(I stole this from some blogger who wrote the last time this happened.)

I think the author of this piece got played like a harp. The Indian gov't gets to go to its people and say "We beat the U.S.!", and the DoD gets to go to Congress and say "We lost to India!"

Doesnt really matter ultimately. A single F-22 would have wiped out both sides before they knew he was there.

More F-22s, faster, please!

I think this is mainly intended to impress Pakistan, but considering the poor performance of the IAF in previous unpleasantnesses (there must be an Urdu phrase for "turkey shoot") I think they're going to take some more convincing.

Their nukes are still kind of pussy, too. How about setting a new underwater speed record with an Alpha submarine, without vibrating the hull to pieces?

Hehe, yes, F-22s are sweet.

I wrote a little commentary on this at my blog with a link here. Not much to add, but I have to agree. I've flown F-16s a bit in simulators and I just can't imagine going up without as many AMRAAMs as I could take. Sidewinders are OK but you have to get so close to make them effective.... and Sparrows are hard to use effectively.

It certainly appears as if the excercise was meant to show the benefits of the Soviet command structure. Didn't they use ground control to vector aircraft onto targets.

Why did the USAF agree to such a one sided structure. Maybe the we need more F22s crowd agreed.

What is left out of the equation is what effect this sort of thing has on the morale of our own pilots.

What is left out of the equation is what effect this sort of thing has on the morale of our own pilots.

Think about the morale of our pilots in our UAV future.

A couple things that even Trent left out, and some observations.

[1] The exercises weren't US vs. India, but totally mixed training.

One of the US pilots reported that the most mind-bending exercise they faced was going after an American E-3 AWACS defended by Su-30MKs. For a guy who had always trained to protect them, this was a shift and a half. Or, you'd see strike packages of India's Mig-27s go out, escorted by F-16s, with AWACS vectoring MiG-21 Bison interceptors and Mirage 2000s in - or maybe even US F-16s, putting the same planes on both sides.

That mix is why the US didn't/couldn't bring its full doctrine.

But a big part of the exercise was US and Indian pilots learning to work together, something that might come in handy if they have to fight together at some point.

I totally take that trade.

[2] The SU-30s - and their weapons. Because with fighters, it really is about the total system.

The SU-3X Flankers are very arguably superior to the F-15, let alone the F-16. They're also multi-role, and can definitely be used as a long range strike fighter with good ordnance capabilities and range (there's also the SU-34 Fullback dedicated strike fighter variant, but the 'plain' SU-30 Flankers can perform this role very creditably).

India's SU-30MKI with canards, limited thrust vectoring, et. al. is definitely superior to the F-15, unless you're talking about the F-15E/K Strike Eagle and confine the comparison to air-ground. In that case, the Strike Eagles ground-attack avionics and better weapon choices give it a significant edge. But in the air? My bet on the SU-30MK narrowly, the SU-30MKI a lot of the time of the time, and the SU-37 most of the time.

SU-3Xs also carry the R-77M/AA-12 "AMRAAMski" - which can outrange the American "Slammers" (note these caveats re: rannge, but overall it does show top range numbers significantly higher). I've seen some stuff that says the AMRAAM hits more often, but hard to tell without a full comparative test. So those Slammers may not be an unresticted advantage, and full-up against an AA-12 equipped force US pilots may even be in for a bad day if the other guys see them first.

Russian planes also carry the short-range AA-11 Adder, which helps create that "visual range mutual suicide" dynamic you discussed. The German air force withdrew from the US-British-German ASRAAM program after it got these (along with the MiG-29s) from East Germany, as experience with the AA-11 caused them to rethink their design premises. The IRIS-T was the result. Israel had a similar epiphany, and developed the Python 4 and Python 5 (Python 5 has 360 degree engagement - yes, you can fire it over your shoulder at someone behind you). All of these missiles are very comparable to AIM-9X, and in some cases they may well be better.

In short, up against SU-30s, the USA had better introduce extraneous advantages as a total force or depend on pilot excellence, because in terms of the fighters and their weapons they're at a disadvantage at all ranges.

The European MBDA Meteor is slated to have a range about 3-4x that of AMRAAM, thanks to ramjet propulsion. There's a good argument here for the USA either joining the Meteor program, or creating a longer-range ramjet AMRAAM version for its "teen series" fighters that can outrange conventional R-77M/AA-12 missiles.

But that's getting into responses, which are my next subject....

About responses. Let's start with one of the Cope India exercises' take-aways, which is really more of a reminder than a deep surprise. Or should be, anyway.

[3] Note that India's upgraded MiG-21 'Bisons', the surprise of both exercises, have been upgraded with Russian and Israeli radars, avionice, helmet mounted sights, weapons integration, et. al. and can carry AA-11, Pythons, and (so I understand) AA-12 AMRAAMskis.

The short range mutual suicide dynamic with modern wide-angle seeker ("off boresight") AAMs and helmet sighting works for them; they're cheap and thus more plentiful interceptors, their cross section is small so they're hard to see, and now they have decent radars (plus AWACS once the Israeli Phacons arrive) and good missiles.

So, what does that mean?

It means that cheap but sufficiently advanced aircraft, armed with modern missiles, radars, and avionics, can be a very big and lethal pain in the ass for even advanced fighters if they're allowed to get in close, and don't have the deck stacked against them in some other way.

OK, but what about "Slammer" tactics, plus AWACS, Link 16, and ECM?

Well, one point notes that these can be taken away via things like ultra-long range AWACS killer missiles, electronic attack in return, et. al. If that's the way to make all American forces much less effective, then they become priority target #1. Doctrine has to cope with this - and training should also factor in many scenarios where it's lost. I'm glad Cope India did.

Another point looks at medium range combat like that of the AMRAAM, and sees the same dynamics that are making visual range dogfights so dangerous.

As beyond range missiles get better, and we see missiles like the Meteor with greatly improved seekers, tremendous gs it can pull, and ramjet propulsion (the AA-12/R-77PD variants have this) so it has longer range and full power and maneuverability all the way to the end... the mutual suicide pact at visual range may well turn into the same dynamic at longer range. I should mention that the European MBDA Meteor will have a range 3-4X that of AMRAAM.

BVRAAM class missile haved disappointed before, so it's wise to be cautious, but modern improvements are substantial enough that this may now be a realistic possibility.

At that point, you'd better have (a) stealth so you can't be seen first; (b) longer range missiles and the energy state to take an escape tangent; or (c ) external advantages, which may include better radar and passive detection, AWACS, ECM, whatever - but they'd better be sustainable and protectable.

Iran's F-14 Tomcats had B & C against Iraq's MiGs during the Iran-Iraq war, picking them up long before the MiGs knew they were there, then firing ultra-long range Phoenix missiles. The Iraqis would learn that a Tomcat was in the area when their Su-20, Mig-21, MiG-23, or Mirage F1 aircraft suddenly started blowing up. It got to the point that once the US Navy started passing radar data to the Iraqis, they'd simply stay out of any area with F-14s in it until the Tomcats were gone.

That's powerful, when it works.

The interesting lesson of Cope India, one confirmed by passt exercises like Red Flag, ACEVAL, et. al. when F-5 swarms were used against F-15As... without those kinds of advantages, the value of having super-duper platforms can be offset by numbers.

Hence 1980s development of AMRAAM in response, and also integrated tactics the Israelis used like AWACS, ECM, et. al. over the Bekaa Valley and that Americans practice.

Now that the missile balance is shifting to parity or even slight disadvantage for the USA, the long-term air power question is what to do about it.

To explain, I need to discuss "The Fuzzy-Wuzzy Fallacy".

I think this is a case of information operation.

In the long run, this story from CSM and the attendant spin serves US interests by giving IAF and PLAAF pilots undue confidence and, like Steve said, more money from Congress.

Now that IAF and PLAAF pilots believe that they can beat USAF, they will take more risks in combat. They will also get complacent with their doctrine development, as the bureaucracy asserts its stabilizing influence.

Moreover, because they now can beat USAF, they have less leverage in getting more money from their own governments. They does not have as much justification for buying the latest and greatest from Russia, nor investing in indigenous fighter programs.

Therefore, it is a good thing that we didn't bring all of our toys into the fight. We learned much more about them than they did of us.

Some surprisingly informed commentary here.

One mistake - Using Sparrow, the F-15s have to close to visual range in order to guide the Sparrow all the way to target. - not sure where you got that idea.

Other than that, I've got to say that you have an excellent handle on the big picture.

We don't share BVR capability with the Indians, punto. Of course they don't likely share theirs with us. So all of these exercises should be taken with a grain of salt... combat would likely look VERY different.

I believe that losing handicapped in training is always a good thing to learn lessons. One doesn't want to become overly dependent on technology or one becomes complacent. I'm sure the pilots learned more about manoeuvers and techniques having restrictions placed on them. I'm sure they enjoyed it knowing it wasn't to the death. Let the winners gloat. One doesn't learn as much from winning as in losing.

See, the Fuzzy Wuzzies were this African tribe, and they beat the British... but really, the basics are in a simple formula.

• Take two men.
• Arm them with guns.
• Give man B a weapon 3x 'better' overall than the one Man A carries.
• The value of Man B on the battlefield is not = 3. It is, rather, equal to the SQARE ROOT of 3 - because one hit on either man will kill/ incapacitate.

To change that equation, we must either give one party the ability to kill from beyond the killing capacity of his enemy's weapon, or add protection to the equation.

So, when aircraft begin to be equal, and missiles begin to be equal, what to do?

One possibility is a major force structure rethink. Numbers matter again, and with Link 16 data communication, leavening a low-end force with some high end machines and giving them all advanced weapons might be very effective.

So maybe spending on a high-low force of 25 F-35s and 200 T-50s (think of them as cut down Korean F-16s) with AMRAAMs starts to have apparent advantages against a force of 100 F/A-18 E Super Hornets with their AMRAAMs.

Give the F-18s better AMRAAMs in response? Well, yeah, but unless a weight issue was introduced (the F-14's Phoenix missile was too heeasvy for many other aircraft to carry and still be effective) you could just put those missiles on the T-50s too. And with MBDA Meteor slated to mount on Sweden's lightweight JAS-39 Gripens, long range can be had these days without crippling weight.

The next possibility is to make every member of your smaller force somewhat high end, and reply on AWACS, ECM, data sharing, good weapon carrying capacity (because fewer), superior weapons, etc. to tip the balance in a "greater than the sum of its parts" arrangement.

Effectively, this allows a smaller force to execute more missions, respond to more events, and ambush its enemies most of the time. Having all these capabilities available all the time on all aircraft does tend to take one into mid-range aircraft at least, but this way every plane is capable of performing any mission (flexibility), and working together makes them strong enough.

This is the European approach with the Eurofighter and Rafale. Give them very good radars and weapon carrying capacity, data sharing, very limited radar signature reduction, great avionics - and longer range weapons (Meteor, Storm Shadow cruise missile, etc.) Since the Eurofighter, Rafale, and Gripen aren't stealth aircraft, that's pretty much all they can do. The US approach with the "teen series" fighters (F-15, F-16, F-18) is also similar, if a half generation behind on the aircraft and not yet caught up on weapons range.

The question in that event is how disruptable are your ace cards - or how duplicable. If the AWACS and ECM gaps are at risk of being closed somewhat by inferior but workable equipment on your enemies' side, to create more parity within a given battlespace... then you'd better be able to knock off their force multipliers before they do it to yours. Or if they come to parity with your ace item (like a missile), you'd better invent another that maintains the edge.

In this environment, the platform is just the place you hang the key capabilities - and frequent upgrades.

Or, there's protection. The USA's Iowa Class battleships could steam into places where a frigate might fear to tread, because an Exocet in its side would create a maintenance/paint annoyance rather than a hole.

Until/unless we set point defense lasers or really good laser IR countermeasures that can fit in a fighter, however, that's not really an option. The F-35 and F-22 are somewhat prepared for that day in that they have the wiring/ data capacity/ upgradeability to handle it. But that day ain't coming all that soon.

So that leaves stealth and sensors. Be invisible, see before being seen, and get protection. Have the same advantages Iran's F-14 Tomcats did, in that your enemies first know you're there when things blow up.

The F/A-22 Raptor represents this answer from the USA, but it's an expensive answer.

The F/A-22 does indeed smoke all comers in the air, though - and those same attributes could make it a very effective killer of defensive missile sites too. Its passive sensors let them see enemies coming first without giving it away (think of turning your active radar on in the air as akin to turning on a flashlight at night while others watch from far away), its stealth is designed to offset any advantages of the AA-12's missile range by getting it in close, and its supercruise makes it hard for conventional fighters to follow because being above Mach 1 burns so very much fuel unless you have supercruise. Supercruise may even make it possible to outrun an AA-12 or comprarable weapon fired at mid-long ranges.

So F/A-22 Raptors will be running slashers. They'll cruise, vector in, then pounce and do a lot of "drive by shootings," usually with surprise. This is how they've sliced and diced F-15Cs, and they'd almost certainly do the same to SU-3X fighters. F/A-22s can also serve as AWACS Whackers by using supercruise + stealth to get within AMRAAM range before escorts can react, thus restoring the imbalanced playing field for other US fighters.

One big question about the F/A-22 is how long will its stealth advantage last? Because if 20 years from now someone figures out how to pick them up, the USA will be in very big trouble. Until that happens, however, the USA's enemies are in big trouble. So it's kind of a long term bet with big air superiority consequences.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, meanwhile, offers more bomb capacity plus some of the F/A-22's stealth features and similar sensor/processing capacity, for about half the cost - but it won't have the same stealth, or other plusses like range, supercruise that can put it over target for much longer from safer bases at the rear, etc.

Is the F/A-22 redundant, and the F-35 good enough? Or is it the necessary high end that can survive in the environment Trent & I have described?

If the F/A-22 is the necessary high end, is the F-35 a "not quite enough" mid-tier waste that isn't good enough at any one thing and can have every job done ebetter/cheaper by others? Do we need F/A-22s plus a swarm of UAVs and inexpensive (i.e. cheaper than an F-16 Block 60) planes instead?

One interesting possibility: the Eurofighter and Rafale's iffy export performance thus far has led MBDA to promise a version of Meteror that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter could carry in its internal bays (which keeps its profile semi-stealthy; carried missiles are rather radar reflective). It remains to be seen whether the required changes will reduce Meteor to an AMRAAM equivalent, but if not, that combination of limited and affordable stealth plus long range attack potential would also be very formidable. Would that be enough, though, to tip the balance?

---

Cope India 2004/2005, as we can see, feeds into a number of these decisions. That's one reason it's getting so much interest - because its lessons, such as they are, could be very relevant right now.

Which makes it all more important to really understand the bigger picture... and also the limitations under which it was conducted.

Thanks, Trent.

Wastelandlive (#12)... until the very last versions of the Sparrow (and then AMRAAM), radar lock had to be maintained at all times to guide the Sparrow in - and Trent is right that you could only have one locked at a time.

That meant being pointed at your enemy. Unless you're in a tail chase, that means high closing speeds.

One of the things that did happen at Red Flag, ACEVAL, et. al. was that the Sparrow-firing plane would be maintaining its lock, coming in, and then at the very end the target plane fires a short range missile like the Sidewinder (after AIM-9L, they could be fired head-on) - and both planes end up dead.

That's a problem when the Sidewinder is on a $5 million F-5 Tiger II and the Sparrow is on your $50 million F-15A Eagle. Hence AMRAAM, which lets the F-15s fire volleys of multiple missiles, then break lock soon after and go do something else. F-5 or equivalent never gets within range, and you can come back for a pass at the disoriented survivors in a moment if you wish.

In today's world, however, the radars and electronics needed to handle missiles like AMRAAM are a lot smaller. Moore's Law, right?

Which means nowadays, that small MiG-21 Bison may be packing its own AMRAAM - or something even worse. And we're right back to the mutual kill but not equal cost problem. Hence my discussions above.

So, when aircraft begin to be equal, and missiles begin to be equal, what to do?

Switch to what I've referred to as the Dorito's style of warfare: "Crunch all you want-- we'll make more!"

The big stumbling block with that idea is that fighter pilots are also extremely expensive, and carry significant emotional freight as well. UAV/UCAV as a strategic doctrine is far more important even than what they can eventually achieve at a tactical level.

No way man, havent you see Stealth? One lightning bolt and we have Hal-9000 with precision guided bombs on the loose. My favorite part of the movie is where the pilots have to remind each other what a 'prime number' is. Im not sure if Hollywood has less respect for the military or the general public's intellect. Its a tossup.

In short, up against SU-30s, the USA had better introduce extraneous advantages as a total force or depend on pilot excellence, because in terms of the fighters and their weapons they're at a disadvantage at all ranges.

It has two, Link 16 and the EC-130 communications jammer, assuming the other side has a AWACS.

SU-3Xs also carry the R-77M/AA-12 "AMRAAMski" - which can outrange the American "Slammers" (note these caveats re: rannge, but overall it does show top range numbers significantly higher). I've seen some stuff that says the AMRAAM hits more often, but hard to tell without a full comparative test. So those Slammers may not be an unresticted advantage, and full-up against an AA-12 equipped force US pilots may even be in for a bad day if the other guys see them first.

Joe,

A point to consider -- America has fired well over 1000 AMRAAMs in initial and production lot testing out of well over 12,000 AMRAAMs built.

No one else's fire and forget BVRAAM missile -- besides the US Navy's Phoenix -- has built over a 1,000 units.

The Russians recent oil money and foreign military sales may be taking them close to tha number, but orders of magnitude do mean things.

Equipping a whole "less than the best" air force with non-US built AMRAAM equivalents costs cash and requires a technical support infrastructure that is beyond the "one man deep" technical skills base in most non-western nations. That is very much one of the "non-aircraft leveling factors" that the bean counters and airframe junkies miss.

If we are talking a "silver bullet force" withing a 3rd world air force that is one thing. If we are talking a whole airforce, not a chance.

The most important quote from the blog was 'The US does not fight fair'. And this is not a judgement on my part, it is fact. Why 'fight fair' in war?

In the real world, something like this would have happened:

Before the planes would even take off, the US would have begun bombing/attacking/firing cruise missiles at all the command and control sites, fuel dumps, radar sites, the aircraft hangers, the runways...

Granted, we may not have that luxury that we did in Iraq, but the battlefield would be prepped.

The day of battle would be in doubt for the enemy b/c the support/infrastructure needed to fight a war would be degraded.

Throw in the F-22's, stealth bombers, long range fire/forget missiles, information superiority...the fight would be won before it is even fought.

In Gulf War I, the opening salvos were not directed at high value targets, but the radar fenceline/tripwire...performed by helicopters.

How easy is it for other countries to use the AWACs as well as the Indians appeared to have? It seems that we already have the ability to fight side-by-side pretty well with the Indians; or am I reading this wrong?

Trent,

Even assuming the AA-12 is less reliable than an AMRAAM, if its range is longer there will be at least some US fighters downed before reliability matters. AWACS won't help with that, either, though the ability to jam the AA-12's terminal guidance sure would.

Or one chooses stealth as the equalizer that takes away range, by making one undetectable at that range (American approach). Or comes back with a longer range weapon still (Euro approach).

And the hi-lo force option would be for the USA itself, not a third world state (though China's SU-30/J-7 mix would mirror this somewhat, and Cope India showed that this could work).

The USA's problem is that it must prepare for 2 contingencies: major combat against a country like China, where you need really top-end stuff to make it in and cripple them despite advanced aircraft and SAMs - or small-scale wars where even a "cheap" F-16 is overkill.

A hi-lo force mix, plus Link 16 et. al., using US resources to distribute advanced weapons widely, offers 3 things in a big fight:

• The ability to kick down any door, contemptuous of engagement, take apart the defensive systems, and open the door for follow-ons.

• Follow-on waves that can "piggyback" on the high end aircraft via Link 16 et. al., and be fed the info. they need from advanced sensors. Or just use the weapons they're qualified for plus targeting data to break whatever needs breaking. This also begins prepping approaches that will be used with UCAVs et. al. (and it will take a while for those to prove themselves and work out the bugs).

• Breadth of coverage, and the ability to absorb a setback in a big conflict and adjust.

In lesser wars, meanwhile, the low end force costs less to operate, and their capabilities are more than enough. Their numbers and replaceability allow you to mitigate problems with having to keep more and more aging aircraft in service to keep numbers adequate, which the USA is facing.

In fact, you might even go lower still, and begin investing in cheap but useful toys like Schweitzer's inaudible reconnaissance aircraft (audibility has been a problem for US UAVs and choppers in this war), Cessnas (yeah, like the traffic guys use), et. al. UAVs are great, but have real limitations. Buy some dedicated and inexoensive low-end tools for low-intensity conflict that offer persistent wide-angle audio & visual surveillance, plus the capacity for instant action.

Invest the money saved in keeping the OA-10s up to date, making sure the bomber force plus precision weapons can do its thing... and buying some airlift.

That's the core of the hi-lo bipolar force argument, anyway. If you accept it, the F-35 program is largely a waste, and the Marines would be better off buying OA-10E/F "Seahogs" than JSFs.

The counterargument is that this leaves the US Navy and Marines with F/A-18s, whose weapons and range are inferior to contemporary SUs and Eurofighters. You could say "equip them with Meteors/ ramAMRAAMs, and up the buy of EA-18s", and that works for the next 15 years or so... but could get dicey after that.

It's all about one's assumptions and predictions - and looking far into the future, those can easily be wrong. How to get both the triple of capability, AND resilience, AND the ability to fund all the things that are needed?

No easy choices.

Whew !!!
It's incredible these men talking shop and one and another upping the ante!
This must be the techno-modern equivalent of religion students in the Middle Ages discussing how many angels danced on the tip of a pin.
This is the type of thinking that never did and still can't figure out box cutters or their low cost equivalents perhaps in future carnages.
Heaven help us !

The reality of air warfare is that it comes back to Earth. If it isn't the surviving pilots climbing down from their ubermachines and shortly afterwards being offed by some rag tag guerillas sporting some untertech weapons with an extremely low price tag, it's the ground forces facing the same conundrum.

On the ground, and fighting for your own land, it seems the occupiers' high tech superiority means doodly-squat.
This is the problem with the hardware mindset of many in the defense/offence military.
They don't really want to hear about winning hearts and minds at a fraction of the cost and saving a bundle of money and lives in the process.
So if I'm preaching some winds of fresh thinking here, go ahead sue me.

Mr. Vikander,

The US, with its global interests, has to operate throughout the entire spectrum of conflict, from peacekeeping to COIN to high intensity operations.

While it is true that COIN demands may be more pressing now, high intensity operations require investment in doctrine and technology years ahead of time. Therefore the discussion on air power is relevant today, everyday. In addition, it is not as if this forum focuses on high-intensity operations to the exclusion of everything else.

Air power is our hedge against high-intensity operations. Our investment in air power allows the Army and USMC of today to focus on COIN and winning hearts and minds while atrophying some of their high-intensity combat skills.

Note that few of the countries capable of operating air forces worth a **** even try to compete with the U.S. 3rd world air forces, to the extent they have any air superiority mission at all, are designed to take on their neighbors, not us.

The reason is that they simply cannot afford to contest the electro-magnetic spectrum with us. Their C3I will go down almost immediately in any real conflict with the U.S., at which point their air superiority capability will be dependent upon passive airborne sensors aboard individual fighters, fighting at most in small elements, against American forces which have complete information as to everyones' positions.

As an private pilot with a bunch of ratings and a student of military history, I'd like to add a couple thoughts here.

We (the US) have a lot of our eggs in the stealth basket. Rumors had it the Chinese were working on a passive stealth detection system that used computers and cell phone signals (every man a radar station!). If somebody breaks through the stealth coverage, I believe we lose a lot of our tactical advantage. And if they do, it's not like they're going to advertise the fact on C-Span.

Strategically, our C4ISR is second to none. The probable weakness is discrimination between garbage and useful data. Radar was a great invention until somebody realized you could drop little pieces of aluminum foil and drive it crazy.

I don't want to get into an instruction book here, but suffice it to say that a complex, expensive system can have inherent weaknesses that the desingers overlooked. All it takes is a few of these, probed at the right time by the right ally, and the tide of battle changes.

As far as visual dogfighting, it's a good skill to have. Even if modern systems prohibit it, a) controling the plane and the energies involved accurately makes better pilots, and b) systems fail and unusual situations arise, which means you've got to do it the hard way

The counterargument is that this leaves the US Navy and Marines with F/A-18s, whose weapons and range are inferior to contemporary SUs and Eurofighters. You could say "equip them with Meteors/ ramAMRAAMs, and up the buy of EA-18s", and that works for the next 15 years or so... but could get dicey after that.

Joe,

Go back and read Tom Holsinger's post up thread and consider whether US Navy Carriers or USMC Marine Air Wings ever deploy without EA-6B Prowlers or the future EF-18G Growler.

Modern long range fire and forget BVRAAM are great, but if they don't have the sensor/shooter C3I to support them, they are as useless as Saddam's Gerald Bull designed 155mm field artillery facing the American Army.

Sure, Bull's designs outranged American 155mm guns and MLRS rockets. The guns still died to no great effect because the American dominance of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Fighting Americans in high tech warfare is like playing a game of paper, scissors, rock where the Americans can use two hands to your one and pick which hand to use to beat your choice.

Even assuming the AA-12 is less reliable than an AMRAAM, if its range is longer there will be at least some US fighters downed before reliability matters. AWACS won't help with that, either, though the ability to jam the AA-12's terminal guidance sure would.

Joe,

You are going bean counter/air frame junkie on me. System reliability wins or loses battles and some times whole wars.

Heck, Joe, the Argentines lost the Falklands War in the 1980s because they didn't keep up to date with their aerial bomb fuzes. The British had a half dozen frigates survive because the Argentine fuzes failed. The Argentines were one of the better 3rd world air powers at the time. And believe me, modern BVRAAM's are much more complicated and potentionally unreliable if neglected than bomb fuzes.

Say what you will about the Iraqi air exclusion zones. There have been a whole series of updates and upgrades to the AIM-120 based on extensive carriage and limited use of warshot missiles during them. Things like learning the actual service virbration loads on the missile on in-service aircraft versus the computer test models. This let the USAF know when their AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles were good and when they were carrying non-functional high tech junk.

That body of knowledge is just not there for rival BVRAAM's and none of whose sources -- save perhaps the Israelis -- have the reputation for High Tech weapons reliability America does.

I view non-American BVRAAM's in the hands of 3rd world states about as combat useful as American navy torpedos circa 1941-early 1943.

#22 Tom Vikander:

"On the ground, and fighting for your own land, it seems the occupiers' high tech superiority means doodly-squat.
This is the problem with the hardware mindset of many in the defense/offence military.
They don't really want to hear about winning hearts and minds at a fraction of the cost and saving a bundle of money and lives in the process.
So if I'm preaching some winds of fresh thinking here, go ahead sue me."

I believe we are coming around full circle to the question of Iraq. What role do all of these gee-whiz supersonic aircraft have in the war against the insurgents?

1) What is to say that gee-whiz electronics are not playing a role in this war -- you only hear about the casualties from the IEDs that go off, not much about the IEDs that are defeated owing to informants, patrols, or perhaps electronic countermeasures.

2) I guess the notion is that a foreign occupier always carries a certain foot print, a risk of stepping on things, doing things from offending the locals from not knowing the customs all the way up to killing innocent people, perhaps being tricked into this by the insurgency itself. I guess some people are insurgents because they are holdouts from the Saddam regime. Some are insurgents because we have "manufactured terrorists" by simply being there. Others are insurgents because they hate America and have come from foreign lands to Iraq because they can fight American soldiers there. Maybe others want Americans to simply leave so they can go about the business of settling old scores, conducting revenge, and having that bloodbath many have been waiting for.

But are there any Americans and any but a hardcore few Iraqis who have any kind of nostalgia for the "good old days" when "secular dictator Saddam" ran a "stable Iraq?" As to "hearts and minds", do any of the insurgents have any kind of political program to sell that anyone else in Iraq wants, apart from "lets kick out the Americans and have the free-for-all that everyone wants and lets see which faction prevails?"

Joe,

I like the Seahogs idea, but unfortunately the USAF went out of its way to stop the A-10 program as soon as possible. The production line is gone. I'd say it would only be a little easier to make A-10s again than it would be to start making Saturn V rockets again.

Trent,

Good to see you around, I always enjoy your posts. I was under the impression that EC-130s were used for psy-ops and little else. I guess I was wrong.

A few questions for the group.

If the US is so dominant in EM counter-measures, are high-expense airframes like the F-22 and the F-35 really necessary?

Within the last decade, Serb air defence batteries put up a respectable fight against the US. Has the state of the art advanced significantly since then?

Has the USAF fixed the EM warfare/structural/bureaucratic problems Trent identified in this post? It seems to me that the last two wars wouldn't have focused attention on this area.

Have the Russians' rumored plasma stealth efforts borne any fruit? Back in '98 or '99 the Russians buzzed the deck of the USS Contellation while it was in the Sea of Japan. Some pundits attributed this achievement to plasma stealth technology, whether they were serious or offering this as a salve to the Navy's pride, I don't know.

Mr. Katzman (#15):

I don't want to come across as pompous. As I noted, there is some surprisingly well informed commentary here.

But understand that I have fired a live sparrow or two in my life. There's no counting how many simulutated shots I have taken in exercises such as those that you list.

I never contested the fact that the AIM-7 is a semi-active missile, requiring radar lock to time out.

What I contested was this, which is incorrect:

Using Sparrow, the F-15s have to close to visual range in order to guide the Sparrow all the way to target.

That's all. It's a minor, but important point. And that said, I'm reluctant to say more.

I wana that what is the prosess of air forc to get join, plese tell me.

It was very interesting to read the informed opinions and views expressed on this forum. I would like to point out the fact that neither the Indian Air Force nor any of its pilots have done any chest thumping whatsoever regarding the outcome of Cope India 2005. Whatever has come out in the media has come from the Americans or IAF fans who have interpreted the comments that have come from the American side.

As has been pointed out many times, the purpose of the exercise was to learn from each other, which both sides did. The Indians have a better understanding of American skills and procedures and vice versa.

All this hullaballoo and negativity on the part of the media in my personal opinion is much ado about nothing. Both air forces now have respect for each other and would better guard their respective spheres of influence from the lessons learnt through such exercises.

Another thing I note is the highly illiterate and illogical comments coming from supposedly Indian-sounding names on some forums (as the one above from "Vikas Mohan" and a few others in other forums), which I would guess is an attempt at maligning Indians by patriotic citizens of our neighbor to the west, who are having superhot gases erupting from their nether ends worrying about the professionalism and dominance of the IAF in Asia.

The following is from the military affairs web magazine Strategypage.com:

India versus Americans

December 8, 2005: There have been several joint training exercises held recently between the U.S. Air Force and the Indian Air Force. The Indians have used their new, Russian designed, Su-30s (an improved model of the Su-27, which is the Russian answer to the U.S. F-15). The Indians have gone up against American F-15s and F-16s. The Indian pilots have been quite successful in these mock dogfights, and very eager to let everyone know about it.

What isn�t usually included in these battle descriptions is the fact that the ground rules deliberately prevented the American pilots from winning every engagement. These days, American pilots use close in dog fighting (with heat seeking Sidewinder missiles) as a fall back tactic. The main air-to-air weapon of the U.S. Air Force is now the long range (over 50 kilometers) AMRAAM missile, and superior radar equipment. This is nothing new, the United States has been working on this tactic for nearly half a century, and in the last decade, they have finally gotten missiles, radars, tactics and pilots able to make it work consistently. For a long time, pilots were not enthusiastic about BVR (Beyond Visual Range) engagements, and the early missiles (the AIM-7 Sparrow) were not all that accurate. But after decades of trying, they finally have a winning combination with the AMRAAM and a new generation of radars and electronic gear. So when American fighter pilots go train with foreign air forces, they have to take their BVR tactics off the table, since under those conditions, the �enemy� force would not have much of a chance.

But there�s also the security aspect. Other air forces also have BVR missiles (usually Russian), and the American pilots don�t want to give away the electronic tricks and tactics they would use to defeat the Russian missiles, and ensure that AMRAAM would succeed. So the American pilots have to fall back on the older dog fighting tactics, which many foreign fighter pilots are good at (since they don�t train much, if at all, with BVR missiles.) For the Indian Air Force, such training exercises are good because it allows them to train against F-16s (which their long time foe, Pakistan, has). For the American pilots, they get to operate against Su-30s (which China has.) For all concerned, it�s a chance to fight against pilots from a different culture, who may use different, and sometimes superior, tactics and methods.

I flew Hunters during the Indo Pak war of 1965 and Mig 21s during the war in 1971. During the '65 war, we were really pretty poorly organised.We were much better during the '71 engagement. During Kargill, the IAF acted as a modern air force should.
The idea is to learn and keep on improving and learning and I believe that's what Cope 2005 was all about.
It's ridculous to make a contest of it. India and US are coming closer. We will never fight against each other, but side by side.
Armchair warriors and frustrated 'Microsoft' pilots should concentrate on improving their PC skills as they'll never know what it's like to fly in combat.

Reading all the usual rhetoric from western readers show that they are as usual fed on the "Superiority" of American Aircrafts by the american media and Hollywood films. Let them learn what happened to their F-86 Sabre Jets and F-104 Starfighters during the Indo-Pak wars of 1965 and 1971 and also what India's Hunter,Gnat,Su-7 and Mig-21s did to their Patton Tanks during the famous battle of Longewal. The yankee kids are usually fed and misled by films like Top Gun on superiority of F-14,F-15 and F-16s vis-a-vis Russian made aircrafts. But the truth is that the latest Su-30MKI which is a digital-based multirole fighter with 3-D Thrust vector engines and other aircrafts like the Mig-29F are much superior aircrafts. The Su-30 is a Fourth Generation aircraft with revolutionary technology which makes it a better fighter than the F-22 and F-35. Unfortunately the national pride of our american friends makes it impossible for their bloated egos to accept and appreciate the ground realities. Further India and Russia are jointly developing the S-42 or I-42/44 Fifth generation fighter bomber which when completed will be the most superior combat aircraft which will surpass both the F-22 Raptor and F-35 JSF in technology, armament and stealth. Also India's own LCA and futuristic Tail-less MCA will prove to outclass the F-22,F-35 and the latest F-16 Block 52-55 since most of the technology used in the I-42/44 will also be used in the LCA and MCA.Only time will tell the americans who is better.Till then let them enjoy watching Top Gun.We also have our own AMRAAMS. Yankees-please ask your pilots what they saw in Cope India 2004 and 2005. They will tell you the truth.

I think India has a very fine Air Force and nothing is meant to take away from their skill, but has anyone ever considered that the American Air Force wanted to "Lose"? The support for the very expensive F-22 Raptor is not very strong in the Congress of the U.S. If and I repeat "If" the U.S. Air Force were to have won against the SU-30 or even the French Mirage 2000, what would have kept U.S. Politicians from saying that the F-15 or F-16 is good enough for the future war? Why should do the U.S. spend money for a more expensive plane when the current air fleet proved it could defeat the SU-27 & Su-30?

Hey its a fact theat the Indian Airforce performed better than the USAF in almost all occassions (stayong in their limits). But watever is the outcome it shows that Indians r the better trained pilots than the americans. The sukhois have the high manuvrability than the F16. BVR is better in f 16. so in all even odds both the sides....

Sriram,

Far from leaving it to me to tell you that you sound every bit as bovinally patriotic and misled as the 'jocks' you are ranting about.

The reality is that as many people have pointed out, 3rd world countries have a fraction of the native technological back-up, support, logistics, and most importantly- advanced radar/EM technology.

Future russian aircraft as well as existing ones suffer huge export problems and reliability, in almost every example(and i don't wish to sound patronising about india) but if you honestly feel that you are going to develop a serious rival to the US/EU airforces with current budgets then you really are a retard.

The reality is that whether we like it or not the USAF is the dominant air force in the world, the huge back up, logistics, intelligence networks and indeed, numerical, technological, and Jamming technology sees to this. And before you accuse me of being a 'jock' I am from the UK, who i might also remind you has developed the 'Eurofighter' which has just recieved it's first (possibly of many) large export sale from Saudi-Arabia.

It's good to be patriotic, but stick to reality, india is still woefully ill equipped, and it would be better to confine your pachydermal-rants to those who are actually interested in reading a lot of semi-literate chest beating.

The tests left out BVR, BVR is the most important tool (other than EM interference) that the USAF has against enemy threats, therefore, removing the most powerful weapon, and instead relying on the 'dogfight' to determine supremacy is as useless. It was a training exercise, one which for your countries sake i do hope is not regarded with too much aplomb when considering which future conflicts to undertake, and indeed, which to avoid.

BTW, to the person who initially started this post, the meteor does not have anything like 4x the range of AIM-120, a much more modest increment sadly. Due to size limitations.

Max

Hey its a fact that the Indian Airforce performed better than the USAF in almost all occassions (stayong in their limits). But watever is the outcome it shows that Indians r the better trained pilots than the americans.

Modi,

Please consider the following questions:

Did India send it's very best pilots and planes to Cope India 2005 with its pilots training set to peak out before the exercise or did it send a regular "line unit" with normal training?

Did the USAF send its very best or did it send a "line unit?"

The answer is that India sent its very best trained to top form and the USAF sent its regular bubbas with no special preparation and minus its best BVR and electronic combat toys.

The only time you see the USAF playing with all of its BVR and EC toys with someone else at peak training form is when it is doing a Red Flag or Green Flag rotation at Nellis AFB and it only has the other American air services playing with them.

The Kosovo air campaign showed that even NATO air services lack the digital radios and precision guided munitions to play "full go" with American air power.

I think the British have since purchased the digital radios, Link 16 data links and PGMs to stay in the same aerial 'play pen' as American air power, but most other NATO powers are selling their F-16s to places like Chile to pay for maintaining their remaining air fleet.

Beyond that, America has 57 F22's delivered and the first F22 squadron is now operational. The first exercises with the F22 has had a single a single F22 beat six AMRAAM armed F-15s without loss.

The CSM, left out the most important fact of all...the US Air Force scored 70% more "kills" against the Indian Air Force then vice/versa.

The same thing happened when the US went up against the Israeli IAF in 2003. American fighter pilots consistently win the vast majority of dog fights against whoever they "war game" with, whether it be the Indian Air Force, the Israeli IAF, the French or any other countries Air Force. That is a fact that can be easily substantiated. It is sad that amateurish papers like the CSM and other are so anti-American, that they will lie or mislead their readers about the unmatched power of the US Military. The CSM's readers deserve the facts, not the bias of a particular writer.

Excuses Excuses Excuses,
Did you Americans honestly think all air forces in the world are like the one's you faced against Iraq?
grow up guys, America got their butts kicked fair and square. And that is after spending 350 billion dollars on defense, which is more than 10 times the Indian defense budget, hahahaha, the problem is not with the planes, its with the stupid ass American pilots.
Can you imagine how powerful the Indian air force will be say 10-20 years, when they start spending billions of dollars on Research and Development. If you've forgotten, India has some of the most talented and smartest scientists in the world. Open your eyes America, the world is catching up to you.

I challenge americans to fight us indian army. Man to to man our martial rces can take your substandard hispqanic/white/black
soldiers any day.

Jatin you are an as-hole!

India is fighting Islamic Terrorism. India is an important ally to the US.

am an Indian ... and as "Ramachandran" put it in a previous post , just ignore the the posts from guys with Indian sounding names like "vikas mohan" , "Modi" , "Jatin" and "Bikram" , which are either illogical or inflammatory in nature and are most likely from accomplished India-baitors whom I've had the priviledge of confronting time and again ...

Without going into budgets and technicalities , it would suffice to say that ... till few years back the nature of threats , responsiblities and operations conducted were very diffrent (from geo-political point of view ) for both these Air Forces ... but that has changed bringing with it a certain amount of convergence of interest after decades of mistrust ... and hence these exercises like Cope India , Balance Iroquis etc ...

... and there is a lot to learn from each other ...

The keyword in this fledgeling military partnership/relationship is /has been "inter-operatability" . So that both the militaries can share infrastructure and operate together in the uncertain future . Apart from the Air Force ... the Army (esp. Spl Forces) and the Navy ( & the Coast Guard ) of the 2 nations are also engaged in exercises and training ... though much of the information concerning these is not in the public domain and one can only speculate about the exact details and "results" (just as this particular discussion)

To the "first world" western mind it it anathema to think that a so-called 3rd world India can have a robust Military (among other things). This has led to lack of awareness and gross-underestimation of its potential , especially owing to the decades of mutual-distrust. This page bears ample testimony to this fact.

Well , they have been proved wrong on most occassions.

#44 from AV: "To the "first world" western mind it it anathema to think that a so-called 3rd world India can have a robust Military (among other things)."

What?

To me it seems more of a problem in dealing with India, and worse, Russia, that people are quick to assume and resent a Western contempt and hostility that does not exist.

I love the fact that everyone here incorporates only technological aspects into their argument without looking at what makes America so dominant. Economic and Strategic Superiority.

Take a look at America GDP vs India GDP and that'll tell you the real story. India 4.156 Trillion dollars (very respectable) vs 13.3 Trillion. Need I go on?

In a simulated battle of planes you would also have to look at strategic advantages in which America would decisively overwhelm any opponent. On the assumption IF there was a fictional war between the two countries, think of that. America would have planes flying from Pakistan, Turkey, Afganistan, Japan, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, Carriers, and LA or Virginia class subs firing missles from the Gulf.

That's not including B-2 Stealth Bombers that could fly from Marietta, GA or anywhere in the US and all the former Soviet Republic which we have some kind of air base. Nor that fact that if we were attacked first NATO would get involved. Before India planes got off the ground it would rubble. And if they somehow DID get off the ground by the time they landed it would rubble. Radar would be taken out first, and then communications, etc. On the grand scale of combat this would be an absolute total utter anniliation.

The battle is pointless. America also controls most of the banking system. Money wins, point blank. Almost 60& of world transactions go through the states... And not to get on a technical discussion because most of you know better than I ever would when it comes to range, distance, and superiority of fighters but it's moot. In less than 24 hours India infranstructure would crumble and a majority of their assets would be frozen.

Get out a map and look at America's strategic partners. Norway, The Netherlands, Greenland, Spain, Great Britain, South Korea, Tawain, Australia, the Philliphines, Italy, Saudia Arabia. Notice a common theme there? They're all coastal cities and THEY ALL surround the continent with the exception of North Korea, and Russia. (Yes their are third world countries we don't have airbases)

To depict a battle of planes you have would to take all those into account, setting aside technological superiority for either side. Even then, you're talking about 70's technology F15C eagles you would be going against not AESA equipped F-18 Super Hornets, or 60 F-22 that the USAF currently Deploy. It would be a absolute slaughter before the battle even begun both economically, strategically, and tactically.

Even assuming that America hasn't even deployed 20% or more of their technology that Darpa has developed then it would still be one sided.

AND This is still not even accounting the fact that what country in their right mind would attack America? The global economy would absolutely tank even if they did win...It would be a loss before the war began.

americans should appreciate their infirio technology

Fairly (non sided)speaking, America cannot compete Russia in any technology or science. They can be proud of their economy which is not solely of their own sweat. I know trueth is beeter.

I agree with MaxmilianBeers. FYI,I am an Indian. Stupids like Jatin or Bikram are talking non-sense...My understanding is that the whole purpose of exercises was to check "inter-operability" to prepare for a future potential threat better known as "The dragon"...Yes, the fact that US was not operating its fleet under full combat support environment they use in war gave a little advantage to us(India). And honestly most Indians including myself gets all overwhelmed and ecstatic with little success, loosing long-term focus. In the end both sides were happy that things went smooth....We are worlds two best democracies and growing friends...All those trying to find who beats who (Indian forces to US forces or vice-versa) are sick minded individuals. Remember power is to deter our foe and not harm unless provoked.

Hi all,

Forget all the technical s***s, and didn't bring all the machinery capable of winning things. The Indians trust in the manpower, and that wins. How many US soldiers can fight like Indian army fought in Kargil? That is the difference and u guys should learn to accept the truth as it is.

Hi,

Any country in the world can fight against any country in the world after imposing a long 10 years ban on everything including food and medicine. Please guys don't think of that against India. U guys refused rocket engine, we made one. Every country especially India is not Iraq or Afganistan.

I salute you, Parikh, for your assessment is the best here.

This wasn't a bare-knuckle competition where both brought their best to the table. To be fair, while India held back a little, the US held back a LOT. But there's a reason for this. Many reasons, actually.

India needed practice with how things work NOW, and brought their best pilots. The reason they did so was because--if they had to go to war with anyone--they'd have to use the resources they have NOW. And so they practiced with what they had now, against average pilots of the best AF in the world. This lets them refine their tactics greatly, and get real hardcore practice in against someone they know they'll never have to actually fight in a shooting war. Then their best pilots who participated can go back, develop a curriculum, and train the NEXT generation of Indian pilots so that they will be even better.

The US has equipment and capability that India lacks. Things the Indian AF simply can't bring to the table, at least not yet anyway. But that's no reason for us to neglect to share what capability we can with our allies. The Indian AF doesn't have the data-to-data transfer systems used by our fighters and AWACS (which gives us a distinct advantage had we used it), but they CAN use audio communications, and are quite skilled at it. Even with just that, they can integrate somewhat with our tactics--thus allowing them to operate WITH us... OR TO BENEFIT FROM ADVANTAGES WE HAVE THAT THEY LACK. If India were to get into a shooting war with one of their belligerent neighbors, the US could avoid getting involved directly in the shooting war but still VASTLY increase India's odds simply by flying a couple of AWACS into the area. This would give our allies the strategic awareness and coordinated communication-control that they don't presently have. While this might be difficult for their pilots to adapt to in the middle of a shooting war, NOW they won't have to, thanks to this exercise. Their best just learned how, and will be able to spread that knowledge to the rest of their Air Force.

What Parikh says about our allies and us is exactly true. India is probably the most capable, largest, and most dependable ally in that entire region now (if not the world). These simulated 'fights' are just that, simulated. While the result of an actual shooting war might be interesting to debate, hopefully things will never deteriorate to where such a thing would even be considered. As it stands, both nations are great. Working together, both are far more capable than the sum of their parts. I, for one, am glad they have done so well and are now capable of working alongside us with greater efficiency.

Yes, India cant beat the US. As if that needed saying.

So to all the idiots who go to great lengths explaing how the F22s can kick the MiG's ass and how the GDP of USA is thrice India's, you dont need to, it is self-evident.

To all the Indians who think this war game proves IAF pilots are superior to USAF ones, grow up. Yes, the Indians might be better than what the americans expected, but without the kind of training infrastructure/technology/experience USAF has, IAF pilots are not a match. IAF pilots can do well to learn from them and the great thing is they are.

To all the Pakistanis with obviously fake Indian profiles, get a life.

Okay..just for numbers' sake..the IAF had a sucess record of 96%!!..does that mean the IAF is a much more lethal force than the USAF??..the answer is NO..
But to think that its an air force with obsolete technology and under trained crew would be complacency and even stupidity.
Considering India is just a 60 yr old nation it has come a long way.One of the largest growing economies in the world today and the armed forces are capable enough to keep India safe if not to harm other nations.
India is already a regional super power and the IAF has had a major role in that and we're going towards being a global super power.
As for the Su 30 MKI vs F15 or the F16..It would be stupid to compare them the Su 30 being a newer , faster , better aircraft than either of them.
The USAF is the strongest air force in the world and I don't think any of us doubt that , but to think that the Indian Air Force can not put up a decent fight is stupid.
But yeah, as for the the joint excercise both sides got to learn a lot about each other.The Indian pilots (if not all the aircrafts) impressed the americans a lot and it wouldn't be unfair to call them one of the best in the world.
PS-As for the Mig 21 Bison ,Whether its a force to reckon with or not , I do not know.
But ive been lucky enough to see the fishbed fly and to someone who is in love with aviation as much as I am whether its a bison or a bis or a 93 or a 2000 , the mig 21 is a beauty in itself.
much like the F4 , ugly yet beautiful.

Just a bit of enlightenment here. The Su30-MKI Squadron was a local squadron based in Gwalior and not exactly a handpicked best of the best. Its also true that American pilots had handicaps. Both side currently have BVR,ECM capability but yeah like people here already mentioned those are not the kind of capability countries shout about or show off. SU-30 MKI,MK,MKK etc. may be based on SU-27 but MKI is a vastly superior fighter compared to MK or MKK, largely due to highly tweaked avionics and a few changes to airframe which are a combination of result from work in India, France and Israel.The differences includes modern display, navigation, targeting and electronic warfare systems, 2-D thrust vectoring,PESA and canard foreplanes. this still doesn't even come close to the raptor spec( most of which is still secret) except I guess in maneuverability during dogfighting where Su-27 itself is a great plane. But it could definitely give a good fight to the JSF.
That being said India and USA are great democracies and as such natural allies. So sensible people here(On both sides) should remember that we didn't fight a war, we just played a friendly game, and pilots on both sides were much more sporting about it than some people on this comments page.

As for the talk about Bangladesh liberation war, 1971, although the Nixon/Kissinger administration was on Pakistani side, American and world public opinion was overwhelmingly against them. Please do read about the blood telegram regarding Pakistani atrocities on Bangladeshis from the Archer Blood, American ambassador in east Pakistan and signed by 29 Americans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_telegram

peace,

Many may find this blog (very) interesting:

http://theboresight.blogspot.com

1) AIM-120 AMRAAM missile & AESA radars would have made little difference - as new jamming technologies (like D.F.R.M) degraded (or negate) most of these (radio EM-spectrum) capabilities - regardless.

2) If BVR shots were allowed in the exercise(s) Russian designed hardware also have an AIM-120 class ‘slammer’ weapons – the R-77 - so again another “wash”.

3) If BVR had been allowed the R-77 has an IR (infra-red) version seeker head and American crews may have faired even worse (can’t jam IR, one can only avoid/decoy once fired)?!

4) Russian Su-Flanker was designed to counter/defeat the F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18 and ADV Tornado. It no surprise equally experienced India aircrews would prevail.

5) The American military ALWAYS fights it wars over someone else’s (hostile) airspace – so aircraft numbers or odds are 200% applicable.

6) Advance Flanker series (in my view) with pilots of equal skill - is more (more) than a match even for F22.