Are new russian weapons up to nato standards?

Shadowalker

Active member
I was just wondering this as the new members of the EU and NATO have to upgrade a lot of there equipment or replace it. Some countries such as the Czech Republic are upgrading there equipment and are buying in new stuff like the JAS39 Gripens. They seem to be under pressure from western governments to buy modern western equipment, but could they still buy russian weapon systems, such as BTR-80/90 and BMP-3 and still comply with NATO standards. Thanks
 
Ya most definetly, thats just my opinion. I think most new russian equipment is well of in an western army, hey, like germany with the MiG-29, or am i wrong?
 
Well germanys given the Migs to Poland but I think S.Korea and some arab countries have russian technology, im wondering if they did it for price, or because its better then rival products?
 
From what I know (although I might be wrong), being "Nato-compatible" is more about making radar systems and whatnot compatible and not about making the actual equipment similar. Although Nato-countries might get an extra-discount by manufacturers in Nato-countries.

Our country isn't in NATO and we have lots of Russian equipment. The good thing about Russian equipment is the durability which means you can basically bury them in sand and when you get them out they still work. The Russians owed several billions to us in the 1990's and they paid us back in weapons systems like the BUK M1 air defense system.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/b/buk.htm

And the fall of DDR made large amounts of extremely cheap equipment like the BTR's & BMP's available.
 
Hegario said:
From what I know (although I might be wrong), being "Nato-compatible" is more about making radar systems and whatnot compatible and not about making the actual equipment similar. Although Nato-countries might get an extra-discount by manufacturers in Nato-countries.

Our country isn't in NATO and we have lots of Russian equipment. The good thing about Russian equipment is the durability which means you can basically bury them in sand and when you get them out they still work. The Russians owed several billions to us in the 1990's and they paid us back in weapons systems like the BUK M1 air defense system.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/b/buk.htm

And the fall of DDR made large amounts of extremely cheap equipment like the BTR's & BMP's available.

yes but Finland is changing the russian equpment with german.
 
Snauhi said:
yes but Finland is changing the russian equpment with german.

I personally don't think we'll ever get rid of all the russian equipment. Sure we bought some Leopards and some of our field artillery is also German but russian equipment is cheaper and perfectly suitable for our environment.
 
Is it now in the case of finland, czech republic, poland etc. that the russian technology is all going to be replaced by german,french, british, swedish etc. equipment or is russia equipment going to be used because it has served them well in the past and will in the future?
 
Shadowalker said:
Is it now in the case of finland, czech republic, poland etc. that the russian technology is all going to be replaced by german,french, british, swedish etc. equipment or is russia equipment going to be used because it has served them well in the past and will in the future?

I think that most of the newer Nato-countries are not yet in the economic condition to renew their military equipment, so I'd reckon that they will make their existing equipment & command structure Nato-compliant. Don't know if the new Nato-countries are allowed to buy newer russian equipment thought.

Even if Finland were to join Nato in the future, I'd doubt it if we'd ever for example change from 7.62mm to 5.56Nato. It's simply not as usable as 7.62 here in our environment. And western european weapons systems don't exactly fare well in our environment. For example the Crotale NG has some pretty serious reliability issues in the arctic areas.
 
I think that modern Russian equipment is very much up to NATO standard. In some ways I think it's even better. A Russian fighter jet doesn't need the runway brushed of for every liitle object. A Russian Navy ship can run on almost every kind of oil.

Russian euqipment is'nt usually that sophisticated but they do work well in combat.

I've said it before never underestimate the Russians.
 
Uhhh yes Russian aircraft need to airway brushed. I assume their landing gear is made of the same steel and rubber that American planes are made of.
 
The perfect example of russian military equipment is the venerable UAZ-469 jeep. There are rumors in the finnish army that once when a bunch of mechanics took it totally apart, they said that according to every law of mechanics the bloody thing should even be able to start, plus that they found three extra parts for which there was not any use for. :) Nevertheless it's quite warm in wintertime, ridiculously easy to fix, and you can get it run on low-grade fuel. I've even heard that you can get it to run on lampoil. Can you say the same thing for your Hummers & Land Rovers? :D

Russian weapons are rugged and extremely durable and reliable. I'd take an AK74 anytime over some ultra-modern american assault-rifle made of plastic.
 
as for russian vehicles, i garantee that they are made for use in hardest terrains possible,since i happen to own 2 russian(lada niva,GAZ-63) vehicles,i am aware of their offroad capabilities.And as for UAZ,i know it pulled out rovers from mud in kosovo
 
*Snort*...I think by now the Navy has had plenty of time to develop a counter for this weapon. That article does not mention the Phalanx I block II and Phalanx IIs that have been installed on Navy vessels, nor the F-14s with Phoenix missile capability that are intended for use against missiles and aircraft from a range of over 100 miles. If that doesn't get em, well, I'm sure there's something aboard those ships that we don't know about that'll catch a Sunburn... :D :rambo: :D
 
Runway sweper?

Kozzy Mozzy said:
Uhhh yes Russian aircraft need to airway brushed. I assume their landing gear is made of the same steel and rubber that American planes are made of.

Yes they probably are but that is not the point the air intake on some of the migs are closed and the air is suck in from the top of the aircraft during landings and takeoff so that they can take of from un swept runways. And id also want to point out that al swedish aircraft descent need that mutch sweeping ither just pick up the big nuts and bolts and your in business thats because we youse plain roads to land on if necessary
 
c/LtCdr said:
*Snort*...I think by now the Navy has had plenty of time to develop a counter for this weapon. That article does not mention the Phalanx I block II and Phalanx IIs that have been installed on Navy vessels, nor the F-14s with Phoenix missile capability that are intended for use against missiles and aircraft from a range of over 100 miles. If that doesn't get em, well, I'm sure there's something aboard those ships that we don't know about that'll catch a Sunburn... :D :rambo: :D
they have its an aurstralian , i believe, company called metal storm. very interesting company.
actually the goalkeeper seems to have a better record and is better overall. i mean 20mm vs 30mm? 3000 vs 4200 RPM?
another point is that those weapons are the ships "last defence".
to point out a tiny detail , i love the F14 BTW, the F14 is not on any aircraft carriers and they dont have aircraft carriers with every ship in the fleet.
this thing flies low over the sea at super sonic speeds.
 
Depends.
They're definately good enough.
South Korea got some Russian equipment because they were dirt cheap and there was some other story to it... like some kind of compensation for something so instead of paying in cash they paid in some hardware.
The Mil Hip helicopter and the Russian jeep are the obvious Russian equipment in South Korea's posession.
They weren't picked for quality but the fact they could be gotten cheaper than its own weight in dirt.
 
Back
Top