Talk:Russian Armed Forces

http://projects.sipri.se/milex/mex_rus_milex_02.pdf

for figures for expenditure

New Table of Ranks

I created a table of ranks for Comparative military ranks, but as things turned out, it wasn't needed there, so I tried moving it here. Only there already is a table here. But this table is different (and somewhat messier)) than mine. I haven't replaced the table here yet because it contains information which my table does not. I hope the two can be reconsiled soon and then moved here. I will do this if nobody else is up to the task. --Oceanhahn 09:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

budget needs adjusting

according to the economicst russia's defence budget is second largest in the world which leads me to believe that the stated figure is wrong.

The stated Figure is most certainly incorrect. The official budget last year was the same/more than this. This year the official is $28.4 Billion USD, however the DoD believes it's more like $100Billion Starcraftmazter 05:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

numbers

Availability and Fit for Service numbers make no sense. Same critaria, different numbers Elfguy 23:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would assume that Availability is the number of men who could (theoretically) be conscripted and mobilised. While Fit for Service would mean the number of men who have completed their military service and could be mobilised without having to receive further training. --BadSeed 08:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/bgpapers/cooper20060124.pdf/download <-- This confirms my figure of $28.4Bn, please don't change.

Active troops are said to be 1,130,000. "Some 330,000 young men are brought into the army via conscription in two call-ups each year. Conscripts are supposed to serve for two years but only 9% do, according to the Defence Ministry."

This doesn´t make much sense. Aren´t the 1.13 million soldiers rather the number of the men that SHOULD be in the army, but they aren´t there. So the real number of active troops could be something like 300 000 - 400 000.

If anyone knows the real situation, please set the statistics right.

about 1M according to some officials (V.Zhirinovski in TV interview). --jno 08:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Rocket Forces

The article claims that Russia's nuclear arsenal is second largest in the world, but a recent New York Times feature put Russia's numbers at 16,000 and had the USA coming in second with 10,000 nuclear weapons. Kazak 04:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both nummbers are wrong, also Soviet /russian nuclear bombs are more powerfull because the earlier rockets weren't very accurate so the Soviets would just blast a bigger area and when accuracy came they didnt down grade the strength of the bomb for each missile.

Also Soviet/russian missiles are able to carry more mini missiles that seperate in flight and each of them hiting independent targets, other countries of course have similar kinds of missiles but the russians have more. And the biggest reason is that no way in hell does anybody except a very few people know how many nuclear weapons any country has, because those secrets will be secret forever. Deng 2005-11-29 23.45 CET

You're both wrong, and the NY Times is wrong. The number of strategic nuclear warheads operational is well known and fixed by START I and the new (post-NMD) agreement. NY Times just added tactical nuclear weapons as well (on missiles, torpedoes, free-fall bombs, non-conventional artillery shells etc) and came up with these numbers that no one knows where they come from. Emigrant 123

It doesn't matter. The U.S. is or has already stepping up their nuclear program. They are no longer destroying their nukes (like Russia) but creating MORE and LARGER nukes. Idiots no?

Listen up...the number of TOTAL nukes (tactical + stockpile) are 14k Russia, 10k USA, and the rest have jack all. Under the START III agreement, both Russia and USA will have no more than 2,500 Tactical Nukes. Currently they have 2x-3x this amount in tactical. Other nukes and nuke numbers are unknown. USA isn't looking at increasing their nuke arsenal, just replacing older ones with newer gen ones. Starcraftmazter 05:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second largets nuclear force? I believe it has the largest but am not certain

The Soviet Unnion hade the Largest nuclear force on earth in what ever way you messure it, be it by nummber of nukes way of delivering them or blast power and size of them

But the question is has Russia scraped enough of them to have fallen to nummber 2

No one ofcurse knows for certain but it would be very nice if anyone could give an estimate based on real facts

And how do you messure what is largets is it by nummber ofnukes or how much they can blast or how likely they are to hit the target or is it a combo of diffrent figures?

Deng 2005-11-29 23.55 CET

These are figures I've seen. Russia has about 20,000 US has about 10,000 UK has about 5,000 France has about 5,000 Dudtz 2/22/06 9:13 PM EST

Internal Troops

What about the Internal troops of the MVD?--68.85.27.47 01:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Troops are under Ministry of Internal Affairs, and are not part of armed forcess (military) of Russian Federation, which are under Ministry of Defence. --DimaY2K 20:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JFYI: There are also troops of Emercom, forces of FSB, etc.--jno 09:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I suggest Russian Winter be merged into this page. Thoughts? Guinnog 17:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, Military history of the Soviet Union would be a better merge. Guinnog 17:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment

I have created the section in the Russian Army/Russian Ground Forces the Equipment Section and the Russian Navy the Equipent. Tell me what you think about it and Ill improve it.

I'm glad someone took the initiative to start working on such a section, but you included some military equipment that aren't used in the Russian Federation armed forces. I will work on removing the inaccuracies and adding things you missed throughout the day. I also plan on adding information next to most of the entries about the variant of the particular object being in service. Once again thanks for starting it out. :) --Skyler Streng 17:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]