That makes sense on first glance, but you gotta keep in mind the large investments needed to keep them going. 115mm ammo production lines need to be restarted, because who knows what percent of 115mm ammo produced is usable.
Again, we don't know what the situation is with the 115mm gun and its ammo... the export market means all sorts of different rounds are still in production long after becoming obsolete.
The 303 rifle bullet is still produced for instance.
AFAIK there are guided rounds for the 115mm gun but it is not custom designed... it is the same as the 100mm calibre missile used in the BMP-3 and the T-54/55 and also the MT-12 smoothbore 100mm gun... so four different variants of the same missile.
Properly stored the ammo would be fine for decades, and putting new ammo into production makes sense if these tanks get upgraded and taken out of storage and put back into service because that creates a demand.
You said a few years before that it makes no sense spending money on restarting 14.5mm or 57mm S-60 production lines. How is the 115mm any different?
If they had scrapped all their T-62s to get rid of the calibre from their armed forces then selling off the ammo production equipment to another country that uses that calibre still and then they don't need to worry about that calibre any more would reduce logistics complexity, and wont impact front line performance because it really didn't do anything the smoothbore 100mm or 125mm calibres couldn't do.
But if you have a use for something then it makes sense to use it in areas or locations where newer more expensive options wont be any more effective.
Fitted with APS and ERA a T-62 is not a bad tank and would be protected from a lot of anti armour weapons that dominate the worlds battlefields like the RPG-7.
With its BDD add on armour upgraded and improved its armour protection might actually be rather good for its weight and mobility.
Even in the 70s the USSR stopped producing 115mm in favor of going all in on 125mm.
That is not true... they even had T-34s in reserve in the 1970s and the Naval Infantry used T-55Ms in Afghanistan in the 1980s because they tested Drozd on them there.
The conflict in Afghanistan was fought with T-55s and T-62s and some T-72s because they didn't need anything better.
Secondly, most mechanics and engineers with intricate knowledge of the T-62s inner workings are either dead or pensionnaires. You have to spend even more money on training people to learn a tank mechanically much different from the T-72. This can be mitigated by hiring syrian or african mechanics, but still its a waste of money.
Mechanics who can work on T-72 engines should be able to pick up a manual for the T-62 engine and quickly work out how to keep it running... it is not more complex... in many ways it is probably a lot simpler, but likely more maintenance intensive compared with new engines.
Thirdly, the T-62 requires 4 crew members, which strains the russian already limited manpower reserve even more. You need more men to man less tanks.
You also have more men for maintenance and guard duty and other jobs like loading ammo.
It is not an enormous burden... for all we know they might be used in the rear areas in Ukraine, or perhaps be sent to Syria... that conflict continues too.
Why spend money on modern APS and ERA on a tank which costs less than those systems?
Because mass production reduces waste and costs and allows them to develop and evolve and get better... with feedback from their use they become more effective and useful, and the money going into the companies developing ERA and APS systems means more money for developments and improvements in design... better testing and development... perhaps supercomputers to allow theoretical testing of different materials before money is spend in real tests...
Judging by no Russian tank in ukraine being equipped with arena or afganit, there will be no APS.
Maybe experience so far has led them to want to trial a batch of say 800 tanks with APS to see how they go.
APS is more useful on vehicles whose armour the enemy weapons might otherwise penetrate.
Anything an upgraded MiG-21 can do, a MiG-29SMT or MiG-35 can do better.
Totally agree, and for Russia the choice is very clear because their MiG-21s are gone as far as I know... but for a smaller country whose defence needs are not the same if they had MiG-21s then a dozen upgraded MiG-21s and your existing fleet upgraded to that level is a very cost effective solution to improving the fleet, without the serious expense of buying new bigger aircraft for which all your hangars and support equipment are not right for any more.
I think even for India that the idea of a Tegas light plane and a medium plane like a Rafale is not a good use of their resources and money... I personally think the light aircraft concept could be replaced with the MiG-29M which is cheap to buy and to operate, but has growth potential, and by eliminating an extra different aircraft type from the inventory make serious savings... the Medium Planes... Rafales could be replaced with MiG-35s or invest in their 5th gen light fighter replacement for the 35.... the Kh-69 could replace the storm shadow sneaky land attack missile and to replace Meteor they could joint develop an equivalent scramjet powered AAM that flys at double the speed and can reach out enormous distances to touch...
The enormous difference in price between the MiGs and the Rafales would leave billions to spend on anything you think needs work and because it will be your billions paying for it instead of renting Rafales from France instead then you would own the technology developed and use it in SAMS and other AAM types... even ATGMs and artillery rounds...
Instead they pay billions to France for a fourth gen fighter.
But at the same time you're against upgrading Su-17s and MiG-27s because they're too primitive and Su-25SM and Su-34 exist.
Older equipment has potential for upgrades but I don't think Russia should put MiG-21s or MiG-23s or any of their older aircraft back into production and replace existing newer models with upgraded older planes.
Not every job needs a 125mm HE or 125mm APFSDS round. Often even a 100mm round will do, but then part of the upgrade of these T-62s might be replacing the turrets with T-72 turrets, which solves the problems with ammo, but some allies and customers of Russia don't need anything better.
It is not like they are not upgrading them and in fact if those images of older upgraded tanks with mast mounted EO sights in some aspects they are better than most in service tanks anywhere.
Smaller lighter cheaper rounds that still get the job done is a good thing.
Russia sent T-55s and T-62s to Afghanistan in the 1980s because better vehicles were not required.... if these tanks are going to Syria that might be because that is what they want.
Well T-62Ms shouldnt be upgraded because T-72As, T-64BVs and T-80Bs exist.
MSo you upgrade these newer vehicles... what do you do with the T-62s you have in stock?
Just throw them out, or scrap them?
Odds are they had T-55s there too but probably no T-34s because they actually bought some... when it comes to bringing things out of storage it makes sense to bring the oldest back first... it appears the orcs are not getting HATOs latest... and even if they did they have lots of anti armour rounds to burn those up.
The T-62's RoF is only 4-6 rpm. The T-72 has 7-8 rpm. also T-62s dont have ammo concentrated on in one hard to hit spot like the T-72.
The T-72 also has ammo in a protected ammo cassette magazine, but the rate of fire can be variable... when you fire a round the system looks at the selected type of ammo and finds the closest round of that type in the ammo cassette.
It is possible that you end up with the equivalent of a fragged ammo bin, but there is no defragging option for the future so the rate of fire can certainly go down.
With a human loader they can mix and match the ammo quickly and might be faster for short periods but will certainly slow down, but can also man a roof mounted HMG when enemy drones are about.
However I would support converting old An-2s into low-speed, very low-altitude, big-payload suicide drones at some aircraft repair plant somewhere that isn't currently occupied with anything more important.
Would be interesting... removing the crew and cargo spaces to reduce weight and you could probably load several tons of explosives...
They seem to be working on a range of new air launched weapons with the goals of simple and cheap and therefore affordable and effective to be used widely.
If that Iranian drone costs $800 to make then by all means make lots.
Didn't they mention a small accurate cruise missile with a range of 1,000 to 1,500km that would be super cheap to mass produce that would be able to be carried by smaller aircraft and in larger numbers than the current 6m 2.5 ton missiles...