Russia woos our military with deals on guns, planes

[Scoobie Newbie]

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

 

[SoF]

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

 

[Infanteer]

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

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

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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]

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)

"Your cannons are firing Russian ammunition in Afghanistan and your special forces are using small arms procured in Russia. But these were just one-time deals and we're not interested in one-night stands," Russian ambassador Georgy Mamedov said at the start of the presentation.

Questioned later about Mamedov's remarks, an obviously uncomfortable Skobeltsyn declined to comment.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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]

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]

Nevergonnahappen.  ;D

 

[Jamie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

never talk about Int shop.

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

 

[Britney Spears]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

"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]

"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

  :evil: