Soviet Weapons in NATO Hands

[Feanor]

I've seen plenty of photos of US troops posing with AKs, SVDs, and the like. But recently I've stumbled onto a photo, on a Russian livejournal, claiming that a US-piloted Mi-24 is providing cover for a Swedish convoy in Afghan.

ЧаÑтный руÑÑкий журнал - Ми 24(35) в ÐфганиÑтане

The first two photos. The second two are unrelated.

I've also heard of Canada using leased Mi-8/17 helos for transport roles. There is of course the much talked about sale of Hips to Iraq and Afghan, bought with US money, but this goes a step further. Is this real? Are these regular occurences? What other instances of ex-Soviet or Russian designed military hardware being used by non ex-WarPac members is there in Iraq and Afghan?

 

[kato]

claiming that a US-piloted Mi-24 is providing cover for a Swedish convoy in Afghan.

Have my doubts about that. Probably Polish, they have a couple over there. Possibly ANA. Paint job and armament combo (only rockets on inner pylon) iirc fits for Polish.

As for "Swedish convoy", those are Humvees with gun shields and unarmoured pickups in the pic with the Hind. That convoy's ANA with a 99% chance.
At most the Swedish OMLT team would be involved, but they're not in the second pic with the Hind. Would be in RG-32M, those in the first pic. Completely different wheelbase from a Humvee. Terrain's noticably different too...

 

[Feanor]

Certainly not the most reliable of sources, but I was hoping to have a conversation more about other similar instances. Besides the obvious irony of this, is this a real trend? The penetration of western militaries with eastern hardware? I mean aside from the Greeks getting SAMs, and BMPs, there haven't been many major purchases by NATO members. Even the Germans quite decisively disposed of the T-72Bs and MiG-29s, even though they could have kept them on should they have desired.

EDIT: On the flip side is this simply because Soviet weapons are so prevalent, and at individual moments it's convenient to use them, but only on the accidental and incidental level, rather then any sort of trend?

 

[NICO]

From what I have heard of the exploits of the Mil8/17 in Africa from battle damage sustained to virtually no maintenance to speak of and still keep flying, we should look at Russian material when appropriate. In places like Afghanistan, flying Mils is probably just as safe as flying US or European helicopters and for the locals, it is a lot cheaper to buy and maintain anyways.

 

[Twinblade]

From what I have heard of the exploits of the Mil8/17 in Africa from battle damage sustained to virtually no maintenance to speak of and still keep flying, we should look at Russian material when appropriate. In places like Afghanistan, flying Mils is probably just as safe as flying US or European helicopters and for the locals, it is a lot cheaper to buy and maintain anyways.

Not unless you intend to deal with their wonderful logistics support

OTOH does anyone here have pics of fishbeds used as aggressors by USAF (i have read several reports regarding their existence but never seen any)

Doesn't Lufthwaffe still own a dozen or so fulcrums ? IIRC only a few were sold to Poland.

 

[NICO]

Not unless you intend to deal with their wonderful logistics support

OTOH does anyone here have pics of fishbeds used as aggressors by USAF (i have read several reports regarding their existence but never seen any)

Doesn't Lufthwaffe still own a dozen or so fulcrums ? IIRC only a few were sold to Poland.

Short video of Mig21 in USAF colors, interesting to note the size difference between it and the chase Phantom.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reVZ9aPYi9A"]YouTube - ‪Evaluation of MiG-21 By USAF‬‏[/nomedia]


I remember seeing a picture of a Mig23 in USAF color, never have seen the reportedly MIG29 and SU27 that are supposed to exist out there. As far as I know, their pictures haven't been released.

 

[Feanor]

Not unless you intend to deal with their wonderful logistics support

I haven't heard of Rosvertol having post-sale support issues. Do you have info on that?

 

[Twinblade]

Short video of Mig21 in USAF colors, interesting to note the size difference between it and the chase Phantom.

YouTube - ‪Evaluation of MiG-21 By USAF‬‏


I remember seeing a picture of a Mig23 in USAF color, never have seen the reportedly MIG29 and SU27 that are supposed to exist out there. As far as I know, their pictures haven't been released.

Thanks, there are couple of su-27's in private ownership in US as well.

I haven't heard of Rosvertol having post-sale support issues. Do you have info on that?

I heard Croatian and Indian BSF's mi-17's were grounded but it was probably a result of bad maintenance than logistics.

 

[kato]

Not unless you intend to deal with their wonderful logistics support

Can't be that much worse than US support, where you have to wait a couple months for them to ship a set of special screws for a CH-53 overseas because they have to do them by hand since the production lines for the original frame types were closed...

Doesn't Lufthwaffe still own a dozen or so fulcrums ? IIRC only a few were sold to Poland.

23 out of 24 Fulcrums were donated to Poland - all except for 29+03, which ended up in the Gatow Air Force Museum. Considering the frames needed a zero hour reset the phase-out happened not a year too soon.

Even the Germans quite decisively disposed of the T-72Bs and MiG-29s, even though they could have kept them on should they have desired.

Germany kept the MiG-29 in service for 14 years, other systems like An-26, Mi-8, Let L-410 for 8-10 years. Pretty much until the framelifes were exhausted in each case. Mi-24 were initially kept but relatively quickly struck as their operational cost was considerably higher than that of the PAH-1. Certain ground equipment was also kept - in particular Soviet MANPADS.

The T-72 were disposed of because Germany was and is under treaty limits regarding tank numbers. This limit is lower than what even West Germany alone had at the time. Out of about 6,000 tanks in service and depots at the time (Leo 2, Leo 1, M48, T-72, T-55), they kept the Leo 1 in addition to the Leo 2 because there's a very large amount of Leo 1 chassis use for other purposes, meaning easier logistics; for example some 700+ recovery tanks in service at the time were Leo 1 based. Or in other words, Germany couldn't have kept the T-72 without significant costs.

Worked the same way with other stuff. Artillery? Well, if we get rid of all calibers except 155mm, we sure as hell don't take on 152mm or 122mm. IFVs? Initially kept (castrated BMP1), then struck once troop numbers were reduced. APCs? We had 2,500 M113. No need for BTR-60 and BTR-70.

 

[PCShogun]

Well, "Top Gun" currently has some German Fulcrums (MiG-29's) as aggressors for training, but not sure that is what the original post wanted to hear about.

Why do Western Soldiers use Russian equipment? Well, many use Russian equipment because that is what they are training the ANA with. Initially, the ANA stated that they would only be supplied with Soviet designed ordnance. Made sense really, as soviet equipment is much easier to obtain in that part of the world and, frankly, is easier to maintain for the rather uneducated ANA troopers. As an attached adviser, carrying an AK variant has advantages.

One, its what the troops you are training will be using.

Two, enemy snipers start to realize that the guy with the M4 is the American and all the others are ANA, aka Muslim brothers. Shoot the guy with an M4 and go see Allah, guaranteed.

Also, being an avid collector of both old and new Soviet weapons, I can tell you that the Soviet stuff works! It will kill you just as well as anything made in the west. It goes bang; it goes boom, and anything hit will die. At the range of engagement seen in Afghanistan, the heavier soviet AK-47 rounds actually penetrate better than the 5.56 NATO rounds.

Anyway, I have deviated. My answer is this. If the ANA is going to be equipped with Soviet gear and the West is taking responsibility for training them, then we must use that gear in theater. It makes sense for the two reasons above. It shows our allies that we can use their stuff and that we can show them how to use it also, and it shows the enemy that they cannot differentiate us from our ANA allies when on patrol.

 

[T.C.P]

What happened to the Mig-29s that the US bought from Moldova.

 

[PCShogun]

What happened to the Mig-29s that the US bought from Moldova.

Last information I had on the Moldovian Mig-29's was that they were disassembled and in storage. These particular Mig-29's were nuclear capable, and the U.S. purchased them to keep them out of the Iranian hands. Interesting, Valery Pasat, external relations advisor to the chief of RAO UES, ex-defense minister and director of Moldova's information and security service, was arrested in 2005 for apparently "abuse of authority" when concluding the sales agreement for 21 MiG aircraft with the USA. The united States apparently got a bargain when purchasing the planes as Moldovia claims they lost $55 million in the deal.

Of the 21 Fulcrums the United States bought, 14 were the frontline Fulcrum C's, which contain an active radar jammer in its spine, six older A's and one B-model two-seat trainer. All were considered to be in "Poor" condition, having basically been left out to rot due to the collapse of their economy.

 

[Seraph]

I've also heard of Canada using leased Mi-8/17 helos for transport roles. There is of course the much talked about sale of Hips to Iraq and Afghan, bought with US money, but this goes a step further. Is this real? Are these regular occurences? What other instances of ex-Soviet or Russian designed military hardware being used by non ex-WarPac members is there in Iraq and Afghan?

usage of ex-WarPac hardware for transport seems to be somewhat common. An-124 Ruslan transport planes, for example, are often chartered for military transports (since not all nations can afford the luxury of the USA's airlifting capabilities, and/or access to the EU's airlift command). similarly, Mil Mi-26 helicopters have been chartered by coalition forces in Afghanistan for heavy lift jobs (see attached image, though I wouldn't know the circumstances of that particular transport).

With that said, ex-WarPac hardware organically integrated into armed forces (both air and ground) is few and far between, although quite a few pieces have made it into Western arsenals at some point, mainly for OPFOR and/or technical analysis purposes. when the Iron Curtain fell and ex-WarPac materiel became available in suitable numbers, Western arsenals were generally already well-stocked with NATO arms. incorporating ex-WarPac gear into said arsenals would've been not only a logistical nightmare, but would've also usually meant a capabilities downgrade, as the more easily accessible/purchasable tanks/planes/etc. were quite often "monkey models".

 

[Feanor]

This does make sense, though we do have the example of Greece acquiring newly built Russian gear, as well as used stuff, but they seem to be an outlier.

Though it seems strange to go through the complexities of leasing Mi-17s from an iirc MoD owned company to use in Afghan, rather then outright purchasing them, and accepting them into service.

 

[apd1004]

Going back to the original post in reference to the Mi-24 (Mi-35) being piloted by US pilots, I know that during my tour in Afghanistan (2009-2010), there was a US OMLT that was mentoring ANA pilots on the Mi-35. A couple of them landed at my FOB one day along with a couple of Mi-17's. The US IP's, however, were piloting the Mi-17's and the ANA pilots were totally in control of the Mi-35's. The OMLT that is partnered with the ANA Aviation is not always US, but is rotated among participating NATO nations.

The job of an OMLT/ETT is to mentor/teach/coach the ANA and you must be familiar with the ANA equipment to be able to accomplish the mission. Since the ANA is mostly equipped with Soviet weapons, you will see a lot of NATO soldiers using Soviet equipment. Obviously with aircraft, that means becoming qualified to fly that aircraft.

Also, many NATO nations are former Warsaw Pact nations and still use Soviet equipment, although many of them are transitioning or have transitioned to western equipment. My OMLT was partnered with the Hungarian Army as part of the Ohio National Guard partnership program, and the Hungarians of course still use mostly Soviet weapons.

I would say that the Mi-35 in the picture from the Russian website in the original post is most likely one of the ANA Mi-35's, possibly with US IP's.

I have photos of the ones that landed at my FOB, but since this is my first post I am unable to include them. :frown

Cheers

 

[Feanor]

Welcome to defencetalk I see you're new here, if you upload the pictures to an external site like photobucket, and give me a link, I will gladly post them here for you.

 

[apd1004]

Here you go. Should just be able to copy these right into your browser.

i31.photobucket.com/albums/c373/apd1004/IMG_33701024x768.jpg

i31.photobucket.com/albums/c373/apd1004/IMG_33631024x768.jpg

Pictures were taken January 2010.

Cheers

 

[Feanor]

Here you go. Should just be able to copy these right into your browser.

i31.photobucket.com/albums/c373/apd1004/IMG_33701024x768.jpg

i31.photobucket.com/albums/c373/apd1004/IMG_33631024x768.jpg

Pictures were taken January 2010.

Cheers

Excellent photos, thank you very much for contributing.

Out of curiosity, are you a current or former US military member?

 

[apd1004]

Current US military. Army National Guard, temporarily on full time status.

Not sure if those pictures you posted were supposed to be the ones I posted links to, but what I see are 2 identical pictures of the SCAR rifle.

Cheers

 

[Feanor]

Current US military. Army National Guard, temporarily on full time status.

Not sure if those pictures you posted were supposed to be the ones I posted links to, but what I see are 2 identical pictures of the SCAR rifle.

Cheers

They were supposed to be but there is a minor technical problem, that we're dealing with right now. I left them up so that Webmaster can see what the issue looks like.