why will some one will give loans to Germany at zero percent that is most likely going to get repaid in inflation adjusted depreciating euros. think harder. the right to get low interest money brings alot of obligations and constraints on country.

In fact, in short term loans the yield is negative: see here.

Stock market may collapse any minute, euro might get deflative, even the gold has plenty of fluctuations. A stable state with strong economy is safe place to invest.

There are no Su-24M2’s there.

It was said they were all modernized variants. So, are they ‘Gefest’ standard Su-24M’s? That was the less extensive (=cheaper) standard, no?

Soviets used PGMs in well-documented cases in Afghanistan and the RuAF has used them in the second Chechen war (possibly in the first, but I’m not 100% sure) and also in Georgia.

Yeah I actually recall seeing plenty of PGM footage from 2nd Chechen war shown in the media.
Using iron bombs makes sense for as long as cheap (ie. satellite-guided) PGM’s aren’t available en masse. That’s what USA used too before JDAMs become widely available. They can be dropped with adequate accuracy and against area targets aren’t necessarily less effective than PGM’s.

Finnish Navy unveils ‘Squadron 2020’ concept

[ATTACH=CONFIG]240803[/ATTACH]

After long incubation process, requirements for new combat vessels to replace existing minelayers and Rauma-class missile boats have been set. ROI within a year, ships ordered 2019, all ready for service 2024. Requirements for “MTA2020” (Multi-Role Vessel 2020) are pretty broad: minelaying, ASW, escort, support of coastal operations, international operations, SAM system of “25km range or more”.
Ships are going to be “corvette type”, 90 to 100+ metres long with maybe 2000 to 2500 ton displacement.
Four ships are planned for total cost of 1.2 billion euros: cost-cutting measures include recycling systems from retired ships wherever practical.

So, any word whether they are going to deploy Kuznetsov? Or is it too early given introduction of MiG-29K and whatnot?

To put this crash rate into perspective , the USAF’s worst year for F-16 crashes was 3.85 per 100,000 hours, and they were deployed globally and some on combat missions. That puts into perspective just how bad the IAF SU-30 crash rate you just described as “darn good” actually is….

According to this document, worst year for F-16 in USAF service was 1983, with 16 destroyed airframes for 107 000 flying hours = accident rate of 14.9 per 100 000 hours. I am counting only destroyed a/c, and not counting the early years with less than 100 000 flight hours. Worst year since 1991 was 1999, with 4.54 losses per 100 000 hours. This includes one F-16 lost over Kosovo.

Russia’s Admiral Kuznetsov Aircraft Carrier is Back in Service!

Any word when they are going to induct MiG-29K?

To some degree, yes, you can fit equivalent systems to an old plane and in some respects get performance similar to newer aircraft. An AMRAAM missile doesn’t know whether it has been fired from F-22 or F-4, it remains just as deadly.
However, previous generation aircraft just were not designed to have all that stuff which is today seen as necessary equipment for a fighter. You can’t install DAS to an F-16, much less MiG-21, there is no room. New requirements keep coming up, this means new systems, new sensors, new equipment, better performance -> volume and weight requirements go up, and you need a larger plane.

Good example is Super Etendard Modernisé (SEM). It’s 1950’s aircraft loaded up all kind of new equipment to keep it useful in 21st century. Nearly everything has to be carried externally as there is no room inside the aircraft: chaff & flare dispensers, jammers, targeting pods…the cockpit is so cramped they can’t install modern displays, so the pilot has a thigh-mounted mini-display for maps and other essential information. For some loads, the gun has to be removed to make room for necessary electronics. All the new external pods mean more weight, more drag which in turn means that the aircraft can only carry small bomb load and for longer range missions, it has to choose between extra fuel and A2A missiles.
Compare this to Rafale, which can carry all that with no problems at all, AND has more fuel AND has powerful self-defence capability thanks to A2A radar and missiles. Yeah, the older plane is still useful but overall it is just no contest at all.