Can Western Countries Buy Eastern Military Tech? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Military vehicles, aircraft, ships, guns and other military equipment. Plus any general military discussions that don't belong elsewhere on the board.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

#14183627
I have been wondering if it would be possible for a Western country such as the UK, Australia or New Zealand to buy weapons from Russia or China instead of almost exclusively from the United States. Could Australia or New Zealand potentially buy Sukhoi, the J-10 or small arms like Kalashnikov?
#14184043
I don't know about Australia or New Zealand, but for NATO members I don't think it's practical because they are expected to operate togther as an alliance, and standardisation of parts and ammunition improves logistics. Plus, since Russia was historically - and technically still is potentially - an enemy, they can't be relied upon for supplies in the event of hostilities.

Non-NATO European counties like Finland use a mix of equipment from the East and the West. In Finland's case I think it's mostly a mix of German, Russian and Swedish rather than American though.

The UK has a pretty large arms industry, and even items it might buy from the USA will often have a British company involved somewhere. In fact, the dividing line between what is the British or American arms industry has become increasingly blurred as a result of BAE's expansion into the American arms market.
#14188077
I imagine there are plenty of countries formerly part of the Soviet bloc and now part of the EU/NATO/West that have and will continue to operate Soviet/Russian equipment, even as they switch over to NATO standards.


On a different note, I believe the US has technology transfer restriction. I don't of any restriction on small arms, but advanced equipment such as avionics tend to be restricted, even for allies. I believe Japan and Australia can't procure F22s (and for Japan, perhaps propellers). Does Russia or China have such restrictions?
#14188399
Siberian Fox wrote:I don't know about Australia or New Zealand, but for NATO members I don't think it's practical because they are expected to operate togther as an alliance, and standardisation of parts and ammunition improves logistics. Plus, since Russia was historically - and technically still is potentially - an enemy, they can't be relied upon for supplies in the event of hostilities.


I think so. Weapons purchases are often linked to politics. If a NATO country bought Russian arms it would be a very large statement.

Siberian Fox wrote:Non-NATO European counties like Finland use a mix of equipment from the East and the West. In Finland's case I think it's mostly a mix of German, Russian and Swedish rather than American though.


Yes. As far as I know Finland was always trying to maintain a relationship with both NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

Siberian Fox wrote:The UK has a pretty large arms industry, and even items it might buy from the USA will often have a British company involved somewhere. In fact, the dividing line between what is the British or American arms industry has become increasingly blurred as a result of BAE's expansion into the American arms market.


In such a case it would not make sense for the UK to buy Russian arms. They can produce most things themselves.

Typhoon wrote:Certainly there are examples of NATO countries adopting eastern arms both for themselves and third parties, Greece is probably the best example of this.


Even in small quantities Western European countries did use some Soviet equipment but only in small amounts.

Thunderhawk wrote:I imagine there are plenty of countries formerly part of the Soviet bloc and now part of the EU/NATO/West that have and will continue to operate Soviet/Russian equipment, even as they switch over to NATO standards.


On a different note, I believe the US has technology transfer restriction. I don't of any restriction on small arms, but advanced equipment such as avionics tend to be restricted, even for allies. I believe Japan and Australia can't procure F22s (and for Japan, perhaps propellers). Does Russia or China have such restrictions?


In my view New Zealand and Australia should buy some Chinese and Russian equipment to spice up their arsenals.

Antonov An-22: Image

T-80: Image
#14189344
Even in small quantities Western European countries did use some Soviet equipment but only in small amounts.


Not necessarily small amounts, there have been some big quantity purchases, but the types of weapons ordered are very specific or limited.

Does Russia or China have such restrictions?


Russia certainly carries some restriction, the E designation in Russian arms represents 'export' in that the system has been downgraded in some areas (often in terms of electronic hardware) compared with the home variant. Iskander-E and Club-E ballistic and cruise missiles as another example have been modified to conform to international arms control treaties like the missile technology control regime, so range is limited to <300 Km.
#14189365
I find the idea of technology transfer restrictions interesting. In war, there are unexpected losses, supply depots and HQ captured, defectors, etc. So it is not uncommon for small arms, vehicles and even advanced equipment being captured by the enemy. Defectors also happen in times of piece (Korean defectors), special operations have failures (that special Blackhawk remaining in Pakistan), and there are times when allies drop the ball (US secret propeller design was given to Japan, and they in turn sold it to the Soivets/Russia) or outright steal (Soviet avionics stripped out by the Chinese as Soviet equipment was being shipped through China during Vietnam).

I'm curious then, does this have an affect on more then just what is sold, but what is even deployed or developed?
#14189712
I'm curious then, does this have an affect on more then just what is sold, but what is even deployed or developed?


In the case of deployment then yes certainly, you mention Vietnam, well the Soviet Union refused requests from the region for the deployment of the S-125 anti-aircraft system due to the fears surrounding Chinese espionage. Also operational restrictions on certain modes of operation (such as the combat frequencies of the radar) will be present during peacetime to maintain secrecy.

Not sure of any cases where this has affected what has been developed, cost and the grand plan are what stops development here rather than concern it might be compromised. Though perhaps there is an argument here when states cease development of Biological, Chemical and Nuclear weapons out of a fear of (in part) proliferation.
#14221051
Siberian Fox wrote:I don't know about Australia or New Zealand, but for NATO members I don't think it's practical


Australia and New Zealand have such close defence links with the UK, US and Canada that I can't imagine it would be practical on a large scale either. For example:

ABCA Armies (formally, the American, British, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand Armies' Program) is a program aimed at optimizing interoperability and standardization of training and equipment between the armies of the United States of America, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, plus the United States Marine Corps and the Royal Marines. Established in 1947 as a means to capitalize on close cooperation between the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada during World War II, the program grew to include Australia (in 1963) and New Zealand (as an observer from 1965, with full membership in 2006).


AUSCANNZUKUS is a naval Command, Control, Communications and Computers (C4) interoperability organization involving the Anglosphere nations of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.


The Air and Space Interoperability Council (ASIC) is a formal five nation military organisation with a mandate to enhance coalition warfighting capability through air and space interoperability. Member nations are those within the Five Eyes community [United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand]


The Technical Cooperation Program (TTCP) is a long standing international organisation concerned with cooperation on defence science and technology matters, including national security and civil defence. Its membership comprises Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US).


I imagine that Moscow or Beijing would be dubious about handing over technology to an Anglosphere bloc which shares extremely close defence ties.
#14225407
This is certainly an interesting question.

Could Australia or New Zealand potentially buy Sukhoi, the J-10


Yes, certainly. I don't know about the sukhoi export models, but the export variant of the J-10 is the JF-17 thunder, which is sutiable for pakistan but about 50% the performance characteristics of the J-10 and half the cost.

-Chengdu J-10 is a superior fighter in performance. For example, the J-10 has a maximum speed of Mach 2.2 while the JF-17 has a top speed of only Mach 1.6.

-The service ceiling for the J-10 is 18,000m. For the JF-17, the service ceiling is only 16,920m.

-The J-10 is a multirole fighter with an useful load of 6,000kg. The JF-17 is a light fighter with an useful load of 3,000kg.

-The Chengdu J-10 is a fully indigenous aircraft with the WS-10A engine available. The JF-17 has various foreign components. Thus, a J-10 is not subject to foreign embargo or delayed delivery.

-China is shifting production to the Chengdu J-10B, which is partially stealthy (e.g. RAM-coated cockpit canopy and DSI inlet). Therefore the J-10 may come as a new export variant soon.


Speaking of cost, at $20 million (fully loaded) you could acquire 100 JF-17's for just $2 billion, or 100 J-10's for $4 billion. Well within the yearly procurement range of the RAAF. What's more brand new export equipment from the east comes in prefab kits, and would be assembled here, perfect for kick starting our own advanced indigenous jet fighter industry.

But naturally this country is run by a bunch of braindead fuckwits. I think a huge part of the 'monkey-model' moniker is not just about the export models of eastern hardware being gimped, but it has earned that due to the incompetence of the regimes that utilised them. Such countries were filled with dumb cunt chimp fucks unable to even produce the ammo required for this kind of hardware (iraq and it's tank shells come to mind). But Australia has an educated industrial base and it could easily handle maintaining and using such hardware properly, instad of being so dependent on overpriced US dipshit hand-me-downs which come with ludicrous conditions. The one think the ADF has gotten half-right is our navy, which is sourced from europe. The US is a terrible military source, unless you're a bloodsucking piece of shit leech like zionist Israel.

We’d all best hope she is wrong. She's not righ[…]

"Considering our other exchanges, I'm not sur[…]

Meet the Machine That Drives the Environmental Mo[…]

Election 2020

@annatar1914 more on topic of the thread, how's[…]