Military Review

The Russian army will have fewer types of weapons and military equipment.

65
Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov said at a press conference that the Russian defense ministry is going to reduce the number of types of weapons and military equipment in the army as part of the new state armament program for 2016-2025.

The Russian army will have fewer types of weapons and military equipment.


“The main directions will be to quite sharply reduce the type of weapons and military equipment. We optimize the type. Tiporyad (weapons and military equipment) is already defined ", - gives his words ITAR-TASS.

Borisov also noted that in the next year and a half specific indicators of the state program will be determined, which will be based on the possibilities of science and industry. According to him, the military want to “orient the industry on the problem of unifying various solutions.”

“This is a trunk-modular construction principle with maximum unification and reduction of the range of products used,” added Borisov.

According to him, reducing the number of types of weapons and military equipment will reduce the cost of their maintenance and repair, as well as military training.

Also, the deputy minister said that the seizure of the state defense order for 2015-2017 years will not be.

“There are no sequesters, no serious volume reductions. The draft budget provides for virtually passport data, ”he stressed.

However, the defense ministry is constantly redistributing volumes within the program.

“So far, thank God, the efforts of our supreme commander and the government three-year plan for 2015-2017 years comes with a very close approximation to the passport data of the state weapons program-2020, which is the key to a dynamic re-equipment of our troops to modern and promising models of weapons and military equipment,” - noted Borisov.
Photos used:
http://itar-tass.com/
65 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Belopolyak
    Belopolyak 18 September 2014 10: 19
    +10
    This suggests that soon you will have to use the equipment to untrained people (little trained), and this is only one category, just mobilized in connection with the war ....
    1. severniy
      severniy 18 September 2014 10: 20
      +10
      less is better, but better .., the horse is clear .. smile
      1. Armata
        Armata 18 September 2014 10: 30
        +24
        Quote: severniy
        less is better, but better .., the horse is clear.
        I wonder what is more effective? To use a large number of averaged equipment (made on single units and assemblies) or to have a large fleet of highly specialized and non-variable equipment, but with the option of its most effective use?
        Ask yourself which is better. Have average techies, but who can work on the tank and on the BMP with the corresponding effect, or have high-class specialists, but only for their tasks?
        People need to be taught, not average equipment.
        1. serega.fedotov
          serega.fedotov 18 September 2014 10: 39
          +17
          Quote: Armata
          I wonder what is more effective? To use a large number of averaged equipment (made on single units and assemblies) or to have a large fleet of highly specialized and non-variable equipment, but with the option of its most effective use?

          It seems to me that the bulk of the troops should be armed with the most unified equipment.
          But some parts of high alert, mountain shooters, airborne forces, special forces, and reconnaissance must be armed with specially developed weapons, taking into account their specifics, and the tasks to be solved!
          1. Armata
            Armata 18 September 2014 10: 46
            +10
            Quote: serega.fedotov
            It seems to me that the bulk of the troops should be armed with the most unified equipment.
            The answer is simple. Now everyone is shouting about Armata. I won’t tell you a big secret, but now she has a problem with planetary gearboxes, for MBT they are too slow, and for the Coalition they are too weak (they simply vomit after a certain run). How long do you think it will take to bring this small problem to mind and even more so unify it? And is this even possible? And this is only a small problem, but you can ask Sparrow how much time is spent on replacing the gearbox. And in general, why is the T-72 platform bad? Or what to write off all MBT and self-propelled guns on this platform and dramatically replace it with Armata? I think that our gentlemen officials are pushing the cart in front of the horse.
        2. severniy
          severniy 18 September 2014 10: 44
          +2
          Quote: Armata
          Quote: severniy
          less is better, but better .., the horse is clear.
          I wonder what is more effective? To use a large number of averaged equipment (made on single units and assemblies) or to have a large fleet of highly specialized and non-variable equipment, but with the option of its most effective use?
          Ask yourself which is better. Have average techies, but who can work on the tank and on the BMP with the corresponding effect, or have high-class specialists, but only for their tasks?
          People need to be taught, not average equipment.

          to teach what? to manage a moped, bicycle, scooter, helicopter and at the exit to have a high-cost specialist who does not know how to specifically! and further down the list, a dentist-proctologist, a physical education teacher ..
          what i don't understand? the article is just about a limited fleet of narrowly targeted technology, with specialists in their own field ... so we are talking about the same thing ...
          1. Armata
            Armata 18 September 2014 10: 48
            +1
            Quote: severniy
            to manage a moped, bicycle, scooter, helicopter and at the exit to have a high-cost specialist who does not know how to specifically! and further down the list, a dentist-proctologist, a physical education teacher ..
            To teach the management of one thing, but qualitatively.
        3. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 18 September 2014 10: 53
          +3
          Quote: Armata
          People need to be taught, not average equipment.

          Mechanic, where did you disappear. Although I would go to Skype, I sent you a message there on Apollo.
        4. Juborg
          Juborg 18 September 2014 11: 40
          +9
          Remember the experience of the Second World War, where the Soviet Union literally crushed a mass of tanks and aircraft, the fascist Wehrmacht. A high-tech product from Germany smoked in the fields. The effectiveness of weapons is manifested in skillful hands. After all, you yourself see, the militia in the Donbass is fighting almost the same as the junta, and the effectiveness is many times higher.
          No matter how it happened, as in the case of the Gorbachev-pathist, we will cut, cut, and we will not create a new one. There was a similar experience under Mr. Taburetkin.
          There are Finns, they are letting every gadget into business and modernizing it.
      2. skeket
        skeket 18 September 2014 11: 34
        +6
        Quote: severniy
        less is better, but better .., the horse is clear .. smile

        On the one hand, unification is, of course, good, it is easier for industry, repair, training, maintenance and application in different systems and equipment, but on the other hand, you can forget about the best examples for a specific task. As an example, there is no better clean interceptor like the MiG-31 to this day, even considering its age. Take the SCRC "Basalt", who will now bother with such a head?
    2. Tor hummer
      Tor hummer 18 September 2014 10: 23
      +5
      Quote: Belopolsky
      This suggests that soon you will have to use the equipment to untrained people (little trained), and this is only one category, just mobilized in connection with the war ....

      This suggests that in the Russian army (and before that in the Soviet) there are many similar and repeating weapons, the waste of which is very high.
      Well, for example, how many tanks are currently in service in Russia? And how many were in the USSR? In parallel, the T72 and T64 and T80 were armed, and there was to be one single main tank.
      1. Belopolyak
        Belopolyak 18 September 2014 10: 26
        +3
        Quote: Tor Hummer
        This suggests that in the Russian army (and before that in the Soviet) there are many similar and repeating arms, the waste of which they are kept and the training to master them is very high.

        Yes it pulls the whole chain. Now 4 enterprises make similar equipment with different spare parts. and so will 4 do the same thing (what this gives is so clear). But for some reason it seemed to me that in the first place this is done for the same purpose as AK was once created. It’s much easier to teach one technique than several.
        1. Armata
          Armata 18 September 2014 10: 38
          +2
          Quote: Belopolsky
          that in the first place this is done for the same purpose as AK was once created
          After that they created Vintorez, on its base the VAL, then they created Cord, then Exhaust. All of these are firearms of our production, but the systems are very different.
          1. vorobey
            vorobey 18 September 2014 11: 01
            +2
            Quote: Armata
            our production


            Hi Zhenya .. there was a news article about armature recently ... I never saw the news .. laughing
            1. Armata
              Armata 18 September 2014 11: 06
              +3
              Quote: vorobey
              Hi Zhenya .. there was a news article about armature recently ... I never saw the news.
              Hi Sanya. Not until now, I rarely have the opportunity to go to the site. He returned to his old job, now I'm worried.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Belopolyak
            Belopolyak 18 September 2014 11: 01
            +1
            Quote: Armata
            After that they created Vintorez, on its base the VAL, then they created Cord, then Exhaust. All of these are firearms of our production, but the systems are very different.

            Umm question, do you know what Kalashnikov himself said that prompted him to create his creation? If you know, then your comment on mine is not a village not a city.
            1. KBR109
              KBR109 18 September 2014 11: 37
              +1
              Maybe the Germans have Sturmgever MP-44?
              1. Belopolyak
                Belopolyak 18 September 2014 13: 08
                0
                Quote: KBR109
                Maybe the Germans have Sturmgever MP-44?

                Literally, I don’t remember, but the meaning is common, yes.
                What is important and necessary for a soldier is simplicity and reliability.
        2. Tor hummer
          Tor hummer 18 September 2014 10: 58
          +1
          Quote: Belopolsky
          It’s much easier to teach one technique than several.

          And learning is also easier. It’s easier to maintain and train. By the way, service technicians also need to be trained. And we also need different spare parts, it is inherently more difficult to set up the industry for the production of different components.
          In short, which side do not look at any worse.
        3. Per se.
          Per se. 18 September 2014 11: 02
          +8
          Quote: Belopolsky
          It’s much easier to teach one technique than several.
          It's even easier - not to teach anything at all ... The main task of the army, the ability to effectively defend the country, its people, equipment and weapons are created for these tasks, and if specialization is necessary, it must be! Of course, you can cut down a forest with an ax, chop up enemies, cut bread, and even shave, but offering a surgeon a universal scalpel for all operational cases is hardly a successful "unification". At one time, the RPK was preferred to the tape RPD, precisely because of the unification of weapons, as far as it was reasonable, the question. It is more economical to have a basic system of the type "a reaper, a reaper, and a gamer", but not more efficient. The army must first of all be effective, everything else is secondary. A stingy person always pays twice, and a fool always pays, if we are talking about the unification of weapons and equipment, we must understand it not at the expense of efficiency, unification is not an end in itself, but only a means to increase production, reduce its cost when necessary. Specialized equipment and weapons will always be needed. I would like to believe that this topic of unification and "platforms" will not go to extremes and will not reach the point of absurdity.
      2. jjj
        jjj 18 September 2014 10: 26
        -2
        It’s good that so far everything is going according to plan
      3. Klim2011
        Klim2011 18 September 2014 10: 29
        +2
        Do not deliberately propose, at the same time it is not possible to replace equipment in the armed forces in any country in the world.
        This process is always quite significantly stretch over time. hi
      4. Kibalchish
        Kibalchish 18 September 2014 10: 38
        +2
        History repeats itself ... As under Peter I, the army goes through standardization and unification.
      5. The comment was deleted.
      6. kayman4
        kayman4 18 September 2014 13: 26
        0
        Quote: Tor Hummer
        Well, for example, how many tanks are currently in service in Russia? And how many were in the USSR? In parallel, the T72 and T64 and T80 were armed, and there was to be one single main tank.


        A dumb argument is usually from a dispute between theoreticians from a tank. Unification with such a large fleet of tanks like ours or the USA cannot be achieved even with 1 model of a medium tank or MBT :)
    3. vorobey
      vorobey 18 September 2014 10: 23
      +7
      Quote: Belopolsky
      This suggests that soon you will have to use the equipment to untrained people (little trained), and this is only one category, just mobilized in connection with the war ....


      I would say a tip in your language, but unfortunately my barometer tells the same thing.
      1. zao74
        zao74 18 September 2014 10: 31
        +2
        Many barometers say the same thing ... unfortunately.
        1. Basarev
          Basarev 18 September 2014 10: 47
          0
          I have long said that it is time to stop making a zoo in the armed forces.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. ultra
      ultra 18 September 2014 11: 46
      +1
      Quote: Belopolsky
      This suggests that soon you will have to use the equipment for untrained people

      This suggests that in conditions of war, multiplicity is a disaster! An example is the three types of tanks in service with the SA t-64, t-72 and t-80.
      1. goose
        goose 18 September 2014 14: 18
        +1
        Of course, total unification is a myth, but the adoption of two approximately identical T-2 and T-64 tanks at the same time is, of course, nonsense.
        Well, another analogy with submarines. That's where the zoo is.
      2. goose
        goose 18 September 2014 14: 18
        +1
        Of course, total unification is a myth, but the adoption of two approximately identical T-2 and T-64 tanks at the same time is, of course, nonsense.
        Well, another analogy with submarines. That's where the zoo is.
    6. ZVEROBOY
      ZVEROBOY 18 September 2014 12: 17
      +2
      Yes, this later says that it is impossible to fight with sophisticated equipment without special training.
      Yes, from a year of service it’s unlikely that you will learn a thread!
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Giant thought
    Giant thought 18 September 2014 10: 19
    +8
    Unification is a necessary thing, especially in the Armed Forces.
    1. avg
      avg 18 September 2014 10: 30
      0
      So far, unfortunately, we see the opposite. and it’s not a fact that this decision of the Moscow Region will be implemented, as many influential lobbyists have divorced. But, we hope for authority, sanity and firmness Kozhugetovich.
  4. bmv04636
    bmv04636 18 September 2014 10: 20
    +5
    Well, as I understand it, there will be three platforms: a heavy caterpillar Armata, an average light Kurgan, a wheeled Boomerang, and the army does not need more
    1. insafufa
      insafufa 18 September 2014 10: 24
      0
      Quote: bmv04636
      Well, as I understand it, there will be three platforms: a heavy caterpillar Armata, an average light Kurgan, a wheeled Boomerang, and the army does not need more


      But my friend forgot about the fleet, there has long been a type need to reduce unification, and there it is in full swing, and the Air Force should also go towards unification
      1. bmv04636
        bmv04636 18 September 2014 10: 46
        +1
        Oh yes, the fleet is still only in the submarine fleet which line is built, but the surface problem is interesting.
    2. STALGRAD76
      STALGRAD76 18 September 2014 10: 43
      +2
      Aircraft technology is not only tanks and armored personnel carriers, it is such a huge range of design bureaus and productions to unify and systematize their task is not an easy one ....
  5. pomegranate
    pomegranate 18 September 2014 10: 22
    0
    Good idea, but only again so far only a statement of plan promise.
  6. ISKANDER25
    ISKANDER25 18 September 2014 10: 22
    +1
    Hello! I'm certainly not special on a global scale, but will there be an adequate response to weapons if something happens against the background of an increasing external threat ?!
    1. pomegranate
      pomegranate 18 September 2014 10: 25
      +2
      Sorry what?
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 18 September 2014 11: 10
      +2
      What response to threats do you want? It is definitely not worth counting on the fact that "with little blood on someone else's territory. We will not pull it financially. But as regards inflicting unacceptable losses, it is quite a feasible task."
  7. rugor
    rugor 18 September 2014 10: 23
    0
    Oh, they’ll cut the state program, don’t go to the grandmother. It’s a pity, the industry will pull the defense industry to a new level, and without a 20 * 20 program it’s not a fact.
  8. Bassoon
    Bassoon 18 September 2014 10: 24
    0
    Such expressions suggest not very good thoughts. Let's see what happens in the end.
  9. Russian jacket
    Russian jacket 18 September 2014 10: 25
    +3
    And for me the very word "optimization" is a dirty word, because it only contains the desire to save money, here and now, without taking into account the long-term consequences. The main enemies of any business are optimizers. Not to be confused with innovators and exterminated as pests. am
    1. Demon0n
      Demon0n 18 September 2014 12: 05
      0
      Quote: Russian quilted jacket
      And for me the very word "optimization" is a dirty word, because it only contains the desire to save money, here and now, without taking into account the long-term consequences. The main enemies of any business are optimizers. Not to be confused with innovators and exterminated as pests. am


      Optimization, is included in the field of rationalization in a certain sense (enough wikipedia on the terms "rationality", adjusted for the process and "optimization"). There are no contradictions.
      Can you imagine 20 parts with the same function, but performing it with different parameters (slightly different)? Now imagine that someone designed these 000 parts, for starters, then made them on 20 varieties of the same type of machine tools (for the sake of understanding the picture, exaggeration will not hurt). Now imagine that there are about 000 such parts (different, but having the general principle of variation in the main function) in the final product. .................. Now you can try to establish development and production of all the necessary product range for a range of tasks.
      Absurd. neither money, nor human resources, nor the theoretically achievable competence of logistics specialists will be enough. The point is that the final products from the time of the 2nd World War and the formation of the -> early period of the USSR have become much more complicated and the process continues. Therefore, for the production of the required range of products and parts on their own, you need to rationally spend resources (so that the problem has a solution, as such). Optimization, where possible and necessary, also does not hurt (given the value).
      Personal opinion, I expect, if not good, then acceptable results, if we manage to press or agree (in any sense) with “creativity” and “financial interest”. Of course, in the long term, because the types of products produced at the moment are extremely unreasonable to throw away (and not advisable, since we will remain with "naked F"). But the sooner the process begins, the easier it will be to live later (do not forget about the tasks of scientific research, if simpler, then goal-setting).
  10. Corsair0304
    Corsair0304 18 September 2014 10: 26
    0
    It is possible that this is a sound decision. Unification will save on consumables, on maintenance, on the development of modification. It would be desirable that when making decisions on the supply of a particular type (type, etc.) of arms and equipment, the parties should not be lobbying the interests of someone's enterprises or groups, but the actual need of the armed forces.
  11. mojohed2012
    mojohed2012 18 September 2014 10: 34
    +2
    It’s interesting here by types and types of equipment which list will be.
    Apparently the tanks - Armata, Т72б3, T-90 and related vehicles based on them BREM, etc.
    on the main shooting - ak-12 or AEK.
    Sau - MSTA-S, Coalition.
    on BBM - BTR 82А (before boomerang), boomerang; armored vehicles: Tiger, Wolf, Bear, Typhoon; BMP: BMP-2M with a thermal imager, and based on the same Kurgan and Almaty.
    by types of ships - while chaos. Yes / no aircraft carrier, helicopter carrier, corvette, frigate - the composition and types are not yet clear.
    according to MLRS - Grad (until it remains so), Tornado, Hurricane.
    on planes is also chaos. They order different types and types. Piece delivery.
    for air defense - here the regiments go, which pleases. Apparently there will be C-400 and C-500, Tunguska, Shell-S, BUK, etc.
    on the Strategic Missile Forces - Topol-M, Liner, extension to mine missiles, mace.
    and so on.
    I wrote because I would like to know more specifically. What is the secret here? Declassified equipment and supplied is already known. what to leave.
    1. max702
      max702 18 September 2014 11: 54
      +1
      They forgot about turntables .. Why the hell do two types of KA-52 and MI-28 for the same tasks but completely different in parts, operation and training .. Idiocy! They would rivet a pair of KA-50 KA-52, and transport workers would leave Milevtsi. No, lobbyists from a mile wanted a piece of cake from attack helicopters! And now they will be cursed by the troops, serving two types of different equipment with all the resulting haemorrhoids .. Asked a question here like what did the GAZ52-53 produce in the USSR with the excellent ZIL130? The fact that the first one was a bit cheaper, well, so, and for all the other features, he and Zil did not stand next to him, but it’s not clear ..
  12. arristo
    arristo 18 September 2014 10: 37
    +1
    Finally, they are moving to modular systems. That is precisely at all exhibitions that the universal chassis with blocks in place of the tower from various systems with a single control bus is being promoted! Apparently, there will be a single machine gun and a single block automatic rifle. If gunsmiths have come to this, why not centralize it?
    1. nomad
      nomad 18 September 2014 11: 07
      +1
      Yeah, I wanted a trunk from a three-inch put on PM. laughing This means completely different. We have been producing all block production for a long time. Take our tanks - only change the guns.
  13. erased
    erased 18 September 2014 10: 37
    +1
    Really guessed? It’s a miracle. Not even a century has passed! Who, interestingly, was smart enough to guess?
    It's time to do it. And to restrain businessmen from the military, who rivet something there, and then drag in the army. Strict state order, objective competition and the strictest selection !!! And then 3-5 types of tanks, up to ten armored vehicles, a dozen submachine guns will not be simultaneously in service.
    But it is interesting, in this aspect, how will the presence of two of the same type of turntables Ka-52 and Mi-28 look in the army? It seems that the Ka-52 surpasses the Mi in many ways. Or leave in order to support the manufacturer?
    1. SV
      SV 18 September 2014 19: 38
      0
      It seems that the Ka-52 surpasses the Mi in many ways.

      I wonder why then foreign customers do not look in the direction of the spacecraft in terms of procurement, in contrast to MI ???
  14. Akvadra
    Akvadra 18 September 2014 10: 44
    0
    Liked the comparison with the Kalash. How many years have been in the ranks, and the possibilities of modernization do not dry out. In general, I am silent about unification. (perfumes in Afghanistan made and repaired them right in their shops). Every student knows (or knew) how to use it. Still, the best in the world!
  15. MIV999
    MIV999 18 September 2014 10: 47
    +2
    The Russian army will have fewer types of weapons and military equipment.

    It’s not for me to judge the seriousness of this problem and the correctness of the decision made - I’m not special here request ...
    But I really hope that this decision is well-founded and that the military made it soldier rather than effective managers at the level of Serdyukov-Vasiliev wassat ...
    I want this decision to increase the combat effectiveness of our aircraft, and not the bank account of the next thief
  16. nomad
    nomad 18 September 2014 10: 51
    +1
    I did not understand anything from the article. We have created several arms manufacturing concerns in Russia. What does each of them have in their particular field. They were going to be rebuilt - to let out tanks together with planes! Anyway, modifications will be issued. They are what they will do now all disposable - like cups!
    1. Bolshevik
      Bolshevik 18 September 2014 12: 57
      0
      Just old types of weapons will be given to terrorists, militias, Kyrgyz, Mongols and Negroes, and the army will leave new, unified ones. T-80 in the Donbass due to unification.
  17. Su35
    Su35 18 September 2014 10: 53
    +2
    Here the war is not far off and they save on the army negative
  18. Lopatov
    Lopatov 18 September 2014 11: 07
    +5
    I'm afraid of such statements. It would not have splashed out with the water and the child. They love to do this with us.
  19. Victor1
    Victor1 18 September 2014 11: 07
    +5
    a rather controversial decision, highly specialized equipment has more advantages, but for reservists or untrained mobilized people, you can introduce additional. technique. Again, competition among designers improves quality. It seems to me that they are going the wrong way, unification should be an addition, and not to the detriment of everything else.
    1. Armata
      Armata 18 September 2014 11: 16
      +3
      Quote: Victor1
      a rather controversial decision, highly specialized equipment has more advantages, but for reservists or untrained mobilized people, you can introduce additional. technique. Again, competition among designers improves quality. It seems to me that they are going the wrong way, unification should be an addition, and not to the detriment of everything else.
      Gold words. Only our design bureau was destroyed long ago, there are practically no competent designers, only draftsmen with a tower remained. My unforgettable teacher (his blessed memory) always said "A real designer should read a lot, be able to count on a ruler. Computers kill imagination and neutralize thought."
      1. nomad
        nomad 18 September 2014 11: 25
        +3
        I agree with the line. While you move it all the thought continues to work. He advanced to the result and realized that it was not necessary to do so. winked Seriously, I checked myself more than once.
      2. Demon0n
        Demon0n 18 September 2014 13: 17
        0
        Quote: Armata
        Quote: Victor1
        a rather controversial decision, highly specialized equipment has more advantages, but for reservists or untrained mobilized people, you can introduce additional. technique. Again, competition among designers improves quality. It seems to me that they are going the wrong way, unification should be an addition, and not to the detriment of everything else.
        Gold words. Only our design bureau was destroyed long ago, there are practically no competent designers, only draftsmen with a tower remained. My unforgettable teacher (his blessed memory) always said "A real designer should read a lot, be able to count on a ruler. Computers kill imagination and neutralize thought."


        1 The decision is indisputable if you follow the principles of rationality, optimization, etc. Those. everything that brings chaos to a calculated order. Illustrative examples (from comments): 2 types of attack helicopters (hereinafter - a detailed description of the object (s) in a full chain), missile launchers in the fleet, and ships (similarly, deploy in a full chain). Expand the chain: a set of parts, a set of resources (in a general sense), methods and tools ... "for the production of a part" and further along the technological chain (do not forget about design).
        2 The creative potential of a person does not depend on the tool used for his development in a given context (computers). "Pedagogy and psychology" + "motivation and stimulation" (as general concepts, ie applicable, both in the main / subject - psychology, and in areas with addiction - all others) to help. Those. "this" is from a completely different area (s): the tool and the problem can intersect if the tool is universal (example to A.1, which unambiguously refutes the opposing idiom), but the problem does not depend on the tool in any way (the apple fell because it is acted upon by force gravitational, and not vice versa). By the way, thank you for a good example (no kidding).

        The only thing that I share (concerns) is the impossibility of expedient rational optimization in certain areas, cases, etc. (you need to speak and explain, from the side you need to listen and hear, in addition to "do as they say!"). An example, you have already given earlier in the comments.
      3. anarky
        anarky 18 September 2014 14: 06
        0
        That's just the development speed using CAD is much higher and cheaper. But you continue with the ruler, yeah.
  20. tundra
    tundra 18 September 2014 11: 40
    +3
    A simple life example. A long-distance garage, five cars were assembled from the flight, (rarely this usually happens no more than three), pre-scheduled repairs begin, one turbine should be changed, another compressor, the third muffler burned out. the radiator would solder. In each specific case, work for half a day but the mechanic is in soap, because one is needed for the actress, the other for daf, the third for mans, everything needs to be bought and it is from that model that there is even a difference for years. And only the driver of Scania had finished and was drinking beer, because Scania was standing next to her without documents and, therefore, did not need to go anywhere. Without turbulence, she slyly removed the turbine and put it on the chassis machine, the problem was solved. And then a new turbine will be put on the donor’s car without rushing a fitter. This is just a real case from a peaceful life, and if you don’t get out of stock bases, and rem bases in isolation from supply bases, it’s not possible to carry everything with you on a varied list.
  21. Lone gunman
    Lone gunman 18 September 2014 12: 23
    +2
    Is that how it is ?! I am for diversity, well, as in sex, and here we are missionary and no more, no ... negative Is that all sanctions ?! it’s time to wrap YOUR dolar already ...
    1. soviet skytourist
      soviet skytourist 18 September 2014 23: 45
      +1
      I’m wondering how many people watched the video, here you can’t help it with one whisper - here you need to understand the essence of what is happening
  22. killganoff
    killganoff 18 September 2014 13: 17
    +1
    It's like creating a "single" aircraft for the armed forces in aviation - the PAK FA (Advanced Aviation Complex of Frontline Aviation) is a multipurpose aircraft, they want to see it as an interceptor, fighter, frontline bomber and attack aircraft - a kind of duck, and it can fly and even swim ... but will she be able to withstand the hawk in the air and with whom will she compete on the water ???! The most striking example of unification - "Bulava", decided to use the land "poplar" in the marine environment ... The amounts of funds spent are astronomical.
    1. anarky
      anarky 18 September 2014 13: 57
      0
      But on the ground, under the ground, under the water and on the rails, there will be one rocket, which in the upcoming re-equipment of the Strategic Missile Forces from Soviet junk will give the same economy and speed of production. In general, unification is a long-standing and general trend in the sun. Unification is always expensive and the mace flew by the way. And the Gauges flew, and the PAK FA flew, and the overseas partners F-35 flew.
  23. tokens2
    tokens2 18 September 2014 13: 46
    0
    Unification is good. While nuclear weapons play the first violin.
    Of course not from a good life. Rather, from uncertainty.
    The scientific and technical life of thought in "nature" is also becoming obsolete, together with the factories that embody ideas.
    And as in a joke ... indeed, tractors will be indistinguishable from tanks laughing Which for s \ x is not bad at all laughing
    As I understand it, a lot of "surprises" can be hung on a unified platform and changed for each specific task.
  24. Pnempen83
    Pnempen83 18 September 2014 15: 15
    0
    We can talk about "Armata", "Kurganets", etc. seeing computer models. I already wrote that I would not be surprised if "Armata" turns out to be seventy-two or eighty. According to the technical characteristics of the customer (MO), it is impossible to create an absolutely new one now. With the terms of reference, "Armata", "Kurganets", etc. must have super protection, have super speed, at the same time they must fit into the railway gauge 02-T, overcome water obstacles like walking dry land, capable of being transported by sea and air transport, and be landing. But let me agree, there are many water barriers in Russia, especially in the Far East. I wonder if a trough weighing 35-40 tons will protect the infantry. Will it float? So are the tanks. At the moment, there can be no single platform. Technology and production will not allow. 25 years the military-industrial complex destroyed, whether ... engineers, assemblers, etc. And now they gave the loot and everything went well? Adults, but you believe in fairy tales. In Soviet times, a car from the factory came with a range of 102-110 km. And now from the vaunted Tagil 150-170. This suggests that there was a jamb and a repeated test run What "armata", what "Kurgan"? Bluff. Until the breakthrough, 10-15 years regardless of costs. And most importantly, when the crew will be considered the main detail. I beg your pardon, but for more than 30 years such an opinion was formed in the armored troops.
  25. Dimka off
    Dimka off 18 September 2014 16: 15
    0
    But they are in vain. There must be a choice for the army. After all, how many wonderful samples are there now. And if you cut everything and do a small amount, it seems to me that some designers from unemployment but with brilliant thoughts will recover over the hill in search of a better life.