Countries with weapons from U.S. and Russia

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: thooks
I'm confused.

Does the United States Government manufacture jet fighter planes?


Congress approves the sale of military arms like fighter jets. Some manufacturers push Congress to approve a sale to a friendly ally so they can keep the production lines going longer. Otherwise on an older line, they have to shut it down and it costs more to start it up again.

Sometimes that blows up in their face like the F-14 sales to Iran. They were considered an ally until the revolution. Someone else could probably comment better, but it was a top line fighter that the US only exported to Iran. The US eventually shredded the F-14 so spare parts wouldn't fall into Iran's hands, but they're still flying the plane.

 

[Claud]

Originally Posted By: Al
Our stuff is the best (generally) Those chat can afford our stuff buy ours. If allowed


I would qualify that.
USA made weapons are excellent provided they are properly maintained by trained personnel.
However crude but simple and reliable is just the thing that terrorist and paramilitary organisations want.
The former Soviet union understood that vary well. Their philosophy was making weapons suitable for a poorly trained army.
The unsophisticated but rugged T34 tank that could be churned out in large numbers was the nemesis of the German army on the Eastern Front in WW2.
The AK47 is a poor weapon in every dynamic except it will work after neglect and abuse that would render a NATO grade weapon useless.

 

[Gimpy1]

Mexico uses the Igla SA-18 Manpad as well as a bunch of other Russian small arms, along with a mixed bag of Eropean, US and South American small arms. Crazy stuff.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Don't forget the English, French, Germans, or Swedish. English, French and German weapons are sold world-wide, Swedish as well, though to a smaller extent. Many excellent ships, airplanes, small arms, missile systems and communications systems come from manufacturers besides the US and Russia.


Hey, don't forget the Aussies (and the Chzech for that matter, and Norinco)....

Per Aussie

https://www.gumtree.com.au/s-dogs-puppies/lithgow-bathurst-orange/puppy/k0c18434l3002248r50

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
It's never that simple. Price is one component of purchase decisions for weapons. Performance specifications, life-cycle cost, political incentives, economic incentives, and perhaps a few things that I've not considered, all factor into the purchase decision...not just cost...


A lot more politics than the rest.

I know a couple Military guys in Taiwan and they were complaining that they were buying useless for their situation stuff from US as a political favors. Their internal report was if China were to invade, their military can last 7 days at most. Spending hundreds of millions buying a few Apache with night vision helmets were really not useful at all.

 

[Linctex]

Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Sometimes that blows up in their face like the F-14 sales to Iran. They were considered an ally until the revolution. Someone else could probably comment better, but it was a top line fighter that the US only exported to Iran. The US eventually shredded the F-14 so spare parts wouldn't fall into Iran's hands, but they're still flying the plane.


We never ever export the REALLY GOOD stuff.
The good radar, the good tracking systems, etc.
We keep that stuff for us.

Those iranian F-14 aren't really flyable anymore.
Besides - It is isn't the airframe or engine that make a good fighter...

....it's the electronics suite.
Really.

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
Originally Posted By: Al
Our stuff is the best (generally) Those chat can afford our stuff buy ours. If allowed


Then the bad guys overrun those that we sold weapons to and now use our own weapons to shoot as us overseas.


That's usually only true if they can't get enough Kalashnikovs. (And Toyota HiLux, of course.) Still, if your clients are likely to drop the guns and run, its maybe not a good idea to give them guns that work when they are sandy.

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: Astro14
It's never that simple. Price is one component of purchase decisions for weapons. Performance specifications, life-cycle cost, political incentives, economic incentives, and perhaps a few things that I've not considered, all factor into the purchase decision...not just cost...


A lot more politics than the rest.

I know a couple Military guys in Taiwan and they were complaining that they were buying useless for their situation stuff from US as a political favors. Their internal report was if China were to invade, their military can last 7 days at most. Spending hundreds of millions buying a few Apache with night vision helmets were really not useful at all.


Think thats a rather special case, since almost everyone is too scared of the PRC to supply Taiwan with stuff, so they have little room to negotiate. France supplied some Mirages a while ago but the PRC has got more..er...assertive since then.

Given the flight times and such, I'd have thought vertical takeoff aircraft that can be dispersed and concealed might make a lot of sense. (There have been some token flyoffs from freeways but it seems unlikely they are fully capable, since the freeways are not regularly closed for such exercises.)They might have been a good customer for the Sea Harrier when it was dropped by the RN, but no way would the UK sell them it.

 

[Alfred_B]

Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: Astro14
It's never that simple. Price is one component of purchase decisions for weapons. Performance specifications, life-cycle cost, political incentives, economic incentives, and perhaps a few things that I've not considered, all factor into the purchase decision...not just cost...


A lot more politics than the rest.

I know a couple Military guys in Taiwan and they were complaining that they were buying useless for their situation stuff from US as a political favors. Their internal report was if China were to invade, their military can last 7 days at most. Spending hundreds of millions buying a few Apache with night vision helmets were really not useful at all.


Think thats a rather special case, since almost everyone is too scared of the PRC to supply Taiwan with stuff, so they have little room to negotiate. France supplied some Mirages a while ago but the PRC has got more..er...assertive since then.

Given the flight times and such, I'd have thought vertical takeoff aircraft that can be dispersed and concealed might make a lot of sense. (There have been some token flyoffs from freeways but it seems unlikely they are fully capable, since the freeways are not regularly closed for such exercises.)They might have been a good customer for the Sea Harrier when it was dropped by the RN, but no way would the UK sell them it.


Just look at how the Saudis bought American friendship with a $110 billion weapons purchase. So it happens a lot to grease the palms of our politicians and buy influence.

 

[555]

Thanks for the responses and thank you for answering the questions without getting the thread locked!

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Ducked


Think thats a rather special case, since almost everyone is too scared of the PRC to supply Taiwan with stuff, so they have little room to negotiate. France supplied some Mirages a while ago but the PRC has got more..er...assertive since then.

Given the flight times and such, I'd have thought vertical takeoff aircraft that can be dispersed and concealed might make a lot of sense. (There have been some token flyoffs from freeways but it seems unlikely they are fully capable, since the freeways are not regularly closed for such exercises.)They might have been a good customer for the Sea Harrier when it was dropped by the RN, but no way would the UK sell them it.


It is not really the weapons and volume, but rather the size difference in the economy, man power, logistics, etc.

A nation with 1/5 of the worlds population vs 23M people, both sides with military draft, even if the PRC swim across bare foot, they have enough man power to overwhelm Taiwan after Taiwan used up all the ammos.

Another point is their economy are intertwined now, making a real military invasion almost impossible due to mutually assured destruction on not only both nations (or whatever you call them these days), but the entire world economy. US, Europe, Japan, Russia, etc won't let that happen. So, why bother wasting Billions in USD for weapons?

 

[Alfred_B]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
So, why bother wasting Billions in USD for weapons?


to keep the American market open for Taiwanese products. It's the same thing as China buying our debt.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Ducked


Think thats a rather special case, since almost everyone is too scared of the PRC to supply Taiwan with stuff, so they have little room to negotiate. France supplied some Mirages a while ago but the PRC has got more..er...assertive since then.

Given the flight times and such, I'd have thought vertical takeoff aircraft that can be dispersed and concealed might make a lot of sense. (There have been some token flyoffs from freeways but it seems unlikely they are fully capable, since the freeways are not regularly closed for such exercises.)They might have been a good customer for the Sea Harrier when it was dropped by the RN, but no way would the UK sell them it.


Actually, if I were to design the defense of Taiwan (and nobody asked me, but...), the dispersal of forces would be critical. The PRC can target with ballistic missiles, against which you've got no defense, or cruise missiles, against which you've got limited defense. Either of those weapons can be launched in sufficient number to overwhelm any defenses that might be established in the future. The only way to keep the Taiwanese forces, particularly air forces, intact and capable of offering a meaningful resistance after a first strike is to disperse them, make them difficult to target with precision.

Best airplane for that purpose would be the JAS-39 Gripen. It's a reasonably priced single engine fighter with excellent short field performance, advanced avionics and great flight performance. The Swedish Air Force has long dispersed its airplanes to enable them to survive a Soviet first strike. Small nation next to a superpower...wanting to survive day one of the war and keep up the fight...sound familiar?

Dozens of countries have bought the Gripen. It's a great airplane.

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: Ducked


Think thats a rather special case, since almost everyone is too scared of the PRC to supply Taiwan with stuff, so they have little room to negotiate. France supplied some Mirages a while ago but the PRC has got more..er...assertive since then.

Given the flight times and such, I'd have thought vertical takeoff aircraft that can be dispersed and concealed might make a lot of sense. (There have been some token flyoffs from freeways but it seems unlikely they are fully capable, since the freeways are not regularly closed for such exercises.)They might have been a good customer for the Sea Harrier when it was dropped by the RN, but no way would the UK sell them it.


It is not really the weapons and volume, but rather the size difference in the economy, man power, logistics, etc.

A nation with 1/5 of the worlds population vs 23M people, both sides with military draft, even if the PRC swim across bare foot, they have enough man power to overwhelm Taiwan after Taiwan used up all the ammos.

Another point is their economy are intertwined now, making a real military invasion almost impossible due to mutually assured destruction on not only both nations (or whatever you call them these days), but the entire world economy. US, Europe, Japan, Russia, etc won't let that happen. So, why bother wasting Billions in USD for weapons?


Taiwan is dropping conscription and I don't think the PRC use it in general, probably because they don't need to. There are probably exceptions for special circumstances....



They tried that "swimming barefoot" thing (well, a fishing boat armada) against Kinmen in 1949 and it didn't go too well for them, though they had some bad luck. Opposed amphibious landings are a bit trickier than swimming the Yangtze for the press. Even if you call yourself the Great Helmsman you still need a good boat.

They'd probably do a more professional job today though.

The rest of it seems plausible. Certainly theres not much sense of crisis here, (though Taiwanese are more myopic and fatalistic than most) and Taiwan doesn't seem to be at anything like the state of readiness of, say, Switzerland (I've never been to Sweden).

However, you're essentially saying there won't be war over Taiwan because it wouldn't make sense. Hope you're right, but if the history of warfare teaches us anything, sense doesn't seem to be it.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: Ducked
However, you're essentially saying there won't be war over Taiwan because it wouldn't make sense. Hope you're right, but if the history of warfare teaches us anything, sense doesn't seem to be it.


Yeah, all they have to is use the Chewbacca defense.

 

[Kamele0N]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
Eastern block NATO countries that have old Soviet inventory and newer American arms. But they have been slowly selling the Soviet stuff to Al Qaeda and other islamist extremists in Syria (a billion or so dollars worth a year of Saudi and Qatari funds).


Dont want that topic to get locked...

But just want to comment that it is "not that easy"

regarding who is selling to whom...


And the same goes with a western equipement beeing "overruned" by the rebels...LoL

https://www.total-croatia-news.com/politics/22537-krk-airport-becomes-pentagon-s-airlift-centre

 

[SteveSRT8]

Everybody must have forgotten how the Iraqi army was utterly destroyed despite their Soviet weaponry. Highway of Death ring a bell?

The last time we used cruise missiles over Syria not one single "sophisticated" Soviet anti aircraft missile was even launched against them.

There are some huge differences in training and tactics involving fighter pilots that make our boys markedly superior to anyone. They better have a huge numbers advantage...

 

[Kamele0N]

More detailed article here...

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/croatian-island-airport-becomes-pentagon-hub-10-02-2017

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Everybody must have forgotten how the Iraqi army was utterly destroyed despite their Soviet weaponry.


Few other things about entering that altercation that have been forgotten too...

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Everybody must have forgotten how the Iraqi army was utterly destroyed despite their Soviet weaponry. Highway of Death ring a bell?



You are attacking an enemey that isn't there (See Gulf War 2 The Remake. They're never quite as good, somehow).

No one above has suggested that Soviet era weaponry was more sophisticated or generally more effective than then-current US/Western weaponry, but if they had, the ability to shoot up an effectively undefended traffic jam would be a pretty poor demonstration of western superiority.