|
| NATO Used Military Equipment Exchange Program | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 22 2015, 03:56 PM (139 Views) | |
| Vonar Roberts | Apr 22 2015, 03:56 PM Post #1 |
|
United States Permanent Representative on the Council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization In a effort to standardize NATO equipment across the alliance, and reduce the Eastern European members of the alliance's reliance on Russian and old Soviet equipment I am pleased to announce a new program. This program will enable NATO countries who operate Soviet era, or legacy American equipment to swap out their current legacy hardware for modern American equipment at a 6 to 1 ratio. The hardware gained through this program will then be donated to African democracies in order to help them maintain law and order. Listed below are some possible examples that we would be willing to trade, although it is by no means a exhaustive list.
Please inquire if your government has any questions, or is interested in participating in this program or has equipment that it does not need that is not included in the examples listed above. |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Apr 27 2015, 03:27 AM Post #2 |
![]()
|
There is some interest from Eastern and Central European members, but the ratios make it difficult to balance. With many nations doctrines still largely Soviet influenced, the large numbers of both front-line and reserve equipment would make transition difficult. Most countries are appreciative of the fact that the equipment being offered is of a better quality than their existing stocks, but the Soviet era mantra that 'quantity has a quality all of its own' still holds water with many former WarPac states. They point toward the vast stocks of American equipment that currently sits idly in mothballs and believe that it would be better served passed at more favourable ratios on to them than sitting in the desert gathering dust. Other issues raised include the massive stocks of 100mm/115mm/125mm tank and 122mm/152mm artillery ammunition that these countries possess, as well as the ability to domestically manufacture much of this ammunition. They would like to know whether the US or NATO would fund the retooling of ammunition manufacturing plants in their countries, and whether they could have donations of ammunition and training to ease any movement to NATO standard equipment. Other worries include the likely need to downsize frontline forces if they take fewer replacement vehicles, a difficulty in maintaining complex equipment with poorly trained and educated personnel and a fear that the United States is seeking to shore up NATO because it doesn't want to have to commit to the defence of Europe itself. The following specific responses have been returned. Baltic States Lacking tanks or combat aircraft altogether and with insufficient funding to operate combat aircraft in any meaningful number, the Baltic States are unable to commit to these exchange program. Estonia has indicated it would be open to exchanging its 66 towed howitzers, but doing so at a 6:1 ratio would leave it short of equipment and ammunition, as the 122mm stocks would have to be destroyed. Lithuania took delivery of 54 M101s in 2008, and again, while willing to exchange them, would see its artillery stocks fall from 54 to 9 under the proposed exchange ratio. Bulgaria Would be willing to exchange 250 T-72M1 (currently held in reserve and mostly in a state of disrepair), but doing so for only 40 tanks makes it an unappealing proposition. Would be keen to exchange its 200 MT-12 guns, used mainly in the artillery role, for 36 HIMARS systems, followed by a further exchange of its 100 BM-21 for an additional 18 HIMARS once its artillery units are trained on the system. Czech Republic With only 30 active tanks and 90 in reserve, trading these in for 30 tanks would leave the Czech military short in a crisis. They would like a more favourable exchange ratio. Romania The Romanian government would be willing to exchange almost 600 of its T-55s/TR-580s, but again worries that a tank fleet less than 1/6th of the size would not be adequate to compensate for the loss of numbers. Slovakia Lacks the numbers to make the existing ratio work. To trade in its 22 tanks, it would receive 4 in return. Slovenia Would be prepared to exchange the 84 tanks in its stocks, but would like a better exchange rate. At 6:1, the 19 active tanks in its fleet would not be replaced by exchanging 80+ tanks. |
![]() |
|
| Vonar Roberts | Apr 27 2015, 10:28 AM Post #3 |
|
United States Permanent Representative on the Council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization The American Government is committed to the defense of Europe, especially our Eastern European partners. Our only goal in this program is to reduce the obvious vulnerability of our NATO partners military forces in relying on former Soviet weapons systems that are obsolete and vulnerable to existing Russian military technology. Licenses for the domestic manufacture of ammunition as well as assistance for the funding of the retooling of ammunition manufacturing plants to NATO standards can be made available to our NATO partners. We would be willing to increase the exchange ratio to 4 to 1, and gift higher numbers then the proposed ratio on a case-by case basis. Additionally We would be willing to provide military aid through the Defense Security Cooperation Agency to cover the upgrade of Abrams being exchanged under this program to the M1A2 or M1A3 standard, as well as covering the cost of retooling ammunition manufacturing plants. Aid can also be made available to allow for the purchase of additional equipment so that members have adequate numbers available to compensate for the loss of equipment. Training is of course available for all equipment exchanged through this program free of charge Bulgaria We would be willing to up the number of M1A1's exchanged to Bulgaria to 80 tanks For the HIMARS systems we would be willing to give Bulgaria a round 80 in exchange for the 200 MT-12 guns and the 100 BM-21's. Romania Would 150 Abrams be a more reasonable number? Slovenia At a possible 1 to 4 exchange rate the number of tanks exchanged would increase to 21. Would 25 M1A1 Abrams be more reasonable? Czech Republic Would 50 Abrams be a reasonable exchange for 120? Estonia We would be willing to accept 66 towed howitzers in exchange for 30 M198 Howitzers or 24 HIMARS. We would like to propose that Estonia exchanges it's ZU-23-2 which according to our sources number at almost 100 for 25 MIM-104 Patriot PAC-2, and a number of FIM-92 Stinger surface to air missiles. We are also willing to exchange the recently retired BTR-80 and the BTR-70's for 8 LAV-25's or 10 M2A2 Bradley's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_Land_Forces references for the BTR-80 and BTR-70 |
![]() |
|
| iceviking | Apr 27 2015, 10:45 AM Post #4 |
|
Italian delegate Italy is willing to donate 5 AMX International to each Baltic State. We will also include training and maintenance. |
![]() |
|
| Jos1311 | May 1 2015, 01:48 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Head Admin
|
Various member states have again emphasized that many nations doctrines are still largely Soviet influenced, and that this will have to be addressed in the assistance packages as well. At the same time the higher upkeep cost of Western systems, and the more maintenance intensive character of these systems will present a challenge to these member states, while the logistical trains will also have to be adjusted, which will require expensive investments in ammunition stocks, and the retooling of ammunition manufacturing plants in their countries. Other worries include the likely need to downsize frontline forces if they take fewer replacement vehicles, and a difficulty in maintaining complex equipment with poorly trained and educated personnel. Many other European partners are becoming concerned that this is nothing less than the United States seeking to shore up NATO in Europe, in order to wind down its own positions in Europe. Many also point at the fact that the effort solely focuses upon Eastern Europe, where in comparison military spending levels are higher than in most Western European member states. Bulgaria Has decided to turn down the offer made by Washington concerning the the main battle tanks, as they believe 80 tanks are too few to replace their existing stocks. On the other side they are willing to exchange the their 200 MT-12 guns, and 100 BM-21 systems for a total of 80 HIMARS systems. Czech Republic The Czech Republic is willing to exchange its 120 tanks (of which 90 are reserve units) for 50 M1A1 Abrams tanks, but would ideally request 60, in order to supply 5 tank companies with the tank. Romania The Romanian government has turned down the improved offer, as they view the numbers too little. They point out that their 6 active tank battalions would require some 288 tanks, while they would also require some small numbers for training purposes. The minimum number of tanks for active service has been estimated at 300. Slovenia Slovakia has indicated that a number of 16 tanks would be ideal to equip the country's single tank company. Note
|
![]() |
|
| Sadar | May 3 2015, 01:37 AM Post #6 |
![]()
|
Poland Poland supports this offer to readapt military equipment to new needs, and as per our private conversations will will akcnowledge in due course the equipment to be swaped. |
![]() |
|
| winisle | May 5 2015, 04:11 AM Post #7 |
![]()
|
Sir Adam Thomson UK Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Council The United Kingdom is willing to provide up to 100 FV432 Mk.3 Bulldog in June and December of this year, as well as the following 2 years (for a total of 600 vehicles), in order to facilitate the mechanization of NATO members that so desires. The FV432 Mk.3 Bulldog will be provided for free, and the United Kingdom will offer initial training on their use and maintenance. We just ask that interested NATO members makes the numbers they are interested in known. |
![]() |
|
| Rezim | Jul 7 2015, 08:41 PM Post #8 |
|
His Majesty King Carol I
|
Douglas Edward Lute Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization United States of America The United States would like to state that M1A1 Abrams, M113's and M2A2 Bradley's are available for NATO members if they are interested. As previously stated, we would be willing to provide military aid through the Defense Security Cooperation Agency to cover the upgrade of Abrams being exchanged under this program to the M1A2 or M1A3 standard, as well as covering the cost of retooling ammunition manufacturing plants. stated previously, training will be provided to NATO allies if interested with no additional charges. That said, we are willing to change the exchange rates, or offer them for purchase and donation to meet the requirements of NATO allies. What is currently available: 2000 M1A1 Abrams at $4,000,000/unit, or a 2.5:1 ratio for exchange of older American or Soviet era equipment; 2000 M2A2 Bradley's at $2,000,000/unit, or one of a 2:1 (wheeled) or 1.5:1 (tracked) ratio for exchange of older American or Soviet era equipment; 8000 M113's are available for free for any NATO ally. We took note of issues previously brought forward by Romania and Bulgaria and propose the following: For Bulgaria: 250 T-72 MBT's in exchange for 100 M1A1 Abrams, and the option of purchasing additional M1A1 Abrams at the above rate of $4 million per unit. For Romania: 600 T-55 MBT's in exchange for 240 M1A1 Abrams, and the option of purchasing 50-60 additional M1A1 Abrams for between $200 million and $240 million. Edited by Rezim, Jul 7 2015, 08:54 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jos1311 | Jul 10 2015, 02:03 AM Post #9 |
![]()
Head Admin
|
While both Romania and Bulgaria are interested they are concerned about the far higher upkeep cost of the M1A1 Abrams tanks, and the additional cost involved. Romania has voiced they are willing to exchange the 600 T-55s for the stated number of Abrams tanks, and will not be looking to utilize the option to purchase additional units, as the funding is not available. They also request that Washington will provide a contribution to the additional cost of the agreement, which is estimated at ~$200 million. Bulgaria has voiced their intent to agree to the proposed deal, although the also request assistance in the additional cost that comes to with the deal (estimated at ~$100 mln). At the same time both countries have stated that they intend to replace the tanks within a time period of 2 to 3 years time. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Round 5 · Next Topic » |











12:44 AM Jul 11
