Thobbes the Russian army did NOT have numerical superiority in Georgia.

Where’s the PROOF?

You don’t have anything except nationalistic claims.

You putting down its performance while making much out of NATO AFs token contributions is rich indeed.

Put it simply, even the token contributors in NATO do it better than the Russians.

Quite frankly in that scenario 90% of your top tier AFs wouldn’t have done squat, let alone gone into action from hour 1.

Mainly cause the NATO/USA aren’t stupid enough to get into that situation.

The IAF in its ability to do damage to an enemy, and spectrum of raw capability is light years ahead of all but a handful AFs.
This gap will get even bigger, as they induct Rafale, not to even mention the FGFA which will put them @ another level altogether.

And obviously far superior to USA.

the Russian pilots did very well in the Korean War (1950) despite the the fact Russian pilots did not wear G-suits, while the American pilots had the advantage of wearing G-suits

http://wio.ru/korea/korea-ace.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Korean_War_flying_aces

in 1965, the North Vietnam air force had only 1 jet fighter. By 1975, North Vietnam produced 16 aces (flying MiG-21) by shooting down over 80 American aircrafts in air-to-air combat.

Finally a sane non-nationalist post by 2nd/3rd worlders convinced of their own global superiority.

Yep the North Vietnamese did really well. And the Americans made too many doctrinal and tactical mistakes (e.g. reliance on unreliable missiles, and focus on speed as opposed to maneouvrability.

They learned though and completely revamped US tactical aviation in terms of training and aircraft.

Of course token..all those guys are dead and long gone. The original Brits werent around to develop the IAF as it grew in the 60s, 70s or even today.. the Brit trained guys still drew on far more local resources to do what they did, rather than rely on hoary Brit traditions to build the IAF

That’s my point. You claimed IAF completely indepedent from 1940s. It was basically a British style force governed by British culture and tactics and had either British people or British trained guys in charge through the 1950s.

Yeah, and it was fun watching how the EU handled the minor detail of financial issues re: some of their member states…so much for being a big happy family..

Happier than Indians slaughtering each other because they believe in different imaginary people.

LOL, after a few minor world wars..

And your point?

Yeah, sure. A high standard of living and peaceful economic conditions (often borne on the back of centuries of colonialism) tends to do that…of course, its when they are asked to share between the haves and have nots, that the problem starts..

Cry me a river.

ROTFLMAO. It gets funnier and funnier…
This is why the Chinese keep building up their cross straits capabilities I guess…

That’s why the Chinese haven’t invaded Taiwan by now and only get irritated if Taiwan starts muttering about independence.

They have economic integration too.. what happened to your wunderbar theory then?

These countries are dysfunctional artificial constructs.

Kinda like India in some ways – remember how many countries you guys had prior to Honourable East India Company and then the Raj taking you over.

And many of you still don’t like each other – Sikhs v Hindus v Muslims, Mizo uprising in 1960s, Kashmiris, Naxalites Maoistsetc.

Oh clearly, that has to do with their lack of “economic integration” and nothing to do with historical issues or even current events…oh sir, no!

Point is India’s political integration and stability is fragile at best and a complete artificial construct..

They are in Europe…you know, the actual continent, as versus artificial hodge podges of western eastern central whatever?

Whole conversation has involved Western Europe and not the Balkans.

As many as need be, to keep the numbers up as the Su’s and other airframes come in… same reason the USAF still flies its older jets.. even as the rest of the world buys new jets..

Older US jets are generally as advanced as most countries state of the art ones.

More to do with the fact that if these aircraft were upgraded, the rationale for newer Rafales, Typhoons and F-35s would vanish..

These aircraft are getting old.

Thats what the US thought till they exercised against the Bisons…then they went away puzzled..

And what about those MiG-21M/Bis squadrons you keep forgetting?!?

And we’d still win the conflict, whereas your fancy toys would idle on the ground as officers drank soy lattes and murmured about who did it best..

Cause Indians as well as CHinese, Russians, Sudanese, Syrians, Pakistanis etc etc are all far better than those stupid rich Westerners with their SUVs, soy lattes and expensive military toys.

One does question the purpose of government then?

Is it not to improve the lives of their people?

What benefit does the average Indian living in poverty have out of an SSN or carrier or whatever? None.

Given outbursts of sectarian violence and terrorism, the defence spending doesn’t even bring them peace and security.

Basically IMO both Pakistani and Indian governments don’t seem to care much about their people and instead go around investing money on pointless weapons that don’t even contribute to real security.

Y-20 I totally agree with your post!

However some people on this board speak of Brazil as some sort of great military power. I thought it was time set the record straight.

MIG-21 is short range fighter. you cannot expect much more than that against trained F-4. you pick one instance and make claims about it. so now your going to extrapolate MIG-31BM performance against F-16 from MIG-21 fight against F-4?

Actually most of the Israeli fighters with Mirage IIICJs delivered in 1960s. Generally comparable to a MiG-21 and technically MiG-21MF was more modern.

Even if your figure are true. you need 3 to 1 advantage and in mountanous area much more to defeat comprehensively. it is not some big advantage.

Those were deployed much late and without regard to any intelligence.

Not if your opponent is an incompetent tyro. It’s kinda like the Wehrmacht smashing Red Army in early 1941. Certainly no 3 to 1 numerical superiority there.

There are so many other countries. Russia can always smash Georgia so no need to keep tab. You only keep tab on things where you expect some competitive fight.

And this is why you got your butts kicked in Afghanistan and then initially in Chechnya.

By the way American intel on Afghanistan was also crap.

Well the RAAF is a minor AF in the big scheme of things. When is the last time it was in a shooting war or even went to war in any serious fashion without the US or some other big player doing the heavy lifting? Its not even in the same league as most of the larger AF.. heck, an Indian Army Corps has more combat power than the Australian Army..

Point was they screwed up the logistics big time and it came as a shock to them.

In the big scheme of things, a force which has seen combat on its own, and handled it well – like the IAF, is far more capable to handle the exigencies of deployment and even plan it out well! The IAF did not do exercises outside India, but when it chose to, it deployed a bunch of airlifters, transports and went halfway across the world to the US. Go ahead and look up how much training the “Mighty Mars” Il-78 squadron did when the IAF received air lifters.

Hey and Australia does that too.

In India, an entire Strike Corp was created out of an “expeditionary force” which was sent to Sri Lanka. Retasked, rebuilt, its now the core of offensive capabilities against the PA.

I’ve read about Indian ops in Sri Lanka in 1980s and it was a very well run affair.

That single intervention btw, convinced India that such ops without a clear mandate are a mess- something the west is yet to learn.

The politics are irrelevant.

Though it does help to use your stick every now then to keep smaller players in line.

And unlike the west, which routinely builds up and then draws down combat forces, those units were amalgamated into a new formation and retained.

Western task forces are built up for specific ops. This goes back to WWII where the Americans and Germans became very proficient at even small, flexible batallion/regimental task forces (American Combat Commands and German kampfgruppes).

As long as Uncle Sam is around to do a lot of the heavy lifting. What happens when the AWACS are not available, when all the fancy doodads are not there?

Why wouldn’t they be? Why do you assume NATO without all it’s capabilities but assume China, India and Russia have all of theirs?

Especially as NATO has more of everything and generally doesn’t rely on old stuff to bolster it’s forces.

As stated even without say US AWACS, Europe has access to 27 E-3 AWACS and that doesn’t include Swedish, Greek and Turkish ones.

Irrelevant, because India operates a string of tactical AFB across all its borders.

I’m sure your MiG-27S could be able to fly sorties to Persian Gulf if needed to bolster Indian interests.

See above. Why would aircraft designed to operate in the TBA need IFR?

Oh that’s right, in a global world Indian AF is Indian focused only.

This is just pure and simple speculation on your part because it ignores the fact that the IAF operates its MiGs pretty intensively, and has enough resources to sustain them. For merely a look at the IAF side of things, let alone the HAL/DPSU infrastructure:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Today/Unit-Articles/336-11BRD.html

MTBO for things like MiG-21s and their engines are well known.

In contrast, most of your European/NATO AF, rely on vendors on the other side of the world for most of their LRUs and aggregates, with local manufacture having been restricted to assembly and not mass indigenization.

And how is this relevant when US/Europe controls the seas?

China alone has Flanker numbers which dwarf the entire fleet strength of many NATO AFs.

And Europe as a whole operates more advanced fighters than China does.

And China’s air force has lots of local defence commitments to ensure deterrence against India, Vietnam, Taiwan and Japan/Korea.

Europe and USA on the other hand can deploy their air fleets at will because they don’t have hostile neighbours to worry about.

It has SAM systems which are only in service in Russia and exceed what most of NATO fields.

Very nice for defending your internal territory.

Also USA has stealth bombers, is planning more stealth bombers, is heading towards a near 100% VLO fleet by 2030 and has an awful lot of very effective cruise missile lobbers.

The IAF’s MiGs and Jaguars train for these combat situations. Unlike you, professionals don’t merely dismiss opfor inventory because its not the fanciest or shiniest.

Neither does the USA or NATO. Hence absolute overkill against Iraqis, Libyans and Serbs.

NATO’s model works as long as NATO doesn’t have groups willing to push back or a suitable threat.

And how is that different to Russia who generally interferes with small neighbours or beats up renegade provinces?

And it’s still more than China or India who huff their chests. India talks about being an Indian Ocean and global power but it’s all just talk.

Given the fracas that was Iraq and the bleeding that western forces took there,

I’m sure India bleeds in Kashmir too. Or in Gujarat when Hindus randomly decide to go on murderous rampages against Muslims,.

it will be a long time before any ground forces are committed to any other conflict. Similarly, all it will take is one protracted bloody war where even the relatively “easy” air option takes a hammering, and then we’ll see how long NATO member nations will commit to such acts of folly..

As can be seen in the manner in which the UK public has turned against all this rubbish post Iraq and then Afghanistan.

I agree with this.

It doesn’t detract from the fact that US and Western Europe have immense military capability that dwarfs most other powers and that they’ve got proven combat experience unlike most other powers.

Yeah, the massive numbers of Flankers in the IAF, and the fact that pretty much all its Mirage 2000s and MiG29s come with IFR, its increasing assets in ISR/sustainment, all don’t count.

Except the Indian Air Force is sub continent bound because it’s too busy deterring Pakistan and India.

Yeah, Pakistan has ONLY third rate equipment…I guess those F16s with AMRAAMs, the SPADA2000s, the fact that they have AEW&C capability, a US integrated ADGEs, and that they have nukes all doesn’t count.

And how many Pakistani F-16s are there, especially compared to J-7s and Mirage IIIs.

And how does the US manage to just get Pakistan to do whatever it pleases unlike India who spends most of their time fearing Pakistan? They even got the ***** to smack about their Taliban puppets.

That’s right, US is super power. India is a regional power and still doesn’t have any real voice.

Nor does the minor detail that the Chinese woke up, what a decade and a half back, and have several hundred Flankers in service, the latest advanced S-3XX SAMs ..

Quality of human capital is more important. Do you really think PLAAF’s human capital is on par with USA or India?

No, that’s the idea that you are cherry picking..
Anybody else would look at a more sensible way to catalog airforces, including a balanced assessment of the OUTCOMES they can effect, which in turn flow from their training, equipment and doctrine. In these, most of your NATO AF would stumble very badly, because their force structure is heavily skewed towards only certain basic capabilities and completely missing in other areas which requires US help..

Incorrect. I’ve already discussed all of this above.

Gawsh, your statements are a single and most important case of “decide the answer, fit the facts to follow”… do you even understand how rapid the Chinese and Indian forces have developed within the past few years? India went from being a predominantly tactical AF, to one which can now range fighter platforms 1500 km away, more with IFR. China is busy working on long range bombers and has already outfitted older platforms with long range CMs. India is following suite with its own designs, with an order for 200 odd Brahmos, and a 1000 km Nirbhay is in trials..
All this, at a fraction of the spend the US has done, blowing up its treasure on foolhardy ventures like the Iraq war (what a terrible waste)…
Both India & China have far better things to do, than go around preparing for force projection, when their need (esp. India’s) is to focus inwards and put in place all the drivers that enable economic and social growth…at the same time, the military will advance apace, as it has… but without a huge fanfare of global projection etc.

Amazing all this talk of India and China and Russia surpassing the USA.

Who has operational stealth bombers, 5th generation fighters, 20 flat tops, etc etc etc etc?

[/quote]The Navy can do what is necessary for Malacca, and the AF is getting the tools to support them as well. [/quote]

Really? So you can neutralise all the local Air forces and Navies? You can neutralise the US forces in the Pacific and Indian Ocean?

Arabian – who wants to put a hand in that mess, without a complete international consensus.

If you want to control oil and trade, you want your finger in that pie.

LOL at combat proven. Sending a half dozen aircraft to a theater with 99% of the work done by the US, to make a show of support for some intervention = combat proven, and which makes them something awesome..

It’s proportionate contributions.

Amusing, this latest claim. India has fought WARS on its own. In 1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999 where its pilots flew operational missions under far harder ROE, with less gizmos and relying on skill, mission planning and not just technology. Several times over the last decade, the IAF has been mobilized.

Third world border wars against a third world opponent.

Though both PAF and IAF handled themselves very professionally.

[quote]
And unlike most of the NATO AFs of today, the IAF continues to prepare to operate under a total war scenario – which means against a nuke capable opponent. It routinely exercises across the world, and within India, has mobilized several hundred aircraft for integrated exercises..

If anything, its your NATO AF, except the Brit/French/Italians who are not really combat proven.. they completely lack the resources to engage in a significant conflict on their own.

They don’t need to fight on their own. As stated Europe has always fought with system of alliances. Hell alliance system was partially responsible for WWI.

And after WWII the alliance system expanded to include all of Western Europe. And by 2013 most of Eastern Europe.

And unlike Warpac or SEATO, Western European alliances are extremely solid especially as some of them date over 100 years.

They lack the doctrine, the skills, the resources and hence the ability to even influence a war in any significant manner.. hardly a speedbump in any conflict, let alone Tier 1 or Tier whatever.

And India does?

It’s only ability is against Pakistan and border wars with China.

China is even worse as it stands due to bad relationships with a lot of neighbours which require maintenance of reserves and a still largely outdated military (not just PLAAF but PLAN and PLA).

The Russians seem content to play in their own backyard.

In fact in 2013 the only country capable of full scale global warfare on its own is the USA.