Military Review

Intrigues around recycling

Intrigues around recycling

"Russia is focusing!" This phrase of Gorchakov, so extracted in time from archival dust, has become the slogan of the current moment for our country.

Where to start focusing? Logic suggests: first, as the divers say, “look around in the compartments” - are we doing everything right, what should we change first of all in the economy?

Can you do anything so that you don’t invest and benefit? Can. Take, for example, the rational use of armaments and military equipment (IWT) released for various reasons. At the hearing is now the buzzword "recycling". If you believe the dictionaries, dispose of it "to apply with benefit." Is there really a lot of benefit in our disposal of the released AME?


The national weapons and military equipment disposal program was born in the middle of 90's. Then the surging shaft of the disarmament treaties brought down to the surface of the mountain an abbreviated technique with which it was necessary to do something. It was decided that the “use with benefit” of even simple steel or colored scrap is already a profitable business. It is worthwhile to accumulate advanced technologies, to rationally set up the state system, and by the year of 2000 recycling will turn into self-sufficiency.

But, like many good intentions in Russia, and 20 years later, the recycling program not only does not go to "zero", but it works with a huge minus.

According to the Accounts Chamber, the government allocated almost 2011 billion rubles to the goals of the IWT utilization program in 2012 – 7,54, while planning to return only 1,6 billion rubles to the budget through product sales. In fact, 50 million has returned to the budget today.

What is the reason for this situation? The fact that recycling itself turned out to be a stepdaughter, and its main participants are not interested in financial results, but in the process.

The state, in the interests of which to establish the most profitable utilization, did not bother to bring the completed legal base for it. In May 1996 of the year, the Law “On Defense” was adopted, according to which the government was to develop a procedure for the elimination of the AMS, which would also regulate in detail the preferred type of liquidation - disposal. To this day, things are still there. The draft government decree that year already wanders around the offices. The departments of the Ministry of Defense (MO), the Military Industrial Commission (MIC), the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Ministry of Finance, Roscosmos, etc., create it. will not come to a common denominator on basic concepts.


The lead customer on the part of the state in matters of the elimination (disposal) of weapons and military equipment is the MO. However, it is not interested in any way in the shortest time of disposal, nor in the maximum profit.

The reasons are simple.

First of all, the Ministry of Defense does not have any rigid frameworks regarding the timeframe for the elimination of equipment, even already included in the state recycling program. The “do not ask” equipment to be eliminated - the military does not bear any special expenses for its storage. Illustration of this approach: For two years the MoD, without any good reason, did not conclude contracts for the disposal of armored vehicles, and this did not bother anyone.

Secondly, with the profit from the sale of recycling products, the picture is even sadder. The requirements of GOSTs to use the return potential of the recycled products with the maximum benefit are simply ignored. Why? Neither the state customer (MO), nor the executors are interested, that the volume of products of the disposal of the HEAT goes beyond the minimum specified in the contract. The monopolistic customer signs only fixed-price contracts that have been won in “downward” tenders. The initial tender maximum price is calculated according to templates and initially provides for both the minimum amount of work - transportation, disassembly and cutting, without selecting suitable elements for further use, and the minimum set of recycled products - non-ferrous, ferrous and precious metals scrap, without repairable components and components. From the moment of signing the contract, the MO is only interested in the contractor taking out the equipment on time, providing controlled stages to the military acceptance and transferring the money in the amount of the estimated profit to the MO accounts. This money in full will immediately go to the budget, without adding anything to the department itself: the sale of federal property belongs to non-tax revenues.

The contractor, driven into the framework of an unrealistic price and a scant amount of work, is not interested in going beyond the contract list of recycling products - recyclables, risking not to meet the tight deadlines. Even if he sells recycling products at 10 times more expensive, he will not receive a penny in addition to his contract price and runs the risk of running into a lawsuit if he doesn’t meet the deadline. An example is widely known in narrow circles: one tank repair plant proposed to prepare and sell demilitarized chassis instead of scrap metal. With titanic efforts, he secured a personal signature on the changes already from the very previous minister, transferred 250% of the planned profit to the budget, and miraculously escaped the trial. While the MoD itself wondered for half a year whether to allow the contractor to benefit the state or not to allow, the contract expired and the military representatives were not slow to make a complaint.

Repeating this "feat" of those who want it is not, and scarce units and aggregates go to scrap, at the price of the metal.

They go, but soon return to the same MO and repair enterprises in the form of suitable, but not certified spare parts.

At this point, a carefully concealed, but clearly perceived “third party” emerges to the surface, which receives a huge profit from the magical transformation of scrap bought for pennies into a scarce expensive part.


It was repeatedly discussed in the press that spare parts for the repair of aircraft equipment are a huge market, closed by a curtain of secrecy, which is easy to protect from outsiders and to be entrusted only to the elect. It has a limited number of authorized monopolists. Often they are headed by retired high-ranking military, with connections to the technical services of the Ministry of Defense. Having reliable information about the state of equipment transferred for recycling, they buy demilitarized standing products for the price of scrap. At this moment, a truly masterful approach is included: everything that is even slightly suitable is carefully dismantled, cleaned, tinted and transformed without much effort into “marketable products”.

“Commercial products” follows two paths.

The first way is a simple element base that is sold under the guise of a new one to some manufacturers, in whose hands it is legalized as part of a new certified more complex product. The final product, although it is subject to warranty repair by the manufacturer, contains untested scrap components that can break at the most inopportune moment.

The second way - the sale of waste "goods" repairmen under the guise of uncertified suitable node or unit raises even more questions. The recognized scrap metal cannot in any way without additional serious research and exposure suddenly become legally a useful component. Nevertheless, the semi-wizards "wizards" make this transformation with a flick of the wrist. The sale of “demilitarized chassis” mentioned above is an element of the semi-legalization of the second way. I am sure that from the purchased demilitarized chassis only a tiny part of it was used in the national economy, the majority were bought for disassembly for parts and for further resale to the same MO. At first glance, it seems to be normal: even in the troops, there is a practice of removing components from working equipment and putting them on requiring repair, making two or three cars one. But the fundamental difference is that when dismantled by the military, the spare part does not leave the user's field of view, it has a transparent history, reliable information on the operating time, state and potential residual life. In the case of a “non-certified suitable assembly or unit,” no one is responsible for the condition of this part and its residual life, and this is the main problem. This part will work for a year or a day - nobody knows.

Can I do without the "black" parts? With the existing recycling system - no. According to some information, there are practically no new components for most types of military equipment being repaired - their production either remained abroad or was discontinued.

Is it possible to make "black" parts "white", legal spare parts, with a traced history, a restored resource and a guarantee?

Yes, it is possible, and, most importantly, without any gigantic effort. You just need to slightly modify the utilization system itself.

First, it is necessary to finally issue the main administrative document on liquidation (recycling) - a government decree. It should clearly formulate the unconditional requirement for the federal body to ensure, as a result of the disposal of weapons and military equipment, not just a formal deliverance from surplus at any cost, but a real maximum return for the state, the maximum return per taxpayer ruble invested initially in their creation. It is the degree of return on investment, and not only the formal general signs of transactions that should become the focus of attention of the competent authorities.

Secondly, dismantling and troubleshooting of repairable components and assemblies should be included in the process of utilization of weapons and military equipment as the main and mandatory step. The detection should be carried out not formally, according to the general category of validity of the entire product, and specifically on individual blocks and only on the production base by specialists of organizations licensed to manufacture or repair a specific type of equipment. It would be reasonable to immediately include in the disposal contract the requirements for the restoration of the resource of the dismantled parts and their storage in the interests of the Ministry of Defense.

Thirdly, only those units and assemblies that are deficient for aircraft and for which demand is not satisfied with industrial production, should be defective and selected for restoration. A government decree on the procedure for liquidation (disposal) should include a requirement for the federal agency, the Ministry of Defense, for the creation and maintenance of a database on the need for refurbished parts, with the nomenclature and quantity, including for foreign deliveries. Such a constantly updated base of scarce parts, components and assemblies will be a guide for the detection of recyclable equipment. It may not be led by a subdivision of the Defense Ministry, which is already cramped in personnel, but by the contractor on the basis of a separate contract.

The nomenclature from the list of components of weapons and military equipment that are in short supply is not allowed to be sold either in restored or maintainable form, is subject to restoration under government contracts and is directed primarily to the needs of the Armed Forces of Russia.

Licensed enterprises repairing scarce spare parts under government contracts should be recognized by the official manufacturers of refurbished spare parts, and the recovered scarce spare parts with an officially established guaranteed resource should be recognized as suitable for use in the repair of weapons and military equipment both in Russia and abroad.

Dismantled from the recyclable equipment, components and assemblies of species deficient for the Armed Forces, which do not have any visually detectable accidental defects, can be sent for recycling into secondary raw materials only after they are determined to be unsuitable for repair. Components recognized as unsuitable for repair should be brought to a state that does not allow their further use, except in the form of secondary raw materials.

Of particular note is the importance of including in such a base the requirements for foreign deliveries. Currently, for the repair of equipment supplied abroad, only new parts are used. Soviet and Russian equipment, for which new parts are not made, is abandoned and is gradually being superseded by analogues of foreign competitors. In the transition to the possibility of using warranty parts with a restored resource for a foreign customer, the demand for an optimized approach to the disposal of weapons and military equipment increases several times. Deliveries abroad of warranty remanufactured spare parts in combination with the creation of a field repair system, which the FSMTC is currently actively working on, will raise Russian military-technical cooperation to a new level.


Separately, it should be pointed out that it is the government resolution on elimination (recycling), rather than the private provisions of contracts, that should legally provide for such a budget zero option as the possibility of transferring recycling products to the performer at no cost as payment for the work done.

Zero recycling, organized wisely, will be of great benefit. The figures cited above show that the state spends five times more on the disposal of weapons and military equipment, five times more than it even plans to get back, and in 150 more times than it actually receives. If the zero utilization scheme were applied in 2011 – 2012, the budget profit would not be 1,6 billion rubles, but all 7,54 billion, due to the total savings of the total planned costs.

Contracts for the disposal of weapons and military equipment - a tasty morsel for enterprises. Photos from the official website of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

Will the industry go to zero? In certain cases, companies simply dream about it. Recently, in the zero variant, ammunition was offered for utilization over the state program. The enterprises not only took everything, but asked for it again: their costs for the royalty-free recycling are paid for using the metal and explosives obtained to make a different order. The benefit of the state goes far beyond the apparent savings in budget funds for the payment of work. After all, an enterprise not only creates for itself an object of activity at the expense of raw materials paid for with its recycling work, but also adds value, sells a product and pays taxes to the treasury. People are busy with work, they get paid, taxes and social deductions are paid again.

The most striking example of the benefits of the zero option is the donation of strategic launch vehicles for launch utilization. For the state, expensive recycling turned into a gold mine: not only saved more than 20 million rubles. on each rocket, but, according to estimates, brought an even greater amount to the budget due to tax payments and social contributions. Moreover, the combat crews of the launching division began to receive regularly the invaluable experience of real launches, and the part that was not very popular earlier because of its remoteness became the most prestigious among officers looking for a good career.

Finally, the system for the disposal of weapons and military equipment, in addition to stringent requirements and the prospects for punishment, should provide an incentive for the customer and the contractor to provide the maximum financial or material return to the state. Such a system in terms of customer, already existed, but in the year 2008 was buried. According to the previously existing scheme, the federal contracting authority had the right to keep the proceeds from the disposal of the funds and send them not only to subsequent disposal, but also to other urgent needs, for example, the purchase of apartments for military personnel.

The practice of leaving funds from recycling in the customer’s budget in whole or in part should be restored. Having an incentive in the form of the opportunity to use part of the income from the sale of recycling products, the customer and the contractor will give the most profitable options to the state.

It would be good to consolidate all of the above in the main document currently lacking - the resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation “On the procedure for the elimination of weapons and military equipment in the Russian Federation”. The very thing that that year will not be published in any way because of the disputes of the coordinating bodies.


What is the reason for the disputes? The fact is that the Ministry of Defense, which originally prepared the document, wrote it, as they say, “for themselves”.

The basic concepts of the draft resolution “liquidation of the VVST” and “disposal of the VVST” seem not to be doubted by any of the participants in the discussion.

A clash of opinions takes place around the part that fills the term “recycling” with real meaning, describes what is done before liquidation, what gets into recycling as an object and what products are produced at the output.

According to the proposals of the Ministry of Defense, before the transfer of the decommissioned equipment for liquidation, the federal authorities (read – MO) de facto start and finish the disposal themselves. In addition to the completely logical decommissioning, declassification and preparation for transportation, they also organize and implement "... demilitarization, dismantling and recording of components and components that are potentially suitable for further use to ensure the operation and repair of weapons and military equipment, directly or after it has been installed the order of measures to restore their resource. " At the same time, all the basic terms of delivery, the nomenclature, quantity, completeness and other features of the transfer of weapons and military equipment for liquidation are established in contracts prepared by all the same officials from the MoD.

Those reading between the lines will immediately see that no industrial processing or recycling is foreseen in this version, everything again formally boils down to the re-melting of useless scrap, that is, the final legitimization of the absolutely economical system that exists today. In fact, the MoD, through these formulations, is trying to secure for itself the unrestricted freedom of action that exists today, both with respect to equipment and maintainable spare parts, and to the participation of industry in the disposal of weapons and military equipment. Bringing the dismantling of repairable parts beyond the scope of the liquidation process, it makes the process uncontrollable.

How so?

Firstly, the Ministry of Defense reserves the exclusive right to decide whether to dismantle any maintainable, even if scarce, elements at all. This is exactly what is happening now: IWT is transferred for recycling without any flaw detection, in the scrap category. If the decree does not instruct to make a mandatory flaw detection, it will never be - on it, as in its time for cutting ammunition, it will save.

Secondly, planning on the technique, which has not yet been transferred to liquidation, but “utilization in the military” under the jurisdiction of the Defense Ministry, the department goes beyond its authority and technical capabilities. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation on 16 of August 2004 of the year No. 1082 does not include disposal of the MO issues, and repair units in the troops (reps) are still very far from meeting the level of average military repairs prescribed by the Minister. For fault detection, determination of maintainability and especially restoration of the resource of parts and units they have neither a base nor frames. Here we need factory specialists and plant conditions, the presence of which in its structure this summer, the leadership of the Ministry of Defense has loudly refused.

In essence, there is an attempt, through a government decree, to legitimize something that has been left so long and painfully with the “disposal of ammunition”. If you look at it, the degree of effectiveness of shipment of weapons of military equipment without fault detection of everything that can and should be returned to service is absolutely equal to the effectiveness of the explosion, with a difference in the object - a different type of weapon. Such a “constructive proposal” by the military from the interdepartmental control of industry and the military industrial complex effectively removes the main part of the disposal, giving meaning to the whole process - “use with benefit”.

The wording proposed by the Ministry of Defense in the resolution of the government must be radically changed. In the pre-liquidation functions of the MO, only the depreservation inherent to it, transportation, and dismantling of secret equipment should remain. All subsequent actions, starting with demilitarization, disassembly and fault detection, are an integral part of industrial processing (utilization) for the subsequent rational use of all the resulting useful products.

Recycling products - the next stumbling block. The panelists opposed the exemption of the disposal of the most valuable, aggregate components from the disposal products. The Ministry of Finance has most clearly formulated its position for today: the department is ready to return to agreeing on the text of the resolution only after, apart from secondary resources, the planned disposal products will also include components, assemblies and products for national economic purposes.

Industry has its own specific wishes.

The first of these concerns the place of work. For a long time, the customer, formally observing the letter of the law on licensing, insisted on carrying out disposal only at the facilities for which the license was obtained by the contractor. It forced without the need to carry equipment over thousands of kilometers, repeatedly increased the cost of the contract, added risk to the process. The clarifications of the Rosoboronzakaz on the results of a joint study with the Ministry of Industry and Trade and the Ministry of Justice to work out alternative options somewhat lessened the severity of the problem. Nevertheless, a clear statement in the government decree that work, which does not require special production conditions, can be carried out not only at the place of licensing, but also at the location of the equipment or in another contractual place, is extremely necessary for the case.

Directly related to the previous issue of transportation of equipment to the place of disposal. It is much more difficult and more expensive for industrial enterprises to organize its relocation than for the military, all the more so since the terms of handing over this equipment to the customer are not always respected. It is advisable to deliver the equipment to the place of disposal as part of military transport, and to receive and transmit equipment at the end point. This, in particular, will allow to isolate the specific cost of disposal by type, put it in the bidding criteria and provide an opportunity to compete in essential parameters, stimulate the maximum range of work at the location of equipment and save budget funds: military transportation is paid at more sparing tariffs. By the way, this is exactly the scheme used now for the disposal of ammunition: the interested military themselves deliver them to the enterprises.

The next series of wishes is directly related to the end result - the planned disposal products.

If, as a result of recycling, the customer wants to obtain maintainable deficient blocks and aggregates, then the equipment should come to the contractor in the maximum possible complete form. Of course, before the transfer, the military can take off and put in advance repair elements that are known to be in good condition, however, logically, there should be a very small number of items written off.

There are wishes on the forms for the decommissioned equipment. Now they are destroyed in the army, instantly resetting all information about the operating time and the previous repair of elements. It is also necessary that the forms are transferred to the utilizer for use during inspection.

Disposal is the reverse process of creating technology in terms of both content and results. Therefore, it is necessary to approach its participants in terms of reasonable sufficiency of requirements. Of course, there are types of weapons and military equipment, the disposal of which requires special capabilities and special qualifications. When disposing of tanks, guns, armored vehicles only the stage of defect detection (if any) requires a license for production or repair. Disassemble equipment and sort, cut the scrap, and even in the field, can any certified organization that follows the agreed technical process and has the required technical equipment and personnel. In other words, on the one hand, to obtain a license for the disposal of, for example, small arms weapons, RAV and armored vehicles do not need to have their own huge and complex machine park, on the other hand, if defects are required, bidders must show that they have contractual obligations with an organization licensed to manufacture or repair, and a well-developed delivery scheme for its area of ​​dismantled defective components.

Access to recycling products is also important for enterprises. Now the manufacturer can not act as a buyer of these products. Such a ban must be lifted: among the non-deficient components and assemblies that go to the scrap, there may be those that are necessary for the company for third-party work, and it may be itself interested in buying.

As mentioned earlier, the recommendations and wishes are simple and clear and their implementation can finally get the matter moving forward with the preparation of a government decree creating an effective IWT disposal system.

Shifting this issue is in the direct jurisdiction of the Military Industrial Commission.

Quite recently, the military industrial complex acquired a new quality, passed into the category of higher structures of the state executive power.

It is hoped that now its new, almost unlimited administrative possibilities will finally allow to complete the long protracted process around the disposal of weapons and military equipment quickly and with due benefit for the state: in the era of cost savings we are experiencing, not only a quick mind, but also a zealous owner are in demand.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. aszzz888
    aszzz888 29 November 2014 05: 16 New
    Write off the old iron and replace with ALL new weapons, while there is still time.
    1. nils
      nils 29 November 2014 08: 58 New
      Disposal of ammunition by "detonation method":

      14 May 1992 year, the arsenal of the Pacific Fleet exploded in Vladivostok.
      14 on May 1994 of the year a fire in the warehouse of aviation ammunition - Vladivostok.
      20 October 1994 of the year the fire of ammunition depots of the Pskov Airborne Division.
      30 March 1995 years exploded 2 thousand tons of ammunition near the village of Talovy (Primorye).
      On 27 April 1997 there was an explosion of ammunition in army depots near the village of Bira (Jewish Autonomous Region).
      November 11 1997 of the year, a fire at a mine and torpedo warehouse in the village of Gornostai (Primorye).
      February 25 1998 of the year, a fire in army warehouses in the Volgograd region. 1600 shells exploded.
      4 June 1998 year near Arzamas, a train with ammunition to be disposed of exploded.
      16 June 1998 years fire in the ammunition depots of the Ural military district in the village Losiny. 11 people died, 17 injured, 1 went missing.
      12 June 1999 year an explosion at artillery depots in the item. Columban (Volgograd region).
      18 May 2000 year an explosion at artillery depots near St. Petersburg.
      21 May 2000 year an explosion at an ammunition depot near the port of Vanino (Primorye).
      21 June 2001 years fire and explosions in the army warehouse of Nerchinsk (Chita region)
      21 of September 2001 of the year a fire in artillery depots near the village of Gusinoe Ozero in 120 km from Ulan-Ude.
      10 July 2002 year, a fire in the warehouse of the Main Rocket and Artillery Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation in the village of Serdovina near Syzran.
      16 October 2002 years of fire and explosions in the Pacific Fleet's ammunition depot in Vladivostok.
      19 June 2003 years fire at the warehouse of the artillery base in the area of ​​n. Norsk in the Selemdzhinsky district of the Amur region.
      17 May 2005 years fire and explosions in the repair shop of depth charges in the Kronstadt military garrison.
      30 of September 2005 of the year fire and detonation in open areas where ammunition intended for disposal was stored in the village of South Koryaki (Kamchatka).
      23 on May 2008 of the year, a fire in the warehouse of aviation ammunition of the military unit 10232 of the 6 Army of the Air Force and Air Defense.
      November 13 2009 of the year, a fire at an ammunition depot in the Zavolzhsky District of Ulyanovsk.
      23 June 2010 in the village of Seltsy, Rybinsk district of Ryazan region, an explosion occurred.
      On 3 July 2010 years in 9 km from Biysk (Altai Territory) there was an explosion at a military training ground, which killed six people.
      6 July 2010 year, a major of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation was killed, the senior warrant officer received severe burns as a result of an explosion during the disposal of ammunition by military personnel at a training ground near Saratov.
      28 October 2010 of the year there was a fire in military depots with ammunition in the area of ​​the village of Arga, Seryshevsky district, Amur region.
      11 March 2011 year at the Donguz test site in the Orenburg region there was a spontaneous explosion. As a result, one conscript soldier died.
      On 6 on April 2011, a fire occurred at the central base for storing and disposing of ammunition in the village of Kadinka (Lipetsk Region).
      On 26 on May 2011, a fire broke out in an open ammunition storage area near a military arsenal near the village of Urman in the Iglinsky district of Bashkiria, resulting in explosions of shells.
      On the night of June 3, 2011, a fire occurred at the 102 artillery arsenal in Udmurtia, accompanied by explosions of shells, 100 people were injured.
      On 23 of August 2011 of the year at the Ashuluk training ground in the Astrakhan region eight soldiers were killed, about ten were injured.
      2 May 2012 year near Nizhny Novgorod in the Mulin garrison killed five soldiers of the 9-th separate motorized rifle brigade, three were injured.
      On the evening of 18 on June 2013, the village of Nagorny, (Chapaevsk, Samara Region), the ammunition stored at the training ground detonated for an unknown reason.
      Until 1991, no similar facts were found.

      SAD ALONE!
      1. usinsk 71
        usinsk 71 29 November 2014 13: 02 New
        wrong word ... criminal!
    2. Giant thought
      Giant thought 29 November 2014 09: 44 New
      Perhaps, given the difficult external situation and the impending war, the disposal should be postponed for a while, and the released funds should be used to release new weapons.
  2. Vasily Ivashov
    Vasily Ivashov 29 November 2014 05: 34 New
    To the author plus. One feels that a person is well versed in production and technological cycles. The legal component of this area of ​​the economy is not alien to him. There is knowledge - it’s already good, and the desire is added to them so that everything is businesslike - this is generally excellent.
  3. Afinogen
    Afinogen 29 November 2014 06: 10 New
    The most striking example of the benefits of the zero option is the gratuitous transfer of strategic launch vehicles for disposal by launch method.

    Not a bad option good I would add a start on the Nazis laughing We must give these weapons to New Russia, threefold use, we will help the guys, we will destroy the Nazis and utilize the weapons.
    1. sv68
      sv68 29 November 2014 06: 59 New
      Afinogen good this is the only correct option good plus to you from me.
    2. ya.seliwerstov2013
      ya.seliwerstov2013 29 November 2014 10: 52 New
      destroy the Nazis and utilize weapons.
      How could fascism grow again?
      And to revive human hysteria ...
      And save Ukraine from death,
      Today only Russia can ...
  4. valokordin
    valokordin 29 November 2014 08: 30 New
    Quote: Athenogen
    Not a bad good option. I would add laughing for the Nazis. We must give this weapon to New Russia, threefold use, we will help the guys, we will destroy the Nazis and utilize the weapons.

    And this is the only option, and you need to dispose of most of the government, together with the prime minister, Olenka Golodets and the husband of the most effective businesswoman.
  5. s.melioxin
    s.melioxin 29 November 2014 08: 45 New
    in the era of cost savings we are experiencing, not only a fast mind is required, but also a zealous owner
    Details and understanding is available + article. And I liked the conclusion, we will see.
  6. 4445333
    4445333 29 November 2014 09: 17 New
    In practice, this work is already being carried out. "Sevmash" uses previously purchased units (in 90.) after a corresponding operation with the manufacturer of these units.
  7. avvg
    avvg 29 November 2014 12: 50 New
    I agree with the author, the hope is only on the Military Industrial Commission, rather it’s necessary to cover the shops. Today the situation requires, every ruble from utilization should be directed to rearm the army.
    1. Penelope
      Penelope 29 November 2014 14: 32 New
      Or maybe the disposed property should be given away for free to the one who will be cutting it, and that one will use it at his discretion with a reservation on ammunition.
      1. Steel loli
        Steel loli 29 November 2014 15: 30 New
        Well, to whom you give for example the same 4000 T-80U that will be written off in 2015?
    2. The comment was deleted.
  8. O_RUS
    O_RUS 29 November 2014 14: 38 New
    "Is there so much use in our disposal of the released weapons and military equipment?"

    A lot or a little ... I think it depends on how seriously this issue is addressed. And today - part of the money goes into the pocket of a private trader.
  9. mivail
    mivail 30 November 2014 14: 02 New
    "In the era of economy we are experiencing, not only a quick mind is in demand, but also a prudent owner."
    It is unfortunate that this is a deficit in our country; most people think only about their own pockets.