Russian Air Force Woes - Time to start again?

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

Vietnam?

The only example that supports your point is the Falklands war.

[...] its notable that even those European nations that
traditionally used conscription are tending to move to a volunteer
military.

Because they (think they) don't need large armies anymore.

When the Strv 103 was new in the seventies, it was evaluated by the
British army (in Munster), and the U.S. army.

(http://home.swipnet.se/~w-42039/COMPTORN.htm)

| A positive effect of these foreign tests was the opportunity to
| compare the Swedish conscript to the proffesional soldier of the
| british army and the US army. Most swedes were surprised to see that
| despite years of experience the foreign proffessionals were unable
| to fulfill the requirements we have on our conscript soldiers
| regarding firing, driving and maintainance. Very few of the
| retrained american and british gunners were able to satisfy the
| requirements in our qualificationfirings. The concript army gives
| excellent opportunity to put the right man in the right spot.

/Tomas

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"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

True. Any army needs to be more efficient. Even yours.


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.

Generally true for now. But given available resources our military
decided in 1990s to give adequate training and equipment to rather
limited part of army in so called units of permanent readyness (some
100000-130000 service men) at expense of total stopping of
battle training in the rest of army. Many on west wanted to beleive
that whole russian army in a such bad shape. Far from it, my
dear, very far.

Large ill trained and ill equipped conscript armies
have historically done rather badly in combat against smaller
more efficient units

Well it is oversimplification certainly. Mercenary army
are rather good in short local conflict of low intensity
with very limitted goals like that in Yugoslavia and
Iraq in very beginning. In a big long wars for most basic
national interests small mercenary army are completely
useless since full power of the whole nation must be use
to win. conscript armies can be very efficient as well.
Conscript wermarht was very efficient in 39-42 until
its backbone was broken by conscripts of Red Army which
in turn became most efficient army of the world in 44-45.

I agree in a peace time army can me relatively small
and mercenary type. However the its contruction should be
flexiable enough in order to be converted in full scale
national conscript army in a short time where professional
solders will serve as sergants and unterofficiers.

This is what we are building proffesional peace time
army with flow of training 1 year conscripts. But
it cannot be less than 1 mil for russia given its
territory. There will be 500000 professionals in that army
at any given moment.



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

What is that "more" Kieth? grabbing Iraq oil?

is that they dont want conscripts. Modern weapons
and tactics mean you just get the buggers trained and
you lose em.

It does not want conscripts because it though it has no serious
enough enemy. US is already called reservists and is sending
them to Iraq in order to replace tired professionals. why is that?
Right, the war quickly and unexpectedly converts into too serious
all out war against Iraqi people. That's why.

Michael



Keith