Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Purchases of Foreign military equipment: Positives & Negatives

    Share

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Purchases of Foreign military equipment: Positives & Negatives

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:36 pm

    This is regarding in Russia purchasing technology from France.  As smart as it is to have development costs reduced in purchasing systems that are already out in the market and may be proven, is it really worth it when they know what tech you use?

    Here is a quote based on the FELIN system that France showed off at MAKS and Russia eyed it:
    Russia considers buying French infantry combat suits

    France's FELIN infantry combat suit shown at the MAKS-2009 air show in Zhukovsky near Moscow has attracted the attention of the Russian Defense Ministry, which may consider buying it.

    FELIN (Integrated Equipment and Communications Infantryman) combines a modified FAMAS rifle with a host of other electronics, clothing, pouches, and body armor. The integral SPECTRA helmet is fitted with a real-time positioning and information system and light amplifiers for night vision.

    The Russian military is in talks with France's Sagem of the Safran group, which developed FELIN, on the possibility of buying the suits, the newspaper has learned from a source in the Russian Defense Ministry and an employee of an aircraft manufacturing company close to Sagem.

    A Russian officer said that the French body armor and other individual protection systems are inferior to U.S. or German-made systems, but FELIN's electronic elements are extremely attractive. According to his information, the French have expressed a readiness to Russify the software and adjust the electronic systems to Russian tactical norms and designations.

    The purchase of FELIN suits would be reasonable only if Russia also gets the related technology, said Mikhail Barabanov, an editor at the Moscow Defense Brief magazine.

    Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, said the French partners could agree to turn over the technology, and that this would not damage France's security even though it is a NATO member.

    However, there was a case when the purchase of French weapons damaged the importer. During the Falklands War in 1982, France disclosed to Britain the codes for the anti-ship missiles it had supplied to Argentina. However, it did so only after its closest ally put powerful pressure on it, and this in a highly dramatic situation.

    Pukhov said that France would not do this for Georgia or any other post-Soviet country where weapons incorporating French systems could be used.
    Source

    Now, take a good look at the bold comment; tell me you do not see anything wrong with this?

    OK, yes I am being somewhat pessimistic in thinking that Russia will have direct conflict with NATO (it is not that far fetched).  But what if Russia came into a physical contact with another country whom France deems an ally or is part of some alliance with them?  At this point, it would bring pressure to France to give away the tech secretes the Russian's use if they did indeed buy this system, to the Thermal imagers used in the tanks all the way up to the Mistral class helicopter carriers.

    The plus side though is, Russia bypasses R&D in the long aspect, and only needs small amount of funds and R&D for alternatives to the systems used in the ships, combat system and thermal imagers.  But at what point would it make it different to that used by France?

    Software is the key to making even the standard of hardware act and perform differently (As seen in basic house hold computers.  Systems using Linux, Windows, Unix, MAC OSX, Sun OS, etc will operate differently depending on coding and hardware support).  Now, If Russia changed the software, it would take away that advantage that France has.  But in the same sense, what about the telecommunication systems?  Since modern systems are software based rather then a basic radio signal, then encrypting the systems with your own devices would hold quite well.

    Does Russia possess the capabilities of these?  I would suppose so.  Since Russia develops their own military tech and software to boot, then my only guess they would develop alternatives to western based systems with their own.  But at what cost?

    As long as these projects come in a "barebone" kit (much like PC's can be done), then I guess there is no harm done.  At least Russia saves hundreds millions on R&D on the core shell.

    Take all this with a grain of salt.  As I read further and learn more about various countries, I still do not quite know what all the industries are in Russia.  Or even the full capabilities of the country in overall.  Maybe I am just being paranoid?

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Purchases of Foreign military equipment: Positives & Negatives

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:12 pm

    FELIN Infantry Combat Suite

    http://defense-update.com/features/du-2-07/felin.htm

    Now, take a good look at the bold comment; tell me you do not see anything wrong with this?

    Looks like a pretty good kit. 30,000 costs $800 million. It would cost $10 billion to arm our ground forces so that obviously isn't going to happen. I assume it would be for a select few spetsnaz units. There is no threat to national security from it. The software code is not important unless they can hack our network which will be ours, not French. GLONASS will be ours, communications will be ours and there is nothing the French will have to give them to get into that.


    OK, yes I am being somewhat pessimistic in thinking that Russia will have direct conflict with NATO (it is not that far fetched). But what if Russia came into a physical contact with another country whom France deems an ally or is part of some alliance with them? At this point, it would bring pressure to France to give away the tech secretes the Russian's use if they did indeed buy this system, to the Thermal imagers used in the tanks all the way up to the Mistral class helicopter carriers.

    What can you do to a thermal imager? You can't hack it. What can you do to a transfered LPD that is going to have Russian comms and systems... Nothing

    The plus side though is, Russia bypasses R&D in the long aspect, and only needs small amount of funds and R&D for alternatives to the systems used in the ships, combat system and thermal imagers. But at what point would it make it different to that used by France?

    Software is the key to making even the standard of hardware act and perform differently (As seen in basic house hold computers. Systems using Linux, Windows, Unix, MAC OSX, Sun OS, etc will operate differently depending on coding and hardware support). Now, If Russia changed the software, it would take away that advantage that France has. But in the same sense, what about the telecommunication systems? Since modern systems are software based rather then a basic radio signal, then encrypting the systems with your own devices would hold quite well.

    What difference does it make if we have a secure network? Anyone can hack software once you have access to it. The key is to keep them out of it.

    Does Russia possess the capabilities of these? I would suppose so. Since Russia develops their own military tech and software to boot, then my only guess they would develop alternatives to western based systems with their own. But at what cost?

    We have our own networks, several versions in fact. What we are trying to do is bring them up to the same digital standard. We have no problem making new software, the best programmers in the world are Russian.

    As long as these projects come in a "barebone" kit (much like PC's can be done), then I guess there is no harm done. At least Russia saves hundreds millions on R&D on the core shell.

    Take all this with a grain of salt. As I read further and learn more about various countries, I still do not quite know what all the industries are in Russia. Or even the full capabilities of the country in overall. Maybe I am just being paranoid?

    Programming is not a problem for us. If this is your only concern I would not be too worried about it. Our main concern is keeping a secure digital network.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Purchases of Foreign military equipment: Positives & Negatives

    Post  sepheronx on Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:39 am

    I don't doubt in Russians not being the best in software development. I mean, one of the founders of google was a russian immigrant. Anyway, I understand about the networking and yes, I agree, keeping a secured network would prevent the enemy from gaining acess to military networks and systems. I would just like to see more coming from Russia in terms of software development. Especially in operating systems. It is a huge market that can make companies billions.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Purchases of Foreign military equipment: Positives & Negatives

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:24 pm

    Just found out they actually cost $45,000 for one kit. No way are we buying this shyte.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Purchases of Foreign military equipment: Positives & Negatives

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:25 pm

    Like I said, I wouldn't be too worried about it...

    Russia's Defense Ministry has denied plans to purchase imported equipment for soldiers

    Russia is not yet in talks with foreign companies on the procurement elements of equipment for the military. This, as reported by Interfax, said on Aug. 25 informed source in Russia's Defense Ministry, commented the early reports of the relevant negotiations with France.

    "With representatives of French industry, as well as with defense enterprises of other countries, negotiations on the purchase of items of military equipment to equip Russia's army is not maintained, - the interlocutor said Interfax.

    At the same time, he said, the Defense Ministry carefully studying the experience of leading countries of the world, including Europe, in individual soldier equipment. The source also said that the development of equipment for individual equipment of troops is one of the priorities of the state armament program, and Russia's defense industry has been actively working in this direction.

    Recall that the negotiations between Russia's military department and the French company Sagem to buy equipment infantryman of the future on Aug. 25 reported the newspaper Vedomosti, citing a source in the military. Officially, this information is not confirmed in the Defense Ministry, and in Sagem.

    According to the newspaper, a set FELIN (Fantassin a Equipements et Liaisons Integres) was demonstrated at the MAKS-2009. It includes built-in computer with information about the enemy and the situation of soldiers, helmet sight, navigation and radio communications, as well as other components. The cost of one set of FELIN, according to the previously published data, is about 45 thousand dollars.

    http://lenta.ru/news/2009/08/25/deny/

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Russian purchases of Foreign military equipment

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:48 pm

    Russia's military will purchase from the national defense "only the most modern and sophisticated weapons - Deputy Defense Minister
    25.09.2009

    Moscow. September 23. Interfax-AVN - Russia's military establishment opposed to support the domestic military-industrial complex, buying unnecessary and obsolete weapons, said the chief armament of the Armed Forces of Russia - Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin.

    Army - I always said and will say - no social security. We should not just maintain our defense industry, we are called by the defense to claim that weapons, which would, if necessary, to defend the country "- said V. Savin, in an interview which is published in the newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda on Wednesday.

    As an example he cited the situation of the elemental base in weapons systems.

    "Using imported or foreign element base for the strategic nuclear forces is prohibited. But the rest of the prohibitions do not. If we start everywhere only our domestic set, we will have failures. Yes, we do allow use of imported components, but the fighting and the import substitution program. If our electronics industry today is not able to do some circuits, calculators, etc., then we are forced to take them abroad. tomorrow, next day the situation will be different "- said the deputy minister.

    According to him, "now be closed from the outside world is impossible." "Even the most advanced countries import those or other types of weapons or their components" - said V. Savin.

    "Why we went to the purchase of" drones "in Israel?" We do not have such vehicles that meet modern requirements. And we're not talking about what we are buying them en masse and in their own work in this area stop. But we need to work out methods for their use, prepare personnel, to understand the place on the battlefield, they will take, what are the ways to apply them? And yet: who they should be subordinated to - either in the team, whether in the army, then they must be somewhere separately and attached to the gain. All these issues require working out. So we went out to purchase a limited number of these "drones" - 14 complexes ", - he said.

    At the same time, according to Deputy Minister, the Defense Ministry nor the penny did not reduce the state order for the development of domestic unmanned aircraft.

    Asked about the specific problems faced V. Savin as chief of armaments, he said: "is facing perhaps the effects of the crisis is the end of 1990 - early 2000's, when Gosoboronzakaz was very small, and basically all the money to go on repair of equipment and weapons.

    "And for those 10 years, we will consider in 1998, it turned out that the order grew and grew in parallel financing for repairs, and all the time we were trying to repair what we have. This situation should have been broken. And in general, the first steps for the state defense order in 2009 are made. About fifty planes army buys this year, acquired 38 helicopters and more than 100 tanks, about 300 units of other armored vehicles, "- said the deputy minister.

    According to him, had to reduce maintenance. "Maintaining on old equipment and arms has become impossible. It is not just worn out, it no longer meets the requirements of modern warfare. Because the last large-scale shipments to the armed forces were in the 1991 - 1992 years", - the deputy minister said.

    Права на данный материал принадлежат Интерфакс-АВН.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Purchases of Foreign military equipment: Positives & Negatives

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:19 pm

    About the industries needing to be saved - it is a known fact that the facilities are all bogged down with orders and development......For foreign nations that is. More or less, with the development for Mistral, means updated (or new) facilities to be able to build ships faster, for the Russian Navy.

    Now, this is of course my opinion, but I will list some factors here (and alternatives), that is good and bad of both sides:

    A) You buy foreign made equipment for your military weapons.
    The Good
    - You can get access to the better technology off the bat
    - In short term, can cost less
    - Can make your military equipment more pleasing for foreign purchases
    The Bad
    - Now potential enemies will know your weakness with little effort
    - Source code and other information from host nation who developed the equipment, can impose sanctions, which prevents you to get further batches of equipment. So spare parts becomes a problem (see India after the Indo-Pakistan war in 65).
    - Domestic companies lose out on sales, and then claim bankruptcy, ultimately closing down and jobs lost (which account for a lot of jobs for people).

    B) You decide to buy only domestic for your military weapons.
    The Good
    - You get technology that the potential enemies may not know about. Weaknesses not easily known.
    - Helps provide money for further R&D to the companies. Ultimately, jobs are saved and new technology can be created.
    - If in case of sanctions, you can still develop the tech needed, without the need to re-create.
    The Bad
    - You may not get the top of the line Technology compared to other nations
    - Development could cost more as more money may be lost due to corruption or constant researching with no real results.
    - Limits you on possible customers internationally.

    I know Vlad made mention in another thread about how it is important to move on and get equipment from France because Russia's is out of date, and used China as an example. The reason why China is developing weapons (even if they are far crappier in performance compared to most nations who have a strong military complex), is because they have no real other choice. Due to sanctions against them, they where then forced into developing technologies for themselves using the civilian based equipment that was provided for development. Their current equipment sucks, as their industries are still young and are still spending the money and time for research. If Russia gave up in research and development of military technologies, to take the quicker root to buying only foreign, then it limits them as well. Not only does the other nation can then black mail Russia over the military equipment; if there is ever a sanctions against Russia in the form of military sales (which is still going on), then Russia would have to start from scratch in developing military equipment all over again. Now there is a possibility that the companies would do better then they do now (see South Africa during the 70's), or that it may cost more money and time to develop appropriate equipment, that may not meet the standards that they could meet years prior.

    There needs to be a mix. France's play in the auto industry did help, like Vlad mentioned. But they are not ruling stake in the companies. Same goes for the optics plant. Because the Ural optics plant produces the Catherine-FC thermals, does not make it that France owns the company. More or less, just gives the ability to built it themselves (of course under a license). Now is this good or not? well, if Russia decided to take what they learned and applied it to further development, then that is called polarizing, or 'copying' technology, and that is one of the reasons why China has military sanctions against them.

    You talking about PC bottlenecks yet you left out RAM. Not going to waste time networking more processors.

    In the current time, Ram speed is only really effective if the memory controller can work along side of it. Same with the storage capacity. There are articles that show that the difference between 6gb of DDR3 Ram is as effective as 4GB. It all depends on the software (that would explain why software engineering is far more profitable and concentrated, then hardware development).

    Also, Vlad, you mention Ailing defense industries, which industries are we speaking of? From what I have learned, companies like Sukhoi and Almaz Antey are probably Russia's most prospering and profiting defense industries. Now, for the other companies, well, some would be in question while others are in trouble.

    Like I mentioned before, cut the fat. Let some companies fall apart, it would be a matter of time for companies like Sukhoi to pick up the pieces and start further development.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Purchases of Foreign military equipment: Positives & Negatives

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:03 pm

    A) The bad is exaggerated.
    - France isn't a potential enemy
    - France isn't going to reveal their source code unless we are marching into Europe
    - Domestic companies are wasting taxpayer money living off welfare who are already bankrupt, keeping them alive is against market forces. Infusing them with French tech is the only thing that will save them.

    B) We don't want a shitty army like China so not going to happen. Chinese spend well over $100 billion a year on defence and what do they have to show for it... crap. Overlooked the fact Chinese buy Soviet Era equipment and now they are similar to a clone army of the Soviet in 1980. Chinese have no innovation, all they do is clone and not very well I might add.

    Russian scientists didn't clone but a few things early in the Cold War. With a little tweaking of our education system we can make our own in the products required for licensed production, even then it will not be all. We are past the era of total self-sufficiency. During the CCCP we had an empire to draw on for what we needed, now it is not the case. We need to make France a strategic partner, they are not big fans of NATO nor getting involved in conflicts without looking at the facts. France isn't known for being picky to who they sell to.

    China has sanctions against them because of Tienanmen square, not for pirating military technology.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Purchases of Foreign military equipment: Positives & Negatives

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:45 am

    There are articles that show that the difference between 6gb of DDR3 Ram is as effective as 4GB. It all depends on the software (that would explain why software engineering is far more profitable and concentrated, then hardware development).

    If you are running a 32 bit system good luck getting windows to see more than about 3.15 GB. You can put in as much as you like but 32 bit windows operating systems can't use more than just over 3 GBs.

    - France isn't a potential enemy

    France is part of a large European military organisation that condemned Russias aggression in Georgia in August 2008.
    They might not be going to invade you, but they have their own interests and relationships to manage.
    It would just take one change of government and all of a sudden they don't want to know you.

    - France isn't going to reveal their source code unless we are marching into Europe

    And if a new Ukrainian government is elected next election and decides that all agreements with Russia are off and that Russia must leave in 2017 despite the next 4-5 years of Russian investment based on expectations that they will be in the Crimean port for much longer.
    What if the Crimea decides to have a referendum and decides to become an autonomous region and Ukrainian military forces are sent in to "create peace".
    It could get very messy very quickly. The truth about what is actually happening will be hard to find... what if the west jumps up and blames Russia immediately without actually knowing any of the facts like they did with Georgia?

    - Domestic companies are wasting taxpayer money living off welfare who are already bankrupt, keeping them alive is against market forces. Infusing them with French tech is the only thing that will save them.

    What? Giving them western tech will suddenly make them NOT waste taxpayers money?
    Market forces have nothing to do with any countries MIC.
    Market forces result in banks getting bailed out when the f up so they can do it all again.
    Market forces is all about profit and is not a good way to run a business.
    ...great for the shareholders... ie people who already have a lot of money, but not great for the customer.

    We don't want a shitty army like China so not going to happen. Chinese spend well over $100 billion a year on defence and what do they have to show for it... crap. Overlooked the fact Chinese buy Soviet Era equipment and now they are similar to a clone army of the Soviet in 1980. Chinese have no innovation, all they do is clone and not very well I might add.

    Your solution is to clone French stuff. That does not foster innovation either.

    We need to make France a strategic partner, they are not big fans of NATO nor getting involved in conflicts without looking at the facts. France isn't known for being picky to who they sell to.

    France could be a good ally. So could Germany. So could several other countries that are not in Europe, like South Korea.
    If you are only buying from France then they have you by the balls.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Purchases of Foreign military equipment: Positives & Negatives

    Post  sepheronx on Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:10 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:A) The bad is exaggerated.
    - France isn't a potential enemy
    - France isn't going to reveal their source code unless we are marching into Europe
    - Domestic companies are wasting taxpayer money living off welfare who are already bankrupt, keeping them alive is against market forces. Infusing them with French tech is the only thing that will save them.

    B) We don't want a shitty army like China so not going to happen. Chinese spend well over $100 billion a year on defence and what do they have to show for it... crap. Overlooked the fact Chinese buy Soviet Era equipment and now they are similar to a clone army of the Soviet in 1980. Chinese have no innovation, all they do is clone and not very well I might add.

    Russian scientists didn't clone but a few things early in the Cold War. With a little tweaking of our education system we can make our own in the products required for licensed production, even then it will not be all. We are past the era of total self-sufficiency. During the CCCP we had an empire to draw on for what we needed, now it is not the case. We need to make France a strategic partner, they are not big fans of NATO nor getting involved in conflicts without looking at the facts. France isn't known for being picky to who they sell to.

    China has sanctions against them because of Tienanmen square, not for pirating military technology.

    France is indeed a potential enemy. History has shown that they where willing to invade (Napoleon). Then there is the fact that France is part (and founder might I add), of the EU, which (Garry pointed out), condemned Russia for the Georgian war. Also, they ARE part of NATO, even if they nitpick at what US has started, they still go in and join in the fight. And as Garry mentioned, one change in government could mean a lot.

    Source code is even a more dangerous aspect to let others have over your nation. Source code is the structure of how your equipment should communicate and work with the devices they are connected to. France can and would let that source code go, if it benefits them. Don't think for a second they will all of a sudden think otherwise, because Russia is their big pal....Yeah right. Cold war is over, but the mentality of it still exists. If it wasn't the case, then NATO shouldn't exist right now, and or France would not be part of it.

    Domestic companies are only staying alive from the development of foreign sales or handouts from the government. The ones who are obtaining handouts either need to get their acts together, or fall apart and let the other companies who are doing well, take over. Not all Russian defense companies are doing crappy and create crappy equipment, as Sukhoi's and Almaz-Antey will prove due to profits. Many countries who has access to even NATO equipment, seem to still buy Russian (Algeria has access to French equipment like Rafale, yet they went with SU-30's?, India has many countries wanting its business, yet they still purchase Russian). Want info on what foreign companies are capable of doing to domestic industries? Think of Mi-38. Why do you think they aren't really made yet? Pratt & Whitney dropped out of the agreement, and no longer are developing engines for the helicopter. Guess what Russia needs to do now? They are now investing in the development of their own. So that pushed back the development of the helicopter even further. How is replacing all your equipment with foreign supposed to help?

    As Garry also mentioned, buying French equipment and then producing your own isn't any better then China reverse engineering their copies, as that is what Russia is doing. Not investing in research, just development. No innovations there.

    Just because it is expensive, doesn't mean it is good. Our CF-188's are expensive as all hell, yet they are not even equivalent to the Russian SU-27SMT's. Just because the Radar is expensive and made in France, does not mean it is any better then the Russian stuff. The Russians are actually more renowned in Radar technology as well as surface to air defense systems. Helicopters seem to be very popular too. Peru is another current customer, not to mention Brazil and Venezuela (Brazil having access to French equipment too).

    milky_candy_sugar
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 404
    Points : 529
    Join date : 2009-10-30
    Age : 22
    Location : Switzerland

    Re: Purchases of Foreign military equipment: Positives & Negatives

    Post  milky_candy_sugar on Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:30 pm

    I don't think that France is a potential enemy thought. Over half of the french population are rather anti-NATO, which means that there is a probability that France's attitude changes toward NATO within the next decade.

    But i think it is still better for Russia to continue developing it's own military technology and import some foreign weapons meanwhile


    _________________

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Purchases of Foreign military equipment: Positives & Negatives

    Post  sepheronx on Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:05 pm

    milky_candy_sugar wrote:I don't think that France is a potential enemy thought. Over half of the french population are rather anti-NATO, which means that there is a probability that France's attitude changes toward NATO within the next decade.

    But i think it is still better for Russia to continue developing it's own military technology and import some foreign weapons meanwhile

    Could you please sight some sources to this claim?

    France's attitude (especially civies), does not necessarily reflect what the governments stances are. They are part of NATO, even if they do not agree with it all, they are still part of it, which is a threat of its own. If the case like what you or Vlad say, then they would have left NATO, but they have not. They are not your allies, thus they are not to be fully trusted. Same goes for Canada, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Poland, etc. Because if you start purchasing all your defenses from France, you might as well start purchasing from Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, etc.

    It was indeed France who prevented Ukraine and Georgia in NATO (along with Germany), but if the road would have continued for both Ukraine and Georgia, they would have gotten into NATO regardless, and France would have done nothing about it. France is part of that alliance that was trying to encircle Russia not long ago.

    Vlad, since you where in Kosovo, then you should know this better then anyone else. Who was it that bombed Serbia (Belgrad)? It was NATO, and NATO wasn't attacked. There was no threat towards NATO, but NATO went in and caused damage anyway. In other words, don't put all your eggs into one Basket. I would rather trust Switzerland, Finland, and Ukraine more with my military development then I would with other nations who are part of NATO.

    Here is an example of replacing your military equipment for someone else's. Not to mention a Western nation. We developed the Avro Arrow in the 50's. It was the most advanced aircraft of those years. The program dropped due to our prime minister, who insisted we buy American made planes. The planes we got the Voodoo. The Voodoo for Christ sakes! Our defense industries started to fall apart as our conservative government bought more and more of American equipment. Let us fast forward 40 years, and we are in Afghanistan. Guess what our defense budget is now? 9 Billion and less. Guess what our troops went into Afghanistan with? Woodland based camo. Yes, in the Desert, they wore woodland. Now we buy other equipment from other countries, but it is very expensive and do not necessarily meet our expectations, but we must make due. We currently have the CF-188 (F-18's) that are extremely expensive to operate and we have in very few numbers. Not to mention, they are not nearly as capable as the SU-27SMT.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Purchases of Foreign military equipment: Positives & Negatives

    Post  Vladimir79 on Thu Apr 29, 2010 6:04 am

    GarryB wrote:

    Supposedly in the second Chechen campaign the tank crews only stored ammo in the armoured autoloader, so yes the interior could burn for 5 minutes before getting to the ammo and exploding. With ammo stored within the crew compartment, like a Leo or Leclerc then yes it can be ignited immediately or after a short period of time depending on where the tank is hit and what hit it.

    Chechens would target the fuel tanks which would spread fire to the tank within seconds, powder charges would go off immediately blowing up the ammo box which caused the shells to explode upwards taking the top with it. The tank is not very survivable.

    Yes, I understand the concept and the potential pitfalls.
    The key however is timely accurate relevant information. If you get it too late or it is misleading, or not relevant then it is noise.
    The issues with the battle management are not bandwidth, they are data handling and processing that turns it into useful timely accurate relevant information.

    The issue isn't bandwidth for the French, they already have it. We don't... we don't have the method of transferring intel from the battlefield to the command except by voice.

    If your problem is bandwidth then you have a small problem that is straight forward to fix.

    Sure, get more bandwidth. The only straightforward solution is buying French.


    Sorry but can you explain why the T-95 is a dud?

    b/c it will not be produced

    Actual facts about the vehicle are rare, and all we have is the word of one guy who is a rocket and aircraft guy who sat in a T-90 and compared it with a T-34.

    That guy is Chief of Armaments for the Russian Federation.

    Sounds like an idiot to me.... or is the T-50 like the Wright flyer because it used wings too.

    It was a tongue and cheek statement meant to bring home how obsolete our armour is. He made his point clearly.

    Medvedev said last year that upgrading old material when new models were ready was a waste of money, so we get orders for Mig-35s and Su-35s instead of orders for Mig-29SMTs and Su-27SMs.
    Upgrades will still be paid for at a lower rate but the focus is to get new equipment into service.

    That's funny considering the government considers refurbished equipment as "new."

    It was a new standard that could be applied to T-72/80/90 tanks and would be adopted as the new build standard to try to get some uniformity in Russias tank fleet. The T-72 and the T-80 and the T-90 tanks are actually rather different things despite external appearances so the point of the upgrade was to unify and consolidate the types in service to improve logistics and save money.

    The point of the upgrade was to make them more survivable and equip them with similar electronics. The T-72 and T-90 are almost identical, the T-80 is being phased out of service.


    As I said before too the Hermes was cancelled too.

    Never heard it

    Really? Cause my old 486 didn't need big complicated water cooling contraptions and enormous heat sinks like the new chips need. These days there are 1kW power supplies being sold for gaming computers because of the power requirements.

    486 only ran up to 100Mhz, Processors now run at several Ghz so obviously a pathetic processor like that won't use as much power. The transition from 65nm to 45nm dies saw a significant improvement in power consumption while still using the same clock speeds.

    The West has spent billions on its military to get where it is today, you think you can get it for free? You think this is going to happen overnight?
    Even with all the right choices it will take time, which is why it annoys me they might be dropping the Burlak upgrade. It makes a lot of sense to improve the best thing you have and delay the replacement till the technology to make it work well matures. What doesn't make sense is to cut everything because that is just a dead end.
    Sounds like this guy learned nothing from Russian tank experience and wants Russian tanks to carry a total of 22 rounds of main tank ammo because carrying more in a T-90 without a Burlak upgrade just kills crewmen.
    Great way to save money.

    Popovkin's point was that everything we have been working on in the range of armour for the last 15 years is a dead end. Sounds like this guy, Chief of Armaments, is sick and tired of obsolescence MIC is offering him and wants modern equipment. Burlak is just another stop-gap for obsolete equipment he is tired of having to choose. The whole point of the round-table was to explain why we are going to import much more equipment.

    I hope what they mean is that the Burlak upgrade will not be applied to T-72 and T-80 tanks and will just be the new production standard T-90 tank.

    There will be no T-80 upgrade, the factory is closed and the tanks will be scrapped.

    But who will buy them? The Russian government can't afford to buy everything now, let alone the state of the art now. How many S-300V were sold on the international market? Is it a sh!t system? Why aren't those poor third world countries that accepted free SA-2s and SA-3s buying SA-10s and SA-20s?
    The sad reality is that most of your client states barely have money to upgrade what they have let alone buy brand new state of the art.
    All of a sudden your market has disappeared because you have become westernised, yet the western markets will reject your products on political grounds.

    It is French avionics, et al, that make it possible for Sukhoi to stay in operation. We wouldn't have sold a single Su-30MKI/MKM without it. Just look at all the French equipment...



    We wouldn't be selling MiG-29K without the French either. India wouldn't have ordered T-90S without Catherine FC, UAE and Greece wouldn't order BMP-3 without French thermals. France has saved our industries so many times we would be out of the top 10 arms exporters if we didn't. If they hadn't come to AvtoVaz we wouldn't have an automobile industry. All of a sudden we are exporting twice the weapons than we ever have... thanks largely to France for modernising what we couldn't. Do I think opening up our arms market to France is a bad idea... of course not. It has saved it.


    Equally regarding getting stuck with an outdated design... Europe is just putting into service the Typhoon, which is not a stopgap modification 4++ fighter like the Su-35, but their future fighter... their T-50. Talk about behind!

    Europeans are buying the F-35 to supplement the Eurofighter so they have no need to spend beau-coup euros to develop their own. The French were approached by UAC to join PAK FA, they politely declined. The Rafale already has a lower RCS in clean config than what PAK FA intends to be and a far lower IR signature than the first batch with 117S engines will be. The avionics of the Rafale F4 will be superior to batch 1 PAK FA and they have a plan to uprate M88-2 to M88-3. I don't think they are behind in the field of fighter technology, they don't have the need for a stealth fighter when they plan to use active cancellation to make the Rafale disappear from radar. The addition of Meteor only makes it that more potent. The NEURON stealth bomber drone will be enough for strikes in high threat environments. I think their air force will be just fine.


    Last edited by Vladimir79 on Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:02 am; edited 1 time in total

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Purchases of Foreign military equipment: Positives & Negatives

    Post  Vladimir79 on Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:47 am

    GarryB wrote:
    France is part of a large European military organisation that condemned Russias aggression in Georgia in August 2008.
    They might not be going to invade you, but they have their own interests and relationships to manage.
    It would just take one change of government and all of a sudden they don't want to know you.

    France was the one who shut down the EU member's call for sanctions. Sarkozy came and negotiated the ceasefire. French are the ones who kept Georgia out of NATO in the first place. France condemned the US missile shield in Central Europe. France is a partner in Nord Stream and South Stream. If you think France loves NATO think again, they want a European Army that will be much less antagonistic than NATO is and we already participate in EUFOR operations. You can hardly ask of relations better than that. You can ignore them wagging the finger at us, they only do it for show.

    And if a new Ukrainian government is elected next election and decides that all agreements with Russia are off and that Russia must leave in 2017 despite the next 4-5 years of Russian investment based on expectations that they will be in the Crimean port for much longer.
    What if the Crimea decides to have a referendum and decides to become an autonomous region and Ukrainian military forces are sent in to "create peace".
    It could get very messy very quickly. The truth about what is actually happening will be hard to find... what if the west jumps up and blames Russia immediately without actually knowing any of the facts like they did with Georgia?

    France doesn't give a shit about Ukraine... about as much as they did over Georgia. They quashed any talk of them joining NATO too. If you want to know where French interests lie, follow the money trail. It leads to Russia, not Ukraine. The bigger we make that trail the less likely they are going to do anything.

    What? Giving them western tech will suddenly make them NOT waste taxpayers money?

    The French are the ones who oversee it, the infrastructure and training will be there which is the first step to making these companies viable again. That won't be a waste of state funds. Keeping it that way is the challenge. It is alot less challenging than putting the modernisation in the hands of people who have failed the companies they serve.

    Market forces have nothing to do with any countries MIC.

    It does when your MIC survives on exports.

    Market forces result in banks getting bailed out when the f up so they can do it all again.
    Market forces is all about profit and is not a good way to run a business.

    Market forces spur innovation. If you don't forsee the next product the market wants, you go out of business.


    Your solution is to clone French stuff. That does not foster innovation either.

    My solution does not involve cloning French stuff. We are not China. My solution involves bringing the facilities and training that we need to get started on an even footing to bring innovation. You can't innovate when you are starting 15 years behind but you can do it when you are in the same ballpark as everyone else.

    France could be a good ally. So could Germany. So could several other countries that are not in Europe, like South Korea. If you are only buying from France then they have you by the balls.

    Do we have India by the balls? They aren't afraid to threaten us with buying American, and they do. We already got screwed out of selling Il-76s and Tu-142. They have so many projects with us they are able to get all kinds of concessions like prohibiting direct sales to Pakistan. France is in a unique position to be a political proxy in the heart of Europe and NATO. They have already taken stands on issues that concern as and with favourable results.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Purchases of Foreign military equipment: Positives & Negatives

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:22 am

    Chechens would target the fuel tanks which would spread fire to the tank within seconds, powder charges would go off immediately blowing up the ammo box which caused the shells to explode upwards taking the top with it. The tank is not very survivable.

    Well it clearly has the design fault of having fuel tanks.

    The issue isn't bandwidth for the French, they already have it. We don't... we don't have the method of transferring intel from the battlefield to the command except by voice.

    If you can transmit voice then the data rate is at least 56Kbits, which is plenty for binary data for most systems. You wont be sending images or video, but it is plenty to send command and target location information.


    Sure, get more bandwidth. The only straightforward solution is buying French.

    Rubbish. Last year the only country with a flying stealth aircraft was the US. Now Russia has a prototype that is flying. France is not the centre of the universe.

    b/c it will not be produced

    So by that logic the T-90 is in production for Russian use and export, so it must be the best tank ever.

    That guy is Chief of Armaments for the Russian Federation.

    So his job is to look for cuts. The guy has said what is in service is junk and he has cancelled the replacement for it. The guy is a halfwit.

    It was a tongue and cheek statement meant to bring home how obsolete our armour is. He made his point clearly.

    He made it clear he doesn't know what he is talking about. He based his comment on the tank by sitting in it.

    That's funny considering the government considers refurbished equipment as "new."

    When he said it he specifically said that an upgraded item that is 30 years old is still 30 years old and not new. It is certainly better than what it was, but it is not new.

    486 only ran up to 100Mhz, Processors now run at several Ghz so obviously a pathetic processor like that won't use as much power. The transition from 65nm to 45nm dies saw a significant improvement in power consumption while still using the same clock speeds.

    The vast majority of computer chips currently in use around the world use 486 chips.
    They use less power and are more resistant to high temperatures and dust.
    Checking fuel flow rates and chamber temperatures doesn't require a multi core GHz processor.
    Look at the dates for the 486 and then look at what aircraft were in service at that time and you will see the B-2 probably entered service with 486 chips in its electronics.

    Popovkin's point was that everything we have been working on in the range of armour for the last 15 years is a dead end. Sounds like this guy, Chief of Armaments, is sick and tired of obsolescence MIC is offering him and wants modern equipment. Burlak is just another stop-gap for obsolete equipment he is tired of having to choose. The whole point of the round-table was to explain why we are going to import much more equipment.

    Then blame the politicians and the Military. All this time they have been giving the MIC the OK with their programs and have not said a word till now about what they want... and all they can say is we want this stuff and point to France.

    Pathetic.

    What a bunch of clown s

    They don't know what they want so they are pointing west and saying we want this... NOW!

    It is French avionics, et al, that make it possible for Sukhoi to stay in operation. We wouldn't have sold a single Su-30MKI/MKM without it. Just look at all the French equipment...

    It is a Russian aircraft with a few minor French things bolted on. Big deal.

    If French stuff was so wonderful why didn't they just buy Rafale?

    We wouldn't be selling MiG-29K without the French either. India wouldn't have ordered T-90S without Catherine FC, UAE and Greece wouldn't order BMP-3 without French thermals. France has saved our industries so many times we would be out of the top 10 arms exporters if we didn't

    If the French had said no those things would have Swedish or South African or Israeli or South Korean stuff in them. The point is that they bought Russian stuff with a few minor bits added that happened to be French.

    If they hadn't come to AvtoVaz we wouldn't have an automobile industry.

    But surely the cars they make will be crap anyway... why not buy cars from Japan?

    I can understand you wanting to be militarily self sufficient, but why bother replicating what Japan does when it already does it so well?

    Europeans are buying the F-35 to supplement the Eurofighter so they have no need to spend beau-coup euros to develop their own.

    A downgraded export F-35 they wont even have the source codes for, so if they want to add weapons they have to hand over those source codes to the americans to integrate them.

    It does when your MIC survives on exports.

    Then you don't need an MIC if it is supposed to survive on exports alone.

    Market forces spur innovation. If you don't forsee the next product the market wants, you go out of business.

    You mean like the Russian military going to its MIC and saying it needs a tank support vehicle based on direct combat experience and when that vehicle is ready that military says it is all soviet level obsolete technology?
    The Russian military is the only entity that knows what its own doctrine is and what it needs to impliment that doctrine. Blaming the MIC for no Russian orders is pathetic, just like blaming it for not being state of the art on dribbles of export sales is just as pathetic.

    You can't innovate when you are starting 15 years behind but you can do it when you are in the same ballpark as everyone else.

    Who is? You assume the entire Russian MIC is 15 years behind?
    Your blanket statements clearly show an immaturity. Is your pride hurt in some way?
    Did you come across some not very nice people in Russias MIC and you think they are all sharks looking to screw you personally?

    You can ALWAYS innovate. When they didn't have any orders or money they had to be doing something. They weren't in a coma. Like you they were probably reading Journals, though not able to try things themselves because of a lack of funding I very much reject your claim they are 15 years behind intellectually.
    Operationally the Russian army is more like 30 years behind with no battle management system and a communications system that is rubbish, but that is no surprise either when no money is spend and no interest is shown in rectifying the real problems.

    C4IR doesn't require Leclercs, in fact it would be much cheaper without them.

    We already got screwed out of selling Il-76s and Tu-142.

    Why would they want second hand aircraft... neither of those aircraft were in production or likely to be put in production when India chose the P-8.

    They have so many projects with us they are able to get all kinds of concessions like prohibiting direct sales to Pakistan.

    And apart from helos what would you sell Pakistan?

    France is in a unique position to be a political proxy in the heart of Europe and NATO. They have already taken stands on issues that concern as and with favourable results.

    Try selling beef to the EU and you will find that French farmers have the French government and the EU by the balls.

    Just look at Brahmos... when there is funding there is advancement.

    Look at the T-90 the only improvements have been possible because India has bought some. Imagine the level of improvement if Russia had bought as many.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Purchases of Foreign military equipment: Positives & Negatives

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:01 am

    GarryB wrote:Well it clearly has the design fault of having fuel tanks.

    Clearly the design fault of having fuel tanks in low protected areas.

    If you can transmit voice then the data rate is at least 56Kbits, which is plenty for binary data for most systems. You wont be sending images or video, but it is plenty to send command and target location information.

    And we don't need images or video? Pictures speak a 1000 words, video speaks 1 million.

    Rubbish. Last year the only country with a flying stealth aircraft was the US. Now Russia has a prototype that is flying.

    Rubbish, PAK FA in its current configuration is the farthest thing from a stealth aircraft. No RAM coating and the rivets sticking out is not stealth. We have alot of work to do to get it finished and India has yet to finalise their participation. If we don't get their funding it will be the next project to go in the trash bin.

    France is not the center of the universe.

    France is the leader of European defence technology and the gateway, there are only two spheres that make the full range, US and Europe. Obviously we will not go to US so France is the best option.

    So by that logic the T-90 is in production for Russian use and export, so it must be the best tank ever.

    Best tank in Russia, even the Arjun was rated higher in comparative trials and it is a developing countries first tank.

    So his job is to look for cuts. The guy has said what is in service is junk and he has cancelled the replacement for it. The guy is a halfwit.

    His job is to equip the armed forces of the Russian Federation with the best equipment available.

    He made it clear he doesn't know what he is talking about. He based his comment on the tank by sitting in it.

    You make it clear you do not know the level of his information nor the deficiencies of Russian armour.

    When he said it he specifically said that an upgraded item that is 30 years old is still 30 years old and not new. It is certainly better than what it was, but it is not new.

    When he said we were buying 300 new tanks he confused the fact 240 of them were refurbished. Point made...


    The vast majority of computer chips currently in use around the world use 486 chips.
    They use less power and are more resistant to high temperatures and dust.
    Checking fuel flow rates and chamber temperatures doesn't require a multi core GHz processor.
    Look at the dates for the 486 and then look at what aircraft were in service at that time and you will see the B-2 probably entered service with 486 chips in its electronics.

    The majority of equipment that uses i486 based processors are considered obsolete today.

    Then blame the politicians and the Military. All this time they have been giving the MIC the OK with their programs and have not said a word till now about what they want... and all they can say is we want this stuff and point to France.

    Pathetic.

    What a bunch of clown s

    They don't know what they want so they are pointing west and saying we want this... NOW!

    I have been blaming the politicians since day one. It is their cronies that run the MIC. Never blamed the military for anything. They don't set their budgets.

    It is a Russian aircraft with a few minor French things bolted on. Big deal.

    IFF, HUD, RWR, lazer/IR warning, FLIR, ECM system, it is a third of the value. $18 million per is a big deal.


    If French stuff was so wonderful why didn't they just buy Rafale?

    Political stigma and the belief we can still make our own. Fighter development has not suffered as hard as land and naval armaments.

    If the French had said no those things would have Swedish or South African or Israeli or South Korean stuff in them. The point is that they bought Russian stuff with a few minor bits added that happened to be French.

    Malaysia won't buy Israeli stuff nor will most other Muslim states. South Korean avionics are practically non-existent. South Afrika makes a limited range and is inferior to French. The point is they bought French stuff and often insist on French stuff. Outside the US, France makes the best avionics. That is how Thales got so big.

    But surely the cars they make will be crap anyway... why not buy cars from Japan?

    France already owns and runs a major Japanese auto maker. Ever heard of Nissan? Renault turned it from a failed enterprise to the miracle comeback of Japanese industry. Now Renault and Nissan make their models at AvtoVaz and help in the development of the new Lada brands. So we buy Japanese cars, but they are still owned and run by France.

    I can understand you wanting to be militarily self sufficient, but why bother replicating what Japan does when it already does it so well?

    Japan no longer does it well. Toyota is a complete disaster. Nissan does it well because France saved their ass. Now France is saving our ass.

    A downgraded export F-35 they wont even have the source codes for, so if they want to add weapons they have to hand over those source codes to the americans to integrate them.

    The downgraded export version isn't for consortium partners, its for external export sales outside of the core group. If LockMart can't reign in costs, it isn't going to be exported much of anywhere.

    Then you don't need an MIC if it is supposed to survive on exports alone.

    There are several things we can't import and must remain self sufficient. MIC is essential.

    You mean like the Russian military going to its MIC and saying it needs a tank support vehicle based on direct combat experience and when that vehicle is ready that military says it is all soviet level obsolete technology?
    The Russian military is the only entity that knows what its own doctrine is and what it needs to impliment that doctrine. Blaming the MIC for no Russian orders is pathetic, just like blaming it for not being state of the art on dribbles of export sales is just as pathetic.

    To adopt the BMPT requires a whole new doctrine for the Army to acquire. It did not ask designers to make them change the formation of the mechanised forces. BMPT is not superior to BMP-3 in support fire and carries no infantry. It is only better armoured since it is a tank chassis. It is harder to airlift for rapid reaction. It did not buy BMPT because it did not meet the requirements of the Army. We should buy something that is inferior in capability and mobility to current samples? BMP-3 is bought because it fulfills the role, BMPT does not.

    Who is? You assume the entire Russian MIC is 15 years behind?
    Your blanket statements clearly show an immaturity. Is your pride hurt in some way?
    Did you come across some not very nice people in Russias MIC and you think they are all sharks looking to screw you personally?

    I worked in the MIC for several years, so I know what goes on there. I would be blind not to see it. You speak from the outside in a country far away and you want to lecture me on my motives. My motive is exposing truth of the situation, that is what this website is about. You want to keep babbling about money, they have been receiving money for years. They have been pulling loans for years. That is why they are bankrupt. The question is what did they do with all that borrowed and received money. They didn't blow it on paying good wages, it is slave labour for any developed country. I tell you what they did, instead of raising pay to attract the engineers and buy the equipment needed to produce better and more efficiency, they buy used Chinese junk and pay little, even withold wages for months while they pocket the difference. When they run out of money they cry for the state to bail them out. They do it and the whole cycle starts again. That is the state for half the MIC, perpetual failure. Now that the state is saying enough is enough you want to complain about how unfair it is and blame it on no state orders. State buys limited amounts of equipment from these companies to keep them alive, they know how deplorable the state of the internal situation but won't clean it up because it is their cronies running it. They hold closed door meetings telling them to clean it up but don't have the will to get rid of them. Only when they embarrass the state by making headlines are they removed just to be replaced with more cronies. I tell you the biggest problem is the MIC leaders don't fear for their jobs, failure is good enough. Now the state will not give them money and buy from Europe, this is the way they have decided to kick them. It is not better than being accountable by sacking poor leadership, but they politically cannot do it or cause rifts in their own power base. This is the only option left for them to say if you do not get your act right, you will not get state support. Failed business will fail. It is good to finally see something happening.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Purchases of foreign equipment

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 03, 2010 1:23 pm

    And we don't need images or video? Pictures speak a 1000 words, video speaks 1 million.

    90 percent of the time, no, you don't need pictures or video.
    Right now you eventually get voice orders that can easily be intercepted just like they were in WWII.
    Digital datalinks can be encrypted and protected from interception if not jamming.
    The idea is not that you use the transmissions as voice communication... that is not much better than what you have now.
    What you want is a data transmission system that shows enemy positions on your land navigation system. It also shows friendly units and allows you to input data as well as give and receive orders.
    A few bytes of data can be sent to plot the position of a potential target, you can then look for that target and try to identify it yourself if it hasn't already been positively IDed.
    If they can ID already they can send you the correct symbol Identifying the target type, whose side it is on by colour, or they might order you to ID it.
    Sending photos of it and let you ID is a bit slack considering the recon unit that found the target or the unit that has added the target might not have an image of it... it might just be a blip on radar till you confirm it.

    Rubbish, PAK FA in its current configuration is the farthest thing from a stealth aircraft. No RAM coating and the rivets sticking out is not stealth.

    The operative word is prototype.


    France is the leader of European defence technology and the gateway, there are only two spheres that make the full range, US and Europe. Obviously we will not go to US so France is the best option.

    There is no reason why we must agree. Not that I think the US is an option at all.

    Best tank in Russia, even the Arjun was rated higher in comparative trials and it is a developing countries first tank.

    No disrespect to India but with a German engine and many other foreign components it is hardly an indigenous anything.

    His job is to equip the armed forces of the Russian Federation with the best equipment available.

    His job seems to be to destroy Russian companies by starving them of business because he can't tell the difference between a T-34 and a T-90.

    You make it clear you do not know the level of his information nor the deficiencies of Russian armour.

    He claimed they were the same because they both used similar steering mechanisms.
    I guess my car is obsolete because the layout of steering wheel, accelerator, foot brake and clutch hasn't changed since about the 1920s... Do I need a joystick controlled car for it to be modern?


    The majority of equipment that uses i486 based processors are considered obsolete today.

    Only by some, and it is a special obsolete, that can still do the job it was designed for but is not expensive enough to make large profits on.

    I have been blaming the politicians since day one. It is their cronies that run the MIC. Never blamed the military for anything. They don't set their budgets.

    The military are not to blame? Does the Russian military formulate its doctrine and equip its forces based on whatever the Russian MIC comes up with?
    It should be the Russian Military that says to the Russian MIC, We want this, and we don't want this. We want you to focus on this and this and we don't like this and this.

    IFF, HUD, RWR, lazer/IR warning, FLIR, ECM system, it is a third of the value. $18 million per is a big deal.

    ECM system, RWR + Laser and IR warning, and IFF, is basically the ESM suite.
    Add the HUD and FLIR and you should not be paying 1/3rd the value of the whole aircraft.
    It just shows how expensive those components are from France.


    France already owns and runs a major Japanese auto maker. Ever heard of Nissan? Renault turned it from a failed enterprise to the miracle comeback of Japanese industry. Now Renault and Nissan make their models at AvtoVaz and help in the development of the new Lada brands. So we buy Japanese cars, but they are still owned and run by France.

    You are missing the point... why make cars in Russia at all?


    The downgraded export version isn't for consortium partners, its for external export sales outside of the core group. If LockMart can't reign in costs, it isn't going to be exported much of anywhere.

    LM wont even share source codes with the UK and Australia, you can bet they wont get full US standard Stealth. There will be several tiers of stealth, 1 for the US, 2 for the consortium partners and 3 for anyone else.

    There are several things we can't import and must remain self sufficient. MIC is essential.

    But how can you maintain an MIC if some bureaucrat can suddenly say things like 5 current programs are going to be cut from this years budget because all of a sudden he has decided that they are obsolete.
    If the T-95 is obsolete then why didn't someone tell them 10 years ago?

    To adopt the BMPT requires a whole new doctrine for the Army to acquire. It did not ask designers to make them change the formation of the mechanised forces. BMPT is not superior to BMP-3 in support fire and carries no infantry. It is only better armoured since it is a tank chassis. It is harder to airlift for rapid reaction. It did not buy BMPT because it did not meet the requirements of the Army. We should buy something that is inferior in capability and mobility to current samples? BMP-3 is bought because it fulfills the role, BMPT does not.

    The BMP-T was supposed to provide direct fire support to tanks in certain situations and to operate exclusively with tanks in a supporting role.
    It was never expected to transport troops as a heavy APC, that is the BTR-T.

    I agree the choice of armament for the BMP-T seems strange to me, a 100mm rifled gun able to elevate to high angles and reach 7km with current ammo makes a lot more sense than ATAKA missiles.
    The only reason for fitting two 30mm guns is to increase the rate of fire against Helos or UAVs, I would have thought the twin barrel 23mm gun used in the modified MTLB variants made more sense.
    A 100mm rifled gun from the BMP-3 and a twin barrel 23mm cannon fitted in an external turret mount on the BMP-T would have made more sense along with a couple of 7.62mm MG external gun turrets with a decent field of view instead of the limited bow guns they had.

    I tell you what they did, instead of raising pay to attract the engineers and buy the equipment needed to produce better and more efficiency, they buy used Chinese junk and pay little, even withold wages for months while they pocket the difference. When they run out of money they cry for the state to bail them out. They do it and the whole cycle starts again. That is the state for half the MIC, perpetual failure.

    It is called an audit. Find out what money they got and what they did with it. Those companies that acted responsibly are given more leeway with orders, and those that acted the way you describe, if they are state owned, then the state can sort out the problem staff so the workers are not punnished for the actions of management.

    Now that the state is saying enough is enough you want to complain about how unfair it is and blame it on no state orders. State buys limited amounts of equipment from these companies to keep them alive, they know how deplorable the state of the internal situation but won't clean it up because it is their cronies running it.

    There is a difference between alive and able to produce state of the art stuff on demand.

    They hold closed door meetings telling them to clean it up but don't have the will to get rid of them. Only when they embarrass the state by making headlines are they removed just to be replaced with more cronies. I tell you the biggest problem is the MIC leaders don't fear for their jobs, failure is good enough.

    Audit. If they can't justify where the money went then they lose their jobs.

    Now the state will not give them money and buy from Europe, this is the way they have decided to kick them. It is not better than being accountable by sacking poor leadership, but they politically cannot do it or cause rifts in their own power base.

    So Russian money is spent in foreign countries, the MIC managers and the government officials keep their cushy jobs and the Russian workers miss out.

    This is the only option left for them to say if you do not get your act right, you will not get state support. Failed business will fail. It is good to finally see something happening.

    Sounds a bit harsh for the lowly paid worker. It seems their managers are getting away with theft and the only way they are punished will punish the Russian workers more.

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Russia to start licensed production of foreign military equipment

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sun May 23, 2010 12:22 am

    Russia to start licensed production of foreign military equipment

    RIA Novosti

    21/05/201011:10

    MOSCOW, May 21 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will launch in July the licensed production of thermal imagers developed by a French firm as part of efforts to gain access to advanced foreign technologies, a Russian daily said on Friday.

    A plant in the city of Vologda in central Russia will assemble the Thales-developed Catherine FC thermal imaging cameras for T-90 tanks in service with the Russian army.

    "It is not a simple knock down assembly. We use Russian-made components to assemble the control system. After 2012 we will start using Russian optics and mechanics on these devices," the Gazeta newspaper quoted the plant's general director Alexander Korshunov as saying.

    Localized production will allow Russia to reduce production and maintenance costs by at least 5-10% and manufacture thermal imagers for civilian purposes in the future.

    Thermal imagers could be used for monitoring the efficiency of thermal insulation and detection of heat leaks, among other applications.

    Russia might only be able to export thermal imagers produced at its plant with the permission of the French authorities. The list of potential customers will exclude so-called rogue states such as Iran.

    According to experts, Russia is lagging 20-30 years behind the West in many areas of technological progress and is attempting to close the gap by purchasing production licenses abroad.

    Russian military expert Pavel Felgenhauer contends that the development of Russia's defense industry in the next few years will be based solely on licensed production of foreign military equipment.

    "We are so far behind the West that it is cheaper to buy technology [abroad] than to invent our own," Felgenhauer said.

    Russia is holding talks on the licensed production of the Italian Beretta handguns, Israeli spy drones and French Mistral helicopter carriers.

    Felgenhauer said the turn to licensed production was a logical and necessary move, as Russia had always developed its industry by borrowing technologies from the West.

    "The Soviet Union bought tool-making equipment and whole assembly lines in the United States in the 1930s, Peter the Great brought technologies from Holland. Even the Kremlin, as we know, was built by Italians," the expert said.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2010/russia-100521-rianovosti03.htm


    Last edited by Russian Patriot on Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:21 pm; edited 1 time in total

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Purchases of Foreign military equipment: Positives & Negatives

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 23, 2010 3:50 am

    First of all Felgenhauer is a C**t.

    Second, the west is not one country like the US or the UK, it is a general term for the "developed world that is not communist".
    Comparing Russia to the west is like comparing any country with the entire world... that one country comes up short.
    (Note this is an obsolete way of thinking that the west likes to cling to... basically the west is the first world, communist countries are the second world and poor, mostly black countries are the third world. It is racist, it is bullsH1t, but it is the way most westerners still think today.)

    Even the US comes up short in that regard (with a comparison with the rest of the world)... they didn't even invent their own language.

    From the invention of the atomic bomb through the development of "the great fighters of the 20th century" and rockets to go into space they have used foreign technology... example that straight winged early US jet fighter was rubbish. The Aircobra or something. The P-80 that replaced it was also rubbish. It took German designers working for US aircraft companies to suggest a swept wing and the Sabre is developed... from German technology. They have the balls to say the Mig-15 was a copy of a German fighter, yet when you look at the facts that particular german fighter was developed in a place liberated by the US and all the scientists from that area went to the US and then the US developed the Sabre.
    Mig had already been developing swept wing aircraft before Soviet soldiers even set foot in German with the Mig-8 with canard fore planes and a swept main wing.
    US loses the race to get into space and uses a nazi german to build them rockets that will get them into space.
    The people in the US that developed the atom bomb all had very strong accents that were not American accents.

    This is not a rant against the US, it is a rant against anyone who thinks any country can stand alone and invent everything for itself.

    There is no shame in licence production of something that the Russian army needs right now, like a thermal sight.
    The Soviet Union actually did it when it could, it licence produced the DC-3 transport aircraft as the Li-2. The Maxim M1910 machinegun used by the Imperial Russian Army and also used by the Soviets well into WWII and beyond was a Maxim design that was licence produced. The Soviets also bought the Christie tank design, which they didn't even use, though they used its suspension on the BT series of fast tanks and had to modify it to scale it up to use on the T-34, a much heavier tank than the Christie design. Lots of Ford trucks and tractors were licence produced too.
    The suggestion that the future of Russian military production is in producing foreign weapons under licence is a joke... and a bad one.
    Foreign technology will certainly be absorbed as it is by everyone else... it is no coincidence that the F-15 looks a lot like a Mig-25... because that was the aircraft it was supposed to counter... but foreign technology is not designed for Russian conditions and most would be inferior to what Russians can make already.

    USAF
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 13
    Points : 26
    Join date : 2010-06-03
    Location : Phoenix Arizona

    Re: Purchases of Foreign military equipment: Positives & Negatives

    Post  USAF on Sat Jun 05, 2010 11:03 am

    GarryB wrote:First of all Felgenhauer is a C**t.
    From what I have read....I agree

    GarryB wrote:Even the US comes up short in that regard (with a comparison with the rest of the world)... they didn't even invent their own language..

    Kind of an odd statement..... relevance?


    GarryB wrote:This is not a rant against the US, it is a rant against anyone who thinks any country can stand alone and invent everything for itself..

    It sure sounded like it.......remember that the Russian born "C**t" Felgenhauer wrote what your rant is about.


    Wanted to give you a hard time Garry


    The real point I wanted to make is this.
    To quote the article "According to experts, Russia is lagging 20-30 years behind the West in many areas of technological progress and is attempting to close the gap by purchasing production licenses abroad."

    Do you ever wonder who these so called experts are? I can call myself an expert and start throwing out numbers. I find 20-30 years behind a little hard to beleive. 30years ago - Atari 400 today Quad Core Phenom equiped PC.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Purchases of Foreign military equipment: Positives & Negatives

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 06, 2010 4:51 am

    Exactly, some of these experts are quite remote from reality.
    Have even had discussions with some people who thought the Russian air attack on Georgia in 2008 was akin to WWII level technology.

    They seem to forget that during WWII to destroy one factory the better part of half a square km in area needed hundreds of bombers carrying thousands of bombs and the results were often so inadequate that further raids would need to be planned to finish the job.

    It sure sounded like it.......remember that the Russian born "C**t" Felgenhauer wrote what your rant is about.

    Of all the countries in the world who could go it alone, or like to think they do, the US would be at the top of that list, which is why I mention the US.
    The US doesn't do it alone, why would anyone expect anyone else to?

    Being Russian doesn't make Felgenhauer right, being on the payroll of western media outlets to show things are worse in Russia than the west is his job and he earns his money. It has nothing to do with truth, or reality. When was the last time you saw a leading story in the west with no video footage to go with it? Do you think they really order their stories based in relevance to the audience, or is it the assumed entertainment value of the videos?

    USAF
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 13
    Points : 26
    Join date : 2010-06-03
    Location : Phoenix Arizona

    Re: Purchases of Foreign military equipment: Positives & Negatives

    Post  USAF on Tue Jun 08, 2010 3:20 am

    GarryB wrote: being on the payroll of western media outlets to show things are worse in Russia than the west is his job and he earns his money.


    Or even the payroll of certain intelligence agencies....

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Purchases of Foreign military equipment: Positives & Negatives

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:31 am

    Nice to chat to someone who has an understanding of how the world works. Smile

    The number of kids I talk to on the internet who think wars get won by the good guys because they are right is quite frankly sickening.

    I blame the western movie industry, Disney was one of the worst for turning reality on its head. Almost every Disney cartoon consists of a battle between natural enemies... hunters and rabbits, dogs and cats, cats and mice, cats and birds, coyote and road runner, wolf and sheepdog, rooster and dog, duck and hunter.
    In every case it was the natural underdog, or natural loser in each conflict that won every time.
    Fine for entertainment... a bit of relief from the real world, but very poor preparation for children to grow up and have a reasonable understanding of the world.

    As Winston Churchill said... History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it myself... and he did. Unfortunately people in the west are happy to hear about how wonderful the west is and how evil any alternative might be.
    Look at the history we learn... the Germans were evil in WWI and WWII but now it is just the Russians that are evil... along with terrorists, who are the new commies.
    NATO is good and the west is good.
    Yet it was large military power blocks that caused Europe to get dragged in to WWI and nothing to do with how evil the Germans were.
    The main losers in terms of blame and loss of territory were Russia and Germany. The Middle East map was completely rewritten as was the world map as the remaining colonial powers rushed to absorb the now free ex-german colonies... even the US took part with the German part of Samoa becoming American Samoa. German colonies in Africa also changed hands as a punishment for being the main power on the wrong side.
    In the west WWII starts with the invasion of Poland and ends when Japan is defeated, but for many Germans WWII started because of the end of WWI. For the people of Austria or Czechoslovakia or China or Finland, the start date is different.

    Ahh, well... rant over... we have plenty of time to solve the worlds problems... as seen from the bottom of the world.. Very Happy

    USAF
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 13
    Points : 26
    Join date : 2010-06-03
    Location : Phoenix Arizona

    Re: Purchases of Foreign military equipment: Positives & Negatives

    Post  USAF on Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:15 am

    I have been to 23 countries at last count to include 2 during wartime. I have seen the “other points of view” and understand why the west is not popular with some of the world. I have had “evening tea” with an Iraqi family, Vodka Romana in Tuzla, and talked with people everywhere I go. Not all reception has been good. Some will stay with me until I die. I find that no matter where you go, the majority of people are just like me. This includes every state I have visited here in the USA. We all seem to just want a clean, safe, healthy place to raise a family with a quality of life. People want to have pride in themselves and their culture.

    The slander goes both ways. Many people are taught and misguided about the “others” by the “elite”. The evil Japanese and Germans of WWII, the evil Russians of the cold war, and also the “Great Satan” of America are some examples. Honestly, most people would get along if we all could see the “other side” for what it really is. I tell you one country that has no hope in this world and that is New Zealand. That place is a rotten no man’s land of filth and sin. I’m just kidding Garry.

    I would love to visit New Zealand. But first I need to see that Monino Air Museum. Like I said in my Hello to everyone I am a huge aviation fan. I love to see how the Russian military designers have differed from the US designs I know so well. I did get a chance to check out some Luftwaffe Mig 29’s during an Air Warrior exercise at Nellis AFB. Cool stuff. In return, the Germans came over to check out our Block 52 F-16s. We had a good time telling each other what junk the other guy’s aircraft was. It was harmless really. I am very interest in the larger aircraft though like bombers and transports and how about that Ekranoplan, how cool is that? Anyway, Take care Garry.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Purchases of Foreign military equipment: Positives & Negatives

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 09, 2010 5:13 am

    I tell you one country that has no hope in this world and that is New Zealand. That place is a rotten no man’s land of filth and sin.

    Damn... don't let out the secret that the only real footage of New Zealand in the Lord of the Rings movie were the scenes in Mordor... Very Happy

    I agree that most people round the place are basically similar, though they often have different senses of right and wrong, and what is OK and what is not most people want stability and order and peace first. Once you have that then you can use tools like education and a good health system and build a happy life.

    The main problem is that international communication and interaction has been through governments... they say Sh!t floats and the government is the top of every bottle that is a country.

    I like aviation because of its progress. It is amazing, whether you credit the first flight with the Wright brothers or someone else (strong feeling in NZ that a kiwi called Richard Pierce managed to do it first, but then we are a bit arrogant like that and also think Earnest Rutherford who first split the atom was a Kiwi, as was Sir Keith Park who is largely credited with saving Britain in the Battle of Britain, and of course some Kiwis even credit the first guy to reach the summit of Everest as being a Kiwi too in the form of Sir Edmond Hilary), though of course all such feats are really team efforts based on the people around you and work that was done before.
    Still find it amazing that the first heavier than air aircraft flew within the lifespan of the first man to leave the atmosphere. Big steps indeed.

    Regards
    Garry

    Sponsored content

    Re: Purchases of Foreign military equipment: Positives & Negatives

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 12:12 am


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:12 am