Russia woos our military with deals on guns, planes

[Lost_Warrior]

Russia woos our military with deals on guns, planes
Sales pitch inspired by PM's plan to spend billions on Forces

Mike Blanchfield, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, June 01, 2006

A Russian trade delegation has been quietly making the rounds this week in Ottawa and they're not here to sell grain or vodka.

Instead, the delegation is offering "rather huge planes and helicopters and even guns," Russia's ambassador to Canada, Georgiy Mamedov, said yesterday.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government is poised to spend billions on new military hardware after a presentation to cabinet this week by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor. Topping Mr. O'Connor's wish list are long-range cargo planes and heavy-lift helicopters, both for the Afghanistan mission, while the planes would also enable the delivery of massive amounts of troops, their heavy equipment and humanitarian relief to world hotspots on short notice.

The Russians are trying to interest Canada in their Ilyushin Il-76 MD-90 four-engine long-range cargo plane and their Mi-17V heavy lift transport helicopter, and they're offering the incentive of leasing instead of buying and delivering directly to Afghanistan where they're needed most.

The Russians also say they can beat the delivery time of the nearest competitors by almost half by getting them into the hands of the Canadian Forces by late next year.

The government has committed to keeping at least 2,000 troops in Afghanistan until 2009 and has pledged to get them more aircraft.

The Harper government appears to favour the American built C-17 Boeing Globemaster long-range cargo plane, and heavy Chinook transport helicopters.

But the Russians are already applying direct political pressure on Mr. Harper to eschew buying from

NATO countries. Visiting Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made a direct pitch to Mr. Harper earlier this year in Ottawa and President Vladimir Putin will keep the pressure on in their first meeting next month in St. Petersburg at the G8 summit.

"He will have bilateral discussions with President Putin," said Mr. Mamedov. "One of the major topics will of course be security ... be it the war on terrorism, or providing for critical security for our infrastructure in energy co-operation. It certainly means, also, arms sales."

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay will face similar lobbying when he visits Moscow later this month.

Mr. Mamedov hosted a nearly two-hour presentation by five Russian arms sellers for an exclusive industry audience at the Russian Embassy in Ottawa yesterday, offering a full screening of the presentation the officials are showing to Canadian officials this week.

The team acknowledged trying to persuade Canada to buy Russian would not be easy, but the delegation went to the trouble of bringing a draft treaty on military-industrial co-operation just in case.

"We don't have any illusions here," said Alexander Skobeltsyn, the leader of the trade mission and director of Russia's federal agency on military co-operation.

"Wise people say that rather than depend on one person, you should be friends with two."

Mr. Mamedov reminded his audience that Canada already leases long-range Russian-built cargo planes to deliver humanitarian aid and heavy equipment, while the civilian equivalent of the Russian helicopter is now used on Alberta oil rigs.


http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=e9650cfe-eb30-46d8-9f96-19aee9ce498e

 

[pbi]

Having seen both Russian ground and air equipment up close over the last few years, I would not recommend that we even consider this offer.

Cheers

 

[KevinB]

Having seen both Russian ground and air equipment up close over the last few years, I would not recommend that we even consider this offer.

+1

I've flown on a South African contractor Herc rather then getting on a Russian A/C again...

 

[paracowboy]

+2

Rusian kit scares the crap out of me. No wonder their pilots and tankers are drunk 24/7.

 

[redleafjumper]

Let's see, the Russians want to sell us their old cold war kit, with some designs likely used in their failed effort in Afghanistan?  No thanks.

 

[Lost_Warrior]

If what you guys say is correct, lets hope our politicians think the same way...

 

[rz350]

Yes, because the only people in the world who can make good equipment are Americans.   Only junk comes out of Russia, like AA-12 Adders and T-90's and Ka-50's and Mi-28's. That MiG 15 in the Korean War and MiG-21 back in the Vietnam era really sucked too. I mean with untrained pilots at the helm regularly downing F-80's and F-4's, it musta been piss poor design. :

I would say give the deal a look, and inspect the equipment, if it is brand new mfg and seems to be good quality, then why the hell not spend half the price and get new equipment. If its crap, worn out old stuff with poor mfg quality, then let it slide. Don't discount based on its nation of origin, check out the actual offer.

 

[KevinB]

Your right none of us have hands on experience  :

 

[pbi]

Further to this sales effort by the Russians, I read today that the leader of  the sales mission is claiming that in Afghanistan our special  forces are using weapons purchased in Russia, and our artillery is firing Russian ammo.(!!)

Now, while I understand that for obvious reasons we might not be able to discuss the first part of the claim, what about the second? The new 155mm gun is a USMC item. According to the CFLO to the USMC, whom I spoke to earlier this week(before I read this Russian claim), Canada is the only country actually firing this gun on operations. With that, why would we need to buy Russian rounds instead of using ammo supplied by the US? And since when do Russian guns fire NATO 155mm ammo?

Cheers

 

[rz350]

No, what I am saying, is why was there even a cold war then? if the equipment is that bad, a hand full of M60's and a few f-4's in Germany should of been plenty to hold the onslaught at bay. Why did the US developed the F14-15/16/18's? Just keep the F4's and f105's, I mean surly they could take down MiG-29's and Su-27's reliably, as they are very poor Russian Equipment. They are not a threat at all.

You guys do have direct military experience, and I know it, but I'm also going to ask this, if you had a PKM firing at you if your 031 or a t-90 if your 011?(or an Mi-24 bearing down on you) Would you be 100% confidant and not have any stress because its obviously just crappy Russian made equipment with no capability to do any harm?

All that aside, I just don't think its a bad idea for a few engineers and the like to examine the offer and make a decision based on scientific analysis, not experience with equipment of an unknown age and maintenance record.

if I got a 1970 Ferrari with 200,000km on the clock, no oil change in the last 30,000 a flat tire and worn bearings, I bet I would be pretty unimpressed, but maybe when it was new and well maintained, it was a different story.

That's all I am trying to say.

 

[a_majoor]

The Russians realize they are not about to get billions of dollars in "carbon credits" from the Conservative government anytime soon (since Prime Minister Harper isn't into Kyoto or wealth transfer), so they are looking for a somewhat more productive means of getting the cash.

Now if they were smart like the Chinese or the "Four Tigers" nations, they would be moving post haste into low price/high quality consumer goods, since lots of little purchases equal a steady cash flow, rather than hoping for a bulk buy of military equipment and a big dollop of cash all at once. Mr Putin is free to call or PM if he wants more assistance.

 

[pbi]

rz350: I would be extremely worried about quality control and availability of spares.

Cheers

 

[rz350]

rz350: I would be extremely worried about quality control and availability of spares.

Cheers

That is a good point.

I;m not trying to offend anyone, I am just saying it is at least worth a look, not to be discounted right off the bat.

But yes, the spares do bring issues, if relations sour or somthing, it would be hard to find parts.

 

[KevinB]

Russian stuff is typically maintenance intensive - and more importantly (and discussed by several people who have a wealth of experience in the aviation field in previosu threads...) not interoprable with NATO systems - nor are they certified by whoever does that stuff in Canada.

We dont have a large military - we have a small and proffessional army thus we prefer the doctrin of quality over quantity in both troops and equipment.


Since a lot of specialized Russian units are running around with NATO small arms -who would beleive a tale that guys are running crap over the plug and play tools they have...

Russian kit gives me a rash.

 

[pbi]

Since a lot of specialized Russian units are running around with NATO small arms -who would beleive a tale that guys are running crap over the plug and play tools they have...

Exactly why I tend to doubt this claim. I may be wrong here, but I think this is going to blow up in ther faces if somebody in Ottawa does a staff check.

Cheers

 

[TCBF]

"No wonder their pilots and tankers are drunk 24/7."

- Ya mean ours aren't?  If you count 'recreational' drugs, we ain't all that better off. 

 

[jimmy742]

That is a good point.

I;m not trying to offend anyone, I am just saying it is at least worth a look, not to be discounted right off the bat.

But yes, the spares do bring issues, if relations sour or somthing, it would be hard to find parts.

I agree with you. No harm in taking a look. I'm not saying the Russians have better equipment but why not listen? If leasing a small number of Mi-17s short term for Afghanistan until our own CH-47/53/Merlin/H-92 arrive is a viable and realistic option, why not? If it's a no go, then we are all better informed.

BTW, in my day (late 70s and 80s), some of the spare parts used in our British made AGA (Racal) equipment came from East Germany.

 

[rz350]

I want to ad as well, that I was reaidng an issue of Popular mechanics, and there is a French Company making NATO compliant avionics/ect kits for Mil(I think for the Mi-8,17,24,26 but maybe a few others as well) helicopers.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The guys flying the Russian helo’s here for helo-logging like them a lot, lots of power and smaller diameter rotor.

Here is a link with the specs for the S-61 vs the Kamov KA32A11BC

http://www.vih.com/fleet_logging.php

I have poked around Russian equipment, it is simple and generally robust, their engine technology is old, but they have already promoted vehicle designs using North American engines. Purchasing vehicles for specific missions (like Dafur) from them and then leaving them in theatre might be cost effective rather than shipping the same vehicles over the world and then back to Canada for refit. It’s worth considering.

If we wanted to rapidly increase munitions stocks like land mines, they would be a good source, but of course Canada doesn’t do nasty stuff like that.

At the very least they should get some stuff for trials. Even if we don't buy it, we will now what it is capable of if our enemies get it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Whether or not Russian equipment would be effective in battle isn't an issue.  (Some equipment was designed with the expectation it wouldn't have a very long service life if it ever came to war, and peacetime operating hours were restricted accordingly.)

Whether it would be more or less prone to falling out of the sky during general use is one issue.  Whether it will be easier or more difficult to acquire and sustain the means to maintain the equipment to prevent it from falling out of the sky during general use is another issue.  Those are the questions to ask and answer.