Military Review

A critical look at HPV-2020

53
It is necessary to adjust the ambitious plans of re-equipment of the Armed Forces and equipping the defense


Planned expenses in the framework of the ambitious state weapons programs for 2011 – 2020 years (LG-2020) - more than 19 trillion rubles (taking into account the procurement of power structures - up to 20,7 trillion) and the Federal Target Program “Development of the defense-industrial complex before 2020” - about three trillion rubles identified a fundamental shift in the attitude of the country's leadership towards the modernization and development of the technical equipment of the Armed Forces and the military-industrial complex. However, the possibility of implementing the planned is in doubt.

The practical feasibility and effectiveness of these programs are rarely discussed in open sources.

The HPV-2020 is focused on increasing expenditures for the purchase of weapons and military equipment, and consequently, on the overall growth of the defense budget with a constant increase in the exponent from 2011 to 2020 a year.

The main problems

The first is the reliance on the rapid growth of procurement and defense expenditures, which is clearly ahead of the pace of economic development of Russia as a whole and the real growth rates of the Russian budget. In fact, the HPV-2020 is based on super-optimistic macroeconomic and fiscal projections, the program has clearly optimistic price parameters for products purchased under the state defense order (GOZ).

A critical look at HPV-2020

Another is that the increase in prices in industry is not sufficiently taken into account. Moreover, it can be assumed that price estimates are extremely optimistic in relation to the cost of promising and just developed models of equipment and weapons. HPV-2020 is based on overly optimistic terms of development and especially the launch into mass production of new types of weapons and military equipment.

It should also be noted that a significant part of the Russian defense industry is not ready after a long decline in the post-Soviet period to implement the specified R & D volumes and serial production. In the article, however, we will focus on the purely software defects HPV-2020.

In a complex, all this means that the current armament program looks difficult to implement, both in terms of finding and allocating the necessary financial resources, and in terms of the implementation of the armament procurement plan according to the nomenclature and number of serial samples. It is not surprising that as soon as the HPV-2020 was launched, almost immediately, from the end of 2011, conversations and projects to reduce the armament program and the growth rate of defense expenditures as a whole appeared in government circles. The goal is to bring expenditures for military needs into line with economic realities and to accomplish the so-called budget maneuver in order to preserve the balance of income and expenditure. These trends continued to be felt throughout the past 2012 year, despite the official declarations of the top Russian leadership on the firm commitment to the implementation of the LG-2020. At the development stage, and then with the start of the program, the then Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin spoke against the approval of the accepted “19-trillion” volume, which was one of the formal reasons for his resignation in September 2011.

Amazing pace

The beginning of the implementation of the HPV-2020 led to a rapid buildup of both the state defense order and the defense budget of Russia (hereinafter, the “National Defense” budget section with additions) is meant as a whole. Despite the budgetary difficulties discussed, it will continue in 2013, 2014, 2015. The “ceiling” of credible planning (2015) stems from the current practice of drawing up three-year budgets.

In 2013, the volume of purchases and R & D (1166 billion rubles) will double the level of 2011 of the year and almost four times the level of 2007. An additional factor in the growth of defense expenditures was an increase in 2012 of the size of the monetary allowance of military personnel by an average of three times, and pensions for military personnel by an average of 70 percent.


In the period after 2015, the growth rate of purchases and the military budget of Russia should only accelerate, since the developers of the GWV-2020 wisely transferred most of the program costs to its second five-year period. If in the first five years (2011 – 2015) costs are estimated to be about 5,4 trillion rubles, then in 2016 – 2020 - more than 15 trillions. It can be expected that in 2020, the annual volume of purchases and R & D for HP-2020 will reach around 3,5 – 3,7 trillion, with Russia's total defense expenditures of around six. Military spending in nominal terms will increase fivefold compared to 2010 year.

Thus, the implementation of the HPV-2020 assumes, with the stated desire not to exceed the share of defense expenditures in the country's GDP in more than 3,5 – 4 percent, the latter’s unrealistic growth rates for the period 2011 – 2020. It is worth noting that, according to very optimistic forecasts of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation on the draft budget for 2013 – 2015, it is assumed that 2015’s GDP will be 82,9 trillion, with the sum of federal budget expenditures 15,7. To achieve the level of spending on national defense in 2020, six trillion, with their share in the country's GDP of four percent, the total volume of the latter should be about 150 trillion, that is, double the GDP of the year 2014. Needless to say, this perspective is utopian. Even if we assume Russia's continuous GDP growth in the 2016 – 2020 period of four percent per year (a realistic, if not an optimistic estimate), then in 2020 the GDP volume will be about 102 trillion, that is, only about two thirds of the stated needs of the HPV- 2020. Apparently, these two thirds constitute the most realistic estimate of the possibilities for actually financing the armaments program for the second five years. For the full implementation of the HPV-2020 from the Russian economy requires the current Chinese economic growth rates. This is completely unattainable for Russia, especially while maintaining the current political and economic system that has taken shape since 2000.

The Russian economy over the past decade has only exacerbated its dependence on fuel and raw materials exports, deeply affected by the notorious "Dutch disease" (there is a negative effect on the growth of export prices of the extractive industries), suffering from the dominance of state-bureaucratic structures and the inflated public sector, weak national capital, lack of investment, excessive social and public spending, and enforced “manual control” and government intervention. Economic policy essentially boils down to “praying a barrel,” and the spending of oil and gas money entering the country raises numerous questions.

Under these conditions, it is not surprising that the rates of economic growth and the increase in the volume of GDP in Russia are constantly slowing down and have now dropped to less than four percent per annum, despite continuing high oil prices. Since in recent times conservative, populist, statist (absolutizing the role of the state) and demodernization trends in politics and economics have obviously intensified, we can expect further attenuation of economic growth in Russia and the transition of the Russian economy to a state of permanent languid stagnation, which can most likely be overcome only with significant changes in the political and economic course and the renewal of the country's leadership.

The events of the past year have also demonstrated that in Russia there remains a significant potential for political instability and there is a growing public discontent that threatens to plunge the country into political upheaval in the event of adverse events. Thus, adopted under the leadership of Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin and so cherished by them, HPV-2020 is in fact a hostage to their own political and economic course and is hardly feasible if the current policy continues. The modern Russian economy simply does not produce enough funds to fully fund the 23 trillion-arms program and support for the defense industry. Apparently, he will not be able to do this for the coming decade.

Sacred figure

Recently, the main factor of tension for the domestic “defense industry” has become to the utmost the aggravated disagreements with the “reformed” Ministry of Defense regarding the price parameters of the state defense order and product supply. This resulted in a uniform war of both of these parties, which does not benefit anyone, including the Armed Forces. The desire of the leadership of the Ministry of Defense and its “demilitarized” financial sector to implement strict minimization of costs and prices for purchased products has in many cases led to destabilization of the procurement policy and, in some cases, paralysis in the implementation of some SDR programs. In this regard, it is appropriate to ask the question: what is the situation with the pricing within the LG-2020 and how was the calculation of the planned R & D cost and product deliveries made? In other words, how justified is the 20 trillion figure from an economic point of view?


Judging from the fragmentary information available, the calculation of the estimated cost of the GOZ when developing the LG-2020 was carried out by economic planning bodies, relying mainly on preliminary data from the financial sector of the Russian Ministry of Defense. It is noteworthy that after the introduction of the HPV-2020, there was a hard “clinch” between the military and the industry on contract prices. It was a question of a significant number of orders, including, for example, such large-scale “strategic” programs as the contract for the construction of five nuclear missile submarines of the 955A project, which was signed after almost a year of bickering only as a result of Vladimir Putin’s personal intervention. In all cases, the Ministry of Defense insisted on clearly lowered (from the point of view of the industry) contract prices, moreover appealing precisely to the parameters laid down in the LG-2020.

As noted above, this suggests that in terms of price, the program is based on over-optimistic data. Practical implementation of all R & D and product deliveries will actually require more funds than 20 trillion rubles. Particularly critical are the numerous programs for creating fundamentally new types of weapons and military equipment, the entire R & D cycle and mastering the release of which should be superimposed on the implementation period of the HPV-2020, or even its second five-year plan. The possibility of realistic calculating the cost of such programs for the future in the conditions of the Russian economy and the permanent problems of the military department with the determination of the contract value of even products manufactured for a long time looks very doubtful.

There is a real threat: the actual cost of the implementation of promising programs will actually be several times higher than planned. It should be noted that such a state of affairs with chronic overspending (sometimes multiple) of funds for promising military programs is typical for such advanced countries in terms of building procurement policies of countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, and it would be strange to expect otherwise from less experienced and effective in this regard management of the Russian defense ministry. This state of affairs is observed in the long-standing "post-Soviet" programs of nuclear submarines of the 885 and 955 projects, the Bulava SLBM, the Iskander missile system, the C-400 ground-to-ground missile system, a number of space projects, and in the civil aircraft industry - in a generously funded aircraft program SSJ 100.

In all the cases mentioned, programs require constant financial injections. Their sum far exceeds the original estimates. And even with this, the deadlines for the implementation of programs still constantly “go to the right.” There is a reasonable assumption that the practical implementation of such promising programs as the T-50 fighter, the PAK DA strategic bomber, the Armata, Kurganets-25 and Boomerang combat armored vehicle platforms, and the others will also require constant additional financial costs. As a result, these programs will become “vacuum cleaners”. Expected significant out of the planned targets.

The cost of serial samples of this product is likely to be far surpassing the optimistic forecasts of planners. As a result, the Ministry of Defense will face the impossibility to sufficiently finance all the planned projects. Above the plans for the HPV-2020 hangs the threat of colossal financial "scissors". Financing in a given amount is difficult. In addition, such optimistic planned trillions of 20 rubles most likely will certainly not be enough to implement the program for a given nomenclature. Simply put, there is a risk that in the end 2020 trillions will be required conditionally on the implementation of the HPV-30, and in fact it will be possible to isolate, for example, 15.

Hard to believe

Regarding the promising weapons systems developed by the GWV-2020, it should be noted that Russian official military sources in some cases provide unrealistic information about the planned timing of these projects. So, the commander-in-chief of the Air Force, Major-General Viktor Bondarev, said last July that 2013 fifth generation T-14 fighter jets should go to the Air Force in 50, and production vehicles would appear in the 2015. At the same time, at the time of this application, only three prototypes were built (the first one flew only in January of the 2010), and on the third, tests of a regular radar complex began. Only at the end of 2012, the fourth prototype of the PAK FA joined the tests.

It is worth recalling that when the United States created the Fifth Generation Lockheed Martin F-22A, the duration of the journey from the first flight of the YF-22 demonstrator (1990) before the first production batch of the F-22A (2004) demonstrates to the air force - made 14 years. How the leadership of the domestic Air Force, with far poorer industrial and financial resources, intends to “run” this way in three years and whether it believes in these promises itself - remains a mystery.

Equally super-optimistic statements are being made regarding prospective platforms being developed for the Ground Forces - the heavy tracked Armata (essentially a new main tank), the interspecific middle tracked Kurganets-25 (BMP) and the unified wheeled unified Boomerang (BTR). So, the former Minister of Defense Anatoly Serdyukov and the Director General of NPK Uralvagonzavod Oleg Sienko in February 2012 stated that the prototype of the new Armata tank will be created in 2013, and its mass production and delivery to the Armed Forces will begin in 2015 m. Also in 2013, the first BMP prototypes on the subject “Kurganets-25” and armored personnel carriers on the topic “Boomerang” are expected, and the start of mass production of both vehicles in 2015. Thus, the period from the construction of the first prototypes of fundamentally new armored vehicles to the start of their serial production and delivery to the troops should be two years, amazing by world standards.

The previous domestic serial tank of a truly new generation (T-64) was introduced and worked out in the USSR for a long and painful time during almost all 60s of the 20th century. The refinement process was actually completed only a decade and a half after the start of prototype testing. All 195-e and 90-e fumbled with the promising tank "object 2000", but did not adopt. Wheeled BTR-90 worked out with 1994 year over 15 years and also did not bring to the series.

In light of the above statement by officials about the possibility of creating and bringing to a series a new generation of sophisticated combat platforms in extra-shock terms, they cannot but surprise. The same goes for many other projects. Starting in 2015, it is planned to begin large-scale serial production of modernized and new helicopters, including the Ka-62. At the same time, there are still no flying prototypes of the latter. Not accepted fleet Project 955 lead nuclear missile submarine Yuri Dolgoruky, which has been under construction for 15 years. Nevertheless, by 2020, it is planned to have eight of these submarines, including five of an improved project. Similarly to the same period, during the stretching tests of the lead nuclear submarine of project 885 Severodvinsk, it is planned to build seven more according to the modernized design.

With regard to the development timelines and the commissioning of promising systems, the feasibility of the HPV-2020 raises serious doubts. Most likely, the actual appearance in the troops of the T-50 fighter, the C-500 ZRS and promising platforms of the Ground Forces should be expected no earlier than 2020 of the year, that is, already beyond the period of validity of the weapons program under discussion. Many other projects are apparently doomed to a similar “shift” in terms of time. This circumstance opens up possibilities for adjusting the current HPV in the direction of more realistic parameters with the postponement of the serial purchases of many expensive weapons and military equipment for the period after 2020.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Cartoon
    Cartoon 10 January 2013 12: 22
    0
    That would be funny if it weren’t like the truth. Swung at the ruble, and the blow again goes to the penny.
    1. nycsson
      nycsson 10 January 2013 13: 18
      0
      Wait and see! More like the truth, especially since there have already been failures in the state defense order!
    2. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 10 January 2013 14: 04
      +10
      there according to Yuri Dolgoruky and the fact that he was not accepted. Here's the news hi

      Strategic missile submarine "Yuri Dolgoruky" today will be transferred to the Russian Navy. In the presence of Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, the acceptance certificate of the ship and the raising of the St. Andrew flag on it will be held
      1. alexng
        alexng 10 January 2013 21: 33
        0
        The author, most likely, is not familiar with the affairs in Russia and does not take into account one not unimportant detail: the stools and under the feet have already been removed. So the devil is not so terrible as his "baby" (painting the article).
    3. beech
      beech 10 January 2013 14: 22
      +6
      in your opinion it was not necessary to carry out this program? if at least 60-70 percent of the plans are fulfilled and it will be super ... it feels like the MoD and the military-industrial complex have been taken for one place ... I think this program will have a positive result despite the fact that they are sawing sickly and they are given funny terms ( if finally they give), which is very saddening (.
      1. Botanologist
        Botanologist 10 January 2013 17: 40
        +4
        Liberalistic article. "Kudrin warned you." Found, m-la, a prophet.

        After all, Putin openly declared that our economy should form a "locomotive" in the face of the military-industrial complex. Naturally, the locomotive is expensive. But if we cut down on weapons programs, then instead of a locomotive, we will have a dead cycle rickshaw. What else is this expert going to prove?

        Minus article.
        1. Papakiko
          Papakiko 10 January 2013 18: 04
          +1
          MIC in the USA, and we have the Defense Industrial Complex. hi
          Do not judge strictly this "opus", if half is done, then it will already be HUGE +.
        2. Karabin
          Karabin 10 January 2013 18: 49
          +2
          Quote: Botanologist
          Naturally, a locomotive is expensive.

          Especially if a locomotive with an efficiency of the engine is formed.
          1. Nick
            Nick 11 January 2013 04: 18
            -1
            Quote: Karabin
            Especially if a locomotive with an efficiency of the engine is formed.

            Why is it so pessimistic? In the world for a long time there are electric locomotives smile
        3. S_mirnov
          S_mirnov 11 January 2013 00: 41
          0
          "After all, Putin openly declared - our economy must form a" locomotive "" - Fuck that! Heard, "the economy should"! laughing Does anyone know if the Economy is aware that it needs to have GDP? And who is this Kotra Economy to become a locomotive? laughing
          "But if you reduce the weapons programs," - to be honest, after the rule of EBN, VVP and Medved, it is quite difficult to REDUCE the weapons programs. But any movement from the sign "-" - any development!
          "What else is this expert going to prove?" the expert simply asks a common question - "where will the money for the rearmament of our army come from, if nothing has fundamentally changed in the country?" And the question arises systematically - And if before that there was money in the country for the rearmament of the army and the development of the military-industrial complex, then why didn't they?
      2. S_mirnov
        S_mirnov 11 January 2013 00: 30
        0
        "it is felt that the Defense Ministry and the military-industrial complex have taken for one place" - Has anything changed? What, Serdyukov was imprisoned, "but the men do not know!" wink Maybe there was some kind of coordinating change in the Defense Ministry, maybe they stopped the purges and kicked out half of the generals, who perfectly learned how to receive orders and are poorly able to lead troops? What not? Then where is such optimism from?
        It is clear that I want to think about the good, but I also need to turn on my head!
        I am reading that the plans for the "State Armament Program for 2011–2020" are a variation on the theme of the famous song "Everything is fine, beautiful marquise!" We are inflating the police, re-equipping the army, and nano-modernizing the economy, but the question of V. Vysotsky is still relevant - "where is the money, Zin?" Maybe our state fenced off corruption and now half of the country's GDP will be added to the treasury? - No. Maybe our economy is developing at an unprecedented pace and hundreds of new state-owned factories are being built? - honey agarics no! Or maybe the state has nationalized the extraction of minerals, the sale of vodka and tobacco? What's not there again?
        Well then, sit and do not star!
        1. Nick
          Nick 11 January 2013 04: 22
          -1
          Quote: S_mirnov
          Not. Maybe our economy is growing at an unprecedented pace and hundreds of new state-owned factories are being built? - no mushrooms!

          Factories are being built, maybe not all state ones, and not hundreds, but are being built. Down and Out trouble started...
  2. CCA
    CCA 10 January 2013 12: 25
    +15
    A strange and provocative article ... You can doubt anything ... The thing needs to be done, then everything will turn out ...
    It is worth recalling that when the United States created the Fifth Generation Lockheed Martin F-22A, the duration of the journey from the first flight of the YF-22 demonstrator (1990) before the first production batch of the F-22A (2004) demonstrates to the air force - made 14 years. How the leadership of the domestic Air Force, with far poorer industrial and financial resources, intends to “run” this way in three years and whether it believes in these promises itself - remains a mystery.
    And this generally does not lend itself to comment ... Yes, let them conduct their tests for at least 30 years ...
    1. Dmitry23RUS
      Dmitry23RUS 10 January 2013 12: 30
      +10
      I agree, I wrote so much, but I also stumbled on this paragraph. What the hell? The author is trying to judge Russia by providing US data, as if he doesn’t know how grandly they have * SAW * on the defense loot.
      1. 77bor1973
        77bor1973 10 January 2013 15: 29
        +2
        The author, in my opinion, forgot about the reduction in the price of the product during its serial production, and "saw" at the time of implementation and during development. And that now "bayonet in the ground."
    2. military
      military 10 January 2013 13: 36
      +6
      Quote: KKA
      Yes, let them conduct their tests for at least 30 years ...

      they are carrying out ... and for some reason, the slogan "We will give the country coal - at least small, but up to x ...!" ... why do we need full-scale tests if the deadlines are announced and are burning ?. .. we will shorten the test programs ... we will recount the results by analogs ... are there any comments on the "state"? ... it does not matter, fixable - we will sign at the top the decision on putting into service and the "promising" schedule for eliminating deficiencies ... the main thing it is correct to understand "party policy" ...
      well, two or three sides will collapse, the submarine will sink ... we will write off the problems of "raw" technology to the human factor, not for the first time ... No.
      in this "comparison" the author only tried to convey to the reader's mind that the life cycle of any more or less complex AME product at the stage from the beginning of development to the end of serial development is measured by quite definite time intervals ... and the payment for reducing these intervals is quite unambiguous - quality of the final product ... recourse
      1. huut
        huut 10 January 2013 22: 12
        +1
        Quote: military
        in this "comparison" the author only tried to convey to the reader's mind that the life cycle of any more or less complex AME product at the stage from the beginning of development to the end of serial development is measured by quite definite time intervals ... and the payment for reducing these intervals is quite unambiguous - quality of the final product ...

        Does the author take into account the current situation on our ball? Or is he describing some kind of ideal "concept for the creation of military equipment in peacetime"? In my opinion, the second.

        So, in the light of the first, there is simply no time for all sorts of dancing and licking the final product. Our slogan is rather relevant: "We will give the country coal - the best that we have managed to dig up. Otherwise, we will use firewood."

        And a fifteen-year-old "licking" is not always good, it can simply be the siphoning of money from the budget by "defense" individuals.
        1. military
          military 11 January 2013 09: 28
          0
          Quote: huut
          Our slogan is rather relevant: "Let’s give the country coal - the best we managed to dig... Otherwise we will heat with wood. "

          it means that we will pay, nevertheless, with quality ... yes
          and about the "best" - time will tell ... request
      2. Nick
        Nick 11 January 2013 04: 28
        -1
        Quote: military
        in this "comparison" the author only tried to convey to the reader's mind that the life cycle of any more or less complex AME product at the stage from the beginning of development to the end of serial development is measured by quite definite time intervals ... and the payment for reducing these intervals is quite unambiguous - quality of the final product ...

        The author does not take into account that in new projects the defense industry uses backlogs from other projects. According to T-50, the same Golden Eagle for example IMHO is possible, according to Armata - T-95, etc.
        1. valokordin
          valokordin 11 January 2013 06: 10
          0
          One can only hope for what? that they do not steal
      3. abc_alex
        abc_alex 11 January 2013 13: 08
        +2
        No need to drive a wave!
        In the case of the Shtat aircraft, the 14-year journey from project to flight was determined primarily by the fact that the military changed concept cars. This is in addition to the fact that since the mid-90s, in general, the program has evoked less and less understanding in Congress.

        The author, in the dashing style of domestic "liberal journalists", absolutes one of the many episodes, passing it off as almost a rule. In fact, when the task is clearly set by the military, the US defense industry performs it almost in a youthful shock style :) Suffice it to recall how the staff of the US launched MRAP.

        In short, the article has a strong smell, and this smell is "liberal-political". The author was obviously terribly itching to somehow voice his "putin should be" and the HBO site became the only one where he managed to stick himself.

        In any case, the author no longer had the strength to dig historical literature in an elementary way, otherwise he would have known that 2 years to launch the prototype in a series is not a record time for modern engineering. Even if the USSR, and even if tanks, the average launch time for the post-war military-industrial complex was a year and a half from the moment it was taken into service. And there were record cars, for example the T-44, which in two years passed the put from the culman to the factory.
  3. volcano
    volcano 10 January 2013 12: 27
    +6
    Honestly, I too am constantly gnawed by doubts about the ability of our economy and especially the military-industrial complex to correctly master such finances.
    And the military did not seem to understand this.
    Suffice it to recall the recent statements of the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy that almost tomorrow the seas will be plowed by the "armada" of our aircraft carriers and destroyers.
    It’s as if the production capabilities of the defense industry complex are simply fantastic.

    We want to introduce an unfortunate field form in 2 years into the troops, and only new weapons and equipment (taking into account the presence of most of them in the form of prototypes and prototypes) and even in the series ...... well .... ahem. ... it seems to me fantastic, however what
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 10 January 2013 12: 32
      +5
      Quote: volkan
      and new weapons and equipment (taking into account the presence of most of them in the form of prototypes and prototypes) and even in the series ...... well .... ahem .... it seems to me fantastic, however

      We’ll wait and see, while it’s difficult for aviation, but we keep within the plans. All planes are set, as we will see later.
      1. volcano
        volcano 10 January 2013 12: 57
        0
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        We’ll wait and see, while it’s difficult for aviation, but we keep within the plans. All planes are set, as we will see later.


        Alexander
        So I am with both hands for it, and really want everything to work out as it should, but here doubts are gnawing at least you crack and that's it.
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 10 January 2013 13: 10
          +3
          Quote: volkan
          but doubts gnaw though you crack and that's it.

          But whoever doesn’t have them, after all the scandals and stretching for years the acceptance of new types of weapons, there will be a lot of doubts.
  4. Zhenya
    Zhenya 10 January 2013 12: 30
    +6
    The article is based on complete pessimism, from an unstable political situation, to stupid engineers who can’t build anything in a short time, etc., etc.
    Of course, not a single rearmament program was ever carried out at 100%, but I'm sure at this pace, it can reach 80%, which is not so bad, looking at the current situation in the troops and looking at 5-10 years ago, when nothing at all not done.
    Article minus, the author is a pessimist (one must be realistic).
    ps
    In general, the article is similar to a custom one (purely my opinion)
    1. nycsson
      nycsson 10 January 2013 13: 37
      +3
      Quote: Marrying
      The article is based on complete pessimism

      Is there reason for optimism? Ours has gone in, probably thinks that for the rearmament of the army it is necessary and enough to spend a lot of dough and make up GOZ! Not so simple! For the development of state defense order production facilities are needed first of all! And the frames? Where to get skilled workers, if in recent years our education has produced hundreds of thousands of incompetent lawyers and economists!
  5. Roomata
    Roomata 10 January 2013 12: 32
    0
    ) I assume that by right by the year 20 the current will figure out what and how
    sold (Stolen) in this MO
    Well, we can’t talk about the construction of something new until the year 18
    1. Zhenya
      Zhenya 10 January 2013 12: 34
      +3
      That is, now nothing is being built new and is not entering the troops? Sorry, but you are funny.
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 10 January 2013 14: 02
        -2
        Bu-ha-ha Well, tell us, how many, for example, did the fleet receive new ships over the past 5 years?
        1. ATATA
          ATATA 10 January 2013 14: 55
          +1
          Over the past 5 years, the fleet has received 13 ships, not counting import orders, and for a look I look just as there is no Caspian flotilla in the list. So the number is not taken into account. Look here in detail, considered the ships handed over to the fleet since 2007, as you requested, Mr. Trololo.
          http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D

          1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%9C%D

          0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%A4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%A0%D

          0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%A4%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1

          %80%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8
          1. Odysseus
            Odysseus 10 January 2013 17: 41
            -3
            Well, why did you give me a link to Wikipedia with a list of the remains of the Soviet fleet?
            If you do not know the answer to any question, it is better to just be silent.
            In fact, over the past 6 years (since 2007), the fleet received 3 guard patrols, plus completed the construction of 1 Soviet patrol guard and 1 submarine (immediately given to India)
            Awesome rearmament)))
            This year (in January), the super-long-term building Yuri Dolgoruky (without missiles) will be handed over to the fleet, and 2 more long-term buildings Severodvinsk and St. Petersburg will be brought.
  6. ovgorskiy
    ovgorskiy 10 January 2013 12: 40
    +4
    Author Mikhail Barabanov seems to be a liberal economist, a fan of Kudrin and the dollar. I did not fail to mention the political instability in Russia and the "bloody" dictator, well, how could the economy go without it? Yes, of course, the plans are somewhat optimistic, but without doing anything and making ambitious plans you will get nothing at all. Do at least half of it, and that's a big deal. If you give such economists power, they would invest the entire budget in Fed securities. They don't give a damn about the defense, the military, pensioners, etc. - all these are unnecessary expenses and do not bring profit. "I'm certainly not a racist," but somehow I dislike these "accountants-economists".
  7. aksakal
    aksakal 10 January 2013 12: 49
    +7
    Quote: KKA
    And this generally does not lend itself to comment ... Yes, let them conduct their tests for at least 30 years ...

    - the same impression from the article of "student" Kudrin.Barabanov - we will write it down in a notebook in the same way.
    Let's start with the fact that the military-industrial complex can become a driver of the economy with such injections, it can become a locomotive for the modernization of all Russian industry as a whole due to both generating demand from military-industrial complex enterprises for machine tools and other equipment - sorry, the latest weapons are not to be made with fingers, as for new materials (high-modulus polyethylene, aramid fabrics, composites and alloys based on steel and titanium, and much more), so by transferring the latest technologies obtained in the course of R&D to the Russian industry. And this is labor productivity and others. Why is this growth factor completely ignored by Mr. Barabanov in his forecasts of "completely unattainable Chinese rates" for Russia?

    The second - Over the past decade, the Russian economy has only aggravated its dependence on fuel and raw materials exports, is deeply affected by the notorious “Dutch disease” (there is a negative effect on rising export prices for extractive industries), it suffers from the dominance of state-bureaucratic structures and an inflated public sector, weak national capital, lack of investment, excessive social and public spending, and enforced “manual control” and government intervention - why is it presented as a completely incorrigible thing? Is it presented as an objective reality, absolutely not subject to correction, as a dogma analogous to the impossibility of creating a "perpetual" motion machine? This is not a perpetual motion machine, this is just bureaucracy and corruption, it can be corrected quite easily - there would be will, political will and iron determination. And on a purely technical issue, how to solve it - to Stalin. He will tell you, no one has come up with better. If it is impossible to ask Stalin, there is his follower - Li Kuan Yew, who burned out the habit of stealing and red tape in Singapore with a hot iron. He is ready to share secrets, he is not going to take them to the grave with him.
    Since conservative, populist, statist (absolute role of the state) and, in fact, demodernization tendencies in politics and the economy have clearly intensified recently, we can expect further damping of economic growth in Russia and the transition of the Russian economy to a state of permanent sluggish stagnation, overcoming of which will most likely be possible only with significant changes in the political and economic course and the renewal of the country's leadership. - and this is the central part of the article, the part for which all nonsense was written. So briefly would I write why there are so many buccaffs?
    BOLD MINUS ARTICLE!
    1. zambo
      zambo 10 January 2013 13: 14
      +1
      Aksakal, thank you. I "analyzed" both the author and the article in detail (too pessimistic and "liberal").
    2. the polar
      the polar 10 January 2013 15: 32
      0
      Quote: aksakal
      And on a purely technical issue how to solve this - to Stalin. He will tell, no one has come up with even better.


      Are you so sure that the "tandem" sits day and night over books, studying Stalin's experience?
      Why did you dream of such horror?
      After all, the "guarantor" has already forgotten to repeat that today is "not 37", that "it is time to move away from the legacy of Stalinism."
      And you're all deaf
      1. aksakal
        aksakal 10 January 2013 16: 10
        +1
        Quote: Polar
        After all, the "guarantor" has already forgotten to repeat that today is "not 37", that "it is time to move away from the legacy of Stalinism."

        - Do not confuse the guarantor with Medvedev? The guarantor actually spoke of breakthroughs similar in the USSR in the thirties. An ambiguous hint. Or are you already confused in officials that they all look the same to you? Can you distinguish Yeltsin from Putin?
  8. StrateG
    StrateG 10 January 2013 12: 49
    +6
    Be a pessimist - and then nothing will come of it.
    Be realistic - and then you will not be able to do much.
    Be optimistic - and you can move mountains.
  9. Fantomac
    Fantomac 10 January 2013 12: 51
    +4
    I can not say about the forecasts of the Russian economy, honestly speaking, I am not strong in the economy. And the article does not mean that it is and will be. I know one thing that in our world today GPV-2020 needs to be done, nosebleed.
  10. Kyrgyz
    Kyrgyz 10 January 2013 12: 56
    +2
    For example, I don’t know who the author is in terms of his awareness of where the money is supposed to come from, and on the basis of what he juggles the treasury income structure with today's figures, assuming that they will remain forever.
    I don’t have such a toggle switch for switching income from raw materials to income from a high-value-added product, decisions made in industry will now be visible no sooner than 5 years later, raw materials should also be in Asia and in larger volumes than in Europe, this should also not be forgotten. very large investments have been made in infrastructure in the Asian direction.
    Of course, after the implementation of the GPA there will be no idyll, but certain investments are needed both in R&D and in the restoration of industrial potential, and this will most likely give a positive result, most likely everything planned will not succeed, but 85% should do the rest unforeseen difficulties, in the end we do not make a breakthrough we only eliminate the underfunding of the previous period
    1. Zhenya
      Zhenya 10 January 2013 13: 02
      0
      Yes, I also think 80-85% will be a good result.
  11. washi
    washi 10 January 2013 13: 00
    +1
    First you need to decide who we should defend ourselves from, and then accept the program. The main threatened directions are east and south. Moreover, the south is divided into the Caucasus and Central Asia, and the east into the East Siberian and Far Eastern theaters. Everywhere there is its own specifics and its own equipment is needed. But in Muscovy, such a feeling, they are preparing to defend only themselves. In the Far East at a distance of 1000 km, a maximum of one regiment - try to protect.
    1. Zhenya
      Zhenya 10 January 2013 13: 05
      +2
      Sorry, but you are Vasya! Such scribblers like you, Muscovy, Muscovites ... Moscow ... hesitated to take away the capital, I will only be for it! You don’t care at all that rearmament is taking place all over the country and the number of troops depends on the population, but you don’t give a damn, you can only blurt out that Moscow is bad there ...
      It is necessary to give birth, it is necessary to work, and not to whine and not to look for those responsible for their problems.
    2. Kyrgyz
      Kyrgyz 10 January 2013 14: 51
      +1
      Quote: Vasya
      First you need to decide who we should defend ourselves from, and then accept the program.

      Most likely it is necessary to defend oneself from everyone, but this has little effect on the program, because you just need to change the old one for a new one, and add something that had not happened before because progress.
      Moscow is protected because there is a head and an industrial center, its loss practically paralyzes the armed forces, this also needs to be provided, and I think not everything that is done there is carried out onto the street
  12. pepelacxp
    pepelacxp 10 January 2013 13: 19
    0
    the article is custom-made, of course :) plus set only if, along with the minus, a stable Medvo, they don’t like lol
    - but there is no doubt that boomerang and kurganets will fly on the platforms for years
    - Armata is probably almost ready, something simplified, something is almost ready
    - submarines should stretch vsezh
    - Yes, and with airplanes, the volumes of purchases are not amazing, they will build it, although of course the fate of the instant 35 is under a big question.
  13. Rus2012
    Rus2012 10 January 2013 13: 34
    0
    Quote: KKA
    A strange and provocative article ... You can doubt anything ... The thing needs to be done, then everything will turn out ...


    ... really, who is the Drum?
    I myself understand the economist - costs may increase ...
    But, in connection with newly discovered difficulties or, on the contrary, "breakthroughs" - in some way they can be reduced. Who is stopping us from adjusting the Program, excluding what is not needed, and increasing what, without anything, time will tell ...
    A special place, in connection with the need for constant changes - will require "special control" over expenditures and "control of execution" - so that some figures are discouraged to "roll their lips". In this area, strict adherence to financial discipline will be necessary, Stepashin - go there, day and night!
  14. merkel1961
    merkel1961 10 January 2013 13: 34
    0
    At first, Kudrin himself thought and wrote under a pseudonym. But what, the author does not think about changes in the composition of the Ministry of Finance, the Central Bank, the liberal government as a whole, what changes can happen in the economic policy of the Kremlin? Based on today's realities, the author substantiates the failure to fulfill the GPV- 2020, for me personally, is unconvincing.
  15. sxn278619
    sxn278619 10 January 2013 13: 47
    0
    Those who do not believe the article can download it and re-read it every next year.
    The author has not said anything about the global economic crisis.
    Therefore, the probability of the program in full is small.
    Will have to choose priority areas. These are Strategic boats, S-500, aviation 4 ++, satellite constellation.
    It is necessary to increase export deliveries. Issue emblem rubles to VEB, and it will provide targeted loans to enterprises with a zero rate on renewal and expansion of production. Lower prices. Extended production will come in handy later.
    This will hardly affect inflation.
  16. toguns
    toguns 10 January 2013 14: 01
    +2
    wassat minus, obviously a custom-made article with a liberoid zakos on know-it-all.
  17. Odysseus
    Odysseus 10 January 2013 14: 19
    0
    Within the framework of existing socio-economic relations, GPV-2020 is impossible to fulfill.
    Without changes in these relations, its fate will be similar to the fate of other programs of "rearmament and modernization" of the army.
    First, they will review it all the time, and then they will forget it and write a new program.
    However, there is another "method", you can, for example, reduce the number of tanks in the army to 500 units. Of these, 300 will really be new. Well, after that you can declare the program completed)))
  18. anchonsha
    anchonsha 10 January 2013 14: 21
    +1
    Dogs bark, the convoy is coming ... Well, let them write, they want to be in business, we need to earn denyuyuhek like this Drum, and let us work, work. The country has come out of deadlocks more than once because it believed in its own strengths and its people. And let Barabanov poke, work out the order, God be with him.
  19. tank64rus
    tank64rus 10 January 2013 15: 08
    +1
    Equate corruption and theft in this area with high treason. Previously, the "leadership" of the Ministry of Defense for their "reforms" must answer in full, and not the show that is taking place. And only then start rearmament, otherwise all good undertakings will turn into cutting the people's money. And then Chernomyrdin's catchphrase will follow: "We wanted the best, but it turned out as always."
  20. the polar
    the polar 10 January 2013 15: 24
    0
    “This is completely unattainable for Russia, especially if the current political and economic system that has been formed since 2000 is preserved.
    ------------------------------------------
    This is the key phrase in the article.
    Only the USSR of the 30-70s, with its political and economic system, could solve such a super task
  21. engineer74
    engineer74 10 January 2013 15: 58
    +3
    Swamp economists woke up, again moaning about the "raw" economy, "oil will fall in price", etc. They cannot understand the simple thing that GPV2020 is an investment in the real, not raw material, sector of the economy, that it is investment in jobs, that most of these 20trl. will remain in Russia.
  22. suharev-52
    suharev-52 10 January 2013 17: 46
    0
    I read the article. I did not see any whining and catch. The fact that the author doubts is his right. I personally also doubt that everything will be done, but we must strive for this. Sincerely.
  23. webdog
    webdog 10 January 2013 17: 50
    +2
    Quote: engineer74
    GPV2020 is an investment in the real, non-commodity, sector of the economy, that it is an investment in jobs, that most of these 20 trillion. will stay in Russia.

    totally agree with you.
    if you do nothing, then nothing will turn out ...
    Now it’s not about economy and efficiency ... it’s about speed. this is important ...
    I think so.
  24. asf32wesdg
    asf32wesdg 10 January 2013 18: 33
    -1
    It just can't be !!! The FSB has created this http://sho.rtlink.de/FS62Am database about any resident of Russia, Ukraine and other CIS countries. Really was really scared
    there are a lot of interesting things about me (addresses, phone numbers, even my photos of a different nature) - I wonder where they dug up this. In general, there are good sides - this
    Information can be deleted from the site.
    I advise you to hurry, you never know how to fumble there ...
  25. atos_kin
    atos_kin 10 January 2013 18: 39
    +1
    IMHO: it is necessary to welcome not only those who praise the GVP2020 (and there are not many of them), but also those who reasonably expresses doubts. It is bad that there are no calculations confirming the conclusions.
    1. engineer74
      engineer74 10 January 2013 18: 56
      0
      I completely agree with you, but in this article I saw only a set of hackneyed stamps and a rather primitive juggling with numbers. No.
    2. Odysseus
      Odysseus 10 January 2013 19: 38
      -1
      The calculations are elementary. According to GPV-2020, the share of new weapons in the army should be 70-80%.
      For example, the Russian army is armed with about 14000 tanks, what do you think are the chances of putting 11000 new tanks into the troops? Now the number of new tanks is 0 (if you consider the T-90a to be a new tank, then 450)
      Or, in the Pacific Fleet, 35 ships of the main classes are all old Soviet ones. What are the chances of replenishing the TF by 2020 large ships until 25, if over the past 15 years the fleet has not been replenished with any ship?
      1. engineer74
        engineer74 10 January 2013 20: 53
        0
        Tanks you counted with the mob. reserve? smile
        Again juggling ...
        Quote: webdog
        if you do nothing, then nothing will turn out ...
  26. stranik72
    stranik72 10 January 2013 18: 55
    +3
    Quote: aksakal
    - the same impression from the article of "student" Kudrin.Barabanov - we will write it down in a notebook in the same way. Let's start with the fact that the military-industrial complex can become a driver of the economy with such injections, it can become a locomotive for the modernization of all Russian industry as a whole due to both the generation of demand from the military-industrial complex for machine tools and other equipment - sorry, the latest weapons are not to be done with your fingers, as for new ones materials (high-modulus polyethylene, aramid fabrics, composites and alloys based on steel and titanium, and much more), so by transferring the latest technologies obtained in the course of R&D to the Russian industry. And this is labor productivity and others. Why is this growth factor completely ignored by Mr. Barabanov in his forecasts of "completely unattainable Chinese rates" for Russia?

    You, judging by your flag, such a delusion is forgivable. Mr. Barabanov is aware of the state of affairs in the Russian economy, but with the approach you are talking about, it would be so, but you do not know the real state of affairs, we will simply take out a bank loan for this money (you know bank%) immediately reduce the allocated money by at least 20%, then the money goes not to the enterprises, but to the management companies, further reduce the allocated amount by 20%. Further, a machine tool park is really needed for the program, in Russia there is no machine tool building, as a class, 7 years are not enough for its restoration, we buy composite production (including no components at all) over the hill, there is no metal of our own, we will buy everything abroad, so it is unlikely whether we will perform an economic miracle with this approach. It is necessary to change the "girls" from the authorities.
  27. xopek b kacke
    xopek b kacke 10 January 2013 21: 09
    +1
    Generally sustained and informative article. I also think that there will be problems with our GPV 2020. You can minus, but, unfortunately, everything goes to that
  28. 916-th
    916-th 10 January 2013 21: 13
    +1
    I like the phrase: "Until you, fools, I explained and I myself finally understood." Maybe there is someone who understands who to me, a fool, will explain the ratio of these numbers here:
    Planned expenses under ... GPV-2020 - more than 19 trillion rubles ... and the federal target program "Development of the military-industrial complex until 2020" - about three trillion rubles

    It turns out the ratio 19 (GPV): 3 (DIC). Where is the horse here, and where is the cart? For me, the cart is placed in front of the horse.

    First, you need to invest in the modernization of the military-industrial complex, not childishly, and then plan serious rearmament programs. Otherwise, it may turn out that the Ministry of Defense turns to the defense industry complex: "I have an order for 19 tugriks," and the defense industry complex responds to it: "I have only 3 opportunities."
  29. rexby63
    rexby63 10 January 2013 22: 03
    +1
    Mr. Barabanov is the chief editor of Moscow Defense Brief. According to its publisher, the main purpose of the magazine is to present a Russian view of security and defense issues for readers outside of Russia. Something that reminds me. Everything seems to be real in this article, They say, the owner, do not be afraid, everything is calm in the rashka, you need oil, take oil, you need gas, take gas, no one is rocking, and Putin himself is just a pont carrier.
    For whom is this all reported? For a locksmith from Oklahoma, for a farmer from Montevideo? What do you think gentlemen, patriots who have instructed the pros?
    Generally minus to both you and the author