Russia woos our military with deals on guns, planes

[pbi]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Kirkhill]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

it says literally "4th Canadian Separate Brigade"

 

[Fishbone Jones]

it says literally "4th Canadian Separate Brigade"

Must be that bunch from Quebec!! ;D

 

[probum non poenitet]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

...

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]

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)