Military Review

His private owner is worse than a foreigner. Privatized plant loses orders of the Ministry of Defense

23
The weekly MIC weekly in issue number 14, 15 raised the problem of preserving the domestic production of special wheeled chassis and wheel tractors (SKShT) for the Russian Defense Ministry. The Bryansk Automobile Plant (BAZ) is still the only Russian manufacturer of serial SKShT for military use. In 90-ies, the Russian Federation did not retain even the only “golden” share. Today, BAZ and the Minsk Wheel Tractor Plant (MZKT) are fighting for the use of their chassis and tractor units as part of various Russian systems and weapons and military equipment.


The troops of aerospace defense, it would seem, regularly receive the Bryansk chassis. In the Ground Forces with the Iskander OTRK and in the Strategic Missile Forces, the picture is different. They use Minsk SKShT. One hundred percent of the shares of MZKT OJSC (VOLAT) are owned by the state, and the plant itself is subordinate to the State Military Industrial Committee of the Republic of Belarus. Already in the medium term, the state MZKT can squeeze out a Russian private enterprise from the list of suppliers of military automotive equipment (BAT).

Battle for "Hurricane-1M"

Development of the chassis for the Uragan-1М MLRS at the Bryansk Automobile Plant began at the end of 1995 and was promoted very actively, but without additional funding, work was suspended at the end of 1996. At the same time, the creators of the MLRS considered the deployment of a combat vehicle (BM) on the MZKT-7930 chassis. As a result, the specialists of Motovilikhinsky plants (Perm city) carried out the development of the placement of BM on two different chassis. According to the voiced information, the project on the BAZ chassis had some advantages - less gross weight BM and, accordingly, less axial load. The product of the Bryansk Automobile Plant also had such an advantage as the possibility of booking a cabin. At MZKT-7930, booking is problematic, as the cabin of this chassis is plastic.

His private owner is worse than a foreigner. Privatized plant loses orders of the Ministry of Defense

Although in the conclusion of the commission that considered the projects of the BM RSZO “Uragan-1M”, the generalized military-technical indicator of the BM on the BAZ chassis of the Voshchina-1 family was higher than the BM on the MZKT-7930 chassis, the RF Ministry of Defense chose the last option. At the same time, neither BAZ, nor OJSC Motovilikhinskiye Zavody could no longer influence the decision. The incident was explained by the most complicated situation in which the BAZ was located at the end of 1998 of the year.

However, the Bryansk Automobile Plant avoided the fate that has befallen the KZKT. The conclusions of the military as applied to the design of the SKShT, made in the course of R & D of “Facet”, were agreed with the opinion of the factory specialists: the new generation of SKShT should be of dual use. This would allow in the future to eliminate a sharp drop in production in the event of a change in market demand for certain types of machines, as well as to be able to easily switch to the production of different models. The SKSHT status of the new family as a dual-use technique was officially recorded in the TTZ on the Voshina-1 ROC. This is what allowed BAS to survive in the difficult period of the end of 90-s - the beginning of 2000-s.

Works on the cockpit with local reservations at the BAZ resumed in 2000 year, the development of an armored cabin started in 2001. In the same year, SKShT prototypes were made, which later underwent state (acceptance) tests (a BAZ-6306 ballast tractor with a cabin installed on imitation of local armor protection and a BAZ-6910 chassis with an armored cabin simulator; glasses on the cabins of these prototypes were armored). Looking ahead, it should be noted that a few years ago, firing tests were carried out on a small cabin with local protection (6 class according to GOST 50963 – 96). This booth was shown on the “Technology in mechanical engineering-2010” forum. Today, alas, there are no orders for chassis with armored cars.

In 2003 – 2004, SKSHT of the Voshchina-1 family are accepted for supply to the RF Armed Forces. At the Bryansk Automobile Plant began mass production of new models of BAT. But for the Bryansk SKShT, as they say, the train has already left: the reinsurance of the GABTU cost the plant dearly. Now Russia is reaping bitter fruits - a prototype of the BM 9А53 from the promising MLRS Uragan-1М was made on the foreign chassis MZKT-7930.

As a result, practically all subsequent development work on the deployment of weapons and military vehicles with a mass of 20 – 25 tons by inertia (or, according to the established tradition and cooperation) continued to be carried out on the Minsk chassis. If OCD, including Uragan-1M, is continued using the MWTP chassis, the Russian enterprise will lose profitable orders, and the country's budget will be deprived of taxes.

And what about the troops?

With the MLRS in service, there are problems. In their composition were originally used and SKSH Bryansk Automobile Plant. For BM and TZM MLRS "Uragan" even in 1976, in Bryansk, they started mass production of SKN 135ЛМП (the letter "P" appeared in the index because the customer of the chassis for BM is in Perm). Production of these chassis continued until the 1991 year. At the end of the 90-x FSUE "GNPP" Splav "(the city of Tula, the head developer of the MLRS) proposed to carry out a deep modernization of the 135LMP available in the NKS troops with the replacement of twin-engine gasoline power plants with single-engine diesel engines, with the replacement of cabs. But such work on the complexity and cost (taking into account the level of wear of the equipment) is much more difficult and slightly cheaper than the manufacture of new samples of the VSShina-1 family (during mass production). Therefore, the specialists of the Bryansk Automobile Plant proposed to carry out work on placing the product on the new BAZ-69092 chassis (wheel formula 6x6). A few years ago, there was already a fairly elaborated version of the BAZ-69092 chassis configuration for the BM modernized MLRS Uragan, but the chassis samples were not made in metal. The works are not finished, although BAZ is ready for cooperation with OAO NPO SPLAV. By the way, the fact that there are sketches of a three-axle chassis for BM modernized MLRS “Uragan”, experts in Tula learned only a year ago from the author of the article, and this fact is surprising at the poor coordination of work in the defense industry.

Why such inconsistency? Most likely there are several reasons. One of them lies in the fact that after the collapse of the military-industrial complex of the USSR, many defense enterprises were stolen in different clans. If you try to understand the situation, why there was a delay in the development and supply of the chassis for the MLRS, then you should pay attention to the Rostec Group of Companies, which today is one of the most influential structures that united defense industry enterprises in Russia.

Rostec is influenced by hundreds of enterprises, including NPO SPLAV OJSC and KAMAZ OJSC (in April 2009 of the Rostec officially transferred 37,8 percent of KamAZ shares, a year later this share was increased to 49,9). Rostec also has interests in Motovilikhinskiye Zavody, OJSC (Rosoboronexport, which is a Rostec subsidiary, has a 25 percent of Motovilikha shares. Another 10 percent belongs to SPLAV, Inc. It should be noted that by the middle of 2012, the power of attorney to manage 25 percent of the shares of Motovilikhinsky plants was at the wholly-owned subsidiary of Rostec - Rostekhnologii-Avto OJSC).

This determined the choice of the KamAZ chassis, which either do not allow heavy weapons to be mounted on them (the Mustang multi-purpose vehicle family) or do not meet a number of requirements of the RF Ministry of Defense (increased payload vehicles - APG, which for the convenience of internal work calls the family "Tornado"). But while the result is deplorable - the matter has not advanced further than the prototypes of the BM lightweight “Smerch”. Perhaps, an attempt will be made to offer Motovilikhe the chassis of the developed APG family under the code name Tornado-M or the 8X8 SKhS developed by electrotransmission (the so-called small Platform), but in reality these chassis will be accepted for supply to the Russian Armed Forces in a short time their serial release is still a big question.

In the meantime, the 135LCD chassis is rapidly becoming obsolete, there are significant problems with their operation, maintenance and repair. The problem is very serious, and there is no place to put it off further - all the 135LMPs available in the Russian Armed Forces SKNSH, thousands of units around 1,5, were released over 20 years ago, many are already older than 35 years.

Mainly for foreign customer

A peculiar business card of the Bryansk Automobile Plant are the BAZ-6402 tractors in the Triumph PU-ZRS.

In 1998, the production of 5P85C and 5P85D products from C-300PS (self-propelled launchers on the MZKT-543M chassis are primary and secondary) at JSC Obukhovsky Zavod was discontinued. The St. Petersburg plant mastered the production of self-propelled launchers for C-300PM2 air defense systems and export modifications of C-300P air defense systems. All these PUs are mounted on the MZKT-543M chassis. Unfortunately, the serial self-propelled launcher of the C-300P series, which would include a Russian-made chassis, still does not exist. Most likely, this development was abandoned due to the fact that the C-300P of all modifications that are available to the troops will be gradually replaced with the C-400 Triumph air defense system and the new Vityaz-Air Defense missile system. And for export it is possible to deliver towed PUs - “three hundred” and with such funds is in great demand. For foreign customers serially manufactured tractor trailers of export configuration BAZ-6402-013 (used as part of 5P85Т2 and 5Т58Е products).

The first prototypes of the C-400 “Triumph” fixed assets were placed on the SKSH of the Minsk plant of wheeled tractors (the pilot PU was mounted on the SKSH MZKT-543М). Problems with the creation of a 25 tonne chassis for Iskander OTRK on the BAZ had a full impact on the refusal of the C-400 XRS systems developers from using the Voshchina-1 SKSh for installation of C-400 radio equipment at the C-400 radio equipment , type tests of the SKS BAZ-6909-013 have not yet been carried out, that is, they have not confirmed the carrying capacity of the 22 chassis (tons). As for the PU, here the developers took a forced step back: in order to save, they chose the towed variant with the Russian BAZ-6402-015 tractor (PU 5P85T of various modifications, PU 5P90TMU). This tractor was also used as part of transport vehicles (5Т58 of various modifications).

However, self-propelled PU has undoubted advantages, so one would expect the appearance of such PU. And it under the index 5P90С was represented on 10 on June 2011 of the year in the Bronnitsy near Moscow at the NIITs AT ATN site of the 3-th Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation to the Minister of Defense. 5P90С is the initiative development of OAO NMZ, the decision to start its production was made more than eight years ago. In January, the 2008 of the BAZ-6909-022 chassis for this PU was already transferred for installation. In the 2011 year, it was planned to complete an autonomous hydromechanical test of a prototype of the 5P90C product, but there was no evidence of whether the tests were completed. It is known that, for a number of organizational and financial reasons, 5P90С is still not accepted by the lead developer of the C-400 SAM, therefore, its mass production is currently not conducted. I will add that the delivery of PU 5P90С is being exported.

At the same time, the St. Petersburg Design Bureau of Special Mechanical Engineering (KBSM) developed the PU on the MZKT-7930 chassis (the well-known PU indexes are 51P6А and 51P6М). According to the author’s data, to date, two prototypes have been made, one of which was shown last November to the Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Dmitry Rogozin during his visit to Obukhovsky Zavod GOZ. PU 51P6A and 51P6М are designed for C-400. Information is being leaked that work was planned to transfer the said launchers to the BAZ chassis. However, the question arises: why didn’t immediately take the Bryansk chassis under installation of PU?

After all, in order to "transplant" PU on another chassis, it is also necessary to conduct tests, and these are additional costs and considerable. In the meantime, judging by the official information that Almaz-Antey GSKB OJSC and the press service of the RF Ministry of Defense regarding the deliveries of the fourth and fifth C-400 regimental sets of ZRS missiles, self-propelled launchers on the obsolete MZKT-543M chassis began to arrive.

Foggy outlook

For other SAMs, including C-500, Vityaz-Air Defense, Morfey, the information is very contradictory. It is only known for certain that 8 June 2012 of the year BAZ produced an experimental model of the BAZ-6909-023 chassis, which is designed to accommodate the Vityaz-PVO PU 50P6. A prototype of the BAZ-6909-023 chassis is located at the Obukhovsky Zavod GOZ.

In the process of developing variants of the chassis to accommodate advanced ZRS products at the BAZ, they considered options for a five-axle chassis with larger cabs. 10 June 2011, CJSC BZKT-Almaz-Antey demonstrated at its booth a dimensional scheme of one of these preliminary designs - the chassis under the BAZ-69096 designation as part of the launcher with the symbol 77П6 from the Triumph-M ZRS. A prototype of the all-wheel drive five-axial SKSH BAZ-69096-013, publicly shown at the same demonstration event in Bronnitsy, added fuel to the fire. I note that in the 2009, MZKT at the Milex 2009 exhibition presented its version of the MZKT-79292 five-axle chassis (10х10.1 wheel formula), which was intended for mounting a unified telescopic tower for lifting antennas and radar systems of VBO from the ZRS system C-400 (in the ZRS series C-300P for transportation of towers used semi-trailer and truck tractor). However, it was decided to abandon the use of MZKT-79292, new information about the purpose and use of this SKSh was not received.

In the first days of April, information began to come in that an agreement was signed in Minsk about the intention to sell a controlling stake in MZKT to a Russian enterprise that is part of JSC Concern PVO Almaz-Antey, JSC NMZ. It should be noted: OAO NMZ specializes in the manufacture of towed PU. There is no data that before the work on 5P90С ever in Nizhny Novgorod were engaged in self-propelled launchers. Traditionally, the development of self-propelled launchers for air defense systems was carried out by OJSC KBSM, the issue was carried out by OJSC GOZZ Obukhovsky Zavod. However, already in 2011, OAO NMZ conducted technological preparation of production for the manufacture of self-propelled PU 5P85CM2-01 and 51P6A, which are mounted on the chassis MWT. Will BAZ lose this round of competition?
Author:
23 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. tttttt
    tttttt April 24 2013 15: 53 New
    41
    The whole defense industry, I emphasize, all! It should be the property of the state and not of individual owners. It is a matter of survival and security.
    1. Armata
      Armata April 24 2013 16: 14 New
      11
      Quote: tttttt
      The whole defense industry, I emphasize, all! It should be the property of the state and not of individual owners. It is a matter of survival and security.
      If our factory and institute did not do business and did not go to a private investor, right now there would be no stands for Almaty, MC21, SU35MK, and much more including warships. So you need to think not about ownership but about supply control.
    2. old rocket man
      old rocket man April 24 2013 16: 19 New
      +9
      Quote: tttttt
      The whole defense industry, I emphasize, all! It should be the property of the state and not of individual owners. It is a matter of survival and security.

      The issue is somewhat more complicated, the owner will never refuse the state order and is managed, in the sense of the discipline of deliveries, better than the state one, but many heads of state enterprises deliberately break up production for the purpose of bankruptcy and subsequent privatization.
      Such "managers" are frustrated by the timing of the state order, arguing that since they are state-owned, they will still have a state order, all the more so now they are united in holdings, as a result, competition is reduced
    3. Ghenxnumx
      Ghenxnumx April 24 2013 16: 42 New
      +4
      Quote: tttttt
      The whole defense industry, I emphasize, all! It should be the property of the state and not of individual owners. It is a matter of survival and security.

      I agree that, like all branches associated with the defense industry, they should also be state-owned — air-cargo and shipbuilding with the provision of parts and blocks fully or partially oriented to the Allies. soldier
      An example from personal experience:
      MAZ-543 Combat Watch Assurance Machine (MOBD) - did not cause any complaints, and components changed during the day when they broke good , but here the Diesel Generator (DG) on it in the event of a breakdown, could wait for repair for a month or more, since the DG itself was Riga negative and spare parts came with an indecent delay, but without DG - when carrying a DB on the route - there is nothing to do. am
      1. Genady1976
        Genady1976 April 24 2013 17: 09 New
        +5
        Privatization of defense enterprises will ruin our defense
    4. Canep
      Canep April 24 2013 18: 19 New
      +3
      I believe that a defense plant can be a watch company or a joint-stock company with a share of state participation and a purely state one, the main thing is that the state has the ability to influence the production process (quality, timing, etc.) and prevent the plant from being reprofiled. But foreigners should not be the owners of defense enterprises
    5. andsavichev2012
      andsavichev2012 April 24 2013 18: 27 New
      -1
      Even with Luizych, with total mobilization, the defense industry remained private. Gos. defense is just a low efficiency feeder
  2. Ak 12
    Ak 12 April 24 2013 16: 02 New
    -1
    Quote: tttttt
    The whole defense industry, I emphasize, all! It should be the property of the state and not of individual owners. It is a matter of survival and security.

    I agree! And so the technique does not crawl completely.
    1. old rocket man
      old rocket man April 24 2013 16: 25 New
      +2
      Quote: Ak 12
      Quote: tttttt
      The whole defense industry, I emphasize, all! It should be the property of the state and not of individual owners. It is a matter of survival and security.

      I agree! And so the technique does not crawl completely.


      Yeah, is the Minsk plant domestic?
      A private enterprise on the territory of Russia, even in the hands of a foreign owner, is Russian and is completely controlled by the state; it also has a military acceptance
      1. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 April 24 2013 18: 21 New
        +6
        Private is private, in the world when NATO countries with their finances are against Russia, Russian owners can be bought and forced to sabotage the state order, in which case the authorities cannot show them anything. The state-owned enterprise is completely controlled, the head for sabotage can be fired or even imprisoned.
        1. Civil
          Civil April 24 2013 21: 45 New
          0
          Quote: vladsolo56
          Private is private, in the world when NATO countries with their finances are against Russia, Russian owners can be bought and forced to sabotage the state order, in which case the authorities cannot show them anything. The state-owned enterprise is completely controlled, the head for sabotage can be fired or even imprisoned.

          Yes, but there they will put such a leader in the "warm" place ...
          1. vladsolo56
            vladsolo56 April 25 2013 05: 30 New
            0
            What is it like? in Soviet times, for sabotage in the military-industrial complex it was possible to get shot.
  3. krez-74
    krez-74 April 24 2013 16: 19 New
    +7
    You can privatize a kiosk, a private house, your own factory, etc., but it should not be possible to privatize something that is strategically important for the state!
    1. old rocket man
      old rocket man April 24 2013 16: 41 New
      +7
      Quote: krez-74
      You can privatize a kiosk, a private house, your own factory, etc., but it should not be possible to privatize something that is strategically important for the state!

      We can be privatized alleven power
      1. krez-74
        krez-74 April 24 2013 17: 52 New
        +3
        Well, this is not only with us ... It's just that in "democratic" countries, they do it more cunningly.
  4. waisson
    waisson April 24 2013 16: 29 New
    +5
    DEFENSE SHOULD BE NO STATE PRIVATIZATION AND THE SPEECH SHOULD NOT BE LITTLE THAT IT SHOULD BE CONTROLLED BY THE DEFENSE MINISTRY AND THE ENTIRE PROCESS FROM BEGINNING BEFORE THE END OF THE PRODUCTION SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE
  5. VadimSt
    VadimSt April 24 2013 16: 30 New
    +6
    Lobbying the interests of a foreign investor in the field of defense is more expensive.

    Unfortunately, the dashing 90s took many defense industry enterprises out of state control, moreover, many of them, in one form or another, came from a foreign investor, and this is a threat to their defense potential in one form or another. If the state intends to develop and place orders at defense industry enterprises with a foreign investor, then it is necessary either to buy back shares from foreign investors, or refuse to place orders at such enterprises.

    In any case, one cannot believe that Belarusians are unable to satisfy the requirements of the Russian Ministry of Defense.
  6. Aleksandr
    Aleksandr April 24 2013 17: 36 New
    +1
    private trader should be part of the state then there can be and will be order. and then snatched and think that the "star". such "stars" according to the NKVD
  7. kind
    kind April 24 2013 19: 18 New
    +1
    And what, in a private military factory, is military acceptance also private? And the secret part, how can it exist in a privatized plant?
    1. bask
      bask April 24 2013 20: 44 New
      +1
      Quote: Good
      And the secret part, how can it exist in a privatized plant?

      Not like.
      BAZ ,, cloned ,, in China, the vehicle is an APC. Soviet BAZ-5937, or BAZ-5921 but, with a case increased in height. Armed with a tower from an armored personnel carrier. That is, a full-fledged BTR-floating. Capacity (((judging by the seats at least a platoon.))
      Why do we have no BAZ-5921, armored personnel carrier. Book a load capacity of 6,8 tons., Floating, large capacity, cargo compartment.
      1. bask
        bask April 24 2013 21: 22 New
        0
        His private trader is worse than a foreigner. Privatized factory loses order

        In order not to lose orders, you need to move your brains. And offer new projects.
        There is currently no armored personnel carrier in the RA, with aft entrance and a sick payload.
        Offer BTR on the basis of BAZ. Maybe that’s what happens. The Chinese did. Our only boblo on my mind ....
        BAZ-5921 with local reservation for the radar, ,, Credo-1C ,,.
      2. andsavichev2012
        andsavichev2012 April 24 2013 23: 43 New
        0
        At the privatized defense enterprise, both the 2nd department and others, if necessary, perfectly exist.
  8. horoh
    horoh April 24 2013 19: 40 New
    +3
    Defense enterprises should only be in state ownership, only that way !!! We had a KZKT (Kurgan Wheel Tractor Plant) similar to the Minsk MKZKT, they gave it to a private trader, and where is it, in its place, the RIO shopping and entertainment complex. Even Kurganpribor is also not clear what.
  9. finderektor
    finderektor April 24 2013 20: 18 New
    0
    Why invest a lot of money in Belgorod. Minsk Hurricanes have proven themselves in the best possible way. On their basis, and we must continue all development.
    1. gladysheff2010
      gladysheff2010 April 24 2013 21: 33 New
      +2
      Well, firstly, not to Belgorod, but to Bryansk! Secondly, and even more so, there should be healthy competition among defense enterprises, by the way it was in the Union! And that’s the only way you can and should get high-quality equipment and weapons!
      1. DEfindER
        DEfindER April 24 2013 22: 31 New
        +1
        Quote: gladysheff2010
        healthy defense should also take place among defense enterprises, by the way it was in the Union!

        I agree, competition is needed, the Minsk plant will not allow Bryansk engineers to relax, otherwise quality would have fallen if monopolists had been, most importantly, the competition would have been healthy, and not because we have the most who will give back the order .. And on at the expense of the owners, in the defense industry it is important that the state can fully control such owners, for example, in the same states, all defense enterprises are in private hands, but at the same time all of their trade relations and the more secret part is controlled by the authorities, not like in our country In the 90s, so many secrets were taken out from state enterprises that the NATO did not have time to process them ..
  10. Hudo
    Hudo April 24 2013 20: 46 New
    -2
    And what, Belarus has ceased to be a union state for Russia? Or blunders with assembly quality and delivery dates blundered? And in general, I do not understand the background of writing this article. Minus. Ordering.
  11. 1goose3
    1goose3 April 24 2013 21: 53 New
    0
    His private owner is worse than a foreigner. Privatized plant loses orders of the Ministry of Defense

    According to the author, at least private, but his own. And Belarusian, though state, but alien. Very much the author, and his customers, once again push their foreheads between Russia and Belarus. The customer is by and large known, and by this author is my minus.
  12. Spike
    Spike April 24 2013 21: 58 New
    0
    Only state property and tight control !!! In general, the state monopoly on tobacco and alcohol, unfortunately at the moment ...