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 thinks that this should in no way be done, someone, on the contrary, reproaches the defense industry with overpricing, monopoly and lobbying of their interests. It is impossible to answer this question unequivocally. The level of our industrial base is an order of magnitude behind those of the Western countries. Therefore, in principle, we cannot compete with the West in terms of the number of advanced technologies. But at the same time, putting an end to your own industry is simply criminal, and only the enemy can reason like that. Of course, no one will sell us advanced technologies, so we are doomed to purchase outdated developments. In fact, you should not be afraid of this. 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. Later, this vehicle became a WWII legend and the best tank in the 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 This example shows that even outdated technology, implemented at a new level, can bring success on the battlefield.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, one should not be afraid of cooperation with the West. At one time, we even benefited from this.
In 1969, the project K-222 "goldfish" was implemented, the submarine was built entirely of titanium. This product turned out to be extremely expensive, but the 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, but by solving certain technological processes that brought our shipbuilding to a new level. Industry cannot develop virtually, it needs to produce something, and the more projects that are designed for the future, the faster it will develop. The same can be noted in the disputes over the construction of aircraft carriers. Perhaps our army does not need them as badly as the Americans do, but it is certain that we are losing experience by refusing to build these large-scale projects. It is such projects that lead to revolutionary breakthroughs in work, and it is they that can give the necessary impetus for the development of our military-industrial complex.
Therefore, the state should not only place its orders at internal facilities, but also lobby for the export of these products, despite the fact that the bulk of the production is 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, having no guarantees that after modernization he will be provided with state. orders. And modern modernization in today's conditions is actually the organization of production anew. What entails the need to improve the qualifications of workers. In general, this whole complex of problems is forming a macro-task that can be solved only by the state. It is unclear 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 can lead to a revision of the results of privatization. Today, there are examples when it is impossible to establish the owner of a weapons-producing enterprise, for example, nuclear submarines at the Amur shipyard, whose assets have been taken offshore.
Thus, we have not just some separate problem areas, but systemic phenomena that are extremely difficult to deal with. Since they are based on the laws of the "wild" market of the 90s 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 what problem we touch - the military-industrial complex, science or art. In any industry, we have a similar state of affairs. But it is becoming more and more difficult to parasitize on the Soviet legacy today due to the rapid development of technology.