Aloha Everyone!!

I'm not sure if this is the right forum to ask this but does anyone know if former Warsaw Pact countries such as Hungary, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, and Romania (to name a few) have had any discussions about "acquiring" new Western equipement?
Thank You in Advance!!!

Kurt

Kurt-- I am involved with some prorgrams in this area. It would be my opinion that the latest members of NATO will not meet the standardization expectations of the original alliance members. Simple reason, they cannot afford it . How they would mesh their equipment with ours' for example is a true challenge. This is exemplified by the Polish contribution to the Iraq effort. More liaison personnel and land line use that interface of equipment. Currently, there is no compelling reason for them to dump the mass (excess) of Warsaw Pact items for European/US equipment. The former East Germany, for example, has enough spare parts to keep the others in tall cotton for a long time. This is not to say they do not inherit or buy selected items, but there is no mass rush to acquire US materiel.
Hope this helps
DJ

It doesn't have to be US materiel, though. I do believe the Poles are buying Leopard2A4s from the Dutch.

Of course, you are right for most of them. There is no compelling reason to greatly upgrade their ssytems in the short term. In the longer term they will, as their individual defence needs dictate, probably join European consortia as new systems are being developed.

I could see the Czech Republic and Poland both joining teams when a replacement for the Leopard 2 is being desinged/manufactured. The French seem to prefer to go it alone and then sell their designs straight out and while the Brits appear to be willing to partner, their doctrinal focus for AFVs tends to be enough different than most of the other members of NATO to virtually assure that their vehicle design efforts remain unpartnered and also unexported, to a large degree. For a country that desings such good vehicles, by and large, the Brits can't seem to sell them at all. Perhaps it's cost more than doctrinal design features, but it's sure that something is getting in the way of them exporting more.

Paul

I think I can shed some light on this. Our MBT's (Chally 2) use a main armament that only we and Oman use, therefore ammunition for that weapon is produced only for us and therefore it's expensive. This is in relation to say US/German ammunition which is used by anyone with an L55/M256 gun (US, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, Australia, Canada and the list goes on). Should the re-gunning of Challenger's with the Rheinmetall L55 gun go ahead, and last I heard it was seriously being considered and having seen the trials vehicle in Lulworth this will alleviate this problem. The major drawback to the lethality improvement program is the total re-design of the ammunition stowage as it's designed for 2 peice ammunition. Though the savings made in ammunition costs will eventually make the changes cost effective I would imagine.

Max

Thank you guys (DJ, Paul, Max) for your much useful insight and dialogue.

Kurt