What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Uncle Rubick's Russian military media and news thread.


- In the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, there is no concept of "deconflicting". Now, for some reason, many people are trying to incorporate into the Russian language these distorted, English-language expressions, which, for the most part, do not convey the essence, but are fashionable. We, in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, have the term "post-conflict settlement".

There are various options for this settlement. When both conflicting parties themselves agree that it is necessary to end the conflict, if, for example, someone wins and someone does not, or when the very cause of the conflict is lost, this is one option. The second option is when the conflicting parties are forced by a third force to stop the further development of the conflict. We have seen these examples quite often, especially recently, there are several mechanisms - either under the auspices of the UN, or under the auspices of other international organizations, or, as now, for example, in Nagorno-Karabakh, our Russian peacekeepers, who are the guarantor of the ceasefire and de-escalation.

If you need more proof that the bulk of English analysis of Russian military doctrine to be mostly hyperbolic gibberish...
 



If you need more proof that the bulk of English analysis of Russian military doctrine to be mostly hyperbolic gibberish...

More or less it is a case of translation - in polish there is the same. But you need to analyse conflict, rather than think out neologisms to sell ideas to the PR departament (not CIMIC, PR, becouse CIMIC is actually something much more complicated despite the fact that on the first look it is seen as just military PR).

Look at that:

I. Profile of the Conflict

- the nature of the conflict (type - civil war, interstate, internal or internal internationalized conflicts)
- parties to the conflict (combatants, external support, etc.)
the subject of the dispute
- resources and resources involved
- geopolitical conditions
- geostrategic conditions

II. Conditions

- sources of conflict
- reasons in the strict sense
- goals (political and military)
- open
- hidden
- impulses (what causes)
- catalysts (escalation)
- the course of the conflict
- phase of dispute

- phase of crisis
- conflict phase
- post-conflict phase

- completion phase

III. Consequences

- material
- human

Use that analytical matrix and approach the problem with both eyes open and you will not fail in conflict analysis.
*But you may be lynched for ideological nonconformism
 
More or less it is a case of translation - in polish there is the same. But you need to analyse conflict, rather than think out neologisms to sell ideas to the PR departament (not CIMIC, PR, becouse CIMIC is actually something much more complicated despite the fact that on the first look it is seen as just military PR).

Look at that:

I. Profile of the Conflict

- the nature of the conflict (type - civil war, interstate, internal or internal internationalized conflicts)
- parties to the conflict (combatants, external support, etc.)
the subject of the dispute
- resources and resources involved
- geopolitical conditions
- geostrategic conditions

II. Conditions

- sources of conflict
- reasons in the strict sense
- goals (political and military)
- open
- hidden
- impulses (what causes)
- catalysts (escalation)
- the course of the conflict
- phase of dispute

- phase of crisis
- conflict phase
- post-conflict phase

- completion phase

III. Consequences

- material
- human

Use that analytical matrix and approach the problem with both eyes open and you will not fail in conflict analysis.
*But you may be lynched for ideological nonconformism
The trouble with a lot of "analysis" is that it's less "analysis" and more fearmongering propaganda but plenty of people will take it for salt. There are no doubt people who can read the language well, I hope, but it apparently hasn't changed anything.
 
The trouble with a lot of "analysis" is that it's less "analysis" and more fearmongering propaganda but plenty of people will take it for salt. There are no doubt people who can read the language well, I hope, but it apparently hasn't changed anything.
There's also the problem that even good analysis can be useless, if it doesn't look at a the whole problem. For example the recent discussion with Kofman and Suslov. It was really good from the military point of view, while being quite unrealistic because it failed to account for Russia's significant ability to hurt Ukraine economically. So - Russia could attack Ukraine, and would most likely win inside a week, but it's not really necessary because it can achieve its goals with economic pressure, which will be a lot less costly both in the terms of used resources and international reaction.
 
The trouble with a lot of "analysis" is that it's less "analysis" and more fearmongering propaganda but plenty of people will take it for salt. There are no doubt people who can read the language well, I hope, but it apparently hasn't changed anything.
It is not analysis. RAND makes analytical work. DoD, DIA, CIA, UN and it's various subcommities and other such equivalents everywhere else. Ministries publish them. Gazette articles, blogs or all these pseudo think-tanks on the internet are not sources of anything. Pieces of information or just signalising that there is soemthing worth checking, yes, but nothing else.

There's also the problem that even good analysis can be useless, if it doesn't look at a the whole problem. For example the recent discussion with Kofman and Suslov. It was really good from the military point of view, while being quite unrealistic because it failed to account for Russia's significant ability to hurt Ukraine economically. So - Russia could attack Ukraine, and would most likely win inside a week, but it's not really necessary because it can achieve its goals with economic pressure, which will be a lot less costly both in the terms of used resources and international reaction.
But that is becouse most of that is being narrowly analysed only from the military POV rather than holistic, becouse it is not short in scope and becouse real holistic analysis summary is thick as your average novel, thicker if they wanted to add pictures and graphs.
Also most of scenario and analytical work, becouse they are made for selling need to be flashy and grasp emotions. Sex and violence sells, so that is why we have "war games" with the use of pen and paper wargames with corps sized entities battling in the defense of democracy and freedom in the Suvalki gap or firmly holding teh Smoleńsk gate when it opens, spewing the tide of the Eastern barbarian hordes, "just becouse" (ie. to stave of inevitable collapse of the regime through export of the problems abroad).
Most of that pseudo decision games or war games have background reduced to the two simple sentences and are wholly ideologically driven, just to have a conflict to solve. After one rational experiment few years ago everyone started copying it with additional layer of political correctness, greasing MIC or outrightly copying old Cold War scenarios into the modern world.

If you want I can host you a decision game here. To see how it looks like.
 
Last edited:
RAND makes 'works' with almost only one objective - sell the need to buy more military hardware.
 
RAND makes 'works' with almost only one objective - sell the need to buy more military hardware.

Yes and no.
Depends on the work in question, becouse they have written a literal f**** ton of analysis, briefs and other works, not only from military security departament.
Many people mock RAND despite the fact that they have predicted annexaction of Crimea and shape of cyberwarfare and opinion shaping campaings circa 25 years ago.
Most of their works are free and open sourced. There is also a ton of declasiffied materials. Many pretty much nailed exactly the clue.
Also note that the same things could be said about machineguns, RADAR and tanks for example. These are opinions, more or less subjective ,nevertheless they do not release you from thinking independently. In a world of narrow specialisation it is usually mercilessly exploited, but in the end votes in popular elections matter (vide contracting of two more Seawolfs and F-22 vs. F-35).
Also declassified and publicly avaiable materials main goals is to proliferate knowledge and provoke discussion and noticing of the given subjects/problems and that is basically what open material from RAND is. The same goes for NATO for example, with the difference that Eastern equivalents are more or less written in the spirit of rationalist wiev and Western seem to be placing more effort on value-moral narrative nowadays.
 
About time. I hope they sort out all the issues for the production of the next one. I think this was mostly made from the left over parts for the ones they made a decade over ago. The titanium wing spar is new I think?
 
About time. I hope they sort out all the issues for the production of the next one. I think this was mostly made from the left over parts for the ones they made a decade over ago. The titanium wing spar is new I think?
The article says that it's completely new-built.
"Принципиальная важность сегодняшнего события в том, что новая машина полностью построена заново, с нуля. В новой машине на 80% обновлены и модернизированы системы и оборудование", — заявил генеральный директор ОАК Юрий Слюсарь.
(in EN): The most important aspect of today's event is that the new plane is built completely from scratch. 80% of systems and equipment in it have been modernized, said UAC CEO Yuriy Slyusar.
 
All good and all, but it is still not T-4 with Kh-45s.
For me the ability of the Russian MIC to build such plane is more important than the plane itself. Tu-160 is the most complicated design that Russia has, and probably the most complicated military aircraft out there.
 
Possible modernization of 2S4. On the base of Ural 63706. Modernized for todays network-centric environment along with improvement of automation, target acquisition, accuracy and time for preparation.



a6e52e6afc8ba0ab58afdf5953dc8cc8.jpg




I'll try to be more active..



Edit


Oh yeah. While not written. There are new ammunition in development.
 
Possible modernization of 2S4. On the base of Ural 63706. Modernized for todays network-centric environment along with improvement of automation, target acquisition, accuracy and time for preparation.



a6e52e6afc8ba0ab58afdf5953dc8cc8.jpg




I'll try to be more active..



Edit


Oh yeah. While not written. There are new ammunition in development.

Also let's not forget about gradual introduction of loitering attack munition into the Russian arsenal.
 
Also let's not forget about gradual introduction of loitering attack munition into the Russian arsenal.
Well, they're pretty much online, according to the latest leaks. "Lancet" was used pretty widely in 2018 already, according tot he reports. And if SSO was conducting idespread battlefield tests four years ago, now the first-line units are practically guaranteed to already have them.
 
I'm actually quite surprised how many things have been in development and or have been tested without it being leaked.
 
I'm actually quite surprised how many things have been in development and or have been tested without it being leaked.

It was known since last 10 years or so, actually? Only now everyone is sceaming hell becouse they have noticed. The same was with Kalibrs. As we all know, all these are just models made of cardboard and paper, becouse what else Russian "vodka culture" can produce?
German tank in 1939 also were cardboard fakes of course.
 
But, Reaper, everybody knows that only Murika can design and produce new weapons (and everything). Others, steal from Murika.
Don't you receive the memo?
 
It was known since last 10 years or so, actually? Only now everyone is sceaming hell becouse they have noticed.

Not really. There was no word or whisper that "Lancet" was in development let alone was tested in 2018. Same goes for "Product-305" while it was known according to the grapevine that KBM had a Fire and forget ATGM proposal. Everyone as of 2016 assumed either it never got of paper or was stillborn or the rumors we're full of shit. It was kinda surprise that indeed it was made and already used..

There are other things that came out of the blue. Which was strange since prior especially a decade plus ago Russian military-industrial complex was a sift

The same was with Kalibrs.

Kalibr family was known since early 90's though. Officially publically shown at that. It's the confusion with NPO Mash Alfa program by the western publication is what I find puzzling. But hey western mill publication was always shit even more so in the 90's.

Also the fact that western intelligence got the domestic range numbers completely wrong. While for the most part that was leaked by insiders since 2009 or so. And later several officials mention the ranges of the domestic variants.
 
Last edited:
That missile. Hermes is from KBP . 305 is from KBM
 
Not really. There was no word or whisper that "Lancet" was in development let alone was tested in 2018. Same goes for "Product-305" while it was known according to the grapevine that KBM had a Fire and forget ATGM proposal. Everyone as of 2016 assumed either it never got of paper or was stillborn or the rumors we're full of shit. It was kinda surprise that indeed it was made and already used..

There are other things that came out of the blue. Which was strange since prior especially a decade plus ago Russian military-industrial complex was a sift



Kalibr family was known since early 90's though. Officially publically shown at that. It's the confusion with NPO Mash Alfa program by the western publication is what I find puzzling. But hey western mill publication was always shit even more so in the 90's.

Also the fact that western intelligence got the domestic range numbers completely wrong. While for the most part that was leaked by insiders since 2009 or so. And later several officials mention the ranges of the domestic variants.

There is a difference in MIC as a MIC and concept work, which was more or less finallised in the 80s, at least when you sift through Military Thought. More or less what is being now introduced is a culminative point of the research done four decades ago. One needed more centralised MIC, funds and technology being up to the task.
And yes, Russian cruise missile projects and long reach precision strike capability also comes from the same period, with the early 90s being the time when projects and models were shown for the first time publicly. For better or worst it was being kept up to date but one needs to follow real sources and articles rather than so called popular knowledge, becouse that is burning cessepit of nationalism and selfdelusion.
 
Back
Top Bottom