Where are all of Russia's much touted advanced weapons?

[Sid Guttridge]

For a couple of decades Russia has been devoting much of its budget in developing its military.

This includes evolving such advanced weaponry as hypersonic missiles, Su-57 aircraft, Armata tanks and Terminator infantry fighting vehicles. Yet none of them have made any discernible impact in Ukraine.

1) Hypersonic missiles. As far as I can establish, Russia claimed to have used a couple of hypersonic missiles in the opening days of the war, but as they were used among a swarm of conventional cruise missiles, it is difficult to differentiate what damage they did. There don't seem to have been any reports of their use in months.

2) Armata main battle tank. The Armata tank was meant to be in service about 5 years ago, but none are in unit service. Russia this week announced that the Armata is being sent to Ukraine in response to the donation of Western MBTs to that country. However, as full scale production is still apparently not under way, it is likely that these will be a small number of pre-production vehicles of questionable reliability as the development programme is not yet completed.

3) SU57 "5th generation" combat aircraft. There are reportedly only a couple of dozen of these and they, too, seem essentially to be pre-production machines. They were briefly experimentally used in Syria a few years ago, but this appears to have been essentially a propaganda exercise. None seem to have operated over Ukraine. India has cancelled its order for this aircraft.

4) Terminator urban combat vehicle. There are apparently only about a dozen of these, so again they look like a pre-production run. They were reportedly used with some media fanfare in Severodonetsk in May 2022 but we haven't heard anything of them since.

One problem seems to be that all these weapons rely heavily on imported Western components that Russia cannot produce itself, so any production plans may be delayed until alternative sourcing can be found or sanctions evaded.

Another is that none of them seem to have completed development and so they are only currently available in small pre-production runs that may themselves still have technical problems.

Finally when very occasionally used in Ukraine, they appear to have had little or no significant influence on outcomes.

Cheers,

Sid

[Michael Kenny]

We will soon find out when war-winning Western 'wunder-waffen' get to Ukraine.

Let us hope they don't turn out like these:

Public Accounts Committee Chair Meg Hillier said: “The MoD has made fundamental mistakes in its planning and management of this project. The Ajax tanks programme has been deeply flawed from the outset and the PAC now seriously doubts it can be recovered within existing costs and commercial arrangements.

“Enough is enough, the MoD must fix or fail this programme, before more risk to our national security and more billions of taxpayers’ money wasted.

“These repeated failures at MoD are putting strain on older capabilities, which are overdue for replacement, and are directly threatening the safety of our service people and their ability to protect the nation and meet NATO commitments.”

https://www.army-technology.com/news/br ... -says-pac/

and perhaps the most embarrassing example

The Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales is limping back to shore after breaking down shortly after embarking for exercises in the US.

The carrier left from Portsmouth Naval Base on Saturday before an "emerging mechanical issue" occurred.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-h ... e-62712638

[hucks216]

I suppose the simple answer is that as with most Russian advanced weapons they have turned out to be paper tigers and shown that Russia is still decades behind the west when it comes to advanced weaponry. I very much doubt that the Su-57 is 5th generation and is probably even less advanced than the Typhoon & Rafale. Sending them in to action leaves them open to being captured and the true capabilities being revealed to the west.

[wm]

Russia's advanced weapons have been Putin's Potemkin village from day one.
They exist, but their military value is severely limited. For example, hypersonic missiles are large (so they take much more space), very visible from the moment of their launch, and incommunicado during flight (so they can't track their targets.)

But Putin bragged about them incessantly during his numerous TV appearances. Actually, the weapons and the war serve the same purpose - to prove Putin is a great leader; they are his last cards.

[Cult Icon]

I suppose the simple answer is that as with most Russian advanced weapons they have turned out to be paper tigers and shown that Russia is still decades behind the west when it comes to advanced weaponry. I very much doubt that the Su-57 is 5th generation and is probably even less advanced than the Typhoon & Rafale. Sending them in to action leaves them open to being captured and the true capabilities being revealed to the west.

I'd suggest that all European ground forces is a paper tiger and even the US Army is not as well prepared as it should be. Production of PGM and Artillery is still way too low in the US.

Nobody in the West is prepared for large-scale war, including the Russian army (3% of GDP in peacetime) which was oriented towards counter-terrorism, NATO defense, and short & small wars. When only 1-2% of GDP is spent on defense this is what happens. Large scale war requires much larger numbers of ammunition and equipment than what is currently employed.

It is doubtful that Western weapons used in Ukraine are particularly good either, although in several categories there is a superiority. The Russians anti-air systems are learning to intercept HIMARS (the best western weapon) already (which is why they have 'vanished' from our media). But at the same time, their own Iskander-M has done well equally well in this war. US/NATO drones are superior to the Russian but are shot down in large numbers by Russian air defense.

The Pzh2000, technically the 'best' self propelled artillery piece has been reported as being the 'Elefant' of artillery pieces, complex, extraordinarily expensive, and prone to breakdown. US M777 artillery pieces are good but suffer from durability problems from prolonged firing and damage from Russian counter-battery fire.

With the new NATO tanks, the Russian FAGOT ATGM can disable them with one shot.

The Russian ground force are still fighting the war in the 'Soviet' style in terms of equipment: very low cost equipment, just adequate and with limited bells & whistles, potentially or already available in large numbers.

[Cult Icon]

With Russian tank production, they are focusing on 3 types: T-62M, T-72B3, and T-90M. IIRC they also have a production order for T-80BV but I need to check to make sure.

The T-90M is going to be the main 1st line tank going forward. This tank is produced from scratch.

On the other hand, the T-72B3 and T-62M are just old tanks taken out of storage, and refurbished/modernized at low cost.

All 3 tanks are 'cheap' tanks though.

T-14 is going to see limited trials in the Ukraine. The other Armata vehicles are unknown.

BMPT-Terminator units are now operating at the Kreminnya salient, shooting into the forests.

Hypersonic missiles are too expensive for general use. When Russia wants to use tactical nuclear weapons or have a high-value target, they will use them.

SU-57 has been in use in the Ukraine for months.

S-400 air defense system has been in use.

[wm]

It's quite possible that European ground forces are a paper tiger, but the paper tiger is better equipped and has access to modern electronics.

A long time ago they said that with a big enough engine you can make a barn door fly, but today it's more like with modern electronics even sh. is a deadly weapon.

[Cult Icon]

European ground forces are qualitatively better equipped but Russia has more 'quantity' and low cost.

Large scale war isn't a special forces operation, it's about quantity to equip a mass army.

[Cult Icon]

[Tom Peters]

Comrades ! Moscow is displeased with your doubts ! We have no need to SU-57 or T-14 ! NO, the glorious peoples army of Ukrainian Liberation needs only the the tried and true T-62 ! Why as we speak, more rusty T-62 and MTLB are being resurrected from Siberian storage ! Let new coats of paint, and cold-war era optics be slapped on before they roll out of the factories !

Mobiks to the front !

Mad Dog

[Cult Icon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eian_wI7ODg&t=13s





BMPT is however not a new weapon

[mezsat2]

They don't have any. It's 100% propaganda. Yes, they can nuke at least half the world. This has been a known fact for over 50 years. What else is new?

[Aida1]

European ground forces are qualitatively better equipped but Russia has more 'quantity' and low cost.

Large scale war isn't a special forces operation, it's about quantity to equip a mass army.

Delusional as always. Dreaming about using human waves to get killed in masses.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Cult Icon,

You say, "Large scale war isn't a special forces operation, it's about quantity to equip a mass army."

To a degree that is true, but that clearly wasn't Putin's initial belief. He tried to defeat Ukraine using only Russia's active field army (including special forces) but failed.

Russia has 25 million reservists, theoretically, but there were enormous problems adequately equipping just the first 330,000 (assuming that is the true figure). This does not speak well of its ability to field a truly mass army at the moment.

Russia has about 12,000 obsolete tanks in storage of which about half may be usable when eventually modified. That will take time and, given that better Russian tanks have failed thus far to tip the war in Russia's favour, it seems unlikely that their older equivalents will do so.

Certainly a few SU57s are flying in this war, but only over Russia, not Ukraine. Their impact appears to have been negligible.

Russian numbers are clearly Ukraine's biggest long term problem. The basic human material of both countries is similar. The Ukrainians are certainly better motivated and appear to have performed a bit better, but is this enough to compensate for a nearly 4:1 numerical disadvantage over the long term?

The first thing that is needed is for Ukraine to be able to suppress Russian artillery. The necessary smart shells exist, but they have received none. If Ukraine can achieve artillery fire superiority, it would make Russian infantry assaults prohibitively expensive.

They need longer range missiles to cut the Kerch Bridge and to cut the railway between Rostov and the Crimea. Such interdiction helped advance the end in Kherson, though it can't be so effective in the corridor to Crimea because there are not the same bottlenecks, but it would help.

Somebody also needs to be able to penetrate Russia's internal information space. Almost all the demoralizing material inside Russia seems to be generated by disgruntled Russian soldiers and is presumably suppressed pretty quickly. Something is needed to counter Russian internal propaganda on an ongoing basis.

Perhaps even a couple of diesel electric submarines? One in the Far East and one in the White Sea could be very disruptive of Russia's remaining international trade. Just knowledge of their presence in each could push Russian maritime insurance costs through the roof. Similarly sabotaging any gas or oil pipelines to China or even Turkey, but well inside Russia, might concentrate a few minds.

Cheers,

Sid.





Cheers,

Sid.

[Cult Icon]

The north korean 'next gen' tank looks a lot like the T-14