Mi-28Ns, Su-34s, BTR-82As, BMP-3s, BMD-4Ms/BTR-MDMs : soviet systems.
Soviet concepts... the Soviets didn't have the thermal sights to create Mi-28Ns... all they really could make were Mi-28As which were pretty basic daylight fair weather only aircraft...
The first BMP-3s had an electronics and sensor box mounted on top of the main armament because there was not room inside the turret... later models had much much better optics and systems and it was all internal and multifunction and integrated into standard and new sights...
BTR and BMD were based on soviet designs but are radically upgraded from the originals to vastly improve performance in almost all areas... firepower, mobility, protection, sensors, communications systems.
Improved kilo : improved soviet system. They also have new russian design like Amour family but still buy the soviet design.
The Amur class is also known as the Lada class and now that they have the problems sorted out they are going to build a few of those...
GAZ Tigrs: they copied western analogues. And it's just an armoured car.
First of all, they had armoured cars in the 1920s so who copied who in that regard? They had armoured cars and armoured trains at about the same time as the west did...
And a BRDM-2 is also just an armoured car, yet it was never equipped with a 30mm cannon in an unmanned turret AFAIK... and the ATGM equipped BRDM-2 vehicles never had anything as potent as Kornet-EM... so pretty much an all round step up there isn't it?
If they keep buying older stuff they won't be able to buy newer ones. When they will its gonna be outdated. More t-90 and bmp-3 means less armata plateforms. And once they manage to start full serial priduction of those new ones they will be outdated.
If they don't keep the older stuff up to date, which they often do by adapting equipment and systems developed for newer platforms to the older vehicles, then they will have a few new bits of kit together with a majority of incompatible older gear that is a generation inferior.
By upgrading the T-90 with new thermal sights developed for Armata, they increase production of the new sights while getting more operational experience with the new thermals, maintaining and operating... they simplify logistics if they all use the same or similar equipment, and they improve the capabilities of their forces more rapidly.
Without upgrades to optics and communications the Armata tanks will have excellent views of the battlefield, but the T-90s operating with them wont.
Equally retrofitting the T-90 with the same gun able to fire the same ammo means all the tanks can use all the available ammo that has been supplied, which also simplifies things.
Yasen is for exemple outdated while they bought only one. They had to improve it but still they hace the husky on paper beig designed.
When they designed the first Su-27 they found the performance was not what they expected so rather than just blinding putting it into mass production and hope they could fix the problem later with upgrades, they redesigned it and corrected its problems before putting it into production.
They had trouble with the avionics and radar so they produced a lot of airframes that sat and waited for contents to be produced to fill them, so even when they got the design right there were still problems.
The Husky is an SSK, Yasen-M will be built and according to Trump it will be beautiful...
So now they will buy more yasen-M and won't have money for new husky.
They are producing Yasen-M and Lada-M so Husky can wait.... and its design will benefit from the wait as new concepts and technology is further developed and experience is gained on current new systems and designs...
They should stop buying those "fill the gap" systems like t-90, yasen, su-35, grigorovich and put more money on armata, husky and su57.
Su-57, Husky, and Armata are not totally ready for full serial production right now... there is still development work and testing including operational testing to be done... in the mean time the T-90 and Su-35 etc are in production so it is easier to keep on producing them because they actually are top quality products anyway.
You sound like the Germans during WWII... they demanded Tigers and Panthers when they met T-34s and KV-1s, but they stopped production of the panzer IVs to achieve that because they could mass produce the panzer IVs... they made a total of perhaps 6,000 panthers which simple was never enough, and they made less than 1,500 Tiger Is... compared with the number of T-34s, not to mention Shermans produced it was simply never going to work...
If they had kept the Panzer IV in production they might not have made as many Panthers or Tigers, but they would have tanks to fight with...
10 years like you say. Su-57, no more t-50, has been flying since 2009 so it should enter in service in 2019.
10 years to modify the Su-27 into the two seat side by side Su-34... you should add at least 50% for a brand new from the ground roots up stealthy new generation fighter.
The Euro fighter had prototypes in the late 1980s... it might get full multirole capabilities soon...
Su-35s engine can fit very well inside and be switched gor izd 30 once ready. But they keeps buying su-30 which will make numbers of su-57 ordered lower than expected. Just like t-14 and older tanks.
If you view the aircraft as tools... the Su-57 is a jiggsaw cutting tool, that can also drill holes or you can attach a sanding attachment... but it is bloody expensive.
The Su-30 is a hammer drill and is actually simpler and cheaper than the expensive Su-57 so it is often easier and quicker and cheaper to use it.
When you buy that brand new do everything tool you don't just throw out all your old tools... they cost money and still do the job... and some still might actually do a better job than the new expensive tool.
Some have clearly not developed shit in their lives (not talking about anyone but about a general trend so nobody take offence) and think there is some kind of magic wand to get a new product or technology to work flawlessly from the start. Well, it is not like that. Real world is a bitch and will show every single weak spot on a new design through completely crazy constellations of failure modes no one can think of during development. So you need low rate production and long term operation, at best in real world conditions, before you know if the new system is improving things or it is actually a new and expensive burden. Haste is unnecessary while good, consistent work is crucial.
Indeed... testing is for a reason... and thorough testing is more expensive and also very time consuming, but when you don't test properly you find you ships engines overheat in warm water areas.... you find that brilliant idea for launching UAVs without rockets... that bungey cord that is cheap and simple and does a great job... doesn't retain its stretch in minus 30 degree temperatures so you have to find another way of launching your UAVs... (as it was towed and had a nearby motor vehicle they used a compressed gas system instead with an engine powered compressor that could work in any temperature)...
Now clever developers might have foreseen those problems and done something about it at the design stage, but the purpose of testing is to sort out issues before they go into mass production... because once they are in mass production all the production procedures and steps are set... so finding the oxygen system suffocates the pilot might require a new oxygen generating system, or it might require bottled oxygen to be carried which might require a complete redesign of the cockpit area as well as changes to operating procedure as well as structural changes etc etc... which need to be done to a test aircraft and tested... then if it is OK then changes in production need to be made and all the aircraft already made need to have the adjustments made to them... enormously expensive and frustrating because all those new planes you rushed into service are no longer available... so no new planes, no stop gap planes... your grounded until the changes are identified and applied and tested and then implimented on already made aircraft and then return them to service... expensive, time consuming... not to mention embarrassing.