Military Review

The National Interest: four weapons systems that should be abandoned

44
The military departments of various countries of the world regularly have to face accusations of excessive spending and inflating the defense budget. However, the military has an iron argument with which it is extremely difficult to argue. In such cases, they appeal to the defense of the country and the need to invest large amounts of money in its support. Such arguments often help to “fight back” from the legislators in the preparation of new budgets, but they are not able to completely rid the military of attacks. As a result, the topic of the expediency of certain projects is regularly raised, and there are also proposals to abandon them and thereby save money that could be spent more usefully.


The United States has the largest military budget in the world. According to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), in 2013, the US military spent 640 billions of dollars, which is 37% of all the military budgets of the planet. Naturally, such large numbers are subject to criticism. January 26 The National Interest published the American edition of Dave Majumdar entitled 4 Future US Weapons of War (“Four promising US weapons systems that should be abandoned now”). The author of the publication reviewed several new Pentagon projects that should be closed to save budget funds.

D. Majumdar begins his material with a reminder that the Pentagon spends billions of dollars annually on the development of new weapons and equipment, but some such projects do not lead to the expected result. The roots of this problem, among other things, lie in a rash order of systems and too high requirements for them. In addition, in some cases, the military department is not able to take into account all the threats that will be faced in the future. The following is the most interesting article in the 4 Future US Weapons of War Article: A list of four promising projects that should save a lot of money.

Ohio Replacement Project

D. Majumdar does not argue with the fact that the United States needs to maintain its strategic nuclear forces. Nevertheless, he drew attention to the excessive cost of such projects. Prospective Ohio Replacement ballistic missile submarines (SSBN-X), which are planned to be built in the future to replace existing Ohio-type submarines, will be significantly more expensive than their predecessors, but they will be able to carry fewer weapons.



If the command of the US naval forces is able to keep the cost of the Ohio Replacement program at an acceptable level, then the construction of each of the new submarines will cost the budget approximately 4,9 billion dollars. Thus, for the construction of 12 planned submarines have to pay about 59 billion. In addition, the American journalist recommends adding to this figure the possible costs of research and development, which is why the total cost of the program can reach 100 billions.

Such a high cost of promising submarine rocket carriers is due to the required use of new technologies and the latest equipment. Thus, it is planned to install a new nuclear reactor on Ohio Replacement-type submarines, which will be able to perform its functions during the entire service life of the boat, without requiring fuel replacement. At the request of the military, new submarines will have to remain in service for 42 years. Also, the equipment of promising submarines is supposed to include an electric motor based on a permanent magnet, which can provide higher performance in comparison with the existing technology, but is still not ready for use in practice, since it needs to be tested and refined. Finally, prospective submarines will have to use remote-controlled reconnaissance vehicles, which are yet to be developed, to monitor the environment.

From all this, D. Majumdar makes the appropriate conclusion: the US Navy really needs new strategic submarine missile carriers, but they should abandon the Ohio Replacement project in its current form. It is necessary to re-engage in shaping the appearance and requirements, so that promising submarines are less expensive and more complicated than those offered now.

UCLASS project

The second criticized project is the UCLASS unmanned aerial vehicle development program (Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike - “Unmanned deck reconnaissance and striking apparatus”). This machine was originally conceived as an unmanned platform for aircraft carriers, which could strike targets at a great distance from the ship. Since the nineties, after the removal of the Grumman A-6 Intruder aircraft and the refusal to develop a replacement for it, the deck aviation The United States was virtually left without such an attack. It was believed that the UCLASS UAV will allow aircraft carriers to destroy ground targets without approaching the coast at a dangerous distance and perform other attack tasks.

The National Interest: four weapons systems that should be abandoned


The author of the article 4 Future US Weapons Of War That Should Be Canceled Now reminds us that from the middle of the 2000s, when the UCLAASS project started, the requirements for this technique have changed significantly. In accordance with modern requirements, this device must have reduced visibility for the enemy’s radar and light weapons, as well as carry a set of reconnaissance equipment. That intelligence is considered its main task. Thus, a promising UAV will not be able to find wide application in the eastern Pacific, where major changes of a military-political nature are outlined. According to D. Majumdar, the UCLASS UAV is unlikely to help aircraft carriers maintain their capabilities in the future.

Behind the information about the features of the UCLASS project follows the corresponding sad conclusion: it should be closed. Instead of an apparatus with dubious prospects, a real unmanned combat aircraft should be developed that can overcome the enemy’s air defense and effectively accomplish the combat mission. In the meantime, the UCLASS project is associated only with extra spending by taxpayers' money.

Project Littoral Combat Ship

The project of the ships Littoral Combat Ship ("Coastal Battle Ship") or LCS is also called doubtful. D. Majumdar recalls that within the framework of this project, modular system ships were originally developed that could perform various combat missions. Depending on the task, the LCS had to fight surface ships and boats, search for submarines or mines, etc. However, as a result, promising ships became more expensive, which is why they can be called "white elephants". The LCS project was indeed brought to the stage of the serial construction of ships, but its cost significantly exceeded the estimated one.



The greatest problem of the LCS project in its current form concerns on-board equipment. A set of equipment designed to search and defeat surface targets, has already been developed, tested and used by the military. Other modules, with the help of which ships must search for sea mines and submarines, are not yet ready. Thus, at present, LCS ships are capable of solving only one type of tasks, even in this case they cannot boast of high efficiency. For work on land, air and coastal targets, only a 57 mm caliber gun and two 30 mm anti-aircraft guns can be used. Earlier it was planned to use missile weapons, but later it was abandoned. The possibility of installing a Norwegian NSM missile system on LCS ships is currently being considered, but in this case there may be some problems associated with the integration weapons on the finished ship.

The article by National Interest notes that the Pentagon took into account the existing shortcomings of the LCS project. As a result, in December last year, major changes were announced. Now it is planned to reduce the series of LCS ships being built according to the initial version of the project. The latest 20 of the planned coastal zone 52 ships will be built according to the updated SSC project (Small Surface Combatant - “Small Surface Combat”). The main difference of this project will be more powerful anti-ship and anti-submarine weapons.

D. Majumdar believes that the previous история LCS program does not allow to hope for its successful completion, even after the creation of an updated project with a new composition of equipment and weapons. In this case, the best way out of the situation may be a complete refusal to continue the work. In this case, it will be possible to save a lot of money, which can be allocated for the development of more promising projects.

Project M1A3 Abrams

Now the ground forces and a number of specialized enterprises of the defense industry are developing a new modification of the main combat tank M1 Abrams. As in other cases, this project has certain problems. Although the Abrams armored vehicle is still the "best tank in the world", its design was created more than three decades ago. According to official sources of The National Interest, during this time the modernization potential of the machine was completely exhausted. For this reason, the army does not need another modernization of old equipment, but a completely new tank.



The author of the article reminds: while the USA is engaged in the modernization of the existing tank, foreign countries are developing a completely new technique. Thus, a series of armored vehicles “Armat” is being created in Russia, and China is trying to keep up with world leaders in tank design. German military and constructors admit that they cannot upgrade their Leopard 2 indefinitely. Because of this, they are forced to start developing a new car with the symbol Leopard 3.

Thus, the Pentagon also needs to think about developing a new tank instead of upgrading the existing one. Such a project will ensure the required combat effectiveness of tank units and ensure superiority over the enemy. In addition, it will be possible to save the design school, which will have a beneficial effect on projects of the distant future.

***

Dave Majumdar conducted an interesting analysis of promising Pentagon projects that may be associated with extremely high unreasonable spending. For example, the construction of Ohio Replacement submarines alone can cost at least 59 billions of dollars. The exact cost of the UCLASS project will be determined later, after the choice of the machine developer. Probably, this project will cost the military several billion dollars. LCS ships should cost no more than 440-450 million dollars per unit, but by 2012 the total cost of the program, including the construction and testing of the first two ships, reached 3,8 billion. Thus, while maintaining the required unit cost, a series of ships will cost 22 more than a billion.

The proposals made in the article 4 Future US Weapons of War That Should Be Canceled Now are very interesting, because they save a few tens of billions of dollars by abandoning just four ambiguous and questionable projects. Naturally, the US military will need equipment and weapons of the same classes as the canceled designs, but with the right approach to their creation, serious savings can be made.

Nevertheless, this is just another critical publication in the press, and not a document from the White House or Congress. Perhaps, high-ranking Pentagon officials got acquainted with the proposal to abandon dubious expensive projects, but they are unlikely to take it into account. Therefore, the “four projects that should be closed” will continue and will lead to new spending of budget funds.


Article 4 Future US Weapons Of War That Should Be Canceled Now:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/4-future-us-weapons-war-should-be-canceled-now-12109
Author:
44 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Gans1234
    Gans1234 3 March 2015 05: 41
    +6
    Ahha, let them send everything for scrapping.

    Well, except for the ship - well, it’s beautiful, we must pay tribute, albeit useless - our Buyan-M will be more dangerous.
    And since when is Abrams the best tank in the world ??)
    Rather, Merkava / Deopard / T-90 dispute this statement
    1. Andrey_Irkutsk
      Andrey_Irkutsk 3 March 2015 06: 26
      +1
      Beautiful, but somehow flimsy, pay attention to how the skeleton of the case shines through the sheathing, and this suggests that sheathing is not ice ...
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 3 March 2015 08: 55
        +5
        Quote: Andrey_Irkutsk
        Beautiful, but somehow flimsy, pay attention to how the skeleton of the case shines through the sheathing, and this suggests that sheathing is not ice ...

        This is characteristic of any unarmored ship, for at such a thickness the properties of the metal to be deformed by temperature are clearly manifested.
        The same "skeletons"

    2. Bagnyuk
      Bagnyuk 3 March 2015 12: 49
      -26%
      our tanks suck .. how much can you repeat .. a blast furnace and a suicide car ...
      1. dali
        dali 3 March 2015 14: 18
        +15
        Your svidomist you ours really sucks.

        Read the materials about the T-90SM at the exhibition in Abu Dhabi ... and shoot yourself laughing

        shl
        Even the Belarusian flag will not hide you ... you our galloping ... laughing
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. olegactor
        olegactor 3 March 2015 19: 34
        0
        and you look at the pictures of lined abrams in Iraq .... a dead tanker from America looks very much on armor
      4. olegactor
        olegactor 3 March 2015 19: 34
        0
        and you look at the pictures of lined abrams in Iraq .... a dead tanker from America looks very much on armor
      5. VAVAN
        VAVAN 3 March 2015 21: 48
        +1
        what sucks? they fight everywhere on our tanks and that says a lot, I'd rather fight the t-90 than on expensive and useless pots and don’t have to make trouble
      6. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 3 March 2015 23: 24
        0
        Quote: Bagniuk
        our tanks suck .. how much can you repeat ..

        Only they are bought in MUCH more than all the others combined. Conclusion - either the military from 10 countries is dumber than you, or you are talking nonsense.
    3. olegactor
      olegactor 3 March 2015 19: 31
      0
      Yes, he wasn’t in one real battle .... an exhibition tank ... and they consider him the best .... these freaks have megalomania
  2. corporal
    corporal 3 March 2015 05: 48
    +9
    To be impartial, then, perhaps, in the place of an ordinary American (naturally from my point of view), I would agree about the redundancy of the tank and the coastal ship.
    Impact drone and a new submarine - good
    But this is only my IMHO ...
    Now I’ll try to explain:
    1- the tank is really outdated, both morally and conceptually. For with the development of new anti-tank systems, the tank is now more destitute than a combat weapon.
    2- coastal ship-? In the presence of a powerful coast guard and actually the fleet, and what for such a prodigy. So far, it seems, no one is going to land on the US coast as in Normandy in the 44th.
    So, in terms of cost savings, the question was raised correctly.
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 3 March 2015 06: 09
      +19
      Of course - tanks in "modern conditions" are not needed at all. laughing I remember that Serdyukov wanted to leave 2000 MBTs in our army, and replace the rest with Centauro-type wheeled vehicles with splinterproof armor. Fortunately, the new Minister of Defense does not have such "genius" thoughts.
      1. Lord of Wrath
        Lord of Wrath 3 March 2015 06: 57
        -4
        Quote: Bongo
        tanks in "modern conditions" are not needed at all.

        Judging by the events in the Donbass, the presence of some tanks only harms. What they just do not beat them up, including BM-21 and NSVT and even light machine guns
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 3 March 2015 07: 00
          +15
          Quote: Lord of Wrath
          Judging by the events in the Donbass, the presence of some tanks only harms. What they just do not beat them up, including BM-21 and NSVT and even light machine guns

          If someone’s hands are crooked, this does not mean that tanks are not needed. The militias themselves quite successfully use the captured T-64, although in my opinion this is not the most successful Soviet MBT.
          1. jjj
            jjj 3 March 2015 19: 25
            +1
            The fact of the matter is that the experience of New Russia shows that tanks are a serious force on the battlefield
        2. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 3 March 2015 23: 29
          +2
          Quote: Lord of Wrath
          Judging by the events in the Donbass, the presence of some tanks only harms. What they just do not beat them up, including BM-21 and NSVT and even light machine guns

          If the crew consists of recruits who have seen the tank only on TV, if the commander knows about the tanks only that they are not taken by a machine gun and they have a cannon, if the commander of the formation generally "scored" to perform his duties, then - yes, a tank is coffin. But if all of the above three elements work as expected, then the tank is a terrible force.
          In general, it’s very difficult to knock out a tank, and it is the experience of all the last decades that speaks about this.
          1. 79057330785
            79057330785 11 March 2015 17: 04
            0
            If there is a modern ground-based or helicopter-based ATGM with tandem warheads, air-to-ground missile defense missiles (such as Maverick) and the tank is found in an open area or on a march, it is defenseless. In the Donbass, practically no aircraft armed with modern anti-tank weapons are used, so tanks on both sides in this regard benefit.
          2. 79057330785
            79057330785 11 March 2015 17: 04
            0
            If there is a modern ground-based or helicopter-based ATGM with tandem warheads, air-to-ground missile defense missiles (such as Maverick) and the tank is found in an open area or on a march, it is defenseless. In the Donbass, practically no aircraft armed with modern anti-tank weapons are used, so tanks on both sides in this regard benefit.
        3. tol100v
          tol100v 15 March 2015 21: 24
          0
          Quote: Lord of Wrath
          . What they just do not beat them up,

          One question. Whose tanks, and who loots? After all, glass, a fool for a while!
      2. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 3 March 2015 23: 32
        +2
        Quote: Bongo
        Centauro wheeled machines

        These armored combat vehicles have the right to life, but they cannot be the backbone of the armored forces. And in general, the Centaur is not the best car, but the South African "Ruikat" is a really good wheeled tank, created in the country under the influence of combat experience (Ruikat has only 2 minuses - there is no automatic loader and KAZ, but this is more due to the lack of the Boers).
    2. Gans1234
      Gans1234 3 March 2015 06: 11
      +4
      EU EA development of a new tank, they will ditch a lot of dough (and even more will go to the production itself), for which you can quietly modernize their "best in the world" Abrams
      On the other hand, I don’t understand how they intend to exploit it right up to the 2050 years - by then, we should already have replaced the Armate with the troops.

      They’ll lose the submarines here, they’ll move strongly - very much our ours got stuck with new mugs
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 3 March 2015 08: 10
        +1
        Military idiots if they plan to ride Abrams before the fifties. It’s the same as now still exploiting the thirty-four.
        1. Lord of Wrath
          Lord of Wrath 4 March 2015 10: 28
          0
          Quote: Basarev
          It’s the same as now still exploiting the thirty-four.

          Well, then we use Kalash) and he is not much younger than 34 matches. And try to give a hint about the replacement .... oh that will begin)
        2. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 4 March 2015 23: 08
          +1
          Quote: Basarev
          Military idiots if they plan to ride Abrams before the fifties.

          Abrams’s modernization reserve is more than exhausted. In the press there is mention of a variant with an uninhabited tower. Installation of the latter + KAZ + new generation weapons + engine + software + opinion of the American military about the tank as an anachronism = operation up to 2050
      2. 79057330785
        79057330785 11 March 2015 17: 09
        0
        America fights mainly from the air, they don’t particularly need a tank, they got a Stryker, although their armor is weak.
      3. 79057330785
        79057330785 11 March 2015 17: 09
        0
        America fights mainly from the air, they don’t particularly need a tank, they got a Stryker, although their armor is weak.
  3. Lord of Wrath
    Lord of Wrath 3 March 2015 06: 53
    +5
    Here it is the fundamental difference between our and the American approach.
    They want everything new and no matter how much money it costs.
    There would be more such American barzographers, you look and convince America that nothing new is needed, and the old has already been tested by time, but if anything, the "epic" heroes of the Civil War, we will call on a superman to boot.
  4. D-Master
    D-Master 3 March 2015 07: 04
    +1
    Abrams armored vehicle is still "the best tank in the world"

    Stunned, but we didn’t know! wassat That this armored barn in the 1.5 floor with manual loading and armor penetrated by the RPG -7 is the best tank in the world. But this is good for us. Let them think so. Misconception is very helpful.
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 3 March 2015 08: 12
      +15
      Yeah, go to a 300-meter distance, for a shot at the organization of the use of tanks, I’ll see what remains of you for another 1,5 km.
      They don’t throw tanks into a breakthrough without support like our federals in Grozny; they’d better shoot BC from 2 km around the city and empty them on civilians.
      Moreover, they did not suffer so many losses from RPG-7, and there are quite noticeable losses, but this is garbage compared to the first Chechen company, where tanks traveled around the city
      By the way, the progress of the RPG-7 shots does not stand still, they already penetrate up to 650mm of reduced armor, which is enough for ALL tanks and even with DZ.
      1. Massik
        Massik 3 March 2015 11: 47
        +2
        300 meter
        By the way, the progress of the RPG-7 shots does not stand still, they already penetrate up to 650mm of reduced armor, which is enough for ALL tanks and even with DZ.
        The PG 7 BP tandem grenade can surely hit a tank with 120 meters maximum, having targeted its vulnerable point, with 300 there will be an empty transfer of grenades, you can get hit and you can hardly disable it.
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 3 March 2015 19: 40
          0
          well, a range of 200 meters was declared for this shot, but the older OHL was 500 meters, in fact, most likely, the VR could not be used during a desert storm and the Abrams were hit by OHLs or not RPG7 at all, but by ATGM missiles (which in general, also not bad, and even very good).
          1. Massik
            Massik 3 March 2015 20: 25
            +1
            laughing 500 m.Yes, you won't get into a 2 by 2 m square out of 7 from 350 meters with an inert blank, let alone a tank with 500. The effective range is 7ki 200m along the window and 350 one-storey house, and even then it smells like a "spherical horse". I fired a maximum of 250 from my hands with the PGO, I will not say that it turned out well "one meter here, two meters there," and it is unrealistic for a moving tank to get into the weakened zone or the engine. It is textbook that 74m has an aiming range of 1000m, but try to hit ...
            1. cth; fyn
              cth; fyn 5 March 2015 20: 28
              0
              950 meters in AK 74m, about the fact that the ki are too high, this is understandable. shooting is carried out not from hands but from stands, if you did not know then for RPG-7 there is a tripod machine
      2. CTABEP
        CTABEP 5 March 2015 21: 35
        0
        650mm is less than the equivalent of frontal armor of almost any modern tank without DZ. So only hit the side / roof / stern.
    2. under-cut
      under-cut 3 March 2015 22: 23
      +2
      And on the photo, it’s far not Abrams, but the British Challenger 2
  5. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 3 March 2015 08: 04
    +7
    I do not agree completely.
    According to the stated requirements, the submarines will turn out to be awesome, especially since in Russia similar projects of submarines with a full cycle reactor are underway, but what you wanted was not Kalash that was cheap and efficient, but a submarine with vigorous loaves and the cooler the ship, the higher the probability of the task being completed, we finally made a boat out of titanium, even when the Americans were already scared with the allocation of ficels (the word was replaced in order to comply with censorship) when they found out about it.
    According to drones, the car is already flying, it is being tested, what else is needed? start another project to replace, and isn’t it stupid? rather than whether it’s squandering money, and now they don’t have any alternatives, the PROJECT needs to be brought to the end, and then it’s up to it to look or not, is it possible to upgrade to the task.
    On ships and crap with equipment, but this can be solved by modernization, it's a healthy floating object, change the equipment and you're done, the ship itself is good, the tonnage is normal, the only cant is equipment, and starting a new project is again spending and the question, is it better? I’m not sure that it is possible to develop a ship better than this within 5-6 years, at least now it’s necessary to cover the shore with something.
    In terms of the tank, well, the Abrams is a classic tank, it’s quite good, the armata is not a fact that it will appear before the year 20, and what the question will be, maybe nothing new and super cool.
    What is missing Abrams? the forehead is well protected, but there is a large clearance between the tower and the hull, a weak side, poor engine reliability in dusty conditions, high mass and the absence of normal land mines (although this is also a question, but not ... are we Americans in this regard? If you look at Leo there seems to be OK with all the rules)
    Modernization is quite logical, because in the foreseeable future, there will still be nothing new, and a new tank is a new project and time, lots of time and an unknown result.
    1. Prikaz4ikov1992
      Prikaz4ikov1992 3 March 2015 09: 43
      +3
      Amers have a diesel installation project, sort of like on 1800 horses. With regards to the chassis, the task of 2 partially solved the problem. Well, the clearance ... You first get into it. Abrash is a good tank in the M1-3, it will be made lighter and hanged dz. Somewhere even the 3d model of the advance project was. And the tank itself is wonderful in the end I don’t know any of our Tius tanks. By UAV the same nonsense. A normal platform that can be further equipped with and air-to-air weapons to give for self-defense.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  6. Nayhas
    Nayhas 3 March 2015 08: 52
    +5
    Someone fell in love on our patriotic sites of blogger Dave Majumdar. Honestly, it’s not entirely clear why, is it really because he stupidly reproaches the American and scares the Russians?
    For some reason, his opinion is imposed on the entire USA, as if it was not the opinion of one person who was not connected with the US Defense Ministry and did not even serve in the army ...
  7. tchoni
    tchoni 3 March 2015 09: 58
    +2
    What can I say - what ambitions - such is the budget ... Only. still in my opinion, genosse Napoleon at number 1 said: "You can lean on a bayonet, but you cannot sit on it" (I can be wrong about the authorship of the statement)
  8. Arktidianets
    Arktidianets 3 March 2015 10: 21
    +2
    The author, Majumdar, seems to have completely forgotten that due to these appropriations allocated for these R&D, the Amer’s military-industrial complex lives on, and these author’s fabrications are far from reality, the money swelled and will swell, otherwise their defense industry will be bent.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 3 March 2015 11: 13
      +5
      Quote: Arctidian
      The author, Majumdar, seems to have completely forgotten that due to these appropriations allocated for these R&D, the Amer’s military-industrial complex lives on, and these author’s fabrications are far from reality, the money swelled and will swell, otherwise their defense industry will be bent.

      In the budget for 2015
      1. The US allocates $ 577 billion to the defense industry
      2. for social protection 903 billion dollars
      Now let's talk. Where to go to the tool in the first and second case.
      In the first case, the money goes to workers, engineers, military personnel and other persons involved in the production and operation of weapons. It is clear that these spent funds do not bring much income to the country, this money ultimately goes to food and other consumption (cars, houses, yachts, etc.)
      In the second case, money also does not work for the economy, because it goes to retirement, the support of low-income citizens who either temporarily do not work, or have never worked and are not going to. But in this case, part of the funds (the size can only be assumed) is spent on drugs and subsequently generally withdrawn from the country thereby supporting a high crime rate, and hence increased costs for law enforcement agencies ...

      It is clear that all the money that the military lacks is flowing to the social network ...
      1. Kasym
        Kasym 3 March 2015 16: 26
        +5
        Significant costs of the Pentagon (paragraph 1) go to the maintenance of military bases around the world. Someone writes that there are 1000 of them, some 800, and some 500. I think that they provide a significant part of the Pentagon to provide for life, equipment and rental of such a number of bases.
        From a financial point of view, the army has always been a costly part. Only R&D can provide the country with some new technologies and arms sales. When creating new types of weapons and equipment, the military-industrial complex and industry receive new technologies and create a new reserve. But not many countries can do this. Under the USSR, the creation of a new generation of weapons, the country received new opportunities in industry. The main thing is to be able to use these opportunities in the civil sector. Then the military-industrial complex becomes a "growth point" for the country. hi
    2. tol100v
      tol100v 15 March 2015 21: 50
      0
      Quote: Arctidian
      , the money swells and will swell, otherwise their defense industry will be bent.

      And they will swell, since not only the military-industrial complex, but also the rest of the industry will be covered without the demand for related products and components! And there is no demand - no profit. Conclusion - create a DEMAND! And demand is war! Arithmetic, even without politics. First grade, second quarter!
  9. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 3 March 2015 12: 51
    +2
    "while LCS ships are capable of solving only one type of problem, and even in this case
    they cannot boast of high efficiency "

    Feature ships LCS - they have a lot. wide air deck. Based on them
    three helicopters: two attack and one unmanned reconnaissance.
    F-35B easily sits / takes off from such a deck.
    This is the strength of these ships, and, of course, not in artillery.
  10. mimo-crock3
    mimo-crock3 3 March 2015 15: 25
    +4
    Quote: cth; fyn
    By the way, the progress of the RPG-7 shots does not stand still, they already penetrate up to 650mm of reduced armor, which is enough for ALL tanks and even with DZ.

    Yes, just the same progress, here to tell the residents of Olgins about the 25-year-old grenades PG-7VR "Resume". Is 650 mm of penetration with a cumulative projectile enough for ALL tanks? Modern MBT in the frontal projection have an estimated protection of 800-900mm equivalent against kuma.

    "Since the nineties, after the withdrawal from service of the Grumman A-6 Intruder and the refusal to develop a replacement for it, the US carrier-based aviation was virtually left without such a strike facility."
    And why is it interesting that the F \ A 18 SuperHornet does not suit, having a comparable range, bomb load and much greater speed?

    "Scribble about" Abrams "- a photo with the British" Challenger 2 ". Shame.
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 3 March 2015 19: 55
      +1
      And what will shoot him in the forehead? and what do you damage there by breaking through the frontal projection? scorch hair on the scrotum of the driver? it was about on-board projection, no one directly spoke in the dialogue, but nevertheless both I and D-Master meant it.
  11. Const
    Const 3 March 2015 16: 54
    0
    Let everything be built, and we will choose the most universal from their designs and modify it at home.
  12. Victorio
    Victorio 3 March 2015 17: 10
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    "while LCS ships are capable of solving only one type of problem, and even in this case
    they cannot boast of high efficiency "

    Feature ships LCS - they have a lot. wide air deck. Based on them
    three helicopters: two attack and one unmanned reconnaissance.
    F-35B easily sits / takes off from such a deck.
    This is the strength of these ships, and, of course, not in artillery.


    it will only "sit down" in calm or a little excitement, this can is only in a small bay and use
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 3 March 2015 17: 33
      +1
      Hard to say...
      Harrier pilots during the Falkland War
      managed to land in severe storms
      aircraft on the helipads of escort ships.
      When the fuel is running out, and I really want to live
      (you can’t swim in arctic waters)
      you show miracles fellow .
      And the F35B landing on a fully automatic, unlike
      from the manual control of Harrierra.
      1. Aleksandr72
        Aleksandr72 3 March 2015 20: 02
        +1
        That's just the point, that on the full automatic machine. And automatic control works strictly according to the recorded program and that is why it cannot completely replace a person. A person can be wrong, can be injured, can get tired tired - but in non-standard situations a person with his high adaptability and ability to quickly make non-standard decisions (not provided by a computer program) is much preferable. Although, as you know, practice is a criterion of truth. But in this case, somehow there is no desire to check everything in practice. Arranging another war in order to run around the F35B and test its practical ability to automatically land on a helipad in a storm is not at all what
        I have the honor.
  13. Dinko
    Dinko 4 March 2015 03: 28
    +1
    Quote: Gans1234
    Ahha, let them send everything for scrapping.

    Well, except for the ship - well, it’s beautiful, we must pay tribute, albeit useless - our Buyan-M will be more dangerous.
    And since when is Abrams the best tank in the world ??)
    Rather, Merkava / Deopard / T-90 dispute this statement

    According to military experts, the new South Korean tank is by far the best, followed by the German Leopard.
  14. Evgeniy30
    Evgeniy30 4 March 2015 22: 43
    0
    Quote: Dinko
    Quote: Gans1234
    Ahha, let them send everything for scrapping.

    Well, except for the ship - well, it’s beautiful, we must pay tribute, albeit useless - our Buyan-M will be more dangerous.
    And since when is Abrams the best tank in the world ??)
    Rather, Merkava / Deopard / T-90 dispute this statement

    According to military experts, the new South Korean tank is by far the best, followed by the German Leopard.

    About Leopard, I honestly don’t know. So far, he has participated in conflicts in few places, and therefore there is little information. If you have, share.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 5 March 2015 11: 50
      0
      The Dutch used it in Afghanistan.
      Also required additional screens-grilles
      on the sides of the hull and tower.
  15. nnz226
    nnz226 5 March 2015 15: 55
    0
    America - go ahead! Implement the specified projects !!! And we will help as we can! More dollars for unnecessary weapons !!!
  16. Ivan the Fool
    Ivan the Fool 9 March 2015 15: 44
    0
    Yankees move, Crimeanization breathed new life into them!