It seemed like proliferation of Soviet weapons didn’t suffer any hit in most of Africa after 1982. The appetite for consumerism ultimately doomed the SU’s military as the civilians demanded more resources out of the economy. With the bulk of their enlisted military manned by people that wanted nothing to do with war its no wonder that their military collapsed. The party machine, which the aviators largely belonged, desired the status quo and would have continued the trend indefinitely. I don’t think the poor performance of the Soviet export aircraft had even a remote responsibility for the collapse of the Soviet system.

Imagine if the SU did not collapse and they had continued on their high proportionate spending towards the military. They would be flying ctol fighters from flattops, launching 50-60 spy satellites a year, flying stealth fighters and bombers, replacing the one-off SS-18 and SS-20 replacements, and deploying the S-500 umbrella over a good chunk of Europe by now. And China would be so weak, because their industrial revolution would have never happened, that the west would have fed them much better high tech equipment to feed their own military foundations. And Iraq would still be ruled by Saddam Hussein, who himself would be flying a mixture of even more modern Soviet and western weapons against the Iranians.

And I can guarantee you that the SU would have invested a lot of time and energy in using effective large flying formations for their shiny, new stealth fighters.

Alternative Future for C-5As?

It makes good sense. C-5A’s have all largely been non-standard versions all using the same designation. If they can move the cockpits, engines, and main parts of the C-5A’s into the C-5M standard that would save a lot of head aches. These big airframes last a lot of air mileage, much more than a fighter airframe. It is conceivable that they can keep them flying for several decades like other large aircraft in the fleet. It’s not the superficial design that is obsolete, so it makes little sense to retire them earlier than necessary. Buying something to replace them will cost much more than we’ll ever deem necessary to spend.

In the context of guarding a vast border the MiG-19 variants make sense. It’s a pretty large fighter relative to most light fighters. Definitely poses a threat to anything unarmed that would wander across the border. But weren’t these airframes metered in hundreds of hours?

The USN can’t even maintain the Aegis cruisers and destroyers. Going more sophisticated is a dimwit notion. The people in charge of the budgets are so disconnected from reality.

You’re better off with diversity and UAE would be keen on getting both the F/A-18F (pre-wired for Growler upgrades) and Rafale/spectra. Ditch the Mirages and Falcons completely at the high end, keep the latter for your low end.

Not using your forces is never a failure. Yet one could argue that the need to intervene in a COIN pr peace keeping mission, might be higher than the expected need for a naval conflict.

Free access to 75% of the earth’s surface is much more important than a naval conflict. You utilize naval units for many roles short of naval conflicts. They are far more flexible for power projection than an immobile heavy land force.

I was figuring Tejas to be the LO counterpart to the Typhoon. India, being a former Crown colony member, was a viable candidate to use the EJ200 engine. It made good sense:

M-88
2x = Rafale
1x = Novi Avon (cancelled)

F404
2x = F-18A–>D Hornet
1x = Gripen A-D, F-50 Golden Eagle

F414
2x = F-18E–>F Super Hornet, EF-18G Growler
1x = Gripen NG

EJ200
2x = EF Typhoon
1x = Tejas

Now I’m filled with disappointment as Tejas is yet another LO counterpart to the Super Hornet.

Actually they were comparing available Australian options versus regional adversaries. You seem to be viewing it from a stateside perspective.