Will the Ukrainian army go to the standards of NATO?

31

NATO alignment


After 2014, the Ukrainian authorities increasingly began to declare their desire to join NATO. The Ukrainians themselves on this score were divided into two opposing camps.





The desire to join the alliance remains unfulfilled, but the government of the Ukrainian state is seeking to transfer the armament of its troops to NATO standards.

The main argument against Ukraine’s entry into the organization is the demand for a transition to uniform standards in terms of military equipment and weapons, the structure of troop control and training.

For example, if we talk about small arms weaponsthen instead of the usual 9x18 mm caliber for pistols and 5,45x39 and 7,62x54 mm for machine guns, machine guns and rifles, 9x19, 5,56x45 and 7,62x51 mm standards should come.

As noted by opponents of the country's entry into the ranks of the organization, the transition to uniform standards in armaments is very expensive. Moreover, it can cause a crisis in the Ukrainian military-industrial complex, because it is used to arm completely different standards. And to transfer military enterprises to the production of a NATO sample will cost an even greater amount.

In fact, even if a state becomes a member of NATO, it is given a certain time to adapt, and often it uses the weapons that are available. In particular, this applies to Eastern European states that were previously members of the Warsaw Pact and had their own standards (which, by the way, Ukraine uses), as well as a large number of Soviet-style weapons.

In order not to be unfounded, a few examples can be given. In particular, the Hungarian army, which has been a member of NATO since 1999, uses Tanks T-72 as the main combat vehicles, and Romania, which joined NATO in 2004, only recently announced its intention to exchange Soviet Kalashnikov assault rifles with Italian Beretta ARX-160 assault rifles, which, by the way, can be used under Soviet ammunition 7,62 , 39xXNUMX millimeters.

Thus, it is quite obvious that all the arguments of opponents of Ukraine joining the alliance about the need for rearmament and the possible collapse of the national defense industry have no basis.

It should be noted that along with rearmament under uniform standards, a kind of reverse process takes place: many countries use NATO weapons, not being members of the alliance. This process is typical for Ukraine.

For example, the structures of the Ministry of the Interior and the National Guard were the first on the path to organization. Almost four years ago, in the 2015 year, A. Avakov made a statement about the purchase of US-made Barrett sniper rifles of 12,7x99 caliber of millimeters for the needs of the National Guard.

On the other hand, it should be noted that in almost all countries, police structures and special forces are much more flexible in choosing weapons and can even use samples that are not officially in service with the army. Due to this, the leadership of the National Guard under the leadership of S. Knyazev has the opportunity to declare that his department intends to move from the shortened Kalashnikov assault rifle and Makarov pistol to the usual weapons for the police.

In search of a replacement for Kalashnikov ...


It should be said that rearmament is almost the main theme for the entire period of the armed conflict in the Donbas. On the one hand, the mobilized say that the Kalashnikov assault rifle suits them completely, since it is reliable and has a low price. In addition, in the warehouses of the Ukrainian army these weapons are very much. On the other hand, according to experts, the problem is that the AK does not meet the requirements of modern battlefield, if we talk about professional use.

Understanding of the inconsistency of the machine (AK-47, AKM, AKMS, etc.) to modern requirements gradually comes to the leadership of the security forces not only in Ukraine. So, the first to abandon this weapon Vietnam, going to the Israeli samples. Not so long ago, Romania announced its intention to abandon the AK, as mentioned above.

If we talk about the situation in Ukraine, then it must be said that Ukrainian gunsmiths are looking for ways to adapt old models to new standards. For example, the company "Fort" (Vinnitsa) has established the release of body kits, due to which it became possible to adjust the machines for each individual soldier. This is a variant of the tactical kit TK-9, in which the muzzle compensator was replaced by the same, but its own production, and the wooden overlay on the gas tube and fore end was replaced by modern aluminum alloy.

The cover plate is equipped with a top base for mounting scopes, the bottom - handles for carrying fire, on the side - a rifle flashlight and a laser sight. Fuse replaced in such a way that you can manage it with one finger. The wooden butt was replaced by a telescopic, and the old handle was replaced with an ergonomic pistol. But perhaps the most important is the receiver cover, equipped with a Picatinny rail, which is essentially a bracket for mounting bipods, additional sights, laser target designators and tactical flashlights.

There is another option of modernization - according to the bullpup scheme. In this case, it makes sense to recall the domestic-made machine "Malyuk". Initially, this sample was intended as an updated version, but now there is talk about the beginning of its own production. Moreover, the manufacturer says that in this sample of weapons up to 70 percent of components are made in Ukraine, and even mastered the production of the most high-tech part of the weapon - the barrel.

On the other hand, a massive transition to this model in the army has not yet been observed. From the zone of armed conflict several times flashed photos with these machine guns, and then in the hands of the special forces.

It is noteworthy that over the past few years, a variant of the so-called hybrid re-equipment has been actively promoted, the essence of which boils down to the fact that weapons models must be Western, and the cartridge for them must be domestic (or, more precisely, Soviet). Enterprises of the Ukrainian defense industry are attempting to begin production of the M4 automatic carbine - WAC-47 using the millimeter 7,62х39 cartridge. As part of this program, 2018 of such rifles equipped with collimator sights and silencers, as well as several LMT M10 / L203D rifle grenade launchers were purchased in 2.

Thus, it is possible to say that certain works are being carried out, but whether they will go further than conversations is still unclear.

MIA of Ukraine also looks in the direction of NATO


Speaking directly about the Ministry of the Interior, the situation here is somewhat different. Even before 2014, the Vinnitsa enterprise “Fort” launched the production of a whole range of weapons of Israeli origin - the machine gun “Fort-224”, “Fort-226”, the machine guns “Fort-221”, “Fort-227”, the sniper rifle “Fotr” -301 "and machine gun" Fotr-401 ".

At the same time, all these samples were very poorly received by the national guards. Moreover, mass production was not adjusted. The main reason for this - under pressure from Russia, Israel in 2014, in fact, curtailed cooperation with Ukraine in the military-technical industry.

But the police leadership did not stop it, and at the end of last year a statement was made about the launch of a line for the production of cartridges and bullets for cartridges of caliber 9x19 mm (for Luger) and 9x18 mm (for Makarov).

Moreover, not so long ago, the police leadership announced its intention to re-equip the National Guard under 90 percent and abandon the Kalashnikov assault rifles in favor of the German Hekler-Koch MP5 submachine guns. This decision is quite expected and timely. The choice is quite worthy, because the German sample is made from 1960-ies and managed to establish itself as a cheap and reliable weapon. It is used in more than 5 in dozens of countries around the world and in some of them is even licensed.

But the problem is that literally the next day after S. Knyazev's statement, representatives of the German manufacturer of these weapons (Heckler & Koch) announced that no negotiations were under way regarding the supply of MP-5 to Ukraine. This, by the way, has a completely logical explanation: the fact is that at the beginning of the year the company was fined more than $ 4 billion for the supply of small arms (we are talking about G36 assault rifles) to Mexico, bypassing sanctions. The court ruled on violation of German legislation to restrict arms exports to crisis countries. After such a court decision, hardly any German company will dare to supply weapons to Ukraine, where there has been virtually no peace for 5 years.

But, on the other hand, the submachine gun is officially, under license, produced in Turkey. And if we take into account that there is very active cooperation between the two countries in the field of the military-industrial complex (a contract worth $ 69 million for the supply of missiles, control stations and drones Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2), then such a deal is unlikely to meet big obstacles. Perhaps one of the few disadvantages of such a deal will be the cost of submachine guns - about 75 thousand hryvnia per unit.

Thus, all these delays and problems indicate that in addition to the desire to move to NATO standards, financing plays a big role, as well as the desire of the countries-producers to supply such weapons.

Purchase of NATO weapons abroad


It must be said that the Ukrainian army has been using imported weapons and equipment since 2015. But this is a few purchases, the transfer of weapons as a military aid, which, by and large, can not drastically change the situation and help move to the standards of the alliance. This is only possible at the legislative level. At the beginning of this year, the Ukrainian parliament in the second reading passed a bill that, according to its authors, should help eliminate Ukroboronprom as an intermediary in the procurement of imported weapons, which was a condition for the continued provision of military aid by the American side.

On the other hand, according to experts, the funds allocated by the States of Ukraine are practically useless, because only a small part of this money goes directly to rearmament. Everything else goes to the service of American-style weapons.

Despite the fact that the adopted bill actually gives the "green light" for the purchase of weapons that meet NATO standards, a quite logical question arises: what can Ukraine buy such to meet the requirements? Immediately, armored vehicles, tanks, anti-tank missile systems and small arms, which stocks in military warehouses abound and which is successfully produced and exported by the national defense industry, disappear.

What the Ukrainian troops really need is ships, helicopters and airplanes, for the release of which there is not enough base in the country. But the fact is that such deals will be very, very expensive. So, for example, in 2018, there was information that Denmark agreed to sell Ukraine the 3 of the Fluvefisken vessel (multi-purpose ships). Despite the fact that their age reaches three decades, the amount of the transaction at the same time sounded considerable - 102 million euros.

New aircraft can cost tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, so they are unlikely to be available to the Ukrainian military budget. In addition, even without the capacity to produce its aircraft and helicopters, Ukraine has a solid repair potential to service the existing air force fleet. So what about the purchase aviation technicians do not have to say.

The Ukrainian army also needs tracking, detection, and communications, some of which the Ukrainian military-industrial complex can produce independently.

It is also necessary to remember that the transition to uniform standards of the alliance is not only rearmament, it is the compatibility of the Ukrainian armed forces with the armies of other countries: linguistic, procedural, technical. This is a very large-scale task that requires a lot of time. Therefore, to say that Ukraine will completely switch to NATO standards by 2020, as it was stated by the government, is simply meaningless.
31 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -3
    20 May 2019 06: 09
    It’s good for him,
    Who will not enter nowhere:
    He is cheerful and laughing
    And screams cheers!
  2. -3
    20 May 2019 06: 14
    Will pass, will not pass - what is your business. And your business is to calculate the consequences for resolving the issue with Ukraine, when it supplies American or German tanks in the Chernihiv and Kharkov regions, places all missile defense systems, medium-range missiles, etc.
    1. +4
      20 May 2019 06: 44
      Well, straight VIY. "Lift up my eyelids ...."
    2. +4
      20 May 2019 06: 50
      Quote: Major48
      Will pass, will not pass - what is your business. And your business is to calculate the consequences for resolving the issue with Ukraine, when it supplies American or German tanks in the Chernihiv and Kharkov regions, places all missile defense systems, medium-range missiles, etc.

      What kind of shisha? Washes Poroshenko dispossessed?
      1. +2
        20 May 2019 14: 38
        In fact, they say that Zelinsky is supported by such an uncle as Kolomia, and his wallet is not the most skinny. Another question is how wasteful is it
        1. +5
          20 May 2019 15: 47
          These are different scales. The state of any oligarch is not a bundle of money in the closet. This is the value of his assets. Naftogaz, Privat groups, media channels, etc. So, to buy something you need to either sell your property or take a loan against his bail. Well, what do you think - will Kolomoisky take a loan secured by his business in order to buy APU aircraft or something else? Benny won the main supplier of fuel for the VSU and did non-financial wrapping for him. request Rather, Benya will begin to see how to solve his money problems again by supplying fuel to the army.
          1. 0
            20 May 2019 16: 21
            Ya. I say: another question is how wasteful it is, "after all, the replacement of AK alone will be a good penny
            1. +1
              20 May 2019 20: 07
              Replacing AK and, in general, switching to NATO standards can only be a cut in a war. If Benya gets into the procurement of weapons, then most likely he can make money on it. Ukraine can fight in the Donbass only because it has large Soviet weapons reserves. These are the reserves that the superpower has accumulated for the war in Europe. Ukraine is not capable of independently purchasing or producing a comparable number of weapons. For the past 15 years, the same eastern Europe cannot switch to NATO standards and abandon Soviet technology. And there, the reserves were more modest than on the independent ones and the countries themselves were richer.
              The transition to NATO standards means for Ukraine the rejection of a serious army and the transition to a small contract compact army similar to the Polish one, but weaker. Ukraine will not even theoretically be able to pull more. And the same Polish army has few opportunities for victory against the NM corps. At best, there will be an equal level. Although in some areas where there are no reserves left, the transition to NATO standards is possible. Although extremely complicated. Training, logistics, spare parts, lubricants, etc. cost money. Yes, and to fight without supplies being supplied with wheels is unrealistic. request
        2. -3
          20 June 2019 04: 38
          Do you mean "Papik" Zelenskiy?
      2. +1
        4 August 2019 08: 27
        Quote: Amurets
        What kind of shisha? Washes Poroshenko dispossessed?

        With US money. "Pushmyaso" is available, dropouts are thrown, free of charge or in exchange for land.
    3. 0
      20 May 2019 11: 01
      Quote: Major48
      ... And your business is to calculate the consequences for resolving the issue with Ukraine, when it puts American or German tanks in the Chernihiv and Kharkov regions, places all missile defense systems, medium-range missiles, etc.


      The consequences of deploying such weapons in Ukraine are easy to calculate - in a month something will be lost, something will be sold to the LPR / DPR. Another thing - the Baltic states.
    4. 0
      20 May 2019 11: 08
      will have to push the Chernihiv and Kharkov regions in Transcarpathia ...
      Thank God there is experience.
    5. 0
      26 June 2019 23: 07
      Tanks, missile defense, missiles - wet dreams! Where is the money, Zin!
  3. +3
    20 May 2019 06: 35
    "What the Ukrainian troops really need are ships, helicopters and airplanes, for the production of which there is not a sufficient base in the country.", A country that in the recent past was an arms supplier with a colossal infrastructure of heavy industry, is buying up old and at the same time selling Soviet technology for the production of weapons, what can I say ... corruption and nothing more.
  4. +2
    20 May 2019 06: 38
    Well, what are the standards of NATO with a bare ass, why do people laugh?
  5. -1
    20 May 2019 06: 51
    The author has mainly considered technical issues, but they are not the first to be raised. It all starts with logistics and management. The machine gun can be changed after ten years, but what would a soldier want to fight with him was to be full, shod, healthy, he had his RIGHTS, this is another matter.
    Yes, and "Koch" is already in Ukraine. I don't know how many, but there is a photo ...
  6. +2
    20 May 2019 08: 06
    For so many years, no one in Eastern Europe has completely switched to NATO standards. Even the Poles, whose military budget is quite large, but unattainable by the standards of Ukraine.
    1. +1
      20 May 2019 15: 56
      Apparently, there are practical people. Thinking about business, not show off
      Suppose you decide: on June 1, go to the M-16, and where to go. AK and cartridges for it released cart and cart
      1. +1
        20 May 2019 18: 15
        We are not talking about replacing the AK. We produce both the machine gun and the cartridges ourselves, we upgrade and hang around 400K in the warehouses. I think in the next 2000 years it will be in service .. laughing
        1. +2
          21 May 2019 06: 32
          Keuser, the fact of the matter is that if you approach wisely, and Petrushka and Co. have a different approach
  7. +2
    20 May 2019 08: 21
    Some kind of addiction is another.

    We learned from the article that Ukrainians are still fraternal people. At least as far as the empty tryndzha of official snouts is concerned. Unless the smoke is thinner - if in Russia super-rockets and super-torpedoes, then in Ukraine only HeklerKokh.

    The first thing that the author rushes to discuss is Kalashnikov. Although Kalashnikov, obviously, is the tenth matter. NATO standards are communications, intelligence, command and coordination. In these matters, the brothers, as far as I am in the subject, did not roll the horse. The maximum that is being done so far is the transition to digital communication, which, of course, is not bad, but to link16 as to Beijing is cancer.

    Fleet. What kind of addiction is what this fleet will do in the World Cup? Or do you mean patrolmen?

    Aviation. Nothing at all. The first thing that needs to be decided on aviation is whose money we go for, ours or American? If the Americans don’t pay for the banquet (for now, you don’t see any desire), there’s no reason to talk about air supremacy. Then what can be obtained from aviation, what should it be? (A lot, in fact, can now be obtained for quite modest money)

    And most importantly. What the hell is this, Ukrainian army? Why is it needed? Crush the corps of the people's republics? So a simple matter, speaking between us. The current army is enough with a margin. Crush vacationers in the number of battalion groups? It is also decided by purely organizational measures. Crush 8GVA, transfer hostilities to the territory of Russia, go to the Volga and the border of Kazakhstan? For this you need become hedgehogs turn into Israel. I do not see any hints of this.
    1. 0
      20 May 2019 20: 14
      It is difficult to disagree with most of the conclusions.
  8. 0
    20 May 2019 09: 58
    The author apparently from Ukraine therefore cannot write in pessimistic tones about the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the article the issues of logistics and logistics are correctly noted, since the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine has certain progress in this direction, in other words, Ukrainians will establish rear services over time and otherwise will restore order
  9. +1
    20 May 2019 13: 11
    Absolutely empty article.
    Part 1: "We, then bish Ukraine, would like to buy this and that, and switch to the NATO standard, and fly into space, and have an atomic bomb, etc."
    Part 2: "But there is no money for our slobbering dreams, we use what we have"
    What the hell, 2020! And by 2030 will not go over! But I don’t give a damn about it already. Sliced ​​chunk, unfortunately. Let them even move to the Honduran standard! But Russia, of course, will not allow Ukraine’s real accession to NATO. We will be pragmatists - Russia, like present-day Ukraine, benefits from a sluggish conflict in the Donbass, which means that the current situation will continue for a long time ..
  10. +1
    20 May 2019 14: 58
    What standards to choose and when is it purple for me. My question is: what is the advantage of Picatinny over "dovetail"?
    My opinion is that the transition to the NATO standard does nothing but show off. Unless to amuse my pride: I have everything like the Americans and I myself, as an American, is almost happy with that "
  11. The comment was deleted.
    1. -1
      20 May 2019 20: 14
      Well, as if this is not a political review, but a military article on military topics. And the transition / discussion on the transition to the NATO standards of a neighboring country is part of the military theme.
  12. 0
    20 May 2019 18: 32
    I apologize for serving in the military forces (our main weapon was 150 bsl).
    "Heckler-Koch" MP5. as a German model has been produced since the 1960s and managed to establish itself as a cheap and reliable weapon
    maybe I didn’t understand something, I read that mp5 is not cheap and not very reliable during field operation. Not really, but much more efficient and more profitable than ax 74u?
  13. +1
    20 May 2019 19: 00
    You know, this mantra - according to NATO standards, according to NATO standards, according to standards .... etc. And who said that this NATA is good? As far as I can see, the last twenty years, this same NATA, regularly rakes back the lyuley.
    So what is its goodness?
  14. -1
    20 May 2019 20: 39
    The main standard, NATO, is the WOMAN Minister of MO. For Ukraine - Nadia Savchenko (Minister of Attack) Yes good
  15. 0
    3 June 2019 17: 17
    [quote] delivery to Ukraine [quote]

    "Delivery to Ukraine" is spelled correctly - the author has problems with the Russian language and with violation of the rules of the resource, since the official language of the site is Russian, and the resource has problems with editing and moderation if an article with such impudent distortions of the Russian language is published.
  16. 0
    29 June 2019 10: 01
    And what is the problem of moving gradually, as the resource of existing weapons and equipment is developed? Just with the current budget of 100 years, a couple of brigades will be able to rearm.