Future of russia defense industry?

[Vital]

What is known, is the record of the Western AAM's and SAM's launched at OPFOR targets. The ( operational, combat proven ) PK ratio tends to be many times higher for AMRAAM, or Patriot, than what we've seen from Russian-made systems.

It's propaganda isn't it?
Now I uderstand why some people do not understand my point of view. The problem is that they Haven't seen Russian 'junk' in action. And I hope You will never see it.
Special thx for Gollevainen's words.!!!

 

[gf0012-aust]

It's propaganda isn't it?

No, its not propoganda when the evidence is supported by historical events

Now I uderstand why some people do not understand my point of view. The problem is that they Haven't seen Russian 'junk' in action.

In actual fact the 4 great SAM models are - and so Russian systems have been evaluated in the heat of combat:

Hanoi
Yom Kippur
Bekaa Valley
GW1

In both Hanoi and Yom Kippur the SAMS held the initial advantage - but incursive air ended up dominating the battlespace. In the case of Yom Kippur the Egyptians made the mistake of moving out of SAM coverage and lost the force protection advantage that they had.

Yom Kippur is a classical example as the Russians had put their best systems in place for real world testing. It was regarded as the most lethal Russian modeled grid then available - more intensive than Hanoi's defences.

Bekaa Valley is regarded as one of the first great battle event changers as it saw the introduction of combative EWarfare and the first combative implementation of UAV's- and the Israelis decapitated the SAMs completely once counter measures were in place

GW1: The Iraqi SAM grid was absolutely decapitated within the first 24 hrs of the war starting. They were unable to pick up and defeat F117,s EF-111's and combinations of Rivet/Combat platforms. TAC CM's decimated the grid and the SAMs were unable to detect and neutralise the cruise missile attacks on critical nodes.

Russian based ADS was completely neutralised and outflanked by not only kinetic suppression, but also electronically.

The odds in all 4 examples certainly lie with the counter systems and not with the GB SAMs.

btw, I have been involved with assessments of some Russian equipment - so I'm not just quoting books and the internet

And I hope You will never see it.
Special thx for Gollevainen's words.!!!

Well, its fine to be proud of your country and its equipment, but it still needs to be judged by real world performance

 

[Gollevainen]

no, my point was that it was more than just tactical tradecraft - it was also very good intel tradecraft at work. It wasn't a statement about dismissing serb competency, but hilighting that it was a far more complex issue than a professional battery commander.

• if you know the flight path as its been repeated 4 nights running, then that also points to pilot negligence and overconfidence
• if you know the flight path then you can set up a corridor of anticipation - a box kill then becomes a highly likely event

And i never stated that it would be as simple. I agree that this f117 shot-down is complex, as many other issue, but complex or simple, ít's unfair to minimisize serbs effort to shooting the plane down.

The comment from the Czech General is more about "allied perception" than historical accuracy - it does show the significance of speed of adaptation by the Israelis - and it does point to the fact that Ewarfare and co-ordinated air strikes were able to be developed and deployed within days - and thus neutralising SAMs in a dramatic fashion. The significance here is speed of solution, speed of deployment and the speed of nullification of what had prev been a battlefield changer.

Again agreed, but what i tryed to say before, perhaps bit too shaddowly, is that the main reason for Bekaa's succes was the lack of Syrian spontaneous in overall military issues. Almoust every gun shoots and kills, no matter where it is made or how many better weapons are fielded. The key is how you use it. Soviets with their strong love affair for byrocrasy generated a strong and stiff norm-based warfare doctrine which was unable to adjust the rapid changes on enemy side. Like you mentioned the speed, i would say it was more of syrian slowness that their equipment that caused the Bekaa chatastrophe.

How is human performance the wests achilles heel? The 5 major conflicts of force majeur in the 20th century have shown that although western nations may be slow to react to conflict, when they do discover the political will and intent to go to war they prosecute to its maximum outcome to achieve their aims. I consider the notion that western nations to be softer on accepting losses to be riddled with flaws. History has shown time and time again for the last 700-800 years that europeans and americans will bear savage human losses once they commit to the final solution of conflict resolution. England, France, Germany, Italy to a lesser extent, Spain, the US, the Dutch etc... all have demonstrated an absolute willingness to "bleed to achieve".

Well i was more pointing out the current thrends, happened in past twenty years alongside the rapid envolment of technology. For me it seems that west is bit too eager to go on with the technology and all the things it makes possiple. I've told many times in other forums of my experience with two quite differnet artillery systems, D-30 and 155K98. Each represent completely different thinking and philosifc of warfare (ofcourse D-30 is almoust thirty years older) and i must say, as much is i'm proud of our armproductions jewl, the 155K98, the technologial superioty over D-30 works best in theory, in practise is another case. Ofcourse many of the sortcomings of the finnish gun is mere of childilness, but if war broke out in this minute, i would choose the D-30. Least i know that it's down to us mens if something goes wrong.

humans do mistakes also, but human-made mistakes are much more easily to be corrected and prevented than those coming from too much thusting on technology.

 

[gf0012-aust]

well i meant more of the reliance to technology and underestimating enemyes whit lesser technolocigal levels. Iraq is perfect example of this, as is the Chechnya in some acpects. No one can deny that US faced resistance that it wasent prepaired for in Iraq, and how millions of dollars are wasted and supreme technology is fielded, but they still cannot claim victory from that war. Serbian campaing was another example when NATO overestimated its own reach and underestimated Serbian's.

There needs to be a subtle distinction made though on political objectives and tactical objectives.

As a western analogy the criticism often levelled at US forces is that they over rely on technology rather than on tradecraft - they certainly do dominate at technical force application

At a force majeur level then the US absolutely dominated the war in Iraq, and I'd be loathe to comment on the deployment of tradecraft. After all, the brute force approach hasn't worked in Grozny either.

As for Serbia, I agree that its a singular failure in tactical planning and application of assets - but thats again a separate issue than trying to compartmentalise platform superiority against idealogical "nationality" concepts such as "the west" and "the slavs" etc....

I'm wary of any argument that promotes notions of ideas that the "west" does "X" and the others do "y". It seems like an easy but not terribly genuine vehicle of debate that lends itself to patriotic hijacking.

 

[gf0012-aust]

And i never stated that it would be as simple. I agree that this f117 shot-down is complex, as many other issue, but complex or simple, ít's unfair to minimisize serbs effort to shooting the plane down..

I'm not trivialising what the Serbs achieved at all - I'm merely adding some more fat to the incident. Too often these debates can deteriorate to nationalistic ripostes rather than considered dissection.

Again agreed, but what i tryed to say before, perhaps bit too shaddowly, is that the main reason for Bekaa's succes was the lack of Syrian spontaneous in overall military issues. Almoust every gun shoots and kills, no matter where it is made or how many better weapons are fielded. The key is how you use it. Soviets with their strong love affair for byrocrasy generated a strong and stiff norm-based warfare doctrine which was unable to adjust the rapid changes on enemy side. Like you mentioned the speed, i would say it was more of syrian slowness that their equipment that caused the Bekaa chatastrophe.

Well, I guess we're both reinforcing issues of the importance of tradecraft as well as technology

Well i was more pointing out the current thrends, happened in past twenty years alongside the rapid envolment of technology. For me it seems that west is bit too eager to go on with the technology and all the things it makes possiple. I've told many times in other forums of my experience with two quite differnet artillery systems, D-30 and 155K98. Each represent completely different thinking and philosifc of warfare (ofcourse D-30 is almoust thirty years older) and i must say, as much is i'm proud of our armproductions jewl, the 155K98, the technologial superioty over D-30 works best in theory, in practise is another case. Ofcourse many of the sortcomings of the finnish gun is mere of childilness, but if war broke out in this minute, i would choose the D-30. Least i know that it's down to us mens if something goes wrong.

well, for an example of grit and determination against notionally superior technology but definite superiority in numbers - the the Finns can always point to their performance against the Russians in the Winter War of 1939-40. IIRC the Finnish movie on this struggle is called "Talvisota"??

 

[Vital]

I found an interesting discussion. Read it. You can find a lot of useful information http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread24986/pg1

Please, don t tell me about Iraq.

The Iraqi SAM grid was absolutely decapitated within the first 24 hrs of the war starting.

. Absolutely! You are right? but you defeated not the system but people, who just left their places. They don't have faith for that moment. Besides US troops have been occuping Iraq for 10 long years. Actually, I would say, Iraq was defeated 10 years ago.
I want to remind you about WWII. We stopped Nazi troops, because we were stronger spiritually. Iragi people were ready to be defeated.
What kind of weapons did u test? AKM?

 

[Gollevainen]

I'm wary of any argument that promotes notions of ideas that the "west" does "X" and the others do "y". It seems like an easy but not terribly genuine vehicle of debate that lends itself to patriotic hijacking.

Well generalizing is cruisal for these kind of "light discussions", tough i agree with you once again. We finns sure are western but i wouldn't state us to rely on technology, it's quite the opposite. But i thing you would agree with me on the fact that West, meaning NATO and EU (older states, not the new ones) have quite different ways of thinking compared that on Russia/Soviet and all where it has been influenced.

I'm not trivialising what the Serbs achieved at all - I'm merely adding some more fat to the incident. Too often these debates can deteriorate to nationalistic ripostes rather than considered dissection.

Well, altough i'm great fried of the serbs, i think i can see things behind red/blue/white glasses. I've noticed the same fault in many other discussions, most notably in those concerning china and india.

Well, I guess we're both reinforcing issues of the importance of tradecraft as well as technology

Ofcourse. I never stated that technology is a bad thing, Isreals sucses and Americans in the first Gulf war are good examples. Also it's not obivios fact that when superior technology fights against briljant minds with inferior technics, the later would become victor. Not at all, tough human minds tend to be still bit more clever than machines.

Example like i told you about my experience with systems representing both type of thinking, i admitt that the APU and all it's benifits are great improvements over muscle work. Everthing is smoother and faster, as long as the APU works. But what if it brokes? All the new technologial superioty whci h the 155K98 enjoyed is pretty much based on the APU. Ofcourse the manufactor states that the gun/howitser can be used as normal towed piece, in practise it would slow the battery so much that it's faster and more eficient to replace the whole system with new one. Basicly meaning that the battery has to survive certain ammount of time with one gun less.

Everything electronical and mechanical tends to broke much more easier than those which requires pure muscle. Thats the main reason why i trust the D-30a lot more. There simply just isen't things waiting to be broken during extensive fighting conditions. But thats just a obinion of simple gunner looking the issue on his own spectrum, perhaps unable to see lot bigger issues involved

well, for an example of grit and determination against notionally superior technology but definite superiority in numbers - the the Finns can always point to their performance against the Russians in the Winter War of 1939-40. IIRC the Finnish movie on this struggle is called "Talvisota"??

yeas, the whole war is called Talvisota (Talvi= winter, Sota=war) in finnish. It was great example of spontaneous and clever leadership of our troops. I would love to go on and boast about the strong will of our soldiers defending the patria...and bla, bla, bla...and so on, but i think it's a topic for another thread than this.

 

[tphuang]

Just wondering Gary, how would you rate S-300 and S-400 series against their American counterparts?

 

[Vital]

Gollevainen? Thank you for not blaming the Russians for this war I mean "Talvisota ! From my point of view it was one of the biggest mistakes in our history.

 

[Vital]

To tphuang. What do you mean by saying

Just wondering Gary, how would you rate S-300 and S-400 series against their American counterparts?

I think i missed something

 

[Gollevainen]

It's past, history, long gone...there's no reason to me to start blaiming anyone. Frankly we finns have done so way too long and thus missed great opportunityes with russia and the fact that we could really benefit from each others. I belive in mutual co-existence, good neighbouring and so on.

but lets us not drift too oftopic...(it's funny tough, almoust every time when i enter some discussion, somehow it eventually leads to Finland... )

 

[tphuang]

To tphuang. What do you mean by saying I think i missed something

well, I respect Gary's opinion of different weapon systems. We have had some discussions on SDF recently about S-300/S-400 vs PAC2/3 and SM-2/3

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just wondering Gary, how would you rate S-300 and S-400 series against their American counterparts?

As a throw away comment, I'd have to say that the Russians historically have been better at SAM development than the Americans.

Bearing that in mind - the US is rumoured to have work arounds for the S300 (unsubstantiated) and the S400 is respected.

One could argue that the Russians have been "better" at SAMs development as thats where they focused their efforts as a form of asymetrical response. SAMs were also cheaper to develop and deploy than to build intercontinental strikers. So both countries took different approaches to dealing with each others threats.

Again, the issue is not so much the system in place, but the ability for the other side to counter it within a battle changing response time. (the major lesson of both Yom Kippur and Bekaa)

I think an example of how this is dynamic is that no major military power expects static SAMs to survive the first few days of modern war - so the advantage on statics goes to the attackers. - hence why there is a push for mobile SAM's. Mobility for any missile systems survivability is the key.

historically the evidence for that lies in:

Hanoi - the NV held the upper hand until the US co-ordinated and developed combined packages of EW, Jammers and Strike. eg EC-121's, Grumman Prowlers and Shrike carriers co-ord with ground strike such as the Thunderchiefs.

Yom Kippur, (the egyptians moved outside of their static umbrella and were progressively retrograded at the battlefield level)

Bekaa Valley - Static sites were euthenased electronically

GW1 - as much as some argue that the Iraqis "gave up" - the reality is that the hard core republican NG etc were very committed. Even though the Specwarfare/USAF/USN/USMC absolutely closed off their comms and grids within 48 hrs max - the Iraqis still staurated the city sky with intense grid work - even firing off SAMs without co-ordinates in the hope that they would detect an aircraft whilst in flight. The video footage of their defence for the first 4 nights is pretty commanding. They certainly didn't give up on ADS efforts. The end result was that all static SAM sites were decapitated early.

GW1/2 - SCUDs - static launchers were killed very early - the headache was hunting and killing the mobile launchers.

Subs be they SSBN/SSGN/SSG Subs have absolute mobility and as a primary, secondary or even tertiary response weapon, they are much harder to neutralise than a static launch site.

So, in a long winded way, I guess I'm saying that it's how a system is employed and deployed than the actual weapon system itself. The obvious example is the Serb shootdown.

Anyone who takes an S300 or S400 for granted will get into a lot of "hurt"

 

[Vital]

Mobility for any missile systems survivability is the key.

100% true.

Anyone who takes an S300 or S400 for granted will get into a lot of "hurt"

Why?
I think that deployment of any AD systems (S-300/400 or PAC2/3) as
separate systems- it is madness, That's why we should treat them as a part of more complex system, which comprises EW, Decoys, Jammers + countermeasures etc.
The only think, I can't argue it's communication. No doubt, Westerns have better communication equipment and systems, But i still believe that even in modern conflicts, soldiers' experience and his spirit will play the first fiddle.

 

[Gollevainen]

To get us back in line, I try now to point out few errors in Chinawhite's orginal post. I havent done so earlyer as we were having bit bad relationship, but now we are clear ready to play ball...

Gone are the days where the Soviet government subsidized the defence industry and made massive orders for military equipment. Gave massive sum for RnD. While now is the new era of independent arms sales and arms fairs

Her tradtional market of arms sales like india have now decide to be a more indegenious route or instead wanting to do it herself like the joint development and self production. And china which has also stopped buying new russian equipment and is now concentrating on building up and "indegenising" her equippment while the Other countries like algeria, syria, Iraq(LoL) are all now so poor they cannot buy this equipment. The Soviets sold equipment to these countries but it wasn't in hard currency but in batter deals which were bought higher than market prices. eg Cuban sugar

While russian equipment is still competitive in the third world they are becoming more expensive and less sophiticated compared to western weaponary. It is not just Russian, American and European suppliers anymore. More countries are seeking to make joint ventures and own the production lines and self produce russian equipment. Now what is the current state of russias RnD research?. What the russians are really doing is modiflying Soviet era weapons with western technology. All the new improvments like the T-90, Su-35s, and new ships all benifited from acess to western technology

I think you are on wrong tracks on rigth from the start here. Currently Russia is on the situation where Arms sales have been one of the most important export item in overal. Russian defence industry have scored multible great deals during the last 15 years and I cannot follow your logic on that matter.

The T-90 is actually the T-72BM with a new name. A sheep in sheeps clothing. This was done to improve the image of the T-72 after all the losses of T-72 in combat like chechnya and iraq. While the parts in both tanks is similar in design but are not compatible. The T-90 ustilzes a lot more advanced technology and a better sensors and is all round superior. But it is one example of a old tank that has just been modifled to seek export orders.

Current sales are india which has brought 124 T-90 tanks and is assebliing the rest. While the russian army has brought the grand sum of between 100-300 according to different sources. While in 2005 the russian military only ordered 17. The T-72 had tremendous export sucess serving in 28 armies. While the T-90 being a more capable tank has not reached anywhere close to these levels. My conclusion is people already know what these tanks are and rather go for a cheaper solution while the higher upper class countries which would likey buy this equipment choose western or european equipment

T-90 was elevauted by finnish army also, few years ago when we needed new tanks and changed our doctrine to anti-tank oriented tactics from old mechanised advance doctrines. To that use, modified T-72 would have been exelent and economical choice, the nible and fast little tank is far superior to our enverioment than the winner of the contest, big Leo2A4. What Russian lacked was simply NATO commonatibily, not in technolocigal means. Ok, Leo is propaply better tank in overall, but in thick woods, short distances and muddy roads, T-90 would have been atractive choise, when no specialised tank-destroyer isent made for our conditions.

In reailty this is a Make or break project for russias avation industry. When the F-35 starts mass production you will be seeing the sales of the Soviet era fighters down like a stone. If this suceeds then it will be a major benifit for russia as the F-35 as of now is still on the protected aircraft list with only selected nations getting them.

Yuo claim that entrance of F-35 will be horrible blow to Russian export sales, but i cannot follow that one either. Sure its a blow, but not to exports but to aviation industry itself when competiting plane against other. But in export field, this creates competition and countryes not yet fielding even 4th gen fighters have suddenly acces to Sukhois and MiGs as they have to have something, even lesser choices to compete their neighbours. What other suplier can deliver economical, but yet advanced fighters in same manner than Russia? F-35 wouldnt be offered to all potential Soviet clients, as competitive to Su-35. Russian deals whit pariah nations guarantees some sort of monopoly to support its exports.

Her naval ships are just re-vamped soviet designs which are still none the less are best in catergory. But russia has not designed a major post-soviet vessel.

And what made this bad? Exporting is about what you can sale, not what you can devolp, and relying on old good desings affors short delivery times and quantative production runs.

 

[Vital]

Gentlemen, don't you think that it's a bit earlier to compare SU-35 & F-35. F-35 is still tested. It will be deployed in 2008. To this moment SU-35 will be a rather old vehicle. Ok, I agree SU-35 is not the 5th generation aircraft, it's 4++ Besides I not sure in F's chracteristics. They can be overviewed for the worse.

 

[chinawhite]

And what made this bad? Exporting is about what you can sale, not what you can devolp, and relying on old good desings affors short delivery times and quantative production runs.

You dont get my post. Its about russia not developing new designs but only coming out with soviet era designs. Yes you sale these boats now but what about in a few years?. More sovernys?

Its not about failing export sales its about Future of russia defense industry like my heading suggest. Its future directions and its current projects. Now dont divert this into something different

Russian defence industry have scored multible great deals during the last 15 years and I cannot follow your logic on that matter.

Yes in the last 15 years. During that time china was its number one exported getting billions of deals each year. What contracts do they have now except for licensed production and some upgrades.

India has the license to build her Su-30MKI, india has chosen french submarines. Iran has production of her T-72s her planes are being produced herself. Chinas last contracts have all but finished. Her sovernys, J-11 Kilos have finished there contracts and china has been working on indeniousing her J-11 fleet and he own indegenious production. The next generation fighter china is developing is going to be buit in china not russia. What other cotacts will russia get?

T-90 was elevauted by finnish army also

I dont get your last bit

Yuo claim that entrance of F-35 will be horrible blow to Russian export sales, but i cannot follow that one either.

When the F-35 gets released what fighters get retired from service?. F-16s F-18 are all on the market and new Su-XX orders would get swallowed up. Simple as that. Western countries will all buy the F-35 but when that export order is done it will export to more neatral nations where the russians would have been if they had a PAK-FA. The Sus are not cheap at 40million a plane for the more capable ones wheres the F-35 has a projected 40million price tag.


Wait i'll finish this post tommorrow. and yes i didn't think forget our debate about communism. im still working on my reply

 

[Gollevainen]

Its not about failing export sales its about Future of russia defense
industry like my heading suggest. Its future directions and its current
projects. Now dont divert this into something different

But exports are the one that is currently keeping Russian defence industry in business.

You dont get my post. Its about russia not developing new designs but only coming out with soviet era designs. Yes you sale these boats now but what about in a few years?. More sovernys?

if you would bother to look more deeply there have been multible of new projects errupted since 1990, but only handfull of these have entered any serious planning state and even fewer have materialized. Its all about who's going to buy these ships. Currently the project 2038 SKRs are beeing built for specially russian needs. The sudden fall of the soviet system along with its doctrines and needs isent thing to deal in overnigth. Currently Russian navy has slowly begun to follow almoust identical path as the red navy did after the revolution, a decade+ of turmiol, thenslowly reproduct older desings and start new program according the changed requirements and needs. Once a global blue water navy is now focusing on littorial units like this mentioned 2038, Lada class SSKs and tht new and neat border patrol boat.

But unlike in the post-revolution era, russian defence industry hasent been wrecked by its know-how, and thats the most important factor of this topic. If the money and political will, Russian defence markets will 'go to the moon' as we say in this part of the globe... You seem to forget the latest devolpment in Russia and that Old bears days migth not be done yet...And no matter what place the still waiting to happen, stable Russia will take in world policyes, its going to need strong armed forces, and modern ones. I include myself into those who believe Russian new rise, inspite how easy it would be countered by penny facts. Westeners, including Finns cannot never fully understand and predict Russia as a abstract concept.

India has the license to build her Su-30MKI, india has chosen french submarines. Iran has production of her T-72s her planes are being produced herself. Chinas last contracts have all but finished. Her sovernys, J-11 Kilos have finished there contracts and china has been working on indeniousing her J-11 fleet and he own indegenious production. The next generation fighter china is developing is going to be buit in china not russia. What other cotacts will russia get?

you cannot expect russia solely dominate one potential market area. Its not how the global capitalism works. Some deal goes to other, some not, its byuers markets and russian industry have lots of potential market areas... Sure Russia cannot compete in same fields than west, but its not nesseserity to do so. There are always markets for its expertice and will to sell it whitout political agenda, that west has custom to do these days...
But you want next markets, i would say South America and the spreading Bolivarian revolution...And when Russia comes up whit something totally new that China hasent copyed yet, it can sell it to them so the next chinese look-alike equivalent can be born. China has still lot to do to become a equalent participant in the top devolpers of military innovations.

When the F-35 gets released what fighters get retired from service?. F-16s F-18 are all on the market and new Su-XX orders would get swallowed up. Simple as that. Western countries will all buy the F-35 but when that export order is done it will export to more neatral nations where the russians would have been if they had a PAK-FA. The Sus are not cheap at 40million a plane for the more capable ones wheres the F-35 has a projected 40million price tag.

F-16As of the European NATO, thats a fleet need of replacement, F-35 particularry and i expect that at least 25% of them finds new home in some other airforce. As for example...

Wait i'll finish this post tommorrow. and yes i didn't think forget our debate about communism. im still working on my reply

thats nice

 

[aaaditya]

You dont get my post. Its about russia not developing new designs but only coming out with soviet era designs. Yes you sale these boats now but what about in a few years?. More sovernys?

Its not about failing export sales its about Future of russia defense industry like my heading suggest. Its future directions and its current projects. Now dont divert this into something different



Yes in the last 15 years. During that time china was its number one exported getting billions of deals each year. What contracts do they have now except for licensed production and some upgrades.

India has the license to build her Su-30MKI, india has chosen french submarines. Iran has production of her T-72s her planes are being produced herself. Chinas last contracts have all but finished. Her sovernys, J-11 Kilos have finished there contracts and china has been working on indeniousing her J-11 fleet and he own indegenious production. The next generation fighter china is developing is going to be buit in china not russia. What other cotacts will russia get?



I dont get your last bit



When the F-35 gets released what fighters get retired from service?. F-16s F-18 are all on the market and new Su-XX orders would get swallowed up. Simple as that. Western countries will all buy the F-35 but when that export order is done it will export to more neatral nations where the russians would have been if they had a PAK-FA. The Sus are not cheap at 40million a plane for the more capable ones wheres the F-35 has a projected 40million price tag.


Wait i'll finish this post tommorrow. and yes i didn't think forget our debate about communism. im still working on my reply

you are wrong about one thing , india is looking at the russian amur submarines ,these will be customised to indian navy standards and will be built under tot in india by larsen and toubro and kirloskar marine engines limited at hazira in west bengal,this was stated by the indian defence minister pranab mukherjee when he visited russia in december.

india and russia have signed an agreement under which india will acquire 10 billion dollars of arms and equipments from russia in the time period of 2000-2010(this agreement has now been renewed).

under the earlier agreement india recently placed orders for 3 more stealth warships from russia in a deal worth 1 billion dollars and for 2 regiments of smerch rocket launchers.

india has also commited itself to joint developments of a fifth generation combat aircraft with russia ,the indian air chief has submitted his requirements,india wants a single engined ,smaller version of the pakfa comparable to the jsf.

india and russia are also developing the mta.

so i see bright future for the russian defence industry post soviet union breakup.

russia has also increased and consolidated its market in africa and is now adding gulf to it.

 

[Vital]

While we were discussing the future, Rosoboronexport have prepared a package of $4 billion package of contracts to sell our "Junk" to Algeria. It proves that out military hardware is still popular and up to date. :