Military Review

With a tank in life

IWT service remains a big problem

Oboronservis has sunk into oblivion, but its cause lives on. Rather, it should live, but there are nuances. The tasks of repair and maintenance of weapons and military equipment, which were assigned to the outraged department, still need to be addressed.

This was discussed in the State Duma at a meeting of the Expert Council under the Committee on Industry and Development of REP enterprises. The question went beyond the originally delineated framework, when it became clear: the management of the life cycle of the products supplied to troops is necessary for all defense enterprises, and not just the radio-electronic industry.

What happens to a tank, gun, electronic equipment during operation and at the end of its term? Who and how should be responsible for maintenance, repair, disposal? The Ministry of Defense, for example, for the third time has set the task of transitioning to a full life cycle in servicing equipment and weapons. According to the representative of the Main Directorate of Communications of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Yevgeny Krivoshein, a lot of electronic equipment produced in the Soviet Union remain in the troops. Now it's time to write it off and change it to a more modern one. But who will do it? Should military personnel be involved in the repair of equipment, and if so, to what level of difficulty?

With a tank in lifeIt was suggested that the repair of some not the most expensive samples of weapons and military equipment is not needed at all. In the West, there are already examples when the equipment is serviced to a certain extent, and then simply utilized.

There are claims to the Ministry of Defense and defense enterprises. They, as it turns out, are not always confident in the reliability of the contractual relationship. About this, in particular, spoke Deputy Director General of Uralvagonzavod Vyacheslav Halitov. For example, penalties for the T-72B3 tank for breach of contract are five per cent of the value of the vehicle. This, of course, is very much, especially since the operating conditions of the T-72 and T-90 are different. A plant has established a team to develop provisions for the management of the life cycle of weapons and military equipment. It turns out that at the federal level there are no such documents, and this will be the first place where the methodology and conceptual apparatus are created, which can later form the basis of title documents.

“It’s generally difficult to talk about the full life cycle, since for some samples of weapons and military equipment, such as a tank, it is 40 – 50 years,” Khalitov argues. - Therefore, it is necessary to introduce the term "after-sales service".

Now Uralvagonzavod accepts repair plants from the Oboronservis structures into the corporation. While many of them were in limbo, and hence the service support equipment has stalled. Therefore, the question should be put wider and thinking about the creation of regional service centers for servicing the AMS.

It is necessary to determine the maximum duration of contracts for the full life cycle. This situation arose during the execution of the service contract for ACS 2C19М2. The money was spent on restoration work, but there was no service left. Another more recent example. According to Gennady Kapralov, General Director of NPO Kvant (Veliky Novgorod), in 2013, the company supplied the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation with the first batch of mobile radio-electronic warfare complexes Krasukha-4. But for some reason, the military department did not order any spare parts, which raises doubts about proper operation.

It is necessary to break down the design of contracts, to solve pricing problems. For example, the attempts of Uralvagonzavod to interact constructively with the legal department of the RF Ministry of Defense do not find a response. And mutual claims and debates in courts only make it difficult to maintain high-quality weapons and military equipment. The conclusion is simple: the regulatory framework does not match the realities.

The defense industry and the Defense Ministry of the Russian Federation should become equal partners. In the meantime, as Konstantin Kostromin, director of the Product Lifecycle Management Department of the United Aircraft Building Corporation, admitted, production and military understand the essence of contracts quite differently.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Zoldat_A
    Zoldat_A 31 October 2015 08: 26
    the troops remain a lot of electronic equipment produced back in the Soviet Union. Now it's time to write it off and change it to a more modern one. But who will do it? Should military personnel be involved in the repair of equipment, and if so, to what level of difficulty?
    During my service, I dealt little with technological issues, I had a more human factor, it happened. But somehow it was all organized in the USSR! And the ensign with the "crickets" ran with their "magic suitcases", in which there were such tools that I did not even know their names, let alone their field of application. And the flyers constantly had civilians from the factories. And the military representatives were at the factories. By the way, the most necessary service, which, they say, has now been abolished (isn't that why rockets fall at Baikonur much more often than in Soviet times - then the military representatives made sure that the sensors were not screwed upside down!). By the way, there were some special landfills for recycling - somehow I myself had to organize reloading to Kamaz trucks and escorting 3 AK cars to this one. We arrived - and there is so much else! Almost from the war, the guns were dismantled. Somehow the whole system worked!

    Maybe not "give birth to a hedgehog", not reinvent what has already been invented, but stupidly take the scheme that worked and "twist" it a little to today's conditions?
    1. raketnik
      raketnik 31 October 2015 09: 47
      Maybe not "give birth to a hedgehog", not reinvent what has already been invented, but it is stupid to take the scheme that worked and "tweak" it a little to today's conditions? ====== WHAT SHOULD YOUNG EFFECTIVE MANAGERS DO ?? ? am
      1. Zoldat_A
        Zoldat_A 31 October 2015 13: 32
        Quote: raketnik

        That's for sure. There is hardly a place for "effective managers" in an efficiently working scheme ... Because in an efficiently working scheme, each element is busy with its own business and all funds are spent on the business. No room for useless links and theft managers.
    2. Alekseev
      Alekseev 31 October 2015 09: 50
      Quote: Zoldat_A
      Maybe not "give birth to a hedgehog", not reinvent what has already been invented

      That's right!
      Inventors of bicycles, their mother!
      The only problem that has existed in this matter before, and now is the low level of qualification of operating service technicians in / employees and l / s repair and restoration bodies.
      No "sucking" by third-party organizations, on which the fart and the women were pushing him, is unacceptable in this matter, since "sucking" is not workable in wartime.
    3. Good cat
      Good cat 31 October 2015 11: 40
      Military acceptance has been greatly reduced, but is now restored to its former scale.
  2. Massik
    Massik 31 October 2015 11: 19
    Uhahah "the contract is over," so now let's go to the military gentlemen ...
  3. 31rus
    31rus 31 October 2015 12: 16
    Sometimes I just wonder what our government men are doing, the question is more than serious, my opinion should be determined based on the complexity and capabilities, the second (to train, equip, check, control), should be the military command, but as close as possible to the troops (with field training opportunities)