(C) "Intercession Gate"
To begin with, let me remind you of what was discussed in the previous article. In addition, it will be useful for those who can no longer read long texts, but a complete baddy of the brain has not yet arrived.
So, the concern, which finally lost all right to be mentioned with the name of the great designer, presented a weapon under the AK-12 brand at the Army 2016 exhibition. As it turned out, in the final version, this sample did not contain anything constructively new from what was previously promised. Two variants of the machine were promised, depending on its main ideologists. The first, the Tula engineer Zlobin, was distinguished by the presence of a two-rate system and a set of design changes and errors that ultimately led to the failure of reliability tests. The second, an athlete-consultant Kirisenko, was distinguished by his inclination towards sports chips: modularity, ambidextrousness and "the ability to recharge with one hand." As a result, an automaton was revealed to the world, which contained nothing of this in itself. Insignificant changes in the design of the assault rifle do not in any way draw on us to seriously consider the issue of rearming the army with a "new assault rifle".
The main reasons for the ak-12 fiasco lie in two areas - political and systemic.
Political is a complete deprofessionalization and amateurism both in the leadership of the ministries and at the enterprise. The fall of "Protons", the refusal of the "Bulava" to fly and hit targets and, finally, the universal shame with the opening of the "black box" from the bomber shot down by the Turks by the presidential decree, when boards were inserted into the equipment, which must withstand the load when falling at supersonic speed, able to withstand only a fall from the table … This is all a consequence of the idea that money can buy everything and force a person to do anything. That you can interview athletes and commandos about what kind of machine gun (pistol) they need, and force the designer to create it. And if it doesn’t create it, we will buy it from the French. What money can you ensure product quality by simply paying effective managers to implement the kaizen system? That for the same money it is possible to force to create something that people who have not worked for half a century for no money could not create!
According to reviews of the article from those who are directly connected or were once associated with production, this point in the article is the most important, although it takes several lines. Actually, the hype around "ak-12" and similar products is of the least interest to them, but the collapse of the design school and production upsets most of all. There is no need to be touched by the concern's multi-colored workshops or neatly laid out instruments. The term "lean manufacturing", under the flag of which effective managers are now mastering the budget, sounds no more tautological than the famous "economy should be economical." This has no effect on improving product quality or development.
I was fortunate enough to go through the school of Soviet military and civilian production, to work in military acceptance, to experience the hell of creating my own small enterprise for the production of products "from an idea". Now I am engaged in developments that are used by others. And what a hard job it is - to create something in general, so that users at least do not spit in your address, I know perfectly well! Therefore, I can quite afford to assess what is happening in the creation and production of small arms.
To be objective, we must admit that the concern is not all that bad. Two standing new items of the concern are about to appear in stores: a carbine with interchangeable barrels MP-142K and a shotgun with inertial automatics MP-156. In any case, against the background of the freak, the MP-155K look not only better, but quite normal. But the development of the MR-142K was carried out under the leadership of M. E. Dragunov, who will celebrate his 70th birthday next year, and both works were carried out at a mechanical plant, where the engineering school suffered less than at Izhmash. Izhmash, on the other hand, is more concerned with increasing the number in the designation of the AK-15, AK-400, AK-600 modifications, once again trying to surprise with the external alterations of the Kalashnikov and Dragunov designs. Not only design, but also marketing non-professionalism is evident. You cannot create a normal sporting or hunting rifle by reworking a military model. The weapon from start to finish must be the one for whom it was created. A shining example is the discontinued hunting rifle "Bear" and the secret of its production … along with polymers.
So, the second reason for the ak-12 fiasco is systemic. Let's start with the initial phrase, which scares the designers: "Your machine is MORALLY outdated." In general, the concept of "morality" lies in the field of the humanities, human and social relations, however, "obsolescence" and "obsolescence" are well-established terms in technology. Here are just a clear definition and criterion they do not have. Therefore, it is easy to declare the machine gun, pistol and rifle, which have served for half a century, "obsolete" in order to force the industry to move with the development of new models.
The term "obsolete" in relation to the sample can be applied only in relation to the model, which ALREADY HAS A COMPETITOR, which has the best characteristics and efficiency. Superiority over an obsolete sample is expressed by a coefficient, the value of which must be at least 1.5. This value is obtained empirically. You can look at all the materials on the adoption of new types of weapons to make sure that this figure is never below this value. The science of qualimetry is engaged in the derivation of this coefficient. There are several coefficients and methods for obtaining them, and they are used not only to assess the quality of technical characteristics, but also reliability and ergonomics. The most convenient form of calculation is the product of the coefficients of partial characteristics in the power of the weight coefficients:
In the denominator, the coefficients are deteriorating characteristics.
For example. Accuracy of the new sample is 1, 3 times better when shooting while standing without an emphasis. But a group of experts and statistics show that such shooting in a combat situation is carried out only in 20% of cases. Therefore, the real coefficient of this particular characteristic for accounting in a comprehensive assessment will be 1, 3 0, 2 = 1, 054. That is, the real superiority of the new sample is slightly more than five percent in this indicator.
The Picatinny rail (PP) requires a different technique. Where it is impossible to apply numerical methods, experts work. The systems analyst forms a question and asks it to non-sofa experts. In this case, the question may sound like this: "Do you need a PP in a weapon?" Or so: "Do you consider it necessary to have a universal interface on the weapon for attaching additional sighting devices?" The answer will be different depending on the question and on the group of experts - from infantry to special forces. Athletes are excluded. Let's say they received ten positive answers out of a hundred respondents. Then the coefficient will be 1, 1. And now let's ask the question: "Have you ever encountered a situation when the sighting device you have could not be installed on a standard machine gun?" One in a hundred responded. With this amendment, the real coefficient will be 1.0095.
Now about ergonomics. We ask the question: "Do you think that the PP, when operating a weapon, rubs the palm and ammunition, makes it difficult to clean and maintain the weapon?" 99 replied in the affirmative. Suppose only the time for servicing the weapon has increased by ten percent because of this innovation. We have: 1 / (1.99 0, 1) = 0, 93. The final coefficient of innovation: 0, 93 * 1, 0095 = 0, 939 without taking into account the increase in the size and weight of weapons, as well as the rise in production costs.
Well, and so on. It’s clear that it takes time, money, intelligent experts, system analysts and qualimetry specialists to calculate such a coefficient.
An experienced analyst can, without calculations, determine where the efficiency coefficient is, above or below the limit of 1, 5. It is like a doctor who, by the outward appearance of a patient, can determine whether he has jaundice or a pre-infarction state by pulse.
That's the only way, and not otherwise, you can determine whether a particular sample is better or worse. All other statements, be it the scream of a sofa expert or an official representative of the concern, are empty phrases.
There is no weapon in the world that has been put into service, such that it surpasses the AK-74M according to the described method by more than 1.5 times. This means that it is stupid to declare it "morally obsolete". Moreover, among the accepted and advertised foreign samples, there is not a single one that would fit the characteristics of the AK-74 with a complex coefficient of at least 0.9.
