“Russia is just trying to make a buck...They’ll sell to the aboriginies if they thought they could make money off of it...They don’t care if they implement the technology agressively and correctly...”
But maybe they should. After all, it can’t be good for sales to have militaries armed with Russian/Soviet weapons trounced every time they go up against Western militaries with Western weapons. Look at the MiG-29, by all reports a pretty decent airplane, but it’s consistently underperformed when the going got tough. I can’t even recall an instance where a MiG-29 had an actual kill. At least it’s contemporary, the Su-27/30, has a handful of kills (notably the MiG-29).
Aren’t they at least embarrassed by the incompetent use of their (albeit export quality) weapons? It makes it seem as if their weapons are proverbial spitballs. Now, a T-80 or T-90 isn’t going to compare favorably to a M1-A1, Leo2, Challenger 2, Leclerc, etc. on a one-to-one basis, but then again, it’s not meant to be in the same class. However, that doesn’t mean that they should be completely ineffective.
That is true to a certain point...Numbers do give you some kind of edge...But in this case I believe over the last 20 some odd years the west has countered the numbers with highly effective intelligence and tactical response to the numbers of enemy units issue...
Plus the training of our side of the equation is almost insurmountable...
Just my experience and opinion...
The Mig-29 was meant as a backup for the SU-27 with it’s short range & light weight.The variants which did see combat had poor radars,weapons(no capable BVR missiles). & were already at a disadvantage against an Enemy who had better situational awareness & better weapons.Sure it’s disappointed,but NATO pilots who ‘fought’ against German Mig-29 rated it highly at close range-so did Aussie F-18 pilots against Malaysian Mig-29s.The type has improved considerably since but realistically,it would still be at a disadvantage against a superior enemy.