Unification: What You Need to Learn from Americans

Photo by: kremlin.ru

This conversation was prompted by the news, which made me a little uncomfortable. And which we will take apart by cogs.

In 2023, Russia will (yes, there are options) will begin work on a new intercontinental ballistic missile with the code name "Kedr". The missile will have a double "registration", that is, silo and mobile basing. According to the developers' idea, "Kedr" will have to replace ... "Yars". Moreover, already in this decade.

Looks ... alarming. And that's why. How much do we have in service with ICBMs today?

1. R-36M2 "Voyevoda"
2. RN-100N UTTH
3. RT-2PM "Poplar
4. RT-2PM2 "Topol-M"
5. RS-24 "Yars"

It's in the mines. And plus to them mobile soil complexes "Topol-M" and "Yars".

In addition, in 2022 or 2023, the Strategic Missile Forces should receive a new RS-28 "Sarmat" missile, unfortunately there is no exact information about the successful tests of which. There is a video of an allegedly successful launch of a rocket, which is replaced by computer animation immediately after the rocket leaves the mine. As usual, though.

A reasonable question arises: why do we need another rocket? After all, "on the way" the latest missile, which is able to solve all the problems with ICBMs. Which is "Sarmat".

Photo: Russian Ministry of Defense

But we will talk about this separately. Now we will focus on slightly different matters.

Russia is the heir to the USSR, in which a huge amount of various weapons were invented and manufactured. We still use scraps of this, and we will use it for quite a long time. This is especially true of the surface fleet and ground forces.

But variety isn't always good. For repair, service and maintenance. For maintenance of warehouses with spare parts and so on. In the end, to preserve the livestock of zampotekh and zampotlov.

In Russia, 5 mine ICBMs and 2 ground-based ICBMs are now in service. And two more will be added.

In the fleet:
- R-29RM;
- R-29RMU2 "Sineva";
- R-29RMU2.1 "Liner";
- R-30 "Bulava".

4 more types. Different from each other, except for "Sineva" and "Liner", they are almost identical.

What do the Americans have? And everything is very simple for them. Ground mine complex with "Minuteman-3". In service since 1970, has undergone a huge number of upgrades. Is still relevant as weapon last blow, although certainly not new.

At sea it is "Trident-2".

SLBMs have been in service with the US submarine fleet since 1990 and have also been modernized several times. Good weapon.

And that is all.

You can look at nuclear submarines.

The Russian fleet operates both old Soviet boats and modern Russian-made ones:

- Project 941 "Shark";
- Project 667BDRM "Dolphin";
- Project 955 "Borey" (955A "Borey-A");
- Project 885 "Ash" (885M "Ash-M");
- Project 949A "Antey";
- Project 971 "Pike-B";
- project 945 "Barracuda";
- Project 945A "Condor";
- Project 671RTMK "Pike";
- Project 667BDR "Kalmar".

10 types of nuclear submarines. Each can differ from the other in any way, by thousands and one design decision. And when carrying out each repair at the plant, you probably first have to study the technical documentation for the project for a long time and dreary.

Everything is calmer in the USA.

- Ohio. As the main SSBN
- "Virginia". As the main PLATRC.
- "Los Angeles". PLATRK, withdrawn from the fleet.
- "Seawulf", withdrawn from the fleet, for slag.

You can return to land. And there to look, for example, at such an important component of the ground forces as tank troops.

The Russian army today is armed with T-90 / T-90A, T-90M, T-80U / T-80BV, T-80BVM, T-72B / T-72BA / T-72B arr. 1989, T- 72B3 / T-72B3 model 2017

A total of 3 models and 6 active upgrades. Which of them is the real "main battle tank" - the question. If by quantity, then T-72B3, if in fact - T-90.

What's in the USA?

Abrams. One model in three versions. M1A1SA, M1A2, M1A2C. That is, in fact, the headache is three times less.

And so you can go on for a very long time. Traces of the Soviet Union can be found in almost every section of naval, land and air weapons. Correctly serving for the good of Russia.

Is it good? I’m sure not. This is a big headache in knowing the subject of repair or maintenance, the range of spare parts, and what is there, just knowing where in which submarine the control cables are laid.

What about tanks, what about vehicles based on tanks? For example, such a miracle as an armored recovery vehicle comes. A very useful thing in the household, because it can do a lot.

Where to send for repairs? There, where they know, of course. But BREM-1 should be sent to where they know how to work with the T-72, and BREM-2 (aka BREM-80U) - to where they know the T-80.

That is, you need to understand what to send to St. Petersburg, what to Omsk, and what to Nizhny Tagil.

And if you take into account the full list of what was developed on the basis of our tanks (air defense systems, self-propelled guns, TOS, BREM, IMR), then it becomes clear that all this breakthrough of equipment needs to be repaired. This does not mean the repairs that can be done in each unit by the forces of technicians, but also complex overhauls, which requires sending the machine a little further than the regiment's workshop.

Unification is what the Russian army and navy lacks today. Because unification saves time and money at the same time. But one gets the impression that unification is precisely what the Russian military-industrial complex does not need tomorrow.

It's simple: everyone wants to live. Receive salaries, bonuses, bonuses and everything else. Take the UAC, for example. This corporation includes:

-PJSC "Company" Sukhoi ";
- JSC "Russian Aircraft Corporation" MiG ";
-PJSC "Tupolev";
-PJSC "Research and Production Corporation" Irkut ";
-CRAIC Ltd .;
-JSC AeroComposite;
- JSC "KAPO-Composite";
-JSC AeroComposite-Ulyanovsk;
- JSC "Aviastar-SP";
-PJSC "Voronezh Joint-Stock Aircraft Building Company";
-PJSC "Taganrog aviation scientific and technical complex named after G.M. Beriev ";
- JSC "Experimental Machine-Building Plant named after V.M. Myasishchev ";
-JSC "Flight Research Institute named after M.M. Gromov ";
-OJSC "Experimental Design Bureau named after A. Yakovlev";
-OJSC "Aviation complex named after S. V. Ilyushin".

And also aircraft repair plants:

-AO 121 ARZ;
-AO 123 ARZ;
-AO 360 ARZ;
-AO 514 ARZ;
- OJSC "170 RZ SOP" repair plant of flight support equipment;
- JSC "31 ZATO" plant of aviation-technological equipment;
- OJSC "32 RZ SOP" repair plant of flight support equipment;
-OJSC "680 ARZ" Aviation Repair Plant;
- OJSC "720 RZ SOP" repair plant of flight support equipment;
-OJSC "VZ RTO" Volgograd Radio Engineering Equipment Plant;
-OJSC 20 ARZ;
-OJSC 275 ARZ;
-OJSC 308 ARZ;
-OJSC 322 ARZ;
- JSC 325 ARZ.

More than 100 staff members scattered throughout the country.

And this is where you can ask questions.

For example, to the employees of the Ilyushin aviation complex. Why is the Il-30MD-76A, a modification that should replace the Il-90MD-M, all that the company can boast of for 76 years? Why did the Il-114 turn out to be so "luxurious" that all potential customers abandoned it? And two firms that managed to get the plane for their use successfully went bankrupt? Why does the Il-112V fly "successfully" once every three years?

And everyone in the company receives a salary systematically, if not regularly.

Can I ask the Aerocomposite company where is the wing for the MC-21? In 2018, the Americans vetoed the supply of their composites, three years have passed. There are no compositions of their own, despite the imitation of a very vigorous activity by both Aerocomposite and UMATEX (part of the Rosatom corporation), Prepreg-SCM (from the RUSNANO gang), and UNIHIMTEK.

And there are many such questions to be asked. Many companies. Those who use up funds with all their might, and at the end of the withdrawn from service and production of weapons systems, of which, according to Defense Minister Shoigu, there were only a dozen in the Syrian campaign. Or missing wings for airplanes. As an option.

But soon there will be 30 years of independent activity. And the further, the faster the Soviet legacy, even if it is somewhat different in size, will fade into oblivion. To landfills. In the furnace for remelting.

The question is: what will come to replace it is still a question.

Obviously, the Ministry of Defense simply has no idea what the planned replacement of military equipment should look like. Therefore, there is a release on the principle of "who in what is great." Naturally, with a corruption component. As, for example, with incomprehensible and useless ships of project 22160 (Will "pigeons" improve "Calibers"?), which are directly spoken of, which was not without backstage contracts.

How about the "main battle tank", of which we have three so far. Thank God, this has not yet reached "Armata". Otherwise there would be four. Four "main battle tanks". Strangely a few.

There should be one main battle tank. That's why he is the main one. There can be modifications, this is undeniable. But modifications to one tank, not three.

There should be one type of strategic submarine missile cruiser, not six. Yes, SSBNs should have plenty, but of one type. So that at any time you can take any unit or mechanism from the warehouse or from the factory and replace it professionally.

And so with all types of weapons. Here you should learn from the Americans. Maximum unification is the key to simplicity and the ability to eliminate any problem.

By the way, we have someone to take an example from. Not everything is so bad in the Russian army (more precisely, in its part), there are also pleasant exceptions. This is the Airborne Forces. There, the issue of unification in terms of technology was solved, and it was solved beautifully. The creation of a single platform for all equipment is clearly traced there.

To date, the following list has been adopted and is being developed:
- BMD-4M
- BTR-MDM "Shell"
- BMM-D (sanitary evacuation vehicle)
- RHM-5M (chemists)
- 120-mm SAO "Lotos".
- "Zavet-D" (b / c conveyor for "Lotus")
- SAM "Poultry"
- ATGM "Kornet-D1"
- BRM "Pervoput" (reconnaissance)
- BREM "Affect-M"

All this was created on the basis of the BMD-4M.

Photo: Russian Ministry of Defense

And the Sprut-SDM1 self-propelled anti-tank gun was also unified to the maximum with the BMD-4M, although it was based on another project, “Judge”, otherwise “Project 934”, which was planned to replace the PT-76 amphibious tank.

On the basis of our tanks and armored personnel carriers, many auxiliary vehicles have also been created, the whole question is that there are more models. But it is necessary, like the paratroopers, to take one machine as a basis and build on it. How did the Americans do with their "Stryker", from which they did not sculpt anything.

Orderliness and maximum unification is the way that, with a budget of 70 billion dollars, will allow you to create an effective army, spending exactly as much as you need, and not as some as you can. Ten times more.

The main thing is to use funds in a planned and purposeful manner. Do not build two training centers for twenty naval pilots for whom there is no aircraft carrier. Do not kill billions of money to build ships that are completely unnecessary for the fleet. Not to support unprofitable companies that cannot create a normally flying plane in 30 years.

And a new rocket, which will step on the heels of the newly created one, is hardly a logical decision.

But this requires a clear understanding of the strategy and tactics of development of both the Armed Forces and the Navy. Precisely clear. Precisely understanding. And with this, apparently, we are somewhat tense today.

I express my deep gratitude to Alexei "Alex TB" for clarification about the tracked mechanisms.

Comments

[v.tochenn]

And what about the Americans, Mr. Skomorokhov asks: "And everything is simple with them," - to put it mildly, they are uncomfortable, and they stutter and therefore hysteria about it.
Why would that be, huh?

[AUL]

And we seem to have sabotage at the highest level. And the broadest field for corruption and theft!

[knn54]

Novel, plus.
A good topic for discussion. Small amendment -ROSNANO, not a gang, but (at least) the mafia.
EVERYONE wants to eat, but MUCH less to work.
It's one thing to prefix M, 1M, M2, etc.
Another thing is Cedar, Poplar. Even the "oak" is clear that this is already different money.
There are no constructors, but each structure has a lot of "effective" managers.

[EvilLion]

In the USSR, they reasoned in exactly the same way, leave behind Rusnano.

[Shurik70]

Quote: EvilLion

In the USSR, they reasoned in exactly the same way, leave behind Rusnano.

So, do you think there was no corruption in the USSR?
There would be no corruption, now they would be ahead of everyone so that they would never catch up with anyone.
And they would not fall apart.
One difference - before, they tried to hide the income from bribes. Now they don't hide

[yehat2]

not sabotage, but elementary slovenliness combined with endlessly sawing
our department cannot work even at the level of the German armaments department 80 years ago. What else is there to add?

[Barberry25]

and the Bundes, too, can not, so what?

[seregatara1969]

there are many traitors to the motherland and sympathizers with them.

[Barberry25]

no, we just have "Topvar experts" again uncovered after playing enough with civilization ...

[Clone]

The main thing is that the followers of "Marshal" Serdyukov do not deal with the problems of unification, because everything will end with the sale of real estate and ... Well, then you yourself know.

[Uncle lee]

But variety isn't always good.

It is clear. But the Soviet legacy flies, travels and walks on the seas and under water. And if we refuse it, then we will be left with nothing, so, tears. Here is such a diverse heritage that we cherish!

[Finches]

The short answer is that this is the Russian legacy of the Soviet military tradition. But if we take tanks, then there is already a tendency towards unification - the Armata platform, a fairy tale tells quickly, but things are not done quickly!

[Old tanker]

If we take tanks, then we don't know when the "Armata" will arrive. And unification has been outlined for a long time - on the basis of the T-72. T-90 is the same T-72B only improved. The Ministry of Defense came to the right decision to upgrade all T-90s to the T-90M level. Great car turned out! It is not clear only, why not upgrade all the T-72s to the same level? After all, the base of the T-72 and T-90 is practically the same. Rather, it is clear why, it is a pity for money. And so it would be all right with the unification. A single T-90M tank and T-80BVM for regions with a particularly cold climate. Replaced by the planned "Armata".

[MegaWattExpert]

for the money as a new tank turn out. There are too many differences between T72 and T90.

[Aleks tv]

... There are too many differences between T72 and T90.

Hello.

Yes, the T-90 and T-72 differ significantly. But here it's all about the "approach":
If the T-90 was brought to the "Breakthrough-3" (there were also more serious options), then the B3 and T-80 are being modernized on the basis of ... "how much money is enough for maximum coverage in terms of quantity."

The very idea of ​​unification is great. There is only one pitfall here - the platform should be maximally modified and even "successful"
And then:
* Heavy gusli - Armata platform,
* Light gusli - platform Kurganets-25,
* Wheels - Boomerang.
* Lightweight wheels are still a mess.
* Airborne Forces - BMD-4M.
Different caliber weapons in modules, maximally (if possible) unified between platforms.
Here it will be - seer good and full ice in terms of:
- development of platforms to perfection of quality,
- logistics and availability of spare parts,
- cheapness due to mass character.
.................
The biggest mess in this is in the ISB (military engineers) of brigades and divisions.
They have a wide range of platforms - from the Su-100 to the T-80. And how to keep this "Menagerie" on alert for the zampotech?
................
The Airborne Forces have the "largest order".
They have really decisive not only fighters, but also generals.
* Didn't like the BMD-4 as a platform? Boldly into the furnace and finishing up the BMD-4M, and only then into the series.
* Didn't like the exorbitant price? Well, they must have dipped someone in the right place. We solved the issue with two factories and guaranteed stable orders.
* Need unification? I believe that they will make the entire line of machines they need. They will do it. AND ALREADY DO.
Moreover, they have experience, on the basis of the BTR-D (earlier), a decent family was also created:
BTR, Nona, Rheostat, Robot, Grinding, Magpie, Tit, Phobos, Stroy-P, BREM.

So you can learn from the paratroopers not only courage and courage, but also economics, planning and persistence in making comprehensively balanced decisions.

[Lt. Air Force stock]

Quote: Aleks tv

Yes, the T-90 and T-72 differ significantly. But here it's all about the "approach":

There the tower needs to be changed, it will be very expensive. We have about 90 T-500s, and about 72 T-3000s, if not more. In fact, the T-90S is the T-72B4, and the T-90M is the T-72B5.

[Aleks tv]

... There the tower needs to be changed, it will be very expensive. We have about 90 T-500s, and about 72 T-3000s, if not more.

Good day.

Can't change.
Tower 90 does not fit 72.
These are really different tanks, only the most unified.

T-72 is much more than 3000 ...))
.......
And more:
When we have "Platforms" and "unification", well ... someday ...,))
It is important not to overdo it, as always.
There are weapons systems, according to the requirements of which the platform is built, and not vice versa.
For example - army air defense or special. cars.

There may be exceptions to all the rules, the main thing is that there are competent justifications.

[Lt. Air Force stock]

Quote: Aleks tv

Tower 90 does not fit 72.
These are really different tanks, only the most unified.

So the shoulder straps of the tower seem to be the same. The same Burlak tower was supposed to be installed on the T-72B, T-80BV and T-90.

[Aleks tv]

... The same Burlak tower was supposed to be installed on the T-72B, T-80BV and T-90.

Yes.
But the modernization of OWN towers.

[Old tanker]

Can't change.
Tower 90 does not fit 72.

Why would a T-90 tower suddenly not fit the T-72 hull, if the diameter of the turret ring of both the one and the other is the same 1815mm?
In general, the T-90 was originally called the T-72BU ("U" is an improved one, following the example of the T-80U). But then it was renamed T-90. Although structurally it was much closer to the older brother of the T-72 (it was created as its modification and had the same hull, engine and tracks, the same cast turret) than the T-80U to the T-80.

[Aleks tv]

... Why would a T-90 tower suddenly not fit the T-72 hull, if the turret ring diameter of both is the same 1815mm?

Good day.

I myself, of course, did not put the tower of the 90th on the 72nd.))
This is from the workers of UVZ, when we were "grazing" there.
If interested, I will try to clarify.

They, in principle, are always not happy about replacing the tower with another, even within the framework of one project - their "wedding" is full of crap.
Even tanks of the same series.
I remember that well.

[Old tanker]

No need to clarify. Until recently, my schoolmate worked at UVZ.
Quite a tower from the T-90 sits on the T-72 hull. Of course they are not completely interchangeable, some adjustments are needed. For example, a turret rotation mechanism, a commander's central control unit / "Double" drive, an internal control unit, etc. but iron itself sits down on iron.

[Aleks tv]

... Quite a tower from the T-90 sits on the T-72 hull. Of course they are not completely interchangeable, some adjustments are needed.

Hmm.
Here I will not insist.
Perhaps I am wrong.

Nevertheless, I will clarify at the earliest opportunity. Somehow it was deposited in my head that they were not interchangeable. It became interesting to the most.
Thanks for the info.

[Old tanker]

If you bring the T-72 to the level of the T-90M, then yes, the turret needs to be changed. But you can do as with the T-80BVM. Install the same DZ "Relikt" system on the old cast turret as on the T-90M. On her, the DUM from the T-90M. Well, the filling of the cap is all from the T-90M. If desired, a welded box on the bracket can be installed at the rear of the turret in order to remove ammunition from the non-mechanized stowage outside the habitable compartments. Although, I would not do that.
So much for the T-90M, only with a cast turret. Well, you can call it T-72B4 to distinguish it.

[Lt. Air Force stock]

Quote: Old Tankman

If you bring the T-72 to the level of the T-90M, then yes, the turret needs to be changed. But you can do as with the T-80BVM. Install the same DZ "Relikt" system on the old cast turret as on the T-90M. On her, the DUM from the T-90M. Well, the filling of the cap is all from the T-90M. If desired, a welded box on the bracket can be installed at the rear of the turret in order to remove ammunition from the non-mechanized stowage outside the habitable compartments. Although, I would not do that.

Since the point of the new tower is to place BOPSs of large elongation in the turret niche to penetrate modern and promising tanks, since in old towers the length of BOPSs has limitations, they simply do not fit into the automatic loader. You can't do that with an old tower.

[Old tanker]

The length of the BOPS is important not behind the turret, but in the automatic loader cassette. Put in the T-72 a modified AZ from the T-90M and you will be happy. And behind the armor, long bops can be carried in a welded "armored suitcase".

[Old tanker]

It depends on what modifications of the T-72 and T-90 to compare. If the early T-90 and T-72B arr. 1989. That difference is only in the gunner's sights and the commander's sighting device, plus a closed ZPU. Well, the curtain. Everything. If we take the later T-90A and T-72B3 combat units, then a difference is added in the welded and cast turret, but the gunner's sighting system for the T-72 is already more advanced.

[Grits]

Quote: MegaWattExpert

for the money as a new tank turn out. There are too many differences between T72 and T90.

But from 72 you can sculpt everything else - evacuation vehicles, engineering vehicles, TOS, BMPT, heavy armored personnel carriers and so on and so on.

[keeper03]

In the USSR, there was just the same unification !!!

[Barberry25]

the whole joke is that the T-80BVM is more unified with the T-72B3 than the 80s and 72s in their time ... so the author does not understand what he is writing corny

[Dimon-chik-79]

that's what we're talking about, why build the T-90, when it is possible to upgrade the T-72 (and if you really need an "Arctic tank", then the T80) of which there are already thousands, to the level of the T-90M (3) ?! Produce one tank in series, Armata. But there is no parallel T90 and Armata and modernize 72 and 80, and plus the T-62, which the author of the article has not deservedly forgotten. So in the end 5!))

[yehat2]

Quote: Finches

the tale tells quickly, but not quickly the thing is done

It took the USSR 34 years to unify the t3 platform, 54 years to unify the t-4
It has already taken 2009 years to unify the armata since 12 and the end of the region is not visible for at least another 4 years, if not more - this is according to the announced plans of the Ministry of Defense.
Not everything was good with the industry in the USSR in the 40s, for example, only 34 factories could produce t2, so the situation is quite comparable. And the results are not.

[bayard]

Quote: yehat2

It has already taken 2009 years to unify the armata since 12 and the end of the region is not visible for at least another 4 years, if not more - this is according to the announced plans of the Ministry of Defense.

And it is a great happiness of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation that this animal did not replenish the zoo of the Armored Forces. It was not enough at that time to multiply the zoo. At the storage bases there is a huge number of T-72 and T-80, with an untouched resource and suitable for modernization. Tanks are needed not for a parade, but for a war, which means you need a lot of them, with the ability to quickly replenish losses from the reserve and promptly repair damaged ones. With "Armata" this is impossible in principle - neither have a lot, nor quickly replenish, nor quickly restore.
The emergence of such a platform can only be justified by a tank of new possibilities. Definitely not MBT, but for example a "heavy tank of breakthrough and fire support" with 152 mm. tool. You can have several brigades for all aircraft of this type, and this will be enough.
And from 125 mm. a cannon, and he wasn’t for nothing.
Who in the troops will set up, calibrate, maintain its millimeter radar?
And in combat conditions?
But on its chassis to install a combat module "Coalition" ... or rather, even on the chassis of the BMP T-15 ... it would be very interesting to happen.
Perhaps the only disruption in the rearmament program, which I am happy about, is the disruption in the supply of the "Armata".

[yehat2]

tanks without accompanying troops are useless
and there is nothing to move the infantry normally on.
we have thousands of obsolete BMPs that can be found literally from any NATO combat vehicle.
And the T72 and T80 tanks are not very suitable as a platform for such purposes.
I'm not a fan of armata at all - I think it's stupid to refuse a full-fledged project.
But the current state of affairs is also not good.
it would be okay to make modernizations at least serious, but this is not so.
the same Czechs and t-72 and bmp-2 modernization made better.

[bayard]

Quote: yehat2

we have thousands of obsolete BMPs that can be found literally from any NATO combat vehicle.

There is nothing to be done about the security of our old infantry fighting vehicles, but we cannot abandon them while they are in the resource, and they are all floating with us. And with our abundance of rivers and lakes, this option is important.
But you look at the BMP-3, and especially the BMP-3M "Dragoon", where the security is already quite at the level - it holds 30 mm in the forehead, and with side screens (the same as in Kurganets), and in the side 30 mm. keeps. And even a grenade launcher. You can also use KAZ if you wish.
And if we judge by weight (21 tons), then its security is no worse than that of "Kurganets", which weighs 25 tons. The dimensions are very large.
And while she swims.
And many times cheaper than "Kurganets", because it uses a serial base and components.
"Kurganets" is no less harmful to the RF Armed Forces than the notorious "Armata" in its present guise. As priced as the T-90MS, it is simply cyclopean in size. It was not for nothing that at its first inspection the General Staff and Generals of the Ground Forces called it "The Dream of a Grenade Launcher". When buying such a mandolin, you will waste your budget and gain no benefit.
But the BMP-3M is just that. Her troop compartment has become more spacious, and the landing / disembarkation is more convenient. On such a base, and sculpt a full line of armored vehicles for the ground forces - from infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers (in the likeness of "Shells" at the paratroopers), to the command and staff vehicle, sanitary evacuation, ammunition transport to the front edge, bases for self-propelled guns and a light tank ( exactly what India wants - weighing 25 tons and with a 125 mm cannon).
And the BMP-2 and BMP-1M with the new module will still serve - our army is large, the territory is huge, and they still have enough resources. And at the storage bases they simply heaped up.

Quote: yehat2

And the T72 and T80 tanks are not very suitable as a platform for such purposes.

They are suitable as MBT and this is the main thing. There are a lot of them in storage bases, and this is very good - such a stock will never be superfluous, especially during a threatened period like now. The T-80 in the latest modernization is simply handsome, and the T-72B3 is, although the most budget version of the modernization, but in terms of the sighting complex and avionics, it is quite acceptable.
Before the Second World War, the USSR began to re-equip the Army with new automatic rifles. The three-line rifles were removed from production, about 2 million automatic rifles were produced and delivered to the troops ... but it turned out that for yesterday's collective farmers, automatic rifles are too difficult to maintain and use ... And again they returned to production the PROVEN, RELIABLE and RELIABLE three-line rifles.
And this is a good lesson for the future - in a threatened period, weapons should be familiar, familiar, in sufficient quantity, easily repaired and replenished.

Quote: yehat2

it would be okay to make modernizations at least serious, but this is not so.

I am also annoyed by the monstrous gaps in the dynamic protection of the T-72B3, but such an upgrade has one serious plus - it has a very moderate cost and allows such upgrades to be carried out in large quantities. The T-34 became the "Best Tank of WW2" not because it really was better than others, but because it was MASSIVE, inexpensive to manufacture and very repairable. And the optics, shells and guns ... and the quality of the armor (except for the very end of the war) the Germans had better.
But there were fewer of them.
Huge reserves of Soviet weapons - tanks, self-propelled guns, infantry fighting vehicles, artillery of all types, mountains of small arms and ammunition, mortars, etc. - are our indisputable advantage in the event of a land war. We have something to fight with.

[yehat2]

Quote: bayard

it has a very reasonable cost and allows you to carry out such modernization in large quantities

but this is just not the case - there are big questions with the cost.
I don't remember where I saw it, but they gave the ratio. 3 upgrades to t72b3 cost as much as 2 new t90
and it’s not very hard to believe that modernization is more profitable.
in addition, if everything rested on the machines themselves - big questions for the KAZ, the further improvement of the panorama and other devices, for the modernity of sub-caliber shells.
Finally, something needs to be done with the new dvaleline-like systems, which rape all our tanks from above, as they want, and we also need to somehow deal with the new small guided bombs that are being thrown by drones.
to declare that today the T-72 B3 is sufficient - at least overkill.
Well, lastly, let's compare this car with those that are concentrated in hundreds along the borders - from different versions of NATO leopards and Abrams to Chinese type99.
Somehow the chances for the T-72B3 look pale. This I mean, the number of modernized tanks does not guarantee a damn thing.

[bayard]

Quote: yehat2

and it’s not very hard to believe that modernization is more profitable.

Modernization is more profitable in terms of quickly saturating troops with updated equipment (we have a threatened period since 2014), forming a reserve for quickly replenishing losses and deploying new formations (including mobilization). The tankers recruited from the reserve, who served before on the T-72, will quickly master the modernized T-72 (and there will be no others) and will regain their skills.
Well, and as an export potential for the belligerents or those who are going to fight, partners and allies.

Quote: yehat2

Finally, something needs to be done with the new dvaleline-like systems, which rape all our tanks from above, as they want, and we also need to somehow deal with the new small guided bombs that are being thrown by drones.

These things rape any tank today - tanks from any manufacturer. And it is not tanks that need to fight them (well, do not put a radar with a view of the entire upper hemisphere on each tank?), But the means of military air defense and electronic warfare. This is a new challenge, new goals and threats, and it is precisely those who are responsible for air cover that must be answered. And if we start booking tanks from above like a forehead ... we have a conventional T-72 \ T-90 at a price and weight more expensive than the Abrams and the last Leclerc.

Quote: yehat2

big questions to the KAZ, to further improve the panorama and other devices, to the modernity of sub-caliber shells.

All these issues are being addressed and resolved on the latest modification of the T-90, which began to enter the troops. Their combination with the T-72B3 in the army will be quite harmonious. Thanks to the unification of the chassis and weapon systems.

Quote: yehat2

to declare that today the T-72 B3 is sufficient - at least overkill.

It is sufficient for a number of secondary theaters and as a second line tank (dancer and development of the success of the T-90). It's just that, starting in 2014, there was a question about the rapid rearmament of tank units and formations with new equipment, because the old one for the most part has exhausted its resource. For this purpose, the T-72B3 was the best fit - it was faster and cheaper). But the disadvantages of such modernization are obvious (including the gaps in the dynamic protection) and were definitely not a panacea. Therefore, the delivery of the T-90MS has begun, which is devoid of these shortcomings.

Quote: yehat2

let us compare this car with those that are concentrated in hundreds along the borders - from different versions of NATO leopards and Abrams to Chinese type99.

For these hundreds there are our hundreds of T-90MS, and on the Chinese direction T-80BVM.
And if the protection of the T-72B3 was made at the level of the T-80BVM, it would be just wonderful.

Quote: yehat2

Somehow the chances for the T-72B3 look pale. This I mean, the number of modernized tanks does not guarantee a damn thing.

Not all of these tanks even have dynamic protection, the gun is no better, the armor resistance of the forehead, if better, is not much better, there is no superiority in the gun, not everyone has an automatic loader, they do not shoot missiles. The maximum target range of the T-72B3 \ T-90SM \ T-80BVM is significantly greater than that of the Leopards and Abrams.
Yes, tanks and tanks do not fight very often.
And from ATGMs they burn better than ours - tested in Syria (Turkish "Leopards") and Iraq ("Abrams").
Both the number and the presence of vast reserves do matter. Proven in all wars since WWII.

[ccsr]

Quote: bayard

Huge reserves of Soviet weapons - tanks, self-propelled guns, infantry fighting vehicles, artillery of all types, mountains of small arms and ammunition, mortars, etc. - are our indisputable advantage in the event of a land war. We have something to fight with.

Of course, we will not have to fight this, in view of the transience of the exchange of nuclear strikes with our main opponents. But it would be wise to use all this to sell or promote our geopolitical interests in some countries of the world, it would be very handy and economical. With great interest I saw our Soviet air defense missiles in Syria, which were fired during the Soviet era - this is a competent approach to our military reserves.

[bayard]

Quote: ccsr

Of course, we will not have to fight this, in view of the transience of the exchange of nuclear strikes with our main opponents.

Well, why is it so pessimistic, I’m talking about the benefits of these arsenals in the LAND war.
Well, how will our "main opponents" fight us with the help of their satellites? Ukraine, Georgia, all the Young Donors who are not sorry for?
And if, after the Americans left Afghanistan, a fire breaks out there?
How to stew?
It is here that all our "wealth of ancestors" will come in handy in full.
And if in the Transcaucasia (in the Caucasus?) And in Central Asia our interests collide with those of Turkey? So that the sparks fly?
Well, not to jam everyone with atomic bombs?

Quote: ccsr

... But it would be wise to use all this to sell or promote our geopolitical interests in some countries of the world, it would be very handy and economical.

This is how we observe it. This (arms trade) should not be taught to our marketers.
Here the trusted business, PMCs and the supply of Soviet weapons go hand in hand.

Quote: ccsr

With great interest I saw our Soviet air defense missiles in Syria, which were fired during the Soviet era - this is a competent approach to our military reserves.

In Syria, back in the 70s - early 80s, a very powerful air defense was built. On the latest systems then. Our specialists. Today its remains continue to work. Russia helps with ammunition from old stocks, spare parts and maintenance. But to see the S-75, S-125, P-12, PRV-9, P-15, S-200 standing in service to this day ... nice ... and it will nastalgic.

[ccsr]

Quote: bayard

Well, how will our "main opponents" fight us with the help of their satellites? Ukraine, Georgia, all the Young Donors who are not sorry for?

Our VKS will cope - it is only necessary to strike at the capitals of these satellites, and the war will immediately end.

Quote: bayard

And if, after the Americans left Afghanistan, a fire breaks out there?
How to stew?

We shouldn't care about that at all.

Quote: bayard

But to see the S-75, S-125, P-12, PRV-9, P-15, S-200 standing in service to this day ... it's nice ... and nastalgic.

So this is an excellent example of a reasonable approach to our stocks of weapons - we can only rejoice for the reliability of our equipment.

[mojohed2012]

Money is quickly mastered and sawed, but not quickly and cheaply the newest tanks enter the army.
Armata! Does it need this Armata of the army?
The T-72 and T-90 are still not outdated.
And Abrams - what Abrams? The overloaded car is also a development of the 60s, hung with a heavy one. And something on them besides the grilles in Iraq from Syria is not visible even analogs of reactive armor. All their armored vehicles are "just beginning" to dress in Israeli dynamic armor ...

[Nikkon]

Quote: Finches

The short answer is that this is the Russian legacy of the Soviet military tradition, but if we take tanks, then there is already a trend towards unification.

Quite right. And the Americans, with their unification, have already raised the question of writing off all Minuteman ICBMs, since their resource has been exhausted, which was confirmed by the recent unsuccessful test launch. Moreover, the United States is already discussing the issue of eliminating ground-based ICBMs as a class. Because the last modernization of Minuteman ICBMs was carried out already in 1970, and their production was discontinued in 1978. Since then, the United States has lost the technology for their production, and it is both time-consuming and expensive to restore them. Thank God! in Russia, research and development work is being carried out on this topic. The technology is improving, the quality indicators of missile weapons are improving. In general, the Americans should learn from Russia how to produce such perfect weapons at minimal cost and have the most powerful army in the world with such a modest military budget.

[Anachoret]

in our country it is a mixture of slovenliness, sabotage and remnants of the Soviet legacy, to replace which nothing has been built in sufficient quantities)
t72 and its modifications are still MBT since others have not been built in sufficient quantities (and it was not necessary). if armata justifies itself in its potential, it will be necessary to sculpt the future in marketable quantities from it))
for submarines, the same story, but as soon as Borey appears on alert at least 6-7 pieces, you can attend to the write-off of submarines of the 2nd and 3rd generations) and then, it makes sense to use them on large projects in the North and the Far East, as elementary floating nuclear power plants )

[Avior]

The author did not take into account one more thing that was recently written on VO.
The plans are already in the modernization of the Su-57. One serial - prototypes do not count.
If this continues, the squadron will not have two identical aircraft.
unification, you say ...

[Kalmar]

Quote: Avior

The plans are already in the modernization of the Su-57. One serial - prototypes do not count.
If this continues, the squadron will not have two identical aircraft.
unification, you say ...

Well, modernization itself is never bad. Especially if they manage to crank it before the construction of a large series (and the series, of course, has already been modernized). The same F-15 is also used by the Americans in three different modifications (C, E and D), and nothing. The main thing is that the modernization itself should be carried out, so to speak, in a large-scale and systematic manner, and not so that each aircraft is made according to an individual project.

[Avior]

So far he is only one.

[Lt. Air Force stock]

Quote: Kalmar

Well, modernization itself is never bad. Especially if they manage to crank it before the construction of a large series (and the series, of course, has already been modernized). The same F-15 is also used by the Americans in three different modifications (C, E and D), and nothing. The main thing is that the modernization itself should be carried out, so to speak, in a large-scale and systematic manner, and not so that each aircraft is made according to an individual project.

In the United States, they just upgrade in packages, carry out R&D, wait for a package of significant updates to accumulate that will really increase efficiency and effectiveness. Then they will modernize. And we get the impression that they are in a hurry to implement any innovation.

[KCA]

And how do the different names Topol, Topol-M, Yars, Bulava, the most unified missiles with each other, differ from the various modifications of the US missiles? Well, they would call Poplar Block I, Block II, Block III, Block IV, would it be easier for the author? If the motley equipment produced by the USSR is capable of performing combat missions, what is it, all at once for scrap, for the sake of unification? "Which of them is the real" main battle tank "- the question. If in quantity, then T-72B3, if in fact - T-90." then cut all the rest for scrap?

[Lech from Android.]

We must first understand what modern combat is and how the unification or diversity of weapons, equipment and ammunition affects it.
You will not strike a single infantryman or a tank with an Iskander or MLRS.
Each target needs its own type of weapon and ammunition with the ensuing consequences.

[AUL]

Quote: KCA

If the motley equipment produced by the USSR is capable of performing combat missions, what is it, all at once for scrap, for the sake of unification?

This is not the question! Nobody offers to throw away all this variety. And the question is, why did you need a vegetable create so many models, spend a lot of money and as a result have huge hemorrhoids with the operation of heterogeneous equipment designed to solve the same problems!

[NDR-791]

Quote from AUL

Why did the vegetable have to create so many models, spend a lot of money and, as a result, have huge hemorrhoids with the operation of heterogeneous equipment

This is not the point. Yes, as it were, the operation and repairs in peacetime brings some inconvenience, but only to those who operate. For those who carry equipment back and forth, this situation brings butter and caviar (not overseas) for a piece of bread. In a modern global war (namely global), any modification is only a consumable disposable product. On the other hand, it is not the BMP-4 that is going to the war with the terrorists (they only get there for testing), but the BMP-2. And the T-90s also go there only for testing, and the T-72s are fighting there. And here's another example for you - "Admiral Kuznetsov". Here he remained in the singular, without modifications. Here's an example of continuous unification. And where? And how are you doing with repairs and maintenance?

[Nikkon]

Quote: KCA

If the motley equipment produced by the USSR is capable of performing combat missions, what is it, all at once for scrap, for the sake of unification? "Which of them is the real" main battle tank "- the question. If in quantity, then T-72B3, if in fact - T-90." means to cut all the rest for scrap?

Right. In addition, it must be borne in mind that the country is huge and a single tank is not ideal everywhere. T-80Us arrive in the Arctic zone, there will be no diesel T-72, T-90, so there will be no problems with spare parts kits and the qualifications of technicians.

[Konnick]

And how many armored vehicles, a whole zoo - Tiger, Lynx, Bear, Wolf ...

[carstorm 11]

Two. Tiger and Lynx. And then the write-off will go to replaceable with taffunas. Everything else in the army, if there is, is in an insignificant number. If at all.

[Al_lexx]

The army is real fighters.

..
Roman, you are again not in the subject and again (judging by the statistics) ban my post.))

...
Tell us about our fighters and I will forgive you everything. No, I'm not a leavened patriot. I just expect at least some objectivity from you.
..
What happened to you? Have you been offered something? Has it become more profitable to drive this whole blizzard?

...
However, this resource is getting worse and worse every day.
Nothing personal. Only pain and some kind of rejection.

[v.tochenn]

Quote: Al_lexx

However, this resource is getting worse and worse every day.

And here is 1000500 for it. I support.

[your1970]

Quote: Al_lexx

Tell us about our fighters and I will forgive you everything.

And what is wrong with our fighters? Conscripts are exactly the same as always, officers and contract soldiers are sufficiently trained ...
"They won't go to die for the oligarchs" ???

In 1988 (there were no oligarchs yet, even in theory !!) in Kushka a glass of urine from a soldier who had had hepatitis cost 25 rubles. For a guaranteed (as the rumor went !!!) disease, it was necessary ... to buy and drink up(!!!!!) with an interval of a couple of days 2 (!!!!) glasses of urine. No hepatitisers were sent to Afghanistan ...
Я personally knew a soldier who earned 2 from it.
Do you understand ??????
40 (!!!!) man from the cadre division paid money and drank 2 glasses of someone else's urine - so as not to get to Afghan ...
This is to the question, will the soldiers go to fight for ..... !!!!!!!

[Nikolaevich I]

Now everything is clear ... why there are ministries in the country, incl. and MO, poor! I thought that they steal a lot ... but it turned out that the "wide range" is to blame! And the Americans are rich, because the "assortment" is less ... And even the Germans lost the Second World War because of the "transcendental" * assortment * ... they were armed with everything iron, it smells of gasoline and moves ... and "overstrained" the logistics! Do we really have such an "abundance"? For example, the article mentions tanks ... 3 "models" are too many and, therefore, bad! And the Merikos have 1 "model" - that's why everything is so good! And if you look closely? The T-72 is the main type of tank in the tank forces ... the T-90 is, according to the designers themselves, "just" ... "a deep modernization of the T-72"! That is, not 2 "samples"; but only 1 + ... or 1 ++ ... let there be one and a half "samples"! T-80? And where can you get to if Russia has undertaken to master the "parallel Universe" ... the Arctic! The Arctic is not a "traditional" Russia, and one "traditional" T-72 is not enough! (After all, there was a time when the T-80 was nearly "lost"! There would have been one and a half models! But the Arctic problems intervened!) Well, about the modifications ... you can't "embrace the immense"! Somewhere fit "black bottom, white top" ... and then "white bottom, black top"! But the shoes, all the same, are of the same model! In vain are they trying to make a tank, self-propelled guns, armored vehicles, infantry fighting vehicles (armored personnel carriers), missile "chassis" on the same "base"? but this is not "from a good life"; but, on the contrary, from poverty! (It would be nice to have only BMP-3 in the troops ... but there is not enough money and you have to use the "old" BMP-1 and BMP-2 ... We wanted to have a T-72B2, but there wasn’t enough money ... 72BZ ... a little money appeared ... they began to "improve" the T-72B2 to the T-72B3M ... And the same in other cases ... both with samples ("models") of weapons, and with their modifications!)

[donavi49]

The turbine is certainly better in the cold. But the Norwegians somehow use their Leopards on diesels in frosty weather. And they are not capricious. But you could buy Abrams with turbines for the Arctic parts.

That's how it is. But the T-72 and T-90 have a small percentage of unification, require different training of crews and technical service, as well as different parts. That is, from a cost point of view, these are 2 different types.

Well, in general. For example, Mi-28N - Mi-28UB - Mi-28NM - Ka-52 - Ka-52K - Ka-52M - Ka29M they want to revive on the Ka-27M hull (which is on Ka-32) for UDC - Mi-35M + more Mi -8 in an attack version with ATGM and other things + they also want to make a light attack helicopter.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: donavi49

Norwegians somehow use their Leopards on diesels in frosty weather.

It is quite possible to improve a diesel engine and make it "frost-resistant"! But it is necessary to make changes in the design ... this will increase the cost of the engine ... maybe you will have to take into account some more "nuances"! We must take into account: how many tanks Norway has ... and how many tanks are needed for the Arctic troops of Russia ... And the T-80 tanks ... yes, they are ready-made in the warehouses collecting dust! In addition, "everyone" has their own "taste preferences" ... someone prefers a heater, a starter in a diesel engine ... and someone immediately chooses a "gas turbine"!

Quote: donavi49

But the T-72 and T-90 have a small percentage of unification,

By and large, the T-72B2 and the T-72B3 are not completely unified and differ "in some way"! And what, for comparison, the T-72 and T-90, then ... compare! (I will not say "for all of Odessa"! And different modifications, for example, the T-72 are different ...) But ... Both the T-72 and the T-90 were installed (are installed) the same engines or one "family"! The 2A46M cannons of the same "family" were installed (are being installed) ... the same ammunition is used ... On the T-72 and early T-90 towers of the same "technology" were installed ... The T-90 tank received this name already in the Russian Federation in the early 90s ... In the USSR, in the 80s, it was called T-72BU! In the Russian Federation there was a proposal (according to "rumors") to call it T-72BM; but someone came up with the name T-90!

[donavi49]

Well, a cannon is not an indicator at all. L7 was installed on almost all tanks in the world - from Britain and the USA to South Africa and China.
As for the engine, not everything is so simple there either. And on the T-72B3 it is different, if that from the years. On the T-90 initial, Hindu and Algerian / late Serdyukov, for example, are also different.

The name is similar to why the MiG-29M2 turned into the MiG-35. Marketing and the difficulty of communicating to buyers that this is a new technique, and not repainted Brezhnev samples with elements of modernization. And that your new tanks / aircraft will be much better than the neighboring T-72M / MiG-29M.

[Nikolaevich I]

Well, the cannon is okay ... fix it! Although ... the same ammunition ... is it not unification? As for the engine ... I warned that I did not speak for the whole of Odessa! But I said that on some T-72s and early T-90s there were practically the same engines (if there were differences, then in some small "nuances" ...) On the remaining T-72, T-90 engines of different modifications, but one "family" ... unified up to 70% and a little higher ...! Isn't it unification? And the same dynamic "armor" can be installed! And "export" tanks are not the best reason ... the installation of "imported" equipment was in the "order of things" (for example, thermal imagers, air conditioners ...) ... the "imported" engine could also be installed with a German 120-mm cannon , if there was an order ... "any whim for your money"!
If we take your example about MiGs, then here, too, "continuity" is often emphasized! Like, take the "newest" MiG-35, if you have old MiG-29s ... it will be easy and habitual for you to maintain, repair new aircraft ... the old armament will do, it is easy and quick to retrain pilots, technicians ...! Isn't it a "hint of unification"?

[parma]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Now everything is clear ... why there are ministries in the country, incl. and MO, poor! I thought that they steal a lot ... but it turned out that the "wide range" is to blame! And the Americans are rich, because the "assortment" is less ... And even the Germans lost the Second World War because of the "transcendental" * assortment * ... they were armed with everything iron, it smells of gasoline and moves ... and "overstrained" the logistics! Do we really have such an "abundance"? For example, the article mentions tanks ... 3 "models" are too many and, therefore, bad! And the Merikos have 1 "model" - that's why everything is so good! And if you look closely? The T-72 is the main type of tank in the tank forces ... the T-90 is, according to the designers themselves, "just" ... "a deep modernization of the T-72"! That is, not 2 "samples"; but only 1 + ... or 1 ++ ... let there be one and a half "samples"! T-80? And where can you get to if Russia has undertaken to master the "parallel Universe" ... the Arctic! The Arctic is not a "traditional" Russia, and one "traditional" T-72 is not enough! (After all, there was a time when the T-80 was nearly "lost"! There would have been one and a half models! But the Arctic problems intervened!) Well, about the modifications ... you can't "embrace the immense"! Somewhere fit "black bottom, white top" ... and then "white bottom, black top"! But the shoes, all the same, are of the same model! In vain are they trying to make a tank, self-propelled guns, armored vehicles, infantry fighting vehicles (armored personnel carriers), missile "chassis" on the same "base"? but this is not "from a good life"; but, on the contrary, from poverty! (It would be nice to have only BMP-3 in the troops ... but there is not enough money and you have to use the "old" BMP-1 and BMP-2 ... We wanted to have a T-72B2, but there wasn’t enough money ... 72BZ ... a little money appeared ... they began to "improve" the T-72B2 to the T-72B3M ... And the same in other cases ... both with samples ("models") of weapons, and with their modifications!)

This is not out of poverty, but out of stupidity ... we did not have time to bring the existing equipment to one form as we begin to make a new jew's harp ... and then it turns out that we have 5 pieces of equipment of 20 types, which have in common only pieces of the hull and PCT ... and this is not even for different types of troops, it happens in the same regiment!
And it would be fine only within the framework of various modifications (although which is okay, it’s never okay), but this is how all sorts of BRM or BMO are born, of which 10 pieces in total ...

[Doctor]

It's simple. If something new is being developed, then the old is ineffective.

[Normal]

But this requires a clear understanding of the strategy and tactics of development of both the Armed Forces and the Navy. Precisely clear. Precisely understanding. And with this, apparently, we are somewhat tense today.

No, not today or even yesterday. This is at least we have

30 years

, but as a maximum, probably since the withdrawal of troops from Afgan.
Here the old questions, like the memory of the crunch of a French bun, arise: "Who is to blame?" and "What to do?" But it is "not fashionable" to ask such questions in public nowadays, because at first the answer is "There is no alternative", "Horses in the crossing do not change" and accusations of different versions and degrees of liberalism. And the second question is interpreted by especially zealous supporters of stability as incitement to undesirable actions, "rocking the boat" and extremism.
So let's not ask the wrong questions.
Let's delve into the details. It's so much calmer.

[Boris55]

Quote: Normal

"Who's guilty?"

There was more than one article about Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Humpback and his company on VO.

Quote: Normal

"What to do?"

In different versions, this question was raised (about ideology), the essence of which was to change the concept of life, to change the social system in an evolutionary way.

Quote: Normal

So let's not ask the wrong questions.

The wrong ones are not necessary, but the correct ones must be asked and the answer to them must be sought.

[Normal]

Quote: Boris55

About Khrushchev, Brezhnev

Dig further into history, there are still many to blame.
The main thing is not to ask yourself "Peskov's question"

Quote: Boris55

..... to change the social system in an evolutionary way.

According to the precepts of E. Fedorov, to fight for liberation .... 300 years.

Quote: Boris55

The wrong ones are not necessary, but the correct ones must be asked and the answer to them must be sought.

COB?

P / S
The answer is not within the meaning of the article. The answer to your reasoning.

[Revival]

Yes, I think this is because of this "" Fedorov

[Revival]

"There was more than one article about Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Humpback and his company on VO."

Polovtsi, Pechenegs, besides ..

[Ros 56]

The questions are correct, there is no point in arguing. Unification simplifies life much, but if, God forbid, was mistaken, then it shortens this very life.

[pyagomail.com]

Quote: Ros 56

The questions are correct

The questions are not quite right and, which is typical for Skomorokhov, is somewhat hysterical. Three schools of tank building existed in the USSR and they gave T-64 (Kharkov), T-80 (Leningrad-Omsk) and T-72 (Nizhny Tagil). T-64 is not ours now, should we cut T-80 on needles for the sake of unifying the tank fleet? The same is true for rocketry, and for the fleet and aviation: a significant part of all this was developed during the Soviet era and, if it is in a working condition, should it be destroyed for the sake of "unification"?

[Per se.]

Quote: pyagomail.ru

The questions are not quite right

So what "needs to be learned from the Americans"? But we must understand that in addition to their "unification" there is NATO, which uses both a gas turbine and a diesel engine, in which there is a "Negro" and AZ, a smoothbore gun and a rifled one ... In addition, Russia has different climatic zones, long borders , and everything on one type of technique is hardly correct to try on.

Savings ... It has already happened, let's like, we will eliminate all AK from the warehouses, we will make new ones. Let's start scrapping all the T-72s from the storage bases, make thousands of new "Armats", with virtually one-off production.

And, let's, let's first check who generates such ideas, which smells very much of sabotage to our defenses. I don't know who they are, just fools, or more - "effective managers", but there was also an idea of ​​enlarging army warehouses, to the level of understanding "hypermarkets", where almost one giant warehouse had to be for each military district, so it is more convenient to maintain them in terms of "optimization".

Now about the American wisdom in unification, is it something to learn from them? In the USSR, unification was given the closest attention, in addition to how the platform of the same T-72 became long before the "menagers" learned this word and pulled it by the ears, not realizing that the technology was becoming a platform on a technological, reliable and successful basis, being a well established industry. So, on the basis of the T-72, a huge amount of equipment was created, such as self-propelled guns, armored vehicles, bridgelayers, and other equipment, including those created in other countries.

Technology is not born as a platform, technology becomes a platform, otherwise we have what we have, when new raw developments are created on a raw basis, spending billions, "pig in a poke". Therefore, speaking about "unification", I agree with the above.

Unification simplifies life much, but if, God forbid, I made a mistake, then it shortens this very life.

If you learn anything from the Yankees, how to introduce such "effective managers" to a potential adversary, with "ingenious" economy and optimization, after which you won't have to fight this adversary, everything will fall apart.

[ccsr]

Quote: pyagomail.ru

The same is true for rocketry, and for the fleet and aviation: a significant part of all this was developed during the Soviet era and, if it is in a working condition, should it be destroyed for the sake of "unification"?

I will add on my own that the real failure in the procurement of weapons in the 90s and XNUMXs, when there was a big mess in the country, gave rise to the current large number of different equipment in the troops, including a large number of Soviet developments.
The fact that unification is a blessing for the armed forces is obvious, because it was not in vain that directives were given to Grachev in 1994, according to which all types and branches of troops were required to submit lists of unified equipment and weapons for approval until 2005. The work was carried out, but its results did not greatly affect the general situation in the country, and due to the lack of money, almost all new developments that would allow replacing outdated equipment were not carried out. In general, this topic is very painful, and is unlikely to be quickly resolved. But it also makes no sense to panic, especially since some new names of technology mislead people, because, in fact, the unification of components in products is already quite high.
The fact that the author of the article does not quite understand why, for example, several types of missiles appeared in the Strategic Missile Forces, is obvious to me, because he simply does not know how the struggle went even within the Ministry of Defense over liquid and solid-propellant missiles. But the fact that he proposes to take the Airborne Forces as the main example for the unification of armored vehicles amused me - on the contrary, they need to reduce the presence of armored vehicles in their kind of troops, because its transfer in itself reduces the secrecy of the landing, which apparently the author of the article does not take into account at all.
In general, the meaning of the article deserves its study, although I disagree with some of the author's conclusions.
Without going into details, I can only note that the old Soviet samples can be successfully transferred to some of our allies for free, taking into account the fact that they will still have to buy components and consumables from us, and this is already profitable.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: ccsr

The fact that the author of the article does not quite understand why, for example, several types of missiles appeared in the Strategic Missile Forces, is obvious to me, because he simply does not know how the struggle went even within the Ministry of Defense over liquid and solid-propellant missiles.

So in the Strategic Missile Forces and under the USSR there was a variety of types - Yangel, Chelomey and Nadirazde tried. Spend staff reduction planned from the late 80s, when two solid-propellant ICBMs were supposed to remain: the heavy "Yuzhmashevskaya" for the BZHRK and silo and the light MIT-ovskaya for the PGRK.

Quote: ccsr

But the fact that he proposes to take the Airborne Forces as the main example for the unification of armored vehicles amused me - on the contrary, they need to reduce the presence of armored vehicles in their kind of troops, because its transfer in itself reduces the secrecy of the landing, which apparently the author of the article does not take into account at all.

On the contrary, it is time for the Airborne Forces to stop pretending to be airborne troops and honestly admit that they are airmobile units of reinforcing the army. And stop playing with unique parachute-landing vehicles - all the same, except during exercises, they cannot be parachuted (in real life, the landing method has become the main one). Moreover, as soon as the Airborne Forces get into a normal war, in a year they will either be reorganized according to states close to motorized riflemen (moreover, on army equipment), or they will acquire attached and subordinate means of reinforcement.
The first steps have already been taken - the landing party has received a T-72B3 and plans to acquire a full-fledged 152-mm artillery.

[chenia]

Quote: Alexey RA

On the contrary - it's time for the Airborne Forces to stop pretending to be airborne troops

Well no. The Airborne Forces are the troops of the pre-war period or rivalry in the sphere of influence in the respective regions. Here the main thing is to be the first to be on the "meadow", well, whose glade, the picnic. In this regard, these troops are needed. Well, chase all sorts of barmaley.

In serious conflict

Quote: Alexey RA

reorganized according to states close to motorized rifles (moreover, on army equipment),

definitely.

[Grits]

Quote: chenia

Here the main thing is to be the first to be on the "meadow", well, whose glade, the picnic. In this regard, these troops are needed.

And how to get to this glade? By plane and parachute? Then the next question is how many planes will fly?

[chenia]

Quote: Gritsa

And how to get to this glade?

And then how it goes. You can also use Aeroflot planes (Prague). It can be by wheels (Pristina) or traditionally (Kabul).
If you are attentive, then you have noticed, and I argued that the Airborne Forces are pre-crisis (pre-conflict) in the battle for influence on third countries.

And in a war with a serious enemy, you need to turn into motorized riflemen with the appropriate weapons (only vests and berets, you can leave).
What's wrong? ...

[Alexey RA]

Quote: chenia

And in a war with a serious enemy, you need to turn into motorized riflemen with the appropriate weapons (only vests and berets, you can leave).

Afghanistan. War in a third world country. Since 1982, the 345th Guards Rifle Regiment began to be transferred to the infantry staff and equipment.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: chenia

Well no. The Airborne Forces are the troops of the pre-war period or rivalry in the sphere of influence in the respective regions. Here the main thing is to be the first to be on the "meadow", well, whose glade, the picnic.

This does not require fully airborne units. All airborne operations over the past 70 years were carried out either by landing method, or they generally came to the theater of operations by land.
And most importantly - what are we going to airborne troops with? Even the USSR, and even with the mobilization of civilian aircraft, could only drop one division.
And I'm not talking about what we will use to cover the landing zone from the air and isolate it from land.

[chenia]

Quote: Alexey RA

This does not require fully parachute-dropped formations.

The Airborne Forces are subordinate to the Ministry of Defense and must perform tasks in the operational and strategic zones (of course, under certain circumstances). DShBr - performed the role of tactical assault forces (and the nearest operational zone) of front (district) subordination - then they were pushed into the Airborne Forces.
The USSR had 8 airborne divisions. for use at different theaters.
Well, the rapid reaction troops.
Yes, probably so much was not needed, so more for the preparation of the corresponding reserve more.

[ccsr]

Quote: Alexey RA

So in the Strategic Missile Forces and under the USSR there was a variety of types - Yangel, Chelomey and Nadirazde tried.

It was a romantic period, and then they were allowed to create, and only then they were forced to shrink and reduce the nomenclature. the economy was already slipping. But this was what we had to strive for - this is a reasonable way out.

Quote: Alexey RA

On the contrary, it is time for the Airborne Forces to stop pretending to be airborne troops and honestly admit that they are airmobile units of reinforcing the army.

I also think that it would be better, and not to try to preserve their connections, but to transfer them to the districts in the form of airborne assault brigades (divisions), as it was during the Soviet era. True, there were no airborne assault divisions in the districts before, but now this can be done.

Quote: Alexey RA

The first steps have already been taken - the landing party has received a T-72B3 and plans to acquire a full-fledged 152-mm artillery.

This is a controversial issue, especially against the background of the fact that the Americans will withdraw heavy armored vehicles from the Marine Corps:

The US Marine Corps abandons tanks: optimization or mistake?

https://topwar.ru/173782-kmp-ssha-otkazyvaetsja-ot-tankov-optimizacija-ili-oshibka.html
Apparently the speed of the transfer for the rapid deployment forces is becoming more important than the availability of heavy weapons. I think we will have to make a decision at the highest level, and this will require a thorough analysis of our future operations, including abroad.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: ccsr

This is a controversial issue, especially against the background of the fact that the Americans will withdraw heavy armored vehicles from the Marine Corps:

Their tasks are different.
Our Airborne Forces is a means of reinforcing infantry in threatened directions.
For them, on the contrary, the ILC is no longer a "second army" and concentrates on highly specialized tasks in the interests of the fleet (seizing and holding advantageous lines off the enemy's coast and controlling the sea from these lines).

Quote: ccsr

Apparently the speed of the transfer for the rapid deployment forces is becoming more important than the availability of heavy weapons.

It’s not a matter of speed - instead of tanks, the ILC will now have to load, transfer and land the strengthened missile component, our “long arm”. The Yankees changed their concept - the Corps was reoriented to purely naval tasks, abandoning the army-type operations that the ILC conducted in Iraq.

[ccsr]

Quote: Alexey RA

The Yankees changed their concept - the Corps was reoriented to purely naval tasks, abandoning the army-type operations that the ILC conducted in the same Iraq.

To be honest, I have not seen reliable information about the change in the priorities of the ILC, which is why I believe that the rejection of heavy armored vehicles is a common concept in the most developed countries of the world, which have more advanced missile and aircraft weapons in their arsenal. So what is happening in the ILC is only a consequence of these changes, which we will come to, including in our Airborne Forces and ground forces. Tanks are doomed and it is already impossible not to notice.

[yehat2]

Quote: Alexey RA

the secrecy of the landing, which apparently the author of the article does not take into account at all

and what is the use of naked infantry, even airborne ones?
you are not considering weapon upgrades.
Now the paratroopers are opposed not by "Fritz" with carbines, but by light mobile armored vehicles, thermal imagers and a bunch of other cute surprises. The meaning of the landing is not secrecy or courage, but in the completion of the task. For example, sometimes it is easier to blow up a crossing not by storming the guards, but by landing one mobile self-propelled gun, which will destroy the target from a distance.

[ccsr]

Quote: yehat2

and what is the use of naked infantry, even airborne ones?

As I understand it, first, our VKS strikes at the enemy's air defense systems and clears the bridgehead for the landing, and only then the landing is thrown there. By the way, they are not so "naked" if they have portable air defense systems and ATGMs in their arsenal and light means of transportation with all other light weapons.

Quote: yehat2

The meaning of the landing is not secrecy or courage, but in the completion of the task.

The point is to sneak into the enemy's air defense zone without being noticed and not be shot down in the sky - this is what we should be afraid of first of all. The Americans will definitely give our opponents full information about our preparation and the flight route, and therefore a preliminary sweep is mandatory. Otherwise, we will lose landing aircraft, regardless of the fact that they will have personnel or armored vehicles.

[yehat2]

I’ll say a little cynically, but a car with a crew of 4 is not so scary to lose than a couple of elite infantry squads.

[Boris55]

Learn from the Americans? And how many wars have they won and from whom?

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Boris55

how many wars have they won and from whom?

PMV, VMV, 50 pieces smaller.

And how many wars did the USSR / Russia win, especially the Russian Federation? With Georgia, it seems?

[Boris55]

Quote: Cherry Nine

PMV, VMV,

Do not make me laugh.

Quote: Cherry Nine

And how many wars did the USSR / Russia win, especially the Russian Federation?

Russia:
- Cyrus;
- Darius;
- Alexander;
- Rome (crusaders);
Russia:
- Swedes;
- French people;
THE USSR:
- Entente;
- Fascists;
- Japs;
- Afghan (we did not lose there);
Russia:
- Crimea;
- Syria.

[Narak-zempo]

Forgotten the victory over Arimia (Ancient China) 7500 years ago: http://ruspravda.info/Pobeda-Slavyan-nad-Kitaem-i-Sotvorenie-Mira-7500-let-nazad-2235.html

[Boris55]

According to the Byzantine calendar, accounting from the summer of the "Star Temple" is the name of the year, now the year is 7529. Then, after a general planetary war between the white and yellow races, the world was created (concluded). The new summer calculus introduced by Peter the first "cuts off" all knowledge before the birth of Christ ....

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Boris55

Russia:
- Cyrus;
- Darius;
- Alexander;
- Rome (crusaders);

Oh how good.

Quote: Boris55

Russia:
- Swedes;
- French people;

Over 200 years? And the French - when did they surrender Moscow?

Quote: Boris55

THE USSR:
- Entente;

Did the USSR beat the Entente? Very interesting. For reference, the French and British curtailed their activities in the former Republic of Ingushetia even before the USSR was proclaimed.

Quote: Boris55

Fascists

The USSR has nothing to do with Italian affairs. Unlike just the Americans.

Quote: Boris55

Japs

The USSR managed to fit into the last day of the war, in fact. He jumped on the step of the departing train. By the way, I was always amused by the statements that the USSR "made a decisive contribution to the victory over Japan", but the Americans who arrived in France a year before the end of the war in Europe (when the Red Army was near Smolensk) and accepted the surrender of the Reich in Reims - ostensibly purely trying to be in time for the division of tops and roots.

Quote: Boris55

Afghan (we didn't lose there)

Oh yes, there is something to be proud of.

Quote: Boris55

Crimea

Some politically illiterate statements. You will agree so before the zugunder. The free expression of the will of the Crimean people was recorded in military victories, they completely lost their fear.

Quote: Boris55

- Syria

What is Syria? Someone defeated someone there?

[Boris55]

I am not a history teacher to explain to you common truths that are understandable to every Russian at a subconscious level. And the topic is not the same.

As for the Americans, they have one victory - a victory over the Indians.
They have nothing more to be proud of and we have nothing to learn from them.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Boris55

understandable to every Russian at a subconscious level.

Yeah.
For some reason I always believed that Russians, on average, remain in touch with reality. But you may be right, of course.

Quote: Boris55

they have one victory - a victory over the Indians.

Well, compared to the Crimea and Syria, not so little.

[Boris55]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Well, compared to the Crimea and Syria, not so little.

Our operation in Crimea will be included in all World textbooks.
Our victory over ISIS is obvious, the mention of such a state has long since disappeared in all media.

ps
Terrorism is the irregular army of the West solving their problems by circumventing all laws. To defeat terrorism, you must defeat capitalism.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Boris55

Our operation in Crimea will be included in all World textbooks.

Yeah.

Quote: Boris55

Our victory over ISIS is obvious

Obvious, but not yours. IS during its heyday is the west of Iraq and the east of Syria. The Russian Aerospace Forces did not fly there.

Quote: Boris55

To defeat terrorism, you must defeat capitalism.

Well, there is a lot of work.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Obvious, but not yours. IS during its heyday is the west of Iraq and the east of Syria. The Russian Aerospace Forces did not fly there.

That way it turns out that the Islamic State was defeated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
This is our purely Islamic showdown! The wrong do not understand.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Alexey RA

it turns out that the Islamic State was defeated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Was the pirate greedy Billy,
True, Billy was not loved
Neither sailors, nor pirates, nor children, nor relatives.
And could not temper Billy
Crocodile appetites.
And so Billy is not beaten
It just wasn't a day!

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Cherry Nine

For some reason I always believed that Russians, on average, remain in touch with reality.

You just do not read much of the articles from the History section.

[Normal]

Quote: Boris55

we have nothing to learn from them.

GAS? STZ? Li-2? A conventional plazovy method for the production of aircraft? Tu-4? Atomic bomb?

No, not heard.

[hagen]

Quote: Boris55

we have nothing to learn from them

You reason primitively. No matter how many copies you break here, the United States is recognized by all, including us, as the Power with the largest and most highly developed economy. It is foolish to deny this fact. And if so, then we must understand why this fact takes place and it is useful to master the knowledge that helped them to become such. Do you want to follow them their way and make the same mistakes? No less stupid. Hence the conclusion: it is always necessary to learn from anyone who has a higher competence.

[Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)]

then they have one victory - this is a victory over the Indians

And I heard they also ruined the CeCeCeR with the Dulles plan. Is it not true?

[Grits]

Quote: Boris55

As for the Americans, they have one victory - a victory over the Indians.

You missed out on an epic victory over Grenada.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Cherry Nine

What is Syria? Someone defeated someone there?

Like who? RF. Three or four times already. Soon elections, we will probably win again.

Quote: Cherry Nine

The USSR has nothing to do with Italian affairs. Unlike just the Americans.

These are other fascists. Although we also gave the Italians a pendal.

[chenia]

Quote: Cherry Nine

The USSR has nothing to do with Italian affairs

This is understandable. Only without the USSR, the French and the British did not fight the Germans very much.
And as soon as the USSR got into the carnage, the luck went right away - until May 1943, four and a half German divisions won. So it's also thanks to the Yankees who ended up in North Africa in November 1942.
Although not for the eastern front, the Yankees would have climbed into the southern horseradish.
So the USSR has nothing to do with it.

Quote: Cherry Nine

He jumped on the step of the departing train. By the way, I was always amused by statements that the USSR "made a decisive contribution to the victory over Japan"

What? The largest land operation in this theater of operations.
Or did I miss cheto?
And knowing Korea and Vietnam, with such a commander as MacArthur, the Yankees by the 50th year could have won.
Truman licked Stalin in Potsdam so that that "second" front would open in a non-British manner.

And our victory there is such a prize as China, a part of Korea and influence in the region.
And all with minimal losses.

Quote: Cherry Nine

Someone defeated someone there?

Of course, Assad became president again. And without Russia?

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: chenia

Assad again became president. And without Russia?

What's without Russia? Without Russia, the president was most likely someone else.
And what kind of victory, you say?

Quote: chenia

And our victory there is such a prize as China, a part of Korea and influence in the region.
And all with minimal losses.

Here you are right. Only this is not "your" victory, but personally Comrade. Stalin. In Yalta, he was the only person who understood what he wanted.

Quote: chenia

This is understandable. Only without the USSR, the French and the British did not fight the Germans very much.
And as soon as the USSR got into the carnage, the luck went right away - until May 1943, four and a half German divisions won. So it's also thanks to the Yankees who ended up in North Africa in November 1942.
Although not for the eastern front, the Yankees would have climbed into the southern horseradish.
So the USSR has nothing to do with it.
What? The largest land operation in this theater of operations.
Or did I miss cheto?
And knowing Korea and Vietnam, with such a commander as MacArthur, the Yankees by the 50th year could have won.
Truman licked Stalin in Potsdam so that that "second" front would open in a non-British manner.

Do you know exactly my position on these issues? It seems that I do not so rarely express it.

[Grits]

Quote: Cherry Nine

The USSR managed to fit into the last day of the war, in fact. He jumped on the step of the departing train. By the way, I was always amused by statements that the USSR "made a decisive contribution to the victory over Japan"

I wonder how many years the Americans would have picked up the Japs from the vast territories of China if they barely knocked them off the small islands in 4 years?

[Cherry Nine]

Exactly the same as from South Korea. Emperor's rescript + MacArthur's telegram on the order of surrender.

By the way, who, in principle, could the Japanese in China interfere with? I mean, more than the communists there?

[Grits]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Exactly the same as from South Korea. Emperor's rescript + MacArthur's telegram on the order of surrender.

By the way, who, in principle, could the Japanese in China interfere with? I mean, more than the communists there?

An army of millions, and even on the grub of an occupied country, is, you know, not a couple of battalions. Such armies do not surrender so easily.
And about - whom the Japs interfered with ... Do you think they were a joy to the Chinese? Does Khalhig Gol and Hasan tell you anything?

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Gritsa

Such armies do not surrender so easily.

I just gave up.

Quote: Gritsa

Do you think they were a joy to the Chinese?

The Chinese, represented by the Kuomintang, did not die from this 3 years later, as we know.

Quote: Gritsa

Khalhig Gol and Hasan

Two Soviet provocations that had nothing to do with China. Except for the fact that the liberating army both times entered China, where, of course, no one called her.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Cherry Nine

Two Soviet provocations that had nothing to do with China. Except for the fact that the liberating army both times entered China, where, of course, no one called her.

EMNIP, there will be one case for provocation - Hasan. Comrade Citizen Blucher also wanted to create a commission - to analyze the actions of the border guards. But Cristobal Hozevich was the first to. ©
And Khalkhin Gol is the self-confidence of the Japanese and misunderstanding of the situation. Mongolia is not China. And straightening the border with the country where the Special Corps stands and is actually ruled by Moscow is not the most sensible decision.

[Cherry Nine]

Quote: Alexey RA

Mongolia is not China. And straightening the border with the country where the Special Corps stands and is actually ruled by Moscow is not the most sensible decision.

This, in the opinion of the USSR, Mongolia is not China. China and the rest of the world in general had a different opinion.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Gritsa

And about - whom the Japs interfered with ... Do you think they were a joy to the Chinese? Does Khalhig Gol and Hasan tell you anything?

And what does the United States care about us and the Chinese? Let the Chinese deal with the Kwantung Army themselves. And the United States will sell them weapons ...
Better yet, for the Kwantungs to grapple with Mao's forces, which the Americans certainly don't need in China. EMNIP, in Southeast Asia in 1945 this was practiced - the Japanese, before leaving, pressed precisely the pro-communist forces.

[Diverter]

Judging by the minuses that they threw on you, there are a lot of ambushes here. The site is really getting worse ((((((((((
And yes! Three Japs, Turks - a lot, and so many others! That's why the country is so huge!))

[yehat2]

Quote: Boris55

Do not make me laugh.

What's so funny about the Americans winning the war?
they took part in earnest and did so much armament that one can only envy.
They did not just work for Japan, but literally drowned them with their might.
Do not belittle or exaggerate their achievements, but rather take a sober view.

[Lord_Bran]

The novel, the wing for the MS-21, is actually already being delivered. Google it.

[moody]

Can I ask the Aerocomposite company where is the wing for the MC-21?

I was also surprised. Here is the link:

https://www.uacrussia.ru/ru/press-center/news/konsol-kryla-samolyeta-ms-21-300-izgotovlennaya-iz-rossiyskikh-kompozitsionnykh-materialov-dostavlen

[Andrey VOV]

Is Skomorokhov finally slipping to the side of the US apologists?

[Lord_Bran]

The main patriot guard of the site. It's been a while.

[Yun Klob]

That's right. Rather than having a separate fighter for air superiority and an attack aircraft for strikes on the ground, it is better to have one plane, which sensibly cannot do either one or the other.

[Zaurbek]

Not quite so ..... Sturmovik escaped this. Il slowed down in time and took the Su25 sensibly into service. (But they spent money on the MiG27) Well, inside the Sukhoi design bureau there is a "zoo" Su34, Su30SM, Su35 ... Turbojet engines are different and everything is different. In the USA, these are the F15 (one and two seater) in the strike version (analogue of the Su34) and the fighter (analogue of the Su27M or Su35S), and both are now being replaced by a single F-15EX. I am already silent about the fact that the F16 has the same turbojet engine ...

[Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)]

It’s the Americans who don’t know how to hit the ground? Su-25, or what, can?

[yehat2]

Quote: Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)

Su-25, or what, can?

Su-25 can do something, the problem is different. Our army is still being trained to work with NURS, free-fall bombs and other old types of weapons.
And new technologically advanced guided munitions are rarely used.
Hence all the problems and distortions. Save

[Grits]

Quote: Yoon Klob

That's right. Rather than having a separate fighter for air superiority and an attack aircraft for strikes on the ground, it is better to have one plane, which sensibly cannot do either one or the other.

Versatility is a terrible enemy of quality. Therefore, in aviation everything should be separate - light fighter, heavy fighter, interceptor fighter, attack aircraft, front-line bomber. If all these tasks are assigned to one aircraft (unification), then not a single task will be completed.

[moreman78]

But BREM-1 should be sent to where they know how to work with the T-72, and BREM-2 (aka BREM-80U) - to where they know the T-80.

The author, the BREM-2 is a vehicle based on the BMP-1 and is intended for the SMB on the BMP-1/2, and IT HAS NO RELATIONSHIP to the T-80 tanks!

[Yaroslav Zhigulin]

- "Seawulf", withdrawn from the fleet, for slag.

Then you can not read

[yehat2]

Seawulf is deprecated. This is still a great boat for missions 30 years ago, but the missions have changed and the boat is still the same. So yes, she's already slag.

[Glory1974]

The general message of the article is correct. The topic is relevant. Everyone in the service has probably come across various types of equipment in service in their unit, and knows what kind of hemorrhage it is.
I had a GAZ-66, of various modifications, so spare parts were not suitable for some models, not to mention the fact that some of them had ceased to be produced .. I had to go to collective farms and to landfills to find something.
Different batteries came to radio stations in the 90s and early 2000s. There is a working radio station, there is no battery for it. Conversely, there is a battery, but not suitable for radios. Moreover, the industry began to produce 3-volt finger batteries. It was impossible to buy them anywhere, replace them with finger batteries too, because they have a voltage of 1,5 volts.
Unification must be unambiguous. Where specialization is needed, unique designs are allowed to increase efficiency.
Old equipment is naturally not necessary to cut into metal. But it is necessary to collect the same type of equipment in a brigade or division, it will be easier to work.

[Zaurbek]

Tatra had a good approach (back in the 70s) 4x4, 6x6, 8x8,10x10 ...... and everything with a standard cab and the backbone frame is assembled as a constructor ..... you need an axle with steerable wheels (front or rear) - you are welcome. In the USSR - Gaz66, Zil 130, Zil131, Ural, KAMAZ, Kraz, MZKT ...

[Glory1974]

In the USSR - Gaz66, Zil 130, Zil131, Ural, KAMAZ, Kraz, MZKT.

The whole line can be explained, different machines are needed in the economy, especially for a 300 million country with a climate ranging from tropics to permafrost.
But when spare parts do not fit on the GAZ-66 of various modifications, this is nonsense. Then the Tatra approach would not be superfluous.

[Zaurbek]

I completely agree with the article. The whole chain needs to learn from the United States (from the TZ - competition - experimental machines - the winner) ... We (using the example of tanks and helicopters) - TZ (the same) - experimental machines (+ or-) are the same - and each produces his car (which, except for the cannon, everything is different) ..... the same with attack helicopters.

[Xscorpion]

... Abrams ". One model in three versions. M1A1SA, M1A2, M1A2C. That is, in fact, the headache is three times less.

I think that Roman would be very surprised that this is far from one model and there are about 2 modifications only in the army. And I am generally silent about the KMP and NG.

[Zaurbek]

MTO is the same, the "cart" is the same ...... BO develops according to trends ...... We have only a common gun.

[Conjurer]

Nice topic. The author, on the whole, is right, although he went too far.
In fact, the question should be raised not about unification, but about standardization. That is, we are not talking about the similarity of individual groups of products, but about common approaches to all types of weapons.
1 First of all, this applies to ammunition (in the sense of cartridges, shells, missiles, bombs, etc.). They should have a series of standard ratings (i.e. dimensions, weight, suspension / articulation with the carrier, electrical and software joints, if any), into which all newly developed products must fit. Then you will not have to alter the carrier for each new ammunition.
2 The media should be standardized systems that ensure the performance of the same functions (maybe in the form of rows, where otherwise it does not work). Then the cost of carriers (development, manufacturing, maintenance) will be noticeably reduced.
It is unlikely that it will be possible to standardize the media (at most, unify) - they change too much with the new generation.
That is, what the author writes about a wide variety of media is for the most part an inflection. Somewhere it was possible, of course, to get by with less variety, but you can't get away from the simultaneous existence of several of their generations - the replacement does not take place at once. In addition, upgrades are sometimes possible to maintain combat properties. At the same time, modernization cannot continue indefinitely - everything has a limit.

[smaug78]

Yes, this is our byada since the times of the USSR ...

[Cympak]

The key problem is even deeper - "military-industrial feudalism."
The problem is that each research institute, design bureau "saws" its own piece of the defense budget and does not want to share it with anyone.

[spectr]

Most are forced to share, but honestly they do not want to do this (or cannot do it if the Ministry of Defense has not unfastened enough). In some areas, these research institutes / design bureaus have good practices, and in some areas there are gaps. And the search for co-executors begins, so that they would close their gaps for a "penny".
Most often because of these gaps, OCDs and break down. Since the lead contractor and the potential co-contractor cannot agree on the cost of the work. Those, realizing their uniqueness, ask for amounts that they are not willing to pay.

[Geonezis]

The topic is good, but the article itself is filed, don't understand how. Everything was mixed in a heap, people, horses. And after the words about the "slag" of the submarine Seawolf, there is no desire to read further.

[Castro Ruiz]

To the author (s) for a truthful article, a big plus.

[hagen]

"..... And here you can ask questions.
For example, employees of the Ilyushin aviation complex. Why is the Il-30MD-76A, the modification that should replace the Il-90MD-M, all that the company can boast of for 76 years? Why IL-114 was so "luxurious" ..... "
It is perfectly logical. And here I have a question: why ask these questions in an article, addressing it to ordinary VO readers? Maybe it's time to get on a steam locomotive, come to the same design bureau "Ilyushin", or "MiG" or "UVZ", ask everything that you and the readers have accumulated, and then discuss the answers? And then we are here wandering in conjectures, like blind kutyata, and there is no one to bring us to the light of day, but you cannot afford it, because you are also on the "information bank". Work, brothers!

[mbebebe]

Quote: Boris55

and we have nothing to learn from them.

You know, it is always possible and necessary to learn (or rather, it is necessary), and if the question arose of what exactly, then at least how not to do it if the experience was unsuccessful. And to consider yourself smarter than everyone is fraught

[Marachuh]

Well, in the USSR there were also several design bureaus and they competed, as a result, real works of art were born! And they have a monopoly and knock out money in Congress. We are now also uniting the OKB: Mig and Sukhoi, Kamov and Mil. In general, everyone was driven into the USC. Soon Pella will be squeezed. Will there be any benefit from this, that's the question !?

[DMi]

The remarkable unification of ICBMs led the Americans to a situation where the Minitment is already falling apart from old age, and cannot fly, and a new missile has not even begun to be designed. Soon, the United States will be left without a land ICBM at all. And this is not me saying, but American generals)
So it is not known which is better, several design bureaus like in the Russian Federation, or none like in the USA.
And about our wonderful Airborne Forces, the author forgot to mention that the Typhoon-Airborne Forces was also ordered there. Straight sample of unification ... yeah. all take an example.

[Aleks tv]

... And about our wonderful Airborne Forces, the author forgot to mention that the Typhoon-Airborne Forces was also ordered there. Straight sample of unification ... yeah. all take an example.

Hello.

Why not? If everything will be based on a specialized two-axle Typhoon?
They need wheels too. And there have always been - the same shishiga.

[DMi]

And I don't seem to mind) It's just wrong to cite the Airborne Forces as an example of the unification of technology, that's all. There too .... they poured all sorts of things. Also T72 B3 ...

[isv000]

Yes, we are following the legacy of the Union and trying to modernize it, and this is a plus and independence. Look around at those who have given up the inheritance and adopted NATO standards ...

[Moore]

I will not say "for the whole of Odessa", I will say about the Strategic Missile Forces:
I'll start from the end:

In addition to what is, in 2022 or 2023, the Strategic Missile Forces should receive a new RS-28 "Sarmat" missile ...
A reasonable question arises: why do we need another rocket? After all, "on the way" the latest missile, which is able to solve all the problems with ICBMs. Which is "Sarmat".

Then, dear author, that all the reasonable terms of operation indicated by you above in the text "Voevod" (in the world 15A18M) have expired. More than 20, and in some places even 30 years of operation is, you know, a lot. And where is it written that "Sarmat" will solve all "problems"? And who will solve the "problems" until they are fully re-equipped? Rogozinsky trampolines?
Let's go further:

1. R-36M2 "Voyevoda"

- all terms of operation have expired or are coming out (see above)

2. RN-100N UTTH

-It is planned to replace it with Yars and as a carrier for Avangard.

3. RT-2PM "Poplar

- never stood in mines

4. RT-2PM2 "Topol-M"

- stuck in Tatishchevo out of despair, will be replaced little by little by "Yarsy"

5. RS-24 "Yars"

- see above. goes to replace.
In other words, it is planned to keep Sarmatians, Yarsy and a little 15A35 in silos for unclear manipulations with Avangards. LRE, solid propellant rocket engine and HZ for what "Vanguard with the old carrier.
Let's go even further:

And plus to them mobile soil complexes "Topol-M" and "Yars".

Kind of like diversity again, but find what are called 5 external differences between one and the other. Is it a big sin to adopt an intermediate version from "Topol" to "Yars" developed by one design bureau and one parent enterprise with the same subcontractors instead of the crumbling "Topol"?
Will I open America if I say that a combat system consisting of heterogeneous elements is stable - in our case, liquid-propellant rocket engines and solid propellants, silos and APUs?

[ccsr]

Quote: Moore

Then, dear author, that all the reasonable terms of operation indicated by you above in the text "Voevod" (in the world 15A18M) have expired.

The author did not know about this, hence all his fantasies.

Quote: Moore

More than 20, and in some places even 30 years of operation is, you know, a lot.

This is not even that much, but also a direct road to a decrease in combat readiness and the occurrence of emergencies. According to Soviet calculations, all radio electronics of the strategic link should have served no more than 10 years, and as an exception, the service life could be extended to 15 years, and even then with a very thorough check. And already in the Strategic Missile Forces, a change of generations of heavy missiles was to be carried out in every ten-year cycle of weapons programs - this was the guarantee of our security, and everyone who was in the subject understood this.

[Sancho_SP]

Unification loses its meaning after a certain amount. With tanks, this number has been passed for sure.

With rockets ...

It's more complicated here. In 10 years, in theory, Sarmat, Bulava and something that will replace Yars should remain. One more missile than the states. This very one rocket is a light land rocket for mobile units, which are not available in the United States.

[ivpe211]

the above only shows that the ground forces in the United States are not held in high esteem. Look what they have with aviation and navy.

[tolancop]

From my point of view, there is a healthy grain in the material. Unification is a very good thing. And it makes life incredibly easier for suppliers and repairmen. But you shouldn't bring it to the point of absurdity either. Putting on one sample of weapons is fraught with ... well, if it turns out to be successful ... but if not? And you can't blind two or three cars of the same purpose from identical parts. Although it is possible, probably only the result will disappoint. As for the unification of ICBMs and submarines, the author clearly got excited, IMHO. The circulation of ICBMs and submarines is such that, I think, you can be patient. Moreover, the same boats do not come off the assembly line, but the goods are piece and improvement from one copy to another is a natural thing. Yes, repair and maintenance becomes more complicated, but then a matter of choice: ease of maintenance and repair (logistics) or fighting qualities. Including unification is an excellent thing, but there is no need to bring it to the point of absurdity.

[Growlers]

I agree with the author on many points. Tell me why there were three main battle tanks in the USSR, and their characteristics did not differ much? This is not counting the old machines from T-55 to T-62 standing in service (sorry if I missed anything). But each type of machine needs its own parts, sometimes its own oils and its own fuel. Its excellent training for crews and so on. etc. And this is all money, this is all costs. And so almost everywhere you do not touch. Generals are usually accused of this, because they are all "stupid", "headless" .... And this is the fault of the competition within the domestic military-industrial complex. Many historians have written about the unfair competition of the aircraft designer Yakovlev (also deputy people's commissar) during the war. Now everything is the same. The same trouble is that in Soviet times, weapons are purchased not those that are needed for the war, but those that the military-industrial complex is playing. Well, roughly as with armored personnel carriers, it is convenient for enterprises to produce with rear-mounted engines, no one is interested in the fact that troops are landing behind them all over the world, and with such a system as on domestic armored personnel carriers, more people die. Who is interested in this? And the generals accept everything that they vtemashivayut, otherwise after Syria would not be removed from service as many as 15 (fifteen) items. But someone tested them, someone signed papers

[Diverter]

Strongly for unification, but such an assortment in the RF Armed Forces is a consequence and a consequence of the past. As already mentioned, the Armed Forces plans to move to common platforms everywhere. They will switch, because they began to count money. It's a question of time. And money. My only opinion. Each division must be equipped with the same type of equipment and weapons. And then we sometimes have such an assortment in regiments and battalions ...

[Vlad Bel]

As long as Americans believe our cartoons, there will be no war.

[Bogalex]

"Zavet-D" is not a b / c transporter for "Lotus", but a set of fire control automation equipment.

[English tarantas]

The author is not talking about that, for the same tanks, the Americans are in service with not three of the listed modifications, but more.
From what I can recall from what I did not understand recently, why the btr-90, which fully meets the requirements of today, having options with the BMP-2 combat module, berezhok and melon, was not adopted for service, but instead they made a boomerang that had nothing in common with a series of Soviet armored personnel carriers, in fact a copy of the VBCI, and never put into service.
And it's all about the cuts, and the difference between us and the Americans is that they saw the army, but they saw it wisely.

[Evgeny Seleznev]

Unification. Maybe makes the best good. But financially and logistically sound. In the article, our vinaigrette from the Air Force or the Aerospace Forces, or the Navy from each creature, a pair has not yet been voiced. The whole world is striving for unification in order to save money. Russia has its own way. As always.

[Max PV]

Lack of seriality and unification, yes, this is our eternal misfortune. Somewhere this is not critical. For example, with ICBMs - a piece of equipment in itself, which does not imply serious repairs and disassembly during operation. Or in the case of armored vehicles, where not everything is so bad, since in fact we have only two T-72 and T-80 tanks in different modifications, and different tasks still require different equipment. But in the navy, aviation and with small arms (except for the machine gun), yes, the trouble. However, not everything is so simple. Unification is not always good. As an example, you can take a look at our 125mm tank shot, which ran into the length limit, and has been losing to NATO for 30 years. Or, the American naval missile launchers, which, due to, again, the size, practically exclude the development of supersonic and hypersonic anti-ship missiles with adequate warhead mass.

[Soldatov V.]

I respect Roman Skomorokhov for his active life position and the fact that he offers a solution to acute problems. We and Americans are very different. During his service he read a book by an American expert on the armaments of the USSR and America. He believed that unification and constant modernization harmed the troops of America, did not allow the adoption of the latest military developments, why would we cope with the Russians. But the Russians are throwing away all the old and making excellent weapons. Whether it is good or bad, only the war will show. Let different design bureaus and factories compete for them. Monopoly it kills development and progress.

[Knell wardenheart]

Definitely a plus! Maximum unification is the most reasonable way towards transparency and cost savings - moreover, it is also a way to extend the functionality of a single platform, if it has outlived its usefulness.
However, it is likely that the mind still cannot avoid the presence of two types of equipment of the same type at the same time - outgoing and introduced. However, to implement this scheme, the industry must have excess capacities (and good export potential, allowing them to be loaded during empty periods), and the very concept of planning the formation of the appearance of something should be put on a qualitatively different level - so that there is a study and understanding of what requirements should be combat unit and touched it so that it can remain relevant for the conditional 20+ years or more.
Both, alas, conflict with "social workload" and "effective management."

[Usher]

According to the nuclear submarine, their blocks are modifications, like we have Pikes and Cheetahs.

[realist]

all said right. the nomenclature must be reduced.

[saet saetich]

ALL living people must be on the Armata. All T-72s must be converted into robotic-controlled tanks in different modifications - a breakthrough tank, a support tank (cutting off infantry - two modifications: a modification with a large-caliber machine gun + a modification of a large-caliber sniper weapon), a radar cover tank, an electronic warfare tank. Stop dreaming about tank armadas with CREWS - where can you get SO MANY trained crews?

[Tramp]

arrogance and rudeness that's what.

[lopvlad]

Orderliness and maximum unification is the way that, with a budget of 70 billion dollars, will allow you to create an effective army, spending exactly as much as you need, and not as some as you can. Ten times more.

The main thing is to use funds in a planned and purposeful manner. Do not build two training centers for twenty naval pilots for whom there is no aircraft carrier. Do not kill billions of money to build ships that are completely unnecessary for the fleet. Not to support unprofitable companies that cannot create a normally flying plane in 30 years.

the main message runs right through the entire content of the article - with the unification of weapons, the military budget of Russia can be reduced significantly and at the same time the efficiency of the army will also increase.
Frank and enchanting nonsense. And the most damning thing in the article is that the author offers to learn from the United States, the number of which is 1, the military budget for 281 is 900 billion dollars, while the effectiveness, frankly, is not impressive.
The fact that Russia has a large number of effective and diverse weapons is like a bone in the throat of someone over the hill, while the effectiveness of the Russian army in Syria has become a very unpleasant and frightening surprise for the West.

[zenion]

But the point is in the names and no one, except for certain persons, that this is not a brand name. Here is the Singer sewing machine. Although Singer, they can change from release to release, if not outside, then inside. For Singer, the main fact is that it is Singer. But for the army, you need to figure out how to name the same product, but differently, or not at all. Let the "colleagues" rack their brains, and the spies are spinning about what it is and why there is no name, well, why not? He worked at a factory and these are, of course, different products under the numbers, and some may be for civilians, and some for the army. And the product has the same number, but it can go for anything and from different customers.

[smihko]

Of course, I am not an expert in defense matters, but on the account of unification in production I could argue with the author. It is NOT in North America! Faced this on the very first day of work.
examples:
1. Screwdrivers. An ordinary instrument. But here you need to have up to perhaps 20 names of different heads from the usual flat to Robertson of various modifications, Philips, T - bit, Alan and so on. And this is in everyday life and at work.
2. Keys for bolts and nuts - the same "unification". Each manufacturer of bolts, nuts and various screws pulls the blanket towards itself, releasing heads that are different from the other manufacturer, suitable only for its nuts or screws.
So in everything. Just business.
Perhaps the most working unification serves for years in the woodworking industry, when standard sections of sawn wood are produced for the construction of frame houses. In inches: 2x4, 2x6, 2x8, 2x10 and 2x12.
Unification of course should be, but probably at the block level. I took out the used block and replaced it with a new one.
I think that engineers in the defense industry are well versed in what they produce, at all not at the level of journalism, where, as always, about everything and about nothing.

[JD1979]

Article sabotage. A collection of distorted data, fantasies and delusions.

[rtutaloe]

Oh, these fairy tales for me, oh, these storytellers for me. To begin with, Russia is opposing NATO, not the United States. How long will the myth of confrontation with the United States, and not NATO, wander in the Russian media sphere, and when it will finally fade away - I don’t know. Although everything seems to be on the face. NATO has a lot of countries, each of which has its own nomenclature of equipment that does not always coincide with its neighbors. How many MBT tank names does NATO have? How many fighters? The USSR and now Russia is trying to maintain military parity. And for this you need to have as many tanks as you need to contain NATO, and not just the United States. If you churn out as many new tanks as you need and send the old ones straight away for melting, then it will be very costly. Russians will be left not only without annual trips abroad, somewhere in their beloved Thailand, but even without bananas and smartphones. Actually, even the Union could not pull a permanent replacement, so they changed gradually. Therefore, to all those who are eager for a quick modernization of the army according to a single model, I advise themselves to increase taxes by three times. Moreover, it is advisable to personally start selling goods with a high surplus value abroad, or better some kind of intellectual programs like Windows without a material base, and from abroad to buy only what is critically necessary for the country. I also advise you to switch to a Spartan way of life. I doubt that after reading this post a line of future Spartans and ascetic patriots lined up. )))

[sergei.ossipov]

Unification is nonsense. For each specific purpose there must be a separate weapon. (for fun, to transfer all guns in Russia to 135 naval caliber .. I can imagine what the SU-25 would look like with such a gun .. BREDED !!

[sergei.ossipov]

Sorry, Mr. Skomorokhov, well, just to at least understand the basics.. Question - why did Britain actively get rid of cruisers with standardized guns after the First World War?

[ivpe211]

their unification began only with the collapse of the USSR. And before that, the M60 was also in service. And Ethan Allen is on duty.

[Dimon-chik-79]

One cannot but agree with the author of this article; there are simply a huge number of weapon models in service! And as for tanks and as for infantry fighting vehicles, 1, 2 and 3 are in service, and the Kurganets is also on the way (?), with an armored personnel carrier it’s easier, somewhere over the horizon is the Boomerang, as well as the ancient “cardboard” 80ka , although it is already diluted with “Shots”, “Bulats”, “Typhoons” (U, K, Airborne Forces), “Watches”, “Tigers”, “Lynxes”, “Wolves”. Aviation there, the same diversity of fighters SU 27 30 35 and 57, 75 (???), bombers 34 and ancient 24. Helicopters MI24,35, 28, 52, KA28. Moreover, MI52 and KA300 are of the same type and for the same purpose. Air defense, we can’t change the generation of 400 and XNUMX and “Shilka” and “Tunguska” and “Pantsir”. Only God and the Moscow Region know how much public funds this diversity consumes...