Israeli sources are also reporting this sale of 250 MKM (Malaysian standard) and not MK2, plus 20 IL-78 tankers 😮 Though not sceptical of affordability, (Iranians will simply pay in crude), is such a large number prudent considering Iranian airfield/ infrastructre vulnerabilities?

Pogosyan expects solid RuAF and “Asian” orders for Su-35BM (new production airframes) add Brazil & Venezuela and it seems the order books are filling-up even before a first flight!
Am I correct to believe the ‘117C engines offer limited supercruise capability (with a light load)?

Why are the Shia buying their Sunni neighbours (and enemies) MiG-31Es & MiG-29Ms?- oh I get it, ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’.
UAZ is right, the money would’ve been better spent on the S-400.:cool:

I wish I could follow my own advice, but sometimes they just push buttons till they get a reaction… and then they whine about the reaction they get.

Facts from US intelligence mean very little.

Even if they were ideal there are several other places to base these systems that could still get the job done and not upset the Russians.

.

I agree, US ‘Intelligence’ is a contradiction in terms.
How’s about a seaborne ABM? Then everybody’s happy!
Try not to lose your cool Gary, there’ll always be people who disagree with you, valid or not.:)

Nice photos UAZ, balshoya spaseeba!!

[QUOTE=UAZ;1125842]Apart from Tor-M1, there will (most certainly) be other anti-air missile complexes that will be integrated with with the S-300/400 systems.

Hi UAZ, any word on the ramjet R-77M?:cool:

The Russians need to make there mind up. On one hand they rant about how destabilising and aggresive the US missile shield is, but on the other they protest that their ICBM’s can penetrate it. They cant have it both ways.:rolleyes:

It’s more complicated than that, for a country that’s been paranoid about it’s status for much of it’s history, then losing it’s global superpower status, then being led by a drunken baffoon who pandered to the West’s empty promises and sold ‘the family silver’ for next to nothing- capital flight which enriched the square mile in London and dodgy bank accounts in Jersey. Then had it’s ‘sphere of influence’ disappear under the NATO banner and it’s slavic brothers in Ukraine sold illusions of McDonald’s culture (where most of the USSR’s ICBM production was cited- hence the delay in the RS-24 programme).
Unilateral wars in Afghanistan & Iraq, ‘war on terror’- blah, blah, blah, yeah right, unilateral withdrawl of ABM treaty etc.etc….you’d be a peeved too, Savy?

[QUOTE=sumeet1981;1124517] So its clear that indian has choosen FGFA from Sukhoi Design Bureau over RAC MIG.
This should clear up any doubts as to what happened when india & russian govt. officials met in Jan 2007.

I beg to differ, senior IAF officials have spoken candidly of the status of a Russian 5th Gen i.e “on the drawing board” (which can only mean MiG), and the unsuitability of Sukhoi’s design (i.e. heavyweight F-22 class) for the IAF.

About a year ago, I read an article where the Indians were asking Sukhoi to scrap their design and start from scratch with the Indians and their requirements addressed, to which Sukhoi (rightly) gave the two finger salute.
As far as Sukhoi is concerned, the Indians need them more than they need the Indians.

The revival of MiG’s 5th Gen. benefits both sides. The Russians get co-funding/co-development for a light-fighter replacement for the ’29 & complement to it’s heavier stablemate, not to mention excellent export potential. The Indians are involved from inception & will develop the advanced manufacturing & support structure associated with such a project (along with lucrative contracts for future customers)- it’s a no brainer.

As for the reporting of Indian committee’s minutes and ‘decisions’, if the MMRCA tender is anything to go by, it’s all hot air.