Britain buys Russian missiles

#1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...3.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/12/13/ixportal.html

Britain has secretly bought dozens of sophisticated Russian surface-to-air missiles
...
Britain used arms dealers experienced in the Russian market to approach a state-owned arms manufacturer to purchase the system. The missiles and launchers were imported into Britain in an estimated £2.8 million deal.

Ministry of Defence scientists and gunners from the Royal Artillery have test-fired them at UK bases. Britain is thought to be trying to buy another batch of missiles and the test results will be pooled with the Americans.

The SAM flies higher, farther and faster and homes in on images as well as heat, making it capable of taking out Cruise missiles in flight.

It is very rugged, able to survive being submerged in water for 30 minutes or dropped on to a concrete surface from six feet.
These missiles are being produced in Kolomna, small city 100 km South-East from Moscow. Salaries on the plant are not too high. So the UK could support Russian workers.
 
#2
Given that we already have the best (and most expensive) short-range ground based air defence systems in the world (HVM and Rapier FSC), I would think that these are just for evaluation to pinch ideas and look at counter-measures.
 
#3
MikeMcc said:
Given that we already have the best (and most expensive) short-range ground based air defence systems in the world (HVM and Rapier FSC), I would think that these are just for evaluation to pinch ideas and look at counter-measures.


The HVM Lightweight Multiple Launcher (LML)



As I see size and weight are different.
 
#4
Is it just possible the Russians have a better system?

And a bigger customer across the Shatt-al-Arab?
 
#5
KGB_Boy,

That is quite an edited post there. What about...

There are significant fears that the weapon, which can be packed into a golf bag and assembled and fired very rapidly by one person with minimal training, will be targeted at civil and military aircraft.

There are fears that insurgents in Iraq are armed with the missiles. Defence experts have spent the past year experimenting with the shoulder-launched missile in order to protect British aircraft and service personnel.


It is very rugged, able to survive being submerged in water for 30 minutes or dropped on to a concrete surface from six feet.

I think you'll find most military missiles for use in the field are rugged and have to pass environmental and physical shock tests such as these.


best (and most expensive) short-range ground based air defence systems in the world (HVM and Rapier FSC)
Go HVM!!! :)
 
#6
PartTimePongo said:
Is it just possible the Russians have a better system?

And a bigger customer across the Shatt-al-Arab?
I'm not sure. Rather Russian missiles belong to such class of anti-aircraft system that is not present in British army. Sometimes (especially in special operations) it would be effective against hostile helicopters, planes (for example used by drug-dealers).

HVM_Boy said:
KGB_Boy,

That is quite an edited post there. What about...

There are significant fears that the weapon, which can be packed into a golf bag and assembled and fired very rapidly by one person with minimal training, will be targeted at civil and military aircraft.

There are fears that insurgents in Iraq are armed with the missiles. Defence experts have spent the past year experimenting with the shoulder-launched missile in order to protect British aircraft and service personnel.
There are fears but there are no Russian missiles in Iraq in hands of insurgents. Probably it is true that they dream about them.

HVM_Boy said:
It is very rugged, able to survive being submerged in water for 30 minutes or dropped on to a concrete surface from six feet.
I think you'll find most military missiles for use in the field are rugged and have to pass environmental and physical shock tests such as these.
It is true. However different weapon system are 'rugged' in different degrees. No doubt that AKM (or AK-47) is more 'rugged' than many other systems.

best (and most expensive) short-range ground based air defence systems in the world (HVM and Rapier FSC)
As I understand you know it better. So I rely on your opinion. I have only one question: have you personal experience with Russian-made anti-aircraft systems? Probably you will have. And note that British tax-payers would not like expression 'most expensive'.

I would like to add one more point. What do you prefer to see: Russian weapons selling to Iran, China, Syria, Venesuela or to USA, the UK, Germany and so on? In the last case Russia could be easily pressed not to sell spesific weapons to a spesific country.
 
#8
MikeMcc said:
Given that we already have the best (and most expensive) short-range ground based air defence systems in the world (HVM and Rapier FSC), I would think that these are just for evaluation to pinch ideas and look at counter-measures.
My 2p would be that they're just plane cheaper (my I've become cynical of procurement policy
:roll: ............where were those loyalty pills again?)
 
#10
For years, the UK has for years been evaluating both soviet kit and equipment 'bought'/obtained or plain stolen from our perceived 'enemies'. How else does a country develop countermeasures?
 
#11
AndyPipkin said:
Sergey, the US buys or otherwise acquires examples of most Russian kit. In fact, they've had entire squadrons of MiGs in the past.
Andy! The reason is clear enough. But I mean something else. Suppose that USA would propose: we open NATO weapons market. You the Russian could sell your TOR-M1 to East Europen countries (for example) for $2bln. In return you shouldn't sell the system to Iran.

It would be a serious business proposition.

As to the missiles that were sold to the UK then they are the best of that sort. Of course the UK and (moreover) USA are able to develop maybe even better devices. But why? Good money could be saved just now. And what about American weapons for Russia? Why not?

Mutual defence projects could be developed with involvement of the UK, France, Germany and so on.
 
#12
Well obviously Sergey you'd be speaking German if it wasn't for the vast quantitites of US weapons supplied to the USSR in WW2, so yes, there is a precedent.
 
#13
There are fears but there are no Russian missiles in Iraq in hands of insurgents. Probably it is true that they dream about them.


Umm.. Then what shot up the DHL airliner at Baghdad?

We couldn't believe it when an Iraqi showed up at our gate in a pickup truck with a bunch of SAMs in the back that he turned in (For a lot of cash) The Air Force types said they were SA-18s. Iraq wasn't supposed to have any of those, they're as modern as handhelds come.

NTM
 
#15
California_Tanker said:
There are fears but there are no Russian missiles in Iraq in hands of insurgents. Probably it is true that they dream about them.


Umm.. Then what shot up the DHL airliner at Baghdad?

We couldn't believe it when an Iraqi showed up at our gate in a pickup truck with a bunch of SAMs in the back that he turned in (For a lot of cash) The Air Force types said they were SA-18s. Iraq wasn't supposed to have any of those, they're as modern as handhelds come.

NTM
Soviet-made missiles that were sold to 3d countries could be in use. After collapse of Soviet Union significant number of these devices remained in Ukraine, Georgia and so on.

Anyway, has the Administration officially complained to Russian government?
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#16
Rats- for an instant there I thought someone in Scabbeywood had made a ground-breakingly simple decision - buying Russian kit for British Service ?

Visions of SWARMS of Kamov KA52s replacing the occasional WAH64, armed with FISTFULS of Vikr missiles....every man-jack armed with a shiny,new, simple to clean,guaranteed-to-work-having-lain-on-a-stream-bed-for-a-month 7.62 mm Assault rifle (It breaks - throw it AWAY and here's your new one ! ) whilst overhead, our sturdy Airborne troops leap from a sky made dark with SQUADRONS of Antonovs, rather than the lone C17 still flying.....<sigh>

Just another " improving our Counter-measures" Intel-financed aquisition huh ? RATS.....

Le Chevre
 
#17
I agree with Sergey. we must buy that missile system that shot down Owen Wilson in "Behind Enemy Lines" ( Sorry, Gents, day off, on my fifth pint)
 
#18
Sergey there are two launcher versions of the Starstreak, the one you showed and a single shot man portable one, I think.

there's also the SP and Aircraft versions.
 
#19
- Andy! The reason is clear enough. But I mean something else. Suppose that USA would propose: we open NATO weapons market. You the Russian could sell your TOR-M1 to East Europen countries (for example) for $2bln. In return you shouldn't sell the system to Iran.

It would be a serious business proposition.


Your right Sergey a Judean Christian Axis is the way to go given the current Geopolitical situation
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads