Russia publicly blocked the sale of S-300 to Iran, they would look really bad if this large system was somehow spotted on satellite. I don’t think Iran is getting S-300 from Russia anytime soon. Curious that they did not just get the supposedly compatible system from China.

China cant afford to offend the Saudis.

It’s a two-way street. US doesn’t sell high-end arms to Georgia and Taiwan, Russia and China don’t sell high-end arms to Iran and North Korea (or Libya etc). Can’t help but think there’s some sort of unspoken agreement there.

I agree with all you’re saying. My point is the then-Soviet aircraft industry prepared for a massive clash of arms over/on Europe, and with that in mind, designing for higher thrust & lower TBO makes sense (in the pre-FADEC era) – additionally to what TR1 said about their depot system.

Whether current Russian engine manufacturers do enough to improve ease-of-maintainability, that’s a different question.

Remember, the short engine life and overhaul time on Soviet era engines was due to the system of front-line-airfield repairs and full repair depots behind lines. Very different system to NATOs. The planned overhauls being so seemingly frequent, on both airframes and engines has to do with the doctrine. Also explains why these figures were seemingly magically improved post USSR.

Can’t say if those figures are accurate though. However 5 million replacement every 300 hours is obviously nonsense.

EDIT: Let’s also stick to one thread 🙂

Also, what was the life expectancy of a tactical fighter over Europe, even in a non-nuclear WWIII scenario. I read the average life expectancy of Sturmoviks in 1941 were 13 missions.

Of course a prop plane flying into 88mm flak is an extreme example, but still. (RAF pilots on Malta during WWII lived for 2-3 months on average.) If you’re building for a big peer war, what’s the point of 1000 hours TBO if you expect to lose 70% of your frontline aircraft by that time anyway. You’re going to need new airplanes more than you need replacement engines.

A curious deal, isn’t it?

Somewhat like MiG-29K for the Russian Navy after the Indians ordered it, no?

and don’t see why they should sell it less than it’s worth.

That’s another point. If Dassault significantly discounts their offer of 22 Rafales, I don’t imagine India and Brazil will want to pay the “regular” sticker price for their potential 126 & 36(?) units. So there’s potentially a lot of lost profit there.

http://www.letemps.ch/

I love the disgusted militaty who got his toy, yes, but the cheapest and “do it yourself” 😮

Looks like Serge Dassault made a “contribution” to Le Temps. Enfin c un peut infantile, it’s not like the raison d’etre of light fighters has disappeared.

There’s also Elta’s Phalcon, in service from 1994 from what I’ve seen.
Erieye since 1997.
APAR has been around on the new Dutch AAW ships since 2002 but I read it took another 3 years or so to fully integrate it with SM-2.