MIC

What to do?

What to do?To buy or not to buy Western weapons?


Today everyone who is interested in the development of the domestic armed forces is trying to answer this question. Someone believes that this cannot be done in any case; someone, on the contrary, blames the defense industry for overpricing, monopolism and lobbying for their interests. It is definitely impossible to answer this question. The level of our industrial base is an order of magnitude lagging behind Western countries. Therefore, in principle, we cannot compete with the West in the number of advanced technologies. But at the same time, putting an end to one’s own industry is simply criminal, and only the enemy can reason like that. Of course, no one will sell advanced technologies to us, so we are doomed to purchase obsolete developments. In fact, this is not worth fearing. The T-34 tank was equipped with a Christie suspension, which the Americans recognized as obsolete, and this allowed the Soviet Union to buy this project. In the future, this machine became the legend of WWII and the best a tank world at the turn of the 40s-50s. At the same time, a T-43 tank with a torsion bar suspension was created, but it did not go into production, since it did not show significant advantages over the T-34. This example shows that even outdated technology, implemented at a new level, can bring success on the battlefield. Therefore, do not be afraid of cooperation with the West. At one time, we really benefited from this.

In 1969, the K-222 goldfish project was implemented, the submarine was built entirely of titanium. This product turned out to be extremely expensive, but work on this project made it possible to introduce into production a very large number of technological solutions for working with such material as titanium. Therefore, we won here, not so much by building this boat, as in solving certain technological processes that brought our shipbuilding to a new level. The industry cannot develop virtually, it needs to produce something, and the more projects there are for the future, the faster it will develop. The same can be noted in the debate about the construction of aircraft carriers. They may not be needed by our army as badly as the Americans, but it’s definitely certain that we lose experience by refusing to build these large-scale projects. It is such projects that lead to revolutionary breakthroughs in work, and they can give the necessary impetus for the development of our military-industrial complex.

Therefore, the state should not only place its orders on domestic capacities, but also lobby for the export of these products, despite the fact that the bulk of production has been privatized and has a private owner. Here we come to one of the main problems, which is that the owner is not interested in modernizing his production, with no guarantees that after modernization he will be provided with state. orders. And modern modernization in today's conditions is actually the re-organization of production. That entails the need to improve the skills of workers. In general, this whole complex of problems is formed into a macro task, which only the state can solve. It is not clear how this decision should take into account the interests of the owner and in what relations with him the state should carry out modernization. All this may lead to a revision of the privatization results. Today there are examples where it is impossible to establish the owner of an enterprise producing weaponfor example, nuclear submarines at the Amur shipbuilding plant, whose assets were taken offshore.

Thus, we have not just any separate problem areas, but systemic phenomena that are extremely difficult to deal with. Since they are based on the laws of the “wild” market 90-x and the interests of the owner, which in this case come into conflict with the interests of the state and society. This is a characteristic feature of the development of our society today, and it does not matter which problem we are dealing with - the military-industrial complex, science or art. In any industry we have a similar state of affairs. But to parasitize on the Soviet legacy today is becoming increasingly difficult due to the rapid development of technology.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alex63
    Alex63 16 October 2011 09: 08 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The production of domestic weapons, the development of the domestic defense industry, the refusal to import weapons for the army is, I think, a matter of national security. Moreover, if they are going to buy weapons from our potential opponents. In the event of a military conflict, where Serdyukov is going to take spare parts, components, etc. .d. "What about the enemy? The same" Mistral "at what shipyards he is going to repair, and which specialists he will invite, maybe he will invite migrant workers from Kyrgyzstan?
  2. sirToad
    sirToad 16 October 2011 09: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Purchasing foreign weapons is useful. on a limited scale, in order to be something to compare. But who, excuse me, will sell his new equipment? try to vaporize samples in the best case of 70-80 years.
    1. Vadivak 16 October 2011 19: 01 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      They will sell their mother for money, remember how they sold the engine Rolls-Royce Nene-I and Derwent-V, the Labor government of Great Britain in September-October 1946 for the MiG-15, for the Americans it was a shock- "Korean surprise", there was even a scandal with the British
  3. vitvit123 16 October 2011 10: 44 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Yes, you need to invest in the production and development of the military-industrial complex and that’s it. Of course, there will be no new technology if it is not produced. Gentlemen, rulers - you need to spend money on the defense industry ... You are buying from anyone - from a potential, most likely enemy (i.e. the enemy). And he (this adversary) thinks the same thing about us, and not even the same thing, but much worse. How can we buy weapons from them .... For some reason, we sell S-300 abroad that are really inferior to ours in terms of performance, and they are fools .... It turns out that we buy weapons that are obviously (to the maximum) inferior to theirs in terms of performance characteristics. In general, there is a defining term in the Criminal Code for this. Yes, no one will ever sell really good weapons to a potential, most likely enemy. I can’t believe that our designers could not build any ship (and anything) if they were given money and their work was properly controlled. And if everything really were so bad and we could not understand these Mistral technologies, then they had to be obtained from the French in other ways, in the production of atomic weapons we also lagged behind the United States (at one time). Well, because they got the technology and caught up. It’s just that the Lord needs to understand that we can’t earn all the money and that we have only one Motherland, and only ARMY and Navy among our friends!
  4. Maksim
    Maksim 16 October 2011 11: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I think there’s no need to buy foreign weapons.
  5. slan
    slan 16 October 2011 11: 42 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    The Chinese are buying until they themselves copy. That's exactly what is necessary if not only in the Russian Federation there are corrupt people why not use it.
    1. vitvit123 16 October 2011 11: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In fact, they recently caught a chinaman who gave bribes for the technology of creating the S-300, because those that are exported by the Russian Federation are inferior in terms of performance characteristics to those that are in service with us, this has already been said.
      1. slan
        slan 16 October 2011 12: 01 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Well, not all the same, the cat is a Shrovetide. You still can’t buy straight hands in the market, again.
  6. vitvit123 16 October 2011 12: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Well yes . Again, the Chinas have money “wagon”, they buy both technology and finished goods, but we have money in other places.
  7. akimochka
    akimochka 16 October 2011 14: 02 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    yeah. and then fight with them the same g only in smaller numbers.
  8. Anatoliy
    Anatoliy 16 October 2011 14: 38 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Nuclear weapons cannot be bought (no one will sell them). In a number of areas, such as air defense systems, combat aircraft, helicopters, coastal and ground-based missile systems, the radar station Russia continues to maintain global leadership and buy pre-losing counterparts abroad is a gross mistake. In those areas where there has been a lag, you can buy limited copies of samples and establish their production in your own country. There is nothing wrong with the joint production of military equipment. From 2013-2014, the new Ukrainian-Russian transport aircraft An-70 should go to the troops. Who will lose from this? None.

    It is not normal when the Roosi technique, which is also exported, is criticized (often absolutely illiterate) by the political and military leadership of the country.
    1. vitvit123 16 October 2011 18: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      If they didn’t deceive on TV, then we used the Pindos technology to develop atomic weapon technologies (maybe not all of them) - at the development stages.
      1. Anatoliy
        Anatoliy 16 October 2011 19: 02 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The Americans themselves stole atomic technology from the Germans, plus they were refined with German specialists who previously worked for Hitler. If we used to steal secrets from them in the field of the nuclear industry, this only speaks of the professionalism of Soviet intelligence.

        The creation of atomic weapons and the personal role in managing the project by Beria are very well described in Sudoplatov’s book “Intelligence and the Kremlin”. Recommend.
        1. vitvit123 17 October 2011 13: 34 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Now let's develop this idea further, in general, in the dialogue, I’m leading to the fact that if we don’t know some “secret” of making mistral (or something), it may not be necessary to buy the whole ship? And where did the Americans get the nuclear technology and how did they do it? Thank God everyone knows. They spy all over the world, so you have to give more money to your intelligence, and set the task, and when they complete it, give the task to the designers and engineers and let them do it with us (give money again and check), will it not be better? I think this is a world practice. And if in general people who live for their country are simply needed, in the leadership of this country, and I still don’t understand whether they are like that or not.
  9. SIA
    SIA 16 October 2011 15: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    You have to do your own, what to look at the West as an icon?
  10. dimarm74
    dimarm74 16 October 2011 15: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    For all the positions, after all, it is also impossible to be at a level or higher .... Therefore, in those sectors, types of weapons where we are lagging behind, there is nothing to worry about if we jointly develop them. We will pull ourselves up to their level ... and independently we will already solve these problems. Another thing is that all this must be done intellectually.
  11. Denis 16 October 2011 16: 14 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    when the pocket commands the mind like the current parquet command, then you just need to buy, kickbacks!
    and if by the mind, how much time did their work and stayed on the level, only where is that mind?
    and then in meaty faces in some London it will be so ... what the army is armed with
  12. Mahamont
    Mahamont 16 October 2011 16: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    We do not yet have the engineering potential to master all inaccessible technologies at once independently. Therefore, it is easier to buy and quickly master. This saves both time and money.
    The young USSR bought almost all weapons in the West, then mastered, improved something, and no one will remember, for example, that the T-34 chassis was taken from the Americans. You can give a lot of examples.
  13. ereke
    ereke 16 October 2011 16: 30 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    The rapid reaction forces, the United States Marine Corps, are armed with various types of armored wheeled vehicles PIRANIA, licensed by the Swiss company MOVAG. The FBI is armed with the G-3 “Kehler und Koch” software which is the standard weapon of the United States FBI. Los Angeles police use the Italian Beret as a standard service weapon. The list can be continued but will take up a lot of space. This is the case everywhere, if there is money then why reinvent the wheel. It is better to buy it or to establish production under your license
    1. vitvit123 16 October 2011 18: 47 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well, ships - we probably can build ourselves, or we can not build a helicopter carrier better than the mistral? And after the young USSR, huge potential must have been gained. Yes, for the money that this Mistral costs, a bunch of spies can probably be bought in France, who will sell some kind of "hidden" technology that we do not understand in helicopter carriers, if there is current technology. You need to work in any directions that are possible. If they didn’t deceive on TV, then we used the Pindos technology to create atomic weapons (maybe not all of them), and it seems to me that was right, because they caught up with us. Yes, they will not sell us really good TTX weapons; there are very few "well-wishers" there. We are the MOST PROBABLY OPPONENT to be reckoned with throughout history. Neither planes, nor rockets, nor ships, but pistols, armored vehicles will be sold to us with good tactical and technical characteristics .... well, sorry.
      1. ereke
        ereke 16 October 2011 19: 05 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        50 million people killed after World War II in various local conflicts and limited wars. were killed from small arms to a lesser extent from other means standing on the same armored vehicles as well as aircraft and helicopters. Not one was killed from a nuclear weapon. (nuclear weapons were used only twice in 45). The same Caucasus where Russia pretty well fought even against Georgia. mainly machine guns and machine guns were used in smaller quantities, various rockets and artillery. So the best and most effective models of light and medium weapons will not hurt))
        1. vitvit123 16 October 2011 19: 19 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Well, time goes on and judging by the latest military conflicts, they are fighting with planes, missiles, and, well, the boats are being driven. The phrase has already become "stuffed" - dominance in the air, by the way in Georgia, as I understand it, the same thing happened. And our peacekeepers, armed with light weapons, were very simply killed. Again: I am not saying that good and effective models of light and medium weapons are not needed (cited), my opinion is that they will never sell us aircraft or missiles or ships with good tactical and technical characteristics. And my opinion is that with proper funding and control, our designers can do a lot.
          1. ereke
            ereke 16 October 2011 21: 17 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            There is no such thing as good performance characteristics of some models over others in the west. They are all the same if one class, for example, combat aircraft, is the same as the Amer fighting game Falcon and the English Herrier or the European tornado (all of them were developed at the same time under the general culture of Western specialists). None of them have any super-duper secret technologies. even the Swedish SAAB is the same in its capabilities.

            Another thing is the level of development of new technologies (electronic, production of new types of material, engines that meet modern standards) and production technologies. Here, anyone will tell you whether it is in a particular country or it is not there to produce similar weapons (gave an example of aircraft) That's all)) If not, then there are two directions to purchase or establish licensed production with the participation of Western concerns (for example, India) Russia has become more and more noticeable behind in some areas of the production of weapons with a common developed base of heavy industry, it is now easier to purchase licenses for certain technologies and weapons. So do everyone, including China. In the arms market, mainly private manufacturers-campaigns (the state ones work by order of the state) offer their services and their weapons are also advanced and it happens that the native ministry of defense of this country did not purchase these weapons from private owners. But business is business, there are no enemies, the military industry is a profitable business and very expensive. And the last one to sell even super modern weapons, the Western campaigns have no doubt that tomorrow if the probable enemy applies them against them they can create even better than they sold and their native state will place them an order for their mass production. Another question is whether the RF itself will manage the purchased weapons. As was the case, for example, in the late 20s, when the USSR purchased foreign equipment from bombers to tanks and wedges, it established itself with production and eventually overtook its teachers
            1. ereke
              ereke 16 October 2011 22: 55 New
              • -1
              • 0
              -1
              If you think that the new technology is the same "Stealth" making the object invisible to radars and other detection devices. That such a technology with a license for its production can offer you any Western country. If even the United States does not cooperate with you, then others also have the same technology, and even South African corporations can offer their own Stealth technology options for any type of helicopter and combat aircraft.

              In the end, you can simply invite Western experts to jointly develop the same ships and shipable weapons. We were able to invite Dick Lawyer, a good and experienced coach to work for the good of Russian football. There are no problems in the military sphere either. The same UAPs did the same when they realized that their old British cannons inherited from the British empire did not meet the requirements of the modern war, then they called Canadian experts from the Riserch company and those who earned South Africa from the sale of diamonds for good currency, created The South African army, which had no analogues at that time (late 1970s), and now! far-mortar howitzer G-5! You see that they make money with people (even with designers) so they tried so that they themselves were surprised at their development
            2. vitvit123 17 October 2011 13: 21 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I repeat once again. As an example: S-300 air defense systems that are sold for export have (as you put it more correctly) the worst technical specifications compared to those that are in service with us. Once again, I’ll repeat recently, it became known that they caught a Chinese man who was engaged in espionage, he tried to buy these technologies. They (the Chinese) can copy these air defense systems, but their range, accuracy, or something like that probably does not reach ours, because it is not in vain that they hunt for them like that. I don’t know how else to convey this. And good performance characteristics are those that are better (in the dialogue), I did not think that you see everything in the relative planes. And that weapons that are exported may have somewhat underestimated application possibilities. I have shown this in the above example. I did not think about how to limit the possibilities of combat use in small arms, but in my (non-professional) opinion, something can be done in an airplane - for example, to cheat with a radar, this is when there are similar planes, but one sees further, more precisely (etc. .) - naturally this plane is yours ..., in my opinion it is natural, although I, of course, is not the last resort.
              1. ereke
                ereke 17 October 2011 14: 42 New
                • -1
                • 0
                -1
                Each system has its own principles of work and standards, and they are known to all military specialists of all the army and the air force, and specialists from any country know which generation of the second, third or last or prospective weapon system to relate to. At the same radar, and nothing in them can be faked. Avionics of an aircraft can be equipped with old systems of the same radar for detecting and matching targets, or with new systems and new non-Doppler radars that can produce several countries that are highly developed in this respect (even Israel). The same MIG-21 replaced the old bulky obsolete avionics with a new one. new radar "spear" and received MIG-21 "bison" which in its combat capabilities corresponds to the 4th generation air defense fighter. Only for each country its own code is created (or more precisely, an algorithm) for the on-board radio-electronic equipment for identifying “friend or foe” aircraft .. So that the same Indian Air Force’s plane does not bring down its own aircraft over the sea instead of the Pakistani one. but otherwise it’s impossible to trick
                1. vitvit123 17 October 2011 15: 15 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Yes, we heard about the "friend or foe." Enlighten me, I’m not an expert and I don’t know many terms why the Chinese (again there - I’m sorry) bought these S-300s with the possibility of the worst combat use (maybe they didn’t know either), and if they bought these S-300s, then what else would they like to buy, find for these air defense systems. Or maybe all this is nonsense in the media. Maybe these SAMs are like ours. And judging by your logic, no one has any secrets; everyone knows that everything (a lot) can be bought. Well then, if we can all buy such good things, then really, then we don’t have to spend money on new developments. As far as I know, development is a very costly pleasure. And the fact that any specialist has the mind "to which generation the second, third or last or prospective to attribute this or that system" - it would be interesting if they could not do this, for them this is the "alphabet", "no question", otherwise what kind of specialists are they.
                  1. ereke
                    ereke 17 October 2011 15: 40 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    S-300 is a good air defense system, especially the latest modifications. most likely the Chinese wanted to know how the Rassians modernized the S-300. And what with the improvement in the new modification applied what principles and decisions. I said that to know one thing which systems are now. Another thing is whether there was the possibility of producing and improving them in the future, taking into account new capabilities and technological solutions. In order to produce complex weapons systems (ships, aircraft carriers, planes, tanks), an appropriate industry is needed with a full production cycle of everything from creating materials (plastic, rubber, etc.) and smelting steel (the same ship steel) to the production of all sets composing (engines of all types, electronics, rockets, individual components, artillery, etc.) to assembly plants and, most importantly, qualified technologists, workers, engineers, as well as design bureaus and the school of designers as such for the production of the same ships, tanks and aircraft. Countries that produce all types of weapons in the world only 10! still partially separate types of complex types of weapons or producing under foreign licenses (for example patrol boats) of 50 countries in the world. Now it’s clear to know one thing, but to do something else yourself !!! there’s a lot to do for this! and explained to you if everything said is there is no problem, if not, then NO NO how much even you can’t do!

                    But half of the countries on the planet produce small arms, there are no problems and you can even have no basic branches of industrial industry, simply assemble in Mester’s in a makeshift way
                    1. vitvit123 17 October 2011 18: 30 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      What production is needed with many cycles is understandable. I don’t know that we don’t have it either, I’m just a supporter of the idea that our country needs to produce a lot, very independently, and that these “friends” are our probable, ardent opponents, I would never expect anything from them good, including arms sales. Once again, I am a supporter of establishing my own production (if there is none) and my own developments (which we are sure of). I am not against cooperation with the countries of fraternal peoples (Ukraine, Belarus, etc.), although my opinion should beware here too. In general, I'm mostly for my own .... as it is.
      2. valerei 17 October 2011 11: 32 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Speaking of helicopter carriers. In the early 60s, several helicopter-carrying cruisers were built in the USSR. So the technology has remained, maybe outdated, but should be in the archives. So you can modify it in its modern form! But our customers did not want to. Or they forgot about our experience in building these ships. And maybe the rollback played a major role in this contract. How many such assumptions were in the internet, probably at least one, but it reached the Supreme Commander. But we have not received any refutation or explanation. But maybe we are not the people to whom the Supreme should report, or at least explain?
        1. ereke
          ereke 17 October 2011 14: 58 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Valerie remembered the anecode on this whole occasion. In the Soviet military school, theoretical classes in the classroom are held. The senior warrant officer explains to the cadets the structure of the Soviet armored personnel carrier by pointing with a pointer to a poster with a section of the armored personnel carrier hanging on the wall. It comes to the place where the BTR commander sits and says, next to the commander is a radio station. One cadet raises his hand and asks, “Comrade Senior Warrant Officer, and does the radio station have lamps or conductors?” silence in the classroom ... Prapor is evil so for the "especially smart" I say, RADIO ON BE-TE-ER!
    2. Glenn witcher 16 October 2011 20: 45 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      H & K G3 - Sturmgever, not a submachine gun.
      1. ereke
        ereke 16 October 2011 21: 50 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        In addition to the assault rifle and the PP, the company has the same in appearance, but smaller in size and under the 9-mm pistol cartridge. so he said from memory, but what is it more precisely called?
        1. Glenn witcher 17 October 2011 13: 35 New
          • -2
          • 0
          -2
          Heckler-Koch has only three PP: MP5, MP7 and UMP. Only UMP is more or less similar to G36, and then with a terrible stretch.
          1. ereke
            ereke 17 October 2011 14: 25 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            yes MP)) I was talking about the external brand look. And the internal structure and ammunition are different, so the principle of operation of automation is different for MP Kekhlerovsky the operation of automation on the principle of recoil of a free shutter, for Gevers the principle of automation is due to the removal of powder gases and the effect on the piston
        2. wasjasibirjac 17 October 2011 19: 20 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          MP-5 chambered for 9 * 19. MP-53 - under 5,56 * 45, but this is actually AKSU, about the same characteristics
  14. L. konstantin
    L. konstantin 16 October 2011 17: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    but better to establish BP.
  15. sedoj 16 October 2011 22: 57 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In my opinion, it’s worth buying, in order to identify a trend in the further development of weapons. Since no one will sell the new. To study and do your own. To maintain its line of development. And in general I think that the military-industrial complex should belong to the state.
    1. valerei 17 October 2011 11: 43 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Yes, any self-respecting designer is always up to date with the latest innovations on the topics that he is developing. But, of course, those who are able to appear in official information. Well, unofficial - this is already a state matter.
  16. DEfindER 17 October 2011 10: 46 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    He just needed to take apart and see, but not for military use, and so that our military-industrial complex was in good shape and there was competition, it just needs to work actively for export, there is enough competition there ... If even our stupid rafals lost at the Indian tender, although even the base MiG-29 is far superior to Rafal in all respects ..
    1. vitvit123 17 October 2011 13: 36 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I, too, have the same opinion ... Thank you.
  17. Owl
    Owl 17 October 2011 12: 46 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In addition to acquiring armament and ammunition consignments, the funds received from the oil and gas pipe must not be sent to the “rulers” of Russia in the “pocket”, but invested in the development of weapons systems, in the updating of production capacities, and in the production of samples superior to the weapons systems of a “probable partner and ally.”
  18. Vyalik 18 October 2011 14: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    We only buy samples, but technologies are needed. And they are not sold to us. So they are afraid that we will do what is best. They will do everything to destroy what remains of the USSR. We need to invest more in our defense industry. If we don’t create it, The price for such a military industrial complex is penniless. And our designers are very good, they only need to set tasks. And for this it is necessary for the General Staff to understand what and how much is needed and most importantly FOR WHAT,
  19. lancer
    lancer 29 October 2011 21: 25 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The development of defense industry enterprises is the key to Russia's strategic security. Making your advanced weapon systems is a lot of money in the global arms trade market. This is credibility and respect from potential partners. This is the creation of hundreds of highly paid jobs and the development of their own technologies. And as a result, the development of the civilian sector of the economy. I don’t feel like it, but I must admit that war (an arms race) is the engine of progress. The arms race has ended and the Americans have nothing to fly into space on, and we have BULAVA for five years now periodically flying wherever it wants. There you go. And in order to create YOUR effective weapon, it is necessary to develop military science.
  20. Gonoriy 24 October 2014 17: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Definitely buy. If there is little benefit, then no harm. And new technologies are always good.