Moscow Defense Brief

Current Issue

#6 (68), 2018


SEARCH : Search

Defense Industries

Interstate Financial and Industrial Group "Defense Systems"

Konstantin MAKIENKO

The Financial and Industrial Group Defense Systems was set up in 1997. Its managing company - Defense Systems Joint Stock Com­pany (Defense Systems JSC) - was founded seve­ral years earlier by several leading designers and manufacturers of air defense systems. Like most other corporate entities in the Russian de­fense industry the Defense Systems group (as of 2000 the Interstate Financial and Industrial Group Defense Systems - IFIG Defense Sys­tems) was established for the implementation of major export contracts, namely contracts with China and Cyprus for the delivery of S-300PMU1 (SA-10) medium-range surface-to-air missile systems and with Egypt for upgrading S-125 Pechora (SA-3) short range surface-to-air missile systems.

The absence of a single core company in the production chain is the distinctive feature of the sector of long-range surface-to-air missile sys­tems, which can be accounted to the extreme complexity, labor-intensity, and expensiveness of these armaments. The development of an air defense missile system involves 12 to 16 compa­nies each of which is a core company in a cer­tain sphere (missiles, radars, delivery vehicles, control cabs). The serial production of the S-300PM surface-to-air system involves over 100 (103 according to some sources) companies in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Armenia.1

In Soviet times the integration of numerous de­sign bureaus and industrial facilities was organ­ized by ministries and agencies. After the col­lapse of the Soviet defense industry management system the organization of design and produc­tion integration ceased to be a pressing task for a certain while because the serial production of S-300 systems for the Russian Armed Forces stopped.

Founding idea and Group members

However, in 1994 the first export contract for such systems was signed with China. Hence, the need arose to revive production cooperation. Be­sides, the contract with China was implemented in extremely difficult financial conditions, which required the solution of several other complex tasks: the coordination of the opera­tions, cooperation management, credit finding and distribution, and the implementation of clearing and barter deals. All these problems prompted the need to define the core contractor. As a result, to organize work under the contract with China "Volkhov. Defense Systems" closed joint stock company was formed, which later became a founder of Defense Systems JSC. It brought together government-owned enterprises and joint stock companies involved in the pro­duction of air defense systems of the S-300P series.

On February 11, 2000 Russia and Belarus signed an agreement on the formation of IFIG Defense Systems on the basis of the Russian fi­nancial and industrial group. The deal was con­cluded during the visit of the then Russian Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov to Minsk.2 The Cooperation Board became the top governing body of the new group. The Russian government appointed Klebanov its chairman, and Leonid Kozik, envoy of the President of Belarus and Belarussian deputy prime minister, became first deputy chairman. The Russian side was also represented by Vladimir Simonov, gen­eral director of Russian Control Systems Agency; Yuri Koptev, head of Rosaviakosmos; Mikhail Dmitriyev, chairman of the Russian Federation Committee for Military-Technical Cooperation with Foreign States (CMTC); An­drei Belyaninov, general director of Rosoboron­export; and Yuri Bondarev, Air Force Deputy Commander for the CIS joint air defense sys­tem. The Belarussian government was repre­sented by Anatoly Rusetsky, deputy industry minister; Pyotr Rogozhevsky, deputy defense minister; Nadezhda Yermakova, chairman of Belarusbank; and Oleg Duko, chairman of the Committee for Defense Matters under the Eco­nomics Ministry.

In addition to Russian companies the group was joined by the Minsk Wheeled Tractor Plant (the manufacturer of platforms for S-300PMU and S-125 Pechora SAMs), Alevkurp Research and Production Enterprise, the Borisov repair plant and MinskKompleksBank. According to press reports, in the future the group may also include the Belarussian Agat Research and Pro­duction Association (a manufacturer of auto­mated control systems), Integral Research and Production Corporation in Minsk (semiconduc­tors) and the Belarussian Optical and Mechani­cal Association (BelOMO) (guidance and radar systems). A new industrial cooperation line was set up to implement the fundamentally different project of upgrading S-125 Pechora SAM to Pechora-2M version.

Thus IFIG Defense Systems is a corporate entity responsible for two projects: the manufacture of S-300PMU1 SAM and the upgrading of S-125 to Pechora-2M modification.

The group comprises a total of about 20 enter­prises the most important of which are:

  • Fakel Engineering Design Bureau (missile designer),

  • Moscow Instrument Automation Research Institute,

  • Moscow Radio Engineering Plant (MRTZ),

  • Obukhov Plant,

  • Design Bureau Kuntsevo,

  • Radio Equipment Plant,

  • Leningrad Severny Zavod ,

  • Lianozovo Eletromechical Plant,

  • Chelyabinsk Radio Plant Polyot,

  • Pirometr JSC,

  • Minsk Wheeled Tractor Plant,

  • Novosibirsk Komintern Plant,

  • Radioeletronic Weaponry Repair Plant

No. 2566

Rosbank Commercial Bank.

Export operations

Contracts implemented

There is no exact information about export de­liveries of air defense systems of the S-300P family. It is definite that contracts were signed with China and Cyprus and deliveries were made to China and Greece, which after inten­sive pressure exerted on Nicosia by Turkey and the United States, agreed to deploy the air de­fense systems in its island of Crete. Neverthe­less, scattered press reports give an approximate idea of the contract sizes and prices.

According to the most reliable evaluation, since 1994 China has received 8 battalions of S-300 PMU in two batches of 4 battalions each.3 During the media war that Almaz Central De­sign Bureau waged in 2000-2001 against Defense Systems some information leaked allowing esti­mating the price of the deliveries to China (see Table 1).

Table 1. Distribution of receipts from S-300 exports to China



Purpose of payment


$91.8 mln


Commercial banks

$72 mln (298.1 bln rubles)

Loan interest

National budget

$43 mln (177 bln rubles)

Customs duties and taxes

Industrial enterprises

$130 mln (560 bln rubles)



$336.8 mln


Source: Gleb Pyanykh, "Interros" poluchil bresh v oboronke", Kommersant Daily, 08.09.2000, pp.1, 4.

The article did not make it clear whether payments for the entire deal with China or only one batch were in question. It is more likely that the sum was received for the delivery of only one batch of air defense missile systems (it is not clear the first or second). In general one cannot be sure about the accuracy of figures published during a media war. If our assumption is correct ($337 million for 4 battalions), the total price of the deal with China should run to approximately $600 million given the big share of barter and clearing payments.

For a long time it was believed that the contract with Cyprus provided for the delivery of only one air defense system. However, later Kommersant Daily that was well-informed about the details of the crisis in Cyprus reported that in fact 2 systems for $230 million had been delivered.4 Thus, total exports of S-300PMU/PMU1 in the 1990s comprised 10 systems for over $800 million (minimal press estimates of $780 million and maximum $900 million). If Kommersant was writing about all eight battalions to China, export deliveries stood at less than $600 million.

The contracts with China and Cyprus were carried out by Defense Systems or in the framework of production integration organized by its predecessor - "Volkhov. Defense Systems". It must be said that all of them were implemented in extremely complex financial and institutional conditions (in the case of China) or political and military-political conditions (the Cyprus crisis). Several Defense Systems top managers are known to have received state awards for the successful implementation of the contract with Cyprus.

Current contracts

The signing of the third contract for the deliv­ery of S-300 to China was reported at the end of 2001. China ordered "several more battalions of S-300 for $400 according to the money-for-debts pattern."5 The report said that China ordered a more up-to-date modification of the surface-to-air missile system - S-300PMU-2 (SA-10B). If the size of the contract was stated accurately, four battalions could be in question again. The Russian press reported that this time Rosobo­ronexport contracted Almaz Central Design Bu­reau and three other core companies. However, as Almaz evidently has failed to set up an effec­tive industrial cooperation chain, the contract will be carried out at plants and design bureaus of IFIG Defense Systems. In addition the group's core company now having controlling shares in the Moscow Radio Engineering Plant will be involved in the contract indirectly. It must be said that by now Defense Systems JSC has virtually completed the formation of a rigid holding structure consisting of the integrator (managing) company, designer (Design Bureau Kuntsevo) and manufacturer (MRTZ).

In addition to participating in contracts for the delivery of S-300PMU1 the group has major a contract for upgrading S-125 Pechora short-range SAM. The deal was signed at the end of 1999 with Egypt and provides for upgrading 30 systems (50 according to other sources) for $125 million.6 A series of tests was conducted in 2000-2001, the main operations will be carried out and serial production launched in 2002-2003. This is the second contract of such a scale to upgrade Soviet-made second generation weaponry, big quantities of which are employed by the armed forces of former allies of the So­viet Union in East Europe and the third world. The first contract was signed back in 1996 for upgrading 125 MiG-21 (Fishbed) fighters to the MiG-21UPG version for the Indian Air Force. However, that contract is carried out with sig­nificant delays and clearly faces significant technical difficulties. If Defense Systems man­ages to stick to the projected working schedule and attain the promised technical parameters of Pechora-2M, i.e. to successfully implement the contract with Egypt, this will create a qualita­tively new atmosphere for upgrading Soviet weaponry that is now sooner unfavorable be­cause of the delays in the implementation of the 1996 contract and because of the energetic PR efforts of Israeli companies to sponge on Russian platforms.

Missed contracts

Before 1998 Defense Systems took part in the tender of the Greek Air Force for a $1.2 billion contract for long-range missile systems in which the US Patriot was its rival. The Greeks opted for the American system under strong political pressure from the US administration and due to the institutional and personnel instability in the Russian MTC system at that time.

In 1999 Slovakia following a change of the par­liamentary majority and Cabinet officially dumped plans of acquiring one S-300PMU1 for some $150 million in an arms-for-debts swap.

Probable contracts

Several countries in the Middle East - Libya, Syria, and Iran - as well as India may import systems of the S-300P series. However, deliver­ies of effective air defense systems to Islamic countries in the Middle East arouse strong resis­tance from the United States and Israel that evidently want to have their hands absolutely free in case of a need to deliver air attacks at nuclear power facilities as well as administra­tive, military and economic targets in those countries. At the moment the Russian leadership seems to be especially sensitive to possible US political or economic pressure that will inevita­bly grow, if any plans of deliveries of long-range air defense systems to countries in the Middle East are reported. Besides, those coun­tries are likely to give priority to short range and man portable SAM systems in their air de­fense purchases.

After Pakistan conducted nuclear arms tests In­dia has shown interest in acquiring long-range air defense systems with an enhanced missile-de­fense potential. According to the Indian Defense Yearbook, in February 2000 the Indian armed forces signed a two-year agreement on leasing two S-300PMU1 systems that were supposed to be delivered to India by the end of 20017 but there has been no confirmation of such a trans­fer. According to the same publication, since 1998 the Indian land forces have been consider­ing the acquisition of six S-300VM Antei-2500 (SA-12) medium to long range surface-to-air missile systems manufactured by Antey Concern with the following deployment of 19 systems. The total cost of the program stands at $7 bil­lion. Simultaneously the Indian armed forces are trying to get access to the Israeli Arrow-2 anti-theater missile system. Given the fact that in naval air defense India has already chosen the Israeli-made Barak systems we may assume that the Indian land and air forces would also prefer to obtain Israeli weaponry. In these circum­stances the only hopes of Russian exporters are attached to the high cost of Israeli armaments and a possible US embargo on the transfer of up-to-date technologies to a country determined to preserve its cultural and political identity.

On the whole the industrial community is making pessimistic forecasts for Russian long-range air defense systems. The third Chinese contract may become the last large-scale deal for systems of this class.

The outlook is much better in the sector of up­grading S-125 Pechora. India, Syria and Viet­nam have significant stocks of these systems. Considering the fact that all three are have limited financial resources for acquiring new armaments, the upgrading of the existing stocks seems a cheaper and technologically attractive alternative to new purchases.

The abovementioned Indian Defense Yearbook speaks of the possibility of modernizing the In­dian air defense heavily relying on S-125. How­ever, on the Indian market Defense Systems are facing competition from Poland that has its own Pechora upgrading project implemented in the Polish armed forces. Judging by the fact that the price offered by Poland is lower the project is technologically much inferior to the Russian one.

Product range

At the beginning of 2002 Defense Systems JSC was offering four key products that had been fully or partly developed at the expense of the group. They were the upgrading of Pechora to the Pechora-2M modification, the Phoenix panoramic passive IR surveillance system, the TAS VMN border surveillance and environ­mental monitoring automated system, and the Tropa and Bot portable navigation and commu­nication kits. Defense Systems core company also holds contracts for the delivering spare parts and organizing maintenance services of S-300PMU exported earlier. The receipts from these contracts are comparable to the returns of the core company from the implementation of delivery contracts for the systems. For instance, in 2000 the receipts of Defense Systems JSC amounted to about $50 million.8


S-125 Pechora short-range surface-to-air missile system of the second generation has been ex­ported to 35 countries.9 In 1972 through 1986 a total of 400 Pechora systems10 (600 according to other sources11 ) were delivered to foreign cli­ents. They effectively operated during the Viet­nam War and conflicts the Middle East. After 30 years in operation this most widely spread air defense system in the world still has a signifi­cant potential. The Design Bureau Kuntsevo, the Fakel Engineering Design Bureau, the Mos­cow Radio Engineering Plant, the Design Bu­reau of Special Engineering (St. Petersburg) to­gether with other Russian and Belarussian com­panies and institutions under the auspices of IFIG Defense Systems and Rosoboronexport have developed and launched a comprehensive program of upgrading Pechora (the Pechora-2 program). The upgrading program increases the mobility of the system and immunity to jam­ming, improves its combat parameters thanks to the application of up-to-date components and simiconductors. The upgrading should help re­duce maintenance costs by half. The advance­ment of the guided missiles should increase their range from 17 to 27 kilometers.12 Ultimately the list of components and spares will be re­duced from 3,000 to 300.13

As stated above the group is currently working on a $125 million contract to upgrade some 30 such systems for Egypt. India, Syria and Viet­nam are the most likely potential markets for this product.


The Defense Systems group demonstrated its new Phoenix panoramic passive IR surveillance system for the first time at the arms show in Abu-Dhabi in May 2001. Initially the Defense Ministry launched the project, but later froze it. The group funded the continuation of the pro­ject with an eye on completing the station and marketing it later. Phoenix can be combined with short-range surface-to-air systems of the Tor-M1 (SA-15) and Pantsyr-S1 (SA-19) types, with naval air defense and missile defense sys­tems. Besides, Defense Systems are developing their own short-range missile defense system on the basis of Phoenix.


The TAS BMN automated air and naval moni­toring system is quite promising from the view­point of market prospects. It consists of coastal technical observation posts equipped with radars and optical instruments (first echelon), ships at sea with the same equipment operating from a distance of over 10 kilometers (second echelon). The third echelon of surveillance and environ­mental monitoring at a distance of up to 600 kilometers comprises patrol aircraft and helicop­ters equipped with the Sea Snake search system. The fourth echelon implies satellite land and sea remote sensing. The system also contains means of data transmitting, processing and recording. The idea of forming the system emerged in the process of seeking new applications for air de­fense technologies. In November 2000 the first system underwent government tests in the oper­ating area of the Novorossiisk division of the Federal Border Service in the Black Sea. De­fense Systems together with the Federal Border Service funded the development of the system. Defense Systems have the right to market and sell it in Russia and abroad, while intellectual property rights for it belong to the Federal Bor­der Service together with Defense Systems. TAS VMN is being promoted on markets of countries of the Caspian Sea, Persian Gulf and Southeast Asia.

Tropa, Bot

The fourth product Defense Systems is promot­ing is the personal navigation and communica­tion kit. It relies on GPS global satellite net­work receivers and commercial pocket com­puters. The portable navigation and communica­tion set Tropa developed on their basis consists of a portable USW radio station, a GPS re­ceiver, a microcomputer with an electronic mapping system and an autonomous power sup­ply unit for 10 hours. The system is designed to guarantee the transmission of information about the whereabouts of a person to the microcom­puter and via radio to the respective command post.

An RfP for the system came from the coast guard department of the Federal Border Service that wanted patrol boats and search groups of be equipped with it. Defense Systems have made a test model of the naval modification of the system (Bot) that should stand government tests in April 2002. The ground modification named Tropa is supposed to be tested in the middle of the year. In the future the kit should be promoted on civilian markets as well.

Activities of managing company - Defense Systems JSC

Defense Systems JSC is the core or managing company of the group. Its shares are owned by plants, design bureaus and banks most of which belong to the group. The last major change in the company capital structure took place in January 2000 with the third share issue. As a result the company charter capital grew more than 15-fold.14 Several serial plants involved in the manufacture of S-300PMU became share­holders at that stage: the Moscow Avangard Machine-Building Production Association, Mos­cow Radio Engineering Plant (MRTZ), Novosi­birsk Komintern Plant and United Avionics Consortium.15 At the same time given the diffi­cult relationship between the Defense Systems JSC and Almaz Central Design Bureau the stake of Almaz in the core company was reduced "by tens of times" as a result of the share issue.16

Simultaneously with the third share issue the strategic decision was made that a fourth issue would follow in the process of which control­ling shares would be transferred to the govern­ment. The decision was made on June 8, 2000 at a general shareholder meeting by a qualified majority. In exchange Defense Systems JSC hoped to receive government stakes in compa­nies - shareholders of the core company - to as­sume direct control over facilities constituting the group.17 However, the project was still at the stage of implementation in February 2002. Evidently the main obstacle lies in the absence of legislation regulating the transfer of shares in a private company to the government.

There is still no full information about Defense Systems JSC. According to the Russian National Association of Stock Market Traders, MRTZ is the biggest shareholder of the core company with a 25.56% stake.18 The government is known to have a 10% stake in Defense Systems JSC.19

The core company has not restricted itself to the establishment of production cooperation, search for investment resources, lobbying the interests of group members at government institutions and the like which are the usual functions of a managing company. Despite the lack of progress in the exchange of shares in the JSC for stakes in the group members it is increasing its in­volvement in their capital. For instance, it is known to have built a controlling stake in MRTZ by acquiring 29.72% from New Programs and Concepts holding company. As earlier it had an approximately 35% stake in the plant the combined package rose to 60-70%. Govern­ment stakes in MRTZ and Design Bureau Kunt­sevo are 10% and 35% respectively.20

In addition to acquiring assets in companies constituting the financial and industrial group Defense Systems JSC is investing its own money in the development of new products the most investment-intensive of which are Pechora-2M, Phoenix and TAIS VMN. It also fully controls the implementation of these projects. In addition it has invested its own funds in the development of Pantsyr-S1 air defense missile/gun system at the Tula-based Instrument Building Design Bureau and new missiles for the S-300PMU system the R&D on which is conducted at Fakel Engineering Design Bureau.

Defense Systems JSC has its own production facilities and a subsidiary in Kapustin Yar where components of surface-to-air missile systems are adjusted to each other. This means that even in a flexible institutional framework of a consortium the core company is taking steps to develop a long-term economic and technological strategy, which significantly increases the economic and political stability of the group. In this respect IFIG Defense Systems is a group of the third generation that has taken a step forward compared with the property holdings of the second generation that do not conduct their own R & D on new products or form new production cooperation chains.21

Competitive environment

Like any potential center of corporate integration Defense Systems JSC operates in conditions of stiff competition. However, this has been mainly parochial and clan rather than technological or economic competition. Bureaucratic and media attacks on Defense Systems have intensified since 1998. It is curious that Almaz Central Design Bureau involved in cooperation on S-300P is the main source of competition, not Antey Concern that has a virtually alternative product - S-300V and S-300 VM S-300VM Antei-2500 (SA-12) medium-range surface-to-air missile and a corresponding production chain. Since 1998-1999 Almaz has been making energetic efforts to form an alternative cooperation chain that it hopes to develop for the project of the serial production of S-400 (SA-20) long-range surface-to-air missiles.

The first signs of crisis emerged in summer 1999 when ahead of the opening of MAKS international aerospace show the formation of a new corporate structure to manufacture and develop S-300P family systems was announced.

Table 2. Defense Systems performance in 1999-2000


Receipts, $ mln

Profits, $ mln

Investments, $ mln



















Note: Exchange rate for 1999 - $1/24.65 RUR, 2000 - $1/28.12 RUR

The Almaz Scientific and Production Association was supposed to become such a structure. In addition to Almaz itself it was supposed to contain 16 (according to some sources 20) other designers and manufactures of air defense weaponry. Initially the association was expected to be entrusted with the management of government stakes in related companies and given a license for independent foreign economic operations. Later the corporate structure was supposed to evolve into an open joint stock company.

It was announced that the main purpose of forming the new corporate structure was to increase the share of export receipts from the sale of air defense systems channeled to the development of new types of weaponry. Representatives of the new structure claimed that merely 1.5-2% of export returns were spent on such programs while the transition to a new generation of armaments and military hardware in air defense required 20%.22 The ideology of the new corporate structure implied independent access to world markets. However, since August 1999 the new corporate structure has not demonstrated either commercial or institutional activeness. An intensive media war against Defense Systems has been the main outward manifestation of Almaz activities. Nevertheless, along with MRTZ and Fakel Almaz was chosen as a key contractor for the December 2001 contract for the delivery of a new batch of S-300PMU to China. It is not clear to what extent the lobbying efforts of Almaz affected the decision under which Defense Systems JSC that had carried out all previous orders for S-300 systems is now involved only through the facilities it controls.

In 2001 the main debate on restructuring air defense system manufacturers centered around the idea of forming a holding that according to the initial plan should have brought together design bureaus and manufacturing facilities of both Antey Concern and those working on S-300PMU. What was described as the Air Defense Concern was supposed to have the form of a federal state unitary enterprise at the initial stage and be corporatized later. The president was expected to sign a corresponding decree during or immediately after MAKS-2001 international aerospace show. However, the attempt to form the concern aroused strong resistance from the top managers of Antey and Almaz who evidently succeeded at halting the merger attempt first and blocking it later. According to press reports, Defense Systems could have joined the concern as a minority shareholder with a 5-10% stake.23 In addition the press assumed that the management of the new concern would be formed of Defense Systems executives. At the beginning of 2002 the future of the holding remained vague. Its main supposed lobbyist Ilya Klebanov was demoted from the post of deputy prime minister to minister at the end of February 2002, consequently his lobbying potential will evidently dwindle. On the whole this means that the process of corporate development in the designing and manufacturing air defense weapons has lost its dynamics by now. The fact that the 2001 contract with China was not placed with Defense Systems is an indirect indication of the fact that the prospects of it becoming the center for consolidating the air defense sector of the defense industry are waning. Defense Systems will probably concentrate its efforts on interstate cooperation and the implementation of new programs. Its representatives have declared that both the managing company and the entire group are self-sufficient. Besides, the emerging Defense Systems holding will be joined bys MRTZ and Design Bureau Kuntsevo as affiliated members, i.e. the design bureaus and enterprises involved in the production of "big" S-300 systems. Judging by the product range the other directions of the group's operations are unrelated to the projects that the government wants to bring together in the framework of the Air Defense Concern. And finally being the core company of an international group Defense Systems JSC cannot scale down its operations back to the Russian national market alone.


  • Thus the operations of IFIG Defense Systems and Defense Systems JSC have the following key features:

  • Two industrial cooperation chains have been formed: to manufacture S-300PMU and upgrade S-125 Pechora to Pechora-2M modification with the second being developed from scratch for an absolutely new project.

  • The operations of Defense Systems is giving true economic contents to the Russia-Belarus Union and has the potential for further expanding production cooperation within the CIS.

  • As a result of Defense Systems JSC operations Russia has competitive offers to make on the market of upgrading Soviet-made surface-to-air missile systems of the second generation. This offer - Pechora-2M - has been successfully marketed and accepted by Egypt, a country that receives significant American assistance and that did not import large quantities of Soviet/Russian weaponry for almost three decades which is an indication of the high technological and financial competitiveness of Pechora-2M.

  • In the process of its development Defense Systems JSC has evolved from a integrator company of one project (to organize the production and sale of S-300PMU) towards the formation of a vertically integrated entity uniting managerial, R&D, manufacturing and marketing facilities and capacities and offering a diversified range of military and dual purpose products.


1 Roman Streshnev, "VTS stran SNG yeshchyo ne otvechayet trebovaniyam vremeni', Krasnaya Zvezda, 10.07.1999, p.4.

2 Mikhail Kukushkin, "Belorussia I Rossia sozdayut FPG dlya proizvodstva sredstv PVO", Vremya MN, 11.02.2000, p.4.

3 Igor Korotchenko, "Moskva i Pekin narashchivayut strategicheskiye svyazi", Nezavisimoe voyennoe obozrenie, #42, 10-16.11.2000, p. 1.

4 Kommersant Daily, 11.02.1999, p. 4.

5 Alexei Nikolsky, Mikhail Kozyrev, "Mirnoye nebo nad Pekinom", Vedomosti, 26.12.2001.

6 Jane's Defense Weekly, 18.01.2001 http://jdw.janes.com.

7 Indian Defense Yearbook, Editor Lt. General RK Jasbir Singh, p. 256.

8 "Vsyo upirayetsya ne v formu a v konkretnykh lyudei", Interview with General Director of IFIG Defense Systems managing company Sergei Batekhin, Vedomosti, 27.08.2001.

9 Vladimir Khripechenko, "ZRK Pechora vkhodit v 21yi vek obnovlyonnym", Aviapanorama, 07.08.1999, pp. 62-63.

10 INFO-TASS electronic database, Vega base, 07.07.1999.

11 Ibid.

12 INFO-TASS electronic dat abase, Vega base, 07.07.1999.

13 INFO-TASS electronic database, Vega base, 07.07.1999.

14 Mikhail Kozyrev, "Kontrudar Oboronitelnykh system", Vedomosti, 14.01.2000, p.B2.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid.

17 "S-300 - eto vsegda politika", Interview with General Director of IFIG Defense Systems managing company Sergei Batekhin, Vedomosti, 25.04.2000, p. A5.

18 www.skrin.ru.

19 "Vsyo upirayetsya ne v formu a v konkretnykh lyudei", Interview with General Director of IFIG Defense Systems managing company Sergei Batekhin, Vedomosti, 27.08.2001.

20 Ibid.

21 Here we regard companies of the first generation as vertically integrated government-owned companies uniting design bureaus and serial plants (RAC "MiG" is a classical example). New Programs and Concepts Holding Company is a classical example of a holding of the second generation.

22 INFO-TASS electronic database, Vega base, 23.08.1999.

23 "Vsyo upirayetsya ne v formu a v konkretnykh lyudei", Interview with General Director of IFIG Defense Systems managing company Sergei Batekhin, Vedomosti, 27.08.2001.


Print version


© Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, 2019