Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Share
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2539
    Points : 3419
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    France SESM offers Russia upgraded Powerpack Transmission T-90/72

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:54 am

    French company proposes a new SESM MTO for tanks T- 72 and T-90

    TSAMTO , June 23. The French company SESM (Societe d'Equipements Systumes and Mecanismes) started to sell customers an improved diesel power pack compartment type pauerpak " for main battle tanks T-72 and T- 90 .

    MTO ESM350 includes in its membership a new cooling system , diesel engine and drivetrain SESM350 with automatic controls to allow movement in one of eight forward gears and three back , and, moreover , equipped with a manual override control , according to " International Defence Review, .

    According to the SESM, « pauerpak " can be installed on tanks T-72/T-90 with minimal modifications and removed as a single structure for an hour in the field . " Pauerpak "can be equipped with diesel engines of several types of power up to 1200 hp Potential customers can install a " pauerpak "on their own repair facilities with the participation of specialists SESM.

    Integrated cooling system ESM350 designed for operation at high temperatures . In standard Russian draft fan associated with the number of engine revolutions. The new cooling system includes two high-speed fan for a fourfold increase in air flow compared to the baseline project. Speed fans automatically optimized . Ventilation can be extinguished by the driver while crossing ford .

    MTO has an integrated diagnostic system that allows rapid detection of gaps. Traditional instruments replaced wheel- column, which not only reduces the load on the driver , but also facilitates maneuvering in difficult terrain .

    Electronic transmission control ensures the selection of the best programs running at any given landscape. Automatic transmission significantly reduces the risk of driver errors when switching gears and damage the box. ESM350 equipped with an effective braking system, including the parking brake .

    MBT with ESM350 can stop and start moving on the slope steepness up to 60%, has more maneuverability and cruising range due to the reduction in fuel consumption . According to the SESM, the maximum speed with T-72/T-90 ESM350 while moving forward up to 70 km / h and 23 km / h - when moving backward. The engine has a maximum speed of motion , even in warm conditions .

    SESM offers an opportunity to use MTO engines from various manufacturers , including the French V8X " Vartsila " and Polish S-1000 , output of 1000 hp

    SESM, which is a subsidiary of German company Renk , already equipped with their ITO -engine S-1000 Polish Tank PT-91M, the version that put Sun Malaysia .

    New " pauerpakom "can be equipped and the Yugoslav version of the T-72M1 - M- 84. MTO ESM350 also intended to equip specialized versions of T- 72 and T- 90, including armored engineer vehicles , BREM and armored vehicle launched bridges . This will allow potential customers to unify the park available propulsion vehicle .

    In addition , SESM developed automatic transmission ESM500 with five front and two rear gears , which is equipped with a French MBT Leclerc . ESM500 offered for sale as part of the MTO , intended for installation on MBT weighing more than 50 tons, which are equipped with engines up 1500 hp One of the potential projects, where it can be applied , is a Pakistani Tank Al - Khalid .

    REFERENCE:

    Currently, MBT T-90 equipped with a standard 4 - stroke 12- cylinder V- 84MS power 840 hp , as well as transmission with manual shift . Export version of T - 90S can be equipped with a diesel engine capacity of 1000 hp B92S2 and 8 -speed transmission with manual shift (7 forward and one reverse gear ) .

    http://www.armstrade.org/includes/periodics/mainnews/2010/0623/13204963/detail.shtml



    pdf documentation ESM-350

    http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/customer/sesm/pdf/Powerpack_ESM350.pdf
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18555
    Points : 19111
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:15 am

    Have read that one of the goals of the Burlak upgrade is to add a steering wheel control system to replace the old sticks method used.
    The old sticks method as used on old tractor (with tracks) designs is probably why that chap compared the T-90 to the T-34.
    The BMP-1 was one of the first armoured vehicles to have a steering yoke (like the handle bars on a motorbike).

    For the Burlak program there was also talk of a new engine rated at 1,200hp called V-99 as opposed to the 1,000hp V-92 currently on offer.

    Personally I think it doesn't make sense to look abroad till we know what the Burlak upgrade has to offer... its design is not to be finalised till the end of this year AFAIK.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2539
    Points : 3419
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:14 am

    Lets look at the facts for a moment. You have never heard Popovkin or the top brass mention the word "Burlak." I was digging around the journal database for it and it popped up as an upgrade for T-80U back in 2003. Now we are disbanding the T-80 so what purpose will that serve? Now the facts of Russian armour upgrades are pointing in one direction... France and Germany. We already bought thermals, radios, and now are interested in French powerpacks and transmissions. We are in discussions with Germany over armour technology. Russian producers aren't even on the radar screen. Popovkin made that clear and now he is promoted to deputy DefMin.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18555
    Points : 19111
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 30, 2010 4:38 am

    From what I have read the Burlak program started out as a program to unify the components of the three main in service Russian MBTs, the T-72, the T-90, and the T-80s so that the engines and transmissions and other components including turrets etc would be the same to reduce the costs of ownership and simplify maintainence.
    What it has become however seems to be a total upgrade of all the problems perceived with the T series tank fleet, ie new thermal sights (from France) one for the gunner and one for the commander, new communications and battle management systems, new navigation based on satellites, revision of ERA and armour to make it more effective, rearrangement of the turret to hold the extra equipment, additional autoloader so that no ammo is carried loose in the crew compartment at all.
    The new standard will become the production standard T-90 for the Russian Army and also an upgrade standard for the existing T-90s and any other vehicles that will be kept.

    All this talk of foreign kit has nothing to do with Russia importing stuff, and everything to do with Russian makers making foreign designs of learning foreign techniques under licence for local production.

    The armour technology Russia is looking at buying from Germany is armour for light vehicles that is made of light metals. The problem is not heavy tank armour, it is armour for light vehicles only, and it is most likely to result in a Russian company buying a licence to make this new German armour in Russia rather than Germany making Russian light vehicles in the future.

    Here is an article from a BLOG:
    Т-90М. New Specs.

    The new pictures and main specs of T-90M (ob.188M) were appeared on a Russian site. This tank was first time demonstrated for Putin in Dec.10 at N-Tagil. It has got:

    - New bigger turret without weakened frontal areas and with the all-aspect ERA covering.
    - ERA 'Relict'
    - Additional roof protection against atop attacking munition.
    - New additional autoloader, placed on the aft part of the turret and able using the new longer sub-caliber rods.
    - Aft ammo storage.
    - Panoramic 3-channel IR commander site with improved anti-split/rounds protection.
    - 7.62 mm automatic turret instead of 12.7mm.
    - Totally new 2A82 125 mm MG (2A46M5 - optional).
    - FCS with the net-centric module.
    - New radio.
    - New navigation system.
    - New anti-split kevlar layer instead of the standard Russian anti-neutron layer.
    - new anti-fire system.


    In work:

    - Mono-block power unit on 1200 hp V-99 engine.
    - Steering wheel control.

    T-90M - is intended for the export purpose mainly. For domestic use there was confirmed 'Burlak' program with heavy Tomsk OKBTM's input.

    Note the last line above.
    Also before you say this is just a BLOG, so is this.

    On this page:

    http://igorrgroup blogspot.com/2010/01/new-tank-conditioner.html

    (to make it work replace the . between igorrgroup and blogspot)
    Which talks about a new compact Russian air conditioner for tanks.
    Below that article shows a new turret design mockup for the Burlak.

    Claims the Burlak program continue are supported by an interview with the guy in charge of the company that makes the T-90 and is developing the T-95. From memory he said that program will be completed by the end of this year hopefully.

    I am reading the babelfish translation of this page:

    http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/xlopotov_8/t90m.htm

    but it seems to mention stuff I have mentioned too. It adds the external sights are redesigned to give better view and also reduce vulnerability to enemy fire. It mentions that while they lack money for the program that the simulators for the upgrade are being bought by the Russian Army.
    It mentions new fire suppression systems and kevlar liners to reduce spalling of armour.
    It mentions new ERA, repositioned armour to improve coverage and reduce weak spots, new engine with steering wheel control.

    When the overall plans are 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.

    Of which:

    The T-90 has undergone continuous upgrades since it was first developed in the early 1990s on the basis of the latest modifications to the T-72/T-72B. It is the only mass-produced main battle tank in Russia.

    Under the current state rearmament program, the Russian army is expected to receive about 1,500 tanks of this model. At present, the Russian Armed Forces have 500 T-90 tanks and receive 60 to 100 new tanks of this model each year.

    So it seems their plans are probably to have 5 to 6 thousand tanks, of which 1,500 would be T-90s, which suggests perhaps a lot of T-72s will be upgraded:

    In addition to the production of T-90 tanks, T-72 tanks continue to be modernized for the Russian Armed Forces. The T-72BA is currently the main modified version. Modernization programs streamline the fire-control system, enhance hull-bottom mine resistance by installing an additional armor plate near the driver's seat, standardize the platform and engine with the T-90 tank and improve the tank's armor.

    An upgraded T-72 tank has considerably greater potential and meets modern tank requirements, while at the same time being far cheaper to produce than a new T-90 tank.

    So lets say 6 thousand tanks of which 1 thousand 500 will be T-90s and the other 4 thousand 500 or so will be cheaper upgraded T-72BAs.
    With two thermal imagers in the T-90s they will be the expensive tanks so spending money on a Burlak upgrade makes sense for only 1,500 of your fleet.
    The upgraded T-72s can use cheaper Russian thermal sights so they are day and night capable, but over time as production continues of the French thermal sights they can be added (where it is worth it of course... the Russian sights might get upgraded to the point where replacement with french designed sights is not necessary) during routine overhauls.
    The point is that you want standardisation.
    You want your T-72BA units to be able to communicate with your T-90 units with the same comms gear and the same sort of electronics.
    The real expensive stuff like French thermals can go in the T-90 and cheaper Russian thermals in the T-72BA, but at the end of the day if you can create an upgrade that makes the T-90 more similar to the T-72BA then it makes a lot of sense.
    The whole purpose of withdrawing the T-64s and T-80s is because they are less like the T-90s than the T-72BAs.
    A unified upgrade you apply to your entire fleet as you can afford it makes a lot of sense.
    A bit like with aircraft for the 50 new aircraft you buy you can also upgrade 200 of the airframes in best condition to a better standard. If you want to go all new, then you can have 80 new aircraft and no upgraded aircraft for the same price.

    Unless you have bottomless pockets with lots of money to spend then upgrades are a good way of keeping numbers at minimal cost while still improving the performance of the fleet.

    It seems the problem is the Strategic Rocket forces, the Airforce and the Air Defence Forces are getting the lions share of the budget for the next decade and the Navy and the Army will have to make do with upgrades.

    (from here: http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20100603/159294042.html )

    This is understandable you can't replace everything all at once, and have to set priorities.
    Delaying the T-95 (ie I am referring here to the tank that eventually replaces the T-90 in Russian Army service as the standard Russian MBT, not the particular model currently developed) will only result in the final product being better.
    Hopefully its cost will reduce as the various technologies mature and with domestic production of high technology hopefully the Russian content of the design can be increased to the point where it is more Russian.

    I would think if only 1,500 T-90s are to be produced for the Russian Army and 1/3rd are already in service that an upgrade to unify them to make them more compatible with each other and the other vehicles in the Russian fleet would make a lot of sense.
    Money set aside for tooling up and production of the T-95 can be spent on upgrading all the T-90s to Burlak standard and some aspects can also be retrofitted to existing T-72BA vehicles to improve their performance, ie the same ERA and engines and guns and transmissions and anti spall armour etc etc.

    When was the last time the tanks of the Russian army were one calibre?

    125mm can be standardised for all Russian tanks and all the stocks of the 100mm smoothbore, and 115mm smoothbore can be sold or destroyed.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2539
    Points : 3419
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:48 am

    Blog, doesn't have any substance to it. T-90M, which is not Burlak, was already viewed by Putin and he was not impressed. So much so he only spent 30 seconds in front of the display and near fell asleep during the demonstration. Now several deals have been signed with France and Germany for armour components and Popovkin replaced the General who was bitching about buying foreign. They will keep the turret and ERA, but everything else is being reviewed for imports from France and Germany.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18555
    Points : 19111
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 30, 2010 1:45 pm

    I realise the M and the Burlak is not the same thing.
    I also realise that they will not be going with a 120mm main gun so parts of Burlak will be kept anyway.
    If there are components from Germany or France that could make Burlak better then I welcome that.
    The point is that Burlak addresses most of the fundamental issues with the T-90 in a way that can be retrofitted to already built tanks to achieve the standardisation they want without the enormous cost of buying an all new tank.
    Whether Putin is impressed or not is not really the issue.
    He was KGB, not a tank man. He might not understand the difference removing the ammo from the crew compartment makes or the effect a battle management system has. Even a poor management system is better than no management system at all.
    There isn't enough money to buy 6,000 Leclercs, and even if there was it makes no sense to throw out your entire Tank MIC including the ammunition component of the MIC.
    The Mistral was bought because it is state of the art in its class, and it is ready for production now and there is a clear need for a vessel that can deliver a force quickly, it fits with the mobile forces doctrine Russia is adopting.
    There are already 20,000 Russian tanks in service or storage right now, apart from a few more T-90s there is certainly no reason to build any more new tanks at a time when the role of the tank is being reduced.
    I have said before, but I will say it again the Russian Armed forces will not look like NATO next year, or the year after or in 2015. It is going to take at least 10 years of sensible spending to get the new gear into production and into service in numbers where it is signficant. The Russian AF never had enough precision guided weapons, yet precision guided weapons have been available for decades and exported to client states.
    India and China probably have more R-77s than the Russian AF simply because the Russian AF only have a few upgraded aircraft in service that can actually use them.
    Complaining that the R-77 hasn't been as updated as much as the AMRAAM is silly, the Russian AF hasn't had it in service that long so there was little pressure and even less money for upgrades and improvements.
    First seen in 1988 on the Mig-29M prototype the R-77 made today has fully digital electronics and is much more capable than the same missile would have been from 1995 or so when it probably would have entered service had there been money for it.
    The solution isn't to run to the US to buy AMRAAMs instead to punnish the Russian company for not keeping up with the state of the art with no money and no orders. Why haven't they got mass production facilities ready now? Because they haven't had any orders till now.
    The Russian Armed forces is now demanding new stuff be made... is it paying for it up front or is it doing what it used to do and offer about 10-20% of the order payment in real money and the rest in soft loans with banks so production tooling, worker training, raw materials, parts suppliers etc can all be paid and production can begin. Anyone who has worked with subcontractors before knows they rarely do anything without payment first... it is the only way to make sure you do get paid these days.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2539
    Points : 3419
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Russia wants French Sigma 30 Artillery FCS

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:43 pm

    Russia to hold talks with France on purchasing artillery navigation system

    09:47 30/06/2010
    © RIA Novosti. Vladimir Viatkin



    The Russian Defense Ministry will hold talks during an international engineering forum near Moscow with France's Sagem Defense Securite on the possible purchase of a Sigma 30 inertial navigation system.

    The Engineering Technologies International Forum 2010 will be held from June 30 through July 4 in the town of Zhukovsky, 40 kilometers southeast of Moscow.

    Earlier this month, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin invited the French-based Sagem company (SAFRAN group), a European leader in defense and consumer electronics, for talks in Moscow.

    Popovkin said Russia is interested in purchasing the Sigma 30 artillery navigation and pointing system as part of efforts to modernize its Smerch and Grad multiple rocket launchers.

    "We are ready to offer Russia the Sigma 30 system for the modernization of the Russian artillery and multiple rocket launchers," a Sagem spokesman told RIA Novosti.

    He said Sagem delivers Sigma systems to a wide range of Russian military manufacturers, including Sukhoi.

    "There is a demand for the latest navigation and pointing systems because the firing range of the modernized multiple rocket launchers like the Grad has risen from 40 to 50-60 kilometers and fire control systems therefore also need to be modernized," the spokesman said.

    The Sigma 30 artillery navigation and pointing system is designed for high-precision firing at short notice.

    PARIS/MOSCOW, June 30 (RIA Novosti)

    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20100630/159632584.html
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2539
    Points : 3419
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:53 pm

    Whether Putin is impressed or not is not really the issue.

    Don't forget who runs this country... it is Putin. If he isn't impressed, the company is doomed.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18555
    Points : 19111
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 01, 2010 3:22 am

    50-60km for Grad is really impressive.

    I heard talk of Smerch being extended in range to 120-150km too.

    Having French designed communications and navigation equipment in your tanks, it certainly makes sense to use their artillery fire control systems too if they are for sale.
    If they offer an improvement in performance that can't be matched by existing Russian systems then I don't see a problem.

    Of course existing FCS for artillery will be Soviet systems currently so I really don't know whether this is a French designed system replacing a Russian system or whether it might be that Soviet artillery FCS were developed in Belarus or the Ukraine in which case buying something foreign to Russia anyway, you might as well go with the better French option to be made in Russia than a Ukrainian system made in Russia.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18555
    Points : 19111
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 01, 2010 3:36 am

    I think you are reading too much in his entertainment.
    Lets agree that Putin is no fool.
    The fact that he found a demonstration of a vehicle that looks to the amateur to be 99% like a standard T-90 but with a new sight, a slightly enlarged turret, different ERA boxes on the outside, etc etc a little boring is no great surprise.
    The fact is that an upgrade that unifies the tanks Russia will keep in service makes a huge amount of sense.
    This tank he was looking at wasn't for Russian Armed forces use, it was the T-90M for export, which might also reflect his disinterest.
    The T-90 is not a bad tank, it has a few issues and problems and the Burlak upgrade correct pretty much all of those problems.
    As a new production standard and upgrade standard for existing T-90s it is the most cost effective option.
    The Russian Armed forces are trying to go netcentric, but that isn't going to be worth anything if most of your armoured vehicles are not plugged in.
    This is the cheapest and fastest way to implement a battle management system.

    I would also like to thank you for not getting annoyed at me... I have been told I can be stubborn.
    I would like to see Russia with a strong and capable military.
    I would like to see all those old T-54s, T-55s, T-62s, T-64s, and T-80s and old model T-72s gotten rid of as tank targets or sold on the export market to countries that already operate such types, and their older ammo removed from stocks.
    For Russian companies that means a clear separation between 125mm ammo for Russia and 100mm smoothbore and 115mm smoothbore for export.
    Spares compatibility, and of course training can be standarised to reduce costs.
    In 2016 the T-95 program can be reactivated based on new doctrine and expectations and it might fundamentally change to the point where a completely new design is needed, perhaps even unmanned.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2539
    Points : 3419
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  Vladimir79 on Thu Jul 01, 2010 5:46 am

    T-90M wasn't just for export just as the T-90S wasn't just for export. It is the upgrade for the T-90. There is no motion forward on Burlak so we can just drop that subject. What MoD is looking for is a comprehensive upgrade of the T-90 that brings it to the latest standards and does it quickly. MIC has nothing in electronics to bridge this gap which is why we are spending so much time talking to the French.
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1162
    Points : 2048
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 27
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  Russian Patriot on Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:17 am

    One more confirmation article :

    Russia to hold talks with France on purchasing artillery navigation system

    RIA Novosti

    09:47 30/06/2010

    PARIS/MOSCOW, June 30 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian Defense Ministry will hold talks during an international engineering forum near Moscow with France's Sagem Defense Securite on the possible purchase of a Sigma 30 inertial navigation system.

    The Engineering Technologies International Forum 2010 will be held from June 30 through July 4 in the town of Zhukovsky, 40 kilometers southeast of Moscow.

    Earlier this month, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin invited the French-based Sagem company (SAFRAN group), a European leader in defense and consumer electronics, for talks in Moscow.

    Popovkin said Russia is interested in purchasing the Sigma 30 artillery navigation and pointing system as part of efforts to modernize its Smerch and Grad multiple rocket launchers.

    "We are ready to offer Russia the Sigma 30 system for the modernization of the Russian artillery and multiple rocket launchers," a Sagem spokesman told RIA Novosti.

    He said Sagem delivers Sigma systems to a wide range of Russian military manufacturers, including Sukhoi.

    "There is a demand for the latest navigation and pointing systems because the firing range of the modernized multiple rocket launchers like the Grad has risen from 40 to 50-60 kilometers and fire control systems therefore also need to be modernized," the spokesman said.

    The Sigma 30 artillery navigation and pointing system is designed for high-precision firing at short notice.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2010/russia-100630-rianovosti05.htm
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18555
    Points : 19111
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:04 am

    The Russian Army is supposed to have bought the tank simulators for the Burlak (Barge Hauler) program, that is the basis for the speculation that it is still "live".
    If the purpose of Burlak was to improve the performance of the tanks in Russian Service and there was no money then I could understand not spending it for now and then looking at the problem in 5-10 years.
    The Burlak upgrade however should actually simplify logistics and training as well as remove lots of old stuff from the Armoury, which is something politicians have been harping on about for some time.
    From other "deals" like those with Thales of France, it is clear that if they decide to go with French and German designs they will certainly put them in the design, but they wont just buy them all from France and Germany, they might buy 500-1000 units of whatever they want, like engines and transmissions, and thermal sights, and radios, and land battle management system, but that will only be the first 500-1000... the rest will be built under licence in Russia for the remaining 5-6 thousand tanks.

    If the French or German component is markedly superior to the Russian equivelent in the Burlak upgrade then replace the Russian component with the French or German component and have the maker of the Russian component the licence producer of that French or German component. The Russian producer will get a factory upgrade and be trained to make the new component the French or German way.

    This is all normal and fine.

    Look at WWII, the most numerous Soviet fighter was the I-16 Polikarpov with a licence produced M-22 and M-25 engines based on the old Bristol Jupiter engine. The Mikulin M-17 engine was a licence produced BMW engine that was used in bombers like the Tupolev TB-3 as well as tanks like the BT-7 and the T-28.
    There are aircraft still used today like the An-2 that use licence produced engines, the ASh-62 based on the Wright Cyclone.
    The point is that at the time they wanted a good engine and they paid a fair price for it and they got a deal to make these engines in Russia. They then took the new technology and started modifying it to suite their needs and their available materials etc, and also improving the design, sometimes sticking to a design that works (the engine on the An-2 is simple and easy to fix... you could replace it with a modern engine to get better range or speed, but the simplicity is more valuable than the fuel you would save in the middle of Siberia on a rough strip.).

    The issue seems to be pride and if you want your armed forces properly equipped then you can't afford pride.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2539
    Points : 3419
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Jul 02, 2010 6:27 pm

    GarryB wrote:The Russian Army is supposed to have bought the tank simulators for the Burlak (Barge Hauler) program, that is the basis for the speculation that it is still "live".

    Why would they buy simulators before they induct the platform?

    If the purpose of Burlak was to improve the performance of the tanks in Russian Service and there was no money then I could understand not spending it for now and then looking at the problem in 5-10 years.

    We can't wait 5-10 years. We are spending the money in the next two which is why France and Germany are the only source of technology.

    The Burlak upgrade however should actually simplify logistics and training as well as remove lots of old stuff from the Armoury, which is something politicians have been harping on about for some time.

    T-90 and T-72 already share standardisation, don't need Burlak for that.

    From other "deals" like those with Thales of France, it is clear that if they decide to go with French and German designs they will certainly put them in the design, but they wont just buy them all from France and Germany, they might buy 500-1000 units of whatever they want, like engines and transmissions, and thermal sights, and radios, and land battle management system, but that will only be the first 500-1000... the rest will be built under licence in Russia for the remaining 5-6 thousand tanks.

    There isn't going to be an upgrade of 5-6 thousand tanks. The storage tanks will sit as is. The 2200 front-line tanks are those going to be upgraded. I doubt they will even get around to upgrading many T-72s. If we can stop exporting T-90 we can have the full lot number after 2017.

    If the French or German component is markedly superior to the Russian equivelent in the Burlak upgrade then replace the Russian component with the French or German component and have the maker of the Russian component the licence producer of that French or German component. The Russian producer will get a factory upgrade and be trained to make the new component the French or German way.

    Then it doesn't make it a Burlak upgrade now does it. Rolling Eyes



    avatar
    NationalRus

    Posts : 628
    Points : 635
    Join date : 2010-04-11

    Russia to buy 10 billion € in foreign arms by 2016

    Post  NationalRus on Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:25 pm

    The Russian Defense Ministry may spend up to 10 billion euros on European and Israeli weaponry in the next five or six years, Russian daily Vedomosti reported on Tuesday.

    An investigation carried out by military experts from Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies estimated foreign purchases of weaponry for Russian Armed Forces over the next two years at some 4 billion euros.

    This sum includes four major deals.

    * the discussed acquisition of four Mistral-class helicopter carriers from the French naval shipbuilder DCNS estimated at 1.5 billion euros.

    * a 1.5 billion-euro contract to be concluded with Italian company Iveco on the assembly of 3,000 Light Multirole Vehicle (LMV) armored vehicles at the Russian Kamaz plant

    * an expected contract with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) on licensed production of three models of unmanned aerial vehicles - I-View MK150 short range aircraft, Searcher II short-range drones and Heron long-range drones - which the experts said could be worth up to $300 million

    * a 300 million-euro deal with France's Thales and Safran groups on supplies of additional lots for assembling thermal imaging systems and aircraft targeting containers

    To bring the half-decade total up to 10 billion euros, the think tank experts included the possible joint development and procurement of warships from DCNS, armored vehicles from French and German firms as well as military electronics from Israel, Vedomosti reported.

    Despite beginning to import weaponry from Western countries in significant volumes, Russia will also remain a large-scale exporter of weapons. In 2009, deliveries to foreign customers were worth $8.5 billion.

    However, Igor Korotchenko, head of Center for Analysis of Global Arms Trade think tank, said arms imports were not likely to exceed 2.5-3 billion euros over the next five or six years, as the issue remains politically sensitive in Russia and depends both on relations with exporting countries and environment at 2011-2012 political election.

    The Russian government is caught between the need to modernize its military and to support its defense sector, which lacks the capacity to fulfill the army's needs after years of underinvestment.

    MOSCOW, June 15 (RIA Novosti)
    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20100615/159428123.html
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2539
    Points : 3419
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Jul 02, 2010 11:12 pm

    We have already spent a billion dollars on French items.
    avatar
    NationalRus

    Posts : 628
    Points : 635
    Join date : 2010-04-11

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  NationalRus on Sat Jul 03, 2010 12:27 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:We have already spent a billion dollars on French items.
    what specialy is already bought for 1 bilion?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18555
    Points : 19111
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 03, 2010 3:00 am

    Just setting up production facilities for the Catherine and ESSM thermal imagers to go on Russian tanks and armoured vehicles will cost a large fraction of a billion dollars.

    The problem with upgrading to state of the art is that it is very expensive.

    The good thing about upgrading to state of the art is that despite it being spent on foreign items they will largely be made in Russia so that will be good for the Russian economy... especially in the case of the deal with Thales of France where some were bought that were made in France and the rest will be made in Russia but in the future if a third country wants French thermal imagers they can buy Russian made models that are cheaper than French made ones and the French company will be party to the agreement and get a cut, so they get their products made cheaper than they could make them and they will probably get access to markets that they otherwise would not be able to sell on anyway.

    For example if Iran came to Russia and asked if it could buy some Flankers to replace its last remaining F-14s and it wants external pod mounted systems like Damocles or the Russian Sapsan or Sollux or the simpler Platan that might include French parts then it is easier to put in French designed Russian made parts than to actually get France involved directly. The French still make money (though if they really didn't want Iran to have their tech they certainly could veto the sale of French designed licence produced parts if they wanted to) Iran gets new planes and Russia sells some more weapons. The US and UK will complain of course, which is rather hypocritical because Iran has mostly western equipment anyway, with F-4s and F-14s and HAWK SAMs and various other bits and pieces.
    One huge irony is that the British Challanger tank had its development paid for by the Shah of Iran, if he hadn't ordered such a tank then the Abrams probably wouldn't have gotten its Chobham armour and certainly the British would not have had a decent tank during the 1980s.

    There will be stuff the Russians design and make that is good enough, there will be stuff the Russians make that is not good enough and foreign stuff that is available that is better and there is stuff that the Russians make that is not good enough and the foreign stuff is not for export.

    The solution is to buy the stuff the Russians make that is good to add money to that sector and keep it healthy, buy the stuff Russian stuff is behind in and licence produce it in Russia to get Russian stuff up to speed, and for the stuff you can't get... well that is what industrial espionage is for isn't it?
    Either that or a bit of investment.

    BTW to that list above you would have to add the cost of eventually up to 100 or so An-70s too as imports.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18555
    Points : 19111
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 03, 2010 3:57 am

    Why would they buy simulators before they induct the platform?

    I don't know for sure but would speculate that if a simulator has been developed already then they have been properly funded so far and for the Army to adopt them suggests the simulators do the job of training soldiers to drive tanks without actually taking tanks out and wearing them out.
    The small production numbers right now suggest to me that they are just trickling the T-90 into service while its final production upgrade is being perfected... it seems that what they have developed so far is not satisfactory to some, but an upgrade and final production model will be developed... they can't just continue with what they have, especially now that the T-95 has lost funding too.
    As it is now it has faults and the purpose of Burlak is to fix as many of those faults and introduce modern features like battle management systems and turret bustle autoloaders and new ERA that was developed a while ago but hasn't been used yet on a Russian tank.
    It gets stuff into service that has been in development for a while and that is a good thing.

    We can't wait 5-10 years. We are spending the money in the next two which is why France and Germany are the only source of technology.

    So you want to throw out the existing solution and the next gen tank and just buy bits from France and Germany?
    The stuff from Germany is just light armour.
    Very simply if you make a light armoured vehicle from steel you start getting problems because if you can only have x kgs of weight for the armour then steel armour can get rather thin. All of a sudden it is not thick enough to take a rough ride across country so one solution is to use lighter material like Aluminium.
    Al is so light you can have a sheet 30mm thick where with steel a 5mm sheet weighs the same. The problem is that a 5mm thick sheet of steel is not strong enough structurally when you are bouncing across country in a 15 ton vehicle and you get hull cracks and structural failure. That means you need to build a superstructure that you fit the sheet steel armour to, which makes the vehicle much heavier without adding protection.
    With Al armour, or even composite material, because it is so light you can use lots of layers or much thicker sheets so the armour can be the hull of the vehicle and all the components can be hung off that. It makes the vehicle lighter.
    What Germany has is a way of making sheet armour that is light and yet thick and strong enough to use as both armour and structure for the vehicle it is used on.
    The only deal will be a maker of armour in Russia will licence produce the new German armour for light vehicles and then that will be used in new light armour in Russia, for example the BTR-90 is going to get a makeover no doubt where the engine will likely be moved to the front so rear hull doors can be added. It will probably get new thicker German light armour for better protection without dramatically increasing weight.

    BTW from what I have read they really don't want to spend money on tanks and will be giving away lots and disposing of a lot more.

    With the transition to military districts we might see forces being equipped to suit their location, with mostly tracked vehicles in the more rugged areas and more wheeled vehicles in the western areas.

    T-90 and T-72 already share standardisation, don't need Burlak for that.

    The only thing the T-72 and the T-90 have in common is that they were made in the same factory. The T-90 is a cheap and cheerful T-72 with its guts ripped out and replaced with state of the art stuff as used in the T-80 so that it could compete with said vehicle.
    The T-72s in service will have a different gun, different engines, different wheels and tracks, different FCS etc etc even the ERA is different between models, and if you want a net centric army then you need digital battle management systems and good navigation and communications systems in all your vehicles.
    Even the BTR-82/-82A s are getting new navigation and communications stuff and new fire control systems that apparently includes time fused 30mm shells similar to the ANIET system for the 125mm HE rounds.

    There isn't going to be an upgrade of 5-6 thousand tanks. The storage tanks will sit as is. The 2200 front-line tanks are those going to be upgraded. I doubt they will even get around to upgrading many T-72s. If we can stop exporting T-90 we can have the full lot number after 2017.

    After freeing up the cost of storing and maintaining 20,000 tanks the cost of 6,000 tanks will be much easier to manage. Upgrading them to the same standard to share the same parts will make it cheaper to own and use them. Just upgrading the 2,200 that you use will be a pain in the butt when it comes time to actually get a few out of storage only to find the ERA it used is no longer in production and the HE inserts for the stuff used in the 2,200 operational vehicles doesn't fit, or that there are no spares for the engines of the vehicles in storage etc etc.
    It doesn't need to be done all at once, but gradually all of the tanks in storage should be given periodic overhauls where standardised equipment should be added.
    This would be the easiest and cheapest way to standardise the equipment and to take advantage of large production runs.

    Then it doesn't make it a Burlak upgrade now does it.

    It was never set in stone. It could be argued that the Burlak upgrade has already incorporated elements of the Black Eagle mockup with its turret bustle autoloader anyway. The point is that they need an upgrade that can become a new production standard for future T-90s and to apply to the tanks you are going to keep.
    It certainly already included French thermal sights licence produced in Russia, if it now adds communications, navigation, FCS, and other products of Thales then I would guess that was because they were better than those used in Burlak originally... and that is a good thing. I have read that lots of components of Burlak were foreign anyway but there were problems with supply where components were substandard and the designers were making their own substitute parts. It might be that some parts were coming from traditional suppliers of components for Soviet tanks, ie from Belarus or the Ukraine or whereever. Now it seems they will come from France... it only makes the T-90 better.
    What I don't want to see is the T-90 left as it is trickling into service, T-95 cancelled and nothing to replace the T-90 and the mighty Russian tank industry reduced to a production workshop for French tank designs.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2539
    Points : 3419
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Jul 06, 2010 1:21 am

    Results of arms in Zhukovsky : Russia becoming dependent on foreign arms merchants


    Forum "Technology in Mechanical Engineering -2010 " in the suburban town of Zhukovsky , which ended the previous day, showed that Russia can not do without imports of foreign weapons . In Russia on innovative technologies too few businesses that would yield significant results.

    Purchases of foreign weapons at this time are inevitable , says CEO of a corporation Rostekhnologii Chemezov . According to him , of all the Russian machine-building enterprises , only 10 % engaged in the development or introduction of technological innovations . The share of innovative products is only 5.5 % , said Chemezov.

    In this regard, Russia held at the exhibition several negotiations with foreign representatives of the industry. In particular , the Ministry of Defense is going to buy the French company Sagem Defense Securite ( group of companies SAFRAN) fire control system " Sigma -30 " to modernize the Russian artillery and missile systems with multiple rocket launchers ( MRL ) . The system is already equipped with MLRS Germany and Italy and now with her help improve combat vehicles Norway and Sweden , writes "Time of news ".

    This is not the only possible order from France. Along with the "Sigma -30 ", MOD is in talks about the newest equipment for soldiers FELIN. If the contract is signed , the limited number of these special forces will GRU .

    In Zhukovsky was also the first time demonstrated armored "Tiger ", developed by military-industrial companies . Meanwhile, the Defense Ministry plans to buy the imported analog " Wolf "- LMV Italian company Iveco.

    In general, the expert at the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies , Konstantin Makiyenko noted that the forum is part of the general trend of imports of weapons and defense technologies to the Russian power structures .

    However , it is worth noting that the Russian defense industry has a definite chance to contracts with the Defense Ministry. In particular, First Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin said that the agency will choose the Russian developer drones , which will begin shipping reconnaissance aircraft or target designators for the Russian army . After the Israeli drones are no longer planned to buy drones abroad .

    In addition, it is likely that the defense establishment may abandon plans for the purchase of steel in Germany , notes the publication of " Time of news " . NII were demonstrated at the exhibition their materials and protective structure for local and individual reservations . The employees have created the lightest helmets for soldiers who have no analogues in the world . This helmet can withstand a shot with five-meter distance from the Makarov pistol .

    Russia hands over positions in the tank manufacturing

    At the same time , despite some new items that were presented in Zhukovsky , experts note that Russia began to take positions in the tank manufacturing world . The army needed new tanks , but Russia is trying to modernize old, which leads only to a glut old samples.

    Scientific and technological advance on the Soviet-era weaponry and protection of tanks was exhausted. Modernization, in essence, acted as scheduled maintenance without any increase in military characteristics of armored vehicles .

    While the Army will be satisfied with the T - 90, but it does not meet the latest requirements of military affairs . The complex optical -electronic protection " blind " , which is installed on this model, the tank , not in a position to influence the launch of the third generation .

    In addition, the tank is practically not protected from above . For overseas created precision guided cluster bomblets that are delivered to aircraft, missiles and artillery , and can effectively hit the armored top . In this case the number of activities to modernize the T -90 , his defense on the part of the roof is not included .

    Russia is not going to steal foreign technology , Putin stressed

    Need to update and maintain Army forces be ready to apply to foreign technologies . Speaking at the opening of the Salon in Zhukovsky, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin stressed that Russia is ready to cooperate with foreign partners .

    According to him, modern technology - a product that the Russian partners want to sell , and Russia is ready to buy for good money . " " If you do not want to sell - is not necessary, but we say that we need this product , we 'll take it , and you want to sell it , and how expensive - is the subject of negotiations " , - said the prime minister.

    He stressed that Russia would not steal technology and innovation : " There is no need to submit the matter in such a way that in Russia, someone is going to act like one of the famous works of art - to carry off the boss's cuisine a tasty piece of technology , and then under the blanket slowly , trying not to munch , to eat it , and somewhere there to smuggle .

    Negotiations with foreign partners initially expected to pay much attention . The forum brought together the previously separate specialized exhibitions : " Intermash " , International Salon of weapons and military equipment " IDELF " , " Aerospace "and " Unmanned multipurpose complex .

    The forum was attended by companies from 42 countries , including the Glock ( Austria ), AVL LIST Gmbh ( Austria ), FN HERSTAL ( Belgium ), Rohde & Schwarz and MTU ( Germany ), Hindustan Aeronautics Limited ( India ), Finmeccanica and Pirelli ( Italy) , North Industrial Corporation NORINCO ( China ), Bell Labs ( USA ), EADS, Thales, SAGEM ( Group SAFRAN), Alcatel-Lucent ( France).

    "It is planned that the Forum has become an international discussion platform for the heads of federal executive authorities, Russian public organizations and business structures , as well as representatives of the military- political leadership and business circles of foreign states " , - the press service of the government.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2539
    Points : 3419
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Jul 06, 2010 1:41 am

    Samples of Russian arms at Zhukovsky

    http://lenta.ru/photo/2010/07/05/salon/
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18555
    Points : 19111
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:12 am

    First of all the things like Sigma 30 and the stuff from FELIN, these aren't weapon systems, they are components.
    The multiple rocket launchers in Russia already have navigation and aiming systems, but if the SIGMA-30 can do it better then why not buy it and integrate it into your systems to make the weapon system as a whole better?
    The current makers of such systems in Russia can licence produce the systems and learn about what is state of the art today. No doubt in 2-3 years they will bring out an improved version that suits Russian needs even better, or perhaps a whole new system based on the funding they earn from the licence production of the French system.

    There are probably a huge number of areas that the Russian MIC needs work, like making computer chips and electronics, and of course in computer network datalinks ensuring high bandwidth communications etc etc.
    Their battle management systems are not likely to be the best in the world due to lack of experience in making them.
    The point is that you buy what you need and incorporate it into Russian weapon systems to improve them and then you continue from there.

    I thought the criticism of the T-90 and its upgrades was amusing considering the funding for the replacement has been cut. With an external turret mounted gun the T-95 should have been the worlds best protected from above tank in the world in the sense that from above there is only a very narrow area of vulnerability and the crew would generally be relatively safe even if the centre or (hot from the engine) rear were hit by top attack weapons.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2539
    Points : 3419
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:23 am

    GarryB wrote:First of all the things like Sigma 30 and the stuff from FELIN, these aren't weapon systems, they are components.

    Sigma is an FCS system for artillery, FELIN is an infantry combat system. MoD is buying them to equip GRU Spetsnaz. The buy could number over 10,000 once it is accepted after trials. Sigma-30 will be going on all Smerch MLRS upgrades which could go as high as 300.

    The multiple rocket launchers in Russia already have navigation and aiming systems, but if the SIGMA-30 can do it better then why not buy it and integrate it into your systems to make the weapon system as a whole better?
    The current makers of such systems in Russia can licence produce the systems and learn about what is state of the art today. No doubt in 2-3 years they will bring out an improved version that suits Russian needs even better, or perhaps a whole new system based on the funding they earn from the licence production of the French system.

    If it is better we should buy it, the concern is we will become India who is reliant on imports for most of their equipment.

    There are probably a huge number of areas that the Russian MIC needs work, like making computer chips and electronics, and of course in computer network datalinks ensuring high bandwidth communications etc etc.
    Their battle management systems are not likely to be the best in the world due to lack of experience in making them.
    The point is that you buy what you need and incorporate it into Russian weapon systems to improve them and then you continue from there.

    Considering modern warfare is in the computer age, electronics are the heart of the game. They are also the most expensive where we start to lose serious money. Thales deals almost exclusively in electronics and they are larger than the largest Russian defence company by several times. Without getting into the electronics game, we have no future in arms.


    I thought the criticism of the T-90 and its upgrades was amusing considering the funding for the replacement has been cut. With an external turret mounted gun the T-95 should have been the worlds best protected from above tank in the world in the sense that from above there is only a very narrow area of vulnerability and the crew would generally be relatively safe even if the centre or (hot from the engine) rear were hit by top attack weapons.

    The turret of the tank is the most protected part, it is easy to armour the small surface it contains. It is more costly to heavily armour the hull.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18555
    Points : 19111
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:58 am

    What I was trying to say was that the claim that Russia is buying foreign weapons is actually false because what they are actually doing is incorporating foreign components and systems into their own weapons systems.

    If it is better we should buy it, the concern is we will become India who is reliant on imports for most of their equipment.

    I totally agree, but think that there is no chance of Russia becoming dependant on external sources of technology.

    The basic facts are that Russia and Soviet technology in the military sphere was always competitive and what changed all that was the last 20 years of inactivity.
    Once Russian companies start working again and money starts flowing then they will catch up, whether they start working on Russian designs or on licence production of foreign designs.
    The problem has been that there was no money being spent in the MIC on much at all so they could read journals on foreign developments but they were very limited in what they could actually do themselves. Money changes that.
    I just hope they get the hang of the fact that if they diversify they will become stronger.
    For example a company that makes avionics for aircraft like LCD screens can earn extra money by making consumer goods that use the same technology.
    A company that only sells to the military has narrow foundations.

    Regarding the cost of electronics, again I think you are correct, but in the last 20 years investment and spending in Russia on such things has not made local production viable. Now with a new technology drive and a technology centre being developed hopefully this will change for the better.
    Spending billions of roubles in 1998 to create state of the art computer chips in Russia by the Russian government with no guaranteed market would have been a huge gamble. Today even just making controller chips would be useful to Russian makers if you could make them cheaper than overseas and to a quality level that is acceptable. Multi core CPUs don't need to be particularly fast, but I remember reading a Russian scientific centre had developed a new design for computer architecture that allowed CPUs be replaced with much much cheaper chip types that vastly improved performance... it is innovation like this where Russia could really push technology forward itself.

    The turret of the tank is the most protected part, it is easy to armour the small surface it contains. It is more costly to heavily armour the hull.

    Except that the T-95 uses an external gun and would have little armour because a penetration of the turret will not effect the crew. I might disable the gun but the turret will be a much smaller target, shooting at the tracks or engine will disable a tank too.
    The crew all sit under the frontal hull armour where the heaviest armour on the tank is normally located. The thickening of the hull roof armour will not increase the weight nearly as much as the armour contained in a conventional turret, which is not present in this tank because it has no conventional turret. The space in the turret ring will have the auto loader and ammo supply but it will likely have blow out roof compartments so if it gets hit there will be an armoured bulkhead protecting the crew from the ammo fire.
    This is ignoring any active defence systems the tank might have to protect itself from top attack munitions like Javelin etc. EO jammers, DIRCMs, radar jammers for use against submunitions using MMW radar guidance, the list is quite long of the things the Russian tank designers might have come up with to protect the tank. But this is all speculation so we can not answer that question either way.
    The fact is that the M1A2 Abrams is no better protected from Javelin and top attack submunitions than in service T-90s. Now the Russian Armed forces don't have Javelin in service, but they have had MMW top attack submunitions in SMERCH units since about 1987 and from about 1995 they had the updated munition with an IR sensor added so that it could ensure the large lump of metal the MMW radar detected has an engine but is not already burning so that it didn't hit rocks and it didn't keep hitting targets that were already burning.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2539
    Points : 3419
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:20 am

    The basic facts are that Russia and Soviet technology in the military sphere was always competitive and what changed all that was the last 20 years of inactivity.
    Once Russian companies start working again and money starts flowing then they will catch up, whether they start working on Russian designs or on licence production of foreign designs.
    The problem has been that there was no money being spent in the MIC on much at all so they could read journals on foreign developments but they were very limited in what they could actually do themselves. Money changes that.

    Basic fact is we are no longer the CCCP and we never will be again. We will never spend 30% of GDP on the military again. We will not have competitive design bureaus again. We will never have the labour pool we had again. All we can do is try to retain core competencies and develop items that can compete on the global market. We face many hurdles in this salvage process and requires much reform not only in the industry, but in society in general. There is still a brain drain going on in Russia, until that is stopped, we are screwed. Throwing money at a system that is broken and corrupt to the core is like flushing your money down the toilet, which is the hidden reason why we don't do it.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Purchases of Foreign Military Equipment

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:30 am