Skip to comments.Russia to get 70 Nuclear Missiles in 3 Years
Posted on 12/23/2008 12:12:41 AM PST by blueplum
The Russian military will commission 70 strategic nuclear missiles over the next three years, a senior government official said Monday, according to Russian news agencies.
The statement by Vladislav Putilin, a deputy head of the Cabinet's military-industrial commission in charge of weapons industries, indicates the government's intention to significantly increase the tempo of rearming Russia's Strategic Missile Forces.
Putilin, who spoke after a government session chaired by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin that discussed the weapons purchases, said the Cabinet has decided to spend about 4 trillion rubles, or $141 billion, on new weapons over the next three years, Interfax and RIA Novosti news agencies reported.
Putilin said that in addition to 70 strategic missiles, the military will also get 30 short-range Iskander missiles, 48 combat jets, 60 military helicopters, more than 300 tanks and 14 navy vessels in the next three years.
Now that our government is more socialist than the Russkies, we may not be able to spend them into oblivion again.
Didn’t they ask Obama first? Don’t they know that he intendes to rid the world of those nasties? I heard him say so! The Russians just can’t do this in the face of such a peaceful American president, can they?
"Putilin said that in addition to 70 strategic missiles, the military will also get 30 short-range Iskander missiles, 48 combat jets, 60 military helicopters, more than 300 tanks and 14 navy vessels in the next three years."
A bit Off Topic:
Dec 23, 2008 10:32
“Russia again fails new missile test launch”
ARTICLE SNIPPET: “A Russian experimental sea-based ballistic missile failed in yet another test launch on Tuesday, signaling serious trouble with a key component of the nation’s nuclear might.”
Snarky remarks about Obama don’t enter into this though I am sure that will be most of the replies. Nearly the entire Russian strategic missile force was built and deployed before the fall of the USSR. They are years beyond their shelf life. Reliability and maintenance must be a nightmare.
NY Times editorial writers may be impressed by the raw numbers of launchers but to the professional soldiers in the US, France, and China, Russia can stay in the superpower club only by a large rebuilding program. The question I wonder about is affordability. The USSR couldn’t afford the old arms programs and I question if the new Russia can either.
Putin bluster aside can they actually pay for such a program. Even before the oil price drops Russia’s economy was less then the UK or even California. 21st century weapons aren’t cheap.
In other news....
The U.S. to get 70 speeches about tolerance.
Hawaii, Obama the president-elect promises 70 speeches on tolerance, 300 soundbites about inclusion, and at least 75 bills about equality. This will happen in the next year. Obama is quoted as saying “America is still the most hated country in the world, how can we expect the rest of the world to follow our example?”
Can you say “new missile gap?”
Putin has starved his people to death before to afford weapons, not likely he'll change. It appears to me from recent speeches coming from the Kremlin, that Russia feels they will be dealing with a limp noodle new president and will do what they please, when they please, as long as they please, and fully intend to get away with it. Not good for the home team. imo
best regards, blu
Does this derive from ‘missile envy?’ :)
This is not surprising considering that Russia is getting rid of many of their fixed-silo ICBM’s due to the cost of maintaining them in very harsh conditions. By going to mobile launch platforms they achieve not only the goal of replacing obsolete launch silos but also makes their launch platforms less vulnerable to a first strike.
An arms race they couldn’t afford drove the Commies under once; shall we go for two?
BHO, are you reading this? Do you see the consequences of wanting so desperately to be loved by those so unworthy of our supplication?
>>>Putin has starved his people to death before to afford weapons, not likely he’ll change.
That was my point. He hasn’t done this, but “Putin Bluster” has misled people into thinking he has.
Der Spiegel did an interesting analysis of how badly maintained and equipped the Russian Military actually is.
The notion that Russia is restoring its military might to a level close to that of the Soviet era has “nothing to do with reality,” says Belkovsky. “It’s part of the propaganda with which the Kremlin seeks to pull the wool over the public’s eyes.”
The army has taken delivery on only 90 outdated tanks in the last seven years, all from the country’s only remaining tank factory, in the Ural Mountains region. Experts ridicule the much-touted T-95, which has been talked about for 15 years, as a “fiction.”
During former President Vladimir Putin’s term in office, the air force received only two new Su-34 fighter-bombers, and the Su-35 fighter jet, unveiled last year as a new model, is in fact a close cousin of an aircraft that was already airborne during former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev’s first year in office, 1985.
According to the Belkovsky report, Russian designers are “no less than 20 years behind their US counterparts in the development of their fifth-generation fighter jets.”
Only 50 percent of all aircraft and helicopters nationwide are in operation, and the Russian military will experience a shortfall of 4,500 aircraft next year when outdated equipment is removed from service.
Under Putin, 405 missiles and 2,498 nuclear warheads were decommissioned, but only 27 new missiles were produced — three times less than under the Yeltsin regime, which was disparaged for being too soft on America. And the shelf life of 80 percent of Russia’s mobile ICBMs expired long ago.
They are no different than ours.
Our strategic missile force now consists of the Minuteman III which was developed through the 60's and early 70's.
With just a stage washout program (new propellant pour) back in the 80's and a new one occurring now our systems are still much older and at least a generation behind what the Russians have even now.
Lets not even get into the issue of the aging of our warheads.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.