For whom is the requiem today
photo https://www.9111.ru
From the editorial board: this material reflects the opinion of its author, but for those readers who want to fully understand the issue, on the advice of the writer, we recommend that you study the materials to which he refers. Without this, the article may seem somewhat one-sided. For our part, having talked with Vladimir Postnikov, we (along with the experts from Rubin and Malachite, who gave their reviews) confirm the level of the author's competence and, in turn, urge not to consider the material as criticism.
Scientific truth triumphs as
how its opponents die.
Max Planck
how its opponents die.
Max Planck
I was prompted to write this article by another article that was published here in the “Opinions” section of August 3rd. Artem Khvaleba's Requiem for Russia's Unmanned Strikers.
The author tried to analyze the problem. How could, and analyzed.
I quote:
“In my opinion, as a person who sincerely worries about this problem, the main obstacles in Russia to the creation of a large and combat-ready fleet unmanned aerial vehicles of all types can be reduced to three positions.
And he defines these three positions as problems with engines, with an electronic component base and satellite communications. Then he draws his conclusion that "every cricket should know his hearth."
I immediately had a question: why does the author not try to analyze the problem, limiting himself only to stating the facts? It is clear that the problem lies deeper. And all the "engines", "component bases" and "satellite communications" are only a natural consequence of this problem.
Attack underwater drones
I suggest Artyom, as well as other “sincerely worried” people, to get acquainted with my analysis of this problem, but only on the example of underwater droneswhich I have been doing for over a quarter of a century.
I proposed the concept of attack underwater drones at the end of March 1999, when NATO countries began to bomb Yugoslavia. Even then I saw the danger of a monopolar world, after which I turned to the Russian leadership with a proposal to create attack underwater drones based on my concept of SFTS cargo underwater drones. Previously, reviews on the SFTS concept were written by specialists from Malachite and Rubin, who, by the way, confirmed my authorship of this architecture.
But, to my great regret, Yevgeny Primakov and Yuri Maslyakov (the last head of the USSR State Planning Committee and the savior of the Russian economy in 1998) Yeltsin removed everything in the same 1999. I tried again at the end of 1999 after Yevgeny Primakov was replaced by Vladimir Putin. My proposal was considered, after which Lev Sidorenko, chairman of the Marine Scientific Committee of the RF Ministry of Defense, sent me his strange answer. I then answered him that his answer was stupid.
A year later, the United States withdrew from the ABM treaty. This was a serious reason for me to again send my proposal to the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation. And then the Kursk sank, and torpedoes were immediately blamed for everything. Well, as a “good host”, I sent an addition so that those torpedoes that could be dangerous for aircraft submarines would not be decommissioned, since they could be used in underwater drones.
The answer came from the same official of the Ministry of Defense - L. Sidorenko, which began like this:
“On behalf of the Deputy Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, the Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation and the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, with the involvement of specialists from the Navy, the Russian Academy of Sciences and industry, your appeal on the implementation of proposals in the field of improving industrial and transport programs, including the creation of combat systems for the Navy, has been reconsidered . Your idea..."
And the letter ended with the words:
“We are always sympathetic to all ideas, including yours, to ensure the national security of Russia, but I would consider it appropriate to stop correspondence on this issue with the Ministry of Defense.”
And again - the signature of L. Sidorenko.
Stop talking to him? Yes, I wrote to him two years before what I think of him! The second time I did not write to the Ministry of Defense, which is clear even from his second letter.
Why am I stating this in such detail here? Yes, because it is this official of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, after eight years, having retired, he will sit in the chair of the general designer of Rubin (without being a designer for a single day before) and begin to cut budget money on Status-6, "leaked" in November 2015 and famous in the cartoons of 2017 (for some reason in the form of "Harpsichord"), to then smoothly flow into "Poseidon"! This one turned out to be interesting story what is not yet and what turned out to be a reality.
Already after the second answer by L. Sidorenko, I realized that the issue with attack drones was closed, and I continued to deal with my transport underwater drones. I suggested a small version of the SFTS-1500 with half-height containers that stacked one on top of the other to form a standard container. This is an interesting proposition in my opinion. was considered Central Research Institute. Krylova in 2006.
Their feedback was that the project would cost several billion dollars. Why? No one answered this question for me at the time. Nobody discussed it with me. Answered and closed the curtain. Something similar happened later with Limanda for the Baltic in 2015. Then there was the Polar Route promo project in 2016, which again meant Limanda. As a result, there is no Limanda, and Finland and Sweden joined NATO.
In 2004, I wrote a futuristic forecast in fiction set in 2020. There I listed a list of promising R&D that were relevant, in my opinion at the time (I recently sent a copy of this forecast to the editors of VO, since this story can no longer be considered futuristic, I decided to deposit it with historians). Considering it useful for acquaintance, I sent it to the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation at the end of 2004. And on February 2005, XNUMX, I sent him to the Ministry of Defense and somewhere else.
My story turned out to be more optimistic than the subsequent reality (this is me to the fact that someone may consider me a pessimist). The coincidence of what was predicted with today should not be considered either as an accident or as a gift from God. This is only a consequence of proper education and my good analytical skills. Be that as it may, there was no reaction.
And then in 2005 I decided to dig deeper. The most worthy criticism is when, by criticizing someone else's solution to a problem, you can offer a different solution, yourself becoming the object of criticism. In this case, the involved specialists have the opportunity to find the optimal solution through comparison. It is no coincidence that the scales symbolize justice.
"Sixtieth Latitude"
Thus was born the concept of "Sixtieth Latitude", which in June 2005 I sent out to all bodies of the central government of the Russian Federation, as well as to the involved regional ones, to the Russian Academy of Sciences and to the leadership of the main political parties (with the exception of the Liberal Democratic Party).
This work consists of two parts: optimistic (what should be done) and pessimistic (why it will not be done). And it was in the pessimistic part that I described “the main obstacles in Russia to the creation of a large and combat-ready fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles of all types”, which were neither “engines”, nor “electronic component base”, nor “satellite communications”.
And the main obstacle there is the absence of a clear and precise ideology. If there is no ideology, there can be no plan. There is no plan - there will be no engines, no bases, no communications. Entropy will also be stolen if there is a buyer for it.
Seventeen years have passed, but even today I consider the concept of "Sixtieth Latitude" to be my most significant work. Of the significant changes in recent years, only the refusal to build ordinary (not high-speed) railways can be noted in it, due to create concepts of the Global Intelligent Transport System (GITS).
If the GITS line is stretched from St. Petersburg to Magadan or Ayan, then at the speed set in the system of 90 km/h, freight and passenger trolleybuses will cover this route in three days. And at a speed of 135 km / h - for two. And it will be the safest transportation system, because the speed is relatively low, and the active and passive safety systems are the most reliable. It is not speed that kills a person in traffic accidents, but the absolute value of acceleration, which the safety systems at the speeds mentioned above will allow to reduce to safe values.
But the Russian leadership did not even discuss the GITS system, investing public funds in a "super-speed" Hyperloop. What was it? Corruption scam? Maybe. But as a result, we have only a large hyperloop. I immediately remember: “We have the means. We are not smart enough."
By the way, the GITS system organically emerged from the Sixtieth Latitude. Thinking about railroad automation, I came to the conclusion that it is easier to replace the rail track with a roadbed than to try to automate railroad switches.
The refusal of the leadership of the Russian Federation to even discuss the concept of "Sixtieth Latitude" ideally coincides with the well-known image of "dogs in the manger." And for this reason alone, I allow myself to make a prediction that if the concept of "Sixtieth Latitude" is not adopted for implementation in the next ten years, then Russia will not remain within its current borders this century. This is my prediction. And as it turned out, I'm a good forecaster. However, this prediction is for posterity. Even if the implementation of the Sixtieth Latitude starts today, I still won’t see it in reality. And that's okay. The Chinese wall was built by many generations of Chinese. Sometimes in history people have been able to work for the future.
It is worth starting to discuss the "Sixtieth Latitude", and it will immediately become clear why it was here that nature gave us a chance that we still do not even discuss. And yet, this concept of the “collective West” is at the throat, but even today the West manages to control our government.
So for whom is the requiem today?
Information