No exactly true. They were built 100% in Yugoslavia, with very good optic and computers for the time. They also changed armor and transmission. unfortunately I can’t provide you with article because it’s in Slovenian language :rolleyes:

Sure, but to put it lightly it borrowed a lot from the T-72, in both design and components, even if 100% Yugoslav.

Su-34 has never used Damocles. Occasionally there has been talk about license production, but it has not materialized yet.

Oh that pod is by UOMZ? New development, or Sapsan derivative?

http://missiles.ru/_foto/MAKS-2011_1_news/IMG_1322.JPG

Also this is around, by these guys:
http://www.npk-spp.ru/

No, its not intended for any VVS fighters.
That Sapsan sniper pod did not reach up to VVS requirements and fell through any production delivery..

Why cant any of the Russian Targeting pod have a rotating seeker lens in the front?

VVS should have filed for an French Sniper pod long time ago, if Russia can have Mistral Carriers, why not French Targeting Pods from Thales:confused:

Hmm? The pod shown @ MAKS-2011 is not Sapsan, AFAIK. Not a UOMZ product either.

Out of curiosity, has the Il-114 ever been considered for a small AWACS platform, or has the lack of domestic interest in that made that a non-starter?

Current projects (Superjet, An-148, MS-21) look to have very tangible effects on economy, and are certainly being bought my domestic companies.

Pretty sire Kr can target with its own seeker, and display imagery to MDF.

Domacles is not used by RuAF, and Sapsan never entered service. We did see a new pod @ MAKS though.

Something that has any evidence. In the absence of any solid evidence that M84s engaged, let alone slaughtered, Iraqi tanks, I have no choice but to be skeptical. Vague written sources have a tendency to feed of each other, without becoming any more valid or specific. If we look at it from a technical perspective, no reason the M-84 wouldn’t have a huge advantage over the T-62 and T-55 during frontal engagements, but that is neither surprising, not the issue here.

We are grossly OT.