Speaking of the Ukrainian military-industrial complex, one usually mentions the manufacture of tanks, some air defense systems, aircraft, and ships, forgetting very often that development of the most advanced technologies does not diminish the role of the common firearms, i.e., pistols, automatic rifles, and machine guns. The market knows more or less such Ukrainian products as pistols of the Fort and perhaps Khortytsia series. Meanwhile, such arms are extremely widespread in the world: over 500 million of them now wander the globe. Another fact: it is gunfire, rather than bombs and shells, that has claimed 80% of the death toll in all wars and conflicts during the past fifty years. And people are not going to turn their backs on the pistol and rifle for a long time.
Ukraine has quite a huge potential for producing both such arms and the ammunition for them. Setting itself the goal of outstripping the Russian producer in the manufacturing of tanks, the Ukrainian military industrial complex (MIC) managed to organize the production of not only tank guns, but also machine guns. The Russian defense industry journal Eksport vooruzheny (Arms Exports) has concluded bitterly that while in the early 1990s the production of Ukrainian tanks was 50% dependent on supplies from Moscow, today the well-known tank T- 80UD, for example, needs less than 5% “foreign” components. Still there is a paradox: while Ukrainian design bureaus and factories display at arms exhibitions some fundamentally new makes (recall the Alekseyenko design bureau’s submachine guns, the TASCO large-caliber sniper’s rifle, Spetstochmekhanika revolvers, etc.) with seemingly excellent performances, the Ukrainian Army is still equipped with traditional Kalashnikov automatic rifles produced in the 1960s. Moreover, nothing has been heard about the export of Ukrainian firearms. Why?
The answer is simple. Up to now, the absolute majority of national designs has been nothing but a creative initiative of the manufactures who fail to coordinate their actions with army and police consumers. According to Colonel General Oleksandr Stetsenko, Deputy Minister of Defense in Charge of Armaments, the number of weapon designs has exceeded several times the real requirement of the nation’s military in the past few years. Naturally, the army is unable (even if it were fully and generously funded) to absorb such a quantity. There is also one more detail. By all accounts, designers strive to achieve the highest level of their weapon performances, such as firing range, muzzle velocity of the bullet, etc. Meanwhile, the military say, “According to the experience of local wars,” that of paramount importance for any weapon are such at first glance insignificant things as easy transport and handling, speed of combat deployment, and maneuverability. You cannot identify these data in a cozy room with compasses in hand or even in a shooting gallery, while in a real life battle it turns out that lower performance but easier to handle weapons are far more effective than any technological wonders. This results in a situation such that the efforts of over twenty Ukrainian firearms and ammunition enterprises remain unrequited because this work is being done without a customer’s order. Moreover, Col. Gen. Stetsenko says, many collectives try to wrest laurels from Mikhail Kalashnikov and Eugene Stoner (inventor of the American M16A1), even without having a test base for their prototypes. The point is that practically all of them are funded from the budget, i.e., they let their imagination run free at state expense. Ministry of Defense officials have their own vision of a way out of this situation. For instance, during a conference on the problems of firearms development in Kyiv last April, the generals suggested establishing a special supervisory board under the Ministry of Defense to coordinate the efforts of designers and producers.
There is one more, less than pleasant, point in the development of this variety of arms in Ukraine. This is the subjective or departmental factor. We have heard more than once that the much-advertised Fort pistol adopted by the police and security services is in reality quite far from being ideal. Moreover, in many countries police units have been armed with revolvers, for the latter are more reliable, easy to handle in close quarters, and practically always ready for action. Policeman are allowed to use not only the prescribed Fort but also the Spetstochmekhanika revolver, but it has to be bought out of one’s own pocket. Many lawmen do so. But why not equip the police and security services with revolvers as part of their operating equiptment? An arms designer disclosed a little secret in a private conversation: as we know, the Vinnytsia-based FORT enterprise belongs to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and this says it all.
There is still another way to develop such arms in this country: entering the international market. However, unlike armor manufacturers, the Ukrainian producers of pistols and machine guns have no grounds for optimism. According to Viktor Korenkov, deputy director of the Ukrspetseksport state-run military export/import company, Ukrainian exports of small arms account today for less than 3% of the total domestic sales of armaments and equipment. What is more, this does not mean that Arabs or Europeans have been attracted by the Fort or some other Ukrainian brainchild. What is being sold is Soviet-period weaponry mothballed in the Ministry of Defense stores (luckily, more than enough Kalashnikovs remained after the USSR collapsed). All attempts to get the world interested in our own products have suffered a humiliating fiasco, for the firearms market is very conservative and it is next to impossible to compete with the tested and customary Soviet and NATO makes even if performance is better and prices are lower.
Of course, Ukrspetseksport (state weapons export monopoly) is not willing to put up with this situation. The company management is today calling on the military and weapon producers to “run in the same harness” and draw up a strategic plan of firearms development in Ukraine. In Mr. Korenkov’s opinion, our weapon makers will have a good chance to reach the world levels if all the interested departments become aware of the nationwide importance of this field.
Yet another problem arises. A foreign buyer, eyeing a military item, will first of all ask if this is employed in our own army. If not, that is the end of it. Indeed, if what is being offered is a weapon in low demand in its parent country, then there must something wrong with it (any state will only sell a weapon after it has met the requirements of its own army). But will the state have enough funds to scrap millions of Kalashnikov automatic rifles and machine-guns, SVD rifles, and Makarov pistols, now current in the armed forces, and purchase new generation weapons for the military? Thus far it looks pretty doubtful.
