Just so we are clear, you are saying that India is not producing Su-30MKIs at roughly $75 million apiece?

I am well aware of the extremely low prices quoted in the media for Russian fighters, but as I already explained, these numbers do not represent apples to apples comparisons with Western designs.

It’s true Su-30 sales have been often reported for very low prices:
-Malaysia 18 Su-30MKM’s (and two Malaysian cosmonauts for ISS) for $900M, 50 million USD per plane in 2003. Configuration is very similar to MKI, ie. top-end.
-Algeria, latest order was 14 aircraft reportedly for $500M, 36 million each, but this price estimate might have been guess by journalists.
-Venezuela, latest order (2015) is 12 Su-30’s for $480M, 40 million per plane. I don’t know avionics etc. configuration of Venezuelan planes.
-Vietnam, 2013 order of 12 planes was reportedly for $450M, $37,5million per plane. However this order has been also reported as $600 million (50 million per plane).
-Uganda’s 2011 order of six aircraft was for $740 million – 123 million per aircraft!

This news article examines Vietnamese deals, and mentions that 8 Su-30’s were $400M “without weapons” in 2009, next 12 “with weapons and spares” were $1 billion (83 million per plane) and next 12 were $600 million. Seems to me that some of the quoted very low prices for Su-30 deals cover only part of the deal, maybe only the initial batch, also they apparently often include only the planes themselves, not any accompanying spares etc (note the analoguous controversy about F-35 vs Super Hornet pricing in Danish evaluation). Also, Su-30 is available in variety of configurations, not all of which feature thrust vectoring engines and state-of-the-art avionic sets. I also wonder if some extraordinaly low prices were actually refurbished Su-27UB’s which were given Su-30 type avionics sets and weapon wirings.

Ugandan deal probably is the most comparable “all inclusive” deal similar to what Western manufacturers offer to 3rd world countries: weapons, spares, simulators, training, support etc. If so, $123 million apiece is still reasonably cheap, but not “omg I’ll buy a hundred” cheap.

Is that a Redigo behind the tail? When was this pic taken?

I don’t think it had much if anything to do with potential use of nuclear warheads. Echo II was obsolete by 1980’s, it was built to 1950’s paradigm, a small mass-produced boat, not particularly fast and certainly not quiet design. Also the boat had to surface to fire Shaddocks (not sure about later missiles), a major handicap.

Krestas carried only small missile load but they had good area AAW capabilities, not too common in Soviet surface combatants. Also they had helicoptes. There probably simply was no plan to upgrade those ships as they were going out anyway, most of them were decommissioned even before USSR disintegrated and Kyndas were next to go other than Golovko.

Aviation cruisers made sense – somewhat – for naval strategy and operational concept Soviet Navy had. It would have been pointless for Soviets to counter US carrier hegemony with carrier force of their own, instead they built an asymmetric, essentially defensive concept of heavy, long-range antiship missiles to counter US carriers long range striking power. Since those missiles were bulky, they needed large ships to carry them and when you have large warships around, it is not a bad idea to have some of them carry aircraft for defence, AEW and ASW duties. However, the main combat a/c – Yak-38 – was disappointing and AEW was limited to relatively weak helicopters of the era. And of course the ships themselves weren’t (and aren’t) so great, with serious propulsion issues.

Nowadays with miniaturization of technology there is less need for huge cruisers carrying gigantanormous missiles around. As we have seen, a corvette-sized vessel can carry warload of supersonic AShM’s nearly as powerful as those Bazalts and Granits of old. So that’s one raison d’être for those ships gone. Tactically, surface combatant and aircraft carrier need to be treated differently and it is a conundrum for commander of a squadron if one of his ships combines both roles. I don’t see any meaningful role for an ‘aviation cruiser’ in todays environment. It is better to build a dedicated carrier and put your missiles on combatants and escorts. Open question is, whether there is place for ‘command cruiser’ type combatant, which has size & height for very powerful AEW and AAW radars, or whether it is better to have those capabilities on carrier too, if you have one.

Orel was meant to have MiG-23’s, though?

Not really , you can choose your momentary FoV depending on the focal length. That the whole point of optical zoom.

Yes, in theory. And to some extent in practice too, but you will end up having bulky optical system with inferior optical quality. There is a reason why photographers generally carry a bag of different lenses and change them depending on their needs, instead of one zoomable lens which does everything.

I don’t understand why one may think this is a humiliation for Turkey? It was actually something very bad for SyAAF, or SAA in general. That their pilots can go mad or bought via $$ to do something that had the potential to start a war, cost Assad his regime, or at very least could have made things very difficult for Syria, Turkey, Russia (plus Iran, Iraq etc) altogether…

I very much doubt SyAAF deliberately targeted Turkish forces. If this map is accurate, then the strike took place where FSA/Turks had recently began a pincer movement and the pilot was probably acting simply on outdated intel.

The F-35B or F-35C are just as capable of dispersed basing as the Gripen or Super Hornet.

Rest assured that F-35B and -C are not considered. As for dispersed basing, there probably isn’t that much difference between the contenders. It was already practised with Draken and MiG, which have horrible landing strip requirements compared to modern fighters.