Russian Air Force Woes - Time to start again?

"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...


snip


Using the relatively old and scarce experienced pilots as Squadron
commanders and instructors, begin to recruit at a sufficicent rate
that within a decade you'll have a dozen regiments of fast jet pilots.

As the new entrants get trained in basic combat techniques buy more
advanced jets of the Typhoon/Rafale/J-10 class to provide a real
capability, adding tankers and AWACS into the mix.


I dont think the problem is the aircraft so much as the training
and recruitment system. I suspect the first thing thats required
is to cut back the establishment to realistic levels and then pay
a salary that attractive to bright young Russian graduates.

I'd agree that using the veteran pilot as instructors and
commanders makes sense but unless you can offer
a career structure thats attractive you wont get the
number of aircrew you need.

This is a problem that cuts across the entire Russian armed
forces, they seem reluctant to embrace the idea that
400,000 well trained , equipped and motivated
professionals will be much more effective than 2 million
conscripts with clapped out weapons.

Keith if we would have your little island to protect only...

But in reality we have 1/8 of earth land to protect against:

1) Europeans who have invaded us countless number of times in past.
2) Muslim south who are in the stage of very aggesive selfdetermination.
3) China, simply by far the most populated country in world with
fastest growing economy.


All the more reason to have an efficient military

Note also unfortunately we have no an ocean between us, only land.

If not all this we would have 100,000 army to guard the borders.
In reallity however given all local and global factors the minimal
peace time army (according to our own estimates, which are the
only matters) is around 1,000,000.


Trouble is this 1 million strong army is inadequately trained and
equipped. Large ill trained and ill equipped conscript armies
have historically done rather badly in combat against smaller
more efficient units

An important point also is that USSR had significantly shorter border
to guard. Moreover USSR border had much better geography properties
in terms of guarding, therefore it was much easy and less costly
to guard.


Which means you have to use the resources you have
to best advantage. The feeling in the British Army which
is committed to rather more than just defense of the UK
is that they dont want conscripts. Modern weapons
and tactics mean you just get the buggers trained and
you lose em.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Michael Petukhov" wrote in message
Note also unfortunately we have no an ocean between us, only land.

If not all this we would have 100,000 army to guard the borders.
In reallity however given all local and global factors the minimal
peace time army (according to our own estimates, which are the
only matters) is around 1,000,000.


Trouble is this 1 million strong army is inadequately trained and
equipped. Large ill trained and ill equipped conscript armies
have historically done rather badly in combat against smaller
more efficient units
An important point also is that USSR had significantly shorter border
to guard. Moreover USSR border had much better geography properties
in terms of guarding, therefore it was much easy and less costly
to guard.


Which means you have to use the resources you have
to best advantage. The feeling in the British Army which
is committed to rather more than just defense of the UK
is that they dont want conscripts. Modern weapons
and tactics mean you just get the buggers trained and
you lose em.

I agree with your main point (professional army better for Russia now) but
honestly, couldn't we put this "conscripts no use in modern warfare" crap to
rest? It sort of gets tiresome seeing it repeated everywhere with no basis
whatsoever.

"Yama" wrote in message
...



Which means you have to use the resources you have
to best advantage. The feeling in the British Army which
is committed to rather more than just defense of the UK
is that they dont want conscripts. Modern weapons
and tactics mean you just get the buggers trained and
you lose em.

I agree with your main point (professional army better for Russia now) but
honestly, couldn't we put this "conscripts no use in modern warfare" crap
to
rest? It sort of gets tiresome seeing it repeated everywhere with no basis
whatsoever.


Apart from the experience of the last 30 years during which
conscript armies havent done terribly well in combat
in comparison with professional forces.

Conscripts have their place in large scale high intensity warfare
and an active militia with universal service such as that maintained
by the Swiss or Noorwegians may well have its place but its notable
that even those European nations that traditionally used conscription are
tending
to move to a volunteer military. Its particularly difficult to see
how you can maintain the required standard in techinical services
such as the air force or navy.

In any event France ,Portugal,Spain and Italy are all in the process
of abolishing conscription and Germany is reducing the length
of military service.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Yama" wrote in message
...
I agree with your main point (professional army better for Russia now)
but
honestly, couldn't we put this "conscripts no use in modern warfare"
crap
to
rest? It sort of gets tiresome seeing it repeated everywhere with no
basis
whatsoever.

Apart from the experience of the last 30 years during which
conscript armies havent done terribly well in combat
in comparison with professional forces.

And what relevant experience would that be?

I'll hazard a guess that you refer to for example, Desert Storm. Bzzt,
wrong: main combat force of Iraqi army - the Republican Guards - were a
volunteer professional force. That didn't seem to help them.

Conscripts have their place in large scale high intensity warfare
and an active militia with universal service such as that maintained
by the Swiss or Noorwegians may well have its place but its notable
that even those European nations that traditionally used conscription are
tending
to move to a volunteer military. Its particularly difficult to see
how you can maintain the required standard in techinical services
such as the air force or navy.

Tasks requiring signifant technical expertise are manned by professional
soldiers in both conscript and professional armies. That situation has not
changed a bit since WW2. This does not mean that conscripts do not have a
place in those services in supporting tasks. Even in all-pro forces, most
mechanics etc actually receive pretty minimal training in any case, so from
skill level point it's totally irrelevant whether one is a draftee or
volunteer.

In any event France ,Portugal,Spain and Italy are all in the process
of abolishing conscription and Germany is reducing the length
of military service.

That's because their requirements have changed, not because of some
fundamental change in nature of warfare. If your requirement is to defend
your nation against unwelcome tourists, a conscript army is generally
better. If your requirement is to subdue natives few thousand km's away from
your homeland, professional force is better.

"Yama" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Yama" wrote in message
...
I agree with your main point (professional army better for Russia now)
but
honestly, couldn't we put this "conscripts no use in modern warfare"
crap
to
rest? It sort of gets tiresome seeing it repeated everywhere with no
basis
whatsoever.

Apart from the experience of the last 30 years during which
conscript armies havent done terribly well in combat
in comparison with professional forces.

And what relevant experience would that be?

I'll hazard a guess that you refer to for example, Desert Storm. Bzzt,
wrong: main combat force of Iraqi army - the Republican Guards - were a
volunteer professional force. That didn't seem to help them.


Incorrect

I was thinking of the Argentines in the Falklands but since
you mention the Republican guard they were in fact
regarded as the main threat and at lest put up a fight.

Conscripts have their place in large scale high intensity warfare
and an active militia with universal service such as that maintained
by the Swiss or Noorwegians may well have its place but its notable
that even those European nations that traditionally used conscription
are
tending
to move to a volunteer military. Its particularly difficult to see
how you can maintain the required standard in techinical services
such as the air force or navy.

Tasks requiring signifant technical expertise are manned by professional
soldiers in both conscript and professional armies. That situation has not
changed a bit since WW2.

This is untrue, during WW2 many of those technical tasks were
done by conscripts, they had to be, the regulars provided the
training and leadership cadres.

This does not mean that conscripts do not have a
place in those services in supporting tasks. Even in all-pro forces, most
mechanics etc actually receive pretty minimal training in any case, so
from
skill level point it's totally irrelevant whether one is a draftee or
volunteer.


If you join the British Army as a REME Mechanic you'll get
12 weeks of basic training followed by up to 19 weeks
of specialist training to get you to a basic proficiency level

Further courses ranging from 2 to 11 weeks will be available as your carreer
progresses and and senior NCO's may end up on the Military
Plant Foreman course which runs for a year.

For officer entrants a common route is the 46 week Professional
Engineer Training course

In any event France ,Portugal,Spain and Italy are all in the process
of abolishing conscription and Germany is reducing the length
of military service.

That's because their requirements have changed, not because of some
fundamental change in nature of warfare. If your requirement is to defend
your nation against unwelcome tourists, a conscript army is generally
better. If your requirement is to subdue natives few thousand km's away
from
your homeland, professional force is better.


In fact the balance of skills needed HAS changed, while the poor bloody
infantry are still the backbone of any army a regiment made up
of soldiers who are trained to act on their own initiative, have a mix
of skills and are well trained will always have an advantage over
ill trained conscripts. One of the big problems the Argentines hit
in the field was that their soldiers were used to returning
their weapons to the armoury for cleaning and maintenance.
This became a problem when soldiers not only didnt know how
to clean their rifles and clear jams but didnt even have cleaning kits.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Yama" wrote in message
...
And what relevant experience would that be?

I'll hazard a guess that you refer to for example, Desert Storm. Bzzt,
wrong: main combat force of Iraqi army - the Republican Guards - were a
volunteer professional force. That didn't seem to help them.


Incorrect

I was thinking of the Argentines in the Falklands but since
you mention the Republican guard they were in fact
regarded as the main threat and at lest put up a fight.

Falklands war was a colonial war, type of conflict where professional armies
perform better. Do you think Brits could have invaded Argentina mainland?
Didn't think so either.

As for Republican Guards putting up a fight, I seem to have missed it. In
more recent war most resistance came from militias. In DS RG was more
involved, but even then their performance was not markedly better than that
of some regular army units.

Tasks requiring signifant technical expertise are manned by professional
soldiers in both conscript and professional armies. That situation has
not
changed a bit since WW2.

This is untrue, during WW2 many of those technical tasks were
done by conscripts, they had to be, the regulars provided the
training and leadership cadres.

Scale of the WW2 was such that it was simply impossible to recruit enough
professionals to perform the tasks. Again, this is not in at all against my
point.

This does not mean that conscripts do not have a
place in those services in supporting tasks. Even in all-pro forces,
most
mechanics etc actually receive pretty minimal training in any case, so
from
skill level point it's totally irrelevant whether one is a draftee or
volunteer.

If you join the British Army as a REME Mechanic you'll get
12 weeks of basic training followed by up to 19 weeks
of specialist training to get you to a basic proficiency level

In other words, pretty similar training period as what equivalent conscripts
receive.

That's because their requirements have changed, not because of some
fundamental change in nature of warfare. If your requirement is to
defend
your nation against unwelcome tourists, a conscript army is generally
better. If your requirement is to subdue natives few thousand km's away
from
your homeland, professional force is better.

In fact the balance of skills needed HAS changed, while the poor bloody
infantry are still the backbone of any army a regiment made up
of soldiers who are trained to act on their own initiative, have a mix
of skills and are well trained will always have an advantage over
ill trained conscripts.

Where does it say that conscripts have to be ill trained? Have you ever SEEN
an European conscript army? For example, German conscripts routinely used to
win NATO tank crew competitions. IIRC US Army managed to win once.

One of the big problems the Argentines hit
in the field was that their soldiers were used to returning
their weapons to the armoury for cleaning and maintenance.
This became a problem when soldiers not only didnt know how
to clean their rifles and clear jams but didnt even have cleaning kits.

Um, do you seriously think this is true for all conscript armies? I
certainly know _very well_ how to clean and maintain my rifle and I wasn't
even an infantryman.

"Yama" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Yama" wrote in message
...
And what relevant experience would that be?

I'll hazard a guess that you refer to for example, Desert Storm. Bzzt,
wrong: main combat force of Iraqi army - the Republican Guards - were
a
volunteer professional force. That didn't seem to help them.


Incorrect

I was thinking of the Argentines in the Falklands but since
you mention the Republican guard they were in fact
regarded as the main threat and at lest put up a fight.

Falklands war was a colonial war, type of conflict where professional
armies
perform better. Do you think Brits could have invaded Argentina mainland?
Didn't think so either.


Which is irrelevant, the fact is a small number of professional
British troops defeated a larger conscript force in strong
defensive positions and they did this several thousand miles
from home.

As for Republican Guards putting up a fight, I seem to have missed it. In
more recent war most resistance came from militias. In DS RG was more
involved, but even then their performance was not markedly better than
that
of some regular army units.


They seem to have been somewhat better than the bulk
conscript divisions

Tasks requiring signifant technical expertise are manned by
professional
soldiers in both conscript and professional armies. That situation has
not
changed a bit since WW2.

This is untrue, during WW2 many of those technical tasks were
done by conscripts, they had to be, the regulars provided the
training and leadership cadres.

Scale of the WW2 was such that it was simply impossible to recruit enough
professionals to perform the tasks. Again, this is not in at all against
my
point.


Nor mine, I recall agreeing that conscription is necessary
for large scale high intensity conflicts


This does not mean that conscripts do not have a
place in those services in supporting tasks. Even in all-pro forces,
most
mechanics etc actually receive pretty minimal training in any case, so
from
skill level point it's totally irrelevant whether one is a draftee or
volunteer.

If you join the British Army as a REME Mechanic you'll get
12 weeks of basic training followed by up to 19 weeks
of specialist training to get you to a basic proficiency level

In other words, pretty similar training period as what equivalent
conscripts
receive.


I dont believe many army conscripts get 32 weeks of training but even
assuming
they do thats pretty expensive if the guy is only in the army for a year
or even two.


That's because their requirements have changed, not because of some
fundamental change in nature of warfare. If your requirement is to
defend
your nation against unwelcome tourists, a conscript army is generally
better. If your requirement is to subdue natives few thousand km's
away
from
your homeland, professional force is better.

In fact the balance of skills needed HAS changed, while the poor bloody
infantry are still the backbone of any army a regiment made up
of soldiers who are trained to act on their own initiative, have a mix
of skills and are well trained will always have an advantage over
ill trained conscripts.

Where does it say that conscripts have to be ill trained? Have you ever
SEEN
an European conscript army? For example, German conscripts routinely used
to
win NATO tank crew competitions. IIRC US Army managed to win once.


Competitons of course involve all nations putting their best crews
forward, I'd be interested to see what the average performance
looks like.

One of the big problems the Argentines hit
in the field was that their soldiers were used to returning
their weapons to the armoury for cleaning and maintenance.
This became a problem when soldiers not only didnt know how
to clean their rifles and clear jams but didnt even have cleaning kits.

Um, do you seriously think this is true for all conscript armies? I
certainly know _very well_ how to clean and maintain my rifle and I wasn't
even an infantryman.


Its symptomatic of what happens when an army has to process
more men than it has the resources to train and equip properly.
This was the case in the Argentine forces and from the reports
that have come out I suspect it holds true for the Russian
army today.

Its certainly true that conscript armies CAN be extremely
competent but that doesnt come cheaply. The Swiss
and Scandinavians certainly seem to have good
home defence forces but that is built on around an active
reserve system with the conscription being essentially
viewed as training for the reserves.

In the main the opinion among many military leaders
is that a small professional force is more useful
in todays environment than a larger conscript army.

Keith

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:35:25 +0200, "Yama" wrote:


"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Yama" wrote in message
...
I agree with your main point (professional army better for Russia now)
but
honestly, couldn't we put this "conscripts no use in modern warfare"
crap
to
rest? It sort of gets tiresome seeing it repeated everywhere with no
basis
whatsoever.

Apart from the experience of the last 30 years during which
conscript armies havent done terribly well in combat
in comparison with professional forces.

And what relevant experience would that be?

I'll hazard a guess that you refer to for example, Desert Storm. Bzzt,
wrong: main combat force of Iraqi army - the Republican Guards - were a
volunteer professional force. That didn't seem to help them.

Conscripts have their place in large scale high intensity warfare
and an active militia with universal service such as that maintained
by the Swiss or Noorwegians may well have its place but its notable
that even those European nations that traditionally used conscription are
tending
to move to a volunteer military. Its particularly difficult to see
how you can maintain the required standard in techinical services
such as the air force or navy.

Tasks requiring signifant technical expertise are manned by professional
soldiers in both conscript and professional armies. That situation has not
changed a bit since WW2. This does not mean that conscripts do not have a
place in those services in supporting tasks. Even in all-pro forces, most
mechanics etc actually receive pretty minimal training in any case, so from
skill level point it's totally irrelevant whether one is a draftee or
volunteer.

In today's US military everyone receives extensive training. Those
"mechanics" that you disparage receive significant training, as
virtually every system is high value/high tech.

In any event France ,Portugal,Spain and Italy are all in the process
of abolishing conscription and Germany is reducing the length
of military service.

That's because their requirements have changed, not because of some
fundamental change in nature of warfare. If your requirement is to defend
your nation against unwelcome tourists, a conscript army is generally
better. If your requirement is to subdue natives few thousand km's away from
your homeland, professional force is better.

Wrong. A conscript force will be unable to operate its combat systems. The
days of "cannon fodder" are gone (well, except for Russia).

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:35:25 +0200, "Yama"
wrote:
Tasks requiring signifant technical expertise are manned by professional
soldiers in both conscript and professional armies. That situation has
not
changed a bit since WW2. This does not mean that conscripts do not have a
place in those services in supporting tasks. Even in all-pro forces, most
mechanics etc actually receive pretty minimal training in any case, so
from
skill level point it's totally irrelevant whether one is a draftee or
volunteer.

In today's US military everyone receives extensive training. Those
"mechanics" that you disparage receive significant training, as
virtually every system is high value/high tech.

A Finnish pilot who was in F-18 training in USA told that most USN (I don't
recall whether it was an USN or USMC base) mechanics receive surprisingly
little overall training, by Finnish standards. Basically they have
relatively short course during which they familiriaze with one specific
subsystem of the plane. From our point of view this is awfully wasteful
system, but I guess it suits for all-volunteer military.

That's because their requirements have changed, not because of some
fundamental change in nature of warfare. If your requirement is to defend
your nation against unwelcome tourists, a conscript army is generally
better. If your requirement is to subdue natives few thousand km's away
from
your homeland, professional force is better.

Wrong. A conscript force will be unable to operate its combat systems.

And this amazing piece of knowledge comes from...where? Funny, we were
perfectly able to operate all our equipment just fine.

A Finnish pilot who was in F-18 training in USA told that most USN (I don't
recall whether it was an USN or USMC base) mechanics receive surprisingly
little overall training, by Finnish standards.

I think the more likely scenario is that your Finnish pilot friend had very
little exposure to the vast amounts of training that USN mechanics go through -
I seriously doubt if most pilots in any air force are completely up to date on
the training aspects of a junior enlisted person's life. Its like asking a rock
star how much training his limo driver has undergone. My first year in the
Navy, as an "undesignated striker" (lowest of the low), included about a dozen
schools in everything from corrosion control ( a comprehensive course on
dissimilar metals and how to prevent/treat corrosion in a wide variety of
situations) to plane captain school ( familiarize and service every hydraulic
system, run patch tests, etc., take oil samples, process paperwork, inspect
dozens of various subsystems, etc.). Did your pilot friend go through each of
those courses..? If not, then there is no way for him to be familiar with
them, and no reason for him to even be aware that every mech in the USN goes
through them. I was only a mech for two years - in that two years, I was at
sea for 11 months, and in school 11 months. When I returned from that first
cruise, I immediately was sent into a training pipeline (15 months of
schooling) that included six more schools (from 4 weeks long, to a 14 week
course) and I would say that out of twelve years active duty, about half was
spent at sea, and at least half of the remaining time was spent in various
schools.

"Surprisingly little overall training", by any standards, doesn't match what I
saw and experienced. Something tells me that your friend simply didn't hang
out at the Line Shack or Jet Shop with the Plane Captains and Mechs enough to
be aware of the level of training they recieved.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.