415 BMP-3 and 35-50 BMP-3F for GREECE

[Waylander]

That doesn't change the fact that I think it is a bad idea to buy russian equipment if one is a NATO country (With the partial exception for former WarPac countries now being part of NATO).

For sure if the US denies exports one has to search for alternatives but there are also other western sources.

 

[merocaine]

That doesn't change the fact that I think it is a bad idea to buy russian equipment if one is a NATO country (With the partial exception for former WarPac countries now being part of NATO).

For sure if the US denies exports one has to search for alternatives but there are also other western sources.

Does NATO still consider war with Russia a realistic senario? The only way the Greeks would be worried about getting spares is if they went to war with Russia! Considering the very friendly relations between the two countries I can't see it happening.
I think your just annoyed they did'ent go for the Marder

 

[dk706]

As Petros said Greece already has the experience of integrating Russian systems into its military structure and they managed to make them work in harmony with nato systems. an example of that is S300/PAC-2/tor-m1/Improved hawk in the unified air defense system. I don't think that spare parts will be an issue for two reasons. Primarily because the relations between the two countries are excellent and the momentum seems to be that they will continue to evolve that way and secondly because Greece through the extended industrial cooperation that is supposed to receive will be able to produce internally some of those spares and most certainty ammo.

What is extremely interesting is that this program brakes a 3.5 years stalemate in the Greek weapons procurement programs and it leads the way for other programs like the APC with main contenders the Patria and the BTR-90 the new frigate program with main contenders Freda and Meko D new air defence systems that seem to be going towards russia with the Bak-m1 and finally the most important of all the new fighter with Eurofighter Rafale F35 and Su-35 that in my opinion is probably leaning towards the Eurofighter.

From all this we can see a resent tendency towards russian weapons and the most striking is the possibility of a nato airforce having Su-35.
How difficult will be to intergrate such a system in a nato aiforce?
I my opinion it will never happen at least with greece.

 

[Tracer]

Whatever about add-ons such as ERA, the price still does seem excessive. How much more would CV90s be? There are still questions about the effectiveness of the armour - the ERA may be fine but underneath you have light aluminium. It's gun may be big but it's low pressure. How safe would you feel with the engine in the back?

 

[Chrom]

That doesn't change the fact that I think it is a bad idea to buy russian equipment if one is a NATO country (With the partial exception for former WarPac countries now being part of NATO).

For sure if the US denies exports one has to search for alternatives but there are also other western sources.

No, you view Russia as one of main threats for NATO. While it is generally true for most countries (and especially for USA, leading NATO country), some countries still view NATO as defence from OTHER, non-russian threats. Greek is one example. I suspect some EU countries will also follow that example - France, Italy, may be even Germany. Contrary, former WarPac countries with common border with Russia, will be very wary and avoid buying russian equipment at all costs.

 

[Chrom]

Whatever about add-ons such as ERA, the price still does seem excessive. How much more would CV90s be? There are still questions about the effectiveness of the armour - the ERA may be fine but underneath you have light aluminium. It's gun may be big but it's low pressure. How safe would you feel with the engine in the back?

Low pressure gun is actually advantage. It allow hitting entrenched infantry and back slopes, plus allow much stronger HE ammo. For everything else there are also 30mm AC and ATGM's.

Armor is indeed a bit weak compared to prime examples like Puma - but look at weight! I mean, for same weight russians can offer BTR-T with tank-like protection...

ERA of course can help against older RPG's and ATGM's.

 

[DavidDCM]

From all this we can see a resent tendency towards russian weapons and the most striking is the possibility of a nato airforce having Su-35.
How difficult will be to intergrate such a system in a nato aiforce?
I my opinion it will never happen at least with greece.

Generally there should be no problem in integrating a Russian fighter into the Nato-airfleet. I'm sure all those former WP-states in eastern Europe still have them and after the reunion Germany had the MiG-29 in service for more than a decade. So if these systems could be integrated into the Nato-airfleet I see no problems why a Su-35 should make any problems.

 

[Chrom]

Generally there should be no problem in integrating a Russian fighter into the Nato-airfleet. I'm sure all those former WP-states in eastern Europe still have them and after the reunion Germany had the MiG-29 in service for more than a decade. So if these systems could be integrated into the Nato-airfleet I see no problems why a Su-35 should make any problems.

There is absolutely no problem to upgrade whatever technic to NATO standards.

There was already Mig-29 upgrade made by russians in one of NATO countries... forget which. There was done some NATO-compliant helo upgrades in former WarPac countries.

 

[eckherl]

Low pressure gun is actually advantage. It allow hitting entrenched infantry and back slopes, plus allow much stronger HE ammo. For everything else there are also 30mm AC and ATGM's.

Armor is indeed a bit weak compared to prime examples like Puma - but look at weight! I mean, for same weight russians can offer BTR-T with tank-like protection...

ERA of course can help against older RPG's and ATGM's.

Are they even building the BTR-T yet.

 

[Chrom]

Are they even building the BTR-T yet.

No, but given large enouth contract...

 

[Waylander]

I don't see it as a disadvantage mainly because of possible direct conflicts between NATO and Russia (Which are still the most possible scenarios for a big style war) but because of the possible problems when somebody has different views about how to handle crisises.
Be it Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iran or some other future problem.

And one has to face that Russia has often enough contrary thoughts about such things than most of NATO.

As for "I am just sad that we didn't sell the Marders".
I wouldn't have started this when Greece would have decided to buy CV90, or another western linked IFV.

 

[merocaine]

don't see it as a disadvantage mainly because of possible direct conflicts between NATO and Russia (Which are still the most possible scenarios for a big style war) but because of the possible problems when somebody has different views about how to handle crisises.
Be it Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iran or some other future problem.

And one has to face that Russia has often enough contrary thoughts about such things than most of NATO.

I understand where your coming from, I would be interested to see the Greek reasoning on this. I could hazard a guess as to why they might not want to be completely relient on NATO kit.

As for "I am just sad that we didn't sell the Marders".
I wouldn't have started this when Greece would have decided to buy CV90, or another western linked IFV.

I was just pulling you leg dude

 

[Waylander]

I understand where your coming from, I would be interested to see the Greek reasoning on this. I could hazard a guess as to why they might not want to be completely relient on NATO kit.

Maybe they think it is better to diversify their equipment in face of a possible future conflict with Turkey were they cannot be sure about which side NATO choses.

I was just pulling you leg dude

No problem.

 

[dk706]

Greece always tried to diversify its sources of military equipment to ensure that at least some of it would have full support under any circumstances. An example of that is the combination of Mirage 2000 and F-16 essentially two procurements that cover the same need and were made at the same time. The thing you have to remember with Greece is that despite it is a nato country it does not take large parts in natos combat military operations at least not in the most controversial s therefore there is no such fear of not getting spares from Russia because of that. Moreover as history has shown and every Greek can tell you is that we fear that in case of a crisis USA will be the one that will not be supplying spares and not Russia. That is because it has happened in the past and the fact that the USA denies to sell critical equipment that we have asked for while Russia is more than willing to provide.

What I am saying is not that Russia is a more trusted and better ally than the US but that greeks are and have to keep their military force independent from any single nation. Moreover we have to remember that large military procurements are not a just a way to improve your military might but they are also a way of doing politics and diplomacy and we have to remember that the choice of the BMP-3 was not made by the army but from the prime minister himself. Anyone who has a clue about contemporary Greek politics will understand the significance of such a decision.

 

[eckherl]

Greece always tried to diversify its sources of military equipment to ensure that at least some of it would have full support under any circumstances. An example of that is the combination of Mirage 2000 and F-16 essentially two procurements that cover the same need and were made at the same time. The thing you have to remember with Greece is that despite it is a nato country it does not take large parts in natos combat military operations at least not in the most controversial s therefore there is no such fear of not getting spares from Russia because of that. Moreover as history has shown and every Greek can tell you is that we fear that in case of a crisis USA will be the one that will not be supplying spares and not Russia. That is because it has happened in the past and the fact that the USA denies to sell critical equipment that we have asked for while Russia is more than willing to provide.

What I am saying is not that Russia is a more trusted and better ally than the US but that greeks are and have to keep their military force independent from any single nation. Moreover we have to remember that large military procurements are not a just a way to improve your military might but they are also a way of doing politics and diplomacy and we have to remember that the choice of the BMP-3 was not made by the army but from the prime minister himself. Anyone who has a clue about contemporary Greek politics will understand the significance of such a decision.

So how does the Army rate the purchase of BMP3s seeings how they had no type of imput in the purchasing.

 

[dk706]

Although the procurement has been a political decision by the prime minister and an official evaluation and competition did not happen it is wrong to say that the army did not have a saying in the buy. There are reports that the IFV was evaluated before the decision and important information was drown from Cyprus that already has the BMP-3 in service and has substantial experience with it. From what i have heard though alot of people in the army were not very happy with the BMP and would prefer other European alternatives and in specific either the PUMA or the CV90 primarily because of their previous experience with the BMP-1 that is extremely bad and they consider it totally useless and secondly because of its weak side armor and the difficulty of disembarking of the infantry team. What in did everyone in the pentagon recognized was its superior firepower the existence of an amphibious version and finally the extremely low cost compared to the competition (about half the price of a cv90 and less than half the price of a Puma in specific although i do not have official data from calculations in a Creek forum BMP 2.9 m CV90 5.5 m and Puma 7 m if i am wrong please correct me.

From this and considering that the funds for the program had been preallocated even the pentagon recognized that due to its price tag the BMP would be able to cover more of their needs. Finally it was of vital importance to the military that the IFVs were delivered in a short period of time and that could not be given from anyone else but the Russians.

 

[kato]

Maybe they think it is better to diversify their equipment

Maybe the problem that they supposedly still owe KMW some 70 million euros, with the German chancellor demanding payment a couple times, also plays into such decisions.

*cough*

 

[dk706]

Its interesting how information is presented in deferent countries... If you are talking about the Leo 2hel deliveries then at least what was out in the Greek press was that the tanks failed to meet the standards specified by the initial deal. In specific the deal was about 170 tanks but 171 tank turrets so that they could test whether indeed it met the standard that it couldn't be penetrated by by a tank armorpiercing round at a specified distance and it failed to do so.
That was the official reason that they were delaying the payment.
Ofcourse we will never know which one of the two is telling the truth...

There also seems to be a problem with the type 214 submarine that is not being accepted by the navy due to claimed technical problems and they are postponing money payments to the shipyards.
In general there seems o be quite a few problems with German systems and they seem to be well substantiated. What i also know though is that the germans have offered some solutions to the problems and the greeks have declined them and that may be indeed because we have funding problems and we try to delay payments...

 

[eckherl]

Although the procurement has been a political decision by the prime minister and an official evaluation and competition did not happen it is wrong to say that the army did not have a saying in the buy. There are reports that the IFV was evaluated before the decision and important information was drown from Cyprus that already has the BMP-3 in service and has substantial experience with it. From what i have heard though alot of people in the army were not very happy with the BMP and would prefer other European alternatives and in specific either the PUMA or the CV90 primarily because of their previous experience with the BMP-1 that is extremely bad and they consider it totally useless and secondly because of its weak side armor and the difficulty of disembarking of the infantry team. What in did everyone in the pentagon recognized was its superior firepower the existence of an amphibious version and finally the extremely low cost compared to the competition (about half the price of a cv90 and less than half the price of a Puma in specific although i do not have official data from calculations in a Creek forum BMP 2.9 m CV90 5.5 m and Puma 7 m if i am wrong please correct me.

From this and considering that the funds for the program had been preallocated even the pentagon recognized that due to its price tag the BMP would be able to cover more of their needs. Finally it was of vital importance to the military that the IFVs were delivered in a short period of time and that could not be given from anyone else but the Russians.

Good information, do you know if the Russians have stated that you will still have swim capability with the ERA package mounted.

 

[eckherl]

Its interesting how information is presented in deferent countries... If you are talking about the Leo 2hel deliveries then at least what was out in the Greek press was that the tanks failed to meet the standards specified by the initial deal. In specific the deal was about 170 tanks but 171 tank turrets so that they could test whether indeed it met the standard that it couldn't be penetrated by by a tank armorpiercing round at a specified distance and it failed to do so.
That was the official reason that they were delaying the payment.
Ofcourse we will never know which one of the two is telling the truth...

There also seems to be a problem with the type 214 submarine that is not being accepted by the navy due to claimed technical problems and they are postponing money payments to the shipyards.
In general there seems o be quite a few problems with German systems and they seem to be well substantiated. What i also know though is that the germans have offered some solutions to the problems and the greeks have declined them and that may be indeed because we have funding problems and we try to delay payments...

You wouldn`t happen to know what type of round was used and what range that it was fired from would you, I will even take a speculation from some of your Army buddies.