Import substitution in the Russian defense industry. results

140
Since 2014, Russia has been forced to develop import substitution in various industries. The military-industrial complex was no exception. According to the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Sergey Shoigu, the domestic defense industry has managed to achieve significant success in the field of import substitution. As the minister noted, Russia will continue to develop military products that are technologically independent of other countries, regardless of whether the sanctions policy of Western states is maintained or weakened.


Russian engine VK-2500




Import Substitution Problem


Until 2014, Russian arms and military policy was subject to the general idea of ​​a globalized economy and the division of labor markets. The share of dependence of the domestic defense industry complex on foreign suppliers was very high, partly due to the consequences of the collapse of the USSR, when many defense enterprises appeared outside of Russia, but Moscow continued to maintain close ties with them. In many ways, the defense industry lived on the same principle as the rest of the Russian economy: why invest materially in the creation of weapons and related components and components, if you can buy such products in other countries, and even cheaper?

Until 2014, such a policy had the right to life. Even the most famous torn deal after the imposition of sanctions related to the purchase of two universal assault ships of the Mistral type from France, is not a failed enterprise. Russia did not lose money under this contract and gained access to technologies and design solutions, gaining experience in building modern UDCs, similar to those in Russia navy just not yet. At the same time, the refusal of the US, European and Ukrainian authorities to supply defense products, and in some cases dual-use products, to Russia led to serious problems.

In addition to France, problems arose with other countries. The United States and Japan imposed a ban on the supply of composite materials to Russia, as well as complex industrial equipment. The refusal to supply composites has already seriously hit the main Russian project in the field of civil aircraft manufacturing - the MS-21 passenger aircraft, whose serial production has moved to 2021. At the same time, some experts believe that the real terms for the deployment of mass production and the achievement of planned output volumes will move to a later date. The gap with Germany and Ukraine, which supplied ship engines, and Ukraine and aviation. In addition, European and a number of other traditional partners of Russia stopped supplying their electronics.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine inherited a huge number of industrial enterprises of the military-industrial complex, as well as design bureaus. Like many other post-Soviet countries, the Ukrainian defense industry was focused on the production of individual components, assemblies and parts, the final assembly of products was carried out in Russia. This division of labor ensured cooperation between the two countries in the defense industry after the collapse of the USSR. In Ukraine, there were several key defense industry enterprises whose products were in demand in Russia. First of all, it is the Motor Sich company (engine building), Yuzhmash (rocket science), Antonov Design Bureau (aircraft construction, transport aviation), Zorya - Mashproekt (gas turbine engines for the fleet).


Frigate project 22350 "Admiral of the fleet Kasatonov"


After the annexation of Crimea and the outbreak of hostilities in the territory of Donbass, Ukraine curtailed all military cooperation with Russia, including in the field of the military-industrial complex. The execution of even prepaid contracts was stopped, as happened with gas turbine engines from Nikolaev. In fact, the authorities in Kiev decided to make serious losses, jeopardizing their own defense industry. Before the 2014 events of the year, relations between the two countries in the defense industry were very close, and Ukraine received real money from such cooperation. In modern realities, it is difficult for Ukrainian enterprises to find the same sales market for their products, which was Russia. True to Moscow, it took many years to cope with the mass of problems that arose: from equipping helicopter equipment with engines, to commissioning new frigates.

The process of import substitution in the defense industry complex of Russia


It is quite difficult to accurately imagine the necessary volume of import substitution in the military-industrial complex because of the closeness of such information. But using data from open sources, in particular, speeches by senior Russian officials, one can imagine the scale of the problem that the Russian defense industry faced in the second half of the 2014. For example, according to Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, made during one of the speeches, components and components from NATO and the EU (mainly radio electronics and optics) were used in 640 samples of Russian-made military equipment, of which 571 samples had to be completely replaced to 2018 year.

Even more impressive figures were voiced by 16 on July 2015 in a report to Vladimir Putin, Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia Yuri Borisov, specializing in military-technical support of the RF Armed Forces. According to Yuri Borisov, before 2025, Russian industry should achieve import substitution for 826 weapons and military equipment. According to data from other sources, it is only necessary to process at least 800 different types of weapons and special equipment made in Russia to replace parts and components that came to Russia from NATO and the EU.

At present, the Russian defense industry has made serious progress on the path of import substitution. Moreover, deliveries of the main types of weapons and special equipment are carried out without delay. As part of the conference call held in early October of 2019, Sergei Shoigu said that currently the country's armed forces have received 2,3 thousands of units of modernized military equipment. According to the minister, the planned procurement and updating indicators for the main armament samples were fulfilled in Russia by 47 percent, and as a result of the 2019 year, the share of new types of military equipment in the country's armed forces reached 68 percent.


Vladimir Putin at the Day of the gunsmith in Izhevsk


Earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin also spoke about the progress of import substitution in the military-industrial complex. During the 19 meeting of September 2019, which took place in Izhevsk as part of the celebration of the Day of the Armsman, the President noted that over the past five years, the country has been able to significantly advance in the field of import substitution "in a number of significant directions." According to Vladimir Putin, over the past five years it has been possible to ensure technological independence in more than 350 models of weapons and military equipment. Among other things, the president highlighted the success in increasing the share of the Russian electronic component base, which is used in modern weapons. Separately, he highlighted the establishment of the production of engines for helicopters, as well as warships of the Russian Navy. According to Putin, the process of repairing the engines of the world's heaviest transport aircraft in the world, the An-124 Ruslan, will soon be launched at Russian enterprises.

Closure of problematic issues in the defense industry


The most acute, one might even say critical, for the Russian defense industry was a break in relations with Ukraine. The dependence of the Russian military-industrial complex on Ukrainian allies in the field of aviation, shipbuilding and rocket and space industry was enormous. Until 2014, almost all engines that were installed on Russian military and civilian helicopters were manufactured in Ukraine at the Motor Sich enterprise. Back in the 2011 year, as part of the Dubai Airshow air show, the Russian holding Russian Helicopters and the Ukrainian company Motor Sich signed a contract for the supply of 1300 helicopter engines to Russia totaling 1,2 billion dollars. Every year, the Ukrainian manufacturer was supposed to transfer 250-270 engines to Russia.

Today, Russia has almost completely overcome this dependence in the military sphere. Back in 2017, the head of the Russian Helicopters holding reported to the President that by 2019, Russia would overcome the problem of supplying helicopter engines from Ukraine. In Russia, the VK-117 engine completely localized in our country came to replace the Ukrainian TVZ-2500ВМА engines with the creation and production of which Klimov is responsible. These engines are installed on most Mi and Ka type helicopters. According to Rostec state corporation, in 2018 the Ufa PJSC UEC-UMPO provided the supply of 180 motor kits for VK-2500 engines. At the same time, Motor Sich continues to cooperate with Russian companies in the supply of engines for civilian helicopters and even takes part in a joint project to create the Russian-Chinese heavy helicopter AHL, on which a new version of the Zaporozhye D-136 engine, on which all heavy aircraft fly, should be installed Mi-26 helicopters in the world. In addition, Russia completely localized the production of the AI-222-25 engine, which is installed on the Yak-130 combat training aircraft. The Salyut gas turbine construction center announced the complete localization of the AI-222-25 engine and the termination of cooperation with Motor Sich back in April of the 2015.


The first flight of IL-112V


Another important problem that the Russian defense industry had to solve was the replacement of Ukrainian ship engines made in Nikolaev. Due to a break in military-technical cooperation between the two countries, Russian shipyards froze in anticipation of the adoption of the frigates of the far sea zone of the 11356 and 22350 projects. It is worth noting that the breakdown in relations with Ukraine seriously violated the deadlines for commissioning 22350 frigates for the Russian fleet and three 11356 frigates intended for the Indian Navy. So the second frigate of the 22350 project “Admiral of the Fleet of Kasatonov” was laid back in the 2009 year, but it went to factory sea trials only in the 2019 year, a similar situation with the frigate “Admiral Golovko”, the laying of which took place as early as the 2012 year. The fact that the domestic industry overcame its dependence on Ukrainian gas turbine engines became clear only in February 2019 of the year. This was told to journalists during a visit to the Northern Shipyard by the Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia Alexey Krivoruchko. According to him, UEC-Saturn has produced fully domestic gas turbine units for the frigates of the 22350 project under construction. It is already known that the frigates under construction provide for the use of marching diesel engines 10D49 produced by the Kolomensky Zavod and gas turbine unit M90FR produced by "ODK-Saturn".

Russia has also achieved notable successes in the aircraft industry. Moreover, we are talking about both manned aircraft and drones. One of the implicit examples of import substitution is the work on the Il-112V military transport aircraft, the first flight of which took place on March 30, 2019. The new aircraft not only changes morally and physically obsolete An-26 aircraft, but is also a kind of response and direct competitor to the An-140T aircraft, developed at the Antonov Design Bureau. Back in 2011, the Russian military was going to acquire a Ukrainian car for transport needs.

In addition, Russian defense industry enterprises have made great strides in creating unmanned aircraft. At the beginning of 2020, the Forpost-R UAV will enter the VKS armament. The first flight of a UAV built using completely Russian-made components with a Russian APD-85 engine and domestic software took place at the end of August 2019. Previously, this drone was assembled in Russia under an Israeli license from foreign components. The creation of the S-70 “Okhotnik” heavy strike reconnaissance UAV in Russia, the first flight of which took place on 3 on August 2019, was also an obvious success. This unique UAV will be able to interact with the most advanced Russian fifth-generation fighter Su-57. On September 27, the Ministry of Defense spoke about the first joint flight of a bunch of Su-57 fighter and the Hunter drone, the flight duration was 30 minutes.


First Outpost-R UAV Flight


Already now we can say that the sanctions gave impetus to the development of the domestic defense industry, having a healing effect on the entire sector. Over the past five years since 2014, the domestic defense industry has rid itself of foreign dependence in many areas. At the same time, the process of rearming the army with new models of weapons and military equipment was not stopped. The most noticeable failure occurred in shipbuilding, but by 2019 this problem was overcome. At the same time, the policy of import substitution still does not mean the complete isolation of Russian industry. In the field of electronic component base, Russia is actively developing cooperation with China. In an interview with RT, military expert Yuri Knutov expressed the view that Russia currently relies heavily on China in the area of ​​electronic components, which, after the imposition of Western sanctions, has become one of the key Russian partners in military-technical cooperation.
140 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +19
    14 October 2019 05: 59
    Given that even the DPRK, under severe sanctions, is seriously advancing in military developments, it is naive to believe that they will break Russia. Just unfair competition and the desire to annoy. Well, for us, sanctions are the development of science and technology and new jobs.
    1. +10
      14 October 2019 10: 24
      Quote: 1976AG
      Given that even the DPRK, under severe sanctions, is seriously advancing in military developments, it is naive to believe that they will break Russia.

      The country is forced strive for autarchy (naturally to partial). I recall how in the thirties the USSR strove to be independent of the import of such strategic raw materials as rubber. Immediately our Michurin residents were puzzled, who developed a variety of rubber-bearing grass and the whole Kuban was sown to it. True, the situation was corrected by the Soviet chemist Lebedev, who created artificial rubber and thereby planted all the rubber kings on bread and water! negative lol
      1. +4
        15 October 2019 09: 00
        Exactly - planted on bread and water! The synthetic rubber that he created was 2.5 worse by a gap than natural, and 2 times worse than the American Neoprene of 1931. No one went broke, except in your fantasies. And yes - Wikipedia is probably lying, but during the war we joyfully received a new synthetic technology from Americans to finally start producing suitable tires. That is the whole point of import substitution of those years, and perhaps of the present.
        1. 0
          15 October 2019 12: 06
          Quote: arkadiyssk
          Exactly - planted on bread and water! The synthetic rubber that he created was 2.5 worse by a gap than natural, and 2 times worse than the American Neoprene of 1931. No one went broke, except in your fantasies. And yes - Wikipedia is probably lying

          Naturally, it was worse than natural, natural rubber, by the way, is still being collected. And about the fact that no one went broke, I recommend that you deal with the material in more detail, and Wikipedia is out of place here, I know this from school.
      2. +1
        19 October 2019 09: 12
        Not so much the Kuban, in Central Asia since 1932 there were whole rubber industrial enterprises producing latex and rubber from root rubber plants, for example, from Kok-Sagyz dandelionSee left map legend. In 1952, the cultivation of domestic rubber was discontinued.
    2. -2
      14 October 2019 11: 36
      Quote: 1976AG
      Given that even the DPRK, under severe sanctions, is seriously advancing in military developments, it is naive to believe that they will break Russia. Just unfair competition and the desire to annoy. Well, for us, sanctions are the development of science and technology and new jobs.

      Do you know what is the standard of living in the DPRK? Are you aware of the problems of hunger in the country? About dependence on food supplies from China? And the presentation of these very creations of the military-industrial complex is nothing more than a demonstration for the most part ...
      A strange article (it simply duplicates the official media) starting with the fact that Russia did not lose anything from the deal with the Mistrals (they paid 1,2 billion, returned a little more than 900 million and not in the red ... well, except that they only purchased in rubles taking into account the difference courses) and ending with the joy of replacing Western components with Chinese (in what place did the replacement of a German diesel engine with a Chinese one become an import substitution, didn’t it?)
      In general, "Urrrrrrya, comrades!" ...
      1. +8
        14 October 2019 11: 50
        As far as I remember, the French returned the money to us with a penny accuracy. Where did you get the data on the difference in 300 mln? And diesels, by the way, are for Kolomna fleet
        1. +9
          14 October 2019 12: 46
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And diesels, by the way, are for Kolomna fleet

          Andrey, have you been to the Kolomensky plant? There you can shoot a movie about the Battle of Stalingrad ...
          1. +2
            14 October 2019 12: 50
            Well, maybe in some workshops it’s possible, but today it’s a mournful destiny for all plants. And then the enterprise seems to be afloat
          2. +8
            14 October 2019 20: 09
            Quote: Andrey NM
            Have you been to the Kolomna plant? There you can shoot a movie about the Battle of Stalingrad ...

            =======
            Andrew! I am not "Andrey from Chelyabinsk". And I have never been to the Kolomensky Zavod! Although for work over the past 20 years I had a chance to visit several dozen factories (somewhere from 30 to 50 - I won't say for sure - I lost count!). I saw the most different. (from "killed" to "super-modern") and the most different industries (including technical and engineering) ....
            After your "comment" - interested in "Kolomenskoye". Here's what I found in I-net:




            Of course, I know that on "commercials" everything looks MUCH BETTER than it actually does!
            But I also know that whatever one may say - from "guano" - "candy" is not blind! But! Judging by what I saw - the plant (of course, it is much worse than it looks in the photo), nevertheless - it does NOT "pull" to the "ruins" !!!
            In this regard, I have a question: A long You were there???
            This is not a "mockery"! There was just a case in my life when I was on a business trip to one of the "food" factories. Horror!!! Barely restrained the gag reflex and vowed to NEVER buy their products again (if they came across in the store). And after three years - again fate threw there ..... Reaction: "dumbfounded", "ofigel", "stupid" - in front of me was super modern plant! Though his sun to Germany - it would not be a shame! So the question arose!
            1. +6
              15 October 2019 07: 49
              Quote: venik
              How long have you been there ???

              Recently. The plant is currently undergoing sluggish modernization. I think that if the roasted cock on the issue with ship diesels did not peck in one place, no one would move. The factory buildings for the most part have not seen repair since the time of Brezhnev, there are still slogans of those times. Well, all right, slogans influence the work process indirectly ...
              In general, I encountered such a modernization scheme at several enterprises. Huge amount of money. Tenders for design and construction are won by the necessary offices, 99% of which are from the capital, who have nothing for their souls. Then begins the search for subcontracts for a penny. And then they throw these subcontractors under all sorts of pretexts. The design cost is such that for this money two times an object can be built with all approvals. Moreover, with such errors, the projects were made that (as an example) the project had to be completely redone at one of the objects, and even if they hadn’t scandalized ... But the guys told them, the object would not be able to work in this form. Answer: yes that you teach us! Build, if it does not work, remake (!). A million intermediaries ... In one enterprise, the general tried to resist this scheme. Now there is another general.
              I am not at all surprised why the PD-50 was drowned, why people died at the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station, why at the Eastern theft ... Sometimes you think, seeing all this, Vissarionych, get up at least not for long ... Oh well, there are only one nerves. ..
        2. +1
          14 October 2019 15: 35
          Kolomna diesels are not adapted to the needs of the fleet from the word "absolutely". If you do not believe me, see the history of the development of the fleet in the USSR from 1945 to 1991. No new production facilities have appeared since then. In terms of nuclear power plant for surface ships, GTE, the Soviet fleet was really "ahead of the rest of the planet." Diesel engines (except engines for submarines) were very far behind. Not from a good life, even on missile boats and small rocket ships, several 112 (!) Cylinder diesel engines were installed, which, due to this design, had a very low resource. Unfortunately, really looking at things, after the imposition of sanctions, Germany's refusal to supply modern diesel engines to Grady Sviyazhski and Karakurt, the practice of refusing Chinese copies of German diesel engines due to their (copies) low reliability, we again returned to 112- ti cylinder monsters decommissioned back in the 1973 war.
          With GTE, the same situation is far from being as "rosy" as interpreted by the author of the article. Three very good frigates of project 1135.6Р, tested by many years of operation in the Indian fleet and modernized to the requirements of the Russian fleet, had to be abandoned, having sold them to the same India, against which sanctions do not apply, Nikolaev GTEs for these frigates will be supplied to the Indian Navy (! ) will again receive modern ships earlier and in greater numbers than the Russian Navy. Is this "the success of import substitution"? Where are the modern GTEs for the fleet? How "great success" is presented the production in the PIECE order (how much is the piece work?) GTEs for the frigates "Admiral Gorshkov", although so far only those equipped with Ukrainian GTEs have actually been put into operation. Good luck to Kolomna diesels on diesel locomotives. This is their niche, they are professionals, but it’s no sideways to the Navy.
          1. +8
            14 October 2019 16: 23
            Quote: samaravega
            Kolomna diesels are not adapted to the needs of the fleet from the word "absolutely". If you don't believe me, see the history of the development of the fleet in the USSR from 1945 to 1991.

            Thanks, Cap. But in general, I wrote about the fact that neither in the USSR nor now there are good diesel engines for surface ships in the series of articles "The program of shipbuilding of the Russian Navy or a very bad feeling" in 2016.
            Quote: samaravega
            we again returned to the 112 cylinder monsters written off as a result of the 1973 war.

            However, it works. Worse than German diesels, but better than Chinese.
            Quote: samaravega
            With the GTE, the same situation is far from being as "rosy" as interpreted by the author of the article.

            But with a gas turbine engine just such a rainbow - unlike diesel engines
            Quote: samaravega
            Nikolaev GTEs for these frigates will be supplied, the Indian Navy (!) Will again receive modern ships earlier and in greater numbers than the Russian Navy. Is this "the success of import substitution"? Where are the modern GTEs for the fleet?

            And now please put aside the pathos, and remember some of the nuances.
            Firstly, Project 11356 was considered exclusively as a palliative before the serial construction of the Gorshkovs. Secondly, the EIs of the "admirals" and "Gorshkovs" are completely different, they had only one thing in common - made in Ukraine.
            And so, we returned the Crimea. Ukraine refused to supply energy for frigates, but it was not produced in the Russian Federation. So - what was the point of trying to simultaneously master two completely different units, one of which would go for the Gorshkovs, and the second to three frigates, the series of which would never be continued? These frigates would have become gold to us - who creates such equipment from scratch for three ships? And again, we must understand that work in two directions would immediately slow down progress in both.
            At this point, the leadership of the Russian Federation, oddly enough, made a very balanced and correct decision - to concentrate on creating the DGTA M55P for the Gorshkovs. And it all worked out
            Quote: samaravega
            How "great success" is presented the production in the PIECE order (how much is the piece work?) GTEs for the frigates "Admiral Gorshkov", although so far only those equipped with Ukrainian GTEs have actually been put into operation.

            Here it is not necessary :)))))) Until now, ONE frigate has been commissioned - Gorshkov himself. And in total, a series of 4 ships is equipped with our and Ukrainian 50 power plants on 50.
            1. -5
              14 October 2019 19: 37
              how folding Andrei is lying about the lack of good diesel engines in the Russian Federation. There is no natural comparison with competitors, there is no objective indicator base. Soviet diesel engines are quite imaginary. A small liar-humanist ...
              1. +2
                15 October 2019 06: 37
                Sagging, what else did it come out of? :))))
                First of all, dear people, this is not about diesel engines in general, but about diesel engines for surface ships. And this is its own specificity, which was not seriously dealt with either in the Russian Federation or in the USSR. And in the USA, for that matter. In essence, high-quality diesel engines for NK are able to do in Germany and Finland, and probably nowhere else. And in order to comprehend this, take the trouble first to study at least a little bit the topic of diesel engines of the USSR Navy
                1. -2
                  15 October 2019 11: 10
                  And in Finland we can’t order a diesel engine? Or ask them to teach us? It seems like the Finns are neutral and I doubt that they can be barred from supplying such products. Everything can be done for money - there would be a desire.
                2. The comment was deleted.
                3. +1
                  15 October 2019 20: 51
                  And here you are, dear Andrei from Chelyabinsk, you can’t tell me, a person far from the fleet should not put diesel from a submarine on a surface ship
            2. 0
              15 October 2019 08: 00
              An officer, military envoy from the Kaluga Turbine Plant studied with me at the academy in the early 90s. I remember that he was already arguing hoarsely with the teacher about the temperature of the inlet air and the dependence of power on this characteristic. I just didn’t think that it turned out that we had all these years had problems with ship-type gas turbines.
              1. +3
                15 October 2019 08: 16
                GTE at us were excellent, there was only one drawback - they stayed in Ukraine :)
            3. +2
              15 October 2019 10: 15
              Well, without pathetics, so without pathetics. Go.
              1. If you find fault with words - your right. Yes, only 1 project 22350 was officially put into operation, but the second one on the sea and state tests, the power plant cannot be changed on it, by whom is it made? The next two lag behind in all aspects (laying, launching, etc.) by 5 (!) Years. I wonder what is the reason? If we find fault with the words, then the entire series at the moment includes 6 (and not 4 ships), the same ones are always considered throughout the world.
              2. EHM for them. Initially, it was designed according to the COGAG scheme, which has proven itself excellently for warships from TFR to cruiser and has been mastered by the fleet since the 60s. We were forced to leave for CODAG. From a good life? We look further. Cruising diesel engines 22350 (ie those that are operated continuously from the command "Prepare the ship for battle and cruise" before mooring at the native "barrel" after returning) Kolomna 12-cylinder diesel engines 10D49. Conventional diesel locomotives powered by two turbochargers. On import substitution: both compressors are Swedish, manufactured by ABB. Well, the overvoltage of the "diesel" engine affects: the oil (by engine hours) needs to be changed after 100 days of operation (that is, after each "autonomy"), the piston - after 400 (that is, every year - one and a half, depending on how "drive" the ship). Information on the resource from the manufacturer's official website, taking into account the "peculiarities of national exploitation", the terms can be significantly lower. Why so much about diesel, when it's a no brainer that ship diesels in Russia are a matter of the future? It's simple: if everything is "white and fluffy" with a gas turbine engine, they have already been created better than that of the "Square", why is this fuss with cruising diesels, obviously not of the best quality and characteristics? Where is COGAG? The conclusion is simple: a) not everything is as good as reported, b) the use of the "best ever" GTEs in Rybinsk as afterburners indirectly speaks of their resource and quality.
              3.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              These frigates would have become gold to us - who creates such equipment from scratch for three ships?

              The cost of the project 1136R frigate is estimated at $ 200 million. The cost of the frigate (serial, not the lead) Project 22350 - 420 million dollars. And this is without taking into account ALL KINDS of EXPENDITURE for replacing the power plant, in the cunning budget of our state they go under a completely different article. Just as the expenses for finishing Polyment-Redut went under another item, the same was not included in the cost of 22350. So which one ALREADY became gold? Not to mention the timing: with a catastrophic shortage of ships in the maritime zone and completely inadequate attempts to replace them with Buyans and Karakurt, there are 3 good, mastered and well-functioning frigates instead of one - there is a difference.
              4.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              However, it works. Worse than German diesels, but better than Chinese.

              "It" works no better than the Chinese, perhaps even worse (see the reliability data on the manufacturer's website), just repair and replacement is much easier and cheaper than in the case of the "Chinese", and they have long been mastered in operation, everything is already used to distinguish between "passport" data and real, even "capital" to do on a part of the "star" without taking the whole thing out of service.
          2. 0
            14 October 2019 20: 52
            I also read that railway diesels are not at all the same as ship ones. Operating modes are different. Can you explain for a non-specialist "on the fingers" what are the differences?
            1. -1
              15 October 2019 13: 43
              German bedding is not able to explain anything.
              There are ship diesel engines for civilians - large, in-line, low-speed ones, working also on heavy types of fuel - economical, with a large resource and therefore heavy and oversized. And there are for military needs - high-speed, light, with high power density, accelerating, small-sized and therefore relatively low-resource, as a rule V-shaped, and in the case of diesel engines "Zvezda" (USSR-RF) even star-shaped. (* Objectively, the star scheme is the most efficient in terms of mass-power criterion).
              1. 0
                15 October 2019 16: 05
                And what kind of diesel?
              2. +1
                18 October 2019 09: 56
                Could you give specific examples of diesels for "civilian" and diesels for military needs, indicating specific ships and ships of foreign fleets? There may be a "star" scheme and the most efficient one according to the "mass-power" criterion, but for ship MARCH diesel engines the main criteria (taking into account operating conditions) are "reliability" and "ease of maintenance". And here at 112 (!) Cylinder "stars" everything is not bad, but very bad. And, I repeat, all this is well known since 1973 (!), When the RCA of the project 183P and 205 could not break away from the Israeli EXACTLY because of the low resource of the "star" you licked. Okay, the USSR Navy could spit on it, the number of RCA and MRK more than compensated for such shortcomings, not to mention the presence of a significant number of larger ships, but now "revive" the production of hopelessly outdated engines and present it as a "success of import substitution"? Designed for, or "Ivanov, not remembering kinship."
                1. 0
                  23 October 2019 20: 46
                  Marching engines for different classes of ships are the same different. One thing is a supply vessel, another missile boat. Who I couldn’t tear myself away from is unknown. Another thing is known - the engine resource depends on the engine service culture. Therefore, it is not clear to you there. Your speculations and guesses are not interesting, are there facts, no?
                  1. 0
                    25 October 2019 16: 50
                    Quote: ElTuristo
                    Marching engines for different classes of ships are the same different. One thing is a supply vessel, another missile boat.

                    Hooray! You have discovered America! Of course, they (marching engines) are different. But this is not what I wrote. On any ship (supply vessel, transport), cruising engines are used CONTINUOUSLY from the moment the ship is prepared for departure and until mooring at the destination. And here the reliability of DIESEL DIESEL diesel engines boosted with FOREIGN turbochargers is in doubt. As well as the validity of their use.
                    Quote: ElTuristo
                    I don’t know who it was from whom it was unknown. Another thing is known — the engine’s life largely depends on the engine’s service culture. Therefore, it’s not clear to you there. Your speculations and guesses are not interesting — are there any facts?

                    If you do not know ANYTHING, these are your problems, I have cited the specific facts of the 1973 war at sea. Is there anything to refute? Or too lazy to read about it? About the culture of service "push" the same "sofa specialists" like you. I graduated from the ChVTKU back in Soviet times, in the North Caucasus in the 1st war I had to operate both gasoline (BTR-70, BRDM-2) and diesel equipment. You write about the "culture of service" without even having experience in changing oil on any internal combustion engine, otherwise you would not even compare a 112-cylinder engine with a 16-cylinder engine of the same power. Learn physics, or read something other than "internet". If there is no desire, be disgraced, keep quiet
        3. +1
          14 October 2019 16: 16
          "To the nearest kopeck" - this would be if the penalty was paid (it was customary to take interest for the use of other people's money). The penalty was forgiven, i.e. even inflationary losses were not compensated. It's disgusting to even listen to lies about the received technologies. If so, where are the Russian mistrals ?! Ah-ah, they are no longer needed ...
          1. +2
            14 October 2019 16: 30
            Quote: at84432384
            "With an accuracy of a penny" - this would be if the penalty was paid (it was customary to take interest for using other people's money

            The French paid not only for the Mistrals themselves, but also offset the costs of training our crews and building infrastructure for the ships. In addition, they fully paid for the production of feed sections of mistral in domestic shipyards. And it is very possible that in addition to this, some penalties were paid.
            1. 0
              14 October 2019 16: 32
              Trim the tail)
              1. +6
                14 October 2019 16: 34
                Quote: Town Hall
                Trim the tail)

                Substitute, trim!
                1. +2
                  14 October 2019 16: 57
                  To approve such things should be verified numbers, not words)
                  1. 0
                    14 October 2019 20: 07
                    Mistrals were a complex deal with Fr-Ital following the results of 08.08.08 - for the cover in NATO and the EU. The convergence did not happen. They deliberately spent money on the image of "RF-European country", but returned to Asia
                    1. 0
                      14 October 2019 20: 22
                      I am a simple man and such high matters are not available to me. But the statements of the comrade, who positions himself as a serious user that
                      The French paid not only for the Mistrals themselves, but also offset the costs of training our crews and building infrastructure for the ships. In addition, they fully paid for the production of feed sections of mistral in domestic shipyards. And it is very possible that in addition to this, some penalties were paid.

                      I would like to confirm the figures of these statements. That is, how much Russia paid the advance and how much the French paid back from the advance, how much they paid for the training of the crew, how much they paid for the infrastructure, how much for the feed sections, how much forfeit / interest on the advance / penalties. in the end, TOTAL the French paid Russia that much money. And so-verbal waves in the basin)
                      1. 0
                        15 October 2019 21: 01
                        The Mistral deal was mutual - France bought unions for Lard $, and in my opinion it didn’t refuse them, therefore, they didn’t require a penalty
                    2. +3
                      14 October 2019 23: 02
                      Quote: antivirus
                      and returned to Asia

                      Japan, China, South Korea is Asia. What, there is the whole Middle Ages? Do they plow on gobies and ride locomotives?
                  2. +2
                    15 October 2019 06: 56
                    Town hall, all this was widely covered in the media. At the same time, it was argued that at the time of the suspension of the contract, we paid francs "about a billion euros", according to other sources - 800 million. Of these, francs paid for the manufacture of the stern parts of the mistrals in the Russian Federation. During the "divorce", the French offered compensation of 750 million euros, but in fact paid either 948 million or 1,1 billion. I repeat, these are well-known figures. If you can refute them - you are welcome. Only in numbers, please
                    1. 0
                      15 October 2019 07: 57
                      What to refute specifically?)
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      "about a billion euros", according to other sources - 800 million.

                      It?
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      but in fact they paid either 948 million, or 1,1 billion

                      Or that?)
                      You declare as an indisputable fact that
                      The French paid not only for the Mistrals themselves, but also offset the costs of training our crews and building infrastructure for the ships. In addition, they fully paid for the production of feed sections of mistral in domestic shipyards. And it is very possible that in addition to this, some penalties were paid

                      And then you hide behind vague questions for specific questions. "
                      press statements "," well-known facts "," either "," about
                      "...
                      So how much did Russia give France in advance for the Mistral? About a billion or 800? This is 200 million euros of difference, not 2 kopecks. And how much did France return? 750,950 or 1,1 trillion. Between 750 and 1,1-350 million difference)
                      About how much France paid "forfeits, penalties, training and infrastructure" is even inconvenient to ask again)
                      What are 2 specific numbers - paid and received back
                      1. +1
                        15 October 2019 08: 12
                        Town Hall, I’m not hiding for anything, but I bring the media data - in all their diversity. All of them show that the Russian Federation received a little more than it paid. Will there be any numbers other than grumbling from you?
                      2. 0
                        15 October 2019 09: 00
                        Arguing their statements, the grumbling is called?)
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        All of them show that the Russian Federation received slightly more.

                        A bold statement. Demanding at least some sort of argumentation. But you cite conflicting figures with a wild spread from 750 to 1,1 trillion.
                        Of course, I will name the numbers, and not some vague "unnamed sources." Otherwise, I would not have got into the conversation. I value my nickname)
                        Let's just first look at the introductory slope. In any case, we are talking about an amount of about 1 yard, which Russia issued in advance for construction back in 2011. The deal was canceled in 2015. The rate on this kind of loans is 7/8% per annum. For 5 years it has run over only% of 400 million. Then you say the costs of the maintenance and training of the Russian crew in France. How many million could have run over there? 10/20/30? Reimbursement of expenses for the construction of infrastructure in Russia under the Mistral? And what kind of infrastructures did Russia build for Mistral? A new port, moorings, repair shops, arsenals?) And how much did it cost? Tens of millions? Hundreds? What do you know about the Mistralny in Russia besides R&D and several copies of a helicopter for Mistral? Will it pull under 100 million?
                        By the way, you missed such a column of expenditures of the Russian Federation as the dismantling of Russian equipment from Mistral. These are exactly tens of millions.
                        Well, and penalties for a failed transaction. Is it 10/20/30% of the amount?
                        It is natural that neither of which I nor I can know much. Specific numbers. Therefore, we will not quibble. But by sight, if you dance from the amount of 1 yard (and it is reliable), France should have returned to Russia at least 1,7- 2 yards of euros. These are the minimum expenses of the Russian Federation in this matter. Do you agree?
                      3. +1
                        15 October 2019 09: 50
                        In other words, you can’t name any official numbers, and as for your guesses and estimates ... Town Hall, in order to explain the whole depth of your wrongness, I need a computer, it’s inconvenient from a smartphone. I will unsubscribe in the evening. So far, I can only say that you were literally mistaken in every digit
                      4. +1
                        15 October 2019 09: 57
                        Come on. My smartphone doesn’t bother to name the official figure that France has reimbursed. Up to cents.
                        On the eve of the French National Assembly unveiled a bill ratifying the agreement between Paris and Moscow, which indicates the exact amount of compensation for the Mistral - 949 754 849 euros, according to Le Monde. That is how much France paid the Russian side for refusing to supply two helicopter carriers due to the Ukrainian crisis.

                        The same Le Monde reported that "about a billion" was reported by the RF Ministry of Defense
                        MOSCOW, January 24. / TASS /. Russia has advanced the purchase of Mistrals worth about a billion euros. This was announced by the Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Yuri Borisov equals, who would have guessed, exactly 950.000 .000 euros). France returned exactly as much as Russia paid. Not 1 euro more. And no less.
                      5. -1
                        15 October 2019 11: 30
                        And again - 100 errors in two digits :)
                      6. +1
                        15 October 2019 12: 14
                        Oh well)). That's all I'm waiting for when "crush" my numbers. And the French parliament). The second day, threaten but so far no numbers, just words)
                      7. -1
                        15 October 2019 12: 31
                        Actually, I have been threatening since this morning, and before that I could not even threaten, in principle, because there was not a single figure from you until today :) I could not promise to defeat what is not :) But tell me how you managed , count 2 of the past day from this morning? :)
                      8. +1
                        15 October 2019 19: 23
                        Okay, let's go :)))) So, the first question - how much did we pay for the Mistral? You write
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        MOSCOW, January 24. / TASS /. Russia has advanced the purchase of Mistrals worth about a billion euros. This was announced by the Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Yuri Borisov

                        In other words, you do not know the exact amount. You personally think that this is 950 million, but, for example, the same Kommersant reports 892,9 million euros. That, in fact, is also "about a billion" from the point of view of domestic officials, who are very far from being accurate in their forecasts. And there is also data of 840 million (Interfax) and even less.
                        So I take for calculation a certain weighted average value, which is the opinion of the Merchant - roughly 893 million euros.
                        We paid this money in advance to France. And what did France pay us?
                        Let's not forget that the aft parts of the Mistral were made in Russia. This order, of course, was financed through French manufacturers (they supervised and accepted it), and according to the same Kommersant, 80 million euros were paid to our manufacturers.
                        The next question is how much did France give us? It is likely that the amount you quoted is correct.
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        the exact amount of compensation for the Mistrals is 949 754 849 euros, according to Le Monde. That is how much France paid the Russian side for refusing to supply two helicopter carriers due to the Ukrainian crisis.

                        Total: we paid 893 million euros, received back 949,7 million euros, the difference in our favor is 56,7 million euros and, in addition, our industry received a foreign trade order for 80 million euros.
                        Now let's see your objections.
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        In any case, we are talking about the amount of about 1 yard, which Russia issued in advance for the construction back in 2011. The transaction is terminated in 2015. The interest rate on such loans is 7 / 8% per annum. Over 5 years, only% million have run up to 400.

                        Firstly, there is no evidence that the advance payment was paid in full precisely in 2011. It is more than likely, as is usually the case in such transactions, that the French were paid money consistently throughout all 5 years of history with the Mistrals. In addition, part of this money was paid to our own enterprises ... You consider it as if you had paid an advance in 100% immediately after signing the contract, which is already incorrect. This is the time. The second is the completely crazy interest that you managed to count.
                        Yes, today a bank can theoretically give a similar loan at 7% per annum, but the question is that the RF Ministry of Defense - well, never a bank. The Bank, unlike the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, bears the risk of default on the loan. And the RF Ministry of Defense could only place the indicated money on a risk-free deposit, that is, when calculating the lost profit, one should use not% on loans, but% on deposits. And they, these percentages, are much lower, in state-owned banks they will be approximately 1,3-1,9% per annum. That is, taking even 2% and provided that all 893 million euros were issued simultaneously, we get for 5 years with a capitalization of 93 million euros, which is slightly less than the 400 calculated by you :))) But given the fact that the French are clearly received this money not at one time in 2011, but spread over all years, the amount will be less at times.
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Then you say the cost of maintaining and training the Russian crew in France. How many millions could have run into it? 10 / 20 / 30?

                        I'll tell you how much :)))) Exactly as much as the 400 military men need to travel for several months. They lived on our own training ship "Smolny", on which, in fact, they arrived in France. Of course, the ship also requires costs, but a significant part of them would have to be borne without the French trip. And the rest of the training costs "fell" into the very 893 million euros that we paid the French - the organization of training, going to sea on the DKVD, the French paid from their own.
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Reimbursement for the construction of infrastructure in Russia under the Mistral? And what infrastructure did Russia build near Mistral? A new port, moorings, repair shops, arsenals?)

                        A little more than nothing :)))) The fact is that the first pile of a new pier near Mistral was scored on February 11 2014 g. :)))) That is, by the summer of 2014 g, when the contract was frozen, almost nothing was built. But even if it had been built, such a farm would be very useful for Pacific Fleet without Mistrals. That is, it’s absolutely money that wasn’t wasted, and, strictly speaking, demanding their return from the French is legal though ... but not quite fair :)))
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        What do you know about the Mistralny in Russia besides R&D and several copies of the Mistral helicopter? Will it pull under 100 million?

                        The question is that we need a marine attack helicopter on its own, without any connection with the Mistrals. The sea has its own specifics, and helicopter landing is always good to maintain. Such helicopters can be used from any recreation center, the same Gren and escort ships.
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        But by sight, if you dance from the amount in the 1 yard (and it is reliable), France should have returned to Russia no less than the 1,7-2 yard of the euro

                        Well, in Russia this amount was estimated much more modestly - as Kommersant writes,
                        Expenses will also be reimbursed for the training of 400 sailors, the construction of infrastructure for the base of helicopter carriers in Vladivostok, and for the creation of four prototypes of Ka-52K deck-based helicopters. In total, Moscow can expect a reimbursement of € 1,163 billion

                        I repeat, investing in infrastructure and helicopter costs is not entirely correct. Even completely incorrect :)
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        By the way, you missed such a column of expenditures of the Russian Federation as the dismantling of Russian equipment from Mistral

                        Naturally, I missed it. Because the Russian Federation did not pay a dime for this - the agreement on termination of the contract implied that France would dismantle and deliver the indicated equipment to the territory of the Russian Federation at its own expense
                      9. +1
                        15 October 2019 22: 27
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        So I take for calculation a certain weighted average value, which is the opinion of Kommersant - roughly 893 million euros

                        But I somehow trust Le Monde more. Especially considering how much garbage the same Kommersan wrote on this topic with reference to "unnamed sources. And Le Monde writes this.


                        La facture des Mistral non livrés à la Russie s'élève à 949,8 millions d'euros
                        Après l'accord conclu le 5 août entre Paris et Moscou, l'exécutif avait indiqué que le coût pour la France serait inférieur à un milliard d'euros, sans en dévoiler le montant exact.

                        Le Monde avec AFP Publié le 03 septembre 2015 à 00h33 - Mis a jour le 03 septembre 2015 à 07h48

                        949 754 849 euros. Voilà la somme que la France doit rembourser à la Russie après la non-livraison à Moscou de deux navires de guerre de type Mistral sur fond de crise ukrainienne, selon l'étude d'impact accompagnant le projet de loi mis en ligne sur le site de l'Assemblée nationale. Après la signature de l'accord conclu le 5 août entre Paris et Moscou, l'exécutif avait indiqué que le coût pour la France serait inférieur à un milliard d'euros, mais n'en avait pas jusqu'ici dévoilé le montant exact. La somme annoncée correspond aux avances versées par la Russie pour l'acquisition des deux bateaux, dont le prix d'achat s'élevait à 1,2 milliard d'euros
                        .
                        Translation from the French selected phrase-The amount declared is the advance payment paid by Russia for the purchase of two ships
                      10. -1
                        16 October 2019 16: 42
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        But I somehow trust Le Monde more. Especially considering how much garbage the same Kommersan wrote on this topic with reference to "unnamed sources

                        Yes please. As for me, one publication is worth another.
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Translation from the French selected phrase-The amount declared is the advance payment paid by Russia for the purchase of two ships

                        Without reference to sources
                      11. +1
                        15 October 2019 22: 46
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Let's not forget that the aft parts of the Mistral were made in Russia. This order was naturally funded through French manufacturers (they supervised and accepted it), and according to the same Kommersant, our producers were paid 80 million euros.

                        Oh well?) How interesting ...
                        07.12.2011
                        The United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) and the Baltic Shipyard signed an agreement for the manufacture of floating hull parts for two Mistral-class helicopter carriers. The agreement was signed in the presence of the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin by the President of the USC Roman Trotsenko and acting General Director of the Baltic Shipyard Valery Venkov. The contract amount was RUB 2,5 billion. at fixed prices
                        .
                        Something I don’t see either French customers or French money in the info. Are you generally sure that the construction of the feed units is part of the deal with the French?). When reading this, I get the impression that Russia issued an advance of 950 lyam + put the feed sections for her)
                      12. -1
                        16 October 2019 16: 48
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Yah?)

                        Well yes:))))
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        07.12.2011
                        The United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) and the Baltic Shipyard signed an agreement for the manufacture of floating hull parts for two Mistral-class helicopter carriers.

                        By itself.
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Something I do not see, neither French customers nor French money in infe.

                        Because the foreign contract is concluded precisely with USC and with no one else, for that it was created. And in turn, she concludes a contract with one of the direct performers included in her composition.
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        When reading this, I get the impression that Russia issued an advance in 950 lyamov + set the feed sections for their own)

                        This is from a lack of understanding of the technical nuances of such a deal. Imagine for a second what would happen if the fodder was ordered by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, and then for some reason they would not fit the Mistrals :))))) Nobody would do that, neither the French nor we need it
                      13. +1
                        15 October 2019 23: 05
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Firstly, there is no evidence that the advance payment was fully paid in 2011

                        That you do not have them .. and if you walk around the Internet ...
                        02.02.2012


                        The laying of the first of two Mistral-class helicopter carriers intended for Russia will take place in France today. The French contractor DCNS told ITAR-TASS that the shipyards in Saint-Nazaire will host the ceremony of cutting the first plate of the ship.
                        "A few weeks ago, the Russian side transferred the necessary funds, now we are starting construction... The first Mistral-class universal amphibious assault ship will be delivered to the Russian Navy in 2014, "DCNS spokesman Emmanuel Godet said to ITAR-TASS.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And they, these percentages, are much lower,

                        Let us fix the fact that, in fact, Russia financed the construction of 2 helicopter carriers in Egypt with an interest-free loan to the French. Such loans in the world "cost" 7/8% per year. You take comfort in the fact that this money would have been lying idle anyway). I appreciate your concern for the financial well-being of DCSN and Egypt .... EMNIP you are a common expression in Russia -Russia is a kind soul. In my opinion, the same case
                      14. -1
                        16 October 2019 16: 50
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        That you do not have them .. and if you walk around the Internet ...

                        Then we will see that you do not have them either
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        A few weeks ago, the Russian side transferred the necessary funds, now we are starting construction.

                        Typically, the amount of funds required is 20-30% of the contract value.
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        Let's fix the fact that in fact Russia financed the construction of 2 helicopter carriers to Egypt with an interest-free loan to the French. Such loans in the world "cost" 7/8% per year.

                        Please show the source of this information :))) About 7-8% in currency :)
                      15. +1
                        15 October 2019 23: 13
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The question is that we need a marine attack helicopter on its own, without any connection with the Mistrals. The sea has its own specifics, and helicopter landing is always good to maintain. Such helicopters can be used from any recreation center, the same Gren and escort ships

                        In the courtyard of 2019: Where are these clouds of such Russian offensive attack helicopters, whose R&D has spent many millions in the framework of the Mistral epic? At the moment, it is fair to assume that the money was wasted. And no one refunded it. Like everything else.
                        The French paid not only for the Mistrals themselves, but also offset the costs of training our crews and building infrastructure for the ships. In addition, they fully paid for the production of feed sections of mistral in domestic shipyards. And it is very possible that in addition to this, some penalties were paid

                        Trim the tail)
                      16. -1
                        16 October 2019 16: 54
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        In the yard 2019 year. Where are these clouds of such Russian naval attack helicopters,

                        They were sold to Egypt :)))) And for our fleet they were included in the armament of the Ivan Gren type of military-industrial complex, but so far they have not accelerated production due to the general reduction in costs for the 2011-2020 GPV.
                      17. +1
                        16 October 2019 22: 22
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        In the yard 2019 year. Where are these clouds of such Russian naval attack helicopters,

                        They were sold to Egypt :))

                        Do not find it difficult to share the details of the contract for the purchase of K-52K by Egypt?). When purchased, how much was delivered?)
                        PySy. For the rest of the "Mistral" moments, without further comment. I do not shoot at the red cross)
                      18. +1
                        15 October 2019 23: 20
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Because the Russian Federation did not pay a dime for this - the agreement on termination of the contract implied that France would dismantle and deliver the indicated equipment to the territory of the Russian Federation at its own expense

                        I’m embarrassed to ask ... And in what warehouses is it dusting and rusting that the one equipped under the Mistral has been spent on a lot of millions of non-rubles? Who compensated the Russian Federation for this wasted money.
                      19. 0
                        16 October 2019 16: 55
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        I’m embarrassed to ask ... And in what warehouses is it dusting and rusting that the one equipped under the Mistral has been spent on a lot of millions of non-rubles? Who compensated the Russian Federation for this wasted money.

                        Who told you that this equipment is gathering dust somewhere? :)))) This is typical domestic equipment, special communications, arms control, etc. It will be put on other ships, that's all
        4. +1
          15 October 2019 06: 36
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          As far as I remember, the French returned the money to us with a penny accuracy. Where did you get the data on the difference in 300 mln? And diesels, by the way, are for Kolomna fleet

          I apologize for not responding immediately (I wrote from the phone, apparently because of an Internet glitch the answer did not go) - information from a press conference of the French government. It was like this - in 2015 it was decided what the French government was paying (there is a shipyard with a large share of the state), a scandal broke out after all, 1,2 billion, even for the French budget, is a large one-time payment if the money is not pledged. In the spring, they offered to pay 750 million, ours refused and negotiations were ongoing. At the end of August (or at the beginning of September, I don’t remember exactly), the French parliament convened a press conference where the head of government named the agreed conditions for terminating the transaction - an amount accurate to the euro (about 940 million), returning equipment installed by our side (it’s 1,2, 940 billion were not originally included) and the INFORMATION conditions (although we were told that without the consent of our country the French would not be able to resell). About a month later, Egypt bought both ships (for the same 1 million, it seems like there was a scandal when the Polish defense minister said that according to intelligence, Egypt would resell them to us for a symbolic $ 4). I have not seen any information on surcharges from the government, shipyard or Egypt (if you have such information, I will be glad to read it). The only thing that is heard - Egypt has been negotiating for 1 years already for the purchase of our helicopters and systems for ships for almost XNUMX billion (others in size do not climb without rework)
          1. 0
            15 October 2019 07: 10
            The fact is that at the time of termination of the transaction we did not pay the full amount of 1,2 billion), but according to various sources, from 800 million to, "about a billion." At the same time, part of the money we paid was spent by the French to order the aft parts of the Mistrals, which were being built in RF
            1. +1
              15 October 2019 07: 46
              If my memory serves me right, our Minister of Industry in 2015 stated that the advance was 850 million, and the total costs were something like 1 billion 150 million euros ... And that they paid in tranches from the budget, because in rubles they returned us 1,5 , 2-2015 times more (due to the course), Peskov said that there would be no comment on the amount, maybe commercial secret, etc. .... in general, there are more questions than the answer, but the fact that we asked 1,1 billion in the spring of 1 tells me that they paid exactly that much .... It seems they even said that after the refund we raise the issue of fines - XNUMX million euros per day of delay. ... but did not fly ...
              1. 0
                15 October 2019 08: 19
                Total costs - this may be the total costs of the contract, or the total costs of francs minus our equipment, but in any case, this is not the amount of money paid to the French
                1. +1
                  15 October 2019 08: 51
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Total costs - this may be the total costs of the contract, or the total costs of francs minus our equipment, but in any case, this is not the amount of money paid to the French

                  Returning to my first comment - we paid 1,2 billion (to the French themselves or did not spend it at all), but received 900-940 million (Egypt bought for 950 million, the question is - if the ships really cost so much why did we pay more? If it costs more - why Egypt has a discount of 300 million?) ... How not cool we are in the red (the French, taking into account the sale of ships to Egypt, no, even received more than they returned), not to mention the "spit in the face" that we swallowed .. Therefore, the article is strange and shouts about how good we are from the sanctions ...
                  1. 0
                    15 October 2019 09: 05
                    1,2 billion is the amount of the transaction, but not the amount of payment :) And they paid about 800 -850 million or a little more but less than a billion.
                    Received back at least 950 million + payment for the feed of the Mistral. That is, we got more than we paid.
                    As for the price of Egypt - it is dumped, because no one wanted to give more. That is, for France this sale was unprofitable, but they did it in order to minimize their losses and recapture at least part of their costs
                    1. +1
                      15 October 2019 09: 40
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      1,2 billion is the amount of the transaction, but not the amount of payment :) And they paid about 800 -850 million or a little more but less than a billion.
                      Received back at least 950 million + payment for the feed of the Mistral. That is, we got more than we paid.
                      As for the price of Egypt - it is dumped, because no one wanted to give more. That is, for France this sale was unprofitable, but they did it in order to minimize their losses and recapture at least part of their costs

                      Whether the cost of feed was included in 950 million or not is unclear (equipment, for example, was not included in the price), information from our first persons does not coincide with the words of the francs (well, except that we have no complaints), so I think the real picture will not be soon known, if at all ....
                      1. -1
                        15 October 2019 09: 52
                        Not in 950, but in 850 - It was absolutely certain that I had read - at one time I read that the French paid for the feed from the amount of the advance payment received
          2. +1
            15 October 2019 11: 28
            Quote: parma
            It was like this - in 2015 it was decided what the French government was paying (there is a shipyard with a large share of the state), a scandal broke out after all, 1,2 billion, even for the French budget, a large one-time payment,

            No scandals. Russia’s money was paid not by the French government, but by an insurance company.
            1. 0
              15 October 2019 11: 45
              Quote: Town Hall
              Quote: parma
              It was like this - in 2015 it was decided what the French government was paying (there is a shipyard with a large share of the state), a scandal broke out after all, 1,2 billion, even for the French budget, a large one-time payment,

              No scandals. Russia’s money was paid not by the French government, but by an insurance company.

              The government paid, moreover, about a year ago, the shipyard planned to sue the insurance and the Ministry of Finance of France - no one can reimburse them with an eye of 100 million euros
              1. +1
                15 October 2019 12: 17
                Payments made by Coface - French Foreign Trade Insurance Company
      2. +1
        16 October 2019 17: 00
        The standard of living in the DPRK is quite solid for the vast majority of Southeast Asian countries. There is no famine and slum there. By the way, people work there according to the Soviet Labor Code, unlike the Republic of Kazakhstan, where they only dream of an 8-hour day, days off and holidays.
    3. 0
      14 October 2019 20: 47
      They won’t break it, but they will create financial difficulties. In general, Russia has the development priority for the next 10 years to have the development of Group A enterprises, means of production, then the country in the sense of industrial development will become completely independent and will export machine tools and industrial equipment in the same volumes as other industrialized countries.
  2. +1
    14 October 2019 06: 34
    In short, we are all in chocolate!
    1. +12
      14 October 2019 06: 38
      Quote: Nycomed
      In short, we are all in chocolate!

      At least not in shit.
      1. -1
        14 October 2019 06: 41
        And this is a plus!
      2. +2
        14 October 2019 11: 16
        Unfortunately, Russian-style import substitution is the replacement of Ukrainian and Western products with Chinese ones ... To carry out import substitution, factories must be built, and not rely on the "invisible hand of the market"
        1. -1
          14 October 2019 11: 41
          Unfortunately, it’s worth recognizing .. To build a plant in Russia or in China, the investment amounts are different ..
          And citizens who want to build the BAM in the "system" of the Russian Federation for the idea ...
        2. -7
          14 October 2019 15: 47
          "Unfortunately, import substitution is Russian-style, it is the replacement of Ukrainian and Western products with Chinese ..." Especially with regard to engines for helicopters - everything is Chinese. Chinese rubbish will not pass military acceptance.
      3. 0
        14 October 2019 20: 08
        Chocolate is not a fertilizer, it is not necessary much. but shit always takes a lot ...
    2. +9
      14 October 2019 10: 57
      Quote: Nycomed
      In short, we are all in chocolate!

      Of course, it's still a long way to "chocolate" and there is room to strive for, Russian folk wisdom, called the saying: "there would be no happiness, but misfortune helped," turned out to be 101% right
  3. +1
    14 October 2019 06: 44
    In many respects, there are no more rigid monopolies. Asia duplicates Europe and America.
  4. +2
    14 October 2019 07: 08
    Although the West has forced us to support domestic production.
    1. +2
      14 October 2019 16: 19
      Indeed, now we are buying CNC machines in the DPRK ...
      1. +1
        14 October 2019 23: 12
        Quote: at84432384
        Indeed, now we are buying CNC machines in the DPRK ...

        Is Tver located in the DPRK? https://stankomach.com/
        This is only one plant. Is there some more. Of course, these plants are not yet fully able to saturate the market like the USSR, but machine tools are manufactured and sold.
        1. +1
          16 October 2019 19: 53
          Now only a few types of CNC machines are manufactured piecewise. Piece and very limited assortment. And in the USSR they were made up to 12 a year and for a wide variety of purposes. In the Russian Federation, any production does not exist thanks to, but contrary to. Contrary to the most socio-economic state policy. There is no solvent demand in the country and a ruble loan is completely prohibited. Just do not confuse consumer and mortgage loans to the population with industrial and investment. The latter in the loan portfolios of banks is only 000%.
  5. +6
    14 October 2019 07: 20
    Oh, those useful sanctions. There would be more of them, but more sophisticated.
  6. bar
    +6
    14 October 2019 08: 19
    Peppy article, uplifting. Sorry badly true. In particular
    on the Il-112V military transport aircraft, the first flight of which took place on March 30, 2019. The new aircraft not only changes the morally and physically obsolete An-26 aircraft, but is also a kind of response and a direct competitor to the An-140T aircraft developed at Antonov Design Bureau.

    Even the chief designer recognized the project as unsuccessful, and the technology and design school lost. As a result, instead of an airplane, we got a self-propelled truck, heavy and with scanty payload.
    It, of course, over time, everything will return to normal, and the youth will someday learn to make airplanes again from their mistakes. Once their grandfathers and fathers learned. And a new design school will appear.
    But all this is not immediately and not soon. And the article is peppy, overly ...
    1. +12
      14 October 2019 09: 45
      Quote: bar
      Peppy article, uplifting. Sorry bad for reality

      I add that I also noticed cunning in the article. The author writes that the frigate, pr. 22350, Admiral Kasatonov, laid in 2009, was tested only this year due to Ukraine’s non-delivery of gas turbine engines. It is not true. For Gorshkov and Kasatonov, the engines were just delivered. And the delay in the delivery of Kasatonov is due to the fact that during the Gorshkov tests the engines failed.
      They were removed and delivered by Kasatonov’s engines, and the broken ones were sent for repair.
      Further, the author writes that 3 frigates 11356 were intended for India. This is also not true. They were intended for the Black Sea Fleet, but due to the fact that Ukraine refused to supply engines, they were resold to India, which bought engines for them directly from Ukraine.
      1. +4
        14 October 2019 14: 03
        Yeah, a very cheers-patriotic article, it’s a pity that actually it’s not so.
        You can also recall the lack of modern domestic trawling equipment for the Alexandrites, the lack of engines for the most successful corvette project 20385 (because Kolomensky diesels are weak), the lack of engines for Karakurt and the same Alexandrites, as a half-brittle St. Petersburg Star cannot produce them for more than 1 set in year. It is not said about the gearboxes for 22350, the turbine was mastered, and the gearbox with grief in half Star 1 collects per year. Well, etc.
        1. +5
          14 October 2019 14: 40
          Yes you are right. It was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines .. There are reductions at Zvede (a military plant, not Rosneft in Bolshoy Kamen) and in Arsenyev. And this, the territory of "Advanced Development" ... https://www.newsvl.ru/society/2019/10/08/184475/
      2. -1
        14 October 2019 15: 51
        Isn’t it because of problems with the new naval air defense system 22350 stalled?
        1. 0
          14 October 2019 16: 10
          Quote: Vadim237
          Isn’t it because of problems with the new naval air defense system 22350 stalled?

          The delivery of the lead ship Admiral Gorshkov - yes, because of the Poliment-Redoubt air defense missile system. But the author writes about the first production frigate, Admiral Kasatonov, that the delay in its delivery was due to the non-delivery of gas turbine engines. This is not true. I wrote the reason for the delay above.
      3. +3
        14 October 2019 16: 54
        Why is there "guile"! The article is ordered and false. Defense orders are constantly decreasing. In 2018, one open enterprise accounted for two closed ones. Crazy surplus (this is not a fulfilled budget, that is, a crime) is presented as a great economic achievement. Defense enterprises go bankrupt. The same "import substitution" is taking place as well as the "unprecedented growth in the welfare" of the people. Kingdom of Crooked Mirrors...
    2. -6
      14 October 2019 16: 03
      "As a result, instead of an airplane, we got a self-locomotive, heavy and with a scanty carrying capacity." It's good to think up, the structure was made overweight by only 1,5%, the carrying capacity, as it was 5 tons, remained - this is a light class cargo plane, what do you want from it?
      1. +2
        14 October 2019 17: 50
        only a load capacity of 6 tons should have been)
      2. bar
        -1
        14 October 2019 20: 02
        lifting capacity as it was 5 tons and remained

        Personally, I don’t want anything from him. I’ll just remind you that the Il-112 should replace the ancient An-24 of the development of the 60s, with a carrying capacity of 6,5 tons and a dry weight of 13,4 tons. And the new An-112 lifts just 5 tons with a dead weight of 15 tons. Wow progress for 50 odd years? But the most feil that the rear part got heavier due to the unprepared ramp design, which led to a misalignment, which in turn was corrected with ballast ...
    3. +1
      14 October 2019 16: 31
      May be. In the meantime, Russian reality more and more resembles the territory where the great civilization once lived, but after some universal catastrophe turned into a backward bantustan under the command of demoniac shamans.
      1. -5
        14 October 2019 16: 51
        Backward in what and from whom?
        1. +2
          14 October 2019 17: 03
          From the USSR and in everything.
          1. -6
            14 October 2019 20: 55
            "From the USSR and in everything." Well, yes, 500000 complaints a year for the products of the USSR, there are definitely no such indicators for Russian products - this is to the question of the quality of what was exported. And to be honest, most of what the USSR produced was at the level of the mid-60s in terms of manufacturability and everything else, and for the most part all these products went to 120 rogue countries - thank you. And to implement something new for a long time and costly - it could interfere with the implementation of the plan, so it was implemented with great reluctance - the defense industry was the locomotive, and even there it often happened on the Mi 24D they wanted to put the Puma sighting complex from the Su 24, but the Ministry of the Aviation Industry decided - they say fuck it , as a result, the new Mi 24 went into series with an outdated sighting system with which it has survived to this day, but what can I say when at an enterprise producing heat-shielding tiles for Buran could not provide its employees with basic protective equipment, gloves and other things for working with harmful components.
            1. +3
              16 October 2019 20: 13
              The fact that in the USSR they did not do anything good except galoshes, I have already heard from one "patriot". Here is just one misfortune: the Proton developed in the USSR during the Soviet era had 98 successful launches out of 96. To date, the same Proton launches (they could not do anything better in Russia) more than 300 with 27 disasters and 20 "partially successful" ... There is a "growth" in quality. “Energy” cannot even be repeated. It is precisely among the "rogue countries" of the Russian Federation that it is now confidently included, neither science, nor technology, nor culture, nor art. Unless we are leading in the number of billionaires and corrupt officials.
    4. +1
      14 October 2019 19: 37
      What nonsense that the Civil Code recognized the IL-112 project as unsuccessful ?! Overweight yes, it happens even with the most famous companies. Will work on this problem.
      1. bar
        0
        14 October 2019 19: 55
        There will certainly be where to go. Maybe they will even bring it if there is enough money and the Moscow Region will not turn away from them. And about the unsuccessful project and the lost design school, the chief designer himself spoke, if that.
  7. +2
    14 October 2019 08: 41
    In my opinion, this work should have been carried out since 1991, can it be that simple things do not reach our top management, busy sharing what the USSR has gained.
    If there are no brains, turn to the centuries-old peasant experience.
    1. +1
      14 October 2019 08: 56
      Quote: Ros 56
      In my opinion, this work should have been carried out since 1991, can it be that simple things do not reach our top management, busy sharing what the USSR has gained.
      If there are no brains, turn to the centuries-old peasant experience.

      Do you remember that time well? The West will help us! Our friends are there, or at least not enemies. And in the mid-90s, the whole country was already cracking at the seams.
      1. +4
        14 October 2019 08: 59
        I perfectly remember any times in which I lived and live and always knew, from childhood, that I need to have my own, and not rely on someone else's uncle.
        1. +1
          14 October 2019 09: 19
          It’s good that you remember, but the leadership was either naive or busy with something else
        2. +2
          14 October 2019 13: 05
          Quote: Ros 56
          I always knew, from childhood, that you have to have your own, and not rely on someone else's uncle.

          So until the 91st it was his own!
        3. -2
          14 October 2019 16: 05
          And probably remember that the country was heavily in debt - and in 1998 it defaulted.
          1. +6
            14 October 2019 16: 13
            Let's just say that these dolbyotyaly in short pants drove her into debt and this drunk was three-fingered, not a bottom for him. Only for joining the GDR to the Federal Republic of Germany could more than one hundred billion be kidnapped, and how much military technology went for free to the striped I generally keep silent, they still have not figured it out because of their stupidity. It’s just now that we’re talking about it, it’s pointless, you can’t bring anything back.
            1. -1
              14 October 2019 16: 58
              "Only for the annexation of the GDR to the FRG they could have more than one hundred billion." This is due to what - the GDR was not part of the USSR, and after the 85th USSR began to actively take loans, including on the security of military and clothing property of Soviet troops in the GDR. Alas, the USSR, starting from the 80th year, has become a bankrupt country - thanks to the policy of the CPSU, for bringing the country to poverty.
              1. +1
                14 October 2019 20: 34
                Quote: Vadim237
                and after the 19th USSR began to actively take loans,

                The Germans gave us 200 of millions of marks for the merger of the GDR and the FRG; Gorbi did not take it.
                1. +1
                  14 October 2019 21: 36
                  200 million - for the USSR at the end of the 80 penny.
                  1. +2
                    14 October 2019 21: 46
                    Quote: Vadim237
                    200 million - for the USSR at the end of the 80 penny.

                    Mark. I don’t remember exactly, whether 200 million, or 2 billion. Gorby refused. Although he took in his pocket 200 million bucks for recognition of South Korea.
                    1. +1
                      16 October 2019 00: 11
                      Quote: Mordvin 3
                      I don’t remember exactly, either 200 million, or 2 billion.

                      According to the memoirs of the former ambassador of the Soviet Union to the Federal Republic of Germany, Valentin Falin, in the 1960s the government of West Germany was ready to pay 124 billion marks in compensation for the eastern lands. And later, in the 1980s, Germany offered the USSR 100 billion marks for the "neutral status" of the GDR. Bonn could pay the same amount, contemporaries of events, in 1990.

                      Helmut Kohl's foreign policy and defense adviser Horst Telczyk, several decades later, commented to Deutsche Welle that Germany was ready to give back 50 and 80 billion marks. And Helmut Kohl himself at the beginning of the 100s, in an interview with journalist Heribert Schwan, said that he agreed to conclude a deal for XNUMX billion.

                      How much Moscow actually received remains a mystery, although it is reliably known that the Germans offered the Soviet side both financial assistance and food supplies. According to the same Falin, Gorbachev asked Kolya for just 4,5 billion marks to “feed people.” According to media reports, we can talk about 15 billion marks that were spent on the withdrawal of troops from West Germany and the equipping of military personnel at home. Moreover, three billion out of 15 were given to the USSR on credit for five years ...

                      Kohl himself assured Schwan that the Soviet Union received an amount equivalent to four billion euros for the withdrawal of troops. Although in the figurative expression of the ex-chancellor, the GDR went to Germany "at the price of a sandwich."

                      Like this...
                    2. +1
                      16 October 2019 20: 16
                      Kohl calmly talked about 20 billion. So, it was possible to bargain for a slightly larger amount ...
    2. +2
      14 October 2019 13: 04
      Quote: Ros 56
      In my opinion, this work should have been going on since 1991, can it be that simple things do not reach our top management,

      smile Smiled! And he imagined how Yeltsin, after a hangover after the Bialowieza booze, issues his first decree on the construction of a new plant! good
      1. +1
        14 October 2019 21: 48
        Quote: Serg65
        So he imagined how Yeltsin, after a hangover after the Bialowieza booze, issues his first decree on the construction of a new plant!

        Maybe Korzhakov performed Operation Sunset poorly? laughing
  8. +5
    14 October 2019 10: 06
    Many thanks to the author for an interesting and informative article. If you will, I will add my own five kopecks. Yes, the sanctions forced the Russian leadership to tackle the most important problems in the industry. But they cannot be solved quickly, and here's why. In the 90s and XNUMXs, as you know, there was an "optimization" of machine-building and military-industrial complex enterprises. Many businesses were closed or redesigned. And qualified personnel - engineers, designers, highly qualified workers were forced to look for another job. Some went into trade, others retired, some were lured away by the Chinese. At the same time, the network of vocational schools that trained these same personnel was reduced. And those that remained have an extremely worn out material base, which has not been updated since the times of the USSR. Therefore, it will not be possible to replace the generation of departed specialists with young workers without restoring the network of vocational schools and their modernization, just as there will not be a qualitative breakthrough in the country's development. Recently, I read an article at VO about how Americans are encouraging young people to study in theirs analogs of vocational schools: high scholarships, guaranteed jobs and high wages. Their experience would be useful for us too. In general, it is high time for the state to change its attitude towards representatives of the working class.
    1. +1
      14 October 2019 15: 01
      Recently I read an article at VO how Americans stimulate young people to study in their analogs of vocational schools: high scholarships, a guaranteed job and a high salary. Their experience would be useful with us.

      They have the same problems.
      https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/business/vocational-schools-face-deep-cuts-in-federal-funding.html
      The author complains that funding for training in specialties is being cut significantly. This is despite the fact that it is initially small
      to shrink the small amount of federal spending for vocational training in public high schools and community colleges

      This global trend engineering is becoming less and less popular, and even more so, working professions. Maybe I’ll write an article here about it.
    2. +3
      14 October 2019 16: 33
      Quote: Vadim T.
      Yes, the sanctions forced the Russian leadership to tackle the most important problems in industry. But they won’t be able to be solved quickly, and that’s why.

      Mainly because the leadership of the Russian Federation simply cannot handle such tasks. Look at Oreshkin, read his "ideas" - his financial director at the plant should not be allowed categorically, but he is the head of the Ministry of Economic Development.
      1. +3
        14 October 2019 17: 27
        Andrey, I actually meant staff shortage in industry. Although, if you look at the problem more broadly, you are right: there is a sorely lack of competent managers too (not to be confused with "effective managers").
      2. +1
        16 October 2019 20: 29
        Oreshkin is a professional currency speculator, as experts say, quite sensible. As the saying goes, do not shoot the pianist ... The question arises for those who put him in such a place, although if you analyze the actions of the Russian government over the past 20 years, then everything is very clear with them, all their actions (began with entry into the WTO) directed exclusively to the detriment of Russia and to the benefit of global financial capital. I can’t even remember the exceptions.
    3. -2
      14 October 2019 22: 47
      Quote: Vadim T.
      how Americans encourage youth to study in theirs analogues of vocational schools

      I apologize generously, but let me ask you: what kind of word did you use in the above sentence? I’ll clarify: the one in bold.
  9. +1
    14 October 2019 10: 48
    I would certainly like numbers.
    Speaking of statements sounded in the news.
    How much did import substitution manage to offset the supply of partners?
    Are all engines manufactured in Russia *?
    Estimated cost of losses *?
    The cost of engines compared to competitors?
    There is no gloating. I would like to understand the picture in numbers.
    The price of sanctions. Competitiveness of products in the market.
    So that it doesn’t work out that it’s easier to buy from the same suppliers through 3 countries (and these are also numbers and I would also like to see them). And this is the standard way of many countries. There is nothing shameful.
  10. +1
    14 October 2019 12: 12
    Import substitution in the conditions of a hybrid war is inevitable, although peace is better than friendship and division of labor.
  11. -3
    14 October 2019 12: 28
    We are not China, not the states and into a united Europe to build our own isolated world. Just in size. Yes, and the above economies do not set such a goal, this is initially a rejection of the claim to primacy. It’s about how the Voronezh region refuses to cooperate with the rest of Russia and declares that we will do everything for ourselves and will defeat you all. From the point of view of Voronezh residents, it may sound proudly and patriotically, but essentially funny and obviously doomed to failure.
  12. +1
    14 October 2019 13: 05
    But in reality, Russia simply changed its import - from Western to Chinese, without investing a penny in its own.
    1. +3
      14 October 2019 15: 00
      Why naively without thinking that when the claw gets bogged down the soft Ketai legs will close on the chicken's thin neck and gently press the Adam's apple. And the fact that the darkness of these Chinese offices will not change anything - there is only one decision-making center, here you cannot play on the contradictions between Germany and France. And the conditions put forward will not be "fair in the European way", but ruthless in the Eastern sense.
    2. 0
      14 October 2019 16: 10
      "But in fact, Russia just changed imports" Can't you name the products of the military-industrial complex where did ours use Chinese imports after 2014?
      1. 0
        14 October 2019 17: 03
        In each computer, it stands in an airplane, tank, boat or office of the Ministry of Defense - Chinese parts - microcircuits, resistors and bolts with nuts.
        1. -2
          14 October 2019 21: 43
          The Chinese components are not rolled from the military - they are rolled from civilian products.
          1. 0
            12 December 2019 14: 21
            You are wrong.
  13. 0
    14 October 2019 20: 18
    1. VK-2500 helicopter engines (they began to move BEFORE 2014), then they simply scaled up,
    2. AI-222-25 (for the Yak-130) was made back in 2009, just localization was increased
    3. some more or less shifts with gas turbine engines (Siemens helped)
    4. we buy diesel in China, the quality is poor
    5. electronics in China, the level of technology is several generations lower than the western one (which they sold to us, and not the very top that they have)

    although turbines are very high technologies, but so-so successes, they could have been better
    1. +1
      14 October 2019 21: 52
      The military has separate component manufacturers in Russia, their 190 - and it is not necessary to attribute the Chinese court. And at the expense of diesel engines, the new Kolomna line will soon change the situation
      "The creation of a standard-size range of diesel engines of a new dimension is dictated by the requirements of the strategic development of sectors of the Russian economy.

      A modern four-stroke, combined internal combustion engine with a size of 26,5 / 31 V-shaped 12, 16, 20 cylinder versions with gas turbine pressurization and cooling of the charge air, is designed for a wide range of new generation industrial products: including - diesel locomotives, ships, nuclear power plants.

      Depending on the number of cylinders, the engines cover a power range from 3500 kW (4760 hp) to 7360 kW (10 hp), forming standardized series in which modifications unified in design are combined, differing in the number of cylinders, the level of forcing, and the equipment and etc.

      The design solutions incorporated in the engine make it possible to provide modern technical and economic indicators of the engine that meet the requirements of customers. There are currently no manufacturers of such engines in Russia. "

      Design features
      modular design;
      nearby connecting rods;
      pistons with an asymmetric oval-barrel profile;
      automatic self-cleaning filter;
      maximum injection pressure 1800 bar;
      electronic fuel supply system;
      electronic air and gas bypass system;
      uncooled exhaust manifolds;
      register boost system;
      high efficiency turbochargers;
      if necessary, execution with a two-stage turbocharging system and a Miller cycle is possible;
      flanged traction unit with inverter start (for locomotives)
      1. +1
        16 October 2019 20: 54
        In the USSR, the military did not have its own production of microelectronics. He is not there now. The MEP was responsible for this, which has been gone for 30 years. There are a couple of enterprises left. They practically have no military orders. They do not compete in price with Asian manufacturers, and they do not do everything. And the main criterion for public procurement is the price. And what the level of onboard Russian electronics was shown in the "News" broadcasts on all TV channels when the "black box" from the SU-24 shot down by the Turks was dismantled under the camera! Shame! There was not even a specialist in MO to prohibit such a show. There it was necessary to immediately take them under arrest and start criminal cases at least against the director, chief engineer and military representative of the manufacturer. But nothing, as it should have been. Potemkin villages. Here Shoigu knows a lot about women, he dressed beauties in generals' uniforms, as much as the eye rejoices! This is import substitution!
  14. +1
    14 October 2019 21: 48
    Soon they will give a medal for the words "we have replaced iporto"! The most primitive process, which was not even discussed in the USSR, is now in a trend, in the sense that everyone is trying.
  15. 0
    16 October 2019 18: 44
    Quote: 1976AG
    new workplaces.

    Can you tell me where these places are? In St. Petersburg, for example, it is not very noticeable.
  16. Eug
    0
    17 October 2019 07: 50
    Zorya-Mashproekt - not only turbines, but also gearboxes for the joint operation of dissimilar shipboard SU ... in general, the mass of Ukrainian enterprises produced spare parts and components for USSR equipment. She has little resource left; accordingly, it makes no sense to establish the release of such parts - it will never pay for itself, especially since there is a cheaper offer of original spare parts for foreign markets from Ukraine.
  17. +2
    17 October 2019 13: 20
    The shake-up of the Russian military-industrial complex from the Western sanctions in 2014 was a painful but necessary lesson! Expensive, terrible, but useful. The pink tales of "liber-economists" that we will "fit into the world industrial cooperation" have dissipated like morning fog from the cruel wind of reality belay
  18. +1
    20 October 2019 10: 03
    Quote: samaravega
    Germany's refusal to supply modern diesel

    And the fact that Chebaksary once produced 6-8-12-cylinder MTU diesel engines, the production of which was killed and so on in almost all industries - "if necessary, we will buy it." But no - not everything is possible to buy, and to break it is not to build - it is to break quickly, but to build oh, how long, sometimes many things are gained only by experience and no institutions with a theory do not give it.
  19. 0
    20 October 2019 19: 25
    * Already now we can say that the sanctions gave impetus to the development of the domestic defense industry, having a healing effect on the entire sector. Over the past five years since 2014, the domestic defense industry has rid itself of foreign dependence in many areas. *
    In the last part, I would not say that. This (I do not want to offend anyone) is wishful thinking.
    Even unfortunate hatches, windows, doors ... A loader crane (two) came on a steamboat - well, it’s still imported. Basically, Poland! .. Moreover, the level of manufacture is very mediocre. I can pile such canoes in the garage at prices below market. But they won’t buy from mnu. Not certified!
    And after the fucking certificates, we manually finish. Bo it does not work as expected! ...
    Forty-six thousand rubles is the door in the cabin on order A40! .. The door in the cabin Karl is forty-six thousand !!! .. Is it supposed to be made of pure silver? ..
  20. 0
    21 October 2019 20: 50
    Quote: Engineer
    Recently I read an article at VO how Americans stimulate young people to study in their analogs of vocational schools: high scholarships, a guaranteed job and a high salary. Their experience would be useful with us.

    They have the same problems.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/business/vocational-schools-face-deep-cuts-in-federal-funding.html
    The author complains that funding for training in specialties is being cut significantly. This is despite the fact that it is initially small
    to shrink the small amount of federal spending for vocational training in public high schools and community colleges

    This global trend engineering is becoming less and less popular, and even more so, working professions. Maybe I’ll write an article here about it.

    I am pleased to read ...