Military Review

Foreign weapons in service with the army of Russia: innovation or tradition?

77

BMP VBCI



Today, many of us wonder: why is the Defense Ministry planning to buy military equipment abroad? And we are no longer talking about the Mistral landing ship dock launched into the water, but the “spears are breaking” because of the prospect of acquiring French armored vehicles. Moreover, it is planned to purchase not one, but several new cars at once: an eight-wheeled VBCI infantry fighting vehicle, an armored vehicle with anti-mine armor Aravis and a multi-purpose BTR of the new generation TITUS. Accordingly, the attention of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs was attracted by such French vehicles as a multifunctional commander armored car intended for the transportation of MIDS prisoners, and also a multifunctional armored car PVP AVP for patrolling and escorting. What is this - innovations of our capitalist era, or ... the old forgotten tradition of the imperial Russian army?

Foreign weapons in service with the army of Russia: innovation or tradition?
BTR new generation TITUS



Aravis Armored Car with Mine Reservation


Before condemning our current leadership of the Ministry of Defense, “in an unacceptable way ignoring the interests of the national defense industry,” let us see what the situation was with the Russian weapons - Well, let's say, immediately after the abolition of serfdom and the defeat of Russia in the Crimean War? Yes, we did something of our own and then, "clergy", for example, built on the Black Sea. However, the bulk of the weapons, which was in service with the Russian imperial army and the naval fleetwas of foreign origin! Let's start with rifles - and it turns out that the British and Karl and Terry, the Czech Krk, and the American Berdan also had a hand in arming them with our army in those years. Yes, the Terry rifle was improved by the defective of the Tula arms factory I.G. Norman, but improved, but did not invent from the very beginning. The American Evans rifle with a 24-round magazine was used in the Russian Imperial Navy, and the army, the police, and the gendarmerie were armed for a long time with the American revolvers of Smith and Wesson. In 1891, the famous Berdan rifle was replaced by the famous S. I. Mosin rifle, but it was also developed on the basis of the Lebel French rifle (barrel) and initially even had an 8 mm caliber, only later replaced by a 7,62 mm caliber accepted in Russia. Disputes are still going on about the number of parts borrowed in it from the Belgian Nagan rifle to this day, but what is there to argue when the terms of reference for its development explicitly said: "The barrel is modeled after ... Lebel." But Nagan was honored to become the author of the most popular revolver in our country, so the word "Nagan" became a household word in Russia, as well as the "maxim", a well-known weapon also designed by a foreigner and bought in the years by the Russian War Ministry. And again, someone will say that our engineers have improved the base model and again it can be answered that there would be something to improve!

After the revolution in 1926, a large batch of famous Mauser Bolo pistols (30 thousand units), the so-called “Bolshevik model” with a shortened barrel and grip for the Cheka troops, was purchased in Germany. By the way, the famous TT, as it turned out, was largely copied from one of the browning models, so that even at that time the weapon was bought and borrowed, what can be said about it. And for comparison with samples of domestic designers, single samples of rifles and machine guns were bought, in a word, all the best was bought and adapted accordingly to the Russian reality. Or bought and studied again for improvements and borrowing from others!


Mauser Bolo


Artillery, as is known, is the “god of war”. However, for many years, yes there years - decades - were in service with the Russian (and Soviet army!) Foreign systems. This “god” was foreign to us! So, all the first artillery guns with a rifled barrel in Russia belonged to the developments of the Krupp company. From 1861 to 1881, at the Russian factories for the Russian army, 2652 guns of various systems were manufactured, and at the Krupp factories - 2232. No wonder that means that Krupp wrote in 1864 year to General E.I. Totleben, that his factory "uses the labor of seven thousand workers, most of whom work for Russia."

At the beginning of the twentieth century, Russia reoriented in the field of artillery from Germany to France. The well-known company "Schneider" put in the Russian army 76,2 mm mountain gun mod. 1909 The well-known 76,2 mm divisional cannon of the Putilov factory, developed by L.A. Bishlyakov, K.M. Sokolovsky and K.I. Lipinsky in 1902, was created by them not from scratch, but on the basis of the French 75- mm field gun arr. 1897 year. Moreover, all subsequent domestic guns of this caliber, both field and tank, were developed on the basis of all the same guns, thanks to which American shells made for the guns constructed on the basis of the same French cannon, which conquered almost half the world, approached Soviet tank guns during the Second World War!


76-mm mountain gun 1909 model of the year


Then Krupp bought 1909 mm howitzers in 122, but then, in 1910 (probably not to offend ?!), Schneider immediately acquired very similar howitzers of the same caliber! And then we upgraded them, and they were actively used until the end of the Second World War! Then, in the same way, we received 152-mm howitzer from Schneider (also two modifications - 1909 and 1910), and from Rheinmetall in 1931 - 152-mm mortar. In the same year, 1910-mm and 107-mm guns, 152-mm howitzer and 203-mm mortar arrived from Schneider. It should also be noted that the entire Russian imperial fleet was armed with 280-mm and 37-mm guns of Hotchkiss, and there were so many shells left that the same 47-mm shells were reground by leading belts up to 47 mm, and this is how this caliber in the USSR and appeared!

During World War I, the Red Army bought and sold 114-mm, 152-mm, 203-mm and 234-mm Vickers howitzers and 127-mm guns, converted into 105-mm. Then the tools for the Red Army began to develop the Czechoslovak firm Skoda (107-mm howitzer Br-305 and 18-mm cannon Br-210) and German Rheinmetall (17-mm anti-tank gun rev.37). Later, the 1930-mm barrel was placed on the gun carriage of the gun and received the famous "forty-five" gunner firing French armor-piercing shells almost until the middle of the Second World War! “Rheinmetall” also put the USSR and its 45 cm Flak anti-aircraft gun, produced from 7,62 to 1932 year!

Also, all mortars according to the “imaginary triangle” scheme in the USSR were developed according to the Stokes-Brandt scheme, and how they got into Russia was not so important. The coastal and naval artillery of Russia was represented by 120-mm, 203-mm and 356-mm guns of the Vickers company, as well as Kane's 152-mm cannon.

Continuing the conversation about the Russian as well as the Soviet navy, it is worth noting that many ships of the Russian imperial fleet, both battleships and cruisers, in particular, the same famous Varyag, were built abroad in the USA, France, England and Germany, well, and the loans for the creation of the Russian fleet in the early twentieth century of Russia were given by France - they did not have enough money for that. Submarines were purchased in the USA from the Lake company, although they were assembled, and then built in Russia, and our designers and workers learned from all of this! For example, on the eve of the war, the fastest ship of the Black Sea Fleet, the leader Tashkent, was acquired from fascist Italy, and the heavy cruiser Lutzov, which according to the first paragraph of the Barbarossa plan, should be supplied to the USSR in a completely inefficient condition.


The unfinished German heavy cruiser Lutzow (Lützow, class Admiral Hipper) during towing in the USSR. Laid in 1937 year, launched in 1939 year. In February, 1940 was sold in the unfinished state in the USSR. In April, 1940 was towed to Leningrad. Received the name "Petropavlovsk". Admitted to the Navy Red Army 15 August 1941 of the year. He took part in the defense of Leningrad as a floating battery. Dismissed from the USSR Navy in 1958


All the same should be attributed to the field of aircraft and engine building. Although we had created a unique for its time aircraft - “Ilya of Murom”. The development of domestic armored troops began with the manufacture of a tank based on a captured French machine, and then tank samples were purchased in England and the USA — Vickers, Cardin-Loyd and Christie tanks. And I must say that the most famous, most famous tanks of the 30-s were created on their base. These are the T-26 and the BT-BT-2,5,7 series tanks. Moreover, the T-34 tank also had a Christie-type chassis and traveled through it throughout the war! Heavy KV (and then all other domestic tanks) had a torsion bar suspension of the design of Ferdinand Porsche, the one that was constructed by the Ferdinand self-propelled gun in the years of the Second World War!

Immediately before the start of the Second World War, T-III tanks and a whole range of aircraft models were purchased in Germany, and the Fizler-Storch aircraft was even decided to be launched into the series. After the war, the Soviet Union got the German V-2 missiles and the BMW and YuMO engines, which were stationed on the first Soviet jets. Then in 1946, jet engines were purchased in England: Rolls-Royce Derwent V and Nin, again standing on the next generation of Soviet jet fighters and bombers. TU-4 - the first distant carrier of the Soviet atomic bomb on the direct instructions of Stalin was simply copied from the American B-29. So it was easier, it saved us time, and what's so bad about it? There was so much written about “espionage passions” connected with the creation of Soviet atomic weapons that one could not mention it, but it’s still an example of the fact that we didn’t buy anything in the West anyway otherwise it had!

As you can see, the experience of purchasing modern weapons from Russia is large. Then, however, during the years of the “cold war” we began to do everything, but ... we didn’t succeed in everything, so why don't we return to the time-tested practice again? In any case, there will be something to learn from and from what will then be repelled by our designers.
Author:
77 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. klimpopov
    klimpopov 10 January 2014 09: 32
    +13
    Yes, but the trouble is that at first we buy, on the basis of creating our own know-how, we create unique machines, we choose our own path, and then everything we created is cherished in the bud and we start all over again. The same happened with the Soviet school. Now the end has come to an end and they themselves have not created anything new or what they created as a result of lobbying foreign interests by traitors did not go anywhere. So now we are trying to justify foreign purchases. Like they always did. Yes they did. They didn’t do it from a good life ... We’ll buy, build, develop, start doing our own and so on ... In general, this is what I wanted to say.
    1. Rustam
      Rustam 10 January 2014 14: 45
      +3
      On disputes to buy, not to buy, he spoke out many times because of this

      Here is my old little post on this subject
      __ ___


      Rustam  January 27, 2013 12:12 | Equipment for the Ministry of Defense should be produced in Russia, said Shoigu

      Regarding the procurement of military products abroad, I will repeat my post (no change, changes have occurred on some items)

      already as the second year we suck out, let's go this topic

      What is our big military import ??? straight just huge ??? yes
      why did we turn to military imports, and probably because in 2008 we won by number rather than technology, and for some reason the Georgians had better technology than ours, Shamanov himself said that Israeli blights fly and we can’t get them, but ours can’t even take off like a bee and so on, that the Georgian communications (harris) are better than ours, that the equipment is better, that the modernized T-72 tanks see better that there are no helicopters that can work at night and had to ask the FSB aviation who had several of these machines, that there is no interaction and our craftsmen flunked 5 of their planes (Sladkov even showed us the shot down our plane posing as a Georgian) and then, just the vaunted Georgian army turned out to be cowardly
      and the valor of our soldier as always helped out and the loss of 60 people for such a conflict is unacceptable
      and at that time under comrade Ivanov the armament program 2001-2010 was launched, the armament began for the Moscow Army and everything was excellent there, we received all the best and we don’t need anyone
      but the 2008 conflict showed that something was wrong
      so what did we buy over the hill and how many ??? I don’t remember everything

      1) English, Austrian sniper rifles for the airborne forces and special forces - why ?? by the fact that according to Shamanov the Izhmash plant is not able to produce high-quality rifles and theirs sv-98 comes at the price of imported samples and the barrel quality and accuracy are below all criticism

      2) Israeli blas - which work successfully both in India and in Poland and in the highlands, because ours have failed all the tests and the allocated 5 billion went to the wind, but the Defense Ministry under Ivanov was to blame for all this for the kickbacks to the Vega concern, which failed and could not provide the desired sample and their miracle Tippak (like) after takeoff fell 3 kilometers - and independent developers from this money received nothing
      therefore, Israeli blah-usa chose their miracle traitors will not sell us

      3) Iveco, it could be argued that the other but there weren’t any offers, and before that we had an imperfect TIGER without anti-mine protection and jambs and we all remember the Chechen company and the bombings of our columns with numerous victims
      after this, in fear of losing orders, the tiger spm2m, 6a, wolf, bear, btr-82a, etc., appeared immediately
      4) Mistral to some as an eyesore
      discussed a million times - the first such ship in the history of the Navy, with the level of equipment, and all systems in just 3 years
      with the depressing construction of our corvettes and frigates - we could build such (if we could) even with Koreans in 10 years, and now
      orders for new core-based helicopters also benefit Kumeratu and progress

      to be continued

      pictured are English l96 rifles (one of the best in their class) which arrived in the amount of 5000 units in the airborne and GRU
      1. Rustam
        Rustam 10 January 2014 14: 55
        +2
        part 2 final

        5) all sorts of campgrounds, training centers in the lower region and French thermal imagers and systems for aircraft do not count (by the way, when the pilots were asked to replace the French systems on their instant 29cm, they said no to guys, leave the French and there’s just no glitch)For the information of our comrades, we have been working with Sagem and Thales companies since 1993, our T-90A (Russian Army) has French Catherine thermal imagers - and nothing.

        By the way, 80% of our microelectronics at the import base sits

        and that’s not so much - just some do not want competition, which means improving and modifying their products like this
        no guys, let's do it right, but apart from the price tags, Shoigu said nothing else is needed - 20 trillion is a tidbit

        only for competition and the supply of our army the best samples (in the United States, purchase is impossible)
        Europe old woman - ready to share her systems and preferably create a joint venture

        It seems that everything is better for Rogozin to control the quality of the products and the pace of their production, otherwise the money has been allocated, but there are no quality complaints


        reference of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
        “The number of complaints submitted is not reduced. In 2011, 2272 complaints were received from the troops, and according to the results of the first half of 2012 - 994 complaints ”
        in 2011, military missions suspended 336 times the acceptance of final military products. According to the results of the first half of 2012, there were already 188 such facts, let's see what will happen at the end of 2012

        pictured are some of the most advanced aircraft in our MIG-29cmt air force - with French systems from Sagem-Thales
        ___


        Rustam  May 31, 2013 10:44 | "Americans in Russia"

        great story

        Yes, in those days, the Soviet Union’s stay in technology from the West was no more than 5 years, thanks to the work of the KGB and the GRU — who obtained production technologies and technical documentation for us, got samples of products of interest (they even carried out military operations to capture finished samples) and in all directions including the peace sector

        An example is the impetus and impetus to the development of our first missile, which was brought by Kosygin in 1969 and donated to us by the American laser bomb which, when it raided the Vietnamese positions, did not explode but was preserved intact, it gave an impetus and impetus to the development of the country's first high-precision munitions


        PS- now large purchases beyond the hill are impossible, since Shoigu was dependent on our arms lobbyists-Serdyukov could (he was knocked down inadvertently when he began to shut off oxygen and forced him to work), Shoigu was screwed up, but it's a pity
        1. klimpopov
          klimpopov 10 January 2014 15: 33
          0
          Credit!
          But we say the principle and not in particular ... Or not?
          By the way, in my comment I spoke a little about something else.
          1. AVV
            AVV 10 January 2014 21: 28
            +3
            Foreign arms purchases are usually carried out to cut the budget !!! There is no weapon that our designers could not create !!! An exception is fantastic, but who knows? There are such masters, for example, a Caspian monster, no one has yet been able to repeat !!!
            1. Zeev
              Zeev 18 January 2014 16: 11
              -2
              Don't you think that the same "Caspian monster" is not going to be repeated, because this subject is not needed by anyone? An expensive vehicle with limited maneuverability, very visible and very vulnerable to any type of weapons installed on ships, up to the 20 model 1918-mm Erlikon.
              1. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 18 January 2014 23: 55
                +1
                Quote: Zeev
                An expensive vehicle with limited maneuverability, very visible and very vulnerable to any type of weapons installed on ships, up to the 20 model 1918-mm Erlikon.

                After the "Caspian Monster", this kind of ekranoplan appeared:



                Does it make sense to approach the range of small arms if its main caliber allows you to destroy the enemy within a few hundred kilometers?
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 11 January 2014 01: 03
          +6
          Quote: Rustam
          Serdyukov could (not in vain he was dumped when he began to shut off oxygen to them and made him work)
          Serdyukov’s team only at the end of the year concluded contracts with enterprises, allocated money, and at the beginning of the next the money was withdrawn as not used up. Such irregular financing also ruined enterprises of domestic industry. Organizations that were engaged in the coordination of technical tasks between industrialists and the military were liquidated, so they really could not say what kind of equipment they needed, for what tasks. Professionals were replaced by a women’s squad, from which the decision to develop a uniform for soldiers with a couturier design was quite logical. The military schools collapsed, having sold their property, closed airfields, the headquarters of the Navy was taken out from under the missile defense umbrella and put up to the border, to St. Petersburg.
          Well, why praise Serdyukov? Yes, for all the damage that he did to the country, he would be quartered as in the old days, or put on a stake ....
          1. Rustam
            Rustam 11 January 2014 07: 45
            0
            Did he destroy the ancient church too?



            Bad_gr Serdyukov team only at the end of the year concluded contracts with enterprises


            stop stop stop-did not conclude contracts with those who tried to boil down and set unimaginable price tags for products, being unable to justify them and stuffing your pocket is bad? who knew how to work and did everything on time, got everything on time, but lately the smashers got 100% prepayment -so don't.

            But now everything is fine, the price increase for state defense orders reaches 600% —that is why with fright we should feed all the top managers and random people in the military-industrial complex who do not want to work and cut costs?

            Collapsed military schools, having sold their property, closed airfields, headquarters of the Navy


            This is all that came up, not enough accusations

            -pro schools partially agree

            -Aerodromes? It’s debatable since we collect parts of the dummy with 60% of the personnel and then collect a thread from the world, but there are more generals than in the Soviet army

            Yes for all that damage


            Ooh, the damage you rightly said. The damage is caused by those little people in our military-industrial complex who are stuffing their pockets, driving unrealistic prices for products, not caring either about the district officials or about the country's defense

            20 trillion good money and many want to get on the feeder
            making salaries from 500 tons to employees and 10-20 tons for workers - naturally people are not interested in working well, this makes quality and productivity stratified.

            Maybe it's time to tackle the tackle generals?
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 11 January 2014 11: 33
              0
              Quote: Rustam
              stop stop stop-did not conclude contracts with those who tried to weld and set unimaginable price tags for products, unable to justify them and fill your pocket is bad?
              Unthinkable price tags, say ... When it is stated from a high rostrum that at the price of one T-90 you can buy three Leopards - this certainly needs to be believed. Iveka was bought at a price three times higher than our Tiger - the price was fine. And where are these Iveks now?
              Read for a change and the opinion of the opposite side. I mean industrialists. When, instead of a clear technical task, the enterprise received some vague thoughts from the Moscow Region about what they want to receive. And there should be a super-duper, but at the price of garbage.
              Arrogant speeches that the life of soldiers is first and foremost, but for some reason military options were chosen cheaper. For example, the same modernization of tanks to the T-72m3 level, with its shameful protection and which is not a fact that is better than the previous options, instead of purchasing the T-90 of the latest modifications.
              Quote: Rustam
              But now everything is fine, the price increase for state defense orders reaches 600% -

              Where do these numbers come from?
              In general, to say that Serdyukov’s team tried not to pay the industrialists too much in the light of criminal cases in the Moscow Region about billions that didn’t go to where .... It would be better if the money went to enterprises, and not offshore.
              Quote: Rustam
              20 trillion good money and many want to get on the feeder
              making salaries from 500 t

              By the way, on salaries,
              Serdyukov’s friend had an official salary of 1,5 million rubles. Serdyukov himself was in the reign of Kamaz, therefore, wheeled vehicles for the Army were purchased mainly from them. Other manufacturers of wheeled vehicles sat on a starvation diet.
      2. Nazrug
        Nazrug 10 January 2014 17: 47
        +2
        This does not explain anything, we are talking about modern technology, the old Soviet technology participated in Georgia, at the time of its adoption it was relevant, by 2008, of course, outdated. If modern Russian technology took part in the war and the Georgians easily dealt with it, then what would have been written would have made sense, and it would be all the more unclear where the old Soviet airplanes of Soviet air defense were shot down, how does this show the need to purchase foreign equipment?
        1. Rustam
          Rustam 10 January 2014 19: 10
          +1
          Nazrug in Georgia participated in the old Soviet technology


          How old it is. You probably read poorly? the armament program 2001-2010 was in full swing, its execution was monitored by such gentlemen as Ivanov, Mikhailov, Maasorin, Moscow, etc.

          downed old soviet planes of soviet air defense


          How old is that? version of the SM (su-25cm) about which we were told that it is ideal, by the way, the grisins of the SU-25 had Israeli modernization and this is compared to the SM as earth and sky.

          So after this conflict, everyone saw where the money went, and what it was supplied to us was the Stone Age, after which a special conversation went with the military-industrial complex lobbyistsThe Russian army is not a garbage dump, or make competitive images (dope) or sew to you like that.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. valokordin
      valokordin 11 January 2014 05: 28
      0
      Quote: klimpopov
      Yes, but the trouble is that at first we buy, on the basis of creating our own know-how, we create unique machines, we choose our own path, and then everything we created is cherished in the bud and we start all over again. The same happened with the Soviet school. Now the end has come to an end and they themselves have not created anything new or what they created as a result of lobbying foreign interests by traitors did not go anywhere. So now we are trying to justify foreign purchases. Like they always did. Yes they did. They didn’t do it from a good life ... We’ll buy, build, develop, start doing our own and so on ... In general, this is what I wanted to say.

      Klim plus, you answered all the questions, I agree with you.
    4. predator.3
      predator.3 12 January 2014 14: 51
      0
      This is the T-26 and tanks of the BT series - BT-2,5,7. Moreover, the T-34 tank also had a Christie type chassis and traveled on it throughout the war!


      And what then the Americans themselves drove on "tractors" "Sherman", and the Germans used chess rollers!
  2. Rus86
    Rus86 10 January 2014 09: 36
    +15
    in my opinion the concept of soft and warm is confused. In that. in Russia in the 19th century there was only one industrial base, as an option it was not. The industry is in the 21st century. maybe a little neglected, corruption, but there is. and stands up to its full height. to the level of the Empire. nevertheless, armored personnel carriers and similar vehicles (noise-mine protected) are well out of place. nevertheless, there are developments of KAMAZ, GAZ. bring to mind and into the series. The Romanovs bought weapons, equipment and lost their wars of the XNUMXth century. Stalin's empire bought, got, found (here the methods are not fundamental) IDEAS (and used the talent and achievements of Our scientists and engineers) and she won the most fierce War. as in the article about the theme "Buran" thought flashed. "When the foreign analogue was strictly copied, it turned out a little better than the original. But when they developed their idea, there was a revolution."
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 10 January 2014 09: 47
      +2
      Partly agree. I also see no reason to buy foreign equipment. Ideas to get this one thing and screwdriver to collect is another.
    2. avt
      avt 10 January 2014 10: 50
      +7
      Quote: Rus86
      in my opinion, the concept of soft and warm is confused. In that. in Russia of the 19th century, the industrial base was one, as an option it was not. 21st century industry is. maybe a little neglected, corruption, but there is. and gets up at full height. to the level of the Empire.

      Namely, an article to the delight of the monarchists. That finally returned, “Russia, which we have lost." , as with BT and T26 and single samples for review, by the way, the mentioned Panzerwagen III was not purchased - it was left as a trophy during the occupation of Poland {they just snatched away the wounded one}. Now, as in the days preceding the war with Japan, having finished off the rebuilt industry with such colossal labor and dispersed working cadres, we are buying warships and now they are aiming at armored vehicles. ”Well, what’s worth it - those who wish can search and familiarize themselves, both through amer’s bankers, with what intricate money flows the Latin American cruisers were going to buy.
  3. pv1005
    pv1005 10 January 2014 09: 45
    +9
    Then, however, during the years of the Cold War, we began to seem to do everything at home, but ... far from succeeding in everything

    However, they did not seem to succeed, but SUCCESSES AND MUCH. And all this after the loss of a devastating war.
    1. GDP
      GDP 10 January 2014 11: 00
      +3
      I agree - the article is one-sided. If you follow the logic of the author, so all the good that was created by our defense industry was created thanks to foreigners. After the Civil War and the First World War, I partly agree, all industry and science were in a deep crisis.
      However, after the pre-war industrialization, almost all the developments were ours, and most of the Western weapons were morally outdated and sent to the scrap.
      Now we have everything to produce and improve all types of weapons on our own. Given that our own defense industry is in desperate need of orders, buying anything abroad is stupid.
      I can’t imagine that Pakistan, for example, would buy weapons from India, its potential adversary ...
      We need to develop our own production base and not depend on anyone ...
    2. typhoon7
      typhoon7 10 January 2014 13: 43
      +3
      They cut down the fact that they lie before the elections, equipment in single copies, for the extraction of technologies, 120 pieces of T-90 were bought, buying up a man's tear. The elections started. In addition to the Italian ones, the darkness of French armored vehicles appeared, the MiG-35 was hidden further, the T-90 was turned off. The poor BMD-4M was adopted twice and removed from service twice in six months. Small arms are also purchased on the sly. I think this is just a process of working out signatures on joining the WTO. Mr. Rogozin, raising your finger to the sky, you said: "No mass purchases, only for the extraction of technology", there are no technologies, but apparently we are threatened by the dominance of foreign technology. And where is the Glory of Russian Weapons, or it ends where the business begins. Excuse me, guys.
      1. Rustam
        Rustam 10 January 2014 19: 25
        0
        typhoon7 Knocks down what lies before the election,


        Is it a slogan or your call? let's see what you piled here, let's go:

        120 pieces of T-90 bought


        I spoke out on this issue. I will repeat many times, I will repeat for you, the T-90A with an exorbitant price of 118 million (in 2007 -56 million rubles) is not needed by our army, with leverage, etc. Mo-yes, and why are the same tanks for Algeria and India are 88 million-the difference in 30nik where on, in pockets?

        In 2009, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation set a condition for Uralvagonzavod, or you are doing a total modernization or goodbye, a version of the MC appeared, and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation imposed a purchase with a thorough repair of squalor called T-72B3-otherwise the men will drive up

        darkness of French armored vehicles


        Which ones? Can be more detailed? What is written in the article about the purchase by our army of vbci does not correspond to reality, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (not convoy vehicles as the author wrote) will probably be tested at the Ministry of Internal Affairs - there is no question of buying.

        MiG-35 hid on further


        with the price of a million, and without AFAR, do not have to sing military songs, or is the budget rubber?

        Poor BMD-4M


        Oh, this is my favorite topic about a thief from the Kurganmashzavod who plundered money under the state defense order. So not delivering 75 BMP-3 units, not delivering 2008 BMD-10M units in 4
        And this year, breaking the price for 10 BMD4Ms, they didn’t set a single one, accusing the KBP of failing, Shamanov dreams of 700 units by 2020.

        we are threatened by the dominance of foreign technology


        Don’t worry, we are facing the dominance of cosmetic junk at unrealistic prices (from generals of the military-industrial complex) with poor quality and weak characteristics (not all of course, there are exceptions, there are people who want to work and make excellent samples, cooperating with Western companies mainly French)
        1. poquello
          poquello 10 January 2014 21: 16
          +2
          Quote: Rustam
          .... Don’t worry, we are threatened with a predominance of cosmetic junk at unrealistic prices (from generals of the military industrial complex) with poor quality and weak characteristics (not all of course, there are exceptions, there are people who want to work and make excellent samples, cooperating mainly with western companies French)


          It simply touches that you found a couple of people who make excellent samples. Beautifully lying, but not beautiful to lie.
          1. Rustam
            Rustam 10 January 2014 22: 00
            +1
            beautifully lying, but not beautiful to lie


            Please in more detail in what words (from my words) did you find-a beautiful lie?


            a couple of people who make great designs


            Read more books, you will understand the meaning of my words. So I would like to know about the lie, please kindly enlighten me.
            1. poquello
              poquello 10 January 2014 23: 19
              +1
              Quote: Rustam
              beautifully lying, but not beautiful to lie


              Please in more detail in what words (from my words) did you find-a beautiful lie?


              a couple of people who make great designs


              Read more books, you will understand the meaning of my words. So I would like to know about the lie, please kindly enlighten me.

              what he quoted in those and saw, pt about "more books" in more detail
              we are threatened by the dominance of cosmetic junk at unrealistic prices (from generals of the military-industrial complex) with poor quality and poor performance (not all of course, there are exceptions, there are people who want to work and make excellent samples, cooperating with Western companies, mainly French)

              wretched is "swift", "orsis", "pecheneg", "cord", "cornet", "tiger", "shell", "torus", well, yes, t-90 with levers
              1. Rustam
                Rustam 10 January 2014 23: 56
                +1
                poquello what he quoted in those and saw, pt about "more books" in more detail


                That is, from all of my big posts, you saw the word wretched? - means you agree with everything else.

                wretched is "swift", "orsis", "pecheneg", "cord", "cornet", "tiger", "shell", "torus", well, yes, t-90 with levers


                You didn’t answer where the lie is, but simply enumerated certain samples without refuting any of my words

                I told you that there are people (which means enterprises are chewing you)
                from your list of TOR, Shell (acre of wheeled chassis) cornet and, in principle, all KBP products are modern

                -T-90 with levers — didn’t you know that? Only at the request of the Moscow Region did the helm appear on the MS version, like everyone else in the world

                -Tiger - in comparison with what, without a mint and 3 class of protection

                -orsis t-5000- here you gave a mistake, I’ll upset you, you are opposed to buying something there! And here the rifle is going to be assembled, almost all of it is being finished, remade from the American components, and even the imported cartridges are three hundred and eighth-and I’m just saying that we need to cooperate with Western companies and make competitive products.

                PS-attempt number 2
                it's all the lyrics, So specifically from my posts, what's wrong ah?


                photo for you from the zagazhnichka-enjoy (clickable)
                1. poquello
                  poquello 11 January 2014 00: 55
                  +1
                  Quote: Rustam
                  for some positions there has been a change)

                  PM I agree whether or not it does not play a role.
                  My list is not yet complete, and people are quite competitive for products surely stand and not a couple of people. Well, with an orchis, you’ve bent over, but the infection is good, and it seems that we are going to produce cartridges with us.
                  1. Rustam
                    Rustam 11 January 2014 07: 31
                    0
                    poquello tch I agree whether or not it does not play a role.


                    How does it not play? And what else does it play! You accused me of lying, but from my big posts I have not been disputed by any of my refusals - you must be able to answer for your words
                    1. poquello
                      poquello 11 January 2014 12: 48
                      +1
                      Quote: Rustam
                      How does it not play? And what else does it play! You accused me of lying, but from my big posts I have not been disputed by any of my refusals - you must be able to answer for your words

                      For all your statements, I’m not going to argue, especially since many of them correspond to my views, but if you crave so ...
                      Quote: Rustam
                      ... in 2008 we won by number and not by technology ...

                      natural lies - skill and experience allowed to hold out until help came
                      Quote: Rustam
                      ... there are no helicopters that can work at night ...

                      Ka-50N
                      Quote: Rustam
                      ... that there is no interaction and our craftsmen have flunked 5 of their planes ...

                      it’s not the interaction that’s to blame, but the enemy’s underestimation - the Georgians specifically slammed us with Ukrainian anti-aircraft guns
                      Quote: Rustam
                      and at that time under comrade Ivanov the armament program 2001-2010 was launched, the armament began for the Moscow Army and everything was excellent there, we received all the best and we don’t need anyone
                      but the 2008 conflict showed that something was wrong

                      any conflict reveals narrow points, but where about the curvature of the railway station at the request of the bourgeois?
                2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Zeev
        Zeev 18 January 2014 16: 31
        0
        The glory of Russian weapons is an interesting slogan, but it has nothing to do with deadly pieces of iron, but with military victories. Foreign weapons in Russia have ALWAYS been used since the emergence of the state. There are Tatar bows and checkers (this is a Caucasian weapon, if someone is not in the know), and Hartmann's fusées and "Berdanks" with "revolvers" and "maxims". There is nothing shameful or wrong in this, weapons must first of all do their job - kill enemies, and only then serve as an object of national pride (if there are no other reasons for pride). The same Americans are well aware of this, and they are not at all hindered by the presence of British Harrier aircraft, Belgian Minimi machine guns, Israeli Karkom mortars, Berreta pistols and, in general, any weapons of foreign origin (usually produced in the USA) in the American Army, Navy and Marine Corps.
  4. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 10 January 2014 09: 46
    +8
    What is the author talking about? What does he want to convince us of? The fact that there is nothing strange to take modern technology abroad. However, technology is one thing, and even modern, another thing is to buy finished products, in large quantities. According to modern technology, it is possible to arrange production of modern equipment and provide its service inside the country. When purchasing finished products, who will service them? And in case of conflict? But even this is not the problem, but the fact that in Russia, more precisely in the USSR, there were all productions for the production of any armored vehicles. It turns out that it is not worth developing your own is better to buy over a hill. The position of the traitor, at least.
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 10 January 2014 09: 51
      +5
      And notice far from new products. In fact, these products were relevant a couple of decades ago.
      The author’s position is superficial or understanding of the issue, I don’t know how to formulate .. Compare 20 of the XX century and now ...
    2. poquello
      poquello 10 January 2014 21: 19
      +1
      Quote: vladsolo56
      What is the author talking about? .... It turns out that it is not worth developing your own is better to buy over a hill. The position of the traitor, at least.

      We will do so and will gnaw at WWII cacti when the empire experienced a famine of weapons due to shortages of weapons by the allies.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  5. servant.
    servant. 10 January 2014 09: 58
    +6
    Quote: vladsolo56
    The position of the traitor, at least.


    Serdyukov for the purchase of equipment over the hill was called a traitor ... And the new leadership of the MO for the purchase of foreign equipment will be called great patriots?
    1. poquello
      poquello 10 January 2014 21: 24
      +1
      Quote: serviceman.
      Quote: vladsolo56
      The position of the traitor, at least.


      Serdyukov for the purchase of equipment over the hill was called a traitor ... And the new leadership of the MO for the purchase of foreign equipment will be called great patriots?

      I said - not all Serdyukovs were kicked out.
      The Russian Ministry of Defense became interested in Italian-made Benelli M4 smoothbore tactical shotguns, which are armed with special forces of the US Marine Corps. To date, a contract has been signed for the purchase of a test batch for testing, Rosbalt reports with reference to RBC.

      http://warsonline.info/vooruzhenie-i-technologii/blog/stranitsa-2.html
    2. The comment was deleted.
  6. makarov
    makarov 10 January 2014 10: 27
    +1
    It is difficult to understand the essence of the specifics as well as the conclusions. All of the above facts have long been known to me, it is not clear what the author wants to say. Really wants to show the scarcity of the creative mind (?), So then he is mistaken.
  7. Silent
    Silent 10 January 2014 10: 29
    +9
    In fact, the whole world, including the USA, Britain, France, buys weapons abroad if necessary and simply if they are better. This is what is called "supporting a domestic manufacturer", that is, treating him objectively, and not pulling by the ears, even when he openly parasitizes on government orders, giving products of inappropriate quality. And in any case, it is necessary to develop its production - even if it is an assembly of imported equipment.
  8. IRBIS
    IRBIS 10 January 2014 10: 54
    +10
    Gentlemen, why be so hypocritical? We cook food in excellent German or French dishes on a German or Swedish stove from products that we get from excellent refrigerators (German, Swedish, Finnish), we check the time with a Swiss clock and hit the road in good German (Japanese, American, etc.) in the car, in the evening we sit on an Italian sofa and watch Japanese TV. We dress children in winter jackets from Finland or Canada. And, mind you, Russian "patriotism" is not seething in anyone! And no "righteous" anger!
    There is nothing prejudicial about such purchases, and you should not raise a hysterical howl over "ruined" ideas - you have to admit that there are things that others do better.
    1. GDP
      GDP 10 January 2014 11: 06
      +10
      If during the war, let's say we block access to jackets and cell phones, this is one thing ... I think we will survive it.
      If the purchase of spare parts and weapons, which we are not able to produce ourselves, becomes unavailable, this is completely different ...
      Wartime has slightly different laws than peacetime. As they say, want peace - getting ready for war ...
      1. Zeev
        Zeev 18 January 2014 16: 34
        0
        Buy a production license and do it yourself. That’s the whole conversation.
    2. klimpopov
      klimpopov 10 January 2014 11: 08
      +4
      Yes, but without a Finnish frying pan I will live.
      But without the actual rocket it’s hard to live. You compare different. Bytovuhu and the country's defense. But they will take purchased armored personnel carriers at X hour and not go? What we are going to do. I am figuratively, but the idea is clear.
      1. IRBIS
        IRBIS 10 January 2014 12: 36
        +5
        Quote: klimpopov
        Yes, but without a Finnish frying pan I will live.

        The point is not in the frying pan, but in the way of thinking, which persistently asserts the superiority of everything "ours" over "theirs."
        We are not talking about a complete transition to foreign models of weapons and equipment, we do not seem to buy missiles either. And why is the purchased equipment suddenly not available at "X-hour"? If she does not go, then the reason will be in the purely domestic "woodpecker" serving her and driving. Leave the songs about the lack of spare parts in case of war to amateurs, the purchased samples do not form the backbone of the armament of our Armed Forces, and in some countries they ride on equipment in the 60s and, mind you, without any supply of spare parts.
      2. I am a Russian
        I am a Russian 10 January 2014 22: 26
        0
        Quote: klimpopov
        But they will take purchased armored personnel carriers at X hour and not go? What we are going to do. I am figuratively, but the idea is clear.


        +

        ... and "n" the state has already faced such a problem. ... an armed conflict ... and the electronics were covered and the troops were left with a piece of iron.
    3. Nazrug
      Nazrug 10 January 2014 17: 21
      +1
      Someone makes good frying pans and televisions, but is not able to make an engine for a fighter or a rocket, so the example is not a topic at all.
      1. IRBIS
        IRBIS 10 January 2014 18: 33
        +1
        Quote: Nazrug
        Someone makes good pans and televisions, but is not able to make an engine for a fighter or rocket,

        Right! And that is why he buys either these engines, or planes with missiles, depending on the advisability! It has always been so and it will be so. So the example is very much in the topic.
    4. morpex
      morpex 10 January 2014 21: 06
      +1
      [quote = IRBIS] There is nothing prejudicial about such purchases and you should not raise a hysterical howl over "ruined" ideas - you have to admit that there are things that others do better. [/ quote
      I support.! To buy in small batches and learn how to do better. The same Americans do not disdain such things. For China I am generally silent. Look at India. We bought, bought, and now both our nuclear weapons and flew into space ...
    5. poquello
      poquello 10 January 2014 21: 44
      +1
      Quote: IRBIS
      Gentlemen, why is it so hypocritical? We prepare food in excellent German or French dishes on a German or Swedish stove from products that we get from ...

      And you are the ability to drive beautiful consumer goods instead of the ability to produce do not pop. I have a frying pan Soviet company can kill her.
      1. I am a Russian
        I am a Russian 10 January 2014 22: 30
        0
        Quote: poquello
        I have a Soviet frying pan


        good

        ... fry potatoes in such a frying pan ... yes, 250 grams ... chic dinner on Saturday night
  9. RUSS
    RUSS 10 January 2014 10: 56
    +4
    The author forgot about the French Renault-FT-17 tank, which was produced in the USSR with a slight modification under the name “Renault Russian”, from 1920 to 1921 at the Sormovsky Plant.
    1. Kars
      Kars 10 January 2014 12: 44
      +5
      If we don’t remember Renault, then where should Vickers be remembered the 6-ton T-26 and the Christie chassis became BT
    2. poquello
      poquello 10 January 2014 21: 51
      +1
      Quote: RUSS
      The author forgot about the French Renault-FT-17 tank, which was produced in the USSR with a slight modification under the name “Renault Russian”, from 1920 to 1921 at the Sormovsky Plant.

      there is one small, but important point - it was produced at the Sormovsky plant
    3. Corsair
      Corsair 11 January 2014 20: 50
      0
      Quote: RUSS
      The author forgot about the French Renault-FT-17 tank, which was produced in the USSR with a slight modification under the name “Renault Russian”, from 1920 to 1921 at the Sormovsky Plant.

      And it should be noted that the copied vehicle became a "trendsetter" for all domestic and world tank building.
      Classics of the genre, so to speak ...
  10. SkiF_RnD
    SkiF_RnD 10 January 2014 10: 56
    +3
    The fact that "everyone is buying" and "RI bought" is not an argument. Everyone will go headlong against the wall - shall we go too? Europe wants gays almost to the rank of saints - maybe we too? And in schools to tell about them, teach them to respect laughing ...
    Those who buy from the USA are dancing to the tune of the USA. (With France, we have our own, separate topic, whatever you say. But all the same, NATO). Moreover, such a thing, "wheels" for the infantry. It should be. Others buy - so what? Others, in general, do not have nuclear weapons either. And not everyone has their own tanks. Let the Makarov pistol be Walter, it's not important for me. But the modern technology of Russia should be domestic, with its own design school, with the full placement of all production and services. We are not all.
    1. GDP
      GDP 10 January 2014 11: 09
      +4
      NATO countries buy weapons from NATO countries. Something I do not remember that they armed their army with Soviet, Russian or Chinese weapons. Recently discovered Chinese parts in some products, so there was a terrible scandal, some lost their posts ...
      1. klimpopov
        klimpopov 10 January 2014 11: 12
        0
        Well, now the Turks are buying from the Chinese. But in general, yes, I agree.
    2. samoletil18
      samoletil18 10 January 2014 14: 10
      +2
      Let the Makarov pistol be Walter

      Lies!
      1. SkiF_RnD
        SkiF_RnD 10 January 2014 16: 46
        +2
        Ok let it be a lie laughing
        The general layout of the PM is similar to the Walter PP pistol, however, Makarov significantly improved the basic Walter system in several areas: simplification of both the design itself and the handling of the gun and its maintenance; multifunctionality of parts; increased reliability in extreme operating conditions; increase in the strength of parts and service life; improving manufacturability and the pace of mass production. The PM trigger mechanism is completely different, the magazine latch and fuse are differently decided, and the slide delay lever is added. The hinged trigger guard, as a shutter travel limiter, is borrowed from the German design.

        Do you know what amused me? When they post here about Chinese technology, no changes in the design can remove the label "copied" from it, "they won't invent anything themselves, but they will steal it." Ours often changed, modified the design, and yet this is our Soviet modification of the Walter "PP" pistol. This pistol is a German design modified by Makarov. Just like the T-26 tank, it will forever remain in memory as a copy of the Vickers 6-ton (although there were some serious changes), and the KS tank is an FT-17, carefully filed. Double standards are not good smile
  11. Bigriver
    Bigriver 10 January 2014 11: 14
    +6
    it is planned to purchase not one, but several new cars at once: VBCI eight-wheeled infantry fighting vehicle, Aravis mine-protected armored vehicle and the new generation TITUS multi-purpose armored personnel carrier.

    So what??? Alarm !!! Ahtung !!! belay laughing
    Why not delve into the technique of probable adversary?
    I’ll supplement only our purchases of aircraft in Germany on the eve of the war. According to the monograph of V.B. Shavrov on the history of the construction of Soviet aircraft.
    "In 1939 -1940 - during the period of the non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany - samples of German military aircraft were transferred to us for review and testing. total of 36 aircraftbelonging to 12 different types: "Heinkel-100," Junkers - 88 "," Dornier - 215 "," Bryukker V.I.-131 "and" Bryukker V.I. - 133 ", Messerschmidt - 109", Messerschmidt VF - 110 "," Fiziler-Storch "," Ju 52 "," Focke-Wulf - 58 ", and others.

    We bought them for currency, and under an honest communist word. What if we like something, and we go to copy, then we will buy a production license.
    a 45-mm barrel was laid on the gun carriage of this gun and received the famous “forty-five” fired French armor-piercing shells almost to the middle of the Second World War!

    Tra-ta-ta .., blah blah blah.
    Is there an index of the shell (s)?
  12. lotar
    lotar 10 January 2014 11: 42
    +5
    In my opinion, the purchase of military equipment for the subsequent possible interaction of its technologies is one thing, but the purchase for the needs of the army and special services is completely different. It is better to get the latest technology just like the Chinese, simply stealing them. I hope these are not the next prerequisites for the Serdyukov era of military development.
  13. The comment was deleted.
  14. vomag
    vomag 10 January 2014 11: 49
    +3
    I guess I will repeat myself but I consider it vital to buy (not one, but several new cars at once), run them in and watch, watch and see what and how they have it! and then embody interesting findings and the necessary metal solutions for our army; besides, we have noticed some lag in wheel technology, all the same, the 90s make themselves felt ......
    1. Rus86
      Rus86 10 January 2014 14: 59
      +1
      Here is an example of 5000 rifles for special forces. too much for your reference. and if there are two "rusmistrals", then the equipment will obviously not be 5 units. there was a story when individual copies of the aircraft were not sold to China. those needed literally two or three) (so to fly))
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 11 January 2014 01: 27
        +2
        Quote: Rus86
        they gave an example of 5000 rifles for special forces. too much for familiarization.
        Moreover, if a large order is made to a domestic enterprise, it becomes profitable to invest in new machines, which leads to an increase in the quality of the final product. Yes, and the products themselves with large batches are cheaper. And if you buy three machines a year (for example, ADS), then due to lack of money, the remaining specialists from the enterprise will run away.
  15. Cruorvult
    Cruorvult 10 January 2014 12: 20
    +2
    As the proverb goes, "One head is good, two is better." There is no need to get out of the way in someone else's technology, for example to communicate with jet engines for the moment, steal an American bomber jacket ate their all-metal ones. Another thing is the MRAP or the armored personnel carrier, there are no space technologies here, you can burn it yourself. Moreover, the vaunted MRAPs in Australia are not suitable for 15 meters, it is not very important to bury 100n land mine or 1.
  16. tank64rus
    tank64rus 10 January 2014 12: 41
    +2
    Nobody has ever sold promising weapons to their "neighbors", this time. Second, by purchasing imported weapons, the country becomes dependent on the producing country, for a NATO-type bloc this is normal, for Russia it is not. Third, when purchasing modern samples stuffed with radio electronics, wait for the bookmarks, there are examples. Fourth, one should not present corrupt acts of gentlemen like Serdyukov with concern for the defense capability of Russia. There have already been examples in history when one of the Romanov gentlemen pushed through a deal to purchase from the British naval guns, which turned out to be unsuitable in Russian conditions, for which he received a nickname from a Russian general - "Seven pounds of the most august meat." It is necessary to purchase advanced technologies. and they will not be sold, there are no fools.
  17. Pacifist
    Pacifist 10 January 2014 12: 58
    +1
    Buying weapons is not only "buying hardware for war", it is also politics. So from the point of view of politics, any new purchases of weapons from France must be stopped and done in such a way as to indicate to them our attitude to their behavior in the world ... at the moment France is behaving like a real pi ... oh, forgive that. it is not politically correct now in gayrope to say gay. And for me, as natural p ... s and supplying the military-industrial complex of France with money, I see no point. The most that is worth going for, on joint projects in the military-industrial complex with a prerequisite for access to technology, and net purchases in the wholesale.
  18. Terrible ensign
    Terrible ensign 10 January 2014 13: 07
    +3
    A very controversial article, especially on the cited facts. The conclusions of Comrade Shpakovsky are just the conclusions and conclusions of himself ... An attempt to present material in the style of everyone here probably known "The Book of Future Commanders" of the publishing house "Children's Literature", and on this site, men seem to be more serious ...
    In addition, one gets the impression that some nervous tendentiousness is set by the author himself, and then he himself dispels ... (The essence is an attempt at self-PR?!? ..) So I see the value of this publication solely in the polemic provoked by it and in the comments of colleagues! I have the honor.
  19. RUSS
    RUSS 10 January 2014 13: 32
    +1
    Quote: RUSS
    The author forgot about the French Renault-FT-17 tank, which was produced in the USSR with a slight modification under the name “Renault Russian”, from 1920 to 1921 at the Sormovsky Plant.



    I’ll correct myself not in the USSR, but in Soviet Russia, since the USSR was created in 1922
  20. La-5
    La-5 10 January 2014 14: 21
    +1
    It is not so much "sinful" to use foreign developments, many countries do this, the main thing is not to get carried away.
  21. Arh
    Arh 10 January 2014 14: 38
    +1
    we have good potential for building armored vehicles, etc. and and at the best level! by labor and then with blood, and everything will turn out, turn it over! ! !
  22. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 10 January 2014 15: 26
    0
    The casket opens simply. And then and now, foreign weapons are not purchased from a good life. The only time interval when the army and navy were provided with any necessary weapons was the post-war USSR. If you face the truth, the remaining industry has lost the ability to produce the full range of necessary weapons. You can restore production either in cooperation with the former republics of the USSR, or for serious money and time. Now development is going on in both directions. Not everything turns out, because republics also lost the necessary potential, or there are political difficulties, from here crutches in the form of procurement of foreign samples.
  23. samoletil18
    samoletil18 10 January 2014 16: 02
    +1
    This is my first "minus" for the article.
  24. abc_alex
    abc_alex 10 January 2014 16: 06
    0
    People! Read historical literature. Russia and the USSR purchased weapons deliberately and systemically.
    Those who talk about "a couple of tanks and an airplane" are fundamentally wrong. We remember the imperial aviation (the fleet is well understood in the article). Almost all of it licensed. The only exceptions are Sikorsky's planes, and then they all flew on imported engines. The first Soviet aircraft, the same TB-3, took off on imported engines. Domestic engine building began with the purchase licenses on french motors.

    T-26 is not copied - stolen, it was produced under license Vickers. And the T-28 could also be licensed, do not greed the British in the matter of money for the license.
    Christy's tank was also legally purchased, but not duplicated, and even Christy himself was eager to come to the USSR to establish its production.

    Soviet radio tubes with an octal base - licensed production from the United States. And in the years of Lend-Lease, a whole package of shtatovskih radio tubes was transferred to production in the USSR.

    In a word, the Bolsheviks always were big supporters of pulling useful from behind a hill. Legally in the 20-40s, illegally since the 50s.

    Here the benefit is simple - with a license we get a finished technical product, tested and tested by others, a whole pool of technical solutions that we can use in our own production. For example, the first T-34s were equipped with a gearbox from some ancient Ford tractor purchased by Soviet Russia.

    I'm not saying that almost always licensed production whips up serial enterprises. So it was with the T-26, and even with the textbook Tu-4.
    The Mistral, stuck in its teeth, is assembled in France using a clever technology that makes it possible to assemble ships very quickly and comes from large-tonnage civil shipbuilding.

    So you don’t need to be afraid of licensed production, you need to be able to use it, making and mastering ready-made decisions paid from someone else’s pockets as the basis for your own development.

    Something like this :)
  25. not good
    not good 10 January 2014 16: 18
    +2
    It is wrong to equip your troops with imported equipment, but God himself ordered to buy several units of interest for familiarization, drive them, shoot them, and on the basis of the experience gained, create an improved analogue or conclude that we don’t need to.
  26. Olegmog
    Olegmog 10 January 2014 17: 44
    0
    It’s hard to do everything for your army. Something less significant
    can be purchased on the side. Especially when the price is almost
    the same, but the quality alas ...!
  27. Bigriver
    Bigriver 10 January 2014 18: 41
    +2
    Quote: abc_alex
    Russia and the USSR bought weapons deliberately ...
    you don’t need to be afraid of licensed production, you need to be able to use it, making and mastering ready-made solutions ...
    Something like this :)

    One-sided, somehow :)
    It is clear why the USSR focused on the license in the 30s. The design and engineering school was interrupted. It is clear why now we glance at it.
    To focus only on copying is to doom oneself to the deliberate backlog and funeral of the intellectual component in the product. To hammer the coffin with the body of a Russian design school with Western decorative carnations? Balance is needed.
    The question is complex and not for our qualifications.
  28. The comment was deleted.
  29. waisson
    waisson 10 January 2014 19: 53
    0
    we buy because our brains are not enough talents go and new ones are not born
  30. typhoon7
    typhoon7 10 January 2014 20: 31
    0
    Quote: chunga-changa
    The casket opens simply. And then and now, foreign weapons are not purchased from a good life. The only time interval when the army and navy were provided with any necessary weapons was the post-war USSR. If you face the truth, the remaining industry has lost the ability to produce the full range of necessary weapons. You can restore production either in cooperation with the former republics of the USSR, or for serious money and time. Now development is going on in both directions. Not everything turns out, because republics also lost the necessary potential, or there are political difficulties, from here crutches in the form of procurement of foreign samples.

    Do you think that we have launched BMPs, armored personnel carriers, tanks, shipbuilding, aircraft manufacturing, small arms? Vaughn Serdyuk wanted to buy foreign tanks, but what about us? T-90, T-90MS, T-95 are also ARMATA in work, the neighbors Oplot, what bad tanks? There are problems on individual issues. So they need to be addressed. How Artem Mikoyan solved the problem with the dviglom for MiG-15. In the Soviet post-war period, the military did not buy anything in bulk. For such matters, at that time, they would tear off the eggs so that they would no longer breed. It’s now everything is decided by money, even ships, armored vehicles, weapons for special forces will be purchased from a likely enemy, without thinking about how all this can end. The country can produce any weapons. It is just that the enterprises are privatized first, and then when the question arises about the production of the MiG-31, it is heard that the capacities where the units for the MiG-31 were manufactured were sold. At the expense of the Tu-160. When Stepashin was prime minister, there was little time, no money, but he bought the Tu-160 for the Air Force and wanted to buy and upgrade the old ones at least once a year. So the capacities, workshops, and problems with the carcasses and MiGs appeared now. And they cannot know about such privatizations at the top. It’s just that the country is ruled by business, and he won’t .... where to buy, he has no homeland, money, villas, children, everything in the west. It all smells bad.
  31. Leshka
    Leshka 10 January 2014 21: 33
    0
    it was and will always be ours because they don’t buy all the equipment
    1. typhoon7
      typhoon7 10 January 2014 22: 05
      0
      Stuffing for satellites is not enough? Parts of avionics for military aviation, about civil silence, Mistral, hundreds of iveko, scorpions, now another armored personnel carrier, It would not have happened that the promising ARMATA platform would be half ours, Recently, Kalashnikov was nearly ruined. Little what? And where did you get that it always has been? This was never when, and do not say nonsense.
  32. kplayer
    kplayer 10 January 2014 21: 35
    +2
    Which VBCI 8x8 !? when the BTR-90 (21,5t) was "buried alive" they preferred the worse protected BTR-80A / -82 (14,5t) with a 2A72 cannon of dubious accuracy and accuracy (instead of the proven 2A42).
  33. I think so
    I think so 10 January 2014 22: 00
    +2
    Foreign weapons in service with the army of Russia: innovation or tradition?

    I think the answer to this question is simple - DEGRADATION...
  34. cesar65
    cesar65 10 January 2014 22: 18
    0
    Quote: Scary Warrant Officer
    A very controversial article, especially on the cited facts. The conclusions of Comrade Shpakovsky are just the conclusions and conclusions of himself ... An attempt to present material in the style of everyone here probably known "The Book of Future Commanders" of the publishing house "Children's Literature", and on this site, men seem to be more serious ...
    In addition, one gets the impression that some nervous tendentiousness is set by the author himself, and then he himself dispels ... (The essence is an attempt at self-PR?!? ..) So I see the value of this publication solely in the polemic provoked by it and in the comments of colleagues! I have the honor.

    I agree, but we’ll probably be buying weapons, since we have ruined our industry.
  35. Slavapom
    Slavapom 10 January 2014 23: 16
    0
    It would be possible to put a minus to the author of the article. I will explain even why.
    This article is essentially a simple listing of what, where and when it was acquired from service abroad, and all these transfers of purchases are absolutely pulled out of the historical, political and economic realities of those times. Even if we do not go deep into historical research, but take a corny school history course, then we see periods from 1890. by 1916 industrial production in the Russian Empire was only just in its infancy, those production facilities that were in the country that could not fully saturate the army and navy with the necessary armament were corny. In the period from 1920 to 1940. there were some nuances, namely, there were capacities to produce equipment, but there were no design schools, with very few exceptions.
  36. Jeronimo
    Jeronimo 11 January 2014 00: 44
    +6
    My first comment. Do not judge strictly.
    I’m not an Internet hamster, but an adjustment engineer. My conclusions are not from books, but from a vision of the real situation, although not at the enterprises of the military-industrial complex (although I have been to SEVMASH), but at the enterprises of Rosatom.

    1. Buying something always finished products is always easier than setting up production. Procurement is the richest department in all enterprises. But this is the level of a blonde with a bundle of money. The purchase of finished products is a rollback here and now. Establishing production - hellish hemorrhoids. Could give a bunch of examples, but I do not want to be distracted. I emphasize once again that the main reason for the procurement is INSTANT ROLL.
    2. There is a second important reason. Why don't we produce new equipment, but continue to stamp 30-year-old old stuff or modernize it? The answer is simple - there are no personnel capable of designing and organizing the production of modern products. No material scientists => no composite parts in modern small arms. There are no specialist machine tool adjusters => elementary we cannot reconfigure machines to produce slightly different parts for modern AK versions.
    3. There is no modern culture and quality of production. Outdated management practices or completely incompetent guidance. Why is it now believed that he controlled the production of mayonnaise, then you can handle the production of ship paint. Well, at least so. But the factories are simply packed with incompetent relatives, friends and just the right people.
    4. Low level of education. I can’t talk about the military-industrial complex. But often, instead of instructing in equipment, I have to start with the theory of radioactive decay.
    5. Low motivation at defense industry enterprises. Why 6 years to learn compromising materials, chemistry of composite materials, materials science and go for 25 tons work if you can go mobile phones to trade for 50 tons after school.
    6. Attitude at state-owned enterprises. The salaries of lower and senior personnel differ 100 or more times. A sense of injustice prevents workers from working well. The manual treats subordinates as cattle.
    7. There is simply a complete lack of government support for real producers. Anyone who at least tried to design and produce something will understand me.
    There are many more reasons.
    But I can say for my industry. 80-90% of radiation monitoring equipment is purchased abroad. What is being done in Russia is morally obsolete, prohibitively expensive, often of poor quality, not competitive. The situation in different sectors is approximately the same, so why in the military-industrial complex should be different.

    Regarding patriotism and criticism. Criticism of the country and leadership is needed. Without criticism and analysis of deficiencies, it is impossible to start solving problems. Note that modern leadership deliberately protects itself from criticism and feedback. A system without negative feedback is unstable. The difference between a nuclear reactor and a nuclear charge is the presence of negative bonds. Treatment for alcoholism begins with recognizing yourself as an alcoholic.
    1. Asgard
      Asgard 11 January 2014 01: 05
      0
      With an initiative !!! And with the past (not until the end of 14))) holidays ...
      It would be nice to indicate in your profile how to contact you.
      Koment is competent and, in essence, as an engineer and often visiting various enterprises, I can confirm ...
      But there are people ...., specialists and just sleek guys and girls -... they are not allowed to work, LABORing productively, introducing new things is unprofitable for both the enterprise and the employee himself ...
      Enterprises are spreading, hangars with screwdriver assembly are the crown of mechanical engineering in 2000))) They even introduce new enterprises (cut the ribbon)) and then it costs ....
      generally sad ((((
    2. kplayer
      kplayer 11 January 2014 09: 37
      +1
      You as a discoverer! Here, even those who write comments are mostly young people from the sphere of trade and services, which is felt. One shot out is even taken to vilify the BTR-90 and MiG-29.
      What kind of production revival can be expected from the GB-Schnick, consider the "cop" and a lawyer, everyone strengthens the pyramid of power and prepares administrators, managers, they do not even consult with knowledgeable people who can still be found at research institutes.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Zomanus
      Zomanus 11 January 2014 18: 56
      0
      I agree. At least on points 3 and 5. Simple workers simply spread rot. They say that it was so in the Union. But there it was offset by social programs and a guarantee of housing. I myself worked at the factory and I know that the level of salary of a simple worker and starting from the beginning of the workshop differ simply prohibitively. Therefore, young people with brains do not linger there. I can see about education myself, how my mother, in the past (a far-off kapets), designer, makes control on the drawing and mechanical engineering drawing for students. You need to buy abroad at least in order to know what you have to fight against in the future. Just how we do it, is another question.
  37. Zomanus
    Zomanus 11 January 2014 18: 47
    0
    Definitely need to buy imported. To keep abreast of new products and in future battles to fight with weapons and not soldiers. It’s just that we stole it all earlier, but now we are openly buying it. We still have a link at the group level. For radios are either too expensive to give to their soldier, or lamp junk. We also have reconnaissance and target designation. Again, a simple soldier cannot, with the help of instruments, quickly direct a plane or artel at a target. Because the device is either kapets as heavy, or ... we don’t have it in the army. It seems to me personally. that we still fight during the Second World War. That is, we take dofiga milen soldiers with AK, with earflaps and quilted jackets and eventually win the war. Somewhere the dude wrote that our specialists prefer to buy foreign weapons and equipment. For ours is either not made for people, or absent in principle.
  38. tchoni
    tchoni 11 January 2014 19: 53
    +1
    Guys. and who told you that French technology is better?
    Who said that Leclerc, for example, breaks down less than the T-72?
    Who told you that the same TITUS armored personnel carrier is better and more reliable than, say, products of KAMAZ masters?
    Who told you that our drones do not fly? (I was a little engaged in this topic and I can say responsibly that the operating time is up to a fig in this direction)
    Ah why do not we have this? - everything is simple - it is not provided by the staff list.
    Change staff, change combat manuals, ask the appropriate requirements - and you will have the technology no worse than bourgeois. And it turns out: after talking with a single general, we are developing a device, according to this general, he is terribly necessary, but the supply services refuse to buy it.
    And I want to remind fans of foreign weapons that it’s still necessary to serve him. And if gears, etc., are still being made, we will treat the electronics at the manufacturer. For individual grandmas.
    1. Silent
      Silent 12 January 2014 02: 24
      -1
      Who said, who said .... Please, sit down on a product of the domestic automobile industry, at least military, at least civilian, and compare with an imported product. Quickly understand which is better. And about spare parts and maintenance - who prevents the production of equipment under license? The United States, for example, buys a lot of imported structures, but produces everything on its own land, even if a foreign company is engaged in production.
  39. bublic82009
    bublic82009 11 January 2014 23: 38
    +1
    Well, read, so we generally did not create anything ourselves. Yes, they bought samples, but then they themselves all worked it out.
  40. Basileus
    Basileus 13 January 2014 08: 30
    0
    During the rearmament after the Crimean, we did not have the defense that the Soviet Union had. Yes, there was a lag in the 90s, now you can catch it even without purchasing samples of foreign equipment abroad. In Soviet times, our defenders through special services received armored vehicles of a potential enemy without buying it)
  41. hitech
    hitech 13 January 2014 15: 30
    0
    Quote: Rustam
    PS- now large purchases beyond the hill are impossible, since Shoigu was dependent on our arms lobbyists-Serdyukov could (he was knocked down inadvertently when he began to shut off oxygen to them and made him work

    Shield shield? laughing did it make Taburetkin work? Than? Raking hands? You, my friend, are overworked apparently.
  42. beifall
    beifall 8 February 2014 07: 30
    -1
    French wheeled armored personnel carrier is normal!