Spetsnaz using Western optics

Russian MiG 29's flew for years with Garmin 100 GPS systems screwed onto the side of the glareshield. They are not shy about buying what works. Why wouldn't they buy the best? We do.


Willie

.

Says something about the effectiveness of ITAR.

JustinJ said:

and through what channels they're acquired.

Click to expand...

European commercial dealers.
http://www.tactical-kit.co.uk/eotech-40-c.asp

I own a Russian sniper scope. I understand why they buy American...

Been happening for a while now. I'm sure there are exceptions to ITAR if the right licenses are obtained and the right wheels are greased. How do you think most other European forces get US-made equipment?

Eotech yes, but Aimpoint isnt american.

Watch a few YouTube videos of the Moscow Police and you will see them driving around in Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptors.

The last ride Kim Jong-Il took on this Earth was in a box on top of a Lincoln Continental .

If they want it, they will get it ITAR or not.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

through what channels they're acquired.

Click to expand...

American Allies can import military equipment. Once imported they are subject to the export laws of the country they are in.
Israel for example could import Eotechs as a US ally and then export them to whomever they are allowed by the Israeli government.

Yeah, but the old soviet way was to steal it, reverse engineer and then build themselves.

Click to expand...

This makes me recall the story of the Tupolev Tu-4 bomber. A few American B-29 Superfortresses were forced to make emergency landings in Russia during the course of WWII. The Soviets kept the bombers and reverse-engineered them DOWN TO THE SMALLEST BOLTS... IN METRIC!

Thus giving the Soviet Union their first intercontinental nuclear bomber. Elements of the B-29 design can still be found in the modern-day Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack bomber.

Yeah, but the old soviet way was to steal it, reverse engineer and then build themselves.

Click to expand...

The PRC has wrestled that trophy away. The Chinese are the masters at that game.

Liberty1776 said:

I own a Russian sniper scope. I understand why they buy American...

Click to expand...

It's funny you say that - I LOVE the PSO-1 scope.

I was flight crew on C-5s in the air force. First time I saw a Antonov AN-124, I thought they tried cloning my plane from a grainy satellite photo. Same with the IL-76 / C-141, and the AN-12 / C-130.

Funny: If anyone is near Edwards AFB today you will see a MiG flying there. Park at the truckstop just northeast of the base and listen in on your scanner on 132.75 for Cobra Seven-Zero to check in and keep your eyes peeled over the mines when it comes back to the initial in about an hour. Wave! I'm the guy in the front seat....

Form follows function. There's a reason the Buran looks like a STS Orbiter, and a An-12 looks like a Herk, and a Viper looks like a Fulcrum, etc: It's because the form factor fits the mission.


BTW the MiG has navigation lights installed in it that are parts interchangable with Grimes nav lights made in Pennsylvania. We sold them Bell P-63's in WW-II with Grimes lights installed. They made spare parts and then made complete assemblies from those parts. They are still in use today. Simplicity of design? The proximity switches that show flap, landing gear, and speedbrake position on the MiG are the same part number switch that are used for the brake-lights on their military trucks. You want to keep jets running in austere conditions? You might take some lessons from these guys. There's plenty to be learned by studying other engineering systems. I could write a book about Russian aerospace design. Uhh... <sigh>... actually... I have. You just can't buy it in a store.


Who studies who more? Regarding the Russians (not Chinese) we probably study them more, copy them more, and certainly buy more of their stuff today than they do of ours. I bet there isn't a Viper being flown by a Russian at Ramensykoe today. And I wonder why Boeing bought a part of Zvezda (Russian Ejection Seats) and why the factory that built the Mig that I fly is now owned by Sikorsky, and why is the United States the largest purchaser *in the world* of the excellent Russian Mil Helicopters? Maybe it's because no western company builds a heavy lift helicopter with the same capability. We buy them as fast as Mil builds them. We just don't bring many of them back stateside. We bring a few, if you keep your eyes open and know where to look.

And finally, we have no manned space program. None. We gave it up. Nowadays our "astronauts" are cargo carried into orbit by Russians flying the most reliable and most numerous space vehicle design of all time, with over 1900 launches placed into orbit. Compared to their record... we're kidding ourselves.

So, a few Eotech sights for the Russians? That's very small stuff in a big big world.



Willie

.

What an interesting post, Mr. Sutton!

Form follows function. There's a reason the Buran looks like a STS Orbiter, and a An-12 looks like a Herk, and a Viper looks like a Fulcrum, etc: It's because the form factor fits the mission.

Click to expand...

It does, but the Tupolev Tu-4 was a different beast. It was an exact copy of the B-29 (per Stalin's orders), except all parts were rendered in metric rather than imperial units.

Sure. And the LI-2 was a licensed DC-3.

The Rolls Royce Nene was copied from the Brits by the Russians too. Noting that the Westinghouse J-47 in our early jets was also a direct parts-interchangeable copy of it as well.

There's no technology held by anyone that's not studied and copied and drawn upon by anyone who's paying attention. If you're not cheating your not trying to win.


Willie

.

What an interesting post, Mr. Sutton!

Click to expand...

Agreed 100%

Like the old joke (is a joke?): NASA spent millions developing a pen that would work in zero-gravity, the Russians used a pencil

The "we are the greatest" propaganda has been going on my entire life, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Its much worse now, and the delusion is getting down right dangerous as we'll be $20T in debt before Obama is out of office.

Sure. And the LI-2 was a licensed DC-3.

The Rolls Royce Nene was copied from the Brits by the Russians too. Noting that the Westinghouse J-47 in our early jets was also a direct parts-interchangeable copy of it as well.

There's no technology held by anyone that's not studied and copied and drawn upon by anyone who's paying attention. If you're not cheating your not trying to win.


Willie

Click to expand...

Not disagreeing with you.

The Tu-4 was just remarkable case of reverse-engineering - perhaps the greatest ever (compared to the Li-2, which was a licensed copy, or the Buran, which just looked and functioned a lot like the Shuttle orbiter).

The reason NASA uses a pen vs a pencil has everything to do with floating bits of graphite in a space station or capsule being a very bad thing.

^^

Bearing in mind that the Russians figured out before us that the way to reduce fire hazards from floating debris and other flammables is to not use a pure 02 cabin environment. They used a pencil. They let graphite fragments float in the cabin (for a few seconds, after that they are in the screen in front of the fan that pulls the cabin atmosphere into the carbon dioxide scrubbers).

We used a Fisher Space Pen. No graphite.

Their graphite was no problem to them. Why? Cabin environment: They used air. We used pure 0xygen.

What system worked best? You choose: We incinerated three astronauts. They didn't.


Reliability? Just completed one excercise period one of the MiGs today, we ran 27 flights over two and half weeks of flying without any lost flights for maintenance and scored a 100% operational reliability rate. The best other jet in the excercise is proud be at a 70% operational reliability rate.

Russian electro-optics are pretty good. Remember that the MiG-29 pioneered the IRST ball, which used a slaved optical/infrared system integrated to the pilots helmet mounted sight to designate targets. That reduces RADAR emissions and provides a relatively low-observable target designation system (no emitted RADAR signature to detect). They are perfectly able to manufacture state of the art rifle sights. With all of that said, if the Russians are buying Eotech sights, they are showing good taste and pragmatic practicality. Why make what you can buy? I'm still not giving up my Russian LASER rangefinder though: With a range of 10 kilometers (6 miles) if I can't shoot a varmint with a rifle at least I can Lase it and cook it's eyeballs.... (when they say this one isn't eye-safe, they ain't kidding).


Willie

.

We incinerated three astronauts. They didn't.

Click to expand...

\

You may want to check your history they lost WAY more than 3.

My first job on the aircraft carrier was putting the intel library in order. What a mess. It took a long time, but along the way, I picked up an Air Force publication and thumbed through it.

One compelling part was that Soviet systems might be only 60% as good as ours, but they use them to 100% capability. Whereas we use many of our systems at 50% capability.

And the Soviets have 10 times more.

Based on my rather extensive experience, that is rather accurate.

Uhmmmmmm.