Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Even in small quantities Western European countries did use some Soviet equipment but only in small amounts.
Does Russia or China have such restrictions?
I'm curious then, does this have an affect on more then just what is sold, but what is even deployed or developed?
Siberian Fox wrote:I don't know about Australia or New Zealand, but for NATO members I don't think it's practical
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).
Could Australia or New Zealand potentially buy Sukhoi, the J-10
Goolagle is censoring criticism of the Chicom gula[…]
I don't believe Jeff Sessions is mentally retarde[…]
That's a lot of hate. I'd rather spend my time do[…]
a little on the nose there, Donna.