# Russia woos our military with deals on guns, planes



## Lost_Warrior (1 Jun 2006)

Russia woos our military with deals on guns, planes
Sales pitch inspired by PM's plan to spend billions on Forces

Mike Blanchfield, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, June 01, 2006

A Russian trade delegation has been quietly making the rounds this week in Ottawa and they're not here to sell grain or vodka.

Instead, the delegation is offering "rather huge planes and helicopters and even guns," Russia's ambassador to Canada, Georgiy Mamedov, said yesterday.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government is poised to spend billions on new military hardware after a presentation to cabinet this week by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor. Topping Mr. O'Connor's wish list are long-range cargo planes and heavy-lift helicopters, both for the Afghanistan mission, while the planes would also enable the delivery of massive amounts of troops, their heavy equipment and humanitarian relief to world hotspots on short notice.

The Russians are trying to interest Canada in their Ilyushin Il-76 MD-90 four-engine long-range cargo plane and their Mi-17V heavy lift transport helicopter, and they're offering the incentive of leasing instead of buying and delivering directly to Afghanistan where they're needed most.

The Russians also say they can beat the delivery time of the nearest competitors by almost half by getting them into the hands of the Canadian Forces by late next year.

The government has committed to keeping at least 2,000 troops in Afghanistan until 2009 and has pledged to get them more aircraft.

The Harper government appears to favour the American built C-17 Boeing Globemaster long-range cargo plane, and heavy Chinook transport helicopters.

But the Russians are already applying direct political pressure on Mr. Harper to eschew buying from

NATO countries. Visiting Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made a direct pitch to Mr. Harper earlier this year in Ottawa and President Vladimir Putin will keep the pressure on in their first meeting next month in St. Petersburg at the G8 summit.

"He will have bilateral discussions with President Putin," said Mr. Mamedov. "One of the major topics will of course be security ... be it the war on terrorism, or providing for critical security for our infrastructure in energy co-operation. It certainly means, also, arms sales."

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay will face similar lobbying when he visits Moscow later this month.

Mr. Mamedov hosted a nearly two-hour presentation by five Russian arms sellers for an exclusive industry audience at the Russian Embassy in Ottawa yesterday, offering a full screening of the presentation the officials are showing to Canadian officials this week.

The team acknowledged trying to persuade Canada to buy Russian would not be easy, but the delegation went to the trouble of bringing a draft treaty on military-industrial co-operation just in case.

"We don't have any illusions here," said Alexander Skobeltsyn, the leader of the trade mission and director of Russia's federal agency on military co-operation.

"Wise people say that rather than depend on one person, you should be friends with two."

Mr. Mamedov reminded his audience that Canada already leases long-range Russian-built cargo planes to deliver humanitarian aid and heavy equipment, while the civilian equivalent of the Russian helicopter is now used on Alberta oil rigs.


http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=e9650cfe-eb30-46d8-9f96-19aee9ce498e


----------



## pbi (1 Jun 2006)

Having seen both Russian ground and air equipment up close over the last few years, I would not recommend that we even consider this offer.

Cheers


----------



## KevinB (1 Jun 2006)

pbi said:
			
		

> Having seen both Russian ground and air equipment up close over the last few years, I would not recommend that we even consider this offer.



+1

I've flown on a South African contractor Herc rather then getting on a Russian A/C again...


----------



## paracowboy (1 Jun 2006)

+2

Rusian kit scares the crap out of me. No wonder their pilots and tankers are drunk 24/7.


----------



## redleafjumper (1 Jun 2006)

Let's see, the Russians want to sell us their old cold war kit, with some designs likely used in their failed effort in Afghanistan?  No thanks.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (1 Jun 2006)

If what you guys say is correct, lets hope our politicians think the same way...


----------



## rz350 (1 Jun 2006)

Yes, because the only people in the world who can make good equipment are Americans.   Only junk comes out of Russia, like AA-12 Adders and T-90's and Ka-50's and Mi-28's. That MiG 15 in the Korean War and MiG-21 back in the Vietnam era really sucked too. I mean with untrained pilots at the helm regularly downing F-80's and F-4's, it musta been piss poor design. :

I would say give the deal a look, and inspect the equipment, if it is brand new mfg and seems to be good quality, then why the hell not spend half the price and get new equipment. If its crap, worn out old stuff with poor mfg quality, then let it slide. Don't discount based on its nation of origin, check out the actual offer.


----------



## KevinB (1 Jun 2006)

Your right none of us have hands on experience  :


----------



## pbi (1 Jun 2006)

Further to this sales effort by the Russians, I read today that the leader of  the sales mission is claiming that in Afghanistan our special  forces are using weapons purchased in Russia, and our artillery is firing Russian ammo.(!!)

Now, while I understand that for obvious reasons we might not be able to discuss the first part of the claim, what about the second? The new 155mm gun is a USMC item. According to the CFLO to the USMC, whom I spoke to earlier this week(before I read this Russian claim), Canada is the only country actually firing this gun on operations. With that, why would we need to buy Russian rounds instead of using ammo supplied by the US? And since when do Russian guns fire NATO 155mm ammo?

Cheers


----------



## rz350 (1 Jun 2006)

No, what I am saying, is why was there even a cold war then? if the equipment is that bad, a hand full of M60's and a few f-4's in Germany should of been plenty to hold the onslaught at bay. Why did the US developed the F14-15/16/18's? Just keep the F4's and f105's, I mean surly they could take down MiG-29's and Su-27's reliably, as they are very poor Russian Equipment. They are not a threat at all.

You guys do have direct military experience, and I know it, but I'm also going to ask this, if you had a PKM firing at you if your 031 or a t-90 if your 011?(or an Mi-24 bearing down on you) Would you be 100% confidant and not have any stress because its obviously just crappy Russian made equipment with no capability to do any harm? 

All that aside, I just don't think its a bad idea for a few engineers and the like to examine the offer and make a decision based on scientific analysis, not experience with equipment of an unknown age and maintenance record.

if I got a 1970 Ferrari with 200,000km on the clock, no oil change in the last 30,000 a flat tire and worn bearings, I bet I would be pretty unimpressed, but maybe when it was new and well maintained, it was a different story.

That's all I am trying to say.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Jun 2006)

The Russians realize they are not about to get billions of dollars in "carbon credits" from the Conservative government anytime soon (since Prime Minister Harper isn't into Kyoto *or* wealth transfer), so they are looking for a somewhat more productive means of getting the cash.

Now if they were smart like the Chinese or the "Four Tigers" nations, they would be moving post haste into low price/high quality consumer goods, since lots of little purchases equal a steady cash flow, rather than hoping for a bulk buy of military equipment and a big dollop of cash all at once. Mr Putin is free to call or PM if he wants more assistance.


----------



## pbi (1 Jun 2006)

rz350: I would be extremely worried about quality control and availability of spares. 

Cheers


----------



## rz350 (1 Jun 2006)

pbi said:
			
		

> rz350: I would be extremely worried about quality control and availability of spares.
> 
> Cheers



That is a good point.

I;m not trying to offend anyone, I am just saying it is at least worth a look, not to be discounted right off the bat. 

But yes, the spares do bring issues, if relations sour or somthing, it would be hard to find parts.


----------



## KevinB (1 Jun 2006)

Russian stuff is typically maintenance intensive - and more importantly (and discussed by several people who have a wealth of experience in the aviation field in previosu threads...) not interoprable with NATO systems - nor are they certified by whoever does that stuff in Canada.

We dont have a large military - we have a small and proffessional army thus we prefer the doctrin of quality over quantity in both troops and equipment.


Since a lot of specialized Russian units are running around with NATO small arms -who would beleive a tale that guys are running crap over the plug and play tools they have...

Russian kit gives me a rash.


----------



## pbi (1 Jun 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Since a lot of specialized Russian units are running around with NATO small arms -who would beleive a tale that guys are running crap over the plug and play tools they have...



Exactly why I tend to doubt this claim. I may be wrong here, but I think this is going to blow up in ther faces if somebody in Ottawa does a staff check.

Cheers


----------



## TCBF (1 Jun 2006)

"No wonder their pilots and tankers are drunk 24/7."

- Ya mean ours aren't?  If you count 'recreational' drugs, we ain't all that better off.


----------



## jimmy742 (1 Jun 2006)

rz350 said:
			
		

> That is a good point.
> 
> I;m not trying to offend anyone, I am just saying it is at least worth a look, not to be discounted right off the bat.
> 
> But yes, the spares do bring issues, if relations sour or somthing, it would be hard to find parts.



I agree with you. No harm in taking a look. I'm not saying the Russians have better equipment but why not listen? If leasing a small number of Mi-17s short term for Afghanistan until our own CH-47/53/Merlin/H-92 arrive is a viable and realistic option, why not? If it's a no go, then we are all better informed.

BTW, in my day (late 70s and 80s), some of the spare parts used in our British made AGA (Racal) equipment came from East Germany.


----------



## rz350 (1 Jun 2006)

I want to ad as well, that I was reaidng an issue of Popular mechanics, and there is a French Company making NATO compliant avionics/ect kits for Mil(I think for the Mi-8,17,24,26 but maybe a few others as well) helicopers.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Jun 2006)

The guys flying the Russian helo’s here for helo-logging like them a lot, lots of power and smaller diameter rotor.

Here is a link with the specs for the S-61 vs the Kamov KA32A11BC

http://www.vih.com/fleet_logging.php

I have poked around Russian equipment, it is simple and generally robust, their engine technology is old, but they have already promoted vehicle designs using North American engines. Purchasing vehicles for specific missions (like Dafur) from them and then leaving them in theatre might be cost effective rather than shipping the same vehicles over the world and then back to Canada for refit. It’s worth considering.

If we wanted to rapidly increase munitions stocks like land mines, they would be a good source, but of course Canada doesn’t do nasty stuff like that.

At the very least they should get some stuff for trials. Even if we don't buy it, we will now what it is capable of if our enemies get it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Jun 2006)

Whether or not Russian equipment would be effective in battle isn't an issue.  (Some equipment was designed with the expectation it wouldn't have a very long service life if it ever came to war, and peacetime operating hours were restricted accordingly.)

Whether it would be more or less prone to falling out of the sky during general use is one issue.  Whether it will be easier or more difficult to acquire and sustain the means to maintain the equipment to prevent it from falling out of the sky during general use is another issue.  Those are the questions to ask and answer.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Jun 2006)

Perhaps the "competition" will get us lower rates from the other bidders.


----------



## SoF (1 Jun 2006)

Perhaps we can get a deal on some new old-stock ak47s ;D :mg:


----------



## Infanteer (1 Jun 2006)

Maybe we can do a joint deal with Chavez in Venezuela....

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44630.0.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Jun 2006)

Don’t forget that the very useful folding ribbon bridge was a Warsaw Pact idea and NATO is still using it. Things like bridging sections, basic vehicles for oversea deployments plays to their strengths and could result in considerable cost savings.

Actually their arms factories are going great guns to fill US booked orders for the Iraqi and Afghan armies.


----------



## Journeyman (1 Jun 2006)

pbi said:
			
		

> Further to this sales effort by the Russians, I read today that the leader of  the sales mission is claiming that in Afghanistan our special  forces are using weapons purchased in Russia, and our artillery is firing Russian ammo.(!!)



In the original article, it appears that even the Arms' Sales Team Leader (Alexander Skobeltsyn, Russian Federal Agency on Military-Technical Cooperation) may be calling _suggesting_ BS   ;D


> Russia tries to sell military planes to Canada: Wed May 31, 2006 2:42 PM EDT:
> By David Ljunggren
> OTTAWA (Reuters)
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Jun 2006)

Whatever the state of the equipment, etc, competition is healthy. Why not look at all the options, it tends to drive down the initial estimates and increase the perks. It costs nothing to listen.


----------



## couchcommander (1 Jun 2006)

Is the maintenance bad or the actual product itself? I suspect the aircraft in question were just worn out and not taken care of, but you do have the hands on experience, so I dunno. 

But various Antonovs and Ilyushins IL-76's have been flying the CF around for a while now anywho. NATO is even leasing a fleet of AN-124's for it's use. http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-airlift-nato.htm

At a fraction of the cost, and similar if not better capabilities, I'd at least consider it. I believe they are able to put western avionics and engines in them as well. 

I'm not a fan of Russian small arms, but their artillery isn't something to be scoffed at either. In the late seventies they had 152mm artillery that was able to lob shells almost 30 kilometres - well ahead of comparable western armaments of the time. Though I wouldn't recommend using their guns due to the logistical problems, once again don't discount it because of stigma.


----------



## Enzo (1 Jun 2006)

Nevergonnahappen.  ;D


----------



## Jamie (1 Jun 2006)

Hmm, I am curious as to why the huge aversion to Russian equipment? I am guessing that there are a ton of people on here who have flown on Mi-17s in Bosnia. They were a hell of a lot more robust than the Griffons that is to be sure. I was on more then a few flights on the Mi-26 HALO in Cambodia in the early 90s and aside from the scary “tractor like” appearance of the system; it was robust and did the job well. The flight time to repair ratio of Russian aircraft is amazing and the lift capability is equally so. As for the spare parts argument, I don’t see an issue with getting spares for the equipment. Russia is in the arms business for the long haul. Also it must be remembered that Canadian maint crews would be doing the upkeep on the airframe and we could fit whatever avionics we want into the system. We would be the toe hold for Russia into the western arms market and as such would have a much higher priority on the assembly line then we would waiting in line for a US assembly line trying to keep up production for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes there would be some issues with QA but nothing that would be insurmountable. Generally when you hear about Russian aircraft falling out of the sky they are being operated by a banana republic somewhere and the AC has been on its 3rd or 4th owner nation. If the CF wants to get the most bang for its buck I would hope that they Russian option is explored whole heartedly.


----------



## orange.paint (1 Jun 2006)

I dont think we'll ever look towards cccp kit,even though it may be awesome kit it just screams low income country(to other countries).Maybe a few t-90s put in for good measure......I can dream.


----------



## paracowboy (1 Jun 2006)

Jamie said:
			
		

> Hmm, I am curious as to why the huge aversion to Russian equipment? I am guessing that there are a ton of people on here who have flown on Mi-17s in Bosnia. They were a hell of a lot more robust than the Griffons that is to be sure. I was on more then a few flights on the Mi-26 HALO in Cambodia in the early 90s and aside from the scary “tractor like” appearance of the system; it was robust and did the job well. The flight time to repair ration of Russian aircraft is amazing and the lift capability is equally so. As for the spare parts argument, I don’t see an issue with getting spares for the equipment. Russia is in the arms business for the long haul. Also it must be remembered that Canadian maint crews would be doing the upkeep on the airframe and we could fit whatever avionics we want into the system. We would be the toe hold for Russia into the western arms market and as such would have a much higher priority on the assembly line then we would waiting in line for a US assembly line trying to keep up production for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes there would be some issues with QA but nothing that would be insurmountable. Generally when you hear about Russian aircraft falling out of the sky they are being operated by a banana republic somewhere and the AC has been on its 3rd or 4th owner nation. If the CF wants to get the most bang for its buck I would hope that they Russian option is explored whole heartedly.


commie!  ;D

Any polish on them toes? I know there's none on your boots.

-your favourite half-breed.


----------



## Jamie (1 Jun 2006)

Paracowboy -

Yes Pink but it is chipping off. My boots are at their usual high standard. 


Louise Riel is actually my favorate half breed, but in a pinch you will do.

Rember the first rule of Int shop!


----------



## paracowboy (1 Jun 2006)

Jamie said:
			
		

> Paracowboy -
> 
> Yes Pink but it is chipping off. My boots are at their usual high standard.
> 
> ...


never talk about Int shop.

I'm gonna take it to pms, to avoid hijacking further.


----------



## Britney Spears (2 Jun 2006)

What is this obsession with the T-90? You guys do realize that the top of the line Russian MBT is the T-80UM right? The T-90 is a beefed up T-72 that's offered as a lower tech, cheaper export, the designation makes it more attractive to less knowledgable dictators. I'm not sure if they are a real improvement over the leopards.

The Russians know what *TCBF* wants a lot better tha Ottawa does. Look! he's even  in the Russian AFV recognition handbook! What does the caption say? "4th Canadian Guards Tank Army"?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (2 Jun 2006)

Yes, by all means lets look at Russian equipment. Do remember, though (as I posted on another thread on this subject a long time ago) that Canada bans flying personnel on any Russian-built cargo aircraft for safety reasons?  That "upgrading" and "standardizing" Russian equipment would cost a fortune.  That there are ABCA agreements covering equipment commonalities - including everything from wiring to bolt sizes that the Russians would have to adhere to.  That we couldn't guarantee spares under even the best of circumstances.  That ammunition (in the case of "guns") has to be NATO standard.

Before whipping out the Jane's book and seeing all the shiny Russian equipment that is "better" than that produced in the West, perhaps we should ask ourselves why the Russians will peddle their wares to just about anyone who has enough dollars and just how "advanced" their products are.  In most cases, Russian equipment lags far behind that available from our traditional suppliers.  Thanks, but no thanks...


----------



## rz350 (2 Jun 2006)

Teddy: I can see from your profile you obviously have a huge amount of experience. I would like to ask (honestly, I am curious and would like to learn) if the technical specifications (which is what one finds in Jane's) are superior, how is the equipment inferior? For given piece I mean, I.e. AA-12 vs AIM-120 or something like that. I'd just like to know, cause I know Jane's doesn't tell the whole story, but at the same time, I cant picture how something with specs that are better in every way the whatever you are comparing it against can be inferior.


----------



## TCBF (2 Jun 2006)

"Louise Riel is actually my favorate half breed, but in a pinch you will do."

- This girl, this LOUISE Riel, does she have a sister?  Or are you speaking of PRINCESS Louise Riel?

 ;D

The Comrades and their kit:

Nothing wrong with MOST of it.  We even bought their mine plows and rollers after RAMTA and IAI in Israel reverse engineered them from KMT 4/5, then charged us the world for them.

I would take a T-80 Cdn or over a Leopard C2 anyday, based on our experience with the Troop of four T-72s we had moving at the Armour School in the early 90s.

Be interesting to see a PKM in 7.62 NATO as well.

The Cub impressed me, as does the BMP 3.  

If we were scientific about this - vice emotional - we would trial a lot of PLA kit as well.  Their new SA calibers merit investigating.

Tom


----------



## couchcommander (2 Jun 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Before whipping out the Jane's book and seeing all the shiny Russian equipment that is "better" than that produced in the West



Well, unfortunately Janes is too expensive for the student budget - but my books do have some VERY glossy pages! 

You're definately right though - there are a lot of differences in the aircraft, presenting logistical and maintenance problems. However, I have seen some analysis done on a possible conversion to western avionics and engines (I think CASR did one as well) - the cost was still quite substantially less than a C-17 for both the An-124 and Il-76 (by several orders of magnitude if I remember correctly...??? *shrug*).

As well, you are all correct, former soviet bloc aircraft are POS - largely though because they are not maintained properly, at least from what I've heard. Yes, manufacturing standards are more lax, but that can be controlled as well I would think. 

In the end my point was simply that we should take a real hard look at it before just discounting it as useless. Some companies around the globe are making some real good money using these aircraft - and as I pointed out before, CF equipment has been on them on MORE than one occasion. 

Once again, not saying that we SHOULD buy them, but rather we should take a close look at them and see how prevalent these problems really are in the new production.


----------



## TCBF (2 Jun 2006)

"The Russians know what TCBF wants a lot better tha Ottawa does. Look! he's even  in the Russian AFV recognition handbook! What does the caption say? "4th Canadian Guards Tank Army"? 

- 4CMBG was a Tank Army?  Wow.  That WOULD account for all of the SMLM plates around Lahr, I guess.

 ;D

"As well, you are all correct, former soviet bloc aircraft are POS - largely though because they are not maintained properly."

- Like the Sea King?

  ;D 


Tom


----------



## couchcommander (2 Jun 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "As well, you are all correct, former soviet bloc aircraft are POS - largely though because they are not maintained properly."
> 
> - Like the Sea King?
> 
> ...



  :evil:


----------



## pbi (2 Jun 2006)

Sorry: I guess I screwed that up, didn't I? But, the point remains: this behavoiur is either stupidity or a rather clumsy attempt at disinformation.

Cheers


----------



## KevinB (2 Jun 2006)

The only reason to look at PLA equiptment is to see what we could be fighting in a few years.

I'd rather burn our dollars than see it go to China State factories.

The CASR article was hugely flawed (as Teddy pointed out).  We have STANAG and ABCA specs for reasons...

I've used several AK variants and PKM's overseas -- give me a C6/M240G anyday for a beltfed.  M4/C8 has it hands down over the crap weapons.

You aint getting my ass on a Russian Whirlybird no matter if its $800 USD a day or not.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Jun 2006)

rz:


> I would like to ask (honestly, I am curious and would like to learn) if the technical specifications (which is what one finds in Jane's) are superior, how is the equipment inferior?



Unfortunately, like every other catalogue, Jane's doesn't tell you the number of times you can fire the main gun before you have to change the barrel,  the mean time between failures on the tracks, the life expectancy of the engines, the number of bumps before the sighting systems are knocked out of alignment, availability of batteries and spare parts, the nearest dealership......

Would you buy a car strictly on the basis of what Ford and GM put in their brochures?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Jun 2006)

Well, my wife did buy a car based soley on the colour..... :


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Jun 2006)

And in the interests of full disclosure, I did buy my first car (a 1978 Toyota Celica Hatchback) because it was Road and Track's Car of the Year and it looked cool. ;D


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (2 Jun 2006)

rz350 said:
			
		

> Teddy: I can see from your profile you obviously have a huge amount of experience. I would like to ask (honestly, I am curious and would like to learn) if the technical specifications (which is what one finds in Jane's) are superior, how is the equipment inferior? For given piece I mean, I.e. AA-12 vs AIM-120 or something like that. I'd just like to know, cause I know Jane's doesn't tell the whole story, but at the same time, I cant picture how something with specs that are better in every way the whatever you are comparing it against can be inferior.



Well, Jane's is a very authoratative publication, but they don't do their own testing.  Instead, they'll go by (as Kirkhill has pointed out) what the shiny brochures say.  In the case of Russian equipment, performance claims are almost impossible to verify and and are often inflated.

Take the T-72, for instance (which is a piece of kit I've actually been in, so bear with me).  Jane's doesn't indicate, for example, that you need to be tiny to actually fit into the driver's hatch, that the autoloader is positioned to take the crew commander's arm off and that the electronic systems are comparable to mid-1960s Western vehicles on the "export" version.  Moreover, the tank uses nothing that's compatible with NATO STANAGs or ABCA standards and has a main gun calibre that does not match NATO ammunition.  Given this, why would we buy even an updated version?

I have a fair amount of experience working with and around the US C-17 (plus a couple of tactical flights).  It is an outstanding aircraft in all respects, can be totally integrated into our operations, is compatible with our Allies (in everything from the electrical system to the types of cargo pallets it can handle), and provides an amazing capability.  Why would we even look at Russian equipment when such things are available from traditional suppliers - with MUCH less hassle?  No mods required, no translation of manuals, no jury-rigging training, an assured spares supply and seamless integration with the US, UK and Australia.

As I pointed out in other threads, CASR can be a highly suspect source that often produces "bright ideas" that are not fully thought through.  Buying Russian equipment - of any description - is one of them.

.


----------



## redleafjumper (2 Jun 2006)

Purchase Russian equipment?  Makes me wonder if us trigger happy 'mericans might mistake Canadians for the bad guys.

That's certainly happened before, regardless of equipment employed.  It is certainly a valid point -years of IFF and vehicle recognition training wouldn't support buying that stuff.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jun 2006)

To my shame, I was one of those who was all for doing an emergency purchase of IL-76 for our short term strategic transport needs. The nature of the emergency, you might recall, was the Liberal government of the day was directionless and adrift in terms of defence and foreign policy, leaving the service members literally holding the bag when the PMO came out of their stupor and realized "OMG, we *do* want to deploy the DART team to the Tsunami Zone", long after everyone else had chartered all the available Antonov's etc. With the attention and funding being dribbled out at that time, C-17's (at $250 million dollers EACH) were simply dreaming in technicolour.

Now the C-17's still cost $250 million ea, and there are some issues about support, but since we now have some people who are making serious plans and backing them with real resources, we no longer have to constantly check our supply of duct tape and bungee cords to ensure operations and training can go on (a daily sight verification will do).


----------



## rz350 (2 Jun 2006)

I do see what you mean about the interchangeability problem. That would be quite the pickle. I just get caught up in the capability of the equipment, and forget about the Logistics of it. As I think most people would have to admit, the Russians *do* make some pretty cool stuff for good prices. But it would be a *itch to maintain and inter operate with other nations (But from what I can tell from Jane's and the like, the electronics on the new pieces of Russian kit are pretty good...not like the T-72 and Hips and Hinds of days gone by with the vacuum tube stuff) Things like the Havok and new flanker models and the T-80 and T-90 have some pretty cool gizmo's

Thanks for the great reply Teddy.


----------



## Zoomie (2 Jun 2006)

If we have learned anything from the Cormorant - we must purchase from a country that provides excellent post-delivery service and engineering support.  I'm not saying that AWIL is perfect in all respects, but I would be highly suspect of ex-Soviet bloc countries providing any such support. 
Boeing makes planes for the whole world - it will still be around in 20 years when we need to refit our C-17s.

I fly a plane built in the mid to late '60's.  De Haviland Canada no longer exists to support us - but luckily we still have a parts chain through other Canadian companies and we receive engineering support from these same companies.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Jun 2006)

Teddy
When you where sitting in the drivers seat did you notice the fan right near your crotch? Glad it’s made out of rubber, not a lot of internal volume left over in those babies. I have had the pleasure of crawling around the T-72, T-62, JS-III at Littlefield’s Private collection in San Jose (211 AFV’s)


----------



## hhour48 (2 Jun 2006)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> What does the caption say? "4th Canadian Guards Tank Army"?



it says literally "4th Canadian Separate Brigade"


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Jun 2006)

Bratok said:
			
		

> it says literally "4th Canadian Separate Brigade"



Must be that bunch from Quebec!!  ;D


----------



## probum non poenitet (2 Jun 2006)

Outweighing all the standard complaints about Soviet/Russian kit (made out of recycled beer cans - unsafe - hopelessly outclassed by Western kit - designed for quantity over quality, etc.), there is number one reason not yet mentioned here:

You can't trust Russia!
Russia is an unstable country that has been our enemy for most of our lifetimes. They have been pulling diplomatic stunts countering the West that have been under-reported in our media.

Putin is a former-KGB knob, and as far as I'm concerned the clock is ticking down to Cold War II.
The only reason it hasn't struck midnight yet is precisely because Soviet ... er Russian ... kit is crap and they know it.

Now too bad the Japanese weren't selling cargo planes. They'd be small, cheap, reliable, great on gas, and would play DVDs.


----------



## Koenigsegg (2 Jun 2006)

I know, and remember all the reasons you people have brought up against purchasing from Russia.  However, if more recent top of th line MiG 29s are on the list, we could at least take a look.  In very good trained hands (say, the Germans) they are excellent planes.  they are better in some respects than the F-18, but lacking a bit in others.  They tend to average out to the F-18s equal.  The Germans have learned how to make them compatable with the NATO aircraft.
But then again, the Germans are trained to fly very aggressively and offensively, that _may_ not be how we use ours...

Just a thought.

What of the AN-94 assault rifle, does any one know how they stand up in use?

What is the CF lacking the the Russian would have, and would probably be good?  Im thinking snowshoes  ;D, as the new, tested ones we have seem to die quickly...


----------



## Armymatters (2 Jun 2006)

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> I know, and remember all the reasons you people have brought up against purchasing from Russia.  Howevert, if more recent top of th line MiG 29s are on the list, we could at least take a look.  In very good trained hands (say, the Germans) they are excellent planes.  they are better in some respects than the F-18, but lacking a bit in others.  They tend to average out to the F-18s equal.  The Germans have learned how to make them compatable with the NATO aircraft.
> But then again, the Germans are trained to fly very aggressively and offensively, that _may_ not be how we use ours...
> 
> Just a thought.



Russian turbine engines don't tend to last as long as Western engines in the same thrust class. They also tend to weight slightly more than Western engines in the same thrust class. The Russians are extremely good at one thing: anything dealing with titanium. They have the best metalurgy and and welding than anyone else period. Also, they have a totally different design philosophy. Trying to maintain Russian aircraft can be a total nightmare. Parts that are line replacable units (LRU) in any Western aircraft are welded assemblies on Russian designs. Does this save weight? Yep. Does it extend service life? No, and also it makes replacement difficult. Do Western companies make the parts LRU's because they know they often must be replaced often? Yep. The Russians certainly have good engineering, but overall, for the most part, the total package is not competitive enough compared to Western designs, though, there are major exceptions. 



			
				probum non poenitet said:
			
		

> Now too bad the Japanese weren't selling cargo planes. They'd be small, cheap, reliable, great on gas, and would play DVDs.



The Japanese do have their own cargo plane design, the Kawasaki C-1 cargo plane. Unfortunately, there are a couple of things about the plane that makes it a non-starter for us:
1. It carries less than a C-130 (12 tons of cargo max)
2. The design is 30 years old, and the Japanese are already thinking about replacing it.
3. We can't get Japanese military hardware; their laws prevent the export of military hardware.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/c-1.htm


----------



## PhatRat1973 (2 Jun 2006)

Most of the UN humanitarian relief and supplies that is flown around the world is flown in Russian aircraft, often with Russian pilots.  I cant say that I have hands on experience, but flew from Canada to Uganda in 1994 courtesy of the Russian army on an Ilyushn, without any problem.  Sure the pilots flying scared the crap out of me, but hey we got there.  The advantage (I believe) to considering Russian over US is that the Russians are not involved around the globe in conflict, with thier army having the priority on parts, as would the case be with the US.  The MGS (Mobile Gun System) being a prime example.  We have to put our purchase on hold, while the US finalize thier orders.  If the US needs parts for thier Globemasters due to operational requirements "where-ever" and we need them for our army, who is going to get them first??
Nuff said


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Jun 2006)

> The MGS (Mobile Gun System) being a prime example.  We have to put our purchase on hold, while the US finalize thier orders.



Phatrat: that may not have been the best example you could have chosen for this site.

I believe a number of folks here wouldn't be too upset if the MGS was put on hold indefinitely.


----------



## qyranger (2 Jun 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Take the T-72, for instance (which is a piece of kit I've actually been in, so bear with me).  Jane's doesn't indicate, for example, that you need to be tiny to actually fit into the driver's hatch, that the autoloader is positioned to take the crew commander's arm off and that the electronic systems are comparable to mid-1960s Western vehicles on the "export" version.  Moreover, the tank uses nothing that's compatible with NATO STANAGs or ABCA standards and has a main gun calibre that does not match NATO ammunition.  Given this, why would we buy even an updated version?
> 
> ...



A few years ago I was at an oceanographic conference in Brazil. One of the scientists there was from the former East Germany. Over a few Brazilian beers, he and I were talking and it turned out that he was a former gunner in a T-72, while I was a former recce officer from Canada. He recalled our Lynx and Centurion (later Leopard) from his AFV recognition classes. I asked him about the issue of the T-72 autoloader amputating the arms of the crew commander. He laughed and said that he'd never hear of such an event. I mention this only to make the point that not everything we hear about Russian gear is necessarily accurate. This said, I don't favor purchasing their equipment. Other members have raised valid concerns about spares and design issues that may compromise long-term reliability. We need strategic airlift and heavy lift helicopters and the should come from suppliers whom we know and can count on for the long-term.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (3 Jun 2006)

> I mention this only to make the point that not everything we hear about Russian gear is necessarily accurate.



Um...



> Take the T-72, for instance (*which is a piece of kit I've actually been in*, so bear with me).


 (emphasis added)


----------



## redleafjumper (3 Jun 2006)

it says literally "4th Canadian Separate Brigade"

Yes, that's true, but I would translate "separate" (in that context) as independent.


----------



## TCBF (3 Jun 2006)

I would pick separate, as there was absolutely nothing we could have done independantly from V Corps or VII Corps.

 ;D

Tom


----------



## Jantor (3 Jun 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> The Japanese do have their own cargo plane design, the Kawasaki C-1 cargo plane. Unfortunately, there are a couple of things about the plane that makes it a non-starter for us:
> 1. It carries less than a C-130 (12 tons of cargo max)
> 2. The design is 30 years old, and the Japanese are already thinking about replacing it.
> 3. We can't get Japanese military hardware; their laws prevent the export of military hardware.
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/c-1.htm




It seems that the Japanese have a new transport aircraft already. The C-X is undergoing stress tests now and should make its first flight late next year. It is being developed along with a maritime patrol aircraft called the P-X that will replace the P-3C Orion's in service. The Japanese will supposedly have some models at the Paris airshow this month. 

I couldn't find much in the way of specifications on the net but there was this:http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/05/30/206952/Japanese+C-X+transport+on+schedule+for+first+flight.html


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (3 Jun 2006)

I'd be interested in some RPGs and other explody-things like RPOs and their AGLs.  As for the rest of their kit I'll take a pass.

2B


----------



## redleafjumper (3 Jun 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> I would pick separate, as there was absolutely nothing we could have done independently from V Corps or VII Corps.
> 
> Tom
> 
> ...


----------



## couchcommander (3 Jun 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> As I pointed out in other threads, CASR can be a highly suspect source that often produces "bright ideas" that are not fully thought through.



Ah, understood.


----------



## TCBF (4 Jun 2006)

"perhaps it's a quibble over semantics"

- Hence, my smiley.

Tom


----------



## redleafjumper (4 Jun 2006)

Of course Tom!   ;D


----------



## pbi (4 Jun 2006)

Unless the Russians have greatly improved the quality control that bedevilled much of the Eastbloc's military output, I can't even see giving the stuff a second look. (See story below). As well as being a somewhat unstable place politically, IMHO Russia can be a very tricky and frustrating place to try to do business. It seems to me that there is far more corruption and outright criminal activity than we face here in the West (not say it doesn't exist...). How would we sort out business or trade disputes with a Russian manufacturer? Who would we appeal to? The Russian court system?

Story: In 1993 I served in Mozambique with a number of Czech Army officers. One of them, a Gunner, had commanded the first battery of the wheeled 152mm SPG "Dana" that you may recall from your AFV recognition training. When it appeared, we regarded this as a pretty impressive piece of gear. What the LCol told me was quite different. He said that when they received the guns and took them out for field training and firing, serious problems began to appear. The brake lines were mounted on the outside of the hull, so that when travelling cross country they were often damaged, with the result that it became difficult to stop the gun when moving at any speed. The autoloader that brought ammo from a storage magazine to the gun frequently jammed, requiring the crew to leave the NBC-protected gun cabin and manually free the jammed ammo. Overall, he said, it was a POS and a big disappointment.

Now: have Western armies bought gear that has also turned out be a disappointing POS? Yes, of course. The difference, I think, is that those quality problems in the West were not symptomatic of the whole industrial system. As well, we in the West have a thing called "competition" that tends to push defective firms towards the rear, or gradually out of business, if it is allowed to function properly.

Cheers


----------



## Jantor (4 Jun 2006)

Unless the companies name is spelled something like Bombardier


----------



## pbi (4 Jun 2006)

Jantor said:
			
		

> Unless the companies name is spelled something like Bombardier





> As well, we in the West have a thing called "competition" that tends to push defective firms towards the rear, or gradually out of business, *if it is allowed to function properly*.



Cheers


----------



## Jantor (4 Jun 2006)

The business of building airplanes in Canada hasn't _functioned properly_ in a long time, or were you referring to the U.S.?


----------



## JackD (5 Jun 2006)

Actually, Regarding those helicopters, the idea that it would be difficult to buy maintenance parts, or that third line maintenance support would be difficult - as this can only sourced from or be done in Russia - is false. Polish companies refurbish these types of aircraft, Romania does too.. and these nations are part of NATO.... After-all, if the helicopters are safe enough for the Pope to travel in... surely they are safe enough for the Canadian soldier... (eagerly awaiting comment on that last..)


----------



## KevinB (5 Jun 2006)

The Pope does not have STANAG, ABCA, or IFF worries.


----------



## Armymatters (5 Jun 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> The Pope does not have STANAG, ABCA, or IFF worries.



We can take care of some of those problems by fitting Western avionics to the airplanes. India is a good example, as they operate both Eastern bloc and Western aircraft in their military, and with their Sukhoi fighters, they have a mix of Russian (radar mainly), French, and Israeli avionics.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jun 2006)

Here's the thing as far as I am concerned.  Better we should buy weapons from people we expect to be fighting alongside than people we might be fighting against.


----------



## JackD (5 Jun 2006)

Regarding IFF, stanags and whatever - surely the problem and remedy already exists as Romania, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic are NATO members. As to the Pope, losing him in an aircrash would be a PR nightmare... (losing the odd politician on the otherhand... could be beneficial.. but then there is crew and pilot to consider)... As to fighting against Russia..(Kirkhill's comment) the Cold war is over...or at least the last one is...


----------



## chanman (5 Jun 2006)

Anyone know about S. Korea's experiences with Russian AFV's?  I vaguely remember them obtaining them in lieu of a debt the Russians owed.

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200403/kt2004030917463710510.htm


----------



## TCBF (5 Jun 2006)

Now THAT is very interesting.  Thanks.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Jun 2006)

When I was posted to Victoria, I wandered into VIH's open hangar one day and had a look at some of the their Russian Helos they use for heli-logging.  The VIH guys really seemed to like the helos, but I got the distinct impression that they had no desire to go through another 2-3 years of engineering work and to get more like them approved for flight in North America.  They had to design a redundant hydraulic system for the controls, from scratch.  All of the avionics had to be replaced.  They complained that the engines were a bit short lifed. 

They did not have to go through the trouble of installing a 1553 databus, armament systems, sensors, etc, etc, etc.

Don't get me wrong- the Russians have done some really neat design work in military kit over the years.  They just have a different concept of operating than we do- their kit is generally disposable after a fairly short service life.  Ours is not.  You can argue the merits of either, but we (along with most of the rest of NATO) have gone a different direction.  We should not be swimming the opposite direction of our allies.


----------



## S McKee (6 Jun 2006)

I'll have to go with "we can't trust the ba$tard$" on this one. I don't care how good the stuff may be (considering their military doctrine of quantity over quality I wouldn't even look at their equipment). As some other posters have pointed out, these clowns like to have a revolution every now and then, and they still tend to remember Uncle Joe Stalin as a pretty good guy.....


----------



## chanman (6 Jun 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Now THAT is very interesting.  Thanks.



_``We’ve decided to deploy some thirty T-80U tanks and another thirty BMP-3 infantry combat vehicles in frontline units located in central and eastern sections of the border in Kangwon Province,’’ a Defense Ministry official said.

They are part of the Russian weapons that Seoul purchased to offset some of the $1.47-billion loan, which was extended to the former Soviet Union in 1991.

It is the first time that Russian-made military equipment will be adopted as a main weapon of the ROK Army, which is largely relying on U.S.-made weapons._

I found the purchase as well as the deployment unusual, seeing as how the ROK has its own Type 88 MBTs.  Honestly, I expected them to sell or donate the equipment to someone else already using Russian gear.


----------



## couchcommander (6 Jun 2006)

NewCenturion said:
			
		

> and they still tend to remember Uncle Joe Stalin as a pretty good guy.....



It's Great Father Stalin to you!


----------



## S McKee (6 Jun 2006)

See what I mean!


----------



## Koenigsegg (6 Jun 2006)

...Well, it is good to see the Russian have changed th location of the fuel tank in the BMP-3.
No more back doors of flaming death!

or so it looks...


----------



## George Wallace (6 Jun 2006)

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> ...Well, it is good to see the Russian have changed th location of the fuel tank in the BMP-3.
> No more back doors of flaming death!
> 
> or so it looks...



Old news.......didn't you get them memo back in 89?   ;D


----------



## geo (6 Jun 2006)

LOL


----------



## reccecrewman (6 Jun 2006)

Perhaps Bombardier could come up with something for us instead?  Slap a nice over-inflated price tag on it, make sure it's a complete POS and unload them all on the CF.  :

Realistically though, I'd love to see our Government give the Russians a serious look.  Break free from the old stigma of the Russians being the 'Reds' and give them a genuine look.  As stated earlier, competition is good, and listening to their pitch is free.  We need to stop relying so heavily on the Americans for everything.  This isn't just restricted to the Russians, take a good look at ALL options out there - there's plenty of good kit out there that's not built by the U.S.  

I could care less if Russian kit screams out low income Army by other nations as was previously mentioned.  I'm sick and tired of seeing vehicles of all sorts grounded because we're waiting on parts.  If the kit coming out of Russia is good quality, not old and decrepit, and spare parts are cheap and plentiful, it should be looked at.

Food for thought


----------



## geo (6 Jun 2006)

ever tried to get parts for a Lada?

they weren't plentyful


----------



## Nemo888 (6 Jun 2006)

I've been really impressed by the mechanical engineering of the jeeps and military trucks, electronics are crap but we can install that stuff ourselves. We should really buy the Antonovs we are always renting too. Dirt cheap and gets the job done.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Jun 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> ever tried to get parts for a Lada?
> 
> they weren't plentyful



I have had that problem with both English and North American cars.


----------



## Koenigsegg (7 Jun 2006)

I was born in 89...I must have missed the memo.   ;D

I am tending to side with the people who are saying to take a look.  Don't commit to anything, just take a short glance, or a good look at some of the stuff that the Russians seemed to have done alright with.  In the off chance that there is something worth putting a few bucks toward, then maybe we could buy or lease a few, test them, and use them for adversary training (the Americans and Germans do it together).  We could even use them as examples of what NOT to do.   

Just out of curiosity, how expensive are Sukhoi 27s and 30s on the market from Russia?  used or not.
If anyone has any knowledge of this of course.


----------



## Armymatters (9 Jun 2006)

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, how expensive are Sukhoi 27s and 30s on the market from Russia?  used or not.
> If anyone has any knowledge of this of course.



The Chinese, when they purchased their first batch of 38 brand new Sukhoi SU-30MKK in 1999, got their's for about $2 billion US.


----------



## Koenigsegg (9 Jun 2006)

Whoa-ho!
I suppose that price would be expected though.

A _little_ out of Our reach, no?
Thank you, that makes me happy to know what Russia's buddy can get fighters for.  I am not sure I want to know what a country that Russia does not care for would have to pay...

Okay, thank you for the specific answer, more specific than I hoped.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jun 2006)

Interesting to note that the Russians have finally got capitalism figured out - at least in the defence market -  "what the market will bear".  ;D


----------



## GK .Dundas (10 Jun 2006)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I've been really impressed by the mechanical engineering of the jeeps and military trucks, electronics are crap but we can install that stuff ourselves. We should really buy the Antonovs we are always renting too. Dirt cheap and gets the job done.


      Sounds great except for....................$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ .
 To actually bring them up to stanard you might as well just remove  your right arm at about elbow level and hand it over to good old Boris at Antonov.And if you want to improve maitainabilty you might as well start with a fresh sheet of paper and start designing a new aircraft,It will be cheaper.
I still want to know what kind of kickback Simon Fraser gets if they sell one of these beasts to the CF??


----------



## Jantor (10 Jun 2006)

Just a few amateur observations from my trip around the WWW this morning.

1) Air defense
    S 300/  I think Greece bought this system. I don't know what they are paying for it but a US Pac-3 battery goes for about 225 million

    Tor m1/ Weird vehicle, neat concept. Vertically launched from inside the turret thingy. Missles could fit in the back of a LAV

    Tunguska/ Gepard-ADATS lovechild, 10km range missiles air/ground but has a revolving radar dish on top that says "over hear,
                    hear I am"!

2) Air transport
    An-124/ Quadruple redundant flight control systems, RR RB211 engined version in development, getting all the western systems

    Il-76MF/ Stretched version, PS90-A2 high bypass turbofans made with parts from western Europe and the US. CFM engined version 
                 in development. Rollers in the floor instead of plywood over titanium. 

Personal note: All this is fine and dandy but with the anti-NATO riots in the Ukraine and the Russians just being Russians I think it would best be left to the entrepreneurs like VIH, Kelowna Flightcraft and Skylink Aviation to deal with the flaky/volatile politics and for the CF to steer clear of these rather murky waters


----------

