MIG-35 is clear representation of MIG-29K that are going to supplied to IN this May. Only the front end of radar is changed.
MIG-35 could boldly present there working radar at Airshow which EF/Rafale/Gripen is unable to do so. The same is true for newer IRST that IAF has selected for upgrading MIG-29. Only TVC is on OVT aircraft that also practically demonstrated.

Nonsense. The actual Mig-35 will have a new wing with five hard points and has yet to fly.

At this rate, you might as well be asked to prove they ARE wrong. :diablo:

There is already more than enough evidence that they are.

Already have you just “diliberatly” force yourself NOT to believe it”
Theres no reason to believe GlobalSec is lying.

no one said it was lying just that it is wrong. Multiple posters have told you why you are wrong and you are wrong, there is not a single shred of evidence to support your lunatic assertion.

Well, the last line of the article indicates the US basically made it a ‘take it or leave it’ choice. By taking them up on it, India did implicitly consent to the conditions and I agree that for disaster relief and development of operational concepts for amphibious warfare, the ship is a bargain for that price – even with the limitations imposed. However, it WILL make India wonder what strings America may attach to other arms deals (P-8, C-130J, MRCA…) already signed or still in the making, and rightfully so.

In fairness when this thing was bought the Indian were pretty explicit that its primary role would be disaster relief anyway. I know that some people would love this ship to be the start of some great Indian ocean going amphibious force but it was never going to be so. I suspect that the Indian Navy/Government does not feel like it has sacrificed much with this deal.

Lies and inaccuracies such as Saddam Hussains Iraq in the 1980’s was a great place to live eh? i guess it was if your a fan of genocide eh…

Well you have just lied again I never said Iraq in the 1980’s was a great place to live. Simply pointing out that the Baathist state was modernist, secular and reasonably liberal (by ME standards).

And that one sentance has just shown your undeniable lack of knowladge about Mr Hussains rule.

No it shows you remarkable lack of intellect. Iraq in the 1980’s was not that far behind the west in terms of society and even state function. The Baathist regime was liberal and secular. Sure Saddam’s overseas exploits undermined his achievements but that does not take away the fact that his regime was actually pretty modernist.

You not knowing what you are talking about is becoming a rather unpleasant theme on this forum and I think that we would all prefer it if it ended.

This is not quite the point I was going at and thanks for illustrating so clearly that I didnt get the message out Jon!.:)

The point was that during a simplex situation few tinpot dictators will act in such a fashion as to jeopardise their own power base – that is a given. The scenario I painted above sought to differentiate from the simplex situation though.

The best example I can cite would be Saddam Husseins attack on Israel during Desert Storm. The simplex calculus there, for Iraq, was hit Israel = Israel hits us back and ten times as bloody hard!. Logically therefore the last thing that any tinpot dictator would ever wish to do. The calculus of that situation was very different to Hussein however. Attacking Israel and suffering the full force of their retribution was likely to unravel the coalition attacking him and, in the long run, offer him a way of keeping his head and his throne. Logic – after a fashion and if you are willing to gamble at those stakes.

Ahmedinejad, as example, is aware of the antipathy his own ‘electorate’ has for him and is, quietly, hoping for the US or UK to do something provocative that will let him wrap himself in the flag and rally the masses. This was the whole point of the RIB incident last year. Acquiring nuclear weapons and a delivery system that presents an abiding threat to the US mainland creates the focus on Iran that gives Ahmedinejad the leverage to try and rally his populace. Rhetoric such as his ‘blast Israel of the earths surface’ speeches do the same thing. He may view these things as securing his power base with his nations religious conservatives and mobilising his populace to his side, but, to western observers they are the rantings of a dangerous lunatic…something that fits his agenda nicely as well.

The first principles of crisis management involve the identification of dangerous symbiotic spirals such as this and their immediate dismantling. That is why the fizzled outcome of the HMS Cornwall incident was so important as the cycle of indignation, confrontation and escalation was chopped off diplomatically before any serious harm could be done. What it does show, however, is that such flashpoints exist all over the place and with a threat system able to deploy nuclear warheads and, most importantly, complete an engagement cycle within just a few hours that the sense of developing a system to remove the ballistic missile option from the crisis progression is manifest.

Thats exactly the point I tried to get across many posts ago.;) Only GMD is really designed as homeland defense system Almost everything else is intended to be dispatched to the regions to defend deployed forces and more importantly coalition nations (even if they are just hosting US forces), the idea being to remove the potential diplomatic power provided by the capacity to make regional ballistic missile strikes. Obviously, as you said, the Iraqi Scud campaign is the model for the proposed threat. The key point is that this is in absolutely no way a peer rival system. Potentially/maybe in the future it could be turned into one with a massive increase in spending but I really dont see that happening yet. MAD still applies between Russia and the US and will do for at least the foreseeable future. I would even suggest that in the next couple of decades it will probably come into play with China too.

Earlier then that, not up to German standards though, especially in discipline outside of combat.

Edit

Frankly remembering my fathers and grandfathers stories the red army soldiers seemed more fanatical, suicidal, then skilled.

Learn the meaning of the word ‘by’. Soviet troops late in WW2 were only marginally behind the high end German units and only really in the area of small unit operations. Look at any of the late war major European operations by the Soviets or the invasion of Manchuria, North China and the Kurils and what you get is a masterclass in peer rival contiguous border warfare.