President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues, good afternoon.
Last week we had a series of meetings on developing the Armed Forces and the defence industry where we discussed system-wide tasks pertaining to re-equipping the Army and Navy. We will continue this discussion at the Military-Industrial Commission meeting today.
The first item on our agenda is to consider the main results of state armament programme implementation, and outline the approaches to drafting the new programme for 2024–2033.
I have already noted that the state armament programme, which is one of our most significant strategic planning documents, plays a special role in upholding Russia’s security and defence. Its priorities include defining and implementing projects under the state defence order, expeditiously taking science and technology advances into serial production, and developing promising new weapons, of course.
I would like to note that in 2020, a difficult year, a demanding one, our defence companies fulfilled the state order at 96.2 percent. As a reminder, in 2012, they achieved just over 80, and that was considered good. Now we have climbed to such a high level, and that high bar has been maintained for more than five years. Even with the restrictions necessitated by the coronavirus pandemic, the defence industry has maintained stability, allowing no disruptions or delays in supplies.
As a result, the share of up-to-date weapons and equipment in the strategic nuclear forces exceeds 80 percent, and in the general-purpose forces, it is above 70 percent.
Russian troops have been supplied with the latest weapons, which are not inferior to their foreign counterparts in their tactical and technical parameters, and are even superior in some respects. Among them are the fifth-generation Su-57 fighter, the Knyaz Vladimir nuclear-powered missile carrier, and the S-500 anti-aircraft missile system.
Obviously, in drafting a new state armaments programme we need to comprehensively consider the global trends as we develop combat hardware and arms. We need to focus on introducing advanced information, bio- and cognitive technology, hypersonic arms, weapons based on new physical principles, as well as cutting-edge reconnaissance, navigation, communications and control systems. We should enhance the utility and combat sustainability of military products, partly through artificial intelligence and, of course, extensive use of robotics. Again, these areas will decisively determine the future look and combat potential of our Armed Forces.
The second item on our agenda is the implementation of the programme for diversifying defence production lines. This is very important for the sustainable and balanced development of military-industrial complex (MIC) companies and our entire economy and its high-tech branches in the long-term perspective.
Specific objectives and targets in this field were set as early as 2016, and I must say we have done a lot in this respect in the past five years.
In recent years, the output of civilian products in total MIC production has been increasing steadily. It was 20.9 percent in 2018, 24.1 percent in 2019 and now, 25.6 percent in 2020. It is even higher in some areas of the MIC.
At the same time, we have to do better in this area in the future, and we certainly have the reserves for this. We continuously speak about this with corporate executives. It is important to set the correct priorities and to draft mid- and long-term plans on this foundation.
We said at a meeting of the commission last year that MIC companies should make broader use of the opportunities opened by national projects and state programmes. Active involvement in these will allow these companies to considerably increase the output of civilian products and introduce advanced technology. Thus, our industry, both civilian and defence, already meets more than half of the requirements of national projects in machines and equipment.
As you know, the Government has the authority to determine the amounts, the so-called quotas of state purchases and purchases by companies with state participation. This applies only to domestically produced products. As we have seen, this mechanism is up and running: the share of domestic goods in municipal and state purchases increased to 60.9 percent in the first nine months of 2021, from 55.6 percent in 2020.
We must make the most of these opportunities and more actively engage in the fields where defence industry products are in demand. We know these fields: they include ship- and aircraft manufacturing, medical equipment production, the construction industry, and transport and energy engineering, to name a few. At this point, I would like to emphasise again that it is necessary to thoroughly monitor the quality of these products. They must be fully competitive with their foreign counterparts – both in price and in technical specification.
I would like you to report today on the specific plans to diversify defence production and any additional, comprehensive solutions that would make it possible to increase demand for the MIC’s civilian products and ensure the priority of domestic producers in our internal market.
Finally, under the third item on our agenda, we will review nominees for the position of a general designer of arms and combat hardware and the position of head of a priority technological branch in the MIC.
I would like to note that this managerial structure has justified itself. It has made it possible to focus authority and clearly define responsibility for implementing practical goals. I hope the people endorsed today will have the right qualities and can confirm their professional and business qualifications, form strong teams (in fact, the teams are already in place but should be, of course, supported and developed) and contribute to implementing key national defence and security projects.
This is all I wanted to say by way of an opening remark. Let us get down to business.