drink less and read more specialized forums, where they can learn a lot of interesting things about their military trash.
      1. +4
        7 August 2013 10: 19
        Do you want me to describe to you the mechanism of what you call "war on the Internet"?

        The military begins to become interested in what the probable enemy has in terms of counter-battery struggle. Yeah, tactical ACS artillery AFATDS. in the troops of 5100 sets, modernization is being carried out. C-RAM (Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Mortar) - counter-battery control system, the new ARSOM Enhanced Q-36 radar, and the modernization of the light LCMR. Powerful.

        The military reads: the troops received N units of 2S34 "Host". The military man wonders what they are. Oops, yes, these are castrated "Veins", machines with the level of automation of the 80s.

        Given the American successes in the field of counter-battery combat, the military concludes: disposable self-propelled guns adapted only for war with the Papuans enter the troops.
        1. +2
          7 August 2013 10: 34
          Yeah, tactical ACS artillery AFATDS. in the troops of 5100 kits, modernization is underway. C-RAM (Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Mortar) - counter-battery control system, the new ARSOM Enhanced Q-36 radar, and the modernization of the light LCMR. Powerful.

          The names are beautiful, inspire. But in fact?
          1. +3
            7 August 2013 11: 02
            And then we no longer have the two minutes that the old Takfaer system gave. That is, the ideology of counteraction, embedded in the old 2S19 "Msta-S" - "one minute fire raid, and knocked down" no longer works.
            Decentralization only. Like the Americans. And we have only "Vienna", 2s19m2 and "Tornado-G" of such samples, which the cat cried. And there are even fewer ASUO complexes for them
            1. +4
              7 August 2013 11: 06
              and someone tried hard to ensure that the "Vienna" 2s31 system was not adopted, instead they offered mine 2s18,
              1. +1
                7 August 2013 11: 22
                They got their way. "Vienna" was put into service, but 2C34 "Hosta" and 2C23 "Nona-SVK" are going to the troops
                1. +1
                  7 August 2013 12: 32
                  very sorry. the "Vienna" system bought by ours shows good results with us
    25. +5
      7 August 2013 09: 58
      Russia's defense industry is not at all world-class, the Russian military usually get updated equipment from the Cold War, which cannot compete with new generations of Western equipment.

      S ... look at your technique.
      Also on the site it is noted that a big problem is the fact that the new equipment, which was received by the troops, the army "is not impressive." The military can go online and see the technical characteristics of many types of modern Western technology. Russian weapons rarely look good by comparison, analysts say.

      Rarely? Come on? How many samples of the latest technology are in the US Army? Do they serve, not test sites? Yes, you can count on the fingers!
      And already what problems have ripened and something is not visible movements in the direction of their solution, even scary to estimate.
      As usual, the United States used its most effective weapon - the media. The rest of the weapons are only for the Papuans.
    26. 0
      7 August 2013 10: 00
      There are some statements that are true ... and so - wipe the article!
    27. badabing
      +2
      7 August 2013 10: 02
      self-confidence of course they are always full
      we know very well about our problems ourselves, but to make such one-sided conclusions is very silly for them
      they’ll snatch at a bread box in any story (God forbid of course this happens)
      the whole world, damn it, is fighting "outdated samples of weapons of the Cold War times" against ultra-modern samples of the Western and even not noticeable tangible advantages of NATO technologies
    28. pluton
      +5
      7 August 2013 10: 08
      Russian soldiers usually get updated equipment from the Cold War era, which cannot compete with new generations of Western equipment.


      New generations is that Abrams with Leopards, F-16 and F-18, etc.?
      Everything was developed before the end of the Cold War. The lion's share of equipment (which is now in service), both in the West and in Russia, was developed before the end of the Cold War and it (this equipment) is being modernized, which is quite normal. If everything they had was new, then no, far from all.
    29. +5
      7 August 2013 10: 11
      when his army was called the "Red Army"

      The Red Army ended in February 1946. After that, it was called Soviet.
    30. +4
      7 August 2013 10: 19
      The article, although the problems of our military-industrial complex are indicated, but somehow everything is one-sided.
      If they write that their technique is superior to ours, it depends on what. Somewhere better, somewhere worse, and in the Soviet Army it was. It’s strange, do their analysts really don’t know what to call the Red Army
      in the year 46. Too many cliches in the article ...
      Such articles should be more detailed. In general, minus ...
      1. Cat
        +2
        7 August 2013 13: 59
        Quote: Russ69
        It’s strange, do their analysts really don’t know what to call the Red Army
        in 46 year.

        This is too deep a level of analytics for them. If even American DOCUMENTARY serials show the "chronicle" of the Finnish war, in which the Red Army men flaunt in uniform ...
        And all would be nothing - he and Hollywood are for that, but in the credits are military consultants with the rank of brigadier generals and colonels.
    31. 0
      7 August 2013 10: 22
      If anything, then We Russian are not going to attack anyone ....
    32. Grigorich 1962
      +1
      7 August 2013 10: 29
      disgusting ordering .....
      all armies have problems ... I’m sure that in the American army they are no less ...
      but that disgusting tone of the article conjures up the idea that, as it were, denigrate the Russian army ......
      1. +3
        7 August 2013 10: 40
        Yes, everyone has problems. But there is one but strict report on the work done, strict control over each dollar - what is spent where. Agree that in Russia and in general throughout the former union no one knows where and what the money is spent for. For example A proton exploded with three satellites. Damage to billions, who in response-Popovkin. Than punished. going to remove from work. and all. billions of state money can be threatened, and one sentence can be removed from work. Each defense ministry as soon as it takes office begins to change its uniform in the troops. Is the problem in the army only how the soldier or officer is dressed? all who come basically starts with cutting dough
    33. +1
      7 August 2013 10: 32
      Do not forget that this report is made for ordinary people
    34. The comment was deleted.
    35. +1
      7 August 2013 10: 40
      Quote: "Therefore, the current Russian army will be nothing more than a" shadow "of the Soviet army in the days of its glory." Only with this one can agree, with the rest went to the train ...
      1. +3
        7 August 2013 10: 47
        Yeah, compared ... 15 countries worked for the USSR army. The Russian army contains only Russia. And who will be whose shadow there, we will still see.
    36. +1
      7 August 2013 10: 45
      that's because the bastards beat the patient. on corruption and indifference. but a speck in someone else's eye ... would have looked at themselves, "analysts"
    37. +5
      7 August 2013 10: 49
      A disgusting libel, and what to expect from our implacable enemies. Only denigrating our Army and its weapons, for some reason, they write like boiling water only when they hear that VVP will supply S-300 to Syria and Iran. And their vaunted Patriots did more harm to Israel than Iraqi SCADs. And we also remember how their vaunted troops skedaddle from several SS formations in the Ardennes and at the same time yelled: "Uncle Joe help me" and Joseph Vissarionovich helped, otherwise they would have flown to the Atlantic Ocean. And Vietnam showed what they were standing on delo.Mnogo mind does not need to bomb a weak enemy, if Russia were weak, they would not fail to "make us happy"! The verbiage and manipulation of facts, and especially the military secret, we have not forgotten how to keep, thank God. Well, I really want to take a look at Russia's plans to modernize the Army and Navy at least with one eye.
    38. pahom54
      +2
      7 August 2013 10: 56
      Any modernization of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is a thousand times better than their collapse. Suppose that at some level our some technique is inferior in some way to some of their technique, but !!! The spirit of the Russian peasant has not yet been completely exterminated by diapers and sneakers. God forbid, they will produce and master the normal technique, which, if necessary, will be given to the head on steep Americans.
    39. 0
      7 August 2013 10: 59
      I wonder if the pain of trying to conclude agreements on the cessation of the development and production of new models, for example tanks, artillery, could save a lot of money smile
    40. me
      me
      +1
      7 August 2013 11: 04
      And what did you expect to hear if the president and the defense ministry themselves are not satisfied with the quality of military equipment, plus new facts of corruption in the military department. who then will sing praises to us.
      1. 0
        7 August 2013 23: 50
        So far, the facts are old, that's how Shoigu descends to the left of who he has there - new ones will appear. But the fact that he will change is not a fact.
    41. +3
      7 August 2013 11: 06
      Well, in many respects the "citizens" are right in stating the facts, but we already know them. But their conclusions do not agree with the facts :):
      "From some information about SAP, the authors conclude that over the next decade in Russia will be replaced at least a third of the available equipment, and in some categories (usually high-tech) - and more than 80%."
      - how so, everything is bad, but here - wow! :) Something in the USA, I have not heard about such plans, even China seems to have less appetite :))
    42. Valery Neonov
      0
      7 August 2013 11: 10
      Quote: Orel
      They found all the bad that they could and did not say a word about the good. Wrong approach.

      The "pure American" approach - what is not American is not right ... hi
    43. +1
      7 August 2013 11: 27
      The abundance of minuses of respected people is striking. Hand of the Professor, not otherwise.
    44. alabin
      +3
      7 August 2013 11: 43
      The "value" of Russian (Soviet) weapons has always been in its "simplicity" AND TECHNOLOGY (t-34.AK-47.)
    45. +1
      7 August 2013 11: 44
      Let them think so. An important moment, they themselves will not recall the report of this publication with warm words !!!!
    46. +2
      7 August 2013 11: 46
      In the 90s, according to these "fucking" analysts, everything was "OK!" - and now everything is bad! Fuck they ...
    47. +3
      7 August 2013 11: 59
      put + article, let it be so I think that the more such experts from the United States there are, the easier it will be for us in the future)))) although there are many problems to be denied.
      1. 0
        7 August 2013 12: 47
        absolutely agree with you hi
    48. Idolum
      +1
      7 August 2013 12: 06
      Well done, they calmed themselves ...)))
    49. +1
      7 August 2013 12: 24
      Well, of course, reading a lot is ridiculous. The only thing they are right in is that no matter how modernizable and rearmable we are, all this will be only a shadow of the power that was once in the USSR army. See the same teachings of the 70s. It seems that when they were held, the whole world was shaking under the pillow! This is power. But still, God forbid, we still get up from our knees! At least the latest news only says that we are buying new weapons and modernizing the old ones, and not like 15 years ago we cut and sell the regime.
    50. vitas
      +3
      7 August 2013 12: 44
      The army needs a TOTAL modernization and updating, and this is possible only when we eradicate corruption, apparently not soon. recourse

      Z.Y. Such a country profuci recourse Now you need to build a new one. soldier
    51. +2
      7 August 2013 12: 49
      If our modernization of weapons is criticized by the sworn “friends” of American agitprop, then Russia is taking the right path in rearming its army and navy.
    52. +2
      7 August 2013 12: 53
      The American website notes that the trouble with Russian modernization lies in the very approach to it: only “a few people” have access to classified thousands of pages of analysis and calculations for improving the armed forces.
      It is noted that not all of these people find meaning in the State Armaments Program (or SAP). But how can society debate about this program if no one is able to thoroughly and specifically criticize it? After all, it is shrouded in the darkness of mystery.


      This profane nonsense was invented by analysts?
      Why should society argue about the weapons program? What does society understand about this?
      Decisions are still made by a few competent individuals with real knowledge and power.
      In the USA there are samples of new military equipment, but the Russian Federation also has them, and the armies, both theirs and ours, are mainly armed with equipment from the 60s and 70s. Moreover, the level of our technology is significantly higher than that of the American ones; the USSR had a clear weapons program and more military experience than the Yusovites.
    53. Dimitry
      +2
      7 August 2013 12: 59
      Hi all ! Another “cartoon” about a bad army in Russia, as always from behind a hillock on paper, it’s time to get used to this and not pay attention, but not a single star-striped scum will ever dare to go against Russia, as in the proverb, he who talks a lot, he worthless. The West had a chance when Mother Russia was in a loop in the 90s, and even then they didn’t muster up the courage, but now they’re barking from every corner, until 2005 I didn’t hear them at all, but there’s no information about what’s going on there and how Russia’s doing it, and if they do, then we are leaking them. A fucking army of commercial boobies, with a belly full of Coca-Cola and hamburgers, gays and lisbians, will teach us sense.....Everything ahead will soon bleed with...they will be out of anger , and say that they are “extremely outraged and concerned”!
    54. +2
      7 August 2013 13: 02
      Also on the site it is noted that a big problem is the fact that the new equipment, which was received by the troops, the army "is not impressive." The military can go online and see the technical characteristics of many types of modern Western technology. Russian weapons rarely look good by comparison, analysts say.

      Smiled ...

      Even if this is so, then why are all the recent wars being fought largely with Russian weapons??

      That even American “Rambauds” sometimes go to clean-up operations with PPSh? I’m not talking about Kalash, even if they’re made in China...
      And the Iskanders force our “friends” to abandon some strategic plans, and I suspect not only military ones?

      And Russian missile defense systems haunt Western democrats.
    55. +2
      7 August 2013 13: 05
      Our most important military secret is the stamina and courage of the Russian soldier, as well as our ability (“As for the officials who run the Russian defense industry...) to do everything to spite the enemy - contrary to logic and common sense. So far I see no reason that life has refuted these truths. And what does this article have to do with it? An article is a means, but the amers have one goal, the author of the article has another. With the amers, everything is clear, why bother incriminating them once again - their goals betray their intentions and vice versa, and thanks to the author for the information. Facts can be measured endlessly and to no avail, but it is impossible to trace trends in our conditions. You can, of course, believe in the wisdom of the leaders and your invincibility, but the trickery always backfired. We can’t “defeat” corruption and theft, strategists, damn it... - the struggle of the Nanai boys is demonstrated.
    56. +1
      7 August 2013 13: 11
      hi
      Quote: svp67
      Quote: shoroh
      two hundred dryers of generation 4 ++ simply annihilate "modern western technology".
      If only it were all that simple. Even a thousand "dryers" and MiGs of generation 10 ++++++++ will turn out to be just a heap of metal if they are not skillfully used and they do not have the appropriate support and weapons. The time of "kladens swords" was only in fairy tales. In reality, only a well-trained and reasonably balanced army equipped with modern weapons wins.

      good hi
    57. +1
      7 August 2013 13: 11
      >>
      But for some reason, having seen enough of the excellent Western military equipment on the Internet, game cratizers armed with it do not risk going to Syria (the Syrian opposition is begging for help), where “bad” Russian air defense equipment awaits them and in general they are... out of fear of the possibility of the appearance The Syrians have S-300! And the amount of “bad” Russian equipment purchased annually by different countries speaks for itself!
    58. Wolverine67
      0
      7 August 2013 14: 22
      Quote: Wedmak
      In addition, just in case, the United States holds part of the removed warheads as a return potential and does not destroy them like us, but stores them in warehouses,

      So such charges have some shelf life. Himself cast iron the charge becomes worthless.

      .....in Zheleznogorsk there is a mountain, there is a deep hole in it, that hole FH is called there; a whole warehouse of warheads is stored there and warheads are forged, and there is a squad of “speckled” boys on guard!!!!
    59. Vlad_Mir
      +2
      7 August 2013 14: 46
      The "correct" opinion about the command staff. It is very difficult to exterminate Serdyukovism!
    60. +2
      7 August 2013 14: 49
      Well, maybe it’s good that they think so. Let them think so
    61. 0
      7 August 2013 15: 05
      It seems to me that in fact there are more problems in the West, not in Russia. Weapons created in the West, without receiving qualitatively new characteristics, have low reliability and combat effectiveness characteristics. Under training conditions, not particularly tough tests, etc. This technique certainly commands respect, but try to use it in real conditions, when the weather brings surprises (frost, dirt, dust, etc.), when there is no time to calibrate and repair it. Yes, without calibration after the march it cannot be used at all! It's reminiscent of parade equipment. The old Soviet school of weapons development and production is based, on the contrary, on maximum combat effectiveness in the most difficult conditions. At the same time, in terms of price/quality ratio, the advantage is usually 2-3 times. Can you imagine that in a video from Syria, instead of Soviet equipment, which is used there in the most difficult conditions, it is immediately repaired, something is welded literally on the go... So that instead of it there would be, for example, Abrams??? Yes, even without participating in hostilities, they would have all broken down long ago and been laid up.
      And regarding the fight against corruption... So let them first deal with corruption in their army. Corruption among Western generals and the simple siphoning of huge amounts of funds from the military budget have reached unprecedented proportions. Many developments on which billions of dollars have been spent are not able to fulfill their stated functions and generally break all records for inefficiency. You can, in the American style, compile “the top 10 most moronic weapons developments.” They will have no equal in this rating.
      1. Su-9
        0
        8 August 2013 01: 20
        In my opinion, everything greatly depends on the desire and need to operate the equipment carefully and repair it. An everyday example - my grandfather cherished his penny, although he traveled a lot - the result is 30 years and 250 tons. mileage I personally know pioneers who ruined new Lada cars within a year. It’s the same in Syria - they are keeping an eye on Soviet equipment, since there won’t be another one, and without it, a bastard will come. And the reliability of what we do varies greatly. Compare the Mig-21 (even the Moscow-assembled one) with the F-5 in terms of unpretentiousness (I’m not even talking about the 23rd). Or T-80+ with Leopard 2. Unfortunately, the advantage is not in our favor at all. And money is floating around everywhere. Those who have more money splurge more.
    62. +3
      7 August 2013 16: 45
      The American website notes that the trouble with Russian modernization lies in the very approach to it: only “a few people” have access to classified thousands of pages of analysis and calculations for improving the armed forces.

      Interesting guys! Shouldn’t they let you dig into the General Staff’s safes? Any more or less in-depth and detailed analytics in the military sphere are kept secret no worse than military technical secrets
    63. +5
      7 August 2013 16: 58
      The attitude to the Russian modernization of the armed forces at “Strategy Page” is as follows: the defense industry of Russia is not at all world-class; the Russian military usually receives updated equipment from the Cold War, which cannot compete with new generations of Western technology.


      by itself. Therefore, half the planet is striving to arm itself with “second-rate” equipment.
      We have never been able to withstand competition. however, no matter how many times our pilots offered conditional air fights to the “valiant hawks” of NATO countries, they were always refused for some reason. Apparently they don’t see the point in competing with such easy prey.

      and our tanks are rubbish. they cannot withstand 30 RPG-7 hits. but the Abrams don’t care, well, not counting incidents equal in number of tanks deployed to Iraq, when they took the M1A2 to hell head-on under the turret. well this is just an exception...

      Also on the site it is noted that a big problem is the fact that the new equipment, which was received by the troops, the army "is not impressive." The military can go online and see the technical characteristics of many types of modern Western technology. Russian weapons rarely look good by comparison, analysts say.

      That’s just the point, they can look at the numbers of the given performance characteristics, the desired performance characteristics, which their vessels will never achieve in their lives. it's all business. draw a couple of numbers and someone will definitely buy this “candy”.
      And by the way, the fact that they paid attention says only a few things:
      1) they are extremely lacking in information. their intelligence is shit.
      2) our army is beginning to intrigue even the world hegemons, which in turn indicates an improvement in the situation.
      p.s. God, burn America!!!!
    64. 0
      7 August 2013 16: 58
      Quote: Constantine
      Quote: Fin
      And it's good that they don't really know anything. As usual, the "analysis" is made from the Russian media. Some general phrases. Yes, there are enough problems, but if the military-industrial complex is raised as promised, they will be unpleasantly surprised. Until then, let them consider us backward.


      Given the level of organization of their intelligence, they know as much as they need. Unless on some, over secret samples they do not know. Simple equipment has long been shown and felt by them, or their experts have carefully watched this technique.

      PS
      But if it does not fulfill them, the morale of the army will drop below the plinth.


      So they did not realize that the Russians were fighting not because of money and pathos, but were standing for death for their homeland, albeit with an oar to the advantage. smile So many times the West raked here and never delivered the main lesson. smile


      But you can’t fight much war with just one spirit.
      1. +1
        7 August 2013 20: 20
        Quote: Kibalchish
        But you can’t fight much war with just one spirit.

        And without spirit, no super duper technology will help. No one calls for fighting with one spirit. Only the presence of both factors can ensure success.
        1. -1
          7 August 2013 21: 00
          Chris, justify your minus, if, of course, you can.
    65. +1
      7 August 2013 17: 17
      they are more interested in what is hidden behind sap. and everything else was attributed to attract public opinion. only sap, he’s like sap on the hand and more.
    66. BAT
      +3
      7 August 2013 17: 54
      It is very important that the whole world continues to consider Russia weak and not combat-ready for as long as possible. Let them console themselves with the thought that they have no equal. And we will calmly and confidently modernize and strengthen our army and navy.
      For them in due time 08.08.08. came as a big surprise. So you need to constantly throw all sorts of surprises at them...
    67. Mr. Truth
      +1
      7 August 2013 18: 14
      Strategy Page has never been known for its impartiality. For example, it seems to me that they do not miss topics about the budget of the Armed Forces, the cancellation of some necessary programs and the reduction of combat personnel. According to SP, everything is fine only in Israel and the USA.
    68. +2
      7 August 2013 18: 42
      in the Russian army everything will be legi artis. sooner or a little later, but it will happen. and I personally don’t give a damn about staff analysts in this area.
    69. Gadsnz
      +3
      7 August 2013 18: 56
      The longer Western analysts hold this opinion about the Russian army and the country as a whole, the better for us and the worse for them, for obvious reasons. Let them say and write what they want, and we will continue to rearm and develop for the benefit of ourselves and our great Motherland!!!
    70. +3
      7 August 2013 19: 01
      ...receive updated equipment from the Cold War era, which cannot compete with new generations of Western equipment...

      But if a supernew European tank gets its head blown off (burns a hole) with our old shell, how will they react? Will they yell that we are again fighting against the rules or that we are modernizing our tanks incorrectly?
    71. vip.da78
      +2
      7 August 2013 19: 10
      Quote: AleksUkr
      Why should we be offended? They actually tell us our bottlenecks. We even need to say thank you to them for this. And our officials and industrialists have something to work on. When our "sworn" friends have nothing to pick up on Russia, we can breathe a little.
      AND WHILE WE HAVE WHAT WE HAVE ...


      Of course, they have up to... (many) divisions, brigades and tanks, but there is a concept of operational capacity... And through Belarus, both in 41 and in 2000... as there were three roads through forests and swamps, it remains so. Well, we also have enough grenade launchers and TNT... (like they have tanks). wink
      1. +1
        8 August 2013 01: 00
        Quote: vip.da78
        . And through Belarus, both in 41 and in 2000... as there were three roads through forests and swamps, it remains the same.

        Everything is fine, brother, but recently helicopters, convertible helicopters and BTA planes have appeared. The bastards even came up with (!) “vertical coverage”, some kind of “frog jumping” (jokers, damn these amers!). And you “operational capacity” (apparently about the theater of operations?), I guess you forgot about throughput, or what? A? Nothing, it happens!
        1. 0
          8 August 2013 07: 06
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          The bastards even came up with (!) “vertical coverage”, some kind of “frog jumping” (jokers, damn these amers!). And you “operational capacity” (apparently about the theater of operations?), I guess you forgot about throughput, or what?

          Good afternoon dear Alexander hi
          no, why not, from a theoretical point of view it’s very interesting, but it’s practically all the same to a soldier... well, not on his belly, but he’ll have to walk :)
          Another point is that maybe you don’t need to walk through Belarus as much as in 41, now the cruising range of the Tigers’ equipment is more than 50 km :), you can simply go around it - at least through the Baltic states, at least, why? maybe it goes through Ukraine... They’re not fools there either, why should they hit the forehead when here it is from Donbass - and the Urals :(
    72. 0
      7 August 2013 19: 55
      It’s just that the article was written by an analyst who has no material for analysis: the first approach to the projectile, so to speak. About corruption and the machines of the Ochakov era and the conquest of the Crimea... In general, I like the situation when brand new missiles with the latest control systems are installed on an old time-worn ship. Try to step into the shoes of this analyst. What will he begin to paint?
      P.S. And the conscription plan has been 100% fulfilled for all known times... And there’s a queue for the army... Times like these.
      Yes, and I agree with the opinion that the next big war will differ from the previous one in that they will fight with ALREADY MANUFACTURED weapons, from arsenals. Therefore, we need things and their proper storage.
    73. cool.ya-nikola
      +1
      7 August 2013 20: 06
      Quote: Constantine
      Considering the level of organization of their intelligence, they know as much as they need.

      Here, dear Konstantin, let me doubt this a little. If they really knew “as much as they need,” why would these complaints about
      ...that only “a few people” have access to classified thousands of pages of analysis and calculations for improving the aircraft.

      Well, you must agree, it’s so un-American to keep “thousands of pages of analysis and calculations secret” without access to them by “the general public”... There’s a real problem with these Russians!... Well, they don’t want to learn democracy! ...Involuntarily you remember the “cozy 90s”, That was the “lafa”! They brought all the secrets themselves!... Let us remember Bakatin and all the CIA employees who worked absolutely legally as advisers to the president and his “team”! Ah, now only “a few people” have access to secrets! This is not order!...
      As for the rest, I absolutely agree with Vladislav: -
      Quote: sichevik
      It is very important that the whole world continues to consider Russia weak and not combat-ready for as long as possible. Let them amuse themselves with the thought that they have no equal

      The more pleasant and unexpected there will be “surprises”!
      1. Crang
        -2
        7 August 2013 21: 00
        Quote: cool.ya-nikola

        The more pleasant and unexpected there will be “surprises”!

        How joyful you are. Watch the movie K-19 or something... The armed forces are not only and not so much a means to destroy the enemy - rather, this is their last task. The armed forces are an instrument of big politics and a guarantee of peace. This is what keeps a potential enemy from attacking our homeland. If this guarantee is not available, or if the enemy they do not knowthat she is there, he will attack. Yes - for the enemy it will be a “surprise” - and Mr. cool.ya-nikola will be able to laugh merrily, but what a “surprise” this will be for us... Especially if we cannot win. What a surprise, what a surprise. We are currently unable to confront NATO or China with conventional weapons alone. There remains WMD and one more trump card called “Scarecrow” - that is, simply frighten the enemy with your power. But for this, the enemy must see this power.
    74. Crang
      -3
      7 August 2013 20: 19
      It was unpleasant to read this article. But the author is right about one thing - the Russian Army today is truly a pale shadow of the super-powerful Soviet army. Things are even worse with the fleet - it is actively replenished with tugs and schooners. And the problem here is not even economic, but rather social and demographic.
    75. 0
      7 August 2013 20: 42
      There is a feeling that the article is unprofessional and contradictory, some amateurs or manipulation of consciousness.
      First they say:
      The attitude to the Russian modernization of the armed forces at “Strategy Page” is as follows: the defense industry of Russia is not at all world-class; the Russian military usually receives updated equipment from the Cold War, which cannot compete with new generations of Western technology.

      and right there:
      From some information about SAP, the authors conclude that over the next decade at least a third of the existing equipment in Russia will be replaced, and in some categories (usually high-tech) - more than 80%

      So outdated or high tech?
    76. 0
      7 August 2013 20: 44
      Quote: Panikovsky
      in the Russian army everything will be pro legi artis. sooner or a little later, but it will be...

      I join the opinion! good With wishes of success in raising the Russian military-industrial complex, the fighting Russian army and “bothering” Western analysts.
    77. 0
      7 August 2013 21: 27
      The modernization of our army, in their opinion and ardent desire, is the elimination of naval, air force, and ground forces with the formation of detachments of farmer militia armed with batons.
    78. +1
      7 August 2013 21: 32
      I’m unlikely to say anything new, but the conclusion, in my opinion, is clear: in terms of conventional weapons, the Russian Federation is unlikely to be able to establish parity with NATO countries in the foreseeable future, therefore it is necessary to develop nuclear weapons that would guarantee a breakthrough of any missile defense system. This will be the only one hundred percent guarantee of peace!
    79. +1
      7 August 2013 21: 33
      Fortunately, such information publications obtain information exclusively through the analysis of information posted on the Internet (maybe including from this site). Our former fellow citizens sit (in the service of Uncle Sam) and surf the Internet all day long (while working off their weekly salary) looking for our utterances and then they compile it and present it as the real state of affairs!!! You can be sure of that! In principle, US government agencies work the same way, with the difference that they have more correct information at their disposal (obtained by agents)! And the result of their analysis rarely ends up on the pages of the press - for various reasons - but not without taking into account what is wrong EVERYTHING is bad with us! (Besides, the historical aspect is always added. Bismarck said, “Don’t hope that, having once taken advantage of Russia’s weakness, you will receive dividends forever. Russians always come for their money. And when they come, don’t hope on the Jesuit agreements you signed, supposedly exonerating you. They are not worth the paper they are written on. Therefore, you should either play honestly with the Russians, or not play at all" and "Never plot anything against Russia - they will find their stupidity in any of our cunning .
      It is impossible to defeat the Slavs, we have seen this for hundreds of years.
      This is an indestructible state of the Russian nation, strong in its climate, its spaces and limited needs.
      Even the most favorable outcome of an open war will never lead to the disintegration of the main strength of Russia, which is based on millions of Russians themselves...” And the guy was not stupid at all!! )) Therefore, you can read such translations, but take them seriously - it’s funny!
    80. +2
      7 August 2013 21: 36
      Article minus.
      You can also link to this site and local analysts).
      And pearls like:
      "The Russian government is making big plans. But if it does not fulfill them, the morale of the army will drop below the plinth."
      - well, they should not be present in an analytical article, which initially assumes the academic level of their analysts, author and audience. At the very least, this is not respectful to military personnel.
    81. +2
      7 August 2013 21: 43
      Well, what else should they write about Russia??? We need to distract our taxpayers with something... The pissers are really pressed... And the “democrats” are cutting down their nuclear power, and somehow it didn’t work out very well with the 5th generation... but why didn’t it work out at all... and it's a pity lol. Where's the money? they will be asked soon.
    82. +2
      7 August 2013 22: 49
      What do American analysts think about the modernization of the Russian army
      Who the f....t, what do they think???? Who are they anyway???
    83. Peaceful military
      +1
      7 August 2013 23: 07
      Well, being a newcomer to this Site, I will also note my opinion, but not because I am a newcomer, but because it hurts, like an officer of the SA - USSR Armed Forces.
      The long-overdue modernization, but no, no longer modernization, but the real rearmament of our Army, is clearly being slowed down, even with the appropriate financial capabilities.
      QUESTION, why? Seriously, who benefits from this? And then, as M. Zadornov used to say: “That’s where the dog rummaged...”
      That's why the Americans are freaking out.
      1. +1
        8 August 2013 01: 24
        Quote: Peaceful military
        The long-overdue modernization, but no, no longer modernization, but the real rearmament of our Army, is clearly being slowed down, even with the appropriate financial capabilities.
        QUESTION, why?

        In addition to money, to get the final product you need:
        - 21st century technologies;
        - materials that match the technology;
        - highly professional personnel of engineers and workers with technical education, capable of operating, at a minimum, a CNC machine;
        - production capacities corresponding to the level of manufactured products;
        - system for introducing R&D into real production
        and so on. Did you study political economy at the Bursa? - Look at the summary: reproduction. Production cycle...
        Quote: Peaceful military
        Who benefits from this?

        Do you want to find enemies of the people? Or a question for the sake of a question? Sort of... rhetorical, with a Leninist squint!
        Therefore, advice: when you write posts, think about what you write.
    84. +1
      8 August 2013 00: 34
      The American website notes that the trouble with Russian modernization lies in the very approach to it: only “a few people” have access to classified thousands of pages of analysis and calculations for improving the armed forces. Sheer nonsense. This site is a kindergarten, panties with straps. Some dibeloid writes crap and nothing more. fool
    85. +3
      8 August 2013 00: 35
      Our weapons are all ancient and shoot like potatoes.

      "The Typhoon is an all-wheel drive armored vehicle with a six-by-six wheel arrangement. The vehicle's armor provides protection for the crew from damage from 14,5-mm caliber ammunition, armor-piercing bullets of the B-32 type and armor-piercing incendiary bullets, as well as from the explosion of a charge under the bottom in 8 kg of TNT.
      When creating a promising vehicle, the experience of combat operations of the last decade, the creation and use of armored vehicles with enhanced mine protection of the MRAP type were taken into account.
      The armored car is designed for two crew members and 10 paratroopers. The combat vehicle is equipped with a specially created remote-controlled combat module developed by Elektromashina OJSC. The dead weight of the module is determined by the weight of its equipment and can range from 100–120 kg to 180–200 kg. The module can be equipped with PKT machine guns with increased ammunition, as well as an AGS-30 grenade launcher.
      According to the deputy head of the enterprise, Eduard Bazhenov, the module was developed on the instructions of the Ministry of Defense and can be placed on any moving or fixed object. One of these modules has already been installed on the Tiger armored vehicle.
      Armored cars of the "Typhoon" family are a fundamentally new Russian development, which differs from analogues, both domestic and foreign, by the enhanced level of protection built into the design. The Typhoon's characteristics exceed the international requirements that foreign militaries place on their heavy armored vehicles."
    86. +3
      8 August 2013 01: 13
      Calmly! This is a provocation intended to shape public opinion, with the goal of harnessing Russia into an arms race. This happened once with the Soviet Union, the race at that time caused quite strong everyday inconveniences among the population, which is why, in fact, their ideology defeated us so easily and no one dared to save the state. But now this will not work; we must rearm according to plan, not forgetting to raise the general standard of living. And these idiots should be periodically reminded that even if there are 200 tanks, what difference does it make how many there are if they are accompanied by 1500 nuclear warheads. That is, there is no need to be afraid, there will never be a mass attack, and what goes into service will be enough to deal with crazy individuals.
    87. +3
      8 August 2013 05: 33
      I once heard from a smart person that the best military equipment is the one that has been in service for 20 years. During this time, commanders have time to study it thoroughly and then teach something to their subordinates. The military often rejects radically new technology with all its might, preferring modernizations that are relatively easy to master. Remember how Tupolev played a trick by declaring the Tu-22M a modernization of the Tu-22, although it was a completely different aircraft. Somehow, I doubt that in the event of a real war, the Americans will all begin to master their super-duper equipment. I myself work as a CNC operator and I can firmly say that in most cases it is much faster to make a couple of parts on a conventional machine, because While you write the program, while you check it 10 times (or even ruin the machine for a short time), an experienced machine operator on a simple machine will have time to do much more. So, perhaps, a compromise is needed between the novelty of the technology and the experience of the serviceman, and there is no need to chase novelty for the sake of novelty.
    88. The comment was deleted.
    89. 0
      8 August 2013 09: 12
      Generally speaking, another weapon is in fashion now - mental. Pro-Western echo of Moscow, for example.
      He has many listeners and fans.
      How will these fans behave once they get behind the controls or the buttons?
    90. +1
      8 August 2013 14: 50
      As they say, the dog barks - the caravan moves on. We listen less to what people think about us - we do more.
    91. +1
      8 August 2013 17: 27
      I'm sure we'll give them a monkey's snout with what we have.
    92. +1
      8 August 2013 18: 08
      If our technology is so bad, then why are we second in the world in the sale of weapons. If such articles are written, then we are going on the right road.
    93. +1
      8 August 2013 20: 17
      Quote: Constantine
      So they did not realize that the Russians were fighting not because of money and pathos, but were standing for death for their homeland, albeit with an oar to the advantage. So many times the West raked here and never delivered the main lesson.

      Here the quotation from M.N. Zadornov is in place: “... the enemies of Russia have always attacked the state, but they always raked it away from some kind of Motherland..” good
      1. +1
        9 August 2013 00: 07
        + I love Zadornov, he gives out some cool gems.
    94. Lukich
      0
      9 August 2013 08: 21
      ...just don’t relax and check the quality of the weapon in real conditions from time to time...

      ...today everything is at the limit and at any moment it can explode somewhere...we won’t list possible points - the whole planet is a zone of someone’s interests...
    95. Valdis
      0
      9 August 2013 10: 34
      I want to believe in the revival of the Russian Armed Forces.
    96. 0
      9 August 2013 12: 57
      the truth is somewhere in the middle... well, they hit the very brain, the part of the brain that is responsible for the emotional state of a person - me, our patriots are shouting cheers again - like everything is good and wonderful... I’m thinking, and not for the State Department " on hand"...
    97. 0
      9 August 2013 13: 06
      There is an opinion that the performance characteristics of their equipment are an order of magnitude too high for a good sale. Look at the vaunted Patriot in Iraq.
      http://www.licey.net/war/book5/patriot
    98. -1
      9 August 2013 13: 41
      article BIG fart in a puddle, there’s not even anything to discuss here.
      1. Tver
        0
        11 August 2013 14: 21
        I support sined0707!" Fart" !!! There is nothing to discuss! Comments are much more fun to read because... They (comments) more clearly show our weakness. If there is devastation in our heads, everything else will soon begin to collapse. I would NOT want to... Let me explain my thought; How, if you have nuclear weapons, you can worry about the number of ships in the fleet lists (for example).
    99. Grin
      0
      9 August 2013 18: 31
      Describe specifically what these “analysts” are wrong about?
      Point by point:
    100. diesel
      +1
      9 August 2013 22: 04
      Gentlemen, the main thing is who is ready to die for the idea. After takeoff. Provided that our mothers have bread and milk, we can die for our HOMELAND. It is possible to ram a cruise missile with a nuclear warhead of 150 kt, provided that the children receive an education. Today you can only look at what is happening from space. We have been told for 10 years now that everything will appear. Nothing will happen, just as there is no distribution of aircraft among air force airfields. There is so much money in the country that it is possible to lay a piece of iron from the North Pole to the South Pole, and the planes in the border strip stand in a line without shelter. We clap our hands, who will answer? I am addressing those who served in the Air Force during Soviet times. Who will we ask?

    "Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

    “Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"