Кто владеет информацией,
|7 dec 2016|
Creator of Kalashnikov and General Director of "Izhmash" denied the lies of the American mass-media
Philin Vladimir 19.04.2006
Last week I had an opportunity to express my own opinion on the next provocation of CIA of the
That time I declared that in May
I also emphasized that the publication in "Washington Times" is not the first attempt of CIA to cast a shadow on productive cooperation of
On the last weekends the lie of the American newspaper was categorically denied by the legendary creator of Kalashnikov - Michael Timofeevich Kalashnikov and the General DIrector of Joint Stock Company Concern Izhmash - Vladimir Grodetsky on the press-conference in the central office of Rosoboronexport.
"This contract provides delivery to
In this way it is possible to state that another attempt of the American special services to belie Udmurtian armourers failed.
It is also curious that at the eve before it in the
Nobody - is written in the article - can guarantee
How can we find the way out from this situation, to secure ourselves against too big influence of two countries? The way-out is the only one - development of new commodity markets of the Goods, appearance of the Russian manufacturers to other countries. The contract with
According to Vladimir Grodetsky generals from the countries of
However such "advertising" does not guarantee that defense departments of the countries next to
One more important question: whether it is necessary for Rosoboronexport to have special exporters? Grodetsky thinks that it is necessary. Certainly enterprises of Military-Industrial Complex of ship-building or aviation branches often do not require the state intermediary and can lead trading works by themselves, only one piece of air-capable cruiser costs billions of dollars. Nevertheless it is difficult for such concern as "Izhmash" to sign contracts by itself.
In the beginning of 90th everyone in the world market got an opportunity to be engaged in trading including manufacturers of small arms. Any contract was considered as huge success, struggling with each other, the enterprises constantly reduced the price thus receiving no advantage. Some manufacturers sold cartridges from their warehouses at prices even lower than the cost of the metal used.
Therefore to attack in one united front is more favourable than by the isolated parts. To conclude contracts with
By the way this contract hadnt been concluded without Rosoboronexport" for one more reason. It is legislatively forbidden in
So, a uniform Russian representative in the world market of the weapon is necessary. But how he should look like? First of all it would be desirable if this structure works on-the-fly. Representatives of the state corporation also speak about it: for the sale of a destroyer as well as for the sale of one hundred of subguns one needs the same set of documents and one term of work, while the value of the deals are different.
If Rosoboronexport" will work on-the-fly, Grodetsky thinks, everybody will win: manufacturers of the weapon, citizens, the state and Rosoboronexport" itself as it is terribly interested in sales increase of the Russian weapon.
As to service and delivery of spare parts to the techniques sold, these are the spheres - General Director of "Izhmash" thinks that can be transferred to the control of enterprises. That would allow to raise efficiency without detriment to quality. Eventually, the state can define frameworks in which the enterprises will work in these directions, issue licenses, after that no problems will appear.
However, to sell weapon is necessary to produce and improve it. Nobody in the world market will wait till the time when Russian enterprises of Military-Industrial Complex will rise from knees and the state will have a distinct industrial policy. The countries that are interested wish to buy the weapon "here and now" and its important to offer them such opportunity.
Nevertheless, we shall repeat that the state doesnt have practicable plans of development domestic "defense industry. Absence of attention results in absence of real support from defense sector. State machine only limits possibilities of the enterprises not realizing that any restriction should be compensated by something.
So, the authority vetoed participation of the foreign capital in the work of the defense enterprises. Is the decision correct? On the one hand, yes, its correct. Foreign manufacturers frequently have absolutely different interests: quite often it happens so that by buying of the Russian enterprise they simply eliminate the competitor from the market.
But, on the other hand, from where should investments into the Russian MIC come? The State in this way reminds of a dog n the manger: it does not eat itself and do not let to do it to others. It ostensibly has no money for modernization of manufacture (despite of huge stabilization fund abroad), the enterprises also dont posses money for doing that. To the foreign investor, as they say, we show picket fence.
In other words, defense enterprises need additional state privileges so that not only survive but also to develop manufacture, - Vladimir Grodetsky thinks. Otherwise in ten years we will have nothing to enter the world market with.
Our own army is also interested in the newest weapon. Its not a secret to everyone that selling arms to other countries the enterprises work for own army. For example, "Izhmash" carrying out contractual obligations with
© 1998-2016 FORUM.msk