I love it when someone selects only elements of a statement, ignoring the entire context, and then asks questions like this.
Read it again and you will understand what I am talking about.
It’s not that simple. Cost usually get from something. Western vehicles are generally more expensive, but they have a higher survivability, can operate longer, operate more efficiently. But the machine itself is one thing; important, and perhaps most importantly, are all the components of the system in which it operates.
Okay, thanks for the source. It’s actually quite funny. But still, it doesn’t change the fact that Western machines are generally more expensive, mainly due to the technology used. And these are, and will continue to be, incidents of the “free market.”
Nice shilling for Russian equipment, here’s reality.
Spalling, ERA are on all tech trees.
Autoloader is inferior to Abrams, Merkava, and Ariete reloading.
R-27ER means nothing. It was a minor powercreep in response to AIM-7F/M/P being vastly superior to AIM-7E-2s, Super 530Ds, etc at the time. People are quick to forget that only Japan, China, and USA had long-range BVR options at the time. Germany and USSR were shafted.
LMUR & JAGM are in most tech trees.
Many tech trees have ERA, and ERA has never been OP.
CAS has been OP among many tech trees.
Kamovs stopped being OP over 3 years ago.
IL-28 doesn’t have CCIP to use S-24s accurately.
IS-4, IS-6, Mig-17, ZSU-57, IL-28, Tunguska, S1, Shturm, and Object 292 have never been OP.
PT-76-57 & BMPT are mistakes similar to EBR, Puma, and allegedly R3 T20 at minimum.
You even claim everyone you’ve responded to [Non-Russians and people that love NATO] are all honest against your posts.
since you have no clue about aviation or any relevant information about that bag of bolts of yours all i have to do is “believe” in russian propaganda :) which is lame and i wont buy it :) or maybe you think 90K rubles… well thats not rly a lot of money you know?