Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Share
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2489
    Points : 3367
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:13 pm

    Damocles targetting pod costs almost as much as an Su-25. It won't be going on that platform. It is for the new Flankers.

    So it finally comes down to it that all of those thermal rifle sights we have been toughting at the trade shows is not going to be purchased. This is the final nail in the coffin of the domestic design of optics in the Russian Federation. France now monopolises this industry.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18073
    Points : 18633
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:09 am

    I think you are missing the point of such pods.
    Without the pod you can send a dumb daylight only Su-25 with largely unguided weapons.
    You will need to send in quite a few, with some attacking the primary targets while others fly above and try to locate where the ground fire is coming from and neutralise it.
    They will all suffer if the enemy is well equipped with MANPADs.
    With a pod you can send in half as many Su-25s to engage the target and hit that target with guided weapons even those of the previous generation like Kh-25 and Kh-29 will allow standoff ranges of 10km which means that those Su-25s can be out of range of MANPADS near the target.
    It also means they can attack at night which also reduces the effectiveness of ground fire.
    The aircraft supporting them can still do so looking for enemy radars and using ARMs to protect the group and rocket pod loaded decoy rockets in case of MANPADs attack.
    The point is that you can have dumb cheap aircraft that you will need lots of, or you can spend a fortune on the TM upgrade, or you can spend less and buy a dozen pods for use within one district to share between 100 aircraft and make them all potentially as capable as an expensive upgraded all weather aircraft when in fact they can all be the cheap upgraded aircraft SM.
    The new Flankers probably wont need Damocles pods because they already have most of the functions offered by the pod built in. The new Mig-35s certainly already do.
    I would think such pods would be most used on strike and CAS missions which should mean Su-34 and Su-25s and Su-24s will be using them. Perhaps even Tu-22M3s too if they can sort out the engine issues. (For the latter I think the Tu-160 could do with a brand new engine and that it should be designed so that it can be used in both the Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 based on the engine technology that has been developed since their engines entered service. Both engines are still impressive even now for power and fuel efficiency.)
    So it finally comes down to it that all of those thermal rifle sights we have been toughting at the trade shows is not going to be purchased. This is the final nail in the coffin of the domestic design of optics in the Russian Federation. France now monopolises this industry.
    I disagree. Several examples of the SPARROW AAM were captured in Vietnam and a Soviet variant was developed by a Soviet design bureau. When it came time to compete to make the new AAM for the Mig-23 the AA-4 Awl was competing with the R-23 and lost. It just happened that the R-23 was superior to the replica of the SPARROW. The R-23 entered service as the AA-7 Apex and was later improved as the R-24 with improved performance. When an early model Sidewinder was captured in China things were different. The Soviet equivelent was the AA-1 Alkali and it was a complex missile with a tail cone for a datalink to the launch aircraft to guide it and side angled rocket motor exhausts and inside was a mess of servo motors and electronics and explosive and propellent all carefully balanced so the centre of gravity didn't effect manouver capability. The Sidewinder on the other hand was modular and basic. You could seperate all the components and from the front you had the seeker, then the servo motors for the nose canards, then the warhead, and then the rocket body then at the rear you had large wings and rollerons and at the very rear the engine exhaust.
    The rocket wasn't more powerful than Soviet rockets and the IR seeker wasn't better than Soviet IR seekers but the whole concept of breaking all the parts down to seperate modules made production and maintainence much simpler and easier. If a sidewinder had a faulty rocket motor you just popped the other bits off and attached them to a new motor. With an AA-1 you pretty much threw away the missile because the complexity of removing the rocket and replacing it meant completely taking it apart.
    The reason the Soviets copied the Sidewinder was because it was so simple it was a great new way to make missiles. They new that the time it would take for the new modular design to filter through the design bureaus it would be some time before they got new weapons based on this design into service, so they copied the basic design and used Soviet components where possible. They used a Soviet seeker, a Soviet rocket motor, but they found the roll stabilisation system used by the Americans was much smaller and simpler than their own so they copied that too.
    The result was a foreign design in Soviet service much quicker than an equivelent Soviet design could have been developed.
    Strangely though the AA-1 design didn't die as the Kh-66 and Kh-25 series and even the AA-6 Acrid seem to have that external shape and design setup. Their need for a rear facing datalink pod required side angled rocket exhausts for propulsion.
    What am I dribbling on about?
    Well Russia has gotten a hold of some more western technology in the form of French thermal sights and found they are superior to sights made domestically. Not really a surprise considering the circumstances.
    The result is that a Russian company will now licence produce French designed thermal sights for a range of uses from aircraft, to tanks, to rifles and small arms. Note a thermal sight on an Igla makes it a very deadly weapon as many aircraft operate at night to reduce vulnerability (esp helos).
    As mentioned in the article above that licence production might even include production of material for export to France.
    This is good for Thales of France because lower production costs mean the opportunity to sell more.
    This is good for the Russian Armed forces because they get a better quality product.
    This is good for Russian MIC because they are getting factories with state of the art tooling and relatively new designs to build and work on, as well as the opportunity to work on new developments with Thales too.
    Look at the Rolls Royce Nene and Derwent engines that were sold to the Soviet Union.
    The first "licence produced versions" were similar, but later models got various improvements and changes and became Soviet engines.
    You say France now monopolises the Russian MIC industry with regard to thermal sights.
    Once production has started if a new government in France takes power can they take control and stop production of thermal sights in Russia?
    I would say no. And with no for the answer the next question is why should it matter that you currently get your new thermals from one source?
    My answer to that is that it would only matter if there was another source where you could get a better quality sight for less cost, and I don't think that is the case.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2489
    Points : 3367
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:09 am

    GarryB wrote:I think you are missing the point of such pods.

    It isn't me missing the point of such pods. It is you missing the point of cost and its use. Su-25s are a low value tactical asset. The pods are very expensive and being made for our high asset bombers and strike aircraft. That is its purpose. The Su-25 flies close enough that it doesn't need a high end FLIR pod. The bombers want the pod for stand-off range, the Su-25 can't even carry the new missiles this pod will be slaved to.

    I disagree. Several examples of the SPARROW AAM were captured in Vietnam and a Soviet variant was developed by a Soviet design bureau. When it came time to compete to make the new AAM for the Mig-23 the AA-4 Awl was competing with the R-23 and lost.

    The R-23 never had to compete against Western items so the comparison is irrelevant. Russian producers are not competing against one another in a closed market anymore. They are competing against France and their tech is a generation ahead. By the time we start producing 3rd gen optics of our own, they will be on to the 4th. It is exactly the same trap India has gotten itself into.

    What am I dribbling on about?

    You say France now monopolises the Russian MIC industry with regard to thermal sights.
    Once production has started if a new government in France takes power can they take control and stop production of thermal sights in Russia?
    I would say no. And with no for the answer the next question is why should it matter that you currently get your new thermals from one source?
    My answer to that is that it would only matter if there was another source where you could get a better quality sight for less cost, and I don't think that is the case.

    The answer to the question is of course they can. License production does not mean we make all of the components. We only make the cheap stuff while French factories make the expensive guts of the equipment. It is the same for all license production deals. Unless you buy the patent to an item you will not get the ToT needed to make it. So, we are left with reliance on the French. I do not believe they will cut us off unless we go to war with NATO which is not likely to happen. The worry is becoming like India where 70-80% of all equipment is imported. Our airlines and automotive already do that, defence is just the last step.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18073
    Points : 18633
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:12 am

    OK, let me rephrase what I said.
    You are missing the potential these pods offer.
    UAVs and UCAVs are all the rage these days because they offer sighting and attack options without risking a pilot.
    You are spending billions of dollars upgrading your armed forces... I presume you want to be able to fight 24/7?
    That would make the purchace and licence production of thermal imagers make good sense.
    Your current CAS is a daylight only aircraft... you are spending enormous amounts on making your helicopters night capable, how effectively will a daylight only Su-25 work with them?
    The attempt to make it day and night capable was the Su-25TM version which was deemed too expensive so the cheaper less extensive Su-25SM was accepted.
    Rather than spending hundreds of millions of dollars updating the entire Su-25 fleet to enable all weather capability you can buy 50 or so Damocles pods that can be used when needed. Not every aircraft needs a pod, and most of the time they may not need it at all. A cheaper simpler pod might be better suited, but the advantage such weapon pods offer is hard to ignore.
    The Su-25 can use laser and TV guided weapons already and it would not be too hard to integrate satellite guided bombs and rockets as low cost weapons against point targets found during missions.
    A ground controller could give the coordinates of the target holding up the (ground) attack and an Su-25 can send those coordinates to a missile under its wing... there are satellite guided versions of the Kh-38 so a GLONASS guided Kh-25 shouldn't be too hard. Once the pilot is within 10km or so he can launch the weapon and leave. Any MANPADS near the target will be ineffectual.
    To deploy MANPADs to defend a target you would have to anticipate the direction of attack and deploy 10 or more kms from the target... not easy.
    My point is that a Damocles pod is a force multiplier and only using it with Su-34s is like only using inflight refuelling tankers for your long range bombers.
    You are not going to have as many aircraft in the future so you are going to have to make the existing aircraft more capable along with your forces more mobile.
    Putting a Damocles pod on an Su-25 is cheaper than upgrading the Su-25 to do the job it needs to be able to do, and that is fight in all conditions.
    The bombers want the pod for stand-off range, the Su-25 can't even carry the new missiles this pod will be slaved to.
    I would think that eventually the Su-25 might get Hermes in the same way that the Su-25TM got Vikhr with 8 missiles per pylon for two pylons. As such the ability to spot targets 20km away or further would actually be quite useful.
    You are trying to westernise and upgrade your forces, so look at the A-10 getting upgrades and targetting pods and carrying lots of missiles like Maverick and Hellfire etc.
    They are competing against France and their tech is a generation ahead. By the time we start producing 3rd gen optics of our own, they will be on to the 4th.
    Your specialists have been twiddling their thumbs doing very little but talking for the last two decades. Now there is money they can start pushing the envelope themselves and learning for themselves.
    There is no reason why Russia should not be at the forefront of technology in this area in 5 years time.
    If France is a generation ahead then Russian specialists can use that to foresee the future. If the next generation seems to offer a leap in performance then skip this generation and start working on the next.
    Use French thermal technology now and work on new stuff.
    If I was designing a rifle I wouldn't start with a tube with one end blocked off with a touch hole drilled in the side. Your MIC won't either.
    The answer to the question is of course they can. License production does not mean we make all of the components. We only make the cheap stuff while French factories make the expensive guts of the equipment. It is the same for all license production deals. Unless you buy the patent to an item you will not get the ToT needed to make it. So, we are left with reliance on the French.
    Licence assembly means you put together components built elsewhere. Licence production means you build it yourself. They wouldn't have taken this long if it was just an assembly plant.
    Licence production is like Christies tank that was licence produced in the Soviet Union during the 1930s. They ended up changing it into the BT series tanks. They had to modify it to scale it up to use on the T-34, which they could do because they had a licence to produce using the design owned by Christie.
    The worry is becoming like India where 70-80% of all equipment is imported. Our airlines and automotive already do that, defence is just the last step.
    Ural optics has this contract to make thermal equipment for the Russian military market. During Soviet times the contract probably would have gone to a company in Belarus.
    I don't know of any country that designs all of its own stuff.
    The US doesn't even come close... The Abrams tank has British armour, a Geman gun, a Belgian coaxial machinegun. The US soldier has a Belgian side arm, a European light rocket launcher (AT4), and the US Marines are getting a new rifle from H&K I believe.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2489
    Points : 3367
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:50 pm

    There are far cheaper ways to make an Su-25 available for night attack than adding a targeting pod that costs about the same as the plane. Night vision HUD is what many currently use and is good enough for the strafing runs Su-25s are best at. There is a limit to how many all weather PG bombers we are going to have and it isn't going to be on something that cheap. Using the Su-25 as a recon tool is certainly not the goal, the goal is to have more UAVs. For the price of one Damocles you could buy two MALE UAVs with thier own laser designators. I would rather have a long loitering UAV targeting for the Su-25 than the Su-25 doing it itself.

    License production for this product does not include design engineering information and critical materials production. That is kept in France just as all deals are from the West. Copying Christie's design could have been done in a machine shop by any inventive person, it was not that complicated. Things are different today.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18073
    Points : 18633
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 22, 2010 5:21 am

    The cost in a Damocles pod is not the GPS receiver, it is the night vision equipment and long range zooming optics.
    To get something comparable to display a similar view in an Su-25s HUD (which would be like flying looking through a straw) would not be that much cheaper.
    A cheaper solution would probably be Sapsan or something.
    The real solution for Su-25TM was Shkval-M.
    The problem is that such an optronic system is not cheap and many operations simply don't require that level of performance.
    The Russian Armed forces already voted with their wallets by going for the Su-25SM instead of the TM, and went for a podded radar under the belly to achieve all weather day and night performance.
    My idea is to take the Kopyo radar from the belly position (which restricts its field of regard) to the nose position and replace the optics port in the nose (mostly laser range finder, marked target seeker, laser target designator port). This means it can spot moving targets at night but it can't use laser guided munitions except as a weapon carrier. Now if you want to use UAVs to mark targets that is fine but sometimes the Su-25 will need that capability itself and when it does a Sapsan pod or more expensive and more capable Damocles pod can be fitted to some aircraft in the belly position where its view up is not important.
    The radar would also make the aircraft more versatile and smaller airforces could use it as a small fighter/patrol aircraft.
    For the Su-34 I have heard rumours of a pod called Solluks.
    Have you heard anything about that?
    Of course there has also been talk of a pod called Platan, but that is built in and is not all weather capable.
    avatar
    solo.13mmfmj

    Posts : 115
    Points : 138
    Join date : 2010-04-16

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  solo.13mmfmj on Thu Jul 22, 2010 11:54 pm

    If foreign equipment is the key to increasing Russia's military strength then Russia shoud go foreign.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18073
    Points : 18633
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    If foreign equipment is the key to increasing Russia's military strength then Russia shoud go foreign.

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:19 am

    Except that relying on foreign weapon suppliers can be fickle.
    If the Georgian war had gotten ugly the first thing most NATO countries would do is stop supplying Russia.
    Ask the Indians about Sea King helos and western sanctions in general. That is why traditionally the Indians have bought Soviet and French because both countries have no strings attached to their products.
    The Russian military industrial complex (MIC) has been stuck in a time warp for 20 years where they have had no money and no work, so people have been fired because there is no money or work for them. Factories have been standing doing little. The Russian military has been talking about big purchases of new weapons for half this decade but with tiny orders, most factories have had to rely on small export orders to remain viable. In some places there were dozens of factories that all made similar stuff and all have collapsed because none got funding or support. I have read the propellent and chemical industries are particularly bad in that regard.
    Now the Russian military again says it wants to buy big and now it actually has some money, but you thnk about not doing much of anything for 20 years and then with maybe 20% of the order price paid to you you need to start production. You need to hire people, secure materials and components, you need to completely upgrade and retool your factory. In my experience subcontractors wont do sh!t till they have the cash in their hands and few factories can work without subcontractors.
    A bit like the early 1980s when the fighters of the Soviet Union suddenly got much more sophisticated electronically but the electronic industry in the Soviet Union couldn't keep up. The plane manufacturers were pumping out Mig-29s and Su-27s in huge numbers, but the radars and IRSTs and mission computers etc simply weren't produced as fast as the airframes. The result was the huge stack of airframes sitting in factories when the orders stopped.
    With later smaller scale sales overseas these airframes have been fitted with electronics and avionics and dispatched to the customer. If someone ordered 1,000 aircraft to start arriving next year and for the order to be complete by 2013 it simply couldn't be done. Not now. Not in the 1990s, and not in the 1980s either.
    Pay 90% of the money up front, promise follow up orders and extend the deadline to 2020 and they could do it by expanding productionc capacity.
    Paying foreign workers to make stuff for the Russian military is not good for the Russian economy.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2489
    Points : 3367
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Russia may buy French UAVs - Serdyukov

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:07 pm


    Russia would be willing to purchase French spy drones, if successful, the deal with the "Mistral" - Serdyukov


    MOSCOW, September 8. Itar-Tass. If successful, a deal with helicopter "Mistral," the Russian defense ministry is ready to consider the proposals of the French side to supply unmanned aircraft and the development of military-technical cooperation in other areas, said Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov.

    "The French side expressed its wish to work in this area. We offered to do it in the form of joint ventures on the basis of our repair works. If we all get on the" Mistral "and we earn such an experience, then later it goes in other directions, in including by unmanned aerial vehicles. The relevant supply, we have "- Serdyukov told reporters following last Tuesday in Paris 1X meeting of the Council of the Russian-French cooperation on security issues at the level of foreign ministers and defense ministers of the two countries.

    On Tuesday following the meeting of the Council of the participants received the French president Nicolas Sarkozy. According to Serdyukov, during the meeting focused on "training the imminent meeting between Russia, France and Germany. "We talked about the situation in Afghanistan, about the possible purchase of Russian amphibious assault helicopter," - he said.

    As you know, France is proposing to buy Russian ships of this class type "Mistral". "The French do not conceal that they are interested in such cooperation. We are interested too," - said Serdyukov. According to his assessment. "The French are more interested in the military aspects of cooperation with Russia."

    The minister said that in the next two weeks, the military authorities of the two countries will create a High Level Working Group, which will prepare a plan of bilateral military cooperation in 2011. "During the talks in Paris, we agreed that in the next 15 days will be set up working groups to prepare military cooperation plan for 2011, which will be more intense compared with the current year - explained Serdyukov. - As part of these groups will be discussed and questions of military-technical cooperation. These groups will consist of the persons entitled to a certain extent, take some decisions, that is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces may be, their deputies. "I believe in the work of these groups likely will offer, in particular, to conduct joint exercises - said Serdyukov. - I'm sure we'll get to some, albeit minor, joint exercises, in particular, anti-piracy theme.

    The Minister also said that during talks in Paris and discussed the themes of defense. "The French have heard our estimation, they want work in this field - he said. - First there - a threat assessment. The second - which forces you can do it. Cooperation in this area - is a matter for future discussion.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 817
    Points : 895
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 30
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sat Sep 11, 2010 4:38 pm

    wow .. yesterday Israelis and now French
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18073
    Points : 18633
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:31 am

    The title is a bit misleading as what is being considered is joint ventures with france to develop new UAVs rather than Russia buying off the shelf French UAVs.

    I would suspect the Russians will learn a lot from operating the Israeli UAVs they have bought, but I think the cost of buying them included too many strings... likely in regard to sales of S-300 to Iran and missiles to Syria etc etc.

    Working with the French on UAVs will lead to good designs entering Russian military service IMHO.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18073
    Points : 18633
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 15, 2010 5:27 am

    I just noticed that in a couple of my posts in this thread I have mentioned one of the advantages of unifying the designs of in service Russian tanks will be the reduction in tank gun calibres and I mention the 100mm smoothbore being removed from service.
    Of course I was referring to the T-54/-55s rifled 100mm gun, so my error. Smile

    I also have noticed another error, I seem to have misread a quote.

    In post number 4 above I quoted this:

    Tank design and performance, in addition to crew training, are becoming increasingly important at a time when Moscow has decided to reduce Russia's tank force from over 20,000 operational and reserve vehicles to 2,000 operational and 5,000-6,000 in reserve.

    Which clearly shows plans for 2,000 operational tanks PLUS 5-6,000 tanks in reserve, so we are actually talking about up to 8,000 tanks in total.

    Also note that the emphasis is on crew training and using simulators means training becomes much much cheaper so it would make sense for them to buy simulators as soon as possible with any modifications to the final upgrade added later with a software update. Simulators allow training and crew coordination and unit coordination without burning fuel, using ammo, ripping up landscapes.
    Different scenarios can be tested and day and night operations can be run through without problems.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18073
    Points : 18633
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  GarryB on Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:36 am

    5K?

    That is about the price of a decent sniper rifle.

    That is very good, because it is not really about super soldier stuff, this stuff gets its value by extending the networked nodes to include all the individuals in the military.
    Knowing where every man is because they are tied into a local net picture should make friend on friend mistakes less likely and also management of forces clearer.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2489
    Points : 3367
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Rosoboronexport and French Sagem have created a JV for the production of INS

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 1:45 pm

    Rosoboronexport and French Sagem have created a joint venture for the production of inertial navigation systems

    MOSCOW, December 10. (ITAR-TASS). Russia and France formed a joint venture for the production of inertial navigation systems. As spokesman for Rosoboronexport, Vyacheslav Davydenko, in Moscow on Thursday, during the 15 th meeting of the Russian-French intergovernmental commission on bilateral cooperation, the signing of the Agreement between Rosoboronexport and the company Sagem Difans securitization "to establish joint venture for the production of inertial navigation systems. "

    "In the presence of heads of governments of Russia and France was signed by First Deputy General Director of Rosoboronexport Ivan Goncharenko and president of Sage, Jean-Len Furnero - Davydenko said. - According to the document, the joint venture will operate in the territory of the Russian Federation. The Russian side will hold 51 percent. and French - 49 percent. stocks (shares) in the capital to establish joint ventures. "

    "I am confident that the work of Russian-French joint venture will not only strengthen and expand military-technical cooperation between our countries, but also opens up new prospects for mutually beneficial co-design and manufacture of high-tech products, the exchange of advanced technologies", - said Goncharenko.

    In turn Furnero noted that "this new perspective is a clear confirmation of exceptionally friendly relations established between our two countries both at the industry and at the state level."

    "Sage" - high-tech company, part of the holding company Safran. The company is a world leader in developing and manufacturing optical-electronic systems, avionics, and avionics aviation, maritime and land-based facilities for civilian and military markets. "Sage" is the first in Europe and third in the world for inertial navigation systems for aircraft, ships and ground facilities. Annual sales turnover of more than 1.2 billion euros.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2489
    Points : 3367
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Russia in talks to buy 1000 French Panhard PVP armoured vehicles

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:14 am

    Russia in talks to buy 1000 French Panhard PVP armoured vehicles

    ABU DHABI, Feb. 21. (ARMS-TASS). French group "Panhard in talks to supply to Russia up to 1 thousand light armored vehicles. Itar-Tass on the International Defense Exhibition IDEX-2011 said commercial director Michel Galand.

    "The Russian side is in talks regarding the purchase of 500 to 1 thousand light armored vehicles, which are supposed to go into service Interior Ministry troops of Russia, - he said. - The contract value could reach 200 to 500 million euros."

    Wheel amphibious armored vehicle "PVP" has a mass of 4 tonnes is anticipated that some machines will be manufactured in France, and some - in Russia. According Galanda, the Russian partner for this project is not yet selected. In the nearest future Russia will be sent two vehicles to test. "After their completion, the first batch of machines can be delivered in six months - said Galand. - Feature of the transaction that we will give Russia the appropriate technology."

    Meanwhile, as reported by the deputy head of Rosoboronexport Viktor Komardin, " Russian authorities did not officially protest" to the leadership of Federal State Unitary Enterprise on practical action on the purchase.

    The group "Panhard" just put the armed forces of France 1000 armored amphibious PVP.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3347
    Points : 3431
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  medo on Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:30 pm

    This is interesting. A year or two ago, there were rumors, that Russian MVD will buy Panhard VBLs, but those rumors were negated. Now they are here again. Time will tell if MVD will buy those vehicles.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2489
    Points : 3367
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:21 pm

    medo wrote:This is interesting. A year or two ago, there were rumors, that Russian MVD will buy Panhard VBLs, but those rumors were negated. Now they are here again. Time will tell if MVD will buy those vehicles.

    This is not for VBL but the more modern PVP.

    http://www.panhard.fr/360/index.html

    I do not think this is in conflict with the Iveco negotiations as it is a lighter vehicle.


    Last edited by Vladimir79 on Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:43 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18073
    Points : 18633
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:51 pm

    I wonder what specific technology they are after?
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2489
    Points : 3367
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:48 am

    GarryB wrote:I wonder what specific technology they are after?

    Engines, transmission and above all ballistic protection.


    Austin

    Posts : 6828
    Points : 7217
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  Austin on Wed Feb 23, 2011 6:05 am

    PVP as in this one
    http://www.armyrecognition.com/french_army_france_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_uk/pvp_a4_avl_panhard_general_defense_small_protected_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_personnel_carrier_uk.html

    Looks crappy to me
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 416
    Points : 420
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:17 am

    "The technical and military concept behind the A4 AVL comes from the French Army, which is currently procuring a new generation of armored vehicles. Apart from a high useful load capacity, the French Army has placed the accent on effective ballistic protection and operational versatility in line with its new mission profile. The crew compartment as well as the engine have been protected through the addition aluminum and steel plates with thickness ranging from 6mm to 10mm. Modern military operations demand a high mobile, liaison vehicle such as Auverland A4 AVL. "

    Nothing so special.
    avatar
    psg

    Posts : 21
    Points : 26
    Join date : 2011-02-19
    Location : united kingdom

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  psg on Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:43 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    GarryB wrote:I wonder what specific technology they are after?

    Engines, transmission and above all ballistic protection.


    will they not get those from the lmv? i agree with ironsightsniper.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2489
    Points : 3367
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Feb 23, 2011 6:18 pm

    IronsightSniper wrote:"The technical and military concept behind the A4 AVL comes from the French Army, which is currently procuring a new generation of armored vehicles. Apart from a high useful load capacity, the French Army has placed the accent on effective ballistic protection and operational versatility in line with its new mission profile. The crew compartment as well as the engine have been protected through the addition aluminum and steel plates with thickness ranging from 6mm to 10mm. Modern military operations demand a high mobile, liaison vehicle such as Auverland A4 AVL. "

    Nothing so special.

    It can stop AK-47 armour piercing rounds and has class 2 mine protection. For a light 4t vehicle, it is excellent.

    Austin

    Posts : 6828
    Points : 7217
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  Austin on Wed Feb 23, 2011 6:45 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:It can stop AK-47 armour piercing rounds and has class 2 mine protection. For a light 4t vehicle, it is excellent.

    Compared to this what kind of protection can Tigr-M offer ?
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2489
    Points : 3367
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:07 pm

    Austin wrote:
    Vladimir79 wrote:It can stop AK-47 armour piercing rounds and has class 2 mine protection. For a light 4t vehicle, it is excellent.

    Compared to this what kind of protection can Tigr-M offer ?

    Tiger-M has 5mm plates and weighs 7t. Can increase armour but makes p/w ratio unusable. PVP is light, high p/w and well armoured. It makes an excellent light transport. Not to say we do not need a good 7t vehicle.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:04 am