Is russian R and D better than NATO pound for pound?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by fishfinger, Jul 23, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Is russian R and D better than NATO pound for pound?

    We have the Uk, US, France Germany, etc all contributing to the mutual technologies pool. The shipwreck missle is amazing, the idea of missiles forming a virtual target seeking network is amazing. Did Russia pioneer active defence also? (ie like the Iranian Trophy system)?
    I have the highest respect and admiration for all Russian R and D and :

    Is russian R and D better than NATO pound for pound?

    Why is this ? (is the a design beuro mentality?

    Should be adopt this system?
  2. could it be that could wet miserable weather, miserable living conditions, and cheap alchohol promotes exeptional thinking?
  3. Dunno mate. It's cold and dry here in the desert, but the alcohol works the same as always. Maybe NATO needs more booze.
  4. It's all carrot and stick - western design goes over - governments pay more money.

    Russian design goes over budget - salt mines.
  5. Can't be, otherwise Scotland would have the best R & D in the world.
  6. Scotland did / does have some of the best RD in the world, given population. Everything from TV to trainsets.

    ... So every time a type 45 sets sail with no missles or such we throw an MOD labcoat into the salt mines.... It would work as well.
    Miracles for pennies not pounds. I still think Russia out performs NATO in RD per head
  7. On balance you might be right, they do throw together some credible weapons on a shoestring. But don't forget that in R&D you very quickly hit a point of diminishing returns, you won't get weapons that are twice as good for twice the money spent on R&D. Therefore the lower spender will almosy always be better 'pound for pound', so it is a bit of a meaningless measure of success.

    I'd say that apart from a gem here and there, in the main Russia churns out mass produced crap by the ton. It is designed to be operated by your average common or garden vodka soaked peasant, it can't afford to be complicated.

    Their subs seem to crash and sink more than most, they are buying ships from the french and even the Algerian sent back their Migs (Algeria Wants To Return MiGs - Defense News). I think they do pretty well considering the money they have to work with, but if they couldn't export lots of defective weapons to countries that have their own peasants to equip I think they would do even worse.

    Also, Trophy is an Israeli system.
  8. Pound for pound is the only measure for sucess when the NHS cant buy drugs for the dying

    The lesson seems to be then to spread many differing topics in many directions with minimal funding, to keep the cost benefit ratio

    the saudis are buying Russian tanks not ours and not just for cost reasons.

    I have no idea why i put iran not israel!
  9. The advantage Russian designers have is that the end user gives (a) a fixed performance/capability goal for the system, you can't add a tea maker to a missile design and expect the Minister will go, 'Oh I say! How spiffing! Do you do that with 24ct gold plating?' and (b), if the system delivers 95% of the design goals performance, the Gov will sign off on that rather than let you spend double the design budget to try and squeeze that extra 5% capability out of the system.
  10. On the issue of the Shipwreck missile:

    Yes, it's pretty impressive, four missiles working together like that. But think about why it, and the Oscar-class SSGNs designed to carry them, were built - to take on American carrier battle groups. Those SSGNs can do pretty much only that, and land attack. America's capabilities are faaaar wider. That battle group can conduct an air campaign against a country one day and deliver humanitarian aid the next. The Russians have concentrated massively on things like anti-ship missiles, but their own surface fleet is embarrassing next to the Americans'. They've focussed on a relatively narrow set of goals - hunting American CVBGs, storming en masse over Germany, etc. America's capabilities, while outclassed in a few areas such as, in the 1980s, total nuclear firepower, are far wider, both in scope and geographic reach.
  11. Cannot be argued that the Russians have had better airborne cannon in their fighters and ground attack aircraft for years (setting aside the freakish 30mm gatling gun on the A10). They also had a helmet mounted sight fitted to the first generation Mig 29 that was so accurate that it was able to overcome a major bug in the fire control system and down drones with only the five round burst that was all the software would allow to be fired.

  12. carrier battle fleets are dead. have been for a long time. Guided missile boats and subs are the way ahead.
    And guess what a Kirov is? - The Russians saw the real situation years earlier and pre-adapted.

    A carrier is just a fort that carries its own moat.
    a moat that has enormous cost, cost investment coupled with apocalyptic vulnerabiity / cost.
    The force protection a battle group conveys to its massivly expensive fighter squads is poor, and they better way must be a decentralised force projection. Same with MBT doctrine. Drones killed it.

    Then again, why should the russians invest in R and D when the oligarchs and organised crime groups that are likely being ran by the GRU act as a distributed soverign wealth fund.

    - Do Russians do drones?
  13. I don't think that they are. Carriers are far better at projecting power and protecting sea lanes than anything else. They are also usefull if you want to get a lot of people evacuated and also for humanitarian aid.
  14. People have been saying that the tank's time is over since roughly 11.11.1918, and every Army that takes itself even slightly seriously still has a number of massive metal vehicles with big guns parked up somewhere. I wouldn't write off tanks, carrier battle groups or any other weapon system designed for full scale war just yet - just because our current conflicts are with lots of little brown men hiding in mountains/deserts and sticking bombs on roads doesn't mean that we'll never fight a 'real' war again.