Foreign weapons turn Russia into a banana republic

Foreign weapons turn Russia into a banana republic



On the eve of the recent resignation of Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, President Dmitry Medvedev once again stressed that defense spending was, is and will be a priority, and that any attempts to reduce them are unacceptable. At first glance, the statement of the president and his firm position (so rarely, by the way, demonstrated by Medvedev) can only be applauded, because, perhaps, for the first time in recent years, the head of state, judging by his statements, has so seriously bothered with the problems of Russian Armed Forces.

But does (or rather, guarantee) the statement of the president mean receipt by the Russian army and fleet all the necessary weapons that they have been deprived of for many years due to chronic underfunding of the defense industry? Does this mean that our long-suffering military-industrial complex can now breathe deeply, as they say? Formally, yes. After all, the president quite clearly defined funding priorities. But what happens in real life?

I do not want to engage in forecasts, but most likely, this is what will turn out. Just a couple of weeks ago, the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Army General Nikolai Makarov, did not regret giving warm words to the French Caesar self-propelled artillery. The Chief of the General Staff was impressed by the firing range of the French gun (42 km) and the time of bringing the gun into combat readiness (about a minute). The Russian ACS Msta-S does not possess such characteristics, which caused the general’s displeasure. However, this time the Russian gunsmiths worked not just quickly, but lightning-fast, saying the other day that they were ready to upgrade the Msta, after which its range of fire would grow from 29 to 41 km. This will be possible after equipping the SAU with a new, longer barrel. Plus, NPO Mashinostroitel developed 8 projectiles for Msta, including projectiles with programmable and radar fuses. But ... the fact is that the Ministry of Defense is not ready to purchase them before 2015-2017, explaining its reluctance by the fact that artillery depots are filled with shells fired during the Soviet era. Moreover, shells are stored in warehouses from the times of World War II, which, due to their characteristics, do not at all correspond to modern standards. Thus, the shells of the same party can have different weights, which makes it almost impossible to accurately calculate the firing of the Msta digital guidance system. Because of this, the dispersion of shells at maximum range for this type of ammunition (19 km) ranges from 50 to 100 m, while in the USA and Europe the dispersion tolerance when shooting at 40 km (!) Is from 10 to 30 m According to representatives of the Ministry of Defense, the purchase of new projectiles can be started only after the old projectiles are disposed of, for which, of course, money is also needed.

It turns out a vicious circle. Warehouses filled with old shells, money for their disposal or not at all, or is, but not enough. Accordingly, no one is going to buy new shells, since there is no place to store them. This means that the modernization of the Msta is meaningless, since the firing range of the old projectiles, even with a new, longer barrel, will still be lower than that of the western counterparts. And what in this case will go the budget? Or rather, who will they go to?

An even more confusing situation is with a tank T-90 The export modification of this tank costs $ 2,5 million, while, according to the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces of the Russian Federation A. Postnikov, the Russian army buys tanks at 118 million rubles. ($ 3,65 million). Where does this price come from? And for some reason no one wants or cannot explain another point: why the price of the tank over the past 10 years has increased 10 times? Moreover, the T-90 itself has changed slightly.

No one can explain why the Mistral helicopter carriers are bought from France. No doubt, Mistral is a good ship, but one should not forget that shortly before the collapse of the USSR, Soviet designers developed a project for Ulyanovsk-class nuclear aircraft carriers (1143.7 project), which were much more complicated than Mistral. Moreover, the first ship of this type was laid in 1988 in Nikolaev, but thanks to the Gorbachev restructuring, which ended in the collapse of the country, this ship died without being born. Nevertheless, the fact remains: a quarter of a century ago, our designers developed much more sophisticated ships than the Mistral helicopter carriers. And now, after all the Gorbachev-Yeltsin "reforms", engineers who can develop a ship of a similar class remained in Russia. True, this is unlikely to be necessary, because now it is easier to buy everything that is necessary (is it necessary?) Abroad. And it would be okay if our military industrial complex was overwhelmed with orders for the years ahead. There is no: many enterprises hardly make ends meet, but our high-ranking officials prefer to feed not foreign workers, but their own.

On the other hand, there is nothing unusual about this. The practice of purchasing weapons abroad is widespread throughout the world, and even the United States can afford it. Suffice it to recall the British fighter "Harrier", Italian guns "Beretta", French helicopters "Ekyurey" and so on. But ... Americans can afford it, because for all the imported goods and technology for more than half a century, they pay with colored paper - nothing not secured by dollars. And Russia will pay for the weapons it bought with the same paper, only exchanged for our oil, gas and other resources. In theory, Americans can produce nothing at all themselves, ordering the same aircraft carriers in China in the future and getting everything they need in exchange for their "candy wrappers". But Russia has no such luxury. Therefore, before purchasing something abroad (especially related to the country's defense), it would be nice to think a hundred times. Not only do we pay for it with our own resources, but we also deprive a piece of bread of our own workers and engineers. But we feed the probable adversary, who is now lustingly looking at our defense budget, quite reasonably hoping that he will also get a fat piece.

And after all, it will, but not one. Our military-industrial complex enterprises have been exsanguinated in 20 years of “reform,” and many now have foreign bosses altogether. So, from the largest arms manufacturer in the world, which was once the USSR, Russia is turning into a third-rank banana republic, which can no longer arm its own army weapons. There are concerns that this process may become irreversible.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

9 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. pokermen
    pokermen 7 October 2011 08: 02 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    You need to buy, at least to stimulate your industry ..... the other thing is how much
  2. Owl
    Owl 7 October 2011 09: 26 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    After their victory, the “Democrats,” fulfilling the commands of their overseas “partner friends,” destroyed the Soviet supply system for the Air Force and payment for arms manufacturers. The Americans themselves in the 80s considered it more capable and progressive in comparison with the system adopted in the USA. A competition of projects was held in the USSR, the winners of the competition produced prototypes of products, the samples competed, the winner was put into service and produced for the needs of the Army and Navy. Now the "children of the democrat-robbers" are busy organizing TENDERS, COMPETITIONS, etc. for the subsequent receipt of “kickbacks”, for “cutting and laundering” funds in your pocket. A real improvement in the situation is possible only after changing the procurement system and the procedure for adopting and equipping weapons and military equipment, only after a trial and demonstration. hard punishment (destruction) of traitors to the motherland, thieves, embezzlers.
  3. Net
    Net 7 October 2011 10: 20 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Perhaps we would be happy to build ships of the Mistral type ourselves, but even if we have a ready-made project, where is the question to build them? Shipyards are loaded with orders for submarines, corvettes for our Navy and for export. The question is more time than ability to build by ourselves. On the other hand, it is not clear why Mistral, why Mistral, why Mistral?
  4. itr
    itr 7 October 2011 10: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Of course you don’t have to buy!
    only who have the French? or Italians? as history shows warriors they are shit. Something I do not remember more than one great French admiral
    And the Italians with their iveco, as far as I know, is the former German firm Magirus.
  5. Professor 7 October 2011 11: 11 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    No country in the world provides itself with weapons at 100%. So why reinvent the wheel?

    No doubt, the Mistral is a good ship, but one should not forget that shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union, Soviet designers developed a project for nuclear-powered aircraft carriers of the Ulyanovsk class (project 1143.7), which were much more complicated than the Mistral.

    The aircraft carrier was built by the whole country, and it was assembled at ChSZ, where by the way about 40 thousand people worked then. Especially under it built the "Zero slipway". In the coming 15-20 years, Russia will not be able to master such a project.
  6. kosmos84 7 October 2011 14: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    you need to buy technology and not finished products
    1. Tyumen
      Tyumen 8 October 2011 17: 51 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And where do they sell them?
  7. rumpeljschtizhen 7 October 2011 16: 55 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    we are building frigates of 2100 tons with a displacement of 6 years each .......... and the projectors we have before fig ........ we will configure the aircraft carriers. let's reanimate the metal (cruisers of the project 1144) .. live in daydreaming some comrades ...
    it is necessary and necessary to buy .. from metal detectors ... drones ... to ships .. (of course, not forgetting to develop your own)
  8. Denis 8 October 2011 00: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    and maybe there will be no harm if a sweet couple, nanotechnologist, stool, etc. from the "Colt" or "Uzi", and not from the AK "criticize"?