If it was about politics russia would have won the tender....considering the indians have been using russian helis since decades.... here is a source according to which it didnt meet indian requirements:
Meeting requirements means little when those requirements are not known. The F-16, Typhoon, F-18SH, Mig-35 and grippen also did not meet Indian requirements. So are you going to argue that all of those aircraft are inferior to the Rafale?
Better yet what does that say about Pakistani F-16s when superior F-16 variants were rejected by India in favor of the Rafale.
F-18 is very much expensive as compared to su-30
Is it? Most SU-30s are a least 50 million a piece with customized versions such as the MKI costing around 100 million according to some people.
and is in use with much more airforces around the world than su-30...
Wrong, The F-18 is operated by 8 countries while the SU-30 is operated by 9 countries and when you factor in that the SU-30 is a derivative the the SU-27 the number of countries operating the Sukhoi platform By far exceeds the F-18.
Mig-29 is cheaper and countries tht bought it already have them in service tht means no extra infrastructure,training,etc... unlike J-10 which is a relatively much newer aircraft... also im not sure if J-10 ever contested with mig-29.
Wrong again, the Mig-29 cost more then the J-10 and Myanmar chose the Mig-29 over the J-10.
Even AK beats T-90 on pure specs...
Looks like you opened a can of worms, I don't like to get into genitalia measuring contests but you started it.
Most of those specs are Meaningless and compared to the earliest T-90, if you want to compare meaningful specification compare armor protection, effective range, rate of fire ect.
The T-90 gun and sights have about 13% greater effective rang compared to the AK, while the T-90AM has an improved gun that has 15% greater performance compared to the standard T-90 gun.
Sabot round:
The Russian 3bk29 DU round (125mm) has
800mm RHA penetration while the Pakistani Naiza DU round (125mm) has
550mm RHA menatration.
The 3bk29 has 250mm greater penetration.
Turret protection:
The T-90 has up to
950mm maximum protection against sabot rounds and
1,650mm maximum against HEAT rounds with ERA.
The Al Khalid has
645mm maximum Protection (turret) against sabot rounds and
1,160mm (turret) against HEAT rounds with ERA.
T-90s turret has 305mm greater protection against sabot, and 490mm avaunt HEAT.
Glacis protection:
The T-90A, earliest version has
710mm protection (glacis) vs sabot and
1,070mm glacis vs heat.
The Al Khalid has
455mm (glacis) vs sabot and
670mm glacis vs HEAT, with ERA.
T-90 has 255mm greater protection against sabot and 400mm greater protection against HEAT.
This means the T-90 can penetrate the Al Khalid with ease anywhere, while the Al Khalid Could not penetrate the T-90s front armor, and at best could penetrate it's side armor and even that is iffy consider the t-90 has 550mm protection from the side.
Front armor of the T-90 is about equal to or easily exceed most heavy western tanks.
even the indian arjun outgunned t-90s (according to them)...
It could have very well 'beat' the old T-90; however, it all depends on the crew, a Russian T-90 crew set an unofficial record of rate of fire wile accurately hitting all of their targets while the tank was on the move. Zero misses.
I doubt that the test results would have been the same if the Indian crew was swapped out with a Russian one. In Indian trials the T-90 could not hit all the targets, while in Russian trials (which were video taped and monitored by observers) the T-90 hit every target, on the move, quickly, and at long distances.
as for armata... good luck with tht... but before you get it US will probably field a much more advanced mbt.
The armada will be presented this year and go into service around 2015 while the Americans are still upgrading Abrams. The armada has an unmanned digital turret, from combat experience and studies most tank hits occur on the turret. The armada will have all the standard safety features of western tanks such as separate compartment for ammunition (already employed on the T-90am) and go a step further from western tank by isolating the crew in their own compartment.
Are you seriously comparing russian army to the tiny georgian army?
The joke is on you, the Russian military never numbered more than
19,000 soldiers and these forces were spread out through south Ossetia, Georgia and abkhazia
And most of their weapons are soviet made!
More like most of their heavy armor was soviet made, and even then Their T-72 were upgrades with Israeli systems.
The Georgians used.
Israeli rocket artillery
Georgian rocket artillery
Czech rocket artillery
Czech howitzers
Israeli UAVs
Georgian UAVs
Turkish kobra
US humvee
Israeli wolf armored vehicles
Turkish neurals
Israeli SPYDER air defense
Soviet/upgrades Ukranian air defense
Ukranian radars
Georgian RPGs
Ukranian RPGs
SU-25s with Israeli avionics
T-72 with Israeli systems
There is a lot more that I am missing which includes western small arms, mortars, Georgian indigenous technology, joint Georgian and Israeli systems and a number of good soviet systems.
Must feel like a victory destroying a few cobra armoured vehicles.. and than taking them to russia for development of russian weapons ...
Foolish statement, as proven the Georgians had quit a bit of western technology. They faced a very small Russian army that was equipped with mostly old technology, the end result was quick and humiliating Georgian defeat. But please do continue to down play what the Russians achieved. Could Pakistan have managed it any better? Heck most Pakistanis brag about kargil even though it was very poorly executed and resulted in heavy Pakistan losses relative to the amount of troops that participated.
