so that is the real result. T-90 is superior with active supply chain. i am pretty sure next import will be Armata once India trialed it.

Very very late (but here now). On the pricier side (result of limited production volumes). Logistically incompatible with the bulk of the IA tank fleet (bulk of which consists of obsolescent T-72s). Doesn’t have a lot of support in the Army. It did however outperform the IA’s T-90s in head-to-head comparative trials held couple of years ago (results confirmed by a recent comptroller report).

do they even know to test. T-90 is well tested tank in deserts around the world and getting continous upgrades.
It has same credibility as urgent buy of C-17 after Nepal earth quake or early retirement of IL-76.

@JSR That is tremendous revisionist history. Sorry, but that is completely untrue. They had both Soviet advisors and French training. Interestingly, as they began to adopt to French training, they improved.

Soviet Advisor sitting can be anything from Georgia to Turkeminstan. It does not mean they were trained by Soviet Union for years in top academies. simply the simulators, training aircraft, integrated airdefence system, AWACS all were of non Soviet Origin. do they even have R-73 with MIG-29?. Those MIG-29 were non-fbw version and excluding any electronic warfare training.
Iraq was funded by Persian gulf arabs so logically it will have much more equipment from EU and Soviet union will not trust them with latest equipment and training as it was fighting there pals in Afghanistan.

Singapore, Gulf nations, Euro-Nato Joint training, Taiwan, the list is endless. Moreover, the air forces that have engaged in these programs are largely competent and capable

on what basis you saying these airforces are competent and capable?. have they face overhelming dominance alone.

Seriously…. You complaints about the F-16IQ deal disregard the fact that:
The Iraqi air force training, support, and logistics infrastructure needs to be rebuilt from scratch. What you don’t see in the deal is that A LOT of what the the US/IQAF is trying to avoid is a repeat of previous errors. Training and maintenance take time and money. Sure, buy from Russia or China. They will gladly sell hardware at low prices, up front. What does that leave you with? Billions of dollars in hardware without the experienced pilots, maintainers, spares, are worthless. The experience with the Iraqi M1’s is instructive, one of the safest and advanced tanks has been largely useless in service due to poor training, motivation, and lack of maintenance (the M1 is a maintenance hog, probably not the best choice for a military trying to get it’s feet underneath it).

Dozens of Mig-29’s, FC-1’s, Mi-28’s, or whatever may look like a good deal, but the training and support are the key piece needed to make them effective. You can argue about the lack of cutting edge weapons being made available, but there is no doubt the the US training and support for those F-16’s will be top notch and make for a more effective deterrent than buying the best, or cheapest fighters in world but lacking what the US has offered. Perhaps those in charge of the Iraqi air force learned that lesson from the previous experience with Russian supplied training and support, and realized that building an effective air force is more than shiny new jets at low prices.

Russia is training is fast , cheap and effective. you can look at Olympics. Russia per capita medal count is far better than US despite sending less number athlete and Russia is not depended on one ethinic to earn majority of its medals. This tells you Russia is far effective in identifying talent and giving right amount of training at far lesser cost.
how many Russian built choppper crashed in inside Irak relative to sorties?

by the time PD-14 variant integrated and certified on Y-20. there will be over 200 IL-476 built. As i said IL-476 will continue to be most successfull multifunctional design.

Fremm to Morocco, Egypt, Greece…

In the past two decades, DCNS has had considerable success in both reviving old markets and opening new ones. In 1994, DCNS won contracts to sell three Agosta 90B diesel-electric attack submarines (SSKs) to Pakistan. In 1997, DCNS contracted to sell two vessels of its new Scorpène-class to Chile, the second of which was delivered in 2007. [17] Not only was DCNS able to break into HDW’s market (Chile had been employing German Type 209 boats), but more importantly, the French company was able to sell a new submarine design, even though the Chilean Navy had initially issued the tender for a proven submarine class. In 2002, Malaysia ordered two Scorpène units as well, along with an ex-French Navy Agosta boat for training purposes. DCNS has also received orders for several Scorpène-class vessels from both India and Brazil, with substantial technology transfer provisions.

Trust me, when I look into smaller vessel there’s a lot more.

(you did note the smiley?)

you are counting old contracts. just like India bought 6 subs that can become operational in 20 years. new contracts for French will be very less. as they will not be offered that generous finance terms like Egypt. this is the last legs before new banking system is created.

Yes. I agree. But the low oil price is offset by a devalued Rouble and I feel the funds for the naval projects are tight which have little bearing on the oil prices. Russian Govt (like any other Govt) cant afford to commit unlimited amount of funds for military and that is a fact.

As an example for the oil prices (ignore the value, just take the numbers), if oil is priced at

$120/barrel, Russia will be getting 3,840RUB/barrel (@ 1USD = 32RUB)

Income will automatically drop when oil prices per barrel go down as shown below.

@ $80/barrel, Russia will only be getting 2,560 RUB/barrel (@ 1USD = 32RUB)

but this can be adjusted by devaluing the Rouble which will help topping up the revenue generation to the old level or higher (but it has got it negative side as well)

@ $80/barrel, Russia will be getting 3,840 RUB/barrel (@ 1USD = 48RUB)

You don’t have to be told all this as I believe you already know this, I wrote that example for others who might still be believing that oil price drop has cut short the revenues from Oil trading.

Though it will help generate an equal or greater amount in Rouble terms, the worst part is it will help the western agencies to spend less or spend the same bucks and get an even greater bang for buck for creating troubles inside Russia.

I already understand that part but high oil prices allow to attract labor from other countries. .
bankruptcy of Ukraine atleast release 10m labor. high oil price can create a lot of unemployment in EU/korea/japan. Plus customers in Middleast/Northafrica can buy more weopons when Oil price is higher so good for exports. long term advantage is in high oil price.

Can a Typhoon pilot take evasive action against a S-300 missile, really?
Scott O’Grady wasn’t very successful taking evasive action against that 50-year-old technology missile, nor was that Turkish F-4 pilot who was shot down by Syrian AD a year or two back. I believe most pilots never realise what’s about to hit them till it’s too late.

Typhoon has same problem as other medium weight fighters. if you load it with heavy pods. it will not have a lot of speed and altitude left. speed and altitude impart greater energy to weopons release range. on top of that bigger fighters bigger sensors reach to spot mobile SAMs at greater distance.

http://defensetech.org/2015/06/19/russia-to-ink-deal-to-supply-china-with-24-su-35-fighter-jets/#ixzz3dXJGuebk
In information distributed at the show, United Aircraft said the Su-35 “4++” generation fighter is one of the company’s “top priority programs.”

Recent flight and weapons testing showed the Su-35 not only meets specifications, but also performs better than other fourth-generation fighters, including the U.S.-made F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 aircraft — even the new F-35 fifth-generation stealth fighter, according to a fact-sheet. “Thus, it is a potent rival to the F-22A aircraft,” it states.