Russian Defense Minister Causes Uproar With Call to Replace Famed AK-47

[CCIP]

By the way, 4 years ago when I was in Russia, I happened upon a Kalashnikov exhibition at the Artillery Museum in St. Petersburg. Among his lesser-known inventions is a bayonet he designed for NATO rifles, primarily the M-16, in the 90s. From what I gather, he definitely appreciated the M-16 design.

I should post some pics of that!

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by CCIP

By the way, 4 years ago when I was in Russia, I happened upon a Kalashnikov exhibition at the Artillery Museum in St. Petersburg. Among his lesser-known inventions is a bayonet he designed for NATO rifles, primarily the M-16, in the 90s. From what I gather, he definitely appreciated the M-16 design.

I should post some pics of that!

yes, please do! I wanted to go to that museum when I was there, but didn't have the time.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Vendor

Russia's Defense Minister, Anatoly Serdyukov, set off a firestorm of debate in Russia after saying that his military's pride and joy, the Kalashnikov and Dragunov SVDs sniper rifles, are "morally outdated" and that he's considering a plan to buy foreign-made small arms.

The comments were made during a private meeting with members of the lower house of Russia’s parliament just before the New Year, according to Russian media accounts. Serdyukov introduced the plan to buy foreign-made guns as part of larger military reforms that include buying French-made Mistrall Class helicopter carriers for the Russian navy.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...lace-famed-ak/


Note: Published January 21, 2011

Getting a newer, more accurate rifle than the AK is fine, but to buy a foreign gun?

Russia lives in a different geopolitical environment than most of the countries in the West. Given what it WANTS to do, it can't allow itself to become dependent on foreign weapons like Europe. A subsidiary like a French Buran-Catherine thermal sight on a Russian tank is one thing, or even an amphib ship like the Mistral, fine. Foreign content in core areas like guns, tanks, subs or planes is another.

Not to mention the foreign gun would likely be more expensive, which is another concept Russia does not need.

Does this man have no pride?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by CCIP

That, and distracting from the real issues and need for reforms in the Russian Army. All this hand-waving about weaponry allows them to drag their feet on professionalizing the army and improving the conditions for soldiers.

To be fair, it is sometimes hard to see exactly what they should do.

[antikristuseke]

I'm incredibly sleepy and may have overlooked it, but has this thing been mentioned already?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN-94

Why look abroad when a good replacement is close by. Even though this statement has little to do with reality, by the politician that is.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

I'm incredibly sleepy and may have overlooked it, but has this thing been mentioned already?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN-94

Why look abroad when a good replacement is close by. Even though this statement has little to do with reality, by the politician that is.

Yea they started work on a new rifle series in the 1980s, only the special forces and counter terrorist guys got them. Which is a shame they seemed like nice rifles.

[XabbaRus]

According to wikipedia it is still in production going by the date.

The thing is Russia is still hung up on legacy. So saying ditch a Kalashnikov is like saying to the French, ditch dassault.

I think it is a combination of ass kicking and more bribes.

I don't get it, I'm suprised however that Russia did get the Mistral. Rumour has it they want the C4I stuff too.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Getting a newer, more accurate rifle than the AK is fine,

Yeah it is less accurate then the M16 family. However, if we were to to have an apocolyptic event happen, (mad max style, zombies, whatever), I'd want an AK because i know that no matter what i did to it, if i pull the trigger, it will fire.

(assuming i could find ammo for it, 5.56 / 223caliber is much more common here )

[CCIP]

The ironic thing about the AN-94 and other AK replacements - Russian arms manufacturers have repeatedly pitched them to the army, the army evaluated them and was impressed, but in the end the rifles would only make it to special forces in limited numbers... reason? They were too technically-complicated and required too much maintenance to work well! This especially applies to the AN-94 which has a phenomenal burst fire rate and accuracy, but achieves them using a design that's mechanically complex and requires careful maintenance. And the minister wants Western weapons why...?

As far as what should be done, well, the crux of the issue is really that the Russian army needs to be professionalized rapidly and the draft abolished. What the ministry wouldn't admit is that the only logical reason for it is not military: the army is essentially a free slave labour force that by law has to tolerate terrible conditions and receives training of a very poor standard. It's no wonder they need to avoid technically-complex weapons - the army is willing to throw money at quality weapons, but they don't seem to be interested in training exclusively quality soldiers. Quality soldiers don't make good cannon (and otherwise) fodder. Sadly the wasteful Russian attitude to soldiers as expendable - both in wartime and at peace - persists.


Picturespam of about 40 pics from AK exhibit coming soon!

[Ducimus]

I'lll just toss this here:

[Dowly]

Five part AK-47 vs. AR-15 thingy:

[MH]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I'lll just toss this here:

Did know that ak actually flexes lol.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

(assuming i could find ammo for it, 5.56 / 223caliber is much more common here )

The more recent AK models are tooled for NATO rounds.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by CCIP

As far as what should be done, well, the crux of the issue is really that the Russian army needs to be professionalized rapidly and the draft abolished. What the ministry wouldn't admit is that the only logical reason for it is not military: the army is essentially a free slave labour force that by law has to tolerate terrible conditions and receives training of a very poor standard. It's no wonder they need to avoid technically-complex weapons - the army is willing to throw money at quality weapons, but they don't seem to be interested in training exclusively quality soldiers. Quality soldiers don't make good cannon (and otherwise) fodder. Sadly the wasteful Russian attitude to soldiers as expendable - both in wartime and at peace - persists.

Shfestvo aside, the impression I've been getting reading Russian arguments (what little I can decode of them) is that their opposition is:

1) Economic, which makes some sense since Russia is huge and does not enjoy the warm umbrella that allows countries like in Europe to maintain small military forces. Nor are they, of course, as rich as the United States (and the US is helped by the fact they have no real defense requirements, only "power projection" ones). While the "hundreds of times" figures that often come out have been criticized for counting only the pay, nevertheless the cost increase is significant (Polmar once estimated the cost increase for changing the Soviet Navy to a full professional force as "five to eight times" counting all the extra amenities a "professional" needs, which seems reasonable). The Russians need a certain minimum manpower just to staff their whole border, and that may be too much for their budget with a volunteer force.

2) The "We need reserves" argument. This is a artifact of traditional Russian thinking, and may be argued to be obsolete.

3) Experience on the quality of "professionals" in their country. Westerners tend to write about professional military based on their own relatively positive experiences, and thus conclude it'll be a panacea for Russia as well. A number of limited programs have been made (starting with the warrant officer program in 1972) - here's what one Russian officer had to say about the program:

From the author. Actually, the experience of contract service in our army there, God forbid, memory, since 1972. That if we leave out of sight category enlistees, which existed in our army has always (and it is also inherently contractors).
I mean the category of warrant officers. Once they entered the service voluntarily and contracts. And what happened? With a set of ensigns and sverhsrochnikov was no problem, perhaps only in the capital and major cities. And then on the bread, not dusty and heavy levels (musicians, storekeepers, clerks, clerks, etc.). With decreasing size of settlement, in which there is a regiment of vacant posts of ensigns and sverhsrochnikov becoming more and more. For example, in the Far East district had no warrant positions were staffed by more than 20-40%. But then they were probably replaced by sergeants. And where conscripts could be taken with the refusal of the army from recruiting?

From http://army.armor.kiev.ua/hist/kontrakt-army.shtml

Google translated but the gist is clear. While we may suspect that there may be some hidden reasons as well, nevertheless with such an evidence base, to a Russian it will be far from clear that a professional army will actually improve their problems.
============
Russian conditions are not always the same as Western conditions, which is a factor that not even Russians themselves sometimes remember when spouting solutions. For example, there was an idea of using more civilian ROTC type programs to supplement "Command Higher School" (now Institutes IIRC) graduates.

The West thinks that program works, Russian officers seem to think that such ROTC's are badly inadequate (they do have some experience with such officers). I think the latter were probably right. With the Russian lack of NCOs, officers have to be more technically and militarily trained. A Western ROTC lieutenant may be spoon fed by a platoon sergeant (for all the boasts, this seems to be Western NCOs' opinion on what really happens to new officers) while he learns on the job. A Russian lieutenant must command his platoon on day 1 if the platoon is to function, which clearly requires a higher (and thus, in the same amount of time, more intense preparation), for which ROTC or even an western Academy (since western Academy education generally majors in something other than military science) can handle. The Western solution is clearly unsuitable for Russian conditions without dozens of corresponding, interlocked changes.

Such differences are why I argue it is difficult to say exactly what they should do. It is all very well to spout Western ideas (like fully professional militaries) at them, but without a detailed review of Russian conditions, such "kind attempts" will likely worsen the problem.

[Arclight]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

The more recent AK models are tooled for NATO rounds.

The export models, anyway. Iirc there's also models chambered for the Russian 7.62 and 5.45 cartridges.